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.
Americans travel to Canada for medical procedures.
You are naive about the rate of Canadians choosing the USA for medical coverage.
And do you have any information that suggests this story isn't true. Backing u your statement might give you an ounce of credibility.
I can't find any.
I can't get over that a 17 year old kid died because someone didn't help him to get the care he needed.
This is sad.
If as Americans we excuse, rationalize, ignore, dismiss, this we most definitely have lost our humanity.
"I can't find any. Not my problem you do do know how to search the Internet. This is sad!
"In the United States, 70% of patients are able to be seen by specialists less than four weeks after a referral. In Canada, less than 40% were seen inside of four weeks.
After being advised that they need a procedure done, only about 35% of Canadians had their surgery within a month, whereas in the United States, 61% did. After four months, about 97% of Americans were able to have their surgery, whereas Canada struggled to achieve 80%.
America is significantly outperforming Canada in surgery wait times even as it’s likely that tens of thousands of Canadians come here to use the American system.
America’s health system is certainly flawed and in need of reform, but there is clearly something working well enough that our system, despite already treating 10 times more cases of appendicitis, can absorb the dissatisfied Canadians.
This has been a consistent trend since at least 2014, when an estimated 52,513 Canadians left for their medical care. In 2015, the number went down slightly to 45,619. 2016 exceeded the 2015 number with an estimated 63,459 patients seeking care elsewhere.'"
Moreover, both countries have had comparable rates of private health insurance coverage for the past 20 years, roughly 60-70%."
Believe it or not, this has actually become the norm in the US. The idea that health insurance is tied to an employer is just asinine. You can't even keep your insurance when you switch jobs or retire.
You can thank FDR for that. Horrible president to have during that time frame. His asinine economic policies prolonged the Great Depression by at least 7 years, keeping millions of Americans in unnecessarily extended misery. And he screwed up health insurance for the last 78 years...
Quote:
"In 1942, with so many eligible workers diverted to military service, the nation was facing a severe labor shortage. Economists feared that businesses would keep raising salaries to compete for workers, and that inflation would spiral out of control as the country came out of the Depression. To prevent this, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9250, establishing the Office of Economic Stabilization.
This froze wages. Businesses were not allowed to raise pay to attract workers.
Businesses were smart, though, and instead they began to use benefits to compete. Specifically, to offer more, and more generous, health care insurance."
As a Canadian, I just can't see how or why this is even possible. It is immoral, it is unethical, it is unthinking that someone who needs critical care is denied because... of insurance!!!!
The urgent care facility refused to see him, referring him instead to another hospital. Why are there still some Americans who are not absolutely outraged at this? Why are there so many who don't see healthcare as a HUMAN right, especially critical and urgent care?
I'm sure there are some here who are perfectly OK with the system that allows this. I will never understand you and your excuses.
Too early to tell whose health system will do better in this pandemic. So far, the countries faring the worst (Spain and Italy) have universal health care.
Given the massive amount of aid we give other nations and the massive amounts we have dumped into the UN, I look at that as more of a repayment than a donation. Tab the totals and I bet the USA has dumped thousands of times more money into other nations that we have ever received.
I am all for cutting off 100% of foreign aid and taking care of ourselves only. But, that will never happen as foreign aid is a massive income source for the federal reserve and other world banks.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,180 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler
Too early to tell whose health system will do better in this pandemic. So far, the countries faring the worst (Spain and Italy) have universal health care.
Switzerland has private healthcare and is not fairing that well when compared to neighbouring Germany which has Universal Healthcare.
I also don't think it's any one system of health care, what has stopped the virus is early intervention and lockdown to stop it spreading.
Hospitals whether private or public are just swamped by numbers and are just trying to cope.
"I can't find any. Not my problem you do do know how to search the Internet. This is sad!
"In the United States, 70% of patients are able to be seen by specialists less than four weeks after a referral. In Canada, less than 40% were seen inside of four weeks.
After being advised that they need a procedure done, only about 35% of Canadians had their surgery within a month, whereas in the United States, 61% did. After four months, about 97% of Americans were able to have their surgery, whereas Canada struggled to achieve 80%.
America is significantly outperforming Canada in surgery wait times even as it’s likely that tens of thousands of Canadians come here to use the American system.
America’s health system is certainly flawed and in need of reform, but there is clearly something working well enough that our system, despite already treating 10 times more cases of appendicitis, can absorb the dissatisfied Canadians.
This has been a consistent trend since at least 2014, when an estimated 52,513 Canadians left for their medical care. In 2015, the number went down slightly to 45,619. 2016 exceeded the 2015 number with an estimated 63,459 patients seeking care elsewhere.'"
Moreover, both countries have had comparable rates of private health insurance coverage for the past 20 years, roughly 60-70%."
So, I Ask, if the Canadian public system is so great, why do so many have ADDITIONAL PRIVATE insurance.
Of course you neglect to mention the little bit about that 70% figure being only of those who have insurance and are therefore referred and in the system.. The rest aren't even tabulated because they never get to see the specialist at all and are not in ANY database.
You have also had it explained numerous times that that figure 52,000 used is gleaned and inflated from an older study performed by the well known and equally discounted Fraser Institute, a right wing think tank org. funded by the Koch Brothers among other conservatives. Within their methodology they even admit to estimating those figures from talking to a few Canadian practitioners who "thought" or "estimated" some of their patients had left the country seeking care but had no actual proof or that the country went to was indeed; the U.S.
Just a couple of samplings of Fraser Institutes history.
"In 2012, the Vancouver Observer reported that the Fraser Institute had "received over $4.3 million in the last decade from eight major American foundations including the most powerful players in oil and pharmaceuticals". According to the article, "The Fraser Institute received $1.7 million from 'sources outside Canada' in one year alone, according to the group's 2010 Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) return. Fraser Institute President Niels Veldhuis told The Vancouver Observer that the Fraser Institute does accept foreign funding, but he declined to comment on any specific donors or details about the donations."
"In late 1997, the Institute set up a research program emulating the UK's Social Affairs Unit, called the Social Affairs Centre. Its founding Director was Patrick Basham. The program's funding came from Rothmans International and Philip Morris. When Rothmans was bought by British American Tobacco (BAT) in 1999, its funding ended,[54] and in 2000 the Institute wrote to BAT asking for $50,000 per year, to be split between the Social Affairs Centre and the Centre for Risk and Regulation. The letter highlighted the Institute's 1999 publication Passive Smoke: The EPA's Betrayal of Science and Policy, "which highlighted the absence of any scientific evidence for linking cancer with second-hand smoke [and] received widespread media coverage both in Canada and the United States". At this time the CEO of BAT's Canadian subsidiary, Imasco, was also on the Fraser Institute's Board of Trustees. The Fraser Institute ceased disclosing its sources of corporate funding in the 1980s."
In 1999, the Fraser Institute was criticized by health professionals and scientists for sponsoring two conferences on the tobacco industry entitled Junk Science, Junk Policy? Managing Risk and Regulation and Should Government Butt Out? The Pros and Cons of Tobacco Regulation. Critics charged the Institute was associating itself with the tobacco industry's many attempts to discredit authentic scientific work.
The Fraser Institute is also affiliated through it's funding sources with the well known and also right wing biased American Pacific Research Center. These org.s are funded and influenced to generate questionable studies in support of companies like Exxon Mobile, Rothman's Tobacco etc., among others all desiring to allow corporate entities to have a free hand without any governmental oversight or involvement in their operations or policies.
Next up; you are one who has had it explained any number of times to you that the private insurance referred to in Canada is for top-up items such as dental, optical (unless your vision problem is caused by some other illness) and things like out of country travel insurance, grief counselling, acupuncture, massage therapy and those things that ARE billed in Canada's hospitals like the in-room TV and landline.
It is prohibited in Canada for any insurance provider to attempt to cover anything the single-payer system reimburses for. That stops price gouging and the terrible effects of a two tiered system and queue jumping you seem to embrace.
You also know that should anyone present with time restrictive symptoms they will be fast tracked.
You also should be reminded; if basing the quality of any countries healthcare upon the numbers who leave to seek it elsewhere you're on the losing side of that curve:
You already know all of this because it's been directly answered to your previous nonsense question before MULTPLE TIMES with links of proof included, therefore one can only conclude you are of that category of American who ignore fact and have an agenda of scorn for anything proving to show your agenda driven offerings as being wrong.
what you and many like you fail to realize that in many ways it is. If your economy falls apart far more lives will be lost in the chaos that follows then will ever be lost from this virus.
This!
To the OP: An urgent care center is NOT THE SAME AS an E/R. Had they taken him to the E/R, he would not have been turned away. The fact that they waited so long for anyone to see him is not the fault of anyone else but the parents.
You all talk about how some people put the economy over people, but in the same stinking breath bleat on about how the parents probably didn't take the kid to the E/R because they were afraid of the bill. So, the parents put money over their kid, too, if your excuse is the reason for it, yet you aren't bashing on them for doing so.
Switzerland has private healthcare and is not fairing that well when compared to neighbouring Germany which has Universal Healthcare.
I also don't think it's any one system of health care, what has stopped the virus is early intervention and lockdown to stop it spreading.
Hospitals whether private or public are just swamped by numbers and are just trying to cope.
I think this is a test of everyone's system. If our health industry fails to deliver considering how much we pay for it, people will demand it be changed. So far, the US has a low death rate compared to most other countries which I hope continues and hope the virus can be eradicated before year end.
I still think the heat and sunshine is a huge factor when you see the death rates in the southern hemisphere (Brazil, Chile, Australia, South Africa, et.) compared to northern (Italy, Spain, UK, USA) and countries that are tropical (Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Philippines).
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,180 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19487
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
Next up; you are one who has had it explained any number of times to you that the private insurance referred to in Canada is for top-up items such as dental, optical (unless your vision problem is caused by some other illness) and things like out of country travel insurance, grief counselling, acupuncture, massage therapy and those things that ARE billed in Canada's hospitals like the in-room TV and landline.
It is prohibited in Canada for any insurance provider to attempt to cover anything the single-payer system reimburses for. That stops price gouging and the terrible effects of a two tiered system and queue jumping you seem to embrace.
You also know that should anyone present with time restrictive symptoms they will be fast tracked.
It's mainly the same things in relation to the UK NHS.
The UK does however allow private hospitals to operate, as London and a few other cities do quite well as private heakth destinations and even some speialist NHS Services are offered on a private basis to those from overseas in order to generate more funds.
In London, the centre of the private heath care industry is Harley Street, and private hospitals are operated by the likes of HCA, Spire, BMI Healthcare, Ramsay, Nuffield Health etc.
There's also a mixture of public and private in the Edgbastion Medical Quarter (EMQ) in Birmingham, England and Liverpool's Rodney Street is known the Harley Street of Northern England.
However even with some private alternatives available, around 90% of the UK population prefer to use the NHS and the figure has remained unchanged. Indeed the NHS is moreb populare than ever in the UK.
The US Cleveland Clinic is opening a London hospital next year in Grosvenor Place, and will no doubt cater for wealthy Russians, Arabs, Chinese and other medical tourists that come to London, one of the historic great medical research cities.
There will also be some wealthy British citizens, although in terms of serious critical care the NHS beats many private providers hands down.
Last edited by Brave New World; 03-29-2020 at 09:27 AM..
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.
