NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/med/24544

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 1.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!zazen!uwec.edu!nyeda
From: [e-mail] (David Nye)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Canadian healthcare system
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:10:08 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire
Lines: 28

[reply to [e-mail],]

>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 shortcomings to every system.  Canadians seem to be pretty
happy with their system, though.  The main problem with it for Americans
is that it entails some rationing for everyone, for example long waits
for certain studies or procedures.  Rich Americans will balk at not
being able to have premium service by paying more.  We are used to being
able to get the "best that money can buy".  It probably will not be too
kind to us physicians, either (the average Canadian physician makes half
what his American counterpart does).  It will never be able to get per
capita costs down to what they are in Canada because we are a sicker
society, mainly because of the larger gap between rich and poor (poverty
leads to drug abuse, poor prenatal care, and poor preventative care in
general).

I favor the Canadian model, myself.  This year I finished paying off my
mortgage early, just in case my wish comes true.  I don't think we are
going to be able to get health care costs down much without it without
creating a two-class medical system in which the old and the poor get
cared for only by doctors who aren't good enough to attract better-paying
patients.

David Nye
[e-mail]