Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Caller)   "The nonpartisan Fraser Institute reported that 46,159 Canadians sought medical treatment outside of Canada in 2011." So....like half?   (dailycaller.com) divider line 262
    More: Interesting, Fraser Institute, Canadians, public health care, Prince Edward Island, therapies, elective  
•       •       •

4134 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jul 2012 at 1:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



262 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-12 10:39:59 AM  

randomjsa: I honestly believe that a free market system produces better results.


So a health insurer's profit motive does not conflict with a policy holder's need for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of recurring care?
 
2012-07-12 10:59:23 AM  

Drexl's Eye: Yep. Last November, my old man went to see his doc for dizziness and minor chest pain. She performed a stress test which came back normal, but wanted to be sure so she sent him to a heart specialist. Within a week he'd had an angiogram, whereupon they told him he wouldn't be going home that night. He had bypass surgery the next day. All of this happened in Toronto, and none of it cost him a penny.


Yup. My nephew a couple of years ago woke up dizzy, with a splitting headache, and missing some vision. He was rushed by ambulance to Sick Kids in Toronto. Had an immediate MRI, was diagnosed with a malformation of blood vessels in his brain (which had bled, but stopped on their own). He was in ICU for a week or so, and they scheduled him for follow up (they didn't want to risk an operation until they were sure the area in his melon was stabilized).and scheduled his first brain surgery a few weeks later. He's had another since (since he's still growing, the malformation potentially comes back every few years) but all's going well. The total cost to the parents? Whatever they pay in taxes plus $40 for the original ambulance ride.
 
2012-07-12 11:01:56 AM  

Drexl's Eye: sno man: The Fraser Institute is non partisan ish. The Daily Caller, not even so much. Slanted story has slippery sides.
19 weeks to get from GP to a specialist and get treated by said specialist...what for water on the knee?
less that 3% of Canadians waiting for treatment any any given time... How many 'mericans are waiting just now?
AND how many more aren't even eligible for treatment?
46k Canadians have coin extra enough to blow to jump the queue and take a few days or maybe a couple of weeks off their treatment for SOMETHING NON LIFE THREATENING. Good for them, good for the American docs treating these assholes, every body wins, but it looks bad in the press. DC, FU. KTHXBI

Yep. Last November, my old man went to see his doc for dizziness and minor chest pain. She performed a stress test which came back normal, but wanted to be sure so she sent him to a heart specialist. Within a week he'd had an angiogram, whereupon they told him he wouldn't be going home that night. He had bypass surgery the next day. All of this happened in Toronto, and none of it cost him a penny.


This needs to be repeated - often. The system is far from perfect, but if it's life threatening you get treatment ASAP. I had a pain in my calf, mentioned it to my doctor during a routine physical and she sent me to the hospital for an ultrasound. Turned out to be a massive blood clot. Was put on medication and sent on my way. Total elapsed time - 6 hours (including travel time between her office and hospital).

Two days later, having trouble breathing - see my doctor and she sends me back to the hospital. I walk into radiology and they're waiting for me. No shiat, when I told them my name, they pulled a post-it note off the desk and whisked me right in. I had a CT scan immediately - hundreds of micro clots in my lungs. Total elapsed time - 4 hours.

Oh, as a side note, fark the Fraser Institute. Calling them nonpartisan is like calling Ezra Levant a journalist.
 
2012-07-12 11:09:51 AM  

Mercutio74: Yup. My nephew a couple of years ago woke up dizzy, with a splitting headache, and missing some vision. He was rushed by ambulance to Sick Kids in Toronto. Had an immediate MRI, was diagnosed with a malformation of blood vessels in his brain (which had bled, but stopped on their own). He was in ICU for a week or so, and they scheduled him for follow up (they didn't want to risk an operation until they were sure the area in his melon was stabilized).and scheduled his first brain surgery a few weeks later. He's had another since (since he's still growing, the malformation potentially comes back every few years) but all's going well. The total cost to the parents? Whatever they pay in taxes plus $40 for the original ambulance ride.


Sick Kids is awesome. A buddy of mine is a nurse there. I can't imagine the emotional toll of being around kids with various cancers all the time, but he's a happy guy, loves his work.
 
2012-07-12 11:11:21 AM  

Glenford: Oh, as a side note, fark the Fraser Institute. Calling them nonpartisan is like calling Ezra Levant a journalist


This is key. The Fraser Institute is essentially the Canadian Cato Institute.
 
2012-07-12 11:15:26 AM  

Drexl's Eye: Sick Kids is awesome. A buddy of mine is a nurse there. I can't imagine the emotional toll of being around kids with various cancers all the time, but he's a happy guy, loves his work.


Farking eh, man. My daughter was sent there after she was born to get an echo of her heart to make sure her tachycardia was electrical in origin and not structural (she's perfectly healthy today). Wonderful facility, great doctors and likely the best nurses on the whole planet. Tell your buddy thanks from me. He's part of an unreasonably talented and compassionate team.
 
