Also, how does it degrade care for the middle class again?
Because dealing with a mandatory wait time because my injury isn't considered severe enough is totally unacceptable to me when I can get same day care now for a small co-pay and/or deductible payment through my insurance.
And all it takes is that 40M people are uninsured.
Or we could change the system in other ways aside from complete government takeover. As I said I don't like the idea that losing my job results in losing my insurance, I think that hurts my leverage when dealing with current and potential employers.
Canadian Health Care: let's smoke our way to success!
I'll drink to that!
I think the two biggest changes the American heath care system needs are to get everyone into the risk/coverage pool and to decouple employment from coverage.
The first does a few things. First, it gets every working person to put cash into the system which, you know, helps pay for things. Secondly, people who have been paying into the system can't lose coverage when they get sick. Thirdly, people who lost their jobs due to illness wind up needing other government support which the working folk pay for anyway, never mind the cost to the economy.
It also lets people switch jobs more easily without ever leaving the risk pool or worrying about the effect of a pre-existing condition. The increased employment mobility could increase competitive wages in some sectors.
Canadian Health Care: let's smoke our way to success!
I'll drink to that!
I think the two biggest changes the American heath care system needs are to get everyone into the risk/coverage pool and to decouple employment from coverage.
The first does a few things. First, it gets every working person to put cash into the system which, you know, helps pay for things. Secondly, people who have been paying into the system can't lose coverage when they get sick. Thirdly, people who lost their jobs due to illness wind up needing other government support which the working folk pay for anyway, never mind the cost to the economy.
It also lets people switch jobs more easily without ever leaving the risk pool or worrying about the effect of a pre-existing condition. The increased employment mobility could increase competitive wages in some sectors.
This is to say nothing of the economic advantages to corporations when they don't have to worry about paying for their employees' medical insurance. It will save them a huge amount of money, and lower barriers to entry in most labor-intensive industries tremendously.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
It took me almost an hour to talk to the receptionist because I was sitting behind people with crying babies. Also, people who are carted in on an ambulance are given priority no matter what even if they don't need it.
Downplay the problems of others, and focus on yourself! That's the libertarian way!
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Which are approximately equal to the taxes the American government levies unless you are super-rich? Yes, dipshit look it up.
It's possible because we don't fund a ridiculously large military.
OECD 2005 Data:
Income tax paid by a household earning the country's average wage
Country Single Married, 2 kids
Canada 31.6 21.5
US 29.1 11.9
I just looked it up, now what?
BTW, that's only income tax, not total tax burden.
ya, I'm wrong. I was going to delete/edit my post after my rage subsided, but my internet froze and I let it go.
Despite that, I'll still contend that taxes in the U.S. and Canada are pretty (<%10) close if you're not mega-rich. Additionally the accuracy of your figures has already been called into question by others,
According to a September 14, 2007 article from CTV News, Canadian Liberal MP Belinda Stronach came to the United States for breast cancer surgery in June of 2007. According to the article, Stronach's spokesperson Greg MacEachern said that the United States was the best place to have this type of surgery done. The article also says that Stronach paid for the surgery out of her own pocket. Prior to this incident, Stronach had stated in an interview that she was against two-tiered health care.
When Robert Bouressa, the Premier of Quebec needed cancer treatment, he came to the U.S. to get it.
In 2007 it was reported that Canada sends scores of pregnant women to the U.S. to give birth.
In 2007 a woman from Calgary who was pregnant with quadruplets was sent to Great Falls, Montana to give birth. An article on this incident states, "There was no room at any other Canadian neonatal intensive care unit." One critic of Canadian health care wrote, "They left a city of a million people, drove 325 miles, and crossed an international border in order to get what can be done in several cities in mighty Montana... They didn't even have to come to largest cities in Montana. Instead, they came to Great Falls, population 56,000."
Champion figure skater Audrey Williams needed a hip replacement. Even though she waited two years and suffered in terrible pain, she still did not get the surgery, because the waiting list was so long. In Canada, it is illegal for someone to spend their own money to get health care. So she came to the U.S. and spent her own money to get the surgery.
Those sources are from wikipedia. I pose the question that if socialized medicine is such a miracle why do people travel to U.S. to get the best health care?
According to a September 14, 2007 article from CTV News, Canadian Liberal MP Belinda Stronach came to the United States for breast cancer surgery in June of 2007. According to the article, Stronach's spokesperson Greg MacEachern said that the United States was the best place to have this type of surgery done. The article also says that Stronach paid for the surgery out of her own pocket. Prior to this incident, Stronach had stated in an interview that she was against two-tiered health care.
When Robert Bouressa, the Premier of Quebec needed cancer treatment, he came to the U.S. to get it.
In 2007 it was reported that Canada sends scores of pregnant women to the U.S. to give birth.
In 2007 a woman from Calgary who was pregnant with quadruplets was sent to Great Falls, Montana to give birth. An article on this incident states, "There was no room at any other Canadian neonatal intensive care unit." One critic of Canadian health care wrote, "They left a city of a million people, drove 325 miles, and crossed an international border in order to get what can be done in several cities in mighty Montana... They didn't even have to come to largest cities in Montana. Instead, they came to Great Falls, population 56,000."
Champion figure skater Audrey Williams needed a hip replacement. Even though she waited two years and suffered in terrible pain, she still did not get the surgery, because the waiting list was so long. In Canada, it is illegal for someone to spend their own money to get health care. So she came to the U.S. and spent her own money to get the surgery.
Those sources are from wikipedia. I pose the question that if socialized medicine is such a miracle why do people travel to U.S. to get the best health care?
Yes, all 4 of those people. Most of whom are quite well off.
Despite that, I'll still contend that taxes in the U.S. and Canada are pretty (<%10) close if you're not mega-rich. Additionally the accuracy of your figures has already been called into question by others,
Don't contend man, dig up some numbers. Also you should probably define "mega-rich". In Canada, the top tax bracket is about $120,000 which could be reached by a couple consisting of a teacher and a nurse in BC.
As for my numbers, they were called into question by the CCPA, which is at least as far to the left as the Fraser Institute is to the right. Some of the criticisms seemed fair, others not so much.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Sure, you get the occasional story of some poor sap getting fed up with waiting in line and going to the States to blow their line of credit on their surgery. The fact is that these stories are not only very uncommon, but also are routinely overblown and distorted by right-wing media outlets, pundits, and the originators of the stories themselves (who are usually right-wing blowhards themselves). Most Canadians are satisfied with their experience with the health care system, and wait times like two years are way above average (I seriously doubt that Audrey Williams was in "terrible pain" otherwise she might have been helped faster). It's also worth mentioning that Belinda Stronach is the daughter of a multi-billionaire auto-parts tycoon.
According to a September 14, 2007 article from CTV News, Canadian Liberal MP Belinda Stronach came to the United States for breast cancer surgery in June of 2007. According to the article, Stronach's spokesperson Greg MacEachern said that the United States was the best place to have this type of surgery done. The article also says that Stronach paid for the surgery out of her own pocket. Prior to this incident, Stronach had stated in an interview that she was against two-tiered health care.
When Robert Bouressa, the Premier of Quebec needed cancer treatment, he came to the U.S. to get it.
In 2007 it was reported that Canada sends scores of pregnant women to the U.S. to give birth.
In 2007 a woman from Calgary who was pregnant with quadruplets was sent to Great Falls, Montana to give birth. An article on this incident states, "There was no room at any other Canadian neonatal intensive care unit." One critic of Canadian health care wrote, "They left a city of a million people, drove 325 miles, and crossed an international border in order to get what can be done in several cities in mighty Montana... They didn't even have to come to largest cities in Montana. Instead, they came to Great Falls, population 56,000."
Champion figure skater Audrey Williams needed a hip replacement. Even though she waited two years and suffered in terrible pain, she still did not get the surgery, because the waiting list was so long. In Canada, it is illegal for someone to spend their own money to get health care. So she came to the U.S. and spent her own money to get the surgery.
Those sources are from wikipedia. I pose the question that if socialized medicine is such a miracle why do people travel to U.S. to get the best health care?
Because if you're rich it's quicker to circumvent all the legal challenges posed by socialized health care and just pay a doctor out of your pocket.
Too bad most people aren't rich enough to do that.
Out of curiosity, if we're talking about people not being able to afford it, doesn't that mean that "speed of care" approaches infinity? Like, if you never get it, doesn't that mean the average wait is forever?
I see this cute little point made in every health care thread, and it's invariably stupid.
We're talking about how to get everyone into the system, so the rhetorical points from that observation are kinda nil. When we're discussing average mileage for cars, should we figure in electric cars? They get infinite gas mileage, so that means that our average gas mileage is infinite! Oh wait, no, that's retarded.
Besides, this is why God invented Medians.
Good point - I hate how mean=average for most people. I sometimes try to use medians or modes (and forget about KRCC) in meetings, and my colleagues look at me like Great Cthulhu has erupted from my forehead.
I mean, figure that 90% of the nation has health coverage, and so - unless you're assuming that people without health care are more likely to stab themselves in the eye, or whatever - at least 90% of the people in the ER are able to pay by some means. Which means that your argument about how ERs are clogged because nobody has insurance is fucking retarded.
If your numbers held true, places like Grady and LA's MLK hospital wouldn't be shutting down. Grady is working with seven percent privately insured, and another ~36% on Medicare which pays a pittance. I don't think you can say, with a straight face, that lack of payment isn't affecting the standard of care in many emergency departments and trauma centers.
According to a September 14, 2007 article from CTV News, Canadian Liberal MP Belinda Stronach came to the United States for breast cancer surgery in June of 2007. According to the article, Stronach's spokesperson Greg MacEachern said that the United States was the best place to have this type of surgery done. The article also says that Stronach paid for the surgery out of her own pocket. Prior to this incident, Stronach had stated in an interview that she was against two-tiered health care.
When Robert Bouressa, the Premier of Quebec needed cancer treatment, he came to the U.S. to get it.
In 2007 it was reported that Canada sends scores of pregnant women to the U.S. to give birth.
In 2007 a woman from Calgary who was pregnant with quadruplets was sent to Great Falls, Montana to give birth. An article on this incident states, "There was no room at any other Canadian neonatal intensive care unit." One critic of Canadian health care wrote, "They left a city of a million people, drove 325 miles, and crossed an international border in order to get what can be done in several cities in mighty Montana... They didn't even have to come to largest cities in Montana. Instead, they came to Great Falls, population 56,000."
Champion figure skater Audrey Williams needed a hip replacement. Even though she waited two years and suffered in terrible pain, she still did not get the surgery, because the waiting list was so long. In Canada, it is illegal for someone to spend their own money to get health care. So she came to the U.S. and spent her own money to get the surgery.
Those sources are from wikipedia. I pose the question that if socialized medicine is such a miracle why do people travel to U.S. to get the best health care?
Yes, all 4 of those people. Most of whom are quite well off.
No one is arguing that the U.S. system is bad for the wealthy. Everyone knows that the more you spend on your health insurance the better it gets.
The critics of the U.S. system are saying that having such large benefits for wealthy patients, means significant short falls for poor or lower middle class patients.
That is in addition to an insurance industry that can turn paying customers away from recieving service.
Or never accepting a paying customer based on factors that are outside the customers control.
Despite that, I'll still contend that taxes in the U.S. and Canada are pretty (<%10) close if you're not mega-rich. Additionally the accuracy of your figures has already been called into question by others,
Don't contend man, dig up some numbers. Also you should probably define "mega-rich". In Canada, the top tax bracket is about $120,000 which could be reached by a couple consisting of a teacher and a nurse in BC.
As for my numbers, they were called into question by the CCPA, which is at least as far to the left as the Fraser Institute is to the right. Some of the criticisms seemed fair, others not so much.
The criticisms of the idea of Tax Free Day you could take or leave, but the criticisms of their statistical methodology were pretty sound. The paper appeared on the CPPA tax site, but it was written by a Tax Lawyer and University accredited academic, and the journals they cited for their numbers were a lot higher quality than the Fraser Institute, which provided very little info on the sources of their rates.
The Personal Tax Freedom Day calculator, like Tax Freedom Day, includes all taxes from all levels of government that Canadians pay. This includes: income & sales taxes; liquor, tobacco, amusement & other excise taxes; automobile, fuel, & motor vehicle licence taxes; CPP/QPP and EI contributions, medical & hospital taxes; property taxes; import duties; profit taxes; and natural resource levies.
About half of which don't apply to me.
Come on Senj, light up. You'll be doing your part to pay for health care.
Canadian Health Care: let's smoke our way to success!
Those sources are from wikipedia. I pose the question that if socialized medicine is such a miracle why do people travel to U.S. to get the best health care?
Any rational discussion of socialized medicine in Canada includes the admission that yes, there are wait times, funding crunches, and staff shortages. That means some things get delayed, and people with the cash, or who need specialized care that may not be available may have to go elsewhere for care. The reference's to the population in the case of the Calgary women are illuminating in their bias. Sure, they went from a larger city to a smaller one to get care. They also went from a country of 33 million to one of 303 million. Shocking, isn't it, that the country with nearly ten times as many people happened to have a specialist bed?
The argument has never been that socialized medicine on the Canadian model is a panacea for every individual's medical needs. Its that by and large the majority of the population here gets the care they need, when they need it. When they need it may not be when they want it, but thats how it goes. The system is not intended to get everyone the care they want the second they want it.
Now, if our government wanted to spend some more of the surpluses they're regularly running (Did we mention yet that Canada has not had a deficit budget in what, a decade, yet?) we might see those wait times come down a little.
The thing I find most humorous about defenders of the current system is their stunning lack of background information, the latest example of which was a candidate for president pointing to a study from the theological successor of the John Birch Society (The Heritage Foundation) saying that hip replacements in America are better than in Britain, without ever suspecting that an operation almost exclusively for the elderly may be usually payed for by socialized medicine in the form of Medicare, which it is.
Socialized medicine itself is a misnomer, as the government wouldn't be taking over the hospitals, just health insurance, which is currently run in such a way that you can have a fairly short wait at the hospital, after spending years trying to get the company you've been sending money to for years to pay up.
Our hospitals may actually be better at high-risk operations simply because the insurance companies wait until diseases degrade to that point before allowing an operation, giving the medical personnel more experience.
In Australia if you don't like the wait times you buy into the private system. It's not like the option isn't there it's just that we also do our best (?) to ensure everyone who needs healthcare has access to it as best it can be provided.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
In Australia if you don't like the wait times you buy into the private system. It's not like the option isn't there it's just that we also do our best (?) to ensure everyone who needs healthcare has access to it as best it can be provided.
In theory that's the case.
Over the last few terms it hasn't exactly held water.
In Australia if you don't like the wait times you buy into the private system. It's not like the option isn't there it's just that we also do our best (?) to ensure everyone who needs healthcare has access to it as best it can be provided.
In theory that's the case.
Over the last few terms it hasn't exactly held water.
??? Last I checked there were still private hospitals.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
In Australia if you don't like the wait times you buy into the private system. It's not like the option isn't there it's just that we also do our best (?) to ensure everyone who needs healthcare has access to it as best it can be provided.
In theory that's the case.
Over the last few terms it hasn't exactly held water.
??? Last I checked there were still private hospitals.
Yeah, that was ambiguous. I mean, ensuring everyone gets access to health care, the best that can be provided. I'm being political. Sorry.
In Australia if you don't like the wait times you buy into the private system. It's not like the option isn't there it's just that we also do our best (?) to ensure everyone who needs healthcare has access to it as best it can be provided.
In theory that's the case.
Over the last few terms it hasn't exactly held water.
??? Last I checked there were still private hospitals.
Yeah, that was ambiguous. I mean, ensuring everyone gets access to health care, the best that can be provided. I'm being political. Sorry.
That's why I put in the (?) coz I wasn't really sure that could legitimately said to be the case more recently.
I've gone through basically this whole thread and I appear to be about the only one who deals with US health insurance companies on a daily basis. I basically do what amounts to HR at a Chiropractor's office. I talk to insurance companies constantly. I also have some interesting experiences in general, being personally uninsured (funnily enough my job doesn't offer insurance... bah).
A few things I want to mention.
On doctor compensation: When you sign up to be a provider (known to the layman as being "in network") you sign a contract which gives the insurance company the right to set the rates you get paid at, no matter what the actually billed charge. You also give them the right to deem which services will and will not be covered in a given treatment or ever. The insurance company also can review diagnosis vs procedures charged and then subsequently reject a claims based on their perceived notion at the time of how the two may or may not relate. The insurance company sets time limits on claim submission. If claims are not submitted within a given time frame they will be denied and unpaid. Insurance companies also determine "tier" status. Providers are given a specific category depending on review by the insurance company of your submitted claims and their assessment of what you might bill them in the next year or so. Based on this they can set additional criteria including patient visit limits, changes in claim submission time frames, the need to authorize visitation for a patient at the initial time of visit for said visit and any further visits, and additionally the number of visits you are authorized to see a patient for vary depending on tier status. There's also issues with services being covered or not depending on referrals from other doctors.
MD's have much more leeway than a DC or other specialist, but they are still subject to all of the same issues with insurance companies.
On ER/Hospital Visits: I've had wait times in the ER of quite awhile, even when I was having severe asthma attacks, or for instance when I was in a motorcycle accident and had a gaping wound on my knee (which is still purple a year later... probably always will be at this point, so it's a good thing I was to be wearing pants. Remember kids, don't do dumb shit like ride your motorcycle in shorts and sandals.) bleeding everywhere and I still had to wait awhile to even get the thing dressed. As I stated above I don't have insurance. In the case of the motorcycle accident that was luckily submitted to auto insurance (although I had to go through a bunch of crap like take pictures of my bike even though I wasn't submitting a claim on it since it was just cosmetic damage), but in the case of asthma or other problems... I got the bill. They were informed beforehand that I was uninsured and low income and would not be able to pay the bill, at which point they are technically supposed to offer some kind of assistance or eat the cost (by law), but in only one case did I ever have this happen. And I still got bills then, due to the radiology department at the nearest hospital apparently being basically a separate company. I tried to settle things with them, they got all of my info, said, "Oh yeah you're fine, you're right this is taken care of." ... and then last year I heard from them again.
This kind of crap goes on your credit reports. I had a hell of a rough time actually buying the aforementioned motorcycle because I couldn't get a loan. It doesn't matter to the bank the explanation, and it didn't apparently matter to the hospital's radiology department that if you bill too late to get something covered you have to eat the cost. Well apparently they didn't think they'd billed too late. Someone probably just thought it wasn't paid for another reason (new manager or something) and passed the buck to some collections agency. Nice.
Anyway, the important part of this post is mostly the first bit. I just wanted to give some perspective from someone that deals with some of the behind the scenes stuff.
Britain has excellent private care. By all accounts you're treated like kings (luxurious private rooms - I've seen one), good catering - like staying in a hotel.
I'm throwing that out there because there's this preconception (especially amongst foreigners) that the NHS is all we have. It's not.
You can also choose to pay monthly for private care (usually reasonable) or use it for a one-off occasion. My grandmother went private for a hip replacement to avoid waiting times (had it within two weeks) and my ex went private for an ear operation, but otherwise they've used the NHS.
Britain has excellent private care. By all accounts you're treated like kings (luxurious private rooms - I've seen one), good catering - like staying in a hotel.
I'm throwing that out there because there's this preconception (especially amongst foreigners) that the NHS is all we have. It's not.
You can also choose to pay monthly for private care (usually reasonable) or use it for a one-off occasion. My grandmother went private for a hip replacement to avoid waiting times (had it within two weeks) and my ex went private for an ear operation, but otherwise they've used the NHS.
My problem with two tier care is that by enacting socialized care you are making the middle class poorer due to the inevitable tax increases. On top of this, low to mid range cost private care is either driven out of the marketplace or at least reduced in scope, which drives the cost of private care up even further.
Socialist systems have good intentions in assisting the poor but they eventually and inevitably swallow up the middle class as well. The rich may end up paying more taxes but generally the tax burden though high in percentages is meaningless to them in real personal income and they never face the consequences of actually having to use the inefficient systems they are helping to finance.
Britain has excellent private care. By all accounts you're treated like kings (luxurious private rooms - I've seen one), good catering - like staying in a hotel.
I'm throwing that out there because there's this preconception (especially amongst foreigners) that the NHS is all we have. It's not.
You can also choose to pay monthly for private care (usually reasonable) or use it for a one-off occasion. My grandmother went private for a hip replacement to avoid waiting times (had it within two weeks) and my ex went private for an ear operation, but otherwise they've used the NHS.
