Canadians contrast their health care to U.S.'s - Washington Times

Quote:

---

The Canadian system insures everyone, and all Canadians have access to basic and critical health care without ever seeing a doctor or hospital bill.


Very good

Nevertheless, the demands on the system have led to waiting lists for treatments such as MRI scans, cataract and artery bypass surgeries and hip replacements.

The trade off

That's one reason why 70 percent of Canadians have some form of supplemental health insurance, whether or not they plan to visit the United States.

The Canadian system needs fixing, said Dr. Robert Ouellet, president of the Canadian Medical Association.

"We have improved waiting times from years to months in most areas, but people still wait too long even in emergency rooms," he said


Both the U.S. and Canadian governments, he said, would do well to examine systems such as one in the Netherlands, which provides universal and broader-based health care through a small number of regulated, private health insurers and government funding at a slightly lower cost than in Canada.


Dr. Catherine Kurozu, a Canadian doctor who has been practicing obstetrics and gynecology in the U.S. and Guam for 13 years, said, "In Canada, there's an egalitarian attitude I admire. Medical treatment in America depends almost entirely on what insurance company you have and what state you live in.

Is that because culturally, Americans are individualists and American society is more diverse ?



For Canadian Raymond McEwan, American hospitals are among the best in the world but are focused on making as much money as they can per patient, while in Canada the goal is good medical care for everyone


There has to be a balance here.

"In Canada, the first thing I was asked coming off the plane was, 'Are you in pain?' " he said. In the American hospital, he said, he waited an hour in the emergency room and then five hours more in various rooms without ever being asked whether he needed pain relief.

"It seemed like everyone in the American hospital was working on commission and trying to get me to sign for this and that treatment," he said. "In Canada, it's not about making money."

---

Clearly, US healthcare has to be reformed. There are too many groups that have a financial stake: Hospitals, doctors, insurance companies. How do you harness the American profit motive that brings innovation and advances to healthcare with the Canadian ethic of egalitarianism where everyone accepts some sacrifice for the benefit of the group as a whole?








G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amdeist

This is what we have in America. How many people die every day because they don't have health insurance? How many people die because their insurance won't cover the tests that might save them? How many Americans have died in the Midde-East because our leadership didn't equip them with the necessary protective equipment to go to war? Go watch the movie CHANCE and get a clue! I have spoken to regular citizens in Canada, England, Norway, and spent three years in Germany, and the only people who I hear complaining about those health care systems are Americans, who know nothing about those systems. I have yet to find someone in that country that dislikes their health care system, nor are they voting to trash it and go to a system like we have. Maybe if enough of the 40,000,000 people die because they don't have access to health care in America then you Pro-Life advocates will realize the hypocracy of your thinking and will start supporting a system that promotes not only pro-life for the unborn, but pro-life for the children and adults in America. And, by the way, I am a retired officer who has free medical care for myself and my family, and am more than willing to sacrifice a delay in getting care so all Americans can have access to a system of health care.

---

I'm so glad you posted this. Wish I could plaster it all over the place. And this coming from a person with free medical care. Speaks volumes and I love it.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

That is not what the Canadians on this board have been saying. They love it

---

Oh really? Well the majority of Canadians seem to disagree with the Canadians who happen to be on this board. Please read the attached report.
Attachment 20841

In particular, please see page pages 16 & 17 for a comparison of American and Canadian satisfaction rates.

Simply put, while the Canadians on this board seem to be satisfied with their health system, most Canadians do not share their optimism. And since we are talking about the systems as a whole, rather than individual stories, I'll take the national statistics as an indicator.

Quote:

---

My friends son has leukemia. Their medical bills are up into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even with their insurance, they are taking a beating from the bills. The saving grace is at least they are not having to empty their 401k, sell their home, sell their cars and other assets. If they did not have insurance, they would end up losing everything they had, they would be destitute and the gov would step in with welfare etc. So, the cost of them NOT having ins. Would come right back down to the tax payer.

---

First, I am sorry that your friend's son is suffering from lukemia. It is a devastating disease, and I pray for his full recovery.

That said, I know that the medical bills are high, and that paying for her son's medical care is expensive. But the thing about the US health care system is that even if they suddenly become unable to pay (ei: Dad loses his job and his insurance coverage, Mom has to take time off to be with her son during his procedures, the house burns down, the market crashes, and they are left without a penny to their names, G-d forbid) they will STILL RECEIVE MEDICAL CARE FOR THEIR SON. And it will be the same care, by the same doctors they have been seeing until now. Most likely, they will receive free meds from the pharmaceutical companies (they may already be receiving reduced rates or even free meds) all of which have programs to help individuals get the meds they need. The hospitals are not allowed to turn them away. THAT IS THE LAW.

Quote:

---

Now, you say that everyone has health CARE, not just health INSURANCE. Why do I hear about benefits to raise money so little Johnny can have the operation. Or those jars that are always in the convenience stores collecting money for some persons medical care.

---

Good question.

Most of the time, the drives I have seen are to try and find someone to donate an organ or blood or bone marrow. When the drives are for money, usually the money is going for RESEARCH FOR A CURE rather than to pay for an already existing procedure. I suggest that you look closely at what the money being raised is going for. Is it for a specific procedure for a specific person, or is it for research, and the person's name is attached simply to give a face to the disease. Check it out and get back to me.

Quote:

---

I am going to assume that this is just to help cover the huge amount still owed by the patient after the ins. Company pays their part.

---

Be careful in your assumptions. See above.

Quote:

---

Anyway, this is the way it goes if someone does Not have INSURANCE but does get the CARE as you say everyone gets.

They go in the hospital, get the care, can't pay, the hospital absorbs the cost, but passes it on to the consumer through higher health care cost.

---

True.

Quote:

---

The next patient comes in, incurs an inflated hospital bill since costs were increased because of the last guy that couldn't pay. So, the hospital absorbs this non paid bill, by increasing health care cost again.

---

True again.

Quote:

---

This continues to happen. And with the job losses occurring during this recession more and more people are left without ins. So, now, more health care cost go unpaid and therefore go up. Which takes money from the private ins, which causes premiums to go up.. Vicious circle.

---

You are correct. However, you are missing huge parts of the equation.

1) The cost of health care is driven up by doctors and hospitals having to pay for malpractice insurance because of fraudulant or frivolous litigation. The more lawsuits there are, the higher the insurance companies have to charge the hospitals and doctors to cover their risk and still remain profitable. Estimates from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation back in 2003 showed the direct cost of medical malpractice insurance, medical malpractice legal defense and administrative costs of medical malpractice totaled about 0.5% of total hospital expenses. That may not seem like a lot, but it is a HUGE factor in the cost of medicine. Furthermore, we have been seeing a trend of rising awards by juries in malpractice cases, which further drives up costs. Between 1991 and 2002, the average malpractice award increased by 52%. Incidentally, (or perhaps not so incidentally) between 1991 and 2002, medical care costs rose by 52% as well. You do the math.

2) To counter the possibility of medical malpractice lawsuits, doctors and hospitals practice what is referred to as "defensive medicine". That is, they slam the patient with every test imaginable so that they can document the fact that they checked every conceivable possibility. It is a method known in the finance world as CYA, or Cover Your @$$. It is not known how much of medical expenses are associated with defensive medicine or unnecessary tests. There have been numerous studies to try to determine how much defensive medicine is costing hospitals, but there has been no conclusive study that everyone can agree on. Nevertheless, the cost of defensive medicine is a large part of the rising costs of health care.

So yes, you are right that the rising cost of healthcare is connected to the expenses associated with the inability of some patients to pay. I agree. But there are bigger factors involved in that medical expense increase that you are completely ignoring.

Quote:

---

A family without insurance will hesitate going to their doctor, IF they go at all. Then we have sick people running around, infecting healthy people, causing more people that can't afford a doctor visit and we are back to that vicious circle. A circle of disaster that could have been avoided with a simple visit and an antibiotic.

---

Yes... a visit that they would not have been denied and an antibiotic that they could have gotten for free. Don't blame the system for the bad choices of the people who made them.

Quote:

---

Do you see where I am going with this. YOU and I STILL end up paying since our health care cost are out of control because of a patients inability to pay. And for families that go bankrupt from paying their full amount, we pick up the tab for that on the back end through welfare.

---

And how does a government-run program save us from that fate? Instead of paying higher medical insurance costs and medical care costs, we will instead pay 70%+ of our income in taxes to cover universal healthcare. So instead of SOME people going broke, EVERYONE ends up going broke. And when the government-run health system no longer receives the money it needs to cover the medical needs of the entire population, it will have to start rationing that care. It will close down hospitals, decrease the availability of diagnostic machinery, decrease the number of nurses, aids and administrators in hospitals, pay doctors less, and limit the procedures that people can get and who can get them. This is not a case of fear-mongering, Cosyk. This is what is HAPPENING in the UK, Canada and other countries that have government-run health care. The UK has begun denying certain breast-cancer drugs to women because of the cost and lack of availability. The Netherlands has gone so far as to start euthenizing patients against their wills in order to keep national medical costs down. This is REALITY, Cosyk. It is fact, not fear mongering.

Quote:

---

Private insurance companies have a vested interest in DENYING claims.

---

They have a vested interest in keeping patients alive, because alive, they are a source of income... someone has to pay their insurance premiums. Every living patient is a source of income to them.

The government, on the other hand, has a vested interest in denying claims. Old people, retirees, don't pay taxes because they generally don't have income. Thus, a living person who is old and needs medical care is nothing more than an drain on the system. He is an COST CENTER not an income generator. Therefore, it is better for the government to allow that person to die and concentrate their resources on the younger person who can get better and go back to work so that they can drain him of more of his income. Thus, old people are denied coverage, as in the Netherlands.

Quote:

---

Some of the policies we have had through the years make you jump through hoops of fire to get something approved, go around the world to get a referral, have tight restrictions on what and how much of a drug you can have. They try every trick in the book to make it more difficult and therefore DISCOURAGE heath care because it eats into their profit. And as we have been shown, their profit is not suffering.

---

And you think that going to a government-run system is going to IMPROVE THAT SITUATON? What have you been smoking?

Quote:

---

When I was pregnant, my doctor ordered an ultrasound. He wanted it done in his office right away. The fine print on the policy said no. You have to drive over to abc clinic, get it done, and have it sent back to your doctor. My baby was in distress and it was needed right away. I paid it out of my pocket to have it done in my doctors office and I'm glad I did or I would not have my son today. A national plan would not involve coordinating Doctor A, that can practice only at Hospital B, and have to have ultrasounds done at clinic C. It would all be under one huge umbrella.

---

First of all, every medical policy that I have ever seen has an emergency clause built in for emergent need of any procedure or test. I question the story you are telling. I don't doubt that it happened the way you said it, but I can almost guarantee that your insurance company would have paid for it after the fact if you had laid the facts before them and had your doctor back up the claim.

BTW, my son was the product of an emergency c-section due to a prolapsed i-cord. He was born in a different hospital and under a different doctor than the one "pre-approved" by the insurance company. And guess what... the insurance company paid for all of it: the surgery, the anesthesiologist, the longer recovery time, the U-Sound, all of it. Because it was an EMERGENCY.

So I know a bit about how these things work.

Quote:

---

And a private ins. Company has to cover everyone that buys a policy so the care has to be rationed and many treatments aren't covered so the profit and loss statement will be heavier on the profit side of the ledger.

---

The insurance companies don't provide the services. There is no rationing by insurance companies. And if you want a procedure that is not covered, you have the option of choosing a different insurance company OR paying out of pocket.

On the other hand, in a government-run system the government is the SOLE provider of medical insurance AND medical care. There is no such thing as paying out of pocket... it is illegal... and there is no other choice of insurer besides the government. If you want or need a procedure that isn't covered, you're screwed. There is no option.

Quote:

---

Their purpose is to use your premium money, invest it to make more money, and come up with ways not to pay your claim. Paying health claims is the last thing they want to do.

---

This may be true. But the VAST majority of claims are paid anyway. And those that are not are generally eaten by the hospital. Under a government-run system, there will be no freebies by hospitals. If the government doesn't cover it, you die, because if the government doesn't cover it and a doctor does it as a freebie, he gets fired and possibly jailed. (It has happened in Canada in a number of cases, so don't tell me I am just making it up.)

Quote:

---

And, of course when they do have a period of less profit they just raise the premiums. Once again, who is paying for this. YOU and I.

---

Of course we're paying for it. But we are getting what we pay for, by and large. Under a government-run system, they will take 70% of our income and STILL ration care, which means that we won't get what we need when we need it.



Continued...

Quote:

---

Greed is factored into health care in this country, and therefore the best interest of a patients care is barely even on the radar. Greed for higher profits is effecting the number of people that can even purchase it at all. And you know where that leads us. Back to you, me, and the gov picking up the pieces.

---

Again, I will ask you what I asked above: do you really think that a government-runs system will improve that? Do you really think that the entity that operates with the efficiency of the post office and the sensitivity of the IRS is going to have your best wishes at heart? More so than the company who's best interest is in keeping you alive so that you remain an income stream for them? Again, what have you been smoking?

Quote:

---

In a perfect world, national coverage would be in effect. The health of a person would be the first priority. Cost of care would come back down to earth. Good health care, yields healthier people yields less health care needed, yields less money spent on health care. It is a win win for all and not just super bonuses for the few. The tax payer would be tapped once up front, and not be involved in picking up the pieces AFTER treatment as in gov assistance or inflated health care cost. Meanwhile super bonus people over at private ins. Company are sitting in their 2nd home enjoying their ski vacation.

---

The first few words of this paragraph shows why you are wrong. "In a perfect world". The problem is that this ISN'T a perfect world. In a perfect world, everyone cares about everyone else, everyone is looking out for the best interests of everyone else, and nobody is worried about limited resources. But this isn't a perfect world. In this world, the government doesn't give a cr@p about you, doesn't have your best interests at heart, only cares about it's own bottom line and it's bottom line is better off with old sick people GONE, and there ARE limits to resources that cannot be overcome by government. That is why nationalized health care fails EVERYWHERE it is tried. There has never been a successful demonstration of government-run healthcare in the long term... "success" being defined by patient outcomes and public satisfaction with the system and "long-term" being defined as 10 years or more.

Quote:

---

You are going to pay one way or the other. I say pay up front, have a healthier population, have regulations to keep it all fair and above board, make it easier to obtain that care, cut out all the ifs, ands, buts, and loopholes of a policy, and get the greed of high profits out of the picture.

---

And I say that I want the choice of what coverage I want, which hospitals, doctors and other practitioners I go to, what procedures I wish to pursue, and what medicines to consume without some government bureaucrat who doesn't know me, know my problems or know anything about medicine making medical decisions for me. If I'm going to pay anyway, I'd rather get what I pay for than get screwed out of it by the government.

Quote:

---

I am not familiar with all the intricacies of economics or insurance. I do however know what makes logic sense to me. Putting health care decisions into the hands of people that will make more by not covering me is like letting the fox guard the hen house.

---

You call that logical? You should be AGAINST government run health care, not for it. The government makes more money with you DEAD than ALIVE. Insurance companies make more if you are alive than if you die. You decide which you like better from a logical standpoint.

Quote:

---

One other thing. Since my husband and I started purchasing health coverage 29 years ago, the premiums have sky rocketed while the coverage has decreased.

---

So change insurance companies to one that gives better coverage. Under the current system you have that option. Under a government-run system, you won't. You'll be STUCK!!

Quote:

---

That is yet another problem caused by the lousy method in which health care is handled in this country. It definitely needs an overhaul.

---

No question, the system needs an overhaul. But going to a government-run, socialist, single-payer, no opt-out system with no choices is NOT the overhaul we need.

You seem to be putting forward the usual "false choice" of either making a bad change to a government system or making no change at all. That is the false choice that Obama keeps feeding us: if you don't want to follow him, it means you don't want to do anything at all, and better a "bad" change than no change at all. BULL$H!T!! Those are not the only two choices. There are lots of options for lowering health care costs besides becoming communists. We can control medical costs by creating tort reform (remember that 52% increase in medical costs I mentioned above?), we can create greater efficiencies in the field of medicine, we can lower unnecessary regulatory costs, etc.

Why does the choice we make have to be either communism or nothing? That is how liberals are framing the argument, and it is a false argument. Instead of dismantling a system that 85%+ of the population is satisfied with (according to the attached study), why not try to improve that system instead so that the other 15% can come on board and find satisfaction themselves? Wouldn't that be a more cost-effective approach?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Why does the choice we make have to be either communism or nothing?

---

That's where your argument fails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Oh really? Well the majority of Canadians seem to disagree with the Canadians who happen to be on this board. .

---

Since your report is missing...

Single Payer Health Care System

Quote:

---

"I have read all about the health care plans in the paper. I have done a little work to find out what the general public Canadians think about their health plan. Everytime I see a car with Canadian license plates, I go up and talk to them. They are all nice to talk with, and I ask them how they like their health care plan. So far, 99% of the Canadians I've talked to like their system. They say it is such a peace of mind and the service at the doctor's office and hospitals is really quite good. If the ordinary run of the people like it, that's all we need to know."
According the Harris Poll of all industrial nations, Canadians are the most satisfied with their health care.

---

National. Most Canadians satisfied with health care: report

Quote:

---

Most Canadians are satisfied with overall health-care services, according to a federal report released Thursday. The report says life expectancy continues to improve for Canadian women and men

---

10 Health Care Myths: Understanding Canada's Medicare Debate - Diemer.ca

Quote:

---

Myth #5: Americans may pay more for health care, but they get better health care as a result.
Reality: Studies show that on average, Canadians are more likely to receive needed care quickly than Americans. Canadians get more physicians visits per capita than Americans, more immunizations, more hospital admissions, and more surgical procedures. A survey of 10 OECD countries showed that Canadians were the most satisfied with the care they received, while Americans were the least satisfied. In fact, Canadians are more than five times as likely to be satisfied with the health care they receive than Americans.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

You are correct. However, you are missing huge parts of the equation.

1) The cost of health care is driven up by doctors and hospitals having to pay for malpractice insurance because of fraudulant or frivolous litigation.

---

Hello El:

Couple things...

I'd be for capping malpractice awards, as long as we can cap the damages suffered by the victims of bad doctors... But, that ain't going to happen. Sounds kind of unfair to limit one, and not the other... If your daughter were maimed by a bad doctor, you wouldn't want her award limited. Would you?

You also assume that it's the big bad lawyers who are responsible for the large jury verdicts... But, it isn't. We DO have judges who'll throw crap out. Or maybe you think that the civil courts in this country are like the lottery... Do you really think that?? No, you're not crazy. But you do like to spout crazy stuff without thinking about too much.

So, if we overhauled some of the WAY doctors do business, maybe we could reduce these mistakes. You know the ones I'm talking about - the ones that keep interns up for 24 hour shifts...

We could also computerize our medical records. That'll reduce mistakes by a whopping margin. But, that's something you righty's oppose too.

Actually, in all that long winded crap you wrote, I didn't find any solutions at all - just NO!

excon

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Oh really? Well the majority of Canadians seem to disagree with the Canadians who happen to be on this board. Please read the attached report.
Attachment 20841

---

I tried to read your report but when I clicked on it, it was no longer available. What's that all about?

Quote:

---

In particular, please see page pages 16 & 17 for a comparison of American and Canadian satisfaction rates.

---

Wish I could. How many pages was this attachment?

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Simply put, while the Canadians on this board seem to be satisfied with their health system, most Canadians do not share their optimism.

---

Isn't it curious how only Canadians that love their healthcare are on this board. Where are the Canadians that don't care for the plan? Why aren't they speaking up? Especially if MOST do not like it, looks like we would see some of that here. Odd...

Quote:

---

And since we are talking about the systems as a whole, rather than individual stories, I'll take the national statistics as an indicator.

---

So far, I've not seen the national statistics. Was that in the attachment that no longer exist? Therefore all I have to go on are the first hand individual stories.

Quote:

---

First, I am sorry that your friend's son is suffering from lukemia. It is a devastating disease, and I pray for his full recovery.

---

Thank you.

Quote:

---

That said, I know that the medical bills are high, and that paying for her son's medical care is expensive. But the thing about the US health care system is that even if they suddenly become unable to pay (ei: Dad loses his job and his insurance coverage, Mom has to take time off to be with her son during his procedures, the house burns down, the market crashes, and they are left without a penny to their names, G-d forbid) they will STILL RECEIVE MEDICAL CARE FOR THEIR SON. And it will be the same care, by the same doctors they have been seeing until now.

---

Yes, after they have lost everything they own they will continue to get the same care. If Dad loses his job, or whatever happens to them that makes them pennyless, the hospital is still going to go after any asset they have. Then the family has to file bankruptcy. The Bill goes unpaid, hospital absorbs cost, and here we go again. What makes you think that a national health ins. Would cease paying for the care if Dad lost his job?

Quote:

---

Most likely, they will receive free meds from the pharmaceutical companies (they may already be receiving reduced rates or even free meds) all of which have programs to help individuals get the meds they need. The hospitals are not allowed to turn them away. THAT IS THE LAW.

---

You keep saying this. Like this would not be the law under universal care. What makes you think that this law would change? And big woop, your way can bankrupt a family. What are they going to go home to? The homestead act keeps creditors from taking their home, but what else do they have after paying the astronomical hospital cost. Being able to get the care under the law is only half the battle. Then you have to wonder. If I say to them, I can not pay you, are they going to get the best care, or some sort of minimal half a$$ care.

I'm going to take a break now, but I will get back to you on your other points.

I think what is missing here is that there are more than 40 million Americans without health care insurance or access. I would be surprised if any of them like the American system. I don't like it, and I have free health care and use it as little as possible. We don't need health insurance in the United States. Insurance doesn't get you needed health care procedures. We need comprehensive health care like the military. Everyone talks about Canada, but most every western country in the world has national health care except the United States. Americans who oppose a national health care system might have something to lose if one were implemented. Those same Americans would likely let their family members go homeless if they lost their jobs. The day will come when they get theirs. What goes around, comes around.

Wow, heated board.

I'd just like to mention that No one means will satisfy every one. Those who have tons of money and need not worry about healthcare don't want to change things, while those who can not afford it want to. (Generally speeking.)

In Canada our health care is not 100% free, we pay Taxes/Fees/and for some special equipment like braces, casts, meds, and so on. This is a far cry from the privatised health system of the U.S.A.

I often ponder the idea of Capitalism and how it's affected out cultures/society in North America. From what I can tell, people have gone from struggling to survive, to surviving, to coping with life, to enjoying life, to taking more than we need and never being saticfied. I know personally tones of people that are choked with the Canadian Health system, but bemindful a lot of those are people who use drugs (this includes Alcohol), or simply won't work with the medical professionals, especially when dealing with mental health. (that I suspect is more a product of the mental illness than the individual's opinion of them.) Yes, Doctors make mistakes that cost lives some big, some small; but who are we to sit here and say they are to blame for our issues? How many of us eat unhealthily? Yeah, maybe we Canadians need to wise up and stop killing ourselves (being so self absorbed/selfish) and expect some one who is doing what they can to help others to fix us. This I suspect is similar in the U.S.A.

It's easy to criticize the efforts of some one who is trying to help others, but it takes some one who is truly worth listening to, to take up the challenge and try to give aid to the system. Sitting around debating whether health care is being adiquitly applied or not is not going to help, when we could be volunteering our time to improove the system.

Does it matter how many people die because things are run the way they are? Yes, of course it does, but we are in no position to judge a system we do not understand. So if you want to say something about it, get up off your lazy A$$ and go learn about it, or shut up and suck it up. We are all human and we make mistakes, so forgive yourself, and for give those who make mistakes that hurt you.

Any one else with thoughts?

Peace and kindness be with you.

washingtonpost.com

Quote:

---

"If current spending and utilization trends continue, the Medicare program is fiscally unsustainable. . . . Part of the problem is that Medicare's fee-for-service payment systems reward more care -- and more complex care -- without regard to the quality or value of that care."

---

Read between the lines
.
Therefore less care and simple care will be pushed, by bureacrats with no medical training other than looking at outcomes data without regard to all the variables that lead to that outcome. The only variable they are really looking at is money.

Quote:

---

The administration has put a spotlight on what it considers wasteful spending, but it has offered sparse details as to how it would change the incentives that produce the waste.

---

This administration looking at wasteful spending!! Maybe the taxpayor money that was wasted appeasing the UAW would have been better put to use in funding medicare, soc security, medicaid!!

What kind of outcome is that POTUS Obama?
He wasted billlions upon billions and the outcome, bankruptcy, is still the same.


And speaking of doing something about reducing healthcare costs, why has Obama not addressed TORT REFORM.

The caps they speak of relate to "punitive damages." There are no limits to awards given regarding lifetime medical expense.


VA officials grilled about improperly sterilized medical equipment - Politics AP - MiamiHerald.com


This is gov healthcare : they cannot even properly sterilize colonoscopes!



G&P

ET, I'm back to address more of your points.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Good question.

---

Quote:

---

Most of the time, the drives I have seen are to try and find someone to donate an organ or blood or bone marrow. When the drives are for money, usually the money is going for RESEARCH FOR A CURE rather than to pay for an already existing procedure. I suggest that you look closely at what the money being raised is going for. Is it for a specific procedure for a specific person, or is it for research, and the person's name is attached simply to give a face to the disease. Check it out and get back to me.

---

I've seen some of BOTH kinds of drives. But mostly, I've seen the "help us pay for the operation" type. See, here's the deal. EVEN if it is the law that no one can be denied the care they require, doesn't keep it from wiping out all the money that a family does have first. Appropriate health care should never leave a family destitute.

Quote:

---

True.

True again.


You are correct. However, you are missing huge parts of the equation.

1) The cost of health care is driven up by doctors and hospitals having to pay for malpractice insurance because of fraudulant or frivolous litigation. The more lawsuits there are, the higher the insurance companies have to charge the hospitals and doctors to cover their risk and still remain profitable. Estimates from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation back in 2003 showed the direct cost of medical malpractice insurance, medical malpractice legal defense and administrative costs of medical malpractice totaled about 0.5% of total hospital expenses. That may not seem like a lot, but it is a HUGE factor in the cost of medicine. Furthermore, we have been seeing a trend of rising awards by juries in malpractice cases, which further drives up costs. Between 1991 and 2002, the average malpractice award increased by 52%. Incidentally, (or perhaps not so incidentally) between 1991 and 2002, medical care costs rose by 52% as well. You do the math.

---

Maybe you should have said... The cost of health care is ALSO driven up by...
I agree that med malpractice is another system that has just gone crazy. That is another issue that deserves careful investigation. Another challenge for another day. But, we have seen by the Canadian example that their health care system is a lot more practical, simplistic, and efficient.

Quote:

---

2) To counter the possibility of medical malpractice lawsuits, doctors and hospitals practice what is referred to as "defensive medicine". That is, they slam the patient with every test imaginable so that they can document the fact that they checked every conceivable possibility. It is a method known in the finance world as CYA, or Cover Your @$$.

---

Yes, it sucks. This defensive CYA method is due to the greed of lawyers and their get rich quick immoral clients. Anytime greed is involved it taints the system. The same way greed has been introduced into the cost of health care in general.

Quote:

---

Yes... a visit that they would not have been denied and an antibiotic that they could have gotten for free. Don't blame the system for the bad choices of the people who made them.

---

When is the last time you had a doctor visit that was free? Free doesn't kick in until you are completely pennyless. If you have $50.00 bucks, and that $50 is needed to pay toward the food, heat, or childcare bill, you can't say... "hey I do have a little money, but it has to go for other things, so could you just go ahead and treat me for free?" And the medical receptionist says, oh yeah, no problem, after all it is THE LAW. We can not turn you away.
And by the way, does this LAW that you keep putting in caps apply to everything?
Free care for anything from a sore throat, to a broken arm, to a heart transplant? If you can't pay, no problem? I'm finding that hard to imagine.

Quote:

---

And how does a government-run program save us from that fate? Instead of paying higher medical insurance costs and medical care costs, we will instead pay 70%+ of our income in taxes to cover universal healthcare.

---

Where did you get the figure 70%?
If the system is run as well as I keep reading about in Canada, medical cost will drop. A huge reduction in administrative cost will happen. Buying duplicate diagnostic equipment will cease. Everything will be streamlined instead of the clusterfook that we have now.
Employers will not be buying health ins. For their employees. Families will not be paying huge insurance premiums. All of these things will factor into the bottom line of the cost and you could very well be walking around with more money in your pocket than you have now.


]

Quote:

---

So instead of SOME people going broke, EVERYONE ends up going broke.

---

Totally disagree. No one goes broke. Via taxes, everyone pays the same percentage.

Quote:

---

And when the government-run health system no longer receives the money it needs to cover the medical needs of the entire population, it will have to start rationing that care. It will close down hospitals, decrease the availability of diagnostic machinery, decrease the number of nurses, aids and administrators in hospitals, pay doctors less, and limit the procedures that people can get and who can get them. This is not a case of fear-mongering, Cosyk.

---

Not cosyk. Cozyk. I don't feel like going into all the money saving factors again, but they will cause health care cost to go down. I haven't heard from anyone in the UK, so I can't speak to that. If it is failing them, then maybe they should take a look at how the Canadians are doing it. Because I have spoken to Canadians. My daughter is married to a Canadian.

Quote:

---

The Netherlands has gone so far as to start euthenizing patients against their wills in order to keep national medical costs down. This is REALITY, Cosyk. It is fact, not fear mongering.

---

Euthenizing patients against their will?:eek: There is a word for that. It's called murder. I'd like for you to show me something that backs this up because I'm not buying it. And again, it's not cosy. Look at my name and picture on your left.

Quote:

---

They have a vested interest in keeping patients alive, because alive, they are a source of income... someone has to pay their insurance premiums. Every living patient is a source of income to them

---

.

Not buying this either. You are cheaper dead. Example. Family of 5 is paying their health ins. Premiums. One family member dies. Family still continues paying basically the same premium. Plus, ins. Company has one less person to take from their piggy bank.

Quote:

---

The government, on the other hand, has a vested interest in denying claims. Old people, retirees, don't pay taxes because they generally don't have income. Thus, a living person who is old and needs medical care is nothing more than an drain on the system. He is an COST CENTER not an income generator. Therefore, it is better for the government to allow that person to die and concentrate their resources on the younger person who can get better and go back to work so that they can drain him of more of his income. Thus, old people are denied coverage, as in the Netherlands.

---

This is a fair observation about the old folks. But the gov is not in the business of making a profit. Giving out bonuses. Keeping those stockholders happy. Overpaying top executives. Their purpose is to just take care of business, not show huge profits. On the other hand, private ins. Companies have to consider all those things, so it is in their best interest to deny, deny, deny.

Quote:

---

And you think that going to a government-run system is going to IMPROVE THAT SITUATON? What have you been smoking?

---

Don't smoke, never have. Therefore, my mind is very lucid.

Quote:

---

First of all, every medical policy that I have ever seen has an emergency clause built in emergent need of any procedure or test. I question the story you are telling.
I don't doubt that it happened the way you said it, but I can almost guarantee that your insurance company would have paid for it after the fact if you had laid the facts before them and had your doctor back up the claim.

---

Or we could just do away with all this headache, red tape, and crap, and make all things equal. It feels like so much effort is made in putting obstacles in the way of the patient to discourage care which boost the profit of the ins. Company.

Quote:

---

BTW, my son was the product of an emergency c-section due to a prolapsed I-cord. He was born in a different hospital and under a different doctor than the one "pre-approved" by the insurance company. And guess what... the insurance company paid for all of it: the surgery, the anesthesiologist, the longer recovery time, the U-Sound, all of it. Because it was an EMERGENCY.

---

Very nice it turned out that way for you. Bet you were sweating that until it was all approved weren't you? I was running a high fever after my son was born. The ins. Company had only committed to paying for 2 day hosp. stay. My doctor had to take her time to go to the ins. Company and state her case as to why I should remain in the hospital longer than the two days. What a pain.

Quote:

---

The insurance companies don't provide the services. There is no rationing by insurance companies. And if you want a procedure that is not covered, you have the option of choosing a different insurance company OR paying out of pocket.

---

We all know that the ins. Companies don't provide the service. Duh? Right, there is no rationing of the service, there is rationing of what services they will pay for.
So what are you saying here? I'm going along, my husband is paying his part of his employer subsidized health ins. Right there, you can assume that our out of pocket is going to be less doing it this way, than what we could ever purchase without the employer assistance. So we find out that my head transplant isn't covered, so we drop our present ins. And go out searching for another one that will cover my pre-existing head condition, and have premiums that are not monumentally higher than our employer subsidized ins. Yeah, that's quite a choice.:mad: Or we have the "choice" to pay out of pocket.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

On the other hand, in a government-run system the government is the SOLE provider of medical insurance AND medical care. There is no such thing as paying out of pocket... it is illegal... and there is no other choice of insurer besides the government. If you want or need a procedure that isn't covered, you're screwed. There is no option.

---

And other than purely cosmetic procedures, name a care that would be denied.

Quote:

---

This may be true. But the VAST majority of claims are paid anyway. And those that are not are generally eaten by the hospital. Under a government-run system, there will be no freebies by hospitals.

---

Hospitals have freebies?? Where, what??

Quote:

---

If the government doesn't cover it, you die, because if the government doesn't cover it and a doctor does it as a freebie, he gets fired and possibly jailed. (It has happened in Canada in a number of cases, so don't tell me I am just making it up.)

---

Show me that you are not making it up.

Quote:

---

Of course we're paying for it. But we are getting what we pay for, by and large.

---

You think?! :eek:I know that we pay premiums all year, and by the time we have finally met out deductible, we start a new year. Private Ins. Company gets our money, we have been paying out of pocket for health care all year, so who is the winner here? BUT, we don't dare not have ins. Because any major illness or injury could ruin us. So, the best case scenario is we pay premiums all year and not have to use it.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Under a government-run system, they will take 70% of our income and STILL ration care, which means that we won't get what we need when we need it.

---

---

Your reasoning is filled with assumptions.

---

Continued... [/QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

ET, I'm back to address more of your points.


I've seen some of BOTH kinds of drives. But mostly, I've seen the "help us pay for the operation" type. See, here's the deal. EVEN if it is the law that no one can be denied the care they require, doesn't keep it from wiping out all the money that a family does have first. Appropriate health care should never leave a family destitute.

---

You are assuming health care as a right. You are also assuming that the excersize of rights should have no monetary cost involved. And you are also assuming that a government-run health care system won't leave even MORE people destitute because of the 70%+ tax rates we will be paying to cover it. All three of these assumptions are just that... assumptions of facts not in evidence.

Have you heard about the homeless guy in Wondergirl's library? Ask her about him some time.

Quote:

---

Maybe you should have said... The cost of health care is ALSO driven up by...

---

I did say that. Please re-read it.

Quote:

---

I agree that med malpractice is another system that has just gone crazy. That is another issue that deserves careful investigation. Another challenge for another day.

---

No, that IS THE ISSUE. That is where the cost of medical care is really being driven up. A 52% increase in med malpractice awards has resulted in a 52% increase in medical costs. Cut medical malpractice-related costs and you can cut medical expenses by just as much. Do you really think that lowering medical expenses by as much as 52% won't help matters? That IS the issue.

Quote:

---

But, we have seen by the Canadian example that their health care system is a lot more practical, simplistic, and efficient.

---

Efficient?

Waiting 22 months (in Saskatchewan) for an MRI is efficient? (Canadian Medical Association Journal, March 2004)

A shortage of doctors (2.1 per 1000 residents in Canada, compared to 3.1 per the OECD average) and nurses (8.8 in Canada vs. 9.7 average) is efficient?

1,370 OB-GYN (as of December 2008) in all of Canada, (to cover 14 million women under the age of 65 in Canada) is efficient? And the Society of OB-GYNs of Canada is expecting than number to decrease by as much as 1/3 within the next 5 years due to barriers to entry into the field and the number of current OB-GYNs that will be retiring. That will leave about 900 OB-GYNs to cover 14 million women. You call that efficient??

How are you defining efficiency, cosyk?


Here's something interesting:
A February 28, 2006, article in The New York Times quoted Dr. Brian Day as saying, "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years." The Canadian Health Coalition has responded succinctly to these claims, pointing out that "access to veterinary care for animals is based on ability to pay."

What this is saying is that a PRIVATE PAY SYSTEM IS MORE EFFICIENT IN TERMS OF WAITING TIMES THAN A SINGLE-PAYOR SYSTEM.

Quote:

---

Yes, it sucks. This defensive CYA method is due to the greed of lawyers and their get rich quick immoral clients. Anytime greed is involved it taints the system. The same way greed has been introduced into the cost of health care in general.

---

So you're solution is to trash the 85% of the system that works en toto? Don't bother trying to fix it, just throw it all out and get something more costly, less efficient, and with fewer options?

Tell me, when your car has a flat tire and a noisy engine, do you go out and buy a new car? A car that isn't as fast, doesn't have A/C and only has AM radio? Or do you fix the flat, repair the engine and continue driving a perfectly good car?

Our medical system has some problems. It's got a flat, maybe some knocking and pinging, and occasionally stalls. It works fine 85% of the time, probably more. And it can be fixed liked new with relatively minimal cost, and it is STILL a Cadillac. So instead you want to buy a beat up, old Honda that only works 40-50% of the time and has a long history of stalling at the most inconvenient times under other owners.

This is efficiency?

Quote:

---

When is the last time you had a doctor visit that was free? Free doesn't kick in until you are completely pennyless. If you have $50.00 bucks, and that $50 is needed to pay toward the food, heat, or childcare bill, you can't say... "hey I do have a little money, but it has to go for other things, so could you just go ahead and treat me for free?" And the medical receptionist says, oh yeah, no problem, after all it is THE LAW. We can not turn you away.

---

Happens every day of the week and twice on Sunday in every hospital in the United States.

Quote:

---

And by the way, does this LAW that you keep putting in caps apply to everything?

---

Nope. It doesn't apply to elective surgery like a boob job or a nose job. It does apply to any and all medically NECESSARY procedures.

Quote:

---

Free care for anything from a sore throat, to a broken arm, to a heart transplant? If you can't pay, no problem? I'm finding that hard to imagine.

---

That's because you haven't spent as much time as me in ERs. I've spent waaaayyyyy too much time in ERs as an EMT. I used to see it every day. Check it out before you doubt it. Go to any ER in your area (especially trauma ERs), spend a day or two, and see how many patients come in for a sore throat, a bellyache, sniffles, cold, flu, whatever, and see how many of them are seen by an intern or resident, given a perscription for an anti-biotic or something, and told to go to the hospital pharmacy to fill the scrip. And then check out how many of them actually pay the bill. (The number approaches zero.) You'll be amazed at how easy it is to get good medical care in the USA, even if you can't pay. And THAT is my point. In the USA, there is 100% medical coverage. There is just a shortage of INSURANCE coverage.

Quote:

---

Where did you get the figure 70%?

---

The current average tax rate for citizens of the UK, all taxes included (sales, VAT, capital gains, income, real estate, etc.)

Quote:

---

If the system is run as well as I keep reading about in Canada, medical cost will drop.

---

Where are you getting the idea that the system is run well? What have you been reading? Because the Canadians themselves (as a whole) don't seem to agree with you.

Quote:

---

A huge reduction in administrative cost will happen.

---

Exactly what part of the efficiency of the US government leads you to believe that administrative costs will become more efficient? Have you seen the administrative costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? Have you seen the administrative costs of the US Postal Service? Of the Military? Of the IRS? Administrative costs to HOSPITALS might go down. But overall administrative costs to the government will skyrocket, and will double or triple the current costs.

Quote:

---

Buying duplicate diagnostic equipment will cease.

---

Yeah... that's working real well for Canada. Remember that 22 month wait in Seskatchewan for an MRI? Are you willing to wait 22 months for an MRI because some government bureaucrat decided that your area doesn't need an extra MRI machine? This is reality, Cosyk. This is what is happening all over the world in government-run health care systems.

Quote:

---

Everything will be streamlined instead of the clusterfook that we have now.

---

Yep. I'm sure that the lines we wait on for basic care will be very streamlined.

There is nothing efficient and "streamlined" about the government. Government-run health care is no different than any other government-run program.

Quote:

---

Employers will not be buying health ins. For their employees. Families will not be paying huge insurance premiums. All of these things will factor into the bottom line of the cost and you could very well be walking around with more money in your pocket than you have now.

---

If the cost is not shared by the employer and employee, where will the government get the money to run the program?

Answer: from YOU. So instead of SHARING the cost with your employer, you will take on 100% the burden yourself in the form of taxes.

And worse, since the government is so efficient, the costs will be HIGHER and the amount you will pay will be greater. But it will be in the form of taxes, not insurance premiums, so you'll feel better about it.

So... a higher cost, born comepletely by YOU and not shared by your employer, with more inefficiency as with any government-run program, fewer choices in terms of care, and less actual care because everything is "streamlined". This is your plan.

Yep... count me in...

Not.

Elliot

Hi wolverine, do you actually know how BIG Saskatchewan is ? There aren't very many major centers in that whole province. And because of that, very few doctors scattered all over.

There isn't a problem with doctors and nurses and MRIs in a province that is SMALLER with a lot of MAJOR CENTERS. Do you understand that ?

Alberta is the same way. And Any province in between British Columbia and Ontario. We are not all that well populated.

There isn't a waiting list for MRIs in COBOURG ONTARIO WHERE WE HAVE A NEW HOSPITAL AND NEW DOCTORS AND NEW NURSES. Who are making the BIG BUCKS.

Cobourg is 2 hours east of TORONTO, Wolverine and GOSH we have a HELI PAD TO TAKE CRITICAL CARE PATIENTS TO TORONTO SO THEY Don't HAVE TO GO BY AMBULANCE !

For heavens sake, dispute some of this, wolverine.

Canada has so much to offer, including good healthcare.

Do you actually know, or can you research the member of the Canadian parliament who started it ?

Ms tickle who is quite happy with all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tickle

hi wolverine, do you actually know how BIG Saskatchewan is ? There arent very many major centers in that whole province. And because of that, very few doctors scattered all over.

There isnt a problem with doctors and nurses and MRIs in a province that is SMALLER with a lot of MAJOR CENTERS. Do you understand that ?

Alberta is the same way. and Any province in between British Columbia and Ontario. We are not all that well populated.

There isnt a waiting list for MRIs in COBOURG ONTARIO WHERE WE HAVE A NEW HOSPITAL AND NEW DOCTORS AND NEW NURSES. Who are making the BIG BUCKS.

Cobourg is 2 hours east of TORONTO, Wolverine and GOSH we have a HELI PAD TO TAKE CRITICAL CARE PATIENTS TO TORONTO SO THEY DONT HAVE TO GO BY AMBULANCE !

For heavens sake, dispute some of this, wolverine.

Canada has so much to offer, including good healthcare.

Do you actually know, or can you research the member of the Canadian parliament who started it ?

ms tickle who is quite happy with all

---

Thank you Tickle, I am so tired of debating with ET, someone too blind to see what is so obvious. You are just ANOTHER Canadian endorsing your health care. I've yet to see one that is not happy with your system.

Hi, cozyk, you are beating a dead horse. You will never, ever get him to say anything good about Canadian healthcare. There will always be a rebuttal.

Tick

Tick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tickle

hi, cozyk, you are beating a dead horse. You will never, ever get him to say anything good about Canadian healthcare. There will always be a rebuttal.

tick

tick

---

You are right tick. I spent a long time yesterday addressing his points. When I was just about to wrap it up, my computer froze. Then I was trying every trick in the book to un-freeze it and lost my reply. I wasn't about to do it all over again. It just wasn't worth it because I could tell by his rebuttals that his mind was clamped shut. And when he did not have a good reply, he relied on sarcasm or absurdity. I'm not giving that my time.

