Comments on: POLICY: Oh Canada

By: Health Insurance Canada

Health Insurance Canada — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:31:48 +0000

We do have a lot of health benefits as Canadians, and coming from a Canadian – I am very grateful for the basic health care that we receive. However, acquiring comprehensive health insurance is still a necessity in Canada. Luckily, there are some affordable plans that you can obtain.

By: Group Health Benefits

Group Health Benefits — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 15:03:54 +0000

What’s interesting is that even though this blog post is some 7 years old, not a whole lot has changed, despite many different political changes within Canada and around the world. Wikipedia has a decent comparison between the health care between Canada and the US; it’ll be interesting to see how things change with Obama’s new proposed health care plans for Americans.

By: Dental Care Preston

Dental Care Preston — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 21:35:58 +0000

Just read the comments given here , It is more or less the same situation in UK,We have seen a very huge increase in the purchase of private health care plans, I do not have any reason to believe this trend will decrease.

By: Roger Godby

Roger Godby — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 03:28:44 +0000

I live and work in Japan. My employer pays part of my national health bill; I pay the rest from my paycheck. When I see a doctor or dentist for treatment, I pay 30% of the government-set price; taxpayers pay the other 70%. Right now, I have no complaints but I do buy worldwide coverage that runs about $3600 per annum.
However, Japan’s system is crumbling. Demographics here are horrid, with over 20% of the population aged 65+ and Boomers set to retire and thus jack costs. There are cost control limits, such as one non-metal dental crown a year (after that, you pay 100%), and procedures not covered at all, including cosmetic surgery (certainly not when for vanity: no free boob jobs). Stroll about a major city and you might see people collecting money to see a sick person to the US for something that can’t be done here: either the expertise is lacking or it’s not covered.
If you can’t pay that 30% of the medical tab, apparently it sucks to be you.
One thing Japan lacks, fortunately, are the US-style trial lawyers who donate largely to the DNC (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=K01). Tort reform might help lower medical costs by lowering malpractice insurance costs and reducing the self-protective need to order spurious tests.
I have worked with a few Canadians (and other foreigners) and most, if they need serious medical care, check back home but often end up flying to Thailand or, less common, Singapore: cheaper, faster, comparable quality, English-speaking, and better weather.

By: Jane Smith

Jane Smith — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 05:56:26 +0000

I was just reading very sad story about the terrible health care a woman in Ottawa received. This is a must read.!
http://canadahealth.x10hosting.com

By: German Health Care

German Health Care — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:17:31 +0000

Many people have mentioned the German and French systems and have compared them to both the UK and Canadian systems. To me this seems problematic since the finances of both Germany and France aren’t exactly in good shape at the moment. From my experience in Europe, the health care system wasn’t very robust and spendy nor were there any features that were anywhere near advanced technologically. This leads me to believe that even while pinching pennies as the Germans and French are doing, the government still sucks at managing health care. Also I might suggest taking a simple economics course, it explains while not everyone can have the best…its called supply and demand.

By: Thomas Anderson

Thomas Anderson — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 09:15:00 +0000

Go Canada! Now this is a foreign mission to be proud of. Canada needs a foreign policy more like this, and less like the Neo-Con 'War Of Terror'.

By: Tom Leith

Tom Leith — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:11:31 +0000

> I have on more than one occasion heard the doctors
> in that institution and in private practice remark
> that we really need a one payer system here.
Sometimes I wonder if this is because it seems easier to manipulate one government payer than it is to negotiate with (say) half a dozen. I note also the management of the two kinds of payers face different incentives. Managers at For-Profit insurers compete for their salaries by delivering profits. Managers at government insurers compete for their salaries by delivering services to one group of people payed for by another.
What astounds me is that expenditures in the government payer systems are as well-controlled as they are (even Medicare). I would’ve expected more pandering (“cute puppies and apple pie”) than there apparently is. For some reason, it seems like it is OK to berate and legislate against an evil Profit-Seeking HMO when it has cost-conscious care paths or standards of practice, but the government “HMO” is a different story. Probably cultural differences again. Any idea on this??

By: Trudi Kotrosa

Trudi Kotrosa — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:55:28 +0000

I first want to say that there is no system that is perfect. In the States we pay far too much for treatment,thereby, as another correspondent said “rationing it”.
While I cannot speak first-hand to the Canadian health care system, I can tell you that I have cousins in Ontario and they rave about it.
As an immigrant to the USA from the UK, I can speak volumes on the subject of those two health care systems. I have been here for 40 years, and worked in a major medical institution on the East Coast for 30 of those years. I have on more than one occasion heard the doctors in that institution and in private practice remark that we really need a one payer system here.
If you want to talk about the stepchild of the American health care system, think mental health. Even with good insurance it is difficult to get good mental health treatment, and even if you do it is more expensive and poorer than general health insurance. How often have we heard of someone with something like schizophrenia really losing it and murdering someone – even although they and their family members have tried to get the necessary treatment.
On a more personal note, I have a brother who lives in England, and unfortunately he has recently been diagnosed with metastatic melanoma, a particularly deadly form of cancer. While there is no cure for it anywhere, he was immediately able to get treatment – no waits, no wondering how to pay for the treatment – and no fear of bankruptcy because of the health care available in Britain.
I, myself, am reaching retirement age and I am toying with the idea of even while living in the US, buying British health insurance in order to be able to use it if, God forbid, I should have a very serious and chronic illness like cancer.
It’s much cheaper to fly to London and get the treatment there than it is to try to get it here. Also, the treatment is just as good.

By: Eric Novack

Eric Novack — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 03:04:27 +0000

On “The Eric Novack Show” yesterday, I interviewed Canadian Medical Association president Dr. Albert Schumacher about the Supreme Court decision. Among the many very interesting things he said about the ruling and Canadian healthcare were comments about the doctor shortage and “acceptable” waiting times.
Currently 12% of Canadians do not have access to a primary care doctor. In Canada, that means it is essentially impossible to get a referral to a specialist. The population of Canada is approximately 32 million.
Simple math tells me that, proprtionately, if the Canadian system were transplanted on the US- about 37 million Americans would not have access to the medical system through a primary physician. Sounds about like the number of uninsured…
The CMA also has released guidelines on “acceptable” waiting times. This includes 9 months for a joint replacement…
Hear the whole interview at http://www.ericnovack.com under “show archives”.