• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

If America adopts Canada's health care system

Status
Not open for further replies.
retiredgrunt45 said:
Since when does praising our health care system turn us into the former soviet union? I smell conspiracy theory here coming on. The government and the rest of us socialist pigs are out to get you and control your every move, is that it?.  ::)

I have a doctors appointment his afternoon, I must go and have my monthly mind control and brain washing session, free of charge of course...

I will then go down to our "state run" care dealership and buy that nice little pre-approved Lada that only comes in black and be really happy about it, because I don't want to anger the big bad Harper for fear of being sent to a gulag somewhere on Greenland for 20 years, by the big evil Canadian political bureau.

Save your sarcasm.

Never underestimate the power/stupidity of people who claim to have our best interests at heart...
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/201960
http://www.ndp.ca/page/3007
 
An American MD who worked under "Canadian Style Health Care" (Medi-Cal) describes her experience:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/halderman120607.html

Poor, Not Dumb
A New Model for Sensible Reform of Healthcare
by Linda Halderman, M.D., FACS
Private Papers

Within the national debate over healthcare reform, an assumption has been revealed in several proposals: Healthcare decisions for poor Americans are best left to the U.S. Government.

As a former rural Breast Cancer surgeon whose practice consisted largely of uninsured and underinsured women, I’ve seen the quality of decision-making offered when decisions are shifted from patients and their doctors to Sacramento bureaucrats.

In 2006, Medi-Cal (California’s version of Medicaid) denied payment for one of my patient’s Breast Cancer surgery due to “incorrect gender.” She was as surprised as her doctor. After five appeals and nine months had elapsed, Medi-Cal finally paid me $253 for the two-hour cancer operation and 90 days of follow-up care.

Government Waste

So I am a bit skeptical at the reform proposals made by California’s Republican Governor and at least three Democratic Presidential candidates. All include a greater role for government in funding and directing medical care for lower income populations.

All would swell the number of citizens whose coverage is subsidized and managed under State and Federal programs.

Medi-Cal now covers one in six Californians, and the U.S. government currently spends 45% of its healthcare dollars to cover 27% of the population via Medicaid and Medicare.  U.S. taxpayers watch their hard-earned dollars wasted on inefficient, top-heavy bureaucracies with little accountability for how much is actually spent on patient care.

Earlier this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services admitted that millions of dollars were lost when the Atlanta-based oversight firm hired to detect Medicare payment fraud wrongfully rejected payments made to hospitals and doctors, making overpayment allegations on cases they were not authorized to review. This increased the corporation’s government-paid “bounty” for this work, a hefty $0.25-0.30 for every dollar of overpayment supposedly uncovered. Unraveling this attempt at accountability will likely take years.

The Current System

Currently, Medicaid expenditure per enrollee is nearly $7,000 per year. This high cost “health plan” gives recipients access to long wait times for fewer doctors, guaranteeing little ability to make healthcare decisions for themselves and their families. Arbitrary decisions made by government employees — nearly 6,000 in California alone — overrule recommendations made by doctors and nurses sitting beside their patients in exam rooms across the state.

Medicaid’s astonishing administrative costs compound the problem. According to 2005 data from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, over 31% of every dollar spent by Medicaid did nothing to provide medical treatment.

A New Way

There is a better way to help vulnerable Americans receive high quality medical care while protecting the taxpayer, without expanding an already bloated bureaucracy.

I propose that the $580 plus per month now paid for every man, woman and child covered by Medicaid would be more effectively, responsibly spent as follows:

1. Low cost private insurance plans are now available throughout the U.S. Instead of funneling $580 to Medicaid, a private health insurance policy with a $2,400 deductible could be purchased for less than $200 per month for most enrollees.  Private plans for healthy, younger recipients often cost less than $100 per month.

2. To cover this deductible for those without resources, a Health Savings Account (HSA) would be funded according to poverty level guidelines now used to determine Medicaid benefits.

For example, Medicaid recipients at 200% of the federal poverty level would have their HSA fully funded at $200 per month to cover the entire deductible, with a sliding scale for those with somewhat higher incomes.

3. For high-risk patients with chronic medical conditions, a risk pool like California’s “Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board” would be used to obtain more affordable policies than would otherwise be available. This protects taxpayers from the expense associated with covering sicker patients while ensuring that coverage remains available for those who need it most.

Under this model of Medicaid reform, the worst-case scenario would bring the $7,000 yearly federal and state expenditure down to $5,000 for every person covered. For younger, healthier patients covered by the program, costs would be considerably lower.

