<p>sjmom, the article about Belinda Stronach is irrelevant to this debate. The procedure she went to California for, and which was recommended by her CANADIAN doctors, who by the way completed ALL of her other cancer treatment in a timely fashion, was part of her reconstructive surgery. The physician in California is known all over the world for being the best at this type of final reconstruction of the breast. How does her situation have anything at all to do with the nationalized healthcare debate? The answer is that it doesn’t.</p>
<p>". The physician in California is known all over the world for being the best at this type of final reconstruction of the breast. "</p>
<p>Hmmmm. I think the answer is that it is relevant to wonder how nationalized healthcare would impact innovation, expertise, specialization and “being the best” with regard to physicians, pharmaceuticals and technology. I don’t have an answer but I do think it is a valid question that people of good will can ask, don’t you?</p>
<p>"disadvantage - overhead and profit. They are stupendously inefficient, "</p>
<p>mini… and this improves when you take over mini?</p>
<p>No, lose the ceos and you make a minor dent. You aren’t going to lose the people who do the real work in these companies… that’s a bogus arguement. I think you full of bs to even imply that the people who WORK in that industry are slacking around… you have absolutely no idea mini, you’re just guessing. </p>
<p>Go spend a day in a claims room, see the pressure these people work under before you tell anybody they’re screwing around. You have no idea.</p>
<p>I hate corp bigwigs as much as the next guy, maybe more than you, but it is unfair of you to imply everybody working in that system works poorly and at a lesser rate than you do in olympia. That’s nosense. you have no idea.</p>
<p>While canada recently has improved due to oil revenues, it is also unwise to imply they will always be better, because at one time they weren’t. If you’re going to cherry pick your years, you will always win your arguement. It won’t be true of course, but that doesn’t matter. </p>
<p>You’re not the only one to spend time in the great white north. Their system has problems too, it ain’t perfect and it ain’t efficent.</p>
<p>The British system while far from perfect seems to work well for most. It has the National health program which covers everyone and is at times painfully slow, but does provide a safety net for the poor and needy. It also has a system of private health plans for those who can afford them and want to jump the queue. I think that the US will have to adopt something similar. An additional amount added to social security payments should provide coverage for those most in need. After all we can provide it to the Iraqi’s and senators etc. Why not everyone?</p>
<p>“impact innovation, expertise, specialization and “being the best” with regard to physicians, pharmaceuticals and technology.”</p>
<p>it’s a great question and the other side of the why we need to nationalize and what could dissappear. The things you mention are not present in places that have NHC to the extent they are here. There’s some, but not alot. Do we want to grind innovation to a halt? Not alot of wonder cures coming from Calgary Alberta these days?</p>
<p>“My feeling is that as soon as the government gets involved in things, it goes from bad to worse in short order.”</p>
<p>So let me tell you about that. My d. required an operation for an athletic injury (knee). The doc we wanted to perform the surgery was actually on the private HMOs’ panel. But in 8 1/2 months, we couldn’t get a referral to him, and paid out of pocket to have her seen. We changed to the GOVERNMENT-RUN, SINGLE-PAYOR, BUUREAUCRATIC, DMV-TYPE insurance. On January 3rd, 5:30 a.m. - a Monday - the first slot of the new year (when we could change insurance), she was operated upon, and back in the gym in two weeks. </p>
<p>Now it was the same doc. Since in both cases his charges are picked up by the insurance, he got the same amount of money. My d. got the same operation, by the same doc, in the same hospital. But in the case of the private insurer (considered one of the top HMOs in the country), they spent literally thousands keeping her away from the doc (you don’t want all the gory details). In the single-payor plan, she was operated on within an hour of the insurance taking effect. Oh, did I tell you that my premiums are two-thirds lower on the single-payor plan?</p>
<p>Let 'em compete side-by-side. Make a list of the services that are to be covered, etc., and let 'em compete on price and quality. Then people can vote with their dollars. (The Edwards Plan would have health insurers shivering in their boots - they know the same thing I do - they can’t compete. But wouldn’t it be great if they could?)</p>
<p>"No, lose the ceos and you make a minor dent. You aren’t going to lose the people who do the real work in these companies… that’s a bogus arguement. I think you full of bs to even imply that the people who WORK in that industry are slacking around… you have absolutely no idea mini, you’re just guessing. "</p>
<p>Excuse me, but I worked for a decade for the State Board of Health, and provided data analysis for the Washington Health Care Commission. I don’t think they are slacking at all!!! On the contrary, I know they are working very, very hard to do precisely what they are charged as their first duty to do - to provide the highest possible rate of return to their shareholders. Those folks who work very, very hard to manage administrative costs know how to get promoted. My former doc (who I liked very much) even received quarterly incentive payments for not making needed referrals. </p>
<p>There aren’t ANY slackers. (We might be better off if there were, but that’s another issue).</p>
<p>Why are you opposed to competition?</p>
<p>“it’s a great question and the other side of the why we need to nationalize and what could dissappear. The things you mention are not present in places that have NHC to the extent they are here. There’s some, but not alot. Do we want to grind innovation to a halt? Not alot of wonder cures coming from Calgary Alberta these days?”</p>
<p>Isn’t it something we could all talk about respectfully (I mean the national debate)? I find that very important.</p>
