Page 130 of 143 FirstFirst ... 3080120125126127128129130131132133134135140 ... LastLast
Results 2,581 to 2,600 of 2855
  1. #2581  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Additionally, I think it is fair to say that the Canadian system has its own flaws as well.
    KAM
    Yep. However, in my personal experience, the strengths greatly out shined the weaknesses when compared to how things operate in the USA. At least that was my experiance as a very typical middle class Canadian.

    That said my performance gauge is generally very different from many American's I know. A Canadian will look at healthcare issues from a "how will it affect us?" view point and an American will look at healthcare issues from a "how will it affect me?" view point. For that reason a Canadian style system will never materialize here.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  2. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2582  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Yep. However, in my personal experience, the strengths greatly out shined the weaknesses when compared to how things operate in the USA. At least that was my experiance as a very typical middle class Canadian.

    That said my performance gauge is generally very different from many American's I know. A Canadian will look at healthcare issues from a "how will it affect us?" view point and an American will look at healthcare issues from a "how will it affect me?" view point. For that reason a Canadian style system will never materialize here.
    Well, I won't get into the differences between Canadian and American Mindset.

    Let me ask you this--you said you have health insurance here. How does your experience compare in terms of actual health care (not considering cost issues for a moment). Do you feel that you've gotten poor or inferior health service here in the United States compared to in Canada? If so, in what way?

    I've never lived under the Canadian system, but other than costs, my (or my families) health service has been pretty good. I've been annoyed at the lack of response in getting OUT of a hospital for example, but that's really a logistics issue, rather than the actual care.

    A side note--what made you move to the US? Job opportunity? Family?

    KAM
  3. #2583  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Let me ask you this--you said you have health insurance here. How does your experience compare in terms of actual health care (not considering cost issues for a moment). Do you feel that you've gotten poor or inferior health service here in the United States compared to in Canada? If so, in what way?
    Suture for suture I would say that for me the experience has been the same. A visit to the doctors office or hospital goes very much like it did back in Canada. The public face of the systems are very similar.

    The only noticeable difference thus far is the "payment" aspect. The bit where you need to make sure that what is going to happen to you is 100% covered by the insurance provider. Naturally this part is nonexistent up north. I haven't had any coverage issues yet but it felt real strange knowing that a commercial company was the one making a choice about what kind of care I would be having (or at least the care they will pay for).

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    A side note--what made you move to the US? Job opportunity? Family?
    KAM
    My wife. She did a fellowship at Wash-U Medical School here in STL. Once done she was offered a faculty/medical director position so we decided to say for a while, bought a home and are giving the American experience a try.
    Last edited by ryleyinstl; 03/02/2010 at 01:57 PM.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  4. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2584  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Suture for suture I would say that for me the experience has been the same. A visit to the doctors office or hospital goes very much like it did back in Canada.
    I ask, because when I hear blanket statements like "The US has the 14th Best Healthcare" I wonder what goes into making that ranking up.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    The only noticeable difference is the "payment" aspect. The bit where you need to make sure that what is going to happen to you is 100% covered by the insurance provider. Naturally this part is nonexistent up north. I haven't had any coverage issues yet but it felt real strange knowing that a commercial company was the one making a choice about what kind of care I would be having (or atleast the care they would pay for).
    Well, in the US the Government doesn't just pay for everything either. Medicare defines what they will or will not pay for, which I guess is why the elderly often carry supplemental insurance.

    You state that it is sort of strange having a commercial company making a choice about what care you will be having. I've been lucky to never have a major medical incident, but family members have, and I don't recall them ever talking about any details of what is or isn't covered--they simply did what they wanted, and weeks later we get a statement that says X, Y Z in terms of cost (very poor documents in my view). In other words, in my experience the "what" never came into play with the insurance issue at the time of care. I'm sure in some cases it could.

    However, I'm not sure if there is any difference in who/what is between you and your doctor (in the case they are), whether it is a private insurance company or a government agency. Neither should be in the position of determining care. Of course, effectively whoever holds the purse-strings has a say.

    I suggest that theoretically my system (that involves only patient and provider) is superior to either a private insurance system or a government system, because there is no third party involved...at all. The problem with that is...surprise, cost, once again. At this time, under this manipulated system where costs reflect things totally unrelated to your care, this is difficult if not impossible. There is no theoretical reason that this transaction can't be as simple and direct as me paying for a lunch. Getting there...well, that's a lot more tricky, but in my view, you determine the idea situation, and then pursue it to the extent possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    My wife. She did a fellowship at Wash-U Medical School here in STL. Once done she was offered a faculty/medical director position so we decided to say for a while, bought a home and are giving the American experience a try.
    I see, thanks for the info.

    KAM
  5. piaband's Avatar
    Posts
    275 Posts
    Global Posts
    570 Global Posts
    #2585  
    And here it is today KAM. You CAN use HSA's in Obamacare. Cmon man, did you ever doubt me?

    washingtonpost.com

    "and ensuring that people who buy insurance on so-called insurance exchanges could participate in Health Savings Accounts"
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2586  
    Quote Originally Posted by piaband View Post
    And here it is today KAM. You CAN use HSA's in Obamacare. Cmon man, did you ever doubt me?

    "and ensuring that people who buy insurance on so-called insurance exchanges could participate in Health Savings Accounts"
    That in my view is vital. We will see if it makes it into the final legislation. If this is one of the 4 Republican ideas, then that would seem to indicate that it hadn't been included in previous legislation.

    Currently, I believe you are only eligible if you have a high deductible plan, and I believe that other article referred to those sorts of plans being eliminated, but if they alter the law to allow for this, as I said--that would be good.

    Doubt you...never.

    KAM
  7. #2587  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I ask, because when I hear blanket statements like "The US has the 14th Best Healthcare" I wonder what goes into making that ranking up.
    Good question. Do they base that on the average "middle class" guy? The homeless guy?" The CEO of Palm? Is it based on quality, equality or both?

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post

    Well, in the US the Government doesn't just pay for everything either. Medicare defines what they will or will not pay for, which I guess is why the elderly often carry supplemental insurance.

    You state that it is sort of strange having a commercial company making a choice about what care you will be having. I've been lucky to never have a major medical incident, but family members have, and I don't recall them ever talking about any details of what is or isn't covered--they simply did what they wanted, and weeks later we get a statement that says X, Y Z in terms of cost (very poor documents in my view). In other words, in my experience the "what" never came into play with the insurance issue at the time of care. I'm sure in some cases it could.

    However, I'm not sure if there is any difference in who/what is between you and your doctor (in the case they are), whether it is a private insurance company or a government agency. Neither should be in the position of determining care. Of course, effectively whoever holds the purse-strings has a say.

    I suggest that theoretically my system (that involves only patient and provider) is superior to either a private insurance system or a government system, because there is no third party involved...at all. The problem with that is...surprise, cost, once again. At this time, under this manipulated system where costs reflect things totally unrelated to your care, this is difficult if not impossible. There is no theoretical reason that this transaction can't be as simple and direct as me paying for a lunch. Getting there...well, that's a lot more tricky, but in my view, you determine the idea situation, and then pursue it to the extent possible.
    KAM
    The American public system and the Canadian Public System are kilometers apart in how they operate. In Canada, as far as I knew, every option was always available to you (if it wasn't available to me then it wasn't available to anyone else in the Provence). Treatment for a condition was decided by you and your doctor. While tax dollars ultimately "pay" for your treatment the government funds the system only and end users are never aware of the costs involved. The governments involvement is basically to collect the money (via income taxes), to provide oversight and to insure that everyone is getting comparable care. At no time are your day to day choices directly dictated by bureaucrats.

    Just as a background....Generally in Canada, day to day healthcare is administered by health authorities or health regions. These regions very in size and scope depending on the complexity of each Province. They are basically run like non profit corporations which are 100% funded by the Provincial Government. Each region will submit a yearly budget to the Provincial Health Minister that it feels is necessary to provide appropriate healthcare via the resources within it's control (hospitals, clinics, doctors, etc...).

    As you say. A system that eliminates all players but the sick and the service provider would likely be more cost effective than anything going on in North America right now. Would it be affordable for everyone?
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2588  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Good question. Do they base that on the average "middle class" guy? The homeless guy?" The CEO of Palm? Is it based on quality, equality or both?
    I imagine it is an mixture of all of this, but by what means I do not know.


