Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[steelish]

Gee. The Prime Minister of Canada is coming to the states for heart surgery. Why?

Hmmm...his doctor recommended it.

From the article:

All but very rare and specialized heart surgery that is done in the United States is also available in Canada, a Toronto cardiac surgeon said.

The one significant exception would be surgery to the thoracic aorta, the giant blood vessel that carries blood that's pumped out of the heart to other organs. If a person develops a swelling or aneurysm, an abnormal bulging, in the thoracic aorta, and needs surgery to open the chest cavity, "that's a very extensive operation," Feindel said.

So what. They don't have the skills/equipment/training, etc. in Canada???

The Fraser Institute estimated that 41,000 Canadians sought health care services in the U.S. in 2009.

Wow. That's a lot of people to PAY for health care when they can get it for free without the added expense of traveling.

[Thorne]

All but very rare and specialized heart surgery that is done in the United States is also available in Canada, a Toronto cardiac surgeon said.

The one significant exception would be surgery to the thoracic aorta, the giant blood vessel that carries blood that's pumped out of the heart to other organs. If a person develops a swelling or aneurysm, an abnormal bulging, in the thoracic aorta, and needs surgery to open the chest cavity, "that's a very extensive operation," Feindel said.

So what. They don't have the skills/equipment/training, etc. in Canada???

Sounds like pretty specialized surgery to me. Maybe they don't have the skills in Canada. Perhaps the best in the field is in the US. That doesn't mean it can't be done in Canada, but if you can afford the best, why not?

The Fraser Institute estimated that 41,000 Canadians sought health care services in the U.S. in 2009.

Wow. That's a lot of people to PAY for health care when they can get it for free without the added expense of traveling.

Again, a lot depends on the type of care they're looking for. Personally, if I needed something that the US couldn't provide, and I could afford to go somewhere else to get that care, I'd do it. Wouldn't you? This says nothing about the relative merits of the health care systems of either nation as a whole, only on individual cases. Who knows? Maybe they don't allow homeopathic woo-medicine in Canada.

[Lion]

Gee. The Prime Minister of Canada is coming to the states for heart surgery. Why?

It's not the Prime Minister of Canada, read the article again

From the article:

All but very rare and specialized heart surgery that is done in the United States is also available in Canada, a Toronto cardiac surgeon said.

The one significant exception would be surgery to the thoracic aorta, the giant blood vessel that carries blood that's pumped out of the heart to other organs. If a person develops a swelling or aneurysm, an abnormal bulging, in the thoracic aorta, and needs surgery to open the chest cavity, "that's a very extensive operation," Feindel said.

So what. They don't have the skills/equipment/training, etc. in Canada???

Last I heard, if the government of Ontario cannot find a treatment for you in the province, they will cover whatever expenses you would have receiving treatment elsewhere.

Check out Sick Kids hospital, they are renowned for dealing with extremely rare conditions, many of their patients are brought in from around the world, including US. Should Canada spend money on dealing with all the rarest cases in the world? I would definitely hope not. I'd love to see research done on a lot of rare disease, but one country cannot handle it by itself, in those situations, we pay to send our residents to get treatment abroad.

The Fraser Institute estimated that 41,000 Canadians sought health care services in the U.S. in 2009.

Wow. That's a lot of people to PAY for health care when they can get it for free without the added expense of traveling.

Ratio between the Canadian and American population is roughly 1 to 10. Take 41,000 Canadians, multiply it by 10. You get 410 000 people. Assume that twice the number of people would go if they had the means to, hell, make it three times. You have roughly 1.2 million people that find the current public healthcare system less then satisfactory for their needs

I still like 1.2 million more then 11-30 million people who have no way of getting expensive treatment when the time comes for it. Just sayin'





I still don't get your point here. And that's the whole problem with this whole debate (Not on this forum only, but everywhere). All the naysayers do is point out why it will fail, and provide nothing to fix this issue. Many people are suffering because of healthcare costs, a friend of a friend's family went backrupt paying his medical bills, and this isn't a rare story.

