Obamacare
Most Canadians are quite aware of the American health care system and would choose the Canadian system if they had a choice. The private option has been floated many many times in Canada and rejected. We also realize that we have our own issues (waitlists) but we take the equality of all of us being in the same boat, independent of income as a treasured value here. We look at the American system with its local monopolies (well documented), price-gouging (well documented), medical bankrupties, and the uninsured, and just shake our head. You call your system "free market" when it is anything but.
It isn't free market because it isn't typical supply and demand. It's not like you have a choice of when you demand services. Your choice is "service" or death. You have a choice of what car you want. You have a choice of when to buy goods and services. I can wait to get my new iPhone, but I can't wait to get treated for cancer. You don't have a choice of when you are going to be sick, and the cost has gotten so much out of control that for 98% of Americans, a hospital stay would bankrupt you if you were uninsured. That's why health care has to be treated and regulalated differently than other capitalist companies.
In the USA you pay twice: once to your insurance provider, and once for your deductable and out of pocket expenses. In fact, you pretty much open your wallet every time you require care! And then you also pay via your Medicare deductions on your pay check.
I guess the rest of the western world is brainwashed too with their socialized medicine. Perhaps only the 3 million FoxNews viewers in the entire world have it right: pay through the nose for an unfair system, but dang it, it's fast! They'll even order a pile of tests you don't need to cover your ass. And pay double the costs that it costs everywhere else.
Quote: boymimbo
Most Canadians are quite aware of the American health care system and would choose the Canadian system if they had a choice. The private option has been floated many many times in Canada and rejected. We also realize that we have our own issues (waitlists) but we take the equality of all of us being in the same boat, independent of income as a treasured value here. We look at the American system with its local monopolies (well documented), price-gouging (well documented), medical bankrupties, and the uninsured, and just shake our head. You call your system "free market" when it is anything but.
Sounds to me like they are saying, "Well we are starving but we are all starving. At least we are not like the Americans who have choice but have to pay direct."
Quote:It's not like you have a choice of when you demand services. Your choice is "service" or death. You have a choice of what car you want. You have a choice of when to buy goods and services. I can wait to get my new iPhone, but I can't wait to get treated for cancer. You don't have a choice of when you are going to be sick, and the cost has gotten so much out of control that for 98% of Americans, a hospital stay would bankrupt you if you were uninsured.
Sure you have choice. You can go to another doctor or hospital and get a second opinion. You can get treatment in various places. You can choose to decide you have had a good life and let it end, or you can choose to pay what it takes and start over after.
Quote:I guess the rest of the western world is brainwashed too with their socialized medicine. Perhaps only the 3 million FoxNews viewers in the entire world have it right: pay through the nose for an unfair system, but dang it, it's fast!
Yes, they are. When things are socialized the quality falls every time. Just because most nations are doing it does not make it a good system. For the 28th time, I prefer not to have the government control yet one more part of my life. If you prefer being a serf to the government in return for long wait lines and their deciding what you get in return for not paying direct please go enjoy. I prefer freedom.
The problem I see in the United States is that health care isn't affordable anymore to a great proportion of Americans (well beyond the 47%) and their employers. ObamaCare is doing a job in getting more people insured. Now, competition has to increase and controls have to come in place to bring the costs down. Per Capita health care expenditures (world bank) figures have gone up from $4,703 to $8,608 between 2001 and 2011, an increase of 83%, and that's in constant $USD.
And that's unsustainable.
Quote: boymimboWhat I like about AZ is that at least his arguments make some kind of sense and he's trying to use reason. He's stating his own preference, and many other millions of Americans feel the same way. There are some Canadians who agree with the American approach too, usually the ones that can afford it.
The problem I see in the United States is that health care isn't affordable anymore to a great proportion of Americans (well beyond the 47%) and their employers. ObamaCare is doing a job in getting more people insured. Now, competition has to increase and controls have to come in place to bring the costs down. Per Capita health care expenditures (world bank) figures have gone up from $4,703 to $8,608 between 2001 and 2011, an increase of 83%, and that's in constant $USD.
And that's unsustainable.
Thank you for smacking down s2's rant about AZ. It is okay to disagree and we all tend to look at the facts and figures and accept our side's figures before the other side's, but it is weak to just say someone knows nothing when obviously they have taken a little time to look into things.
Quote: RonCThank you for smacking down s2's rant about AZ. It is okay to disagree and we all tend to look at the facts and figures and accept our side's figures before the other side's, but it is weak to just say someone knows nothing when obviously they have taken a little time to look into things.
Yeah it does not help to have a reasonable discussion to just say the other side is wrong. Though I will also say AZ is somewhat at fault here. To legitimately discuss policy you should look at the hard numbers and hyperbole like 6 months for a broken does not lend itself to that. If we are going to discuss this we need to use the actual numbers presented. Saying 6 months is no different then saying people who get sick end up with 5 million in medical debt and only the richest .1% can afford health care. Its patently absurd even though I am coming from a somewhat true place medical bankruptcy is a major problem in the US just like wait times are a problem in Canada. But if we want to discuss it use the actual numbers.
Quote: RonCThank you for smacking down s2's rant about AZ. It is okay to disagree and we all tend to look at the facts and figures and accept our side's figures before the other side's, but it is weak to just say someone knows nothing when obviously they have taken a little time to look into things.
S2 seems to have realized he is not going to win a debate on reason and has instead chosen to attack me directly. From changing what I said in a "quote" to claiming he was in the room when a co-worker told me a story about his wife and himself at dinner to whatever the angle is always the same.
The difference is I just find his views misguided while he cannot stand the fact that every breath he takes will probably have a molecule of air I breathed previously. This is common to most liberals. Boymimbo actually will have an honest debate though he and I will disagree more than agree 10:1 it is an honest debate among adults. He (Boymimbo) would never say something as silly as knowing or not knowing what happened in my personal life nor has he ever just (figuratively) put his hands over his ears and yelled "RACIST!"
Discussions with Boymimbo are like a good sparring match during training, I'd hope he feels the same way.
And my aunt died yesterday in a Canadian hospital, after spending 12 days there after suffering from a series of strokes. Her care was exemplary. She didn't have to wait for a bed, didn't have to wait for treatment, and got excellent care from excellent doctor.
Canada has its problems, to be sure, within health care. On the political side, it's usually our #1 issue and funding is a huge issue.
The difference is that I find Az's vies misguided and he can't stand the fact that every breath he takes will probably have a molecule of air that I've breathed previously. This is common to most conservatives. RonC will actually have an honest debate though he will disagree with me 91% of the time, it is an honest debate among adults. He (RonC) would never say something as silly as liberals believe in government handouts nor has he ever just put his hands over his ears and yelled "SOCIALIST!"
Discussions with RonC are like a good sparring match during training, I'd hope that he feels the same way.
Quote: TwirdmanYeah it does not help to have a reasonable discussion to just say the other side is wrong. Though I will also say AZ is somewhat at fault here. To legitimately discuss policy you should look at the hard numbers and hyperbole like 6 months for a broken does not lend itself to that. If we are going to discuss this we need to use the actual numbers presented. Saying 6 months is no different then saying people who get sick end up with 5 million in medical debt and only the richest .1% can afford health care. Its patently absurd even though I am coming from a somewhat true place medical bankruptcy is a major problem in the US just like wait times are a problem in Canada. But if we want to discuss it use the actual numbers.
The problem is it is hard to keep all the numbers in line. Supporters of the Canadian system say "Canadians live longer so the system must be better." This isn't much better than giving credit to the Metric System. So much can go into such a number as we have discussed. So you have to go into what you prefer.
The Canadian system seems to be there to give some basic level of care and limit costs. When you limit costs you must have either a decline in quality, a decline in availability, or probably some combination of the two. Even most defenders of the Canadian system concede there is a longer wait time than in the USA. What it looks like to me is that if you are barely sick it does OK, if you are in critical shape it is OK, but anywhere in the middle and you will be waiting.
The American system is based on private enterprise. You can choose anything from a concierge doctor all the way down to a free walk-in clinic. Wait times are minimal, usually mostly a matter of days. This comes at two prices. First is some people will be able to buy better care than others can buy. Second is even if your employer pays you have some form of direct payment. Some consumers still think a doctor's visit is supposed to be $10 and prescriptions $5. When they are confronted with the actual costs they see other countries that pay via "hidden" taxes and they think it is "free health care."
My position is that I prefer choices. I like the ability to fire someone if I do not like their service. Sometimes this means I may not get "the best thing available." Well, that is part of life. I do not want the government telling me what kind of care I need. I don't like others making choices for me, one reason I do not want to live under an HOA.
There are too many people who just want someone else to take charge of the hard things in their life. But they do not realize how governments behave. Take away choice in health insurance and sooner or later, and probably sooner. the government starts telling you more and more how to live because "we need to control costs." Happens every time.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe problem is it is hard to keep all the numbers in line. Supporters of the Canadian system say "Canadians live longer so the system must be better." This isn't much better than giving credit to the Metric System. So much can go into such a number as we have discussed. So you have to go into what you prefer.
Yeah the numbers you quoted were patently wrong though. The wait time is nowhere near 6 months for the average MRI. Just like the average cost of an illness is not 5 million dollars.
All the other stuff can be debated and the efficacy of the two different systems discussed. The overall cost could be discussed and the negatives of the wait times can all be weighed. The problem is when you start from false premises like the average wait time for an MRI is 6 months or the average illness cost millions of dollars to treat you can't get anywhere. Wait times are an issue as is medical bankruptcy so lets discuss those rational and with full detail.
I mean it is perfectly acceptable to talk about which system is better but lets not start by poisoning the well with lies.
all be treated equally. The fat slob who
eats sugar and carbs all day, and drinks
and smokes and never walks farther
then the fridge, thinks he deserves the
exact same care in a Socialist system
as a healthy person. In the US you can
get what care you want if you can afford
it. That's how it should be, healthcare
is not a right, it's a privilege. If you spend
any time around animals you realize the
strong make it and the weak don't. Being
born is not a guarantee of anything.
Quote: EvenBobThat's how it should be, healthcare
is not a right, it's a privilege.
Most (not all) would disagree with you. I think if you would ask the most right wingiest senator or congressman this question... "If a man breaks his leg and cant afford the surgery to have it fixed, should the government pay to fix it, or she he be told, 'no-- we will fix it when you can afford to pay the doctors and hospital'.... I can't imagine any elected official would say no to the care....
And if you say " just go to the county hospital..."... that IS having the government paying to fix it, albeit not the federal government...
About the 'wait time' debates.... Sure... life or death situations get taken care of promptly on either side of the border.... but I'll give one specific example of what to ME would have been unacceptable waiting times.... In my previous job we did lithotripsies for kidney stones... periodically we would get a day of Canadians who did not want to wait additional weeks IN PAIN and were willing to pay for expedited care in the US... not a life or death emergency... but those who have suffered through kidney stones want them out yesterday..... Why so many lithotripters here and so few there? PROFIT motive!
And a lot of the 'overseas care' that is being discussed is NOT for things that would normally be covered by insurance... much are nose jobs, boob jobs, dental work, etc.... Those are cash paying customers..... way less than 1% of the cases done in the US....
Quote: SOOPOOMost (not all) would disagree with you. I think if you would ask the most right wingiest senator or congressman this question... "If a man breaks his leg and cant afford the surgery to have it fixed..
You're talking about emergency care. Of course
the leg should be fixed. I'm talking about healthcare.
The non emergency care that most doctors are
involved with. Stats say 80% of the people in
a doctors waiting room have nothing wrong
with them. 10% have moderate problems and
the last 10% have serious problems. I ran that
by my doc and he said it was pretty accurate.
Mr Fatty who destroys his health thinks he has the
same 'right' to healthcare as anybody else, and he's
correct. If he can afford it. Everything in life
comes with a price, something the Libs can never
wrap their minds around. They don't like the price,
just like they don't like giving money to charity.
With them it's all 'me me me'.
Quote: s2dbaker-snipped to protect the guilty-
Oy. I could see you were adrift in a mire of cognitive dissonance, but I didn't think you'd fallen to the level of B9's meaningless turnabout.
So is this cognitive dissonance too?Quote: 24BingoOy. I could see you were adrift in a mire of cognitive dissonance, but I didn't think you'd fallen to the level of B9's meaningless turnabout.
"Like a creationist digging up quotes from Darwin, you seek to impeach some god, of whom understanding, even understanding of the pursuit of understanding, is a horrible thing, so not giving a damn where he comes from or why he is what he is, you look for what "even" this god "admits," since surely these acolytes cannot attack such a proposition, since surely these creatures of whom understanding is anathema could only be brainwashed acolytes. So, satisfied, you stand and fling feces." —Quote from 24Bingo
LOL!
Quote: Beethoven9thSo is this cognitive dissonance too?
"Like a creationist digging up quotes from Darwin, you seek to impeach some god, of whom understanding, even understanding of the pursuit of understanding, is a horrible thing, so not giving a damn where he comes from or why he is what he is, you look for what "even" this god "admits," since surely these acolytes cannot attack such a proposition, since surely these creatures of whom understanding is anathema could only be brainwashed acolytes. So, satisfied, you stand and fling feces." —Quote from 24Bingo
LOL!
Disagreeing with Darwin does not imply any sort of cognitive dissonance Darwin is a man we must let science speak. For instance I accept that things with mass attract each other through gravitation does that mean I have to accept everything Newton said because he also believed in alchemy. I accept one and reject the other not because of I believe Newton is some divinely inspired being but rather because one is science and the other sorcery.
Seeing that complaint unaccompanied by any details, this report by the liberal Fraser Institute will just have to stand on its own:Quote: TwirdmanYeah the numbers you quoted were patently wrong though. The wait time is nowhere near 6 months for the average MRI. Just like the average cost of an illness is not 5 million dollars. . . . Wait times are an issue as is medical bankruptcy so lets discuss those rational and with full detail.
"This edition of Waiting Your Turn indicates that waiting times for elective medical treatment have increased since last year. Specialist physicians surveyed across 12 specialties and 10 Canadian provinces report a total waiting time of 18.2 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of elective treatment.
"Wait times between 2012 and 2013 increased in both the segment between referral by a general practitioner and consultation with a specialist (rising to 8.6 weeks from 8.5 weeks in 2012), and the segment between a consultation with a specialist and receipt of treatment (rising to 9.6 weeks from 9.3 weeks in 2012). Physicians also indicate that Canadians wait almost 3 weeks longer than what they consider is clinically “reasonable” for elective treatment after an appointment with a specialist.
"There is also a great deal of variation in the total waiting time faced by patients across the provinces. While Ontario reports the shortest total wait in 2013 (13.7 weeks); Prince Edward Island reports the longest at 40.1 weeks. The same is true of variation among specialties. Patients wait longest between a GP referral and orthopaedic surgery (39.6 weeks), while those waiting for radiation oncology begin treatment in 3.5 weeks.
"Data from this year’s survey indicate that in 2013, across all 10 provinces people are waiting for an estimated 928,120 procedures. This means that, assuming that each person waits for only one procedure, 2.7 percent of Canadians are waiting for treatment."
more people doctors treat, the more they
get paid. There's no incentive in CA to speed
up the process, doctors make a flat salary.
Sucks to be a doctor in CA.
The place was packed at midnight. Not one person appeared to be sick or in distress.
I always thought that you went to emergency room if you think you might be dying or are in extreme pain. You know an emergency.
Quote: EvenBobThere's no wait time in the US because the
more people doctors treat, the more they
get paid. There's no incentive in CA to speed
up the process, doctors make a flat salary.
Sucks to be a doctor in CA.
Your wrong about no wait time in the US. Specifically to see a specialist in the US there is an average wait time of 20.5 days which I will freely admit is less then the 4 week average wait time for Canada but can we seriously knock of the hyperbole. US time is median over all patients patients on medicaid can and do experience longer wait times.
Quote: TwirdmanSpecifically to see a specialist in the US there is an average wait time of 20.5 days .
And for every time you wait 3 weeks, you get in right
away. You never get in right away in CA.
Quote: EvenBobAnd for every time you wait 3 weeks, you get in right
away. You never get in right away in CA.
I don't even know what you mean by this? 3 weeks is not no wait time and after 3 weeks you don't get in right away there is also a wait in the waiting area. I mean I have no idea what you are saying.
I mean it makes no sense it is tautologically true once your wait time is over you don't have to wait anymore. Its a vacuous statement and its true in both US and Canada.
What are your sources for those two numbers? The Fraser study posted on the previous page reported, "12 specialties and 10 Canadian provinces report a total waiting time of 18.2 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of elective treatment."Quote: TwirdmanTo see a specialist in the US there is an average wait time of 20.5 days which I will freely admit is less then the 4 week average wait time for Canada but can we seriously knock of the hyperbole.
My doctor makes me wait nearly a month for regular checkups. Come to think of it, I had to wait over a month to have my hernia repaired.Quote: EvenBobThere's no wait time in the US
Quote: AZDuffmanSupporters of the Canadian system say "Canadians live longer so the system must be better."
People with air conditioning live longer than people without air conditioning. Canada is colder than the U.S.. So much for the "Canadians live longer because of socialized health care" argument.
Quote: SanchoPanzaWhat are your sources for those two numbers? The Fraser study posted on the previous page reported, "12 specialties and 10 Canadian provinces report a total waiting time of 18.2 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of elective treatment."
Couldn't find links to original study which was done by Canada and was actually from 2006 so little outdated. The new number actually is 8.6 weeks" GP referral and specialist consultation increased to 8.6 weeks in 2013, up from 8.5 week in 2012."
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/wait-times-for-medical-treatment-getting-longer-report-1.1516817#ixzz2qtk8U6yr
The Frasier report refers to wait time between general practitioner to treatment while I was referring simply to seeing a doctor. The US number comes from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-06-03-waittimes_N.htm . Again this study was from 2009 sorry don't have more recent and just linked to article rather than actually report.
EDIT: Oh and just want to apologize for original mistake my fault for completely trusting wiki without checking source.
Quote: s2dbakerMy doctor makes me wait nearly a month for regular checkups. Come to think of it, I had to wait over a month to have my hernia repaired.
s2 must be yanking our chains with the 'regular checkup' comment. If it is a 'regular checkup', you must know about it months in advance, so there should be no problem in having options one month or later. I just made my 'regular checkup' appointment for June....
The hernia wait sounds a tad long, but my guess is you did not shop around, or did not want to. The particular surgeon you went to required you to wait that month. Free market.... you were free to call a different surgeon... say... "I am scheduled for 5 weeks from today, can you do it two weeks from today?" Bet you would get a lot of yesses... I KNOW it would work with a few of the doctors I work with...
Quote: SOOPOOs2 must be yanking our chains with the 'regular checkup' comment. If it is a 'regular checkup', you must know about it months in advance, so there should be no problem in having options one month or later. ..
If say up, s2 will say down. He's the troll in this
thread, anything to get a rise out of people.
Quote: EvenBobThere's no wait time in the US because the
more people doctors treat, the more they
get paid. There's no incentive in CA to speed
up the process, doctors make a flat salary.
Sucks to be a doctor in CA.
That is not true EB the doctors in Canada get paid by the visit not a salary. The government sets the per visit compensation.
Quote: SanchoPanzaWhat are your sources for those two numbers? The Fraser study posted on the previous page reported, "12 specialties and 10 Canadian provinces report a total waiting time of 18.2 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of elective treatment."
The same as his source for these numbers. Oh...wait...no numbers, no proof, just "You're wrong" and it's true because I said so. Standard lib argument. Never ends.
Quote: TwirdmanYeah the numbers you quoted were patently wrong though. The wait time is nowhere near 6 months for the average MRI. Just like the average cost of an illness is not 5 million dollars.
All the other stuff can be debated and the efficacy of the two different systems discussed. The overall cost could be discussed and the negatives of the wait times can all be weighed. The problem is when you start from false premises like the average wait time for an MRI is 6 months or the average illness cost millions of dollars to treat you can't get anywhere. Wait times are an issue as is medical bankruptcy so lets discuss those rational and with full detail.
I mean it is perfectly acceptable to talk about which system is better but lets not start by poisoning the well with lies.
Quote: anonimussThe same as his source for these numbers. Oh...wait...no numbers, no proof, just "You're wrong" and it's true because I said so. Standard lib argument. Never ends.
What numbers there the only numbers in that entire post are numbers I said were clearly wrong like the 5 million dollar cost of illness or the 6 month wait time for an MRI. hat numbers to you want evidence for since I can't provide it since those numbers are wrong.
" The wait for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan has decreased to 8.4 weeks in 2012
from 9.2 weeks in 2011." From http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/waiting-your-turn-2012.pdf . Again can't provide evidence for the 6 month wait time or the 5 million dollars since its crap. But 8.4 weeks clearly does not equal 6 months so that clearly shows that the 6 month statement was wrong.
Also I admit first numbers I used were wrong since I mistakenly trusted wikipedia but I then gave a link to the actual numbers.
Quote: kenarmanThat is not true EB the doctors in Canada get paid by the visit not a salary. The government sets the per visit compensation.
Whatever, they're getting screwed. Last year my
doctor said his doctor friends in CA are constantly
asking him if there are openings here. Soopoo said
they're always getting docs who want to come from
CA. They're severely underpaid for their talents.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/01/19/cancer-patients-treatment-put-on-hold-over-obamacare/?intcmp=latestnews
Quote: EvenBobWhatever, they're getting screwed. Last year my
doctor said his doctor friends in CA are constantly
asking him if there are openings here. Soopoo said
they're always getting docs who want to come from
CA. They're severely underpaid for their talents.
When posters here are using CA, are you referring to Canada or California? A few more letters please.
I guess I need to provide more info. I had signed up for Obamacare but then later got hired full-time so I now had yet another insurance provider. Not all that relevant but I didn't arrange for my regular appointment because I wasn't sure I could still see my doctor. Turns out that I can, she takes pretty much all insurance. So when I made the appointment, I got scheduled for 25ish days from when I called. She had to call in a temporary prescription for my blood-pressure medicine until then. So EvenBob is wrong again, glad he's consistent.Quote: SOOPOOs2 must be yanking our chains with the 'regular checkup' comment. If it is a 'regular checkup', you must know about it months in advance, so there should be no problem in having options one month or later. I just made my 'regular checkup' appointment for June....
I didn't have a choice in the matter. The insurance company was in control. I could have "free-market"ed my hernia out to the lowest bidder and paid for it myself but I had insurance and they called all the shots.Quote: SOOPOOThe hernia wait sounds a tad long, but my guess is you did not shop around, or did not want to. The particular surgeon you went to required you to wait that month. Free market.... you were free to call a different surgeon... say... "I am scheduled for 5 weeks from today, can you do it two weeks from today?" Bet you would get a lot of yesses... I KNOW it would work with a few of the doctors I work with...
Quote: petroglyphWhen posters here are using CA, are you referring to Canada or California? A few more letters please.
The term CA commonly means:
Canada, a nation on the North American continent
California, a U.S. state
Chartered Accountant
Compressed air, such as "CA Piping"
Certificate Authority
Cyanoacrylate, a chemical compound
Quote: EvenBobThe term CA commonly means:
Canada, a nation on the North American continent
California, a U.S. state
Chartered Accountant
Compressed air, such as "CA Piping"
Certificate Authority
Cyanoacrylate, a chemical compound
That really adds nothing he did mention it could be both California and Canada which are both things on your list. I mean seriously what was the point of that list?
He's old and doesn't have much time left with us in this realm. He has to abbreviate so Canada become CA because the four extra letters saves him a few minutes.Quote: TwirdmanThat really adds nothing he did mention it could be both California and Canada which are both things on your list. I mean seriously what was the point of that list?
Quote: TwirdmanThat really adds nothing he did mention it could be both California and Canada which are both things on your list. I mean seriously what was the point of that list?
That CA is legit, if you think it's Calif you aren't
paying attention. Canada is mentioned a thousand
times more often in this thread, if anything you
add letters when you mean Calif. Duh.
Quote: EvenBobThat CA is legit, if you think it's Calif you aren't
paying attention. Canada is mentioned a thousand
times more often in this thread, if anything you
add letters when you mean Calif. Duh.
It was an honest question, without an agenda.
I check into this thread occasionally to see if anything ever changes, I will admit that I haven't read all 205 pages to understand all the nuances. I was going for a shortcut, trying to figure out what you were saying.
You returned a fine example of the value of that exercise.
Quote: EvenBobThat CA is legit, if you think it's Calif you aren't
paying attention. Canada is mentioned a thousand
times more often in this thread, if anything you
add letters when you mean Calif. Duh.
CA for Canada does make total sense and yeah I understood you completely but you don't have to get defensive some people can legitimately think you mean California. When I first saw it I was thinking California but was able to infer from context you meant Canada. Why do you seem so angry that someone asked you which you meant.
I mean yes in this thread you would almost definitely mean Canada but there should be no harm in asking just to make sure everyone is on the same page.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe American system is based on private enterprise. You can choose anything from a concierge doctor all the way down to a free walk-in clinic. Wait times are minimal, usually mostly a matter of days. This comes at two prices. First is some people will be able to buy better care than others can buy. Second is even if your employer pays you have some form of direct payment. Some consumers still think a doctor's visit is supposed to be $10 and prescriptions $5. When they are confronted with the actual costs they see other countries that pay via "hidden" taxes and they think it is "free health care."
The problem is that private enterprise has gone amok. With the concentration in health care, tens of millions of people have ONE choice when it comes to insurance, and in those markets, it is Wellpoint or United Health Care, exclusively. That allows those companies to raise the insurance prices and raise deductibles and out-of-pockets, with impunity, because there is no competition. And they have done just that. There could be competition, but the competitor chooses not to compete, claiming that it would be too expensive to do so, when there is likely some agreement between the companies to keep the market exclusive.
Quote:
My position is that I prefer choices. I like the ability to fire someone if I do not like their service. Sometimes this means I may not get "the best thing available." Well, that is part of life. I do not want the government telling me what kind of care I need. I don't like others making choices for me, one reason I do not want to live under an HOA.
See above. And yeah, HOAs suck. We moved out because our HOA was forcing us to paint our fence. Screw them. Imagine then if the entire state of Alabama was one big HOA for health insurance. It is.
Quote:
There are too many people who just want someone else to take charge of the hard things in their life. But they do not realize how governments behave. Take away choice in health insurance and sooner or later, and probably sooner. the government starts telling you more and more how to live because "we need to control costs." Happens every time.
In our country, health care is such a priority that governments get voted in and out based on their policies.
Quote: s2dbakerI guess I need to provide more info. I had signed up for Obamacare but then later got hired full-time so I now had yet another insurance provider. Not all that relevant but I didn't arrange for my regular appointment because I wasn't sure I could still see my doctor. Turns out that I can, she takes pretty much all insurance. So when I made the appointment, I got scheduled for 25ish days from when I called. She had to call in a temporary prescription for my blood-pressure medicine until then. So EvenBob is wrong again, glad he's consistent.I didn't have a choice in the matter. The insurance company was in control. I could have "free-market"ed my hernia out to the lowest bidder and paid for it myself but I had insurance and they called all the shots.
Are you being serious? You have insurance that forces you to use a specific surgeon? No choice whatsoever? For a hernia, an operation any general surgeon can do? In Buffalo, I am guessing any of the major insurance companies (Blue Cross, Independent Health, or Univera) would have a list of around 10 options. Seriously, s2, what would you have done if you checked on the surgeon they said you must use and found he or she had some bad reviews... or you knew of some patients that had unexpected bad outcomes?
Quote: SOOPOOAbout the 'wait time' debates.... Sure... life or death situations get taken care of promptly on either side of the border.... but I'll give one specific example of what to ME would have been unacceptable waiting times.... In my previous job we did lithotripsies for kidney stones... periodically we would get a day of Canadians who did not want to wait additional weeks IN PAIN and were willing to pay for expedited care in the US... not a life or death emergency... but those who have suffered through kidney stones want them out yesterday..... Why so many lithotripters here and so few there? PROFIT motive!
That's something I haven't talked about. The reason that we experience shortages is that a great deal of our doctors head south for treatment. Another major issue is that operating rooms sit empty because the government only funds them for so many hours a day which essentially regulates the wait lists. The trend now in Canadian hospitals now is to take these "third party" people after hours. The loophole for jumping the queue in Canada is have ANY corporation write a check for the procedure. You can't jump the queue if you want to pay for it yourself, but if you are for example, self-employed, and your corporation pays for it, you can jump the queue and go to any hospital in Toronto and get treatment. It's really messed up.
Quote: SanchoPanzaSeeing that complaint unaccompanied by any details, this report by the liberal Fraser Institute will just have to stand on its own:
"This edition of Waiting Your Turn indicates that waiting times for elective medical treatment have increased since last year. Specialist physicians surveyed across 12 specialties and 10 Canadian provinces report a total waiting time of 18.2 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of elective treatment.
"Wait times between 2012 and 2013 increased in both the segment between referral by a general practitioner and consultation with a specialist (rising to 8.6 weeks from 8.5 weeks in 2012), and the segment between a consultation with a specialist and receipt of treatment (rising to 9.6 weeks from 9.3 weeks in 2012). Physicians also indicate that Canadians wait almost 3 weeks longer than what they consider is clinically “reasonable” for elective treatment after an appointment with a specialist.
"There is also a great deal of variation in the total waiting time faced by patients across the provinces. While Ontario reports the shortest total wait in 2013 (13.7 weeks); Prince Edward Island reports the longest at 40.1 weeks. The same is true of variation among specialties. Patients wait longest between a GP referral and orthopaedic surgery (39.6 weeks), while those waiting for radiation oncology begin treatment in 3.5 weeks.
"Data from this year’s survey indicate that in 2013, across all 10 provinces people are waiting for an estimated 928,120 procedures. This means that, assuming that each person waits for only one procedure, 2.7 percent of Canadians are waiting for treatment."
The Fraser Institute is a well known conservative think tank, but those numbers are accurate. I sincerely doubt the numbers for PEI are accurate based on sample sizes.
Quote: EvenBobThere's no wait time in the US because the
more people doctors treat, the more they
get paid. There's no incentive in CA to speed
up the process, doctors make a flat salary.
Sucks to be a doctor in CA.
No, doctors get paid per procedure and the more procedures they do, the more money they make. Completely wrong.
