Bizarre Health Care Reactions

[Epinephrine]

The Canadian healthcare system probably works differently than what many of you may think. As such it is an interesting model to at least know about, even if you don't want to go that way.

i) Each province has it's own healthcare plan. As long as they follow within certain rules, they receive federal funding, but most funding is actually taken locally for local purposes. Each province sets what they'll pay for, how much they're paying doctors and other things. This allows pretty competitive wages to be paid. Contrary to popular belief, most Canadian doctors make about as much as most American doctors do. While the absolute rates are slightly higher in the USA, because we are single-payer we don't have to spend too much money hiring specialized billing people, we have subsidized malpractice insurance, and rarely ever see anyone for free as everyone has insurance.

ii) Individual hospitals are actually run as non-profit organizations in Canada. As such, each hospital does their own fund raising, has their own executive team, hires their own doctors (I say hire loosely... the provincial governments pay doctors, but hospitals provide doctors with a place to work) and sets their own policies about how they run the place. As long as they meet certain targets, they receive funding from the government. This allows each individual hospital to do what they feel right for patient care. As well, differing success in fund raising also allows for pretty large gaps between similar sized hospitals especially if one is in a rich area, or is known for research and leverages that.

iii) Each individual doctor in Canada works for themselves. While the government sets the payment schedules to only pay for certain procedures, exactly HOW each procedure is done, and exactly how each doctor decides to treat each problem is up to the individual doctor. Doctors may choose to use as many or as little resources as they want (i.e. I can order MRIs for everyone if I really wanted to) but are obviously limited by the fact that they know that they all personally have a stake in keeping the system running efficiently.

iv) Despite popular conception, we do a hell of a lot of research in medicine in Canada. What most people don't realize is that most medical research doesn't just focus on new drugs. The vast majority of research which is done is to find out better ways to help people using already known techniques or medicines. A lot of research is even based on how to time certain treatments and screening procedures and aren't as glamorous as making blockbuster drugs. Regardless from my experience a LOT of research comes out of Canada.

v) Drugs for the most part are still paid out of pocket except for seniors in Canada. This means that a lot of blockbuster drugs will still be demanded by people. Because of this, there is ample room for free enterprise to make drugs. A lot of drug companies are based in the USA, but a lot of this is due to the fact that the USA provides the largest coherent market on the face of the planet, giving economies of scale not available anywhere else. It's a fallacy to think that 'private healthcare' is responsible for all of this.

vi) Because the people pay for all costs, there is a huge incentive to have good quality primary care and good quality preventative care. Our system from what I understand works very different from the American system because we base it upon family doctors which form the backbone of the system. Family doctors are the quarterbacks of the system and help decide what patients really need in terms of treatment as their personal doctor, and also is the central store of patient information.

This means that expensive tests aren't usually repeated over and over, and much easier to juggle complex patients. This is a systemic difference made possible by universal healthcare, because people aren't allowed to just randomly see whatever specialist they want to, resources are more efficiently used. Because it is qualified doctors who are the quarterbacks, and because doctors don't have to listen to the government but are instead bound to their patients, we do our best to look out for patient's best interests, and if they really don't like it, they can find another family doctor.

As well, a lot of money goes into preventative medicine and safety as this lets the government save money on paying for expensive healthcare costs.


Our system isn't perfect. It isn't hard to find examples of where things have gone wrong, and I admit we can improve. But no system is perfect and I think being too black and white about how other places do things blinds people to better alternatives. This goes for us as well.

[Epinephrine]

Speaking of capitalism, I saw the new Michael Moore movie today at the Toronto International Film Festival. Can't say I agree with all of his points as he does tend to sensationalize and not give both viewpoints, but he does have an overall important point, which is that capitalism at it's core promotes people to be more and more evil, and that the power of the people via democracy and one person one vote is far more important a force motivated by greed.

