‘They’re Freaking Out:’ Letters Warn Patients They Risk Losing Their Doctor

[jaeger19]

Oh…and they also aren’t having their healthcare managed by private insurance companies that dictate what care can/cannot be given.

But - you also misrepresent Canadian healthcare.

Home health services are provided LOCALLY, not federally.


These local authorities are reimbursed from the federal central authority.

Home and community health care - Canada.ca

Home and community care services help people to receive care at home, rather than in a hospital or long-term care facility, and to live as independently as possible in the community.

www.canada.ca

So people still receive the services - it’s just a matter of who is providing them.

1. Not sure about that.
In America MEDICARE AND MEDICAID ARE ADMINISTERED BY PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
2. That's right..home health is the responsibility of the provinces in Canada for poor if its offered or its covered by private insurance.

But it's not covered by the federal government.

3. No..it's not that people in Canada receive these services. They may qualify if they are poor for home health ...if their province or territory covers these services and to what level is different from province to province..

 

[jaeger19]

Thats what I meant when I said what I did. My mom has type 2 pre-diabetes. Through preventative care and monitoring it hasn’t turned into full blown type 2.

I have hypertension. Through preventative care and regular monitoring I have not ended up in an ER with stroke or heart attack.

Many Americans don’t seek care until these conditions are catastrophic.

Not sure why you keep comparing single payer to Medicaid which is for people who live below the poverty line, and at least in my state, gutted with benefits reduced at every opportunity.

True preventative care would be thar your mom wouldn't develop diabetes in tge first place.
2. True preventative care would mean you didn't develop hypertension. In True preventative medicine I could have recognized you were at risk for htn and referred you to physical therapy for a safe an effective exercise program..one that would be covered for a wellness gym.
You would get a dietary referral for a diet change. With periodic followups..to monitor you weight loss..cholesterol ..diet etc.

3.. most Americans have coverage in which they can seek treatment for htn.
In fact most for almost no cost.
4. Because in canada..their single payer federal insurance covers LESS than our medicaid..which you complain about.
It's in part how they get " so much savings with single payer".

 

[brianpatrick]

1. Not sure about that.
In America MEDICARE AND MEDICAID ARE ADMINISTERED BY PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
2. That's right..home health is the responsibility of the provinces in Canada for poor if its offered or its covered by private insurance.

But it's not covered by the federal government.

3. No..it's not that people in Canada receive these services. They may qualify if they are poor for home health ...if their province or territory covers these services and to what level is different from province to province..

My guess is you are healthcare provider who has a pretty cozy business that would be threatened by a single payer system. I understand the motivations that would be behind something like that. Back through the 90’s and up until the 2008 crisis I had some government contracts which were great.

 

[jaeger19]

Where did you get that from?

From being a medical provider and owning a large medical system.

If we truly believed in preventative medicine..
Medicare would cover dental...since simple dental care would prevent everything from pneumonia to cva to failure to thrive .

Insurances like medicaid and Medicare would provide physical therapy screenings for fall risk in elderly to identify high fall risk and start treating.
Medicare and Medicaid would cover dietician consults etc.

Cripes..it would be nice if medicaid would cover epidural injection. I can't tell you how many back surgeries could be prevented.

 

[jaeger19]

My guess is you are healthcare provider who has a pretty cozy business that would be threatened by a single payer system. I understand the motivations that would be behind something like that. Back through the 90’s and up until the 2008 crisis I had some government contracts which were great.

Oh yes. A single payer system would crush most medical businesses. You would see rural clinics and hospitals close en masses. Specialties would shrink substantially and wait times for procedures would explode.

Right now every year I face decreased reimbursement and increased costs.
If it continues on..I will likely have to close my doors and sell off the buildings since I am too big to sell off the business as medical business ( clinics..hospitals..surgery centers rehab etc) because it will give either one of my two competitors too much marketshare violating anti trust laws.

Single payer would crush most providers into closing.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I just saw a good job offer in Scotland that I'd take if I were a doctor and didn't have elderly relatives that I want to see more than once every five years.

Less pay, people quitting, less pay, people quitting...
When I first started out shooting video in the early Eighties my day rate was $450 for a ten hour day, and that included a basic rig and basic lighting kit.
By 1990 or so, it went to about $650 a day, up to $1150 a day if I brought a couple of production assistants to help out. But a PA back then generally only got about 150 a day.

Enter the age of pure digital acquisition and cheap HD video capable SLR cameras, solid state memory cards and capable laptops for editing and the field became so democratized that my rate had to be forced back down to about 350-400 a day, and even then twenty year old kids were getting away with charging 250 a day because they still lived with Mom.
Some Moms were even buying their kids RED Digital Cinema cameras, so now they thought they were automatically directors of photography.



Have you looked at what Spotify pays per stream?
There will never be another Beatles, Tom Petty, Rolling Stones....kids today think all you have to do is open the Spotify faucet and the music is free.
Yeah sure, a piddling monthly charge for the service but if your band gets a million streams on Spotify you get paid one tenth what Ray Charles got per record when
Ahmet Ertegun first signed him to Atlantic in 1952...he was paying Ray five cents a record....in 1952 dollars.
Spotify pays bands $0.003 cents per stream.

Making anecdotal arguments against single payer is the same as saying that the current system is fine and nothing could ever be any better.
Sorry, not buying it.

PS: Have the medical industry lobbies ever considered pressuring for better Medicare contracts instead of trying to crush single payer outright?
If so, better feed them some vitamins because it looks like they're doing a crappy job of it.
And I say this in a day and age where the State of Tennessee just passed an anti chemtrails law.
What I mean is, your lobby is spending money in the wrong places.

"Speed is just a question of money. How fast do you want to go?"
(Carroll Shelby)

 

[Helix]

Less pay, people quitting, less pay, people quitting...
When I first started out shooting video in the early Eighties my day rate was $450 for a ten hour day, and that included a basic rig and basic lighting kit.
By 1990 or so, it went to about $650 a day, up to $1150 a day if I brought a couple of production assistants to help out. But a PA back then generally only got about 150 a day.

Enter the age of pure digital acquisition and cheap HD video capable SLR cameras, solid state memory cards and capable laptops for editing and the field became so democratized that my rate had to be forced back down to about 350-400 a day, and even then twenty year old kids were getting away with charging 250 a day because they still lived with Mom.
Some Moms were even buying their kids RED Digital Cinema cameras, so now they thought they were automatically directors of photography.

View attachment 67503832

Have you looked at what Spotify pays per stream?
There will never be another Beatles, Tom Petty, Rolling Stones....kids today think all you have to do is open the Spotify faucet and the music is free.
Yeah sure, a piddling monthly charge for the service but if your band gets a million streams on Spotify you get paid one tenth what Ray Charles got per record when
Ahmet Ertegun first signed him to Atlantic in 1952...he was paying Ray five cents a record....in 1952 dollars.
Spotify pays bands $0.003 cents per stream.

Making anecdotal arguments against single payer is the same as saying that the current system is fine and nothing could ever be any better.
Sorry, not buying it.

PS: Have the medical industry lobbies ever considered pressuring for better Medicare contracts instead of trying to crush single payer outright?
If so, better feed them some vitamins because it looks like they're doing a crappy job of it.
And I say this in a day and age where the State of Tennessee just passed an anti chemtrails law.
What I mean is, your lobby is spending money in the wrong places.

"Speed is just a question of money. How fast do you want to go?"
(Carroll Shelby)

I think that there will always be artists. I take your point, though.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I think that there will always be artists. I take your point, though.

My solution was to concentrate more on my other skill set, film editing, instead.
And yes, there were also tons of youngsters who were willing to edit for next to nothing but the difference was, I would end up getting paid pretty well to fix their mistakes, or to redo half, most or even ALL of the job they screwed up!
Plus, I wasn't editing on some teensy laptop...I've stayed with "the big iron" all along and it makes a big difference because just as "there's no replacement for displacement" in drag racing, there's no replacement for bone crushing CPU/GPU power when it is time to render.