Improved
6112 HealthChanged
3786 LivesSaved
3568 Lives0 lives impacted in the last 24 hrs Learn More
In the debate that is heating up in the United States over universal health care - a proposal that has many Americans searching for extreme Canadian examples to use against the idea - it's important to consider two things. One, that there are good and bad situations with the current Canadian system. Two, that there are good and bad situations with the current American system.
Ask any Canadian and they will tell you that that they wouldn't trade Canadian-style universal health care for anything. But that doesn't mean there aren't issues. As with any aspect of public life, whether government funded or not, there will always be aspects that people don't like or that don't work out as well as we would hope and, in light of those issues, sometimes change is difficult to initiate.
For example, the main issue Canadians have with American-style health care is that the whole system is based on whether or not you can pay for the health care. Just as Americans have heard some horror stories about the Canadian system, the main thing that makes Canadians cringe at our way are the stories we hear about someone being turned away from treatment by an American hospital because they don't have insurance.
Many Canadians feel that is simply unacceptable. Everyone deserves to be treated, and that treatment should be the same whether you're a multi-millionaire or a single mother struggling to make it in the Bronx. Your financial status should not determine whether or not you receive health care, and if you do receive health care, should not determine the quality of that health care.
Another issue Canadians see is the monstrous medical bills that come from just going to see a family doctor, which in many cases prevent people from seeking timely medical attention. Treating certain conditions early means that they won't turn into potentially more serious - and more expensive -situations down the road. Just the cost of having a baby can be over $10,000 and that's just for a normal delivery. Never mind if your baby is born prematurely and requires hospital care for months. Those Americans with good health care plans are fine, but what about those who don't.
In the Canadian system, it's already paid for. You go into the hospital and you don't have to worry about paying for the hospital room, the surgery and the drugs they use. It's all covered for everyone. You don't have to be worried about being turned away at the door because the doctor's afraid he/she won't get paid for treating you.
Canadians can make appointments with their doctor to address any health concerns, without having to worry about whether or not they will have sufficient money to pay for the consultation.
There are many issues facing Canadian health care. The three main ones are: 1) not enough family doctors 2) long waiting lists for more specific treatment 3) the transition - and resistance to - what is referred to as two-tiered health care.
Briefly, for the last 30 years or so, Canada has been losing many of its trained doctors to the U.S. because they get paid more in the U.S. There is money in private health care. Canadian doctors are still making more than the average Canadian, but for some the allure of thousands of dollars a year more is too enticing to ignore.
Canada has experienced long waiting lists for certain long-term treatments and unfortunately, no one really seems interested in taking the drastic step needed to change this. People need MRIs and surgeries and consultations. This is compounded by trained medical staff going to the U.S. and elsewhere for more pay and the fact that many doctors are retiring. Referrals for MRIs and CT scans are on the increase, which means a bigger strain on the only ones available - the ones in hospitals, which are publicly funded. This isn't the fault of the hospitals or the government. It's just a reality of having this extraordinary diagnostic technology available - everyone wants to use it.
Many Canadians believe the only way to resolve this issue is to establish "two-tiered health care" - to provide private MRI centers and other health care services so that those who can afford to pay to be treated can go there, and those on the provincially funded insurance plan (OHIP in Ontario) can still gain access to the treatment they need. This is actually beneficial because it lessens the wait times for the publicly-funded treatment centers. Many of those against "two-tiered" health care don't realize that we already have this situation - those that are richer than others that go to private health clinics in Canada or the U.S. for treatment, and those who can only rely on the provincial health care funding.
What doesn't help the waiting list or private health care issues at all is the fact that some provincial governments choose to stick their head in the sand and not even acknowledge the fact that there is a problem and that combining private and public health care in a new system could help solve many of our issues. The provinces should be picking up the tab for any Canadian who has to travel out-of- province or out-of-country to get the care they need. Unfortunately, government will be government and it continues to make things more complicated than they need be.
This is the lesson that Americans can learn from our Canadian system. An American government health care plan would guarantee everyone access to medical treatment when they need it. But that health care plan doesn't have to be exactly like Canada's. In fact, I would encourage an American-made solution to the issues that Canada has seen.
The United States is the only industrialized nation without a publicly-funded health care system. Since Americans have always been on the outer rim of trying new things and developing something bigger and better than everyone else, it is possible for the American system to work. The United States is recognized by most of the world for their medical expertise in a variety of areas. But, so much of this health care knowledge and expertise is not even available to its own citizens because they can't afford to pay for it.
This is a time of transition for everyone - finding jobs, trimming budgets, trying to make do with less. But whatever the current economic climate, people should not have to worry about the extra expense associated with being treated by a medical doctor. That is the advantage of a government insurance plan.
Even though the Canadian health care system has its flaws, many Canadians will not argue about the reason it was started in the first place - health care for everyone. A reliable health care system should be about making sure that everyone in society has access to medical care without worrying about the expense. If people have access to health care whenever they need it, then they can address potentially more expensive conditions early, actually saving tax payers and the system money. They will be able to live healthier, longer, more productive lives because they will have access to medical care that they couldn't afford to pay for before.
The solution to health care reform in the U. S. doesn't lie in not doing anything at all. I believe to do nothing is just as bad as some of the Canadian provincial governments sticking their heads in the sand and proclaiming that things are going to stay the same as they've always been. Someone once said that insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results.
The solution to health care reform is to come up with a way that recognizes and addresses some of the issues that the Canadian system has seen and still provide all the citizens of the richest nation in the world, regardless of income or socio-economic status, basic medical care.
Add a Comment41 Comments
Actually, I think the United States government, as well as many of our more local governments work pretty well when managing programs for social welfare. The U.S. postal service is efficient and has never lost one of my letters. Social security is still taking care of our older people who have worked hard during their more productive years. (And many of these older people provide volunteer community service, and so, take care of us too.) We have a pretty good interstate road system, although I'd like to see transportation upgraded with interstate light rail and more public transportation.
March 22, 2011 - 10:54pmThis said, I think you propose many great ideas:
1. funding for medical education for public service, which we actually do have on a limited basis, to provide medical care for high needs areas such as rural and inner city areas
2. reforming the legal system so that malpractice doesn't run up costs in the areas of legal fees, malpractice insurance, and cover-yourself-unnecessary-medical-practices
I would add:
3. regulation of the pharmaceutical industry, especially for cost of medicines, which are cheaper in many other countries
4. allowing more over the counter medicines. For example, I have to go to the doctor every time I want to refill my asthma prescriptions. This is silly - no one takes these for fun. There are many medicines like this that really don't need a doctor's oversight every time one needs them.
Yes - By law, every one in this country can get emergency medical care. However, the hospital need only patch you up to the point that you are no longer "in crisis." That means our poorer neighbors don't have the follow-up care necessary for full recovery. They also don't get preventative care, which is known to lower overall cost to the medical system.
I believe the definition of a community is that it takes care of all its members, particularly the weaker among themselves. History will judge us by how well we do this most basic task of a society.
This Comment
Many of the comments in this forum show how little hope there is for humanity. The American developed attitude that I owe no one nothing and if they can't earn a living let them die perhaps shows a Christmas Carol never made it over the pond.
"Let those poor go to the prisons and the Union workhouses," is Scrooge's reply to the plea for Christmas charity. "And if they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
On seeing Timmy TIm forecast death by the spirt of Chritmas future and begging to know if it can be prevented.
August 22, 2009 - 4:29am"Yes! So perhaps, in the future, you will hold your tongue until you have discovered where the surplus population is, and WHO it is. It may well be that, in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than MILLIONS like this poor man's child."
This Comment
And as I've already expressed we already have two-tiered health care coverage...those that have only the public insurance and those who have private insurance through work. And, I've clearly explained the differences between the public and private insurance policies here in Canada. They're already there. And whether many like to realize it or not, it may be the only way to deal with wait times.
The public component will always be there funded by tax dollars. That won't change. What can change, though, is how the two tiers work together.
The issues we have in Canada are not because of the two tiers of coverage. It's more availability of services. We have too much of our medical population retiring and not enough up-and-coming doctors to take their place. Our population is aging requiring more long-term care and medical facilities. These are sociological factors that have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a health care clinic is publicly or privately funded or available.
I know of a private operating room - in fact that business has opened a second private operating room - and both are booked solid Monday through Friday with those elective surgeries that would take forever to get booked in a hospital. Because these surgeries have been moved out of the hospital, the waiting list for operating room time is cut, meaning others with more urgent surgeries can get the time they need in the hospital.
Because of the wait times for MRIs, I know many are opting to go to private MRI clinics to have the scan done. For those that can afford it, that's great. It alleviates the wait times for those who have no money and can only rely on the public system.
The two systems can work together. And they are currently working together. And I don't think these things can and should remain completely under the purview of the government. Doing something independently of the government is okay and will mean that public center may have to increase their standard of care - because that's what their patients will demand.
August 14, 2009 - 8:21amThis Comment
The ideal system would not be two-tiered. The private component will drain the public (our tax dollars) component of resources.
Some doctors of repute have come back to Canada from the US because they wanted to practice medicine and not the insurance business.
- SayBlade
August 14, 2009 - 7:18amThis Comment
It's not for a lack of trying.
In fact, just yesterday in Ottawa a clinic opened that does accept the Ontario Health Insurance that is in addition to the hospitals - not sure about other provinces. This is a great idea and something that needs to be followed up with in other smaller communities.
As for the access to MRIs, there are many smaller communities that have them, but having more of them would free up the larger cities, that's for sure.
I don't believe that Canadian Health Care has 0 innovation and is far behind in technology. Not everyone in Canada can afford that higher technology and while opening more MRIs and CTs is often wished, it may not be economically feasible for certain areas of the country.
As for innovation, the University of Ottawa Heart Institute is a world renowned facility that includes not only diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of heart conditions, but also research. So is the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO).
So, is Sick Kids in Toronto, London Health Sciences. Winnipeg Health Sciences is one of only a handful of facilities that is classified to hold some of the world's deadliest diseases.
Just recently an announcement was made in Ottawa about the discovery of a virus that attacks cancer cells and leaves healthy cells alone. The University of Calgary has also made progress in cancer research.
And I have had privy to information of up-and-coming physicians and researchers and the research and potential treatments they're pursuing in areas of cancer, diabetes and organ transplants.
No, there is no shortage of innovation. As for the smaller cities, if there can be proven there is a need for it (for example many of the patients are coming from a certain postal code) perhaps other facilities can start installing these things. But I know that many smaller hospitals rely as well on the support of their community to provide these things.
The funding from the government isn't exhaustive - and I don't believe it should be.
August 14, 2009 - 5:02amThis Comment
There are other issues than the ones you described facing canadian health care. For example outside of large cities, most hospitals don't have MRI and CT Scan machines. Also the almost complete lack of a functional pharmaceutical industry.
In short Canadian health care has nearly 0 innovation and is far behind in technology. These are the biggest problems with socialized canadian style health care, not just a shortage in family doctors.
August 14, 2009 - 12:42amThis Comment
What's the situation in America? Outside large cities (which you have alot of) i don't think you have the expensive high-tech equipment that they barely will ever use anyway (in the countryside). The biggest problem in America's health-care is you get none, or pay up massive bills. If your lucky to get insurance through employment and don't cringe at the bill, you don't belong in the debate.
September 14, 2009 - 7:09amThis Comment
The issue is about contributing to the insurance pool. If you aren't covered under an insurance plan, then you are costing the health care system and the people of the U.S. money when you go into the emergency room. With that said, we know what the problem is, but let's not TRY to fix the problem by implementing the governmental overhaul. The government does NOT need to make a profit to operate, thus making it impossible for the private sector to compete. The problem must be fixed within the private sector to steer ourselves toward a truer democracy: by the people for the people. We do not need the government to be our insurer...this only leads to further acts of imperialism than we already have. The government approach is a lazy attempt to, what will ultimately be, a temporary solution to a long-term problem.
August 8, 2009 - 11:16amThis Comment
I wanted to add a clarification. I discovered this last night as I was explaining to a couple of American friends, and that is the difference between private and public health care plans.
In Canada, public health insurance (like the Ontario Health Insurance Plan--OHIP) covers visits to family doctors and referrals to and treatments by most specialists so long as the referral is made by the family doctor, and most anything carried out in the hospital setting--including MRIs and CT scans. It also covers medications and some specialist treatments for those that have life-long debilitating illnesses (eg: they will cover eye exams for those with glaucoma or diabetes.)
Private insurance covers dental, medications, allows you to have a semi-private or private room in a hospital, physiotherapy, psychological or psychiatric counseling...those things that wouldn't be considered "basic" health care.
I apologize for making it sound like everything was free. It's not. But the basics are covered for whoever needs it.
I don't know the details of Obama's plan. I can only say what has worked and what needs to be fixed according to my experience with the Canadian system. Will be watching with great interest.
August 6, 2009 - 5:36amThis Comment
Never understood the idea that I have a right to something I have not earned. Why is health care different from any other thing I may care to purchase like food and shelter? How does someone's need dictate that I owe them that need, a bit like slavery if you ask me. A personal anecdote is I worked with a person who had a pak a day smoking habit, had cable TV, ate out and drank, but refused to purchase health insurance for her and her son because it was to expensive! I refuse to subsidize and even worse condone this type of behavior with the reward of "Free" health care. Nothing of value in the world is free, somebody somewhere has to pay.
August 5, 2009 - 8:44amThis Comment