Windsor Star: Threat across border our Achilles heel in pandemic

[401don]

But the actual healthcare is excellent by international developed-world standards.

But can you say the country's healthcare is excellent is part of the population is excluded from it?

[Richard]

But can you say the country's healthcare is excellent is part of the population is excluded from it?

So Why is it necessary to provide both public and private paid options,it could be argued that the countries providing that option those who cannot afford the private option are also excluded?

If you are receiving the same level of care,the private option would not exist because everybody would just use the public option that they already pay for in taxes,so they are not only paying for a service that they are not using they are paying an increased cost for the private option.

Canada's system is open to those who pay into it and to those who cannot afford to pay into it.

What is the cost difference between those who pay into It verses the private sector costs compared to the US private sector healthcare?

Private Clinics

In addition to public health care providers such as primary care doctors and hospitals, many private clinics offering specialized services also operate in Canada.
Under federal law, private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act. Regardless of this legal issue, many do offer such services.
The advantage of private clinics is that they typically offer services with reduced wait times compared to the public health care system. For example, obtaining an MRI scan in a hospital could require a waiting period of months, whereas it could be obtained much faster in a private clinic.
Private clinics are a subject of controversy, as some feel that their existence unbalances the health care system and favors treatments to those with higher incomes.
Costs in private clinics are usually covered by private insurance policies, which will typically pay around 80% of the costs.

http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/page6.html

[Canadian Visitor]

So Why is it necessary to provide both public and private paid options,it could be argued that the countries providing that option those who cannot afford the private option are also excluded?

If you are receiving the same level of care,the private option would not exist because everybody would just use the public option that they already pay for in taxes,so they are not only paying for a service that they are not using they are paying an increased cost for the private option.

Canada's system is open to those who pay into it and to those who cannot afford to pay into it.

What is the cost difference between those who pay into It verses the private sector costs compared to the US private sector healthcare?

Private Clinics

In addition to public health care providers such as primary care doctors and hospitals, many private clinics offering specialized services also operate in Canada.
Under federal law, private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act. Regardless of this legal issue, many do offer such services.
The advantage of private clinics is that they typically offer services with reduced wait times compared to the public health care system. For example, obtaining an MRI scan in a hospital could require a waiting period of months, whereas it could be obtained much faster in a private clinic.
Private clinics are a subject of controversy, as some feel that their existence unbalances the health care system and favors treatments to those with higher incomes.
Costs in private clinics are usually covered by private insurance policies, which will typically pay around 80% of the costs.

http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/page6.html

That is an obscure and dated website.

Its also misleading at best.

I have no issue showing that except I could spend all my time here disproving the nonsense you dig up.

I have better things to do.

Yes there are some private clinics doing some things, which vary by province, but they are not a material part of the system.

Here, of course I mean private in the for-profit sense or the competes w/the public system sense.

Since as explained repeatedly all medical practice in Canada is private; its just publicly insured/funded.

[Canadian Visitor]

I'm not expert here, but I understand three things:

1) Our life expectancy stats are significantly lowered by our inclusion of most to all infant deaths -- where much of the rest of the world does not count most infant deaths.

2) Our stats for life expectancy once you are adult are comparable to the developed world.

3) The 'life expectancy' stat is a war horse trotted out to argue that our healthcare is substandard. Yes, the financial part of our healthcare is a 'hot mess'. But the actual healthcare is excellent by international developed-world standards.

These are just my prejudices, based on what I've heard. If you listen only to CNN or Fox News -- you may have a different impression. I'm open to hearing from someone better informed than I am.

That comes from here: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...ity-index-2016

Also have a look at this report:

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sit...01-30-2020.pdf

The US fares well in Breast Cancer survival rates, but is dead last in cervical cancer survival rates.

Also deaths considered preventable through healthcare the U.S. was again worst. Not close, more than 50% higher than Canada.

[Richard]

That is an obscure and dated website.

Its also misleading at best.

I have no issue showing that except I could spend all my time here disproving the nonsense you dig up.

I have better things to do.

Yes there are some private clinics doing some things, which vary by province, but they are not a material part of the system.

Here, of course I mean private in the for-profit sense or the competes w/the public system sense.

