What is Obamacare?

[Stripes]

From personal experience of a similar service I can tell you that wait times are rarely longer than in the private market in the US for urgent treatment. Whilst you might get a slightly better service, though having life support denied once you could no longer afford it from your funds/your insurer found a way to excuse themselves from paying doesnt strike me as a good service, in terms of waiting times you will be sorely out of pocket and thats if you can afford it. Plus, would you really want your welfare in the hands of someone whos main interest is profiting from you, especially when they get paid when you need treatment not when you dont?

Yes, because that's TOTALLY how US health care goes. If you have a heart attack and you're on life support, you have until the money runs out or they pull the plug on you. And that's if you even get that far, because if you stumble into the ER in the middle of a coronary and forget your wallet at home, they'll just leave you to die in the middle of the hallway.

You wanna talk about horror stories in other countries, I know what other countries think of our health care system. I'm not that ignorant. But people seem to forget that just because america is capitalist doesn't mean that we threw out every last shred of decency and morality. Hospitals are mandated and doctors take an oath to help those in need, and any person that walks into a hospital in the US and needs treatment GETS IT. That would be why the US doesn't have people dying in the streets. The only think you can be turned away for in a hospital is if you come in with the sniffles because it's not life threatening. And if it becomes an issue later on that requires treatment, they'll take care of it then.

You have dug up an old spectre havent you? The issue is that the US has people dying, regularily, because they cannot afford treatment. You have people who must wait until a condition gets life-threatening before they can get treatment because only then will they be treated, this is more costly for everyone and is a despicable consequence of the US healthcare system. There are people slowly dying of gangreen and diabetes, these are treatable but they will die of it because everyone knows they cant afford it and no one will sufficiently treat them. These are not one off cases, they are real and happening all over the country. The horror stories of waiting times and treatment in nationalised healthcare systems of developed nations are one offs, not the majority. Hell, most of the people who wouldnt want a nationalized healthcare system are shooting themselves in the foot, private healthcare still exists and it is much much cheaper because it has an actual competitor rather than the oligopoly in the US. Its a case of: do some people get treatment at an inflated price or does everyone get treated for a universally lower price including taxes. If you mimic the system in developed nations then you will have similar results, its a no-brainer.

 

[Agayek]

Frankly, I don't like it because it's going to be extremely taxing for doctors. We're expected to take on hundreds more patients, considerably restricting our time with current patients and lessening patient care, but cheapening it at the same time, making more people want to go to the doctor for stupid things, lengthening lines to the ER, etc.

How exactly do you envision that happening? Because what Obamacare mostly means for doctors is fewer ER bills left unpaid, and thus less chance of running into financial troubles. Also if anything, Americans will start to use healthcare more responsibly from now on. No more refusing insurance, waiting untill a disease has gotten really really bad, and then going to the ER to have it fixed for free, while the taxpayer pays for the elevated costs.

Easy. We'll have more people going to the doctor, but the same number (or possibly less) doctors to deal with them, leading to longer lines. That also means every doctor will, by necessity, be spending less of their time and attention on any individual patient, which in turn means the quality of the care will be reduced.

There is some truth to your "less unpaid bills" thing, but that's not all there is to it, because often times those bills will end up being for superfluous things. Hypochrondria isn't going to go away because new legislation was passed. Especially if it doesn't cost them anything to go to the doctor.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

While you don't have a bill though, the health care system in Canada...kinda...really sucks. The wait times are huge even for simple visits and the doctors tend to be highly rushed and stressed. Most visits come down to 'What are your symptoms? Here's a prescription". And that's for a simple visit. If you have more complex issues, like cancer, people have died waiting to get in to see a specialist.

Yea...no dude our healthcare system is actually top fuckin' quality. I do not personally know a single person who opposes the way our healthcare system is run (minor gripes aside). Not even the most hardcore conservative gov't would dare to even suggest dismantling socialized medicine in Canada...it would be political suicide.

The long wait times are grossly exaggerated (usually by Americans or fringe right-wingers)...much of it has to do with a rapidly aging population and an insufficient supply of physicians. Canada currently does not fund enough residency positions and is notoriously dickish when it comes to foriegn trained MDs. This is an emerging issue with funding allocation and is specific to Canada, not an intrinsic flaw with single payer healthcare. Anyways, wait times are comparable to any other developed nation.

The medical profession is naturally stressful, regardless of what country you practice in. I'm not sure what the fuck you are basing your views regarding doctor's visits on. Your broad generalization on how Canadian physicians practice medicine and deal with their patients is ridiculous. A doctor's visit in Canada is probably exactly the same as it is in the US. My GP will give me all the time I need during an appointment, so long as I am not wasting his time. Actually, I had a fairly lengthy chat with him about a year he spent in Venice on my last visit, so maybe some time-wasting is permitted. For simpler or routine appointments, nurse practitioners are allocated 30 mins to a patient, something which has been a great benefit to the elderly (seeing an NP rather than an MD is optional). Physicians are naturally busier, but really I think you pulled those claims out of your ass.

Again, in my experience the wait times to see a specialist are not that bad. I have only had to see a specialist twice in the last few years but was surprised how quickly I recieved an appointment. I think constantly being fed the propaganda espoused on your 24-hr news networks has left Canadians slightly suspicious of our healthcare, so the reality is often pleasantly surprising. Critically ill patients die in this country because they are critically ill and medical science is not able to save them...it is not because they do not have access to treatment. I am sure there are a handful of isolated cases that market fundies like to throw in our faces but IMO it isn't an issue. I live in the maritimes, where cancer rates are the highest in the nation. I have known many people who have developed cancer, opportunities to see an oncologist or recieve proper care has never been an concern which they have expressed.

Your post really pissed me off. Your profile says you're from the US, how would you know one way or the other? Did you live here for a while? If so, where? If not, where are you getting your information from?