|
|
On September 20 2012 11:42 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 11:36 Souma wrote:On September 20 2012 11:32 ziggurat wrote:On September 20 2012 09:45 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 20 2012 07:51 ziggurat wrote:On September 20 2012 07:34 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 20 2012 05:52 antelope591 wrote:On September 20 2012 05:34 SayGen wrote:On September 20 2012 05:24 Defacer wrote:So what's your healthcare plan? For everyone to become millionaires and buy immortality? You're confusing healthcare tourism for healthcare coverage and effectiveness. I can point to the endless amount of anecdotes from Americans that were flat-out denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, or delayed or avoided healthcare they desperately needed because they couldn't afford it. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. You should take that $300 you've been saving every month and consider moving to Canada. It would save that life of yours that Obama has destroyed. Truth be told. I have to say ur right about ur little rant. Canada does NOW have a better HC system than America. But HC pre Obama in America > X100000 Canada HC I love the thought behind it UHC but it doens't work in the real world. Hard working people like me just got the shaft. I will no longer be able to fund my own HC. If I get an Illness that isn't covered under OBAMACARE, I'm dead. Least I can say I tried. I stood in oposition proudly. Always funny when an American comments on Canadian health care with such authority when in fact they dont have a clue what theyre talking about. : P He complains about minimal savings but if he was one of the multiple millions of people who got diagnosed with cancer and is being helped by this bill he wouldn't be bitching. "Yo I had to pay 7k for my arm, and then a couple hundred grand a year on cancer care. Can't believe this 675 a year fucking was spent!" These are times I actually wish dire illness on someone so they can understand the anguish. Many people who have used the Canadian healthcare system are not very happy with it. It is pretty good at providing semi-decent or "adequate" care to everybody, but it's well known that if you want to get the best care you have to travel to the US -- the article quoted abote if just one of countless examples. The American healthcare system has major issues but I don't see it improving by moving towards a Canadian-style system. Excuse me? Any major surgery can be operated on in Canada... "adequate"? I don't hear many civilians having issues getting healthcare. No it may take 4 hours to wait in line sometimes when you have the common cold because another patient got shot in the head and is more important than you at the moment and YES you may have to pay through taxation a small fee such that every Canadian can be given healhcare but I think waiting 4 hours is better then paying a massive premium. Medical emergencies are dealt with immediately also. There is not some massive flooding of Canadians moving where do you hear this FOX? http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427+ Show Spoiler +Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.
In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent. Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.
The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.
Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.
What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.
Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.
There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.
Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.
Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.
Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.
Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.
From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system. Canadian Health Care... Pretty bad right? American healthcare much more fair data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" I made several posts a few weeks ago about my experiences with the Canadian health care system, you can go back and read them if you're interested. I don't hate the Canadian system, but I would be much happier in a basic system where I pay for insurance for myself and my family and I don't have to pay taxes to fund everyone else's treatment. What exactly do you think insurance is? What does it matter if you pay $1000 in taxes to the government or $1000 to an insurance company? The difference is that I decide what coverage I get instead of some bureaucrat. And, also, once I have an insurance contract I have the right to get treatment as described in the policy. When I go to a hospital in Canada I don't really have any rights, I just have to hope that I get good treatment. I don't have any contractual right to demand it. If I understand Obamacare correctly, at least under the new system Americans will still be able to choose what kind of insurance they get. To me that would be a big plus compared to Canada's system.
The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.
Article I linked earlier.
I apologize but do you even know what you're talking about? Have you ever been to a Canadian hospital? You don't have rights? Actually you have the right to be treated whether you have medical coverage or not, and being an American citizen you are covered anyway by Canada without any fee if you are injured within Canada. You hope you get good treatment? Ever wonder why the US is rated so far below every country with Universal Healthcare when it comes to health? Also you have a legal right to demand it, there is no contract thus there is no small print like "pre-existing conditions" that fuck millions of people over, you are LEGALLY required to recieve the medical attention you need, the government has nothing to do with your care it is completely at the Doctors discretion.
Please stop watching Fox and start actually knowing what you're talking about. I'm not saying "go watch Micheal Moore documentaries" but please for the love of whoever you find holy get your head out of your ass and look outside the borders of US media.
|
On September 20 2012 11:42 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 11:32 ziggurat wrote:On September 20 2012 09:45 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 20 2012 07:51 ziggurat wrote:On September 20 2012 07:34 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 20 2012 05:52 antelope591 wrote:On September 20 2012 05:34 SayGen wrote:On September 20 2012 05:24 Defacer wrote:So what's your healthcare plan? For everyone to become millionaires and buy immortality? You're confusing healthcare tourism for healthcare coverage and effectiveness. I can point to the endless amount of anecdotes from Americans that were flat-out denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, or delayed or avoided healthcare they desperately needed because they couldn't afford it. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. You should take that $300 you've been saving every month and consider moving to Canada. It would save that life of yours that Obama has destroyed. Truth be told. I have to say ur right about ur little rant. Canada does NOW have a better HC system than America. But HC pre Obama in America > X100000 Canada HC I love the thought behind it UHC but it doens't work in the real world. Hard working people like me just got the shaft. I will no longer be able to fund my own HC. If I get an Illness that isn't covered under OBAMACARE, I'm dead. Least I can say I tried. I stood in oposition proudly. Always funny when an American comments on Canadian health care with such authority when in fact they dont have a clue what theyre talking about. : P He complains about minimal savings but if he was one of the multiple millions of people who got diagnosed with cancer and is being helped by this bill he wouldn't be bitching. "Yo I had to pay 7k for my arm, and then a couple hundred grand a year on cancer care. Can't believe this 675 a year fucking was spent!" These are times I actually wish dire illness on someone so they can understand the anguish. Many people who have used the Canadian healthcare system are not very happy with it. It is pretty good at providing semi-decent or "adequate" care to everybody, but it's well known that if you want to get the best care you have to travel to the US -- the article quoted abote if just one of countless examples. The American healthcare system has major issues but I don't see it improving by moving towards a Canadian-style system. Excuse me? Any major surgery can be operated on in Canada... "adequate"? I don't hear many civilians having issues getting healthcare. No it may take 4 hours to wait in line sometimes when you have the common cold because another patient got shot in the head and is more important than you at the moment and YES you may have to pay through taxation a small fee such that every Canadian can be given healhcare but I think waiting 4 hours is better then paying a massive premium. Medical emergencies are dealt with immediately also. There is not some massive flooding of Canadians moving where do you hear this FOX? http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427+ Show Spoiler +Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.
In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent. Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.
The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.
Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.
What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.
Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.
There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.
Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.
Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.
Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.
Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.
From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system. Canadian Health Care... Pretty bad right? American healthcare much more fair data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" I made several posts a few weeks ago about my experiences with the Canadian health care system, you can go back and read them if you're interested. I don't hate the Canadian system, but I would be much happier in a basic system where I pay for insurance for myself and my family and I don't have to pay taxes to fund everyone else's treatment. Your rate would be whatever the insurance companies have to pay out for everyone elses treatments, plus a profit. Either way, youre paying for other peoples treatments. Our way you pay it up front, at a lower cost, and have more services available to you.
The Canadian system is cheaper, that's true. That's partly because the US system has the best and most advanced treatments in the world. It also partly because medical malpractice lawsuits are out of control in the US and doctors often order unnecessary tests because they're afraid if they don't they might get sued. If you are saying that the US system needs to get its costs under control then nobody would disagree with that.
I'm not sure what you mean by "more services available". Maybe you could elaborate on this?
I'll tell you an interesting story about my experiences in the cdn system. My dentist and my doctor happen to have their offices in the same building. The dentist gets paid by me directly (and then I can claim 80% back for most treatments through my insurance). The doctor of course gets paid through the canadian socialized medicine system. The differences in the experience that you get between the two are pretty telling.
The staff at the dentist office is very professional. They call me 1-2 days before every appointment to remind me. They offer me coffee when I get there. They are polite and courteous, as you would expect of any place really. They keep up with their schedule so I never have to wait very long.
The doctor's office is an amazingly different story. The staff are hopeless. When you call you usually get an answering machine that won't accept messages -- it just says "call back later". There is no coffee. The Dr's office waiting room is filled with people (mostly elderly) who look like they've been waiting all day. Appointments are never on time. When you do get in to see the doctor, you find that the appointment is only for 10 minutes (since the system only pays him $35 for the appointment I don't blame him).
The reasons for the difference are pretty clear to me. Both my doctor and my dentist are running businesses, trying to make a good living. The dentist can charge what he wants, and he knows that he has to do a good job or I'll go somewhere else. Meanwhile, the Doctor's rates are set by bureaucrats and he can't change them. He is motivated to rush people through as much as possible. He has no real motive to offer good service because it's really hard to find a doctor in my city so it's hard for me to go anywhere else. And besides, he doesn't make much money from me anyway.
So I've experienced a system where I get treatment through insurance (dental) and a socialized system. There's no doubt in my mind which one I prefer.
|
Maybe more people see doctors than they do dentists? Because your description sounds like how it is here in America.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 20 2012 11:58 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 11:42 Focuspants wrote:On September 20 2012 11:32 ziggurat wrote:On September 20 2012 09:45 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 20 2012 07:51 ziggurat wrote:On September 20 2012 07:34 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 20 2012 05:52 antelope591 wrote:On September 20 2012 05:34 SayGen wrote:On September 20 2012 05:24 Defacer wrote:So what's your healthcare plan? For everyone to become millionaires and buy immortality? You're confusing healthcare tourism for healthcare coverage and effectiveness. I can point to the endless amount of anecdotes from Americans that were flat-out denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, or delayed or avoided healthcare they desperately needed because they couldn't afford it. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. You should take that $300 you've been saving every month and consider moving to Canada. It would save that life of yours that Obama has destroyed. Truth be told. I have to say ur right about ur little rant. Canada does NOW have a better HC system than America. But HC pre Obama in America > X100000 Canada HC I love the thought behind it UHC but it doens't work in the real world. Hard working people like me just got the shaft. I will no longer be able to fund my own HC. If I get an Illness that isn't covered under OBAMACARE, I'm dead. Least I can say I tried. I stood in oposition proudly. Always funny when an American comments on Canadian health care with such authority when in fact they dont have a clue what theyre talking about. : P He complains about minimal savings but if he was one of the multiple millions of people who got diagnosed with cancer and is being helped by this bill he wouldn't be bitching. "Yo I had to pay 7k for my arm, and then a couple hundred grand a year on cancer care. Can't believe this 675 a year fucking was spent!" These are times I actually wish dire illness on someone so they can understand the anguish. Many people who have used the Canadian healthcare system are not very happy with it. It is pretty good at providing semi-decent or "adequate" care to everybody, but it's well known that if you want to get the best care you have to travel to the US -- the article quoted abote if just one of countless examples. The American healthcare system has major issues but I don't see it improving by moving towards a Canadian-style system. Excuse me? Any major surgery can be operated on in Canada... "adequate"? I don't hear many civilians having issues getting healthcare. No it may take 4 hours to wait in line sometimes when you have the common cold because another patient got shot in the head and is more important than you at the moment and YES you may have to pay through taxation a small fee such that every Canadian can be given healhcare but I think waiting 4 hours is better then paying a massive premium. Medical emergencies are dealt with immediately also. There is not some massive flooding of Canadians moving where do you hear this FOX? http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427+ Show Spoiler +Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.
In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent. Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.
The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.
Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.
What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.
Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.
There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.
Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.
Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.
Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.
Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.
From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system. Canadian Health Care... Pretty bad right? American healthcare much more fair data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" I made several posts a few weeks ago about my experiences with the Canadian health care system, you can go back and read them if you're interested. I don't hate the Canadian system, but I would be much happier in a basic system where I pay for insurance for myself and my family and I don't have to pay taxes to fund everyone else's treatment. Your rate would be whatever the insurance companies have to pay out for everyone elses treatments, plus a profit. Either way, youre paying for other peoples treatments. Our way you pay it up front, at a lower cost, and have more services available to you. The Canadian system is cheaper, that's true. That's partly because the US system has the best and most advanced treatments in the world. It also partly because medical malpractice lawsuits are out of control in the US and doctors often order unnecessary tests because they're afraid if they don't they might get sued. If you are saying that the US system needs to get its costs under control then nobody would disagree with that. I'm not sure what you mean by "more services available". Maybe you could elaborate on this? I'll tell you an interesting story about my experiences in the cdn system. My dentist and my doctor happen to have their offices in the same building. The dentist gets paid by me directly (and then I can claim 80% back for most treatments through my insurance). The doctor of course gets paid through the canadian socialized medicine system. The differences in the experience that you get between the two are pretty telling. The staff at the dentist office is very professional. They call me 1-2 days before every appointment to remind me. They offer me coffee when I get there. They are polite and courteous, as you would expect of any place really. They keep up with their schedule so I never have to wait very long. The doctor's office is an amazingly different story. The staff are hopeless. When you call you usually get an answering machine that won't accept messages -- it just says "call back later". There is no coffee. The Dr's office waiting room is filled with people (mostly elderly) who look like they've been waiting all day. Appointments are never on time. When you do get in to see the doctor, you find that the appointment is only for 10 minutes (since the system only pays him $35 for the appointment I don't blame him). The reasons for the difference are pretty clear to me. Both my doctor and my dentist are running businesses, trying to make a good living. The dentist can charge what he wants, and he knows that he has to do a good job or I'll go somewhere else. Meanwhile, the Doctor's rates are set by bureaucrats and he can't change them. He is motivated to rush people through as much as possible. He has no real motive to offer good service because it's really hard to find a doctor in my city so it's hard for me to go anywhere else. And besides, he doesn't make much money from me anyway. So I've experienced a system where I get treatment through insurance (dental) and a socialized system. There's no doubt in my mind which one I prefer.
If your gripe is with not being offered coffee and having to wait then don't worry, I'm in the same boat and I have to pay for health insurance. But actually, I've always gotten better service from dentists here than doctors. Maybe dentists are just nicer in general.
|
On September 20 2012 11:58 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 11:42 Focuspants wrote:On September 20 2012 11:32 ziggurat wrote:On September 20 2012 09:45 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 20 2012 07:51 ziggurat wrote:On September 20 2012 07:34 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 20 2012 05:52 antelope591 wrote:On September 20 2012 05:34 SayGen wrote:On September 20 2012 05:24 Defacer wrote:So what's your healthcare plan? For everyone to become millionaires and buy immortality? You're confusing healthcare tourism for healthcare coverage and effectiveness. I can point to the endless amount of anecdotes from Americans that were flat-out denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, or delayed or avoided healthcare they desperately needed because they couldn't afford it. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. You should take that $300 you've been saving every month and consider moving to Canada. It would save that life of yours that Obama has destroyed. Truth be told. I have to say ur right about ur little rant. Canada does NOW have a better HC system than America. But HC pre Obama in America > X100000 Canada HC I love the thought behind it UHC but it doens't work in the real world. Hard working people like me just got the shaft. I will no longer be able to fund my own HC. If I get an Illness that isn't covered under OBAMACARE, I'm dead. Least I can say I tried. I stood in oposition proudly. Always funny when an American comments on Canadian health care with such authority when in fact they dont have a clue what theyre talking about. : P He complains about minimal savings but if he was one of the multiple millions of people who got diagnosed with cancer and is being helped by this bill he wouldn't be bitching. "Yo I had to pay 7k for my arm, and then a couple hundred grand a year on cancer care. Can't believe this 675 a year fucking was spent!" These are times I actually wish dire illness on someone so they can understand the anguish. Many people who have used the Canadian healthcare system are not very happy with it. It is pretty good at providing semi-decent or "adequate" care to everybody, but it's well known that if you want to get the best care you have to travel to the US -- the article quoted abote if just one of countless examples. The American healthcare system has major issues but I don't see it improving by moving towards a Canadian-style system. Excuse me? Any major surgery can be operated on in Canada... "adequate"? I don't hear many civilians having issues getting healthcare. No it may take 4 hours to wait in line sometimes when you have the common cold because another patient got shot in the head and is more important than you at the moment and YES you may have to pay through taxation a small fee such that every Canadian can be given healhcare but I think waiting 4 hours is better then paying a massive premium. Medical emergencies are dealt with immediately also. There is not some massive flooding of Canadians moving where do you hear this FOX? http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427+ Show Spoiler +Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.
In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent. Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.
The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.
Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.
What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.
Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.
There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.
Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.
Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.
Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.
Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.
From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system. Canadian Health Care... Pretty bad right? American healthcare much more fair data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" I made several posts a few weeks ago about my experiences with the Canadian health care system, you can go back and read them if you're interested. I don't hate the Canadian system, but I would be much happier in a basic system where I pay for insurance for myself and my family and I don't have to pay taxes to fund everyone else's treatment. Your rate would be whatever the insurance companies have to pay out for everyone elses treatments, plus a profit. Either way, youre paying for other peoples treatments. Our way you pay it up front, at a lower cost, and have more services available to you. The Canadian system is cheaper, that's true. That's partly because the US system has the best and most advanced treatments in the world. It also partly because medical malpractice lawsuits are out of control in the US and doctors often order unnecessary tests because they're afraid if they don't they might get sued. If you are saying that the US system needs to get its costs under control then nobody would disagree with that. I'm not sure what you mean by "more services available". Maybe you could elaborate on this? I'll tell you an interesting story about my experiences in the cdn system. My dentist and my doctor happen to have their offices in the same building. The dentist gets paid by me directly (and then I can claim 80% back for most treatments through my insurance). The doctor of course gets paid through the canadian socialized medicine system. The differences in the experience that you get between the two are pretty telling. The staff at the dentist office is very professional. They call me 1-2 days before every appointment to remind me. They offer me coffee when I get there. They are polite and courteous, as you would expect of any place really. They keep up with their schedule so I never have to wait very long. The doctor's office is an amazingly different story. The staff are hopeless. When you call you usually get an answering machine that won't accept messages -- it just says "call back later". There is no coffee. The Dr's office waiting room is filled with people (mostly elderly) who look like they've been waiting all day. Appointments are never on time. When you do get in to see the doctor, you find that the appointment is only for 10 minutes (since the system only pays him $35 for the appointment I don't blame him). The reasons for the difference are pretty clear to me. Both my doctor and my dentist are running businesses, trying to make a good living. The dentist can charge what he wants, and he knows that he has to do a good job or I'll go somewhere else. Meanwhile, the Doctor's rates are set by bureaucrats and he can't change them. He is motivated to rush people through as much as possible. He has no real motive to offer good service because it's really hard to find a doctor in my city so it's hard for me to go anywhere else. And besides, he doesn't make much money from me anyway. So I've experienced a system where I get treatment through insurance (dental) and a socialized system. There's no doubt in my mind which one I prefer.
Maybe you should find a new doctor. I go in at my scheduled appointment time, get seen within 10 minutes, and my doctor and her staff are extremely professional. I go to get medical treatment/advice, not for free coffee. Its a doctors office, not a Starbucks.
|
On September 20 2012 11:45 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 11:42 ziggurat wrote:On September 20 2012 11:36 Souma wrote:On September 20 2012 11:32 ziggurat wrote:On September 20 2012 09:45 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 20 2012 07:51 ziggurat wrote:On September 20 2012 07:34 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 20 2012 05:52 antelope591 wrote:On September 20 2012 05:34 SayGen wrote:On September 20 2012 05:24 Defacer wrote: [quote]
So what's your healthcare plan? For everyone to become millionaires and buy immortality?
You're confusing healthcare tourism for healthcare coverage and effectiveness. I can point to the endless amount of anecdotes from Americans that were flat-out denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, or delayed or avoided healthcare they desperately needed because they couldn't afford it.
Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's.
You should take that $300 you've been saving every month and consider moving to Canada. It would save that life of yours that Obama has destroyed.
Truth be told. I have to say ur right about ur little rant. Canada does NOW have a better HC system than America. But HC pre Obama in America > X100000 Canada HC I love the thought behind it UHC but it doens't work in the real world. Hard working people like me just got the shaft. I will no longer be able to fund my own HC. If I get an Illness that isn't covered under OBAMACARE, I'm dead. Least I can say I tried. I stood in oposition proudly. Always funny when an American comments on Canadian health care with such authority when in fact they dont have a clue what theyre talking about. : P He complains about minimal savings but if he was one of the multiple millions of people who got diagnosed with cancer and is being helped by this bill he wouldn't be bitching. "Yo I had to pay 7k for my arm, and then a couple hundred grand a year on cancer care. Can't believe this 675 a year fucking was spent!" These are times I actually wish dire illness on someone so they can understand the anguish. Many people who have used the Canadian healthcare system are not very happy with it. It is pretty good at providing semi-decent or "adequate" care to everybody, but it's well known that if you want to get the best care you have to travel to the US -- the article quoted abote if just one of countless examples. The American healthcare system has major issues but I don't see it improving by moving towards a Canadian-style system. Excuse me? Any major surgery can be operated on in Canada... "adequate"? I don't hear many civilians having issues getting healthcare. No it may take 4 hours to wait in line sometimes when you have the common cold because another patient got shot in the head and is more important than you at the moment and YES you may have to pay through taxation a small fee such that every Canadian can be given healhcare but I think waiting 4 hours is better then paying a massive premium. Medical emergencies are dealt with immediately also. There is not some massive flooding of Canadians moving where do you hear this FOX? http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427+ Show Spoiler +Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.
In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent. Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.
The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.
Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.
What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.
Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.
There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.
Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.
Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.
Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.
Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.
From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system. Canadian Health Care... Pretty bad right? American healthcare much more fair data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" I made several posts a few weeks ago about my experiences with the Canadian health care system, you can go back and read them if you're interested. I don't hate the Canadian system, but I would be much happier in a basic system where I pay for insurance for myself and my family and I don't have to pay taxes to fund everyone else's treatment. What exactly do you think insurance is? What does it matter if you pay $1000 in taxes to the government or $1000 to an insurance company? The difference is that I decide what coverage I get instead of some bureaucrat. And, also, once I have an insurance contract I have the right to get treatment as described in the policy. When I go to a hospital in Canada I don't really have any rights, I just have to hope that I get good treatment. I don't have any contractual right to demand it. If I understand Obamacare correctly, at least under the new system Americans will still be able to choose what kind of insurance they get. To me that would be a big plus compared to Canada's system. You dont need to choose what kind of insurance to get, its (for the most part) all encompassing. Basically anything you go to a hospital for is included already. You dont need to select certain things. Would you rather only have some things covered, or everything covered for less cost. I dont understand. It's a common scenario to learn that certain newer drugs are not covered in the Canadian health care system. Somebody has decided that some drugs are too expensive to be paid for by the taxpayers. Of course as a taxpayer I agree with this. Some drugs are super-expensive. But it's also a tragedy for the family of the person who needs those drugs. I would prefer a system where I can make a decision about whether I want to get coverage for super-expensive drugs or not.
Another example is my friend's wife who has MS. There is a certain kind of therapy popular in Europe -- I believe it's called "liberation therapy" or something like that. It's not covered in the Canadian system. Some studies have shown that it doesn't really work, or only works for a short time with no permanent improvement. My friend's wife went from being unable to walk to running a 10k race after she got this treatment. My friend is a true believer. I don't really know about the science behind it but anecdotally the results were phenomenal. Anyway, the point is that they had to pay for it themselves.
Again, as a taxpayer I agree that not every form of therapy should be covered. Some things are too expensive, or too experimental, or just unproven. But as a consumer of health care I want to be able to decide what risks I am covered for.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 20 2012 12:06 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 11:45 Focuspants wrote:On September 20 2012 11:42 ziggurat wrote:On September 20 2012 11:36 Souma wrote:On September 20 2012 11:32 ziggurat wrote:On September 20 2012 09:45 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 20 2012 07:51 ziggurat wrote:On September 20 2012 07:34 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 20 2012 05:52 antelope591 wrote:On September 20 2012 05:34 SayGen wrote: [quote]
Truth be told. I have to say ur right about ur little rant. Canada does NOW have a better HC system than America.
But HC pre Obama in America > X100000 Canada HC
I love the thought behind it UHC but it doens't work in the real world. Hard working people like me just got the shaft. I will no longer be able to fund my own HC. If I get an Illness that isn't covered under OBAMACARE, I'm dead. Least I can say I tried. I stood in oposition proudly. Always funny when an American comments on Canadian health care with such authority when in fact they dont have a clue what theyre talking about. : P He complains about minimal savings but if he was one of the multiple millions of people who got diagnosed with cancer and is being helped by this bill he wouldn't be bitching. "Yo I had to pay 7k for my arm, and then a couple hundred grand a year on cancer care. Can't believe this 675 a year fucking was spent!" These are times I actually wish dire illness on someone so they can understand the anguish. Many people who have used the Canadian healthcare system are not very happy with it. It is pretty good at providing semi-decent or "adequate" care to everybody, but it's well known that if you want to get the best care you have to travel to the US -- the article quoted abote if just one of countless examples. The American healthcare system has major issues but I don't see it improving by moving towards a Canadian-style system. Excuse me? Any major surgery can be operated on in Canada... "adequate"? I don't hear many civilians having issues getting healthcare. No it may take 4 hours to wait in line sometimes when you have the common cold because another patient got shot in the head and is more important than you at the moment and YES you may have to pay through taxation a small fee such that every Canadian can be given healhcare but I think waiting 4 hours is better then paying a massive premium. Medical emergencies are dealt with immediately also. There is not some massive flooding of Canadians moving where do you hear this FOX? http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427+ Show Spoiler +Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.
In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent. Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.
The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.
Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.
What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.
Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.
There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.
Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.
Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.
Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.
Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.
From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system. Canadian Health Care... Pretty bad right? American healthcare much more fair data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" I made several posts a few weeks ago about my experiences with the Canadian health care system, you can go back and read them if you're interested. I don't hate the Canadian system, but I would be much happier in a basic system where I pay for insurance for myself and my family and I don't have to pay taxes to fund everyone else's treatment. What exactly do you think insurance is? What does it matter if you pay $1000 in taxes to the government or $1000 to an insurance company? The difference is that I decide what coverage I get instead of some bureaucrat. And, also, once I have an insurance contract I have the right to get treatment as described in the policy. When I go to a hospital in Canada I don't really have any rights, I just have to hope that I get good treatment. I don't have any contractual right to demand it. If I understand Obamacare correctly, at least under the new system Americans will still be able to choose what kind of insurance they get. To me that would be a big plus compared to Canada's system. You dont need to choose what kind of insurance to get, its (for the most part) all encompassing. Basically anything you go to a hospital for is included already. You dont need to select certain things. Would you rather only have some things covered, or everything covered for less cost. I dont understand. It's a common scenario to learn that certain newer drugs are not covered in the Canadian health care system. Somebody has decided that some drugs are too expensive to be paid for by the taxpayers. Of course as a taxpayer I agree with this. Some drugs are super-expensive. But it's also a tragedy for the family of the person who needs those drugs. I would prefer a system where I can make a decision about whether I want to get coverage for super-expensive drugs or not. Another example is my friend's wife who has MS. There is a certain kind of therapy popular in Europe -- I believe it's called "liberation therapy" or something like that. It's not covered in the Canadian system. Some studies have shown that it doesn't really work, or only works for a short time with no permanent improvement. My friend's wife went from being unable to walk to running a 10k race after she got this treatment. My friend is a true believer. I don't really know about the science behind it but anecdotally the results were phenomenal. Anyway, the point is that they had to pay for it themselves. Again, as a taxpayer I agree that not every form of therapy should be covered. Some things are too expensive, or too experimental, or just unproven. But as a consumer of health care I want to be able to decide what risks I am covered for.
Then you're in the same boat as most other Canadians in wanting a private option on top of the public one. In either case, both options are better than what we currently have in the U.S. by far.
|
On September 20 2012 11:58 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 11:42 Focuspants wrote:On September 20 2012 11:32 ziggurat wrote:On September 20 2012 09:45 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 20 2012 07:51 ziggurat wrote:On September 20 2012 07:34 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 20 2012 05:52 antelope591 wrote:On September 20 2012 05:34 SayGen wrote:On September 20 2012 05:24 Defacer wrote:So what's your healthcare plan? For everyone to become millionaires and buy immortality? You're confusing healthcare tourism for healthcare coverage and effectiveness. I can point to the endless amount of anecdotes from Americans that were flat-out denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, or delayed or avoided healthcare they desperately needed because they couldn't afford it. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. You should take that $300 you've been saving every month and consider moving to Canada. It would save that life of yours that Obama has destroyed. Truth be told. I have to say ur right about ur little rant. Canada does NOW have a better HC system than America. But HC pre Obama in America > X100000 Canada HC I love the thought behind it UHC but it doens't work in the real world. Hard working people like me just got the shaft. I will no longer be able to fund my own HC. If I get an Illness that isn't covered under OBAMACARE, I'm dead. Least I can say I tried. I stood in oposition proudly. Always funny when an American comments on Canadian health care with such authority when in fact they dont have a clue what theyre talking about. : P He complains about minimal savings but if he was one of the multiple millions of people who got diagnosed with cancer and is being helped by this bill he wouldn't be bitching. "Yo I had to pay 7k for my arm, and then a couple hundred grand a year on cancer care. Can't believe this 675 a year fucking was spent!" These are times I actually wish dire illness on someone so they can understand the anguish. Many people who have used the Canadian healthcare system are not very happy with it. It is pretty good at providing semi-decent or "adequate" care to everybody, but it's well known that if you want to get the best care you have to travel to the US -- the article quoted abote if just one of countless examples. The American healthcare system has major issues but I don't see it improving by moving towards a Canadian-style system. Excuse me? Any major surgery can be operated on in Canada... "adequate"? I don't hear many civilians having issues getting healthcare. No it may take 4 hours to wait in line sometimes when you have the common cold because another patient got shot in the head and is more important than you at the moment and YES you may have to pay through taxation a small fee such that every Canadian can be given healhcare but I think waiting 4 hours is better then paying a massive premium. Medical emergencies are dealt with immediately also. There is not some massive flooding of Canadians moving where do you hear this FOX? http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427+ Show Spoiler +Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.
In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent. Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.
The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.
Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.
What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.
Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.
There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.
Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.
Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.
Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.
Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.
From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system. Canadian Health Care... Pretty bad right? American healthcare much more fair data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" I made several posts a few weeks ago about my experiences with the Canadian health care system, you can go back and read them if you're interested. I don't hate the Canadian system, but I would be much happier in a basic system where I pay for insurance for myself and my family and I don't have to pay taxes to fund everyone else's treatment. Your rate would be whatever the insurance companies have to pay out for everyone elses treatments, plus a profit. Either way, youre paying for other peoples treatments. Our way you pay it up front, at a lower cost, and have more services available to you. The Canadian system is cheaper, that's true. That's partly because the US system has the best and most advanced treatments in the world. It also partly because medical malpractice lawsuits are out of control in the US and doctors often order unnecessary tests because they're afraid if they don't they might get sued. If you are saying that the US system needs to get its costs under control then nobody would disagree with that. I'm not sure what you mean by "more services available". Maybe you could elaborate on this? I'll tell you an interesting story about my experiences in the cdn system. My dentist and my doctor happen to have their offices in the same building. The dentist gets paid by me directly (and then I can claim 80% back for most treatments through my insurance). The doctor of course gets paid through the canadian socialized medicine system. The differences in the experience that you get between the two are pretty telling. The staff at the dentist office is very professional. They call me 1-2 days before every appointment to remind me. They offer me coffee when I get there. They are polite and courteous, as you would expect of any place really. They keep up with their schedule so I never have to wait very long. The doctor's office is an amazingly different story. The staff are hopeless. When you call you usually get an answering machine that won't accept messages -- it just says "call back later". There is no coffee. The Dr's office waiting room is filled with people (mostly elderly) who look like they've been waiting all day. Appointments are never on time. When you do get in to see the doctor, you find that the appointment is only for 10 minutes (since the system only pays him $35 for the appointment I don't blame him). The reasons for the difference are pretty clear to me. Both my doctor and my dentist are running businesses, trying to make a good living. The dentist can charge what he wants, and he knows that he has to do a good job or I'll go somewhere else. Meanwhile, the Doctor's rates are set by bureaucrats and he can't change them. He is motivated to rush people through as much as possible. He has no real motive to offer good service because it's really hard to find a doctor in my city so it's hard for me to go anywhere else. And besides, he doesn't make much money from me anyway. So I've experienced a system where I get treatment through insurance (dental) and a socialized system. There's no doubt in my mind which one I prefer.
I apologize but where in Canada do you live? Frankly your single horror story about a shitty medical office could easily be countered by mine. I live in Fredericton now, nothing special or big here, but everytime I go in my doctor is smiling and offering me advice. I got my testicles checked recently (as I think we all should) as well as my prostate, cleared up nothing wrong but the whole time the doctor was cracking jokes and after we said our goodbyes.
Your story didn't really prove anything, you equated that one is happier because of pay while the other is .. not happier because of pay?
Do you think doctors are paid more in Canada or Dentists? I recommend you search this up : ) Doctors are paid more, general practice and family doctors which don't even include the high end. From what I've read it is approximately 160-190 net income per year (thousand) where dentists make on average 120-150 per year (wasn't specified as net, but we can assume so.
EDIT: I can't be clear about who makes more, this is all recollection and I have class in the morning (it's 12:00) so I'm going to bed. If I'm wrong please post it here and I'll read it in the morning, I have no issues being wrong but this is what I've seen/heard and such it makes the "my doctors are upset" argument false with regards to pay.
|
Are there insurance in the U.S. that cover expensive drugs not typically covered by socialized insurance? I was always under the impression that most insurances actually don't cover such drugs or treatments - leading to horror stories asking for donations.
My question is serious, btw, I get insurance through my workplace so I never really researched insurance.
|
On September 20 2012 12:06 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 11:58 ziggurat wrote:On September 20 2012 11:42 Focuspants wrote:On September 20 2012 11:32 ziggurat wrote:On September 20 2012 09:45 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 20 2012 07:51 ziggurat wrote:On September 20 2012 07:34 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 20 2012 05:52 antelope591 wrote:On September 20 2012 05:34 SayGen wrote:On September 20 2012 05:24 Defacer wrote: [quote]
So what's your healthcare plan? For everyone to become millionaires and buy immortality?
You're confusing healthcare tourism for healthcare coverage and effectiveness. I can point to the endless amount of anecdotes from Americans that were flat-out denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, or delayed or avoided healthcare they desperately needed because they couldn't afford it.
Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's.
You should take that $300 you've been saving every month and consider moving to Canada. It would save that life of yours that Obama has destroyed.
Truth be told. I have to say ur right about ur little rant. Canada does NOW have a better HC system than America. But HC pre Obama in America > X100000 Canada HC I love the thought behind it UHC but it doens't work in the real world. Hard working people like me just got the shaft. I will no longer be able to fund my own HC. If I get an Illness that isn't covered under OBAMACARE, I'm dead. Least I can say I tried. I stood in oposition proudly. Always funny when an American comments on Canadian health care with such authority when in fact they dont have a clue what theyre talking about. : P He complains about minimal savings but if he was one of the multiple millions of people who got diagnosed with cancer and is being helped by this bill he wouldn't be bitching. "Yo I had to pay 7k for my arm, and then a couple hundred grand a year on cancer care. Can't believe this 675 a year fucking was spent!" These are times I actually wish dire illness on someone so they can understand the anguish. Many people who have used the Canadian healthcare system are not very happy with it. It is pretty good at providing semi-decent or "adequate" care to everybody, but it's well known that if you want to get the best care you have to travel to the US -- the article quoted abote if just one of countless examples. The American healthcare system has major issues but I don't see it improving by moving towards a Canadian-style system. Excuse me? Any major surgery can be operated on in Canada... "adequate"? I don't hear many civilians having issues getting healthcare. No it may take 4 hours to wait in line sometimes when you have the common cold because another patient got shot in the head and is more important than you at the moment and YES you may have to pay through taxation a small fee such that every Canadian can be given healhcare but I think waiting 4 hours is better then paying a massive premium. Medical emergencies are dealt with immediately also. There is not some massive flooding of Canadians moving where do you hear this FOX? http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427+ Show Spoiler +Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.
In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent. Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.
The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.
Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.
What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.
Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.
There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.
Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.
Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.
Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.
Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.
From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system. Canadian Health Care... Pretty bad right? American healthcare much more fair data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" I made several posts a few weeks ago about my experiences with the Canadian health care system, you can go back and read them if you're interested. I don't hate the Canadian system, but I would be much happier in a basic system where I pay for insurance for myself and my family and I don't have to pay taxes to fund everyone else's treatment. Your rate would be whatever the insurance companies have to pay out for everyone elses treatments, plus a profit. Either way, youre paying for other peoples treatments. Our way you pay it up front, at a lower cost, and have more services available to you. The Canadian system is cheaper, that's true. That's partly because the US system has the best and most advanced treatments in the world. It also partly because medical malpractice lawsuits are out of control in the US and doctors often order unnecessary tests because they're afraid if they don't they might get sued. If you are saying that the US system needs to get its costs under control then nobody would disagree with that. I'm not sure what you mean by "more services available". Maybe you could elaborate on this? I'll tell you an interesting story about my experiences in the cdn system. My dentist and my doctor happen to have their offices in the same building. The dentist gets paid by me directly (and then I can claim 80% back for most treatments through my insurance). The doctor of course gets paid through the canadian socialized medicine system. The differences in the experience that you get between the two are pretty telling. The staff at the dentist office is very professional. They call me 1-2 days before every appointment to remind me. They offer me coffee when I get there. They are polite and courteous, as you would expect of any place really. They keep up with their schedule so I never have to wait very long. The doctor's office is an amazingly different story. The staff are hopeless. When you call you usually get an answering machine that won't accept messages -- it just says "call back later". There is no coffee. The Dr's office waiting room is filled with people (mostly elderly) who look like they've been waiting all day. Appointments are never on time. When you do get in to see the doctor, you find that the appointment is only for 10 minutes (since the system only pays him $35 for the appointment I don't blame him). The reasons for the difference are pretty clear to me. Both my doctor and my dentist are running businesses, trying to make a good living. The dentist can charge what he wants, and he knows that he has to do a good job or I'll go somewhere else. Meanwhile, the Doctor's rates are set by bureaucrats and he can't change them. He is motivated to rush people through as much as possible. He has no real motive to offer good service because it's really hard to find a doctor in my city so it's hard for me to go anywhere else. And besides, he doesn't make much money from me anyway. So I've experienced a system where I get treatment through insurance (dental) and a socialized system. There's no doubt in my mind which one I prefer. Maybe you should find a new doctor. I go in at my scheduled appointment time, get seen within 10 minutes, and my doctor and her staff are extremely professional. I go to get medical treatment/advice, not for free coffee. Its a doctors office, not a Starbucks. Haha. Maybe. In Calgary it's pretty hard to find doctors who are taking new patients but there must be some. And obviously you get good people and bad people in any system. I feel like doctors in the Canadian system are subject to unfair restrictions. Which is why a lot of the world class doctors graduating from Canadian medical schools leave Canada and go work in the states where they can make a million dollars a year.
I apologize but where in Canada do you live? Frankly your single horror story about a shitty medical office could easily be countered by mine. I live in Fredericton now, nothing special or big here, but everytime I go in my doctor is smiling and offering me advice. I got my testicles checked recently (as I think we all should) as well as my prostate, cleared up nothing wrong but the whole time the doctor was cracking jokes and after we said our goodbyes.
Your story didn't really prove anything, you equated that one is happier because of pay while the other is .. not happier because of pay?
Do you think doctors are paid more in Canada or Dentists? I recommend you search this up : ) Doctors are paid more, general practice and family doctors which don't even include the high end. From what I've read it is approximately 160-190 net income per year (thousand) where dentists make on average 120-150 per year (wasn't specified as net, but we can assume so.
Yeah, I know a lot of people have good experiences in the Canadian system. In my opinion it depends a lot on the people you run into, you can get good or bad people in either system. I have never experienced the american system and I know that it has a lot of problems; but I don't want people to go off thinking that the Canadian system is full of rainbows and unicorns.
As for the pay differential, I have several friends who are doctors and they are certainly doing well financially. I don't doubt that they make more than dentists. Also my grandfather was a family doctor for his whole career (although he retired many years ago). But I will tell you this: being a family doctor in Canada is a grind. You get paid $35 per appointment and you have to pay all expenses out of that including receptionist, rent, equipment. And you see the same 40 or 50 problems over and over and over and over again. Although the money is not bad I would not want to make a living this way.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 20 2012 12:11 JinDesu wrote: Are there insurance in the U.S. that cover expensive drugs not typically covered by socialized insurance? I was always under the impression that most insurances actually don't cover such drugs or treatments - leading to horror stories asking for donations.
I'd be surprised if there was. Health insurance companies here are all about minimizing risk. Sometimes they don't even fully cover shit that the doctors say are required. Something is definitely wrong when I have to check back with my insurance company to see if they'll cover a certain common procedure or not.
|
On September 20 2012 12:11 JinDesu wrote: Are there insurance in the U.S. that cover expensive drugs not typically covered by socialized insurance? I was always under the impression that most insurances actually don't cover such drugs or treatments - leading to horror stories asking for donations.
My question is serious, btw, I get insurance through my workplace so I never really researched insurance.
You are prescribed medication that you generally have to purchase in Canada but the prices compared the United States are absurdly less.
NOTE: I have never had an immense illness where I required any big perscription, I believe anything heavy is covered but I've mainly just had strep throat etc where I got some medication that I had to pay like 9.99 for.
http://drugs.about.com/od/faqsaboutyourdrugs/f/Canada_cheap.htm
showing differences (dunno how bias it is)
|
On September 19 2012 12:44 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 12:40 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 11:07 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 10:13 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 09:57 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 09:50 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 06:13 MinusPlus wrote:On September 19 2012 05:19 xDaunt wrote: ... I think that a little much is being made of the significance of the 47% comments. Was it helpful? Of course not. Is it harmful? Possibly at the margins, and probably only short term. Hopefully Romney will use this as an opportunity to take the gloves off and throw out some meaty policy for people to chew on. ...
By whom? I mean...the GOP kinda built their whole convention around "You didn't build that," so calling 47% of the nation entitled, victimized dependents not worth pandering to seems significant (relatively). And that's taken in context, on video, and using the same wording. On September 19 2012 05:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 19 2012 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2012 05:53 Wolvmatt. wrote: [quote]
You can't give everybody everything. Ofcourse you can't but there is a different between trying to do the best for everyone and flat out dismissing 47% of your country as useless bags of meat. That's not what he did. He said it's a waste to fight for the vote of people who are already decided. How do you read that as "half the country is insignificant"? Come on people, do you think Obama is fighting for the Tea Party vote? Should he? Does that mean he dismisses them as insignificant citizens? This stuff is very basic. This reminded me. I realize the Non-Payers by State image was posted earlier, but no one juxtaposed that one with polling data by state, which had been my first thought after seeing it. So, in case anyone reading wasn't already acutely aware, here's how we supposedly stand today. ( source) ![[image loading]](http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/20100524-229-nonpayers-map-.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Pngs/Sep18.png) The interesting thing about what Romney said is that he didn't just say that 47% of Americans will vote for Obama no matter what -- it's that he also insulted a significant portion of his own base. Or maybe they aren't significant. I never know what's going to come out of this Romney guy next. (Sorry for old news & large images) LOL at that image of non-payers. That's the prime example of misleading the viewers with stats. I hope you guys are smarter than that. More rural country people are on welfare than urban dwellers. Fact of the matter is, cities pay more taxes than the countryside, and receive fewer subsidies. This is not new, or revolutionary, it's been true for decades. Jobs are in the cities, not in the countryside. Yes you can find a higher CONCENTRATION of poor people in cities. But only because there's a higher concentration of people in general. Generally the more rural the population, the more people reliant on government handouts. But being more diffuse, the poverty is more hidden. Ever bothered to consider why the image is showing a "percentage" of total population per state instead of actual numbers of non-payers? The fact is that non-payer issue is not restricted to southern states, but rather it's a nation-wide problem. The image is just trying to mislead the viewers that the problem mostly resides in GOP leaning states (oh, and I just love how it's supposed to show "top 10" non-payers states). It doesn't show just top 10 & bottom 10. It only highlights them. It lists the percentages and rank of out 50 states for every single state. Of course there are poor people in every state... alternatively in both urban and rural settings. As I stated in my post. I take from your tone you disagree with me, but the bare facts of your statement aligns with what I said. Complaining about one single chart is not going to change the reality on the ground. And that is that urban centers generally subsidize rural areas. Leaving states totally aside for the moment, rural areas tend to be more republican-leaning and urban areas more democratic-leaning. Now we can't tell for sure that it also follows that people receiving government assistance are more likely to vote Republican, while people paying taxes are more likely to vote Democratic, the statistics (and no, I'm not talking about that chart) aren't that detailed. Frankly there are large groups of both poor and well-off that vote both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican. Anyway you look at it though, Mitt Romney is pretty wrong in his understanding of the situation. It is clear that at the very least there are millions of people receiving government assistance that vote Republican. Old people, for example. My point was that the image is being used against the southern states; it is implying that leading non-payers states are all in the south by purposely showing the percentages instead of the actual numbers of people who are non-payers by states. So, the image is misleading the viewers with stats. The reality is that non-payer issue cannot be pinned down to only GOP leaning states, but rather it's a nation-wide issue. By actual numbers, CA leads the all states with non-payers. Okay? But that also means that they have more payers paying in to it without receiving anything as well, simply cause their population is bigger. So that's why you use proportions.
No, that's not how it works. The fact is that non-payer problem is spread across the nation. It's not just the southern states because the percentage shows that it is. You have to look at the actual number of people, not the percentage per population.
There is another stat that shows that southern states have a higher percentage in terms of donations to charity. Does that mean southern states are leading the nation in charity works? No, you have to look at the actual numbers in order to determine that. Percentages in this case don't show the whole story, and that's why it is a misleading stat.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 20 2012 12:15 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 12:11 JinDesu wrote: Are there insurance in the U.S. that cover expensive drugs not typically covered by socialized insurance? I was always under the impression that most insurances actually don't cover such drugs or treatments - leading to horror stories asking for donations.
My question is serious, btw, I get insurance through my workplace so I never really researched insurance. You are prescribed medication that you generally have to purchase in Canada but the prices compared the United States are absurdly less. NOTE: I have never had an immense illness where I required any big perscription, I believe anything heavy is covered but I've mainly just had strep throat etc where I got some medication that I had to pay like 9.99 for.
Oh, that's right. I can get viagra. I should take advantage of it.
|
On September 19 2012 14:02 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 12:40 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 11:07 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 10:13 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 09:57 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 09:50 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 06:13 MinusPlus wrote:On September 19 2012 05:19 xDaunt wrote: ... I think that a little much is being made of the significance of the 47% comments. Was it helpful? Of course not. Is it harmful? Possibly at the margins, and probably only short term. Hopefully Romney will use this as an opportunity to take the gloves off and throw out some meaty policy for people to chew on. ...
By whom? I mean...the GOP kinda built their whole convention around "You didn't build that," so calling 47% of the nation entitled, victimized dependents not worth pandering to seems significant (relatively). And that's taken in context, on video, and using the same wording. On September 19 2012 05:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 19 2012 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2012 05:53 Wolvmatt. wrote: [quote]
You can't give everybody everything. Ofcourse you can't but there is a different between trying to do the best for everyone and flat out dismissing 47% of your country as useless bags of meat. That's not what he did. He said it's a waste to fight for the vote of people who are already decided. How do you read that as "half the country is insignificant"? Come on people, do you think Obama is fighting for the Tea Party vote? Should he? Does that mean he dismisses them as insignificant citizens? This stuff is very basic. This reminded me. I realize the Non-Payers by State image was posted earlier, but no one juxtaposed that one with polling data by state, which had been my first thought after seeing it. So, in case anyone reading wasn't already acutely aware, here's how we supposedly stand today. ( source) ![[image loading]](http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/20100524-229-nonpayers-map-.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Pngs/Sep18.png) The interesting thing about what Romney said is that he didn't just say that 47% of Americans will vote for Obama no matter what -- it's that he also insulted a significant portion of his own base. Or maybe they aren't significant. I never know what's going to come out of this Romney guy next. (Sorry for old news & large images) LOL at that image of non-payers. That's the prime example of misleading the viewers with stats. I hope you guys are smarter than that. More rural country people are on welfare than urban dwellers. Fact of the matter is, cities pay more taxes than the countryside, and receive fewer subsidies. This is not new, or revolutionary, it's been true for decades. Jobs are in the cities, not in the countryside. Yes you can find a higher CONCENTRATION of poor people in cities. But only because there's a higher concentration of people in general. Generally the more rural the population, the more people reliant on government handouts. But being more diffuse, the poverty is more hidden. Ever bothered to consider why the image is showing a "percentage" of total population per state instead of actual numbers of non-payers? The fact is that non-payer issue is not restricted to southern states, but rather it's a nation-wide problem. The image is just trying to mislead the viewers that the problem mostly resides in GOP leaning states (oh, and I just love how it's supposed to show "top 10" non-payers states). It doesn't show just top 10 & bottom 10. It only highlights them. It lists the percentages and rank of out 50 states for every single state. Of course there are poor people in every state... alternatively in both urban and rural settings. As I stated in my post. I take from your tone you disagree with me, but the bare facts of your statement aligns with what I said. Complaining about one single chart is not going to change the reality on the ground. And that is that urban centers generally subsidize rural areas. Leaving states totally aside for the moment, rural areas tend to be more republican-leaning and urban areas more democratic-leaning. Now we can't tell for sure that it also follows that people receiving government assistance are more likely to vote Republican, while people paying taxes are more likely to vote Democratic, the statistics (and no, I'm not talking about that chart) aren't that detailed. Frankly there are large groups of both poor and well-off that vote both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican. Anyway you look at it though, Mitt Romney is pretty wrong in his understanding of the situation. It is clear that at the very least there are millions of people receiving government assistance that vote Republican. Old people, for example. My point was that the image is being used against the southern states; it is implying that leading non-payers states are all in the south by purposely showing the percentages instead of the actual numbers of people who are non-payers by states. So, the image is misleading the viewers with stats. The reality is that non-payer issue cannot be pinned down to only GOP leaning states, but rather it's a nation-wide issue. By actual numbers, CA leads the all states with non-payers. Now who's being misleading? CA also leads all the states in tax-payers. CA leads all the states in basically every measure of total population. Whoopty-doo.
Precisely. That's why I said the non-payer issue is a nation-wide problem. I was giving the CA as an example of misleading stat. Thanks for proving my point.
|
On September 20 2012 12:06 ziggurat wrote: It's a common scenario to learn that certain newer drugs are not covered in the Canadian health care system. Somebody has decided that some drugs are too expensive to be paid for by the taxpayers. Of course as a taxpayer I agree with this. Some drugs are super-expensive. But it's also a tragedy for the family of the person who needs those drugs. I would prefer a system where I can make a decision about whether I want to get coverage for super-expensive drugs or not.
Another example is my friend's wife who has MS. There is a certain kind of therapy popular in Europe -- I believe it's called "liberation therapy" or something like that. It's not covered in the Canadian system. Some studies have shown that it doesn't really work, or only works for a short time with no permanent improvement. My friend's wife went from being unable to walk to running a 10k race after she got this treatment. My friend is a true believer. I don't really know about the science behind it but anecdotally the results were phenomenal. Anyway, the point is that they had to pay for it themselves.
Again, as a taxpayer I agree that not every form of therapy should be covered. Some things are too expensive, or too experimental, or just unproven. But as a consumer of health care I want to be able to decide what risks I am covered for.
Health insurance in the US won't cover many experimental treatments/therapies as well. Alternative medicine, I believe it is rare for that to be covered. Insurance companies will look at the costs and benefits of drugs and treatments from an actuarial perspective to determine for what and how much they will pay. Anything extra or not proven beneficial, and you pay for it yourself.
Under pretty much any system, you end up having to pay for something yourself if it is not proven cost-effective. Otherwise it would quickly go bankrupt.
|
On September 20 2012 12:15 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 12:11 JinDesu wrote: Are there insurance in the U.S. that cover expensive drugs not typically covered by socialized insurance? I was always under the impression that most insurances actually don't cover such drugs or treatments - leading to horror stories asking for donations. I'd be surprised if there was. Health insurance companies here are all about minimizing risk. Sometimes they don't even fully cover shit that the doctors say are required. Something is definitely wrong when I have to check back with my insurance company to see if they'll cover a certain common procedure or not.
This was my impression as well - i know that mine covers emergency visits and life threatening or disfiguring injuries, but I never looked further (like drugs required, etc). I sometimes see horror stories in the news about a family suffering a rare disease and how their insurance will not cover the super expensive medicine. I don't know if they chose the wrong insurance, or if insurance that covers it is costly, or if that insurance exists at all...
|
Wait, is this now the let's ask questions about our insurance thread? What has this to do with Obama vs Romney. I'm so confused with these lasts posts o.O.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 20 2012 12:18 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 14:02 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 12:40 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 11:07 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 10:13 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 09:57 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 09:50 jellyjello wrote:On September 19 2012 06:13 MinusPlus wrote:On September 19 2012 05:19 xDaunt wrote: ... I think that a little much is being made of the significance of the 47% comments. Was it helpful? Of course not. Is it harmful? Possibly at the margins, and probably only short term. Hopefully Romney will use this as an opportunity to take the gloves off and throw out some meaty policy for people to chew on. ...
By whom? I mean...the GOP kinda built their whole convention around "You didn't build that," so calling 47% of the nation entitled, victimized dependents not worth pandering to seems significant (relatively). And that's taken in context, on video, and using the same wording. On September 19 2012 05:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 19 2012 05:57 Gorsameth wrote: [quote]
Ofcourse you can't but there is a different between trying to do the best for everyone and flat out dismissing 47% of your country as useless bags of meat. That's not what he did. He said it's a waste to fight for the vote of people who are already decided. How do you read that as "half the country is insignificant"? Come on people, do you think Obama is fighting for the Tea Party vote? Should he? Does that mean he dismisses them as insignificant citizens? This stuff is very basic. This reminded me. I realize the Non-Payers by State image was posted earlier, but no one juxtaposed that one with polling data by state, which had been my first thought after seeing it. So, in case anyone reading wasn't already acutely aware, here's how we supposedly stand today. ( source) ![[image loading]](http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/20100524-229-nonpayers-map-.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Pngs/Sep18.png) The interesting thing about what Romney said is that he didn't just say that 47% of Americans will vote for Obama no matter what -- it's that he also insulted a significant portion of his own base. Or maybe they aren't significant. I never know what's going to come out of this Romney guy next. (Sorry for old news & large images) LOL at that image of non-payers. That's the prime example of misleading the viewers with stats. I hope you guys are smarter than that. More rural country people are on welfare than urban dwellers. Fact of the matter is, cities pay more taxes than the countryside, and receive fewer subsidies. This is not new, or revolutionary, it's been true for decades. Jobs are in the cities, not in the countryside. Yes you can find a higher CONCENTRATION of poor people in cities. But only because there's a higher concentration of people in general. Generally the more rural the population, the more people reliant on government handouts. But being more diffuse, the poverty is more hidden. Ever bothered to consider why the image is showing a "percentage" of total population per state instead of actual numbers of non-payers? The fact is that non-payer issue is not restricted to southern states, but rather it's a nation-wide problem. The image is just trying to mislead the viewers that the problem mostly resides in GOP leaning states (oh, and I just love how it's supposed to show "top 10" non-payers states). It doesn't show just top 10 & bottom 10. It only highlights them. It lists the percentages and rank of out 50 states for every single state. Of course there are poor people in every state... alternatively in both urban and rural settings. As I stated in my post. I take from your tone you disagree with me, but the bare facts of your statement aligns with what I said. Complaining about one single chart is not going to change the reality on the ground. And that is that urban centers generally subsidize rural areas. Leaving states totally aside for the moment, rural areas tend to be more republican-leaning and urban areas more democratic-leaning. Now we can't tell for sure that it also follows that people receiving government assistance are more likely to vote Republican, while people paying taxes are more likely to vote Democratic, the statistics (and no, I'm not talking about that chart) aren't that detailed. Frankly there are large groups of both poor and well-off that vote both reliably Democratic and reliably Republican. Anyway you look at it though, Mitt Romney is pretty wrong in his understanding of the situation. It is clear that at the very least there are millions of people receiving government assistance that vote Republican. Old people, for example. My point was that the image is being used against the southern states; it is implying that leading non-payers states are all in the south by purposely showing the percentages instead of the actual numbers of people who are non-payers by states. So, the image is misleading the viewers with stats. The reality is that non-payer issue cannot be pinned down to only GOP leaning states, but rather it's a nation-wide issue. By actual numbers, CA leads the all states with non-payers. Now who's being misleading? CA also leads all the states in tax-payers. CA leads all the states in basically every measure of total population. Whoopty-doo. Precisely. That's why I said the non-payer issue is a nation-wide problem. I was giving the CA as an example of misleading stat. Thanks for proving my point.
Pretty sure the "point" was demonstrating that the 47% of non-payers are not actually all Democrats but also Republicans as well. What you're talking about clearly misses the point.
|
On September 20 2012 12:20 3FFA wrote: Wait, is this now the let's ask questions about our insurance thread? What has this to do with Obama vs Romney. I'm so confused with these lasts posts o.O.
Discussing the merits and faults of the Affordable Care Act set by Obama which Romney threatens to repeal if he is in office. I mostly support the act, as I have insurance and would be minimally affected by it.
|
|
|
|