|
|
On September 06 2012 11:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:08 Defacer wrote:On September 06 2012 11:04 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 10:33 Defacer wrote:On September 06 2012 09:47 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 08:16 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On September 06 2012 08:10 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 07:43 dvorakftw wrote:Yeah, facinating. Thanks for that! As a Canadian who has had a few brushes with our health care system, I really dislike it. I would much rather be able to get health insurance from a company where I would then have a legal right to get the treatments described in the policy. In Canada you get crappy treatment and the nurses shrug and say, "sorry we're short staffed". No one is really accountable for giving me any particular standard of treatment, and if I don't like it all I can do is write some letters to some bureaucrats. Whatever. Government-run healthcare is a fact of life in Canada so there's no point in complaining about it. But don't try to tell me that you get better treatment in Canadian hospitals. It's well-known that Canadians who really need the best treatment and who can afford it go to the US. Really, what sort of treatment did you need may I ask if that is not too personal. Every single experience I have had with the healthcare system was quite good. I know some specialist procedures are hard to get up here but for the most part the system does good by the people when they break an arm or have some other common injury (or nearly split the back of their head open, in my case) so I think it is quite a good system. The treatment related to my wife and the birth of our daughter. She was in the hospital several times during her pregnancy as well as for the actual birth, and then our daughter needed to stay for five days after her birth for monitoring. The issues mostly related to there just not being enough staff. Most of the doctors and nurses were incredibly busy and always seemed to be rushing on to the next patient. Some of them were just lazy but of course that will happen in any system. I don't mean to diminish your concerns about Canada's healthcare, but the cost of pregnancy in the US is about $4500 for an OBGYN, $1000 for labs and $10,000 for the hospital stay. And I'm not sure paying all that would guarantee you better or 'premium' service. I believe in most provinces midwives are already covered, so if you need a more personalized touch maybe you can go that route. In BC, many employers also offer extended plans to cover any additional care -- ranging from podiatry to chiropractors to naturopaths -- to provide very comprehensive, specialized care. What I like about the Canadian Healthcare system is that provide sufficient care, for pretty much everyone. It's not perfect, but at least it's not a fundamentally broken mix of private insurance and government subsided healthcare, the way it is in the US. It's something we can continually invest in and improve. I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that the level of care is "sufficient". Other words that come to mind are "acceptable" or "tolerable". If I'm a hardworking guy who makes a good living and who wants to pay extra to get something better for his family than "sufficient" then I'm in the wrong system. Well, if you do go to the states to pay extra than don't be surprised when you're disappointed in what you paid for. The health care there, is to be frank, not that great. Unless you planning to get a boob job or something  . Anyone who think that healthcare in the States is special for anyone except the super-wealthy is delusional. We get long waits, rushed and impersonal care, and ridiculous bills routinely.
I heard Jay-Z and Beyonce got a whole hospital floor to themselves for her birth.
If your health care plan is to become a billlionaire rapper, I can see why Canada's system would be a let down.
|
On September 06 2012 11:15 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 11:07 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 11:05 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
May I ask, who is this woman and why is she on the stage? CNN just says "the woman ctiticized by Rush Limbaugh" and I do not think that's much of a reason to have her at the DNC. Limbaugh basically called her a slut for wanting insurance companies to cover birth control. -_- The comment was inappropriate, but I still thought it was a great line. lol it was an awful line What even is a slut? Someone who slept with 1 person before marriage? Someone who slept with 3 people? 5? Where does the line begin and end, who exactly is a slut? I've had sex with two people in my life, outside of marriage.. am I slut? Sex is fun and natural, and you shouldn't shame someone for having sex, his comment was fucking idiotic and I can't believe your supporting him at all. Great line? She wasn't talking about herself wanting birth control, she was talking about her lesbian friend who needed it for a medical condition. My girlfriend takes it for Endometriosis. There are other reasons to take birth control as well. (although it should be provided for those that want birth control to have sex, I think it's funny the republicans, against abortion, are against contraceptives being covered. It costs the country way more when girls have unwanted children). This anti-women bullshit in this thread about Sandra Fluke is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Fluke's congressional testimony was patently ludicrous. Don't shed any tears for her, especially because Rush's criticisms launched her career.
