Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

what's the real story on canadian health care?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
toddzilla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 03:29 PM
Original message
what's the real story on canadian health care?
I don't live there, so i can't even begin to sift through any of the crap that is supposed to represent the state of their health care system.


is there a reliable source of info on what the issues are compared to the benefits? i've heard of long wait times, etc.. what's the real scoop?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cheezus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. just anecdotal
I have a few friends from Manitoba, and they say it's the same as here, only you automatically have insurance that covers anything.

From Canadian TV I gather that there are some areas where they have doctor shortages. Also the conservatives have been attacking the public health care system (trying to cut funding so it sucks so they can privatize it)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasSissy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. I've heard the Canadian tax rate is very high.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shoelace414 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. and our insurance rates are high
which means products cost more and companies lay people off (just like Microsfot did within the week)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Ever hear of a Canadian going bankrupt because they can't pay
their hospital bill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
24. some facts and figures on that
An excellent article comparing the cost of things in Washington state and its Cdn neighbour, British Columbia:

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/bc/wa-bc.html

BC relies primarily on a progressive income tax, and this makes the tax system here much more fair than in Washington, where regressive sales and property taxes provide the bulk of state revenue.

Tax-funded public services and social programs make BC a more attractive place to live and work. BC has higher levels of social spending and lower out-of-pocket expenses than WA.

- An average family in BC pays almost $1,700 more a year in provincial taxes than a WA family pays in state taxes. But WA spends more than $1,000 less per person on public programs, and the effects of "smaller government" are evident in higher out-of-pocket spending by WA families for important goods and services.

- Students in WA pay almost $1,700 a year more in tuition fees for public universities than students in BC.

- Families in WA pay $540 more per year for the water, electricity, and fuel they use in their homes.

- At $763 a year, the difference in private spending on health care alone wipes out much of WA's tax "advantage."

- Families in WA spend $2,300 dollars more per year on life insurance, public and workplace pensions (excluding RRSPs <individual supplementary retirement savings accounts>), and unemployment insurance than families in BC.
In a nutshell.

And those taxes do pay for things for other people who need them, that Canadians at least want to pay for:

Higher private spending in WA contributes to a greater level of social polarization.

- The social safety net is far weaker in WA with respect to the degree of protection offered to people who are unable to earn a living in the job market. Only adults caring for a dependent child are eligible for social assistance in WA-for a maximum of five years over the course of their lifetime. While trying to raise a child on less than $14,000 a year in BC is extremely difficult, attempting to do the same in WA with less than $9,000 is unimaginable.

- More than 900,000 adults and children in WA (almost 16% of the total population) have no health insurance, and the number has been rising over recent years.

- Income inequality is far greater in WA than in BC. While the gap between rich and poor has been growing in both places, it has widened more rapidly in WA than in BC. This after an economic boom in WA and the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years.

Workers in WA have far fewer employment benefits than do workers in BC. Many of the employment standards British Columbians take for granted are virtually non-existent in WA.

- In BC, workers are entitled to nine statutory paid holidays a year and at least two weeks annual vacation. In WA, there are no laws providing for either paid holidays or annual vacations. Employees must negotiate time-off as a voluntary employer-provided benefit.

- In BC, women are entitled to 52 weeks of unpaid maternity leave and, if eligible, can collect employment insurance while they are off work. In WA, only women working in the public sector and for private companies with more than 50 employees (just 55% of the workforce) are entitled to a mere 12 weeks of unpaid leave following the birth of a child. No comparable system of unemployment benefits for maternity leave exists.

Jealous, anyone? ;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Some *great* figures, iverglas! Mucho megalo mahalo!
If you find more of these comparisons, please post!

I'm sharing this with others who are working on Universal health care issues.......

Thanks again!

:hi:

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasSissy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-04 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #24
34. :wow: Thanks for the info. Yeah...I'm jealous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. Here's one link you can peruse.
It's a proposal to reform the system and increase funding.

The Romanow Report:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/care/romanow/hcc0403.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
6. At 65% of our cost, all are covered, but like Oregon with wait time for
some non-"critical" procedures and indeed some procedures just not covered.

