UK or Canada--nationalized health care

People from UK, or Canada do you like having nationalized health care?

I've heard horrible things about certain people being turned away from treatment with breast cancer, babies being born on bathroom floors, long waits for medical care.

I'm concerned that the US may end up with nationalized health care and I won't have access to treatment or the ability to have my opinion considered by the doctors. How bad is it really?

Hey there

I am a Canadian living in the US...an alien?!? Anyhow, having UC has allowed me good opportunity to make use of both systems. The US system is extremely poor in my experience compared to socialized medicine (the Canadian system is both universal and socialized, in that every Canadian has access and it is run by the government - a bit simplistic but in essence true -and paid for through taxation). It is absolutely not true that people 'have babies on floors' etc in Canada. Perhaps the one critisism of the Canadian system comes when you look at elective surgeries such as knee replacements etc. - there can be longer wait times for such proceedures because, unlike in the States, Canadian are not easily able to pay more to be seen faster and these types of surgeries are not life threatening. However, one could argue that most US citizens cannot afford to pay for faster service either and may be left at the mercy of an insurance company who doesnt view the proceedure as nessessary or messes around for weeks making a decision.

Furthermore, after having moved to the US and having worked here as a social worker for three years I have seen numbers of my clients struggling with healthcare costs they can't afford or not getting the treatments they need to save their lives. I myself have been denied health insurance in the individual market as a result of my UC and have found myself being very thankful I live in a state with a functional high risk insurance pool - many states do not have options for those with pre-exsisting conditions.

I recently read a report comparing the US and the Canadian systems. In short the report determined that 1) People living in the US pay 2.5 more annually for their healthcare than Canadians do 2) after measuring 'quality of care' indicators such as cancer treatment outcomes, heart attack outcomes etc over a wide variety of illnesses the report determined that there was NO increased quality of care in the US .....this despite the exceptional costs. I will try to find the link to this article if I can.

Lastly, I have spent more time down here fighting with my insurance company and screwing around with the millions of bills I have recieved for one small procedure than I care to add up. In Canada I simply called my doc, went to see him and that was it....no bills, no fights, no phone calls back and forth, no stress and no time wasted.

I can't wait until the US gets universal healthcare. Then I won't have to worry about flaring up and lying on my bathroom floor in excruciating pain if I lose my job and can't afford to pay $800+ each month for prescription meds because no insurance companies will cover me since I have a pre-existing condition.

Mackster is right.
I hope we can get coverage like Canada, but I really doubt it with the insurance, drug and health care lobbiest influencing the government. They make so much money from cancer and supposedly incurable diseases like UC, they have too much to lose to let everyone have free health care and have costs regulated.
I hope Obama can do something to at least help though. Makes me wish I was living in Canada right now.

I'm from the UK, I've never heard of anyone being turned away from care. As far as I'm aware everyone gets the care they need, it can just take longer to wait for appointments etc. You can go private if you have the money, and you get better treatment there but you have to be able to afford it!  

When I heard about how in the US you have to pay so much I couldn't believe it! What happens if you don't have the money to spare?! In some ways that to me seems worse! But I guess there are positive and negative points on both sides.

I can't wait until we have universalized healthcare. Then I don't have to be paranoid about losing insurance, don't have to worry if I don't get into grad school or get a job right away, or being turned down for a pre-existing condition, etc. I was actually thinking about joining AmeriCorps after graduating from college, and they don't cover pre-existing conditions! I'd be giving up a year of my life for less than $5000 to help my country but I won't have insurance?!? Ridiculous.

And I don't think Pres. Obama is going to make it completely universal; if we have insurance that we already like, then we can keep it. But the new policy would require employers to cover pre-existing conditions and would help to cut costs. But it'll probably take a while given the many other problems our country has and the influence of lobbies.

President Obama does not have to make it completely universal to have it end up that way. Why would a business pay extra if they could just jump on the government band wagon. Right now all nations are piggy backing on US innovation. I'm sorry but I would rather pay more to have better drugs. I am not rich, and most of my extra money goes to pay medical bills. But I also know that I wouldn't be turned away from treatment if my cancer only had 25% chance of survival. I think Switzerland has had socialized medicine the longer than Australia and England and they don't allow citizens to pay for treatment that the government can't afford because it would be unfair to other citizens who can't afford to pay for treatment privately.
My husband traveled to South Korea a couple years back. While he was there he injured his toe pretty badly. They didn't even sell bandages. You had to go to the hospital and it was a two week wait for that, longer than he was in the country. That was socialized med.
There are a lot of current problems with our gov. subsidized insurance. Just try to get a doctor to see you if you have medicaid and are not a child. The reason doctors limit the number of medicaid patients is that the gov. won't reimburse fully for costs. In fact all private insurers set the prices lower than what the doctors charge and it is cheaper if you pay in cash, because there is no government oversight for medicare. When the whole industry sets prices higher to rip off the government, I think we have a problem with the model. Of course everyone want free health care of good quality. But the truth is nothing is free.

I read the reports about health care. I honestly don't think it was a complete view. When you switch to universal health care it takes time to erode the quality of care that the private industry has established the effects may not be seen for 10 to 20 years. If government established price controls and the affordability of buying new machines was gone it would take some time for to pose more devastating results.
Government health care advocates used to sing the praises of Britain's National Health Service (NHS). That's until its poor delivery of health care services became known. A recent study by David Green and Laura Casper, "Delay, Denial and Dilution," written for the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs, concludes that the NHS health care services are just about the worst in the developed world. The head of the World Health Organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year because of under-provision of care. Twelve percent of specialists surveyed admitted refusing kidney dialysis to patients suffering from kidney failure because of limits on cash. Waiting lists for medical treatment have become so long that there are now "waiting lists" for the waiting list.
Malmo, with its 280,000 residents, is Sweden's third-largest city. To see a physician, a patient must go to one of two local clinics before they can see a specialist. The clinics have security guards to keep patients from getting unruly as they wait hours to see a doctor. The guards also prevent new patients from entering the clinic when the waiting room is considered full. Uppsala, a city with 200,000 people, has only one specialist in mammography. Sweden's National Cancer Foundation reports that in a few years most Swedish women will not have access to mammography.

One thing I have wondered about from the forum, without getting into the whole debate:
if you are in Canada or the UK and you decide your doctor isn't any good, can you change doctors?? It seems from what Jratt said that you can, but I thought some here had trouble with that.

Peety

In Canada you can choose your doctor/specialist. As another person wrote, you just have to get a referral from your family doc.

As someone who has experienced the Canadian system in childhood, I'd say the craziest, and probably worst, thing about Canada's health care system is that private care (with a very few exceptions, including all dental care which, paradoxically, is entirely privatized) is completely illegal. Hence, the only safety valve to jump a sometimes months long que for certain surgeries or tests, or an all-day wait in a waiting room sometimes for a minor emergency, is to drive or fly south to the U.S.. At least most of the European socialized medical systems operate in tandem with a separate private health care system, so you can take your pick. The U.S. system of course is a bit of a joke in terms of bang for the buck- the world's priciest system is, when one averages it all out, still mediocre. But I think some sort of dual system is a better model than the Canadian system, which doesn't allow much patient choice if they are willing to spend more, other than go south.  The other thing about a universal health care system is that it may appear to function now, but may be completely disfunctional in a few decades when baby boom demographics result in each young worker supporting the system's expenditures on five or six retired people; i.e. there is never a free lunch.

Nucid

Be aware that the Fraser Institute is an extremely right wing enitity in the same way that, say, Micheal Moore presented a misguided picture in 'Sicko', the Fraser Institute has the tendency to move in the opposite direction. I have found that they do not present a balanced picture of health issues.

nucid

Please, after reaming out someone for "rudeness" you are doing the same thing. You are making false generalizations based on what? An incident from your husband's travels? A right wing report?

There are some of us whose "choices" are limited because of "profit margin" being way more important than humanitarian care. If you are lucky enough to have money ANYWHERE your options improve. But at least in countries where there is universal care, poor people do not have to go to ER's for things that could be taken care of at a doctor's office. Here, when poor people have no options, they take their children, their elderly parents to ER's, thus clogging resources. As a result, other people have to wait...in the ER. So to imply the American system of private insurance has no waiting issue is not true for all. In fact, loss of life has occurred in the "waiting" areas of ER's because they are understaffed to meet the needs in urban areas.

We all have a right to political views. In my view, "profit" motive is NOT a good thing for health care.

I am in Ontario Canada and it took me 3 years to get a family doctor and 6 months (from the time the doctor took me on as a patient) to get a colonoscopy when I was bleeding quite badly with horrible diarrhea.

My daughter went to emergency when she was bleeding and it took 4 months to get a colonoscopy.

Soooo I guess it depends on where in Ontario you live to get good health care.