From: wright@duca.hi.com (David Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.med,talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: Canadian healthcare system
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:49:34 GMT
Organization: Hitachi Computer Products, OSSD division
NNTP-Posting-Host: duca.hi.com

In article <C1FC0p.6EM@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.130426.750@fuug.fi> an4140@anon.penet.fi writes:
>
>>I heard a radio program extolling the virtues of the Canadian national
>>health care program.  The guest could find nothing wrong with it, and
>>said it ought to be the model for the US. 
>
>>Surely there must be another side to this argument.  Are there no
>>shortcomings to the Canadian system?   And even if that were so, is
>>it adaptable to the US?  

>There are several things wrong with it, and it is not all that much
>cheaper than the cost in the US.  

Guess again:  in 1990, the US spent 12.4% of GNP on health care;
Canada spent 9.5%.  That's not exactly chump change.  (Figures
herein are from the article in the September 1992 issue of Consumer
Reports.  I suggest that any American who hasn't read that article
keep his/her trap shut until they do -- it explodes a lot of the myths
about the Canadian system.)

>One generally agreed problem is that many "standard" procedures are
>not done in Canada,

Such as?  "Generally agreed" by whom?  

>and while the Canadian plan often picks up the costs, it does not pay
>the travel,

What travel?  And what plan in this country does pick it up (other than
being able to deduct travel to/from treatment on your income tax,
assuming that you can qualify for medical deductions)?

>and it does not help defray the development costs, which US care does.

It does?  This is news to me.

>For another, one must find a primary care physician, and all else
>must be referred through that doctor; I believe that changing such is
>difficult.

Why?  About half of Canadian physicians are family practioners.  (As
opposed to 13% in the US.) 

>Also, there are other cost-cutting limitations.

Given that medical costs are exploding, what's wrong with limiting
them?  Just saying "limitations" illustrates nothing and proves nothing.

>The biggest problem is that it is run by government bureaucrats, who
>SO FAR have not been too bad.  "To err is human; to foul things up
>takes a computer; to really make a mess of things takes a government."

Ah, NOW we get to the real source of Herman's bile.  Of course,
because they're Evil Government Bureaucrats (tm), they're going to
foul up and do TERRIBLE THINGS, and do them ANY DAY NOW.  As opposed,
I guess, to those saints on earth who work at insurance companies,
who, because they're part of the Private Sector, can be trusted.

It's too bad that Pavlov didn't have Internet access; he could have
skipped all the dog experiments and just watched Herman foam at the
mouth whenever government is mentioned.  Sheesh.

  -- David Wright, Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.  Waltham, MA
     wright@hicomb.hi.com  ** my opinion, not necessarily Hitachi's **

It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that
man. 
                       - Jack Handy, SNL
Newsgroups: sci.med