Time for universal health care ? (fence, solutions, myths, compared)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,934,547 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meyerland
I think they should gradually expand Medicare/Medicaid. It's a complicated issue.
We have a much larger population than any other country with socialized medicine. We also have an issue with immigration, and fairly open borders. We also have an issue with people suing the medical industry. You can't have that with socialized medicine.
Canada has 33.4 million and the USA has 323 million people. Huge difference. You can't just give all the people coverage immediately. It needs to be gradual.
I've lived in Canada and they do restrict access to care due to supply and demand. There is too much demand, and not enough supply. It took me six months to get a primary care physician in Alberta, and I never got a pediatrician for my infant.
How long ago did you live in Alberta? That is not my experience, or my family's.
Three years ago I moved from metro Edmonton to a very small (under 500 population) very remote and rural part of central Alberta. It took me 20 minutes to get a new primary doctor, and less than 2 weeks to get an appointment for my annual.
My daughter moved from metro Edmonton to a small town remote town, got pregnant, and had no problem at all getting a very good ob/gyn. She then moved to another small town, also in central Alberta, got pregnant again, and the same story.
Restrict care? Sure, if you mean you have to wait for livestyle issues like knee and hip replacements. From personal and family experience, when we needed critical care, it was immediate and there in spades.
Don't forget that Canada spends 1/3 less than the US as a percentage of GDP, with better results. Canadians live longer. I can't think of a more valid metric than that.
We moved from Canada to the States five years ago. We lived in Calgary for five years.it was during the boom time. My doctor I found was a new immigrant from South Africa, and he was taking new patients to build up his practice.
Yes, critical care has much shorter waits than elective care. There are still waits.
the USA does not have enough supply to meet the demand for immediate universal healthcare. If you increase demand, there will be longer waits. The USA would be mired in lawsuits if they passed it. ( we already are dealing with an overload of medical lawsuits) It has to be gradual or there needs to be a lot of reform to medical laws in the USA.
There are problems with our health care and it eventually should go to a universal program, but even if we expanded our current system by the Same number as the entire population of Canada...we would still be millions and millions short. We are just too big with lots of poor people. It's a massive issue that is very complicated. Canada has a much bigger middle class than we do, with less population, and better health overall. The number of obese people in the USA with complications like diabetes is enormous.
How long ago did you live in Alberta? That is not my experience, or my family's.
Three years ago I moved from metro Edmonton to a very small (under 500 population) very remote and rural part of central Alberta. It took me 20 minutes to get a new primary doctor, and less than 2 weeks to get an appointment for my annual.
My daughter moved from metro Edmonton to a small town remote town, got pregnant, and had no problem at all getting a very good ob/gyn. She then moved to another small town, also in central Alberta, got pregnant again, and the same story.
Restrict care? Sure, if you mean you have to wait for livestyle issues like knee and hip replacements. From personal and family experience, when we needed critical care, it was immediate and there in spades.
Don't forget that Canada spends 1/3 less than the US as a percentage of GDP, with better results. Canadians live longer. I can't think of a more valid metric than that.
Sounds like a similarity to Veterans Administration problems in the US, with the primary issue being that the regional distribution of health care capacity does not match the regional distribution of potential patients. In the places that military veterans flock--like Arizona and Florida--wait times can be very long. Where there are few patients, wait times are short. But that is primarily a political problem; for political reasons, Congress prefers to have equalized care across regions (every Congresscritter's district gets an equal share of the pie) rather than capacity prioritization according to where the actual need peaks.
And that problem exists in the US even now on the private side. Many people live in areas not desirable to health care practioners...so for them, doctors are scarce.
Was there a feeling of inadequacy that triggered that response?
First of all one would have to define what "actually work" means.
Canada spends 1/3 less as a percentage of GDP on healthcare versus the US, with better results. We live longer on average.
That would be metric to attempt to duplicate, would you not think?
I detect a ruffled feather. I didn't mean it in any condescending way. I just happen to be a fan of Pogo, and it's more the US that inspires the quote. Canada has POGG, the US has POGO.
Yes, I would think, definitely. But plenty is already known in the US about Canada's system. There's been very little in-depth study done of any of the European systems. I don't think the US should make any decisions without doing a thorough job of studying other systems. I prefer to look before I leap. Or were you implying that the US should adopt a Canadian-style system without examining others, first? Perhaps I misread your post.
The US couldn't get a stable system of truly universal health care without raising taxes, anyway. Funding shortfalls here and there in the current system are already looming.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,934,547 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHi
I detect a ruffled feather. I didn't mean it in any condescending way. I just happen to be a fan of Pogo, and it's more the US that inspires the quote. Canada has POGG, the US has POGO.
Yes, I would think, definitely. But plenty is already known in the US about Canada's system. There's been very little in-depth study done of any of the European systems. I don't think the US should make any decisions without doing a thorough job of studying other systems. I prefer to look before I leap. Or were you implying that the US should adopt a Canadian-style system without examining others, first? Perhaps I misread your post.
