Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It wouldn't work because the two systems are at opposite ends of the spectrum. At one time, Canada had a medicare system just like the US, but within the period of about a decade, Canada went completely in the opposite direction towards full publicly funded health insurance.
Americans should probably be checking out the far superior German and French mixed systems for inspiration, not the Canadian one.
Very few forms, follow up care at home if needed ( this was the case after my mother's 2nd brain tumour, the friend who had throat cancer did get a couple of visits to check on him since he lives alone ).
I am curious, who does these follow up home visits. Actual doctors or nurses?
That's certainly possible but here in Boston (where I live), I've been able to see a specialist very quickly (days) in my limited experiences. It will depend on your network of providers and how staffed and efficient they are I suppose.
wait times are not only dictated by the system in place, but how many specialist and specialist facilities there are to accommodate the demand for them.
ive honestly not kept up with a lot of Canadian news, but i know 3 years ago one of the major issues was Canadian specialists being lost to higher wages and better facilities across the boarder
My specialist appointments in Northern Virginia often involved a wait of several months. I remember it took 2 or 3 months for a dermatology appointment. Now, when I was referred for a colonoscopy, I got it done within a couple weeks in the U.S., whereas in Canada they scheduled me 3 or 4 months out. I'm sure if I had some serious symptoms that could indicate colon cancer, they would have expedited it for me. The system seems pretty efficient and those whose symptoms are more serious are given priority.
The reason why it's illegal to pay for private care is because many doctors would then shift their practices to providing lucrative care to patients who can afford to pay above-and-beyond what the provincial health plan pays for the same procedures, and there would be an apartheid system of health care where those who can't afford to pay out of pocket are forced to endure even longer wait times. The current system is egalitarian - everyone is treated equally regardless of wealth.
Personally, I like being able to rest easy knowing I will always have access to health care no matter what, even if I go bankrupt.
I had a mysterious health issue starting last fall and the reason I figured my doctor thought it was potentially serious is because bang, bang, bang, I had half a dozen specialist appointments, CT scans and MRIs. There was no waiting. Also no answer to my mysterious health problem.
My dad had several strokes two years ago, which left him blind in one eye, and there was no waiting for any specialist.
I've never known anyone where there was reason to suspect there was a serious condition or who had a life-threatening condition to wait for anything. In fact, a relative of mine had a brain bleed recently that was life-threatening and couldn't be operated on here and they flew her to another province where she was successfully operated on. No waiting.
Everyone is going to chime in with a personal experiences that they or a close family member/friend encountered and paint brush whole systems. Healthcare is a personal thing and just like anything else, it will also depend on the local health care providers care be it in Canada or the US. You can have negligent morons or understaffed facilities anywhere that can impact one's experience at any given point of time.
That being said, if you are in a life-threatening situation then the Canadian system will take care of you quickly. You may not always get a private room with all the bells and whistles but you will get what's important -- emergency care by qualified physicians with no questions asked. This is best aspect of Canadian healthcare. It's not a perfect system that needs no work, especially for non-essential procedures and finding good doctors who will accept patients, but the peace of mind of having support in life threatening situations is something I believe every rich first world society can afford to provide to all citizens.
Both need work although today as it stands, I would prefer the Canadian system over the current US system. But the US is changing and hopefully they get this one right and successfully cover all citizens for a fair price. I'm happy that a serious problem has been addressed and change is occurring, that's a huge step forward.
The question to you would be do you prefer the Massachusetts Healthcare system over Ontario's? I hate to just generalize "Canadian System" when it really is a Provincial matter.
The question to you would be do you prefer the Massachusetts Healthcare system over Ontario's? I hate to just generalize "Canadian System" when it really is a Provincial matter.
Good point. I've personally had a better experience in Massachusetts vs. Ontario to this point. Almost no wait times, more engaging and service-oriented doctors, and what seems like more advanced equipment. Massachusetts is also tied to Harvard and is therefore a powerhouse when it comes to hospitals, research, doing complex surgeries, etc. so there's that inherent advantage as well that not every state will have. I can't remember what comes off my pay cheque for healthcare but it's not that much as employers typically shelters most of it and my coverage levels don't really seem much different from Ontario from what I can recall either. But Massachusetts (which also mandates universal coverage) is also not representative of the whole US system as it stands today either. So yes, I was referring to the whole and not individual parts.
Last edited by johnathanc; 07-25-2013 at 08:34 AM..
Canada's system wouldn't work. It's a crazy argument to begin with, as you have 50 states that can regulate everything differently.
Canada doesn't have a "system". It is ten different provincial systems, all of which meet a minimum national standard of portability and universality. It is a "crazy argument" to say that a Manitoba system can work, but a Kansas system cannot, because it is somehow "regulated differently". Canada's ten systems are also "regulated differently" from each other. Each province created their own universal health care system, at different times (Saskatchewan was first), and when they had all done so, the national government enacted a mandate that they all need to conform with certain standards.
Your objection has absolutely no basis in fact, and if you have any legitimate fact-based reasons why it "wouldn't work", please present them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
And let me stress it again, doctor's visits should not be free. Ideally, nothing should be free.
Why not? Your doctor visits are free -- they are paid for by all the other insured subscribers to your insurance company's health plan. Why do you think it is "free" if a public agency owns and regulates the underwriting of the risk, but it is not "free" if it is done by a private corporation whose first and only concern is the profits that they make off your premiums?
I can hardly wait to see the look on your face when you have to take out a student loan to send your kids to grade school, which is no longer free. Of the cop on your neighborhood beat comes around every month to collect for "protection", which is no longer free. Or you have to drop a coin into a slot at every stop sign, to turn onto a street that is no longer free. Or you and your neighbors have to get up at 3 am to shovel the snow out of your street, which is no longer done free.
It wouldn't work because the two systems are at opposite ends of the spectrum. At one time, Canada had a medicare system just like the US, but within the period of about a decade, Canada went completely in the opposite direction towards full publicly funded health insurance.
Americans should probably be checking out the far superior German and French mixed systems for inspiration, not the Canadian one.
What I'm getting is that the American system could use a "public option" to make up for its shortcomings and the Canadian system could use a "private option" to make up for its shortcommings.
As far as the superior French system. That system has been needing some serious reforms from what I read a few years back. I'm not sure if they've been able to establish the right reforms yet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
