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

Post Reply New Topic

Number5 wrote:

I didn’t say that he did! I didn’t imply anything like that in what I said. What I did say (read it again) was that the programs (Medicare and Medicaid) are far from perfect which is true but they are still there and still serving people that can get in which is a helluva lot of people that would otherwise be without.
If you think those two programs have serious issues what makes you think that a national system can effectively handle everyone’s healthcare needs?

I think you just made my point for me. The serious issue that I have with Medicare and Medicaid is that too many people can't get in - like my dad. Like many of the currently unemployed. Like many people who are self-employed and make a couple of bucks over the poverty line.

Of course it's not perfect, but like you said, it's way better than nothing. I would rejoice over a Medicare For All plan. If you agree that it's basically a good thing that can serve people, then why is it acceptable to exclude 50+ million Americans?

I think the short answer to that question is that every other nation in the OECD has accomplished it.

Now that does not mean that you need to copy what other countries do. No two nations have the same approach to health care. What works in the United Kingdom is very different than what works in Sweden. Every nation has public policy problems in health care--I am the first to say that Canada's health care system is in need of some significant improvements. But for all of our shortcomings, there is no clamour here to disestablish the principle of publicly funded, universal medically necessary health insurance.

I'm not sure that a publicly funded system is the correct approach in the United States--your cost structure may be too far gone for that. But that does not exempt your governments from the obligation to ensure that every citizen and permanent resident has access to medically necessary care.

I would love to see an objective analysis on where all our excess cost goes. Unfortunately that information is impossible to come by with all the political spinning. It's pretty clear to me that neither profit margins nor malpractice suits are as significant as partisans on either side like to claim.

Keep digging. Somewhere along the line you will find someone who has become rich off the system.

ruveyn

I thought it was only the "lazy" poor folks who could leach off the system?

I have a few thoughts, but I should caution that these are intuitive, rather that evidence based, as I have not researched them.

1) Disaggregation. There is a significant duplication of effort when a service provider must maintain billing systems to deal with a multiplicity of payers. Further, each and every insurer must have layers of governance and management that duplicate the activities of every other insurer.

2) Capital cost structures. I think it likely that a larger share of capital costs are borne by private investors in the US. Since capital costs need to be recouped, that will create upward pressure on costs, generally. When a provincial government in Canada buys an MRI for a hospital, there is no expectation that this money will come back. When a private clinic buys an MRI, that purchase price needs to come back into the system. Since it comes back over time, there is a return on investment cost.

3) Overdiagnosis. There is a disturbing trend in medicine to every greater classification of disorders. While there is an argument that this can be prudent and beneficial, I think there is a corresponding argument that it is a business generator. When we lower the threshhold for diagnosis of diabetes, we can encourage patients to changes that will improve their overall health. But when we lower the threshhold for diagnosis of depression are we help patients or are we just selling more antidepressants? I have no idea if this phenomenon is more visible in the US than in Canada, though.

4) Pharmaceutical use. I would not be surprised if we were to discover that the the use of prescription pharmaceuticals is significantly higher in the US than in Canada. While this can stem from overdiagnosis, it can also stem from an overreliance on pharmaceuticals in preference to other therapies.

5) Pharmaceutical costs. Given that each pharmaceutical company has a monopoly over the sale of their drug during its patent protection, this can create significant costs. Even after the expiry of patent protection, a lower use of generic pharmaceuticals has a direct cost impact.

6) Overreliance on new tech. There are a plethora of technological aids to diagnosis and treatment--but new isn't always better.

7) Unnecessary procedures. Is laser eye surgery medically necessary? (I'm not even sure that it's medically advisable, but that's a whole other question). Should insurance cover these procedures beyond the cost of prescription eyewear?

Here is a core problem with your Government run healthcare:

People are treated based on their affiliation with the party in power, if you are with the party in power you get preferential treatment, if you are opposed to the party in power good luck even seeing a doctor.

You might want to remove your tin foil hat before posting.

You might want to get your head out of the ground instead of behaving like an ostrich.

Please cite one example of this paranoid fantasy.

Any speach where Obama is talking about millionaires and billionaires paying their fair share. What he really means is taxing small business owners and anyone else that creates jobs. I would argue, Obama wants this high unemployment where everyone is dependent on the government.

Your second statement in no way demonstrates the first.

There is absolutely nothing in Canada's health care system that provides preferential access to treatment based on affiliation with the party in power. This is an outright fabrication.

There is a scarcity of family physicians in parts of the country--but being a Liberal party supporter in British Columbia or an NDP supporter in Nova Scotia is not going to get you privileged access to one. There's no "fast lane" to specialists designed to accommodate "friends of the premier."

I am perfectly prepared to enter an argument that is based on fact, research and reason. I have no patience for argument that is based on lies.

Last edited by visagrunt on 14 Aug 2011, 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mega Corporate interests are the biggest "welfare queens". But it is not called welfare, it is called subsidy.

ruveyn

...

Now you're in the deep end of the insanity pool.

Not sure if it is troll or not.