Wow that was fun... I really needed that!
I am gonna call that a win for democratic socialism and go to bed.
|
And yet profit is what drives the economy.
If you think Canada's economy is not driven by a desire for profit, you are sorely mistaken.Of course and what the Canadian - and western European models have shown is that you can have both universal health care and capitalism.
Lower Infant mortality
Longer Lifespan
Less Years Lost to Preventable Disease
For everyone
AT HALF THE COSTSome one is getting your redistributed wealth - wouldn't you rather give them 50 cents instead of a dollar?
As for worlds worth living in, I would not want to live in one where people were forcibly assigned professions and specialties because some government office decided more of a particular profession was needed.And I do not want to live in a world where jack booted stormtroopers named Smith and Friedman allow corporations to kick in my door and take all my money and give it to corporations...
Hey look I can make a strawman too!
What can I say, I agree.
|
No the problem is how your resources are distributed. For example cosmetic surgeons have open spots on their surgical calendars - while 40 million women go without prenatal care.
Your system puts value on cosmetic procedures because they are profitable.
I do not want to live in a world where my wife has easy access to a boob job - while my neighbors wife cannot afford prenatal care and loses her baby.
And yet profit is what drives the economy.
If you think Canada's economy is not driven by a desire for profit, you are sorely mistaken.As for worlds worth living in, I would not want to live in one where people were forcibly assigned professions and specialties because some government office decided more of a particular profession was needed.
It's not really an issue of force. The government decides which sectors require the most support, and adjusts funding to training programs. Not always in the best way possible, but it does "guide" the system to produce more of what is needed. The only problem is that sometimes the government is a few years behind the trend.
Any system of professional training will apply "force" by your logic. Med schools don't allow everyone to specialize in cosmetic surgery. Are they forcing people to not be cosmetic surgeons? By not providing the option, yes.
|
..its a right.see, this is where the term "rights" gets my blood a boil. there are no "rights", period. and the "right" you refer to entails the taking of wealth someone has earned to give to someone who has NOT earned it. so where do the earner's "rights" come in?
this isn't a discussion about "rights". this is a discussion about the redistribution of wealth because someone thinks life is supposed to be "fair". because, franky, i don't think anyone has the "right" to what I have earned. period. when an individual "redistributes" wealth, its called "theft". when a government does it, its called "taxes".
When hard working members of the middle class can't afford medical care without insurance, but also can't afford medical insurance to cover their families, it no longer seems to be a matter of who earned what. Medical care isn't a luxury, it's a necessity and should be treated as such.
Why is it that Canadians are not flocking to move to America for healthcare if their system is so bad? However, I have seen busloads of Americans flock to Canada for cheaper medications. It amazes me that the main argument against universal healthcare are long wait times, when in America not having any coverage at all means you wait forever.
Canada: you may wait for months.
America: you will wait forever, because your current government doesn't give two craps about you...maybe one crap...
|
|
America: you will wait forever, because your current government doesn't give two craps about you...maybe one crap...
Honestly considering how every time government has given a crap about me I always wound up worse for wear and pulling my hair in frustration. So while I agree that our system needs work, the last thing I want is the government to give any crap about me... Just continue to ignore my existance government.
Why is it that Canadians are not flocking to move to America for healthcare if their system is so bad? However, I have seen busloads of Americans flock to Canada for cheaper medications. It amazes me that the main argument against universal healthcare are long wait times, when in America not having any coverage at all means you wait forever.
Canada: you may wait for months.
America: you will wait forever, because your current government doesn't give two craps about you...maybe one crap...
Living in a border state I think I can weigh in on this -
Canadians do flock (not move) to the U.S. for healthcare options, if they can afford it.Americans do flock to Canada for cheaper meds, since the price for prescriptions is so much higher here. We do get gouged, but this is more of an economic argument than a quality/timing one.
Another argument against universal health care is that the 'quality' of care would go down since the most talented professionals wouldn't go into medicine. I'm not sure I buy into that one.
Uninsured Americans/foreigners do get health care in urgent situations already. That's what general hospitals have to provide by law.
BTW, I have a cousin who lives in Italy (which also has nationalized health), with a number of doctors as personal friends, yet always spends a lot of time during her visits taking care of medical needs.
Consumers taking advantage of the strengths of two different systems shouldn't be used as a basis for this debate. The lack of non-emergency, easy access medical care for the unisured is strong enough to stands on its own.
Uninsured Americans/foreigners do get health care in urgent situations already. That's what general hospitals have to provide by law.
And the urgency is part of the problem. Routine health maintenance is out the window for the uninsured which tends to make those urgent cases more severe and expensive. In indigent areas, hospitals may be unable to make ends meet. And hospitals all over will raise rates on the insured to make up the losses caring for the uninsured.
