This is kind of a discussion, but also something interesting l heard of today. This thread is based off of a talk I watched on CBC, in which 4 doctors talked about health care in Canada and what changes they think should be made to it, in light of the upcoming election. I'm going to write the argument below. The discussion was not inherently political, but rather simply about health care in itself. Currently Canada's health care system is starting to show its flaws. Canada's population has aged dramatically since health care reform was first implemented, and it practically hasn't changed at all in 30 years. Today in Canada, only 40% of people said that they could find a doctor within a couple of days if they needed one. Compared to Germany or New Zealand who have people who report 70%, this is pretty bad. This may be in part be caused by Canada's lack of preventative care. Canada is the only industrialized country with single tier health care that does not provide no-cost pharmaceuticals to its people. Because of this, at least 1/10 emergency room visits are because people skipped out on some dosages to save a little money. This is in stark contrast to the health care of other single-tier countries, who implemented universal drug reforms in the 90's. Based on a Quebec study, it was found that when patients were provided with free prescriptions, every $1 given in medication saved $4 at the emergency room. The main argument against a drug-program is that it will raise government spending, but the money saved at the emergency room could actually save money and make it far more efficient. And with less emergency-room visits, waiting times for doctor visits could be cut down dramatically. I haven't done much research beyond this, but I really don't doubt it for a second. It's logical and it's been proven to work in other countries. So why haven't we don't this years ago? Canadians have typically been happy with the system, and any suggested changes could damage a party rather than hurt it. But I think that in this election, whichever party endorses this idea may be more likely to have my vote. It's an overdue to
To be honest I'm not sure there is a correct answer. Personally I'm not for nationalized health care. No one should be force to have something if they don't want it. I think it's better to have privatized healthcare. The biggest problem I think is the pharmaceutical companies charging absurd prices for medicine instead of making it for the good of society. Such as Sabin and Salk for the polio vaccine. I think that mentality is what we should look towards.
You're aware you can have national health care AND private right? (The uk as an example) If it's been proven that it would save money in Canada to do it. Then surely it's ridiculous NOT to do it?
Canada and the US are two different countries that work in multiple different ways. Just because it works for Canada doesn't mean it works for the US.
Canadian healthcare is very good. We have great nurses, docs, and other care providers. How do I know? I have kids, parents, and grandparents.......all of which use up a lot of health care resources. I have never had an issue. They have spent countless hours regularly checking up on my healthy kids and giving us parenting advice about safety, nutrition, and healthy living. They replaced my grandma's knee when she was like 88 (now 96). I mean, c'mon she was in a walker already and never regained that spry 85 year old mobility. My mom recently had several issues which were professionally dealt with, and now she is back to an active lifestyle including cycling, hiking, and golf. Can it be improved? Of course, continuous efforts to improve efficiency and keep up with state of the art tech should always be the goal.
I didn't mention the US at all in my post. I mentioned the UK. As they are still seperate countries I'll address this anyway. Just because one thing works in one country, being in a different country doesn't mean that your country can't aspire to it. That's kind of how it works, stuff has to start somewhere. On the other hand you might be right, and that kind of healthcare may not be for that particular country.
Canada pays ridiculous prices for medication due to not collectivizing the provincial budgets. If the provinces grouped together and made purchases together instead of separately, prices could be much lower. I disagree with your argument for privatized health care though. EVERYONE needs health care. It's not a want. It's something that everyone needs. If someone cannot afford health care, then that could be detrimental to the economy, because someone with poor health won't be as productive as they would normally be. There's also many statistics that show that single-payer systems help with sickness-prevention more due to lower costs to the individual, which saves money overall.
Sure. Why not give the rich people special status in Canada and make everyone else a second-class citizen. My thread isn't about private health care at all. It is about public pharmacare, that is, nationalized public funding of personal medications. I understand the UK system personally. If the rich pay the same tax rates, and then spend additional money on a private hospital, I think it would maybe be fair that they get additional health. However, it does give rich people a special status in society and it promotes inequality. It gives premium health care to the rich while the poor are stuck with lesser care.
I wasn't entirely addressing you with that statement. My point is (pharmaceuticals) that if a government can save money then it should do. It's cheaper - and EASIER for It to be free an claimed back after.
Sorry, I misunderstood your post. I was under the impression that your "it is ridiculous NOT to do it" was about the UK's health care system, not about the proposed thread idea.
Baby boomers r aging n thats a big reason. Also it will effect the work force in a huge way in the next 5-10yrs. Meds r much cheaper in Canada than the USA.