Canada's Private Clinics Surge as Public System Falters

[Arrian]

What are the actual numbers again (% of population uninsured)?

edit:

Among the 11 percent of American respondents who were uninsured...

Ok, so about 11%. ~33 million people.

I would imagine that non-emergency care is the part where our system REALLY sucks. If you have no insurance (and aren't rich), you don't go to the doctor unless it's really, really bad. No preventative care (or very little)... for 33 million people.

Is there any government assistance (via medicare, medicade, welfare... ??) for that 11%?

-Arrian

[OneFootInTheGrave]

15.7% in 2004 ~ 45 million

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html

[Arrian]

Ah, right, census numbers strike me as more reliable. 45 million people, then.

-Arrian

[OneFootInTheGrave]

the 11% was in the survey thus survey itself made the US system look better for having less % of respondents without insurance... so the survey/real difference is ~ 4%-4.5%

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Agathon
Man, I wish I had NYE's brain...

...I could spend my day playing with blocks and crayons...

As opposed to posting Hasselhof pix.

Yeah thats better.

On the one hand blocks and crayon are generally inoffensive to the world at large......

On the other...........

[Arrian]

[Krill]

Originally posted by Tingkai "Recent trends in these negotiations and settlements threaten to become a major cost driver. Even before the substantial increases in the past few years, the incomes of Canadian doctors and nurses were at the very upper end of the OECD-country scale. In 1992, for example, physician incomes in Canada were considerably higher than France, Australia, Japan, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Only Germany and the United States had comparable or higher rates of remuneration. The situation for nurses was similar. This leads the Commission to urge provider associations and governments to consider the impact of future negotiations on the sustainability of medicare."

Page 101-102 of the Romanov Report.

I call Bull****. Don't compare anything to Britain unless the data used are less than about 5 years old...

[Arrian]

It specifically says "In 1992" so the data is 14 years old.

-Arrian

[Krill]

yeah, I know, I was just trying to say Bull**** to that particular part of the conclusion, because I don't know enough about the rest of the argument to say if it is honest, or bull**** again...

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
So Harper will stick his head in the stand and let it happen - but no hidden agenda, eh?

You can't be serious?!

What did Martin do to prevent it from happening? Went to a private clinic himself according to media reports.

What did Layton do to prevent it from happening? Went to a private clinic himself according to media reports.

As to the secret agenda - I brought up during the campaign how Charest (the LIBERAL premier of Quebec) shelved his health care announcement until after the election. Where was your cry of 'secret agenda' then?

There is no hidden agenda involved. The current system in unsustainable and even the courts have finally agreed things must change. If there is a secret agenda I guess it is with the SCC.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


This is a CanPol thread started by a non-Canadian, so your point is a bit too harsh.

Harsh? Wasn't meant to be.

I was aware the poster was non-Canadian. The post was an article on the Canadian healthcare system but had no opinion attached. I wanted to know the poster's reason for posting or idea to be debated.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle


Medicare, Medicaid, and statewide poverty level 100% reimbursement plans. Lots of options out there. They can get the same healthcare as in Canada.

NO you can't.


I knew I guy in Maine who was still working at 79 years old. Wh? His wife had cancer and the second he retired he lost his health insurance.

That does not happen here.


Canada has its own challenges with its health care system but I would take it over the American system any day of the week

[VetLegion]

So, if I understand correctly, in USA, if you don't have the money for cancer treatment, you don't get it? Cancer is not a quick killer usually so it wouldn't belong in the emergency care scheme. Right?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

No not by a long shot. For example my uncle who had no insurance as a small struggling private business contracted cancer. He was afforded all types of cancer treatment including chemotherapies after it was pretty much decided his condition was untreatable.

He unfortunately passed away but not for lack of quality health care.

His widow likewise didn't have health insurance and was forced into bankruptcy but the hospitals knew they wouldn't get dime one from either of them from the outset and yet they still performed the treatments.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
No not by a long shot. For example my uncle who had no insurance as a small struggling private business contracted cancer. He was afforded all types of cancer treatment including chemotherapies after it was pretty much decided his condition was untreatable.

He unfortunately passed away but not for lack of quality health care.

His widow likewise didn't have health insurance and was forced into bankruptcy but the hospitals knew they wouldn't get dime one from either of them from the outset and yet they still performed the treatments.

while this was fine, he was forced into bankruptcy along with death... how did it affect the family etc... sounds scary... well at least they tried but

btw... what happens with people with long term problems like MS (multiplesclerosis)? Government funded care?