Talk:Canadian and American health care systems compared

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Canadian and American health care systems compared article.

Contents

[edit] POV is apparant

This article, as are most articles relating to Canadian Health Care has an unbalanced POV. Remember we have to be unbiased folks!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baldwin.jim (talk • contribs) 18:35, 9 July 2005 (UTC).

Agreed. I fixed the blatantly right wing part about malpractice and addressed it with actual facts.167.206.19.12 10:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, noone is talking about children. The most troubling aspect of US system is that children are held responsible for the acts or the status of their parents.

E.g.: If you are the son of an unemployed negro and a hispano floor-cleaner, you have less than 20% chance to survive childhood leukemia, because doctor, care and advanced medicine costs are astronomical. With just the basic help, you chances are minimal. But if you are born into a family of an interior designer and a stock market analyst, the chances are 65-70% in your favour. How can infants be held responsible for their parents' life? They did not choose to be born there or anywhere else in the first place!

We know that talent is very little related to genetics. A child of poor afro-hispanic origin is just as likely to become a useful or creative member of the society if given good education. But first he needs to survive. Maybe you are losing a latino Einstein, while a Richie Rich would-be Enron exec lives on.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.48.242 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 1 October 2004 (UTC).

"However, despite this Canada continues to be a world leader in the research and development of pharmaceuticals."
I am troubled by this line. The article reads like a condemnation of the US health care system, and it approaches non-NPOV in several places. I would like to see some numbers or evidence that backs up the assertion I quote.- Jburt1 20:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The slightly out of date numbers found here find that Canada was 6th in terms of total pharmaceutical patents granted (the United States was number one). Not only that but according to [1] over the last decade Canada has seen the fastest growth of all G7 nations in the number of pharmaceutical patents issued. According to this study Canada is 11th in the world in terms of the percentage of its economy devoted to pharmaceutical research (the United States is fourth). See also this WHO report for a number of other statistics. - SimonP 01:02, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia entry?

This isn’t a bad essay, but I can’t help but think that it’s not something you’d find in an Encyclopedia. It’s not really describing anything. I suppose it helps readers understand the difference between the US health care and the rest of the world’s.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seano1 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 22 April 2005 (UTC).


I agree. The very nature of the article is unencyclopedia. Not to mention it's horrible POV angle. - unsigned flamebaiting by Barneygumble (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) 21:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree as well. I think this would be better off deleted. This looks more like a political essay given its POV. Besides, other than the fact the US and Canada are neighbours, why would we need a specific entry dedicated to the comparison of these health systems? I could see a survey essay that makes general comparisons between the health care system of G8 countries or even OECD countries, but Canada and the US are too different to make many relevant comparisons.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.144.64.35 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Meh

Health care tends to be of greater interest to Canadians in polls, in part because Canadians do not care much about issues that are important to Americans, like terrorism, the War in Iraq, or the economy.

This seems bizarre, out of place and POV. I find it very hard to believe that Canadians "do not care much" about their economy or terrorism and the assertion that Canadians care about healthcare because they don't care about the US's issues - two of which have only been an issue recently, while Canada's healthcare system has been in place some time - is ridiculously US-centric.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.86.41 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC).

  • My sense is that the Canadian Healthcare system is sort of a National prestige item to Canadians, sort of like the Space program is to Americans. In the US, even small-government conservatives and libertarians often defend the space program, even if they suspect it's mismanaged and wasteful. In a similar way, Canadians seem willing to look past its flaws and see their health system in its idealized form as part of their identity. --208.204.155.241 19:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

$$$i like the comparison actually, living in america my whole life and not having medical insurance the past ten years of my life has really taken its toll on my body and i beleive it would be nice to have something like canadas system put into place here in the states.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.155.21.36 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 01:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SIMONP

I wish SIMONP would keep a NPOV in the article instead of adding his left wing bias.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baldwin.jim (talk • contribs) 23:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Supporting evidence?

Where is the supporting evidence for the claim that "the wealthy are more likely to be healthy in the United States than Canada"? WM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.18.197.83 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] "Totally disputed" banner

I have placed the neutrality and factual accuracy banner on this article; more so do to accuracy than neutrality. I apologize to those who have done a lot of work on this article, but it reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia. Other than to scrap every uncited sentence, I haven't the faintest idea on how to fix it. Perhaps someone could help with my concerns, starting with the opening paragraph.

  1. First sentence: "The comparison of the health care systems of Canada and the United States is of great importance to both nations." I presume this is true, but all content must be verifiable. Is there a citation for this? Maybe it is of great importance to some Canadians and Americans, some importance to others, and of no importance to the remainder.
  2. Second sentence: "The very different methods of delivering health care allows citizens and politicians to look to the other side of the border for alternatives." I'm sure it allows them to do it, but are they doing it? Again, a citation would be nice.
  3. Third sentence: "In Canada, the United States is used as a model and as a warning against increasing private sector involvement in health care. In the United States, meanwhile, Canada's monopsonistic health system is seen by different sides of the ideological spectrum as either a model to be followed or avoided." Perhaps all Canadians view the US system as a warning against the evils of the private sector, but there should be a specific reference to who holds that view. If it's only 95% who feel that way, then the survey should be cited. The number of Canadians who feel that way is an interesting piece of information that should be shared. Similar to the US views of Canada.

- AED 07:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the first sentence to:

A comparison of the health care systems of Canada and the United States has been made by various governmental and non-governmental health and public policy analysts[1][2][3].

This presents information neutrally and, as noted above, it is verifiable information. -AED 20:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aging Population?

This article is very interesting. This is a topic I've researched thoroughly for sociology. Im concerned because the person(s) who wrote this are only expressing one side. There was no mentioning of the fact that if you are the "aging population" they would rather not treat you or delay your treatment simply because it's not going to be as profitable in the long run as treating someone who is going to pay taxes for another 40 or so years. I would like to have seen this article be more balanced because the truth be told there are advantages and disadvantages to either healthcare system.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.139.6 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Please Use Citations

"Although the United States spends fifty percent more on each cancer patient..." Where can readers find this information?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Idavidcrockett (talk • contribs) 01:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] POV & Ommissions

Entire article is riddled with POV.

  • American doctors and hospitals are far more likely than their Canadian counterparts to purchase new and expensive devices and technologies. Canadian doctors have a tendency to be far more skeptical and thus wait until technologies are proven and have fallen in price.

Totally dismisses contributions that Canadians have made to health sciences. This article makes it seem like Canada is a leech on the medical wonder that is the U.S. system. Canada has a very modern, innovative and world-respected health care system. Many treatments, procedures, methods, etc. are invented and/or developed here, and exported around the world. We don't just wait around for the prior generation cast-offs in terms of equipment and procedures.

There is so much more wrong with this article but I wanted to point this particular issue out. --69.157.122.126 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SOURCES!

I like this article, and find that's it's pretty neutral even if not perfect. The main issue I have with it is that it lacks sources.

More statistics would be important as well.

--A Sunshade Lust 07:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Question: It is well-established in the Medicare Part D debate that Medicare cannot negotiate drug prices; Republicans say that is best left to the private carriers that run the plans, while Democrats see it as a fatal design flaw that preserves drug company profits. However, what is the source for the article's claim that Medicaid cannot negotiate drug prices either? I work for a state Medicaid agency (though not in that program), and my state has tried to set Medicaid drug prices in the past (but failed for unrelated reasons). --Anon

This statement appears in this article "Visits to many specialists may require an additional user fee. Also, some procedures are only covered under certain circumstances. For example, circumcision is not covered, and a fee is usually charged when a parent requests the procedure; however, if an infection or medical necessity arises, the procedure would be covered." This procedure is no longer covered in Canada because the Candian Medical association as well as the American pediatric association deems it as an unnecessary procedure. I believe this should be added to that article as it seems as if the Canadian system denies patients some sort of necessary procedure. Adaniels 05:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)adaniels

[edit] The wealthy are more likely to be healthy in the USofA

This is in fact true, there aren't specific data points to back it up, but it can merely be inferred. Healthcare is free in Canada, ergo everyone, whether wealthy or poor gets healthcare. Meanwhile, in the States, healthcare costs money, 'astronomical amounts', ergo the impoverished, or even minorly poor cannot afford it. Implying that the wealthy will be the only healthy ones, becuase they are the only ones who can afford healthcare.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.250.173.254 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] OR

  1. . Too few citations.
  2. . More important and unavoidable for pages like these (they perhaps shouldn't exist in the first place, as comparison pages are almost always OR): "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" Sijo Ripa 09:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree on both points. -AED 09:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It might make sense to take this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. We shouldn't have an article with an essay-like title. Jkelly 03:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Similar "comparison" articles have survived AfD in the past, so it's likely that this one would, too. I think OR can be minimized if content is made to conform to WP:V. Strict enforcement of this policy, however, seems to meet with resistance. -AED 19:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Statistics

"the overall performance for health care is much better in Canada than the US; Canada ranks 7th in overall performance, while the USA ranks 70th, worse than China, and comparable to Iraq."

from the source provided http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex10_en.pdf I see 37th and 30th respectfully... whereas china is 144 and Iraq is 103.

Can someone show me where is says 7th and 70th??

John 66.57.10.155 06:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics of health (privatization)

This section is poor. The assertion that there are private emergency departments in Quebec is totally unfounded. Overall, the article implies that there is more private (that is, market-based) medical care in Canada than there really is. Readers are not informed that many operations deemed "private" are in fact physician practices that operate independently of formal systems, but which nonetheless bill all their services to the government (I added this clarfication to the opening section).

This article is useful conceptually in that addresses a flashpoint of comparison between the two countries and provides some good basic information. As far as POV is concerned, it is really more ill-informed on the economic aspects of health care than it is an apology for the Canadian system, as some here have argued.

Some of the issues discussed at the end do not really pertain to the comparative topic. A separate article on Canadian health care economics would be more desirable for covering those controversies.

Hwhitbread 04:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So not neutral

I completey dispute the fact that this article is neutral. While I was reading this I completely felt the biasis. My problem was with this:

"Drug abuse and violence are all more common in the United States than in Canada[citation needed], and all place a burden on the health care system... Recent history has meant that the United States has far more veterans and war wounded, also somewhat increasing cost. Accounting practices also differ and in Canada fewer capital investments are included in health care costs[citation needed]. Another important caveat is that research and development spending in Canada is lower, but Canada still benefits from the research done in the United States[citation needed]. This leads some scholars, such as David Gratzer, to argue the actual cost difference, while still real, is much smaller than the straight GDP numbers would indicate.[citation needed]"

                            What is up with that?  C'mon, no citations?

                               CHANGE THE ARTICLE FELLOW WIKIS!

Although, I did like the comparison thing, I've always been a sucker for a good American/Canadian perpspective. 66.183.154.180 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/n/Talk%7ECanadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared_9f0a.html"