[politics] National Healthcare: Welcome Canadians, Austrialians, and U.K.er's!

[Coach_Goldberg]

This thread is for people that live in a country where the government provides healthcare to all. Please post your experiences from this. Also, any consequences, good or bad, from this. This is for the benefit of American's without National Healthcare. I just want to see what is true about a system of National Healthcare, and not propaganda from our drug companies, hospital chains, and insurance companies here in the states.

[shooter]

Well in Aus you can have the govertment healthcare, or you can pay for private health insurance.

Private insurance will get you non-essential surgery faster, it will give you your own room in a private hospital (not for emergency visits of course). The beauty of private healthcare is it benefits those who pay for it, and the rest of the population by taking the strain off the public hospital system.

Nobody in my family uses private health insurance though.

Like i said, there is a wait for non-essential or non-life saving surgery (is there one in the states), for instance my dad had to wait a few months before he could get his hernia removed.

We get ambulance cover. So no large bills when one of those things comes around.

Thousands of medicines are subsidised by the government, so they pay most of the bill (sometimes in its thousands) and the user may only have to pay $20 or maybe nothing at all, depends on the drug and the seriousness of the patients condition. This means the drug companies still get thieer money and so till stay in business and make profits (which benefits everybody) and it means that everybody can afford the medicine the need.

With public healthcare you dont get your own room (rarely anyway) and the hospital food isnt as good, but you still get all the neccessities.

And regular visits to the doctor for a check up or for something like a flu or a wierd rash, or xrays for dental work, etc are all really cheap because most of it is covered.

[enjoi]

words words
So I mean, you can pay for your own insurance as an add on correct?

Is the difference between the 2 that big?

[shooter]

So I mean, you can pay for your own insurance as an add on correct?

Is the difference between the 2 that big?

Yes.

not really, unless you have the cash to throw in for the bells and whistles or unless you expect to need regular health care then private healthcover is not really that much of a step up. The main points would be private gives you your own room and if you want a stay in a private hospital (that has a few benefits, but more of a luxury hotel type deal, nothing different in the actual health care provided), and the absence elective surgery waiting lists.

But government helthcover is just fine, and you certainly dont have any greater chance of death by doing things on the cheap, the only point to make is that in some states where training and employment of nurses and doctors has been a bit of an issue the public healthcare system does feel the strain (Queensland in particular), whereas private hospitals dont have that problem.

[cannon]

Yes.

not really, unless you have the cash to throw in for the bells and whistles or unless you expect to need regular health care then private healthcover is not really that much of a step up. The main points would be private gives you your own room and if you want a stay in a private hospital (that has a few benefits, but more of a luxury hotel type deal, nothing different in the actual health care provided), and the absence elective surgery waiting lists.

But government helthcover is just fine, and you certainly dont have any greater chance of death by doing things on the cheap, the only point to make is that in some states where training and employment of nurses and doctors has been a bit of an issue the public healthcare system does feel the strain (Queensland in particular), whereas private hospitals dont have that problem.

Hey Shooter,

I think what you said is mainly correct except that in Public Hospitals you get better nursing as the employees are under better working conditions such as a better nurse to patient ratio. In fact (some people very close to me work in hospitals and i worked in an associated area) there is a presumption in Victoria at least that you get much better care in public hospitals. The bottom line in a private hospital (under Private Health Insurance) is to make money..so while the superficialities are better (TV, own room, better food) the care is actually better in the public system.

[Coach_Goldberg]

So, in Australia, does the public health insurance cover such things like cancer? Will the public health insurance pay for chemotherapy? From what I understand the biggest difference is in hospital stay for private vs. public. How do you pay for the public health insurance? Payroll taxes? Gasoline taxes? Property taxes?

[shooter]

So, in Australia, does the public health insurance cover such things like cancer? Will the public health insurance pay for chemotherapy? From what I understand the biggest difference is in hospital stay for private vs. public. How do you pay for the public health insurance? Payroll taxes? Gasoline taxes? Property taxes?

