Plus their Scandanavian they don't actually need health care.Originally Posted by jets5ever
Plus their Scandanavian they don't actually need health care.Originally Posted by jets5ever
Originally Posted by Greenwave81.By choice? I dont think so. When your salary is barely sufficient to pay for the rent and food for you and your kids, being offered to pay a % of your salary for health insurance does not leave you with much choice if your barely making ends meet.
A GP in Canada can make 125-200K/year.Originally Posted by jets5ever
Very similar to that in the USA.
The differences lie in the subspecialties where American Subspecialists can earn much more than a canadian.
Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs
Exactly. My wife and kids are insured...but I am not, it would cost to much to include me. I have a choice between my mortgage payment and health insurance...so I cross my fingers and hope I don't get hurt.Originally Posted by kennyo7
Green...what about a universal health care program that handles ER visits only. I broke my wrist a few years ago and sadly, Mr ER doctor was the only one who got screwed on that. I definitely couldn't of elected NOT to have my broken wrist fixed, I kinda need it to work and stuff like that. But I also definitely couldn't afford to pay to have it fixed. My ER doctor got "plumbered"...which sucks because he was actually an excellent physician.
Now, the govt definitely benefits from a taxpayer such as myself having both arms to work with. I definitely generate more income for them with two working wrists....is this feasible?
Thanks. So, why can American subspecialists earn more than their Canadian counterparts?Originally Posted by kennyo7
Also, who created the restrictions in Canada...I am unclear on that. I suspect the Canadian government did. Did they?
True. I wasn't intending to be insulting with my comment..I apologize if it sounded that way...I was just expressing surprise to hear your post. You summarized all of the things I believe would happen with a socialized health care system in the US.Originally Posted by CanadaSteve
If Canada won't give up universal health care (your variation of it anyway), then Canadians need to be aware that the situation is NOT going to improve any time soon, if ever.Originally Posted by CanadaSteve
What I am perplexed by is that you SEE the problem, but refuse to acknowledge the solution...which is to release private enterprise to run a system in the best interests of the people (yup...you guessed, capitalism).
Then, you are going to have to settle for mediocrity in service, quality and pay through the nose for it.Originally Posted by CanadaSteve
Listen to all the answers given above, and think of why they occurred:Originally Posted by CanadaSteve
1. Not enough physicians
Of course there aren't....the number of people that want to learn an esteemable and valuable trade is of course going to be less when they realize that they have no autonomy or control over their income or their life. Throw in the fact as I have stated numerous times in this thread that after training Canadian Physicians leave for the US...why is that? The answer is obvious.
Then, there is part two of this answer, which begins with another question...is there really a shortage of physicians in Canada? Or is there no impetus to work?
While I am not certain, I would bet serious money that physicians in Canada work significantly less hours than private physicians here in the US...I would wager up to 50% less hours/week or time period. I've seen studies that suggest that the average Canadian physician works 40-50 hours/week which is far less than the average American private practice physician. Just increasing the work hours by 50% would increase physician supply by the same amount...it would cost more, but that's the rub. People are not motivated to work if they are not being adequately compensated, and really, why should they?
And, I'd like to address this particular point you made above:
Let's dissect it...and I firmly believe there is a way to ensure that people can get the health care they need without having to mortgage their homes to get it, while doctors can earn their fees for the important work they provide for society
You say that people NEED healthcare, and I agree. To say someone NEEDS something (not WANTS something) means that it should have a pretty high value placed on it, correct? Shouldn't it surpass all other WANTS in life?
OK, now onto the next part...but they shouldn't have to mortgage their house to get it. Hmmm.....they own a house? How did they buy that house, I mean, they must have assets, right? Is owning a house a requirement for life? Can't they rent? Why should their house be 'protected', but my rights to earn a living be 'infringed'? Should they have to sell their TV's? Cars? Disconnect cableTV? Or, are all those things 'protected' too? Where does it end, and who decides? Part of me is being facetious, but only to a certain extent.
If society as a whole NEEDS healthcare, then society should go out of it's way to ensure that the supply of healthcare is not artificially restricted...it only makes sense. Why would you want anyone, government included, to control something you NEED...and then on top of it all, let it place restrictions on it's availability by controlling expenditures? What sense does that make?
If you are a seminary student, then I would hope that you would believe that the best way for the maximum number of people to benefit from any healthcare system would be to unshackle it and let it grow....and then trust in the goodness of the human soul to ensure that the lesser among us also participate..it's called 'charity', which as I said used to be prevalent here in the US until the government got involved in health care (not to mention the lawyers, but that for another thread...providing free health care is one thing, but to do it ands still have to assume the legal liability for it absolutely sucks).
Plumber, aren't you self-employed?Originally Posted by PlumberKhan
BTW - You choose to have that mortgage payment and that house. Surely you could live in a smaller house or in a different (i.e. cheaper neighborhood) and afford health insurance. You do choose to have the lifestyle you have. What you want is health insurance without making any sacrifices in terms of your current lifestyle. You could work two jobs, you could take a job where they offered benefits. There are tons of things you could do.
Not sure how salaries are set in Canada. I suppose the government dis as it does with federal employees here. Working at the VA i am set a salary determined by the government.Originally Posted by jets5ever
Originally Posted by kennyo7
Okay, fair enough. How about your anecdotal evidence for now? Do you earn less or more than MDs with your skills who are practicing privately in the US? Just a rough guess of your government-mandated salary versus your private peers....
Sure he could also work 5 jobs, ask his wife to work 3 jobs, live in a tent in the woods, have his kids hunt/fish all day for food instead of buying it, walk to work, eat only once a day etc . There are tons of things he could do.Originally Posted by jets5ever
Why not have everyone make a small sacrifice to provide health care for the entire nation. Afterall, we are asked to make sacrifices to bring democracy to the Iraqi people and for expensive defense systems that we are unlikely to need
Of course there are differences between urgent and non-urgent procedures. I am sure also that Greenwave knows that. His posts on various topics in medicine have been very eloquent. No need for the condescending tone of your response.Originally Posted by kennyo7
That being said, yes, knee replacement for example is not an "urgent" procedure. However, it does impact on lifestyle and productivity. It also can lead to potential "emergent" health consequences. To say it is not If your knee hurts, you become less active. You gain weight, and are at greater risk for developing medical problems such as diabetes and coronary disease. As one who takes care of "active" patients, it is important to "get back in the game" as quickly as possible to maintain your health and productivity. That is the good thing about American medicine. If you need a knee replacement, you can find someone who will fit you in relatively quickly. To delay these procedures may be "short sighted" in the long run, with loss of productivity and increased morbidity. Like a bypass is not always an "urgent" procedure, however there have been people on the waiting list have suffered fatal coronaries before their number came up to hit the OR table.
You are correct when you say that many studies are ordered unnecessarily. Alot of this is due to "defensive medicine", a consequence of the medico-legal environment.
Hopefully tort reform can fix this, but at this point unfortunately a generation of doctors have been trained to be "on the defense".
I earn less. But have other perks that they dont. Whats your point?Originally Posted by jets5ever
I earn roughly $170,000. My friend in the exact same field earns close to $500,000 in the private sector. I work 5 days/week roughly 50hours/week. He works 6 days / week closer to 80 hrs/week.
Originally Posted by jets5ever
Dude...I live in Western NY. I don't think I can live much cheaper than I already do.
Self employed? Not anymore brother. We had to close our business because of getting royally screwed by Toll Brothers, go figure
Work two jobs?! ROTFLMAO....yeah, right. Cmon...Im just a lazy American that b*tches about stuff. Im not gonna really do anything to change it....
The guy who's apartment complex I run is in the process of setting something up for me. He is CEO of a company up here that handles housing for assisted living people all over the country...so I'm sure he has the right connections to hook a brother up.
Am I right or wrong for assuming that ER visits are probably where the medical community gets screwed out of most of their money?
Last edited by PlumberKhan; 06-26-2007 at 04:40 PM.
I dont think im being condescending at all.. Sorry if you misperceived that.Originally Posted by HDCentStOhio
Thats true if you have insurance. Otherwise you are waiting.If you need a knee replacement, you can find someone who will fit you in relatively quickly.
Unless they're working the same number of hours I am, I don't want to hear it. NO one is guaranteed a 40 hour work week.Originally Posted by kennyo7
Funny how a lot of these people 'without means' still live in a house (own or rent), drive a car (or two), have AC, cable TV, internet access, smoke, drink, go on vacation, out to eat...yet never have enough to afford health insurance. Most work one job too.
There are some truly destitute people out there...but they aren't the majority by any means. I'm all for helping out the truly unfortunate...but your plan (and the government's plan) to help out the truly unfortunate for some reason always seems to also encompass the people that aren't unfortunate, but rather genuinely lazy who continue to make poor choices in life.
Oh...now I see it. In the second to last sentence. Roughly translated from Greek it says "and to ye who hath no insurance but posseseth a home or horseless carriage, damn ye to the depths of Hades. Thy jerkine attitude be damned, payeth what is owed so that I may maketh my Hair Club for Men payment. Insurance companies be blessed with the blessing of the gods, thy uninsured get upeth off ye lazy arses and work twine jobeths..."
Don't get all crazy on me...its a joke
I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have to do those things. Nice ridiculous, emotional, transparently argumentative example.Originally Posted by kennyo7
Show me a "small" sacrifice and I'll evaluate it. "Healthcare" is not a constant thing, it is a service with varying degrees of quality, efficiency and effectiveness. I want control over my healthcare choices and how my healthcare money is spent, I do not want to completely cede that control to government workers, thank you very much. We all make "large" sacrifices to provide education to everyone and in theory and according to your logic, there's no problem with our education system because everyone has "access" to "education." However, what we see in reality is that education is not a constant term...it is a service with varying degrees of quality, efficiency and effectiveness depending on a number of factors. The problem is that many people have no control over their education...sure, they can move or work two jobs to pay for private school, but according to you, that is unacceptable. They cannot fire their teachers or school and simply choose another provder. Yet you see all of these problems in education, which is a government monopoly...(especially problems for the poorest among us) and yet your solution to the healthcare issue is to turn it over to the government so they can what, hit a homerun like they have with education?? A very large part of the problem currently with our healthcare system is due to government meddling! Why do you think cable companies act the way they do? It's because they can, because the government has allowed them to operate in geographic monopolies. Comcast does whatever it wants to me because I can't fire them and hire the cable company down the street and they know it.
I have no doubt that some Kennyo-type generations ago made an emotional, self-righteous statement about how education was a "right" and tried to wave a wand, as if the force of that conviction could counter the harsh reality that education (like all services, including healthcare) is a scarce resource that has real costs. I get labelled as insensitive because I point this out. Scarce resources have to be rationed somehow and now even though education is "free" our tax burden is higher, our reali incomes lower, and many people are stuck in p*ss-poor schools. Some solution.
The private sector is why America is where it is (coupled with our solid foundation in common law including individual rights, property rights and transparency in government, among other things). When allowed to flourish in a stable legal environment that respects property rights, the private sector is basically the greatest thing to EVER happen to poor people in the history of the world, provided it is working in concert with a government that recognizes property rights...by FAR. There can be no serious debate about this. Yet many people cling to beliefs in state-run institutions and harbor irrational fears of the private sector. Some myths die hard. Like the oft-quoted belief that wealth or income is a zero sum game. It amazes me that whenever there is a problem, so many people cling to the belief that less freedom is the answer. Let people keep more of their money. Let service providers provide services and things will improve as they have in virtually every industry, in terms of affordability. Only very rich people used to be able to afford phones and cars and TVs and computers. Now, they are common place. Get the government out of the picture completely. Let people spend their money as they fit and let doctors provide services as they see fit. The government can be one of many providers of healthcare if they want, sure. But that should be optional. I'd be perfectly willing to even pay some taxes to fund "last-resort" healthcare for the truly needy, but I'd want to see some real spending cuts elsewhere to finance it. However, what I will not stand for is any form of socialized healthcare or "universal" system, cause I've seen what government monopolies in service industries mean and what no part of that with regards to healthcare decisions for me and my family. They can screw with education if they must, I can educate my children well enough. But I don't know how to provide them healthcare and would like to keep the money I earn to best hire people who can!
Last edited by jets5ever; 06-26-2007 at 05:50 PM.
Royally screwed by the Toll Brothers?? I don't understand what that means.Originally Posted by PlumberKhan
I am not saying you are lazy, merely saying you have choices and that you choose to be presently uninsured, which is true no matter what you say. It is your responsibility and your responsibility alone.
What do you mean, hook a brother up? He's going to get you health insurance somehow? I don't understand.
As for your last question, I don't know.
My point is that the government restrictions and price controls in Canada probably have a lot to do with their current shortage of doctors. Isn't that a plausible statement?Originally Posted by kennyo7
You work less hours and have made the choice to value that free time more than the roughly $320,000 a year you are forgoing in salary. That's a perfectly reasonable choice - I LOVE my free time...and $170,000 is a heck of a good salary so you seem to have a great gig. However, many other doctors obviously value the marginal increase in salary more than they do the marginal increase in free time that is acheived by forgoing that higher salary. Crucially, both of you have made that choice for yourselves and have not had that choice thrust upon you by a busy-body government. If everyone had to earn $170k like you, is it not unreasonable to assume that fewer people would want to spend the time and money and stress involved with becoming an MD? MDs are high acheivers...chances are people with that level of academic achievment could fund success somewhere else; either as a doctor in another country or in a different field entirely.