Would you pay to see the Doctor quicker?

[Hurk]

Most of us wait a long time before seeing the Doctor, whether it's walkin or family. Would you pay to see them quicker? I would. I'd be willing to pay up to $20 to see them 0-10 minutes.

Anyone else? I feel my time is worth more.

[SergesPlace]

Most of us wait a long time before seeing the Doctor, whether it's walkin or family. Would you pay to see them quicker? I would. I'd be willing to pay up to $20 to see them 0-10 minutes.

Anyone else? I feel my time is worth more.
Absolutely!!!

[danfromwaterloo]

Is my time that important? No, not really .... if its a difference of 10 minutes or 30...nah, not really...but, when I'm really sick, I want to see a doctor NOW. Not 10 minutes from now, but NOW.

Here's the problem though: Doctors see patients using a tri-age system of importance, combined with a first-come-first-served system. So, if you pay $20 to skip the line, that means either someone who is more seriously injured than you, or someone who is equally sick, but unable or unwilling to pay, must wait LONGER now...

This being said, I think that pay-to-the-front system is wrong, and cannot be safely or ethically implemented. BUT I do believe that there should be clinics that operate solely above Health Canada...that is to say, if you want treatment here, you must pay. I know that might seem like splitting hairs, but somehow, that seems more justifiable.

[spidermoore]

I am not sure but I definately am in favour of a small user fee in place so that people stop going to the doctor over the most trivial of things, thus making me and everyone else wait longer.

[peoples_Flip]

Nah... I would not pay extra... besides I'd rather be in the doctor's office than at work.

[Hurk]

Nah... I would not pay extra... besides I'd rather be in the doctor's office than at work.

I'd rather be at home resting than in a Doctors office.

[NDman]

I'd pay to get to the ER doctors quicker if it comes down to that. Regular doctor's office? I can live with 30-45-minute wait

[Keelie]

when i make an appointment to see my doctor, i can get in the next day, if i'm really sick then they'll get me in that day. so i dont really see a need to pay to get in earlier.

besides, i'm already paying for the service of my doctor, enough is enough.

[rookie]

I would not pay a cent to see a doctor... any doctor.

[sk8]

I haven't had a serious problem yet (thankfully) to need a doctor. No i wont pay extra to get myself infront of the line. Is that why we pay taxes and other *****...?

[wanna_be]

besides, i'm already paying for the service of my doctor, enough is enough.


Yes in fact you are paying twice in Ontario.

We had this discussion already a while ago, Old OHIP premium used to be paid by employee and employer, government changed it years ago to be paid by the company.

Yes it is paid by the company but it is still part of your overall compensation package.

Don't forget that the Provincial liberals put a new Health premium tax into place last year.



So if we are gonna go this way does that mean that the corporate executive with White Collar symdrome gets treated before the kid with the broken bone whose parents make below the poverty line income even though they both work? and both are paying the new health premium?

Take a good long hard thought on this one

[danfromwaterloo]

I think people should have yearly allowances for medical treatment, to prevent against abuse of the system. My grandmother goes to the doctor at least 3 times a week, to get every little pain checked out. I'm sure she's not the only one who does that. Should old people get to go to the doctor whenever they want? Of course. But there has to be some measure put in place to prevent against abuses of the system, so that one person isn't sucking all the money out of the healthcare system.

So, you're allowed to go to the doctor once a week, unless specifically referred by a doctor. Once a week is plenty, but it would prevent excess abuse.

[doc_ock]

So if we are gonna go this way does that mean that the corporate executive with White Collar symdrome gets treated before the kid with the broken bone whose parents make below the poverty line income even though they both work? and both are paying the new health premium?

Nope. The big bad corporate execs can go to Quebec to pay for their health care.
Quebec has private clinics offering a variety of surgical and medical services and some doctors offer family practices that are outside medicare.
Here's the link. (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1105740112814_101149312?hub=Health)

[SergesPlace]

I think people should have yearly allowances for medical treatment, to prevent against abuse of the system. My grandmother goes to the doctor at least 3 times a week, to get every little pain checked out. I'm sure she's not the only one who does that. Should old people get to go to the doctor whenever they want? Of course. But there has to be some measure put in place to prevent against abuses of the system, so that one person isn't sucking all the money out of the healthcare system.

So, you're allowed to go to the doctor once a week, unless specifically referred by a doctor. Once a week is plenty, but it would prevent excess abuse.
that's why i think a user fee should be in place. Say 10.00 a visit just might deter people from going to see the Doctor for every little thing.

[devious9191]

Yes in fact you are paying twice in Ontario.

We had this discussion already a while ago, Old OHIP premium used to be paid by employee and employer, government changed it years ago to be paid by the company.

Yes it is paid by the company but it is still part of your overall compensation package.

Don't forget that the Provincial liberals put a new Health premium tax into place last year.



So if we are gonna go this way does that mean that the corporate executive with White Collar symdrome gets treated before the kid with the broken bone whose parents make below the poverty line income even though they both work? and both are paying the new health premium?

Take a good long hard thought on this one

The way that it works, is that it encourages Canadian physicians to stay in Canada. It's not about closing the public clinics, it's about providing private alternatives as well. Providing private clinics gives a lot of our doctors more of an incentive to remain and work in Canada rather than going across the border for more money. It also alleviates some of the stress at the public clinics by some of their traffic going to private clinics. They already have private clinics in both Quebec and Alberta, so I don't see what the issue is..

[gman]

What if everybody pay that $20? Will you again wait for that 45 minutes? Or, you will pay $40 when that happens?

[wanna_be]

What if everybody pay that $20? Will you again wait for that 45 minutes? Or, you will pay $40 when that happens?


Excellent Point gman!

[devious9191]

What if everybody pay that $20? Will you again wait for that 45 minutes? Or, you will pay $40 when that happens?

Noone is suggesting that we eliminate free clinics, only that an alternative is provided. The US has free clinics as well as private, and I'd personally take their system over ours any day of the week. Let my employer provide my health care, put an extra 3-4k back in my pocket every year.. sold me.

[PrinceMS]

this maybe a stupid suggestion.

But why free healthcare? There should be some (nominal) fees / restriction associated with it. There is always going to be a black sheep among us to abuse the system.

[gman]

Noone is suggesting that we eliminate free clinics, only that an alternative is provided. The US has free clinics as well as private, and I'd personally take their system over ours any day of the week. Let my employer provide my health care, put an extra 3-4k back in my pocket every year.. sold me.

So, you need to wait in the free clinic. Are you saying you don't need to wait in the pay clinic? If that is the case, the pay clinic will either charge a lot of money or it will run out of business because of there are not enough customers.

In Hong Kong, there are free and pay clinic. I still waited for an hour in the pay one.

[devious9191]

So, you need to wait in the free clinic. Are you saying you don't need to wait in the pay clinic? If that is the case, the pay clinic will either charge a lot of money or it will run out of business because of there are not enough customers.

In Hong Kong, there are free and pay clinic. I still waited for an hour in the pay one.

Not necessarily saying that you won't have to wait in a pay clinic, though I would assume that the wait would be considerably less than in the free clinic, and probably considerably less than we have now in the public clinics. Like I said, they already have pay clinics in both Quebec and Alberta... I don't hear of widespread closings of public clinics in either province, and they keep opening new private ones, so there must be a fairly comfortable profit margin.

In my opinion the US health system is what we should be modeling our own after.

[gman]

Not necessarily saying that you won't have to wait in a pay clinic, though I would assume that the wait would be considerably less than in the free clinic, and probably considerably less than we have now in the public clinics. Like I said, they already have pay clinics in both Quebec and Alberta... I don't hear of widespread closings of public clinics in either province, and they keep opening new private ones, so there must be a fairly comfortable profit margin.

In my opinion the US health system is what we should be modeling our own after.

The title of this thread is "Would you pay to see the Doctor quicker?" and the original poster said he is willing to pay $20 so that he can wait for only 0 to 10 minutes. My answer to that is $20 probably cannot do what he wants since you probably will wait longer than 10 minutes in a fully pay clinic.

[divx]

we already paying through taxes, but yes, I'd pay extra for less waiting. But then it will be unfair to poor people

[gman]

There are different kinds of wait:

1. You need to wait for months for a particular medical service. I have no problem to have a private pay service along side with the free service IF it will not affect the growth of the free service or worse lower the capacity of the free service

2. Emergency room wait: I don't want a rich guy comes in and says "this is a million dollar cheque. Fix my running nose. His heart attack can wait".

3. Clinic wait:
a: somebody wants to see the doctor now at the moment he feels like to see a doctor.
b: somebody does not want to wait in the clinic.

I think most people are in (b). That should be solved by better time management of the medical office. If my appointment is 1pm, I should not stay there for 2 hours and see the doctor at 3pm. They should just set my appointment at 3pm.

