Heatlth care reform - cost reductions - be careful what you ask for

[John Ranalletta]

Without taking sides (because who in the hell knows what the plan will look like), I'm fascinated by the claim that any new plan will save billions of dollars in unneeded diagnostic procedures (xray, lab, etc.).

 

We provide behavioral assessments for clients. The assessment we have reveals whether a person is either a risk taker or risk avoider.

 

If your doc is a risk avoider and needs a certain level of diagnostic information to operate with confidence, how much less do you want to allow him?

 

This simplistic "we can cut diagnostic costs" approach says the people designing the plan(s) don't know dick about how people make decisions, including doctors.

 

This should really be fun, especially for people who can't afford to go outside the single-payor plan and pay for concierge medical services.

[bakerzdosen]

Speaking as Matt the person, not the admin, I know that I can't really discuss this topic without it being political. But my prediction is that most of us (if not all) will look back on this as "the good old days of medicine" in a few years.

 

Count me as one of the many who are quite happy with the current medical system and does NOT want to see it run by the government.

[Lawman]

Who cares what the plan looks like?

 

One only needs to look at the efficiency of Medicare to know how much money a government health care system will save..

 

My mother's every waking moment is spent contemplating her health needs and making Dr's appointments to see various doctors and psychiatrists who will treat her already self diagnosed medical problems..They are happy to see her as often as she likes and prescribe most anything she wants, arrange for home health care, therapy, counseling, and even perform shock treatments at her request. All this amounting to tens of thousands of dollars every year paid by the taxpayer...We need reform alright..We need government out of the health care business.. My health care provider, that I pay for, already limits my health care and if I don't like their limitations I'm free to buy insurance elsewhere..Seems like a pretty good system to me...

[Dave McReynolds]

Without taking sides (because who in the hell knows what the plan will look like), I'm fascinated by the claim that any new plan will save billions of dollars in unneeded diagnostic procedures (xray, lab, etc.).

 

While I'm generally in favor of health care reform, this seems like a red herring to me, because unneeded diagnostic procedures could be eliminated with or without government provided insurance or healthcare. Aside from the psychological profiles of different doctors, as you mention, the main reason given for unnecessary tests is CYA in case of a subsequent lawsuit. This could be addressed in either or both of two ways, with or without government sponsored healthcare:

 

1. Malpractice reform

 

2. Having defined minimum standards of practice that were accepted in the law, such that if a doctor did the specified tests, it could not be the basis of a lawsuit if a problem developed that could have been prevented if other tests had been done.

[smiller]

Without taking sides ...

Oh no John, we'd never think that...

[John Ranalletta]

Without taking sides ...

Oh no John, we'd never think that...

In fact, Seth, this could be a good deal for me, given my circumstances, i.e. diabetic spouse who is uninsurable in the private market, near medicare age, but not quite, etc.

 

I'm interested, but I just wonder what the hell the planners are thinking.

 

Your doc says, "I think we need to operate, and I'd like to have a CT scan or other diagnostics, but the single payor won't reimburse." Would you want to put your doc in that position?

.

[John Ranalletta]

One only needs to look at the efficiency of Medicare to know how much money a government health care system will save..

Medicare is quite efficient in that it only adds about 3% administrative overhead while insurance companies add multiples of that.

 

The problem with Medicare is that the government is a lousy business partner and providers can't count on the reimbursement rates. As proposed, the new health plan will be financed in part by cutting Medicare reimbursements by billions.

 

I'd be in favor of any single payor if and when all representatives, senators and all other government employees give up their current plans and are swept into the same single payor that will be foisted on the rest of us.

[Whip]

Count me as one of the many who are quite happy with the current medical system

 

+1

 

I have the top of the line Blue Cross Advantage plan.

 

My cell phone bill costs more.

 

My cable TV bill costs more.

 

In my case....(47 years old no health issues)......I think the whole subject is BS.

 

I do have a $5k deductible.

 

I can see any Doc I want....anywhere.

 

I understand that it would be very different if I/we had any preexisting conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

Whip, if, as an employer, you don't offer a health plan for your employees (am not asking and don't care), under the proposed plan, you'll pay 8% of payroll to finance their participation in the government plan.

 

Let's see, in our little company, last year, 8% would have been about $160k. I know what I'm recommending to our stockholders (of which I am one)... stop treating our consultants as employees and pay them on 1099s.

