Comments on: CANADA CUTS DEAL WITH U.S. HOSPITALS http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/08/31/canada-cuts-deal-with-us-hospitals/ Cleaning the Augean Stables of the Health Care Debate Thu, 10 May 2012 21:39:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Junk Science Skeptic http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/08/31/canada-cuts-deal-with-us-hospitals/#comment-444954 Junk Science Skeptic Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:49:06 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/08/31/canada-cuts-deal-with-us-hospitals/#comment-444954 This is just too funny. One of the Left's most lauded healthcare systems is forced to rely on one of America's few third-world cities to deliver a minimum level of care. This is just too funny. One of the Left’s most lauded healthcare systems is forced to rely on one of America’s few third-world cities to deliver a minimum level of care.

]]> By: johnson http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/08/31/canada-cuts-deal-with-us-hospitals/#comment-444562 johnson Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:40:27 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/08/31/canada-cuts-deal-with-us-hospitals/#comment-444562 So your point is that the agency that looks at the comparative strengths and weaknesses of various medical interventions (which incidentally, as I think you point out, is not part of any of the reform packages being discussed, since it already exists) is going to make people wait for hearing aids? How? And does U.S. Medicare -- which you argue is "virtually indistinguishable" from the Canadian system and thus doomed to share its purported problems -- make people wait for heart imaging, etc.? I'm really not trying to be a jerk. I'm obviously missing something. But I'm not seeing the connection between your problems with the British healthcare system and your problems with the ideas that are being debated here and now. I know you make a point of not using straw man arguments, so I'm trying to see how knocking the British and Canadian systems is relevant to the US healthcare debate. So your point is that the agency that looks at the comparative strengths and weaknesses of various medical interventions (which incidentally, as I think you point out, is not part of any of the reform packages being discussed, since it already exists) is going to make people wait for hearing aids? How? And does U.S. Medicare — which you argue is “virtually indistinguishable” from the Canadian system and thus doomed to share its purported problems — make people wait for heart imaging, etc.?

I’m really not trying to be a jerk. I’m obviously missing something. But I’m not seeing the connection between your problems with the British healthcare system and your problems with the ideas that are being debated here and now. I know you make a point of not using straw man arguments, so I’m trying to see how knocking the British and Canadian systems is relevant to the US healthcare debate.

]]> By: Marc Brown http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/08/31/canada-cuts-deal-with-us-hospitals/#comment-444469 Marc Brown Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:09:25 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/08/31/canada-cuts-deal-with-us-hospitals/#comment-444469 I see you're busy setting up more strawmen. There's no reason why healthcare systems shouldn't buy services from other providers - the point is that the few Canadians treated in the US have the bills paid for by their government. In Europe, there are many cross-border arrangements. You'd be better to look at why 65% - yes, 65% - of all people in Detroit do not have health insurance and how you're going to get them treated in the very same hospitals. You did not answer the question as to how people will get treated under free market insurance. As the other poster said, you never have (and we know this is because the underlying agenda is about protecting big business - not heath). But I suppose it's worth asking: what would you rather have - a hearing implant after a few months or maybe a year or never? As for NICE, do you think that overtreatment and lack of effectiveness is a huge feature of American healthcare and if not why? I see you’re busy setting up more strawmen.

There’s no reason why healthcare systems shouldn’t buy services from other providers – the point is that the few Canadians treated in the US have the bills paid for by their government. In Europe, there are many cross-border arrangements. You’d be better to look at why 65% – yes, 65% – of all people in Detroit do not have health insurance and how you’re going to get them treated in the very same hospitals.

You did not answer the question as to how people will get treated under free market insurance. As the other poster said, you never have (and we know this is because the underlying agenda is about protecting big business – not heath).

But I suppose it’s worth asking: what would you rather have – a hearing implant after a few months or maybe a year or never?

As for NICE, do you think that overtreatment and lack of effectiveness is a huge feature of American healthcare and if not why?

]]> By: Canada cuts deal with US hospitals to reduce waiting times « Wintery Knight Blog http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/08/31/canada-cuts-deal-with-us-hospitals/#comment-444455 Canada cuts deal with US hospitals to reduce waiting times « Wintery Knight Blog Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:05:15 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/08/31/canada-cuts-deal-with-us-hospitals/#comment-444455 [...] cuts deal with US hospitals to reduce waiting times Story from the Detroit Free Press. (H/T Health Care BS via [...] [...] cuts deal with US hospitals to reduce waiting times Story from the Detroit Free Press. (H/T Health Care BS via [...]

