Healthcare - US vs. the rest of the World (hit me) - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

GatorB · 02-07-2008, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADL Colin

When you look at the total budget including off-budget items the numbers should look like something like this for these items.

Social Security 22%
Medicare 14%
Income Security 13%
Health 10%

These are from the 2008 "estimate" but are reasonably close.

You have to seperate the social security and at least some one the medicare from the budget parts that are paid by Income taxes because SS comes 100%from FICA taxes.

Yngwie · 02-07-2008, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

This topic goes multiple pages every time it's raised on the board. One example I'm always fond of posting is that of my mother who had a bad reaction to the discontinuation of a prescription med she had been on for many years. Back in 2002 she had to be hospitalized for 2 months. Tell me now, for someone in the USA who can't qualify for health care insurance (many elderly don't) how much would a 2 month stay in hospital cost? I'm talking many tests and all the trimmings.

From what I know of it it would have been over $100K.

But being that she is Canadian living in Canada, the day she was released after recieving excellent care that is equal to the level of care offered anywhere, there was NO bill, the balance owing was $0.00.

I'm sorry to you naysayers but there is simply nothing better than that. I as a Canadian don't have $300, $500 or even up to $1000 a month payments for health insurance coverage. And contrary to what a lot of people think, mostly none of whom actually live here, I am not "taxed to death" either. That is a flat-out misnomer. We Canadians pay very close to the same percentages on our income tax as people in the US do. The difference is we don't have an extra payment in the form of health insurance.

Argue with me all you want but I would not trade our system for yours for all the tea in China. Those of you saying you don't want a similar system are, quite frankly, nuts in my view. No offense, but you really shouldn't knock it until you try it.

I'm not saying ours or any universal system out there is perfect. Far from it. But I do know that if something were to happen to me tomorrow and I needed to go to emergency, that no matter what happens, surgery, CT scan, MRI, whatever... my bill at the end of it would be NOTHING.

I have no idea why anyone would want to argue against that.

Exactly. My dad has been in the hospital for 5 months now. He's had over 5 MRIs done, 5 CT scans, 2 LPs, 4 different operations, 4 different rooms, 14 different doctors including 4 specialist etc.. The bill?? ZERO! and he will be there for even longer.

Now, if this was in the US this would have cost him a fortune. SO ya, some fixing needs to be done to the US health system. Our isn't perfect either, but I'll take ours over theirs.

CDSmith · 02-07-2008, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt_WildCash

The USA spends all its money on Military it has none left to take care of its health care system. And to provide the health care system of other countries I do believe it would need to raise taxes. Hell right now its in deficit $200 billion a year just cause of wars and such, let along trying to pay for its citizens own health care.

Would you be willing to have a slightly higher chunk come off of your paycheque in order to have universal health care?

Before you answer that, consider this: You would no longer have to pay a monthly fee for health insurance. From what I've seen posted of insurance fees among Americans I'm going to say most people pay anywhere from $300/mth up to over $1000/mth. I'm betting that most (assuming most are right in the head that is) would choose a slight increase in deductions and NOT have the monthly fee any longer.

Also consider that should you need surgery or an extended stay in hospital there would no longer be a bill nor anything owing, no "deductible" amount owing etc. I've heard and read first-hand accounts of people getting a bill for $20K because their health insurance provider only covers 80% of the total. Never again under UHC.

And no longer would people currently deemed "not eligible" have to worry about not getting insurance coverage. Everyone would be covered, period.

To me the choice is obvious.

CDSmith · 02-07-2008, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yngwie

Exactly. My dad has been in the hospital for 5 months now. He's had over 5 MRIs done, 5 CT scans, 2 LPs, 4 different operations, 4 different rooms, 14 different doctors including 4 specialist etc.. The bill?? ZERO! and he will be there for even longer.

Now, if this was in the US this would have cost him a fortune. SO ya, some fixing needs to be done to the US health system. Our isn't perfect either, but I'll take ours over theirs.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that that much medical treatment in the US would cost in the $250K range.
(and rising)

Even if he had health insurance I bet his deductible amount would be $50K +

Tempest · 02-07-2008, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

I'm definitely all for getting rid of earmarks, no question. I don't think that politicians should be allowed to use federal tax dollars for no reason other than to secure their own re-election.

However, that's a small fraction of our overall budget and wouldn't even put a dent in health care.

I was shocked when it came out that a lot of that money that was spent was never approved to be spent by anyone... Pretty clear theft from the people IMO...

Peaches · 02-07-2008, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Would you be willing to have a slightly higher chunk come off of your paycheque in order to have universal health care?

Before you answer that, consider this: You would no longer have to pay a monthly fee for health insurance. From what I've seen posted of insurance fees among Americans I'm going to say most people pay anywhere from $300/mth up to over $1000/mth. I'm betting that most (assuming most are right in the head that is) would choose a slight increase in deductions and NOT have the monthly fee any longer.

Also consider that should you need surgery or an extended stay in hospital there would no longer be a bill nor anything owing, no "deductible" amount owing etc. I've heard and read first-hand accounts of people getting a bill for $20K because their health insurance provider only covers 80% of the total. Never again under UHC.

And no longer would people currently deemed "not eligible" have to worry about not getting insurance coverage. Everyone would be covered, period.

To me the choice is obvious.

But I WANT to keep my same insurance and doctors. So I'd still be paying the $363 I pay a month AND my taxes would go up.

Now, why would I make THAT choice??!

People keep saying "But you could KEEP YOUR OWN INSURANCE". Well, that's great. And then I could pay to cover everyone else. YIPEE!

Personally I think refusing care to people who are here illegally would be an excellent step in the right direction of reforming healthcare, but that's mean, right?

Peaches · 02-07-2008, 10:02 PM

What's interesting is that the "big corporations" that so many people complain about are actually taking a lot of this into their own hands (as it should be).

Walmart has several prescriptions for $4 now and I think some of the other large stores have followed.

Most if not all of the drug companies offer free/discounted drugs for people who meet certain income criteria. In addition, they give enough samples to your doctor where if you truly can't afford them, you can usually get them for free. The first 2 years I had an individual policy it didn't cover my migraine medications. But my Dr. just gave me a bag full every visit. Worked great.

Now Walmart, Walgreens, Target, CVS and maybe some other stores are opening clinics in their larger locations which will be affiliated with the local hospital. This will allow those who normally fill up the ER with simple complaints to buy a loaf of bread and see the doctor all in one visit ;)

And most insurance companies offer catastrophic insurance for a relatively low amount to keep you from losing your home over a $200K medical bill.

Snake Doctor · 02-07-2008, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

But I WANT to keep my same insurance and doctors. So I'd still be paying the $363 I pay a month AND my taxes would go up.

Now, why would I make THAT choice??!

People keep saying "But you could KEEP YOUR OWN INSURANCE". Well, that's great. And then I could pay to cover everyone else. YIPEE!

You're already paying to cover everyone else, you just don't know it.

People show up at emergency rooms everyday without insurance, and then don't pay the bill.
Your property taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes, etc go to fund these hospitals.

Right now we have 47 million uninsured people who would have to pay some sort of tax or premium or whatever you want to call it under a universal system.....right now they pay nothing, you're paying for them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

Personally I think refusing care to people who are here illegally would be an excellent step in the right direction of reforming healthcare, but that's mean, right?

That issue is actually more complicated than you think. In principle I agree with you but for reasons of public health and not starting epidemics, it's best that everyone be able to get medical treatment when necessary, regardless of whether or not they have a green card.

CDSmith · 02-07-2008, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

But I WANT to keep my same insurance and doctors. So I'd still be paying the $363 I pay a month AND my taxes would go up.

Now, why would I make THAT choice??!

People keep saying "But you could KEEP YOUR OWN INSURANCE". Well, that's great. And then I could pay to cover everyone else. YIPEE!

Personally I think refusing care to people who are here illegally would be an excellent step in the right direction of reforming healthcare, but that's mean, right?

Why would you need extra insurance? I don't, and I can see whatever doctor I want.

The problem with illegals would have to be addressed, yes. But in Canada it IS addressed... that being anyone who shows up at one of our hospitals and isn't covered by our health care system has to pay for treatment.

Peachy I just finished saying you wouldn't need to pay that insurance fee any longer, I can't make it any clearer. I'll say again, under the Canadian system I don't pay any monthly insurance fee yet I am 100% covered.

How can you honestly argue against that?

Snake Doctor · 02-07-2008, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Why would you need extra insurance? I don't, and I can see whatever doctor I want.

The problem with illegals would have to be addressed, yes. But in Canada it IS addressed... that being anyone who shows up at one of our hospitals and isn't covered by our health care system has to pay for treatment.

Peachy I just finished saying you wouldn't need to pay that insurance fee any longer, I can't make it any clearer. I'll say again, under the Canadian system I don't pay any monthly insurance fee yet I am 100% covered.

How can you honestly argue against that?

The confusion here is that you're talking about the Canadian system and she's talking about the plans being proposed by the Democratic candidates.

Under those plans you would have the option of keeping whatever insurance you have, or you could buy into the federal plan.
People under certain income levels would be given subsidies so they could afford the price of the plan.
The subsidies will be paid for by letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the top 1% of income earners in the country.

This way anyone who wants health insurance can get it, and it will create a national "risk pool" to keep the price down. Also, private plans would then have to compete with the government plan on price and quality, which would drive prices down and quality up in that market as well.

CDSmith · 02-07-2008, 10:40 PM

It's a big complex mess of an issue, but it doesn't have to be. Once people stop worrying about "having to pay for everyone else" and just realize that a UHS covers you and your family completely without having to pay extra insurance fees, well, that's really all that matters to each individual, no?

The USA is almost at a crossroads on this issue. You can either build a workable new system that covers everyone and removes any further instances of horror stories like those contained on Moore's movie, or you can continue on clunking away with your existing mess.

And before arguing ad nauseum with me because you still think what you have now is better, answer me this: Why is it that out of all the friends, aquaintances, and relatives I know who are US citizens, nearly ALL of them envy the Canadian system (especially so when the hospital bills start rolling in). Why? Are they all stupid whereas you are smart? Or maybe they see past their own situation and can consider all those Americans who currently can't qualify for health insurance?

One other thing some of you may be overlooking --- think about it... all those "idiots" out there who refuse to pay for private insurance and are running the risk of facing massive bills if they need an appendix removed or have a serious illness etc would have no choice but to contribute to a universal healthcare system. :D

Does that not offset some of the concern over others not paying?

Peaches · 02-07-2008, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Why would you need extra insurance? I don't, and I can see whatever doctor I want.

The problem with illegals would have to be addressed, yes. But in Canada it IS addressed... that being anyone who shows up at one of our hospitals and isn't covered by our health care system has to pay for treatment.

Peachy I just finished saying you wouldn't need to pay that insurance fee any longer, I can't make it any clearer. I'll say again, under the Canadian system I don't pay any monthly insurance fee yet I am 100% covered.

How can you honestly argue against that?

