IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

hamburger wrote:

it's probably rather difficult to compare the various ways a MEDICAL degree is obtained in different countries , as this excerpt shows :

Quote:
Doctor of Medicine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Doctor of Medicine (M.D. or MD, from the Latin Medicinae Doctor meaning "Teacher of Medicine,") is an academic degree for medical doctors.

How the term MD is applied varies between countries - it is a first professional degree (medical diploma) in some countries, for example in the USA and Canada, while in some countries it is a relatively rare higher doctoral academic research degree resembling a PhD, for example in the United Kingdom and Australia.[1]. In the UK and countries following the British model, the equivalent of the American undergraduate degree of MD is the MBChB or MBBS (meaning "Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery" - see later).

article in full :
MEDICAL DEGREE

...i was trying to compare the types of physicians, as you'll notice in my first and second post. the degree they hold has absolutely nothing to do with the type of medicine they practice. my entire point was that certain type of physicians (like a general practitioner or a family medicine doc) are more basic and tend to earn less than a physician who specialized in internal medicine, pediatrics, psych and so on...

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I think that Miller's point is that there are far more Canadians coming here for medical care than Americans going to Canada. Considering that our populations are in a ratio of about 9:1 that is a remarkable fact.

This response is partly to you, georgeob1 and Miller, wherever he went.

Given the biased media propaganda in the US, I would have to see some real hard facts that this is the case. Since the US cannot take care of their own health care issues, why would they take Canadians? Out of the kindness of their hearts? Rolling Eyes

Have you talked to any Canadians? In person? People who have actually travelled to the US from Canada for medical care? Or do you believe the garbage you hear on the 'news'?

I'd like to hear from these people. Otherwise, I must consider it all to be hogwash, like most of what comes from the States in the form of 'news'.

Last I heard, busloads of Americans were coming here for the cheaper drugs.

I LIVE in Canada and talk to Canadians everyday. Not ONE has ever had to go to the States for any type of medical issue. I know of people who have MS, Lou Gehrig's Disease, all types of cancer, heart problems, hip problems. Not one has even considered going to the States. Why should we? They are all receiving top quality medical care here. We have everything the States have, just in smaller proportions, which correlates with our smaller population (but a bigger country Smile

. It works for us. One of our friends just had hip surgery at a very reputable CANADIAN hosp. - Foothill Medical Centre, in Calgary, which is in Alberta, CANADA. Cost to him? Not a penny.

I had to have minor medical care while travelling in Germany. Waiting time? Nil. Cost to me? Nothing!

While the States puts a price on the human body as far as medical care, most countries in the world are human-oriented, not money-oriented. They don't see that providing medical care to everyone as a big deal. It's as necessary as eating.

However, you're dealing with powerful health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies in the US who could care less about human beings. It's all about the almighty dollar.

You will change your tune if ever you are unlucky enough to have to really use your medical insurance. When it starts costing them, you'll get a big fat DENIED. People have died from cancer in the States because companies like Cigna didn't want to pay for treatment. You call this humane? How about the little girl who was turned away from a hosp. in the States because she didn't have medical coverage? She was taken to a different hospital with 104 fever. The delay cost her her life. Great, eh?

If you like your current health care system, Miller, good for you. I think that most people don't or it wouldn't be such a huge issue.

I also think that the people who should watch 'Sicko' are afraid to. I always think knowledge is a good thing Smile

0 Replies

bathsheba wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
I think that Miller's point is that there are far more Canadians coming here for medical care than Americans going to Canada. Considering that our populations are in a ratio of about 9:1 that is a remarkable fact.

This response is partly to you, georgeob1 and Miller, wherever he went.

Given the biased media propaganda in the US, I would have to see some real hard facts that this is the case. Since the US cannot take care of their own health care issues, why would they take Canadians? Out of the kindness of their hearts?

Not at all. Doctors & Hospital here are paid for their services just like any other. Canadians who can afford it and who are weary of the delays for seeing specialists, or who want treatments that are not approved or funded by the Canadian government come here to get them.