|
On September 06 2012 11:01 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 10:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 06 2012 10:51 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 10:47 Falling wrote:
Oh. Bain fall out is a little more interesting. yep lol. Also, as far as the auto industry stuff goes, I still can't believe Romney would actually try to campaign on being against the "bailouts". FYI They were loans. I can't speak from a GM perspective, but as far as Chrysler goes things are going incredibly well and the loan has been paid back with interest. The only reason Ford didnt need a "bailout" was because they got their money from the banks a few years earlier. No banks were giving Chrysler or GM the kind of loans that were necessary in 2007/2008 It was a bailout. They couldn't get loans from the private market because they were going through bankruptcy. Loan bruh. Paid back in full. They were going bankrupt because it wasn't possible to get loans from the banks. Do you have any idea what the operating costs of an OEM are?
Bailout bruh. Huge losses to the taxpayer too.
They went bankrupt because they had too much debt in the face of declining revenues.
|
Ah yes, classic class warfare rhetoric from Warren. Lenin would be proud.
|
On September 06 2012 11:16 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:14 ThreeAcross wrote:On September 06 2012 11:08 Defacer wrote:On September 06 2012 11:04 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 10:33 Defacer wrote:On September 06 2012 09:47 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 08:16 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On September 06 2012 08:10 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 07:43 dvorakftw wrote:Yeah, facinating. Thanks for that! As a Canadian who has had a few brushes with our health care system, I really dislike it. I would much rather be able to get health insurance from a company where I would then have a legal right to get the treatments described in the policy. In Canada you get crappy treatment and the nurses shrug and say, "sorry we're short staffed". No one is really accountable for giving me any particular standard of treatment, and if I don't like it all I can do is write some letters to some bureaucrats. Whatever. Government-run healthcare is a fact of life in Canada so there's no point in complaining about it. But don't try to tell me that you get better treatment in Canadian hospitals. It's well-known that Canadians who really need the best treatment and who can afford it go to the US. Really, what sort of treatment did you need may I ask if that is not too personal. Every single experience I have had with the healthcare system was quite good. I know some specialist procedures are hard to get up here but for the most part the system does good by the people when they break an arm or have some other common injury (or nearly split the back of their head open, in my case) so I think it is quite a good system. The treatment related to my wife and the birth of our daughter. She was in the hospital several times during her pregnancy as well as for the actual birth, and then our daughter needed to stay for five days after her birth for monitoring. The issues mostly related to there just not being enough staff. Most of the doctors and nurses were incredibly busy and always seemed to be rushing on to the next patient. Some of them were just lazy but of course that will happen in any system. I don't mean to diminish your concerns about Canada's healthcare, but the cost of pregnancy in the US is about $4500 for an OBGYN, $1000 for labs and $10,000 for the hospital stay. And I'm not sure paying all that would guarantee you better or 'premium' service. I believe in most provinces midwives are already covered, so if you need a more personalized touch maybe you can go that route. In BC, many employers also offer extended plans to cover any additional care -- ranging from podiatry to chiropractors to naturopaths -- to provide very comprehensive, specialized care. What I like about the Canadian Healthcare system is that provide sufficient care, for pretty much everyone. It's not perfect, but at least it's not a fundamentally broken mix of private insurance and government subsided healthcare, the way it is in the US. It's something we can continually invest in and improve. I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that the level of care is "sufficient". Other words that come to mind are "acceptable" or "tolerable". If I'm a hardworking guy who makes a good living and who wants to pay extra to get something better for his family than "sufficient" then I'm in the wrong system. Well, if you do go to the states to pay extra than don't be surprised when you're disappointed in what you paid for. The health care there, is to be frank, not that great. Unless you planning to get a boob job or something . Don't be surprised to get more than what you paid for either. The experiences differ depending on what hospital/clinic you visit just like anywhere else in the world. My wife had an average non c-section delivery 11 months ago. She was only in the hospital 1 night, and the cost was about $7500.00 .. Knowing what I know with insurance payments and contracts with hospitals, the hospital, which is a Top100 in the nation, got paid about $1200.00 -- Our out of pocket costs were $200.00 for the Inpatient stay. You can always find extremes for any system, but they are far from the norm. Each system has their merits and flaws. Well, you do know insurance companies negotiate with the Physicians/hospitals as far as the costs go right? Thats something that the regular citizen would never be able to do.
