February 02, 2010
– Comments (22)
Read this article in the CBC News and stay for their comments section.
You have to love it. This is just as important as Michael Moore taking a group of Americans to Cuba for healthcare.
Thanks for commenting. I'm surprised I have not had more nibbles on this. Like you, I think this is very important to read. And that includes their comments, all 510 of them.
I'm surprised I have not had more nibbles on this.
Maybe because everyone has seen 1000 posts like it in the past few years? I didn't bother to click the link, but I could probably give you a 90% accurate summary of what it says.
You have brought nothing new to the conversation, and it's not like it matters because there hasn't been any chance of us going to a Canadian style system for about 18 years now. It was never even seriously discussed during the recent attempt to give even more massive corporate welfare to the insurance industry.
How about this:
In a free society like Canada's you can achieve great wealth and spend it as you wish.
If we went to a "Canadian style system", where would this Canadian politician go to have his heart surgery?
As a Canadian, I can assure everyone who thinks the socialized Canadian version of healthcare is the best system out there, I can assure you that with few exceptions, it sucks.
Thankfully I haven't had to deal with many health issues, but my wife has had a few. I won't go into detail, but more often than not it's been a very bad experience. The most recent one went well though. The doctor sent my wife home only to have her return the next day. I have no proof but I'm guessing it was probably done as a cost-cutting/bed saving measure. Either way, surprisingly, he actually apologized to my wife saying he'd made a mistake not realizing the severity of the issue.
Another exception at least for us is that they've been exceptionally good when it came to any pregnancy/maternity issue we've had, and with our last child who was quite premature, their NICU was impecible.
A note... when Michael Moore came to Canada to show our lovely healthcare system, he stopped at a Tim Horton's in town. He was literally blocks from my house AND my business. I wish I'd have known. I'd have popped by to say hello.
Or how about this:
Wish my insurer let me go "out of network" when my Doctor thinks it will help..
I didn't bother to click the link, but I could probably give you a 90% accurate summary of what it says.
Tell us what you think it says. Keep your answer honest. No cheating by clicking the link and reading the contents.
If we went to a "Canadian style system", where would this Canadian politician go to have his heart surgery?
Just like now, wherever he wants.
That is something of a stinging indictment of Canadian healthcare system shortfalls. +1
The article is from Canada, where socialized medicine has been at work for many years. The article is written by Canadians, for Canadians, about a Canadian Politician and what he is going to do with regard to his illness. And the comments section has hundreds of comments from Canadians on the subject. I think this is a good window, narrow it may be, on the system and how it is perceived by those that use it.
Thank you for sharing you experience with the system. I hope your child is well and thriving.
He's almost 2 and doing very well. Thanks. Mostly it was just a scary couple of weeks seeing the poor little guy in an incubator with so many tubes hooked up to him.
And for the record, he'll have a new little sister in about 2 months.
The option of surgery in the United States was chosen after weeks of consultation with his doctors, and because the particular procedure isn’t available in the province.
Not in your link, which was rushed to print, but later came the above quote from The Western Star; http://www.thewesternstar.com/index.cfm?sid=323385&sc=506
There are a lot of comments too, after the article as you said. Apparently some of them make a few assumptions about knowing what surgery was performed, and why he made the choice to come to the US to have it done.
Now, there are a couple of assumptions that morons might infer from reading these two short press releases. Because I too, am a moron, some occured to me also.
"Because I am an American, and this procedure was done in America, I can have it done too".
But, intelligent people, before they make that assumption, might want to know what the procedure was. They might want to check their policy and see if the procedure is covered, or experimental. They might want to check with the insurer that stands between them and this procedure if the unnamed Surgeon is "in network" or not. They might want to check if Surgerys performed in this unnamed hospital are covered by their insurance or "out of network". They might want to know the cost of this procedure to see if it exceeds annual or monthly, or single procedure spending caps in their insurance policy. They might want to see if the twelve week recuperation and care is paid for by their insurer.
They might not want to assume that it is any more available to them than a Canadian. eh?
Any Americans who believe that because this procedure was done in America, means they can get it done too, go home, read your policy, check the footnotes, and get back to me.
Because I am a moron, and I assume things.
Now it is also possible that this a different type of "stinging indictment" of the Candian healthcare system, right Bamafan68?
Because I am a moron, I might assume that this is a common surgery, readily available anywhere in the United States and restricted in Canada due to long wait lists which forced Premier Williams to come to the United States where there is no waiting and therefore I can have it done to.
Once again I should check with my insurance policy to see if the above coverage issues affect me before I assume I can have it done to. I should also probably send a thank you to the insurers who might restrict access to that procedure to some of my US neighbors, freeing up the Surgeon's time to see me and Premier Williams.
Because I am a moron, I might assume that this is a "stinging indictment" of Canadian healthcare because a "Premier" can travel to get surgery and "normal" Canadians cannot, and such an inequity in America, a country that prides itself on equality would be intolerable on such a basic need as healthcare. In order to make that assumption I would have to not know, that Canadians upon hearing about long Canadian wait times from the American News services petitioned their Government which responded and took steps to alleviate that problem by passing a law that requires Canadian healthcare to pay the expenses of every Canadian forced to wait over a year for surgery, or an unsafely long time, to travel to have that surgery performed, and it would be covered.
Cato, thanks for the detailed news coverage of a day in the life of Premier Williams.
I expect they are running with this on FOX?
Because I am a moron, I assume stuff.
Don't bother with a response. You could gather enough info from the comments to write your own. That would not be fair to the group that actually did the work.
Devo, as a physician who has to battle insurance companies on a not infrequent basis, I recognize that there are hoops that have to be jumped through to get patients the proper care/procedure on occasion. I can also safely say that I have never had to send a patient out of the country to get a procedure perfomed due to a lack of a provider who can provide that care. Does it mean that I have to scream at insurance companies on occasion? Sure. Does it mean that the patient might have to travel to the "big city" to get the procedure done? Yep. But if I pick up the phone and call a leading expert in the field, one of the few that can perform a particularly complex or unusual procedure, I can get that patient in to see the physician in a timely fashion.
Rather than battle insurance companys, wouldn't you rather know what is covered and what is not for every single patient before they walk in the door rather than get on the phone with and find out whether Cigna's policy "A" has the same coverage as Cigna policy "b"?
The fact is that nobody who read this post, rec'd this post, replied to this post, or ignored this post, knows if they can get whatever treatment Premier Willams is getting. And the worst part is, even if we knew what surgery was being done, we still would not know until our insurer denies coverage, or approves it.
Why do you think it is ok that your sentences #2 and #4 justify the cost you incure and the time you waste on #1 and #3? You could have #'s 2 and 4 without the waste and expense YOU incure dealing with 1 and 3.
Or even if a claim is first denied and then approved, you pay the expense of waiting for that money. The insurer collects the interest for 2 months while holding that money.
True, we don't know what treatment Premier Williams is getting. I'm sure Canada has some form of a HIPAA rule. I have to question why he wouldn't go to Montreal or Toronto for his procedure? There are some world class physicians in those two locations, but I don't know how long the backlog is.
As far as waste and expense, there is no doubt that there is no deficit of that when fighting insurance companies. That said, If I had to live on what Medicare paid, the model that a lot of single payor advocates have held up for a nationalized health care plan, I'd rapidly start looking at other employment opportunities. There's also no shortage of expense/waste of time with Medicare in trying to figure out its Byzantine coding/paperwork verification/allowable procedure rules. I don't know many people who fully understand IRS rules for income tax. I think the same people write the Medicare guidelines.
Socialized medicine vs. the current American healthcare system is a false choice, because we are not going to have a snowball's chance in hell of affording our current system as the Baby Boomers retire in massive numbers, to be supported by a far smaller number of younger workers. The numbers just don't add up.
As far as I'm concerned, the Democrats want to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic and the Republicans want to bolt them down where they sit. Nobody seems to be willing to do anything to try ot avoid the looming iceberg.
So how about this idea. Start with some gov't interference, in that the Gov't mandates one or two code sets for medical insurance claims, then let Doctors decide by vote which ones to use and make insurers adapt.
Then you get one code intrpreter out of your office, or get to visit one more patient, or spend that few extra minutes with one, or just take a day off and go fishing instead of spending time screaming.
I cannot imagine it helps your diagnostic abilities to look down my throat 2 minutes after a screaming match with Cigna.
And I have to ask if you are familiar with these guys? www.pnhp.org
devoish - you really sound like you are saying "single payer is the answer, what was the question?".
Are there any defects to a single payer system as far as you are concerned?
The question was how to lower the cost of healthcare, one answer is to eliminate the 1/3 cut insurers take for contributing red tape.
We will no longer know where the thieves (insurers) are.
We will need more Doctors. It will happen because there will be more paying (as opposed to non-paying) expenses.
We will need jobs for the former insurance employees.
There will be transition costs.
There will be endless whining from Libertarians, but I am used to that.