Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • 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.

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

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.


Digg!

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

 

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