10 Myths About Canadian Health Care, Busted

[Peikko 1,575]

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that those who believe federal government is 'bad' pretty much have no time for any form of public assistance. It's all down to the personal responsibilty ethic apparantly. Just how that fits in with a notion of society I am not entirely sure. To my mind, society at least partly exists to address the needs of those who go through periods of economic distress. If the society aids these people they can more quickly return to being productive members of society. If society doesn't help, then more often than not one creates a layer of society that finds it increasingly difficult to even sustain themselves, let alone improve their lot. This in turn leads to isolationism and hopelessness that creates pockets of people within this layer who turn to crime as their only salvation. Generally those who turn to crime are likely to be those who have the same 'me, me, me' attitude which is quite ironic.

Edited February 12, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Chica Yeyé 41]

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that those who believe federal government is 'bad' pretty much have no time for any form of public assistance. It's all down to the personal responsibilty ethic apparantly. Just how that fits in with a notion of society I am not entirely sure. To my mind, society at least partly exists to address the needs of those who go through periods of economic distress. If the society aids these people they can more quickly return to being productive members of society. If society doesn't help, then more often than not one creates a layer of society that finds it increasingly difficult to even sustain themselves, let alone improve their lot. This in turn leads to isolationism and hopelessness that creates pockets of people within this layer who turn to crime as their only salvation. Generally those who turn to crime are likely to be those who have the same 'me, me, me' attitude which is quite ironic.

You are wise PH, and your logic is not only sophisticated, but compassionate. Kudos sister

[DeadPoolX 9]

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that those who believe federal government is 'bad' pretty much have no time for any form of public assistance. It's all down to the personal responsibilty ethic apparantly. Just how that fits in with a notion of society I am not entirely sure. To my mind, society at least partly exists to address the needs of those who go through periods of economic distress. If the society aids these people they can more quickly return to being productive members of society. If society doesn't help, then more often than not one creates a layer of society that finds it increasingly difficult to even sustain themselves, let alone improve their lot. This in turn leads to isolationism and hopelessness that creates pockets of people within this layer who turn to crime as their only salvation. Generally those who turn to crime are likely to be those who have the same 'me, me, me' attitude which is quite ironic.

In theory, that's an excellent idea. Unfortunately, what supposedly works great as theory rarely works as well in practice.

There are people who do need help "getting back on their feet" and when given the chance, will become productive members of society again. This is true. It is also true, however, that a large segment of the unemployed have no interest in working either. So long as they're cut a check from welfare and/or can survive off other peoples' money without doing much in the way of legitimate work, they'll do so.

You might say that's a very negative attitude to take, but I've had firsthand experience with this. I've known so-called "down and out" individuals, who when questioned, say their job is "collecting a welfare check." There have also been those beggars at the side of the road who, when offered a decent job, turned the opportunity away since they "could make more badgering people for money as they drive by" than working for it honestly.

Is that every single unemployed person? No, of course not. But it's a whole lot of them. If people are given something, without having to work for it, they'll take advantage, thereby using and abusing the privilege. Maybe that's a sad commentary on society, but that's also human nature.

[rhymeswithcandi 0]

Canada and most other universal health-care systems are usually run in countries with highly centralized federal governments. The huge obstacle with a UHC system being implemented in the US is that it goes against everything the country was founded on. And there are simply too many states and counties to allow each state to manage their own system. The smaller and poorer states would inevitably have the worst system. UHC would have to be run on a federal level; Which goes against the foundation of this nation.

As opposed as poor and middle class people (some with 2 jobs and no children - before the "well they should only have the kids they can afford discourse begins) in ANY state getting no health care at all because the decision between eating and buying diabetes supplies is pretty obvious? The logic is a little frail here, me thinksss.

Is health care then a right that relates to a basic human need or is it a privilege only for some (specially those with deep pockets)?

Not only that, but people who ARE paying (a LOT) for years for health insurance are being told they aren't covered for this or that... or the insurance company finds some way to NOT cover them after taking their money every month. My sister-in-law works at a call center for a medical insurance company and she's been looking for another job. She said she can't take it anymore - having to tell ladies who PAY for insurance that they can't take their baby to a specialist because they won't cover it.

