OMG I hate you guys. Around here when you have to make an appointment with a specialist, it might be a week away or four fucking months. When I was calling around to find a dermatologist in August, the first one said October. Then one in September, the end. The third, DECEMBER. Finally I got one that had me in within two weeks. It wasn’t an urgent condition, but that’s how it is with every specialist.
I want that chart!
I want a chart, and I also want prices. Good luck getting any prices for medical procedures around here. They have NO CLUE what things cost.
The other nice thing about having wait lists published for the public in detail like this is that it puts the factual information at the public’s fingertips. In the past, there was way too much anecdotal (or total crap, bs, made-up) information floating around about waiting lists.
<you> How much will this procedure cost me?
<them> Well, I don’t rightly know. How much you got?
We have a semi-privatised system over here. I have chosen to take out health insurance because there are things that I would like more cover for than is offered under the medicare system - for example, optical and dental, and should I need surgery I can not only choose from any of the public system doctors, I could also go to any private doctor of my choosing.
Once again - there’s no “in network” or “out of network” providers. All health insurance is accepted by all doctors. So if I chose to use my private health instead of the public system, I could still go to whichever doctor I chose.
Additionally, I’ve never personally - nor ever known anyone else around here who has - had an insurance claim rejected. In fact a lot of healthcare providers over here are now using a system called HiCAPS: Health insurance Coverage At Point of Sale. You have a card from your insurer with a magnetic strip just like a bank card, you swipe it through the machine and it works just like a debit card. It automatically works out what coverage you have, what percentage of the procedure in question is covered by your benefits and spits out a receipt stating how much of the balance (gap), if any, you have to pay. You don’t have to fill out a claim with the insurer, you don’t have to lodge and appeal and re-appeal decisions. It’s just assumed that if you’re paying your health insurance and you’ve passed any mandatory waiting periods that you’re entitled to that coverage you pay for.
My last set of glasses, frex - Optometrist appointment was covered by medicare, bulk-billed. I’m entitled to one for free every two years. Then they said I did need glasses. So I picked a pair of frames, sorted out my lenses, swiped my card in the HiCAPS machine and it said I owed zilch, because the glasses I chose came in under the yearly limit for my benefits.
The one time I did have to submit a claim was about five or six years ago when I had my wisdom teeth out. All four were impacted and infected. I had two initial appointments with a standard dentist, and one set of radial x-rays. Total cost out of pocket to me, about $60. I was referred to a private oral maxillofacial surgeon who could see me within about three weeks. I had to schedule it for approximately six weeks to allow for time off work. Unfortunately he didn’t have HiCAPS and required payment up front which ran to about $2000 including the surgery and the anaesthetic. However I submitted my claim to the insurance company a couple of days later and within 2 weeks the money I was entitled to (85% with my level of coverage at the time) was in my bank account. That’s a pretty typical story, and our insurance companies are running at a pretty healthy profit for the most part in this country.
What’s my point? My point here is that while our system may not be perfect either, there are ways and means of having insurance companies involved in your healthcare without it being such an adversarial system. I can go and seek whatever treatment I like, secure in the knowledge that as long as it’s through an accredited medical provider (for example some “alternate” therapies such as massage aren’t covered by some levels of insurance. Some are, if you pay a premium, more power to them), then I can submit my claim to the insurance company and it will be paid, because I’ve paid for that coverage and I’m entitled to that coverage.
I cited my opinion earlier regarding the problems with Canadian health care.
This times two. I’m always mystified by this type of thread. Like, totally baffled. Obviously all of the nay sayers have never made a bad choice in their lives. Must be nice.
I don’t know if you have a reading comprehension problem but nobody is advocating we don’t make changes to the US system. And it’s not a Canada or nothing scenario. But I can give you 14 trillion reasons why the United States Government isn’t capable of funding a health care system. Private insurance offers more options to the majority of Americans and the goal should be to lift the minority up to that level and not drag everybody down.
Even I came down on the OP, but I do think he’s facing the consequences of his actions. As evidenced by all the pain and suffering he had to endure. It’s not like his experience didn’t teach him any lessons.
But do you think his bad decisions should be followed-up with the death penalty? Really? That’s essentially what you’re saying here. That if anyone does anything that causes harm to themselves–intentionally or not–that they “should” own up to that responsibility, no matter what. And if they can’t pay, then too bad. Shoulda thought about that before walking down the stairs with too many groceries or crossing the street without looking both ways twice.
[quote]
As I have said before, Americans want three things from their health care.
[list=One][li]They want the best care available[/li][li]They want it to be available to everyone[/li][li]They want it at a reasonable cost.[/list]They may have, at most, any two of those three. [/li][/quote]
And this law of allocation comes from…what? Do you think other countries don’t have good health care? If so, I’d like a cite. And I’d like a cite that the US has the best care available. I really would, because if we do, then someone has some 'spaining to do for why I’ve encountered some real doozies and really long waiting times. If that’s the best available, then we’re really in bad shape.
There’s something wrong with a system where a three-hour long emergency room visit costs $8000. Ridiculous doesn’t even describe what that is. That’s not reasonable and health care is not even available to everyone. So even if I grant you that we do have the best care already, anyone who has two brain cells realizes that those other conditions you’ve laid out aren’t being met now. So if UHC allows us to meet just one more (universal availability), then we’d be seeing an improvement. You’re going to have to bring more than your funky logic to convince me that UHC will bring negative trade-offs in quality or cost .
I don’t know how many times this must be said, BUT THIS IS THE CURRENT SYSTEM. Fear Itself has a testimony about this. Unless you think he’s a liar and you don’t know anyone who has ever been turned down by their insurer for treatment, then you are being mighty disingenuous. Unfortunately, I don’t think this type of rationing would disappear under UHC. But the upside is that I think it wouldn’t be as severe, since the people running the program wouldn’t be beholden to stock-owners but to tax-payers. And voters.
So that means you’re alright with death panels? Isn’t that what the conservatives weep about…the mean old libruls coming to tell Gramma she has to die? How surprising to see you bucking your usual pattern of falling in lock-step with the conservatives. But I really hope you aren’t one of the administrators who gets to decide who gets treated and who doesn’t. Because you’d spend your time trying to trace back every medical problem to an individual’s personality responsibility.
“Sorry, we aren’t going to cover your broken leg. You were running on ice, like a dumbass. I don’t care if you thought you were going to miss the bus and you didn’t see the ice. You should be facing the consequences of your actions, and if we pay for your broken leg, you won’t learn.”
“Sorry, we aren’t going to treat your depression. Your marriage fell apart because of your behavior and lack of commitment to your spouse. You need to suffer because you brought this on yourself.”
“Sorry, we aren’t going to treat you for Lyme’s Disease. You went hiking in shorts? What the hell were you thinking? You need to deal with the disease as a reminder of how stupid and irresponsible you are.”
You haven’t said a single thing in this thread or anywhere else on this board to make me think you wouldn’t make these types of judgments.
Haven’t gotten to the end of the thread yet, but this stuck out as wrong:
There is no reason to believe he would have acted differently with UHC. People in Canada do all kinds of stupid things that cost the health care system huge amounts of money. Even with free health I get the sense the OP would have rationalized a way to pawn off his responsibility on to others.
As a possible example: Going to the doctor in Canada can take longer. What would be a 20min visit in the US turns into a morning waiting to see the GP for a walk-in visit, or delaying treatment three weeks to make an appointment. The OP might have decided he couldn’t take time off from work, and just not gone.
In addition, Rx are not free in Canada, even though they are considerably cheaper. The OP still might have looked at the cost of the anti-biotics, and opted for another bottle of booze instead. Or even with the Rx he might have taken half, felt better, and decided to save the other half for the next time.
Lastely, dental care isn’t free in Canada either, so he still would have let a tooth problem turn into a liver problem.
What the OP did was set up the perfect example of why is sucks paying for someone else’s health care, especially when that person doesn’t give a shit about their health until it’s too late.
UHC is still a million times better than the shit the US has, and this thread continues to make it easier for Tea Partiers to fight against it. Thanks, maybe next time don’t help.
A couple years ago I was without insurance for 8 months. I wasn’t told to wait a morning. I wasn’t told to wait three weeks. I was flat refused service ENTIRELY! By more than one doctor. Just told don’t come in. At all. Period. No, we won’t see you because you don’t have insurance. INFINITE waiting time.
I eventually found a doctor to see me. 45 miles away in another state.
Those other doctors didn’t care that I was willing and able to pay up front for at least the initial visit. I didn’t have insurance they didn’t want to see me. Period.
Yeah, I’ll take a three week wait over that any day.
Word.
That was awesome.
Nothing amusing me more than watching the rationalization within these threads: *Alcohol, tobacco, unprotected sex, hours of mindless tv, shitty food, burning hundred dollar bills. They all help the poor cope with how shitty life is, and they deserve it, because they’re human, and deserve to be happy. *
Trouble is, your opinion does not correspond with the facts, or with the experience of people who actually live in Canada.
So “citing your opinion” is not really worth much, is it?
A three week wait is enough time to cause a small problem to become a large problem. It’s also long enough that people continue to put it off. It’s also long enough for people to die waiting for treatment (who might have died anyways).
This is the point Americans fail to understand when it comes to UHC, and what Canadians simply could never comprehend. It’s not until a Canadian lives in the US for a few years does the nature of it all sink it.
In Canada, I would avoid the doctor or ER because of the wait. In the US I avoid the doctor or the ER because of the cost. The result is the same.
The lesson from the OP is that it’s very unlikley UHC would have helped him, or cost tax payers less. Lots of people in Canada put off treatment, even if it’s free.
To really drive home the point, when my mother (living in Canada) was going through chemo she had heart palpitations one night. She had a special piece of paper that granted her front of the line access, and even then she put off going in because it didn’t seem serious enough. Finally she eventually went in, got seen right away, had a battery of tests, saw some specialists, and it turn out to be nothing. Cost tax payers thousands, delayed treatment for people that really needed it.
This OP started with tooth pain, which in Canada is NOT COVERED, you probably didn’t know that. So even in Canada that guy would have put off the tooth pain until it spread and cost tax payers tens of thousands.
Here is some reading you need to complete before “helping” to find for UHC
Study Raises Questions About Cost Savings From Preventive Care
Preventative care is the right decision, it is a good thing, there is no question about it. But it’s not a cost savings. UHC is still the rich system, but not because preventative care will save money. Get your facts straight.
You may be correct in the case of a single individual, but when we’re talking about an entire country, most people DO visit their doctor, and most people DO take advantage of preventative health care (checkups, etc) that is available to them. Of course there will always be those who don’t - but because most do, the health of the population will be better.
No, not free, but they are often cheaper for low income folks, for example using the Fair Pharmacare plan in British Columbia.
Just trying to post actual cites to things like waiting times and pharmacy plans. Sorry if you’d rather I rant and rave about anecdotal waiting patients.
Then you obviously aren’t paying attention. This issue pops up frequently, and is usually wrapped in a tangential issue.
“Should smokers get tax funded treatment?”
“Should people that play risky sports get tax funded treatment?”
“Should drunk drivers get tax funded treatment?”
Canadians are constantly pissed at how people misuse the system. More importantly Canadians have few if any other options besides the government offered one. So people misusing it takes treatment away from those that need it.
This guy would have taken up MRI time in a hospital with only one, while other people get prioritized around him. He would have seen one of the few specialists that were heavily in demand, while other people get prioritized around him. If he had done this in Canada I’d be less pissed about him wasting tax payer money, and more pissed at him wasting a precious resource.
This may be YOUR experience, and how YOU handle your own health. And it may be true for a sample of other people. I can tell you though that this is not generally true for the population as a whole in Canada. Just because you foolishly put off seeing a doctor because you did not want to wait in the waiting room does not mean that every single person in the country shares your foolishness.
[quote=“Shodan, post:123, topic:597645”]
As I have said before, Americans want three things from their health care.
[list=One][li]They want the best care available[/li][li]They want it to be available to everyone[/li][li]They want it at a reasonable cost.[/list]They may have, at most, any two of those three. [/li][/QUOTE]
So do you have a cite where 1 of these 3 is true today?
Yes, in general for the population. But doesn’t change the fact that if this guy had lived in Canada he still might have done all the same things with the same result. Because as you admit, some people DO avoid check ups, and DO avoid preventative care. Canada also has a shortage of GPs so not everyone has one to go see.
That’s right, not free. So the rationalization used in this thread would still apply. The OP might still have decided he’d rather spend the money on immediate gratification instead of long term health. And as I said, he still might have failed to take the whole dose, and he still might have used left overs. UHC wouldn’t have fixed this guy’s problems.
What cites would you like? This whole thread is nothing but ranting about personal anecdotes. I’d love it people stopped doing it, good luck changing that.