NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/med/24480

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 3.9 KB | 83 lines

Newsgroups: sci.med,talk.politics.med
Path: sparky!uunet!tcsi.com!iat.holonet.net!news.cerf.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!torn!nott!cunews!revcan!micor!panter
From: [e-mail] (Bill Panter)
Subject: Re: Canadian healthcare system
Organization: M.B. Cormier INC., Orleans (Ont)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:26:46 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 72

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Seanna Watson) writes:
>As a long-time user of the Canadian health-care system, I think I'll
>add my $.02
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>
>>>Surely there must be another side to this argument.  Are there no
>>>shortcomings to the Canadian system?   And even if that were so, is
>>>it adaptable to the US?
>>
>>There are several things wrong with it, and it is not all that much
>>cheaper than the cost in the US.
>
>The per capita cost is somewhat cheaper while providing universal coverage.
>This is supposed to rebut the idea that it would be too expensive to provide
>universal coverage.
Well, almost universal.  You do have to live here at least six months of the
year to qualify.>
>>One generally agreed problem is that
>>many "standard" procedures are not done in Canada, and while the Canadian
>>plan often picks up the costs, it does not pay the travel, and it does
>>not help defray the development costs, which US care does.
>
>What "standard" procedures did you have in mind?  Organ transplantation?
>Assorted cancer therapies?  Artificial heart?  All of these are done in
>Canada.  Bear in mind that the population is 1/10 that of the US--obviously
>a larger population can support more diversity of expertise.
More to the point is the seperate regulatory environment.  Every country
makes its own decisions on what procedures and medications are allowable,
usually on non-monetary grounds.  Paying for the procedure is a seperate
issue from allowing it.
>
>>For another,
>>one must find a primary care physician, and all else must be referred
>>through that doctor; I believe that changing such is difficult.
>
>Most (but not all) Canadians have a GP for primary care.  Most specialists
>do not accept new patients without referral from another physician.  This
>is completely the choice of the specialists, and has nothing to do with
>government regulations.  After the first visit, the patient can deal directly
>with the specialist (who generally reports back to the GP).  I have never
>heard of anyone having difficulty changing to a different GP (unless the
>one they wanted was not accepting new patients).  There are also walk-in
>clinics available most places.
Indeed, some walk-in clinics don't even ask who your usual GP is!
I don't agree with the practice, but it does have its points.
>
>>The biggest problem is that it is run by government bureaucrats, who
>>SO FAR have not been too bad.  "To err is human; to foul things up
>>takes a computer; to really make a mess of things takes a government."
>
>I certainly can't disagree with the potential for government messing things
>up.  Maybe we've just been lucky so far, and the system certainly is not
>perfect, but I consider myself fortunate to have access to it.
>
>--
>Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research,
>([e-mail]) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

After all this discussion, I'm left wondering, just what is this Canadian
National Medical Plan anyway?  I've only heard of provincial plans, such as
Ontario Health Insurance Plan, never a federal one.  Did I miss something?

Bill>
>Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | Occam's razor split
>No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | hairs so well, I bought
>I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | the whole argument.
>
>