McBlogger, one of the handful of Texas blogs (left or right) that don't totally suck posted yesterday on medical tourism, reminding us how many U.S. citizens actually go to Mexico for cheaper healthcare.
To which I commented, re Canada:
"All of the Canadians I know (admittedly, like, three, but they've all lived here for quite a while) are very careful to keep their official residence in Canada because they don't want to lose their health care. Since you guys live in Austin it will come as a surprise to you that Amarillo is not right next to Canada, but actually a three-day drive away. Nevertheless, I know Canadians who'd rather go to Canada a couple of times a year than deal with U.S. health care."
One major problem: Many people will argue to their death against specific proposals like Prodigal Son's, while whole-heartedly agreeing with a vague, unclear, elliptical, and ultimately pointless argument like this.
Since you guys live in Austin it will come as a surprise to you that Amarillo is not right next to Canada, but actually a three-day drive away.
Three day drive?? What, are you already driving one of those government motor company, Obamma inspired cars?
(sigh)
I was assuming eight hours a day driving. If you want to fall asleep at the wheel, you're welcome to drive straight through. Just try to do it in western Kansas or Nebraska where you'll kill no one but yourself.
It's 500 miles about a 9 hour dr. Obamma car's. That Fred Flintstone stuff might be good for global warming but it sucks for speed.
Dude, I know how far shit is. We're going to Omaha Monday. That's well over 500 miles, takes 11-12 hours to drive and is much closer than Canada. Stop picking stupid crap to argue about, especially when you're dead wrong.
Okay, using Google Earth, the shortest straight-line distance between Amarillo and the Canadian border is about 950 miles. That's a straight-line distance through country that is for the most part pretty flat and since you don't care about the gas prices or the environment, maybe you could do it in your Hummer, or-- even better-- an old Rambo Lambo. Obviously, there are no roads that run absolutely straight from Amarillo to Canada, so you'll be driving off-road. To go 950 miles in nine hours, you will have to drive 105 mph, off-road, the whole way and not stop at all to fill up with gas, eat, or go to the bathroom. Maybe you could pee out the side of the vehicle as you drive and keep some barrels of gasoline strapped to the back of the Rambo Lambo and rig up some system where you could set the cruise control and crawl back there and fill the tank while you drive. Use your imagination. Hopefully, you won't get shot by the rifles you think should be cheap and plentiful while you are driving across private property. Getting shot would reduce your time. Even worse, a stray bullet could hit those tanks full of gasoline you're carrying. Again, you'll be driving off-road. You may even have to drive through some buildings. I'm not trying to discourage you. Believe me, I really want to see you try this.
My bust. I had to go back and read again after this last post. I thought you had said it was a three day drive to Austin.
Many of you know that I lean to the conservative side. And as a hospital administrator, the thought of a single payor should scare the devil out of me. So my thoughts on this subject might be a little different than what you expect.
As a business executive (substitute owner if you like), the thought of only paying $750 per year per employee is very enticing. Currently, I face a premium of $1.4 million and only provide coverage for 151 of my employees. This plan would cost me $225,000 and cover all my employees (300). What is not to like?
However, as a hospital administrator, the thought of having no competition in the marketplace scares me. Why is that? I have no control over Medicare rates. And a recent study showed that the majority of hospitals lose money providing care to Medicare patients. Do I have any reason to believe that this new plan will be different? No. However, the positve side to this plan is that I would not be facing 35% of my patient population with no insurance.
I was recently told by a person who lived in England for over 12 years that the skinny on their healthcare is never discussed. And that is there is a tremendous blackmarket in healthcare in their country. I don't know about that, but I think it is fair to say that this plan will result in rationing of healthcare due to reductions in staff. And the dilemma there is that the public is demanding higher staffing ratios to patients. The only way to accomplish that is by limiting patients if the money is not available to provide for the staff.
I am really not disturbed by "rationing" of healthcare. Most of the populace abuses healthcare anyway. The problem is, the populace will be disturbed when it is their healthcare that is rationed.
18,000/year die due to a lack of health care. We are rationing now. People don't take all their prescriptions or do not get them filled at all. I'm 100% sure single payer would be better than what we have now.
Here's Krugman explaining it better than I.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/0...ugman.html?
_r=2
"Most of the populace abuses healthcare anyway."
Dadgum that populace coming in for preventative care when they should be waiting until they're nearly dead.
there is a tremendous blackmarket in healthcare in their country.
There also are planned trips, along the line of ship cruises, to India for medical care.
Commenting by HaloScan