If you have money, you don't care. If you have a little less money you buy supplemental insurance.

Care is first rate - more preventive care than in US so better mortality/morbidity for kids, general population.

But if you like a PET scan MRI or other "helpful" test every visit you are better off in the US if you have really good - non-HMO - insurance.

Key item is that "risk capital and risk capital return and shareholder reward and premium increases to get 15% earnings increases each year and CEO rewards for those premium increase" are just not need. So we free up 4% of our total Gross National Product (GNP) for more productive use!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UdoKier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. We had plenty of wait time under our HMO...
so what's the difference?

When my company started shifting the premiums onto the employees, I had to opt out of the health insurance - can't afford it.

Everybody in Canada seems to like their system, as is the case throughout Europe and Japan.

Only ours sucks royal.

Great care for the rich, mediocre, slow care for the upper middle class, and nothing for the working class. I guess some of the poor get medicaid...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-04 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #6
35. What???
The ONLY problem I have with Oregon's plan is that it has caused small towns to only have one centralized clinic to get medical care. Otherwise, the wait here is no greater than anywhere else. My niece lives in Arkansas and she had to wait 6 weeks for a gallbladder surgery. There's wait times all over the country. And Oregon doesn't have a true universal system where everybody contributes so it's not fair to compare coverage with Canada anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boobooday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
7. I talked about this for hours with a Canadian nurse
When I was in the hospital here.

She said she couldn't believe the American system and how money oriented it is.

I mean, think about it. All the "scare tactics" we hear in this country are:

"you'll wait months to see a specialist!"

Guess what? We wait months here. I personally have waited up to three months to see a specialist.

The nurse told me that the most important thing about the Canadian health care system is that everyone gets what they need, and they get preventative care.

We could have much higher wages, if our employers didn't have to pay "market rates" for health insurance, and this would offset any higher taxes. But think about it, we spend MORE than any other country on health care! Why? Because someone has to make a profit.

And that's just immoral.

We're the only major industrialized country WITHOUT national health care.

Shameful.

http://www.wgoeshome.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nadienne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. When you look at
the profits that insurance companies are making, that alone should tell you that we are right now spending more on health care than we need to spend. We are spending more, and getting less for it.

But the insurance/medical industry also spends a lot of money on lobbyists. And it wouldn't surprise me if they spend a lot of money spreading dis-information to keep John Q. Public dumb about this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
29. When I was diagnosed with HIV in November 1999, it was 2 months before...
I could see a doctor that specialized in treating HIV disease. This was WITH good insurance.

It was the end of January 2000 before I first saw my current physician.

At that point in time, my immune system was already shot to hell (My CD4 count was at 22 at that point which put me at risk for EVERYTHING) and I am lucky I didn't get anything worse between the time I was diagnosed and the time I was able to see a specialist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
metis Donating Member (165 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
8. Manitoba health-care
Can't speak for the other provinces, but in Manitoba we don't pay any health-care premiums...Doctors seem to be scarce but I can shop around for a Doctor I like. Three years ago, I had hubby at emerg because he had chest pains.....He was seen right away. Three days later, he had a 4x bypass. Health-care is not too bad here..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironflange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #8
32. Alberta's OK, too
We have to pay a premium here, but it's not much. Mrs. Ironflange is a teacher, so it's paid for anyway. Wait times in emergency wards can be long, especially if your condition isn't life-threatening. A few years ago, I had to wait about three hours for my kidney stone to get looked at. That was no fun, but if the real emergencies get seen sooner, then so be it. I also had minor elective surgery done last fall; I had to wait about six months for it, but the care was first-rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Emergency room waits are a real drag...... especially if you're in pain!
But the waits in the US, from what I understand, are much worse than 3 hours!

How's that for quality care.......?

Kanary
ps... I don't know about Canada, but I know that in the US, the ER is NOT where you want to be with an eye injury......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
9. My experience
I'm fairly healthy so I don't use the system much, but there was a time when I relied upon it heavily.

My partner is on disability so gets some stuff for free. It's interesting itself that the program exists at all. I have a good job with good Blue Cross benefits. I pay about $45/month for full dental (80% dental, 50% ortho), full drug plan (80%). My employer co/pays the rest. We also split health care premiums - my share is about $35/ month.

With everything that Ahknaten is on, plus a few things for me (antibiotics, antihistamines, downers, painkillers) the co-pay comes out to about $40 a month because one of his isn't covered under his plan.

I go to a health care clinic run by two doctors. I'm not particularly fussy about which I see - they're both good. My wait time is usually about an hour. In a larger clinic it would probably be less. If I need to see a specialist for something non-crucial (eg. ear, nose and throat). I can get an appointment within two-three weeks. If we need to go to emergency, it's on a worst patient first system. One time we were seen in under three minutes (severe asthmatic reaction). Other times we've waited up to two hours (ER was tied up with casualties from a multi-car pileup). I've also had to take the kids in a few times to get things patched up. My partner's also been in hospital a couple of times over the years.

My costs ($CAN) on all of the previous paragraph (about three years):


  • $20 - ambulance mileage
  • $15 - crutch rental
  • $25 - cast fee
  • $35 - cable TV rental


There are longer wait times for certain specialists. It's very hard to get in with a psychiatrist. Some elective surgeries (eg. liposuction) take awhile. But if there's a real problem and you need surgery bad, they even fly you out of province to get it done if there's a bed available.

Ignore practically everything you hear from the right about the health care system. They want it all privatized so they can turn a profit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yankeedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Wow, sounds like here
I have a cadillac ppo plan ($300/mo for married couple, no kids) and have to wait 3 weeks for a busy doctor, emergency care free and fast (and triaged, just like yours). So there is no difference, except that between me and my employers, I pay $1100 a month and aren't guarantees anything, and you pay $35/mo and are guaranteed care. Pretty good deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DebJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. Ahknaten?? the Pharoah who instituted monotheism? Cool!
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Not Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
10. I needed emergency care a few years back while in BC...
I had crashed my bike in a race and was sent to a hospital in Penticton.
X-rays, internal exams, skin dressings, etc. All covered. I made sure to let them know that I was a US visitor; they replied, "Doesn't matter." As long as you are here, you are covered.

Not sure if this policy has changed, but it was top notch care, and save me a LOT of hassles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. heh
I made sure to let them know that I was a US visitor; they replied, "Doesn't matter." As long as you are here, you are covered.

Actually, it ain't true, but what they did was save themselves the hassle of dealing with a US insurance company for peanuts. The actual cost of your treatment would have been minuscule, according to the fee schedules (which are generally applied to both covered services for provincial residents and cash services for foreigners) -- the medical exams/consults would have run a hundred or two at most, the dressings are free of charge, and I'm not sure what an X-ray goes for, but it's not something you'd need to take out a loan for.

I've had the same experience in both Havana and London (UK). In Havana I got just about the same as you -- exam of my bloody leg, X-ray, dressing, tetanus shot and prescription for penecillin (Soviet; you don't fall down in a gutter in Havana in the summer and not get an infection). No charge. In London, my mother (after waiting 5 hours in an NHS hospital, the bottom of the Thatcherite two-tier system then in effect in the UK where the rich buy private insurance and the poor take what's left over) was examined by a harried resident for a head injury from falling on the paving stones, and waved off when we tried to present our travel insurance -- again, too much hassle for too little reward, for such a small matter.

Beware; if you end up having to check into hospital here some day, you'll be wanting that travel insurance! It would cost nothing near a stay in a US hospital, but it won't be free. ;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
12. My cost for coverage per month is $56.00 and that gives me full...
coverage. Our health care system is good, needs some tweaking as any system does but, in my personal experience, it works well. I was in a car accident in another province, went to emergency there, was seen within a half an hour even though my injuries were not bad, was ex-rayed, checked over and a cast put on and I did not have to pay a cent. I then returned to my home, called my doctor, got an appointment to see him with no problem, was ex-rayed again and follow-up was excellent, again without paying a penny more than my $56.00 a month.

