Former Health Care Executive: Michael Moore was Right (Sicko)

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by DGTigers

My experiences in the Canada health care system have not been good. Other than a couple sports injuries (good luck getting in somewhere to have those checked out in a reasonable timely manner by the way) was a bout with some pretty bad food poisoning. I ate at a sushi restaurant and got pretty sick. I called a hotline that they have here where you can speak with a nurse, and after telling her how long I had been unable to leave the side of the toilet bowl, and what I had eaten the day before, she urged me to go to the hospital (no clinics were open). I ended up waiting about 4 hours in the waiting room of ER and ended up taking a taxi home by myself before I had even seen anyone. I came to the conclusion that it must not had been as serious as the nurse on the phone told me if they were letting me stay in the waiting room puking my guts out so I would rather take care of my business at home.

The service that is offered by the hospital will suffer in a government funded program, there is no other way around it. They will determine who deserves treatment and who doesn't. Will it stop at people with bad food poisoning or a stomach virus or move towards other injuries, diseases, and ailments? I know that where I am living in Canada there is a big doctor shortage so you better not be looking to get a family doctor, that seems like it might make it harder to preach prevention as well.

I like free stuff as much as everyone else, but they both pay for their free public health care up here and get a much worse product than we currently have in the United States. From my experiences here as well as experiences with the system that I have witnessed from close friends up here, I'd much rather have the service that we currently enjoy in the United States.

I've waited MUCH longer than that in EMPTY emergency rooms in American hospitals.

[DGTigers]

Originally Posted by Buddha

I've waited MUCH longer than that in EMPTY emergency rooms in American hospitals.

You're right, four hours isn't bad compared to the 3-6 months for major surgeries that I've seen people forced to wait in Canada. There is a reason that private clinics and surgeons are making a killing up here. I'll take my 3 day wait that I had for my ankle surgery in Michigan any day over anything people get up here....Maybe Canada is a bad example, but they have worse service for inferior doctors and technology from what I have seen comparing the two cities in Canada with the three different cities in the United States that I have lived.

[billms]

[billms]

Now this is really weird - because I keep getting told that a national health care system will spend all of our money till the end of time because thats what governments do.

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by billms

Now this is really weird - because I keep getting told that a national health care system will spend all of our money till the end of time because thats what governments do.

Canada's health care SUCKS. Give me privatized health care any day over Canada's plan.

[MrDeeds]

I love how people, on both sides of the issue, is convinced that their own health care experience furthers whatever position they are taking on the debate. It's a 1:6,000,000,000 sample size.......

[Melody]

Originally Posted by Buddha

I've waited MUCH longer than that in EMPTY emergency rooms in American hospitals.

Just because the waiting room is empty, that doesn't mean that they aren't busy in the back. When they have a full code come in the back door via ambulance, for example, everything stops and it's all hands and the cook.

An additional problem which I've seen with my own eyes on multiple occasions is that the rooms will be full with patients waiting for an open bed upstairs. During our last ER trip, my MIL waited twelve hours to be transferred upstairs to the cardiac unit. For twelve hours, the ER nurses had to change her diapers, administer medications, etc. while she occupied a room that was needed for critically ill incoming patients. This was necessary because she needed to be on monitors. The couple on the other side of the curtain were similarly situated. In the meantime, they were working on incoming on stretchers in the hallway.

[billms]

Originally Posted by MrDeeds

I love how people, on both sides of the issue, is convinced that their own health care experience furthers whatever position they are taking on the debate. It's a 1:6,000,000,000 sample size.......

Exactly - thats why its important to look to the data on the matter and see what is *really* going on.

[Edman85]

Mandating that people have health insurance tells me Nancy and co. have no idea why health insurance exists in the first place...

[billms]

You are right Edman. We should just have "health care", stop calling it insurance at all, and just go ahead and cover everybody.

[Edman85]

We need to free up health savings accounts and separate them from insurance so that people can have tax sheltered savings without an insurance plan.

We need to make sure that people who are recieving government health care are making healthy decisions. The moment they smoke a cigarette, they lose their coverage. Again, if they quit smoking and put that money away for later expenses, they can raise their deductable, lower their premium, and boom... health insurance is easier to afford!

We need to make sure that all 535 congressmen understand why health insurance exists in the first place before tackling this issue. I don't think they do, especially if they are mandating coverage.

[Oblong]

so we're going to tax "rich" people. Right now that's defined as those making over $1,000,000 and it's 5.4%? Then when projections don't pan out like the politicians plan (as they rarely do), that will be changed to $650,000 and 5.9%. Naturally that won't be enough (as it rarely is), and it'll go down to $250,000 and 6.2%. It'll stay there for a long time and then in 30 years when $250,000 is the average wage we'll all be ****ed.

What if someone doesn't want health insurance or health care? Will they be fined? Does that apply to people who make less than $250,000? After all, President Obama promised......

[Edman85]

So a company will be fined 8% if they don't provide health care to the guy sweeping the floors? Who is to say they will keep that guy employed?

There are other ways to fix this!

[ewsieg]

Originally Posted by billms

Exactly - thats why its important to look to the data on the matter and see what is *really* going on.

Data is only data, it means nothing by itself. Now we have to interpret it. Look back at your 'satisfaction' survey. The US was comparable in every category but customer satisfaction and pain management. Is it possible that our country expects too much?

I will say that even if nationalized health care does no better, or worse, for our health care, customer satisfaction will skyrocket. I can go into my local ER and probably see a doctor within an hour, assuming i'm not actually dying and only in pain, i'd be fine with that. Now if it was nationalized health care and they saw me within two hours, based on my perceptions, i'd be shocked it was that quick. Thus I would be equally, if not more impressed with the new system, even if it took longer.

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by Edman85

So a company will be fined 8% if they don't provide health care to the guy sweeping the floors? Who is to say they will keep that guy employed?

There are other ways to fix this!

Wal Mart is behind this plan. Why? Because they know they can probably afford it and they damn well know their competitors... you know those lovable mom and pop stores that "Wal Mart puts out of business" cannot.

[Sparks4Ever]

Originally Posted by Oblong

so we're going to tax "rich" people. Right now that's defined as those making over $1,000,000 and it's 5.4%? Then when projections don't pan out like the politicians plan (as they rarely do), that will be changed to $650,000 and 5.9%. Naturally that won't be enough (as it rarely is), and it'll go down to $250,000 and 6.2%. It'll stay there for a long time and then in 30 years when $250,000 is the average wage we'll all be ****ed.

What if someone doesn't want health insurance or health care? Will they be fined? Does that apply to people who make less than $250,000? After all, President Obama promised......

The hardest hit will be companies that currently do not provide health insurance to their employees. They will be slapped with a tax equal to 8% of each non-covered employee's wages. It effectively raises the minimum wage by 60 cents. I imagine most of the cost will be passed on to non-covered employees who do not make minimum wage.

The plan is expected to cost around $1.5 trillion over 10 years. It's not going to make it through the senate without major changes.

[Edman85]

Originally Posted by billms

You are right Edman. We should just have "health care", stop calling it insurance at all, and just go ahead and cover everybody.

Everybody has access to health care.

[Sparks4Ever]

Originally Posted by Oblong

Wal Mart is behind this plan. Why? Because they know they can probably afford it and they damn well know their competitors... you know those lovable mom and pop stores that "Wal Mart puts out of business" cannot.

There's apparently a small business exemption, but it's not clear to me what form that will take.

Edit, more on this:

Businesses with 25 employees or more would be required to offer health insurance or pay $750 a year per full-time worker to the federal government, under health care reform legislation being considered in the U.S. Senate.

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/...3/daily11.html

25 employees is really small. Companies with just over 25 employees would have an enormous incentive to layoff employees.

[Oblong]

Especially one that has exactly 25 employees. Let's see, pay for health care for everyone, pay a $20,000 fine.... or let Tom go.

Bye Tom.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Melody

Just because the waiting room is empty, that doesn't mean that they aren't busy in the back. When they have a full code come in the back door via ambulance, for example, everything stops and it's all hands and the cook.

An additional problem which I've seen with my own eyes on multiple occasions is that the rooms will be full with patients waiting for an open bed upstairs. During our last ER trip, my MIL waited twelve hours to be transferred upstairs to the cardiac unit. For twelve hours, the ER nurses had to change her diapers, administer medications, etc. while she occupied a room that was needed for critically ill incoming patients. This was necessary because she needed to be on monitors. The couple on the other side of the curtain were similarly situated. In the meantime, they were working on incoming on stretchers in the hallway.

Don't worry Melody, it was empty in the back too. The doctors were standing around and talking to the nurses.

[Edman85]

Originally Posted by Buddha

Don't worry Melody, it was empty in the back too. The doctors were standing around and talking to the nurses.

So because of this, we should have the government run our health care? That's a pretty big logical leap.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Oblong

Wal Mart is behind this plan. Why? Because they know they can probably afford it and they damn well know their competitors... you know those lovable mom and pop stores that "Wal Mart puts out of business" cannot.

They told you this? Because, you know, there are a few other reasons why walmart might be behind the proposal. And I doubt they see mom and pop as *any* competition any more.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Edman85

Everybody has access to health care.

Of course they do. The idea is to give everybody access to rational and effective health care. Which currently they do not have.

[sub rosa]

Originally Posted by Edman85

We need to free up health savings accounts and separate them from insurance so that people can have tax sheltered savings without an insurance plan.

how does this work - health savings accounts? should the part-time workers at seven-eleven start saving now for their open-heart surgery, or their liver transplant?

Originally Posted by Edman85

We need to make sure that people who are recieving government health care are making healthy decisions. The moment they smoke a cigarette, they lose their coverage.

i hope it's not just smoking - maybe those who own sports cars, motorcycles, play basketball recreationally, or do anything else that's likely to increase your chances for needing health care.

Originally Posted by Edman85

We need to make sure that all 535 congressmen understand why health insurance exists in the first place before tackling this issue. I don't think they do, especially if they are mandating coverage.

how exactly do you think the congress misunderstands the purpose of health insurance?

[billms]

Originally Posted by ewsieg

Data is only data, it means nothing by itself. Now we have to interpret it. Look back at your 'satisfaction' survey. The US was comparable in every category but customer satisfaction and pain management. Is it possible that our country expects too much?

Absolutely true. But the first step is realizing that our assumptions may not be true. There are lots of opinions stated as fact which are clearly not true when you look at the data. The second step is understanding what additional information can be gleaned from the data now that we've dispensed with policy through anecdote and moved back to real world people.

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by billms

Of course they do. The idea is to give everybody access to rational and effective health care. Which currently they do not have.

you mean rationed?

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Edman85

So because of this, we should have the government run our health care? That's a pretty big logical leap.

It's almost as big a leap as you believing I actually said that.

Edman, King of the Strawmen.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Edman85

So because of this, we should have the government run our health care? That's a pretty big logical leap.

Yes, it is. It actually seems illogical in the extreme. I would not make that leap if I were you. Buddha clearly hasn't.

[Edman85]

Originally Posted by Buddha

It's almost as big a leap as you believing I actually said that.

Edman, King of the Strawmen.

Touche, sailor

[billms]

Originally Posted by Oblong

you mean rationed?

no - i don't - but i see where you are going and there is a lot of truth to it - people do already have access to rationed health care - thats a natural business outcome of the free market obvioiusly

[Sparks4Ever]

Originally Posted by Oblong

you mean rationed?

No, a BLUE RIBBON panel will decide what health care we need and don't need. It will probably be peer reviewed too, so you know it's all good.

[Edman85]

Originally Posted by sub rosa

how exactly do you think the congress misunderstands the purpose of health insurance?

By wanting to tax people for not electing to have health insurance. The purpose of health insurance is to protect against catastrophic costs from unexpected health bills. It doesn't make sense for people with enough saved to make health costs non-catastrophic to pay premiums on unnecesary health costs. We shouldn't penalize people for being good with money and saving wisely.

[Edman85]

Originally Posted by sub rosa

how does this work - health savings accounts? should the part-time workers at seven-eleven start saving now for their open-heart surgery, or their liver transplant?

Well, the 7/11 part time workers will probably need to find a better job... Most of them are covered by mom and dad anyways...

This applies more to people in the "middle class," who have a little extra savings and would like to put it away so that 20-30 years down the road, they no longer have to purchase health insurance. This provides long term competition to the insurance companies, and they will have to offer lower premiums to all, including your clerk at the 7/11.

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by Edman85

By wanting to tax people for not electing to have health insurance. The purpose of health insurance is to protect against catastrophic costs from unexpected health bills. It doesn't make sense for people with enough saved to make health costs non-catastrophic to pay premiums on unnecesary health costs. We shouldn't penalize people for being good with money and saving wisely.

But that kind of person is the "other guy" who is actually needed to pay for all this free stuff.

[sub rosa]

Originally Posted by Edman85

The purpose of health insurance is to protect against catastrophic costs from unexpected health bills.

i disagree with you. the purpose of health insurance is a) to make money for the insurance company, and b) to make health care more affordable for those who can afford the insurance. many people use their insurance plans for legitimate health care costs other than "catastrophic costs" (routine checkups, prescription drugs, preventative care, etc. etc.).

[Edman85]

Originally Posted by Oblong

But that kind of person is the "other guy" who is actually needed to pay for all this free stuff.

And yet that person can pull that off making 5 digits a year.

[Edman85]

Originally Posted by sub rosa

i disagree with you. the purpose of health insurance is a) to make money for the insurance company, and b) to make health care more affordable for those who can afford the insurance. many people use their insurance plans for legitimate health care costs other than "catastrophic costs" (routine checkups, prescription drugs, preventative care, etc. etc.).

Those people you cite are acting irrationally. Paying premiums to "save" money on checkups and prescription drugs may or may not help to save money. Health insurance is purchased to cover major costs.

People purchase health insurance to make money for the insurance company?

[sub rosa]

Originally Posted by Edman85

Those people you cite are acting irrationally.

alrighty then!

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Edman85

Those people you cite are acting irrationally. Paying premiums to "save" money on checkups and prescription drugs may or may not help to save money. Health insurance is purchased to cover major costs.

People purchase health insurance to make money for the insurance company?

How broadly do you define catastrophic? A twisted ankle? A broken leg? The flu? A fever in a child? People being "sick"?

Or are you talking about a debilitating illness?

I think people get health insurance to cover them for all sorts of illnesses, including mental illnesses such as depression. I don't think people get health insurance simply to cover them in case they contract cancer or HIV or some other life threatening illness.

[Edman85]

Catastrophic: health care that one cannot pay for using their reserve of funds.