• 实时天气:多伦多 28°
    温度感觉: 27°
  • 实时天气:温哥华 21°
    温度感觉: 23°
  • 实时天气:卡加利 28°
    温度感觉: 26°
  • 实时天气:蒙特利尔 24°
    温度感觉: 28°
  • 实时天气:温尼伯 24°
    温度感觉: 24°
楼主: canadafreeword
打印 上一主题 下一主题

加拿大的医疗观念和制度就不能改改?

31#
发表于 2008-2-3 22:16:46 | 只看该作者
听您这么强烈的个人感觉, 但居然还待在这儿"有若干年头了...汽车,house也早就买了..", 这是不是有点奇怪? 这若干年头下来岂不是很痛苦? 我要是您早回去了.

请不要随便代表"大多数技术移民". 我和周围的绝大多数技术移民经过几年努力下来,在专业领域和家庭收入方面都达到或超过了本地白领水平,我们不觉得加拿大是个垃圾国家,相反是个很nice,适合家庭人居,并在世界经济中有极好发展前景的国家. 人们可能不会每天都大声赞美阳光,但在心里都喜欢艳阳天.

加拿大的医疗服务制度是个巨大的话题,不是几个网贴能讲清楚,也确有需改进之处,如轮候时间长等. 我经历过几次家人的入院治疗手术,感觉加拿大的医疗服务与中国大不相同,不单是绝不以金钱谋利为重,其全套的治疗及跟进制度,医生和护士的专业服务水平都给我留下良好的印象.

感觉我们新移民特别需要的一点是:在到处抱怨甚至想用自己原来熟悉的方式去改变周围之前,先试着以谦虚尊重的心态去理解加拿大与北美的方方面面,入乡随俗以本地的游戏规则行事,会发现这个世界没有那么糟糕,而是充满机会.

最初由[大刀砍向鬼子]发布
本大刀来加拿大插队落户也有若干年头了,是加拿大说他们需要新移民的帮助,我们放弃国内优越的生活条件不远万里来到这个不毛之地来帮助加拿大人民的建设。
汽车刚一来插队没几天就买了,没车实在是不方便帮助加拿大人民建设。
house也早就买了,而且从来没有出租过 (这点很重要,房产自住不出租部分房间补贴家用,这才是真正意义上脱贫的标志)。  
本大刀年收入过5万,家庭年收入过8万,给加拿大政府缴纳了巨额的苛捐杂税,他们加拿大派去阿富汗送死的大兵的军费有相当大的一部分是我们新移民出的。

跟大多数技术移民(包括其他国家来的技术员移民)一样,我们都觉得加拿大是个垃圾国家,只有一些对加拿大感恩戴德的难民垃圾才会喜欢这个垃圾国家
32#
发表于 2008-2-3 22:46:58 | 只看该作者
最初由[开心点]发布
听您这么强烈的个人感觉, 但居然还待在这儿"有若干年头了...汽车,house也早就买了..", 这是不是有点奇怪? 这若干年头下来岂不是很痛苦? 我要是您早回去了.

请不要随便代表"大多数技术移民". 我和周围的绝大多数技术移民经过几年努力下来,在专业领域和家庭收入方面都达到或超过了本地白领水平,我们不觉得加拿大是个垃圾国家,相反是个很nice,适合家庭人居,并在世界经济中有极好发展前景的国家. 人们可能不会每天都大声赞美阳光,但在心里都喜欢艳阳天.

加拿大的医疗服务制度是个巨大的话题,不是几个网贴能讲清楚,也确有需改进之处,如轮候时间长等. 我经历过几次家人的入院治疗手术,感觉加拿大的医疗服务与中国大不相同,不单是绝不以金钱谋利为重,其全套的治疗及跟进制度,医生和护士的专业服务水平都给我留下良好的印象.

感觉我们新移民特别需要的一点是:在到处抱怨甚至想用自己原来熟悉的方式去改变周围之前,先试着以谦虚尊重的心态去理解加拿大与北美的方方面面,入乡随俗以本地的游戏规则行事,会发现这个世界没有那么糟糕,而是充满机会.



