Would You Trade Health Canada For Health America? (for sale, health insurance)

[KevK]

We keep hearing up here about how terrible your heath system in canada is. About how you wait months and years for MRIs and surgery. About how you have no doctors or nurses. It really sounds horrible there. Yet my wife and her family who are actually from Canada tell a different story. So give us your unbiased view. Do you prefer Canada healthcare or the American system?

[dristo]

I think the subject is not an easy one. It also provides for a great deal of bashing of each other. That being said, it seems to me there are faults in both systems and we could learn from both. I believe the answer is somewhere in the middle. I think the medical care of both systems is not in question.
My family is American, cousins are Canadian. I hear from my cousins that urgent care is an obvious priority, except the wait time is often long in the patients opinion, but not necessarily in the doctor's opinion. Old people are disadvantaged due to the strains on the system and their age, therefore, their care is somewhat negated in favor of a younger person. It appears to be an "as needed situation", with everyone receiving care on an as needed basis. I could see a great deal of abuse of the system if every one's care was free and fast. A system with good benefits and some detriments. Now, I do not make these statements as definitive. They are conclusions I have derived from conversations with Canadians. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I would rather get it right.
The American system I think is simpler. Anyone with money and/or insurance can obviously receive immediate care. Cost is of course the issue. Those without either, but on the dole are covered as good as those with money depending on where they live. The working poor are at the greatest disadvantage. A minor illness can kill them financially if they choose to go to a doctor. On the other hand, the working poor can go to any emergency room with a non-emergency situation and receive care due to American law which does not allow for any person to be turned away regardless of the severity of the problem. The wait is the issue there. A clear emergency is of course dealt with first. The non-emergency patients who are well aware they can not pay, (the hospital knows it too) receive free care by default. I know of one indigent person who was dying of self inflicted alcohol poisoning who went to the ER and was immediately put into ICU for a month before he died. His hospital bill was in excess of $1 Million. The hospital got not one dime. I was in the hospital for minor out-patient surgery for a total period of 48 hours. Total hospital bill was over $25k. I paid the bill. How much of my $25k went to pay the cost of the other guy, I don't know. Advantages with disadvantages.

[Cornerguy1]

Originally Posted by dristo

I think the subject is not an easy one. It also provides for a great deal of bashing of each other. That being said, it seems to me there are faults in both systems and we could learn from both. I believe the answer is somewhere in the middle. I think the medical care of both systems is not in question.
My family is American, cousins are Canadian. I hear from my cousins that urgent care is an obvious priority, except the wait time is often long in the patients opinion, but not necessarily in the doctor's opinion. Old people are disadvantaged due to the strains on the system and their age, therefore, their care is somewhat negated in favor of a younger person. It appears to be an "as needed situation", with everyone receiving care on an as needed basis. I could see a great deal of abuse of the system if every one's care was free and fast. A system with good benefits and some detriments. Now, I do not make these statements as definitive. They are conclusions I have derived from conversations with Canadians. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I would rather get it right.
The American system I think is simpler. Anyone with money and/or insurance can obviously receive immediate care. Cost is of course the issue. Those without either, but on the dole are covered as good as those with money depending on where they live. The working poor are at the greatest disadvantage. A minor illness can kill them financially if they choose to go to a doctor. On the other hand, the working poor can go to any emergency room with a non-emergency situation and receive care due to American law which does not allow for any person to be turned away regardless of the severity of the problem. The wait is the issue there. A clear emergency is of course dealt with first. The non-emergency patients who are well aware they can not pay, (the hospital knows it too) receive free care by default. I know of one indigent person who was dying of self inflicted alcohol poisoning who went to the ER and was immediately put into ICU for a month before he died. His hospital bill was in excess of $1 Million. The hospital got not one dime. I was in the hospital for minor out-patient surgery for a total period of 48 hours. Total hospital bill was over $25k. I paid the bill. How much of my $25k went to pay the cost of the other guy, I don't know. Advantages with disadvantages.

Kudos!

One of the better posts on the subject I've read in in 2+ years on this forum.

[mellabella]

Lived in both. Liked both.
Never had a big issue finding a doctor, dentist, nurse etc.
Liked ontario not BC. Lived in Dallas and like it there too.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by dristo

I think the subject is not an easy one. It also provides for a great deal of bashing of each other. That being said, it seems to me there are faults in both systems and we could learn from both. I believe the answer is somewhere in the middle. I think the medical care of both systems is not in question.
My family is American, cousins are Canadian. I hear from my cousins that urgent care is an obvious priority, except the wait time is often long in the patients opinion, but not necessarily in the doctor's opinion. Old people are disadvantaged due to the strains on the system and their age, therefore, their care is somewhat negated in favor of a younger person. It appears to be an "as needed situation", with everyone receiving care on an as needed basis. I could see a great deal of abuse of the system if every one's care was free and fast. A system with good benefits and some detriments. Now, I do not make these statements as definitive. They are conclusions I have derived from conversations with Canadians. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I would rather get it right.
The American system I think is simpler. Anyone with money and/or insurance can obviously receive immediate care. Cost is of course the issue. Those without either, but on the dole are covered as good as those with money depending on where they live. The working poor are at the greatest disadvantage. A minor illness can kill them financially if they choose to go to a doctor. On the other hand, the working poor can go to any emergency room with a non-emergency situation and receive care due to American law which does not allow for any person to be turned away regardless of the severity of the problem. The wait is the issue there. A clear emergency is of course dealt with first. The non-emergency patients who are well aware they can not pay, (the hospital knows it too) receive free care by default. I know of one indigent person who was dying of self inflicted alcohol poisoning who went to the ER and was immediately put into ICU for a month before he died. His hospital bill was in excess of $1 Million. The hospital got not one dime. I was in the hospital for minor out-patient surgery for a total period of 48 hours. Total hospital bill was over $25k. I paid the bill. How much of my $25k went to pay the cost of the other guy, I don't know. Advantages with disadvantages.

That is a good post and I agree with much of it. My thinking is, that for a US public health system, that we should not exactly copy the Canadian or UK models but learn from them. I do not believe it should be "free" but it should be universal and not bankrupt people either. Something that perhaps has co-pays and even annual deductibles where the individual or private insurance would pick up the first $1000 of annual medical cost and the public system pick up the remainder of anything over that. Also, limit doctors office visits to 1 or 2 free visits and a free physical and charge $30 or so co pay after that every year. The trick is to prevent overuse while still providing a decent level of service to all people. I must say that my sole experience with the Canadian system was a good one although I had to pay because I am an American.

[desertsun41]

Originally Posted by KevK

We keep hearing up here about how terrible your heath system in canada is. About how you wait months and years for MRIs and surgery. About how you have no doctors or nurses. It really sounds horrible there. Yet my wife and her family who are actually from Canada tell a different story. So give us your unbiased view. Do you prefer Canada healthcare or the American system?

All those terrible stories you hear are blabbed by the Pharmaceutical companies. And of course the gullable American public believes it. I lived in both and experienced both.

First thing I see is in Canada, the waiting rooms as well as hospitals and into the small clinics are pretty dumpy. Worn out floor tile, school cafeteria style chairs and so on. In America you have just the opposite with plush carpeting and designer wall paper and leather seats. I truely believe the level of medical care is exactly the same. That being said, in America you are paying for that beautiful waiting room with those comfy chairs.

I never heard of any wait in Canada like we hear about. I find myself sitting in hospital waiting rooms in America for 4 hours or more all the time though. Even in private doctors offices when I made an appt a month in advance I am not called in till sometimes an hour past my appt time. Then sit on the exam bed for anther 15 minutes.

I hope we see a Canadian style health care in America before I get too old. I am a cancer surviver. I am not eligable to purchase health insurance at any cost. Health care is simply not for sale to me. I had to get married to save my life. That is just wrong. It did turn out ok though.

By law, no employer may deny any employee or any member of the employees family health care based on past medical history. So I got married to save my life by being on her her health insurance. What would a Canadian say to this?

I think quite often about going back to Canada for good for the access to health care. I was not elegible for health care the time I lived in BC but I was in clinics and the hospital and paid with cash. Paid a fraction for the care of what it would have cost me in the states.

[ajau]

Lived in both Canada and the US... To sum it up, if you're making more than $80k a year or work for the government or a generous large corporation you are better off in the US. If you make less than $80k a year, have past medical history, are a "job hopper", or are self employed you are probably better off in Canada.

A major advantage of the Canadian system is psychological... Its the assurance that your coverage will always be with you for the rest of your life, no matter what. In the US, you are beholden to your employer (similar to employer sponsored work visas in a way) and insurance keeps many people in jobs they would not normally like or do.

I personally prefer a private system with public "catastrophic" insurance that is not offered (or taken away) by your employer. Canada needs to find a way to shorten the wait lists though. Per visit fees?

[Lancet71]

I work for the post office,married,with kids and have good health coverage(for the U.S.)but I still pay about $200/month plus any copays for visiting doctors,dentists,or picking up prescriptions. In such a country you would figure by now that we'd be able to get universal health care.

[AlbertaSunwapta]

I prefer Canada's system - all I have to do is save for a normal hopefully long retirement - I don't have to try to predict my own morbidity and cause of mortality as well as future insurance premium rates or speculate as to how fair my insurer would treat me or my family if I had to file a claim.

If I lived in the US, at some point in my life I'd probably end up saving far more than what averages would suggest, because I'd want to be darn sure I could afford adequate coverage as long as I lived.

A broad-based fear of not having enough in one's old age could mean that you end up with a country of over-savers and under-spenders. Or a very depressive economic situation should some demographic bulge, like the the baby boomers, all at once decide that they need to save more and spend less.

However, I find it odd that while we can rapidly acquire superior technologies from any country in the world, both the US and Canada are so incapable even entertaining great ideas from other countries with superior health care systems.

[nuala]

Originally Posted by desertsun41

By law, no employer may deny any employee or any member of the employees family health care based on past medical history. So I got married to save my life by being on her her health insurance. What would a Canadian say to this?

A Canadian would say to this, "Wow". Very very sad.