USA's 1 million-doctor shortage upon us...

[jaeger19]

Aren't there laws against masquerading as a doctor?

Hmmm... only if you practice outside your practice act...

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Hmmm... only if you practice outside your practice act...

So you are acting, yer playing a doctor online, like a soap opera doc on teh teevee?

 

[jaeger19]

So you are acting, yer playing a doctor online, like a soap opera doc on teh teevee?

Nope. :lamo

That's funny. :lamo

 

[Helix]

Well. I know folks that have. I have treated Canadians that have crossed the border to get faster treatment and better treatment in the States. Years ago.. it was fairly common.

it's also generally covered by their single payer system.

Debunking Canadian health care myths - The Denver Post

Yes.. the US does better.. significantly better with many types of cancer. The rest is not mostly a wash when you consider our demographics. the typical US patient has more comorbidities than the overage European or Asian in a developed country. The reality is that we do better with those patients as well. (except for preventative. In that? We suck. However, the irony in that is that the insurances that are the worst for preventative care? Medicaid, VA and Medicare is in there (medicare is better than some private insurance about midway).

Now.. on to the "but they wouldn't change their system for ours"...

here's a good breakdown of the stats :

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...t_sys_comparison_12_nations_intl_brief_v2.pdf

and no, they wouldn't trade us systems.

Well.. like I said.. that's true for a variety of reasons.

Many of them would not trade many of the systems that they value for American ones... for example the UK would probably not trade their system of gun restriction and regulation for ours.

Should we then say.. gee,,, lets go to the UK system?

it's an interesting discussion, but i personally prefer the Canadian system. what i think we should do is to look at all of the first world health care systems, pick the best parts of each, and replace ours with a custom fit solution.

The point being that other countries value things differently than the US.. and you may find that going to their system.. particularly healthcare.. might not be as great as you think it will be... despite the fact that THEY like their system.

i'd take my chances with that. not having employer specific health care would be a massive perk, as would not having to decide if i'm sick enough to warrant going to the hospital and incurring a massive bill.

 

[Helix]

Cool.

Yes its a deterrent. but here is another point. That cost of education is reflected in what the doctor charges. The cost of medical care reflects the cost of education since that's how its recouped.

Now think about that for a minute. Now in other countries.. its touted about how "cheaper" their healthcare is. Well.. one of the reason it APPEARS cheaper is that the cost of education is NOT reflected in the cost of healthcare... its reflected in the cost of education since they educate their physicians.

So the cost to the public is not really cheaper.. its just reflected in a different column.

There are many costs that are shifted in socialized countries that shift the costs out of healthcare into other categories.. like retirement, or malpractice. And that's what accounts for some of the "difference" in cost between say France or Canada and the US. In part its simply a cost shift..and not really a savings.

i know that those who have good insurance already and are afraid of losing it like that talking point, but read the articles that i posted.

 

[jaeger19]

it's also generally covered by their single payer system.

Debunking Canadian health care myths - The Denver Post



here's a good breakdown of the stats :

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...t_sys_comparison_12_nations_intl_brief_v2.pdf

and no, they wouldn't trade us systems.



it's an interesting discussion, but i personally prefer the Canadian system. what i think we should do is to look at all of the first world health care systems, pick the best parts of each, and replace ours with a custom fit solution.



i'd take my chances with that. not having employer specific health care would be a massive perk, as would not having to decide if i'm sick enough to warrant going to the hospital and incurring a massive bill.

1. Yes it often was. They simply want to choose their surgeon rather than have them chosen for them and they wanted care in a timely manner. Which was not available to them in Canada.

2. Out of curiosity since you prefer the Canadian system.. how long have you been in the Canadian system and what medical problems have you had take care of there. then contrast that to the US system,.

3. I don't disagree with pick and choose. The problem is that you and many others are convinced that single payer is the best. which to be honest.. we actually want to stay away from.

4. Again.. it would depend on whether you care if you get to choose your physician. the timeliness of care and if you were afforded the medical care you felt you needed.

Having seen first hand both system.. I greatly prefer the American system. Not to say that changes don;t need to be made. But the changes need to make the system BETTER for most people.. not worse.. which would happen if we adopted a Canadian system

 

[jaeger19]

i know that those who have good insurance already and are afraid of losing it like that talking point, but read the articles that i posted.

I did. Why would you want worse than what we have now?

