Socialized Medicine........HELL NO! Look at Canada

[rudedawg]

These were taken from here:
http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=AR31_2001high_e

Total health expenditure, in current dollars, was estimated at $89.5 billion in 1999, and is forecast to have reached $95.9 billion in 2000 and $102.5 billion in 2001.


The average annual rate of growth of total health care spending declined from 11.2% between 1975 and 1991, to 2.4% between 1991 and 1996. It increased to 4.9% in 1997, 6.6% in 1998, and 7.2% in 1999 and is expected to have been 7.1% in 2000 and 6.9% in 2001, reflecting projected increases in health care spending by provincial and territorial governments.


Total health expenditure per capita was estimated at $2,936 in 1999 and is expected to have been $3,116 in 2000 and $3,298 in 2001.


Total health care spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product was 9.2% in 1999; the ratio is forecast to have fallen to 9.1% in 2000 and is expected to have been 9.4% in 2001.


In 1998, for the first time since 1993, public sector health expenditures grew faster than private sector expenditures. Consequently, the private sector share fell from its peak in 1997 of 29.8% to 29.2% in 1999. It is expected to have decreased to 28.0% in 2000 and 27.4% in 2001.


The category of drugs ranks second after hospitals in terms of its share of total health expenditure. In 1997, expenditure on drugs overtook spending on physicians services. The share of total spending accounted for by drugs grew from a low of 8.4% in the late 1970s to 14.9% in 1999. In 2001, drugs are expected to remain ranked second with a share of 15.2%.


Total health expenditure per capita varies among the provinces. In 1999, Manitoba and British Columbia spent more per person on health care than any other province, at $3,205 and $3,036, respectively. Quebec, followed by Prince Edward Island, had the lowest expenditure per capita at $2,710 and 2,712, respectively.


Health expenditure varies considerably among different age and sex groups. After adjusting for differences in provincial age and sex distributions, Newfoundland, Alberta and British Columbia had the highest per capita provincial government expenditure in 1999, while Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick had the lowest.


In 1999, people aged 65 and over, who comprised 12.4% of the population, accounted for over 48% of provincial/territorial government hospital expenditure in Canada; children under one year old accounted for 5% of provincial/territorial hospital expenditure and comprised 1% of the population.

 

[smallmovesal]

what about in the US

 

[Doktor Bollix]

Why then does the U.S. spend more money as a percentage of it's GDP than any of these countries with socialized medicine and we end up with the WORST healthcare system.

Oh sure it's the best if you need both your legs sown back on. But if you have a chronic medical condition such as diabetes or heart disease, or if you have a kid with a mental handicap or something, your life expectancy is the lowest in the industrial world.

Come to think of it. Compare life expectancies for the Western nations ie the ones with a similar standard of living to ours. Are we at the top or the bottom?

Why are we at the bottom? Is it because of all our grotesquely fat people or the homicide rate? I want to know, because statistically I could raise my life expectancy almost 10 years by moving to Denmark.

I know those countries don't have a quarter of their population living in third world conditions like us but still.

 

[smallmovesal]

1. feel free to move to denmark
2. what does obese people have to do with our healthcare? is going to the doctor supposed to make them thinner?

america has the best system. socialized medicine is stupid.

smegma... no blind statements.. back up why it's the "best" please.

 

[rudedawg]

Why then does the U.S. spend more money as a percentage of it's GDP than any of these countries with socialized medicine and we end up with the WORST healthcare system.

Oh sure it's the best if you need both your legs sown back on. But if you have a chronic medical condition such as diabetes or heart disease, or if you have a kid with a mental handicap or something, your life expectancy is the lowest in the industrial world.

Come to think of it. Compare life expectancies for the Western nations ie the ones with a similar standard of living to ours. Are we at the top or the bottom?

Why are we at the bottom? Is it because of all our grotesquely fat people or the homicide rate? I want to know, because statistically I could raise my life expectancy almost 10 years by moving to Denmark.

I know those countries don't have a quarter of their population living in third world conditions like us but still.

How can you say we have the worst healthcare system? We have the best Docs in the world here along with the best clinics for specialized medicine.

Kids with mental handicaps are covered for FREE by the state here in AZ. Most states have a Risk pool for people with extreme health conditions and allow them insurance for usually less than they could get on the open market without any health conditions.

I have no idea what the life expectancy comparison is for the US to other countries. If you want to look it up be my guest, it is not relevant to this debate about Private Healthcare vs. Socialized Healthcare.

Move to Denmark then........WTF does that have to do with Healthcare. You bring up homicide and fat people......both irrelevant.

 

[rudedawg]

what about in the US

What part?

 

[rudedawg]

what about in the US

This??????

Health Expenditures
(All figures are for U.S.)

National Health Expenditures as a Percent of Gross Domestic Product: 13.0% (1999)

National Health Expenditures: $1,210.7 Billion (1999)

National Health Expenditures, in Private Funds: $662.1 Billion (1999)

National Health Expenditures, in Public Funds: $548.5 Billion (1999)

Percent of National Health Expenditures in Personal Health Care: 87.4% (1999)

Percent of National Health Expenditures in Program Administration and Net Cost of Health Insurance: 6% (1999)

Percent of National Health Expenditures in Government Public Health Activities: 3.4% (1999)


Go to this link:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus01.pdf pg 333

 

[rudedawg]

Smalls.....this is for you

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/020715/d020715a.htm

Almost one in five Canadians who accessed health care for themselves or a family member in 2001 encountered some form of difficulty, ranging from problems getting an appointment to lengthy waiting times, according to a new survey.

Access to two kinds of health care services were explored: first contact services included routine care, health information and immediate care for a minor health problem; specialized services included specialist visits, non-emergency surgery and diagnostic tests.

According to the Health Services Access Survey (HSAS), an estimated 23.2 million Canadians, or about 94% of the total population aged 15 and over, accessed first contact health care services in 2001.

Of these, about 18%, or just under 4.3 million people, encountered a difficulty of some kind. This proportion varied by time of day and type of service. The type of difficulty varied by type of service but long waits and problems contacting a health care provider topped the list.

An estimated 6.1 million individuals accessed specialized services. Among them, 23%, or about 1.4 million people, encountered some kind of difficulty. Again, long waits topped the list.

The proportion of individuals reporting that they waited less than one month for specialized services ranged from 40% for non-emergency surgery to 55% for diagnostic tests. Just over 5% waited 26 weeks (six months) or more for specialist visits and diagnostic tests. For non-emergency surgery, close to 10% reported waiting for 26 weeks and about 5% for 35 weeks or more.

For non-emergency surgery, the waiting time varied by type of surgery. Individuals who waited for cardiac- or cancer-related surgery were more likely to receive services within one month (54%), compared with those who waited for a joint replacement or cataract surgery (20%).

More than 20% of those who waited for specialized services felt that the time they waited was unacceptable. Those who said their waiting times were unacceptable had waited significantly longer, in some cases up to six times as long as those who said their waits were acceptable. They were also more likely to report that waiting for care affected their lives (over 50%), compared with those who felt that their waits were acceptable (5%).


The survey also indicates that most Canadians (88%) had a regular family physician. Among them, most considered the quality of care received to be excellent (53%) or good (39%). Among the 12% who do not have a regular family physician, most (63%) indicated that it was because they had not tried to contact one.

Access to first contact services: Difficulties vary by time of day
The survey examined three types of first contact services: routine care, health information or advice and immediate care for a minor health problem.

During regular office hours, individuals who required such services were most likely to contact their physician's office. During evenings and weekends, walk-in clinics and emergency rooms were the first point of contact. During the middle of the night, people went mainly to emergency rooms.

Overall, 11% (2.5 million) of those who accessed routine care reported they had difficulties, as did 13% (1.5 million) of those who accessed health information or advice, and 19% (1.6 million) of those who needed immediate care for a minor health problem. Difficulties were reported during all three time periods and reflected reasons associated with the health care system as well as personal reasons.

During regular office hours, 42% of individuals who reported difficulties accessing routine care did so because of problems getting an appointment, while during evenings and weekends - a time when most accessed walk-in clinics - 47% cited lengthy in-office waiting times.

Close to 40% of those who had difficulties getting health information during regular office hours or during evenings and weekends indicated that it was because they did not get adequate information. In the middle of the night, a time when most accessed or called emergency rooms, close to 60% cited that they had to wait too long to speak to someone.


About 38% of individuals who had difficulties getting immediate health care for a minor health problem during regular office hours cited in-office waiting times as the cause. This proportion increased to 57% during evening and weekends, and 59% during the middle of the night, times when most accessed walk-in clinics and emergency rooms.

Specialized services: Difficulties vary by type of service
The HSAS examined three types of specialized services: specialist visits for a new illness or condition, non-emergency surgery and diagnostic tests. Over the past 12 months, almost one quarter of Canadians sought specialist care.

An estimated 5.1 million individuals aged 15 or over visited a specialist for a new illness or condition. About 1.2 million had non-emergency surgery and almost 1.7 million had certain non-emergency diagnostic tests - MRIs, CT scans or angiographies over a 12-month period.

About 22% of those who visited a specialist reported difficulties obtaining the service, as did 21% of those who had a non-emergency surgery and 18% of those who had a diagnostic test.

The majority of those who indicated that they had problems accessing specialized services said it was because of long waits. This was the primary reason given by 55% of those who had difficulties accessing non-emergency surgery, 66% of those who had difficulties seeing a specialist, and 72% of those who had difficulties accessing diagnostic tests. Other reasons cited included problems getting an appointment and lengthy in-office waits.


Waiting times: Most access specialized services within a month
More than half (55%) of individuals who had a diagnostic test received it within a month. About 45% of individuals who had a specialist visit and about 40% of people who had a non-emergency surgery waited less than a month.

The picture changes when surgical procedures that are known, or suspected, to have shorter waits are examined separately. For example, 54% of individuals needing surgery related to cardiac or cancer problems got it within one month. By contrast only 20% of joint-replacement or cataract surgery was provided within a month.

However, 35% of people having a joint-replacement or cataract surgery problems waited more than three months, compared with less than 20% of those having other types of non-emergency surgery.


Waiting for care: Many feel stress, anxiety and pain
Of the estimated 5 million people who visited a specialist, roughly 18%, or 900,000 people, reported that waiting for care affected their lives. The majority of these people (59%) reported worry, anxiety or stress. About 37% said they experienced pain.

The situation was similar among individuals who said their lives were affected by waiting for diagnostic tests, with 68% reporting increased levels of worry, anxiety and stress. This may be because people waiting for specialist visits and diagnostic tests often do not know the details of their health problems and are waiting for a diagnosis.

Over 20% of those who waited for specialized services felt the amount of time was unacceptable. This ranged from 22% of people who waited for non-emergency surgery to 27% of those who waited for specialist visits. At first glance, these results may appear surprising, given that most individuals received care within a month.

However, the survey data shows that people who reported unacceptable waiting times had waited up to six times longer than those who considered their wait acceptable.

For example, among people who visited a specialist, those who said their waiting times were unacceptable had waited 13 weeks (median value), compared with only two weeks among those who reported acceptable waiting times. For non-emergency surgery, those who said their waits were unacceptable had also waited 13 weeks, three times longer than those who reported acceptable waiting times.

More than 50% of those who reported that their waiting times were unacceptable stated that waiting for care affected their lives. This compares with only 5% among those who reported that their waits were acceptable.

 

[smallmovesal]

honestly, i'd rather wait a little longer for care than have to be paying medical bills. by no means is the system at its most ideal, but i think all in all it works pretty well... and no one has to worry about financing his or her physical well-being.