Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health care model

The Coffee Shop
1

You mean to tell me state-funded health care is NOT sustainable??? Who wudda thunk it …

TORONTO (Reuters) – Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada’s provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.

Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, kicked off a fierce battle with drug companies and pharmacies when it said earlier this year it would halve generic drug prices and eliminate “incentive fees” to generic drug manufacturers.
British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit – an idea that critics say is an illegal user fee.

And a few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.
It’s likely just a start as the provinces, responsible for delivering healthcare, cope with the demands of a retiring baby-boom generation. Official figures show that senior citizens will make up 25 percent of the population by 2036.

“There’s got to be some change to the status quo whether it happens in three years or 10 years,” said Derek Burleton, senior economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/hl_nm/us_health_3

2

Why do you want old people to suffer and die?

3

I would be pretty surprised if you found any Canadian that didn’t agree that some things need to change.
And I don’t think it will be any different in the states, even if you have your current system of insurance based health care. Fact is there are going to be more retired/older folks everywhere than the people needed to support them and the services they will want.
It’s going to be pretty lean in the coming years I think.

4

You mean to tell me state-funded health care is NOT sustainable??? Who wudda thunk it …

TORONTO (Reuters) – Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada’s provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.

Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, kicked off a fierce battle with drug companies and pharmacies when it said earlier this year it would halve generic drug prices and eliminate “incentive fees” to generic drug manufacturers.
British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit – an idea that critics say is an illegal user fee.

And a few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.
It’s likely just a start as the provinces, responsible for delivering healthcare, cope with the demands of a retiring baby-boom generation. Official figures show that senior citizens will make up 25 percent of the population by 2036.

“There’s got to be some change to the status quo whether it happens in three years or 10 years,” said Derek Burleton, senior economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank.http://news.yahoo.com/...31/hl_nm/us_health_3]

This is old news, we have known for some time that Canada is moving to private market based solution to fix their unsustainable helath care system.

Socialism fails, it always fails.

Progressive and liberal utopiast puppets
are always holding out hope though that this time it will be different.

Reminds me of Dumb and Dumber–so you’re saying there’s a chance??

5

Yep. Please note that the intent of this thread is not to bash the Canadian health care system or to debate “yours” versus “ours.” I have no doubt the Canadian system works very well and, in many aspects, is superior to that in the U.S.

What terrifies me is the apparent short-sightedness of our (U.S.) government in address the health care issue. Canada presents many parallels upon which the U.S. should build – including a quickly aging baby boom generation. However, my quick study of the Canadian economy seems to reveal that Canada is not strapped by (as much of) the whopping debt faced by the U.S. Govt, which seems to place Canada in a “better” position that the U.S. would be in to handle these soaring costs.

I simply wish those in Washington would be honest in their assessments of the costs involved and the long term viability of the course on which they seem hell bent to send our country.

6

I simply wish those in Washington would be honest

Join the club …

7

the human race is not sustainable
.

8

I would be pretty surprised if you found any Canadian that didn’t agree that some things need to change.
And I don’t think it will be any different in the states, even if you have your current system of insurance based health care. Fact is there are going to be more retired/older folks everywhere than the people needed to support them and the services they will want.
It’s going to be pretty lean in the coming years I think.

Exactly.

If you think a country exists with perfect healthcare where nothing needs to change, I’ve got a bridge for sale.

And as JSA says, the problem of aging baby boomers is not confined to Canada. What will happen to health insurance rates in the USA when the percentage of the population over 65 rises dramatically? Really, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the difference between state-run and private sector health care, except perhaps for the fact that the state-run system is actually in a BETTER position to respond to demographic changes as its reach is much farther than an individual company’s, and it can mandate system-wide changes that are very unlikely under a private ‘system’ (which isn’t really one system at all but a collection of enterprises).

The question I would ask Americans is, what has your insurance company said about this impending issue? Not a peep, I’d guess.

9

What will happen to health insurance rates in the USA when the percentage of the population over 65 rises dramatically?

I’m guessing not very much, since Uncle Sam will be providing. Our taxes (as a proxy for insurance for seniors) will go up.

10

Those damned horny soldiers coming home from overseas are ruining everything!! :slight_smile:

11

except perhaps for the fact that the state-run system is actually in a BETTER position to respond to demographic changes as its reach is much farther than an individual company’s

So you mean that the government can FORCE EVERYBODY to accept a lower standard of care and to FORCE those few suckers who pay taxes to pay even more?

.

12

except perhaps for the fact that the state-run system is actually in a BETTER position to respond to demographic changes as its reach is much farther than an individual company’s

So you mean that the government can FORCE EVERYBODY to accept a lower standard of care and to FORCE those few suckers who pay taxes to pay even more?

