What If America Had Canada's Healthcare System?

[ksen]

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...america-had-canadas-healthcare-system/381662/

The good:
-------------
1. 5,400 fewer infant deaths
2. $1.3 trillion less spent on healthcare
3. 57 million fewer people going without medical care due to cost
4. 50,000 fewer preventable deaths

The bad:
------------
1. 17 million more americans would have to wait six days or more to see a specialist
2. 4.7 million more americans would use the ER

I'll take it.

Here's a fun, interactive tool to do the same comparison with other countries.

 

[dismal]

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...america-had-canadas-healthcare-system/381662/

The good:
-------------
1. 5,400 fewer infant deaths
2. $1.3 trillion less spent on healthcare
3. 57 million fewer people going without medical care due to cost
4. 50,000 fewer preventable deaths

The bad:
------------
1. 17 million more americans would have to wait six days or more to see a specialist
2. 4.7 million more americans would use the ER

I'll take it.

Here's a fun, interactive tool to do the same comparison with other countries.

OK, let's cut our government spending on healthcare to Canadian levels tomorrow.

The rest, I assume, will take care of itself.

 

[ksen]

wat

 

[dismal]

wat

Well, you can't pass laws outlawing "preventable deaths" and such.

The only thing we really control there is the spending.

If we cut to Cuban levels of spending we'd save even more.

 

[ksen]

I suppose if lower spending levels were the only thing we were talking about or if lower spending levels were being cited as the cause for the drop in preventable deaths you'd have a point.

You almost had one, good job!

 

[dismal]

I suppose if lower spending levels were the only thing we were talking about or if lower spending levels were being cited as the cause for the drop in preventable deaths you'd have a point.

You almost had one, good job!

I'm not saying you can't do those other things that lower preventable deaths too. Whatever they are.

It's just the lower levels of spending seem like something everyone can agree on and we can do right away.

 

[NobleSavage]

The underlying study has UK ranked as #1 http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...rt/2014/jun/1755_davis_mirror_mirror_2014.pdf

I'll remain skeptical.

 

[ZiprHead]

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...america-had-canadas-healthcare-system/381662/

The good:
-------------
1. 5,400 fewer infant deaths
2. $1.3 trillion less spent on healthcare
3. 57 million fewer people going without medical care due to cost
4. 50,000 fewer preventable deaths

The bad:
------------
1. 17 million more americans would have to wait six days or more to see a specialist
2. 4.7 million more americans would use the ER

I'll take it.

Here's a fun, interactive tool to do the same comparison with other countries.

I've never been able to see a specialist in less than a week.

 

[bilby]

The underlying study has UK ranked as #1 http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...rt/2014/jun/1755_davis_mirror_mirror_2014.pdf

I'll remain skeptical.

Why?

I have never had any problem with getting prompt, high quality and professional medical treatment in the UK; While I admittedly haven't used the UK system for a couple of decades now, my family over there all hold the NHS in high regard, and don't have any complaints about either cost or quality of treatment. I can easily believe that the UK has the world's #1 healthcare system - or if not #1, damn close to it.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

What are these estimates based on?

 

[NobleSavage]

What are these estimates based on?

A phone survey. Couldn't find numbers for 2014, but picking through foot notes I found the following for 2013:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...ealth-fund-international-health-policy-survey

Sample: Adults age 18 or older

Sample size: The final samples of adults included: Australia, 2,200; Canada, 5,412; France, 1,406; Germany, 1,125; Netherlands, 1,000; New Zealand, l,000; Norway, 1,000; Sweden, 2,400; Switzerland, 1,500; United Kingdom, 1,000; and United States, 2,002. The margin-of-sample error at the 95 percent confidence level was: +/–2% for Canada; +/–3% for Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.S., and +/– 4% for Norway, New Zealand, and the U.K.

Interview Method: Telephone

- - - Updated - - -

The underlying study has UK ranked as #1 http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...rt/2014/jun/1755_davis_mirror_mirror_2014.pdf

I'll remain skeptical.

Why?

I have never had any problem with getting prompt, high quality and professional medical treatment in the UK; While I admittedly haven't used the UK system for a couple of decades now, my family over there all hold the NHS in high regard, and don't have any complaints about either cost or quality of treatment. I can easily believe that the UK has the world's #1 healthcare system - or if not #1, damn close to it.

Personal experience, granted that is a biased sample size of one.

 

[Valjean]

Seeing a specialist, or even a GP in much of the US can take several weeks for non-emergency situations. Referrals must be approved through your insurance carrier as must all but minor treatments.
Health care here is a complicated dance between physicians and insurance providers, who have the final word on what and how much they're willing to pay for.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...america-had-canadas-healthcare-system/381662/

The good:
-------------
1. 5,400 fewer infant deaths
2. $1.3 trillion less spent on healthcare
3. 57 million fewer people going without medical care due to cost
4. 50,000 fewer preventable deaths

The bad:
------------
1. 17 million more americans would have to wait six days or more to see a specialist
2. 4.7 million more americans would use the ER

I'll take it.

Here's a fun, interactive tool to do the same comparison with other countries.

I see no reason to believe #1. The biggest factor in infant mortality is the woman, not the healthcare system.

As for #3, how many more would go without medical care due to a lack of availability? A percentage of Canadians similar to the US uninsured rate get all their care from ERs because they can't get a primary care doctor.

As for the downsides--you're neglecting the number who would suffer with quality of life issues until they got to the top of the waiting list.

And your second downside is also much worse than you're pretending--ERs are for patching up emergencies. You are not going to obtain good quality care for other issues in an ER setting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've never been able to see a specialist in less than a week.

I can't think of a time that either of us have had to wait a week other than as a matter of convenience (getting a preferred location and time.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Seeing a specialist, or even a GP in much of the US can take several weeks for non-emergency situations. Referrals must be approved through your insurance carrier as must all but minor treatments.
Health care here is a complicated dance between physicians and insurance providers, who have the final word on what and how much they're willing to pay for.

Yeah, the referral garbage certainly can slow things down. You can avoid most of this by not using an HMO type plan, although you'll still need approvals for expensive stuff. If it's at all urgent these get done quickly, though. When they found a lump in her breast the approval for the biopsy took little longer than the biopsy itself. (Fortunately it was simply abnormal cells, not cancer. They did remove it surgically but just to be sure.)

 

[NobleSavage]

Seeing a specialist, or even a GP in much of the US can take several weeks for non-emergency situations. Referrals must be approved through your insurance carrier as must all but minor treatments.
Health care here is a complicated dance between physicians and insurance providers, who have the final word on what and how much they're willing to pay for.

From my experience in my area -- good specialists are usually booked up for at least a month. And that is if you are willing to self pay and not screw around with insurance.

 

[bilby]

Seeing a specialist, or even a GP in much of the US can take several weeks for non-emergency situations. Referrals must be approved through your insurance carrier as must all but minor treatments.
Health care here is a complicated dance between physicians and insurance providers, who have the final word on what and how much they're willing to pay for.

From my experience in my area -- good specialists are usually booked up for at least a month. And that is if you are willing to self pay and not screw around with insurance.

Until you have experienced healthcare where paying for (or arranging payment for) your treatment is entirely dealt with by the government on your behalf, you never realise what a huge burden it takes off the sick and infirm.

In the NHS, you don't need to waste energy worrying about insurance, or payments, or any of that bullshit; and nor should you have to - you have enough on your plate being sick. You turn up, they diagnose your problem, treat you, and then you go home. Nobody ever talks about money, or insurance, or eligibility; you prove your eligibility for treatment by a) being there, and b) being in need of medical attention.

It is astonishing how much this streamlines the system.

 

[untermensche]

What if the US switched to the Canadian system but paid the exact same as it pays now?

It would be a system superior to the Canadian system and far superior to the current system in terms of treating all humans equally in their right to medical care.

 

[Togo]

The underlying study has UK ranked as #1 http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...rt/2014/jun/1755_davis_mirror_mirror_2014.pdf

I'll remain skeptical.

Why?

I have never had any problem with getting prompt, high quality and professional medical treatment in the UK; While I admittedly haven't used the UK system for a couple of decades now, my family over there all hold the NHS in high regard, and don't have any complaints about either cost or quality of treatment. I can easily believe that the UK has the world's #1 healthcare system - or if not #1, damn close to it.

Having used both, I much prefer the NHS to US healthcare. In the UK the treatment was faster, wait times are shorter, time spent with medical professionals is longer, and the whole system seems more efficient. In the US everyone was constantly asking me who I was and then locating me on a list, in the NHS they already knew my name and what I was in for, and just asked me to confirm name and symptoms. When referred to a specialist, I saw them on the same day (although in one case I had to wait until he came to the hospital, and in another I had to go to another hospital to visit them.) I was contacted a few days later to make sure I was ok and confirm that I didn't need any follow up.

In the US I had to make multiple visits, the building was brighter, newer and more welcoming, I got a bed even though I didn't really need one, and my own colour television, and was offered food. I got brand name drugs rather than generics, in greater quantities than were required to complete my course of treatment. No follow up contact was arranged, although I was told I could come back.

In the US I was treated as a customer to be wooed, rather than a patient to be treated. However, the standard of care was better in the UK.

Seeing a specialist, or even a GP in much of the US can take several weeks for non-emergency situations. Referrals must be approved through your insurance carrier as must all but minor treatments.
Health care here is a complicated dance between physicians and insurance providers, who have the final word on what and how much they're willing to pay for.

My UK doctor always complains when I just show up without booking in advance. I still get treated though.

 

[Playball40]

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...america-had-canadas-healthcare-system/381662/

The good:
-------------
1. 5,400 fewer infant deaths
2. $1.3 trillion less spent on healthcare
3. 57 million fewer people going without medical care due to cost
4. 50,000 fewer preventable deaths

The bad:
------------
1. 17 million more americans would have to wait six days or more to see a specialist
2. 4.7 million more americans would use the ER

I'll take it.

Here's a fun, interactive tool to do the same comparison with other countries.

OK, let's cut our government spending on healthcare to Canadian levels tomorrow.

The rest, I assume, will take care of itself.

That's not even an answer. There is more to a "system" than spending.