I lived in Ontario almost my entire life and there are zero premiums. I'm sure Provincial taxes reflect the cost but I have never (nor my family) ever received a medical bill. There are a few things not covered by the province (eyeglasses, cosmetic procedures, prescriptions etc.) but most employers give you a cap up plan that has you completely covered. As the article mentions, drugs are much cheaper in Canada too.

I'm actually in the process of shopping for a health insurance company right now. I'm not sure how forking out $200-$400 a month for health insurance is ok with most people, especially since my coverage is conditional (most plans make you see a doctor in the network) and there is STILL a co-pay if something happens.

I'm not saying the Canadian system is perfect (no system is) but I'd trade it for what I'm offered here. I think at the VERY least - health insurance companies should be strictly prohibited from refusing coverage regardless.

[Reba 2]

Ontario (re)implemented premiums only a couple of years ago, and it was after I left in 2004. I dunno what the max is I can't seem to find it on their website at the mo. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public...ip/ohip_mn.html But after you pay the premiums, you do not also pay co-pays, you just go see your doctor and that's it.

There are some services that are not covered, as mentioned above like cosmetic surgeries, prescriptions, dentists, yadda yadda yadda, but even those services are generally less costly to the patient than the same services in the US.

I remember when I first started working out of high school in the mid '80s there was a small "user fee" for OHIP. I recall paying like $80 every 3 months er summat. Then they recinded the user fees a few years after that, but re-instated them just a few years ago.

[Krikit 1,165]

Ontario (re)implemented premiums only a couple of years ago, and it was after I left in 2004. I dunno what the max is I can't seem to find it on their website at the mo. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public...ip/ohip_mn.html But after you pay the premiums, you do not also pay co-pays, you just go see your doctor and that's it.

To who, though? That's the question. I don't know a soul who pays any premiums, nor did I ever pay them myself. It all just seems a bit odd.

[DeadPoolX 9]

It sounds to me like both the American and the Canadian health care systems are whacked and could use a major overhaul. But that's just my "professional" opinion speaking.

[peejay 327]

I was totally against national health care in the USA until just the last few years. I have relatively good health and have depended on employer based health coverage all of my life. You really don't know how f*cked up the present system is until you really need it, depend on it, and try to use it. And I really didn't realize that until my wife went through a period of ill health, surgery, and hospitalizations. These insurance companies try to weasel out of paying, but are very happy to take your payments for their high priced premiums every month. It's their whole reason for existing...to make gobs of money on a system you cannot afford to live without. You have no idea what it feels like to get a $12,000 emergency room EoB (Explanation of Benefits) from the insurance company denying the claim. I have spent countless hours on the phone filing appeals on denied benefits, straightening out overcharges, and badgering them repeatedly for refunds due to us. I had to point out the overcharges because they sure as hell are happy to keep the money. This isn't some fly by night mom and pop insurance company...it's Blue Cross Blue Shield. There has to be a better way. National health care can't be any worst than what we have now!

Ever try to get an individual health care policy? We have been trying to keep my 22 year old step daughter with coverage ever since she got booted from my employer's policy (too old and not a student). She has epilepsy and nobody wants to cover her. UniCare offered a $3000 deductible 80/20% policy that excludes the epilepsy treatment from the coverage for 5 years for a $254.00 monthly premium. Tack that onto the $250 per month medication she needs along with the doctor visits the policy won't cover and it's unaffordable. We are trying to get her on the county Gold Card plan from the county hospital district. It's subsidized health care for low income people.

The way I see it the US profit driven system is set up to take premiums from only healthy people, deny paying claims when possible, and exclude people that are ill because it cuts into profits. Whose best interests is that in? Do you need a clue?

[Marilyn. 340]

I have a whole folder of medical bills that we can't afford to pay right now.. once hubby gets his tax money, I am planning on sending each bill a little something just to keep them somewhat happy....

