The NEW Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Main => Everything Else => Topic started by: DrewKaree on August 09, 2005, 08:43:14 pm
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/ocanadarx (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/ocanadarx)
In the short term, the decision may light a fire under provincial governments to improve chronic problems, especially long wait times for surgeries, tests, and treatments.
It all started with a disgruntled doctor, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, and his patient, George Zeliotis, a retired salesman from Quebec who waited nearly a year for a hip replacement.
In a split decision, the Supreme Court in June found that waiting lists for medical treatments were unacceptably long, causing some patients to suffer or die.
"There are tens of thousands of Mr. Zeliotis out there languishing on waiting lists," Dr. Schumacher says. His patients, for example, go to nearby Detroit and pay out-of-pocket to get CAT scans in six days instead of waiting six months in Canada.
So after reading all these things, I've come to some conclusions. Those of you touting your system in the face of these EXACT charges here haven't ever had to have them done, OR you think the wait for services like those mentioned above aren't "excessive". This has come out time and again, and time and again, we hear about how "well that's an aberration, it doesn't really take that long". For the love of pete, the guy in the story waited NEARLY A YEAR for a hip replacement.
Maybe it's me, but I'd rather have RELIEF from the pain of needing a hip replacement NOW, and have to pay my insurance, or out of pocket, than to have to wait a YEAR while I'm taxed like crazy to pay for everyone and their mom to have this stellar medical coverage you guys seem to think actually IS free ::)
(I know, I know, not ALL of you are under the foolish notion that it's free, some of you understand how the world works ::) )
-
ok, so your weakness is 'fat kid'. mine is crack ;D
-
ok, so your weakness is 'fat kid'. mine is crack ;D
Unfortunately, that makes "fat kid's crack" like.....a magnet?
-
ok, so your weakness is 'fat kid'. mine is crack
-
So the rich and affluent Canadians still have access to first-rate medical services while the lower class has to rely on public facilities where the long waits and sub-standard care mimics the Emergency Room system in the U.S.
The only difference being that the poor Canadian won't receive a $10k+ bill in the mail to drive them to bankruptcy.
Upper and middle class Americans are generally against subsidized health care, which is understandable. But, as someone who still lives with no health insurance, it would be nice to have that safety net. If I have an accident or illness I'll be financially ruined, it's a tough situation.
-Ace-
-
Drew, the system is slowly starting to adjust to realities/economics. My Region straddles both the Quebec and Ontario provincial durisdictions. The laws are different between the two and as a result, Private clinics are opening on the Quebec side to service those "people" who want a Quick MRI and similar services.
They are booked solid and making money hand over first...
A friend of mine actually wanted results quicker than the standard 8-12 month "wait" and paid $1400. No doubt he Got what he needed...
Is this bad? In my opinion, heck no, if you can afford the peace of mind, its good that you can buy it. Capitalism at its best...
For those not as fortunate,yeah...they will wait. (they have no choice), but eventially the system will work, and they will get the required treatment....Just hope its not too late.....
-
Upper and middle class Americans are generally against subsidized health care, which is understandable. But, as someone who still lives with no health insurance, it would be nice to have that safety net. If I have an accident or illness I'll be financially ruined, it's a tough situation.
Same here. One bad accident and it's all over for me. Can't afford health care, can't afford insurance. Luckily, my wife is of Native American descent, and as such, she does get free health care. At least I don't have to worry about her.
-S
-
If I were rich, I would certainly prefer (for myself) the US's system.
If I were poor, I would certainly prefer (for myself) Canada's system.
I'm in the middle. Which means that I like what I have, but know that if I can't work, I couldn't afford health care.
And as a human being with a conscience and a modest amount of empathy, it bothers me that the richest nation in the world claims it can't provide a decent level of health care for all its citizens.
-
Upper and middle class Americans are generally against subsidized health care, which is understandable. But, as someone who still lives with no health insurance, it would be nice to have that safety net. If I have an accident or illness I'll be financially ruined, it's a tough situation.
Same here. One bad accident and it's all over for me. Can't afford health care, can't afford insurance. Luckily, my wife is of Native American descent, and as such, she does get free health care. At least I don't have to worry about her.
-S
What Tribe?
My wife is from the Ho-Chunk/Winnebago tribe. Most members are in Wisconsin.
-
We also spend significantly more, per capita, on health care than Canadians. I'm not just talking about the overall private cost of health care, I'm talking about public cost. We spend more tax dollars, per capita, on our citizens for health care than Canada. Yet Canada makes basic healthcare available to everyone. I repeat, it costs less for Canada to provide healthcare to the entire than it costs for the U.S. to not.
True, there's a pretty long wait for something like a hip replacement, but that's hardly a fair portrayal of the system overall. It's not like you wait three months to get a throat culture when you have strep throat or to get an eye exam and some glasses. I diabetic or epileptic is going to just get into a doctor and get the care they need, when they need it. And they will be able to afford their meds and test strips. And it's not like Canadians with money can't get private care above and beyond what's provided to the public (is it?). Someone in the U.S. without insurance isn't even going to get a hip replacement. Ever. Compared to that, a year seems fairly reasonable. A canadian millionaire in need of a hip replacement isn't going to wait a year to have it done.
Our system is absurd. We, as Americans, pay more in taxes for healthcare than most industrialized nations (including Canada) with a socialized healthcare system that provides to everyone, and then we turn around and pay double that, per person, in private costs. It would be one thing if this translated into better care, but statistics just don't bare that out. We've got higher infant and child mortality rates, lower years lived, lower healthy years lived, higher cancer death rates, lower rates of recovery once someone actually gets cancer, etc., etc., etc.. And we end up refusing to care for people with minor problems, so people with small things like kidney stones have to just let the problem fester until they have chronic kidney failure and end up in the emergency room having a $200,000 kidney removal done. It's that whole, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," business.
I understand that you've been brainwashed into having a kneejerk aversion to the word
"socialize", but it's not a foreign concept to Americans. How would you like it if you called 911 and said, "There's an intruder in my house," and they said, "We take Visa, Mastercard, AmEX and Discover. We can't send anyone out there without a valid credit card and payment in advance." How about if your house was on fire? Is protecting property so important that we must have socialized systems in place to make sure that everyone's property has basic protection from harm, but a person's basic health, a person's life only needs protection if they can afford it?
And in spite of already paying FAR AND AWAY more than anyone in the world for equivilant coverage, don't tell me that your premiums haven't skyrocketed over the past 5 years. In five years they are probably up at least 60% if they haven't doubled. Our system is a mess.
-
Maybe it's me, but I'd rather have RELIEF from the pain of needing a hip replacement NOW, and have to pay my insurance, or out of pocket.....
Thats great for you now, because you can afford it. What if you couldn't? What if you didn't have the money to pay for insurance, or out of pocket. Ask Paige, who just wrecked his moped. He could have been screwed over hardcore.
Its funny how those with money don't give an f about those without.
-
As a person on disability, it always amazes me how flippant people who can afford health care in the US are towards those of us of limited means.
Societal class prejudice is the new racism.
-
Upper and middle class Americans are generally against subsidized health care, which is understandable. But, as someone who still lives with no health insurance, it would be nice to have that safety net. If I have an accident or illness I'll be financially ruined, it's a tough situation.
Same here. One bad accident and it's all over for me. Can't afford health care, can't afford insurance. Luckily, my wife is of Native American descent, and as such, she does get free health care. At least I don't have to worry about her.
-S
What Tribe?
My wife is from the Ho-Chunk/Winnebago tribe. Most members are in Wisconsin.
Choctaw, but we're in Oklahoma. Darn near everyone here is either a card carrying indian or is married to one.
-S
-
Drew, you really should learn to look at things from both sides before you actually take sides (or let yourself be drawn to a side from reading single sided bit of propaganda).
-
The most even handed study I read - on average, if you are going to have a heart attack, do it in the US. If you are going to have cancer, do it in Canada.
-
The most even handed study I read - on average, if you are going to have a heart attack, do it in the US. If you are going to have cancer, do it in Canada.
Read between the lines there. The reason for this is what I was getting at in my long-ass rant above. In the U.S. we will only treat poor people for catastophies in the E.R.. Forget helping a guy out with meds to alleviate hypertension in the first place. Force the guy to ignore it until he needs a $70,000 bypass surgury. Only THEN can he get treatment for his problems.
Cancer isn't something that strikes suddenly, out of the blue, and kills within minutes if not addressed, which essentially puts it out of the scope of the E.R., and therefore cancer care is out of the reach of the uninsured in the U.S.