    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    The American public system and the Canadian Public System are kilometers apart in how they operate. In Canada, as far as I knew, every option was always available to you (if it wasn't available to me then it wasn't available to anyone else in the Provence). Treatment for a condition was decided by you and your doctor. While tax dollars ultimately "pay" for your treatment the government funds the system only and end users are never aware of the costs involved. The governments involvement is basically to collect the money (via income taxes), to provide oversight and to insure that everyone is getting comparable care. At no time are your day to day choices directly dictated by bureaucrats.
    So, do doctors just receive a flat salary?

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Just as a background....Generally in Canada, day to day healthcare is administered by health authorities or health regions. These regions very in size and scope depending on the complexity of each Province. They are basically run like non profit corporations which are 100% funded by the Provincial Government. Each region will submit a yearly budget to the Provincial Health Minister that it feels is necessary to provide appropriate healthcare via the resources within it's control (hospitals, clinics, doctors, etc...).

    As you say. A system that eliminates all players but the sick and the service provider would likely be more cost effective than anything going on in North America right now. Would it be affordable for everyone?
    Well, the truth is that there are people that no matter how much it costs will not be able to afford it. Some people can't afford a home, a vehicle, food, etc. let alone health care. The existence of the poor is really another issue, and they have to be taken care of in any case (or not).

    The question I'd ask is if average healthcare costs (actual services, not insurance) can be paid for by an average family. I think most people would agree that is not the case currently. This in itself is evidence that we do not have a free market system for healthcare.

    Let's take a broken arm--I am not sure of the cost, but I'd expect that it is thousands of dollars to have that treated. That is likely higher than an average family could afford which means one of two things if there were a free market system. 1) No one would get their broken arm fixed, or 2) That cost would come down. Now, given that doctors are in business to make money by treating patients, it is likely that 1 isn't the result. So, in this simple example a direct payer, market system would make the cost come down.

    Somehow, due to decades of manipulated non-free market system, a middle class person is paying taxes to support the uninsured to the government, AND elevated costs via their insurance as well.

    KAM
  9. #2589  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Yep. However, in my personal experience, the strengths greatly out shined the weaknesses when compared to how things operate in the USA. At least that was my experiance as a very typical middle class Canadian.

    That said my performance gauge is generally very different from many American's I know. A Canadian will look at healthcare issues from a "how will it affect us?" view point and an American will look at healthcare issues from a "how will it affect me?" view point. For that reason a Canadian style system will never materialize here.
    Congratulations. You put your finger on the crux of the problem. "Us" always takes a back seat to "me". The one exception is when "we" go to war. Then there's a concern about "the country". Otherwise, it's everyone for themselves.
  10. #2590  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    So, do doctors just receive a flat salary?
    Nope...they are paid per patient visit/procedure. That rate is set by the Provincial Government.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Somehow, due to decades of manipulated non-free market system, a middle class person is paying taxes to support the uninsured to the government, AND elevated costs via their insurance as well.
    KAM
    A bit strange isn't it. All for the same (or higher) per capita cost than other nations are providing heathcare to all for.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  11. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2591  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Nope...they are paid per patient visit/procedure. That rate is set by the Provincial Government.
    Interesting, so what's different about American and Canadian Doctors that there is never any disagreement about what is or isn't needed? Do Canadian doctors get paid regardless--of what tests, treatments, etc they order for a patient? What is to keep a doctor from padding his bill--not by lying, but simply by being extra thorough? Is there no one that ever says "that wasn't necessary, we aren't paying for it." If not, then Canada must indeed have some highly ethical doctors. Or perhaps Canadian doctors just have better practical sense, and make better decisions. Or perhaps they aren't living in fear of malpractice. I really don't know, but if they are essentially paid a fixed amount how is that any different than American Doctors? After all--if insurance companies are saying what they will and won't pay for, then the price is essentially fixed here as well (excepting they seem to push that limit some degree draining the patient a bit more). Medicare I believe sets limits for a given procedure, and insurance companies have a "Customary" price I think that they will pay for a given procedure.

    As far as payment goes--it actually sounds relatively similar--there is some entity that sets the price, but I guess the major difference here is that American Doctors don't just take that price--they routinely charge more (at least that is my experience) than the customary amount.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    A bit strange isn't it. All for the same (or higher) per capita cost than other nations are providing heathcare to all for.
    Yes, which says, the money is being spent very unwisely/inefficiently. OR (perhaps and/or) the actual services are actually much greater in volume and complexity.

    A per capital amount spent really doesn't address what it's being spent on. A ludicrous example--if everyone in American had Heart attacks and no one in Canada did, obviously the per capita cost would be more.

    The better comparison would be to look at the cost differences for a given procedure. Then break that all down as to where each dollar is going.

    What's the cost difference to run the same size hospital in Canada. What is the average yearly income of a Canadian Doctor compared to that of an American one?

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 03/02/2010 at 04:14 PM.
  12. #2592  
    My wife has worked in both systems. She tells me that the end medical result for the patient is generally the same.

    However how they get there can be quite different. Here in the USA she says it's all about balancing the best care for your patient versus cost recovery for that care back to the hospital from insurance plans/Medicare/Medicaid. For example, Test A is the medically correct and cost effective test to diagnose some kind of issue. However the patients insurance coverage will not cover that test for some reason. So the hospital either has to eat the cost of test A or they have to run the less effective and/or costlier test B (and or other "approvable" tests). Generally all this will go on without the knowledge of the patient.

    Back home the primary care Dr and lab physician could determine the best medically and cost effective test to run and run it. The cost of providing that care would have already been requested by the health authority from the Provincial Government in that years budget based on decades of experience.

    In both situations someone has to pay. However in the USA the diagnosis path is predetermined by a corporation which exists to make money for it's shareholders. While (up north) the local health authority is trying to do the best job for you that they can with what they have been given.

    As an Alien I don't have the ability to participate in the democratic process here and try to help the change along (as it should be really). All I have are my opinions.
    Last edited by ryleyinstl; 03/02/2010 at 05:21 PM.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  13. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2593  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    My wife has worked in both systems. She tells me that the end medical result for the patient is generally the same.
    Which then supports the idea that cost is really the issue that drives the less than stellar rating for the US healthcare system. Perhaps access as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    However how they get there can be quite different. Here in the USA she says it's all about balancing the best care for your patient versus cost recovery for that care back to the hospital from insurance plans/Medicare/Medicaid. For example, Test A is the medically correct and cost effective test to diagnose some kind of issue. However the patients insurance coverage will not cover that test for some reason. So the hospital either has to eat the cost of test A or they have to run the less effective and/or costlier test B (and or other "approvable" tests). Generally all this will go on without the knowledge of the patient.
    So you are claiming that Doctors in the United States are performing medically incorrect tests, because insurance companies don't cover the proper one? That's quite a startling claim--that doctors throughout the country are performing inferior tests. That would seem to violate medical ethics--to intentionally provide inferior services.

    You said to prevent the hospital from "eating" the costs. What makes you say that? In my experience, a patient is responsible for whatever insurance doesn't cover--they pass those on. I know this from personal experience--they happily charged me for everything that Insurance didn't pay for, so I'm not seeing why this would be different with the tests you speak of.

    What benefit does an insurance company have from favoring a more costly test? How does it benefit them to pay MORE out?

    What are the odds that the "correct" test would always be the less effective and more expensive? Why would anyone even offer a test that is inferior in result and cost?

    Interesting to note that key point--that the Patient is not included in this--the customer is removed from the process, which helps this occur. Patients are sold the idea that they are given what is most effective/appropriate for them. What you seem to be saying is that isn't the case. That doesn't sound ethical to me. Either they are getting less than effective treatment or boosted costs.


    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Back home the primary care Dr and lab physician could determine the best medically and cost effective test to run and run it. The cost of providing that care would have already been requested by the health authority from the Provincial Government in that years budget based on decades of experience.
    Sure, makes sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    In both situations someone has to pay. However in the USA the diagnosis path is predetermined by a corporation which exists to make money for it's shareholders. While (up north) the local health authority is trying to do the best job for you that they can with what they have been given.
    Is the corporation you are referring to an insurance company? How does the insurance company make more money by favoring a less effective or more costly test?

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    As an Alien I don't have the ability to participate in the democratic process here and try to help the change along (as it should be really). All I have are my opinions.
    Naturally.

    KAM
  14. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2594  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    My wife has worked in both systems. She tells me that the end medical result for the patient is generally the same.

