Canadian medical care waiting time! Die while you wait and wait and wait and wait and...

joko104 said:

Name the major medical care - major surgery for example - you have received under ObamaCare.

I'm not talking about doctor office visits for minor matters. There is a free clinic here for that - with no connection to ObamaCare, Medicare or any other federal program. The cost of a doctor's office visit otherwise to a non-government income based doctor's office is $75.

So, you paid $150 a month every month, plus $20 when you went to the Obama care doctor - and $150 a month for nothing every month you didn't - and I paid $75 for a doctor's visit - but no $150 - meaning I paid $95 less than you and months of no doctor's visit I paid $0 and you paid $150 for nothing.

However, it isn't about simple doctor's visits. It is for catastrophic, major and serious and costly ongoing medical care. What are your experiences with that, if any?

There are people I know with ObamaCare. Although 3 hospitals closer and hundreds of doctors, specialists and clinics, they have to drive to Tampa or Orlando. What they don't like also is they are told they MUST go for routine exams or they will be dropped and told what they MUST have done or they will be dropped. They are treated like an animal taken to the vet - no say whatsoever. I don't know your experiences of course.

Click to expand...

That wasn't my experience. No one ever told me I had to get regular exams, though I would have been happy to if that were the rule and it were signed off by my doctor.

And I didn't pay that $150 a month for nothing, I paid that $150 a month for health insurance. That's how insurance works. I want people on Obamacare to be paying a premium every month, just like I want people who drive vehicles on the same U.S. roads that I drive on to pay a premium every month. That way, if something bad happens I am not stuck paying for my own medical bills and car repairs, and in the case of Obamacare, they are not forced to declare bankruptcy if they have a heart attack or stroke. "Socializing" healthcare just means sharing the burden of the costs. I pay my car insurance, (which, yes, goes to pay for other people's accidents) because one day I might have an accident and need other people's premiums to help pay my medical bills.

joko104 said:

You are ranting against your own strawman. If you ever care to discuss what I'm posting give it a try. Otherwise I won't waste my time on you.

Click to expand...

I've addressed everything you've said, including your deep denial about the reality of Canadian health care. The only real rant here is your OP.

If you want to join common reality and have a real conversation, I'll be here. If there's anything I've said that you aren't clear on, please ask and I'll be happy to clarify.

joko104 said:

I have an exact experience of the difference between private healthcare and government healthcare - even at the same hospital.

Heart attack. I went to the hospital due to huge chest pain - heart attack - as a self payer one night. They immediately did an EKG and I was admitted and cared for immediately.

Next heart attack: I showed up on the day during the day that same hospital takes ObamaCare patients. I did the electronic registration that specifically said if you are having chest pains tell the person at the counter. So I checked the chest pain box and then told the person at the counter I had massive chest pain, I have a heart condition and it all but certain I am having a heart attack. He told me to have a seat with about 75 other people. To them, I was an ObamaCare patient.


Was I having a heart attack (blockage so part of my heart was not receiving blood)? Yes. There I sat. One hour. Two hours. It was just over 3 hours before anyone spoke to me - though an EKG to determine if it was a heart attack takes 1 minute.

Result, permanent and irreparable damage to my heart literally unable to get any treatment for a heart attack by a heart patient saying he's having a heart attack WHEN IN THE GOVERNMENT CARE LINE.

After an examine if there is a heart issue? They do an MRI or CAT scan to determine if a heart cath exam is warranted - unless I am in clear life-death danger. They do the MRI immediately - in the USA IF I am using private care I pay for.

What about Canada? How long would it take for me to get that MRI? 30 minutes? 1 hour? OMG 2 hours?! NO - Try 250 hours - over 10 WEEKS!

"From the time it takes to receive a referral by a GP – to receiving treatment – Canadians wait an average of 21.2 weeks to receive treatment from a specialist. MRI procedures could take up to 10.8 weeks."

US vs Canadian Healthcare: What Are the Differences? | AIMS Education

A woman detects a lump in her breast? Maybe breast cancer? Go stand in line - first to see a primary care doctor - and go stand in another line to see a specialist - over 5 MONTHS!

COST to Canadian government per person for "free" healthcare: $5,789 per person per year, or $23,000+ per year for a family of 4. (same source). If the same cost in the USA? One trillion two hundred eight billion dollars per year - $1.280 TRILLION PER YEAR.

To die waiting months for an MRI or to see a specialize.

^ THAT is what the Democratic Party wants to FORCE on you. Under the Democratic Party plan I would have died of a heart attack 11 years ago. The Democratic Party's plan should be called the "Kill all People Who Need Urgent Medical Care" plan. Then brag about how much money killing off those people saves. That is DEMOCRAT healthcare.

Click to expand...

Lets see.. you are wrong on many levels here.

First.. if you have "obamacare".... you are not on government insurance... you are on private insurance.

Second.. the reason you waited had nothing to do with obamacare.. or with your insurance... there is no "obamacare line".. when it comes to the emergency department.

And the first test you would have would be an ECG.. not an MRI. In fact.. and MRI or cardiac CT would be down the road to look at the extent of damage. the first thing would be ECG and blood tests and to start treatment to reverse any damage.

If there were 75 other patients in the waiting room.. it means the ER was overloaded.. and likely you did not either get triaged correctly or more likely with that number waiting.. there were simply more complicated cases in front of you.. which is why you waited.

