Canada Sees Boom in Private Health Care Business

reply to post by intrepid


I think the program is now virtually Canada wide Intrepid. I know we have it here in NB and in NS as well.

And you are right, the tools are all there. There are times when you don't need to go into the ER, which is what causes these ridiculous wait times.

Having free healthcare does have it's downfalls I won't disagree, one of them being that everybody goes to the hospital for everything.

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


We are having that problem here. 48% of people visiting the ERs don't need too. But because HMOS pay so little, less and less people are becoming pcp. so now people are having to wait 3 weeks to see their pcp. And it will only continue to get worse.

In fact, the band aid right now is the doc in the box, or urgent clinics, that people can go to when it is not an outright emergency and they can't wait 3 weeks to see their pcp.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Okay and how is adding millions of more people going to solve the problem?

This is what I don't understand, Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt, in fact some doctors have quite taking new Medicaid patients because the government isn't paying them. So how is replacing the entire system that we have with a system that we have already tried and is bankrupt.

Medical cost keep going up, no matter if it is single payer, or private, or government sponsored insurance. Price controls don't work, they make things way worse.

I just don't get it. Yew we need health care reform but replacing the whole system with a system that has already failed is just retarded.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Our system definitely needs improvement. But, throwing money at a problem and hoping that it sticks is not the answer either. They are trying to push this thing through with no thought or debate just because Obama wants it. I find that very troublesome.

Doctors and hospitals pay ridiculously high malpractice insurance rates because of absurd jury rewards in lawsuits. (The trial lawyers love this). Our current medicaid system is subject to constant abuse and fraud. Public and free clinics are underutilized. E/Rs are used as general practitioner offices and are often left holding the bill. The costs are passed on to policy holders and taxpayers and so on...

My rant is just scratching the surface. I won't even go into the BS in the pharmaceutical industry. Have you ever sat in a DR.'s office and watched multiple sales reps from different companies deliver bags of boxed lunches to the same staff? Mind numbing. Half of it probably ends up in the trash. The amount of money they spend on advertising?? yadda yadda.

I don't have the answers. I just want a choice. Simple. I want to choose what is best for my family. No red tape, no accountants and no bureaucrats.

Originally posted by jibeho
Doctors and hospitals pay ridiculously high malpractice insurance rates because of absurd jury rewards in lawsuits. (The trial lawyers love this). Our current medicaid system is subject to constant abuse and fraud. Public and free clinics are underutilized. E/Rs are used as general practitioner offices and are often left holding the bill. The costs are passed on to policy holders and taxpayers and so on...

My rant is just scratching the surface. I won't even go into the BS in the pharmaceutical industry. Have you ever sat in a DR.'s office and watched multiple sales reps from different companies deliver bags of boxed lunches to the same staff? Mind numbing. Half of it probably ends up in the trash. The amount of money they spend on advertising?? yadda yadda.

I don't have the answers.

You've identified the problems though. That needs a fixing.

reply to post by jibeho


I completely understand wanting a choice. I am not going to argue that with you.

But despite what fox news wants you to think, we are not going to a national healthcare system.

It is just a national sponsered program that small businesses can tap into if they cannot afford to provide health insurance to employees, so they can continue to compete against bigger companies who can.

I am sorry, I just don't see the evil in that.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


I think retarded is a little un pc.

Thank you for having a reasonable conversation btw.

I think you are looking at immediate costs. What is to be considered is the overall national productivity cost.


If we were to go to a national health care system, (again we are not) but hypothetically speaking, the amount of paperwork alone that would be reduced would actually account for billions. The amount of time freed up for doctors not dealing with insurance companies alone would save Americans billions. Then you have the unmeasureable cost of having an entirely healthy population.

Billions are lost each year alone to people missing work because they cannot afford medical treatment. Or someone comes to work sick because they cannot afford to take off and cannot afford medical treatment.

Quite frankly, I want my child going to school with healthy kids.

It would benefit companies just by having a treated healthy population, because work loss of sick employees has to be in the trillions.

Everyone wins.

Poeple will still have a choice of whatever their company provides. And despite what health insurance companies tell you, this may make their customers more competetive also, we have such and such health care.

But either way, everyone is covered. It is a win win situation.

reply to post by nixie_nox


I understand the premise. But private industry can never successfully compete against a government backed business. Just ask AMTRAK or the Postal Service. Neither have competition and AMTRAK has never turned a profit.

When more and more businesses realize the "savings" with Obamacare they will begin to drop their group insurance plans and that will eventually force the employees into the national program.

It will be a slow phase out of the private industry.

