Article supports Canada's health care system - page 4
... Read More
May 19, '09Quote from elkparki said that not everyone is eligible. here is what i said. i even provided a link to the websit for the federal program.apply for it, maybe, but not get it ... you've mentioned medicaid as an option a couple times now as if the people who aren't on it just can't be bothered to fill out the application; i don't know where you live, but in my state, just being poor and needing healthcare coverage isn't enough to get you on medicaid. unless you are 1) pregnant, 2) under 18, 3) elderly needing nursing home care, or 4) have one of a small number of chronic illnesses (kidney failure, diabetes, a few others), it is impossible to qualify for medicaid coverage, regardless of how poor you are. impossible. no ifs, and, or buts. there is a common misconception that medicaid is "health insurance for poor people" (meaning that it's actually available to anyone who needs it) and that's how it started out many years ago, but, at this point, the state budgets are all so strapped that they are severely limiting who they'll accept into the program.
i encourage you to look into how the medicaid program in your state is actually being implemented -- i'll bet you would be v. surprised.
"and most all low income persons can apply for medicaid. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicaidgeninfo/
although not all will be covered."
i also never said it was for poor people.
"sometimes its a case of getting off your but and going down to the offices that handle these things. its a pain in the butt for sure but if you want free health care or low cost health care you have to meet the eligibility"
and yes the above is true. i know because i have been there.Last edit by sirI on May 22, '09
May 19, '09Quote from DrugReptoNurseSo in your world do we just cut off access to all those that can't pay...........babies, children, teenagers, single-parents, mentally challenged or do you have some sort of system for determining who is worthy of your health care?McCleanl,
If that is the case then every hospital should have the "right" to refuse care to those that cannot afford it.
I am in agreement with that statement. Should every restaurant you visit have to give you food because you are hungry? Should every gas station give you free gas because your tank is on empty? I say NO...HELL NO!
When did people in this country begin to believe just because you want it or need it....you have to have it given to you.
Yes, I firmly believe if a hospital does not accept Medicare/Medicaid and the patient can not pay....then they have the RIGHT to not serve that patient.
May 19, '09i realize that this is a charged issue for many. there is no quick answer for any of the issues we have. but i will tell you that most of the peolple in this country who are supporting the universal healthcare or single payer system do not realize what they are asking for. how many of you have ever used the military retiree or dependant health care system. sometimes there are weeks and months to get appointments to certain specialties. i know this because i use it and i work in it. we live in a country of now and instant. if you dont think thats the case then i would like to live in your neighborhood. but people do not need to attack each other in this thread. peolple tend to put this into politicak views instead of reality and practicality. no one has said that children, the sick or elderly should be left to die or anything of the sort. making wild blanket statements like that does nothing to further the discussion. what has to happen is that we need to take what we have and utilize it 100% before we just go and demolish the system we have for a model that also has issues. once we go down that road there is no turning back. we cant say 5 years later oops we messed up. look at the current system. we adopted the HMO and PPO system under Nixon. look at where we are now. do some thinking before you jump off the ledge. do you really know whats down that road. are you willing to risk what you know flaws and all for something that you dont? right now, i am not ready for that, and i dont think the majority of this country is either. nuff said.
May 19, '09Yes, it's a very emotionally charged subject. I'll just say that I've lived under both systems and prefer the single payer system to the US one.
To the people who think not having health insurance is someones fault, there was a CNA coworker of mine three years ago who was going to school to get her LPN part time. She had already had one bout of breast cancer. During the school year she got another. About three months went by of her calling out sick for very valid reasons and she was fired. She couldn't afford COBRA and was too sick to find another job. Do you think that was her fault?
May 19, '09have a read here about our air ambulance services:
on the coasts, the military is responsible for air ambulance/flights.
the sartechs are basically military paramedics who do search and rescue and have pulled americans off their cruise ships to medivac them to hospital.
our system isn't perfect but it works for the vast majority of patients that use it.
someone brought up the case of the multimum who was delivered in the us. ivf pregnancies are disputed issue up here. the nicu's in edmonton, calgary and vancouver were full. vancouver services most of british columbia, edmonton serves northern alberta and the canadian far north, calgary (where the mum lived) also serves part of sk. should five fragile newborns been transferred to another unit to provide service to this woman? as it was the canadian taxpayer picked up her bills in the us hospital and provided support to her husband while he was down there. would your private providers have paid for her to come north to deliver, provide assistance to her spouse? the family in question were even on the news up here thanking the government for all they did for them.
in alberta, we don't even pay provincial health insurance premiums, so everyone has access to care.
what i find disturbing is how easy some posters spread their mistaken beliefs as "fact".
fat, thin, young, old, unemployed, refugees, employed everyone gets care. yes, you may have to wait for some procedures but if you are an emergency, heaven and earth are moved to provide you with some of the best care in the world.
ever heard of the edmonton protocol for diabetics or dr. rebeyka the cardiologist?
editor's note: dr rebeyka is a world-renowned cardiovascular surgeon.Last edit by NotReady4PrimeTime on May 31, '09
May 19, '09I do not see Canada as a third world country. I do see that their medical areas are lacking. My mistake by not being more clear. In some areas Med flights are used, but unlike US their are few and far apart.
My point is simply to state I do not wish to have a one payer type of insurance. If Canadians are so happy with their medical health care why do they go to the US for care that they should have available in Canada but do not. I actually do not care how they run their health insurance programs. I just do not wish to have one that would in any way be modeled as the ones available in Canada or Europe.
This is American. The greatest country in the world. People come here for treatment that is not available every where. Even with those who do not have insurance they still are seen by a physician. I just do not wish for my own insurance to be thrown aside.
