Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits

[nightflight]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299282509335931

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

 

[IisJustMe]

http://canadianmedicine.blogspot.com/2008/03/interview-claude-castonguay-quebec.html

I'm posting this link because it is more a news source than the link in the OP. Editorials are not allowed as news sources on N&CE, so hopefully this will keep this thread where it belongs instead of getting moved.

It's nice to see a man I consider a socialist say that a socialist program doesn't work. That's honesty.

 

[Illuminatus]

And yet, I can have a chronic health condition and not have to worry about not being able to afford a doctor. The Canadian healthcare system (which, it should be noted, does not exist, as each province runs their own healthcare system) is overburdened, but it's far better than the travesty of a system that exists in the United States.

 

[Illuminatus]

It's worth pointing out that Castonguay is not considered to be the founder of Canada's public healthcare system. That honour goes to Tommy Douglas. It's also worth pointing out that Castonguay's remarks were not directed at Canadian healthcare as a whole, but at the system in Quebec, which happens to be in the worst shape of any province.

 

[Billnew]

And yet, I can have a chronic health condition and not have to worry about not being able to afford a doctor. The Canadian healthcare system (which, it should be noted, does not exist, as each province runs their own healthcare system) is overburdened, but it's far better than the travesty of a system that exists in the United States.

But shouldn't we(the USA) look at your good points and bad points and try fix problems before we rush in? Try to use the system that allows the majority of people excellent healthcare, and modify it to get all people the medical care they need?
Why is your system overburdened? No incentive for new Dr's? USA pulling all your qualified Drs with more money? No funding to support enough medical staff?

 

[MichaelFJF]

Good lord - and people want to copy this system? I do so look forward to my taxes going up if Obumba gets elected.

 

[Illuminatus]

But shouldn't we(the USA) look at your good points and bad points and try fix problems before we rush in? Try to use the system that allows the majority of people excellent healthcare, and modify it to get all people the medical care they need?

Of course.

Why is your system overburdened? No incentive for new Dr's? USA pulling all your qualified Drs with more money? No funding to support enough medical staff?

In large part, it's due to major cutbacks to health services that were common in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly in Ontario. A lot of doctors and nurses left for the US during that period, and a lot of the country is still rebuilding. Another major factor is the aging population - old people tend to take up more resources than young people, and the current demographic shift is taxing the healthcare system. Some doctors do leave for the US, but it's a trend that's tapering off to some extent. Ontario, at least, (I can't speak as definitively for other provinces), has done a pretty good job of raising doctor salaries since the Conservative government was defeated in 2002. (To put things in context, by the end of the 1990s, the previous government had reduced healthcare funding to the point that some family doctors were making less than $80,000/year - less than the average electrician.)

 

[Dale]

I think that Illuminatus has a point.

Is anyone aware that the lack of rural doctors and rural hospitals in the US has been a serious problem for decades?

In the Florida county where I live, 20% of the population does not have health insurance. Some of those without insurance may be young people who assume they are healthy. Others may be unemployed and lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs. Some work for employers who don't provide any health insurance. Some may not be able to afford health insurance and some have applied and been denied by companies that make fabulous profits.

Even when Americans are lucky enough to have coverage it is likely to have huge holes. If you have diabetes and apply for health insurance, the company will stipulate that the policy does not cover diabetes. The same goes for any other condition you know you have. Again, this may be one reason that some choose to forego health insurance. Why pay steep rates for insurance when you already know that it won't cover your greatest health risk? Or costs you already know you are going to have?

In my case, my health insurance stipulates that it does not cover my kidneys. Why? When I was twelve years old a doctor said I had a kidney infection and prescribed penicillin. Today, if someone shoots me and a bullet passes through a kidney, my health insurance won't cover that.

 

[jayem]

In the US, the vast majority of hospitals and providers are private enterprises--not government employees--and it should stay that way.

Health coverage should also stay private, but it has to be reformed. Health insurance should be treated as a utility company--a private enterprise whose prices and business practices are strictly regulated for the public good. Health insurors should be required to form regional, non-profit consortia which would offer a very basic health plan to everyone in their regions--regardless of employment or health risk. This would be a mainly catastrophic, high-deductible policy. ( I'm talking maybe a $2000-3000 annual deductible per adult. Maybe $200-300 annually per child. Because individuals should be responsible for their initial, basic health expenses. Insurance should be reserved for big problems.) Then let the insurors offer for-profit, supplemental plans people can buy if they want. Which could cover the all the deductibles, co-pays, or other bells and whistles--experimental treatments, new drugs, transplants, cosmetic procedures--anything someone is willing to pay a premium to have covered.

A two tier system. A very basic plan which provides a safety net for everyone. And gold-plated coverage if you want to pay for it. And it's not a government program--but government acts in a regulatory role. It also creates the perfect niche for charities--which can help people pay premiums for the basic universal plan, or help cover their deductibles.

 

[Illuminatus]

Why not just provide "gold-plated coverage" for everyone? Why is the life/health of a poor person worth less than that of a rich person?

 

[jsn112]

Why not just provide "gold-plated coverage" for everyone? Why is the life/health of a poor person worth less than that of a rich person?

Because there is no such thing as a perfect system. Not everyone should be treated equally. It's called life. If you want to join a perfect system, then work for it instead of it being handed to you on a silver platter.

 

[Illuminatus]

Because there is no such thing as a perfect system. Not everyone should be treated equally. It's called life. If you want to join a perfect system, then work for it instead of it being handed to you on a silver platter.

I didn't ask for perfection. I want equality. Fortunately, I live in a country that has no for-profit healthcare. Which, btw, I pay for through my taxes, and will always happily do so.

 

[jsn112]

I didn't ask for perfection. I want equality. Fortunately, I live in a country that has no for-profit healthcare. Which, btw, I pay for through my taxes, and will always happily do so.

If you want equal rights, then be an advocate for civil liberty. If you can't afford a Maserati 3200 GT, don't expect to get a Maserati 3200 GT. Not everyone can own a Maserati 3200 GT. So, you better buy a Honda civic instead. And that has nothing to do with equality.

 

[Illuminatus]

And that has nothing to do with equality.

It's an issue that centres on equality. The right to life and health is a fundamental human right. It is morally wrong that some people are denied that right because they aren't rich enough.

 

[ulu]

It is morally wrong that some people are denied that right because they aren't rich enough.

For the most part I agree. Comparing it to owning a sports car is no comparison.

 

[jsn112]

It's an issue that centres on equality. The right to life and health is a fundamental human right. It is morally wrong that some people are denied that right because they aren't rich enough.

That's not equality issue. It's an equality issue if one is denied of a service, otherwise the system would be overburden and would collapse. If you're rich, you can afford 100 doctor visit per year if you desire. If you're poor, visiting a doctor 100 times per year is unreasonable. And that has nothing to do with equality.

 

[Illuminatus]

That's not equality issue. It's an equality issue if one is denied of a service, otherwise the system would be overburden and would collapse. If you're rich, you can afford 100 doctor visit per year if you desire. If you're poor, visiting a doctor 100 times per year is unreasonable. And that has nothing to do with equality.

WinAce, who used to frequent these boards, died two years ago because his insurance company refused to pay for a lung transplant, as it was too "risky". The procedure is regularly performed in countries like Canada and Norway, where there is exclusively free healthcare, and for-profit healthcare is banned. If Allan had been a millionaire, he'd most likely be alive today. But because he couldn't afford to pay for the procedure out-of-pocket, he died.

 

[Dale]

Illuminatus:
"WinAce, who used to frequent these boards, died two years ago because his insurance company refused to pay for a lung transplant, as it was too "risky". The procedure is regularly performed in countries like Canada and Norway, where there is exclusively free healthcare, and for-profit healthcare is banned. If Allan had been a millionaire, he'd most likely be alive today. But because he couldn't afford to pay for the procedure out-of-pocket, he died."

Good point, and I am sorry that happened ot WinAce.

A relative of mine has leukemia and had chemotherapy but the cancer kept coming back. Now he is getting an experimental treatment that is both risky and no doubt would be extremely expensive. They killed his bone marrow, where the blood cells come from, and then injected healthy bone marrow from a carefully matched donor. He has been, and will be, in isolation for weeks, with constant medical tests, while his blood cell count and immune system recover.

How does he afford this? In his case, the Veterans Administration is paying for it. Otherwise, he would probably die. However, the majority of the US population isn't eligible for the program that is paying for this treatment.

 

[Illuminatus]

A relative of mine has leukemia and had chemotherapy but the cancer kept coming back. Now he is getting an experimental treatment that is both risky and no doubt would be extremely expensive. They killed his bone marrow, where the blood cells come from, and then injected healthy bone marrow from a carefully matched donor. He has been, and will be, in isolation for weeks, with constant medical tests, while his blood cell count and immune system recover.

How does he afford this? In his case, the Veterans Administration is paying for it. Otherwise, he would probably die. However, the majority of the US population isn't eligible for the program that is paying for this treatment.

The procedure you're referring to is a bone marrow transplant. Cost in the US ranges from $75,000 (for transplants using one's own bone marrow, which are somewhat uncommon), to upwards of $200,000 for transplants using donor marrow, which are the most common type. Those costs don't include the long-term need for monitoring, tests, and the drugs that marrow transplant patients often need for the rest of their lives. I'm very sorry that your relative has leukemia - my thoughts go out to them. He's lucky that he has access to treatment. Unfortunately, there are millions of people who wouldn't have that option if they were in that position. And that's the most pressing argument in favour of public healthcare - half of the population alive today will suffer from cancer in their lifetimes. A very large number of those people will not be able to afford to pay for their treatment. Of those who can pay for their treatment, or whose insurance will cover treatment, many won't be able to receive the most effective (eg. expensive) treatments. Money shouldn't get in the way of saving lives.

 

[Dale]

Illuminatus,
Thank you for your response.

My relative's name is Bobby and I am sure that he could not afford a $200,000 operation followed by expensive drugs and medical tests. His wife's name is Beverly and she has been with him constantly during this ordeal. While Bobby's medical costs are covered by the Veterans Administration, his wife Beverly would not be covered if she had the identical condition.

This is one of the strange things about the politics of medical care in the US. Some people have good insurance provided by their employer. Others are covered by various government programs. Those who have good insurance don't see the need for everyone else to have the same access to medical care that they have.