Sakpo

Laci really does have an odd view of both systems. I'm a dual citizen, so I don't really have any patriotic biases involved in this thing. I would like to state, from personal recent experience, that getting to see a GP or a specialist isn't especially hard where I am in Canada (if I was in a town of 150 in the arctic, yes, seeing a specialist would probably be hard). A few months ago I got a weird lung infection. I was coughing up large amounts of green and yellow plegm (the colours indicated infection, apparently). I delayed seeing a GP because I don't like visiting the doctor, and because I wanted to make sure my insurance was in order in case I got a prescription (that this needed taking care of was my fault, not the system's).

Once that was cleared up (about two days) I went to a GP (I went to the same one I've always gone to, but I have choice, I could have gone elsewhere). He did a thorough check up and decided I ought to see a specialist, and gave me a reccomendation. I was able to book an appointment to see that specialist for the next day. I saw her and she did her thing, and then hooked me up with some free anitbiotics some drug company had sent her, so I didn't even have to stop by a pharmacy. I took the antibiotics per the instructions, and my infection was cured.

My Bill:

Visit to General Practitioner, with full check up, $0
Visit to specialist doctor $0
Medication $0

Total: $0

Had I not been given the free medication, I still wouldn't have had to pay any money. My dad's job benefits would have covered it. If my dad's coverage hadn't covered it, and I'd been on the government plan, I would have paid for them up to $50 (CDN). Beyond that, any medication for the rest of the year would have been paid for by the government. People with less income than me, and/or kids, would have an even lower amount of expected payment.

That's a good system. Good care, without having to worry that recieving that good care will put a giant dent in the finances.

The Canadian Health system does all sorts of great things. Things like weekly clinics for teenagers, where they can go to discreetly (without parental knowledge even) be tested for pregnancy, STDs, etc. Where females get pap tests and that sort of thing, birth control pills, etc, without paying. Both sexes can get condoms for free. I bet that saves a lot of money in the long run by avoiding teen pregnancies, the spread of diseases, etc, and it does a lot of social good. And the kids can go without having to worry about money or their parents finding out.

Farren

(SciGirl asked what Laci does)

She plays violin

Puts

:boohoo:

these in her posts all the time. Can't help herself.

btw. Laci, I wasn't taking a stand on the US vs Canada issue, just throwing in a tidbit of information. Sheesh.

RLV

What do you mean, 'what doctors'?

No, but you can ask for it at the offices.

[qutoe]Do you have other "better" doctors but your healthcare doesn't cover them?[/quote]
Better and/or worse. The public system only has a number of doctors in it; quite a lot, though.

Yes.

Er... as easily as the primary care doctor judges. Do you mean it's you who decide to go to a specialist, without a doctor seeing you first?

Control? What do you mean with that.

Er... methinks you are more than a bit confused.

The socialized health care system is not as convenient as an expensive private system. You have a limited choice of doctors, and there are waiting lists for some non-urgent procedures. However, the quality of the doctors varies more or less as in private practice; actually, the system verifies their performance with quality of service as its main criterion, rather than benefits, so it's probable that they provide even a better service than in some private systems.
Anyway, many doctors work both for the public system and in private practice.

But then, in addition to all that, we have private systems here, of varying price and quality. You can also choose one of the expensive and, I guess, good ones, if you want and can pay it. We have more choices than you, it seems.

So, if you want to pay extra for more quality, you can. And if you consider that the social system is good enough, you don't pay any extra. And, most importantly, those who cannot afford the real big expenses than an expensive private system may imply, can trust the social system to take care adequately of their needs.
This is the most important point.


RLV

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Silent Acorns
Laci, you obviously have no idea how health care works in Canada. I broke my kneecap last year which required surgery.

Socialized medicine does fine in clear-cut cases like this.

The two biggest problems in the Canadian Health Care system are bed shortages and extended waits for non-urgent surgery. Both these problems are primarily due to populations increasing faster than the number of hospitals. This is primarily due to budget cutting at the provincial and federal levels in the 90s. It is a real problem with our system, which could easily be solved by putting more money into the system.

But this is the eternal problem of socialized medicine. There is no real accountability for budget problems.

Cheiron

Although, there are some budget problems in regards to beureaucrats trying to control things they shouldn't, I would say on average It balances out to the same ammount of problems that a profit hungry corporation deals with in the health sector.

For any americans, Most hospitals are just corporations that help people as a side effect. If they could not treat you and still get your money they would. The ammount of management problems this gives rise to is probably equal to the beureaucratic problems you run across up here.

Clutch

<Gasp!>

A libertarian groupthink mantra unaccompanied by a shred of evidence? Who could have predicted such a thing?

Last month I was at a talk by a laissez-faire economist/political philosopher. According to him, "the eternal problem of socialized medicine" is that whenever you subsidize supply, demand will increase.

It's an economic law, you see.

While not normally interested in butting my head against a brick wall, I did wonder aloud whether people would decide to get cancer or burst their appendices in order to take advantage of the price-discounted medical care.

Well, he allowed, it's not a law without exceptions. Yes, actually, the evidence for privatization is much more compelling in the case of old age pensions. Look at Chile...