• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Why Europe Keeps Failing........ merged with "EU Seizes Cypriot Bank Accounts"

So the governments of Europe dont include national healthcare in their budget ?
 
tomahawk6 said:
So the governments of Europe dont include national healthcare in their budget ?


Yes, just as the USA does (for Medicare and Medicaid). Most (all?) European countries have a fully funded "national" health system which, like Canada's, rely upon rationing to control/regulate access. They also have extensive private insurance schemes which allow most Europeans to access services not covered by the "national" health system or to access "covered" services in more reasonable time frames.

There are only two pretty 'bad' health care systems in the OECD: America's and Canada's. Both are too expensive and provide second rate health outcomes. Neither offers a useful model for anyone to follow.

 
The US has a great healthcare system. Even Canadians come to the US for medical treatment as there is no waiting for procedures.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Even rich Canadians come to the US for medical treatment as there is no waiting for procedures.

Fixed that for you. Only people with money go to the US for treatment, that doesn't make the system great, unless you've got stock in that company.
 
ERC:
There are only two pretty 'bad' health care systems in the OECD: America's and Canada's. Both are too expensive and provide second rate health outcomes. Neither offers a useful model for anyone to follow.

My wife's doctor, last week, requested an "Urgent" medical test for the obvious reason. Appointment date is: 26 Sep 12.

My wife must an eye specialist annually for a couple of reasons. Her Ophthalmologist retired and his practice was taken over. She must see her GP to get a new referral to the Ophthalmologist even though he took over the other practice an BC health transferred the patients to him.

Additionally, BC Health requires a referral to this Ophthalmologist every six months. So, she is required and authorized for a visit once per year, but must see her GP for a referral  every year, at least three months prior to the twelve months since the last visit to the Ophthalmologist. At least three months because that is the minimum time a patient with her condition will have to wait to see the Ophthalmologist. If it was not so serious, it would be a longer wait. BC health must pay for the referral visit to her GP.

Since I am a right wing *******, I put this BC Health administration masturbation (beating ourselves to death with admin) blame at BC's previous NDP governments who kept increasing the government with unionized supporters. The liberals, as usual in this province, were gutless to change it.

Off topic. When I moved here, I went through four vehicle registrations and four sets of license plates because I purchased a new vehicle.  (MB plates to BC to BC Vet plates on lease car to BC plates to BC Vet plates on owned car) Why I had to get new plates each time? See reason above.
 
PuckChaser said:
Fixed that for you. Only people with money go to the US for treatment, that doesn't make the system great, unless you've got stock in that company.

You are wrong.

Many people from Southwestern Ontario are sent to hospitals in and around Detroit, by OHIP, on a regular and recurring basis, for elective and emergency surgery and treatment. Wait times are shorter, sometimes a couple of days vice 6 months, the equipment is better and treatment is better.
 
Candians of modest means can go to India for joint replacement surgery with short wait times and moderate cost; that is hardly a useful summation of the Indian health care system, simply that it can respond rapidly and effectively to the market signals of supply and demand. American health care is also capable of responding to supply and demand, hence private clinics can rapidly treat Canadian patients who are willing to pay.

Since Canadian health care managers are effectively insulated from consumer demand (they only see indirect demand from Provincial health care bureaucrats), they respond to different incentives, hence the different outcomes we get here.
 
Thucydides said:
Candians of modest means can go to India for joint replacement surgery

"Modest means" may be a relative term.  I've heard that similar medical trips to China cost about the same as a vacation to China would have cost, without medical treatment - but many can't afford such a vacation either.  Any idea how much money we're talking about, here?
 
PuckChaser said:
Fixed that for you. Only people with money go to the US for treatment, that doesn't make the system great, unless you've got stock in that company.

I guess that would be what you define "rich" to be,............I'm rich because my family is healthy, not because I actually managed a few times last year to make a paycheque last until the next one.
 
bridges said:
"Modest means" may be a relative term.  I've heard that similar medical trips to China cost about the same as a vacation to China would have cost, without medical treatment - but many can't afford such a vacation either.  Any idea how much money we're talking about, here?

Numbers are all over the place but the average for a hip replacement is @ $10,000 USD. Medical tourism operators also advertise hospitals in places like Costa Rica, so airfare and accommodations can also be adjusted to suit your financial conditions.

Just as a checksum; costs for hip replacement in our system are estimated to be @ $30,000, and there is no airfare or accommodations included in that price either...
 
In an effort to kill the practise, did not  a number of Canadian doctors refuse to treat out of country medical tourists for issues after the operation?
 
GAP said:
In an effort to kill the practise, did not  a number of Canadian doctors refuse to treat out of country medical tourists for issues after the operation?


They might have wanted to, but it would be unethical and I'm pretty sure their lawyers would advise them to provide good, professional treatment rather than risk an (inevitable) lawsuit.
 
GAP said:
In an effort to kill the practise, did not  a number of Canadian doctors refuse to treat out of country medical tourists for issues after the operation?

Such conduct does not seem to be consistent with the Hippocratic Oath.  ???
 
Good2Golf said:
Such conduct does not seem to be consistent with the Hippocratic Oath.  ???

The issue came up with patients with MS who went out of country to have the operation, but when they came back their doctors refused to deal with problems.....
 
Thucydides said:
Numbers are all over the place but the average for a hip replacement is @ $10,000 USD. Medical tourism operators also advertise hospitals in places like Costa Rica, so airfare and accommodations can also be adjusted to suit your financial conditions.

Just as a checksum; costs for hip replacement in our system are estimated to be @ $30,000, and there is no airfare or accommodations included in that price either...

Thanks for the info and comparison.  My point remains that there are people who can't afford either option, if they're paying directly out-of-pocket - whether in Canada or India or Costa Rica.  If you don't have any money, then $10000 might as well be a million.  Any discussion of health care and economic models will hopefully at least acknowledge the effects on the poor, if not actively try to find a solution.  I know, it sounds naïve ...
 
GAP said:
The issue came up with patients with MS who went out of country to have the operation, but when they came back their doctors refused to deal with problems.....

Not precisely true.  A number of provinces (Sask and Mb, I think) decreed that since the stent procedure was not health Canada approved, they would not pay for complications arising. You could still get treated, you would just get billed for the costs.
 
bridges said:
Thanks for the info and comparison.  My point remains that there are people who can't afford either option, if they're paying directly out-of-pocket - whether in Canada or India or Costa Rica.  If you don't have any money, then $10000 might as well be a million.  Any discussion of health care and economic models will hopefully at least acknowledge the effects on the poor, if not actively try to find a solution.  I know, it sounds naïve ...

Well if the healthcare system could provide hip replacements for $10,000 vs $30,000 and other procedures were also 2/3 cheaper, then there would be far fewer poor people . Why do you think that the average Canadian family pays 41% of their income to taxes? If that amount of money was freed up for investment and savings, then all Canadians would have a higher standard of living.

For people who still have difficulty in the new conditions, private or church charities would be much more able to fund $10,000 procedures. For that matter, you could fund that yourself as your charitable contribution, there is nothing to stop you from doing so. Remember, charity is what you provide, not what is taken from other people.
 
Thucydides said:
Well if the healthcare system could provide hip replacements for $10,000 vs $30,000 and other procedures were also 2/3 cheaper, then there would be far fewer poor people .

Say WHAT? 

:rofl:      Interesting economic model you have there.  I'll be sure to bring it up the next time I talk to our local food bank volunteers.

So, let's see if I have this right... if nobody had to pay taxes, then everybody would have money to pay $10K for hip replacements - right?  Not clear who would be providing them, or under what standards, or what roads we would drive on to get there.  This may - MAY - be a tad oversimplified.  But.... it's a discussion that needs to be held, clearly. 
 
bridges said:
Say WHAT? 

:rofl:      Interesting economic model you have there.  I'll be sure to bring it up the next time I talk to our local food bank volunteers.

So, let's see if I have this right... if nobody had to pay taxes, then everybody would have money to pay $10K for hip replacements - right?  Not clear who would be providing them, or under what standards, or what roads we would drive on to get there.  This may - MAY - be a tad oversimplified.  But.... it's a discussion that needs to be held, clearly.

Ermm.. I don't think you understood his post. No one says 0% taxes (well no one worth listening to). Do some reading around the site, the discussion on health care wasted funding has already happened.
 
Back
Top