Current Events > Can someone pro-universal healthcare for America address something for me?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I have a family friend that is from Canada and he complains about the wait he sometimes has to face when it comes to medical procedures. That wouldn't be the first time I've heard of it either.

My question is--wouldn't there be a wait in America when you factor in our population combined with unhealthy lifestyles such as obesity and drug use--be it illicit, prescription abuse, or tobacco and alcohol consumption?

I also believe narcotic abuse would skyrocket as well unless there was some sort regulation set up and better paths to recovery for addicts.

I'm not necessarily against UHC, I just would like these points addressed. No doubt they have been brought up before; just haven't seen the discussion myself.
---

People already face waits, for scheduling appointments, for being seen after arriving at the appointment time, for when you show up with an emergency at the emergency room. What's the difference?

EggplantParm posted...

I also believe narcotic abuse would skyrocket as well

Evidence suggests otherwise. People don't just start abusing drugs because they're suddenly legal. And people seeking treatment for drug abuse because they know it's covered is a good thing, in the long run and societal perspective.
---

My co worker has to wait two weeks to get a recommendation for an mri of his knee, another two weeks to get an mri, and another two weeks to get results and a brace for his torn ACL

in america
---

I'm not quite sure where the idea UHC would lead to more drug abuse comes from. Seems that if anything, more people receiving preventative care might lower our reliance on prescription painkillers
---

I have to wait one week for my private healthcare, then two decades to pay it off.
---

dirtycommunist posted...

People already face waits, for scheduling appointments, for being seen after arriving at the appointment time, for when you show up with an emergency at the emergency room. What's the difference?

EggplantParm posted...

I also believe narcotic abuse would skyrocket as well

Evidence suggests otherwise. People don't just start abusing drugs because they're suddenly legal. And people seeking treatment for drug abuse because they know it's covered is a good thing, in the long run and societal perspective.

The difference would be tremendous as now you have more and more people thrown in line to wait. An appointment that needs to be scheduled a month in advance could be moved up months. That two hour wait in the ER just tripled.

I never said anything about narcotics bein made legal. Now there would be routes for people to gain them in a more legal manner and resell in the streets. Or an addict that was uninsured to get their fix in a more legal manner.
---

Colorahdo posted...

My co worker has to wait two weeks to get a recommendation for an mri of his knee, another two weeks to get an mri, and another two weeks to get results and a brace for his torn ACL

in america

Sinroth posted...

I have to wait one week for my private healthcare, then two decades to pay it off.

Again, your wait would go up.

Antifar posted...

I'm not quite sure where the idea UHC would lead to more drug abuse comes from. Seems that if anything, more people receiving preventative care might lower our reliance on prescription painkillers

What preventative care will get rid of addicts?
---

Anyone?
---

how long of a wait? I'd rather wait than be in debt for the rest of my life..

EggplantParm posted...

Again, your wait would go up.

No it wouldn't. Triage is practiced in any healthcare system, private or universal. The most serious cases are seen first. People have died in emergency rooms in the US btw.

The "long wait times" that are bandied about regarding universal systems are related to elective procedures, not medical emergencies.
---

If waiting times increase, shouldn't that indicate a need for more healthcare workers and facilities? We would just need to encourage more people to study healthcare and more people to open up healthcare practices.

EggplantParm posted...

My question is--wouldn't there be a wait in America when you factor in our population combined with unhealthy lifestyles such as obesity and drug use--be it illicit, prescription abuse, or tobacco and alcohol consumption?

Waiting times

1) are only for procedures that CAN wait, like a stress test or cancer screening. You should factor the waiting time into your need for those procedures and schedule them ahead of time.

2) won't apply to people who have money and can pay for a private hospital

3) don't apply if you're in an emergency situation
---

EggplantParm posted...

I also believe narcotic abuse would skyrocket as well unless there was some sort regulation set up and better paths to recovery for addicts.

To address your second point. Narcotic abuse won't be affected. It'll only go down when we stop throwing people in prison for it so they don't have to worry about asking people in the hospital to help them recover.
---

We will never have UHC
---

My friends who moved to the United States told me he thought he would wait less over there and that he was wrong.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

how long of a wait? I'd rather wait than be in debt for the rest of my life..

