Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / August 2004
Canadian and American Health Care Systems Compared
|
|
Thread rating:  |
tcomeau - 26 Aug 2004 16:02 GMT http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/wikipedia/Canadian_and_American_health_care_ systems_compared.shtml
excerpt: ******
The comparison of the health care systems of Canada and the United States is of great import to both nations. The very different methods of delivering health care allows citizens and politicians to look to the other side of the border for alternatives. In Canada the United States is both used as a model and a cautionary warning with regards to increasing private sector involvement in health care. In the United States Canada's socialized health system is also seen both as model to be followed and a failure to be avoided by different sides of the ideological spectrum.
****
Cost of health care With it being one of the most expensive items of both nations' budgets. In 2001 Canada about 16.2% of government money was spent on health care while in the United States this number was 17.6%. When exchange rates are included it can be seen that government in the United States spends more per capita on health care than it does in Canada. In 2001 government in Canada spent $1533, in US dollars per person on health care while in the United States it gave $2168.
Despite the American government paying more per capita, private sources also pay far more for health care in the United States. In Canada an average of $630 dollars is spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, including dental, eye care, and drugs. In the United States this number is $2719.
In 2001 the United States spent in total 13.6% of annual GDP on health care. In Canada only 9.5% of GDP was spent on health care.
******
TC
Robert - 26 Aug 2004 18:40 GMT http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/wikipedia/Canadian_and_American_health_care_ systems_compared.shtml
> excerpt: > ****** [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > TC This from a Canadian economist.
The Canadian system is built around a compulsory public-insurance regime that provides most medical and hospital services free. Of course, it is not free for the taxpayer, who finances the system at a rate of 22% of all taxes raised in Canada. The Canadian government pays about 71% of total Canadian health care expenditures, compared to 44% paid by the government in the U.S. This translates into public health expenditures of 7% of GDP in Canada and 6% in the U.S.-a rather small difference. The difference in total expenditures is due to higher private expenditures in the U.S. Why are private health expenditures so low in Canada? The main reason is that they are illegal, which gets us to the heart of the system's hidden costs.
Canadian public health insurance is not only compulsory, it is also monopolistic. The system is administered by provincial governments under strict guidelines imposed by federal law and federal subsidies. Private insurance covering publicly insured services is illegal. Physicians are forbidden to accept private payments above the fees billed to the government. Hospitals are public or non-profit, and tightly regulated. Physicians' fees are determined-or "negotiated"-by provincial agencies. Prices of drugs are controlled. In short, the public supply of medical services is rationed, and there is little private alternative. Hence the apparent low cost of the system.
The hidden costs include the poor quality of services, and the costs imposed on customers (aptly called "patients" in this case) who have to wait in queues.
Quality is subjective and can only be evaluated through consumer choices, but the government won't let consumers make choices and vote with their feet if they are not satisfied. Anecdotal evidence of questionable quality is everywhere. In a recent piece in Montreal's Gazette, a Canadian related her own experience, and contrasted the "kindness, discretion and professionalism" of staff in U.S. hospitals, with the frequent rudeness of unionized personnel in the Canadian system.
John Que - 27 Aug 2004 08:29 GMT http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/wikipedia/Canadian_and_American_health_c are_systems_compared.shtml
> > excerpt: > > ****** [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > professionalism" of staff in U.S. hospitals, with the frequent rudeness of > unionized personnel in the Canadian system. Anecdotes aren't proof. Having said that I recall observing a VA nurse was ignorant and a surly brute. Does that mean the medicial care provided was flawed? Would the old guys gotten they medical without their little bit of socialized care? I think many would have been "out of luck" without it. Veterans sure seem to apppreciate the VA when they need it. I've observed nurses working in normal hospitals, that were pleasant to the patient but only on the surface. I've observed nurses bumble about with computer systems in a quite chilling manner in one of the local hospitals. And that was not just one observation by the way. None of my observations are real proof. Over all, the staffs at the VA and at the various hospital seemed both professional and able.
Robert - 27 Aug 2004 18:46 GMT http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/wikipedia/Canadian_and_American_health_c
> are_systems_compared.shtml > > > [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > Over all, the staffs at the VA and at the various hospital seemed both > professional and able. I would never bad mouth or speak negatively toward my follow health care workers through out the world. We simply do things the way they are handed down to us. I admire and respect those who sacrifice themselves in order to serve their follow man under very poor circumstances. I recall the last Ebola outbreak in Africa which took the lives of nuns treating the sick. Their heart and spirit is beyond reproach.
GMCarter - 27 Aug 2004 11:07 GMT snip>
>This from a Canadian economist. Completely irrelevant if you don't provide the NAME of this economist and where this material is derived from.
Tom did. And great stuff, Tom, thanks!!!
George M. Carter
Larry Hoover - 28 Aug 2004 03:03 GMT > http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/wikipedia/Canadian_and_American_health_care_ systems_compared.shtml > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > TC Robert seems unable to grasp the simplest of comparisons. The net government and private expenditures (in US dollars), in the two countries, were $2163 per person per year in Canada, compared to $4887 per person per year in the United States. Despite spending only 9.5% of the GDP on health care (the sum of private and government expenditures), Canada provided health care to all Canadians. The U.S. spends 13.6% of its GDP on health care, while tens of millions of Americans are uninsured, and receive substandard care. (If not having insurance led to quality health care, who would pay for insurance?)
