healthcare in Canada vs US

Back when the Clintons tried to change the system in the US, the other big misconception that was circulated, dare I say propagandized by conservative opponents, was that a more socialized system would take away peoples choices w/r/t doctors and care. That was a real crock. You have far more choices in that regard in Canada because you don't have to worry about whether or not your plan is accepted by the doctor of your choice - they're all covered under the same system.Here in the US, under the phony guise of 'private competition' among health care insurers, we have created a bloated, self-serving, parasitic bureacracy of health insurance companies that spends more money trying to shift repsonsibility for care to others by denying claims than it does actually paying for care.This overly-inflated cost of health insurance is one of the most negative economic factors nationally stifling job creation. If I want to hire someone (other than a student), even on temporary grant money, I need to come up with $1.33 for every $1.00 I will actually pay them, and 85% of that 33 cents is for their health benefits. So every time I write a grant proposal, I have to budget major money for paying these parasites. My own salary package puts *thousands* into their coffers every year (I am almost NEVER sick), but you can be sure if I ever need to see a doctor, instead of merely paying the doctor, they pay some nit-picking bureaucrat to go over the claim line by line to see what they can poosibly avoid paying. The conservatives in power will never allow this system to change because, guess what, far too many of them are heavily invested in the gold mine of 'managed care', something that should be called 'mis-managed care'.

I agree. Ask those 'complainers' if they would like to swap for the US system, I venture to say they would all say no if they have had any experience with it.I know of Can-US couples who moved back to Canada to lower-paying jobs simply because of health problems they couldn't afford to deal with in the US. My wife is American and I have built my career in the US, but we plan to retire in Canada. It's a MUCH better country to grow old in because it makes care of its own people a higher priority than police-forcing the world.

No, but your employer is. Health insurance premiums for employers have become a hidden tax on labor with no public benefits deriving from them, as you point out. Don't blame the doctors - its the greed of the health insurance companies trying to maximize profits. We have a 'medicine for profit' health care system.

That's for damn sure.
The ads they ran showing old people worried about 'government choosing their doctors for them' were all paid for by the private health insurance and pharmaceutical companies.And yet now old Newt is pals with Hilary, suggesting she would make a good presidential candidate in 2008.
Talk about a 'flip-flopper' ! Or maybe he has a covert agenda in believing the Democrats cannot win with a female candidate?

No, more likely because it's easier than trying to squeeze it out of *insurance companies*.As I mentioned below, one of the primary reasons the US system is soooo costly and soooo wasteful is because of all the money and effort spent by insurance companies trying to deny claims and shift the burden of responsibility onto some one else. When there is only one state-run insurance program this can't happen, simply because there is no one else on to whom the burden of responsibility can be shifted.This is the scenario of corporate greed that triggers the inhuman treatment of patients documented below by Yaro and others. It seems like many claims are simply rejected out of hand, without any real grounds, on the mere hope that a large proportion of people will not contest the decision.For example, when my wife was bitten by a cat in a mobile home park in Florida and ended up with a serious infection in her arm, Blue Cross initially rejected her claim for coverage on the grounds that it "appeared to be a work-related injury" (!!!??). It appears they reviewed her employment status and perceived the opportunity to possibly shift responsibility for coverage to Workman's Compensation. Even when you win your fight over these decisions, both sides have to spend a lot of money (= time and effort) in the dispute, wasting valuable resources that could have gone toward actual care of the patient.(added in edit) I should have mentioned that private health insurance companies also increase costs for the actual care providers, the doctors themselves. Many now have to retain fulltime, professional assistance just to minimize their own rates of claims rejection.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-23-2005 12:19 PM

Yes, of course. I was agreeing with you. I just meant that Canadian doctors would never trade their system for the US one any more than the patients would.

Yes, you touch on the contrasting ideologies of Canadian versus American societies. You just can't 'sell' the same ideologies down here as you can up there - even to people who would seemingly benefit the most from them like the 'trailer-park Republicans'. Seemingly there is this deep distrust of government that extends to its management of health care (although they have never had that reference point), not to mention that the party that capitalizes most on this distrust is the one that creates the most government !So in Canada, people seemingly expect more social responsibility from their government, forcing them to maintain a health care system, whereas down here the very idea is poo-pooed as pinko-socialism. Yes, I remember being offended by this sentiment when I lived in Canada and paid taxes there. I was always in favor of modest user fees to ensure responsible use of health services. But once you get to 'income tests' it becomes a delicate balancing act. Sure the rich should pay more for coverage, but once you are old, the system rewards those who have never saved a dime and penalizes those who have saved all their lives, like with the Social Security 'clawback'.

Don't most provinces require that everyone pay some premiums for coverage (scaled to income), unless you are below the poverty line?So what if some premium increases become necessary to maintain the integrity of the system ? A lot of Canadians consider *any* user fee to be the 'thin end of the wedge', but medical costs are increasing. Shouldn't people who use the system the most pay a bit more ?
The other way to state that is to ask, shouldn't there be some incentives for individual responsibility for health maintenance ?
Kind of like cigarettes are taxed so the government can recover some of the costs of caring for smokers ?

I can sincerely relate on some levels.
I pay property taxes, mostly for education, in a state where my children are not educated (thankfully !). It would be more efficient, certainly, (providing you could convince your tax base to support it) but you have to admit that, without some incentives for conservation, the system could quickly become economically unsustainable. That was the point of my question.
If you have a good health care system worth preserving, surely you would be willing to compromise a little in order to ensure its sustainability? And that is not solid logic ?
Do you know how many hypochondriacs there are out there ?
What is wrong with a nominal fee, say 10 bucks, to encourage discretion among a user group that shares a 'free' resource provided at tax-payer largesse, equally to all, regardless of their relative contribution ?But I guess you're right. I probably wouldn't fly in Saskatchewan, the birthplace of Canadian medicare. (OK - that's my guess).