So I just watched Sicko....

[Eli26]

awwww Shaddup you jerks!

hehe

 

[RoboDad]

Oh yes, and like Shai had pointed out, the waiting is numbing. However, I am guessing this is no different from any other place in the world.

I don't know about other areas of Canada, but in the US that all depends on where you live. I'm sure it can be atrocious in some larger metropolitan areas, but where I live (Boise, ID), it's never an issue. In fact, I love the quality of medical care we receive here, and frankly, I wouldn't want to change a thing (except, maybe, making it easier to help the elderly pay for their care).

 

[Eli26]

I don't know about other areas of Canada, but in the US that all depends on where you live. I'm sure it can be atrocious in some larger metropolitan areas, but where I live (Boise, ID), it's never an issue. In fact, I love the quality of medical care we receive here, and frankly, I wouldn't want to change a thing (except, maybe, making it easier to help the elderly pay for their care).

It also depends on the day and time. Sometimes are faster than others and obviously depends where you go.

But usually I can be waiting for a good hour or two.

 

[hairlesswookiee]

wow im late on this discussion so there's not much to say that hasn't already been touched on. the pros and cons of socialized health are definitely large on both accounts. pros are definitely not having to worry about bills in cases of emergency.... car accidents, limb breakage, that kind of stuff. the concept is great but IMO unless its executed correctly its far too costly then beneficial. for one.. people like cancer survivors are needlessly waiting too long for treatment, and they cannot decide where they go for treatment.

 

[floppy hat jon]

I really, really don't want to get involved in this, but there seem to be some misconceptions that need to be addressed.

First, socialized medicine and single-payer healthcare systems are not the same thing, nor even similar. Socialized medicine, like they have in the UK, has doctors on the government payroll; single-payer, like Canada has, just removes the insurance beaurocracy (for the most part) while doctors and hospitals still remain private. As far as I know, no one is advocating socialized medicine in the U.S. But lots of people are falling through the cracks of the for-profit insurance system.

Second, the main reason that Canada, the UK, etc. have wait times has less to do with the system in place than the amount of money spent. The U.S. spends something like 15% of GDP (and this is increasing annually) on healthcare, yet 18,000 people die each year because they don't have healthcare. Canada, France, Germany, UK, etc. along the lines of <10%, I believe. The U.S. already spends the money necessary to have a great healthcare system for everyone, but a ton of people who aren't covered by their employers can't afford to buy in. Ask anyone who works in a doctor's office how much they like working with dozens of different insurance companies. Then look up the overhead costs of Medicare/Medicaid vs. private insurance; the differences are staggering.

Finally, the meme about "frivolous" lawsuits being the cause of high insurance premiums and healthcare costs simply isn't true. Study after study has shown that <1% of premium costs are due to such lawsuits. The majority of the problem lies in 45+ million uninsured who go to the emergency room when something happens to them because the ER can't turn them way; the ER costs are astronomical compared to the regular doctor.

Our system is broke, folks, and it needs some serious fixing. Most of us are one (even those of us with insurance) serious illness away from bankruptcy. What are you going to do if you get sick and can't continue to work and lose your health coverage? My dad lost everything in 1992 when my mom got sick and they had Blue Cross/Blue Shield at the time; things have gotten a lot worse (and expensive) since then. Over half of bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to healthcare costs; that to me is unconscionable.

 

[RoboDad]

First, socialized medicine and single-payer healthcare systems are not the same thing, nor even similar. Socialized medicine, like they have in the UK, has doctors on the government payroll; single-payer, like Canada has, just removes the insurance beaurocracy (for the most part) while doctors and hospitals still remain private. As far as I know, no one is advocating socialized medicine in the U.S. But lots of people are falling through the cracks of the for-profit insurance system.

Very few people (in this thread, at least) have mentioned anything about socialized healthcare. However, both socialized and single-payer systems fall under the nationalized healthcare umbrella. Whether the physicians are directly paid by the government (via salaries), or indirectly paid by the government (via "insurance" payments), the result is the same. The government is directly and heavily involved in the healthcare industry. They would set the premiums (taxes), they would decide what is or is not covered, how many doctors should be practicing in a given region, what equipment is justified, and the list just goes on and on.

The majority of the problem lies in 45+ million uninsured who go to the emergency room when something happens to them because the ER can't turn them way; the ER costs are astronomical compared to the regular doctor.

And, of course, this problem would magically go away under nationalized healthcare? No, it would not. Unless people are assigned to doctors by the government (which could happen), most of those people you described would still go to the emergency room.