My problem with two tier care is that by enacting socialized care you are making the middle class poorer due to the inevitable tax increases. On top of this, low to mid range cost private care is either driven out of the marketplace or at least reduced in scope, which drives the cost of private care up even further.
Socialist systems have good intentions in assisting the poor but they eventually and inevitably swallow up the middle class as well. The rich may end up paying more taxes but generally the tax burden though high in percentages is meaningless to them in real personal income and they never face the consequences of actually having to use the inefficient systems they are helping to finance.
You know real world implementations say you're wrong.
Despite that, I'll still contend that taxes in the U.S. and Canada are pretty (<%10) close if you're not mega-rich. Additionally the accuracy of your figures has already been called into question by others,
Don't contend man, dig up some numbers. Also you should probably define "mega-rich". In Canada, the top tax bracket is about $120,000 which could be reached by a couple consisting of a teacher and a nurse in BC.
As for my numbers, they were called into question by the CCPA, which is at least as far to the left as the Fraser Institute is to the right. Some of the criticisms seemed fair, others not so much.
Don't forget to add in the amount that Americans pay in private health insurance to their tax total, since the whole point of the Canadian system is that they don't pay that.
I think that narrows the gap somewhat.
Daedalus on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Britain has excellent private care. By all accounts you're treated like kings (luxurious private rooms - I've seen one), good catering - like staying in a hotel.
I'm throwing that out there because there's this preconception (especially amongst foreigners) that the NHS is all we have. It's not.
You can also choose to pay monthly for private care (usually reasonable) or use it for a one-off occasion. My grandmother went private for a hip replacement to avoid waiting times (had it within two weeks) and my ex went private for an ear operation, but otherwise they've used the NHS.
My problem with two tier care is that by enacting socialized care you are making the middle class poorer due to the inevitable tax increases. On top of this, low to mid range cost private care is either driven out of the marketplace or at least reduced in scope, which drives the cost of private care up even further.
Socialist systems have good intentions in assisting the poor but they eventually and inevitably swallow up the middle class as well. The rich may end up paying more taxes but generally the tax burden though high in percentages is meaningless to them in real personal income and they never face the consequences of actually having to use the inefficient systems they are helping to finance.
You know real world implementations say you're wrong.
To write a more constructive response though, it's disingenuous to imply that private healthcare somehow improves the lot of those in the lower and middle classes. The most expensive medical procedures are also those that tend to strike infrequently and somewhat randomly (cancer etc.). Anyone who's not the rich is effectively never going to be able to afford these treatments without a significant drop in their standard of living and attendant flow on effects (schooling outcomes etc. are going to devastating for the family, and don't even get me started on mental healthcare).
It is in society's best interests to take these incidental costs and spread them amongst the populace, since we are then able to provide effective care to individuals without financially crippling them from something which is more or less outside their control.
Currently one the best ways to go from middle class to lower class in America is to have someone in your family require major surgery.
Have I mentioned recently that I had to wait three years (in the US) for a relatively simple set of surgeries for a serious medical condition?
Have I mentioned recently that those three years will never show up in any statistic on wait times ever?
Have I mentioned recently that there are no good statistics on wait times in the US, so comparing the US to any other country isn't merely like comparing apples to oranges, it's like comparing apples to invisible pink unicorns?
Have I mentioned recently that Canada's problems with wait times are unique to the Canadian system and do not reflect on UHC in general?
Have I mentioned recently that Canada has one of the least efficient and worst designed UHC systems in the world, so using Canada as an argument against UHC is like using the Yugo as an argument against buying import cars?
Have I mentioned recently that most of the statistics on wait times in Canada are deliberately cherry-picking the worst wait times for the most elective surgeries in the most impacted province of one of the worst UHC systems in the world?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
To write a more constructive response though, it's disingenuous to imply that private healthcare somehow improves the lot of those in the lower and middle classes. The most expensive medical procedures are also those that tend to strike infrequently and somewhat randomly (cancer etc.). Anyone who's not the rich is effectively never going to be able to afford these treatments without a significant drop in their standard of living and attendant flow on effects (schooling outcomes etc. are going to devastating for the family, and don't even get me started on mental healthcare).
It is in society's best interests to take these incidental costs and spread them amongst the populace, since we are then able to provide effective care to individuals without financially crippling them from something which is more or less outside their control.
Currently one the best ways to go from middle class to lower class in America is to have someone in your family require major surgery.
That's why people should have high-deductible insurance. That's the point of insurance - to protect people from unlikely disasters. It's not meant to be a prepaid plan.
To write a more constructive response though, it's disingenuous to imply that private healthcare somehow improves the lot of those in the lower and middle classes. The most expensive medical procedures are also those that tend to strike infrequently and somewhat randomly (cancer etc.). Anyone who's not the rich is effectively never going to be able to afford these treatments without a significant drop in their standard of living and attendant flow on effects (schooling outcomes etc. are going to devastating for the family, and don't even get me started on mental healthcare).
It is in society's best interests to take these incidental costs and spread them amongst the populace, since we are then able to provide effective care to individuals without financially crippling them from something which is more or less outside their control.
Currently one the best ways to go from middle class to lower class in America is to have someone in your family require major surgery.
That's why people should have high-deductible insurance. That's the point of insurance - to protect people from unlikely disasters. It's not meant to be a prepaid plan.
