www.ditl.org

sunnyside wrote: So I poked around for some info. Little hard to find stuff. But I did find numbers for MRI wait times.

Uk wait time 7.5 weeks average
http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/news/jul ... -ct-scans/

Canada 10.1 weeks 2007
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/ ... raser.html

United States 0 wait.

That's what private insurance is for. Its a choice. If you can't afford private you can do public and run the risk of those ^
That's something the right seems to be missing. This is a safety net. Its not an end all to health care. That's why we aren't going to be having the same programs as UK and Canada and that's why we won't have the same wait times (more than likely our wait times will reflect those for medicare).

Don't get me wrong I'm not against private health insurance. I think its something everyone should strive for. But for those who can't afford it a safety net like food stamps is needed. I don't want us to only have a national health care program.

Actually I believe the proposed laws all tighten the screws on business. Though conceivably you could create a plan that shifts all the burden onto taxpayers.

How? I'm not as familiar with the business aspect of the health care proposal.

Good news for once: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwE5mswij9o

Monroe wrote:Good news for once: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwE5mswij9o

And the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klJvVKVs2Zk

sunnyside wrote:Uk wait time 7.5 weeks average
http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/news/jul ... -ct-scans/

Take a closer look at what it says:

The average wait for non-emergency patients for MRI and CT scans are seven and a half and two and a half weeks respectively.

Note the "non-emergency" part. This reffers to people who don't need it done, but wish to have it done anyway.

So let's think about this for a moment.
In the UK, if you've got no private health insurance but want to have a CT or MRI scan done you wait 7.5 weeks if the doctors don't think you need it.
In the US, if you've got no private health insurance but want to ahve a CT or MRI scan done you wait.....oh yeah, you don't wait at all because you're not going to have it done at all.

Hmm, a somewhat long wait for an elective procedure, or not having it done at all. I know which option I'd choose.

I know from experience, that If you desperately need it, then you get it. It's as simple as that. In my case, it wasn't quite an MRI scan cause I havent had one of those, but a CT scan I have. After Kawasaki's, I had to monitored at least once every 2 weeks to make sure it hadn't done any serious major damage to my heart (like punch a whole in it or something such like, or for it to tear due to weakness). I feel kinda sorry because I kicked off at last a half dozen people of the list cause my situation was way more important. If they didnt scan and something did happen, it would mean I would never have had the pacemaker or something such and I would be dead. Gamma Globulin transplants, There were about 5 people at the hospital alone that needed gamma globulin, but I got it instead because I didn't the old, mutated cells would destroy my bodt from the inside out. In both cases, if I was in America, I would have long since been dead because my parents sure as hell wouldnt have been able to afford draining 3 counties worth of Gamma Globulin stores, as well as the 12 or so CT scans I had to have done.

Reliant121 wrote:...In both cases, if I was in America, I would have long since been dead because my parents sure as hell wouldnt have been able to afford draining 3 counties worth of Gamma Globulin stores, as well as the 12 or so CT scans I had to have done.

And, there you go.




"OMG! Rich people can't cut in line! Socialism!"

I dont mean to sound elitist, but most people consider us rich. We earn about a combined of £52,000 a year, although that will drop by about £8,000 in the new job. Thats a damn site more than virtually everyone I know. In truth, we would likely have had a health insurance policy. That doesnt excuse that if we didnt, and we were a less affluent family, then I would be long gone. which would have been a horrid blow to my family, since they were virtually incapable of having kids in the first place (difficulties with mum) and were very much incapable when i was 4 since dad had the snip.

Rochey wrote: Note the "non-emergency" part. This reffers to people who don't need it done, but wish to have it done anyway.

I should have elaborated. All those numbers are for "non emergency" MRI scans. Well, Canada does the "median time" I believe, which should be for a non-emergency time (because if it takes a couple weeks the emergency is probably resolved so to speak), though that probably does make their non-emergency results look better than they should.

However in "emergencies" America sort of has universal health care in that they can't turn someone down at the ER. True they could bill you for it in some cases if a government program thing doesn't pick it up. But as I said bankruptcy laws are pretty cooshy, and if you're already poor you may not have much or anything to lose.

Though, like with the cardiac stuff, it's possible wait times for MRIs are still longer in the UK/Canada I just don't have the numbers, and the differences would be in hours instead of weeks.

@Monroe The trick with the public option as I understand it is that it won't provide for a different standard of care, it forces hospitals to provide servies at a certain cost. Essentially meaning if a new peice of equipment makes a procedure to expensive for the public option, than they probably won't be able to get it, because if they did they'd make money using it on private plans, but they'd have to provide it for public option people at a loss.

With businesses there have been an array of complex laws for a while requiring businesses with a certain number of employees to provide subsidized health plans. While there are tons of laws going around, most or all tighten the screws in terms of how large you can be before having to pay and such.

Part of the worry than is that businesses will chose to do with the public option. This bothers people greatly because.

A. Most people get their health insurance through their job. So if the business goes to the public option and ceases to provide the private one, than Obama's "If you like your insurance you can keep it" claim goes up in smoke.

B. If companies do that, than there will be more people on the public option. Since it operates at a loss the government will have underbudgeted at a loss of *only* 100-200 billion a year. The number will be much higher.

I do feel like a public option can work, just that what they're proposing isn't a good way to do it.

However I'd like to point out that an MRI cannot make your butt smaller. What I mean is that those "non-emergency" uses are for things like cancer, which I would consider a pretty big deal if I had it.

Most cancers can take several months to even develop to a point of being noticeable. There are of course exceptions to that, as always. But what has started to happen, is that the device used for MRI scans has begun being put in some doctors surgeries, I think there's one not to far from here that has an MRI scanner, So It can be conducted at surgeries. It happens like that with blood tests too, my next blood tests unless its due to some majorly bad illness will be done at my doctor surgery.

sunnyside wrote:However in "emergencies" America sort of has universal health care in that they can't turn someone down at the ER.

Well, I'd certainly hope they wouldn't turn someone away who was having a heart attack. But what would they do with someone with a brain tumor? Would they spend the time and money to treat him? Even if said tumor isn't going to be fatal for perhaps a few years?

sunnyside wrote:True they could bill you for it in some cases if a government program thing doesn't pick it up. But as I said bankruptcy laws are pretty cooshy, and if you're already poor you may not have much or anything to lose.

And that's exactly the problem with this. You die, or you go bankrupt. Regardless of how the US handles bankruptcy laws, it's not exactly a situation anyone wants to find themselves in.

sunnyside wrote:Though, like with the cardiac stuff, it's possible wait times for MRIs are still longer in the UK/Canada I just don't have the numbers, and the differences would be in hours instead of weeks.

Again, it's rather difficult to compare. If you're going for an elective procedure in the US, then obviously you have the money to have it done quick. If you don't have the money to have it done quick, then you don't have it done at all.
So yes, simple logic pretty much demands that wait times in countries with socialised health care is long, because they're treating large numbers of people with little money.

In Italy's nationalized-care program - according to MD's who worked there - wait times for even vital diagnostics could be staggeringly long... as in a full calendar year before shceduling was even begun.

Yes, but Italy's hardly a great country these days.

Like any other service, there are excellent health care systems, and there are awful ones.

sunnyside wrote:...However in "emergencies" America sort of has universal health care in that they can't turn someone down at the ER. True they could bill you for it in some cases if a government program thing doesn't pick it up. But as I said bankruptcy laws are pretty cooshy, and if you're already poor you may not have much or anything to lose...

Yeah, all it does is ruin your credit; it's not like you need good credit to rent a place to live, or get a good job, or get a credit card, or rent a car, or rent a movie...

Rochey wrote: But what would they do with someone with a brain tumor? Would they spend the time and money to treat him? Even if said tumor isn't going to be fatal for perhaps a few years?

I'm not sure, but I bet it involves a lot of paperwork and phone calls. However the test to detect said tumor is the sort of thing you can get done in the US the same day your doctor suspects something, and that you have to wait a couple months for in the UK/Canda and hope that things haven't progressed by then to the point where you die.

And again I stress that with MRIs and Angiograms calling their use "elective" is a bit of an abuse of the english language, even if in some sense it is technically true. Botox is elective. Getting your insides checked out is something you always want if your doctor thinks it can help keep you alive, it's just a matter of whether you can get it.

As for bankruptcy, as an FYI it isn't nearly so bad. Or at least wasn't, it might be getting worse with the banks failing. Last I knew of things you only needed a decent credit rating for the sort of jobs that, if you qualified for them, you should have health insurance. And generally the same for Apartments. And getting your credit rating back up simply required getting a loan on a crappy car (which they'd give to anybody at least somewhat recently), or get a credit card with horrible terms. If you actually make the payments your rating heals to decent levels fast.

sunnyside wrote: I should have elaborated. All those numbers are for "non emergency" MRI scans. Well, Canada does the "median time" I believe, which should be for a non-emergency time (because if it takes a couple weeks the emergency is probably resolved so to speak), though that probably does make their non-emergency results look better than they should.

Oh so Canada just kills off all its emergency cases? Sounds a bit conspiratorial and evil doesn't it?

However in "emergencies" America sort of has universal health care in that they can't turn someone down at the ER. True they could bill you for it in some cases if a government program thing doesn't pick it up. But as I said bankruptcy laws are pretty cooshy, and if you're already poor you may not have much or anything to lose.

You know not everyone wants to be stuck in poverty their whole lives. Some people are just trying to make it in the world then get stuck with a $20k bill. How is that right to treat our citizens like that?

I'm sorry but its not just wrong its amoral and unconscionable for anyone to be against a public option. Why? Because you're saying a big fuck you to people like Tsuki and people like me in a few months and millions of Americans. Hell probably a lot of your own family. And a big fuck you to your own wallet because you'd be seeing a noticeable decline in your costs. Sorry but you can only be against the public option if you're ignorant or an asshole.

@Monroe The trick with the public option as I understand it is that it won't provide for a different standard of care, it forces hospitals to provide servies at a certain cost. Essentially meaning if a new peice of equipment makes a procedure to expensive for the public option, than they probably won't be able to get it, because if they did they'd make money using it on private plans, but they'd have to provide it for public option people at a loss.

And as I understand it that's completely not true. Its insurance not a rationing of health care.

A. Most people get their health insurance through their job. So if the business goes to the public option and ceases to provide the private one, than Obama's "If you like your insurance you can keep it" claim goes up in smoke.

Not every business would choose too. And even if they did you could go private yourself.

B. If companies do that, than there will be more people on the public option. Since it operates at a loss the government will have underbudgeted at a loss of *only* 100-200 billion a year. The number will be much higher.

That's a possibility. But we'll also be saving money on the amount of emergency room visits so you can't possible know exact prices of a possible scenario like you're describing.