Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the Australian guy got it right. Health care should be part of the social contract. A privatized health care system will never ever work. It kills too many people. And the ones it doesn't kill it leaves them in so much debt that it might has well have just killed them.
the Australian guy got it right. Health care should be part of the social contract. A privatized health care system will never ever work. It kills too many people. And the ones it doesn't kill it leaves them in so much debt that it might has well have just killed them.
Yep. Our biggest debate in Australia are things like whether it's fair to give tax rebates to encourage people to buy private cover to save the system some money or to, as according to the current controversy, charge a nominal $6 fee for doctor and emergency room visits. Any politician would suggest wholesale changes at their electoral peril. The $6 fee thing will probably never happen as it will be so toxic with the public (it's just been put forth as an idea by an advisory committee at the moment).
I notice we've got the same old US conservative (I might point out that, by Australian standards, I am a conservative - certainly not by US ones) talking point about people "dying in emergency wards". This old chestnut completely ignores the fact that A) this happens in the USA as well and B) hospital staffing and resourcing are completely separate issues to health insurance.
My wife might need a back operation. If she goes with our national health cover (Medicare, not be be confused with the different US scheme of the same name) she might face a wait of quite a few months since it's not life threatening. That's another big talking point "Waiting lists". Still, what keeps being lost in the US debate (if you could call it a debate) is that private hospitals and private health insurance STILL EXIST in Australia and every other Western nation where there's some sort of nationalised healthcare scheme. If my wife wanted her operation pronto we could take out hospital cover which would be a fraction of the cost than it would be in the USA and, on top of that, she could just go and have the operation done anyway in a private hospital and, most likely, end up paying less than she would in the USA with "really good insurance" because, apparently, the bed linens in US hospitals are laced with gold and platinum threads or something and burnt after every night (something must force those costs up).
OR, if we were broke - you know, poor people. We'd have the option to wait and pay $0.
So. A quick snapshot for the TLR crowd.
Oh, you need an operation?
Australia -
Your options: 1) Take our private insurance and have it right away - basically all covered.
2) Don't take out private insurance and have it done privately - pay a few grand.
3) Wait for several months for treatment under the public system and pay $0 (Poor people - this is your option)
USA
Your options: 1) Take out private cover. Have it done right away. Still copay thousands of dollars.
2) Have it done without any insurance? Not likely.
3) Can't afford insurance? Sorry, no operation for you. I guess those horrid waiting lists that fox news and Bill O'reilly go on about don't seem so bad now, eh?
So which system is better?
Someone needs to create a health care options flow chart to explain this to avid Republicans.
I love the USA - The five and a bit years I lived there were a grand adventure. The "stupid" needs to be cut out like a cancerous tumour, though. God only knows what the hospitals there will charge for that particular surgery.
Yep. Our biggest debate in Australia are things like whether it's fair to give tax rebates to encourage people to buy private cover to save the system some money or to, as according to the current controversy, charge a nominal $6 fee for doctor and emergency room visits. Any politician would suggest wholesale changes at their electoral peril. The $6 fee thing will probably never happen as it will be so toxic with the public (it's just been put forth as an idea by an advisory committee at the moment).
I notice we've got the same old US conservative (I might point out that, by Australian standards, I am a conservative - certainly not by US ones) talking point about people "dying in emergency wards". This old chestnut completely ignores the fact that A) this happens in the USA as well and B) hospital staffing and resourcing are completely separate issues to health insurance.
My wife might need a back operation. If she goes with our national health cover (Medicare, not be be confused with the different US scheme of the same name) she might face a wait of quite a few months since it's not life threatening. That's another big talking point "Waiting lists". Still, what keeps being lost in the US debate (if you could call it a debate) is that private hospitals and private health insurance STILL EXIST in Australia and every other Western nation where there's some sort of nationalised healthcare scheme. If my wife wanted her operation pronto we could take out hospital cover which would be a fraction of the cost than it would be in the USA and, on top of that, she could just go and have the operation done anyway in a private hospital and, most likely, end up paying less than she would in the USA with "really good insurance" because, apparently, the bed linens in US hospitals are laced with gold and platinum threads or something and burnt after every night (something must force those costs up).
OR, if we were broke - you know, poor people. We'd have the option to wait and pay $0.
So. A quick snapshot for the TLR crowd.
Oh, you need an operation?
Australia -
Your options: 1) Take our private insurance and have it right away - basically all covered.
2) Don't take out private insurance and have it done privately - pay a few grand.
3) Wait for several months for treatment under the public system and pay $0 (Poor people - this is your option)
USA
Your options: 1) Take out private cover. Have it done right away. Still copay thousands of dollars.
2) Have it done without any insurance? Not likely.
3) Can't afford insurance? Sorry, no operation for you. I guess those horrid waiting lists that fox news and Bill O'reilly go on about don't seem so bad now, eh?
So which system is better?
Someone needs to create a health care options flow chart to explain this to avid Republicans.
I love the USA - The five and a bit years I lived there were a grand adventure. The "stupid" needs to be cut out like a cancerous tumour, though. God only knows what the hospitals there will charge for that particular surgery.
Thank you, thank you!
Posts such as this serve to actually show with words to those who cannot seem to get past decades of that "socialist", "communist", "nanny state" indoctrination nonsense that has worked so remarkably well to stifle Americans freedom of individual thought process, there is a reason why multiple nations have overwhelmingly embraced a system of some type nationalized healthcare.
Your very last paragraph sums up the situation that is becoming apparent to ever more Americans now forced to view their health care system under the bright lights of today's ACA insurance fiasco.
Yep. Our biggest debate in Australia are things like whether it's fair to give tax rebates to encourage people to buy private cover to save the system some money or to, as according to the current controversy, charge a nominal $6 fee for doctor and emergency room visits. Any politician would suggest wholesale changes at their electoral peril. The $6 fee thing will probably never happen as it will be so toxic with the public (it's just been put forth as an idea by an advisory committee at the moment).
I notice we've got the same old US conservative (I might point out that, by Australian standards, I am a conservative - certainly not by US ones) talking point about people "dying in emergency wards". This old chestnut completely ignores the fact that A) this happens in the USA as well and B) hospital staffing and resourcing are completely separate issues to health insurance.
My wife might need a back operation. If she goes with our national health cover (Medicare, not be be confused with the different US scheme of the same name) she might face a wait of quite a few months since it's not life threatening. That's another big talking point "Waiting lists". Still, what keeps being lost in the US debate (if you could call it a debate) is that private hospitals and private health insurance STILL EXIST in Australia and every other Western nation where there's some sort of nationalised healthcare scheme. If my wife wanted her operation pronto we could take out hospital cover which would be a fraction of the cost than it would be in the USA and, on top of that, she could just go and have the operation done anyway in a private hospital and, most likely, end up paying less than she would in the USA with "really good insurance" because, apparently, the bed linens in US hospitals are laced with gold and platinum threads or something and burnt after every night (something must force those costs up).
OR, if we were broke - you know, poor people. We'd have the option to wait and pay $0.
So. A quick snapshot for the TLR crowd.
Oh, you need an operation?
Australia -
Your options: 1) Take our private insurance and have it right away - basically all covered.
2) Don't take out private insurance and have it done privately - pay a few grand.
3) Wait for several months for treatment under the public system and pay $0 (Poor people - this is your option)
USA
Your options: 1) Take out private cover. Have it done right away. Still copay thousands of dollars.
2) Have it done without any insurance? Not likely.
3) Can't afford insurance? Sorry, no operation for you. I guess those horrid waiting lists that fox news and Bill O'reilly go on about don't seem so bad now, eh?
So which system is better?
Someone needs to create a health care options flow chart to explain this to avid Republicans.
I love the USA - The five and a bit years I lived there were a grand adventure. The "stupid" needs to be cut out like a cancerous tumour, though. God only knows what the hospitals there will charge for that particular surgery.
If it was me I'd have universal healthcare with something like $100 fees for doctors visits and $500 fees for ER visits just to discourage people from using the ER for stupid stuff like their kids having the sniffles. It would still be far more affordable than the thousands or more people have to pay for actual procedures.
