Or would it just subsidize premium payments based on need?
Going back a few years both manager groups in those countries would have private insurance or for the Canadians they would cross the border to have serious procedures performed. They all said the government coverage was good for the basics but not for anything special.
Same thing I would view here, less doctors, long lines for basic stuff. The good doctors would only take cash or private insurance and you would end up with a halves and halves not type of thing.
The biggest issue is that the amount of R+D that goes into to Pharma, if that were to dry up I am concerned that medical cures will slow dramatically.
Seeing it.
(no message)
In Canada you have basic health care coverage but it covers all aspects and procedures including “serious procedures” just maybe not in a fashion that is expedited. The more serious the issue the quicker it is taken care of - the same as in UK. If you purchase a supplemental HC coverage, you’re moved to the front of the queue, more or less.
I’ve never heard in either country some being denied service because they only have basic coverage under Single Payer forcing a patient to travel to another country for a procedure.
Elective surgery is not the same as basic coverage.
But people with means, the management group I discussed this with used the government coverage for the basics but serious or special deals that could be covered they would go out of the public care. Because of timeline or because the doc they wanted didn't work in that system.
(no message)
To accept them as reality. can’t have an honest debate if you won’t even listen to the other side.
Having immediate family in both countries and having been covered by basic single payer system I think I’m able to speak well on my experience of it.
It’s you who cannot have an honest debate on HC coverage in UK, Canada vis a vis US health care.
PS: none of what I wrote contradicts what Rooney has posted.
(no message)
There a many, many jobs in the health insurance industry in this country. Would we simply just eliminate that industry, or would we organize our plan through the industry somehow? I kind of doubt the latter, because the folks who want a single-payer system generally want every single person to be covered, viewing health care as an entitlement due to all citizens, not something that is simply "available." Trying to do it through subsidized premiums, as you mentioned, means that you'd have to elect to sign up for something in the first place. I don't think that's what the preferred single-payer system would require.
Canada has single-payer but there are private options available to those who can afford it. I have a few colleagues who do the basic stuff via the public avenues, but if they want to see a specialist for a unique situation, they'll go the private route. I suspect that's a common thing.
I think there is a misconception that the Canadian system covers all health care costs. It doesn't. It covers a basic level of care that all residents are entitled to. Most employers offer benefits plans that cover extra services like dental, eye wear, massage therapy, semi-private or private hospital rooms, etc.
So for something like an extended hospital stay, a bed in a ward room is free because that's covered by the Provincial plan. An employer benefits plan (for which the employee pays a fee to participate in) will typically cover a semi-private room. If you want a private room you personally pay a premium over and above your benefits plan coverage.
(no message)
There is a reason Many doctors don’t take Medicare patients.
Not that the current medical system of hospital rip offs, medical schools and residencies causing artificial doctor shortages, obscene shakedowns of doctors by ambulance chasing law firms, drug company and insurance industry cartels, incredibly stupid government imposed paperwork, etc. does not need an overhaul.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
and as he points out, if you asked the uber wealthy, corporate moguls in all countries with socialized medicine if they'd rather go to corporate HC as in US HC system or keep the system they have, would they advocate for that? Even though they would profit personally by dollars made, they would all say no.
Only Americans are too stupid to know, a healthy country is a better country. Healthy employees equals a better quality of living for all. Corporate HC companies have gamed the system and played/duped the citizens of the US - we here go against our best interests 100% of the time. Our nation will invent stories to back their opinion rather than change for the better.
Providers will leave or retire as the profit motive is decreased. When quotas are implemented they will just do the minimums. The best and brightest will work outside the system to increase the profit motive. Routine things will be covered for more people, by less people, doing less work. Resulting in worse care and long waits.
Industry to attract the best and brightest will actually have to pay MORE money to pay for private plans to get people in addition to paying more taxes for the public insurance. So the cost to the wealthy will be more for less.
I know this because I managed a Canadian company for 8 years and basic understanding of capital markets and economic theory.
Not dirt poor - Medicaid helps them. But health outcomes for the working poor are substantially different from the rest of the country.
I am all for helping the lowest of society to have healthcare and a reasonable standard of living. I have no issue with that. It is everyone else I have a problem with.
Take the FIRE community, they may have $4 million squirreled away but can get huge HC subsidy. That is wrong on so many levels.
Then beyond that let capitalism work. If you can afford a Cadillac, cool. If not, here's your Honda Civic.
care, simple non-elective procedures, Dr's. visits and so on - where the Cadillac care are the elective needs - implants and so on.
(no message)
a choice for a covered but serious procedure do they go with the Civic plan? But it is covered??? Fuck no they go to the Cadillac because they can.
Client very wealthy. Could treat at Vandy but they just started the procedure. He is going to MD Anderson. His choice of course.
As a doctor in practice for 30 years who ran my own office, ran my own small business separately from this as well,
have had experience working for a hospital group as well, have worked with Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, and private pay extensively.......this is exactly my understanding as well.
The one thing I would argue is the part about drug company R&D. Pharma uses that threat of not enough money for R&D every time there is even a hint of a cut....all the while they have raped us more than any other group in the medical field. Perhaps if the toned down their search for the holy grail pill that gives a 10 hour erection that leaves the penis 2 inches longer afterwards, we might find a more favorable pricing structure for the other drugs.
Living—obesity, smoking, excessive drinking, lack of exercise,- are penalized in care or financially. like uneployment, an able bodied person not working in some capacity should be penalized, too.
I believe he's running in 2020, there's your guy.
(no message)
(no message)