Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[steelish]

Gee. The Prime Minister of Canada is coming to the states for heart surgery. Why?

Hmmm...his doctor recommended it.

From the article:

All but very rare and specialized heart surgery that is done in the United States is also available in Canada, a Toronto cardiac surgeon said.

The one significant exception would be surgery to the thoracic aorta, the giant blood vessel that carries blood that's pumped out of the heart to other organs. If a person develops a swelling or aneurysm, an abnormal bulging, in the thoracic aorta, and needs surgery to open the chest cavity, "that's a very extensive operation," Feindel said.

So what. They don't have the skills/equipment/training, etc. in Canada???

The Fraser Institute estimated that 41,000 Canadians sought health care services in the U.S. in 2009.

Wow. That's a lot of people to PAY for health care when they can get it for free without the added expense of traveling.

[Thorne]

All but very rare and specialized heart surgery that is done in the United States is also available in Canada, a Toronto cardiac surgeon said.

The one significant exception would be surgery to the thoracic aorta, the giant blood vessel that carries blood that's pumped out of the heart to other organs. If a person develops a swelling or aneurysm, an abnormal bulging, in the thoracic aorta, and needs surgery to open the chest cavity, "that's a very extensive operation," Feindel said.

So what. They don't have the skills/equipment/training, etc. in Canada???

Sounds like pretty specialized surgery to me. Maybe they don't have the skills in Canada. Perhaps the best in the field is in the US. That doesn't mean it can't be done in Canada, but if you can afford the best, why not?

The Fraser Institute estimated that 41,000 Canadians sought health care services in the U.S. in 2009.

Wow. That's a lot of people to PAY for health care when they can get it for free without the added expense of traveling.

Again, a lot depends on the type of care they're looking for. Personally, if I needed something that the US couldn't provide, and I could afford to go somewhere else to get that care, I'd do it. Wouldn't you? This says nothing about the relative merits of the health care systems of either nation as a whole, only on individual cases. Who knows? Maybe they don't allow homeopathic woo-medicine in Canada.

[Lion]

Gee. The Prime Minister of Canada is coming to the states for heart surgery. Why?

It's not the Prime Minister of Canada, read the article again

From the article:

All but very rare and specialized heart surgery that is done in the United States is also available in Canada, a Toronto cardiac surgeon said.

The one significant exception would be surgery to the thoracic aorta, the giant blood vessel that carries blood that's pumped out of the heart to other organs. If a person develops a swelling or aneurysm, an abnormal bulging, in the thoracic aorta, and needs surgery to open the chest cavity, "that's a very extensive operation," Feindel said.

So what. They don't have the skills/equipment/training, etc. in Canada???

Last I heard, if the government of Ontario cannot find a treatment for you in the province, they will cover whatever expenses you would have receiving treatment elsewhere.

Check out Sick Kids hospital, they are renowned for dealing with extremely rare conditions, many of their patients are brought in from around the world, including US. Should Canada spend money on dealing with all the rarest cases in the world? I would definitely hope not. I'd love to see research done on a lot of rare disease, but one country cannot handle it by itself, in those situations, we pay to send our residents to get treatment abroad.

The Fraser Institute estimated that 41,000 Canadians sought health care services in the U.S. in 2009.

Wow. That's a lot of people to PAY for health care when they can get it for free without the added expense of traveling.

Ratio between the Canadian and American population is roughly 1 to 10. Take 41,000 Canadians, multiply it by 10. You get 410 000 people. Assume that twice the number of people would go if they had the means to, hell, make it three times. You have roughly 1.2 million people that find the current public healthcare system less then satisfactory for their needs

I still like 1.2 million more then 11-30 million people who have no way of getting expensive treatment when the time comes for it. Just sayin'





I still don't get your point here. And that's the whole problem with this whole debate (Not on this forum only, but everywhere). All the naysayers do is point out why it will fail, and provide nothing to fix this issue. Many people are suffering because of healthcare costs, a friend of a friend's family went backrupt paying his medical bills, and this isn't a rare story.

I'd like to see more points on a different system you think would be better, rather then just say it won't work. Something constructive

[steelish]

I'd like to see more points on a different system you think would be better, rather then just say it won't work. Something constructive

I presented another idea, one which you said was a "good idea". Here's yet another one...how about allowing the insurance companies to compete across all 50 states? How about penalizing people who file frivolous law suits?

