• Do you have credits to spend? Why not pick up some VOD rentals? Find out how!

A Canadian doctor diagnoses U.S. healthcare

HELLRAISER

Looking to go where no FreeOnes member has gone before!

Friday on my mind

Pain heals, chicks dig scars, Freeones lasts forever
Lets just post it,it's not that long.:)
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/03/opinion/oe-rachlis3




"A Canadian doctor diagnoses U.S. healthcare
The caricature of 'socialized medicine' is used by corporate interests to confuse Americans and maintain their bottom lines instead of patients' health.
By Michael M. Rachlis
August 03, 2009

Universal health insurance is on the American policy agenda for the fifth time since World War II. In the 1960s, the U.S. chose public coverage for only the elderly and the very poor, while Canada opted for a universal program for hospitals and physicians' services. As a policy analyst, I know there are lessons to be learned from studying the effect of different approaches in similar jurisdictions. But, as a Canadian with lots of American friends and relatives, I am saddened that Americans seem incapable of learning them.


AARP Medicare OptionsSupplemental health insurance. Get free information now! AARPHealthCare.comHealth Insurance PolicyNo email address Required. Compare the Best Plans Instantly. www.eHealthInsurance.comOur countries are joined at the hip. We peacefully share a continent, a British heritage of representative government and now ownership of GM. And, until 50 years ago, we had similar health systems, healthcare costs and vital statistics.

The U.S.' and Canada's different health insurance decisions make up the world's largest health policy experiment. And the results?

On coverage, all Canadians have insurance for hospital and physician services. There are no deductibles or co-pays. Most provinces also provide coverage for programs for home care, long-term care, pharmaceuticals and durable medical equipment, although there are co-pays.

On the U.S. side, 46 million people have no insurance, millions are underinsured and healthcare bills bankrupt more than 1 million Americans every year.

Lesson No. 1: A single-payer system would eliminate most U.S. coverage problems.

On costs, Canada spends 10% of its economy on healthcare; the U.S. spends 16%. The extra 6% of GDP amounts to more than $800 billion per year. The spending gap between the two nations is almost entirely because of higher overhead. Canadians don't need thousands of actuaries to set premiums or thousands of lawyers to deny care. Even the U.S. Medicare program has 80% to 90% lower administrative costs than private Medicare Advantage policies. And providers and suppliers can't charge as much when they have to deal with a single payer.

Lessons No. 2 and 3: Single-payer systems reduce duplicative administrative costs and can negotiate lower prices.

Because most of the difference in spending is for non-patient care, Canadians actually get more of most services. We see the doctor more often and take more drugs. We even have more lung transplant surgery. We do get less heart surgery, but not so much less that we are any more likely to die of heart attacks. And we now live nearly three years longer, and our infant mortality is 20% lower."




Our system vs. theirs is indefensible.Single payer by far would be the best way to cut costs which he points out are dramatically higher in the US.Wish we had done what they did many years ago.I will wait for those who think differently to explain how it's just not obvious that the canandians have much better system that provides more for their people at far lower costs.
 

Mrs Jolly

You can't have everything! Where would you put it?!
I was reminded recently that although the healthcare debate is often framed in terms of public (no competition = bad) and private (competition + market forces + profit = good) the reality is that healthcare can only be provided by local providers. There are no import solutions. In effect, what Americans get to choose from is an Oldsmobile, a Buick and a Dodge. Not a Toyota, a Honda etc. Competition is hammered out between a few giant providers, who have no intention of ever seriously entering a price war.

I have a friend who sits on the board of a childrens hospital and he was explaining how his company was setting up satellite facilities to counter other hospitals and not have them reach into their market. He called the hospital a brand. These facilities had to turn a profit, as a consequence there are advertising and marketing budgets and the facilities spring up in the areas where the people who have the money to use them reside. Naturally procedures and practices will in no way be driven by profitability. It will always be in the best interests of the patient. When all was said and done it appeared to me that the original point of the hospital (a place to treat the sick) sat at quite a tangent to it's primary function (make more money than the competitors.)
 

Philbert

Banned
Our system vs. theirs is indefensible.Single payer by far would be the best way to cut costs which he points out are dramatically higher in the US.Wish we had done what they did many years ago.I will wait for those who think differently to explain how it's just not obvious that the canandians have much better system that provides more for their people at far lower costs.


That was easy...:rofl:
 

EwaSonnetIsGod

I need to clean my screen
There is no way to compare the Canadian system to the US strictly based on the population differences. They have about 30 million people...the US has 300 million. 10 times the population size mean an exponentially larger problem. Just look at a company with 30 employees vs one with 300...there are huge differences and many more challenges to make it work. Universal healthcare will never work in the US and it will never happen so they need to quit wasting millions if not billions trying to get it passed.
 

Friday on my mind

Pain heals, chicks dig scars, Freeones lasts forever
That was easy...:rofl:



Easy huh.:rofl:

He puts up a link that shows that a Canadian province is having funding problems, as if that makes our system look good.Can you imagine how much of a funding problem they would have if they spent the double per person on health care the US does vs. Canada?

Yeah somebodys arguements are easy.:hatsoff:
 

don_equis

This spot is for sale!
Lets just post it,it's not that long.:)
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/03/opinion/oe-rachlis3




"A Canadian doctor diagnoses U.S. healthcare
The caricature of 'socialized medicine' is used by corporate interests to confuse Americans and maintain their bottom lines instead of patients' health.
By Michael M. Rachlis
August 03, 2009

Universal health insurance is on the American policy agenda for the fifth time since World War II. In the 1960s, the U.S. chose public coverage for only the elderly and the very poor, while Canada opted for a universal program for hospitals and physicians' services. As a policy analyst, I know there are lessons to be learned from studying the effect of different approaches in similar jurisdictions. But, as a Canadian with lots of American friends and relatives, I am saddened that Americans seem incapable of learning them.


AARP Medicare OptionsSupplemental health insurance. Get free information now! AARPHealthCare.comHealth Insurance PolicyNo email address Required. Compare the Best Plans Instantly. www.eHealthInsurance.comOur countries are joined at the hip. We peacefully share a continent, a British heritage of representative government and now ownership of GM. And, until 50 years ago, we had similar health systems, healthcare costs and vital statistics.

The U.S.' and Canada's different health insurance decisions make up the world's largest health policy experiment. And the results?

On coverage, all Canadians have insurance for hospital and physician services. There are no deductibles or co-pays. Most provinces also provide coverage for programs for home care, long-term care, pharmaceuticals and durable medical equipment, although there are co-pays.

On the U.S. side, 46 million people have no insurance, millions are underinsured and healthcare bills bankrupt more than 1 million Americans every year.

Lesson No. 1: A single-payer system would eliminate most U.S. coverage problems.

On costs, Canada spends 10% of its economy on healthcare; the U.S. spends 16%. The extra 6% of GDP amounts to more than $800 billion per year. The spending gap between the two nations is almost entirely because of higher overhead. Canadians don't need thousands of actuaries to set premiums or thousands of lawyers to deny care. Even the U.S. Medicare program has 80% to 90% lower administrative costs than private Medicare Advantage policies. And providers and suppliers can't charge as much when they have to deal with a single payer.

Lessons No. 2 and 3: Single-payer systems reduce duplicative administrative costs and can negotiate lower prices.

Because most of the difference in spending is for non-patient care, Canadians actually get more of most services. We see the doctor more often and take more drugs. We even have more lung transplant surgery. We do get less heart surgery, but not so much less that we are any more likely to die of heart attacks. And we now live nearly three years longer, and our infant mortality is 20% lower."




Our system vs. theirs is indefensible.Single payer by far would be the best way to cut costs which he points out are dramatically higher in the US.Wish we had done what they did many years ago.I will wait for those who think differently to explain how it's just not obvious that the canandians have much better system that provides more for their people at far lower costs.


Good one Facetious like always on top of it.


Now that's the pot calling the kettle black!

Thanks to Friday for posting the whole article.

TORONTO, March 20, 2005
Canadian Health Care In Crisis
Free And First-Class — If You Can Wait
By Chris Hawke


For than one article in which that guy praises the Canadian system there are like 20 or more that exposes that system as really bad.


AP) A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."

The patient wasn't dead, according to the doctor who showed the letter to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. But there are many Canadians who claim the long wait for the test and the frigid formality of the letter are indicative of a health system badly in need of emergency care.

Americans who flock to Canada for cheap flu shots often come away impressed at the free and first-class medical care available to Canadians, rich or poor. But tell that to hospital administrators constantly having to cut staff for lack of funds, or to the mother whose teenager was advised she would have to wait up to three years for surgery to repair a torn knee ligament.

"It's like somebody's telling you that you can buy this car, and you've paid for the car, but you can't have it right now," said Jane Pelton. Rather than leave daughter Emily in pain and a knee brace, the Ottawa family opted to pay $3,300 for arthroscopic surgery at a private clinic in Vancouver, with no help from the

The rest can be found here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml
 

DreamSparrow

Will fuck for FreeOnes!
It amazes me that this discussion is still going on. Universal healthcare is quite socialist in character but so is universal primary and secondary education.

It's obvious that nearly every principled argument against "socialist healthcare" could be wielded against "socialist education" too, but for some reason, critics of universal healthcare refrain from doing so. I wish some of them would, because at least then they'd seem somewhat consistent.

It's the heritage of the Red Scare means that people can't even discuss socialism without the spectre of anti-communism clouding their judgement, even when this policy clearly leads to generally better standards of living...


Key bits from the article.

The health authority confirmed the document is genuine, but said it represents ideas only.

Brodie acknowledged surgical waiting times have dropped significantly in recent years, particularly for patients needing hip and joint replacements.

He said the proposed cuts threaten those advancements.

“It sounds like we are going backwards here,” he said.

Sounds pretty bad, but how far backwards would they actually end up even if this were to take place?

In a country where millions are denied care because they have no insurance, I really don't think you're in a position to gloat about a few thousand surgeries that may or may not end up being cut.
 

Will E Worm

Conspiracy...
Canadian Brain Tumor Survivor Speaks Out Against Government Health Care.

Holmes testified today that, when given the extraordinary wait time of 6 months for seeing a specialist in Canada, she asked: “How could I wait that long for the care I so desperately needed? How could I allow my government to gamble with my health?”


And the government did gamble. After the government told her to wait 6 months, Holmes flew to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, where she was diagnosed with a brain tumor and given a six-week window for surgery. Holmes went back to Canada , diagnosis in hand, and the Canadian government refused to move up the surgery. She went back to the Mayo Clinic and had the surgery done three weeks later.

Article

That's just one of many. :hatsoff:
 

Hot Mega

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
None of the Canadian examples of problems relate to US reforms as the single payer or public option is just that...an option.

What's your wait time for surgery in the US if you don't have any coverage nor the money to pay on your own would seem to be the more appropriate questions.
 

Hot Mega

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
"...in a country where millions are denied care because they have no insurance..."

Fact:
Anyone w/o insurance can walk into most hospitals in the US and get treatment at virtually no cost.

I'm glad you brought that up. Under EMTALA hospitals are only obligated to stabilize those that are screened to have a medical emergency. They have no obligation to treat people with non emergencies...

So it's not a fact "anyone w/o insurance can walk into most hospitals in the and get treatment at virtually no cost." And certainly when you walk in...it costs somebody.

It's certainly not desirable from a resource or cost perspective to have people waiting for conditions to become emergencies then try and get treatment. Nor is it desirable from a resource and cost perspective to have people tying up emergency rooms trying to get treated for non emergencies just because they don't have a means of seeing to it that their routine care is paid for.
 

HELLRAISER

Looking to go where no FreeOnes member has gone before!
Easy huh.:rofl:

He puts up a link that shows that a Canadian province is having funding problems, as if that makes our system look good.Can you imagine how much of a funding problem they would have if they spent the double per person on health care the US does vs. Canada?

Yeah somebodys arguements are easy.:hatsoff:

That's funny how they will get some schmuck to debunk the expert analysis of a doctor lol
 

HeartBroker

Less than 1,000 posts away from my free Freeones T-shirt
I'm glad you brought that up. Under EMTALA hospitals are only obligated to stabilize those that are screened to have a medical emergency. They have no obligation to treat people with non emergencies...

