Private sector or public sector: Which is more efficient?

[KrazyHorse]

It doesn't surprise me at all that "administrative costs" are lower in Canada than in the US. It also has nothing to do with how "efficient" either system is.

[Dauphin]

It doesn't surprise me at all that "administrative costs" are lower in Canada than in the US. It also has nothing to do with how "efficient" either system is.

Beat me to it.

[KrazyHorse]

True, Ben and KH are two of the most American posters here, in different ways.

No, American is a nationality, just like English.

Using it as code for religiosity or belief in free enterprise is simple stereotyping...

[Ben Kenobi]

I see you are ignoring the OP, Ben.

My grandmother waited 18 months for back surgery. Efficient? Hardly.

[MichaeltheGreat]

It's easy to document and demonstrate extreme examples of inefficiency, but it's a lot harder to define and demonstrate "efficiency" in a meaningful sense. In a private sector based system, one can always buy "efficiency" if one has the means to do so. If, however, one is a grasping, sweaty member of the peasantry like most of us, then one's options are a tad more limited.

[Asher]

My grandmother waited 18 months for back surgery. Efficient? Hardly.

I'm sure your grandmother couldn't even afford surgery in the US.

The context is quite obviously cost efficiency. The fact that many people getting their surgeries in Canada would never get it in the US, or would get it and suffer the rest of their life with debilitating debt, is not the topic of discussion.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Cost efficiency can be whatever you want it to be. The study is bull****. It claims that US non-doctor medical staff spend 21 hours a week on insurance related documentation? lmao. I know people in most segments of health care, from administrative to hospital management to docs and nurses - they'd laugh at that number. Also funny that the cost differential is supposedly 4:1, but the hours differential is supposedly over 8:1? I guess the canuckistani slave girls who do the paperwork must get paid double their US counterparts then, lol. Cost efficiency is also meaningless unless you consider scalability and quality of outcomes.

[Dinner]

It doesn't surprise me at all that "administrative costs" are lower in Canada than in the US. It also has nothing to do with how "efficient" either system is.

If they get the same job done for less money then they're more efficient by definition.

[Krill]

Wait, why are the timestamps in this thread reading today and not 6 years ago?

[Asher]

Cost efficiency can be whatever you want it to be. The study is bull****. It claims that US non-doctor medical staff spend 21 hours a week on insurance related documentation? lmao. I know people in most segments of health care, from administrative to hospital management to docs and nurses - they'd laugh at that number. Also funny that the cost differential is supposedly 4:1, but the hours differential is supposedly over 8:1? I guess the canuckistani slave girls who do the paperwork must get paid double their US counterparts then, lol.

It's more obvious that because of the increased burden of bureaucratic bull**** in the US, they hire people specifically to do it. These people will work for less money than a physician or nurse will, bringing the cost down. But the volume of work is so much more, this isn't enough. When did you lose your ability to reason, MtG?

As for your anecdotes, I've lived in both countries and received care in both countries. I can tell you the paperwork, even from the end-user side, is far higher in the US. I can't even imagine all of the bull**** involved in dealing with multiple insurance companies for every single visit or claim.

Cost efficiency is also meaningless unless you consider scalability

Quite a stupid point considering the context. Why does the fact that Canada "only" has 33 million people impact how much bureaucracy is involved in getting people health care? It doesn't.

and quality of outcomes.

Quality of outcome: higher life expectancy, lower mortality rates?

[Hauldren Collider]

I'm sure your grandmother couldn't even afford surgery in the US.

The context is quite obviously cost efficiency. The fact that many people getting their surgeries in Canada would never get it in the US, or would get it and suffer the rest of their life with debilitating debt, is not the topic of discussion.

Asher does not understand supply and demand.

Also, life expectancy is not a good measure of the quality of a nation's medical system.

[BlackCat]

Asher does not understand supply and demand.

Also, life expectancy is not a good measure of the quality of a nation's medical system.