Originally posted by nixie_nox



since Canada has gone to their system, their lifespans have increased. Their seniors lifespans are steadily increasing. There is a lower infant mortality rate and mother natal mortality rate. Doctors report to be 30% happier then US doctors. And Canada had the same rates as us before changing their systems.

yeah ... it just pisses me off that people somehow think America's system is better than Canada's. when people DIE because they can't afford treatment. ridiculous.

reply to post by jibeho


I think UPS and Fedex are very successful companies. In fact, UPS is one of the most successful companies in the world. (they own the most planes too

Amtrak is a different animal, and people need to be encouraged more to use trains. the ones in my area are very successful,(DC) because the fed gov' actually subsidizes train passes for federal employees. But amtrak is more about competing with airlines.

Now as far as competing companies over cost, this is what is gonna make the private companies reform. It may even benefit the consumer because they may start approving treatment that hasn't been before.

One of the problems our healthcare is so expensive is that we have been convinced that we need the latest and greatest in order to be treated properly. So all this equipment is always bought, updated, and has to be justified to be used.

Instead of relying on equipment so much, maybe doctors should be taught to rely less on technology and depend more on their own diagnostic abilities.

But that is a discussion for another time.

reply to post by nixie_nox


I should have clarified when I brought up competing with the US Postal Service.
No private entity could compete and be profitable for door to door daily mailings while only charging $.44 a letter like the USPS does.

USPS claims to be self sufficient and yet they do receive govt. appropriations.

the USPS is subsidized. One need only refer to the 2005 annual report to get some illustrative numbers. A line item showing as "U.S. government appropriations — received" lists an amount of $503 million. The 2003 annual report shows a similar line item with a similar heading. That line item lists an amount of $762 million.

www.lewrockwell.com...

reply to post by jibeho


Oh ok, I see what you mean. Good point.

My question for you is....

if everyone thinks that medicare is so badly run, wouldn't people want to use private insurance then? Is there really a threat?

reply to post by nixie_nox


Not that I'm plugging Mitt Romney but he does have an idea on health care that makes sense. It is an idea that was put to work in Massachusetts.

Mitt Romney's vision of extending health care to everyone is one in which states implement programs for health care as opposed to a federally mandated health care system or raising taxes. Romney believes that through providing primary care to people, larger, more expensive health care problems can be avoided. As he did in his own state of Massachusetts when he was governor from 2002-2006, Romney would implement market reforms that would drive down health care costs. According to Romney, the costs would fluctuate depending upon each state's planned proposal. As incentive, Romney's health care plan would allow those that purchase their own health insurance to deduct premiums, deductibles and co-payments form their income. However, unlike the Massachusetts model, Romney says he would not make health care mandatory on a national level.

www.lasvegassun.com...

The right answer for health care is to apply more market force, not less. Here's how:
1. Get everyone insured. Help low-income households retain or purchase private insurance with a tax credit, voucher or coinsurance. Use the tens of billions we now give hospitals for free care to instead help people buy and keep their own private insurance. For the uninsured who can afford insurance but expect to be given free care at the hospital, require them to either pay for their own care or buy insurance; if they do neither, they would forgo the tax credit or lose a deduction. No more "free riders."

Make health insurance affordable and portable.

Center reforms at the state level. Open the door to state plans designed to meet the various needs of their citizens. Before imposing a one-size-fits-all federal program, let the states serve as "the laboratories of democracy."

etc etc ... there is more detail in the article. To me it makes sense.

www.newsweek.com...

I just want a choice

But if you don't have the funds your choice is VERY limited.

I can't speak for Canada, but I've lived in the UK now for three years and I have had nothing but good experiences under the NHS. Yes, there are problems, but no one dies because they can't afford to go to the doctor.

I lived in the United States most of my life, and been unable to afford insurance for large chunks of time ( and not being poor enough for medicade).The healthcare system in the UK is a refreshing breath of fresh air, warts and all.

One year my mother was very sick, we had no insurance and we didn't have Medicade. For weeks she's ill until finally my parents break down and go to the local ER - turns out my mom had TB and infected the rest of us with it as well as it had been going on for so long - The ER doctors asked my mum why she hadn't sought medical care earlier...It was because my parents couldn't afford it, that in my opinion is disgraceful.

reply to post by jibeho


I don't think a state run system is a bad idea. From what I have heard, Romney's plan is working decently, though I have never really looked into it.



But I just wonder how much time and money it takes to handle all the deductions and reimbursements? When it would be easier to just just have the gov't of choice health care group handle it like insurance?