Debunking Canadian Health Care Myths

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans

Originally posted by: charrison
Care to explain the waiting lines for care in countries with UHC?

They don't exist, at least not anywhere on the level that conservative boogymen try to make them. Yeah you might wait a bit on your free liposuction, fatty, but you're much less likely to die or go bankrupt due to some pencil pusher deciding you're just to expensive to keep alive.

Yeah the lines are exaggerated by the righties, but there really are lines. My Canadian friends have said before that the lines can get pretty bad sometimes.

 

[little elvis]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707


Show me one program in government that is both meeting the need it is intended to cover and doing it efficiently.

I am opposed to government-run healthcare because I see current, existing government run healthcare programs (such as the UK) where I would not be able to walk, work or use my hands because of government decisions about treatment. I have rheumatoid arthritis treated by Enbrel; the UK system and others have decided that my treatment, if following an unsuccessful treatment by a drug in the same class, is too expensive to try.

In the US I have the right and responsibility to provide my own care, and thus I have the right to make all my own decisions about treatment. I will NEVER give that up.

You have the same choice in Canada, btw Enbrel to treat rheumatoid arthrities is approved in Canada. Even if the treatment is not approved, you still have the option to pay for it. Yes, not ideal, but, the choice still exists.

My Sister has a chronic illness and unfortunately, she reacts negatively to the standard drugs used to treat the illness. The treatment method that works for her is NOT covered by OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan), but, that does not stop her from paying it herself (about $3,000 per year).

Yes, it does suck, however, I use her example to illustrate that, even in a government run single payer system, you still have the right to make all your own decisions about the treatment you receive.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: little elvis

Originally posted by: AreaCode707


Show me one program in government that is both meeting the need it is intended to cover and doing it efficiently.

I am opposed to government-run healthcare because I see current, existing government run healthcare programs (such as the UK) where I would not be able to walk, work or use my hands because of government decisions about treatment. I have rheumatoid arthritis treated by Enbrel; the UK system and others have decided that my treatment, if following an unsuccessful treatment by a drug in the same class, is too expensive to try.

In the US I have the right and responsibility to provide my own care, and thus I have the right to make all my own decisions about treatment. I will NEVER give that up.

You have the same choice in Canada, btw Enbrel to treat rheumatoid arthrities is approved in Canada. Even if the treatment is not approved, you still have the option to pay for it. Yes, not ideal, but, the choice still exists.

My Sister has a chronic illness and unfortunately, she reacts negatively to the standard drugs used to treat the illness. The treatment method that works for her is NOT covered by OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan), but, that does not stop her from paying it herself (about $3,000 per year).

Yes, it does suck, however, I use her example to illustrate that, even in a government run single payer system, you still have the right to make all your own decisions about the treatment you receive.

Paying for Enbrel or Remicade or Humira without insurance (i.e. in a UHC system that restricts access) isn't financially feasible for most. It's $25-50k per year. It's the reason I will NEVER be without health care, generally employer paid healthcare, even if it means I'm scrubbing McDonald's bathroom floors and getting food at a foodbank.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

This late in the thread nobody will care but I will describe my own first-hand observations about the Canadian healthcare system...

Some years ago (1990 to be exact... maybe things have improved but I'm guessing they haven't) a friend of mine had an accident while in Yellowknife, NWT.

She was dancing... sat down and dislocated her kneecap...

Ouch

Ambulance came and took her away... she got to the hospital at 12:15am... The Dr. on duty got off at midnight. The nurses called him but he was OFF... and he told them as much. Told them to give her Tylonol. Yay! Government employee!

The next Dr wasn't scheduled in until 6am. And when the nurses called, he told them that he was off until 6am. (Surprised he even answered the call)

So my friend sat there with a dislocated kneecap with nothing but Tylonol for the pain until the next Dr showed up for his 'shift' at 6am.

In a microcosm, this is my experience with socialized health care. I didn't like it then, I don't like it now.

In the end... when she left third world health care of Canada and made it back to the US (Alaska - the biggest joke in US health care) it was clear that her initial problem would have been taken care of quickly... the delay she experienced in Canuckistan caused her to suffer three additional surgeries that wouldn't have been needed had she just been treated when she showed up at the medical center.

So pardon me if I've seen those Canadian health care 'myths' up close and personal. They're not myths... they are real. The Canuckistan health care system sucks.

I'd rather worry about how to pay the bill than wait for something that I needed NOW.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

I agree, lets keep the current system with 10-30 percent overhead. Why would i want a more efficient system like Canada's or even our own medicare with 1 percent overhead? I want private healthcare providers to pocket as much profit as possible.

And why would I want a system that rations care?

All health insurance systems ration care to some extent. The question is whether or not you want an efficient system (i.e. public systems) or a wasteful one (i.e. private ones).

Private insurers ration care by finding excuses to deny expensive care (i.e. something might be 'experimental' or they might find some b.s. 'unreported' pre-existing condition to cancel a patient's insurance). They also do it with high cost insurance where consumers have to purchase high deductible insurance to afford it... and consumers forgo lower cost preventative/maintenance care for higher cost emergencies. That, and of course not everyone is covered. You're naive if you don't think there's rationing in private care.

I understand there is rationing of care under a private system, but under UHC there is far more rationing and far less choice for the consumer.

THe main problem with our current system is that healthcare is tied to employment and that needs to change. But that does not require nationizing to make that change.

Completely False

Care to explain the waiting lines for care in countries with UHC?

That has nothing to do with "choice".

Yeah it does. I recently waited 3 months to see a top dermatologist in Seattle. I could easily have chosen to go see another dermatologist. As it happens, I didn't wish to and gladly waited. But if I'd been more concerned, I might have.

Under UHC, as I understand it, I'd have been put in queue for a dermatologist and waited 4 months for the first one to come available. I couldn't have opted to settle for a lesser doctor in trade for a more immediate appointment; I also could not have opted to wait longer for a better doctor.

Now, maybe my understanding of that system is wrong, but it seems to me that choice does affect waiting times.

That's not "Choice", it's "availability".

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
This late in the thread nobody will care but I will describe my own first-hand observations about the Canadian healthcare system...

Some years ago (1990 to be exact... maybe things have improved but I'm guessing they haven't) a friend of mine had an accident while in Yellowknife, NWT.

She was dancing... sat down and dislocated her kneecap...

Ouch

Ambulance came and took her away... she got to the hospital at 12:15am... The Dr. on duty got off at midnight. The nurses called him but he was OFF... and he told them as much. Told them to give her Tylonol. Yay! Government employee!

The next Dr wasn't scheduled in until 6am. And when the nurses called, he told them that he was off until 6am. (Surprised he even answered the call)

So my friend sat there with a dislocated kneecap with nothing but Tylonol for the pain until the next Dr showed up for his 'shift' at 6am.

In a microcosm, this is my experience with socialized health care. I didn't like it then, I don't like it now.

In the end... when she left third world health care of Canada and made it back to the US (Alaska - the biggest joke in US health care) it was clear that her initial problem would have been taken care of quickly... the delay she experienced in Canuckistan caused her to suffer three additional surgeries that wouldn't have been needed had she just been treated when she showed up at the medical center.

So pardon me if I've seen those Canadian health care 'myths' up close and personal. They're not myths... they are real. The Canuckistan health care system sucks.

I'd rather worry about how to pay the bill than wait for something that I needed NOW.

You were in Yellowknife.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
Yet, the author continues to live in the US?

We should tell her that Aunt Betty could've had the knee replacement 13 1/2 months ago--even on medicare and/or on disability. Instead of 15 months of agonizing pain.

Like this doesnt happen in the US?

My grandfather waited 9 months for shoulder replacement surgery...

You cant magically get this stuff done instantaneously in the US either.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
This all assumes that we don't waste half our money on defense spending and actually put it to use in helping people live instead of killing them.

If you cut the defense spending in half, the government will either not spend the difference (lower the deficit and/or taxes) or respend the money on pet projects (ala stimulus).

Do you really think that they would actually target all that money for UHC?
If so, what politician has you in their pocket?

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: cubeless
have to ask the question: do illegal immigrants get coverage? if they do, then how are they handled? and if they don't, then how are they handled?

and what will make this cheaper may be the wait for service and generous 'scrips for pain pills will cause a lot of the "aunt betty" and older class to die before they get those expensive treatments...

Illegal Immigrants get Deported. They do receive Healthcare if it's absolutely necessary while here though.

I like this. Treat them and then deport them.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: ZeGermans

Originally posted by: charrison
Care to explain the waiting lines for care in countries with UHC?

They don't exist, at least not anywhere on the level that conservative boogymen try to make them. Yeah you might wait a bit on your free liposuction, fatty, but you're much less likely to die or go bankrupt due to some pencil pusher deciding you're just to expensive to keep alive.

Yeah the lines are exaggerated by the righties, but there really are lines. My Canadian friends have said before that the lines can get pretty bad sometimes.

That's what private insurance is for. You don't want to wait for a noncritical surgery, pay more and get it done sooner.

Waiting a few months for noncritical surgery beats an infinite wait for an uninsured/underinsured American.

 

[ZeGermans]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

That's what private insurance is for. You don't want to wait for a noncritical surgery, pay more and get it done sooner.

Waiting a few months for noncritical surgery beats an infinite wait for an uninsured/underinsured American.

Yep. They use a public/private hybrid system in Austria where my sister lives. It works flawlessly.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
This late in the thread nobody will care but I will describe my own first-hand observations about the Canadian healthcare system...

Some years ago (1990 to be exact... maybe things have improved but I'm guessing they haven't) a friend of mine had an accident while in Yellowknife, NWT.

She was dancing... sat down and dislocated her kneecap...

Ouch

Ambulance came and took her away... she got to the hospital at 12:15am... The Dr. on duty got off at midnight. The nurses called him but he was OFF... and he told them as much. Told them to give her Tylonol. Yay! Government employee!

The next Dr wasn't scheduled in until 6am. And when the nurses called, he told them that he was off until 6am. (Surprised he even answered the call)

So my friend sat there with a dislocated kneecap with nothing but Tylonol for the pain until the next Dr showed up for his 'shift' at 6am.

In a microcosm, this is my experience with socialized health care. I didn't like it then, I don't like it now.

In the end... when she left third world health care of Canada and made it back to the US (Alaska - the biggest joke in US health care) it was clear that her initial problem would have been taken care of quickly... the delay she experienced in Canuckistan caused her to suffer three additional surgeries that wouldn't have been needed had she just been treated when she showed up at the medical center.

So pardon me if I've seen those Canadian health care 'myths' up close and personal. They're not myths... they are real. The Canuckistan health care system sucks.

I'd rather worry about how to pay the bill than wait for something that I needed NOW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y..._Northwest_Territories

2006 population 18700. I doubt you'd get good health care in a small town in the middle of the American bumfuck either.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

I agree, lets keep the current system with 10-30 percent overhead. Why would i want a more efficient system like Canada's or even our own medicare with 1 percent overhead? I want private healthcare providers to pocket as much profit as possible.

And why would I want a system that rations care?

All health insurance systems ration care to some extent. The question is whether or not you want an efficient system (i.e. public systems) or a wasteful one (i.e. private ones).

Private insurers ration care by finding excuses to deny expensive care (i.e. something might be 'experimental' or they might find some b.s. 'unreported' pre-existing condition to cancel a patient's insurance). They also do it with high cost insurance where consumers have to purchase high deductible insurance to afford it... and consumers forgo lower cost preventative/maintenance care for higher cost emergencies. That, and of course not everyone is covered. You're naive if you don't think there's rationing in private care.

I understand there is rationing of care under a private system, but under UHC there is far more rationing and far less choice for the consumer.

THe main problem with our current system is that healthcare is tied to employment and that needs to change. But that does not require nationizing to make that change.

Completely False

Care to explain the waiting lines for care in countries with UHC?

That has nothing to do with "choice".

Yeah it does. I recently waited 3 months to see a top dermatologist in Seattle. I could easily have chosen to go see another dermatologist. As it happens, I didn't wish to and gladly waited. But if I'd been more concerned, I might have.

Under UHC, as I understand it, I'd have been put in queue for a dermatologist and waited 4 months for the first one to come available. I couldn't have opted to settle for a lesser doctor in trade for a more immediate appointment; I also could not have opted to wait longer for a better doctor.

Now, maybe my understanding of that system is wrong, but it seems to me that choice does affect waiting times.

That's not "Choice", it's "availability".

But I can "choose" to go to someone who is more "available".

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
This late in the thread nobody will care but I will describe my own first-hand observations about the Canadian healthcare system...

Some years ago (1990 to be exact... maybe things have improved but I'm guessing they haven't) a friend of mine had an accident while in Yellowknife, NWT.

