And have you seen the YouTube version of Tony's South Florida Motorsports Report?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
Printable View
And have you seen the YouTube version of Tony's South Florida Motorsports Report?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
No I haven't. What's it all aboot?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Using those numbers it is obvious....The US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
I work in the NHS, it isn't perfect but I can't imagine anything that would work much better.
I love the NHS!
Us Red Commies don't have that big billing staff in the hospital, but the State Government doens't have about 400 drones doing the leg work on charging the government for all this stuff either. The staffing for keeping track of the bills isn't in the hospital, it is in a government building in Victoria BC where I have no doubt there is more than enough government featherbedding to give you the ineffieciencies you so desire.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Furthermore, in my previous working life (or about 3 working lives ago) I worked in a hospital. The admin of the hospital there (Oshawa General then, now Lakeridge Health Centre) was/is making a HUGE salary to justify his existence. My mother, who was a RN there part time made great money but was always having her hours cut back and nurses per floor has been dropping steady since she retired.
What the US critics of this version of healthcare keep pointing out that is there will be rationing of healthcare, or higher taxes to justify this plan. Many who are covered through their employer, or like Fiero paying their own way do NOT want Obama dictating their choices or taking money from their pocket to pay for the illegal immigrant to have healthcare. Believe me it isn't that they are cold or heartless, or love their HMO. They probably hate them about one erg less than the government is all.
What Brits keep buying into is this notion there IS no other way to provide healthcare. The US has and does, and while I wouldn't say it was the best system in the world like Tony does, it is pretty darn good in terms of providing very excellent top drawer service to those who have good coverage, which is a significant number. The people in the US who don't have private healthcare can pay cash or go through the government medicaid/medicare systems which ARE Government health care. And they are going broke...so why would anyone want to "Reform" and expand them and then tell anyone with a straight face taxes are not going to go up?
You are spending the most, but that isn't a measure of performance. Can you statistically prove you are getting your money's worth?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
One doesn't have to go to every country in the world. However, Tony's one sided view aside, the point is there is more than one way for a nation's healthcare system to operate, and the US isn't a third world nation in terms of healthcare. A great number of top notch doctors and research hospitals in the US are doing great work, and the majority of the US population not only has adequate healthcare, they have great healthcare. The issue that skews the stats is the uninsured.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
The Uninsured are either the working young or working poor who wing it hoping they dont' get sick, or the illegals, or genuinuely poor. The young and working poor are making a choice (Americans and that right to choose, to succeed or fail). Many will think nothing of spending 100 a month for a big screen for 2 years and then NOT want to pay for health insurance.
Then you have the illegals. Well they are there illegally, so why should the legal citizens pay for their healthcare needs, which are often paying for the birth of the baby (who then is a "legal" citizen with illegal parents. You ever wonder why mothers to be come in 8 months preggers from Mexico?). The taxpayer is paying for this, and they don't like it. Then you have the geninuely poor and working poor. I suspect this is a VERY small number.
Medicare/medicaid exists in various forms in every state to cover most or not all of these people. Some may be in debt to pay for their care if they had jobs or chose NOT to get insurance, but that again was their CHOICE. The illegals and poor are covered and I am still scratching my head trying to figure how what Obama is offering that isn't offered already unless he is going to take AWAY something from those who have to give to those who don't. The hallmark of his presidency. HE is a socialist of sorts after all.
The NHS has saved the lives of both my parents, and is currently doing a brilliant job with a friend of mine who has a very rare form of cancer.
The NHS is the single greatest achievement the British nation has ever had.
As my Grandfather used to say, it made fighting two world wars worthwhile.
Having the freedom of not having a health insurance could potentially lead to very dangerous situations, if for example a more severe swine influenza was to occur. Some people would not seek treatment until very late for costs reasons and lives would be lost. IMO certain things should not be a matter of choice, because people are stupid. Then again, arranging a working healthcare for 200+ million people of which many are illegals is a huge task.It's sometimes puzzling to me how you guys (Americans, don't know about Canadians) over there have very different views on some things even though many of you hail from this continent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
I'm in favour of the NHS in principle, but it has become a lumbering, inefficient monolith. The USA should be wary of adopting any system that resembles the NHS in its current state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
Because they don't like being told what to do even if it's for their own good, for example, not wearing seatbelts, it's a choice you make and in some cases make for others (eg, children) and therefore it's up to you to wear the consequences of that decision.
