Hacker News Reader

Comment by fleitz | Hacker News Reader

A big part of this to is drs in places like Canada get training on how to save costs which generally means not providing service. I had to switch to a private system in Canada to get drs who would take a proactive approach.

View on HN

Oftentimes, not providing any service is better for patient outcomes then providing unnecessary services. Especially if those services are surgeries. [1]

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/18/unnece...

I'm talking about ordering an ultra sound / MRI and running other tests.

I'm talking about sinuses so collapsed they couldn't be scoped so the ENT Dr just assumed they were fine.

Not sure why the downvote there is a lot of truth in his statement. Everyone gets access to healthcare on one end which is good but on the other end newer meds are denied because of costs. On average doctors are trying to reduce the number of patients they serve so there is always a feeling like they are doing you a favor by even seeing you. Other little things you don't expect like it's very hard to get a second opinion.

I have no idea how life is when you rely on an insurance company to approve of your level of care. That sounds like a nightmare.

Wish there was something in the middle where you paid a little bit but had choice.

Cost saving measures can also result in better care. We use Kaiser Permanente, and they often use nurse practitioners and physicians assistants to initially screen patients. It may sound like that's a lower level of care than seeing an MD, but in practice, it's much easier to be seen by someone quickly, and every single one of the providers we've seen has been excellent.

Another point: health care outcomes are better in Canada. There may be more than just health care working there (ie, lower obesity), but it's worth noting.

It's also worth noting that more than a few Canadians come to the United States for treatment because they can either get treatment faster, or they can get treatments that aren't available in Canada.

I should point out here that this applies to serious illnesses. If you have a cold, the flu, or a broken bone, you're fine in Canada.

What are the odds they're traveling to the same hospitals that Americans travel to when they're seriously ill? I doubt that Canadians are hopping the border to go to Montana's hospital system - they're more likely going to the Cleveland Clinic just like someone from Texas would.

What makes you so sure the 'proactive approach' was actually better for you, health wise?

because they found cancer and removed it, in addition to doing things like ordering tests, like ultrasounds to find out why a shoulder was in pain instead of just dismissing it.

Once my mother in law was given nitro and told to come back in a week, we went to a different hospital later that night after symptoms reappeared and then they did a test and she had open heart surgery that night.

Yea, I am all for more government cost controls, and maybe a public option for a more tiered system. But it seems like universal single payer is not really realistic for the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com