Jump to content

Menu

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


Recommended Posts

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.

 

 

OK... perhaps I should have said OUR (read the US) government. Nevertheless that still does not explain why so many Canadians (as referenced by posters on this board) come to the US for medical care.

 

 

As to the life expectancy rates, that is a completely different thread but I suspect that it has more to do with demographics and lifestyles than health care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 290
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One of our best friends is Canadian (Toronto). When I asked him to compare the health care systems, he made an interesting comment. He stated that he never had a complaint about the Canadian system because it was all he had ever known, but once he moved to the US (he remains a Canadian citizen) he realized that it "doesn't even compare" to the US.

I've lived in Indonesia and the Philippines. I'm thankful for our care here in the US.

susan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"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 do think that people should have to work hard for things they want, and I have serious questions about how unemployment benefits, etc. are administered in the UK.

 

However for me, as for most British people I think, healthcare is a basic requirement which should be free at the point of need. It's in a different category from 'those things that you can afford if you work hard.'

 

Best wishes

 

Laura

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think that people should have to work hard for things they want, and I have serious questions about how unemployment benefits, etc. are administered in the UK.

 

However for me, as for most British people I think, healthcare is a basic requirement which should be free at the point of need. It's in a different category from 'those things that you can afford if you work hard.'

 

Best wishes

 

Laura

 

I think what you mean to say is that healthcare should be free to the sick person at the point of need. I think what some people are missing is that healthcare is never free. Really what you are saying is that if someone really needs healthcare and can't afford it then someone else should be forced to pay it for them. What the government proposes is that the wealthy people should be forced to do this. I think that is wrong. There are other solutions to the problem.

 

Here's the Republicans' ideas posed this week:

 

 

Today, Congressman John Shadegg (AZ-03) joined with several Republican Members of Congress including: Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01), Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (TN-07), Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (TX-26), Congressman Phil Gingrey, M.D. (GA-11) and Congressman Pete Hoekstra (MI-02) to introduce The Improving Health Care for All Americans Act which will reform AmericaĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s health care system making health care services more personal, more affordable and ensure that all Americans receive the care they need.

 

Please watch Rep. Shadegg and read what the bill includes:

IF YOU LIKE IT YOU CAN KEEP IT.

Approximately 83% of Americans are satisfied with the health care they currently receive through their employer. Under this plan, Americans with employer-provided care can keep it without any change. Unlike other proposals, this bill will NOT tax your employer-sponsored plan to pay for a government takeover of health care. And, unlike the Democrats plan, it will not force you to give up the health care coverage you currently have if you choose to keep it!

 

ALL AMERICANS GET CHOICE AND COVERAGE.

The bill allows Americans who donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t have employer-sponsored care or those not satisfied with their employer-sponsored plan to buy their own plan on the same tax-advantaged basis their employer enjoys. Americans who pay income taxes get a dollar for dollar reduction in their tax bill up to $2500 for individuals and $5000 per family. Americans who donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t pay income taxes get the same amount from the government to buy a policy of their choice; $2500 for individuals and $5000 per family.

 

PROVIDES POOLING MECHANISMS AND GROUP PLAN CHOICES FOR EVERYONE.

This legislation creates expanded options for the purchase of low-cost health care from new pooling mechanisms. Today, the only health insurance pool available to Americans is their employerĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s pool. Americans not in an employer-sponsored pool buy in what is called the Ă¢â‚¬Å“individual market.Ă¢â‚¬ The Improving Health Care for All Americans Act dramatically expands the insurance pools Americans can select to join by allowing churches, alumni associations, trade associations and other civic groups to set up new insurance pools and offer affordable health care packages to their members. Instead of having only one group policy to choose from, under this bill, every American will be able to choose from a number of Ă¢â‚¬Å“group plans.Ă¢â‚¬ This will make health care more affordable and portable while not locking individuals into staying at a job simply to keep their health coverage. Families should not be forced to choose between leaving their employer and having health care.

 

PRE-EXISTING AND CHRONIC CONDITIONS COVERED AT AFFORDABLE RATES.

Our fragmented health care system makes it difficult for Americans with pre-existing conditions and chronic illnesses to find affordable coverage. No American should go bankrupt because they get sick. The Improving Health Care for All Americans Act strengthens, expands and creates new avenues for affordable health care for the sickest Americans through high-risk pools and reinsurance mechanisms. The sick and those with chronic conditions will be able to buy coverage at competitive rates.

 

CONTROLS COST AND PROVIDES COVERAGE FROM THE BOTTOM UP, NOT THE TOP (GOVT.) DOWN.

The Improving Health Care for All Americans Act takes a radically different approach in contrast to what has been discussed by President Obama as well as Democrats in both chambers. It gives people choice and places American families back in control of their plans and their health care. This legislation will reduce the cost and improve the quality of health care while expanding access and portability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's not sad for them. They are the country that managed to remain neutral during world-wide conflict.

