US dead last in health care

[guyser]

. I really like this employee productivity angle...helps to explain why Canada is at a "disadvantage":

I am pretty confident the productivity angle is a non starter and is only marketing on the sellers behalf. There should be little movement getting any employee off short or long term disability > The treatment is what gets them moving, not the diagnostic tool used.

No pre-exists are allowed , triage system for all its warts work damn well and anyone under this insurance would not get bumped above anyone else anyhow since the Dr report would state that the patient is not critical, thus the ins co would not respond

As for penetration, I suspect there has been ;little to none. I have certainly never heard of this product , nor anyone esle I associate with.

Its horrendously priced for what it offers

[waldo]

Thank you...I am a fast learner.

clearly, since you were thumped over the minuscule numbers of Canadians using the U.S. system via provincial approvals, you're now going to natter incessantly over something you never knew existed. Fast learner... indeed! Since you're so self-proclaimed 'fast', when will you have numbers to substantiate your natter. You know, how many 'burgeons' worth?

any particular reason you're afraid to touch Pliny's post? Why not pull back on your charade and take a run at it - sure you can! I'll give you some help in starting off... say, insurance rate increase considerations - something that doesn't even address the direct resource/usage impacts anticipated from ObamaCare and 'extended coverage':

- apparently, many U.S. insurance companies are being accused of improperly raising rates, by huge amounts, in attempts to get ahead of the anticipated initial impacts of ObamaCare:

=> Blue Shield of California plans huge rate increases

Health insurance costs for hundreds of thousands of individual policy holders with Blue Shield of California could go up as much 59 percent this year

=> Healthcare Costs Going Up, Up, Up

The Los Angeles Times reports today on enormous rate hikes for small businesses in the health insurance market:

[bush_cheney2004]

I am pretty confident the productivity angle is a non starter and is only marketing on the sellers behalf. There should be little movement getting any employee off short or long term disability > The treatment is what gets them moving, not the diagnostic tool used.

No doubt about the marketing, but the impact of longer diagnosis and treatment cycle time is not trivial in such a rationed system. I had never considered this angle before seeing the vendor pitch to employers.

No pre-exists are allowed , triage system for all its warts work damn well and anyone under this insurance would not get bumped above anyone else anyhow since the Dr report would state that the patient is not critical, thus the ins co would not respond

OK....I can see this angle as well, except for the 45 day clause.

As for penetration, I suspect there has been ;little to none. I have certainly never heard of this product , nor anyone esle I associate with.

Oh, I agree 100%, but it's mere existence is an indicator of the domestic debate over this issue, regardless of what American healthcare is or isn't doing. Pressure is building to solve the problem of waitlist hell.

Its horrendously priced for what it offers

Could be...other supplemental health insurance policies are sold in Canada. MAI is just a symptom of a larger issue.

[bush_cheney2004]

any particular reason you're afraid to touch Pliny's post? Why not pull back on your charade and take a run at it - sure you can! I'll give you some help in starting off... say, insurance rate increase considerations - something that doesn't even address the direct resource/usage impacts anticipated from ObamaCare and 'extended coverage':

I am not sure what you are referring to.....and would be leery of any advocacy for another member's post coming from you. If another member seeks my wisdom, he/she can ask directly without your intervention.

- apparently, many U.S. insurance companies are being accused of improperly raising rates, by huge amounts, in attempts to get ahead of the anticipated initial impacts of ObamaCare:

Of course...markets are like that. This was fully expected as the previous exclusions to group and individual policies were removed.

[waldo]

No pre-exists are allowed , triage system for all its warts work damn well

this I know for a fact, through personal knowledge. I have a long history of sports related ortho surgeries and on a looking ahead, 'what if' whim, started to investigate private options for a knee-replacement... simply having the history meant the insurers wouldn't cover me - at all... ever! Which, of course, begs the question: since procedures like hip replacements, knee replacements, and hip-fracture repairs typically have an injury attachment to them, how would one ever get private insurance coverage for them? Of course, these 3 examples all appear prominently in provincial wait lists.

[bush_cheney2004]

this I know for a fact, through personal knowledge. I have a long history of sports related ortho surgeries and on a looking ahead, 'what if' whim, started to investigate private options for a knee-replacement...

Ladies and gentlemen....I rest my case. (not really...but you get the idea).

[waldo]

I am not sure what you are referring to.....and would be leery of any advocacy for another member's post coming from you. If another member seeks my wisdom, he/she can ask directly without your intervention.

you know exactly what I'm referring to. Pliny replied to one of your posts... implying significant considerations ahead for you/your country's healthcare system in regards ObamaCare impacts. I replied to Pliny's post... you ignored it since you won't touch anything that would force you to acknowledge the impacts of universality (as limited as the initial phase of ObamaCare will be). I prodded you to reply to Pliny's post a few times now... even re-quoting it (along with my reply) for you to consider.

Of course...markets are like that. This was fully expected as the previous exclusions to group and individual policies were removed.

so we get another one of your curt dismissive nothingness replies! Why not address the many other upcoming impacts of universality on your country's 'system'... you know, all those you also ignore/negate/chastise in terms of how Canadian governments must address universality. But like I said, you won't touch this topic since it goes against your false narrative, hey?

[guyser]

No doubt about the marketing, but the impact of longer diagnosis and treatment cycle time is not trivial in such a rationed system. I had never considered this angle before seeing the vendor pitch to employers.

The vendor pitch is pretty normal, meaning it is for all intents and practices it is basically useless. All employee benefits in Canada are non taxable benefits.

Any company of size buying this should fire the HR head who approved it.

OK....I can see this angle as well, except for the 45 day clause.

Sorry, I dont see any 45 day clause.

Oh, I agree 100%, but it's mere existence is an indicator of the domestic debate over this issue, regardless of what American healthcare is or isn't doing. Pressure is building to solve the problem of waitlist hell.

I would argue the existence is merely an attempt to cash in on the hulabloo of the debate on wait times. Pressure is building, but the truth is for most people, and I will state a large majority, the wait is not a problem. People here are understanding that they are not critical, wont be critical for a long time and that when the procedure is ready to be done, so will they.

Seeing as how no one I talked with had heard of this, the penetration will be very low to almost obsolete.

Could be...other supplemental health insurance policies are sold in Canada. MAI is just a symptom of a larger issue.

Of course other s are sold, the markets full of whacky things one can buy as respect insurance. One can insure your daughters wedding gifts sitting at home....and only at home for the one day the marriage is occuring on. Rain on your party day, got that ocvered too.

As you well know, people lay in wait to be departed from their money....the larger issue being stupidity.

Edited January 30, 2013 by guyser

[guyser]

this I know for a fact, through personal knowledge. I have a long history of sports related ortho surgeries and on a looking ahead, 'what if' whim, started to investigate private options for a knee-replacement... simply having the history meant the insurers wouldn't cover me - at all... ever!

I dont think you are being enough of an advocate for your own health.

Call your Dr and discuss the upcoming deterioration of your knee . Ask him what the timline is. His answer should be that when it becomes acute they'll be ready, which all in all is what you want.

As for this type of insurance, it may help you, however you will be required to pay the premiums for a minimum of 2 years then any further deterioration of your knee would be covered.....unless your Dr report says you are stable and scheduled for surgery on XX date , in which the ins co you've paid 2 years premium to tells you " no need for us"

Which, of course, begs the question: since procedures like hip replacements, knee replacements, and hip-fracture repairs typically have an injury attachment to them, how would one ever get private insurance coverage for them? Of course, these 3 examples all appear prominently in provincial wait lists.

Pay for 2 years mimimum I am afraid.

Not very smart if you ask me

[waldo]

Ladies and gentlemen....I rest my case. (not really...but you get the idea).

what case? I replied with direct personal knowledge on the pre-existing condition limitations of these private insurance programs. So, I won't be availing myself of their applicable offering... I'll quite naturally position into my provincial system if I choose to proceed in the next decade or so... presuming I really do have a need for a knee replacement.

[waldo]

I dont think you are being enough of an advocate for your own health. Call your Dr and discuss the upcoming deterioration of your knee . Ask him what the timline is. His answer should be that when it becomes acute they'll be ready, which all in all is what you want.

As for this type of insurance, it may help you, however you will be required to pay the premiums for a minimum of 2 years then any further deterioration of your knee would be covered.....unless your Dr report says you are stable and scheduled for surgery on XX date , in which the ins co you've paid 2 years premium to tells you " no need for us"

Pay for 2 years mimimum I am afraid.

no, in the eventuality I may need (choose to have) a knee replacement, I'm not eligible for this private insurance coverage. In my pursuit discussing with the private insurers, the concept of 'stability' doesn't exist with injury related ortho procedures. It's not like being in cancer remission, for example. This is the information I received.

[bush_cheney2004]

you know exactly what I'm referring to. Pliny replied to one of your posts... implying significant considerations ahead for you/your country's healthcare system in regards ObamaCare impacts. I replied to Pliny's post... you ignored it since you won't touch anything that would force you to acknowledge the impacts of universality

No, as so called ObamaCare specifically preserves existing insurance markets and even expands on them (exchanges). This was the only way to get it passed. Millions of people will remain uninsured, many by choice. Universal access may be a laudable goal, but never at the cost of private choice for those who can afford it, and associated insurance products.

so we get another one of your curt dismissive nothingness replies! Why not address the many other upcoming impacts of universality on your country's 'system'... you know, all those you also ignore/negate/chastise in terms of how Canadian governments must address universality. But like I said, you won't touch this topic since it goes against your false narrative, hey?

See above...I don't care about universality or equal access to misery on a wait list. It appears that some Canadians don't either.

Edited January 31, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

The vendor pitch is pretty normal, meaning it is for all intents and practices it is basically useless. All employee benefits in Canada are non taxable benefits.

Any company of size buying this should fire the HR head who approved it.

Not if the numbers proved favourable. I already know that Canadian Forces use private insurance products like BCBS, and it may be a force readiness issue not unlike productivity for an employer. The whole waitlist malaise must have some impact on short and long term disability, sick time, job performance, and other negative consequences.

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/06/20/sick-healthcare-system-made-canadians-lose-more-than-3-billion-in-economic-activity-in-2011-fraser-institute/

Sorry, I dont see any 45 day clause.

One of the MAI products for individuals used 45 days as the basis of a claim. Presumably, the actuaries and bean counters cranked the numbers based on such a waitlist threshold. The product would have to offer some advantage over waiting in line with the rest of the schmucks. How this translates to an employer group policy would follow other similar insurance products.

As an aside, insurance is a very old concept and it shouldn't be any surprise that it would apply in this risk/scarcity case.

I would argue the existence is merely an attempt to cash in on the hulabloo of the debate on wait times. Pressure is building, but the truth is for most people, and I will state a large majority, the wait is not a problem. People here are understanding that they are not critical, wont be critical for a long time and that when the procedure is ready to be done, so will they.

I would agree that the majority of Canadians are quite satisfied to wait whatever is required, but there is a sizable minority who will not tolerate such nonsense when they need care, and it is readily available from a Canadian or American provider if the price is right.

Seeing as how no one I talked with had heard of this, the penetration will be very low to almost obsolete.

It can't be zero....we already know that brokers have penetrated the Canadian market for U.S providers, with one of the high visibility ones being Mayo Clinic. Why would Canadians even know that Mayo existed ?

As you well know, people lay in wait to be departed from their money....the larger issue being stupidity.

Stupidity and choice are distant cousins when the cash (or insurance) is available. I certainly would not watch a family member suffer in queue if we had the means to get more timely healthcare.

Edited January 31, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

what case? I replied with direct personal knowledge on the pre-existing condition limitations of these private insurance programs. So, I won't be availing myself of their applicable offering... I'll quite naturally position into my provincial system if I choose to proceed in the next decade or so... presuming I really do have a need for a knee replacement.

Of course, but you have clearly pondered extra-CHA care, as an option. You admit to lusting after a faster and perhaps better alternative. You have sinned in the eyes of Canadians and the sacred CHA religion. (Just thinking about doing it is a sin...just like for Catholics.) So as George Carlin said, "You may as well go ahead and do it".

Edited January 31, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

This gets easier and easier.....and to try and stay on topic.....what was the U.S. "disadvantage" again ?

Canadian insurance to cover care at Mayo Clinic

Canadians are being offered a private health insurance plan that will provide a second opinion on diagnosis and treatment for serious illness at the Mayo Clinic south of the border.

The MyCare program, announced by Assured Diagnosis Inc. of Calgary, will initially will be available to Canadians outside of Quebec, up to the age of 75.

MyCare policyholders will have access to diagnostic expertise delivered remotely via an electronic second-opinion consultation as well as on-site care at the Mayo's three clinics in Rochester, Minn., Jacksonville, Fla., and Scottsdale-Phoenix, Ariz.

The program is aimed at illnesses such as cancer and heart disease, with policies available for singles, couples and families, said Jim Viccars, president and CEO of Assured Diagnosis, who has long been involved in the insurance industry.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/05/10/mayo-clinic-health-insurance.html

[waldo]

No, as so called ObamaCare specifically preserves existing insurance markets and even expands on them (exchanges). This was the only way to get it passed. Millions of people will remain uninsured, many by choice. Universal access may be a laudable goal, but never at the cost of private choice for those who can afford it, and associated insurance products.

See above...I don't care about universality or equal access to misery on a wait list. It appears that some Canadians don't either.

just how naive are you? Do you presume to suggest your country's health care system will not be affected by Obamacare? That you'll personally remain isolated in your bubble? Nothing could be sweeter than having you attempt to counter the GOP/right-wing 'talking points' on the negative impacts that Obamacare will bring forward. There's certainly no shortage to choose from, right? After only a cursory look, I've found this gem from one of the ready-go-to right-wing stink tanks, the Heritage Foundation. Their, 'The Impact of Obamacare - From the Frontlines of our Health Care Crisis', looks quite onerous, hey? Unless you're saying there will be no impact... unless you're saying the Heritage Foundation made all that up... unless you're saying the Republican Party made all that up, etc.. Is that really what you're saying in your seemingly naive response? Or is this just you deflecting away again, refusing to acknowledge there are impacting consequences on countries providing extended universality? Just you deflecting away presuming to preserve your false narrative!

[waldo]

Of course, but you have clearly pondered extra-CHA care, as an option. You admit to lusting after a faster and perhaps better alternative. You have sinned in the eyes of Canadians and the sacred CHA religion. (Just thinking about doing it is a sin...just like for Catholics.) So as George Carlin said, "You may as well go ahead and do it".

how petulant are you... really? But here, let me open up a bit - if for no other reason than to see just what petulant level you can rise to! The description offered was me, a year or so ago, doing nothing more than throwing out a few phone calls - a curiosity as to where the market was at... I have no need for the procedure now and trust not to require it, if ever, even into the next decade (or so). The real crux of my concern lies in possible longer-term degenerative problems. In any case, you seem to have missed the most salient point... rather, you're ignoring it since it deflates your petulance/false narrative. The salient point being, I was advised my condition/surgical history precluded coverage; i.e., the pre-existing condition insurance throwback. So you can stuff you George Carlin quote up your nether region!

[waldo]

This gets easier and easier.....and to try and stay on topic.....what was the U.S. "disadvantage" again ?

at some point you really should have a look at the OP study reference... or even the Commonwealthfund study you yourself linked to. The American health disadvantage is well documented. Here, let me refresh/counter your deflection:

... the report/study from the U.S. National Research Council and the U.S. Institute of Medicine... the report/study sponsored by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The report/study that compared the U.S. to 16 peer nations -- affluent democracies that include Australia, Canada, Japan, and many western European countries.

The report/study that concludes there is a comparable U.S. health disadvantage relative to these other world's rich nations. The report/study that shows that the unfavourable U.S. health comparison exists across all ages of the U.S. citizenry - from birth to age 75. The report/study that finds the conclusion also applies to advantaged Americans; those with health insurance, college educations, higher incomes, and healthy behaviors -- that these advantaged Americans appear to be sicker than their peers in other rich nations. The report/study that concludes that the U.S. is at or near the bottom in nine key areas of health: infant mortality and low birth weight; obesity and diabetes; heart disease; chronic lung disease; disability; injuries and homicides; teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections; prevalence of HIV and AIDS and drug-related deaths.

[waldo]

.....what was the U.S. "disadvantage" again ?

this is a part of it... there's more, much more. Let me know if I can help out further.

- 79 million US adults have medical bill problems or are paying off medical debt

- Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies

- Healthcare Costs Going Up, Up, Up

[bush_cheney2004]

... unless you're saying the Republican Party made all that up, etc.. Is that really what you're saying in your seemingly naive response? Or is this just you deflecting away again, refusing to acknowledge there are impacting consequences on countries providing extended universality? Just you deflecting away presuming to preserve your false narrative!

The USA's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), aka "ObamaCare", falls far short of universal health care, and is more of an insurance regulatory overhaul at the federal level with additional revenue mechanisms. Since President Obama had to get in bed with Big Insurance and Big Pharma, the "consequences" will also be more revenue for them. Political pressure to adopt a single payer system with universal access for all was soundly rejected.

[bush_cheney2004]

how petulant are you... really? But here, let me open up a bit - if for no other reason than to see just what petulant level you can rise to! The description offered was me, a year or so ago, doing nothing more than throwing out a few phone calls - a curiosity as to where the market was at..

LOL! We both know where the "market was at"....and where it still is. The point of my "petulance" was to demonstrate that public/private choice is good, and obviously appealed to you as well.

The salient point being, I was advised my condition/surgical history precluded coverage; i.e., the pre-existing condition insurance throwback. So you can stuff you George Carlin quote up your nether region!

Not an issue for millions of group policy members in the evil USA....maybe if Canada had a competitive (and legal) insurance market for CHA covered procedures you could have done better. Now you will just have to wait until joint degeneration is bad enough to get you in line for diagnostic imaging, then you can wait a year for any surgery. Look at the bright side...if it takes too long when that day year comes, your province may send you to the USA for treatment !

[waldo]

The USA's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), aka "ObamaCare", falls far short of universal health care, and is more of an insurance regulatory overhaul at the federal level with additional revenue mechanisms. Since President Obama had to get in bed with Big Insurance and Big Pharma, the "consequences" will also be more revenue for them. Political pressure to adopt a single payer system with universal access for all was soundly rejected.

so... you're saying all the attacks against Obamacare were false/manufactured? You're saying, for example, the Heritage Foundation impacts of Obamacare I just linked to are false? You're saying all the Republican attacks against the impacts of Obamacare these last recent years, this recent U.S. Presidential election campaign were false?... etc.. Is that what you're saying?... that Obamacare will have no impacts on the American healthcare 'system'? Really? That's what you're saying?

[bush_cheney2004]

[/size]at some point you really should have a look at the OP study reference... or even the Commonwealthfund study you yourself linked to. The American health disadvantage is well documented. Here, let me refresh/counter your deflection:

Thanks for the review...but we have already established that the so called "health disadvantage" is largely associated with American lifestyle choices and culture, measurement bias, "universality" agenda, etc. We have also established that the U.S. "disadvantage" is chosen by more emigres than any other nation (including Canada), and that other nationals take advantage of the supporting U.S. healthcare system when their own systems fail to meet individual needs in a timely or effective manner (including some very high profile Canadians).

[bush_cheney2004]

so... you're saying all the attacks against Obamacare were false/manufactured? You're saying, for example, the Heritage Foundation impacts of Obamacare I just linked to are false? You're saying all the Republican attacks against the impacts of Obamacare these last recent years, this recent U.S. Presidential election campaign were false?... etc.. Is that what you're saying?... that Obamacare will have no impacts on the American healthcare 'system'? Really? That's what you're saying?

What I am saying is clearly stated above. ObamaCare preserves the basic elements of the U.S. healthcare market by legislating the insurance model for more Americans and adding funding mechanisms (taxes) for means tested benefits, electronic records, MediCare Advantage offsets, reductions in MediCare hospital payments, etc. ObamaCare soundly rejected attempts by progressives to adopt a single payer system, which would have constituted the much hated "Canadianization" of American health care.

[waldo]

LOL! We both know where the "market was at"....and where it still is. The point of my "petulance" was to demonstrate that public/private choice is good, and obviously appealed to you as well.

you clearly didn't know. Like I said a few posts back... you're made aware of private options and suddenly you're an authority. You said it was just you being a 'quick learner', right? No - it was nothing more than interest; your 'appeal' phrasing presumes on need... a need I don't presently have and don't anticipate to have (if ever) for a decade+.

Not an issue for millions of group policy members in the evil USA....maybe if Canada had a competitive (and legal) insurance market for CHA covered procedures you could have done better. Now you will just have to wait until joint degeneration is bad enough to get you in line for diagnostic imaging, then you can wait a year for any surgery. Look at the bright side...if it takes too long when that day year comes, your province may send you to the USA for treatment !

like I said, let's see what level of petulance you rise to! Huh! "Province sending patients to the U.S. for knee replacements"??? Is this your latest fabrication? Don't you remember... just a few posts back... your charade was busted. You went into a colour font, bold emphasized tissy pumping incorrect OHIP Out-Of-Country approvals. I burst your bubble, showing the current rate of OOC approvals is less than a thousand a year... from Canada's most populated province, representing >40% of the country's population numbers. Such a huuuuuge number for you to bark over!