![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
piranhathose of us who have it hate it! or not. instead we seem to actually be fairly realistic about its benefits and shortcomings.
canadians overwhelmingly support universal health care; think obama is on right track in US. (pdf from nanos research.)
The survey found that nine in ten Canadians support universal health care (90% support or somewhat support), and seven out of ten Canadians believe that President Barack Obama is on the right track with respect to health care in the US (71%). Results were consistent across regions.
When asked what they believed was the key strength of the current Canadian health care system, six in ten said, unprompted, it was accessibility and universality (61%). The key weakness identified, unprompted, was wait times (33%), a more than two-to-one margin over the next most cited weakness - a shortage of doctors and nurses (14%).
When asked to look south of the border to the US, the majority of Canadians felt that President Obama was on the right track when it came to making changes to the health care system in the United States (71%) with only seven percent saying he was on the wrong track. One in five were unsure (21%). Quebecers were comparatively more likely to say Obama was on the right track (82%), followed by Ontarians (74% right track).
i should add that the wait times are for non-urgent care problems. the paramour's mother waited too long (in my book) for a hip replacement. but when i had life-threatening high blood pressure and tachycardia, i was immediately seen at the ER, ushered past a waiting room with other people. i've also always been able to see my GP when i needed to. and all that costs a mere C$54/month for british columbians (and if you can't afford that there is help); nobody is dependent on an employer offering health insurance and spousal/dependent benefits; if you lose your job in a bad economy, you don't also lose your health care (i find that incredibly frightening).
having lived under both type of systems, i greatly prefer universal, single-payer health care. and i don't at all mind paying taxes to support such care for people who have less than i do. i like living in a society that cares about all its members, whether they're currently fortunate and able-bodied or not.
canadians overwhelmingly support universal health care; think obama is on right track in US. (pdf from nanos research.)
The survey found that nine in ten Canadians support universal health care (90% support or somewhat support), and seven out of ten Canadians believe that President Barack Obama is on the right track with respect to health care in the US (71%). Results were consistent across regions.
When asked what they believed was the key strength of the current Canadian health care system, six in ten said, unprompted, it was accessibility and universality (61%). The key weakness identified, unprompted, was wait times (33%), a more than two-to-one margin over the next most cited weakness - a shortage of doctors and nurses (14%).
When asked to look south of the border to the US, the majority of Canadians felt that President Obama was on the right track when it came to making changes to the health care system in the United States (71%) with only seven percent saying he was on the wrong track. One in five were unsure (21%). Quebecers were comparatively more likely to say Obama was on the right track (82%), followed by Ontarians (74% right track).
i should add that the wait times are for non-urgent care problems. the paramour's mother waited too long (in my book) for a hip replacement. but when i had life-threatening high blood pressure and tachycardia, i was immediately seen at the ER, ushered past a waiting room with other people. i've also always been able to see my GP when i needed to. and all that costs a mere C$54/month for british columbians (and if you can't afford that there is help); nobody is dependent on an employer offering health insurance and spousal/dependent benefits; if you lose your job in a bad economy, you don't also lose your health care (i find that incredibly frightening).
having lived under both type of systems, i greatly prefer universal, single-payer health care. and i don't at all mind paying taxes to support such care for people who have less than i do. i like living in a society that cares about all its members, whether they're currently fortunate and able-bodied or not.
no subject
on 2009-11-07 07:52 (UTC)(UK, not Canada)
I've lived in the UK all my life, apart from a brief stint in Australia (whose healthcare system I never really got to grips with, except that it's not UK-style absolutely-free-at-point-of-use, but there's some kind of payback system. I think.). So admittedly I have little other experience. But the idea of having to *pay* your GP or hospital or whatever absolutely baffles me. (And scares me, whenever I hear from US people who can't afford the medical care they need, which seems to be alarmingly often.)
My experience with waiting lists has been reasonably OK - my GP referred me for (non-urgent) problems with my veins recently & I was seen within about a month. (Had I been having to pay directly for healthcare I doubt I'd have gone to my GP at all, or at least not for a while longer, due to current employment situation. I find that scary, too.)
i don't at all mind paying taxes to support such care for people who have less than i do. i like living in a society that cares about all its members, whether they're currently fortunate and able-bodied or not.
Yeah. This.
no subject
on 2009-11-07 09:47 (UTC)Understanding Canadian Employment Insurance (formerly known as "Unemployment Insurance") is simple. Think of all the things that insurance would do if it was supposed to insure you against the loss of employment, then invert it.
(Un)employment Insurance should be something that you get for a short period of time to tide you over until you find a new job. If it takes you too long to find a job then your insurance benefits should run out and you should transition to welfare.
In Canada, EI is the exact opposite of that. If you lose your job you cannot collect on it until long after your hopes for speedy re-employment have dried up: 16 weeks, IIRC. What it has become is welfare with a different name, so as to assuage the egos of the formerly employed.
I fully support paying to have a social safety net for those who have trouble finding jobs, but I object to having to pay for two completely separate bureaucracies to administer it.
no subject
on 2009-11-07 21:43 (UTC)(And we have pretty good insurance, all things considered, but it's still like walking on eggshells.)