HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

Canadian health care

Support Forums
>
Crohn's Disease
✚ New Topic locked
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 8/18/2009 2:22 AM (GMT 0)
There seems to be a lot of confusion in the states about universal health care. As I'm a real Canadian, I thought it might be useful to post my experience. This is not meant to be a pro- or con- reform thread or even a discussion of the Canadian health care system.

These are simply facts and experiences that may help Americans who are getting their info from health care lobbyists via corrupt politicians or ideologues with no interest in giving the people the truth. Let's begin.

1)Canada does not have "death panels". I have never heard of such a thing until I heard the term on the American news. There is no legalized euthanasia. You can be a vegetable for years and years and no bureaucrat will sneak into your room and pull the plug.

2)I choose which doctor I want to see, I can open the phone book and go anywhere I want. If I want to see a specialist I need a referral from a GP (or PCP). If I want a second or third opinion I just have to ask.

3)My GI is a world class GI. I can see him within a week if I need to. I would probably be able to see him sooner but he only does clinics once a week and spends the rest of his time running clinical trials, usually about 10 at a time it seems. If I want to switch to another GI I just have to dial their number, I don't call the government.

4)I can see my GP within 1 or 2 days, and he's accepting new patients. I saw an 18 week wait time posted here, this is false, at least in the 6th largest city in Canada it is. I have to wait about 2 hours to see him. If I don't want to wait that long I go to the walk-in clinic nearby.

5)I don't have to worry about going bankrupt because of my health (at least directly anyway).

6)Drugs are cheaper in Canada because the gov't buys in bulk from the drug companies. My drugs are covered under my employer plan. If I had no coverage, there would be an income tested deductible. I see in the states the gov't is not allowed to negotiate prices with the drug companies, I wonder who wrote that law.

7)Universal health care is not perfect. I worry if it is sustainable with the aging population. If I was a millionaire and lived in the USA I would probably get better care. If I was middle class in the USA I would probably get worse care, but I'm not sure. I DO know I would worry about paying for the bills though.

8)I went to the Mayo Clinic 7 years ago to see how it compares to Canada. I loved the Mayo and would not hesitate to go again if I needed to. The GI there, Dr. Tremaine, said I was on the right drug but increased the dose. My GI here agreed. I paid about $3,000 out of pocket. Dr. Tremaine knew who my GI in Canada was and said he's a great doctor.

These are my experiences. I hope they are helpful. I think that both the current system in Canada and the USA are imperfect. I'm glad I am where I am, however.

Mike
Posted 8/18/2009 2:32 AM (GMT 0)
Thanks Mike,,,its always good to hear from someone with facts. Trouble is ,with the polititions here, we never no when we are hearing truth or smoke is being blown up our --- ..
Posted 8/18/2009 3:29 AM (GMT 0)
Not all true depending on where you live. While I can see both my GI and GP on the same day as I call, I am one of the few people who I know in Quebec who is as lucky as I am. I know other people who can't even get a GI even though they have serious health problems, and have been waiting years to get them. I also know a girl who is waiting a year and a half for a colonoscopy after she has been having cancer-like symptoms (her mother died from colon cancer at her age). Here in Quebec, most people can't even get a family doctor as well. Here, you would also have a very difficult time getting a 2nd or 3rd opinion, because it's that hard to even get a first one unfortunately. My GP had to call in a personal favor from a friend of hers who happens to be a GI to take me as a patient, so I consider myself very lucky. Again, it looks like this really just depends on where you live, here in Quebec there is a serious doctor shortage.

To me, the only problem with Canada's universal health care is the lack of doctors. People do their medical degrees here because it's so cheap to go to school here compared to the US, then they move down there because the salaries are so much better. I don't blame them, because if I spent that long in school I'd be tempted to do the same thing. Really though, the only problem is the wait times (especially at the emergency room... My boss' grandmother lost a leg because she was in the emergency room untreated for so long) and the lack of doctors. Our hospitals also aren't nearly as nice, because it's all underfunded.

All that being said, however, I'd much prefer this over going bankrupt to take care of myself medically. If you are not covered by a private prescription drug plan, here it is the only thing you pay for out of pocket (I think it's up to $500/year on your income taxes, you pay 30% of your prescription costs per month, up to a maximum of $80/month). No medical system is perfect.

Hope this insight helps a bit more, since it seems like the care we get is not uniform throughout the country.
Posted 8/18/2009 5:01 AM (GMT 0)
True, there are pros and cons to both sides...I live in Canada as well, Alberta...I used to live in Calgary which now is almost impossible to find a family doc that is taking new patients, but there's always the walk-in clinics if you have about 4-5 hours to spare (of course it also depends on which part of Calgary you live)...it's also important to remember some soon to be moms's had to go to the states (I believe Montana) in order to give birth because there were a shortage of beds in Calgary (some of them might have been high risk births but I know that some were not and still had to go to the US to have their babies) this was a few yrs ago but still, pretty scary...Also, often in many of the hospital ER's in Calgary patients are lined against the walls waiting for an ER and just to be seen by a doc, many have died waiting...then there's also the case of a 17yr old that went to one hospital with menengitis but was told to go home or try another hospital (even though told them he had already been at another hospital for about 7 hours) because there emergency was not fully functioning at the time, he died at home a few hours later.

Our health care system is not what it used to be, I can tell the huge differences since being sick with CD for 18 yrs, I got in to see my first GI the next day after seeing my family doc (18 yrs ago when I first got sick) I used to get a choice of sandwhich, and a snack and drinks of my choice right after waking up from a colonoscopy.  Now you get a small drink and either A cookie or A small muffin.


We moved out of the big city and to a small town 1/2 an hour away (for obvious reasons) only to hear them say on the news that people in the city are being encouraged to go to rural town hospitals and doctors since we're not as over-loaded in small towns like it is in the city, yet in the next story on the news they talked about charging a road/travel tax for those that live outside the city but commute everyday to the city to work, the nerve!

Was our health care system great before, yes, I found it quite adequate but obviously something was wrong or it wouldn't have become the mess it is now...is it better than in the US, well I can only go by what I hear and see on T.V and on these support forums, I'd say yes, it still is better than in many places in the US.

:)
Posted 8/18/2009 5:30 AM (GMT 0)
I'm in a small town but I don't have to wait long to see my GP (PCP). The last time, it took about 4 or 5 days and there was a weekend in there. It was just to review some tests that were done a few weeks before and not at all urgent. The GI is another story. It took about 4 months to get a first appointment there (it also involves traveling to another city and takes most of a day, but that's due to my choice of where I want to live). Followup appointments can be set up for about a month away. Getting a colonoscopy took about 6 weeks of waiting. As for a comparison with the US system, there is a fairly impartial sounding wiki about it here: Wikipedia

Post Edited (Keeper) : 8/17/2009 11:34:23 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 8/18/2009 5:47 AM (GMT 0)
It's crazy how long some people have for wait times here... I have no idea how in Montreal, I managed to get a GI and family doctor who both see me the same day if I'm not feeling well. This is NOT the norm though, I just won the doctor jackpot or something. Took me a month to get in for a scope, but only because my doctor was on vacation for 2 weeks before. Both other times I've done tests before that, it took me less than a week because they were marked as urgent or I paid out of my own pocket to go to a private clinic. One good thing is that if you really want to, you can always still pay to get things done faster... An endoscopy cost me between 400-500$ here in a private clinic, but I got it done like 3 days after I called because I didn't want to wait at a hospital.
Posted 8/18/2009 11:05 AM (GMT 0)
I'm in Ontario, and while I'm Thankful to have the health care system that we have, I'm not sure it can be sustained. As mentioned, it's getting increasingly difficult to attract Doctors. Before my Daughter was diagnosed, we went for about 4 years without a family Doctor. We had several prior to that, but they kept leaving for the U.S.