I don't think the U.S. media is particularly biased on this question. Where is your evidence of that?? The United States does indeed "take care of its health issues" -- we just do it through independent practicioners and health maintenance organizations, with no prior restrictions by government on what we may choose or not choose to do (this is called freedom). Everyone citizen over age 65 enjoys government-paid health care (Medicare) and people with very low incomes are taken care of through other government programs (Medicaid).

bathsheba wrote:

Have you talked to any Canadians? In person? People who have actually travelled to the US from Canada for medical care? Or do you believe the garbage you hear on the 'news'?

I'd like to hear from these people. Otherwise, I must consider it all to be hogwash, like most of what comes from the States in the form of 'news'.

Those are rather sweeping generalizations. Do you really believe them?? I don't. (Yes I have spoken in person about this with a number of Canadians).

bathsheba wrote:

Last I heard, busloads of Americans were coming here for the cheaper drugs.

That is indeed true. The Canadian government has made itself the only buyer of pharmaceuticals and therefore exercises enormous leverage with the manufacturers. In addition it uses the threat of licensing generic production of pharmaceuticals whenever the developer/manufacturer (usually NOT a Canadian company) of the drugs is reluctant to come up with a sufficient discount. The result is that American consumers are in effect subsidizing the Canadian government. I would favor legislation in this country requiring that pharmaceuticals in this country be sold by the manufacturers for no more than the price at which they are sold to the Canadian government. Given the relative size of the markets that would very quickly end the discounts given to Canada. Canadians howl about supposed unfair trade practices in this country while enjoying a 2:1 trade surplus with the United States and extorting huge sums from American pharmaceutical companies. It has become very tiresome

bathsheba wrote:

I LIVE in Canada and talk to Canadians everyday. Not ONE has ever had to go to the States for any type of medical issue. I know of people who have MS, Lou Gehrig's Disease, all types of cancer, heart problems, hip problems. Not one has even considered going to the States. Why should we? They are all receiving top quality medical care here. We have everything the States have, just in smaller proportions, which correlates with our smaller population (but a bigger country . It works for us. One of our friends just had hip surgery at a very reputable CANADIAN hosp. - Foothill Medical Centre, in Calgary, which is in Alberta, CANADA. Cost to him? Not a penny.

Well that settles it -- you know everyone in Canada and have spoken to them all? Rolling Eyes

BTW your health care does indeed cost you a great deal -- you just pay for it in your higher taxes, and accept whatever care your Federal & Provincial governments think is enough for you.

bathsheba wrote:

While the States puts a price on the human body as far as medical care, most countries in the world are human-oriented, not money-oriented. They don't see that providing medical care to everyone as a big deal. It's as necessary as eating.

Do you really mean to say that "MOST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD ARE HUMAN-ORIENTED, NOT MONEY -ORIENTED"? In the first place it is not really clear what the phrase really means; and in the second "all the countries in the world" is a fairly big set, including Zimbabwe, North Korea, Nicaragua, Bangladesh, and many other like places. This kind of hyperbole makes you look either stupid or a bit hysterical

bathsheba wrote:

You will change your tune if ever you are unlucky enough to have to really use your medical insurance. When it starts costing them, you'll get a big fat DENIED. People have died from cancer in the States because companies like Cigna didn't want to pay for treatment. You call this humane? How about the little girl who was turned away from a hosp. in the States because she didn't have medical coverage? She was taken to a different hospital with 104 fever. The delay cost her her life. Great, eh?

Do you think that the national & Provincial governments of Canada don't also ration health care??? I read a good deal about the political issues in Canada regarding the level of funding of health care services. Is that humane???

An insurance policy is a contract and both parties have to abide by its terms. Health insurers here cannot capriciously deny claims for reasons that are not stipulated in advance in the policy. Admittedly there is a good deal of frustration on this score, as people discover the limits on their coverage. However, you get what you are willing to pay for.

0 Replies

george wrote :

Quote:

However, you get what you are willing to pay for.

george has pointed out better than anyone else the difference between the american health care system and the canadian health care sysytem .

under the canadian system , every resident is ENTITLED to appropriate health care , no matter how much or how little they were to able to pay into the fund .
there are NO xclusions for pre-existing conditions and you can NEVER lose your right to medical treatment - such as when a company might close , you lose your job and can't pay the premium .

under the american system you or your employer has to try and make sure that you have adequate insurance .
as has been pointed out by some of our american friends , some doctors in the USA refuse patients under certain medical plans (medicaid ?) since they feel the re-imbursement is not sufficient .
that would never happen under the canadian system .

i'm not saying that one system is better than the other : THEY ARE SIMPLY DIFFERENT .
the citizens of each country are entitled to decide if they want a government to provide healthcare for ALL residents or only for those that elect to participate and can pay for it .

rather simple IMO .
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

i'm not saying that one system is better than the other : THEY ARE SIMPLY DIFFERENT .
the citizens of each country are entitled to decide if they want a government to provide healthcare for ALL residents or only for those that elect to participate and can pay for it .

rather simple IMO .
hbg

I agree with that. Pity that so many foreigners can't shut up about ours.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

hamburger wrote:

i'm not saying that one system is better than the other : THEY ARE SIMPLY DIFFERENT .
the citizens of each country are entitled to decide if they want a government to provide healthcare for ALL residents or only for those that elect to participate and can pay for it .

rather simple IMO .
hbg

I agree with that. Pity that so many foreigners can't shut up about ours.

No matter how much anyone may complain about the US -

we remain 'where it's at!'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No matter how much anyone may complain about the US -

we remain 'where it's at!'

Cycloptichorn

Perhaps, but this won't last if the complainers have their way.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No matter how much anyone may complain about the US -

we remain 'where it's at!'

Cycloptichorn

Perhaps, but this won't last if the complainers have their way.

So they've been saying for a while now, but heck - things keep getting better at a good rate as well...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

george wrote :

Quote:

Perhaps, but this won't last if the complainers have their way.

but isn't it rather : "the citizens of each country are entitled to decide ..." ?
hbg

0 Replies

Odd man out alright
ODD MAN OUT

The United States is the only developed nation without universal health care. Although health insurance systems worldwide are straining as populations age, safety nets have largely remained in place. Here are brief descriptions of insurance systems of several nations..

France

Health care as percentage of GDP: 9.6

Health expenditure per person: $2,567

Universal care funded through mandatory health insurance provided by Social Security, with private supplemental coverage filling gaps..

Germany

Health care as percentage of GDP: 10.8

Health expenditure per person: $2,820

All individuals are enrolled in government-approved health insurance plans partly financed by employer and employee contributions, although high- income workers may buy private insurance instead..

Japan

Health care as percentage of GDP: 8

Health expenditure per person: $2,131

A dual system in which workers enroll in insurance programs through their jobs, while all others join Japan's national health insurance plan..

United Kingdom

Health care as percentage of GDP: 7.6

Health expenditure per person: $1,989

A publicly funded National Health Service provides free care, with the option of private insurance for those wanting treatment outside the state system..

United States

Health care as percentage of GDP: 13.9

Health expenditure per person: $4,887

Federal and state governments pay most of the cost of care for seniors and the poor, with employer or individually financed insurance available for others. About 45 million people lack coverage.
*2001 figures

Source: World Health Organization, Chronicle research

0 Replies

It remains to be seen whether the social welfare systems of European countries (and Japan) can long be sustained, given their average economic performance over the last decade; their low birthrates and attendant rapidly ageing populations. The median age of Europeans is avout 4 years greater than Americans and the difference grows by about a year every three years.

The USA has been the "odd man out" compared to European norms for a long time. That doesn't bother us very much.

0 Replies

george wrote (in part) :

Quote:

It remains to be seen whether the social welfare systems of European countries (and Japan) can long be sustained, given their average economic performance over the last decade; their low birthrates and attendant rapidly ageing populations.

having been a reader of TIME magazine for the last 50 years , i've read about every 10 years or so that sweden's economy would not be able to sustain the country - they would soon be at the end of the rope .
well , 50 years later they are still around and doing remarkably well .

(i've just used sweden as an example of the many european nations that a/t TIME magazine wouldn't be able to make it .
they've all had their difficulties but i don't think any one of them has racked up a public debt comparable to the UNITED STATES - the richest country in the world)

to get reliable information about countries , i find the CIA YEARBOOK to be an excellent source .

have a look what the CIA yearbook has to say about sweden , and if you have the time , look at the statistical data and compare it to the USA .
the public debt is a very interesting number and so are many others .

CIA YEARBOOK - SWEDEN :

Quote:

Sweden's long-successful economic formula of a capitalist system interlarded with substantial welfare elements was challenged in the 1990s by high unemployment and in 2000-02 by the global economic downturn, but fiscal discipline over the past several years has allowed the country to weather economic vagaries.

CIA YEARBOOK : SWEDEN

CIA YEARBOOK : UNITED STATES

0 Replies

Sweden's economy could go belly-up tomorrow and what impact do you think it would have on this country?

Now, if the tables were turned, different story.

0 Replies

I have never considered Time magazine to be a reliable source of either facts or penetrating analysis. I am surprised to see that you do.

Sweden is atypical. In the first place it has a higher female fertility than just about any European country save only Ireland. In the second it has recently thrown out its socialist government in favor of a (mildly) conservative one, mostly because of growing concern about the high tax burden and the stultifying effects of the dominance of the public sector in the economy.

Having said all that, it is a fact that Sweden has generally managed its affairs better than most European countries. It benefits from a much more uniform population and culture than most European states and the fact that, instead of suffering mass destruction during WWII, it got rich supplying Nazi Germany with coal, iron ore and manufactured goods.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

they've all had their difficulties but i don't think any one of them has racked up a public debt comparable to the UNITED STATES - the richest country in the world)

A better comparison would be how does Canada stack up against other European countries on the healthcare issue.

How do you think you're doing compared to them>

0 Replies

I agree that Sweden is an a-typical country. I believe, the high female fertility rate will go down there, if (and when) they chamge their welfare system. (My wife's cousin, single mother, got five chidren, by five fathers. Her oldest children started doing the same ... )

0 Replies

Since the Canadian dollar still surpasses the US dollar I'd say we're doing very well, thank you. We also enjoy a balanced budget.

CIA Yearbook has this to say regarding Canada:

Economy - overview:
As an affluent, high-tech industrial society in the trillion-dollar class, Canada resembles the US in its market-oriented economic system, pattern of production, and affluent living standards. Since World War II, the impressive growth of the manufacturing, mining, and service sectors has transformed the nation from a largely rural economy into one primarily industrial and urban. The 1989 US-Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (which includes Mexico) touched off a dramatic increase in trade and economic integration with the US. Given its great natural resources, skilled labor force, and modern capital plant, Canada enjoys solid economic prospects.

Top-notch fiscal management has produced consecutive balanced budgets since 1997, although public debate continues over the equitable distribution of federal funds to the Canadian provinces.

Exports account for roughly a third of GDP. Canada enjoys a substantial trade surplus with its principal trading partner, the US, which absorbs more than 80% of Canadian exports each year. Canada is the US' largest foreign supplier of energy, including oil, gas, uranium, and electric power.

0 Replies

Canadians give us a lot of tiresome advice too.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Canadians give us a lot of tiresome advice too.

Especially when our economic outlook is so good eh? Laughing

Nappyhead asked.

0 Replies

bathsheba wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Canadians give us a lot of tiresome advice too.

Especially when our economic outlook is so good eh?

Nappyhead asked.

Well, no. What I asked is how well do you think Canada compares to the European countries that have universal healthcare systems. Those would be the systems closest to your own and perhaps a better measure than against the US which has no 'universal' healthcare system.

Totally different question, I think.

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know