Obamacare succeeding

[BSM1]

I know. I know. Cigarette smoking is a terrible addiction. It just happens to be the only addiction Obamacare policies allow insurance companies to even ask about. If it was a street drug addiction or alcohol addiction it wouldn't be held against us during open enrollment.

Why would you want to mess up such a pretty face with such an ugly habit? (Sorry, ex-smoker syndrome.)

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It's a she and she had to wait months to even get the MRI. She's from a small town and had to go to a major city to get it scheduled. America is also still the leader in medical technology because of Silicon Valley and the work it does with imaging and other diagnostic software.

The oncologist I worked with saw a tonne of Medicare and Medicaid patients. The situation isn't as bad as people think.

The general hospitals of America are falling behind. There may be specialty places that are still world leaders such as Mayo clinic. Unfortunately that doesn't translate well to the rest of the country in many respects as other countries benefit from it just as much as we do. And yes we have a lot of elderly and poor patients who receive medicare and medicaid. However this is not the majority of people. The situation is rather dire and America has one of the highest mortality rates due to cancer because of it our inability to have regular screenings and checkups at reasonable prices.

I believe you about your friend but I do not believe this is an accurate representation of the healthcare of Canada. Does it happen on occasion? Yes. But her case would be incredibly rare and I don't know the whole story but I'd bet a small amount of money that there were things she could have done if she were diligent to get it done sooner. Many patients are scarred and if things are put off they don't fight it. Or there are people that don't want to be a bother and ask for something sooner. I don't know for certain and I wouldn't claim to know in your friend's situation but that is my hunch.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In the U.S. it would have happened in days.

Not necessarily. It can happen in days if your insurance will cover it, if there are no loop-holes, technicalities, ands-ifs-or-buts, and other things they use and/or need before treatment can proceed.
If you have money America's health care is great. If you don't have money you just have to take what you can get, which tends to not be much at all, even after the ACA became law.

 

[gerobbins]

My friend is still waiting for the malignancy to be removed. I've worked with oncologists in the U.S. and this would be completely unacceptable. The surgical oncologist tells my friend basically tough ****, he's booked.

I've worked in both systems, and both have their drawbacks. If you make enough to afford good insurance then the U.S. Healthcare far surpasses Canadian in terms of care and technology. Private institutions generally are superior to public ones, but introduce inequality in the process.

I don't agree, in Canada any life threatening illness results in immediate treatment, your friend should go to Princess Marget in Toronto, they will be treated right away and that Oncologist should be reported as he/she is not allowed to do that, by law they have to treat them right away.

 

[MD]

I don't agree, in Canada any life threatening illness results in immediate treatment, your friend should go to Princess Marget in Toronto, they will be treated right away and that Oncologist should be reported as he/she is not allowed to do that, by law they have to treat them right away.

It doesn't matter what your opinion is, the fact of the matter is that she was told that the whole process would take a long time to start again and all she can do is wait. I know you don't like knowing that the Canadian system isn't this perfect thing, but the fact of the matter is the longer it takes for her cancer to be excised the higher the likelihood that it will metastasize.

In USA any life threatening condition is treated right away as well. By law you have to treat anyone who comes to the ED fully, you cannot turn them away. I have seen this with my own two eyes. And you don't have to wait months for surgery to remove a tumor.

 

[MD]

The general hospitals of America are falling behind. There may be specialty places that are still world leaders such as Mayo clinic. Unfortunately that doesn't translate well to the rest of the country in many respects as other countries benefit from it just as much as we do. And yes we have a lot of elderly and poor patients who receive medicare and medicaid. However this is not the majority of people. The situation is rather dire and America has one of the highest mortality rates due to cancer because of it our inability to have regular screenings and checkups at reasonable prices.

I believe you about your friend but I do not believe this is an accurate representation of the healthcare of Canada. Does it happen on occasion? Yes. But her case would be incredibly rare and I don't know the whole story but I'd bet a small amount of money that there were things she could have done if she were diligent to get it done sooner. Many patients are scarred and if things are put off they don't fight it. Or there are people that don't want to be a bother and ask for something sooner. I don't know for certain and I wouldn't claim to know in your friend's situation but that is my hunch.

The situation in the hospitals is not bad, I've worked in inner city hospitals and even they are relatively decent.

I love it how you think it was due to my friends incompetence/lack of action that this has happened just because it challenges your view that the Canadian system is infallible. Are you always that easy at dismissing things which don't match your world view? And then you call yourself 'pragmatic'. What a joke.

The level of care is pathetic, period. You have to choose, either you get equal sub par health care for everyone like in Canada, or a two tiered system like in USA.

 

[dust1n]

In USA any life threatening condition is treated right away as well. By law you have to treat anyone who comes to the ED fully, you cannot turn them away. I have seen this with my own two eyes. And you don't have to wait months for surgery to remove a tumor.

Depending on the nature of the tumor...

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

I think all nations should have two tiered systems, and options for those who want to choose superior quality of care if they can but basic healthcare for those who can't.

This is a terrible opinion. There are some things that people with money should have the privilege of having more or better versions of, but healthcare is NOT one of them. This is EXACTLY what Americans are fighting right now. In the US, if you've got money, you're fine, but if you don't, your options are rather limited. I say if you've got money, feel free to have as much cosmetic surgery as you want. I couldn't care less. But people's essential healthcare shouldn't be altered by how much money they have.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

 

[metis]

Two things, and the first is that the Canadians have a three-tier priority when it comes to who gets surgery first, and the result is that emergency-care times are quite close to what they are in the States. It's more the elective surgery and non-emergency surgeries that can often take longer, which leads to the second point, namely that it's the Canadian demographics that creates this problem in that in the more highly condensed areas of Canada there's typically a shortage of doctors per 100,000 population as compared to the States.

The reason for the latter is that roughly 90% of the population lives in the southern 10% of land, and yet doctors still are needed in areas in the north. Even m.r.i. machines, for example, are put on mobile flatbeds that can be flown and trucked in to all sorts of relatively remote villages in the central and northern areas.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is a terrible opinion. There are some things that people with money should have the privilege of having more or better versions of, but healthcare is NOT one of them. This is EXACTLY what Americans are fighting right now. In the US, if you've got money, you're fine, but if you don't, your options are rather limited. I say if you've got money, feel free to have as much cosmetic surgery as you want. I couldn't care less. But people's essential healthcare shouldn't be altered by how much money they have.

No, yours is the terrible opinion!
(There....how's that for a clever retort?)
There will always be some rationing of care, be it by systematic allocation, waiting time or price. And there will always be different opinions about just what "basic" health care is. I see no reason to limit anyone to what is provided by government, if they want to use their own resources to get something better. What you propose is enforcing a lowest common denominator. Two tier care rules!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The situation in the hospitals is not bad, I've worked in inner city hospitals and even they are relatively decent.

I didn't say it was terrible. I said that it wasn't better than most other first world countries. Maybe we have nicer paint and better TV reception...
And I have worked in hospitals for the last 8 years both on the clinical and non-clinical side.

I love it how you think it was due to my friends incompetence/lack of action that this has happened just because it challenges your view that the Canadian system is infallible. Are you always that easy at dismissing things which don't match your world view? And then you call yourself 'pragmatic'. What a joke.

I say that because I am familiar with the Canadian system and I didn't want to assume that your friend was incompetent but if one had a tumor that could potentially be life threatening it would not take months to receive an MRI except in extraneous circumstances. I have known people to have to come to a hospital at 4 in the morning to get it done in the middle of the night before because it was an emergency. Either the doctor simply did not believe it was that serious or imminent in danger to your friend or she did not look at all of her options. You mentioned she lived in a rural area and perhaps she needed to go to a more populated area sooner. I do not know. Perhaps nothing was to be done and someone fell through the cracks. However this is incredibly rare.

The level of care is pathetic, period. You have to choose, either you get equal sub par health care for everyone like in Canada, or a two tiered system like in USA.

You simply are ignorant of Canadian healthcare then. By the numbers it exceeds US care on average. So does England and Germany's healthcare system.

But to answer your question if I did have a choice of worse care vs care for some I would take the slightly worse care for all.

 

[MD]

I didn't say it was terrible. I said that it wasn't better than most other first world countries. Maybe we have nicer paint and better TV reception...
And I have worked in hospitals for the last 8 years both on the clinical and non-clinical side

What are you an administrator? If so you don't really know jack **** about medicine and have no real authority in making your claim. The technology in most U.S. hospitals is superior to the majority of Canadian hospitals I've been to.

I say that because I am familiar with the Canadian system and I didn't want to assume that your friend was incompetent but if one had a tumor that could potentially be life threatening it would not take months to receive an MRI except in extraneous circumstances. I have known people to have to come to a hospital at 4 in the morning to get it done in the middle of the night before because it was an emergency. Either the doctor simply did not believe it was that serious or imminent in danger to your friend or she did not look at all of her options. You mentioned she lived in a rural area and perhaps she needed to go to a more populated area sooner. I do not know. Perhaps nothing was to be done and someone fell through the cracks. However this is incredibly rare.

I am from Canada, I grew up here. Stories like these are common. It took me a whole year to get my MRI done after I had a minor tear in my shoulder. It took her months to get one done. Our stories are common. If it is an emergency the surgery is done quickly, but stuff like this is not considered an emergency even though it is a tumor. She is a highly successful career oriented woman who is on top of things, this is the system's fault. I know you don't like to believe it or be wrong, but facts are facts.

You simply are ignorant of Canadian healthcare then. By the numbers it exceeds US care on average. So does England and Germany's healthcare system.

But to answer your question if I did have a choice of worse care vs care for some I would take the slightly worse care for all.

It exceeds the US care on average by only a few ranks, but overall I'd take a system which can look after me efficiently if I can afford over making me wait for a tumor excision and an increasing chance of metastasis.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What are you an administrator? If so you don't really know jack **** about medicine and have no real authority in making your claim. The technology in most U.S. hospitals is superior to the majority of Canadian hospitals I've been to.

Oh I"m sure.

I am from Canada, I grew up here. Stories like these are common. It took me a whole year to get my MRI done after I had a minor tear in my shoulder. It took her months to get one done. Our stories are common. If it is an emergency the surgery is done quickly, but stuff like this is not considered an emergency even though it is a tumor. She is a highly successful career oriented woman who is on top of things, this is the system's fault. I know you don't like to believe it or be wrong, but facts are facts.

Ge golly mister. I bet your right. I am gonna ignore all the facts now thanks to this post.

It exceeds the US care on average by only a few ranks, but overall I'd take a system which can look after me efficiently if I can afford over making me wait for a tumor excision and an increasing chance of metastasis.

So you favor the Canadian system? If not this sentence seems a bit contradictory.

 

[Nietzsche]

It exceeds the US care on average by only a few ranks, but overall I'd take a system which can look after me efficiently if I can afford over making me wait for a tumor excision and an increasing chance of metastasis.

That makes sense. But it isn't the people who can afford healthcare that a government system is for. It's for the throngs that can't.

 

[gerobbins]

It doesn't matter what your opinion is, the fact of the matter is that she was told that the whole process would take a long time to start again and all she can do is wait. I know you don't like knowing that the Canadian system isn't this perfect thing, but the fact of the matter is the longer it takes for her cancer to be excised the higher the likelihood that it will metastasize.

In USA any life threatening condition is treated right away as well. By law you have to treat anyone who comes to the ED fully, you cannot turn them away. I have seen this with my own two eyes. And you don't have to wait months for surgery to remove a tumor.

Well then that doctor needs to be reported because no one and I mean no one is denied treatment in Canada for any life threatening illness. That is a fact!!! I am sorry to break it to you but you are wrong or your friend is not telling you the truth

 

[gerobbins]

The situation in the hospitals is not bad, I've worked in inner city hospitals and even they are relatively decent.

I love it how you think it was due to my friends incompetence/lack of action that this has happened just because it challenges your view that the Canadian system is infallible. Are you always that easy at dismissing things which don't match your world view? And then you call yourself 'pragmatic'. What a joke.

The level of care is pathetic, period. You have to choose, either you get equal sub par health care for everyone like in Canada, or a two tiered system like in USA.

You are way off base the Canadian system far outweighs the American, Health care is just not an issue for Canadians you do not know what you are talking about. Watch the videos, the second is by an American

 

[gerobbins]

Oh I"m sure.



Ge golly mister. I bet your right. I am gonna ignore all the facts now thanks to this post.



So you favor the Canadian system? If not this sentence seems a bit contradictory.

I can answer that: Lets see here: My daughter was born pre-mature, she spent 10 days in the ICU the cost to me? Nothing

I had 3 MRI last years, all in the same day and it only took 3 weeks to book, the cost to me? Nothing

My sister had breast cancer, she was treated within days of being diagnosed and started chemo right away the cost to her? Nothing

A friend of mine had a heart attack in Las Vegas, his insurance was turned down after he had his surgery, the cost to him? $100,000 what that would have cost here? Nothing

Another friends 82 year old mother had a heart attack in Florida, the doctor told he could operate the next day, and the cost would be about 100k she said thanks but no thanks, she would go back to Canada. The doctor told her that it would take months for her to get the operation. Well, she flew home by air ambulance and was operated within 2 days and up and walking within 2 weeks and the cost to her? Nothing

See there is the difference, Canadians do not go broke because of health care its not perfect but it is better than yours

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

No, yours is the terrible opinion!
(There....how's that for a clever retort?)
There will always be some rationing of care, be it by systematic allocation, waiting time or price. And there will always be different opinions about just what "basic" health care is. I see no reason to limit anyone to what is provided by government, if they want to use their own resources to get something better. What you propose is enforcing a lowest common denominator. Two tier care rules!

A lowest common...? Please.

What you are suggesting is not a two-tier system. It's a ramp system in which the more money you personally have, the more options you have. To be clear, care would not necessarily be provided by the government. It would only be payed for by the government. It is possible to have a win-win for everyone. Why not extend the ability to choose to everyone? I'm fine with making cosmetic care that is not associated with acute trauma an out-of-pocket expense. But why restrict access based on ability to pay?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A lowest common...? Please.

What you are suggesting is not a two-tier system. It's a ramp system in which the more money you personally have, the more options you have. To be clear, care would not necessarily be provided by the government. It would only be payed for by the government. It is possible to have a win-win for everyone. Why not extend the ability to choose to everyone? I'm fine with making cosmetic care that is not associated with acute trauma an out-of-pocket expense. But why restrict access based on ability to pay?

If out-of-pocket expenses weren't an option, I could have went a few months at most with a torn ligament and cartilage, rather than a few years. And it's not like getting a stable knee back with some cushioning between the bones is an elective thing.