Universal Healthcare

[Cranjis McBasketball]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Poll: More millennials would prefer to live under socialism than capitalism


I wanted to get the opinion of you guys that have experience and have been podiatrists for a while.. If the country embraced universal healthcare, what would that mean for the profession and how would it change things?

 

[air bud]

Poll: More millennials would prefer to live under socialism than capitalism


I wanted to get the opinion of you guys that have experience and have been podiatrists for a while.. If the country embraced universal healthcare, what would that mean for the profession and how would it change things?

No idea

 

[theconzumer]

So I'm Canadian, from the west coast. My brother worked in the US as a physician (studied and trained) and now has a family practice in British Columbia. He told me its way less stress in Canada since your dealing with single payer instead of multiple insurance companies. He also stated that he gets paid more in Canada (although cost of living is higher here than a lot of places in the US). He said that this isn't the case for all physicians though, specialist will likely make more in the US but family physicians will make more in Canada since he gets a way larger influx of patients simply because its of no cost to them. He also saves on health insurance since he doesn't pay out of pocket and taxes are very similar for him in the US and Canada.

Based on what he has told me, I would believe that podiatrist would get paid more in the US with universal health care, maybe the amount we make per patient drops but we would receive a larger volume of patients and they would come more often if they didn't have to pay from their pockets even with insurance. Again this could depend on your specific clinic and could benefit some podiatrist while hurting others.

Currently in Canada a portion of a podiatrist visit is covered (in BC), the rest the patient pays out of pocket or using insurance. The problem with Canadians is they aren't typically used to paying for any health service aside from dental and sometimes optometrists. So I feel podiatrist struggle in Canada.

 

[de Ribas]

Poll: More millennials would prefer to live under socialism than capitalism


I wanted to get the opinion of you guys that have experience and have been podiatrists for a while.. If the country embraced universal healthcare, what would that mean for the profession and how would it change things?

I maybe would close my eyes on that if Universal Healthcare package comes with Universal Loan Forgivness for physicians

 

[de Ribas]

Poll: More millennials would prefer to live under socialism than capitalism


I wanted to get the opinion of you guys that have experience and have been podiatrists for a while.. If the country embraced universal healthcare, what would that mean for the profession and how would it change things?

Does living under socialism involves free education too? Universal Education plan....

 

[dtrack22]

There is only one carrier that requires me to do extra, uneccessary BS in order to get paid for treating their patients. Not to mention the overhead increases that can be directly contributed to their regulations. This same carrier is the only one that uses the threat of prison to keep me in line. I'm not sure why any physician would want nearly 100% of their patients to be insured by this carrier. But that's just me...

 

[theconzumer]

Does living under socialism involves free education too? Universal Education plan....

I wish! Medical school where I used to live is about $18,000 for the full year. The good news is the loans you take don't charge interest until 6 months after graduation. Unlike the ones here.

 

[ksp2276]

One of my attendings is pretty well off. The best advice he gave me is: "if you ever want to be "rich" then don't rely on any medical income. get it from a side business."

The guy owns a bunch of fast food stores, and office complexes that he invested in early after residency. Drives a few nice rides and pays for (5) kid's college without blinking.

Seems like income security to me.

Point I'm trying to make is that no matter what job you have, you shouldn't let outside circumstances dictate your future. take it in your own hands and find other ways around it WHILE you have the "day" job and are seemingly secure in it.

 

[I post PRN]

There is only one carrier that requires me to do extra, uneccessary BS in order to get paid for treating their patients. Not to mention the overhead increases that can be directly contributed to their regulations. This same carrier is the only one that uses the threat of prison to keep me in line. I'm not sure why any physician would want nearly 100% of their patients to be insured by this carrier. But that's just me...

Seriously, when has the federal government ever been so good at something that we just said, yeah, go ahead and take over healthcare. Single Payor system is the worst idea I can think of.

 

[theconzumer]

Seriously, when has the federal government ever been so good at something that we just said, yeah, go ahead and take over healthcare. Single Payor system is the worst idea I can think of.

I would hope if it does come it would be run by the state governments. In Canada it's run by each individual province.

 

[GypsyHummus]

Agreed. I’d much rather have the free market for healthcare, but if it must be socialized Medicine, the non dumpster fire way would be to let the states decide. It is much easier to move to a different state for better coverage than a new country.

I would hope if it does come it would be run by the state governments. In Canada it's run by each individual province.

 

[dtrack22]

So who’s on the hook for Louisiana and Mississippi and the rest of the poor states in the Southeast?

 

[theconzumer]

So who’s on the hook for Louisiana and Mississippi and the rest of the poor states in the Southeast?

This made me laugh out loud.

The states would be responsible for their own health care. They would have to figure out a way to budget for it. Oddly, the US government spends more on health care per capita than every nation in the world. So I'm guessing single payer saves the government money while providing care to everyone. The US in 2015 spend $9451 per capita on health care while Canada spent $4608. I just started doing some research into this and its making me wish I did a masters in public health instead of a DPM haha.


Also I'm very glad this forum doesn't take a topic like this as a political opinion or debate but more so one based on outcomes.

 

[dtrack22]

Healthcare cannot be cheap, and accessible, and good (outcomes). You can pick two, but you cannot have all three.

 

[GypsyHummus]

Healthcare cannot be cheap, and accessible, and good (outcomes). You can pick two, but you cannot have all three.

I think introducing a bit of competition into the system would be a good thing. Who knows, it might spur people on in making technological advances that drastically reduce cost. Like maybe a new lab technique arises that checks for multiple things at half the cost. Not outside of the realm of possibility.

A true free market for healthcare would have all three things you mentioned. It would force providers and hospitals to become better, or they would be eliminated by competition. Take pods for example. If I see two pods offering ingrown toenail removal and the prices are clearly listed, I think that is a better experience for both a provider and consumer. And those pods who have concerned the market on ingrown nails would have to keep honest because there might be anouther pod down the street that offers just as good of service for 30% less cost.

I don’t understand why we don’t allow the free market to work in healthcare. For people who can’t afford it, well that’s what churches and charities are for.

 

[theconzumer]

Healthcare cannot be cheap, and accessible, and good (outcomes). You can pick two, but you cannot have all three.

I recently read a study that stated that outcomes may be superior in Canada compared to the US but the differences were not significant. So I would argue that you can have all 3.

A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States

Also I would love to see a true free market, I think the US is the only country that would actually be able to achieve anything close to it.

 

[Nowehjose]

Difference is we have many more non tax payers in the US than Canada has residents... It could work, but you cannot model it after Canada or a small EU country. Young Americans just don't know math. I am pro singles payer, but it cannot be like Obamacare where Obama just picks his campaign contributors to set it up. Then have 50% of the state/federal contracted providers close their doors while the ceos walk away with millions within 4 years.

Also don't trash Mississippi and other poor states, look at Cali. They are in financial ruin and their politicians are too dumb to go after Apple for unpaid taxes that are in the billions. Their system alone is bound to crash due to lack of funds.

America is much more corrupt than Canada too. I think single payer can work in the future in the USA, I just hope it doesn't occur too soon before we can financially afford to SET IT UP to succeed with federal and not private money.

 

[Cranjis McBasketball]

I recently read a study that stated that outcomes may be superior in Canada compared to the US but the differences were not significant. So I would argue that you can have all 3.

A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States

Also I would love to see a true free market, I think the US is the only country that would actually be able to achieve anything close to it.

America is also more unhealthy than Canada. This could play a role

 

[theconzumer]

America is also more unhealthy than Canada. This could play a role

I would hope that with single player there would be more focus on preventative care and you'd catch an illness earlier so your potential costs to treat would be down simply because patients have easier access to health care. I could be wrong though thats just sort of the logic I used, no evidence for that.

 

[DrMushroomFoot]

Healthcare cannot be cheap, and accessible, and good (outcomes). You can pick two, but you cannot have all three.

Isn't this a quote from Ben Shapiro?

 

[dtrack22]

I recently read a study that stated that outcomes may be superior in Canada compared to the US but the differences were not significant. So I would argue that you can have all 3.

The study didn't really show anything, and there are studies that show superior cancer treatment in the US compared to countries with nationalized healthcare. But even with comparable outcomes, Canada is still failing benchmarks for wait times when it comes to elective surgery. So the individuals with only the gov healthcare don't have anywhere near the access as they would in a private system, let alone the Frankenstein system we have in the US

Natural economic laws do not allow for those three things to co-exist. You cannot have universality, affordability, and quality. You see it in Canada where an attempt to increase quality (which includes access) and decrease wait times has Ontario projected to spend nearly 80% of their budget on healthcare in the next 10 years. You aren't going to compete with the US in access to treatment, early detection of disease, etc. and stay affordable. It will never happen. You have to be ok with sacrificing something. And since few people want to see a decrease in quality, and want to make sure everyone has "healthcare" (which to most means someone else to pay their bill), then it is naturally not as affordable.

And yeah, shapiro had said something to that effect. I think when talking about Kimmel's sob story/rant about his child?

 

[theconzumer]

The study didn't really show anything, and there are studies that show superior cancer treatment in the US compared to countries with nationalized healthcare. But even with comparable outcomes, Canada is still failing benchmarks for wait times when it comes to elective surgery. So the individuals with only the gov healthcare don't have anywhere near the access as they would in a private system, let alone the Frankenstein system we have in the US

Natural economic laws do not allow for those three things to co-exist. You cannot have universality, affordability, and quality. You see it in Canada where an attempt to increase quality (which includes access) and decrease wait times has Ontario projected to spend nearly 80% of their budget on healthcare in the next 10 years. You aren't going to compete with the US in access to treatment, early detection of disease, etc. and stay affordable. It will never happen. You have to be ok with sacrificing something. And since few people want to see a decrease in quality, and want to make sure everyone has "healthcare" (which to most means someone else to pay their bill), then it is naturally not as affordable.

And yeah, shapiro had said something to that effect. I think when talking about Kimmel's sob story/rant about his child?

I agree for the most part elective surgery wait times can be fairly long but they are elective, thats a sacrifice that I would be willing to pay to ensure that people who are in dire need of a procedure get timely access to it, which is certainly the case in most of Canada. There are also private clinics in Canada where if you want to pay for an elective procedure you can to have it done. Ontario currently spends about 44% of its budget on health care I also expect that to grow with the boomer population coming into play.

 

[I post PRN]

I agree for the most part elective surgery wait times can be fairly long but they are elective, thats a sacrifice that I would be willing to pay to ensure that people who are in dire need of a procedure get timely access to it, which is certainly the case in most of Canada. There are also private clinics in Canada where if you want to pay for an elective procedure you can to have it done. Ontario currently spends about 44% of its budget on health care I also expect that to grow with the boomer population coming into play.

Which hurts Podiatry a lot, since a lot of our surgery is elective.

 

[theconzumer]

Which hurts Podiatry a lot, since a lot of our surgery is elective.

I agree but the wait times from my experience in Canada are usually due to the limitations of doctors available. Meaning the doctors have an abundance of surgery which should be good for them. Many doctors can do their surgeries within the week, for example dentist do their surgeries fairly quickly since there is a high abundance of them. Podiatrist would be able to do their surgeries fairly quickly as well if there is a high abundance of podiatrist available to do them, if not they would have a high abundance of patients waiting to have surgery done. Personally I feel like creating a lower barrier to see a podiatrist (not paying anything upfront to see one) would help draw patients. Again those are just my opinion, not factual.

 

[diabeticfootdr]

Poll: More millennials would prefer to live under socialism than capitalism


I wanted to get the opinion of you guys that have experience and have been podiatrists for a while.. If the country embraced universal healthcare, what would that mean for the profession and how would it change things?

I think you mean socialized medicine or a government-run single-payer system, not universal healthcare. Universal healthcare just means everyone has insurance; private, public, or a mix.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Cranjis McBasketball]

I think you mean socialized medicine or a government-run single-payer system, not universal healthcare. Universal healthcare just means everyone has insurance; private, public, or a mix.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

My mistake. Yes I do mean socialized medicine or government ran single payer

 

[bunNfxr]

I think you mean socialized medicine or a government-run single-payer system, not universal healthcare. Universal healthcare just means everyone has insurance; private, public, or a mix.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Not really, in order to make health care universal in a country where not everyone wants it or can afford it, it has to be socialized so we are forced to have it then taxed or mandated so we are forced to pay for it. Thus, universal health insurance is socialized (Government controls the supply and demand). Moreover, health care is hardly Universal if everyone has a different level of coverage. So again the government has to mandate coverage then force citizens to pay for it.


To answer the OPs question: US doctors make more than every other county in the world now. Salaries in England for chiropodist are about 40K in US dollars. "surgical podiatrist" are harder to get numbers on as I think they are rare. But from other forums a podiatrist that has left England to practice here has indicated salaries are about upper 100k for a busy doc that would probably make 250-+ here. I believe in Canada podiatrist make about 30% less and some of that has to do with the exchange rate and the languishing Canadian economy. US doctors in general make 1.5 to to 3 x as much as socialized countries. But that cannot be applied to what would happen here. What you can assume is that physician salaries would not climb from where they are now.... Ever. But if we went socialized tomorrow it is unlikely they would cut every doctors salary to European comparable levels. When socialist programs are introduced , they try to minimize upheaval so everyone accepts them and the country votes for more progressive policies and politicians. Decades later the costs will outstrip the projected budgets and tax collections. In 1- 2 decades teachers and fireman will make what we make today and we will not have budged in salary and have the purchasing power of postal supervisor. With any luck education will be subsidized, so you don't defer 12 years of income production to make the equivalent of 50K a year in todays purchasing power.

here is a link there are others:
General Physician Average Salary Income - International Comparison

Keep in mind the end result of our current system may be unsustainable. It is not a free market. Consumers and suppliers are not even the primary influencing factors on supply and demand. Government, employers, pharmaceutical companies and medical and surgical supply and health insurance companies all have more influence over the healthcare system than the actual consumers (patients) and producers (doctors).