The survey looked at total wait times faced by patients starting from the time they received a referral from a general practitioner, to the consultation with a specialist, to “when the patient ultimately receives treatment.”
At 38.8 weeks, New Brunswick recorded the longest wait time among Canadian provinces.
Ontario recorded the shortest wait time at 15.6 weeks, however that province’s median wait rose from 14.2 weeks in 2015.
Median wait time by province in 2016:
New Brunswick: 38.8 weeks
Nova Scotia: 34. 8
P.E.I: 31.4
Newfoundland and Labrador: 26
British Columbia: 25.2
Alberta: 22.9
Manitoba: 20.6
Quebec: 18.9
Saskatchewan: 16.6
Ontario: 15.6
In terms of specialized treatment, national wait times were longest for neurosurgery (46.9 weeks) and shortest for medical oncology (3.7 weeks).
Neurosurgery: 46.9 weeks
Orthopaedic surgery: 38
Ophthalmology: 28.5
Plastic Surgery: 25.9
Otolaryngology: 22.7
Gynaecology: 18.8
Urology: 16.2
Internal medicine: 12.9
Radiation oncology: 4.1
General surgery: 12.1
Cardiovascular: 8.4
Medical oncology: 3.7


http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/healthcare-wait-times-hit-20-weeks-in-2016-report-1.3171718


More than 40 per cent of the 161 hospitals that submitted data to the Canadian Institute for Health Information for 2012-2013 fell below the suggested three-hour wait time to get assessed by an emergency room physician.

The report released Thursday by CIHI, a federally funded non-profit organization, also reveals that four hospitals — three in Winnipeg and one in Ontario — saw double or even triple the suggested three-hour wait.

For this report, CIHI looked at the amount of time 90 per cent of patients spent between arrival at the ER and seeing a doctor, otherwise known at the 90th percentile. The remaining 10 per cent of patients faced even longer waits.

Patients arriving at an ER who are at the greatest risk are generally seen right away, while the great majority of people waiting hours for care are not typically at risk from their wait.

Grace Hospital, a Winnipeg facility that was the subject of scrutiny earlier this year over discharge procedures after two patients died, had the highest wait time, which was up to 9.1 hours for most ER patients.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/hospital-er-times-reveal-some-disturbing-waits-1.2767867

We have ten times their population and nearly double the obesity rate. On top of our smoking, alcohol, and drug consumption.


RebelElite791 posted...

EggplantParm posted...

Again, your wait would go up.

No it wouldn't. Triage is practiced in any healthcare system, private or universal. The most serious cases are seen first. People have died in emergency rooms in the US btw.

The "long wait times" that are bandied about regarding universal systems are related to elective procedures, not medical emergencies.

Of course the most serious cases are seen first...now you have a massive influx of serious cases. Yes, and because of this massive influx of insured people, you will have longer waits for everything--including emergency rooms---that will result in more deaths.
---

rattlesnake30 posted...

If waiting times increase, shouldn't that indicate a need for more healthcare workers and facilities? We would just need to encourage more people to study healthcare and more people to open up healthcare practices.

That is exactly what it will indicate. But who is to say it will encourage anyone? At least at a rate that can accommodate?

ChromaticAngel posted...

EggplantParm posted...

My question is--wouldn't there be a wait in America when you factor in our population combined with unhealthy lifestyles such as obesity and drug use--be it illicit, prescription abuse, or tobacco and alcohol consumption?

Waiting times

1) are only for procedures that CAN wait, like a stress test or cancer screening. You should factor the waiting time into your need for those procedures and schedule them ahead of time.

2) won't apply to people who have money and can pay for a private hospital

3) don't apply if you're in an emergency situation

1) Simply saying someone needs schedule ahead of time is kind of a cop out...there are procedures and screenings that should happen sooner than later and an increased wait time due to an increase of patients won't be bypassed by scheduling ahead of time, especially depending on when you are informed you need something done.

2) irrelevant. How many freshly insured have the money to do this?

3) the ER wait times are affected though. See article above.

shockthemonkey posted...

"There would be a longer wait" is awful logic when you realize short waits are only caused by people not getting the proper care they deserve because they can't afford it.

How adequate do you feel the care will be once there is an influx of patients that offices and hospitals don't have the resources to accommodate?

epik_fail1 posted...

My friends who moved to the United States told me he thought he would wait less over there and that he was wrong.

Please review the articles above.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

So your problem is literally just "fuck too I got mine" huh?

That straw man. Are you going to actually discuss the topic or are you going to continue acting like a child?
---

just some harmless questions eh tc

ChromaticAngel posted...

EggplantParm posted...

I also believe narcotic abuse would skyrocket as well unless there was some sort regulation set up and better paths to recovery for addicts.

To address your second point. Narcotic abuse won't be affected. It'll only go down when we stop throwing people in prison for it so they don't have to worry about asking people in the hospital to help them recover.

I disagree. You say it will be unaffected, I say it will raise. Your idea about a prison reform doesn't say why it will be unaffected.
---

why is there a general assumption that people without health care in this country don't go to the ER? the wait time isn't going to go up with universal health care, it has the potential to go down because those without insurance wouldn't be forced to hang out in the ER for hours for "free" service when they could instead go to a general practice doctor and get preventive health care.
---

candymountainx4 posted...

just some harmless questions eh tc

I mean yes, honestly. No one has refuted anything I have said.

shockthemonkey posted...

EggplantParm posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

So your problem is literally just "fuck too I got mine" huh?

That straw man. Are you going to actually discuss the topic or are you going to continue acting like a child?

No, it's not. People don't get their healthcare because they can't afford it and you're bitching that you might have to wait instead.

Again, another straw man. I'm not talking about my wait and I've made that pretty clear. Please read the articles I posted along with my theory as to why our wait times will be worse that will result in more than just a simple inconvenience.
---

monkmith posted...

why is there a general assumption that people without health care in this country don't go to the ER? the wait time isn't going to go up with universal health care, it has the potential to go down because those without insurance wouldn't be forced to hang out in the ER for hours for "free" service when they could instead go to a general practice doctor and get preventive health care.

Because uninsured people do avoid the ER due to lack of insurance. I'd like to see some numbers to back both that and the assertion that many ER visitors could have avoided the ER with preventative care.
---

monkmith posted...

why is there a general assumption that people without health care in this country don't go to the ER? the wait time isn't going to go up with universal health care, it has the potential to go down because those without insurance wouldn't be forced to hang out in the ER for hours for "free" service when they could instead go to a general practice doctor and get preventive health care.

This. The whole "wait time" argument against UH always seems to ignore how healthcare in America is even approached. Many Americans already find that going to the doctor is either prohibitively expensive or time consuming so they don't schedule doctor's appointments and they don't partake in preventative healthcare. Instead, many of those people wait and wait and wait until a critical emergency occurs and they go wait in emergency rooms. Emergency rooms practice triage and they're already subject to wait times. Why should we not have UH for fear of wait times when wait times are how most people go to the doctor already? The only difference with UH is that they'll actually be able to afford to go and won't suffer through a medical bankruptcy due to a cough. If both systems will result in wait times then why not go for the option that most people can actually afford to use?
---

people dont want to talk about it, because then they need to mention the death panels
---

shockthemonkey posted...

You're not addressing the point that the wait time isn't getting longer for everyone. Some people couldn't get it before any doctor visit is by default a shorter time than never being able to see a doctor. Some people have to wait longer because there are people who previously couldn't see the doctor in front of them.

The entire point you're trying to drive home is "it's better for the haves so fuck the have nots."

All people will have to wait longer.

Why are you ignoring the wait times I posted above? Why are you ignoring the fact that we are a country with ten times the population and live way more unhealthy lifestyles?

No, I'm not saying fuck the have nots. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to discuss this. But we don't live in a perfect world.

You have wrote off every logical point--lack of resources, longer wait times, poorer care--for straw men and snide assumptions.


3rd_Best_Master posted...

monkmith posted...

why is there a general assumption that people without health care in this country don't go to the ER? the wait time isn't going to go up with universal health care, it has the potential to go down because those without insurance wouldn't be forced to hang out in the ER for hours for "free" service when they could instead go to a general practice doctor and get preventive health care.

This. The whole "wait time" argument against UH always seems to ignore how healthcare in America is even approached. Many Americans already find that going to the doctor is either prohibitively expensive or time consuming so they don't schedule doctor's appointments and they don't partake in preventative healthcare. Instead, many of those people wait and wait and wait until a critical emergency occurs and they go wait in emergency rooms. Emergency rooms practice triage and they're already subject to wait times. Why should we not have UH for fear of wait times when wait times are how most people go to the doctor already? The only difference with UH is that they'll actually be able to afford to go and won't suffer through a medical bankruptcy due to a cough. If both systems will result in wait times then why not go for the option that most people can actually afford to use?

My point is and has been from the get--the wait times will increase massively. It is common sense. If Canada, a country with 35 million people and a healthier population has documented extreme wait times for practically all things medically related, why wouldn't America face the same issues on a much more massive scale given the population and unhealthy lifestyles we live?

These waits aren't just an inconvenience...they result in mental health issues for patients, worsening conditions, and even death. Saying "oh well, we wait anyway...what's more of a wait?" Isn't an argument.

And you can repeat how ERs practice triage over and over but that won't change the fact that there are now more and more people in that pool.



Has anyone responding actually read the articles that I posted? Why would America be any different than Canada?
---

This is what you can roughly expect if we ever have universal healthcare:

Patient: "I need help! I'm bleeding out of my ears and it feels like someone's jamming a red hot knife into the base of my skull! The pain is so bad that I can barely even stand!"
Scheduler: "Hmm... okay. I've scheduled an appointment for you on April 11th of 2019. Please come back then and make sure to bring a photo id with you."
---

EggplantParm posted...

Because uninsured people do avoid the ER due to lack of insurance.

That's not true at all.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

This is what you can roughly expect if we ever have universal healthcare:

Patient: "I need help! I'm bleeding out of my ears and it feels like someone's jamming a red hot knife into the base of my skull! The pain is so bad that I can barely even stand!"
Scheduler: "Hmm... okay. I've scheduled an appointment for you on April 11th of 2019. Please come back then and make sure to bring a photo id with you."

Not as hyperbolic but you get the idea.

nicklebro posted...

EggplantParm posted...

Because uninsured people do avoid the ER due to lack of insurance.

That's not true at all.

Citation please.

One that says either a low number avoid the ER due to lack of insurance or none at all.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

No, your failure to address the difference between some people waiting and all people waiting is not my fault. Your attempt to distract from it doesn't mean it no longer exists.

No, I believe you are failing to use rational thinking based on the information I have provided. Not once have you actually provided an argument. I honestly don't even understand where you are trying to get at in half of your posts.

Next time, don't be so emotional and hostile off the bat. I will no longer discuss this matter with you as I feel I am chasing tails at this point.
---

EggplantParm posted...

1) Simply saying someone needs schedule ahead of time is kind of a cop out...there are procedures and screenings that should happen sooner than later and an increased wait time due to an increase of patients won't be bypassed by scheduling ahead of time, especially depending on when you are informed you need something done.

Procedures that happen sooner rather than later have naturally shorter waiting times. Take responsibility for yourself and act like you can think ahead a few weeks to plan for a checkup that you want.

EggplantParm posted...

2) irrelevant. How many freshly insured have the money to do this?

"freshly insured" were previously just dying without getting any care at all so the waiting times are a huge improvement for them. You seem to be misunderstanding here that the average person in America actually has private insurance, and a certain select very poor people use Medicaid. Elderly and disabled use Medicare. There is just a sweet (sour?) spot where you're too wealthy to have medicaid but too poor to have private insurance that hits a few million people that is the main problem area. It's pretty likely that your personal waiting times will not change much because it's not as if poor people from the ghetto downtown are suddenly coming to rich suburbs to go to the doctor.

EggplantParm posted...

3) the ER wait times are affected though. See article above.

ER waiting times are already a thing and they won't get significantly worse. An "emergency" to medical personnel means you're about ready to die. People abuse the ER system currently because you can't get turned away at the ER. Then they don't pay. Then hospitals lose tons of money because ER services are extremely expensive.

If more GP/PC doctors, Urgent care, and specialist physicians were available for people in general on the tax dollar, then hospitals and ER will benefit as a result.
---

EggplantParm posted...

Of course the most serious cases are seen first...now you have a massive influx of serious cases. Yes, and because of this massive influx of insured people, you will have longer waits for everything--including emergency rooms---that will result in more deaths.

Ok, so we get UHC which means people can now reasonably go to the hospital, because they can afford it.
And because everybody is doing this, now we have extended wait times (say for even serious, life-threatening conditions), so some people can't get in quick enough (because suddenly our systems are entirely overwhelmed, apparently and unfortunately), and then so they die. Yeah, that really sucks. Systems don't work 100% perfectly, and stuff goes wrong.

As opposed to the apparent alternative - we lack any real form of UHC so nobody is going to the hospital because they figured their infection or "weird pain" or whatever would just heal on its own and they can't afford the thousands of dollars in medical bills, and then it doesn't go away and they die?

Also you seem to be arguing "we're unhealthy so we shouldn't get UHC because then we'd be strained to handle all that unhealthiness; better to just not do anything about it"? What's up with that?
---

wait times and universal health coverage dont correlate

"hey guyz can you answer this thing about wait times for me?"
*countless people explain it to him and show why his concern shouldn't be a concern*
"......ummm, yea ok but...."

The Topic.

shockthemonkey posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

"hey guyz can you answer this thing about wait times for me?"
*countless people explain it to him and show why his concern shouldn't be a concern*
"......ummm, yea ok but...."

The Topic.

I don't think TC is being deliberately obtuse; I think he's just heard one prevailing narrative and is struggling to come to terms with the differences between his beliefs and the realities of the situation.

that's what happens when all your news comes from the cherry picked worst examples of UHC from around the world.
---