Canadian Politicial heading to USA for Heart Surgery

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

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

A whopping 0.5% of Americans! Wow! But how many of them are for cosmetic surgery or cheaper dental services?

I was one of them 10 years ago, going across the border to Vancouver for LASIK. But that was driven in part by the FDA's conservative nature with approvals of new procedures.

[SkyDekker 1,120]

Mike,

Josh's assertion was that people were not really leaving the US for medical treatment. The report indicates his assertion not to be true.

Now if you want to stay on subject, you can find a report that says no significant number of americans leave the US for medical services.

Note also that this doesn't reflect on the quality of the US health care system. Just that a very acceptable level of care is available at significantly lower prices.

[SkyDekker 1,120]

Quote

But how many of them are for cosmetic surgery or cheaper dental services?

Quite a few I would think, but hip and knee replacements are very popular as well.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Newfoundland Provincial Premier Danny Williams helped spearhead the "unsuccessful" slogan of ABC (Anyone But Conservative) as he attempted to influence the 2008 fall federal election in order to get his friends at the Liberal Party of Canada to be re-elected and resume their self professed position as the "natural governing party", and the only people who should ever be allowed to govern in Canada.

But now there is a new meaning to Mr William's ABC slogan:

Anywhere But Canada.

PS: I wish Mr Williams the best. Choice is a good thing. Monopolies are bad.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Rstanley0312 0]

Quote

Quote

NEWS FLASH: Hockey players don't wait in line!

I think that has more to do with the reason why Chuck Norris doesn't wait in line.

ummm... why would Chuck Norris ever need healthcare..... he wouldn't bc he is Chuch Norris!

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[SabreDave 0]

You know where the door is Steve......

Don't let it hit you on the ass on your way out!

SabreDave

[Remster 24]

Quote

Quote

If health care system is so great in the US then why do some people travel out of the US for procedures?

uuuuuh... Not really.

uhhhh... Really.

I dont drop names, but a few well known US skydivers many here know went to Europe for shoulder surgery.

Remster

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If health care system is so great in the US then why do some people travel out of the US for procedures?

uuuuuh... Not really.

uhhhh... Really.

I dont drop names, but a few well known US skydivers many here know went to Europe for shoulder surgery.

No way.... you know a few skydivers that went to Europe for shoulder surgery.

Obviously there are people that travel outside the US for certain medical treatment. I would be willing to bet that that number is extremely small in the percentage of people who receive care here vs internationally... and also I'm sure it pales in comparison to the number of people that come to the US for medical treatment from other countries.

Everything is always taken to the extreme here on dz.com. My statement was meant to imply that it is not a trend that people leave the US for medical treatment, not that NOBODY leaves the US for medical treatment. You'd have to be an idiot to think someone thought that.

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is the health care financing plan. The government will set what you get. No more. No less. To those under the threshhold it's a great deal - they will get more for their money. To those above the threshhold they will get less for the same (saving money for the wealthy and middle class is NEVER on the agenda for social programs.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Are you saying that the US health care reform proposals would prevent anyone from being able to privately insure to a higher standard than what the gov't will supply?

Is that actually true?

To an extent, probably. Think about this - what will the governmet cover? What will they not cover? Will the government cover lifestyle related illnesses and disease? Probably at first, but then there will be a gradual erosion of either benefits or rights.

Some countries have hybrid systems. However, even they are struggling. France has found much hubbub with regard to the lowering of benefits and coverge as the costs increase. Assurance Maladie has been in the red since 1989. It's present shortfall is at 10% of its budget, even though France introduced co-pays and has shuttered a number of cinics and hospitals.

Andy brought up unemployment. What happens when unemployment begins? Yep. Less tax revenue. Which means that the national system isn't supported. Budgets are slashed. Services closed.

Again, you can pick any two of these things:
(1) High Quality healthcare
(2) Inexpensive healthcare
(3) Unrationed healthcare.

You cannot have inexpensive, high quality healthcare that isn't rationed. The canadian system shows that. Either the wait will be too long for this guy or it is unavailable because the governmetn won't pay for it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,380]

>No way.... you know a few skydivers that went to Europe for shoulder surgery.

