The Real Canadian Health Care

[rgraham666]

Because Obama is the source of all evuhl on this planet.

 

[Guest]

Obama isn't talking about the government taking over health care.

He's talking about the government offering health care insurance.

Why can't you people see the difference?

Because they don't want to see the difference.

I've gone into great detail about my husband's health issues, of course, so I won't do that here, but as the bills begin to roll in the numbers are making my head swim.

Before insurance kicks in the bill from the two surgeons is nearly $20,000.

Ambulance and EMT is $600.

Other labwork is trickling in - multiple accounts - but it is also in the hundreds.

But it's the bill from the hospital, the ten-day stay that made my eyes cross. It's almost $290,000 before insurance.

Most people have a copay of sorts. Ten or twenty percent.

Luckily once we reach a certain limit out of pocket they'll cover at 100% but we're still going to pay thousands for this experience. Thousands.

It's insane.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DOC

Do your homework. The CBO and plenty others say it wont reduce costs and MEDICARE-MEDICAID are in trouble, especially with Boomers such as me ready to climb aboard.

What Obamacare means is 2 kinds of health coverage: A Medicare type plan that lets you augment it with out of pocket options (such as already exists for Medicare) and a Medicaid type HMO for working stiffs....something like Medipass.

Everyone has to sign up, and everyone has to pay, and Medicare-Medicaid are saved, for the moment. The guvmint has got to find new revenue streams for Medicare-Medcaid, and this is how theyre doing it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I just read a David Broder column. He pretty much says the same as me and NY TIMES. Obama is frantic to get a healthcare plan into law, but his wont help a thing. Broder suggests Obama needs to take it nice & easy and do it right, rather than act like a 16 year old with his first piece of ass.

 

[R. Richard]

The problem with government based health plans is that they inevitably involve loss of choice. If you don't like your private insurance plan, you can at least try to find another private insurance plan. If you don't like a government based health plan, you don't really have a choice.

A private company that provides substandard service will go out of business. If the government provides substandard service, your elected representative will make a speech.

 

[Liar]

In America we pay for medical treatments a la carte. MDs and nurses waste gobs of time specifying every little billable unit they performed so the billing clerk can milk the patients insurance. This accounts for the long delays in our emergency rooms; staff are in the lounge writing detailed notes for the billing clerk. The system has reduced everyone to a clerk and scribbler, to get the money.

Hospitals and MDs buy all kinds of Flash Gordon toys they can bill for. You may not use them in your treatment, but your MD adds them to the treatment order and you pay for them. Ditto for your sleeping pills and pain killers. You may not use them but you pay for them because the MD puts them on the treatment order. Unused meds is where nurses get their illicit supplies. Its the a la carte business, again.

MDs and hospitals can bill for lab work, so you get lotsa tests.

If we switched to a Scope of Work system, the hospitals would bid for the whole process and eliminate the unnecessary and unused procedures, to save time and money.

In a perfect world, that's what I'd envision for private health care. I have a Condition, and I need a Treatment, so I shop around for the best package deal, and choose that hospital. If that means cutting edge gear, comfy hospital beds, friendly staff or more likely low prices, is up to me.

The only problem is, it takes time and effort to be an informed customer, and that premise of free competition is out of play when your appendix just burst. Urgency makes for temporal monopolies.

 

[Liar]

The problem with government based health plans is that they inevitably involve loss of choice. If you don't like your private insurance plan, you can at least try to find another private insurance plan. If you don't like a government based health plan, you don't really have a choice.

Why do you assume that government provideed health care is equal to government health care mononpoly?

O'er here, we have public hospitals, dentists and special clinics. As well as private ones, side by side. Public health care is not free, but reasonably affordable, and heavily subsidized for the really expensive stuff, like long term rehabilitation. You can also apply for grants that subsidize up to the same level at a private hospital. But their service is more expensive, so you eventually have to dish out more from your own pocket.

A private company that provides substandard service will go out of business. If the government provides substandard service, your elected representative will make a speech.

True. For some reason though, my elected representatoive don't need to make any speeches about that. Our government hospitals provides perfectly on par service.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LIAR doesnt get it.

