Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Übergeek 바둑이: > In Canada the biggest problem Canadian medical care faces is access.
Now, that is completely wrong. I live in Canada, Alberta to be precise. Here anyone has access to healthcare, from a homeless guy in the street to a billionaire banker. It does not matter how poor or rich you are, everyone is covered.
No, that is NOT completely wrong. Access to Canada's health care system IS the biggest problem in their health care system. You should know this. It's not that people don't have access, they do. But they regularly have to wait and wait and wait for certain procedures. This information is from a Canadian doctor given during an interview. There are waiting lists in Canada and a dog can get an MRI faster than a human.
> They simply do not have the money to offer the proper care. Simply put, > they can't pay for it on an as needs basis. So care gets rationed out > according to strict rules.
The system here assigns to each patient a degree of importance based on how urgent a procedure or test is. A child in need of a heart operation takes precedence over a middle aged person with bunions. It is a matter of common sense.
Exactly. Thanks for proving my point here. Access is a problem. My doctor and I decide on my degree of importance. And if I want to see a doctor, I simply make an appointment. If I need a procedure, I get it. The "system" has nothing to say about it.
And it's not as simple as you state it. It's not about a child needing a heart operation vrs and old person needing care for their bunions. You've stacked the deck with your example. In the US, the child needing a heart operation will be served but so will the old fart needing medical care for bunions. BOTH are important. Care is care and we can do both. But in Canada, as you point out, there is rationing because access to care is limited.
Most of the complaints about waiting times are coming from two sectors of the population. One is seniors in need of certain orthopedic procedures like hip and knee replacements. Waiting lists on those types of procedures go into several months.
Yep, access is a problem
> Another problem is the cost. It's very expensive to pay for everyone's > health care needs. And about 70 percent of Canadian's carry their own > health insurance to cover costs of drugs (which aren't covered under > the Canadian system).
The Canadian system does not allow private insurers, but there are a few companies that offer "insurance" to reduce the cost of drugs and certain things like chiropractor visits, dentist visits, etc.
A company that offered insurance would be a private insurer.
So to say that 70% of Canadians carry their own insurance is a misunderstanding. They carry supplemental coverage, in most cases as part of am employee benefits plan.
Except that it's true. Canada's health care doesn't cover everything and so 70% of the people have supplemented the lack of coverage with private coverage.
> Instead of costs coming down, the Canadian government continues to face rising > costs with no end in sight.
This is true to the extent that it is expensive to run the system.
The cost keep rising and demand a great percentage of the budget. Something has to give. It can't be sustained so to help control costs, access is limited (via rationing).
> This is the fact of government sponsored health care. It sounds nice. > But practice and theory are very far apart.
I disagree with that. I think it is a success when a homeless man and a billionaire banker can go to a clinic and receive more or less the same treatment.
This fact alone doesn't define the entire system. As a system, it simply doesn't work well in practice.
If human beings are equal, they have the same right to life, and the same right to being treated equally by the health care system. Otherwise we have economic discrimination and inequality.
But they don't have a right not to contribute to help pay for the system which is precisely what Obama is proposing. And don't be fooled, the history of the world is the history of economic discrimination and inequality. The geek down the street makes twice the money I make. I probably work twice as hard. There never has been a world were everyone is equal.