Yeah you're covered for all treatment in the event of something like cancer. My sister is a nurse and used to work in a cancer hospital, and i think the majority of the patiants in there were not privatly insured, but all recieved chemo when necessary.

Im sorry cant help you out with how it all works out financially, i dont taxes or bills yet.

[KnightsLAXDad]

The Canadian system is pretty much the same as the Australian. It is funded out of the general tax (income, sales, gas taxes) fund by the provinical (i.e. state) governments and from transfer payments payments from the federal government. The local hosipitals establish budgets and recieve (usually less than their budget) from the government. They are in a perpetual state of looking for ways to cut costs.

The biggest issue with our public medicare system, is that it overwhelmed. Doctors and nurses are overworked and underpaid - essentially they are highly skilled civil servants. There is a set fee guide and limits to the amount of income they can make.There is a painful shortage of nearly everything, especially family doctors and specialists. You can wait months and months for non-critical or elective surgery. I had a six month wait for an MRI for my knee. Of ocourse critical stuff and life threatening, like cancer, gets treated as quickly as possible.

Like shooter said, you get reasonable "basic" care, but you have to wait a little longer. Most employers offer additional health coverage as a benefit that covers extras like dental, glasses, para-medical services (physio, massage, chiro), prescriptions etc.

The big debate in Canada is what is termed two-tiered medical system where one could pay for faster, better care if they could. It is currently illegal to do so. The government fears that the public system will suffer as all the health care practitioners would jump to higher paying "for-profit" health care providers, although they thinly disguise their excuse as saying they can't monitor for-profit as well, and that it would be prone to cutting corners to increase profits.

[RockStar]

Coach,

All you're going to get here is people's own thoughts based on their experience. Not necessarily enough experience to have seen the good and the bad.

All I can offer you is that Canada's public health care system ain't perfect, but I, and everyone I care about, has been able to get adequate and prompt service whenever we needed care.

One thing I have read is that Canada's Government spends less per capita on health care costs than the US Government does......I can't qualify this, but if it's true, we're spending less and getting better outcome. Not a bad deal. And maybe proof that you should never let insurance companies drive the bus!

[Formerlaxdemon]

Iceland also has socialized medicine. Go figure, a socialist nation with a national health service for all.

[Coach_Goldberg]

I think that the Canadian system is corrupted by the proximity to the states. Doctors trained in Canada would want to come down to the states to make more money. Hippocratic oath be damned! Also, insurance companies in Canada would see how much profit the insurance companies down here make off of the sick and so they would want to block legislation that could fix the ills of the Canadian system. Just my capitalist opinion.

Let's look at the difference between a Canadian patient and an uninsured American patient. Both have torn ACL's. The Canadian patient will have to wait on treatment, and this may make the condition worse, but eventually they will get surgery and thus be healed, and not have to pay more than they have already paid in taxes.

Let's say the uninsured American makes minimum wage. They can go to a hospital and get treatment, but get stuck with huge medical expenses. So, knowing this they may wait to get treatment until the problem is unbearable and they have to go in. In effect they also have to wait. Now when they do get treatment, afterwards they will be crippled by medical expenses and may end up bankrupt. So end result is a similar wait time but with huge debt leading to most likely bankruptcy.

Now, an insured American will get quicker care vs. a Canadian, but they do so at the expense of the uninsured.

What I am interested in is the Australian system that allows both private and public insurance. It would seem that the private insurance would eventually diminish the public insurance unless EVERYBODY had to pay for the public insurance, just that those with the ability to pay for different insurance could also pay for private insurance as well. So, Australians, could you please clarify on that if you know and have personal experience on the matter? Thank you...

[RockStar]

...........Also, insurance companies in Canada would see how much profit the insurance companies down here make off of the sick and so they would want to block legislation that could fix the ills of the Canadian system. Just my capitalist opinion............

You lost me.

Why would any insurance company operating in Canada block legislative changes that allow improved access to private-sector delivered service?

[Frndlefire]

You lost me.

Why would any insurance company operating in Canada block legislative changes that allow improved access to private-sector delivered service?
I think he's saying they would block legislation to fix the problems with the public healthcare because they want to see it go away so they can make more money.

[KnightsLAXDad]

I think where RockStar is coming from is that insurance companies would stand to profit more by more privatization of medical services. Until that happens, insurance companies won't profit or lose by legislation of more public funding of the system. It will be a long time before we see any private medical services because our politicians believe it is part of the "fabric of Canada"

[piglet]

In Australia if you make a certain amount of money $75 k then the government says you can afford private health insurance. If you choose not to have it you get a penalty on your federal income tax return. If you go to a private hospital you will have to pay if you dont have private insurance.
If you want your Dr of choice - go private because you could get a student operating on you - you are not paying for it so you dont get a choice. Also in the public system expect a wait for elective procedure. For an emergency visit go public and they have great facilities. ACL - go private & pay $$ if you don't have the insurance.
In the USA (where I work in a private sports med clinic) - the bills are huge but the care is good.
In England the care and marginal

[Coach_Goldberg]

I think where RockStar is coming from is that insurance companies would stand to profit more by more privatization of medical services. Until that happens, insurance companies won't profit or lose by legislation of more public funding of the system. It will be a long time before we see any private medical services because our politicians believe it is part of the "fabric of Canada"

I may be missing something so help me out. It would just seem to me that it would be in the benefit of Canadian insurance companies to let public health care get to the point where it is so ill managed that the people would want private care, and that would bring millions of dollars to those companies. What I was trying to say is that it would then be in the interest of private insurance companies to get public health care as poor as possible, and so they would want to block legislation to make public health care better. Did that make sense? Is that what is happening?

[laxismynak]

i have had 8 major operations and i didnt have to pay a dime and the surgerys were rebuilding my leg and shoulder from a car accedent.

im in canada and i love my heath care i do not no what i would have done with out it.

the only problem i would say with it is it seems treatment is slower

[RockStar]

.........Did that make sense? Is that what is happening?

No.

We currently have a socialist near-monopoly on health care delivery. Cost for medically necessary service is funded by government. Public health care is really no worse now than it's ever been. More expensive maybe, but they do OK for the most part.

What's going on now is a pissing contest over whether to allow private delivery of, and private payment for services. The insurers are probably watching hopefully.

[KnightsLAXDad]

No.

We currently have a socialist near-monopoly on health care delivery. Cost for medically necessary service is funded by government. Public health care is really no worse now than it's ever been. More expensive maybe, but they do OK for the most part.

What's going on now is a pissing contest over whether to allow private delivery of, and private payment for services. The insurers are probably watching hopefully.


Coach - you are correct, the insurance companies would definitely love to see it happen, but people have been clamouring for privatized services for years and it has gone absolutely nowhere, nor is it going to anytime soon. There is not enough of a lobby for it, and our legislation is considerably less influenced by industry groups.

[Coach_Goldberg]

Well, that is good then. That your legislaters are less influenced by lobbyists. This may be off topic, but how is campaign financing handled, I mean, why ARE the legislaters not as influenced by lobbysists? Do you not have lobbyists? I am trying to understand how that works. In my eyes, seeing American politics, I see business corrupting politics. So how do you keep it even between business and the people?

[KnightsLAXDad]

Well, that is good then. That your legislaters are less influenced by lobbyists. This may be off topic, but how is campaign financing handled, I mean, why ARE the legislaters not as influenced by lobbysists? Do you not have lobbyists? I am trying to understand how that works. In my eyes, seeing American politics, I see business corrupting politics. So how do you keep it even between business and the people?

It's not to say it doesn't happen. Politicians will always take care of their friends, but legislation like attaching riders on larger bills, which often slip under the radar but have big benefits for certain lobby groups, don't happen here. There is also less influence by any one, or small factions of elected officials, and our legislators have to tow the party line. . Our senate has no influence, nor wield any power, it's a rubber stamp branch of the federal gov't.