I don't quite understand your point. I obviously know that Insurance companies and Hospitals have contracts. I said it in my post.
I currently work in the system. I own a small business that does billing/collections for smaller clinics.
|
On September 06 2012 11:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:01 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 10:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 06 2012 10:51 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 10:47 Falling wrote:
Oh. Bain fall out is a little more interesting. yep lol. Also, as far as the auto industry stuff goes, I still can't believe Romney would actually try to campaign on being against the "bailouts". FYI They were loans. I can't speak from a GM perspective, but as far as Chrysler goes things are going incredibly well and the loan has been paid back with interest. The only reason Ford didnt need a "bailout" was because they got their money from the banks a few years earlier. No banks were giving Chrysler or GM the kind of loans that were necessary in 2007/2008 It was a bailout. They couldn't get loans from the private market because they were going through bankruptcy. Loan bruh. Paid back in full. They were going bankrupt because it wasn't possible to get loans from the banks. Do you have any idea what the operating costs of an OEM are? Bailout bruh. Huge losses to the taxpayer too. They went bankrupt because they had too much debt in the face of declining revenues.
you really believe the losses would have been less had millions of people lost their jobs?
Get real
|
|
|
Oh my goodness. This speech is embarrassingly bad.
|
On September 06 2012 11:21 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 06 2012 11:01 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 10:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 06 2012 10:51 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 10:47 Falling wrote:
Oh. Bain fall out is a little more interesting. yep lol. Also, as far as the auto industry stuff goes, I still can't believe Romney would actually try to campaign on being against the "bailouts". FYI They were loans. I can't speak from a GM perspective, but as far as Chrysler goes things are going incredibly well and the loan has been paid back with interest. The only reason Ford didnt need a "bailout" was because they got their money from the banks a few years earlier. No banks were giving Chrysler or GM the kind of loans that were necessary in 2007/2008 It was a bailout. They couldn't get loans from the private market because they were going through bankruptcy. Loan bruh. Paid back in full. They were going bankrupt because it wasn't possible to get loans from the banks. Do you have any idea what the operating costs of an OEM are? Bailout bruh. Huge losses to the taxpayer too. They went bankrupt because they had too much debt in the face of declining revenues. you really believe the losses would have been less had millions of people lost their jobs? Get real
Speculative.
It is still a bailout and losses were still incurred. 'Justifying' it doesn't change that.
Moreover, the UAW bailout / violation of bankruptcy law didn't help keep anyone working. Hiding the true cost of the bailout from the taxpayers through a backdoor net operating loss gift didn't keep anyone working either.
So even if you think the bailout was justified, it is hard to justify how it was handled.
|
On September 06 2012 11:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:15 BlueBird. wrote:On September 06 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 11:07 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 11:05 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
May I ask, who is this woman and why is she on the stage? CNN just says "the woman ctiticized by Rush Limbaugh" and I do not think that's much of a reason to have her at the DNC. Limbaugh basically called her a slut for wanting insurance companies to cover birth control. -_- The comment was inappropriate, but I still thought it was a great line. lol it was an awful line What even is a slut? Someone who slept with 1 person before marriage? Someone who slept with 3 people? 5? Where does the line begin and end, who exactly is a slut? I've had sex with two people in my life, outside of marriage.. am I slut? Sex is fun and natural, and you shouldn't shame someone for having sex, his comment was fucking idiotic and I can't believe your supporting him at all. Great line? She wasn't talking about herself wanting birth control, she was talking about her lesbian friend who needed it for a medical condition. My girlfriend takes it for Endometriosis. There are other reasons to take birth control as well. (although it should be provided for those that want birth control to have sex, I think it's funny the republicans, against abortion, are against contraceptives being covered. It costs the country way more when girls have unwanted children). This anti-women bullshit in this thread about Sandra Fluke is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. Fluke's congressional testimony was patently ludicrous. Don't shed any tears for her, especially because Rush's criticisms launched her career.
Wasn't the comment prompted by her talking about spending $3k a year on contraception? I believe she was also saying that Georgetown (a private, christian university) should provide a sizable amount of the cost. Granted, I don't think someone in his position should make a judgement like that on a private citizen (much like the scrutiny Joe Worlzelbacher got from both sides for just asking Obama a question in 2008), but I can't say that sticker price didn't make me raise my eyebrows.
|
On September 06 2012 11:20 xDaunt wrote:
Ah yes, classic class warfare rhetoric from Warren. Lenin would be proud.
Ah yes, classic class warfare proposals from the Republicans, Burke would be proud.
|
It may be filled with a little too much "Burn Wall Street" and "The rich are out to get us" but other then that it is not TOO bad.
Edit: The points are okay but she seems to be repeating the same thing over and over again now.
|
On September 06 2012 11:21 ThreeAcross wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:16 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 11:14 ThreeAcross wrote:On September 06 2012 11:08 Defacer wrote:On September 06 2012 11:04 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 10:33 Defacer wrote:On September 06 2012 09:47 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 08:16 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On September 06 2012 08:10 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 07:43 dvorakftw wrote:[quote] Yeah, facinating. Thanks for that! As a Canadian who has had a few brushes with our health care system, I really dislike it. I would much rather be able to get health insurance from a company where I would then have a legal right to get the treatments described in the policy. In Canada you get crappy treatment and the nurses shrug and say, "sorry we're short staffed". No one is really accountable for giving me any particular standard of treatment, and if I don't like it all I can do is write some letters to some bureaucrats. Whatever. Government-run healthcare is a fact of life in Canada so there's no point in complaining about it. But don't try to tell me that you get better treatment in Canadian hospitals. It's well-known that Canadians who really need the best treatment and who can afford it go to the US. Really, what sort of treatment did you need may I ask if that is not too personal. Every single experience I have had with the healthcare system was quite good. I know some specialist procedures are hard to get up here but for the most part the system does good by the people when they break an arm or have some other common injury (or nearly split the back of their head open, in my case) so I think it is quite a good system. The treatment related to my wife and the birth of our daughter. She was in the hospital several times during her pregnancy as well as for the actual birth, and then our daughter needed to stay for five days after her birth for monitoring. The issues mostly related to there just not being enough staff. Most of the doctors and nurses were incredibly busy and always seemed to be rushing on to the next patient. Some of them were just lazy but of course that will happen in any system. I don't mean to diminish your concerns about Canada's healthcare, but the cost of pregnancy in the US is about $4500 for an OBGYN, $1000 for labs and $10,000 for the hospital stay. And I'm not sure paying all that would guarantee you better or 'premium' service. I believe in most provinces midwives are already covered, so if you need a more personalized touch maybe you can go that route. In BC, many employers also offer extended plans to cover any additional care -- ranging from podiatry to chiropractors to naturopaths -- to provide very comprehensive, specialized care. What I like about the Canadian Healthcare system is that provide sufficient care, for pretty much everyone. It's not perfect, but at least it's not a fundamentally broken mix of private insurance and government subsided healthcare, the way it is in the US. It's something we can continually invest in and improve. I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that the level of care is "sufficient". Other words that come to mind are "acceptable" or "tolerable". If I'm a hardworking guy who makes a good living and who wants to pay extra to get something better for his family than "sufficient" then I'm in the wrong system. Well, if you do go to the states to pay extra than don't be surprised when you're disappointed in what you paid for. The health care there, is to be frank, not that great. Unless you planning to get a boob job or something . Don't be surprised to get more than what you paid for either. The experiences differ depending on what hospital/clinic you visit just like anywhere else in the world. My wife had an average non c-section delivery 11 months ago. She was only in the hospital 1 night, and the cost was about $7500.00 .. Knowing what I know with insurance payments and contracts with hospitals, the hospital, which is a Top100 in the nation, got paid about $1200.00 -- Our out of pocket costs were $200.00 for the Inpatient stay. You can always find extremes for any system, but they are far from the norm. Each system has their merits and flaws. Well, you do know insurance companies negotiate with the Physicians/hospitals as far as the costs go right? Thats something that the regular citizen would never be able to do. I don't quite understand your point. I obviously know that Insurance companies and Hospitals have contracts. I said it in my post. I currently work in the system. I own a small business that does billing/collections for smaller clinics.
Without insurance you would have been stuck with the $7500 + bill. That was my point. You dont necessarily get more than you pay for. The hospital would have never negotiated with you so that you only paid $1400 if you didnt have insurance. Thats a crooked system IMO
|
Warren says Obama is against the banks but yet he lets them all off the hook.
|
On September 06 2012 11:26 Budmandude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:18 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 11:15 BlueBird. wrote:On September 06 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 11:07 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 11:05 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
May I ask, who is this woman and why is she on the stage? CNN just says "the woman ctiticized by Rush Limbaugh" and I do not think that's much of a reason to have her at the DNC. Limbaugh basically called her a slut for wanting insurance companies to cover birth control. -_- The comment was inappropriate, but I still thought it was a great line. lol it was an awful line What even is a slut? Someone who slept with 1 person before marriage? Someone who slept with 3 people? 5? Where does the line begin and end, who exactly is a slut? I've had sex with two people in my life, outside of marriage.. am I slut? Sex is fun and natural, and you shouldn't shame someone for having sex, his comment was fucking idiotic and I can't believe your supporting him at all. Great line? She wasn't talking about herself wanting birth control, she was talking about her lesbian friend who needed it for a medical condition. My girlfriend takes it for Endometriosis. There are other reasons to take birth control as well. (although it should be provided for those that want birth control to have sex, I think it's funny the republicans, against abortion, are against contraceptives being covered. It costs the country way more when girls have unwanted children). This anti-women bullshit in this thread about Sandra Fluke is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. Fluke's congressional testimony was patently ludicrous. Don't shed any tears for her, especially because Rush's criticisms launched her career. Wasn't the comment prompted by her talking about spending $3k a year on contraception? I believe she was also saying that Georgetown (a private, christian university) should provide a sizable amount of the cost. Granted, I don't think someone in his position should make a judgement like that on a private citizen (much like the scrutiny Joe Worlzelbacher got from both sides for just asking Obama a question in 2008), but I can't say that sticker price didn't make me raise my eyebrows.
There is a difference between Rush saying something and someone in government using their governmental powers to groundlessly go after a private citizen.
|
On September 06 2012 11:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:26 Budmandude wrote:On September 06 2012 11:18 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 11:15 BlueBird. wrote:On September 06 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 11:07 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 11:05 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
May I ask, who is this woman and why is she on the stage? CNN just says "the woman ctiticized by Rush Limbaugh" and I do not think that's much of a reason to have her at the DNC. Limbaugh basically called her a slut for wanting insurance companies to cover birth control. -_- The comment was inappropriate, but I still thought it was a great line. lol it was an awful line What even is a slut? Someone who slept with 1 person before marriage? Someone who slept with 3 people? 5? Where does the line begin and end, who exactly is a slut? I've had sex with two people in my life, outside of marriage.. am I slut? Sex is fun and natural, and you shouldn't shame someone for having sex, his comment was fucking idiotic and I can't believe your supporting him at all. Great line? She wasn't talking about herself wanting birth control, she was talking about her lesbian friend who needed it for a medical condition. My girlfriend takes it for Endometriosis. There are other reasons to take birth control as well. (although it should be provided for those that want birth control to have sex, I think it's funny the republicans, against abortion, are against contraceptives being covered. It costs the country way more when girls have unwanted children). This anti-women bullshit in this thread about Sandra Fluke is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. Fluke's congressional testimony was patently ludicrous. Don't shed any tears for her, especially because Rush's criticisms launched her career. Wasn't the comment prompted by her talking about spending $3k a year on contraception? I believe she was also saying that Georgetown (a private, christian university) should provide a sizable amount of the cost. Granted, I don't think someone in his position should make a judgement like that on a private citizen (much like the scrutiny Joe Worlzelbacher got from both sides for just asking Obama a question in 2008), but I can't say that sticker price didn't make me raise my eyebrows. There is a difference between Rush saying something and someone in government using their governmental powers to groundlessly go after a private citizen.
No, I'm completely agree that Joe's situation was a much larger violation, but I was just trying to provide another example and it was the first thing that came to mind.
|
On September 06 2012 11:28 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:21 ThreeAcross wrote:On September 06 2012 11:16 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 11:14 ThreeAcross wrote:On September 06 2012 11:08 Defacer wrote:On September 06 2012 11:04 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 10:33 Defacer wrote:On September 06 2012 09:47 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 08:16 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On September 06 2012 08:10 ziggurat wrote:
[quote]
As a Canadian who has had a few brushes with our health care system, I really dislike it. I would much rather be able to get health insurance from a company where I would then have a legal right to get the treatments described in the policy. In Canada you get crappy treatment and the nurses shrug and say, "sorry we're short staffed". No one is really accountable for giving me any particular standard of treatment, and if I don't like it all I can do is write some letters to some bureaucrats.
Whatever. Government-run healthcare is a fact of life in Canada so there's no point in complaining about it. But don't try to tell me that you get better treatment in Canadian hospitals. It's well-known that Canadians who really need the best treatment and who can afford it go to the US. Really, what sort of treatment did you need may I ask if that is not too personal. Every single experience I have had with the healthcare system was quite good. I know some specialist procedures are hard to get up here but for the most part the system does good by the people when they break an arm or have some other common injury (or nearly split the back of their head open, in my case) so I think it is quite a good system. The treatment related to my wife and the birth of our daughter. She was in the hospital several times during her pregnancy as well as for the actual birth, and then our daughter needed to stay for five days after her birth for monitoring. The issues mostly related to there just not being enough staff. Most of the doctors and nurses were incredibly busy and always seemed to be rushing on to the next patient. Some of them were just lazy but of course that will happen in any system. I don't mean to diminish your concerns about Canada's healthcare, but the cost of pregnancy in the US is about $4500 for an OBGYN, $1000 for labs and $10,000 for the hospital stay. And I'm not sure paying all that would guarantee you better or 'premium' service. I believe in most provinces midwives are already covered, so if you need a more personalized touch maybe you can go that route. In BC, many employers also offer extended plans to cover any additional care -- ranging from podiatry to chiropractors to naturopaths -- to provide very comprehensive, specialized care. What I like about the Canadian Healthcare system is that provide sufficient care, for pretty much everyone. It's not perfect, but at least it's not a fundamentally broken mix of private insurance and government subsided healthcare, the way it is in the US. It's something we can continually invest in and improve. I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that the level of care is "sufficient". Other words that come to mind are "acceptable" or "tolerable". If I'm a hardworking guy who makes a good living and who wants to pay extra to get something better for his family than "sufficient" then I'm in the wrong system. Well, if you do go to the states to pay extra than don't be surprised when you're disappointed in what you paid for. The health care there, is to be frank, not that great. Unless you planning to get a boob job or something . Don't be surprised to get more than what you paid for either. The experiences differ depending on what hospital/clinic you visit just like anywhere else in the world. My wife had an average non c-section delivery 11 months ago. She was only in the hospital 1 night, and the cost was about $7500.00 .. Knowing what I know with insurance payments and contracts with hospitals, the hospital, which is a Top100 in the nation, got paid about $1200.00 -- Our out of pocket costs were $200.00 for the Inpatient stay. You can always find extremes for any system, but they are far from the norm. Each system has their merits and flaws. Well, you do know insurance companies negotiate with the Physicians/hospitals as far as the costs go right? Thats something that the regular citizen would never be able to do. I don't quite understand your point. I obviously know that Insurance companies and Hospitals have contracts. I said it in my post. I currently work in the system. I own a small business that does billing/collections for smaller clinics. Without insurance you would have been stuck with the $7500 + bill. That was my point. You dont necessarily get more than you pay for. The hospital would have never negotiated with you so that you only paid $1400 if you didnt have insurance. Thats a crooked system IMO
I wouldn't have been stuck with a $7500 bill. First, most hospitals give a 20% discount to self pay patients. Second, you have to remember the costs that I pay each month to my Health Insurance. $350 a month for a Family. That's $4200 a year.
80% of $7500 is $6000. So I would have owed an extra $1600 total if I had been self pay.
But that is still not the point. I still don't get why you brought up the contracts. Unless you are trying to say that I would have owed more if I was Self Pay?
|
On September 06 2012 11:36 ThreeAcross wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 11:28 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 11:21 ThreeAcross wrote:On September 06 2012 11:16 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 11:14 ThreeAcross wrote:On September 06 2012 11:08 Defacer wrote:On September 06 2012 11:04 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 10:33 Defacer wrote:On September 06 2012 09:47 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 08:16 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
[quote]
Really, what sort of treatment did you need may I ask if that is not too personal. Every single experience I have had with the healthcare system was quite good. I know some specialist procedures are hard to get up here but for the most part the system does good by the people when they break an arm or have some other common injury (or nearly split the back of their head open, in my case) so I think it is quite a good system. The treatment related to my wife and the birth of our daughter. She was in the hospital several times during her pregnancy as well as for the actual birth, and then our daughter needed to stay for five days after her birth for monitoring. The issues mostly related to there just not being enough staff. Most of the doctors and nurses were incredibly busy and always seemed to be rushing on to the next patient. Some of them were just lazy but of course that will happen in any system. I don't mean to diminish your concerns about Canada's healthcare, but the cost of pregnancy in the US is about $4500 for an OBGYN, $1000 for labs and $10,000 for the hospital stay. And I'm not sure paying all that would guarantee you better or 'premium' service. I believe in most provinces midwives are already covered, so if you need a more personalized touch maybe you can go that route. In BC, many employers also offer extended plans to cover any additional care -- ranging from podiatry to chiropractors to naturopaths -- to provide very comprehensive, specialized care. What I like about the Canadian Healthcare system is that provide sufficient care, for pretty much everyone. It's not perfect, but at least it's not a fundamentally broken mix of private insurance and government subsided healthcare, the way it is in the US. It's something we can continually invest in and improve. I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that the level of care is "sufficient". Other words that come to mind are "acceptable" or "tolerable". If I'm a hardworking guy who makes a good living and who wants to pay extra to get something better for his family than "sufficient" then I'm in the wrong system. Well, if you do go to the states to pay extra than don't be surprised when you're disappointed in what you paid for. The health care there, is to be frank, not that great. Unless you planning to get a boob job or something . Don't be surprised to get more than what you paid for either. The experiences differ depending on what hospital/clinic you visit just like anywhere else in the world. My wife had an average non c-section delivery 11 months ago. She was only in the hospital 1 night, and the cost was about $7500.00 .. Knowing what I know with insurance payments and contracts with hospitals, the hospital, which is a Top100 in the nation, got paid about $1200.00 -- Our out of pocket costs were $200.00 for the Inpatient stay. You can always find extremes for any system, but they are far from the norm. Each system has their merits and flaws. Well, you do know insurance companies negotiate with the Physicians/hospitals as far as the costs go right? Thats something that the regular citizen would never be able to do. I don't quite understand your point. I obviously know that Insurance companies and Hospitals have contracts. I said it in my post. I currently work in the system. I own a small business that does billing/collections for smaller clinics. Without insurance you would have been stuck with the $7500 + bill. That was my point. You dont necessarily get more than you pay for. The hospital would have never negotiated with you so that you only paid $1400 if you didnt have insurance. Thats a crooked system IMO I wouldn't have been stuck with a $7500 bill. First, most hospitals give a 20% discount to self pay patients. Second, you have to remember the costs that I pay each month to my Health Insurance. $350 a month for a Family. That's $4200 a year. 80% of $7500 is $6000. So I would have owed an extra $1600 total if I had been self pay. But that is still not the point. I don't get how Insurance companies and Hospitals contracting is a bad thing.
Its a bad thing because individuals without insurance arent given that same chance. I don't see how you dont think that is an issue? As you obviously know working in the industry, the fact that hospitals/physicians inflate their prices knowing that they will be negotiated down, the health industry is inherently immoral and companies shouldnt be playing with a persons wellbeing/health like its an item to be bartered on pawn stars.
|
Bill is killing it. You charming motherfucker.
|
On September 06 2012 11:42 Defacer wrote:
Bill is killing it. You charming motherfucker.
he is an experienced politician and worked with great people. He knows what works and what doesn't
he is a charming motherfucker too
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