[Talula]

I'd have a big problem with paying extra to see a doctor quicker.
Just because I can afford to pay a little more, I should make a low-income family wait?
Just picture this: There's a kid with a broken arm from a low-income home, waiting in line to see a doctor and get some pain relief. Then, one by one, higher income people come along, pay their money and step in front of this kid.
Dramatic, I know, but still...

[devious9191]

I'd have a big problem with paying extra to see a doctor quicker.
Just because I can afford to pay a little more, I should make a low-income family wait?
Just picture this: There's a kid with a broken arm from a low-income home, waiting in line to see a doctor and get some pain relief. Then, one by one, higher income people come along, pay their money and step in front of this kid.
Dramatic, I know, but still...

Noone is suggesting that situation... There would be an option of going to either a pay clinic, or a free clinic. If you're going to the pay clinic, there wouldn't be tiers of service. You pay your money to see the physician and take a spot in the line. The guy behind you can't come up and offer to pay twice what you did to get in front of the line..

[Talula]

Noone is suggesting that situation... There would be an option of going to either a pay clinic, or a free clinic. If you're going to the pay clinic, there wouldn't be tiers of service. You pay your money to see the physician and take a spot in the line. The guy behind you can't come up and offer to pay twice what you did to get in front of the line..

I see what you mean, but it's a similar situation in that the rich get better healthcare than the poor. Philosophically, I just have a problem with that. I'm not offering a solution, unfortunately, I just don't like THAT one.

[gman]

I see what you mean, but it's a similar situation in that the rich get better healthcare than the poor. Philosophically, I just have a problem with that. I'm not offering a solution, unfortunately, I just don't like THAT one.

Ideally, it should not make any difference if the rich and the poor are not sharing the same resource. Or, to be more correct, if the pay service CANNOT tap into the public resource (including human resources) which stays the same or better than now.

We are having 2 tier already. e.g. those are rich can afford to buy better drug. Those are rich can afford to fly to US and have their pay service.

However, since human resources is the problem, the pay service WILL tap into the public resources. i.e. taking doctors away from the public service.

[nguy3n_van]

juss wondering.. is there discrimination left? my dad needed surgery and went to the hospital right away.. they told him to sit and wait in line.. he one of the first but they kept calling all the white people first, then the asians.. wtf is this? i've seen them doing this to coloured people too. this is so unfair though.. i've seen cops fining asians and letting the the whites go free.. anyways.. getting off topic. i would pay for faster response if they were nice.. if not then i'd wait.. if it was life threatening then i would pay.. pay 10 cents..not!

[devious9191]

Ideally, it should not make any difference if the rich and the poor are not sharing the same resource. Or, to be more correct, if the pay service CANNOT tap into the public resource (including human resources) which stays the same or better than now.

We are having 2 tier already. e.g. those are rich can afford to buy better drug. Those are rich can afford to fly to US and have their pay service.

However, since human resources is the problem, the pay service WILL tap into the public resources. i.e. taking doctors away from the public service.

That will eventually be a good thing. I'm going to use my own situation just as an example. I pay roughly 15k a year in income tax. Say 40% of this goes directly towards healthcare, so I'm looking at roughly 7k per year spent on healthcare. I'd like to know what percentage of a US citizen taxes goes to healthcare on average to make an accurate comparison, but I'm at work and don't really have time to research it properly. I think 15% is probably a reasonable estimate though.

So, in Canada, I'm going to be paying 7k a year for healthcare, which is basically free. Covers all of my emergency expenses, shared hospital room, the whole works. Working in the US, I'm probably paying about 2k a year towards healthcare. In the event of an emergency, surgery, what have you, I'm pretty well screwed. I think this is pretty much the common conclusion that most Canadians arrive at, and quit thinking about the issue here.

What should also be considered, is that in the US many employers provide health insurance to their employees, which is often better than our OHIP coverage. There is also third party insurance available, such as Blue Cross. I'm not exactly sure what the cost for a third party health insurance provider would be, but I can pretty well guarantee that it would be far less than 5k a year.

This system here would be beneficial to the average canadian over our current system. As well, since it would provide better compensation for physicians, we could expect to have 'better' physicians in Canada, rather than our best people being sucked to the US.

[gman]

That will eventually be a good thing. I'm going to use my own situation just as an example. I pay roughly 15k a year in income tax. Say 40% of this goes directly towards healthcare, so I'm looking at roughly 7k per year spent on healthcare. I'd like to know what percentage of a US citizen taxes goes to healthcare on average to make an accurate comparison, but I'm at work and don't really have time to research it properly. I think 15% is probably a reasonable estimate though.

