Waiting time for a Doc, most important issue in Canada

[Balta1701]

I think the odds of this are low. More and more people have medical problems that are treated earlier and earlier. It would take a lot of people to have this affect on the system. I dunno that there are that many problem-free americans that could afford to stop participating. Especially now that 1 in every 3 or 4 kids is obese.

But you see, then that does exactly the same thing. In the insurance pool, something like 10% of the sick account for 90% of the medical expenditures (could be off by a factor of 10% or so, but it's really close to that). If the number of really, really expensive people goes up due to obesity, then either rates have to go up for everyone, or the insurance pool has to get bigger. But if rates go up, fewer businesses will provide health care, fewer individuals will be able to buy insurance, the uninsured pool will keep getting bigger, and that will keep driving up the costs of health insurance...which is exactly what we've been seeing the last few years as the amount of uninsured has surged simultaneous with the surge in health insurance costs.

[Jenksismyhero]

But you see, then that does exactly the same thing. In the insurance pool, something like 10% of the sick account for 90% of the medical expenditures (could be off by a factor of 10% or so, but it's really close to that). If the number of really, really expensive people goes up due to obesity, then either rates have to go up for everyone, or the insurance pool has to get bigger. But if rates go up, fewer businesses will provide health care, fewer individuals will be able to buy insurance, the uninsured pool will keep getting bigger, and that will keep driving up the costs of health insurance...which is exactly what we've been seeing the last few years as the amount of uninsured has surged simultaneous with the surge in health insurance costs.

 

Yeah. That's a good point. I dunno, I guess we'll see what happens. Hopefully it can get fixed.

 

Is it a poor choice, or a noble one? I'd say there is a pretty substantial list of life-enhancing things you benefit from everyday that were created or bettered by low-paid scientists.

 

I am not saying universal government health care is a good idea... but I think your characterization of this choice as a bad one is very short-sighted.

 

If I really enjoyed being a father and decided to adopt 10 kids, even though I couldn't afford them, it would be considered a bad choice yes? Admirable, sure. Poor choice, absolutely.

 

If something like wages or benefits is important to you and you decide on a career that doesn't give either of those, then you've made a poor choice based on your wants/needs/expectations. That's all I was saying.

[FlaSoxxJim]

How is that arrogant? I'm not saying being an academic is a bad thing. I'm saying that if you require certain benefits and you choose a career that doesn't offer those benefits then you've made a poor choice for yourself. What's wrong with that?

 

What's wrong with that is it is divorced with a lot of reality that is out of control of the employees – particularly for government-funded work.

 

As one of several first-hand examples I can give you, take my wife and the half-dozen people in a Florida Water Management Distrct estuarine research lab where she used to work. My wife has a doctorate in biological oceanography, and otherss in the group had Master's or doctorates as well. Initially they were full district employees with full benefits including health. Then the district gets slashed top doen by Jeb Bush small government crusaders and they cut all but two of six positions in the lab. On paper. so it looks like part of a lean and mean government agency. In truth, they just shuffled everybody else into OPS (Other Personnel Service) positions and they continued to do the same work. Except that OPS positions are at-will temporary positions and do not come with benefits, retirement, or paid holidays. But, Florida can wave their sheet of paper saying look how streamlined we are and look how many full time exempt positions we've managed to trim.

 

But my wife was the one that made the wrong descision, huh?

 

I'm going through something painfully similar now. I got the ol' Ph.D. thang and I'm doing fine in academia at a private research institution (including health benefits), until federal funding for broad ocean science takes a big hit for a few cycles and the institution decides it needs a reorganization (currently happening). My gig is being reorganized out of existence at the end of the year. I may slide into something else at the institution, but as a fall-back I've started moonlighting at what should be a dream gig for me – working on an exotic species inventory project for the Smithsonian. Friggin' Smithsonian, a place I dreamed about working for since I was a kid.

 

The kicker, however, is that due to federal funding cuts, the once-salaried position is now a contract position with no benefits.

 

And all that is bad planning and wrong decisions on my part??

 

Arrogant and divorced from reality.

[EvilMonkey]

.

 

The kicker, however, is that due to federal funding cuts, the once-salaried position is now a contract position with no benefits.

That is where the choice comes in. How important is health insurance to you at that point. Can you afford it? If the answer is no, is there something (or somethings) that you are buying that you don't need to? I don't mean food and clothes for you and the missus, but are you driving a new car? Buy a new sofa and a plasma tv? Season tickets to the Sox? If you have cut out luxuries, and still can't afford it, that sucks, and that is where there should be some help. I hear stories all the time from my mom who works at a grade school like what Jenks told. Moms coming in to apply for free lunch or waiver of book fees while driving a newer Lexus, $100 nail jobs and bling galore. I am fortunate to have insurance (not great, but it will do). However, I wanted to move out of a s***hole town, so i don't have season tickets anymore, drive a used car, andstopped spending money on a hobby I enjoyed to afford to move. I wish you well in yourdream job. It helps when you enjoy what you do. Congrats, I think.

[kapkomet]

That is where the choice comes in. How important is health insurance to you at that point. Can you afford it? If the answer is no, is there something (or somethings) that you are buying that you don't need to? I don't mean food and clothes for you and the missus, but are you driving a new car? Buy a new sofa and a plasma tv? Season tickets to the Sox? If you have cut out luxuries, and still can't afford it, that sucks, and that is where there should be some help. I hear stories all the time from my mom who works at a grade school like what Jenks told. Moms coming in to apply for free lunch or waiver of book fees while driving a newer Lexus, $100 nail jobs and bling galore. I am fortunate to have insurance (not great, but it will do). However, I wanted to move out of a s***hole town, so i don't have season tickets anymore, drive a used car, andstopped spending money on a hobby I enjoyed to afford to move. I wish you well in yourdream job. It helps when you enjoy what you do. Congrats, I think.

I know you don't know Flaxx personally, but if I had to guess, he's probably not living the luxorious life you're trying to create an example of here, so I'm not sure I buy your argument, EM.

 

There are some people who get screwed. I agree with that much, but where I do disagree is that the government should handle it.

 

But is it a social responsibility for companies to foot the bill?

[sox4lifeinPA]

But you see, here's the remarkable thing about how poorly our health care system is constructed...it is exactly that statement which will be the death of the current American health care system.

 

Right now, I'm pretty damn healthy. I exercise regularly, eat pretty well, don't get sick much. Have some bad knees, but that's about it. Probably similar to you. But the key about the health care system is...if people like you and I aren't paying into the large pool of insurance, if we judge that it's so expensive that it makes more sense for us to just take ourselves out of the pool for a while until our risk goes up...then it winds up leaving fewer healthy people for the insurance pool.

 

And of course, when healthy people start to leave the insurance pool, that drives up the cost for the people who remain in the insurance pool. And when the cost goes up, it is more incentive to drive more people from the insurance pool, which literally creates a cycle that doesn't end until the system is reformed.

 

no, I totally understand the way things work. My problem is that people are taking less and less preventive care of themselves, which costs millions of dollars, and depending on treating problems as they arise, which costs billions of dollars.

 

My problem with that is, as you are saying, I go to the doctor's once every few years and try to take care of myself and I pay the same as someone who doesn't and drains the system of thousands of dollars over their lifetime.

 

That is a huge problem, no pun intended.

[YASNY]

To my eyes, there's a lot more depth to that problem than just saying that the government f***s everything up big time. Specifically, I would say that from the point of view of just a relatively average citizen, every time lobbyists get their hands on something, they f*** it up big time for everyone except the company they're lobbying for.

 

I love this. It's not the government f***ing things up, it's the lobbyists. Who do think the lobbyists are lobbying?

[FlaSoxxJim]

I know you don't know Flaxx personally, but if I had to guess, he's probably not living the luxorious life you're trying to create an example of here, so I'm not sure I buy your argument, EM.

 

There are some people who get screwed. I agree with that much, but where I do disagree is that the government should handle it.

 

But is it a social responsibility for companies to foot the bill?

 

I didn't take any personal offense at Evil's speculations, I get his point. But you are right, we live quite the austere life. Well, I must confess we did buy a new sofa – 13 years ago.

It's kind of starting to stink a bit now but you get used to it. Never in our lives have we ownd new vehicles and we bought our first TV that wasn't a castoff from friends this year. No HD or flatpanel, but it doesn't have a hanger for an antenna either so that is something.

 

The point I was trying to make is that we are not talking about shiftless layabouts falling through the cracks. We are talking about the playing field changing at the state and federal levels and making thousands of salaried exempt positions at places like Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission where OPS "state temps" now do most of the work.

 

My wife has since gone into teaching bacause of all of this, and one way or another we will maintain health coverage, but not everyone is so fortunate. The kickerfor the state OPS folks is that their legitimate complaints about being used to work full-time jobs (40+ hours, supervisiory duties, etc. – much the samething UPS got sued over a few years back if you recall) may be about to backfire. Rather than the state admitting they have been abusing the system and figuring out how to extend benefits to loyal employees who deserve them, there is now legislation pending that will limit the weekly work allowance of OPS workers to 25 hours. So as bad as it was with no benefits, now folks are going to have to figure out how to cobble together other gigs to survive.

 

Opting for a conservation science career has only become a "bed choice" because the value of these hardworking, intelligent people has been marginalized at levels well above their sphere of influence.

 

On the broader national healthcare issues, I agree with those who say that you don't point to flaws in existing socialized programs and say that is reason enough to not earnestly explore nationalization possibilities here. Having some of the world's best doctors doesn't mean much to the 50 million Americans with no coverage.

Edited December 3, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[EvilMonkey]

I know you don't know Flaxx personally, but if I had to guess, he's probably not living the luxorious life you're trying to create an example of here, so I'm not sure I buy your argument, EM.

 

There are some people who get screwed. I agree with that much, but where I do disagree is that the government should handle it.

 

But is it a social responsibility for companies to foot the bill?

I wasn't trying to make any assumptions about Flaxx,just asking questions. Since he let us in on his situation, he falls into the catagory of people that could use some help.

[Soxy]

The vast majority do. And does your employer force you to work daily? Is there a reason you can't get a different job that offers you those benefits?

 

I'm not opposed to unions. They were needed 50-75 years ago and grew way too powerful 25 years ago. I think they do some good and some bad, but it evens out in the end I'm sure. I have no problem with people coming together and demanding something they feel they're entitled to receive. Why don't you and your co-workers do that?

 

My main problem is I have little sympathy for the hardships of life. You choose your path, you choose what you make of your life. If you decide to spend hundreds of thousands to get an advanced degree in a field notorious for low wages and poor benefits, well, you made a poor choice. Or, like me, you're taking a big risk. Thats what you do in life. Also, like another poster mentioned, more often than not the peope complaining about not getting enough from the government are the same people who buy/own ridiculous things. I used to work at a grocery store and would get the women with Link/Wic and food stamps (all welfare for food programs). They'd buy everything they could on whatever program they were on and then have a second cart full of premo items and drop 250-300 bucks on crap. Where did they get money to do that?.

I understand your point, but when I look at my friends that don't have health insurance ALL are currently employed and most have college degrees. Unfortunately, since most of us are just starting out our professional careers we don't rank high enough on the totem pole to get good benefits. It's lucky that most of us are healthy due to our age, but it's still scary to know that we're only one medical emergency away from bankruptcy. I don't know if it's true but I heard (I think on NPR) that the amount of bankruptcies that occur as a result health probelems is on the rise.

 

And yes, I did make a very conscious decision to go into academia. I made a decision to mortgage my present (live off of 15,000 pre-tax a year) for a (hopefully) better future. Isn't that exactly what the American dream is? Working hard to live a good solid life that offers contributions to society? When I get pissed off about the piss poor state of health care in this country, it's not on account of the layabouts who just want a handout (which I think is the MINORITY of the uninsured), but for the people that are working hard, doing their best and just scraping by. It's bulls*** that people like me, or Balta or QP's dad work hard day in and day out and have no real safety net in case we get sick (which, unfortunately isn't a path that was chosen).

 

And in reference to your question, i do belong to a union, although it has little bargaining power with the state. But I am grateful for it's minor coverage that costs me about $10 a month.

[YASNY]

Soxy, you are right in saying that the health care system in the country sucks. But, it will suck a lot worse when the government gets its hands on it.

[Balta1701]

Soxy, you are right in saying that the health care system in the country sucks. But, it will suck a lot worse when the government gets its hands on it.

That depends on who constructs the program, who runs it, whether or not there's realistic lobbying reform beforehand, and a few other things. If the same people who designed the Medicare Insurance Company bailout bill of a few years ago design the next fix, then we'll just wind up with one $500 billion Insurance company bailout after another.

[Damen]

Soxy, you are right in saying that the health care system in the country sucks. But, it will suck a lot worse when the government gets its hands on it.

 

I don't know if you've got any empirical evidence to back you up on that. Most studies seem to show that, despite spending more than twice as much per capita than any other country in the world, the US is in the middle of the pack in terms of quality of health care for most health issues.

 

That would mean that governments who've gotten their hands on it (more), not only provide health care to all of its citizens, they've done so at a vastly more efficient rate, while still maintianing or beating the quality we have here.

[YASNY]

I don't know if you've got any empirical evidence to back you up on that. Most studies seem to show that, despite spending more than twice as much per capita than any other country in the world, the US is in the middle of the pack in terms of quality of health care for most health issues.

 

That would mean that governments who've gotten their hands on it (more), not only provide health care to all of its citizens, they've done so at a vastly more efficient rate, while still maintianing or beating the quality we have here.

 

How can I have 'evidence' on something that has yet to occur? I expressed an opinion.

[Balta1701]

How can I have 'evidence' on something that has yet to occur? I expressed an opinion.

Interestingly, if you count the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, it turns out the government is already paying in some way, shape, or form, for 61% of the health care costs in this country. And another 5% is covered through government mandated hospital care for the uninsured.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Balta1701

[YASNY]

Interestingly, if you count the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, it turns out the government is already paying in some way, shape, or form, for 61% of the health care costs in this country. And another 5% is covered through government mandated hospital care for the uninsured.

 

That's fine. The industry is still in the private sector with a hefty government contribution. Basically, in a vast majority of cases, I'm a 'the less government the better' person.

[Damen]

How can I have 'evidence' on something that has yet to occur? I expressed an opinion.

 

Interestingly enough, we are not the only country in this world. So you have plenty of basis of comparison for what happens when government "gets its hands on it". Typically, it becomes more cost effective and efficient.

[YASNY]

Interestingly enough, we are not the only country in this world. So you have plenty of basis of comparison for what happens when government "gets its hands on it". Typically, it becomes more cost effective and efficient.

 

And what fantasy land do you live in? Besides, whatever example you throw out there is not the US government, so it's moot.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Interestingly enough, we are not the only country in this world. So you have plenty of basis of comparison for what happens when government "gets its hands on it". Typically, it becomes more cost effective and efficient.

 

 

FWIW, my father has a PhD in Public Health from and has worked in the field for 30+ years, that's the exact opposite opinion he has.

[EvilMonkey]

Interestingly, if you count the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, it turns out the government is already paying in some way, shape, or form, for 61% of the health care costs in this country. And another 5% is covered through government mandated hospital care for the uninsured.

And do you (or Damen) think that those programs are 'efficient'?

Edited December 5, 2006 by EvilMonkey

[Rex Kickass]

No, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be. Some of the methods in which Medicare pays aren't the best uses of taxpayers dollars (for example, the inability to negotiate lower drug prices for its clients).

[Damen]

And do you (or Damen) think that those programs are 'efficient'?

 

No, I think in many cases we've got the worst of both worlds right now. I mean seriously, how can you defend a system in which we spend vastly more per capita than anywhere else in the world, while not seeing any increases in quality, while still leaving millions uninsured or underinsured.

[Jenksismyhero]

how can you defend a system in which we spend vastly more per capita than anywhere else in the world

 

I think we need to look at this in context. How many times does the average American go to the doctor in a year? How many 'ailments' do Americans suffer from that the rest of the world doesn't (think of all those wonderful drug commercials.....'is your eye leaking too much?')

 

while not seeing any increases in quality

 

What do you mean by quality? By the technology used? By the results of medical care (i.e. more people being cured)? I'd say in both contexts you're wrong. I have two family members working for Northwestern Memorial here in Chicago and both would say you're insane to think that the healthcare industry has become stagnant in its technological advancement or quality of care.

 

while still leaving millions uninsured or underinsured.

 

See my other posts in this thread. Not everyone is deserving IMO.

[NorthSideSox72]

See my other posts in this thread. Not everyone is deserving IMO.

 

Just curious: who is deserving? And how would you implement a policy to determine that, and enforce it?

[Damen]

I think we need to look at this in context. How many times does the average American go to the doctor in a year? How many 'ailments' do Americans suffer from that the rest of the world doesn't (think of all those wonderful drug commercials.....'is your eye leaking too much?')

 

 

 

What do you mean by quality? By the technology used? By the results of medical care (i.e. more people being cured)? I'd say in both contexts you're wrong. I have two family members working for Northwestern Memorial here in Chicago and both would say you're insane to think that the healthcare industry has become stagnant in its technological advancement or quality of care.

 

 

 

See my other posts in this thread. Not everyone is deserving IMO.

 

If you can point me to a study that shows the US health care system surpasses the quality of care in other countries, I'd like to read it. I know in certain areas, like breast cancer, we lead the world, but in many others, we are middle of the pack. I've yet to come across anything that shows anything different. And anecdotal evidence from a relative doesn't really count for much.