Covered California Rate Increase 12.5% for 2018 (sale, litigation, garden)

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

yep, it's a great way to conduct a poll, ask a doctor how long they think their patients will have to wait for a procedure

It is. You're getting info direct from the source. Who would know better than them?

Huffington Posts even did their own study that showed the wait times were so long, 50,000 Canadians chose to cross the border and just get treatment in the U.S.

So obviously rationing and wait times are a problem or those tens of thousands would not have crossed the border to find a private sector alternative.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0db570d3778ff

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

what are you spewing now?


And why do you only quote Canadian wait times for specialist appointments?

We can do other countries. You brought up France, but France does not monitor wait times. I WONDER WHY.

UK's waiting times have become a huge problem with nearly 200,000 patients waiting over a month to get surgery.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...et-for-surgery

According to the Health Policy Journal, a peer reviewed database that is home to over 30,000 journals on healthcare, they found>

It cannot be concluded that if a country does not monitor waiting time that waiting times are not a problem.

In countries where waiting times are not registered and reported, accessibility may still be an issue. France’s lack of national monitoring is often cited as evidence that the country has no waiting time problems. However, the large regional differences in terms of services provided and number of doctors have led to inequities in access.

Greece suffers from long waiting times, and informal payments to “jump the queue” are common [50]. In

Germany the debate has revolved around the fact that people who are privately insured have faster access to health care [30,31,51].

In Austria, researchers have found that privately insured patients have faster access and they have refuted the notion that the country has no waiting times [52].

You were saying?

[SportyandMisty]

One thing I think we can do is focus on pharmaceutical prices (and I mean prices, not costs). There is a reason most big pharma is headquartered in Switzerland -- and it is taxes. R&D is frequently performed in the USA, with patents filed, and then before the not-approved-drugs begin their arduous trek through the IND/NDA process, the patents are "sold" from the US entity to the Swiss parent for a nominal amount -- at that time the patents have little economic value because there is no approved drug that they cover. Then, years later, if the drug survives the IND/NDA process, the US entity must pay the Swiss entity a very large transfer payment, so the US entity must then charge very high prices.

I haven't yet read any analysis of the new tax law specific to Big Pharma, and if the new system will change the scenario I describe above. Maybe. I know the new tax law encourages investment in capital (plant & equipment) but I don't know enough about Big Pharma to know if it would impact the R&D process.

There is one other thing we can do.

It is common practice for Big Pharma to engage in country-by-country price discrimination. When this happens, we see a drug in the USA with a very large price tag and the same drug is for sale in other developed countries for much less... and it is available for sale in 3rd world s-holes for pennies.

I don't see any reason why I should pay big bucks for a medicine while that same drug is sold in India or Pakistan or Africa for 99% less. I don't want to subsidize their use of blockbuster drugs. I think we should insist on a price leveling so that the USA does not pay more than the 3rd world s-hole pays.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

It is. You're getting info direct from the source. Who would know better than them?

Huffington Posts even did their own study that showed the wait times were so long, 50,000 Canadians chose to cross the border and just get treatment in the U.S.

So obviously rationing and wait times are a problem or those tens of thousands would not have crossed the border to find a private sector alternative.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0db570d3778ff

HuffPo didn't do their own study. Seriously..go back to your link and click on the hyperlink under 2015 It takes you directly to the Fraser Report /sigh

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

We can do other countries. You brought up France, but France does not monitor wait times. I WONDER WHY.
UK's waiting times have become a huge problem with nearly 200,000 patients waiting over a month to get surgery.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...et-for-surgery
According to the Health Policy Journal, a peer reviewed database that is home to over 30,000 journals on healthcare, they found>
You were saying?

And the bottom line is that people in the US without health insurance don't even have the opportunity of getting on a waiting list

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

And the bottom line is that people in the US without health insurance don't even have the opportunity of getting on a waiting list

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

HuffPo didn't do their own study. Seriously..go back to your link and click on the hyperlink under 2015 It takes you directly to the Fraser Report /sigh

The 52,513 Canadians figure is not from the Frasier Study, it's from Health Canada which Frasier quoted.

Unless you're saying that the Canadian government would for some reason make up a statistic to make themselves look bad?

[2sleepy]

Medicare provides coverage for the uninsured? Wow, you should let everyone know about that...particularly non-disabled, non-elderly adults without children who live in a state that does not offer expanded medicaid.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

The 52,513 Canadians figure is not from the Frasier Study, it's from Health Canada which Frasier quoted. Unless you're saying that the Canadian government would for some reason make up a statistic to make themselves look bad?

Let me remind you of your comment that I was responding to:

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Huffington Posts even did their own study that showed the wait times were so long, 50,000 Canadians chose to cross the border and just get treatment in the U.S.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0db570d3778ff

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

You were saying?

Well, I was saying two things ... firstly, in response to your totally ignorant remark:

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Healthcare is not a right. It isn't even a "right" in those countries you claim it is.

That's why Canadians have to wait 22 weeks in some cases to see a specialist. How can something be a right when no one is around to provide it? Yeah, because healthcare is not a right.

... I replied:

Source:
University of California - Los Angeles
Summary:
More than half of the world's countries have some degree of a guaranteed, specific right to public health and medical care for their citizens written into their national constitutions. The United States is one of 86 countries whose constitutions do not guarantee their citizens any kind of health protection. .

... which correction, understandably, you have chosen to ignore.

Next I pointed out that for your “proof” that universal healthcare is dismally inefficient, your citation of Canada as a sole example out of over 85 universal health care systems is, at the very least, laughable. Furthermore, your selective citations of “average wait times”, especially when cited for the other country known for long waits (UK), ignoring 80+ other systems' wait times, are without specification.

The reality is the comparative analysis of “healthcare wait times” internationally is an almost impossible task to present equitably unless broken into deep specificity. The waits for elective surgeries vs emergency vs urgent. The waits for the dazzling multiplicities of elective surgeries into like categories. Etc. Hip replacements and cataract surgeries in one country do not average the same in another. Hip might be long in country A with cataract short. Country B might have both short - or long. Country C might be short for cataracts and long for hips but even shorter for bunions.

The most important measure, of course is whether ALL citizens can be seen quickly for emergencies and non-elective crises ... and affordably. In this measure, prior to the ACA, the US has historically not performed well since many persons simply delayed or avoided all together going anywhere for care they couldn't afford. Meanwhile, countries with universal care rated much higher in many cases. The US was middle of the pack of developed nations.

By the way, you also tried to declare that France doesn't monitor wait times ... which is not really true. Again, it depends on what parts of the system for what proceedures you are looking for answers. And, as for Germany and some other countries having faster access for those who can afford to pay for it ... well, duh. Canadians who can pay for care in the US can get faster access too. Anybody anywhere with money can beat down a door faster than persons without the resources. So what? That doesn't change the fact that Germany's universal healthcare system is highly efficient - even for those without surplus funds.

Etc.