IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Advocate wrote:

Miller wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Even in the USA, an increasing number of corporations are coming to the realization that universal healthcare is in their best interests.

If you've been following MEDICAL BLOGS then you know that universal healthcare is NOT in the best interests of the American-educated physicians who would be involved in the administration of this "universal health care" should the plan ever be adopted in the US.

If more physicians refuse to treat patients who're enrolled in a universal health care program, and a physician shortage for this plan results, what will the patients enrolled in a universal health care program do?

Will they be treating themselves?

I'm sure that physicians will raise this spectre. However, it won't happen.

It's happening right now and it's only going to get worse. I personally wonder what individuals on Medicaid will do.

As far as Medicare is concerned, it could be saved by raising the premiums from $100/month to $700/month. But if this is done, many elders won't be able to even afford Medicare.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"...one of teir three homes." ROFL

Huh?????????

0 Replies

miller wrote :

Quote:

As far as Medicare is concerned, it could be saved by raising the premiums from $100/month to $700/month. But if this is done, many elders won't be able to even afford Medicare.

the biggest , strongest and richest country in the world does not have enough money to pay a measly $700 a month to cover those medicare patients that can't pay that ???
are you putting us on or is it supposed to be a joke ?
hbg

0 Replies

george wrote :

Quote:

You have again evaded the main points and gone off in a riff about your ever-happy doctor relationships -

we do indeed have a very good relationship with our physician and don't see any reason why we shouldn't .
he looks after us when we need him , he is friendly , he respects us and our wishes ... don't know what else we can ask for .
hbg

and added the gratuitous and misleading suggestion that those who switch doctors do so only as a result of their own behavioral disorders. That is simply a false implication.

"do so only as a result of their own behavioral disorders" , i don't know where you read that .
you are admiting yourself that you "shop for practioners" - your words , not mine .
is it that difficult for you to find a good physician that'll do your bidding ?
hbg

In addition you may merely be making a virtue of necessity, given the limits on the choices available to you.

we chose our first physician some 50 years ago and stayed with him until he retired about 10 years ago .
at that time we were given a list of several physicians that were accepting new patients . rather than going to one of the recommended ones , we asked our dental surgeon for advice . his brother was a former hospital physician who had decided to go into private practice . we made an appointment with him , we seemed to be compatible with each other and we have been with him ever since .
haven't had any occasion "to go shopping" .
hbg

I have lived in five different cities over the past twenty years and have had plenty of occasion to shop for practicioners. I make my choices based on many criteria, including some like convenience of location, and even the efficiency of their scheduling and communications processes. I have seen good and better -- I don't hesitate to drop good for better.

perhaps we've been fortunate to have had good physicians - both GP's and specialists . since we live in a smaller city with a superb university and medical school , we perhaps have a better selection of physicians and specialists at our hospitals than many big city hospitals .
also since we've been living here for some time , we have a good circle of friends . simply being somewhat on the "inside track" , no doubt helps in navigating the medical field .
living in a smaller city , we meet our physician and other physicians when we go shopping , when we go to the theatre , just being out in the garden or going for a walk ... ...
we even talk about such non-medical subjects as our families , vacations , good restaurants , plays to see ... ...
the more i think about it , i have to say that we have so far indeed been pretty lucky .
will try to keep it that way !
hbg

0 Replies

There are 1600 patients in Montreal (some with cancer) that are on a waiting list for surgery. Medical personnel are under criticism for renting facilities from the private sector in order to reduce these wait times.

There are nursing shortages in Canada. There's a shortage of doctors. Patients are sent to the US for care.

None of these stories are highlighted to denigrate Canada's healthcare system.

We can use some of this information when evaluating what type of system will work best for the US. Currently we have a non-system, so comparisons aren't helpful.

If Canadians are happy with their current system then it should continue for them. I think if the situations were reversed, the Canadians would be putting us under a microscope as well.

Don't take any of our criticisms personally. If we must have universal healthcare where everyone is covered then we should also try to make sure that everyone will receive care in a timely manner. We can best make those decisions by looking at all healthcare systems - what seems to work and what doesn't.

I'm sure those 1600 patients in Montreal are happy they'll get 'free' treatment. It's just a question of when.

0 Replies

in ontario the ministry of health has developed a "wait times strategy" .
major operations and the wait times at various hospitals are listed .

example :
for joint hip replacement , the current average wait is 207 days - the current target is 182 days , but there are several hospitals with shorter wait times .
so if one is willing to go to one of these hospitals , the wait-time can be reduced .
certainly NOT ideal , but at least patients now have a choice .

mrs h had to have double cataract surgery last year . the chief surgeon made the initial examination and recomended that one of his associates do the operation .
since the chief surgeon had some years ago performed eye surgery on her , she chose to wait for an open spot with him .
she could have had it done fairly quickly but since the chief surgeon operates only two half-days a week , she had to wait 8 months - but that was her choice and she didn't regret it .
hbg

Quote:

To better understand the data on this website, how it was calculated and its limitations, please read the Understanding Wait Times Section.

Shortest Waits by Hospital

Oct-Nov-Dec07
Hospital Name Wait time (days)
JOINT REPLACEMENT
Joint Hip Replacement
Provincial Target 182 days
Joint Hip Replacement

Provincial Wait Time 207

The Toronto East General Hospital (Toronto) 62
Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital (Strathroy) 65
Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital (Orillia) 67
Perth and Smiths Falls District Hospital (Smiths Falls) 78
St. Joseph's Health Care, London (London) 90
The Royal Victoria Hospital of Barrie Inc. (Barrie) 91
Guelph General Hospital (Guelph) 99
St. Michael's Hospital (Toronto) 104
University Health Network (Toronto) 117
Quinte Healthcare Corporation (Belleville) 123

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

in ontario the ministry of health has developed a "wait times strategy" .
major operations and the wait times at various hospitals are listed .

example :
for joint hip replacement , the current average wait is 207 days - the current target is 182 days , but there are several hospitals with shorter wait times .
so if one is willing to go to one of these hospitals , the wait-time can be reduced .
certainly NOT ideal , but at least patients now have a choice .

mrs h had to have double cataract surgery last year . the chief surgeon made the initial examination and recomended that one of his associates do the operation .
since the chief surgeon had some years ago performed eye surgery on her , she chose to wait for an open spot with him .
she could have had it done fairly quickly but since the chief surgeon operates only two half-days a week , she had to wait 8 months - but that was her choice and she didn't regret it .
hbg

Quote:
To better understand the data on this website, how it was calculated and its limitations, please read the Understanding Wait Times Section.

Shortest Waits by Hospital

Oct-Nov-Dec07
Hospital Name Wait time (days)
JOINT REPLACEMENT
Joint Hip Replacement
Provincial Target 182 days
Joint Hip Replacement

Provincial Wait Time 207

The Toronto East General Hospital (Toronto) 62
Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital (Strathroy) 65
Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital (Orillia) 67
Perth and Smiths Falls District Hospital (Smiths Falls) 78
St. Joseph's Health Care, London (London) 90
The Royal Victoria Hospital of Barrie Inc. (Barrie) 91
Guelph General Hospital (Guelph) 99
St. Michael's Hospital (Toronto) 104
University Health Network (Toronto) 117
Quinte Healthcare Corporation (Belleville) 123

I'm scheduled for a knee surgery at The University of California medical center, San Francisco with a top rated Ortho surgeon - I waited two weeks for the initial consult with the specialist, which occurrred a couple of days ago. The surgery will be on March 3rd.

A few years ago I had a rotator cuff repair (shoulder) in Baltimore at John's Hopkins - again it was about two weeks to get the MRI and see the ortho specialist, and about three more for the surgery.

Cataract surgery here usually takes place within 2 weeks of the initial screening.

There are no "targeted" wait times at hospitals here in that we have a relatively free market for the services - supply is an elastic function of demand. Scheduling times for major procedures, however are usually no more than a few weeks anywhere.

The difference of course reflects the effects of government rationing and management. In major part our higher costs reflect the greater capacity margin, the generally higher incomes of medical practicioners, and very likely a relatively greater use of elective procedures here.

0 Replies

Government funding and control of services always leads to rationing, limitations, and wait times. And they will only get worse as the system matures and funding gets tighter.

Economics 101.

0 Replies

george :
i certainly agree with your comments .

as for cataract surgery , it was my wife's choice . she wanted the chief surgeon and had to wait for him . he had assured her that his associates would be doing just as good a job , but ... ...
she is very happy with the outcome and has no regrets about having waited for him . the surgeon seemed to be quite happy too ; he was all smiles when i picked my wife up after the operation.
i was quite amazed at the speed of the operation : 20 minutes - 30 minutes rest and she was allowed to go home - under my supervision :wink:
hbg

0 Replies

Well, I'm glad to hear that.

Frankly I get a bit weary of all the often patronizing commentary from Americans and others as well (perhaps even more) concerning the supposed failures of our health care "system". There is a point of view out there that holds that, if one doesn't have an in place government directed or mandated program, there is no "system" at all. It also supposes that those with no insurance get no medical care. Both assumptions are patently false.

Moreover those who earnestly argue that medical is or should be a "right" for all, and who argue that if it is not provided by government then one has "lost" a "right" are engaging is some serious distortions of language and logic.

In the first place the average per capita cost of medical care (even here) is not much more than the annual cost of owning and operating an automobile - something that nearly everyone in the country manages to own.

In the second we do have a substantial public health care system that presently covers low income people and everyone over age 65. Add to that those under social security disability, veterans and military programs and you get almost half of the population. The remainder, which includes everyone under age 65, who has an income above the poverty line is mostly covered by insurance schemes of one kind or another, most funded partly by employers.

In addition everyone has the option of deducting any and all medical/dental expenses above 3% of his/her adjusted gross income from his taxable income. Employees everywhere have the option to establish tax free medical accounts for up to about $5000/year as a payroll deduction which is not subject to the income tax. These are substantial subsidies available to all working people and their families.

Finally we enjoy the benefits - and the inequities - of a (relatively) free market health care system. These are not insignificant - they range from greater investment and innovation for new or better services; a degree of competition which in my experience does indeed make medical service providers a bit more attentive to the wants and needs of their customers; and greater availability of providers and facilities. For this we pay a higher cost - however that is but a small fraction of the difference between our GDP/capita and the average for Canada and Europe. We also have a good deal more inequity in the availability of quality services (though the average quality is likely better). However we all have inequities in many things - housing, food, entertainment, etc. This is the basic incentive we all use to encourage production and beneficial activity on the part of all. Bad as it may be it is better than force and uniform poverty.

People can have a variety of preferences in the spectrum of possibilities here. However I don't think it is a moral issue or one that merits all the prejudgements that have flown so freely on this thread and in the media. Finally I am a bit suspicious about the somewhat odd earnestness of those from countries that have signed on to the grey mediocrity of uniform government programs to encourage us to do the same - I get the impression that they can't rest until we too take a bite of the poisoned apple that they have eaten. My experience in life is that good deals speak for themselves: bad deals usually have some government guy or poor victim peddling them.

I'll probably be accused of a horrible level of political incorrectitude for this, but it is what I truly believe.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Even in the USA, an increasing number of corporations are coming to the realization that universal healthcare is in their best interests.

If you've been following MEDICAL BLOGS then you know that universal healthcare is NOT in the best interests of the American-educated physicians who would be involved in the administration of this "universal health care" should the plan ever be adopted in the US.

If more physicians refuse to treat patients who're enrolled in a universal health care program, and a physician shortage for this plan results, what will the patients enrolled in a universal health care program do?

Will they be treating themselves?

I pointed this out and asked this question (a few times) quite some time ago... Except it was apparently dismissed - and I think a few people even challenged the idea that private practices and hospitals exist.

0 Replies

"Universal Healthcare"

It's a buzzword (o.k., technically it's two buzzwords), nothing more. Why don't we just fix the system we have first, so that I don't have to fight a whole goddammed bureaucracy just to get a little physical therapy on my goddammed achilles' tendon problems? I just got a prescription from my doctor to have twelve sessions of physical therapy. My healthcare provider, after I've already gone to a couple sessions, sent me a letter the other day saying I am only approved for 1 of the 12 sessions. And they send me another letter on the same day saying that I only get 5 of the 12 sessions.

First of all, why the f*ck are they sending me two conflicting letters on this? Second, who the f*ck are they to tell me how much therapy will fix my f*cking achilles tendonitis? Third of all, if the same place is sending me two conflicting letters regarding my situation, it sounds like a case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing. Now, if they can't even get their **** together enough to be able to send me one letter that makes sense, why the hell should I trust these f*cking bean-counting assh*les with my f*cking health?

Healthcare in this country sucks. If we ever get universal coverage, we'll have everyone covered with this same shitty system. Ooh, what a sweet deal! F*cking bastards. I hope everyone responsible for this gets rectal polyps.

0 Replies

kicky :
i think george might be willing to explain the workings of the healthcare system to you :wink:
hbg

0 Replies

As the saying goes, all health care systems are not perfect.. When insura ce companies must pay their CEOs millions and show a profit, they're going to do everything they can to cut costs. We all know what happens to people like kicky.

0 Replies

Universal consumerism is ok. Yes Ok.
Universwal torture is highly appreciated.
Universal corporatism is fine.
Why the hell more universal things.
Are the Americans are hen-pecked calcutta beggars to rely on State's help?

No.
Roads and highways shoud be paved with the blood and sweat of American Tax- payers.
Then leave the uncontrolled compassionate christian oriented congenial tax evaders to sip the blood of the working people around the globe.

0 Replies

Just wondering...how is the great and powerful "Universal Healthcare" going to fix this kind of thing? Will there be no more cancelled policies? How do you think that will that work?

Health Insurer's Letter Seeks to Get Coverage Canceled
California Doctors' Group 'Outraged' at Information Request

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Citing an effort to hold down costs, health insurance giant Blue Cross wants doctors in California to report conditions it could use to cancel new patients' medical coverage, it was reported Tuesday.

The state's largest for-profit health insurer is sending physicians copies of health insurance applications filled out by new patients, along with a letter advising them that the company has a right to drop members who fail to disclose "material medical history," the Los Angeles Times reported on its Web site.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4277758&page=1

0 Replies

withholding MATERIAL information from any insurer will usually result in cancellation of the policy or a denial of a future claim - no matter what kind of insurance one applies for .

so if you are applying for ANY insurance where you have to fill out an application , you better answer ALL questions thruthfully - or your policy will likely not be worth the paper it's written on !
hbg

case in point :
NON-DICLOSURE INVALIDATES INSURANCE POLICY

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Just wondering...how is the great and powerful "Universal Healthcare" going to fix this kind of thing? Will there be no more cancelled policies? How do you think that will that work?

That would depend entirely on which "Universial" plan came into effect, wouldn't it? I don't think any of the plans currently being pushed by any of the Presidetial candidates would stop that sort of thing.

0 Replies

I imagine that there would be no application in a U plan.

With regard to life insurance, and perhaps other types of insurance, one's status becomes incontestable after two years (except for misstating one's age). I'm not sure whether this rule would apply to a private health policy.

0 Replies

The advantage of a U plan is simply that there will not be any exclusions for preexisting medical problems. The doctor decides: not some clerk sitting in an office of the insurance company.

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know