J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Yet the non ACA is being overseen by a bunch of IRS bureaucrats,all of whom I bet no nothing about healthcare yet they will decide the fate of millions.Yeah,why not?
- Status
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Nothing is perfect. But from what I can gather, it does seem to. So the feds require each province to provide universal healthcare? Well that’s good so you can have care under a single payer system regardless of where you live. No one has to consider uprooting to another province for healthcare when they may have other considerations to consider such as their job and family.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Canadians have an emergency escape hatch: The United States. There are hospitals all along the US - Canadian border that are available to Canadians for medical treatment. The hospitals accept cash. And you can walk in.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Which most us never resort to.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The existence of the US option for Canadians does not negate the value of their universal single-payer systems. I’m not sure what your point was, but if it was an argument against the Canadian system, it did not make that point.
G
gnjsdad
Guest
The apologists for for-profit healthcare never tire of making claims that Canadians are chafing under their system, yet despite a few outlying cases, Canadians seem quite satisfied.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
In principle, you can have for-profit health care along with single-payer health** insurance**. Let’s not give opponents of universal health care more ammunition than necessary.
J
Joyful_Song
Guest
Bill Nelson, Susan Collins et al are trying to work at a health bill in a bipartisan group to stabilize the markets.
usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/28/repeal-dead-bi-partisan-senators-seek-path-health-reform/519895001/
There’s also the Problem Solvers Caucus working on it.
usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/28/repeal-dead-bi-partisan-senators-seek-path-health-reform/519895001/
There’s also the Problem Solvers Caucus working on it.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Glad that you don’t have to.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Most don’t. I don’t think my wife, a family physician, has ever had a patient who resorted to the US system. All have gotten the required care right here in Canada. If she ever did, in 35 years of practice you could count them on the fingers of a two-toed sloth.
She currently has over 2000 registered patients
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Most of what the federal government weighs in on should begin in the states according to our constitution. But that quaint idea has long since be over-ruled by those who think they know better than the rest of us how to make things work. And most of the time they exempt themselves from the programs they foist on us.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Wow! That’s a lot of patients for one doctor to be responsible for.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Most of what the federal government weighs in on should begin in the states according to our constitution. But that quaint idea has long since be over-ruled by those who think they know better than the rest of us how to make things work. And most of the time they exempt themselves from the programs they foist on us.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Something needs to be done if only to tide us over until we can make more progress on ensuring universal, affordable, adequate, and proper healthcare to every citizen of the United States.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Most of them though, she only sees at the annual checkup or when there’s a problem. The chronic cases (diabetes, etc) she sees more often, but the primary diabetes care and counselling is handled by the nurses, and they take all vitals, etc, before the patient enters the doctor’s office. So it’s actually quite efficient. She’s reduced her hours as she approaches retirement, and currently sees patients 3 days a week.
It does take a couple of weeks to get an appointment, but if you need something quick, the walk-in clinic is open every day.
The thing that bothers her the most is the paperwork she has to fill out. She needs nearly a full day a week for that. And do you know who some of the worst culprits, are? Private insurance companies requiring justification for additional private coverage, life insurance, absences from work, etc.
So to say that governments alone are responsible for massive bureaucracy is false.
U
ucfengr
Guest
I’d bet folding money that the private insurance paperwork requirements are largely driven by government mandates and regulations.
O
OraLabora
Guest
No. The requirements are driven by wanting to avoid payment. Private insurance requires that the insurer maximizes the gap between payments and premiums.
U
ucfengr
Guest
Most major health insurance companies are non-profits, so there is no incentive to maximize profits. Many other health insurance companies are mutual companies where the policy holders are the owners of the company. Any profits are returned to them at the end of the year, usually through a cash payment or premium credit. Private health insurance companies have to compete with those other two types for customers, so really don’t have an incentive to want to screw their customers either.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
“Avoiding” payment when payment is due is often more expensive than just paying, even in doubtful cases. As a result, and though there are instances where it is or seems otherwise, they mostly just pay. I have seen it time and time again. A slam-dunk “no coverage” situation is something else again.
O
OraLabora
Guest
One of the largest players in Canada and indeed the world, Sun Life, demutualized in 1998 and is now a publicly traded company.
Several of my employers used Sun Life for employee insurance plans.
- Status