CD, what YOU don't seem to understand is that I wouldn't take my dogs to a government run hospital in the states! IOW, I would get what I know a lot of you Canadians get, because I worked for a Canadian company and anyone who could afford it, had it, and that's the supplemental insurance that allows you to choose your doctors/hospitals, you're not in a waiting line for simple surgery, etc.

Let me repeat: I DO NOT WANT TO RECEIVE US GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE. I've already seen how screwed up the Medicare and Medicaid system is.

So again, I'd be paying for the supplemental insurance AND higher taxes. Just doesn't seem like something I'm going to be interested in.

And geeze, I can just imagine the uproar in the US if they demanded payment upfront from illegals, lol.

But at least then some of the hospitals in the border towns could stand a better chance of staying open.

CDSmith · 02-07-2008, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

The confusion here is that you're talking about the Canadian system and she's talking about the plans being proposed by the Democratic candidates.

Under those plans you would have the option of keeping whatever insurance you have, or you could buy into the federal plan.
People under certain income levels would be given subsidies so they could afford the price of the plan.
The subsidies will be paid for by letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the top 1% of income earners in the country.

This way anyone who wants health insurance can get it, and it will create a national "risk pool" to keep the price down. Also, private plans would then have to compete with the government plan on price and quality, which would drive prices down and quality up in that market as well.

As long as they incorporate into the system some way to make sure that everyone is covered (and contributing money to the system) then it sounds as though someone is at least on the right track, or close to it.

I think some people haven't paid attention to what those like L-Pink have said. It's fine to disagree with change when you can afford the private insurance premiums and you are still young enough to qualify for coverage... but I think some tunes will change in years to come as those people get older and find they are no longer covered. Won't happen to everyone I'm sure, but it does happen to some, as is obvious in L-Pink's post.

What then?

I forsee a change coming in the US. I hope it's done right and proves to be a huge improvement, but with so much dissent among your ranks it strikes me as a long shot at best.

Snake Doctor · 02-07-2008, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

The USA is almost at a crossroads on this issue. You can either build a workable new system that covers everyone and removes any further instances of horror stories like those contained on Moore's movie, or you can continue on clunking away with your existing mess.

You have to eat an elephant one bite at a time man.

Obama said it perfectly, if he was designing a health care system from scratch he would make a single payer system.
However, we can't just throw out everything we have now and start over. That would be a nightmare. (not to mention it would scare the shit out of most people)

So the plans being proposed cover everyone and are probably the first nail in the coffin of the for-profit HMO business.

CDSmith · 02-07-2008, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

CD, what YOU don't seem to understand is that I wouldn't take my dogs to a government run hospital in the states! IOW, I would get what I know a lot of you Canadians get, because I worked for a Canadian company and anyone who could afford it, had it, and that's the supplemental insurance that allows you to choose your doctors/hospitals, you're not in a waiting line for simple surgery, etc.

Let me repeat: I DO NOT WANT TO RECEIVE US GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE. I've already seen how screwed up the Medicare and Medicaid system is.

So again, I'd be paying for the supplemental insurance AND higher taxes. Just doesn't seem like something I'm going to be interested in.

And geeze, I can just imagine the uproar in the US if they demanded payment upfront from illegals, lol.

But at least then some of the hospitals in the border towns could stand a better chance of staying open.

You worked for a Canadian company so you now know how it is here? Come on Peachy, really now. Why is it that I am telling you how it is here and you aren't buying it?

Fact is I can choose my hospital and I don't have any extra coverage of any kind. I am free to go to the hospital of my choosing and seek medical care. I can stop seeing my regular doctor and phone some other clinic and make an appointment with any other doctor if I so choose.

I'm baffled at the misconceptions some of you south of the border types have about Canada. :D

Porn Farmer · 02-07-2008, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

So again, I'd be paying for the supplemental insurance AND higher taxes. Just doesn't seem like something I'm going to be interested in.

You seem to think universal healthcare is run the same way in every country that has it. You couldn't be more wrong.

In Australia everyone can get a basic level of health care without paying OR you can choose to pay for private health insurance and get your choice of doctor, your own room in a private hospital etc etc... AND you get a 30% rebate on the cost of your private insurance premium from the government.

I fear the government, but I fear private enterprise more. I don't want profit being the bottom line when it comes to matters of life and death. Health care is too important.

CDSmith · 02-07-2008, 11:02 PM

I would advise stop thinking of it as "GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE"... we don't. There aren't private hospitals and "Government" ones up here. In Winnipeg for example we have seven major hospitals, all of varying sizes. A few specialize in certain things like cancer treatment, but all of them provide pretty excellent care.

Maybe a two-tier system would work in the US, I don't know.

CDSmith · 02-07-2008, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porn Farmer

You seem to think universal healthcare is run the same way in every country that has it. You couldn't be more wrong.

In Australia everyone can get a basic level of health care without paying OR you can choose to pay for private health insurance and get your choice of doctor, your own room in a private hospital etc etc... AND you get a 30% rebate on the cost of your private insurance premium from the government.

I fear the government, but I fear private enterprise more. I don't want profit being the bottom line when it comes to matters of life and death. Health care is too important.

Prime example right there. Brilliant.

CDSmith · 02-07-2008, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

You have to eat an elephant one bite at a time man.

Obama said it perfectly, if he was designing a health care system from scratch he would make a single payer system.
However, we can't just throw out everything we have now and start over. That would be a nightmare. (not to mention it would scare the shit out of most people)

So the plans being proposed cover everyone and are probably the first nail in the coffin of the for-profit HMO business.

Truthfully, anyone who thinks the changes we're talking about are going to be anything close to instantaneous is, well... foolish. I would hazard a guess that if it comes at all it will happen over a period of 5-10 years minimum. (and then continue to evolve from there)

TheSenator · 02-07-2008, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

CD, what YOU don't seem to understand is that I wouldn't take my dogs to a government run hospital in the states! IOW, I would get what I know a lot of you Canadians get, because I worked for a Canadian company and anyone who could afford it, had it, and that's the supplemental insurance that allows you to choose your doctors/hospitals, you're not in a waiting line for simple surgery, etc.

Let me repeat: I DO NOT WANT TO RECEIVE US GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE. I've already seen how screwed up the Medicare and Medicaid system is.

So again, I'd be paying for the supplemental insurance AND higher taxes. Just doesn't seem like something I'm going to be interested in.

And geeze, I can just imagine the uproar in the US if they demanded payment upfront from illegals, lol.

But at least then some of the hospitals in the border towns could stand a better chance of staying open.

Peaches...sounds like you don't want the government involve with any aspect of your life.

True or False?

heymatty · 02-07-2008, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

I would advise stop thinking of it as "GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE"... we don't. There aren't private hospitals and "Government" ones up here. In Winnipeg for example we have seven major hospitals, all of varying sizes. A few specialize in certain things like cancer treatment, but all of them provide pretty excellent care.

Maybe a two-tier system would work in the US, I don't know.

Canada is excellent for emergency care sure. I also lived in Canada

But the problem with both UK and Canadian system is the non-emergancy care.

I played soccer at a pretty decent level while in Canada and a guy in my team was suffering from crazy headaches. He begged and begged for an mri because everything they tried didn't work drug wise. He was on a waiting list for an mri for 5 months in ontario. The mri revealed he had been given all the drugs for no reason, and the problem was some weird abnormality in his neck / spine that was pushing on his brain giving him the headaches.

After 5 months waiting on the mri, his condition was upgraded to emergency and he had an operation which corrected the problem within a few days.

I am no fan of the US system for sure, but on the insurance plan we have currently there is no waiting. You get the referral fast from your doc and you arrange an appointment that week with the specialist / clinic.

When we move back to the UK first thing I will buy is additional private medical insurance for these kind of things.

EonBlue · 02-08-2008, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heymatty

Canada is excellent for emergency care sure.

Not always:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...32203-sun.html

Stories like this are all too common here.

Also the survival rate for cancer is higher in the US probably because people here usually have to wait longer for treatment.

Health care in Canada is generally good when you can get it.

ADL Colin · 02-08-2008, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

It can't be just discretionary spending. If it was then defense would be the biggest slice of the pie, and the interest on the debt wouldn't be in there. That's not "discretionary"

.

Which blue is 41%? i am having trouble differentiating the colors.

ADL Colin · 02-08-2008, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Hehe, you can get insurance if you smoke pot, my dad, wife, me, and all my friends would be boned many years ago if that was the case.

Well, I'm sure you can figure out how but when I got to the part on the application about a drug test I stopped. if I tested positive then what? Anyway, doesn't matter cuz I am not a big fan of insurance these days anyway. Why bet against the people with the odds? You know those insurance plans they try to sell you at Best Buy? I NEVER take them.

ADL Colin · 02-08-2008, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Umm.. The only people who think like yourself on this issue are the super right wing republicans, your argument has all the words of a talk radio hosts, which are super right wing nut jobs.

Doc, as far as the comments on FOX news and "talk radio hosts" I'm 39 years old. I've been in favor of smaller government since before FOX news even existed. Over the years I've come to believe in somewhat bigger governments than I did back then but overall I'm still somewhat libertarian in my views regarding the role of government though I don't go the extremes that they do.

ADL Colin · 02-08-2008, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

It's a big complex mess of an issue, but it doesn't have to be. Once people stop worrying about "having to pay for everyone else" and just realize that a UHS covers you and your family completely without having to pay extra insurance fees, well, that's really all that matters to each individual, no?

The USA is almost at a crossroads on this issue. You can either build a workable new system that covers everyone and removes any further instances of horror stories like those contained on Moore's movie, or you can continue on clunking away with your existing mess.

And before arguing ad nauseum with me because you still think what you have now is better, answer me this: Why is it that out of all the friends, aquaintances, and relatives I know who are US citizens, nearly ALL of them envy the Canadian system (especially so when the hospital bills start rolling in). Why? Are they all stupid whereas you are smart? Or maybe they see past their own situation and can consider all those Americans who currently can't qualify for health insurance?

One other thing some of you may be overlooking --- think about it... all those "idiots" out there who refuse to pay for private insurance and are running the risk of facing massive bills if they need an appendix removed or have a serious illness etc would have no choice but to contribute to a universal healthcare system. :D

Does that not offset some of the concern over others not paying?

There's many different ways of considering what the role of government should be.

In my ideal state I would have not have created Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare and so on. I don't believe those functions should be paid for by everyone in a society collectively. I don't believe in collective social welfare. I didn't say in what way that is better to me. I don't think most people will get better healthcare/welfare/retirement under a system where we don't take from some to give to others. if you take from some and give to others of course there will be many receiving more than they put in and they will be better off. All these things of course follow and are the legacy of the Bismarckian state. I think the smaller functions of the state before that era were preferrable.

That being said we already have those programs above and I don't think it would be fair to the people on the receiving end of them to just take them away. I think Medicare D was a huge mistake but I don't think you can take it away now.

I don't have any problems or criticisms of Canada's health system. None. It's just a different view held by most Canadians of what the function of government should be. If that is what Canadians want, great. Pay for it, plan it, do it.

I do, anyway, believe the US will head in this direction. People tend to want more services and governments are getting bigger in scope and power rather than smaller. It doesn't scare me. I don't think the country will fall apart. Life will go on. The tilt toward more liberal democracy with greater collective socialization continues on. For better or worse.

ADL Colin · 02-08-2008, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarlosTheGaucho

Main scope of what Pfizer does is not pills or other medicaments, what's more they are buying licenses for cheap meds and they are not overpricing them that much as far as I am aware. I assume they do the most of the money on medical accessories.

Carlos, 93% of Pfizer's revenue comes from drug sales (Lipitor $13 billion, Norvasc $4.8 billion, Zoloft $2.1 billion, Celebrex $2 billion, Viagra $1.6 billion, etc etc). 9 drugs over $1 billion in sales.

Most of Pfizer's products are developed by the Pfizer R&D team; an $8 billion per year research department. They have 12,000 scientists currently researching and developing 242 drugs in 11 different therapeutic areas.

ADL Colin · 02-08-2008, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

What are you going to do if you can't afford his meds?

Her. ummmm, not an issue for me, Doc. I'm willing to bet we are in completely different tax brackets.

ADL Colin · 02-08-2008, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

It's a big complex mess of an issue, but it doesn't have to be. Once people stop worrying about "having to pay for everyone else" and just realize that a UHS covers you and your family completely without having to pay extra insurance fees, well, that's really all that matters to each individual, no?

I've read Hillary's healthcare plan. Not sure everyone else has. I haven't read Obamas. Has he provided details?

Hillary's plan requires raising the top tax rate to 39.5% to partially offset the cost of her plan. So again for me, this is MANY, MANY times what I would ever have to receive in healthcare. This is of course, true for all high income individuals. Now if you believe the rich should pay more for the healthcare of the poor, I won't argue with you. That is your belief. It's not right, it's not wrong. It's a preference about what kind of world you want to live in.

But let's not pretend that is not what it will be at least in some of the systems being proposed by the potential future presidents of the US.

Boobzooka · 02-08-2008, 05:58 AM

Don't forget that with public health care, you are also no longer forced to pay auto liability insurance, because any injury resulting from accident is already covered. Infact deduct pretty much any kind of liability insurance you're paying for anything now. I've always thought it was fucked up that the law mandates you be a customer of a private business.

Peaches · 02-08-2008, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porn Farmer

You seem to think universal healthcare is run the same way in every country that has it. You couldn't be more wrong.

In Australia everyone can get a basic level of health care without paying OR you can choose to pay for private health insurance and get your choice of doctor, your own room in a private hospital etc etc... AND you get a 30% rebate on the cost of your private insurance premium from the government.

I fear the government, but I fear private enterprise more. I don't want profit being the bottom line when it comes to matters of life and death. Health care is too important.

Unfortunately, that is not what is being presented by the politicians here in the US. You would still be able to keep your insurance BUT you would still pay into the universal system.

Would I like less government in my life? Yep. I think they're doing a horrible job in education. I think they're doing a horrible job in social security/retirement. I think they're doing a horrible job with the "war on drugs". I think they're doing a horrible job with road upkeep, police, etc.

I live in an area that has an all volunteer fire department. We do just fine. My subdivision has it's own roads that WE as residents take care of. We do just fine. My son was in a charter school which was ranked as one of the top 5 schools in the country when he was there - again, run by parents and school administration. Meanwhile the Atlanta public school system, which pays more per student than most public schools in the state, has some of the lowest scores in the state. Money down the drain. The public hospital is about to be closed down unless someone from the private sector comes in to save it. Hell, look at the self appointed border patrol run by citizens - it actually catches illegal immigrants.

So far, the private sector has shown me they can do a better job of doing most things than the government.

For those of you in the US, go pick up a copy of this months Consumer Reports - some interesting things in there. Most interesting is how skewed the public is on how much they think medical items cost. One example is that drugs account for 10% of health costs whereas consumers think the number is several times that amount. I know for a fact that my Dr. charges less per visit now than he did when he took Medicare/Medicaid patients because now he doesn't have to make up what he wasn't get paid. We have a government that is known for overspending. I mean puhlease - Medicare covers VIAGRA for goodness sake. Yes, my tax dollars go towards making sure Grampa has a good hard on for Grandma.

With universal healthcare you can damn sure expect the clever folks to get boob jobs, face lifts, etc all on the government dime.

CD, if supplemental insurance isn't worth anything in Canada (our offices were in Scarborough to give you an exact idea of where they worked), then why did everyone want it?!! This was something they were paying out of their own pockets - the company wasn't covering it except for the father of the owner

CDSmith · 02-08-2008, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

CD, if supplemental insurance isn't worth anything in Canada (our offices were in Scarborough to give you an exact idea of where they worked), then why did everyone want it?!! This was something they were paying out of their own pockets - the company wasn't covering it except for the father of the owner

I didn't say it wasn't worth anything, I just said that it's not always the "must have" that some pretend it is. It's not all that costly though, certainly not like what you seem to be suggesting anyway. Here all it does is ensure that if you are admitted into hospital you get either a private or semi-private room (subject to availability). It doesn't ensure you get a "better doctor", special treatment, different nurses or better food than anyone else. It gives you some extra insurance benefits of course, which is always good to have. But there are a lot of people here who don't have it and do just fine.

I had supplemental insurance for all the years I worked in health care, it was built into my benefits package. For the past 10 years that I've been working for myself from home I haven't bothered to get it, and frankly I don't see the need for it so far. When I go on a trip I buy travel insurance anyway. I do have critical illness insurance which is a whopping $60 a month (oooh!), which covers me in case I develop a condition where I would not be able to run my business for an extended period due to illness or injury. It also covers me in case I have to seek treatment in the US or another country. (I actually recommend any small business owner have critical illness insurance)

Maybe one day I'll again start paying into the supplemental plan (Blue Cross), I don't know. I'm retired from the hospital I worked at now, maybe in a few more years I'll be retired from everything else I'm doing, who knows. :D

Snake Doctor · 02-08-2008, 10:54 AM

This has turned into quite an argument about the overall role of government and whether government is better or worse than private enterprise and whether things should be controlled at the federal or local level.

Regardless of your philosophical view on these issues, you can't deny the FACT that Canada and other industrialized nations with universal health care SPEND LESS per person on health care and receive MORE BENEFITS than we do in the U.S.

CDSmith · 02-08-2008, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

This has turned into quite an argument about the overall role of government and whether government is better or worse than private enterprise and whether things should be controlled at the federal or local level.

I can only speak for how it is here, but I wanted to say that all these comments like "government health care" got me thinking... and these people need to know that just because the goverment legislates the system that doesn't mean polititians are donning lab coats and performing surgeries. :D

All the same doctors and nurses and support staff are all still in place, each medical facility still has it's own administration and it's own budget. From my experience of it the only time the "government" ever entered into play was when there was going to be a large change in policy or practice (such as outsourcing hospital food services) or when one of the several unions were in contract negotiations. Other than that it's just a regular old hospital, you never percieve "the government" when you're there at all.

One huge difference though is when you're a patient and you are discharged you get a fond farewell from the staff... and no bill.

drjones · 02-08-2008, 11:16 AM

I'll say it again...

People willfully asking for the federal government to take more of their money, is like lending a crack addict money. They say they are going to use to it go check into rehab, but show up at your door again in a couple days after another bender.

These people are some of the worst money managers the world has seen... at least when it comes to money that isnt theirs. Im sure most of their personal finances are in order.

UHC would be no different. All these extra taxes would come it, and they will go on a shopping spree, like we have never seen. Then when it comes time to pay for medical services, they will give china a call and ask for a trillion or two to cover it.

Sorry, no thanks. I'm not necassarily against UHC in principle, but our government (the us gov) WILL fuck it up, royally.

Peaches · 02-08-2008, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drjones

Sorry, no thanks. I'm not necassarily against UHC in principle, but our government (the us gov) WILL fuck it up, royally.

BINGO.

8char

EonBlue · 02-08-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

Regardless of your philosophical view on these issues, you can't deny the FACT that Canada and other industrialized nations with universal health care SPEND LESS per person on health care and receive MORE BENEFITS than we do in the U.S.

The US may spend more per person on health care but Canada spends more as a percentage of it's annual budget. Some provinces here are already spending 50% or more of their annual budgets on health care and that percentage keeps going up every year.

And yes we may receive more benefits than you but those benefits are rationed because of increased demand for a "free" commodity. The availability of benefits isn't much use if you can't receive them in a timely manner. There is a reason why many people here choose to go to the US to pay for treatments.

Also our technology and availability of new drugs lags behind yours by several years. That's another reason why many people here go to the US for treatment.

Here's another consqequnce of rationed health care - this one from the UK:

Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors

Quote:

Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.

Then it's only a matter of time before some bureaucrat decides to add other "unhealthy" lifestyles, as determined by them, to the list.

How scary is that?

Elli · 02-08-2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DareRing

Don't forget that with public health care, you are also no longer forced to pay auto liability insurance, because any injury resulting from accident is already covered. Infact deduct pretty much any kind of liability insurance you're paying for anything now. I've always thought it was fucked up that the law mandates you be a customer of a private business.

Hm, not in BC. They recommend every driver get $3 million third-party liability insurance. I guess if you cause someone else's loss of job/life due to the accident, you're still on the hook for it.

CDSmith · 02-08-2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elli

Hm, not in BC. They recommend every driver get $3 million third-party liability insurance. I guess if you cause someone else's loss of job/life due to the accident, you're still on the hook for it.

I think he was speaking more in terms of self. You aren't required to carry extra health insurance on yourself in order to drive a motor vehicle, is what I think he meant. And that's true, you don't. If you get in an accident and only you yourself is injured, you still get free healthcare, for example.

I think every province requires some level of 3rd party liability ins. Here in Manitoba I think the minimum is 1 million.

directfiesta · 02-08-2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EonBlue

The US may spend more per person on health care but Canada spends more as a percentage of it's annual budget. Some provinces here are already spending 50% or more of their annual budgets on health care and that percentage keeps going up every year.

And yes we may receive more benefits than you but those benefits are rationed because of increased demand for a "free" commodity. The availability of benefits isn't much use if you can't receive them in a timely manner. There is a reason why many people here choose to go to the US to pay for treatments.

Also our technology and availability of new drugs lags behind yours by several years. That's another reason why many people here go to the US for treatment.

Here's another consqequnce of rationed health care - this one from the UK:

Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors

Then it's only a matter of time before some bureaucrat decides to add other "unhealthy" lifestyles, as determined by them, to the list.

How scary is that?

I just can't figure out why you still are in Canada .....

Peaches · 02-08-2008, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

I think he was speaking more in terms of self. You aren't required to carry extra health insurance on yourself in order to drive a motor vehicle, is what I think he meant. And that's true, you don't. If you get in an accident and only you yourself is injured, you still get free healthcare, for example.

You're not required to carry auto health insurance on yourself in the US either. I've never had it.

CarlosTheGaucho · 02-08-2008, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADL Colin

Carlos, 93% of Pfizer's revenue comes from drug sales (Lipitor $13 billion, Norvasc $4.8 billion, Zoloft $2.1 billion, Celebrex $2 billion, Viagra $1.6 billion, etc etc). 9 drugs over $1 billion in sales.

Most of Pfizer's products are developed by the Pfizer R&D team; an $8 billion per year research department. They have 12,000 scientists currently researching and developing 242 drugs in 11 different therapeutic areas.

I'll check that, seems that I messed that up with another company..

EonBlue · 02-08-2008, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

I just can't figure out why you still are in Canada .....

Well, not that it's your place to try and figure that out but why wouldn't I or shouldn't I still be in Canada?

TheSenator · 02-08-2008, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

BINGO.

8char

Peaches you sound so anti-government. Base on your observation the government just screws up everything they touch.

By your logic you would support private companies like Blackwater to fight our wars, patrol our streets, border security, etc...

I believe in government when we put the right people in government. Republicans hate government and always put their cronies to ruin it. Hence, Katrina, FEMA, FDA, EPA, etc.

Look at the bigger picture. All developed coutries have UHC. Wake up Peaches because you may find yourself on the other end of health care.

CDSmith · 02-08-2008, 12:39 PM

What's interesting is that when I posted the exact same sentiments on this board 5 years ago as I have in this thread I received a lot more dissention and arguing from Americans back then. Now there's only a few who continue to resist. Seems a lot of opinions have either changed and/or a lot are just less vocal about criticizing my argument for UHC as they used to do. Tells me that in general, those people are a lot more open-minded these days, maybe had their eyes opened a tad wider.

Moore's movie amongst other things has obviously caused a snowball effect of awareness in the past 1-2 years.

Snake Doctor · 02-08-2008, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EonBlue

The US may spend more per person on health care but Canada spends more as a percentage of it's annual budget. Some provinces here are already spending 50% or more of their annual budgets on health care and that percentage keeps going up every year.

The percentage is meaningless.
Canada doesn't have the national defense bill that we have.
If we got rid of the pentagon the percentage we spend on everything else would go way way up, but it doesn't mean we're spending more money.

Snake Doctor · 02-08-2008, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSenator

Peaches you sound so anti-government. Base on your observation the government just screws up everything they touch.

By your logic you would support private companies like Blackwater to fight our wars, patrol our streets, border security, etc...

I believe in government when we put the right people in government. Republicans hate government and always put their cronies to ruin it. Hence, Katrina, FEMA, FDA, EPA, etc.

Look at the bigger picture. All developed coutries have UHC. Wake up Peaches because you may find yourself on the other end of health care.

This is a good point.

The republican argument goes back to Reagan's famous line "Government isn't the answer to the problem, government is the problem"
So during a republican administration political loyalty is the most important thing when staffing the executive agencies, NOT competence or experience. (Which is why we had the director of the Arabian Horse Association running FEMA, and why we have so many grads of Regent University working in the justice department)
If government does a good job then that ruins their argument that government CAN'T do a good job. So do you think they're really trying?

So should we just get rid of the government or should we demand that competent people run the government?
I vote for the latter.

If my HMO screws me over I have no recourse whatsoever....you're not even allowed to sue them.
If the federal health plan screws me over I can call a congressman, a senator, I can sue...there are lots of things I can do....and if I don't like the way they're running it I can throw them out in two years and get new people in there.

Peaches · 02-08-2008, 12:53 PM

The point I think a lot of you folks who aren't living in the US don't seem to see is that the US has already screwed up the healthcare system they are in charge of: Medicare and Medicaid. If they haven't figured out how to run that in 40 years, do you really think we want to trust our health to them now?

If I could change the healthcare system, I would make a minimum catastrophic policy mandatory for everyone unless you're too poor in which case you're already covered under Medicare/caid. And heavy penalties if you don't and you pay for it in cash.

CarlosTheGaucho · 02-08-2008, 12:59 PM

Seems like I labeled the board right - interesting discussion so far.

Just one against the:

"Government fucks everything up" argument

As we see in every country of the world, including the States that have no problem to finance an armed invasion - no government in the world needs to SAVE or create PROFIT...

(well at least in the ideal case when they don't save or create profit for interested / lobbying third parties..)

In every government observed healthcare system - the health of the patient is preffered over the cost of the treatment.

Which apparently doesn't happen in the States, although the costs per capita are higher than anywhere else.

This once again ridiculously simplifies the problem.

TheSenator · 02-08-2008, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

This is a good point.

The republican argument goes back to Reagan's famous line "Government isn't the answer to the problem, government is the problem"
So during a republican administration political loyalty is the most important thing when staffing the executive agencies, NOT competence or experience. (Which is why we had the director of the Arabian Horse Association running FEMA, and why we have so many grads of Regent University working in the justice department)
If government does a good job then that ruins their argument that government CAN'T do a good job. So do you think they're really trying?

So should we just get rid of the government or should we demand that competent people run the government?
I vote for the latter.

If my HMO screws me over I have no recourse whatsoever....you're not even allowed to sue them.
If the federal health plan screws me over I can call a congressman, a senator, I can sue...there are lots of things I can do....and if I don't like the way they're running it I can throw them out in two years and get new people in there.

I think that is where Peaches is at right now. Government sucks ass..so lets privatize it.

02-07-2008, 10:40 PM	#111
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	It's a big complex mess of an issue, but it doesn't have to be. Once people stop worrying about "having to pay for everyone else" and just realize that a UHS covers you and your family completely without having to pay extra insurance fees, well, that's really all that matters to each individual, no? The USA is almost at a crossroads on this issue. You can either build a workable new system that covers everyone and removes any further instances of horror stories like those contained on Moore's movie, or you can continue on clunking away with your existing mess. And before arguing ad nauseum with me because you still think what you have now is better, answer me this: Why is it that out of all the friends, aquaintances, and relatives I know who are US citizens, nearly ALL of them envy the Canadian system (especially so when the hospital bills start rolling in). Why? Are they all stupid whereas you are smart? Or maybe they see past their own situation and can consider all those Americans who currently can't qualify for health insurance? One other thing some of you may be overlooking --- think about it... all those "idiots" out there who refuse to pay for private insurance and are running the risk of facing massive bills if they need an appendix removed or have a serious illness etc would have no choice but to contribute to a universal healthcare system. :D Does that not offset some of the concern over others not paying? __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

02-07-2008, 11:02 PM	#117
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	I would advise stop thinking of it as "GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE"... we don't. There aren't private hospitals and "Government" ones up here. In Winnipeg for example we have seven major hospitals, all of varying sizes. A few specialize in certain things like cancer treatment, but all of them provide pretty excellent care. Maybe a two-tier system would work in the US, I don't know. __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

02-08-2008, 05:58 AM	#130
Boobzooka Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: BOOBZOOKA.COM Posts: 626	Don't forget that with public health care, you are also no longer forced to pay auto liability insurance, because any injury resulting from accident is already covered. Infact deduct pretty much any kind of liability insurance you're paying for anything now. I've always thought it was fucked up that the law mandates you be a customer of a private business. __________________ BOOBZOOKA: Amateur Affiliate Program featuring SellYourSexTape: Real couples document their lovelife for one week. HerBedroomWindow: Girls recording themselves alone at home. \| DareRing: "Truth Or Dare?" themed adult party games.

02-08-2008, 10:54 AM	#133
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	This has turned into quite an argument about the overall role of government and whether government is better or worse than private enterprise and whether things should be controlled at the federal or local level. Regardless of your philosophical view on these issues, you can't deny the FACT that Canada and other industrialized nations with universal health care SPEND LESS per person on health care and receive MORE BENEFITS than we do in the U.S. __________________ sig too big

02-08-2008, 11:16 AM	#135
drjones Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Charlotte, NC Posts: 908	I'll say it again... People willfully asking for the federal government to take more of their money, is like lending a crack addict money. They say they are going to use to it go check into rehab, but show up at your door again in a couple days after another bender. These people are some of the worst money managers the world has seen... at least when it comes to money that isnt theirs. Im sure most of their personal finances are in order. UHC would be no different. All these extra taxes would come it, and they will go on a shopping spree, like we have never seen. Then when it comes time to pay for medical services, they will give china a call and ask for a trillion or two to cover it. Sorry, no thanks. I'm not necassarily against UHC in principle, but our government (the us gov) WILL fuck it up, royally. __________________ ICQ: 284903372

02-07-2008, 10:02 PM	#107
Peaches Old broad Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Away Posts: 13,933	What's interesting is that the "big corporations" that so many people complain about are actually taking a lot of this into their own hands (as it should be). Walmart has several prescriptions for $4 now and I think some of the other large stores have followed. Most if not all of the drug companies offer free/discounted drugs for people who meet certain income criteria. In addition, they give enough samples to your doctor where if you truly can't afford them, you can usually get them for free. The first 2 years I had an individual policy it didn't cover my migraine medications. But my Dr. just gave me a bag full every visit. Worked great. Now Walmart, Walgreens, Target, CVS and maybe some other stores are opening clinics in their larger locations which will be affiliated with the local hospital. This will allow those who normally fill up the ER with simple complaints to buy a loaf of bread and see the doctor all in one visit ;) And most insurance companies offer catastrophic insurance for a relatively low amount to keep you from losing your home over a $200K medical bill.

02-08-2008, 12:39 PM	#145
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	What's interesting is that when I posted the exact same sentiments on this board 5 years ago as I have in this thread I received a lot more dissention and arguing from Americans back then. Now there's only a few who continue to resist. Seems a lot of opinions have either changed and/or a lot are just less vocal about criticizing my argument for UHC as they used to do. Tells me that in general, those people are a lot more open-minded these days, maybe had their eyes opened a tad wider. Moore's movie amongst other things has obviously caused a snowball effect of awareness in the past 1-2 years. __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

02-08-2008, 12:53 PM	#148
Peaches Old broad Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Away Posts: 13,933	The point I think a lot of you folks who aren't living in the US don't seem to see is that the US has already screwed up the healthcare system they are in charge of: Medicare and Medicaid. If they haven't figured out how to run that in 40 years, do you really think we want to trust our health to them now? If I could change the healthcare system, I would make a minimum catastrophic policy mandatory for everyone unless you're too poor in which case you're already covered under Medicare/caid. And heavy penalties if you don't and you pay for it in cash.

02-08-2008, 12:59 PM	#149
CarlosTheGaucho Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 9,512	Seems like I labeled the board right - interesting discussion so far. Just one against the: "Government fucks everything up" argument As we see in every country of the world, including the States that have no problem to finance an armed invasion - no government in the world needs to SAVE or create PROFIT... (well at least in the ideal case when they don't save or create profit for interested / lobbying third parties..) In every government observed healthcare system - the health of the patient is preffered over the cost of the treatment. Which apparently doesn't happen in the States, although the costs per capita are higher than anywhere else. This once again ridiculously simplifies the problem. __________________ CTG Media \| skype: carlosprague \| cb \|at\| ctgmedia \|dot\| net \| Want to make more with your Dating Traffic? \| Read My Educational Series \| Read my Adult Biz Chronicles \| Did your ad revenue drop by 40 pct. or more last year? Last edited by CarlosTheGaucho; 02-08-2008 at 01:01 PM.. Reason: ...