Canada's healthcare saved her; Ours won't cover her

Nurses Activism

Published

Canada's healthcare saved her; Ours won't cover her

Source: LA Times

If you offer health insurance as a for-profit business, it goes without saying that you'll do everything you can to avoid making payouts. That means you'll shun anyone with even a whiff of medical trouble.

But this is no way to run an insurance system, let alone to protect people from financial ruin due to catastrophic events such as being sent to the hospital by a drunk driver.

The Obama administration has already rejected the idea of a single-payer system similar to Canada's -- a mistake, in my opinion. Instead, it wants a smaller public program that would compete with private insurers and keep costs down.

Private insurers, not surprisingly, are lobbying aggressively to kill off that idea. They'd rather have a national mandate that would require all Americans to buy their product.

In return, they say, they'd stop sending rejection letters to people like Yount with preexisting conditions. But policyholders would still be subject to the companies' various terms and conditions.

Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.

Canadians talk to Americans about health care

People from Toronto respond to a US advertising campaign about the Canadian health-care system

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3764

Specializes in OB, HH, ADMIN, IC, ED, QI.
Thats fine and dandy but where my parents live in Canada they cant even get a family dr to accept them because they all have to many patients they have to PAY to go to the clinic $35, much like I would if I were to go to a clinic here. Where I live in Texas I can get into my doctor within a week. So the healthcare systems has nothing to do with it.

You probably sound professional when you call to make an appointment. Most people sound like they don't really want one, when they call for one. :yeah:

Many times patients can't get appointments sooner because of an attitude that they shouldn't be "pushy", or "bother" anyone. When I taught breast self examination (BSE) to women's groups, for the American Cancer Society, I said that they shouldn't be put off by whoever answers the telephone and says the doctor can't see them for 6 weeks. They should rather tell that person that the lump in their breast they found by doing BSE would grow, and if it was cancer, it would kill them if they had to wait 6 weeks. (I did say that in a funny way, so they wouldn't do it morbidly - but would remember not to wait that long to see their doctor). It's also not wise to "watch" lumps, but get a second opinion if they're told that would be their plan of care.

Assertion training was in vogue with the advent of the "feminist movement", and I wish it still was employed as a means to get people to realize that no one appreciates their presence on this earth more than they and their family do. So it's necessary to take up their own cause and get what they need!

Family doctors are scarce, as they're working as "hospitalists" here. Certainly from the experience I had in hospital with 3 of them a month ago, I'd say they weren't adequately prepared to do that! I haven't been able to find an internist worth seeing here, and use a place whose door I never thought I'd darken - a "doc-in-the-box".

We must be very civilized since we have the wealthiest poor in the world.

The only reason people need health insurance is that docs charge too much and drugs cost too much. Lower the prices, people pay less and can then afford it.

The measure of a civilised society is to see how it treats the poor and sick.

Specializes in LTC.
We must be very civilized since we have the wealthiest poor in the world.

We also have the largest wealth gap in the world. Does that make us more civilized, or less civilized?

Wow, should everyone be poor in this country? Should we all strive to the lowest common denominator?

Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth and socialism is the equal distribution of misery.

We also have the largest wealth gap in the world. Does that make us more civilized, or less civilized?
Wow, should everyone be poor in this country? Should we all strive to the lowest common denominator?

Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth and socialism is the equal distribution of misery.

Those darned miserable Swedes and Dutch and their socialized healthcare.

Let me throw in 20 million low skilled minimally educated illegal mexicans into their country and then tell me how great their benefits are.

http://www.establishingabroad.com/Bazment/1423.aspx

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/21/a-look-at-swedens-way/

Those darned miserable Swedes and Dutch and their socialized healthcare.
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.

My husbands three younger brothers died of cardiovascular disease.

Two mIs and a second CVA.

The difference, I believe, is that my DH had been taking medication for his hypertension since he was 41. He is now twice that age.

His brothers didn't even know they were hypertensive.

And one didn't understand the need for his meds even after he was started on one saying, "I feel OK."

I think basic simple office visits have kept him healthy.

Oh - I also think an NP may have taken more time for my BIL than the HMO MD did.

Specializes in OB, HH, ADMIN, IC, ED, QI.
We also have the largest wealth gap in the world. Does that make us more civilized, or less civilized?

NEITHER!

And why much ado about socialized health care?

Do people complain about socialized law enforcement?

Do people complain about socialized fire protection?

Do people complain about socialized education?

Do people complain about socialized roads, sidewalks, and other infrastructure?

Do people complain about socialized regulation of food safety?

Do people complain about socialized drug safety?

etc.

(yes, there are some that complain, but is there really a valid argument?)

"Providing for the common welfare" in a part of the United States Constitution. If health care is not part of the common welfare, I don't know what is.

Regards.

A very interesting and thought provoking post...

I have to disagree on a few grounds. The goods you listed are provided either because they would not be provided by the market or because they are best done by gov't due to the ease of enforcement and magnitude of undertaking.

First Fire, law, and infrastructure are "public goods" that would otherwise not be provided by the market. These so called "market failures" need to either be provided by the Gov't or by assurance contracts otherwise they will not be provided. This is actually an ideal role for gov't. Wikipedia public goods if you are interested in more.

You could make the argument, at least for law inforcement that they are needed to maintain order and protect personal liberties. As for infrastructure you could argue that a good infrastructure is needed for proper commerce and so providing these things is best for the common welfare.

Regulation of food and drug safety differ from health care on a few levels. First no other private organization would be able to enforce strict drug or food safety restrictions like the Gov't can. It would be wholly ineffective without the law, judicial system and the enforcement system already in place.

Second, this is a clear instance when the gov't is providing for the common welfare, rather than the individual. Everyone eats a variety of foods/takes drugs and thus regulations affect all. Not everyone needs health care at any given instance. Providing Mrs Smiths BP meds does not affect me or you. Knowing you wont get botulism from the grocery store garbanzo beans does.

With regards to education I dont really have a strong argument. You could say that a more educated populace is better able to control their gov't and make informed decisions in an election-that without it our gov't would crumble. Kinda weak I think - but I do feel it is necessary.

With health care the gov't is not providing for the common welfare, but rather the individual's welfare. You could say that by controlling infections they are providing for common welfare but this is a very weak argument. You could argue that there is a lot of productivity lost from healthcare losses, but again, quite a weak argument, especially when you consider the taxes needed to hoist a national health plan of this magnitude.

If the gov't could come up with a nationalized plan that did these things I would be on board:

1) Provide the same standard of care (or better than currently)

2) Create a more cost effective system

3) Reward primary care and prevention but not at the expense of valuable specialty procedures

4) Not create long wait times- average wait for MRI in Canada 10.2 weeks

5) Insure everyone

6) Not cut physicians pay- as an aside, if physicians pay goes down, everyone's pay will go down, in proportion

7) have some sort of pressure system like higher co-pays for poor lifestyle behaviors (smoking, voluntary poor compliance, drug use, sedentary lifestyle/morbid obesity)

8) Be well run unlike pretty much every other gov't run system

Unfortunately 1 competes with 2, 4 and 5. 2 competes with 3 and 6. America wants to have its cake and eat it too. If this goes through expect a poorly devised system.

+ Add a Comment