s2000raj wrote:
"I'm curious. Who becomes the doctor's in countries what have socialized medicine? I'm not making judgements because I don't know the answer to this."

That depends on the country. Some have parallel private and public systems, and in some of those, doctors working in the public system have private businesses that simply bill a single payer (the government running an efficient health insurance plan), and those working in the public system are working on salary. In places like Cuba, all doctors are paid salaries by the state. At the other extreme, in Canada, pretty much all doctors have their own private practices. Everyone has a health card that is issued by the provincial health authority, and all your doctor does is send your medical bills to the province under your unique health insurance number. You get to chose your own doctor, and the doctor has the unencumbered right to refer you to whatever specialist is deemed best. When you go to a hospital, you just give them your health insurance number and sign a form. That's it. My ex wife and both my parents needed extended hospitalizations and many surgeries. All we ever paid for outside the system was parking when I visited the hospital, and for telephone and TV rental -- the health insurance system paid for the rest. By having one insurer, administrative costs for hospitals, doctors and the health insurance system are much, much lower. Also, nobody is preventing you from having operations that your doctor thinks is necessary, as with HMOs and some American insurance companies.

Doctors also have the freedom to practice medicine in Canada outside the health insurance system. There is a very good clinic that specializes in hernia operations in Toronto that is considered the best in the world, which is outside the system, but things like this are fairly uncommon. People just prefer to be in the system, which delivers high quality health care.

There is also private insurance in Canada, but it is to fill the gaps in the health care system. For example, unless you are on welfare, you have to pay for dentistry. Unless you are on welfare, above 65, disabled or low income, you have to pay for drugs. Same for eyeglass prescriptions So, I belong to a plan through my employer for dental, eyeglass, drug and travel insurance.

 

"he US is at the forefront of medical technology.
without the US Canada (and the rest of the world) would still be in the mid 20th century in term of medical advances.
and you have the gall to criticize US health care.
MRI, CT Scan, X-ray, antibiotics, laser, AIDS, TB, polio, anesthesia were all developed in USA. Canada just copy it."

I forgot to reply to this misguided poster. I suggest that you at least do some research, as most of what you say is wrong, and the slightest bit of googling would demonstrate how very wrong you are. Without at all slighting the advances in medicine done by the U.S., there is lots of credit to go around internationally. Xrays were invented in the UK and Germany (Dr. Roetegen). Antibiotics were discovered in the UK where penicillin was developed. Sometime earlier, the use of antiseptics (by Dr. Lister) and the discovery that disease was spread by germs was made in the UK as well. The first effective modern treatment of TB was developed in Canada (by Dr. Norman Bethune) as was the treatment of diabetes with insulin (Drs Banting and Best) and modern brain surgery techniques (Dr. Wilder Penfield). The surgical treatment for hip displasia in children was developed by Dr. Salter (it is called a Salter hip) in Toronto. Anesthesia was developed in Germany and the UK. Vaccines were first developed in Germany (Dr. Erlich, about whom Warner Bros made a film called Dr. Erlich's Magic Bullet). The AIDS virus was firstidentified in France, where much of the success in working towards treatment has gone on, as was the earlier discovery of pasteurization (Louis Pasteur) as a way of preventing disease. Modern psychiatry was developed in Austria and Germany (Drs. Freud, Jung, Adler, etc). The first heart transplants were done in South Africa (Dr. Christian Barnard). Shall I go on?

I just love the way the other side in this debate makes up their "facts" wholesale. It must be wonderful to live in a fantasy world.

 

JonBoy wrote: "In Canada, many people would rather pay their own medical costs as they incur them instead of losing money off every paycheque to pay for everyone else sucking off the government's programs and clogging up the system. You can make it as noble as you want to but the reality is, they don't have a CHOICE in the matter. The "citizens" of Canada are forced to pay for everyone else in the health care system."

Yes, that's true, JonBoy, just as it is true that many people in the U.s. would rather have the Canadian system. Not everyone has the same opinion. People are taxed in Canada to pay for health care, just as people are taxed in the U.S. to pay for schools (whether they have children in them or not), the military (whether they approve of the war in Iraq or not), roads (whether they drive or not), and all sorts of infrastructure and services. On the other hand, what choice do people who cannot afford health insurance premiums have? What choice do people who have run out of coverage from their insurance plans because of catastrophic illness have? What choice do people who lose their insurance when they change or lose their jobs have? What choice do people who are denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions have? Do you imagine that people choose to have pre-existing conditions or to lose their health insurance along with their jobs? So, what's your point?

 

HondaGal wrote:
Alberta has gone to the two tier system

This is factually incorrect, HondaGal. There are no 2 tiered systems in Canada.

 

Do you realize that of the 40 million or so without healthcare about 25% are estimated to be illegal aliens? Of the remaining uninsured many are young (in their 20's) and simply choose not to buy health insurance because they are healthy. There are also millions in this country that 'can't' afford health insurance because they spend all their money on new cars, HDTV's, pricey food, etc. Hell the family that the left tried to use to bash Bush when he vetoed the expansion of the children's healthcare bill 'couldn't' afford insurance because they had their money in investment properties (in addition to their primary residence) and sending their kids to expensive private schools. Yeah, these people need more of my money since they obviously can't pay for it themselves

 

What choices do people have? They have a lot. As I said, there are many government programs to cover the old and young and those between can be helped by private organizations as well. In addition, there are a number of charity hospitals in each state in the USA that will give FREE major care to patients that can't pay. A good friend of mine works at one of those hospitals.

Life is tough. People have bad things happen. That doesn't mean that it's right to make everyone else pay for it. The Canadian system is HEAVILY abused (to the tax and health detriment of the entire country) and the "normal" citizens pay for it. It is the minor few that couldn't afford to pay if the system was privatized. That's nowhere near a perfect solution and (as many have argued here), not even necessarily a good one.

Congratulations on being 58 with two degrees. As young as I am (28), I've learned that degrees are just a piece of paper and the real learning happens once you leave the school. I've got a piece of paper, too, but it means nothing next to experience and real-world living/working/training. Some of the stupidest people I've met were the "smartest" in school.

 

Since I presume you've left school, JonBoy, I'm waiting for your real learning to begin. As for your argument that sometimes having a degree "means nothing", your performance here is living proof of that. Real learning includes not making up information to suit your argument. The Auditor General in Canada annually examines all government spending and has yet to uncover the massive abuse that you claim exists. But I suppose that you know better. And I suppose that your complete lack of any data on comparative outcomes trumps all the studies that indicate that you are wrong. I've pointed out the simple flaws in your reasoning over and over. Your response is to use insult, made-up "facts" and simple assertions to prove your case. Bravo.

 

I am learning a lot from this thread actually, and I hope it doesn't stop

 

My understanding is that federal law prohibits two-tiered systems. Although we may not technically have a two-tiered system, there are plenty of Canucks who seek out fee-for-service health care because they don't want to/can't wait for services and have the financial resources to do so.

I also thought there was something about Quebec using a two-tiered system (obviously illegally), but I can't remember the details, or where I read about it, so maybe I shouldn't have brought it up.

 

the health system is only good in america when you have very low income.
however if you are not that category america sucks when it comes to HMO. I use to live in sweden and the health care system is pretty good; you dont have to pay anything however sometimes wait for service can be bad. also the selection of over the counter med is very limited which is not good when you have asthma and need a primatene mist inhaler but hey everything there is free when is comes to medical services.