Darwin's theory at work!
It is called freedom and personal responsibility. The work hand in hand. Sometimes it goes bad for certain people. Look at the U.K. for example. What was once a proud and powerful nation is now a shinning example of the dangers of the "Nanny State."Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelopard
It isn't that simple Camel. I think the point Anthony would beat us to death on is personal responsiblity, and while we could joke about Darwin, it is common to all young people in their 20's. They would do without health insurance so they could afford a new car or a nicer apartment, and most of them would get away with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelopard
Where people in the UK and other nations with a national health care system are not grasping is Americans have good healthcare. It is not a third world nation in any stretch, and those who are not "covered" are still able to get treatment, just they have to figure out later how to pay. In Canada or the UK, we pay a much higher level of taxes to have our "universal" care, and that would be likely something some Americans may consider except for the fact that the nanny state healthcare system ina lot of nations in the name of "cutting costs" is talking about cost benefit analysis on who gets WHAT care, and THAT is a decision Americans in the majority do NOT want the government taking. Example? Having them tell you that you cant have a life saving operation because you are too old. Or having the healthcare system deny your application for a new hip because you are 70 and in theory you will be dead in 4 years. There was an element to this kind of analysis in the original bill in the US Senate and it has been removed in light of the uproar.
All the arguements for and against healthcare aside, Obama is burning all his political capital up on this, while not having fixed the economy or putting anyone really back to work. From what I have seen on the news, just about every other western nation is starting to show signs of growth while the elevator is still plunging down in the US. Is this really a time to be trying to spend money like crazy putting public input to 1/6th of the US economy?
Is freedom and personal responsibility acceptable in situations where for example a pandemic spreads into the insured population because the uninsured have not sought treatment?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Do you realise you are posting in public here? You have literally no idea what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I'm not sure anyone in the UK assumes that because the US doesn't have an NHS it must have a 'third world' healthcare system. This is as incorrect a generalisation as the US right is making about state healthcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Well Ben, they know about the NHS in the UK and my healthcare system up here rationing out certain tests and procedures, and the majority of Americans do not have to wait for this stuff. If you think you may have a cancer lump, you don't want to be told by the "system" that you cant have that biopsy for 3 months because you are low priority on the list or they are short operating theatres. In America, the tests are done within HOURS. In Canada, and I suspect in the NHS, it isn't always that quick. The effort may be there, but the reality is you wait for things up here. My mother waited a year for a knee transplant. A YEAR. THAT is what the Americans want no part of, and you and I both know that the US Governnment taking over most of the healthcare system will result in crap like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Mark, quit writing crap.
The crap that you are writing as generalisations verge on outright fantasy fabrications,
Hours my ass.
NOTHING down here is done in HOURS.
Even with full insurance --- a well respected plan via my wife's job it was still over 2 months for the first spine operation.
Hours! My gawd where do you get this crap from...?
You seem to be compelled to write even though you know full well your knowledge of the details of things here is EXTREMELY INCIDENTAL.
IS THERE ANYTHING in AMERICA you're NOT an EXPERT IN?
Just shut up for fawks sake rather that just writing writing writing fabrications.
Jan...I would be insulted if it was anyone else but you, but you never seem to accept someone just might have an opinion you don't like. So in short, bite me...Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
One of my best friends from my timing and scoring days lives in Scottsville NY and he and I have always talked on and off about the differences in coverage. I do know also many Canadians drive to Buffalo (and PAY CASH)for MRI scans and other routine tests they have to WAIT for in Canada. When people are willing to drive and PAY for a routine "Free" test, doesn't that tell you something?
Since when did you become an expert on the Canadian Healthcare system? I have an OHIP card in my wallet and KNOW the pluses and minuses of my healthcare system.
It is funny, you have no problem spreading your opinion and passing it off as fact but you get offended when you see someone else doing it. My opinions on what is going on in the US may be ancedotal but my opinion on what is going on with our system I can back up. Read any Toronto paper talking about healthcare over a year and the talk of wait times for procedures is often....
I have no real problems with the NHS although I do think that there are far too many layers of middle management that dont achieve anything and need to be removed. My parents (before my dad took early retirment) had both worked over 60 years in the NHS between them.
To be honest I know nothing of the US medical system apart from that you need to get health insurance. What exactly do you get if you have full health insurance and roughly how much does it cost? Is it similar to car insurance where you make a claim your premium goes up and if for example you got cancer one year your health insurance would go up the next?
Only last month the NHS saved my dads life infact so I definately have no complaints about the service it provides but as has been said before...its not perfect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
There have been publicised cases of people being refused continued cover after they developed a serious problem, even if they had been paying premiums for years, even decades......
Most health insurance funds are in it to make MONEY, they don't want sick people on their books. :)
That's true too, but I think if the law was changed to respect people's right to actually get sick once in a while..lol...then maybe nationalizing half of the medical community of the US might not be necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelopard
I just watch what is going on in the US, and I know while a reform of the medical system may be needed, what is being offered is a dog's breakfast of bad ideas. What they could end up with is probably more confusing and worse than Canada's or the UK.
For those that don't realize it healthcare is rationed in the US. Try and get approval for a name brand drug when your plan wants generic: or, try and go to an out of network provider or hospital for care....
How many of us have had to get pre-approved for some type of test or treatment--that is rationing? US providers ration care to benefit the bottom line, not because of better health outcomes.
That may all be true, but trust me, in Canada, more than a name brand vs generic rationing is at work. I don't think there is a good choice for a version of healthcare systems, they all seem to have warts.Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff8407
You get what you pay for. if you signed up for a cheap HMO then don't be surprised if they want to give you generics.Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff8407
BTW what is so bad about generics? It is just a chemical compound. Both are FDA approved and are identical.
That is like people who spend $6 for a bottle of Tylenol when that $3 bottle of Acetaminophen is the exact same thing.
People complain about the levels of inefficiency of the NHS but when you consider that it costs £94bn to run as opposed to the US$2.26 trillion the U.S. spent on health care in 2007*, it means that on a per capita basis the NHS is 2.898 times more efficient than the health care system in the US, and certainly more equitable because the level of service afforded to patients is not determined by incomes.Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
Having been in hospitals in both the USA and the UK I can tell you from personal experience, that in the real world I don't see the level of service provided to patients by at least the hospital I was in, being 2.898 times better than an NHS hospital.
That's the rub as far as I'm concerned. The ultimate purpose of the health care system as the Rt Hon James Hacker MP said was "for healing the sick", whereas there seem to be a lot of monies in the US system flowing into private pockets.
Still, that is the consequence of a private system - private profiteering. And I suppose that if people virulently defend it, then they are by inference condoning it.
*http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealt...s/proj2007.pdf
Well there is the issue I suppose. I have not much time for a private corporation making money off of me, but I know the government often pays lip service to being for my welfare while rationing out my healthcare also. A pox on both of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
For the Yanks tho Rollo, the right of the individual to pay his way is what they are concerned about. They want that right to not have some gov't agency be in charge of what doctor they see, or what care they get. In Canada, that option is gone unless we drive south over the border. IN the UK, you guys have a private component to the system, and I suspect most Americans would accept something similar IF all the details were engraved in stone about protecting an individual's right to determine his own care. The problem is, Obama hasn't given them that choice, he is giving them a lot of non-specific generalities that will inevitablly cost everyone more ( he hasn't really rebutted that) in a time when the economy is knackered. Attacking the rich to pay for it, or attacking those joe citizens who oppose this is just digging him into an ideological hole.
I don't think the current US system is perfect, but what they are being told is their future isn't anything better. They wont get the NHS or Canada's system, they will get a mishmash of ideas with higher tax requirements and rationing of care. If they are not getting that on paper, that will be their reality.
I agree, generics should be used if available, I think here nowdays, even if the doctor writes in the prescripion the original medicine, the farmacy is obligated to tell about generics if such excist.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
The problem is some generics just aren't as good. My wife takes losec for her acid reflux. The generic that the doctors keep trying to make her accept doesn't seem to work as well as the original Losec. The pharmaceutical industry is the biggest profitteering crooks in the whole medical system, and their manipulation of formulas for various drugs and the generic market is riddled with issues....Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomi
For the most part generics do the job, but there are issues....
Most Americans will tell you that "healthcare is not a right". Bear in mind that the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was never ratified by the USA so legally Article 25 does not apply:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Article 25.1
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
But when you bear in mind that under the US Constitution, that the Government has the responsibility through the preamble to "establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", I wonder what the "Founding Fathers" meant.
Legally what promoting the General Welfare actually is has never been addressed, and this is what a lot of the arguments in the US Senate have actually been of of late.
I do admit to being sick or hearing Ron Paul's voice in podcasts. I don't mind actual debate but his voice in the chamber is most vociferous and possibly constitutes filibustering to a degree. Certainly if he spoke with a more measured tone he'd be more bearable, but I find myself going "shut up" a deal of the time.
That is true offcourse, but there is normally several different manufacturers of the generic medicines, maybe its worth to try some other brand, if it does not work, then its offcourse better to stick to the one that works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Agree about the pharmaceutical industry 100%, also the way they advertise new medicines is a bit questionable, take for instance this Tamiflu, now it does not seem to be so good as told.
To be fair in the case of Tamiflu, a one size fits all antiviral drug is pretty hard to develop that will be a knockout punch. Nature and virus mutation being what they are, I suspect Tamiflu will help but isnt a panacea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomi
I'll give some recent personal history. I recently went the self-employed route and was very apprehensive about it, fearing the worst when it came to buying my own insurance. I was very pleasantly surprised to get complete family insurance for $3504 a year. This covers all medical/dental/vision with $25 office visit co-pays. There is a $1500 per member deductable, before co-insurance kicks in at a standard 80% coverage up to calendar year out-of-pocket maximum of $7500 per individual and $15,000 per family. I keep a six-month emergency fund of $18,000 so the deductibles etc are no problem for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
To put it in perspective, At my previous employer, I had "great" insurance. My co-pay was $0, all deductibles were covered by a employer provided HRA (Health reimbursement account) The only thing I ever paid in the three years we had this plan were prescriptions, and I would recieve a check payable to me for the exact same amount three weeks later, and that was only at first, later we just picked up the prescriptions and we didn't owe a dime.
But, for this great insurance, $6000 was taken out of my paycheck over the course of a year. Using last year as a barometer, I can expect to pay out an additional $1500 this year in co-pays, deductables etc, so In a standard year with no major problems I'll actually be $1000 to the good over my previous insurance.
I was also apprehensive about dreaded pre-existing conditions. My 5 year old daughter was born with a congenital heart defect (coarctation of the aorta) and had heart surgery at 4 days old. Now, as one nurse put it, "it's a plumbing problem", and repairable, there is a chance she will have to have heart surgery again at age 15-18. They did ask for all of her records (she has an Echo done every year) , but they didn't attach any riders related to her. They won't however provide any psychological/behavioral coverage for my wife for seven years. :confused: My wife's doctor gave her a Zoloft prescription to help her deal with toddlers, but that's it as far as anything psychological. I told my wife she can't go crazy for at least 7 years :p : The only other conditions are a six month waiting period for dental and vision coverage, and a nine month waiting period for maternity benefits. In other words, you can't already be pregnant and sign up for insurance. I think those conditions are reasonable.
No, health insurance is not like car insurance, a claim alone won't raise premiums, although if I or someone in my family were do develop a chronic condition such as diabetes, the premiums would go up.
Another way it's not like car insurance is that it's not really treated like insurance, i. e. only used in catostrophic situations. I don't expect to go to the mechanic and pay the same $25 co-pay regardless of whether they are changing the oil, or overhauling the transmission. In someways there is an extreme disconnect with costs associated in medical care.
Something else I don't like is this: You get a bill for an office visit, and it says $109. Then the insurance pays $65 and the remaining $44 is automatically discounted. This is done because one insurance company pays $65 for a visit or procedure, another pays $75, or even $85, so they charge high to make sure they maximize their revenue. This hurts those without insurance because many times they refuse to negotiate with you and give you the discounted price even though you are paying cash today and there is no paperwork to file :angryfire . Did I mention this has happened to me? ;)
A couple of other thoughts on health care reform:
Any reform bill that does not include tort reform is incomplete on it's face.
There's a problem because there's five different versions of the bill and nobody know's what's in it and the populace in general doesn't really trust the government because of an annoying tendency to insert items for favored groups (like trial lawyer lobbyists), not debate them and then ram the deals through. Nothing this important should be treated that way.
I think politicians have misinterpreted people's complaints about insurance companies as a call to action. When it comes to change, there's the devil you know and the devil you don't. We may complain and hate certain things about our health insurance, but when push comes to shove, it is preferable to the alternative for many.
Question, do you think if you had a gov't system you would pay MORE in taxes than you do in insurance? Second, would you accept a gov't plan if it was a simple bill with easy to understand objectives? Tort Reform isn't in the new bills anywhere and THAT is the biggest anchor on the medical system....Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexamateo
For me personally, yes, I would probably pay more in taxes than premiums. I went out on my own March 1, and at the risk of sounding immodest, I have met spectacular success and am moving into higher tax brackets (and during a recession to boot).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
As far as the second, I don't know, I just think it's not the role of government to provide us with healthcare. Provide the laws and framework within which it exists, yes, but to actually pay for it, no.
Actually the best situation is to probably be a Canadian living near the US border. A nice government provided system at low cost to the consumer, and the US, just a short drive away should a little more be desired ;) :p : :D
ummmm That would be me if I had the money to swing it.. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexamateo
Its common known that every day buss loads of us people goes to canada and buy their medicine from there, it was a program in tv here about it not so long time ago.
******** you write FLAT statements which very often are complete boolock and then when you're caslled out for writing your NARROW opinion with no qualifiers ie "There's no waiting", then you whine piteously that it's merely your opinion and I can't accept anybody else's opinionsQuote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Bullsheet,
I can't stand people writing OPINION as FACTS.
You can have your voluminous and verbose opinions but OCCASIONALLY ADD A "In my opinion" or "It seems to me" or "Somebody I was talking to said, but I HAVE NO PERSONAL EXPERIENCE....".
And I don't doubt you keep abreast of Canajian Health care developments, but don't write crap about this *****up system here when your experience is SO MASSIVELY LIMITED to anecdotal contacts with a few people.
Your ranting about me "since when did I become an expert on the Canadian system?" is flat bizarre, I never claimed to be an expert any ANY, although I did say I have been treated for motorsport related serious injuries in a number of different countries over several decades.
That's limited experience but my 30 year informal poll shows most people have NEVER been treated for injuries, had an operation, or been hospitalised.
So I guess i have a LOT MORE actual experience than average TO BASE AN OPINION ON.
That's the real rub: opinions are one thing but are they based on actual personal experience, or second, third, 15th hand re-telling?
Informed opinions or just talk.
Or opinion with no qualifying phrases presented indistinguishable from a "fact'.
I just do what you do John...except you have a hate on for me while I find your complaints a little hypocritical. You make assumptions about the Canadian system based on what I cant discern, while I have many friends in the US who have told me their experiences and opinions. Some want a Canadian style system, some don't. My point in this whole thread is maybe those against what Obama is proposing may have a pretty good reason to not like this particular version of socialized medicine. You I know seem to think the US is overeacting and is going to hell in a handbasket if they don't accept the Obama plan or not....I find I haven't found your clear opinion on much of anything except a dislike of my thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Actually...not sure what your EXACT thoughts are. As for calling me a post whore, thanks...its a hobby. When Ia m gone for 5 or 6 days you can post away and spew YOUR opinion and I am not going to complain. I used to find you annoying, now I find you just amusing....