2012-07-12 11:18:48 AM  

Mercutio74: Glenford: Oh, as a side note, fark the Fraser Institute. Calling them nonpartisan is like calling Ezra Levant a journalist

This is key. The Fraser Institute is essentially the Canadian Cato Institute.


It must be very popular, I'm sure people love hearing that they should embrace capatilistic healthcare, and start paying thousands out of pocket, and go into debt over a broken leg or the kid needing braces.
 
2012-07-12 11:21:47 AM  

Raharu: It must be very popular, I'm sure people love hearing that they should embrace capatilistic healthcare, and start paying thousands out of pocket, and go into debt over a broken leg or the kid needing braces.


My personal belief is that it was founded to make money from Canadian News organizations. Before Fraser, if CBC or CTV wanted to have a discussion they'd only be able to get people with logical and factual points to make. Fraser filled the gap where you're a segment producer and you realize you need a disingenuous inflammatory nutjob on the panel.
 
2012-07-12 11:33:39 AM  

pedobearapproved: balloot: Yup. And nobody goes bankrupt or doesn't get care.

You got cured from cancer and went bankrupt? Wahhh. Of all the first world problems. You're alive, you still have a roof over your head and don't have debt. Sounds terrible.


WTF. This is seriously the new Republican line of reasoning?
 
2012-07-12 11:39:33 AM  
So, in summary,:

An insignificant amount of Canadians (1% who sought medical care) sought treatment in the US.
There was no reason given, but a large portion were because they were the closest major facility was in the US (which works both ways). Therefore Canadians hate their health care system and it is a complete and utter failure. And despite being cheaper and having better results than the US system, we should go to a US model.

Good article.

Also, non-partisan doesn't mean anything more than they aren't affiliated with a party, not that they are acting objectively and without an agenda.

The Canadian model ("Canadian System" is misleading in and of itself because it is different in every province, under the same guidelines) is far from perfect, and I would say it is behind those of Europe and should NOT (on its own) be used as a model to create a new system. It is old and needs to be updated, but if anyone suggested real reform they would be thrown out of office in an instant by people not willing to risk what we do have. The US should look around the world and find the best aspects of each system to move forward and develop the best one possible.
 
2012-07-12 11:40:45 AM  

balloot: pedobearapproved: balloot: Yup. And nobody goes bankrupt or doesn't get care.

You got cured from cancer and went bankrupt? Wahhh. Of all the first world problems. You're alive, you still have a roof over your head and don't have debt. Sounds terrible.

WTF. This is seriously the new Republican line of reasoning?


The best part is it ignores the reality that while some people merely go bankrupt and end up healthy, most people with medical bankruptcies end up without a job and still sick.

Get sick, lose job, lose employer related health coverage... woohooo! Guess they should have shopped around better when picking an insurance company through the free market eh?
 
2012-07-12 12:11:14 PM  

sigdiamond2000: Nonpartisan.


Tucker Carlson, owner of The Daily Caller refers to himself as 'The most non-partisan guy I know' and a few days ago referred to a source that said that 85% of all doctors were considering quitting as non-partisan, even though both founders of the source organization are active Tea Partiers.

NON-PARTISAN!
 
2012-07-12 12:13:37 PM  

coco ebert: I wonder how many Americans are in or fund this Fraser Institute. Regardless, I wish we Americans would stop trying to export our shiatty, failed policies and instead stfu and focus on fixing our own problems. Perhaps by learning from other countries. Such a novel idea, ain't it.


You mean like Sweden with their forced sterilizations and eugenics? Wait, we tried that already. It's called Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. Maybe we could try free health care, like Belgium where "free" means (a) crushing taxation and (b) no ability to defend their own nation and (c) rampant drug use.

Hmm. I'm going about this all wrong. Not making my case. England where the wait is so long for a dentist people have resorted to pulling their own teeth. Dammit, try again ... uh ... yes, yes! Cuban healthcare! No wait, that's a bad one. Australia, where the ambulance system is obliged to respond to all calls, of course being overwhelmed with evefy kind of call but the real calls for help. Dagnabbit ... there's got to be at least one we can learn from ... Japan? Hmmm, no.

Germany? Hey, maybe yes! But then, it's Germany. The nations of the world keep a pretty close eye on what germans are spending on.

Here's the rub ...

Democrats of 1861 - "I got a right to force people to work my fields!"

Democrats of 2012 - "I got a right to force people to pay for my healthcare!"

Seriously
 
2012-07-12 12:23:28 PM  

Clemkadidlefark:

Democrats of 2012 - "I got a right to force people to pay for my healthcare!"


Hey cool! What kind of gun is being held to your head?
 
2012-07-12 12:25:25 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: coco ebert: I wonder how many Americans are in or fund this Fraser Institute. Regardless, I wish we Americans would stop trying to export our shiatty, failed policies and instead stfu and focus on fixing our own problems. Perhaps by learning from other countries. Such a novel idea, ain't it.

You mean like Sweden with their forced sterilizations and eugenics? Wait, we tried that already. It's called Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. Maybe we could try free health care, like Belgium where "free" means (a) crushing taxation and (b) no ability to defend their own nation and (c) rampant drug use.

Hmm. I'm going about this all wrong. Not making my case. England where the wait is so long for a dentist people have resorted to pulling their own teeth. Dammit, try again ... uh ... yes, yes! Cuban healthcare! No wait, that's a bad one. Australia, where the ambulance system is obliged to respond to all calls, of course being overwhelmed with evefy kind of call but the real calls for help. Dagnabbit ... there's got to be at least one we can learn from ... Japan? Hmmm, no.

Germany? Hey, maybe yes! But then, it's Germany. The nations of the world keep a pretty close eye on what germans are spending on.

Here's the rub ...

Democrats of 1861 - "I got a right to force people to work my fields!"

Democrats of 2012 - "I got a right to force people to pay for my healthcare!"

Seriously


Sweetie, you keep thinking that health care sucks in countries like Sweden, Germany, Australia, and the UK. Really, keep thinking that.
 
2012-07-12 12:33:41 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: coco ebert: I wonder how many Americans are in or fund this Fraser Institute. Regardless, I wish we Americans would stop trying to export our shiatty, failed policies and instead stfu and focus on fixing our own problems. Perhaps by learning from other countries. Such a novel idea, ain't it.

You mean like Sweden with their forced sterilizations and eugenics? Wait, we tried that already. It's called Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. Maybe we could try free health care, like Belgium where "free" means (a) crushing taxation and (b) no ability to defend their own nation and (c) rampant drug use.

Hmm. I'm going about this all wrong. Not making my case. England where the wait is so long for a dentist people have resorted to pulling their own teeth. Dammit, try again ... uh ... yes, yes! Cuban healthcare! No wait, that's a bad one. Australia, where the ambulance system is obliged to respond to all calls, of course being overwhelmed with evefy kind of call but the real calls for help. Dagnabbit ... there's got to be at least one we can learn from ... Japan? Hmmm, no.

Germany? Hey, maybe yes! But then, it's Germany. The nations of the world keep a pretty close eye on what germans are spending on.

Here's the rub ...

Democrats of 1861 - "I got a right to force people to work my fields!"

Democrats of 2012 - "I got a right to force people to pay for my healthcare!"

Seriously


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-07-12 12:37:20 PM  
It's not right that I have to pay a fine if I don't pay for insurance!
It's not right that I have to pay a fine if I don't pay the parking meter downtown!
 
2012-07-12 12:38:07 PM  

wippit: It's not right that I have to pay a fine if I don't pay for insurance!
It's not right that I have to pay a fine if I don't pay the parking meter downtown!


Oh, that's a great analogy. There's no arguing with that logic.
 
2012-07-12 12:43:10 PM  

jigger: wippit: It's not right that I have to pay a fine if I don't pay for insurance!
It's not right that I have to pay a fine if I don't pay the parking meter downtown!

Oh, that's a great analogy. There's no arguing with that logic.


Meh. I don't even understand the problem. I'm Canadian.
 
2012-07-12 01:09:10 PM  
The U.S. has the best doctors and hospitals, therefore the system works. It has nothing to do with our vast population, wealth, and technology. Nope.
 
2012-07-12 01:10:49 PM  
People don't realize that their greatest asset isn't their house, their stocks, or their savings, but their health.
 
2012-07-12 01:11:48 PM  

wippit: It's not right that I have to pay a fine if I don't pay for insurance!
It's not right that I have to pay a fine if I don't pay the parking meter downtown!


Actually, it's worse. The federal government has been putting a gun to the head of taxpayers to fund these louses who end up in the E.R., Obamacare is a step towards correcting the huge deficit in personal responsibility.
 
2012-07-12 01:13:59 PM  
The biggest problem with the Canadian system is that we live next to the US. Your system is such a clusterfark of suck that any discussion of changes immediately gets struck down.

\and the doctors "unions" are a bit to strong
\\and Canada doesn't approve new drugs fast enough
 
2012-07-12 01:15:06 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: England where the wait is so long for a dentist people have resorted to pulling their own teeth. Dammit, try again


What are the wait times?

How many documented cases of people pulling their own teeth because they couldn't wait?

Would they be better off with no coverage at all?
 
2012-07-12 01:22:27 PM  
Such a discussion that everyone misses the point!

The healthcare debate is not about "everyone having access to a good healthcare system". It is about what everything else in washington is about these days: MONEY.

