| | it's called "medicare"
and it's publicly financed, but privately run.
they have universal coverage, and each province is in charge of running things.
and care is free.
the system is based on five founding principles, though not perfectly adhered to:
- universal (100% of residents are entitled to plan)
- portable (canadians travelling outside province can be covered in another province)
- comprehensive (provides necessary hospital and physician services)
- accessible (reasonable access to service, not impeded by user charges or extra billing)
- publicly administered (health plan must be operating under non-profit basis)
the plan is funded mainly by tax dollars. in 2000, about 70 percent of health expenditures were through public funding. healthcare costs make up about 10% of GDP, whereas the US costs are over 15% GDP as of 2005. from a symposium i attended, for 2008, healthcare expenditures for the US are at least twice as much as any other country.
though canadian healthcare providers are predominantly private, they are still funded by public money, and naturally, are cost-regulated by the government. there are fee schedules that "opted-in" physicians cannot bill beyond.
but like with any other country, medical costs are rising and demands for medical attention grow and grow as the population grows in numbers and in age.
DOWNSIDES:
- waiting lists due to(e.g., average wait time for cranial MRI scan in Canada is 5 months, whereas in US is 3 days):
- poor accountability
- decision-making becomes politicised
- single-payer government control leads to a lack of innovation (ideal benefit in capitalistic structure)
- dilapidated technology and equipment
- role of private services are limited to supplemental care (core services cannot be covered by private insurance plans)
these may not necessarily the downsides for all universal healthcare plans (cf with switzerland and france)
it seems like the US is a unique situation. 50 states a population of 300 or so million. healthcare is mainly conducted under the private sector (except for elders over 65 (especially long-term care), disableds, and low-income folk who's insurance is provided by the government). will universal healthcare work for a country whose healthcare industry may be more capitalistic-minded than social-minded? though some businesses, such as kaiser ARE run under a non-profit basis, but physicians still have many benefits not provided to other medical staff (as a means for retaining talent in hopes of maximizing good service or increased innovation). is this permissible?
how do we minimize healthcare costs due to technology?
canada is allowing for creeping privatization (the option for user fees and more comprehensive private insurance plans). all in all, canada's healthcare system is currently performing well relative to other countries... what are they doing right? can such structures and "good things" be implemented in this country?
with universal healthcare comes difficulties in accessibility.
|
| | Posted 7/6/2009 10:11 AM - 3 Views - 0 eProps - 0 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