She was dancing... sat down and dislocated her kneecap...

Ouch

Ambulance came and took her away... she got to the hospital at 12:15am... The Dr. on duty got off at midnight. The nurses called him but he was OFF... and he told them as much. Told them to give her Tylonol. Yay! Government employee!

The next Dr wasn't scheduled in until 6am. And when the nurses called, he told them that he was off until 6am. (Surprised he even answered the call)

So my friend sat there with a dislocated kneecap with nothing but Tylonol for the pain until the next Dr showed up for his 'shift' at 6am.

In a microcosm, this is my experience with socialized health care. I didn't like it then, I don't like it now.

In the end... when she left third world health care of Canada and made it back to the US (Alaska - the biggest joke in US health care) it was clear that her initial problem would have been taken care of quickly... the delay she experienced in Canuckistan caused her to suffer three additional surgeries that wouldn't have been needed had she just been treated when she showed up at the medical center.

So pardon me if I've seen those Canadian health care 'myths' up close and personal. They're not myths... they are real. The Canuckistan health care system sucks.

I'd rather worry about how to pay the bill than wait for something that I needed NOW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y..._Northwest_Territories

2006 population 18700. I doubt you'd get good health care in a small town in the middle of the American bumfuck either.

Lame.

I lived in Fairbanks Alaska most of my life... I live on Maui now (which makes health care in Fairbanks look like the Mayo Clinic) and I've never met anyone who had to wait all night because a government employed doctor refused to turn his car around 15 min after he got off shift... No, I'm pretty sure I've never heard that story.

But thanks for proving my point.

 

[desy]

So can I choose to go to someone more available in Canada
You can pick your specialists and your GP for that matter
Shortage of GPs though cause they all want the big money of being a specialist

Yellowknife ? whatever . . . .
My wife just went through surgury in Canada for Thyroid cancer, MRI's multiple CTs batteries of tests, picked her surgeon, excellent endricrinologist, all
wrapped up quickly
Now if I needed a hip I could be waiting unless I want to pay for it. I need a colonoskopy and the call back with my specialist is 3 yrs, if I wanted one quicker I can change doctors but because I'm not symptomatic I can wait

A hosptial in TO has one accountant, similar sized in Boston has 14 accountants, I'd rather have 14 more nurses.
Problem with both countries is the baby boomers are getting older and sicker and healthcare has gone up. Drug treatments and surguries and diagnostics that weren't around when UHC was setup were never intended to covered.
UHC was supposed to cover heart disease and cancer, I was still supposed to pay to have a wart froze off and thats where its lost its way.
Its sole intention was so if somebody lost an arm they wouldn't go bankrupt getting treatment and have major medical costs forcing them to sell their house. Not for every minor boo boo

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I'm still waiting to hear how much of a cost increase will be incurred by the average middle income family that already has employer provided insurance. Taxes will go up and theoretically pay will as well since the burden will be shifted from the employer to the government. At first glance I would imagine our tax burden will be a higher percentage (see myth 1) but if this is offset by a pay increase I guess it would equalize.

Except that magical pay increase won't happen for the average person. People are just happy to have jobs these days. Companies will just use the economy as an excuse and pocket that money.

UHC will end the middle class since they will have to pay for it. The poor don't pay taxes and the rich will find ways to avoid it. That and the democrats will let illegals have the same access as citizens. So anyone in south america with a serious illness comes over the fence and gets expenisve treatment for free. The system will either bankrupt its self in record time.

Link to where UHC ended the Middle Class in Europe, Japan, Canada, or Australia. Thanks.

And I'm still waiting on that link to how much this is going to cost us...

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I'm still waiting to hear how much of a cost increase will be incurred by the average middle income family that already has employer provided insurance. Taxes will go up and theoretically pay will as well since the burden will be shifted from the employer to the government. At first glance I would imagine our tax burden will be a higher percentage (see myth 1) but if this is offset by a pay increase I guess it would equalize.

Except that magical pay increase won't happen for the average person. People are just happy to have jobs these days. Companies will just use the economy as an excuse and pocket that money.

UHC will end the middle class since they will have to pay for it. The poor don't pay taxes and the rich will find ways to avoid it. That and the democrats will let illegals have the same access as citizens. So anyone in south america with a serious illness comes over the fence and gets expenisve treatment for free. The system will either bankrupt its self in record time.

Link to where UHC ended the Middle Class in Europe, Japan, Canada, or Australia. Thanks.

And I'm still waiting on that link to how much this is going to cost us...

Link to where the conservatives were worried about costs when Bush decidered to invade Iraq?

The costs issue isn't a real point of debate. Its just another road block from the party of NO!!!. If Obama wanted to invade Iran and it would cost $10 trillion, conservatives wouldn't bat an eye and would happily approve 10 times that.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Some years ago (1990 to be exact... maybe things have improved but I'm guessing they haven't) a friend of mine had an accident while in Yellowknife, NWT.

Yellowknife is a town of less than 19,000. That's about he size of a small suburb outside a mid-sized US city. I know this because I live in said suburb, and I know I couldn't get immediate emergency care here after midnight.

Your friend's misfortune had more to do with the fact that she injured herself in the middle of nowhere at midnight.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I'm still waiting to hear how much of a cost increase will be incurred by the average middle income family that already has employer provided insurance. Taxes will go up and theoretically pay will as well since the burden will be shifted from the employer to the government. At first glance I would imagine our tax burden will be a higher percentage (see myth 1) but if this is offset by a pay increase I guess it would equalize.

Except that magical pay increase won't happen for the average person. People are just happy to have jobs these days. Companies will just use the economy as an excuse and pocket that money.

UHC will end the middle class since they will have to pay for it. The poor don't pay taxes and the rich will find ways to avoid it. That and the democrats will let illegals have the same access as citizens. So anyone in south america with a serious illness comes over the fence and gets expenisve treatment for free. The system will either bankrupt its self in record time.

Link to where UHC ended the Middle Class in Europe, Japan, Canada, or Australia. Thanks.

And I'm still waiting on that link to how much this is going to cost us...

Our Medicare liabilities are already in the tens of trillions for the coming century.

The question of reforming our system is a matter of "when", not "if". It will happen, but it is more likely than ever to happen right now while the Democrats dominate our Congress.

I predict some measure of health care reform will be passed before the end of the year.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

I agree, lets keep the current system with 10-30 percent overhead. Why would i want a more efficient system like Canada's or even our own medicare with 1 percent overhead? I want private healthcare providers to pocket as much profit as possible.

And why would I want a system that rations care?

All health insurance systems ration care to some extent. The question is whether or not you want an efficient system (i.e. public systems) or a wasteful one (i.e. private ones).

Private insurers ration care by finding excuses to deny expensive care (i.e. something might be 'experimental' or they might find some b.s. 'unreported' pre-existing condition to cancel a patient's insurance). They also do it with high cost insurance where consumers have to purchase high deductible insurance to afford it... and consumers forgo lower cost preventative/maintenance care for higher cost emergencies. That, and of course not everyone is covered. You're naive if you don't think there's rationing in private care.

Show me one program in government that is both meeting the need it is intended to cover and doing it efficiently.

I am opposed to government-run healthcare because I see current, existing government run healthcare programs (such as the UK) where I would not be able to walk, work or use my hands because of government decisions about treatment. I have rheumatoid arthritis treated by Enbrel; the UK system and others have decided that my treatment, if following an unsuccessful treatment by a drug in the same class, is too expensive to try.

In the US I have the right and responsibility to provide my own care, and thus I have the right to make all my own decisions about treatment. I will NEVER give that up.

Areacode707,

I'd like to see some official info to back that up, as it would be news to me. 0.o

If that were true depression would be virtually untreatable, as it is quite common to try many different meds in the same class of SSRI or NRI's to find an acceptable risk/reward ratio.

Same with MS/FM, many people who have gone through several balancing acts for effective treatment and did not ever, EVER get the plug pulled on trying any of their treatments.

I'd be more than happy to read any literature you have though.

A snap. 🙂 From what I know, this is specific to biologics used to treat arthritis due to the expense, not necessarily other drugs for other conditions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_...rn_ireland/2486801.stm
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/new...rthritis-drugs-ruling-$1232669.htm
http://www.healthcarerepublic....toid-arthritis-ruling/
http://www.itv.com/News/Articl...-denied-480228043.html
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2008/07/20/40115.aspx
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/health/7513484.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...n-arthritis-drugs.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6743633.stm

[edit] I ran a Google news search for the particular timeframe this started hitting the news, so most of the articles are a bit old, stemming from the point that the recommendation was made. The recommendation was adopted and has been appealed, but I have not heard anything about them deciding to remove the restriction in treatment.

NICE does tend to suck, but the UK as a whole tends to have some draconian policies.

In reality, the rationing has been due to how much they were able to purchase, and isn't really happening much, care trusts are still being allowed to prescribe it based on this (admittedly light) article, and your own which note a very, very small amount of people that this actually affected for any time, with most simply fearing it may happen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7742458.stm

I don't have any friends in the UK, but I do have one in France, who requires around 10x the costs of an RA patient in meds a year and has no problem obtaining said medication.

I have some personal anecdotes and opinions about the bizarity of our system, it's problems, and why I personally believe that overall we could be better served that I won't post here because they aren't really facts fit for debate, but would be more than willing to discuss if you want to via PM.

To leave with one comment on that subject from my own experiences. God I HATE with so much fervor inflammatory diseases. :|

The rationing isn't related to availability, it's related to cost. 🙂 These drugs are not in limited supply, just expensive to make and maintain (modified proteins that break down quickly and require refrigeration. From your article:

NICE had said giving patients two, or even three, anti-TNFs is not cost-effective and that doctors should offer patients the next drug in line - rituximab - which costs about £3,000 less per year than the cheapest anti-TNF.

You can say that this is a very small amount of people but the estimated count is 40,000. Small percentage-wise, perhaps, but that's a lot of people. And the fact that it can be justified because the number affected is small is EXACTLY why I want to keep the US healthcare system private; the system looks out for costs (rightly choosing cancer treatment over arthritis, for instance, as a better use of dollars) but individuals look out for their own quality of life. I'm not ok with my mobility being a casualty of the government's cost-benefit analysis.

And we agree on autoimmune diseases 100%. 🙂

See, we have the same problem but in reverse currently.

We have a group of people that are even larger in a minority who go without treatments and suffer because of the way our system works. In fact we even have the same treatment problems. Anyone who has had to take a more painful or less effective surgery because their insurance wouldn't cover it has seen the other aspect.

I'm not okay with anybody being a casualty of anybody's cost/benefit analysis, whether it be private insurance or the government.

I see far fewer people suffering under a UHC system than a private insurer system.

We have many great models, and we already spend so much on health care relative to the rest of the world (as well as having many of the largest drug companies housed here who donate drugs for tax purposes) that I think the fear is misplaced, though should be kept in mind as the new system is pushed towards.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

If that were true depression would be virtually untreatable, as it is quite common to try many different meds in the same class of SSRI or NRI's to find an acceptable risk/reward ratio.

Maybe because Enbrel costs about $18,000 per year, while even the most expensive anti-depressants are still less than $1500 per year is maybe why the UK has decided to ration Enbrel and other RA drugs.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: TruePaige

If that were true depression would be virtually untreatable, as it is quite common to try many different meds in the same class of SSRI or NRI's to find an acceptable risk/reward ratio.

Maybe because Enbrel costs about $18,000 per year, while even the most expensive anti-depressants are still less than $1500 per year is maybe why the UK has decided to ration Enbrel and other RA drugs.

I used depression meds as an obvious example, but the same holds true in other areas.

Look at Treximet, a common drug for people with migraines that don't seem affected by the basic stuff.

TREXIMET 85-500 MG TABLET
Quantity - 9
Price - $197.93 USD

That is over $21 a dose....

Around 7200 a year, lots of people complain their insurance companies won't pay for it regularly, and have to pick which days to suffer.

Down here the Southern Health provider (which is quite a big choice for group plans) only covers 9 pills a month... What the hell kind of system is that?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

I agree, lets keep the current system with 10-30 percent overhead. Why would i want a more efficient system like Canada's or even our own medicare with 1 percent overhead? I want private healthcare providers to pocket as much profit as possible.

And why would I want a system that rations care?

All health insurance systems ration care to some extent. The question is whether or not you want an efficient system (i.e. public systems) or a wasteful one (i.e. private ones).

Private insurers ration care by finding excuses to deny expensive care (i.e. something might be 'experimental' or they might find some b.s. 'unreported' pre-existing condition to cancel a patient's insurance). They also do it with high cost insurance where consumers have to purchase high deductible insurance to afford it... and consumers forgo lower cost preventative/maintenance care for higher cost emergencies. That, and of course not everyone is covered. You're naive if you don't think there's rationing in private care.

I understand there is rationing of care under a private system, but under UHC there is far more rationing and far less choice for the consumer.

THe main problem with our current system is that healthcare is tied to employment and that needs to change. But that does not require nationizing to make that change.

Completely False

Care to explain the waiting lines for care in countries with UHC?

That has nothing to do with "choice".

Yeah it does. I recently waited 3 months to see a top dermatologist in Seattle. I could easily have chosen to go see another dermatologist. As it happens, I didn't wish to and gladly waited. But if I'd been more concerned, I might have.

Under UHC, as I understand it, I'd have been put in queue for a dermatologist and waited 4 months for the first one to come available. I couldn't have opted to settle for a lesser doctor in trade for a more immediate appointment; I also could not have opted to wait longer for a better doctor.

Now, maybe my understanding of that system is wrong, but it seems to me that choice does affect waiting times.

That's not "Choice", it's "availability".

But I can "choose" to go to someone who is more "available".

You can do the same in Canada.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I'm still waiting to hear how much of a cost increase will be incurred by the average middle income family that already has employer provided insurance. Taxes will go up and theoretically pay will as well since the burden will be shifted from the employer to the government. At first glance I would imagine our tax burden will be a higher percentage (see myth 1) but if this is offset by a pay increase I guess it would equalize.

Except that magical pay increase won't happen for the average person. People are just happy to have jobs these days. Companies will just use the economy as an excuse and pocket that money.

UHC will end the middle class since they will have to pay for it. The poor don't pay taxes and the rich will find ways to avoid it. That and the democrats will let illegals have the same access as citizens. So anyone in south america with a serious illness comes over the fence and gets expenisve treatment for free. The system will either bankrupt its self in record time.

Link to where UHC ended the Middle Class in Europe, Japan, Canada, or Australia. Thanks.

And I'm still waiting on that link to how much this is going to cost us...

Link to where the conservatives were worried about costs when Bush decidered to invade Iraq?

The costs issue isn't a real point of debate. Its just another road block from the party of NO!!!. If Obama wanted to invade Iran and it would cost $10 trillion, conservatives wouldn't bat an eye and would happily approve 10 times that.

What in the hell are you talking about? I'm an individual asking how much it will cost me personally if this is implemented. Leave your partisan shit about Iraq out of this.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
This late in the thread nobody will care but I will describe my own first-hand observations about the Canadian healthcare system...

Some years ago (1990 to be exact... maybe things have improved but I'm guessing they haven't) a friend of mine had an accident while in Yellowknife, NWT.

She was dancing... sat down and dislocated her kneecap...

Ouch

Ambulance came and took her away... she got to the hospital at 12:15am... The Dr. on duty got off at midnight. The nurses called him but he was OFF... and he told them as much. Told them to give her Tylonol. Yay! Government employee!

The next Dr wasn't scheduled in until 6am. And when the nurses called, he told them that he was off until 6am. (Surprised he even answered the call)

So my friend sat there with a dislocated kneecap with nothing but Tylonol for the pain until the next Dr showed up for his 'shift' at 6am.

In a microcosm, this is my experience with socialized health care. I didn't like it then, I don't like it now.

In the end... when she left third world health care of Canada and made it back to the US (Alaska - the biggest joke in US health care) it was clear that her initial problem would have been taken care of quickly... the delay she experienced in Canuckistan caused her to suffer three additional surgeries that wouldn't have been needed had she just been treated when she showed up at the medical center.

So pardon me if I've seen those Canadian health care 'myths' up close and personal. They're not myths... they are real. The Canuckistan health care system sucks.

I'd rather worry about how to pay the bill than wait for something that I needed NOW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y..._Northwest_Territories

2006 population 18700. I doubt you'd get good health care in a small town in the middle of the American bumfuck either.

Lame.

I lived in Fairbanks Alaska most of my life... I live on Maui now (which makes health care in Fairbanks look like the Mayo Clinic) and I've never met anyone who had to wait all night because a government employed doctor refused to turn his car around 15 min after he got off shift... No, I'm pretty sure I've never heard that story.

But thanks for proving my point.

Canadian Doctoors are not Government Employees.