If it was me I'd have universal healthcare with something like $100 fees for doctors visits and $500 fees for ER visits just to discourage people from using the ER for stupid stuff like their kids having the sniffles. It would still be far more affordable than the thousands or more people have to pay for actual procedures.
That's just the thing; I do not believe any of the countries with a Universal Healthcare system experience the kinds of abuse you're seeing in the U.S.
Having coverage for everything means you're pro-active in your personal health decisions to the point that you don't end up using an ER as a form of health maintenance but rather only go there when you actually need emergency care for an unforeseen event injurious in nature.
IE: If your history shows you being susceptible to bronchitis; you call your family practitioner and inform the desk that you are displaying the usual symptoms. A call back in a number of minutes suggests you visit the office that afternoon and the doctor will verify so he can "legitimately" write a prescription after an actual examination and you're on your way to the pharmacy or home to have the prescription delivered to your door. That has been the practice for my family for well over 60 years.
You must be on one of those programs. Most people who complain about the ACA are.
What about the people without insurance what are they supposed to pay. I guess they are on their own without insurance and the gubbermint to negotiate the rates.
Nope. They default and then other people and programs make up the difference to the providers.
I think the ACA is a profoundly stupid plan but I do totally believe that we need a complete revamp of our medical system here in the US. It truly is ridiculous. The big winners in the picture are not the providers, or the people they provide care to - it's the INSURANCE COMPANIES. In other words, Big Business. And the ACA just gave them a ton of business. Why am I not surprised though? Politicians and Big Business have been in bed together since the dawn of time - and it doesn't matter which party it is.
Your claim is that Canadians have universal healthcare. What is the point of having universal healthcare, if access to treatment is limited and people die waiting for open-heart surgery, waiting for angioplasty --- that Americans get in a matter of minutes or hours --- or waiting in an over-crowded ER?
Diane Gorsuch and all the others died not because of medical mistakes, but because of a lack of access. Those Canadians who died waiting for angioplasty (cardiac catheterization) died because of a lack of access, not medical mistakes. Those people who died in your ERs died due to a lack of access, not because of medical mistakes. Those Canadians who are denied kidney dialysis are denied not because of medical mistakes, but because of a lack of access.
You claim that healthcare in Canada costs less than the US. That claim is refuted by the evidence. Healthcare in Canada has never cost less than in the US, and in fact it might even cost more. Spending less does not equal costing less.
Diane Gorsuch and the others who died under similar circumstances did not die because of medical error....they died because you spend less than what healthcare truly costs. It was not a medical error for Diane to be on a waiting list for open-heart surgery for a year.....she was denied because you didn't have the money. Her surgery was cancelled not by medical error, but because you didn't have the money. She was placed again on a waiting list not because of medical mistake, but because you didn't have the money. Her surgery was cancelled a second time not because of medical mistake, but because you didn't have the money. She was yet again placed on a waiting list....and died....because you didn't have the money.
The same is true for the others who died.
Americans get cardiac catheterization in a matter of minutes or hours, but in Canada, it can take months, because you don't have the money...and people die.
Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer
IEA Health and Welfare Unit
12% of kidney specialists in the UK said they had refused to treat patients due to limited resources .
One study showed that patients accepted for dialysis stacked up this way.....
65 patients per million population UK
98 patients per million population in Canada
212 patients per million population in the US
You have half the ability for kidney dialysis, because you don't have the money.
People wait 34 hours and die in your ERs, because you don't have the money.
Which part of "you don't have the money" do you not understand?
Fortunately, the claim that there are 50 Million "uninsured" Americans is a lie, but assuming it would be true, adopting a system like Canada would only worsen existing problems in the US, so you both can quit acting with pious indignation.
The Trustees believe that this outcome, while plausible, will depend on the achievement of unprecedented improvements in health care provider productivity. If the health sector could not transition to more efficient models of care delivery and achieve productivity increases commensurate with economy-wide productivity, and if the provider reimbursement rates paid by commercial insurers continued to follow the same negotiated process used to date, then the availability and quality of health care received by Medicare beneficiaries relative to that received by those with private health insurance would fall over time, generating pressure to modify Medicare’s payment rates.
Source: 2012 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL HOSPITAL INSURANCE AND FEDERAL SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS, Page 3
I suppose now you're going to claim that Medicare is a front-organization for the Koch Brothers funded by the Frasier Institute and that the Medicare Trustees are shills for the "health insurance" companies.
I can pull up 100s of news articles, reports from the Canadian Medical Association and reports from the Canadian government covering the last 15 years.
That hardly constitutes cherry-picked anomalies.
I am well aware of the problems in the US -- much more so than you ever could be.
Medical Errors?
Dodging and Deflecting. There must be some kind of Canadian Dodging and Deflecting Gene.
We're not talking about Medical Errors, we're talking about the fact that Canada does not have enough money to fund its healthcare system.
See if you can stay focused....
Mircea
I tend to agree with this statement, universal health care in whatever country you want to pick tends to be rationed, I guess they allocate so much money per year for health care and once it runs out people suffer. I have read much info on UHC in Canada and am not sure what to believe, but I do know what I have now and am satisfied with it.
I tend to agree with this statement, universal health care in whatever country you want to pick tends to be rationed, I guess they allocate so much money per year for health care and once it runs out people suffer. I have read much info on UHC in Canada and am not sure what to believe, but I do know what I have now and am satisfied with it.
Healthcare in the USA is rationed. Prior to the ACA you're insurance company had a lifetime cap on you. There have been countless stories where people have gotten cancer in the US and then hit their lifetime cap and the insurance company cut them off. They no longer received treatment and they died. The ones that survived where left with mountains of medical debt.
Then there is the sinister practice of rescission, where an insurance company cancels the policy of a sick person. They find any excuse to do so and even give their employees bonuses if they cancel so many policies. The ACA puts an end to this sinister practice.
Then how about how the insurance company can deny treatment for pretty much any reason they like? When your doctor wants to run a test (an MRI for example) he first must send the paperwork to the insurance company for approval. They deny coverage all the time. That's rationing.
You cite the NHS and the NHS does have its problems depending on where in the UK you are. I've lived in the UK so I have experience with it. It's a much better system than the US. Not even close. It's not the best socialized health care system though. I could name 10 better.
Healthcare in the USA is rationed. Prior to the ACA you're insurance company had a lifetime cap on you. There have been countless stories where people have gotten cancer in the US and then hit their lifetime cap and the insurance company cut them off. They no longer received treatment and they died. The ones that survived where left with mountains of medical debt.
I'm not one on here defending our system but I've known many people who got cancer and I don't know of a single one that was cut off from coverage. I don't doubt that one could find examples but I'm pretty sure they aren't countless.
Quote:
Then how about how the insurance company can deny treatment for pretty much any reason they like? When your doctor wants to run a test (an MRI for example) he first must send the paperwork to the insurance company for approval. They deny coverage all the time. That's rationing.
Nothing has changed here. Obamacare is not going to cover any old procedure you want covered.
Quote:
You cite the NHS and the NHS does have its problems depending on where in the UK you are. I've lived in the UK so I have experience with it. It's a much better system than the US. Not even close. It's not the best socialized health care system though. I could name 10 better.
The US health care system is really shocking.
And yet people from all around the world come here every day for health services. On any given day The Cleveland Clinic looks like a meeting at the U.N.
The problem is not everyone can access this care. All systems have their flaws and shortcomings. What has to be decided is which ones can be lived with.
I tend to agree with this statement, universal health care in whatever country you want to pick tends to be rationed, I guess they allocate so much money per year for health care and once it runs out people suffer. I have read much info on UHC in Canada and am not sure what to believe, but I do know what I have now and am satisfied with it.
The US rations more than any modern nation on earth. We are so brain washed it boggles the mind. Again we ration like this: I pay for medicaid and medicare and VA and Indian health and I do not qualify to use any one of them. I'm not old, disabled, poor, not an American Indian, nor am I a vet, yet I pay taxes for all of them. I can only use insurance I pay additional for and still I have to pay co-pays and deductibles on top of that. THAT IS RATIONING!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
R crowd.
