Incorrect. If an American with private insurance (Aetna, Cigna, Kaiser, etc.) presents at a Canadian physician’s office with a medical problem, the Canadian physician will treat the problem and either bill back to the American insurer (less common), or ask for payment from the American patient at point-of-sale (more common; and Visa and MasterCard are accepted). Insurance forms are downloadable; the American patient will be provided with the correct forms to be submitted to his or her insurer, and the patient should eventually be repaid. Assuming the treatment is covered under the policy, of course.
Canadian physicians are privately employed; which means that if they wish to accept only patients with private insurance, they can do so. However, most don’t, as Canadian patients don’t have private insurance, and foreigners with private insurance are not as common as Canadians with provincial plans. Still, if a Canadian physician is willing to accept private insurance from a foreigner, there is nothing stopping him or her from doing so.
I used to work for the Ontario Ministry of Health, and I’m citing my experience here.
Put up a poll asking only if they’d move to take a pay increase, keeping all other indicators the same? Why, yes, that makes sense. Despite me telling you explicitly that it wasn’t about the money.
How about you put up a poll and ask people how much job satisfaction matters to them. Ask them if they’d prefer to work at WalMart or Microsoft when the wage is the same.
:dubious: There is no mention of the 1990s in your cite.
Perhaps you are right:
So, the United States should subsidize the pharmaceutical pricing in the rest of the world? We currently pay roughly an average of 400% more for our drugs than any other European or North American country. Why on earth would or should we continue this?
Talking about wait times for certain surgeries is misleading. It’s focusing on a single point about a system instead of looking at the system in whole. When was the last time the US had 86% approval of anything our government does?
Now, Terr, what would you suggest we do to both bring down costs for everyone in the US while at the same time providing care for the people who currently lack it (in the 15-45 million range, depending who’s numbers you like)?
American’s desire to be exceptional is bankrupting us. Not just the US, but the people within the US, as well. We need solutions and not just complaining about minor facets of things that are different.
Isn’t this exactly the way the original concept of the Union was set up ?
Each state gets to conduct it’s own affairs as it sees fit. What may, or may not, work in Vermont is their affair.
People can move there if they like and Physicians can leave if they like. Be interesting to see how it pans out.
btw…Grew up in the Green Mountain State
So - why in the world would the American patient do that? He likes to wait for his doctor’s appointment for five months instead of getting immediate service?
Nobody’s forcin’ nuttin’. The pharma companies have the option of not selling in Canada at all. That they do shows they still find the trade profitable under those imposed conditions; why would it not be the same in the U.S.?
This was your post:
If your job lets you get job satisfaction, but paid half of what is paid in another state, you’d probably stay there, despite the pay increase you could get by moving.
This was mine:
You know what - put up a poll. Give the theoretical situation - you’re getting job satisfaction, but you are offered 100% more money in another state. For the sake of argument, make the standard-of-living levels the same in both states.
How is my question not the same as you described?
Two different situations. One is in Britain - that’s the one with the cite. The other is Canada - in 1990s - I gave the cite later.
Do you think companies always charge the same price for the same product in different countries?
Go ahead and pass a law that says pharma company cannot charge less abroad for the drug than it charges in the US. While you’re at it, pass a law like that for any company. Watch US industry become uncompetitive abroad.
It is not “certain surgeries”. Did you see the article? It is EVERY freaking specialist. Across the board.
“Profitable” to sell the millionth dose is not the same as profitable to sell the first dose. Drug prices are high in the US, supporting the R&D to develop new drugs. Once a drug is being manufactured, the per-unit cost to manufacture additional pills is very low. So, it’s not surprising drug manufacturers are willing to sell “additional” doses at low prices that cover the cost of manufacture and distribution, but perhaps (likely?) not high enough to pay for R&D.
And drug prices are low in Cuba, which happens to be the only place in the region where original pharmaceutical R&D is done. Clearly the profit motive is not indispensable here.
It is a stupid contention that in order to point out how bad Obamacare is, you have to give your own plan. Obamacare is a bad law, all on its own.
My policy would include banning all “comprehensive” health insurance plans, leaving only catastrophic ones, thus allowing the marketplace to dictate the prices and encouraging price-shopping among consumers. Hugely expand the role of nurse-practitioners. Have localities institute public clinics where you make it easy for doctors to volunteer for pro-bono work on as part-time a basis as they want.
If my auto insurance covered oil changes, I am sure they would cost $1000 a pop.
You do realize that there is not a five month wait for every aspect of the Canadian health system, right? I can usually make an appointment for my family doctor and be seen within 24-48 hours. When I went to the hospital and needed my gall bladder removed I showed up at 10am and was waking up after the operation at 7pm. After hours clinics allow me to make an appointment at 430pm to be seen at 6pm.
Gallbladder surgery falls under “general surgery” I believe. The median wait time in Canada for that is 7 weeks. Add to that the median wait from visiting your family doctor to seeing the specialist of 8-9 weeks and you have 3-4 months for gallbladder surgery.
Just because you happened to luck out does not negate these numbers. Unless you want to tell me they are lying in this article?
This probably explains the massive and overwhelming movement among Canadians to repeal this horrific system. I don’t have any cites for that, kinda depending on you to provide them.
They do let people vote in Canada, right? Pretty sure I heard that.
Therefore, it’s a good thing when a state does something like Vermont is doing, which will encourage the crappy doctors to leave, but the good doctors to stay.
See, the way I figure it, people become doctors for one of two reasons. Some people become doctors because they want to help people, and some people become doctors because it pays well. And I also figure that those in the first category are going to be much better doctors than those in the second category. So if you make it easier to help people, you’re going to get more of the good doctors, and if you lower the pay, you’ll get less of the bad ones. Sounds like a win-win to me.
No, it is a brilliant, insightful, and morally justified contention to point out that if someone isn’t part of the solution, they are part of the problem.
That’s a fucked up system. For example, I find it contradictory to decry waiting times when those waits are based on medical necessity, and then favor waiting times based on one’s ability to pay, compare prices, clip coupons, or whatever.