[Thorne]

How about penalizing people who file frivolous law suits?

I like this idea.

Only... who determines what is frivolous?

[steelish]

I like this idea.

Only... who determines what is frivolous?

Who determines guilt or innocence?

[Thorne]

Who determines guilt or innocence?

The courts. Either a judge or a jury. Which means going through the whole legal process to determine if a lawsuit is frivolous, which doesn't save anything.

[steelish]

The courts. Either a judge or a jury. Which means going through the whole legal process to determine if a lawsuit is frivolous, which doesn't save anything.

It does if the person who brought the suit to begin with ends up paying out of pocket for the entire debacle. It would act as a deterrent.

[DuncanONeil]

Who determines guilt or innocence?

Good point. But then letting a case go to a jury pretty much means someone already decided that it was not frivolous!

[DuncanONeil]

I like this idea.

Only... who determines what is frivolous?

How about this? Your surgery goes fine. No complications. But during the surgery you woke up on the table during the operation. You decide to sue everyone you can get your hands on!

Frivolous or not?

[Thorne]

How about this? Your surgery goes fine. No complications. But during the surgery you woke up on the table during the operation. You decide to sue everyone you can get your hands on!

Frivolous or not?

Waking up during surgery is definitely a complication. And individuals rarely decide to sue everyone. It's the lawyer who sues anyone involved, in the expectation that at least one of them will stick.

Personally, never having been in this position, I can only answer hypothetically, but I am aware that, due to variations in body chemistry, some anesthesia medications may not work as well on some people. I would certainly want to know why I woke up, if for no other reason than to make sure it couldn't happen again. But unless I was fairly sure of negligence I wouldn't feel right suing anyone. I don't feel that a lawsuit should be a quick way to a small fortune, especially in circumstances where no one did anything wrong.

[Lion]

How about this? Your surgery goes fine. No complications. But during the surgery you woke up on the table during the operation. You decide to sue everyone you can get your hands on!

Frivolous or not?

I understand your point, but it's rather vague. If I accidentally hit you while driving, causing some injuries that you fully recover from, should you be allowed to sue me?

I'd imagine it's your right to sue me for the time lost at work, extra expenses, but what about pain and suffering? People who wake up at the table are in pain, and that's the point of the lawsuit. Can you put a number figure to pain? Should you?

[steelish]

I understand your point, but it's rather vague. If I accidentally hit you while driving, causing some injuries that you fully recover from, should you be allowed to sue me?

I'd imagine it's your right to sue me for the time lost at work, extra expenses, but what about pain and suffering? People who wake up at the table are in pain, and that's the point of the lawsuit. Can you put a number figure to pain? Should you?

As long as you are an insured driver...NOPE!

[DuncanONeil]

In the example I used the only thing that occurred with the patient was they were conscious, felt no pain or other physical discomfort.
Thereby is there grounds to sue?
The auto accident is a poor example.

I understand your point, but it's rather vague. If I accidentally hit you while driving, causing some injuries that you fully recover from, should you be allowed to sue me?

I'd imagine it's your right to sue me for the time lost at work, extra expenses, but what about pain and suffering? People who wake up at the table are in pain, and that's the point of the lawsuit. Can you put a number figure to pain? Should you?

[SadisticNature]

How about this? Your surgery goes fine. No complications. But during the surgery you woke up on the table during the operation. You decide to sue everyone you can get your hands on!

Frivolous or not?

Most people would find it incredibly traumatic to wake up in the middle of surgery and see themselves cut open. That doesn't even begin to cover the pain and sensations one might experience if they had general but no local anesthetic and woke up during a procedure. This is certainly an accident, but its probably akin to some forms of torture in terms of the level of trauma. Chances are good they are suing for things like the cost to see a psychiatrist about it, or lost wages because they can't sleep at night and don't function at work. I certainly think this isn't something that most people just shrug off and have not effect their life.

Do you think it would be fair if you woke up during surgery, experienced these horrific sensations you have nightmares about, the lack of sleep causes you to lose your job, you are seeing someone about it to try and get back to normal functioning and the result of all this is that you lost a lot of money in both salary and treatment?