No one I know would argue that our system is free of problems. But change, just for change's sake, is always a bad idea. You don't pick an alternate system simply because it is different. If our problems can't be corrected (and no one has proven that they cannot be), then find a system that improves the financial problems without sacrificing quality of care. None of the nationalized systems do that, from everything I have ever read.

 

[Shai]

No, no its not:

 

[floppy hat jon]

Whether the physicians are directly paid by the government (via salaries), or indirectly paid by the government (via "insurance" payments), the result is the same. The government is directly and heavily involved in the healthcare industry. They would set the premiums (taxes), they would decide what is or is not covered, how many doctors should be practicing in a given region, what equipment is justified, and the list just goes on and on.

The government already pays for over half of the healthcare expenditures in the country via Medicare, Medicaid, etc. As for deciding what is and what is not covered, I'd rather the government do that as opposed to an insurance company which is going to do whatever it can to deny my claim. See the recent lawsuits in California against BC/BS.

Unless people are assigned to doctors by the government (which could happen), most of those people you described would still go to the emergency room.

Come on, you know that people are not going to be assigned doctors; that's just silly. And as for people going to the ER instead of their own doctor by choice, that's simply illogical.

No one I know would argue that our system is free of problems. But change, just for change's sake, is always a bad idea. You don't pick an alternate system simply because it is different. If our problems can't be corrected (and no one has proven that they cannot be), then find a system that improves the financial problems without sacrificing quality of care. None of the nationalized systems do that, from everything I have ever read.

I'm not sure I understand why this is change for change sake. One out of 7 people are uninsured, many thousands are under-insured, and thousands go bankrupt every year just for having the bad luck of getting sick. Clearly change is warranted; whether single-payer is the answer is up for debate, but the need for change, in my opinion, is not.

 

[RoboDad]

Come on, you know that people are not going to be assigned doctors; that's just silly. And as for people going to the ER instead of their own doctor by choice, that's simply illogical.

You either have never experienced anything related to government-run programs, or you are just being specious. Silly? Far from it. Consider public schools. You send your children where they tell you, so that there is balance among the schools. Otherwise, some would be overcrowded, and others nearly empty. Why would doctors under a government-run healthcare system be ANY different?

And people who already have a pattern of going to the ER, where no appointment is necessary and treatment is given, will not change that model until forced to do so. Many will likely never even CHOOSE "their own doctor", because they won't see the need to. The ER is still there, why not use it?

The government already pays for over half of the healthcare expenditures in the country via Medicare, Medicaid, etc. As for deciding what is and what is not covered, I'd rather the government do that as opposed to an insurance company which is going to do whatever it can to deny my claim. See the recent lawsuits in California against BC/BS.

Then we're going to have to agree to disagree. If there is any part of you that thinks government control of coverage, procedures and equipment is a good thing, we are so far from having any kind of common ground that discussion is basically pointless.

 

[Darklord Dave]

Well, we do let the government control our roads, our police and almost anything connected with public safety - if they'd do such a bad job with healthcare, shouldn't we privatize everything else as well?

 

[Anzik]

The police should be part of the government but there are huge problems there too. I don't think the road crew necessarily should be run by the government. I've known many state workers ( I live in Jersey where 1 in 3 work for the state) and the road crews are a laughable example of waste and inefficiency. I've been there to hear conversations about how a guy was on a site all day long because he had to back a truck up twice. Because of his job description he didn't have to pick up a shovel and work, and likewise no one that digs is allowed to move the truck. So he sat on his butt all day reading a magazine.
I personally don't want anything as personal as my health directed by the government, because honestly, outside of our military, I don't feel they do anything well.
The free market would work wonders on this system. Doctors are too high priced for one thing. $80-$100+ for an office visit where he sees you for 10 minutes at 10:30 when your appointment was for 9. Imagine if you said to your doctor "You're an hour and a half late, you're fired."
If you're spending your own money, you're going to shop around. If an x-ray is $50 here or $20 down the street, where are you going to get it? Suddenly the pricing starts to even out. And if the doctor stops receiving the guaranteed payment, I bet the appointment will become more important than the golf game. Think it can't happen? It used to. Remember the house call?
If they want to stop the massive malpractice insurance, then crucify the bad doctors. Its a fact that many doctors have repeat issues, so ditch them.
Tort reform is another issue, but a loser pays policy would end frivolous lawsuits real quick.
The insurance companies need to be reeled in as well. Insurance is like gambling, in that they are betting that a lifetime of premiums and accrued interest will outweigh payouts for health services. Well you paid, they need to follow up. Let the doctor decide whats necessary, not the insurance company.