Yes way! Just as one guy from Canada came to the US for surgery. Means about the same in both cases.

>My statement was meant to imply that it is not a trend that people leave
>the US for medical treatment, not that NOBODY leaves the US for medical
>treatment.

Fair statement. Likewise, the fact that a Canadian came to the US for treatment does not mean that there's a trend that people leave their countries and come to the US for treatment.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

To an extent, probably. Think about this - what will the governmet cover? What will they not cover?

What version of the bill are you talking about?

In the Senate bill the government does not cover anything (besides already existing programs). It only sets up _minimum_ standards every health insurance plan should cover. In my opinion, those standards are very reasonable, and only cover necessities. Basically it is the same as it's now with the difference the standards are set separately by states (as a result, each state has different standards, and it is very hard for insurance companies to sell across state lines), so setting uniform minimum standards seems like a benefit.

In the House bill the government "public option" would cover only those things which are required. But it doesn't restrict you from getting non-government coverage. If you want more - get private insurance.

Quote

Again, you can pick any two of these things:
(1) High Quality healthcare
(2) Inexpensive healthcare
(3) Unrationed healthcare.

You cannot have inexpensive, high quality healthcare that isn't rationed.

Indeed, you cannot have a single healthcare _plan_ which provides inexpensive, high quality healthcare that isn't rationed. But you can have a system where multiple plans are available, and people can decide what is more important to them - price, availability or quality. At this moment they cannot do it.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[billvon 2,380]

>Again, you can pick any two of these things:
>(1) High Quality healthcare
>(2) Inexpensive healthcare
>(3) Unrationed healthcare.

>You cannot have inexpensive, high quality healthcare that isn't rationed.

Agreed. So we should have private plans that give you as much quality healthcare that you can pay for, and shitty cheap public healthcare that will keep you alive if you were foolish enough to not get healthcare.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

>Again, you can pick any two of these things:
>(1) High Quality healthcare
>(2) Inexpensive healthcare
>(3) Unrationed healthcare.

>You cannot have inexpensive, high quality healthcare that isn't rationed.

Agreed. So we should have private plans that give you as much quality healthcare that you can pay for, and shitty cheap public healthcare that will keep you alive if you were foolish enough to not get healthcare.

You guys and your ideology.

Yes, I agree that would be great. Unfortunately, here in reality, you can't just snap your fingers and create a system where that works like that. People will be taxed beyond sustainability to pay for it, other people will drop their plans in favor of the free plan (ie. Hawaii), etc. Even if the government run plan took effect, lawrocket's point would remain. With any given situation (plan), you can choose two of the three.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

you can have a system where multiple plans are available, and people can decide what is more important to them - price, availability or quality.

You proed my point. The individuals must decide what is important to them.

When the government gets involved it decides FOR you. You get cheap, low quality and rationed care if that's what the government decides you get. Period. Or cheap, high quality rationed care - if the governmetn decides.

Most likely, expensive, moderate quality rationed care. The government can ensure that only one of the factors is possible (spending others' money on others.)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

You don't see the irony in all this.
Mr ABC pulling a "Anywhere But Canada"?
Too funny ...

Yes I know where the door is ...
I have used it before ...
and who knows, the option of using it again does exists ...

but emigrating is not always easy. Plus that big country to the south of us are not always open to the idea of letting Canadians in en mass especially now that their economy is in the tank. If I had troubles with the INS during boom times you know the INS will be dicks during times like this. With all due respect, I have a little more exposure and experience dealing with the INS.

I value free speech. I value my personal sovereignty. I am under the impression you too value your free speech and your sovereignty. You have the right to criticize me if you choose to do so. But as a law abiding tax payer of this country I have a right to criticize Canada's health care system. I know this criticism pisses off many Canadians because they view their precious health care as the holy grail that makes them different from those people south of us. As far as I am concerned both the USA and Canadian health care systems suck (and I have had the pleasure of using both). Actually the USA's system does not suck if you have insurance. But one of the problems of the US's system is that it is a for profit health care system. The US would be better off moving a tad closer Canada's system and Canada would be better off if it move a tad closer to the USA's system. Time will tell if the USA moves, but I doubt you will ever see Canada move since most people here are brainwashed into thinking that big government is the answer to all of their problems.

Isn't free speech good. It's almost as good as our personal sovereignty.
Definitely worth fighting for.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Again, you can pick any two of these things:
>(1) High Quality healthcare
>(2) Inexpensive healthcare
>(3) Unrationed healthcare.

>You cannot have inexpensive, high quality healthcare that isn't rationed.

Agreed. So we should have private plans that give you as much quality healthcare that you can pay for, and shitty cheap public healthcare that will keep you alive if you were foolish enough to not get healthcare.

We have that now.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,380]

>Yes, I agree that would be great. Unfortunately, here in reality, you
>can't just snap your fingers and create a system where that works like
>that.

We have that system now; it's colloquially referred to as the "GOP healthcare plan." Go to an ER, get care for everything from your runny nose to your broken pelvis, and then just plain don't pay.

So it can clearly be done. It can also be done better, in a way that does not cost billions, that does not bankrupt hospitals and doctors, and does not require the most expensive primary care in the country (ER care) for the sniffles.

>With any given situation (plan), you can choose two of the three.

And you can choose the plan itself.

[billvon 2,380]

>We have that now.

In a way, yes - it just destroys hospitals, bankrupts doctors and spends far too much for far too little care. If that's your plan, I think it needs a little work.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

You proed my point. The individuals must decide what is important to them.

And this is what we do not have now. The only available choice now is expensive, available and high-quality healthcare (unless you qualify for Medicare/whatever). I cannot choose a cheap and high-quality plan with limited availability, and I cannot choose cheap plan with good availability but with lower quality.

Quote

When the government gets involved it decides FOR you.

The government has been involved in healthcare for quite a while. It even provides healthcare coverage (Medicare), it is just not available for everyone.

Quote

You get cheap, low quality and rationed care if that's what the government decides you get. Period. Or cheap, high quality rationed care - if the governmetn decides.

Not necessary. As in House plan, the government would offer you a "public" government-provided plan - most likely a cheap plan with lower quality and availability which would only cover basics (no chiropractors, no boobjobs, no massages). This would not be the only plan, and you would not be required to get it - you can get any other plan (or keep your existing one). I do not see how it limits choice - by any reasonable standard it increases the choice, not limits it.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

But as a law abiding tax payer of this country I have a right to criticize Canada's health care system.

Indeed - but your critique has little value unless you also tell us how would you fix it. Everyone can spot where the problems are, and everyone can blame the solution offered until they try to create their own.

Myself I was pretty much pissed off on the healthcare bill (well before it passed House) until I realized that most of its content is basically brought in by a simple requirement of removing the pre-existing conditions.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Andy9o8 0]

While there's plenty about which you & I disagree, I support your right to try to make your country better by exercising your free speech rights to critically analyze your country and urge it to be even better than it is. Done properly, that's a part of good parenting, for one analogous example.

It's a common technique among groups (especially ethnic, religious or national groups) to refer to critics within the group as "self-haters", in order to intimidate and discredit the current critics and deter future ones. Growing up in the US during the Vietnam War, I remember the conservative slogan, "America - love it or leave it."

You don't have to leave your democratic/republic country because you choose to constructively criticize it. Anyone (speaking generally, not specific to this forum) who tells you otherwise, or calls you unpatriotic, can go fuck themselves. You're also welcome to come down here to the US a bit; just keep your hands off our daughters, and bring plenty of beer. And not the cheap stuff, either.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And this is what we do not have now. The only available choice now is expensive, available and high-quality healthcare (unless you qualify for Medicare/whatever). I cannot choose a cheap and high-quality plan with limited availability, and I cannot choose cheap plan with good availability but with lower quality.

The latter? Yes you can. It's called the ER. Go there with a cold and be triaged for 36 hours.

The former? Yes. It's called an HAS. Cheap. High quality. Availability decided by the patient.

The US system is rationed by price.

Quote

Quote

When the government gets involved it decides FOR you.

The government has been involved in healthcare for quite a while. It even provides healthcare coverage (Medicare), it is just not available for everyone.

Government is the majority spender in healthcare. The big dog. Yet people say HC is messed up and look to the government to solve it.

Quote

I do not see how it limits choice - by any reasonable standard it increases the choice, not limits it.

The way Microsoft increased choice by offering free Internet Explorer? Ask Netscape about that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I do not see how it limits choice - by any reasonable standard it increases the choice, not limits it.

I understand your point.

Today - we have (for example) 50 choices, about 10 of them are actually usable, and the other 40 are not a good option for anyone.

With gov health care - we'll have 51 choices, about 2 are doable, but one of those only for the rich, and the other 49 will die off eventually as completely impractical as the new policy will kill those options in the (not too) long term with penalties, and taxes, and additional controls added to them, and etc.

But you are right, the choices are increased from 50 to 51.

We go down this path, we'll have a crappy plan for everyone, and a supplemental plan for only the uber rich and politicians.

But then, some pigs are more equal than others.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

The latter? Yes you can. It's called the ER. Go there with a cold and be triaged for 36 hours.

No, I cannot. If I go to ER, not only it would take 36 hours to get triaged for cold, but also my healthcare bill would be 5-10 times higher than if I go to a doctor directly. So it is definitely not a cheap option. What you probably mean that it is easier to fraud the ER than the doctor office by avoiding the payment - but it doesn't make it a valid option.

Quote

The former? Yes. It's called an HAS. Cheap. High quality. Availability decided by the patient.

No, rationed plans by definition do not allows patients to decide on availability, this decision is done by someone else (like government). HSA and deductibles still provide you with expensive, available and good quality healthcare. It is just the difference between "pay more now and less when you get service" versus "pay less now and more when you get service". You will still get the same quality service with the same availability with a HSA plan versus non-HSA (with probable exception of maternity, which may not be covered).

Quote

Government is the majority spender in healthcare. The big dog. Yet people say HC is messed up and look to the government to solve it.

Indeed, HC is messed. But it is pretty obvious now that health insurers are not going to fix it on their own. Every change in the system so far came from the government. Who you suggest people look to solve it? Isn't it the reason we actually have the government?

Quote

The way Microsoft increased choice by offering free Internet Explorer? Ask Netscape about that.

Nobody so far has said that offering free Internet Explorer (and free Firefox, and free Safari, and free Opera, and free Chrome) lowers the consumer choice. Of course, any browser vendor would prefer their browser to be the only available, but this has nothing with consumer choice.

The questioned practice you probably meant was mandatory inclusion of IE into Windows - which provided significant competitive disadvantage. Nevertheless, the choice is there, and in some European countries Firefox is already used more than IE.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Today - we have (for example) 50 choices, about 10 of them are actually usable, and the other 40 are not a good option for anyone.

This is incorrect assumption. No matter which of those 10 actually usable plans you choose, you'll get the same availability and quality - so this is not a price/quality/availability choice, this is "pay more now/pay less later" or "cover maternity as well" choice.

Today we all have only one choice - a health care which is expensive, available and high-quality. Only limited amount of people can qualify for a (still expensive, just not for them) health care with slightly less quality and availability.

Edit: an important correction - not all the plans are equally available, and at least for Blue Shield/Blue Cross switching to a HSA or lower deductible plan requires medical underwriting - so it's not like all those plans are really available for you.

Quote

With gov health care - we'll have 51 choices, about 2 are doable, but one of those only for the rich, and the other 49 will die off eventually as completely impractical as the new policy will kill those options in the (not too) long term with penalties, and taxes, and additional controls added to them, and etc.

Here you're speculating about something which is not included in the bill or even being discussed.

Quote

We go down this path, we'll have a crappy plan for everyone, and a supplemental plan for only the uber rich and politicians.

Of course - if we start with incorrect assumption and apply some speculation, we can easily end up like here :)

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *