O Canada

"...And to PTW's point about "ending up with the mess of Canadian health care", two points. Canadian care seems to be better for things like long-term care..."
A study out today states that the Canadian Healthcare system misses up to 20-30% of breast cancers in its screenings.

"...In recent years, Canada has been rocked by disclosures of unacceptable error rates in breast cancer testing in other provinces, including Newfoundland/Labrador, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Ontario.

"Quebec is now the fifth province in Canada to uncover inaccuracies in breast cancer testing."

http://www.darkdaily.com/ebriefings/public-learns-about-errors-breast-ca...

Forums:
xrayspx's picture

"...Medevac helicopters don't land on hotels, an ambulance response was completely legitimate..."

-> I'll give you a second shot at that one!

Ok, swing and a miss. How about "It's typical that when someone calls 911 from a hotel with an hours-old head trauma, they send an ambulance, not a helicopter"? Better? In the case of "Multiple gunshot victims with additional grenade fragment wounds", yeah, helicopters may show up.

If you'd like, I can quite easily test this theory, it's a no-brainer really. I hurl myself down my basement stairs, then check into the Crown Plaza. I wait two hours then call 911.

What is typical is that they would pick me up in an ambulance, take me to the hospital, if I'm in critical shape, I would end up at Mass Gen. via helicopter.

So the helicopter would typically be step two of your plan. When the first hospital deemed she was gonna die unless she went to Hospital #2, that's when helicopters would get involved. However, I've seen the case of inter-hospital transport via ambulance more often than not. I lived literally across the street from the landing pad of a trauma center in Nashua for 3 years. We had all of maybe 1 helicopter landing every few months. Trust me, if it were more, I'd remember it, it was like the sky was falling when they came in.

The blog you linked to didn't go to the article, but the paragraph you posted didn't seem to jive with your claim that she didn't receive a CT scan until her second hospital.

Social Security

We're trying to shoehorn more people into a 75 year old paradigm for retirement. People today are living are retiring around the same age as then, but whole lot longer. Not only that, but it costs a staggering amount of money to keep some old people alive, so their SS benefits aren't carrying them as far. Sad. We barely had X rays and were still using Fluoroscopes when Social Security was laid out. Now an old person might drop $3000 on imaging alone to diagnose a clot that could cost another $50k to go fix. 70, or even 25, years ago that person would just have died of a stroke.

The entire thing needs an overhaul. Here are the benefits of a complete reset:

You could get rid of every Senior and Disabled entitlement and roll them in (Medicare & Medicaid).

You could implement a true single payer system and take advantage of economies of scale greater than the insurance companies.

Here's a simple example: The CEO and executive director of Blue Cross Blue Shield North Carolina make $2.5MM/year, the top 10 executives make $10MM (this is as of 2006, the number is likely higher now). This is /ONE/ insurance company in /ONE/ state. Do the math times the number of insurance companies and the number of divisions. For comparison, the director of the CI-frickin-A makes $173,000/year. The President of the United States makes $400,000. Add to that that the $2.5MM is cash compensation only, and doesn't account for any other compensation, and you can see some real savings here.

Talk of salary invites comparisons to Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac, particularly the golden parachute packages of their executives. I think any "Universal Healthcare" would be run as a federal department, not the private companies Fannie and Freddy were supposed to be.

A more apt comparison would be to the companies of the CMGI group in the late 90's. Fannie and Freddie were federally launched companies that were supposed to be entirely independent. Their loans were not intended to be guaranteed by the feds, but the problem was that investors, both institutional and private, saw their government backing and treated their loans as federally insured and guaranteed instruments, which they weren't.

These people treated FNME like it was t-bills or something, and thus ended up with much more risk exposure in FNME than if they had invested in, say, a CountryWide. So when the hammer came down, the government stepped in and inexplicably DID guarantee that debt. Then the CEOs of Fannie and Freddie then attempted to take deploy their golden-parachutes (totaling $25MM), but were wisely blocked by an act of Congress, including, since you'll ask, both Sens. Obama and McCain.

It doesn't have to be a massive boondoggle, though sadly most things are, but if you take insurance companies out of the equation, even partially by offering an "If you like what you have, keep it, if not, join the federal program" model, you take away a huge profit motivation. You're not taking away the motivation by medical devices companies or hospitals to innovate in their products or care, you're taking away the middle man who holds your premiums every month until you get sick, and then does his best to deny you the coverage you've been paying for.

"...Now an old person might drop $3000 on imaging alone to diagnose a clot that could cost another $50k to go fix. 70, or even 25, years ago that person would just have died of a stroke...

Yup. $50K is a lot of money to waste on an old person.

Too bad they were denied their freedom to select a private "social security" plan instead, like Galveston did.

Instead, Socialists made it mandatory to put them into a system that was assured of eventual failure.

"...People today are living are retiring around the same age as then, but whole lot longer...

Yup. We should just require that they die instead. That eugenics thingy that the "Party of Death" enjoys talking about. (As did Hitler).

"...You could get rid of every Senior and Disabled entitlement and roll them in (Medicare & Medicaid)...

Hey, why didn't I think of that!

Free Money!!!

"...I think any "Universal Healthcare" would be run as a federal department, not the private companies Fannie and Freddy were supposed to be...

A Federal Department—What a concept!

Don't they already run things just spiffy today?

"..."If you like what you have, keep it, if not, join the federal program" model, you take away a huge profit motivation...

Yup. That's always worked so well in the past.

"...Then the CEOs of Fannie and Freddie then attempted to take deploy their golden-parachutes (totaling $25MM), but were wisely blocked by an act of Congress, including, since you'll ask, both Sens. Obama and McCain...

And...you...think...it's...over....

xrayspx's picture

You seriously know that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the assumptions around which Social Security, et al were built are no longer safe assumptions. People are living a whole lot longer now, in some cases it's expensive to run tests and perform operations that didn't even exist 15 or 20 years ago.

We need to rebuild the thing from the ground up based on the reality of today, and not try to shoe-horn todays realities into yesterdays system.

"...You seriously know that's not what I'm saying...."

It's difficult to know what you're serious about: In spite of John Edwards, we currently have the largest cadre of qualified physicians in the world.

Through Liberal "thought", we stand to lose them into private clinics—in the Caribbean and elsewhere—for lesser healthcare givers.

"...I'm saying that the assumptions around which Social Security, et al were built are no longer safe assumptions...."

But you're saying that YOUR assumptions—made here today—are CORRECT and SAFE assumptions? You can't tell me that isn't

"...We need to rebuild the thing from the ground up based on the reality of today, and not try to shoe-horn todays realities into yesterdays system..."

There's nothing wrong with the system of today. I will gratefully take out an equity loan to do even the procedures that don't exist today! Whatever it takes to survive—even to go to India, Costa Rica, or Thailand.

Having my options Government-restricted when my assigned HealthCare professional thinks it's too expensive is ludicrous.

What I DON'T want is to be a victim of SOCIAL PIRATES who demand that I pay for self-induced diseases of those too reckless with tobacco—and the most recent of reckless "popular-culture-lifestyles"—to be RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES.

"...People are living a whole lot longer now..."

Who could have seen that coming? A pity, that.

"... ..."
"... ..."
"... ..."
"... ..."

, in some cases it's expensive to run tests and perform operations that didn't even exist 15 or 20 years ago.

xrayspx's picture

It's difficult to know what you're serious about:

What part of "These entitlements don't scale from a time when life expectancies meant 5 years in retirement to a time when life expectancies mean 20 years in retirement" sounded like a joke?

Here's a pretty good explanation, with numbers and tables and stuff: http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

Here's what your "numbers, tables, and stuff" disclosed:

QUOTE:
"The men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940".

2½ years?

Could U. S. Government-paid Bureaucrats be figuring wrong?

xrayspx's picture

The data I quote comes from the Social Security Administration.

So here's the deal, which they do such a bad job of explaining, it just confuses things more.

There are two sets of numbers, of which they only show one in the tables, which is a bad idea.

1:) Life expectancy of someone born at whatever time

2:) Life expectancy of someone reaching age 65 at whatever time.

The first set is MUCH higher today than it was in the 30's, because not as many people die when they're little kids, we don't have polio anymore, blah blah cushions on on all the end-table corners and helmets issued at birth.

The second set is the one they use, so what isn't accounted for in that data is that a higher percentage of people make it to 65 today. It's not like they're trying to hide it, they just don't explain it well.

QUOTE:
What part of "These entitlements don't scale from a time when life expectancies meant 5 years in retirement to a time when life expectancies mean 20 years in retirement" sounded like a joke...?"

Well, who is right? Taxpayer-paid bureaucrats, or xrayspx?

Is it 20 years in retirement, or years in retirement?
>>

Peace_through_Weakness

xrayspx's picture

I fully expect hover cars, jetpacks and cancer cures by the time I'm 65.

So yeah, I would expect that for people in my age bracket, we'll do 85 standing on our head.

In Re: "paying for people who 'do it to themselves'", where is that line drawn?

I'm physically addicted to cigarettes, so you don't want to pay for my impending chemo and radiation. Fair enough. I'm a junkie.

How about the octuple bypass of the jackass who eats scrambled eggs, bacon and biscuits and gravy every morning? That guy isn't physically addicted to his bacon, but we should pay for him?

Cirrhosis? Stomach cancer? Should we only help teetotalers who exercise, but don't exercise too much? Lots of runners end up with knee and hip problems later in life, after all.

-> If you're addicted to tobacco, why should OPM be used to patch you up? Why not give up the habit instead? How about I use my money as I see fit?

-> We ARE paying for the gravy and biscuit guy. (Who also could be very fit).

-> I WILL be paying for those who see MD $pecialists for drug abu$e—AND I expect—for tho$e who u$e those "harmle$$" drug$, eventually.

-> How about I use my money as I see fit?

"...I would expect that for people in my age bracket, we'll do 85 standing on our head..."

-> It's still another assumption that all of us who pay into SS make it to age 65.

-> So, at 2½-years, is the taxpayer-paid Social Security page wrong?

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

Obama admitted last week that his family's health "came first".

(To a doctor's question would he refuse ObamaCare for himself and his family).

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

Pee_Through_Weakness wrote:
"Obama admitted last week that his family's health "came first""

Really, and you characterize that as an "admission"?
oc

1) It's a DODGE BY A HARVARD-TRAINED LAWYER to not answer the question:

"Would your family use ObamaCare?"

You don't see that you're now being ruled by America's "Elite" Class?

When a Saudi prince needs surgery, he travels to Swiss, American or England's private doctors.

2) Don't you see that he's hiding the fact that he would take his family to Switzerland, Central America, India or the Caribbean, and PAY for the excellent PRIVATE—HealthCare in those places?

(Some of whom are American doctors!)

Our families are stuck with (FREE!!!) HealthCare.

3) Every Canadian loves their (FREE!!!) healthcare, paid for by oil-export to the good ol' USA.

Well, not every Canadian: Most Canadians have known no other HealthCare!

Worse, their elected officials choose to travel to the US for their specialized HealthCare needs!

Where will THEY go when the World's Best HealthCare collapses into crowded clinics?

(But FREE!!! clinics!!!)

4) Where will WE go? Ever waited for hours in one of those FREE!!! clinics? Ever been moved from those (FREE!!!) clinic's waiting rooms and then waited for hours in the (FREE!!!) examination room?

Well, I have—both here and abroad. (A good place to get sick with something worse, I should add).

5) What cost-free source is going to pay for OUR HealthCare?

Fer sure, it ain't gonna be Canadian oil... :(

6) BTW: "Down Syndrome" people make me very uncomfortable: I wait for TPD's ObamaCare to euthanize them ASAP.

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

The following figures are from The Frasier Institute, Canada and The House of Commons; National Statistics , United Kingdom :

> Cardiovascular Surgery waiting time: Canada , 5 weeks; England , 6.4 weeks
> Neurosurgery waiting time: Canada, 10.7 weeks; England, 6.6 weeks
> Orthopedics waiting time: Canada , 24.2 weeks; England 10.2 weeks
> General Surgery waiting time: Canada , 5.7 weeks; England 7.4 weeks
> Ophthalmology waiting time: Canada 11.8 weeks; England 6.8 weeks
> Gynecology waiting time: Canada 6.6 week; England 8.1 weeks
> Urology waiting time: Canada 5.1 week; England 6.2 weeks
> 12% of the population of Ontario, Canada can't find a family physician taking new patients.
> 72 weeks to be fitted for a hearing aid in the UK (Nearly 1 ½ years waiting time)
> 17 weeks for a mammogram in Europe (the government tells women to schedule mammograms once every three years instead of annually)
A Canadian Member of Parliament traveled to California for an operation that was needed for treatment of her breast cancer. Even members of Canada's Parliament and thousands of other Canadians come to the U.S. for the care they can't get in a timely fashion at home when needing immediate treatment! The socialized system is horribly expensive and still requires monthly premium payments for most people and significant co-payments for many services and procedures if and when they become available.

This is the picture of government run “free” health care in Canada and Europe...

I find the Urology wait most interesting. I had a kidney stone in recent months, and it was MD tended-to every three weeks. Why not four weeks?

Because three weeks is the threshhold for developing an infection, and removal of a kidney!

What would a cancer victim's wait be?

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

xrayspx's picture

Denver Post article dedicated to debunking Canadian health-care and associated tax myths.

Please note that the author's own Aunt Betty has been waiting for 14 months for knee surgery, which seems to be one of Tis and PTW's favorite touchstones as an example of the Canadian Healthcare Boondoggle.

I hope the article clears some questions up around here. Myself, and speaking solely for myself, I would wait the 14 months to save the 35 grand. I never go to doctors anyway, for anything, ever, and I'm in constant pain of the something-or-other.

In fact, I get really angry when people rip on Limbaugh for his Vietnam deferments over having a pilonidal cyst. "A pimple on his ass" my ass.

That thing can take me out of commission for like 3 weeks at a shot. Last time it acted up I was all jaundiced and couldn't even roll over let alone stand up. Rush wins that fight, hands down.

Are you saying that you wish your ass was in Canada?

LOL mh!
I just don't know who to believe about anything. YOu really never know the truth unless you are there!
The only thing I know for sure about the Canadian health care system is our friend's Dad almost died waiting his turn for surgery. The article says there is no wait for that kind of thing but he certainly had to wait. I know that for a fact.

xrayspx's picture

I'm cross posting my last comment in this thread, since it's really the more appropriate place.

Also, please go into an emergency room at a "hospital of last resort" in the states and see how long it takes to be seen. Forget that, it doesn't even need to be a hospital of last resort. I went to Parkland in Derry with a knee injury and waited for 3 hours. I've been to Exeter and waited 2 hours in ER waiting, and a similar time in Elliot.

My wife pays $130/month for the two of us, but the company pays 15%, so the actual monthly is $152.94, or $76 each. Again, that doesn't include copays, drugs, or tests the insurance company flat-out won't pay for, and there are many.

What portion of that goes to keeping NH Blue Cross/Anthem execs millionaires? How much of that is administrative overhead in general?

We have NH insurance, because if I used my company insurance from MA, there's a good chance I couldn't go to my local doctors and hospital for treatment. What kind of shit is that?

Then look at Canada.

Cory Doctorow added slightly to the Canadian Healthcare Myths page I posted yesterday here. He makes honest comparisons between four nations and their healthcare systems. I believe he was born in CA, spent several years in the US, the last few in the UK, and apparently some time in Costa Rica as well.

"...I hope the article clears some questions up around here..."

Why should it? It couldn't have been written by a more pro-Socialist writer. Was this Canadian—living in America—paid by Obama to write this drivel?

She is not a medical doctor and founded "Nivek":

"..."Nivek was created by Dr. Rhonda Hackett to address unmet needs of the countless men, women and children living in poverty in the United States:"..."
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/03/prweb346178.htm

Yup. "Countless".

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

xrayspx's picture

Yeah, fuck those poor people, you tell 'em. Stupid Canadians coming here and helping /our/ poor people, who do they think they are anyway?

I doubt Obama has an endless personal cash supply to pay off random people for whatever. In fact, this is the most frightening thing I've found out about him thus far:

If not for his books and sudden windfall from sales thereof, the Obamas would have been just as broke as all the other morons who bought houses they couldn't afford, then mortgaged the hell of them. I'm trying to find the article, but searching on information about the Obamas and mortgage refinancing has suddenly gotten somewhat harder in the last few months, apparently.

I shall do my best to find an article written by a proper Canadian Conservative. Give it time.

xrayspx's picture

One of your favorite examples of why Canadian healthcare sucks is the "knee surgery wait time" argument.

In Canada, they will get their surgery, eventually, for free. If someone can afford it, they can get it faster.

So the question is what is the answer for a US warehouse worker making $12/hour with no insurance? The worker who is on their feet all day, every day, and damages their knees over time?

That patient certainly can't afford to have the surgery done at all, and they have no insurance, so then, how do these people get their knees fixed? Who pays for that, and how long do they have to wait?

We can't base our argument on people who /can/ afford good US insurance, we should think of those who /cannot/.

Well, x, I think I just said I heard an Irish lady call into a radio show and say her Dad had to wait for a knee replacement so long that it was too late.
The thing is, the healthcare is no way in hell going to be FREE! Do you really think it is going to be free? Somebody is going to pay for it. And that guy in the factory who doesn't have insurance is going to be forced to buy insurance. So he will have insurance but it won't be free. He won't probably contribute as much as someone who makes more money but he will have to. He could probably get medicaid now to have his operation. That is the thing, the hospitals cannot refuse people now so somehow he will get his care. Many of those who "can't afford" healthcare still have their cell phones, cable, internet, etc . etc.
The main thing is HEALTHCARE IS NOT FREE AND NEVER WILL BE. SOMEONE IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE MONEY. WE, THE TAXPAYERS HAVE THE MONEY. WE WILL PAY FOR IT. THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T PAY FOR ANYTHING.

"...I shall do my best to find an article written by a proper Canadian Conservative. Give it time..."

You could go all the way to Hanover, NH: Mark Steyn is a Canadian Conservative, and has written extensively on the Canadian HealthCare System vs the US' system.

You probably weren't aware of this fact, but at one time, Americans could deduct all of their healthcare costs from their IRS returns. (Until the Dims needed more OPM, that is).

"...I doubt Obama has an endless personal cash supply to pay off random people for whatever. In fact, this is the most frightening thing I've found out about him thus far: If not for his books...the Obamas would have been just as broke as all the other morons..."

Obama didn't write "his" book.

"...One of your favorite examples of why Canadian healthcare sucks is the "knee surgery wait time" argument... In Canada, they will get their surgery, eventually, for free. If someone can afford it, they can get it faster..."

Yeah, right across the border in Michigan!

Both of my folks need knee surgery, and someday, I may too. (Skiing crash).

Since both are veterans, they would get it (FREE!!!) (FREE!!!) (FREE!!!) through their (FREE!!!) (FREE!!!) (FREE!!!) Tri-Care insurance with the Government.

I only suspect that their (FREE!!!) (FREE!!!) (FREE!!!) Tri-Care is slightly better than the Government's VA HealthCare they would normally receive in This Country's Solemn Gratitude for Their Long and Dangerous Service to Their Country.

However, in Obama's so-called mind, our country should have a system that is every bit as good for shot-through dopers and addled slackers as it is for those to whom we owe a debt of everlasting gratitude; that is, those who must use the splendorous VA system.

Our system is already better for Illegals AND slackers!

"...So the question is what is the answer for a US warehouse worker making $12/hour with no insurance? The worker who is on their feet all day, every day, and damages their knees over time...?"

1) Like my folks, he could just "tough it out" like I do.

2) Why would he have no insurance? I'll bet he has Cable!

3) Usually, knee surgery is required after abuse anyway: in my case, incompetent skiing.

"...That patient certainly can't afford to have the surgery done at all, and they have no insurance, so then, how do these people get their knees fixed? Who pays for that, and how long do they have to wait? We can't base our argument on people who /can/ afford good US insurance, we should think of those who /cannot/..."

Let those "poor" people find out what is involved in the surgical process—then they'll opt for "toughing it out".

Heck, I associate millionaire New Hampshirite Walter Brennan by his very need for knee surgery! (And he did just fine AS a millionaire).

"...Hah...Yeah, [bleep] those poor people, you tell 'em. Stupid Canadians coming here and helping /our/ poor people, who do they think they are anyway...?"

1) Canada's latest purchase of four used submarines was idiotic. Those subs all have leaks and won't be ready for service for perhaps a decade.

Who provides Canada with National Defense?

Why, yes, America does.

2) Canada's an oil-rich country: they can afford to tell us what to do with our capital.

3) Like most other Socialist countrys, they had the smarts to keep "capital gains tax" very low. U. S. Dims decided we should have the highest "capital gains tax" in the world.

4) Someday—very soon—we'll find out just how far the capitalist rubber band can be stretched.

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

Did you hear the latest? If you get insurance from your employer you are going to pay taxes on it as income, HOWEVER, if you belong to a union, you won't have to. The union lobbyists met with Obama and friends for two days andthat was the outcome. And as it stands now, Federal employees will have the same federal insurance they have now. Guess we all need to work for the government. Oh wait, who will pay us then?

"The real lesson of Massachusetts is that Health reform proponents won't tell Americans the truth about what "universal" coverage really means: Runaway costs followed by price controls and bureaucratic rationing." WSJ 3/27/09.

The thing about rationing knee surgeries, is that some percentage of those needing it will have died while they waited!

Just think of the savings!

Tis, The Obama is taking vacation and is to arrive in Martha's Vinyard.

Isn't that where all the Goldman-Sachs bankers have 2nd homes?

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

Yeah, he's one of those "Do as I say, not as I do people."

"...Did you hear the latest? If you get insurance from your employer you are going to pay taxes on it as income..."
That doesn't make any sense: How can that jive with Obama's, "You can keep your doctor..."?

If we're happy with our doctor, we must pay the Government???

BTW: Did you hear today of the Canadian woman who injured herself while exercizing? The wait was so long, she bought her own MRI machine!

Say, what happened to all those who think free healthcare is the answer?

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

Pages