I find it difficult to say whether my taxes are higher than those in the United States because comparing one country's tax system against another is very convoluted if one is including property taxes, income taxes, provincial (state) taxes, etc. I don't feel I am overtaxed at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geniph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
14. Ever want to horrify a Canadian?
Edited on Wed Jul-07-04 04:40 PM by geniph
Start talking about Long-Term Care Insurance. That's the new buzzword among the insurance industry - start scaring people, young, healthy people, into buying LTC Insurance now and paying thousands of dollars in premiums into it just in case someday they might need care for more than six months.

You know why that horrifies Canadians - or residents of any other civilized country? Because they don't need it. If they are disabled and need long-term care, they're already covered. They don't have to pay an additional $500 a month for the rest of their lives just in case. Yeah, their taxes are much higher - but I've got fairly good health coverage through my employer here, and I still pay $300 a month extra to cover myself and my husband, plus $15 copays for office visits and $15-$35 copays for each prescription. And that's WITHOUT LTC insurance - if I added that, I'd be paying close to $800. I can't afford to cover my husband and my stepsons - it'd cost me an additional $200 a month to cover my stepsons. If I were to lose my job, I'd lose my health insurance altogether, and since my husband's self-employed, so would he. I'd be happy to be paying that $300 a month in taxes instead of insurance premiums if it meant I'd be covered whether or not I was employed.

Tying health coverage to employment benefits neither the employee nor the employer. Nor does it benefit society in general to have 25-30% of the population without any health coverage at all.

Don't you think it's funny that the whole heath-care "crisis" didn't start until hospitals and insurance cooperatives all went for-profit? Maybe you don't remember back when the Big Blues - Blue Shield, Blue Cross, etc. - were non-profit insurance collectives and most hospitals were non-profit community organizations. Then somebody realized there was money to be made in people's ill-fortune, and hospitals started going for-profit. Then the insurance collectives went for-profit. Strangely enough, it was about that time that insurance premiums went through the roof - and they try to blame it on a few malpractice suits. Uh huh. Sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
16. aaargh -- bookmark these!!
I'm getting tempted to donate gold stars for people who want to know stuff like this, so they can search the archives!

I'll offer this site again: it's written from a USAmerican perspective, for USAmericans, explaning how things work up here, and why, and I think it's a good starting point.

http://www.newrules.org/
http://www.newrules.org/equity/index.html
http://www.newrules.org/equity/CNhealthcare.html

Basic background info, with links to useful articles down the left-hand side.

It's also worth following as things develop in Maine's move to a universal single public payer system similar to Canada's:
http://www.newrules.org/equity/mehealthcare.html

And the Massachusetts Campaign for Single Payer Health Care
http://www.newrules.org/equity/masshealthcare.html
http://www.masscare.org/


In a few words: we like it, we're keeping it, and we won't elect anybody who won't commit to maintaining and protecting it. And, at the moment, to doing something to refund it after years of defunding by right-wing federal and provincial governments, the actual source of any problems you might have heard about in recent years.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Thanks, iverglas! I just went in search of your links.......
I'm glad you beat me to it!

:hi:

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
19. Here's the link to collected Health Care topics on DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. alrighty then!

And I'll just bookmark that one. ;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Report back when you've sorted through it all....
~~gigglesnort~~

I would suggest particularly looking through the info by "silverhair". Some of that info about health insurance may be particularly helpful to you Canadians, if/when you are once again fighting off the efforts to go to insurance. It's diabolical.

Thanks again for all your help!

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thecrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
22. My Canadian Cousin
... had been having BAD headaches all day.
She went to the local clinic (she lives on an island in Nova Scotia)
and they sent her to the hospital in the next town for MRIs (about 20 minutes away) and then she was immediately airlifted to Halifax for a critical operation the next day. She had 5 aneurysms in her brain!
Cost?
$0

Here in the US, I have one of my children still on my plan. My employer pays my health care premiums, but since I am over 50, I am billed $358 a month to pay the premiums for my child who is 20.
He *could* get his own health care plan for only $120/month, but as long as he resides in my house he gets billed at the $358.
This is for a kid who NEVER gets sick. He only goes once or twice a year for a flu shot and maybe help with a virus or cold.

