Good points, JP ... which leads me to one of my bigger arguments to support state-funded healthcare ... wouldn't a not-for-profit state system be MORE likely to have a vested interest in prevention rather than treatment? It doesn't strike me as a coincidence that the pharmaceutical industry in the US makes the kind of $$ that it does.
Xpnda,
So the Canadian people have two choices when it comes to the future of health care:
1. Continue to receive care at a level significantly inferior to that of most Americans.
or
2. Get into what is essentially a health care "race" competing with the American standard of care and eventually bankrupt the Canadian treasury.
Neither seems too promising.
So the Canadian people have two choices when it comes to the future of health care:
1. Continue to receive care at a level significantly inferior to that of most Americans.
or
2. Get into what is essentially a health care "race" competing with the American standard of care and eventually bankrupt the Canadian treasury.
Neither seems too promising.
Your not for profit system won't work. That's what the HMO's and PPO are claiming now. Prevention in almost all circumstances means a person would have to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for their health in order to prevent disease. The RIGHT to have health care does not prevent anything and may do more damage than good when looking at things such as herd vaccinations programs and other 'cures'. Health is not guaranteed to you once your born, death is.
In the 'enlightened society', we would all share the cost of making sure that no one need fear dying of starvation, exposure or treatable afflictions.
I acknowledged in my previous post that to date, no country on Earth has succeeded in demonstrating such enlightenment.
Here in the U.S. the most common complaint would be similar to your own, something akin to, "If I pay for dude's healthcare, why, then he will simply sit around on the couch and watch Springer".
Your point of view is by no means uncommon. However, it does serve as a continued obstacle to our attaining the level of enlightenment needed to achieve the standard I define above.
I acknowledged in my previous post that to date, no country on Earth has succeeded in demonstrating such enlightenment.
Here in the U.S. the most common complaint would be similar to your own, something akin to, "If I pay for dude's healthcare, why, then he will simply sit around on the couch and watch Springer".
Your point of view is by no means uncommon. However, it does serve as a continued obstacle to our attaining the level of enlightenment needed to achieve the standard I define above.
I don't think we receive health care at a level significantly inferior to most Americans. Of course I could be way off as I've never had the opportunity to use yours (knock on wood.)
This 'race' that you speak of -- is this based on my acknowledgement that our doctors don't get paid as much? I believe this could eventually be rectified, but obviously other labour changes need to occur first.
Maybe the person to ask is Angus ... he's a Canadian living in the US so has probably had cause to use both. He'll have a better idea of the situation.
Again, neither I nor any of my loved ones have ever had a complaint about our health care. My father underwent 6 months of chemo last year, my sister has had two children in the past 14 months, my grandparents totally overuse the system but have no major complaints (they're old, so they have some.) Frankly, I don't see where any of the aforementioned patients could have received better care. Unless you guys give out mints.
I would rather evaluate our health care by the levels we have historically enjoyed, than by the levels Americans currently enjoy.
This 'race' that you speak of -- is this based on my acknowledgement that our doctors don't get paid as much? I believe this could eventually be rectified, but obviously other labour changes need to occur first.
Maybe the person to ask is Angus ... he's a Canadian living in the US so has probably had cause to use both. He'll have a better idea of the situation.
Again, neither I nor any of my loved ones have ever had a complaint about our health care. My father underwent 6 months of chemo last year, my sister has had two children in the past 14 months, my grandparents totally overuse the system but have no major complaints (they're old, so they have some.) Frankly, I don't see where any of the aforementioned patients could have received better care. Unless you guys give out mints.
I would rather evaluate our health care by the levels we have historically enjoyed, than by the levels Americans currently enjoy.
Someone who has been steeped in the capitalist tradition often views something like accessible health care as being 'deserved', or 'earned'....thus those who don't have it must either not deserve it or they haven't earned it.
Again, we must ask, If your neighbor's house was on fire, would you help to put it out, or would you stand to the side and jeer at them for being too lazy to turn off the stove. After all, YOU always turn off the stove. Because you're CAREFUL. So you deserve to be free from fire and the other guy, well, tough luck, just keep the crying babies quiet at nite over in your burned out lot, because we're trying to sleep over here in the safety of our 'earned' unburned house.
Unfortunately, many health situations are neither 'earned' or 'deserved' per se. They happen without discrimination to all. Those with the means and the access to getting adequate medical help too often denounce those without and suggest that their (the less equipped) afflcition would not have happened if they had just 'worked harder'.
Don't be thrown off by my quasi-cynical tone here. I have faith in humanity continuing to progress towards the level of enlightenment needed so that such tragedy will become less common than it is today.