Keep in mind that the most likely reason for someone to wake up during surgery is either improper dosing (miscalculating weight for instance) or severe delays (complications in the procedure and no addition to the anesthetic or other accommodations), so chances are good this is negligence.

As for suing everyone, its a common legal tactic to sue everyone so that attempts to pass the blame fail. If you sue just the doctor they blame the hospital, if you sue just the hospital they blame the doctor, if you sue the doctor and the hospital they blame the drug company, etc. I don't judge people for making strategically optimal decisions in the legal field, after all law and justice are often very different things.

[Lion]

I presented another idea, one which you said was a "good idea". Here's yet another one...how about allowing the insurance companies to compete across all 50 states? How about penalizing people who file frivolous law suits?

And what have you done to propogate this idea? Talk to your congressman/woman, start a facebook group, researched the idea in depth?

A lot of people are depending for something to finally happen. Tell the Tea Party people find solutions, and fight for them, rather then just fight an administration since it's not a Republican government.

I mean, where was the tea party when the patriot act came along? (Okay, now I'm getting off topic)

[steelish]

And what have you done to propogate this idea? Talk to your congressman/woman, start a facebook group, researched the idea in depth?

A lot of people are depending for something to finally happen. Tell the Tea Party people find solutions, and fight for them, rather then just fight an administration since it's not a Republican government.

I mean, where was the tea party when the patriot act came along? (Okay, now I'm getting off topic)

I have called my congressman (numerous times), I am a member of a tea party. I have proposed these solutions...as have others.

And it's not about parties, it's about principles.

[DuncanONeil]

All three of the proposals presented here by Steelish have been proposed in Congress. In fact when the current bills were wending their way through the halls of Congress they were offered as part of the package. And dismissed out of hand! One can only presume because they were from "those" people.

And what have you done to propogate this idea? Talk to your congressman/woman, start a facebook group, researched the idea in depth?

A lot of people are depending for something to finally happen. Tell the Tea Party people find solutions, and fight for them, rather then just fight an administration since it's not a Republican government.

I mean, where was the tea party when the patriot act came along? (Okay, now I'm getting off topic)

[steelish]

It's not the Prime Minister of Canada, read the article again

So sorry. He's a provincial premier

[Lion]

Gee. The Prime Minister of Canada is coming to the states for heart surgery. Why?

Hmmm...his doctor recommended it.

From the article:

All but very rare and specialized heart surgery that is done in the United States is also available in Canada, a Toronto cardiac surgeon said.

The one significant exception would be surgery to the thoracic aorta, the giant blood vessel that carries blood that's pumped out of the heart to other organs. If a person develops a swelling or aneurysm, an abnormal bulging, in the thoracic aorta, and needs surgery to open the chest cavity, "that's a very extensive operation," Feindel said.

So what. They don't have the skills/equipment/training, etc. in Canada???

The Fraser Institute estimated that 41,000 Canadians sought health care services in the U.S. in 2009.

Wow. That's a lot of people to PAY for health care when they can get it for free without the added expense of traveling.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/201...uffpost/490080

[steelish]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/201...uffpost/490080

Sorry, but all this did was make me laugh. Crossing the border for minor doctor visits is not the same as crossing the border for major surgery. No one disputes that it's CHEAPER to get health care in a National System. What we dispute is that overall quality will go downhill. To put it in perspective, you can take ALL of the 2009 profits from every health insurance company in the United States, combine them and still not have enough funds to cover the proposed National Health Care system for a period of 48 hours. How will something that costly in a country that is already broke ensure quality of care?

[SadisticNature]

Sorry, but all this did was make me laugh. Crossing the border for minor doctor visits is not the same as crossing the border for major surgery. No one disputes that it's CHEAPER to get health care in a National System. What we dispute is that overall quality will go downhill. To put it in perspective, you can take ALL of the 2009 profits from every health insurance company in the United States, combine them and still not have enough funds to cover the proposed National Health Care system for a period of 48 hours. How will something that costly in a country that is already broke ensure quality of care?

The math on this claim is terrible. The profits of every health insurance company is way larger than this sum.

WellPoint alone made a $2.4 billion operating profit in 1 year.

Multiplying this profit alone by 365/2 gives:
$438 Billion dollars or 43.8% of the cost of the Obama health care plan from just one insurance provider.