But even E.R. care is only universally available in a certain sense. It's not like it's set up as a clinic for everyone. You'll still get the bill in the mail for the bypass surgery. So if you're uninsured it basically forces you into bankruptcy for any kind of catastrophic event. And relatively everyday stuff, like your kid breaking an arm, can devastate you financially.
-
(I know, I know, not ALL of you are under the foolish notion that it's free, some of you understand how the world works ::) )
I've been telling anyone who would listen for years that the Canadian health system is a nightmare and should not only not be used as an example, it should be scrapped entirely. I've been in it, I'm Canadian, it does not work.
-
So the rich and affluent Canadians still have access to first-rate medical services while the lower class has to rely on public facilities where the long waits and sub-standard care mimics the Emergency Room system in the U.S.
-
Are you telling me that Canada doesn't have an ER? That's ---auto-censored---. I don't care whether you lived there or not. And if your brother still has a thumb, that story is exaggerated. 12 hours is too long for a thumb to be dangling by skin.
edit: I should probably mention that I've never been to Canada and am driving on instincts right now. I could be wrong. This just sounds farfetched to me.
-
I tend to agree with shmokes on this one. You mean they didn't even give your lil bro a compress and made your mother go to a local store??? Man, I'd sue the ---daisies---!
-
Oh, they have ERs.
-
Shmokes, wow! An amazing post.
I read in the Village Voice last year that at least 75% of 23-30 year-olds are completely without any kind of health care coverage.
I personally have to deal with calls and letters from the bill collectors because I had a doctor fudge up the diagnosis on an ear infection while I was insured, which later, after college, when I was no longer insured, caused amazing spells of nausea and hearing loss. I had surgery. Now I have bills. Also, I had to travel to Boston to get this thing diagnosed. We only have one Ear Nose Throat specialist in this college town and he's the guy who misdiagnosed me for years. He actually teaches at the University. I hear he's pretty good with noses.
Here's the problem: Those great specialists that are supposed to be the product of our capitalistic (read: stratified) system of health insurance (don't confuse insurance with care--insurance means red tape, profit for the middle man, not an equitable system of keeping people healthy) are not likely to be outside of the large urban areas in the U.S. They cater to the wealthy. They would not thrive in places that are economically depressed, like small-town America. There are too many uninsured folks who can't pay. I'm sure there are exceptions.
I can't even sue the idiot doctor who mistreated me for years because malpractice is based on the standard in the region. He is the standard.
That brings me to the other point. Of course we wait less for care in the U.S. Many fewer people can afford to go to the doctor. This problem is not getting better.
Drew, thanks for pointing us to this blast of propaganda. The NYTimes and other mass media have been pumping this issue in their editorials for years. By that I mean "Beware the Canadian System of Health Care!" It's bunk. We are the only first-world nation that cannot provide its citizens with adequate health care. Even Cuba has excellent doctors and a completely "free" health care system.
Shmokes is right. Single-Payer Health Care, i.e. through taxation paid back in kind through a government agency, would be way cheaper for everyone, first of all because it would not be trying to make a profit. It might actually try to stay in the red.
The only people who would suffer would be the HMO's and the other middle men. Just check out the way the U.S. Government conduct's it's own business. All government employees are insured by the government. All government vehicles are insured by the government. They would never pay an insurance agency a dime. They are completely self-insured. Why should they give money away to organizations whose sole reason for existence if to make a profit?
Drew, you really should do some research on this topic. Many doctors support Single-Payer Health Care. They too are fed up with the inflated costs of insuring themselves against the growing lists of people who cannot pay.
Chad, so your brother's thumb is fine? Waiting many hours in the ER is very common in the states, as well. As was pointed out, one of the symptoms of our failed system is that many people use the ER for primary care.
A good topic, thanks again for bringing it up, Drew.
Cheers,
KenToad
-
Chad, so your brother's thumb is fine?
-
Jabba:
-
Many of the countries that consistently rank as the wealthiest per capita have the highest taxes. People in Denmark routinely pay 75%. They also have zero poverty, zero need for charity, and extremely low crime rates.
Those laws protecting credit from being destroyed by doctor's bills are for the banks. Many of those uninsured are people with college degrees. Many of them are working folks who just work for the growing list of companies that will not provide health insurance because, guess what, it's too expensive. Corporations are the ones who pay no taxes. They are the ones with poor ethics. In fact, they have no ethics, except to make profit for their shareholders, as per their charters, although they are treated as human beings.
Take for example the fact that McDonald's has never made a profit in Denmark. They have never paid the Danish high taxes. This is due to offshoring. They set up a little puppet company on some island nation that has very low taxes, then the Danish division of McDonald's buys all their stuff at a loss from that company, which is really just McDonald's under a different banner. However, each division pays taxes in the country in which they are located. So, the island government that houses the McDonald's subdivision gets a little tax money and probably kickbacks, which the citizens of that island never see. And McDonald's gets to hide profits from any country that dares charge them a high rate of tax.
The right-wing idea is that this will balance out over time as each little nation slowly rises out of poverty. Among other problems, dictators spoil this rationale, as they siphon whatever economic gain the country might see. Who trains dictators via the School of the America's?
Is now the time to mention that Fire Departments were once private organizations. Houses actually had tags on them. If you didn't have the right tag, the fire truck would drive right on by . . .of course, if you can't afford fire service and have no tag . . .from the great documentary, the Corporation, BTW. Did you see it too, Shmokes?
Cheers,
KenToad
-
What in the hell happened to Drew?
Nope, never heard of that documentary.
-
I have no desire to pay 75% of my income in taxes.
-
I have no desire to pay 75% of my income in taxes.
It all depends upon how much you make. They don't have billionaires in Denmark for a reason. They don't want to give back.
Would you pay 75% in taxes if it meant security for your family and you still could live very comfortably? That seems to be the correlation in those countries that do well across the board financially, since there is no starving underclass.
Of course, they don't allow assault-style weapons either. Not as many rabid deer, ya know. And the kids will just have to get their war kicks from playing BF2. ;)
Cheers,
KenToad
-
Would you pay 75% in taxes if it meant security for your family and you still could live very comfortably?
-
It's a percentage. We're talking about wealthy countries here, also. They own stuff too, actually an interesting mix of capitalism and socialism. I'm glad you can afford a house, though. It seems times are rough for most people in their late twenties right now.
Cheers,
KenToad
-
It's a small house, but we can afford it. I think half the reason so many people my age are struggling is they have this stupid sense of entitlement to a certain lifestyle.
"Well, why shouldn't I have a nice car, a 2500sqft house, a 60" HDTV? I work hard, right? Who cares if I only make $30,000 year, that's what credit cards and bankruptcies are for."
Most of the people my age who are having major problems brought it on themselves with irresponsible habits.
-
I remember reading an article a couple years ago about a Canadian health care scandal. It seems that doctors in some hospitals were so poorly paid that they moonlighted their services, and the hospitals equipment, by treating animals after hours. They could charge under the table, and not report the income. Can't remember the exact date of the article, but I believe it came out of the San Jose, CA Mercury news.
Geo
-
Doctors aren't underpaid here, but they are over-worked. Nurses, doubly so.
It's the big debate these days (here in Canada): To allow private hospitals (ie: those that charge $$).
I lived in the US for a while. General visits to a physician were mostly covered by my employee medical benefits, but my one trip to the ER for stomach pains cost me over $1000 and all that came out of it was I got a painkiller and was told to go home and rest. Nice. That was $1000 I couldn't afford to waste.
Here in Canada, that ER trip would have been free.
Similarly, last year I had the displeasure of watching both my girlfriend's parents slowly waste away due to cancer. I shudder to think what kind of medical bills would have piled up if they went through that in the US.
I'm all for a two-tiered system. Let those who want to pay, pay. That will free up the backlog and over-burdened staff working the "free" hospitals.
-
Here in Canada, that ER trip would have been free.
It actually would have cost you twice as much in increased taxes, taxes you would have paid whether the ER trip happened or not. At LEAST twice as much in taxes, probably far more.
There is nothing free about that much of your income in taxes prepaying for a service.
-
You're right Chad, nothing is free, but seriously, it doesn't cost more. We're talking about eliminating the middle man, the agents and all that bunk. The Government already insures itself. These systems are in place. There are many examples of what I'm talking about all around the world. The taxpayers already get the shaft for health care. This would amount to a huge savings in overall health care.
I think Shmokes already mentioned that. Anyway, unless either one of us wants to go ahead and do the research to prove our points, they're moot. For me, I don't trust insurance companies more than I trust our government. If insurance companies were better, I think our government would contract their services. That ain't happenin'.
Cheers,
KenToad
-
It actually would have cost you twice as much in increased taxes, taxes you would have paid whether the ER trip happened or not.
-
So you'd rather pay, say, $4,000 in extra taxes to save that $1,000 charge?
