[PukeGreen]

That WHO ranking of health care in different countries is almost a decade old (2000) and has since been discontinued because they admit it's too hard to compare. And anyway, the US ranked 37th in that list, so apparently private for-profit health services do not guarantee better results. There are many factors. And having visited Morocco, which ranks above Canada in that list, I have to say I'd take my chances with our hospitals any day of the week.

For a more up-to-date and meaningful ranking, you can look at this 2009 CIA list of average life expectancies around the world, which ranks Canada 6th out of 223 countries (and the US 34th).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Add to that various other reports, like this one, that consistently show that the US spends approximately twice as much per person on healthcare as Canada:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/us-health-spending-breaks-from-the-pack/

So, in the US at least, private free-market health care has led to twice as much health care spending with lower average life expectancies. Doesn't sound like something we want to copy, really.

Canada's system is far from perfect, but creating a two tier system that risks benefiting only a few doesn't seem like the solution we need. Let's invest in making sure everyone in the country gets the best health care possible. By almost all accounts we are near the top of the pack; clearly we are doing more right than wrong.

 

[GraphicMatt]

[D]oes someone making $28k really think they are entitled to be provided the same services that someone making $280k can afford to buy? All that does is drag everyone down to a lower level.

Wait, what? Seriously? This isn't a luxury like a vacation or a car. This is healthcare. Everyone is entitled to good care regardless of income.

 

[urbanboom]

[D]oes someone making $28k really think they are entitled to be provided the same care that someone making $280k can afford to buy?

This would make an excellent sig. for someone. Any takers?

 

[Marko]

Wait, what? Seriously? This isn't a luxury like a vacation or a car. This is healthcare. Everyone is entitled to good care regardless of income.

I disagree.

I never said the $28 person shouldn't get 'good care' - I said that the notion that they are entitled to the same care that someone is willing to pay extra for is not reasonable.

I agree and support the desire to have a public system that ensures everyone has access to emergency care and that many of the more 'basic' needs fully covered as part of our "social safety net" - but I do not agree that everyone is entitled to premium care. If you're hit by a car and suffer broken legs and internal bleeding, there is no question that you will be taken care of - but the notion that everyone is equally entitled to a 3 day stay or private rooms or in-home (that a more wealthy person could choose to pay for) is preposterous.

By making everyone entitle to 'good care' (your words) the government has no choice but to lower that bar a great deal in order to make it feasible. It guarantees shorter stays, fewer covered services and fewer 'options' available in terms of drugs and follow up care. It forces more people into longer line ups and makes it more difficult to invest into new facilities and equipment.

I you take care of the doctor/nurse shortage (a separate issue, remember) - then allowing people willing to may more to support private clinics, etc, that adds to the overall availability of care to everyone. It shortens wait times and it finances investment into facilities and equipment.

There should be a baseline of public care that should be available to any Canadian citizen, and I think it could be provided by a mixture of public and private facilities while being covered by the government that we pay taxes to cover... but I also think that those with the means should be able to buy better care if they so wish (and often times already do). There should be a mechanism to ensure fair public access but once the backlogs are gone (thanks to new facilities and extra equipment), it will be less of an issue since everyone would be getting more speedy care. MRIs within a week, etc...

 

[nfitz]

Which would be the British system; how do life expectancies and other stats for Britain compare to Canada?

 

[Brandon716]

I guess then they send you to a mental hospital - lucky for me it showed the damage to the cartilage quite well.

I didn't notice that you had gotten the results...

 

[Marko]

Which would be the British system; how do life expectancies and other stats for Britain compare to Canada?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Canada: 81.23
UK : 79.01

I really don't think life expectancy is that great a measure of health care, as all kinds of other factors influence those numbers - such as one country with more soldier deaths, murder rate, percentage of smokers, pollution, etc...

The 2 year difference between Canada and the UK could be entirely due to twice as many people living in a landmass 1/10 the size - with much poorer air quality due to closer proximity to highways, industry, etc... not to mention a higher percentage of smokers (IIRC).

It's a difficult thing to measure with so many variables - but I don't think that an automatic rejection of any additional private facilities or care helps the debate.

 

[nfitz]

Sure, other stats would be more useful.

Ancedotally, I've heard a lot more moaning in the UK about problems with National Health, etc., than I've ever heard in Canada. And some of the facilities there are amazingly primitive ... I had no idea that any G8 country still used old-fashioned wards with 20 people to a room until I saw it in England!

On the other hand, things seem to have improved there in the last few decades, and at the same time worsened here ... and there it really is universal ... as a visitor I've tried to pay for doctors visits there, knowing it is covered by my insurance, but without success, as coverage was so universal that it even covered visitors to the country.

 

[Brandon716]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Canada: 81.23
UK : 79.01

I really don't think life expectancy is that great a measure of health care, as all kinds of other factors influence those numbers - such as one country with more soldier deaths, murder rate, percentage of smokers, pollution, etc...

The 2 year difference between Canada and the UK could be entirely due to twice as many people living in a landmass 1/10 the size - with much poorer air quality due to closer proximity to highways, industry, etc... not to mention a higher percentage of smokers (IIRC).

It's a difficult thing to measure with so many variables - but I don't think that an automatic rejection of any additional private facilities or care helps the debate.

Deaths of soldiers are not included in the US CDC's mortality rate statistical data and I highly doubt that StatsCan or the UK's equivalent use those stats either.

 

[waterloowarrior]

I don't think anyone wants us to move to an American model... We should be looking at what some of the European countries are doing

 

[Marko]

I don't think anyone wants us to move to an American model... We should be looking at what some of the European countries are doing

Perfect example of the problems facing this discussion.

No one is proposing us using an American model. No one.

Emulating what some European countries are doing would in fact be adding a mix of privately delivered health care, but in Canada, the mere mention of the word 'private' gets you "Private bad! American Style! Boogah Boogah!!"

 

[kettal]

Too many Canadians fail to acknowledge that there is a world outside of North America.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I'd be much more open to a European-model two-tier healthcare system if 90% of our population didn't live within spitting distance of the developed world's only fully for-profit healthcare system.

Our proximity to the US makes our situation unique.

 

[kettal]

What does proximity have to do with anything?

 

[Brandon716]

I guess then they send you to a mental hospital - lucky for me it showed the damage to the cartilage quite well.

I forgot to ask you, couldn't you have gotten a second opinion on the MRI from another doctor in Canada instead of coming to Buffalo? This is something that baffles me about the different health experiences I've heard, you hear one person say they got second opinions and/or complained about the pain and got the MRI done right away within weeks because their doctor made a decision to bump it up, then you have other stories where you were asked to wait 8 months... Like your experience. The Canadian health experience is strongly linked to the fact if you've found a good primary care physician, as they can order things much more quickly if you press them and let them know you are in pain. This is part of why having a primary care physician in Canada is so necessary, and why people expect one.

South of the border you can technically get an MRI if you want to pay for it within a short period of time, but if you don't have health insurance or good health insurance and can't pay for a doctor to review your case then you can't do anything with the MRI you purchase. Or you can't get proper treatment or surgery even if you can afford a basic doctor visit and MRI. Its a bizarre situation, knowing you have torn cartilage (or whatever ailment it may be) and not being able to have a surgery to fix it unless you have enough out of pocket money (few do) or have insurance willing to pay. Not all insurance is willing to pay, especially for small business and individual policies. How ironic...