Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Health & Wellness

10 Myths About Canadian Health Care, Busted

By Sara Robinson, TomPaine.com. Posted February 5, 2008.


We must get past a pile of disinformation.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

2008 is shaping up to be the election year that we finally get to have the Great American Healthcare Debate again. Harry and Louise are back with a vengeance. Conservatives are rumbling around the talk show circuit bellowing about the socialist threat to the (literal) American body politic. And, as usual, Canada is once again getting dragged into the fracas, shoved around by both sides as either an exemplar or a warning -- and, along the way, getting coated with the obfuscating dust of so many willful misconceptions that the actual facts about How Canada Does It are completely lost in the melee.

I'm both a health-care-card-carrying Canadian resident and an uninsured American citizen who regularly sees doctors on both sides of the border. As such, I'm in a unique position to address the pros and cons of both systems first-hand. If we're going to have this conversation, it would be great if we could start out (for once) with actual facts, instead of ideological posturing, wishful thinking, hearsay, and random guessing about how things get done up here.

To that end, here's the first of a two-part series aimed at busting the common myths Americans routinely tell each other about Canadian health care. When the right-wing hysterics drag out these hoary old bogeymen, this time, we need to be armed and ready to blast them into straw. Because, mostly, straw is all they're made of.

1. Canada's health care system is "socialized medicine."
False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work directly for the state. In Canada (and many other countries with universal care), doctors run their own private practices, just like they do in the US. The only difference is that every doctor deals with one insurer, instead of 150. And that insurer is the provincial government, which is accountable to the legislature and the voters if the quality of coverage is allowed to slide.

The proper term for this is "single-payer insurance." In talking to Americans about it, the better phrase is "Medicare for all."

2. Doctors are hurt financially by single-payer health care.
True and False. Doctors in Canada do make less than their US counterparts. But they also have lower overhead, and usually much better working conditions. A few reasons for this:

First, as noted, they don't have to charge higher fees to cover the salary of a full-time staffer to deal with over a hundred different insurers, all of whom are bent on denying care whenever possible. In fact, most Canadian doctors get by quite nicely with just one assistant, who cheerfully handles the phones, mail, scheduling, patient reception, stocking, filing, and billing all by herself in the course of a standard workday.

Second, they don't have to spend several hours every day on the phone cajoling insurance company bean counters into doing the right thing by their patients. My doctor in California worked a 70-hour week: 35 hours seeing patients, and another 35 hours on the phone arguing with insurance companies. My Canadian doctor, on the other hand, works a 35-hour week, period. She files her invoices online, and the vast majority are simply paid -- quietly, quickly, and without hassle. There is no runaround. There are no fights. Appointments aren't interrupted by vexing phone calls. Care is seldom denied (because everybody knows the rules). She gets her checks on time, sees her patients on schedule, takes Thursdays off, and gets home in time for dinner.

One unsurprising side effect of all this is that the doctors I see here are, to a person, more focused, more relaxed, more generous with their time, more up-to-date in their specialties, and overall much less distracted from the real work of doctoring. You don't realize how much stress the American doctor-insurer fights put on the day-to-day quality of care until you see doctors who don't operate under that stress, because they never have to fight those battles at all. Amazingly: they seem to enjoy their jobs.

Third: The average American medical student graduates $140,000 in hock. The average Canadian doctor's debt is roughly half that.

Finally, Canadian doctors pay lower malpractice insurance fees. When paying for health care constitutes a one of a family's major expenses, expectations tend to run very high. A doctor's mistake not only damages the body; it may very well throw a middle-class family permanently into the ranks of the working poor, and render the victim uninsurable for life. With so much at stake, it's no wonder people are quick to rush to court for redress.

Canadians are far less likely to sue in the first place, since they're not having to absorb devastating financial losses in addition to any physical losses when something goes awry. The cost of the damaging treatment will be covered. So will the cost of fixing it. And, no matter what happens, the victim will remain insured for life. When lawsuits do occur, the awards don't have to include coverage for future medical costs, which reduces the insurance company's liability.

3. Wait times in Canada are horrendous.
True and False again -- it depends on which province you live in, and what's wrong with you. Canada's health care system runs on federal guidelines that ensure uniform standards of care, but each territory and province administers its own program. Some provinces don't plan their facilities well enough; in those, you can have waits. Some do better. As a general rule, the farther north you live, the harder it is to get to care, simply because the doctors and hospitals are concentrated in the south. But that's just as true in any rural county in the U.S.

You can hear the bitching about it no matter where you live, though. The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system. (And no, it had nothing to do with the fact that he was also Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather.). In spite of that, though, grousing about health care is still unofficially Canada's third national sport after curling and hockey.

And for the country's newspapers, it's a prime watchdogging opportunity. Any little thing goes sideways at the local hospital, and it's on the front pages the next day. Those kinds of stories sell papers, because everyone is invested in that system and has a personal stake in how well it functions. The American system might benefit from this kind of constant scrutiny, because it's certainly one of the things that keeps the quality high. But it also makes people think it's far worse than it is.

Critics should be reminded that the American system is not exactly instant-on, either. When I lived in California, I had excellent insurance, and got my care through one of the best university-based systems in the nation. Yet I routinely had to wait anywhere from six to twelve weeks to get in to see a specialist. Non-emergency surgical waits could be anywhere from four weeks to four months. After two years in the BC system, I'm finding the experience to be pretty much comparable, and often better. The notable exception is MRIs, which were easy in California, but can take many months to get here. (It's the number one thing people go over the border for.) Other than that, urban Canadians get care about as fast as urban Americans do.

4. You have to wait forever to get a family doctor.
False for the vast majority of Canadians, but True for a few. Again, it all depends on where you live. I live in suburban Vancouver, and there are any number of first-rate GPs in my neighborhood who are taking new patients. If you don't have a working relationship with one, but need to see a doctor now, there are 24-hour urgent care clinics in most neighborhoods that will usually get you in and out on the minor stuff in under an hour.

It is, absolutely, harder to get to a doctor if you live out in a small town, or up in the territories. But that's just as true in the U.S. -- and in America, the government won't cover the airfare for rural folk to come down to the city for needed treatment, which all the provincial plans do.

5. You don't get to choose your own doctor.
Scurrilously False. Somebody, somewhere, is getting paid a lot of money to make this kind of stuff up. The cons love to scare the kids with stories about the government picking your doctor for you, and you don't get a choice. Be afraid! Be very afraid!

For the record: Canadians pick their own doctors, just like Americans do. And not only that: since it all pays the same, poor Canadians have exactly the same access to the country's top specialists that rich ones do.

6. Canada's care plan only covers the basics. You're still on your own for any extras, including prescription drugs. And you still have to pay for it.
True -- but not as big an issue as you might think. The province does charge a small monthly premium (ours is $108/month for a family of four) for the basic coverage. However, most people never even have to write that check: almost all employers pick up the tab for their employees' premiums as part of the standard benefits package; and the province covers it for people on public assistance or disability.

"The basics" covered by this plan include 100% of all doctor's fees, ambulance fares, tests, and everything that happens in a hospital -- in other words, the really big-ticket items that routinely drive American families into bankruptcy. In BC, it doesn't include "extras" like medical equipment, prescriptions, physical therapy or chiropractic care, dental, vision, and so on; and if you want a private or semi-private room with TV and phone, that costs extra (about what you'd pay for a room in a middling hotel). That other stuff does add up; but it's far easier to afford if you're not having to cover the big expenses, too. Furthermore: you can deduct any out-of-pocket health expenses you do have to pay off your income taxes. And, as every American knows by now, drugs aren't nearly as expensive here, either.

Filling the gap between the basics and the extras is the job of the country's remaining private health insurers. Since they're off the hook for the ruinously expensive big-ticket items that can put their own profits at risk, the insurance companies make a tidy business out of offering inexpensive policies that cover all those smaller, more predictable expenses. Top-quality add-on policies typically run in the ballpark of $75 per person in a family per month -- about $300 for a family of four -- if you're stuck buying an individual plan. Group plans are cheap enough that even small employers can afford to offer them as a routine benefit. An average working Canadian with employer-paid basic care and supplemental insurance gets free coverage equal to the best policies now only offered at a few of America's largest corporations. And that employer is probably only paying a couple hundred dollars a month to provide that benefit.

7. Canadian drugs are not the same.
More preposterious bogosity. They are exactly the same drugs, made by the same pharmaceutical companies, often in the same factories. The Canadian drug distribution system, however, has much tighter oversight; and pharmacies and pharmacists are more closely regulated. If there is a difference in Canadian drugs at all, they're actually likely to be safer.

Also: pharmacists here dispense what the doctors tell them to dispense, the first time, without moralizing. I know. It's amazing.

8. Publicly-funded programs will inevitably lead to rationed health care, particularly for the elderly.
False. And bogglingly so. The papers would have a field day if there was the barest hint that this might be true.

One of the things that constantly amazes me here is how well-cared-for the elderly and disabled you see on the streets here are. No, these people are not being thrown out on the curb. In fact, they live longer, healthier, and more productive lives because they're getting a constant level of care that ensures small things get treated before they become big problems.

The health care system also makes it easier on their caregiving adult children, who have more time to look in on Mom and take her on outings because they aren't working 60-hour weeks trying to hold onto a job that gives them insurance.

9. People won't be responsible for their own health if they're not being forced to pay for the consequences.
False. The philosophical basis of America's privatized health care system might best be characterized as medical Calvinism. It's fascinating to watch well-educated secularists who recoil at the Protestant obsession with personal virtue, prosperity as a cardinal sign of election by God, and total responsibility for one's own salvation turn into fire-eyed, moralizing True Believers when it comes to the subject of Taking Responsibility For One's Own Health.