($4,000 amount based on an extra 10% income tax and an income of $40,000)
-
So how about that crack Canadian "free health care" system you guys have going?
"About as good as that crack US foreign policy!" (badda bing)
...and yes, I missed this thread until now.
Chad: you're one of us, stop playing devil's advocate.
-
I lived in Montreal for a while... decent health care there if you spoke proper Quebecois. If you spoke French, adequate health care. If you were a resident but only spoke English, adequate health care. If you were anyone else, you were told the waiting area is in the parking lot.
I grew up in the Maritimes (southern tip of NS). Hell no the funds aren't going there!
-
The real problem is that the insurance companies are telling the doctors what to do. They balance the costs of pre-treatment vs post-treatment rather than try and fix what's wrong in the first place. They don't care if you're F'd up, just so they aren't the ones paying for it.
If the government had a socialized health care plan, they could turn those "profits" into actual medical care. Of course the profits are large enough that the insurance provides will never let that happen.
If you're wealthy, you can afford a better plan and get more stuff paid for. Since I manage to "F" myself up on a fairly regular basis, I have first hand knowledge of what effect insurance companies have on doctors decisions. I've been told that they wouldn't do a MRI because "Your insurance won't cover that.". Had I been able to pay for it myself, or had an insurance plan that would have paid for it, I wouldn't be on crutches today.
So I'd like to see us get rid of the "preapproval" requirement for services and the whole BS "network" crap at a minimum. The bottom line should be putting Humpty Dumpty back together again, not some dollar figure.
-
About all (yeah, right!) I'll say about this debate is that it fails as most online debates do because people take anecdotal evidence as representative. For every horrendous ER experience, there are countless experiences that aren't terrible. I've been to the ER, either for myself, my wife, my brother or my kids a couple of dozen times and never had an experience like ChadTower describes, although I don't doubt his description.
My uncle had a pair of strokes recently and his care has been exemplarary and covered, including both short and long term rehab. My mother-in-law started suffering from what appeared to be heart-related trouble. Within a week she had an angiogram, followed by angioplasty the next day. But even these are only anecdotal in nature ... and if they had appeared in some article somewhere, then this discussion would have started very differently (DK wouldn't have even bothered).
One of the problems that we do have, which is also a key reason why we have to have "universal" (?) health care is that Canada is so damned big and some parts of the country are significantly less affluent than others. Without universal health care, there would be NO health care in large geographic regions. Providing services in many areas is VERY expensive (a friend of mine was an air ambulance pilot in Northern Manitoba), which drives costs up and puts a financial strain on other areas.
Comparing the health care systems in the US and Canada in the rather simplistic manner that the press and politicians do is rather counterproductive -- we have some very fundamental differences in terms of population size, distribution and density. We have different needs and different problems.
Cheers.
-
Maybe it's me, but I'd rather have RELIEF from the pain of needing a hip replacement NOW, and have to pay my insurance, or out of pocket.....
Thats great for you now, because you can afford it. What if you couldn't? What if you didn't have the money to pay for insurance, or out of pocket. Ask Paige, who just wrecked his moped. He could have been screwed over hardcore.
Its funny how those with money don't give an f about those without.
When I wrecked my scooter I REALLY needed to go to the hospital, BADLY. I had lost several square feet of skin, deeply in some places, and had what appeared to be a broken hand.
I had to make the decision, I could call the ambulance and trade my life's savings (and likely most of my possessions), for one emergency room visit, or I could take my chances and not get treated.
I had to take my chances. My last time I saw a doctor outside of the emergency room was in 1987 (aside from my army physical. Last hospital visit was in 1990.
The situation is really bad for the working lower class in America, not only do we not get insurance, we also don't get sick days either. I was at work all week this week, despite the fact that it is really painful to stand up for more than 30 seconds, and that I am having some trouble walking. I have been to work with every illness you could imagine in the last 7 years or so.
Some lower class employers are even worse, as they not only don't provide health insurance, they also require a note from a doctor for any medical absense.
I am actually pretty good with my money, I COULD get health insurance, I could afford it, the only problem is that would take EVERYTHING. I would go from having a nice healthy surplus of income vs expenses to living right on the edge. Even then I STILL wouldn't be able to afford to actually go to the doctor, as a deductible, co-pay, or anything like that would be beyond my reach if I was paying for insurance.
The medical establishment charges people without insurance 3 times as much as it charges the insurance companies.
Insurance costs double if you have to get it on your own.
So if your employer doesn't offer it then you are basically stuck. Most lower class employers have already dropped it, and jumping from lower class to middle class is EXTREMELY difficult to do.
-
It bothers me to hear of my fellow BYOAC'ers struggling financially.
-
Is that anything like the crack Canadian Navy?
:P
-
Paige, how much is basic ER style coverage for an individual your age? I know I could insure just myself for a couple hundred a month, independently with decent low end coverage. It's when you have to add dependents that it really adds up (I pay something like $1250/month for health insurance for my family).
-
The most problems with ER's in toronto is they are flooded with people showing up with simple things like splinters in their fingers or bumps and bruises. And weekend nights the ER's are filled with idiot drunks who hurt themselves doing stupid things. Last year my wife had gal stones which were blocked. In the ER sunday night and was out of hospital by the next wed night after surgery. And that ER was the one of Toronto's top five over crowded ER's.
-
Is that anything like the crack Canadian Navy?
:P
You can TELL that's a fake picture... We don't have guns like that. ;D
-
Paige, how much is basic ER style coverage for an individual your age? I know I could insure just myself for a couple hundred a month, independently with decent low end coverage. It's when you have to add dependents that it really adds up (I pay something like $1250/month for health insurance for my family).
For somebody working full-time at $8/hr, which is hardly a living wage by itself, a couple hundred bucks a month is going to be nearly a quarter of your net income. That's no answer. And that's almost $3/hr more than minimum wage.
-
It is, yes, but most single adults have no business making minimum wage. Even the least educated, reliable single adult should be able to hold a pick and pull warehouse job for twice minimum wage to start.
-
Are you playing Devil's Advocate or what, Chad? "Pick and Pull" warehouse jobs are not exactly a happy career choice. A little higher rate, but no retirement or benefits ... usually not even a legitimate living wage. They're highly dependent upon a well-functioning set of limbs. There's a reason that jobs like that pay more. They have a high turnover rate. Speaking of minimum wage. Other countries laugh at our minimum. Minimum wage in the U.S. doesn't even come close to keeping up with the rate of inflation.
Good jobs are possible, just not available for most college graduates. I don't think anyone doubts that. Many industrial jobs have left or are leaving the country, for example. Even the tech guys are going to get outsourced sooner or later. Right now, self-insurance rates are through the roof, with huge deductibles that make them impractical.
Without research, we're lost in the woods. Who's ready to point us to some interesting articles? Drew?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Cheers,
KenToad
-
Without research, we're lost in the woods. Who's ready to point us to some interesting articles?
Because *facts* have ever actually won anyone an argument? The article on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared) isn't as funny as the amount people are complaining about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared). Seems pretty parallel, right down to cherry-picking the most specific metric one can conjure up. Mmmm, p. avium's.... :)
-
Are you playing Devil's Advocate or what, Chad? "Pick and Pull" warehouse jobs are not exactly a happy career choice.
So you're saying people should have lower paying jobs that can't support them because the job is an unhappy choice? What kind of work ethic is that? If they hate that job so much, they should get the job, go to night school, and acquire the skills needed to get a happier job. Why should others have to help support someone when the only reason they can't support themselves is that they don't like the available jobs that pay enough?
Life isn't always about what is the most enjoyable. Work is about supporting oneself (and dependents, if applicable) first, and enjoying the work second.
-
Are you playing Devil's Advocate or what, Chad? "Pick and Pull" warehouse jobs are not exactly a happy career choice.
So you're saying people should have lower paying jobs that can't support them because the job is an unhappy choice? What kind of work ethic is that? If they hate that job so much, they should get the job, go to night school, and acquire the skills needed to get a happier job. Why should others have to help support someone when the only reason they can't support themselves is that they don't like the available jobs that pay enough?
Life isn't always about what is the most enjoyable. Work is about supporting oneself (and dependents, if applicable) first, and enjoying the work second.
You can acquire all the skills you want, that doesn't create a NEED for the skilled worker. We already have a surplus of those.
I make $11.xx an hour ($11.35, but I am due for one of those generous 50 cent annual raises). I bring home about $1500 a month. $200 or $300 a month out of that for health insurance is nuts.
-
You may consider it nuts, and that's your decision. I, on the other hand, don't consider it nuts, I consider it essential. That's $2500/year insurance against the thousands of things that could happen to you and cost you 6 figures in medical costs. It's the same as car insurance or renter/homeowner insurance.
