NHL players vote 3 worst road cities

[SabreFan1]

1 minute ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Public hospitals in the US, health care in general does not have anywhere near the same reach & funding as Canadian. Universal health care has been an in demand topic people like Obama tried to provide.

You're over-generalizing.  Some areas have world-class well funded public hospitals while other states and areas, you hope not to die of tetanus when you get a paper cut.

 

Get very sick in Boston or certain parts of NYC, you'll have great care.  Get very sick in some of the poorer southern US states, you're screwed.

 

The biggest problems in the US healthcare system is the cost (you can go bankrupt if you get in a car accident and you're under-insured) and the inconsistent level of care between some states.  If you live in a state in which you continually vote lousy politicians into office, you are pretty much making your own potential death-bed.

[Canuck Surfer]

4 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

 

What about the refusal to treat some advanced cancer patients?  It takes resources, but some advanced cancers aren't the same death sentence that they once were.  I can understand not wanting to blow hundreds of thousands of dollars on a stage 4 pancreatic cancer patient with a 3% chance to live, but as with @canucklehead44 example, something like bone marrow cancer is very treatable.

Things are an economy of scale as well.  

 

I also don't portend to be a doctor. My wife is. Stage 4 is a cancer that has spread significantly. Where and in what form it has spread is vastly more important. also what damage has been done to what organs, body systems to survival rates. Than simply being marrow cancer. Or a different type.

 

Cost of treatment is always a factor. And if Buffalo has a factory that can offer the service to whomever can pay? Fantastic. Are they taking in the black kid from the projects?  Or the guy with health insurance. Or cash as a wall street financier?

 

I can tell you, their business model is not built on that black kid from the projects.

 

Someone else mentioned, US bankruptcies from health costs patients could not pay?  

[SabreFan1]

2 minutes ago, D-Money said:

I obviously have no knowledge of the circumstances of @canucklehead44's sister. But if I had to guess, it may have involved a newer drug or form of treatment, that  had not been approved for Canada's system, and/or there was not a Canadian doctor available who could perform it.

 

A weakness in the system is, since the opportunities to make money are greater in the US, many of the top, cutting-edge doctors are there - and it's hard to blame them.

 

I have an aunt who had major back problems, and decades ago tried everything in the Canadian medical system to get relief. She ended up spending tens of thousands of dollars to see a US specialist in Florida, who had new techniques and treatment not available in Canada - and she ended up getting quite a bit of relief. To her, it was money well spent. But if she was in the US, unless she had a private health care plan that covered this new treatment, she would have been out that money anyway. So I don't see how it's that much of a detriment to Canadians, who at least have the opportunity to receive decent care without losing their shirt.

 

So in other words if you're poor or middle class and chronically sick, the Canadian healthcare system can pretty much suck for you.  If you're poor or middle class and only occasionally sick, you'll love the system.

 

In the US it's all about insurance and especially where you live as to how your care will end up turning out.

[Canuck Surfer]

5 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

You're over-generalizing.  Some areas have world-class well funded public hospitals while other states and areas, you hope not to die of tetanus when you get a paper cut.

 

Get very sick in Boston or certain parts of NYC, you'll have great care.  Get very sick in some of the poorer southern US states, you're screwed.

 

The biggest problems in the US healthcare system is the cost (you can go bankrupt if you get in a car accident and you're under-insured) and the inconsistent level of care between some states.  If you live in a state in which you continually vote lousy politicians into office, you are pretty much making your own potential death-bed.

https://www.google.ca/search?source=hp&ei=7UHDXZfuBpaSvQSuirz4AQ&q=Public+health+care+USa&oq=Public+health+care+USa&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30l2.2062.12774..17727...0.0..0.335.4420.0j15j6j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0i131j0i22i10i30.QL_P0WG7sf8&ved=0ahUKEwjXmNGlytblAhUWSY8KHS4FDx8Q4dUDCAc&uact=5

 

Health care facilities are largely owned and operated by private sector businesses. ... The United States does not have a universal healthcare program, unlike other advanced industrialized countries.

 

The U.S. health care system is unique among advanced industrialized countries. The U.S. does not have a uniform health system, has no universal health care coverage, and only recently enacted legislation mandating healthcare coverage for almost everyone.

 

 

Its not me generalizing.  Its Washington?

[SabreFan1]

3 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Things are an economy of scale as well.  

 

I also don't portend to be a doctor. My wife is. Stage 4 is a cancer that has spread significantly. Where and in what form it has spread is vastly more important. also what damage has been done to what organs, body systems to survival rates. Than simply being marrow cancer. Or a different type.

