• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Canadian Healthcare. Is It Really Better Than The United States?

Shad

Veteran Member
Raising the minimum wage is normal and people against it are corporate apologists.

No as people can be against it as due to increases in cost of living as prices adjust to the lowest income. It can also cause close the gape between skilled and certified works and unskilled by rewarding failures while not equally raising the pay of people that spent years in school along with it's costs



Republicans typically don't have middle class policies, which the minimum wage is one.

Min wage is by definition a low income policy not middle class.

Then the business deserves to fail. If they have to rely on paying people peanuts to stay in business, good riddance.

If people can not finish school in order to gain a decent wage they deserve to fail. Your logic seems to only apply to one group not another.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
It's up to businesses to figure out how to avoid paying slave wages, but they would rather move to china than avoid it.

It is also up to the individual to finish school to avoid low paying jobs. The individual is free to look for other jobs with higher pay. You seem to think the only group that must be responsible are businesses rather than fools that do not finish school


That's a moral dilemma

No it isn't as you seem to absolve the individual of any responsibility for their situation
 
Doctors receive bonuses from pharmaceutical companies under a universal system.

Some countries prohibit this (although do try to influence doctors in other ways)

In public healthcare systems in multiple countries I've never been given an unnecessarily expensive medicine.

In for profit, I've rarely not been given an unnecessarily expensive medicine (sometimes 50x the cost of an equally effective alternative) unless I have asked specifically. You are also rarely prescribed only one drug, sometimes 3 or 4 of which most if not all are unnecessary.


The same system discourages testing which is costly. I have had this happen to me when it comes to asthma. It took me 10 years to find a doctor that would setup tests with various specialist in order to provide the right pharmaceutical drug. It changed my life.

Obviously no system is perfect, but I'd take a system where a small number of people find it hard to get treatment, over one where the norm is to act against patients best interests be it costs, unnecessary and harmful overtreatment/medication, etc. People tend to underestimate the serious harms that can be done by excessive medication.

Not to mention people who can't get full insurance due to preexistings, can't afford it or have insurance companies arbitrarily refuse to pay up based on some spurious reason.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Some countries prohibit this (although do try to influence doctors in other ways)

Its not illegal in the Canadian system.

In public healthcare systems in multiple countries I've never been given an unnecessarily expensive medicine.

My point wasn't about prescribing expensive drugs but that doctors can and have prescribed drugs that do not work for all their patients due to relationships with pharmaceutical companies. I have been given "samples" of drugs to cover my expenses. However these samples were of drugs that never worked for me. When my prescription was changed to a drug that worked the samples disappeared.

In for profit, I've rarely not been given an unnecessarily expensive medicine (sometimes 50x the cost of an equally effective alternative) unless I have asked specifically. You are also rarely prescribed only one drug, sometimes 3 or 4 of which most if not all are unnecessary.

FDA influences pricing.


Obviously no system is perfect, but I'd take a system where a small number of people find it hard to get treatment, over one where the norm is to act against patients best interests be it costs, unnecessary and harmful overtreatment/medication, etc. People tend to underestimate the serious harms that can be done by excessive medication.

Neither system in the above seems to actually exist but seems to be a hypothetical you are putting forward.

Not to mention people who can't get full insurance due to preexistings,

This is too vague. Why are they denied? Is it because they got insurance far too late?

can't afford it

So? People can not afford a great many things. Houses, cars, etc.

or have insurance companies arbitrarily refuse to pay up based on some spurious reason.

Examples please.

You seem to ignore the issues with a National system; waiting lists, lack of specialist, overworked underpaid doctors, making it illegal to use private sources for medical service, government control, tax based funding, politicians being involved directly.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Waiting lists for non-essential procedures can actually be a good thing as they act as an incentive against treatment.
Not when there are waiting lists for procedures which will prevent people from going blind like myself and my grandfather had to avoid by skipping the system completely.


They also give people time to think about whether it is necessary, or for the condition to heal itself which is good as operations are not a risk free procedure.

Quick solutions to a person's medical condition can be seen as necessary over unnecessary pain and suffering while people wait around on a list. Waiting lists do not exist merely for elective procedures.

I was on a waiting list years ago for a tonsillectomy as I got tonsillitis 6-8 times per year, I eventually decided against the operation and now I rarely have any problems at all.

Sounds like it was a viral cause. Also surgery is the last option. Sure I can see your point. However waiting lists for caturacts and retina tearing are not something that heals over time yet has a 2 year waiting list here.

Obviously this doesn't apply to all conditions, but will prevent a some unnecessary ops and even save a few lives every year.

Unless you are saying the surgery can cause death I do not see how you can say it saves lives. If so you must also include the patient's ability to withstand surgery and recovery.
 
Neither system in the above seems to actually exist but seems to be a hypothetical you are putting forward.

All based on my experience in real healthcare systems (EU and Asia)

FDA influences pricing.

Doctors have a choice in which drugs they prescribe for a given condition.

Doctors choosing a more expensive option purely to maximise their income goes against the best interests of the patient.

Doctors prescribing unnecessary medication to maximise their income is actively harmful.

This is too vague. Why are they denied? Is it because they got insurance far too late?

For whatever reason someone is not covered for a period, could be their parents never insured them as a child, could be they have worked overseas, they had a period of unemployment, they are an immigrant, were born to parents living overseas, insurance company went bust, insurance company refuses to renew a contract, etc.

There are countless reasons why someone may end up uninsured and unable to get fully reinsured.

So? People can not afford a great many things. Houses, cars, etc.

Some people view healthcare differently to owning a car. It also has a significant effect on others such as family, and significant societal costs.

Examples please.

Happened to a friend of mine just after he had changed insurance companies then had a heart attack.

I'm going to assume that he isn't the only person it has ever happened to.

You seem to ignore the issues with a National system; waiting lists, lack of specialist, overworked underpaid doctors, making it illegal to use private sources for medical service, government control, tax based funding, politicians being involved directly.

Private healthcare isn't illegal in most countries with public systems, nor should it be. The public system tends to make private insurance much cheaper too as people still can use the public system for GP services and they can include a pretty high excess without putting people off.

The average person with private insurance in the UK will pay less (including their tax contribution to the public system) than an average American will for their coverage.

Nothing wrong with people getting private insurance or paying for private treatment if they want.
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
It is better than what we have now in the United States with Obamacare. The liberals and Obama screwed up the healthcare system so everyone could get covered. It consolidated the insurers, so there is less competition and costs are higher now for less coverage. Employers do not want to pay in full for this coverage anymore. The one good that they did was everyone is now covered. Conservatives have to realize the changes that took place from the 1970s and address the new problem and not just say get rid of Obamacare. We can't go back to the old system. If the conservatives do not respond so that the United States has something like the Canadian Healthcare System, then I expect their politicians to be tossed out on their fat ****s in a hurry.

Conservatives still want everyone who wants insurance to pay their fair share. What the conservatives have to understand is everyone should be covered under a healthcare system, not just those without pre-existing conditions or the poor who cannot afford insurance. For example, a debilitating illness to one member of a family could take that family and put them into poverty from which they cannot recover. Thus, they're going to sue someone if they're is liability on the part of government or someone with deep pockets. The medical care costs are too high and this is one of the reasons. It isn't just politicians and lobbyists at work in the United States.

One of the shiny examples of healthcare for all is the single-payer system in Canada. This seems to work in that many people are satisfied with the system, but there are faults such as the best doctors do not work in that system.

Harvard Healthcare Study
"Why Canada?

Thirty years ago, there was no significant difference in the provision of health care in Canada
and the U.S. Since 1971, however, the two countries have gone in dramatically different directions
with dramatically different results.