Kuci, could you please pick up a baseball bat and teach HC a couple of lessons on health care ?

[Asher]

Asher does not understand supply and demand.

This has **** all to do with supply and demand. The private system in the US has so much unbelievable levels of bureaucracy, on top of unbelievable levels of greed that it is ridiculously expensive and demonstrably NOT cost effective. Compare the cost of a hospital stay for observation in Canada in the US. They're not even close to being the same expense. BUT SUPPLY AND DEMAND!!!!

Also, life expectancy is not a good measure of the quality of a nation's medical system.

What exactly do you think the purpose of health care is? Hint: It's not profit.

[Asher]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States

The United States spends much more money on health care than Canada, on both a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP.[5] In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%.[5] In 2006, 70% of health care spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 46% in the United States. Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 83% of total Canadian spending

SUPPLY AND DEMAND!!!

Health care is one of the most expensive items of both nations’ budgets. In the United States, the various levels of government spend more per capita on health care than levels of government do in Canada. In 2004, Canada government-spending was $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government-spending $2,724

SUPPLY AND DEMAND!!!!

A 1999 report found that after exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0% of health care expenditures in the United States, as compared with 16.7% of health care expenditures in Canada. In looking at the insurance element, in Canada, the provincial single-payer insurance system operated with overheads of 1.3%, comparing favourably with private insurance overheads (13.2%), U.S. private insurance overheads (11.7%) and U.S. Medicare and Medicaid program overheads (3.6% and 6.8% respectively). The report concluded by observing that gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration had grown to $752 per capita and that a large sum might be saved in the United States if the U.S. implemented a Canadian-style health care system

SUPPLY AND DEMAND!!!!!!!!

The extra cost of malpractice lawsuits is a proportion of health spending in both the U.S. (0.46%) and Canada (0.27%). In Canada the total cost of settlements, legal fees, and insurance comes to $4 per person each year, but in the United States it is $16.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are a number of ancillary costs that are higher in the U.S. Administrative costs are significantly higher in the U.S.; government mandates on record keeping and the diversity of insurers, plans and administrative layers involved in every transaction result in greater administrative effort. One recent study comparing administrative costs in the two countries found that these costs in the U.S. are roughly double what they are in Canada.[105] Another ancillary cost is marketing, both by insurance companies and health care providers. These costs are higher in the U.S., contributing to higher overall costs in that nation.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND~!!!!!!!!!!!!(!#$(@#&*$

In the World Health Organization's rankings of health care system performance among 191 member nations published in 2000, Canada ranked 30th and the U.S. 37th, while the overall health of Canadians was ranked 35th and Americans 72nd

SUPPLY!!! AND!!! DEMAND!(#@&$@&$P@(&$P@&$

In 2007, Gordon H. Guyatt et al. conducted a meta-analysis, or systematic review, of all studies that compared health outcomes for similar conditions in Canada and the U.S., in Open Medicine, an open-access peer-reviewed Canadian medical journal. They concluded, "Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent." Guyatt identified 38 studies addressing conditions including cancer, coronary artery disease, chronic medical illnesses and surgical procedures. Of 10 studies with the strongest statistical validity, 5 favoured Canada, 2 favoured the United States, and 3 were equivalent or mixed. Of 28 weaker studies, 9 favoured Canada, 3 favoured the United States, and 16 were equivalent or mixed. Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada with a 5% advantage, but the results were weak and varied. The only consistent pattern was that Canadian patients fared better in kidney failure.

SUPPLYYYY ANDDD DEMAAANND$#@%($P&%&%&#%(&#%(&

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm sure your grandmother couldn't even afford surgery in the US.

That's not really an efficiency question is it? Clearly the American system is more efficient, because for equivalent dollars spent you actually get results.

The context is quite obviously cost efficiency. The fact that many people getting their surgeries in Canada would never get it in the US, or would get it and suffer the rest of their life with debilitating debt, is not the topic of discussion.

The point is that she's already paid for the surgery though her taxpayer dollars.