Thread: Opinions On Gov. Sponsored Health Care Outside of the USA

Originally Posted by jockeys

and the pope wears a big hat.

surely you aren't making fun of the pope !!
God will smite you !!





























(he's- a cookin sumptin up-a)

Just cast my vote "for". I'm 51 and I've never earned much money - maybe $40 000 in my best year - and I've had a pretty good life so far. Thank God, I've made very few demands on Canada's health system but it has always been there and worked admirably when I needed it to, regardless of what my circumstances happened to be at the time. I think most Canadians would agree that publicly funded health care has been a blessing for our country.

goshawk

just to clarify i am in no way in favour of private health care. i like the idea of what i system should be and have always been satisfied, but i really dislike the drug companies and how the health care system is based around them.

so yes to public health care, no to drug lobbying!

Since I live in the US and don't have experience with another health care system, I will ask a question rather than make a comment.

How intrusive has the government become in deciding how interactions between physician and patient take place, What kind of therapies are offered and to whom while compelling providers to offer services they to which they object?

There are rumors of a provision in the present bill that requires anyone over the age of 55 to meet with their Dr about a "Health Care Directive". This would include execution of documents like a living will or a health care power of attorney.

Other rumors include limiting the availability of therapies such as dialysis on the basis of age and compelling Dr.s that object to administering the "morning after pill" to prescribe it.

Originally Posted by Pyment

How intrusive has the government become in deciding how interactions between physician and patient take place, What kind of therapies are offered and to whom while compelling providers to offer services they to which they object?

There are rumors of a provision in the present bill that requires anyone over the age of 55 to meet with their Dr about a "Health Care Directive". This would include execution of documents like a living will or a health care power of attorney.

Other rumors include limiting the availability of therapies such as dialysis on the basis of age and compelling Dr.s that object to administering the "morning after pill" to prescribe it.

Pyment

Noone in Canada is compelled to make a will or issue a power of attorney as a condition for obtaining health care, nor is anyone's doctor chosen for them. As far as I know Canadians are not disqualified from receiving any
medical treatment on the basis of age. Nor are doctors compelled to prescribe, or to refrain from prescribing, any legal medication.

Our biggest concerns here are wait times and finding a GP.

goshawk

Originally Posted by goshawk

Pyment

Noone in Canada is compelled to make a will or issue a power of attorney as a condition for obtaining health care, nor is anyone's doctor chosen for them. As far as I know Canadians are not disqualified from receiving any
medical treatment on the basis of age. Nor are doctors compelled to prescribe, or to refrain from prescribing, any legal medication.

Our biggest concerns here are wait times and finding a GP.

goshawk

The same in Australia, accept we don,t have any trouble finding a GP.
Everyone pays a levy of 3% of their wage into Medicare.If you want you can pay extra for Medicare Private or use a private health insurer.
You can also get ambulance cover, ground and air for $80 dollars a year per family, if you want it.
The only intrusion by goverment is you must have a referral from your GP to see a specialist,this is basically to stop people self diagnosing and going straight to a specialist,waisting their time and the specialists time thus clogging up the system.
It seems that the Commonwealth countries have all based thier health care systems on the English NHS.

what was the longest someone has had to wait and what for??

and someone you know? (not crap from the paper)

Originally Posted by chee16

just to clarify i am in no way in favour of private health care. i like the idea of what i system should be and have always been satisfied, but i really dislike the drug companies and how the health care system is based around them.

so yes to public health care, no to drug lobbying!

You dislike the drug companies??

Do you dislike them when their products save your life?

Originally Posted by honedright

You dislike the drug companies??

Do you dislike them when their products save your life?

I'm thankful for pharma products. I'm livid at their business practices. Two separate things that a are mutually exclusive. Pharmas are, on the whole, sharks.

My wife's practice has a 'strictly no pharma reps' policy. Those guys come cold calling and sneaking into practices asking for time with the doctors. Next thing you know, they're trying to "oil the wheels of commerce" by giving away freebies. And I'm not talking about branded notepads and pens! My wife has personally been offered these things in the past (supposedly 'no strings'):

- expensive medical equipment, e.g. stethoscopes, pharyngoscopes, sphygmomanometers, etc.
- all expenses paid travel and board in a 4-star hotel to attend conferences
- countless dinner invitations (in our early twenties we accepted one invite and the tab at the end was nearly £1000 for 6 people)
- provision of free consultants to her practice
- paid-for places on expensive training sessions
- and much more

The marketing budgets for pharmas must be sky-high, which has a knock-on effect on the price charged for their drugs. Prices that are paid for by the NHS which gets its money from taxpayers. So my wife and her partners just turn these guys away and instead prescribe according to CLINICAL judgements, as opposed to decisions which might be partly driven by a sense of owing, due to the big juicy greenback sweeteners that are given away.

When I worked in medical publishing, pharmas would advertise and sponsor many journals. Many times I was being asked by the pharma to either 'fluff' up a particular journal article which researched one of their drugs, or even to bury an article which did not support their drug, or supported a rival's drug. So much for the impartiality of academia. I left medical publishing because I couldn't stomach the hypocrisy involved.

Once again, BIG difference between pharma products and pharma business practice. Yes, the costs and risks of research are very high, but that does not justify the kind of crooked practices I've seen them engage in.

Over here from what I understandhealth service isn't run by the government. But by law everyone MUST be insured.

The result of this is that although insurance isn't cheap, it's affordable because EVERYONE is insured and in that way the cost is carried by many. Recently we've been getting less for our money and paying more though. It's a consequence of the government's "Privatising kick.".....jerks.

Insurance used to cost me about €30-45 euro's a month. Now it's around €120-€140.

Still affordable...but by no means cheap. I wish they brought back the previous system.