S/O Why universal health care frightens me

[Jugglin'5]

I admit that I have had my days when I thought universal health care was tempting even to my libertarian self (especially when struggling to pay our pathetic super high deductible self-employed health insurance premiums that never actually covered anything we used).

These articles frighten me, especially since these attitudes are not uncommon. Anytime other people's pocketbooks are affected by the health of others, there will be pressure to deny care to those deemed unworthy.

 

I don't really want to debate the ethics of euthanasia and abortion, because that has been done multiple times here. But for those of you who are pro-life AND pro-universal health care, I would very respectfully urge you to carefully reconsider.

 

For instance:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2983652/Baroness-Warnock-Dementia-sufferers-may-have-a-duty-to-die.html?source=EMC-new_19092008

 

and

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080909.wxldown09/BNStory/International/

 

This article has to be purchased, so here is a link to an excerpt:

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/11/trig-palins-threat-to-the-abortion-industry/

[dawn of ns]

*shrug* There are scary issues in every health system. I get the same fear when I read about people going bankrupt because of medical bills, being unable to access treatment or even, as a balance to the Canada story, infant mortality rates in the US.

 

The key thing about the two articles you linked to is that in nations of millions, those are two individual voices. Just two people and two people, regardless of their standing are not speakers for the system as a whole. Ultimately they're a couple of anecdotes that provoke and emotional response, not any kind of substantial or reasonable data.

[Lolly]

Scares me too.

[JudyJudyJudy]

I'll admit that those individual stories do concern me. However, I have to agree with Dawn on this. I know too many people right now who can't afford to go to the doctor, and, thus, don't go to the doctor. I know a man who has cancer and will most likely die very soon who would not be in this condition if he had been able to go to the doctor when he first realized that he was sick. I know another man who died of a heart attack; he had been having pain but blew it off because he couldn't afford to go to the doctor. It's sad when people have to decide between feeding their families or going to the doctor; invariably, they choose the former. Having said all that, universal healthcare doesn't necessarily mean socialized medicine anyway.

[keptwoman]

*shrug* There are scary issues in every health system. I get the same fear when I read about people going bankrupt because of medical bills, being unable to access treatment or even, as a balance to the Canada story, infant mortality rates in the US.

 

The key thing about the two articles you linked to is that in nations of millions, those are two individual voices. Just two people and two people, regardless of their standing are not speakers for the system as a whole. Ultimately they're a couple of anecdotes that provoke and emotional response, not any kind of substantial or reasonable data.

 

Yes they are just two stories. Here's three stories of the US health system for you.

 

1/ A friend of mine in the US was bankrupted because her son was born early. If that happened here the cost would be $0 for excellent world class care.

 

2/ Another friend of mine in the US currently can not go to the doctor to have a lump in her breast checked because her insurance hasn't kicked in and she doesn't want it listed on her pre-existing. That's a BREAST LUMP that might be cancer and she can't afford to get it looked at!!

 

I have a close family member who had their lump on their arm seen by a family doctor, sent straight to the specialist, all the tests done and radio therapy started in less than a week. All while my friend in the US waits because she can't afford to see the doctor.

 

3/ Our families total health costs under a universal system are 8% of our salary in taxes for health and another 1.5% for comprehensive private insurance. Someone here said that their health insurance costs in the US are 25% of their salary.

 

I love your country and I have some very dear friends there. But I'm so glad we don't have your health system.

 

eta: Those are not only two stories. They are two crazy stories. I don't think that people encouraging euthanasia OR suggesting that Downs babies should be terminated are at all indicitive of attitudes in countries with universal health care. In fact the attitudes in both those articles appalled me!!

[Michelle in MO]

they do help to illustrate points, and sometimes they do affect more than the individual involved.

 

A year ago in October, one of my best friends, who lives in St. Louis, suffered a ruptured brain aneurysm. After emergency treatment and good follow-up care, she is now doing well. Another aneurysm (a "mirror" of the first one) was discovered on the other side of her brain. It was as dangerous as the first one, but she had to wait until the attending neurological surgeon could book it into his/her schedule. When she asked why it had to be put off for so long, she was told by the neurologist that there this surgeon was the only one who could do the surgery. He said that before the Clinton administration, they had a number of residents in neurosurgery. After Hillary Clinton began talking about universal health care and especially when she made a statement to the effect that there were too many specialists and not enough GP's, their residents in this field (in St. Louis) dropped to zero. The neurologist also told her that they were "still paying for that mistake"; in other words, there has been a long-term effect due to the lack of specialists in this field in that metropolitan area. I don't think politicians of any stripe should be setting quotas on the numbers of specialists in a field.

 

On the flip side, there are countries where universal health care appears to work. My dad, who is very conservative and not a big fan of universal health care, said that a friend of his was from South Africa, and that this friend said his health care there was "the best".

 

So, I'm much like Jugglin' 5: I don't want to see the government involved in any more than it already is. On the other hand, I do realize that there are huge numbers of people who are uninsured and that this is also not acceptable. I wish I had read up more on the health insurance plan in Massachusetts that Mitt Romney co-authored with Ted Kennedy. Apparently it works very well; I don't know at what cost to the taxpayers, though. If universal health care is made available, my predisposition would be to see states develop and adopt individual plans, rather than the federal government.

 

It's a scary situation; the uninsured do cost us money, one way or another, but with the recent federal government bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the recent Wall Street mess, I'm not sure how much more stress our economy and our taxpayers can take.

[tibbyl]

We support universal healthcare even though we seldom use services of health professionals. My children range in age from 15 - 21. Each of them has not had more than 3 or 4 visits to doctor through childhood and teenhood. I have not been to doctor in about 15 years. Husband only goes when a limb is broken or severed or he has a 1 in 1 chance of dying without treatment.

 

In 2008, due to unfortunate set of circumstances, we have about $20,000 in medical bills not covered by insurance. Although we have coverage with a high deductible per person, it is quite expensive and we are teetering on edge of not being able to afford it.

 

It is frightening to think that although we have always lived at or below our means, we face a very uncertain future and risk of losing our home and savings in event of catastrophic illness or injury.

[Audrey]

The connection between these stories and healthcare is fallacious.

 

Neither of these stories has anything to do with universal healthcare. They ARE stories involving abortion and euthanasia. HOWEVER, just because the articles come from newspapers in countries with universal healthcare in NO WAY equates the issue with the method of healthcare.

[Plucky]

I didn't read the links. My problem with it is how will we fund it? We are not the same country as Canada. We don't severely limit legal immigration and we seem unable to control illegal immigration. Canada is very strict when it comes to immigration. We want universal health care to cover everyone in our country including illegal aliens. I don't think it will work. California tried it and they had to postpone it because they were going bankrupt.

 

Until we figure out these basic issues I don't believe universal healthcare will work. We simply won't be able to afford it. I think every American should have affordable health care. I just don't see how we can do it.

[Plucky]

We paid 6% of our income on health care this year. We don't usually spend this much but one child had surgery and 2 others were visiting specialists.

 

I think our insurance companies are to blame for much of this. I also worry that universal healthcare may benefit the insurance companies even more and I do not like that idea.

[phathui5]

The healthcare system as it is now is a disaster. A recent example at our house is dh (supposedly covered by insurance) went to the doctor for a sprained wrist. The portion not covered by insurance was $229. They charged us $65 for the cloth Ace bandage that they put on his wrist and another $65 for them to take it out of the package and put it on. That's ridiculous. I could have done the whole thing for $9.

 

Prices for healthcare in the US are so high because docs know that insurance companies are only going to pay a part of the bill, so they jack it up higher to get them to pay more. But then people who end up paying for their own are stuck with huge, artificially inflated medical bills.

[Jami]

I didn't read the links. My problem with it is how will we fund it? We are not the same country as Canada. We don't severely limit legal immigration and we seem unable to control illegal immigration. Canada is very strict when it comes to immigration. We want universal health care to cover everyone in our country including illegal aliens. I don't think it will work. California tried it and they had to postpone it because they were going bankrupt.

 

Until we figure out these basic issues I don't believe universal healthcare will work. We simply won't be able to afford it. I think every American should have affordable health care. I just don't see how we can do it.

 

 

I think you've hit on something important here, Elaine. It's true that there are some countries who are making universal healthcare work well for their people. But by and large, they are significantly smaller in both population and geography than the US and they already have a much more federalized central government. The size and scale of the United States has historically meant that it *usually* works better for the states themselves to administer programs. Or even smaller local governments (the school system for example). I think I would feel more confident if we could point to a large, federalized program that the government is already running efficiently and without waste or abuse. Most of us on this board agree that the public school system, despite a few well-run local school districts, is a complete and utter inefficient mess. I'd love to know where one finds confidence that a universal healthcare system won't be equally screwed up within a very short period of time. And if it is...will we still be paying for it even if we opt out? As we do with our property taxes as homeschoolers? (Not that I begrudge paying some tax for the education of children in our country...but add a huge health tax to that and it could pinch pretty hard)

 

Jami

[Laura Corin]

 

I don't really want to debate the ethics of euthanasia and abortion' date=' because that has been done multiple times here. But for those of you who are pro-life AND pro-universal health care, I would very respectfully urge you to carefully reconsider.

 

For instance:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2983652/Baroness-Warnock-Dementia-sufferers-may-have-a-duty-to-die.html?source=EMC-new_19092008

[/quote']

 

You, I am sure, agree with free speech. She, as an individual, has the right to put forward any views she likes, so long as they do not incite illegal acts; we, as individuals, can ignore them if we find them unpalatable. The fact that she has worked for the government in the past does not mean that she speaks for the government forever.

 

Laura

[Sharon in SC]

Just a few reasons (of enough in our - dh and my - opinion to write a book) why we, healthcare professionals, feel universal healthcare is not good. Not good at all.

 

1) Government controlled. Need I say more? :-{

2) Like Canada, France, and other predecessors who've walked this way - you often have to wait for forever to get your care

3) Without the free market enterprise, there's no incentive to the provider to better themselves. And, if they're going to make the same income seeing 2 patients over 200, some will be inclined to see the bare minimum and be done.

4) If you happen to not like or agree with your current provider you do NOT necessarily have the luxury of switching to someone with whom you do agree or who you do like. Brrr. Shiver me timbers. This one gives me cold chills. ;-{

 

In our humble opinion, this is NOT the answer to the country's healthcare woes!!

[Audrey]

Canada is very strict when it comes to immigration.

 

Really? This is surely shocking news to me... and one of my jobs is with a provincial sub-department of immigration here in Canada.

 

Funny... I must have missed the memo that outlined all these new strict regs.

 

The last time I checked there were many programs that actively recruit immigrants to come to Canada. In fact, many millions of CDN dollars are spent on just that.

[Plucky]

At one time my dh and I wanted to move to Canada. From what I understood we needed a certain degree to do so. Canada is seemed much more picky than the U.S. . I thought the recruitment effort was so only certain people could immigrate, those the country needs. If you'd like to link some info. I'd love to read it. Being snarky doesn't inform people.

[TeacherZee]

2) Like Canada, France, and other predecessors who've walked this way - you often have to wait for forever to get your care

 

4) If you happen to not like or agree with your current provider you do NOT have the luxury of switching to someone with whom you do agree or who you do like. Brrr. Shiver me timbers. This one gives me cold chills. ;-{

 

 

To refute at least two of your claims. I live in a country with universal health care.

 

2)I called my GP on Tuesday and got an appointment for Wednesday. Yes I have had to wait before but then it hasn't been anything that I couldn't wait for (a physical for a job for example)

 

4)I found that I had no confidence in the doctor that was treating me. I asked to switch doctors no problem. My sisters doctor is in a different town from where she lives but she has the freedom to make this choice.

[Melinda in VT]

Really? This is surely shocking news to me... and one of my jobs is with a provincial sub-department of immigration here in Canada.

 

Funny... I must have missed the memo that outlined all these new strict regs.

 

The last time I checked there were many programs that actively recruit immigrants to come to Canada. In fact, many millions of CDN dollars are spent on just that.

 

This seemed surprising to me too, although I don't have your first-hand knowledge.

 

According to wikipedia:

 

According to Canada's Immigration Program (October 2004) Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world,[8] although statistics in the CIA World Factbook show that a number of city states and small island nations, as well as some larger countries in regions with refugee movements, have higher per capita rates.[9] The three main official reasons given for the high level of immigration are:

 

A. The social component – Canada facilitates family reunification.

B. The humanitarian component – Relating to refugees.

C. The economic component – Attracting immigrants who will contribute economically and fill labour market needs (See related article, Economic impact of immigration to Canada).

 

The level of immigration peaked in 1993 in the last year of the Progressive Conservative government and was maintained by Liberal Party of Canada. Ambitious targets of an annual 1% per capita immigration rate were hampered by financial constraints. The Liberals committed to raising actual immigration levels further in 2005. All political parties are now cautious about criticizing the high level of immigration.

[Bev in B'ville]

then I want a say so in how they live. No smoking, no recreational drugs, regular health screenings, including mammograms for women and colonoscopys for anyone 40 and older (pucker up and say 'cheese'). I'll insist on all the relevant vaccinations for all children- I don't care if the parents object. It cost less to treat the disease or cancer when caught early. I would insist on exercise, mandatory diets for those who are overweight, etc. etc. etc.

 

If government is running healthcare, you will see similar manifestos. Once government has you under their thumb in this regard you will lose priceless freedom to make your own choices because you won't be paying for it. I am VERY wary of government run healthcare. Honestly, can anyone show one, just one program, that government has run well? Public education, hmmm? NO. Social security, let's me think for a sec..? NO I could go on an on.

 

I, too, have heard the horror stories from both sides of the fence for universal healthcare. Are there problems with both? Yes, absolutely. Which one allows us to maintain our freedom in choice regarding our own health and our own healthcare? As always, I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle, not on either extreme.

 

As always, just my musings.

[Audrey]

At one time my dh and I wanted to move to Canada. From what I understood we needed a certain degree to do so. Canada is seemed much more picky than the U.S. . I thought the recruitment effort was so only certain people could immigrate, those the country needs. If you'd like to link some info. I'd love to read it. Being snarky doesn't inform people.

 

You most certainly don't need a degree to emigrate. Melinda in VT kind of already did the basic legwork, but anyone interested in immigration should go straight to the Immigration Canada website and deal ONLY with Immigration Canada if you have any questions regarding requirements. Whomever gave you inaccurate information did you a great disservice.

 

Being inaccurate doesn't inform people either.

[Sharon in SC]

To refute at least two of your claims. I live in a country with universal health care.

 

2)I called my GP on Tuesday and got an appointment for Wednesday. Yes I have had to wait before but then it hasn't been anything that I couldn't wait for (a physical for a job for example)

 

4)I found that I had no confidence in the doctor that was treating me. I asked to switch doctors no problem. My sisters doctor is in a different town from where she lives but she has the freedom to make this choice.

 

I'm certainly glad and thankful that *you* have a good experience with universal healthcare. Just to clarify - my post was intended to cite *potential* (statistically founded) issues with UHC. It was not meant to imply that 100% of the UHC experience would be this way.

[justme]

Not only am I afraid of the care they might NOT give, but if gov is paying the bills, then they can start deciding what care you MUST accept. This opens a whole can of worms and here are just some examples of where it could go:

 

1. If gov is paying for your prenatal care, they could force you to get tested for abnormalities and as a result terminate any pregnancy they feel would be an undue burden on the system. If you would refuse, I am sure you would then be on your own for all costs incurred by that pegnancy/child and of course go bankrupt in the process.

 

2. If they decide obesity, smoking and diabetes are adding to costs, they could force people to take drugs and treatments for those things. Not that it isn't good to control these things, but imagine not having a choice of HOW you will go about it.

 

3. The vacccine debate is relavant here. I would say that under a universal system, there would be no choice whatsoever. They could demand that you and your children get every vaccine THEY feel is necessary WHEN they feel it is necessary or again- you're out of the system entirely. There is no end to the vaccines they could come up with as being mandatory.

 

These are just a few situations I can see off the top of my head. No more holistic or alternative choices as well. I feel the idea is very scary. things are not good as they are, but choice and free will must always be a part of health care or it soon becomes nightmarishly Orwellian with control over seemingly every breath yoou take from birth to death. With gov paid and controlled care, you can be assured there will be no choice or freedom. there really is no such thing as a free lunch.

[Audrey]

To refute at least two of your claims. I live in a country with universal health care.

 

2)I called my GP on Tuesday and got an appointment for Wednesday. Yes I have had to wait before but then it hasn't been anything that I couldn't wait for (a physical for a job for example)

 

4)I found that I had no confidence in the doctor that was treating me. I asked to switch doctors no problem. My sisters doctor is in a different town from where she lives but she has the freedom to make this choice.

 

 

Similar good experiences here. Most times I call, I can actually get in to see my GP the same day. I've never had to wait more than the next day to get in. I switched docs once with no trouble -- very happy with my doc now, so I don't anticipate needing to change again. :-)

 

I find that the wait issue crops up around election time (like now, unfortunately --ugh another election!) I also find that it is more an urban issue than a rural one -- at least in my province it seems. In the cities, the emergency rooms get overwhelmed, but that happens in the US, too.

 

For procedures, I haven't known anyone to have to wait long for critical procedures, although... I know I did wait 2 months to get in to the dermatological surgeon to get a couple of moles removed. However, I wanted them removed for cosmetic reasons -- they were benign. I was told upfront that cosmetics took a back seat to medically necessary procedures. I knew I was in for a wait -- and you know what? I don't have one single problem with that -- I shouldn't have got in ahead of someone who NEEDED a procedure when I only just WANTED it, but didn't need it.

[TeacherZee]

Not only am I afraid of the care they might NOT give, but if gov is paying the bills, then they can start deciding what care you MUST accept. This opens a whole can of worms and here are just some examples of where it could go:

 

1. If gov is paying for your prenatal care, they could force you to get tested for abnormalities and as a result terminate any pregnancy they feel would be an undue burden on the system. If you would refuse, I am sure you would then be on your own for all costs incurred by that pegnancy/child and of course go bankrupt in the process.

 

2. If they decide obesity, smoking and diabetes are adding to costs, they could force people to take drugs and treatments for those things. Not that it isn't good to control these things, but imagine not having a choice of HOW you will go about it.

 

3. The vacccine debate is relavant here. I would say that under a universal system, there would be no choice whatsoever. They could demand that you and your children get every vaccine THEY feel is necessary WHEN they feel it is necessary or again- you're out of the system entirely. There is no end to the vaccines they could come up with as being mandatory.

 

These are just a few situations I can see off the top of my head. No more holistic or alternative choices as well. I feel the idea is very scary. things are not good as they are, but choice and free will must always be a part of health care or it soon becomes nightmarishly Orwellian with control over seemingly every breath yoou take from birth to death. With gov paid and controlled care, you can be assured there will be no choice or freedom. there really is no such thing as a free lunch.

 

With regards to

 

1) Everyone is offered the tests NO ONE has to have them and NO ONE has to have any abortion if they do not want to have it!!

 

2) No one is forced treatment they do not want. Both my parents smoke (don't get me started on this one) and neither of them are forced to stop. However if they chose to stop smoking they would get support from their doctor.

 

3) Vaccinations are completely voluntary. It is recommended but the amount of people who aren't vaccinated is going up each year. In addition to this no student can be excluded from school for not being vaccinated.

 

Similar good experiences here. Most times I call, I can actually get in to see my GP the same day. I've never had to wait more than the next day to get in. I switched docs once with no trouble -- very happy with my doc now, so I don't anticipate needing to change again. :-)

 

I find that the wait issue crops up around election time (like now, unfortunately --ugh another election!) I also find that it is more an urban issue than a rural one -- at least in my province it seems. In the cities, the emergency rooms get overwhelmed, but that happens in the US, too.

 

For procedures, I haven't known anyone to have to wait long for critical procedures, although... I know I did wait 2 months to get in to the dermatological surgeon to get a couple of moles removed. However, I wanted them removed for cosmetic reasons -- they were benign. I was told upfront that cosmetics took a back seat to medically necessary procedures. I knew I was in for a wait -- and you know what? I don't have one single problem with that -- I shouldn't have got in ahead of someone who NEEDED a procedure when I only just WANTED it, but didn't need it.

 

If I had called in the morning I might have gotten a time for that day too. I didn't get around to calling until around 2pm.:D

 

I once had a lump on my leg that no one knew what it was. I actually had it taken off in my GPs surgery a week after the initial appointment.

 

I wasn't going to get involved in this debate but I feel that there is so much scaremongering going on about what universal healthcare will create that I had to balance the debate. I have NEVER been denied care when I have been in a country with universal healthcare. However I was denied health care as a teenager living in the US because I didn't have insurance. I was bleeding from a head wound at the time. I was lucky that a family friend was a nurse and had supplies at home to patch me up. This would never have happened here.

 

I am not saying there aren't problems. Yes for some procedures there can be a long wait. This is primarily because we have a deficit of doctors because many have gone to the private sector or abroad to get paid more. We need to pay our medical staff more. But I think that is a universal problem too.

[dawn of ns]

I didn't read the links. My problem with it is how will we fund it? We are not the same country as Canada. We don't severely limit legal immigration and we seem unable to control illegal immigration. Canada is very strict when it comes to immigration.

 

Canada is an immigrant nation so I'm not sure what you meant to say by the use of "strict". Regardless, the immigration problems the US has are more likely related to geography then government. Here in Canada we only share a land broder with the US and you guys aren't prone to sneaking across our border. :D If both countries switched places I imagine Canada would have the same problems the US does now regardless of government.

[dawn of ns]

We paid 6% of our income on health care this year. We don't usually spend this much but one child had surgery and 2 others were visiting specialists.

 

I think our insurance companies are to blame for much of this. I also worry that universal healthcare may benefit the insurance companies even more and I do not like that idea.

 

It depends on the model. Canada's is a single payer system. There is only one major insurer and it is the people, each provincial government. Insurance companies are relegated to the sidelines covering things like dental and drugs that the health system doesn't.

[dawn of ns]

I'm certainly glad and thankful that *you* have a good experience with universal healthcare. Just to clarify - my post was intended to cite *potential* (statistically founded) issues with UHC. It was not meant to imply that 100% of the UHC experience would be this way.

 

But then shouldn't you also cite the statistics?

[Michelle T]

I didn't read all of the responses.

 

Do you think this doesn't already happen here? I have personally experienced cases of family members dying because they ran out of money to pay for treatments. I have also personally experienced cases of family members being turned away for health care due to inability to pay (in one case my sister had a broken knee and was sent away from the emergency room because she had no insurance).

 

Perhaps these things would happen less if people didn't go without insurance, or didn't have insurance that was substandard.

 

Even in my own situation. I avoid going to the doctor's because I can't afford to pay the bill (with insurance). I don't even know what I would do if I ended up with a life threatening illness.

 

 

There are millions of people dependent on county/state/government health care now, and they often die because they are unable to get care in a timely manner. The care they get is often substandard to what those with insurance receive. Minorities are far likelier to have poor healthcare than whites. Rich people get better care than poor.

 

There are always specific examples for and against ANY particular viewpoint. You need to look at what provides the biggest good for the biggest group of people. There will always be exceptions to the rule.

Michelle T

[dawn of ns]

Not only am I afraid of the care they might NOT give, but if gov is paying the bills, then they can start deciding what care you MUST accept.

 

Even assuming this is true (which certainly hasn't been my experience) it seems to me that one of the key problems with insurance companies in the US is exactly the same thing. They can dictate what doctors you see, what labs or hospitals you go to, what treatment you can get. Nevermind the lack of choice that not having insurance or being overwhelmed by medical bills can cause.

 

When the same insurer covers every doctor and lab and every treatment option it could be argued that choice is vastly improved.

[Mommy22alyns]

Anytime other people's pocketbooks are affected by the health of others' date=' there will be pressure to deny care to those deemed unworthy.

[/quote']

 

 

But isn't there already? The "unworthy" in this country are the ones who don't have money to pay for insurance or outrageous doctor's bills. There are a lot of very hard working people who simply can't afford medical insurance because it's so darn expensive to cover a whole family.

[dawn of ns]

Anytime other people's pocketbooks are affected by the health of others, there will be pressure to deny care to those deemed unworthy.

 

Haven't found that. I think having a part in the welfare of all citizens might make many people less apt to deem certain populations unworthy.

[dawn of ns]

Wow. I just realized how many responses I posted. Apologies for the verbal...rather, the digital diarrhea!:tongue_smilie:

[Sharon in SC]

But then shouldn't you also cite the statistics?

 

Honestly, one just has to Google Universal Healthcare pros and cons to find information for either side of this fence. It's a matter of forming an opinion from there. The purpose of my post today was merely to offer up mine based on my assessment of that info. :001_smile:

[Michelle in MO]

yet with regards to universal health care here in the U.S. is: how on earth are we going to pay for it? Right now I'm very, very concerned about our economy: our government has just bailed out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and we're looking at possibly more government intervention with Wall Street. Where are the deep pockets that all this money is supposed to come from?

 

I do believe that there are viable UHC systems in place in other countries, that the citizens of those countries are entirely happy with. That doesn't mean that those systems will necessarily translate well at at this point in time, here in the United States. I think first we need to get our economy moving in the right direction again before we fry the big fish of UHC.

 

Also, I can't remember who made the point, but again, the United States is a federation of states. We are different to some degree in our political system than Canada and the United Kingdom and other countries, and we differ greatly in geography and in our demographics. Massachusetts apparently (I say apparently, because I've only read briefly about it) has a good state-run health care plan in place. I tend to believe that the more localized the health care (like everything else in government), the better off citizens will be. I think state-run plans may run more efficiently as each state addresses this issue. The program in Massachusetts was a bipartisan effort by a conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat. I would rather see individual states be allowed the liberty to decide for themselves how best to enact a UHC plan for its residents.

[Plucky]

I'm just surprised that since you work in immigration you'd be so uninterested in posting facts. Can anyone cross the border to Canada and get free health care? They can here.

[Sharon in SC]

yet with regards to universal health care here in the U.S. is: how on earth are we going to pay for it? Right now I'm very, very concerned about our economy: our government has just bailed out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and we're looking at possibly more government intervention with Wall Street. Where are the deep pockets that all this money is supposed to come from?

 

I do believe that there are viable UHC systems in place in other countries, that the citizens of those countries are entirely happy with. That doesn't mean that those systems will necessarily translate well at at this point in time, here in the United States. I think first we need to get our economy moving in the right direction again before we fry the big fish of UHC.

 

Also, I can't remember who made the point, but again, the United States is a federation of states. We are different to some degree in our political system than Canada and the United Kingdom and other countries, and we differ greatly in geography and in our demographics. Massachusetts apparently (I say apparently, because I've only read briefly about it) has a good state-run health care plan in place. I tend to believe that the more localized the health care (like everything else in government), the better off citizens will be. I think state-run plans may run more efficiently as each state addresses this issue. The program in Massachusetts was a bipartisan effort by a conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat. I would rather see individual states be allowed the liberty to decide for themselves how best to enact a UHC plan for its residents.

 

Very good question.

[dawn of ns]

Also, I can't remember who made the point, but again, the United States is a federation of states. We are different to some degree in our political system than Canada and the United Kingdom and other countries, and we differ greatly in geography and in our demographics. Massachusetts apparently (I say apparently, because I've only read briefly about it) has a good state-run health care plan in place. I tend to believe that the more localized the health care (like everything else in government), the better off citizens will be. I think state-run plans may run more efficiently as each state addresses this issue. The program in Massachusetts was a bipartisan effort by a conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat. I would rather see individual states be allowed the liberty to decide for themselves how best to enact a UHC plan for its residents.

 

Health care in Canada is run by the provinces so it might be a better model for the Us states then you realize. :)

[Plucky]

Thank you, Dawn. I need to research the Canadian model more. I didn't realize it wasn't national.

[TeacherZee]

Health care in Canada is run by the provinces so it might be a better model for the Us states then you realize. :)

 

It isn't national in Sweden either and technically it isn't in the UK either. In Sweden it is run by Landstingen and is funded by separate taxes. In the UK healthcare is deregulated so Scotland runs their own healthcare.

[Aggie]

There are millions of people dependent on county/state/government health care now, and they often die because they are unable to get care in a timely manner. The care they get is often substandard to what those with insurance receive. Minorities are far likelier to have poor healthcare than whites. Rich people get better care than poor.

 

 

 

So when the *government* is in charge of all healthcare, the records show quality will go down, not up. Same with education. The rich, who can afford to send their dc to private schools and colleges, often receive a higher quality education. Not always, but often. Once the government has control of healthcare, the rich will hire their own providers, leaving the rest of us with, well....healthcare run by the government.

 

Government has proven itself unable or unwilling to run quality programs. There is NO accountability. The exception would be the military because it is run by military members, not Congress. I will be more trusting of the government when people start donating to it as a charity.

 

gotta run...

Aggie

[Jami]

It isn't national in Sweden either and technically it isn't in the UK either. In Sweden it is run by Landstingen and is funded by separate taxes. In the UK healthcare is deregulated so Scotland runs their own healthcare.

 

That's interesting to know.

 

I still wish I had more faith in our federal government (and plenty of state g'vments) not mucking up anything they get involved with. Kind of like my aversion to group projects....:001_smile:

[nmoira]

1) Government controlled. Need I say more? :-{

Yes. There are different kinds and degrees of government control. Canada is closer to a single payer insurance system than some European countries.

 

2) Like Canada, France, and other predecessors who've walked this way - you often have to wait for forever to get your care

Not in my experience. Yes, it is often faster to get in MRI and other high margin services in a major US city than in some Canadian cities (there are standalone imaging clinics because this is a profitable operation), but survival and outcome statistics don't support the argument that care is better in the US than elsewhere. I'm in the US now, and have to schedule Ped and dentist appointments weeks in advance.

 

3) Without the free market enterprise, there's no incentive to the provider to better themselves. And, if they're going to make the same income seeing 2 patients over 200, some will be inclined to see the bare minimum and be done.

That is not how most universal healthcare systems work. True, some jurisdictions have tried putting caps on general practitioners and specialties, but when (as is particularly the case with GP's) shortages occur these are often abandoned or modified. General practitioner shortages are occurring in the US and are projected to worsen even without these types of caps.

 

4) If you happen to not like or agree with your current provider you do NOT necessarily have the luxury of switching to someone with whom you do agree or who you do like. Brrr. Shiver me timbers. This one gives me cold chills. ;-{

Again, not my experience, except where physician shortages are such that the majority of practitioners are not taking new patients (as in my hometown in Ontario, Canada).

 

In our humble opinion, this is NOT the answer to the country's healthcare woes!!

Universal heathcare means different things in different jurisdictions. It's not as simple as many nay-sayers make it out to be. It's also not productive to pick out problems here, and there from very different types of systems and say it's an argument against universal healthcare as a whole.

[Audrey]

I'm just surprised that since you work in immigration you'd be so uninterested in posting facts. Can anyone cross the border to Canada and get free health care? They can here.

 

I did post that you should get your information (and facts) straight from the source -- Immigration Canada. Here is the link: www.cic.gc.ca

 

It would be unwise to point you to any other source for information on how to immigrate when this is the department who sets all policies, receives all applications and has sole duty to process and approve/deny them.

 

As another poster pointed out... our healthcare, while supported both federally and provincially, is actually run by the individual provinces (federally if it is a territory). So... I know that you cannot get "free" healthcare just by crossing the border here, but you also cannot be denied healthcare. You will get a bill for it.

 

YMMV in other provinces. And, again, I would suggest checking out the Dept. of Health in any province to which you plan to travel or emigrate. They will have all the info you'd need.

 

It's quite unfortunate that you had a sour experience because of misinformation. If you ever desire to emigrate again, I hope your experience is more pleasant.:001_smile:

[Audrey]

Honestly, one just has to Google Universal Healthcare pros and cons to find information for either side of this fence. It's a matter of forming an opinion from there. The purpose of my post today was merely to offer up mine based on my assessment of that info. :001_smile:

 

Yes, and that's a very good way to go. Many people form opinions without having researched anything or asked questions about anything, nor had the opportunity to experience both sides (or more) of the issue.

 

We may disagree, but we've both taken the time to think about it. :001_smile:

[BusyMum]

I haven't read all the posts, but I live in a country with universal healthcare (NZ) and it works fine. While there will always be issues with any system I don't feel that there are any big problems with how things work here. You know that if you get sick you will get the care you need. Often it will be very slow with long waiting lists but many have private insurance so that they can access priority care. Those who are really critically sick will always get the care they need right away.

 

And there doesn't seem to be any 'class' issues with accessing public healthcare. In fact, people often bemoan to the newspapers that drunk drivers and P manufacturers seem to get huge amounts spent on their rehabilitation just so they can go and offend again. *shrugs*

 

It works here and to be honest, introducing a user pays system here would seem to be a big step backwards in social responsibility.

 

And just for reference, income tax rates are between 19.5% for the lowest income bracket and 36% for the highest so providing free-for-all care doesn't cost the earth.

[Michelle in MO]

Health care in Canada is run by the provinces so it might be a better model for the Us states then you realize. :)

 

but there are a few other factors which I mentioned in my previous post, one being geography (albeit perhaps not as important) but more importantly: demographics. We have a huge immigrant population, and it differs from Canada's immigrant population. The two aren't comparable.

 

And, to be honest with you, despite the current problems in our health care system, I think we have bigger fish to fry right now in the U.S. The government bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and possibly intervention on Wall Street) may cost the U.S. taxpayer one trillion dollars! I think those problems first need to be addressed before this country can look seriously at the issue of UHC. If and/or when that happens, I think it's excellent to study the models of other countries, but any plan the U.S. adopts obviously isn't going to echo the plan that works for another country. In the long-run, I'm not a believer in big government. I think that government tends to function better when problems are addressed on a more localized scale. So, I'd like to see individual states have the liberty to set up health-care systems that address their demographics. Perhaps that's how Canada's system functions---each province can determine the future of its own health care. If so, I would agree that would be preferable over a national health care system.

 

But, in the U.S. at this time, I think we have more pressing issues.

[Heather in the Kootenays]

Not only am I afraid of the care they might NOT give, but if gov is paying the bills, then they can start deciding what care you MUST accept. This opens a whole can of worms and here are just some examples of where it could go:

 

1. If gov is paying for your prenatal care, they could force you to get tested for abnormalities and as a result terminate any pregnancy they feel would be an undue burden on the system. If you would refuse, I am sure you would then be on your own for all costs incurred by that pegnancy/child and of course go bankrupt in the process.

 

2. If they decide obesity, smoking and diabetes are adding to costs, they could force people to take drugs and treatments for those things. Not that it isn't good to control these things, but imagine not having a choice of HOW you will go about it.

 

3. The vacccine debate is relavant here. I would say that under a universal system, there would be no choice whatsoever. They could demand that you and your children get every vaccine THEY feel is necessary WHEN they feel it is necessary or again- you're out of the system entirely. There is no end to the vaccines they could come up with as being mandatory.

 

.

 

Despite having universal healthcare, I have not (nor do I know of anyone else)

 

1. been forced to accept prenatal testing for abnormalities though it was offered.

 

2. been forced to accept treatment for obesity, or anything else. (although the last time I went to the Dr., he offered to refer me to a dietician).

 

3. been forced to accept any kind of immunization despite my children (and many children I know) remaining unimmunized for some things.

 

I can't even imagine. Universal healthcare doesn't turn citizens into mindless, controlled drones.

[Sharon in SC]

Yes. There are different kinds and degrees of government control. Canada is closer to a single payer insurance system than some European countries.

 

Not in my experience. Yes, it is often faster to get in MRI and other high margin services in a major US city than in some Canadian cities (there are standalone imaging clinics because this is a profitable operation), but survival and outcome statistics don't support the argument that care is better in the US than elsewhere. I'm in the US now, and have to schedule Ped and dentist appointments weeks in advance.

 

That is not how most universal healthcare systems work. True, some jurisdictions have tried putting caps on general practitioners and specialties, but when (as is particularly the case with GP's) shortages occur these are often abandoned or modified. General practitioner shortages are occurring in the US and are projected to worsen even without these types of caps.

 

Again, not my experience, except where physician shortages are such that the majority of practitioners are not taking new patients (as in my hometown in Ontario, Canada).

 

Universal heathcare means different things in different jurisdictions. It's not as simple as many nay-sayers make it out to be. It's also not productive to pick out problems here, and there from very different types of systems and say it's an argument against universal healthcare as a whole.

 

1) When we're talking about UHC in the US, I have to consider the *US government's* track record of governing. It's irrelevant to speak about Canada's government of anything when one is trying to base hope, or the lack thereof, on the US government's ability to govern something of this magnitude in the US.

 

2) I have not attempted, in the least, to compare the US outcome/survival statistics to UHC in other countries. I've simply tried to express concerns that *I* have as a US citizen and healthcare provider with regards to proposed UHC in *this* country.

 

3) I was speaking to the fact that, with a set salary (versus fee for service), there will be some individuals without motivation to "go the extra mile", so to speak. This could, in turn, generate the potential for lack of enough care to go around.

 

4) I'm glad you have not had that experience. Others have.

 

In any case, you are certainly entitled to your viewpoint based on your experiences as am I. My intentions have not been to "pick out problems here, and there from very different types of systems and say it's an argument against universal healthcare as a whole" but rather to speak to concerns I carry with regards to UHC as I believe it could be applied to where I live. :)

[Melinda in VT]

Not only am I afraid of the care they might NOT give, but if gov is paying the bills, then they can start deciding what care you MUST accept. This opens a whole can of worms and here are just some examples of where it could go:

 

1. If gov is paying for your prenatal care, they could force you to get tested for abnormalities and as a result terminate any pregnancy they feel would be an undue burden on the system. If you would refuse, I am sure you would then be on your own for all costs incurred by that pegnancy/child and of course go bankrupt in the process.

 

2. If they decide obesity, smoking and diabetes are adding to costs, they could force people to take drugs and treatments for those things. Not that it isn't good to control these things, but imagine not having a choice of HOW you will go about it.

 

3. The vacccine debate is relavant here. I would say that under a universal system, there would be no choice whatsoever. They could demand that you and your children get every vaccine THEY feel is necessary WHEN they feel it is necessary or again- you're out of the system entirely. There is no end to the vaccines they could come up with as being mandatory.

 

These are just a few situations I can see off the top of my head. No more holistic or alternative choices as well. I feel the idea is very scary. things are not good as they are, but choice and free will must always be a part of health care or it soon becomes nightmarishly Orwellian with control over seemingly every breath yoou take from birth to death. With gov paid and controlled care, you can be assured there will be no choice or freedom. there really is no such thing as a free lunch.

 

Do these happen now with Medicaid? I'd be interested in links.

[Heather in the Kootenays]

Wow. I just realized how many responses I posted. Apologies for the verbal...rather, the digital diarrhea!:tongue_smilie:

 

Carry on. you're doing a fine job.