This Would Absolutely Never Happen In America
- Thread starter hellblazer
- Start date
LOL at that ad (err 'true story').
I'm from Canada, eh. Been here most of my life. Will say I can't compare it to other versions of health care from personal experience, but I've never waited long in emergency rooms, doc's offices, hospitals, sex clinics or the like. When it comes to surgeries or more life threatening issues, I'm sure it's hit/miss everywhere like this ladies 4th surgeon. To pinpoint a sad story like this, is like me saying 'go watch 'sicko''.
Not saying O's plan is good or bad, but to make our whole countries health care system look like that ad, is fubar. Not sure why they thought it was a good idea to bash Canadians like this for the sake of derailing O's plan... Fail imo.
I'm from Canada, eh. Been here most of my life. Will say I can't compare it to other versions of health care from personal experience, but I've never waited long in emergency rooms, doc's offices, hospitals, sex clinics or the like. When it comes to surgeries or more life threatening issues, I'm sure it's hit/miss everywhere like this ladies 4th surgeon. To pinpoint a sad story like this, is like me saying 'go watch 'sicko''.
Not saying O's plan is good or bad, but to make our whole countries health care system look like that ad, is fubar. Not sure why they thought it was a good idea to bash Canadians like this for the sake of derailing O's plan... Fail imo.
the main thing I've seen that's a big problem is the wait for major surgeries, i.e. bypass surgery. All of the provincial healthcare sites show 180+ days for heart surgery, which sometimes can be necessary ASAP
On the grand scheme of things though, there will always be certain things that require more attention/money/waiting periods/etc. no matter what system is in place. This is nit-picking at one issue vs. the whole structure/final result for all/greater good.
I dunno what would be required for a bypass here vs. there, but I do know that for 90% other health issues/resources/costs, I'd rather have a health care system that isn't frauded to shit by insurance CO's and huge costs/waits for everything, not just important/surgery type issues... Again not from personal experience but from observing.
It just seems the health + privately held CO's there are more in tune with each other, and it's more about money, less about equality for all (like there is here). **I CRINGE when I see the 'do you wake up feeling...? you need..." ads on the US TV networks, more side effects than there is time in the ad to say them at normal speed et al.
Anyway, back on topic - I don't personally know anyone like the lady above - but can tell you personal stories about many friends, pregnancy complications, surgeries, dentist visits, hospital/doctors visits, broken bones (< me included), heart attack victims, emergency room/ambulance needs where it's a happy ending and it's pretty much free-for life.
A true competitive private system would be lower costing than either, right now in the USA it's corporatist and allows for in-state monopolies due to anti-competitive laws. The reason I mentioned bypass specifically was my father was diagnosed as needing one, and soon. He was in surgery the next day, and has recovered since. 180 day wait would have killed him
You're right, the video must be a paid advertisement(probably those evil insurance companies!). I bet that's not even a real Canadian!
And I'm sure that happens everywhere, that a person with excruciating back pain gets denied treatment from the government for years because they're too young, or because they haven't been on a waiting list long enough.
Why, I'm sure the exact same thing happens in the U.S.! "Hit or miss", dontcha know!
And of course, you haven't had to wait long at all in sex clinics or emergency rooms. So it's all a wash! We can all relax now!
Great points!
Don't worry guys. There will not be Obamacare, ever.
Look at intrade:
Intrade Prediction Markets
A whopping 2% chance of healthcare reform passing.
Look at intrade:
Intrade Prediction Markets
A whopping 2% chance of healthcare reform passing.
The current healthcare bill doesn't create a government-run healthcare system, it creates a government-run insurer - It won't create any sort of waiting lists or increase in waiting time over what already exists. It would simply be another player in the insurance market, and what you should be concerned about, is unfair competition to the private insurance sector that could eventually have negative effects on those companies and their policyholders, and not scare tactics... Since private insurers will still exist, if a government option results in lower quality of care for those in that plan, they will just find another insurer. Doctors aren't forced to take a public option, like the current situation where doctors can refuse to accept Medicare patients.
Raw data - wait times vary by Provence and type, but they can be bad in cases - Wait Times for Health Care in Canada - Provincial Data on Wait Times for Health Care in Canada
As for the US vs Canada and other countries - Waiting Times For Care? Try Looking At The U.S. - Nurses, Doctors Say It's Time To Debunk The Myths - "A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the U.S., and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, found waiting times were worse in the U.S. than in all the other countries except Canada."