For sure.  That's why I mentioned pancreatic cancer.  You can't go through hundreds of thousands in resources to extend a person's life another 6 months because that will take away from people with less insidious diagnosis who have a much better chance at being cured.

 

Quote

 

Cost of treatment is always a factor. And if Buffalo has a factory that can offer the service to whomever can pay? Fantastic. Are they taking in the black kid from the projects?  Or the guy with health insurance. Or cash as a wall street financier?

 

I can tell you, their business model is not built on that black kid from the projects.

 

Someone else mentioned, US bankruptcies from health costs patients could not pay?  

 

Roswell Cancer Center in Buffalo has a system in place that will eat the cost of treatment of poor patients.  They are always fund raising so they can keep it that way.

 

That's why where you live has such an impact on your overall care.

 

As for bankruptcy, that is definitely a downside for some people.  However in the US Bankruptcy isn't the financial death penalty it once was years ago and it only stays on your record for 7 years.

[SabreFan1]

19 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

https://www.google.ca/search?source=hp&ei=7UHDXZfuBpaSvQSuirz4AQ&q=Public+health+care+USa&oq=Public+health+care+USa&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30l2.2062.12774..17727...0.0..0.335.4420.0j15j6j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0i131j0i22i10i30.QL_P0WG7sf8&ved=0ahUKEwjXmNGlytblAhUWSY8KHS4FDx8Q4dUDCAc&uact=5

 

Health care facilities are largely owned and operated by private sector businesses. ... The United States does not have a universal healthcare program, unlike other advanced industrialized countries.

 

The U.S. health care system is unique among advanced industrialized countries. The U.S. does not have a uniform health system, has no universal health care coverage, and only recently enacted legislation mandating healthcare coverage for almost everyone.

 

 

Its not me generalizing.  Its Washington?

 

Politicians and policy wonks in Washington over-generalizing to fit their own narratives?!  Never!!!!!!!

 

I'm not saying the US system is the best system.  It's not and I can find plenty of studies that prove it.  I'm just saying it's highly dependent on the state and region in which you live.

 

If you live in Buffalo or in the immediate surrounding suburbs, your healthcare is pretty good.  Drive 45 minutes to Gowanda NY where their only hospital was flooded and closed 10 years ago and replaced by a lousy-run clinic, and you better hope you don't need emergency care.  Drive another 45 minutes and you'll reach Rochester who has decent care for it's region.  So on and so forth until you reach NYC.

 

Think of the US like it's 50 different countries side by side.  Some do very well for themselves and their citizens while others are terrible.  That's pretty much our healthcare system in a nutshell.  Some states are much better than others.  New York is a big state so if you get sick, you'll want to live near a populated city because if you don't your care will likely be sub-par.  Then look at Massachusetts.  Small state with good healthcare throughout the majority of it.  Funny enough, thanks to Mitt Romney.

Edited November 6, 2019 by SabreFan1

[D-Money]

1 minute ago, SabreFan1 said:

So in other words if you're poor or middle class and chronically sick, the Canadian healthcare system can pretty much suck for you.  If you're poor or middle class and only occasionally sick, you'll love the system.

 

In the US it's all about insurance and especially where you live as to how your care will end up turning out.

Exactly. Lots of people who think they're covered suddenly lose their job, and with it their insurance, and are suddenly burdened with nearly $1,000/mo to care for their family. Many can't afford it to begin with. So many fall through the cracks.

 

My first child had some health problems a couple of days after being born. She ended up in Children's Hospital for 5 days, in a private room with a daybed that my wife could sleep in to be with her. We had excellent care, and my daughter came home healthy. I think the bill was $150? I cringe to think of young families with limited funds in the US, who go through a similar experience, and end up in a financial hole from it.

[SabreFan1]

1 minute ago, D-Money said:

Exactly. Lots of people who think they're covered suddenly lose their job, and with it their insurance, and are suddenly burdened with nearly $1,000/mo to care for their family. Many can't afford it to begin with. So many fall through the cracks.

 

My first child had some health problems a couple of days after being born. She ended up in Children's Hospital for 5 days, in a private room with a daybed that my wife could sleep in to be with her. We had excellent care, and my daughter came home healthy. I think the bill was $150? I cringe to think of young families with limited funds in the US, who go through a similar experience, and end up in a financial hole from it.

If there was initial emergency care involved, the bill would have been high 5 figures if not very low 6 figures.  In other words, most families would have to go through bankruptcy proceedings in order to save their house and vehicles.

 

The kicker?  Insurance companies would only pay a percentage of what uninsured patients are billed.

[Alflives]

49 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Things are an economy of scale as well.  

 

I also don't portend to be a doctor. My wife is. Stage 4 is a cancer that has spread significantly. Where and in what form it has spread is vastly more important. also what damage has been done to what organs, body systems to survival rates. Than simply being marrow cancer. Or a different type.

 

Cost of treatment is always a factor. And if Buffalo has a factory that can offer the service to whomever can pay? Fantastic. Are they taking in the black kid from the projects?  Or the guy with health insurance. Or cash as a wall street financier?

 

I can tell you, their business model is not built on that black kid from the projects.

 

Someone else mentioned, US bankruptcies from health costs patients could not pay?  

so what about the Canadians who are actually working super hard, and paying gross tax dollars so those who choose not to work can have free medical care?  That sure sounds like socialism, which is proven to be a failed ideology.  Let's have a two level system.  Have a public system for those who choose to pay into the system for all to share, even those who pay nothing.  And a system for those who prefer private care.  Of course those who choose private care don't pay a penny into the public care system.  I would say the vast majority of hard working Canadians would pay into the private care system.  The government leaves hard working Canadians no choice but to pay into the public system, and pay again to go to the states to get proper care.  It's a failed system, with a terribly bloated bureaucracy that bleeds off much needed frontline dollars..  

[D-Money]

13 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

If there was initial emergency care involved, the bill would have been high 5 figures if not very low 6 figures.  In other words, most families would have to go through bankruptcy proceedings in order to save their house and vehicles.

 

The kicker?  Insurance companies would only pay a percentage of what uninsured patients are billed.

Yup. It's a ridiculously unfair system in the US. I don't think profit should be the prime motivation when dealing with people's lives.

 

Maybe in a few examples some Canadians will end up with the short end of the stick, but in general our Medicare works to the great benefit of the majority of us.

 

 

[BrockBoester]

I think they misspelled "Toronto"

[D-Money]

3 minutes ago, Alflives said:

so what about the Canadians who are actually working super hard, and paying gross tax dollars so those who choose not to work can have free medical care?  That sure sounds like socialism, which is proven to be a failed ideology.  Let's have a two level system.  Have a public system for those who choose to pay into the system for all to share, even those who pay nothing.  And a system for those who prefer private care.  Of course those who choose private care don't pay a penny into the public care system.  I would say the vast majority of hard working Canadians would pay into the private care system.  The government leaves hard working Canadians no choice but to pay into the public system, and pay again to go to the states to get proper care.  It's a failed system, with a terribly bloated bureaucracy that bleeds off much needed frontline dollars..  

There are few things I find more annoying than this narrative... That the ones who work super hard are the ones with the money to pay, and those that can't afford it are obviously just bums who aren't worth a hospital bed. It's such a self-important and simplistic view.

 

There are a lot of good people out there who work their butts off, but are also barely getting by. And there are a lot of people with money who are lazy a-holes who are coasting on luck and fortunate opportunity. The people in the latter group also have more time to post on message boards.

[SabreFan1]

1 minute ago, D-Money said:

Yup. It's a ridiculously unfair system in the US. I don't think profit should be the prime motivation when dealing with people's lives.

 

There's nothing wrong with making a profit.  The problem comes when the rules are so skewed in favour of the companies wanting that profit that it hurts the healthcare system overall.  People think hospitals are huge profit centers.  The vast majority aren't.  It's the insurance, drug makers, and medical device companies that make a killing.

 

Quote

Maybe in a few examples some Canadians will end up with the short end of the stick, but in general our Medicare works to the great benefit of the majority of us.

So far it just seems to me that Canada's system is more set to maintain the mostly healthy rather than to help the sick.

 

Quote

Drug chart showing the prices.

Part of the reason why other countries get medicines so cheaply is because US citizens get screwed over so badly. 

 

If the US were to implement strict cost controls, innovation into new medicines and treatments for the world would fall and prices would either have to rise as a result in the rest of the world or the drug companies would stop selling to countries when it fails to turn a big enough profit.

[Huggy!]

8 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

Sad, but true. Great passionate fans in Winnipeg, but the city is suffering. 

It's not just the cold. Most cities are really cold most of the hockey season. Aka Colorado, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal, Boston ect... It's honestly the city looks straight 1990s and not a whole lot of investment and cool things happening like we have. Visiting is tough but living there is tougher. When was the last time a big concert/event was in winnipeg. UFC/concerts/wwe/ whatever seems to skip Winnipeg. Not a big foodie scene happening and not much nature to explore.  

[Canuck Surfer]

13 minutes ago, Alflives said:

so what about the Canadians who are actually working super hard, and paying gross tax dollars so those who choose not to work can have free medical care?  That sure sounds like socialism, which is proven to be a failed ideology.  Let's have a two level system.  Have a public system for those who choose to pay into the system for all to share, even those who pay nothing.  And a system for those who prefer private care.  Of course those who choose private care don't pay a penny into the public care system.  I would say the vast majority of hard working Canadians would pay into the private care system.  The government leaves hard working Canadians no choice but to pay into the public system, and pay again to go to the states to get proper care.  It's a failed system, with a terribly bloated bureaucracy that bleeds off much needed frontline dollars..  

I'm not against people spending private money to access better health care.  No problem.

 

But I don't support, in principal, subsidizing a private hospital. Which diverts money from the public system.  If you can make a business case study that you can create a hospital wholly funded by private money? Go for your life! Literally! Funding those hospitals extra money would allow the rich to double dip. I'm against that. They can already access what we have public ally.

 

I am not against funding potentially for research? Much like University hospitals. Assuming the results are also fully available to the public system, and its constituents. Not for them to exclusively sell newly discovered treatments for a premium.

 

The thing about private and specialty hospitals as @SabreFan1 mentioned? New York state has over 1/2 Canada's population.  19.5 million people. Such hospitals have a shot in Toronto? No hope in Regina. The spread of our population makes such institutions unviable. That Buffalo hospital is also within a 3 & 1/2 hour drive of fully another 1/3rd of Canada's population. Southern Ontario has nearly 13 million people.

 

Aren't you in Northern BC Alf? Those don't exist for entirely economic reasons. Which is why we have, problems inclusive, a public system.

[DawnDucky]

5 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Is that for real? There were at least three southern cooking restaurants in the city when the Grizzlies were here. I'll never understand people who seem incapable of adapting when they move to a different place. The NBA players are seemingly an especially whiny bunch it seems.

Who said that? What kind of a lazy sack of crap can't get off their duff and go to a grocery store? And why the one cereal that's almost guaranteed to slice the roof of your mouth to ribbons?

Rekindling childhood horrors of sitting in the pale glow of an old dial television; Sunday morning cartoons. You and the Cap'n can make a lawsuit happen. 

Edited November 7, 2019 by DawnDucky

[SabreFan1]

6 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

I am not against funding potentially for research? Much like University hospitals. Assuming the results are also fully available to the public system, and its constituents. Not for them to exclusively sell newly discovered treatments for a premium.

Funny you mention that.  I'm wondering how Canada's system and others like it are going to handle the newly emerging personally customized gene therapies that can cure conditions that were once thought to be incurable.

 

Right now they easily cost 7 figures a pop.  It's not like with drugs where you can force companies to sell to you cheaper since they are making a single one-size-fits-all product.  Gene therapies right now are customized to individuals.

[JM_]

48 minutes ago, Alflives said:

The government leaves hard working Canadians no choice but to pay into the public system, and pay again to go to the states to get proper care.  It's a failed system, with a terribly bloated bureaucracy that bleeds off much needed frontline dollars..  

^ this is just so incorrect Alf. Sure some people choose to go to the US. Some provinces even choose it occasionally depending on the case (SK e.g., often sends people to the Mayo Clinic). But to say we have a 'failed system' is ignoring our actual health outcomes as a country. 

 

Of course you can find one-off stories. But on the whole we have one of the best systems in the world. You'll notice I didn't say perfect. 

 

I'll agree on the bloated bureaucracy part, there's too many health authorities. 

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

Funny you mention that.  I'm wondering how Canada's system and others like it are going to handle the newly emerging personally customized gene therapies that can cure conditions that were once thought to be incurable.

 

Right now they easily cost 7 figures a pop.  It's not like with drugs where you can force companies to sell to you cheaper since they are making a single one-size-fits-all product.  Gene therapies right now are customized to individuals.

we're working on it: http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/about/news-stories/stories/personalized-onco-genomics-(pog)-q-a

 

[SabreFan1]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

we're working on it: http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/about/news-stories/stories/personalized-onco-genomics-(pog)-q-a

Ah, cool.  Thanks for the link.  I wonder what's going to happen when they or another program like it runs afoul of a US company's patent on a specific treatment.  Who will Ottawa side with?  Will they fight the US gov't and "pirate" the patent for the good of it's citizenry or will Ottawa bow to Washington's pressure?