 

[Helix]

1. Yes it often was. They simply want to choose their surgeon rather than have them chosen for them and they wanted care in a timely manner. Which was not available to them in Canada.

if you're not even going to read or consider the articles and charts that i post, then what is the point of this discussion? just keep your original incorrect opinion. i'm actually fine with that. personally, i support just fixing the problem while ignoring those who scream hysterically against fixing the problem. eventually, the new system will be widely accepted as the norm.

2. Out of curiosity since you prefer the Canadian system.. how long have you been in the Canadian system and what medical problems have you had take care of there. then contrast that to the US system,.

i actually used to be a libertarian who spouted the "best health care setup ever" nonsense. then i researched it, and, unfortunately, had to use the US system for something mildly serious at a time when i was between jobs trying to COBRA. that did a lot to make me reconsider my original position.

3. I don't disagree with pick and choose. The problem is that you and many others are convinced that single payer is the best. which to be honest.. we actually want to stay away from.

i disagree, and so does the evidence.

4. Again.. it would depend on whether you care if you get to choose your physician. the timeliness of care and if you were afforded the medical care you felt you needed.

Having seen first hand both system.. I greatly prefer the American system. Not to say that changes don;t need to be made. But the changes need to make the system BETTER for most people.. not worse.. which would happen if we adopted a Canadian system

i'm glad that you have good employer provided insurance. it's not the norm anymore, and your kids and grandkids will most likely have a different experience. it's well past time to fix the inefficiencies and distribution disparities like much of the rest of the first world does. i understand and accept that you and i will never agree on this topic no matter how many articles and charts that i post which support my argument, and that's fine. let's just agree to disagree. you can hold fast to your default opinion regardless of the evidence against it, and i can have a nice evening. sounds good to me.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Nope. :lamo

That's funny. :lamo

I think its funny that you keep implying that yer a doctor.

 

[jaeger19]

if you're not even going to read or consider the articles and charts that i post, then what is the point of this discussion? just keep your original incorrect opinion. i'm actually fine with that. personally, i support just fixing the problem while ignoring those who scream hysterically against fixing the problem. eventually, the new system will be widely accepted as the norm.



.

Helix.. I read all of your charts and your opinion pieces. I have pointed out the issues with those and with the realities of healthcare in these countries and here. The one who is not willing to listen is not me.. its you.

I am not really fine about that. You are convinced that a system you apparently have NEVER USED.. its superior to the US system. You have no idea how the government system actually work in this country HERE.. but assume that its just going to be better.

i actually used to be a libertarian who spouted the "best health care setup ever" nonsense. then i researched it, and, unfortunately, had to use the US system for something mildly serious at a time when i was between jobs trying to COBRA. that did a lot to make me reconsider my original position.

So? Has nothing to do with what I asked. I asked how long you had been using the Canadian system and what medical problems you used it with. I then wanted you to compare that experience with the US.

disagree, and so does the evidence.

Actually when you understand the evidence and know all the evidence.. the evidence supports ME.. not you.

Just for example the "savings" that you expect to get with single payer. You obviously didn't factor in that countries like Canada pay for the education of their physicians and thus that cost is not factored in the cost of their healthcare. Yet its still a cost to the Canadian tax payer.

i'm glad that you have good employer provided insurance. it's not the norm anymore, and your kids and grandkids will most likely have a different experience. it's well past time to fix the inefficiencies and distribution disparities like much of the rest of the first world does. i understand and accept that you and i will never agree on this topic no matter how many articles and charts that i post which support my argument, and that's fine. let's just agree to disagree. you can hold fast to your default opinion regardless of the evidence against it, and i can have a nice evening. sounds good to me.

Actually good employer provided insurance is the norm now for those of working age and their children. Yes there are things to fix in our healthcare, but adopting a Canadian or French or UK system and thinking that it will be better than what we have now (unless you have no insurance now), is a pipedream. I understand that you will not accept that no matter how much I try to explain to you the evidence that you think supports your position when it actually supports mine.

that's unfortunate... because the reality is that we will likely end up with a system for my children and grandchildren that is vastly inferior to what they would have now.. and what you have had. The most likely scenario is that we will end up with a system where the coverage is like Medicaid.. which is the worst insurance to have.

 

[jaeger19]

I think its funny that you keep implying that yer a doctor.

I just think your funny. You are a good comic relief after a hard day treating patients.

so thanks for that.

 

[Casper]

That's an inaccurate characterization of the document they link to, which clearly says there will be more physicians in 2025:



The problem isn't that doctors are disappearing or being "lost," it's that our population is aging. So the expected increase in doctors isn't enough to keep up with the needs of an aging population in AAMC's estimation.

Plus people seem to forget that doctors are also people and are also aging and retiring.

 

[Helix]

Helix.. I read all of your charts and your opinion pieces. I have pointed out the issues with those and with the realities of healthcare in these countries and here. The one who is not willing to listen is not me.. its you.

I am not really fine about that. You are convinced that a system you apparently have NEVER USED.. its superior to the US system. You have no idea how the government system actually work in this country HERE.. but assume that its just going to be better.

the data supports my argument; not to mention that there is no chance that the average Canadian would trade systems with us.

So? Has nothing to do with what I asked. I asked how long you had been using the Canadian system and what medical problems you used it with. I then wanted you to compare that experience with the US.

that's like saying that a person who has never been a soldier or general can't comment about war. i can look at the evidence / data and make an interpretation of it. i'm sure that you do that on countless subjects, as we all do. the basic fact of the matter is that our system is expensive and inefficient in a way that other first world health care systems aren't.

Actually when you understand the evidence and know all the evidence.. the evidence supports ME.. not you.

no, it really doesn't.

Just for example the "savings" that you expect to get with single payer. You obviously didn't factor in that countries like Canada pay for the education of their physicians and thus that cost is not factored in the cost of their healthcare. Yet its still a cost to the Canadian tax payer.

we should eliminate the crushing debt wall that stands in the way of becoming a doctor, also. but if you had read the articles that i posted, the higher tax rates are explained, as well. when you consider what we pay in cost of care and premiums, it's probably close to a wash. it's like the tea partiers in my state who eliminate the wheel tax without taking into account that the ****ed up roads will necessitate car repairs that will FAR exceed the 25 bucks.

Actually good employer provided insurance is the norm now for those of working age and their children. Yes there are things to fix in our healthcare, but adopting a Canadian or French or UK system and thinking that it will be better than what we have now (unless you have no insurance now), is a pipedream. I understand that you will not accept that no matter how much I try to explain to you the evidence that you think supports your position when it actually supports mine.

this is just so incorrect that it's hopeless.

that's unfortunate... because the reality is that we will likely end up with a system for my children and grandchildren that is vastly inferior to what they would have now.. and what you have had. The most likely scenario is that we will end up with a system where the coverage is like Medicaid.. which is the worst insurance to have.

it will probably be an incremental progression to medicare for all. it will take decades. at the very least, i hope that medicare isn't destroyed or completely privatized before i can enroll.

 

[jaeger19]

the data supports my argument; not to mention that there is no chance that the average Canadian would trade systems with us.



that's like saying that a person who has never been a soldier or general can't comment about war. i can look at the evidence / data and make an interpretation of it. i'm sure that you do that on countless subjects, as we all do. the basic fact of the matter is that our system is expensive and inefficient in a way that other first world health care systems aren't.



no, it really doesn't.

View attachment 67199907

View attachment 67199908



we should eliminate the crushing debt wall that stands in the way of becoming a doctor, also. but if you had read the articles that i posted, the higher tax rates are explained, as well. when you consider what we pay in cost of care and premiums, it's probably close to a wash. it's like the tea partiers in my state who eliminate the wheel tax without taking into account that the ****ed up roads will necessitate car repairs that will FAR exceed the 25 bucks.



this is just so incorrect that it's hopeless.



it will probably be an incremental progression to medicare for all. it will take decades. at the very least, i hope that medicare isn't destroyed or completely privatized before i can enroll.

Okay.. lets start first with who is listening and the evidence.

Helix.. take a look at the graphs you posted. I understand that you see the US and think that supports your premise. It doesn't. You have made the assumption that the reason the US has higher costs is because of "our system" and that single payer like other countries will be cheaper.

Here is where the evidence does not support you.

1. Other countries costs appear lower in part not because of their system.. but because their costs are shifted to other areas of their government. For example physician education. YOU pointed out the costs of education of physicians. Well that cost gets absorbed into the cost of healthcare. Other countries have that cost.. but its in their education. So they are still paying it.. its just doesn't get calculated into cost of healthcare. Same with malpractice. Americans work longer to retirement.. and that costs adds to our healthcare costs. Other countries retire earlier which reduces their healthcare costs but increases their retirement costs.
America also has other factors that increase our costs. Increase costs from demographics like stress, increase obesity, increased sedentary lifestyles etc. Its also due to economics. We simply pay more, we have higher costs than many other countries.

2. Now.. I get it.. you are going to say but but but.... because you never want to think of the facts that I presented above. IT HAS to be our system right? So NOW..Helix.. I want you to look at the second chart you posted. You know.. the one that shows life expectancy and cost. Yep.. and you see the US has the higher cost and average life expectancy. NOW I want you to look AT THE REST OF THE CHART. When you look at the rest of the chart.. you will see that Germany and other countries have several times higher healthcare costs than other countries that have the same or HIGHER life expectancies.
Why the difference Helix? YOU assume that the difference with the US is our system versus their single payer. Yet countries that HAVE THE SAME SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM.. still vary widely among themselves when it comes to costs. The proves my point. Its not our system that accounts for the differences as much as its other factors that I have outlined above.

So yes Helix.. the evidence supports my premise much more than it supports yours.

As far as taxes and insurance: I read the article. What it points out is that our taxes are similar.. yes.. THATS WITHOUT HEALTHCARE. Which means that taxes will have to go up to pay for healthcare in a government single payer.

You say its going to be a wash. Based on what exactly? Based on thirty years of previous fiscal responsibility of the US government? Seriously.. you just pointed out the stupidity of your local government that eliminated the wheel tax not realizing the consequences.... but now you tell me its all going to be great when we turn our healthcare over to the same people?
Please explain your rationale.

Going toward medicare for all will destroy medicare. Medicare is an awesome program, but it only works because people pay into it their whole working life and only take out in the end of their lives. The minute that you have people taking out of medicare before they have paid in.. it ends. Medicare is already on the ropes because of our demographics. Its sustainable because of the fact that you pay into it for your life and take out later. A transition to medicare for all means that it ends.

Those are the realities Helix.

 

[Helix]

Okay.. lets start first with who is listening and the evidence.

Helix.. take a look at the graphs you posted. I understand that you see the US and think that supports your premise. It doesn't. You have made the assumption that the reason the US has higher costs is because of "our system" and that single payer like other countries will be cheaper.

Here is where the evidence does not support you.

1. Other countries costs appear lower in part not because of their system.. but because their costs are shifted to other areas of their government. For example physician education. YOU pointed out the costs of education of physicians. Well that cost gets absorbed into the cost of healthcare. Other countries have that cost.. but its in their education. So they are still paying it.. its just doesn't get calculated into cost of healthcare. Same with malpractice. Americans work longer to retirement.. and that costs adds to our healthcare costs. Other countries retire earlier which reduces their healthcare costs but increases their retirement costs.
America also has other factors that increase our costs. Increase costs from demographics like stress, increase obesity, increased sedentary lifestyles etc. Its also due to economics. We simply pay more, we have higher costs than many other countries.

2. Now.. I get it.. you are going to say but but but.... because you never want to think of the facts that I presented above. IT HAS to be our system right? So NOW..Helix.. I want you to look at the second chart you posted. You know.. the one that shows life expectancy and cost. Yep.. and you see the US has the higher cost and average life expectancy. NOW I want you to look AT THE REST OF THE CHART. When you look at the rest of the chart.. you will see that Germany and other countries have several times higher healthcare costs than other countries that have the same or HIGHER life expectancies.
Why the difference Helix? YOU assume that the difference with the US is our system versus their single payer. Yet countries that HAVE THE SAME SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM.. still vary widely among themselves when it comes to costs. The proves my point. Its not our system that accounts for the differences as much as its other factors that I have outlined above.

So yes Helix.. the evidence supports my premise much more than it supports yours.

As far as taxes and insurance: I read the article. What it points out is that our taxes are similar.. yes.. THATS WITHOUT HEALTHCARE. Which means that taxes will have to go up to pay for healthcare in a government single payer.

You say its going to be a wash. Based on what exactly? Based on thirty years of previous fiscal responsibility of the US government? Seriously.. you just pointed out the stupidity of your local government that eliminated the wheel tax not realizing the consequences.... but now you tell me its all going to be great when we turn our healthcare over to the same people?
Please explain your rationale.

Going toward medicare for all will destroy medicare. Medicare is an awesome program, but it only works because people pay into it their whole working life and only take out in the end of their lives. The minute that you have people taking out of medicare before they have paid in.. it ends. Medicare is already on the ropes because of our demographics. Its sustainable because of the fact that you pay into it for your life and take out later. A transition to medicare for all means that it ends.

Those are the realities Helix.

the reality is that the US healthcare system ranks continually behind other first world countries. this is because ours is haphazardly put together, your experience is largely based on where you work, we have the most poorly designed universal health care guarantee in the first world, and the system can be crushingly expensive (once again, depending on where you work.)

another reality is that no matter how many times we do this, we'll never agree. there will always be people with good coverage who will never accept any change to the healthcare system until they lose their jobs and get flushed to more typical insurance like the rest of us have. some might change their minds when they see their kids going broke and asking them for money to pay for what most first world citizens don't even have to think about. i hope it doesn't happen to you, and i mean that. however, this 50 thread debate is pretty much hopeless. i post articles and charts, you dismiss them outright (and probably don't even read most of them, to be honest.) believe whatever you like about the US distribution model of healthcare being the pinnacle of what humanity can achieve regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[jaeger19]

the reality is that the US healthcare system ranks continually behind other first world countries. this is because ours is haphazardly put together, your experience is largely based on where you work, we have the most poorly designed universal health care guarantee in the first world, and the system can be crushingly expensive (once again, depending on where you work.)

another reality is that no matter how many times we do this, we'll never agree. there will always be people with good coverage who will never accept any change to the healthcare system until they lose their jobs and get flushed to more typical insurance like the rest of us have. some might change their minds when they see their kids going broke and asking them for money to pay for what most first world citizens don't even have to think about. i hope it doesn't happen to you, and i mean that. however, this 50 thread debate is pretty much hopeless. i post articles and charts, you dismiss them outright (and probably don't even read most of them, to be honest.) believe whatever you like about the US distribution model of healthcare being the pinnacle of what humanity can achieve regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Number one. Lets dismiss with the emotional strawman that you created. NO WHERE, have I stated that the US model of healthcare is the "pinnacle of what humanity can achieve"..

THAT is a pure strawman of your making and you are better than that. Its proof that you aren't being objective despite the evidence. I have REPEATEDLY pointed out where the united states has issues with healthcare

1. We suck at preventative care. That I have posted MANY MANY MANY times. I have also pointed out that the insurances that suck the most at preventative healthcare in the US are Medicaid and the VA. Two government programs
2. Employer provided healthcare is the pits. It costs more, is less efficient, decreases competition, and lacks portability. Employers should help employees pay for their own plans.. not provide a one size fits none plan for them.
3. The system of private insurance that allows virtual monopolies to develop is very costly and prohibits competition
4. The number of uninsured raises huge costs for the rest of the country that has insurance.

those are four EASY examples of criticisms of the US system So its UTTER BS for you to create that strawman. Shame on you.

2. The next emotional strawman?

post articles and charts, you dismiss them outright (and probably don't even read most of them, to be honest.

HOLY CRAP HELIX. I rarely say this but that is an OUTRIGHT BALD FACED LIE. That's outright crazy. I read your posts, I read your charts.. many times I have read such things BEFORE YOU POSTED THEM. Heck.. the last post I just pointed out that there were wide differences in the costs for countries with similar systems.

But you are right. The reality is that no matter how many times we have this discussion we'll never agree. You are convinced, despite the evidence, that a single payer system will be better. You have no idea what issues there can be with single payer, you have no idea the different forms of single payer their are, nor where the costs of healthcare really come from.

Healthcare reform will happen. It is already happening. Of course the direction it will take will depend on how knowledgeable the citizens are. If they are like you. They will buy into whatever program promises them "single payer". Regardless if it ends up being worse for their kids than what we have now. We could easily end up with a system where your kids have the government system that sucks like Medicaid..and can only go to crappy government facilities where they wait in line for care. While the wealthy have a private system.. with private hospitals that they access.

I know. I know... that can't happen because of course our government is really responsive to the needs of the poor and middle class and will make sure of an equitable single payer system. Its going to be butterflies and unicorns. :roll:

 

[KevinKohler]

Doctors are in short supply because it takes a lot of work to become one, you're never really going to get rich being one, unless you're a specialist who's specialty is really in demand. You stand to make FAR more money by working for a pharmacutical company.


Our healthcare is expensive because we have a law that basically penalizes ALL americans who don't, for not buying into our privatized insurance scheme we have going on in this country.


Any other questions?

 

[Helix]

Number one. Lets dismiss with the emotional strawman that you created. NO WHERE, have I stated that the US model of healthcare is the "pinnacle of what humanity can achieve"..

well, bully for that. perhaps we should consider changing the system to something that works better. and yeah, it works better in other countries.

THAT is a pure strawman of your making and you are better than that. Its proof that you aren't being objective despite the evidence. I have REPEATEDLY pointed out where the united states has issues with healthcare

1. We suck at preventative care. That I have posted MANY MANY MANY times. I have also pointed out that the insurances that suck the most at preventative healthcare in the US are Medicaid and the VA. Two government programs
2. Employer provided healthcare is the pits. It costs more, is less efficient, decreases competition, and lacks portability. Employers should help employees pay for their own plans.. not provide a one size fits none plan for them.
3. The system of private insurance that allows virtual monopolies to develop is very costly and prohibits competition
4. The number of uninsured raises huge costs for the rest of the country that has insurance.

i agree with much of that. i would argue that cost and coverage disparity is a huge part of the reason that our preventative care sucks. when you're looking at a potentially high out of pocket cost, you go to the doctor only when it's situation critical. and by then, it's beyond affordable to treat, so you and i pay for that in the form of higher premiums and cost of treatment.

those are four EASY examples of criticisms of the US system So its UTTER BS for you to create that strawman. Shame on you.

meh, calm down. the righteous rage thing does nothing to distract from the other fifty threads in which we've already been over ALL of this stuff, yet you arrive to each new thread like an innocent babe in the woods, victim to the conspiracy of pretty much every study that has ever been done concerning the health care systems of first world nations.

2. The next emotional strawman?

HOLY CRAP HELIX. I rarely say this but that is an OUTRIGHT BALD FACED LIE. That's outright crazy. I read your posts, I read your charts.. many times I have read such things BEFORE YOU POSTED THEM. Heck.. the last post I just pointed out that there were wide differences in the costs for countries with similar systems.

you didn't read for comprehension, then. these countries don't have nightmare health care systems that the studies of health care systems are conspiring to cover up. we're actually paying way too much for the same thing or worse, and with a much more poorly designed distribution system.

But you are right. The reality is that no matter how many times we have this discussion we'll never agree. You are convinced, despite the evidence, that a single payer system will be better. You have no idea what issues there can be with single payer, you have no idea the different forms of single payer their are, nor where the costs of healthcare really come from.

false.

Healthcare reform will happen. It is already happening. Of course the direction it will take will depend on how knowledgeable the citizens are. If they are like you. They will buy into whatever program promises them "single payer". Regardless if it ends up being worse for their kids than what we have now. We could easily end up with a system where your kids have the government system that sucks like Medicaid..and can only go to crappy government facilities where they wait in line for care. While the wealthy have a private system.. with private hospitals that they access.

I know. I know... that can't happen because of course our government is really responsive to the needs of the poor and middle class and will make sure of an equitable single payer system. Its going to be butterflies and unicorns. :roll:

and you accuse me of strawman arguments. well, pot, let me pour you a cup.

 

[jaeger19]

well, bully for that. perhaps we should consider changing the system to something that works better. and yeah, it works better in other countries

Yes we should consider changing the system but your assumption "that it works better in other countries".. is false as the evidence shows. Its better in some things, like preventative medicine.. but in many instances.. like effectiveness and timeliness of care ITS NOT.

i agree with much of that. i would argue that cost and coverage disparity is a huge part of the reason that our preventative care sucks. when you're looking at a potentially high out of pocket cost, you go to the doctor only when it's situation critical. and by then, it's beyond affordable to treat, so you and i pay for that in the form of higher premiums and cost of treatment

I would agree. Heck its one of the stupidities of these insurance companies requiring copays. Cripes.... how stupid... you make up all the money you saved from a copay the minute that you catch one person with a preventable issues.. like back pain, or diabetes or high blood pressure.

but HERE is the thing you don't want to listen to Helix. You know who is often the WORST at preventative healthcare? Medicaid, the VA and a little further around the bend.. Medicare.

Studies show.. I have a patient that comes in with back pain? If its within 16 days of injury, pain goes down no lower than the knee.. there is a 95% confidence level that if they are treated in therapy within 16 days of injury.. they will be symptom free.
But what happens with Medicaid in many of the states I have business in? They see therapy but they have to be preauthorized before treatment begins.. usually a minimum of 21 days.

Heck.. VA.. you are lucky if they even get to see the doctor in a month.. let alone therapy.

Even Medicare. You aren't feeling well and you go see the doctor and what does it cost you? Well Part B pays 80%.. so now you have a copay. So instead of going to the doctor and paying 20% of the bill.. you end up waiting until you can't stand anymore and end up in the ER to the tune of thousands for your heart attack. Which could have been prevented.

those are three of the government systems... but you INSIST.. that magically.. when the government is now in control of my healthcare.. and yours.. why they will get it right....

meh, calm down. the righteous rage thing does nothing to distract from the other fifty threads in which we've already been over ALL of this stuff, yet you arrive to each new thread like an innocent babe in the woods, victim to the conspiracy of pretty much every study that has ever been done concerning the health care systems of first world nations.

Meh.. you calm down. I have a right to be angry for you comments. They don't distract from the fifty other threads in which I have already read your premise and seen your evidence. There is NO CONSPIRACY.. here. I have simply pointed out the problems with the conclusion that you have drawn based on the portions of the evidence that you are willing to look at. You are the oe that picks and chooses what you thinks makes your case and ignores the evidence which does not support your premise.

y.

 

[jaeger19]

you didn't read for comprehension, then. these countries don't have nightmare health care systems that the studies of health care systems are conspiring to cover up. we're actually paying way too much for the same thing or worse, and with a much more poorly designed distribution system.

More strawman of your making. I DEFY YOU.. to find anywhere I have posted that these countries have "nightmare healthcare systems".. that are "conspiring to cover up".

YOU don't want to deal with facts... we pay more for a variety of reasons that HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SYSTEM WE HAVE... in fact.. even your own evidence shows that countries with identical systems of healthcare have WIDE variations of costs.. as much as double or triple the costs.
Second is that you miss that we actually do BETTER on many indicators of healthcare.. from cancer survival.. to effectiveness of healthcare.. and we do that with all sorts of worse demographics.
those are the realities that your own evidence shows.. but you choose to ignore.

false.

Totally true. You demonstrate it with every thread.

Tell me.. and be truthful.. have you EVER thought about HOW healthcare costs are calculated between the US and say Canada? Did you ever.. before I pointed it out.. or even since then.. considered that the difference in costs is due in part to costs being shifted? Like medical education, malpractice, etc?

and you accuse me of strawman arguments. well, pot, let me pour you a cup.

Hardly a strawman.. in fact... its a very valid argument.

Number one... the government has not shown itself to be very responsive to the needs of the poor and middle class. Our do you argue that it has been?

Number two... government programs like Medicaid.. and the VA.. have mostly the WORST insurances you can have.

So its not far fetched at all and is in fact very valid that the system we could end up with is a system in which the poor and middle class have insurance WORSE than what they have now.. and worse healthcare.. while the wealthy have a separate private system that is vastly superior.

that's no strawman.. that's a very real potential reality

 

[Helix]

Yes we should consider changing the system but your assumption "that it works better in other countries".. is false as the evidence shows. Its better in some things, like preventative medicine.. but in many instances.. like effectiveness and timeliness of care ITS NOT.



I would agree. Heck its one of the stupidities of these insurance companies requiring copays. Cripes.... how stupid... you make up all the money you saved from a copay the minute that you catch one person with a preventable issues.. like back pain, or diabetes or high blood pressure.

but HERE is the thing you don't want to listen to Helix. You know who is often the WORST at preventative healthcare? Medicaid, the VA and a little further around the bend.. Medicare.

Studies show.. I have a patient that comes in with back pain? If its within 16 days of injury, pain goes down no lower than the knee.. there is a 95% confidence level that if they are treated in therapy within 16 days of injury.. they will be symptom free.
But what happens with Medicaid in many of the states I have business in? They see therapy but they have to be preauthorized before treatment begins.. usually a minimum of 21 days.

Heck.. VA.. you are lucky if they even get to see the doctor in a month.. let alone therapy.

Even Medicare. You aren't feeling well and you go see the doctor and what does it cost you? Well Part B pays 80%.. so now you have a copay. So instead of going to the doctor and paying 20% of the bill.. you end up waiting until you can't stand anymore and end up in the ER to the tune of thousands for your heart attack. Which could have been prevented.

those are three of the government systems... but you INSIST.. that magically.. when the government is now in control of my healthcare.. and yours.. why they will get it right....



Meh.. you calm down. I have a right to be angry for you comments. They don't distract from the fifty other threads in which I have already read your premise and seen your evidence. There is NO CONSPIRACY.. here. I have simply pointed out the problems with the conclusion that you have drawn based on the portions of the evidence that you are willing to look at. You are the oe that picks and chooses what you thinks makes your case and ignores the evidence which does not support your premise.

y.

meanwhile, i'm still waiting for even a few posters from Canada or from other first world nations to chime in and tell us how gung ho they are to trade us healthcare systems. if so, then story time can begin. if not, we've been over the data in dozens of threads, and the data doesn't support your opinion. if it did, we'd have Canadian posters here chomping at the bit to tell us how much they want to swap out their system for the American setup. we don't, because the vast majority of them wouldn't support it. if their system was the horror that the American right pretends that it is, they certainly would.

 

[jaeger19]

meanwhile, i'm still waiting for even a few posters from Canada or from other first world nations to chime in and tell us how gung ho they are to trade us healthcare systems. if so, then story time can begin. if not, we've been over the data in dozens of threads, and the data doesn't support your opinion. if it did, we'd have Canadian posters here chomping at the bit to tell us how much they want to swap out their system for the American setup. we don't, because the vast majority of them wouldn't support it. if their system was the horror that the American right pretends that it is, they certainly would.

Whatever. You go ahead and continue your strawman... "If their system was the horror the American right pretends it is"..,..

I defy you to find ANY post where I stated that their system was a horror.

Our system has distinct advantages to the Canadian system. We have more choice, less waiting times, etc.

Its simple.. all you have to do is go check your OWN EVIDENCE. Take a look at your own chart.

On quality of care.. the US scores 5... Canada ? 9. That's right. Not better than the US.. but 9.

Effective care? the US scores 3.. Canada 7.

TIMELINESS of care? Canada doesn't even make the top 10. It scores an 11. the US scores a 5.

AND WE DO THAT DESPITE NOT HAVING EVERYONE INSURED.

So no the evidence. YOUR OWN EVIDENCE.. does not support you premise.

Its supports my position.

 

[Helix]

Whatever. You go ahead and continue your strawman... "If their system was the horror the American right pretends it is"..,..

I defy you to find ANY post where I stated that their system was a horror.

Our system has distinct advantages to the Canadian system. We have more choice, less waiting times, etc.

Its simple.. all you have to do is go check your OWN EVIDENCE. Take a look at your own chart.

On quality of care.. the US scores 5... Canada ? 9. That's right. Not better than the US.. but 9.

Effective care? the US scores 3.. Canada 7.

TIMELINESS of care? Canada doesn't even make the top 10. It scores an 11. the US scores a 5.

AND WE DO THAT DESPITE NOT HAVING EVERYONE INSURED.

So no the evidence. YOUR OWN EVIDENCE.. does not support you premise.

Its supports my position.

so, produce a few Canadian posters who want to swap systems. i can't wait to tell them some details about what they're signing up for.

meanwhile,

What's Wrong With Healthcare In The US - Business Insider

 

[dimensionallava]

TIMELINESS of care? Canada doesn't even make the top 10. It scores an 11. the US scores a 5.

AND WE DO THAT DESPITE NOT HAVING EVERYONE INSURED.

So no the evidence. YOUR OWN EVIDENCE.. does not support you premise.

Its supports my position.

"timeliness of care" is just a bit of republican propaganda, canadians choose to make wait times longer for elective procedures to save money

Myth #4: Canada has long wait times because it has a single-payer system.

The wait times that Canada might experience are not caused by its being a single-payer system.

Wait times aren’t like cancer. We know what causes wait times; we know how to fix them. Spend more money.

Our single-payer system, which is called Medicare (see above), manages not to have the “wait times” issue that Canada’s does. There must, therefore, be some other reason for the wait times. There is, of course.
In 1966, Canada implemented a single-payer health care system, which is also known as Medicare. Since then, as a country, Canadians have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, mostly for elective things, which can create wait times. Their outcomes are otherwise comparable to ours.

Please understand, the wait times could be overcome. Canadians could spend more. They don’t want to. We can choose to dislike wait times in principle, but they are a byproduct of Canada’s choice to be fiscally conservative.

Yes, they chose this. In a rational world, those who are concerned about health care costs and what they mean to the economy might respect that course of action. But instead, they attack the system.

5 Myths About Canadian Health Care - AARP

to be fair though, ive always been confused as too why canadas system is being compared to Americas, when france is #1 in the world followed closely by italy, however Canada's system is rated #30 in the world, and america is #31

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000

 

[jaeger19]

so, produce a few Canadian posters who want to swap systems. i can't wait to tell them some details about what they're signing up for.

meanwhile,

What's Wrong With Healthcare In The US - Business Insider

Nice diversion.

Produce anywhere where I have stated or even intimated that Canadian healthcare is a horror.

and your OWN evidence.. points out.

Quality of care: America scores a 5. Canada a 9
Effective Care: US scores 3 Canada 7
Timeliness of Care: US scores a 5 Canada an 11.

That's your evidence. Now justify the claim that Canada is better than us on quality of care.. effective care or timeliness of care.

go.