 

[Vader AL]

Second, the main reason that Canada, the UK, etc. have wait times has less to do with the system in place than the amount of money spent. The U.S. spends something like 15% of GDP (and this is increasing annually) on healthcare, yet 18,000 people die each year because they don't have healthcare. Canada, France, Germany, UK, etc. along the lines of <10%, I believe.

only 18,000 people die each year in a country with 300,000,000 people....that's a very minute %.

 

[floppy hat jon]

only 18,000 people die each year in a country with 300,000,000 people....that's a very minute %.

Wow, just ... wow.

 

[Agent0028]

Well, we do let the government control our roads, our police and almost anything connected with public safety - if they'd do such a bad job with healthcare, shouldn't we privatize everything else as well?

True and think about Alaska's bridge to nowhere and Boston's big dig. Oddly enough we have a bridge to nowhere down in S. Florida too, if I recall correctly it is going to make a more direct route from a neighborhood to I-75. And I don't know about other states, but here in central florida we're always hearing about how much the roadway authority overcharges in tolls and alot of misuse of funds. Of course that stuff happens in private companies too, but at least when I hear about it with my insurance company I can change. Or at least I should be able to change, I suppose its not always as easy as all that. The point isn't invalid, its a good one I think. But for me personally, as I said before, I prefer small government.

Also I think Robodad's point about public schools is a good one too. I think I heard that in Australia families get a certain amount of money for schooling and that money goes to the school the parents choose to send their child to. The result is that schools compete to be better to get more kids to get more money. To me that makes alot more sense than what in have in Florida right now where schools get graded and the ones where kids do poorly get less money.

I won't say that putting the government in charge of healthcare is a bad idea, its just one that from what I know doesn't seem like a good solution. And that's really the key thing, we need to find a good solution because there are problems in health care that need fixed.

 

[Vader AL]

Wow, just ... wow.

when you're dealing with National issues you have to look at what's best for the whole....changing it for the 300,000,000 to help the 18,000 would not be very responsible IMHO. You can't save everyone with any decision.

 

[RoboDad]

Well, we do let the government control our roads, our police and almost anything connected with public safety - if they'd do such a bad job with healthcare, shouldn't we privatize everything else as well?

The police and fire departments may be government agencies, but they exist at the lowest possible levels of governments. As a result, the levels of bureaucracy that exist are minuscule when compared with anything run at the state or federal level, and so the levels of mismanagement and corruption are also vastly reduced (although still present). And, because of the local control, the accountability is much higher. And of course, there isn't really the notion of ongoing individual care being delivered by either of these agencies. I really don't see the point in bringing them into this discussion at all, except to try to raise a straw man argument.

As far as roads, due to the unfortunate fact that roads connect communities (and states), we have no choice but to have some level of government involvement in their design, construction, and maintenance. But, using them as the model of government efficiency might not be the best idea. Anyone who drives in this country knows that.

 

[Anzik]

Out of those 18,000 there are also people who CHOOSE not to have health care. Just like there are people who choose to smoke, choose not to wear seatbelts and choose to eat at McDonald's all week.
Yes there are people who cannot afford it but there are also many who choose not to spend their money on it.

 

[Lord Aykroyd]

FROM CBS NEWS:

The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, partly to fund the health care system. Rates vary from province to province, but Ontario, the most populous, spends roughly 40 percent of every tax dollar on health care, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

[The Federation] calculates that at present rates, Ontario will be spending 85 percent of its budget on health care by 2035. "We can't afford a state monopoly on health care anymore," says Tasha Kheiriddin, Ontario director of the federation. "We have to examine private alternatives as well."

 

[RoboDad]

Out of those 18,000 there are also people who CHOOSE not to have health care. Just like there are people who choose to smoke, choose not to wear seatbelts and choose to eat at McDonald's all week.
Yes there are people who cannot afford it but there are also many who choose not to spend their money on it.

Yeah, but that kind of deflates the oft-quoted "statistic" of "45+ million uninsured Americans".

As do the realities that after you deduct the "uninsured" who:

• have household incomes over $50,000/year but decline available insurance
• are between the ages of 18 and 34, and decline available insurance (often claiming cost to be a factor, despite the fact that they spend four times as much each month on entertainment than what good coverage would cost)
• are eligible for Medicaid or other government-sponsored insurance, yet choose not to enroll
• are illegal immigrants who don't buy insurance but still receive care (yes, over 11 million illegals are counted in the "45+ million" figure)

the actual number of uninsured Americans is somewhere between 8 and 10 million. A problem? Yes. The hand-wringing catastrophe that nationalized healthcare advocates would have us believe? Nope.

 

[KitFisto]

Universal healthcare is another one of the "Wouldn't it be great if" things IMO. Sure, it's wonderful, but I don't feel like giving 50% or more of my income so some slob with 6 kinds who does not have a job can get a free ride.