Canadian Healthcare Rationing...A model for the U.S ? Or a Warning ?

[carpro]

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Canada.pdf


Rationing : “Everything is Free but Nothing is Readily Available” (Frogue et al, 2001)

Like other nations experiencing limitless demand, an ageing population and the costly advance of medical technology, Canada has faced pressure to control health expenditure. It has done so through explicit rationing.

SNIP

In 2005 Canadians waited 12.3 weeks for an MRI scan, 5.5 weeks for a CT-scan and 3.4 weeks for an ultrasound. (Fraser Institute, Chart 16.) In 2002, Canada had fewer CT scanners per 1,000 population than the OECD average (10.8 compared with 19). Similarly, it had only 4.7 MRI scanners per 1,000 population compared with an OECD average of 7.9.

Unsurprisingly, many choose to fly south to the US for diagnosis and treatment.

Canada ranked 24th out of 27 OECD countries in 2002 for the number of doctors per 1,000 population. It had 2.3 compared with an OECD average of 2.9.

 

[targus]

Obama as much as said that there will be rationing and unavailable treatments in his propoganda piece last night.

His answer to almost every question was something along the line that there is too much health care given out under the current system.

He plans on cutting costs by cutting treatments - both in quanity and quality.

 

[just-want-peace]

Obama as much as said that there will be rationing and unavailable treatments in his propoganda piece last night.

His answer to almost every question was something along the line that there is too much health care given out under the current system.

He plans on cutting costs by cutting treatments - both in quanity and quality.

Well, by any stretch of the imagination, THAT IS REFORM,
IOW, ----CHANGE!----:tear:

 

[carpro]

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/05/13/death-of-us-healthcare/


As in Canada, the best way to cut medical costs is to refrain from using the best drugs to treat cancer and other illnesses, thereby economizing at the expense of patients’ lives. Forty-four percent of the drugs approved by the Canadian health authorities for use in their country are not allowed by the healthcare system due to their high cost. As a result, death rates from cancer are 16 percent higher in Canada than in the United States. We will pay for the attempt to save $2 trillion with our lives.

SNIP

In Canada, colonoscopies are so rationed that the colon cancer rate is 25 percent higher than in the U.S.

 

[Freedom]

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/05/13/death-of-us-healthcare/


As in Canada, the best way to cut medical costs is to refrain from using the best drugs to treat cancer and other illnesses, thereby economizing at the expense of patients’ lives. Forty-four percent of the drugs approved by the Canadian health authorities for use in their country are not allowed by the healthcare system due to their high cost. As a result, death rates from cancer are 16 percent higher in Canada than in the United States. We will pay for the attempt to save $2 trillion with our lives.

SNIP

In Canada, colonoscopies are so rationed that the colon cancer rate is 25 percent higher than in the U.S.

That's what private insurance companies force us to do. What's the difference except in Canada everyone can obtain medical insurance/health care. Ever tried to get insurance with a pre-existing condition? It's either impossible or it costs 5 times as much.

 

[targus]

That's what private insurance companies force us to do. What's the difference except in Canada everyone can obtain medical insurance/health care. Ever tried to get insurance with a pre-existing condition? It's either impossible or it costs 5 times as much.

The difference being that with private health insurance you can simply change to a different company if you are dissatisfied with the plan. If there is only one plan - namely the government plan - you have no such option.

Would it not make sense to address the problem of pre-existing conditions separately with some sort of government plan just for those relatively fewer cases?

Why should the satisfied majority be required to give up their current plans to address these problems?

 

[OldRegular]

Obama as much as said that there will be rationing and unavailable treatments in his propoganda piece last night.

His answer to almost every question was something along the line that there is too much health care given out under the current system.

He plans on cutting costs by cutting treatments - both in quanity and quality.

Perhaps that is his cure for the unfunded liability of Social Security and Medicare; let the older citizens die of neglect while he grants citizenship to all the illegals that can make it across the border.

 

[donnA]

That's what private insurance companies force us to do. What's the difference except in Canada everyone can obtain medical insurance/health care. Ever tried to get insurance with a pre-existing condition? It's either impossible or it costs 5 times as much.

Sure, we'll have coverage, what we won't have is health care.

 

[OldRegular]

The difference being that with private health insurance you can simply change to a different company if you are dissatisfied with the plan. If there is only one plan - namely the government plan - you have no such option.

Would it not make sense to address the problem of pre-existing conditions separately with some sort of government plan just for those relatively fewer cases?

Why should the satisfied majority be required to give up their current plans to address these problems?

So simple I am surprised you don't get it! The object is to move to a third world socialized state no matter what the cost in dollars or lives.