Since as explained repeatedly all medical practice in Canada is private; its just publicly insured/funded.

The study, by University of British Columbia and University of Toronto researchers, shows that overall Canadians paid $6.8 billion more in premiums than they received in benefits in 2011.
Approximately 60 per cent of Canadians have private health insurance. Typically obtained as a benefit of employment or purchased by individuals, private health insurance usually covers prescription drugs, dental services and eye care costs not paid by public health care.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-...th-canada.html

Are you saying that both university of British Columbia and the university of Toronto are misleading and providing false information?

I can email them for clarification.

If 60% of Canadians have private health insurance and it is also publicly funded as you say?

Instead of saying I am spewing nonsense how about you use your superior knowledge and explain to me the concept of public funded,private healthcare??

You are trying to sell and support a system by saying shut the *uck up and trust me,I know what is best,

I guess if you tell me that the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia are low rate institutions then I would understand the level of knowledge a bit more and accept that they are dime store learning institutions.

So is the private healthcare system funded by the public healthcare system in Canada? As you posted.

Yes or no ?

Does the word,private,in the Canadian medical field have a different meaning then in the United States?

If you have better things to do then to explain the system why are you even bothering to get involved in the discussion?

[Canadian Visitor]

The study, by University of British Columbia and University of Toronto researchers, shows that overall Canadians paid $6.8 billion more in premiums than they received in benefits in 2011.
Approximately 60 per cent of Canadians have private health insurance. Typically obtained as a benefit of employment or purchased by individuals, private health insurance usually covers prescription drugs, dental services and eye care costs not paid by public health care.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-...th-canada.html

Are you saying that both university of British Columbia and the university of Toronto are misleading and providing false information?

I can email them for clarification.

If 60% of Canadians have private health insurance and it is also publicly funded as you say?

Instead of saying I am spewing nonsense how about you use your superior knowledge and explain to me the concept of public funded,private healthcare??

You are trying to sell and support a system by saying shut the *uck up and trust me,I know what is best,

I guess if you tell me that the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia are low rate institutions then I would understand the level of knowledge a bit more and accept that they are dime store learning institutions.

So is the private healthcare system funded by the public healthcare system in Canada?

Yes or no ?

Does the word,private,in the Canadian medical field have a different meaning then in the United States?

If you have better things to do then to explain the system why are you even bothering to get involved in the discussion?

That's a different link.

You're a @#$#@

And yes dental is largely uninsured within the public system as I've said in posts time and again.

As are most, out-patient prescriptions if you're a working age adult [[seniors are covered, as are many youth)

That wasn't what you were on about; you were implying something else.

Now just be quiet! You're so full of erroneous information and you just don't care.

[Richard]

That's a different link.

You're a @#$#@

And yes dental is largely uninsured within the public system as I've said in posts time and again.

As are most, out-patient prescriptions if you're a working age adult [[seniors are covered, as are many youth)

That wasn't what you were on about; you were implying something else.

Now just be quiet! You're so full of erroneous information and you just don't care.

Thank you for answering the questions in an adult like manner.

It would have been much more informative to just say

Canadian private practices are forbidden to provide procedures that conflict with the public healthcare plan,it was done this way in order to ensure basic coverage no matter what your income is.

Why was it set up that way?

Millionaires will stand in line with paupers.

Private insurance is offered for everything else that is not covered under the basic plan provided by the public plan.

Or you can go across the border

When people support healthcare they always use a multitude of countries as an example of public healthcare,when the truth is every country that provides a national heath plan uses a different system.

Many systems do use a two tiered system,this is what we offer as a basic plan if you want a higher level or faster rate of care you can also purchase true private heath care and pay out of pocket.

That is the system the UK uses along with many others.

Canadas system is one of the only that actually forbids true private healthcare as an alternative option and views it as a competitor.

There is no public healthcare system in the world that provides prompt service and they are all based on waiting in line.

The question remains is when you have an illness that is deemed at the time not an emergency but turns into one while waiting for the two month appointment,one that once addressed has now turned into a life long illness,does it not cost the system more in long term care?

Anyways,when we discuss a public healthcare for all it cannot be a generalized picture based on some other country it has to be tailored to this country with its population and distance.

