(08-17-2013 10:16 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote: A great video if you have the time. BTW Canadians are making the trip down in droves to be treated here.
While I don't like Canadian healthcare, the estimated amount of people that come down here for healthcare is like 1% of all citizens who sought medical treatment. That doesn't count as a drove.
(08-17-2013 10:42 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote: socialized medicine is great for routine easily treatable illnesses.
easily diagnosed, take some pills, get better.
get really sick with cancer, als, ms, etc....
you'll be wishing you were in a healthcare system that provides and promotes cutting edge research.
Needless to say...the routine claims are not what drives up the costs.
(08-17-2013 10:16 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote: A great video if you have the time. BTW Canadians are making the trip down in droves to be treated here.
While I don't like Canadian healthcare, the estimated amount of people that come down here for healthcare is like 1% of all citizens who sought medical treatment. That doesn't count as a drove.
Here meaning this facility. These places will begin popping up all over the United States.
We had a semi-retired security guard at our offices who is from Canada. He works here during the winter and summers in Canada. This year he scheduled everything around some cancer treatment so he could do it all here. He'd still be waiting if he did it in Canada.
One of the highest concentrations of MRI units per capita in the US is in Buffalo because an MRI can be scheduled next day versus months of wait time in the metro Toronto area.
(08-18-2013 11:08 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: One of the highest concentrations of MRI units per capita in the US is in Buffalo because an MRI can be scheduled next day versus months of wait time in the metro Toronto area.
I can believe it. By Ontario's own estimates, the target is 28 days but 59 is what most people face for an MRI.
(08-18-2013 11:08 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: One of the highest concentrations of MRI units per capita in the US is in Buffalo because an MRI can be scheduled next day versus months of wait time in the metro Toronto area.
I can believe it. By Ontario's own estimates, the target is 28 days but 59 is what most people face for an MRI.
(08-18-2013 11:08 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: One of the highest concentrations of MRI units per capita in the US is in Buffalo because an MRI can be scheduled next day versus months of wait time in the metro Toronto area.
I can believe it. By Ontario's own estimates, the target is 28 days but 59 is what most people face for an MRI.
60 day wait if you have an aggressive tumor could make a huge difference in your staging.
I don't know about Ontario, but I know Quebec will move you up based on severity.
That being said, it's interesting that Alberta and Manitoba both have or had bills that would reform their healthcare into a sort of hybrid. I'm gonna have to locate those.
This is why a dual system is going to work so good in the United States. Obamacare for those who need general healthcare needs and private insurance for those who need the big guns.
(08-18-2013 11:08 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: One of the highest concentrations of MRI units per capita in the US is in Buffalo because an MRI can be scheduled next day versus months of wait time in the metro Toronto area.
I can believe it. By Ontario's own estimates, the target is 28 days but 59 is what most people face for an MRI.
60 day wait if you have an aggressive tumor could make a huge difference in your staging.
I don't know about Ontario, but I know Quebec will move you up based on severity.
That being said, it's interesting that Alberta and Manitoba both have or had bills that would reform their healthcare into a sort of hybrid. I'm gonna have to locate those.
I think the point of this thread is not Canada, but how systems like the one in Canada will force more doctors to open single payer facilities. That's capitalism at work baby and you should be happy about that.
When they can cut out the overhead, eliminate all the high paid bureaucrats, then can offer care at an affordable cost.
(08-18-2013 01:26 PM)Fitbud Wrote: This is why a dual system is going to work so good in the United States. Obamacare for those who need general healthcare needs and private insurance for those who need the big guns.
I love this country.
Dual system?...Top HC for the rich and Congress and the rest of us get schitty Canadian HC. Count me as not being interested. You understand that eventually that private insurance will become too expensive for the middle class..right? The competition with government HC will squeeze out lots of companies and leave only the top shelf ones.
(08-18-2013 11:08 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: One of the highest concentrations of MRI units per capita in the US is in Buffalo because an MRI can be scheduled next day versus months of wait time in the metro Toronto area.
I can believe it. By Ontario's own estimates, the target is 28 days but 59 is what most people face for an MRI.
60 day wait if you have an aggressive tumor could make a huge difference in your staging.
I don't know about Ontario, but I know Quebec will move you up based on severity.
That being said, it's interesting that Alberta and Manitoba both have or had bills that would reform their healthcare into a sort of hybrid. I'm gonna have to locate those.
If the MRI is for diagnostic purposes which many are, the physician may have no idea that the patient even has a mestastic cancerous tumor (unless the patient is exhibiting other concerning symptoms — unexplained weight loss, enlarged lymph nodes, etc.) so they wouldn't know the severity of a patient's condition in order to move them up until after the MRI was done.
(08-18-2013 01:26 PM)Fitbud Wrote: This is why a dual system is going to work so good in the United States. Obamacare for those who need general healthcare needs and private insurance for those who need the big guns.
I love this country.
Plenty of people will not go out and buy secondary insurance for when they need the "big guns." They don't buy insurance now so they certainly won't buy it when they are getting "free Obamacare."
And many of those who only have Obamacare coverage will have pre-existing conditions (diabetes, emphysema, high cholestoral, obesity, etc.) that will require that they receive complicated and expensive care.
So would you cut someone off from treatment for something that is a "big gun" beyond their Obamacare coverage?
(This post was last modified: 08-18-2013 02:39 PM by mptnstr@44.)
(08-18-2013 01:26 PM)Fitbud Wrote: This is why a dual system is going to work so good in the United States. Obamacare for those who need general healthcare needs and private insurance for those who need the big guns.
I love this country.
Dual system?...Top HC for the rich and Congress and the rest of us get schitty Canadian HC. Count me as not being interested. You understand that eventually that private insurance will become too expensive for the middle class..right? The competition with government HC will squeeze out lots of companies and leave only the top shelf ones.
There will only be competition if Obamacare starts to provide HC on par with private insurance companies. If that is the case, Private insurance companies will have to lower their rates. That is already happening.
(08-18-2013 01:26 PM)Fitbud Wrote: This is why a dual system is going to work so good in the United States. Obamacare for those who need general healthcare needs and private insurance for those who need the big guns.
I love this country.
Plenty of people will not go out and buy secondary insurance for when they need the "big guns." They don't buy insurance now so they certainly won't buy it when they are getting "free Obamacare."
And many of those who only have Obamacare coverage will have pre-existing conditions (diabetes, emphysema, high cholestoral, obesity, etc.) that will require that they receive complicated and expensive care.
So would you cut someone off from treatment for something that is a "big gun" beyond their Obamacare coverage?
First of all, Obamacare isn't going to be free for most people. For those who have pre existing conditions. They will get the treatment necessary to allow them to live longer and continue to pay taxes which in turn is better for all of us.
Which would you rather have? A person whose diabetes has gotten to the point that he cannot work and who eventually dies at a young age?
Or a person on Obamacare who gets the treatments he needs to continue to work and pay taxes for a long time?
(08-18-2013 01:26 PM)Fitbud Wrote: This is why a dual system is going to work so good in the United States. Obamacare for those who need general healthcare needs and private insurance for those who need the big guns.
I love this country.
Dual system?...Top HC for the rich and Congress and the rest of us get schitty Canadian HC. Count me as not being interested. You understand that eventually that private insurance will become too expensive for the middle class..right? The competition with government HC will squeeze out lots of companies and leave only the top shelf ones.
I'd expect something more like the Post Office, UPS, and FedEx.
I would be fine with something like the post office, UPS, and FedEx. Or another analogy that I have seen used, public schools and private schools. That's pretty much how the Bismarck system that I like works.
That's not how single payer or single provider works. Single payer (Canada) is the post office or nothing, and if you drop dead while on the waiting list then that just lowers the cost for everybody. Single provider (UK) is the post office or an alternative that is so expensive and exclusive that only the very rich can afford it--to use another analogy, your local muni golf course or Cypress Point, and nothing in between, so there are two waiting lists and if you drop dead while on either or both then that just helps to control costs.
Neither is really dual health care, because only one option is available to most people. Canada is overseas health care for the rich and bad health care for everybody else. UK is good health care for the extremely rich, bad health care for those willing to accept it, and medical tourism for those who can't afford good and don't want bad.
The difference between Bismarck and single-payer and single-provider is that the alternatives to the government system get enough use to bring costs down to a level where most anyone can use them. It's like having Canada's system and ours side by side, and either is available to everybody.
(This post was last modified: 08-20-2013 05:59 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
/
The real future of healthcare in the US
