Huff n Puff is doing a comment session on the subject:
I Was Treated to a Foreign First World Public Health Care System
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katharine-zaleski/i-was-treated-to-a-foreig_b_228242.html
Wow. She got a free doctor visit at the expense of British Tax payers? Way 2 Go!
Seriously, Whats your point?
I’m no expert in this area but it would seem to me that the “medical tourism” could be occuring for different reasons in different situations.
With the fact that US medical isn’t anything close to a free market in mind, I would guess that availability in the US is better than that in Canada, so people who can’t get timely treatment may be flying down for that reason. But only if they can afford it–because on the other hand, treatment in the US (massive government intervention into the industry) is very expensive. People that can’t afford health care in the US (which probably could be better in quality) go to poorer areas where the cost is better, but I’ve heard the horror stories of foreign medical trips to poor nations, so I’m not sure the quality is there either. The effect of being located in a poor nation is going to reduce the quality of care, so even if a poor nation’s health care is “more free market” (while this would be helpful) it can still be far behind a rich nation’s quality just due to wealth differences.
So I guess I don’t disagree if your point is “Medical tourism does NOT prove that the American system is better than the Canadian.” However that doesn’t mean the Canadian system is better either! Like someone said above the US system is at best a bastardized, manipulated version of a free market so it’s not an example of “free market” in action.
If that procedure is what I think it is, I think I had the same thing or similar done a few years ago, it was done by a dentist and I requested general anesthesia. (lol) But I did have the option to skip the general if I wanted. Minus the anesthesia cost, I think it was ridiculously cheap relative to typical dentist prices (insurance paid for it, anyway), and I go to (I think) a relatively expensive dentist.
What I take from this is simply that the author is an idiot and/or extremely biased: “I’m not denying that there are problems with the British system. My problem wasn’t life threatening, but it was temporarily crippling. For people with deadly diseases like cancer there are documented frustrations over access to certain treatment. My great-uncle actually got sent home from a British hospital because there weren’t enough beds that day. He was scheduled for open heart surgery… an operation he endured the following week.”
She’s using a single experience (utterly useless as far as actually making any relevant point about a health care system) to praise a system that she’s completely, totally unfamilar with other than the fact that she’s been told it was “good” or “better” than our system. Was she just lucky to have a short wait? Was she in a better-than-average area of the country for medical services? Would the same thing have happened for emergency care vs non emergency care? (I’ve ‘heard’ that Europe is better than the US at preventative or non-emergency care.) Who knows…
Never mind the fact that I could do pretty much the same exact thing if I visited my doctor. And never mind the fact that surgery, emergency care, and hospital availability is infinitely more critical than a stupid headache pill, although I realize that kind can be pretty bad–it’s not surgery.
So a “temporarily crippling” problem was solved with ease, but “major surgery”–not so much.
She’s her own worst enemy! I didn’t even really need to say anything further.
You seem to be making an awful lot of mess for nothing.
People around here go to Croatia or Slovenia to have their teeth fixed. Why? Because it’s cheaper, 40-50% cheaper and the dentist will throw in a few days in a nice seaside resort for good measure. Yes, we do have socialized medicine but what do you do when waiting time is a full year? You shut up and pay.
People around here go to Eastern Europe or Spain for artificial fecundation. Why? Because it’s cheaper and clinics there aren’t bound by ridicolous laws concocted to please the Church (yes, the one ruled by the same Pope you were talking about) which is fearful eggs and semen will be used for some diabolical scheme. When you want a child as bad as some people you will do anything to get it.
I will not talk about people going to India to get kidney transplants or the hopeful flocking to China for a stem cell treatment. Why they get there? It’s much faster and sometimes they use experimental procedures around here nobody wants to use. When your (or your child’s) life is at stake you don’t care about living in the country with “the best health care system in the world”. You want treatment fast. Getting treatment fast in the West means bypassing national health care services, which means pay for it in full, which in turns means a huge sum of money. Going to Canada, China or whatever means saving money… even if somebody else will have to saddle the costs.
“I’ve heard the horror stories of foreign medical trips to poor nations, so I’m not sure the quality is there either. The effect of being located in a poor nation is going to reduce the quality of care,”
My only point of the original post was that medical tourism by Canadians to the US does not indicate the Canadian system is good or bad. From a liberterian prespective importing and outsourcing of goods and services are probably signs of a healthy system, not a failing system like mercantilists like to claim.
As to your claims about third world horror stories. I am not convinced the US does not have horror stories, there is a whole system to white wash US statistics. It is possible that being a third world country find people to do jobs like keeping the hospital clean and secure would be easier.
It also depends what kind of American you are. If you have a government health plan, you are better off in the US with the current system, assuming it does not go bankrupt. If you have a secure job at a highly profitable business, you are probably better off under the current US system. If you are not you are probably better off with the Canadian system. The joker is that as the health care system in the US chokes off industry, it will not be able to finance itself. So using governmetnt speak, the Canadian system is probably sustainable while the US system is not.
The pitfall in the OP is that he fails to realize that third world countries do not ban as many medical procedures as first world countries, which is one major reason Westerners “flee” to developing nations for medical treatment. Another note of importance is that the health care of developing nations is much cheaper due to the relatively low demand - after all, the poor in Jordan cannot dream of getting any medical procedures a poverty-stricken American can afford.
You are right. midical tourism by itself is not proof for anything. But it is not true free market advocates who emphasize this point, but Conservative air heads.
You are completely missing the point! The does not have a free market system. So the comparison is between what exactly? The indeed has a mixed system but it is a fallacy that other countries like (where you took the source from) have a fully socialized system. They don’t! has extended coverage (for which many poor cannot afford) and most importantly, it also has a legal semi-private sector, for which all those who have the means, can take advantage off.
Free markets don’t “choke off”, so if the system does it is due to government take-over. Currently, as long as prices are still relatively free to adjust to demand (despite the distorted signals due to the heavy government involvement), the system will not “choke off”, but will make medical care more and more expensive. Once the government takes over prices in order to control costs, that is when the system may go under.
But this is true for all government run systems! and once the industry is controlled by the government, “choke off” simply means SHITTY medical care!
You are neglecting many complications to as why some aspects can be better and some can be worse when you start comparing.
-
Socialized medicine is subsidized! What you pay at the front desk is not what you really pay. IF you are a tourist, you can take advantage of such a system, if you are a resident at that country, you can pretend you are getting a good deal, or like most people, simply remain ignorant.
-
If it was done privately outside the government system, then you must compare the price in terms of real wages for the locals. If you live in the US, then it may seem like a bargain, but for a local, it may be quite pricy, perhaps more then what it would be for an American if he got the service here in the .
-
Again, we all know that costs for medical care are extremely high in the . It is simply more honest here because prices are not (yet) controlled by the government. But this is because the system is inefficient in directing capital according to the most urgent needs of the consumers. It is not a free market!
Drug/Medicine Cartel + Government manipulated/mandated/corporate Insurance + Socialization (Medicare medicaid) = our current jacked up system.
Drug Company/Cartels
- Relation to FDA - Conflict of interest any one?
- Employee swaps between large firms like PFizer and FDA
- Government granted monopolies on medecine technologies to large firms (IP) which restricts it’s production and building apon newer medecine technology types
- Drugs are not sold to consumers but are sold to Insurance company’s. There is no consumer response to medecine types, there is no real competition amongst medecine and drugs
INsurance Cartels and Goverment mandates
- Government mandated Corporate Insurance
- Insurance isn’t sold to individuals but pushed down apon as a “perk” from employment
- Selection is Stifled
- Minimal to no competition
- Drugs/medecine’s and procedures are not in the hands of the consumer to decide but completly dependant on the plan allowed by that specific insurance provider. So consumers are at the mercy of their company’s policy. The corporations get no or liminted say in how they provide healthcare, from whom, or if they want to at all.
Close relationships between Insurance company’s and drug companys
Further pre-existing systems which cause problems (medicare, Medicaid)
Results
FUBAR
And has been repeatedly shown to you, you’re wrong. Completely wrong.
If a person chooses health care in Jordan over health care in the USA it is because for that person, at that time, Jordan offers a better service than does America. And the reason why the USA can’t offer services comparable to Jordan is because of legal reasons, or in other words, because of different health care system.
In Canada health care is allocated politically, specifically democratically, meaning common but minor diseases are over funded while rarer but much more serious diseases are underfunded. In a free market health care would be allotted economically, meaning that the most severe diseases are prioritized accordingly. (Even though treatments for common diseases are over funded, they are still under supplied because the cost is zero.)
The USA has a mixed system. You can buy as much health care as you like, unlike in Canada, where you don’t have the option to pay for more/better/quicker care. However, in the USA the cost of health care is partially socialized meaning that costs are very high because you aren’t paying for just your own health care, but for many others as well.
Or in other words, people leave Canada because the Canadian government denies them access to health care. And people leave America because the American government forces them to over pay for health care.
Yes! This is it, what I came here to just type.
geor8rge have you done any research into the availability of and length of waiting lists on these nations with socialized medicine? I’d also look into how much the system costs overall–not what the patients pay, but what the government pays. That statistic may not be as meaningful due to cultural and other differences, but I think the availability of health care is the biggest complaint about those systems.
When I hear things like “Canadian doctors make half as much as US doctors, causing a shortage of Canadian doctors as they move to the US.” it worries me when I also hear that we’re moving towards their system.
No, it would be a combination of service and price. That is one problem with the US is superior idea, in a free market you get to chose between what is perceived as cheaper, but worse, and more expensive but better. More than likely the people going to Jordan do not have an alternative choice. They cannot fly their doctor into the US. It should also be noted that in the USA medical is basically the privelage of governmetn workers.
Another problem with this discussion is it has become a kind of macro discussion.
-
Most likely there are many different medical services, only some of which Canadians purchase in the US. That is the way trade is supposed to work.
-
It is not clear that there is this thing called Americans that get American medical care. US government workers pretty much do have access to the whole gamet of medical services, as do the wealthy, and perhaps some skilled unionized jobs. But for the most part typical middle class americans are worse off than Canadians in that they have to pay huge insurance permiums when they are not ill, but cannot afford the best American care when they are.
The term for US govenrment medical policy is mercantilism.
I think he was packaging the price into the concept of a service (a lower price = better, all other things being equal), because he also said why people leave the US–lower cost.
Really? No, not really. [:)] Why would you say that? Most people with a full time job can get actual insurance, that’s not everyone, but it’s a lot more than only gov workers.
Really? No, not really. 
Why would you say that? Most people with a full time job can get actual insurance, that’s not everyone, but it’s a lot more than only gov workers.
"Most people with a full time job "
There are various medical systems in the US, most of which you cannot buy into. You cannot buy into Federal, Veterans, or other plans. Government workers can retire with full benefits. That means that after 20 years if they lose employement they still have health care for their families, and pension income. That is not how it works for private sector workers. Private sector workers have insurance while they are working and for 6 months COBRA. After that no insurance. It is comparatively difficult to fire public employees, or as the Ricci case (Hartford fire dept, Sotomayor) shows, even not to promote them. Private sector employees also have much less leverage when it comes to claims being denied. In general the US does have single payer Canada care, only it is for government workers.
Most of which you can’t buy into? But does it really matter so much? Just google “health insurance” you’ll find plenty of stuff out there. As for losing insurance after you lose your job, yes, but people that lose their job usually have to get new ones ASAP, so does it matter in practice? Probably not much. I’m not saying the way US health care works is perfect (far from it - why are employers and government even involved?) but it could be a lot worse.