The thing is, capitalism is useful only up to a point. At it's core, capitalism tells us that everything can be valued by money. It tells us that self-interest is the most important thing in the world and is what keeps the world running. Because of human psychology (we aren't robots here) this means that in the last generation, we have turned into a society where immediate self-interest is more important than anything else, and money is king. As such people keep doing stupider and stupider things (i.e. refinance their house, blow all that money and then use their credit cards to pay back the refinance, and new credit cards to pay back old credit cards, etc) because of the lure of money and self-interest.

This is a corrupting influence on us all, and as self-interested actors, it makes us all that much more conceited. Jerome states that in his perfect capitalist society, some teachers will charge lots, and others may teach for free. I think we've seen that in the last so many years that the self-interest mantra of capitalism will show that utopian view will never happen. People will just get more and more greedy or are forced to work and charge ever higher rates to get all the things they want or get what they need in life because there's so many things to buy and the belief of the 'march of progress' via capitalism has brainwashed everyone to want ever more.

[Poseidon]

so like once this guy said

You know, every form of government and economy would be perfect if humans were prefect.

i was thinking, shit, cat, your right

who knows maybe come 2012 the collective human consciousness really real undergo some type of evolution, or the beginning of it, and we'll get somewhere.

but which economic system creates the most evil, especially in the age of information exchange... ehhh.. id probably give capitalism the gold medal.

and give me all of the rich people's money they horde while puttering along on their golf courses so i can go get my cavities filled, plz, i dont want 2 have to get a root canal, and i mean.. 40 hour work weeks? what a scam! people living off the grid out on farms can easily survive working 40 hours a week! people living 50 years ago in cities could get by with 40 hours a week! with all of this technology and automation these days, i am still trying to be sold the idea of a 40 hour work week. fuk off! rich people r just trying 2 trick me into working all those extra hours so they can b RICHER people, jeez

[paradise!]

Doctors not working under private practice don't give a shit about the insurance plan of their patients. Where are you getting this information genocidal? How COULD a doctor working for a hospital care if it's medicaid or medicare? Why would a doctor care about the hospital's reimbursement through either? Please enlighten us. Most doctors are basically paid a fixed salary (not including bonuses), so why the hell would he care about their payment plan? It's the hospital execs who care about their type of insurance, in no way is a doctor a businessman at all. You say they are forced to treat patients,

He (the doctor) CAN choose not to treat patients, it's up to him. If it's private practice, he's losing patients, and therefore losing money. Working for a hospital, he has no vested interest in the type of insurance.

[genocidal]

Doctors not working under private practice don't give a shit about the insurance plan of their patients. Where are you getting this information genocidal? How COULD a doctor working for a hospital care if it's medicaid or medicare? Why would a doctor care about the hospital's reimbursement through either? Please enlighten us. Most doctors are basically paid a fixed salary (not including bonuses), so why the hell would he care about their payment plan? It's the hospital execs who care about their type of insurance, in no way is a doctor a businessman at all. You say they are forced to treat patients,

He (the doctor) CAN choose not to treat patients, it's up to him. If it's private practice, he's losing patients, and therefore losing money. Working for a hospital, he has no vested interest in the type of insurance.

EDIT: Fuck it, here's a good deed for today.

The kind of doctors you're talking about makes up a small percentage of all doctors. Most doctors have a private practice, even if they keep their office in a hospital. Like I said, all doctors are required to be on staff at a hospital - that doesn't mean that they're employed by the hospital. Most doctors do not have fixed salaries and doctors are very much businessmen. Medicare and Medicaid is annoying because it doesn't pay very much. This is why most plastic surgeons and dermatologists no longer accept either. If someone on Medicaid needs some reconstructive work it is getting very hard for them to find a doctor who accepts that.

[Jerome Scuggs]

I don't know if I'd necessarily agree with that. Not to get all nit-picky on "what the definition of capitalism is," but in most everything I've read, and the people I've come in contact with, capitalism is a system based completely (at it's core) by exchange of wealth. Plain and simple. You can argue that you can be "wealthy in smiles" or whatever, but that'd be disingenuous. Capitalism is about cash and things that can be exchanged for cash.

capitalism is a system of exchange. plainer-er and simpler. if the definition of capitalism is what yours is, then i would object to capitalism as being incorrect or incomplete. i would argue a majority of the exchanges that you encounter from day to day have nothing to do with cash. did you talk to your buddies today? see what's up? bam, exchange of nonmaterial information.

wait. let me stop and correct something. mainly after reading poseidon's pretty retarded post. capitalism - or, as I should say, economics - is not a system of exchange, but a study of exchange. when you follow those exchanges, you see society - all the intricate small groups that compose bigger groups part of yet other groups, etc. sociology 105 stuff. The total of it is society.

governments come and go, but did society ever cease functioning? No, because of underlying principles that really govern human action.