 

Regardless, I do think that the need for a government mandated health care system is sad. The redistribution of wealth is a sad concept in this country because of our past. We are the country that fought a war against a world superpower largely based on the slogan "no taxation w/o representation!". The fact that many people have issues with taxes shouldn't be a surprise. This is the country whose fight for liberty was "heard around the world". The frontier spirt, "don't tread on me" and all of that is a huge part of our history and something we need to honor.

 

This country has struggled to balance the needs of the individual and the states, against those of the federal government since it began. For many of us, reflecting on that history it would be sad to give up so much of that hard won liberty just to have someone else "take care" of us.

 

All of this wars with my belief that we are to care for the poor and needy. I do think we have a duty to those less fortunate. I wish that religious organizations and other charities would take care of it, that basic needs would be met for everyone through charities funded voluntarily. It doesn't happen though. People don't get what they need, charities have limited focus or resources or whatever.

 

As much as I would like to live in a world where generosity cared for the needs of those w/o the means to care for themselves I have to deal with the reality of what life is really like. In the real world the charities and churches aren't making a big enough difference and people are suffering. Since I believe that I have an obligation to my fellow man I struggle with this whole issue. There is no easy answer when you believe in personal responsibility and liberty and helping your fellow man in a world where the government is increasingly the machine that helps those in need.

 

 

I really appreciate your point of view on this. While I understand what you're saying about wanting to help those in need, we must not think that our only option is universal healthcare.

 

I just don't buy into the assumption that 1. the government is not helping people who need healthcare (they probably help too much in many cases) and 2. most of the people in that situation are truly in need (I think most, not all, are honestly unmotivated and prefer a hand-out), and 3. that government hand-outs would increase their quality of living overall and benefit the society as a whole.

Edited by teraberry
remove information that was too personal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The redistribution of wealth is a sad concept in this country because of our past. We are the country that fought a war against a world superpower largely based on the slogan "no taxation w/o representation!". The fact that many people have issues with taxes shouldn't be a surprise. This is the country whose fight for liberty was "heard around the world". The frontier spirt, "don't tread on me" and all of that is a huge part of our history and something we need to honor.

:iagree:I've read through this whole thread and was wondering when some one would bring this up.

 

This country has struggled to balance the needs of the individual and the states, against those of the federal government since it began. For many of us, reflecting on that history it would be sad to give up so much of that hard won liberty just to have someone else "take care" of us.

 

All of this wars with my belief that we are to care for the poor and needy. I do think we have a duty to those less fortunate. I wish that religious organizations and other charities would take care of it, that basic needs would be met for everyone through charities funded voluntarily. It doesn't happen though. People don't get what they need, charities have limited focus or resources or whatever.

 

 

 

I have long believe that if every church member across this whole country tithed a straight 10% of their income every month there would be no need for Medicaid/Medicare or govt welfare. The churches would have more than enough money to provide to those who cannot provide for themselves (note I'm not talking about those who choose not to work because they can freeload off the govt, and I personally know several).

 

Also, and I think some posters have alluded to this, most countries who do have a well run national or universal health care or insurance do not have the population that the US does. Even if we could match the per capita expenditure of Canada, the amount would be so staggering that much higher taxes would be a necessity. Not only do those countries have less people that need care, they have a different philosophy of what care is needed (pills & tests vs spas & herbs), and a different idea on what a govt is supposed to provide. Their histories are rich in the lore of feudal lords or tyrants who imposed unbearable taxes while our history is filled with an independant, we can take care of ourselves mentality. Less than 100 yrs ago there was no such thing as Social Security or public assistance - people didn't expect the govt to take care of them and instead relied on family and churches. I'm not saying either is better than the other, but just noting the differences in attitudes.

 

Yes, doctors fees are too high and insurance companies are notoriously profit hungry. But will this health plan do something about the billions of dollars awarded in malpractice lawsuits? I think one reason so many tests are run unnecessarily is that the dr's are afraid that if they don't do absolutely everything that can be done (needed or not) they will get sued for not doing enough. It's a no-win situation.

 

I have experience with both private insurance and military active duty coverage. I love the fact that with the military I do not have to pay for dr visits, prescriptions, eye exams, etc., but I also don't like only being able to use certain dr's and needing to get preauthorization for just about everything. Frankly, knowing how our govt has handled Medicare, I don't want them to organize something similar for the rest of the country. Yes, the currant system we have is messed up, but rushing this legislation through w/o the proper time to analyze it and offer alternatives is NOT the way to fix it. I like the idea of non-profit insurance co-ops much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they like it that way :)

 

We have some similar benefits in Canada and I like them, too. :D

 

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.

 

Well, why not go if they NEED to go? I think it's better than not getting medical care when it's needed, just because they can't pay for it.

 

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.

 

Being American, I hear what you are saying here with the "work hard" mentality. Being Canadian, I have also seen a slightly different mentality here in Canada - I sense there is more of a "we take care of each other" mentality, with regards to health insurance, maternity/paternity benefits, child tax benefits. (and Canadians work hard, also) Anyway, it seems to work here to the contentment of many people.

 

However for me, as for most British people I think, healthcare is a basic requirement which should be free at the point of need. It's in a different category from 'those things that you can afford if you work hard.'

 

:iagree:

 

I think what some people are missing is that healthcare is never free.

 

As someone who receives free health care in Canada, I am well aware that our friend who makes far more money that we do probably pays more for the insurance. But it's just not an issue between us.

 

Libraries aren't free, either. As a homeowner, part of my prop. taxes go to pay for libraries. But I don't begrudge, say, a homeless person, the use of the library just because he/she doesn't pay property taxes (renters do, indirectly). I think, "Libraries are necessary, so why shouldn't everyone have access to them? I don't mind that they benefit from my prop. taxes."

 

I think it is just a different mentality here in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Very true and I don't understand it at all. If you have any bacterial or viral infection in Poland, you will get few days off (fully paid), like 3-5, but you have to go to the doctor.

 

Here you sleep for one day and go back to work the next. Airborne makes big money here, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have a question about the costs of health care in the US. Do you really think that medicine, procedures, tests etc are so expensive? In other countries they are so much cheaper, although they have similar life style, income etc. It is ridiculously overdone here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Libraries aren't free, either. As a homeowner, part of my prop. taxes go to pay for libraries. But I don't begrudge, say, a homeless person, the use of the library just because he/she doesn't pay property taxes (renters do, indirectly). I think, "Libraries are necessary, so why shouldn't everyone have access to them? I don't mind that they benefit from my prop. taxes."

 

I think it is just a different mentality here in Canada.

 

I absolutely agree. there is a different mentality here in Australia as well.:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a bit of a myth that Canadians leave the country in droves to get care in the USA. I am Canadian and have lived in Canada my entire life. I only know one person (yup - one) who left Canada for care in the USA.

 

Here is some data (look at the text box on the left)

 

http://www.sickocure.org/docs/FAQ.pdf

 

Personally, I think the stories of Canadians leaving for USA care are touted as a scare tactic - look how bad socialised care is - they leave in droves - but the fact is we do not go to the USA in droves for care. It is an argument built on a fallacy.

 

I do understand Americans being afraid of a change to their system. If I were American - I would be frightenned too. It is bound to cause years of upheaval - and who wants that with health care?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

 

Jean

 

But if you go to the WHO stats on deaths under 5, the UK is lower (6 deaths for 1000) than the US (8 per 1000). Presumably they are comparing apples with apples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Numbers are important to an extent with these sorts of issues, HOWEVER all you have to do is turn on the news and watch the Democrats defend universal healthcare with numbers, and then watch Republicans defend their plan with numbers to see that numbers can be misleading. Let's just keep that in mind. Often times people will use numbers to prove a point, when in reality the number was affected by some other factor having little to do with the point they are making.

 

What is harder to distort (than numbers) is logic. If healthcare is "free" or cheap to the whole population than more people will go to the doctor for more reasons. Again, logic would have it that longer wait times would follow. Also, someone is paying doctors and nurses for that "free" healthcare. Logic follows that taxes are raised. Another point of logic, if people can easily get free or cheap healthcare, they will no longer have to work as hard for it and therefore tax dollars are unnecessrily spent paying for those who could've paid for it themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in Canada - I sense there is more of a "we take care of each other" mentality, with regards to health insurance, maternity/paternity benefits, child tax benefits. (and Canadians work hard, also) Anyway, it seems to work here to the contentment of many people.

...

 

I think it is just a different mentality here in Canada.

 

 

That's really the crux of the matter, IMO. As a former american, I know how easy it is to believe that Canada is pretty much just like the US. But, live here any decent length of time and it is quite clear that the mentality is vastly different. In Canada, it IS very much a "we take care of each other" sensibility.

 

And, yes... we sure do seem to like it that way! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is harder to distort (than numbers) is logic. If healthcare is "free" or cheap to the whole population than more people will go to the doctor for more reasons. Again, logic would have it that longer wait times would follow. Also, someone is paying doctors and nurses for that "free" healthcare. Logic follows that taxes are raised. Another point of logic, if people can easily get free or cheap healthcare, they will no longer have to work as hard for it and therefore tax dollars are unnecessrily spent paying for those who could've paid for it themselves.

 

People start their logical reasoning with different premises, though. Mine appears to be different than yours, so I will come to different conclusions than you.

 

Also, just because people get free health care does not mean we don't work hard. It just means it's one less of what I consider life's necessities that we have to work for. My husband works to provide food, clothing, and shelter for us, and I work to provide what I think is a good education for my kids and to keep our family life intact. And I think those are worthy pursuits and I don't think anyone who knows me would say I'm not a hard worker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, live here any decent length of time and it is quite clear that the mentality is vastly different. In Canada, it IS very much a "we take care of each other" sensibility.

 

It took me a long time here to "get" this. The Child Tax Benefit thing blew me out of the water, as did the 6 month (when I was pregnant) maternity leave as opposed to 6 weeks. But I've converted. :D And I'm still working just as hard as I did when I spent my first 25 years in the States, just covering different necessary jobs, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Canadian per capita expenditures and expenditures as a percentage of GDP are lower than the US - not higher. (sources cited elsewhere in this thread)

 

 

That was my point... the per capita numbers are lower, but with our greater population the total cost would be much higher.

 

From Encyclopedia of the Nations: "The population of Canada in 2003 was estimated by the United Nations at 31,510,000, which placed it as number 36 in population among the 193 nations of the world." "The population of United States in 2003 was estimated by the United Nations at 294,043,000, which placed it as number 3 in population among the 193 nations of the world. " (emphasis mine)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was my point... the per capita numbers are lower, but with our greater population the total cost would be much higher.

 

From Encyclopedia of the Nations: "The population of Canada in 2003 was estimated by the United Nations at 31,510,000, which placed it as number 36 in population among the 193 nations of the world." "The population of United States in 2003 was estimated by the United Nations at 294,043,000, which placed it as number 3 in population among the 193 nations of the world. " (emphasis mine)

 

But conversely you could then achieve economies of scale that are not possible in a smaller country. I Sweden we have to staff maternity wards 24/7. At smaller hospitals they might see one or two births a week, if that. This would only be the case in certain remote parts of the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People start their logical reasoning with different premises, though. Mine appears to be different than yours, so I will come to different conclusions than you.

 

Also, just because people get free health care does not mean we don't work hard. It just means it's one less of what I consider life's necessities that we have to work for. My husband works to provide food, clothing, and shelter for us, and I work to provide what I think is a good education for my kids and to keep our family life intact. And I think those are worthy pursuits and I don't think anyone who knows me would say I'm not a hard worker.

 

I'm not saying all people in a system of universal healthcare don't work hard. I illustrated my point earlier. My son needs braces. I am starting to do afterschool childcare in August to pay for it because there is no other way we could afford it. If the government paid for it I would not have to work for it, even though I could if I really needed to do so. It would be someone else (the wealthy) paying my son's dental bill and they shouldn't have to do that.

 

I think of my brother-in-law and how incredibly hard he worked at Union Pacific for over 20 years. They sacrificed so much, moving to different cities, he worked long hours, often away from home. He came from humble beginnings and had to really work his way up - very commendable. Why should he have to pay for someone else's healthcare now that he is wealthy? I think he earned his money and deserves to keep just as much as anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up in the UK and had a lot of health issues as a child. I got excellent care and two joint replacements for my RA.

 

My folks are still in the UK. My mom had uterine cancer a couple of years ago and received great health care. My dad recently had more issues with his intestines. He was quickly scheduled for a colonoscopy and had surgery while he was there for the exam.

 

There are always going to be horror stories about socialized medicine. I bet people can tell you a few about their health insurance providers too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

I also have to ask, if only a few people don't want universal health care coverage, is it fair to deny it to the vast majority who do want it?

 

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?

 

It was one of the wealthiest men, Warren Buffet, in the country who publically stated that his secretary paid a higher portion of her income in taxes than he did. He doesn't believe that is fair. Are the wealthy really paying that high of a rate?

 

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've got news for you, braces are cheap compared to true medical problems. :001_smile: Babysitting just won't cover major medical bills, nor will a good paying job, good investments or being thrifty if it's a continuing problem. It's our private health insurance that keeps our family afloat, not our earning power, investments or savings. And luckily my dh picked a good employer for health insurance.

 

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.

 

Honestly Lazy? If someone loses a job, the entire family loses coverage. If someone's employer decides he can't continue offering health coverage, the entire family loses coverage. And if someone has a preexisting condition, he can forget about ever getting health insurance, at least for a pre-existing condition. An individual can have paid into the US health insurance system his entire working life, yet lose everything if he gets sick at the wrong moment. And current gov't programs are not designed for the average working person and especially not the high earner you think is protected against such things.

 

The current health insurance system in the US stinks for a large % of the population. The current proposal on the table may not be the right one, but for too many years too many people have been sticking their heads in the sand on this issue. The end result has been that fewer and fewer people have insurance or the ability to pay cash for their major medical bills. That means those with major medical problems that can pay, start paying for everyone who can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be someone else (the wealthy) paying my son's dental bill and they shouldn't have to do that.

 

 

And if Mr or Mrs Wealthy had made their money by selling bullets to terrorists? What if they'd made their money selling bullets to the terrorists and their opposition? As I said in one of the spin off threads, money does not necessarily equal virtue. In this case, I hope Mr and Mrs Wealthy get taxed to the ground.

 

Rosie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not proposing that the healthcare system we have it fine. It seems like many people have that assumption. What I am proposing is that universal healthcare is not the honorable answer, and that universal healthcare is not the only option to solving the problems we face.

 

Here is another option that we should consider:

 

 

Today, Congressman John Shadegg (AZ-03) joined with several Republican Members of Congress including: Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01), Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (TN-07), Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (TX-26), Congressman Phil Gingrey, M.D. (GA-11) and Congressman Pete Hoekstra (MI-02) to introduce The Improving Health Care for All Americans Act which will reform AmericaĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s health care system making health care services more personal, more affordable and ensure that all Americans receive the care they need.

 

Please watch Rep. Shadegg and read what the bill includes:

IF YOU LIKE IT YOU CAN KEEP IT.

Approximately 83% of Americans are satisfied with the health care they currently receive through their employer. Under this plan, Americans with employer-provided care can keep it without any change. Unlike other proposals, this bill will NOT tax your employer-sponsored plan to pay for a government takeover of health care. And, unlike the Democrats plan, it will not force you to give up the health care coverage you currently have if you choose to keep it!

 

ALL AMERICANS GET CHOICE AND COVERAGE.

The bill allows Americans who donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t have employer-sponsored care or those not satisfied with their employer-sponsored plan to buy their own plan on the same tax-advantaged basis their employer enjoys. Americans who pay income taxes get a dollar for dollar reduction in their tax bill up to $2500 for individuals and $5000 per family. Americans who donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t pay income taxes get the same amount from the government to buy a policy of their choice; $2500 for individuals and $5000 per family.

 

PROVIDES POOLING MECHANISMS AND GROUP PLAN CHOICES FOR EVERYONE.

This legislation creates expanded options for the purchase of low-cost health care from new pooling mechanisms. Today, the only health insurance pool available to Americans is their employerĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s pool. Americans not in an employer-sponsored pool buy in what is called the Ă¢â‚¬Å“individual market.Ă¢â‚¬ The Improving Health Care for All Americans Act dramatically expands the insurance pools Americans can select to join by allowing churches, alumni associations, trade associations and other civic groups to set up new insurance pools and offer affordable health care packages to their members. Instead of having only one group policy to choose from, under this bill, every American will be able to choose from a number of Ă¢â‚¬Å“group plans.Ă¢â‚¬ This will make health care more affordable and portable while not locking individuals into staying at a job simply to keep their health coverage. Families should not be forced to choose between leaving their employer and having health care.

 

PRE-EXISTING AND CHRONIC CONDITIONS COVERED AT AFFORDABLE RATES.

Our fragmented health care system makes it difficult for Americans with pre-existing conditions and chronic illnesses to find affordable coverage. No American should go bankrupt because they get sick. The Improving Health Care for All Americans Act strengthens, expands and creates new avenues for affordable health care for the sickest Americans through high-risk pools and reinsurance mechanisms. The sick and those with chronic conditions will be able to buy coverage at competitive rates.

 

CONTROLS COST AND PROVIDES COVERAGE FROM THE BOTTOM UP, NOT THE TOP (GOVT.) DOWN.

The Improving Health Care for All Americans Act takes a radically different approach in contrast to what has been discussed by President Obama as well as Democrats in both chambers. It gives people choice and places American families back in control of their plans and their health care. This legislation will reduce the cost and improve the quality of health care while expanding access and portability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if Mr or Mrs Wealthy had made their money by selling bullets to terrorists? What if they'd made their money selling bullets to the terrorists and their opposition? As I said in one of the spin off threads, money does not necessarily equal virtue. In this case, I hope Mr and Mrs Wealthy get taxed to the ground.

 

Rosie

 

Yes, some people get rich by dishonest means. Most people I know who make more than $350,000 (the amount Obama has set) are not bad people.

 

Also, REALLY do you think the people receiving the "free" healthcare are all going to be virtuous? It goes both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying all people in a system of universal healthcare don't work hard. I illustrated my point earlier. My son needs braces. I am starting to do afterschool childcare in August to pay for it because there is no other way we could afford it. If the government paid for it I would not have to work for it, even though I could if I really needed to do so. It would be someone else (the wealthy) paying my son's dental bill and they shouldn't have to do that.

 

I think of my brother-in-law and how incredibly hard he worked at Union Pacific for over 20 years. They sacrificed so much, moving to different cities, he worked long hours, often away from home. He came from humble beginnings and had to really work his way up - very commendable. Why should he have to pay for someone else's healthcare now that he is wealthy? I think he earned his money and deserves to keep just as much as anyone else.

 

Why can't we all just pay a flat percentage? Why is it that the rich are expected to pay a higher percentage?

 

I think Canada's health assessment is 8% - I would JUMP at the chance to pay 8% of my income for health insurance (even a bare bones policy.) Someone else said that everyone could have a very basic safety net and those who wanted more could still pay for more. That is how Medicare works, right? The gov't provides the basics and they buy Part B policies for the rest?

 

And about your example - health insurance doesn't pay for braces anyway, so I am not sure where that is coming from.:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't we all just pay a flat percentage? Why is it that the rich are expected to pay a higher percentage?

 

I think Canada's health assessment is 8% - I would JUMP at the chance to pay 8% of my income for health insurance (even a bare bones policy.) Someone else said that everyone could have a very basic safety net and those who wanted more could still pay for more. That is how Medicare works, right? The gov't provides the basics and they buy Part B policies for the rest?

 

And about your example - health insurance doesn't pay for braces anyway, so I am not sure where that is coming from.:confused:

 

If you look back in the posts you will see a post from someone whose child's braces were paid for by their country's universal health care coverage. It's an example of the bigger picture. Things being paid for by the wealthy that could be paid for by the individual getting the services.

 

I know there are people with more pressing issues that are very expensive. I understand that if they are unable to pay for their healthcare, then they should receive assistance. That is not in question. The question really is how much does the government need to intervene. With universal healthcare they would be doing way way more than is necessary. There are other options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look back in the posts you will see a post from someone whose child's braces were paid for by their country's universal health care coverage. It's an example of the bigger picture. Things being paid for by the wealthy that could be paid for by the individual getting the services.

 

I know there are people with more pressing issues that are very expensive. I understand that if they are unable to pay for their healthcare, then they should receive assistance. That is not in question. The question really is how much does the government need to intervene. With universal healthcare they would be doing way way more than is necessary. There are other options.

 

Thanks for clarifying - I see what you are saying now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

 

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).

 

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).

 

I definitely understand the concern that the US will do a poor job of implementing universal health care.

........

Some of those illegals get healthcare, too.... It seems the main people left out of our system are the working and middle classes.

 

 

I also have had experience in both the US and other countries.

 

I'm quoting your post because it reminded me of a few things. One is that other countries are often much more homogenous in their citizens, lifestyles and philosophies than is the US "melting pot."

 

You had wonderful midwifery care but that is often next to impossible here, not because we lack midwives but because of malpractice and lawsuits. Without tort reform, many of the more holistic practices and ideas are lumped together as quackery. Some hospitals and states have taken steps to severely limit, if not ban, midwives and other home pre&postnatal caregivers.

 

Also, look at the teenager who wanted to explore other cancer treatments besides chemo recently. Trying to step outside the system will become even more limited with a nationalized plan.

 

A couple of studies I've seen over the years pointed out the fact that a co-pay even at a very nominal amount for things like office visits and prescriptions encourages patients to budget rather than waste. You're right when you say that the people who will lose out both in funds and in availability will be the working people and middle-class who will budget rather than overuse.

 

When filling prescriptions in one European country, we needed 60 pills (2x day for a month) but due to fraud and abuse, the pills weren't dispensed individually, they came in pre-packaged blister cards 25 each, 2 to a box = 50 per box. So I had to buy two boxes for a total of 100 pills to fill my prescription of 60. And then save the leftover 40, just in case. A year later I needed a new prescription, the 40 had expired, I had to buy 2 boxes of 50 to have enough for my prescription.

 

That's just a tiny example....but so frustrating. That's the kind of "smart" thinking that will come of a government running healthcare on a national scale here. They might've even started out dispensing individual pills but the layers of fraud and theft and oversight caused them to solve the situation by standardizing with pre-counted blister packs. This country is just too big and the "trial runs" of medicare, medicaid, VA hospitals, social security, shoot even the DMV, do not make the picture look bright.

 

A recent study of men in VA care with prostate cancer disclosed that 75% of the patients were treated incorrectly, botched surgery, etc. 75%. That number just makes me cry for those vets who are subject to that care. Americans are not used to that kind of medical care. To the OP, that's why people need to be concerned about the stories we hear coming from other countries (and some from here in the US), that's why so many from other countries opt to come here when they really need something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying all people in a system of universal healthcare don't work hard. I illustrated my point earlier. My son needs braces. I am starting to do afterschool childcare in August to pay for it because there is no other way we could afford it. If the government paid for it I would not have to work for it, even though I could if I really needed to do so. It would be someone else (the wealthy) paying my son's dental bill and they shouldn't have to do that.

 

I think of my brother-in-law and how incredibly hard he worked at Union Pacific for over 20 years. They sacrificed so much, moving to different cities, he worked long hours, often away from home. He came from humble beginnings and had to really work his way up - very commendable. Why should he have to pay for someone else's health care now that he is wealthy? I think he earned his money and deserves to keep just as much as anyone else.

braces aren't covered in Australia. In fact most dental work isn't covered unless you are on a very low income, and then it is really only emergency work. most people pay to have their dental, or have dental insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have a question about the costs of health care in the US. Do you really think that medicine, procedures, tests etc are so expensive? In other countries they are so much cheaper, although they have similar life style, income etc. It is ridiculously overdone here.

 

I think there are several factors, but I can't back them with statistics.

 

1) As far as the cost of health insurance. Insurance works by pooling everyone's money together to cover those who have loses. For health insurance that meas including the healthy with the less healthy. But for a long time, a large portion of the population has not been paying into the large insurance pool. That includes those who can't afford individual coverage if it's not available from their employer or group insurance even if it's offered. It also includes those who are young and healthy and don't see any personal need for health insurance.

 

As a result, generally those who struggle the most to keep their insurance are those who are less healthy and older, which further drives up insurance costs.

 

Plus there is fradulant "coverage". People have stolen insurance cards to get coverage. Another poster mentioned that insurance cards are apparently knowingly shared.

 

2) Medical establishments and practices need to at least cover their expenses and salaries. But many people they treat can't pay the entire bill, or they can't pay promptly or they can't pay at all. Those unpaid expenses need to be paid by someone, so the basic price goes up for those who can.

 

3) The insurance companies can be real bears about negotiating prices. I've seen large portions of my bills cut by 25-50%. Now it may be that those original prices are set to give negotiation room, or to cover slow paying insurance companies (mine is very fast) or that my insurance company has fantastic negotiators. But sometimes I wonder if the hard negotiators push prices so low that the medical providers have to raise them else where to cover costs and even make a bit of money.

 

4) Medical providers have to wade through a maze of insurance coverages, payment plans, insurance forms and payment delays. My oncologist's office has a billing/insurance clerk for every doctor I believe. That's a big expense.

 

4) From the recent fight to keep Americans from buying medicines from Canada, I wonder if the pharmacetical companies are artificially raising prices here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When filling prescriptions in one European country, we needed 60 pills (2x day for a month) but due to fraud and abuse, the pills weren't dispensed individually, they came in pre-packaged blister cards 25 each, 2 to a box = 50 per box. So I had to buy two boxes for a total of 100 pills to fill my prescription of 60. And then save the leftover 40, just in case. A year later I needed a new prescription, the 40 had expired, I had to buy 2 boxes of 50 to have enough for my prescription.

 

quote]

 

:confused::confused: the pharmacy where I worked before having children, Cut the sheet of blister pack, and boxed the exact amount of pills . I really don't see what blister packs have to do with it. you just had a dumb pharmacist. I really don't think you can judge a whole medical system by one dumb pharmacist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was my point... the per capita numbers are lower, but with our greater population the total cost would be much higher.

 

......

 

But if our per capita income is the same, what does it matter that our total costs are higher? We'd be spending the same amount per person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree. there is a different mentality here in Australia as well.:D

 

Help! I'm trapped in a country with the wrong mentality! Will universal coverage pay for my country transplant?????

 

I think it is a bit of a myth that Canadians leave the country in droves to get care in the USA. I am Canadian and have lived in Canada my entire life. I only know one person (yup - one) who left Canada for care in the USA.

 

Here is some data (look at the text box on the left)

 

http://www.sickocure.org/docs/FAQ.pdf

 

Personally, I think the stories of Canadians leaving for USA care are touted as a scare tactic - look how bad socialised care is - they leave in droves - but the fact is we do not go to the USA in droves for care. It is an argument built on a fallacy.

 

I do understand Americans being afraid of a change to their system. If I were American - I would be frightenned too. It is bound to cause years of upheaval - and who wants that with health care?

 

And what about the Americans who go to Mexico for care they can't afford here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you happy with the health care there?

 

Here is the original post.

 

It would be someone else (the wealthy) paying my son's dental bill and they shouldn't have to do that.

 

Why should he have to pay for someone else's healthcare now that he is wealthy?

 

The question really is how much does the government need to intervene.

 

You're asking questions relating to the problems with American health insurance. The thread was asking about how others who have experienced health care/insurance systems outside of America perceive those systems.

 

Help! I'm trapped in a country with the wrong mentality!

 

Not wrong, different. We both said "different." We are just sharing our perspectives from outside America, like the OP asked for.

Edited by Colleen in NS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Not wrong, different. We both said "different." We are just sharing our perspectives from outside America, like the OP asked for.

 

I meant, wrong for ME. I have the other mentality, and I am trapped here in the US, wondering why so many of my fellow citizens disagree that a civilized country would make sure that all its citizens had a basic level of health care available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant, wrong for ME. I have the other mentality, and I am trapped here in the US, wondering why so many of my fellow citizens disagree that a civilized country would make sure that all its citizens had a basic level of health care available.

 

YIKES!! I'm sorry! I read that all wrong.:o

 

I think I should go to bed. I never get involved in heated topics like this, but this one has me thinking a lot, because of being from America and having so many family and friends negatively affected by lack of insurance and high medical costs. And then seeing people's stories of suffering here, too. And seeing threads started where people ask "Dr. Hive" for help, and I assume it's because they want to decide whether or not to spend the money to go see a doctor.

 

Sorry for misreading you! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, some people get rich by dishonest means. Most people I know who make more than $350,000 (the amount Obama has set) are not bad people.

 

Also, REALLY do you think the people receiving the "free" healthcare are all going to be virtuous? It goes both ways.

 

No I don't think people recieving free health care are necessarily virtuous. Who thinks that? I'm sure most people know other people who bum off the system. I was only talking about our hypothetical Mr and Mrs Wealthy because some people seem to think that money only results from hard work so rich people are virtuous, and all those poor people could have been that way too. When you said "it goes both ways," I agree. That's the point I was trying to make.

 

$350,000 is a lot of money! If I made that much, I don't think I'd care what percentage I was being taxed! Our PM doesn't make that much. Wow.

 

Rosie

Edited by Rosie_0801
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, sad isn't it?

The only thing sad is that you can't see that others are happy living in a country where everyone is looked after. It's not entitlement mentality, it's giving a **** about your neighbour.

 

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.

I've seen this argument on this board before. And as per last time I will say that even very small preemies are cared for, that a live birth is a live birth if the baby is over about (and I'm not 100% of the exact time here) 24 weeks. That a baby who dies within 24 hours gets a birth AND death certificate. I don't know what countries you refer to but I suspect they are not first world. Apples with apples.

 

However for me, as for most British people I think, healthcare is a basic requirement which should be free at the point of need. It's in a different category from 'those things that you can afford if you work hard.'

Yes. Health care for health need is a RIGHT not a priviledge. And I'm proud to have lived in two countries that see it that way.

 

 

They probably are making the same remarks about Americans liking their system of life...

Yes. I find it very sad the way some people there seem to see the needs of their fellow countryment.

 

Some would call it [a nanny state] civilised.

 

Rosie

 

Too right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He stated that he never had a complaint about the Canadian system because it was all he had ever known, but once he moved to the US (he remains a Canadian citizen) he realized that it "doesn't even compare" to the US.

I've lived in Indonesia and the Philippines. I'm thankful for our care here in the US.

susan

 

If I were extremely rich, I'd probably prefer the health care in the US, although I have some concerns about the attitude to 'heroic medicine' that I see there. I have been uninsured in the US, however, and having experienced that, I am very much in favour of a universal system.

 

Laura

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you go to the WHO stats on deaths under 5, the UK is lower (6 deaths for 1000) than the US (8 per 1000). Presumably they are comparing apples with apples.

 

Maybe--I would have to do some research on whether WHO gathers their own statistics. All I know is that I've talked to someone who was involved in this area, and she said that the comparison data between countries was not accurate.

 

Jean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4) Medical providers have to wade through a maze of insurance coverages, payment plans, insurance forms and payment delays. My oncologist's office has a billing/insurance clerk for every doctor I believe. That's a big expense.

 

That's the main difference I see between the Canadian and American system. My doctor runs a private business, just like the doctor south of the border. When my visit is finished she bills my insurance, just like south of the border. But up here there's only one insurer.

 

 

4) From the recent fight to keep Americans from buying medicines from Canada, I wonder if the pharmacetical companies are artificially raising prices here.

 

I was under the impression it was because up here it's the provinces (who actually administer health care) buying meds in bulk amounts. They therefore have much more negotiating power. But it could be both. When you have a system that effectively isolates consumers and denies them the opportunity to build any buying power then you can, as a drug company, charge whatever prices you choose.

 

Much is made about the American system in the context of capitalism but it seems to be that by letting private insurers divide health consumers and deny huge blocks of potential health consumers then you've actually cut one whole part of the capitalist equation, consumers, off at the knees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lived in Italy, Spain and a very short time in Austria (my DH was military). Everyone there hated it. The quality of care is way below what most Americans are used to. The wealthier people I knew paid out of their own pocket for private doctors. One of my close friends had to bring her daughter to the US (from Italy) to receive care for a rare type of cancer. A few times we had to go on the economy to receive health care (our tiny base did not have the necessary equipment and it wasn't necessary to send us to Germany for) and we were shocked to see how out dated the equipment was. My DH needed an MRI on his knee and the doctor told us it was an old US machine that was thrown away because it was outdated. It could be that we are that wasteful but I doubt it. My Austrian friend would bring her children to Germany to the US military base for all but the most routine of care. All of that being said Italy had the best plastic surgeons I have ever seen. :D

 

I don't know about Italy and Spain, but not everyone in Austria hates it. For the most part it works out fine. However, you are correct in saying that people still pay for privat insurance as well. This, in fact, is one of my pet peeves. Americans think that providing National Health Care is easy and cheap (Yes, I am grossly exaggerating here). It is neither easy nor cheap. What it does do (ought to do) is give everyone a 'basic' coverage. Beyond that basic coverage people are still responsible for any additional care they may want or need. People who are more responsible will buy more insurance. Yes, of course, money helps.

Now, if I understand the current bill correctly, then I would not be allowed to purchase additional privat insurance. That is an outrage!

 

BTW, in Austria it is not only the 'wealthier' people that purchase privat insurance. We always had it and we were not wealthy. I can, however, tell you why we purchased it initially.

My mom needed a foot surgery. The basic health coverage would have paid for it but using 'outdated' procedures. The procedure wasn't really dangereous but carried a much longer recovery process. My mom did her research, found a newer procedure, discovered she could only get it with a private doctor, signed up, waited for 6 month, and did it. We never dropped the privat health insurance after that.

 

All this to say this: National Health Care is Basic. You want more you are still responsible for it yourself. I do not want that right to go away, the right to buy more or better insurance.

 

Susie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe--I would have to do some research on whether WHO gathers their own statistics. All I know is that I've talked to someone who was involved in this area, and she said that the comparison data between countries was not accurate.

 

Jean

 

Jean, when you're trying to compare stats that are collected by different groups, that is quite correct. I chose one organization that collects stats which should make it reasonable to compare them.

 

Now I would never guarantee something that I didn't personally do but it should be relatively accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...