Canadian Healthcare System "Imploding"

Originally posted by ruggedtoast
Do you even know what bankrupt means?

Bankrupt is the idea that government is an unlimited pool of expertise and resources, and that the solution to every problem is for government to dig deeper into the citizens' pockets and privacy.

As for the 20% uninsured, that argument was proven a fallacy long ago and means nothing except to serve as an example of an inability to substantively repsond to a healthcare/insurance/trird-party payer debacle.

I'm not an advocate for the current system.

I am opposed to the "bankrupt" solution.

jw

reply to post by Dermo


Health. Insurance.

He had it, it cost him that much. It's really that simple. The second you say "Yes" when they ask if you have health insurance, they start bringing out all of the INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE tests, medicine, procedures, etc. They egg it all on because, at that point, they've got you hook line and sinker.

You expect you'll be fine because you have insurance, the doctor knows he can get away with doing incredibly expensive and unnecessary things (done primarily to protect themselves from being sued), and the insurance agency knows they'll only pay X amount of cash.

I was in a car wreck (not my fault mind you, I was a passenger). The car flipped several times, flew across the other side of the highway, and skid to a halt in the grass.

Everyone walked away. Of course, we were taken to the nearest hospital via ambulance just to make sure everything would be O.K. The driver was pregnant.

So, we get there, I seem fine. The only thing that hurts is my back, but I've had back problems my entire life. They did some basic checks to ensure that I wouldn't die immediately and I was left there for a bit. Apparently it was a busy day (I saw tons of people coming in with very few coming out) and it was a while before I saw someone. Of course, I was fine, they knew I was fine, so I was low priority.

Anyway, she was fine too, and so was the baby.

I had a minor compression fracture in my spine (it hurt!) and they filled me out a prescription for some pain pills I never grabbed (I didn't need them as I was on vacation) and they billed me.

The cost for:

Ambulance
MRI
X-Ray
Various treatments for some cuts and scrapes

Was around $5000. I told them I had no insurance although I did. I was covered by the military at that time (and I am again too!) but I didn't know any of the info that was needed at the time.

Anyway, should health care be free for everyone? Yeah, it should. But, who's going to be paying for it? Ideals like that, while nice, aren't grounded in reality. Somebody has to pay for it and somebody has to be paid for doing it, and someone has to go to school to learn how to do it, otherwise, who would do it? Or, who would take random health care from a know-nothing who isn't being payed anything? It's just not a realistic ideal as great as it would be.

Originally posted by Dermo

Who's living in a fascist, corporatist country?


Ever hear the phrase "Too big to Fail"? That is fascism right there.

Sorry

I AGREE! Obama's intervention into corporate governance is fascist at its truest.

See my earler (often ignored) posts arguing just that point. There's a whole thread out there somewhere where I try to explain. See my SIGNATURE. It hasn't changed in a long time.

jw

Maybe doctors should just accept less pay. I mean yeah, I feel bad for any that would get their wages cut, but it's better than people going broke or even dying because they can't afford their cancer treatment.

Originally posted by Taikonaut
a) go to a BUPA or other private hospital that accepts your credit card for charges totalling, say £2,000 to be seen by a doctor, x-rayed, have your ankle re-set and put in a cast and a dose of painkillers?

This one. The only time I'd go with B is if I had no choice in the matter (I was taken to a random hospital because I didn't know better and they didn't accept my credit card) or... well, I guess that was it.

Just because I don't pay for it doesn't mean someone else doesn't as you stated.

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Maybe doctors should just accept less pay. I mean yeah, I feel bad for any that would get their wages cut, but it's better than people going broke or even dying because they can't afford their cancer treatment.

You would also have to lower the cost of going to a medical school as it's an incredibly expensive endeavor. That means having some control over schools which would mean more government control...

And that just isn't something most Americans want, especially when we see what a poor our government does with most everything.

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by ruggedtoast
Do you even know what bankrupt means?

Bankrupt is the idea that government is an unlimited pool of expertise and resources, and that the solution to every problem is for government to dig deeper into the citizens' pockets and privacy.

As for the 20% uninsured, that argument was proven a fallacy long ago and means nothing except to serve as an example of an inability to substantively repsond to a healthcare/insurance/trird-party payer debacle.

I'm not an advocate for the current system.

I am opposed to the "bankrupt" solution.

jw

Bankrupt is a term used to describe a person or entity that is unable to meet their financial liabilities and has no option other than to declare insolvency; either due to lack of liquid assets or lack of willing creditors. In such cases any assets are then divided amongst the interested parties.

I am not sure how this applies to the NHS. You seem to be very confused about a number of issues.

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus

This person is in the extreme minority.

Well, skip what the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association has to say.

What does the current president of the CMA have to say?

The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred. He will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France.

His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."

Oops.

deny ignorance

jw

[edit on 17-8-2009 by jdub297]

reply to post by Credge


As a guest in our country, I personally would have no problem in you taking a share of my NI contributions for your treatment for an accident, and kudos if your answer is what you'd truely do.

edit to add:

If you were a guest in my home, I'd take you straight away to the nearest NHS hospital to be seen to, as I guess most other Brits would...the notion of leaving a guest in pain and saying 'you're not british therefore you either cough-up the cash or go with nothing' is abhorrent

To me, the NHS is one facet of what defines the 'Great' in Great Britain

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Taikonaut]

reply to post by jdub297

Do you even read what you quote?

So they went over to Europe, found the health care system there was better, and want to copy it.

This proves any point of yours how exactly?

You live in England. You have no say in what the MPs and MEPs do anymore.

It really is amusing when Americans actually believe that the UK government is in some way more "orwellian" than the US government. Thanks for the laugh

Originally posted by jibeho
Yes, the Canadians are now toying with the notion of adding a private insurance option to bolster up their limping NHS.

Oh, that's priceless

You do know that's the way it's always worked in Canada, right?

You guys really should try travelling sometime.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Clickfoot]

Originally posted by Clickfoot
reply to post by jdub297

Do you even read what you quote?

So they went over to Europe, found the health care system there was better, and want to copy it.

This proves any point of yours how exactly?

If YOU had read the thread, you'd know that I was replying to an assertion that the incoming president of the CMA represented "an extreme minority," i.e., that she and the CMA were "extremists."

My quote was a refutation of that position using the current president's assessment.

Isn't it time mommies taught their their babies to understand what they read? Or for you to be off to school?

Education and the disappearance of rational thought are for another thread.

Deny Ignorance!

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
If YOU had read the thread

I did, thanks. You could quote all of them, it still IS an 'extreme minority'. Maybe you don't understand that he was talking about the entire country?

Besides, MY point was still valid. What you quoted didn't back up the crap you've been spouting in the slightest.

Originally posted by jdub297
Isn't it time mommies taught their their babies to understand what they read?

Yeah, you should probably read that sentence you've just written, as well as the stuff you quoted previously.

reply to post by Taikonaut


I think the same could be said about those here, except in a different way. I know that if you hurt yourself and you were visiting me here that I would either pay for all of it or, if I couldn't, I would help in the best possible way that I could.

But, maybe I'm wrong on that. Maybe most Americans wouldn't. I do know that charity is something a lot of Americans are really in to, so I'm not really sure how most would stand on that.

However, I do know how I would .

reply to post by Credge


I get what you are saying with the insurance companies but it still doesn't make it right, thats the reason why Insurers are so strict and claiming can be so problematic. And 100k is still an absolute joke for a broken leg.

The argument of "Who is going to pay for it" is a ridiculous one seeing as everyone pays for healthcare at some stage.

If you are going to be paying $2 a day for health insurance, why not pay $2 a month for Nationalised healthcare?

I have to add that I am from a country with no nationalised healthcare system and one of the big reasons its not nationalised is because our economy is too open. Most of the money that would be spent to keep it going would leave our economy.

Whereas, in a country like France etc, their whole system is enclosed.. from education of staff to creation of drugs, equipment etc.. all the money goes back into the french economy and is taxed back into the system several times. So when you see figures of how much it would cost to run nationalised healthcare, take into account that almost half of that money is paid in back in taxes income and corporate taxes almost instantly. The rest is spent back into the economy through workers wages.

