A Thought About Healthcare

[rogue06]

It's nice that your cousins in Montreal have had good experiences with the healthcare system. However, as you said about my experiences, so what, who cares.

When you live in this country, or heaven forbid, if the US goes through with universal health care, then you can talk to me about it. When you have to wait 10 hours in the emerg to see a doctor, or 10 months to have hip surgery, or die waiting 3 months for urgent heart surgery, well, I guess it will be too late for us to talk then.

So go ahead and pooh-pooh the millions of Canadians who believe the system here stinks. Makes no difference to me. We're stuck with a mess. And I hope your cousins never, ever need speedy care.

What is being ignored is the number of Canuckistanis who come to the U.S. to get various operations and procedures taken care of because they really can't afford to wait and hope things haven't gotten progressively worse during the interim -- or even die.

[rogue06]

Well - I too have family that lives in such a country, Sparko - and they love it. They also love that they can get a college education for their children without having to go into debt in six figures.

And, BTW, "expert testimony" is still only one person's experience. And example is not an argument.

And yet you just provided an example for an argument smiley snicker.gif

[Mountain Man]

Link to those statistics, please.

Because every person that I've ever talked to about it hates the system as it is. The media is constantly reporting on the horrendous wait times.

So, until you show me stats, I don't believe you.

Haven't you figured it out by now? Dimbulb knows more about every country than the people who actually live there. He's a "citizen of the world", you know.

[KingsGambit]

I have no problem with fining people for not securing healthcare under the policy.

That policy kind of pissed me off, truth be told. I know there are "exceptions", but getting fined over $1000 was crippling to my family, which was living paycheck to paycheck even with outside help.

[mossrose]

What is being ignored is the number of Canuckistanis who come to the U.S. to get various operations and procedures taken care of because they really can't afford to wait and hope things haven't gotten progressively worse during the interim -- or even die.

Including former Newfie Premier Danny Williams, and many, many others.

And here's an article with actual numbers in it, since carpe doesn't like anecdotal accounts.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/63-000...tute-1.3486635

[mossrose]

Haven't you figured it out by now? Dimbulb knows more about every country than the people who actually live there. He's a "citizen of the world", you know.

Yes. I keep hoping he develops a brain.

[Starlight]

Including former Newfie Premier Danny Williams, and many, many others.

And here's an article with actual numbers in it, since carpe doesn't like anecdotal accounts.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/63-000...tute-1.3486635

Those are basically fake numbers as the professor quoted in the link says.

In interviews I have seen with Canadian medical professionals, they pretty much laughed at and mocked the idea that any significant number of Canadians go to the US for care. If anything it is by far the other way around: A lot of people living in the US get on a plane back to their home countries for free care if it turns out they need something significant done.

[Starlight]

Haven't you figured it out by now? Dimbulb knows more about every country than the people who actually live there. He's a "citizen of the world", you know.

It's a sad indictment on your lack of education and massive ignorance of your own country that I so consistently know far more than you about your country, your laws, and your history.

I've also noticed that Americans tend to be quite insular, and tend to wrongly assume that people in other countries are as ignorant of America as Americans are of other countries, which is by and large not at all true.

[KingsGambit]

It's a sad indictment on your lack of education and massive ignorance of your own country that I so consistently know far more than you about your country, your laws, and your history.

I've also noticed that Americans tend to be quite insular, and tend to wrongly assume that people in other countries are as ignorant of America as Americans are of other countries, which is by and large not at all true.

Sometimes you do get a little insistent even when corrected by locals, such as when you insisted that Kansas City was one city in two separate states. (To be fair, many Americans get that one wrong, too.)

[Mountain Man]

It's a sad indictment on your lack of education and massive ignorance of your own country that I so consistently know far more than you about your country, your laws, and your history.

I've also noticed that Americans tend to be quite insular, and tend to wrongly assume that people in other countries are as ignorant of America as Americans are of other countries, which is by and large not at all true.

A classic example of Dunning-Kruger. Thanks for that.

[mossrose]

Those are basically fake numbers as the professor quoted in the link says.

In interviews I have seen with Canadian medical professionals, they pretty much laughed at and mocked the idea that any significant number of Canadians go to the US for care. If anything it is by far the other way around: A lot of people living in the US get on a plane back to their home countries for free care if it turns out they need something significant done.

One professor at one liberal uni saying that the numbers aren't accurate doesn't mean crap. I'd much rather believe the doctors who are on the front lines and dealing with it every day.

A link to your stats please, or links to the interviews you've seen where there are Canadians specifically leaving the States to come back and wait 10 months for a hip replacement.

Because I find that incredibly hard to believe.

[demi-conservative]

Several years ago, Thomas Frank wrote a book called "What's the Matter with Kansas?" In the book, he asked a question: why is it that many of the poorest people in most of the most rural areas are continually voting against their own best financial interests?

So the question comes around yet again - why are these people consistently voting against their own self-interests? If hospitals had guaranteed payment through a single payer system, they would no long have to face the choice of shutting down or go bankrupt serving communities where a high percentage that cannot pay. Healthcare could stay close to the people who need it, in both rural and urban settings.

Any ideas...?

Even if offer of healthcare of Dems is better (probably not), other stuff in Dem package is very, very terrible.

[carpedm9587]

It's nice that your cousins in Montreal have had good experiences with the healthcare system. However, as you said about my experiences, so what, who cares.

When you live in this country, or heaven forbid, if the US goes through with universal health care, then you can talk to me about it. When you have to wait 10 hours in the emerg to see a doctor, or 10 months to have hip surgery, or die waiting 3 months for urgent heart surgery, well, I guess it will be too late for us to talk then.

I HAVE waited 10 hours in an emergency room to see a doctor. It's called triage. My need was ranked lower than others who arrived after me and they were prioritized before me. That's why it's called an "emergency" room. Those with the most emergent need are taken first. The latter two I have not experienced.

But - as you noted, examples are not arguments. You provided a lot of links to articles that are mostly about one study, and they conflict with other data that suggests widespread acceptance of and praise for the Canadian Healthcare system, and multiple studies that show that the acceptance level is higher than that in the U.S. So something is amiss. Since the studies I linked to are from multiple non-overlapping sources, and the links you provided my largely source to the same underlying study, I am inclined to suspect the broader studies are more accurate. I cannot say I know that for a fact. Do you have other studies besides the one? Do you have studies that deal with more than wait-time issues?

So go ahead and pooh-pooh the millions of Canadians who believe the system here stinks. Makes no difference to me. We're stuck with a mess. And I hope your cousins never, ever need speedy care.

They already have needed it, and received it. I suspect it's why they are glowingly in support, and they find the American system ludicrous. But, as we both have noted now - examples are not arguments. They are just examples.

Have you considered, Moss, the possibility that your experience is not the norm, and that you may now (possibly) be contributing to your own reality? I ask because I went to the hospital with my brother-in-law not too long ago. He is very right-leaning, very anti-ACA, and thinks healthcare in the U.S. sucks. I watched as he engaged with the hospital staff concerning his wife (my sister) and the dynamic was unbelievable. His facial expressions, tone of voice, and general attitude (not to mention specific things he said within their earshot) made it clear he had little but contempt for them and the entire system. My sister shares his views. Medical personnel are human beings too. Standing to the side, I could see the looks they were getting. At one point, as I was walking past the nurses station but was out-of-sight to the nurses there, I overheard a comment about them made by two of the nurses concerning their desire not to give them the best service and perhaps "tip a bedpan or two and return feces for feces" (that's a paraphrase...I'm assuming the actual word they said would be censored here). The charge nurse overheard them and came down on them pretty hard, but still - I have little doubt that my sister's care was not all it could have been, largely due to her attitude towards those caring for her. As a result, she walked out of that hospital with yet more horror stories of the medical establishment.

Sometimes, we create (or make worse) our own realities. Is that possible with you as well?

[mossrose]

Have you considered, Moss, the possibility that your experience is not the norm, and that you may now (possibly) be contributing to your own reality?

You are so patronizing it's sickening.

No, my experience is not unusual. It is the norm. As always, you will believe whatever you want, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

And I really, really don't like your passive-aggressive behaviour.

[carpedm9587]

They couldn't afford health care previously and they still couldn't afford Obamacare (which for most cost even more^[1] despite assurances that it was going to drop the price), so how does punishing them with heavy fines going to help. All it accomplishes is punishes the poor for being poor -- but I guess that'll teach 'em.

So, two things. First, there ACA was structured to provide significant support for those who could not afford health insurance. That was one of the key reasons for the law in the first place. If a person applied, and could not afford it, their income is used to determine what they will actually pay and the government paid the rest. Second, there is a long list of hardship exemptions that would apply if someone did not have the insurance, and poverty level is one of the items on the list. So this appears to be a claim without a lot of merit.

Of course, most of this will be moot after this year.

Other governments can spend money on all sorts of social programs as long as they can count on Uncle Sugar defending them. Make them pay for for their own defense and they'll quickly find themselves low on funds to support such things or else sharply raising taxes on their people.

Pure speculation. I have no idea where you could possibly go to find any data that would support this position, other than to point to the military budgets of various countries - which would be correlation and not causation. Personally, I think we put far too much money into our own military than we should - especially when it is the only part of our government (outside of black ops) that has successfully dodged a thorough audit now for over half a century.

1. pretty much expected since it forces people to get coverage for things they will never, ever need -- like forcing old people, especially men, to get coverage for pregnancy for instance.

Yeah - this is a common complaint/tactic of the right. When you hatchet up insurance policies into "just fits" little buckets, you drive up costs overall. When you simply create comprehensive policies that cover all things and aggregate more people into larger buckets, you drive down costs.

I have had experience now with two companies that went the "self-insured" route. They did so when the population of employees grew to over 100 employees. One was manufacturing and the other a professional services company. Both took a very intelligent approach. ALL non-elective medical procedures were covered. Employees were covered 100% for the first $1000 of expenses, then 80% for the next $10,000 of expenses, and 100% again thereafter. Employees contributed to the plan at an individual rate or a family rate, and the premium was way below what private insurance would cost. Because of the 100%/80%/100% mix, people found themselves actively trying to stay under $1000 in medical expenses because they would have no medical costs at all. But when they needed to, they got the medicines they needed. Nobody ever had more than $2,000 out of pocket in a given year for medical expenses. The companies saved an enormous amount of money on medical care.

The coverage document listed everything that was covered without question. It was one document for everyone. It never even crossed my mind to question that I was being covered for "pregnancy" when I had no hope of getting pregnant, or to complain that part of my premium was covering a condition I could never have. This entire "old men paying for pregnancy insurance" thing just amazes me. I guess it's an effective way to get old men to complain about something. It strikes me as yet another example of "how to get people to vote against their own best interests."

One universal policy that is used by everyone take less work to produce, vet, and simplifies everything down the line. It reduces administrative costs. So lets make an argument that we should micro fracture into dozens of policies tailored to specific things people might actually get. After all, sickle cell anemia is not really a white person disease, so why is it covered in white people insurance policies? And prostate cancer is not a female problem, so let's take that out of the women's policy. By the time we finish eliminating everything people can't get and tailoring policies by gender, race, ethnicity, age, and anything else we can think of as a distinguishing characteristic, I'm SURE we'll have a healthcare system with lower overhead!