How Good Is Canadian Health Care? zt
Nadeem Esmail and Michael Walker

1. How much does Canada spend on health care
compared to other countries?

It is often said that Canada spends too little on health care. But is it true? In order to
answer the question, we first recognize that the average age of a country’s population
is a big determinant of the amount of money it will have to spend in order to provide
adequate health care. In Canada, those aged 65 and over consumed over 45% of provincial
health care expenditures in 2004 while making up only 13.0% of the population.
In order to compare countries, we adjust the data for the age of the population and
discover that Canada spends more on health care than any other industrialized OECD
country except Iceland and Switzerland [ExSum Figure 1].


2. Which countries other than Canada do not have user fees
and other forms of cost sharing?

An important consideration in the use of health care resources is the cost of access
at the point of consumption. The evidence surveyed in this study suggests that health
care costs can be significantly reduced if consumers of care have to participate in paying
for the care they demand. While bearing in mind that low-income citizens may be
exempted from paying user fees, the question is, do other universal-access countries
share Canada’s notion that user charges should be banned? In fact, most do not. More
than three quarters of the universal-access countries in the OECD also charge user
fees for access to hospitals, general practitioners, or specialists—in many cases, to all
three. In banning user fees, Canada is very much in the minority.

3. Do other countries follow Canada’s model of monopolistic
public provision of health insurance?

No, Canada is the only country in the OECD that outlaws privately funded purchases
of core services. Every other OECD country has some form of user-pay, private provision
of health care. Also, while many OECD countries require that only public hospitals
provide publicly insured services, it is also the case that more than half of the
countries permit private providers to deliver publicly funded care.


4. Does Canada have too many doctors and should it
put the doctors it has on salary?

On an age-adjusted, comparative basis, Canada, relative to comparable countries of the
OECD, has a small number of physicians: it ranks twenty-fourth out of 28 countries
with 2.3 doctors per 1,000 people for a total of 68,171 doctors [ExSum Figure 2]. To rank ashighly as the first-ranked Greece, for example, Canada would have to have had 61,679
doctors more than we actually did in 2004. In 1970, the year when public insurance
first fully applied to services from physicians, Canada ranked second among the countries
that could be ranked in that year. Whether we have too many or too few doctors in
an absolute sense is an impossible question to answer; but we have many fewer doctors
per capita on an age-adjusted basis than most other countries in the OECD and report
longer waits for access to treatment.
A recent survey of sicker adults in six countries by the Commonwealth Fund
punctuates the problems of access to care in Canada. In the survey, Canadian respondents
were more likely than any other universal access country surveyed except the
United Kingdom to experience waiting times of four months or more for electivesurgery. Patients in Canada were also least likely to wait less than one month for
elective surgery. For access to specialists, Canadians were again more likely than any
other universal access country save the United Kingdom to experience waiting times
of more than 4 weeks. Access to see a doctor when sick was also relatively poor in
Canada: Canadians were most likely to wait six days or longer. Finally, Canadians
were least likely to wait less than 1 hour in ER and most likely to wait 4 hours or more
(Schoen et al., 2005).
Another survey, also by the Commonwealth Fund, found that access to care
is not uniform among socioeconomic groups in Canada. Those with below-average
incomes were 9% less likely than those with above-average incomes to rate care as
excellent and 6% more likely to rate care as poor. These Canadians were also more
likely to have difficulties seeing a specialist (Blendon et al., 2002).
Canadian doctors are paid generally on a fee-per-service basis and, in this particular
area of policy, Canada is aligned with the majority of OECD countries. Of the
countries in the OECD, 50% rely partly or wholly on salaried general practitioners.
Only 7% of the countries rely exclusively on salary compensation. For specialists, 89%
of OECD countries rely partly or wholly on salaried professionals, while 29% rely on
it exclusively.

5. Do other countries follow Canada’s model of funding health care
primarily from general tax revenues?

Regrettably, international comparison does not enable us to choose between the
greater transparency and potentially shorter waiting times of a segregated social
insurance program or general taxation funding since 12 OECD countries use general
taxation, 12 use segregated taxation or a social insurance program, and four have
mixed financing systems.
Canada spends more on health care than any other universal-access,
industrialized country save Iceland and Switzerland. Canada is also unique in banning
private medicine.