Yeah because it's so awesome when I break my arm and can't fucking afford the costs because my deductible is sky high.
To write a more constructive response though, it's disingenuous to imply that private healthcare somehow improves the lot of those in the lower and middle classes. The most expensive medical procedures are also those that tend to strike infrequently and somewhat randomly (cancer etc.). Anyone who's not the rich is effectively never going to be able to afford these treatments without a significant drop in their standard of living and attendant flow on effects (schooling outcomes etc. are going to devastating for the family, and don't even get me started on mental healthcare).
It is in society's best interests to take these incidental costs and spread them amongst the populace, since we are then able to provide effective care to individuals without financially crippling them from something which is more or less outside their control.
Currently one the best ways to go from middle class to lower class in America is to have someone in your family require major surgery.
That's why people should have high-deductible insurance. That's the point of insurance - to protect people from unlikely disasters. It's not meant to be a prepaid plan.
Yeah because it's so awesome when I break my arm and can't fucking afford the costs because my deductible is sky high.
If you can't reasonably cover your deductible without forgoing stuff like rent, then maybe you should go with a lower deductible plan. What I meant is that "insurance" is supposed to be insurance against unlikely things that you wouldn't be able to cover the cost of if they happened, like cancer, or in your case, breaking your arm. It's not supposed to be something where you pay nothing for checkups. I wouldn't be able to survive without a car, but I don't expect to pay nothing at the garage when I go for tune-ups. I wouldn't be able to pay to repair it after a crash, but that's why I have car insurance.
To write a more constructive response though, it's disingenuous to imply that private healthcare somehow improves the lot of those in the lower and middle classes. The most expensive medical procedures are also those that tend to strike infrequently and somewhat randomly (cancer etc.). Anyone who's not the rich is effectively never going to be able to afford these treatments without a significant drop in their standard of living and attendant flow on effects (schooling outcomes etc. are going to devastating for the family, and don't even get me started on mental healthcare).
It is in society's best interests to take these incidental costs and spread them amongst the populace, since we are then able to provide effective care to individuals without financially crippling them from something which is more or less outside their control.
Currently one the best ways to go from middle class to lower class in America is to have someone in your family require major surgery.
That's why people should have high-deductible insurance. That's the point of insurance - to protect people from unlikely disasters. It's not meant to be a prepaid plan.
Yeah because it's so awesome when I break my arm and can't fucking afford the costs because my deductible is sky high.
If you can't reasonably cover your deductible without forgoing stuff like rent, then maybe you should go with a lower deductible plan. What I meant is that "insurance" is supposed to be insurance against unlikely things that you wouldn't be able to cover the cost of if they happened, like cancer, or in your case, breaking your arm. It's not supposed to be something where you pay nothing for checkups. I wouldn't be able to survive without a car, but I don't expect to pay nothing at the garage when I go for tune-ups. I wouldn't be able to pay to repair it after a crash, but that's why I have car insurance.
Dude you don't understand. I can't afford health-care so Doctor's should be beholden to me to do whatever I tell them to. Health-care is my god given right and Doctor's are my slaves. Also, I want subsidized Vicodin; an unlimited supply. If I want to skateboard in a half-pipe without a helmet 5 times a week that's also my right and if I shatter my femur other people should cover the cost of that too. I want to smoke and drink alcohol also. When my liver goes bad and I get emphysema that should also be comped.
Basically I want everything for free. It's my "right" to have it. If you don't like that I'm gonna get the government to force you to fork over your money to pay for my rights. If you don't give it to them I'm gonna have you thrown in jail and if you resist they are going to shoot you.
See that's how "rights" work. I get what I want and I take it from you. You have the right to give it to me.
Posts
Or we could change the system in other ways aside from complete government takeover. As I said I don't like the idea that losing my job results in losing my insurance, I think that hurts my leverage when dealing with current and potential employers.
It also lets people switch jobs more easily without ever leaving the risk pool or worrying about the effect of a pre-existing condition. The increased employment mobility could increase competitive wages in some sectors.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Downplay the problems of others, and focus on yourself! That's the libertarian way!
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
ya, I'm wrong. I was going to delete/edit my post after my rage subsided, but my internet froze and I let it go.
Despite that, I'll still contend that taxes in the U.S. and Canada are pretty (<%10) close if you're not mega-rich. Additionally the accuracy of your figures has already been called into question by others,
According to a September 14, 2007 article from CTV News, Canadian Liberal MP Belinda Stronach came to the United States for breast cancer surgery in June of 2007. According to the article, Stronach's spokesperson Greg MacEachern said that the United States was the best place to have this type of surgery done. The article also says that Stronach paid for the surgery out of her own pocket. Prior to this incident, Stronach had stated in an interview that she was against two-tiered health care.
When Robert Bouressa, the Premier of Quebec needed cancer treatment, he came to the U.S. to get it.
In 2007 it was reported that Canada sends scores of pregnant women to the U.S. to give birth.
In 2007 a woman from Calgary who was pregnant with quadruplets was sent to Great Falls, Montana to give birth. An article on this incident states, "There was no room at any other Canadian neonatal intensive care unit." One critic of Canadian health care wrote, "They left a city of a million people, drove 325 miles, and crossed an international border in order to get what can be done in several cities in mighty Montana... They didn't even have to come to largest cities in Montana. Instead, they came to Great Falls, population 56,000."
Champion figure skater Audrey Williams needed a hip replacement. Even though she waited two years and suffered in terrible pain, she still did not get the surgery, because the waiting list was so long. In Canada, it is illegal for someone to spend their own money to get health care. So she came to the U.S. and spent her own money to get the surgery.
Those sources are from wikipedia. I pose the question that if socialized medicine is such a miracle why do people travel to U.S. to get the best health care?
They have (according to the UN) the best system in the world, and they deride Britian's system as "socialist". Awesome.
Yes, all 4 of those people. Most of whom are quite well off.
Don't contend man, dig up some numbers. Also you should probably define "mega-rich". In Canada, the top tax bracket is about $120,000 which could be reached by a couple consisting of a teacher and a nurse in BC.
As for my numbers, they were called into question by the CCPA, which is at least as far to the left as the Fraser Institute is to the right. Some of the criticisms seemed fair, others not so much.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Because if you're rich it's quicker to circumvent all the legal challenges posed by socialized health care and just pay a doctor out of your pocket.
Too bad most people aren't rich enough to do that.
Good point - I hate how mean=average for most people. I sometimes try to use medians or modes (and forget about KRCC) in meetings, and my colleagues look at me like Great Cthulhu has erupted from my forehead.
If your numbers held true, places like Grady and LA's MLK hospital wouldn't be shutting down. Grady is working with seven percent privately insured, and another ~36% on Medicare which pays a pittance. I don't think you can say, with a straight face, that lack of payment isn't affecting the standard of care in many emergency departments and trauma centers.
No one is arguing that the U.S. system is bad for the wealthy. Everyone knows that the more you spend on your health insurance the better it gets.
The critics of the U.S. system are saying that having such large benefits for wealthy patients, means significant short falls for poor or lower middle class patients.
That is in addition to an insurance industry that can turn paying customers away from recieving service.
Or never accepting a paying customer based on factors that are outside the customers control.
MWO: Adamski
The criticisms of the idea of Tax Free Day you could take or leave, but the criticisms of their statistical methodology were pretty sound. The paper appeared on the CPPA tax site, but it was written by a Tax Lawyer and University accredited academic, and the journals they cited for their numbers were a lot higher quality than the Fraser Institute, which provided very little info on the sources of their rates.
Well, one way or another.
;-)
Any rational discussion of socialized medicine in Canada includes the admission that yes, there are wait times, funding crunches, and staff shortages. That means some things get delayed, and people with the cash, or who need specialized care that may not be available may have to go elsewhere for care. The reference's to the population in the case of the Calgary women are illuminating in their bias. Sure, they went from a larger city to a smaller one to get care. They also went from a country of 33 million to one of 303 million. Shocking, isn't it, that the country with nearly ten times as many people happened to have a specialist bed?
The argument has never been that socialized medicine on the Canadian model is a panacea for every individual's medical needs. Its that by and large the majority of the population here gets the care they need, when they need it. When they need it may not be when they want it, but thats how it goes. The system is not intended to get everyone the care they want the second they want it.
Now, if our government wanted to spend some more of the surpluses they're regularly running (Did we mention yet that Canada has not had a deficit budget in what, a decade, yet?) we might see those wait times come down a little.
Socialized medicine itself is a misnomer, as the government wouldn't be taking over the hospitals, just health insurance, which is currently run in such a way that you can have a fairly short wait at the hospital, after spending years trying to get the company you've been sending money to for years to pay up.
Our hospitals may actually be better at high-risk operations simply because the insurance companies wait until diseases degrade to that point before allowing an operation, giving the medical personnel more experience.
In theory that's the case.
Over the last few terms it hasn't exactly held water.
Yeah, that was ambiguous. I mean, ensuring everyone gets access to health care, the best that can be provided. I'm being political. Sorry.
A few things I want to mention.
On doctor compensation: When you sign up to be a provider (known to the layman as being "in network") you sign a contract which gives the insurance company the right to set the rates you get paid at, no matter what the actually billed charge. You also give them the right to deem which services will and will not be covered in a given treatment or ever. The insurance company also can review diagnosis vs procedures charged and then subsequently reject a claims based on their perceived notion at the time of how the two may or may not relate. The insurance company sets time limits on claim submission. If claims are not submitted within a given time frame they will be denied and unpaid. Insurance companies also determine "tier" status. Providers are given a specific category depending on review by the insurance company of your submitted claims and their assessment of what you might bill them in the next year or so. Based on this they can set additional criteria including patient visit limits, changes in claim submission time frames, the need to authorize visitation for a patient at the initial time of visit for said visit and any further visits, and additionally the number of visits you are authorized to see a patient for vary depending on tier status. There's also issues with services being covered or not depending on referrals from other doctors.
MD's have much more leeway than a DC or other specialist, but they are still subject to all of the same issues with insurance companies.
