Source: “Phantoms in the Snow: Canadians’ Use of Health Care Services in the United States,”
The authors of the study started by surveying 136 ambulatory care facilities near the U.S.-Canada border in Michigan, New York and Washington. It makes sense that Canadians crossing the border for care would favor places close by, right? It turns out, however, that about 80 percent of such facilities saw, on average, fewer than one Canadian per month; about 40 percent had seen none in the preceding year.
Then, the researchers looked at how many Canadians were discharged over a five-year period from acute-care hospitals in the same three states. They found that more than 80 percent of these hospital visits were for emergency or urgent care (that is, tourists who had to go to the emergency room). Only about 20 percent of the visits were for elective procedures or care.
Next, the authors of the study surveyed America’s 20 “best” hospitals — as identified by U.S. News & World Report — on the assumption that if Canadians were going to travel for health care, they would be more likely to go to the best-known and highest-quality facilities. Only one of the 11 hospitals that responded saw more than 60 Canadians in a year. And, again, that included both emergencies and elective care.
Finally, the study’s authors examined data from the 18,000 Canadians who participated in the National Population Health Survey. In the previous year, 90 of those 18,000 Canadians had received care in the United States; only 20 of them, however, reported going to the United States expressively for the purpose of obtaining care
Post by hoyainspirit on Jun 14, 2017 13:00:29 GMT -5
This figure has been extracted from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report.
According to the CBO, 64-year olds making $26,500 per year would see their premiums increase by an estimated 750 percent by 2026. While they are on track to pay $1,700 under the current law, the CBO projects the American Health Care Act would force them to pay $14,600. Even if you grant that inflation will allow them to make slightly more money by 2026, that's still about half of their income going to health care.
Who Dat! Drew Dat! True Dat! Oh please let me be, I have to be, schizophrenic me!
"And when it comes to a healthcare bill this bad, a little sunlight could go a long way" Tom Price
Obamacare had 100 Senate hearings and 161 amendments from Republicans. Health Committee markup for 60 hrs & 13 days. Finance Committee for 8 days. Full Senate debated for 25 days.
Trumpcare has had 0 Senate hearings and 0 amendments from Democrats.
Apart from declaring war after Pearl Harbor, Senate has *never* rammed through such major legislation w/o hearings. A bill to reshape 1/6th of the economy may get 10 hrs of debate if Mitch feels like it and we don't know a single detail....
Last Edit: Jun 20, 2017 11:40:30 GMT -5 by YaBoyNyP
This may be the single most asinine act by a controlling party in Congress in my lifetime. I don't even have a clue what to compare this to.
The President himself said that health care is more complicated than anyone knows. What could possibly require discussion? That myopic statement alone should have been enough reason for detailed discussions. If the previous plan was "jammed" through and it was a bad plan, shouldn't the replacement plan be better considered and discussed/debated even more thoroughly than its predecessor?
"HARRY SAXA!" - Elvado
"And John Thompson told me when I first got to school that if I wasn’t coming to graduate, there was no sense in coming to Georgetown." - Jerome "JYD" Williams
Medicaid covers: 64% of nursing home residents 60% of kids with disabilities 49% of births 20% of all Americans. Bill also waives essential benefits so those with pre existing conditions might be able to get basic coverage but insurers do not have to offer plans that cover their pre existing condition.....
On the bright side it provides 800 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans including $400 billion tax cut for the wealthiest 1% and a 3.8% reduction on investment income, capital gains and dividends.
Tax cuts for the wealthy in exchange for cutting benefits for expecting parents, premature babies, nursing home residents, and disabled kids ....
From the onset of this debate, America’s hospitals and health systems have been guided by a set of key principles that would protect coverage for Americans.
Unfortunately, the draft bill under discussion in the Senate moves in the opposite direction, particularly for our most vulnerable patients. The Senate proposal would likely trigger deep cuts to the Medicaid program that covers millions of Americans with chronic conditions such as cancer, along with the elderly and individuals with disabilities who need long-term services and support. Medicaid cuts of this magnitude are unsustainable and will increase costs to individuals with private insurance.
We urge the Senate to go back to the drawing board and develop legislation that continues to provide coverage to all Americans who currently have it.