If you lived/have lived in a country with socialized medicine.....

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I am curious how much your health insurance costs over there? We have the 2nd top cover out of 4 levels, for both hospital cover and extras (chiropractor and dental, etc) and it costs us about $280 a month. Thats probably a bit over $200 a month U.S. $.

That might cover me if a permanent pre-existing clause is in place. I think it was about $280 for DH and the kids... for catastrophy coverage with $2500 deductable per person.

[swellmomma]

I live in Canada and while I have experienced delays for specific treatments (specifically pediatric psychiatry) I am happy with the healthcare system. I have had 3 preemies that required NICU stays, surgery for various things, hospitalizations for myself and the children as needed all without worrying about how I will pay for it. We see our ped every 3 months just for well child visits, so the kids are healthy when we go, we go to make sure that we catch everything and anything early, plus to monitor growth due to medications they are on, again no worries about costs. My kids see psychiatrists, speech therapists, OT's, eye doctors etc regularily all without a worry about cost and rarely a wait time. If they are sick or hurt I think nothing of tossing them in the car and heading to the nearest clinic without thinking "Is this worthy of the cost of a visit?".

 

I hate to think what the costs on my c-section, week long hospital stay, and weeklong NICU stay for my first was. Or the cost of my ambulance delivery and NICU stay for my 4th. Or having both a NICU team and a respiratory team in my room for the 3 I had in the hospital. Or the cost of my ultrasounds(every 3-4 weeks through 3 of my pregnancies, amnio, lab work etc. Just having the kids would have bankrupted me, and their on going care would be impossible if it wasn't for our healthcare system.

 

I have seen miracles happen with our medical care too, so that is not something that the US has a monopoly on just because people think miracles can be bought.

[Lovedtodeath]

My pregnancy, delivery, and newborn care was around $15,000 for my last kiddo, and we had no major complications with those. My auto immunue disease almost killed us, but that was a separate bill.

[Tressa]

I am just wondering about the immigration to these countries with universal health care. What percentage of Sweden or Canada's population is undocumented? Doesn't Canada have very strict immigration laws?

 

Sweden's individual tax rates are between 28% and almost 60%. :001_huh:

[teraberry]

Wait times

 

One of the major complaints about the Canadian health care system is waiting times, whether for a specialist, major elective surgery, such as hip replacement, imaging procedures such as MRI or Cystoscopy, or specialized treatments, such as radiation for breast cancer. Studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that 57% of Canadians reported waiting 4 weeks or more to see a specialist; 24% of Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room.[24]

A March 2, 2004, article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal stated, "Saskatchewan is under fire for having the longest waiting time in the country for a diagnostic MRI—a whopping 22 months." [25]

A February 28, 2006, article in The New York Times quoted Dr. Brian Day as saying, "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."[26] The Canadian Health Coalition has responded succinctly to these claims, pointing out that "access to veterinary care for animals is based on ability to pay. Dogs are put down if their owners can’t pay. Access to care should not be based on ability to pay." [27] The CHC is one of many groups across Canada calling for increased provincial and federal funding for medicare and an end to provincial funding cuts as solutions to unacceptable wait times [28]. In a 2007 episode of ABC News's 20/20 titled "Sick in America," host John Stossel cited numerous examples of Canadians who did not get the health care that they needed. [29]

[Shawna in Texas]

 

That said, I don't think Canadian healthcare would work in the US. I think the US needs to come up with its own solution and quit ragging on every other healthcare system in the world. I think there is a huge amount of disinformation being spread about what healthcare looks like in other countries, and that disinformation is being used as reasoning against US healthcare. What healthcare is like in another country is largely irrelevant to US healthcare. Every country came up with their own solution, and those solutions are always being re-evaluated and (hopefully) improved upon.

 

Universal healthcare takes work and constant committment. Universal healthcare doesn't just fly in one day, spread magic faery dust and *poof!* you're all covered. If that's what the US is waiting for... well... good luck with that!

 

 

As much as I want Universal in the US, I think you're right. I can just see if this is passed everyone in America making appts. left in right in the same week and the queues getting longer and longer and half the country saying 'told ya so', then a rationing system has to be implemented based on need and social security # (the ss bit would seem very reasonable to me), and half the country saying 'told ya so'. Sorry 'bout the run on.

 

I'm not sure how many families have medicaid in Texas. I know that it's easy to get when you're pregnant. I think a pretty high percentage, though. I know at least a dozen women who've delivered in various places: hospitals and birthing centers with excellent care. Since such a good percentage of families use socialized medicine here, the queues may not be too long in Texas. :tongue_smilie:

 

I do think that this medical plan's growing pains will be talking points during the next election. Since we live in a sound-byte nation, the ones who were for it, will now be against it, because the ones who were against it in the first place are the ones saying 'told ya so, bet your bunion got worse standing in line.'

 

Of course that's just a generalization.

[JWSJ]

Interesting thread!

 

I have a few questions about the systems outside the US.

 

How does the medical system handle illegal immigrants? Do they also receive "free" care?

 

A few posters mentioned that some countries use the US for special medical procedures not available in their home nation. Also, some choose to visit the US for more timely medical procedures.

 

If medical care in the US degrades - for whatever reason, what does that mean to those other nation's medical systems?

 

If going out of country is no longer an option, does that mean some persons are not served?

[JWSJ]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/

 

The article states:

 

"The report, which analyzed data from governments, research institutions and international agencies, found higher newborn death rates among U.S. minorities and disadvantaged groups. For African-Americans, the mortality rate is nearly double that of the United States as a whole, with 9.3 deaths per 1,000 births."

 

"Causes of death in the developing world were dramatically different from those in the developed world, the report said. In industrialized nations deaths were most likely to result from babies being born too small or too early, while in the developing world about half of newborn deaths were from infection, tetanus and diarrhea."

 

 

 

The point is that more care is not worse. It's that a segment of the US population is not getting enough medical care or has a higher level of medical issues.

[pqr]

The BBC today.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8156279.stm

 

 

It is just think tank proposals but interesting.

 

Do we want to get on a sinking ship?