Obama isnt pushing a government plan that co-exists with private insurance, he's pushing a government plan managed by HMOs who offer supplementary options. I mean, theres no effing way he and Michelle and Hillary are gonna wait in line with you to see a doctor. They'll have the supplements that allow them to shove your ass out of line when they come in the door. And you can have the supplements, too, if you have the bucks. Otherwise sign up to see the MD, take 2 aspirin, and check back every day.

 

[TE999]

Let's make a deal then. You don't give us the "socaliced medicine is satan because anything the government touch turns to shit" tripe, and we won't gave you the "private corporations are only in it to squeeze money out of people and don't give a damn about their well being" tripe.

Ok?



ps. About government running things: The three most profitable service enterprises in Sweden, if we talk return ratio, are the national Post service, government owned cargo ports, and one just recently privatized telecom entity. Then comes IKEA. Don't take a dime of tax money to run, and return a hefty profit for the state. Because they are more streamlined, less buerocratic and less bound by sort term result demands than the private competition. Also, they have well working unionization (yes, it's possible, it CAN work well), which means a low employee turnover and good working conditions, something that turned out to be good for the bottom line in the long run.

Just sayin' .

To begin with, I have never framed my contributions to this thread in such antagonistic hyperbole as you have claimed in your generalistic statement. I'll thank you not to refer to them as such.

Just sayin'.

I'm sure you are eminently satisfied with the state of affairs in your country, after all you have known nothing else. Also, I am fairly positive things aren't as flawless as you describe them; realistically, nothing is. That being said, an overwhelming majority (I have seen figures as high as 97% of citizens polled) in the US are perfectly satisfied with their health care as it currently exists.

The rationale of discarding or disrupting what is extant in the health care system in favor of accommodating the uninsured citizenry is foolish in the extreme. Ideally, a system of multi-tiered health care services should be made available relating to the severity of the illness or injury and ones ability to pay. This, however, would immediately inflame the 'fairness' and 'equality' advocates, so it will never happen.

I imagine some temporarily workable compromise will be cobbled together that will initially please everyone...repeated tinkering by Congress with said compromise when goaded by various and sundry pressure groups will in time produce the predictable chaos. The histories of numerous federal programs bear this out.

Only time and the politics of the situation will tell.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

To begin with, I have never framed my contributions to this thread in such antagonistic hyperbole as you have claimed in your generalistic statement. I'll thank you not to refer to them as such.

Just sayin'.

I'm sure you are eminently satisfied with the state of affairs in your country, after all you have known nothing else. Also, I am fairly positive things aren't as flawless as you describe them; realistically, nothing is. That being said, an overwhelming majority (I have seen figures as high as 97% of citizens polled) in the US are perfectly satisfied with their health care as it currently exists.

The rationale of discarding or disrupting what is extant in the health care system in favor of accommodating the uninsured citizenry is foolish in the extreme. Ideally, a system of multi-tiered health care services should be made available relating to the severity of the illness or injury and ones ability to pay. This, however, would immediately inflame the 'fairness' and 'equality' advocates, so it will never happen.

I imagine some temporarily workable compromise will be cobbled together that will initially please everyone...repeated tinkering by Congress with said compromise when goaded by various and sundry pressure groups will in time produce the predictable chaos. The histories of numerous federal programs bear this out.

Only time and the politics of the situation will tell.

Social Security being the greatest example. First off, it really never expected to pay out much because most people died before they hit 64. However, the WWII wage base grew so much and the '50's were so profitable that the Administration ran up huge surpluses. Naturally, Congress chose to use the surplus to give additional benefits that were never figured to be part of the system. It bought votes. Now, even though SS itself is solvent, the added on Medicare will go broke trying to take care of all the Boomers who have outlived their health.

Now, reality is that universal health care in any country is rationed. It has to be and it will be here. Anyone who wants only the limited care provided by the universal system, however it's funded, will actually be taken care of rather well. When certain unusual procedures are called for, though, they will have to be paid for out-of-pocket. So long as it can be kept that way, things will be fine but, as Tom pointed out, there will be the 12-year-old whimpering of "But that's not fae-yer!" I fear for the country's ability to to answer, "You're right. So?"

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Poeple will whimper that the pols and perfumed princes shove them out of line, get the wonder drugs & surgical wizards, and dry-out at Betty Ford, while the pissants wait, chew aspirin, and sleep it off in jail.

