Canadian Defends Anti-Medicare Ad

[benny]

First, don't be so afraid to die!

[Smallc]

False on both counts for the US....emergency treatment cannot legally be refused at US hospitals. Out of network hospitals are covered at a reduced reimbursement rate.

Right...they have to treat you and then you get a bill. And why do you have insurance if you only get a reduced rate in an emergency?

[bush_cheney2004]

Right...they have to treat you and then you get a bill. And why do you have insurance if you only get a reduced rate in an emergency?

Most insurance policies in the US do not cover 100% for inpatient treatments...typically it is 80%. Emergency care costs varies with the nature of the treatment.

[Werecar]

False on both counts for the US....emergency treatment cannot legally be refused at US hospitals. Out of network hospitals are covered at a reduced reimbursement rate.

On a life threatening ER basis only. For anything else no US health care facility is required to treat you although they may be required to provide a list of referrals.

Break your arm without coverage and see how much it costs you.

[Smallc]

Most insurance policies in the US do not cover 100% for inpatient treatments...typically it is 80%. Emergency care costs varies with the nature of the treatment.

To me this really proves beyond a doubt that both systems have their problems.

[bush_cheney2004]

On a life threatening ER basis only. For anything else no US health care facility is required to treat you although they may be required to provide a list of referrals.

False again...many US hospitals are public and cannot refuse treatment. The battle for who pays begins later.

Break your arm without coverage and see how much it costs you.

In some cases, it will cost nothing.

[Werecar]

False again...many US hospitals are public and cannot refuse treatment. The battle for who pays begins later.

In some cases, it will cost nothing.

No. They are only required to provide ER services although it does vary from state to state. They are not required to provide all services and can refuse treatment.

Billing just further disparages it. So you get ER treatment then have to pay 5 grand. Wonderful.

Can you provide evidence where it costs nothing and provide data as to how often it will happen?

[bush_cheney2004]

To me this really proves beyond a doubt that both systems have their problems.

Well, to be fair, they are not "systems" at all...not in the classic sense of design to meet defined performance criteria.

[Smallc]

That's true.

[bush_cheney2004]

No. They are only required to provide ER services although it does vary from state to state. They are not required to provide all services and can refuse treatment.

Not true....for instance, if a burn unit is located in a county or city hospital, it must render services and therapy regardless of ability to pay. It is true that they will seek to recover costs from the patient, but cannot typically refuse treatment as is the case in a private hospital.

Billing just further disparages it. So you get ER treatment then have to pay 5 grand. Wonderful.

Billing is a separate issue. Would you haggle over the costs facing death or permanent disability?

Can you provide evidence where it costs nothing and provide data as to how often it will happen?

Yes, but that isn't necessary. Obviously some costs are never paid by indigent patients, so the costs are passed on in the way of higher fees to other (paying) patients.

[Pliny]

The biggest problem with the Canadian health care system is that it is too big to fail. Second, it can't change because it would mean too many people may be adversely affected. If it changed that would mean it was a failure and of course, it is too big to fail.

That is the major advantage the American system has over the Canadian system. It's ability to change. Why does it have the ability to change? Because the consumer is in charge of it and not the government. The American system has problems and they are getting worse and that is why Obama's plan is even entertained at all. I think Americans want improvements but Obama's plan, as they learn more about it, becomes increasingly less popular.

I would like to see what changes they bring about but I certainly wouldn't advise them to adopt the 32nd place Canadian system which once adopted will not allow further change and can only be tinkered with.

I think the HMO's are a big problem in American health care. they offer some choice to consumers but

only in what plan suits them, not as consumers of health care services.

Will American ingenuity bring about change they can believe in? Obama isn't. We are long passed anything but government ingenuity but that's an oxymoron.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I would like to see what changes they bring about but I certainly wouldn't advise them to adopt the 32nd place Canadian system which once adopted will not allow further change and can only be tinkered with.

Agreed...single payer was DOA in 1993 and it is DOA today for the US. Obama was wise to concede this point early on. Most Americans favor some changes to add coverage for the 47 million who seek coverage, but not at the expense of negatively impacting their present plans.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I would like to see what changes they bring about but I certainly wouldn't advise them to adopt the 32nd place Canadian system which once adopted will not allow further change and can only be tinkered with.

Were did you get 32nd place? the 2000 WHO report said 30th

[Smallc]

I would like to see what changes they bring about but I certainly wouldn't advise them to adopt the 32nd place Canadian system which once adopted will not allow further change and can only be tinkered with.

Ignoring the rest of the ideologically driven post, I remember being 30th, not 32nd....America was 37th. As has been seen, when comparing the system by deaths that could have reasonably been prevented with medical care rather than looking at all deaths in the system, we come out near the top. It's all a matter of how things are calculated, and overall we don't come out as well as some in certain areas, but in others we do quite well.

Oh, and my provincial system changes all the time. Your's probably does to, even if you don't recognize it.

[Werecar]

Not true....for instance, if a burn unit is located in a county or city hospital, it must render services and therapy regardless of ability to pay. It is true that they will seek to recover costs from the patient, but cannot typically refuse treatment as is the case in a private hospital.

Let me stop you right there. A burn center isn't an ER service?

You need to understand what services US facilities can refuse on and the are greater then you think.

Still "recover cost" means what? They take your house? Wonderful.

Billing is a separate issue. Would you haggle over the costs facing death or permanent disability?

Yes, but that isn't necessary. Obviously some costs are never paid by indigent patients, so the costs are passed on in the way of higher fees to other (paying) patients.

In other words the us system is like ours but less efficient.

[bush_cheney2004]

Let me stop you right there. A burn center isn't an ER service?

Not after the patient is stabilized and admitted.

You need to understand what services US facilities can refuse on and the are greater then you think.

But not as great as you think.

Still "recover cost" means what? They take your house? Wonderful.

How do the homeless in Canada pay for their care (e.g taxes)?

In other words the us system is like ours but less efficient.

The US "system" is more complex, offers more services in more areas, and costs more because consumers get more in a timelier manner. This excess capacity is utilized by Canadian provinces lacking facilities.

Edited July 26, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Werecar]

Not after the patient is stabilized and admitted.

The end result is you Americans are claiming universal health care by claiming US patients cannot be refused service. Thats a lie.

Only life threatening conditions are required and all are billed so its never free. Thats simply a lie. the US system lets poor people die. Ours does not.

Period.

But not as great as you think.

Actually I'm spot on.

How do the homeless in Canada pay for their care (e.g taxes)?

They don't. Its free. Under the US system they would be left to die as any other uninsured person.

The US "system" is more complex, offers more services in more areas, and costs more because consumers get more in a timelier manner. This excess capacity is utilized by Canadian provinces lacking facilities.

Prove it. My lab offers more testing the US labs because Ontario requirements demand it.

[bush_cheney2004]

The end result is you Americans are claiming universal health care by claiming US patients cannot be refused service. Thats a lie.

Nonsense...this American is specifically not claiming universal access or care by design. You just have your facts screwed up concerning what actually happens.

Only life threatening conditions are required and all are billed so its never free. Thats simply a lie. the US system lets poor people die. Ours does not.

Oh please....give it up...poor people die in Canada too. US public and teaching hospitals do deliver care for "free".

Why is it so important for you to deny this reality?

Actually I'm spot on.

Right...because you work in an Ontario, Canada lab.

They don't. Its free. Under the US system they would be left to die as any other uninsured person.

Bullshit....it's not free....somebody has to pay....same as in the USA.

Prove it. My lab offers more testing the US labs because Ontario requirements demand it.

Your lab probably uses services in the USA too.

Edited July 26, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Werecar]

Nonsense...this American is specifically not claiming universal access or care by design. You just have your facts screwed up concerning what actually happens.

Actually no. Americans keep claiming that because US hospitals won't let people bleed out they somehow have universal health care plus.

The end result is our system provides equivalent care at no direct cost.

Oh please....give it up...poor people die in Canada too. US public and teaching hospitals do deliver care for free.

Why is it so important for you to deny this reality?

Yes people die and according to all the stats they die younger and more often in the US.

Look it up if it helps you.

Right...because you work in an Ontario, Canada lab.

Meaning my experience is greater then yours and your no doubt rewarding baskin robbins career.

Mine is also topical but if I ever have a tough case of brain freeze then I'll call you.

Bullshit....it's not free....somebody has to pay....same as in the USA.

Yes we all know about taxes but considering you pay almost 3X as much per capita then you need a new vendor.

Your lab probably uses services in the USA too.

Nope. In fact we provide cheaper clinical drug trial testing then in the US.

Try again because I can swat anti-Canadian health care posts out of the air with not only personal experience but stats and cookie goodness.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually no. Americans keep claiming that because US hospitals won't let people bleed out they somehow have universal health care plus.

Then I wonder why we still call it fee-for-service?

The end result is our system provides equivalent care at no direct cost.

Sure...if you wait long enough or get sent to the USA by the province.

Yes people die and according to all the stats they die younger and more often in the US.

You wanna live forever?

Look it up if it helps you.

Look what up? Sultans don't fly to your area...they fly to mine (Mayo Clinic)....you have nothing that even comes close.

Meaning my experience is greater then yours and your no doubt rewarding baskin robbins career.

Alta was right...you are an ass with a special interest in play. Behold the mighty lab tech!

Edited July 26, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Will Socialized Health Care in the US Kill Canadians?

Don Surber thinks so, and it’s hard to argue his point when you see stories like this:

More than 400 Canadians in the full throes of a heart attack or other cardiac emergency have been sent to the United States because no hospital can provide the lifesaving care they require here.

Most of the heart patients who have been sent south since 2003 typically show up in Ontario hospitals, where they are given clot-busting drugs. If those drugs fail to open their clogged arteries, the scramble to locate angioplasty in the United States begins…

…While other provinces have sent patients out of country – British Columbia has sent 75 pregnant women or their babies to Washington State since February, 2007 –

nowhere is the problem as acute as in Ontario.

...

Read that last line again: “We’re simply unable to meet the demand, but we don’t even know what the demand is.”

http://blog.acton.org/archives/2220-Will-S...-Canadians.html

Edited July 26, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Pliny]

Were did you get 32nd place? the 2000 WHO report said 30th

I stand corrected. 30th it is.

[Pliny]

Ignoring the rest of the ideologically driven post, I remember being 30th, not 32nd....America was 37th. As has been seen, when comparing the system by deaths that could have reasonably been prevented with medical care rather than looking at all deaths in the system, we come out near the top. It's all a matter of how things are calculated, and overall we don't come out as well as some in certain areas, but in others we do quite well.

Oh, and my provincial system changes all the time. Your's probably does to, even if you don't recognize it.

I don't think the American system can be rated in the same manner as other systems. It is the only system that is not entirely socialized out of all of them.

It is changing all the time? You call "tinkering" change. the system is still basically the same as I haven't seen a new Health Care act go through legislation. It is a single payer system and we cannot legally buy healthcare privately in Canada.

The system is more important than the service. I don't know how you can defend the system? I suppose you can label opposition to it as ideologically driven but what you accuse others of....

[Pliny]

You have that. You can go to any hospital or clinic in Canada and receive treatment. In the US you can only go to a place you can afford.

Not entirely true. A trip to the Vancouver general hospital refused entry for a fourteen year old and told her to go to the Women and Children's hospital. There was a two hour wait at the General hospital and a five hour wait at the Women and Children's hospital. I would not be admitted at the Women's and Children's hospital at all being the wrong gender. The condition was a burst appendix, not even determined on that visit, brushed off as the flu, but a subsequent one, two days later when the patients condition became more serious. This is a personal experience and precludes the statement that you can go to any hospital in Canada and receive treatment.

Generally, your statement regarding Canada is true. I did go to a clinic once in the States and received treatment for free. I suppose someone else paid for me.

[Pliny]

I heard Shona Holmes on the Charles Adler show, hosted by Roy Green, just last week. I think it was Wednesday.

She has been called a liar and queue jumper and traitor and all that but she hasn't anything against the Canadian healthsystem. She is only stating the facts of her case. Some people of course have an immediately defensive reaction.

The facts of her case are that she tried to get OHIP to send her to the States for quicker service as had 36 others been sent at around the same time period. The process was denied or held up, I can't recall which, but she didn't have time to wait around. Denied or approved, it would have meant lost time.

Anyway when she returned she applied for a reimbursement. She is suing the government for not being able to buy healthcare in Canada. I think that is a legitimate complaint. It is more costly to go to the US than if she could have bought the service here. And to deny someone health care on the basis of making the purchase of medical services illegal is an abuse of human rights.

Anyway she is not entirely healthy now and is still struggling but she is not dead. She also said she did not receive payment for her contribution to the ad. But I wouldn't have held it against her if she did.

She thanks her husband, who is working two jobs to pay the bills.