Again, we must ask, If your neighbor's house was on fire, would you help to put it out, or would you stand to the side and jeer at them for being too lazy to turn off the stove. After all, YOU always turn off the stove. Because you're CAREFUL. So you deserve to be free from fire and the other guy, well, tough luck, just keep the crying babies quiet at nite over in your burned out lot, because we're trying to sleep over here in the safety of our 'earned' unburned house.
Unfortunately, many health situations are neither 'earned' or 'deserved' per se. They happen without discrimination to all. Those with the means and the access to getting adequate medical help too often denounce those without and suggest that their (the less equipped) afflcition would not have happened if they had just 'worked harder'.
Don't be thrown off by my quasi-cynical tone here. I have faith in humanity continuing to progress towards the level of enlightenment needed so that such tragedy will become less common than it is today.
Oh and with a tip of the hat to Patriot, I would acknowledge that each of us should pay closer attention to being responsible about our own health and the decisions that contribute to it.
I've got a greater respect for why I, at age 44, should be more prudent about certain lifestyle choices than perhaps I was at age 24. Not only because they are smarter health-wise, but out of respect for my neighbor who may not feel so jazzed about paying for my lung cancer treatments if I insist on continuing to use tobacco (example only, I've never been a tobacco user).
Or for my liver transplant because I insist on being a steady alcohol user for decades (again, example, I haven't had a drink in 11 years).
But that doesn't translate into my turning the other cheek if my neighbor is the one who needs a liver transplant today. I'll do whatever I can to help assure that he can get one, even though I might rightly be critical of his years of drinking.
In the end, I (should) love my neighbor just as myself. Which means I must forgive ANY level of error on his part, in deference to love.
The alternative is to build a callous shell around my soul that will insulate me from hearing the cries of pain.
I've lived that way in the past. It doesn't work so good. My two cents. Your own mileage may vary.
I've got a greater respect for why I, at age 44, should be more prudent about certain lifestyle choices than perhaps I was at age 24. Not only because they are smarter health-wise, but out of respect for my neighbor who may not feel so jazzed about paying for my lung cancer treatments if I insist on continuing to use tobacco (example only, I've never been a tobacco user).
Or for my liver transplant because I insist on being a steady alcohol user for decades (again, example, I haven't had a drink in 11 years).
But that doesn't translate into my turning the other cheek if my neighbor is the one who needs a liver transplant today. I'll do whatever I can to help assure that he can get one, even though I might rightly be critical of his years of drinking.
In the end, I (should) love my neighbor just as myself. Which means I must forgive ANY level of error on his part, in deference to love.
The alternative is to build a callous shell around my soul that will insulate me from hearing the cries of pain.
I've lived that way in the past. It doesn't work so good. My two cents. Your own mileage may vary.
I think much of what is wrong with the Canadian health care system has little to do with the principle of universality or socialized medicine or whatever. The reason for the shortage of doctors is simple; the physician's association (essentially the doctor's union) controls the number of students admitted to medical schools each year. Through this mechanism, and also be refusing licenses to countless qualified doctors who've emigrated to Canada) the physician supply is kept artificially low. As someone pointed out earlier, the fact that American doctors are very well paid should be enough to prop up doctors salaries so what the motivation for this is I have no idea. Also, whether or not you support unionized labour in hospitals, it has nothing to do with universal health care. Maybe it's keeping hospital overhead costs high ... but it's a side issue. The simple fact is that overall Canadians are quite happy with their health care and overwhelmingly support the maintenance of the current universal system . . . so it can't be that bad.
BTW, here in the States as a graduate student with no health problems, in my twenties etc.. I pay around $2300/year in health insurance which works out to 10% of my yearly income. That is a significant cost. I have to pay it, what would happen if I were to have an accident etc.? But with great probability I represent a significant profit to the insurance company. I think the American system has its merits . . . but it's far from flaw-free.
BTW, here in the States as a graduate student with no health problems, in my twenties etc.. I pay around $2300/year in health insurance which works out to 10% of my yearly income. That is a significant cost. I have to pay it, what would happen if I were to have an accident etc.? But with great probability I represent a significant profit to the insurance company. I think the American system has its merits . . . but it's far from flaw-free.
Angus: let's say you find out tomorrow (god forbid) that you have diabetes or some such thing that requires near-constant medical attention. Now, when you leave school, and need to source out another insurance company (because of your employer or whatever) are you automatically disqualified from receiving support for your diabetes from this new insurer as a pre-existing condition?