The US couldn't get a stable system of truly universal health care without raising taxes, anyway. Funding shortfalls here and there in the current system are already looming.
Do I think a Canadian healthcare system would work in the US. Yes.
Do I think it ever will happen? Not a chance, for various reasons. The lobby by the insurance companies would be intense, and the FUD factor enormous.
Secondly, because of the structure of the US constitution, I don't see a universal system could be legislated. I may be wrong, but someone way more schooled than I am would have to lay that out.
The Canadian system is administered provincially, with each province having slightly different rules, and what they cover. As example, a mole removal may be covered in one province, but not in another, as it is not defined as essential. Funding is both federal and provincial. The federal funding comes with strings as defined by the 5 pillars of the Canadian Health Act. They are:
Public Administration: All administration of provincial health insurance must be carried out by a public authority on a non-profit basis. They also must be accountable to the province or territory, and their records and accounts are subject to audits.
Comprehensiveness: All necessary health services, including hospitals, physicians and surgical dentists, must be insured.
Universality: All insured residents are entitled to the same level of health care.
Portability: A resident that moves to a different province or territory is still entitled to coverage from their home province during a minimum waiting period. This also applies to residents which leave the country.
Accessibility: All insured persons have reasonable access to health care facilities. In addition, all physicians, hospitals, etc, must be provided reasonable compensation for the services they provide.
Addressing the portability issue, I am a snowbird who spends about 6 months a year at my Florida condo. My provincial healthcare stays intact, and I purchase critical care, meaning if I need to be have medical care, I get stabilized in Florida, and then they medivac me by charter back to Canada. It costs me about $900 CDN for that coverage. I'd be crazy not to have it given the costs of hospital care in the US.
Mountains of work have been done, and yes, they work.
Overall I think you're right.
The problem is that people on the various "sides" of the issue only want to look at the information that supports their viewpoint. Therefore there is little intelligent discussion about the issue.
...
You can get care in a socialized system, but you probably have to wait. Can you imagine if someone in the US had issues due to a long wait? They would sue in a heartbeat. The laws would need to change to prevent that.
...
Bulletin. Americans wait plenty long for adequate treatment in MANY cases. Been there, done that.
Bulletin. Americans wait plenty long for adequate treatment in MANY cases. Been there, done that.
Yes, but we can sue if someone has complications, dies, or has a serious injury due to the wait. Medical malpractice is a huge deal in the states, and before we could have universal medical care we would need to change that. Have you seen how they run the VA hospitals in the US? That's exactly what universal health care would look like.
I'm not against universal healthcare, but it needs to be gradual. They can start expanding Medicare/Medicaid. You have to increase the supply before increasing the demand too much.
They would also need to tighten immigration, like all the other countries that have socialized medicine. I've lived in other countries than the US, and they are much tougher on immigration than we are.
Yes, but we can sue if someone has complications, dies, or has a serious injury due to the wait. Medical malpractice is a huge deal in the states, and before we could have universal medical care we would need to change that.Have you seen how they run the VA hospitals in the US? That's exactly what universal health care would look like.
I don't think you understand the difference between true socialized medicine and "single payer" [or "Medicare for all").
The VA is an example of socialized medicine: The government owns the facilities and all the staff are goverenment employees. Almost nobody is pushing for that in America (although IMO the area of immunizations ought to be directly government run as a matter of national security--if there is an anthrax attack, we should not depend on Walgreens for vaccinations).
Medicare is an example of single-payer medicine. All the hospitals are still private corporations, insurance companies still exist and operate. People can still sue a doctor even if Medicare paid him.
I'm not against universal healthcare, but it needs to be gradual. They can start expanding Medicare/Medicaid. You have to increase the supply before increasing the demand too much.
Quote:
They would also need to tighten immigration, like all the other countries that have socialized medicine. I've lived in other countries than the US, and they are much tougher on immigration than we are.
Very few countries actually have socialized medicine.
Yes, but we can sue if someone has complications, dies, or has a serious injury due to the wait. Medical malpractice is a huge deal in the states, and before we could have universal medical care we would need to change that. Have you seen how they run the VA hospitals in the US? That's exactly what universal health care would look like.
I'm not against universal healthcare, but it needs to be gradual. They can start expanding Medicare/Medicaid. You have to increase the supply before increasing the demand too much.
They would also need to tighten immigration, like all the other countries that have socialized medicine. I've lived in other countries than the US, and they are much tougher on immigration than we are.
Medical malpractice volume is a myth. Best of luck suing if there are complications or serious injuries - death maybe. Reality vs. TV shows are quite different.
There was a huge review on medical malpractice and it's impact on doctors coming to Florida in the Florida legislature when Jeb Bush was governor. The prevalent story was doctors were avoiding Florida and were in fact leaving because of all the medical malpractice suits and the subsequent high cost of malpractice insurance. Jeb wanted to limited medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 I believe. After extensive congressional hearings, interviews, public hearings, etc. the findings were -- drum roll - it just wasn't true!
Not being able to sue would not be my reason for not voting for national health care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