Maybe you'll come out behind, but the first time you have a real accident, the $25,000 in medical costs will be more than made up for by the $10,000 you paid over the last four years.
It works out even better if you actually USE your insurance for regular checkups, eye exams... you know, the things any person should do regularly but you probably skip because you don't want to pay out of pocket for them. Say that would have been $750 for those checkups, well there is 3-4 months of your premium used right there. I know I don't want to find out the hard way that I have terminal colon cancer that any checkup within the last 8 years would have found in time.
-
Where the Heck is Drew in all of this. Checked his profile, I think he's gone to Canada for some of that "free" heath care we're talking about...
-
Maybe he got a life for a few days. Let's applaud it.
-
You may consider it nuts, and that's your decision. I, on the other hand, don't consider it nuts, I consider it essential. .
Just 'cause I'm tired am feel like trolling ...
So, it's OK for lower-income folks to pay 15-20% of their income for health care in the US, but horrible for higher-income folks to pay 10% in Canada ?
Cheers.
EDIT: Hope I get this in in time ... this REALLY is just a troll ... quality of care for those prices is also a big issue ...
-
So, it's OK for lower-income folks to pay 15-20% of their income for health care in the US, but horrible for higher-income folks to pay 10% in Canada ?
The primary difference: Those people are paying for themselves, supporting themselves, rather than forcing everyone else to do it for them.
When did it become reasonable to ask everyone around you to pay to support you, whether they even know you or not?
-
When did it become reasonable to ask everyone around you to pay to support you, whether they even know you or not?
Are you trolling me back ??
;)
Cheers.
-
The most problems with ER's in toronto is they are flooded with people showing up with simple things like splinters in their fingers or bumps and bruises.
It's like that here in the states too. The hospitals do not throw people who have no money out on the streets, they take care of them, and they send them a bill, even though they wont get paided. The people that have no money know what to say and they know how to fake a serious ailment to get the hospital to put some peroxide and a band aide on their boo boo. If the hospital didn't, these people also know what to tell a lawyer, and a lawyer, doesn't care how much money they have, as long as they said and did the right things in the hospital.
While the people who have money and are concerned about their credit ratings end up dieing because they decided to wait a day to see if the swelling and/or pain would go away.
I try not to get sick or hurt anywhere, ever.
-
So, it's OK for lower-income folks to pay 15-20% of their income for health care in the US, but horrible for higher-income folks to pay 10% in Canada ?
The primary difference: Those people are paying for themselves, supporting themselves, rather than forcing everyone else to do it for them.
When did it become reasonable to ask everyone around you to pay to support you, whether they even know you or not?
Some things in life are better shared. Education costs, for example. Every kid and every kid's neighbor has a right to a decent education. We can't vote with dollars. The rich naturally would get more votes.
Just think, Chad, you have to hire your own vigilante police force, contract your own fire brigade. Nothing is free, remember? Imagine that every single organization you have to personally pay for just wants to make a buck. Be thankful our government isn't selling its services to the people through several thousand middle men that also just want to make a buck. Private industry has its place. It has no place driving markets that we all need to live a happy and fruitful existence.
If you lived in California during the water crisis last decade, then you might have a different opinion about making public services private.
Cheers,
KenToad
-
Right, so we want public health care that is so underfunded that no one gets care? The police put their lives on the line every day and get paid very little, fighting a hopeless battle to put your teenager in a cell because he has a $10 bag of weed. Firemen get paid less than you can make at Walmart. Public education is such a joke that half the people I went to high school with barely qualify as literate even ten years later.
The publicly funded system just doesn't work very well. Why throw another necessary service under the bus?
-
Our publicly funded system doesn't work very well, because, yes, just like you point out, most of the programs don't get the support they deserve. The problems you're pointing to are caused by the movement to privatize, not the lack of privatization. Again, the wealthiest nations in the world will bear me out. Literacy is low in the U.S. because of unjust funding based primarily on property values in the district.
We have the same concerns.
Cheers,
KenToad
-
Actually, much of the problem is waste. At least in the educational system, you'll have most of the budget tied up in special education. Where it costs $4k-5k to educate a single child for a year, it will cost $75k to educate a special needs child that will never get beyond a third grade intelligence.
Sure, that kid deserves an education too, but should we spend as much on that one kid as on fifteen nonhandicapped kids? It's a hard question. And that's only one area that needs questioning.
-
Actually, much of the problem is waste. At least in the educational system, you'll have most of the budget tied up in special education. Where it costs $4k-5k to educate a single child for a year, it will cost $75k to educate a special needs child that will never get beyond a third grade intelligence.
Sure, that kid deserves an education too, but should we spend as much on that one kid as on fifteen nonhandicapped kids? It's a hard question. And that's only one area that needs questioning.
Chad, I wonder if you'd feel the same way if you had a child that was born handicapped.
-
That's the issue... I don't know I would want the town paying $75,000 a year to educate my child, money that is way out of scale with the average child. I would possibly opt to do it myself, or perhaps privately, but I don't know I would think it all that fair to make the town bear that type of cost for one child. Like I said, it's a hard question.
-
That's the issue... I don't know I would want the town paying $75,000 a year to educate my child, money that is way out of scale with the average child.
-
So evidently no one has an ideal solution yet, but "someone else" seems to do it better.....or so we've been told. Interesting also, the preconceived notions percieved in others but not ourselves.
Back with more soon. :angel:
-
After living both in the US and Canada it comes down to this--if you have a job with benefits, the US system is better with respect to prompt service and individual attention--I never had the need for major surgery so i can't comment on that. If you don't have a job or can't afford care, canada is better--you will get your basic needs looked after free of charge and any major operations will also be performed without banrupting you (although the wait for some operations may be lengthy)
I have known people requiring major surgery and emergency services in canada and they received it--in fact 4 of my friends were involved in a serious car accident and all received treatment immediately
-
you will get your basic needs looked after free of charge and any major operations will also be performed without banrupting you (although the wait for some operations may be lengthy)
It's not free of charge! That's the concept people need to understand. It isn't free, and it's not less expensive. It is PREPAID BY GOVERNMENT WITHHOLDING.
-
you will get your basic needs looked after free of charge and any major operations will also be performed without banrupting you (although the wait for some operations may be lengthy)
It's not free of charge! That's the concept people need to understand. It isn't free, and it's not less expensive. It is PREPAID BY GOVERNMENT WITHHOLDING.
While certainly not free, it *is* less expensive (US has higest health care costs in the world) and the user is not out of pocket for co-pays or deductibles, which I think is what menace was getting at.
Cheers.
-
Not on average, I would bet... I pay what is considered a LOT out of pocket for health insurance, probably $15,000 a year. Most people who have insurance pay far, far, far less than that, in the $4000 range. One incident, one broken limb or small car accident, and you've broken even.
At some point the balance is going to have to be found between inexpensive care and quality care, and that balance point will never be low enough for every single person to be fully covered.
-
Not on average, I would bet... I pay what is considered a LOT out of pocket for health insurance, probably $15,000 a year. Most people who have insurance pay far, far, far less than that, in the $4000 range. One incident, one broken limb or small car accident, and you've broken even.
I'll take that bet ... I finally decided to dig up the WHO statistical annexes (I was an actuary in a previous life) so that I could provide the numbers, which hopefully will illustrate the point that schmokes was trying to make earlier in the thread.
For the year 2002, here are the per capita breakdowns of health care spending:
Australia
Government Spending US$1354
Total Spending US$1995
Canada
Government Spending US$1552
Total Spending US$2222
USA
Government Spending US$2368
Total Spending US$5274
Disclaimer: There are a number of ways that these figures could be presented and these were designed (EDIT: by the WHO, NOT me) for comparability between nations and use an average conversion rate. I have also not performed an exhaustive analysis of the underlying techniques -- anybody who wants to should go to the WHO website and download the World Reports and annexes.
Kinda turns the whole "subsidizing others through higer taxes" argument on its ear, doesn't it ??
None of this is as simple as people think ... some very smart folks, with specific training in medicine, finance and risk theory have been trying to solve these problems for a very long time ...
Cheers.
-
Kinda turns the whole "subsidizing others through higer taxes" argument on its ear, doesn't it ??
It doesn't, actually, unless you correllate that data against something indicating quality of care. It's been consensus here that the US has better advanced care, less waiting time, and more availability of care (whether it gets paid or not) than Canada. A flat dollar comparison that does not take that into account is incomplete.
-
Kinda turns the whole "subsidizing others through higer taxes" argument on its ear, doesn't it ??