6. Do we get our money’s worth and are we well served
by our government-centered health care system?

While it is easy to calculate the comparative costs of health care amongst the OECD
nations, it is more difficult to know whether we receive value for money expended. In
this study, 12 indicators of access to health care and outcomes from the health care
process are examined. One relates to access to physicians, four relate to access to high
technology equipment, and seven relate to health outcomes.
With regard to age-adjusted access to high-tech machinery, Canada performs
dismally by comparison with other OECD countries. While ranking number three as
a health care spender, Canada ranks thirteenth of 24 in access to MRIs [ExSum Figure 3],
eighteenth of 24 in access to CT scanners [ExSum Figure 4], seventh of 17 in access tomammographs, and ties with two other nations at seventeenth of 20 in access to lithotriptors.
Lack of access to machines has also meant longer waiting times for diagnostic
assessment, and mirrors the longer waiting times for access to specialists and to treatment
found in the comparative studies examined for this study.
One of the great problems for the worldwide debates about health care is the
dearth of measurement of health care outcomes that could be used to determine the
effectiveness of health care systems. However, a number of comparative rankings are
available that are suggestive of the ability of the health care system to deal with disease.
In this study, seven outcome measures have been employed to rank the performance
of the OECD countries: healthy life expectancy versus total life expectancy;
infant and perinatal mortality; mortality amenable to health care; potential years
of life lost to disease; and the death rates from breast cancer and colorectal cancer
[ExSum Table 1]. The study finds that Canada, while spending more on health care than
any other industrialized country in the OECD save Iceland and Switzerland, ranksseventeenth in the percentage of total life expectancy that will be lived in full health,
ranks twenty-second in infant mortality and fifteenth in perinatal mortality, ranks
fourth in mortality amenable to health care, ranks ninth in potential years of life lost
to disease, ranks tenth in the incidence of breast cancer mortality, and ranks second
in the incidence of mortality from colorectal cancer.
Most notable about this international comparison of outcomes is that all of
the countries that have fewer years of life lost to disease and that have lower mortality
amenable to health care than Canada also have private alternatives to the public
health care system and all have user fees at the point of access to care. Furthermore,
only two of these countries (Iceland and Switzerland) spend more on health care than
Canada after age adjustment. All of the countries whose populations experience a
greater proportion of life lived in full health have a private care sector competing for
patient demand and more than three quarters of them also have some form of cost
sharing for access to the system. Looking at a specific, treatable, catastrophic disease
such as breast cancer, Canada ranks tenth. All of the comprehensive, universal-accesscountries that do better than Canada in preventing mortality from breast cancer have
private health care alternatives and some form of user fees at the point of access, and
all but two spend less of their countries’ GDP on health care.


Conclusion

The comparative evidence is that the Canadian health care model is inferior to those
that are in place in other countries of the OECD. It produces inferior age-adjusted
access to physicians and technology, produces longer waiting times, is less successful
in preventing deaths from preventable causes, and costs more than almost all of
the other systems that have comparable objectives. The models that produce superior
results and cost less than Canada’s monopoly-insurer, monopoly-provider system have:
user fees; alternative, comprehensive, privately funded care; and private hospitals that
compete for patient demand. The overwhelming evidence is that, in comparative terms,
Canada’s system of health care delivery under-performs and needs to emulate the more
successful models available elsewhere in those countries that offer their citizens universal
access to health care.

How Good Is Canadian Health Care? 2007 Report
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/COMM...odHC2007rev.pdf
33#
发表于 2008-2-3 22:52:18 | 只看该作者

加拿大的医疗制度不能改

最讨厌垃圾技术移民对事情一知半解,瞎出主意,损人不利己,在我没成为富豪之前我决不会投票改医疗制度。
你至少先要搞清楚这样那样的弊病是什么造成的再改也不迟吧,嘴巴是痛快了,最终办起石头砸自己的脚就是这些人的下场。
加拿大的医疗制度所以感觉排队长,效率低,最基本的原因就是资源不够,通俗来说就是医生不够,凡是留意新闻的都知道医生极其辛苦,尤其是专科医生,大家都知道医生应该在状态好的时候手术,不能工作过长。
好了,既然医生不够,你们还瞎出主意搞私人医疗,知道会出现什么后果吗。
用脑子稍微想象都知道,加拿大现在的医疗制度是极端注重公平的,百万富翁和失业工人是一起排队的,这样就效率相对不足。比如100个医生,有300个病人排队,1:3,300人中百万富翁60个,好了,私营化了,有钱必定吸引更多的医生,60个百万富翁吸引60个医生,不用排队,1个医生对付一个,时间轻松了,赚钱一样。可是剩下的240个大傻变成40个医生伺候,这下好了,1:6。
到时穷光蛋们开始等候的时间更长了,垃圾技术移民就可以回国了。
34#
发表于 2008-2-5 17:03:47 | 只看该作者

这不?这头猪说了:赤脚医生制度不能改。怎么和加拿大政府长期凡调来了?