Long term care? Disability?
I am no longer entitled to these things because I had a stroke.
My employer believed in my and held my job for me while I took a year to recover, but what happenss in 10 or 15 years when I am no longer working? If I had to get medical insurance all over again, would they even give it to me? They hate pre-existing conditions, and a stroke would be listed in my medical records for sure!

I am desperately afraid that something will happen to me and that I wouldn't be able to pay for it. Then I'd lose everything!!
But that's the America we live in!
I have bought land in Canada because of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merlin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
25. Great thread. Wonder if Clinton's plan would make it today.
Back in '94 when he introduced it, I remember we all sat on our hands while the health insurance industry torpedoed it with $millions of ads infusing the country with fear about "socialized medicine", not being able to choose your own doctor, long waits for treatment, a huge government bureaucracy, and on and on...

But today we have then internet. And we have DU. And we have people like Michael Moore. I think we could probably beat the bastards if such a plan were offered today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. I would hope not
His "plan" featured insurance companies, and we don't need to keep going down that road.

Personally, I think we need to just keep fighting for Universal Single Payer, and not just try to "tinker" with a broken system.

BTW, Moore's next film will be on health care. I hope he does a lot of fair comparing with other countries!

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frederic Bastiat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
27. For me not all its cracked out to be
Edited on Wed Jul-07-04 08:40 PM by exCav
Most Quebeckers envy the far superior French system. You can read various comments on the following board (sorry French only):

http://radio-canada.ca/actualite/enjeux/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. The Canadian system probably isn't the best......
But compared to the US, it's manna from heaven.....

Kanary, who doesn't know French.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-07-04 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
31. My aunt, who is a nurse with Master's degree, lives in Canada
and says that it is great. It's what the US should have. She wouldn't go anywhere else for health care and she and her husband can afford to go anywhere.

She was apprehensive about it when she married and moved there with her Canadian husband (heard all the bad stories, you know) and was very surprised to find out how good it is and how accessible it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-04 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
36. iverglas, or one of the other Canadians... question for you, pleeeeez.....
One of the advantages of Universal would be to small businesses which wouldn't be burdened by health care for their employees.

So, I'm wondering...... do you have any idea how insurance for small businesses have been affected in Canada? (Assuming you have such a thing......)

In other words, since people can get treated for $0, if they are hurt while in a business, would they bother suing, as the purpose of a lawsuit is to get someone to be responsible for medical costs, etc.

I'm very curious about this.......and hope to hear more about this....

TIA!!

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CHIMO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-04 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. Small Business/Big Business
When one gets to work injuries we get into a different kettle of fish.
Employers have to be insured for work injuries. WCB, Workman's compensation board, rates vary per type of industry and the company's past history. As they are covered under a separate insurance plan these injuries can be moved to the front of the line in cases where a waiting list would end up costing the insurance company money. ie waiting two weeks for a test where the case is not life threatening could be sent to a private clinic.
As this is a provincial jurisdiction it varies across the country.
When one gets into suing there would be no suit for medical costs between the individual and the business. There might be other suits between lost wages where the individual is no longer able to do the same work. However, this gets nasty because the WCB usually has the last say on things.
Would be better for someone with specific knowledge about this to respond. This is from my general knowledge and is not my area of expertise.
Hope this helps somewhat.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-04 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. Thanks, CHIMO...... appreciate the info.....need more......
Unfortunately, I didn't make myself very clear.

What I meant was if a customer hurt themselves while on business property. That is something that so many small business owners are freaked about.

It's good to know the other info, tho......

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yvr girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-04 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. liability insurance
Canadian companies still carry liability insurance. This would cover negligence (floors were wet, stairs in bad repair etc.) It would also cover lost wages, pain and suffering etc.

That said, it is not a big issue here. In general, Canadians are not as litigious as Americans. You also don't hear about giant payouts.

Insurance companies sometimes fight about who pays for certain things. If you go to a doctor in Canada because of a car accident, or a workplace accident you have to let the doctor know. The doctor then bills the (auto-insurance) company or WCB.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-04 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. a bit more
Where someone sues as a result of an injury caused by someone else's negligence (e.g. the slip and fall in a retail business, or on my front porch), the provincial health insurance plan will generally be subrogated for any amount awarded for medical care. That is, OHIP (for example, the Ontario plan) will cover all the medical expenses, but will recover the costs from the insurance company (or uninsured defendant) as part of the damages award by the court, or settlement -- the medical expenses will be paid, but to the insurance plan, not the plaintiff, since the plaintiff had no expenses.

