6 ms·

> Socializing the whole thing is significantly better. As a Canadian I highly disagree. And anecdotally many health care providers from Canada agree with my ta

> Socializing the whole thing is significantly better. As a Canadian I highly disagree. And anecdotally many health care providers from Canada agree with my take. People frequently die, or get sicker, as they wait their turn in months long queues or lack of supply due to government quotas. There is nothing stopping the government from substituting lower-quality, less effective procedures when their MBAs come in an consult about how to reduce costs.

arcticbull 4y ago
Canada has substantially the same health outcomes, or better, than the US. This is simply not true. I'm also Canadian, and have lived under both systems. My father fell off a ladder and had a pretty severe head injury, and had both an MRI and a CT scan within a half hour, at no cost. Yes, lower-priority conditions may have to wait, but it's also by definition because they're lower priority - and they'll have to wait in America too. The idea that the Canadian healthcare system is somehow leaving people to wait and die in a way the American system is not, is a falsehood propagated by major American insurers and their lobbying group AHIP. Here's a Cigna executive apologizing for doing just that. [1] [1] https://www.npr.org/2020/06/27/884307565/after-pushing-lies-former-cigna-executive-praises-canadas-health-care-system https://www.npr.org/2020/06/27/884307565/after-pushing-lies-...
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  This article has a couple immediately glaring flaws that lead me to not invest the time to deeply analyze it on the whole... > because of having the kind of health care system you have in making sure that everyone who needs to be treated is treated That's completely false, Canada has a presupplied quota system set by government forecasting and limited by budgets. If you need treatment you will be treated eventually but you might die or get sicker in the interim. Using a COVID-19 based article to discuss the merits of single payer single provider completely ignores the massive cultural mentality differences -- the US focuses on individual freedoms, Canada focuses on collective good. This makes a big difference when it comes to adherence things like social distancing and masks. They're taking a multivariate system and claiming it's a single variable that caused the outcome. Edit: and I might add that it appears that Canada is always intentionally undersupplied such that a moderate wait is guaranteed. Whereas it seems that due to market competition the US system is inherently oversupplied (at least in many areas) such that they can provide to those who can pay essentially on demand.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    > This article has a couple immediately glaring flaws that lead me to not invest the time to deeply analyze it on the whole... Good to know you didn't read the article before replying. > That's completely false, Canada has a presupplied quota system set by government forecasting and limited by budgets. If you need treatment you will be treated eventually but you might die or get sicker in the interim. Every system in the entire world has a predefined quota. There's no unlimited supply of healthcare resources in any country - and America is no exception. The only difference here is whether these resources are centrally provisioned or not - and whether you ration it based on who can spend the most, or who needs it the most. I vote for central provisioning and need-based allocation. You are ignoring that once again, there are wait times in America too. The reason I sent you this article is proof that in fact your assessment of the relative strengths of the system isn't grounded in fact. It's grounded in propaganda about the American system. The system you are imagining in America simply does not exist. > Using a COVID-19 based article to discuss the merits of single payer single provider completely ignores the massive cultural mentality differences -- the US focuses on individual freedoms, Canada focuses on collective good. This is irrelevant to the quality of a healthcare system and its outcomes. And you are ignoring that 40% of Americans are already covered by socialized medicine. Old people in America love Medicare and have no interest in getting rid of it. 75% of people on Medicare are either satisfied or greatly satisfied, while only 6% are dissatisfied or greatly dissatisfied. This is higher than the for-profit sector. > Edit: and I might add that it appears that Canada is always intentionally undersupplied such that a moderate wait is guaranteed. That's a cool, unfounded opinion. And again, you have ignored the clearly measured equivalence of the two systems in terms of outcomes - while the Canadian system delivers it at literally half the per capita cost and covers everyone. If you actually look at the data, it's clear. The private care available in America is more expensive and outcomes are either the same, or significantly worse. America has the worst maternal mortality rate in the developed world, for instance. This is quantifiable and you are not utilizing that data, one has to suspect, because it does not support your position. [1] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801918/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801918/
    - maerF0x0 4y ago
cwmma 4y ago
> People frequently die, or get sicker, as they wait their turn in months long queues or lack of supply due to government quotas. There are often months long waits for here too, try getting a dermatology appointment, we just also have the privilege of paying for it out of pocket as preventative skin care checks are not actually classified as preventative medicine so it counts towards your deductible meaning you have to pay the first $2000.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  pay out of pocket is the nature of the system, so it's not really a point. What would be a good point is a discussion about if want a society where the people who pay for a procedure get better outcomes, or if we're willing to say to those who pay "You will get a worse outcome because we're also serving those who cannot pay. This comes down to cultural values and ethics.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Again, you are ignoring that healthcare outcomes in Canada are generally the same or better and that wait times exist in both systems. [1] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801918/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801918/
  - cwmma 4y ago
    > "You will get a worse outcome because we're also serving those who cannot pay Vs America where you get a worse outcome due to laborynthian beuracratic rent seeking. Sounds terrible for Canadians to be forced to make things better for poor people if they want to improve things for themselves.
llbeansandrice 4y ago
> People frequently die, or get sicker, as they wait their turn This also happens in the US. Plus, if you do happen to get care you can go bankrupt! >when their MBAs come in an consult about how to reduce costs. The US is far far past this point already.
criddell 4y ago
Your experience with the Canadian system is going to vary greatly depending on the kind of care you require and where you are. Frankly, the same is true in the US. > their MBAs come in an consult about how to reduce costs You don’t think the big health insurance companies in the US do the same thing?
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  > You don’t think the big health insurance companies in the US do the same thing? To the multiple peers who point out the US uses MBAs too. I'm pointing out that both systems use MBAs and come to the same conclusions such as "We can save n% by using n-1% less effective drug."
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - criddell 4y ago
    The US MBAs have figured out that procedures should be expensive. The health insurance industry as a whole would rather collect 15% of trillions spent than 15% of billions spent.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

arcticbull 4y ago

Canada has substantially the same health outcomes, or better, than the US. This is simply not true. I'm also Canadian, and have lived under both systems. My father fell off a ladder and had a pretty severe head injury, and had both an MRI and a CT scan within a half hour, at no cost. Yes, lower-priority conditions may have to wait, but it's also by definition because they're lower priority - and they'll have to wait in America too. The idea that the Canadian healthcare system is somehow leaving people to wait and die in a way the American system is not, is a falsehood propagated by major American insurers and their lobbying group AHIP. Here's a Cigna executive apologizing for doing just that. [1] [1] https://www.npr.org/2020/06/27/884307565/after-pushing-lies-former-cigna-executive-praises-canadas-health-care-system https://www.npr.org/2020/06/27/884307565/after-pushing-lies-...

maerF0x0 4y ago
This article has a couple immediately glaring flaws that lead me to not invest the time to deeply analyze it on the whole... > because of having the kind of health care system you have in making sure that everyone who needs to be treated is treated That's completely false, Canada has a presupplied quota system set by government forecasting and limited by budgets. If you need treatment you will be treated eventually but you might die or get sicker in the interim. Using a COVID-19 based article to discuss the merits of single payer single provider completely ignores the massive cultural mentality differences -- the US focuses on individual freedoms, Canada focuses on collective good. This makes a big difference when it comes to adherence things like social distancing and masks. They're taking a multivariate system and claiming it's a single variable that caused the outcome. Edit: and I might add that it appears that Canada is always intentionally undersupplied such that a moderate wait is guaranteed. Whereas it seems that due to market competition the US system is inherently oversupplied (at least in many areas) such that they can provide to those who can pay essentially on demand.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  > This article has a couple immediately glaring flaws that lead me to not invest the time to deeply analyze it on the whole... Good to know you didn't read the article before replying. > That's completely false, Canada has a presupplied quota system set by government forecasting and limited by budgets. If you need treatment you will be treated eventually but you might die or get sicker in the interim. Every system in the entire world has a predefined quota. There's no unlimited supply of healthcare resources in any country - and America is no exception. The only difference here is whether these resources are centrally provisioned or not - and whether you ration it based on who can spend the most, or who needs it the most. I vote for central provisioning and need-based allocation. You are ignoring that once again, there are wait times in America too. The reason I sent you this article is proof that in fact your assessment of the relative strengths of the system isn't grounded in fact. It's grounded in propaganda about the American system. The system you are imagining in America simply does not exist. > Using a COVID-19 based article to discuss the merits of single payer single provider completely ignores the massive cultural mentality differences -- the US focuses on individual freedoms, Canada focuses on collective good. This is irrelevant to the quality of a healthcare system and its outcomes. And you are ignoring that 40% of Americans are already covered by socialized medicine. Old people in America love Medicare and have no interest in getting rid of it. 75% of people on Medicare are either satisfied or greatly satisfied, while only 6% are dissatisfied or greatly dissatisfied. This is higher than the for-profit sector. > Edit: and I might add that it appears that Canada is always intentionally undersupplied such that a moderate wait is guaranteed. That's a cool, unfounded opinion. And again, you have ignored the clearly measured equivalence of the two systems in terms of outcomes - while the Canadian system delivers it at literally half the per capita cost and covers everyone. If you actually look at the data, it's clear. The private care available in America is more expensive and outcomes are either the same, or significantly worse. America has the worst maternal mortality rate in the developed world, for instance. This is quantifiable and you are not utilizing that data, one has to suspect, because it does not support your position. [1] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801918/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801918/
  - maerF0x0 4y ago

cwmma 4y ago

> People frequently die, or get sicker, as they wait their turn in months long queues or lack of supply due to government quotas. There are often months long waits for here too, try getting a dermatology appointment, we just also have the privilege of paying for it out of pocket as preventative skin care checks are not actually classified as preventative medicine so it counts towards your deductible meaning you have to pay the first $2000.

maerF0x0 4y ago
pay out of pocket is the nature of the system, so it's not really a point. What would be a good point is a discussion about if want a society where the people who pay for a procedure get better outcomes, or if we're willing to say to those who pay "You will get a worse outcome because we're also serving those who cannot pay. This comes down to cultural values and ethics.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Again, you are ignoring that healthcare outcomes in Canada are generally the same or better and that wait times exist in both systems. [1] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801918/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801918/
- cwmma 4y ago
  > "You will get a worse outcome because we're also serving those who cannot pay Vs America where you get a worse outcome due to laborynthian beuracratic rent seeking. Sounds terrible for Canadians to be forced to make things better for poor people if they want to improve things for themselves.

llbeansandrice 4y ago

> People frequently die, or get sicker, as they wait their turn This also happens in the US. Plus, if you do happen to get care you can go bankrupt! >when their MBAs come in an consult about how to reduce costs. The US is far far past this point already.

criddell 4y ago

Your experience with the Canadian system is going to vary greatly depending on the kind of care you require and where you are. Frankly, the same is true in the US. > their MBAs come in an consult about how to reduce costs You don’t think the big health insurance companies in the US do the same thing?

maerF0x0 4y ago
> You don’t think the big health insurance companies in the US do the same thing? To the multiple peers who point out the US uses MBAs too. I'm pointing out that both systems use MBAs and come to the same conclusions such as "We can save n% by using n-1% less effective drug."
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- criddell 4y ago
  The US MBAs have figured out that procedures should be expensive. The health insurance industry as a whole would rather collect 15% of trillions spent than 15% of billions spent.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]