Hillarycare part deux

[murraysovereign]

Did anyone watch that ABC special last night on how utterly horrible Canada's health care system is? And how illegal for-profit clinics are sprouting up all over the country? One of them owned and operated by Canada's own version of Surgeon General!

 

Long waits and shitty care.

 

Long waits and shitty care? I wish I'd seen that program. I've never experienced either long waits or shitty care. Over the past 20 years or so I've had three rounds of abdominal surgery, two of which could probably be called "elective". No long waits, good care, good outcomes each time.

 

My father was diagnosed with an agressively malignant brain tumour 6 years ago. He was through surgery in a couple of days, and received excellent follow-up care, through chemo and radiation and a subsequent year-and-a-half battle that he eventually lost. But as a 75-year-old at the outset, even though his chances weren't good, they threw everything they could at him in an effort to save him. Do I wish he was still alive? Absolutely - every day. Do I attribute his eventual death to "long waits and shitty care" due to our "utterly horrible" health care system? Not for a second.

 

My sister just blew her knee apart dirt-biking a few weeks ago, and had her surgery earlier this week. She could have had it sooner if she'd chosen to stay in Vernon where it happened, but she wanted to have it done here in Squamish so it was delayed while she made arrangements to come back to the coast for the operation. All indications are the procedure was completely successful and she should be skiing again by springtime. (Oh, and no additional "risky behaviour" premium charged by our rapacious, grasping government health care rationers, either. Maybe they forgot.)

 

I can't say I've heard anything about a private clinic owned by "Canada's own version of the Surgeon General". We don't really have a version of the Surgeon-General, just Ministers of Health at the federal and provincial levels, and they're generally not doctors themselves. I do recall something in the news earlier this year about the federal Minister of Health. I don't know what it was about, but maybe that had something to do with it. Or the ABC program may have been referring to the recently-elected head of the Canadian Medical Association - he does indeed own a private clinic in Vancouver, but he's nothing like the Surgeon-General, just the head of the doctors' professional association. His clinic has gone through a couple of variations since it was first proposed, and the last I heard it was in fact operating within the bounds of the Health Act, but I haven't heard much about it in a few months now, so maybe he's gone all renegade on us in the interim. Just so you know, there are in fact clinics of various kinds all over the country, and have been for years. My present doctor practices out of one. The vast majority are perfectly in keeping with the Canada Health Act, but as different clinics start offering different services, or try different methods of delivering existing services, it's inevitable that they sometimes run afoul of the regulations. When that happens, sometimes they are penalized, sometimes they modify their practices to bring them into compliance, and sometimes the rules are adapted to allow for the new methods.

 

It's no more perfect a system than what currently exists in the US. But "utterly horrible"? That's a tad hyberbolic, even for you, Fairweather.

 

And I won't even ask you to take my word for it, Fairweather. You ever heard of an outfit back east called "Johns Hopkins University"? They've been studying comparative outcomes under various different countries' health care systems for a few years now. Their basic findings are that, among the countries studied (generally the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, although some of their research has cast a much broader net), overall health care outcomes are comparable - the countries each do better in some areas, and worse in others, and no one country can be definitively stated to be "better" or "worse" when measuring those outcomes. The one clear differentiating factor they found between those five countries is that the US is spending far more money than the others to achieve basically the same results. They didn't find that any of the systems studied were "utterly horrible" or that any could be summarised as "long waits and shitty care".

 

2004

 

2005

2007 "Commonwealth Foundation" (they're probably commies or something)

 

If I can find a re-broadcast of the ABC program you cite, I'd be interested in watching it. I just took a quick look for an on-line copy, but couldn't fnd it. Do you recall the name of the program?

[tvashtarkatena]

I hope she is the Dem nominee. She'll be easy to beat. Obama, slightly less so. IMO, the two front runners are the two softest candidates on the D-side. Man, do I love the primary system!

 

Your ability to predict the future regarding other national and international events has been somewhat flawed so far, yet you continue to do it. There's a word for that, I believe.

[tvashtarkatena]

Did anyone watch that ABC special last night on how utterly horrible Canada's health care system is? And how illegal for-profit clinics are sprouting up all over the country? One of them owned and operated by Canada's own version of Surgeon General!

 

Long waits and shitty care.

 

Long waits and shitty care? I wish I'd seen that program. I've never experienced either long waits or shitty care. Over the past 20 years or so I've had three rounds of abdominal surgery, two of which could probably be called "elective". No long waits, good care, good outcomes each time.

 

My father was diagnosed with an agressively malignant brain tumour 6 years ago. He was through surgery in a couple of days, and received excellent follow-up care, through chemo and radiation and a subsequent year-and-a-half battle that he eventually lost. But as a 75-year-old at the outset, even though his chances weren't good, they threw everything they could at him in an effort to save him. Do I wish he was still alive? Absolutely - every day. Do I attribute his eventual death to "long waits and shitty care" due to our "utterly horrible" health care system? Not for a second.

 

My sister just blew her knee apart dirt-biking a few weeks ago, and had her surgery earlier this week. She could have had it sooner if she'd chosen to stay in Vernon where it happened, but she wanted to have it done here in Squamish so it was delayed while she made arrangements to come back to the coast for the operation. All indications are the procedure was completely successful and she should be skiing again by springtime. (Oh, and no additional "risky behaviour" premium charged by our rapacious, grasping government health care rationers, either. Maybe they forgot.)

 

I can't say I've heard anything about a private clinic owned by "Canada's own version of the Surgeon General". We don't really have a version of the Surgeon-General, just Ministers of Health at the federal and provincial levels, and they're generally not doctors themselves. I do recall something in the news earlier this year about the federal Minister of Health. I don't know what it was about, but maybe that had something to do with it. Or the ABC program may have been referring to the recently-elected head of the Canadian Medical Association - he does indeed own a private clinic in Vancouver, but he's nothing like the Surgeon-General, just the head of the doctors' professional association. His clinic has gone through a couple of variations since it was first proposed, and the last I heard it was in fact operating within the bounds of the Health Act, but I haven't heard much about it in a few months now, so maybe he's gone all renegade on us in the interim. Just so you know, there are in fact clinics of various kinds all over the country, and have been for years. My present doctor practices out of one. The vast majority are perfectly in keeping with the Canada Health Act, but as different clinics start offering different services, or try different methods of delivering existing services, it's inevitable that they sometimes run afoul of the regulations. When that happens, sometimes they are penalized, sometimes they modify their practices to bring them into compliance, and sometimes the rules are adapted to allow for the new methods.

 

It's no more perfect a system than what currently exists in the US. But "utterly horrible"? That's a tad hyberbolic, even for you, Fairweather.

 

And I won't even ask you to take my word for it, Fairweather. You ever heard of an outfit back east called "Johns Hopkins University"? They've been studying comparative outcomes under various different countries' health care systems for a few years now. Their basic findings are that, among the countries studied (generally the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, although some of their research has cast a much broader net), overall health care outcomes are comparable - the countries each do better in some areas, and worse in others, and no one country can be definitively stated to be "better" or "worse" when measuring those outcomes. The one clear differentiating factor they found between those five countries is that the US is spending far more money than the others to achieve basically the same results. They didn't find that any of the systems studied were "utterly horrible" or that any could be summarised as "long waits and shitty care".

 

2004

 

2005

2007 "Commonwealth Foundation" (they're probably commies or something)

 

If I can find a re-broadcast of the ABC program you cite, I'd be interested in watching it. I just took a quick look for an on-line copy, but couldn't fnd it. Do you recall the name of the program?

 

FW is an expert in a vast landscape of subjects about which he has no personal experience. It is his specialty, almost sixth sense really. From welfare to warfare, he is our own one stop go to guy for judgements by proxy on a universe of tough issues requiring a man with tough-love values. He is like a lone high beam piercing the fog of liberalism on the windy mountain road of our difficult times. He knows, instinctively, that the way back is the way foreward.

 

In this case, he saw it on TV, so your nice little anecdotes are obviously extreme outliers.

[Jim]

Oh Jesus. He's talking about that hack, John Stossel, of ABC. This guy is such a snake oil salesman. On a special about the myth of global warming he interviewed novelist Michael Crichton as a global warming expert. Here's a reveiew of his most recent trash show about medical care: http://mediamatters.org/items/200709160003?f=h_top

[Dechristo]

* your results may vary *

 

[Dechristo]

USAToday article cites Bush wants universal health coverage in place before he leaves office.

[underworld]

....errr... on second thought - universal health care might not be the answer...

 

[Couloir]

* your results may vary *

 

 

I prefer the one on the left.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Oh Jesus. He's talking about that hack, John Stossel, of ABC. This guy is such a snake oil salesman. On a special about the myth of global warming he interviewed novelist Michael Crichton as a global warming expert. Here's a reveiew of his most recent trash show about medical care: http://mediamatters.org/items/200709160003?f=h_top

 

My, my, my, how fragile our arguments must be to be threatened by anyone with a countrary POV.

 

BTW, I was not too impressed with the link YOU posted as a "typical" view of the issue. The "debunking" of the myths essentially amounted to an argument as follows:

 

Myth: universal health care will cost more

Fact: not necessarily

 

Wow, that convinces me!

 

[rob]

KK, if you disagree with universal health care, what's your solution to the health care crisis? Or do you contend there is no crisis?

[dt_3pin]

* your results may vary *

 

 

I prefer the one on the left.

 

I prefer them to come in pairs.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

KK, if you disagree with universal health care, what's your solution to the health care crisis? Or do you contend there is no crisis?

 

I don't think there is a "crisis". Obviously there are problems - and they are getting worse. But 'crisis'? Politicians love to "manufacture" crises when they don't exist.

 

I don't trust government programs and their costs. I want to understand exactly why we are doing something, what the "solution"'s goals are, how much it will cost and be convinced that the quality of care will not go down. And I want the people who institute these programs to be accountable with adequate oversight. If the program fails it should be scrapped. With government that rarely happens.

 

I've already proposed a palatable solution for me. Let people opt in to a gov't sponsored program and see how it flies. Every card-carrying Dem can sign up, along with the 43 million uninsured. According to Jim's arguments it would be more efficient than private health care, eliminating the "middle man", and address issues like denial of coverage. My suspicions as to why people don't support this idea is that they know damn well that the program will fail to be any better than private care and will cost more. What they want is to nationalize health care first, ask questions later, and just shrug off any failures by either denying that they ever said the plan would be cheaper and better or blaming failures on "the other side" or "lack of adequate funding".

 

[JayB]

Swiss Model:

 

The Swiss healthcare system is a combination of public, subsidised private and totally private systems:

 

* public: e. g. the University of Geneva Hospital (HUG) with 2,350 beds, 8,300 staff and 50,000 patients per year;

* subsidised private: the home care services to which one may have recourse in case of a difficult pregnancy, after childbirth, illness, accident, handicap or old age;

* totally private: doctors in private practice and in private clinics.

 

The insured person has full freedom of choice among the recognised healthcare providers competent to treat their condition (in his region) on the understanding that the costs are covered by the insurance up to the level of the official tariff. There is freedom of choice when selecting an insurance company (provided it is an officially registered caisse-maladie or a private insurance company authorised by the Federal Act) to which one pays a premium, usually on a monthly basis.

 

The list of officially-approved insurance companies can be obtained from the cantonal authority.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Long waits and shitty care? I wish I'd seen that program. I've never experienced either long waits or shitty care.

 

OK, more anecdotal evidence. It doesn't prove anything. Even if your portrayel is accurate, it doesn't mean that the program will work in the US. We are not Canada or France - we are a much larger country with much different demographics and structures (business and government), not to mention the cultural differences.

 

I am interested in the history of Canadian health care, however. Do you know when your health care was nationalized, why this was done, and how? I'm assuming of course that at one time you had privatized health care like we do in the states. What precipitated the change up there? Did costs decrease and quality of care go up?

[rob]

Hillary is proposing that health care be mandatory, like car insurance -- but not government run. She also supports tax credits to help low income families afford private insurance.

 

Do you simply object to the government requiring health insurance on civil liberty grounds? Or do you object to the idea simply because it came from Hillary, ala argumentum ad hominem?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Hillary is proposing that health care be mandatory, like car insurance -- but not government run. She also supports tax credits to help low income families afford private insurance.

 

How does that help with rising costs? I read recently that costs will rise 78% in 6 years.

 

How much will the tax credits cost? Will it truly be only $110 billion? How will it be funded?

 

If someone doesn't buy the "mandatory" insurance and is hurt/sick what happens when they show up at an emergency room?

 

From what I've read about this whole issue, I don't think Hillary's plan does very much to address the problems. I like the idea of mandatory insurance, and would even say that it should just be part of your normal payroll deductions - either you have an employer that covers your insurance, or your employer is required by law to deduct some percentage for insurance along with federal income tax, SS, and medicare.

 

[rob]

so, a socialized health care system, existing in tandem with a private one, which requires mandatory payroll deductions (in the absense of a private plan supplied either by you or your employer) would be acceptable to you?

 

Would the payroll deductions be flat, or proportional? How would you insure the unemployed and homeless?

[JayB]

KK, if you disagree with universal health care, what's your solution to the health care crisis? Or do you contend there is no crisis?

 

I don't think there is a "crisis". Obviously there are problems - and they are getting worse. But 'crisis'? Politicians love to "manufacture" crises when they don't exist.

 

I don't trust government programs and their costs. I want to understand exactly why we are doing something, what the "solution"'s goals are, how much it will cost and be convinced that the quality of care will not go down. And I want the people who institute these programs to be accountable with adequate oversight. If the program fails it should be scrapped. With government that rarely happens.

 

I've already proposed a palatable solution for me. Let people opt in to a gov't sponsored program and see how it flies. Every card-carrying Dem can sign up, along with the 43 million uninsured. According to Jim's arguments it would be more efficient than private health care, eliminating the "middle man", and address issues like denial of coverage. My suspicions as to why people don't support this idea is that they know damn well that the program will fail to be any better than private care and will cost more. What they want is to nationalize health care first, ask questions later, and just shrug off any failures by either denying that they ever said the plan would be cheaper and better or blaming failures on "the other side" or "lack of adequate funding".

 

One component of this debate that's often left out the fact that medicare/medicaid often make payments that are less than the total cost of the procedure being covered - and hospitals, doctors, etc cover the difference elsewhere - which results in proportionately higher insurance premiums and medical bills for those outside of these systems. This will not be possible under a single payer system, in which the payer will have to either pay the full costs of the procedures, or attempt to impose price controls.

 

Since price is a function of supply and demand, which is influenced by factors that can neither be controlled nor forseen by whatever centralized administrative mechanism has been installed to replace the price mechanism - the odds are 1:1 that the nominal price set by the government will diverge from the real price of whatever health-care good is being purchased - which will result in overpayment for, and a surplus of, those health care goods for which the nominal price is higher than the real price. The probability of the converse occurring, where the nominal price set by the government is less than the true price of the health-care good, and those in the business of providing those goods will decline to produce goods at a loss, and the end result will be a shortage of those goods relative to demand, and this shortage will persist until the nominal price increases to the level required to bring additional supply forward. When you attempt to supplant the real price with a nominal price - these outcomes are inevitable.

 

 

[fenderfour]

Hillary is proposing that health care be mandatory, like car insurance -- but not government run. She also supports tax credits to help low income families afford private insurance.

 

This is the worst possible solution. Forcing people to buy somethign from a private company is bullshit. Talk about taking away your freedoms.

 

Tax credits are a boon doggle. EIC is already in place for people who wouldn't be able to afford insurance. The only way for these people to get healthcare is if the tax credits were to pay them significantly more than they paid in the first place. Even then, the financial burden wouldn't be manageable. They wouldn't get that money back until their tax returns were filed.

[No. 13 Baby]

John Stossel is a brilliant journalist.

Watch this clip as he debates a pro wrestler and debunks the entire sport

C35wyVQxXUA

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

so, a socialized health care system, existing in tandem with a private one, which requires mandatory payroll deductions (in the absense of a private plan supplied either by you or your employer) would be acceptable to you?

 

Would the payroll deductions be flat, or proportional? How would you insure the unemployed and homeless?

 

yes, if it works.

 

deductions would be like medicare/SSN/etc. same model

[ClimbingPanther]

John Stossel is a brilliant journalist.

Watch this clip as he debates a pro wrestler and debunks the entire sport

C35wyVQxXUA

 

"You think thats queer? Is this queer?" [slapping muscles]

Joe Dirt: "they're large and in charge and lookin' for chickies."

[Jim]

Hillary is proposing that health care be mandatory, like car insurance -- but not government run. She also supports tax credits to help low income families afford private insurance.

 

This is the worst possible solution. Forcing people to buy somethign from a private company is bullshit. Talk about taking away your freedoms.

 

Tax credits are a boon doggle. EIC is already in place for people who wouldn't be able to afford insurance. The only way for these people to get healthcare is if the tax credits were to pay them significantly more than they paid in the first place. Even then, the financial burden wouldn't be manageable. They wouldn't get that money back until their tax returns were filed.

 

Hillary has sold her soul to the insurance companies. I don't see anything different from the front-runners either. Not because the public doesn't want a change, but because the insurance companies have their thumb on the politicians and they're scared of the media tactics that will be used against them. Here's a recent poll on the issue. Notice a good majority are in favor of univeral health care: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml

 

SHOULD GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR ALL?

 

Yes

64%

No

27%

 

 

WHICH IS MORE SERIOUS?

 

Providing health insurance for all

65%

Keeping health care costs down

31%

 

[JayB]

Jim:

 

I presume that when Tim Eyman's referendums secure passage, you raise a glass to to him, and delight in the prospect of legislative solutions to problems requiring the consideration and resolution of an incredibly complex series of conflicting perogatives - by a simple majority of the citizens, whether or not they have any expertise on the matter.

 

"WOULD YOU RATHER PAY A FLAT $30 FEE FOR CAR TABS OR PAY MUCH HIGHER FEES?"

 

Aside from the "wisdom of the crowds" angle at play here, there's also the matter of whether the respondents would respond with equal enthusiasm if the question were phrased differently, and whether enthusiasm for universal health care is synonymous with a model in which all health care is paid for and administered by the government.

[JayB]

Hillary is proposing that health care be mandatory, like car insurance -- but not government run. She also supports tax credits to help low income families afford private insurance.

 

This is the worst possible solution. Forcing people to buy somethign from a private company is bullshit. Talk about taking away your freedoms.

 

Tax credits are a boon doggle. EIC is already in place for people who wouldn't be able to afford insurance. The only way for these people to get healthcare is if the tax credits were to pay them significantly more than they paid in the first place. Even then, the financial burden wouldn't be manageable. They wouldn't get that money back until their tax returns were filed.

 

How would being forced to pay for a good from a private company - in a system where aside from satisfying certain minimum coverage requirements - you are free to choose from catastrophic versus comprehensive coverage, you are fee to choose from policies offered by all participants in a competitive health-insurance market, etc...worse than being forced to pay into a unitary system run by the government where you have none of these things? Would you rather buy your car insurance from a government run monopoly, instead of participating in the current system, where the government mandates coverage and certain minimums but otherwise allows insurers to compete for your business and for you to choose who you want to buy your insurance from?

 

If we were discussing private monopolies versus public monopolies I might agree with you, but none of the compulsory insurance models that I'm aware of include the establishment of private monopolies in their plans.