They'll insist that health, like salvation, is entirely in our own hands. If you just have the character and self-discipline to stick to an abstemious regime of careful diet, clean living, and frequent sweat offerings to the Great Treadmill God, you'll never get sick. (Like all good theologies, there's even an unspoken promise of immortality: f you do it really really right, they imply, you might even live forever.) The virtuous Elect can be discerned by their svelte figures and low cholesterol numbers. From here, it's a short leap to the conviction that those who suffer from chronic conditions are victims of their own weaknesses, and simply getting what they deserve. Part of their punishment is being forced to pay for the expensive, heavily marketed pharmaceuticals needed to alleviate these avoidable illnesses. They can't complain. It was their own damned fault; and it's not our responsibility to pay for their sins. In fact, it's recently been suggested that they be shunned, lest they lead the virtuous into sin.

Of course, this is bad theology whether you're applying it to the state of one's soul or one's arteries. The fact is that bad genes, bad luck, and the ravages of age eventually take their toll on all of us -- even the most careful of us. The economics of the Canadian system reflect this very different philosophy: it's built on the belief that maintaining health is not an individual responsibility, but a collective one. Since none of us controls fate, the least we can do is be there for each other as our numbers come up.

This difference is expressed in a few different ways. First: Canadians tend to think of tending to one's health as one of your duties as a citizen. You do what's right because you don't want to take up space in the system, or put that burden on your fellow taxpayers. Second, "taking care of yourself" has a slightly expanded definition here, which includes a greater emphasis on public health. Canadians are serious about not coming to work if you're contagious, and seeing a doctor ASAP if you need to. Staying healthy includes not only diet and exercise; but also taking care to keep your germs to yourself, avoiding stress, and getting things treated while they're still small and cheap to fix.

Third, there's a somewhat larger awareness that stress leads to big-ticket illnesses -- and a somewhat lower cultural tolerance for employers who put people in high-stress situations. Nobody wants to pick up the tab for their greed. And finally, there's a generally greater acceptance on the part of both the elderly and their families that end-of-life heroics may be drawing resources away from people who might put them to better use. You can have them if you want them; but reasonable and compassionate people should be able to take the larger view.

The bottom line: When it comes to getting people to make healthy choices, appealing to their sense of the common good seems to work at least as well as Calvinist moralizing.

10. This all sounds great -- but the taxes to cover it are just unaffordable. And besides, isn't the system in bad financial shape?
False. On one hand, our annual Canadian tax bite runs about 10% higher than our U.S. taxes did. On the other, we're not paying out the equivalent of two new car payments every month to keep the family insured here. When you balance out the difference, we're actually money ahead. When you factor in the greatly increased social stability that follows when everybody's getting their necessary health care, the impact on our quality of life becomes even more signficant.

And True -- but only because this is a universal truth that we need to make our peace with. Yes, the provincial plans are always struggling. So is every single publicly-funded health care system in the world, including the VA and Medicare. There's always tension between what the users of the system want, and what the taxpayers are willing to pay. The balance of power ebbs and flows between them; but no matter where it lies at any given moment, at least one of the pair is always going to be at least somewhat unhappy.

But, as many of us know all too well, there's also constant tension between what patients want and what private insurers are willing to pay. At least when it's in government hands, we can demand some accountability. And my experience in Canada has convinced me that this accountability is what makes all the difference between the two systems.

It is true that Canada's system is not the same as the U.S. system. It's designed to deliver a somewhat different product, to a population that has somewhat different expectations. But the end result is that the vast majority of Canadians get the vast majority of what they need the vast majority of the time. It'll be a good day when when Americans can hold their heads high and proudly make that same declaration.

Next week: More mythbusting on common conservative canards about efficiency, innovation, and competitiveness.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: healthcare, canada, universal healthcare

Sara Robinson is a twenty-year veteran of Silicon Valley, and is launching a second career as a strategic foresight analyst. When she's not studying change theories and reactionary movements, you can find her singing the alto part over at Orcinus. She lives in Vancouver, BC with her husband and two teenagers.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Thanks for a GREAT article
Posted by: bthespoon on Feb 5, 2008 3:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For political framing of the health care issue here in the states, I think we might need to call copying what works in the Canadian system and others "creating a uniquely American health care solution". It plays to our ego-centricity (which is huge).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Browse http://liberal.democratz.org Posted by: www.democratz.org
The evils of Canadian healthcare
Posted by: ciccio on Feb 5, 2008 3:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a number of personal experiences with this
horrible Canadian system of health care. A few years ago, I tripped, fell down the stairs, knocked out cold, woke a few hours later and rushed to the nearest hospital emergency. From the time I entered the emergency to till I got an MRI
was at least 10 minutes. After that was done, they
had the gall to bother me about my name, address,
next of kin and health insurance. My next experience was ,a few months ago, when I woke up,my left hand was lame. Again emergency, another 10 minute wait, it was diagnosed as nerve palsy, I was referred to a neurologist, I
had to wait 3 days to see one.

