Universal health care that works:
Posted by Mark at October 1, 2009 4:14 PMSwiss Health Care Thrives Without Public Option
...along with lower costs and the freedom to choose doctors come bigger bills for individual patients. On average, out-of-pocket payments come to $1,350 annually...
...Then there are the hefty prices of the insurance policies themselves, which can top 14,000 Swiss francs a year for a family of four in Zurich, or about $13,600...Per capita income in Switzerland is some US$41,000, so for that family the yearly insurance total of $13,600 is not that great a burden--remember only a very small portion of their taxes is going to health care (I'm ignoring other payments).
While in Canada that family of four represents some C$22,000 in health care costs--70% of that is public. Per capital public expenditure here is some $3,700 ($120 billion divided by 33 million). So taxes of $15,000 are needed for that family. Bingo! Roughly the same total for the four people (ignoring private expenses in Canada) but through insurance for the Swiss--and they have a much better system.Now this methodology is hardly precise. But clearly Canadians pay a whole of taxes to get a system that is getting ever closer to the breaking point. Yet we are at the same time prevented from buying insurance for privately-provided "essential" services (you're allowed to do that in Britain, which really helps). Why the insistence on doing something poorly through government when, as the Swiss show, it can be done very well privately?
The thing is Canadians won't expand their consciousness beyond fixating on the evils of the dastardly American system. Look east, people. Earlier:
Health care debate: Inconvenient facts
Conservatives kiss health care reform good-bye
Update: Canadians might also look at the, gasp!, French and Dutch systems. Rip off those flippin' blinkers (I imagine the Québécois do know something about France, which might just explain some of their greater willingness to accept private provision of services than most of the RoC, B.C excepted).
I always despised the left's tactic of decrying "American-style" health care when discussing health reform in Canada. As if there were only two choices.
I've never heard a satisfactory reply from a left-winger in Canada when presented specifically with the Swiss model. The Swiss model combines the following characteristics:
1. Universal coverage.
2. Privately-delivered.
3. No, or short, waiting lists.
4. Lower per capita cost for health delivery.
This model strikes me as one that should be reviewed, if not emulated. The fact that the left (for the most part) in Canada does not support such a model demonstrates that the health-reform issue here is more about turf protection than patient outcomes.
IMO.
Posted by: Colin from Mission B.C. at October 1, 2009 4:53 PMOnce the Conservative get a majority, the following election should be a healthcare reform election. The Cons should blanket the airwaves with ads about "Swiss-style Healthcare", make a jingo out of it, have a guy & a girl dressed up in Swiss clothes telling us how great their healthcare is and how the Cons want to give us Swiss-style Healthcare. Repeat over and over until when someone says Healthcare reform you say "you mean Swiss-style Healthcare". It's probably the only way to counter the Left-wing media.
Posted by: Keith M at October 1, 2009 5:04 PMColin from Mission B.C.: The Conservatives won't look at other, e.g. Swiss, French, Dutch , models either. And even the Brits allow private insurance (and, gasp! hospitals) for "medically necessary" services.
Mark
Ottawa
How dare the Swiss darken the memory of Tommy Douglas?
Posted by: set you free at October 1, 2009 5:29 PM"The fact that the left (for the most part) in Canada does not support such a model demonstrates that the health-reform issue here is more about turf protection than patient outcomes"
Colin....that comment sums up 100% the problem we have with trying to reform the health business in this country!!! And it is a business, not care.
I lived in Switzerland for four years this decade. I benefited from Swiss health care. My doctor saw me the day I asked to be seen. She even helped me put on my coat when I left. When I need to see a specialist I was asked if it was urgent. I said no so I was seen three days later. Waiting times are practically unheard off. Care is first rate. We can learn a lot from the Swiss but we won't be allowed to. Gerry
Posted by: Gerry at October 1, 2009 6:19 PMNot only that, but the Swiss require all adult males to bear arms. To be sure, the percentage of Swiss weenies has been growing, but it still bears some of the marks of the home of European democracy.
NO! NO! NO! STOP IMMMEDIATELY!!
Don't you know that trying to do what number 1 through 29 do better will only lead us to number 37.
Foolish me once again! I forgot that there is no number 1 through 29, there is only number 30 and number 37. Those are the only two countries that we can ever do comparisons on!
Posted by: Chris in the Bridge at October 1, 2009 6:30 PMSingapore has better health care than us, so do many other countries, but we dare not speak of them.
We can only compare our health care system to the US system.
Those that derail the debate by turning every attempt at improving our health care into hysterical rants against the US system have blood on their hands.
They put their own ideological or financial interests ahead of the life and death of their fellow man.
How many people have needlessly suffered and died while the defenders of the status quo hijack every debate on health care in Canada?
Why are you accepting the premise of the left that the American medical system is bad? They invented all the best treatments, they have the best medical schools. The world over, if you need your life saved with some new experimental treatment, you know to go to America; even if you life in places like Israel, Canada, or Europe. Sure, they spend a lot of money on it, but do you think inventing the heart transplant is cheap and easy? If it was, Tommy Douglas would have done it.
