Thursday, July 02, 2009

Canada: Boom in Private Health Care Business

Private for-profit clinics are a booming business in Canada -- a country often touted as a successful example of a universal health system. Facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that Canadians are willing to pay for treatment.

"Any wait time was an enormous frustration for me and also pain. I just couldn't live my life the way I wanted to," says Canadian patient Christine Crossman, who was told she could wait up to a year for an MRI after injuring her hip during an exercise class. Warned she would have to wait for the scan, and then wait even longer for surgery, Crossman opted for a private clinic.

As the Obama administration prepares to launch its legislative effort to create a national health care system, many experts on both sides of the debate site Canada as a successful model. But the Canadian system is not without its problems. Critics lament the shortage of doctors as patients flood the system, resulting in long waits for some treatment. "No question, it was worth the money," said Crossman, who paid several hundred dollars and waited just a few days.

~FOX NEWS

24 Comments:

At 7/02/2009 12:12 PM, Anonymous Chris said...

IN Canada, your dog or cat is able to get an advanced medical image (MRI, CAT scan, etc.) with no appointment and usually with less than a 24 hour wait. Do a You Tube search for John Stossel & Healthcare. It's discussed there.

 
At 7/02/2009 12:49 PM, Blogger C. August said...

A neighbor from Canada just moved here a year ago, and in talking to him at a party, he relayed a story to me that he had blown out his knee playing football and was put on a 6-month waiting list. Then when the appt. came up, they pushed him back another 6-months, and he gave up.

When he moved here, he happened to mention his knee pain to his doc, who got him an MRI the next day, and surgery a few weeks later.

This is what he have to look forward to if Obama's plans go through.

 
At 7/02/2009 5:12 PM, Blogger rufus said...

Yes, but there are millions in the U.S. that CAN NOT GET an MRI, Period.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are living with the types of circumstances these people had. They are poor, and are either uninsured, or underinsured. They are Screwed.

If the guy with the "blown-out" knee was a "poor" laborer with no health insurance he would be out of work, with no chance of treatment. With no treatment he would have no chance of going to work.

If getting that "poor" laborer treatment means that YOU will have to wait another two weeks to have your recreational injury treated you need to "Suck it Up."

Let's lay it on the line, folks. I'm 62 years old, and have never voted for a Democrat for President, or Congress, in my life; but, if the Republican Party doesn't wake up there won't be another Republican in the White House in my lifetime.

 
At 7/02/2009 5:19 PM, Blogger C. August said...

I understand what you're saying, Rufus, but I wonder what you think the problem is?

Have you perhaps thought about the fact that the problem is not too little government involvement, but too much?

Health care services are not a right, just like any other services or products, produced by others, are not rights. As such, they should be traded value for value on the free market, with no government involvement.

I agree that the Republican party must wake up. But they can't "wake up" to socialistic impulses they've been acting on for the past 100 years. They must rediscover individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism.

 
At 7/02/2009 5:43 PM, Blogger 1 said...

"Yes, but there are millions in the U.S. that CAN NOT GET an MRI, Period"...

Oh! boo! hoo!

"If the guy with the "blown-out" knee was a "poor" laborer with no health insurance he would be out of work, with no chance of treatment. With no treatment he would have no chance of going to work"...

Then said laborer should've gotten a different job, a job with health insurance...

"If getting that "poor" laborer treatment means that YOU will have to wait another two weeks to have your recreational injury treated you need to "Suck it Up.""...

Wow! What an insanely stupid suggestion!

If said poor laborer can't afford it why don't YOU rufus pay for said poor laborer?

"Let's lay it on the line, folks. I'm 62 years old, and have never voted for a Democrat for President, or Congress, in my life; but, if the Republican Party doesn't wake up there won't be another Republican in the White House in my lifetime"...

Yeah sure you're not a Democrat...

None the less, there's only a dime's worth of difference between to the two (check out the platform the manchurian candidate had and compare it to the one the parasitic pinko is pushing) so not having another Republican in the White House is hardly a world shattering problem...

 
At 7/02/2009 7:44 PM, Anonymous Fortunately Not An American said...

1 you are such a pathetic arrogant guy. I feel sorry for you.
Show some respect for the people who create wealth and have seen their share of national income decline so much since the supply side "revolution". Has the neoliberal - new order elite forgotten the middle class riots of the 60's?

 
At 7/02/2009 8:09 PM, Blogger 1 said...

"you are such a pathetic arrogant guy. I feel sorry for you"...

Could this be rufus using yet another alias?

"Show some respect for the people who create wealth and have seen their share of national income decline so much since the supply side "revolution". Has the neoliberal - new order elite forgotten the middle class riots of the 60's?"...

Why it has to be! The whining, socialist nonsense (bizzare selection of words strung together in an attempt to impress) comes shining through...

BTW rufus if you feel such compassion for these alledged victims then feel free to open YOUR wallet and feel free to redistribute your wealth to make it a happier planet all around...

How did you like my use of the word, 'feel'?

 
At 7/02/2009 8:22 PM, Blogger rufus said...