I'd like to see more points on a different system you think would be better, rather then just say it won't work. Something constructive

[steelish]

I'd like to see more points on a different system you think would be better, rather then just say it won't work. Something constructive

I presented another idea, one which you said was a "good idea". Here's yet another one...how about allowing the insurance companies to compete across all 50 states? How about penalizing people who file frivolous law suits?

[Thorne]

How about penalizing people who file frivolous law suits?

I like this idea.

Only... who determines what is frivolous?

[steelish]

I like this idea.

Only... who determines what is frivolous?

Who determines guilt or innocence?

[DuncanONeil]

I like this idea.

Only... who determines what is frivolous?

How about this? Your surgery goes fine. No complications. But during the surgery you woke up on the table during the operation. You decide to sue everyone you can get your hands on!

Frivolous or not?

[Lion]

I presented another idea, one which you said was a "good idea". Here's yet another one...how about allowing the insurance companies to compete across all 50 states? How about penalizing people who file frivolous law suits?

And what have you done to propogate this idea? Talk to your congressman/woman, start a facebook group, researched the idea in depth?

A lot of people are depending for something to finally happen. Tell the Tea Party people find solutions, and fight for them, rather then just fight an administration since it's not a Republican government.

I mean, where was the tea party when the patriot act came along? (Okay, now I'm getting off topic)

[steelish]

And what have you done to propogate this idea? Talk to your congressman/woman, start a facebook group, researched the idea in depth?

A lot of people are depending for something to finally happen. Tell the Tea Party people find solutions, and fight for them, rather then just fight an administration since it's not a Republican government.

I mean, where was the tea party when the patriot act came along? (Okay, now I'm getting off topic)

I have called my congressman (numerous times), I am a member of a tea party. I have proposed these solutions...as have others.

And it's not about parties, it's about principles.

[DuncanONeil]

All three of the proposals presented here by Steelish have been proposed in Congress. In fact when the current bills were wending their way through the halls of Congress they were offered as part of the package. And dismissed out of hand! One can only presume because they were from "those" people.

And what have you done to propogate this idea? Talk to your congressman/woman, start a facebook group, researched the idea in depth?

A lot of people are depending for something to finally happen. Tell the Tea Party people find solutions, and fight for them, rather then just fight an administration since it's not a Republican government.

I mean, where was the tea party when the patriot act came along? (Okay, now I'm getting off topic)

[steelish]

It's not the Prime Minister of Canada, read the article again

So sorry. He's a provincial premier

[Lion]

Gee. The Prime Minister of Canada is coming to the states for heart surgery. Why?

Hmmm...his doctor recommended it.

From the article:

All but very rare and specialized heart surgery that is done in the United States is also available in Canada, a Toronto cardiac surgeon said.

The one significant exception would be surgery to the thoracic aorta, the giant blood vessel that carries blood that's pumped out of the heart to other organs. If a person develops a swelling or aneurysm, an abnormal bulging, in the thoracic aorta, and needs surgery to open the chest cavity, "that's a very extensive operation," Feindel said.

So what. They don't have the skills/equipment/training, etc. in Canada???

The Fraser Institute estimated that 41,000 Canadians sought health care services in the U.S. in 2009.

Wow. That's a lot of people to PAY for health care when they can get it for free without the added expense of traveling.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/201...uffpost/490080

[steelish]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/201...uffpost/490080

Sorry, but all this did was make me laugh. Crossing the border for minor doctor visits is not the same as crossing the border for major surgery. No one disputes that it's CHEAPER to get health care in a National System. What we dispute is that overall quality will go downhill. To put it in perspective, you can take ALL of the 2009 profits from every health insurance company in the United States, combine them and still not have enough funds to cover the proposed National Health Care system for a period of 48 hours. How will something that costly in a country that is already broke ensure quality of care?

[SadisticNature]

Sorry, but all this did was make me laugh. Crossing the border for minor doctor visits is not the same as crossing the border for major surgery. No one disputes that it's CHEAPER to get health care in a National System. What we dispute is that overall quality will go downhill. To put it in perspective, you can take ALL of the 2009 profits from every health insurance company in the United States, combine them and still not have enough funds to cover the proposed National Health Care system for a period of 48 hours. How will something that costly in a country that is already broke ensure quality of care?

The math on this claim is terrible. The profits of every health insurance company is way larger than this sum.

WellPoint alone made a $2.4 billion operating profit in 1 year.

Multiplying this profit alone by 365/2 gives:
$438 Billion dollars or 43.8% of the cost of the Obama health care plan from just one insurance provider.

If I choose to use their 4.7 Billion actual profit instead of their operating profit, they would cover over 80% of your estimate.

[DuncanONeil]

$2.4 in operating profit in one year is to be multiplied by 365 and divided by 2? You can not mean that $438b is available from this one company, unless you are proposing to take all their funds! But you are speaking of profits, "(t)he profits of every health insurance company is way larger than this sum."
How do you arrive at 365/2?
Taking the money spent on care ($2.26t) and subtracting Federal Medicare ($440b) and Medicaid ($204b) money and applying the profit ratio (2.2%, media reported) of the insurers results in about $35.5 billion. Industry wide! About 1/10 of your figure from one company. This is a serious dichotomy!

How can we resolve this?

The math on this claim is terrible. The profits of every health insurance company is way larger than this sum.

WellPoint alone made a $2.4 billion operating profit in 1 year.

Multiplying this profit alone by 365/2 gives:
$438 Billion dollars or 43.8% of the cost of the Obama health care plan from just one insurance provider.

If I choose to use their 4.7 Billion actual profit instead of their operating profit, they would cover over 80% of your estimate.

[SadisticNature]

Sorry, but all this did was make me laugh. Crossing the border for minor doctor visits is not the same as crossing the border for major surgery. No one disputes that it's CHEAPER to get health care in a National System. What we dispute is that overall quality will go downhill. To put it in perspective, you can take ALL of the 2009 profits from every health insurance company in the United States, combine them and still not have enough funds to cover the proposed National Health Care system for a period of 48 hours. How will something that costly in a country that is already broke ensure quality of care?

We've had Americans cross the border for major surgery too. There are lots of fairly specialized modern surgeries that only a few places in the world do (and different places for each one). Toronto has some of the best research hospitals in the world, and Americans come here for surgeries in those specialties.

The premier of Newfoundland & Labrador (More like a governor than a president) went to the US for a specialized surgery from a surgeon who specializes in that procedure. It's not that either system is better, its that particular procedure has better people for it in the US, there are other procedures where the best specialists are North of the border.

[Lion]

Sorry, but all this did was make me laugh. Crossing the border for minor doctor visits is not the same as crossing the border for major surgery. No one disputes that it's CHEAPER to get health care in a National System. What we dispute is that overall quality will go downhill. To put it in perspective, you can take ALL of the 2009 profits from every health insurance company in the United States, combine them and still not have enough funds to cover the proposed National Health Care system for a period of 48 hours. How will something that costly in a country that is already broke ensure quality of care?

In my years living on this side of 49, I've rarely met any Canadians who thinks our system is perfect. Most of us feel that there is constant need for improvement and why the hell not? It's government run, so there are bound to be inefficiencies.

I've seen constant debates on this, and very few who oppose this healthcare plan, you included have come up with an idea to share. A lot of people, Mrs. Palin included have seen nothing but faults in healthcare reform, when she herself have benifited from something she claims will ruin America (I'm paraphrasing).

The article about the premier going to US to get an extremely specialized procedure is biased in a sense that it does not look at the entire picture.

Can one country afford to have the best of everything? Even one as large as America? I think it is stupid to believe that private healthcare will ensure that American healthcare is equipped to handle every single disease. Fact is, at the current system, Americans still come up to Toronto and get FREE healthcare (refer to Sick Kids hospital).

Our system knows that. We have ways that Canadian citizens and residents can get reimbursed for the money they spent on treatments abroad. Treatments that they can't get at home. That's what the premier of that province is doing actually.

Do we have a problem with line-ups. Yes, we know it. Do we find that line-ups are better then facing monthly health insurance bills, that essentially negate the effects of higher taxes, and then some? Most of us.

Someone claimed it was unconstitutional or something to impose a tax to provide healthcare to everyone. Can someone claim that arguement over every war he/she disagrees with? Or a construction project that they have no benefit with?

Right now, US spends 100s of billions of dollars in the military. That's the government btw, not a private enterprise. People are more then willing to claim that a strong government funded and government run army is essential, while claiming that healthcare, which would be a government funded and government run system would be filled with inefficiencies, therefore unattainable. Whether American get universal healthcare or not, it makes no difference for me. I just find this level of hypocrisy appalling.

Peace out!

[steelish]

In my years living on this side of 49, I've rarely met any Canadians who thinks our system is perfect. Most of us feel that there is constant need for improvement and why the hell not? It's government run, so there are bound to be inefficiencies.

I've seen constant debates on this, and very few who oppose this healthcare plan, you included have come up with an idea to share. A lot of people, Mrs. Palin included have seen nothing but faults in healthcare reform, when she herself have benifited from something she claims will ruin America (I'm paraphrasing).

The article about the premier going to US to get an extremely specialized procedure is biased in a sense that it does not look at the entire picture.

Can one country afford to have the best of everything? Even one as large as America? I think it is stupid to believe that private healthcare will ensure that American healthcare is equipped to handle every single disease. Fact is, at the current system, Americans still come up to Toronto and get FREE healthcare (refer to Sick Kids hospital).

Our system knows that. We have ways that Canadian citizens and residents can get reimbursed for the money they spent on treatments abroad. Treatments that they can't get at home. That's what the premier of that province is doing actually.

And if America goes to this inefficient government-run system, where would the premier have gone? No one seems to get it. Just because a government in one country put in an NHS, doesn't mean ALL governments are capable of doing it. Until we weed out the corruption, the goons in power right now would screw it up so badly that it would be the joke of the world.

Do we have a problem with line-ups. Yes, we know it. Do we find that line-ups are better then facing monthly health insurance bills, that essentially negate the effects of higher taxes, and then some? Most of us.

Someone claimed it was unconstitutional or something to impose a tax to provide healthcare to everyone. Can someone claim that arguement over every war he/she disagrees with? Or a construction project that they have no benefit with?

Right now, US spends 100s of billions of dollars in the military. That's the government btw, not a private enterprise. People are more then willing to claim that a strong government funded and government run army is essential, while claiming that healthcare, which would be a government funded and government run system would be filled with inefficiencies, therefore unattainable. Whether American get universal healthcare or not, it makes no difference for me. I just find this level of hypocrisy appalling.

Peace out!

Uh, yeah. That is our government's constitutional duty. To ensure the safety of the citizens. It is NOT our government's constitutional duty however, to provide a service to the citizens.

[Lion]

Btw, how much do you suppose health care costs would go down by eliminating frivilous law suits, and how exactly, like Thorne said, would you go about getting rid of them?

[DuncanONeil]

Btw, how much do you suppose health care costs would go down by eliminating frivilous law suits, and how exactly, like Thorne said, would you go about getting rid of them?

I have wonder a bit about that. A quick look provided no quick answer. The statistics are all over the place, and do not always include hard numbers. Although I found a reported 60% of cases dropped but even that has a cost of $18,000 per case. 90% of cases that go to trial are in favor of the defendant with an average cost of $100,000.
"According to the American Medical Association, defensive medicine increases health systems costs by between $84 and $151 billion each year" An incomplete rendering of potential case is in excess of 1,000,000, that would come to about $47 billion per year. Plus the savings on "Defensive Medicine". Resulting in between $131 to $198 billion per year at the low end.

[Lion]

I have wonder a bit about that. A quick look provided no quick answer. The statistics are all over the place, and do not always include hard numbers. Although I found a reported 60% of cases dropped but even that has a cost of $18,000 per case. 90% of cases that go to trial are in favor of the defendant with an average cost of $100,000.
"According to the American Medical Association, defensive medicine increases health systems costs by between $84 and $151 billion each year" An incomplete rendering of potential case is in excess of 1,000,000, that would come to about $47 billion per year. Plus the savings on "Defensive Medicine". Resulting in between $131 to $198 billion per year at the low end.

I did some reading on defensive medicine, and the estimates are quite wide, ranging from $25 billion to $200 billion a year. Taking the low number of $25 billion, it is still a considerable amount.

Tort reform, I'm assuming is to eliminate the frivilous lawsuits, but how many of those lawsuits are actually frivilous? Obama has said that this would affect health care costs by a fraction of the amount, even if so, it should be looked into.

The $47 billion you mentioned that goes into the savings, that's assuming 100% of those lawsuits have no merit. What are the most common cases of these lawsuits?


Thank you for the research, I didn't know about defensive medicine before.



Btw, previous question still stands, how would you go about tort reform? (To all, not just Duncan, and please no vague, 2-3 line response, but something that can be used for most cases)

[DuncanONeil]

Just took a look at the President's plan. Through the use of his "transparancy" mandate.
There is nothing posted other than a real pretty wish list. Not one bit of "language". Although there appears an intent to maintain the so called exchange program. Please be careful the exchange program is merely Government Insurance under another name.
If the Government says;

• What you have to cover
• What you can charge
• Has a board, under theri control, that decides what procedures are "approved"

This is Government run!

[steelish]

Just took a look at the President's plan. Through the use of his "transparancy" mandate.
There is nothing posted other than a real pretty wish list. Not one bit of "language". Although there appears an intent to maintain the so called exchange program. Please be careful the exchange program is merely Government Insurance under another name.
If the Government says;

• What you have to cover
• What you can charge
• Has a board, under theri control, that decides what procedures are "approved"

This is Government run!

There are too many ways for the government to interfere into individual's lives under the plan. I am completely against it.

[DuncanONeil]

I just found this!
“The ‘war on drugs’ has turned into a war on doctors and the legal drugs they prescribe and the suffering patients who need the drugs to attempt anything approaching a normal life,” said Kathryn Serkes, public affairs counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

On Monday, Sept. 29, AAPS spoke at a news conference sponsored by the Pain Relief Network to announce their support for William Hurwitz, MD, of McLean, Virginia, who has been indicted, imprisoned, and had all assets seized for prescribing legal pain relief approved by the Virginia Board of Medicine.

The result of prosecutions such as those against Dr. Hurwitz and more than 30 others tracked by AAPS is that doctors are afraid to prescribe opioids, and patients can’t get the drugs they so desperately need. “Physicians are being threatened, impoverished, delicensed, and imprisoned for prescribing in good faith with the intention of relieving pain,” said Ms. Serkes. “And their patients have become the collateral damage in this trumped-up war.”

Some patients require very large doses, sometimes literally hundreds of pills in each prescription – a number that may seem alarming to people unfamiliar with current treatment standards in pain management. Other patients report that they have lied about being heroin addicts in order to get pain medication at methadone clinics.

The situation has become so critical that AAPS has issued a serious warning to doctors:

“If you’re thinking about getting into pain management using opioids as appropriate -- DON’T. Forget what you learned in medical school -- drug agents now set medical standards. Or if you do, first discuss the risks with your family.” (See www.aapsonline.org)

“If this continues, pain patients will be back in the Dark Ages of ‘pain clinics’ that basically told the patients they had to learn to ‘live with the pain’ – except possibly if they had cancer and then they wouldn’t have to live with it for very long,” said Ms. Serkes.

“Prosecutors hell-bent on targeting career-making, high-publicity cases on the backs of patients and doctors,” said Ms. Serkes. “Recent actions show prosecutors have little concern about the trail of destruction left by their actions as patients face crippling pain and gut-wrenching withdrawal.” For example, "(American Association of Physicians and Surgeons.)

[SadisticNature]

I just found this!
“The ‘war on drugs’ has turned into a war on doctors and the legal drugs they prescribe and the suffering patients who need the drugs to attempt anything approaching a normal life,” said Kathryn Serkes, public affairs counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

On Monday, Sept. 29, AAPS spoke at a news conference sponsored by the Pain Relief Network to announce their support for William Hurwitz, MD, of McLean, Virginia, who has been indicted, imprisoned, and had all assets seized for prescribing legal pain relief approved by the Virginia Board of Medicine.

The result of prosecutions such as those against Dr. Hurwitz and more than 30 others tracked by AAPS is that doctors are afraid to prescribe opioids, and patients can’t get the drugs they so desperately need. “Physicians are being threatened, impoverished, delicensed, and imprisoned for prescribing in good faith with the intention of relieving pain,” said Ms. Serkes. “And their patients have become the collateral damage in this trumped-up war.”

Some patients require very large doses, sometimes literally hundreds of pills in each prescription – a number that may seem alarming to people unfamiliar with current treatment standards in pain management. Other patients report that they have lied about being heroin addicts in order to get pain medication at methadone clinics.

The situation has become so critical that AAPS has issued a serious warning to doctors:

“If you’re thinking about getting into pain management using opioids as appropriate -- DON’T. Forget what you learned in medical school -- drug agents now set medical standards. Or if you do, first discuss the risks with your family.” (See www.aapsonline.org)

“If this continues, pain patients will be back in the Dark Ages of ‘pain clinics’ that basically told the patients they had to learn to ‘live with the pain’ – except possibly if they had cancer and then they wouldn’t have to live with it for very long,” said Ms. Serkes.

“Prosecutors hell-bent on targeting career-making, high-publicity cases on the backs of patients and doctors,” said Ms. Serkes. “Recent actions show prosecutors have little concern about the trail of destruction left by their actions as patients face crippling pain and gut-wrenching withdrawal.” For example, "(American Association of Physicians and Surgeons.)

The US war on drugs is the single worst criminal policy in a westernized democracy in the past 30 years. I'm not surprised its sinking to new lows.

[denuseri]

I know how to solve the insurance issue.....get rid of insurance all together. Make medicine free accross the board for life saving procedures. Take the money grubbing sideliner types who have made the thing the way it is today purely out of greed out of the picture entirely.

Tort reform, is not quite as simple but still doable as well.

Put one regulating authority in charge of it and do away with all the others and do not let it be run by the doctors or the insurance assholes or drug companies. But by a fiscally responsible third party with full knowledge of medical procedures.

Oh wait, some greedy CEO's will loose out then, I guess we can't have that now can we.

[Thorne]

I know how to solve the insurance issue.....get rid of insurance all together. Make medicine free accross the board for life saving procedures.

Sounds great. While we're at it, why don't we make food free as well. And don't forget auto repairs. They cost me a bundle this month. Oh, and let's save the truly vain money as well and include plastic surgery and breast implants in the pile of free things.

Yeah, that should work.

[DuncanONeil]

Where do you find a fiscally responsible person knowledgeable in medical procedures that is not a doctor or pharmacist? Insurance don't count because they are only CPAs! No offense.

I know how to solve the insurance issue.....get rid of insurance all together. Make medicine free accross the board for life saving procedures. Take the money grubbing sideliner types who have made the thing the way it is today purely out of greed out of the picture entirely.

Tort reform, is not quite as simple but still doable as well.

Put one regulating authority in charge of it and do away with all the others and do not let it be run by the doctors or the insurance assholes or drug companies. But by a fiscally responsible third party with full knowledge of medical procedures.

Oh wait, some greedy CEO's will loose out then, I guess we can't have that now can we.

[steelish]

You know why there's no tort reform???

Almost every single politician in office is a former lawyer. Do you think they really want to damage the industry that they climbed the political ladder with?

[steelish]

rofl!

She was joking.


Wait, if you're going to include breast implants...

*looks down at chest*