Sad thing is, that under todays conditions, wait times are better than Canada, but the whole insurance system of pre-approvals and administrators (and not doctors) determining what is "medically necessary", that shit goes wrong. Having doctors in my family, I've seen the kind of shit that insurance companies pull on both doctors and patients. Insurance companies squeeze doctors for all they're worth (tip: never work in an industry where no matter how much you raise your rates, high percentages of patients are in insurance plans where the plan sets the rate, and the doctor's asking price doesn't matter. Those without insurance just go to the ER once they're sick and don't pay.). And there's stupid regulations where insurance companies refuse to pay for an initial consultation visit and a treatment visit during the same appointment, forcing people to take more time off from work, and go to a doctor a 2nd time to get something treated that could have been taken care of in one instance (and the only thing that sometimes helps is having the employee's company's HR/benefits department call the insurer and bitch them out for causing the company lost productivity).
Tort reform is also needed to help control costs and stop certain practice areas like anesthesiology from losing good practitioners, since they can't keep up with malpractice insurance (Republicans are for it, dems against).
A government option won't fix the system, yet the existing private system won't fix itself. However, there needs to be a system that allows insurance competition out of state, with a real open market. We need health insurance exchanges with real competition - We need small business risk pooling to make insurance more affordable for small businesses and employees. A doctor in my family, with a solo medical practice (1 doctor, 1.75 FTE) can't afford to cover health insurance for himself and his employees due to the current market, but he and his employees are all covered on their spouses' plans, at reasonable rates. Is there really a difference in risk depending on what company they work for, and the size of that company? Just risk pool more small businesses at once, and the cost miraculously drops! A large health-care cooperative, (even initially backed by a government funding/reserves to get things up and running without a typical capitalization phase, if private lenders weren't available) would be a great mid-ground strategy (credit unions work well for the interests of their members, yet typical banks still exist), but dems think it's too far from a public option, and republicans think it's too close to a public option. It's the same model as mutual life insurance companies, which thrive and compete with non-mutual life insurers.
And "Obama-Care"? Last I checked, these were bills being written in congress, and don't quite go as far as President Obama wanted reform to go.
And before I'm attacked here for being a raging liberal, most of my talking points on what needs to be done are practically straight out of Republican strategies on healthcare. Unfortunately, moderates and independent thinkers (often where the solution lies) in Congress may not exist, and are quite absent from WickedFire these days, too.
Raw data - wait times vary by Provence and type, but they can be bad in cases - Wait Times for Health Care in Canada - Provincial Data on Wait Times for Health Care in Canada
As for the US vs Canada and other countries - Waiting Times For Care? Try Looking At The U.S. - Nurses, Doctors Say It's Time To Debunk The Myths - "A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the U.S., and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, found waiting times were worse in the U.S. than in all the other countries except Canada."
Sad thing is, that under todays conditions, wait times are better than Canada, but the whole insurance system of pre-approvals and administrators (and not doctors) determining what is "medically necessary", that shit goes wrong. Having doctors in my family, I've seen the kind of shit that insurance companies pull on both doctors and patients. Insurance companies squeeze doctors for all they're worth (tip: never work in an industry where no matter how much you raise your rates, high percentages of patients are in insurance plans where the plan sets the rate, and the doctor's asking price doesn't matter. Those without insurance just go to the ER once they're sick and don't pay.). And there's stupid regulations where insurance companies refuse to pay for an initial consultation visit and a treatment visit during the same appointment, forcing people to take more time off from work, and go to a doctor a 2nd time to get something treated that could have been taken care of in one instance (and the only thing that sometimes helps is having the employee's company's HR/benefits department call the insurer and bitch them out for causing the company lost productivity).
Tort reform is also needed to help control costs and stop certain practice areas like anesthesiology from losing good practitioners, since they can't keep up with malpractice insurance (Republicans are for it, dems against).
A government option won't fix the system, yet the existing private system won't fix itself. However, there needs to be a system that allows insurance competition out of state, with a real open market. We need health insurance exchanges with real competition - We need small business risk pooling to make insurance more affordable for small businesses and employees. A doctor in my family, with a solo medical practice (1 doctor, 1.75 FTE) can't afford to cover health insurance for himself and his employees due to the current market, but he and his employees are all covered on their spouses' plans, at reasonable rates. Is there really a difference in risk depending on what company they work for, and the size of that company? Just risk pool more small businesses at once, and the cost miraculously drops! A large health-care cooperative, (even initially backed by a government funding/reserves to get things up and running without a typical capitalization phase, if private lenders weren't available) would be a great mid-ground strategy (credit unions work well for the interests of their members, yet typical banks still exist), but dems think it's too far from a public option, and republicans think it's too close to a public option. It's the same model as mutual life insurance companies, which thrive and compete with non-mutual life insurers.
And "Obama-Care"? Last I checked, these were bills being written in congress, and don't quite go as far as President Obama wanted reform to go.
And before I'm attacked here for being a raging liberal, most of my talking points on what needs to be done are practically straight out of Republican strategies on healthcare. Unfortunately, moderates and independent thinkers (often where the solution lies) in Congress may not exist, and are quite absent from WickedFire these days, too.
Right, because there's no such thing as a Republican liberal, right??
Just curious - if their system is so awesome, how come we're the best nation in cancer survival rates?
We need more emphasis on wellness and preventative medicine, our obesity rates and death probably make up for the cancer survival rate. Not government, just in general.
And hellblazer took the bait and is on the defensive! Um, where did I say that the Canadian system was awesome? I pointed out that a) they have worse wait times than the US, and b) a link to Provence by Provence wait times, by medical procedure (via About.com's link).
And I agree with papajohn56 that preventative medicine is another key to lowering the cost of healthcare in the long run - There's a reason why dental plans cover preventative checkups, and that's because someone along the way figured out it was easier and cheaper to pay for checkups to catch problems early, than to fix problems after they've gone uncaught and turned into large problems. That's a benefit to the policyholder, the shareholders, and to the system as a whole.
I'm not talking about the Canadian system - I'm talking about every single healthcare system besides the U.S.'
We're better than all of them in cancer prevention and treatment. The reason is because we do massive screening.
In other countries, they limit screening to control costs. Less screening = less detection = more cancer deaths.
Thankfully, Obama will be able to fix our horrendous health care system pretty soon, though. Thank God he was elected by the great people of America!
I said we have longer wait times, not that we're better. Maybe the reason why we have longer wait times is because we dedicate more resources to prevention than the other countries, resulting in better care. You can't really argue that the current insurance environment in the US isn't set up in the same way as those other markets, that you pointed out are putting an emphasis on cost control. Treatment or appointments to see a specialist are regularly declined in the US due to cost control...
And I'm loving your Obama comments - I haven't seen one person in this thread praise Obama, yet you keep responding as if someone does. Not comfortable enough with your own position?
Insurance costs need to be brought down for sure. 80% of healthcare costs in the US go towards elderly patients. The US also invests more money into research than any other country as well. But thats not the issue either. The rpoblem with healthcare in the US is that any dumb schmoe can sue a doctor for anything. If they cap that the costs go down since it will lower the insurance for malpractice the hospitals need.
Canada has a healthcare system thats based on Universal but even they are moving away from that. More and more private offices/practices are opening up in Canada. So people that do not want to wait to get something done can go private or travel to the states like a lot do. Although the poorer canucks are screwed because they cant afford to go south to speed up their wait.
Every healthcare system in the world has issues. US is no different. But taking and totally revamping 1/6th of the GDP is an idiotic move. The insurance companies already said they are for it as long as the Govt mandates all Young people to have insurance to offset the costs of seniors.
Left or Right they are both going to screw it up period. Lower the damn lawsuits / damages like texas did. Texas passed a law that caps damages at 20 times the dead persons or injured persons salary + 1 million dollars. That gets rid of all of these welfare mooches suing a hospital for wrongful deaths for 20-40 million dollars when there actual income is 20k a yr.
For the sake of argument, let's suppose that relying upon the state to provide "affordable" health insurance for all citizens has zero impact on the level of service (i.e. wait times, approved procedures, etc.). It's a huge assumption (and wrong) and I'll come back to it in a moment. For now, let's set aside the tragic tales and focus solely on the economics.
From where does the money come to pay for this "affordable" insurance? Productive sectors.
Where does the money go? Unproductive sectors.
By what means does this transfer occur? Coercive action by the state.
The voluntary exchange of private property for something deemed valuable ultimately leads to a higher level of societal prosperity. Anything that gets in the way of that exchange retards that mechanism. Obstacles to a voluntary exchange include legislation, regulation, licensure, taxes, and other levers employed by the state.
Coercive state action that forces private property from productive sectors into unproductive sectors robs society of value. This is what the state means to do through health care reform.
Let's make it personal.
Suppose you make $700,000 this year. What would you do with the money that you will end up paying in taxes (whether to subsidize "affordable" health care, wars, social security, etc.)? Would you buy a car? Take a vacation? Invest in companies that will use your capital to fund research and development? Launch more companies?
There are thousands of ways you might spend/save/invest that money. And each time you voluntarily exchange money (or anything that may be considered private property) for something you want, you raise the level of prosperity in society.
Now, back to the alleged problems of wait times and unapproved procedures that supposedly exist in a state-managed health care system. In such a system, competition is retarded. Legislation prevents competition between states. Licensure lowers competition by reducing the number of doctors, nurses, and other caregivers that are available to help customers (i.e. patients). There are other hurdles to competition, but the above are sufficient to make the case.
In a free market with unrestrained competition, there would be no shortages. If someone wants to voluntarily acquire a thing, another person will produce it for a negotiated price. This is true between buyer and seller, laborer and employer, and caregiver and patient.
Because a state-managed health care system reduces competition, shortages of "goods" are a foregone conclusion. In this case, shortages are represented by caregivers and the services they provide to customers (patients). Because shortages must emerge when there are obstacles to competition, wait times are also a foregone conclusion.
If you want health care that is delivered at low cost with a higher level of quality, get rid of coercive state action and every hurdle to competition. Taxes, licensure, regulation, and the rest... throw 'em out. Put the customer in charge. Let him or her decide with whom they will enter into consensual contracts for services.
The tales of people suffering are truly tragic, but they muddy the waters by stirring viewers' emotions. Worse, they keep folks from learning the true long-term damage these reforms will cause.
From where does the money come to pay for this "affordable" insurance? Productive sectors.
Where does the money go? Unproductive sectors.
By what means does this transfer occur? Coercive action by the state.
The voluntary exchange of private property for something deemed valuable ultimately leads to a higher level of societal prosperity. Anything that gets in the way of that exchange retards that mechanism. Obstacles to a voluntary exchange include legislation, regulation, licensure, taxes, and other levers employed by the state.
Coercive state action that forces private property from productive sectors into unproductive sectors robs society of value. This is what the state means to do through health care reform.
Let's make it personal.
Suppose you make $700,000 this year. What would you do with the money that you will end up paying in taxes (whether to subsidize "affordable" health care, wars, social security, etc.)? Would you buy a car? Take a vacation? Invest in companies that will use your capital to fund research and development? Launch more companies?
There are thousands of ways you might spend/save/invest that money. And each time you voluntarily exchange money (or anything that may be considered private property) for something you want, you raise the level of prosperity in society.
Now, back to the alleged problems of wait times and unapproved procedures that supposedly exist in a state-managed health care system. In such a system, competition is retarded. Legislation prevents competition between states. Licensure lowers competition by reducing the number of doctors, nurses, and other caregivers that are available to help customers (i.e. patients). There are other hurdles to competition, but the above are sufficient to make the case.
In a free market with unrestrained competition, there would be no shortages. If someone wants to voluntarily acquire a thing, another person will produce it for a negotiated price. This is true between buyer and seller, laborer and employer, and caregiver and patient.
Because a state-managed health care system reduces competition, shortages of "goods" are a foregone conclusion. In this case, shortages are represented by caregivers and the services they provide to customers (patients). Because shortages must emerge when there are obstacles to competition, wait times are also a foregone conclusion.
If you want health care that is delivered at low cost with a higher level of quality, get rid of coercive state action and every hurdle to competition. Taxes, licensure, regulation, and the rest... throw 'em out. Put the customer in charge. Let him or her decide with whom they will enter into consensual contracts for services.
The tales of people suffering are truly tragic, but they muddy the waters by stirring viewers' emotions. Worse, they keep folks from learning the true long-term damage these reforms will cause.