Kind of the irony here is that its possible that the reason you waited and the ER was overloaded was because of the "self pay".. people that had waited until there was an emergency before coming into the ER to get treatment.. rather then going to a regular doctor.

joko104 said:

Another example of last week: One of our elderly neighbors. Mid age 70s. He had a stroke. Rush to the hospital. Fortunately no major brain damage. But they found he had 95% blockage in main artery that feeds his brain. He is on Medicare. They sent him home. They will do more testing next week to decide what to do - when it is known EXACTLY what needs to be done. They need to stint it NOW, immediately.

But they won't, not until they go step 1, 2, 3 required by Medicare before Medicare will approve paying - and he has to wait in the Medicare line for each step.

In the meantime he and his wife are crossing their fingers and praying like crazy. Can he live many weeks longer and not suffer too much more permanent brain lose? Maybe Medicare will get really lucky and he won't live - then think of all the money they saved by blowing him off?

What is sad is he's a cheap old bastard. He has the $$ to pay it himself. The cost? About $7000. But since the government will pay most of it, he's just going to hope he lives and that half his brain isn't gone from waiting. NOTHING is free. You pay a price. The price he might pay in his belief in FREE is with his life or half his brain.

THAT is government healthcare. And that is the stupidity of living your life to the value system of "free stuff." Nothing is ever REALLY free. You pay. One way or another. And if you pay thru 3rd parties you will always pay more for less. Usually "free" is the most expensive of all.

Click to expand...

Yeah no. Sorry man.. but you obviously don;t know anything about medicine. The reason that your eldery neighbor was sent home was because doing a stent ( CAS).. or a endarterectomy (CEA) would more than likely kill him.. if done "immediately"... Going in there.. particularly right after a stroke.. which he had obviously survived.. would have a high risk of creating another stroke..

the smartest course would more than likely to treat him with anticoagulants for a time, evaluate his blood flow and the quality of is arteries and the possibility of success.. and then decide whether CAS or CEA is warranted.. if at all. Especially when other medical factors could have caused the stroke (and it probably wasn't a stroke, it was a TIA.. or transient ischemic attack)

By the way.. you don;t have "a main artery supplying blood to the brain"... you have four.. two on each side of the neck.. assuming the blockage is in either an internal carotid or vertebral artery. If its up in the in a cerebrum.. like a middle or anterior cerebral artery.. then you are a much more difficult surgery.. with even higher risk. In all likelihood, this fellow has already compensated for his 95% blocked artery with the other three arteries.. since he has probably had 95% blockage for years and years..(assuming its in the neck). The correct medical course would be to wait and evaluate and treat with medicine. In fact its entirely possible that the reason for the stroke was NOT the compromised artery.. but some other medical issue.. like a heart failure.

Sorry man.. but you have made a giant leap in assumption without medical knowledge here.

Show me Germany's wait times.

jaeger19 said:

Yeah no. Sorry man.. but you obviously don;t know anything about medicine. The reason that your eldery neighbor was sent home was because doing a stent ( CAS).. or a endarterectomy (CEA) would more than likely kill him.. if done "immediately"... Going in there.. particularly right after a stroke.. which he had obviously survived.. would have a high risk of creating another stroke..

the smartest course would more than likely to treat him with anticoagulants for a time, evaluate his blood flow and the quality of is arteries and the possibility of success.. and then decide whether CAS or CEA is warranted.. if at all. Especially when other medical factors could have caused the stroke (and it probably wasn't a stroke, it was a TIA.. or transient ischemic attack)

By the way.. you don;t have "a main artery supplying blood to the brain"... you have four.. two on each side of the neck.. assuming the blockage is in either an internal carotid or vertebral artery. If its up in the in a cerebrum.. like a middle or anterior cerebral artery.. then you are a much more difficult surgery.. with even higher risk. In all likelihood, this fellow has already compensated for his 95% blocked artery with the other three arteries.. since he has probably had 95% blockage for years and years..(assuming its in the neck). The correct medical course would be to wait and evaluate and treat with medicine. In fact its entirely possible that the reason for the stroke was NOT the compromised artery.. but some other medical issue.. like a heart failure.

Sorry man.. but you have made a giant leap in assumption without medical knowledge here.

Click to expand...

No, the other side of his neck was done last year. Only 1 side was done because Medicare would only pay for one side being done. He also has a pacemaker so they know about his heart. If they had done both sides this wouldn't have happened. The delay is because of waiting for Medicare, not because it shouldn't be done. They know what needs be done because they did it last year to the other side of his neck.

It may not have technically been a "stroke." That was their lay description. It may been just shortage of oxygen to the blood, but no clot.

He's cheap. He won't reach into his pocket for a dollar if he can avoid it, that is his personality. Candidly I don't like the guy and he doesn't like me. We act civil towards each other, that's it. But it's a small community and everybody knows everything about everyone else. Very gossipy.

My point is about the delay because it is the government-pay system for which who makes the final decision of the treatment isn't the patient or even the doctor, it is the government deciding what it is willing to pay for, exploring if there is some cheaper Bandaid solution because maybe he'll die for some other reason such as his heart before surgery is an absolute only choice.

Doctors are SO conditioned to their economic connection to the government and insurance, that those in that system are baffled when told we are self pay. They're not accustomed to being about to make decisions without government approval of payment and their thinking all revolves around what will the government authorize payment for - rather than solely healthcare decisions.

Generally the government always will pay for pills without question, but surgeries and equipment is another matter. Doctors know they can write prescriptions so write lots of them. They will tend to do whatever the government pays for - meaning often lots of testing - sometimes of questionable value or need. It's a different question for surgery. It can take a long time before the government will ok it.

jaeger19 said:

Lets see.. you are wrong on many levels here.

First.. if you have "obamacare".... you are not on government insurance... you are on private insurance.

Second.. the reason you waited had nothing to do with obamacare.. or with your insurance... there is no "obamacare line".. when it comes to the emergency department.

And the first test you would have would be an ECG.. not an MRI. In fact.. and MRI or cardiac CT would be down the road to look at the extent of damage. the first thing would be ECG and blood tests and to start treatment to reverse any damage.

If there were 75 other patients in the waiting room.. it means the ER was overloaded.. and likely you did not either get triaged correctly or more likely with that number waiting.. there were simply more complicated cases in front of you.. which is why you waited.

Kind of the irony here is that its possible that the reason you waited and the ER was overloaded was because of the "self pay".. people that had waited until there was an emergency before coming into the ER to get treatment.. rather then going to a regular doctor.

Click to expand...

Yes, ECG ( tend to say EKG) first as I mentioned. An MRI MAY be needed next - or the ECG will show it not necessary or a procedure needed so fast that the MRI also isn't necessary. The hospital only accepts ObamaCare patients and Medicare patients on set days at set times. Otherwise won't. I was there on ObamaCare day. The government subsidizes ObamaCare, you know that. Otherwise it wouldn't be in the federal budget.

I do not pretend to be a medical expert. I form my opinions by experiences of myself and others. I have been in hospitals many times for myself and others, including life-death trauma situations - and otherwise will be at a doctors office - one or another - at least two times a week for some person or another or myself. I often post on medical topics as a result. In one instance at one of the largest hospitals in the USA (Parkland, Dallas) we battled AMA policy over a severely trauma birthing situation - and the entire hospital staff in that department came around to our side - forever changing hospital policy. No, every problematical pre-birth pregnancy does not have to be solved by a C-section, though that was AMA strict policy.

They claimed a "natural" birth was "impossible." The problem was for the previous surprise early spontaneous labor of the exact same known situation the birth mother and I had done "the impossible" - having no choice. There wasn't the slightest harm to child or birth mother. So much for "impossible." We talked the hospital staff chiefs to agree to give it a try, provided an instant C-section could be done if failing. ALL medical staff signed off on it, the trauma room was wall-to-wall including with medical students. It worked PERFECTLY. They said she was the greatest birth mother they ever had.

THE most common lecture I give people I know is "STOP PUTTING IT OFF!" in obtaining healthcare. This area is over 70% seniors and that means LOTS of medical issues, some very seriously.

Tonight I'm meeting with someone I'm going to try to nicely read the riot act to for putting off necessary medical care and therapy. The longer the delay, the greater the permanent damage, ie COPD. It is not a disease that goes backwards, only forward. Damage by delay is permanent damage.

Having to wait 2 or 3 hours to renew license plates or transfer a car is annoying. Having to wait 2, 3, 4, 6 weeks for medical care shortens lifespans and can be deadly. Something that needs to medically be done NOW needs to be done NOW, not when the government or insurance company finally says ok. Every major hospital - all so economically married to government and insurance - should have a committee making those decisions every day in the hospital so approval or denial can happen within minutes or at least hours - not weeks and months later 1,000 miles away.

joko104 said:

Yes, ECG ( tend to say EKG) first as I mentioned. An MRI MAY be needed next - or the ECG will show it not necessary or a procedure needed so fast that the MRI also isn't necessary. The hospital only accepts ObamaCare patients and Medicare patients on set days at set times. Otherwise won't. I was there on ObamaCare day. The government subsidizes ObamaCare, you know that. Otherwise it wouldn't be in the federal budget.

I do not pretend to be a medical expert. I form my opinions by experiences of myself and others. I have been in hospitals many times for myself and others, including life-death trauma situations - and otherwise will be at a doctors office - one or another - at least two times a week for some person or another or myself. I often post on medical topics as a result. In one instance at one of the largest hospitals in the USA (Parkland, Dallas) we battled AMA policy over a severely trauma birthing situation - and the entire hospital staff in that department came around to our side - forever changing hospital policy. No, every problematical pre-birth pregnancy does not have to be solved by a C-section, though that was AMA strict policy.

They claimed a "natural" birth was "impossible." The problem was for the previous surprise early spontaneous labor of the exact same known situation the birth mother and I had done "the impossible" - having no choice. There wasn't the slightest harm to child or birth mother. So much for "impossible." We talked the hospital staff chiefs to agree to give it a try, provided an instant C-section could be done if failing. ALL medical staff signed off on it, the trauma room was wall-to-wall including with medical students. It worked PERFECTLY. They said she was the greatest birth mother they ever had.

THE most common lecture I give people I know is "STOP PUTTING IT OFF!" in obtaining healthcare. This area is over 70% seniors and that means LOTS of medical issues, some very seriously.

Tonight I'm meeting with someone I'm going to try to nicely read the riot act to for putting off necessary medical care and therapy. The longer the delay, the greater the permanent damage, ie COPD. It is not a disease that goes backwards, only forward. Damage by delay is permanent damage.

Having to wait 2 or 3 hours to renew license plates or transfer a car is annoying. Having to wait 2, 3, 4, 6 weeks for medical care shortens lifespans and can be deadly. Something that needs to medically be done NOW needs to be done NOW, not when the government or insurance company finally says ok. Every major hospital - all so economically married to government and insurance - should have a committee making those decisions every day in the hospital so approval or denial can happen within minutes or at least hours - not weeks and months later 1,000 miles away.

Click to expand...

So in other words, your problem is actually with ObamaCare, not Canadian Health care. Although like a true American neo-con, you try to tear down Canada's health care as a means to justify your hatred of ObamaCare. What you need to do is stop watching Fox News and start listening to the Canadians who are actually replying to you. We aren't brainwashed, we live here and we have experienced the realities of health care here.

Contrary to what you might think, the nations of the world don't revolve around the Untied States. The different health care systems don't all look like yours, nor do they have the same politics or culture influencing them.

Sheesh.

Northern Light said:

I needed an MRI in July 2018 and I got it in one week because I was willing to go any time of day. So they called me 24 hours before and asked me if I could come at 11pm the next evening. Done. They might've asked me to go at 3am and I still would've gone. If you can only go during business hours then you are going to wait a long time. If your condition is serious they will bump you to the head of the line. When my daughter had a concussion because she fell off her bike, she got an MRI in 12 hours of arriving at the hospital. It's called triage, and medical professionals decide who is higher priority, not you.

Some private hospitals in the U.S. have really great care, but on the whole it's a bloated, top heavy, expensive system with inflated costs and, yes, even high wait times in some areas. Not to mention the number of people who file for bankruptcy over medical bills is staggering. No, Canada isn't a perfect system, but it's definitely better. You'd only know that if you lived here instead of just relying on Fox news.

Click to expand...

yep. i agree.

joko104 said:

No, the other side of his neck was done last year. Only 1 side was done because Medicare would only pay for one side being done. .

Click to expand...

Nope.. sorry man but again.. not true. There is no Medicare rule that says you cannot do both sides.

He also has a pacemaker so they know about his heart. If they had done both sides this wouldn't have happened. The delay is because of waiting for Medicare, not because it shouldn't be done. They know what needs be done because they did it last year to the other side of his neck.

Click to expand...

Wrong.. its because of his risk. In fact.. the likelihood is that they did the other carotid surgery before because that artery had a better chance of success.. while the one that was already 95% blocked had less chance of success and doing both.. particularly at the same time.. would be extremely risky. You are literally risking that when you are in there.. you can rupture an already fragile artery.. you can break loose the blockage and cause it to go the brain and cause a stroke that would not have happened if you had simply left well enough alone.

He also has a pacemaker so they know about his heart

Click to expand...

Bingo.. so already this guy's risk level goes way up.

Sorry man.. but this is not about money and medicare.. this is about doing no harm to this patient.

My point is about the delay because it is the government-pay system for which who makes the final decision of the treatment isn't the patient or even the doctor, it is the government deciding what it is willing to pay for,

Click to expand...

Except medicare really doesn;t work that way. the decision is the patients and the doctor... if the doctor decides to go ahead with a surgery because they feel its medically necessary.. THEN medicare MAY.. and there is a big MAY.. then review it AFTER THE SURGERY HAS BEEN DONE AND THE BILL SENT IN. and decide whether it was medically necessary. and RETROACTIVELY.. deny payment. So the doctor has to reimburse medicare for a unnecessary surgery.. and the patient.. doesn;t get a bill.

Traditional Medicare, historically, has rarely required prior authorization. Originally, the Social Security Act did not authorize any form of "prior authorization" for Medicare services, but the law has subsequently been changed to allow prior authorization for limited items of Durable Medical Equipment and physicians’ services. Despite this change, there are still very few services requiring Prior Authorization in traditional Medicare.* Enrollees in traditional Medicare Parts A and B can generally see specialists, visit hospitals, get care out of state, and so on, without having to ask Medicare's permission.

Click to expand...

Medicare Prior Authorization

Now.. if this fellow has a medicare advantage plan.. then he does NOT have medicare.. he has a private insurance.. and THAT may require pre authorization.

Doctors are SO conditioned to their economic connection to the government and insurance, that those in that system are baffled when told we are self pay. They're not accustomed to being about to make decisions without government approval of payment and their thinking all revolves around what will the government authorize payment for - rather than solely healthcare decisions.

Click to expand...

And that's because self pay is so rare. Particularly when self pay generally costs so much more for folks..even if they have a high deductible plan.. which means that they are going to pay anyway.. they are better off submitting it to insurance.. because they will get a discount.. where if they are self pay.. they will generally pay the full rate..

there is some truth to the conditioning that physicians get when it comes to care.. based on reimbursement. But that's from both private insurers and the government.. and frankly.. a lot of times.. much more likely with private insurers.. (other than Medicaid or VA.. ugh).. to have hoops to jump through.

Medicare however, is probably the most straightforward insurance.

It's a different question for surgery. It can take a long time before the government will ok

Click to expand...

it

Not true for medicare.. Medicaid? Yes.. VA? Definitely...
Private insurance? Yep to. .

joko104 said:

I have an exact experience of the difference between private healthcare and government healthcare - even at the same hospital.

Heart attack. I went to the hospital due to huge chest pain - heart attack - as a self payer one night. They immediately did an EKG and I was admitted and cared for immediately.

Next heart attack: I showed up on the day during the day that same hospital takes ObamaCare patients. I did the electronic registration that specifically said if you are having chest pains tell the person at the counter. So I checked the chest pain box and then told the person at the counter I had massive chest pain, I have a heart condition and it all but certain I am having a heart attack. He told me to have a seat with about 75 other people. To them, I was an ObamaCare patient.

Click to expand...

:shock::lamo
there is where i stopped reading because i dont believe you and you are lying . . if this did happen to you and id bet the farm tractor and auntie em it didnt it had ZERO to do with Obama Care. Hopefully at the end of your post you said just kidding.

Theres protocol at hospitals and a patient suspected of having a heart attack would not wait. In my personal experience with this (never having a heart attack but not knowing if i was because i used to have chronic progressive atrial fib) the two times i went to the hospital and explained to them my issue insurance etc was never even asked for i was rushed back immediately and paperwork was sorted out later after i was deemed safe

this also happened with my mom (she is on "obama care") twice who is currently battling cancer, i thought she may be haring a heart issue one nothing and the same thing, they rushed her back and sorted the paper work out later . . the second time i was so certain she was having a heart issue i drove straight to the EMS doors and made them come out and get her .. again . . paper work was handled later

lastly and i fully admit that this could be my own state/experience on the subject but theres no hospital in my area that doesnt take "Obama Care" insurance since its simply just insurance

joko104 said:

Yes, ECG ( tend to say EKG) first as I mentioned. An MRI MAY be needed next - or the ECG will show it not necessary or a procedure needed so fast that the MRI also isn't necessary. The hospital only accepts ObamaCare patients and Medicare patients on set days at set times. Otherwise won't. I was there on ObamaCare day. .

Click to expand...

Yeah.. wrong. Sorry but if you are going to an ER.. which is where you should be going if you are having a heart attack.. they do not turn away patients because you are "not on a medicare day"... seriously.. you really think that if Grandma breaks her hip on a Tuesday.. your hospital ER is going to say.. "sorry.. can;t except you.. its not Wednesdays which is the medicare day"??????

Sorry man but if the hospital ER is doing that.. they are breaking the law.

•

EMTALA has become the de facto national health care policy for the uninsured. It requires Medicare-participating hospitals with emergency departments to screen and stabilize treat patients with emergency medical conditions in a non-discriminatory manner, regardless of ability to pay, insurance status, national origin, race, creed or color. Ninety-two percent of all hospitalizations for the uninsured are directly linked with an emergency department visit. [iii]
•Hospitals and physicians violating EMTALA are subject to civil monetary penalties ($50,000 per violation) and threat of Medicare decertification

Click to expand...

The government subsidizes ObamaCare, you know that. Otherwise it wouldn't be in the federal budget.

Click to expand...

Its still private insurance and controlled by private insurance companies. In fact.. there is no such thing as "obamacare".. since you talking so many actual plans that may or may not be subsidized by the government depending on the persons financial situation.

Something that needs to medically be done NOW needs to be done NOW, not when the government or insurance company finally says ok.

Click to expand...

I agree.. but in the situation you describe and it being medicare.. you are wrong that the reason they are waiting is because of medicare. Its because its was not medically warranted. Or at least the physicians don't think so. That's the most likely scenario given the information you have provided.

Now.. in some cases.. but not yours or this gentlemans.. there are situations in which a hospital or physician may use Medicare or other insurance as an excuse to not to a procedure.. particularly when they don't think it will be cost effective for them.

for example.. One of our competing hospitals was telling patients that they could not qualify for rehabilitation.. (when they most certainly did).. because by not sending them to rehabilitation.. the hospital got paid more. Of course the hospital blamed it on "obamacare"...but really it was just the hospital manipulating the system and not for the patients benefit.

joko104 said:

What an idiotic message. Not one time have we gone to FOX news for medical care.

I could have an MRI this afternoon. You can't. That could mean the very simple difference of I live and you die under what you claim is the superior system. Letting people die while waiting is a less "bloated" way I suppose.

Click to expand...

That isn't true at all. In fact, here in the US, it was going to take me leaving the county I live in, likely having to drive 3-4 hours into Virginia to get my son another MRI for his perineal cyst, because no one in this county that does sedated MRIs for minors takes Tricare. And to top it off, since I had Tricare Select, that meant he would be back of the line, anyone with Tricare Prime or Retired got head of the line in front of us if we scheduled through the military base itself. His doctor just canceled it and said they would monitor him and see if there was indication that the cyst was the reason for his seizures (which they didn't believe it was in the first place but were trying to cover their bases.

Hell, the doctor even said that the fastest way to get things done such as an MRI or other such things when it comes to his seizures was going to be to get the hospital to do it if we took him in for a seizure. The first MRI still took at least 2 weeks (he wasn't sedated for that one, but did amazingly well for an autistic child during an MRI of his brain).

Northern Light said:

So in other words, your problem is actually with ObamaCare, not Canadian Health care. Although like a true American neo-con, you try to tear down Canada's health care as a means to justify your hatred of ObamaCare. What you need to do is stop watching Fox News and start listening to the Canadians who are actually replying to you. We aren't brainwashed, we live here and we have experienced the realities of health care here.

Contrary to what you might think, the nations of the world don't revolve around the Untied States. The different health care systems don't all look like yours, nor do they have the same politics or culture influencing them.

Sheesh.

Click to expand...

The problem is though.. our liberal politicians like to lie about Canadian healthcare as much as our "right wing" politicians like to lie about Canadian healthcare.

So.. while our right wing politicians lie and make Canada to be a country where people wait months to have a hangnail removed...

The liberals make Canadian healthcare out to be where everyone gets healthcare "for free"... without any cost, or issue.

The liberals here in the states.. wax rhapsodic about Canadian healthcare.. and how Canadian government healthcare.. covers everyone... and for free..

But.. they leave out things like.. Canadian government healthcare does not pay for services outside the hospital, it does not pay for outpatient rehab.. it does not pay for home health and it does not pay for prescription medication outside the hospital.

So.. who has to pick up the tab? Well a good portion of Canadians go without this coverage. A large bunch gets coverage for these things from private insurance through their employer.. (which sets up the portability problem.. that liberal complain about in the US.. )... Another large segment get coverage for these things by local provincial or territorial government to varying degrees..

The truth is.. for most americans.. about 90% of americans.. going toward a Canadian style system would be a downgrade from what they have now..

roguenuke said:

That isn't true at all. In fact, here in the US, it was going to take me leaving the county I live in, likely having to drive 3-4 hours into Virginia to get my son another MRI for his perineal cyst, because no one in this county that does sedated MRIs for minors takes Tricare. And to top it off, since I had Tricare Select, that meant he would be back of the line, anyone with Tricare Prime or Retired got head of the line in front of us if we scheduled through the military base itself. His doctor just canceled it and said they would monitor him and see if there was indication that the cyst was the reason for his seizures (which they didn't believe it was in the first place but were trying to cover their bases.

Hell, the doctor even said that the fastest way to get things done such as an MRI or other such things when it comes to his seizures was going to be to get the hospital to do it if we took him in for a seizure. The first MRI still took at least 2 weeks (he wasn't sedated for that one, but did amazingly well for an autistic child during an MRI of his brain).

Click to expand...

Yeah.. I am not sure on that. oh the having to go out of county does.. but "back of the line because I have Tricare select"? Yeah.. that seems off. He would be back of the line because it was a non emergent situation (it must be since the physician canceled it)..

by the way.. I think you mean perineural cyst.. not a perineal cyst (though they exist..).. Kind of a big difference. :shock:

jaeger19 said:

The problem is though.. our liberal politicians like to lie about Canadian healthcare as much as our "right wing" politicians like to lie about Canadian healthcare.

So.. while our right wing politicians lie and make Canada to be a country where people wait months to have a hangnail removed...

The liberals make Canadian healthcare out to be where everyone gets healthcare "for free"... without any cost, or issue.

The liberals here in the states.. wax rhapsodic about Canadian healthcare.. and how Canadian government healthcare.. covers everyone... and for free..

But.. they leave out things like.. Canadian government healthcare does not pay for services outside the hospital, it does not pay for outpatient rehab.. it does not pay for home health and it does not pay for prescription medication outside the hospital.

So.. who has to pick up the tab? Well a good portion of Canadians go without this coverage. A large bunch gets coverage for these things from private insurance through their employer.. (which sets up the portability problem.. that liberal complain about in the US.. )... Another large segment get coverage for these things by local provincial or territorial government to varying degrees..

The truth is.. for most americans.. about 90% of americans.. going toward a Canadian style system would be a downgrade from what they have now..

Click to expand...

A few things need to be parsed here.

First of all, the majority of American's view on Canadian health care is informed through their political divisions. It is practically a demarcation of tribal affiliation to be for or against socialized health care in the USA. This makes the conversation biased from the start.

Second, yes it's true, different Canadian politicians have different views on our healthcare system. The neo-liberals (conservatives) in Canada continually defund public health care because they adopt the Reagan ideology that people should pay their own way. This has allowed two-tier health care to begin flourishing in Canada, to the detriment of the public system. Then the very people defunding our system turn around and accuse socialized medicine of failing. It's a circular logic that I find quite evil, actually. Their ultimate goal is to introduce more privatization so their corporate buddies down south can have more "market access".

You are correct, not all services are covered. Canada is actually a mix of private and public health care, which not many Americans seem to realize. You can visit the doctor, get most diagnostics, get an ER visit, get specialist visits and procedures, all at no personal cost. Prescriptions and other extended health benefits are not offered publicly because they are seen as non-essential. Dental is also not covered. I have problems with this, but on a cost/benefit analysis basis, I think at this time it would be unwise to offer everything under public health care. 1) We can't afford it, and 2) it disincentivizes people to work. Because the cost of drugs is controlled here, and public health care drives per capita cost of services down, private insurance premiums. A middle income family here could afford to pay for those benefits no problem, but most middle class professionals people get it offered through work anyway.

However, that conversation looks a lot different than... should this person be allowed to die because they get substandard care, because they don't have private coverage. In Canada we don't let people die or go bankrupt because they have an emergent medical problem. On the flipside, the problem is that now a lot of people don't get health care, and they end up in the ER for primary care once their health condition reaches a crisis. The Canadian system is not good at preventative care, but arguably nowhere is. Preventative care is rather mediocre in modern medicine as a whole. The preventative screenings are all based on cost/benefit analysis, and not actual prevention.

I could go on and on. Canada has many short comings. Dying or going bankrupt because you need surgery is not one of them. Thank god.

Selfishly, I am glad that the spindoctors in the USA are turning people off of Canadian health care. I don't want more Americans moving here and taking advantage of the system, like so many already have. The more they think Canada is a socialist hell hole, the less desperate people will turn to us. I want to see Canada's health care be for Canadians. It's in our Charter (our Constitution). It's a right, it will never be taken from us.

jaeger19 said:

Yeah.. I am not sure on that. oh the having to go out of county does.. but "back of the line because I have Tricare select"? Yeah.. that seems off. He would be back of the line because it was a non emergent situation (it must be since the physician canceled it)..

by the way.. I think you mean perineural cyst.. not a perineal cyst (though they exist..).. Kind of a big difference. :shock:

Click to expand...

It wasn't emergency. The first one he got wasn't an emergency, just something that would help in diagnosing his situation, his seizures.

Actually no, it is a pineal cyst. Just typed it wrong and went with the spelling it gave me. It is on a gland in his head but quite common according to the neurologist.

As for the Select thing, military base hospitals only serve Select members on a space available basis, so we are back of the line. It is supposed to be because we are normally not near such places and can get (presumably) service in town without any sort of referrals. The issue is though, like I said, that many place don't want to take Tricare because it takes months for them to get paid due to the paperwork (or so they at least think, particularly since this would be true for Tricare Prime definitely).

TRICARE Select and Other Plans | TRICARE

You may get care at military hospitals or clinics on a space-available basis only.

Click to expand...

jaeger19 said:

The problem is though.. our liberal politicians like to lie about Canadian healthcare as much as our "right wing" politicians like to lie about Canadian healthcare.

So.. while our right wing politicians lie and make Canada to be a country where people wait months to have a hangnail removed...

The liberals make Canadian healthcare out to be where everyone gets healthcare "for free"... without any cost, or issue.

The liberals here in the states.. wax rhapsodic about Canadian healthcare.. and how Canadian government healthcare.. covers everyone... and for free..

But.. they leave out things like.. Canadian government healthcare does not pay for services outside the hospital, it does not pay for outpatient rehab.. it does not pay for home health and it does not pay for prescription medication outside the hospital.

So.. who has to pick up the tab? Well a good portion of Canadians go without this coverage. A large bunch gets coverage for these things from private insurance through their employer.. (which sets up the portability problem.. that liberal complain about in the US.. )... Another large segment get coverage for these things by local provincial or territorial government to varying degrees..

The truth is.. for most americans.. about 90% of americans.. going toward a Canadian style system would be a downgrade from what they have now..

Click to expand...

Everything you said varies by province and depends on if you receive treatment in your home province or not. Coverage can vary widely by province with Quebec covering everything you listed to my knowledge while other provinces cover some, it also depends on if you are in your home province or not.

roguenuke said:

It wasn't emergency. The first one he got wasn't an emergency, just something that would help in diagnosing his situation, his seizures.

Actually no, it is a pineal cyst. Just typed it wrong and went with the spelling it gave me. It is on a gland in his head but quite common according to the neurologist.

As for the Select thing, military base hospitals only serve Select members on a space available basis, so we are back of the line. It is supposed to be because we are normally not near such places and can get (presumably) service in town without any sort of referrals. The issue is though, like I said, that many place don't want to take Tricare because it takes months for them to get paid due to the paperwork (or so they at least think, particularly since this would be true for Tricare Prime definitely).

TRICARE Select and Other Plans | TRICARE

Click to expand...

Pineal cyst makes a LOT more sense.. pineal cysts are quite common and asymptomatic.. One study found 23% of asymptomatic subjects (n=100) had a pineal cyst..

I dearly hope they can diagnose and fix the cause of your child's seizures!!!

As for the Select thing, military base hospitals only serve Select members on a space available basis, so we are back of the line. It is supposed to be because we are normally not near such places and can get (presumably) service in town without any sort of referrals.

Click to expand...

Interesting.. I did not know that. That should be questioned if that is a policy.. I wonder if that policy is waived if its deemed an emergent situation.

The issue is though, like I said, that many place don't want to take Tricare because it takes months for them to get paid due to the paperwork (or so they at least think, particularly since this would be true for Tricare Prime definitely).

Click to expand...

This is true.

We take it because we value the service and sacrifice that military men and women.. AND their families make to our nation. But dealing with Tricare can be a bugger. Particularly when we can have the VA have to sign off on procedures.. and then also get okay from the Tricare insurance as well.. And we get different answers from different people.. Basically we often end up doing procedures and wait with fingers crossed that we get paid.. even when we have jumped through every hoop they set before us.

Carjosse said:

Everything you said varies by province and depends on if you receive treatment in your home province or not. Coverage can vary widely by province with Quebec covering everything you listed to my knowledge while other provinces cover some, it also depends on if you are in your home province or not.

Click to expand...

Bingo. Its just not as simple as our liberals here want to make it out to be.

Many of the problems.. like portability.. and preventative medicine.. are NOT solved by the Canadian system.. where you live and who you work for.. determines your healthcare.. just as it can in the states..

jaeger19 said:

Bingo. Its just not as simple as our liberals here want to make it out to be.

Many of the problems.. like portability.. and preventative medicine.. are NOT solved by the Canadian system.. where you live and who you work for.. determines your healthcare.. just as it can in the states..

Click to expand...

To a much substantially lesser degree, preventative medicine is not a problem. What do you mean by portability?

You also have to look at the big picture far more people have access to healthcare and it costs far less.

Northern Light said:

A few things need to be parsed here.

First of all, the majority of American's view on Canadian health care is informed through their political divisions. It is practically a demarcation of tribal affiliation to be for or against socialized health care in the USA. This makes the conversation biased from the start.
.

Click to expand...

so true. Especially now in America where the truth seems to be of less importance at this moment.

In Canada we don't let people die or go bankrupt because they have an emergent medical problem

Click to expand...

Just to point out.. neither do we in America.. We have laws that require hospitals to provide emergency life saving care regardless of insurance or ability to pay.

Also.. the "go bankrupt because of an emergent medical problem".. is largely a myth.

First.. in comparing bankruptcy rates in Canada and America when Canada and America were under similar rules.. and similar economic times.. (the only difference being your universal health coverage).. studies found that bankruptcy rates were the statistically similar between Canada and America

Second.. when studying bankruptcy in America.. the amount of medical debt ascribed to people declaring medical bankruptcy was just 11% of the total debt. The vast vast amount of debt was other personal debts.. not medical even in those citing medical debt.

Medical debt is not the reason for bankruptcy.. its the loss of income from having a medical problem.. and that occurs in Canada as well.

Carjosse said:

To a much substantially lesser degree, preventative medicine is not a problem. What do you mean by portability?

You also have to look at the big picture far more people have access to healthcare and it costs far less.

Click to expand...

Portability.. means being able to change jobs, change places of living.. etc.. without a change in insurance coverage.

Yeah.. when you look at the big picture in Canada.. its not that simple..

Lets take access... you have more people that have healthcare insurance.. but that doesn;t mean there is no access in the us.. .. because people without insurance in the US (about 10%).. can still access healthcare.. through emergency etc.

However.. if you HAVE insurance in America.. that 90%.. you generally have MORE access to healthcare than you do in Canada.. your timeliness.. i.e. waiting periods are generally way more than the US.. plus we have access to more specialists, MRI.. hospital beds.. etc.. than you guys do..

So.. when you say access? It depends on what you are talking about... yep.. you have insurance for everyone.. and that means BETTER access for everyone because you have everyone covered. versus the US..

but. when you talk about the 90% of americans that have insurance? We in general have better access to healthcare than you do.. it does come with a price tag however..

So yes.. Canadian healthcare is cheaper.. but there is no free lunch here however,,, some of your less costs.. comes with a consequence which is decreased access..

Also its questionable just how less your healthcare costs when you figure in taxes.. and you figure in cost shifting.. for example.. the cost of public undergraduate and medical degrees is born by the Canadian tax payer... shifting it from healthcare and onto public education..

But in the States.. the cost of college and medical school is passed on to the consumer.. which puts more money in the healthcare column.

Our liberals think that the less cost and 100% coverage like Canada.. don't have a cost.. that its a free lunch.. just magically a system like Canada and its cheaper here.. and that's not true...

jaeger19 said:

Portability.. means being able to change jobs, change places of living.. etc.. without a change in insurance coverage.

Yeah.. when you look at the big picture in Canada.. its not that simple..

Lets take access... you have more people that have healthcare insurance.. but that doesn;t mean there is no access in the us.. .. because people without insurance in the US (about 10%).. can still access healthcare.. through emergency etc.

However.. if you HAVE insurance in America.. that 90%.. you generally have MORE access to healthcare than you do in Canada.. your timeliness.. i.e. waiting periods are generally way more than the US.. plus we have access to more specialists, MRI.. hospital beds.. etc.. than you guys do..

So.. when you say access? It depends on what you are talking about... yep.. you have insurance for everyone.. and that means BETTER access for everyone because you have everyone covered. versus the US..

but. when you talk about the 90% of americans that have insurance? We in general have better access to healthcare than you do.. it does come with a price tag however..

So yes.. Canadian healthcare is cheaper.. but there is no free lunch here however,,, some of your less costs.. comes with a consequence which is decreased access..

Also its questionable just how less your healthcare costs when you figure in taxes.. and you figure in cost shifting.. for example.. the cost of public undergraduate and medical degrees is born by the Canadian tax payer... shifting it from healthcare and onto public education..

But in the States.. the cost of college and medical school is passed on to the consumer.. which puts more money in the healthcare column.

Our liberals think that the less cost and 100% coverage like Canada.. don't have a cost.. that its a free lunch.. just magically a system like Canada and its cheaper here.. and that's not true...

Click to expand...

Canada has substantially better portability, you can change jobs without worrying about losing medical coverage, unlike in the US. Most employers offer healthcare because it is much cheaper to do so than in the US for what is not covered. You may have to wait for access but you do get the care you need and often you don't need to pay a cent out of your own pocket. You don't want uninsured people accessing healthcare or in some cases not accessing healthcare, that is a drain on society and costs the system a lot of money, same with underinsured people.

According to the OECD, in 2016 Canada spent $7453 per person on healthcare, both public and private expenditures, while the US spent $9892. In most European countries that expenditure is even less, that is a substantial cost savings.

Carjosse said:

Canada has substantially better portability, you can change jobs without worrying about losing medical coverage,.

Click to expand...

Yeah not true.. because when you leave your employer.. you leave their insurance plan.. your private insurance plans (which is what most people use.. meds.. doctors visits therapy etc).. from your employer does not follow you.

According to the OECD, in 2016 Canada spent $7453 per person on healthcare, both public and private expenditures, while the US spent $9892. In most European countries that expenditure is even less, that is a substantial cost savings.

Click to expand...

Not really.. that little of a difference could be made up mostly of your cost shifting.. (like shifting the costs from medical.. to pensions. social programs.. and as I mentioned shifting the cost of college and medical school for providers.. to public education)... Like I have said.. for the 10% of americans that don't have health insurance.. they would like the Canadian system..

For the 90% of americans with health insurance.. the Canadian system would be a decrease..