Also . . . I want to say that I have made (limited) use of the medical facilities here in Boston and have been very impressed. Not much in the way of waits etc...
Another random thought . . . can any American out there tell me what mechanisms are in place to assure a family that has a very sick member don't have their insurance rates jacked sky high? I think I pay quite a bit as a healthy, fit, young-type person. What if I had a family history of heart-disease, a wonky kidney, and every male on my father's side of the family came down with prostate cancer at 40? Would I be screwed?
Another random thought . . . can any American out there tell me what mechanisms are in place to assure a family that has a very sick member don't have their insurance rates jacked sky high? I think I pay quite a bit as a healthy, fit, young-type person. What if I had a family history of heart-disease, a wonky kidney, and every male on my father's side of the family came down with prostate cancer at 40? Would I be screwed?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
Angus: let's say you find out tomorrow (god forbid) that you have diabetes or some such thing that requires near-constant medical attention. Now, when you leave school, and need to source out another insurance company (because of your employer or whatever) are you automatically disqualified from receiving support for your diabetes from this new insurer as a pre-existing condition?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I really don't know . . it's a scary scenario and I just don't know the answer, but I'm sure somebody here does.
Angus: let's say you find out tomorrow (god forbid) that you have diabetes or some such thing that requires near-constant medical attention. Now, when you leave school, and need to source out another insurance company (because of your employer or whatever) are you automatically disqualified from receiving support for your diabetes from this new insurer as a pre-existing condition?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I really don't know . . it's a scary scenario and I just don't know the answer, but I'm sure somebody here does.
Angus,
Another random thought . . . can any American out there tell me what mechanisms are in place to assure a family that has a very sick member don't have their insurance rates jacked sky high? I think I pay quite a bit as a healthy, fit, young-type person. What if I had a family history of heart-disease, a wonky kidney, and every male on my father's side of the family came down with prostate cancer at 40? Would I be screwed? [/QUOTE
If you have insurance through your employer chances are it is examined every year in order to determine next year's premiums. Therein lies the problem with most American medical plans. You get some fat oaf who eats himself into a heart attack and takes full advantage of 12 weeks of FMLA then comes back and takes his vacation for the rest of the year. That's BULL$HIT. My rates go up because I'm in the same plan and I lead a much healthier lifestyle.The short term disability premiums go up because of this, too. That's the laziness people mention when they talk about "free" health maintenance.
I am seriously considering taking a monthly stipend that my company offers and getting my own insurance that way when that fool's insurance goes up again he won't have people like me to bring it down.I lost all respect for him a long time ago. If he dies tomorrow he has no one to blame but himself.
Angus,
If you're in your mid twenties or younger, why is your health insurance so high? I'm in my late twenties and I checked with a couple of providers and I would be paying $1200/year with a $15 co-pay and $200 deductible. I think they're sticking it to you, especially if it's through an employer.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Again, we must ask, If your neighbor's house was on fire, would you help to put it out, or would you stand to the side and jeer at them for being too lazy to turn off the stove. After all, YOU always turn off the stove. Because you're CAREFUL. So you deserve to be free from fire and the other guy, well, tough luck, just keep the crying babies quiet at nite over in your burned out lot, because we're trying to sleep over here in the safety of our 'earned' unburned house. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
barman,
Your concern is touching but some people have to learn the hard way and even then they don't learn. I know a guy who has had 2 heart attacks in 5 years. He is supposed to be eating healthy and exercising at least 10 minutes a day but he doesn't do it. I asked him if Pizza Hut is on his diet and he said, "Yes". Pizza Hut isn't even on my diet but it's on his. To answer your analogy if his house is on fire I wouldn't be jeering at him but instead be getting my water hose ready to do my best to prevent his fire from consuming my property. That may sound cold-hearted but not any more than his cold-heartedness toward ruining our insurance rates, disability rates and overall viable workforce. Not to mention his quality of life for himself and his family. Pathetic.
barman,
Your concern is touching but some people have to learn the hard way and even then they don't learn. I know a guy who has had 2 heart attacks in 5 years. He is supposed to be eating healthy and exercising at least 10 minutes a day but he doesn't do it. I asked him if Pizza Hut is on his diet and he said, "Yes". Pizza Hut isn't even on my diet but it's on his. To answer your analogy if his house is on fire I wouldn't be jeering at him but instead be getting my water hose ready to do my best to prevent his fire from consuming my property. That may sound cold-hearted but not any more than his cold-heartedness toward ruining our insurance rates, disability rates and overall viable workforce. Not to mention his quality of life for himself and his family. Pathetic.
I would like to bring up both sides of the insurance issue.
One thing not being mentioned here is when a person is unemployed or underemployed. Try making a $300/mo. insurance payment when you are making $10/hr. because you had to take a lesser job due to a layoff. There should be a safety net for people who have had insurance before.
On the other hand, I remember a few years back when there was flooding in North Dakota. Why did the government need to bail those people out? I'm guessing they couldn't get decent flood insurance because they lived in a flood plain. If I build my house next to a river that floods every 5 to 10 years should I expect the government to bail me out because it's too expensive to get insurance?
One thing not being mentioned here is when a person is unemployed or underemployed. Try making a $300/mo. insurance payment when you are making $10/hr. because you had to take a lesser job due to a layoff. There should be a safety net for people who have had insurance before.
On the other hand, I remember a few years back when there was flooding in North Dakota. Why did the government need to bail those people out? I'm guessing they couldn't get decent flood insurance because they lived in a flood plain. If I build my house next to a river that floods every 5 to 10 years should I expect the government to bail me out because it's too expensive to get insurance?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Angus,
If you're in your mid twenties or younger, why is your health insurance so high? I'm in my late twenties and I checked with a couple of providers and I would be paying $1200/year with a $15 co-pay and $200 deductible. I think they're sticking it to you, especially if it's through an employer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Those bastards! I get my insurance through my university . . . there has been a big outcry among the grad students recently about the high cost etc... But in fairness, starting next year those of us who are employed by the school as Teaching or Research assistants will have our insurance subsidized, I think.
Angus,
If you're in your mid twenties or younger, why is your health insurance so high? I'm in my late twenties and I checked with a couple of providers and I would be paying $1200/year with a $15 co-pay and $200 deductible. I think they're sticking it to you, especially if it's through an employer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Those bastards! I get my insurance through my university . . . there has been a big outcry among the grad students recently about the high cost etc... But in fairness, starting next year those of us who are employed by the school as Teaching or Research assistants will have our insurance subsidized, I think.
Well, since it's a university I don't know how much of an incentive they have to screw you. I checked on it and my insurance through my employer is $4617/year of which I pay $417/year. However, if I take $2800, I can buy other insurance for the $1200 I previously mentioned and use the rest to buy short term disability, etc. and maybe some left over for a mini vacation somewhere. I'll definitely consider that this year. Good luck in your quest for cheaper insurance.
I've lived under both the Canadian and US health care systems (Boston 12 years and Ontario 6 years) and now live in central america
I can say unequivocally that I prefer the Canadian system. My OHIP card took care of every visit to the doctor/emergency room. There were occasional lineups at emergency in the few times I was there but this was a minor incovenience for the safety and security that universal health care afforded me and my family
In terms of quality of service, equipment etc I found no significant difference between the two systems
My experience in the US was that everyone was terrified of losing their healthcare. It was a major employment issue and a hot topic of conversation.
I actually saw people STAY in shit jobs PURELY because of their health benefits. I found this shocking and it's something you would never see in Canada
IMHO the Canadian system is far superior and works signficantly better than the US system in terms of servicing the public
The negative articles you read occasionally are usually planted by US "professionals" terrified of losing their cash cow to a superior system
I can say unequivocally that I prefer the Canadian system. My OHIP card took care of every visit to the doctor/emergency room. There were occasional lineups at emergency in the few times I was there but this was a minor incovenience for the safety and security that universal health care afforded me and my family
In terms of quality of service, equipment etc I found no significant difference between the two systems
My experience in the US was that everyone was terrified of losing their healthcare. It was a major employment issue and a hot topic of conversation.
I actually saw people STAY in shit jobs PURELY because of their health benefits. I found this shocking and it's something you would never see in Canada
IMHO the Canadian system is far superior and works signficantly better than the US system in terms of servicing the public
The negative articles you read occasionally are usually planted by US "professionals" terrified of losing their cash cow to a superior system
I pay $140 per month for health insurance. That includes full prescription drug coverage, office visits, specialists and all hospitalization costs.
When compared to a Canadian with a similar occupation and income level, I more than make up for the $1,680 per year I pay for insurance because of the far lower taxes (both income and sales tax) I pay compared to my Canadian counterpart. Hell, the difference in sales tax I pay here compared to what I paid in Quebec (14.5%) would make up the cost of my health insurance and then some.
When compared to a Canadian with a similar occupation and income level, I more than make up for the $1,680 per year I pay for insurance because of the far lower taxes (both income and sales tax) I pay compared to my Canadian counterpart. Hell, the difference in sales tax I pay here compared to what I paid in Quebec (14.5%) would make up the cost of my health insurance and then some.
