free health care in Canada

Here is an interesting article for those thinking health care in Canada is free

https://torontosun.com/news/national/nothing-free-about-canadas-free-health-care-system-fraser-report

Well of course it's not free. It's paid for largely by income and business taxes.

But the key is its available to all regardless of ability to pay. And because its a progressive tax system the wealthier pay more than those with lower incomes and the young and healthy in effect subsidize the older and ill residents.

Sounds fair to me.

SunFan

Yep...….never considered it to be free. In fact, in BC you had to pay up to $150 per month (depending on your income) which was usually covered by your employer. Those unemployed or self employed had to pay out of pocket. They recently reduced it to $75 max. per month.

It's not fee health care, it's universal health care.

conejorapido wrote:It's not fee health care, it's universal health care.

It is neither!

I've noticed over time that the attitudes towards universal health care, whether it involves a fee or not usually get down to how people feel about contributing in any financial way to someone else's medical care.
Some folks can't stand the idea and really don't mind if others are sick or even die, so long as it doesn't cost anyone else anything.

No one chooses to be sick, and most poor people would prefer to be otherwise, but poverty and sickness happen. In fact, some people become poor due entirely to sickness. Jobs are lost; property and businesses are lost as well.

In my case, I pay for everything out of pocket, and I wouldn't mind paying into a fund that covers everyone.

Jreboll wrote:It seems health care used to be less expensive when hospitals were run by non-profit organizations.  Now that most of them have become privatized the costs have gone up. Advocates for privatizing government services like to say that corporations offer more efficient services. I don’t know when we’re going to stop believing that.

Probably never, even though it's illogical as well as untrue. Private corporations are in the business of making the highest profit. That's as it should be in business. However, that purpose does not motivate them to keep patients' cost lower. The word "non-profit" is self explanatory.

The government does not itself provide health services. That's done by hospitals, clinics and medical professionals. i'd hardly call the Doctors in Canada "non-profit"

The key is a single payer system and regulation of covered services.

SunFan

SunFan wrote:The government does not itself provide health services. That's done by hospitals, clinics and medical professionals. i'd hardly call the Doctors in Canada "non-profit"

The key is a single payer system and regulation of covered services.

SunFan

Correction: I didn't say the doctors were "non-profit". Just the institutions. You're right about a single payer system. I believe the British have a two option offering. Those who want a private doctor and to pay out of pocket do not need to use the public system. That works for me.

gringal wrote:I've noticed over time that the attitudes towards universal health care, whether it involves a fee or not usually get down to how people feel about contributing in any financial way to someone else's medical care.
Some folks can't stand the idea and really don't mind if others are sick or even die, so long as it doesn't cost anyone else anything.  

No one chooses to be sick, and most poor people would prefer to be otherwise, but poverty and sickness happen.  In fact, some people become poor due entirely to sickness.  Jobs are lost; property and businesses are lost as well.

In my case, I pay for everything out of pocket, and I wouldn't mind paying into a fund that covers everyone.

Whilst "no one chooses to be sick" there are certain life styles that encourage bad health...and I have reservations about my premium increase's etc to treat these irresponsible folks...shape up or ship out

gringal wrote:

Jreboll wrote:It seems health care used to be less expensive when hospitals were run by non-profit organizations.  Now that most of them have become privatized the costs have gone up. Advocates for privatizing government services like to say that corporations offer more efficient services. I don’t know when we’re going to stop believing that.

Probably never, even though it's illogical as well as untrue.  Private corporations are in the business of making the highest profit.  That's as it should be in business.  However, that purpose does not motivate them to keep patients' cost lower. The word "non-profit" is self explanatory.

Ya think?

lakeside7 wrote:

gringal wrote:I've noticed over time that the attitudes towards universal health care, whether it involves a fee or not usually get down to how people feel about contributing in any financial way to someone else's medical care.
Some folks can't stand the idea and really don't mind if others are sick or even die, so long as it doesn't cost anyone else anything.  

No one chooses to be sick, and most poor people would prefer to be otherwise, but poverty and sickness happen.  In fact, some people become poor due entirely to sickness.  Jobs are lost; property and businesses are lost as well.

In my case, I pay for everything out of pocket, and I wouldn't mind paying into a fund that covers everyone.

Whilst "no one chooses to be sick" there are certain life styles that encourage bad health...and I have reservations about my premium increase's etc to treat these irresponsible folks...shape up or ship out

So, do you think the solution would be for everyone who wants to sign up for the theoretical universal health care have their personal habits examined; i.e., food, drink, smoking, drugs, weight, etc.?  That would eliminate a huge segment of the population in the U.S.A. for sure...across all economic classes.  Bad eating habits, for instance, would become a "pre-existing condition" and eliminate the applicant.

When I said "no one chooses to be sick", I was primarily referring to people who contract the kind of diseases like cancer, for which hardly anyone can afford the costs of treatment and which strike persons of all ages and situations.

This made me very sad because it's a comment about the assumptions that medical professionals make about "fat" people. The same goes for women who experience the "it's all in your head" syndrome from them.
Everyone should be entitled to unbiased health care. Fat is not an indicator of health any more than women are indicators of "hysteria". Wake up!

https://ca.yahoo.com/style/womans-obituary-calling-end-fat-shaming-goes-viral-152443154.html

No one has the right to judge on the basis of visual observation. Some people are born with a metabolism that results in their being larger than others. However, many are overweight based solely on their poor eating habits. Doctors should only be asking questions about the eating habits...and they should LISTEN to what their patients tell them. Very few physical problems are "all in the head".

And eating habits are often an indicator of wealth. Poor people eat the food that is most lacking in proper nutrition. It fills and that's about it but it's all they can afford.

my sister is hipocondriac and all of her problems come from the head, meanwhile he system spends a fortune with useless tests.. SOmeproblems do come from the head and are just as real and costly as the others.

I guess sis is one of the "few", eh?  Yep, I've known a few, too.  One of them found a cure by leaving her negligent husband and taking up with a nice guy who was a born caretaker.  Her health improved dramatically.
No surprise.

Jreboll wrote:Let’s not forget the propaganda that bombards us every day from fast food corporations, restaurants and all those yummy treats that kids like.

The Men Who Made Us Fat

Investigative journalist Jacques Peretti explores the profitable ways eating habits have been revolutionized over the last 40 years.


https://www.knowledge.ca/program/men-who-made-us-fat

My aunt too was a huge hypochondriac and naturally she outlived all her sisters by a long shot. You really have to advocate for yourself. Doctors aren't gods. Ours told my mother to start smoking to lose weight (common practice at the time.) However, metabolism can slow down due to lack of activity when one becomes too obese to move like many thin people. Also, sometimes when people say, "Oh, my whole family is overweight" and you look at the way the family eats you can see exactly WHY the whole family weighs a ton. When you look at very old pictures of street scenes it always amazes me how everyone is mostly trim. Of course, they walked a lot, there was no junk food, they certainly worked physically harder than we all do today and didn't drive to a store 6 blocks away like I do.

From what I've read a very slow metabolism that causes gross obesity is relatively rare.

ferret wrote:And eating habits are often an indicator of wealth. Poor people eat the food that is most lacking in proper nutrition. It fills and that's about it but it's all they can afford.

The answer there lies in education for the poor about eating economy. There is plenty of good, nutritious food available at a lower cost than what the poor are filling up on.  For instance, old fashioned oatmeal is less expensive than the sugary boxed cereals. I notice that the Coca Cola craze is well established among the poor in Mexico as well as elsewhere.  Luckily for me, I was educated in healthy but economical eating when I was a student barely getting by.

My parents always told me there that there was no fat people during the war in France-- Having to walk or bicycle everywhere without much food , did it? All the goodies  and staple were rationned so no way you could overeat.

Yes education has a lot to do with it. I see some of the poorest in Chiapas and many eat way too many sabritas and drink large amounts of coca..Considering that their diet consist mostly of beans, corn and eggs, the sabritas and coca or soft drinks on top of that are killers..

brigitte wrote:My parents always told me there that there was no fat people during the war in France-- Having to walk or bicycle everywhere without much food , did it? All the goodies  and staple were rationned so no way you could overeat.

There was an article in the news recently about there being an obesity epidemic in the U.S., particularly in the Southern states and that the incidence of diabetes is rising at an alarming rate. The connection between food, style of cooking and level of physical activity is being studied. The results should be interesting...but probably not surprising.