To highlight some of the more important differences, in the U.S. today,
over 37 million people are without health insurance and a further 53 million are underinsured, which means that they are inadequately insured in the event of a serious illness.

Canada, by contrast, not only offers all of its residents comprehensive health care, but it does so at a far lower cost than in the U.S. While Canadians spend 8.7% of their Gross National Product on health care, or the equivalent of $ 1,483 (U.S.) per person, the U.S. spends 11.8% of the GNP, or $ 2,051 per person for a health care system that doesn't provide health care for all.

For Americans, health care coverage depends primarily on whether health insurance is provided by their employer or through two major public programs, Medicaid for the poor and Medicare for the elderly. For both public and private employees, health care benefits and cost vary tremendously. By making workers dependent upon their employer for health care, there is an extra burden on workers who are forced to change or lose their jobs in the U.S. Also, a growing number of people with a history of health problems, or with what insurance companies deem to be "pre-existing conditions," find themselves "uninsurable." With rising health care costs, many employers in the private sector do not provide any health care benefits at all. Most employers, whether private or public, are attempting to shift the cost of health care programs onto workers. Medicare, for example, now covers only about 40% of the health care costs of the aged.

All Canadians, rich and poor, regardless of the state of their health, age, or employment status, are covered by the same comprehensive system. Canadians go to the doctor of their choice
and receive hospital care for free. There are essentially no financial barriers to health care in Canada,
and there is an ample supply of physicians. Private insurance that duplicates the comprehensive services covered by the provincial plans are prohibited. Co-payments, deductibles, and direct patient payments to providers for covered services are also not permitted."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/healthc.pdf

Differing Opinions
Liberals
AARP
5 Myths About Canadian Health Care - AARP

HuffPo
Americans Who've Used Canada's Health-Care System Respond to Current Big-Lie Media Campaign | The Huffington Post

Conservatives
Still don't have one except to repeal Obamacare?

Of course the Canadian system is vastly better.

Everyone will need health insurance in their lifetime. Nobody knows when or how much. So why on earth should it be optional or out of reach for anyone?

And the public agrees with me almost to a man. Should a person be left in the cold when his appendix burst? Nobody in their right mind says yes. So rather than respond to inadequate coverage, just cover everyone. It's not hard to understand.

The reason our system cost so much is the fact that it's private. I think a public plan is the future, the problem is I don't see republicans passing anything like it. It will be another stop gap plan that doesn't insure everyone and that cost too much for those at the fringes.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
No as people can be against it as due to increases in cost of living as prices adjust to the lowest income. It can also cause close the gape between skilled and certified works and unskilled by rewarding failures while not equally raising the pay of people that spent years in school along with it's costs
All wages increase in this situation, not just minimum wage.

Min wage is by definition a low income policy not middle class.
True, but people are trying to get ahead and reach the middle class. Do you think people who work full time should live in poverty? You're supporting the continued destruction of the middle class.



If people can not finish school in order to gain a decent wage they deserve to fail. Your logic seems to only apply to one group not another.
Finish school? I'd say progressives are all about higher education. Where conservatives are against it. You act like this is only related to 1 party.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Of course the Canadian system is vastly better.

Everyone will need health insurance in their lifetime. Nobody knows when or how much. So why on earth should it be optional or out of reach for anyone?

And the public agrees with me almost to a man. Should a person be left in the cold when his appendix burst? Nobody in their right mind says yes. So rather than respond to inadequate coverage, just cover everyone. It's not hard to understand.

The reason our system cost so much is the fact that it's private. I think a public plan is the future, the problem is I don't see republicans passing anything like it. It will be another stop gap plan that doesn't insure everyone and that cost too much for those at the fringes.

Not everyone wants to pay for it if they do not use it.

I'm in my 50s, so am going to wait to see what the US and the pubs come up with. What I said was Canada is better than Obamacare. For example, I am paying more out-of-pocket for less service now. I didn't like seeing the competition of insurers get bought up. Less competition means more money. The parking lots are even fuller than before at Kaiser. I think I'm waiting longer as the office is usually crowded for urgent care. If you can pay for the best service, then the rich still get the best coverage. The new technology that I see on Facebook articles is not available at Kaiser. For example, my friend got a knee replacement surgery at Kaiser. They got the regular one and the custom knee joint created on a special 3D-printer or robotic knee replacement was not available, i.e. the best and latest technology is not widely available. One would have to travel to the locations offering it.

That said, I think the biggest difference is for those with pre-existing conditions and the poor get decent coverage for what they pay. I believe they should be covered and am willing to pay my fair share. That said, Canada and the US healthcare systems are ranked pretty close so I'm not willing to go extreme such as single-payer. What drags US healthcare down are the high costs and that is because if you have an ear infection and need antibiotics for it, then everyone wants the best antibiotic and not the no-name brand.

Health Care Index by Country 2017

I can't find the comprehensive comparison between US and Canadian healthcare survey anymore, but it was pretty close. The US ranked #1 in the world in several areas. Don't get railroaded into believing Canada is #1 or anything like that.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
All wages increase in this situation, not just minimum wage.

No it doesn't as my point was specifically regarding min wage which has no policy regarding other wage increases.

True, but people are trying to get ahead and reach the middle class.

Which is accomplished by seniority in labour in which pay increases based on experience of years not as a starting wage. The other methods involve a form of education. Neither applies to min wage increases.

Do you think people who work full time should live in poverty?

I think people should consider how to avoid such wages before said wages become an issue. Such as finishing school. Throwing money at people that made poor choices is not a solution in my opinion.


You're supporting the continued destruction of the middle class.

Nope as min wage is low class not middle. As I pointed out above an education is one the ways to become middle class without government policy.

Finish school? I'd say progressives are all about higher education. Where conservatives are against it. You act like this is only related to 1 party.

I never mentioned party in regards to this. Conservative are pro-education but do not emphasis public education as the end all of education as much as progressives do. Conservatives are proposing alternatives that can be very useful for the low class such as voucher programs.
 
Last edited:

Shad

Veteran Member
Doctors have a choice in which drugs they prescribe for a given condition.

Which drugs are available is still dictated by the FDA. Hence why the generic market is huge outside America.

Doctors choosing a more expensive option purely to maximise their income goes against the best interests of the patient.

Generalization. Point out individual that do so. I will agree.

Doctors prescribing unnecessary medication to maximise their income is actively harmful.

Doctors are not pharmacists thus the prescription does nothing to maximize their income



For whatever reason someone is not covered for a period,

So? Medicare is still an option.

could be their parents never insured them as a child,

Which is their parents fault but does nothing to prevent an adult in getting their own insurance

could be they have worked overseas

You can buy overseas coverage.

they had a period of unemployment,

Get a savings account or a loan.

they are an immigrant,

Which are not covered by a lot of services by being immigrants. In Canada immigrants have limited coverage as non-citizens. Also immigrant are capable of buying insurance or gain employment with coverage provided by their employer.

were born to parents living overseas,

They are still citizens and can be covered by their parent's plans. Again the fault of the parents. Also as an adult nothing stops them from getting their own plan.


insurance company went bust,

So? Pick a company to use not on the verge of collapse.


insurance company refuses to renew a contract,

So? No company or individual is obligated to renew any contract. The individual can find another company to form a contract with.

There are countless reasons why someone may end up uninsured and unable to get fully reinsured.

So? Get Medicare



Some people view healthcare differently to owning a car.

Yes they want to treat it as a right and use government power to impose their views on others that disagree and force them to use the system.


It also has a significant effect on others such as family, and significant societal costs.

Sure. Still doesn't mean I have to agree with a single payer system.

Happened to a friend of mine just after he had changed insurance companies then had a heart attack.

So your friend switched plans but did so in a way there was a gap in coverage. Sounds like bad planning.

I'm going to assume that he isn't the only person it has ever happened to.

A reasonable conclusion.

Private healthcare isn't illegal in most countries with public systems, nor should it be.

Government limits what the private industry can cover which is usually what the national system doesn't. National system rarely have a full private industry that covers everything the national system does.

The public system tends to make private insurance much cheaper too as people still can use the public system for GP services and they can include a pretty high excess without putting people off.

Yes cheaper as it dictates what the private industry can cover. The reduction in cost is due to a limitation not competition.

The average person with private insurance in the UK will pay less (including their tax contribution to the public system) than an average American will for their coverage.

Private insurance which is limited by government policy on what services it can cover while private insurance in the US covers any or all of the services provided by the national system. This difference is important and cause issues with your point.

Nothing wrong with people getting private insurance or paying for private treatment if they want.

Except government regulates what private insurance can actually cover so no many are not free to do so. Also it limits a person's ability to opt out of national programs forcing people to pay for both a national and private form rather than one or the other.
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
Not everyone wants to pay for it if they do not use it.

I couldn't care less, because they will use it. That is the lie they tell themselves, but when they get in a car accident or are hit by a bus, they end up in the ER and we end up paying for it.

I'm in my 50s, so am going to wait to see what the US and the pubs come up with. What I said was Canada is better than Obamacare. For example, I am paying more out-of-pocket for less service now. I didn't like seeing the competition of insurers get bought up. Less competition means more money. The parking lots are even fuller than before at Kaiser. I think I'm waiting longer as the office is usually crowded for urgent care. If you can pay for the best service, then the rich still get the best coverage. The new technology that I see on Facebook articles is not available at Kaiser. For example, my friend got a knee replacement surgery at Kaiser. They got the regular one and the custom knee joint created on a special 3D-printer or robotic knee replacement was not available, i.e. the best and latest technology is not widely available. One would have to travel to the locations offering it.

That said, I think the biggest difference is for those with pre-existing conditions and the poor get decent coverage for what they pay. I believe they should be covered and am willing to pay my fair share. That said, Canada and the US healthcare systems are ranked pretty close so I'm not willing to go extreme such as single-payer. What drags US healthcare down are the high costs and that is because if you have an ear infection and need antibiotics for it, then everyone wants the best antibiotic and not the no-name brand.

Health Care Index by Country 2017

I can't find the comprehensive comparison between US and Canadian healthcare survey anymore, but it was pretty close. The US ranked #1 in the world in several areas. Don't get railroaded into believing Canada is #1 or anything like that.

I get the differences. The US has slightly more advanced care in some areas. But that is all worthless if half the country cannot afford it.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
No it doesn't as my point was specifically regarding min wage which has no policy regarding other wage increases.
Of course all wages would increase below the threshold, regardless if it's minimum or not. Say the MW now is $8. If it goes to $12, any hourly pay between $8-11 will move to $12. So you can see it will affect more than just the MW, it will affect the hourly rate of all wages underneath the new MW level.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Of course all wages would increase below the threshold, regardless if it's minimum or not.

Which the commercial industry will follow as their own costs all go up as all wages go up thus min wages solves nothing.

Say the MW now is $8.

Federally it is just under $8


If it goes to $12, any hourly pay between $8-11 will move to $12. So you can see it will affect more than just the MW, it will affect the hourly rate of all wages underneath the new MW level.

I was not talking about those wages. I was talking about wages which require an education above the proposed min wage. This leave an economic parity to unskilled and uneducated labors to educated ones without the associated debt education typical requires. Again this is rewarding people that are failures rather than providing motivation for themselves to get out of poverty.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
I must say I am incredibly glad that your position is extremely rare to come by. It sounds as something that came from a novel's character.

Sounds like something out of a Robert A Heinlein novel. "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" perhaps?
 
Top