What is your ongoing opinion of the Affordable Care Act? (Title Edited)

[adaher]

Yes, you could say that. It’s achieved that essential purpose.

[ElvisL1ves]

@adaher

Jeb Bush has an alternative for what it’s worth.

Tell us. What’s it worth?

BTW, ACA, still not fully implemented yet.

IOW, on schedule.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@canned_mayhem

Someone needs to remind all the Canadian patients who are tired of waiting for procedures in their country’s national health system to stop coming to our much, much more expensive inferior hospitals then lol.

This happens very, very infrequently. Mostly for elective surgeries, and for things that someone with money does when they want things done faster.

It’s a meme that does not die though, even though it is not backed up with any facts whatsoever.

But then some rich people have to wait for elective joint surgery. So that makes it bad. Because money should buy me to the head of the line.

[adaher]

A hip replacement is elective only in the sense that you won’t die without it. Massive pain, however, is the result of not getting one for six months.

But why are we talking about single payer anyway?

[DigitalC]

@adaher

But why are we talking about single payer anyway?

Because it’s what we’ll have eventually.

[Buck_Godot]

@adaher

A hip replacement is elective only in the sense that you won’t die without it. Massive pain, however, is the result of not getting one for six months.

But why are we talking about single payer anyway?

Still its probably better than not getting one at all, which is what happens here if you don’t have the money. The longer wait times are a unfortunate result of greater coverage. But to pointing to them as a a reason that the Canadian system is worse than ours, gains a much sympathy from me as saying that integration was a bad idea because it is now so much harder for whites to find a seat at the front of the bus.

[Gyrate]

@adaher

I don’t need a cite, but I’d just note that that’s an assertion just crying out for one. Yet no one did.

Jesus - what’s with the passive-aggressive approach? Are you that determined to claim victimhood? If you want a cite, ask for a cite; don’t whine that no one else has done it. Maybe they’ve all seen the cites already, or maybe they don’t care about this issue.

Here are some random links (I’m a bit busy at the moment):

Here’s an overview with some numbers about Canadians travelling to the US:

The authors of the study started by surveying 136 ambulatory care facilities near the U.S.-Canada border in Michigan, New York and Washington. It makes sense that Canadians crossing the border for care would favor places close by, right? It turns out, however, that about 80 percent of such facilities saw, on average, fewer than one Canadian per month; about 40 percent had seen none in the preceding year.

Then, the researchers looked at how many Canadians were discharged over a five-year period from acute-care hospitals in the same three states. They found that more than 80 percent of these hospital visits were for emergency or urgent care (that is, tourists who had to go to the emergency room). Only about 20 percent of the visits were for elective procedures or care.

Next, the authors of the study surveyed America’s 20 “best” hospitals — as identified by U.S. News & World Report — on the assumption that if Canadians were going to travel for health care, they would be more likely to go to the best-known and highest-quality facilities. Only one of the 11 hospitals that responded saw more than 60 Canadians in a year. And, again, that included both emergencies and elective care.

Finally, the study’s authors examined data from the 18,000 Canadians who participated in the National Population Health Survey. In the previous year, 90 of those 18,000 Canadians had received care in the United States; only 20 of them, however, reported going to the United States expressively for the purpose of obtaining care.

Here’s an old (1993) article complaining about Americans illegally claiming free healthcase in Ontario(bloody immigrants clogging up the system…). Note that even restricting the number to illegal healthcare claims by Americans in Ontario alone, the number quoted is 60,000 - and healthcare tourism has ramped up considerably in recent years.

Sarah Palin says “We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn’t that ironic?” (The article cites large numbers of Americans travelling abroad for healthcare but doesn’t specify Canada.)

If you want something more substantive you can wait until later or Google it yourself.

[up_the_junction]

@adaher

I don’t need a cite, but I’d just note that that’s an assertion just crying out for one. Yet no one did.

Absolutely. There is nothing more impressive than an unsubstantiated, vacuous assertion. It just oozes class, education and a critical mind.

[adaher]

@DigitalC

Because it’s what we’ll have eventually.

Again, most nations don’t have it, so why would we?

[adaher]

@Buck_Godot

Still its probably better than not getting one at all, which is what happens here if you don’t have the money. The longer wait times are a unfortunate result of greater coverage. But to pointing to them as a a reason that the Canadian system is worse than ours, gains a much sympathy from me as saying that integration was a bad idea because it is now so much harder for whites to find a seat at the front of the bus.

Oh, I agree that the wait times are not an argument that the US system is better. Just that people in love with single payer like to avoid talking about the very real drawbacks. It’s simply not true that only elective procedures have a major delay. Single payer is by necessity a triage system, where the highest priority cases(ie, those in danger of dying) get first call on resources. If you are merely disabled or in severe pain, you wait in line.

[Gyrate]

@adaher

Oh, I agree that the wait times are not an argument that the US system is better. Just that people in love with single payer like to avoid talking about the very real drawbacks. It’s simply not true that only elective procedures have a major delay. Single payer is by necessity a triage system, where the highest priority cases(ie, those in danger of dying) get first call on resources. If you are merely disabled or in severe pain, you wait in line.

Which is a better system: triage by medical necessity, or triage by personal wealth?

[adaher]

The same argument can be made for any human need. perhaps we should all get two bedroom apartments in the name of making sure no one is homeless.

[Gyrate]

@adaher

The same argument can be made for any human need. perhaps we should all get two bedroom apartments in the name of making sure no one is homeless.

I wasn’t aware that “two bedroom apartments” were a human need.

[adaher]

Single payer health care systems provide as much per capita as can be afforded. In the case of housing, we could probably give everyone a two bedroom apartment if we distributed it evenly.

[up_the_junction]

eta

[Gyrate]

@up_the_junction

But why would you do the latter. No one will suffer the pain and agony, and ultimately die from cancer for not having a second bedroom. Nor will they need that second bedroom right now - this instance - in order to save their life.

You sound a little confused about the world.

No, it’s the standard right-wing conflation of basic human needs and luxuries. “You want us to give people healthcare? What’s next - flat-screen televisions?” It handwaves away the point you made, which is that without access to healthcare people die. THOUSANDS of people in America every year. And many who don’t die have their lives destroyed by bankruptcy and debt from medical expenses.

So yeah - I’ll wait a few extra months for elective surgery (as indeed I have) in return for others having their lives saved and for me to know that in turn I won’t have to worry whether I can afford to have my life - or my child’s life - saved if the need arises.

[adaher]

YOu don’t have to worry about that now. If your life is in danger, you’ll get health care. That’s not the issue and it’s never been.

It’s about social solidarity. That’s why single payer countries care just as much about preventing rich people from getting good care as they do about getting poor people better care.

If the problem was that poor people couldn’t get health care, then the answer is to give health care to poor people. Which is what we’ve done here. Changing everyone’s health care was never necessary and will never be tolerated in the US. Especially since ACA has now made our private health care better. It has made it better, right?

[BobLibDem]

@adaher

YOu don’t have to worry about that now. If your life is in danger, you’ll get health care. That’s not the issue and it’s never been.

It’s about social solidarity. That’s why single payer countries care just as much about preventing rich people from getting good care as they do about getting poor people better care.

An indigent person will get stabilized at the ER in a very inefficient manner and at great cost to society. We can’t afford to spend a few hundred bucks a year on BP meds, but we’ll spend a hundred grand after they have a heart attack and collapse on the street, then send them out to slowly die once they’re stable. If there’s a planet where it makes sense, it isn’t this one.

I was unaware that the wealthy had trouble getting health care. Please enlighten us with evidence.

[adaher]

And so we have Medicaid. ACA solves every single complaint that liberals stated about our health care system. The only one it didn’t solve was the unspoken complaint: some people still get better care than others.

[Gyrate]

@adaher

YOu don’t have to worry about that now. If your life is in danger, you’ll get health care. That’s not the issue and it’s never been.

Yes it is. It really is.

It’s about social solidarity. That’s why single payer countries care just as much about preventing rich people from getting good care as they do about getting poor people better care.

What. The. Hell. This is so far removed from reality, it’s Not Even Wrong.

Even in single-provider systems “rich people” can get access to private medical care (and indeed private medical insurance) which will allow them to get elective procedures quickly, recover in nicer rooms and see a private consultant as often as they like without affecting the care of the general population a whit. No one is stopping this from happening. No one wants to stop this from happening. Really.

If the problem was that poor people couldn’t get health care, then the answer is to give health care to poor people. Which is what we’ve done here.

I assume you’re referring to Medicare and/or Medicaid?

Changing everyone’s health care was never necessary and will never be tolerated in the US.

Except by the millions who can now afford health insurance who couldn’t before.

Especially since ACA has now made our private health care better. It has made it better, right?

I don’t recall any claims to “make private health care better”. “Make private health care affordable”, sure. Which, for many, it has done.