Also, If a specific person wants to pay for "better" healthcare, they can but that rarely happens.

Obviously it needs to be run competently or else it would bleed money.

Look, I know the argument, Americans want to keep the USA "American" and hate to see influence from any other system.. especially from European systems... thats obvious... but this system is as good as you are going to get, especially with the amount of money bleeding out of your economy and countryfolk..

It creates jobs, keeps money in the economy and keeps people healthy and happy. You always have the choice for private healthcare if you want it.

I would prefer to have that system in place in Ireland but its never going to happen. If I want free healthcare, I would have to stop working and go on social welfare.






[edit on 17/8/09 by Dermo]

Originally posted by Credge

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Maybe doctors should just accept less pay. I mean yeah, I feel bad for any that would get their wages cut, but it's better than people going broke or even dying because they can't afford their cancer treatment.

You would also have to lower the cost of going to a medical school as it's an incredibly expensive endeavor. That means having some control over schools which would mean more government control...

And that just isn't something most Americans want, especially when we see what a poor our government does with most everything.

That's why it sucks to live in a world ran by money. It seems there's no way out of it.

Originally posted by spitefulgod
Please point out your country on this list

Yeah, right, I've seen this preposterous list before. Next time I need advanced open-heart surgery, I'll get on the fourteen-month waiting list for France, right? Wrong.

People DIE waiting for proper healthcare under those socialist plans. I, on the other hand, am wealthy enough to afford the best healthcare money can buy, WHEN I need it — not a year after I need it.

The Capitalist system is better.

— Doc Velocity

These big government Healthcare systems will go bankrupt in the next 50 years, as long as the government runs them they will not be as cost efficient as private services.

We do not have the resources to sustain this in the long run, that is a fact.

It is government intervention that is causing all this woe in healthcare, government solutions will do no good. Freedom is what is needed, most doctors aren't in it for the money so won't charge big money for routine visits. Pay cash for ordinary services, and have inexpensive catastrophic insurance for serious illnesses.

Ron Paul explains it far better than I can.

Lowering the Cost

reply to post by Doc Velocity


You do realize that you can get private healthcare in most of the countries with Nationalized healthcare should you so wish..

The capitalist system is better if you are wealthy.. thats obvious.

What happens if the US falls into a ten year recession and noone can afford it?

reply to post by Chilled Zen


Thats fair enough, but by then there will be a different system in place.. Fifty years is a long long time from a political and policy perspective.

While I like what Ron Paul says, he is a relic.. His ideas about proper capitalism cannot come back around until there is a new frontier to exploit.. thats obvious. Thats why brute force capitalism has died and thats why it won't be back around properly for another 50-100 years until we start profiting from Space exploration etc.


[edit on 17/8/09 by Dermo]

Originally posted by Taikonaut
Here's the scenario: You are on vacation in the UK visiting the sites and enjoying the history of our green and pleasant island, when you slip and twist your ankle whilst on a sightseeing expedition. You suspect that you have fractured a bone in your ankle as you cannot hobble more than a few yards in your condition...what to do?

Do you:

a) go to a BUPA or other private hospital that accepts your credit card...

b) go to the A&E department of an NHS hospital...

c) Commit suicide before allowing some savage European witch-doctor to complicate the injury beyond all hope of recovery.

I'll take "c"

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Credge


Well, thats just a measure of how I 'd treat my guests..to the best 'hospitality' I have available ('scuse the pun)

I was on vacation in the US many years ago to see a friend and got sick...the prescription cost me $290 in cash ('mates rates' from a family member who was a pharmacist) for script that would have cost £7 to get filled back home in Britain and left me broke (no plastic to pick up the tab)

was a real eye opener to the disparity between the two healthcare systems.

I'm quite happy to pay a few quid per month NI whilst I'm well and working, and £7 for a prescription costing £££ when I need it, knowing that I'll not be price-gouged in a time of need