Edited July 19, 2009 by pqr

[asta]

(I have not read this entire thread)

 

Yes, I have lived in two countries with socialized medicine. No, the inhabitants were not happy with it. *I* got great care because my (foreign) insurer was paying big bucks compared to what the *state* paid for the locals.

 

One thing I think is missed in this argument is that the United States is HUGE. It isn't a little country like Sweden. All of Germany could fit inside the borders of Texas, for goodness sakes. The sheer logistics (not to mention that the US isn't a homogenous whole, but a republic of individual state governments) makes the mere idea of "national health care" a nightmare.

 

 

a

[Rosie_0801]

Yes, no system is perfect, but it does surprise me that you are happy with your health care system when you say the waiting list for a public dentist is two years long. Also, the amount you pay in taxes is crucial to whether or not you could determine if you were happy with your health care and you do not know how much you pay (you said), so I'm not sure how you can be happy with it without knowing how much you're paying for it. My guess would be that you are paying more than you might think.

 

Feelings of contentment don't have to be based on solid fact, you know ;) It's good enough, so I'm happy enough. I can afford to take my kids to the chiropractor, when dh is waged we can afford to go to the dentist, I can afford to visit the doctor if we have to go and going to hospital doesn't cost me a cent. Unless we are diagnosed with some really obscure and scary disease, medical care isn't going to bankrupt us and it will be available. Sometimes people die waiting for procedures, yes, but perfect system won't prevent death either. I rarely see a doctor anyway. I make an effort not to get sick :) Back when I was waged, I didn't care how much the Medicare levy was. I would prefer to pay high taxes to have universal healthcare even if I'm not using it, than have people in a situation where they have to pay $15,000 to go have a baby. Naturally I'll have a whinge about what I do have to pay out of my pocket, but I am a whinger by nature, heheh. I'm quite ok with people getting better or faster care by paying extra, but I don't think anyone should be in a position where they can't afford any treatment at all, as some people on this forum have experienced. I also find it really weird how some of you guys have had to swap doctors because your place of employment changed healthcare providers. In a hospital I have to see whoever is on duty, but I can choose my family doctor.

 

Interesting thread!

I have a few questions about the systems outside the US.

How does the medical system handle illegal immigrants? Do they also receive "free" care?

A few posters mentioned that some countries use the US for special medical procedures not available in their home nation. Also, some choose to visit the US for more timely medical procedures. If medical care in the US degrades - for whatever reason, what does that mean to those other nation's medical systems?

As far as I know, illegal immigrants would have to pay full fees (or do without) because they're not covered by Medicare. Refugees are once they're released into society, I assume they have some healthcare in the detention centres, but I wouldn't imagine it to be very good. Funnily enough, the government doesn't release much info about that... New migrants do not get any government support (welfare payments or Medicare) for the first two years of residency. Anyway, Australia does not have 100% socialised medicine as you've probably gathered.

If medical care in the US went downhill, you'd have people from there seeking treatment overseas, if they could afford it. Day to day medical care declining doesn't mean that research or specialist work would decline, but if the things the rest of the world goes to the US for was to decline, then bad luck. Life is probable, not a guarentee.

 

Whatever system you are under, prevention is better than cure!

 

Rosie

[Melissa in Australia]

I live in Australia, and have only praise for the health system. we don't have private cover at all. I have never earned enough to pay the medicare Levy.

I live in a rural area, so most of the waiting times are because specialists don't live locally, and only come up too the nearest big hospital so often. we do have a small hospital in the nearest town. every time I have had a child that needs treatment out of hours ( like a broken bone) they call in a doctor straight away and the doctor does the e-ray and sets the bone straight away. for low income dental there is a waiting time for non emergency of 12 months, emergency is seen within 4 weeks, but there isn't a dentist here, they come from 100 km away 2 days a week.for an emergency, emergency, like a tooth knocked out, we would travel to the dental clinic 100 km away and pay privately.

I have had all my babies in the nearest big hospital, 100 km away. I had 2 midwives and a GP. the GP has been delivering babies for 30 years, and very good. every time I went to see the GP before having the baby, he would listen to the baby's hart beat, etc. with a few of my babies, I had at least 2 ultrasounds with each pregnancy. when I had the babies, the delivery rooms are for individuals, and then you are taken into a room shared with 3 other mothers, which is fine with me, you get to meet some new people and exchange birth stories.

for elective surgery, I have waited 1 month. I had polyps removed from my sinus, the specialist only goes to the big hospital once a week ( he comes from Melbourne) . but. when I had complications ,one week after I was at home,( nearly bled to death). The local hospital rushed me straight to melbourne, and the specialist was waiting for me as I was wheeled into the hospital.

when my husband has some major problems with eye pressure ( glaucoma) he was put straight in to see the specialist in Melbourne, even though the specialist is fully booked for over 6 months.

[Laura Corin]

i live in the UK and am very happy with the system. My father's final illness was dealt with very sensitively and well, down to hospice care at the end. More minor issues are also being dealt with well.

 

Laura

[keptwoman]

I live in Australia now. I grew up in New Zealand. Yes I am happy with the standard of care in both countries.

 

I currently have a lump in my breast. It may be nothing. I will see my doctor next friday, I could get a same day appointment, but we are going there for a psychologist appointment for DS next friday so it works for me. I won't wait more than 15 mins past my appointment time (long waits is one of my pet peeves) I know that I will have a Ultrasound and mammogram that same day. I know that by the following Monday I will have a referral to a breast specialist if needed, and I won't have to wait long to see one.

 

Our doctors bills, both GP and specialist are largely paid for by the government. I can choose to go on a waiting list and be seen for free, if it's urgent then you go much higher on the list. If I want to be seen earlier I pay to go private and get the majority back from Medicare (the govt system)

 

I have had my children in NZ. I had a private midwife paid for by the govt who did all my checks at home, pre and post partum, was present at my entire delivery (in hospital although home birth and birthing centres are also covered). My midwife was on call when I was having BFing issues, and visited me at home many times to help. When I had mastitis she was at my bedside. if I needed to see a specialist I'd be referred and seen immediately. I have had a child in NICU, and none has cost me a dime. I dont think the hospitals are as pretty as the US, but when I'm giving birth I'm not looking at the room much to be honest. The Australian system is quite different, much more medicalised, much more like the USA IMHO and I can't comment on it as I haven't birthed here.

 

I have had relatives treated for cancer, they have had excellent treatment.

 

I've had kidney stones, I've been triaged in the ER and been seen straight away while people with more minor conditions waited. I've had surgery for kidney stones, yes I waited 5 months for it, but I was asymptomatic. If I'd had symptoms I would have been treated immediately.

 

We pay to go to the dentist privately, our health insurance covers it ($170/month for our family) We don't wait.

 

Our health care cost via taxes is 3% of our salarys apparantly. If you earn over $100,000 you get an extra levy of 1.5% if you don't have private insurance, the private insurance costs less than the levy so high income earners have it. We have insurance but for the most part we use the public system. Taxes range, depending on how much you earn. DH earns a reasonable salary and I think our total taxes are in the range of 30%

 

Yes we have up to date, cutting edge equipment and research. Yes we have some people go to the US for treatment, we don't have the population base for some procedures that are only performed very rarely (total digestive system transplants for instance) Just as people from smaller countries come here for things that their population base doesn't support... for instance NZers coming to Australia for a liver transplant.

 

I am just wondering about the immigration to these countries with universal health care. What percentage of Sweden or Canada's population is undocumented? Doesn't Canada have very strict immigration laws?

 

Sweden's individual tax rates are between 28% and almost 60%. :001_huh:

 

In Australia you need to provide documentation to get a Medicare card, so illegal immigrants would not have one.

 

Tax rates are between 15% and 60% (tottally off the top of my head) but the 60% is only on the portion of your income over something like (guessing here) $200,000 not total income. As I've said, our tax is not nearly that.

 

A few posters mentioned that some countries use the US for special medical procedures not available in their home nation. Also, some choose to visit the US for more timely medical procedures.

 

If medical care in the US degrades - for whatever reason, what does that mean to those other nation's medical systems?

 

If going out of country is no longer an option, does that mean some persons are not served?

You will always have procedures other countries don't, simply because of the size of your population.

 

Australia has almost the same land area as the US, and the population spread, less people though.

 

Your system will not mirror ours, or NZs or Canadas, or any other countries. It will be uniquely yours. But it isn't impossible, and it needn't be bad. I'd hazard a guess that it will be a good thing for your country.

 

I often wonder if we Americans have been brain washed into thinking that other systems aren't functioning well in order to keep the insurance industry/big business sector rolling.

This is something I often wonder myself.

Edited July 19, 2009 by keptwoman

[Laura Corin]

Interesting thread!

 

I have a few questions about the systems outside the US.

 

How does the medical system handle illegal immigrants? Do they also receive "free" care?

 

 

Here.

 

I've never met a UK person who went overseas for medical care, so I can't comment on that. I did meet Americans in Thailand who went there for cheaper procedures though - it was mostly cosmetic surgery.

 

Laura

[WishboneDawn]

I'm in Canada and I'm very happy with the system. I've mostly used it, in the past couple of years, for doctor visits for myself and the kids. When I bruised my tailbone two winters ago I got into the doctor the next day. When my son had an ear infection a couple of months ago he was in within hours. I've had family members who've had problem ranging from lumps in breasts to kidney disease to prostate cancer in the last year and all have had good and prompt treatment with no horror stories.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

By Cadam There are delays like that in the states and they have nothing to do with insurance. The wait for an initial appointment to see a developmental Pediatrician in my state is 5 months min. Some are up to an 8 month wait. It doesn't matter if you walk in with a suitcase full of cash (well, maybe for a suitcase of cash....), they are just that backed up. There are not enough of them. period.

 

I guess I am just saying that delays for non-life threatening specialist care happen here all the time. 3 month waits for a pediatric occupational therapist to have an opening, 2 months for an oral surgeon who specializes in such and such. That's the way it is.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I know from experience that this is true. I also know that it is common and has been common for quite a long time in the 3 hospitals in our city to have to stay overnight and even for days in the emergency rooms due to no beds elsewhere in the hospital.

 

Some posters have mentioned rationing will happen with a public health care plan. Well from my point of view, rationing already happens when the bean counters at private health insurance companies deny claims or when those without insurance wait till a problem becomes an emergency.

 

I am not in favor of rationing. I do think that evidence-based medicine needs to be looked at though to improve medicine and care guidelines. I think that there are many unneccessary tests, procedures, and medications ordered currently. For example, there are many tests that do not affect patient outcome or the care suggested. There are also many of our elders who are over-medicated with detrimental effects. These are just some of the numerous examples of areas which could be improved.

[kamom]

I skimmed over this thread and coundn't find any answers to the tax questions. At what price do the Canadians get "free" healthcare??

 

I personally know families that are being taxed 30-35% on their income!!!!:eek:

 

This question seems to be avoided. It's not free! And the waiting can be long in spite of the high cost. It's not free!

[TeacherZee]

I am just wondering about the immigration to these countries with universal health care. What percentage of Sweden or Canada's population is undocumented? Doesn't Canada have very strict immigration laws?

 

Sweden's individual tax rates are between 28% and almost 60%. :001_huh:

 

Sweden's tax rates pays for a military that we can't really afford (Please don't get me wrong I strongly support our military but the development of our fighter jet seemed like folly especially when it keeps crashing). It pays for child tax credits for every single child not matter what the parents income with additional money to larger families (3 or more children). It pays for free education including tertiary (that's NO tuition fees at university level plus a grant for students for approximately 7 years of tertiary education). It pays for sick leave. It pays for maternity leave for 12 months for every new mother. It pays unemployment benefits. It pays for free school lunches for all children. To compare our tax rate to your tax rate with regards to health care is to compare apples to oranges.

 

Interesting thread!

 

I have a few questions about the systems outside the US.

 

How does the medical system handle illegal immigrants? Do they also receive "free" care? Yes, sort off. We have very few illegal immigrants because of the benefit system and the national id system. Most immigrants in Sweden are known as asylum seekers and they do get free medical care. Undocumented immigrants (who have been denied asylum) do not officially get free medical care but often times there are sympathetic doctors who will treat them no matter what. Compared to our population at large we do have a lot of asylum seekers/immigrants. For example we have taken more people from Iraq per capita than the US has.

 

In addition to this any EU citizen living in Sweden is entitled to medical care.

 

A few posters mentioned that some countries use the US for special medical procedures not available in their home nation. Also, some choose to visit the US for more timely medical procedures.

 

If medical care in the US degrades - for whatever reason, what does that mean to those other nation's medical systems?

 

If going out of country is no longer an option, does that mean some persons are not served?

Edited July 19, 2009 by TeacherZee
to add clarification

[Kathy in MD]

I lived in Germany for 2 years. Their medicine in many ways is different than ours. Not worse, just different. Instead of always just prescribing pills, often times a spa is prescribed with a set regime of treatment. And the spas often specialize in certain diseases. Even though the spas offer a lot of R&R possibilities(they're vacations spots as well), the patients must still follow the doctor's instructions or they are sent home.

 

My only personal experience in Germany was with a knee injury. Good, high tech equipment, but I'd never heard of treating knee problems with electrical(????) impulses. It worked.

 

I only heard of one complaint while I was there, and that sounded a bit like a comedy of errors, if you could apply that term to the Germans and a health care problem. The patient was misdiagnosed with a very dangerous, highly communicable disease. Then the paper work telling the patient that he needed to report to a special spa/hospital was lost. The the police showed up. :tongue_smilie: The misdiagosis was discovered shortly afterwards. But it shows that the Germans will not accept individuals wandering around giving others dangerous and fatal diseases or not taking the medicines to kill off the diseases and thereby developing resistant strains. That is one way to both cut medical expenses AND save lives.

 

I was also in Costa Rica for a short time. I had a couple of very brief interactions, which were positive. But while there I learned that many Americans went there for elective surgeries that were not covered by insurance. These were primarily cosmetic. But the medical standards were high.

 

Now for US medicine. Though I have very good private insurance, I too have experienced delays. For some specialists, I've had to wait 4-5 months. To see my GP for an annual physical, I've sometimes had to wait 2 months -- and the only insurance he takes is Medicaid. But I've also had diagnosis and surgery squeezed in within a few weeks. Everyone was moving fast on that one!

 

For emergency room care, the waits are bad. Because of the lack of health insurance for so many, ER's are often used as primary care facilities. I've discovered the best way to get fairly prompt care is to have the doctor call ahead and be meeting you or have an ambulance take you in. If the ambulance takes you in, at least you're comfortable while you're waiting.

 

People with insurance often find that they're fighting with the insurance company as much as they're dealing with health problems. Nothing like more stress to aid in the healing process. Because of all the different coverages of insurance plans, doctors have to check on what each individual policy will cover. Patients can have the same disease but *insurance* policies dictate how it's treated or even how and where the blood is drawn. I recently had a specialist retire and plan on volunteering at a free clinic. He was thrilled to not have the insurance companies dictating treatment to him anymore.

 

For cost, yes we have insurance -- good insurance subsidized by dh's former employer that doesn't argue too much with the doctors about treatment. Our annual out of pocket expenses are normally over $9000 per year. That includes the max out of pocket - if I use preferred providers, insurance premimums (and it's subsidized), dental and vision. If I need an out-of system specialist, add upto $2000 to that figure. It doesn't include OTC drugs, prescribed supplements, transportation costs, and misc. BTW, transportation costs can mount up, as even in this area some have to fly elsewhere for specialized treatment.

 

Aother poster mentioned that she didn't want to pay for other peoples health care. If she has health insurance, she's paying for other's people's health care. Just as her car insurance pays for other people's accidents and house insurance pays for other people's house fires. It's what insurance is. Moreover, if she's gone to a hospital, part of her payments have gone to cover individuals who can't pay their medical bills.

[Laura Corin]

Just to give an example of a slightly more complicated pregnancy in the NHS. When I was pregnant with Calvin, he was diagnosed with an enlarged renal pelvis during a routine scan at an ordinary north London hospital. We then had a long talk with a specialist about the implications, subsequently being called back in for regular scans to check that he was okay. At his birth they were all set up with antibiotics for him to take, in order to avoid kidney infections, and at six weeks (the time period was for clinical, not waiting-list reasons) he was called in to a specialist for investigation, at which point he was given the all-clear: it was a false positive.

 

Laura

[MomLovesClassics]

I lived in Germany for 2 years. Their medicine in many ways is different than ours. Not worse, just different. Instead of always just prescribing pills, often times a spa is prescribed with a set regime of treatment. And the spas often specialize in certain diseases. Even though the spas offer a lot of R&R possibilities(they're vacations spots as well), the patients must still follow the doctor's instructions or they are sent home.

 

My only personal experience in Germany was with a knee injury. Good, high tech equipment, but I'd never heard of treating knee problems with electrical(????) impulses. It worked.

 

I only heard of one complaint while I was there, and that sounded a bit like a comedy of errors, if you could apply that term to the Germans and a health care problem. The patient was misdiagnosed with a very dangerous, highly communicable disease. Then the paper work telling the patient that he needed to report to a special spa/hospital was lost. The the police showed up. :tongue_smilie: The misdiagosis was discovered shortly afterwards. But it shows that the Germans will not accept individuals wandering around giving others dangerous and fatal diseases or not taking the medicines to kill off the diseases and thereby developing resistant strains. That is one way to both cut medical expenses AND save lives.

 

 

I do not think the US would adopt a health care system like the one Germany has. First, I don't think they would set up health spas or althernative medicine type therapies for the common people. The US don't seem to mind people wondering around giving other people diseases either. There was a case a few years back of a man spreading aids on purpose. Here, when people have the flu many go to work and out in public, like nothing is wrong. It does not appear to be common to stay home, and heal. Few insurance companies pay for alternative treatments, and I have not seen much evidence where our government supports alternative health type therapies.

[teraberry]

Interesting thread!

 

I have a few questions about the systems outside the US.

 

How does the medical system handle illegal immigrants? Do they also receive "free" care?

