Universal vs. Private Healthcare

[WriterDom]

However, like most people pointed out, at least we aren't completely denied health care because we're lower-class citizens. We still get the right to be treated (and to me, this shouldn't even be a priviledge... it IS a right!).

.

No one in America, here illegally or not, can not be refused treatment in an emergency room regardless if all they own is the shirt on their back. Here, you can see a private doctor for about half what you'll pay to get a plumber to come out. Yeah, it will cost you 125 dollars but what doesn't cost money?

Most people here would be better off without heath care if they just gave a damn about preventive care. We are going to have a epidemic in this country of people who are 18 years away from retirement age but on the government doll due to obesity. And I'm talking from just being too fat to work, not all the related joint and health issues. Of course ruining your health is one ticket to free health care. But at what cost to yourself?

 

[Mac98]

Really? Wow!!! I think I'm realising how lucky I am - I'm from the same area and I never had any problems - the longest I had to wait was a couple of months for something so minor that it was on the bottom of the list. And I never had to wait for more than 4 hours in the emergency room, the very few times that I went.

Granted, the Quebec government and the Régie are royally fucking everything up, making it a very unappealing province to work as a GP (and not to mention the maudit language laws, but I digress and that's something entirely different.) But at least health is a right and not a privilege to every citizen.

I've never been very patriotic about my home province... in exception to all the racism and hardship we overcame in the 30s, 40s and 50s, there's not much to be proud of. I think it's sad the way the province is being handled which partly why I left. So far I haven't gotten sick in Ontario, so I can't say things are better or worse here, but there honestly wasn't much "care" in the healthcare in QC.

Same place same situation, I agree that the system works but it does have flaws,
like Mac said It is nothing here to wait a full day in the emergency room. Or to have to wait a full year to have allergy tests done when you are fatally allergic to something but don't know what.. (I know quite a few people who have gone through this, its like russian roulette, how can you avoid it if you don't know its coming?)
and don't even try to get a family doctor.... they will laugh at you.

now if that should be attributed to the system or to the lack of doctors in said system, who knows

My mom had to wait 2 years to be tested for cancerous cells they found in her head or something like that which could lead to a brain tumor... and then we flip the TV on to a commecial that says to get tested early enough so that it can be found and eliminated on time. Luckily, my mother, through persistence and fighting, managed to bring the date closer, so she has an appointment next year.

No one in America, here illegally or not, can not be refused treatment in an emergency room regardless if all they own is the shirt on their back. Here, you can see a private doctor for about half what you'll pay to get a plumber to come out. Yeah, it will cost you 125 dollars but what doesn't cost money?

125$ is nothing for most people... for a routine test, ok. But someone who's run his medical bill up to 10,000$ because of serious health issues or high-priced medication deserves a bit of help. Universal healthcare would take care of all the blue collar, working class, law abiding citizens who can't even fend for their own lives...

 

[bailadora]

The fallacy in this question is that it assumes that if an organization does a poor job at one thing that it will, by definition, do a similarly poor job at everything it attempts. I'm sure the folks at NASA in the 1960s space race would have laughed at this notion. So, too, would the millions of elderly Americans who are quite content with Medicare. And if you are fair about it, you could also name operations of the federal government that run well.

Honestly, MWY, I can't think of many gov't run programs that have been successful over the long haul (and that is not meant with an iota of snark). Medicare payments to providers have been slashed over the years to such an extent that many are/have been refusing new patients or dropping existing ones. I know this because it's been a common complaint from many of my elderly relatives as they search for providers willing to accept this coverage. And I don't think it's a problem unique to my area. It's my understanding that even the Mayo clinic (hailed by Obama as a model of efficient care at an affordable price) is dropping Medicare patients at some of it's locations. It's also my understanding that funding for Medicare is predicted to run out in a mere seven years (citation here)
How happy are the elderly going to be when no one will accept a defunct plan?

The problems at the VA are manifold and not the least is the fact that GW Bush slashed their budget several times during his eight year reign as our most recent Imperial Republican incumbent.

I agree with Industrial Bondage in that I don't believe the problem is as much a Republican/Democratic issue so much as it is a bureaucratic issue. My gramps refused to set foot in the VA long before W even dreamed of running for office. The answer on both sides to cutting costs seems to be aimed at those greedy physicians. Besides lip service, what has really been done to curtail insurance abuse in the form of malpractice suits and fraud?

And I don't mind paying higher taxes to ensure everyone, rich or poor, has access to decent health care.

And therein, Keroin, lies a large part of the problem. What's the quickest way to get an American screaming like a gut-shot rabbit? Mention raising taxes. We're spoiled. The American public wants the government to provide the general populace with all that we think we are entitled to, but doesn't want to help pay for it out of their own pocketbook. The common refrain is "But I can't afford it." While that may truly be the case for some, I think it more likely, "Don't want to afford it" for the majority. You can't have it both ways.
Despite lovely utopian ideas, medical care is NOT free.

As I mentioned before, I think the premise is admirable, but given the US track record with other universal plans like Social Security and Medicare/Medicade, I remain unconvinced that it's truly feasible. I forget who I'm paraphrasing here, but someone once said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want/desire, is a government big enough to take it away from you." Given that the House passed the bill last night, I think we are in for some interesting times. To quote Betty Davis: "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride."

 

[unregistered]

 

[midwestyankee]

Kudos to you for so skillfully repeating the party line; I’ll trust that it was not done with malice but rather from an absence of experience. If you have first hand experience with the VA, then shame on you! You know full well that the issues with the VA are older than most people on this board.

The troubles there date back to the 30s if not before. I’m a forth generation soldier and as a child I listened to my grandfather complaining about the quality of healthcare as provided by the VA. My great grandfather died waiting on the VA to decide if he needed the procedure that would have saved his life.

Sure, W didn’t help, but the VA was a horror story long before either Bush was elected. But then blaming Bush is also the party line; it gives the weak minded a sense that there’s a “new sheriff” in town and every things’s gonna be just fine. Let’s just ignore the damage done our republic by the whole mess.

I'll accept your correction as to the duration of problems at the VA but then I have a new question for you: if you can't trust the Republicans to repair the VA, then who will you - personally - expect to do the job? Apparently the old sheriff was a Class A fuckup and he (it seems, based on the tenor of your post) was your sheriff. So who you gonna call, the Ghostbusters?

 

[unregistered]

 

[sadangel]

I would prefer to see the US go to a more Universal Health Care system, but allow those who can afford or wish to keep private health care insurance to do so. Like someone else said, perhaps find the "happy medium" between the two.

 

[fenghuang]

In the UK the NHS system is invaluable. It constantly gets criticised, but that is mainly because it seems to be overly beaurocratic and underfunded. That said, I don't think anyone in the UK would want to get rid of it.
A relatively small percentage of people suplimet their health care with private health insurance. The main benefit of this is that you get to jump the queue for treatment and have more luxurious surroundings when an inpatient. I would say most people that have health isurance have it paid for by large employers as it is relatively expensive. The insurance companies can also be quite reluctant about paying out sometimes, but as with any insurance, you'll only find that out too late.

In the UK there are reports of some Americans fearing public health care systems efectively lead to euthanasia by budget. In the UK, this is absolutely not the case.

The NHS isn't perfect but it is pretty fucking good!

 

[midwestyankee]

There you go assuming again. Your error is in assuming that I trust either party. Do I think the current occupant of the White House is a text book example of a “domestic threat to the Constitution”? I sure do. But I wasn’t a fan of either Bush presidency and I certainly don’t trust any politician to fix anything that doesn’t somehow line their pocket or enhance their odds of holding onto the only thing that they truly do value: power. The VA system has been badly managed through several presidential administrations spread more or less equally between both parties. The only president that ever truly did a good turn by the VA was Eisenhower and he was a long time ago.

But back to your question, who am I going to trust? I’m looking for that person. I’m not sure who they will be but I can tell you who they won’t be. They won’t be a career politician. They won’t be promising a hand out to every special interest group to come knocking. They won’t hold the Constitution in open contempt and they won’t see more value in the teachings of Marx, Mau or Medici than in the teachings of the Founding Fathers.

As to the tenor of my post, I can see where holding facts and truth in high esteem might mark me as a detractor of the current occupant of the White House and those who support him. I’ll wear that one with pride and honor.

Calling people "weak-minded" is not "holding facts and truth in high esteem."

Your words, your tenor.

Surely you can't be expecting anyone but the government to be responsible for improving matters. Since the VA is run by the government, which is guided by career politicians, it seems that you don't really want to solve the problem. You just want to bitch about it.

 

[bailadora]

Surely you can't be expecting anyone but the government to be responsible for improving matters. Since the VA is run by the government, which is guided by career politicians, it seems that you don't really want to solve the problem. You just want to bitch about it.

Several years ago (7, 8?), I seem to remember John Stossel doing a report on a small town or city that took a seemingly 'radical' approach to abysmal city services. The newly elected mayor dissolved some departments (I think trash, sewer, and water) and bid the contracts out to the private sector. There was a lot of outrage at first: "How dare he put people out of a job", "he's going to break the city budget", etc. What ended up happening was that the city ended up with much better service and at a lower cost because if the company didn't deliver quality services, they got fired and the contract would have been rebid.

I have to wonder if something like this would be feasible or if the elected officials would even have the guts to do something like this. It's the government...so other than election time, how does one go about holding could-give-a-shit employees and departments accountable?

 

[fire_breeze]

Several years ago (7, 8?), I seem to remember John Stossel doing a report on a small town or city that took a seemingly 'radical' approach to abysmal city services. The newly elected mayor dissolved some departments (I think trash, sewer, and water) and bid the contracts out to the private sector. There was a lot of outrage at first: "How dare he put people out of a job", "he's going to break the city budget", etc. What ended up happening was that the city ended up with much better service and at a lower cost because if the company didn't deliver quality services, they got fired and the contract would have been rebid.

I have to wonder if something like this would be feasible or if the elected officials would even have the guts to do something like this. It's the government...so other than election time, how does one go about holding could-give-a-shit employees and departments accountable?

Question: Are civil employees not held accountable for any crap jobs that they do?

It seems to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the opposition is not against the idea of some sort of universal health care (whether it is two tiered or not) but rather against the ineffectual governmental bureaucracy. If the bureaucracy appointed to run this were held accountable, would there be less opposition?

Granted, there will be glitches, there will be mistakes made. It will not be smooth, at least not at first. But wouldn't it be easier to work on an already existing system, chiselling it to what works?

 

[midwestyankee]

Several years ago (7, 8?), I seem to remember John Stossel doing a report on a small town or city that took a seemingly 'radical' approach to abysmal city services. The newly elected mayor dissolved some departments (I think trash, sewer, and water) and bid the contracts out to the private sector. There was a lot of outrage at first: "How dare he put people out of a job", "he's going to break the city budget", etc. What ended up happening was that the city ended up with much better service and at a lower cost because if the company didn't deliver quality services, they got fired and the contract would have been rebid.

I have to wonder if something like this would be feasible or if the elected officials would even have the guts to do something like this. It's the government...so other than election time, how does one go about holding could-give-a-shit employees and departments accountable?

Since you appear to be a fan of privatizing operations that are often the exclusive purview of the government, please tell me how happy you are with the work of Blackwater.

 

[bailadora]

Question: Are civil employees not held accountable for any crap jobs that they do?

It seems to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the opposition is not against the idea of some sort of universal health care (whether it is two tiered or not) but rather against the ineffectual governmental bureaucracy. If the bureaucracy appointed to run this were held accountable, would there be less opposition?

Granted, there will be glitches, there will be mistakes made. It will not be smooth, at least not at first. But wouldn't it be easier to work on an already existing system, chiselling it to what works?

I can't say that civil employees are never held accountable for crap jobs, but I've also run into many whose attitude was definitely of the "I could give a shit" manner. Complaints to supervisory staff seemed to fall on equally deaf and indifferent ears.

I can't speak for everyone else, but yes, one of my main concerns is how to hold the bureaucracy accountable for substandard care, because currently there seems to be no way to do that, the VA being a perfect example. It's a medical care system for a much smaller demographic that the government has had plenty of time (over 70 years if IB's facts are correct) to improve, but has not. I'll pause for a moment to say that I am not a veteran, so I have no first hand experience of that system and can only relate what my grandfather has told me of his experiences, which all left very negative impressions with him. Money always was very tight for he and Gran, so free medical care for him would have been a big financial relief. My gramps is a reasonable man and has never been one for extravagence, but he found the VA medical care so substandard that he opted instead to pay for private insurance. I honestly believe our government should be honoring what has been promised to the vets and fixing what is broken prior to expanding the model to a much larger demographic.

Since you appear to be a fan of privatizing operations that are often the exclusive purview of the government, please tell me how happy you are with the work of Blackwater.

I'm not familiar with Blackwater, so I'll have to do some research before I could begin to offer any opinions of their work or organization.

 

[subwannabe]

Didn't have time to read all the responses so I'm just going to post. I think it all boils down to a few things.

1. Universal coverage basically needs lots of improvements which may not even be possible. It has some good points but overall it sucks (healthcare wise) and will probably never change.

2. Private insurance is pretty darn good for those that have good policies and aren't overly expensive (like through work). Healthcare can be pretty close to top notch.

3. Private insurance can suck if you pay high premiums, the policies aren't good or both.

4. As in #'s 2 and 3, insurance companies have many policies. The very same company can have great policies or horrible policies. In general, if you have to pay all of the premium yourself it can be quite expensive whereas if your employer pays a big portion the heathcare can be either good or bad depending on what policy you have.

I'm not so sure there is a good answer for everyone. If you have universal care it will always suck overall and with private insurance it may really boil down to if you're poor or middle class you're screwed, if you're rich you will have great healthcare. It may be impossible to change that aspect, even with a healthcare overhaul. I'm not sure the answer is to force a sucky system on everyone.

One last thing: Obama and the Democrats have come at this thing from the wrong angle all along. Yes, the insurance companies make a lot of money. Yes their executives make a lot of money and own million dollar homes and have yachts. Yes, they do things to piss us off. But, the fact is their profit margins are much, much smaller than the healthcare companies themselves. This is one thing that drives up health insurance rates, the healthcare companies making whopping profits and the fact that doctors have to constantly cover their butts by ordering tons of unnecessary tests so that their already huge malpractice insurance rates don't go even higher. They really needed to address those areas first before tackling the health insurance companies and they didn't do one eyota to do that.

 

[midwestyankee]

@subwannabe, I don't think any reasonable person would say that the Affordable Care Act is perfect. At the same time, the fact that so many millions of people cannot get health care has been a problem for a long time. Neither the free market nor the Republican administrations of the last 30 years have done a darned thing to fix the problem.

Now we have a partial solution. The Republicans in Congress chose not to participate to make the final bill more palatable to their conservative constitencies. Blame them and not the President. They could have worked with the Democrats to craft a bi-partisan bill but they chose not to. Blame them.

You're quite right, by the way, about where much of the waste in our healthcare system occurs. About 40% of the waste happens at the delivery end (i.e., doctors and hospitals) and the rest is spread out across several other elements of the overall system. But, doctors are popular and it's just political suicide to be perceived to be doing anything "against" doctors.

 

[subwannabe]

Nobody really knows the nuts and bolts of this plan. There has been a lot of misinformation or no information to begin with. From the things I have been able to determine it looks like middle income people are going to be forced to buy health insurance if they don't get it through their employers, getting various subsidies depending on their income levels. Virtually no one having to buy health insurance will have a 100% subsidy. Even though they promised this health overhaul will bring health insurance rates down, they sidestepped the truth that health insurance rates will actually go UP, just at a smaller pace, so that years down the road the insurance would actually be cheaper than if they had done nothing.

One thing I have never got an answer to is that those who do not buy health insurance who get penalized by the IRS, what happens to that penalty? Do they just penalize the person and they still don't have insurance, or will that penalty somehow be used to pay for health insurance for that person anyway?

As far as blaming Republicans, you are both right and wrong. When GB and other Republicans were in there they did do virtually nothing about the problem. During the elections they did nothing at all about the problem. I guess they figured early on that McCain would win and didn't realize until too late that McCain wasn't going to win and by then it was too late to do anything on healthcare. They could have avoided the whole mess they found themselves in if they had done something in the first place. They did have ideas, actually good ideas, on healthcare but they never did put them down in an actual proposal. Fast forward a little and the Democrats had a chance to make this kind of a bipartisan bill by accepting some Republican ideas enough to the point where moderate Republicans would have voted for it and it would have passed. The Democrats refused to let the those ideas through and tried to ram it through anyway. This stirred up the moderate Republicans to be against the bill because their ideas were not used and then the Massachusetts election happened. Since then it has been totally partisan. I do give Obama credit for trying to include the Republican ideas in the end and it is the Republican's fault that since the only way to pass the bill was through reconcilliation, which wind up disqualifying and elminating those ideas. But, as I said, there was a point there where the Democrats could have worked with the moderates on the other side and got a bipartisan bill and they refused to do it.

I challenge the Democrats now to make an additional bill with those Republican ideas, which would be to the benefit of all. Then I dare the Republicans to vote against their own ideas. It isn't going to happen though because the Democrats crammed through what they wanted in a partisan way and they really have no interest in adding those Republican ideas, even though it will make what they have now far better.

 

[midwestyankee]

Nobody really knows the nuts and bolts of this plan. There has been a lot of misinformation or no information to begin with. From the things I have been able to determine it looks like middle income people are going to be forced to buy health insurance if they don't get it through their employers, getting various subsidies depending on their income levels. Virtually no one having to buy health insurance will have a 100% subsidy. Even though they promised this health overhaul will bring health insurance rates down, they sidestepped the truth that health insurance rates will actually go UP, just at a smaller pace, so that years down the road the insurance would actually be cheaper than if they had done nothing.

One thing I have never got an answer to is that those who do not buy health insurance who get penalized by the IRS, what happens to that penalty? Do they just penalize the person and they still don't have insurance, or will that penalty somehow be used to pay for health insurance for that person anyway?

As far as blaming Republicans, you are both right and wrong. When GB and other Republicans were in there they did do virtually nothing about the problem. During the elections they did nothing at all about the problem. I guess they figured early on that McCain would win and didn't realize until too late that McCain wasn't going to win and by then it was too late to do anything on healthcare. They could have avoided the whole mess they found themselves in if they had done something in the first place. They did have ideas, actually good ideas, on healthcare but they never did put them down in an actual proposal. Fast forward a little and the Democrats had a chance to make this kind of a bipartisan bill by accepting some Republican ideas enough to the point where moderate Republicans would have voted for it and it would have passed. The Democrats refused to let the those ideas through and tried to ram it through anyway. This stirred up the moderate Republicans to be against the bill because their ideas were not used and then the Massachusetts election happened. Since then it has been totally partisan. I do give Obama credit for trying to include the Republican ideas in the end and it is the Republican's fault that since the only way to pass the bill was through reconcilliation, which wind up disqualifying and elminating those ideas. But, as I said, there was a point there where the Democrats could have worked with the moderates on the other side and got a bipartisan bill and they refused to do it.

I challenge the Democrats now to make an additional bill with those Republican ideas, which would be to the benefit of all. Then I dare the Republicans to vote against their own ideas. It isn't going to happen though because the Democrats crammed through what they wanted in a partisan way and they really have no interest in adding those Republican ideas, even though it will make what they have now far better.

Actually, most of the items in the reconciliation bill had originally come from the Republicans - but your source failed to mention that. Perhaps your source did not properly explain reconciliation.

I'm not sure what your source is but come on, of course people know what is in the bill.

Yes, when people refuse to buy health insurance, the money that they pay to the IRS will go toward health care coverage for others.

Did you know that this bill also includes provisions to make it easier to make healthful choices when eating out? The bill requires all restaurants with more than a certain number of outlets (I think the number is 50) post the nutritional content of their menu items in the restaurant.

Did you know that the fundamental elements of this bill were almost all originally Republican ideas? In fact, the main elements of this bill were the main elements of the Republican healthcare reform package presented as an alternative to the Clinton reform package of 1993-94. It's also essentially the same plan that Mitt Romney instituted in Massachusetts when he was governor there.

 

[NippleMuncher]

Did you know that the fundamental elements of this bill were almost all originally Republican ideas? In fact, the main elements of this bill were the main elements of the Republican healthcare reform package presented as an alternative to the Clinton reform package of 1993-94. It's also essentially the same plan that Mitt Romney instituted in Massachusetts when he was governor there.

This is interesting, since it is the Republicans that have resoundingly opposed the helath care reform bill from the start. What are the odds that the Reps would oppose such a bill, then when it passes without their consent that all of a sudden it was their idea?

Midwestyankee, I've known you for a long time and I do not post this in hopes of starting an argument. This is just an observation from someone who does not take sides, yet notices a definite Republican agenda. I am not deluded in thinking that Demo's are angelic symbols of democracy, they too are the doer's of evil, though as the track record stands, the Reps are only concerned about who's trying to take the dole out of their own pockets, not what's good for the country. I'll take a thousand Carters and a hundred Clintons over the likes of the last crap this country had to endure.

 

[subwannabe]

I don't think you're correct that people know what is in the bill. If a person is forced to buy health insurance how much is their policy going to cost? How much is the government subsidising? How many different policies are there going to be to choose from? What are the specifics of those policies? What are the coverages and the copays and the decuctibles and out of pocket expenses? Seems like I heard somewhere that depending on your income some of those expenses were going to be subsidised as well, in addition to the premiums. Is that true? If so what will those subsides be? And you didn't really answer my question about the IRS penalty. If you don't get the insurance and have to pay an IRS penalty, does that mean that penalty is applied to health insurance for YOU or do you just wind up paying a penalty and still have no insurance?

Employers with at least 50 or more employees will be required to provide health insurance to their workers or pay a penalty of $2000 per employee. Maybe my math is bad or maybe I'm wrong but doesn't health insurance cost more than $2000 per employee over the course of a year now? If I'm right on that wouldn't it me more advantageous for these employers to drop the health insurance they have now and just pay the penalty? It also seems to me the ball has already started rolling where several business have already announced the need to lay off employees because of the health care bill. So now, when we just started recovering from the Great Recession, we have companies wanting to lay off workers due to this bill.

What about HSA's? Are they going to go bye bye because the new law states that only certain coverages can be offered and that there will no longer be high deductible policies? And, they really weren't honest when they told Americans that this health care bill was going to give them lower premiums. They should have told us the truth that even though premiums are going to be higher and go up every year that in the long run the premiums will be lower than if they had not passed the bill.

 

[KoPilot]

I do not claim to be an expert by any means, nor will I claim to know nearly as much as some of you.

As a US citizen who is looking to move to Canada, having health problems is a little scary. (And not just the fact that I have to get them all taken care of before starting the immigration process.) I have ovarian cysts. They're far from life-threatening, but when they cause trouble, the pain is debilitating and a serious interference to my daily life. They started forming about a year ago, and I had pain attacks once or twice a month for a while. I went to the ER the first time it happened because I thought I'd had a heart attack, but soon found out what was really going on. For the first few months, the pain would only last about 20 minutes, and then I'd be able to get up and go about my business afterward. But over the summer things started getting really bad, and I was usually bed-ridden for a day (sometimes two).

I've had probably 10 ultrasounds in the past 8 months, and after reading what the Canadians are saying about their waiting lists, it makes me a little uneasy to think about. I made an appointment for one of the ultrasounds while being stuck in bed for the following DAY, and that turned out to be one of the most important tests I took because it told the doctor what exactly was causing the pain, and that I would most likely need surgery to remove the cyst.

So for someone like me who's suffering from a condition of extreme inconvenience but needs to be monitored at very specific intervals, and sometimes on short notice, the rationing of tests is worrisome. I know that my chances of getting into the country slim down if I have any lingering problems, which is doubly why I want this surgery, but should they come back in the future... will I have to wait 7 months before I can take a test? The size of these things fluctuate immensely over short periods of time. I had one that grew to the size of a golf ball in 3 months, and had one shrink 2cm in diameter over the period of 2 months.

Honestly, it makes me wonder if I should remain privately insured in the US just in case!

 

[Primalex]

Several years ago (7, 8?), I seem to remember John Stossel doing a report on a small town or city that took a seemingly 'radical' approach to abysmal city services. The newly elected mayor dissolved some departments (I think trash, sewer, and water) and bid the contracts out to the private sector. There was a lot of outrage at first: "How dare he put people out of a job", "he's going to break the city budget", etc. What ended up happening was that the city ended up with much better service and at a lower cost because if the company didn't deliver quality services, they got fired and the contract would have been rebid.

So, this is one side of the coin. The question is, how did the companies manage this though.

A garbage truck is a garbage truck and a garbage truck driver is a garbage truck driver. The streets stay the same and the amount of trash, too.

Do the employees of the company get less loan?
Is the management much better?
Do they get rid of the trash with a cheaper method than before? (why replace the air filter in the garbage incineration...)
Do they actually control the service quality if it fulfills certain requirements and why wasn't it done before or why weren't the persons in charge before held accountable if it was not fulfilled?

Questions, questions...

 

[fire_breeze]

I do not claim to be an expert by any means, nor will I claim to know nearly as much as some of you.

As a US citizen who is looking to move to Canada, having health problems is a little scary. (And not just the fact that I have to get them all taken care of before starting the immigration process.) I have ovarian cysts. They're far from life-threatening, but when they cause trouble, the pain is debilitating and a serious interference to my daily life. They started forming about a year ago, and I had pain attacks once or twice a month for a while. I went to the ER the first time it happened because I thought I'd had a heart attack, but soon found out what was really going on. For the first few months, the pain would only last about 20 minutes, and then I'd be able to get up and go about my business afterward. But over the summer things started getting really bad, and I was usually bed-ridden for a day (sometimes two).

I've had probably 10 ultrasounds in the past 8 months, and after reading what the Canadians are saying about their waiting lists, it makes me a little uneasy to think about. I made an appointment for one of the ultrasounds while being stuck in bed for the following DAY, and that turned out to be one of the most important tests I took because it told the doctor what exactly was causing the pain, and that I would most likely need surgery to remove the cyst.

So for someone like me who's suffering from a condition of extreme inconvenience but needs to be monitored at very specific intervals, and sometimes on short notice, the rationing of tests is worrisome. I know that my chances of getting into the country slim down if I have any lingering problems, which is doubly why I want this surgery, but should they come back in the future... will I have to wait 7 months before I can take a test? The size of these things fluctuate immensely over short periods of time. I had one that grew to the size of a golf ball in 3 months, and had one shrink 2cm in diameter over the period of 2 months.

Honestly, it makes me wonder if I should remain privately insured in the US just in case!

There is no good answer. It really depends on where you live: urban or rural; in the four big provinces or the others?

The waiting lines are usually for the initial appointment for a diagnosis, and it's often, but not always, the ones that are not life threatening. But it does vary. For example, I never really had a problem, and never had to wait for a long time, but others I know do.

BC, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec has been cutting their waiting time drastically for various surgeries and other diagnostics, and hopefully this trend will improve and will bleed into the other provinces and territories.

Now, if you need follow-ups, your doctor will put the order and you will be followed up at the intervals that you need. It is, as I said before, usually the initial exam that is hell to wait for. Example: my Father, after suffering a series of heart attacks, has bi-monthly follow-ups. He goes in the morning at his appointment and is out in a few hours (or less than that). I had, for several years, to have a three-four times a year follow-ups. I made my appointment when I got out of my initial one and got it when I needed it. I never had a problem. The one time they had to cancel because of an emergency, I had one rescheduled two days later, at my convenience.

This is something you should bring up to Immigrations or the Americans-Living-In-Canada support group (which answers questions like these).

Also, just so that you know, there are private diagnostic facilities, and most insurance covers it. Even if they don't, it isn't too drastically expensive (I had a full MRI done at a private facility and it set me back 400$ for the two hours I was there).

 

[Reba67]

I do not claim to be an expert by any means, nor will I claim to know nearly as much as some of you.

As a US citizen who is looking to move to Canada, having health problems is a little scary. (And not just the fact that I have to get them all taken care of before starting the immigration process.) I have ovarian cysts. They're far from life-threatening, but when they cause trouble, the pain is debilitating and a serious interference to my daily life. They started forming about a year ago, and I had pain attacks once or twice a month for a while. I went to the ER the first time it happened because I thought I'd had a heart attack, but soon found out what was really going on. For the first few months, the pain would only last about 20 minutes, and then I'd be able to get up and go about my business afterward. But over the summer things started getting really bad, and I was usually bed-ridden for a day (sometimes two).

I've had probably 10 ultrasounds in the past 8 months, and after reading what the Canadians are saying about their waiting lists, it makes me a little uneasy to think about. I made an appointment for one of the ultrasounds while being stuck in bed for the following DAY, and that turned out to be one of the most important tests I took because it told the doctor what exactly was causing the pain, and that I would most likely need surgery to remove the cyst.

So for someone like me who's suffering from a condition of extreme inconvenience but needs to be monitored at very specific intervals, and sometimes on short notice, the rationing of tests is worrisome. I know that my chances of getting into the country slim down if I have any lingering problems, which is doubly why I want this surgery, but should they come back in the future... will I have to wait 7 months before I can take a test? The size of these things fluctuate immensely over short periods of time. I had one that grew to the size of a golf ball in 3 months, and had one shrink 2cm in diameter over the period of 2 months.

Honestly, it makes me wonder if I should remain privately insured in the US just in case!

I had ovarian cysts and received all of the tests that were ordered within only a few days of calling to book the appointment.

 

[midwestyankee]

<snip>
Also, just so that you know, there are private diagnostic facilities, and most insurance covers it. Even if they don't, it isn't too drastically expensive (I had a full MRI done at a private facility and it set me back 400$ for the two hours I was there).

Just for comparison, I had an MRI done on my knee 7 years ago near Chicago and the cost was $1200.

 

[fire_breeze]

Just for comparison, I had an MRI done on my knee 7 years ago near Chicago and the cost was $1200.

It's these huge costs differences that makes me wonder why (what possible rationale there might be for it) and why there isn't some sort of control - or at least a choice provided*.






*and no, I don't mean 'yes, there is. Don't get one.'