Several posters pointed out the errors in this post, the fact that standards are set by groups like the Guidelines and Protocols Advisory Committee , which is composed of members of the provincial ministry of health doctors from the professional association. And the fact that doctors in the US are not exactly free to set whatever standards they feel like either.
crickets then chirped.
eta: Oh, and the poorhouse bit was channeling curlcoat. Sorry about that.
Hey, when I taught English writing skills some years ago, my students called me Conan the Grammarian.
Tell you what, Muffin–you stick to skiing, and I’ll stick to golf. I haven’t been skiing in years, and it might not turn out well if I was to try again nowadays. But at least there would not be any out-of-pocket costs if I did it wrong.
Just watching the morning CTV News (the Canada AM show), and there was an interesting item. (Link here.) Seems the US Senate Committee on Aging was examining how successful health-care systems keep their costs low while maintaining quality care. Among those testifying before the committee was Dr. Carolyn Bennett, a Canadian physician and one-time minister of state for public health.
Apparently, she was told that Canada is parasitic, by Republican Senator Bob Corker (Tennessee). It makes sure its people can buy drugs cheaply–drugs that were the result of American innovation. “You benefit from us and we pay for that and I resent that,” said Sen. Corker. From the above link:
Not sure what this means in the grand scheme of the debate, but I found it interesting, and thought my fellow parasites might find it that way also.
Y’know, I’ve been wondering about that, albeit in a devil’s advocate sort of way. Would universal health care in the United States put a damper on those innovations, or is that an entirely separate industry? Can we get some hard data from someone who knows about that sort of thing?
The good senator should come up with the profit margins for big pharma in the USA, the ratio of dollars big pharma spends between promotion in the USA and research in the USA, and the ratio of dollars big pharma spends on research throughout the world and research in the USA.
The bottom line is that no one forces big pharma to sell to Canada, and no one forces the USA to let big pharma run loose when it comes to gouging ailing consumers. If the senator wants to solve the problem of execssively high drug prices in the USA, he should get off his ass and do something about it, rather than cry about other countries who have done something about it.
I know Spoons said this a ways up the thread, but I think it bears repeating.
I grew up in Canada but now live in the U.S. My parents, brother, and his young family still live up in Canada. This gives me plenty of opportunity to compare and contrast.
The most notable thing to me is that Americans (at least tighty righties) like to yammer on about freedom and wave it around like tiny flags on a parade route. Freedom to choose health coverage. Woo! Never mind the impossibility of the average little guy really being able to make a rational choice regarding health insurance coverage. WE GOT CHOICES! God bless America. :rolleyes:
Thing is, when it comes to getting affordable health coverage, Canada (and countries like it) is where the freedom really lies. Freedom to work for whom I want and change jobs when it benefits me – or even quit my job altogether and start a business! My partner and I would love to pursue the so-called American dream and venture out on our own. Have our own business, be our own bosses! Hey, maybe people could even work for us. (Job creation!) But we feel like the risk is not worth it. We have a kid, we have responsibilities. The health coverage thing is, frankly, the biggest limiting factor in our decision making.
Or how about the U.S. attitude toward holiday and sick leave vs. the Canadian one? I was listening on the radio about this girl who had a mild case of H1N1. No big deal… she was sick for about 6 days, but didn’t really have a bad time of it. Layed on the couch and watched TV. Then I’m thinking… 6 DAYS!!!.. that would wipe out almost half of my leave time for the year. Ridiculous. Oh, and wasn’t it fun to go back to work 6 weeks after having my baby? Compare this to my Canadian sister-in-law who had… well I don’t remember the exact length of time, but it sure as heck was a lot longer than 6 weeks.
It doesn’t feel free, I’ll tell ya, being here in the U.S. with the little freedom flags. I’m stuck with my job in a way that my relatives in Canada don’t have to deal with. Talk all you want about the rational consumer – well my rational choice under the circumstances is to stick where I am, stick with my employer, not venture out and try to expand my possibilities.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t hate America. I’m a U.S. citizen and I write letters to my representatives. I vote. I drive people to the voting booth. I’m working to make it better. But it’s so damn depressing to come up against this stupid “America is free” mind set when it’s just not so true. Not really.
Ah, hell. Maybe I’ll go out and buy a gun. I’m sure that having the freedom to own one will make me feel better… Or not.
More people receiving health care would mean more people purchasing medications. One would hope that the increase in big pharma income would lead to an increase in R&D. If it did not, then one would have to look at regulating the industry to insure that a reasonable proportion of income would be reserved for R&D as opposed to lobbying, advertising, divedends etc., and also to insure that R&D would not be disproportionately spent on “me too” drugs at the expense of “priority” drugs http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1572974,00.html
Good post, rivulus. You put into words something that I’ve been suspecting from reading these boards for nine years. I suspect (and I’ll have to work on this idea some more) that the much-ballyhooed freedom in the United States is the freedom of the powerful people to do as they please - it doesn’t have much to do with the general population (but they still think it does).
Anyone here want an update? Meh, whatever. I’m typing one out anyway.
So the trip to the ER was a necessary one, advised by our primary care physician after we couldn’t get ahold of the dentist and we went to a covered hospital.
This evening we arrived home to get in the mail one of those “THIS IS NOT A BILL” statements which really is a bill but we just don’t owe anything until they start sending the second piece of paperwork on nicer paper.
So my wife had a CAT scan which was read by a doctor.
Doctor’s bill came in at a (semi) reasonable $210. All of it was covered. Neat.
Three hours in an ER room, taking two Percocets, and being examined by a PA: $5,009.74. None of it covered.
None.
Now, one of three things is happening here:
Our insurance is the most horrific, asinine, useless piece of shit I’ve ever had the pleasure of paying bi-weekly into.
They made a “mistake” like they’re instructed to do because it’s easier to deny claims than to pay money out.
They made an actual mistake.
Regardless of which possibility it is, I have to spend probably all Monday morning wading through the insurance phone tree to get to a human who may actually know what the hell happened and why I’m being told that I could potentially owe $5,009 for what should have been a covered charge. Meanwhile, I get to spend all weekend worrying about the possibility, however slight, that I may actually owe $5,000 out of pocket for this.
It’s not fun.
And now, on a Macro level, I have to say two things. First, the ONLY reason we’re being charged at a rate of $1,700 an hour is because hospitals have to make up for number of people who currently don’t have insurance out there who also use hospital services and also the administrative costs of dealing with insurance companies.
Second, we went to a hospital because my wife was in excruciating pain. We seriously thought her infection had spread and it could have been a huge, life threatening deal. Thank goodness, it turned out to be nothing, she got some pills and was on her way.
But if we didn’t have insurance we would have been left in a very awful position. Should we leave her in agonizing pain for two (or more) days or could we afford $5,000 for what was really such a simple fix and should be available to everyone?
We can’t afford $5,000. I honestly don’t know what we would have decided but it would not have been a fun choice either way.
I can’t imagine how many other people in this country need to make a decision like that. “I can’t afford to have a doctor give me antibiotics so I’ll sit in pain until I either get carted off in an ambulance, or die, or both.” That is seriously what people are choosing every single day in this country and it is just about the most appalling thing I can think of.
Enderw24
I can’t speak to the insurance part, but your billing experience is pretty consistent with what would happen in my ER. I see people get charges like that everyday.
Nice example:rolleyes: You know you’ve just described an entitlerment that requires qualification. A better example would be application for a driver’s licence.
It kind of shows that your anti government ideology drives your argument
Universal health care such as I have in British Columbia only requires me to be a legal resident. As such, There is no concern about coverage when I see my doctor or go to the emergency. Lost my card? Don’t worry. The medical staff will apply for me to get a new one in the mail, but in the meantime they’ll look after me.
Behind in my premiums? I’ll get a letter suggesting I pay up on the arrears ($60 per month for an individual) or I’ll get a bill.
There are waits for elective surgeries, but it is the medical profession that determines urgency for life threatening conditions and need plays an important role in their decision to speed up a response to your condition. I’ve heard of very few cases where poeple have suffered waiting for their high end care. Nothing like what I’ve heard, the horror stories coming out of the States and even the personal stories of American dopers.
I wish my premiums were $60/month. They used to be $42/month, but the Conservatives wanted to buy my vote so they reduced it to $0/month and now they’re closing 350 beds and forcing the most experienced RN’s and other senior staff into early retirement. My vote was not up for grabs anyway, but failing to run the health care system properly is not the way to win my vote.
Can we trade? We’ll give you our conservatives in trade for yours, and a lifetime supply of Sham-Wows as a sweetener. How about Coors Beer? The entire yearly output of Coors Beer, all yours. And Chuck Norris. C’mon, Tooth, you’re busting our balls here…
While I am frankly clueless about what SA is talking about with regard to Social Security being administered by the states, I will back him up on one point – from knowledge of several people’s experience and my wife’s coincidental acquaintance with two people doing avocacy for the handicapped and disabled in two widely-separated cities, he is 100% correct that there is, or appears to be, a policy to deny all, or virtually all, disability claims, until or unless they are followed up by a lawyer or trained social worker with the specialized expertise to negotiate the morass of red tape involved in a successful appeal. (Out of curiosity, I’m wondering what curlcoat’s experience in qualifying for disability was like – did she have to negotiate such hurdles?)
While I personally believe it is incumbent on the body politic to provide help to those who are unable for good reason to be totally self-supporting, or to provide totally for those dependent on them, I can easily grasp why others might feel that it is an unjust intrusion of government to do so. But the one thing that I think people along the entire political spectrum would agree on, is that we should not have a bureaucracy paid by the taxpayers whose job it is to deny benefits, as a matter of settled policy, to those who might reasonably qualify for them by law, or to humiliate those seeking help (as was common DSS policy in a few places, to discourage requests for help).
