Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Healthcare in canadian society.

  1. Jul 18, 2005 #1
    Being an observer mainly, but recently a campaigner and supporter for the Green Party of BC in the last provincial election I've wondered about the emphasis on Healthcare in the last several elections, federal and provincial. It seems to me this is creating the largest hype these days; what's the best way to deal with healthcare, who should publicize healthcare systems, who's doing a better job at keeping doctors in canada, et cetera.
    The biggest cause for this, I would hypothesize, is the rising age of the Baby Boom children, and respectively their reliance on the provincial healthcare systems and, because they are retiring and not putting back into the systems, putting a strain on the system.
    My question is this: When the baby boom generation is gone, will there be the same emphasis on healthcare, and if not, what should be put the money into instead?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 18, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think that a compulsory military service for the elderly in democratizing missions abroad would take care of the problem :devil:
  4. Jul 18, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thats a horrible idea! I mean... thats just sickening.... do you know how expensive that cannon fodder is? :tongue2:
  5. Jul 18, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    As the healthcare industry grows, we'll just be keeping more people alive longer. Doing so ensures that, going forward, we will continue to have more and more elderly people around. It's a cycle. The more there are, the stronger their political power, the more money spent on healthcare to keep them alive. The more that are kept alive, the more there are. The only thing that'll solve this problem is to keep people working longer. The current retirement age is outdated and based on people being expected to die long before they are now dying.
  6. Jul 21, 2005 #5
    Even the young have trouble getting healthcare in Canada.

    It's the result of socialized medicine and it's associated incapability
    of dealing with resource allocation.

    Canadians who are desperate and/or know what to do come to the US
    and pay cash. There's no shortage of beds and no lines here because
    hopsitals are much better at planning their resource needs than a remote
    government beaurocrat. There's also competition between hospitals so that
    poor service goes urewarded- another missing concept from socialized medicine.
  7. Jul 21, 2005 #6
    anything with soci..... in the beggining is bad and evil.
  8. Jul 21, 2005 #7
    rush limbaugh tried to claim that once, & couldn't/didn't even come up with anecdotal evidence for that. i've never heard of anybody doing that. sounds like something ann coulter would say.

    steffie woolhander & david himmelstein wrote in the new england journal of medicine that the per-capita administrative costs of canada's system are roughly 1/10 of the costs in the US. they attribute the huge costs to the amount of duplicate copies of people's paperwork, etc & admin.

    are you trying to be funny, or are you for real? since when does someone "shop around" for the best deal? especially when they're on the way to the emergency room? or maybe someone who is ill for some other reason, or an elderly person? those are the people who would need a hospital's services most, and they can't comparison shop. once they're in there, a patient probably can't determine whether or not 7 days in the hospital or 2 days in the hospital & 12 days in a hospital-owned nursing facility (the better option for the hospital) would be better. hospital chains set up shop where there won't be much competition, and most americans live in areas too sparsely populated to have competition. the US system is so heavily subsidized anyway that a true free market is some kind of fantasy.
  9. Jul 26, 2005 #8
    Sorry to hit such an old thread. These objections deserve answering.

    Everything Ann Coulter says is correct and/or amusing. What's your point?
    The link at the bottom has living breathing anecdotes for you to mull over.

    This doesn't explain the reasons for Canada's quality of care being poor.
    It only explains that US healthcare could be made yet more efficient.
    It's quality of care is not questioned by anyone including you.

    I assure you I'm not being funny. A hosptial's emergency roon is just
    one service. I in fact DO shop around for hospitals by reputation before
    I have a surgury performed, etc. Candadians must go where they're told to.

    Here's an excellent editorial article about the ills of Candaian health care.

    http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=23 [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  10. Jul 26, 2005 #9
    They deserved better answering that what you gave though, this is just ridiculous.
    No Offense, but in general people who like Ann Coulter don't understand irony or have any knowledge of politics of economics but DO possess an extremely good selective memory.
    Actually for most services we arn't told to go anywhere except Room X on Floor Y. And if we do need special services it doesn't matter that we don't get to 'shop' around because IT'S ALL FREE ANYWAYS. You talk about 'shopping around' as if it's more important than the service it's self.
    Antiphon, that's the most ridiculous article I've ever read about healthcare.
    What the **** does that have to do with discussing Healthcare.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  11. Jul 26, 2005 #10

    'Social Mores'

    'Church Social' ... Okay ... I'll give you that one.
  12. Jul 26, 2005 #11
    Socializing, sociology, social democray :surprised

    Hey, maybe you can't generalize after all.

    Not that they'll stop just because they've been proven wrong.
  13. Jul 26, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Holy cow, how depressing.

    Longer lives versus quality of life needs to be considered as well. So people with arthritis, hearing loss, and problems with bladder control are supposed to keep right on working? Geez. And after working all those years they can't enjoy a little bit of their golden years. :eek:

    I believe there can be a happy medium between socialized and free market healthcare. I don't see anything wrong with requiring companies to provide health insurance, or insurance companies to provide affordable insurance, or health providers making a reasonable profit--especially the phamaceutical industry. The provision of healthcare, particularly preventative medicine, is much more cost effective than not treating people properly. Just look at Medicaid, which BTW is not just for the elderly. It's bankrupt, and in large part due to exploitation by unethical doctors who are making a little too much money.
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2005
  14. Jul 26, 2005 #13
    That's a horrible solution SOS, you're just going to encourage the problem in a different way.
  15. Jul 26, 2005 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If you're not joking, please enlighten me and share your solution to the problem.
  16. Jul 26, 2005 #15
    I pretty much agree with SOS. I understand your logic Loseyourname, but you have to consider that the health of most people will definitely be deteriorating by around 60. Aside from not being able to enjoy their golden years they will also have a harder time seeking employment. On top of not wanting an employee to be retiring on them shortly after hire (which with your proposal wouldn't be a problem) they also would probably prefer not to hire someone who will almost undoubted suffer health issues that will effect their ability to work.
  17. Jul 28, 2005 #16


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Well, obviously you can't make a person work if they're medically incapable of it. Age has nothing to do with that. I had to stop working recently for medical reasons and I'm 24. Still, healthcare for the retired is going to have to be paid for somehow, and as long as lifespans keep increasing, there will be more retired people to care for and the costs will rise.

    That's a pretty vague paragraph without any real suggestions. I don't mean to sound rash, but let us take this seriously. More preventive medicine (which I am in favor of, by the way) just means more people staying alive longer and being healthier into the golden years. We have two choices: 1) Continue to place the burden of the expense for their care on those who are younger and still working, whether through insurance premiums or taxes. 2) Transfer some of the cost to the elderly people being cared for. As far as I can see, there are two ways to accomplish 2: 2.1) Instituting some kind of deferred payment program whereby a person pays higher premiums while young, but some of that money is saved away to pay their premiums when they are retired. 2.2) Raise the retirement age.

    If medicine continues to do its job and keeps people healthy and capable of working well past sixty-five, I can see no reason not to do 2.2, aside from the natural desire not to want to work after having it done it for the last forty years. Don't get me wrong; I'm not going to want to work any more when that time comes, either. Heck, I don't want to work right now, or ever, for that matter. But we do what we have to do, and I don't think it's fair that I should expect others to care for me when I'm perfectly capable of doing it myself, just because I'm old. Just to make clear again: I'm not saying that we should force people to work who are medically incapable of doing so. If you're in constant pain because of arthritis and can no longer here or hold in your urine, go ahead of retire. But if you're capable of working, do so. I don't consider it a loss in quality of life to have to work. Presumably by the time you're sixty-five, you've had plenty of time to finally get into a position that you enjoy somewhat and perhaps you've even been promoted several times during the forty years you've worked and might be in a lofty position of some sort. Perhaps not, but nonetheless, I haven't seen anyone with a better idea.
  18. Jul 28, 2005 #17


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    As a 32 year old full time worker, I am already seeing that I may be working well into my 70's, provided that I am in the health to do so. Honestly, I don't have a problem with this, there are many older people even now who work beyond the "retirement age" full and part time. Because it is understood they are "semi-retired", they take the time off they need.

    Perhaps expecting a later retirement age for everyone is part of the solution, to help even out the costs and not place the burden of the debt on the young and healthy. If medicine is doing such a good job at helping our longevity and quality of life at an older age, I think it is only fair that those who are benefiting from that longevity and quality put something back into it.

    Part of the health care issue America has versus Canada is it seems to me that Americans run to the doctors for more health issues simply because they can, where from what I have heard (and this could be completely false, so please correct me if so), Canadians don't have this "luxury" unless they have a dire need that affects them in more of an emergency situation. We Americans run our children to the doctor if they have a viral fever and request antibiotics for example. Do Canadians have this option I wonder?

    We Americans have high standards of living, and that includes the freedom of seeing a doctor when we choose. Many other countries do not have this option or luxury. The fact that costs are going up for all aspects of healthcare shoulding be a surprise to us, we have taken it for granted far too long.

    This issue has affected me personally because I pay nearly $4000 annually just in premiums alone for health insurance for myself and children only, and this doesn't include the deductibles, the co-pays, the co-insurance, which isn't paid at the rates it was even 10 years ago. Luckily, my children and myself are healthy, I can't imagine what the costs would be if we weren't.
  19. Jul 28, 2005 #18


    User Avatar

    This may be a preconception but what about employment? Aren't the elderly more vulnerable in becoming redundant?
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2005
  20. Jul 28, 2005 #19
    I interpreted the "happy medium" described as not being socialized medicine, in which it is completely tax supported and operated by the government, but rather that it isn't a complete free market scenario either. Caps on percentage profits on drugs maybe, or better monitoring of Medicaid claims, or incentives for companies to provide health benefits, etc. -- what would be wrong with these things? Let's face it, health care is not affordable for too many people in this country, and they are actually costing us more money because they are not being treated early. And in a country of wealth, it is a shame that people don't have something so basic.

    In reference to retirement, the age for Social Security is 65, isn't it? That is plenty old in my view. Moving it 67 or worse 70, well sure we'd save money, especially in view of the life span of men.

    Come on, where is the "compassionate conservatism" (an oxymoron if I ever saw one).
  21. Jul 28, 2005 #20


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    The number of age is irrelevant, medicine has improved the quality of life for many recently then it has even 30 years ago...basically a 67 year old of 2005 can have the vitality of a 55 year old 30 years ago, for example. If costs continue to rise so high, the common middle class young worker will forgo health insurance all together, forcing the issue even more on those who need the medical care the most.

    The owner of my company is 71 years old, has had hip replacement surgery, and takes very good care of himself...He has chosen not to retire, and stays active with running the company, yet takes 6 weeks off a year to travel. He does take advantage of medicare, but I admire him for continuing to work despite him being at retirement age. The one issue this can potentially impose however is while he may be physically able to do his job, his mental capacities can deteriorate to a point of being unable to function at work.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook