<script type="text/javascript" src="http://reason.tv/embed/video.php?id=961"></script> Many advocates of health-care reform are admirers of Canada's state-run, no-opt-out, single-payer system. Indeed, in 2003, President Barack Obama voiced enthusiasm for such a health-care program. Proponents of Canadian-style health care should meet Cheryl Baxter, a Canadian citizen who waited years for hip-replacement surgery, only to be told that her operation would not happen any time soon. Instead of waiting, Baxter did what an increasing number of Canadians are doing: She flew to a clinic in the United States, paid out of pocket, and had a life-altering surgery in a matter of weeks rather than years. Baxter's experience doesn't just throw damning light on Canadian health care. The sort of clinic she went to in Oklahoma suggests a different way of delivering health care in the United States, too: A simple fee-for-service model in which providers openly advertise their prices, service, and reputation. Rather than a frustrating, complicated mess of intermediaries such as employers and insurance companies, U.S. health-care reformers should think about bringing medicine into line with the same dynamics that help deliver great service at great prices throughout most other parts of the economy. While Canadian health care is certainly cheaper than its U.S. counterpart (health care spending in Canada is about 10 percent of GDP versus 16 percent in the United States), it is not necessarily better or more equitable. As a recent National Bureau of Economic Research comparison concluded, "Americans are more likely to report that they are fully satisfied with the health services they have received and to rank the quality of care as excellent." Not only do Americans have far greater access to basic diagnostic tools ranging from mammograms to CT scans, the researchers found "the health-income gradient is actually more prominent in Canada than in the U.S." That is, wealthy Canadians receive far better care compared to low-income Canadians than rich Americans versus poor Americans. http://reason.tv/video/show/a-true-tale-of-canadian-health
Anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence. Awesome, a different way of doing things! I like it! But... can we get there without reform? Besides the fact that these are weak, subjective opinions that carry little weight in terms of "effectiveness" and the fact they don't show us how they quantified it, the main argument isn't that our health care practices suck, or our doctors are incompetent, it is that the accessibility and affordability is not there. Bang for the buck is a different subject altogether worth touching on, though. What good is it if you can go get a CT scan or a mammogram if you can't afford or are denied access to the procedure or treatment??? Not only do they not say how they quantified this, this says nothing about the quality of healthcare provided. It could very well be that on a scale of 1-10 (1 being worst care, 10 being best) that rich Americans get 4 while poor Americans get 2, meanwhile rich Canadians get 8 while poor Canadians get 5.
Donny, your post makes the shovelled one smile. Wouldn't it be super cool to have a misleading debate about a single payer no-opt out healthcare system that isn't even being considered in the US and has no relation to the proposals currently in place! Because Obama 'voiced enthusiasm' for that system in 2003.
Because citing this thread as an example of weak anecdotal evidence is then, itself, anecdotal. It is a big semi-infinite spiral of FAIL.
You know, funny you mention that, because my uncle Donnie once saw a spiral of fail. It was big and black. It sucked him in and now he's gone missing. GIVE ME BACK MY UNCLE, FAIL SPIRAL.
A true story of American Health Care (VA Hospital) A couple weeks ago, an friend of mine came down with flu like symptoms. He went into the VA to be checked out since he was very concerned about being older and getting the H1N1. They took the typical vitals, determined it was pneumonia, gave him some medicine and he was gone ... after being their 8 hours. They never took any tests or xrays to determine this. Sunday, he's rushed to the nearest hospital due to Vertigo like symptoms. After coming to a conclusion after many tests, they additionally found nodules in his lungs. At this point, its unknown what is going on his lungs. If, in the 8 hours while he was being shuffled throughout the VA hospital two weeks ago, they had taken the xray like they were suppose to, they would have picked up on these nodules two weeks ago. Additionally, they most likely would have picked up on the mini strokes he was having had they continued further testing. This would have saved in thousands of dollars in current hospital bills. The two biggest factors played into part; Doctors who make their money by getting patients in and out ASAP. Running further tests cost extra money and more time. Second, the ratio of patients and doctors. They simply can not take the time to thoroughly examine every patient properly. The public option will magnify these two problems in the private sector. What goes on in the VA is what you can expect our medical system to eventually turn into.
I am sure he has hundreds of thousands in his bank accounts that when he really need it for major medical expenses he will be able to pay out of pocket, unlike 80% of the US population.
No doubt. I'm glad to know that Space Ghost is one of the approximately four people in the USA who can afford paying for all medical expenses sans insurance, regardless of severity.
Or that I can't afford it at this point? Typical response...I am against the proposed HCR, so therefore I am against all HCR. You have heard me say this on multiple occasions; I am against any HCR the models an already failed (private American) system. We NEED HCR desperately. Modeling it after the private sector is NOT HCR. Forcing people to buy insurance is NOT HCR. Failing to seriously address patient quality of care is NOT HCR. Failing to seriously deal with the doctor shortage is NOT HCR. Demanding insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions is NOT HCR. All of that is simply band aiding the current system. I do not want to trade in an immediate piss poor fix to have a bad system later.
I was reading something somewhere about "two" MRI clinics in NYC, which were actually one clinic with doors on different streets. One entrance is for anybody paying cash. These people have a 5 minute wait and there are never more than one or two people in line. It is everything that the anti-public option people dream about. The other entrance, which accesses the same MRI equipment, is for everybody having any type of insurance (no matter what it flavor). These people wait an hour or longer in a crowded room to get service. It is a much less pleasant and prompt experience. They treat these people like common hoi polloi. If I used the lesson of Space Ghost's VA Hospital story to inform my decision, I would have to recommend outlawing all insurance and requiring everybody to pay out of pocket. After all, that is proven as the best way to get prompt and attentive service. Ultimately, however, if my choices are wait for a couple of hours to get a necessary MRI, or not be able to get it at all since I can't afford to pay out of pocket for Rolls Royce quality service, I think waiting for an hours to figure out what is wrong with me is better than no MRI and a diagnosis based on a guess.
Better yet, why not set the price of medical treatments so that only the top 10% of the income earner can pay for them, I am sure the service will be great and their would never be any wait time for anything. Greatest medical care in the world indeed.
By taxing individual health care but not health benefits from employers, that is what has already been done. It is government bastardization and destruction of the free markets, making health care increasingly unaffordable.
And a typical response from you. Loads of "not this" and "not that" without a shred of alternatives, obstensibly because every time you try that you get severely beat down. Furthermore, four of your "not-isms" are either blatant fabrications, conjecture, or non-sensical. Lame. The only one which might be legitimate is the first (modeling on private health care) but of course you are also against a single-payer system so.... At the end of the day the ideology behind insurance is too spread out the cost to many people so that everyone gets access to otherwise unaffordable care. Over and over in here you have lamented that you would be forced to pay for insurance (which is, of course, not true - you'd pay a tax, assuming you're in the appropriate income bracket) even though you are young and healthy. This may come as a shock Space Ghost, but most of the old and sick people started out as young and healthy - and who knows when or if that will happen to you? I sure as hell don't want to pay for it, which is why I'm thrilled at the idea that you'd be taxed. That way, when you fall out of a tree and end up with a concussion and multi-100s of thousands of dollar brain surgery, I can at least hope that some of that is covered by taxes only you (or similarly minded) people payed because you were too young and healthy to understand a very simple concept like insurance. I presume you have insurance for your car even though you're a good driver, right Space Ghost?
Really. So if we had total free market everyone will have affordable health care insurance? If it was so easy, why hasn't it been implemented? Health care cost increasing by double the inflation rate have nothing to do with drug manufactures, docotors, hospitals, medical insurances charging more and more every year?
It hasn't been implement becuase tax money is profitable and many are profiting off the heavily regulated industry. The doctors, hospitals, charge more and more becuase there is no competition, the gov pays for most of it and there is no incentive or reason to lower prices. In 1998 the average price of laser eye surgery was about $2200 per eye. Today the average price is $1350, that's a decline of 38 percent in nominal terms and slightly more than that after taking into account inflation. The difference? Laser eye surgery is not covered by insurance, not covered by Medicaid or Medicare, and not heavily regulated.
