Non covered services: Cosmetic surgury, Breast implants, Hair transplants...
Canadian Top Doc " Healthcare Imploding"
- Thread starter tenderloin
- Start date
- Status
This is a bit off topic, but I work with a guy who used to work on a cruise ship. The ship staff would avoid going for health care at US ports due to the costs. Often they would wait for a Mexican port. (same for food purchases) He said he paid $10 to a dentist to have his teeth cleaned, and paid $25 for a root canal. (I pay $90 for a 15 min teeth cleaning) Also said root canal it was a better job that the one he had done in Canada. Next time he needs any dental work, he and wifey on going on a Mexican holiday. He Expects to save enough to pay for a good part of the trip...
I don't know what my dentist charges because I fix his computers for free and get free service for my teeth. I have really nice teeth and he has really stable computers.
There's a shortage of nurses in Canada, due to not paying enough to hospitals. They work them like crazy over here.
Let's put this in perspective - Canada has a full blown crisis because some of the 100% covered population are getting less than perfect care (
), while many in the U.S., where many people get either overly expensive or NO care (with not much in the middle) think that our system is perfect and could not be improved upon.
Who has the crisis?
PS - I laugh at the stressed doctors - Welcome to the real world!
Who has the crisis?
PS - I laugh at the stressed doctors - Welcome to the real world!
A Canadian family member of mine is married to an American woman. He is very involved in caring for her elderly American parents and according to him, U.S. healthcare is VERY good ... to those that have insurance.
With 5% guaranteed, "optimum" unemployment, there are designed into the system some "losers" who can't have health insurance, and those people, and their children will suffer, reducing their chances in life.
There HAS to be a safety net option, where those things that are life threatening get dealt with, and the children of those people are kept healthy, and can "claw their way out of the ghetto with will and determination"
There HAS to be a safety net option, where those things that are life threatening get dealt with, and the children of those people are kept healthy, and can "claw their way out of the ghetto with will and determination"
They need to regulate insurance rates across the US and make it illegal for companies to deny care to patients who have paid their premiums on time. They also need to make it illegal to jack up the rates or to cancel insurance when a big claim is made, such as heart surgery etc.
Then they need to institute a safety net that protects people out of work, or unable to make health insurance premium payments due to illness etc. So that everyone is entitled to care.
Either the above, or they need to institute a system like we have. Which I know most Americans are against because of what the media shows you.
Such a great country in so many respects, but in the stone ages IMO when it comes to treating its sick / less fortunate.
Then they need to institute a safety net that protects people out of work, or unable to make health insurance premium payments due to illness etc. So that everyone is entitled to care.
Either the above, or they need to institute a system like we have. Which I know most Americans are against because of what the media shows you.
Such a great country in so many respects, but in the stone ages IMO when it comes to treating its sick / less fortunate.
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
[snip]while many in the U.S., where many people get either overly expensive or NO care (with not much in the middle) think that our system is perfect and could not be improved upon. [snip]
Who has no care? I assume you mean no insurance? I'm not trying to be difficult & pick nits here.
[snip]while many in the U.S., where many people get either overly expensive or NO care (with not much in the middle) think that our system is perfect and could not be improved upon. [snip]
Who has no care? I assume you mean no insurance? I'm not trying to be difficult & pick nits here.
A large percentage of the people in the US who have no insurance do it by choice. The 18-34 group feel they are healthy and choose not to carry insurance. They are 'self insured'.
Originally Posted By: benjamming
Who has no care? I assume you mean no insurance? I'm not trying to be difficult & pick nits here.
That group is composed of people with no insurance, and people with insurance whose care is denied or excluded as soon as it is deemed unprofitable.
Who has no care? I assume you mean no insurance? I'm not trying to be difficult & pick nits here.
That group is composed of people with no insurance, and people with insurance whose care is denied or excluded as soon as it is deemed unprofitable.
Originally Posted By: StevieC
They need to regulate insurance rates across the US and make it illegal for companies to deny care to patients who have paid their premiums on time. They also need to make it illegal to jack up the rates or to cancel insurance when a big claim is made, such as heart surgery etc.
Then they need to institute a safety net that protects people out of work, or unable to make health insurance premium payments due to illness etc. So that everyone is entitled to care.
Either the above, or they need to institute a system like we have. Which I know most Americans are against because of what the media shows you.
Such a great country in so many respects, but in the stone ages IMO when it comes to treating its sick / less fortunate.
+1 :2cents:
Our Family has used the Canadian system twice in the last year. No problems!
I'll give details and a time frame for treatment, if anyone is interested?
They need to regulate insurance rates across the US and make it illegal for companies to deny care to patients who have paid their premiums on time. They also need to make it illegal to jack up the rates or to cancel insurance when a big claim is made, such as heart surgery etc.
Then they need to institute a safety net that protects people out of work, or unable to make health insurance premium payments due to illness etc. So that everyone is entitled to care.
Either the above, or they need to institute a system like we have. Which I know most Americans are against because of what the media shows you.
Such a great country in so many respects, but in the stone ages IMO when it comes to treating its sick / less fortunate.
+1 :2cents:
Our Family has used the Canadian system twice in the last year. No problems!
I'll give details and a time frame for treatment, if anyone is interested?
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
A large percentage of the people in the US who have no insurance do it by choice. The 18-34 group feel they are healthy and choose not to carry insurance. They are 'self insured'.
Agree and disagree. There are people who choose to self insure, which of course drives up insurance costs for everyone else. How large is that group compared to those older than 34?
A large percentage of the people in the US who have no insurance do it by choice. The 18-34 group feel they are healthy and choose not to carry insurance. They are 'self insured'.
Agree and disagree. There are people who choose to self insure, which of course drives up insurance costs for everyone else. How large is that group compared to those older than 34?
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
A large percentage of the people in the US who have no insurance do it by choice. The 18-34 group feel they are healthy and choose not to carry insurance. They are 'self insured'.
Agree and disagree. There are people who choose to self insure, which of course drives up insurance costs for everyone else. How large is that group compared to those older than 34?
I heard 40% - 45% choose not to buy insurance.
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
A large percentage of the people in the US who have no insurance do it by choice. The 18-34 group feel they are healthy and choose not to carry insurance. They are 'self insured'.
Agree and disagree. There are people who choose to self insure, which of course drives up insurance costs for everyone else. How large is that group compared to those older than 34?
I heard 40% - 45% choose not to buy insurance.
Is this an RSP thread? A moderator posted in the thread so I guess not.
To the topic:
Quote:
The court ruled that the waiting lists had become so long that they violated patients' "liberty, safety and security" under the Quebec charter, which covers about one-quarter of Canada's population.
"The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread and that in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care," the Supreme Court ruled. "In sum, the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/09/international/americas/09cnd-canada.html
To the topic:
Quote:
The court ruled that the waiting lists had become so long that they violated patients' "liberty, safety and security" under the Quebec charter, which covers about one-quarter of Canada's population.
"The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread and that in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care," the Supreme Court ruled. "In sum, the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/09/international/americas/09cnd-canada.html
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
It's an PSP thread when it contour a political bickering match ..which it always does.
I want everyone to fall into the situation where they cannot afford "care" (non-emergency) just for enough time where they need it. Leverage whatever they've managed to eek out of life ...no problem there. Pay your way.
A bout in the rice paddies tends to reform your philosophy on such things.
Typically everyone who wants a harsh reality to be realized is usually 100% except from the effects. It's self interests masked with philosophically hollow rhetoric.
I want everyone to fall into the situation where they cannot afford "care" (non-emergency) just for enough time where they need it. Leverage whatever they've managed to eek out of life ...no problem there. Pay your way.
A bout in the rice paddies tends to reform your philosophy on such things.
Typically everyone who wants a harsh reality to be realized is usually 100% except from the effects. It's self interests masked with philosophically hollow rhetoric.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I want everyone to fall into the situation where they cannot afford "care" (non-emergency) just for enough time where they need it. Leverage whatever they've managed to eek out of life ...no problem there. Pay your way.
Well, if you want to lower the cost of health care dramatically, do away with insurance all together. Is this what you are saying?
You hear stories of the total doctor maternity bill in the '30s was about $25 dollars. Yea, infant mortality was higher and, of course, our life expectancy would fall also. Where do you draw the line? That question has about 1000 different answers.
I want everyone to fall into the situation where they cannot afford "care" (non-emergency) just for enough time where they need it. Leverage whatever they've managed to eek out of life ...no problem there. Pay your way.
Well, if you want to lower the cost of health care dramatically, do away with insurance all together. Is this what you are saying?
You hear stories of the total doctor maternity bill in the '30s was about $25 dollars. Yea, infant mortality was higher and, of course, our life expectancy would fall also. Where do you draw the line? That question has about 1000 different answers.
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
A large percentage of the people in the US who have no insurance do it by choice. The 18-34 group feel they are healthy and choose not to carry insurance. They are 'self insured'.
Agree and disagree. There are people who choose to self insure, which of course drives up insurance costs for everyone else. How large is that group compared to those older than 34?
I heard 40% - 45% choose not to buy insurance.
I was one of those. Between the ages of 18-25, I choose not to have insurance. I was young enough to be indestructible, right?
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
A large percentage of the people in the US who have no insurance do it by choice. The 18-34 group feel they are healthy and choose not to carry insurance. They are 'self insured'.
Agree and disagree. There are people who choose to self insure, which of course drives up insurance costs for everyone else. How large is that group compared to those older than 34?
I heard 40% - 45% choose not to buy insurance.
I was one of those. Between the ages of 18-25, I choose not to have insurance. I was young enough to be indestructible, right?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Originally Posted By: Samilcar
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
A large percentage of the people in the US who have no insurance do it by choice. The 18-34 group feel they are healthy and choose not to carry insurance. They are 'self insured'.
Agree and disagree. There are people who choose to self insure, which of course drives up insurance costs for everyone else. How large is that group compared to those older than 34?
I heard 40% - 45% choose not to buy insurance.
I was one of those. Between the ages of 18-25, I choose not to have insurance. I was young enough to be indestructible, right?
In this case you are taking advantage of the loop hole in our system. You're not going to be denied critical emergency care and (probably) aren't going to be suffering from lack of "health maintenance" for decades to come. I was unbreakable until 40..unbreakable.
You are gambling ..but the odds are in your favor for avoiding paying for the bulk of costs that make insurance expensive. There is insurance specifically for your type of needs.
Most that "choose" not to buy insurance don't do it for the liberation to spend the money elsewhere. It's choosing between affording rent and having coverage. So that term "choice" doesn't imply "preferred".
Figures don't lie ..but liars do figure when compiling statistics.
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
A large percentage of the people in the US who have no insurance do it by choice. The 18-34 group feel they are healthy and choose not to carry insurance. They are 'self insured'.
Agree and disagree. There are people who choose to self insure, which of course drives up insurance costs for everyone else. How large is that group compared to those older than 34?
I heard 40% - 45% choose not to buy insurance.
I was one of those. Between the ages of 18-25, I choose not to have insurance. I was young enough to be indestructible, right?
In this case you are taking advantage of the loop hole in our system. You're not going to be denied critical emergency care and (probably) aren't going to be suffering from lack of "health maintenance" for decades to come. I was unbreakable until 40..unbreakable.
You are gambling ..but the odds are in your favor for avoiding paying for the bulk of costs that make insurance expensive. There is insurance specifically for your type of needs.
Most that "choose" not to buy insurance don't do it for the liberation to spend the money elsewhere. It's choosing between affording rent and having coverage. So that term "choice" doesn't imply "preferred".
Figures don't lie ..but liars do figure when compiling statistics.
- Status
Similar threads