I argue that on top of the social organism there is a parasite. A particular group of people in a society that do not have to participate in exchanges - they can pursue their own ends with means that, in society, are illegal. politicians, criminals, whatever people call them.

at the core of socialism is the acceptance of the first idea - the awareness of 'society'. the only problem is, they attempt to divine certain normative ideas from their study of society.

I find this ironic, since the biggest knee-jerk response to my... ideas... is "yeah, in a perfect world", "people aren't rational", etc. My response is: duh! Studying a book of economics yields no logical reason for, say, the existence of these forums. Or even computers. Those are products of human irrationality, though I would prefer using the word 'subjectivity'. often times when you view something from their point of view, their ideas and actions make sense.

Yet, government operates on the principle of human rationality. The idea that they can view a particular event and design a rational, logical solution which will yield logical, rational results - that is insanity! Democide - the killing of people by governments - is responsible for more deaths than anything else in history.

Policies that focus on the outliers of society affect everyone in society, oftentimes for no real benefit, if not an overall net loss of well-being. I concede that government can react faster, but they sacrifice the best solution, which would be however society reacted and adapted to a problem. In doing so, unintended consequences pile up, overlap - and after a few years, most policies wind up attempting to solve problems it has caused.

If I were to sit down and say 'what exactly caused the healthcare crisis?' I would be in a shaolin monastery for over fifty years, unscrambling every wrong move that led to it. (good idea for a dissertation, hmm)

Now, that's sort of the basis from which I then proceed to examine political events. Where you see wall street criminals, I see people who are literally making millions off of exploiting the loopholes created in pages of pages of laws. It's the socialist who wonders how he can force these people to obey their laws without exploiting them - I would say, take his means of twisting ethics and morality, take away his means of using force. The reason Big Tobacco supported the new regulation and laws is because they are now cemented in their industry - the cost of competing is just too high. And those tobacco guys will never go out of business.

In 2006, a magazine called 'The Week' published an article called 'Barbarians at the Gate'. It was about the purchase of HCA, the largest operator of hospitals in America. A hedge fund purchased it - betting that healthcare would be universalized.

Now, why would a hedge fund do that? If not to make a profit? You bet they will profit. You bet they had something to do with the writing of the bill. They will cement their hospitals into the fabric of society by force - with a little help from their friends.

If that helps explain where I am coming from.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Whoops, the article was called "HCA yields to 'barbarians'"

"oddly enough, the deal may signal that we are headed towards universal healthcare... here's why. As more and more companies drop healthcare coverage... the ranks of uninsured keep growing. as a result, hospitals' uncolletible accounts keep growing..."

this bill would enable KKR a way to profit on the unprofitable - by charging we the taxpayer!

[Mattey]

So talking to my friends is an exchange of information, and therefore an example of capitalism???

Capitalism is about one thing: capital.

[Summa]

capitalism is a system of exchange. plainer-er and simpler. if the definition of capitalism is what yours is, then i would object to capitalism as being incorrect or incomplete. i would argue a majority of the exchanges that you encounter from day to day have nothing to do with cash. did you talk to your buddies today? see what's up? bam, exchange of nonmaterial information.

wait. let me stop and correct something. mainly after reading poseidon's pretty retarded post. capitalism - or, as I should say, economics - is not a system of exchange, but a study of exchange. when you follow those exchanges, you see society - all the intricate small groups that compose bigger groups part of yet other groups, etc. sociology 105 stuff. The total of it is society.

Capitalism: –noun: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. via dictionary.com

I am not one of those retards who is going to tell you that the book definition of capitalism holds all of the meaning and outreaching effects/philosophy of capitalism. But it does not reach so far as to encompass "all human exchange". I kinda understand what you're getting at with the whole "something is exchanged in every interaction angle" and likely "someone give up something (like ideas or simply breath) to illicit responses and gain something (like a response)". However life is not capitalism and capitalism is not life. Nor is economics life and life is definitely not economics. If I have one criticism of your posts Jerome it is not the "in a perfect world" excuse. It is that you tend to ignore the complexity of the social issues surrounding a situation and you thing in terms of numbers and statistics. People aren't statistics nor are they just walking transaction machines (I understand this is rather presumptuous), but you speak of people like they are numbers and you tend to simplify a situation to pure economics, which may solve the majority of a problem but not the whole thing. And from this view you lose a lot of the humanitarian pov of the health care debate, which is saddening to me.

There was something else in your post that I was going to contest, but I have forgotten. Will read it again later when I have some more time.

Also if you want to debate property rights and the idea of property being inherent in human nature we can pm debate or make another thread, I don't think that belongs here.

[Kolar]

Where you see wall street criminals, I see people who are literally making millions off of exploiting the loopholes created in pages of pages of laws. It's the socialist who wonders how he can force these people to obey their laws without exploiting them - I would say, take his means of twisting ethics and morality, take away his means of using force.

Focusing on this passage for now; I really have to ask you Jerome, do realize that those little loopholes equate to people losing their house, their retirement savings and quite possibly any object of value to them? I get it you've got a fetish for anarchy but I mean even your hardcore libertarians acknowledge that for all of us to get along and not kill each other that all systems require rules and regulations to function. Forget force or any kind of recourse, if the SEC had no power today what protection, what kind of value would anyone see in investing with the risk and potential for run-away fraud being so high (not saying we're already doing an awesome job of that). If you believe humans are ultimately irrational, selfish beings then how could society function without some kind of authority to keep it in check?

[Epinephrine]

capitalism is a system of exchange. plainer-er and simpler. if the definition of capitalism is what yours is, then i would object to capitalism as being incorrect or incomplete. i would argue a majority of the exchanges that you encounter from day to day have nothing to do with cash. did you talk to your buddies today? see what's up? bam, exchange of nonmaterial information.

Ehh? Capitalism is about the exchange of capital plain and simple.


If you wish to extend the definition to the exchange of everything and then say 'we should let capitalism do whatever and not get in it's way because that's the best way', then you're being defeatist.

Consider this. Evolution states that in the simplest terms possible that random events happen in the world and some organisms are randomly best adapted for any particular situation. Therefore the organisms that procreate to the next generation just happened to be the best prepared for whatever happened and lived through it.

Note that evolution, much like your 'just let whatever happen, happen' definition of capitalism and why it's good, merely states that stuff happens. The problem is if you start looking at something differently.

Take endangered species for instance. It's like saying 'well there's a lot of endangered species out there, and since they weren't strong enough to survive in a world with humans, too bad for them. If only they were as adaptable as pigeons and raccoons!'.

There's a lot of people who see value in having a lot of biodiversity on this planet and not just letting humans kill off all the other species because there are so many good reasons to keep species around.

If we take the literal view of evolution and just say 'well they weren't strong enough too bad', then eventually we'll end up in a world with no biodiversity as we end up killing off everything else. Perhaps in a few hundred million years the Earth will adapt, but for the foreseeable future it kind of sucks.

That's sort of what you think of capitalism. Screw all the people who get fucked over if we just let capitalism run without any limits because people 500 years from now won't know the difference anyway is basically what you're saying.

Personally I'm with the camp that says that biodiversity and protection of endangered species is a good thing, and thus I believe that capitalism cannot run without limits.

[paradise!]

EDIT: Fuck it, here's a good deed for today.

The kind of doctors you're talking about makes up a small percentage of all doctors. Most doctors have a private practice, even if they keep their office in a hospital. Like I said, all doctors are required to be on staff at a hospital - that doesn't mean that they're employed by the hospital. Most doctors do not have fixed salaries and doctors are very much businessmen. Medicare and Medicaid is annoying because it doesn't pay very much. This is why most plastic surgeons and dermatologists no longer accept either. If someone on Medicaid needs some reconstructive work it is getting very hard for them to find a doctor who accepts that.