这不?这头猪说了:赤脚医生制度不能改。怎么和加拿大政府唱起反调来了?
加政府可是天天盼着要再次参照中国的医疗体制改革呢(现今的医疗体系也是参照中国50年左右的模式改的--请参照加拿大相关的记录。),其实改革的动力来自于白人阶层。这头新猪到了还是头猪呀!猪心猪脑,呵呵。
最初由[新猪]发布
加拿大的医疗制度不能改

最讨厌垃圾技术移民对事情一知半解,瞎出主意,损人不利己,在我没成为富豪之前我决不会投票改医疗制度。
你至少先要搞清楚这样那样的弊病是什么造成的再改也不迟吧,嘴巴是痛快了,最终办起石头砸自己的脚就是这些人的下场。
加拿大的医疗制度所以感觉排队长,效率低,最基本的原因就是资源不够,通俗来说就是医生不够,凡是留意新闻的都知道医生极其辛苦,尤其是专科医生,大家都知道医生应该在状态好的时候手术,不能工作过长。
好了,既然医生不够,你们还瞎出主意搞私人医疗,知道会出现什么后果吗。
用脑子稍微想象都知道,加拿大现在的医疗制度是极端注重公平的,百万富翁和失业工人是一起排队的,这样就效率相对不足。比如100个医生,有300个病人排队,1:3,300人中百万富翁60个,好了,私营化了,有钱必定吸引更多的医生,60个百万富翁吸引60个医生,不用排队,1个医生对付一个,时间轻松了,赚钱一样。可是剩下的240个大傻变成40个医生伺候,这下好了,1:6。
到时穷光蛋们开始等候的时间更长了,垃圾技术移民就可以回国了。
35#
发表于 2008-2-5 18:24:12 | 只看该作者

回复:这不?这头猪说了:赤脚医生制度不能改。怎么和加拿大政府长期凡调来了?

最初由[归途如虹]发布
这不?这头猪说了:赤脚医生制度不能改。怎么和加拿大政府长期凡调来了?

这不?这头猪说了:赤脚医生制度不能改。怎么和加拿大政府长期凡调来了?
加政府可是天天盼着要再次参照改呢(先进的医疗体系也是参照中国50年左右的模式改的--经参照加拿大相关的记录。),其实改革的动力来自于白人阶层。这头新猪到了还是头猪呀!猪心猪脑,呵呵。

哦,原来又是中国传进来的,看来想改还不容易。
中国文化渊源流长,我还发现了很多源自中国的东西。
计算机的发明来自中国的算盘这个我想大家都知道了,但是二进制的发明取材于中国的八卦你知道吗?
导弹的精确制导全靠中国指南针的发明。
当代公司制度的发明是中国行会制度的延伸。
西方义工制度来自于中国雷锋精神。
加拿大银行制度是中国银庄制度演变成的。
。。。。。
36#
发表于 2008-2-6 23:25:24 | 只看该作者
提示: 该帖被管理员或版主屏蔽
37#
发表于 2008-2-8 10:20:19 | 只看该作者

???????????ó????????????????

×?????[???í]·???
?????ó????????????????

×????á?????????????????é????°??????????÷?????????????????????????????????°???????á???±????????????
???????????????????ù???ù??±×?????????ì??????????????°???×ì°??????ì????×???°ì?????·??×?????????????????????????
?????ó???????????ù???????????¤???§??????×??ù±??????ò????×??????????¨?×???????????ú??????·??????????????????????ú???????à????????ר?????ú???ó???????????ú??????×????????±?ò???????????¤×÷???¤??
?????????????ú?????????????????÷???????????????????á?????????ó??????
????×????????ó?????????????ó????????????????????×???????????°??ò???????§???¤???????????????????ù???§???à????×???±???100?????ú????300????????????1??3??300????°??ò????60????????????????????????±??¨?ü???ü?à?????ú??60??°??ò?????ü??60?????ú????????????1?????ú???????????±???á??????×??????ù????????????240???ó??±???40?????ú???ò????????????1??6??
???±?????°?????????ò???±???ü?¤?????????????????????????ú????
??????????°?????????°??ò???????????????????????????ò??????????????????????·??????ú????????±?????°????ù????????????????????×?°?
38#
发表于 2008-2-9 08:11:43 | 只看该作者

祖宗的规矩可不能改!

