Improved
6112 HealthChanged
3785 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
Monster.One word.
June 20, 2010 - 11:29amThis Comment
Ah, technically, it's not free. The system is funded by the taxes we pay. And, it's not subsidized. This type of system provides health care to everyone.
There will always be people who seem to abuse their health and make different choices towards taking care of themselves than we might, that doesn't make them any less needing of health care or any other privilege.
You are always going to have people who abuse themselves and abuse the system. But I think we do a grave injustice to our society by lumping everyone into the same category.
There are charities that service the poor, there are food stamp programs and places where people can get food and clothing for their families if they can't afford to purchase them. Surely you're not suggesting that these people be denied these things because they haven't earned them or paid for them.
And, btw, if you ever found yourself in a job without an insurance plan, or without the income to pay for a doctor's visit, this system would provide care for you, too.
August 5, 2009 - 10:25amThis Comment
"There are charities that service the poor, there are food stamp programs and places where people can get food and clothing for their families if they can't afford to purchase them. Surely you're not suggesting that these people be denied these things because they haven't earned them or paid for them."
Not at all. If those programs can garner enough support, then I say let them continue handing out freebies.
Your analogy is wrong: if you chose to not donate to a homeless shelter, then the worst thing that would happen is that mild, guilty feeling we all get when we see a bum on the street.
If, however, I chose to not "donate" to government health care, I get a polite letter in the mail telling me that I *have* to donate. Or I lose everything I've worked hard to get - liens on property, garnishments on wages, civil suits... the works.
"The politicians that get elected--at least up here--are generally those who promise to do more with the health care dollars coming in--more research, hire more doctors, nurses, etc."
Nurses, doctors and researchers all have to be paid... more people = more money needed. More money needed = more involuntary donations needed.
"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."
Whoa there... so, Canadians are being denied health care based on... how much money the area makes? Huh... why does that sound famaliar? So, instead of basing business decisions on how much the customer is willing to pay, the government is making a broad decision to not even give the customer the *option* to pay?
I know we Americans aren't as enlightened as you Canadians, British, Swiss, or (accursed) French, but, at least we give our people the *chance* to get treatment...
"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."
Again... whoa. 1) I thought Health Care was a basic, unalienable right! But... now the need for Health Care has to be proven? I thought the government just handed out health care... now there has to be an actual need? And, it has to be economically viable? Just think of all the people who go to their local hospital and get turned away because they don't have the machine to do the test.
...now, if only there was a news camera rolling when it happened, Canadian health care might not seem as warm and fuzzy as it does.
If you can't afford [fill in the blank], then either go without or work harder to get it. It is not the responsibility of those to have to provide *for free* for those who don't. It's the responsibility of those who don't have to gain what they want.
That's a program I'd vote for any day. Work = rewards. No work = no rewards. Choose wisely.
Marc J.
August 23, 2009 - 3:12amThis Comment
You're taking things out of context and adding interpretation where there doesn't need to be any. Your comments are based on assumptions and not knowledge as to what actually happens in another system.
I refuse to debate semantics with you.
The basics are that Canadians are provided health care regardless of socio-economic status. While certain treatments (MRIs, and CT scans) may not be available in all communities, they are still provided without cost to anyone who needs them. Private centers have been set up in some places, but that does not mean that those who can't afford treatment are left out. It means that the waiting times for those less fortunate who are waiting for access to the public hospital or clinic are able to get their treatment faster.
As for "proving that there is a need" you have taken that completely out of context. If records at a larger community hospital shows that they are receiving so many referrals from a certain community, they may be able to lobby the government for funding to build a bigger facility, an MRI or CT scan machine for the smaller community.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Our health care system provides health care for everyone - the workers and the non-workers and I have absolutely no problem with that. That's why it's called universal health care. Heaven forbid you should ever lose your job with the great benefits and find yourself without health insurance.
I was astonished at one commenter mentioning that he pays $600 per month for health insurance in the U.S. We pay that in maybe a year just in taxes for the public system. If we want additional coverage it's probably $35-60 per month through our jobs.
You may be happy with your system because it works perfectly for you. That's great. But for nearly 50 million Americans it doesn't work at all.
September 14, 2009 - 8:28amThis Comment
I have health insurance through my job - but it's a joke. I went to the doctor last week to do a basic physical and check up, and it cost me over 400.00. I would really love to see an America not held captive by a horrible system that barely works for the ones lucky enough to have it - not to mention how bad it can be for the ones that don't.
I'm all for a European/Canadian Health care system, and mostly for one reason : preventive health care. I can't count all the people who I've known personally who lost either their lives or some huge part of their health because they could not afford to visit a doctor. The sad part is a lot of their hardships now could have been mitigated, if not solved by catching the problem early.
August 4, 2009 - 10:46amThis Comment
I agree. Preventative care is so important. I, too, have many friends that have health issues in the U.S. and don't have medical insurance. They just don't have the money to see a doctor. It would also save time and money and backlogs in hospital ERs if these things were treated long before.
Medical insurance, I believe, also needs to be overhauled. In Canada, for the most part (there are always exceptions), our secondary health insurance isn't all that bad. The service is usually prompt, though can be sometimes complicated...but not near what I hear for the insurance companies in the U.S.
As an outsider looking in, the U.S. insurance industry seems more focused on profits than they are helping people get the care they need. The criteria for approval for coverage and then to have certain treatment done seems ludicrous, and governed by a massive corporation who could really care less about the ordinary American.
But, as I said, change doesn't come easily. And whatever change is coming will likely be somewhat painful for all sectors. The first battle is to get something passed through the House of Representatives--whatever form that takes. I will certainly be interesting to watch.
August 4, 2009 - 11:43amThis Comment
I believe it can work. If it isn't working or if there are issues, it's the fault of the bureaucracy that says it can't. There needs to be a balance.
Everyone's taxes whether they can afford their own health care or not, goes to pay for the public system. It's not funded by donations.
The political system is very different here in Canada. The funding our political parties receive from special interest groups and industries is very highly scrutinized.
The politicians that get elected--at least up here--are generally those who promise to do more with the health care dollars coming in--more research, hire more doctors, nurses, etc.
We already have two-tiered health care and the only reason it's not working as well as it should is because people aren't interested in making it work. I gave the example of a private MRI clinic and the public MRI clinic. This is an instance where it would work. There's also the example of those on the public system that are in a ward room in a hospital, while others with private insurance can get private or semi-private rooms.
The system is already there and working side-by-side with the public system. It's time to see how we can get them working more side-by-side to benefit the other, free up waiting lists for public access for those who have no choice but the publicly funded clinics.
Several European countries - France and Sweden are two that come to mind already have combined the public and private in their own special way.
It can work.
July 27, 2009 - 3:09pmThis Comment
Are you kidding? There is absolutely no way that two-tiered health care can work, for one very important reason. With imbalance comes inequality. Who do you think is going to fund the campaigns of politicians who want to spend more money on health care if there is a shortage? Nobody, that's who.
July 27, 2009 - 2:30pmThis Comment
Two-tiered health care works for most of the developed countries, why not America? If the success of the politician depends purely on the amount of funding they get from the rich companies, that's not a true democracy (its Oligarchy). I come from AUS, and there the parties get the funding (not individual politicians). Anyway, any health care is better than none, which is what some people are getting. NO health-care is worse than third-world standard health care. Imbalance and inequality is already part of life, it exists already so don't try denying it by demanding a system were everyone is treated like a millionaire. Your not. Want to see true inequality, go to Africa.
September 14, 2009 - 7:01amThis Comment
I have to posit the possibility that American's developments and high-profile achievements in this industry has everything to do, like it or not, with the fact that money makes their world go round.
The more money that is pushed to research, the better the research. Cancer research, though not classified as basic, should be just as important as the common flu. If we were to even modify the system, this same profit-centered research (assuming replaced with public funds) could lose its muster or its value altogether.
Capitalism by its very nature yields better results.
July 27, 2009 - 1:41pmThis Comment