 

A few posters mentioned that some countries use the US for special medical procedures not available in their home nation. Also, some choose to visit the US for more timely medical procedures.

 

If medical care in the US degrades - for whatever reason, what does that mean to those other nation's medical systems?

 

If going out of country is no longer an option, does that mean some persons are not served?

 

I would venture to bet that illegals pretty much get covered. Even if not, they do have a higher birthrate and by being born in America, their children are citizens. A friend of mine used to be a regular kindergarten teacher. Now he is a kindergarten teaches that works strictly with a Spanish speaking class, teaching them to speak English... in a public school system. So even if our tax dollars didn't go to support illegal aliens (which I believe they do), they WILL go to support their children.

[pqr]

Sweden's tax rates pays for a military that we can't really afford (Please don't get me wrong I strongly support our military but the development of our fighter jet seemed like folly especially when it keeps crashing). It pays for child tax credits for every single child not matter what the parents income with additional money to larger families (3 or more children). It pays for free education including tertiary (that's NO tuition fees at university level plus a grant for students for approximately 7 years of tertiary education). It pays for sick leave. It pays for maternity leave for 12 months for every new mother. It pays unemployment benefits. It pays for free school lunches for all children. To compare our tax rate to your tax rate with regards to health care is to compare apples to oranges.

 

 

In short Sweden's taxes pay for a Nanny State.

[keptwoman]

In short Sweden's taxes pay for a Nanny State.

And they like it that way :)

[mazakaal]

I've lived in the UK for the last 9 years. I've been mostly happy with the system.

 

I thought pre-natal care in the US was better than pre-natal care here, but my experience with childbirth was mixed. My first was delivered by a dr in the US and I wasn't at all happy with it - very intrusive, based on convenience of hospital/dr. My second was delivered by a midwife in the US, and I was very happy with it. My third was delivered by a midwife in the UK, and I was very happy with it, similar labor to my first (water broke but I didn't progress quickly), but it was handled much better than the dr/hospital led birth I had had. My last was delivered by a midwife in the UK, and could have been better. I was pushing for an hour before the midwives (one a training midwife and the other very young, couldn't have had much experience) decided to check me and found that I was not yet 10cm. I stopped pushing for 1 or 2 contractions, dilated quickly, and delivered quickly after that. The point is that the 'hands-off' approach in the UK can have disadvantages. If I'd been in the US, someone would have done an internal before telling me it was time to push and saved me an hour of anguish.

 

I was very unhappy with the medical care that I got after my miscarriages. The care 'during' the miscarriages (d&c, etc) was very good. But they won't run any tests to see if something is wrong until after you've had 3 miscarriages. So after my 3rd miscarriage I went to the consultant, after a long phone call to an OB in the US in which he told me what could possibly be the problem and what to ask the consultant. The consultant ran a couple of test, but refused to test for other things that the US OB had suggested. It's as if the NHS sets certain regulations about what to test for, and that's the end of it. The drs are not trained to think for themselves.

 

Other care here has been good. Ds just got braces which will be free - that was great. Emergency room care is generally good where I live. I've always been happy with it. I'm sure it's more difficult in large cities. Dh had a growth on his back and was put on a long waiting list for a specialist. In the end, to avoid the long wait, his gp hacked it out, leaving a very large scar, and sent it off for testing. I do know people who have been on long waiting lists for serious medical treatment. When I had a lump in my bre*st, there was a very reasonable wait for treatment. I was generally happy with the care.

 

So I guess a lot depends on where you live and what kind of care you need. I have to say that it's certainly not been all bad, and my medical care in the US was certainly not always great either when I was with an HMO.

[MomLovesClassics]

I would venture to bet that illegals pretty much get covered. Even if not, they do have a higher birthrate and by being born in America, their children are citizens. A friend of mine used to be a regular kindergarten teacher. Now he is a kindergarten teaches that works strictly with a Spanish speaking class, teaching them to speak English... in a public school system. So even if our tax dollars didn't go to support illegal aliens (which I believe they do), they WILL go to support their children.

I know of a case, where someone in the country illegally committed insurance fraud with the help of their relative. It is beyond me that the hospital did not discover it until after she gave birth, and the hospital did nothing. This is not as uncommon as one would think. I know a nurse who used to work in the emergency room, every week a different person would come with the same insurance card, the funny thing is they use their own birthday, not the birthday of the insurance holder. It happens, we just refuse to believe it happens.

[naturalmom]

I've got experience with the US care, being American, but also lived in London a total of 4 years (2 years when first married, 2 years in the last decade).

 

I prefer the NHS. I had 2 babies in the US (private insurance), saw an OB all the way through, and had good care. I had a nice private room at the hospital. After the birth, though, I had the standard home visit, and then I wasn't at the doctor again until 2 weeks; then 4 weeks. My little one wasn't gaining weight, and it wasn't caught until AFTER the 2 week visit, by me, because if I had waited until the 4 week visit he wouldn't have survived. At the time, there was an article in our newspaper about babies getting dehydrated, and suffering brain damage or death, because insurance companies were pushing such early releases from hospital without adequate follow up care.

 

In the UK, I saw a midwife through most of my pregnancy, but because I'd had C-sections before, I also saw a "consultant" (OB). I had an ultrasound before seeing the consultant. The drawback I found was that I didn't know which doctor would actually deliver the baby - rather than the hospital having to call my doctor to summon him/her in, they have their OB's work in rotation. Also, there were 5 of us having C-sections that morning, but we all had to get there the same time and prep for it...I was lucky to be first in line, but the others would have had to wait their turn.

 

I did not have a private room, but I did have the baby with me. The nursery is only for sick babies, not healthy ones. (One reason for healthy baby nurseries over here is to help the doctors check all the babies at once when they do rounds - they don't need that there, since there are 4-6 babies in the ward with their mothers).

 

I went home after 3 days, and then the midwife began home visits to check on me and the baby. She came 2-3 times each week, and that was standard. (In fact, for a first time mom, the visits are more frequent) Slow weight gain again, but it never got dangerous. She couldn't release us until the weight was acceptable.

 

Prescriptions and dental care are free during pregnancy, dental care continues to be free for 1 year after the baby is born. Children also have free prescriptions and free dental (and vision).

