Short Works Rating
Famous Visitors to CanadaThread Started October 29 at 11:27AM
Barak Obama, in Canada, gave a speech a few weeks back,. Hollary Clinton gave a speech as part if her book tour and Joe Biden stopped by to say hello. By far the most interesting guest was Bernie Sanders.
He was in Toronto this week . Toured hospital and medical reseach centres accompanied by Wynn, Ontario's Premier (muich the same as a governor in the US).
What I found reassuring for our American friends, was his investment of time in a fact-seeking mission as people in Congress are struggling to deal with health insurance.
It surprises me, upon reflection, why such fact-finding missions are not visiting the UK, Australia and the Scandinavian countries who have figured it out. It would seem to be the best first step rather than sorting through paper in closed-door meetings.
What Sanders expressed on a news clip on the evening news was his astonishment on how Canada could do it so much cheaper than all that he knows to be true in the US.
Is this a symptom of American--dare I say it--arrogance? There's no question in my mind the the US has pioneered so many innovations and provided respected leadership in science and technology, but when it comes to universal health care, America is living in the stone age.
Reply on October 29, 2017 11:48 AM
Well said, Ingrid
Reply on October 29, 2017 02:26 PM
Oh, no, seriously, don't come to the UK. We DID have it all figured out, you know. But we are in the process of majorly, and I mean majorly, fucking it up.
Why? Well, leaving aside governments trying to flog it off to the highest bidder, in latter years, I don't think we've respected it enough. We whine about wait times, complain about care. We treat surgeries like drop-in centres for minor ailments we really could have treated ourselves.
The NHS is the single greatest thing my country ever gave its people. Five years of living without it has taught me the value of it.
In a recent advertisement celebrating 60 years of the NHS, wealthy ex - England footballer Gary Lineker said,
'When my son was diagnosed with leukemia, I told the doctor I would pay any more for the best private care. He told me I wouldn't get better care than that given by NHS specialists, and he was right'.
Our research hospitals are world-leaders. Medical scientists from the UK have been at the forefront of treatment developments.
The NHS was an astounding achievement at its inception, and it still is an amazing thing. Its users need to treat it with the respect it deserves, before they lose it altogether. It's being stripped away. They think it'll always be there, but not if we let it die at the hands of greedy politicians, who are selling from under us, and discussing moving to the 'stone - age' American system.
We'll be complaining if that happens, you betcha. I don't think it will ever become that bad, though I think we'll see changes.
America could do it. It'd be far bigger and better than ours. They've just got to stop viewing it as 'paying for other people', and start viewing it as the chance to pay less than one would to an insurance company, for a better deal. Guaranteed cover, no questions asked, no quibbles about 'pre-existing conditions', no weak excuses for not paying out. Rich and poor alike can use it and benefit.
Reply on October 29, 2017 02:59 PM
I gave always been interested in how this works Sarkem. Always.
I deal with clients and their medical insurance on a daily basis. I know we pay outrageous premiums, myself included, and yet all insurance company?s have so many different inclusions, and exclusions for the same process, it becomes Greek to not only those who try to decipher ones benefits but the clients as well.
Denials on standard practices and denials because the insurance co. does not deem it medically necessary leaves all of us in puzzlement. Thus, because of denials many upon many are denied many procedures which could be life threatening. It?s a lot of crazy crazy red tape.
I have sat on the phone endless hours with representatives of insurance companies asking them to please explain to me why a certain billable code was denied, or a certain drug and all these reps can do is quote from a list of rules and regulations while clearly not understanding what they are reading.
When a Dr?s patient and our client becomes so exasperated, we often, on their behalf ask for a peer to peer review which involves a lengthy process requiring extensive medical notes and letters of medical necessity between their Dr and the Medical professionals which work for the insurance company.
To add insult to injury, Dr.s rarely have time for this process because of their patient scheduling and or surgical scheduling. It is grueling and the process has to take place on the time and terms of the insurance companies, not the other way around.
Quality and access of care, whether surgical, drugs, dme, and treatment is truly dependent on an individual?s insurance policy or lack thereof.
As Ms. Majors would say
Just some thoughts
Reply on October 30, 2017 03:30 AM
I've never understood the defence of a system so much in favour of the insurers, rather than the patient.
What I've always liked about National Health Insurance is that I didn't have to worry about keeping up payments to anybody. I would never come out of hospital to find a big bill because my insurance had lapsed. If I was working, I was paying. If, for some reason, I'd lost my job, and I wasn't paying, I'd still get treatment. I would never, at my most vulnerable time of sickness, be faced with the worry of how I was going to pay for it.
People have said, many times, on this forum and elsewhere, 'but I don't want to pay for people who don't work/make bad health choices'. But, surely, you are already. Insurance companies don't put your money in a little pot, just for you. They use it to treat others paying into the same pot, some of whom might be using your money for treatment for diseases caused by smoking, or heavy drinking, or whatever. And I'm guessing, somewhere, you are paying something for people who don't work and have no insurance, because you do have some form of Medicaid, am I right? So somewhere, at some point, you are paying for someone else, through taxes, no doubt.
Wouldn't it be easier to all pay into the same pot? It'd be a far bigger pot, so you'd have to pay considerably less. Is the possibility that your money might be used to treat someone lazy and unworthy (according to you) really worth denying yourself the luxury of worry-free care from cradle to grave at a cheaper rate than any private insurers? (I'm using 'you' in the general sense, here).
Unless you are paying your medical bills directly, all of you who have taken out medical insurance are already paying for somebody else's care. And if you need treatment yourself, it will, in part, be paid for using someone else's money, because that is how it works. If you've only been on the policy for a year, and it pays for 100,000 dollar heart surgery, that's obviously not only your money. If you never go into hospital, or a surgery in your life, you don't get your money back. So you are still either paying for someone else, or having your treatment paid by someone else.
I remember trying to explain this to Lancelott, once or twice on here. He was very big on this idea of 'I pay for myself, I don't expect other people to pay for me, and I don't want to pay for other people'. Either he had no insurance, or he didn't really understand how it works. I'd go for the latter, because I've noticed quite a few Americans have no idea how insurance works, and don't realise they are not, in fact, just paying for their own treatment.
Reply on October 30, 2017 08:07 AM << Modifed October 30 at 8:22AM >>
Thank you Sarkems.
I understand quite well and have always felt as you have expressed. Not the ?you" part. Everyone, regardless, is entitled to good healthcare, available healthcare.
Our Medicaid program here is a great program which pays for much more than many private insurances... once again... the caveat is all the red tape...pre d, pre auths, pre c... referrals, authorizations.. all very time consuming. The Medicare, the largest government insurance in the U.S. is affordable by most aged but it still has its limitations and certain conditions Medicare refuses to recognize ... one being lymphedema and lipidema. The irony of this is that a great percentage of the aged suffer from this as a result of cancer and it?s treatment, or veinous issues. Also Medicare is available for those who are disabled through accident or sickness, but the same rules apply.
As for poor choices in lifestyle, we are all guilty of such infractions. That?s a whole other discussion but it SHOULD never ever be a deciding factor on who is deserved of healthcare. Do not understand that reasoning as you stated.
My insurance and I don?t mind saying, for it?s an example... is a tad under 800 a month! My employer pays 110 of it.. not much by a long shot. I have not utilized it once this year except for my ?well woman ? checkup which was billed 300$ 100% to the insurance. So 9300 did got to fund other insurers under their umbrella. And if I cannot pay... it is gone... zilch... nothing.
Yes, many do not understand insurance. To add insult to injury, insurance comes with a deductible and out of pocket.,You begin first with the deductible. The lowest deductible I have seen is 2500... other than Medicare which is much much lower. This 2500 must be net up front entirely, then out of pocket kicks in. Of which you pay 5 to 40 % of bill subtracted the 2500 till that certain percentage satisfies the 10000 or maybe more. Afterwards, with most policies you are now at 100 percent until it rolls over again. So it?s a vicious cycle, vicious.. especially if you have a family member battling a life threatening illness.
Thank you for sharing.
Short Works Rating
Reply on October 31, 2017 04:38 AM
First, we ALL have to admit that Obamacare is NOT "good" health care. No one is saying it is including the libtards.
Obamacare is the result of compromise until we have a system of health care that is so watered down from what universal health care should be, it is not very good. However, it is coverage for those who had ZERO coverage before.
The solution is to IMPROVE this coverage, not decimate it and take it away.
Make no mistake, the conservative stance has NOT changed. They are not in favor of universal health care, never have been and never will be. They DO want to repeal Obamacare, yes. BUT they don't truly want to replace it. They want to PRETEND to replace it while they eliminate it. Every proposal they've offered REDUCES benefits and eliminates coverage for millions of families. There's no getting around it. Medicaid and Medicare are NOT fiscally sound programs. They're liberal in nature and conservatives do not like them. No mystery.
The Canadian model is way superior to what we have here. Far more than Canadians realize. The British system, the same. Indeed, every industrialized nation in the world has a superior plan. It's more superior than they imagine.
Take HIV for example. That is the perfect model of wealth being served and poverty being screwed. If you have the money, you can live a near normal life span with the HIV virus. If you're poor, you're dead. Magic Johnson no longer tests positive for HIV. It can no longer be detected in his blood. HE has the money to buy the best cutting edge treatment available. It IS NOT available to folks who don't have the money.
Now, substitute any medical condition in place of HIV and you have a picture of health care in the U.S.
I've had two torn rotor cuffs for over ten years. I'm in constant pain from mild to severe. If I had the money, it would take about six months to repair both and recover from the surgeries fully. I'm pretty sure that anywhere else in the world, they would have been repaired ten years ago. Check me if I'm wrong.
Poverty here, by the way, isn't what poverty is in other countries. It is true, we are fat and lazy.
I'm way below the poverty line. I live in a two story house with cable T.V., central heat and air and eat well and have no debt. I'm poor. Ya think some folks in the world would like to trade places with me?
Oh well, one of these days I'm gonna plan what I'm posting about. HAHAHA!
Reply on October 31, 2017 08:18 AM
I absolutely agree about the Medicare/Medicaid programs, but at the end of the day, they have something.
I would love to learn more about the Canadian and British model.
The U.S is sorely in need of a new process.
Short Works Rating
Reply on October 31, 2017 02:37 PM
It's pretty simple really. In Canada health care is mostly funded by the government while in the U.S. it is mostly funded privately.
So, the tax burden in Canada is WAY higher. BUT the cost is considerably less and the benefits are infinitely better and accessible to EVERYONE.
Here, that wouldn't bode well for anyone making MONEY on healthcare ie Insurance Companies, Pharma and Doctors. Those are three powerful and influential entities that hold sway over politicians who depend on their contributions to run their campaigns.
The dynamic is obvious.
It doesn't help that a great number of folks with terrible health care are SOLD on the lies foisted upon them by the big three above through their political puppets that universal health care is a BAD thing, communistic and satanic in nature. Sad.
Short Works Rating
Reply on October 31, 2017 03:38 PM
I've been away for a few days, but I would like to make a comment of "Sanders"...first of all I believe he was part of the reason Clinton lost...He ran a campaign that was geared toward a Socialist system...where higher education, and heath care is concerned...He worked against Clinton, but what he was saying was something that he simply could never have done...Yes I would call him an arrogant man, and I wish he would simply go away...What he wants is a Socialist system...I have nothing against such a system, and of course even the United States, have some of those principles in our system...but it would be difficult to move in that direction at this time in our country.
I didn't like him when he was campaigning, and even after Clinton was fighting to win, he was continuing his effort to get through to the young people here...Its clear that he had a large following, but I believe he was not being honest to them...its one thing to say what they are entitled to, its another to let it be known how it could be paid for.
He has proposed a health care program, that is far different from what the mainstream Democrats would want, causing a division in their plans...he is an arrogant man, I don't like him because he's an Independent, that ran on the Democratic ticket, and is not back to his Independent status.
Of course he had every right to follow his dreams, but he did so at a time he knew he couldn't win...and instead he didn't push for Clinton until it was way too late...in the end so many of his followers did not vote for Clinton, and some didn't vote at all.
I believe he was in Canada to try and explore the health care system...I don't think there's anything he could say that would be of benefit there...how could he!
Obama said that the system would need changes, the problem is the republicans refuse to fix it, they prefer to create a new plan...one that they couldn't do in 7 years.
Sadly there are some Americans that are satisfied with the plan, and some that are having serious problems with it...its a big problem...
Just Some Thoughts!
Reply on November 8, 2017 06:48 AM
Has the Ghost of Christmas Past been by yet?
'She' is quite famous, you know.
-1- 2 3 4
One man's take on life told thru humorous short stories from his childhood on into his mid-50's; from feeling like an outcast in school to being an adult. His intent: hope. Hope in that you shall see, no matter how rough life can seem -and is- at times, that you may be able to enjoy it. Each story will bring a laugh, a smile, a tear, a lesson.
The 23rd Annual Book Awards said:
"We Really Need To Laugh" shares “memories which will resonate with many readers. Overall a creative presentation of the author’s life given in a rather sing-song poetic story telling style; a pleasant read"
Buy It On Amazon
Advertise With Us