• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Canadian Healthcare system in shambles . . .

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Well I'm not the one who said, the guy who designed it said it!

Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits
By DAVID GRATZER | Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:30 PM PT
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299282509335931

As this presidential campaign continues, the candidates' comments about health care will continue to include stories of their own experiences and anecdotes of people across the country: the uninsured woman in Ohio, the diabetic in Detroit, the overworked doctor in Orlando, to name a few.

But no one will mention Claude Castonguay — perhaps not surprising because this statesman isn't an American and hasn't held office in over three decades.
Castonguay's evolving view of Canadian health care, however, should weigh heavily on how the candidates think about the issue in this country.​
Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.
Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance.

In America, these ideas may not sound shocking. But in Canada, where the private sector has been shunned for decades, these are extraordinary views, especially coming from Castonguay. It's as if John Maynard Keynes, resting on his British death bed in 1946, had declared that his faith in government interventionism was misplaced.

What would drive a man like Castonguay to reconsider his long-held beliefs? Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor.
Years ago, Canadians touted their health care system as the best in the world; today, Canadian health care stands in ruinous shape.​
Sick with ovarian cancer, Sylvia de Vires, an Ontario woman afflicted with a 13-inch, fluid-filled tumor weighing 40 pounds, was unable to get timely care in Canada. She crossed the American border to Pontiac, Mich., where a surgeon removed the tumor, estimating she could not have lived longer than a few weeks more.

The Canadian government pays for U.S. medical care in some circumstances, but it declined to do so in de Vires' case for a bureaucratically perfect, but inhumane, reason: She hadn't properly filled out a form. At death's door, de Vires should have done her paperwork better.

De Vires is far from unusual in seeking medical treatment in the U.S. Even Canadian government officials send patients across the border, increasingly looking to American medicine to deal with their overload of patients and chronic shortage of care.

Since the spring of 2006, Ontario's government has sent at least 164 patients to New York and Michigan for neurosurgery emergencies — defined by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain." Other provinces have followed Ontario's example.
Canada isn't the only country facing a government health care crisis. Britain's system, once the postwar inspiration for many Western countries, is similarly plagued. Both countries trail the U.S. in five-year cancer survival rates, transplantation outcomes and other measures.

The problem is that government bureaucrats simply can't centrally plan their way to better health care.
A typical example: The Ministry of Health declared that British patients should get ER care within four hours. The result? At some hospitals, seriously ill patients are kept in ambulances for hours so as not to run afoul of the regulation; at other hospitals, patients are admitted to inappropriate wards.

Declarations can't solve staffing shortages and the other rationing of care that occurs in government-run systems.

Polls show Americans are desperately unhappy with their system and a government solution grows in popularity. Neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain is explicitly pushing for single-payer health care, as the Canadian system is known in America.

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program," Obama said back in the 1990s. Last year, Obama told the New Yorker that "if you're starting from scratch, then a single-payer system probably makes sense."

As for the Republicans, simply criticizing Democratic health care proposals will not suffice — it's not 1994 anymore. And, while McCain's health care proposals hold promise of putting families in charge of their health care and perhaps even taming costs, McCain, at least so far, doesn't seem terribly interested in discussing health care on the campaign trail.

However the candidates choose to proceed, Americans should know that one of the founding fathers of Canada's government-run health care system has turned against his own creation. If Claude Castonguay is abandoning ship, why should Americans bother climbing on board?​
 

mak2

Active member
You really have to look at what you compare. 5 year cancer survival rate can be an important measure or not, it depends on which cancers are measured. The transplantation rates involve such a small minority of patients mentioning it speaks to the possliblity of spinning the items compared. Compare other items, like life expectancy and one year infant survival rate, bet the results are a lot different. Though I have not yet looked I am betting from the way the article is written it is from a very right wing source.
 

mak2

Active member
I jsut looked at your souce. Even you cannot say it isnot a right wing pub. It is so right wing Ann Coulter is kinda a liberal to them.:mrgreen:
 

daedong

New member
Canada does not seem to have the best system, so why do you keep bringing it up? In my opinion the best systems are two tier. While that may sound like one system for the rich and one for the poor and probably is, it is the cheapest and most efficient way to have heath care for all. Remember this, there is no such thing as a perfect system.
I cannot see for the life of me how you could morally support a system that can send people to bankruptcy, or deny cover because of a pre-existing condition.