Pure and simple - the huge divide between liberal and conservative is intentional. The class warfare is intentional. It is all designed to distract you from what is really going on. No, I don't mean some crazy whack job conspiracy theory or that aliens are mind controlling everyone. It is plain and simple greed.

Follow the money - Look at the Lobbyist involved, for example, 2 pharmaceutical lobbyist for every every member of congress. Hmm, that has nothing to do with it... What about the exemptions? Congress does not have to participate? How about the Unions? Seems a bit messed up right?

Meanwhile, the "rich", the people paying for it, are not really rich at all but people who are middle class, pay high taxes and work their asses off to try to get by.
 
2012-07-12 01:27:03 PM  
To quote the eloquent Great American philosopher and artiste, Mel Brooks: BULLshiat!

Bullshiat! Bullshiat! Bullshiat!


1) Non-partisan does not mean non-ideological or impartial. The Frazer Institute is a right-wing stink tank that produces propaganda for consumption and dissemination by right-wing politicians, journalists and the right wing public. So Bullshiat.

2) The Bullshiat Frazer Institution is hoping you will draw bullshiat inferences from their bullshiat data. In fact, the number is meaningless without context. What is the context?

Well, I Googled medical tourism and got 20,400,000 hits, about the same number of hits as there are people in Canada who do not pay income taxes or even fill out an income tax form. Canadian health is free to the user for the most part, but even the taxpayers are few and far between. The non-taxpayers really are getting good or great medical care FOR FREE.

Also, what is 40,000-odd Canadians going abroad for health care? What does it mean? How many people come to Canada for health care? How many Americans? How many Americans go abroad for health care.

If each one of those hits represents one medical tourist, the 40,000-odd Canadians represents a disproportionately SMALL number of medical "tourists". Maybe more of us should take advantage of LOW LOW PRICES AND NO WAITING in places like Jamaica, Mexico, the Philappines., Russia, India and China.

Do you think they all go abroad because they are dissatisfied with health care at home or are faced with wait times they choose not to accept?

So? Some of these people are idiots. For example, a much-touted case of a woman facing several months wait who mortgaged her house for $150,000 or so and went to the States for speedier care (it's called QUEUE JUMPING) was probably a bit of a fool. For one thing, she didn't have anything that urgently wrong with her that she might have died. For another, she took on the kind of massive debt that 45,000,000 Americans face at any given time just to jump queue on good quality and timely health care at home. Why would you do that? No doubt there is some narcissism and panic involved in some such cases.

The false inference is that Canadians are unhappy with their health care, but most are not and most of those who are are not dissatisfied with the fact that they can get expensive medicines, treatments, operations, etc., for free, but with the speed of delivery or the lack of certain really expensive items on their personal shopping lists.

In other words, a lot of them are whiners who have been watching too many American TV ads or reading too many magazine ads in American or even Canadian magazines.

ASK YOUR DOCTOR ... IF YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
 
2012-07-12 01:36:54 PM  

ox45tallboy: AppleOptionEsc: Wha-wha-what the? Who are you, and what did you do with trollbait?

Wife-like-typing detected.


Obviously Obamacare is working out for randomjsa. He's clearly back on his meds again.
 
2012-07-12 01:42:36 PM  

Arglex1: What about the exemptions? Congress does not have to participate?


Congress and the Federal government employees have had exchanges for years. The problem with people serving in Congress is what exchange do you put them in? Their home state's exchange? The Washington D.C. exchange? Or one of the surrounding states' exchanges? It really doesn't matter, however, considering that they are purchasing from the same companies you are purchasing from through an exchange system...as they have been doing for many years now.

How about the Unions?

Unions are not exempt. Numerous groups received temporary waivers. The operative word here is temporary. Plenty of propaganda outlets on the far-right wing have pushed the talking point that the unions are exempt. They are not. They received temporary waivers to allow time for reorganization in cases where they fund their own health care plans. They are in no way, shape, or form exempted from the law.

Seems a bit messed up right?

Not when you have the facts.
 
2012-07-12 01:44:23 PM  
I'll be back.

With numbers.

Advertisement
Hello, Everybody! Doctor Nick says: Americans can save 30 to 60% on healthcare costs in Canada. Source: Wikipedia, article on medical tourism


Of course, you can also save money if you shop around for specials and bargains in the US. You might even save money by clipping coupons or getting a vacation/medical package deal. If worse comes to worse, you can wait in line at a free clinic or a discount physician's office. There's nothing much wrong with the US health care industry that beating the buggers to death with a shovel wouldn't cure. That and the highest costs in the world of space and time.
 
2012-07-12 01:47:52 PM  

brantgoose: Well, I Googled medical tourism and got 20,400,000 hits, about the same number of hits as there are people in Canada who do not pay income taxes or even fill out an income tax form. Canadian health is free to the user for the most part, but even the taxpayers are few and far between. The non-taxpayers really are getting good or great medical care FOR FREE.


