You get what you pay for. And from what I understand, Canada is subpar when it comes to healthcare. For years there has been a 'braindrain' from countries such as Britain, Canada, etc....anyone of competence wanting to come to the US where they can make some dough. One thing about healthcare in the US...it may be expensive, but it's good. OldTrader
If it actually turns out that a procedure can't be done in canada, the healthcare system will pay to send the patient to the US. Personally I take equal care for all over good care for those who can afford it and sub standard care for others. The problem with canadian system is that it needs more funding... wait times are months and months for elective surgeries.
Sounds like you make my argument. The Canadian system is subpar. Further, the statement: "Personally I take equal care for all over good care for those who can afford it and sub standard care for others." is the road which the Canadians and others have gone down, which philosophy in general is why they are second-rate. Ever heard the statement: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? This is the central idea of all socialist/communist societies. If you carefully compare it with the statement you just made, you will find it is in essence the same statement. If I am successful, your idea has me paying so that someone unsuccessful can afford health care, and then further wants me to have the same care. LOL. Talk about penalizing success! I do agree that health care is expensive. I should know, I pay through the nose for it. But I think we need to be quite careful about ideas that would try to emulate the Canadian, or other European systems. These systems have already proven that they are subpar. Yes, they become affordable, but not for the same healthcare. OldTrader
We do something very similar here. My sister had a very aggressive brain tumor. John Hopkins was the best equipped to deal with the situation. So without hesitation her insurance carrier paid for air transportation, the procedure, months of recovery and she just turned 51. Just kidding. My sister had a very aggressive tumor. John Hopkins was the facility best equipped to deal with the situation. Her insurance company had a contract with a local hospital. After the surgery she was in an intermediate care facility as she had suffered a stroke. Three weeks after that the carrier decided it was time that she be discharged. She would have been 51 this year. That Canada would send a citizen to have a procedure where it could be done correctly says something pretty powerful. There is an article in the Paper copy of the September Kiplingers of a family who were told by their insurance carrier that would no longer pay for their son's cancer treatment because the hospital where it could be done had not renewed their contract. If you have enough money you can all the care you need. Not just in the USA. Why I heard about this rich guy, big dollars, who needs Kidney Dialysis and gets it in the caves of Afghanistan. May just be some media hype.
WORLD France tops global healthcare study Associated Press [June 22, 2000] LONDON France has the best healthcare system in the world, followed by Italy, while Sierra Leone has the worst, according to a contentious first attempt to rank the world's health systems. The US, which spends more on healthcare than any other nation, came in 37th. In the analysis published Wednesday, the World Health Organization (WHO) evaluated the healthcare systems of its 191 members and graded them based on how well each country performs given its resources. Previous assessments have looked just at how healthy people are, "and you're left with the image that the rich (countries) do well because they're rich," said study co-author Dr. Julio Frenk. This new analysis praises systems utilizing "few resources very well." The report essentially measures value for money: comparing a population's health with how effectively governments spend their money on health, illness prevention, and how fairly minorities and the poor are treated. Dr. Christopher Murray, a Harvard health economist and the health organization's chief of health policy had expected Scandinavian countries or Canada to be the world's best, because they're always presented as models. Instead, Norway hit No. 11, Canada 30. Some health economists raised concerns about the method used to compile the rankings, in which several Mediterranean countries scored unexpectedly high. Tiny countries with few patients to care for - San Marino, Andorra, Malta - crowd the top spots. Some experts contended the rankings say more about the health of people in each country rather than the quality of the healthcare systems. "They are obviously getting an olive oil effect," said Nick Bosanquet, health policy professor at London University's Imperial College, referring to the reported health benefits of the Mediterranean diet.