Nope, that wasn't me, 1.

I'm not a socialist schmuck; I'm just smarter than you. I know that for a Society to remain successful it has to take care of the poor as well as the wealthy.

And, even in the most primitive societies the Shaman served ALL of the villagers. If he didn't he was soon the Ex-Shaman.

 
At 7/03/2009 2:34 AM, Anonymous richard said...

There is another remarkable comment in the article:

"Private clinics don't produce one new doctor, nurse, or specialist. All they do it take the existing ones out of the public system, make wait times longer for everybody else while people who can pay more and more and more money jump the queue for health care services,"

People who say this, assume that docters are 'owned' by the state. They cannot decide where & when they want to work. It's not fair if docters don't want to work for the government!

Bizar.

 
At 7/03/2009 7:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rufus, I don't know how things work where you live but if you need an MRI where I live you get one, even if you have no insurance.

When I was a WWWM (Wonderful Widowed White Man) I briefly dated a woman who had no insurance, no pot nor a window... you get the idea. She had had two MRIs and an angiogram without any expense to her.

I suggest you look up how Medicaid works in your state. I also suggest you lookup how healthcare works in Singapore. There are alternatives to Obamacare, you know.

I am macquechoux

 
At 7/03/2009 10:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"rufus" continues this ignorant rant on every health care post.

Get a clue.

No one, in need of an MRI, in this country is denied treatment, period!

I'm sure that your drivel is applauded, between tokes, at screenings of Michael Moore "documentaries", but just like his movies, there is absolutely no truth involved.

 
At 7/03/2009 12:16 PM, Blogger rufus said...

Yes, I, also, know people who received MRIs in spite of the fact that they couldn't pay for them.

I, also, witnessed that when the condition was deemed "not life-threatening" TREATMENT WAS DENIED.

Look, an MRI is a tool for Diagnosis. It IS NOT a "Treatment."

I'm familiar with a young female that's had more MRIs than you've had automobiles, BUT, She's still sick. And, she owes in excess of $100,000.00 for MRIs she didn't need.

YOU payed for those excess MRIs. It would have been Cheaper had you payed for ONE, and then the TREATMENT.

 
At 7/03/2009 1:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, but there are millions in the U.S. that CAN NOT GET an MRI, Period.

So, now you admit that this statement is complete bullshit. Baby steps.

 
At 7/03/2009 5:45 PM, Blogger rufus said...

No, anon, you can go to the ER, complaining of abdominal pains, and get an MRI. But, if it turns out to NOT be acute appendicitis, or some other "life-threatening" condition YOU WON'T GET TREATMENT.

However, if you try to get an "elective" MRI at a clinic you will need Insurance, or Cash. Period.

 
At 7/04/2009 4:39 AM, Blogger 1 said...

"I'm not a socialist schmuck; I'm just smarter than you. I know that for a Society to remain successful it has to take care of the poor as well as the wealthy"...

Oh yeah, that wasn't you and the sun rises in the west... ROFLMAO!

 
At 7/04/2009 10:19 PM, Blogger Hamster said...

Best way to determine whether or not the US and Canadian heathcare systems are meeting the needs of their people is to ask them
Here's results of Harris, Pew and Gallup poll gauging what Canadians and Americans think of their health care systemshttp://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Surveys/2004/2004-Commonwealth-Fund-International-Health-Policy-Survey-of-Adults-Experiences-with-Primary-Care.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare-system-ratings-us-great-britain-canada.aspx

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fharrisinteractive.com%2Fnews%2Fnewsletters%2Fhealthnews%2FHI_HealthCareNews2008Vol8_Iss6.pdf&ei=B45MSqa7LIyysgP6vsHpBQ&usg=AFQjCNGM1zYK2DPagCQo8YL3pcxQ1BqVxA&sig2=LI7fTuwMzp51R-jbby39SQ

 
At 7/05/2009 5:22 AM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> Yes, but there are millions in the U.S. that CAN NOT GET an MRI, Period.

BAT Pucky.

I've had an MRI and two CAT scans when my back seized up, despite not being covered by insurance.

When the EKG revealed some anomalies, I also got my heart injected with die and scanned to observe the ejection fraction. Also not covered by insurance.

If you need a procedure, the doctor will order it. The admins will then figure out how to pay for it.

This "Obamacare" crap reverses that utterly -- the government admins will get to tell the doctors what care they can order, whether you can pay for it or not.

You libtard idiots will deserve the lack of care, and the sucky care, you get, but the rest of us will not.

 
At 7/05/2009 5:30 AM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> Show some respect for the people who create wealth and have seen their share of national income decline so much since the supply side "revolution".

Does the phrase "clotheaded fool" often get used in reference to you? Or is it just that most people are too polite to say it to your face?

In the American system, the vast majority of wealth created doesn't come from the poor dweebs you're talking about giving money and services to -- it comes from the ones you're trying to rip off at gunpoint to steal their life's efforts away from.

In most cases, "spending your life and time for the benefit of others with no say in it" is called "slavery". In liberalspeak, it's called "compassionate redistribution".

THIEVING BASTARDS.

KEEP YOUR #$$%#$%^#$@&^%$% HANDS OUT OF OTHER PEOPLES' POCKETS.

If you want to be so damned "generous" do it with your OWN money. Dems have by far the worst record of actual charitable contributions. Try fixing THAT before you start pointing the finger at the so-called "greed" of others.

 
At 7/05/2009 5:35 AM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> I, also, witnessed that when the condition was deemed "not life-threatening" TREATMENT WAS DENIED.

W-wh-well, G-G-G-GOSH.

You mean, when it turned out that someone's life WASN'T on the line, ***GASP***, that someone actually decided that the time to steal from others to pay for it was ***OMIGOSH!!*** over???

HOW DARE THEY!?!?

That poor dweeb who bought the $200 Nikes, had three kids out of wedlock, and buys $50 in Lottery tickets every week NEEDS MORE FREE STUFF.

>:-/

 
At 7/05/2009 11:04 AM, Anonymous Vancouver Realtor said...

I love how adopting the Canadian system automatically means everyone will start waiting years for treatment. That's just ridiculous... If Obama's plan goes through we will see a completely different system than the one in Canada. And you will save millions of dollars wasted in the current system.

Take care, Jay

 
At 7/06/2009 9:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

C. August said...

"Health care services are not a right, just like any other services or products, produced by others, are not rights. As such, they should be traded value for value on the free market, with no government involvement."

Whether it is a right or not is not for any individual to decide. Despite everything, rights are still the decisions of a collective. That's why individual rights themselves must be protected by the collective, i.e. the people, the state etc. etc.

Many people do view healthcare, at least basic healthcare, is a right. And whether you choose to see them as rights or not is entirely subjective.

The argument in the Fox article is quite common. It takes into account only individual evidence of longer wait times. But it neglects to mention that this is a tradeoff - individual wait times for bigger coverage.

As for the graph at the head of the blog post, it is irrelevant without further analysis. Canada may have fewer MRIs or CT scanners per person, but the issue is whether they NEED more per person. Would different population distributions, for example require a higher concentration? Will the general level of health perhaps reduce the need? Are MRI scans used efficiently?

 
At 7/06/2009 9:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1 said...

Then said laborer should've gotten a different job, a job with health insurance...

What if there are no such jobs within the immediate vicinity, or the skills the labourer has are in demand by companies that commonly don't provide health cover?

Then it would up to luck, and not individual initiative. The free market functions badly when there are irrational elements such as these.

 
At 7/06/2009 9:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

OBloodyHell said...

In the American system, the vast majority of wealth created doesn't come from the poor dweebs you're talking about giving money and services to -- it comes from the ones you're trying to rip off at gunpoint to steal their life's efforts away from.

That's a delusion. What many people choose to ignore is the fact that our ability to create wealth is greatly affected by factors beyond individual control.

An individual can have all the biological advantages to hold intellectual potential, but will be at a vast disadvantage if he/she grew up in an impoverished neighbourhood. We are fundamentally social creatures, and our surroundings will have a great impact on us, consciously or unconsciously.

What we see here though, is a lot of individuals attributing their wealth-creation abilities to their own individual initiative, ignoring that perhaps there are numerous factors beyond their control that allowed them this ability in the first place.

I'm sure you can pluck out exceptions and show rags-to-riches indivuduals powering against the odds. But there's a reason why they are exceptions.

To put it simply, at the risk of attracting vile comments against my character, not all the money you've earned was earned due to your individual effort.

And not all the opportunities you've had is purely correlated to the amount of effort you've put in.

 
At 7/06/2009 10:22 AM, Blogger C. August said...

Anonymous @ 9:12am said:

"Whether it is a right or not is not for any individual to decide. ... rights are still the decisions of a collective. ... individual rights themselves must be protected by the collective, i.e. the people, the state etc. etc.

Many people do view healthcare... [as] a right. And whether you choose to see them as rights or not is entirely subjective."
-------------

I must applaud you for addressing the principle of the issue, and stating it so clearly. Such insight is rare. Unfortunately, you drastically misunderstand the nature and derivation of individual rights, and the purpose of the state in protecting those rights.

What you have stated is that an individual only has the rights that the collective gives him permission to have. But remember, permissions can be revoked.

Instead, individual rights are inalienable which means that, even if a state has become corrupted and does not protect them consistently, that doesn't mean they cease to exist.

But when you say that, because a collective sees their needs as a claim on the life of another, the individual rights of a doctor to his own life, his income, property, time, etc, are trumped by societies needs and he is, in effect, a slave to those needs.

Ayn Rand said:

Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another.

For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another. He has the right to choose his own happiness, but no right to decide that his happiness lies in the misery (or murder or robbery or enslavement) of another. The very right upon which he acts defines the same right of another man, and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do.


and:

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

The proper role of the government in a rights-respecting society is to protect these rights, from enemies foreign and domestic, and to provide a means of settling disputes (the courts). The government/society/collective does not arbitrarily or subjectively define the rights of the individual. The government's sole duty is to protect them.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home