I really doubt that just 1/3 of Canadians file a tax return. If it is true, more than 1/3 Canadians is employed and will therefore have taxes withheld, thereby paying income taxes even without filing (and likely not claiming various benefits and refunds, as nearly 2/3 of filed tax returns have a refund).
And even if they aren't paying income taxes, they are still pay sales tax etc that fund the government.
 
2012-07-12 01:50:08 PM  

Strongbeerrules: I live in Alberta. Forget this Canadian universal health coverage myth. No dental coverage, hours-long wait at so-called emergency centers, clinics telling you there're booked up and can't help you.....

Unless you have Manulife insurance though your Alanta employer. Then you get respect.


Emergency dental care is covered. Your fillings from drinking too much Coke? Not so much.

Long waiting times in emergency centres are the result of stupid people going to emergency for a cold, or because they stubbed a toe, and because there are no GPs because all the money is in specialized care. If you are bleeding to death, have a compound fracture or are in imminent distress, you skip the queue. If you've cut your finger and need some stitches, you don't need emergency-right-farking-now care. It's called triage. It doesn't help that the Alberta government keeps cutting health funding making it more and more difficult to have enough staff and beds at all levels of care from emergency to palliative.

Clinics are booked up because of several reasons depending on what kind of specialized care you are looking for, but mostly because what few GPs there are send people to specialists for everything now-a-days. I once got sent to a specialist because I had a head cold and my GP "didn't feel comfortable prescribing a decongestant because I might have a sinus infection".

A lot of the anecdotal "evidence" that our healthcare system is farked up is taken too seriously. Are there problems? Yes. Is there strain because provincial governments (I'm looking at you Klein) keep cutting health spending? Yes. Are families forced into penury so they can get medical care? Not very often.
 
2012-07-12 01:52:13 PM  

dywed88: I really doubt that just 1/3 of Canadians file a tax return. If it is true, more than 1/3 Canadians is employed and will therefore have taxes withheld, thereby paying income taxes even without filing (and likely not claiming various benefits and refunds, as nearly 2/3 of filed tax returns have a refund).
And even if they aren't paying income taxes, they are still pay sales tax etc that fund the government.


2/3rds of Canadians are under 18 / over 65?

Course, everyone ends up paying tax with our Good and Services Tax, but i digress...
 
2012-07-12 01:57:04 PM  

wippit: 2/3rds of Canadians are under 18 / over 65?


No reason to not file because you are under 18 or over 65. They can still get benefits from filing.

Half of Canadians are employed and have taxes withheld. Any of them are stupid if they aren't filing returns.
 
2012-07-12 02:02:22 PM  
"Congress and the Federal government employees have had exchanges for years. The problem with people serving in Congress is what exchange do you put them in? Their home state's exchange? The Washington D.C. exchange? Or one of the surrounding states' exchanges? It really doesn't matter, however, considering that they are purchasing from the same companies you are purchasing from through an exchange system...as they have been doing for many years now."

Ah, IC, they have an exchange and the "temporary waiver" they (as well as unions) receive is just temporary. Nice fact until that temporary waiver is extended, and extended again, then again and so on.

Lets just leave congress and the unions out and look at the reality of it:

The U.S. Government is really, really bad at running things. We can list a bunch of things and they are pretty much all run in the gutter and broke.
The Government right now is, well, broke.
Health Care costs have risen quite a bit over the past year (I should know, my plan costs almost 2 grand a month to cover my family).
Bureaucracy slows down progress and true free market (not the corporation controlled market) spurs great innovation.

Maybe, just maybe, if the government would get out of the way, set a few straight forward simple rules that everyone has to follow, the market would correct itself.

If anyone believes that the U.S. government will do a better job of running health care than a free market will, good luck with your social security retirement plan!

You see, a "free" health care system is not "free". It puts more of a burden on the people who pay taxes (and for their own health care).
 
2012-07-12 02:04:20 PM  

Mouldy Squid: Long waiting times in emergency centres are the result of stupid people going to emergency for a cold, or because they stubbed a toe, and because there are no GPs because all the money is in specialized care. If you are bleeding to death, have a compound fracture or are in imminent distress, you skip the queue.


Go in and say you are having breathing issues, and you get in a room immediately (although you could just end up sitting on oxygen for the regular wait). Been there, done that, and repeated.
 
2012-07-12 02:10:32 PM  

Arglex1: If anyone believes that the U.S. government will do a better job of running health care than a free market will, good luck with your social security retirement plan!


Social Security is fine. If we do nothing, a generation will only get 75% of promised, they die and it's back to good. Or just raise the cap on the tax a bit and everything is fine.

Our current health care system puts a burden on those who have private insurance by having to bail out those who don't.
 
2012-07-12 02:16:47 PM  
A free market health care system *could* possibly be better if there wasn't an abundance of asymmetric information.
 
2012-07-12 02:19:09 PM  
Even if this figure is accurate, far more Americans come to Canada for their health care needs.
 
2012-07-12 02:25:45 PM  

Arglex1: Ah, IC, they have an exchange and the "temporary waiver" they (as well as unions) receive is just temporary. Nice fact until that temporary waiver is extended, and extended again, then again and so on.


Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the temporary waiver program will be extended? Anything? Or is this just more far-right wing conspiracy and low-information voter propaganda?

Lets just leave congress and the unions out and look at the reality of it:

Funny, I was looking at the reality of it. You were looking at the far-right wing talking points.

The U.S. Government is really, really bad at running things.

In terms of health care systems, the government is actually better at running them than the private sector. Case in point, the VA system which has been shown to be the best health system in the United States in numerous studies from the National Quality Research Center to RAND. Published peer-reviewed studies have been in the NEJM, American Journal of Medical Quality, and the Journal of the American College of Surgeons to name a few. They also run significantly cheaper than private health care systems.

We can list a bunch of things and they are pretty much all run in the gutter and broke.
The Government right now is, well, broke.
Health Care costs have risen quite a bit over the past year (I should know, my plan costs almost 2 grand a month to cover my family).
Bureaucracy slows down progress and true free market (not the corporation controlled market) spurs great innovation.


That's not true at all for health care. And in fact, in most cases, the government runs things a lot more efficiently than the private sector at a cheaper cost. The number of examples of privatization being a success are few and very far between. Off hand, I can't think of one.

Maybe, just maybe, if the government would get out of the way, set a few straight forward simple rules that everyone has to follow, the market would correct itself.

If anyone believes that the U.S. government will do a better job of running health care than a free market will, good luck with your social security retirement plan!


We've already been there in the US health care system. We've already tried to go back to it as well. It happened in the BBA of 1997 where Republicanists tried to implement free market strategies into the health care system. It was such a failure that the Balanced Budget Refinement Act was passed in 1999 to correct their errors in judgment. Why you are pushing for those same failed tactics again is beyond comprehension. When you remove the government from health care systems all you are left with is places of dense population having adequate health care. Everybody else is screwed seeing as the free market dictates that it is too costly to run a health care system in underutilized areas, even if these underutilized areas still have people in need of care. When Republicanists tried to implement it in 1997, thousands of clinics across the US were about to close their doors. That's the reality of the situation.

You see, a "free" health care system is not "free". It puts more of a burden on the people who pay taxes (and for their own health care).

Actually, all it does is eliminate health care. That's the real burden and the reality of the situation. All you have to do is look at the US health care system prior to government involvement specifically in the form of the Hill-Burton Act. There was no hospital network or care network in the US until that point. That's exactly what you are advocating going back to.

If I were you, and I'm oh so glad that I'm not, I would educate myself before I came spewing this free market bullshiat that has been tried and shown to be an utter failure. If you are unable to adequately educate yourself on the topic at hand, it is your civic duty to not vote and allow those who have educated themselves on the topics at hand make the informed decisions for you.
 
2012-07-12 02:38:16 PM  

Brosef13: A free market health care system *could* possibly be better if there wasn't an abundance of asymmetric information.


Even so, if I have the facilities and staff to provide say.... heart surgery... and you need heart surgery, how much would you pay? And if my price is too high, do you have time to comparison shop?

Health care is not suited for a free market solution. The buyer needs to have the ability to reasonably opt out of the transaction.
 
2012-07-12 02:55:29 PM  
Medical tourists are not counted accurately. Numbers are estimates and highly unreliable.

This site points out the flaws in the numbers, with estimates that range from 150,000 Americans a year to 1,000,000 Americans a year. The low figure does not include Americans who travel to Mexico, Canada, Cuba, or the Caribbean islands that "border" the USA. The high figure includes Mexicans resident in the USA who return to Mexico for medical care they can not get in the US. These may account for half of the high figure, or 500,000.

Despite the shakiness of the numbers, it is clear that many thousands of Americans travel abroad for medical care and that nearby countries such as Mexico and Canada get the bulk of medical tourists. Also, it is likely that there are as many more American medical tourists relative to the population as there are Canadian medical tourists, so differences in the two countries health care don't seem to increase the number of people who go abroad to get medical care, except for illegal or legal Mexicans and Canadians, who presumably will go to their home countries to get medical care if they are eligible for cheaper care or not eligible for medical insurance or care in the USA.

In short, anybody who tells you that people are travelling abroad because the health care at home is farked up is probably talking BS. They haven't got facts to support that, and what facts we have support a lot of other explanations rather than dissatisfaction or quality of care.

Caveat emptor applies to both the ideology or propaganda on one hand and the medical care and insurance on the other.
 
2012-07-12 03:03:39 PM  
k

Mercutio74: Brosef13: A free market health care system *could* possibly be better if there wasn't an abundance of asymmetric information.