The attitude of some posters here regarding healtchare in Canada, just makes me sick, cozyk. Their thinking is so narrow minded. I don't know what Wolverine means about 'beaucrats have the say about what hospitals get an MRI', actually fundraising plays a big part in a hospital receiving an MRI. We have a really aggressive fundraising bunch in town and our hospital lacks for nothing.

And picking a Province such as Saskatchewan, which is almost the least populatedacross Canada for his tirade on hospitals without MRI, well, that is just unbelievable.

Waiting lists for catscans, MRIs and EKGs is just not what happens.

Tick

The problem is that the Canadian system is touted as the model that the US should follow.

I reject the idea that the United States system needs a fundamental overhaul and will oppose any move towards one modeled after the Canadian or British system. I have heard both pro and anti -arguments already . With 180 responses to this thread alone ;not including the other OPs covering the health care debate I think all players views are well known .

Hello my fine northern brethren:

There is ONE thing the Wolverine should like about your system. You can't sue a doctor, can you?

He doesn't like lawsuits against doctors. He thinks THAT'S what's driving up costs. It doesn't matter that a doctor MAIMED a patient, the doctor should be protected... I wonder why?? Does he have doctors in his family?? Why does he want to protect the doctor and NOT the patient?? It don't make no sense to me.

He also pay's no attention to the 20 or so billion $$$$'s the health insurance industry makes each year. Hmmmm. Does he have health insurance agents in his family?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I reject the idea that the United States system needs a fundamental overhaul

---

Hello again, tom:

Healthcare expenditures in the U.S. in the late 1990s were about 14 percent of GDP. They have now grown to almost 18 percent. In 2007, over 60 percent of personal bankruptcies were triggered by medical expenses that people could not cover. Uninsured or underinsured families are ballooning. Americans spend far more per capita than any other "advanced" country and yet the World Health Organization ranks the U.S. 37th in terms of health performance. Whether it is infant mortality, life expectancy, and all other measurements, the U.S. is far behind the rest of the Western world.

Yet, you and your ilk think things are just fine. I got to wonder what you've been smoking...

That's also why this overhaul will be foisted upon you, because you're not willing to be part of the solution. How can you fix something you don't think is broken??

excon

Foist... To impose (something or someone unwanted) upon another by coercion or trickery

Foisted is indeed the proper word for what is happening

Your concern is costs ? Increasing the size and scope of government's role in health care and further squeezing a private marketplace will drive up costs and drive down quality every single time. I have no problem with subsidizing those who generally need help . I object to subsidizing the majority of America who are more than able to choose their own level of care and insurance .

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The problem is that the Canadian system is touted as the model that the US should follow.

---

Well, all the Canadians on this thread rave about it. Why would you not want to model your system after one that is a success? My experience with our present system has been many years of nightmares. I don't even want to begin going into the hoops I've had to jump through or the distances I've had to drive to get a doctor that participated in "my plan".
Every time we've moved and every time my husband changed jobs it was especially horrible.
Give me one plan, for every body, and in every town, anywhere in the US . Stop with the "pre-existing" condition loop hole. When someone loses their job, they shouldn't also lose their insurance.

I'm not a person that is pro "hand out". I think that he who works hardest should get the most. But just like our gov protects our lives with our military, it should also protect EVERY life with a health plan.

Quote:

---

Well, all the Canadians on this thread rave about it.

---

Good for them .Let them keep it . There are huge differences between our countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Foist .... To impose (something or someone unwanted) upon another by coercion or trickery

---

Hello again, tom:

What you call coercion or trickery, I call losing an election. To me, foist means having 60 votes - and they DO.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tickle

hi wolverine, do you actually know how BIG Saskatchewan is ? There aren't very many major centers in that whole province. And because of that, very few doctors scattered all over.

There isn't a problem with doctors and nurses and MRIs in a province that is SMALLER with a lot of MAJOR CENTERS. Do you understand that ?

Alberta is the same way. And Any province in between British Columbia and Ontario. We are not all that well populated.

---

Please note, Tickle, that I also looked at it on a numner of practitioners per 1000 residents basis as well. Regardless of population OR population density, Canada ranks below the WORLD average in terms of practitioners per population. That is a problem, regardless of how densely populated or how much of a population center we are talking about.

Quote:

---

There isn't a waiting list for MRIs in COBOURG ONTARIO WHERE WE HAVE A NEW HOSPITAL AND NEW DOCTORS AND NEW NURSES. Who are making the BIG BUCKS.

Cobourg is 2 hours east of TORONTO, Wolverine and GOSH we have a HELI PAD TO TAKE CRITICAL CARE PATIENTS TO TORONTO SO THEY Don't HAVE TO GO BY AMBULANCE !

For heavens sake, dispute some of this, wolverine.

Canada has so much to offer, including good healthcare.

---

Tickle, I live in one of the most densely populated cities in the world. I have family that lives in some of the LEAST densely populated areas of the USA. ALL OF OUR CITIES HAVE HOSPITALS WITH HELIPADS for trauma transport and inter-city transport, and we all have doctors who are paid "the big bucks". What you are seeing as wonderful recent developments in your health system in the major cities of Canada are the NORM in the USA and have been the norm for decades.

What is new and wonderful for YOU is old hat for me. I'm happy that your system is seeing improvement. But you guys are at least 20 years behind us in these developments. Your system's inherent inability to react and change with times and needs has you two decades behind where you should be.

Quote:

---

Do you actually know, or can you research the member of the Canadian parliament who started it ?

ms tickle who is quite happy with all

---

No idea. I looked up which hospital you are talking about. I assume you are speaking of Northumberland Hills Hospital. I know that NHH opened in 2003, but I don't really have any more information than that. Please feel free to educate me.

I did notice that the brochure that was sent out in 2003 for the opening of the hospital listed CT Scanner, Dialysis, and Digital X-Ray as "new services" being offered (as compared to old services being expanded). What this tells me is that there was no CT Scanner, Dialysis and Digital X-Ray available at NHH prior to the completion of the new construction in 2003.

Huh? I cannot think of a hospital in the USA today that doesn't have at least one CT scanner, dialysis machine and digital X-ray machine. And if they don't, they can send folks to the hospital next door or even to private providers for these services. My grandfather, who died of kidney disease 20 years ago, had his choice of dialysis locations. You just got your dialysis machine in 2003?

Again, why are you guys so far behind us in availability of services. I'm glad things are improving for you, but why is it taking so long?

And why would I want to change our system to one in which it takes 20 years longer to provide services that I should already have available to me?

Your new, wonderful hospital in Cobourg is terrific, and I'm happy for you. But what about the folks in Saskatchewan who don't have access? Do they not count because they live in rural areas?

Canadians point to the lack of medical insurance coverage in the US system... but even insured Canadians in rural areas of Saskatchewan can't get the services they need, by your own admission, because they are too remote and there isn't enough resources to provide the full coverage in remote areas. Whereas while some Americans may be uninsured, they still have access to medical resources. Which of us is better off?

You aren't helping your position Tickle, by pointing out the wonderful NEW breakthroughs in the Canadian system, when those breakthrough simply indicate how long it is taking you to catch up to our current state of medical service availability.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Good for them .Let them keep it . There are huge differences between our countries.

---

You have something against being happy with your system? They are happy and you say, "let them keep it". I swear I don't get you.

Quote:

---

Every time we've moved and every time my husband changed jobs it was especially horrible.

---

I agree portability and the preexisting condition issues need to be addressed ( so I am in favor of some change despite excon's allegation ) .
In fact I'll go further and say that the employers should not be responsible for providing coverage at all. That is an antiquated system that came about when Roosevelt foisted (I like that word )wage controls on the country . The employer invented the benefit to skirt the controls and it stuck.

It would be better that any individual were given whatever tax benefit given to the employer to own their own insurance plan . The increased competition among the insurance providers would drive down costs by that act alone.

Quote:

---

You have something against being happy with your system? They are happy and you say, "let them keep it". I swear I don't get you.

---

I can't change their minds about it . But ET's point which is valid and appears irrefutable by the evidence is that the care available there is subpar to what is available here. It is something I don't think we want to sacrifice because there are some gaps in coverage or cost problems . Those can be addressed without a major overhaul .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I can't change their minds about it . But ET's point which is valid and appears irrefutable by the evidence is that the care available there is subpar to what is available here..

---

Hello tom:

I don't know what evidence you're looking at, other than the Wolverines schtick, but check this out:

Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 83% of total Canadian spending (public and private).

One commonly cited comparison, the World Health Organization's ratings of "overall health service performance", published in 2000, which used a "composite measure of achievement in the level of health, the distribution of health, the level of responsiveness and fairness of financial contribution", ranked Canada 30th and the U.S. 37th among 191 member nations. This study rated the US "responsiveness", or quality of service, as 1st, compared with 7th for Canada. The average life expectancy for Canada was 80.34 years compared with U.S. at 78.6 years.

To ME, spending LESS per capita, and living longer and having a lower level of infant mortality means THEIR health care system is BETTER than ours...

Course, when you say it's better here, you mean it's better here for the rich. I'll bet THEY live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate... But, when you measure EVERYBODY, Canada kicks our butt...

These are facts. The look pretty irrefutable to me.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I have family that lives in some of the LEAST densely populated areas of the USA. ALL OF OUR CITIES HAVE HOSPITALS WITH HELIPADS for trauma transport and inter-city transport,

---

Rutland Regional Medical Center
"Vermont’s second-largest hospital" has no helipad. You fail - in caps to boot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello my fine northern brethren:

There is ONE thing the Wolverine should like about your system. You can't sue a doctor, can you?

He doesn't like lawsuits against doctors. He thinks THAT'S what's driving up costs. It doesn't matter that a doctor MAIMED a patient, the doctor should be protected... I wonder why?? Does he have doctors in his family?? Why does he want to protect the doctor and NOT the patient?? It don't make no sense to me.

---

I never said that doctors shouldn't be sued if they screw up. What I said was that we need to reign in the FRIVOLOUS lawsuits. By doing so we protect both the doctors AND the patients... the doctors, because they won't have to defend (and pay for the defense of) nonesensical suits designed for payday payouts and nothing more, and the patients because the cost of care will be lower.

And AS I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES IN THE PAST, I'm not against large dollar lawsuits either. But let them go through a grand jury system first to determine merit, same as with criminal cases. If a grand jury sees no merit, the case will be thrown out. There will be no need for hospitals and insurance companies to give payouts to frivolous plaintiffs to make a case go away because it is more cost effective than defending the case because a grand jury will toss the case out. BUT if the grand jury sees merit in the case, let the case go forward, or let there be a settlement... for as much as the plaintiff can get.

A civil grand jury would lower the instance of frivolous lawsuits going to trial WITHOUT capping awards for legitimate cases. EVERYONE WINS!! Except the slip-and-fall lawyers who make their nut on filing frivolous lawsuits.

But I guess that excon has a slip-and-fall lawyer in his family that he needs to protect.

Quote:

---

He also pay's no attention to the 20 or so billion $$$$'s the health insurance industry makes each year. Hmmmm. Does he have health insurance agents in his family?

Excon

---

First of all, where do you get this $20 billion figure? Last time I checked, you had found a couple of companies that had made a million in profits or so and tried to extrapolate that to the entire industry (without knowing either the number of companies providing insurance OR the size of those companies). In other words, you are just making up that number. Can you back that number up?

Second, what percentage of sales is that $20 billion figure? If net profits are only 1 or 2%, that $20 billion isn't very much.

Let's do some math based on a few assumptions:

Assuming a typical insurance policy is $1500 per month (that's what I pay for COBRA for a family of 4),

Assuming that the 46 million uninsured figure is accurate,

Assuming that there are 300 million people in the united states (there are actually more, but that's a good round figure,

Assuming that 4 people is a "family" (not a very god assumption, but just for argument's sake)

That would mean that there are 254 million insured American, under 63.5 million policies, at a cost of $18,000 per year per policy, for a total insurance company revenue of $11.4 TRILLION.

WHICH MEANS THAT THE $20 BILLION OF PROFITS BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES IS 0.175%.

Even if we assume that my assumptions are completely off, and revenues are only 1/4 of what I have estimated, your estimate of the profitability of the insurance industry is still only 0.6999%... LESS THAN 1% PROFITABILITY.

And you are making it out to be some sort of windfall for the medical insurance industry??

Get real, excon. 0.7% profitability is no great number, and you know it.

Which gets us back to my old question of what you have against companies making a modest profit? And you call yourself a capitalist? By what standard?

Don't argue economics with me, Excon. You ought to know that by now. We've been doing this stuff for over 10 years together. You ought to know that you're not going to win an economics/finance argument with me.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

at a cost of $18,000 per year

---

That assumes that the family never pays the insurance company for anything "not covered" for the whole year. Is that really the case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

We've been doing this stuff for over 10 years together.

---

Hello again, El:

Yup. And, you ain't learned nothing yet.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Rutland Regional Medical Center
"Vermont’s second-largest hospital" has no helipad. You fail - in caps to boot.

---

WRONG!!

FAA Information about Rutland Regional Medical Center Heliport (VT61)

This is the information from the FAA on Rutland Regional Medical Center's Heliport. The one they supposedly don't have.

YOU LOSE!!

Elliot

Cool, I wonder why they don't mention it on their site. I do indeed lose. You win. You must be having quite the orgasm now. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

That assumes that the family never pays the insurance company for anything "not covered" for the whole year. Is that really the case?

---

NK, you are missing the point of the argument. The question in this case is not what families pay for medical care, but rather, what are the estimated combined revenues of medical insurance companies in the USA. What families pay outside of that is irrelevant to this argument.

Let me make this as simple as I can.

excon said that the insurance companies make (net income) $20 billion per year, and that this is too much.

My response was, is it really too much? In fact their combined net income is only about 0.175% of total revenue, which is actually very little. And I was showing how I arrived at my estimate of total revenues for the medical insurance industry. What families pay outside of that amount is irrelevant to the point I was making to excon.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Cool, I wonder why they don't mention it on their site. I do indeed lose. You win. You must be having quite the orgasm now. :D

---

If you check the websites of MOST hospitals, you'll find that they try to gloss over the trauma medicine aspects of their services in favor of the "sexier" aspects of what they do. Trauma is bloody and turns people off. But a heart transplant is a romantic story. So they stress the more romantic stuff in their advertising.

It's pure PR.

Elliot

I care less about the corporations and more about people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

Yup. And, you ain't learned nothing yet.

excon

---

Aren't you even going to TRY to address the substance of what I said in my post? I'm not done whuppin' yer butt yet.

Elliot