Our Emergency room wait times are extremely long, and often you see patients in hallways waiting days for a bed/room to become available. When my daughter relapsed this past winter, following her tests, we were sent to Emergency. I was like now what, and was told we could be sitting there for up to 2 days. I'm not sure who, but someone felt for us and pulled some strings and got her admitted in a couple of hours.

I think you will see more and more private health care services popping up here, to alleviate the burden  on our system.  That being said, I'm very appreciative of our system. To this point I would likely have recieved a bills for thousands and thousands of dollars for tests and Hospital stays. We do pay for it in our taxes immensly though.

Posted 8/18/2009 12:21 PM (GMT 0)
These are all interesting responses. The average wait time in Canada of 18.3 weeks was determined by the (Canadian) Fraser Institute in a 2007 survey. It is also interesting that Harris polling sustains what has been reported here in posts -- 77% of American patients are generally satisfied with the availability of emergency medical care, while jusu 60% of Canadians are. The consensus it seems is that there are always tradeoffs . . . public health systems mean higher taxes, longer waits, etc. Private systems can mean the reverse, but with out of pocket spending for health insurance premiums and deuctibles and copays. Finally, I would note that holding a different opinion does not make one "corrupt." It means having a different opinion.

Posted 8/18/2009 12:57 PM (GMT 0)
All I know is where I live in Canada, a Capital of its province we do not have the same as what you posted, so it's different for different cities as others have pointed out. For sure for me, when I was at my worst in a flare, hospitalized and needing my G.I and all, I certainly couldn't get in within a day or two or even that month. Two months was my 'emergency' appointment. And my family doc, well, thats usually a good two hours as well unless you go at opening and be first. I also won't start with our hospital rooms and how a semi-private isn't just two people anymore, its THREE, and the middle person in the room has a stretcher, no tv, no lights, no radio, no room for guests, nothing....good old health care in my capital city.
Posted 8/18/2009 1:54 PM (GMT 0)
I think a lot of the discrepencies in Canada can be seen in the US as well. Care is going to vary from location to location in big cities vs. rural areas. For example, in rural Maine you have to travel 2 hours to even get to a hospital. The wait times there vary. It can be very long if it happens to be busy as it is the only hospital for miles and miles and miles. Or there can be no wait time because it is so rural people hardly ever go there. When I lived in Mass. I was put on a 6 month wait list for an emergency appt w/ a neurologist. This was because there is a shortage of neurologists in that part of Mass. My primary ended up sending me for a cat scan to make sure I wasn't dying while I waited. Going to the ER in a major city in Maine resulted in me getting great in and out care. When my in laws had to go to a major hospital in Atlanta Georgia they waited 24+ hours. It is a swamped, under staffed facility. I think that will remain the same whether we have public or private health care.
Posted 8/18/2009 2:25 PM (GMT 0)
While it is certainly true that we have longer waiting times in our Canadian health system, I do like the idea that everyone is entitled to the same health care. With this recession going on it is one less thing to worry about. If I lost my job I would still have access to the same GP and GI.
Posted 8/18/2009 3:10 PM (GMT 0)
Just got a few things to say, and Im not for or against this health care reform. Obviously it wont affect me much because I have medicare and medicaid. But people seem to be making decisions based on biased commercials and from hear say. They say 40 million americans do not have access to health care, this is not true, everyone has access to health care, its the WAY they have access, either out of their own pocket or you can go to an ER, if you go to a ER you have to be seen on how severe you are, not if you have insurance. I beleive there are also not many ways in which health care BILLS affect your actual bankruptcy bottom line, if i'm not mistaken as long as you pay 5 dollars a MONTH then they cant come after you, and Im sorry if this offends people but thats not to bad. There are a few things that I dont agree with any insurance...which includes my Medicare, how come if medicare pays or a insurance company pays for lets say my patches, then its about 78 dollars for 5 for them, but for a person that doesnt want to use their insurance or doesnt have it, its 182 dollars, now how come this is? to me if thats fixed then that solves atleast some of the problems. Im not going to talk about parties or anything but do any of you like these adds? Im mean lets be honest, they dont give information on the situation or procedure to get there, they are meant to scare, to scare people enough to call their elected officials and say we dont want that! then the elected officials votes another way, then no one gets insurance period, because if the officials dont then they risk getting not re-elected, and you might say well good!, but not good, all that means is the arguement starts over....with new people argueing...