So, in Canada, I'm going to be paying 7k a year for healthcare, which is basically free. Covers all of my emergency expenses, shared hospital room, the whole works. Working in the US, I'm probably paying about 2k a year towards healthcare. In the event of an emergency, surgery, what have you, I'm pretty well screwed. I think this is pretty much the common conclusion that most Canadians arrive at, and quit thinking about the issue here.

What should also be considered, is that in the US many employers provide health insurance to their employees, which is often better than our OHIP coverage. There is also third party insurance available, such as Blue Cross. I'm not exactly sure what the cost for a third party health insurance provider would be, but I can pretty well guarantee that it would be far less than 5k a year.

This system here would be beneficial to the average canadian over our current system. As well, since it would provide better compensation for physicians, we could expect to have 'better' physicians in Canada, rather than our best people being sucked to the US.


What about the poor people who does not have a 'good' job?
What if the company cannot afford to pay that nice health insurance (it will cost much more than what they provide right now)?
What if you are the only incomer provider in a family of 4?
What if you are a single parent with 3 kids?

Let them rot?

[devious9191]

What about the poor people who does not have a 'good' job?
What if the company cannot afford to pay that nice health insurance (it will cost much more than what they provide right now)?
What if you are the only incomer provider in a family of 4?
What if you are a single parent with 3 kids?

Let them rot?

You don't require a good job. I would think that in most cases, unless you are a very low income earner that isn't paying any, or little taxes, the amount that you would save in personal income tax would more than cover the cost of private health insurance.

In the case of an employer sponsored health plan, if your company pays for your benefits, they would also cover your spouse and dependents.

*shrug. I don't have all of the answers on this one. I do know that I have a hard time coughing up cash every paycheque for society's freeloaders and hypochondriacs, and that our current system is broken. Especially with the baby boomers coming of age, how are our hospitals supposed to support these guys? How is our pension plan supposed to support these guys?

[gman]

You don't require a good job. I would think that in most cases, unless you are a very low income earner that isn't paying any, or little taxes, the amount that you would save in personal income tax would more than cover the cost of private health insurance.

In the case of an employer sponsored health plan, if your company pays for your benefits, they would also cover your spouse and dependents.

*shrug. I don't have all of the answers on this one. I do know that I have a hard time coughing up cash every paycheque for society's freeloaders and hypochondriacs, and that our current system is broken. Especially with the baby boomers coming of age, how are our hospitals supposed to support these guys? How is our pension plan supposed to support these guys?

Well, I have no problem with although my contribution to health care is 5 digits every year. Consider you are lucky if it is only $7K.

Also, it is more than "kindness" but also for my own sack. Think about the kids spreading germ in school or park because their parents can't send them to doctor for small things. Your kids keep on getting sick because of them. Yes, your kids can go to see doctor but do you really want that? Or, you will send them to another tier of private school?

[spidermoore]

The lefty NDP government in Manitoba pays for citizens to go to a private MRI clinic in Grafton, ND to get a scan, just so they can say they follow the no private clinic dogma blah blah blah. It is really stupid because if a private MRI clinic were allowed in this province the money would stay in province, and employ people in province, and perhaps a doctor or two would stay instead of leave to make some money elsewhere.

If the government PAYS for the service and still decides WHO gets service, then who cares whether the service provider is a public or private entity? A responsible government should simply look for who is giving the best service for the best price, and not base it on left wing dogma.

Many left-leaning European countries have a combination of private public healthcare that provides better service for less money than Canada's bureaucratic monoploy of a system does, while still providing UNIVERSAL ACCESS.

[Txiasaeia]

I'd pay to get to the ER doctors quicker if it comes down to that. Regular doctor's office? I can live with 30-45-minute wait

EXACTLY! If I'm sick enough to go to the ER, I want to see a doctor within minutes. I'm so sick of people who head to the ER b/c it's the middle of the night and they've got the sniffles.

[canadiantofu]

that's why i think a user fee should be in place. Say 10.00 a visit just might deter people from going to see the Doctor for every little thing.


I don't know if $10 is enough to deter doctors to from re-book patients. Take the case of a GP running a blood test; It would be in their best interest to charge the province $35.00 two times for you coming in to get the test requisition and then coming in for the results.