Last year was my 65th birthday, a few months
before I got a letter from the Ontario ministry of health, I now have to pay $100 per year plus
$7 per prescription for all my medication. That
is as long as I make more that $25,000 per year,
should I not, I would only have to pay $2 per
prescription. Most pharmacies advertise that they will vaive that fee. Now you know the horrid truth about "socialized medicine".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The evils of Canadian healthcare
Posted by: ciccio on Feb 5, 2008 3:34 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a number of personal experiences with this
horrible Canadian system of health care. A few years ago, I tripped, fell down the stairs, knocked out cold, woke a few hours later and rushed to the nearest hospital emergency. From the time I entered the emergency to till I got an MRI
was at least 10 minutes. After that was done, they
had the gall to bother me about my name, address,
next of kin and health insurance. My next experience was ,a few months ago, when I woke up,my left hand was lame. Again emergency, another 10 minute wait, it was diagnosed as nerve palsy, I was referred to a neurologist, I
had to wait 3 days to see one.

Last year was my 65th birthday, a few months
before I got a letter from the Ontario ministry of health, I now have to pay $100 per year plus
$7 per prescription for all my medication. That
is as long as I make more that $25,000 per year,
should I not, I would only have to pay $2 per
prescription. Most pharmacies advertise that they will vaive that fee. Now you know the horrid truth about "socialized medicine".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The evils of Canadian healthcare Posted by: laurel.jensen
Canadian Health Care Cut Off
Posted by: saminthemiddle on Feb 5, 2008 3:39 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, you missed a bogeyman: that the Canadian health care system cuts people with terminal illnesses off at a certain point w/o patient consent.

My common sense tells me it's false but I would like to hear it from a Canadian.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Canadian Health Care Cut Off Posted by: famouspipeliner
» Completely FALSE Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: Completely FALSE Posted by: mike1997
» RE: Completely FALSE Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: Cut Off/Lifetime Max on Medicare Posted by: carcinoid112
» RE:Oh! you mean Posted by: donl51
» RE: adendum Posted by: donl51
GREAT JOB!!
Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H on Feb 5, 2008 9:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for spelling out the clearcut rationality of Canadian healthcare...versus the profit-driven rationalizations of our Greed Culture drug-pushing system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Civilized Health Care !
Posted by: mmckinl on Feb 6, 2008 12:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sign me up !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Time To Ask For A Mandate
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 6, 2008 1:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The nominee and the candidates of the party should pledge to pass a Universal Healthcare Bill period. They should stand together and put their election on the line, asking the people for a mandate. That is the only way many will be able to resist the onslaught that will come from the lobbyists, astroturf groups and spinners that will come out of the woodwork.

I really don't see any other way. It's time the Democrats take a stand on this issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not true!
Posted by: ankhet on Feb 6, 2008 2:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author's statement that "Canadians pick their own doctors, just like Americans do" is not true. Canadians pick their own doctors and pharmacies, yes, but not as Americans do. Canadians are not forced to limit their choices to an HMO approved list set by their insurer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yup! Same as here! Posted by: xvictor
» RE: Not true! Posted by: babs
» RE: Not true! Posted by: donl51
» RE: Not true! Posted by: ankhet
» RE: Not true! Posted by: Annarisse
that's probably the way Mr. Obama is going to go
Posted by: eosrk on Feb 6, 2008 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He needs to be president like 7 years ago!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How dare Alternet deprive the rabid ReichWingers of ammo!!!
Posted by: xvictor on Feb 6, 2008 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They had consistently dissed the Canadian health care system as being socialist. They had also claimed many Canadians come here for medical care so it must not be that good. But I had always known better and hope we get that system up and running here!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Feb 6, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We must get past representative democracy.

Because it's obsolete.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» LOL Posted by: gellero
Happy Socialist
Posted by: Happysocialist on Feb 6, 2008 6:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No matter who is elected, American people must advance zero tolerance for the status quo. Insurance companies have no role other than providing enhancements to the system.
In turn public medicare should include legislation suporting public administration, universality, portability, accessibility and comprehensiveness. Half measures avail nothing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Happy Socialist Posted by: Spaceshipdefender
» RE: Happy Socialist Posted by: emmas
» RE: Happy Socialist Posted by: Spaceshipdefender
Are you telling me that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are liars?
Posted by: LeaveMeAlone on Feb 6, 2008 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both these patriots had Canadian citizens tell their listeners about the horrors of the pinko Canadian health system. Are you telling me it was all lies?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Medicare for all
Posted by: JSquercia on Feb 6, 2008 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The solution is so Obvious that it amazes me why even the Democrats have avoided it . It is sad to think that a TV show had this very same idea . Jimmy Smits in running for President on the West Wing prposed that during the shows final season .
Canada's system may be even BETTER than Medicare . I have a brother who had diabetes for 35 years which created enormous health issues . This past June he suffered a Stroke which left him paralyzed on one side . His kidney's failed and he is on 3 times a week Dialysis . In addition due to the poor blood circulation caused by the Diabetes he has lost both his legs . He is still in the hospital
The Hospital Bill alone even with Medicare is close to 2 MILLION dollars and that is without the surgeon's bills . Medicare ONLY pays for 150 days in the hospital . Had he left and gone to a Nursing Home for a day and then returned to the hospital he would have qualified for another 90 days of Medicaid coverage .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Medicare for all Posted by: donl51
The Single Payer Insurer...a great gubmit' role!!!
Posted by: xvictor on Feb 6, 2008 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In US doctor's offices, typically, there's the doctor, maybe a nurse, a medical secretary, and a billing staff. Billing and insurance processors take up a lot of overhead and plainly adds to the cost of medical care.

I'm not a fan of big government but this is a rare opportunity where government can do a job more efficiently and benefitting the greatest number of people.

I'm on board. When can we start?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I would still the Canadian health care
Posted by: steven w on Feb 6, 2008 7:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
over what we have in a heart beat!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Overall excellent, but two questions
Posted by: brunowe on Feb 6, 2008 8:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Third: The average American medical student graduates $140,000 in hock. The average Canadian doctor's debt is roughly half that.

Finally, Canadian doctors pay lower malpractice insurance fees. When paying for health care constitutes a one of a family's major expenses, expectations tend to run very high. A doctor's mistake not only damages the body; it may very well throw a middle-class family permanently into the ranks of the working poor, and render the victim uninsurable for life. With so much at stake, it's no wonder people are quick to rush to court for redress.

Canadians are far less likely to sue in the first place, since they're not having to absorb devastating financial losses in addition to any physical losses when something goes awry. The cost of the damaging treatment will be covered. So will the cost of fixing it.


The lower medical school costs seem to be something that we can't transition to the US, what effect will that have on a single-payer system in the US. Would increased student-aid to medical students (so they have less debt) be cost-effective?

Although future medical expenses wouldn't add to what is sued for, there is still lost income and a host of other claims. Given the generally less effective safety net that exists in this country overall, wouldn't those still be factors?

I think have "Medicare-for-all" in this country would be fine, I just had a couple of questions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks but Posted by: brunowe
2 things
Posted by: willyd1962 on Feb 6, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. I have done my math and if I pay 10 % more taxes, extra for a semiprivate room, $ 100 for one add on policy and $300 for a second add on policy to get what I have now it dosen't appear to be a savings of nothing for me and my family.

2. The canadian goverment put out an average wait list on the internet that I read several weeks ago. There where some really long waits for a lot of things. Many of them were not elective items, such as heart caths, stints and ballon surgerys. These can not wait most of the time.

I also would like to know if Canadians do actually live longer than Americans. That may well be true but I would like to know the fiqures.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 2 things Posted by: monkeywrench
» RE: 2 things Posted by: donl51
» RE: 2 things Posted by: puddytat
» RE: 2 things Posted by: Falang
» RE: 2 things Posted by: willyd1962
» RE: 2 things Posted by: Jas1317
» RE: 2 things Posted by: Annarisse
Well, thanks for the update, and kudos for being reasonably objective on a very religious topic...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Feb 6, 2008 9:13 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...to some of the bathed-in-the-blood Gimme's. Still, it begs the question of why a substantial number of the 85% of the population in the U.S that receives some form of health coverage would want to convert to (gamble on) a Canadian-ish style form of universal payer, single provider coverage. This is, after all, not Canada, and we tend to allocate our federal dollars elsewhere*.

Again, however, the reasonable level of objectivity on the topic was a breath of fresh air.

*See also, "perpetual wars to perform magical nation building".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Fractions Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Well thanks and priority spending Posted by: scootenat65
Q
Posted by: willyd1962 on Feb 6, 2008 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do know of an outfitter in Canada who came across the border 2 times for heart surgery. HE said it was because of the long waits in Canada and His common law wife told us it was also because he did'nt quilify because of his age. I am only telling you what this canadian couple told us. I do not know it to be truth though they have not been found to be liars before. and they did say this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Q Posted by: Prairie Waif
Here's a thought...
Posted by: yellow on Feb 6, 2008 9:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those who rail against big gubmint forget that we have universal legal assistance. That's right. Get into legal trouble and can't pay, the gubmint provides you with a public defender. Bad quality you say? There's myriad incentives for experienced lawyers from private law firms to provide pro bono assistence to the poor who face daunting legal challenges to their freedom in court. We all know how expensive lawyers are and our legal system is probably one of the costliest in the world. But our Constitution guarantees legal defense and representation. So we provide it as something to which everyone has an inalienable right. Too bad there is not the same pervasive attitude in America, that the rest of the world seems to have, about the inalienable right to health.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Except Pro Bono Legal Help Often Sucks Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Here's a thought... Posted by: Spaceshipdefender
Please read 'Stealing Our Future' by Sara Robinson
Posted by: redbridge on Feb 6, 2008 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Linking to the TomPaine site took me to another 2-part Sara Robinson piece titled 'Stealing Our Future', written in January 2008. I, in no way, qualify as a literary critic. But the word 'profound' works for me. Shame it wasn't posted here, but please take time(1/2 hour?) to review this work. It might serve as the handbook of tomorrow's progressive movement - it's THAT good...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Compare our health and military budgets
Posted by: billwald on Feb 6, 2008 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Canada can put vast sums percentage wise into health care because their military budget is minimum because The US would not tolerate any sort of attack on Canada.

(Not criticizing Canada. It is a fact of geography. I have 100% confidence in Canada as our friend)

I listen to CBC news. Every election involves arguments over the health care system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't let anyone tell you Canadian Health Care is Bad!
Posted by: jimsibley2003 on Feb 6, 2008 11:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few years ago at the young age of 46....I had a Brain Stem Stroke....3 months and probably half a million in expenses I got out of the hospital and received a bill for $100....$50 each for two ambulance rides.

The care was excellent....in Canada we have life saving care not life savings care

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great article . . .
Posted by: fork on Feb 6, 2008 12:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And now for a bit of nit-picking.
From #7:
"Also: pharmacists here dispense what the doctors tell them to dispense, the first time, without moralizing. I know. It's amazing."

I thought that pharmacists could refuse to dispense drugs like Plan B if they're "morally opposed", provided they refer to another pharmacist who will. I don't know what this means for women living in small, conservative towns with only one pharmacist.

And I don't know if this is up to date, but I also thought Plan B wasn't over the counter so much as behind the counter. This means a "consultation" and an additional fee for that "service". I'd call that moralizing.

From #9:
"Canadians are serious about not coming to work if you're contagious. . ."
I know lots of people who will come in to work sick. For those near the bottom of the ladder, it's because the employer does not provide paid sick leave. You no work, you no get paid, and for people barely making it at or near minimum wage, they simply can't afford to not come in. Up the ladder, I also know a few that will come in and infect others - some because they feel they're indispensible and "have" to come in, some because they take pride in saying they haven't missed a day of work in X years.

Still, great article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great article . . . Posted by: FriendlyFeminist
Consider Carefully
Posted by: 27raptor660 on Feb 6, 2008 1:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The single payer system is attractive but I do have reservations about government accountability. Here in Kalifornia, the legislature has sidestepped the state constitution and set up "boards" that make politicaly sensitive decisions, isolating the politicians from any culpability. It is easy for me to see one of these "boards" set up to handle healthcare decisions that leave large numbers of patients without a voice. I think, without careful consideration, we may trade one unmanageable beast for another.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Next time Hillary bashes the single payer system...
Posted by: radiomorning on Feb 6, 2008 1:36 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...ask yourself why? Why could this system not work in America when so many countries with fewer resources can do it?
The reason is that her plan and those of others will not end the HMO's stranglehold on the US health care system, a system that operates with the sole objective being profit for the insurers, and not care for the sick.
If America wants to take care of its sick, it must look at adopting a system of this type.
Any half-measures taken by Washington on this matter are only to appease the public, who are starting to catch a whiff of just what a heist this system is. Just because you are forced to buy into it, doesn't mean it will work better. We will still have HMO's denying treatment and families emptying their pockets for health care, too scared to use it because the premiums are already killing them financially. The system will not change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can't argue much with the article
Posted by: petekod on Feb 6, 2008 1:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just some thoughts on the article.

I've not experienced the US system of healthcare so I'm not in a position to critize but only to relate my experiences with the Canadian health care system.

In my lifetime I've had probably 6 Emergency room visits and never had more then a 30 minute wait. When I needed my gall bladder removed my Doctor asked my level of pain and asked how long did I think I could wait. Given that fatty foods trigger attacks and that I now had to eat healthy I said "as long as you want" and was given I think a P3 rating so I assumed I had months to wait. 2 weeks later I was in.

Other members of my family have had serious and ongoing medical needs that have required long hospital stays, but their needs have always been met.

There are wait lists for everything to be sure - here's the wait list for my province:
http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/waitlist/#
There are some long waits, and what the article doesn't really touch on - the lost wages and societal costs of people who are on some of these lists.

For my medical care I pay $58 a month, if I make less money I pay less.

There are problems with the system, just as any system would have but I wouldn't trade it for anything right now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

O Canada
Posted by: paddy_corbeil on Feb 6, 2008 2:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article. As a Canadian I can only second that complaints about health care is easily the SECOND biggest passs time in Canada. I should point out that Curling isn't our other national sport, Lacrosse is and Hockey and Health Bitching definitely both trump that.
Beyond that I would like to say that I love our system but as a fellow British Columbian I was a little surprised to see the author so positive about the treatment of the elderly and the homeless/disabled up here. The issues surrounding elder care in BC have been magnified with the quasi privatization moves by our jerk of a priemier Gordon Campbell (Oh yeah, I'm an NDP'er which is kind of like a REALLY left wing Democrat). Also, the concerns for treatment for the disabled are a big issue. Included in this I will put those that are mentally disabled and addicted to drugs. Living in Vancouver the writer must know of the awful conditions faced by drug users in Van's Lower East Side.
I encourage Americans to bring your system into line with ours, on the whole it is a great system, but healthcare is not the magic bullet for society's ills so it is perhaps wise to not tie too much of Canada's happiness and what not with our single payer system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: O Canada Posted by: Mrs. Robinson
War the bigger issue
Posted by: herbal on Feb 6, 2008 2:32 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Paul Krugman and most of the mainline press & media are trying to portray health insurance as the only difference between the corporatist Hillary and over conciliatory Obma. Obama accepted the ´pece branch´from Hillary fter the failue of Bill in his negative confrontations. Obama despertely needs to get agressive about his differences in war voting and distinguish himself from warmonger Hillary and her voting record. How dare her attack Obama´s anti war intent!

We internet hacks are only preaching to the choir at this point.

We need to mount a general strike at Hillary by writing to the editors of small and large newspapers in the states with upcoming primaries.

Write today, esp. with those who are in those states. Get them out today to avert a disaster of the Clinton alliance with Geo Bush Sr, Rupert Murdoch, CITI Bank, etc. etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is the issue about socialized medicine?
Posted by: scootenat65 on Feb 6, 2008 2:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You folks remember the old Fram commerical? "Pay me now or pay me later". Why is it that people do not seem to understand that paying for a single payer government administered medical plan is no different than paying for private corporate insurance? It is such a straight forward concept. You pay preimums to some corporation or taxes to the government. You pay one way or the other. The issue is what you don't pay for. Some CEO's $400 million dollar retirement plan or bonuses for people who deny claims to ensure profit targets, advertising, lobbying, buying politicians, and 20% per year increases.
Why would people want that in the name of private health care when they could get something better?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The difference a good health system makes
Posted by: ciccio on Feb 6, 2008 3:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the posters brought up the subject of life expectancy, here is the difference. According to the UN population studies Canada is ranked 13th,average expectancy 80.34 years, US 45th, 78 years.
A more damning indictment is the infant mortality rate 6.3 per 100,000 in the US vs.4.8 in Canada.
I am sure every one remembers the bird flu scare,the US govt. stockpiled the virus at a cost of $100 per dose. At the time the Canadian $ was about $.65 US. Out of curiosity I checked with my local pharmacy, one dose, with prescription fee was $ 48 Canadian.
On emergency depts. I should add one thing. You
first go to triage, if they think it is lfe threatening they rush you in. If it is a broken
bone, you can wait a few hours.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

statistics?
Posted by: gellero on Feb 6, 2008 6:38 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why don't you compare the life expectancy and infant mortality rate of comparable cohorts??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» the CIA knows all... Posted by: Coleman
Article is spot on, from another canadian
Posted by: hanex on Feb 6, 2008 7:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a Canadian, I have wanted to write an article on this subject for a long time. I am glad that I did not because I would not have wrote it as well as you have.

It really bugs me when I see Americans lie about our great health care system. Sure it has problems, but everything does. The truth is that one thing that most Canadians are proud of is our health care system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Stark & Scary “Us vs Them” Chart...
Posted by: The Old Hippie on Feb 6, 2008 10:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read Some More Here
Posted by: gellero on Feb 6, 2008 10:42 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» LOL..OK 'Universal' Posted by: gellero
» Another Moronic Comment Posted by: gellero
» RE: ead Some More Here Posted by: pyramid
You forgot to mention . . .
Posted by: delia on Feb 6, 2008 11:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that Canadians don't look to our top political leader to "unite" us. Sometimes we grumble about it, but we know that agreeing to take care of each other outweighs all the things that divide us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mammy blue
Posted by: Eezee on Feb 7, 2008 4:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interestingly too is that 80% of doctors in Saskatchewan and Manitoba are ex-South Africans who are been given better, safer lives in Canada and leaving 1 doctor to 1000 patients back in SA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Going to Cuba for bypass surgery
Posted by: lov2laf on Feb 7, 2008 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, great article. Based on the logic in your article, I am immediately cancelling my appointment for open heart surgery with world renown Dr. Blaustein in Miami and instead I am going to have the surgery in Havana by a Dr. Diaz.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

re:moralizing
Posted by: sendmoretigers on Feb 7, 2008 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in canada we do have a great many small and conservative towns bur our brand of conservative rarely comes close to the god-drenched conservative of which you speak, for the majority of canadians, other people's business is exactly that, we don't want or need our neighbours input on our personal affairs or want or need to intrude on theirs, after nearly forty years here, i've never heard of a situation like the one you're asking about occuring

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jerry Okamura
Posted by: Jerry Okamura on Feb 7, 2008 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The basic problem with any third party payment system is you cannot effectively control prices. About the only way you can do that is to have a complete government takeover of the healthcare industry. The reason you cannot effectively control prices, is simply because the user of the service is not the one paying for the service, so they do not care how much that care is going to cost. When the user of the service does not care, they will use the service, regardless of how much it cost.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some personal experience...as a Canadian
Posted by: davidg on Feb 7, 2008 1:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fortunately, I've had very little need for serious medical attention, but my son was in hospital for 3 months...and I never got a bill. I pay taxes and it costs me but my fiscal quality of life was not affected in its flow in the least.

5 years ago I had pneumonia and was off work for 3 wks. Amost hospitalized, but because I was so well taken care by my loved one, the doctor granted my wish and didn't keep me in; However, after many trips and bronchoscopies and pulmonary tests and visits etc in day sessions...I never got a bill. Excellent care.

I have been going to as many as 5 doctors at a time...all by my choice, no government intervention, for different concerns. All excellent professionals.

But yes, Canadians complain about the weaknesses in the system which could be improved with better management and funding, but that's on top of a solid medical infrastructure that supports the whole population. We would improve it, but we wouldn't dump it.

I think we should all study the Europeans and see what they do best...and copy, copy, copy...whatever works. After all, so much was taken from the European philosophes to write the American constitution and nobody feels reduced by that.

It seems most of the folks writing here agree that the Kucinich hope for universal access is the real one. The Health Insurance companies are totally unnecessary parasitic rapacious toll takers at a gate that blocks the citizen from ready access until their shareholders are satisfied. Get rid of them. They are blood suckers and will let you die. And don't wait for the good Sanjay Gupta to save you. He's a corporatist fake.

But, you have to demand it and force the media to ask the right questions. And by the way,where do you think the good doctors who oppose it have their money? Right, I don't know but I am suspicious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Solution is Simple
Posted by: gary_7vn on Feb 8, 2008 8:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Americans want better health care all you have to do is invade Canada, force the doctors to work as slaves and take the oil. Believe me the Canadian people will welcome you with Maple Sugar treats and flowers, unless you invade in winter, in which case any brave American soldier can have my sister.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My Experiences in Kanada
Posted by: gary_7vn on Feb 8, 2008 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last summer my 90 year old dad got a bowel blockage, was in great pain, and would have died without treatment.

We took an ambulance to the hospital, (the ambulance took 3-4 minutest to arrive). Once there Dad spent about an hour on a stretcher, after being examined within minutes, he was then taken to a triage area where he had his own bed, separated by curtains from the other patients. They were busy that night and he did not get his own room for about 12 hours. After being admitted he stayed for 10 days in a clean room and got excellent care and attention. He is fine now, and is bowling again. His bill was $150 for the ambulance, but that was picked up by the Dept. of Veteran's affairs as he is a WWII vet. Other than that it was totally free.

My experience is more limited. In 2000 I had a horrendous toothache. I went to emergency and had to wait 6 hours before finally seeing 2 Doctors, they interviewed me for a good 15 minutes before prescribing codeine.

When I want to see my own Doctor, I usually get in in a day or two. I have had her for 15 years, and she is excellent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Michael Moore said it all
Posted by: Julian on Feb 9, 2008 11:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone who hasn't seen "Sicko" should do so. True, Moore is an artist not a journo so he is apt to spin things a little, and I know he airbrushed the UK National Health Scheme (NHS) a bit. But I saw him interviewed in England while I was there and the BBC bloke pressed him on deficiencies in NHS not mentioned by Moore, and Moore responded that the scheme was really struggling since Thatcher gutted Britain's welfare sector and New "Labour" had not restored the balance. However I saw NHS in action at Derriford in Plymouth, one of the UK's biggest hospitals, and apart from delays due to short staff it was good enough to make any working or middle class American's mouth water. The film also has a lot to say about Canada (again probably airbrushed a little). The bigt eye opener is Cuba – a poor country that leaves America for dead. This is socialised medicine – no wonder America hates Castro.

Relevant to the American elections is the performance of Hillary Clinton. Originally during the Clinton presidency she led a move to achieve universal health care but later she sold out to Big Pharma. Much more important than navel-gazinhg over gender. See “Sicko” for the details.

Anyone who can get hold of a DVD of this film (was one made?) would be well advised to share it far and wide by every means fair or foul.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sources?
Posted by: mregensberg on Feb 10, 2008 5:11 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I swear to god, as a formal conservative regarding health care, if someone could get me the credible sources for these numbers in the article, I'll advocate for "socialized health care" for the rest of my life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sources? Posted by: mregensberg
» RE: Sources? Posted by: huricane
» RE: Sources? addendum Posted by: huricane
Fantastic article on Canada's Health Care - READ it you'll LIKE it.
Posted by: mothertucker on Feb 12, 2008 2:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Enjoyed reading this immensely. Finally... a factual dissertation to effectively counter all the lies of right-wing extremists either IN the pocket of the insurance companies, or, too damn stupid to vote for what is in their best interest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you!
Posted by: mysanal on Feb 12, 2008 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm so glad to see your name on my screen again Sara! Thank you for dispelling the BS the "Right" keeps throwing at us!

I hope all is going well with you and your family.

Dee/Mysa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement