Report on The American Misconception of Canadian Single Payer Healthcare

[lucknow]

Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET

Interesting video. I called to a newspaper friend in Canada and he likened the video to propoganda and calls The Real News a fairly liberal agenda based outlet for progressive ideas.

With respect to the Canadian health care system, it's short comings are well documented- and they are many. On the other hand, it has areas of good strength as well.

With respect to our health care system, the same- strengths & weaknesses.

So it boils down to which system one perfers. One with unmotivated doctors deeply constrained as to the type of care they give and where thousands of people unnecessarily die each year while the federal gonernment calls all the shots, or, a bloated profit oriented system where doctors & nurses gain wealth thru batteries of unnecessary tests and surgeries.

There is a middle ground, but as usual we're not looking for common ground, only two extremes- and that is a shame.

You have it totally wrong about the Canadian health care system. The feds have nothing at all to do with health care other than making sure that the Canadian health care act is adhered to by the provinces. The act sets out the minimum requirements for service that the provinces must perform. If they don't perform then the feds can with hold money that would normally go to that province. So health care is a provincial juristiction. The government does not run the health care system except at arms length. All the local health care districts are run locally and usually by Drs. and medical administrators. About the only time the government gets involved is if a district is unable to run their system. Usually this means that they have run up a big deficit. The government will get involved to try to solve the problem. Most of the time it's a problem caused by the government in the first place by under funding the district. Why would you think that Drs. are unmotivated here in Canada? I have two Drs. in my family and they are mega motivated. They have some issues with the system but you tell me who is ever satisified completely with their job place. They both make a very very good income and are very happy to be Drs.

[lucknow]

Originally Posted by HowardRoarke

Every friend of mine in Canada (10 at last count) hates their system. Hospitals up there are all owned by the government, which probably means they are all unionized. Many have outdated equipment which goes back to the 50's. By rationed, this also means the number of MRI and other scanning/nuclear med machines are rationed, per metro area. Smaller cities in Canada often times resort to fund raisers for the purchase of such machines (this is fact).

Contrast this with the U.S., which, granted, differs from state to state, yet the profit motive still rules the day, and it adds value and quality to the overall care. Canada's system is great if you have an emergency. Any other type of care? Take a number, and be prepared to wait, and possibly die, waiting for treatment.

No hospitals are owned by the goverment. That is not the way it works. They are owned by boards,by universities, by not for profit corporations most of all. Any problems in the Canadian style system can be attributed to a tight fisted government that will not put enough money into the system. Canada spends just over one half per person on health care as the US government does. This is not counting the "Trillions" that are paid in insurance primiums in the USA. In our system the country gets like 10 times the bang for the buck than the USA system gets. Our system is lean and mean with most resources going for treatment. You should see the administration staff of a billion dollar health care corp. It's like 10 people in one office. The profit motive is good in most business but not in health care. It's in the best interests of an insurance company not to cover you in the case of sickness and actually if you get really sick the best thing for them is if you die. This conflict of interests means there should be no profit motive at all in health care.

I have read many posts saying that universal is not good because of the loss of jobs in the health care industry. This is just the dumbest arguement ever. In 1900 75% of all Americans worked in Agriculture. How about now? Maybe 5% or less. Progress always changes the employment picture and to reject progress to preserve jobs will destroy a countries economy eventually. there was full employment in The USSR when the economy and the country collasped. That is one of the most pressing reasons that the USA health care system needs to be reformed. The costs are making the country uncompetitive. Any reform that does not increase access and reduce costs is a failure.