Layton Lionisation Excessive

[cybercoma]

Actually, Canada has the most expensive universal access system in the world

And the United States has the most expensive system period.

Canada spends about the same per capita on health care as Norway, Iceland and Belgium.

An interesting thing to note, Afghanistan has universal health care. Paid for by the United States' war funding.

[bush_cheney2004]

And the United States has the most expensive system period.

True, and people flock to it from all over the world, including Canadian politicians. Far from struggling to provide a simple MRI or CAT scan, the American system can pump out new boob jobs to heart transplants like popcorn.

Canada spends about the same per capita on health care as Norway, Iceland and Belgium.

Yet they seem to provide better and more timely care...now why/how is that?

An interesting thing to note, Afghanistan has universal health care. Paid for by the United States' war funding.

That's OK...the US also paid for some of Canada's initial operations there too!

[cybercoma]

I don't care either way, save for the fact that you (yet again) referenced an American source. Some things never change...oh..the irony.

Of course you don't care. Because you would rather argue about sources of information than actually dispute the information itself.

..and Canada gets far less too.

We get a much longer life expectancy at a fraction of the cost. I'll take it.

[cybercoma]

True, and people flock to it from all over the world

So what?

Yet they seem to provide better and more timely care...now why/how is that?

I'm sure the Canadian system would be able to provide more timely care too if we just stopped serving the poor and uneducated like the American system does.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course you don't care. Because you would rather argue about sources of information than actually dispute the information itself.

Look, if you can't find an unbiased source, don't even bother. And if you are going to rely on American sources, be prepared for some grief for not being able to find data from within Canada. It's just a metaphor for the very issue we are discussing.

We get a much longer life expectancy at a fraction of the cost. I'll take it.

Congratulations...you will need all that extra life expectancy waiting in line for health care!

[bush_cheney2004]

So what?

Why don't all those sultans fly to Canada?

I'm sure the Canadian system would be able to provide more timely care too if we just stopped serving the poor and uneducated like the American system does.

I doubt that....Canadian provinces would still need those damn Americans excess capacity! Damn!

[cybercoma]

The WHO is a biased, American source? Really? STFU. You've got nothing and you've had nothing for pages now.

[bush_cheney2004]

The WHO is a biased, American source? Really? STFU. You've got nothing and you've had nothing for pages now.

Stop your grab-assing and quote a direct source...if you can. The Americans already gave you the internet and Google/Bing for free, learn how to use them!

[cybercoma]

Here's the complete report from which the graphs were made:

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2001/924154550x.pdf

Feel free to wade through the hundreds of pages and make your own graph.

[Moonlight Graham]

Comparing health care systems, the proof is in the pudding. The majority of universal systems in the developed world, including Canada's, have better results and better dollar-for-value than the US system.

Americans are literally killing themselves by valuing idealism/ideology over statistics. Many Americans believe strongly in small government and the virtues of the free market over gov't ownership/intervention (though not when big corps come begging for bailouts, oddly enough). Logic seems to say a Canada/Europe-style universal system would be better and cheaper than the current US system, so the resistance to this it irrational (as well as political, re: powerful private insurance companies and health industry in general that oppose it).

[bush_cheney2004]

Here's the complete report from which the graphs were made:

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2001/924154550x.pdf

Feel free to wade through the hundreds of pages and make your own graph.

Way ahead of you...the data are available from a primary source, not UC Santa Cruz (LOL!).

The US leads in two major categories...Canada leads in none.

[bush_cheney2004]

Comparing health care systems, the proof is in the pudding. The majority of universal systems in the developed world, including Canada's, have better results and better dollar-for-value than the US system.

Yet Canada's delivers less care in a timely manner, and relies on the excess capacity of the American for-profit system to make up for shortfalls, not to mention technology, pharma, education, R&D, even units of blood!

Edited August 29, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

Way ahead of you...the data are available from a primary source, not UC Santa Cruz (LOL!).

The US leads in two major categories...Canada leads in none.

Still nothing? That's what I thought.

[bush_cheney2004]

Still nothing? That's what I thought.

It's not my fault that Canada does not lead in any category....maybe if you stopped being so cheap about it things might improve.

[Wild Bill]

Comparing health care systems, the proof is in the pudding. The majority of universal systems in the developed world, including Canada's, have better results and better dollar-for-value than the US system.

Americans are literally killing themselves by valuing idealism/ideology over statistics. Many Americans believe strongly in small government and the virtues of the free market over gov't ownership/intervention (though not when big corps come begging for bailouts, oddly enough). Logic seems to say a Canada/Europe-style universal system would be better and cheaper than the current US system, so the resistance to this it irrational (as well as political, re: powerful private insurance companies and health industry in general that oppose it).

Perhaps, but isn't our medicare budget approaching runaway status? It consumes an ever growing percentage of our tax money, larger perhaps than anything else.

Also, is Europe still that good an example with the chain of economic bankruptcies that are starting?

[Smallc]

Also, is Europe still that good an example with the chain of economic bankruptcies that are starting?

Is America a better example? And tell me, if the government can't afford the rising costs of healthcare, what makes you think that individuals can?

[Hydraboss]

Yet Canada's delivers less care in a timely manner, and relies on the excess capacity of the American for-profit system to make up for shortfalls, not to mention technology, pharma, education, R&D, even units of blood!

Uhm...you friggin Merkins are always missing stuff.

The US is also, by far, the largest source for transplantation organs. Alberta Health (and I'm sure the rest of the country) is on the "bidding list" with a lot of states - California in particular. We fly in organs like they're something you can't live without. Remember THAT when Uncle Fester gets a new heart or kidney.

[Wild Bill]

Is America a better example? And tell me, if the government can't afford the rising costs of healthcare, what makes you think that individuals can?

Well, perhaps they are BOTH bad examples! Where does that leave us?

As far as individuals affording healthcare better than "government paid", there's also private insurance. You are really talking about whether government run systems are more efficient and therefore less expensive than private schemes.

I find it hard to tell with our own Canadian system. When you ask which delivers the better care, we get told that long wait times either are exaggerated or you just imagined waiting that long. Then if you ask about the efficiency and cost-effectiveness, some of the same people will tell you that we may be slow in some areas but that's a worthwhile price to have universal care!

At the risk of once again being called cynical, it seems that the American system works reasonably well for the working man. Health insurance is understood to be a necessity and is part of your salary package. I still remember how back in the days when your OHIP premium was shown as a deduction on your pay statement I had a friend take a transfer to an American branch. He told me that his private insurance was cheaper than his OHIP premium and had better coverage! Certainly the service was faster! Now, years later, we can't see such differences as easily. The OHIP premium is paid by the employer and we never see it to make any comparisons. It simply appears to be "free".

America has other government paid plans for the poor, both young and old. You may be placed in a ward with 12 other beds but you get the care. In fact, it is illegal for a hospital to refuse to treat an accident victim for lack of insurance, in most states. Some states allow a hospital to refuse care if there are alternative hospitals available that will treat the poor victim but they have to be careful. If the victim is in critical condition and their turning him away results in his death then they can and have been charged. Also, with no private coverage it is true that you will likely not be able to get the attention of high-level, expensive specialists.

So the American system serves well the working man but not so good for the non-working man. As opposed to our system, which treats everyone equally and its failings are also universal.

If our system is so much better then why is it that so many of our politicians and rich folk go to the States for their treatment? I still remember Bob Rae's granny being sent to Buffalo, back when he was the premier of Ontario. Or how about ol' Danny boy from Newfoundland and his heart trouble?

In the real world, we have always had a two-tier system. If you have the money, you can pay for treatment outside the country. If you don't, you can't.

[cybercoma]

At the risk of once again being called cynical, it seems that the American system works reasonably well for the working man. ... In fact, it is illegal for a hospital to refuse to treat an accident victim for lack of insurance, in most states.

Works great for those Americans that are lucky enough to have a full-time job with medical coverage. Only about 50-60% of the population works at any given moment and many of those are working part-time jobs, most of which don't offer healthcare coverage. So, the majority of people, in fact, wouldn't actually have coverage from a job. They would have to pay for insurance, which is more than a hundred dollars a month in most cases.

It may be illegal for a hospital to refuse to treat an accident victim, but I know someone personally that declared bankruptcy because she got deathly ill and needed to spend a week in the hospital. Sure the hospital couldn't refuse her, but they also sent her a bill for just over $500,000 for a week's worth of care and diagnostics. She had medical coverage when she went into the hospital and the insurer cancelled it on her, two days into her treatment and refused to pay.

Their system does not work. Think of how much of a pain in the ass it is in Canada when dealing with car insurance companies during an accident or home insurance after a fire. Could you imagine having your life in the hands of these insurance companies with healthcare coverage? It's insane. At least with provincial healthcare plans, they're not going to cancel your insurance on you when you get sick.

Even in Canada, only about 60% of medical care is paid for publicly, the rest, from pharmaceuticals to semi-private rooms to dentistry and eye care, is privately paid. Granted, these things differ from province to province, but nationally it works out to about 60% being paid publicly.

The point is that not a single person in Canada has to worry about declaring bankruptcy because they got sick. I can't even see the moral validity in holding up a system that allows someone to lose every last thing they own because they are ill. Could you imagine a world where doctors made people sign a contract that put their children into indentured servitude, so you could get care? Extreme, but the fact that medical care can ruin someone financially for the rest of their lives is completely immoral.

[PIK]

Yet Canada's delivers less care in a timely manner, and relies on the excess capacity of the American for-profit system to make up for shortfalls, not to mention technology, pharma, education, R&D, even units of blood!

ONT gave out 300,000 more ohip cards then there is people in ONT. Most of those cards are in hands of americans, on the border with canada. Edited August 29, 2011 by PIK

[Hydraboss]

...more than a hundred dollars a month in most cases.

Wanna take a guess at what the "health care" portion of my tax bill comes to? Do you think it's more than "$100 a month"??????

...At least with provincial healthcare plans, they're not going to cancel your insurance on you when you get sick.

Nope. They don't cancel it, they just restrict what they cover to the point where it doesn't make any diffence.

Even in Canada, only about 60% of medical care is paid for publicly, the rest, from pharmaceuticals to semi-private rooms to dentistry and eye care, is privately paid. Granted, these things differ from province to province, but nationally it works out to about 60% being paid publicly.

Yup. Pretty close there.

The point is that not a single person in Canada has to worry about declaring bankruptcy because they got sick.

Really? Then would you mind explaining how I can have full coverage at work, my wife has coverage through the nursing union, we have Alberta Health Care AND we pay for the full Alberta Blue Cross group coverage.....and my portion of her prescriptions (only) last year was $36,700 for 8 1/2 months? Can you please let me know how that works?

[bush_cheney2004]

The point is that not a single person in Canada has to worry about declaring bankruptcy because they got sick.

All persons in Canada are not covered by provincial health care. Choosing to "worry" about bankruptcy is your own concocted fear.

I can't even see the moral validity in holding up a system that allows someone to lose every last thing they own because they are ill.

Good, because even in bankruptcy that isn't true. Fear on...

Could you imagine a world where doctors made people sign a contract that put their children into indentured servitude, so you could get care? Extreme, but the fact that medical care can ruin someone financially for the rest of their lives is completely immoral.

Could you imgagine a world where something as simple as an MRI can't be had for many months or years because understaffed MD's are the gatekeepers to advanced diagnostics? My cat can get faster care than that!

[fellowtraveller]

One of the hidden horrors of the US system is the negative impact on workplace mobility and entreprenuers.

People stay in jobs because they have good benefits.

People don't start businesses because they cannot risk leaving leave corporate benefit plans.

Land of the free.

[Guest American Woman]

One of the hidden horrors of the US system is the negative impact on workplace mobility and entreprenuers.

People stay in jobs because they have good benefits.

People don't start businesses because they cannot risk leaving leave corporate benefit plans.

Land of the free.

Ummmmm. The U.S. isn't exactly lacking in businesses. But yeah. The horror!!

[Guest Peeves]

This post is not about health care. It's about a funeral circus. Oooops service.