EDIT: lololololol

Mostly it's E.R. doctors but some doctors are forced to accept Medicare and Medicaid when they rather would not. A fully socialized system, depending on levels of coverage, would force all doctors (outside of cosmetic and others not covered by the government) to treat patients that show up at their door.How is that disingenuous? It's a fact.

You're telling me that emergency room doctors, who are in fact employed by the hospital, aren't getting fixed salaries? Oh man, please don't tell me you consider yourself anywhere near smart. Doctors who work private practice of course don't get fixed salaries, and OFC are businessman, they are their own businesses.

Let me get this straight you're trying to tell us ER doctors are businessmen who reluctantly accept medicaid or medicare. LOL just shut the fuck up im laughing..

Plastic Surgeons and Dermatologists are specialists who are in their own seperate entities, accepting whatever they like. You pick out the most OBVIOUS examples of specialists who don't accept medicaid medicare. Most specialists, however, do accept medicaid medicare. I can tell you know very little about healthcare when you talk about medicare "not paying much." It's called reimbursement, my young padawan. The clinics provide the care, they report to medicaid or medicare exactly what they did, for how long, equipment and techniques, so as to maximize reimbursement given. And you calling it "not paying much" shows you know only what your fed by pundits.
Most specialists which are referred by larger hospitals, DO accept medicaid or medicare or they wouldn't be referred. Again, most specialists cannot afford to decline medicaid or medicare. You mention Plastic Surgeons, well no fucking shit they would decline medicaid or medicare. Medicaid&Medicare won't reimburse the surgeons for how much they want. So they tell everyone with that type of ins to piss off.

I can't imagine what type of normal dermatologists would decline medicaid and/or medicare insurance. You must be talking about some kind of beverly hills dermatologist, even then I don't see WHY they would say no. People aren't going to CHANGE their insurance just to see 1 specialist, they will move on to someone who does accept it. If you want to know WHY these guys decline medicaid I would love to explain that for you, just ask cutie :wub:.

So in summation: your dermatologist declining medicaid is believable, BUT declining medicare? You gotta be fucking joking. So, calling bullshit on that one.

My recommendations to you genocidal: stop posting. your wrong, your facts are wrong. just stop at this point.

p.s. stop posting

[Ara]

A lot of sad reading here, some of you are actually trying to set a price and
requirements for the right to a good quality of life. My opinion is that a good
life is worth more than any capitalist could measure. It is the stronger's job to
take care of the weaker, wiser's job to educate the less wise. Money is a poor
measurement of life or of anything immaterial that cannot be posessed, it is but
a mere tool and enabler for some of the things that we need. There's much more
to life than just a few political views or agendas, labeling people according to a
few select and local political definitions is ridiculous, if you do so you are a
victim of limited options given by someone. Limiting options and defining the
used terms from one aspect is a major part of political power. For example
the so called liberal party, the democrats, in USA, are in fact conservative if
compared to the liberal parties in Finland, and the conservative parties, well
only more conservative.

An idea that people do not have to be entitled to the same level of healt care
if they are this and that and do not do this and that is false from the beginning
to me. Finland has a strong interfering government model where not
everything is subject to the free markets. It is a part of the ideology that in
such a small nation as Finland everyone has to partisipate in improving the
society by paying high taxes which enables a good quality of life for even the
poorer. A few rich people can't make a big change but a government
supported by different taxes can.

For example the healt care isn't entirely run by the ever changing markets,
private sector option is still there for everyone to choose from and
it is usually specialized or a working benefit. We do pay dear cash even for
our public health care but a major part of the bill is payed by the government.
Government offers a product which creates controlled negative income, they
"sell" it with a loss, it is called a public good or a collective good depending
on perspective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

Through high taxes everyone is also given the possibility to free education,
from elementary school to university. Again we have specialized private
sectors for education also, there is an option for those that wish it. Bringing
up communism and what not only to fear people does not contribute to the
welfare of everyone. I'm not saying we're a perfect example though, the
current healt care system takes up a major part of our yearly budget but
who am I to complain when my healt care bills are affordable and I'm only a
student. There are working options outside of USA that you may not even
have heard of, such as the French healtcare which works to my knowledge
even better than the Finnish.

Someone here said that it was a bad thing how little the private sector was
used in healt care in Finland, I think it only shows that the public system is a
working option, and we aren't bankcrupt. Also someone said something about
doctors having to take up on more jobs, how about educating more doctors
and making them compete for their jobs like the rest of us. Educating doctors
is not expensive, you cannot measure the benefits from healt care. Economic
point of view is very limited, it does not take into consideration many of the
negative factors that are related to commercial business such as the
exploitation of our planet, healt care costs from eating all the hamburgers
and smoking tobacco (they are actually counted as positive in the healt care
industry companies' free market shares) and the lives lost using the sold guns
at people. Trying to understand the world from mathematic perspective isn't
for me atleast.

[genocidal]

EDIT: lololololol



You're telling me that emergency room doctors, who are in fact employed by the hospital, aren't getting fixed salaries? Oh man, please don't tell me you consider yourself anywhere near smart. Doctors who work private practice of course don't get fixed salaries, and OFC are businessman, they are their own businesses.

Let me get this straight you're trying to tell us ER doctors are businessmen who reluctantly accept medicaid or medicare. LOL just shut the fuck up im laughing..

Plastic Surgeons and Dermatologists are specialists who are in their own seperate entities, accepting whatever they like. You pick out the most OBVIOUS examples of specialists who don't accept medicaid medicare. Most specialists, however, do accept medicaid medicare. I can tell you know very little about healthcare when you talk about medicare "not paying much." It's called reimbursement, my young padawan. The clinics provide the care, they report to medicaid or medicare exactly what they did, for how long, equipment and techniques, so as to maximize reimbursement given. And you calling it "not paying much" shows you know only what your fed by pundits.
Most specialists which are referred by larger hospitals, DO accept medicaid or medicare or they wouldn't be referred. Again, most specialists cannot afford to decline medicaid or medicare. You mention Plastic Surgeons, well no fucking shit they would decline medicaid or medicare. Medicaid&Medicare won't reimburse the surgeons for how much they want. So they tell everyone with that type of ins to piss off.

I can't imagine what type of normal dermatologists would decline medicaid and/or medicare insurance. You must be talking about some kind of beverly hills dermatologist, even then I don't see WHY they would say no. People aren't going to CHANGE their insurance just to see 1 specialist, they will move on to someone who does accept it. If you want to know WHY these guys decline medicaid I would love to explain that for you, just ask cutie :wub:.

So in summation: your dermatologist declining medicaid is believable, BUT declining medicare? You gotta be fucking joking. So, calling bullshit on that one.

My recommendations to you genocidal: stop posting. your wrong, your facts are wrong. just stop at this point.

p.s. stop posting

You spent this huge block of words saying, "ER doctors do accept Medicare and Medicaid and I think that most dermatologists do too." Other than thinking I'm stupid, did you say anything else?

God help me for actually reading that. I'm sure you're a really nice kid, but goddammit Donny, you're out of your element!

[paradise!]

You spent this huge block of words saying, "ER doctors do accept Medicare and Medicaid and I think that most dermatologists do too." Other than thinking I'm stupid, did you say anything else?

God help me for actually reading that. I'm sure you're a really nice kid, but goddammit Donny, you're out of your element!

That's exactly what I thought genocidal. Realize, my post just taught you a lot

If your talking about towards the end. I was trying my best to understand your statement which says "Dermatologists do not accept medicare or medicaid anymore"

You cannot be more wrong in that statement. This statement alone proves you know absolutely jack shit about healthcare.

back to my previous statements!: highly recommend you stop posting in this thread ^____^

EDIT: Medicare provides 43 million americans with health coverage. Are you telling me that 43 million americans don't see dermatologists or ARE forced to pay straight up ?