 

It is true that you have to wait for non-urgent care. While a teen at our church was diagnosed with leukemia and had immediate and wonderful care, a friend of mine with a knee injury was having to wait 6 months for an orthopoedic appointment (and that was because she was "urgent").

 

Of course, I've had to wait 2-4 months to see specialists here - and that's at the Mayo Clinic. If it were life-threatening, I'd be there the same day.

 

The hospitals are pretty run down compared to most hospitals here - but the care is still very good. In England, you can of course get private care. That works out cheaper than US costs. Some people have insurance for that reason. Unlike here, where there is a $1,000,000 limit on policies, they don't have to worry about that. If they get something that requires very advanced care, they have the NHS to fall back on.

 

I definitely understand the concern that the US will do a poor job of implementing universal health care. What I don't understand is how strongly people react against "paying for someone else's care". They already do! People in prisons get free health care; people who show up at hospitals will get enough care to keep them alive (just emergency care); those costs show up on our medical bills. Some of those illegals get healthcare, too.... It seems the main people left out of our system are the working and middle classes.

 

I did also have experience in Germany, but had private health insurance. I will just say that the reason they do spas and teas has nothing to do with universal healthcare. It has everything to do with their philosophy of health.

[pqr]

And they like it that way :)

 

 

I know, sad isn't it?

[teraberry]

Speaking more generally on this issue...

 

Right now, the healthcare plan being proposed by Obama is not something that even Democratic leaders are not that crazy about. MSNBC has an article up right now titled "Democrats Grow Wary as Health Bill Advances" that I really encourage you to go read.

 

One thing about the stimulus bill that really struck me is how fast they wanted it through. They made it so urgent, to the point that Congressmen didn't even have time to read through the whole thing. The general sense I get on the stimulus bill is that people aren't all that thrilled with the results given the cost. Now, I feel like the same thing is happening with this healthcare plan. I have heard Obama rushing it in a couple speeches. This is not something to be rushed. I feel like the American people and the representatives we voted in should have more time to chew on this, as it has implications that could possibly be very heavy for many generations to come. I just feel like the rushing of both of these issues is manipulative.

 

Looking at it logically, if everyone gets "free healthcare" or even cheap healthcare, the conclusion is that more people go to the doctor for more reasons. If more people are going to the doctor more often, then logically following, there will be longer wait times. Also, the care providers still get a paycheck that comes from somewhere. Taxes will go up. I find it troubling that some people are fine with richer people getting taxed so much more than poorer people. How is that ethical? It's government holding the gun to the wealthy and saying "you WILL pay for this person's healthcare". I just don't see it as right. I understand that there are people who need help with medical expenses, but I do not think socialized healthcare is the honorable answer.

Edited July 19, 2009 by teraberry

[naturalmom]

Quick reply to MeganP:

 

I think there are strict regulations on what to do and when, i.e., you only test for problems with miscarriage after there are 3 of them.

 

I was at an urgent care where a young man had sprained his ankle. They had x-rayed, found it wasn't broken, so he couldn't get crutches. He had a long and fruitless conversation with the receptionist about how he could possibly get home when he couldn't walk. Her reply (repeated many times): "They won't give you crutches if it's not broken". Period.

 

On the other hand, if it IS broken, the crutches are free.

[pqr]

 

I have heard Obama rushing it in a couple speeches. This is not something to be rushed. I feel like the American people and the representatives we voted in should have more time to chew on this, as it has implications that could possibly be very heavy for many generations to come. I just feel like the rushing of both of these issues is manipulative.

.

 

 

Ssssshhhhh, don't bring that up. people simply do not want to hear the truth about this. They do not want to know about what it will do to taxes, they want to believe the "rosy" but incorrect stories.

 

Ignorance is bliss.

[swellmomma]

I would venture to bet that illegals pretty much get covered. Even if not, they do have a higher birthrate and by being born in America, their children are citizens. A friend of mine used to be a regular kindergarten teacher. Now he is a kindergarten teaches that works strictly with a Spanish speaking class, teaching them to speak English... in a public school system. So even if our tax dollars didn't go to support illegal aliens (which I believe they do), they WILL go to support their children.

 

 

Here in Canada illegals do not get covered. Even people from outside my province do not get covered unless their province has a reciprocal health care plan with Alberta, so those from Quebec or out of the country have to pay cash or credit card up front to be seen. Taxes, well where I am we only have the GST no provincial tax, as for income tax, I receive all of mine back every year so I am not worried about that. Each person in my family is in a different tax bracket, but none of them have ever complained about how much they pay, even my sister and bil who pay the most out of anyone in the family have no concerns with the amount. Even if it is 35% in reality the pros of what that amount covers (not just healthcare) outweighs the con of paying it.

 

Healthcare in Alberta is not totally free either, we pay monthly premiums for health coverage though those are being done away with. As well things like dental, eye care for those over 18, chiropractor, prescriptions etc are not covered, so people have additional health insurance to reduce the cost of those treatments. I think the distinction between universal health care and socialized health care is important, Canada has universal health care not socialized.

[teraberry]

To those who pay more for their universal (or similar) healthcare and like it...

 

If you like your system of universal healthcare and don't mind paying more, I get that. The system surely would work fine for some of the population. However, I think even if that is the case, each individual needs to look beyond their own personal experience. Just because some people like it, should it be imposed on everyone? Also, you have to face the question of... is it ethical to tax the wealthy at a very high rate and force them to pay for the healthcare of the poor? I think that should be an option that the wealthy have, not a mandate. In general, people are wealthy because they or their family have studied and/or worked very hard.

 

"Necessity is the mother of invention." If poorer people don't need to find a way to make money and provide for themselves because it is given to them, then they will not be inventing ways of making a good living. I'm speaking of those ABLE to do so. One example.... My son just got braces two months ago. We could not afford it, flat out. In a few weeks I am going to start doing afterschool childcare for 4 kids in the neighborhood to pay for the braces. If the government would have just paid for my son's braces, I wouldn't have invented a way to pay for it on my own.

 

I am sympathetic to those who truly need care and cannot provide it for themselves. We do have a system that the government has set up for those people (which is run poorly, by the way). However, to offer care to people who are honestly just lazy or worse and force the wealthy to pay for it; I feel that is wrong ethically.

[Word Nerd]

We don't need to look at how government-run health care in other countries works. All we need to do is see how our government has handled Medicare, Medicaid, and VA care.

[Jean in Wisc]

in Scotland is measurably better than it is here.

.

 

What is Scotland's definition of live birth? How do they measure infant mortality? In the U.S. we count every child with the least shred of life in them as a live birth--many countries do not include babies born at less than 28 weeks gestation--resulting in a big difference in statistics here. We also do a lot more to keep preemies alive and then count our failed efforts as infant mortality while other countries don't consider them a live birth AND THEY DO NOT EVEN TRY TO KEEP THEM ALIVE. Anyone who wants to give birth in those countries is welcome to go there, but they might be a bit disappointed when their preemie is considered stillborn (not included in infant mortaility statistics) just because of their birth date, not because they are not breathing.

 

I've read that some counties require the infant to have lived 24 hours after birth before they include them as "live birth"--but I've not been able to find that in my Googling. I've run out of time--maybe someone else can find it.

 

Apples and Oranges. The statistics are skewed once more to show how awful and evil our nation and our healthcare is. Don't people weary of hearing this mantra?

 

http://media.www.thebluebanner.net/media/storage/paper1302/news/2008/12/04/Editorial/Infant.Mortality.Rate.Needs.Definition.Overhaul-3568039.shtml

 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v43w161854k07028/

 

Jean

[JennifersLost]

I haven't read through all the posts, but I'm an American living in Canada and I have to say both types of systems have big plusses and minuses.

 

The plus in the US is that IF you have the money you can get whatever kind of care you want, pretty much when you want it.

 

The big minus (in my experience) is that if you don't have the money you don't get care, or if you do you get treated very, very badly.

 

The plus in Canada is that you don't ever have to weigh cost before you go to the doctor. That's been a huge load off of my mind since moving here.

 

The minus is that there can be huge delays or lack of some services. My FIL waited two years for ankle surgery - so long that the bone had decayed to the point that he couldn't get the kind of surgery that would have really helped him to walk more comfortably.

 

Now - on the other hand, a friend of mine blew out her knee and was in surgery within a month or two. I have no idea why one person gets wait-listed for years and someone else gets bumped right to the head of the list. I've heard that it has to do with your doctor and how aggressive he is about scheduling the surgery.

 

I took my son in back in...March, I think? For depression. Serious depression. We have yet to see a psychiatrist or anyone other than our GP - although we got a referral our first visit - (we're still waiting for 'the call') and our GP said we'd be lucky to get more than one visit with the psychiatrist.

 

Luckily, we seem to have gotten over this hump ourselves, but going through the process of having our GP trying to diagnose his "problems" was just painful.

 

Now some of this is because we live in a remote area. It might be quite different if we lived in Vancouver.

 

Overall, I'm happy with the regular care we get here. If I ever needed surgery and was on a waiting list, I'd be back in the US in a flash.

[JennifersLost]

As far as how Canada deals with foreigners; the first year or so I was here, before I became a landed immigrant, I had to pay for EVERYTHING out of pocket. You had to have your health card to get care.

 

On the other hand, I started receiving payments for having kids before I ever became a landed immigrant. That was really strange to me and I checked with the government several times to make sure they weren't making a mistake, LOL!

 

I have to agree that the US is going to have a hard time implementing socialized medicine. Even a "big" country like Canada is teeny compared to the US in population.

 

I agree - there's no way the US can pay for health care. Not without a whole bunch of other countries stepping up in a huge way and paying for the defense that the US currently covers.

 

The US needs an interim step; better coverage for middle-class families and higher taxes on the wealthiest people.

[cathmom]

Yes, no system is perfect, but it does surprise me that you are happy with your health care system when you say the waiting list for a public dentist is two years long. Also, the amount you pay in taxes is crucial to whether or not you could determine if you were happy with your health care and you do not know how much you pay (you said), so I'm not sure how you can be happy with it without knowing how much you're paying for it. My guess would be that you are paying more than you might think.

 

Let's see, you could wait two years, or forever if you can't afford it. I'd rather wait two years. :)

 

Wait times

 

One of the major complaints about the Canadian health care system is waiting times, whether for a specialist, major elective surgery, such as hip replacement, imaging procedures such as MRI or Cystoscopy, or specialized treatments, such as radiation for breast cancer. Studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that 57% of Canadians reported waiting 4 weeks or more to see a specialist; 24% of Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room.[24]

A March 2, 2004, article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal stated, "Saskatchewan is under fire for having the longest waiting time in the country for a diagnostic MRI—a whopping 22 months." [25]

A February 28, 2006, article in The New York Times quoted Dr. Brian Day as saying, "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."[26] The Canadian Health Coalition has responded succinctly to these claims, pointing out that "access to veterinary care for animals is based on ability to pay. Dogs are put down if their owners can’t pay. Access to care should not be based on ability to pay." [27] The CHC is one of many groups across Canada calling for increased provincial and federal funding for medicare and an end to provincial funding cuts as solutions to unacceptable wait times [28]. In a 2007 episode of ABC News's 20/20 titled "Sick in America," host John Stossel cited numerous examples of Canadians who did not get the health care that they needed. [29]

 

 

I've waited 4 or more hours in an emergency room in the US. I'm sure many people have. The only time I didn't have to wait was when I was bleeding to death (had already lost 2 liters at home.)

 

I think this is being rushed. I am in favor of universal health care, but this is not the way to do it. They need to make plans to gradually include everyone. Then when everyone is covered, we can work on making the system as a whole better. We can start with maternity care LOL - there's plenty of evidence that tons of money is being wasted in that area for not-so-great outcomes.

Edited July 19, 2009 by cathmom
used wrong word

[Kathy in MD]

I do not think the US would adopt a health care system like the one Germany has. First, I don't think they would set up health spas or althernative medicine type therapies for the common people. The US don't seem to mind people wondering around giving other people diseases either. There was a case a few years back of a man spreading aids on purpose. Here, when people have the flu many go to work and out in public, like nothing is wrong. It does not appear to be common to stay home, and heal. Few insurance companies pay for alternative treatments, and I have not seen much evidence where our government supports alternative health type therapies.

 

I don't see it happening here either. For starters, requiring hospitalization would be considered an infrigement on our personal liberties. (I'm surprised someone here hasn't already objected to this treatment in Germany :001_smile:) And of course, who's going to hold down the job, or house or ????????.

 

And as you say, it costs money. I am starting to see that the gov't is funding non-convetional treatments, but corporations don't typically fund them (Where's the profit for them?) and a lot of gov't research is funded by corporations.

 

Also in Europe there is a history of "taking the waters" or going to spas for their health. We don't have that history to build on.

[Audrey]

I skimmed over this thread and coundn't find any answers to the tax questions. At what price do the Canadians get "free" healthcare??

 

I personally know families that are being taxed 30-35% on their income!!!!:eek:

 

This question seems to be avoided. It's not free! And the waiting can be long in spite of the high cost. It's not free!

 

 

You didn't skim closely enough. I already mentioned that as have others.

[astrid]

I know, sad isn't it?

 

Why is it "sad?"

 

Because the "AMERICAN WAY" is the ONLY way? :001_huh:

 

There are so many things I could say. So many.

 

astrid

[astrid]

Ssssshhhhh, don't bring that up. people simply do not want to hear the truth about this. They do not want to know about what it will do to taxes, they want to believe the "rosy" but incorrect stories.

 

Ignorance is bliss.

 

Ignorance works both ways. Minds that are closed to change and cannot (or will not) see things from different points of view and consider that perhaps Rush Limbaugh and Co. are not right about everything are an impediment to creating a world in which everyone is valued and cared for, no matter their gender, religion, sexual orientation or socio-economic status. We all have to give a little, share a little, and care a little more. A great society is one that cares for everyone, the "haves" and the "have nots." I fear we'll never get there. And THAT is what makes me sad.

 

astrid

Edited July 19, 2009 by astrid

[pqr]

And in the cases of many here, ignorance is sanctimonious, and paranoia is whipped into a frenzy by the right-wing media, and your party boss, Rush.

 

astrid

 

 

My party boss????

We are making assumptions aren't we???

Even if I was a Republican, Rush would not be my party boss as despite what you may wish he is not the head of the Republican Party. Nevertheless I thank you for the comment as it aptly demonstrates that reality and fact have nothing to do with the argument that supporters of handing over of health care system to big government make. I suppose if you believe that Rush heads the Republican Party you might believe that Socialized Health care is good for the US. Both beliefs are false, but ignorance is bliss.

 

[Audrey]

ignorance is bliss.

 

 

 

 

As you must know... the plan is not "socialized health CARE" but rather "socialized" health INSURANCE.

[pqr]

As you must know... the plan is not "socialized health CARE" but rather "socialized" health INSURANCE.

 

 

Yes I do know that, but thank you for reminding me.

 

Of course when President Obama stated

 

I actually want a universal health care system; that is our goal…whether we do it exactly the way European countries do or Canada does is a different question, because there are a variety of ways to get to universal health care coverage…

 

and when he said

 

"So let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year."

 

and when the White House web page uses the term Health care reform

 

and when the President says that

 

he "absolutely" believes that "Health Care Reform will be pased by the end of the year"

 

it is easy to see how the terms have become somewhat interchangable.

Edited July 19, 2009 by pqr

[WishboneDawn]

Ssssshhhhh, don't bring that up. people simply do not want to hear the truth about this. They do not want to know about what it will do to taxes, they want to believe the "rosy" but incorrect stories.

 

Ignorance is bliss.

 

The math isn't hard to do - for people on either side of the debate.

 

Here's a post where I do a bit of the math involved...

 

Just a Bit of Food for Thought on Healthcare and Taxes

 

An excerpt:

Playing with math again. I just added Nova Scotia provincial taxes (they're in the higher half of provincial income tax rates) to my imaginary person (who's not too bright and doesn't deduct a thing) who's earning $37,885 and that brings their total tax load to a whopping $9384. I don't know what kind of state income taxes you guys pay so I'll leave that out. I'll say the person has a comparable health insurance plan to what our family does (it's about average for a family rate and around, I think, what a single person would have to pay if they had to do it themselves, not through an employer) do which would be $840 annually.

 

Total taxes and health insurance for the Canuck - $10,224

 

For the American earning the same amount (and who doesn't deduct anything) plus XXXX's coverage (it was sort of in the middle of our sample - $544/month) - $11, 801

 

The links to tax info I used are in my post so people are free to double check my math but if I'm right then the taxation boogeyman around healthcare can probably be laid to rest.

[WishboneDawn]

As you must know... the plan is not "socialized health CARE" but rather "socialized" health INSURANCE.

 

Exactly. Cuba has socialized health care. Canada does not. Obama is not proposing it for the US either.

[pqr]

 

if I'm right then the taxation boogeyman around healthcare can probably be laid to rest.

 

 

Interesting....but.....what makes you think that the government can manage the program as effectively or cheaply as private concerns? When has a government ever done this?

 

Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes" necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs. He stated "the changes that we have looked at so far do not represent the sort of fundamental change, the order of magnitude that would be necessary, to offset the direct increase in federal health costs that would result from the insurance coverage proposals."

 

As we will eventually need to, God forbid, PAY for these costs it seems to me that the "taxation boogeyman around healthcare" is alive and well. He seems to be doing so well that he may not even need universal insurance.

[Heather in the Kootenays]

Interesting....but.....what makes you think that the government can manage the program as effectively or cheaply as private concerns? When has a government ever done this?

 

 

 

According to the WHO, Canada's system is cheaper than the US and has better results.

 

http://www.who.int/countries/can/en/

 

http://www.who.int/countries/usa/en/

 

I didn't want to reproduce all the stats but they say Canada spends per $3672 capita ( 10% of GDP) vs $6714 per capita ( 15%

of GDP) with higher life expectancy and lower mortality under 5 years and again between 15 and 60 years old.