RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


graceadieu -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/5/2013 7:04:59 PM)

Yeah, I here this stuff about "oh, these other countries you have to wait a long time...".

My died died of pancreatic cancer. They caught it real early, early enough they should've been able to treat it surgically. But he had to wait two months for the surgery, and in that time it had time to metastasize. And that was here in USA.




jlf1961 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/5/2013 7:11:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The procedure is called an ablation, they are going to remove the tumor and nothing else, this is because the tumor is actually less than a centimeter in size.

That is a relief. Good luck with the ablation. I've heard good things about that. Did you get a needle biopsy?





According to the specialist, the thing is not quite big enough for a needle biopsy and he also said that they are not as accurate dealing with kidney tumors as others. If it is a cyst, it would have to be removed since it is in the kidney, not on it, if it is a benign tumor, the same applies.

The doctor who is heading up my treatment is the head of the School of Urology at Southern Medical Center in Dallas and one of the leaders in the field of kidney cancers.

Besides, my biological younger sister checked the guy out after we finally was able to get her to return a call and told her what was going on.

Strangely enough, she had not visited our mother for five years before my mom passed, and when we called to tell her mom was in the hospital with heart failure, she came up and promptly told me she was hiring a lawyer to see about a lawsuit against my mom's gp.

If you want to know the rest of that story drop me a cmail.




latique -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/6/2013 12:30:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Is your health care system so overwhelmed that the critically ill are put on waiting lists for life saving procedures and more often than not die before they can get treatment?


Add to that there is no clamour for the NHS to become fully privatised by any of our major parties, or the population in general.


no clamour from any parties to privatise not on any manifesto but the NHS under the condems is slowly being handed over to the private sector




tweakabelle -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/6/2013 2:13:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Is your health care system so overwhelmed that the critically ill are put on waiting lists for life saving procedures and more often than not die before they can get treatment?

In Australia there are no waiting lists for surgery for critically ill.

Off the top of my head, I can't recall any cases of anyone dying while awaiting surgery in the circumstances you outline. I find it difficult to imagine circumstances where any one might be denied or forced to wait for essential or life saving surgery.

There are waiting lists for non-essential or 'elective' surgery, which can vary depending on the type of surgery, the locality and other factors.




thezeppo -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/6/2013 3:44:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

treatment is still available privately though if thats what one requires.



How is that handled?

You simply pay cash up front.



Interesting. And if one does not have the cash?


One can pay for health insurance, like BUPA for example. To the best of my knowledge they essentially replace the NHS in that scenario, one would go to BUPA rather than NHS hospitals for treatment. At college I had a friend who was covered by BUPA due to his Dad's job and when he was rushed into an NHS hospital BUPA reimbursed his father to some extent. I'm not claiming to be fully clued up on this but I know its possible to pay for insurance rather than cash up front.




Politesub53 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/6/2013 3:54:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: latique

no clamour from any parties to privatise not on any manifesto but the NHS under the condems is slowly being handed over to the private sector


No doubt......... I have expressed my disdain for Cameron and his cronies on several subjects. New Labour were no better though, we aare still paying the cost for some very poor value for money initiatives of young Gordon.

Blame me for Cameron though, i helped vote the wanker in, one mistake I wont be making again.




Politesub53 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/6/2013 3:59:25 AM)

Zeppo, I am not sure if this is still the case but here is what I know. Many years ago I needed surgery to correct a deviation in my nose, or some such thing, as it was affecting my breathing, not drastically but enough to need looking at. There was a wait to see the NHS surgeon, so I mentioned to him I was in BUPA via the union I was in..... He put me on to a BUPA hospital and I was seen within two weeks, by the same surgeon. I had to pay for surgery up front and got reimbursed at a later date.




thezeppo -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/6/2013 5:48:13 AM)

Oh right, thanks for the clarification. I guess you do still need the cash up front then, insurance or not. I indirectly voted Cameron in as well - I'm going Labour or Green for sure next time. I genuinely felt betrayed by Clegg and I think I'm going to feel slightly dirty until I get the chance to cast a vote actively anti-Cameron.




DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/6/2013 5:59:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Zeppo, I am not sure if this is still the case but here is what I know. Many years ago I needed surgery to correct a deviation in my nose, or some such thing, as it was affecting my breathing, not drastically but enough to need looking at. There was a wait to see the NHS surgeon, so I mentioned to him I was in BUPA via the union I was in..... He put me on to a BUPA hospital and I was seen within two weeks, by the same surgeon. I had to pay for surgery up front and got reimbursed at a later date.


Do you have any idea what the difference in reimbursement rates (or billable costs) was between BUPA and NHS?

And, am I reading right that there are "NHS-only" hospitals and private insurance hospitals?




JeffBC -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/6/2013 6:01:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Is your health care system so overwhelmed that the critically ill are put on waiting lists for life saving procedures and more often than not die before they can get treatment?

No.

The more likely horror story scenario is lost wages due to a non-critical illness which gets bumped due to more serious cases. As others are describing and Yachtie seems to be struggling to comprehend, if you don't like the coverage offered you can buy supplemental insurance. If this concerns someone they buy insurance to cover the risk.




dom2ownboi -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/6/2013 6:18:23 AM)

The billable cost issue is irrelevant to most consumers. On the NHS you simply don't pay for anything except for prescription costs. If you choose to go private you get a bill and pay it, or your insurance does. The billable rate is I believe a non-issue. From what I understand billable rates are merely a way for insurance companies in the US to overcharge and then negotiate the actual payment made, which means their charges are a complete rip-off in my opinion.

In the UK there are NHS hospitals and private hospitals. As far as I know most NHS hospitals will do private work, billing either the patient or his insurance, and most private hospitals will do NHS work and bill the government or local health authority.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Zeppo, I am not sure if this is still the case but here is what I know. Many years ago I needed surgery to correct a deviation in my nose, or some such thing, as it was affecting my breathing, not drastically but enough to need looking at. There was a wait to see the NHS surgeon, so I mentioned to him I was in BUPA via the union I was in..... He put me on to a BUPA hospital and I was seen within two weeks, by the same surgeon. I had to pay for surgery up front and got reimbursed at a later date.


Do you have any idea what the difference in reimbursement rates (or billable costs) was between BUPA and NHS?

And, am I reading right that there are "NHS-only" hospitals and private insurance hospitals?





tj444 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/6/2013 6:47:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Is your health care system so overwhelmed that the critically ill are put on waiting lists for life saving procedures and more often than not die before they can get treatment?

I have heard (before I left Canada) about one case where the patient disagreed with the doc on how urgent heart surgery was so they went to the US for the procedure (& paid for it by putting a mortgage on their home.. they then tried to get BC to reimburse them for the medical costs, unsuccessfully I believe).. and another case where someone was near the top of the list for heart surgery, then someone with a more serious/critical case bumped them, then they were rescheduled but suddenly became critical and died.. so imo, there are disagreements between patient and doc on how serious the medical condition is or there is a sudden change in their condition.. Those situations can occur in anywhere, not just in Canada.. Not everyone rushed to emergency lives.. some do, some don't.. to expect a perfect system is unreasonable..

Most long waits there (BC) are for things like knee replacement cuz of the greater demand due to the aging population (a lot of seniors move to BC cuz the weather is milder so BC has a larger older population than provinces like Alberta)..

but let me ask you this.. Canada regulates medical costs so the grossly inflated costs charged in the US (double to 4xs) means Canada's medical dollars go considerably further than your American dollars go in your system.. who do you think is gonna be better off?




DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/6/2013 7:30:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dom2ownboi
The billable cost issue is irrelevant to most consumers. On the NHS you simply don't pay for anything except for prescription costs. If you choose to go private you get a bill and pay it, or your insurance does. The billable rate is I believe a non-issue. From what I understand billable rates are merely a way for insurance companies in the US to overcharge and then negotiate the actual payment made, which means their charges are a complete rip-off in my opinion.
In the UK there are NHS hospitals and private hospitals. As far as I know most NHS hospitals will do private work, billing either the patient or his insurance, and most private hospitals will do NHS work and bill the government or local health authority.
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Zeppo, I am not sure if this is still the case but here is what I know. Many years ago I needed surgery to correct a deviation in my nose, or some such thing, as it was affecting my breathing, not drastically but enough to need looking at. There was a wait to see the NHS surgeon, so I mentioned to him I was in BUPA via the union I was in..... He put me on to a BUPA hospital and I was seen within two weeks, by the same surgeon. I had to pay for surgery up front and got reimbursed at a later date.