We cannot say we want to be like Sweden,Canada,UK,etc because none of those are the same.

In the UK,Italy,Canada and some others it is the government that actually controls the level of healthcare for any given region,simply by the allocation of funds.They decide what is deemed to expensive to continue with.

[Zacha341]

IMO, the issue of smoke and the lungs is that much of it is latent damage not noticed, or unacknowledged until you get into a situation where your lungs have to fight! Then you have no leg to stand on - or more specifically less optimum lung 'tissue' to fight with - against an infection [[pneumonia) etc.

I'm by no means judging your family, but as a former cigarette smoker [[I do miss 'em sometimes) it took my quitting to notice how shallow my breathing had become and how even my sense of taste had become altered. That stupid 'smokers-lifestyle' cough that was waved-off was gone too!----

So while not directly tied to immunity, healthy lungs do a body well...

I would also love to know the percentage of people over/under age 60 who end up on ventilators/die that are smokers. My sister and brother-in-law are both smokers over 60 and don't think their immune systems are much different than non-smokers.

[Wesley Mouch]

...
Also have a look at this report:

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sit...01-30-2020.pdf

The US fares well in Breast Cancer survival rates, but is dead last in cervical cancer survival rates.

Also deaths considered preventable through healthcare the U.S. was again worst. Not close, more than 50% higher than Canada.

Sure. The Commonwealth Report must come from the Commonwealth -- like England, Australia, Canada. So I read through the charts. Sure does look like the US sucks in many ways.

Preventable deaths [[Amenable to Healthcare) was pretty interesting. In 2006, the ratio of best [[Swiss) to worst [[USA) was 149/90, or about 65% worse. In 2016, the ratio is 112/54 making it 107% worse. So in 10 years, the USA/Swiss ratio more than DOUBLED? That seemed a bit doubtful. So time to look into Commonwealth Fund a bit.

Turns out its not related to the Commonwealth Nations. And the first item in its website menu is 'PRESS ROOM'. So we know who their audience is.

Their mission statement from 'ABOUT' says;

Throughout its history and in keeping with its donors’ intent, the Commonwealth Fund has sought to be a catalyst for change by identifying promising practices and contributing to solutions that could help the United States achieve a high-performance health system.

Not about statistics. They say so.

The foundation’s communications efforts have enabled it to share knowledge and experience and reach influential audiences able to push forward the necessary agenda for achieving a high-performance health system.

Advocacy news. And proud of it.

Doesn't make them wrong of course.

But once I read 'vulnerable population' in their mission, context was clear.

The UK wasn't well regarded in this piece of journalism either. So the most socialist healthcare in the OECD shares some of our pain it seems.

Everybody in health care sucks in some ways that can make ugly charts. Sure the USA sucks. And so does Canada. Just in different ways.

So what was this thread about again? Oh yea. Sure, Detroit is a problem for Windsor. And Ontario is a problem for Canada. And Quebec is a problem for Ontario. Lots of problems. Demonizing the USA doesn't help most problems. Get to work.

[Canadian Visitor]

Sure. The Commonwealth Report must come from the Commonwealth -- like England, Australia, Canada. So I read through the charts. Sure does look like the US sucks in many ways.

Preventable deaths [[Amenable to Healthcare) was pretty interesting. In 2006, the ratio of best [[Swiss) to worst [[USA) was 149/90, or about 65% worse. In 2016, the ratio is 112/54 making it 107% worse. So in 10 years, the USA/Swiss ratio more than DOUBLED? That seemed a bit doubtful. So time to look into Commonwealth Fund a bit.

Turns out its not related to the Commonwealth Nations. And the first item in its website menu is 'PRESS ROOM'. So we know who their audience is.

Their mission statement from 'ABOUT' says;


Not about statistics. They say so.

Advocacy news. And proud of it.

Doesn't make them wrong of course.

But once I read 'vulnerable population' in their mission, context was clear.

The UK wasn't well regarded in this piece of journalism either. So the most socialist healthcare in the OECD shares some of our pain it seems.

Everybody in health care sucks in some ways that can make ugly charts. Sure the USA sucks. And so does Canada. Just in different ways.

