Why Paul Ryan is right about healthcare

vegas giants · Jul 11, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Well there certainly is a lot of disinformation out there. I am trying to dispel that erroneous information that is being spouted by guys like you.. that don't know what they are talking about.

there certainly is a lot of them in politics..

I bet you did not even know before I told you that Canada basic insurance does not pay for outpatient medicines.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

I most certainly did know that, Did you know that private insurance still exists in Canada. Anyone can buy a policy if they like. Some employers just have insurance to cover things like meds.

And you can't find one politician anywhere in the country that would support going to an american style system. He would be laughed at.

jaeger19 · Jul 11, 2017

vegas giants said:
People in Canada LOVE their healthcare system. You can not get elected dog catcher if you say you want to do away with it. Even the most right wing advocates would scream bloody murder if you said you were going back to an american style system. That says it all.

Of course they do.. because 1. most individuals are not sick.. and its hard to determine how good your healthcare is until you are really ill.

2. They don't have comparisons with other countries.. and quite frankly.. its not surprising that a person who is a citizen of a country likes the way their country operates. It would not surprise me that the average Saudi agrees with the way women are treated in Saudi Arabia..

But I would not suggest that that is a good reason to try it here.

vegas giants · Jul 11, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Of course they do.. because 1. most individuals are not sick.. and its hard to determine how good your healthcare is until you are really ill.

2. They don't have comparisons with other countries.. and quite frankly.. its not surprising that a person who is a citizen of a country likes the way their country operates. It would not surprise me that the average Saudi agrees with the way women are treated in Saudi Arabia..

But I would not suggest that that is a good reason to try it here.

Uh....well we live in a country and almost no one seems to like the way our system works. Are you kidding?

jaeger19 · Jul 11, 2017

vegas giants said:
I most certainly did know that, Did you know that private insurance still exists in Canada. Anyone can buy a policy if they like. Some employers just have insurance to cover things like meds.

And you can't find one politician anywhere in the country that would support going to an american style system. He would be laughed at.

Oh.. then you should be quiet.. because if we went to that system.. that would mean that the vast majority of americans would have LESS coverage than they do now.

And you aren;t going to find many people that are going to want that.

And its not that anyone can buy a policy if they like.. anyone that CAN AFFORD IT.. can buy a policy.

One in ten Canadians cannot afford to take their prescription drugs as directed, according to an analysis by researchers from the University of British Columbia and the University of Toronto.

The study, published today in the CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) is the first to examine the relationship between drug insurance and the use of prescription drugs in Canada. Researchers from UBC’s Centre for Health Services and Policy Research reviewed data from 5,732 people who answered Statistics Canada’s Canadian Community Health Survey. They found that 9.6 per cent of Canadians who received a prescription reported not filling, failing to refill, or skipping doses for cost reasons. The phenomenon is particularly prevalent for Canadians who do not have drug insurance, with 26.5 per cent reporting not being able to afford their prescription drugs.

“Our results clearly demonstrate that cost-related problems in accessing prescription drugs are disproportionately borne by the poor, the sick and the uninsured,” says Michael Law, Assistant Professor at UBC’s School of Population and Public Health. “More than one in four Canadians without health insurance are forced, financially, to go without the prescription drugs they need.”

Prescription drugs fall outside the Canada Health Act, resulting in a “patchwork” of drug coverage that leaves two-thirds of Canadian households paying all or part of their prescription drug costs. The Canadian Institute for Health Information estimated these out-of-pocket payments totaled $4.6 billion in 2010.

The results of the UBC study show that individuals without drug insurance are 4.5 times more likely to avoid taking prescribed medications because of cost. Similarly, Canadians with low incomes are 3.3 times more likely to not use prescription drugs because they cannot afford them.

The study also shows that Canadians who reported fair or poor health status did not take their prescribed medications 2.6 times more often than those who reported good or excellent health; similarly, those with chronic conditions were 1.6 times more likely to not take their medicines as directed due to cost.

Oh wait.. you already knew this... :roll:

vegas giants · Jul 11, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Oh.. then you should be quiet.. because if we went to that system.. that would mean that the vast majority of americans would have LESS coverage than they do now.

And you aren;t going to find many people that are going to want that.

And its not that anyone can buy a policy if they like.. anyone that CAN AFFORD IT.. can buy a policy.

Oh wait.. you already knew this... :roll:

You understand that any problems they may have in Canda are ten times as worse here...don't you? Medical bankruptcy is virtually zero. It is the number one form of bankruptcy here. EVERYONE can get the help they need and never get a bill. The billing department of a major hospital in the US has over a dozen people. In Canada it is one person who probably does it half time.

They have FAR FAR FAR more coverage than many americans do. Holy cow this is hilarious.

jaeger19 · Jul 11, 2017

vegas giants said:
Uh....well we live in a country and almost no one seems to like the way our system works. Are you kidding?

Nope.. they don't like the way our system works.. until they see how other systems work in other countries.. and then they love our system.. compared to say waiting months and months for an MRI or total hip.

Its why.. despite you liberals calling for Medicare for all.. and single payer.. over and over.. for decades.. Americans are dead set against it.

Overall, 33% of the public now favors such a “single payer” approach to health insurance, up 5 percentage points since January and 12 points since 2014. Democrats – especially liberal Democrats – are much more supportive of this approach than they were even at the start of this year.

you can barely get a third of americans to support single payer.

vegas giants · Jul 11, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Nope.. they don't like the way our system works.. until they see how other systems work in other countries.. and then they love our system.. compared to say waiting months and months for an MRI or total hip.

Its why.. despite you liberals calling for Medicare for all.. and single payer.. over and over.. for decades.. Americans are dead set against it.

you can barely get a third of americans to support single payer.

What are you talking about? They love their system. We have a great system .....FOR THE RICH. If you are rich you can get the best treatment in the world here. Not so much for anyone else. Our system is a nightmare and virtually everyone admits that. they may not all agree on the answer but NO ONE is supporting going to a totally free market. That would be a death sentence for many americans

jaeger19 · Jul 11, 2017

vegas giants said:
You understand that any problems they may have in Canda are ten times as worse here...don't you? Medical bankruptcy is virtually zero. It is the number one form of bankruptcy here. EVERYONE can get the help they need and never get a bill. The billing department of a major hospital in the US has over a dozen people. In Canada it is one person who probably does it half time.

They have FAR FAR FAR more coverage than many americans do. Holy cow this is hilarious.

You do understand that no.. problems that are under the Canadian system are not ten times worse here.. don't you. If you have MEDICAID in this country.. it covers your medications. Just about any insurance covers medication in this country. Meanwhile the basic coverage under single payer in Canada does not.

Medical bankruptcy is not virtually zero in Canada in fact studies show that bankruptcies are signifantly different in Canada than here.

As for the notion that greater government involvement in health insurance will reduce bankruptcy, it is helpful to compare personal bankruptcy rates in the United States and Canada. Unlike the United States, Canada has a universal, government-run health insurance system. Following the logic of Himmelstein and colleagues, we should therefore expect to observe a lower rate of personal bankruptcy in Canada compared to the United States.

Yet the evidence shows that in the only comparable years, personal bankruptcy rates were actually higher in Canada. Personal bankruptcy filings as a percentage of the population were 0.20 percent in the United States during 2006 and 0.27 percent in 2007. In Canada, the numbers are 0.30 percent in both 2006 and 2007. The data are from government sources and defined in similar ways for both countries and cover the time period after the legal reforms to U.S. bankruptcy laws in 2005 and before the onset of the 2008 economic recession.

This is important, because the 2005 reforms produced U.S. legal standards for bankruptcy filing that are now very similar to Canada’s

Survey research commissioned by the Canadian government found that despite having a government-run health system, medical reasons (including uninsured expenses), were cited as the primary cause of bankruptcy by approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors (55 years of age and older).

Oh wait.. but YOU KNOW this...

right?

So if you know this. but claim that medical bankruptcy is virtually zero then would that make you then dishonest?

They have FAR FAR FAR more coverage than many americans do. Holy cow this is hilarious

No they don't . The basic Canadian single payer coverage does not cover medication as an outpatient.. it does not cover outpatient therapies,, it does not cover durable medical good outside a hospital.. etc..

Meanwhile a poor person on Medicaid is covered for those things.

jaeger19 · Jul 11, 2017

vegas giants said:
What are you talking about? They love their system. We have a great system .....FOR THE RICH. If you are rich you can get the best treatment in the world here. Not so much for anyone else. Our system is a nightmare and virtually everyone admits that. they may not all agree on the answer but NO ONE is supporting going to a totally free market. That would be a death sentence for many americans

Interestingly wrong.

If you have insurance in America.. which 85% of americans do.. you get the same service as the person who is rich. In one bed is a poor person with Medicaid.. and in the next bed I have a patient who is the CEO of a major corporation who has Blue Cross. Same hospital and same surgery. Same care.. legally required.

In other countries.. that have single payer there are two systems.. literally two hospitals.. one for the rich and another one for everyone else on government insurance.

We actually have less inequity in our system if you have insurance.. now that 10-15% of americans that don't have insurance.. care is less equitable.. though they are often treated in a more expensive setting in the hospitals that have to provide equitable standards of care.

those are facts.

And no one is calling for a totally free insurance market. No one wants to END medicare or Medicaid.. or even the VA..

In fact.. the irony is that if we went to single payer system like Canada's.. people that now have Medicare.. would have WORSE coverage and worse care than they do now. Its why people are not so happy about having a single payer system.. especially if you are trying to get the costs savings of other countries.

vegas giants · Jul 11, 2017

jaeger19 said:
You do understand that no.. problems that are under the Canadian system are not ten times worse here.. don't you. If you have MEDICAID in this country.. it covers your medications. Just about any insurance covers medication in this country. Meanwhile the basic coverage under single payer in Canada does not.

Medical bankruptcy is not virtually zero in Canada in fact studies show that bankruptcies are signifantly different in Canada than here.

Oh wait.. but YOU KNOW this...

right?

So if you know this. but claim that medical bankruptcy is virtually zero then would that make you then dishonest?

No they don't . The basic Canadian single payer coverage does not cover medication as an outpatient.. it does not cover outpatient therapies,, it does not cover durable medical good outside a hospital.. etc..

Meanwhile a poor person on Medicaid is covered for those things.

Your evidence is bogus
For both 2006 and 2007, the Fraser Institute study reports a Canadian bankruptcy filing rate of 0.30% of total population or 3.0 for every 1,000 persons. As the table to the right verifies, the Canadian bankruptcy rate for those two years is lower than in the United States, hardly a surprising result given the draconian 2005 U.S. bankruptcy law and the artificial dip in U.S. bankruptcy filings at that time. Here is the thing: for any other year in the past ten years, the U.S. bankruptcy rate is higher than 3.0. Examining the most recent data, as the Fraser Institute study purported to do, would have shown a higher 2008 rate for the United States. For 2009, my projection (approx 1.45 million bankruptcy filings) suggest a U.S. bankruptcy filing rate of about 4.7 per 1,000 total population.

Millions of americans will be kicked off ALL insurance if we repeal the ACA. The medicaid expansion will be gone. NO ONE shows up at an ER in Canada and is sent away for a chronic problem. In the US the ER does not treat high blood pressure....it treats stroke. It does not treat high cholesterol....it treats heart attack. We have the worst system if you don't have GREAT insurance.

jaeger19 · Jul 11, 2017

vegas giants said:
Your evidence is bogus
For both 2006 and 2007, the Fraser Institute study reports a Canadian bankruptcy filing rate of 0.30% of total population or 3.0 for every 1,000 persons. As the table to the right verifies, the Canadian bankruptcy rate for those two years is lower than in the United States, hardly a surprising result given the draconian 2005 U.S. bankruptcy law and the artificial dip in U.S. bankruptcy filings at that time. Here is the thing: for any other year in the past ten years, the U.S. bankruptcy rate is higher than 3.0. Examining the most recent data, as the Fraser Institute study purported to do, would have shown a higher 2008 rate for the United States. For 2009, my projection (approx 1.45 million bankruptcy filings) suggest a U.S. bankruptcy filing rate of about 4.7 per 1,000 total population.

Millions of americans will be kicked off ALL insurance if we repeal the ACA. The medicaid expansion will be gone. NO ONE shows up at an ER in Canada and is sent away for a chronic problem. In the US the ER does not treat high blood pressure....it treats stroke. It does not treat high cholesterol....it treats heart attack. We have the worst system if you don't have GREAT insurance.

Wait... you said that the medical bankruptcy rate was virtually nil... oh wait.. it wasn't.,

Survey research commissioned by the Canadian government found that despite having a government-run health system, medical reasons (including uninsured expenses), were cited as the primary cause of bankruptcy by approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors (55 years of age and older).

On to the other study.. the comparison that the study I used used a time when bankrupty laws and economic conditions between Canada and the US were SIMILAR.. And it showed that Canada had a higher bankruptcy rate...

The data are from government sources and defined in similar ways for both countries and cover the time period after the legal reforms to U.S. bankruptcy laws in 2005 and before the onset of the 2008 economic recession.

This is important, because the 2005 reforms produced U.S. legal standards for bankruptcy filing that are now very similar to Canada’s

Oopps sorry.. you are the one with bogus information. Quite frankly you outright did a falsehood claiming that bankruptcy for medical reason was virtually non existent.

jaeger19 · Jul 11, 2017

vegas giants said:
Millions of americans will be kicked off ALL insurance if we repeal the ACA. The medicaid expansion will be gone. NO ONE shows up at an ER in Canada and is sent away for a chronic problem. In the US the ER does not treat high blood pressure....it treats stroke. It does not treat high cholesterol....it treats heart attack. We have the worst system if you don't have GREAT insurance.

Nice strawman.. but I am not for outright repeal of the ACA.

and by the way.. the ACA is not single payer.

and yes.. people come to the ER in Canada and are sent away with a chronic problems.. and if they have Canadian single payer.. they don't get the medications at home to take care of their chronic condition.. meanwhile.. the person in the US with Medicaid.. does get medication coverage for home.

Those are the facts. How do you treat high cholesterol? In a hospital? Or with medication taken while at home?

Medicaid and most most insured in America have coverage for medications taken at home. Not so with Canadian single payer.

Sorry but again. that's the facts.

vegas giants · Jul 11, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Nice strawman.. but I am not for outright repeal of the ACA.

and by the way.. the ACA is not single payer.

and yes.. people come to the ER in Canada and are sent away with a chronic problems.. and if they have Canadian single payer.. they don't get the medications at home to take care of their chronic condition.. meanwhile.. the person in the US with Medicaid.. does get medication coverage for home.

Those are the facts. How do you treat high cholesterol? In a hospital? Or with medication taken while at home?

Medicaid and most most insured in America have coverage for medications taken at home. Not so with Canadian single payer.

Sorry but again. that's the facts.

Then perhaps we should use The UK's model if you prefer. Or France's, Or Germany's Or Japan's or Australia's or...... LOL

vegas giants · Jul 11, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Nice strawman.. but I am not for outright repeal of the ACA.

and by the way.. the ACA is not single payer.

and yes.. people come to the ER in Canada and are sent away with a chronic problems.. and if they have Canadian single payer.. they don't get the medications at home to take care of their chronic condition.. meanwhile.. the person in the US with Medicaid.. does get medication coverage for home.

Those are the facts. How do you treat high cholesterol? In a hospital? Or with medication taken while at home?

Medicaid and most most insured in America have coverage for medications taken at home. Not so with Canadian single payer.

Sorry but again. that's the facts.

Do you know that millions of Americans have no health coverage and that is not true in Canada? Are you kidding?

jaeger19 · Jul 11, 2017

vegas giants said:
Do you know that millions of Americans have no health coverage and that is not true in Canada? Are you kidding?

True..

Do you know that the vast majority of americans have healthcare coverage in America? Do you know that their insurance coverage is better than what they would have if they had Canadian single payer.?

I hope you are kidding.

Nickyjo · Jul 11, 2017

Bucky said:
In capitalism, businesses go out of business when they can no longer sustain their life. Why should the government prop up people?

Asked and answered by societies generations ago... Unless you want to put out your own fires, catch the guys who burglarized your house, or pave your own streets.

jaeger19 · Jul 11, 2017

vegas giants said:
Then perhaps we should use The UK's model if you prefer. Or France's, Or Germany's Or Japan's or Australia's or...... LOL

Well.. we should adopt a few things like better prevention through easy access to a primary physician..

On the other hand.. I don't think we should adopt a system like the UK where you are more likely to die of cancer than the US.

One analysis we did in 2012, which was featured in the 2013 Economic Report of the President, compared the value of cancer survival gains in the US vs the EU from 1983 to 1999. We found that cancer patients in the US lived longer than in the EU, and these survival gains were not due to more aggressive screening of US patients. Most importantly, these additional US survival gains were worth the higher spending – to the tune of almost $600 billion over the period, or $43 billion per year. In other words, the US was spending more but getting around $61,000 in additional value per cancer patient. These findings were borne out by another study, which shows that cancer mortality rates fell faster in the highest-spending countries than in medium- and low-spending countries

US v UK: The breast cancer survival stakes

An American woman's chances of developing breast cancer are slightly higher than her British counterpart - but she is far more likely to survive.

One U.S. woman in eight can expect to have the disease at some point in her life, compared with one in nine in Britain.

But five-year survival rates for all forms of the disease - including the most advanced - stand at 85 per cent in the U.S and just under

74 per cent in the UK. If the cancer is caught early - at what doctors call stage 1 - the differences in survival are even more shocking.

An American woman has a 97 per cent chance of being alive five years after diagnosis.

In Britain, this figure is only 78 per cent.

Routine breast screening in the U.S. starts at 40 rather than 50, as in Britain, and women are thoroughly checked every one to two years, rather than every three years under the NHS.

Breast cancer drugs such as Herceptin, which can extend the life of women suffering the most advanced forms of the disease, was made available in America in 1998.

The drug costs up to £30,000 for a full 38-week course.

Shockingly, it took nearly two years before the drug was approved for NHS use and specialists estimated that in that time, 5,000 British women who needed it had died.

I suppose you like to LOL... I don't find dying of cancer a laughing matter.

vegas giants · Jul 11, 2017

jaeger19 said:
True..

Do you know that the vast majority of americans have healthcare coverage in America? Do you know that their insurance coverage is better than what they would have if they had Canadian single payer.?

I hope you are kidding.

Well it not the vast majority in Canada....its EVERYONE. And no coverage here is not better. You can have good health insurance and get a major illness and still have to declare bankruptcy due to co pays and deductibles. Not in the UK for example

vegas giants · Jul 11, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Well.. we should adopt a few things like better prevention through easy access to a primary physician..

On the other hand.. I don't think we should adopt a system like the UK where you are more likely to die of cancer than the US.

I suppose you like to LOL... I don't find dying of cancer a laughing matter.

You will die of cancer here pretty quickly without coverage.

What is the model you prefer? Who is doing it right?

jaeger19 · Jul 11, 2017

vegas giants said:
Well it not the vast majority in Canada....its EVERYONE. And no coverage here is not better. You can have good health insurance and get a major illness and still have to declare bankruptcy due to co pays and deductibles. Not in the UK for example

Yes.. the coverage is better here.. Canada doesn't cover things like medication.

And Canada and other countries still have medical bankruptcy.

So does the UK..

Of course.. the real truth is that copays and deductibles are not the cause of medical bankruptcies.. and in fact its rare that medical debt is the cause of medical bankruptcies.. studies of medical bankruptcies show that actual medical bills/debt.. actually account for a small portion of overall debt. Consumer debt is the single biggest debt.. Its not the medical bills that cause medical bankruptcy.. its the loss of income associated with being ill.

For instance, within the United Kingdom,
sickness or disability accounted for 5% of households in financial difficulties in 2002

jaeger19 · Jul 11, 2017

vegas giants said:
You will die of cancer here pretty quickly without coverage.

What is the model you prefer? Who is doing it right?

I don't think that its a choice of either totally what we have now.. or going to a European single payer.

Based on the evidence.. we have a pretty good system when it comes to healthcare.. definitely have some issues with healthcare insurance.. but the solutions are really not that radical. they just are difficult politically because the insurance industry has a tight hold on the democrats and republicans.. (mostly democrats though).

it would make sense to me. simply to make the changes to the system that will result in 100% coverage in the US.. by simply fixing things for the 15% of americans without health insurance... rather than screw over 85 -90 % of americans with a system that is worse than what they have already.

Greenbeard · Jul 11, 2017

Bucky said:
In capitalism, businesses go out of business when they can no longer sustain their life. Why should the government prop up people? Is living in a horrible nursing home or in a hospital bed really living?

That sort of social Darwinism has gone out of fashion so it's difficult to know how to even respond to this kind of thinking.

But if you need a self-interested argument, paying providers to treat those icky poors helps them keep their doors open so that they are there to treat you when you need them.

vegas giants · Jul 11, 2017

jaeger19 said:
I don't think that its a choice of either totally what we have now.. or going to a European single payer.

Based on the evidence.. we have a pretty good system when it comes to healthcare.. definitely have some issues with healthcare insurance.. but the solutions are really not that radical. they just are difficult politically because the insurance industry has a tight hold on the democrats and republicans.. (mostly democrats though).

it would make sense to me. simply to make the changes to the system that will result in 100% coverage in the US.. by simply fixing things for the 15% of americans without health insurance... rather than screw over 85 -90 % of americans with a system that is worse than what they have already.

Our system sucks. Most expensive, poor access for many and horribly confusing. We need single payer

cpwill · Jul 11, 2017

Chaddelamancha said:
I wonder how many people we could afford to cover if we stopped spending billions of dollars a year in our "war on terrorism"? I would much rather my tax dollar go to helping someone cover their medical care than spending it on drone strikes.

......

What is driving the growth in government spending?

Bucky · Jul 12, 2017

cuban smokes said:
my Mother & Father both went through some tuff times with long term health issues, medical expenses, and long term care but they planned ahead & purchased 'long term coverage' that paid for a large portion of their finals expenses, i.e. hospice & nursing home care.

Long term coverage is very expensive & it WON'T pay for everything but it will pay for a lot; purchase & lock in your costs before age 59.

Quite honestly they should be getting it a lot earlier. The problem is, the majority of 20-30 years old don't care about health care unless they have a family, or are unhealthy. The key is to get more healthy young adults covered, which seems like a fruitless effort but I think can be done.

I doubt pouring more money into an inefficent system will make it better. I'd much rather see money in healthcare go into education. The number of people in this country that are clueless about healthcare is alarming. 70% of people in this country will need some sort of assistance with daily living in their life. The majority of health care providers are family members. Medicaid pays for the majority of long-term care expenses. Medicare is not designed to pay for nursing homes.

The majority of Americans, even baby boomers, do not know these facts! That is a problem.