Creativity Challenge: How can we reduce health care costs in America?

[Renee in NC]

I realize that our elected officials make the decisions as to where to spend money and what to tax the people. I also think there is a lot of fraud in elections, that congress is greatly swayed by lobbyist, and that no person truly in their right mind would run for office. :D Just because people are elected does that really give them the right to take the peoples money for things that aren't spelled out in the Constitution?

 

I think the whole system is screwed up and I think both sides are to blame and we as a society are to blame.

 

I think the problem is that what the Constitution says is up for debate.;) If the people want to keep Congress from taking taxes for things not in the Constitution, many other things would have to go as well. I imagine that whatever tax savings we would see from cut programs would be more than made up by increases in food costs and being forced to pay higher prices for things that the gov't now provides. There is such a thing as "economies of scale."

 

I don't know what you meant about the "both sides being to blame" comment, though, as the entitlement programs have been supported equally by both sides. I'll be first in line to say the health care bill solved pretty much nothing and will completely ineffective. This coming from someone who, at least for now, would be the beneficiary of the "free healthcare."

[Renee in NC]

I graduated high school in '93. If a kid missed more than 10 days without a Dr's note, they would be held back, no exceptions. I was notorious about having sinus infections, bronchitus, and stomach problems. Most years I ended up over the 10 days.

 

My high school has the same type of rule - you couldn't miss more than 9 days per semester (10% of the term.) I regularly missed more than that, appealed the "holding back" and got passed on anyway. I guess it would be a little ridiculous to hold someone back who missed a ton of school yet had a high average.

 

I do think those policies are more likely to found in districts where state funding is based on daily attendance (where the amount per pupil is divided by 180 and then only paid for a child in attendance that day.) In districts where funding is done annually or based on attendance on certain days of the year, they'll be more flexible. It's really about money, not attendance.;)

 

I have never had to send in a doctor's note for my kids to miss school. I have never needed one for work and neither has my husband.

 

Neither have I. I did know people who were required to, but it was in response to serious attendance issues. I am glad we don't have to because there is no way I could even begin to afford taking a child to the doctor everytime they are sick. We *rarely* go at all - it would take a week of illness and not getting better for me to do a sick visit.

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

I am so sorry. That is not what I meant. I do believe that I stated that Western Healthcare is a need in some cases. I just think that it is very overused.

 

I am so sorry that it seemed I was saying everything. I did not mean at all that your children didn't need care.

 

No, not everything... but the vast majority of Western Healthcare expenses are on things that could be prevented or treated before they get that bad.

 

Western Healthcare likely saved my son's and my own life. I developed my disease while pregnant with him and before we discovered the extent of it, we were starving to death. That was definitely a time to let the MDs do their work!

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

Thank you for clarifying!

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

If "she" is me, I was griping about requiring doctor's notes for silly things like colds which the doctor can't fix. I wasn't talking about preventative care. Some people really do take themselves or their kids off to the doctor every time they catch a cold. I can't think how anyone could be incapable of diagnosing and treating a cold. (Obviously I'm not talking about situations where Mum knows a cold will trigger off asthma or something in a child in which case she'd probably want to see a doctor or chiropractor or someone to help head it off.)

 

Rosie

 

Yes, "she" was you (I quoted your post and she responded). I have never hears of such a policy (I must live a sheltered lofe, LOL) so it seemed like you were talking about preventative care.

[Snowfall]

I think the problem is that what the Constitution says is up for debate.;) If the people want to keep Congress from taking taxes for things not in the Constitution, many other things would have to go as well. I imagine that whatever tax savings we would see from cut programs would be more than made up by increases in food costs and being forced to pay higher prices for things that the gov't now provides. There is such a thing as "economies of scale.

 

:iagree: So many people forget that it allows the government to do what is necessary to "provide for the...general welfare". If thousands of people every year are forced into bankruptcy over the cost of their health care - even people who DO have health insurance - then I would say the government is failing to provide for the general welfare. It is a social problem, which is what the "general welfare" is all about. It's not just a problem for those individuals. It's a problem for the rest of us, who have to swallow up their debt in increased medical costs when they can't pay. It's about the neighborhoods that see property values decline when sick people are forced into foreclosure after being unable to afford their mortgage due to their mounting medical bills. It's about the loss in productivity for people who are sicker than they would be if they could've afforded proper care before it got to that point. So while some may think taxing for health care or social security is Constitutional, many others do.

[Mama Geek]

:iagree: So many people forget that it allows the government to do what is necessary to "provide for the...general welfare". If thousands of people every year are forced into bankruptcy over the cost of their health care - even people who DO have health insurance - then I would say the government is failing to provide for the general welfare. It is a social problem, which is what the "general welfare" is all about. It's not just a problem for those individuals. It's a problem for the rest of us, who have to swallow up their debt in increased medical costs when they can't pay. It's about the neighborhoods that see property values decline when sick people are forced into foreclosure after being unable to afford their mortgage due to their mounting medical bills. It's about the loss in productivity for people who are sicker than they would be if they could've afforded proper care before it got to that point. So while some may think taxing for health care or social security is Constitutional, many others do.

 

I don't think that it is only some people that think it is unconstitutional. I think there is a pretty big struggle for power going on in this country and that we are about 40% on 1 side 40% on the other side and about 20% that changes back and forth.

 

We are talking about a loss of freedom here. Anytime we give power to the government or anyone else, we loose individual freedom. Freedom always comes with a price.

[kokotg]

:iagree: So many people forget that it allows the government to do what is necessary to "provide for the...general welfare". If thousands of people every year are forced into bankruptcy over the cost of their health care - even people who DO have health insurance - then I would say the government is failing to provide for the general welfare. It is a social problem, which is what the "general welfare" is all about. It's not just a problem for those individuals. It's a problem for the rest of us, who have to swallow up their debt in increased medical costs when they can't pay. It's about the neighborhoods that see property values decline when sick people are forced into foreclosure after being unable to afford their mortgage due to their mounting medical bills. It's about the loss in productivity for people who are sicker than they would be if they could've afforded proper care before it got to that point. So while some may think taxing for health care or social security is Constitutional, many others do.

 

:iagree:

 

I guess I've never really understood why the same people who have no issue driving on public roads and calling the police when their house is broken into draw the line at health care. Very few people would suggest that their tax dollars shouldn't pay for the police to find an abducted child, yet if that same child gets cancer, it's suddenly beyond the scope of government to help them.

 

As for cutting costs, if it were me, I'd take a look at other countries with lower health care costs than ours (that would be pretty much all of them) and then look at the ones that get good results--lower infant mortality, higher quality of life, good patient satisfaction, longer life expectancies (that would be most other industrialized countries)--and I'd see what they were doing. But that's just me.

[Mejane]

I think the lowest contracted price for any health care service should be the same for anyone paying cash.

 

Insurance companies routinely have 'contracted prices' that they negotiate for their patients. Then the people who pay cash....get billed the entire amount. :( It is not fair to get a higher profit, off of a person who doesn't have insurance than the same service provided to a person with insurance.

 

I know there is often a discount for cash patients....but it isn't close to what some insurances prices are.

 

Otoh, you may be penalized for having insurance. I had a mammogram last year that was not covered by my insurance. I was billed over $500 for it. When I questioned the price, I was told the cash price was $200, but that I was not eligible for that price because I carry insurance. No discount. The billing person, who was sympathetic, actually told me I was paying the difference for the cash and medicaid patients.

 

So just to reiterate, I'm paying my insurance premium and taxes for medicaid, then paying the full cost of my procedure so that someone who doesn't have insurance or is on Medicaid can pay less than half or nothing toward their procedure. I'm sorry, but that's a ripoff any way you look at it. :glare:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I don't think that it is only some people that think it is unconstitutional. I think there is a pretty big struggle for power going on in this country and that we are about 40% on 1 side 40% on the other side and about 20% that changes back and forth.

 

We are talking about a loss of freedom here. Anytime we give power to the government or anyone else, we loose individual freedom. Freedom always comes with a price.

 

People who lose everything due to health care costs or lose their health or die due to lack of health care lose their freedom IMHO:(.

 

Also those who are tied to a certain job due to health care and cannot change jobs or start a business due to health care concerns also lose their freedom IMO:(.

[kokotg]

Also those who are tied to a certain job due to health care and cannot change jobs or start a business due to health care concerns also lose their freedom IMO:(.

 

I'm surprised this argument doesn't get more play in public discussions. It seems to me that our system of having health insurance tied to employment is awful for businesses. It makes it very difficult for businesses here to compete with overseas companies that don't have huge health insurance costs, and it strongly discourages entrepreneurship. I know we've considered some kind of self employment more than once and not really been able to get anywhere with it because of health insurance concerns.

Edited November 7, 2010 by kokotg
spelling

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Otoh, you may be penalized for having insurance. I had a mammogram last year that was not covered by my insurance. I was billed over $500 for it. When I questioned the price, I was told the cash price was $200, but that I was not eligible for that price because I carry insurance. No discount. The billing person, who was sympathetic, actually told me I was paying the difference for the cash and medicaid patients.

 

So just to reiterate, I'm paying my insurance premium and taxes for medicaid, then paying the full cost of my procedure so that someone who doesn't have insurance or is on Medicaid can pay less than half or nothing toward their procedure. I'm sorry, but that's a ripoff any way you look at it. :glare:

 

IMO that is very unusual in my experience since usually insurance only has you pay the contracted allowances which are far less and not the full rate.:grouphug:

 

Anyway under health care reform, mammograms will be covered under preventative services. The healthcare reform will phase in gradually over the next 4 years and does IMO have many good provisions:)

 

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/provisions/index.html

[Renee in NC]

Otoh, you may be penalized for having insurance. I had a mammogram last year that was not covered by my insurance. I was billed over $500 for it. When I questioned the price, I was told the cash price was $200, but that I was not eligible for that price because I carry insurance. No discount. The billing person, who was sympathetic, actually told me I was paying the difference for the cash and medicaid patients.

 

So just to reiterate, I'm paying my insurance premium and taxes for medicaid, then paying the full cost of my procedure so that someone who doesn't have insurance or is on Medicaid can pay less than half or nothing toward their procedure. I'm sorry, but that's a ripoff any way you look at it. :glare:

 

You are right - it isn't right that you have to pay more than others for the same procedure.

 

My two special needs sons were getting therapies through Medicaid to help them. When dh was eligible for insurance, we added all the dc to the policy because we felt that it was the responsible thing to do. Of course, we didn't realize that they would no longer be able to get therapy. We put them in school so they could get services (one reason.) However, the schools don't offer them anything near what they were getting and as of yet they are getting nothing.

 

Not only that, but the therapy they did get from April through June (when it came to light about the Medicaid issue) was rejected by Medicaid because we have private insurance and rejected by private insurance because we were out-of-network (which, of course, we didn't know BEFORE we used the services.) So, now, we owe thousands of dollars to Easter Seals for the therapy they would not have gotten otherwise. (Easter Seals who regularly raises money all over the country for their "charity" but charges just as much as a private company, but I digress.)

 

So, yes, they do have Medicaid because our income is so low, but they can't use it. They still don't get medical care as a whole because we can't afford the copays to do anything. My dad has paid for a few, but he can't afford it either. So, we're not any better off having insurance!:lol:

 

I guess the good thing that came about because of this disaster is that I realized that the only way my two sons will get the help they need is for me to pass the CPA exam, go back to work, and spend the next 10-15 years working as much as possible in order to pay for the therapies they need in order to live normal, regular lives.

 

I guess it is kind of ironic that the best benefit they can get from me is not my time, nurturing, or care, but rather my earning potential.:tongue_smilie:

[Mejane]

Just remember, if it weren't for the people with the money -- the people owning companies and offering jobs, there would be a lot of people earning nothing. This thread seems to have turned into a thread about class envy.

 

 

 

It always does. The people who rise above their circumstances, get an education, work hard, spend responsibly, pay back-breaking taxes to support the 50% of people who pay nothing, save, buy insurance... they're the real villians, don'tcha know? :001_rolleyes:

 

And, yes, I know some people do all these things and have bad breaks, but many more don't.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Mejane

[Renee in NC]

I'm surprised this argument doesn't get more play in public discussions. It seems to me that our system of having health insurance tied to employment is awful for businesses. It makes it very difficult for businesses here to compete with overseas companies that don't have huge health insurance costs, and it strongly discourages entrepreneurship. I know we've considered some kind of self employment more than once and not really been able to get anywhere with it because of health insurance concerns.

 

My father was self-employed almost all my life. Three years ago, he shut his business down and got a job. Why? Because he was paying $2500 a month for insurance. He's very greatful that he did, because my stepmother was diagnosed with MS shortly after that.

 

My self-employed mother does not have health insurance anymore because she can't afford the $600 a month for just her. She looked into individual plans, but due to her age they are all very expensive and/or don't cover enough to make it worth what they cost. They have discussed my stepfather getting a job somewhere so that they can have health insurance again, but there aren't many jobs here right now.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

 

Just remember, if it weren't for the people with the money -- the people owning companies and offering jobs, there would be a lot of people earning nothing. This thread seems to have turned into a thread about class envy.

 

 

 

Personal responsibility has to play into this somehow.

 

I agree and believe in personal responsibility firmly. OTOH there are many who are responsible, frugal, and hard working who run into to dire straights and I do not believe in kicking them to the curbside:(

 

As for class envy, I think that is a false argument IMO. For myself, my family is very blessed and I am not envious at all. I simply believe in fairness and social safety nets to help those in need. I would have no problem at all paying higher taxes if it made for a better society in which no one had to be fearful of the next medical disaster or job loss.

 

As for social security, again, means testing would not be my first choice in shoring up the system at all, but I still think it should be an option if other measures such as removing caps on incomes on which social security is taxed were not enough. I say tax social security up the highest incomes first. I am strongly against raising the age for social security since to me 67 is a reasonable age and 70 is unreasonable since many people have back breaking jobs.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

It always does. The people who rise above their circumstances, get an education, work hard, spend responsibly, pay back-breaking taxes to support the 50% of people who pay nothing, save, buy insurance... they're the real villians, don'tcha know? :001_rolleyes:

 

And, yes, I know some people do all these things and have bad breaks, but many more don't.

 

I agree that some abuse the system and it makes me mad. I say why not strengthen the checks to prevent abuses. From what I understand there already are fairly stringent checks in place, but I have no problem strengthening them. I still believe there are many hard working, frugal people who barely get by though.

 

I don't think rich people are villians at all. I just think it is fairer for those who make more to pay more IMO even if that includes me:). OTOH, I do believe that there are many born with silver spoons and their money has nothing to do with hard work though. Of course, many work hard as some of my family members did, but I have also met many who were simply born into good circumstances.

[Murphy101]

Health doesnt have a dang thing to do with birth control (which cures nothing) or lawyers (who don't practice medicine) or pharma/insurance companies (which only make money off of creating a pill for every I'll, but very rarely an actual cure for anything)

 

It has to do with two things:

 

Healthy lifestyles

 

And

 

Financial access to healthy choices.

 

People need to quit getting ticked that their health sucks and start doing something to make their health better. Eat healthy, do what it takes to be physically fit, instead of seeking a pill seek removing the problem leading to the symptom the pill placates.

 

And no I'm NOT anti medicine. My dh is a type one diabetic and I am sure not going to suggest he doesn't need medical care. But the medical care even for him is pathetic. Genuine nutrition is NEVER discussed aside from how to regulate sugars and there is so much more to it than that. Especially for someone with a cronic illness.

 

I hear people gripe all the time about how hard it is to eat healthy. For low income it IS a cost factor. But for a lot of people they are just flat out unwilling to do it. Because it requires educating themselves. Because it's not convienent. Because they just want to eat their big Mac without consequences.

 

What do I think is the biggest impediment to better health?

 

It isn't affordable for the low income. (seriously telling low income people buy whole wheat or bake their own for example is laughable)

 

And too many people refuse to take ownership of their health and do what it takes. They want a quick and or easy fix and even then, many times they won't do it until the situation escalates to the point that isn't an option.

[Renee in NC]

Martha, I think the birth control argument comes in because people with low-income shouldn't reproduce and have children they can't afford. So, if everyone had free birth control then the poor wouldn't have children, wouldn't need as much help, and wouldn't be a drain on society.

 

I always wonder what would happen if the entire bottom quartile of income were to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and get education, make the "right" decisions, etc. What if there were no longer a lower class? Would we be like Kuwait - bringing in workers from third world countries to do what are now the low-paying jobs? I would guess we would have to, as our economy is built on the current structure since we no longer export as much as we did in the past. Who would be the laborers, cleaners, cashiers, restaurant kitchen workers, food production, agriculture, etc.?

 

I imagine eventually we would adapt to a new structure, but I am not sure what that would be.

[Murphy101]

People who lose everything due to health care costs or lose their health or die due to lack of health care lose their freedom IMHO:(.

 

Also those who are tied to a certain job due to health care and cannot change jobs or start a business due to health care concerns also lose their freedom IMO:(.

 

I agree. My issue with the Obama health plans is that I don't see it as any better a situation for finances or health for the majority of people. They just keep yapping that blank more people with have access to health insurance. Well whoopee freaking deal. Millions of people have insurance and aren't one bit healthier for it. Do something that actually makes people healthier! THAT I will get behind.

 

I want to see more access to truely preventive education and methods. Both traditional common sense, such as making healthy food affordable and non traditional methods such as nutritional therapies. I want patients to have genuine choices, not just a list of covered drugs and drs.

[Murphy101]

Martha, I think the birth control argument comes in because people with low-income shouldn't reproduce and have children they can't afford. So, if everyone had free birth control then the poor wouldn't have children, wouldn't need as much help, and wouldn't be a drain on society.

 

I imagine eventually we would adapt to a new structure, but I am not sure what that would be.

 

 

Yeah. If only we could just get rid of poor people is such a blarney ideology.:glare: Because no one wants to pay more for their lifestyle. If it comes down to paying a bit in taxes (and it IS a laughable amount in comparison to many other govt spending wastes) than a heck of a lot more for their big Mac. And lawn mowing. And daycare. And...

[LizzyBee]

to insure against a catastrophic health episode, a major illness or injury.

 

Individuals and employers should be allowed to purchase major medical policies that DO NOT cover preventative services.

 

One reason we have experienced two decades of incredible medical services inflation is because of the expansion of the subsidy aspect of medical insurance, both private and government.

 

The health saving accounts that were eliminated under the Obama plan should be reinstated and expanded.

 

Free or reduced fee for service clinics should be federally funded for those who need them.

 

Stacy (Who spent 12 years working as a Benefits Analyst to large employers for a consulting firm and who negotiated with various state insurance departments and insurance companies)

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I was just saying the same thing to my dh last evening!

[Perry]

Having a public option would have solved many of our problems.

[MotherGoose]

I was a social worker before a SAHM. Free birth control is pretty widely available, at least for people on Medicaid. After seeing people who literally, have 5 kids by 5 daddies, are unemployed, on welfare, etc etc I think that if a person has a baby and accepts government assistance, she should be made to be on some semipermanent birth control--IUD, Depo--something besides the pill--until she demonstrates a financial ability to live without welfare and support another child. This is HORRIBLY politically incorrect, I know, but there are a lot of unwanted children in this world who arrived because mom was just too lazy to do something about it. Or because mom kept having children to fulfill her own emotional needs, not because she was truly capable of having children. I don't think this is unfair gov't intrusion into people's lives, because people don't have to be on the birth control if they don't accept gov't assistance.

 

I also say that making people who are obese, smoke, do drugs pay higher premiums would cause people to make healthier choices. My dh is obese, not too motivated to lose weight, but I guarantee that if he knew he'd have to pay more in premiums, he'd lose the weight.

[Mejane]

OTOH, I do believe that there are many born with silver spoons and their money has nothing to do with hard work though. Of course, many work hard as some of my family members did, but I have also met many who were simply born into good circumstances.

 

Funny, I don't think I know anyone like that. Most of the people I know who are making it simply work hard at their jobs and try to be responsible with their money.

[MotherGoose]

Even if they were born into good circumstances, why does anyone have the right to TAKE AWAY, at the point of a GUN (because if you don't pay your taxes, they will come get you, and they will have a gun) YOUR MONEY and give it to someone else??? That truly boggles my mind. Especially when so much of it is wasted on junk. No way I could go for any sort of tax increase on ANYONE until there is a complete audit of everything in the federal budget and racecar museums and bridges to nowhere and funds for starving artists are axed from it.

[Mejane]

I may be misunderstanding you here, are you joking? I don't totally accept the class envy accusation, but what you're saying seems to be much more hostile.

 

If you mean am I joking that the above-described are the villians, then yes. They are what keeps this sinking ship we call a country afloat.

[Impish]

*haven't read all replies*

 

I am so tired of this. I'm Canadian, and I've NEVER known anyone that waits years for a test. That's complete crapola as far as I know. The only time I hear of Canadians waiting years for testing, or border health care hopping is when the topic is the US system, and its never been from a Canadian, at least not that I've seen.

 

Every now and then, there's a case in the paper of someone crossing the border for a treatment that may not be here yet, but is approved in the States. That's the only cases I can remember concerning a border hop and health care.

 

Honestly, of all the Canadians I've known, not a single one would choose the US system.

Canadians are having fits with government healthcare. They are waiting months or years for treatments that we can get very quickly here. My understanding is that there are lots of people that live on the border than come to the US and pay cash so that they can be treated. I really don't want to see this country go that direction.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Funny, I don't think I know anyone like that. Most of the people I know who are making it simply work hard at their jobs and try to be responsible with their money.

 

I have met many who are rich simply through inheritance. I also know that many rich got there by working hard as well. I just pointing out that just as not every poor person is lazy or irresponsible the same applies that not every rich person is rich due to hard work.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Having a public option would have solved many of our problems.

 

:hurray:

[Mejane]

I have met many who are rich simply through inheritance. I also know that many rich got there by working hard as well. I just pointing out that just as not every poor person is lazy or irresponsible the same applies that not every rich person is rich due to hard work.

 

I absolutely agree. I guess we just don't travel in the same social circle. ;)

[Snowfall]

It always does. The people who rise above their circumstances, get an education, work hard, spend responsibly, pay back-breaking taxes to support the 50% of people who pay nothing, save, buy insurance... they're the real villians, don'tcha know? :001_rolleyes:

 

And, yes, I know some people do all these things and have bad breaks, but many more don't.

 

Do you know the statistics on those who become rich on their own vs. those who inherit money? I once read that around 70% of the wealthy in America inherited their wealth. I'd like to see more statistics on that, but I don't believe that your personal experience of only knowing rich people who made their own money is meaningful. It doesn't tell us anything, other than that you don't know people like my buddy, who inherited millions upon millions from his parents, who started a tiny company that's franchised and gone nationwide. Or my other buddy, whose family started a world famous brewery a few generations ago. Those of us who have run in "old money" circles know lots of people who've inherited immense wealth. They just don't tend to have lots of friends in the normal income range, so you wouldn't know them. I could just as easily say that I don't know anyone who has become rich on their own - and I don't. ;) That's rather meaningless, though, isn't it?

 

Edit: LOL! We cross-posted.

[MSNative]

When people mention dissatisfaction with Canadian health care, this is the info that we are hearing on our side of the border. I found a couple of sites that said approx 17K Canadians come to the US each year for medical procedures. I could not find official counts on that, though. However, several top Canadian officials have come to the US for care in the past few years. From Wikipedia:

 

 

 

• According to a September 14, 2007, article from CTV News, Canadian Liberal MP Belinda Stronach went to the United States for breast cancer surgery in June 2007. Stronach's spokesperson Greg MacEachern was quoted in the article saying that the US was the best place to have this type of surgery done. Stronach paid for the surgery out of her own pocket.[73] Prior to this incident, Stronach had stated in an interview that she was against two-tiered health care.[74]
  
• When Robert Bourassa, the premier of Quebec, needed cancer treatment, he went to the US to get it.[75]
  
• In 2007, it was reported that Canada sent scores of pregnant women to the US to give birth.[76] In 2007 a woman from Calgary who was pregnant with quadruplets was sent to Great Falls, Montana to give birth. An article on this incident states there were no Canadian hospitals with enough neo-natal intensive beds to accommodate the extremely rare quadruple birth.[77]
  
• A January 19, 2008, article in The Globe And Mail states, "More than 150 critically ill Canadians – many with life-threatening cerebral hemorrhages – have been rushed to the United States since the spring of 2006 because they could not obtain intensive-care beds here. Before patients with bleeding in or outside the brain have been whisked through U.S. operating-room doors, some have languished for as long as eight hours in Canadian emergency wards while health-care workers scrambled to locate care." [78]
  
• In 2010, Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams traveled to the US for heart surgery
  

 

 

The median wait time in Canada to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 90 days.[50]

The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans [51] is two weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 90 days.[50]

The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 90 days.[50]

Another study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 57% of Canadians reported waiting 30 days (4 weeks) or more to see a specialist, broadly in line with the current official statistics. A quarter (24%) of all Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room

Edited November 7, 2010 by MSNative

[kokotg]

Do you know the statistics on those who become rich on their own vs. those who inherit money? I once read that around 70% of the wealthy in America inherited their wealth. I'd like to see more statistics on that,

 

I'm trying right now to make it through Larry M. Bartel's Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age (I know, sounds like a page turner, right?)...it deals with a lot of these issues. The part I'm reading right now (depressingly close to the beginning) argues that economic mobility has been declining in the US for decades and that, fervent belief in the American Dream notwithstanding, countries like Canada, Norway, Germany, maybe even Great Britain have greater economic mobility than we do.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I absolutely agree. I guess we just don't travel in the same social circle. ;)

 

Actually I met many of these people at the schools I attended and via my parents so they are really not in my circle;) I have had the good fortune in life though to have met people from all walks of life including rich and poor. I just simply believe in not letting people fall through the cracks and I think it is fair for those who make more money too pay more in taxes especially since income taxes are at historically very low rates compared the 1960's.

[MotherGoose]

Why is it wrong to inherit money? Why is it wrong that just because your ancestors earned the money and you didn't, you are somehow evil? Why does the government somehow have the right to take your money if you didn't earn it, but not if you did earn it by working? Just throwing that out there. BTW, I am did not inherit any money, am not rich. The Bible says to give to the poor, etc., but I don't recall seeing anywhere that the government should be able to tax you crazily to get the money to give to them (especially when they waste all the money on things that are not life and death).

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I'm trying right now to make it through Larry M. Bartel's Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age (I know, sounds like a page turner, right?)...it deals with a lot of these issues. The part I'm reading right now (depressingly close to the beginning) argues that economic mobility has been declining in the US for decades and that, fervent belief in the American Dream notwithstanding, countries like Canada, Norway, Germany, maybe even Great Britain have greater economic mobility than we do.

 

:iagree: I do agree that the American dream is much harder now compared to times past. My grandfather had the American dream in the 1930s by starting out dirt poor and working for free and ended up a very wealthy man. Today, however, I think that American dream is much harder to attain and happens to only a much smaller segment of the population IMHO. I think nowadays you often need a lot of money to begin with in order to have that American dream. I realize that it is not always the case, but in my mind they seem few and far between. Even compared to when I was a child in the 1960s and 1970s there were many more mom and pop stores so to speak but nowadays who can compete against the giant stores? Not many IMHO. When I went to Italy is was refreshing to see many small businesses which is very difficult to see today here:(

[Mejane]

I once read that around 70% of the wealthy in America inherited their wealth.

 

You may be right. I wasn't speaking of the truly wealthy, though. I was thinking of people like hubby and me and our families and friends who might be considered upper-middle class. We didn't inherit anything but became teachers, engineers, business owners, etc., and have worked and planned and saved and paid plenty.

 

Both my husband and I came from distinctly middle-class families. My dad was a salesman and my mom was a bookkeeper. Hubby's father worked for NYC in bridge maintenance and his mother was a SAHM with five kids. No one gave us anything because there wasn't anything to give, and most of the people I know live similarly. :)

[Sherry in OH]

I think basic preventative care is a public good. All people in the U.S. (yes, including the undocumented) should be able to have their children vaccinated at taxpayer expense. Age appropriate screening tests including vision, hearing, and dental, should be part of each child's basic health care. Everyone should be able to get flu shots and booster shots, again at taxpayer expense. Families or individuals may choose to opt out, but the decision should be philosophical or medical, not economic. Nurses or technicians could provide the basic level of care in clinics. The clinics could also be a vehicle for providing guidance in good nutrition and other healthy life-style choices.

 

Beyond basic prevention, I think a single insurance provider or a small number of providers would be better than the current system. Employer sponsored health care plans are not working. The insurer(s) should not be able to exempt pre-existing conditions. Individuals or families could then choose the plan they wanted/needed - from catastrophic only to full coverage of every procedure known to man. They would pay accordingly. The poorest individuals would need to be subsidized but that is done to some extent now.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Why is it wrong to inherit money? Why is it wrong that just because your ancestors earned the money and you didn't, you are somehow evil? Why does the government somehow have the right to take your money if you didn't earn it, but not if you did earn it by working? Just throwing that out there. BTW, I am did not inherit any money, am not rich. The Bible says to give to the poor, etc., but I don't recall seeing anywhere that the government should be able to tax you crazily to get the money to give to them (especially when they waste all the money on things that are not life and death).

 

Who said it is evil? I hope to leave money to my ds but see nothing wrong if he has to pay a reasonable inheritance tax IMHO.

 

For the record I hope to be a rich as possible and see nothing wrong with being rich. It's just that I would hope to pay a fair amount of tax:) My dear grandfather did just fine when the income taxes were 70-90% for his income bracket back then and created tons of jobs;) Even Warren Buffet says he should be paying more in taxes. Lastly, as far as I know no none is proposing returning to 70-90% tax for the rich as they had in the 1960s. Instead they are proposing a measly increase of 4% to return to the previous level of 39% prior to the tax cuts implemented under President Bush.

Edited November 7, 2010 by priscilla

[Mejane]

I think it is fair for those who make more money too pay more in taxes especially since income taxes are at historically very low rates compared the 1960's.

 

They don't feel low when 25% of your income disappears from every check! ;)

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

When people mention dissatisfaction with Canadian health care, this is the info that we are hearing on our side of the border. I found a couple of sites that said approx 17K Canadians come to the US each year for medical procedures. I could not find official counts on that, though. However, several top Canadian officials have come to the US for care in the past few years. From Wikipedia:

 

 

 

• According to a September 14, 2007, article from CTV News, Canadian Liberal MP Belinda Stronach went to the United States for breast cancer surgery in June 2007. Stronach's spokesperson Greg MacEachern was quoted in the article saying that the US was the best place to have this type of surgery done. Stronach paid for the surgery out of her own pocket.[73] Prior to this incident, Stronach had stated in an interview that she was against two-tiered health care.[74]

• When Robert Bourassa, the premier of Quebec, needed cancer treatment, he went to the US to get it.[75]

• In 2007, it was reported that Canada sent scores of pregnant women to the US to give birth.[76] In 2007 a woman from Calgary who was pregnant with quadruplets was sent to Great Falls, Montana to give birth. An article on this incident states there were no Canadian hospitals with enough neo-natal intensive beds to accommodate the extremely rare quadruple birth.[77]

• A January 19, 2008, article in The Globe And Mail states, "More than 150 critically ill Canadians – many with life-threatening cerebral hemorrhages – have been rushed to the United States since the spring of 2006 because they could not obtain intensive-care beds here. Before patients with bleeding in or outside the brain have been whisked through U.S. operating-room doors, some have languished for as long as eight hours in Canadian emergency wards while health-care workers scrambled to locate care." [78]

• In 2010, Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams traveled to the US for heart surgery

 

 

The median wait time in Canada to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 90 days.[50]

The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans [51] is two weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 90 days.[50]

The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 90 days.[50]

Another study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 57% of Canadians reported waiting 30 days (4 weeks) or more to see a specialist, broadly in line with the current official statistics. A quarter (24%) of all Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room

 

According to this site, Canadians are very satisfied with health care. As for wait times, wait times are not unusual at all here from my experience. Also, the wait times for diagnostics/surgeries in Canada is not for urgent tests and surgeries from what I have read.

 

http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=7

 

IMHO I think having to wait for non-urgent situations is much better than having to worry about going broke or even not getting health care or meds due to lack of insurance. There are many here who are not getting care or meds due to lack of insurance. Once health care reform fully phases in by 2015, those problems should be mostly resolved thank God.

Edited November 7, 2010 by priscilla
spelling

[Mejane]

Instead they are proposing a measly increase of 4% to return to the previous level of 39% prior to the tax cuts implemented under President Bush.

 

Are you talking about the wealthy? We're not wealthy but we're paying 25% now. If we lost another 15% of our income to taxes, we would become another family not making it. Who does that serve?

 

I truly have a problem with talking about increasing anyone's taxes to 40% when almost half the country pays no or negative federal taxes. Why should someone have to pay a dollar for every two dollars earned while many people pay nothing and some actually make money through the tax system? There's got to be a more equitable way.

[MSNative]

According to this site, Canadians are very satisfied with health care. As for wait times, wait times are not unusual at all here from my experience. Also, the wait times for diagnostics/surgeries in Canada is not for urgent tests and surgeries from what I have read.

 

http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=7

 

IMHO I think having to wait for non-urgent situations is much better than having to worry about going broke or even not getting health care or meds due to lack of insurance. There are many here who are not getting care or meds due to lack of insurance. Once health care reform fully phases in by 2015, those problems should be mostly resolved thank God.

 

Actually, a gallup poll shows that only 39% of Americans are dissatisfied with their health care. These polls can be confusing though. Similar to the polls about gov't satisfaction. If I vote no I'm not satisfied is that because the gov't is too liberal or conservative or not enough, kwim. They are vague and don't necessarily tell us a lot about the actual situation on the ground.

 

 

Here is my biggest problem with the health care debate: I have no confidence that the government (same one that brings us the helpful and efficient IRS, DMV SSA, TARP, bailouts, etc.) will make our health care system better. Government is not efficient. I used to subcontract for the Fed. Gov't and these are not the institutions you want in charge of your health care.

 

Plus, health care will turn into another Social Security debacle. Required changes will be impossible to implement because politicians will make it "political" and try to score points, appeal to their base, appease their main contributors, etc. We've known for over 20 years that social security was going to be out of money and yet nothing happened because it was political.

 

I've lived under two socialized medicine systems and found them to be unsatisfactory - e.g. 6 month wait for an emergency cancer treatment. There are problems with US health system, but putting politicians in charge of health care just is not the way to fix those problems.

[jld]

I'm trying right now to make it through Larry M. Bartel's Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age (I know, sounds like a page turner, right?)...it deals with a lot of these issues. The part I'm reading right now (depressingly close to the beginning) argues that economic mobility has been declining in the US for decades and that, fervent belief in the American Dream notwithstanding, countries like Canada, Norway, Germany, maybe even Great Britain have greater economic mobility than we do.

 

You know, I think I just saw that book mentioned somewhere. I'd like to hear more about it when you've finished . . . :)

[MSNative]

:iagree: I do agree that the American dream is much harder now compared to times past. My grandfather had the American dream in the 1930s by starting out dirt poor and working for free and ended up a very wealthy man. Today, however, I think that American dream is much harder to attain and happens to only a much smaller segment of the population IMHO. I think nowadays you often need a lot of money to begin with in order to have that American dream. I realize that it is not always the case, but in my mind they seem few and far between. Even compared to when I was a child in the 1960s and 1970s there were many more mom and pop stores so to speak but nowadays who can compete against the giant stores? Not many IMHO. When I went to Italy is was refreshing to see many small businesses which is very difficult to see today here:(

 

 

I agree. It is sad that many small businesses cannot make it today. The SBA had a fascinating study on one reason why - the crushing cost of regulation. The cost of regulation in CA alone is one third of the total GNP of Italy. Yikes.

 

http://sba.ca.gov/Cost%20of%20Regulation%20Study%20-%20Final.pdf

 

The study finds that the total cost of regulation to

the State of California is $492.994 billion which is almost five times the State’s general fund budget, and almost a third of the State’s gross product. The cost of regulation results in an employment loss of 3.8 million jobs which is a tenth of the State’s population. Since small business constitute 99.2% of all employer businesses in California, and all of non-employer business, the regulatory cost is borne almost

completely by small business. The total cost of regulation was $134,122.48 per small business in California in 2007.

[Renee in NC]

Funny, I don't think I know anyone like that. Most of the people I know who are making it simply work hard at their jobs and try to be responsible with their money.

 

Of course. This is true no matter of their income is $20,000 or $100,000. We can point to people at both ends of the extreme.

 

Most people who receive gov't assistance are not lazy, uneducated, poor decision makers, either - I bet you wouldn't know if people received assistance because in general they aren't broadcasting it to the world. I would dare say that many of them are very responsible with the money they *do* have.

 

At the same time, I do realize that most people who are wealthier work hard, have a great deal of education, and are by nature financially conservative and responsible with their money. I don't begrudge them that. I do take issue with the idea that somehow they are *better* simply by virtue of their income. Aside from the occasional rags to riches stories, I would dare say most people in the higher income brackets did not have to fight their way there, either.

[Renee in NC]

Do you know the statistics on those who become rich on their own vs. those who inherit money? I once read that around 70% of the wealthy in America inherited their wealth. I'd like to see more statistics on that, but I don't believe that your personal experience of only knowing rich people who made their own money is meaningful. It doesn't tell us anything, other than that you don't know people like my buddy, who inherited millions upon millions from his parents, who started a tiny company that's franchised and gone nationwide. Or my other buddy, whose family started a world famous brewery a few generations ago. Those of us who have run in "old money" circles know lots of people who've inherited immense wealth. They just don't tend to have lots of friends in the normal income range, so you wouldn't know them. I could just as easily say that I don't know anyone who has become rich on their own - and I don't. ;) That's rather meaningless, though, isn't it?

 

Edit: LOL! We cross-posted.

 

It's kind of like my cousins - ALL of them are fairly well off, well-educated, responsible with their money, etc. However, they did have the best educations, all the therapies/tutoring they needed, music training, travel, etc. as they were growing up. Their upbringings were very stable without hint of abuse or dysfunction. Then, their parents paid for their very good college educations. They did well, graduated, work hard at their jobs, and are successful. They also marrried people just like them and are rearing their children exactly the same way.

 

I dare say that if they had come from a more humble background, rife with divorces, abuse, financial stress, etc., they would probably not be where they are today. Sometimes people have a lot to overcome from the start.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Are you talking about the wealthy? We're not wealthy but we're paying 25% now. If we lost another 15% of our income to taxes, we would become another family not making it. Who does that serve?

 

I truly have a problem with talking about increasing anyone's taxes to 40% when almost half the country pays no or negative federal taxes. Why should someone have to pay a dollar for every two dollars earned while many people pay nothing and some actually make money through the tax system? There's got to be a more equitable way.

 

The 39% tax rate was only for the highest incomes who currently pay 35%. I think some, not all, Democrats have proposed keeping the Bush tax for everyone except the highest income tax bracket. This highest income bracket used to pay 70-90% in the 1960s and did quite well. 39% rate is still historically low and nothing compared to the 70-90% rates on that highest income bracket in the 1960s IMO.

[Renee in NC]

Never mind. Too many numbers, not enough brain cells!

[Mejane]

Of course. This is true no matter of their income is $20,000 or $100,000. We can point to people at both ends of the extreme.

 

Absolutely.

 

Most people who receive gov't assistance are not lazy, uneducated, poor decision makers, either - I bet you wouldn't know if people received assistance because in general they aren't broadcasting it to the world. I would dare say that many of them are very responsible with the money they *do* have.

 

:iagree:

 

 

At the same time, I do realize that most people who are wealthier work hard, have a great deal of education, and are by nature financially conservative and responsible with their money. I don't begrudge them that. I do take issue with the idea that somehow they are *better* simply by virtue of their income. Aside from the occasional rags to riches stories, I would dare say most people in the higher income brackets did not have to fight their way there, either.

 

No one is better than anyone else because of their income level. I think what gets people riled up (well me anyway ;)) is the notion that ALL poor people are downtrodden and deserving of being lifted up by those who have lived their lives trying to play by the rules. Some people are laid low through their own devices, and they should not be sanctified any more than the deserving rich should be villified.

 

 

 

.