I have read a lot about the USA health system and to me it stinks morally, for a nation that has so much wealth!
 

daedong

New member
You really have to look at what you compare. 5 year cancer survival rate can be an important measure or not, it depends on which cancers are measured. The transplantation rates involve such a small minority of patients mentioning it speaks to the possliblity of spinning the items compared. Compare other items, like life expectancy and one year infant survival rate, bet the results are a lot different. Though I have not yet looked I am betting from the way the article is written it is from a very right wing source.

Don't be so logical as to look at facts, facts do not make for idealogical arguments.:yum:
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I jsut looked at your souce. Even you cannot say it isnot a right wing pub. It is so right wing Ann Coulter is kinda a liberal to them.:mrgreen:

The source that I pulled it from doesn't change the message from the man who designed the system and said it is broken. You are killing the messenger and ignoring the message.
 

fogtender

Now a Published Author
Site Supporter
I have a rather odd question for those that are big supporters of a National Health Care System, verses what the U.S. has now.

Why does it "Seem" like the ones that want the system the most, are the ones that claim they don't believe in "God", any God in general for that matter.

I plan on living a life as healthy as I can for the time I am here, in the event that I am struck down and can't be healed by the system we have, I feel that I will move on to another "Place" in due time. I am not afraid of the "Places" I might go to, just have to wait my time I guess.

The people that want the National Health Care system the most, seem that they are afraid of life when it comes to a close and "Seem" to figure that it will keep them here a bit longer if it has the power of the National Health Care system behind it.

Just something that I was talking over with a friend and I never had given it much thought before he said something about it, and I would like to hear from the supporters of the National Health Care system VS how they believe in God, or not.
 

daedong

New member
There is no connection between National health and religion, none what so ever.
Bizarre, concept! One of the reasons people are religious is that they fear death.

But lets take your argument and analyze it for a minute. Non religious people fear death so they want a heath care system, on the other hand a religious person does not desire health care as they are willing to meet their maker so to speak. Looking closely at this analogy one must conclude that you think a national health care system is superior.


My father was the strongest believer of state health care, to the point that he made me look like a far right winger, And they didn't come any more religious than him.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAxrcSxDcbQ"]YouTube - Should Atheists Fear Death[/ame]
 

thcri

Gone But Not Forgotten
But lets take your argument and analyze it for a minute. Non religious people fear death so they want a heath care system, on the other hand a religious person does not desire health care as they are willing to meet their maker so to speak. Looking closely at this analogy one must conclude that you think a national health care system is superior.


Interesting thought. But could it be possible that religious people accept/take what God has given them. They trust in God and are not looking for hand outs? If I can't afford health insurance that is what it is. But maybe we are basically saying the same thing here?

But I will add on thing, the people that want universal coverage are complaining now because it is not here, once it is here I am willing to bet they will complain because of how it is ran or what they get out of it.


murph
 

mak2

Active member
I have a rather odd question for those that are big supporters of a National Health Care System, verses what the U.S. has now.

Why does it "Seem" like the ones that want the system the most, are the ones that claim they don't believe in "God", any God in general for that matter.

I plan on living a life as healthy as I can for the time I am here, in the event that I am struck down and can't be healed by the system we have, I feel that I will move on to another "Place" in due time. I am not afraid of the "Places" I might go to, just have to wait my time I guess.

The people that want the National Health Care system the most, seem that they are afraid of life when it comes to a close and "Seem" to figure that it will keep them here a bit longer if it has the power of the National Health Care system behind it.

Just something that I was talking over with a friend and I never had given it much thought before he said something about it, and I would like to hear from the supporters of the National Health Care system VS how they believe in God, or not.

I beleive in God and in fact am Christian, I just have a little trouble with my denomination right now, (UCC like Reverend Wright and Obama). I think the concept of Universal Health care is indeed consistant with Christian concpets. I think your connection is due to Godless democrats backing UHC and the right wing, who are againist it include the subgroup of evangelical Christians. I wish people looked at each issue and decide what they think instead of always taking the party line.
 

mak2

Active member
The source that I pulled it from doesn't change the message from the man who designed the system and said it is broken. You are killing the messenger and ignoring the message.

You have to be really picky about what variables you compare when doing a study. The variables mentioned in this article are not signigicant to the overall picture of a national healthcare system. I know you are not a bad guy, why do you find it acceptable to have millions of people uninsured and cannot get healthcare until very sick, then they (er we) contiribute to the incredible profits of the health care system. And the money still comes from me and you. I still contend you have national healthcare now, just the most inefficent possible.
 

Av8r3400

Gone Flyin'
So you think the federal government, administrators of things like the VA, social security and the IRS will do better??? :rolf2:

This will be a huge bloated bureaucracy that will be severely abused almost immediately. IE there will be no consequences to everyone going to the doctor every time they have a booger in their nose. Leading to lines and waiting just like Canada and the UK.

The true solution to health care reform in America is not free (misnomer!) coverage for all, but liability reform to bring costs down then let the free market and capitalism do their thing.

(Never happen, too many lawyers in congress and winy people with their hand out for a freebee on the "rich people's" tab.)
 

mak2

Active member
So you think the federal government, administrators of things like the VA, social security and the IRS will do better??? :rolf2:

In short, yes. I would perfer incompetence and bureaucracy to greed. But the incompetence and bureauracy are not the factors you think they are. Suppoedly docotors spend 40-60% of your fees for an office visit on administrative fees (I dont believe it). Yea, sounds like a great system. And what the hell is worng with the VA?

This will be a huge bloated bureaucracy that will be severely abused almost immediately. IE there will be no consequences to everyone going to the doctor every time they have a booger in their nose. Leading to lines and waiting just like Canada and the UK.

I find it hard to believe there will be more abuse than there is now. Lines and waiting, I have great insurance and my wife took my kid to a private hospital for an xray becasue he sprained his ankle a week ago. It took all afternoon. Then she had to drive to another profit center for an Xray. I cant wait to see how much it all cost for a sprained ankle. My wife had to take him back for a f/u with some fancy ortho doc yesterday, the sewlling was even gone and remember it was not broke, but like I said we have great insurance, another specialist appt, absolutely no reason for the appt. Oh yea, a computer called the night before the follow up, reminded us what time to be there and to be sure to bring your insuracne information.

The true solution to health care reform in America is not free (misnomer!) coverage for all, but liability reform to bring costs down then let the free market and capitalism do their thing.

Please stop saying free, it really does not make us proponets of UHC sound dumb, but you. everyone who does not like UHC says free over and over, O I think i heard Rush say it too, wonder where it came from? I might be up for a truly free market healthcare system but try to remember waht that woudl really mean. no health insurace, you pay cash every time, and if Granny cant pay, she dies. goodness UHC sucks.

(Never happen, too many lawyers in congress and winy people with their hand out for a freebee on the "rich people's" tab.)

Health care is on our tab now, you just insist on making doctors, insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals oh yea and lawyers rich too. Great idea. :pat:
 

Av8r3400

Gone Flyin'
Health care is on our tab now, you just insist on making doctors, insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals oh yea and lawyers rich too. Great idea. :pat:
This statement sounds of typical class envy hype that is used by the left to rally their minions.


It will continue to be on my tab because I pay taxes. Too much already, this will only make it worse.

And I say "FREE" because that is how it is marketed to the ignorant masses.

Why do something through the free-market capitalist system when we can make another bloated government program to keep everyone in control.
 

mak2

Active member
This statement sounds of typical class envy hype that is used by the left to rally their minions.


It will continue to be on my tab because I pay taxes. Too much already, this will only make it worse.

And I say "FREE" because that is how it is marketed to the ignorant masses.

Why do something through the free-market capitalist system when we can make another bloated government program to keep everyone in control.

There are none so blind as he who will not see.

The only place I have ever heard the word free is from Right wingnuts. geez minions, ignorant masses, (speaking of class) and bloated government progam, Turn Rush off for a few minutes and go to the nearest inner city hospital and look around, say on a saturday night when it is about 90 degrees out. Bet your opinion changes, or maybe not.
 

daedong

New member
Canadian Healthcare system in shambles . . .
It appears Canada are not alone


http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/15/1198/

Published on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 by Agence France Presse US Health System Ranks Last Compared to Other Countries: Studies


WASHINGTON - The US health care system ranks last among other major rich countries for quality, access and efficiency, according to two studies released Tuesday by a health care think tank.
The studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that the United States, which has the most expensive health system in the world, underperforms consistently relative to other countries and differs most notably in the fact that Americans have no universal health insurance coverage.
“The United States stands out as the only nation in these studies that does not ensure access to health care through universal coverage and promotion of a ‘medical home’ for patients,” said Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis.
“Our failure to ensure health insurance for all and encourage stable, long-term ties between physicians and patients shows in our poor performance on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and health outcomes.”
In “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care”, the study focused on interviews with physicians and patients in Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United States who were asked to speak about their experiences and views on their health systems.
The US ranked last in most areas, including access to health care, patient safety, timeliness of care, efficiency and equity. Americans were also last in terms of whether they had a regular physician.
“The US spends twice what the average industrialized country spends on health care but we’re clearly not getting value for the money,” Davis told AFP.
She also noted that 45 million Americans, or 15 percent of the US population, have no health insurance, which contributes to the country’s medical woes.
The United States is also far behind in adopting modern health information technology, which translates into spiralling costs and poor care.
“We pride ourselves on being advanced on so many areas of technology but it’s not the case on health information technology,” Davis said. “Other countries have just moved ahead.”
Britain got the top score in overall ranking among the countries in the study, followed by Germany. New Zealand and Australia tied for third followed by Canada and the United States.
The second study delves into why health costs in the United States are so much higher than in eight other countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands and New Zealand.
The study, “Multinational Comparisons of Health Systems Data,” found that even though the US spends the most on publicly and privately financed health insurance, its citizens had the most potential years of life lost due to circulatory and respiratory diseases as well as diabetes.
“This study blows a lot of myths about the US health system,” Davis said. “We spend three times what the average country spends on a day of hospital care and we also spend twice what the average country spends on prescription medication.”
Health care is likely to be a prominent issue in the 2008 US presidential elections with various candidates already promising to tackle rising costs and the burden placed on big business to provide health insurance.
 

mak2

Active member
The VA is the national leader in adopting and developing cutting edge health infromation systems. Just sayin.
 

Av8r3400

Gone Flyin'
So to follow your logic, Mak2, we should all give up to government control for the benefit of what 5% (at most 10%) of the population? Where should the line be drawn?


(Sorry, Vin. Commondreams.org is not what I would consider a reliable, unbiased source. They are an extreme fringe, left-wing element. Interesting website, though.)
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
why do you find it acceptable to have millions of people uninsured and cannot get healthcare until very sick
Where did I ever say I found it acceptable?

How did you jump to a conclusion that I do find it acceptable?

I do believe in private health insurance. I also believe in a safety net paid by the government (you and me) for those who truly cannot afford insurance. I also believe that many choose to buy bigger houses, get fancier cars, etc and risk having no health insurance because they figure they will beat the odds. I also believe many make foolish choices and ignore even trying to get health insurance and are stupid enough to believe that I should pay for them when it is their life choice that they didn't get it (and I've seen that many times).
 

mak2

Active member
I beleive the figure for un and underinsured is more like 15%. That really does not matter that much, you and I pay for their health care now anyway. I know it is difficult to understand the way the healthcare system works if you are not involved in it on a daily basis. I wish I could be more articulate when trying to describe the way greed completley subverts the American healthcare system, but siting example after example seems to have no effect on people who fear UHC. I dunno how to get people to see, but someday the US will have to change.
 

fogtender

Now a Published Author
Site Supporter
The VA is the national leader in adopting and developing cutting edge health infromation systems. Just sayin.

Well I am fully qualified to use the VA Health care system, and having used it a few times in my Youth, there is no way I would go back to it unless I was on a stretcher and not knowing that is where they were taking me.

I have gotten some friends of mine in the system (VA) because they didn't have any medical health care except for the VA and they didn't want to go to the emergency room (but they would have been seen there). In their case, they did get to see doctors that didn't seem to have the time to see them, they were given prescriptions that took too long to fill and when they did get them, they were prescribed the wrong meds and got sicker... One of which is now in a nursing home...which is run by a private care giver and he is doing much better now, but the damage was done.

I simply can't believe that a National Health Care program would be much better.... Just more of the same...
 

mak2

Active member
Well I am fully qualified to use the VA Health care system, and having used it a few times in my Youth, there is no way I would go back to it unless I was on a stretcher and not knowing that is where they were taking me.

I have gotten some friends of mine in the system (VA) because they didn't have any medical health care except for the VA and they didn't want to go to the emergency room (but they would have been seen there). In their case, they did get to see doctors that didn't seem to have the time to see them, they were given prescriptions that took too long to fill and when they did get them, they were prescribed the wrong meds and got sicker... One of which is now in a nursing home...which is run by a private care giver and he is doing much better now, but the damage was done.

I simply can't believe that a National Health Care program would be much better.... Just more of the same...

