Canada's Private Clinics Surge as Public System Falters

[CrONoS]

Turning to the private sector in health care: The Swedish example

http://www.iedm.org/uploaded/pdf/sweden.pdf

Montreal Economic Institute is a right-wing think tank.

Anyone know more about the swedish example?

[CrONoS]

In the 1980s, the Swedish health care system experienced enormous problems similar to our own today.There were long waiting lists for essential services. Hospital employees had low
salaries and poor working conditions. It seemed impossible to meet growing demand merely by increasing taxes and spending — and this was in a country known everywhere for the generosity of its social programs.

In 1992, the Stockholm regional government set up a program
through which public sector employees could take control
independently by managing certain units.To attract offers, the
government provided entrepreneurs with training and legal
support to start their companies. In 1998, all medical services
other than emergency services were put on the market
through public bids.

There are now more than 200 small and medium-sized health
care suppliers in the process of replacing the single provider.
Among them are a number that were created by nurses who
were unhappy with poor working conditions and mediocre
salaries and who jumped at the opportunity to set up their own
businesses. While unions in Canada are viscerally opposed to
any privatization of the system, the nurses’ union in Sweden
actively supported new businesses and even created a body
devoted to research on novel forms of entrepreneurship. The
new suppliers run local health care centres, general practitioners’clinics and centres specializing in postnatal care as
well as laboratories and psychiatric clinics. Praktikertjänst, the
largest supplier in the private sector, operates as a production
cooperative owned by doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, dentists,
physiotherapists and support staff.

In 1994, the Stockholm county council went further and converted
one of the capital’s seven hospitals handling emergency
cases, St. Goran’s Hospital, into an independent corporation
with the aim of privatizing it. Four years later, the hospital was
sold to a private Swedish company called Capio AB, listed on
the stock exchange. It is important to understand that, despite
its status as a “private” hospital, St. Goran’s continues to operate
within the public system, and its patients are not expected to
pay for the care they receive there.The purchase and financing
of care are guaranteed by the county council while Capio looks
after providing medical treatment.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

here is a nice comparison between the two

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/04news/firstjointsurvey.htm

Americans were more likely to report that the quality of their health care services in general was excellent compared with Canadians (42 percent compared to 39 percent.) Among uninsured American respondents, 28 percent said the quality of the health care services they received was “excellent,” 44 percent “good,” and 28 percent “fair” or “poor.” When asked about their satisfaction with health care services in general, 53 percent of Americans and 44 percent of Canadians said they were “very satisfied,” while 37 percent of Americans and 43 percent of Canadians said they were “somewhat satisfied.” Among uninsured Americans, 39 percent were “very satisfied” with the services they received, and 40 percent were “somewhat satisfied.”

Unmet medical needs during the past 12 months were reported by 13 percent of Americans and 11 percent of Canadians. Among those with an unmet need, Americans were more likely to identify cost as the primary barrier to health care (53 percent of unmet needs cases), while Canadians cited waiting for care as the primary barrier (32 percent of cases). Among the 11 percent of American respondents who were uninsured, four out of every ten reported an unmet medical need. Likewise, only 43 percent of the uninsured respondents said they had a regular medical doctor, compared with 80 percent of total American respondents and 85 percent of Canadian respondents.

so overall if you have money you are better off in a US style system (not a suprise really, but this way you could say rich Canadians can get private healthcare elsewhere too, like in US )

but at the bottom of the pile there is no uninsured Canadians while there was 11% in the US survey, while IIRC the real % is about 15% in US who are uninsured. So perhaps slight skew in the survey in favour of US system, regardless the results are interesting.

[Asher]

The Canadian system is a gongshow.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Socialism doesn't work.

Says the doofus Ayn Rand lover.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin
This has nothing to do with national health care other then that politicians short change citizens by not bothering to invest in the system. I suppose they could go to an American system where insurence companies refuse to pay bills for real medical procedures (they'll claim just about anything invented in the last 30 years is experimental) and patients die due to lack of care. I think it is very fair to say the American system doesn't work and the British or Dutch systems work far, far better.

There are other choices than the Cuban and the American systems (I say Cuban because legend has it that only Canada, Cuba, and North Korea seek to ban private medicine).

Incidently, it isn't lack of funds. Canada spends more per capita on health than most of the OECD.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Socialism doesn't work.

It works better thatn the the U.S. system, which leaves tens of millions of Americans not covered, which has insurance companies jerking around the truely sick and injured people, and which has trauma center doors closing all across the system.

Canada's problem is that their system is horrifically underfunded.

Yet in a poll last year, 95% of Canadians said they preferred their f*d-up system to the U.S's f*d-up system.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
so overall if you have money you are better off in a US style system (not a suprise really, but this way you could say rich Canadians can get private healthcare elsewhere too, like in US )

but at the bottom of the pile there is no uninsured Canadians while there was 11% in the US survey, while IIRC the real % is about 15% in US who are uninsured. So perhaps slight skew in the survey in favour of US system, regardless the results are interesting.

The American system has unisured, but we have waiting lists that people suffer and sometimes die on.

We also have priviledge. Ex premiers, politicians, athletes, etc are not waiting for care, generally. Us peons pay the price for our inefficient system.

The only reason this is news is that the Supreme Court finally said that our system is a violation of human rights (due to unreasonable waiting times).

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The only reason this is news is that the Supreme Court finally said that our system is a violation of human rights (due to unreasonable waiting times).

What a cool ruling.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Canada's problem is that their system is horrifically underfunded.

Nope.

Yet in a poll last year, 95% of Canadians said they preferred their f*d-up system to the U.S's f*d-up system.

There is a lot of propaganda flying, so I am not surprised.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


What a cool ruling.

I liked it. A lot.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither

I liked it. A lot.

So did all the other political and economic illiterates.

[DanS]

but at the bottom of the pile there is no uninsured Canadians while there was 11% in the US survey, while IIRC the real % is about 15% in US who are uninsured.

Careful. That 15% in the US isn't necessarily "the bottom of the pile." Many self-insure, like my parents.

[Zkribbler]

Gee Agathon, you've convinced me.

Let 'em die! Let them all DIE!! Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to live?!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by notyoueither

The only reason this is news is that the Supreme Court finally said that our system is a violation of human rights (due to unreasonable waiting times).

So can we Americans expect to see our Supreme Court rule someday soon, that denying a person essential health care because they can't afford it would also be a violation of human rights??





nope