A horror story from Canada. And of course, it if weren’t for the fact that they can fall back on their friends south of the border, it would be even worse.
But don’t worry, when it comes to socialism, now that The One is in charge, we’ll make the Canadians look like pikers.
As medical insurance horror stories go, not very horrifying. The horrible part is that he’s possibly dying from an awful disease, and might be doing better were it not for a missed diagnosis and a paperwork snafu. All of those things — deadly cancers, missed diagnoses, and paperwork mistakes — happen in our system too. The fact that he can’t work while he’s very sick, and needs his wife to take care of him, is par for the course as well.
The difference is that he has to travel for his very expensive treatment. In the U.S. he might still have to travel, depending on where he lived, but there’s a good chance he would either not get the treatment, or would be driven to bankruptcy. Because he’s Canadian, he gets a $100,000 treatment, and a chance to beat his cancer, at no cost to himself or his heirs.
Meanwhile, millions of Americans travel to other countries to get affordable care, and millions declare bankruptcy because of debts owed to medical providers. That’s a horror story you don’t hear in Canada (or France, or Switzerland, or Finland, or Germany, or the Netherlands, or Sweden, or Norway, or Belgium, or Spain, or the UK).
Because he’s Canadian, he gets a $100,000 treatment, and a chance to beat his cancer, at no cost to himself or his heirs.
Money isn’t the only way to measure cost. In this case, the vaunted Canadian healthcare system wasn’t able to provide him care, so they needed to send him to the US to get treated under our broken healthcare system. Of course, when “The One” fixes our healthcare system so it runs like Canada’s, where will poor folks like the our cancer patient go to get treatment?
Meanwhile, millions of Americans travel to other countries to get affordable care, and millions declare bankruptcy because of debts owed to medical providers.
Really? Millions of Americans have to go outside the US to get health care? And millions declare bankruptcy because of medical debts? Is it millions over the history of the US, or millions every year? A source for this assertion might be helpful.
ucfengr – Google “medical tourism.” Representative link uninsured American flies to India for heart surgery.
ucfengr – Google “medical tourism.” Representative link uninsured American flies to India for heart surgery.
You might note that I didn’t sayor imply that “medical tourism” doesn’t happen, I questioned whether or not there are “millions” of cases of it. But let’s look at your article for a second. Here are some interesting quotes:
“Some Canadians and Europeans said they chose to travel aboard, despite having national health plans, because they are tired of waiting — sometimes years — for treatment.“
Of course, the Canadian and European systems are fine, while our’s is broken.
Critics of medical tourism warn patients to be diligent when researching treatment aboard. “I’ve found that industry voices tend to crowd out those of us who are more cautious about the legal risks,” said Nathan Cortez, assistant law professor at Southern Methodist University, who is conducting a case study investigating what legal recourse patients have outside America.
and
Patients don’t think about their legal vulnerabilities, Cortez said. “Some countries limit patient access to medical records so they can’t really learn what happened during the surgery. And a lot of practitioners in other countries just refuse to give you your medical records. So people have to weigh the risk versus benefits.”
Hmm, limited legal recourse, I don’t see the trial lawyers buying off on that.
In any case, what’s amusing about your article is that all the places people are flying to for health care have what look like market-based health care systems. Something that nobody in the administration is proposing. In fact, what “The One” is proposing looks an awful lot closer to the Canadian and European systems where people are tired of waiting — sometimes years — for treatment”. If you look at the article with a critical eye, what you see is that it really argues against the type of reforms being proposed.
Yes, Google “India medical malpractice” and after you read about it; you’ll understand why people can afford cheaper operations in India and the AMA booed President Obama.
And keep in mind, the Government does cap lawsuits against itself.
Click my name for one study about nearly 1 million Californians getting health care in Mexico annually.
As for bankruptcy, in 2002 there were 1.5 million personal bankruptcy filings in the U.S. Many are couples, so the number of people involved is larger. Between a quarter and a half are estimated to involve medical debts. So there might not be a million a year, but there are millions each decade.
In any case, what’s amusing about your article is that all the places people are flying to for health care have what look like market-based health care systems.
Well, duh! If you’re going to another country for health care you’re looking for a system that is set up to let outsiders pay for care. That has nothing to do with whether the system is a good one for people of that country.
in fact, what “The One” is proposing looks an awful lot closer to the Canadian and European systems where people are tired of waiting — sometimes years — for treatment”.
Obama’s proposals are nothing like the Canadian or UK systems, and there are longer waits for routine care in the U.S. than in peer countries.
What’s the wait to see a doctor in Mexico, Jim?
Hmmm. I don’t wait an unreasonable time for care. I don’t pay a premium, my company does and the co-pay costs are reasonable too. In fact, I have great insurance. So if Jim and Chris are supporting changes to MY healthcare to benefit themselves or others, you can put it where the sun don’t shine. You’re asking millions of Americans with reasonable or good insurance to increase the risk to their health and, perhaps, increase their costs for what?
You’re not alone Mr. Maron. I don’t know what Jim’s wait times are in Mexico, but I don’t have an unreasonable wait in Texas.
Bill, what is the rasonable amount your company pays? And what would equivalent cover cost you if you had to pay for it yourself. I’ve just started my own business and equivalent cover to my old care would be $470 a month, and care previously wasn’t all that wonderful.
Certainly it had me pining for the sad, bad NHS.
I live in Canada, and had to wait over 6 months for an MRI on my neck. Now another wait, probably several years – since I’m not at death’s door – to see a neurosurgeon.
Socialized medicine doesn’t work efficiently anywhere, regardless of what the hopey-changers wish for.
Well, duh! If you’re going to another country for health care you’re looking for a system that is set up to let outsiders pay for care. That has nothing to do with whether the system is a good one for people of that country.
Then it makes no sense to cite it has a preferred model.
Obama’s proposals are nothing like the Canadian or UK systems, and there are longer waits for routine care in the U.S. than in peer countries.
Nothing? Nothing at all? Please. The UK and Canadian systems are state run single payer systems, like Medicare, the military, and the VA. Medicaid is essentially 50 single payer systems, 1 per state. Obama’s proposal is to create a new single payer system that will compete with the market at a substantial advantage (government doesn’t worry about profit and loss). This will eventually force everyone into the government system, like Canada and the UK. As to longer waits for routine care, please provide a source for that assertion, but even if true who care’s? Waiting a couple of days for a check up is not a huge problem, waiting 6+ months for cancer treatment or heart surgery is.
waiting 6+ months for cancer treatment or heart surgery is.
Except apart from some outliers this doesn’t happen in the UK or Canada, and certainly not in other countries with single payer universal coverage like, er, Japan, Holland, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland…
The long waits tend to happen if the affliction is non-life threatening. Of course, if you have top up private insurance, for which there is a thriving market in the UK, you get to decide when you have your treatment, what specialist to see etc…
When my father was diagnosed with Oesophageal cancer, the delay from diagnosis to surgery was a little under 2 weeks and most of that was spent doing diagnostic tests to determine the scope of the surgery and the treatment approach. Interestingly because he was treated so quickly on the NHS his private insurance cut him a cheque to cover his hospital stay because he didn’t use a private hospital.
Think about that. He actually got money back from cancer treatment…
Socialized medicine doesn’t work efficiently anywhere, regardless of what the hopey-changers wish for.
And again, why don’t we discuss France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Japan, Finland, Holland and so on when we discuss these things.
They don’t have the real “free at point of delivery” socialist system the UK has, but they do have mixed insurance and universal single payer systems with minimal waiting lists, open access to Doctors and a bunch of other stuff that people in the US hold dear.
They also pay less as a percentage of GDP than the US on healthcare. Purely from a fiscal responsibility position American fiscal conservatives should be all over that one.
“They also pay less as a percentage of GDP than the US on healthcare”
A link would be nice to see how the compile their statistics. For example, do they include government salaries involved in administering the plan? Do they include research at teaching hospitals? More questions, will drug research drop when the governments are setting prices not based on a free market? Will less qualified people replace those that go into other fields because of salary limitations in a government run system?
Why does it matter? I don’t pay it and I didn’t say whether what my company pays was reasonable or not. I said the costs to me were. $400 a month. What I don’t want is another level of bureaucracy meddling in my affairs.
Except apart from some outliers this doesn’t happen in the UK or Canada, and certainly not in other countries with single payer universal coverage like, er, Japan, Holland, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland…
Ahh, that’s the way to do it, we just call everything we doesn’t fit argument an outlier and that way we don’t have to address it. The problem with the assertion is that we very rarely hear about people going from the US to Canada to get health care, but we here about the converse quite often. And, here’s a quote from the CNN article cited above, “Some Canadians and Europeans said they chose to travel aboard, despite having national health plans, because they are tired of waiting — sometimes years — for treatment.”
They also pay less as a percentage of GDP than the US on healthcare.
They probably spend less as a percentage of GDP on lots of things. I don’t see how it is an argument for anything. In a free market people are allowed to spend their money on the things they value as opposed to the things politicians value.
Ahh, that’s the way to do it, we just call everything we doesn’t fit argument an outlier and that way we don’t have to address it
No because using a statement like that has “some” without any hard data opens the door to the outlier argument. How many? With what frequency? Which European countries? UK and Ireland? France? Germany? It’s a lovely piece of vague reportage but that’s it.
but we here about the converse quite often.
How often is “quite”? Seriously? And what are the actual stories behind that and the success rates involved?
They probably spend less as a percentage of GDP on lots of things
And do they get more or less for that? If they’re spending less as a percentage of GDP and getting universal coverage of a high quality, which certainly seems to be the case in a lot of countries, then it’s quite pertinent.
In a free market people are allowed to spend their money on the things they value as opposed to the things politicians value.
As many have remarked. The one thing you don’t have is a free market in this. You have the very worst of both worlds.
Why does it matter? I don’t pay it and I didn’t say whether what my company pays was reasonable or not. I said the costs to me were. $400 a month. What I don’t want is another level of bureaucracy meddling in my affairs.
Whether or not what your company pays is extremely relevant, especially in terms of the distortion to the market of making Healthcare an employee only option. Especially if companies start to have trouble with those costs too.
More questions, will drug research drop when the governments are setting prices not based on a free market? Will less qualified people replace those that go into other fields because of salary limitations in a government run system?
There’s plenty of global data on these items. The answer doesn’t appear to be yes to either of those.
“There’s plenty of global data on these items. The answer doesn’t appear to be yes to either of those.”
Not every government is setting prices, namely us.
“Whether or not what your company pays is extremely relevant, especially in terms of the distortion to the market of making Healthcare an employee only option. Especially if companies start to have trouble with those costs too.”
So far, all you and the rest of the Obamacare proponents are doing is talking about making my life worse. The new bill you are twisting yourself in knots about exempts Congress and federal employees. Why is that?
Obama can run a simple experiment with drugs costs. Simply limit the price of drugs sold in the US to that of the lowest price the same patented drug is sold in the EU (Western Europe) and Canada. After one year the drug companies will either stop funding new drug research or they won’t.
As for Obama’s plan, lost in all of the conversation is just exactly where in the Constitution does the government derive the authority to do so? And why is it my problem as a taxpayer if someone else has or does not have full health insurance coverage? Everyone has the right to access, but where in the Constitution does it entitle them to to have someone else pay for it?
My proposal continues to be let’s experiment with govt employees (yup, state and local too, not just military), medicare/medicaid, and the indian health service.
Obama gets free rein, but that the per-person budget gets cut 5%/year starting in 2011 and for the next four years. He’s predicting a 25-30% savings, so <20% should be easy.
We’ll see soon enough if it actually works.