 

[Liar]

LIAR hasn't said what Obama is pushing or not. Pay attention.

 

[R. Richard]

Why do you assume that government provideed health care is equal to government health care mononpoly?

O'er here, we have public hospitals, dentists and special clinics. As well as private ones, side by side. Public health care is not free, but reasonably affordable, and heavily subsidized for the really expensive stuff, like long term rehabilitation. You can also apply for grants that subsidize up to the same level at a private hospital. But their service is more expensive, so you eventually have to dish out more from your own pocket.
True. For some reason though, my elected representatoive don't need to make any speeches about that. Our government hospitals provides perfectly on par service.

You tell me that you have two service providers, side by side, supplying the same services with one charging more than the other and both providers remain in business? Truly your screen name fits. What you're attempting to tell me violates one of the few laws of economics that actually works.

 

[R. Richard]

Letme try to point out some of the economic insanity that a government run health system will cause.

In the area where I live, there is a part of town called 'Mex Town.' There is a medical clinic in Mex Town. All of the health workers in the Mex Town clinic speak fluent Spanish and also read both Spanish and American. The hiring is done in Spanish and a little American. The applicant is then required to read both Spanish and American. The clients mostly speak Spanish and the records and medications are all in American. The Mex Town clinic pays good wages for the area and there are a lot of people who want to work there. They have no trouble recruiting qualified health workers.

Now, lets go to a government run medical clinic. Each government run medical clinic in the area will need to always have someone on duty who can speak Spanish and American and also read both languages. If a patient comes in who only speaks Spanish, the bilingual person will have to be assigned to that patient. The second Spanish speaking patient will just have to wait.

In the Mex Town clinic, ALL of the health care workers are bilingual. If a Spanish speaking patient comes into a non-Mex Town clinic for an emergency, the Mex Town clinic provides Spanish to American translation gratis, as a service to the community. This is in a for profit environment. In a government run medical clinic, there will need to be a lot of bilingual health care $taff.

If you think that a governmant run system will save money, you need medical help.

 

[Liar]

To begin with, I have never framed my contributions to this thread in such antagonistic hyperbole as you have claimed in your generalistic statement. I'll thank you not to refer to them as such.

Just sayin'.

Fair enuff. I'll dial it down.

I'm sure you are eminently satisfied with the state of affairs in your country, after all you have known nothing else.

On the other hand... Let's make another deal. I'll refrain from hyperboles, when you refrain from patronizing assumptions that I'm an idiot who don't know what the hell I'm talking about because I have yet to experience the Glory that is America.

For the record, I've lived in and experienced the health care systems of Sweden, Finland, Italy, Russia, the UK and, yes, the US. Finland was best, Russia was scary, and the rest were prety much equal (in terms of quality of service).

And no, I'm not saying that the system here is perfect. I don't know where you got that from. Like you say, no system is. I'm just sick and tired of the assumption that keeps rearing it's ugly head that socialized health care equals inferior service. It may. Or it may not.

 

[Liar]

You tell me that you have two service providers, side by side, supplying the same services with one charging more than the other and both providers remain in business? Truly your screen name fits. What you're attempting to tell me violates one of the few laws of economics that actually works.

How good then that that was not what I'm attempting to tell you.

 

[oggbashan]

You tell me that you have two service providers, side by side, supplying the same services with one charging more than the other and both providers remain in business? Truly your screen name fits. What you're attempting to tell me violates one of the few laws of economics that actually works.

Yes, they do stay in business but because they DON'T provide exactly the same services.

In the UK, private health care, whether funded by insurance or by the patient buying services themselves, gives a more comfortable experience and for some conditions a faster treatment than the NHS.

The NHS provides fast emergency care for which the private sector is not equipped, and covers all life-threatening and chronic conditions. It cannot provide the excellent hotel facilities that are part of the private package, nor fund expensive treatments that are considered to be of limited value. It is worst at dealing quickly with conditions that are not life-threatening but reduce the patient's quality of life such as joint-replacements. It stays well clear of elective cosmetic surgery except reconstructive work after burns or accidents.

Most people in the UK who can afford private medical insurance know what they are buying - faster treatment and a much better standard of comfort when in hospital.

If I have a new medical problem I have four choices - NHS medical care at no cost to me; claim on my private medical insurance IF it covers what is wrong; use the hospital provided by my mutual society; and pay for private care out of my own pocket. I have never used the hospital provided by the mutual society but I have used all the other three methods when appropriate.

Og

 

[R. Richard]

Yes, they do stay in business but because they DON'T provide exactly the same services.

In the UK, private health care, whether funded by insurance or by the patient buying services themselves, gives a more comfortable experience and for some conditions a faster treatment than the NHS.

The NHS provides fast emergency care for which the private sector is not equipped, and covers all life-threatening and chronic conditions. It cannot provide the excellent hotel facilities that are part of the private package, nor fund expensive treatments that are considered to be of limited value. It is worst at dealing quickly with conditions that are not life-threatening but reduce the patient's quality of life such as joint-replacements. It stays well clear of elective cosmetic surgery except reconstructive work after burns or accidents.

Most people in the UK who can afford private medical insurance know what they are buying - faster treatment and a much better standard of comfort when in hospital.

If I have a new medical problem I have four choices - NHS medical care at no cost to me; claim on my private medical insurance IF it covers what is wrong; use the hospital provided by my mutual society; and pay for private care out of my own pocket. I have never used the hospital provided by the mutual society but I have used all the other three methods when appropriate.

Og

From what I know of the UK NHS [just what I read in the Sun,] the 'faster treatment' may be because of no treatment by the NHS. [I understand that some treatments are not abvailable for the elderly.]

I would not be so much concerned about the 'better standard of comfort when in hospital,' as I would be of reported [Sun again] unsanitary conditions in at least some of the NHS facilities.

From what you're telling me, there are deficiencies in all of your four choices for medical care. You pick and chose the best suited choice for the specific problem. Well and good, if you have a choice.

In Hawaii, the state set up Keike [child] Care, to insure that all children would be insured. Even those with private insurance dropped that coverage to get the free Kieke Care. The State of Hawaii then dropped Keike Care, since they couldn't afford to pay for it. Commonwealth Care in Massachusetts is going down the same path. The much vaunted Canadian health care system is augmented by for pay clinics just across the US border.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

OGG

There is no way in Hell any government agency will ever provide adequate anything. Every government agency that ever existed did two tasks, and two tasks only: disberse cash and lick the asses of pols and their benefactors.

 

[Liar]

There have been plenty of third-party reviews of different health providers' quality, and the government option never falls behind on the "ability to heal the sick and fix the broken" criteria. If I go to the public hospital or the private with the same aliement (sp?), you have the same odds of walking out healthy. But that is not the only factor that private hospitals and clinics can compete with. You mentioned one - multilingual service. We have many persian, kurdish and arab emigrants in my town. There's a private practice there that specializes in not only arabic and farsi personell, but also people who are well versed in their customs and culture. The public hospital does have the required translators, but is impersonal, business like and makes many people unfamiliar with Swedish culture uncomfortable. So they pay a little extra for personal service and familiarity.

Other places offer swifter service for non-emergency treatment, private rooms for longer stays, alternative treatments, and much more.

It's like beer. Cheap beer gets you drunk as much as expensive beer. Why is there still expensive beer?

 

[oggbashan]

All the arguments about health care in other countries come back to the same question:

Why does the US pay more, about twice as much, for health care and NOT treat everyone?

That is a problem for the US to solve.

It may be worth looking at the different ways that other countries have taken to provide health care for all their citizens but the solution must be suitable for the US.

I don't have the answer. It took a massive political gamble to establish health care for all in the UK but now all main political parties wouldn't change the principle of health care being available for all. Our system may be imperfect, may need radical change, might cost too much, do too little but we wouldn't scrap it - just try to improve it.

Og

 

[R. Richard]

There have been plenty of third-party reviews of different health providers' quality, and the government option never falls behind on the "ability to heal the sick and fix the broken" criteria. If I go to the public hospital or the private with the same aliement (sp?), you have the same odds of walking out healthy. But that is not the only factor that private hospitals and clinics can compete with. You mentioned one - multilingual service. We have many persian, kurdish and arab emigrants in my town. There's a private practice there that specializes in not only arabic and farsi personell, but also people who are well versed in their customs and culture. The public hospital does have the required translators, but is impersonal, business like and makes many people unfamiliar with Swedish culture uncomfortable. So they pay a little extra for personal service and familiarity.

Other places offer swifter service for non-emergency treatment, private rooms for longer stays, alternative treatments, and much more.

It's like beer. Cheap beer gets you drunk as much as expensive beer. Why is there still expensive beer?

Oh yeah?
Saskatchewan's 22-month wait for an MRI is "almost criminal" says radiologists' association

Saskatchewan is under fire for having the longest waiting time in the country for a diagnostic MRI — a whopping 22 months.

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) describes the situation as "almost criminal" and warned that the province could face legal action from patients. "Denial of care is a violation of the Canada Health Act," said chief executive Dr. Normand Laberge. "To use an expression, they are getting away with murder."

"Waiting a year for a diagnosis of MS is the difference between quality of life and death."

Saskatchewan Minister of Health John Nilson agreed the wait is too long, but denied it is hurting patients.

"We're having some challenges right now," said Nilson. "If you have an emergency situation, you can get an MRI right away. That is how our system works."

He said only elective procedures, including follow-up MRIs for cases already diagnosed, wait longer than about 7 months.

About 4500 people are now waiting for an MRI in Saskatchewan. The province has 3 MRI machines, but a 1999 CAR report estimated at least 5 are needed to meet the needs of 1 million people.

"The challenge for us is that doctors are finding more and more effective uses for MRIs," said Nilson. He said the first priority is to make more efficient use of the existing MRIs by operating them on evenings and weekends. He said his goal is to cut the waiting time to 6 months, and he may consider buying a fourth MRI this year.

Saskatchewan's NDP government has steadfastly refused to allow private MRI clinics, fearing it would create 2-tiered health care.

The problem is, a free health care system must view an MRI machine as an expense. A for profit health care system will view an MRI machine as a profit making machine. The Minister of Health claims that, "If you have an emergency situation, you can get an MRI right away. That is how our system works." Given the idea of a "6 month wait" as a goal, I wonder exactly what 'right away' means.

If you drink beer to get drunk, any beer with the same alcohol contant will work. If you drink beer because you like the effect of drinking beer, you pay extra for the good stuff.

I do know that Canadian patients who have the money and think that 22 months is too long to wait for an MRI come to the US. Answer me this, 'How do you know that your medical condition is/isn't an emergency until you get your MRI done?'

 

[R. Richard]

Man, 22, Dies After Liver Transplant Refused

A 22-year-old alcoholic has died after being refused a life-saving liver transplant because he was too ill to leave hospital and prove he could stay sober.

Gary Reinbach, who died in hospital on Monday from a severe case of liver cirrhosis, did not qualify for a donor liver under strict NHS rules.

The alcoholic, from Dagenham, Essex, had admitted binge drinking since he was 13 but was only taken to hospital for the first time with liver problems 10 weeks ago.

He was never discharged.

His mother Madeline Hanshaw, 44, said: "These rules are really unfair."

She told the Evening Standard: "I'm not saying you should give a transplant to someone who is in and out of hospital all the time and keeps damaging themselves, but just for people like Gary, who made a mistake and never got a second chance."

She said he was "desperate to recover" but had deteriorated quickly.

 

[Liar]

Oh yeah?

I had to consult a Swedish map, and the online Yellow Pages to be sure. But now I'm fairly positive that there is no place called Saskatchewan in Sweden, which I thought I made it obviously clear was where said review was made.

 

[oggbashan]

Man, 22, Dies After Liver Transplant Refused

A 22-year-old alcoholic has died after being refused a life-saving liver transplant because he was too ill to leave hospital and prove he could stay sober.

...

That story had nothing to do with the effectiveness or otherwise of the UK's National Health Service but was about the shortage of organ donations.

Organ donation in the UK has reduced because road traffic accident victims who used to die young and healthy are now more likely to survive. The causes of their increased survival rates are better in-car protection and fast professional response from the emergency teams (NHS).

We have fewer road deaths than we used to have. A young severe alcoholic who has ignored all warning signs would not be a high priority donor recipient in any country.

Unfortunately it seems that there will be many more young people with severe liver damage from alcohol.

Og