Im not sure we're even supposed to be talking about this and I really dont think so so I wont be responding probably.
Posted 8/18/2009 3:24 PM (GMT 0)
I just wanted to say "thanks" to all the Canadians on here for sharing. This was a very interesting thread to read.

I would agree with Fitzy that many of the discrepancies mentioned above, also exist here. The quality of your health insurance, and your location, dictate the quality of your care. Another big part of the quality of care here is how well you advocate for yourself, and how much you, personally, can do or are willing to do to get better care (e.g. driving hours to a better hospital, choosing your job or where you live based on hospitals/insurance). However, I also think that many people here complain without really KNOWING what they have.

I am a student and have student insurance. Sounds bad... Yet I can see any doctor I want, any place, any time. I have used that to see a world-class hepatologist in Chicago and waited only about two weeks for that appointment. And at most I pay $1800 a year out-of-pocket. Of course, I don't have drug coverage...but nothing is perfect. The point, though, is that other students I work with constantly whine about their crappy insurance and the sub-par health care in town. But it's only because (1) they have never actually used it and don't know how good it is, and (2) are not motivated enough to pursue better care out-of-town, let alone outside the student health center (which is pretty bad).

My sister got health insurance (an HMO) by working at Starbuck's. Sounds bad... Yet she was able to receive health care in a timely fashion, got referrals to specialists whenever she needed it, was not bankrupted by various ER visits and having a child, and she continued to see the doctors she wanted to.

So: Even insurance options in the USA that sound bad, really are not that bad. But people here love to complain. Heck, even CHELSEA CLINTON got on a stage and complained about her health insurance. She works for a fancy consulting outfit, probably earns a couple hundred thousand a year and has some of the best insurance and medical care in the country.

I like to look at things positively. Yes, about 50 million people here don't have insurance...but on the flip side, 85% of Americans DO have insurance. The system works (not excels...but works) for the vast majority of people. The things I do have a problem with are medical underwriting and the fact that people can be bankrupted by medical bills, even when they have insurance. I think our government can solve those problems without making huge, sweeping changes.
Posted 8/18/2009 3:47 PM (GMT 0)

MikeB said...
These are all interesting responses. The average wait time in Canada of 18.3 weeks was determined by the (Canadian) Fraser Institute in a 2007 survey. It is also interesting that Harris polling sustains what has been reported here in posts -- 77% of American patients are generally satisfied with the availability of emergency medical care, while jusu 60% of Canadians are. The consensus it seems is that there are always tradeoffs . . . public health systems mean higher taxes, longer waits, etc. Private systems can mean the reverse, but with out of pocket spending for health insurance premiums and deuctibles and copays. Finally, I would note that holding a different opinion does not make one "corrupt." It means having a different opinion.


Mike, I love different opinions and certainly respect yours.  I've had an account on freerepublic.com for years and agree with basically nothing on that site, but I read it to hear other opinions!  By corrupt I mean politicians who write laws for K street, not ones I just don't agree with.

As for the 18 weeks, I can only assume that that is the wait time for a first appointment with a new GP, that's the only way it makes sense to me.

The purpose of my post was only to describe universal health care in Canada.  I hear all these crazy things that people are saying on the american news like how the government will decide your treatment and pick your doctor for you, when this is completely false, at least in Canada.  If Americans decide to keep their system then fine, but I hope they decide on facts not falsehoods propogated by people with their own agendas.