 

There are a helluva lot of potentially, unintended and nasty consequences that are yet undiscovered, but that doesn't seem to matter.

[smiller]

Well you're right in that things are very much in a state of flux, but from what I'm hearing a single-payer system isn't really even on the table... AFAIK no one is proposing eliminating private insurance, alongside a possible government plan. And even the existence of a government plan is controversial at this point and it's not certain the final bill will have even that. In any event, in just about any plan currently being considered Whip can keep what he has now if that is his preference.

[David]

I understand that it would be very different if I/we had any preexisting conditions.

 

No kidding.

 

I pay right at $2,000/month, PLUS co-pays, PLUS deductibles, for a shitty policy for my wonderful (but diabetic) wife.

 

Grossing that up, it's the equivalent of making about $55,000/year and giving it all up to cover one person.

[Shaman97]

To me, the whole issue of health insurance lies in how do I avoid being bankrupted by a middle-to-major illness or accident? Things are fine right now, since I and my family members don't have any pre-existing conditions. But again, I'm not getting any younger, so the probability of getting sick is larger now and in the future.

 

None of the countries that have single payer systems are clamoring for our system, and we don't have the best healthcare in the world. It will be interesting to see what the final proposal will be.

 

I don't think I'll like it much, but if there's a safety net built in to protect us from losing everything we have, it's worth a second look.

[Shaman97]

Grossing that up, it's the equivalent of making about $55,000/year and giving it all up to cover one person

[John Ranalletta]

Well you're right in that things are very much in a state of flux, but from what I'm hearing a single-payer system isn't really even on the table... AFAIK no one is proposing eliminating private insurance, alongside a possible government plan. And even the existence of a government plan is controversial at this point and it's not certain the final bill will have even that. In any event, in just about any plan currently being considered Whip can keep what he has now if that is his preference.

On the surface, that's what it seems, but listening to some of the proposed details, some of us will have our health benefits taxed. Which of us is as yet undetermined, but it's on the table, so it's just a matter of where the line is drawn. Will it catch you and me? Who knows? How many small employers who don't provide insurance will fold their companies if the 8% tax takes most of their personal salaries from the business?

 

Will physicians take patients who have the new government plan. I've heard that almost 50% of primary care docs are refusing to see medicare patients. If that trend continues, does it matter if we have insurance if docs get out of the business or turn to concierge practices?

 

How will this entire health care picture be effected if the government refuses to reimburse religious hospitals that refuse to perform procedures that violate their religious beliefs? Those hospitals will have to close w/o medicare/medicaid patients. In Indy, that'd be two huge hospitals. How will fewer hospitals offering more scarce beds and operating rooms impact price?

 

On another point, Seth. I don't have a philosophical or political viewpoint or axe to grind...any longer. I look at everything take comes down the pike in terms of WIIFM. I could give a crap about conservative or liberal, republican or democrat. If it hurts me, I agin' it. If it helps me, I'm for it.

 

 

[Whip]

To me, the whole issue of health insurance lies in how do I avoid being bankrupted by a middle-to-major illness or accident? Things are fine right now, since I and my family members don't have any pre-existing conditions. But again, I'm not getting any younger, so the probability of getting sick is larger now and in the future.

 

None of the countries that have single payer systems are clamoring for our system, and we don't have the best healthcare in the world. It will be interesting to see what the final proposal will be.

 

I don't think I'll like it much, but if there's a safety net built in to protect us from losing everything we have, it's worth a second look.

 

 

 

Did ya read my post????

 

Can ya afford $200 a month????

 

...or maybe give up cable or a cell phone??????

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

Grossing that up, it's the equivalent of making about $55,000/year and giving it all up to cover one person

Welcome to my world. What David failed to mention is the $5,000 insulin pump and $650 transmitter, $35 sensors that last about 5 days, and other monthly supplies (test strips, insulin, etc.) that come to about $500/month.

 

Not complaining because it adds immeasurably to my wife's quality and longevity of life.

[smiller]

Just kiddin' ya before John, nothing meant by it beyond some fun.

 

As far as what has been proposed, well, just about everything has been proposed at this point. We need to get the morass pared down to a few concrete plans before it will be possible for me to have a strong opinion on any of this, and hopefully that will happen soon.

