I am officially distubed by the truth of U.S healthcare.

Post Reply New Topic

I don't "believe" it, I "know" it. Very straightforward, little margin for misunderstanding there. How many Canadians have you spoken to lately? Don't rely on youtube for your worldview

You do realize that unlike many countries in Europe we have a lot more diversity.

All too often, the heterogeneous population of the United States is compared with the homogeneous populations of European countries. A state such as Utah compares favorably with almost any developed country. Texas, with its high minority population, tends to compare unfavorably. But these outcomes have almost nothing to do with the doctors and hospitals in the two states.

It makes far more sense to look at the diseases and conditions to which we know medical science can make a real difference — cancer, diabetes, and hypertension, for example. The largest international study to date found that the five-year survival rate for all types of cancer among both men and women was higher in the U.S. than in Europe. There is a steeper increase in blood pressure with advancing age in Europe, and a 60 percent higher prevalence of hypertension. The aggressive treatment offered to U.S. cardiac patients apparently improves survival and functioning relative to that of Canadian patients. Fewer health- and disability-related problems occur among U.S. spinal-cord-injury patients than among Canadian and British patients.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/? ... YwMDI1MGQ=

Thing with statistics, is that you can get the numbers to say about anything you want.

well, McD's still has one of those mini-med plans where for 20% of your check the might cover your ambulance ride, if you get hurt relatively near a hospital

Yeah and they make disgusting food that makes me experiance the worst SH*T ever for about a half hour, why the hell would I work for them? Luckily I am stubbron and have good genetics so I can say 'I ain't scared of corporate america and would rather tear it down then give in to them!"

I'll just toss this in to provide a point of comparison:


When my mother was diagnosed with cancer (which was benign thankfully!) by a US doctor we went through the US insurance/healthcare system.

Prices were well into the ten thousand mark for tests, specialist visits, MRI's etc...this is before any surgery or treatment was in the picture. The insurance company tried all it could to deny her coverage for the smallest of technicalities (specialist is outside their network, MRI is not of their approved price range, etc). Waitlists for the tests and specialists ran well into a 4 month period.

When you get a cancer warning you dont stand around and wait for sh* to happen. We still had our home country's (Colombia) health coverage so we put my mom on the plane and off she went to have her treatments there.

She arrived. Specialist saw her the day after arrival.. The same week of her arrival she had several MRI's and xray sessions & was attended by other specialists. In the same month she had two surgeries that removed the tissues and were analyzed as not being malignant.

They also removed cysts from her breasts as preventative measure less they also became cancerous.

We paid less than 5k for everything because the gov mandated, semi-socialized healthcare system covers most of the costs and medicines.

This.. is a third world country that has most of its population living in poverty and has had a 80+ year drug/civil war going non-stop. How is it the US cannot have something as efficient as this?

My mother's experience contrasts with the mother of my cousins (twice removed): she was diagnosed with cancer, the 'system' sent her to specialist after specialist taking months in between and costing an insane amount of money..and in the end it was too little too late the cancer had spread before she was given the OK by the insurance co. and by the hospital to be treated properly. She passed away.

Really, my dad had a mild heart attack recently and doctors in the US despite the fact the chemical readings didn't show a massive heart attack were steadily rising and added to the fact my father's side has a history of heart issues (could be also due to smoking, but meh) they had him admitted right then. They didn't worry about what the insurance company would say, etc. insurance is footing a large portion of that bill.

On the flipside, I heard about a man whom has no eyes quite literally was hauled in by Social Security Disability for an eye exam to see if his vision had improved.

And should I get a horrible disease or need imidiate psychological treatement then I might get the emergency treatment but then I would have to pay the healthcare system more money then I have ever even seen in my life and could never afford...........but that's cool I dont have much to contibute to our sick system I am just an expendable lower class peice of garbage. I love how I have to sit here and stress about it while you guys throw numbers at me trying to convince me that my suffering with no treatment whatsoever is good because at least I can occasionally buy things and contribute to the system....who cares how I and other people like me feel if the insurance workers and corporate america is getting their fat paychecks.

I am expendable garbage...maybe some of you did not intend to word it that way but that is the messege I am getting. And it makes me feel so very awesome that all I am to anyone is a freaking economic loss.

And sorry if this is too blunt...but I am going to have a strongly mixed drink so I don't have to feel like crap.

Really? The health insurance I'm on accepts my visits to a doctor whom is out of network, reimburses me for the money I pay for the doctor's visit (doctor doesn't accept insurance, medicare, etc.), and has largely backed off on insisting I take generics (which is good cause generics tend to not work for me).

Also, I never said you were expendable garbage, furthermore in case you weren't aware there is something known as medicare and medicaid that helps low income people with medical costs. There are also some religious organizations that help people with medical costs.



It isn't a good idea to have alcohol (which is a depressent), when you already feel like crap.

Ok well I have no health insurance...and got denied for medicaid. so I get no treatment, no reimbursmant and a very heavy bill should I ever 'need' medical treatment. And again I got DENIED medicaid. It is ideal that medicaid helps low income people but in reality that is not the case hence the fact that I got denied medicaid. And I am not a freaking christian so what good are religious organizations going to do me.

And I am sorry I get NO medical treatment so I have to make due with what I have....and alchohol is one of the things I have at the moment.

You don't have to be Christian to get help from them regarding medical coverage...

Have you got the remotest clue about working in government? Now, I will grant you I work for a government in a country in which Ministers are required to stand up in Parliament and face questions from the Opposition about the decisions made by officials in their departments. But I am reasonably certain that your legislature and media are both fully capable of imposing a level of accountability on cabinet secretaries for the decisions taken under their authority.

In my government work, I take my marching orders from my Minister. I may be several step removed from the Minister in the chain of command, but there is absolutely no question about who is in charge in the Department. Whether I agree with his policies or not is entirely irrelevant--provided that my Minister's direction is legal and ethical, it is my responsibility to fulfil that direction.

Now, individual decisions do rest with public servants who are granted discretion by statute, or delegated ministerial authority. But it is a fundamental principal of administrative law that decisions taken by officials are always reviewable, because officials may only act within the boundaries of the instrument that confers authority upon them. Unless US jurisprudence has wiped away the writs of certiorari, mandamus and injunction, then decisions by officials most certainly are subject to scrutiny.



Which is precisely the reason that they are poorly positioned to be the arbiters of health care coverage. Because they must jealously guard those narrow margins, or their capital will abandon them and they will find themselves offside of their regulatory requirements.

Insurance companies compete with each other on one issue: price. Insurance companies that too readily pull out their chequebooks are at a competitive disadvantage with those who nickel and dime their clients. After all, when the time comes to make a claim, you've already contracted for the product and paid the premiums--the sale has been made. And in a ruthless environment like US health care, for every client you lose because of rigidity, there is another client sitting outside the door waiting to sign on because they got dicked around by your competitor.

No private insurer has got a commercial interest in treating clients well. And all insurers have a commercial interest in being as ruthless as the competition at restricting or denying coverage.

All levels of government in Canada spend less money per capita, and a smaller percentage of GDP on health care than the US government. And with that smaller outlay, we are able to provide universal, transportable, medically necessary care to every Canadian citizen, permanent resident, temporary worker, foreign student and refugee claimant in Canada. And, by an large, we achieve better health outcomes on many key indicators.

Is our system perfect? No. But it's faults are readily apparent for all of its clients to see, and those clients are in a position to demand improvements from their insurer. You will find plenty of Canadians who advocate for changes to our medical insurance system--but those changes amount to retooling, and fairly limited scope changes. There is no political traction--even in Alberta--to the disestablishment of universal, publicly funded, medical insurance. Why? Because our system is working. Anecdotes notwithstanding, it is working. There are no death panels. There are no denials of service.

And somehow, in the midst of all of this entitlement spending, we are still managing to produce relatively strong economic performance.

Now, publicly funded, universal health insurance might not be the answer for the United States. Your cost structure may be too far gone to make a meaningful attempt. But the fact remains that it is possible for government to ensure that health insurance is available to each and every citizen and permanent resident within its borders, and every single industrialized nation on the planet has demonstrated that. Except yours.

@ visagrunt

If the level of accountability you were talking about was occurring here Turbo Tax Cheat Tim Geitner (sp?) would be in the unemployment lines, along with Attorney General Eric Holder.

Further you are wrong about insurance companies just competing on cost, while many of them do that, there are insurance companies that do rather well competing based on quality and customer service.

And what makes you think they would actaully be able to cover most of the espenses I don't want to be a burdun on the poor christian population after all.

Because there are organizations out there where they have set up their own counter to the insurance companies. You should check out American Family Radio sometime, they even advertise for that group, would recommend you do some research, but it could prove promising.

Dude, i know what I am talking about I come from this system you speak of...virtually there is really no actual help for lower class mentally ill people.....who do not have rich families that can pay for treatment. I mean sure I am angry that my parents did not acknowledge the mental problems I have....but at the same time how the hell would have the afforded it? I mean I had two other siblings who needed food and shelter as well.