1. How long is the waiting period for a simple procedure like (for example) a meniscus tear (knee surgery)?
It depends. Some procedures there's a long list, others there isn't. It depends on how many people need it at that time. I've had the same procedure have no waiting list, and the next time there's a line-up. More urgent cases can be bumped to the front of the line. So it's tough to gauge. Again, like the other commonwealth members mentioned... there's private healthcare available. I forgot about it until others mentioned it.
Quote:
2. How much does the average person pay (excluding what you pay to the government)?
The only healthcare not fully covered is chiropractors, prescriptions, massage therapists, physio, eyeglasses & dental etc... that's covered under the extended medical. Extended medical is a pain in the but to deal with. Insurance companies don't like to pay out. They like to collect money. Despite this... it's not too bad. We have higher than average medical costs because of my husband's disability. As a family we pay about $2000/year to cover all our dental, prescriptions etc... that are not covered through the government or extended medical. Most people pay nothing or much less. Our additional medical costs are a tax deduction.
Quote:
3. How happy are you with the quality of care?
Yes! I feel we get great care here in Canada. Are there problems? yes... but mostly I think it's a good system.
Quote:
4. How does the income level/work hours of the average doctor/nurse/medical technician compare to the average white collar worker?
I think it's equivalent if not better. My x-ray tech brother-in-law makes more money than my husband who's been at his job decades longer.
Quote:
5. How difficult is it to get health care that you think you need but the doctor doesn't? [For example, when I had knee problems, the doctor diagnosed bursitis. It was two meniscus tears, per an MRI. Would I have been able to get that MRI in England?]
Easy.... go to a different doctor. Been there, done that.
Quote:
6. Just out of curosity -- what about abortions? Are those covered in England?
Covered and legal. Happens very quickly.
__________________
"But it doesn’t matter cause I’m packing plastic & that’s what makes my life so f'cking fantastic"~ Lily Allen
By the time a woman realizes that her mother was right, she already has a daughter who's convinced she's wrong.
Last edited by Fencergrl; 06-15-2009 at 03:53 PM..
Wanted to add these are either only partially covered or not covered on the NHS.
Interestngly I pay less for my prescriptions (which I forgot to mention are not free) than someone in England. That's because the devolved government of Scotland decided that the current prescription system was unfair.
80% of our prescriptions are paid for by extended health. There's some government program that pays for all/ some of the remaining 20%, but I haven't bothered to apply.
__________________
"But it doesn’t matter cause I’m packing plastic & that’s what makes my life so f'cking fantastic"~ Lily Allen
By the time a woman realizes that her mother was right, she already has a daughter who's convinced she's wrong.
I think to truly understand the pros and cons of any health care system and to compare it to another system, you need to have experienced both. I have a friend who is married to a Canadian, who lived and worked (as a health care provider ) in Canada, she and her husband both live and work here now, both state the US system is better. I have a good friend who grew up "across the pond" in England, and is now a US citizen, who states the US system is better. Better care, better access, albeit - not better cost. The grass is always greener on the other side - until you have lived and used both options, you don't know whether what you have is better or not. Granted, my resources are limited to a few personal friends and family, but I am intrigued by their stories and comments and opinions as they have used both and prefer ours.
Medicare is a horrible mess, I have services I provide that are worth a whopping $8.00 - for 15 minutes of work. That's a huge $32 per hour. I have a contract with another carrier that pays me about $20 for 30 minutes of work, that's a rediculously high amount of $40 per hour - how INSANE and greedy of me!! Please tell me where all the health care dollars are going - because it's not in my pocket!! Sure, some payers pay better than that, but when it all averages out - it is not the care givers who are causing financial hardship on the system.
BTW, when we set our fees, we don't pull numbers out of thin air. There are guidelines and RVU's that are used to set fees. These are regulated and used to keep prices in geographical regions competitive.
Also, when you look at your statements, just because a provider billed you a certain amount - it does not mean that is what they were paid - look to see what they got..... it is often quite a bit less. So why don't we charge less to start with you ask, because our fees are guided by the RVU's - and if I charge less, I get paid less.... It's sad that I have to charge $100 to get paid $37... but I don't make up the rules, I only live by them.
I'm not sure what this link is supposed to show. On that link, various types of physicians (including GP's) have the top nine average salaries of any professions listed. CEO's come in at #10, the only types of physicians they are higher than are pediatricians, psychiatrists and podiatrists.
My point was to show that while specialists in the medical field - such as surgeons DO make good salaries, they are not making sums such as the CEO's of the insurance companies like Blue Cross or pharmaceuticals such as Pfizer. The surgeon takes home $160K, the CEO of BCBS 4 million? It takes 12 - 16 years of training to become a surgeon (4 years college, 4 years medical school, + 4-8 years specialty) - and I think that the person cutting open your chest and repairing your heart deserves a decent salary. Keep in mind that the CEO salaries listed aren't reflective of the "big" industries, a CEO can be a single entrepreneur running their own company. I think there are people out there who see doctors as a profession that is rolling in the money and don't often think of the time and sacrifies they make every day. When you are in that car crash at 2 am, your medical team is there to save your life - and where is the thanks, a current administration that feels the doctors are too greedy, should give back more, be more efficient, etc. I'm sorry, but I don't think that the majority of MD's out there are really in it just for the "money" - they work hard long hours. The media and the public love a good "doctor screwed up" story, but don't talk about the millions of successful outcomes.
So my point was, while the docs/nurses/therapists/radiologists/assistants/etc. are making money off the health care system, but so are the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc. I have a friend in the insurance industry - her job is to review claims, she makes a "bonus" at the end of the year based on how much she "saves" the company (btw - to save money - you have to deny claims) - and what's wrong with that picture??
The surgeon takes home $160K, the CEO of BCBS 4 million? It takes 12 - 16 years of training to become a surgeon (4 years college, 4 years medical school, + 4-8 years specialty) - and I think that the person cutting open your chest and repairing your heart deserves a decent salary. Keep in mind that the CEO salaries listed aren't reflective of the "big" industries, a CEO can be a single entrepreneur running their own company.
You're comparing the average surgeon (who makes about $200,00K) not with the average CEO--but rather with the head of Blue Cross of a state. High-end physician salaries are somewhat difficult to find--but according to this Story the highest paid surgeon in New York made $7.2 million in 2007.
The story also notes another surgeon involved in the matter discussed made $2.4 million.
Comparing high-level doctors' pay to high-level insurance company executive pay, they seem to be more or less in line.
I agree. I don't get why anyone would push for self-regulation, especially in the field of healthcare. It doesn't work. When there's money to be made people "forget" how to do the right thing. The do gooder company ould become more like the bad actor because of the pressure to compete and generate dollars. If you think the consumer is suffering now imagine a marketplace where there are no consequences, no parameters and no limits. Not a world I'd want to live in.
__________________
Ahmadinejad's wife to Ahmadinejad: Why are you always smiling? Nobody likes you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjwyQnEdATA- Set Adrift on Memory Bliss by my loves BSB
I have a friend in the insurance industry - her job is to review claims, she makes a "bonus" at the end of the year based on how much she "saves" the company (btw - to save money - you have to deny claims) - and what's wrong with that picture??
I have a relative in the same situation and I note that she used to be a nurse. The pay is better. The hours are better (esp. when you have young children). I would prefer better working conditions (including income) for the person who is providing health care services so that they don't need to become the people who discourage us from using health care services.
1. Abortion is MURDER. Do you really want to give away your paycheck so that an INNOCENT CHILD will be murdered by scum like tiller the killer (may he NOT rest in peace)?
2. The market has never been completely free, that is a liberal lie and excuse for more regulation. It's like piling a bunch of bricks into the back of a truck and saying "hmm, I wonder why it isn't running reliably? Lets put in more bricks!"
3. The US has the most lawyers per capita by far. The US also has the highest healthcare costs. Coincidence? No. The vast majority of doctors are competent and good (tiller the killer was an obvious exception), and so are pharmaceutical companies. Name ONE doctor (besides baby-murderers) that don't do the best they can. Can't, can you? Suing doctors and pharmaceutical companies should be ILLEGAL. **** happens, and as technology progresses, it will happen less. But suing innocent doctors isn't going to move anyone forward. If you don't agree with this, are you going to sue the decendents of a doctor who used leaches to treat your great-great-great uncle who died as a result?
Name ONE doctor (besides baby-murderers) that don't do the best they can.
I could easily do that, especially since you don't specify that they must be MD's. But hell, you can't even use proper grammar, and I'm not out for libel, so I think I'll withhold my proof.
__________________
The Angel of Death Strikes!
If you can fool your friends, you can fool your enemies...
"The market has never been completely free" - well, yes it was before regulations were created. Why then did companies at the time, say, during Coolidge administration, not compete with one another to create the safest products. And, really, that's just a slogan: what specifically is the reason you claim regulations caused manufacturers to continue to market the Ford Pinto, Vioxx, unsafe food, Phen-Fen, long after they knew they were dangerous.
Really, it's just like the damned Communists - always bleating that Communism would have worked if only it had been tried out. The far left and far right mirror themselves, and both delude themselves that the reason their systems have never worked is that it hasn't been done right. Want a raw free market economy? Look at our own history, or some of the emerging nations to see how they work.
Oh - and there really is a need for malpractice. There are doctors who are incompetent or have not practiced according to the accepted practices of the time. Malpractice is an entirely appropriate response - for some doctors. It's not about suing somebody for using a practice that was considered the "golden standard" long ago.
__________________
"In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different."
SNIP #1-5
6. Just out of curosity -- what about abortions? Are those covered in England?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gav
Of course they are legal. Though some think they shouldn't. There are rules but I don't know the ins and outs. I've know a couple of people who've had abortions - all done for free on the NHS.
Puerile citing from your resident lewd Scandinavian.
Rescission was largely hidden until three years ago, when The Times launched a series of stories disclosing that insurers routinely canceled the medical coverage of individual policyholders who required expensive medical care.
A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne.
When insurance companies go under oath and admit they are canceling innocent patients when they get sick, it makes it very difficult for lawmakers to pass a law that requires every American to buy a policy or face a tax fine. It opens the way for a public option to hold the companies in check.
Rescission was largely hidden until three years ago, when The Times launched a series of stories disclosing that insurers routinely canceled the medical coverage of individual policyholders who required expensive medical care.
A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne.
When insurance companies go under oath and admit they are canceling innocent patients when they get sick, it makes it very difficult for lawmakers to pass a law that requires every American to buy a policy or face a tax fine. It opens the way for a public option to hold the companies in check.
Your stupidity is strong, young one. Companies cannot afford to take every patient. How can they ever hope to make a profit if they have to pay out more to sick people than they take in? Terminal patients should just have their own company, and pay more (yes, it might mean that that nurse would have to med school to become a real doctor) or just shut up about it and not tell the government to ruin things for the rest of us.
Your stupidity is strong, young one. Companies cannot afford to take every patient. How can they ever hope to make a profit if they have to pay out more to sick people than they take in? Terminal patients should just have their own company, and pay more (yes, it might mean that that nurse would have to med school to become a real doctor) or just shut up about it and not tell the government to ruin things for the rest of us.
My preference is not on your list of options, which seems to assume the status quo as baseline and sees everything as going "up" from there.
I would like to see LESS government involvement in health care. IMO this interference is one of the biggest reasons for the rising price of medical care. I would abolish Medicare and Medicaid for a start, and probably the VA system as well. I would eliminate most regulation of doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical manufacturers. ( I am not talking about safety standards or licensing and training standards, but rather about the thousands of bureaucratic straws which are piled upon the camel's back by all tiers of government, things like reporting requirements and paperwork burdens. )
Sir, as someone who wants to be a doctor and dislikes HMO's but still not buying into President Obama's plan, I love your take on this. I would shake your hand if I could, but since I can't, I'll give you the internet handshake equivalent of rep points.
__________________
"All epeeists wear very expensive running shoes which they have invariably stolen. It is a mark of shame in the epee subculture to wear legally-purchased footwear. Naturally this is difficult to ascertain merely by looking, and of course asking about it can lead to other complications."---fencing humor site
When insurance companies go under oath and admit they are canceling innocent patients when they get sick, it makes it very difficult for lawmakers to pass a law that requires every American to buy a policy or face a tax fine. It opens the way for a public option to hold the companies in check.
I don't see why the only answer to crooked insurance companies must be to have a public option. That's like saying rather than put creditors in check with new credit regulation, we should just have a government credit option to hold them in check. The very idea seems pretty insane to me.
My personal feeling is that:
1) Government should provide insurance only to those who need it... this would constitute an extension of current programs and perhaps creation of new ones in order to cover those who can't be covered.
2) More importantly, I believe our current problem can be nearly completely fixed by a few simple things: Regulation of insurers' and pharmaceutical companies' practices, and tort reform. Mainly the first one, but all would go a long way to fixing things.
3) I'm not entirely sold on the fact insurance should be required by law. Even with car insurance this has never quite sat well with me. I'm not dead-set against it... but I don't like it.
__________________
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
Linear Mode
