Are Canadians getting a good deal with universal health care?

[rchland]

Why we have government ? Because there are things where government is better at than private for profit companies. Like police, prison, national defense, environment protection, highways, education, etc. Basically anything that :

1) hard for market to handle efficiently. (Lakc of information for buyer or selles).
2) where fairness is more important than efficient.

should be left to the public. Medicare just happen to satisfy both conditions.

最初由 lifeisfun 发布


So you would rather have the government waste your money than have the private sector make profit. Making profit mean more people will have job.

Having private insurance is just one of the solution. I don't know more about the insurance, but I feel there should a way to do this.
You sound that the insurance is afraid of paying for your long term disease or life insurnace. For car insurance, if you are hurt, the insurance company will pay for your healing, but that don't stop people to get insurance again. Yes, profit is the target of private sector, but don't you think being elected is the target of any party?
or serving you better is their target? I feel it's the former one.

To have the control of the health system is not for the purpose to serve you better, it's the power and the money. That's why now the Ontario premier is promising on the radio that this new health premium is going to health system only, which implies that a lot of tax money goo nowhere, but not the health system.

You sound like you trust more on the government than the private sector, you would rahter have the government to tax you to death
and waste your money by passing them to their friend, than seeing the private sector make profit. Well, that's your choice.

 

[oread]

Perhaps you could quote some literatures to make your case more convincing.

To be honest with you, I'm not totally convinced by this 2-tiered system, however we can't keep pouring money into health care any more than what we are already doing now. Something's got to change. Most Canadians are not too worried about the quality of care, but rather the accessibility to care. Money is not the answer!

Reform won't be easy, but this system is in dire need for a reform. "A new study suggests that Canada spends more on health care than other industrialized countries, providing universal access, yet ranks low in access to care. The Fraser Institute released this study, entitled How Good is Canadian Health Care: An International Comparison of Health Care Systems, on Thursday, May 6, 2004."

This is the press release from Fraser Institute:

“Although Canada, along with Iceland, spends the most on an age-adjusted basis on health care among OECD nations, our system produces inferior access to physicians and technology, produces longer waiting times, is less successful in reducing deaths from preventable causes, and costs more than other systems that have comparable objectives,” said Nadeem Esmail, co-author and senior health policy analyst at the Institute.“

To find out more about this comprehensive study on Canada's health care system, read here: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=602

 

[rchland]

最初由 渐渐 发布
Perhaps you could quote some literatures to make your case more convincing.
[/url]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040608.wxhprofi08/BNStory/Front/

 

[oread]

Excerp from the Fraser Institute Report on Health Care

Do we get our money’s worth and are we well served by our government centered health care system?

While it is easy to calculate the comparative costs of health care amongst the OECD nations, it is more diffi cult to know whether we receive value for money expended. In this study, 12 indicators of access to health care and outcomes from the health care process are examined. One relates to access to physicians, four relate to access to high technology equipment, and seven relate to health outcomes. With regard to age-adjusted access to high-tech machinery, Canada performs dismally by comparison with other OECD countries. While ranking number one as a health care spender, Canada ranks fi fteenth of 24 in access to MRIs (ExSum Figure 3), seventeenth of 23 in access to CT scanners (ExSum Figure 4), eighth of 22 in access to radiation machines, and is tied for last in access to lithotriptors. Lack of access to machines has also meant longer waiting times for diagnostic assessment, and mirrors the longer waiting times for access to specialists and to treatment found in the comparative studies examined for this study.

How Good is Canadian Health Care? 2004 Report

 

[oread]

Conclusion

Th is study has attempted to provide answers to a series of questions that are important to resolve if Canada is to make the correct choices as it amends its health care policies. The study is strictly comparative and examines a wide number of factors for the member countries of the OECD
in arriving at the answers to the questions posed. Taking this empirical approach to health care provides clear direction for health care reform in Canada.

• Canada and Iceland have the most expensive health care systems amongst the industrialized nations that have comprehensive, universal access to health care.

• Canada ranks first in only one of seven health care outcome categories and does not rank fi rst in any of access to care, supply of technologies, or supply of physicians.

• No country in the industrialized world other than Canada outlaws a parallel private health care system for their citizens.

• All four countries that out-perform Canada on the cumulative rank for mortality amenable to health care, potential years of life lost, mortality from breast cancer, and mortality from colorectal cancer have private health care alternatives to the public system and some form of user fees at the point of access; none spends more than Canada after age adjustment.

The comparative evidence is that the Canadian health care model is inferior to others in place in the OECD. It produces inferior access to physicians and technology, produces longer waiting times, is less successful in preventing death from preventable causes, and costs more than any of the
other systems that have comparable objectives. Th e models that produce superior results and cost less than Canada’s monopolistic, single-insurer, single-provider system have user fees; alternative, comprehensive, private insurance; and private hospitals. Canada should follow the example of these superior health care models.