Not referenced here, but I've seen it reported that about 1.5% of the Canadian health care budget goes to administrative costs, compared to over 30% in the U.S. system. Correcting that inefficiency alone would provide full health care to all Americans.
Lar
Robert - 28 Aug 2004 04:44 GMT http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/wikipedia/Canadian_and_American_health_care_ systems_compared.shtml
> > excerpt: > > ****** [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Lar Ok I see what you are saying then. The Canadians should run the American health care system. Who do you think will run the so called new system in the USA. You don't seem to get at all what I am saying. Canada is not the USA. You can not compare.
tcomeau - 28 Aug 2004 17:08 GMT > http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/wikipedia/Canadian_and_American_health_care_ systems_compared.shtml > > > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > the USA. You don't seem to get at all what I am saying. Canada is not the > USA. You can not compare. No, you do not see what he is saying. No he is not saying that Canadians should run the American system. That is the most moronic leap of logic that you have made to date. And you've displayed a lot of moronic leaps of logic.
We can compare, and we have compared, and the US healthcare system sucks big time. The only ones who benefit from the US system is those who run it. Those who are supposed to benefit from it, ie. the clients, end up with nothing either in terms of health care or their shatterred personal finances.
So stick your stupidity up your capitalistic butthole and rotate a while.
TC
Robert - 28 Aug 2004 22:11 GMT http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/wikipedia/Canadian_and_American_health_care_ systems_compared.shtml
> > excerpt: > > ****** [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Lar You are really way off when you rely on government statistics that do not report hidden costs. Hiding costs are a specialty of governments throughout the world and you fall for it. I would suggest you read this. Danzon, Patricia M. "Hidden Overhead Costs: Is Canada's System Really Less Expensive?" Health Affairs (Spring 1992): 21-43.
Here is another hidden costs and that is doctors and others are leaving Canada. Who will pay for sending good doctors to the USA? Canadians will in the form of one Billion dollars.
Are you able to grasp this Lar or is the CMA a right wing organization?
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/08/17/588003-cp.html
The CMA wants the federal government to ante up $1 billion over five years for a national Health Human Resources Reinvestment Fund to increase the number of openings for medical students and post-graduate training positions, while fast-tracking residencies for medical graduates from other countries and establishing a program to recruit and retain health-care professionals in the system.
"We need more doctors," Patel told reporters Tuesday, noting that the most acute shortage is among general practitioners, leaving an estimated four million Canadians without a family doctor of their own.
And a CMA report analyzing the doctor shortfall shows Canada has 2.1 physicians per 1,000 residents, ranking it 25th out of 30 countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
"There is a major shortage at the moment," said Dr. Dana Hanson, co-author of the report. "Projections looking into the future (show that) even with reform of primary care . . . we'll still have an increasing shortfall between the services that will be required in the future and the people there that will be able to provide those services."
When it comes to general practitioners, an aging, sicker population is putting more pressure on family doctors already working long hours, added Patel.
"Governments have been chastising physicians for seeing too many patients, but the volume is there. What do you do when they come knocking at your door," said Patel, a family practitioner in Gimli, Man., for the last 30 years. "I practice in a small town and they come to my house!"
Here is one also on hidden costs as cancer treatment of new drugs or home treatment is not covered in the national insurance. The Canadian Cancer Society. The CMA wants the federal government to ante up $1 billion over five years for a national Health Human Resources Reinvestment Fund to increase the number of openings for medical students and post-graduate training positions, while fast-tracking residencies for medical graduates from other countries and establishing a program to recruit and retain health-care professionals in the system.
The CMA wants the federal government to ante up $1 billion over five years for a national Health Human Resources Reinvestment Fund to increase the number of openings for medical students and post-graduate training positions, while fast-tracking residencies for medical graduates from other countries and establishing a program to recruit and retain health-care professionals in the system.
Here is another example of the so called free healthcare system in which the CCS is seeing the governments screw people over with selective coverage or raising deductibles and not to mention employer based drug benefits plan for employees.
http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,2939,3172_335421_363674_langId-en,0 0.html
Keep on talking about how cheap the Canadian government is and try telling that to the people who need the services. It is not only the people who are revolting and voting with their feet but the same healthcare providers that are responsible for the very system are leaving also. Try telling them about GNP and they will react like this.
Canada spends little more than half as much as we do per capita, or relative to gross domestic product, and its costs have been rising much more slowly than ours have. But this control has been achieved through fiscal restraints that have limited health services and added to waiting lists. There is now a pressing need for more money, and many conservative politicians fear that the cost will undermine their tight budgets. On a recent trip to Toronto to speak at a meeting of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, I witnessed an extraordinary, un-Canadian shouting match between the new Ontario minister of health, a fellow speaker, and members of the audience. The seniors were incensed by his suggestion that the provincial government was not going to shoulder any more of the costs of home health care and outpatient drugs. Their shouts nearly drowned out the youthful minister, who soon lost his cool and was shouting back about the new realities of fiscal restraint.
GNP is BS to the AARP.
|
|
|