Even so, if I have the facilities and staff to provide say.... heart surgery... and you need heart surgery, how much would you pay? And if my price is too high, do you have time to comparison shop?

Health care is not suited for a free market solution. The buyer needs to have the ability to reasonably opt out of the transaction.


Technically if I had perfect information I would know how much you'd charge and you as a provider would have no arbitrage possibilities to 'gouge' me.

Your point makes a good point as the cost of anything is how much an individual is willing to pay for it, that would be much higher in an emergency, and an individual would end up paying much more than the fair cost.

Even single payer systems experience the asymmetric information problem, and doctors could in theory over-prescribe treatments.

That being said I agree a free-market system does not perform optimally for healthcare, just like it would not perform optimally for other 'emergency' services like police and firefighters.
 
2012-07-12 03:05:18 PM  

dywed88: So, in summary,:

An insignificant amount of Canadians (1% who sought medical care) sought treatment in the US.


even better:

despite what the article says, the linked study is clear that the ~1% refers to people who sought treatment outside Canada, not just in the US.

and even better than that, the numbers are estimates based on the number of people who were expected to receive treatment in Canada, but didn't. these aren't counts of actual procedures, these are estimates.

it's all bogus.
 
2012-07-12 03:15:28 PM  

Brosef13: Technically if I had perfect information I would know how much you'd charge and you as a provider would have no arbitrage possibilities to 'gouge' me.

Your point makes a good point as the cost of anything is how much an individual is willing to pay for it, that would be much higher in an emergency, and an individual would end up paying much more than the fair cost.

Even single payer systems experience the asymmetric information problem, and doctors could in theory over-prescribe treatments.

That being said I agree a free-market system does not perform optimally for healthcare, just like it would not perform optimally for other 'emergency' services like police and firefighters.



Perfect information, especially in the case of a highly specialized and technological field like medicine, just isn't reasonably attainable. Even if you had perfect information regarding the cost of diagnostics and treatments, you'd still need the know how to figure out which combination of those items is suitable for your condition. It's a fun thought experiment, but in the real world, it's just not workable.

To me, the solution is much easier when profit is taken out of the equation. That way a nation can focus on how to make a system where doctors are rewarded for taking good care of their patients... as opposed to simply rewarded for over prescribing drugs, diagnostics or procedures... a decent outcome is easier to achieve.
 
2012-07-12 03:41:33 PM  

Clemkdidlefark: coco ebert: I wonder how many Americans are in or fund this Fraser Institute. Regardless, I wish we Americans would stop trying to export our shiatty, failed policies and instead stfu and focus on fixing our own problems. Perhaps by learning from other countries. Such a novel idea, ain't it.

You mean like Sweden with their forced sterilizations and eugenics? Wait, we tried that already. It's called Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. Maybe we could try free health care, like Belgium where "free" means (a) crushing taxation and (b) no ability to defend their own nation and (c) rampant drug use.

Hmm. I'm going about this all wrong. Not making my case. England where the wait is so long for a dentist people have resorted to pulling their own teeth. Dammit, try again ... uh ... yes, yes! Cuban healthcare! No wait, that's a bad one. Australia, where the ambulance system is obliged to respond to all calls, of course being overwhelmed with evefy kind of call but the real calls for help. Dagnabbit ... there's got to be at least one we can learn from ... Japan? Hmmm, no.

Germany? Hey, maybe yes! But then, it's Germany. The nations of the world keep a pretty close eye on what germans are spending on.

Here's the rub ...

Democrats of 1861 - "I got a right to force people to work my fields!"

Democrats of 2012 - "I got a right to force people to pay for my healthcare!"

Seriously


Say something ridiculously stupid and inflammatory and disappear?
/plonk
 
2012-07-12 03:43:28 PM  
Doc Lee:

Wow, just utter wow!

-Tactics - If you disagree with someone, call them names. (used by both liberals and conservatives) Quite a sad tactic.

I am willing to have a civil debate however, you need to learn a few things before going any further:

I will not call names, insult or degrade you but sarcasm is excellent. Please do the same.
I am not a "republican, or democrat". I vote on issues how I see they make sense.
My knowledge on issues comes from the same general area yours does. Google works for both of us. However, I do plan my life on a budget and wish the government would too.

Now, go back to this statement:

"Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the temporary waiver program will be extended? Anything?"

NOPE. None whatsoever. Lets see how far it gets extended for though.

"In terms of health care systems, the government is actually better at running them than the private sector. Case in point, the VA system which has been shown to be the best health system in the United States in numerous studies from the National Quality Research Center to RAND. Published peer-reviewed studies have been in the NEJM, American Journal of Medical Quality, and the Journal of the American College of Surgeons to name a few. They also run significantly cheaper than private health care systems."

My Mistake. I should have said FEDERAL government. Sometimes States can and will do a good job of something. Federal, always fails.
someone posted above that SS was doing fine except for the baby boomers. That is not true. SS is broke as broke can get. And it is because of the government that it is broke. If in fact it was kept as a retirement plan only and no funds could be used in the general fund, it would not be in trouble. During the Clinton years, it was doing very well. They (congress and senate) raided it. Do I need more examples (lets go truthfully into this):
Federal backed housing market? (fannie may, freddie mac)
Medicare?
How is that war on drugs doing?

"That's not true at all for health care. And in fact, in most cases, the government runs things a lot more efficiently than the private sector at a cheaper cost. The number of examples of privatization being a success are few and very far between. Off hand, I can't think of one."

Here, let me help you: Yes, health care is expensive. If you avoid the WHY, it can't be fixed by simply turning it over to the government. Efficient? I personally service quite a few facilities that are much much much more efficiently run than lets say a VA hospital.

Hopefully you are referring to Health care only. I will stay on topic and bite. What health care system is run more efficiently than private sector? Hopefully you are not referring to medicare. Medicare is a system that is quickly running out of money (as is the rest of the government). What is the number one problem? Prescription medication (IMHO). DRUGS are way overpriced, competition is removed, too many medications and no actual cures. Now, is this a burden of the government to fix? Absolutely because they caused it. Remember the lobbyist I mentioned earlier? Who do you think is pushing mandatory "psych testing"? That would not happen to be part of the Lobby from big pharma would it?

"Actually, all it does is eliminate health care. That's the real burden and the reality of the situation. All you have to do is look at the US health care system prior to government involvement specifically in the form of the Hill-Burton Act. There was no hospital network or care network in the US until that point. That's exactly what you are advocating going back to."

Um, NO. I can go round and round with you on this one but lets take a different approach which I will mention after I finish your post. If you are going to claim that the "back woods" hospitals are only there because of government involvement, I would recommend a bit more research. Take for example the centers in the south like in Texas. These centers are driven by another "evil" industry, big oil (as one example). Not directly but through workman's comp... You see, the workman's comp policies pay for the people to go and use the clinics. They are run efficiently by private corporations because they make money from the people who are injured and use workman's comp. To add to that, they accept insurance and even have payment plans and credit options for people who need it. It can't be free because someone has to pay for it.


If I were you, and I'm oh so glad that I'm not, I would educate myself before I came spewing this free market bullshiat that has been tried and shown to be an utter failure. If you are unable to adequately educate yourself on the topic at hand, it is your civic duty to not vote and allow those who have educated themselves on the topics at hand make the informed decisions for you.

Just to address this again - Dont. You don't need to go there. A civil debate is healthy. A "I know more than you so you are an idiot" argument is not a good debate. Lets keep it civil huh? I will give you a bit of knowledge that I am sure you know but are ignoring:
This country was built by free market ideas. Yes, sometimes you need to regulate industry for the safety of the people. That is it. The reason the U.S. was the best economy in the world is because of capitalism and the free market.

Finally, back to my previous statement:

Taking from some to give to others is socialism. (oh no, I said it!) I am not someone who does not care about the welfare of others, completely the opposite, I help others frequently (as hopefully you do to). However, I am also a firm believer in the idea that you reward someone based on what they do. (uh oh, here comes free market again)

I am one to believe that for a man to be sane, he must work. Whether that work is a job or hobby, he must produce something. If he does not and instead lives off of others, he will do nothing and continue to do nothing. How should I know such a thing? I grew up extremely poor. My family did not accept welfare but worked to get through. I put myself through school. I discovered early on that the harder I worked, the more successful I became. Now, I employ others. In doing so, I see that if I reward based on production, I get excellent people. The flip side of that is that if we reward based on no production, people will not produce and will demand more.

One last statement before I go back to work:
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is exactly that, the pursuit. NOT THE GUARANTEE. Socialism is a destructive act. If you will claim socialism helps, I dare you to go back through the past 50 years of socialism in Europe. Where are their economies now? The only ones doing OK are the ones going back towards capitalism.
 
2012-07-12 03:48:44 PM  
BTW, my mistake on the VA system. I was thinking of a state system you may have been referring to.
That being said, you may want to look elsewhere than the VA hospital system. It is not anywhere near as good as the private health care industry.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/usrun-health-care-ask-vet e ran
 
2012-07-12 03:49:43 PM  

Arglex1: I dare you to go back through the past 50 years of socialism in Europe.


That's pretty disingenuous given your page long claim of rational thinking and honest discussion.
 
2012-07-12 03:53:52 PM  
If one more person blames the euro-crisis on socialism I swear I'll blow my head off.
 
2012-07-12 03:54:27 PM  

Arglex1: Medicare is a system that is quickly running out of money (as is the rest of the government).


and you can thank "conservatives" for that.

pay your farking taxes and like it.
 
Displayed 50 of 262 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report