Healthcare in America

[Hemi-Cuda]

what baffles me is that apparently the US government is too incompetent to handle heath care, but there's no problem letting them handle police, fire & emergency response, education, national defense, infrastructure, etc. you'd think the way some people paint the government that the states would be a lawless post apocalyptic hellhole. get the right people in charge and there's no reason a single payer system couldn't work down there

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

what baffles me is that apparently the US government is too incompetent to handle heath care, but there's no problem letting them handle police, fire & emergency response, education, national defense, infrastructure, etc. you'd think the way some people paint the government that the states would be a lawless post apocalyptic hellhole. get the right people in charge and there's no reason a single payer system couldn't work down there

The Federal government handles none of the highlighted categories and only part of the infrastructure of the country.

Right people in charge IS the key. Unfortunately, the system that is supposed to make that happen is broken too.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The Federal government handles none of the highlighted categories and only part of the infrastructure of the country.

Right people in charge IS the key. Unfortunately, the system that is supposed to make that happen is broken too.

so why would healthcare be federal? it's handled at the provincial level in Canada, why couldn't the states do the same?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

so why would healthcare be federal? it's handled at the provincial level in Canada, why couldn't the states do the same?

They could. Massachusetts did.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The Federal government handles none of the highlighted categories and only part of the infrastructure of the country.

Right people in charge IS the key. Unfortunately, the system that is supposed to make that happen is broken too.

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

so why would healthcare be federal? it's handled at the provincial level in Canada, why couldn't the states do the same?

Provincial governments in Canada have guidelines for heathcare set out by the feds,It doesn't matter what province you live in... your covered anywhere in Canada and it's free to any amount. Yes our taxes are a little higher because of this fact but every citizen in our land can sleep at night knowing that there is no suffering from the poor in case they are sick and or an unfortunate accident lands you in the hospital.

In the USA it doesn't matter what state you live in, if you get hurt in a car accident in NY and live in Colorado you better have private insurance or you might wish they didn't fix you. By definition that is a federal problem.

Obama has tried but he quickly learned the greed and power that the private healthcare companies have in the USA.

In the end the USA healthcare system is a somewhat piramide scheme and should be deemed illegal as it steals from the healthy and feeds an extremely small percentage of the needy.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

They could. Massachusetts did.

2% is a start I guess!

[comrade]

My dad was recently vacationing in Phoenix and he overheard some people talking about their healthcare insurance, he remembers one guy saying that his insurance for his daughter and himself cost $950 a month with a $5000 deductible.

Another day he was golfing with some Americans and they got on the same subject and when he remarked that he paid nothing for healthcare they were baffled, as they knew that Canada was in fact not a socialist state and couldn't seem to comprehend having a (mostly) market economy and universal healthcare.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

They could. Massachusetts did.

Arguably, they're supposed to. As I understand it, it's not at all obvious that Obamacare is constitutionally within the scope of federal power. We'll have to wait for the Supreme Court to pronounce on that, I guess.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Azure

I honestly hate going to get help for something which seemed so minor, but the cut was in such a place that a bandaid couldn't keep the cut closed long enough for it to heal properly.

It wasn't a serious problem at all, which is why I think a nurse with a certain level of training should have been able to deal with it. Alas I had to wait for one of the 5 doctors there. And that part is what I hate, because I know those doctors need to help other more seriously 'injured' patients instead of wasting their time on me.

Fair enough. FYI walk in clinics will do stitches (not that this necessarily means much of a reduced wait). I do completely agree with things such as giving nurses the green light to administer stitches, or pharmacists to renew prescriptions where appropriate.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I do completely agree with things such as giving nurses the green light to administer stitches, or pharmacists to renew prescriptions where appropriate.

that's the problem, I don't think nurses are allowed, or even taught how to do stitches.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

that's the problem, I don't think nurses are allowed, or even taught how to do stitches.

Depends on the nurse. Two of my cousins got their Masters in Nursing and their clinical nurse certificate, and they can do stitching. In fact, from what I hear from them, clinical nurses are allowed to work in walk in clinics and prescribe minor prescriptions. I think this is a good way to help alleviate the doctor shortages.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Depends on the nurse. Two of my cousins got their Masters in Nursing and their clinical nurse certificate, and they can do stitching. In fact, from what I hear from them, clinical nurses are allowed to work in walk in clinics and prescribe minor prescriptions. I think this is a good way to help alleviate the doctor shortages.

how long did it take them to get this this training?

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Yikes! US private healthcare and greed, inefficiency in the system really does have a huge impact even on the basic costs of procedures, not just the number of unnecessary procedures performed. Didn't realize the effect would be so pronounced. Check out the price of an angiogram. On average in the US it costs $800 vs $35 in Canada... WTF? How can American politicians and public for that matter continue to justify such an expensive and ineffective health care system with numbers like this?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...res-in-the-us/

Not sure where they got those figures from or what they are trying to define as "cost", but some of the Canadian figures are definitely wrong. 35$ for an Angiogram? Not a chance.

[Fire]

I don't think Canada should go 100% private but they do need to add more private options that are 100% paid by the customer. They also need to add relatively small user fees for every visit made to a hospital/clinic to help pay for healthcare costs and stop abuse of the system.

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

All I know is that given what my family is going through at the moment I am damn glad I have the insurance I do as opposed to whatever disaster of a plan the US government will come up with.

We won't have to wait for anything, and time is our biggest enemy.

I assume the "disaster" you're referring to is Affordable Care Act which has no impact if you currently have insurance. If you like your insurance, nothing will change for you.

If you were to lose your "hard earned" job, starting in 2013, you could, if you wished, get another health plan through your state exchange plan kind of like Cobra without the time limit or simply pay a penalty for not being covered.

If you or someone in your family has a preexisting condition, you won't be denyed coverage and will continue to get coverage even if you've reached your lifetime limit.

Hardly anything there not to like and hardly a disaster if that is what you're referring to.

[Kybosh]

The term "pre-existing condition" might be the most unsettling aspect of American healthcare insurance coverage.

[MarchHare]

Personal anecdote time:

My sister-in-law grew up in Saskatchewan, completed a graduate and post-graduate degree at UBC, and is now a tenured professor at a well-known and prestigious university in the US. She has first-hand experience with public healthcare in two Canadian provinces and private healthcare in America. Despite receiving an excellent insurance plan as a benefit of being a faculty member, she still has to pay for a portion of her insurance benefits. She claims she now pays more in taxes + private health insurance than she paid in taxes (a portion of which went to health coverage) while living in Canada. She also claims the quality of service is worse in the US.

That's just one person's story, so I advise you to take any anecdote with the appropriate grain of salt. Her experience is backed up by statistics, though. Comparative studies have shown that Canadian patients receive equal or better health outcomes than Americans with the same condition, and our single-payer non-profit system is significantly more cost-efficient.

[seattleflamer]

^^^Not sure if your sister has family whom she covers but typically, employers will only cover the employee 100% and a much lesser extent to the dependents.

Though premiums have been increasing at a double digit pace for many years now so at some time in the near future without any change to the current cost structure, you will see employees paying into their plan even the gold plated ones.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That's just one person's story, so I advise you to take any anecdote with the appropriate grain of salt. Her experience is backed up by statistics, though. Comparative studies have shown that Canadian patients receive equal or better health outcomes than Americans with the same condition, and our single-payer non-profit system is significantly more cost-efficient.

It's true but it's impossible to explain to many. We are definitely paying more in taxes+healthcare costs than we did in a high tax province in canada.

My company covers 70% of the premium. I pay $290 every two weeks as my portion for a family of 4 (so total priemium is $1000). With that we have a $3500 deductible and pay $25 EVERY office visit. So ignoring dental at a minimum every year we pay $7640 (the premiums plus one check up for each family member). My overall tax burden is about 5% lower than it was in Canada (we live in a low tax burden state...other states there would be little to no difference). So basically to break even compared to Canada I have to have a yearly salary of ~160k.

When you start to see that per capita spending by the US government (1st among industrialized countries) on healthcare is 3 to 4 times MORE than Canada (second on the world list) it simply screams incompetence and lobbyists. There is no other reason for the US not to have universal healthcare than those two things. They already collect enough and spend enough to have a universal system but they can't get their crap together.

One of the problems really is that many many many americans firmly believe to their core that healthcare is a priviledge to the hard working and not a right for all.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

what baffles me is that apparently the US government is too incompetent to handle heath care, but there's no problem letting them handle police, fire & emergency response, education, national defense, infrastructure, etc. you'd think the way some people paint the government that the states would be a lawless post apocalyptic hellhole. get the right people in charge and there's no reason a single payer system couldn't work down there

Outside of some infrastructure and the military, most of those things are locally handled.

And don't think for a second that billions upon billions of dollars aren't wasted in those 'federal' run programs.

I agree with the idea of a universal health care system, just not one that the federal government looks after.