If I choose to use their 4.7 Billion actual profit instead of their operating profit, they would cover over 80% of your estimate.

[DuncanONeil]

$2.4 in operating profit in one year is to be multiplied by 365 and divided by 2? You can not mean that $438b is available from this one company, unless you are proposing to take all their funds! But you are speaking of profits, "(t)he profits of every health insurance company is way larger than this sum."
How do you arrive at 365/2?
Taking the money spent on care ($2.26t) and subtracting Federal Medicare ($440b) and Medicaid ($204b) money and applying the profit ratio (2.2%, media reported) of the insurers results in about $35.5 billion. Industry wide! About 1/10 of your figure from one company. This is a serious dichotomy!

How can we resolve this?

The math on this claim is terrible. The profits of every health insurance company is way larger than this sum.

WellPoint alone made a $2.4 billion operating profit in 1 year.

Multiplying this profit alone by 365/2 gives:
$438 Billion dollars or 43.8% of the cost of the Obama health care plan from just one insurance provider.

If I choose to use their 4.7 Billion actual profit instead of their operating profit, they would cover over 80% of your estimate.

[SadisticNature]

The claim made which I was refuting was that 48 hours of the cost of the Obama plan was more than the entire yearly profits of the insurance industry.

48 hours is 2 days. There are 365 days in a year. This is how one arrives at 365/2 .

The Obama plan costs $1 trillion/year.

Hence the contribution of this one company's profit (purely in terms of the measure I didn't even propose) is $438 billion.

There seems to be a serious aversion on this forum to people reading the entirety of an argument or actually attempting to do the math before presenting numerical claims.

$2.4 in operating profit in one year is to be multiplied by 365 and divided by 2? You can not mean that $438b is available from this one company, unless you are proposing to take all their funds! But you are speaking of profits, "(t)he profits of every health insurance company is way larger than this sum."
How do you arrive at 365/2?
Taking the money spent on care ($2.26t) and subtracting Federal Medicare ($440b) and Medicaid ($204b) money and applying the profit ratio (2.2%, media reported) of the insurers results in about $35.5 billion. Industry wide! About 1/10 of your figure from one company. This is a serious dichotomy!

How can we resolve this?

[steelish]

The claim made which I was refuting was that 48 hours of the cost of the Obama plan was more than the entire yearly profits of the insurance industry.

48 hours is 2 days. There are 365 days in a year. This is how one arrives at 365/2 .

The Obama plan costs $1 trillion/year.

Hence the contribution of this one company's profit (purely in terms of the measure I didn't even propose) is $438 billion.

There seems to be a serious aversion on this forum to people reading the entirety of an argument or actually attempting to do the math before presenting numerical claims.

Obama's plan costs $1 trillion a year for the first 10 years ONLY. Not only that, but the tax increases to pay for it kick in immediately, yet no benefits are available for at least two more years. Once the benefits kick in, and the operating costs exceed what the federal government has collected from the citizens, taxes will be raised yet again, funding to education, medicare, medicaid, social security and any other government program will be cut to compensate.

300 million people are eventually going to be covered by the SAME insurer. And this insurer is the same "entity" that runs the Postal Service (which is in shambles), social security (which is broke), medicare (which is faltering), medicaid (which is also having difficulty), etc. And we're supposed to feel confident in their abilities????

[SadisticNature]

Sorry, but all this did was make me laugh. Crossing the border for minor doctor visits is not the same as crossing the border for major surgery. No one disputes that it's CHEAPER to get health care in a National System. What we dispute is that overall quality will go downhill. To put it in perspective, you can take ALL of the 2009 profits from every health insurance company in the United States, combine them and still not have enough funds to cover the proposed National Health Care system for a period of 48 hours. How will something that costly in a country that is already broke ensure quality of care?

We've had Americans cross the border for major surgery too. There are lots of fairly specialized modern surgeries that only a few places in the world do (and different places for each one). Toronto has some of the best research hospitals in the world, and Americans come here for surgeries in those specialties.

The premier of Newfoundland & Labrador (More like a governor than a president) went to the US for a specialized surgery from a surgeon who specializes in that procedure. It's not that either system is better, its that particular procedure has better people for it in the US, there are other procedures where the best specialists are North of the border.

[Lion]

Sorry, but all this did was make me laugh. Crossing the border for minor doctor visits is not the same as crossing the border for major surgery. No one disputes that it's CHEAPER to get health care in a National System. What we dispute is that overall quality will go downhill. To put it in perspective, you can take ALL of the 2009 profits from every health insurance company in the United States, combine them and still not have enough funds to cover the proposed National Health Care system for a period of 48 hours. How will something that costly in a country that is already broke ensure quality of care?

In my years living on this side of 49, I've rarely met any Canadians who thinks our system is perfect. Most of us feel that there is constant need for improvement and why the hell not? It's government run, so there are bound to be inefficiencies.

I've seen constant debates on this, and very few who oppose this healthcare plan, you included have come up with an idea to share. A lot of people, Mrs. Palin included have seen nothing but faults in healthcare reform, when she herself have benifited from something she claims will ruin America (I'm paraphrasing).

The article about the premier going to US to get an extremely specialized procedure is biased in a sense that it does not look at the entire picture.

Can one country afford to have the best of everything? Even one as large as America? I think it is stupid to believe that private healthcare will ensure that American healthcare is equipped to handle every single disease. Fact is, at the current system, Americans still come up to Toronto and get FREE healthcare (refer to Sick Kids hospital).

Our system knows that. We have ways that Canadian citizens and residents can get reimbursed for the money they spent on treatments abroad. Treatments that they can't get at home. That's what the premier of that province is doing actually.

Do we have a problem with line-ups. Yes, we know it. Do we find that line-ups are better then facing monthly health insurance bills, that essentially negate the effects of higher taxes, and then some? Most of us.

Someone claimed it was unconstitutional or something to impose a tax to provide healthcare to everyone. Can someone claim that arguement over every war he/she disagrees with? Or a construction project that they have no benefit with?

Right now, US spends 100s of billions of dollars in the military. That's the government btw, not a private enterprise. People are more then willing to claim that a strong government funded and government run army is essential, while claiming that healthcare, which would be a government funded and government run system would be filled with inefficiencies, therefore unattainable. Whether American get universal healthcare or not, it makes no difference for me. I just find this level of hypocrisy appalling.

Peace out!

[steelish]

In my years living on this side of 49, I've rarely met any Canadians who thinks our system is perfect. Most of us feel that there is constant need for improvement and why the hell not? It's government run, so there are bound to be inefficiencies.

I've seen constant debates on this, and very few who oppose this healthcare plan, you included have come up with an idea to share. A lot of people, Mrs. Palin included have seen nothing but faults in healthcare reform, when she herself have benifited from something she claims will ruin America (I'm paraphrasing).

The article about the premier going to US to get an extremely specialized procedure is biased in a sense that it does not look at the entire picture.

Can one country afford to have the best of everything? Even one as large as America? I think it is stupid to believe that private healthcare will ensure that American healthcare is equipped to handle every single disease. Fact is, at the current system, Americans still come up to Toronto and get FREE healthcare (refer to Sick Kids hospital).

Our system knows that. We have ways that Canadian citizens and residents can get reimbursed for the money they spent on treatments abroad. Treatments that they can't get at home. That's what the premier of that province is doing actually.

And if America goes to this inefficient government-run system, where would the premier have gone? No one seems to get it. Just because a government in one country put in an NHS, doesn't mean ALL governments are capable of doing it. Until we weed out the corruption, the goons in power right now would screw it up so badly that it would be the joke of the world.

Do we have a problem with line-ups. Yes, we know it. Do we find that line-ups are better then facing monthly health insurance bills, that essentially negate the effects of higher taxes, and then some? Most of us.

Someone claimed it was unconstitutional or something to impose a tax to provide healthcare to everyone. Can someone claim that arguement over every war he/she disagrees with? Or a construction project that they have no benefit with?

Right now, US spends 100s of billions of dollars in the military. That's the government btw, not a private enterprise. People are more then willing to claim that a strong government funded and government run army is essential, while claiming that healthcare, which would be a government funded and government run system would be filled with inefficiencies, therefore unattainable. Whether American get universal healthcare or not, it makes no difference for me. I just find this level of hypocrisy appalling.

Peace out!

Uh, yeah. That is our government's constitutional duty. To ensure the safety of the citizens. It is NOT our government's constitutional duty however, to provide a service to the citizens.