Do you have any idea what the difference in reimbursement rates (or billable costs) was between BUPA and NHS?
And, am I reading right that there are "NHS-only" hospitals and private insurance hospitals?


They do matter. And, they do matter for exactly the "rip off" reason you gave.

Let me put it to you this way: We completely agree that billable costs are a ripoff and that, pretty much, no one pays them. Insurance companies negotiate with providers over reimbursement rates, but the "billable costs" are still important. My ex-wife's company is self-insured, so they pay the reimbursements. The only time the insurance company pays is when the yearly stop loss limit (set individually, not aggregate on the entire employee pool) is met. At that point, the insurance company takes over the payment of further costs for that employee. So, the only actual benefits her company is getting is that they pay the "negotiated costs" and any time there is someone that goes over the stop loss. All premiums pay for, then, is the right to those negotiated costs and the stop loss.

Hospitals get to use the amount of charity care they give in maintaining their tax-exempt status.

Insurance companies get to use the amount of "savings" their negotiated prices provide as a sales tool. The higher the costs, the greater dollar amount they can show at any % of savings. Insurance companies that also own the hospital/provider have little incentive to not abuse that system.




eulero83 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/6/2013 8:12:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Is your health care system so overwhelmed that the critically ill are put on waiting lists for life saving procedures and more often than not die before they can get treatment?


not if there is chance of death, eventually they have contracts with private hospitals to provide that kind of care at a fixed price, where I live we have a very efficent and high quality health care, southern you go the worse it get due to corruption (but affects more costs than quality), can be slow when you need some kind of specialistic visit or an MRI, but everyday care (family doctor, blood tests, medications) and life saving procedures (cancer prevention, surgeries, ER etc.) are very efficent.
In the time private and public sector evolved in some hybrid, as I said if there is no room in public hospitals they rent space in private ones and some public doctor hire their office in the public hospitals to have a private practice like three afternoon a week, there is almost no difference in quality between a private and a public hospital.
Btw we have a costitutional right to healt care so it would be a problem if someone had poor care.




Yachtie -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/6/2013 8:30:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

but let me ask you this.. Canada regulates medical costs so the grossly inflated costs charged in the US (double to 4xs) means Canada's medical dollars go considerably further than your American dollars go in your system.. who do you think is gonna be better off?



IMO, you get to what is actually wrong with healthcare in the US - Grossly inflated costs. The underlying reasons for why something becomes grossly inflated usually is due to market skewing.

How much responsibility does the Insurance lobby and Medical Establishment have? The problem, as I see it, is that protectionism of certain classes of business is what drives the high cost here. It's not that these business entities are over regulated but that they are protected.

I understand that theres a few medical facilities (forget where) that takes no insurance yet delivers great care at ~1/5 the cost. It was shown that the deductible many pay, often being about 20% of the cost, is what it actually costs.







DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/6/2013 8:32:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
but let me ask you this.. Canada regulates medical costs so the grossly inflated costs charged in the US (double to 4xs) means Canada's medical dollars go considerably further than your American dollars go in your system.. who do you think is gonna be better off?


That all depends on how much the true cost of providing the care is. We completely agree that US charges are ridiculously high. Why, though, are costs so high? How much profit do the hospitals make? Where are the costs inflated?

Price ceilings will tend to distort the market away from supply and/or quality. Look at all the histrionics over "Doc Fix" bills we pass, pretty much every time they come up.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/hospital-ceo-salaries-justified-says-professor-1.1180571
    quote:

    Local hospital CEO salaries range between $175,000 and $294,000. Some include car allowances.


(I do note that this is for "local" hospitals and not necessarily indicative of the average across Canada.)

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/compensation-issues/ceo-compensation-of-the-25-top-grossing-non-profit-hospitals.html
    quote:

    According to the most recent Form 990s filed by each hospital, the combined compensation of the top executives at the 25 top-grossing non-profit hospitals totaled more than $59 million a couple years ago. Here are the compensation figures of those hospitals' CEOs, presidents and/or executive directors.


(I do note that these are the salaries for the 25 top grossing non-profit hospitals, and not necessarily indicative of average salaries for CEO's across America)

We're still talking about million dollar compensation packages in the US, compared to hundreds of thousands in Canada. There is a huge difference in that.




DomKen -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/6/2013 8:54:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

but let me ask you this.. Canada regulates medical costs so the grossly inflated costs charged in the US (double to 4xs) means Canada's medical dollars go considerably further than your American dollars go in your system.. who do you think is gonna be better off?



IMO, you get to what is actually wrong with healthcare in the US - Grossly inflated costs. The underlying reasons for why something becomes grossly inflated usually is due to market skewing.

How much responsibility does the Insurance lobby and Medical Establishment have? The problem, as I see it, is that protectionism of certain classes of business is what drives the high cost here. It's not that these business entities are over regulated but that they are protected.

I understand that theres a few medical facilities (forget where) that takes no insurance yet delivers great care at ~1/5 the cost. It was shown that the deductible many pay, often being about 20% of the cost, is what it actually costs.

This represents one of the great failings of the free market approach to health care. People cannot shop around for the best price on medical care. If you get taken to the hospital or walk into an ER it is generally the closest hospital to where you are when you become ill or the closest one suited to dealing with your emergency. There is no reasonable way to comparison shop based on price.

Cost to society must be controlled by putting a single entity in charge of paying for medical care and giving that government entity the ability to negotiate and/or set how much it will reimburse.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/6/2013 9:26:43 AM)

FR~

I see most on this thread appear to have centred around hospitals and proceedural costs.

What about the other side of medical care??
Going to see your GP (physician) for instance??
What is the average cost in the US? $50 just to go to that appointment?
For nationalised healthcare, it's free and it doesn't matter if you have private medical insurance or not.
Any meds he/she prescribes is the same too - private medical insurance or not.
The only advantage you get with private medical insurance is you might be able to jump the queue for certain non-essential surgery.
And as has been said, many NHS doctors and theatre staff work on both sides - private and NHS.

Nationalised healthcare also allows those on low incomes/welfare to get free meds.
So the OH and I don't pay a bean for any of our meds and we can usually get to see our GP within a few days; even within the hour if it's urgent.
If we had to pay for each of the many we have, we just wouldn't be able to afford it.
Fair enough, over the years of paying 8% or so from my salary means I've probably paid for what I'm now using for free.
But surely, every working person paying 8%~ish while they are working is a damned site cheaper than some of the horror stories I have heard from friends in the US who can no longer afford private healthcare at all.
The system isn't perfect by any means but it certainly means that healthcare is free at the point of delivery for everyone.
Sure, some non-essential operations could be put back when more urgent cases drop in.
But even the private health care does that - everything is prioritised according to health risk.

I think, overall, it's a better system all round and because the government controls the purse, the big pharma's can't always demand such extortionately high prices.




Moonhead -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/6/2013 10:02:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo

One can pay for health insurance, like BUPA for example. To the best of my knowledge they essentially replace the NHS in that scenario, one would go to BUPA rather than NHS hospitals for treatment.

Unless they don't: you do get BUPA members still using the NHS for more trivial stuff where they'll be seen quickly.




slavekate80 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/6/2013 10:48:29 AM)

In partial defense of Big Pharma especially here in the USA, the biggest part of their high prices are to recoup the costs of research and development. Most drug research turns into a big fat nothing. A lot of what looks promising at first fails to show any effect or fails initial safety testing - if it looks like it works but kills half the mice that get a therapeutic dose, you can forget about trying it on humans almost every time. Very few make it as far as human trials and fewer pass those tests. Without charging very high prices on new drugs, they wouldn't be able to afford to continue doing research.

The system does need reformed so that this is less of an issue. Sharing research costs with universities, more government funding for research into drugs for specific conditions that are a big problem and don't have good therapies available, etc. It's disgusting that a year's supply of a medication can cost $100,000 or more. And true, the pharmaceutical companies often have some dishonest practices going on to draw more money. But the biggest reason that the drugs cost so much is that they cost so much to discover and test.

Personally, I think more drugs should be allowed to go to market. Some are pulled for safety reasons but a logical analysis will show they still are better existing than not existing... if a drug kills 1 out of 100 people taking it through side effects, but saves 5% of the patients by curing or treating their disease, it's going to get taken off the market (or not accepted in the first place) even though more people die without it than with it. We have unrealistically high safety standards, in part due to the abundance of lawsuits.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.1328125