中国还没有很先进呢,怎么可以照搬外国那一套来加拿大?加拿大可是世界上最好的国家呦!
39#
发表于 2008-2-27 01:09:42 | 只看该作者
?????????????±???§???????è???????????????????ú?¤?????÷????????????????????????·??????¨???????????????ú?????????°?????????????????????????ú?±?????§???è???????±???????????????????ú???????????ì???????ú???ì?????????????ì????

??????????×?????°????????????í????·???????×?????
40#
发表于 2008-2-27 01:09:42 | 只看该作者
不付钱的医疗当然效率低。设想:病人一进们,医生护士轮流上,这些人可不是吃素的,费用肯定是不小的。没听国内讲吗,“穷人和富人之间只隔一张病历”。高效率需要的钞票,你如果有钱,到美国去,那里是天堂,医生的天堂,有钱人的天堂。

行了,该知足了。俺是穷人,能享受免费医疗知足了。
41#
发表于 2008-2-27 01:09:43 | 只看该作者
不付钱的医疗当然效率低。设想:病人一进们,医生护士轮流上,这些人可不是吃素的,费用肯定是不小的。没听国内讲吗,“穷人和富人之间只隔一张病历”。高效率需要的钞票,你如果有钱,到美国去,那里是天堂,医生的天堂,有钱人的天堂。

行了,该知足了。俺是穷人,能享受免费医疗知足了。
42#
发表于 2008-2-27 01:26:54 | 只看该作者

回复:[评论]加拿大的医疗观念和制度就不能改改?

最初由[canadafreeword]发布
[评论]加拿大的医疗观念和制度就不能改改?

很客观, 100%同意!

不能改!高效率的医疗需要高额的医疗费用为前提的。俺是穷人,能享受免费医疗,俺知足了。俺知道,加国的医疗的不足。到医院看一回病起码要几个小时。要高效率到美国去,病人一进们,医生护士轮流上,唯恐伺候不周,但要收费的,高额的医疗费用啊。

你如果是有钱人,到美国去吧,那里是医生和有钱人的天堂。

国内有句名言:“穷人和富人之间只隔一张病历”。中国也是医生和富人的天堂,你如果是有钱人,还可考虑移民到中国去,不过中国不美国更难移民。
43#
发表于 2008-2-27 11:23:13 | 只看该作者

回复:回复:[评论]加拿大的医疗观念和制度就不能改改?

最初由[电脑之哥]发布
回复:[评论]加拿大的医疗观念和制度就不能改改?



不能改!高效率的医疗需要高额的医疗费用为前提的。俺是穷人,能享受免费医疗,俺知足了。俺知道,加国的医疗的不足。到医院看一回病起码要几个小时。要高效率到美国去,病人一进们,医生护士轮流上,唯恐伺候不周,但要收费的,高额的医疗费用啊。

你如果是有钱人,到美国去吧,那里是医生和有钱人的天堂。

国内有句名言:“穷人和富人之间只隔一张病历”。中国也是医生和富人的天堂,你如果是有钱人,还可考虑移民到中国去,不过中国不美国更难移民。

加拿大的鬼佬都不识数,你怎么知道是医疗不足?没准是医疗过剩呢!让鬼佬自己给搞反了!
44#
发表于 2008-3-4 09:06:05 | 只看该作者
作为一个中国医生和加拿大护士,我想说:在加拿大,医生和护士在很大程度上是向法律负责的而不是病人。这就是法制化的必然结果。物极必反吗。用程序化的法律去管理变化多端的医疗问题,必然导致医疗总体水平的下降。令人遗憾的是中国的医疗正在向这个方向快速走来。
45#
发表于 2008-3-4 09:15:15 | 只看该作者
最初由[mingyuzhang]发布
作为一个中国医生和加拿大护士,我想说:在加拿大,医生和护士在很大程度上是向法律负责的而不是病人。



说到点上了。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 免费注册

本版积分规则

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表