Canada going to private health system | The Matthias Chronicles

I found an interesting article on Fox News describing Canada's Universal Health System as "substandard" with lengthy waits:

"Any wait time was an enormous frustration for me and also pain. I just couldn't live my life the way I wanted to," says Canadian patient Christine Crossman, who was told she could wait up to a year for an MRI after injuring her hip during an exercise class. Warned she would have to wait for the scan, and then wait even longer for surgery, Crossman opted for a private clinic.

This is not an unusual situation. Canadians are constantly coming to the United States for medical treatment. Granted, our system isn't perfect, but at least patients aren't waiting a year or more suffering while waiting medical treatment...

The United States is heading down the same road... Why is our government so willing to jeopardize the health of this country's citizens? I wonder if Obama's 55% death tax has anything to do with it? Why else would our elected officials be willing to sacrifice lives? Yet again, our elected politicians are only looking to line their pockets --- at our expense and deaths.

Sorry, Matthias, but you need to get your news from other sources (FOX as an authority on Canada?!)

Just not true (and I've had ample opportunity to check out hospital operations all over Toronto -- straight from the horse's mouth; or is Fox more local than me?)

Don't be afraid of nationalizing your health care because the goons on Fox keep drawing parallels to communism/socialism/other nonsense. It's not perfect (and needs proper administration) but trust me, it's 110% better than private or (usually) non-existent American health care (especially for the vast majority of mid-income Americans).

The biggest problems you may have are greed, waste, and incompetence, and that's a political problem, not a problem with the program.

Patrick: I agree completely that greed is rampant in our medical system and I completely agree that something has to be done. My issues revolved around Canadians speaking out against their own system and/or seeking U.S. medical treatment for critical diseases.

However; your assertion of Fox News is incorrect. For a normal healthy person, Canada's system may work well. but for someone with a debilitating illness, there are major issues to be resolved. Here is a list of people/organizations in Canada that agree the Canadian system has severe issues:

Fox News may not be an authority in Canada, but the Canadian doctors and patients are. Is your only authority the liberal U.S. biased media?

Having lived in Minnesota for a while I can testify to the fact that our doctor's offices were filled with patients from Canada. We also had quite doctors from Canada who had chosen to practice in the US because the pay in Canada was so poor. These doctors were top of their class from the best schools, I guess our best doctors will start heading to Canada if we get nationalized health care.

Tina T: There are countless cases of life threatening diseases like cancer that force Canadian people to seek U.S. medical help because of the severe rationing in some areas. More like India. Their health care system is the second best in the world and is very similar to ours.

Matthias: Hi again, Matthias. Thanks for correcting my comment (re: your name) :)

In terms of my information about the US, yes, my only source of information is what would be considered the liberal media in the US. And I don't buy one word of it. I use it as a launchpad to form my-- the topics are real but the information's always biased.

Regarding doctor pay in Canada, you are entirely correct. In fact, my own profession pays much better in the States than here. It's a genuine problem and I can't/won't make up explanations or excuses for.

I appreciate you taking the time to provide links and engage in a conversation (great blog!). I should do the same:

I've had two interactions with MRI facilities in Toronto and each were relatively quick. They probably could do a better job but a delayed MRI is better than none (i.e. fully private = if you can't afford it, too bad).

According to this document, a waiting list is for elective procedures. "In Canada, waiting lists do not exist for emergency procedures." And no one has to wait for elective surgeries if they want to pay a private clinic -- just like the US.

As the article mentions, this is British Columbia. Each province administers its own health care plan (in Ontario it's call OHIP). Too bad for BC, but it's not a Canada-wide problem.

This is a private opinion piece written by an American. Again, I live here and I have had more experience with our medical system than most Canadians, and our system is just not that bad. I find it amusing that people who don't live here, don't visit here, have zero-to-none actual experience or interaction here (Fox news being THE worst for this), should be making broad and incorrect judgment calls about what life here is like.

Awful lot of MRI stories. We do more than MRIs in our hospitals. And again, that's a provincial thing, and the report is 5 years old to boot.

If the argument is that Saskatchewan had a problem with waiting lists for MRIs in 2004, I can't argue that. But that hardly means that the entire system is broken.

Here's the simple truth: The Canadian system could use improving. The links you provided are an example of that, but for the most part, in most provinces and regions, in most hospitals, and for most people, the system works just fine. No one is left to die because they didn't have money. But if they do (have money), they can get better-than-average treatment. Why would that be so bad for the US? Why must it be an all-or-nothing proposition?

I know your Medicare system is screwed beyond belief, but that's an example of how federally administered health care should *not* be operated. It shouldn't be used as an example of what would happen. If Canada isn't the best, plenty of other countries have nationalized healthcare that works.

Yes, your taxes will be higher. But the arguments about wait times, lack of choice (personal doctor, hospital, etc.), are either pure fiction or based on really shaky arguments.

I genuinely feel sorry for Americans for not having a nationalized healthcare system. It's one of those basic human rights that, in the US, is not a right (i.e. you do not have the right to live a healthy life -- or even to live if you happen to get seriously hurt).

Respectfully, no thanks. Most Canadian would agree. AND we had full private health care until the 1950s so we've seen both sides of this argument (theoretically and practically). Why not visit Canada and see the truth for yourself?

Tina T: your argument is moot. The people in Minnesota waiting for private medical treatment would be the same ones getting private medical treatment in Canada. I'm pretty sure no one at your doctor's office is waiting with a burst appendix. And as you mentioned, doctor pay is lower in Canada (true!) so private practices are probably better in the States; that would make sense. What's on the table here is universal medical coverage for urgent or dangerous conditions.

What about all the people who can't afford health care? What if you lose your job/company plan? You're okay with nothing?

I guess that's a personal choice. I like knowing that I can, literally, walk a block in any direction from where I live and go into a clinic, get treated, and walk out without paying a dime up front (well, sometimes the pharmacy charges a $5 dispensing fee). I've never had to wait more than an hour, feel that my care was good, and walked out a satisfied customer.

I once waited two hours in a crowded emergency room, but that seemed more like a problem of immediate traffic than the hospital itself. I also invite you to stroll into a hospital on your next visit to Canada; you may change your mind.

I don't trust any news media I can't substantiate. Quite frankly, none of them have been worth anything for over 20 years.

The links are just a few I've found. MRIs are the most common procedure for diagnosing cancer and other advanced diseases.

I think the point that struck me is that Canada's universal approach doesn't seem so universal through-out the entire country. Also greed can swing the other way when bureaucrats decide to place a price on life. That is my biggest concern and complaint about the U.S. adopting this type of system as a sole source of medical care. Our politicians have already spent the U.S. into oblivion due to their greed.

I want a health care system based upon an approach that doesn't put a price on life, degrade the quality of care and isn't riddled with political greed. Simply put, the U.S. government can't be trusted to do the job right. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are perfect examples of political greed ruining a workable system. The reason each of these programs are running out of money is because our politicians keep taking money out of each of them for their own wasteful earmarks that serve to help only themselves.

I personally think the best approach is to split up the medical conglomerates like the U.S. government did the telephone companies. This would promote competition, foster innovation, and drive prices down. Then add a public insurance for anyone that can not afford private insurance. The best way to defray the costs is perhaps an approach like this: Every private insurance company must participate in the public plan. The insurance company that can provide the service for the least price wins the bid. This forces competition between the insurance companies at the level of every single service. Some insurance companies can do better at providing better coverage of a given service then others. The weaker ones will either become more competitive or go under. By not allowing large takeovers, the market is kept open to new companies that might want to get into the game and more competition to the other companies already providing services.

Thus you end up creating a Universal health care system for the many people that do not have coverage and still push innovation, research, and a high quality of care through a competitive environment. Do some research on Veterans Hositals and how poorly they are ran. That is what the U.S. government will do to every hospital in this country if there is only the government option. That is what I am against. I know too many veterans that can't see their doctors when needed because the Veterans Affairs won't allow it. The Veterans that can't afford private care go without because there is sinmply no other option. The ascertations of any business being too big to fail is insane.

Since both systems have inherent problems and inherent benefits, I believe the best approach is to combine both methods (as described above) and limit the size of these large multinational corporations. The other area that needs to be addressed is to block or prevent mergers (Black Knights in the business world) once a corporation reaches a certain size.

It really peaves me off when a large multinational corporation owns every hospital in a region under 5 different aliases and subsequently forcing prices to increase unrealistically. Hence, dividing them up as the phone companies were would work well competitively.

The competition approach sounds good to me. Another thing that ought to be addressed, though, is the tendency of insurance companies to weasel out of paying legitimate claims. Perhaps we could have some kind of legislation restricting the grounds on which a claim can be denied.

Reg Fife: Agreed. However; I think a default fall back to the government option would solve that issue... Either way, the claim gets paid.

Your mistake is relying on the propaganda machine (Fox News) of the extreme right wing segment of the Republican Party for information on the state of the Canadian health care system.

Mike: You should probably consider changing your vision plan as you clearly missed the part where I said none of them are worth anything or that there are issues with both systems. You also should go a little easy on the koolaid, its not good for your health.