Words You Won't Hear in Canadian Health Care

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I say combine the best of both into one system that actually works. U.S. and Canadian health each have their own pros and cons. So let's learn from those mistakes and make a better one. It'll never happen, of course, but it's a nice thought.

I really do think that the two systems are mutually exclusive. The best part of the American health care is the advancement in techniques, which is driven by a profit system. Lets be real, companies don't fund massive grants on cancer or AIDS research for the betterment of society. They know the massive payouts that they will get if they are the first to find a cure. American health system is only good if you have really good insurance. For everyone else, it's a sliding scale that varies according to your level of coverage. The Canadian system is on the whole better for more people. People who would have no coverage, or would be severely undercovered benefit greatly from this system. But as you said, it's run by the government, and with any program run by a beurocracy, there is an inherent inefficiency.

You do realize that no other developed country has more red tape and bureaucracy in their health care system than the US, yes? No other nation spends as much on overhead and administration in health care as the US. Reality doesn't exactly support that closing statement of yours. Not in the health care field.

The basic idea is that the government manages to screw up anything it gets its hands on. Unfortunately, that's true (at least for the most part).

"The government" under Richard Nixon and in league with private insurance interests, created the cluster ***** of a system we have now. Enough said!

[DeadPoolX 9]

I say combine the best of both into one system that actually works. U.S. and Canadian health each have their own pros and cons. So let's learn from those mistakes and make a better one. It'll never happen, of course, but it's a nice thought.

I really do think that the two systems are mutually exclusive. The best part of the American health care is the advancement in techniques, which is driven by a profit system. Lets be real, companies don't fund massive grants on cancer or AIDS research for the betterment of society. They know the massive payouts that they will get if they are the first to find a cure. American health system is only good if you have really good insurance. For everyone else, it's a sliding scale that varies according to your level of coverage. The Canadian system is on the whole better for more people. People who would have no coverage, or would be severely undercovered benefit greatly from this system. But as you said, it's run by the government, and with any program run by a beurocracy, there is an inherent inefficiency.

You do realize that no other developed country has more red tape and bureaucracy in their health care system than the US, yes? No other nation spends as much on overhead and administration in health care as the US. Reality doesn't exactly support that closing statement of yours. Not in the health care field.

The basic idea is that the government manages to screw up anything it gets its hands on. Unfortunately, that's true (at least for the most part).

When underfunding things or not properly designing them... yes.

That's what I'm talking about. As I've said before, the Canadian health care system is great in theory and in some ways, it still does well in practice. The problem is that it's underfunded and seems to be one area politicians love extracting money from to put elsewhere.

I say combine the best of both into one system that actually works. U.S. and Canadian health each have their own pros and cons. So let's learn from those mistakes and make a better one. It'll never happen, of course, but it's a nice thought.

I really do think that the two systems are mutually exclusive. The best part of the American health care is the advancement in techniques, which is driven by a profit system. Lets be real, companies don't fund massive grants on cancer or AIDS research for the betterment of society. They know the massive payouts that they will get if they are the first to find a cure. American health system is only good if you have really good insurance. For everyone else, it's a sliding scale that varies according to your level of coverage. The Canadian system is on the whole better for more people. People who would have no coverage, or would be severely undercovered benefit greatly from this system. But as you said, it's run by the government, and with any program run by a beurocracy, there is an inherent inefficiency.

You do realize that no other developed country has more red tape and bureaucracy in their health care system than the US, yes? No other nation spends as much on overhead and administration in health care as the US. Reality doesn't exactly support that closing statement of yours. Not in the health care field.

The basic idea is that the government manages to screw up anything it gets its hands on. Unfortunately, that's true (at least for the most part).

"The government" under Richard Nixon and in league with private insurance interests, created the cluster ***** of a system we have now. Enough said!

But that's still government doing what it does best: screw things up.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I say combine the best of both into one system that actually works. U.S. and Canadian health each have their own pros and cons. So let's learn from those mistakes and make a better one. It'll never happen, of course, but it's a nice thought.

I really do think that the two systems are mutually exclusive. The best part of the American health care is the advancement in techniques, which is driven by a profit system. Lets be real, companies don't fund massive grants on cancer or AIDS research for the betterment of society. They know the massive payouts that they will get if they are the first to find a cure. American health system is only good if you have really good insurance. For everyone else, it's a sliding scale that varies according to your level of coverage. The Canadian system is on the whole better for more people. People who would have no coverage, or would be severely undercovered benefit greatly from this system. But as you said, it's run by the government, and with any program run by a beurocracy, there is an inherent inefficiency.

You do realize that no other developed country has more red tape and bureaucracy in their health care system than the US, yes? No other nation spends as much on overhead and administration in health care as the US. Reality doesn't exactly support that closing statement of yours. Not in the health care field.

The basic idea is that the government manages to screw up anything it gets its hands on. Unfortunately, that's true (at least for the most part).

"The government" under Richard Nixon and in league with private insurance interests, created the cluster ***** of a system we have now. Enough said!

But that's still government doing what it does best: screw things up.

Well time for government to screw it up again, because this house of cards is collapsing.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hell, if we could lower the malpractice lawsuits as well, maybe doctors would order fewer unnecessary tests just to cover their a$$ later on. Last I heard, Texas is considered to have relatively inexpensive malpractice insurance somewhere around $80,000 per year. In some places it can rise as high as $200,000 per year. It also depends on the specialty, too. Because of the high rate of frivolous malpractice lawsuits, fewer and fewer people are becoming OB/GYNs nowadays and that can't be good for women (pregnant or not).

The CBO disagrees with you on the actual benefit of limiting malpractice lawsuits:

Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending.(12) Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small.(13)

It has also been shown time and again that action taken in various states to lower a physician's potential exposure to malpractice suits has resulted in fewer cases and lower awards and yet, the malpractice insurance rates in those states still went up. If anything needs reform, it's - again - the insurance business which makes fat profits in this insurance sector.

[SomberCat 0]

Hell, if we could lower the malpractice lawsuits as well, maybe doctors would order fewer unnecessary tests just to cover their a$$ later on.

I think the above is one of the things that needs fixed in the US system. If we can fix the lawyers and the insurance companies, life is good. I am one of the fortunate ones who has fantastic healthcare coverage and could never be wiped out by any catastrophic events mentioned previously. My out of pocket maximum is only $3000.

I will say that seeing my husband's care in Ontario was appalling and if that's what "free" healthcare is, I want no part of it. He was having gall bladder attacks, but it took 3 weeks to see his doctor, 4 weeks to get an ultrasound and 2 weeks to get the results. So for someone to diagnose him, it took 9 weeks. He then waited another 3 weeks to see a surgeon and 10 weeks to have it removed. From beginning to end, we're talking 31 weeks - over 7 months. I understand if he were dying, they would have done surgery, but anyone who's had gall bladder attacks can imagine how difficult it is to live your live for 7 months with them. I had them for 3 weeks, was diagnosed and had surgery in 9 days.

Another kicker is that his doctor retired 4 months ago and currently he has no doctor. He has been on a waiting list this entire time. When things come up, he has to go to a clinic or the emergency room.

I haven't heard specifics from the government regarding their "plan", but being someone with good coverage, it scares me. Government involvement is rarely a good thing, particularly in medical - look at Medicare. Also, I truly hope that Americans realize this will not be free because those that I talk with about it are shocked when I tell them what kind of taxes my husband pays in Canada. I will never quit being amazed (until he moves lol) at the taxes he pays. Incredible.

The other thing I truly hope is that no one will b1tch about paying for their neighbor who weighs 400 pounds and smokes like a chimney. I have to admit that I do not like the idea of paying for someone else's healthcare coverage when I have no input on their health. Why should I pay for someone who does nothing to take care of themselves? Hopefully you catch my drift there and don't think I'm just a selfish American.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Hell, if we could lower the malpractice lawsuits as well, maybe doctors would order fewer unnecessary tests just to cover their a$$ later on.

I think the above is one of the things that needs fixed in the US system. If we can fix the lawyers and the insurance companies, life is good. I am one of the fortunate ones who has fantastic healthcare coverage and could never be wiped out by any catastrophic events mentioned previously. My out of pocket maximum is only $3000.

I will say that seeing my husband's care in Ontario was appalling and if that's what "free" healthcare is, I want no part of it. He was having gall bladder attacks, but it took 3 weeks to see his doctor, 4 weeks to get an ultrasound and 2 weeks to get the results. So for someone to diagnose him, it took 9 weeks. He then waited another 3 weeks to see a surgeon and 10 weeks to have it removed. From beginning to end, we're talking 31 weeks - over 7 months. I understand if he were dying, they would have done surgery, but anyone who's had gall bladder attacks can imagine how difficult it is to live your live for 7 months with them. I had them for 3 weeks, was diagnosed and had surgery in 9 days.

Another kicker is that his doctor retired 4 months ago and currently he has no doctor. He has been on a waiting list this entire time. When things come up, he has to go to a clinic or the emergency room.

I haven't heard specifics from the government regarding their "plan", but being someone with good coverage, it scares me. Government involvement is rarely a good thing, particularly in medical - look at Medicare. Also, I truly hope that Americans realize this will not be free because those that I talk with about it are shocked when I tell them what kind of taxes my husband pays in Canada. I will never quit being amazed (until he moves lol) at the taxes he pays. Incredible.

The other thing I truly hope is that no one will b1tch about paying for their neighbor who weighs 400 pounds and smokes like a chimney. I have to admit that I do not like the idea of paying for someone else's healthcare coverage when I have no input on their health. Why should I pay for someone who does nothing to take care of themselves? Hopefully you catch my drift there and don't think I'm just a selfish American.

[HAL 9000 96]

What is the usual starting salary for GP physicians in Canada?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What is the usual starting salary for GP physicians in Canada?

$5.50/hr and a bag of lint.

[DeadPoolX 9]

What is the usual starting salary for GP physicians in Canada?

No clue. It'd probably depend on location for a GP. You can't expect to make as much in Comox as you would in Vancouver or Victoria.

What is the usual starting salary for GP physicians in Canada?

$5.50/hr and a bag of lint. jug of maple syrup.

Fixed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hell, if we could lower the malpractice lawsuits as well, maybe doctors would order fewer unnecessary tests just to cover their a$$ later on. Last I heard, Texas is considered to have relatively inexpensive malpractice insurance somewhere around $80,000 per year. In some places it can rise as high as $200,000 per year. It also depends on the specialty, too. Because of the high rate of frivolous malpractice lawsuits, fewer and fewer people are becoming OB/GYNs nowadays and that can't be good for women (pregnant or not).

The CBO disagrees with you on the actual benefit of limiting malpractice lawsuits:

Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending.(12) Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small.(13)

It has also been shown time and again that action taken in various states to lower a physician's potential exposure to malpractice suits has resulted in fewer cases and lower awards and yet, the malpractice insurance rates in those states still went up. If anything needs reform, it's - again - the insurance business which makes fat profits in this insurance sector.

It did seem rather a dubious assertion that the state of the national healthcare system rests solely on the shoulders of cynical lawyers and dodgy lawsuits.

That said of course, when you have insurers meddling in your care behind the scenes - its not really surprising that people would go to the courts.

[HAL 9000 96]

What is the usual starting salary for GP physicians in Canada?

$5.50/hr and a bag of lint.

SNAP

[TimandJoyce 1]

We pay monthly premiums in BC, so that ones wrong.

You're from BC. Cool, me too. I don't pay for my medical, it's paid for me. I don't make enough money to pay....

That's something else about the system. If your annual income is less than so much, you'll get 100% premium, and you're covered.

I like Kathryn, will miss this.

In 2004, my late husband was in an accident. He was taken to the hospital in an ambulance, stayed there over night, had a cat scan to show he had a broken neck, airlifted to Victoria, stayed in the hospital for two weeks, had surgery, and was driven back home, ( 3 hour drive). Our house needed to be outfitted with medical equipment to make his life easier as he healed.

We didn't have to pay for any of the above.

Hope he healed 100%.

I am curious about one thing... since opponents to these kinds of insurance/medical systems quite often cite how people end up waiting for months for therapies... wouldn't that mean that your hubby would've had to wait also to receive parts of that treatment? According to their logic I mean.

Sadly he died two months after the accident. Not from his injuries, but from some STUPID choices he made. He was healing rather nicely though. We didn't have to wait for the medical equipment, it was installed in the house the day before he came home. And his surgeon wanted X-rays sent to him at the 4 week mark, to see how he was healing. We did do that, but he died two days later. We would have gotten notice as to when physio would start, and I assume it would have been sometime in the middle of July or early August for that. ( He died July 4th, accident was May 3rd. ) However, because of his death, I really don't know how long we would have waited till we got the green light it was ok for him to work again.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I am one of the fortunate ones who has fantastic healthcare coverage and could never be wiped out by any catastrophic events mentioned previously. My out of pocket maximum is only $3000.

That is until a catastrophic event costs you your job and - with it - your coverage. Or if your employer decides to trim the cost of health insurance benefits and takes the plan you currently enjoy off the grid and replaces it with less fantastic options. This is what many people don't consider when "feeling lucky" about the coverage they still enjoy.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Hell, if we could lower the malpractice lawsuits as well, maybe doctors would order fewer unnecessary tests just to cover their a$$ later on. Last I heard, Texas is considered to have relatively inexpensive malpractice insurance somewhere around $80,000 per year. In some places it can rise as high as $200,000 per year. It also depends on the specialty, too. Because of the high rate of frivolous malpractice lawsuits, fewer and fewer people are becoming OB/GYNs nowadays and that can't be good for women (pregnant or not).

The CBO disagrees with you on the actual benefit of limiting malpractice lawsuits:

Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending.(12) Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small.(13)

It has also been shown time and again that action taken in various states to lower a physician's potential exposure to malpractice suits has resulted in fewer cases and lower awards and yet, the malpractice insurance rates in those states still went up. If anything needs reform, it's - again - the insurance business which makes fat profits in this insurance sector.

It did seem rather a dubious assertion that the state of the national healthcare system rests solely on the shoulders of cynical lawyers and dodgy lawsuits.

That said of course, when you have insurers meddling in your care behind the scenes - its not really surprising that people would go to the courts.

I never said it rests entirely on malpractice. It does, however, severely hurt the medical profession.

[HAL 9000 96]

What is the usual starting salary for GP physicians in Canada?

No clue. It'd probably depend on location for a GP. You can't expect to make as much in Comox as you would in Vancouver or Victoria.

What is the usual starting salary for GP physicians in Canada?

$5.50/hr and a bag of lint. jug of maple syrup.

Fixed.

I got a can o'maple on request for next week from a friend.

I wonder if the system could handle creative recruiting of doctors then.