[John Ranalletta]

No offense, Seth, else I'd have been out of here a long time ago.

 

Like most government programs, good intentions are not supported by good research. The government does so few things well, I can't imagine it will do health care in a large way very well at all.

 

Kinda' like the 1200-page carbon bill that no one has read but passed today.

 

Here's an example of what can will happen with carbon and health care.

[Whip]

Whip, if, as an employer, you don't offer a health plan for your employees (am not asking and don't care), under the proposed plan, you'll pay 8% of payroll to finance their participation in the government plan.

 

Let's see, in our little company, last year, 8% would have been about $160k. I know what I'm recommending to our stockholders (of which I am one)... stop treating our consultants as employees and pay them on 1099s.

 

There are a helluva lot of potentially, unintended and nasty consequences that are yet undiscovered, but that doesn't seem to matter.

 

I did offer it to my employees. I don't remember the exact percentage that had to agree to the plan, but out of 30 employees only one signed up.(That ain't enough) It was a good plan too. $500 deductible, see any Doc you wanted. I was gonna pay half. It was gonna cost $20/week per employee. They all said it was too much. I won't force em. They all said they were used to going to the "free clinic" or pay as you go.

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

Your good intentions may not matter, Whip. Get ready to write that check.

 

Here's the calculation:

 

2010 Total employee wages ____________ x .08 = ________________

 

Thank you,

 

Uncle

[Shaman97]

Originally Posted By: Shaman97

To me, the whole issue of health insurance lies in how do I avoid being bankrupted by a middle-to-major illness or accident? Things are fine right now, since I and my family members don't have any pre-existing conditions. But again, I'm not getting any younger, so the probability of getting sick is larger now and in the future.

 

None of the countries that have single payer systems are clamoring for our system, and we don't have the best healthcare in the world. It will be interesting to see what the final proposal will be.

 

I don't think I'll like it much, but if there's a safety net built in to protect us from losing everything we have, it's worth a second look.

 

 

 

 

Did ya read my post????

 

Can ya afford $200 a month????

 

...or maybe give up cable or a cell phone??????

 

Whip,

 

Yeah, I'd give up a cell phone, but I bet my daughter'd be pissed I did that to her.

 

$200 a month would be great - certainly an improvement over the $400 a month I'm paying now.

 

My concern is what happens to us middle class schmoes if/when we don't have the $400 or $200 per month to pay if I lost my job. I have assets that the hospital would go after and attach in order to pay the bill. Additionally, my concern is over will the insurance company 'decline' to pay a minor, major or all of the bill. Then I have to chase them and their very talented teams of lawyers to get a fraction of the money I have to pay the hospital.

 

$200 or $400 or $500 a month, but not have to worry past that, and I'm happy.

 

The wealthy? They don't have a worry - they can pay for whatever they want - see Steve Jobs on that one.

 

The poor? Covered by you and me by our premiums to cover the unpaid costs the hospitals incur when they have minor and major illnesses.

 

You and me? We're the wildebeest on the Serengheti hoping we don't develop a limp when the lions are hungry.

 

[smiller]

Well government often ends up being a refuge of last resort that has to handle social problems that no one else wants to and for which there often are no perfect answers, so yes, the response is often flawed as it almost has to be when there are no easy answers. Whatever the health care system ends up being you can be fairly certain that the government will be castigated for whatever isn't perfect... it's virtually a given because everyone wants something different so it's impossible to satisfy everyone. But the private system currently in place is also far from perfect, in fact if it were run by the government I imagine people would be screaming for some other solution .

 

 

The poor? Covered by you and me by our premiums to cover the unpaid costs the hospitals incur when they have minor and major illnesses.

Indeed. People seem to be quite worried that their dollars will be used to pay for other people's health care if the government gets involved, but that's exactly what is happening now... in about as inefficient a manner possible.

[Whip]

Your good intentions may not matter, Whip. Get ready to write that check.

 

Here's the calculation:

 

2010 Total employee wages ____________ x .08 = ________________

 

Thank you,

 

Uncle

 

 

Will that apply to companies with with less than 6 employees????

 

....10 employees?????

 

.....15 employees?????

 

 

 

 

 

[Shaman97]

Just a thought for our members that are retired military:

 

Do you use the gov't supplied healthcare, or do you pay extra for your own healthcare? If so how much?

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

Sleep well.

[DavidEBSmith]

Without taking sides (because who in the hell knows what the plan will look like), I'm fascinated by the claim that any new plan will save billions of dollars in unneeded diagnostic procedures (xray, lab, etc.).

 

I strongly recommend this article from the New Yorker for some insight into how this might happen.

[RichEdwards]

I worked as head of the Family Selection Committee at our local Habitat for Humanity. One of the jobs I had was checking the credit of those who applied for a home. These were hard-working people who needed a little help in getting housing for their families. Numerous times we found people who paid all their bills on time EXCEPT for the $46,000 (or some similar figure) they owed to our present health care system. It was so common that we eliminated healthcare debts from consideration in choosing families that we would assist.

The reason that Health Care Reform is on America's agenda is because there are millions of hard-working people who have no health insurance. They are suffering and dying or being forced into bankruptcy court because of it. Those who have coverage and are happy with the present system seem to be able to forget that. I cannot. A compassionate America needs healthcare reform even if it costs more.

[Shaman97]

Without taking sides (because who in the hell knows what the plan will look like), I'm fascinated by the claim that any new plan will save billions of dollars in unneeded diagnostic procedures (xray, lab, etc.).

 

I strongly recommend this article from the New Yorker for some insight into how this might happen.

 

Good article.

Here in NorCal, we have the Kaiser system. I was very skeptical of joining this plan, but have found it to be a pretty good fit for me and my family.

They place a big emphasis on prevention, with reminders for me to get blood work done and the like. They employ a lot of folks in what would be considered 'soft' medicine - counselors, wellness programs, etc.

A downside is that they don't always do what I want them to do. For instance, I have a few skin 'tags' that Kaiser will not remove. So for that, I have a Medical Spending Account that I use to go to a dermatologist that will do it for me. I don't mind paying for that, since it's not really medically necessary. My daughter had to wait three weeks to have growth on her leg looked at (she'd had it for 2 months prior to calling). Though we all have been able to see a doctor the same day (at an urgent care center) when we have flu symptoms.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with the article that the care we receive should be a collaborative effort of the medical community rather than looking at patients as profit centers. I imagine the AMA will have some serious pressure to bear on lawmakers when decisions are made.

[EffBee]

I imagine the AMA will have some serious pressure to bear on lawmakers when decisions are made.

 

I doubt it. Not with lawmakers holding the key to how much AMA members are going to earn.

 

Want a glimpse of the future? Here's what Tom Daschle is credited by Bloomberg with saying:

 

Bloomberg: Daschle says "health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them."

 

Welcome to more taxes for less care. Welcome to fewer doctors staying doctors. Welcome to fewer students deciding on a career in medicine. Welcome to rationed care. Welcome to "you're too old for that procedure," "that condition is too rare," "that treatment is too expensive," "we've treated enough of your (race, age, gender, condition) this month and we need to spread the medical wealth around."

 

Socialized medicine has been tried in dozens of countries. And by people at least as smart as Americans (which lately may be damning with faint praise). Show me where anywhere near half of those systems provide the quantity and level of care that we currently enjoy in this country. OK, show me where one-fourth of them do. One-tenth? One?

 

It's a nice thought. Everyone gets taken care of. OCB still says that 36 million won't get the care they need. And for this we're going into debt to the tune of $3,000 per year per person? Or we're going to tax them that much? Or a combination of the two?

 

Get used to it, seniors. We're going to be left out in the cold. And, of course, if we're all sick, or arthritic, or have our driving privileges pulled because of correctible cataracts (etc. etc.), we can't get out and vote in as many numbers, can we.

[smiller]

Show me where anywhere near half of those systems provide the quantity and level of care that we currently enjoy in this country. OK, show me where one-fourth of them do. One-tenth? One?

I'm not sure how to define quantity and levels of care in a way that could be easily compared among the various systems, and you also have to define 'provide.' The US system 'provides' excellent care for those with money or employer-paid health care, and pretty crappy care for those without.

 

How about this... do citizens in half of industrialized nations with a national health care system (inherent warts and all) wish that they had the American system instead? One quarter of these countries? How about one?

[EffBee]

Show me where anywhere near half of those systems provide the quantity and level of care that we currently enjoy in this country. OK, show me where one-fourth of them do. One-tenth? One?

I'm not sure how to define quantity and levels of care in a way that could be easily compared among the various systems, and you also have to define 'provide.' The US system 'provides' excellent care for those with money or employer-paid health care, and pretty crappy care for those without.

 

How about this... do citizens in half of industrialized nations with a national health care system (inherent warts and all) wish that they had the American system instead? One quarter of these countries? How about one?

 

Well, let's see. Reports abound that Canadians can't get in to see their doctors, or have exhorbitant waiting times for tests, so they come to the U.S. and pay for them and/or procedures. Brits have similar issues, so they go to doctors who are not on the government plan and pay for their services. Similar situations exist (and are routinely reported) in France. In these, and I'm certain other countries, the failure of the government-run single-payer system to provide timely care has driven the population to choose the free-market alternative, either in an adjoining country or within their own. That free-market system would pretty much parallel the U.S. system.

 

But I must apologize. You asked for only one example.

[smiller]

Actually the apology should be for not answering my question. That, and ignoring the fact that a single-payer system isn't even under consideration in any of the proposed plans.

 

[Patallaire]

I don't know where anyone gets health coverage for $200 a month, in WNY family coverage is $1,000 per month!

[EffBee]

You're right in that it isn't being presented as being under consideration. However, like all radical shifts, it's presented as something it isn't, and implemented a step at a time. That's not conspiracy, that's history. But you can focus on that and continue to ignore Daschle's quote, and the projections of the OCB.

 

Still, we'll see. The mid-term elections are starting to look like a 25-30 seat shift. By the time they come around it could total 40. And that will help neutralize the path we're on until 2012 when we can start to rebuild the U.S. into the great country it was before employment quotas, social graduation, non-competitive youth sports, political correctness, manufactured equality, and the fantasy that government has an interest in anything beyond its own perpetuation.

[Lawman]

You're right in that it isn't being presented as being under consideration. However, like all radical shifts, it's presented as something it isn't, and implemented a step at a time. That's not conspiracy, that's history. But you can focus on that and continue to ignore Daschle's quote, and the projections of the OCB.

 

Still, we'll see. The mid-term elections are starting to look like a 25-30 seat shift. By the time they come around it could total 40. And that will help neutralize the path we're on until 2012 when we can start to rebuild the U.S. into the great country it was before employment quotas, social graduation, non-competitive youth sports, political correctness, manufactured equality, and the fantasy that government has an interest in anything beyond its own perpetuation.

 

Well said! I just wish I had one tiny smidgen of your optimism...

[bayoubengal]

Just a thought for our members that are retired military:

 

Do you use the gov't supplied healthcare, or do you pay extra for your own healthcare? If so how much?

 

 

I am currently on an active duty tour and taking military leave from my civilian employer, Delta Air Lines. I live in a very supportive military community and there are local physicians who will not accept my military health plan, Tri-Care, due to red tape and lack of timely payments. When I go back to Delta next year I will go back to my company health plan. About $400.00 per month even though my spousal unit will still be on active duty and we will both have military health care from retirement eventually.

 

What I see is a concern here for relief from catastrophic health care expenses. When I was a child and went to the doctor, my mother took her checkbook. Then to the drug store, again checkbook. Now we are all dependent of insurance companies to pay everything. That extra layer of expense they bring has had a tremendous negative effect on health care cost. Maybe we should look at getting government and big insurance out of health care. Pay for normal medical out of pocket and have insurance for catastophic/chronic illness only. Thoughts?

[Lawman]

What I see is a concern here for relief from catastrophic health care expenses. When I was a child and went to the doctor, my mother took her checkbook. Then to the drug store, again checkbook. Now we are all dependent of insurance companies to pay everything. That extra layer of expense they bring has had a tremendous negative effect on health care cost. Maybe we should look at getting government and big insurance out of health care. Pay for normal medical out of pocket and have insurance for catastophic/chronic illness only. Thoughts?

 

You're gonna like this..

 

"The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high. Real health care reform will only come when we get back to the Constitutional principle of limited government and get the government, lawyers, and the courts out of our health care decisions. So long as they are allowed to make our health care decisions, the ONLY criteria for health care providers will be greed."

 

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/trashingamerica/healthcare.html

 

 

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

The mid-term elections are starting to look like a 25-30 seat shift. By the time they come around it could total 40. And that will help neutralize the path we're on until 2012 when we can start to rebuild the U.S. into the great country it was before employment quotas, social graduation, non-competitive youth sports, political correctness, manufactured equality, and the fantasy that government has an interest in anything beyond its own perpetuation.

 

Well, we'll see. Americans will judge the current administration based on it's accomplishments. Even though the minority party is doing its best to support the current administration by acting like clowns, that's not going to be enough to keep the current adminstration in power. Americans want nationalized healthcare, an end to our involvement in futile wars in the mideast, and a return to the rule of law. And, oh yes, survival as a nation economically. It was inconvenient that the current administration came to power as our economy was tanking, and that will certainly make it more difficult to accomplish its major objectives, but those were the same challenges faced by FDR, who also had the advantage of following a particularly inept previous administration. If the current administration can be similarly successful, it shouldn't have any problem staying in power for a while.

[Lawman]

Americans want a return to the rule of law.

 

The "rule of law" is the complete opposite of what most Americans want..

What they want is empathy and to be taken care of.

That's why this administration is enjoying success.

[Whip]

Well, we'll see. Americans will judge the current administration based on it's accomplishments. Even though the minority party is doing its best to support the current administration by acting like clowns, that's not going to be enough to keep the current adminstration in power. Americans want nationalized healthcare, an end to our involvement in futile wars in the mideast, and a return to the rule of law. And, oh yes, survival as a nation economically. It was inconvenient that the current administration came to power as our economy was tanking, and that will certainly make it more difficult to accomplish its major objectives, but those were the same challenges faced by FDR, who also had the advantage of following a particularly inept previous administration. If the current administration can be similarly successful, it shouldn't have any problem staying in power for a while.

 

WOW!!!!!!

 

Prolly a little too radioactive for me to respond to in kind. I find very little in that statement that is founded in reality, but then again I don't live in Sacramento.

 

The Mods should prolly delete both of our statements.

 

 

 

[EffBee]

The Mods should prolly delete both of our statements.

 

PM's have been sent (well, at least one). People, let's keep the political invectives out of it.

[Ken H.]

Without taking sides (because who in the hell knows what the plan will look like), I'm fascinated by the claim that any new plan will save billions of dollars in unneeded diagnostic procedures (xray, lab, etc.). This simplistic "we can cut diagnostic costs" approach says the people designing the plan(s) don't know dick about how people make decisions, including doctors.

I’m going to stay out of this one, just because I’ll get ALL worked up and my ulcer can’t take right now!

 

Interesting reading for one perspective is the article in the June 29 issue of Time magazine titled, "More Data + Less Care = Lower Cost + Better Health."

 

The nutshell of the article – The US’s current system is based on volume/quantity, not expertise/quality. It encourages excessive testing to pump up profits. In a word – Overtreatment.

 

[Ken H.]

Count me as one of the many who are quite happy with the current medical system

 

+1

Off the top of my head I can think of 46 million Americans who would likly disagree with you!

[Ken H.]

Well, let's see. Reports abound that Canadians can't get in to see their doctors, or have exhorbitant waiting times for tests, so they come to the U.S. and pay for them and/or procedures. Brits have similar issues, so they go to doctors who are not on the government plan and pay for their services. Similar situations exist (and are routinely reported) in France. In these, and I'm certain other countries, the failure of the government-run single-payer system to provide timely care has driven the population to choose the free-market alternative, either in an adjoining country or within their own. That free-market system would pretty much parallel the U.S. system.

I have had some health challenges over the winter (heart problems) so I have had my first taste since moving here of that big evil monster called "Universal Health Care."

 

It’s truly terrible – Called for an appointment on Wednesday, and didn’t get in to see a doctor until the next Thursday! I then had to then go to a diagnostic facility for some more tests and one of them was 2 km from our house! And another four blocks from where I work. Don’t they know I could have died walking three? And to top it all off; every place refuses to take my credit card for the $0.00 bill! The atrocity of it all!

 

The whole "Long waits in Canada" urban myth is just that. A myth perpetuated by the medicine for profit industry in the USA. How long does it take to get an appt. with a major specialist in any major US city?

 

[Whip]

Count me as one of the many who are quite happy with the current medical system

 

+1

Off the top of my head I can think of 46 million Americans who would likly disagree with you!

 

 

The problem is not all those 46 million are Americans and many don't care or aren't willing to pay a penny for HC cause they don't think they need it.

 

 

 

...again

 

$200/month for the best care money can buy.

 

Less than my cell phone bill

 

Less than my cable TV bill.

 

I wonder how many of those mythical 46 million have a cell phone and watch cable every night.

 

Please don't touch our healthcare system just educate the folks.

 

 

$200 per month is not that much.....(it was $300/month)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Whip]

The whole "Long waits in Canada" urban myth is just that. A myth perpetuated by the medicine for profit industry in the USA. How long does it take to get an appt. with a major specialist in any major US city?

 

You better tell the Canadians about the myth .

 

 

Cause they ain't buyin what your sellin.

 

Actual wait times

 

"21%...... 4 to 12 months"

 

 

[marcopolo]

How about this... do citizens in half of industrialized nations with a national health care system (inherent warts and all) wish that they had the American system instead? One quarter of these countries? How about one?

 

Certainly not this guy, nor any one of my group of friends. Good luck in your debate.

[smiller]

How about this... do citizens in half of industrialized nations with a national health care system (inherent warts and all) wish that they had the American system instead? One quarter of these countries? How about one?

Certainly not this guy, nor any one of my group of friends. Good luck in your debate.

Sorry Mark, it's already been decided... any system other than the American one is an utter failure, with participants dreaming of the day when their employer can determine their coverage limits...

[marcopolo]

How about this... do citizens in half of industrialized nations with a national health care system (inherent warts and all) wish that they had the American system instead? One quarter of these countries? How about one?

Certainly not this guy, nor any one of my group of friends. Good luck in your debate.

Sorry Mark, it's already been decided... any system other than the American one is an utter failure, with participants dreaming of the day when their employer can determine their coverage limits...

 

I usually do not participate in any debate about American health care, other than to debunk myths, or simply offer one person's perspective of how our system has performed for me, and others that I know well. From what I can see, most of the criticism of our system comes from people who have never experienced it. Same goes for the British, or French systems. There's no doubt that our system has drawbacks but, like everything in life, you have to ask yourself whether, on balance, we'd trade it for what we see down south. I've yet to meet one Canadian who would. I also say that as someone who has a good friend (Canadian) who has worked for Boeing in Seattle since the mid-1990s and a brother-in-law who has lived in LA for 11 years. Both have good coverage and have had good treatment when they needed it, but both still prefer the Canadian system.

 

I've also been more than a bit surprised in my bike travels down south how often the discussion turns to health care in one form, or another, e.g., guys who can't take a job they might otherwise want because of health insurance considerations, or worries people have about coverage after retirement. These are conversations that really don't happen up here. Whether that's good, or bad, is not for me to judge, but I do find it interesting.

[russell_bynum]

The nutshell of the article – The US’s current system is based on volume/quantity, not expertise/quality. It encourages excessive testing to pump up profits. In a word – Overtreatment.

 

I know that's a popular idea, but that simply has not been my experience.

 

When I dislocated my shoulder, I got one x-ray to make sure all of the bones were still intact and to verify where everything was. My primary care doctor looked at it, we talked, and decided on a referral to an ortho. Ortho looked at my X-rays, played with my shoulder, we talked about it, and decided on Physical Therapy. After a while with PT I dislocated again. We talked and he ordered an MRI to see what was going on. With the problem identified, we decided on more PT (with a more specific focus). When that didn't work, we scheduled surgery and PT to follow.

 

To me, that seems like a logical and conservative approach. No "barrage of unnecessary tests or treatments"...just a good common-sense approach.

 

With Lisa's pregnancy there were a few minor problems. The OB always said stuff like "There's some stuff we can do, but usually this sorts itself out, so let's just wait and in the meantime, try X, Y, and Z."

 

When I went in a few weeks ago with lower back problems, the doctor checked things out, prescribed some muscle relaxers, and walked me through a bunch of exercises that I could do to prevent problems next time. This hardly seems like volume over quality to me.

 

Obviously this is just my experience, but since this has been over the span of 15 years or so, and living in several different places with several different doctors and different insurance providers, I don't really have any reason to believe it was an anomaly.