Topics Topics Help/Instructions Help Edit Profile Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Visit The Brewery's sponsor!
Brews & Views Bulletin Board Service * World Expressions * Free Healthcare in the US < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
 

Pivo Cerveza
Junior Member
Username: Pivo

Post Number: 39
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Friday, July 10, 2009 - 05:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

That is the status quo. Basically, if you are one of the 47 million uninsured in this country - including those who are here illegally, then you get free healthcare. How it works is that you pay nothing up front, and then if you get really, really sick, then the hospital has to take care of you. They can't turn you away, so they pass the cost of your care to the rest of the people who actually can pay.

Does this make sense to anybody?

I can see liberals thinking that they'd like to take care of people because they see themselves as compassionate. I can also see conservatives adopting the position that the uninsured are getting something for nothing, and that we shouldn't have to pay for their healthcare.

With that as a starting point, I would be interested to hear some logical ideas about how to correct this situation.

One thought I had was that maybe we should consider a national sales tax for healthcare. My main reason for thinking this is because this country has a huge underground economy, and too much of the burden for paying taxes is placed on wage earners and companies. Those that do work "under the table" can easily avoid it. A sales tax, while regressive, would be a lot harder to avoid. I also believe that the regressiveness of the tax would serve to partially balance out the progressive act of providing healthcare to those who can't/won't pay for it.

For those of us with insurance, I would think that this would serve to drive down our premiums, because the system would no longer be burdened by the non-payers. Also, I don't think there is anybody who believes that the current system of waiting until somebody is really sick before providing care is the cheapest option.

I'm sure there are a thousand things wrong with this idea, but rather than just attacking ideas, I'd really like to just hear rational solutions at this point.
 

brewer of beer
Junior Member
Username: Brewbeer22

Post Number: 78
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 01:50 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Rationing. It sounds cruel, but the bottom line is that everyone dies eventually. The majority of health care dollars should be spent on keeping healthy people healthy.
 

Chumley
Senior Member
Username: Chumley

Post Number: 5886
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 02:30 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Your system makes sense to me, Pivo.

I would even add on more specifics on the National Sales Tax, making all fresh food products exempt, but taxing processed food (frozen pizzas, TV dinners,, soda, etc). Leave the basic food groups untaxed.....meat, milk, fruits and veggies (canned, fresh, or frozen), bread, etc. You are too busy or lazy to cook for your family.....pay a tax.

BoB also makes sense.....the amount of money keeping old people alive who are ready to die is an enormous drain on the system. Having just watched my MIL die in April, after suffering from dementia for the last 7 years.....an enormous sum of money was spent on someone who just plain was not going to get better.
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1530
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 11:06 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I agree. There is a huge blind spot in medical care in most Western countries, where they focus too much on keeping people alive at all costs, and not caring about quality of life. It is ridiculous, and you have to wonder who benefits from it. Because it sure isn't the patient.
 

Tim C.
Member
Username: Timc

Post Number: 168
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 01:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"BoB also makes sense.....the amount of money keeping old people alive who are ready to die is an enormous drain on the system. Having just watched my MIL die in April, after suffering from dementia for the last 7 years.....an enormous sum of money was spent on someone who just plain was not going to get better."

So what you are saying is these people WANT to die, just don't want to live, or should be helped along? The Nazi party in Germany made the EXACT same argument. What would you consider the enormous drain; 3 years in a nursing home or 3 weeks in an intensive care unit? Either may cost the same. There are no absolutes and someone will be unhappy where you draw a line.

I disagree that medical care focuses on keeping people alive at ALL cost. Medical professionals will make every effort to meet the wishes of the patient. Patients (and family) are advised when care is considered futile.

Be careful what you wish for.
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1531
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 01:48 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Jesus Christ, is it not possible to discuss something like this without dragging fricking Hitler into it??!!
 

Tim C.
Member
Username: Timc

Post Number: 169
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 02:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Those who do not learn from past mistakes are forced to repeat them.
 

Chumley
Senior Member
Username: Chumley

Post Number: 5887
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 03:39 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hitler?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELyTBXzfQJ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IzNPEGWNos
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10520
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 03:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

This subject of this argument is already doomed in this forum, and I fear in Congress as well. The American health care system is a national shame.

Also, the title of this thread is flawed. No rational person would claim health care is "free." The cost is enormous, but then so are the consequences of not providing everyone with a basic level of care.

(Message edited by BillPierce on July 11, 2009)
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1532
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 04:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Those who do not learn from past mistakes are forced to repeat them."

That is the world's laziest argument. "Because historically, despicable tyrants have used certain practises to purge their populations, it is inconceivable for any modern-day person to discuss the philosophy of when life is worth clinging to."

Like the Nazis became monsters _because_ of euthanasia, and not the other way around. Give me a break.
 

Tim C.
Member
Username: Timc

Post Number: 170
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 04:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The quote of "keeping old people alive who are ready to die" is insulting to those patients. My aregument here is WHO is going to make the decision of when life is worth clinging to. Governments know that the sick and infirmed use up alot of resources (money) and set policy. They care little for the individual. Healthcare policy is made on the basis of populations and to benifit the most people at the lowest price. Mamograms for women under age 40 are not covered because they fail to make an impact on the mortality of breast cancer. However if you are unlucky enough to have the wrong gene, you are at significant risk for cancer. Vaccinations are mandatory to attend school because they significantly reduce the incidence of epidemic disease. Sometimes the decision is a good one, other times it is not.

All I am saying here is be careful for what you wish for.
 

Pivo Cerveza
Junior Member
Username: Pivo

Post Number: 40
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 06:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

While I agree that the title of the thread is provocative, I think there is a nugget of truth to it. I believe it is possible to live in the US and pay nothing for your own healthcare. Rather than looking at the uninsured and undocumented workers as people that the wage earners need to pay for, we should see them as a source of some of the premiums that will be needed to provide them with a real healthcare plan, rather than the lousy, free, default catastrophic plan that we currently have.

I also know that there are an awful lot of people who have no idea what healthcare really costs because all they see are the small copays and payroll deductions that they actually pay. I understand that the US already pays the most on a per-person basis, but we don't have the best system of care. In other words, the dollars are already being spent, we just need to figure out a better way to spend them.

As far as the idea that government beaurocrats are going to be making our healthcare decisions for us, I'm not sure that is so much worse than insurance beaurocrats making our healthcare decisions for us. Like it or not, we already have rationing of healthcare in the US. The way it is rationed just doesn't make a lot of sense.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10522
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 06:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Do you really believe that a program to collect premiums from undocumented workers would be sufficient to provide medical care for everyone? Most of the evidence indicates that at present illegal workers are a wash in terms of their economic cost. Yes, they are a burden on programs such as Medicaid and public education, but many of them never collect benefits because they are using false social security numbers, fear being discovered or leave the country before they would collect. Moreover, they generally work for low wages and keep the price of goods and services lower than they would be otherwise. That's hardly a positive argument for the current immigration situation, but it partially explains why it continues.

As for the public versus private insurance debate, a large majority (more than two-thirds) of Canadians feel that the government-funded single-payer insurance system, while hardly perfect, does a better job of paying for basic health care services than the private insurers who pay for supplemental coverage. It's very similar to Medicare for seniors in the US, except that everyone is covered.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6689
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 07:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

We watched my father-in-law die five years ago. He was 84 and was suffering from some circulatory surgery that was being rejected. It was obvious that he had little time. At some point he was having respiratory problems so they rushed him to the hospital. Eventually they performed lung surgery, removing a bit of cancer. He did die a few days later. I got the impression that he was looked upon as maybe a profit source - someone to be worked on to make a sale. When he started to decline, they had him transferred to a hospice. The impression I took from them at that time was that they did not want him dying in their hospital. I shudder to think how much was spent on his last three weeks.

On the other hand, his wife, my mother-in-law died 11 days later of liver cancer. The doctor told my wife that were she his mother, he would not attempt to give her chemotherapy at that stage.

My parents went rather inexpensively, Dad of a sudden massive stroke and Mom of a heart attack at home.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10524
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 08:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

My parents, too, Dan. My father was hospitalized for a relatively minor heart attack, stabilized and died from a second massive attack less than 24 hours later. My mother suddenly died at home (again a heart attack) 15 years later.

On the other hand, my father in law, who just turned 85, had had a series of medical problems just in the past few months. He spent a total of 26 days in the hospital and is currently back home but on kidney dialysis. He's mentally very sharp and not in any real pain; of course the very unattractive alternative would be just to let him die. The out of pocket medical costs (he has no supplemental insurance) so far have been less than $3000, but I stagger to think of what the true cost has been to the publicly funded health case system.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6690
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 08:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

We sometimes don't think about it, but a great portion of the health care in the States is already publicly funded through Medicare. Which politician has the courage to call for an end to Medicare in favor of a totally private system? If one would, he probably would not be 85 years old.
 

Chumley
Senior Member
Username: Chumley

Post Number: 5888
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 09:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan has touched on the main fact of health care reform....the fact that we already have the major cost item of "socialized medicine" in place with Medicare. Old people require the most care, baby boomers are aging and soon this country will be dominated by the elderly demographic.

I also agree with Bill that the cost of illegal aliens on our health care costs is a pretty minor cost item. These folks only go to the hospital when it is absolutely necessary.

Most of the uninsured are young people, who have less health issues; hence, the cost to insure these people is a minor cost item.

I like Pivo's plan of a National Sales Tax to fund health care because it eliminates one of the GOP's major reasons against national health care. The House plan to impose on a tax on the rich just gives the GOP a reason to rally their minions. Just tax the poor with a sales tax, their rich patrons like the insurance industry will lose interest in the debate, and maybe we can get something done.

And before some Republican starts criticizing me for allowing partisanship enter into this debate, I am most highly critical all of my own United States Senator, Max Baucus, who is leading the health care reform efforts. Max said that no one in the Senate supports universal government health care, so that is off the table, despite the support of the majority of Americans. I find it highly reprehensible that Congress refuses to even consider what the majority of Americans wish to happen, just because they receive huge sums of money for their elections from the insurance corporations.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10526
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 03:08 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

For the record, Canada funds about half of its health care system with a national sales tax, called the Goods and Services Tax, currently at 5 percent.
 

Pivo Cerveza
Junior Member
Username: Pivo

Post Number: 41
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 05:54 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Do you really believe that a program to collect premiums from undocumented workers would be sufficient to provide medical care for everyone?

No, I don't think that, and I can't see where I said that. I thought I included undocumented workers along with the uninsured. I also didn't say that they could provide medical care for everyone, but could be a source of some of the premiums.

My reasoning for bringing up the undocumented workers into the debate was because I saw that they were excluded from most of the plans under consideration. If we could just have a tax that has a wide enough net that everybody gets touched by it, then we don't have to have a litmus test to say whether they belong here or not. If they are in the country and need care, then we can assume they have spent a few bucks while they were here, those bucks were taxed, then they are covered.

Who does pay for those who don't have any insurance but need care in this country? They get care, but it isn't the best we have to offer. It is usually done in emergency situations where they can't be turned away. The costs are passed on to the folks who do pay for their care. Like Chumley said, I see the idea of a national sales tax as a way to move the debate forward.

Also, Chumley is the only one who has put forward an idea by exempting healthy foods from the taxes. I'd even go further by saying that gym memberships and sports equipment could also be considered healthy activities that could be exempted.

If there are better ideas, I'm all ears.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6691
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 11:45 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bottle conditioned beers have vitamins . . .
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10530
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 05:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

As I mentioned, my father in law is on kidney dialysis. His doctor said he could have a single glass of wine with dinner but recommended against beer, claiming it was too high in potassium.
 

Connie
Senior Member
Username: Connie

Post Number: 1444
Registered: 10-2000
Posted on Monday, August 17, 2009 - 05:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rG u_Z3KXoQw
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6740
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Monday, August 17, 2009 - 05:48 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

And yet, the Canadians are healthier than we are and they do it for less money.

Here is to "More of the Same!"
 

Connie
Senior Member
Username: Connie

Post Number: 1445
Registered: 10-2000
Posted on Monday, August 17, 2009 - 06:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I don't think they do it for less money, check the various taxes in Canada.
Looks to me like they have tried obamacare and are looking to change to US type care with private providers~
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6741
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Monday, August 17, 2009 - 06:08 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

But what are they getting for their taxes? I can tell you that my taxes are a small fraction of what I pay for health insurance.
 

Connie
Senior Member
Username: Connie

Post Number: 1446
Registered: 10-2000
Posted on Monday, August 17, 2009 - 06:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Wow, you must really have some health issues.

What do they get for their higher taxes, sorry, I don't know...never lived in Canada or been subject to their system.
Perhaps some "real Canada residents who are covered under their system" will respond to that question with first hand experiences.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10601
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Monday, August 17, 2009 - 07:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I don't read the article the same way you do, Connie. It doesn't say the Canadian health care system is broken, rather it faces challenges if changes aren't made, especially in the medium to long-term future. My considered opinion, based on experiences on both sides of the border, is that Canadians tend to take a little longer view than Americans.

As I read it, the article focuses on three problems: wait times that are longer than desirable, disparate recordkeeping systems and not enough cooperation among the provinces (rather than a national health care system, each Canadian province and territory has its own).

Of these three issues, the first is the one most often cited in the current American health care debate. In most provinces (I know Quebec is an exception) the current system relies on private providers, with the province providing tax-funded single-payer insurance. This is almost exactly like Medicare for seniors in the US. However, except in Alberta, individuals are not allowed to bypass the system and obtain additional or more prompt care by paying for it themselves. The fear is that if this were allowed it would create a two-tier system with a higher quality of service for the wealthy. It may be that some form of private competition might provide an incentive for providers to work in a more efficient and timely manner, thereby improving health care for everyone.

The second issue (medical recordkeeping systems are not integrated) is no different than the current situation in the US. Obviously this needs to be addressed. As for the third, this is a particular Canadian problem, although to some extent it mirrors the US, where a few states (Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont, for example) have set up their own insurance requirements or health care systems.

In conclusion, I'm not sure I see what relevance the article has to the current US health care debate.

(Message edited by BillPierce on August 17, 2009)
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6744
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Monday, August 17, 2009 - 07:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I am self-employed with pre-existing conditions. The Republicans babble on about how they look out for small business, but they fight, with tooth and nail, the number one drag on small business development - health care. Screw their tiny tax cuts and give me health insurance reform.

Ever want to start your own business? Make sure that your wife has a job that will cover your butt. My wife works for me.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10602
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Monday, August 17, 2009 - 07:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Private insurers have very largely been allowed to choose who is in their pool. As long as this situation continues, those who fall outside the margins, such as those with pre-existing conditions or who work for small businesses, face huge obstacles and risk disaster. As I've noted a couple of times, taking out a second mortgage or declaring bankruptcy due to health care expenses is all but unheard of in Canada and almost all of the other developed nations in the the world.
 

Connie
Senior Member
Username: Connie

Post Number: 1447
Registered: 10-2000
Posted on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - 04:05 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

whereas long delays are more more common?
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10605
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - 10:12 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

What do you mean by "long" and "more common"?
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6745
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - 01:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Try to see a dermatologist in the States. Horror stories in any system are cheap.

The "long delays" are mostly right wing propaganda and it ignores our "long delays."

(Message edited by listermann on August 18, 2009)
 

Kevin Kowalczyk
Advanced Member
Username: Itsfunbrewingbeer

Post Number: 715
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - 03:32 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Funny you mention that Dan, I saw a dermatologist recently. I waited two days for an appointment, which I don't think is long at all.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6748
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - 03:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Maybe is is a local shortage. In Cincy, they say you can wait months.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10607
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - 05:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

My experience and that of my family here in Ontario is that typically it takes about two months to see a specialist for a non-critical issue. They tend to err on the side of caution, so wait times are greatly reduced or eliminated altogether if there is any doubt about a specific condition.

For family doctors you can almost always get an appointment within a day or two at most. The downside is that you are somewhat unlikely to find that your first choice will accept new patients. There are also many walk-in clinics where appointments are not needed. I have some doubts about the quality of care at these clinics, but they are very convenient for minor problems. For immediate critical care I'd rate the hospital emergency treatment in Canada as better overall than in the US (universal health care eliminates the ER as a last resort for those who have no other options).

Wait times for elective diagnostic tests are typically 3-5 weeks, and for elective surgery they can be as long as a year in some cases. For example, my wife waited three weeks for a non-critical MRI, and my father in law 11 months for cataract surgery. That's longer than might be desired, but I wouldn't characterize it as disastrous. They were able to schedule immediately my father in law's now regular kidney dialysis.
 

Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid

Post Number: 780
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - 06:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I don't have any issues getting in to see specialist.
 

Kevin Kowalczyk
Advanced Member
Username: Itsfunbrewingbeer

Post Number: 716
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - 06:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It's possible that they moved me up--I was worried that a spot was cancerous. Or maybe I just got lucky with a cancellation coming in.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6752
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - 07:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I have to schedule eye exams for diabetics months in advance and it usually takes a half day of sitting is various waiting rooms to get the job done. I am overdue.
 

Will Hearne
Junior Member
Username: Will

Post Number: 27
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 08:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

As health care is a basic need of all people it seams right that our government should provide it for us at no cost. Some other basic need are food, clothing, and shelter. Shouldn’t our government also provide those for us.
Will
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6755
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 10:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

In many ways, the government does provide those safety nets.
 

Connie
Senior Member
Username: Connie

Post Number: 1449
Registered: 10-2000
Posted on Friday, August 21, 2009 - 11:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I saw this on another board:

Saw a short interview with the former president of the Canadian Medical Association yesterday. He's a surgeon in British Columbia. He agrees with the incoming president who said the system is in turmoil. Here's what he had to say about the Canadian health care system.

It has two main problems: access and cost.

30% of Canadians don't have a family physician (shortage of doctors).

There are about 1,000,000 Canadians waiting for surgery and another 1,000,000 waiting to see a specialist before they can then start waiting for surgery. All out of a population of about 34,000,000.

B.C. spends 42% of its total budget on health care with the predictions being it will rise to 80% - 90% if nothing changes.

There is a misconception that Canada has a single-payer system. That is not true. There are many private insurers.

If you want drug coverage, you need private insurance as the national plan doesn't cover drugs.

If you have a heart attack and want an ambulance to take you to the hospital, you need private insurance for it to be covered. The national plan doesn't consider that to be a medical necessity, so it doesn't cover ambulance services.

He also said that the U.S. would not want to copy the Canadian system and Canada would not want to copy our system.
 

Brewzz
Advanced Member
Username: Brewzz

Post Number: 705
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 12:13 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I hope you are joking,Will.....

Brewzz
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10621
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 04:08 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Some of those claims (the percentage of Canadians without a family physician and the number waiting for surgery) are open to serious question, and I could provide considerable substantiation for this. Also, as a point of clarification, some, but not all, ambulance services are covered under the various provincial plans. However, it is certainly true that there is private insurance in Canada, just as there is Medicare supplement insurance in the US. In addition, none of the public plans provides universal dental care, and many do not provide vision care. Prescription drug coverage is mainly limited to seniors, although the government has placed caps on the price of prescription drugs.

Moreover, I have yet to hear anyone who is advocating that the US entirely mirror the Canadian health care system. It's more that certain aspects of the Canadian system may be worthy of being adapted to US conditions. Once again I will mention that declaring bankruptcy due to medical expenses is all but unheard of in Canada, while it is a leading cause of bankruptcy filings in the US.

(Message edited by BillPierce on August 22, 2009)
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6758
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 02:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I get my perscriptions through Canada. It cost about $180 per month - a third of what I would pay the local stores. There is little to argue about this.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10622
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 03:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Some Canadian doctors are not entirely happy with their lot. On average, physicians' earnings are about 20 percent higher in the US, and there is something of a "doctor drain" for graduates of Canadian medical schools. The provincial single-payer insurance systems are quite rigorous about limiting fees, and doctors are not allowed to pass additional charges on to patients over and above the standard fees. Private supplemental insurance pays for procedures and services not covered by the public plans, but will not pay additional charges for what is already covered.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6761
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Monday, August 24, 2009 - 03:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Our soldier son is enrolling his wife of one week in the military's health care system. At the bottom of one form is an interesting statement.

DISCLOSURE: Voluntary; however, failure to provide information will result in the denial of enrollment.

I once bought a VW that had a whole raft of "mandatory options."

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: