Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

It's tiring debunking you, but nonetheless, here's medical tourism inbound and out for the US. We lose.

This could be a motivator for a significant number of expats, in the next decade.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Makes me wonder if PW knows how Obamacare is supposed to work. Can he get it through his head that people don't want to buy this overpriced Obamacare type crap? If they did, they'd already be buying it.
2014 should be entertaining.

The question was - where are you getting those 'facts?'

You do realize what you posted doesn't answer that question? Maybe that's the problem with you all - it's not that you have different facts, you just don't know what a fact is.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

It's tiring debunking you, but nonetheless, here's medical tourism inbound and out for the US. We lose.

Now see, by example, Jimmie, this is what facts look like.

Care to give it a shot?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

It's tiring debunking you, but nonetheless, here's medical tourism inbound and out for the US. We lose.

-And if you read it, you'll see that foreigners come here for competent medical care, while Americans leave either because someone else will subsidize it, or they want medical care that the US government does not allow. What an argument for government in health care.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-And if you read it, you'll see that foreigners come here for competent medical care, while Americans leave either because someone else will subsidize it, or they want medical care that the US government does not allow. What an argument for government in health care.

No, people go where treatment is cheap and well done. I can pick many places and many services, but here's a random pick: shoulder replacement surgery in India. Medical Tourism is a major growth industry there and elsewhere as well.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, people go where treatment is cheap and well done. I can pick many places and many services, but here's a random pick: shoulder replacement surgery in India. Medical Tourism is a major growth industry there and elsewhere as well.

-My point is, that yes, someone will go if someone picks up part of the tab (or all of it). Big surprise. But your wiki article did miss Americans who go to the 3rd World because they can get treatments which aren't allowed here (cancer, etc).

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-






...until they have a real, problem, when you see them coming to the USA for their medical care.

What exactly do you mean by this content free, throwaway line?

Originally Posted by Wayneh56

What exactly do you mean by this content free, throwaway line?

It's a myth that we Americans like to tell ourselves in our speshulness.

Originally Posted by annla899

It's a myth that we Americans like to tell ourselves in our speshulness.

Oh, thanks Anna for that clarification. I appreciate it.

This seems to be a troubling trend. Solutions must be addressed for any national health care plan to work.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/healt...are_03-04.html
Access to Doctors Shrinks…4 March 2013
…"LOU GOODMAN: And in 2000, we had about almost 80 percent of the doctors were taking new Medicare patients. We just completed a survey last year, and we found that less than 60 percent were taking them. Almost 20 percent fewer doctors are taking new Medicare patients. And that really troubled us."...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...until they have a real, problem, when you see them coming to the USA for their medical care.

I belong to a Toastmasters Club where we meet for lunch or dinner, and intersperse dining and dinner-time conversation with regular Toastmasters fare (speeches and evaluations). One of the members is Canadian and at one meeting, she brought her elderly parents who was visiting her at the time. I happened to chat with the mother -- either I sat with her or we talked in the restroom; I can't quite remember.

I asked her about the Canadian single-payer system and how it worked. She acknowledged the waits for discretionary procedures, such as hip replacements. However, if you have a heart attack or cancer, the treatment is excellent. Indeed, she said that many would-be snowbirds are reluctant to winter in places like Florida or Arizona because of the health insurance issue and the fear of getting stuck with huge medical debt.

It was an interesting perspective. I'd appreciate it if Wayneh56 could comment on this...

Originally Posted by annla899

It's a myth that we Americans like to tell ourselves in our speshulness.

-Really?

Here's the famous supposedly "debunking" article:

http://www.aarp.org/politics-society...alth-care.html

..where AARP proudly proclaims that only 0.61% of Canadians have gone to the US for medical care at least once (some go habitually).

Now, let's switch that around. How many Americans go to Canada for medical care?

http://www.imtj.com/articles/2009/ho...eatment-30016/

...the truthful answer?....Nobody [exactly] knows!

...but:

...The 2008 Deloitte report is also the source of the estimate of 750,000 going overseas in 2007. However, Deloitte’s follow up report in 2009 said less than 1% of Americans had ever gone overseas for treatment, let alone in the last year...

...so, the best estimate is that the percentage of Canadians who have come to the USA is roughly the same percentage of Americans who have ever gone ANYWHERE else for medical care. And most of the Americans aren't going to Canada, unless it's to skate on the Canadian taxpayer's dime. That's the system we're supposed to institute here?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

...One of the members is Canadian and at one meeting, she brought her elderly parents who was visiting her at the time. I happened to chat with the mother ... I asked her about the Canadian single-payer system and how it worked. She acknowledged the waits for discretionary procedures, such as hip replacements. However, if you have a heart attack or cancer, the treatment is excellent. Indeed, she said that many would-be snowbirds are reluctant to winter in places like Florida or Arizona because of the health insurance issue and the fear of getting stuck with huge medical debt...

-FWIW, here's what the Canuck government says:

http://travel.gc.ca/travelling/publi...ll-on-your-way

...These days, more Canadians are travelling abroad, often to developing countries, for health care and treatment ranging from bathing in healing waters to organ transplants to cosmetic surgery...

...which, of course, the government discourages, because the care in Canada is so wonderful.
And yeah, note how they fit ORGAN TRANSPLANTS in between spas and facelifts, which I'm sure are a major reason Canucks ditch their own system.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I belong to a Toastmasters Club...

-Really? I don't believe you've ever mentioned it...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Really? Here's the famous supposedly "debunking" article:

http://www.aarp.org/politics-society...alth-care.html

..where AARP proudly proclaims that only 0.61% of Canadians have gone to the US for medical care at least once (some go habitually).

Now, let's switch that around. How many Americans go to Canada for medical care?

http://www.imtj.com/articles/2009/ho...eatment-30016/

...the truthful answer?....Nobody [exactly] knows!

...but:

...The 2008 Deloitte report is also the source of the estimate of 750,000 going overseas in 2007. However, Deloitte’s follow up report in 2009 said less than 1% of Americans had ever gone overseas for treatment, let alone in the last year...

...so, the best estimate is that the percentage of Canadians who have come to the USA is roughly the same percentage of Americans who have ever gone ANYWHERE else for medical care. And most of the Americans aren't going to Canada, unless it's to skate on the Canadian taxpayer's dime. That's the system we're supposed to institute here?



-FWIW, here's what the Canuck government says:

http://travel.gc.ca/travelling/publi...ll-on-your-way

...These days, more Canadians are travelling abroad, often to developing countries, for health care and treatment ranging from bathing in healing waters to organ transplants to cosmetic surgery...

...which, of course, the government discourages, because the care in Canada is so wonderful.
And yeah, note how they fit ORGAN TRANSPLANTS in between spas and facelifts, which I'm sure are a major reason Canucks ditch their own system.

-Really? I don't believe you've ever mentioned it...

Starting at the top:

1. For Canadians getting care in the US, there seems to be a consistent theme of emergency care for tourists and on-demand care for the rich. Why is this even a bit surprising.
2. I suspect that the reverse is similar, with poorer Americans going north and tourists getting free emergency care that the Canadians don't get here.
3. There are several sources of data on Americans traveling outside th US for services. None is authoritative, but the really low numbers seem self-serving. Deloitte was working for someone in making the originally high numbers turn low. Who?
4. Odd ball treatment is hard to evaluate. Let's assume it's only important to this discussion because some people prefer it. Steve McQueen is the most famous example.
5. Buying organs is legal in some countries. Not herre and not in Canada.

I assume you have a point here somewhere, but it's invisible to me.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... That sure looks you're presenting facts. So again, where did that come from?

-Where did I get 76% from?

Let's go back to the original article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...ums-by-64-146/

...If you’re a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month. (By “average,” I mean the median monthly premium across California’s 19 insurance rating regions.)

The next cheapest plan, the “bronze” comprehensive plan, costs $205 a month.

But in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com, the median cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92.

In other words, for the typical 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent...

...now the Obamacare apologists' objection is that not everyone gets the far lower prices seen in eHealthInsurcance. So here's one of PW's "debunkers"(Ezra Klein):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...es-rate-shock/

According to HealthCare.gov, 14 percent of people who try to buy that plan are turned away outright. Another 12 percent are told they’ll have to pay more than $109...

14% + 12% = 26%.

100% - 26% = 74%. So "oops". Instead of the 76% who get the low eHealthInsurance rate as admitted by an Obamabot, it's 74% (not 76%; Mea Culpa. Everyone will just have to take my word it was an honest mistake. Suck it up.).

Keep in mind, by the Obamabot's own admission, 12% can still see a significant savings, just not the lowest price that the 74% will.

In other words, 74% will get stuck with a huge rate increase, assuming that they wanted to buy insurance at all.

To some up, where did I get the 74%? From PW's own sources.

As for the 60% rate increase, I was being generous to Obamacare.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

.. I assume you have a point here somewhere, but it's invisible to me.

-Wayne seemed to be proclaiming some superiority for the Canadian system based on the fact that the taxpayer gets stuck with the costs. I pointed out that it seems to have a flaw, based on the fact that you can tell what people really think based on what they do.

It's a good bet that if Medicare goes, Tri-Care and the VA won't be far behind...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Wayne seemed to be proclaiming some superiority for the Canadian system based on the fact that the taxpayer gets stuck with the costs. I pointed out that it seems to have a flaw, based on the fact that you can tell what people really think based on what they do.

But you never made the point. In fact, the AARP report you cited made more or less the opposite point ... if you read the entire thing.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

But you never made the point. In fact, the AARP report you cited made more or less the opposite point ... if you read the entire thing.

-No, the AARP put their spin on the fact by not comparing it to anything else. The article said that 0.6% of Canadians have gone to the US for medical care, which seems to be about the same amount as Americans who have gone anywhere else.

Originally Posted by playwrite

.. Of the minority of Californian not having insurance through Medicare/Medicaid or their employer (including the military and federal, state and local govt employees), the relatively small number that are in their 20s, male, non-smoker, with no previous health conditions have a 74% chance of buying el cheapo catastrophic insurance that pays for nothing until you are almost dead - oh, and good luck collecting because your insurer is some fly-by-night outside of your state's health insurance regulatory body's jurisdiction...

-This is basically PW's argument:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/philip...rticle/2531747

...The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn, one of the most prolific defenders of the health care law, insisted that it wasn't fair to compare average premiums, because that doesn't account for differences in the quality of the plans.

For instance, he described that under the current system, one of the cheapest bare bones plans in Ohio costs just $29 per month, but could stick enrollees with annual out of pocket expenses as high as $25,000. Under Obamacare, out of pocket costs are capped at $6,350 for the cheapest "bronze" level plan...

But:

...But in his analysis, Cohn is doing what he often accuses critics of Obamacare of doing -- cherry-picking a plan that results in the most outrageous number to demonstrate a point -- in this case, $25,000 out of pocket costs. But even if we give up the idea of comparing average premiums, the announced Ohio rates don't present a pretty picture for Obamacare.
Ohio regulators also announced that, "Projected costs from the companies for providing coverage for the required essential health benefits ranged from $282.51 to $577.40 for individual health insurance plans." That means that the cheapest plan available under Obamacare in Ohio will be $282.51...

Yeah...

To his credit, Cohn eventually acknowledges that, "Obamacare's requirements really will make insurance more expensive relative to what it would cost otherwise" meaning that some people will end up paying more...


As often happens, PW seems to be ignore the obvious. If Obamare is so wonderful, why do they have to be forced into it?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I belong to a Toastmasters Club where we meet for lunch or dinner, and intersperse dining and dinner-time conversation with regular Toastmasters fare (speeches and evaluations). One of the members is Canadian and at one meeting, she brought her elderly parents who was visiting her at the time. I happened to chat with the mother -- either I sat with her or we talked in the restroom; I can't quite remember.

I asked her about the Canadian single-payer system and how it worked. She acknowledged the waits for discretionary procedures, such as hip replacements. However, if you have a heart attack or cancer, the treatment is excellent. Indeed, she said that many would-be snowbirds are reluctant to winter in places like Florida or Arizona because of the health insurance issue and the fear of getting stuck with huge medical debt.

It was an interesting perspective. I'd appreciate it if Wayneh56 could comment on this...

I am not fan of single payer, but do think that a Canadian style system funded at US per-capita levels could be made to work. The emergng affordable care 'system' may sink our current health care "system" and make single payer more attractive.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-This is basically PW's argument:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/philip...rticle/2531747

...The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn, one of the most prolific defenders of the health care law, insisted that it wasn't fair to compare average premiums, because that doesn't account for differences in the quality of the plans.

For instance, he described that under the current system, one of the cheapest bare bones plans in Ohio costs just $29 per month, but could stick enrollees with annual out of pocket expenses as high as $25,000. Under Obamacare, out of pocket costs are capped at $6,350 for the cheapest "bronze" level plan...

But:

...But in his analysis, Cohn is doing what he often accuses critics of Obamacare of doing -- cherry-picking a plan that results in the most outrageous number to demonstrate a point -- in this case, $25,000 out of pocket costs. But even if we give up the idea of comparing average premiums, the announced Ohio rates don't present a pretty picture for Obamacare.
Ohio regulators also announced that, "Projected costs from the companies for providing coverage for the required essential health benefits ranged from $282.51 to $577.40 for individual health insurance plans." That means that the cheapest plan available under Obamacare in Ohio will be $282.51...

Yeah...

To his credit, Cohn eventually acknowledges that, "Obamacare's requirements really will make insurance more expensive relative to what it would cost otherwise" meaning that some people will end up paying more...


As often happens, PW seems to be ignore the obvious. If Obamare is so wonderful, why do they have to be forced into it?

Now stop that cross-posting -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...617#post472617

-or somebody is going to tell.

We already got too many spammers here, dude.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-No, the AARP put their spin on the fact by not comparing it to anything else. The article said that 0.6% of Canadians have gone to the US for medical care, which seems to be about the same amount as Americans who have gone anywhere else.

... which was the least of the article. Are Canadian doctors leaving for the US? No. Are Candians unhappy with thier healthcare? No. Is Canadian healthcare cheaper? Yes.

Originally Posted by radind

I am not fan of single payer, but do think that a Canadian style system funded at US per-capita levels could be made to work. The emergng affordable care 'system' may sink our current health care "system" and make single payer more attractive.

Other than shortening the wait for elective procedures, why fund at US levels? In fact, why do it at all? We can dramatically cut the wait times and still pay less than do now. Just cuting the cost of prescription drugs to Canadian levels would be a major savings.

We heard the good, i.e. California.

It looks like things might not be so bad in Arizona with the Medicaid Expansion -

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politi...on-budget.html

House approves Medicaid expansion, $8.8 billion budget

Five months after Gov. Jan Brewer vowed to expand Medicaid, a bipartisan Arizona House coalition voted early today to approve her high-stakes proposal, along with a budget that gives significant new funding to education and child welfare.

The mostly 33-27 votes followed nine hours of debate and vitriolic speeches by conservative Republicans, who lashed out at fellow GOP members and Brewer for teaming with Democrats to steamroll them to approve a key piece of the federal health-care overhaul and the governor's top legislative priority.

And the vote on House Bill 2010, the health-related budget bill, moves Arizona one step closer to becoming the 21st state to expand Medicaid.

But, it's getting stupid ugly in Mississippi -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rss_ezra-klein

How Mississippi could end up killing Medicaid

The fight over expanding Medicaid has gotten ugly, and the latest state to grab the spotlight is Mississippi, where a standoff in the legislature is pushing the state toward a cliff. Without a last-minute agreement, Medicaid may cease altogether there on July 1.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Other than shortening the wait for elective procedures, why fund at US levels? In fact, why do it at all? We can dramatically cut the wait times and still pay less than do now. Just cuting the cost of prescription drugs to Canadian levels would be a major savings.

Cutting the cost of prescription drugs would help some, but major costs are for doctors and hospitals. In addition, some doctors are opting out of Medicare. We need a real system that works. It appears to me that the current 'system' is on the verge of breaking down. I don't see problem with paying more than the Canadian system, but we already pay enough in total for a good system. We just need an approach that works.

Something that has not been covered much lately is the expansion of hospital chains for the sake of expansion.

For example these two bloated monstrosities are trying to control healthcare in the South Carolina suburbs of Charlotte.