This means that the public, through the public health insurance plan, is not bearing the cost of individual or corporate negligence or wrong-doing. The defendant will pay the amount awarded by the court directly to the plan.

From the Ontario Health Insurance Act, for example:
http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/sta/h-6/20040503/whole.html#BK55

Subrogation

30. (1) Where, as the result of the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of another, an insured person suffers personal injuries for which he or she receives insured services under this Act, the Plan is subrogated to any right of the insured person to recover the cost incurred for past insured services and the cost that will probably be incurred for future insured services, and the General Manager may bring action in the name of the Plan or in the name of that person for the recovery of such costs.

Payment by Plan recoverable by insured

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the payment by the Plan for insured services shall not be construed to affect the right of the insured person to recover the amounts so paid in the same manner as if such amounts are paid or to be paid by the insured person.

<That is, the fact that the person hasn't had to pay out of pocket doesn't mean that s/he isn't entitled to sue for the expenses, they're just paid to the plan, instead of to the individual plaintiff, by the losing party.>

Cost of hospital services

(3) For the purposes of this section, the cost of insured services rendered to an insured person in or by a hospital or health facility shall be at the rate charged by the hospital or health facility to a person who is not an insured person.

<That is, the defendant doesn't get the benefit of the cheaper rates paid by the plan.>
This applies to everything except car insurance claims, which I assume is because of no-fault car insurance, which I've never understood the workings of.


So I expect that there is an effect in terms of the kind of liability insurance that businesses have to carry -- the costs of medical treatment in a public-payer system are far lower than in a US-style system (and there is probably less incentive and opportunity to inflate them), and so damage awards would generally be lower for that reason alone. (As noted, Canadians are also less litigious than USAmericans in private matters, although more litigious in constitutional rights&freedoms matters, and damage awards are much more realistic overall.)

This makes public-payer health insurance a good thing for yet another reason: it lessens the economic burden of liability insurance and pay-outs on small businesses, in particular.

Some time ago, a poster here pointed out another economic advantage of public-payer health care that's entirely unrelated to health per se. People in the US with jobs that provide health coverage are extremely reluctant to change jobs and especially to start their own business, since this will mean losing their family's group insurance coverage and having to purchase much more expensive individual coverage.

Few people with families are likely to take that risk, and so the US health care system is in fact a brake on entrepreneurial initiative. It is also an impediment to employee mobility between employers (e.g. innovative new employers will have trouble hiring skilled employees away from other employers if they can't afford to match health insurance coverage or if they can't guarantee job security, which is the only source of health coverage security).

Of course, higher unemployment will make employees less able to get good health coverage, since employers will not have to compete to the same extent to attract and retain employees. Obviously, low-skilled employees will be in this situation all the time, since the pool of available low-skilled labour in the US is large and growing (while market hegemony by large employers in some sectors increases), and an employer like Wal-Mart will not have to offer health coverage at all in order to attract employees.

In Canada, all employers are on a level playing field when it comes to basic health coverage, and compete for employees by, among other things, offering salary and benefit packages that include shared-cost supplemental insurance to cover things other than the "medically necessary services" covered by the plans, e.g. eyeglasses, perscription drugs (which of course are not the major cost factor here that they are in the US), dental, long-term disability and life insurance. This is a usual benefit (either mandatory or opt-in) at any major employer (and keep in mind that we have more unionized workplaces, I think, and unions will bargain these benefits) and at most established employers with more than a handful of skilled employees.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-04 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. *very* well written, and *very* helpful!
Thanks for all your efforts, iverglas! This is quite helpful for showing to small business people, just as it is.

I really appreciate this!

If we were all to print this, and show to people we know who own small businesses (and even larger ones), along with the realistic costs (as iverglas posted above), it would go a long way towards educating people, and encouraging a move towards Universal Health Care.

