Would you support this to improve healthcare?

[Handsome Rob]

A woman patient had to be taken to hospital after receiving "inappropriate" treatment from the foreign doctor who killed a man with a lethal overdose on his first shift providing out-of-hours GP cover.

The woman's case came to light as police investigated a possible manslaughter charge against Dr Daniel Ubani, a German national of Nigerian origin, over the death of 70-year-old David Gray last year.

Foreign doctor kills pensioner

My GP growing up was a southeast Asian and trained in South Africa.

[Argus]

My GP growing up was a southeast Asian and trained in South Africa.

Well that's real nice, Rob, but no one is saying southeast Asians can't make for decent GPs, are they? They're just saying that we need to very carefully examine the abilities and credentials of anyone from the third world.

[eyeball]

...we need to very carefully examine the abilities and credentials of anyone from the third world.

So what's stopping us?

[William Ashley]

I see Mr. Ashley, so when you get hit by a car next week,

I am invinsible!

you would prefer to go the HMO route?

No, not exactly. I'm a full body donner, with a preference for DNR DNT (do not recusitate, do not treat, harvest at will)

For society I prefer that federal transfers for health are stoped (only reserach grants, for profit operations, and health insurance offered by the 2nd bank of Canada (1st bank is internal records, the central bank manages marcoeconomic factors, and the 2nd bank is a bank that the federal government would do all its business with (all money coming from the federal government would be dispersed through the 2nd bank (or the 1st bank to the 2nd back more accurately or the central bank to the 2nd bank - for new funds) The 2nd bank would offer public financial services such as unemployment insurance, disability insurance, retirement pensioning, and other banking services that finacial and insurance companies offer to offer base line services- rather than "legislated contributions that can be altered" the services offered by the second bank would be based on individual contracts rather than government legislation - meanwhile existing plans such as CPP, etc.. would be grandfathered or optionally locked in and transfered. People would have the option to contribute to it or to a private plan from a third party supplier. An incentive for federal corprations is that they could contribute their taxes to employee benifiits (but they actually have to be paid in not just "proxied"

I think though health care (outside national security applications such as research, emergency services and coog are provincial issues) whether those provincial issues are municipal or more broad - health care is an individual and private concern, health care is not an essential service - it is a quality of life service. Not everyone has the wonderful health care canada has, and I think Canadians take that for granted thinking that doctors are their right - it says that no where in the constitution.

It says they may pursue security, and liberty. I'm not saying don't provide it, but I am saying infringing on peoples liberty so you can have health care by taking their income away isn't ethical if you are using yours to eat fat paddys, smokes, and 2 4's.

Maybe it should only be 22 beers not 24 every pay day. the other two can fund your liver replacement.

That is my take - 80% of the population can afford a low cost health insurance plan. I think that a plan that offers free health insurance to organ donners is a good plan, since organs can fetch thousands of dollars and that would pay for a few years health insurance. Overall this type of program might pay for itself.

It is provincial. As far as the impoverished - there are two types of poor people - vegetables and cripples, and the second type unlucky and inept. sometimes you can be both. The first half is a total waste cause you won't get anything but medical experimentation out of them, or some type of "specific service" the arn't total waste really though, they can be useful - ha got you. Fact is pretty much eveyone can be put to efficient use. So the poor people can "earn their health care by participating in government programs that would otherwise cost the government in terms of personnel or participants. This saves the government money that can instead be diverted back into social programs. Workfare is not what I mean either - it is only part of it - cleaning streets is not economically stimulating - government money needs to elicit return - let the churches and rotary clubs do the not for profit work. Government needs to be able to pay for itself - if people want the luxuries let them pay for them - with their excesses. Before government civil order the churches did that or the guildes did that - only recently the government replaced all the major institutions, the church, the gulides, the family unit, royalty, the banks (all this to some extent not total) These are still consolidated blocks in government but the sectarian aspect is that government is in the business of taxing people, not in the business of providing worthwhile services.

End of story is I support health insurance that is paid for by people who can pay for the public insurance plan or a private one.

For me, I am a person of faith, and find the world to be a cess pool so I'm happy to leave at any time, and am more than willing to help those by sacrifice of my body if it can do good on my way out.

Feasible, but what of your yet undiagnosed heart murmur. Have you any thoughts of the scope of the cost? Or the difficulties in finding an insurance provider?

No. I'd be commie, unless someone handed me their wallet for me just being me.

Edited July 22, 2010 by William Ashley

[Bonam]

So what's stopping us?

Nothing. That is in fact what we do. You may have noticed another poster's proposal to simply "crush medical protection, castrate various medical associations" and to "flood the market with cheap foreign health professionals". This is what we are opposed to, because it would drastically lower the quality of health care in Canada.

[Sir Bandelot]

My MD friends tell me their industry is as riddled with protectionism as our dairy industry.

Yes that is the real truth. THese people live on an elite tier and as such any "shortages" are quite welcome, by the OMA.

[eyeball]

Nothing. That is in fact what we do.

Not very quickly, efficiently or effectively. What we are doing is next to nothing.

You may have noticed another poster's proposal to simply "crush medical protection, castrate various medical associations" and to "flood the market with cheap foreign health professionals". This is what we are opposed to, because it would drastically lower the quality of health care in Canada.

I'm assuming for the sake of argument that he was being facetious. If anyone is guilty of allowing our health system to produce poor quality workmanship it's the glacially slow speed at which our regulatory screening process is working, which can be traced directly back up the line to it's political masters - and quite likely intense lobbying from the various medical associations that want to protect their constituents economic interest in protectionism. We want to improve health care and I'm sure many doctors want to as well. Unfortunately the fastest way to do this is inimical to doctors interests.

Nobody has said lets flood the market with unqualified doctors. I certainly don't want that.

[Michael Hardner]

Nobody has said lets flood the market with unqualified doctors. I certainly don't want that.

That's how it would be framed.

The job of the professions is to protect the nature of the profession. So doctors, lawyers and what have you will ring the alarm bell long and loud if offshore resources are brought into play.

I despise the way dialogue is lowered with such things, but on the other hand the healthcare industry has failed to improve services, reduce costs significantly, or to communicate progress and status clearly to the public so they have brought it upon themselves.

[eyeball]

That's how it would be framed.

The job of the professions is to protect the nature of the profession. So doctors, lawyers and what have you will ring the alarm bell long and loud if offshore resources are brought into play.

...they have brought it upon themselves.

If these were corporations we were talking about not allowing into Canada many of the very same people in this thread calling for stopping an influx of doctors would be screaming for free trade, open borders and de-regulation. I think much of the squawk we're hearing is thinly disguised anti-immigrant sentiment myself.

I guess the only way to skin this cat is to ensure our medical insurers cough up for medical treatment in other countries when the waiting lines get to long, but that said we probably have more than enough doctors for the purpose of just diagnosing our ailments.

Of course, I expect doctors will complain long and loud about the export of their resource, namely us, offshore - like some people do who complain when big corporations export our resources offshore. I wonder if we'll see 'Ban the export of raw patients' bumper stickers next to the stickers that say 'Ban raw log or fish exports'?

What a goofy little species we are.

[dre]

That's how it would be framed.

The job of the professions is to protect the nature of the profession. So doctors, lawyers and what have you will ring the alarm bell long and loud if offshore resources are brought into play.

I despise the way dialogue is lowered with such things, but on the other hand the healthcare industry has failed to improve services, reduce costs significantly, or to communicate progress and status clearly to the public so they have brought it upon themselves.

Thats only how it would be framed for Canadians that still believe in the antiquated notion that the rest of the world lives in grass huts.

The fact though is that doctors trained in India, or South Africa, or NewZealand are every bit as good as ours. Patient outcomes in those places are comparable across the board.

We even refuse to honor doctor certifications from countries with much higher healthcare rankings than ours LOL.

The STATED reason for this is "quality" but the REAL reason is protectionism. Our doctors know they could never compete in a global healthcare economy. Thats a flat out fact.

All we would have to do, is study doctor certifications in some of these countries and approve the ones with comparable standards to ours... then set up easy fast-track visas for them. Or just ship the patients over there.

[Argus]

The fact though is that doctors trained in India, or South Africa, or NewZealand are every bit as good as ours. Patient outcomes in those places are comparable across the board.

I asked before for a cite and you have failed to provide any.

[Bonam]

Thats only how it would be framed for Canadians that still believe in the antiquated notion that the rest of the world lives in grass huts.

The fact though is that doctors trained in India, or South Africa, or NewZealand are every bit as good as ours. Patient outcomes in those places are comparable across the board.

New Zealand maybe. South Africa is an AIDS infested hellhole, and as for India, I'd prefer my organs not to be prematurely harvested, thank you very much.

We even refuse to honor doctor certifications from countries with much higher healthcare rankings than ours LOL.

A healthcare ranking doesn't mean that the doctors are necessarily fully versed in Canadian standards and practices.

Or just ship the patients over there.

Ship our patients to third world hellholes so they can be robbed, harvested, and sent back in coffins? I'd rather stay here and wait an extra month or two for my MRI.

Now, that might be a slight exaggeration, but you have to realize that health care is about trust. Going to a doctor, you need to be able to communicate with your doctor easily, you need to trust your doctor, and be in a calm and supportive environment. If you are having a serious procedure, a stress-free recovery can be of great importance. Being flown around the world, potentially to developing countries, surrounded by people who you do not understand and who do not understand you, is not my idea of a low stress environment.

[dre]

Heres a neat story...

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/82083/indian-doctor-makes-top-canada.html

With most Indian doctors here driving taxis because of non-recognition of their degrees, few have established themselves in their medical profession in Canada.

Most Indian doctors in Canada are driving cabs. ROFLMAO.

[dre]

New Zealand maybe. South Africa is an AIDS infested hellhole, and as for India, I'd prefer my organs not to be prematurely harvested, thank you very much.

A healthcare ranking doesn't mean that the doctors are necessarily fully versed in Canadian standards and practices.

Ship our patients to third world hellholes so they can be robbed, harvested, and sent back in coffins? I'd rather stay here and wait an extra month or two for my MRI.

Now, that might be a slight exaggeration, but you have to realize that health care is about trust. Going to a doctor, you need to be able to communicate with your doctor easily, you need to trust your doctor, and be in a calm and supportive environment. If you are having a serious procedure, a stress-free recovery can be of great importance. Being flown around the world, potentially to developing countries, surrounded by people who you do not understand and who do not understand you, is not my idea of a low stress environment.

Youre completely wrong about medical tourism, and your hyperbolic rhetoric about third world countries is way off base. Nearly a million Americans and Canadians will travel abroad for medical care this year from treatment in JCI accredited facilities. Often paying 1/10th what an operation would cost over here and getting comparable quality and patient outcomes.

New Zealand maybe. South Africa is an AIDS infested hellhole, and as for India, I'd prefer my organs not to be prematurely harvested, thank you very much.

South Africa trains excellent doctors and theyre practicing all over the world. Same goes for India... almost a third of the doctors in the UK are indian now, and in Canada about 1 in 10 practicing doctors is Indian.

[Bonam]

Youre completely wrong about medical tourism, and your hyperbolic rhetoric about third world countries is way off base. Nearly a million Americans and Canadians will travel abroad for medical care this year from treatment in JCI accredited facilities. Often paying 1/10th what an operation would cost over here and getting comparable quality and patient outcomes.

Cite? How many of those million are Americans going to Canada or Canadians going to America I wonder?

South Africa trains excellent doctors and theyre practicing all over the world. Same goes for India... almost a third of the doctors in the UK are indian now, and in Canada about 1 in 10 practicing doctors is Indian.

Great, so we get their good doctors, they are certified under our standards, and they can work here and benefit Canada. That is a far cry from sending our patients over to those countries, which you proposed.

[Pliny]

Bad idea.

The CMA has set the quota for number of doctors per capita. It takes time to make a doctor and sometimes a miscalculation occurs that results in a shortage. There appears to always be a shortage but no one would complain about an overabundance except for doctors who would be competing for patients. The CMA has to ensure that doctors are making a decent wage.

A doctor should be allowed to go where he can make the best living. Not every doctor will go to the States.

Some doctors prefer getting their checks from governments and not HMO's. Some get paid directly from their patients. Government's and HMO's guarantee their payment - AND IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER THE RESULTS but they could get sued for negative results. No worries, liability insurance is necessary for doctors. Perhaps that has something to do with accrediting foreign doctors? Do ya think?

Edited July 23, 2010 by Pliny

[dre]

Cite? How many of those million are Americans going to Canada or Canadians going to America I wonder?

Theres good general information here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism

A forecast by Deloitte Consulting published in August 2008 projected that medical tourism originating in the US could jump by a factor of ten over the next decade. An estimated 750,000 Americans went abroad for health care in 2007, and the report estimated that a million and a half would seek health care outside the US in 2008. The growth in medical tourism has the potential to cost US health care providers billions of dollars in lost revenue.[9]

Popular medical travel worldwide destinations include: Argentina, Brunei, Cuba, Colombia, Costa Rica, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Jordan, Lithuania, Malaysia, The Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, and recently, Saudi Arabia, UAE, South Korea, Tunisia and New Zealand.[3]

[dre]

Cite? How many of those million are Americans going to Canada or Canadians going to America I wonder?

Great, so we get their good doctors, they are certified under our standards, and they can work here and benefit Canada. That is a far cry from sending our patients over to those countries, which you proposed.

Great, so we get their good doctors, they are certified under our standards, and they can work here and benefit Canada. That is a far cry from sending our patients over to those countries, which you proposed.

I didnt propose "sending" anyone anywhere, just giving them the option of having their procedures done abroad, and allowing them to keep 1/2 of the money they save the government.

People who wanna stay here and get pricegouged could still do so.

[eyeball]

I didnt propose "sending" anyone anywhere, just giving them the option of having their procedures done abroad, and allowing them to keep 1/2 of the money they save the government.

People who wanna stay here and get pricegouged could still do so.

Unless I'm mistaken I think it's been established that government health insurers have to pay for treatment and procedures offshore if they're not available in Canada. I think this should include if they're not available in a timely manner in Canada.

[William Ashley]

Ok this isn't meant to be rascist just humoured.

Even immigrants need doctors, what better doctors for immigrants than immigrant doctors - they might even speak their language - and then English becomes secondary.

- Now I say this half joking - the other half is dead serious. Plus ethinic doctors are some of the nicest doctors around - partly because they often have a unique life view, and really tend to have a broader world view than many people who have only experienced the first world. First world doctors are great too though. Fact is though while there are many native genious doctors out there (often the best in the profession able to work for the best institutions) - there are foreign doctors who are absolutely genious also - and them earning second teir earnings here is a fortune back home - although medicine around the world tends to fetch a pretty dollar - some medicine simply has a plateau for general procedure.

I can't say much more than that but not to obfuscate

even immigrants need doctors and for all those anti immigrant people - well do you want some immigrant to take your doctor from you?

We'll the second best thing is for an immigrant doctor to treat them - third best scenario - atleast you have a bloody doctor.

Fact is often times people need a little time to intergrate fine tune their language and get a sense of nonethnocentricity. TRUUUUST ME... any doctor --- any freaken doctor from ANY institution that is globally accredited is someone WE WANT to be in this country as part of our success... hell even masters are good game.

The sad thing is that historically a bunch of these people just ended up in non professional field occupations - and that is very unfortunate.

There are many professionals that ought to be welcome in Canada. We just need a no nonsense approach to handle this. Strick absolute immigration laws to get rid of "bad people".

The key is to aggressively allow immigration atmost 90% of the economic growth rate - provided taht there is a trend for necesities of life in areas that the immigrants intend to immigrate, and work in their specialized fields.

Eg. only allow immigration during a probationary period to a specific area - and line them up with employment immediately.

This is more federal provincial.

The more immigration we have the more success we have - but we need to aggresively immigrate to improve many interconnected sectors to insure regionality in economic developement to reduce waste and inefficiency.

Edited July 24, 2010 by William Ashley

[eyeball]

The more immigration we have the more success we have - but we need to aggresively immigrate to improve many interconnected sectors to insure regionality in economic developement to reduce waste and inefficiency.

There is an ethical aspect to this that we shouldn't overlook. Draining the developing and third world of their best and brightest will diminish their ability to develop, which will lead to more immigrants and worse, refugess.

I think we'd all be a lot better off if we just finally opened up the world's borders for human beings and not just corporations and truly walk the free trade talk we've all been force fed for so many years now.

Human beings are people too, we should have the same fundamental rights our corporations demand.

[William Ashley]

There is an ethical aspect to this that we shouldn't overlook. Draining the developing and third world of their best and brightest will diminish their ability to develop, which will lead to more immigrants and worse, refugess.

They survived for 12000 plus years without them, why do they suddently need them now?

Fact is, experts are a luxury. Third world countries have cash, if they want luxuries they ought to pay for them. Perhaps sell some land, provide services, etc..

PEOPLE SHOULD BE FREE TO MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES. If the professional doesn't care about his impoverished country (perhaps the reason they want to leave) - then is he really the type of person you'd want influencing that enviornment. Probably with the rebels and/or opposition of the country anyway - more reason for them to leave - cause they'd be a refugee or maltreated oppressed anyway.

Immigration IS GOOD, it just needs to be managed properly to insure that immigrants immediately have productive input into the economy. I have no problem with people coming over on a bond (eg. a fee that is held in trust - and that they assume an equal portion of the debt (this within my divest the debt to the people and end income taxes ~ the debt would be redistributed each quarter - and people would have any amounts paid into their principle permanently removed from their amount owing (about $15000 principle - they would only be required to pay the interest each quarter or year on thier portion - like an emmancipation fee rather than perpetual income tax slavery (fee for free).(people under the poverty line would be exempt, people in low middle income (under 30,000 would be graduated on interest payment requirement), people with exceptional circumstances might be given interst exemptions or payment requirements but each would have to be filed. --- THIS IS A REALISTIC way of removing the public debt.

I'm working on a specific point detail - including all exepenses into a working budget on the alteration of this system. Canada costs billions - on top of this bonds and t1 need to be more restricted - slowly weened down, and stable foreign reserves and commodities (via a strategic reserve system) need to be accumulated for Canadians to be tax free in their country - that would hopefully illicit foreign investors (individuals) - while the corporate taxes and other revenue streams would pay for operations of a government - there would be more restrictions on import and export requring citizenship or federal incorporation to conduct import and export. Non corproations would be subject to non refundable fees - while federal incorporations would be

able to claim certain import/export credits in their corporate taxes.

with less outlays - provinces would likely raise new taxes or be forced to desocialize non essential services. Health care is a major one that needs a new approach like obama care (But with a public insurance plan) I think the federal government could still provide assurance of medicare through public insurance offered by a crown corporation. - For immigrants they would be eligible to become citizens when they paid their personal portion of the debt - currently around $15,000. Residents would also be required to pay interest on a personal portion - and could opt to pay down their principal, then only pay residency fees - until they switched over to become a citizen. Failure to pay (with income class exclusion applicable) would result in loss of citizenship or residency allowance, and immediate deportability (and forfiture of their landing fee - the deposit paid to allow entry to the country - this would be returned if they left using their own resources. - even americans traveling in Canada would be required to pay this fee - set to the cost of the lowest price of transport to the border from thier intended travel destination - eg. if it was just a border stop this may be $2 but if it was a trip far inland it may be up to a couple hundred dollars - all foreign visitors would also require medical travel insurance (a plan would be available by a government crown corp - or a health insurance plan usable in Canada - every travelor would also be given a FSIN (foreign social insurance number) and "2nd Bank of Canada - 'Citizens Bank'" account) - they WOULD NOT assume a portion of the debt as travellors, nor would they be liable to interest charges under their visa - unless they were a resident or citizen of Canada. The 2nd BoC.CB account would allow them to pay for civil service fees - if they existed since all payments to and from the government would have to be done through their accounts - their FSIB is their bank account number also. -(the BoC.CB also offers commerical banking services - automated banking/telephone banking etc.. with branches in most populated centres - with government buildings - such as court houses, federal departments, RCMP, military bases etc.., where federal employees would be sworn into their "receivor general -BoC.CB" officer role - dedicated centres could be built in high demand areas. It wouldn't grossly impair US travel - it would actually enhance the access that americans have to Canadian government services - for only a deposit - although any interest would not be returned the principal deposit would be) this would create a subdermal hidden income stream that could help pay for emergency situations involving foreign persons. While it might impair travel from distant foreing countries due to $500-1500 deposits - it would be hoped that perhaps partner countries would pay the deposits of their citizens to enable travel - since it is "virtualized" if the citizen returns to their country - so the country that issued their travellors passport shouldn't feel issued with putting up the deposit for their travelling citizens - this may be perhaps a few million dollar "trust".

Canada can take in about 1 million new immigrants and residents each year and still have growth. Canada needs more people, lots of them.

None the less WHO CARES. Stupid argument - you want to help the third world, get an education and off you go. It is a private matter. You shouldn't stifle progress of one party for another state. Government has no responsibility to things outside its responsibilities. I firmly beleive the federal government is NOT responsible for the third world.

Let business people, or for profit development crown corporations, and embassies serve their functions. If third world countries take the same approach they may not be third world countries anymore, they could be developed. IF NFP's can operate on public donations all the more power to them. Give the people the choice don't force causes on the tax dime, different people support different things.

I firmly think the Federal Government of Canada should only provide tax dollars or quality of life to its own citizens. - Canadians - and improving Canada. I purport the ROI course of investment not the flush after use, as some other party persons might champion.

Diplomacy should involve benefits for both parties not deterimants to one, and especially not your own country.

Development is either state or business - if their state doesn't submit to our state, then why help it?

I think we'd all be a lot better off if we just finally opened up the world's borders for human beings and not just corporations and truly walk the free trade talk we've all been force fed for so many years now.

Human beings are people too, we should have the same fundamental rights our corporations demand.

That last line is disgusting. Fundamental rights ought to have nothing to do with corporations, they are universal and part of natural law and morality & ethics.

---------

You have to understand the debt is 30% of federal outlays or MORE. Debt spenders like the current government are whoping on 1/3 the total debt each year - by running monster deficits -eg. debt is 580 billion (over half a trillion dollars) they deficit spend 200 billion or more in a year, (and before you say no it was only 1/10th with 60 billion debt accumulation - you also have to add in defered debt due to long term maturing bonds and t1's, and maintance fees of projects slated for multiple years etc.. (that is the actual debt spending for a year, while the amount assumed in a year may be less, the money is still an outlay the year the spending was approved) IT IS MADNESS.

We need to kill the debt, and immigration with pay down is one course of action of direct paydown, that other governments have irresponsibly not done. They instead instituted income tax to pay down - THEN SPENT THE MONEY ON OTHER THINGS. WE NEED DIRECT PAY DOWN, NOT MORE TAXES AND SPENDING ON NEW DEBTS.

PROVINCIAL health fees are the largest portion of the Canadian budget pie. Cutting this down by pay for health insurance - and removing the indirect taxation - allows people with other coverage a carte blanche, and those honestly dependant on health services service - why double up service for people that get the plan anyway. Remove the taxes provide the services.

LET PEOPLE CHOOSE THEIR DOCTORS - if mr. fromsomewhere else, doesn't have the clients, they don't have the cash - that is the free world capitalist way. If they do, who the heck cares, you don't want them to be your doctor pick someone else - the more we have the more we have to choose from.

We all know the result - I'm not quite 30, so I'm not really in a danger demographic for access to health services - BUT you may be.. think about it.

(ps a citizenship test in french or english might also be required in addition to paying down the personal portion)

Edited July 24, 2010 by William Ashley

[dre]

Unless I'm mistaken I think it's been established that government health insurers have to pay for treatment and procedures offshore if they're not available in Canada. I think this should include if they're not available in a timely manner in Canada.

I think thats a good idea, but Id really like to see it based on choice.

The government should publish the total cost of all major procedures... Then if patients can find a lower cost somewhere else they get 1/2 of what they saved.

So a guy needs heart valve surgery... the governments "blue book" price is 100 000 dollars. He finds the same operation available in a JCI accredited facility in India for 10 000. Thats a savings of 90 000 dollars which he splits with the government, meaning he gets a 45 000 dollar cash rebate. He could use this to pay for airfare, and have a nice extended stay in a luxury resource to recover from his surgery, and STILL have 35 000 dollars left over once all is said and done. And the taxpayer saves 45 000!

So a person getting major surgery could literally save the government so much money that their "rebate" could buy them a brand new car.

The cost of surgery in India, Thailand or South Africa can be one-tenth of what it is in the United States or Western Europe, and sometimes even less. A heart-valve replacement that would cost $200,000 or more in the US, for example, goes for $10,000 in India--and that includes round-trip airfare and a brief vacation package. Similarly, a metal-free dental bridge worth $5,500 in the US costs $500 in India, a knee replacement in Thailand with six days of physical therapy costs about one-fifth of what it would in the States, and Lasik eye surgery worth $3,700 in the US is available in many other countries for only $730. Cosmetic surgery savings are even greater: A full facelift that would cost $20,000 in the US runs about $1,250 in South Africa

People in the west just dont understand how badly they are getting price-gouged.

A heart-valve replacement that would cost $200,000 or more in the US, for example, goes for $10,000 in India--and that includes round-trip airfare and a brief vacation package.

Jesus fuckin christ... If a patient needing a heart valve gets the operation in India instead of the US he would save enough money to buy SIX BRAND NEW CARS!

So once the government implements my "half the money saved" rebates, youll essentially have patients looking for ways to save our government and health system money all on their own. Within a year medical tourism numbers will start to skyrocket. This will reduce the stress on our system, and reduce the wait times. It will also force our healthcare providers towards competition and away from protectionism, which will bring down prices here.

And its completely voluntary... if people have trust issues with foreign JCI accredited facilities then they can have the operation here like they would today... they just dont get the vacation and the brand new car.

[wyly]

I didnt propose "sending" anyone anywhere, just giving them the option of having their procedures done abroad, and allowing them to keep 1/2 of the money they save the government.

People who wanna stay here and get pricegouged could still do so.

who gets price gouged? my last surgery required the rebuild of a knee, it cost me $21(rental of crutches)....

[dre]

who gets price gouged? my last surgery required the rebuild of a knee, it cost me $21(rental of crutches)....

The payer gets price gouged. In this case its the tax payer.