Did You Know?
allnurses is the largest community for nurses on the web. We now have over 388,022 members! Join today to network with other nurses, laugh, share, and much more.
| No. 10 | 
May 28, 2009, 08:30 AM
 Re: Canada's healthcare saved her; Ours won't cover her
oramar,
I agre that the article was somewhat misleading about the care she would have received had the accident occured in the U.S. Typically, injuries which result from an auto accident are billed and paid for by the auto insurance, not one's health care policy. The primary responsibility for paying medical bills related to the accident would have been borne by the insurance company of driver at fault in the accident. If that was the other driver, her insurance policy would have supplemented or co-paid. If she was at fault, her auto insurance would have been primarily responsible for her bills. It is unlikely that health care insurance would have been involved at all.
 | | Advertisement Sponsored Links | | | | No. 11 |
May 28, 2009, 08:39 AM
Re: Canada's healthcare saved her; Ours won't cover her
Auto insurance policies usually have a pretty low cap. Not enough to pay the ridiculously high medical bills that accumulate in a very short time.
As for not having a choice of providers with a nationalized program, heck, I have private insurance and don't have a choice. Heard of HMO's?
| | No. 12 |
May 28, 2009, 09:34 AM
Re: Canada's healthcare saved her; Ours won't cover her Originally Posted by tgirl84  Why do all Canadians with money come to the states to get high risk surgery? Because it's not as great as it sounds folks! Universal Care has its advantages, but let's not forget the disadvantages, namely paying a butt-load of taxes. I was born in Canada, my father went to medical school there, and the day he graduated, he moved to the US to complete his residency here and never went back. He REFUSES to work there! Do you like going to the DMV? Well, that is what going to the doctor will be like if Uncle Sam is running the show. I'd personally would have a choice of which specialist I go and see, another thing I would give up with Universal Health care. Are you guys stopping to think about the choices you'll be giving up? And to those who think doctors charge too much, think of all the people who go to the hospital every year, who must be seen, but don't pay a dime! Majority of the people I take care of in the ER personally. Most the time it isn't even an "emergency", they know they will be seen, but won't have to pay! Government again at its finest...
Several things bother me about your post.
Mainly your pride in the fact that your father used Canadian tax money to help fund his education and in your words "REFUSES to work" up here. How big do you think his student debt would have been if he had not TAKEN ADVANTAGE of the subsidized university education up here???
YOUR birth and prenatal care was paid for by universal healthcare.
So I guess that "BUTTLOAD OF TAXES" supported your family's ambitions nicely and it paid for you coming into this world.
You can go to the specialist of your choice, all it takes is a referral letter from your GP. Yes, there is a waitlist for non-essential surgeries. You need treatment in an emergency situation and you are in the OR before you get off the phone with your family.
"High risk surgeries"? They happen all the time in my health region. Many I see going south have been refused the same surgery up here at the surgeons discretion and we wind up fixing the mistakes that these people often have paid for.
| | No. 13 |
May 28, 2009, 10:27 AM
Re: Canada's healthcare saved her; Ours won't cover her
I think that both sides of the "single-payor" versus "American health care system" argument need to acknowledge that there are patients who lack access and/or coverage in both systems.
The American health care system is not providing this woman accss to individual coverage due to her previous injuries. However, with an employer-provided group plan, she would be eligible.
The Canadian single-payor system provides payment, but lacks sufficient access for many high-risk obstetrical patients, who sometimes must be transported to the States for care. Their bills are paid, but they are cared for hundreds of miles from home, in another country.
Neither situation is ideal.
| | No. 14 |
May 28, 2009, 10:31 AM
Updated
May 28, 2009 at 10:33 AM by lamazeteacher
Re: Canada's healthcare saved her; Ours won't cover her Originally Posted by Higgs The only reason people need health insurance is that docs charge too much and drugs cost too much. Lower the prices, people pay less and can then afford it.
The measure of a civilised society is to see how it treats the poor and sick.
Another measure of a civilised society is how charitable the individuals that make it up, are! We Americans have the mistaken notion that our (own) financial resources aren't for sharing with others. Blindly, little to no
consideration is given to the greater taxpayer expense of treating uninsured people whose illnesses have progressed to an extremely costly level, due to their lack of preventive, early care.
President Obama realizes that the amount of time that could be taken by introducing laws that cut out existing insurance companies (and their lobbyists) would delay implementation of the goals he has for health care.
Eventually, when the insurance companies realize that those goals and objectives interfere with their bottom lines, they'll move to dupe/cater to more gullible wealthy healthcare consumers, and leave the average person's care through employers, alone. The Clintons realized, after introducing their insurance company profit reducing plan, that it was too big a morsel for those greedy institutions to handle. So who got the Heimlich? The Clintons! 
Just look at the boorah being directed toward Barack Obama's choice for the Judge of the Supreme Court. It wouldn't have mattered who he selected, there would be the same opposition, as no one could be conservative enough to be appointed by this conscientious administration. Hopefully something else (like N.Korea's insane nuclear testing) will be distracting enough to take the heat off of that. As Gilda Radner said often enough (you younger folks don't remember that comedian who died in her youth of ovarian CA - she was fabulous) "It's always Something!" That is the title of her book. This too, will pass, but we have to be more proactive, letting our government representatives know our preferences - all of them.
Get on the bandwagon, too, by joining groups being formed all over the country, to support our President's programs. This administration doesn't let issues lie fallow, and when the campaign for election ended, the campaign for specific changes began. We must be involved in those issues that we need. Meetup.com is a good resource to find those groups.
| | No. 15 |
May 28, 2009, 10:40 AM
Re: Canada's healthcare saved her; Ours won't cover her Originally Posted by tgirl84 Why do all Canadians with money come to the states to get high risk surgery? Because it's not as great as it sounds folks! Universal Care has its advantages, but let's not forget the disadvantages, namely paying a butt-load of taxes. I was born in Canada, my father went to medical school there, and the day he graduated, he moved to the US to complete his residency here and never went back. He REFUSES to work there! Do you like going to the DMV? Well, that is what going to the doctor will be like if Uncle Sam is running the show. I'd personally would have a choice of which specialist I go and see, another thing I would give up with Universal Health care. Are you guys stopping to think about the choices you'll be giving up? And to those who think doctors charge too much, think of all the people who go to the hospital every year, who must be seen, but don't pay a dime! Majority of the people I take care of in the ER personally. Most the time it isn't even an "emergency", they know they will be seen, but won't have to pay! Government again at its finest...
YES...medically uninsured go to the ER for non-emergent treatment, the law makes it clear that they can obtain treatment. That isn't the case for a doctors office. So pick your fight...are you against universal healthcare or are you against having the medically uninsured in the ER, it seems to me that if you pick the former you could avoid the latter.
| | No. 16 |
May 28, 2009, 11:41 AM
Re: Canada's healthcare saved her; Ours won't cover her
Here's a good article from Newsweek that refutes the idea that the US doesn't have the heinous wait times: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehu...15-cities.aspx
In Boston, I would wait 63 days to see a family doctor.
In winnipeg, I can get in to see mine within the month.
The story reveals just as bad wait times in the US for specialists and gives a link to the full survey.
Also gotta say that there is more to the world of health care that just Canada/ The USA. Loads of other countries with universal health care out there - so why is Canada/US always the big debate? As someone else aid, neither of us do it perfectly.
| | No. 17 |
May 28, 2009, 12:43 PM
Re: Canada's healthcare saved her; Ours won't cover her Originally Posted by tgirl84 Why do all Canadians with money come to the states to get high risk surgery? Because it's not as great as it sounds folks! Universal Care has its advantages, but let's not forget the disadvantages, namely paying a butt-load of taxes. I was born in Canada, my father went to medical school there, and the day he graduated, he moved to the US to complete his residency here and never went back. He REFUSES to work there! Do you like going to the DMV? Well, that is what going to the doctor will be like if Uncle Sam is running the show. I'd personally have a choice of which specialist I go and see, another thing I would give up with Universal Health care. Are you guys stopping to think about the choices you'll be giving up? And to those who think doctors charge too much, think of all the people who go to the hospital every year, who must be seen, but don't pay a dime! Majority of the people I take care of in the ER personally. Most the time it isn't even an "emergency", they know they will be seen, but won't have to pay! Government again at its finest...
WOW! Could it be that aversion to one's homeland is inherited? I was born in Canada, and would have gone back a year after I'd seen what I went to the US to see, except that I married an American who wanted to live in Los Angeles.
It is absolutely UNTRUE that " all Canadians" who are wealthy come to the US for " high risk surgeries". My family still lives in Toronto, Ontario and have financial resources to come here for care, but woudn't do that, as the doctors in Canada are there because they care more about their patients than their pocketbook. The greed of American doctors is legend, as are the errors in their practise of surgery, and the amazingly high awards given patients in the US when malpractise is litigated. I have never heard of the wrong limb or breast or anything being removed in Canada, but I sure have known many incidences of that here! (the grapevine works in Canada, too).
tgirl84 doesn't mention which province her father left, so it coud be Quebec where the circumstances are less than optimal for English speaking (Anglophone) professionals, due to their "language law"'s requirements and policing methods. Most of the exodus of Anglophone physicians from that province at the time just after the law was passed, went to other provinces in Canada. Those professionals and their families believe the quality of care is much better in Canada, since the purpose medical students have in going into that profession, is to alleviate pain and disease, not to amass a fortune.
The prospect of becoming extremely wealthy as physicians, is strictly an American product, which influences the type of care that's given in the US and constitutes the reason doctors don't want universal care. They want more money than others here. The amount that doctors make here is absolutely obscene and reflects their priorities.
The picture drawn by tgirl84 of going to the DMV, as comparable to seeing a physician in Canada is ridiculous! My family and I were never given numbers to be seen by any professional in Canada. The only similarity to the DMV, is that the offices are less decorative, and more efficient. There is the desire to serve patients better by the placement of doctors' offices in shopping malls (with close access to the outside by emergency vehicles). The emphasis is on patients' convenience, rather than that of doctors.
Hospitals in Canada don't look like 5 star resorts or have duplicate expensive equipment to the (competing) hospital across the road or down the street. That equipment is at the places where it will do the most good, and in enough quantity for their purpose.
| | No. 18 |
May 28, 2009, 01:10 PM
Re: Canada's healthcare saved her; Ours won't cover her Originally Posted by pebbles Here's a good article from Newsweek that refutes the idea that the US doesn't have the heinous wait times: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehu...15-cities.aspx
In Boston, I would wait 63 days to see a family doctor.
In winnipeg, I can get in to see mine within the month.
The story reveals just as bad wait times in the US for specialists and gives a link to the full survey.
Also gotta say that there is more to the world of health care that just Canada/ The USA. Loads of other countries with universal health care out there - so why is Canada/US always the big debate? As someone else aid, neither of us do it perfectly.
Thats fine and dandy but where my parents live in Canada they cant even get a family dr to accept them because they all have to many patients they have to PAY to go to the clinic $35, much like I would if I were to go to a clinic here. Where I live in Texas I can get into my doctor within a week. So the healthcare systems has nothing to do with it.
|
| 196 members
2,002 guests 2,198
| 1 | | | 11 | | | 2 | | | 9 | | | 17 | | | 11 | | | 14 | | | 16 | | | 37 | | | 14 | | | 20 | | | 23 | | | 19 | | | 24 | | | 10 | |
|
Nursing News