How Good is Canadian Health Care? 2004 Report

 

[oread]

It all comes down to one question: would you rather have a choice?

 

[hxp417]

1. 一直感觉Xiaomimi是个思想扭曲的人，自私顽固，不过英语写得挺溜。
2. 加拿大医疗的现状绝对需要动手术了。
3. 也许社会医疗福利没有solution。也许Visitor说得对 --- “加拿大人对于医疗福利不切实际的追求四处碰壁。”


转贴一段关于加拿大医疗服务惨状的老帖子。


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


感叹加拿大的医疗系统和水平 zt


送交者: zt1 2002年8月29日22:16:34 于 [卑诗华人社区]http://www.bbsland.com


妈妈来加探亲,上周末晚突然头的右半部分头痛欲裂,不停呕吐. 我是早上起来才知道, 因为考虑到去急诊非等4到5个小时以上,因此去看了我的家庭医生. 当然还要约, 不过还算快,11点就看到了. 结果无非是量血压, 然后看了点泰诺止痛,推荐了止恶心的药,收了40元, 前后10分钟不到就打发我们回去了. 其间我妈妈右眼已经严重充血鼓出,但他什么也没有提.想说的是这老头还是多伦多什么头痛协会的专家.

结果到了当天下午还不见好头疼稍微减轻但眼睛肿的越来越厉害我一看不行又赶紧找了一个中医, 是所谓上海来的有名中医. 年纪很大人也真不错, 说可能是偏头痛.扎了针灸,开了中药. 后来我妈妈的头痛减轻, 眼睛虽然消肿但还是明显充血. 后来来我们家探望的一个阿姨(原来是国内的大夫)倒指出这是青光眼的症状. 结果我想找眼科大夫, 一打听说要经过家庭医生推荐然后预约. 父母一听说是这种情形就赶着要回过治疗.

于是改票打包昨天就匆匆上路了. 刚才我一大早打电话到北京(他们是今天早上3AM到北京的), 我爸爸告诉妈妈在温哥华到北京的路上又犯病了. 这回是左眼头疼呕吐了一路,搞的飞机上的服务人员团团转但也没有什么办法. 一到北京,姐姐把他们直接带去了医院一看急诊果然就是急性青光眼.

我听了真是又急又气. 生气自己没有能帮到什么,也生气自己对这里的医疗体系不熟妈妈生病却不知如何入手但我更生气那个所谓专家的庸医和这里繁琐缓慢的看病程序, 花钱就更不要说了.

在这里看病真的这么麻烦吗我虽然来了好几年但基本除了检查身体和定期看牙医之外就没有着方面的经验除了有一次有胃溃疡的症侯去开了点药(去了三次才开到,且不表但听了无数身边朋友的不开心的医疗经验无非永远都是等等等好不容易看到医生但什么用也没有....

有谁有比较好的经验方法可以借鉴呢?如果总是这么坏, 我们所谓的医疗保险又有什么作用呢?

唉......



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
所有跟贴:


没人请你来加拿大，这世界上没有那么如意的地方！ /无内容 - 银银 8/30/02 (4)
把你的嘴擦干净 /无内容 - 银银 8/31/02 (0)
****，你还有一点儿同情心吗？！ /无内容 - yalizang 8/30/02 (0)
你是毫无良心的人口代理之一。此坛太多代理， - fkyou 8/30/02 (0)
说的对，人家加拿大就喜欢让庸医治病，治死当睡着了 /无内容 - haha++fu 8/30/02 (0)
这很正常，加拿大就这损德行，小病硬挺，大病等死 /无内容 - haha++fu 8/30/02 (4)
that's how you were brain damaged /无内容 - mayiask 8/30/02 (3)
不是brain damage , 是brain washed /无内容 - tztz 9/01/02 (0)
二****，你还有一点儿同情心吗？！ /无内容 - yalizang 8/30/02 (1)
对你这种只会骂街的一流国家的二流人 - 铲天下不平 8/30/02 (0)
加拿大也就我们威斯康辛一远郊区,还是美国好啊. /无内容 - 弼马温 8/29/02 (17)
是呀，要是威斯康辛州跟加拿大交界的话， - dumpster 8/30/02 (0)
Can i call you an idot? /无内容 - mayiask 8/30/02 (15)
哈哈,加国loser,美收紧签证华留学生转加留学 - 弼马温 8/30/02 (5)
Ah,that's why you are so psd... - mayiask 8/30/02 (4)
My God, stop, stop , now I know u can type english - 弼马温 8/30/02 (3)
canada, canada, the losers heaven, haha.. /无内容 - 弼马温 8/30/02 (0)
that 加国loser got more crazy, what a loser... /无内容 - (_o_) 8/30/02 (1)
Your own experience? /无内容 - mayiask 8/30/02 (1)
感叹加拿大的医疗系统和水平(续)zt - zt1 8/29/02 (1)
本人怀孕后由家庭医生联系看妇科专科，经历气死人 - apoorgirl 8/30/02 (0)

 

[oread]

The author didn't understand how the system works in Canada: when you arrive at the ER, the nurses would prioritize patients according to the severity of the ailments, this is called triage. For acute glaucoma, which normally requires immediate attention, the nurses would not have the patient waiting for something like 5 hours.

The author made 2 mistakes:

1. She didn't go to ER
2. She actually sent her parents back to China for treatment, particularly when her mother was suffering glaucoma, which is not recommended to take flights. Left untreated, patients suffering from acute glaucoma could be permanently blind within 2-5 days. The author took a BIG risk, but luckily her mother was OK.

For the benefit of others, regular checkups are the only way to minimize medical emergencies. Find a specialist as soon as the parents land in Canada, and keep going to the followup checkups vigorously.

 

[Xiaomimi]

最初由 渐渐 发布
It all comes down to one question: would you rather have a choice?

Choices, choices for whom ? Choices for all or choices for a few ?

A two-tier system will benefit the top 10% of the society while hurt the rest 90%.

Chinese immigrants in Canada is, by and large, still an underclass in this society. A two-tier system will hurt this group overall. You are wealthy, but I can guarantee you that there are many White Canadians that are even more weathier. They can jump further and longer in the queue than you can if were given the choice. So be careful what you are wishing for.

 

[Kent以东首帅哥]

俺都从来没有用过medical service.

 

[Xiaomimi]

最初由 hxp417 发布
1. 一直感觉Xiaomimi是个思想扭曲的人，自私顽固，不过英语写得挺溜。
2

I would be concerned if this is from a civilized person, But a Chinese ? Oh, come on, it's less serious than a half joke.

 

[oread]

I suggest you to read a few research studies before jumping into conclusion.

A 2-tiered system will not HURT the population, because universal health care is still provided free of charge to every citizen of this country. A parallel private system could only benefit those who have no access to the public system, due to long waiting time.

You tend to group people into "rich" and "poor", that's unfortunate. More money is not the answer to our current problem, a reform is.

最初由 Xiaomimi 发布


Choices, choices for whom ? Choices for all or choices for a few ?

A two-tier system will benefit the top 10% of the society while hurt the rest 90%.

Chinese immigrants in Canada is, by and large, still an underclass in this society. A two-tier system will hurt this group overall. You are wealthy, but I can guarantee you that there are many White Canadians that are even more weathier. They can jump further and longer in the queue than you can if were given the choice. So be careful what you are wishing for.

 

[一把手]

最初由 Xiaomimi 发布


Choices, choices for whom ? Choices for all or choices for a few ?

A two-tier system will benefit the top 10% of the society while hurt the rest 90%.

Chinese immigrants in Canada is, by and large, still an underclass in this society. A two-tier system will hurt this group overall. You are wealthy, but I can guarantee you that there are many White Canadians that are even more weathier. They can jump further and longer in the queue than you can if were given the choice. So be careful what you are wishing for.

There will be at least 2 queues in the 2-tier system. A basic queue(government funding) for those who don't pay, like what we have now, and higher priority queues (private funding) for those who pay.

The rich will still pay their tax, but whether or not they use the public system is their choice. That way, the rich has another choice, sounds unfair but it actually offloads some of the burden on the public system.

 

[Xiaomimi]

I suggest you to read a few research studies before jumping into conclusion.

There are tons of research and studies by governments and acedemics, all soundly reject the concept of two tier systems.

A 2-tiered system will not HURT the population, because universal health care is still provided free of charge to every citizen of this country. A parallel private system could only benefit those who have no access to the public system, due to long waiting time.

So you are worrying about long waiting time. In a two tier system, those that have to rely on public system will have to wait LONGER than now. If you jump ahead in the queue by flashing a fist of cash, somebody who don't have those cash will sure suffer.

You tend to group people into "rich" and "poor", that's unfortunate. More money is not the answer to our current problem, a reform is.

Frankly, I don't have any answer to the current system, either. All the solutions suggested (two tier system, $10 user fee, private insurance, more doctors, etc) are all WORSE than the problem.

 

[oread]

Well, if the so called "rich" are now lining up the private queue, why would the public queue have a longer waiting time?

最初由 Xiaomimi 发布

So you are worrying about long waiting time. In a two tier system, those that have to rely on public system will have to wait LONGER than now. If you jump ahead in the queue by flashing a fist of cash, somebody who don't have those cash will sure suffer.