<p>The next question is, do you want to pay Canadian tax rates?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_economies_compared[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_economies_compared</a></p>
<p>My feeling is that national healthcare, like that in Canada or Britain, seems preferable to most people – until they have a major medical crisis.</p>
<p>"Let 'em compete side-by-side. Make a list of the services that are to be covered, etc., and let 'em compete on price and quality. "</p>
<p>How would you do that as a practical matter? I would be concerned that the amount of things required to be covered across the board would become to enormous that rationing would follow. I would also be concerned that if/when a person is required to have coverage in order to be employed, the things required to be covered wouldn’t necessarily have much to do with the individual, driving costs up. I’d also worry about having the government be the final arbiter of what should/shouldn’t be covered and how.</p>
<p>“My feeling is that national healthcare, like that in Canada or Britain, seems preferable to most people – until they have a major medical crisis.”</p>
<p>I’m not a fan because I think, barring people in truly great need, the government shouldn’t be mandating this. I also want to know who would be covered. My Senator hasn’t addressed the issue of illegal immigrants and coverate.</p>
<p>mini, I have to say that your daughter’s experience sounds like an anomaly to me. I have had major surgery three times in the past 25 years, and delivered two children. I’ve never had to wait for surgery any longer than I wanted to, and I’ve honestly never heard of anyone with private health insurance having to wait 8 months.</p>
<p>But I’ve often heard of people in Canada or the US waiting a very long time for non-emergency, but necessary medical procedures.</p>
<p>I think the opposite is true, emergency care in Britain is every bit as good as the US, I know - I have experienced both first hand and I did not have to worry about being bankrupted in England or try to figure out how to pay for long-term care if I lost my job due to it. The area where national health care falls short is in non-urgent care. In this case I would much prefer the US private system.</p>
<p>mini’s experience is not an anomaly at all. Many folks go thru the same process every year.</p>
<p>Mini and family chose an HMO (thru open enrollment?) and then found out that it had gate-keepers when they wanted services. Family then changed to a PPO (during open enrollment?) and was able to choose their own providers. It is Plan competition side-by-sdie. However, what is missing is the state’s costs for each plan, not family’s premiums…</p>
<p>opie, the snide comment about Calgary was unnecessary. Are you insinuating that no important medical research is done in Canada, as a result of the healthcare system? If so, you might like to take a look at this link to a limited list of medical breakthroughs which have occurred in the labs of a single Canadian university. My brother-in-law is part of the research there, and it is a fraction of what is happening in the city, in the province, and across the country. Oh, and have you heard of Frederick Banting? Charles Best? Fraser Mustard? Bruce Chown? Jean Dussault? Victor Ling?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.facmed.utoronto.ca/alumni/breakthroughs.htm[/url]”>http://www.facmed.utoronto.ca/alumni/breakthroughs.htm</a></p>
<p>As I’ve probably mentioned every time this topic comes up on CC, no, the Canadian system is not perfect but having lived between both countries for my entire adult life, and having had to experience everything from colds to cancer in both, I would choose the Canadian system every time. Even with its faults, it’s a better system, and I don’t just mean in relation to the millions and millions of Americans who do not have healthcare. I’m talking about a comparison between the best of U.S. healthcare, which is what our family was fortunate enough to have, and Canadian healthcare. Are there ways in which the Canadian system could be improved? Without a doubt. Are there likely to be real problems implementing the same system in the U.S.? Of course. However, to simply state that the Canadian system stinks isn’t productive.</p>
<p>So, is it fair to say that nationalized healthcare is more like an HMO and private care is more like a PPO?</p>
<p>Alwaysamom, we’ve also lived under both systems and our experiences have been the opposite of yours. I’m sure we can all come up with anecdotes based on our own experiences. It would be great if we could just pick and choose the best aspects of each system, but that’s probably not possible. So, I think we’ll stick to the US side of the border.</p>
<p>By the way, I don’t think I’ve ever said that the Canadian system stinks - it was great for everyday needs. It just didn’t work for us when we had a more serious situation.</p>
<p>sjmom, your experience sounds like an anomaly to me.</p>
<p>(your words!)</p>
<p>Which experience is that?</p>
<p>The issue with your H that you said drove you to seek treatment in the US.</p>
<p>(And whatever other nebulous ones you’re referring to when you say that your experience in Canada was so much worse than in the US)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I like this little bit of rhetorical deception in today’s Wall Street Journal Republican editorial. They conveniently overlook the fact that today’s “pay or play” tax is zero, thus significantly less than the cost of any insurance plan. But, wait? Many businesses don’t “dump their coverage” and “pay the tax” (zero) because offering health insurance to their employees is not only the right thing to do, but essential to compete for quality employees.</p>
<p>I spent five years in Germany. I’d take their health care system over ours any day. I never got really sick, but I did have a baby there, and my husband had to go to the emergency room and have back problems treated. We chose our doctor, we never saw any paperwork. We never had doctors that supposedly took our insurance and then sent us bills for the stuff the insurance didn’t cover. We didn’t have deductibles to worry about. We didn’t have co-pays. It was so much simpler. And when all is said and done with all the deductibles and co-pays, I’m not convinced it was any more expensive.</p>