So what was this thread about again? Oh yea. Sure, Detroit is a problem for Windsor. And Ontario is a problem for Canada. And Quebec is a problem for Ontario. Lots of problems. Demonizing the USA doesn't help most problems. Get to work.

1) Yes this thread is off-track; but the first thing was the need to address nonsense that the headline was somehow racist.

2) Then we had more Canada-bashing, with misinformed nonsense.

Not my choice on either account; I only saw fit to eviscerate those bad posts.

3) Finally, Mr. Mouch........you have a long history of first disavowing any and all studies that show you're wrong in almost every view you hold.

You don't do this by disproving a single word in them.

Instead, when you're clearly shown that you're wrong, and that the studies are sound.....you throw up your hands and go....well it doesn't really matter does it, cause we all have our flaws.

Which is really your excuse for doing nothing for your community, your kids, you country, your species/planet.

If you have nothing useful to contribute; and you don't, please stop pretending.

Your posts are marginally more articulate and cogent that Richard's but they ultimately arrive at the same place.

"I've got mine, @#$# everyone else"

"I might be wrong, but so are you, I'm pretty sure, and I'm sticking to that".

That's why you have a region beset with problems worse than others.

Because given a chance to change for the better; you either argue there is no better; or there is but who cares.

[Honky Tonk]

1) Yes this thread is off-track; but the first thing was the need to address nonsense that the headline was somehow racist.

2) Then we had more Canada-bashing, with misinformed nonsense.

Not my choice on either account; I only saw fit to eviscerate those bad posts.

3) Finally, Mr. Mouch........you have a long history of first disavowing any and all studies that show you're wrong in almost every view you hold.

You don't do this by disproving a single word in them.

Instead, when you're clearly shown that you're wrong, and that the studies are sound.....you throw up your hands and go....well it doesn't really matter does it, cause we all have our flaws.

Which is really your excuse for doing nothing for your community, your kids, you country, your species/planet.

If you have nothing useful to contribute; and you don't, please stop pretending.

Your posts are marginally more articulate and cogent that Richard's but they ultimately arrive at the same place.

"I've got mine, @#$# everyone else"

"I might be wrong, but so are you, I'm pretty sure, and I'm sticking to that".

That's why you have a region beset with problems worse than others.

Because given a chance to change for the better; you either argue there is no better; or there is but who cares.

Don't forget the "Because I'm the Mom, That's Why...." posts, and the personal vendetta posts.

[Canadian Visitor]

Don't forget the "Because I'm the Mom, That's Why...." posts, and the personal vendetta posts.

Again, you're here to offer childish insults.

I didn't mention you, I didn't say anything bad about you.

There was no need for you to debase yourself.

Show more restraint.

[Richard]

1)
"I might be wrong, but so are you, I'm pretty sure, and I'm sticking to that".

That's why you have a region beset with problems worse than others.

Because given a chance to change for the better; you either argue there is no better; or there is but who cares.

Judging an entire region because of past mistakes when they are clearly showing that they are trying not to repeat them,to me anyways,clearly shows a level of character that is not acceptable.

[Canadian Visitor]

Judging an entire region because of past mistakes when they are clearly showing that they are trying not to repeat them,to me anyways,clearly shows a level of character that is not acceptable.

I didn't 'judge' a region.

I stated that Detroit is beset by many challenges, moreso than many other areas.

That's a fact, and not in dispute. Its not a criticism.

I 'judged' Mr. Mouch for contributing to those challenges and not only failing to be part of the solution, but actively opposing the solutions.

That is equally factual but is clearly also critical, as it should be; of one person.

One person, who like you, opposes facts, opposes decency, opposes fairness and change.

It is what it is.

[Richard]

^ no I oppose people that oppose opposition.

You are not willing to accept different viewpoints on a subject so why do you berate people that offer different viewpoints other then what you think?

It is an American thing,I would not expect you to understand.

Kinda like the *face palm* thing of a gun thing you had no clue about.

It was a fact nobody drove automobiles or flew airplanes,at the time there were also many CVs running around telling people that it was not possible,but yet here we are.

like you say,it is what it is.

Facts are facts and subject to change,they only remain a fact until an alternate fact is recognized.