Canadian Health Care? Is it really like this?

[nando]

Maybe, but like the fallacy that smokers cost a lot more, people with unhealthy lifestyles generally die younger and more quickly and therefore don't cost nearly as much to care for. Healthy people live a lot longer and will need continually greater amounts of care as they age. Those are the people who cost more. So the next time a politician wants to add another tax on cigarettes or fast food because they need to "pay" for the expected medical costs, you can tell them to piss off because it simply isn't true.

This does bring up another point about a government run program. It will lead to more rules and laws about what you can and cannot do because the "cost" to the medical system will be too high. They will tax hamburgers and pizza, they will tax you more if you don't have a regular exercise program supervised by a government representative, they'll ban anything that they want as long as they can call it a public health issue. (OK, it's a bit over the top, but it is a safe bet that it will happen)

There are certain, dependent type people who will see doctors as often as they can because that's the only place where people are forced to pay attention to them. You see it all the damn time. People who come in for no real reason just so they can get some attention. But most others won't go see the doctor any more than before even if we had a "free" health care system.

(Sorry for rambling. I'm bored here at work)

they may die younger, but are you really trying to say that all the heart disease, diabetes, cancers, liver failures, and other self induced health problems don't cost our system more money than if those people didn't eat, drink and smoke themselves to death? If people are healthier, wouldn't that mean they wouldn't need to as much expensive research and care? Just preventative care?

[Hallen]

they may die younger, but are you really trying to say that all the heart disease, diabetes, cancers, liver failures, and other self induced health problems don't cost our system more money than if those people didn't eat, drink and smoke themselves to death?

Yes

If people are healthier, wouldn't that mean they wouldn't need to as much expensive research and care? Just preventative care?

Yes... until they age. Then no matter who you are, things catch up to you. Genetics, work environment, injuries, etc all take a toll on you. You will get sick more often. Small sicknesses will force more doctors visits and hospital stays. The longer you live, the more chance you have of getting cancer, etc. It is those multiple years worth of escalating care need that cost more.

Take two people born on the same day. One smokes and has a heart attack and dies at age 56. The other lived a healthy life and died in their rest home bed at the age of 96. Think about it, that's 40 more years of care that is required. Up until the guy died at 56, sure, he cost more. But if you compare his total cost to the 96 year old, you'll find that the 96 year old costs more.

Now if you take a person who does smoke and compare to a person who doesn't smoke and both of them live the same length of time, then most likely the one who smoked will cost more. But that generally isn't the way it works out.

[nando]

My problem with that is there is another cost you aren't factoring in, and that's the cost of lost skills/labor/knowledge when somebody dies "young". Unless you think people who are old cannot contribute to society. That 96 year old may have cost 40 more years of health care, but they (hopefully) also contributed to at least 30 years of productivity.

I intend to live until I'm 100. I know, it's wierd, but unless I get hit by a car or get some horrible disease, that's my goal. I don't want to rot away in a rest home when I'm only 75, there's lots of people who are active and productive well past 70.. I intend to be one of them. ;)

[Hallen]

Just to be clear - a typical MRI lasts 45 minutes. Additionally, they don't cost $1500. Hospitals may bill that much but they don't get paid that much. Free standing clinics also cost a TON less than hospitals or hospital run outpatient imaging centers - like the one I work at. A person with no insurance will probably pay 4-900 depending on the MRI being performed and whether there is contrast involved. Guess what the shitty part is?

Here's the order of operations (as for as insurance authorizations are concerned) for diagnostic imaging (and their round about costs) - let's say for a cancer patient.

X-ray (or US, depending) $60
CT $400
MRI $900
PET CT $1500 (most of this charge is to cover the radioactive isotope)

Here's where it gets shitty. Almost every trauma patient in the ER gets a CT because of it's relative low costs. Generally, insurance companies won't do an MRI before a CT because it isn't proven "medically necessary". Guess what? A CT submits the patient to roughly the amount of radiation emitted by a neclear weapon or 4 years of natural radiation in a span of 15 minutes. In theory, the benefit vs cost of a CT renders it ineffective except in the case of severe medical conditions. This may leave you to rightfully ask - why is every trauma patient being submitted to this kind of unnecessary radiation? Because insurance companies won't cover a MRI. That is what's wrong with this system from a patient care perspective. That's why so many cancer patients have recurring cancer. It's fucking bullshit.

Hmmm, well, the two MRI's I had done didn't seem to take that long, but I will bow to your experience there. But, I know for a fact that the bill came in at $1300 (mine was only a partial for the herniated disk in my neck). It was a small hospital and was done on an out-patient basis. I don't remember what the insurance paid on it, but I know I didn't have to match the difference or anything. I am sure they only paid a portion. (it's that game that is played because of Medicare setting the pricing structure.)

I agree that it is shitty the way insurance companies try to dictate treatments to keep costs down. I would suspect it would be just as bad, or potentially worse, with a government run system.

BTW, it is wicked strange to lie inside that tube. I swear I could feel my molecules being aligned by the magnets.... creepy.

[Turf1600]

Yes


Yes... until they age. Then no matter who you are, things catch up to you. Genetics, work environment, injuries, etc all take a toll on you. You will get sick more often. Small sicknesses will force more doctors visits and hospital stays. The longer you live, the more chance you have of getting cancer, etc. It is those multiple years worth of escalating care need that cost more.

Take two people born on the same day. One smokes and has a heart attack and dies at age 56. The other lived a healthy life and died in their rest home bed at the age of 96. Think about it, that's 40 more years of care that is required. Up until the guy died at 56, sure, he cost more. But if you compare his total cost to the 96 year old, you'll find that the 96 year old costs more.

Now if you take a person who does smoke and compare to a person who doesn't smoke and both of them live the same length of time, then most likely the one who smoked will cost more. But that generally isn't the way it works out.

Who you're forgetting in your fantasy scenario is the guy who smoked since he was 13 and got non small cell lung cancer. Tack on a one year recovery that requires monthly CTS, multiple PET CTs, radiation therapy, surgery, and countless oncologist visits. After he recovers, the CT persist for 4 more years. The oncologist check ups continue. Guess what happens 6 years later? He gets hodgkins lymphoma from all of the radiation he recieved. Multiply the above scenario by two. Three? Four? Death?

Yeah, I'd rather pay for the 40 years of routine check ups and prostate exams.

[Hallen]

My problem with that is there is another cost you aren't factoring in, and that's the cost of lost skills/labor/knowledge when somebody dies "young". Unless you think people who are old cannot contribute to society. That 96 year old may have cost 40 more years of health care, but they (hopefully) also contributed to at least 30 years of productivity.

I intend to live until I'm 100. I know, it's wierd, but unless I get hit by a car or get some horrible disease, that's my goal. I don't want to rot away in a rest home when I'm only 75, there's lots of people who are active and productive well past 70.. I intend to be one of them. ;)

Yes of course a person who lives a longer, healthier life will be happier and more productive. But I was talking about just the medical costs.

I'm with you on the age goal. Keep young in your mind and stay active.

[Turf1600]

Hmmm, well, the two MRI's I had done didn't seem to take that long, but I will bow to your experience there. But, I know for a fact that the bill came in at $1300 (mine was only a partial for the herniated disk in my neck). It was a small hospital and was done on an out-patient basis. I don't remember what the insurance paid on it, but I know I didn't have to match the difference or anything. I am sure they only paid a portion. (it's that game that is played because of Medicare setting the pricing structure.)

I agree that it is shitty the way insurance companies try to dictate treatments to keep costs down. I would suspect it would be just as bad, or potentially worse, with a government run system.

BTW, it is wicked strange to lie inside that tube. I swear I could feel my molecules being aligned by the magnets.... creepy.

The megnetic field "excites" your cells. It's creepy, I know. And yes, Medicare has medical necessity guidelines that are already strict and are about to tighten further.

[mrsleeve]

Here's where it gets shitty. Almost every trauma patient in the ER gets a CT because of it's relative low costs. Generally, insurance companies won't do an MRI before a CT because it isn't proven "medically necessary". Guess what? A CT submits the patient to roughly the amount of radiation emitted by a neclear weapon or 4 years of natural radiation in a span of 15 minutes. In theory, the benefit vs cost of a CT renders it ineffective except in the case of severe medical conditions. This may leave you to rightfully ask - why is every trauma patient being submitted to this kind of unnecessary radiation? Because insurance companies won't cover a MRI. That is what's wrong with this system from a patient care perspective. That's why so many cancer patients have recurring cancer. It's fucking bullshit.

You dont know much about radiation exposure do you. You get no where near a nuclear weapon level of exposure from any medical procedure, or even working in a nuke power plant.

That little bit of extra radiation exposure is not gonna hurt you one bit. I work with High intensity Gamma ray sources every day (yes you can over expose ur self and die as a result) and I get more Radiation exposure on some days than you will get in 5 years naturally. . Yes there are medical tests CT's in particular that you do get up to 12r at a whack. The common accepted school of thought is that 1R of exposure will shorten your life span by 1 day.

[Turf1600]

You dont know much about radiation exposure do you. You get no where near a nuclear weapon level of exposure from any medical procedure, or even working in a nuke power plant.

That little bit of extra radiation exposure is not gonna hurt you one bit. I work with High intensity Gamma ray sources every day (yes you can over expose ur self and die as a result) and I get more Radiation exposure on some days than you will get in 5 years naturally. . Yes there are medical tests CT's in particular that you do get up to 12r at a whack. The common accepted school of thought is that 1R of exposure will shorten your life span by 1 day.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11827-ct-scan-radiation-can-equal-nuclear-bomb-exposure-.html

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/496297

These aren't the orig. sources of my data, just a reference. For the record I work at the largest group of outpatient imaging centers in the US. The parent company of my division is the largest not for profit hospital group in north america. I'm not saying this makes me all knowing - but I do know what I'm talking about.

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well sure you get far enough away from the source you will get to the point where you will have a similar exposure rates. LOL I dont dispute that fact at all it only stands to reason that you will have that with anything.

I am not really up on medical imaging tech, I just have some of the basics on that. I am in the industrial side of it.

[Pinepig]

Really? According to the WHO, we pay the highest total amount of money, and the highest per-capita rate for healthcare in the enitre world (yes, more than Canada and Britain and all those other 'socialized medicine' countires). Yet we rank 76th in overall healthcare when you factor in all the elements such as cost, availability, prevention, treatment, quality, cost of malpractice insurance, life expectancy, disease rates, etc...

Holy hell man, if I threw that much shit in comparison vs dollar spent you could manipulate the findings to show anything you wanted.



I'm pretty sure that using the same kind of stat stacking we could show that the Nazis treated the Jews better than anyone in history.

[CorvallisBMW]

Holy hell man, if I threw that much shit in comparison vs dollar spent you could manipulate the findings to show anything you wanted.

I'm pretty sure that using the same kind of stat stacking we could show that the Nazis treated the Jews better than anyone in history.

Well, seeing as how the WHO is the world's largest and most premier health organization, I'd say it's a pretty good stat. How would you rate healthcare? On just one parameter? Or would you use more than one, for accuracy and completeness? If you're going to rate a particular service, don't you want to include all elements of it? It doesn't make sense to rate it on just one or two. That is what would make it inaccurate and manipulative.

[Pinepig]

Well, seeing as how the WHO is the world's largest and most premier health organization,

Largest and premier, what exactly is that, well known? As far as I know there is no other world wide health organization of any kind, that makes the claim you put there kinda meaningless doesn't it. Pardon me if I'm not quite ready to guzzle down the jizz of an entity of the UN without a wee bit of skepticism.


I'm fine with the " you get what you pay for " health coverage. You are more than welcome to shop and pay for what you want, don't expect me to pay for yours comrade. There is no doubt there are problems with our health care system, most of them are government made. The brilliant thinking that more government involvement will make it better just boggles my mind.

The fed gov runs three different systems now, Medicare, Medicaid and the VA, tell me how good those three are with a straight face.

[mrsleeve]

largest and premier, what exactly is that, well known? As far as i know there is no other world wide health organization of any kind, that makes the claim you put there kinda meaningless doesn't it. Pardon me if i'm not quite ready to guzzle down the jizz of an entity of the un without a wee bit of skepticism.


I'm fine with the " you get what you pay for " health coverage. You are more than welcome to shop and pay for what you want, don't expect me to pay for yours comrade. There is no doubt there are problems with our health care system, most of them are government made. The brilliant thinking that more government involvement will make it better just boggles my mind.

The fed gov runs three different systems now, medicare, medicaid and the va, tell me how good those three are with a straight face.

x2

[CorvallisBMW]

Obviously you are confused by the proposed changes to our nation's healthcare system. The government will not be 'running' anything. They will simply be providing low-cost health insurance to compete with private insurance and provide an affordable option to those to don't have thousands of dollars a month to spend on private insurance for their families.

Think of it like auto insurance. Do Progressive, Geico or Allstate run the transportation system? Not at all. They just provide insurance, for a fee, to drivers. This is essentially the same thing; the government provides insurance, for a fee, to it's citizens.

Also, you already do pay for everyone else's health care, "comrade". You pay for it through higher insurance premiums, because those without insurance go to the emergency room (which is much more expensive) and the insurance companies and hospitals pass it on to you. Getting the uninsured insurance will help to lower health care costs because not only will it prevent them from using the emergency room except for real emergencies, it will also give them access to preventative care, which is roughly 10x less expensive than treatment after the fact. I know Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich disagree with me, but nearly every single professional organization of doctors, nurses and practitioners in the US do agree with me, and I trust the people who work in the profession over any politician, lobbyist or Washington think-tank.