[rhymeswithcandi 0]

I was totally against national health care in the USA until just the last few years. I have relatively good health and have depended on employer based health coverage all of my life. You really don't know how f*cked up the present system is until you really need it, depend on it, and try to use it. And I really didn't realize that until my wife went through a period of ill health, surgery, and hospitalizations. These insurance companies try to weasel out of paying, but are very happy to take your payments for their high priced premiums every month. It's their whole reason for existing...to make gobs of money on a system you cannot afford to live without. You have no idea what it feels like to get a $12,000 emergency room EoB (Explanation of Benefits) from the insurance company denying the claim. I have spent countless hours on the phone filing appeals on denied benefits, straightening out overcharges, and badgering them repeatedly for refunds due to us. I had to point out the overcharges because they sure as hell are happy to keep the money. This isn't some fly by night mom and pop insurance company...it's Blue Cross Blue Shield. There has to be a better way. National health care can't be any worst than what we have now!

Ever try to get an individual health care policy? We have been trying to keep my 22 year old step daughter with coverage ever since she got booted from my employer's policy (too old and not a student). She has epilepsy and nobody wants to cover her. UniCare offered a $3000 deductible 80/20% policy that excludes the epilepsy treatment from the coverage for 5 years for a $254.00 monthly premium. Tack that onto the $250 per month medication she needs along with the doctor visits the policy won't cover and it's unaffordable. We are trying to get her on the county Gold Card plan from the county hospital district. It's subsidized health care for low income people.

The way I see it the US profit driven system is set up to take premiums from only healthy people, deny paying claims when possible, and exclude people that are ill because it cuts into profits. Whose best interests is that in? Do you need a clue?

That is exactly my problem with the system here.

It doesn't effect "healthy" people so it's not a broken system to them. But healthy people can sometimes become unhealthy quite quickly and that's an unfortunate time to realize the system doesn't work the way it should.

It sounds to me like both the American and the Canadian health care systems are whacked and could use a major overhaul. But that's just my "professional" opinion speaking.

I guess it depends what you're measuring them on I guess.

[DeadPoolX 9]

It sounds to me like both the American and the Canadian health care systems are whacked and could use a major overhaul. But that's just my "professional" opinion speaking.

I guess it depends what you're measuring them on I guess.

Each health care system has their strong and their weak points. Anyone who could claim that their country's health care system was perfect would be an ignorant fool (I'm not claiming you are such a person). From the stories I've heard concerning the Canadian health care system (from the Canadians I know; let's not forget, my wife is Canadian, after all), there is a great deal of room left for improvement. We already know what the American health care system could improve itself on.

Edited February 13, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[SteveLaura 0]

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that those who believe federal government is 'bad' pretty much have no time for any form of public assistance. It's all down to the personal responsibilty ethic apparantly. Just how that fits in with a notion of society I am not entirely sure. To my mind, society at least partly exists to address the needs of those who go through periods of economic distress. If the society aids these people they can more quickly return to being productive members of society. If society doesn't help, then more often than not one creates a layer of society that finds it increasingly difficult to even sustain themselves, let alone improve their lot. This in turn leads to isolationism and hopelessness that creates pockets of people within this layer who turn to crime as their only salvation. Generally those who turn to crime are likely to be those who have the same 'me, me, me' attitude which is quite ironic.

In theory, that's an excellent idea. Unfortunately, what supposedly works great as theory rarely works as well in practice.

There are people who do need help "getting back on their feet" and when given the chance, will become productive members of society again. This is true. It is also true, however, that a large segment of the unemployed have no interest in working either. So long as they're cut a check from welfare and/or can survive off other peoples' money without doing much in the way of legitimate work, they'll do so.

You might say that's a very negative attitude to take, but I've had firsthand experience with this. I've known so-called "down and out" individuals, who when questioned, say their job is "collecting a welfare check." There have also been those beggars at the side of the road who, when offered a decent job, turned the opportunity away since they "could make more badgering people for money as they drive by" than working for it honestly.

Is that every single unemployed person? No, of course not. But it's a whole lot of them. If people are given something, without having to work for it, they'll take advantage, thereby using and abusing the privilege. Maybe that's a sad commentary on society, but that's also human nature.

If you have a welfare system (and I believe wholeheartedly that one should exist) then you will have people who will play that system. Similarly, if you have a tax system, you will have people who will find loopholes or just not pay a dime. That is the human nature you speak of.

In order to ensure that abuse is kept to a minimum in the tax system, we have audits and the like - no one suggests (as far as I'm aware) that the whole system needs to be thrown out. The welfare system should have the same level of checks to keep abuse down also.