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-04 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #40
44. Thanks for the input, yvr girl!
It's as I suspected.

What a difference!

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HEyHEY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-04 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. I shamefully admit I know jack all about the health care system
I've barely used it, but when I have, I never found long waits and I didn't pay. As either Iverglass or TrogL...they seem boned up on it I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-04 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #39
42. and that

-- not having to know about the health care system -- is one of the benefits of it.

Universal single public payer health care means never having to say "eh?"

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-04 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #42
45. You only need to know one thing
means never having to say "eh?"

Right. That gets the award for bad Canadianism of the week. :spank:

In a Canadian hospital or clinic the first question is "do we have your current health care information" - meaning your health care number, your Blue Cross (or whatever) number, a working address and next of kin. As soon as this is out of the way, you can sit back and try to relax.

Ahknaten has told me horror stories about dealing with the US system (he used to live in Connecticut and New York) with angry crowds of people waving insurance papers, cash and even firearms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-04 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
46. Anecdotal story...
At her yearly physical last year, my wife's family doc discovered a lump in her throat. Details in brief are:

- we had an ultrasound
- appt with surgeon and needle biospy
- appt with surgeon for results of needle biopsy and to schedule thyroid surgery
- thyroid surgery (took out half of thyroid)
- appt with surgeon for results of pathology on removed thyroid and to schedule second surgery to remove other half
- and a second thyroid surgery (to take out the other half)

We had imaging, 3 specialist appt's, 2 sets of pathology tests, and 2 surgeries all over the course of about 4 months. My wife also had 4 nights in hospital in total for the 2 surgeries.

The only cost to us was for the phone in her hospital room.

I'm self employed, so have no additional medical insurance. The only result of that was that she was in a "ward" room, with 3 other beds, instead of semi-private room.

She's now on thyroid medication, which she'll have to take for the rest of her life. I don't have a drug plan, so we pay that out of pocket. But her meds cost about $4/month.

My family, with 2 young kids, again parents, and in one case, 99 and 95 year old grandparets, has had nothing but good experience with our health care system. It boggles the mind to think that there are more uninsured people in the US than insured people in Canada. (everyone!)

Sid

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-04 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. let me throw in some anecdotes too ;)
In the last decade or so, I've broken my foot twice. The first time, I spent a few hours in the ER, shuffling around to the x-ray dept. and waiting to see an orthopaedic surgeon. (I got xrays, because the hospital was the one that had developed the 'Ottawa Ankle Rules' that are now used worldwide, to help avoid wasted costs from x-raying every sprained ankle that walks in; the resident had determined that my foot was likely broken; it was.)

When I saw the ortho, he inquired whether I had supplemental health insurance, and if so I could have the fibreglas cast (so I could bathe) rather than the plaster. I said no, but how much was it? $100. Well gimme it, I said. I have the $100, no problem. No, he said, it isn't worth it. But I want it, I said. Well, he said, you don't really need a cast. Just be careful. So I was, and the whole thing ended up costing me nothing out of pocket. I had waited 2 days to go to the ER, so by then the over-the-counter codeine/acetominephen I had was adequate for pain. And I had loads of crutches in the attic; this is a klutzy family, and I am the last repository for its junk.

The second time, I was out of town and broke my foot just before leaving for the 5-hour drive home. Fortunately, I always break the left side of my body. I stopped at the local ER on the way into town, but it was the middle of the SARS thing and I had just come from Toronto, the locus of infection, so things were taking a while and I decided not to wait. Went to the walk-in afternoon at my community health clinic the next day and saw 3 nurse practitioners, got sent for an x-ray (pretty much at my insistence -- I'd applied the Ottawa Ankle Rules to myself and determined I was broken in exactly the same place, rather than sprained, or I wouldn't have bothered going, I just wanted to be sure that the fracture wasn't displaced), and got the same advice: be careful.

One morning two years ago, my dad, aged 72, had been feeling unwell. He drove from the trailer camp he was spending the summer at, an hour from me, to the nearest town, and took his bp and pulse at a drug store. Pulse of 35. Went to the nearest walk-in clinic: a private practice providing services within the plan. They sent him immediately to a lab for an EKG. He went directly back to the clinic. They sent him immediately to the ER. By the time he called me, mid-afternoon, he was in the ICU hooked up to monitors and being scheduled for transport to the tertiary hospital in my city for a pacemaker implant 3 days later.

He was delivered there by ambulance, but sent back because he had developed a hospital staph infection at his IV site, and because there was no bed available at the cardiology dept -- this was not good. He was kept in for a few more days, then released, and treated with antibiotics. He's a senior cit, so he had a $2 copay for the meds. At the end of the month, I picked him up and took him to hospital for the pacemaker. Total cost to him: the $2 copay for the prescription. Unless the drug store where he went didn't charge it; many don't.

My co-vivant was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes 3 years ago. He'd been symptomatic for 2 weeks, but figured he had a bladder infection. Being impatient, he went to a walk-in clinic. They had him go to a lab next day for fasting blood tests. They called that evening with the results (sky high blood sugar, obviously diabetes) and we went in for a consult.

I then persuaded him to go to the local community health clinic -- a non-profit organization within the health plan, that also provides multiple social services to a neighbourhood. I go to the one in the neighbourhood where I used to live. He was lucky, the CHCs have been overloaded lately, and there are wait lists to get on the patient roster. Within 2 weeks, he'd seen his doctor twice, had more blood tests and an EKG, and we'd seen a nutritionist.

He continues to have complete blood tests, and see his doctor, every 3 months, and the foot care specialist periodically, and specialists as needed on referral (last month he saw an opthomologist and an endocrinologist, since there has been difficulty controlling his diabetes; the time between referral and appointment was about a month, I think). His present meds cost pennies a day. The clinic gives him its samples for the more expensive cholesterol meds -- it doesn't need them for most of its patients, because they're largely low-income and have drug cards that require only the $2 copay (the copay was a mean-spirited Tory govt invention a few years ago).

My dad flew home from Florida at the end of January 2003 with joint pain, and went straight to the ER near my sister's home near Toronto. That was a Saturday; he was given an appointment for Monday with an orthopaedic surgeon. But on Sunday his leg pain was so bad he was afraid he had another blood clot, so went back to the ER, had a chest x-ray, and learned that he had spots on his lung. Cancer. He had a lung biopsy on the Tuesday and was kept in hospital when he did not spring back from the procedure properly. The joint pain and breakage, it turned out, was melanoma that had metastasized to his bones (and also to most of his organs).

He was in hospital for about 6 weeks, seeing an internist, an oncologist and an orthopaedic surgeon several times a week each. He had radiation therapy at the nearby big city cancer care centre, scheduled on 2 days' notice and transported with my mother by ambulance; he had multiple x-rays and a couple of bone scans, and he would have had an MRI, scheduled on 3 days' notice, but his pacemaker prevented that. Ultimately, when his condition just didn't stabilize so that chemo could be started, and the morphine was not addressing his pain, he was scheduled for hip surgery, on 2 days' notice, but rejected at the last minute because of his very poor overall condition. Two days later he was delivered to my sister's house by ambulance with my mother, a half-hour's drive, and set up with a hospital bed, morphine drip, various accessories and a prescription for a sedative, and a visiting nurse. Two days after that, he died.

Total cost to us: about $25; the sublingual version of the sedative prescribed at the end was not covered by the govt.'s seniors' drug plan. I wasn't happy about that, since he was largely unconscious and unable to swallow, and needed the under-the-tongue kind.

Yes, there are bad anecdotes too. People do wait too long for some procedures -- joint replacements are one of them, and that problem is worse in some provinces than in others. Some cancer treatments are apparently not available as soon as they should be -- and a major problem there is that the budget-slashing and off-loading of costs a decade ago resulted in loss of skilled personnel and failure to train replacements, particularly radiation therapists.

But these anecdotes really reflect what is usually available, and in these cases available to people of very low income: my retired father, and the people in my neighbourhood who go to our community health clinics, or to the private-practice physician of their choice.

And they reflect what should be available, and any gaps in care that do exist can be addressed without starting down the very slippery slope of privatization.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC