A.M.A. Opposes Government-Sponsored Healthcare Plan

[macattak1]

I was simply reminding you that all people don't feel like you. The US is not yet ready to accept universal government coverage, but it seems that the people do want a public option and mandatory insurance. It looks like they're going to get it too.

 

Its so nice of you to remind us that not every one agrees with us. Thanks.

[napfirst]

We don't want national healthcare!

 

Health Care Horror Story: Premature baby must cross border for care.

 

Somewhere in America Alone, I cite an example of the logical reductio of socialized health care: “the ten-month wait for the maternity ward.” I’ve been adding to the file ever since. Here’s the latest entry, from Hamilton, Ontario:

 

Well, it would be unreasonable to expect Hamilton, a city of half-a-million people just down the road from Canada’s largest city (Greater Toronto Area, 5.5 million) in the most densely populated part of Canada’s most populous province (Ontario, 13 million people) to be able to offer the same level of neonatal care as Buffalo, a post-industrial ruin in steep population decline for half a century.

 

But wait! The fun and games are only just beginning. When a decrepit and incompetent Canadian health bureaucracy meets a boneheaded and inhuman American border “security” bureaucracy, you’ll be getting a birth experience you’ll treasure forever:

 

Her parents, Natalie Paquette and Richard Stinson, couldn’t follow their baby because as of June 1, a passport is required to cross the border into the United States. They’re having to approve medical procedures over the phone and are terrified something will happen to their baby before they get there.

 

Once Buffalo enjoys the benefits of Hamilton-level health care, I wonder where Ontario will be shipping the preemies to. Costa Rica?

[suv_guy_19]

Thus, you are calling his story a lie.

 

Yes, that's right, I doubt the validity of the story. I have never seen a case where a person needed life saving treatment in Canada and did not get said treatment paid for, either in Canada or in the US. I have never seen a case where a person would die waiting. I have heard stories (for example, the one playing on US airways now), but most of those stories involve little proof or questionable circumstances. This had nothing to do with healthcare in the US, it had to do with a situation caused in Canada that I find difficult to believe.

 

One thing is certain though. For a country whose people know so little about it's northern neighbour, the US certainly seems to have a great many experts when it comes to Canadian healthcare.

[suv_guy_19]

We don't want national healthcare!

 

That's right, sometimes there's shortages and so we find a way to deal with it, often by paying for care in the US.

[Edstock]

What? Was that an answer?

No, that was a statement.

[suv_guy_19]

Its so nice of you to remind us that not every one agrees with us. Thanks.

 

You're very welcome. I'll continue to remind you of that fact whenever it's necessary.

[suv_guy_19]

We don't want national healthcare!

 

You know Nap, I keep telling you that the system isn't perfect, but it seems that my saying it isn't good enough for you, so you go out and try to prove that it isn't perfect for me. Thank you.

[macattak1]

Yes, that's right, I doubt the validity of the story. I have never seen a case where a person needed life saving treatment in Canada and did not get said treatment paid for, either in Canada or in the US. I have never seen a case where a person would die waiting. I have heard stories (for example, the one playing on US airways now), but most of those stories involve little proof or questionable circumstances. This had nothing to do with healthcare in the US, it had to do with a situation caused in Canada that I find difficult to believe.

 

One thing is certain though. For a country whose people know so little about it's northern neighbour, the US certainly seems to have a great many experts when it comes to Canadian healthcare.

 

So your just playing the Brick Wall again then. sigh...

 

Your bold goes against so many facts you yourself have posted. But maybe you again will play the Brick Wall and say something like 'Well, I said "I" never saw...."

 

It should be no news to you, the guy who tells us of the horrible Canadian care of the previous decade(s) to know that this stuff happens. It happens in the US too. It happened in Japan a few months ago.

 

If you are going to relate everything in this discussion to your own personal experience please say so. Other wise acknowledge that what you have not heard before is not in fact an automatic lie. Again, my wife's very good co worker came from Canada. She works with my wife at the Mayo Clinic. Perhaps you have heard of the Mayo Clinic? She tells my wife of how her uncle would have likely died due to 200+ days out for services. And as I recall, you acknowledge this lacking in Canadian care before on this very topic. He came to the US and got served.

 

However, according to you the above is just a lie, because you did not know him, did not read about it, did not see it, did not hear it, did not live with him, did not visit the US at the same time and come to the Mayo Clinic and see him and ask him why he was there...

[suv_guy_19]

The cases of waits in the hundreds of days are extremely rare. I can safely say that they have almost never happened for serious cases (there are always exceptions). The story may very well be true, but it's unlikely. And no, I don't believe that what is in bold contradicts anything that I've provided. Average and maximum weights have no meaning in emergency and serious situations.

Edited July 23, 2009 by suv_guy_19

[napfirst]

You know Nap, I keep telling you that the system isn't perfect, but it seems that my saying it isn't good enough for you, so you go out and try to prove that it isn't perfect for me. Thank you.

I'm not trying to convence you of anything.....I want the people that read these post who live in the US to be aware of how bad it could get here with a healthcare system like yours......I'm convenced that you would not believe it you witnessed it first hand....you'd find a way to explain it.....you may want to consider a career in law....so if I post more about the failures of your system, don't feel obligated to retort, we all know you don't believe that there are problems......

Suggestion; why not goggle the man's name and find out the circumstances of his death......

[suv_guy_19]

I know the story quite well. If you'll notice I live in the same city.

[suv_guy_19]

Ok, here's the story.

 

Something went wrong. It's likely that the nurse didn't take him seriously because he slept in the ER waiting room so often.

 

I know first hand though that the problem was fixed afterwards because I had to visit the HSC ER for a medical issue. Every ER in Winnipeg is now designed so that people sitting in the ER can be seen from the triage desk (most were already like that, but the other were fixed or are being fixed). As you walk in the door at HSC, you are greeted b a health care aide and shown to the triage desk. The health care aide and a security guard now constantly watch the room.

 

A provincial inquest has also been called to find out exactly what happened so that it never happens again.

 

The system failed, but not because of a wait time.

Edited July 23, 2009 by suv_guy_19

[macattak1]

Ok, here's the story.

 

Something went wrong. It's likely that the nurse didn't take him seriously because he slept in the ER waiting room so often.

 

I know first hand though that the problem was fixed afterwards because I had to visit the HSC ER for a medical issue. Every ER in Winnipeg is now designed so that people sitting in the ER can be seen from the triage desk (most were already like that, but the other were fixed or are being fixed). As you walk in the door at HSC, you are greeted b a health care aide and shown to the triage desk. The health care aide and a security guard now constantly watch the room.

 

A provincial inquest has also been called to find out exactly what happened so that it never happens again.

 

The system failed, but not because of a wait time.

 

So it did happen, because now you have first hand knowledge.

 

Brick Wall Brick Wall Brick Wall Brick

[napfirst]

Ok, here's the story.

 

Something went wrong. It's likely that the nurse didn't take him seriously because he slept in the ER waiting room so often.

 

I know first hand though that the problem was fixed afterwards because I had to visit the HSC ER for a medical issue. Every ER in Winnipeg is now designed so that people sitting in the ER can be seen from the triage desk (most were already like that, but the other were fixed or are being fixed). As you walk in the door at HSC, you are greeted b a health care aide and shown to the triage desk. The health care aide and a security guard now constantly watch the room.

 

A provincial inquest has also been called to find out exactly what happened so that it never happens again.

 

The system failed, but not because of a wait time.

Oh, so now the story is true?...make up your mind.......

[suv_guy_19]

I never said that the story wan't true. I said that the death had nothing to do with the wait time in the emergency room. It had to do with the fact that this man who spent so much time in the hospital was ignored. He did talk to hosptial staff, but it seems that they brushed him off because they didn't think that anything was wrong. What happened was bad, and so now we have to fix it and stick to the fix.

 

 

http://www.thestar.com/article/504848

Edited July 23, 2009 by suv_guy_19

[suv_guy_19]

I want the people that read these post who live in the US to be aware of how bad it could get here with a healthcare system like yours.

 

You're right, it could get really bad.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/nov...dicineandhealth

[Mark B. Morrow]

I never said that the story wan't true. I said that the death had nothing to do with the wait time in the emergency room. It had to do with the fact that this man who spent so much time in the hospital was ignored. He did talk to hosptial staff, but it seems that they brushed him off because they didn't think that anything was wrong. What happened was bad, and so mow we have to fix it and stick to the fix.

 

 

http://www.thestar.com/article/504848

 

 

That same kind of thing happens in the U.S. too. People die every day in hospitals from neglect and other forms of malpractice. It isn't used as an indictment of the whole system of healthcare in the U.S. Having practised in the medical malpractice area I can tell you plenty of incidents where our system has failed miserably.

 

I can't understand how people make the argument that any kind of reform of our system will automatically result in everyone getting care based on the worst cases from Canada. Our current system also has plenty of horror stories of insurance companies denying or delaying treatment people without insurance getting no treatment or being bankrupted trying to save their lives.

 

Whatever comes of the reform will be an American system not Canadian or British or any other form. The incredible administrative costs of the current system are not sustainable. We spend a greater percentage of GNP on healthcare and we aren't as well cared for as many countries who spend half of what we do.

[suv_guy_19]

Every system has horror stories. No system works perfectly. Some work better than others, and there are things that we can all learn from each other. We should really all be working to improve things within our own countries and not pointing out the flaws in other systems. It's not really all that productive.

[Deanh]

Every system has horror stories. No system works perfectly. Some work better than others, and there are things that we can all learn from each other. We should really all be working to improve things within our own countries and not pointing out the flaws in other systems. It's not really all that productive.

neither system is bulletproof...some here SOMEHOW think the system US style is perfect...I guess thats why so many are UN-INSURED ,and burden those that are, that people also go without care due to cost/ deductibles, and remain untreated as they cannot afford necessary medication.....PERFECT I tell ya....

Edited July 23, 2009 by Deanh

[matthewq4b]

Double post

Edited July 23, 2009 by matthewq4b

[Deanh]

Double post

posts leave splinters....try a double cheese burger with fries.....MEDIC!

Edited July 23, 2009 by Deanh

[napfirst]

He'll say anything to get this bill, but the American people are waking up!

 

 

The AP Fact Checks Obama on Health Care

 

 

OBAMA: “I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it.”

 

THE FACTS: The president has said repeatedly that he wants “deficit-neutral” health care legislation, meaning that every dollar increase in cost is met with a dollar of new revenue or a dollar of savings. But some things are more neutral than others. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag told reporters this week that the promise does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase fees for doctors serving Medicare patients. Democrats and the Obama administration argue that the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration’s policy, with or without a health care overhaul.

 

Beyond that, budget experts have warned about various accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget lists a variety of them, including back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.

 

Link

[macattak1]

GAO has little to say on this because they only work in 10 year or less increments. But the little they do say is that is will be Costly and Significantly Above Obama's conservative projections.

 

Peace and Blessings

[matthewq4b]

OK. Good point. I know I was speaking of Quebec. And apparently they run that province worse then California is run? Their Health Costs are in fact rising faster then their Revenue. But as said, their whole system is broken.

 

What is the 2nd or 3rd most successful province in Canada? Lets not work with the best or worst.

 

Here is a chart for Ontario. Looking to see when. But I have no idea of Ontario's success as a province revenue to cost wise. Perhaps it is a horrible source. But one I found simply by searching. I am also not sure how current this is. Can not find a date. I hate it when web sites do not post a date on their articles or slides, etc.

 

Here is some of their site.

 

 

Ontario is the worst managed province in the country with out exception. And who knows how old that site is.

Harris when he was premier he tried to emulate Alberta's Ralph Klein method of cost cutting Ralph cut our services back but did it with an eye to not collapsing the systems yes our wait times went up hospitals were closed (older ones in need of upgrades) Some provincial agency's were spun off and privatized provincial road mait was contracted out the DMV was contracted out to private service providers as were the Liquor stores he cut to improve efficiency he did cut too deep regardless but the system was functional and we reaped the benefits from the cost cutting and efficiency improvements later on.

 

Harris in Ontario went on a slash a burn spree with no long term plan or no regard to the fallout or consequences long term or short and very nearly imploded all the provincial systems. Ontario is still a mess from Harris and Mc Guinty (current premier) is not the man to fix it.

 

Quebec is a spend money now and worry about paying for it later province. But they do get their money's worth out of it. They are not wastefully with the revenue they spend they just happen to spend more than they take in. They actually are one of the most effective in getting their dollars worth. They also tend to have a poor sense of priority when allocating it.

 

If you want a middle of the road province then look at current Manitoba. Not perfect but working towards fixing the short comings and fox fixing the deficiency's from the cost cutting era of the 90's and early 00's and doing so at a very fast pace. That is closer an average across the nation.

 

 

 

 

A Few FACTS, not fiction

 

FACT: The U.S. health care system serves the most diverse population of any country in the world. Our statistics are affected by that diversity. Black women, for a variety of reasons, are more prone to underweight babies than are Caucasian and Asian women. Consistent genetic lineage also contributes to Sweden having a lower infant mortality rate and Japan having a longer life expectancy. These factors must be taken into account when comparing statistics around the world with U.S. statistics.

 

FACT: There is a direct correlation between two parent, marriage-based families and lower infant mortality rates. We need to do everything we can do to support and maintain traditional marriages.

 

FACT: Not every country defines “life birth” as strictly as we do. Here, it means any sign of life in the umbilical cord, any brain activity, or any muscle movement. If the baby shows any of these signs of life, and then dies, it counts against our infant mortality statistics.

 

FACT: The true number of chronically uninsured Americans is 3-5 percent of the population, not 15 or 16 percent.

 

FACT: Seventy-five percent of the uninsured are uninsured for less than a year. Uninsurance is temporary.

 

FACT: The largest group of uninsured U.S. residents is made up of temporary/seasonal workers, mostly of Hispanic/Latino origin, who are born in a foreign country.

 

FACT: U.S. and state taxpayers spent more than $500 billion in 2006, paying for health care services for low-income and uninsured residents.

 

FACT: Mandatory insurance laws always fail. Some 25 percent of Californians fail to buy auto insurance, even though the law says they must, and about 20 percent are without health insurance, though it is a voluntary purchase. In Minnesota, in 2003 some 17 percent of auto owners were uninsured, but only seven percent of Minnesotans were without health insurance. Hawaii has had mandatory health insurance for three decades, but more than 10 percent of its population is without health insurance.

 

FACT: In the United States, we do spend more than any other country in the world on health care. We also spend more than any other country in the world on houses, cars, food, TVs, telephones, designer clothes, and a whole host of consumer products. We spend because we can, and after we spend on necessities, we have more left over to spend on health care than any other country in the world.

 

Not going to touch on this point by point but some things to ponder.

The percentage of individuals here with out Auto Insurance is in the single digits and the low single digits at that.

 

Yes Americans spend more on Houses and cars but are also carrying more credit debt than any other nation. Also U.S medical care is the most expensive on the planet. There are no cost controls at all on it. It is free market pricing but not really. And the Gov't is paying the tab for low income individuals in a free market system. So basically your tax dollars are posting profits for companies that are providing an essential service with no regulation. NO other essential service is allowed to operate with that lack of regulation.

 

Remember our health care is managed on a provincial level with most provinces having populations equivalent to that of most states. Of course some states Cali for example have as many people as our whole nation.

But they are also much much smaller land mass wise compared to our provinces. Deliverance of health services in most states would be way cheaper to due to the higher population densities. As they are not having to deal with many many remote communities that require air ambulance or the military to transport individuals for emergency care or need fly in doctors to service these communities. There are populated land areas here larger than most states that have no hospitals due to the low population density. These communities still have to be serviced and it is done with expensive air ambulance servicing or fly in doctors. This is very costly. And would be absolutely unnecessary in most all of the U.S excepting possibly some areas in Alaska.

So managing and delivering health care on state by state case in the U.S in fact should be easier and cheaper than it is here in Canada. Also the lower average wages in the U.S for non essential medical staff (orderly, mait personal, cleaning staff etc) should again be a cost advantage.

 

 

 

The question is not if we can spend money on health care, or even how much we spend, it is on how we spend it. We can be more efficient. We can get more value for our health care dollar, and we ought to do. But it will never happen if politicians design a federal or state program to do it.[/color

 

 

In 1960, 48 percent of health care expenses were paid out-of-pocket by individuals, and the balance came from insurance and government programs.

 

The federal government decided to drive down the 22 percent uninsured rate to zero by creating two massive programs. In 1965, Congress created Medicare to pay for health care for those who are 65 or older; and they created Medicaid to purchase health care for those considered to be low-income. Immediately thereafter, health care spending spiked higher, at double-digit rates.

 

In 1965, Congress predicted that by 1990, Medicare spending would spike to $9 billion a year. Instead, Medicare spent $57 billion in 1990, and more than $408 billion in 2006. This is what happens when health care is “free,” or “nearly free” to those who use its services.

 

By trying to solve the health care crisis of the 1960s, Congress created the health care crisis of the 1970s, so it created Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). It made the crisis worse, as spending continued its rapid growth, and HMO and insurance premiums began to follow.

 

During the 1980s, Congress again stepped in to "solve" the health care crisis. The uninsured rate now became trumpeted as a measuring stick, as it had risen to something north of 40 million residents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In 1959, “The New York Times” asserted that the uninsured numbers 52 million, and almost 22 percent of the population. Yet 1980s politicians had found a new national crisis in these far better numbers (if they were, indeed, even true). The politicians opted for restructuring hospital billing, and creating yet a new concept: managed care.

 

-------

 

And you are absolutely right for a couple reasons.

 

Americans have no real clue the cost of running their country as they do not pay for it. It being run on credit.

If the cost was actually reflected in your taxation rate then all citizens would be screaming for fiscal responsibility. As it stands now Americans are sort of like sheep having the wool pulled over their eyes as the Gov't is not passing the actual costs along to you and they are keeping taxes artificially low so they can conitnue to spend with no restraint. The U.S spends more per person on health care than any other nation not cause the service is twice as good (which it is not) but because no one really cares that the money is being spent.

 

 

So, you are saying that taxes in Canada are now Less then in the US? And if raised only by 50% of the cut, you would be equal to the US? Are you talking taxes in general? I always thought that Canada paid significantly more taxes per $ earned then in the US. Now you are paying significantly Less then us? Please clear this misunderstanding up for me. Thanks.

 

How did you enjoy the severely broken system some years ago that you endured? How long was it? Do you want to go through it again? How much easier is it for 30 million people to fix it then say 300 million? Which one would you rather work to fix with the aim of actual success, not an aim of just being involved or the 'challenge' of it?

 

Exactly!!! Cost control. Again, you say we are horrible at it. If you lived here would you want Universal Coverage implemented with your understanding and if you were a citizen?

 

It is a profit industry. And if you read the above in Blue it was doing quite well, till we tried to ensure everyone was covered, when in fact, most every one was covered, and if not, not for very long. Just like employment. We don't force employment and some are unemployed for Years. But most find jobs quickly if they really want to.

 

When charities, local governments, counties and the state were responsible for their own people it meant Families were also involved and responsible. Now the Feds are responsible. Now Costs skyrocket due to the Feds own policies and simply because of their meddling and creation of industries. Before it was all local and much better run and maintained. And if you has lousy care in one state you could conceivably move to find better care.

 

So, it may not be slavery for 30 million and believe me, I am happy for you!!! But it will be, in conjunction with Cap and Trade, Global Warming, etc for us.

 

I always thought Canadians made less and paid more taxes. Else I might have moved there.

 

Peace and Blessings

 

 

Yes we do pay less tax now on average across the nation we now pay 2% less than on average across the nation in the U.S

 

Now of course some provinces are higher some lower Alberta is the lowest with the highest average wages.

 

Wages in Canada are higher on average than in the U.S much higher. But our cost of living is also higher. vehicles cost more houses cost more (on average) clothing is more expensive as are electronics. In the end due to the higher averages it is wash with a slight favour to Canada. Once actual real disposable or net income it calculated we come much further ahead. We carry less than half the personal debt on average compared to our American cousins. Once this is tabulated in to the mix we come out way ahead in average disposable income.

 

 

Canada has always more accurately indexed our tax rate to our spending (as most nations do) compared to the U.S. So this has not allowed Gov't to go on whole spending sprees.

 

Our current Conservative Gov't here in Alberta may run a deficit this year n fact utlra Conservative (by Candian stadards) Alberatns blasted the current Conserative gov't for NOT rasing taxes to advert a deficit budget. The backlash has been huge so large in fact it may end near 40 years of Conservative rule in this province if viable alternative pops up.

 

Canadians in general have a different concept of Conservative and Liberal than Americans do. Especially here in Western Canada. Here Conservaties are not necessarily socially conservative but are fiscally Conservative and liberals are not. All parties here will try to balance the books and that includes raising taxes if need be. That is what Liberals here are know as tax and spend they spend the money but they also tax ya to get it first.

 

 

 

 

All political parties in Canada are more fiscally conservative than either of the party's in the U.S . None are as socially conservative. But really in the end is it not more important to make sure stuff is able to be paid for regardless of political ideology ?

 

I think that is one of the big social differences between Canadians and Americans we do not view credit as lightly as Americans. It shows in our personal levels of debit and national level of debt.

 

Unfortunately some of our Conservative parties are starting to mirror the U.S conservative parties by spending with out any plan to pay for it.

 

We eliminated our deficit and were paying down the debt under a liberal Gov't. And now the Conservatives have dropped us in debt once again in no small part due to the liberals the NDP and the Bloc.

 

Canadians are more willing will do with out (grudgingly mind you) including higher taxes to make sure we are not a nation run on credit. Some Americans may disagree with me but Canadians have greater sense of community and caring about the well being of our fellow country men. Many many of American freinds I have do agree with this. We will accept a higher rate of taxing if it will show a benifit to the nation or province as a whole.

 

 

Any kind of health system weather privately administered single user pay universal Gov't run etc is bound to fail in the U.S until the powers that be learn to properly manage tax revenues and become fiscally responsible and strive for better returns on dollars spent. The days of solving issues by throwing money at have to stop first. Until that happens any Gov't funded health care either full coverage or just coverage for the needy is going to be prohibitivly costly.

 

I would be inclinded to leave the status quo for now and consentrate on the wasted tax dollars and lack of efficiancy in revenues spent. Have properly functioning budgeting procces then look at program expansions.

Unitl then you might as well shovel the cash spent in to the landfill.

 

Matthew

Edited July 23, 2009 by matthewq4b

[matthewq4b]

Getting to be like STP with the senseless and undermining attacks that provide no value.

 

How about you tell us how your Canadian system is. And as you say, defend it, when we do not represent it properly.

 

However, Please don't disregard our knowledge and experience and give us when we talk about what happens HERE in the US.

 

You want stories about Canadians coming to the US? Come to my town and you can frequently see them coming from Canada, England, France, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Australia, etc. All here from their own country to pay for services in cash. How many people from the USA show up in Canada or else where to pay cash for health services? Very very few.

 

 

Actually quite few not piles but quite a few come here. And even some U.S medical insurance companies send people here.

As surgury rates rates are much much lower here. The reason we do not have hoards comming here is we do not have vast amounts of extra capacity in our facilities. As they are pretty much sized for the population they serve and some areas under capacity. To have huge amounts of extra capacity would just be waste of our health care dollars.

 

Now there are some exceptions to the rule Cardston General Hospital In Cardston Alberta a small (about 8000 pop) town about 10 mins from the U.S border has a full service general/ surgical hospital. The only reason it is a full service hospital is the bulk of the patents they see are paying American patients. Cardston Genral specializes in a couple areas and has a couple world reknown surgeons, patients come from across the globe to go to Cardston General.

 

We do not take huge amounts of out of counrty paitents because our health dollars are not used to provide extra capacity for paying patients. The healh care system is there to provide service for Canadains not to provide care for paying non Canadians the shit would hit the fan if extra capacity was there for paying patents and Canadians had to wait when paying paitents got in sooner, plus it would breach our health act. Every bed used for a paying non Canadian is one less bed avalible for a Canadian patinet. Also paying patients are bumped down the list if the space or OR time is needed by a citizen. Paying customers are told their surgury can be postponed at any time with no advance notice with no gaurentted date for rescheduling and any costs incurred to them of such occurance is their responsibilty. So it makes it a pretty tough sell to a paying customer who expects a certain level of service.

 

That is why we do not have droves coming here for elective medical treatments

 

Matthew