In the last month, I've had a rusty nail through my foot and a staple in my eye. Believe it or not, though I received care for these ailments in this oft-called "inadequate" Canadian system, I don't have tetnus, and my eye has returned to its relative perfection, rust free.
However, in the latter incident, I did have to wait nearly 6 hours to see a doctor in the middle of the night - and when I saw him he did not remove the staple, or even aknowledge that there was a problem at all. I, like the majority of spoiled Westerners who "want it now," felt victimized.
But I went to the optomitrist the next day, where I presented my health card and received effective attention immediately, no questions asked. In the end, the system saved my eye. I came to understand that, in some cases, the system works as well as you understand it.
Most Canadians who complain about the poor quality of service per Canadian tax dollar paid do not understand that, in a free enterprise system (such as the American or Indian systems), the citizen of that other country pays more per capita for their system than does a Canadian for their system. An American pays more in taxes for their healthcare system than does their Canadian counterpart. On top of the excess in tax dollars that they pay, they also must pay for treatment if they need it - the taxes they pay essentially mean nothing, because they get swallowed by business.
Consider someone who suffers an illnesses, like my girlfriend. They are treated quite well in this country, free of charge. In a for-profit system, her life (especially her livelyhood) would be dogged by the necessity of acquiring treatment. Could anyone imagine how difficult it would be to take out a loan without good credit, or without a significant credit history, in an emergency situation? Imagine experiencing the same difficulty and frustration acquiring health insurance for your illness. And yes, you may have an illness one day that you find very difficult to manage. Suddenly you need something that you weren't prepared to need and never thought you would- you're denied for care or coverage because you carry a liability, indeed you are a liability.
In Canada, fortunately, the sick are not marginalized as liabilities. By world standards, we're getting some of the biggest bang for our healthcare buck in this country - and this reality is to the credit of Medicare itself, for it is the structure of the system that keeps costs down. That is not to say that we have the best system in the world, or that it is the most cost effective - but on the whole, it is more cost-effective for both individuals and for the country than another option.
The system is not fundamentally flawed, rather the structure upon the firm foundation requires some extreme renovation. We need not be terrified of free enterprise, but it must be regulated. We must evaluate what works better as a for-profit enterprise and what does not. For instance, perhaps the bumps and cuts that we as Canadians feel we can address by taking advantage of free service could be regulated with fees, especially if most fees will be covered by employers' insurance (bearing in mind that when things are free, they are valued less in the Western consciousness).
However, it must be aknowledged that once insurance companies are covering the majority, fees will go up, and tax hikes will eventually follow. If regulated properly, insurance companies could cover the majority of working Canadians (though what we pay to the government now we will then be paying to what we hope will be better-managed private companies through other deductions) and the rest will be covered by our tax dollars. Is this fair? Will this create more animosity between classes than that which already exists?
It is not more service we require, it is an aknowledgement of the real problems, so as to create solutions that revolve upon accountability - not only of the dollars spent, but of who pays for who's service. A person with a healthy lifestyle paying for a chain smoker? Things such as these must be re-examined. And baby boomers. Yes, they are putting a temporary strain on the system - eventually the minority of young, healthy individuals will be paying for the elderly, ill majority - and it will not be until their passing that the system will work more effectively again. This, too, can be regulated by, for instance, creating health accounts based upon need. This is to say that we simply cannot pull the rug out from the elderly - they've had no opportunity to prepare themselves for having to pay for service. It is therefore completely unfiar to revamp the system so abruptly. Insurance for these baby boomers and their elders will not magically appear and insurers will consider them the plague! With realities such as these, we have to realize that we cannot just abandon people without thinking about what we say or how quickly we want service.
We, as a people, will change things for the better as immediately as possible. But we must not abandon the fundamentals without preserving the advances we have already made - for in doing so, we abandon those most in need.
However, in the latter incident, I did have to wait nearly 6 hours to see a doctor in the middle of the night - and when I saw him he did not remove the staple, or even aknowledge that there was a problem at all. I, like the majority of spoiled Westerners who "want it now," felt victimized.
But I went to the optomitrist the next day, where I presented my health card and received effective attention immediately, no questions asked. In the end, the system saved my eye. I came to understand that, in some cases, the system works as well as you understand it.
Most Canadians who complain about the poor quality of service per Canadian tax dollar paid do not understand that, in a free enterprise system (such as the American or Indian systems), the citizen of that other country pays more per capita for their system than does a Canadian for their system. An American pays more in taxes for their healthcare system than does their Canadian counterpart. On top of the excess in tax dollars that they pay, they also must pay for treatment if they need it - the taxes they pay essentially mean nothing, because they get swallowed by business.
Consider someone who suffers an illnesses, like my girlfriend. They are treated quite well in this country, free of charge. In a for-profit system, her life (especially her livelyhood) would be dogged by the necessity of acquiring treatment. Could anyone imagine how difficult it would be to take out a loan without good credit, or without a significant credit history, in an emergency situation? Imagine experiencing the same difficulty and frustration acquiring health insurance for your illness. And yes, you may have an illness one day that you find very difficult to manage. Suddenly you need something that you weren't prepared to need and never thought you would- you're denied for care or coverage because you carry a liability, indeed you are a liability.
In Canada, fortunately, the sick are not marginalized as liabilities. By world standards, we're getting some of the biggest bang for our healthcare buck in this country - and this reality is to the credit of Medicare itself, for it is the structure of the system that keeps costs down. That is not to say that we have the best system in the world, or that it is the most cost effective - but on the whole, it is more cost-effective for both individuals and for the country than another option.
The system is not fundamentally flawed, rather the structure upon the firm foundation requires some extreme renovation. We need not be terrified of free enterprise, but it must be regulated. We must evaluate what works better as a for-profit enterprise and what does not. For instance, perhaps the bumps and cuts that we as Canadians feel we can address by taking advantage of free service could be regulated with fees, especially if most fees will be covered by employers' insurance (bearing in mind that when things are free, they are valued less in the Western consciousness).
However, it must be aknowledged that once insurance companies are covering the majority, fees will go up, and tax hikes will eventually follow. If regulated properly, insurance companies could cover the majority of working Canadians (though what we pay to the government now we will then be paying to what we hope will be better-managed private companies through other deductions) and the rest will be covered by our tax dollars. Is this fair? Will this create more animosity between classes than that which already exists?
It is not more service we require, it is an aknowledgement of the real problems, so as to create solutions that revolve upon accountability - not only of the dollars spent, but of who pays for who's service. A person with a healthy lifestyle paying for a chain smoker? Things such as these must be re-examined. And baby boomers. Yes, they are putting a temporary strain on the system - eventually the minority of young, healthy individuals will be paying for the elderly, ill majority - and it will not be until their passing that the system will work more effectively again. This, too, can be regulated by, for instance, creating health accounts based upon need. This is to say that we simply cannot pull the rug out from the elderly - they've had no opportunity to prepare themselves for having to pay for service. It is therefore completely unfiar to revamp the system so abruptly. Insurance for these baby boomers and their elders will not magically appear and insurers will consider them the plague! With realities such as these, we have to realize that we cannot just abandon people without thinking about what we say or how quickly we want service.
We, as a people, will change things for the better as immediately as possible. But we must not abandon the fundamentals without preserving the advances we have already made - for in doing so, we abandon those most in need.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home