Yeah, as I told ksen nowhere did I say you couldn't do all those non-spending things too.
So long as first you cut the spending.
-
Features
What If America Had Canada's Healthcare System?
- Thread starter ksen
- Start date
Yeah, as I told ksen nowhere did I say you couldn't do all those non-spending things too.
So long as first you cut the spending.
That doesn't make any sense. The lower cost is the result of moving to a new system.
Are you suggesting that no policy can be pursued unless the goals of that policy are realised before the policy is enacted? Because that seems kinda dumb.
PyramidHead
Contributor
He is suggesting, as usual, that spending less money is our gravest, most sacred priority, followed by all the other minor details like fewer infant deaths and bankruptcies.
Sabine Grant
Member
Me neither. Plus add the fact that when I was under insured (with no other alternative but being under insured) the cost out of pocked to see a specialist was such that I was under strict self rationing. That is why detected abnormal metabolic activity in my thyroid (precisely nodules) in 2010 were NOT addressed until 2014. Fortunately, following a needle biopsy covered under our current Insurance Plan product of the AHCA Exchanges, they were benign and deemed not related to my lymphoma. But with my history of lymphoma, let me just say that between 2010 and January of 2014, I lived in fear. And as far as remaining under close monitoring during those 4 years with twice a year PET/CT Scans scripted by an oncologist, forget it.
After we exhausted our savings and topped our CC in 2010 due to a recurrence of lymphoma and had to pay everything out of pocket (not having a surgical removal of the affected inguinal nodes and followed by a second PET/CT would have been close to suicide), I remained with the strict minimum monitoring necessitating visits with a specialist, precisely oncology/hematology. We rationed to once a year from 2010 to January 2014.
Fortunately, as a second recurrence was detected (that means I am not in remission any longer) in Feb. 2014 as the result of a long overdue PET/CT Scan, the AHCA allowed us to benefit of adequate coverage. This time, my oncologist can treat this new recurrence with the most efficient pharma drugs endorsed by the Board of Oncology addressing my type of lymphoma. And our RX coverage assumes 100% of the cost of the monoclonal I receive via infusions. I can now have a very optimistic vision of my chances of survival.
However, still with a high deductible and substantial co pays for imaging procedures and other medical care. Still an out of pocket drain. Whereas, in my country of origin I would benefit of 100% coverage on any care related to my diagnosis.
It's not an either or. You get both.
PyramidHead
Contributor
By your own admission, it's a first-and-then. And we all know what comes first in your book, despite Togo's very salient point.
Emily Lake
Might be a replicant
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2014
- Messages
- 8,470
- Location
- It's a desert out there
- Gender
- Agenderist
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist
I think this article is irrelevant, as is the interactive tool. It's based on information from 2012 and earlier, in all the footnotes I could find. Obamacare is very likely to have changed a lot of the results. Maybe not the cost part, but most of the others.
Well, as I mentioned the spending is the one thing we directly control. Might as well do it first.
PyramidHead
Contributor
Sure, because we have direct control over health care spending, irrespective of how the system is organized. The big red knob that lets you dial it up or down is always within reach.
Exactly. If the government decides to stop spending money on something, the government stops spending money on something.
PyramidHead
Contributor
What makes you think the government is the only entity that spends money on health care? Do you think we already have a single payer system? And in any case, if the government's spending on health care is under our direct control, so is what system it establishes, so your point fails again.
I don't think the government is the only entity that spends money on healthcare. But I do know the US government spends more than the Canada government does per person on healthcare.
Hey weren't you the one suggesting we should go to Canadian levels of healthcare spending earlier?
Their government spends less than ours on healthcare.
PyramidHead
Contributor
It just proves my point that to dismal, the great thing about Canada's health care system is that the government spends less money. The other stuff is just window dressing.
I bet I could save money on car insurance by switching to Geico.
The amount of money I spend on car insurance is easier for me to control than what company I use. I can stop paying my bills anytime, but switching insurance providers takes some effort.
Clearly, I should start spending less money on car insurance now, and maybe down the road I'll get around to switching to Geico.
After all, people who have Geico spend less on car insurance than I do. Spending less money on car insurance must somehow cause people to become Geico customers.
I should really write a book about car insurance.
I bet I could save money on car insurance by switching to Geico.
The amount of money I spend on car insurance is easier for me to control than what company I use. I can stop paying my bills anytime, but switching insurance providers takes some effort.
Clearly, I should start spending less money on car insurance now, and maybe down the road I'll get around to switching to Geico.
After all, people who have Geico spend less on car insurance than I do. Spending less money on car insurance must somehow cause people to become Geico customers.
I should really write a book about car insurance.
Again, it's not an either or. You get both. Not sure why you find my comment so objectionable.
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
I'll let dismal continue, but our government could say, "We are going to reimburse medical providers and Canada's costs"
Wat?
This thread reads something like this:
ksen: Hey everyone look - we can do all this awesome stuff! And with less money!
diz: OK! I'm in! Here's your less money, now go do all that awesome stuff!
All: dismal is a lowlife scum of the earth or some shit
