For those who have been following the machinations of the USAmerican health care "industry" to stave off public health care reforms, and who may have heard some horror stories about how poorly served Canadians are by our public health care system, you might be interested in reading this article, with associated links & comments:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/07/21/shona-homes-health-care.html
I'm sure some of you have seen this (conservative funded) spot, which forecasts dire consequences if the USA were to introduce "Canadian style" publicly administered health care. The woman in this story claims to have solid evidence of how horrible our system is, & how much better the current USAmerican system is.
While I'll be the first to agree that our system isn't perfect, at least we don't have a bunch of corporate bottom line feeders running (ruining?) our health care system. Although we need to keep a close eye on our current neoCon federal administration, so that we won't have them in future. Most of us are hoping that the arguments against public health care (which I remember from when I was growing up) have been concluded, in favour of the public, and health care. That element of our social safety net is still in place. True, improvements could be made. That's true of any system, isn't it?
There is some 2-tier medicine here already. For example, dentistry, unless it requires hospitalization, is a private-care system. Some of us are fortunate to have access to inexpensive dental insurance (note here that the dental plan insurers sure act a lot like HMOs when it comes to in-office dental surgery, giving us due warning of what that system would be like if implemented for medical as well).
Most of us carry supplementary medical insurance, but that's to give us a higher level of hospitalization (semi-private or private room) plus cover about 80% of our prescription costs & appliances such as glasses & hearing aids. And since we have a lot of generic pharmaceuticals (most made by the original pharma group but packaged by the generics, so of equivalent quality) we aren't being gouged for drug costs either. I'd like to point out here that supplementary medical plans neither cost a fortune nor are based on denial of service without a lengthy fight. The term "pre-existing condition" is essentially unknown here. We find it ludicrous that the very fact of becoming sick may lead to you being denied reimbursement by your insurer, and can't comprehend why there hasn't been an effective grass-roots rebellion in the USA against such corporate thievery.
I'm personally irked by some of the restrictions on legitimate therapies under our system, like the classification of joint replacement as an "elective" procedure (obviously the plan's administrators have never suffered extreme joint pain), but the fact is that the surgery wait times are usually not extreme for non-life-threatening illnesses. However, I'm quite willing to believe that there are others in greater need than myself. We do need more & better hospital facilities. But at least we're all triaged under the same system when it comes to hospital care.
The woman in the story is by no means unique. Just as in the USA, those who have or can find the money to get their treament faster may choose to do so, but generally speaking they do so off-shore, because Canada's sytem isn't governed so much by the almighty dollar as it is by need. True, mistakes do happen, and lives are lost unnecessarily. However, not as frequently as in a system where so many are denied even basic care because of inability to pay.
Perhaps we don't have all the latest & greatest bells & whistles when it comes to surgeries or therapies, either. However, you're unlikely to undergo either an experimental or inappropriate treatment here just because you can pay for it. Can the same be said in the USA?
If the USAmerican HMO system is so great, why do we pay more than twice as much for travel medical insurance when visiting the USA than when I go anywhere else in the world? And why does nobody I know feel comfortable going across the Canada-USA border for as much as 5 minutes without such insurance?
I'm sure nobody would be surprised to learn that the woman in the story was handsomely reimbursed by her interviewers...say, to the tune of USD 100K? Plus a bit for her trouble, of course, & to salve her conscience, if she has one.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
WhatsMe
Charles Bivona
Jim Taggart
Shiral
scanner
vilgessuola
Salon.com
Comments
Do you believe that Ms. Homes should have had to wait so long to see a specialist? It wasn't exactly a wait and see kind of issue she had.
With all it's warts, the American system would not have made her wait so long for such a serioius problem.
Face it, Blackflon, Canadians believe in a social safety net, & are by & large willing to pay taxes to support it. Tax allergy is one of the USA's most virulent & worrying diseases. We can only hope it doesn't spread too far.
Frankly, I think Ms. HoLmes situation was overstated & distorted by the obvious special interests at work trying to derail healthcare reform. Oh, & along with a lot of my co-commenters on the article I quoted above, it would be very interesting to learn her political bent, since we have our own neoCons currently trying their best to sell off public assets & put as many public services as possible on a privately-funded-for-those-who-have-means basis. In my view they couldn't do worse for health care, since it's pretty clear that USAmerican HMO's have more warts than system. Unless it's a system of bilking their policy holders.
Based on her assertion alone, I might also question whether the treatment was actually essential. It sounds an awful lot like the "brain cloud" out of Joe vs the Volcano. However, since a reputable organization like the Mayo clinic went through with it, I assume there was some merit. As for the waiting time, I'd want to see some hard evidence on that, not just a slanted lobby position.
Personally, I see this as no more than another "blame the Canadians because their system is being held up as a model" scenario, by DC lobbyists who are afraid they'll lose their cushy stipends.
But, thanks anyway for commenting. And no, I don't vote Conservative...how did you guess?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8540107
Pretty good summation, I thought.
For a while there was pressure from the U.S. for us to abandon our health system because it gave us an "unfair advantage" and we could sell our softwood cheaper (or something). The better idea is for Americans to adopt a sensible universal health system (preferably one that doesn't enrich insurance companies, who do nothing positive, only take money out that could be used directly for health care). One of the arguments Obama has been making is that having a healthy work force, one not worrying about catastrophic health problems with accompanying bankruptcy, will make America more competitive. Since everything's about money, perhaps the broader financial picture will eventually override the special-interest insurance companies.
The notion of appealing to the bottom line feeders with a monetary argument must have occurred to someone before now? It does sound like a good tactic, though.
I've long been disgusted with USAmerican attempts to impose their political imperatives on Canada. Everything from the health care pressure you cite to arming border guards & putting armed patrols on commercial aircraft. Bad enough we're an economic colony, without being dictated to on internal matters that are none of their business. But, I digress. And I hasten to add that obviously not all USAmericans are like that, since almost 50% (perhaps more than 50%) didn't vote Republican in either 2000 or 2004.
The plain fact is that the corporate-military-neocon cabal is attempting to roll back history to feudalism. And, in the USA at least, they're doing a bang-up job. Health care may just be the tip of this iceberg, but it's a glaring open sore that needs more than a bandaid.