There's some viciousness in that cycle.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Why is it that Canadians are not flocking to move to America for healthcare if their system is so bad? However, I have seen busloads of Americans flock to Canada for cheaper medications. It amazes me that the main argument against universal healthcare are long wait times, when in America not having any coverage at all means you wait forever.
Canada: you may wait for months.
America: you will wait forever, because your current government doesn't give two craps about you...maybe one crap...
My wife, baby, and I got him by a car in February. We waited 9 hours to see a doctor in the emergency room. That same week in our city, a woman died because she was too exhausted to wait in the emergency room any longer? Where's the friggin' health care I paid for. It's enough to turn a liberal off universal health care.
|
|
not to mention that the american government has proven its complete inability to properly manage health care, look at VA clinics and the Walter Reed debacle. I'm not saying it's impossible just when I see what my government has done in the past with the very people it says are the most important, our military personel, how does that bode well for letting them try to take care of everyone elses health care?
|
Why is it that Canadians are not flocking to move to America for healthcare if their system is so bad? However, I have seen busloads of Americans flock to Canada for cheaper medications.
Actually, Jim Carry, a Canadian, once said that if America went to Canadian style health care, rich Canadians would have nowhere to go to see the doctor. The reality is that many places in the world are now establishing American style health care systems for people who can afford it, du mostly to popular demand in those countries.
Uninsured Americans/foreigners do get health care in urgent situations already. That's what general hospitals have to provide by law.
And the urgency is part of the problem. Routine health maintenance is out the window for the uninsured which tends to make those urgent cases more severe and expensive. In indigent areas, hospitals may be unable to make ends meet. And hospitals all over will raise rates on the insured to make up the losses caring for the uninsured.
There's some viciousness in that cycle.
Agreed. But how to fix it? More/better regulation/oversight or a complete change? Messy.
My wife, baby, and I got hit by a car in February. We waited 9 hours to see a doctor in the emergency room. That same week in our city, a woman died because she was too exhausted to wait in the emergency room any longer? Where's the friggin' health care I paid for. It's enough to turn a liberal off universal health care.Why is it that Canadians are not flocking to move to America for healthcare if their system is so bad? However, I have seen busloads of Americans flock to Canada for cheaper medications. It amazes me that the main argument against universal healthcare are long wait times, when in America not having any coverage at all means you wait forever.
Canada: you may wait for months.
America: you will wait forever, because your current government doesn't give two craps about you...maybe one crap...
Sad story but a good example.
Here's a happier one for you - My son's buddy was in a bad car accident in Canada. Thru a lot of prayer and some darn good doctors he actually pulled thru. Once he was stabilized they transferred him to Detroit. He's still going thru rehab for the head injury but he's doing good. Both systems worked.
I'm stuck in the middle on this. I believe all people should access to QUALITY health care, but I'm not sure nationalizing ALL care is the right path. (Don't want to inhibit innovation, etc.) My nephew is working on his post-doctorate in biology (cancer research) at Harvard and is funded by those profit hungry corporations.
|
|
One way that socialized health care systems keep their costs down is to avoid using radical treatments and new advances. Take Oregan for example, it will not pay for chemotherapy with it's medicare program, but will pay for physician assisted suicide. Why? Because chemo is a long expensive process that might not work. Killing the patient only requires the one visit and works every time. I fear that if the government takes over all healthcare, that is the direction we will be headed in.
One way that socialized health care systems keep their costs down is to avoid using radical treatments and new advances. Take Oregan for example, it will not pay for chemotherapy with it's medicare program, but will pay for physician assisted suicide. Why? Because chemo is a long expensive process that might not work. Killing the patient only requires the one visit and works every time. I fear that if the government takes over all healthcare, that is the direction we will be headed in.
Soylent Green is People! - scary thought
|
|
My wife, baby, and I got him by a car in February. We waited 9 hours to see a doctor in the emergency room. That same week in our city, a woman died because she was too exhausted to wait in the emergency room any longer? Where's the friggin' health care I paid for. It's enough to turn a liberal off universal health care.
Sorry to hear about that, Tarren. I hope everyone is okay.
Maybe if the provincial/national government took the $300 million they are going to spend on sports funding in Ontario in a bid for the Commonwealth Games (I think it is those games) we could have shorter wait times in emergency rooms. The case of the old woman sounds more like a mis-diagnosis by the staff which put her back in line when she should have been first. Personally, I've never had to deal with wait times in emergency, but I realize it is a reality.
One way that socialized health care systems keep their costs down is to avoid using radical treatments and new advances. Take Oregan for example, it will not pay for chemotherapy with it's medicare program, but will pay for physician assisted suicide. Why? Because chemo is a long expensive process that might not work. Killing the patient only requires the one visit and works every time. I fear that if the government takes over all healthcare, that is the direction we will be headed in.
You can't seriously be suggesting that state-sponsored healthcase will lead to sanctioned mass murder? The doctors are the ones that make the decisions as to a persons care, then they bill the government. Not the other way around.
Personally I don't think Canada's system goes far enough. Everybody should have free access to eye and dental care - both of those can lead to serious health issues or an inability to function in regular society.
My wife, baby, and I got him by a car in February. We waited 9 hours to see a doctor in the emergency room. That same week in our city, a woman died because she was too exhausted to wait in the emergency room any longer? Where's the friggin' health care I paid for. It's enough to turn a liberal off universal health care.Sorry to hear about that, Tarren. I hope everyone is okay.
Maybe if the provincial/national government took the $300 million they are going to spend on sports funding in Ontario in a bid for the Commonwealth Games (I think it is those games) we could have shorter wait times in emergency rooms. The case of the old woman sounds more like a mis-diagnosis by the staff which put her back in line when she should have been first. Personally, I've never had to deal with wait times in emergency, but I realize it is a reality.
One way that socialized health care systems keep their costs down is to avoid using radical treatments and new advances. Take Oregan for example, it will not pay for chemotherapy with it's medicare program, but will pay for physician assisted suicide. Why? Because chemo is a long expensive process that might not work. Killing the patient only requires the one visit and works every time. I fear that if the government takes over all healthcare, that is the direction we will be headed in.You can't seriously be suggesting that state-sponsored healthcase will lead to sanctioned mass murder? The doctors are the ones that make the decisions as to a persons care, then they bill the government. Not the other way around.
Personally I don't think Canada's system goes far enough. Everybody should have free access to eye and dental care - both of those can lead to serious health issues or an inability to function in regular society.
I think he was pointing towards programs avoiding the more expensive alternative. Physician-assisted suicide is not a common policy in the US, though some would like it to be.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
My wife, baby, and I got him by a car in February. We waited 9 hours to see a doctor in the emergency room. That same week in our city, a woman died because she was too exhausted to wait in the emergency room any longer? Where's the friggin' health care I paid for. It's enough to turn a liberal off universal health care.Sorry to hear about that, Tarren. I hope everyone is okay.
Maybe if the provincial/national government took the $300 million they are going to spend on sports funding in Ontario in a bid for the Commonwealth Games (I think it is those games) we could have shorter wait times in emergency rooms. The case of the old woman sounds more like a mis-diagnosis by the staff which put her back in line when she should have been first. Personally, I've never had to deal with wait times in emergency, but I realize it is a reality.
Or, perhaps, just perhaps, the government could bust the chops of the Canadian Medical Association to speed up the licensing and recertification of all the Middle Eastern doctors driving taxi cabs. Seriously, I'd have had better luck getting treated at the taxi ranks than inside the emergency room.
Expansion of enrollment at medical schools is necessary as well, to account for the fact that ON AVERAGE female doctors remain in the profession for a shorter period of time and work fewer hours than male doctors. Pay for nurses could be increased and, with some retraining, the system could recognize that a lot of these jobs are being done by nurses anyhow with doctors simply having to pop their heads in and sign off.
Of course the idea of state-sponsored mass murder opens the deabate into realms where I don't want to tread.
Still Oregon's policies send a bad message - We won't pay for long term (chemo) but we will pay for an easy out option. I don't like that message at all.
My wife, baby, and I got him by a car in February. We waited 9 hours to see a doctor in the emergency room. That same week in our city, a woman died because she was too exhausted to wait in the emergency room any longer? Where's the friggin' health care I paid for. It's enough to turn a liberal off universal health care.Sorry to hear about that, Tarren. I hope everyone is okay.
Maybe if the provincial/national government took the $300 million they are going to spend on sports funding in Ontario in a bid for the Commonwealth Games (I think it is those games) we could have shorter wait times in emergency rooms. The case of the old woman sounds more like a mis-diagnosis by the staff which put her back in line when she should have been first. Personally, I've never had to deal with wait times in emergency, but I realize it is a reality.
Or, perhaps, just perhaps, the government could bust the chops of the Canadian Medical Association to speed up the licensing and recertification of all the Middle Eastern doctors driving taxi cabs. Seriously, I'd have had better luck getting treated at the taxi ranks than inside the emergency room.
Expansion of enrollment at medical schools is necessary as well, to account for the fact that ON AVERAGE female doctors remain in the profession for a shorter period of time and work fewer hours than male doctors. Pay for nurses could be increased and, with some retraining, the system could recognize that a lot of these jobs are being done by nurses anyhow with doctors simply having to pop their heads in and sign off.
Good points. And ones that we Yankees could embrace. Nurse are horribly under-appreciated and cheaper medical school/expanded enrollment would help new doctors start their careers without tens of thousands of dollars of debt.
Uninsured Americans/foreigners do get health care in urgent situations already. That's what general hospitals have to provide by law.
And the urgency is part of the problem. Routine health maintenance is out the window for the uninsured which tends to make those urgent cases more severe and expensive. In indigent areas, hospitals may be unable to make ends meet. And hospitals all over will raise rates on the insured to make up the losses caring for the uninsured.
There's some viciousness in that cycle.
I agree that this is part of the problem with comparing systems - in the US, because health care is not available/affordable people delay treatment - this increases cost and decreases efficacy.
My wife, baby, and I got him by a car in February. We waited 9 hours to see a doctor in the emergency room. That same week in our city, a woman died because she was too exhausted to wait in the emergency room any longer? Where's the friggin' health care I paid for. It's enough to turn a liberal off universal health care.
First off, I hope everyone is alright.
I have gone to the hospital emergency for health care (my town did not start drop in clinics until about 5 years ago) - I have waited minutes, I have waited hours.
Triage determines when you see a doctor... every patient that enters a hospital is assessed and seen in order of need.
When I was waiting hours to see a doctor it was because of car accidents and heart attacks were being taken care of before my less urgent care. (trust me you never want to go to a hospital when the bars let out where i live).
|
|
Or, perhaps, just perhaps, the government could bust the chops of the Canadian Medical Association to speed up the licensing and recertification of all the Middle Eastern doctors driving taxi cabs. Seriously, I'd have had better luck getting treated at the taxi ranks than inside the emergency room.Expansion of enrollment at medical schools is necessary as well, to account for the fact that ON AVERAGE female doctors remain in the profession for a shorter period of time and work fewer hours than male doctors. Pay for nurses could be increased and, with some retraining, the system could recognize that a lot of these jobs are being done by nurses anyhow with doctors simply having to pop their heads in and sign off.
And some credit to Emperor7.
I fully agree - like how teachers who go to "in demand" areas get better pay, the government needs to make more opportunity and incentive for people to train in medicine and STAY in the country. Part of me thinks less of people who bolt south for more money, but the other part sympathizes for the strain this puts on those who chose to stay and do some good.
My mom used to be a nurse. Whenever we go to the hospital she talks to the nurse first, doctor second (if at all). The nurses spend more time with the patients and are more familiar with the common problems and dealing with relatives. Seriously - over-worked and under-paid. I'm not discrediting doctors and their training. If I needed a diagnosis and prescription, I'd go to a doctor. But if I wanted an explanation of that diagnosis, and someone to watch over me as I received treatment, I'd want a nurse.
not to mention that the american government has proven its complete inability to properly manage health care, look at VA clinics and the Walter Reed debacle. I'm not saying it's impossible just when I see what my government has done in the past with the very people it says are the most important, our military personel, how does that bode well for letting them try to take care of everyone elses health care?
Actually VA hospitals are some of the best hospitals in the USA. You have to look past the corporate propaganda.
Walter Reed is a perfect example of the problems with privatization of helath care.
The battle between the private contractor and the government employees on who provided the best services was eventually settled in favor of the government employees in 2002. Unfortunately for them, the Army Audit Agency then under the leadership of the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, overturned that decision. Because the cost proposal from the private contractor was substantially less than that of the government employees, the decision to overturn was also supported by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Please note however, the final decision was not based on providing equal or current service levels, it was only based on the lower cost comparison. What was not understood was that the Walter Reed Medical Center had previously been serviced by 350 government employee service providers. And this was the number of service employees prior to the beginning of the War in Iraq. The new private contractor replaced those 350 government employees with only 100 private contractors. From the beginning of that decision, the services offered and maintenance of the facility began to head down hill. When the war in Iraq began increasing the needs and numbers of wounded at the medical center, the situation quickly became critical.
Prior to that VA hospitals - when run by government - are models of efficiency and care:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1376238-3,00.html
One way that socialized health care systems keep their costs down is to avoid using radical treatments and new advances. Take Oregan for example, it will not pay for chemotherapy with it's medicare program, but will pay for physician assisted suicide. Why? Because chemo is a long expensive process that might not work. Killing the patient only requires the one visit and works every time. I fear that if the government takes over all healthcare, that is the direction we will be headed in.
I have no idea what is going on in Oregon.
But that is simply not true in Canada. Doctors recommend treatment based on the advice of their professional associations, which are based on research.
Training is also a factor - not all doctors can do all procedures.
The government does not decide my treatment - my doctor does - the government just pays for it.
Your fear is misdirected you should be terrified of your present system - american health care ranks 47th in performance while costing more than twice as much as the Canadian system.
You can't seriously be suggesting that state-sponsored healthcase will lead to sanctioned mass murder? The doctors are the ones that make the decisions as to a persons care, then they bill the government. Not the other way around.
Personally I don't think Canada's system goes far enough. Everybody should have free access to eye and dental care - both of those can lead to serious health issues or an inability to function in regular society.
Agreed and agreed!
Optometry and dentistry are rackets in Canada - they are the highest paid fields in medicine because they are the most privatized.
Or, perhaps, just perhaps, the government could bust the chops of the Canadian Medical Association to speed up the licensing and recertification of all the Middle Eastern doctors driving taxi cabs. Seriously, I'd have had better luck getting treated at the taxi ranks than inside the emergency room.
Expansion of enrollment at medical schools is necessary as well, to account for the fact that ON AVERAGE female doctors remain in the profession for a shorter period of time and work fewer hours than male doctors. Pay for nurses could be increased and, with some retraining, the system could recognize that a lot of these jobs are being done by nurses anyhow with doctors simply having to pop their heads in and sign off.
True! The medical association has worked to restrict the number of doctors - because they understand the power of supply and demand.
The government of Canada also worked to limit the number of chairs available in university for doctor training - in an effort to limit costs on the system - this was poor policy and has back fired because it has placed undue stress on the medical profession and increased costs by diverting patient care into hospitals instead of clinics.
This has been exacerbated by the increased prevalence of female doctors (now over 50% in university) - who work less hours, take more sick time, access maternity leave, are more inclined to work part time etc.
I think the roll of all health care providers needs to be retooled - especially pharmacists who should be able to write prescriptions for most medications.
|
|
The battle between the private contractor and the government employees on who provided the best services was eventually settled in favor of the government employees in 2002. Unfortunately for them, the Army Audit Agency then under the leadership of the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, overturned that decision. Because the cost proposal from the private contractor was substantially less than that of the government employees, the decision to overturn was also supported by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Please note however, the final decision was not based on providing equal or current service levels, it was only based on the lower cost comparison. What was not understood was that the Walter Reed Medical Center had previously been serviced by 350 government employee service providers. And this was the number of service employees prior to the beginning of the War in Iraq. The new private contractor replaced those 350 government employees with only 100 private contractors. From the beginning of that decision, the services offered and maintenance of the facility began to head down hill. When the war in Iraq began increasing the needs and numbers of wounded at the medical center, the situation quickly became critical.
Prior to that VA hospitals - when run by government - are models of efficiency and care:...
Still a failure of the government they were the decisionmakers and couldn't look past cost, how does that make it the problem of privatization and not a problem of the final decisionmakers. Privatization can work just fine if more than just the cost is looked at.
I fully agree - like how teachers who go to "in demand" areas get better pay, the government needs to make more opportunity and incentive for people to train in medicine and STAY in the country. Part of me thinks less of people who bolt south for more money, but the other part sympathizes for the strain this puts on those who chose to stay and do some good.
My mom used to be a nurse. Whenever we go to the hospital she talks to the nurse first, doctor second (if at all). The nurses spend more time with the patients and are more familiar with the common problems and dealing with relatives. Seriously - over-worked and under-paid. I'm not discrediting doctors and their training. If I needed a diagnosis and prescription, I'd go to a doctor. But if I wanted an explanation of that diagnosis, and someone to watch over me as I received treatment, I'd want a nurse.
While Canada does loose doctors to the USA because American doctors are paid more (many of those doctors come home to Canada because of dissatisfaction with the US system as well) - it pales in comparison to the countries we are stealing doctors from. When I go to the hospital and am treated by an African doctor - all I can think of is how much it cost his nation to train him/her and how needed he is where he comes from.
There is definitely a moral dimension to stealing doctors from other countries. It makes me sick to think about it. Especially in the context that the average canadian medical university receives 6-10 equally qualified applicants for each applicant that is accepted to medical school - we could and should be training and exporting our doctors to africa - not the other way around.
The basic problem is that preventative care is unavailable to many Americans. They go untreated and small diseases here and there and lack of doctor to patient education leads to more VERY sick people taxing the system.
By giving everyone access to basic preventative care, you give everyone lower medical costs.
I am a case in point. I have genetically based high-cholesterol. Even with changing my diet, I would not be able to lower it to a point where it is safe. So I have to be on cholesterol medication.
If I didn't have health insurance, this would go untreated and I'd likely have heart disease sooner rather than (hopefully) never. Because I am going to the doctor and am able to get a prescription for cholesterol reducing medication, I am saving the insurance company money. If it were government paid healthcare, I'd be saving the taxpayers money.
|
|
One way that socialized health care systems keep their costs down is to avoid using radical treatments and new advances. Take Oregan for example, it will not pay for chemotherapy with it's medicare program, but will pay for physician assisted suicide. Why? Because chemo is a long expensive process that might not work. Killing the patient only requires the one visit and works every time. I fear that if the government takes over all healthcare, that is the direction we will be headed in.You can't seriously be suggesting that state-sponsored healthcase will lead to sanctioned mass murder? The doctors are the ones that make the decisions as to a persons care, then they bill the government. Not the other way around.
no, I'm not suggesting that at all. What I am saying is that with the current government run programs, we are seeing a trend towards the government only authorizing the quickest, cheapest option, rather than the best option. The doctors know well in advance what the government will pay for and those are the treatments they pursue. And if you do not meet certain criteria they will not consider treating you at all. That is why my wife's friend's father has been waiting for so long to have a hernia operation. He does not meet the British government's criteria for the surgery and so he will have to find the money and the doctor to have it done himself or he will not get it. Government work always lends itself to the quickest cheapest fix, not the best one.
Still a failure of the government they were the decisionmakers and couldn't look past cost, how does that make it the problem of privatization and not a problem of the final decisionmakers. Privatization can work just fine if more than just the cost is looked at.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say that things should be privatized and blame the public sector for the failures of privatization.
Private for profit health care has a LEGAL responsibility to maximize profits for share holders - that is how a corporation works.
There are only two ways to maximize profit. Charge more or decrease services.
When the Walter Reed scandal was an example of public system failure you were outraged. When your information changed and you learned that it is an example of the failure of privatization - you are no longer outraged at Walter Reed - now it is the people in the government who privatized it who are at fault.
Ideology should not get in the way of clear and critical thinking.
|
|
But that is simply not true in Canada. Doctors recommend treatment based on the advice of their professional associations, which are based on research.
Training is also a factor - not all doctors can do all procedures.
The government does not decide my treatment - my doctor does - the government just pays for it.
My uncle was a doctor in Alberta and we have discussed this subject at some length. He told me that the doctors already know what the government will pay for and that is the direction that they steer the patient. It's not a matter of the government deciding a course of treatment, it is a matter of the government deciding if they will pay for a course of treatment. In Oregan, for example, doctors can still recommend chemo for their medicare patients, the government just won't pay for it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
When I go to the hospital and am treated by an African doctor - all I can think of is how much it cost his nation to train him/her and how needed he is where he comes from.
[threadjack of the threadjack]Eleven years ago I go to the hospital. The doctor, a recent immigrant from Africa, treats my wife ... we were newlyweds at the time. Afterwards, he takes me aside and gives me a stern lecture on how to be a good husband, especially in a multicultural relationship. It seemed like an odd thing to do. It also felt real and right.[/threadjack of the threadjack]
Government work always lends itself to the quickest cheapest fix, not the best one.
Equally, a for-profit health-care system lends itself to the most expensive fix, which is often, but not always, the best one -- balanced by the efforts of the insurance company to avoid paying for any treatment whatsoever.
My wife is a great beneficiary of private health care. I'm all in favor of the quality we get here in the U.S. But every year, I pay more and more (and my employer pays a lot more than that), and every year there are fewer and fewer things it covers, as the health care provider systems think of more loopholes to shift all the costs to the patient rather than the insurance. My parents are retired; their insurance costs $25,000/year, and that's just for supplemental insurance to cover what Medicare, etc. don't. With those kinds of costs, I can never retire in the U.S.; I HAVE to work until I die. That kind of irks me.
The basic problem is that preventative care is unavailable to many Americans. They go untreated and small diseases here and there and lack of doctor to patient education leads to more VERY sick people taxing the system.
By giving everyone access to basic preventative care, you give everyone lower medical costs.
I am a case in point. I have genetically based high-cholesterol. Even with changing my diet, I would not be able to lower it to a point where it is safe. So I have to be on cholesterol medication.
If I didn't have health insurance, this would go untreated and I'd likely have heart disease sooner rather than (hopefully) never. Because I am going to the doctor and am able to get a prescription for cholesterol reducing medication, I am saving the insurance company money. If it were government paid healthcare, I'd be saving the taxpayers money.
You are absolutely correct.
The problem for a corporation is that they are responsible for their shareholders on a quarter by quarter basis - so they do not see it that way - why should the CEO today care if the CEO in 10 years saves money?
Also you are faced with the fear that if you lose your health care or you will be denied health care because of preexisting conditions... this is an insanity of the private system - in Canada if I am sick the medical system *wants* to treat me.
|
|
Government work always lends itself to the quickest cheapest fix, not the best one.Equally, a for-profit health-care system lends itself to the most expensive fix, which is often, but not always, the best one -- balanced by the efforts of the insurance company to avoid paying for any treatment whatsoever.
Agreed. The best way to fix the problem is to change the mindset of people, rather than turning the whole system over to the government. Our cultural perception is that doctors should live in big fancy houses, drive big fancy cars, and live extravegant lifestyles. In order to change the way health care works in this country, we should change the way people view the role of healers in our society, rather than just playing musical chairs with who runs the system.
My uncle was a doctor in Alberta and we have discussed this subject at some length. He told me that the doctors already know what the government will pay for and that is the direction that they steer the patient. It's not a matter of the government deciding a course of treatment, it is a matter of the government deciding if they will pay for a course of treatment. In Oregan, for example, doctors can still recommend chemo for their medicare patients, the government just won't pay for it.
The fact that your "uncle" would admit medical malpractice to you in a "conversation" you had is very surprising to me.
I have many "friends" and "family" who are doctors, nurses, health care workers. In the medical treatment manuals or clinical practice guidelines for the care and treatment manuals (and you can actually look this up) there is always a tiered recommendation for treatment based on probability of success - not cost.
When you visit a doctor in Canada - the doctor is paid for the visit not for the course of treatment - so for example if you have high blood pressure a Canadian doctor get paid the same if he prescribes drugs, as he does if he recommends exercise.
For surgical procedures - doctors are paid by procedure - failing to provide the proper procedure would constitute medical malpractice and open the doctor up to law suits and losing his certification.
One way that socialized health care systems keep their costs down is to avoid using radical treatments and new advances. Take Oregan for example, it will not pay for chemotherapy with it's medicare program, but will pay for physician assisted suicide. Why? Because chemo is a long expensive process that might not work. Killing the patient only requires the one visit and works every time. I fear that if the government takes over all healthcare, that is the direction we will be headed in.I have no idea what is going on in Oregon.
But that is simply not true in Canada. Doctors recommend treatment based on the advice of their professional associations, which are based on research.
Training is also a factor - not all doctors can do all procedures.
The government does not decide my treatment - my doctor does - the government just pays for it.
Your fear is misdirected you should be terrified of your present system - american health care ranks 47th in performance while costing more than twice as much as the Canadian system.
So your claim is that in Canada, if a doctor believed that a treatment costing $1 million/day would be the most effective, the government would pay that with out batting an eye?
EDIT: Also the comments about private healthcare providers not being beholden to customers is a bit wrong. If me and my family are looking to purchase health insurance and we ask our family and friends about theirs and learn that company A has a reputation of dumping people, even though they are cheaper. Guess what. We wouldn't purchase insurance from them. With a government, if you recieve poor service then you can switch to ... what?
Agreed. The best way to fix the problem is to change the mindset of people, rather than turning the whole system over to the government. Our cultural perception is that doctors should live in big fancy houses, drive big fancy cars, and live extravegant lifestyles. In order to change the way health care works in this country, we should change the way people view the role of healers in our society, rather than just playing musical chairs with who runs the system.
I definitely agree with this.
I honestly think in Canada you could create a two track system - one that operates similarly to the VA hospital system in the states where doctors act as employees and are tasked with improving the health of their patients.
The pay for service model in Canada, and the profit model in the USA creates a lot of stress in the system for doctors. Really who would want to have a doctors work life - many of the younger doctors I know would trade more time off for less pay.
This would require a lot more doctors though...
So your claim is that in Canada, if a doctor believed that a treatment costing $1 million/day would be the most effective, the government would pay that with out batting an eye?
The Canadian system controls costs by purchasing in bulk - that is why Americans come here for drugs.
I know that there are cases where new drugs available in the US are not immediately available in Canada because of regulations, availability, efficacy trials etc. (for example viagra) but the drugs do become available. Sometimes drugs are delayed because there are other cheaper equally effective or more effective drugs available all ready - they eventually become available as well. I think some of the new antihistamines fall in this category.
I am not sure there is a medical treatment that costs $1 million dollars a day... nor can I think of an example of Canadians being denied the most scientifically effective treatment available because of cost.
Can you?
If doctors were denying Canadians the most effective course of treatment there would be outrage.
Agreed. The best way to fix the problem is to change the mindset of people, rather than turning the whole system over to the government. Our cultural perception is that doctors should live in big fancy houses, drive big fancy cars, and live extravegant lifestyles. In order to change the way health care works in this country, we should change the way people view the role of healers in our society, rather than just playing musical chairs with who runs the system.Government work always lends itself to the quickest cheapest fix, not the best one.Equally, a for-profit health-care system lends itself to the most expensive fix, which is often, but not always, the best one -- balanced by the efforts of the insurance company to avoid paying for any treatment whatsoever.
Can we change the perception of CEO incomes at the same time? If we're looking to trim some fat out of the economy, many of them make a whole lot more than my doctor. ;-)
EDIT: Also the comments about private healthcare providers not being beholden to customers is a bit wrong. If me and my family are looking to purchase health insurance and we ask our family and friends about theirs and learn that company A has a reputation of dumping people, even though they are cheaper. Guess what. We wouldn't purchase insurance from them. With a government, if you recieve poor service then you can switch to ... what?
First off - the government cannot refuse to take me as a patient if I am sick - which you are well aware is a MASSIVE failure of the system you are defending. So lets not pretend the consumer is in control in the American system - we know you are at the mercy of the system.
Second - if I receive poor treatment from my doctor - i can go and see another doctor - any doctor I like - for free. I can continue to shop for doctors until I am happy with the service I am receiving - for FREE!
I prefer to talk about systems, rather than one experience, but I will give you an example.
My son needed medical care. The first doctor refered us to a specialist. The specialist had no bed side manner for treating a 3 year old and immediately recommended a surgical procedure to help my son. My wife and I rejected his advice and went to see a second specialist. The second specialist was wonderful with children and recommended a considerably less invasive cream.
We chose the cream. My son is fine. At no point did a government bureaucrat interfere with me or my various doctors making treatment decision for my son.
Can we change the perception of CEO incomes at the same time? If we're looking to trim some fat out of the economy, many of them make a whole lot more than my doctor. ;-)
No kidding!
In the case of health care - corporations (management/shareholders) profit from your illness and your doctor/nurse etc work.
I can guarantee that after thanking your doctors and nurses for saving you life you have never felt the urge to go up stairs and thank the CEO and investors who drove the cost of the whole procedure up so they could make dividends at your expense...
The basic problem is that preventative care is unavailable to many Americans. They go untreated and small diseases here and there and lack of doctor to patient education leads to more VERY sick people taxing the system.
By giving everyone access to basic preventative care, you give everyone lower medical costs.
I am a case in point. I have genetically based high-cholesterol. Even with changing my diet, I would not be able to lower it to a point where it is safe. So I have to be on cholesterol medication.
If I didn't have health insurance, this would go untreated and I'd likely have heart disease sooner rather than (hopefully) never. Because I am going to the doctor and am able to get a prescription for cholesterol reducing medication, I am saving the insurance company money. If it were government paid healthcare, I'd be saving the taxpayers money.
You are absolutely correct.
The problem for a corporation is that they are responsible for their shareholders on a quarter by quarter basis - so they do not see it that way - why should the CEO today care if the CEO in 10 years saves money?
Also you are faced with the fear that if you lose your health care or you will be denied health care because of preexisting conditions... this is an insanity of the private system - in Canada if I am sick the medical system *wants* to treat me.
The propaganda out there tells you that the minute you don't have health insurance and you get sick, you're kicked to the curve. Not true. I have health problems and I have no insurance and I'm getting very good treatment.
While the debate on health care is interesting I'd like to offer this new debate point -
Since we can identify potions of each system that are broken why can't we seem to fix them?
For example,
Congressman A introduces a simple bill that deals with a specific problem.
Congresswoman B, sensing the overwhelming popularity of the bill, tacks on a tiny provision addressing her particular district.
C adds his little piece.
It goes to the Senate where the process is rinsed, refined, and repeated.
Senator D says 'I don't agree with these add-ons', cut them and add these others. Compromises are made to get support.
If they manage to get both the House and the Senate to agree, the bill barely resembles the original form, contains a portion of dubious language/pork barrel, and costs a whole lot more.
A - President/Governor vetoes a good Bill because of the add-ons.
Bad President.
B - President/Governor signs the Bill and taxpayers pay for a lot of extra crap to get a simple fix made.
Bad President.
Problem fixed? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not even sure if anyone remembers the original goal. Beyond the sound bits about this new law being 'good' for you.
|
|
I have many "friends" and "family" who are doctors, nurses, health care workers. In the medical treatment manuals or clinical practice guidelines for the care and treatment manuals (and you can actually look this up) there is always a tiered recommendation for treatment based on probability of success - not cost.When you visit a doctor in Canada - the doctor is paid for the visit not for the course of treatment - so for example if you have high blood pressure a Canadian doctor get paid the same if he prescribes drugs, as he does if he recommends exercise.
For surgical procedures - doctors are paid by procedure - failing to provide the proper procedure would constitute medical malpractice and open the doctor up to law suits and losing his certification.
Then how do you explain these figures? According to the American Heart Association, Canadians are 17% more likely that U.S. citizens to die from a heart attack. 30% of U.S. heart attack patients have had angioplast as opposed to 11% of Canadian patients. 13% of U.S. heart attack patients have had bypass surgery, as opposed to a mear 4% of patients in Canada.
The North American Association of Central Cancer Registries found that cancer patients treated in the U.S. are more likely to survive that cancer patients treated in Canada.Canadians have a higher rate of colorectal and stomach cancer. Colon cancer patients are more likely to die in Canada than in the U.S.
In Canada 24% of emergancy room patients had to wait more than 4 hours. In the United States the number was half that. In Canada 57% of patients had to wait more than 4 weeks to see a specialist. In the United States on 23% of patients did. In Canada 21% of patients had to wait more than three weeks for a biopsy. In the U.S. less than 1% did. In Canada 50% of hip replacement surgery candidates have to wait more than 6 months for their surgery. No recorded patient in the United States has ever had to wait that long.
Canada has 4.6 MRI machines per 1 million people. The U.S. has almost five times that number. Canada has 10.3 CT Scanners per 1 million people. The U.S. has almost three times as many. While malpractice suits in Canada are rarer than in the U.s. the average pay out is 1.5 times higher than in the United States. Also torte laws are stricter in Canada than the United States, which discourages many lawsuits.