The Cost of "Free" Health Care in Canada

[annon123]

You said your premium for your insurance was $1,119.19 and that it was over half your income. That premium is $13,430 for a year. Twice that is $26,860. I just rounded down slightly. You can enroll in an ACA plan regardless of your income. The only question is what subsidy you will get based on your income.

Well I guess I should have said some months it was more than I'd make. One year I made around $4k, another yaer $6k, one year, in the end one year, I finally made over the minimum to get it but it was late Nov when I knew that for sure. That is one of the problems with uncertain income and having to predict what you will make over 12 months if it is an "as needed" job.

It really doesn't matter. I had no desire to guess wrong and have to pay back thousands. The point is/was in the USA inability to pay for health care results in huge problems, lack of health care and/or financial ruin if you can't afford to go without it due to something that needs treatment or you die. The poverty programs hospitals have often charge you the insurance negotiated rate (prior to insurance paying anything) and you have to pay for a lot of it up front before you are seen. It's a problem. Each country has their own problems, this is ours. It is not a problem in Canada. Their problem is far too few doctors and so there are waits.

 

[somarco]

Numerous studies seek to define and enumerate the "best" health care system. Each study has its' own criteria and bias.

In the end, grading health care is subjective and depending on what is most important to that individual. And the criteria changes over time depending on where the individual is in life.

My criteria has always been accessibility and quality care and that has never changed. With the "right" insurance plan those goals have always been attainable.

Regardless of where you live, health care is ALWAYS an issue for low income individuals. Limited access to care, often lower quality and dissatisfaction with results.

Here is one study FWIW . . .

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024

You can't please everyone.

 

[annon123]

Numerous studies seek to define and enumerate the "best" health care system. Each study has its' own criteria and bias.

In the end, grading health care is subjective and depending on what is most important to that individual. And the criteria changes over time depending on where the individual is in life.

My criteria has always been accessibility and quality care and that has never changed. With the "right" insurance plan those goals have always been attainable.

Regardless of where you live, health care is ALWAYS an issue for low income individuals. Limited access to care, often lower quality and dissatisfaction with results.

Here is one study FWIW . . .

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024

You can't please everyone.

That's an interesting read. Thanks for posting that. I had lived in the Netherlands (#2 in that article) and in my opinion it had the best health care of any country I lived in. Nice to see my opinion is validated by that study. I am not sure though that what goes on there would work as well in a much larger country (they are physically a little bit bigger than the size of MD) though.

I'd agree with your criteria although in the USA accessibility can be problematic and is more money dependent than in other countries. Germany was pretty good too. In the UK paying for the higher tier gave you much better care than the free version (so that is what I paid for while I was there). As often your PCP, etc. was geographically located where you lived, so being poor (so living in poorer parts of town) didn't stop access to care, but may have stopped initial (often referrals out depending on your needs) access to better care.

 

[somarco]

I am not sure though that what goes on there would work as well in a much larger country

Canada has 40 million people vs 340 M in the US. The "Medicare for all" is not economically feasible here.

 

[Chazm]

you don't owe the subsidies back if you make under the limit. Only if you're over.

 

[annon123]

you don't owe the subsidies back if you make under the limit. Only if you're over.

In a state that didn't expand medicaid you'd have to pay them back if you made less than what you needed to make to qualify to even sign up for ACA care with a subsidy.

 

[toolbelt]

Canada has 40 million people vs 340 M in the US. The "Medicare for all" is not economically feasible here.

The sheer economies of scale suggest otherwise. The cost per person decreases as the numbers served increases.

 

[Anthony Haney]

I don't know about Canada or their health system & am sorry the woman has cancer. However, my wife had a stroke & we did not have a primary care provider (had insurance, just never used it). It took her 4 months to get in to see a doctor.

 

[mickeyma]

Let's not forget that the U.S. spends twice as many dollars on health insurance as other countries.

If Canada, England, France, Germany, etc. doubled what they spend on health care, they would have twice as many nurses, doctors, clinics, hospitals and surgeries. This would cut wait times down considerably.

 

[somarco]

However, my wife had a stroke & we did not have a primary care provider (had insurance, just never used it). It took her 4 months to get in to see a doctor.

I presume you are not a Canada resident. Also assume she has a managed care plan that requires a PCP.

FWIW, this is a hard lesson to learn and sorry both of you had to go through this.

If you had an annual physical she may have had a shorter wait.

I hope she is recovering.