    However how they get there can be quite different. Here in the USA she says it's all about balancing the best care for your patient versus cost recovery for that care back to the hospital from insurance plans/Medicare/Medicaid. For example, Test A is the medically correct and cost effective test to diagnose some kind of issue. However the patients insurance coverage will not cover that test for some reason. So the hospital either has to eat the cost of test A or they have to run the less effective and/or costlier test B (and or other "approvable" tests). Generally all this will go on without the knowledge of the patient.

    Back home the primary care Dr and lab physician could determine the best medically and cost effective test to run and run it. The cost of providing that care would have already been requested by the health authority from the Provincial Government in that years budget based on decades of experience.

    In both situations someone has to pay. However in the USA the diagnosis path is predetermined by a corporation which exists to make money for it's shareholders. While (up north) the local health authority is trying to do the best job for you that they can with what they have been given.

    As an Alien I don't have the ability to participate in the democratic process here and try to help the change along (as it should be really). All I have are my opinions.
    So, in effect, you're saying that the end result is the same but in our system an evil corporation profits from it while in Canada the kind, good-hearted bureaucrats who are just looking out for the patient's best interest decide the level of care. Do I have that about right?
  15. #2595  
    Don't charge more than you deserve.

    k.i.s.s.
  16. #2596  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    So, in effect, you're saying that the end result is the same but in our system an evil corporation profits from it while in Canada the kind, good-hearted bureaucrats who are just looking out for the patient's best interest decide the level of care. Do I have that about right?
    no, at no time does a some govt official decide what care you get. its up to the doctor (s).
  17. #2597  
    Thanks for your view on your system Kam.
    Now, and please correct me if I have misunderstood any of the above, your saying that the mishandling, misuse, abuse, etc etc, by both the private and govt is at fault for your present situation in health care. I have read that some would like to see things like the FDA and other govt type over sight groups to be removed, done away with. This along with a total purge of govt types would allow a true free market system to evolve, that this would allow your health care system to do its job.

    I would point to one thing, that may be the monkey wrench in that idea. People. Be they insurance corp executives, doctors, lab techs, hell the actual patients. The concept that its all about me is your one major problem. You dont trust govt to run things, frankly I dont trust corps to run things. So many here point to the waste and mismanagement of govt. Yet I have seen documented case after documented case, ( you know, the ones where corps have polluted ground water, in the name of profit, just as an example) where the corps have put the almighty dollar a head of the people living in a given area. I have read documented cases where, hospitals charge thousands of dollars for a band aid, back to your govt medicare system. When they get caught, oooopsssy.. that was an over sight, we will fire someone.
    Is our system here in canada perfect, no, but i dont have to worry that my kids will die for lack of a vaccination, or any bloody other thing. I dont have to worry about some hospital charging me 100s of thousands of dollars for a hospital stay.
    Yes you have problems down there, as we do up here, yes i pay more in taxes. I dont have to worry about be sent to another hospital 40 blocks away, because i do or dont have insurance.

    There has been much talk about what is wrong with what Obama is doing. I have a question, if H1N1 had been as nasty as originally fore casted. What the hell would have the states done? you have millions of under insured or not insured people. Who are afraid to enter your hospitals due to a justified fear of being robbed by them for a simple vaccine shot. Leaving millions with out the basic protection from this lil virus. Just who would you be blaming if that lil virus had run rampant, killing 10s of thousands perhaps 100s of thousands of people, all for the want of a simple, but due to your system, expensive shot.
  18. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2598  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    no, at no time does a some govt official decide what care you get. its up to the doctor (s).
    But as Ryley noted, if the bureaucrat deems something not cost effective then its not even available for the doctor to suggest. Do I have that right? Or are you saying the doctor can prescribe any treatment no matter the cost?
  19. #2599  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post

    You said to prevent the hospital from "eating" the costs. What makes you say that? In my experience, a patient is responsible for whatever insurance doesn't cover--they pass those on. I know this from personal experience--they happily charged me for everything that Insurance didn't pay for, so I'm not seeing why this would be different with the tests you speak of.

    What benefit does an insurance company have from favoring a more costly test? How does it benefit them to pay MORE out?

    What are the odds that the "correct" test would always be the less effective and more expensive? Why would anyone even offer a test that is inferior in result and cost?



    KAM
    Just a host more examples of why your opinion about anything to do with health care is a waste of bandwidth. You clearly don't even understand the variety of health plans that exist. All patients are NOT responsible for costs exceeding the amount that insurance pays. That depends entirely on the kind of health plan you belong to. Doctors and hospitals that accept assignment from Medicare agree to accept totally what Medicare pays. The patients are not billed anything extra. The same is true of most HMO's that have contractual arrangements with physicians. By signing a contract, the physician agrees to accept what is given by the insurance company.

    Sometimes spending more money on a more sensitive test will save money and prevent additional testing if it is used in the first place. And lastly, when you sprain your ankle badly, do you think you need an MRI? After all, that would be the "best" test to find out what happened to your ankle. The fact is that a good physical exam with a follow-up xray if you don't improve is just as good, and costs thousands less. That's why we "offer a test that is inferior in result and cost? ".

    Really. The more you post, the less it appears you know what you're talking about. Study a bit more and then maybe your opinions will make some sense.
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2600  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    Thanks for your view on your system Kam.
    Now, and please correct me if I have misunderstood any of the above, your saying that the mishandling, misuse, abuse, etc etc, by both the private and govt is at fault for your present situation in health care. I have read that some would like to see things like the FDA and other govt type over sight groups to be removed, done away with. This along with a total purge of govt types would allow a true free market system to evolve, that this would allow your health care system to do its job.
    I'm saying that we have had a manipulated system for decades, and it has led us to where we are.

    I have not advocated the removal of the FDA however, although I think it is probably in need of some reform. I also haven't argued for a "total purge." For example, I see government having a valuable role as a third-party arbiter between insurance companies and customers. There are many claims of what is essentially fraud against insurance customers, and I think the government is obligated in our legal system to enforce laws against such things. I think a better idea is to set up a streamlined system that can handle such claims quickly and efficiently because someone needing health care can't wait years for a court case. These are areas the government is well suited to participate.

    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    I would point to one thing, that may be the monkey wrench in that idea. People. Be they insurance corp executives, doctors, lab techs, hell the actual patients. The concept that its all about me is your one major problem. You dont trust govt to run things, frankly I dont trust corps to run things. So many here point to the waste and mismanagement of govt. Yet I have seen documented case after documented case, ( you know, the ones where corps have polluted ground water, in the name of profit, just as an example) where the corps have put the almighty dollar a head of the people living in a given area. I have read documented cases where, hospitals charge thousands of dollars for a band aid, back to your govt medicare system. When they get caught, oooopsssy.. that was an over sight, we will fire someone.
    Well, what you stated isn't what I advocated. Further, I do not shield corporations from the blame in any of this. Government AND these companies are both guilty in bringing us where they have.
    My actual preference is to scale back the role of insurance companies as well, putting them back in their proper role as well--as "insurance" against major unforeseen problems, not middle men in every medical transaction. This improper role is also a major reason costs are skyrocketing--the illusion that they can or should provide payment for common (non-catastrophic) medical needs.

    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    Is our system here in canada perfect, no, but i dont have to worry that my kids will die for lack of a vaccination, or any bloody other thing. I dont have to worry about some hospital charging me 100s of thousands of dollars for a hospital stay.
    Well, I'm not sure what a hospital charges in Canada, but someone is paying for it--just by an even less direct method. I don't think the method of payment is as much of an issue as the cost itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    Yes you have problems down there, as we do up here, yes i pay more in taxes. I dont have to worry about be sent to another hospital 40 blocks away, because i do or dont have insurance.
    I don't have to worry about being sent to a hospital 40 blocks away either.

    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    There has been much talk about what is wrong with what Obama is doing. I have a question, if H1N1 had been as nasty as originally fore casted. What the hell would have the states done? you have millions of under insured or not insured people. Who are afraid to enter your hospitals due to a justified fear of being robbed by them for a simple vaccine shot. Leaving millions with out the basic protection from this lil virus. Just who would you be blaming if that lil virus had run rampant, killing 10s of thousands perhaps 100s of thousands of people, all for the want of a simple, but due to your system, expensive shot.
    What makes you think that this wouldn't have happened with Federal level interaction as well (I assume you mean individual States when you said "states")? In my view, our country is ill prepared for this sort of event (were it to happen) period.

    Was the cost of the shot a problem? My insurance company offered free shots, but what does that matter, when they weren't available in quantity in order to cover everyone anyway?

    If a hospital is gouging someone for a flu shot that certainly is a problem, which is why I was happy to see places like local drug stores and community centers offering them as well.

    KAM

Posting Permissions