On ER/Hospital Visits: I've had wait times in the ER of quite awhile, even when I was having severe asthma attacks, or for instance when I was in a motorcycle accident and had a gaping wound on my knee (which is still purple a year later... probably always will be at this point, so it's a good thing I was to be wearing pants. Remember kids, don't do dumb shit like ride your motorcycle in shorts and sandals.) bleeding everywhere and I still had to wait awhile to even get the thing dressed. As I stated above I don't have insurance. In the case of the motorcycle accident that was luckily submitted to auto insurance (although I had to go through a bunch of crap like take pictures of my bike even though I wasn't submitting a claim on it since it was just cosmetic damage), but in the case of asthma or other problems... I got the bill. They were informed beforehand that I was uninsured and low income and would not be able to pay the bill, at which point they are technically supposed to offer some kind of assistance or eat the cost (by law), but in only one case did I ever have this happen. And I still got bills then, due to the radiology department at the nearest hospital apparently being basically a separate company. I tried to settle things with them, they got all of my info, said, "Oh yeah you're fine, you're right this is taken care of." ... and then last year I heard from them again.
This kind of crap goes on your credit reports. I had a hell of a rough time actually buying the aforementioned motorcycle because I couldn't get a loan. It doesn't matter to the bank the explanation, and it didn't apparently matter to the hospital's radiology department that if you bill too late to get something covered you have to eat the cost. Well apparently they didn't think they'd billed too late. Someone probably just thought it wasn't paid for another reason (new manager or something) and passed the buck to some collections agency. Nice.
Anyway, the important part of this post is mostly the first bit. I just wanted to give some perspective from someone that deals with some of the behind the scenes stuff.
I'm throwing that out there because there's this preconception (especially amongst foreigners) that the NHS is all we have. It's not.
You can also choose to pay monthly for private care (usually reasonable) or use it for a one-off occasion. My grandmother went private for a hip replacement to avoid waiting times (had it within two weeks) and my ex went private for an ear operation, but otherwise they've used the NHS.
My problem with two tier care is that by enacting socialized care you are making the middle class poorer due to the inevitable tax increases. On top of this, low to mid range cost private care is either driven out of the marketplace or at least reduced in scope, which drives the cost of private care up even further.
Socialist systems have good intentions in assisting the poor but they eventually and inevitably swallow up the middle class as well. The rich may end up paying more taxes but generally the tax burden though high in percentages is meaningless to them in real personal income and they never face the consequences of actually having to use the inefficient systems they are helping to finance.
You know real world implementations say you're wrong.
Don't forget to add in the amount that Americans pay in private health insurance to their tax total, since the whole point of the Canadian system is that they don't pay that.
I think that narrows the gap somewhat.
To write a more constructive response though, it's disingenuous to imply that private healthcare somehow improves the lot of those in the lower and middle classes. The most expensive medical procedures are also those that tend to strike infrequently and somewhat randomly (cancer etc.). Anyone who's not the rich is effectively never going to be able to afford these treatments without a significant drop in their standard of living and attendant flow on effects (schooling outcomes etc. are going to devastating for the family, and don't even get me started on mental healthcare).
It is in society's best interests to take these incidental costs and spread them amongst the populace, since we are then able to provide effective care to individuals without financially crippling them from something which is more or less outside their control.
Currently one the best ways to go from middle class to lower class in America is to have someone in your family require major surgery.
Bah! Socialist nonsense! Why, if the free market was in control, you could just make sure to buy more durable relatives in the first place!
Have I mentioned recently that those three years will never show up in any statistic on wait times ever?
Have I mentioned recently that there are no good statistics on wait times in the US, so comparing the US to any other country isn't merely like comparing apples to oranges, it's like comparing apples to invisible pink unicorns?
Have I mentioned recently that Canada's problems with wait times are unique to the Canadian system and do not reflect on UHC in general?
Have I mentioned recently that Canada has one of the least efficient and worst designed UHC systems in the world, so using Canada as an argument against UHC is like using the Yugo as an argument against buying import cars?
Have I mentioned recently that most of the statistics on wait times in Canada are deliberately cherry-picking the worst wait times for the most elective surgeries in the most impacted province of one of the worst UHC systems in the world?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That's why people should have high-deductible insurance. That's the point of insurance - to protect people from unlikely disasters. It's not meant to be a prepaid plan.
If you can't reasonably cover your deductible without forgoing stuff like rent, then maybe you should go with a lower deductible plan. What I meant is that "insurance" is supposed to be insurance against unlikely things that you wouldn't be able to cover the cost of if they happened, like cancer, or in your case, breaking your arm. It's not supposed to be something where you pay nothing for checkups. I wouldn't be able to survive without a car, but I don't expect to pay nothing at the garage when I go for tune-ups. I wouldn't be able to pay to repair it after a crash, but that's why I have car insurance.
Dude you don't understand. I can't afford health-care so Doctor's should be beholden to me to do whatever I tell them to. Health-care is my god given right and Doctor's are my slaves. Also, I want subsidized Vicodin; an unlimited supply. If I want to skateboard in a half-pipe without a helmet 5 times a week that's also my right and if I shatter my femur other people should cover the cost of that too. I want to smoke and drink alcohol also. When my liver goes bad and I get emphysema that should also be comped.
Basically I want everything for free. It's my "right" to have it. If you don't like that I'm gonna get the government to force you to fork over your money to pay for my rights. If you don't give it to them I'm gonna have you thrown in jail and if you resist they are going to shoot you.
See that's how "rights" work. I get what I want and I take it from you. You have the right to give it to me.
Or else.
Damn allergies.
Must be all this straw