Lately there have been numerous articles dedicated to how Obamacare is going to be received by businesses throughout the country. However, little attention has been given to how people will be affected by this small step towards socialized medicine. While eating dinner at a local grilled chicken restaurant in Adana, Turkey this week I struck up a conversation with the owner’s son; a married man in his 30s who had recently moved back from Vancouver, Canada.
The secondary reason he moved back, the first being to help his father run their three restaurants, was due to the freedom of choice in healthcare Turkey offered. Over the course of dinner he proceeded to tell me his story about opening and running a highly successful carpentry business in Vancouver. During this time he obtained dual citizenship, allowing him and his wife to finally start their family with a peace of mind. However, Mother Nature did not oblige as his wife had two miscarriages.
According to him, Canadian medical regulations state the hospital will not conduct in-depth testing to determine the cause of miscarriages until the third one. Under socialized medicine, wealth does not offer you any benefits; he was unable to pay another provided who could run these tests for his wife. His family’s only option if they were to stay in Canada was to try once again; if tragedy struck they would then find out the reason.
Along with requests in Turkey suggesting he return to assist in running the family business, he decided to move back knowing he and his wife could pay to determine the cause of the miscarriages. Shortly, after arriving a few months ago they were able to determine the cause, start an easy remedy and begin their family.
While Obamacare is far from socialized medicine, it is a step towards the inevitable as Americans love to receive anything free. Nevertheless, Americans also fail to realize the actual cost of free. An episode of NPR’s Planet Money provided an excellent example of how breast pumps that are now free under Obamacare, are driving up insurance premiums. Are their changes that need to be made to the American healthcare system? Yes. Is moving towards socialized medicine the correct answer? No. How do we fix the system?
Bloomberg Businessweek researched a small movement occurring throughout America in their article, “Is Concierge Medicine the Future of Health Care?” The authors detailed how patients can pay anywhere from $5,000 to $25,000 a year to have a private doctor caring for them and 400 other patients as compared to the 3,281 under the traditional primary-care physician; better healthcare service means more time with your provider. This system is not strictly for the one percent as private practice doctors are also part businessmen.
They understand to build a successful business model they must cater to everyone. This is why they will still accept walk-in patients on a case by case basis for $25. Is this the perfect model for healthcare? No, but this model deserves far more attention than anything currently being presented by the American government.
Overall, healthcare is a sensitive subject that currently has more to do with politics than actual solutions. Though when an individual decides the healthcare system in a country with far lower living standards is better, we must begin to evaluate these decisions at the core of the problem. Debates will continue to rage the American political system over which party can provide better healthcare services.
Although, it does appear the free market is the best indicator as a man relocated his family from Canada to Turkey for freedom of choice in his healthcare. This is not to that say that Turkey is better in other aspects, as this individual clearly stated he would rather live in Canada but under the circumstances his options were limited. How does WSO view the decisions made by this individual and what alternatives to Obamacare would you like to see?
Anyone who has studied big government run programs like this knows it will end badly. It was a sad day when Congress rammed that bill through and even sadder when Justice Roberts stabbed America in the back with his twisting of the law.
Same here, I was really angry at the time, now I'm just depressed about it.
ok name me one big government healthcare program thats ended badly.
U S S R
Medicaid? Medicare? Both are mathematically bankrupt and both will be actually insolvent sometime in the next decade or 2.
Aiccia: Please study Cuba Russia Canada and the UKs health system. When you are done, factor in us doing this for 300 million people + anyone who crosses the border and enters our hospitals. Then when you are done with that please read up on how well of a job our government does running other federal programs to start with. When you finish that read up on the affect Unions have and research that they're trying to Unionize healthcare since it is technically under the federal government umbrella. Then report back, thanks.
I think the whole discussion about who pays the cost of healthcare should instead be about the exorbitant cost of healthcare itself. If healthcare didn't cost so much, then we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
Everyone talks about WHO is paying the bill rather than WHY the bill is so high to begin with -- anyone read last week's TIME article about the chargemaster?
Here's the deal: we either need a completely free-market - where health care providers compete on cost or a single-payer system. This hybrid Franken-system we have now creates massive price bubbles. I would challenge someone to architect a worse system while staying within the law. I don't think it can be done. This was Obama's plan from the outset, and he even alluded to to it during a speech he made in Michigan. It is a transition step, where it becomes too expensive for employers to cover insurance and forces the employees on to the state exchanges. That's why the spread between the cost of health insurance and the "penalty/tax" companies must pay is so large. All roads lead to single-payer. You can debate it all you want, but good or bad, it's on the books now and will never come off of them.
From asking people who have used both systems:
If you break your arm, Canada is great. Relatively fast service, in and out for under $100, no major difference in quality.
If you have something serious, you want US medicine. Higher quality, faster service, and we go WAY farther (arguably too far) in saving the lives of the nearly dead.
If you have a time insensitive need (diagnostic procedure, quality of life, voluntary, etc.) you want the US. Canada will keep you waiting for weeks or months.
Fuck socialism, that's all.
This article says all that needs to be said about socialized medicine:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/02/canadian_premier_has_h…
Canadian official has heart surgery -- in the U.S.
Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams (AP)What to make of reports that Canadian official Danny Williams opted to have his heart surgery in the U.S. instead of in his homeland?
Williams, premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, apparently needed surgery on a leaky heart valve, a problem discovered when doctors detected a heart murmur. According to news accounts, he chose to have the surgery done in Florida, where he could take advantage of a minimally invasive through-the-armpit procedure that promised to leave no scar on his chest and would allow for a speedier recovery than the traditional sternum-cracking open-heart approach.
Many have viewed his choice as an indictment of Canada's government-run health-care system and a sign that America's health-care system remains superior.
Others say they're puzzled by Williams's choice, noting that the procedure he underwent is available in Canada.
Allowing his words to speak as loudly as his actions, Williams, who is said to be recovering in Miami from his surgery (which according to this story took longer than expected), had explained his decision simply: "This was my heart, my choice and my health."
"I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics," Williams said.
That's not much of an endorsement for Canada's vaunted public health system. I hope that President Obama and Congress, on the eve of their health-care summit, are paying attention. And I hope that we in the U.S. won't end up trashing our excellent, though imperfect, health-care system in our rush to "reform" it.
Obamacare was ridiculous because all it achieved was forcing people to have healthcare and burdening the country with the costs of a system designed to make a profit. It's as important as schools are.
But I believe healthcare is an important enough provision that there should be a tax payer funded system, rather than a for profit system, with a private sector alongside it. It would reduce the costs down of the private system whilst allowing people the choice to have expensive better care. As the best doctors are in the US purely because they can make the most money there.
If doctors and hospitals aren't incentivised to run every test you don't need and don't profit from every procedure and are instead paid a salary and fixed costs it forces them to be more efficient. And it won't drive up higher insurance premiums, which already factor in the exacerbation factor of people bankrupting their way out of medical bills.
To me what's maddening about Obamacare is that it was sold as a plan toward universal healthcare, where after its passing 40 or 50 million uninsured people would now have healthcare. But those numbers are amazingly intellectually dishonest. When you excluded illegal aliens, children and adults who were already eligible for state funded health insurance but didn't know about it, and those who actively chose not to be insured but who could afford it, there was something like 3-5 million Americans who were considered "chronically un-insured", as in those who could not afford health insurance or obtain health insurance because of a pre-existing condition but also did not qualify for state aid.
So Obamacare, one of the worst bills ever passed, pretty much put one of the world's best overall healthcare systems (when talking about survival rates from major diseases and ailments and wait times) onto the path toward destruction in order to cover what amounted to about 1% of the population which was chronically un-insured. Now the CBO says that as many as 20 million people who were currently insured with their employer may lose their health insurance and be forced onto a far more expensive and inferior federal/state insurance plan.
Thanks, Obama. You could have covered 5 million people at affordable rates for about $30 billion/year. Instead, we somehow have a Frankenstine bill that has morphed into a $100+ billion per year bill. Insane. The Democrats are truly insane.
“But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it....” That says it all.
In this thread: Republicans up in arms because Democrats are pushing for socialised medicine.
The fuck is going on here? Where I live, public and private healthcare exist in tandem, and it seems to be working just fine. Is anyone really saying that healthcare has to be one or the other?
Where do you live that it's just fine? In the U.S., Medicaid and Medicare are bankrupt and will be insolvent within 20 years without reform. This isn't Sweden or Norway where there is a small, homogenized population of middle class people. The U.S. is a gigantic, continental, heterogeneous federalist republic with mass legal and illegal immigration and with increible socioeconomic diversity. Our federal government has proven to be incapable of doing almost anything competently and at estimated cost. Why would we the people want government involved in health care at all?
Well, I guess that right there's the difference, then...
Carry on.
The US healthcare system is terribly inefficient and bloated. I don't think anyone in the world is really envious of their healthcare system.
The Canadian system attains equal (if not longer) lifespans for much less cost. I'd take what he said about two miscarriages with a grain of salt - (as an actual Canadian here) I've never heard of nor encountered a situation whereby the hospital didn't do something the doctor thought was prudent due to "guidelines".
Life expectancy isn't a good measure of a healthcare system as there are all types of factors associated with life expectancy. Canada is far more homogenized racially, ethnically and culturally than the United States. Canada has far less immigration of poor people. Canada has far less violent crime and a lower murder rate (because the U.S. has 1 million gang members who commit 80% of all crime--inner city blacks and Latino immigrants and their children are 82% of all gang membership in the U.S-- http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Demographics ) and a substantially lower vehicluar death rate. Canada also has a substantially lower poverty rate. One could say Canada, overall, is a better country at this point based on many of these objective factors, but it's not really comparing apples to apples since the U.S. is a gigantic, pluralistic society of consistent immigration of the poor (in fact, immigration is the main driver to the U.S. population growth).
The best measure of a healthcare system's effectiveness is survival rates from deadly illnesses, of which the United States is among the world leaders. That's the only way to compare healthcare systems apples to apples.
Here's an interesting piece:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-…
The United States is #1 for the 5-year survival rate of cancer and when you adjust life expectancy for fatal injury (such as car crashes, suicide and homicide), the U.S. has the #1 life expectancy in the world. And life expectancy is measured based on birth, so infant mortality rate is a substantial impacter on life expectancy statistics; however, the U.S. typically is more conservative in how it defines infant mortality. If it measured infant mortality the same as other countries, the U.S. would have much lower infant mortality rate and thus longer life expectancy than what is reported.* For example, in the U.S. a still birth is considered infant mortality--this is not so in other nations.
* http://www.aei.org/outlook/health/global-health/us-health-care-a-realit…
Point is, if you become seriously ill you want to be a middle class American with private health insurance.
Thanks for the response, good to know the facts! I would not debate the American health care system in terms of quality, but obviously within the financial aspect of our health care we need to find a solution. A one payer system is not the answer.
I get the heart string argument when it comes to healthcare, but unless we do something to fix the cost of it we will go bankrupt. Rationing is a natural response and absolutely will happen. When you have something for free you HAVE to regulate how much someone can take/use.
Doesn't Canada have private hospitals as well as government ones? I live in a country with "socialized medicine" and rich people can get whatever treatment they want in a private hospital if they have enough money.
NO! It is illegal to have a private practice, and it is illegal to pay for health care in cash in lieu of using the public health system. That way everyone is equally fucked.
Edit: It seems some provinces are more lenient on this than others.
The problem with healthcare is that the people that consume healthcare are not the same people that pay for healthcare. There's a fundamental misalignment of incentives for every actor in the system; patients, doctors, seniors, benefit providers, the unemployed, pharmaceutical companies, medical technologists, and government (both bureaucracy and legislative). It's so endemic that all of the bolt-on legislation and short (or long) fixes aren't going to solve the problem of rising costs; in fact, those "solutions" might exacerbate the problem.
Everyone needs skin in the game.
Truth. Easier said than done. Everyone wants someone else to pay.
Other than Ben Carson's idea for every citizen to be given an HSA, which at least gives consumers more skin in the game, I don't have any insight on how to get every other player in the health care system to bear responsibility for their gains and losses. Tragically, it's probable that even if we came up with a solution, those other players would not want any part of it.
Just an idea...health savings accounts for everyday/routine treatments and health insurance. As in actual health insurance like we had in the 1970's, to cover expensive emergencies only. Not this managed care "health insurance" we have now. That way people have skin in the game and can dictate how much of their discretionary income they want to spend on health care and at what level of quality. Prices come wayyyyyy down to earth, as health care providers have to compete, and everyone gets exactly the amount/type of health care they desire.
That's--that's just breathtaking...
Meh, nice picture, but the regulatory implementation is always longer than the actual bill. Obamacare was actually relatively specific compared to most modern reform legislation (ADA, Dodd-Frank, etc.) and I hat the bill.
OP's story is a good argument that medical tourism provides some choice even in completely socialized systems.
The US healthcare system's basic problem is that there are tons of cross-subsidies in the system, with the cost mostly borne by private insurers and passed through companies and individuals that buy insurance. These introduce all sorts of agency problems. Most single-payer systems are designed with similar cross-subsidies but rely heavily on regulation to overcome the agency issues, substantially reducing flexibility at the individual doctor-patient level. Whether they are more efficient depends on whether the agency problems were causing larger dead-weight losses than the bureaucracy would. Universal coverage is a completely different question and reduces to a minimum wage discussion once you think up a non-employer based group-buying mechanism to overcome adverse selection problems (masonic lodges and the like).
ObamaCare is horrible. It is a DIRECT violation of the Commerce Clause, stating that the Government CANNOT force its consumers to purchase a product or service. But this is exactly what they are doing. They are saying "Oh, you don't want to pay for healthcare? Ok, you don't HAVE to. But if you don't, then we are going to tax the hell out of you." Not fair to the people who work hard in this country. But then again, none of Obama's policies are fair to hard-working Americans. Obama is a radicalist sub-par politician who got elected out of the sheer ignorance of the American people.
Minima quos vitae iure dolores. Quae voluptatem quaerat accusamus occaecati. Voluptatum deserunt adipisci necessitatibus laborum similique et aut. Quidem eveniet dolores ad et distinctio ad est.
Dolorem hic amet est qui sint. Consequatur molestiae neque quo. Aut quaerat voluptas est sapiente. Ut commodi libero ea reprehenderit aut enim. Consequuntur quo vel quia similique neque velit.
Possimus adipisci aut fugiat eaque sunt consectetur. Voluptates vel consequatur animi consectetur. Aliquid laudantium placeat dolore minima. Aut voluptatem minus delectus voluptas et aspernatur. Ut laboriosam consequatur assumenda harum laboriosam. Enim enim a ut iure expedita quae.
Dolor rerum quo qui libero. Ut corrupti blanditiis et. Id eos ea earum fugit sunt est ut.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Aut facilis dolorum officiis iure voluptatem velit. Expedita ad commodi qui pariatur optio consequatur. Ab nulla dignissimos nihil. Et itaque ab autem est et voluptatum.