Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 24
In following up with JohnGaltII's "Economics in Health Care" dissertation, I'd like to inform the readers of a few facts of the Canadian healthcare system. I will attempt to discern my opinion from fact.

First of all, it is considered a "universal" healthcare system in that the same level of healthcare is available to everyone. In my opinion, this does not imply "excellent" or "very good" healthcare, but rather "minimally compliant" healthcare. If you're a member of the lower income group, it is great because you get the same services as provided to the wealthy. On the other hand, you have to consider the level of care.

Generally, the services of care are significantly lower. Any Canadian mother who has watch "Maternity Ward" on TLC will atest to that. One can view birthing mothers in US hospitals being applied oxygen during birth, while that only happens in extreme occasions in Canada (my wife, in the birth of our second child, was given laughing gas by a nurse, however the bottle was empty and ended up giving birth without and pain medication, so figure out her opinion of the healthcare system).

Further, there is only one queue for both the rich and the poor. Whether you are a deadbeat welfare ricipient of a highly productive CEO of a $2B corporation, you are in the same queue for services. Currently in my region (Ottawa, the capital of Canada) the wait for an non-emergency MRI is 9 months.) A colleague of mine at work had a significant problem with her back and was receiving rehab for it, and was working only in the morning and taking the afternoon off due to back pains. Her specialist wanted an MRI to judge whether to continue rehab or pursue surgery, and the wait was 8-9 months. She ended up going over to the province of Quebec to get an MRI at a private clinic (more on Quebec later). So here it was, my company (and Canada) was losing a 50% of a full-time employee due to a lack of immediate service while there was undoubtedly a less productive citizen (retired senior or welfare ricipient) on the waiting list above her. This is a net loss to Canadian society.

Further, the Canadian system is, although noone wants to admit, a partial two-tiered system. Third-party payers, such as insurance companies and the provincial Workers Compensation Boards, and sports teams, can "jump the queue" by paying the complete cost of service (restrictions differ province to province I'm sure, but clinics here in Ontario must provide 8 hours of public service per day before accepting private clients.) However, not service can charge a user fee if it is to be paid for by the public system. Hence this creates a problem alluded to by John - there is no incentive for Canadians to avoid going to the doctor for every runny nose - the third party payor (the govt) picks up 100% of the cost. To make things worse, a friend of mine, a general practitioner, claims he frequently gets medical visits from seniors who have no problems simply because they want someone to talk to (no kidding).

Quebec is a different noodle in Canada. (Opinion kicks in here). Although technically part of Canada, it believes it is ncessary to run many of its gov't systems separate from Canada (pension plan, healthcare) and preserve its constitutional right to speak French and force the French language on anyone residing in the province and in the federal gov't (don't get me started on this). Quebec seems to be able to run private clinics despite our federal laws strictly prohibiting such, as exemplified by by my colleague going across the border for an MRI and news broadcasts of federal politicians getting healthcare from private clinics.

It is true that many Canadians receive healthcare from US facilities. Anyone with a serious illness and cash (or a third party payor) would simply be idiotic to stay in Canada and put up with the waits. However, we also receive many Americans up in Canada to receive medication (due to Canada's patented medicine pricing policies) and to attend specialized services, such as the Shouldice Clinic (a popular hernia clinic which operates outside Canada's public healthcare system because it was grandfathered when private clinics we outlwed, as I understand it.)

So yes, the statistics indicate that the per capita healthcare spending is less than the US. However, you have to take into account that drug expenses in Canada are considerably lower due to gov't price caps, as well as the relatively mediocre services provided. Further, professionals in the Canadian medical profession are renumerated dramatically less than US counterparts, and this is exacerbated in Quebec, where my brother-in-law indicates Quebec doctors are compensated considerably less than Ontario doctors for similar procedures (he's worked in both provinces). It is a huge problem here that Canadian medical graduates are graduating with huge debts (since medical tuition has increased dramatically in recent years) that they accept employment in the US purely based on compensation alone.

In my opinion, the Canadian system is going to get worse before it gets better. Canada's "family reunification" immigration policy (where family members of immigrants are given immigration preference over others) ends up resulting in a significant number of Chinese and Eastern European seniors coming into the country. Further, Canada's gernerous refugee policies result in many refugees being admitted. The net result is that these people become a huge burden on the already overburdened Canadian healthcare system without making any economic contribution to the country (as an aside, there was a recent story in the media where Canada was accepting refugees from Africa with advanced symptoms of AIDS at an annual cost of approximately $3500 to the sytstem, despite Canadian policy stipulating that these cases should be rejected.)

Bottom line is that, in my opinion and others as well, the Canadian healthcare system is deteriorating and is unsustainable in its current form. Costs are increasing at a rate of 15% per annum, and is costing between 35% and 40% of Canadian GDP. On one hand it is nice to see that every has access to healthcare (the courts have decided that the Canadian healthcare system is required to pay for incarcerated criminals to have sex changes (no kidding!!!)), however the system is become a significant financial burden on the working population. Something has to give.


coldcanuck
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In following up with JohnGaltII's "Economics in Health Care" dissertation, I'd like to inform the readers of a few facts of the Canadian healthcare system. I will attempt to discern my opinion from fact.

Couldn't you have waited a day before jumping on him?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Couldn't you have waited a day before jumping on him?

After reading the first sentence I am waiting a few days to read it. After that, I will make it a personal mission to defend any of Galt's points that I agree with that he disputes or God help him ridicules. :-)

I am familiar enough with Galt to know he would appreciate a high level of tenacity and conviction in a stand in the matter. :-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
In following up with JohnGaltII's "Economics in Health Care" dissertation, I'd like to inform the readers of a few facts of the Canadian healthcare system. I will attempt to discern my opinion from fact.

Couldn't you have waited a day before jumping on him?


You obviously didn't read the post. If anything, it was a defense of JohnGaltII.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
You obviously didn't read the post. If anything, it was a defense of JohnGaltII.

I didn't either. I stopped reading making the same wrong assumption that zsimpson did. Now that I have went back and read it in response to Mad's comments........I apologize coldcanuck, and great post btw.

And seeing that this is Canuck's first post on the board.......he most probably didn't even know about Galt unless he stumbled on that thread prior to posting his post. Clearly there was no motivation for his post to be anything about Galt one way or the other than to add to his great post on healthcare.

Fitting that Canuck's post provided first hand witness to many of the ideas that Galt presented.

Now with foot in mouth......Welcome to the board Canuck. Hope you stick around and thanks for the first hand accounts you have had.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You obviously didn't read the post. If anything, it was a defense of JohnGaltII.

No, I did not. I may in couple days, but right now is pretty crummy timing. I have no doubts that either way, JGII would have responded, but he also had tact and would have waited a couple days.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Dear coldcanuck (aren't all canucks cold?),
My apologies for the nasty post I put up earlier. Today, I heard a good friend of mine died. that friend posted on this board frequently as JohnGaltII, and before that as FoolishlyFree. He was quite vehement in hie opposition to the US getting a "Universal Healthcare" plan, and I agree whole-heartedly with his arguments.
If you look back through the posts, you'll see his posts on that. When I saw your post, I immediately assumed it was one arguing against his point of view, and became hostile.
Again, my apologies. Please put it down to me emotional state not being the tops.
All the rest of the time that I'm rude, it's simply to be rude <grin>.
Kathleen
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
coldcanuck,

Great post. Very informative indictment of the Canadian healthcare system.

As a practicing physician just across the border in Michigan, I am well aware of the problems with the socialized healthcare experiment known as Canadian healthcare. We won't find the answers to our healthcare problems by looking up north. I even work with a Canadian physician who has fled south.

I hope you continue participating.

I imagine the late JGII would have greatly appreciated you insights.

wolvy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
When I posted, I was not aware that JohnGaltII had met such a tragic end a few days earlier, and just a few days after keyboarding his great disertation on economics and healthcare. I was a little puzzled by your post regarding his death, but after looking back on the board I noticed your message announcing his tragic accident. As with others, I am truely saddened by his death despite my only exposure to Ken being his latest piece. I also feel bad for those who personally knew this man as they have lost an intelligent friend, companion, and debater.

I was only attracted to his message by a Motley Fool e-mail that highlighted his post, and was so moved I thought I might relate some facts and my impressions of the Canadian healthcare system. JohnGaltII's comments were quite reflective of how a completely universal healthcare system (one with very little limitations) is unworkable in the long term.

Whereas Americans are inundated with stories of the uninsured getting refused treatment and being hounded to pay outrageous hospital bills (from my readings in the WSJ and other credible media), Canadians are inundated with stories detailing long waits for treatment and procedures even though medical diagnostic equipment often sit unused 16 hours a day and hospital beds sit empty do to a lack of funding. There has to be a happy medium.

Once again, I am truely saddened by his shocking death, which I will be reminded of everytime I read and pass on his "economics and Health Care" piece.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

A follow up by coldcanuck on another board says it all.

Whereas Americans are inundated with stories of the uninsured getting refused treatment and being hounded to pay outrageous hospital bills (from my readings in the WSJ and other credible media), Canadians are inundated with stories detailing long waits for treatment and procedures even though medical diagnostic equipment often sit unused 16 hours a day and hospital beds sit empty do to a lack of funding. There has to be a happy medium.

A "100% coverage" single payer system isn't the answer. The only thing that will work is health savings accounts with catatrophic coverage starting at about $5000 for a family [ie single payer for costs $5000+].
Print the post Back To Top