Posted by: Kevin Lafayette at October 1, 2009 6:41 PMHealth-care will cost no matter what. Ask the average Canadian if they would prefer the system they pay for now with their tax dollars over a system that would let them see a doctor TODAY. My father (who has been burned by the system before) has to wait until November for a simple nerve test. That's what his taxes are paying for. Hardly fair.
Posted by: Osumashi Kinyobe at October 1, 2009 7:08 PMMark, healthcare is a provincial juristiction. The CHA is just a fiscal bully pulpit created by the liberals. The Cpc has been slowly working towards giving the provinces the tax points (the hst is part of the process) so that the feds can keep their noses out of it.
Posted by: Gord Tulk at October 1, 2009 7:26 PMlook at britain....THREE bureaucrats in the NHS for every hospital bed.
Posted by: john begley at October 1, 2009 9:14 PMGord: The thing is that almost all the provinces, using the CHA as a shield, prohibit private insurance for "medically necessary" services. Which effectively makes any wide-spread private provision of such services impossible.
Let me know when the Conservatives urge the provinces to change this fundamental aspect of their policies.
It's not about tax points. It's about the increasing failure of government (provincially) run systems to do the job whilst preventing private alternatives.
Mark
Ottawa
don't ever look for a hardware store in Switzerland.
they frown on DIY stuff. want sumptin fixed? gotta call an expert. THAT is why their per capita I/C is so enviable. a huge amount of it goes to the tradesman neighbor down the street.
In Canuckistan we get to engage in self sufficiency in vastly more areas. thus not needing the same per capita.
just not health care. but I'm not particularly keen on trying to reach around and snip the latest mole on my back anyway.
and while we're comparing apples to oranges, here's another ditty about health care in the country that's more vertical than horizontal:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7757050.stm
smack is legal but pot isn't?
?
uh, whatever!
Posted by: curious_george at October 1, 2009 9:56 PM"Once the Conservative get a majority, the following election should be a healthcare reform election."
Gord Tulk is spot on. Healthcare is a provincial matter. The Conservatives would have to be politically insane to get involved in something that can only lead to a constitutional dust-up with the provinces.
What the Conservatives could do is: absolutely nothing.
The Tories should simply let the provinces sort their own healthcare systems out. Unlike the federal Libs and the Knee-Dippers, they stay out of it all and not try to strong-arm provinces with that Tommy Douglas "sacred trust" crapola.
Posted by: JJM at October 1, 2009 10:17 PMSorry, that last line was meant to read:
"Unlike the federal Libs and the Knee-Dippers, they [the Conservatives] should stay out of it all and not try to strong-arm provinces with that Tommy Douglas 'sacred trust' crapola."
The other benefit of minimal Federal interference in provincial healthcare systems and policies is that you'll end up with 10 entirely distinct approaches.
Canadians in each province will be able to compare how well their system stacks up against nine others. If they don't like theirs, then they can elect themselves a new provincial government.
Decentralized and democratic.
Posted by: JJM at October 1, 2009 10:29 PM"Decentralized and democratic.
Posted by: JJM at October 1, 2009 10:29 PM "
Decentralization AND Democracy in Canukistan?
Bwahahahahahahaha. Only frickin way that's going to happen is to boot Queerbek/Ontarioioio, Saskatchewan and Alberta form one new Canada,and screw the rest.
back OT....here in AB,Red Eddie is trying to close down (secretly)Alberta Hospital,and turn 500 psychos loose.He says the private sector can look after them.
Justhinkin:
Are you nuts?
This was announced a long time ago.
Posted by: set you free at October 1, 2009 11:43 PMMark by breaking the vague rules of the cha a province loses billions of federal funds. It would be political suicide to do so. By giving the provinces taxpoints and then eliminating all federal transfers the provinces will be able to break the cha penalty free. If you have a better option for a federal conervative party that would not cause them to be blamed for "ruining" healthcare and cost themany chance at power for a decade or two I and thousands of other cpc members would be all ears.
Posted by: Gord Tulk at October 2, 2009 12:05 AMThis story just proves a point I have been espousing since I found SDA. Hey Canada, there are other countries, besides the US of A, that have a health care system so let's check out "all" the alternatives.
It always ticks me off that any discussion about healthcare change invariably turns into a bash the American system, even if the bashers have never availed themselves of it.
btw, yesterday I saw a specialist... after the May referal that was requested by my GP.
Posted by: Texas Canuck at October 2, 2009 6:10 AMBefore submitting, review the post to ensure your comment is on topic and does not contain words that might get caught in the spam filter (eg: insurance, viagra, online, poker). This is not a forum or a repository for off-topic link dumps. Profanity is discouraged. Take your extended debates and/or flamewars to private email. Thankyou.