[Flames9_RN 359]

No system is perfect, each has its pluses and negatives! If one has lots of $$$$, private care (USA) is probably the best. My family (Canadians) have never really had problems with the CDn coverage. My father has had a single, double and quadruple heart bypass surgery and has never had problems seeing a dr. but that can vary from province to province, city to city! Avg cost of your run of the mil heart surgery hovers around $200,000! Would suck if one did not have insurance!! Was a story last yr on an American couple that did not have any insurance and got the bill, it was around $200,000. (maybe a bit less) and how could they afford to pay it? Like i said each type of medical care has its advantages/disadvantages!!

[Empress of Groovy 373]

In theory, that's an excellent idea. Unfortunately, what supposedly works great as theory rarely works as well in practice.

There are people who do need help "getting back on their feet" and when given the chance, will become productive members of society again. This is true. It is also true, however, that a large segment of the unemployed have no interest in working either. So long as they're cut a check from welfare and/or can survive off other peoples' money without doing much in the way of legitimate work, they'll do so.

You might say that's a very negative attitude to take, but I've had firsthand experience with this. I've known so-called "down and out" individuals, who when questioned, say their job is "collecting a welfare check." There have also been those beggars at the side of the road who, when offered a decent job, turned the opportunity away since they "could make more badgering people for money as they drive by" than working for it honestly.

Is that every single unemployed person? No, of course not. But it's a whole lot of them. If people are given something, without having to work for it, they'll take advantage, thereby using and abusing the privilege. Maybe that's a sad commentary on society, but that's also human nature.

Those assertions are simply not true. With any public benefits system just about anywhere, a certain (small) segment of the population will take unfair advantage of it. Rush Limbaugh has done a pretty good job of convincing people of the widespread existence of welfare queens who collect welfare, food stamps, and housing benefits for generations. These types of cases constitute a tiny minority, but nowadays, people on welfare are seen as lazy good-for-nothings who think the government owes them a living. I'm not saying that abuse of the system doesn't exist. I've known people (neighbors, friends of friends, etc.) who were able to receive federal assistance when they probably could have found work. But asserting that a lot of people (a majority, even?) abuse the system ignores the real causes of poverty--largely based on economic forces, not moral shortcomings--and essentially dismisses the plight of poor.

Here's an interesting page from APA that concisely debunks welfare myths. I know that this deviates a bit from the topic of health care, but it seems relevant.

Making 'Welfare to Work' Really Work

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

In theory, that's an excellent idea. Unfortunately, what supposedly works great as theory rarely works as well in practice.

There are people who do need help "getting back on their feet" and when given the chance, will become productive members of society again. This is true. It is also true, however, that a large segment of the unemployed have no interest in working either. So long as they're cut a check from welfare and/or can survive off other peoples' money without doing much in the way of legitimate work, they'll do so.

You might say that's a very negative attitude to take, but I've had firsthand experience with this. I've known so-called "down and out" individuals, who when questioned, say their job is "collecting a welfare check." There have also been those beggars at the side of the road who, when offered a decent job, turned the opportunity away since they "could make more badgering people for money as they drive by" than working for it honestly.

Is that every single unemployed person? No, of course not. But it's a whole lot of them. If people are given something, without having to work for it, they'll take advantage, thereby using and abusing the privilege. Maybe that's a sad commentary on society, but that's also human nature.

Those assertions are simply not true. With any public benefits system just about anywhere, a certain (small) segment of the population will take unfair advantage of it. Rush Limbaugh has done a pretty good job of convincing people of the widespread existence of welfare queens who collect welfare, food stamps, and housing benefits for generations. These types of cases constitute a tiny minority, but nowadays, people on welfare are seen as lazy good-for-nothings who think the government owes them a living. I'm not saying that abuse of the system doesn't exist. I've known people (neighbors, friends of friends, etc.) who were able to receive federal assistance when they probably could have found work. But asserting that a lot of people (a majority, even?) abuse the system ignores the real causes of poverty--largely based on economic forces, not moral shortcomings--and essentially dismisses the plight of poor.

Here's an interesting page from APA that concisely debunks welfare myths. I know that this deviates a bit from the topic of health care, but it seems relevant.

Making 'Welfare to Work' Really Work

from the American Psychological Association?