Canada's healthcare saved her; Ours won't cover her

  1. Canada's healthcare saved her; Ours won't cover her

    Source: LA Times

    If you offer health insurance as a for-profit business, it goes without saying that you'll do everything you can to avoid making payouts. That means you'll shun anyone with even a whiff of medical trouble.

    But this is no way to run an insurance system, let alone to protect people from financial ruin due to catastrophic events such as being sent to the hospital by a drunk driver.

    The Obama administration has already rejected the idea of a single-payer system similar to Canada's -- a mistake, in my opinion. Instead, it wants a smaller public program that would compete with private insurers and keep costs down.

    Private insurers, not surprisingly, are lobbying aggressively to kill off that idea. They'd rather have a national mandate that would require all Americans to buy their product.

    In return, they say, they'd stop sending rejection letters to people like Yount with preexisting conditions. But policyholders would still be subject to the companies' various terms and conditions.
  2. Visit blue note profile page

    About blue note

    Joined: Apr '09; Posts: 1,211; Likes: 2,651

    74 Comments

  3. by   CityKat
    This is why we need a single payer system in place over ANYTHING else!!
  4. 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.
  5. by   ghillbert
    That's not the only reason people need health insurance. I am from Australia - we have free doctor's appointments via medicare and government-subsidised medications.

    However, I still had private health insurance as well, because it permits you to skip the lines in the public system, or stay at a smaller, fancier hospital. When you open up "free" (via tax system) healthcare access, you get longer waiting lines. I think the mixed private/public system is definitely the way to go.
  6. by   oramar
    I am a liberal and am a supporter of universal health insurance. However, I do question whether the person who wrote this article is infering that a person having a similar accident down here would not get treated. Chances are close to 99% that the person would have recieved the same care down here in the states. The difference is that she would have had a Million plus dollar debt., unless of course she was well insured by her car insurance company. It is not that the person who wrote this article is not correct about what is going on with these insurance companies. However, it is incorrect to imply that the person would not have received equal treatment for her injuries.
    Last edit by oramar on May 28, '09
  7. by   morte
    Quote from oramar
    I am a liberal and am a supporter of universal health insurance. However, I do question whether the person who wrote this article is infering that a person having a similar accident down here would not get treated. Chances are close to 99% that the person would have recieved the same care down here in the states. The difference is that she would have had a Million plus dollar debt., unless of course she was well insured by her car insurance company. It is not that the person who wrote this article is not correct about what is going on with these insurance companies. However, it is incorrect to imply that the person would have been left to die from her injuries.
    didnt read the article, but what i took from the h/l was that after the fact d/t acquired issues, she would not be covered????? and even if treated for immediate injury, would the rehab and f/u be equal?
  8. by   oramar
    The article asked if she thought she would have got the same treatment down here. She said she didn't know. The truth is she would have. Do to her age she would have most likely received the same rehabilitation. When I work in rehab we had many, many patients that were young and would most likely never pay for their treatment. There was just something about the wording in the article that left doubt about what the young woman's outcomes would have been in the states and I wished to dispel that. However, she would have had another outcome. She would have been in deep debt when it was all over.
    Last edit by oramar on May 28, '09
  9. 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...
  10. by   loriangel14
    Why would you compare our system to dealing with the DMV? You get your care provided and the mds office bills the government. You do not deal with them at all.

    And why do people perpetuate the myth we can't choose who we go to for care? That's not true.
    Last edit by loriangel14 on May 28, '09
  11. by   Katnip
    People complain about higher taxes if we have universal care. But how much are we paying that we don't even notice to cover the millions of uninsured now? I would really like to see numbers on that to compare costs.

    And yes, a lot of countries do have insurance companies for those who wish to add on to their national coverage, which I think can be a good idea. That way everyone can get at least basic coverage and if anyone wants frills they can pay for it.

    I am sick of hearing that children die because their insurance (yes those with coverage) cannot get a life-saving procedure because insurance won't cover it. I've seen cases where families are expected to cough up 250k for surgery or their kid will die. Usually transplants. And yes, it does happen because I've attended several charitable events attempting to raise funds in time.

    And how many people cannot get treatment for cancer because they can't pay cash for it because they lost their job/insurance or they work but their employer doesn't offer insurance. And many employers offer only poor options.

    Sorry, whether it's single payer or whatever, we've got to do something.
  12. by   Jolie
    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.
  13. by   HmarieD
    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?
  14. by   Fiona59
    Quote from 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.

close