Chicago Tribune:Oversight patchy as sleep centers proliferat

Interesting article: U.S. health care lies about Canada
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... canda.aspx

LOL...and that is our notoriously Conservative newspaper!!! Most if not all of the facts illustrated in the article can be found in numerous research papers online btw if you are so inclined.

If your up for a long but really detailed study on a comparison of the two systems
http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/8/1 follow that link. It was a peer review done by both Canadian and American Doctors from the top med schools around. It's an interesting read, and very balanced.

One thing, well a few points.

I am not particularly speaking about the Canadian health system. When I say that the Americans spend about 16% (this year) going to 20% of their GDP on health services this is to be compared to the other great occidental nations like France(11.1%), Germany (10.4%), U.K.(8.4%) Japan (7.9%), Canada (10%), Norway, Sweden etc... who only spend about 8-10% of their GDP sometimes less. Roughly developed countries spend half of the Americans for their health systems.

Nobody can argue those facts that can be checked on the WHO Web site or on OECD Web site.

As far as the fact that the Americans are normally low ranked on the various health indicators, this can also be checked on the Web and many studies available at the WHO Web site :

On life expectancy (both sex 2008, WHO)

USA= are about the 23 rd country in the world for a 78 years life expectancy :

Better than US you have those countries (and others):

Japan= 83, Swizerland, 82, France=81, Canada=81, Spain=81, Iceland=81, Italy=81, Sweden=81,
Germany=80, Greece=80, Ireland= 80,

Equal or near the USA you have :

At 78 year, USA are comparable to Cuba, Costa-Rica, Chili, Portugal, Kuweit.
Malta as Korea and U.K. are 79, Tchek is 77,

On Neonatal deaths by 1000 (WHO) :

USA are 4/1000 which is about the 26th rank in the world

Better :
1/1000 Iceland, Japan, Singapour
2/1000 Andorra, Cyprus, Spain, Finland, France, Novegian, Tchek, Slovenia, Sweden
3/1000 Germany, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Canada, Danmark, Greece, Israël Italy, Malta, New-Zeland, Holand, Portugal, Swizerland
Equal : Bahrein, Brunei, Cuba, Estonia, Ireland, Quatar, Korea, Slovakia

And it is about the same on other major health indicators and statistics. USA are roughly ranked somewhere between 15 to 30th rank in the world.

As far as the profit and administrative costs are concerned this is more subject to discussions. Many studies on health care management concludes that public system are the most efficient as far as their administrative costs are concerned and those costs are in the range of 4-5-6% for most of them. Their big advantage is the simplicity of their systems and the fact that there are just a few and frequently only one paying agency.

The American system is unique in the world. It is difficult to precisely extract administrative costs and profit. But there are thousands of paying and billing agencies (ie: insurance companies, hospitals, doctors etc...) requiring hundreds of thousands workers, clerks, secretaries etc....Probably the biggest red tape system in the world. All this requires about half of the money involved including profit. The American system is the only system in the developed world having profit as the main goal other systems excludes profit.

No doubt that we can criticize individual situations. My brother in law, my grand father and my sister in law may have good or bad experiences in USA, Canada, Brunei and France but those figures are hard facts. They clearly demonstrates that the American health system is the most expensive in the world and surely the less efficient as far as "results" are concerned. Many countries spend much less and have much better results.

My professional experience makes it clear that waiting time has no effect on global results and health indicators. As a matter of fact, emergencies have all an immediate access to services in modern public health systems.

All of those efficient systems are basically public and non profit oriented (with private but mostly marginal expenses). By the way all the figures includes all private and public expenses.

One thing is sure what we can read here on this forum devoted to Sleep Apnea is in line with the global American picture.

From what I've read on the various health support forums it would seem that WHERE YOU LIVE in Canada has much to do w/how pleased you are w/the Canadian health care system.

Slinky wrote:From what I've read on the various health support forums it would seem that WHERE YOU LIVE in Canada has much to do w/how pleased you are w/the Canadian health care system.

I think that is true in the U.S. too. For example, I have heard family doctors are in terribly short supply in many locals because our payment schemes tend to reward specialists and short change family doctors.

Our payment schemes also short change preventive health care that might keep you well, but reward expensive, high tech interventions after your health is shot.

Slinky wrote:From what I've read on the various health support forums it would seem that WHERE YOU LIVE in Canada has much to do w/how pleased you are w/the Canadian health care system.

As far as facts are concerned :

All Canadian provinces spend about the same amount of money for health services per capita : 3,600 CDN$ +- 400CDN$ and all provinces offer roughly comparable services. There are some differences. Ontario, as far as I know, is the only province which has Sleep Apnea equipment partially covered. On the other hand all Quebec citizens are under a nearly complete pharmaceutical coverage...

There are 3 exceptions to this, exceptions that are easy to understand :

These are all northern "territories" with very low levels of population.

Yukon : 6,000 CDN$

Nunavit : 11,000 CDN$

North-West Territories : 8,000 CDN$

It has been like that as far as I can see in the data that I can access (1975-2008).

I think there are good and bad to both systems. I have a son that has 4 different lung conditions and I have an HMO for insurance. I live in Il. My daughter has bladder/kidney/GI problems. I have seen both good and bad with our systems. Here is the strange part. I live between 2 childrens hospitals. The first year of my son's life he was in-patient 8 times for at least 4-10 days each time due to breathing issues. Watching your son that is under 1yrs old having 4-6 straight hours of albuterol being pumped into him isn't fun. Neither is hearing the words that they have flight for life on standby incase your son doesn't improve within 15 min. Or having your son pumped with epinephrine and albuterol and prednisone. After about the 4th hospitalization I insisted on him seeing a pulminologist. I tried one childrens hospital and I couldn't get in there due to problems with insurance. Went out of state (up into WI) and I got it approved with no problem. We were up there within 1 wk and that was by the time my son was 6 months old. Since he started seeing them he has only had 3 more hospitalizations. He will be 4 in August. The dr there saved my son's life.

When my children needs a specialist I go up there. I never have problems with my insurance or long wait times.

I have been both the patient bumping patients and the patient being bump. After 25 1/2 hours of (non-scheduled) induced labor and other complications they rushed me in for a c-section because I was near death. I'm sure the mother that had to wait several hours or an extra day wasn't too happy but I don't care. When it was time for my cerclage (I know I spelled that wrong) they came in to tell me there was an emergency c-section and it would be a few hours. I prayed that everything went okay for that woman.

I've also had my share of seeing dr's that I wonder where they went to school at and how in the world did they graduate but I think your going to have that anywhere you live.