Mike

Posted 8/18/2009 4:08 PM (GMT 0)
Exaclty the same point I would love to get across Rider, I just want people to know facts, and not be scared into wanting something or pushed the other way based on unfound things 'supposedly' in a bill.
Posted 8/18/2009 4:31 PM (GMT 0)
Surprisingly, I can see the 18 weeks being an average wait time for any appointment. Again, this has not been my experience, but it is what many of my friends and coworkers have experienced. I also did not get to choose my GI, but if I did not like the one my GP referred me to, I could have gone back and asked her to try to find me another one. My GI may be asking me to switch to another doctor who is more specialized in IBD, and she asked me if there were any doctors that I wanted in specific as well.

That being said, however, even if Americans DID switch to public health insurance, in my opinion, the doctor shortage wouldn't be the same as what it is here, because where would the doctors go? lol. I don't know anything about this reform though and haven't done any research, so that might be totally misguided. If it were the case, however, the only real problem with the Canadian medical system would not be as much of an issue.
Posted 8/18/2009 5:19 PM (GMT 0)
Please remember forum rules.

11. No posts of an overtly political or religious nature OR posts promoting advocacy of particular personal, medical, legal, religious, political, or non-profit causes. The forums are intended for offering mutual personal support. Debating controversial subjects should be taken elsewhere. Limited religious references are allowed (ie. "my prayers are with you" or a brief quote as part of a larger post), but the forums should not be used to convert others.
Posted 8/18/2009 5:21 PM (GMT 0)

I am sure that you are correct Rider that the Canadian system does not involve government prescription of permissible treatments. Unfortunately, that is indeed the case in the UK through an official agency called NICE, which is very similar to one proposed in the current Obamaare bill for the US. As an example, Brian Booy waited for triple bypass surgery for 18 months in the UK and died waiting. The normal wait time in the US for this procedure is less than 24 hours. (source: BBC News, March 1, 2000)

I would close this out by noting that it is not that unusual for Canadians to travel to the states in search of more timely or higher quality health care. For example, Natalie Paquette had a premature baby at McMaster Children's Hospital in Hamilton but the hospital had no neonatal ICU, due to government regulations limiting the creation of such facilities. The baby had to be flown to Buffalo, NY, where several hospitals have such units and pediatricians experienced in neonatal care. (course: Hamilton Spectator, June 27, 2009) I do not see American patients fleeing to Canada for treatment. While I am sure that most Canadian patients, most of the time, in most locations, receive decent care for normal medical problems, it is abundantly clear that all government-run health systems impose some level of rationing and many unecessary obstacles by their very nature.

Posted 8/18/2009 6:05 PM (GMT 0)
I agree with that Mike. Rationing is both a critical component and weakness of a public health care system. It is a cost of ensuring that everyone is entitled to receive a certain level of care without regard to ability to pay. With a private system the problem becomes access rather than rationing, perhaps this is better, worse or the same. I'm sure if I looked hard enough (and I don't think it would be that hard) I could find examples of low income earners in the USA who died or contracted deadly health conditions because of lack of access to costly care. Maybe you disagree though.

It really comes down to values I guess, which is why discussions over it become so heated. Should my tax dollars pay for diabetes treatment for someone who eats an unhealthy diet? Should my co-worker have to help pay for a re-section surgery should I need one? It's a hard question. It's hard to talk about health and money in the same sentence, but whether you are arguing for or against public health care it's unavoidable.
Posted 8/18/2009 6:13 PM (GMT 0)
Okay guys enough is enough. This is TOO political of a topic and I believe can open a can of worms. No further posts to this thread will be allowed. Any further posts will be deleted.

READ Rule #11
No posts of an overtly political or religious nature OR posts promoting advocacy of particular personal, medical, legal, religious, political, or non-profit causes. The forums are intended for offering mutual personal support. Debating controversial subjects should be taken elsewhere. Limited religious references are allowed (ie. "my prayers are with you" or a brief quote as part of a larger post), but the forums should not be used to convert others.

Thank you!
✚ New Topic locked