Joe Biden Debates Donald Trump September 29

[JM_]

11 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Just so we're clear.

 

Are you under the impression that this is a one time lump sum payment of said estimated $34 trillion?  

 

As well, what is the math on 327 million people in which 34 TRILLION is the estimated number for healthcare?  As I kind of think that number has to be a shade high and at the most extreme end of things.

Some people seem to not understand that many people vote for aspirations as much as anything else. But keep doing the math, I'm sure thats going to really make an emotional impact. 

[JM_]

11 hours ago, Alflives said:

I like Bernie.  I think he’s one of the very few politicians who is honest.  It’s his philosophical beliefs that I think are so far left that no way will the US voters elect him as President.  The Dems will screw Bernie again in 2020, just like they did in 2016, because they also know his views are just too crazy left.  

I'm not so sure about that. When you actually listen to him most of it isn't that far out. And people vote for aspirations (the NDP up here has made a career out of it). Sure people may see Medicare for All as an out of reach goal the way the US currently does things, they love to give insurance companies an extra 30-40% for nothing, but who do you trust more to not cut back your health care, Trump or Bernie? 

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'm not so sure about that. When you actually listen to him most of it isn't that far out. And people vote for aspirations (the NDP up here has made a career out of it). Sure people may see Medicare for All as an out of reach goal the way the US currently does things, they love to give insurance companies an extra 30-40% for nothing, but who do you trust more to not cut back your health care, Trump or Bernie? 

Our so called free healthcare costs us taxpayers (actual contributors to society) thousands in tax every month.  Our system is not sustainable.  

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Our so called free healthcare costs us taxpayers (actual contributors to society) thousands in tax every month.  Our system is not sustainable.  

wrong my friend, it is with some tweaking. We spend less than 1/2 what the US per person but have better heath outcomes. We do have stupid layers of fat on the provincial level, literally dozens of useless health authorities hoovering cash for management layers that do nothing. Remove that and we're fine.

 

https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm

[Boudrias]

2 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Nice!

 

Wow, no wonder Alf didn’t want to give an actual answer. 

I was paying $75 per month for my wife and myself. The BC government has elminated that charge. I highly doubt most Canadians have any idea what it cost for a hospital visit. They have no idea what health care budgets are. Also factor in the massive deficits. 2019 BC spent $21B on health for 5.071 million people = $4141/capita.  The government of Canada spent $253.5 B for 37.59 million people = $6744/capita (Some of the BC budget receives federal funding)  $4141 + $6744 = $10,885 per capita in BC.

 

So health care is not free. A good yardstick would be the signage you usually see posted in Emergency Rooms. They post the cost for hospital services if the patient has no coverage.    

[Alflives]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

wrong my friend, it is with some tweaking. We spend less than 1/2 what the US per person but have better heath outcomes. We do have stupid layers of fat on the provincial level, literally dozens of useless health authorities hoovering cash for management layers that do nothing. Remove that and we're fine.

 

https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm

Propaganda Jimmy.  Socialism is proven to not be sustainable.  We are seeing austerity measures in ICBC.  It will happen in healthcare too.  Then it will be education.  It’s a flawed system where the hard working pay fir the lazy ass losers who can ride free.  Sadly, the US is following our lead and creating a welfare state, where the number of voters who rely on the state to take care of them can actually elect people who will enact crazy left programs.  However, given time those socialist programs will fail (they must) and austerity will follow.  

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

I was paying $75 per month for my wife and myself. The BC government has elminated that charge. I highly doubt most Canadians have any idea what it cost for a hospital visit. They have no idea what health care budgets are. Also factor in the massive deficits. 2019 BC spent $21B on health for 5.071 million people = $4141/capita.  The government of Canada spent $253.5 B for 37.59 million people = $6744/capita (Some of the BC budget receives federal funding)  $4141 + $6744 = $10,885 per capita in BC.

 

So health care is not free. A good yardstick would be the signage you usually see posted in Emergency Rooms. They post the cost for hospital services if the patient has no coverage.    

Of course not. But neither is uninsured people going to the ER, or the cost of people having chronic health problems due to the fact that they can't see physicians early enough. Or going bankrupt because someone in your family is ill. 

 

If the US system had superior health outcomes maybe there'd be some kind of argument for it, but it doesn't. Its bad from a cost-benefit pov. Thats why people cling desperately to the idea that they're getting "choice" which is a mirage too. 

[JM_]

Just now, Alflives said:

Propaganda Jimmy.  Socialism is proven to not be sustainable.  We are seeing austerity measures in ICBC.  It will happen in healthcare too.  Then it will be education.  It’s a flawed system where the hard working pay fir the lazy ass losers who can ride free.  Sadly, the US is following our lead and creating a welfare state, where the number of voters who rely on the state to take care of them can actually elect people who will enact crazy left programs.  However, given time those socialist programs will fail (they must) and austerity will follow.  

Funny, that was my nickname in high school.

 

Respectfully disagree. There are many things we can do to make it sustainable. (https://www.conferenceboard.ca/press/newsrelease/17-05-15/Health_Care_System_Sustainability_a_Key_Concern_as_Canadians_Get_Older.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1).

 

A quality social safety net is not "socialism". 

[Alflives]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

Funny, that was my nickname in high school.

 

Respectfully disagree. There are many things we can do to make it sustainable. (https://www.conferenceboard.ca/press/newsrelease/17-05-15/Health_Care_System_Sustainability_a_Key_Concern_as_Canadians_Get_Older.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1).

 

A quality social safety net is not "socialism". 

“Social” safety net?  Yes, that’s socialism.  When the group is paying for those who don’t contribute, that’s socialism.  It’s not sustainable.  

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, Alflives said:

“Social” safety net?  Yes, that’s socialism.  When the group is paying for those who don’t contribute, that’s socialism.  It’s not sustainable.  

who says they didn't contribute? or won't? are we to go full Logan's Run here Alf? how old are you again?

 

Lets look at just one concrete example. GP visits are one of the biggest cost item lines in the health budget. We have a shortage of GPs for people. But - we now have the ability to use our phones to do video conferencing. All the BC government has to do is make it so that GPs have to see you that way for say $35 vs $75 for an in-person visit for simple things like prescription refills and we can save 100s of millions in GP visit costs, and open up capacity for people who really need to go in person. There are many many more examples of where we can trim the fat. 

Edited February 15, 2020 by Jimmy McGill

[Boudrias]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Of course not. But neither is uninsured people going to the ER, or the cost of people having chronic health problems due to the fact that they can't see physicians early enough. Or going bankrupt because someone in your family is ill. 

 

If the US system had superior health outcomes maybe there'd be some kind of argument for it, but it doesn't. Its bad from a cost-benefit pov. Thats why people cling desperately to the idea that they're getting "choice" which is a mirage too. 

The reason for my comment was a previous poster seemed to indicate that BC'ers had no out of pocket healthcare cost. It made me think there were likely a lot of people who think the same way. I am not challenging the need. My cursory review indicated to me that the USA pays roughly 20% more per capita. Healthcare outcomes can vary a lot based on what is being treated. 

 

Healthcare cost in America are a direct example of the fallout in income disparity. We spent time in a USA hospital last spring with a broken arm. Our conversation with a nurse was illuminating. HE said over 50% of the people in their service area would not be able to with stand a serious health issue let alone a broken arm. Two relatively young (39 & 46) American friends made the following choices. One insured he and his son at a cost of $1100 per month and the other decided not to injure at all. His rationale was that he would take a bet on good health and invest the savings on financial security and buying coverage later in life. 

 

The American system forces these discussions the Canadian system does not. Canadians fear rationing and Americans the direct costs. As Alf rightly points out the system will not sustain itself but is not unique in the overall budget in either country. Canadians seem to take pride in being a more caring society but the Americans I know are very caring people. Both governments deficit finance and in so doing disguise their in direct taxation of the citizens by debasing the buying power of their currency and by foisting debt on future generations.   

[Warhippy]

21 minutes ago, Alflives said:

“Social” safety net?  Yes, that’s socialism.  When the group is paying for those who don’t contribute, that’s socialism.  It’s not sustainable.  

Capitalism

 

America is in the top 3 of the G20 for homelessness, childhood poverty, bankruptcies, business insolvencies, medical death via neglect, drop outs, minimum wage employment and more.

 

Another fun thing America leads in...is corporate welfare to the tune of over $100 billion.  Which does not take in to account tax breaks and incentives for corporations which total another $113 billion per year.

 

That's $213 billion per year being spent on corporations as per 2017 statistics.  This is prior to Trumps trade wars.  That number has only increased

 

When we speak of unsustainably paying for those who don't contribute and claim socialism/democratic socialism is an issue.  When do we ever consider that it appears crony capitalism and the increasing oligarchy of the US is becoming a serious issue as well?  

 

Using tax dollars to prop up business.  But not people.  Yet somehow one is acceptable and one isn't

Edited February 15, 2020 by Warhippy

[Boudrias]

11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

who says they didn't contribute? or won't? are we to go full Logan's Run here Alf? how old are you again?

 

Lets look at just one concrete example. GP visits are one of the biggest cost item lines in the health budget. We have a shortage of GPs for people. But - we now have the ability to use our phones to do video conferencing. All the BC government has to do is make it so that GPs have to see you that way for say $35 vs $75 for an in-person visit for simple things like prescription refills and we can save 100s of millions in GP visit costs, and open up capacity for people who really need to go in person. There are many many more examples of where we can trim the fat. 

Interestingly GP's are on the highest risk for job loss as technology is integrated into the healthcare system. 

 

I invested in CVS Healthcare in the USA because they were introducing Health units into their drugstores so that people could see a healthcare provider without having to see a doctor. They have over 1500 such units up and running already. They handle scenarios you mentioned. I also invest in Telus for its Telus Health division. Healthcare systems on line and a records system. The BC Health Portal is a major advance but you have to wonder why it took so long. My son works in the operating room and tells us that the inefficiency and poor management is huge. Costs will be shaved off both the Canadian and American systems because as Alf said they are unsustainable.  

[JM_]

32 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Interestingly GP's are on the highest risk for job loss as technology is integrated into the healthcare system. 

 

I invested in CVS Healthcare in the USA because they were introducing Health units into their drugstores so that people could see a healthcare provider without having to see a doctor. They have over 1500 such units up and running already. They handle scenarios you mentioned. I also invest in Telus for its Telus Health division. Healthcare systems on line and a records system. The BC Health Portal is a major advance but you have to wonder why it took so long. My son works in the operating room and tells us that the inefficiency and poor management is huge. Costs will be shaved off both the Canadian and American systems because as Alf said they are unsustainable.  

you nailed it B. There are ways for Canada (and the US) to shave costs and actually increase service quality across the board. What @Alflives is forgetting is this key point, fat CAN be trimmed. Its not impossible. 

 

When I was wearing a consulting hat a few years ago, I did some work for Fraser Health looking at issues of system and physician performance. Its very possible for us to shave enough fat (estimates vary but its around 15-20%) to make the system in Canada sustainable. The main areas we can really trim are GP visit costs, ER costs, and health authority management. 

 

There's always going to be a place for GPs. Most of them are at capacity and wouldn't be effected by a change in re-fills or having nurse practitioners do home visits, both of which saves us money and gives us all better service. 

 

Oh and why it took so long for the records system is simple - we have a group of 50+ middle managers in the BC system that are incredibly against change. It really is the #1 thing in the way of change, its pretty sickening. Its one of the reasons I left consulting. 

 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2020 by Jimmy McGill

[HerrDrFunk]

1 hour ago, Boudrias said:

I was paying $75 per month for my wife and myself. The BC government has elminated that charge. I highly doubt most Canadians have any idea what it cost for a hospital visit. They have no idea what health care budgets are. Also factor in the massive deficits. 2019 BC spent $21B on health for 5.071 million people = $4141/capita.  The government of Canada spent $253.5 B for 37.59 million people = $6744/capita (Some of the BC budget receives federal funding)  $4141 + $6744 = $10,885 per capita in BC.

 

So health care is not free. A good yardstick would be the signage you usually see posted in Emergency Rooms. They post the cost for hospital services if the patient has no coverage.    

I never said it was free but I don’t see how anyone could reasonably argue there isn’t way less of a barrier to entry for medical care in Canada than there is in the US. 

[Chicken.]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Funny, that was my nickname in high school.

 

Respectfully disagree. There are many things we can do to make it sustainable. (https://www.conferenceboard.ca/press/newsrelease/17-05-15/Health_Care_System_Sustainability_a_Key_Concern_as_Canadians_Get_Older.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1).

 

A quality social safety net is not "socialism". 

I could’ve sworn the nickname was Slippin Jimmy..  always pulling a fast one

 

Anyways, health authorities are over bloated highly political places where not a lot of change gets done.. the name change saga from hssbc to bccss to phsa was fun to follow when i worked for a healthcare vendor man do they have money to burn

 

 

 

[Canorth]

2 hours ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Nice!

 

Wow, no wonder Alf didn’t want to give an actual answer. 

Didn’t want to rub it in, I suppose.

 

Me however....

[Kragar]

2 hours ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Only slightly. People ignoring health problems until they become dire, because they can't afford to see a doctor, is an issue here.

That's true.  On the other side of the scale, when medical is free/cheap, you have people abusing the system.  For instance, going to the doctor for things as simple as the sniffles, which can take away hospital resources from helping someone who really needs care.  4-6 month waiting periods for procedures is insane.

 

When they can fix our system by:

1. preventing the hidden out-of-network BS that hospitals deliberately hit us with (sounds like we were close to getting this),

2. establish full transparency on costs, so that patients can include that factor when choosing doctors and hospitals, 

3. remove state boundaries when it comes to selling insurance and allow increased competition,

4. find a solution for pre-existing conditions, and

5. do it all without single-payer nonsense

 

we here will all be better off (BTW the list above is not exhaustive... I'm sure there are other issues we could agree need addressing).  Our system has issues, for sure.  Trading them for a system that can have insane wait times and make it tougher to find a doctor, and one that does not appear to be sustainable, does not seem like a good idea to me.

 

One thing that makes me laugh is when Canadians slam us for our medical-related bankruptcies.  Yes, it is disgusting when it happens, although fixing #1 and #2 above will go a very long way to dealing with that issue.  First is when they quote whatever the rate of the day is (I don't know/care, but IIRC, I think it was close to 50 or 60% of personal bankruptcies here were caused my medical costs) without being aware that if you total up all the percentages for causes of bankruptcy, you get something like 250%... because there can be multiple reasons tracked for each filing.  Also, the third most likely cause for bankruptcy in Canada... medical problems!  Regardless, the bottom line is: Canadians, with their free medical and larger social safety net, are more likely to go bankrupt than Americans.  Their taxes are higher, and their incomes are far lower.  Maybe those vocal ones should work on fixing their own yards first instead of worrying about ours.

[HerrDrFunk]

13 minutes ago, Kragar said:

That's true.  On the other side of the scale, when medical is free/cheap, you have people abusing the system.  For instance, going to the doctor for things as simple as the sniffles, which can take away hospital resources from helping someone who really needs care.  4-6 month waiting periods for procedures is insane.

 

When they can fix our system by:

1. preventing the hidden out-of-network BS that hospitals deliberately hit us with (sounds like we were close to getting this),

2. establish full transparency on costs, so that patients can include that factor when choosing doctors and hospitals, 

3. remove state boundaries when it comes to selling insurance and allow increased competition,

4. find a solution for pre-existing conditions, and

5. do it all without single-payer nonsense

 

we here will all be better off (BTW the list above is not exhaustive... I'm sure there are other issues we could agree need addressing).  Our system has issues, for sure.  Trading them for a system that can have insane wait times and make it tougher to find a doctor, and one that does not appear to be sustainable, does not seem like a good idea to me.

 

One thing that makes me laugh is when Canadians slam us for our medical-related bankruptcies.  Yes, it is disgusting when it happens, although fixing #1 and #2 above will go a very long way to dealing with that issue.  First is when they quote whatever the rate of the day is (I don't know/care, but IIRC, I think it was close to 50 or 60% of personal bankruptcies here were caused my medical costs) without being aware that if you total up all the percentages for causes of bankruptcy, you get something like 250%... because there can be multiple reasons tracked for each filing.  Also, the third most likely cause for bankruptcy in Canada... medical problems!  Regardless, the bottom line is: Canadians, with their free medical and larger social safety net, are more likely to go bankrupt than Americans.  Their taxes are higher, and their incomes are far lower.  Maybe those vocal ones should work on fixing their own yards first instead of worrying about ours.

I’ve lived under both systems and if given a choice, I’d go with Canada’s every time. What now?

[Kragar]

16 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

I’ve lived under both systems and if given a choice, I’d go with Canada’s every time. What now?

So have I.  I am free to live under either, and I choose here.  What now?  Vote our conscience and do the best we can, I guess.

 

A single-payer system could well fix some of our problems you are concerned about, but they will bring others.  However, our problems can be fixed without taking on the problems of single-payer.  Why not implement a solution that works well, instead of a solution that (arguably) works a little better but still fails in the grand scheme of things.