Problems in Canada with Socialized Medicine?

Terminator wrote:
Hey, Linc! Can't I send you a few Dippers? After all, somewhere there must be a village missing an idiot!

Sorry, we're over-capacity with them down here, too. Tho, I must admit, ours seem to have a sense of humor...for the most part.

dels wrote: As for FOX news, when 911 first occured, it was their staff who first started the rumors that the terrorists came in through Canada

The fascinating history of the “Terrorists From Canada!” legend was detailed in this Washington Post story from 2005:

The account was born in the first days after the attacks, when reporters and government investigators were scrambling to figure out how the conspirators had carried out the plot. Bernard Etzinger, a Canadian Embassy spokesman, says the “big bang” that started the legend can be traced to two Boston newspapers.

A Boston Globe story on Sept. 13 said investigators were “seeking evidence” that the hijackers came through Canada. The Boston Herald reported the same day that federal investigators believed “the terrorist suspects may have traveled . . . by boat” from Canada.

On Sept. 14, The Washington Post reported that an unnamed U.S. official had said two suspects “crossed the border from Canada with no known difficulty at a small border entry in Coburn Gore, Maine,” and that others may have come through other Maine ports. On Sept. 16, that report was repeated by the New York Post, which also declared that “terrorists bent on wreaking havoc in the United States” had found Canada “the path of least resistance.” On Sept. 19, the Christian Science Monitor referred to Canada as “a haven for terrorists.”

“It was just one of those things where everybody says, ‘We all knew that,’ and it becomes irrefutable,” Etzinger said.

Among those who have had their hands slapped for repeating this story are Sen. Conrad Burns, Newt Gingrich, then Sen. Hillary Clinton, and Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, who claimed that “as we all know, terrorists entered the U.S. from Canada on Sept. 11, 2001, using passports that the Canadians accepted as valid despite the fact that the documents were doctored.”

Gee, I don't see FOX News even mentioned! What's YOUR source for the FOX accusations, dels? Or is the Canadian Embassy in on FOX's evil plot...

I haven't read this whole thread, but wanted to respond to this one, if no one else has:

raggedykat wrote:I am facing termination of my health care at the end of January 2010. I work for a small family run business and currently I pay $600.00 a month for my premium (and that is only 50% of the total premium) and we have been notified that this will be increased with the new plan starting Feb. 1. I can not afford to pay anymore and I can not get insurance on my own because of my pacemaker. I am classified by the insurance companies as un-insurable. I called the local clinic to see if I could be seen by doctors there but because I make more than $10,000.00 a year I can not be a patient of the clinic. I called the local hospital and asked about a scenerio of needing my pacemaker replaced and they told me I needed $25,000.00 up front to be admitted. My family doctor that I have now and my cardiologist will not keep me as a patient without insurance. So I am at a loss. I realize that we need to be careful about what we get but what is the alternative for me?

Yes, there is. BCBS cannot turn you down for coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

If I go to the hospital in cardiac arrest will they actually leave me outside to die?

A little less drama would serve you better.

When is the last time you heard of someone not being treated in an American hospital for an emergent condition because they didn't have insurance? They can't fail to treat you-------------there is a freaking federal law (EMTALA) that mandates that they treat you, regardless of ability to pay.


So many of these complaints that I see are similar to yours..they revolve around ignorance of what is really available, and people complain that they can't get insurance, but it's really that they just haven't investigated what they have to do to get it.

My thanks to the Canadian folks who have answered the question.

So, let me see if I understand what you said:

1. The universal health care is mandated by the federal government, but the exact parameters of what is offered is determined by the individual provinces.

2. Each province provides as much or as little as it chooses, provided it at least meets the federally mandated minimum.

3. It is possible to have private insurance to provide additional benefits, such as a private room in a hospital, or certain types of homecare.

4. In some provinces, things like prescriptions may be covered, but in other provinces, they may not be.

5. Canada does not have a "home grown" CPAP industry; equipment is imported from Australia or the US.

Did I miss anything?

Yes, there is. BCBS cannot turn you down for coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

Where did you get this information from? When I click on your link (BCBS) it takes me to the Virginia Health Insurance Information web site.

Kiralynx-yes, I think that is a fair summary of the Candian system. I have lived in 4 different provinces, and each one has its own way of doing things. Some provinces (I think only 1 or 2 now) charge a monthly premium, waived if you are low income. Most do not.

Some provinces are very good at what they provide--part of it depends on their varying levels of wealth, and part of it by the idealogy of the governing parties over the years.

There is often a wait when you move provinces, ie your old province covers you for the first 90 days before the plan at your new location kicks in. Similarly, if you move here (Ontario anyway) from outside of Canada, you cannot get provincial health plan till you are here 90 days. I believe the intent was to stop people flying in just to get medical things covered for free and claiming to magically be new residents at the same time.

The reason Canadians get extra coverage when they travel to the USA is that our health plans only cover what the customary costs are in Canada, and those are a heck of a lot cheaper than what is charged in the USA. Some physicians are not happy that their income is controlled to some degree and head off for what they feel are greener pastures.
--

LoQ ~

Your comment about bsbc not turning you down for insurance has a couple " but if's" in the policy you would get. Your existing condition will not be covered for the first year you are enrolled in the plant(and possibly longer), one year wait if you are fortunate enough. You will have paid a years worth premium and not received coverage for anything that is related to your pre-existing conditions, sounds like a real capitalistic win for me.

As for the EMTALA, hospitals are only required to stabilize the condition and then they can discharge you and you are still required to pay for those services you receive.

Providing this service costs each person with insurance roughly $1000 annually (which I am currently one of), that and the $12 billion dollars in subsidies the insurance companies receive from the feds all seem to make for a sound stable system, only in America can you pay more and get less.

You currently have CEO's making decisions on your health care treatment, these decisions are based on the dollars they can save the company. I will take my chances with the governments public option of which I will be glad to pay for.

So when the health care reform is passed, trust me I will remember who was being dramatic and who was pimping for the insurance companies.

Definitely should add the "I" !

Okay, so let me add to my earlier summation (by blatantly stealing from MapleG's comments):

1. The universal health care is mandated by the federal government, but the exact parameters of what is offered is determined by the individual provinces.

2. Each province provides as much or as little as it chooses, provided it at least meets the federally mandated minimum. Some provinces are very good at what they provide, but what and how much may depend on their varying levels of wealth, and part of it by the idealogy of the governing parties over the years. (ISTR reading the Alberta tends to provide fewer services, although it is one of the richer provinces.)

3. It is possible to have private insurance to provide additional benefits, such as a private room in a hospital, or certain types of homecare.

4. In some provinces, things like prescriptions may be covered, but in other provinces, they may not be.

5. When changing residence, you may have as much as 90 days when you are still covered by the medical program of your former province of residence, prior to the program of your current program of residence kicking in.

6. Newcomers to Canada will also have a 90 day residency requirement before qualifying for a provincial health plan. The intent is likely to stop people flying in just to get medical things covered for free and claiming to magically be new residents at the same time.

7. Canadians typically obtain extra coverage when they travel to the USA because Canadian health plans only cover what the customary costs are in Canada. Typically, those costs (with the exception of CPAP equipment) are significantly less expensive than what is charged in the USA. Some Canadian physicians are not happy that their income is controlled to some degree and head off for what they feel are greener pastures.

8. Canada does not have a "home grown" CPAP industry; equipment is imported from Australia or the US. This may account for the fact that this equipment is significantly more expensive in Canada than in the U.S.

Now, it's a fact that we in the US have been getting more than our fair share of terror-mongering about a system of health akin to Canada's (even though what's been proposed is not much like the Canadian system). <wry grin> As I noted earlier: my parents are avid Fox News watchers, so I get that side of the picture whenever I visit.

I don't feel the situation is as black as is being painted in some of these vignettes, yet I have to wonder what facets of the Canadian system lead people to choose US medicine, even if paying out of pocket, instead of utilizing the provided national system.

I have a very good friend who lives in Ontario, with significant health issues. (Crohn's, some type of arthritis which may be Crohn's linked, is not rheumatoid, ghu-knows-what-it-is, many other issues.) She swears by the Canadian system.

Yet I remember being shocked that when she was in severe pain, it was going to be anywhere from 3-6 months before any tests to find out the cause of the pain could be performed. When I needed an MRI and X-rays, it was scheduled within the week. When my friend needed them, it took months. Similarly, some of the terror-vignettes feature people with cancer who are told they'll have to wait months for treatment. Or even complete diagnosis. My own cancer diagnosis was "See doctor at 9a. Have tests at 1p. Get told you have cancer at 3p. Schedule appointment with oncologist for the next week."

So, I'm trying to understand what I perceive as a dichotomy between what seems like a perfectly reasonable set up for a medical system with what I have observed my friend dealing with, and trying to balance that against what I know are the scare tactics.

Does any one have any thoughts (my preference is to hear from Canadians, discussing their health system) on this? In what ways could the Canadian system be improved to eliminate waits, and so forth?

In my opinion, the Canadian Health care system is a very good system BUT it is top heavy with administrators now and that's where too many of our health care dollars go - not for more doctors, nurses and medical technicians - so longer and longer wait times.

We need to reassess how we are spending that money to make it better for the patients and, I think hiring fewer administrators and more health care workers with that money would go a long way to shortening our wait times for diagnosis and procedures.

That's just my opinion!

Hawthorne wrote:In my opinion, the Canadian Health care system is a very good system BUT it is top heavy with administrators now and that's where too many of our health care dollars go - not for more doctors, nurses and medical technicians - so longer and longer wait times. <snip>That's just my opinion!

You know, there's an awful lot of that "top heavy with administrators" problem going around....

Wonder how many admins know how to read a CPAP card?

Yet I remember being shocked that when she was in severe pain, it was going to be anywhere from 3-6 months before any tests to find out the cause of the pain could be performed. When I needed an MRI and X-rays, it was scheduled within the week. When my friend needed them, it took months. Similarly, some of the terror-vignettes feature people with cancer who are told they'll have to wait months for treatment. Or even complete diagnosis. My own cancer diagnosis was "See doctor at 9a. Have tests at 1p. Get told you have cancer at 3p. Schedule appointment with oncologist for the next week."

Tests can be done fast if you have extra health insurance. Xrays are mostly walk ins here in the big city.
As far as cancer is concerned it depends on the type and tests. Some hospitals are swamped others are fast. There has been a lot of changes in the past few years here in Quebec. The system is constantly changing to meet new needs, new technology. But not to make more money for insurance providers or HMO's. So stories you hear about 4 years ago are old stuff, no longer relevant.

Out in the country there are more problems with specialists but that is being solved. There was on neuro surgeon I knew in Nova Scotia who was developing robotic surgery so he could operate all over the Maritimes - from Halifax. Some specialist now also consult via webcams and other automated systems to outlying regions. Even in the maritimes10 years ago when I found a lump I was in for a mammogram within a week while for the annual you had to book 6 months, here in Montreal I can book my annual one in side a week - last year they made me wait 3 weeks because I also needed a bone density scan and they wouldn't do them close together.
No system is perfect because there are limited funds, space and a limited number of medical specialist. Every system juggles priorities, it is whether you want juggled based on your health needs or their profit.

I'm all for allowing anyone to sign up for Medicare.

The biggest complaint that I hear from my family in Canada is a lack of medical professionals, usually doctors, and for the most part usually family doctors.

My dad was seriously ill, and my parents chose to move to the city instead of the small town that they were living in, just so that he could be closer to medical assistance. My mother isn't moving back to the small town for the same reason, to be closer to medical assistance.

Rural places (at least in Alberta... sounds like other provinces are the same), have a tendency to not be able to keep doctors. The doctors will either move to the city (any city), or move to the US (usually for more money).

Well, has anyone taken a poll of small towns, in really rural areas, in the U.S. to see how many MD's stick around for long periods? Doctors like to be where the action is, where they can confer on patients in person, and where the latest gadgets are, not to mention the symphony, great restaurants, etc. etc. Canada is so spread out that our small towns can be pretty thin when it comes to the above 'perks' and closeness of colleagues, so it's understandable, if really frustrating. Even if docs are paid a fortune, it's not enough to keep them somewhere they otherwise don't want to be (nowhere to spend the loot) for long.

Fact: The United States is the ONLY representative republic (No, we don't live in a Democracy, we elect representatives, so it is a Constitutional Representative Republic) that does not have universal health care. Our health care costs are the highest in the entire civilized world, as Insurance companies dictate the costs of health care. With deregulation of the health care industry, under the previous President's administration, and prior administrations (starting in 1980), health costs and insurance profits have risen 438%. Without universal healthcare ( and it isn't Socialism, it is HUMANE treatment of the less fortunate health wise), we will be more well, financially productive, and a better society.

The only ones who benefit from our current system are the insurance companies and lobbyists.