Common Sense Reform

This model, which uses low cost, high deductible plans with the safety net of a private Health Savings Account, reduces costs to the taxpayer. It offers accountability by limiting HSA use for qualified medical expenses.

It protects vulnerable patients from financial disaster during years when they need expensive medical care while lowering costs during “healthy” years instead of mandating ever-expanding Medicaid funding. It restores healthcare decision-making to patients and families with the guidance of their doctors instead of relegating these choices to a faceless “Treatment Authorization Request” form or government employee with the power to interfere in the most private of decisions…those involving our health.

Most important to me as a doctor whose rural practice was destroyed by the frustrating, unsustainable bureaucracy known as Medi-Cal, this model for reform increases quality healthcare access for those with few other options.

I sustained a personal and professional loss when I was forced to stop providing services as the only Breast Cancer Surgery specialist in a 70-mile radius in central California who still accepted Medi-Cal. I could no longer afford the $10,000-$15,000 monthly hemorrhage related to reimbursement so low it would be cheaper to close my office doors.

But my own loss is nothing compared with what the women who will be diagnosed with Breast Cancer in my community will face. “Coverage” with a government-funded “insurance plan” for them offers no coverage after all.

The stakes are high in the national healthcare reform debate. But the rewards of improving the way we approach care for those without resources are great.  I hope our legislators are listening; my patients surely are.

Dr. Halderman (www.lindahalderman.com) is a Board-Certified General Surgeon practicing in rural central California.
 
   
 
Thucydides said:
An American MD who worked under "Canadian Style Health Care" (Medi-Cal) describes her experience:

To equate Medi-Cal to any of the provincial health insurance plans is similiar to equating a "Durian" to an "orange".  Both are fruit, but a comparison of 'scent' and ease of use ends any further similiarity.  I would suggest that you review the Medi-Cal webpage along with one of the provincial health insurance plans.

Dr. Halderman, who did not make a comparison in her article, well describes the frustration that many health providers in California have with Medi-Cal reimbursement; it is not a provider friendly entity.  And when providers have a problem it is ultimately the patient who suffers.  I did get an impression from reading the piece that, while the writer may care about her patients, she is just as concerned (or maybe more) that she earn as much as possible. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)  Also, (in my opinion), her proposal may be overly optimistic with regard to acquiring (equal or better) coverage at the rates quoted.
 
TCBF said:
We can't make a 'business case' if we don't operate like a business. 

Because any business's main goal is profit...  ::) Of course you get the efficiency and quick access to care you want, but not everyone gets treated (especially those who can't pay) and can come at quite a price. Anyways, to each his own... :blotto:

RetiredGrunt,

Like you, I am probably am sick to death of the same "more govt. is bad because it leads to inefficient bureaucracy" argument and the "why the h*ll should I pay for those who can't afford with my taxes" argument when it comes to our health care system, but of course I've heard enough of this thread...

 
CougarDaddy said:
Because any business's main goal is profit...  ::)

Not if it's successful:  "Profit is like health.  You need it, and the more, the better.  But it's not why you exist." Peters & Waterman, In Search of Excellence
 
I_am_John_Galt said:
Not if it's successful:  "Profit is like health.  You need it, and the more, the better.  But it's not why you exist." Peters & Waterman, In Search of Excellence

[sarcasm]I read the business page of the G&M every day and profit seems to be what it is about. [/sarcasm]  :)
 
Baden  Guy said:
[sarcasm]I read the business page of the G&M every day and profit seems to be what it is about. [/sarcasm]  :)

That's what you get for reading the Grope 'n' Flail!  ::)
 
An interesting piece on the subject I came across the other day.  Although it is Wikipedia, it is verifiable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care.[1]

I thought this interesting as there is quite a bit of dirt-slinging from the US reference our Canadian health care system, as mentioned in earleir posts.  However, it is not we who have the 'weird system', it is the US that has a system different from most other Western countries.  Not that there's anything wrong with that....

 
Greymatters said:
An interesting piece on the subject I came across the other day.  Although it is Wikipedia, it is verifiable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care.[1]

I thought this interesting as there is quite a bit of dirt-slinging from the US reference our Canadian health care system, as mentioned in earleir posts.  However, it is not we who have the 'weird system', it is the US that has a system different from most other Western countries.  Not that there's anything wrong with that....

Keep reading ... Canada is the only industrialized country that has banned private medical insurance for services covered by the public health plan.
 
Greymatters said:
That will change eventually...

As any socialist system will always fail.

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Frederic Bastiat, Government
 
I_am_John_Galt said:
As any socialist system will always fail.

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Frederic Bastiat, Government

Comparing our health system to the failed "Socialist" economies of the East bloc is not a realistic comparison. You don't see the socialist economies of Scandinavian countries and the "Socialist" health systems of the Brits and the French flopping over and failing. Oh well...some people really distrust more govt., in the same way some people are unwilling to trust a private entity who is more concerned with profit at your expense...

I would never trust my money to a private health insurance company- such as the one called "Humanitas" described in Michael Moore's "Sicko" documentary which counts any denial of care to its clients when a sickness or emergency as a profit gain; it sickens me that such a company would give doctors bonuses for a monthly quota for the number of their clients they successfully investigated a claim they ended not paying for.

But of course, you don't care, since you see health care as a PRIVILIEGE, not a right. Anyways that's it...officially sick of this thread...
 
CougarDaddy said:
You don't see the socialist economies of Scandinavian countries and the "Socialist" health systems of the Brits and the French flopping over and failing.

Actually, our system is MORE socialist than any of those mentioned, and many of theirs are on the brink of failure as well.

A word to the wise: if you are planning to highlight the supposed virtues of socialized healthcare, you would do well to NOT mention the UK: I just did a quick google search for "NHS +crisis" and got 149,000 hits ... remember the first 3 weeks of August 2003 (when nearly 15,000 French died waiting for treatment)?  Even the Scandinavian countries are starting to recognize that socialized healthcare is doomed to failure:

Abstract: https://bora.uib.no/handle/1956/1377
Article: http://www.ub.uib.no/elpub/rokkan/N/N05-04.pdf

P.S> If Michael Mooreon is against something, it's probably pretty good: ever wonder why he has to lie and stretch the truth so much in his moves?
 
The greatest threats to the system are twofold: the top-heavy beaurocracy that overbalances every government system if left unchecked, and the increasing number of 'free riders' who do not pay into the system yet siphon off benefits. 
 
Greymatters said:
The greatest threats to the system are twofold: the top-heavy beaurocracy that overbalances every government system if left unchecked, and the increasing number of 'free riders' who do not pay into the system yet siphon off benefits. 

Ahh yes...the classic argument of the fear of an inefficient bureaucracy and the fear of freeriders...well that's still not good enough of a reason to completely dismantle the health care system and replace it with for-profit health insurance companies.  A better system of differentiating those who have "genuine need" and the "freeriders" should still be considered- any alternative- without having to resort to leaving those with lower incomes at the mercy of market forces. 

I'll even consider the option of private health insurance providers, though, provided there is a safeguard that prevents the  type of abuse of clients, as Moore pointed out in the film, where those companies would try to find any loophole or instance of incriminating medical history that would justify their denying their clients' care. The prosperity of the United States economy is not due to pure, unfettered capitalism, but because it has a MIXED economy with some govt. regulations like labor and anti-trust laws; using the same logic, if we do decide to privatize our health system on a massive scale, then it should be done so with laws and independent oversight groups that prevent such client abuse.

P.S> If Michael Mooreon is against something, it's probably pretty good: ever wonder why he has to lie and stretch the truth so much in his moves?

Okayyy...would you mind pointing out some instances in "Sicko" (or any of his other movies) that can be considered as just plain lies? Otherwise, something tells me that one is letting their bias against a particular liberal director cloud their judgement that they believe that person is still wrong even when presented with evidence. The "Swiftboating" of Sen. Kerry in the 2004 US Pres. elections come to mind as an example of this bias, since this group of veterans who had served on other boats in his Vietnam-era squadron smeared the circumstances in which Kerry earned his combat decorations, even when Kerry's own PBR/Swift Boat crew endorsed him, as well as enlisted veterans on other boats. 

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts.

But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records.

So please, before you lecture me about how "broken" the UK and France health systems are with simply a "quick google" search as evidence, please try to objectively consider his position (did you even watch the movie?) without resorting to the usual diatribes like calling Moore "Mooreon" and bury me with the usual statistics that can be manipulated to serve either side of the health care debate.

Otherwise, remember what Blackadder said earlier:

If all the anecdotal evidence of Canadians going to the USA for health care were accurate, my expectation would be that busloads of Canadians would be crossing the border each week heading to the nearest American medical provider in the same manner that they now head to the outlet malls.  But I don't think that south of the border medical use is as great as most people imagine. 

The only "steady stream of busloads" of Canadians who have been going over the border recently are people who have been taking advantage of the bargain purchases to be made due to the strong Looney vs. the US dollar, even if it has been going up and down.





 
The thought of trusting my life to a for profit health insurance corporation makes me a tad nervous.  Particularly when those corporations that are set there to "help you" spend significant amounts of money each year on finding ways not to cover their policy holders' claims.  If I should ever come down with a serious illness, I don't want some desk jockey combing through my medical records trying to find any evidence that either A) I 'lied' about my health history by omitting something as minor as having food posioning when I was 20, B) That anything in my past could indiciate that whatever illness I developed was a result of a preexisting condition. 

 
CougarDaddy said:
Okayyy...would you mind pointing out some instances in "Sicko" (or any of his other movies) that can be considered as just plain lies?

Okayyy ... Sicko: http://www.reason.com/news/show/120998.html
another of his movies: http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

Otherwise, something tells me that one is letting their bias against a particular liberal director cloud their judgement that they believe that person is still wrong even when presented with evidence.
Evidently, you are wrong: the falsehoods and misleading information (sometime grossly misleading) in his "documentaries" are well documented (I just provided you with two examples).

The "Swiftboating" of Sen. Kerry in the 2004 US Pres. elections come to mind as an example of this bias, since this group of veterans who had served on other boats in his Vietnam-era squadron smeared the circumstances in which Kerry earned his combat decorations, even when Kerry's own PBR/Swift Boat crew endorsed him, as well as enlisted veterans on other boats. 

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html
Uh yeah, sure ...I thought this thread was about healthcare.

So please, before you lecture me about how "broken" the UK and France health systems are with simply a "quick google" search as evidence,
Actually, I'm not lecturing you: I was gently trying to point out some basic information that anyone  with a passing familiarity with the subject (or even recent European current events) would be familiar-with.

please try to objectively consider his position (did you even watch the movie?) without resorting to the usual diatribes like calling Moore "Mooreon" and bury me with the usual statistics that can be manipulated to serve either side of the health care debate.

The NHS liquidity crisis is very well documented (I had hoped you might google it yourself): as it is, many of the trusts are massively in debt ... more than 10% are actually bankrupt! http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/tables/0,,1967876,00.html

Nearly 15,000 died in France in the August 2003 heatwave: the French Parliament itself blamed the deaths "on a complex health system, widespread failure among agencies and health services to coordinate efforts, and chronically insufficient care for the elderly." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/29/world/main570810.shtml

These are not manipulated statistics: "bankruptcy" is a legal term; the 14,802 deaths (I looked it up) are verifiably recorded.  The only thing here that is manipulated is Moore's audience!

Otherwise, remember what Blackadder said earlier:

The only "steady stream of busloads" of Canadians who have been going over the border recently are people who have been taking advantage of the bargain purchases to be made due to the strong Looney vs. the US dollar, even if it has been going up and down.
Yes, because we've paid so much for our "free and universal" healthcare (that doesn't provide the quality of service available in the US), we can't afford it. Besides, those who can, DO: http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/256600 And, according to that article, we don't know how steady the stream is (only that it exists):
The Canadian Cancer Society also says it is impossible to determine how many citizens of this country travel each year to the United States for private cancer treatment, since records are only kept if they apply in some way for compensation.

 
On the other hand, My children routinely have to wait 6+ months to see an allergist, and after sustaining an injury in Sept of this year, I will finally have corrective surgery at the end of Feb 2008. This is hardly unusual, other members of my family have also had prolonged waiting times for medical treatment, as have people who I am in contact with on a day to day basis (both through work and socially).

"Work arounds" include sending me or other people needing treatment to other cities (and sometimes even the United States), since there were no doctors or treatment options available.

This *might* make sense if we lived in some third world nation, but since government spending on health care consumes such a vast portion of the provincial budget, I think the argument for inefficient bureaucracy seems to be pretty well established. 
 
Galt,

Thanks in particular for the Dave Kopel link; it was especially informative. :salute:
 
I_am_John_Galt said:
As any socialist system will always fail.

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Frederic Bastiat, Government

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Sir Winston Churchill
British politician (1874 - 1965)

I have been exposed to studies on most of the western health care systems. Ours isn't perfect but it is debatable if there are countries with one that is considerably better. It is a worthy work in progress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top