]]> By: Catron http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/08/31/canada-cuts-deal-with-us-hospitals/#comment-444305 Catron Tue, 01 Sep 2009 02:31:32 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/08/31/canada-cuts-deal-with-us-hospitals/#comment-444305 Sorry, Johnson, you're wrong. As to emulating the British system, that began when the "Federal Coordinating Council for Effectiveness Research" was created by the porkulus bill. It is directly modeled on NICE, an infamous UK bureaucracy. And the so-called public plan is nothing more than an expansion of Medicare, a single-payer health system (for seniors) virtually indistinguishable from Canada's medical delivery system (which is named, not coincidentally, Medicare). So, it would be more accurate to say that proponents don't ADMIT that they want to emulate the Canadian and British systems. Sorry, Johnson, you’re wrong. As to emulating the British system, that began when the “Federal Coordinating Council for Effectiveness Research” was created by the porkulus bill. It is directly modeled on NICE, an infamous UK bureaucracy.

And the so-called public plan is nothing more than an expansion of Medicare, a single-payer health system (for seniors) virtually indistinguishable from Canada’s medical delivery system (which is named, not coincidentally, Medicare).

So, it would be more accurate to say that proponents don’t ADMIT that they want to emulate the Canadian and British systems.

]]> By: johnson http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/08/31/canada-cuts-deal-with-us-hospitals/#comment-444189 johnson Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:30:08 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/08/31/canada-cuts-deal-with-us-hospitals/#comment-444189 I guess this is another good time to point out that reform proponents don't want to "emulate" Canada or Britain. The proposals do not feature government-run and managed healthcare. It's private healthcare, paid for -- in some cases only -- with government funds. I guess this is another good time to point out that reform proponents don’t want to “emulate” Canada or Britain. The proposals do not feature government-run and managed healthcare. It’s private healthcare, paid for — in some cases only — with government funds.

]]> By: Catron http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/08/31/canada-cuts-deal-with-us-hospitals/#comment-444290 Catron Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:57:47 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/08/31/canada-cuts-deal-with-us-hospitals/#comment-444290 As to pre-existing coverage and the rescission rate, Wilson, surely these situations can be resolved without a $1.6 trillion overhaul of the system. Moreover, it's not like they don't exist in (non-market) government-run systems. These systems just use different nomenclature. In fact, that's what the REAL rationing debate is about. In the UK, for example, the NHS doesn't call it "rescission," but they certainly deny "coverage" for <a href="http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/11/22/nhs-pronounces-more-death-sentences/" rel="nofollow"><em>people</em></a> who start draining too much money out of the government's coffers. As to pre-existing coverage and the rescission rate, Wilson, surely these situations can be resolved without a $1.6 trillion overhaul of the system.

Moreover, it’s not like they don’t exist in (non-market) government-run systems. These systems just use different nomenclature. In fact, that’s what the REAL rationing debate is about.

In the UK, for example, the NHS doesn’t call it “rescission,” but they certainly deny “coverage” for people who start draining too much money out of the government’s coffers.

]]> By: Wilson http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/08/31/canada-cuts-deal-with-us-hospitals/#comment-444010 Wilson Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:19:55 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/08/31/canada-cuts-deal-with-us-hospitals/#comment-444010 You neglected to mention the other reader comment in Patrick Appel's post regarding the difficulty of obtaining private insurance if you have diabetes. This is not an isolated reader comment, as I've read the same story over and over. (In the state in which I live, insurers can refuse to sell you coverage depending on your health status.) I would be interested in your comments on how a market-driven health insurance system addresses the issue of denying insurance due to pre-existing conditions, as well as the high rate of rescission that occurs when insured clients start costing insurance companies money. Perhaps you have previously posted about this, but I searched your site for "pre-existing" and "existing" and didn't find anything relevant in the last year or so. You neglected to mention the other reader comment in Patrick Appel’s post regarding the difficulty of obtaining private insurance if you have diabetes. This is not an isolated reader comment, as I’ve read the same story over and over. (In the state in which I live, insurers can refuse to sell you coverage depending on your health status.)

I would be interested in your comments on how a market-driven health insurance system addresses the issue of denying insurance due to pre-existing conditions, as well as the high rate of rescission that occurs when insured clients start costing insurance companies money. Perhaps you have previously posted about this, but I searched your site for “pre-existing” and “existing” and didn’t find anything relevant in the last year or so.

]]>