May 19, '09Quote from Fiona59Thanks Fiona. You are much more eloquent at expressing the same things I feel. I am constantly amazed at the so called "facts" I read posted on here by people who obviously have no clue about our system or country.Have a read here about our air ambulance services:
On the coasts, the military is responsible for air ambulance/flights.
The sartechs are basically military paramedics who do search and rescue and have pulled Americans off their cruise ships to medivac them to hospital.
Our system isn't perfect but it works for the vast majority of patients that use it.
Someone brought up the case of the multiMum who was delivered in the US. IVF pregnancies are disputed issue up here. The NICU's in Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver were full. Vancouver services most of British Columbia, Edmonton serves northern Alberta and the Canadian Far North, Calgary (where the Mum lived) also serves part of SK. Should five fragile newborns been transferred to another unit to provide service to this woman? As it was the Canadian taxpayer picked up her bills in the US hospital and provided support to her husband while he was down there. Would your private providers have paid for her to come North to deliver, provide assistance to her spouse? The family in question were even on the news up here thanking the government for all they did for them.
In Alberta, we don't even pay provincial health insurance premiums, so everyone has access to care.
What I find disturbing is how easy some posters spread their mistaken beliefs as "fact".
Fat, thin, young, old, unemployed, refugees, employed everyone gets care. Yes, you may have to wait for some procedures but if you are an emergency, heaven and earth are moved to provide you with some of the best care in the world.
Ever heard of the Edmonton Protocol for diabetics or Dr. Rebeyka the cardiologist?
May 19, '09Quote from TessaprnI do not see Canada as a third world country. I do see that their medical areas are lacking. My mistake by not being more clear. . .
This is American. The greatest country in the world. People come here for treatment that is not available every where. .
Your country is America. The UN is yet to rank it as the "greatest country" in the world:
It seems to be up for debate if it's us or Norway.
People travel for treatment to jump the queues in their homeland. It's called capitalism or health care for profit. If you have the cash and you can look yourself in the mirror and sleep at night feel free.
I'm just glad that Canadian medical innovations are shared by the world and have benefitted those in America.
May 19, '09Check out "In The ER, Kids Waiting Longer to Get Care". It's a thread that was started in Nursing News.
May 19, '09Every respectable poll taken of the Canadian population shows that a vast majority would not trade their healthcare system for ours. Nor would any other modern westernized society.
May 19, '09Quote from TessaprnI just do not wish for my own insurance to be thrown aside.
This is just a false dichotomy that the current private healthcare establishment would like you to believe. Establishing a single payer system will not inhibit the existence of private companies. If anything, it will make them leaner, more efficient, and more affordable. Also, if you're really concerned about not having access to those specialty services that you all that all those Canadians/UK/Germany/Japan/Korea/Sweden citizens don't supposedly have timely access to, then im sure you can buy supplimental coverage.
1. The administrative costs and cutting out the middle men of the private health insurance companies alone would cover the expenses of a single payer system. This is from the GAO.
2. The reason Medicare isn't financially viable on ... Read Moreits own is because of the cohort, or the population of patients in the program. Medicare is for people over 65 or those who are disabled - basically the segment of our population that uses medical services the most. The way insurance works is by collectively covering a vast demographic of patients, sick, old, young, healthy. This is how private insurance companies do it. They love giving policies to people like you or I who have relatively low risk for any expensive medical procedures. If everyone was in a single payer system, the risk and benefits would be spread over a wide population and would result in a sustainable system.
3. The quality of our doctors is suffering because of our current medical reimbursement model. The salaries of practicing primary care doctors are horrible now because they get paid nothing to do common preventative maintenance on their patients who suffer from multiple comorbidities. To properly care for a patient, the PCP must spend a lot of ... Read Moretime but gets paid by the insurance company per visit. This is also why med students are being pushed into more lucrative specialties.
Also, PCP's average salary out of residency depending on their actual residency and other factors is roughly $150,000. Other specialties like Radiology or Plastics is more like $300,000 and go up progressively from there. Trust me, there is a reason people are willing to take up more than $200k in debt - the medical field can be lucrative in addition to being rewarding.
4. A single payer system will also aggregate the buying power of consumers to negotiate with the prices of drugs with big pharma.
5. On moral grounds, I think it is morally dubious at best for a cubicle monkey at some insurance company to dictate whether I get a procedure or not. My treatment should be decided by my doctor, the one who actually has pledged an oath to take care of me.
Simply put, there is a conflict of interest in a private healthcare system. As a corporation, insurance companies serve their shareholders first, then clients second.
To wrap things up, there really is no good reason for anything else than a single payer system. 60% of the money spent in healthcare in this country already comes from the government and fuels the profits of companies.
All these lobbyists from HMOs, big pharma, and medical products are coming in droves to try to advert this kind of reform.Last edit by Agrippa on May 19, '09
May 19, '095. on moral grounds, i think it is morally dubious at best for a cubicle monkey at some insurance company to dictate whether i get a procedure or not. my treatment should be decided on my doctor, the one who actually has pledged an oath to take care of me.
May 20, '09I think one fact that's gotten lost on this thread is that Canadians are HEALTHIER for a lot LESS MONEY--and that means ALL of them. Shouldn't we be looking for what works best? To me, that means single-payer health care for all. It seems to me that most of the objections, other than anecdote-based ones, have more to do with ideology than with what works. Or are people prepared to say that the World Health Organization is a leftist organization, or whatever?
Most disturbing to me is posters who seem to get very angry that other people might be spared the indignity/suffering/poverty they endured, or that somebody somewhere might be getting something they don't deserve.
I think the title of the thread should be Re: Lots of evidence supports Canada's health care system.