Um no. Never mind the fact that most everyone pays taxes in Canada (I earned very, very little in my early 20’s and still paid taxes), the idea is that the government can strategically plan for demographic changes and get out in front of them.

The alternative is not an option for any sort of system - public or private. If a private company decides it’s going to be proactive that’s great, but history has shown us that proactive policy is not the norm, it is the exception.

It’s healthcare - I would much rather deal with issues BEFORE the shit hits the fan. Peoples lives are very much at stake.

13

thats where I think the Canadian health system is screwing people. Like you, the baby boomers have been paying taxes since they started working. They have more or less pre-paid for their health care for ~40 years. Now that they’re aging and will need to use the system that they’ve been paying for (for 40 years), the system can’t afford to treat them and they’re forced to pay even more for less care.

14

If a private company decides it’s going to be proactive…

They get crucified in the media for raising rates.

.

15

Um no. Never mind the fact that most everyone pays taxes in Canada

I’d be very surprised if the Canadian tax system was LESS progressive than the US’s?

.

16

except perhaps for the fact that the state-run system is actually in a BETTER position to respond to demographic changes as its reach is much farther than an individual company’s

So you mean that the government can FORCE EVERYBODY to accept a lower standard of care and to FORCE those few suckers who pay taxes to pay even more?

.

And why not put some pressure on healthcare organizations to find more economical ways of doing business. I’ve been involved with healthcare technology and marketing for 12 years - they are SLOW adopters. There is so much waste in healthcare it would make you sicker coming out of the system then going in :wink:

For instance, a typical hospital will have several departments. Each department places orders for supplies. They negotiate pricing for what they purchase. Sounds good. The suppliers sell in pricing tiers - the more you purchase you better pricing you get. Well if they would centralize their ordering process they could save a TON of $$$ by being in a better pricing tier. Then you take that most hospitals also have clinics. They could reduce some serious costs by centralizing. Now the scary part is that the distributors know that their clients (healthcare orgs) aren’t organized with their purchasing and they take advantage of it.

17

Socialism fails, it always fails.

Progressive and liberal utopiast puppets
are always holding out hope though that this time it will be different.

I’m not from Canada, but enjoy a very similar system of universal health care.

We’ve had it 40 years - just how long will it take for this failure to occur?

Like the Canadians, and unlike the USA, we take steps to boost efficiency and control costs.

As a result, our failure so far is characterised by national healthcare expenditure per capita of 50% of the USA, with better public health results on every measurable metric.

Our governments enjoy healthy budget surpluses, while the US lives on the continued indulgence of its Chinese creditors.

The USA’s ‘success’ is to spend twice as much for worse outcomes, and the bold, fearless, self-reliant US citizenry are fearful and dependent. Every American I know either relies upon someone else to provide health cover for them, or they live in abject terror of illness. The processes of having someone else care for them are convoluted, dysfunctional, inefficient, ineffective and staggeringly expensive. It has become a major contributor to the loss of international competitiveness and near bankruptcy of some of the USA’s largest businesses. But, hey! At least it’s not done better by the government. That’s the main thing, right?

I’ll take our ‘failure’, and gleefully leave you to your ‘success’, thanks.

18

Socialism fails, it always fails.

Progressive and liberal utopiast puppets
are always holding out hope though that this time it will be different.

I’m not from Canada, but enjoy a very similar system of universal health care.

We’ve had it 40 years - just how long will it take for this failure to occur?

Like the Canadians, and unlike the USA, we take steps to boost efficiency and control costs.

As a result, our failure so far is characterised by national healthcare expenditure per capita of 50% of the USA, with better public health results on every measurable metric.

Our governments enjoy healthy budget surpluses, while the US lives on the continued indulgence of its Chinese creditors.

The USA’s ‘success’ is to spend twice as much for worse outcomes, and the bold, fearless, self-reliant US citizenry are fearful and dependent. Every American I know either relies upon someone else to provide health cover for them, or they live in abject terror of illness. The processes of having someone else care for them are convoluted, dysfunctional, inefficient, ineffective and staggeringly expensive. It has become a major contributor to the loss of international competitiveness and near bankruptcy of some of the USA’s largest businesses. But, hey! At least it’s not done better by the government. That’s the main thing, right?

I’ll take our ‘failure’, and gleefully leave you to your ‘success’, thanks.

And 40 years in the future the current crop of right-wing kooks will have died off, and a new crop will be predicting the imminent demise of the same ‘socialist’ systems.

19

"And 40 years in the future the current crop of right-wing kooks will have died off, and a new crop will be predicting the imminent demise of the same ‘socialist’ systems. "

Proclaiming the end of socialist democracy is chainpin’s signature line. I’ve had to remind him several times that right wingers have been predicting the end of socialist democracies for over forty years. If chainpin is still alive forty years from now, he’ll probably still be making the same prediction.