Talk:Medicare (Canada)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


WikiProject Canada (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Opinions Section[edit]

I was under the impression that the majority of the cuts to the mediacare system came under the stewardship of the Liberal Party, not the Conservative Party. I would love to see a citation for the assertion that now former PM Paul Martin has "already reduced wait times, increased the number of doctors and nurses". Smacks of left-wing bias.


Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not an opinion forum[edit]

I have mostly rewritten "Services Covered" in the article. The previous text was wrong, blatantly critical, and did nothing to provide an accurate picture of Canada's healthcare system. --CarrieD 10:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I have heavily edited and added to the section "Medicare". I swear, who writes this Wikipedia stuff about Canada? There is such a Pro-American, Anti-Canadian bent to articles about my Country, it is deeply offensive. I've fixed it. You should require a national ID before you let anyone from another country write about someplace they know nothing about. Lord, that's irritating.

I would also request that you change the title of that section to read "Healthcare". Canada's political leaders may be adopting the term medicare in the recent election, but it is not how our system is known in Canada for anyone born prior to 1980. I expect that controversy over the name to begin when the election ends. Everyone is too preoccupied to care about a word just now. Except me of course. --CarrieD 10:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


The section "Alternatives to Fee for Service" is so mangled, I can't even edit it. There are NO alternatives currently in Canada, except private clinics, which are few and far between and have already been covered in the article. This "Alternatives" section is trying to imply that non-profit groups and County Health Units all function the same, and they don't. And all are funded by the government still, so they are not "alternatives". And they have been in existence for decades, not since the 1990s only.--CarrieD 10:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

All dental, optometry, and physiotherapy clinics at least in Ontario are private. Also the Shouldice Hospital in Thornhill Ontario is a "Alternative to Fee for Service" Don't let your collectivist bias cloud your references or lack thereof. rasblue 04:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The Shouldice Hospital is indeed privately run - like most doctor's offices - but its hernia operations are covered under OHIP (Ontario Hospital Insurance Plan, i.e., public insurance). It is not an alternative. -jgould (24 July 2007)

Anti-American Implied Arguements[edit]

Please keep your prejudice to yourself. This is an encyclopedia, not rabble.ca. Compare systems if you must, but be fair. That means keep the pros and cons for each side about equal if you are giving opinion. If you are giving fact reference your facts please. I put the link for the most current Fraser Institute study. If you find one that highlights your point of view, feel free to add the link. Just remember that biased studies don't help.

Opinions on Medicare[edit]

I don't think that Medicare Reform is the "political Suicide" that it used to be. There is a general acknowledment that Canadians are paying for 1st class care but receiving 2nd class service. How this will be solved is still up in the air, but the point that the basis of single tier health care in Canada is more ideological than economic is increasingly being recognized. Some people think that the basis of not having a private tier is class envy, and Canadians, it should be noted, are a mostly socialistic nation which looks down upon "tall poppies."

Also note the recent success of the Conservative Party in the polls regardless of the parties policy on "decentralilzation" of health care.

I removed much of the blatant opinionated left wing bias. I tried to be fair adding for each pro status quo point a con status quo point.

User:Baldwin.jim

I removed the following statement: "Canadians are also concerned that the nation isn't living up to our own self image as world leaders in health care." POV disguised as NPOV... and it doesn't even make sense. Sorry. Edwardian 23:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

First comment is by a Conservative political party supporter and NOT indicative of ALL Canadians by any stretch of the imagination. Also, Canadians are not a "mostly socialistic nation which looks down" on anyone. --CarrieD 09:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

24 hour Medical Clinics[edit]

Just for the record 24 hour Medical Clinics have existed for many years in Ontario. I know, I used one recently.

User:Baldwin.jim

=There are several issues in the page that i think should be discussed. First I don't think that 98% of all hospital costs are covered by medicare. It is 98% of basic medical costs (if that is the percentage). Many people have private insurance for semi private or private rooms with private insurance and that would be considered a hospital cost in my opinion.

A discussion of how the federal government changed funding for medicare from the mid 1980's to the present would be an asset. I'm not sure if that would be done as a sub page (stub? i'm still learning). In the mid 80's the government started caping the percentage of provincial health care costs it would pay in some provinces(previously it paid 50% of what every province paid). The original funding was under the Canada Assistance Plan (known as CAP) which included funding for social assistance and post-secondary education.This decrease in funding was refered to as a cap on CAP (i may not have the capitalizations correct. In the 1990's the federal government drastically reduced the transfers that it would give to provincial governments merging all of the funding previously covered under CAP into one payment (but a much smaller one). This lead to more of the costs of health care being assumed by the provincial governments. Since the federal government is no longer providing as much funding for health care it becomes more difficult for them to enforce the rules. In fact medicare has come out better than the other areas that the funding was merged in. There have been drastic cuts in social assistance and university funding under this system.

Also it is my belief (as expressed in the edit) that generally it is those that are better off that on average find ways to get their medical needs taken care of when they are delisted. While I've been poor most of my life my parents were middle class and this (and other experiences in life) gave me an advantage in dealing with the medical system and other bureacracies. The eye exams are an example. When my eyes needed testing before the two year period my GP sent me to an opthamologist, in which case it was covered. But i knew enough that there was likely some solution since i couldn't see properly with my glasses at that point. Also there is a strong history of eye disease in my family, and i had actually put off finding a new eye doctor for quite some time ( something i should have done). I ended up at the opthamologists because that was the only way my eyes could be retested (i did not have the income to pay for it privately). Due to the prevalance of vision problems in the family my opthomolgist has me come into the office every year at a minimum. He does this mostly to check certain stuff that has nothing to do with my vision test, but he always does a vision test at the same time.

I also know of a specialized hospital in Ontario that has a total of 4 ward beds. All of the rests of the beds are semi private and require someone (insurance company, individual, worker's comp) to pay for the semi private bedrooms. However the hospital recieves full OHIP funding due to those 4 ward beds, although to me that is a privatized hospital. Anyone else know of similar situations?

Finally is anyone interested in a section on the health summit that just occured? Some discussion of how to discuss the topic would be good in my opinion.--Marcie 02:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that, in Alberta at least, the health care fees that we pay go into general tax revenue rather than directly to health care. I cannot say whether or not this is true for other provinces (and heck, it may have changed recently in Alberta as well). --161.184.162.27

Hmm i'm not sure on that one officially, but unofficially they just changed the way they are collecting health care taxes (whereever they go) in ON and there shit would hit the wall if it didn't go into health care with what is going on...regardless of where it goes officially...give it a few years though and who knows (i'm a cynic as well)--Marcie 21:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


This page has gotten long enough to need some organization. I've created some sections and sub-sections which correspond roughly to what has already been written. feel free to rename or rearrange anything you don't agree with. Dhodges 05:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

where did the 98% figure come from[edit]

If you look above you will see that i don't believe that 98% of hospital costs are covered. Perhaps the medical costs, but most people think of their size of room as a medical cost too (especially when a hosptial of several hundred beds has four that are ward beds (fully covered) just to retain public funding...can someone told me where they got this reference or could we put something a big more vague in until we have a more accurate figure?--Marcie 22:47, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Don't think that is on the page any more, but FYI - CIHI estimates that 99% of physician costs come from public sector sources, ca 90% of hospital costs, and about 70% of total health expenditures.R2SBD (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

proposed reforms[edit]

What was written on reforms was correct but it wasn't balanced (not quite a POV issue one gets a lot more press...i've added other types of reforms suggested and tried by other place (the article itself does reference the proposals in it to the right wing. Write back here or come to my talk page if you want to discuss it further--Marcie 10:51, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Repeated paragraphs[edit]

there seems to have been a failed cut and paste operation in Proposed reforms, a couple of paragraphs were repeated. My apologies if some actual differences were omited in putting this right.Dhodges 13:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No problem...i cut and paste to the word processor to try and find spelling errors or typo's (someone finally suggeted it to me after a month or so). It looks good. I'm still concerned about the 98% statistic. I think it is wrong, and i study this kind of thing (as an activist). Where do we bring it if we think a statistic is wrong so tht it will get publicly posted so more people will see it and maybe it can be fixed...i'm putting this on your talk page too in case you miss this...i've also done some more work on the page. The reorganization of reforms was nice if you did it. (well nice regardless)--Marcie 18:05, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've written a small stub on delisting since it was listed as needing a link and there was one. A basic definition and then a suggestion to go back to the medicare in Canada page. I thought others here might be interested in looking it over.--Marcie 23:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P3 projects / POVery[edit]

Since the article mentions public-private patnerships in connection with the United Kingdom, I thought I'd mention that while they're generally supported here, the specific way in which many projects are done (the Private Finance Initiative) is controversial to say the least. The article as it stands seems to imply that everyone here thinks PFI is appropriate for hospital building, which is far from being the case; many people in the UK would say that to call its implementation "successful" would be overdoing it.

There also seems to be some pretty obvious POV in the article. For example:

This tracks the usual story arc of socialism where invisible infrastructure and maintenance accounts are robbed to continually provide "visible proof" that government domination of a sector provides superior results. While the long-term costs of this create misery, this misery is visited on later generations.

Loganberry 15:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm aware that the P3 (or Foundation Hospitals) are not all that cut and dried in the UK but i read a fair amount of British Press. I'm still not sure how you put forth the way things are controversial on the Wiki without getting into POV arguments (as to the above...i didn't write it and i guess no one has gone after the Gremilin that added it yet)[i'm putting this on the talk page as well of Loganberry as well]--Marcie 00:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, I'm not too well up on the precise nature of Canadian P3 projects (which is why I didn't edit the article myself), but the bit I quoted does rather imply that it is socialism itself that results in misery. This may or may not be the case, but it's not really the place of an encyclopaedia to say so. If one could find, say, a major politician who's said something along those lines, then I'd think it would be better to do that, since then you'd have a hard fact rather than an opinion. Loganberry 01:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


healthcare vs. medicare[edit]

Where I live (Ontario), people usually refer to it as Health Care for the Canadian system and healthcare in general. I am pretty sure the formal government name is "Health Care" or simply "health care system." I think small 'm' "medicare" is slang (adopted from the name of the US system) and the predominant Canadian term for a health care system here, at least around here, is "healthcare," and not "medicare". Thoughts? Health Canada - Health Care.—Ben 03:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

and my proposal is a to switch the redirects around, so Medicare (Canada) redirects to Health care in Canada (which currently redirects here), Healthcare (Canada), or Health care (Canada), etc. as well as modifying the medicare page?? Ben 03:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well i'm from Ontario as well. I use several terms, some of which show my age. OHIP is the one i grew up with generally, then medicare. I guess i would recognize healthcare but i wouldn't call it that. I think it would be better to rerout so if people put in healthcare, OHIP or whatever would be better...or is it already that way (i'm not the best on the technical stuff here). Of course that is my opinion...anyone else have thoughts?--Marcie 02:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The system is a mix of federal and provincial legislation with no one official name. The term medicare was used in the planning stages of the system, back in the 60's. I think it's as good a name as any for the article title. Dhodges 20:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Canada's healthcare system has ALWAYS been referred to as "Healthcare"; check historical political leaders for reference as well as any news article. The term "medicare" was ALWAYS used in reference to the United States healthcare system.

That said, in the recent election, for the first time ever in my 41 years on this planet, I heard Prime Minister Paul Martin refer to our "healthcare system" as "medicare". I'm not happy about it either. Any Canadian born before 1980 knows, we have always called our system our "healthcare system". Why they're now calling it medicare beats me but that is a VERY recent change. --CarrieD 09:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I was born after 1980 and pretty much anytime ANYONE speaks about medicare/healthcare it is called healthcare, though history textbooks DO call it medicare each and every time it is mentioned. Not that I see a problem with it, it's just a bit odd. Anyone know if it was given an "official" name by the gov't at any point?

I agree with Ben. Medicare refers to the doctor/hospital insurance, as required by the Canada Health Act (which also has a page). Health care is the more general term. So it is more confusing that it needs to be. In the US, Medicare refers to the insurance program for the elderly, and Medicaid to the insurance program for the poor. So, whoever handles the redirects, it might make sense to do some merging, re-directing.R2SBD (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I have never referred to it as "medicare". I actually thought it was a solely American term that refers to their healthcare system. I've only ever referred to it as healthcare and (being that I'm from Ontario) I mostly only call it OHIP. I think the medicare title should be changed. It's not accurate. Celynn (talk) 07:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy / Quality of Text[edit]

I'm not sure how it should be organized, but the opinions section is showing visible signs of many successive quick-edits. For example, search for the term "wait" and notice that while there are several variations on the term "waiting list" or "wait time", they occur at random and there is no consistent schema around which those terms would be used.

Someone more knowledgable than myself could perhaps create a subsection called "Treatment Waiting" and explain:

  • What is common waiting time vs. what is reported.
  • What one is required to wait for -- services? GP? etc.
  • Some sources and statistics?


I added some sources and statistics.R2SBD (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Services Provided[edit]

It seems like, but I can't really tell, that Canadian services might work differently than American ones. Here in America, we have really two types of care: seeing a doctor you already have, and the emergency room. This tends to result in a lot of people going to the ER who really should be going to some kind of Clinic -- which isn't a doctor's office, but isn't a hospital either.



Canadian services work like this - we go to the doctor, we show our health card (each province issues their own), the visit and any services are billed by the doctor to the provincial healthcare plan. If we go to Emergency, same thing - show the card, all treatment billed to the province.

In recent years, due to delisting of services, the costs of Ambulance transportation, crutches, splints (minor things like that) are billed to the patient to paid by the patient. The patient pays the Ambulance service for that and pays the Hospital for crutches etc. People with private insurance through their employer or other can submit those invoices for reimbursement most of the time.

Most employer health plans cover up to 85% of costs billed to the patient. But when in hospital, everything is free really except if you want anything other than a ward (4 beds per room); that's where having semi-private coverage can be a benefit. While in hospital, all meds and surgeries and tests are paid by the province. Outside of hospital, you pay your own meds but that's it pretty much. And each province does have a drug benefit plan, available to every Canadian citizen regardless of income.

About semi-private coverage, honestly, if you've been ill enough to need hospital care, you're too sick to notice if there are 2 or 3 other patients in the room, depending on why you're in there. And if you're critical, it's a big mass ward type room normally. Given the reduction in nurses and doctors, it's been my experience and the experience of many others, that it's safer to be in a ward type room anyway. You get looked in on more frequently than if you're in semi-private or private. --CarrieD 09:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


Well, I have to disagree with this statement. When I'm sick its true that I'm very sick. it I do notice if I'm in a ward. A ward is noisy is not conducive to recovery. In my opinion all hospital rooms should be semi-private or private. It helps a lot and is more conducive to receiving necessary rest especially when one has been waiting in the ER for two or more days for a hospital bed! Co-eding ... who ever came up with this idea? Its bad. I've heard that some Canadian hospitals are placing male and female roommates in the same semi-private rooms due to lack of beds or failure to change the rooms around. One time in Toronto I never did get a bed and spent four days in the ER - very ill with pneumonia before leaving against medical orders. I was not receiving chestphysio, was not receiving my nebs (masks), and still the nurses were doing the best they could. Our system is scary and getting worse, not better, not enough nurses, not enough doctors, and some of the young one's do not know what they are doing - need better training. I have cystic fibrosis and left the hospital even through I was very ill, because I needed my nebs, physio, etc and could receive them better at home than in hospital. Scary stuff.

Health care in Canada[edit]

Should it be merged/integrated? It provides mostly the same data about the public system.

Yes, I think so. Even though I have done some editing on this page, and not (yet) on the other.R2SBD (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Quality & Accuracy[edit]

I came across this article and was very disappointed in the blatant POV and numerous errors.

  • First off the article should not be called "Medicare", it should be "Health care in Canada" or whatever. "Medicare" says low-income government health assistance in the United States to most Canadians.
  • Prescription coverage is not universal in every province as is stated in the article. In Ontario, as the article on OHIP states, prescriptions are not covered outside of the hospital. However, the Ontario Drug Benefit provides prescription coverage for anyone receiving public assistance payments, as well as everyone over the age of 65. Private insurance (usually through an employer) provides prescription coverage for others. The information about “Section 8” forms is oddly specific for this article and outdated.
  • There is a lot of background information missing as well. The “card” system, at least in Ontario, is a relatively recent development. Prior to the early 1990s, an OHIP number was issued to a family, and each family member would use that number. Most doctors kept these numbers on file, and there were no “health cards” per se (the “head” of the household would have a paper card with the OHIP number and names of family members). To combat billing fraud, the “Health Card” was introduced in the early 1990s. Since then, a card with a photograph (very similar to a driver’s license) is issued to each and every resident eligible for coverage (young children’s cards don’t have photographs).
  • Although it is true that routine (preventative) dental coverage is not provided by any provincial plans, emergency dental procedures are usually covered when an ER visit is required.
  • The note about vision testing seems out of place – the two-year rule was true in Ontario until 2004, and may be true of other provinces; it’s better to say that routine vision care coverage varies widely from province to province.
  • Cosmetic procedures undertaken for reasons of vanity are not covered. However some provinces cover cosmetic restoration procedures which may be required due to another medical condition (e.g., burns).
  • The opinion section needs to be excised for obvious reasons. It’s all opinion.

Geez I’m not even a quarter of the way through and it’s making my head hurt. I wouldn’t even know where to start on this mess. --69.157.122.126 06:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Whew. Tried to start on improving things but there is just so much wrong with this I can't decide where to start. Inconsistent capitalization, little wikification, poor writing style, inaccurate and wild speculation instead of facts, no real citations, need I go on? Please don’t anyone use this article as a source for anything! I give up. Maybe a night's sleep will inpsire me. --69.157.122.126 06:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Medicare Canada, Wikipedia, comment[edit]

The word 'Medicare' comes from the United States project of the 1960s

The Canadian health insurance plans have been named by Province, for example OHIP (Ontario), Assurance Maladie (Quebec).

I find your article acurate without question.

Thank you. kwd...

Keith Daniel Montreal, Canada ensign0 at vif dot com

There was a passage stating that employers with more than 20 workers have to offer health insurance in the United States. I believe that is inaccurate. Although some states are trying to pass reforms in requiring health insurance for employers with more than X workers, those are controversial. In fact they may violate the ERISA Federal law and are being challeneged. Even the so-called "Wal-mart" tax in Maryland is being challenged on ERISA grounds. There is one state that does require all employers to cover their employees: Hawaii. But, it is exempt from the ERISA, since its law was in effect before ERISA. ERISA See: http://hawaii.gov/labor/DO/phc_9-9-05/phc_9-9-05_files/frame.htm for information about Hawaii's "Prepaid Health Care Act" and it's exemption from ERISA requirements. Slide 11.

Use of the word Medicare in Canada[edit]

I first spoke up about this back in February of 2005, so I suppose its a bit late to be supporting my argument with some citations. Nonetheless, here's the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary and some dated citations:

Medicare-

b, a name of a similar scheme in Canada.

1963, Times 25th Feb. (Canada suppl.) p. vi/6. The Canadian medicare problem must be seen against Canada’s geographical, economic and political background.
1968, Globe and Mail 13 Feb. 1/7. Under the federal medicare legislation starting July 1 Ottawa will pick up half the average per capita cost.
1971 Maclean’s Oct. 65/3…deterrent fees for Medicare.
1974 Globe and Mail 2 Mar. 8/3 Saskatchewan, which introduced medicare amid stormy and turbulent summer days in 1961…

Now, here's the cover of an old CCF pamphlet[1].

As you can see, people have been using the term with respect to Canada since the early 60's. The current intro makes it sound somewhat like this is a recent Americanism. -Dhodges 18:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Regardless of word usage in the 60s and 70s, currently the term Medicare, although it does occur, is quite rare. "Medicare" is almost always used to refer to the US system and consequently has taken on a derogatory meaning. Peter Grey 21:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree; most people in the health care system refer to "Medicare" to refer to the services covered by the Canada Health Act.R2SBD (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Half-truth.[edit]

Just an observation.

Here in Canada the inabilty of the media to expose to the general public that the medicare system is not in fact a true public system reflects a conspiracy of sorts.

Well the leader of the Liberal Party, (did not reveal that she was married to a family doctor, who was head of the doctors union) and who reflected the spirit of restricting the supply of new doctors into the system.

A conspiracy ? No just simple politics !

This public system label to a system that is merely publically funded is one of the great half-truths of the modern era...and to see Mr.Ramanow spend millions and not see this simple half-truth, is rather bizarre.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I sat next to the head of the doctors union, back in 1996 at a workshop on the future of health care in Canada.

We had listed a variety of 'options' to alleviate the doctor shortage in Canada, including recruiting foreign doctors. When it came his turn to communicate our thoughts to the 'workshop', he merely turned the page. It was then i realized the doctors union does not want more doctors, because it will reduce the income of doctors in the system.

Also note that back in 1989, I was attending a lunch with a cousin of mine, a doctor, born in Canada, taught in Italy. He wanted to return back to his city of birth as a doctor. When I mentioned this fact to a doctor, he was horrified that the city would have another Italian doctor. Doctors in Canada are self employed businessmen and under the current fee per visit, they, the doctors, most doctors, and especially the 'boys' at the top do not want competition.

You will not find these observations on sites because this is politically incorrect.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My research on the 'Canadian Health System is dedicated to the memory of my mother, Mariann Squitti who was killed twice by the a system that is full of half-truths and lies.,,and to the tremendous amount of human suffering it caused my family and others...because of deceptive half-truths that conceal a system that rewards chaos...(and greed)

"Justice is mine sayth the Lord ".

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Rearranging (or redirecting?) the page[edit]

The page seems to be a combination of several topics, some of which are already on other pages. Medicare, as noted, is another term for the services covered under the Canada Health Act definitions (and it is not clear why the dictionary definitions are necessary; could they be deleted?) There is another page on the Canada Health Act, to which those seeking that information could be directed. Then there is material on Canada's health care, which seems to overlap the page Health care in Canada. Much of this, as noted, seems to violate Wikipedia guidelines for balance. There is also some material on health reforms in the province of Ontario - which could use some updating, but might warrant its own page, or be put on the stub for the Ontario Ministry of Health. I have done some editing on the first sections, but have not yet touched the rest. Would it be appropriate for me to continue?R2SBD (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

PREMIUMS[edit]

Under "reforms," this article says that Ontario and Quebec use premiums. But according to the "Canada Health Act Annual Report 2006-2007," neither province has premiums. I haven't been able to find other online sources to clarify. Did Ontario and Quebec just adopt premiums after 2007, or is this a mistake in the article, or is there ambiguity about what "premium" means? It is my understanding that only Alberta and BC have "premiums." Lilyprof (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Liberal government of Ontario introduced the "Ontario Health Premium" in the 2004 budget with effect from July 1st, 2004. It is in fact a progressive income tax that is capped at $900 per year.

The Four Deuces (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

History[edit]

I would expect the medicare article to mention the history of medicare. Instead, a brief history is only to be found in the middle of the "Health care in Canada" page. Does anyone know more about the history? 128.135.191.205 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. History is usually the first thing to appear, and it's absence is conspicuous here. 128.54.254.102 (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Terms to clarify.[edit]

Canada's Health care system is full of inaccurate terms. (half-truths)

1. Public system. NO Well no not really, it serves the public, it is paid for by the public but the services are provided by private enterprises, most doctors are incorporated as small businesses. Counries that have a true public system, supply and demand, have doctors on a salary system, directed to the government, not to a hospital who bills per services.

2. Private clinics. WE ALREADY HAVE THEM. Most all clinics are privately owned, today they bill the publically funded health system.

The suggestion is to have private clinics privately bill.

3. Doctors are paid for a service. NOT REALLY. To clarify, there are some services that are paid for, ie knee surgery, but most all doctor visits are not for the service, but for a visit. Short visit, long visit. If the visit is 5 seconds or 10 minutes the payment may be the same. (problem here it is not really a service as in to deal with one problem, but a visit)

There is alot of confusion by all those involved including the politicians who cannot grasp the details.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 04:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

inacurate[edit]

Hot Tubs for birthing in Canadian Hospitals? can somebody please clarify this? Maybe it is the case in different provinces, but in Ontario, and specifically, in GTA area there is only one hospital, where a hot tub is available to birthing mothers, and, as far as I know, it is never used, because of the cost cutting. Moreover, it is not available for the birth itself. To have a water-birth in Ontario, you need to rent a private tub, and this option is only available if a woman has a home birth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.185.182 (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Unofficial Name[edit]

The article begins: "The term medicare is the unofficial name for Canada's universal publicly funded health insurance system".

I have tagged this as uncited. A check of the four parties represented in Parliament shows that they all use the term "health care".

Conservatives: http://www.conservative.ca/EN/4739/78188
Liberals: http://www.cbcn.ca/en/?section=1&category=802&regionid=&page=5355
Bloc Quebecois: http://www.blocquebecois.org/fr/publications-english.asp
New Democrats: http://www.ndp.ca/platform/healthcare

Even the Libertarian Party of Canada calls it health care: http://www.libertarian.ca/english/positions-social-concerns.html

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

See these:

So the term is not unheard of. Gimmetrow 20:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That does not make it "the unofficial name". Also, the term medicare is more likely to mean "universal publicly funded health insurance" rather than "Canada's universal publicly funded health insurance system". The Four Deuces (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is at "Medicare (Canada)". How would you rephrase the disputed sentence? Gimmetrow 02:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, this article would be specifically about Canada's health insurance system while Health care in Canada would be about the system as a whole. Incidentally, it seems to me that the platform documents cited for "health care" are also referring to the system as a whole. The term medicare has been around since the sixties [2] -Dhodges (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

How about changing the first paragraph from:
The term medicare (in lowercase) (French: assurance-maladie) is the unofficial name for Canada's universal publicly funded health insurance system. The formal terminology for the insurance system is provided by the Canada Health Act and the health insurance legislation of the individual provinces and territories.
To: The formal terminology for medicare in Canada is provided by the Canada Health Act and the health insurance legislation of the individual provinces and territories.
The term medicare in Canada carries no negative connotations and Canadians recognize that the country has medicare but is not a commonly used term. And Canadians are unlikely to talk about the national system anyway. Many would be even unaware that there is a system. Furthermore, in New Brunswick and PEI where it is the formal name of the provincial program it could hardly be used informally for the national system. Note too that the French word "assurance-maladie", literally "sickness insurance" is usually translated as "health insurance" not medicare.
It's like the difference between saying "The head of state is the unofficial name for the Queen of Canada" and "Canada's head of state is the Queen".
The Four Deuces (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

How about we just not get hung up on this point? Isn't the important thing that Wikipedia has an article on Canada's universal medical insurance? -Dhodges (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

MEDICARE[edit]

when did Medicare start in Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.84.44 (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I was curious about this and so I had added to the article that it became national in 1966, However, individual states introduced it earlier. Thincat (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
An excellent question. I wanted the date the law passed, & I'm frankly astonished there's none mentioned, considering how important it was. When did it pass? (I confess, I'm a bit suspicious of 1966, too; I seem to recall '65, but by no means expert.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 10:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The governing legislation was passed in bits and pieces over a great many years see: Health policy The Canadian Encyclopedia. -Dhodges (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Name change[edit]

There was a little concern about the name of the article above. Can I suggest we change the article from (one of) the unofficial names to the official name: Canada's Health Care System. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you back up that this is the official name? The original objection suggested that Medicare is refers to the American system. My reading suggests that the Johnson Administration basically got their terminology from Canada. Meanwhile, medicare is a frequently used term for the Canadian system. Try doing a Google search. Incidentally, there is already a Health care in Canada article. You might look at the above section

Ideally, this article would just be about the Canadian health insurance system while Health care in Canada would be about the system as a whole. -Dhodges (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Medicare (Canada). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Medicare (Canada). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medicare (Canada). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Medicare (Canada). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)