So it's not a fact "anyone w/o insurance can walk into most hospitals in the and get treatment at virtually no cost." And certainly when you walk in...it costs somebody.

It's certainly not desirable from a resource or cost perspective to have people waiting for conditions to become emergencies then try and get treatment. Nor is it desirable from a resource and cost perspective to have people tying up emergency rooms trying to get treated for non emergencies just because they don't have a means of seeing to it that their routine care is paid for.

Depending upon the hospital, the uninsured are required by law to be treated with "as reasonable care as any insured or 'private pay' patient"

It's just written off in the end, granted, not a great model but the hospitals in question are receiving federal money for just this eventuality.
 

Philbert

Banned
That's funny how they will get some schmuck to debunk the expert analysis of a doctor lol

Ya'll are simpleminded at best; but whatever floats your boat, huh?
Do you consider Triple Bypass surgery a minor procedure?
I personally know of someone who went into a County Hospital, got a scan, and due to having a possible heart attack from arterial blockage had the procedure...dirt poor they were, and paid nothing for the op.
I know many poor folks who can't afford insurance or a Doctor...but have a 40+" HD tv in the living room to watch their DishNetwork HD on, and to play their Playstation/XBoxs on.
Most folks without ins (many fewer than 20 million) who can't afford it can get med treatment from State/Fed gov and charity hospitals...that's been a fact for a long time til the illegals clogged the system, and made it harder.
Most people mean they can't afford health care and their toys/cigarettes/vast quantities of alcohol.
Having absolute dependence on the gov for med care, and hoping the budget doesn't force cuts when you need care NOW...not a good thing.
If you think it's a bitch now, wait'll it's in the hands of the worst organization in the Universe for efficiency ...any Government agency, ever.
I mean...let them take a year or so and work out some meaningful solutions to the health care swamp...no question it's growing too hard to use for more and more.
Just don't pretend it's do it now or we die by the millions tomorrow.
Don't fix what ain't broke...just fix what needs fixin'.
Just repeat after me... "Cash for Clunkers"... "Clusterfuck "... "Cash for Clunkers"..."Clusterfuck"...:rofl:

There's your Obama Admin at work...
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
This is a link to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986. There is no (Federal) legal requirement that forces hospitals to do anything but stabilize the patient once he/she enters the ER. If a hospital doesn't have an ER, then they are not required to do anything under this law.

http://www.medlaw.com/healthlaw/EMTALA/statute/emergency-medical-treatme.shtml


State and local laws vary. But there is most certainly no Federal law which guarantees anything other than treatment for an emergency condition... and then only in hospitals which have an ER. There seems to be a growing misconception that people who may need catastrophic care (chemo or radiation therapy, for instance) can go to a hospital and demand treatment. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you have a stroke, heart attack or cancer, once you are stable, the hospital's legal obligation to you is complete.

I would bet that the majority of Americans who believe that they have "good insurance coverage" have never even read their policy, and probably haven't had any sort of catastrophic event which tests just how good it (really) is. I would further bet that most people don't know what their lifetime cap is under that policy. And they have no idea how easy it would be for their insurance provider to drop them. Ignorance is bliss.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/08/politics/washingtonpost/main5294409.shtml
The untimely disappearance of Sally Marrari's medical coverage goes a long way toward explaining why insurance companies are cast as the villain in the health-care reform drama.

"They said I never mentioned I had a back problem," said Marrari, 52, whose coverage with Blue Cross was abruptly canceled in 2006 after a thyroid disorder, fluid in the heart and lupus were diagnosed. That left the Los Angeles woman with $25,000 in medical bills and the stigma of the company's claim that she had committed fraud by not listing on a health questionnaire "preexisting conditions" Marrari said she did not know she had.

By the time she filed a lawsuit in 2008, she also got a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and her debts had swelled beyond $200,000. She was able to see a specialist by trading office visits for work on the doctor's 1969 Porsche at the garage she owns with her husband.
 
Top