Let me start of by saying my Mother hates one of the nicest most expensive hospitals in town becasue she was on a terrible floor that was very short of nurses, many, many years ago but she always talks about how much she hates it whenever the subject comes up. I have been at the VA for about 15 years. I have worked in hospitals all over town as agency nurse to see if I liked anywhere else. I finished my masters degree a few years ago and all the nurses in my class were going on about how dedicated I must be to work there. It is a great place to work. I am a Vet and I love working there. I dont know first hand about the VA before I was there, but for at least a decade we have done at least as good a job as any other hospital in town and in many measurements we are now far superior. Our clinic doctors see 8-10 patients a day and spend much more time with them than in the private sector. There is always questions of efficency and time spent with pateints. I guarantee you the doctor you see who charges your insurance sees more patients than our docotrs do each day.
The VA has developed the Bar Code Medicine administration system that is now used in hospitals nationwide and almost makes med errors a thing of the past. More of our records are computerized than any other hospital system. About the long pharmacy wait times....well maybe you are just looking for things to complain about. as for the wrong med being perscribed it happens everywhere, but with our current system it is less likley at the VA than anywhere.
The doctors that work at my VA are the doctors that you would see in an outside hospital or teachers at IU or staff, and staff positions are sought after. The nursing staff are at least as well paid as every other hospital in town, and the benefits are far better. The VA is a great hospital today, it does have a few problems, but if it advertised and worked on the image as much as the private sector does more people would knwo how great it is, instead of just believing what some movie showed years ago or someone complaining aobut a long wait for his prescription. As it is the money is spent on patients, not advertising.
 

fogtender

Now a Published Author
Site Supporter
Let me start of by saying my Mother hates one of the nicest most expensive hospitals in town becasue she was on a terrible floor that was very short of nurses, many, many years ago but she always talks about how much she hates it whenever the subject comes up. I have been at the VA for about 15 years. I have worked in hospitals all over town as agency nurse to see if I liked anywhere else. I finished my masters degree a few years ago and all the nurses in my class were going on about how dedicated I must be to work there. It is a great place to work. I am a Vet and I love working there. I dont know first hand about the VA before I was there, but for at least a decade we have done at least as good a job as any other hospital in town and in many measurements we are now far superior. Our clinic doctors see 8-10 patients a day and spend much more time with them than in the private sector. There is always questions of efficency and time spent with pateints. I guarantee you the doctor you see who charges your insurance sees more patients than our docotrs do each day.
The VA has developed the Bar Code Medicine administration system that is now used in hospitals nationwide and almost makes med errors a thing of the past. More of our records are computerized than any other hospital system. About the long pharmacy wait times....well maybe you are just looking for things to complain about. as for the wrong med being perscribed it happens everywhere, but with our current system it is less likley at the VA than anywhere.
The doctors that work at my VA are the doctors that you would see in an outside hospital or teachers at IU or staff, and staff positions are sought after. The nursing staff are at least as well paid as every other hospital in town, and the benefits are far better. The VA is a great hospital today, it does have a few problems, but if it advertised and worked on the image as much as the private sector does more people would knwo how great it is, instead of just believing what some movie showed years ago or someone complaining aobut a long wait for his prescription. As it is the money is spent on patients, not advertising.

The VA system here is not a "VA" hospital, it is a Military hospital that the VA sends people to. I would assume that there is a great differance to a place that was built for that reason and a place that has to "put up" with Veterans. I don't think there is very many "VA" hospitals around, mostly places that are appointed as in Alaska.

As far as Nurses, I don't think they get near the respect in any hospital system for the work they do! Many doctors ignore them as if they were just common folk in the way. But Nurses are the ones that give 95% of the care and still aren't paid enough.

Here is a read on the subject, which is a little pro and con:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/10/ap_vaoverload_071028/
 

mak2

Active member
The VA system here is not a "VA" hospital, it is a Military hospital that the VA sends people to. I would assume that there is a great differance to a place that was built for that reason and a place that has to "put up" with Veterans. I don't think there is very many "VA" hospitals around, mostly places that are appointed as in Alaska.

As far as Nurses, I don't think they get near the respect in any hospital system for the work they do! Many doctors ignore them as if they were just common folk in the way. But Nurses are the ones that give 95% of the care and still aren't paid enough.

Here is a read on the subject, which is a little pro and con:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/10/ap_vaoverload_071028/

I must have missed this post, anyway I just now read it. It is not uncommon for a hospital to go on diversion. I have never been there but I have always heard from patients and staff alike say Bay Pines was pretty nice, and fairly new. I do know for years the VA has been trying to get resources shifted to the south, more specifically following the retirees. I will look into this more, I always thought I might transfrer to Bay Pines before I retire. Humm.
 
Top