In terms of tipping the doctor to shorten wait time.. I don't think you can guarantee that kind of service level on the limited amount of resources that a doctor can provide.. So eventually, everyone will be expected to pay the $10 to shorten wait time that will just creep back up to 20-30minutes.

I keep reading that private clinics are in Alberta and Quebec in this thread. Correct me if I am wrong. The private clinics are very different in both provinces. In Alberta it does not apply to GP and family doctors where as Quebec does..?
What private clinics does the rest of the country think Alberta and Quebec have? MRI? Laser Eye surgey?

[webdoctors]

no i wouldnt pay, it would just feel odd, like I am snubbing the ppl around me.... We would become no better than the U.S. where ppl without money get no service. A family member broke their foot in the U.S. and paid $2k to get it fixed, I think due to her company health plan, she only paid like a $500-800 deductible. Now it saved them money cause they make a lotta dough in da U.S., but what if they made only $15k USD /yr?

Health care is not free in the U.S., there is no such free clinic, its a pay as U go service that doesnt come cheap....and frankly its barbaric, they value money more than they value life there...

[axeman]

what about those without the funds,should they just wait in line while you pass them for 20$.im sure they will understand dont you.
what about if you are sick and dont have money,is it still ok.
mmmmm no you say , :D didnt think so

[NLI10D]

ER wait time for the most part is not about the people who go there because they have a little sniffle or what not (they are usually discharged after seeing the doctor for 10mins and waiting for over 12hrs). If you are annoyed at the wait time dont get mad at the people, get mad at the government who who keeps closing hospitals and beds. Right there is the problem, lack of bed and other resources. It is not because most of the beds are taken up by people with sniffles. It is because there simply isn't enough beds because of budget cuts and hospital closings.

[doc_ock]

no i wouldnt pay, it would just feel odd, like I am snubbing the ppl around me....
Are you in good health perhaps? That statement is easy to make when you aren't sick or in pain. You can't stop those who are willing to pay from going elsewhere to receive faster treatment. If certain provinces in Canada don't want to offer additional options, then those who can afford to pay will go to Quebec, Alberta, the United States or elsewhere to receive the service that they want.

We would become no better than the U.S. where ppl without money get no service.
Really? They have medicare (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicare/) and medicaid (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicaid/) in the United States. Also:
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. 1395dd) is an act the U.S. Congress passed in 1986, requiring hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions; as a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
Here's the link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act)


A family member broke their foot in the U.S. and paid $2k to get it fixed, I think due to her company health plan, she only paid like a $500-800 deductible. Now it saved them money cause they make a lotta dough in da U.S., but what if they made only $15k USD /yr?
Funny that you should mention a broken appendage. You can pay for better service at hospitals in Ontario for broken bones or fractures. If you can't pay extra you get a heavy plaster cast because they are cheap to make. If you are willing to pay extra, you can get a much lighter and stronger fiberglass cast. If your specific injury allows it or you injury has progressed with time, and you are willing to pay even more money, you can purchase a soft air cast.


Health care is not free in the U.S., there is no such free clinic, its a pay as U go service that doesnt come cheap
Health care is expensive, but it's not free in Canada either. The people of Canada pay. Some more than others. And when the government can't rake in enough tax dollars to pay for health care, future generations pay to prop up the system.

[webdoctors]

Are you in good health perhaps? That statement is easy to make when you aren't sick or in pain. You can't stop those who are willing to pay from going elsewhere to receive faster treatment. If certain provinces in Canada don't want to offer additional options, then those who can afford to pay will go to Quebec, Alberta, the United States or elsewhere to receive the service that they want.


That is wrong though. Otherwise what if I go to the hospital and offer $30 to get to the front of the line, than the others waiting offer $50, in the end I have to offer $2000 to get to the front and consider my health maybe not worth it. I can't stop ppl wanting to get instant service from going to the U.S. or abroad or even to another province. If they want to go there for their medical checkup, good, they can go :)



Really? They have medicare (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicare/) and medicaid (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicaid/) in the United States. Also:
Here's the link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act)


Funny that you should mention a broken appendage. You can pay for better service at hospitals in Ontario for broken bones or fractures. If you can't pay extra you get a heavy plaster cast because they are cheap to make. If you are willing to pay extra, you can get a much lighter and stronger fiberglass cast. If your specific injury allows it or you injury has progressed with time, and you are willing to pay even more money, you can purchase a soft air cast.


Health care is expensive, but it's not free in Canada either. The people of Canada pay. Some more than others. And when the government can't rake in enough tax dollars to pay for health care, future generations pay to prop up the system.

