- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 57,896
- Reaction score
- 15,880
- Location
- Near the Gulf of America
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Odd how your MPs and sometimes Prime Ministers come here for major operations.
Odd how your MPs and sometimes Prime Ministers come here for major operations.Thankfully, nobody in Canada , regardless of age or financial status ever has to defer, or worse yet not get, life saving diagnostics. It's one of the reasons our life expectancy is better than the US.
Weren’t you Obamacarefail, and demonstrated you didn’t understand the ACA at all?We do have a mixed system. We have Medicaid for those who absolutely cannot afford health insurance, we have Medicare for Seniors, and we have VA Healthcare for Veterans. We do need healthcare reform, just not something as insanely stupid as universal healthcare.
TDS quite obviously clouds your judgement on the subject. Universal healthcare in the US would be an absolute disaster. We are 36 trillion in national debt now. Medicare for all would add 60 trillion to that debt withing ten years, and that is a conservative estimate. We are paying billions just in interest on the debt now. And without the profit motive, the number of doctors, specialists, hospital beds and high-tech diagnostic equipment would drastically shrink. Cue the rationing of healthcare and waiting lists.I am of the mindset that if you want something bad enough, you find a way to make it happen.
The US has faced numerous challenges over the centuries. Maybe we just had people more willing to tackle a challenge compared to the feckless MAGAs who exist now
Here are some claims I believe to be true:
1) U.S. healthcare is insanely expensive.
2) Americans, as a group, are not healthy.
3) Most insurance plans are terrible - high deductibles, surprise bills, and claim denials are the norm.
Now imagine flipping a switch: healthcare is suddenly “free.” No co-pays, no deductibles - just walk in. First come, first served.
What happens next?
Everyone shows up.
People who’ve been putting off checkups, procedures, and diagnostics flood the system overnight. Not just the sick, but everyone. Because when something expensive becomes free, demand doesn’t just rise - it explodes.
Hospitals would be swamped. Doctors would be way overbooked.
The next step is waiting lists.
The NHS has 6 million patients on waiting lists.
In Canada, the average wait time from initial visit to treatment is over six months.
Our system would be 5x times larger than the NHS. Socialist institutions work worse the bigger they get.
Btw, can you guess what increased demand does to the price of a service like healthcare? It sends it up, up, up. That means the crazy taxes they imposed to pay for medicare for all aren't going to be nearly enough.
Medicare for All would bankrupt the country.
It doesn't take a genius to know that a country of 300+M people have more specialists of certain types than a country on 30 M. When a doctor sends a patient to the states for specialized care not available here universal healthcare pays. BTW did you know Rand Paul came to Canada several years ago for surgery he couldn't get in the States?Odd how your MPs and sometimes Prime Ministers come here for major operations.
So universal healthcare cannot provide specialized care? Got it. Thanks for supporting my point. Specialists are rather limited in a universal healthcare system.It doesn't take a genius to know that a country of 300+M people have more specialists of certain types than a country on 30 M. When a doctor sends a patient to the states for specialized care not available here universal healthcare pays. BTW did you know Rand Paul came to Canada several years ago for surgery he couldn't get in the States?
We have that now for the most part. It's called Medicaid for the less fortunate and Medicare for the retired. If republicans are successful in eliminating Medicaid, we'll have 40+ million people in a really bad way.I generally agree with you, but I have one question.
Wouldn't it be better to have a mixed system? Not something like "medicare for all" because some people clearly can afford for healthcare, but keeping a government system involved for the few which are unfortunate enough to not be able to afford it, or some other alternative to it entirely?
(Food for thought)
What a ridiculous post. The fact you even have to have it explained to you is telling. This has zero to do with universal healhcare it has to do with patient bases. Having highly specialized but rare procedures and specialists to service a handful of patients a year makes zero sense. What makes sense is that those types of specialists are centered in large hospitals in large countries.So universal healthcare cannot provide specialized care? Got it. Thanks for supporting my point. Specialists are rather limited in a universal healthcare system.
Seems like a reasonable level of service an American shouldn't have to wait until 65 to enjoy.No, I never deferred anything necessary but I did hold off on seeing the bone specialist, as an example. My primary doc had suggested a course of action regarding bone health that I felt might be a bit too aggressive. I lived somewhere where there was a world renowned bone specialist. Once Medicare kicked in, I opted to go see him. I delayed that visit for a couple years while I waited for Medicare to kick in.
I have other concerns/questions and I went to see other specialists. Some of them ordered specific tests to hopefully eliminate some causes. They did show those causes weren't the culprit of a symptom - so call that "you didn't need" if you want. The specialist thought those tests were worthwhile to use in a process of elimination.
Wait til you hear about all the Americans from other states who come to Boston to get specialty care.So universal healthcare cannot provide specialized care? Got it. Thanks for supporting my point. Specialists are rather limited in a universal healthcare system.
Now imagine flipping a switch: healthcare is suddenly “free.” No co-pays, no deductibles - just walk in. First come, first served.
Medicare is not "free".
Yes, but this is about medicare for all, a proposed system, not the existing one. I was going by Bernie's version, since it is the most popular, and his program is completely free for everyone (outside of the crushing taxes which would also exist to pay for it).
I notice you use the word "crushing" as an adjective, a method of soliciting an emotional negative response.
However consider, that under Universal Health Care, yep taxes would go up. However the need for employers to to provide health insurance, the associated costs of maintain the benefits system (such as enrollment, paydeductions, premium payments to the insurance company - not talking about claims for services), collecting the EEs portion, paying the ERs portion.
So with the elimination of private insurance policies (providing base heath care) would the savings associated with moving from a for profit insurance system to a Universal System mean that the taxes would be "crushing".
Yes taxes go up, but paying for private insurance is eliminated.
The question becomes how does that balance.
Yeah, unless you address the root problem of why healthcare is so expensive in the United States, people can point to all the other countries in the world they want, it isn't going to make a difference here. Some say the reason healthcare is so expensive in the US is government involvement. But as you say, it's really a number of factors.The root problem is medical care and services inside the United States is extremely expensive. There's pleny of blame to pass around: picky consumer, insurance companies, medical providers, lawsuits, excessive regulations, etc. If medical care was cheap like in other countries then you don't even need universal healthcare. Everyone just pays out of pocket.
Yet even much smaller countries with plans like Canada, don't manage to come anywhere close for the citizens who've reached the age where healthcare needs ramp up like they do for the older crew. You certainly don't want to be in need of an MRI, a disk/back surgery, or a joint replacement in Canada. You'll eventually get it, but it might take MANY months and one heck of a lot of pain and mobility limitations while waiting.Seems like a reasonable level of service an American shouldn't have to wait until 65 to enjoy.
You waited 65 years!You'll eventually get it, but it might take MANY months and one heck of a lot of pain and mobility limitations while waiting.
Medicare sets the prices they pay, right?No, it's possible. It's just not going to be what you think/hope/wish it will be.
I laid out the argument in simple terms, feel free to attack it.
Or you can be comfortable and bankrupt here in the states.Yet even much smaller countries with plans like Canada, don't manage to come anywhere close for the citizens who've reached the age where healthcare needs ramp up like they do for the older crew. You certainly don't want to be in need of an MRI, a disk/back surgery, or a joint replacement in Canada. You'll eventually get it, but it might take MANY months and one heck of a lot of pain and mobility limitations while waiting.
Spending drops when people age into Medicare.You are ignoring the demand change when you switch from private insurance/expensive healthcare to public insurance/free healthcare.
Medicare sets the prices they pay, right?
Weird how the only people here who tell us how bad Canadian health care is are….not Canadian.Yet even much smaller countries with plans like Canada, don't manage to come anywhere close for the citizens who've reached the age where healthcare needs ramp up like they do for the older crew. You certainly don't want to be in need of an MRI, a disk/back surgery, or a joint replacement in Canada. You'll eventually get it, but it might take MANY months and one heck of a lot of pain and mobility limitations while waiting.
Most seniors don't need hip or joint replacements but that aside . A small inconvenience in terms of some wait times for some procedures is OK with me, and most Canadians, given ALL our citizens of any age or income can access life saving diagnostics and medical care.Yet even much smaller countries with plans like Canada, don't manage to come anywhere close for the citizens who've reached the age where healthcare needs ramp up like they do for the older crew. You certainly don't want to be in need of an MRI, a disk/back surgery, or a joint replacement in Canada. You'll eventually get it, but it might take MANY months and one heck of a lot of pain and mobility limitations while waiting.
They definitely do.This is one problem I have with national health care as a function of reimbursement.
They set national reimbursement rates, but don't take into account regional differences in cost of living.
WW
Section 1886(d)(3)(E) of the Social Security Act requires that, as part of the methodology for determining prospective payments to hospitals, the Secretary must adjust the standardized amounts “for area differences in hospital wage levels by a factor (established by the Secretary) reflecting the relative hospital wage level in the geographic area of the hospital compared to the national average hospital wage level.” This adjustment factor is the wage index. We currently define hospital geographic areas (labor market areas) based on the definitions of Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) established by the Office of Management and Budget and announced in December 2003. The wage index also reflects the geographic reclassification of hospitals to another labor market area in accordance with sections 1886(d)(8)(B) and 1886(d)(10) of the Act.
They definitely do.
Wage Index | CMS
A summary of what a wage index is for the Acute Inpatient PPS, and how to access the files.www.cms.gov
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?