Thats only for emergency treatment, but what if you have cancer and need repetitive chemo? With emergency treatment, once they have stabilized you, they can discharge you as you are not gonna die instantly, but may need further care. The differences in cast don't matter much, only in comfort level, but all 3 will do the same job. In the U.S. they would consider emergency only if you are dying, they would stabilize you and than release you unless U can pay for further care.

I followed the link for medicaid U listed, where it states:


Medicaid is a program that pays for medical assistance for certain individuals and families with low incomes and resources.

Which applies only to really poor individuals, middle class families would not be eligible, and would be bankrupted by the costs.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicaid/whoiseligible.asp

here can see that to be eligible you need to fullfill criteria for being poor enough or pregnant. If you are a middleclass family, an illness like getting your appendix removed would bankrupt you. In Canada, its much simpler, you get coverage if you are a citizen or landed immigrant, no pages and pages of criteria to go through. I know I pay for health care through my taxes, but this is better than America, because than ppl end up in scary situations where they have an illness and no one is willing to insure them and they are not poor enough to get medicaid.

[doc_ock]

That is wrong though. Otherwise what if I go to the hospital and offer $30 to get to the front of the line, than the others waiting offer $50, in the end I have to offer $2000 to get to the front and consider my health maybe not worth it. Well, I am not going to try and argue the feasability of such a system as the one that you describe above or whether individuals believe that their health is worth x amount of dollars. if you think that it's wrong to allow people to have a choice when it comes to their health care, you are entitled to your opinion.


If they want to go there for their medical checkup, good, they can goI love this attitude. Nevermind that there is a market for a particular health service and that certain citizens are interested in receiving said service, let other provinces or countries create the jobs and receive additional tax dollars and let other provinces or countries provide services that your citizens want.


Thats only for emergency treatment, but what if you have cancer and need repetitive chemo? With emergency treatment, once they have stabilized you, they can discharge you as you are not gonna die instantly, but may need further care. The differences in cast don't matter much, only in comfort level, but all 3 will do the same job. In the U.S. they would consider emergency only if you are dying, they would stabilize you and than release you unless U can pay for further care.
It's hard to equate the American health care system to Canada's. The U.S. has 10 times the population that Canada has and they don't implement a universal health care system. However, you said that,
We would become no better than the U.S. where ppl without money get no service.
which is untrue. The U.S. has medicare, medicaid, EMTAL and a variety of insurances. I have even watched a program on CNN, called Immigrant Nation: Divided Country, where an illegal mexican immigrant living in Georgia received government subsidized treatment for cancer. The Illegal Mexican immigrant was only required to pay $8000. Here's the link. (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/17/cp.01.html)


If you are a middleclass family, an illness like getting your appendix removed would bankrupt you.I see you have grasped the use of sensationalized inflammatory propaganda.


I know I pay for health care through my taxes, but this is better than America, because than ppl end up in scary situations where they have an illness and no one is willing to insure them and they are not poor enough to get medicaid. What is truly scary is that some Canadians and future Canadians pay more to save a bloated, dying health care system so that others can receive service that they themselves may not.

[gman]

We would become no better than the U.S. where ppl without money get no service.




which is untrue. The U.S. has medicare, medicaid, EMTAL and a variety of insurances. I have even watched a program on CNN, called Immigrant Nation: Divided Country, where an illegal mexican immigrant living in Georgia received government subsidized treatment for cancer. The Illegal Mexican immigrant was only required to pay $8000. Here's the link.
Which part he said was untrue? Only US$8000?? Wow! You consider that is affordable by poor people.

[doc_ock]

Which part he said was untrue? Only US$8000?? Wow! You consider that is affordable by poor people.
Read my posts and you will find that people in the U.S., no matter what their financial position, can receive service. You assume that the Illegal Mexican Immigrant who received the cancer treatment did not have a job. Her husband and son also had jobs. And $8000 is a small part of the ACTUAL cost for the treatment. Besides, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS should not be able to get American jobs or receive American health care. The American people are paying to subsidize this illegal activity.

[gman]

Read my posts and you will find that people in the U.S., no matter what their financial position, can receive service. You assume that the Illegal Mexican Immigrant who received the cancer treatment did not have a job. Her husband and son also had jobs. And $8000 is a small part of the ACTUAL cost for the treatment. Besides, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS should not be able to get American jobs or receive American health care. The American people are paying to subsidize this illegal activity.

It seems that you don't like our way and some American do not like their way.

http://cthealth.server101.com/lawmakers_have_strong_case_for_health_reform.htm


These opponents of reform are too late. We already have both. Our government spends more of our taxes on health care than is spent in any other industrialized nation. But we are receiving the worst value, primarily because of the profound waste in the private sector. The megabureaucracies of the private plans create an administrative burden that wastes more than enough funds to pay for health care for all of the uninsured. We need new government policies that would redirect health-care dollars to patient care instead.

And rationing? Other nations ration by limiting the capacity of their health-care delivery systems. Since they spend far less than we do, they sometimes end up with delays for elective services such as C-T or MRI scans. Those nations need to spend more to improve capacity. But in the United States we already have adequate capacity in our system.

Nevertheless, we have the worst rationing of all nations, and that is because we ration by the ability to pay for health care. Tens of millions of our citizens potentially go without essential medical care simply because they are uninsured and cannot afford to pay for it. We are the only nation that forces families into bankruptcy court because of medical bills.

Also,


Both the number of uninsured and the number living in poverty increased during 2002 to 2003 according to a report released by the Census Bureau on August 26, 2004.

According to the Census Bureau the number of Americans without health insurance rose by 1.4 million last year to 45 million (15.6% of the population) and the number living in poverty rose by 1.3 million to 35.8 million (12.5% of the population).

[doc_ock]

and some American do not like their way.
Well how can I argue against the "Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care" :lol: Please try using reputable non-partisan sites to help prove whatever point it is that you are trying to make. ;)

[gman]

Well how can I argue against the "Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care" :lol: Please try using reputable non-partisan sites to help prove whatever point it is that you are trying to make. ;)

How about this (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html) ?


Comparisons With Canada’s Health System

Views of the government-run universal health system in Canada also show the public's interest in such a system. Suspending customary chauvinism, just 29 percent of Americans think the overall U.S. health care system is better than Canada's; more, 37 percent, think it's worse than Canada's.

There are distinctions on particular aspects of the two systems. Americans by 34-16 percent are more apt to say the U.S. system offers better quality of care. But by 18-41 percent they say the U.S. system is worse when it comes to cost; and by a narrower 27-34 percent they see the U.S. system as worse in terms of availability of coverage.

[doc_ock]

Great link (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html) !


That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments.Kind of like the problem that we have in Canada, right?


Yet apprehension about the system is counterbalanced by broad satisfaction among insured Americans with their own current quality of care, coverage and costs — a situation that tends to encourage a cautious approach to change. While the system is seen to have gaps, flaws and an uncertain future, it's also seen to work for most people.

Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.

[gman]

Great link (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html) !

Kind of like the problem that we have in Canada, right?

Sure, for the insured one, of course, they are satisfied. But, for all Amercian (insured or not):


Indeed, most Americans, or 54 percent, are now dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in the United States — the first majority in three polls since 1993, and up 10 points since 2000.

[doc_ock]

Sure, for the insured one, of course, they are satisfied. But, for all Amercian (insured or not):
Can you satisfy everyone?

[gman]

Can you satisfy everyone?

No, but more than half of American are not satisfied. I think that means something. For me, I have no problem I am the only one who satisfied and the rest of the world does not.

[doc_ock]

No, but more than half of American are not satisfied.
from your same link again:
Support for change is based largely on unease with the current system's costs. Seventy-eight percent are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation's health care system
They are not upset with the system just the increase in costs lately. What if certain costs were reduced slightly?

[webdoctors]

ok, ppl in America who can afford healthcare costs or have 90-100% coverage are ok, but what about those that only have minimal or no coverage? They still get cared for, but what happens when they can't pay? They can put it on the VISA, but they will spend the next 10 yrs paying it off, for a one time injury....

What happens if the hospital or doctor's clinic they go to is not one on the health insurance companies' list of clinics/hospitals they can go to?

If your son swallows a penny and X-rays will cost $1500, and your doc. says chances are it will come out of his body naturally through bodily wastes, but x-rays would make sure 100% will you still pay for x-rays or take the doc's word? Its for the non-emergency cases, where yes we don't want ppl going to the ER every tyme they sneeze, but at the same tyme balance between equating $$$ with health. I prefer Canada's system to the U.S., I wish we could cut down on the waste and high expenditures, but not sure how to do this w/o affecting quality of care.

[gman]

from your same link again:
They are not upset with the system just the increase in costs lately. What if certain costs were reduced slightly?
I quoted the 54 percent who "are now dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in the United States". That's what I mean more than half.

Not the 78% "are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation's health care system".
That is more than 3 quarters.


Support for change is based largely on unease with the current system's costs. Seventy-eight percent are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation's health care system, including 54 percent "very" dissatisfied.

Indeed, most Americans, or 54 percent, are now dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in the United States — the first majority in three polls since 1993, and up 10 points since 2000.

[doc_ock]

I quoted the 54 percent who "are now dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in the United States". That's what I mean more than half.

Not the 78% "are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation's health care system".
That is more than 3 quarters.
How was overall quality defined? what exactly about the quality were/are Americans upset with? Does cost not effect the quality? Can part of that 78% be the 54% you mentioned?

[j3fan]

Most of us wait a long time before seeing the Doctor, whether it's walkin or family. Would you pay to see them quicker? I would. I'd be willing to pay up to $20 to see them 0-10 minutes.

Anyone else? I feel my time is worth more.

i already have to pay to see the doctor....

[gman]

How was overall quality defined? what exactly about the quality were/are Americans upset with? Does cost not effect the quality? Can part of that 78% be the 54% you mentioned?

Quality is quality. Cost is cost.

If you say most people can't afford to pay hence the quality of their serivce is bad, then yes, cost affects quality. If most of them do not have enough coverage, yes, cost affects quality. If the cost is low and the quality is good, there wil be no problem anyway. The way I read is whatever they have right now, 54% of them do not like their overall quality of service. It does not really matter what exactly they are upset with. The point is 54% of them are not happy with it.

[doc_ock]

Quality is quality. Cost is cost.

If you say most people can't afford to pay hence the quality of their serivce is bad, then yes, cost affects quality. If most of them do not have enough coverage, yes, cost affects quality. If the cost is low and the quality is good, there wil be no problem anyway. The way I read is whatever they have right now, 54% of them do not like their overall quality of service. It does not really matter what exactly they are upset with. The point is 54% of them are not happy with it.
Higher costs usually come with expectation of better quality. If I pay some professional $75/hr to do a job I will expect better quality than from someone who is charging $12/hr to do the same job. Similarly, If I buy a refriderator for $2000, I'd be pretty upset if it wasn't any better quality or didn't last as long as a $500 refridgerator.


It does not really matter what exactly they are upset with Why bother collecting the data then? Numbers can say anything if there is no meaning behind them.

[akito925]

Absolutely!!!

yes I would pay the er doctor.. don't want to wait 4-8 hours.

my family doctor I'd just make an appointment.

[doc_ock]

my family doctor I'd just make an appointment.
Which is more than what many Ontarians can say. How's that for quality of service?

[thelefteyeguy]

if everyone paid $20....then you would have to wait also...whats the point?

[gman]

Higher costs usually come with expectation of better quality. If I pay some professional $75/hr to do a job I will expect better quality than from someone who is charging $12/hr to do the same job. Similarly, If I buy a refriderator for $2000, I'd be pretty upset if it wasn't any better quality or didn't last as long as a $500 refridgerator.

Why bother collecting the data then? Numbers can say anything if there is no meaning behind them.

It is about how much an individual can afford. I assume all American paid whatever they can afford (many of them can't afford nothing). For whatever they can afford, 54% of them say the quality of service is bad.

The meaning is "for whatever health care coverage they can afford, 54% say they are not satisfied with their quality of service."

[doc_ock]

It is about how much an individual can afford. I assume all American paid whatever they can afford (many of them can't afford nothing). For whatever they can afford, 54% of them say the quality of service is bad.

The meaning is "for whatever health care coverage they can afford, 54% say they are not satisfied with their quality of service."
Not satisfied with the quality of service is different from the quality of service is bad. There are many reasons why one might be unsatisfied with the quality of service they receive. You are not interested in why the American people said that they were unsatisifed in this particular poll:
It does not really matter what exactly they are upset with.

[CodecX81]

Not really, I enjoy waiting rooms.

But, I would opt to pay for major surgery or treatment if there was a waiting list, like on a CTScan machine or something. The money would go towards the hospital, who in turn could use it to buy more equipment and cut down waiting times vice versa.

Hell I'd go so far as to say.. If i needed a kidney transplant and the damage was proven to be a flaw in my body and not of my own personal damage to my body, If I was offered to pay for the procedure instead of being #1000 in a line of 1000 people, I'd pay if it was super crucial to my life.

btw, every healthy person should be an organ doner :)

[Think]

yes