It doesn't, actually, unless you correllate that data against something indicating quality of care. It's been consensus here that the US has better advanced care, less waiting time, and more availability of care (whether it gets paid or not) than Canada. A flat dollar comparison that does not take that into account is incomplete.
Sorry, should have been clearer -- the argument is often made that the Canadian system is not free and, indeed, costs more than the US system because we pay higher taxes to fund it. That argument is fallacious because US government spending (and hence taxation for health care funding) is higher.
I make no argument about the quality of care in the US (have lived in both countries and my parents and brother both live in the US), nor try to pick one system as superior (as I have said, we are very different countries with very different needs), only that people are busy debating issues that aren't real.
Cheers.
-
It doesn't, actually, unless you correllate that data against something indicating quality of care. It's been consensus here that the US has better advanced care, less waiting time, and more availability of care (whether it gets paid or not) than Canada. A flat dollar comparison that does not take that into account is incomplete.
I don't know whatchoo talking about, "consensus," but I think you better look that word up in the dictionary. Sure ain't no consensus here. And here are some correllating data indicating quality of care. These aren't cherry picked numbers. There are even a few here that the U.S. wins on, but the trend leans heavily in favor of Canada:
Babies born with low Birthweight: U.S.=7.8% Canada=5.6%
Doctors per 1000 people: U.S.=2.8 Canada=2.1 (U.S. actually wins this one)
Child mortality per 1,000: U.S.=16 Canada=11
Life Expectancy (in years): U.S.=77.14 Canada=79.83
Life Expectancy (Healthy Years): U.S.=67.6 Canada=69.9
Probability of not living to 60: U.S.=12.8% Canada=9.5%
Annual Plastic Surgery Proceedures :) : U.S.= 90,992 Canada= 11,102
All the following numbers indicate deaths, by cause, per 200,000 people, year 2000 (most recent data)
Infectious and parasitic diseases: U.S.=42 Canada=20.2
HIV: U.S.=10.4 Canada=3.3
Malignant neoplasms (cancer): U.S.=393.4 Canada=407.4
Diabetes: U.S.=49.2 Canada=43.6
Malnutrition: U.S.=2.7 Canada=1.1
Diseases of the Circulatory System: U.S.=668.5 Canada=496.5
Pneumonia: U.S.=45.1 Canada=28.5
Influenza: U.S.=1.3 Canada=3.7
Bronchitis: U.S.=86.1 Canada=62.9
Appendicitis: U.S.=0.3 Canada=0.2 (Exlusive E.R. territory)
Chronic Liver Disease: U.S.=21.2 Canada=15.1
Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents: U.S.=30.1 Canada=16.2
Accidents caused by firearm missile: U.S.=0.6 Canada=0.1
Homicide and injury purposely inflicted by other persons: U.S.=11.9 Canada=3
All Causes: U.S. =1708 Canada=1469.9
And we pay over twice what our Canadian neighbors pay for health care. At the very least it seams that we could outlay $2222 per capita to exactly duplicate their system and then use the $3000 per capita above and beyond that, which we are already paying, to make our system better than theirs.
-
Okay, now factor in the amount of people the US who are horridly obese by their own choice. Factor in the amount of people who immigrate to the US and need immediate medical care. Factor in the amount of people flown to the US from all over the world specifically to get US care. Canada has none of those issues (the obesity is far, far less rampant there, anyway).
The US has more per capita medical problems because people come to the US to have medical problems treated. It also seems that as time goes on, the averages in terms of lifestyle related disease such as heart disease, liver disease, etc become more and more common here. A LOT of the cost of medical care in the US is because too many people here just don't take care of themselves.
It's a chicken and egg thing, here. People complain about the cost of medical care, insurance, etc... and then let themselves become 280lb with a cardiovascular system that is one flight of stairs away from failure, running up thousands of dollars in treatment and driving up insurance rates.
I contend that the cost of insurance in the US is really a combination of waste in the system combined with a growing health problem as a whole. That same rising tide mentioned in economic threads applies to medical costs as well.
-
Okay, now factor in the amount of people the US who are horridly obese by their own choice. Factor in the amount of people who immigrate to the US and need immediate medical care. Factor in the amount of people flown to the US from all over the world specifically to get US care. Canada has none of those issues (the obesity is far, far less rampant there, anyway).
Huh ?
Not sure where you come up with your information about Canadian immigration (after all, hasn't the US been complaining about Canada's immigration levels and the resultant imminent threat to the USA???) and people flying in to Canada for medical care (happens fairly regularly) ... so, where did you come up with those ?
And we have plenty of obese people here ... the morning double-double and maple glaze seems to be the main culprit ..
Cheers.
-
Huh ?
Not sure where you come up with your information about Canadian immigration (after all, hasn't the US been complaining about Canada's immigration levels and the resultant imminent threat to the USA???) and people flying in to Canada for medical care (happens fairly regularly) ... so, where did you come up with those ?
And we have plenty of obese people here ... the morning double-double and maple glaze seems to be the main culprit ..
Cheers.
No, Canada's immigration laws are MUCH tougher than the US' laws. I've been through them. They actually require you to at least pretend you have some way to support yourself and contribute to society. The US lets anyone in for any reason. And I think you've misread what I said about people flying into Canada specifically for specialized care: I said they don't do it, but they do go to the US for that reason, skewing those stats.
-
Obesity in the U.S. is significantly higher than Canada (30% vs. 15% about), but all the numbers show a trend toward equal/better healthcare in Canada. How does obesity factor into infant or child mortality? HIV? Malnutrition? Apendicitus? I'll accept it for cardiovascular, and maybe even respiratory diseases (though that's questionable), but it doesn't away the numbers as a whole. What it especially doesn't do is point to anything besides your gut instinct that suggests that the U.S. has a better system. You're really good at saying, "Nope, I don't buy your evidence. The U.S. must have a better system." Why don't you give us a chance to refute your evidence?
The US has more per capita medical problems because people come to the US to have medical problems treated.
That sounds beyond flimsy. I suspect that the percentage of people treated for any of the given causes of death above are so miniscule that they register somewhere in the neighborhood of 0%. C'mon, give us some numbers. That sounds beyond flimsy. Back this stuff up. If you want me to be your fact checker you're gonna have to pay me. If you're not going to pay me, do your own fact checking. Until then, a claim like that just sounds absurd.
-
No, Canada's immigration laws are MUCH tougher than the US' laws. I've been through them. They actually require you to at least pretend you have some way to support yourself and contribute to society. The US lets anyone in for any reason. And I think you've misread what I said about people flying into Canada specifically for specialized care: I said they don't do it, but they do go to the US for that reason, skewing those stats.
RE: Immigration ... I can see where you are going ... not sure the link between immigration policy and health costs is statistically significant, but I can understand the thought process.
RE: Flying into Canada for health care .... I don't think I misread it ... you said people don't fly into Canada for health care and I said they do ... again, not sure if there is a significant correlation ... would be interesting to see normalized comparison of ex-patriate medical expenditure in various countries.
Cheers.
-
Obesity in the U.S. is significantly higher than Canada (30% vs. 15% about), but all the numbers show a trend toward equal/better healthcare in Canada.
-
I base my opinions on my direct experience. The data means less to me than what I have seen myself.
A one man survey group. I bet you get some useful and accurate data about the entire Canadian health care system versus the enitre U.S. health care system from that.
I have serious misgivings about your methodology.
-
I have serious misgivings about your methodology.
So? I'm not trying to convince anyone, so what does it matter?
I've had medical care in Eastern Canada, Central Canada, all over the Eastern US, and my opinions are based on real experience and the experiences of close family members.
-
I'm rubber, you're glue... ::)
-
Wow!
Obesity is actually closer to 50% in the states these days, according to the research I did for an article about High Fructose Corn Syrup, which btw, had the USDA's research team linking HFCS and obesity and of course not banning the shite.
Anyway, great research Shmokes and CheffoJeffo ... I'd like to see some data talking about whether the U.S. has a lot of new immigrants for our health care system. I know we have non-citizens flying into the country from poor nations to get specialized care, but I don't think that they would get counted by Shmokes numbers.
Hmmm ... Chad, it seems like limiting your worldview to your and your family's experiences may be just a little ... limited. I mean this in all seriousness and friendliness. I actually find your arguments interesting. I rarely find folks that are willing to consider seriously that their opinions are solely based on "real experience." It truly is worth pondering. In some ways we're all doing the same thing, but rarely do we admit it.
Anyway, thanks for clarifying that you're not trying to convince anyone. When I write articles, usually I do some research and make no bones about trying to convince people. Here's a few off-topic things I've tried to convince people:
1. Avoid trans-fats (Heart Disease, etc.)
2. Avoid High Fructose Corn Syrup ("metabolic shunting" leading to heart failure and obesity)
3. Don't use Teflon (Even DuPont now admits that an empty pot will offgas when heated leading to flu-like symptoms for several hours to several days)
4. Don't drink milk (75% of humans are lactose intolerant and excess protein causes calcium depletion--from Harvard Health Center)
5. Be vegetarian (Humans share the same digestive system as every other primate and we are the only primate that consumes more than 2% of protein from animal sources--chimpanzee gets max 2%, all others besides humans get zero and die from incredibly fewer preventable diseases)
Okay, so there it is. My take on health care is that so much is preventable. We've lost touch with the old ways to take care of ourselves, IMO.
Cheers,
KenToad
-
Maybe you are referring to overweight, rather than obese, though it appears the percentage of overweight people is far higher than 50%. At any rate, just about every source I've seen, including the CDC, World Health Organization and the 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), peg the rate of obesity in the U.S. at about 30%.
Obesity seems to be more a more useful measure than overweight because overweight refers to having an excess amount of weight compared to set standards. That weight can come from fat, muscle or bone. Obesity refers specifically to having excess fat. Professional bodybuilders are, for example, very overweight, but not remotely obese.
The numbers, however, show that about 2/3 of Americans are overweight so it's probably safe to assume that over half of Americans are fat, if not obese.
-
Yep, when I had a 33" waist, I was grossly overweight, according to my raw stats. It doesn't take muscular folks into account at all.
-
Maybe you are referring to overweight, rather than obese, though it appears the percentage of overweight people is far higher than 50%. At any rate, just about every source I've seen, including the CDC, World Health Organization and the 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), peg the rate of obesity in the U.S. at about 30%.
Obesity seems to be more a more useful measure than overweight because overweight refers to having an excess amount of weight compared to set standards. That weight can come from fat, muscle or bone. Obesity refers specifically to having excess fat. Professional bodybuilders are, for example, very overweight, but not remotely obese.
The numbers, however, show that about 2/3 of Americans are overweight so it's probably safe to assume that over half of Americans are fat, if not obese.
Is it possible that our data don't jive because my numbers don't include children? I have 75%-85% of American adults being overweight and about half of adults, give or take a few, being overweight, which, as you guys rightly point out, is a pretty weird difference in measurement.
Also, for children, I found that maybe a quarter are overweight and 10-15% are obese. Statistically, obese children pretty much never reach healthy weight and overweight children are far more likely to become obese as they get older.
What this means is that this young generation is poised to become the first generation in the history of human evolution to die younger than their parents. Pretty scary, really.
I'll check my research again, because you've made me curious if I'm remembering incorrectly.
Cheers,
KenToad
-
Hmmm...I haven't done any statistical analysis or scientific research, but I did go to the community pool this afternoon. My observations tell me that 2/3rds to 3/4trs of the people at the pool this afternoon were FAT! (that's the politically incorrect non-scientific term for obsese and/or overweight). I can't believe some of them were wearing those bathing suits... :o
But that's ok, I know most fat people can't help it. Those Oreo's are just so darn tasty...BUT REALLY...it is a problem, and it appears to be a big problem with the youth particularly in the U.S. today. Bad eating habits gone unchecked by parents.
And yeah I know most people can't help it. I guess that's when they go to Canada for the free gastric bypass procedure that's become so popular lately.
-
By that chart Americans are more likely to get sick or hurt which is usually the individuals fault, not the healthcare system.
If the percent of Americans getting sick and hurt is higher, the total spending to get well would also be higher.
I went to Colorado last year and bought cough drops for 3 bucks. I got an ear infection in Illinois and had to pay a 24 dollar co-pay.
According to the way these charts are set up it would say Illinois is paying 8x as much as Colorado for health care.
The ear infection was the first time I've been in a doctor's office since I was required to have annual check ups in High school, that's almost 20 years, so if I was paying Canadian taxes for health care, I'd be paying for nothing. Until I am out of work or really sick, the United States should keep our health care system the way it is.
If I get sick, then America should tax the heck out of the rest of you, so I can have free healthcare.
-
See, that is something I don't get. Why on Earth would an individual not do routine things like yearly physicals? How would you know if you are developing blocked arteries, or perhaps a treatable cancer?
-
My health is in God's hands, and God has a great medical plan.
-
My health is in God's hands, and God has a great medical plan.
Actually, God's medical plan is pretty shocking. But his insurance payout is out of this world. :)
-
;D
-
I went to Colorado last year and bought cough drops for 3 bucks. I got an ear infection in Illinois and had to pay a 24 dollar co-pay.
According to the way these charts are set up it would say Illinois is paying 8x as much as Colorado for health care.
WTF?? Dartful, you're out of your element. Don't even try.
God's medical plan sucks. Ever hear of Leukemia? And what on Earth makes you believe that God is personally going to protect you and not the more that a million Rwandans in the 90's or the people in Sudan now, or the 11 million Jews and Pols in WWII, or the families in Israel now, or the soldiers in Iraq, or the millions upon millions who are starving to death and dying of malaria and yellow fever and even polio still, for Christ's sake? Do you have any idea how absurd you sound when you pretend that God cares one way or the other when or how you, the great Dartful Dodger, die?
-
In 35 years I only had to see a doctor once. I got an ear infection after taking a decongestant, because I didn't have enough faith. That will not happen again.
Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.
-
:angel: But those of us with perfect faith have no need for perfect health. :angel:
(http://www.needcoffee.com/html/dvd/images/flives1.jpg)
-
Every time I see that movie, I expect the televangelist to turn around and call him Private Pyle.
As far as a god goes, I was always taught that God provides opportunities for those who provide for themselves. Work hard and doors open for you... my grandmother always said that God is the one that opens those doors. Those who do not work hard see nothing but locked doors before them.
I'm not sure I believe in the God part, but my life's experiences certainly bear out the part about hard work, doors, and laziness.
-
First it was 20 years. Which was a lie in itself. Now it's 35 years. Doesn't god have something to say about that?
-
Maybe the one time he saw a doctor was his birth.
-
Shmokes is right.
If there was a God, he'd have been smited.
At least hit with a pool stick.
-
I was required to have annual check ups in High school, that's almost 20 years
17 years, for those of you that need an exact number.
In 35 years I only had to see a doctor once.
By "had to" I meant, I was in such pain or so sick that
-
For those of you who are still confused... In the 35 years of my life I have only needed medical attention once.
Huh? Over 90% of the population is in need of-
Oh wait, you're just talking about *physical* doctors! My bad. ;D
-
I was required to have annual check ups in High school, that's almost 20 years
17 years, for those of you that need an exact number.
In 35 years I only had to see a doctor once.
By "had to" I meant, I was in such pain or so sick that I needed medical attention.
For those of you who are still confused... In the 35 years of my life I have only needed medical attention once.
God hates a liar.
-
This from a man who has the phrase Blasphemy is a victimless crime in every post he makes.
-
I work in mysterious ways.
-
About all (yeah, right!) I'll say about this debate is that it fails as most online debates do because people take anecdotal evidence as representative. For every horrendous ER experience, there are countless experiences that aren't terrible. I've been to the ER, either for myself, my wife, my brother or my kids a couple of dozen times and never had an experience like ChadTower describes, although I don't doubt his description.
My uncle had a pair of strokes recently and his care has been exemplarary and covered, including both short and long term rehab. My mother-in-law started suffering from what appeared to be heart-related trouble. Within a week she had an angiogram, followed by angioplasty the next day. But even these are only anecdotal in nature ... and if they had appeared in some article somewhere, then this discussion would have started very differently (DK wouldn't have even bothered).
Comparing the health care systems in the US and Canada in the rather simplistic manner that the press and politicians do is rather counterproductive -- we have some very fundamental differences in terms of population size, distribution and density. We have different needs and different problems.
For the love of Pete man, if you want to characterize the ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court as "anecdotal" evidence, then your head is permanently buried in the sand! I can't believe your "so and so said it, so it's hearsay" comment was actually thought out! In fact, you YOURSELF state that while you've never had an experience like Chad's, you don't DOUBT his experience. It's not that it doesn't happen, the point is that everyone who agrees with the way Canada runs their health system wants to ignore the elephant in the room....people who are in that system are satisfied with their situation because it's what they're used to. Taking people used to getting treated for everything "NOW! RIGHT NOW!" (and are equally satisfied with their treatment) and moving them to a system that has REAL EXAMPLES of waiting for things we simply don't wait for in the U.S. isn't a "solution", it's at it's VERY BEST, a lateral move. "Anecdotal"? Supreme Court ruling, report after report, stories from people here FROM Canada such as:
A friend of mine actually wanted results quicker than the standard 8-12 month "wait" and paid $1400. No doubt he Got what he needed...
Chad's story, others here I'm SURE have had similar experiences....it's simply ignoring that it DOES happen. Given that some stories may be embellished, it still doesn't disprove the FACT that waits for many routine services in Canada happen.
Going from prompt treatment to days/weeks/months-long waits for treatment WOULD NOT be an "improvement" for the American health system. What it WOULD be is a degradation of all the current treatment - a "bringing down everyone's level to raise it for some".
Cost. Just a guess here, and not too wild a guess either, but I'm betting our "costs" also have something to do with the system set up in America to reward those on the wrong end of doctors' mistakes. Should America also adopt Canada's system for compensation for doctors who screw up? How about factoring in malpractice insurance as well. Do any of you think that a doctor having to pay through the nose for malpractice DOESN'T add to the cost you have to pay? How about the numerous stories about how much illegal aliens are costing us in health care....anyone think THAT doesn't add to the cost?
For anyone who's actually so stump-dense that they think Canada's health care actually IS free, please explain HOW your doctors and hospitals PAY for things such as bandages, scalpels, needles, suture thread, ALL the bed linens the hospitals use, how the doctors and nurses are paid, etc. Until that happens, you sound so uninformed and apathetic....the crackpot on the corner warning us all of the "end times" that are coming tomorrow/next week/next month.
I'll be moving to Canada soon, and fighting for a new medical initiative - the treatment requires arcade parts, and lots of them. Since your health care is "free", I'll be building a cab for zip, zero, nada.
Some simple thinking about things that happen in America can and do easily explain the small differences in the stats shmokes gives us...as well as a simple perusal of those stats.
-
So the rich and affluent Canadians still have access to first-rate medical services while the lower class has to rely on public facilities where the long waits and sub-standard care mimics the Emergency Room system in the U.S.
While reading this, it also occurred to me that some of those "rich and affluent" Canadians coming to the U.S. for these services might be causing us the same problem as an illegal alien. Are our collection agencies authorized to wreck a Canadian's credit record for services incurred in another country and not paid for? I know it won't be popular to bring it up, but since we're talking about comparing costs, you'd have to be a lunatic to think it doesn't EVER happen.
And as a human being with a conscience and a modest amount of empathy, it bothers me that the richest nation in the world claims it can't provide a decent level of health care for all its citizens.
For those of us who know you can't be turned away if you require health care, and it will most definitely be "decent" or better care you will recieve, are we to assume that since our views are different from yours, that you believe us to NOT have a conscience or modest amount of empathy?
Thats great for you now, because you can afford it. What if you couldn't? What if you didn't have the money to pay for insurance, or out of pocket. Ask Paige, who just wrecked his moped. He could have been screwed over hardcore.
Its funny how those with money don't give an f about those without.
It's funny how you've assigned two points to me based on nothing other than your dislike of my views. Not only would I be considered someone WITHOUT money, if you knew me at all, you'd know that indeed, I DO give an "f" about those without. It'd also surprise you to do some reading on the topic yourself. Patrick has accused me of doing so, yet in all the reading, and including some links from here, I've learned that our poor in America (you know, the people everyone WANTS to help, and who seem to be getting the short end of the stick medically) are entitled to BETTER care FOR FREE AS WELL, as Canadians. Check it out yourself, since I'm interpreting you to think you "give an f" moreso than I.
As a person on disability, it always amazes me how flippant people who can afford health care in the US are towards those of us of limited means.
Societal class prejudice is the new racism.
Please see the above comments about "affording" things. Also, please help me and point to where you interpreted me to be flippant towards those with limited means.
You're leveling some awully serious accusations about something that should concern everyone, but somehow you're trying to tie discussing it and different opinions on the subject to racism. When we see stories of lynchings, beatings, removal of rights as a human being of "those with lesser means", that charge will have merit. Presently, your charge is a gross exaggeration based on emotion.
-
Drew, you really should learn to look at things from both sides before you actually take sides (or let yourself be drawn to a side from reading single sided bit of propaganda).
As incomprehensible as you seem to think my views are, I find it equally so that you believe people with opposing views come to them from reading single-sided bits of propaganda. I guess you're as guilty yourself of being as impressionable as you seem to think anyone disagreeing with you HAS to be ::)
-
I understand that you've been brainwashed into having a kneejerk aversion to the word
"socialize", but it's not a foreign concept to Americans. How would you like it if you called 911 and said, "There's an intruder in my house," and they said, "We take Visa, Mastercard, AmEX and Discover. We can't send anyone out there without a valid credit card and payment in advance." How about if your house was on fire? Is protecting property so important that we must have socialized systems in place to make sure that everyone's property has basic protection from harm, but a person's basic health, a person's life only needs protection if they can afford it?
You're comparing apples and hand grenades. If a fire breaks out in my house, it has the potential to wipe out vast chunks of the city if left to burn. If someone decides since his girlfriend broke up with him that he's going to take a gun and start wiping out as many people as he can until he runs out of bullets, that could take quite a while. The guy down the block who kills for years on end (BTK, anyone?) and would continue to do so without police action...the drunk leaving the bar hoping to make it home safe not realizing he's behind the wheel and he's a "loaded" weapon.....and so on.
You're equating personal health with public safety.
You DO have a point, and I WOULD agree, with the dolts who have a car alarm or home burglar alarm who can't figure out how to work those things being charged for Officer Squarenuts to toodle on out to check and make sure nothing actually happened.
-
I thought twice about posting in response to this, but I think you're (DK) mischaracterizing the decision and my remarks...
First off, I am completely in support of supplementary private health insurance (after all, the decision was about insurance) in Canada -- while it may not be apparent here, this has been a long-held belief of mine. We already have private health care providers ... and it has cost me well into 5-figures out of pocket because insurance coverage is not available for them.
I am not opposed to the decision at all (I am hugely in favour of it), but you are reading way too much into it. The decision WAS based on anecdotal evidence, as it should have been since it dealt with the Charter Of Rights (which, obviously, is applied at the individual level).
At this point, I should mention that the decision has already been suspended (guess the CSM missed that part).
Excessive waiting periods DO happen (as I said, I used to be an actuary ... I kinda get the statistics part of things) and since most of us live within 200km of the US, supplementary coverage that would allow treatment in the US would solve most of our problems (people could get treatment AND we would be relieving the pressure on the system) and send money to our friends to the south.
Next, *I* never argued that the US should try to use the Canadian system -- it wouldn't make any sense ... think I've said stuff to that effect a few times.
One thing I find baffling is how you can use REAL EXAMPLES (tm) of people waiting in Canada, but ignore the real examples (no tm?) of people who can't get medical coverage or treatment (e.g. a REALLY long wait) in the US.
Are we Canadians more real ?
Cheers.
-
Cost. Just a guess here, and not too wild a guess either, but I'm betting our "costs" also have something to do with the system set up in America to reward those on the wrong end of doctors' mistakes. Should America also adopt Canada's system for compensation for doctors who screw up? How about factoring in malpractice insurance as well. Do any of you think that a doctor having to pay through the nose for malpractice DOESN'T add to the cost you have to pay? How about the numerous stories about how much illegal aliens are costing us in health care....anyone think THAT doesn't add to the cost?
I think you hit this one right on the head ... and it is a stellar example of why Canadian health care would never work in the US ... not too mention a good parallel to the reason that the price of BigMacs has been on the rise [EDIT ... this didn't come out right, but I was going for McDonalds coffee litigation driving the price of BigMacs] ... ;-D
Cheers.
-
There's a problem in America. We DO want to help those less fortunate. Those considered "poor" here get better help than even most with insurance get. The people getting screwed are the people above the "poor" line but below the "it's affordable for them" line (whatever that line is).
Those who are above that line by a tad have a distinct DISincentive to try harder....it may get them a touch more money, but they'll pay all that "extra" out in health insurance. Hitting those who can "afford" it drops the level they can now "afford", bringing THEIR quality of care DOWN! So by helping others, now THEY have a DISincentive to try to gain back that which they'd give up because those who can "really afford it" are those which are looked to in order to make up the disparity for everyone.
All of these lines are arbitrary, and don't take into account people such as Arcadiac, who said he's "technically" below poverty, but I'm betting it's due to something such as a house, stock holdings, pensions or something similar that keeps him above that arbitrary line.
As long as everyone continues to be a human being, there isn't a solution that will solve this problem, and if the solution is to have the government take care of it, then we might as well send the money off to a band of monkeys in the Congo, since they'll take care of it just as well and spend it just as wisely.
-
Holy Cow. Drew's back, LMAO.
Okay, enough with the Canada's system is free, stuff. It's a strawman. Nobody here has said that Canada's system is free (have they?). I know you'd like to think that the people on the side of socialized medicine believe this silly notion, so you can triumphantly prove to us that somebody always has to pay but, in actuality, the people on the side of socialized medicine have not only stated clearly that Canada's system costs money, but we have stated exactly how much Canada's system costs compared to the U.S.
Please, in case that wasn't enough:
WE ARE FULLY AWARE THAT CANADIANS PAY FOR HEALTHCARE!!! They just pay significantly less
Was that loud enough? We cede this point to you. It's yours. It always was. Let's put it to bed now and not speak of such things again....at the very least until someone actually makes the claim that healthcare in Canada isn't ever paid for.
And it ain't apples and oranges. When someone isn't treated for the flu they remain contageous longer. When someone isn't treated for HIV they remain FAR more contageous than those who are treated. When an epileptic has no access to meds he finds himself having a grand mal seizure and rolls at 70 mph on I-15 in the middle of Salt Lake (this happened to my brother). When a person isn't treated for hypertension they find themselves in the E.R. receiving a $100,000 bypass surgery on the tax-payer's dime. Most STDs are 100% curable. When they go untreated, though, they spread. Like fire. Public health is a public safety issue.
I gotta sign out of the debate for a while, though. I'm taking a road trip to San Francisco and wine country tomorrow morning. See y'all Tuesday.
-
Okay, enough with the Canada's system is free, stuff. It's a strawman. Nobody here has said that Canada's system is free (have they?). I know you'd like to think that the people on the side of socialized medicine believe this silly notion, so you can triumphantly prove to us that somebody always has to pay but, in actuality, the people on the side of socialized medicine have not only stated clearly that Canada's system costs money, but we have stated exactly how much Canada's system costs compared to the U.S.
I'd like to say this is true, but it's not. It may seem like an exercise in semantics to you, but the more people CONTINUE to say these things, the more it gets "accepted" and people start to look at it as if it WERE. It's the same as the system we have here in America. Some look at it as if "poor" folks get health care for "free". YOU are one of a few who have understood this, but talk to Joe Onthestreet and ask him what he knows about Canadian health care and I'd bet you dollar to cholesterol-laden donuts that he'll tell you "I wish we had free health care like THEY do". Understanding that it's paid for and acknowledging it or at the very least NOT telling us "that'd be free here" are two VERY different things. Check this very thread out - I refer to comments I've read around here in past discussions, and true to my point, we get the following:
It's the big debate these days (here in Canada): To allow private hospitals (ie: those that charge $$).
I lived in the US for a while. General visits to a physician were mostly covered by my employee medical benefits, but my one trip to the ER for stomach pains cost me over $1000 and all that came out of it was I got a painkiller and was told to go home and rest. Nice. That was $1000 I couldn't afford to waste.
Here in Canada, that ER trip would have been free.
After living both in the US and Canada it comes down to this--if you have a job with benefits, the US system is better with respect to prompt service and individual attention--I never had the need for major surgery so i can't comment on that. If you don't have a job or can't afford care, canada is better--you will get your basic needs looked after free of charge and any major operations will also be performed without banrupting you (although the wait for some operations may be lengthy)
And yeah, I know the joke in this reply, but Joe Onthestreet DOESN'T
And yeah I know most people can't help it. I guess that's when they go to Canada for the free gastric bypass procedure that's become so popular lately.
Please, in case that wasn't enough:
WE ARE FULLY AWARE THAT CANADIANS PAY FOR HEALTHCARE!!! They just pay significantly less
It's ironic. The tax cuts that gave us "enough to buy a new muffler" were laughed off as insignificant, but when you're using similar numbers when talking about health care, you view it as "significantly less".
Was that loud enough? We cede this point to you. It's yours. It always was. Let's put it to bed now and not speak of such things again....at the very least until someone actually makes the claim that healthcare in Canada isn't ever paid for.
It's been claimed. I've shown it to be. Until people DO put it to bed and not speak of such things, it's NOT loud enough, and more people need to say exactly what you just did say, because too many Americans are looking at Canada as the solution PRECISELY because they look at them as having "FREE" health care.
And it ain't apples and oranges. When someone isn't treated for the flu they remain contageous longer. When someone isn't treated for HIV they remain FAR more contageous than those who are treated. When an epileptic has no access to meds he finds himself having a grand mal seizure and rolls at 70 mph on I-15 in the middle of Salt Lake (this happened to my brother). When a person isn't treated for hypertension they find themselves in the E.R. receiving a $100,000 bypass surgery on the tax-payer's dime. Most STDs are 100% curable. When they go untreated, though, they spread. Like fire. Public health is a public safety issue.
The flu-spreader....so since it's a public safety issue, the cops should arrest them? The HIV carrier - arrest them, or bring in the fire department to hook up a 4" line and hose the disease right outta them? The guy with the STD's? I agree, we SHOULD arrest the guy if he's spreading 'em around knowingly, but then again, if you're contracting an STD, I guess all that edumacation we're throwing money at hasn't helped much, since abstinence would have worked a lot better than what they're preaching in the schools. Arrest them all? OK, I give. Lets do that.
Your brother had a seizure. He had NO access to meds? Like your query about Chad's story, why didn't your brother have anything with him? Would the police or fire department have been able to do anything to prevent this? Arrest him and throw him in jail? That wouldn't have worked. Profiling. Can't do it. Epileptics all over the place will be up in arms.
Lastly, it's interesting. Health care in America is said to be so expensive that many are underinsured or simply not insured at all, and we should be looking to switch to something else. FOREVER and a day now, those who believe as I do that Canada IS NOT the answer have been saying that everyone in America has health care, that the debate is about INSURANCE, and here you go telling us that indeed, it's true. "When a person isn't treated for hypertension they find themselves in the E.R. receiving a $100,000 bypass surgery on the tax-payer's dime."
Donnie DonutEater is responsible for his weight, going to the doctor, and getting the medication he needs. Both my parents had that problem. One of them still has it. Personal choice had a lot to do with that, as the one who still has it is a heart attack waiting to happen and doesn't seem to care. I also got to see how much such medications cost. One of my parents works for the state, and picking up their meds, I was told and had the figures laid out for me how much cheaper generic drugs would be, and the drugstore definitely WOULD be switching to the generics and dropping the "name brand" drug shortly, and to tell my parents. If they can't "afford" these meds, I'll be pointing out things they're pissing their money away on that they need to stop so they can. Shouldn't be hard. Don't go out to eat one week, and buy your meds for the month. One less trip to the Wal-Mart will work too.
Let's say Donnie DonutEater doesn't care for himself, though. What happens? Is he turned away because, as you said about the police, when he was wheeled into the ER he didn't happen to have his Amex or Visa with him? No, indeed, he DOES receive health care.
Oh, and I left out the possibility that Donnie DonutEater might be one of our friends from around the globe. Sasha SchnitzelEater is working in the country illegally, and lo and behold, after eating one too many schnitzel's, he's in the hospital too. How about that! HE gets treated too! Isn't our uncaring heartless American system turning people away? One would have to wonder then, how are our costs INCREASING since no one can "afford" to go to the doctor. We DO have Canada's system in place, but America's dirty little secret is that we'd go broke from lawsuits if we went all the way and implemented the regression necessary to even it up.
I gotta sign out of the debate for a while, though. I'm taking a road trip to San Francisco and wine country tomorrow morning. See y'all Tuesday.
I'm calling the fire department if your hitch comes loose when you sneeze and swerve all over. When they pull you over, they'll slap an STD on you so fast it'll make your.....something.....hurt. ;D
-
Okay, first Drew....you could have saved yourself a lot of time if you had understood my post correctly. Just because public health is a public safety issue doesn't mean that the police or fire dept. would take care of it. Our argument breaks down like this:
1- I infer from your initial post that you believe socialism is bad. I point out fundamental parts of our society that are competely socialized and, I might add, that you probably wouldn't want any other way.
2- You suggest that those socialized systems don't apply correctly because those systems deal with public safety.
3- I illustrate that public health is a matter of public safety.
4- You somehow take this to mean that I think that public health should be dealt with by the police or fire dept. ???
That's a pretty big leap.
Drew, you simply aren't giving people credit. They ain't that dumb. Every one of those people you quoted knows that the services are paid for with tax money and that the tax money is paid by the citizens of the country. When RayB says, "in Canada, that ER trip would have been free." He knows that it comes from tax money. It's exactly the same as if someone asked you how much you're charged to have the police come out to your house after a vandalism. It would be perfectly reasonable to say, "We don't get charged anything. Police visits are free." People just aren't that dumb, Drew. They're not. Walk up to any stranger. Say, "Hey, did you know that in Canada EVERY single person has access to Health Care. They can go to the doctor, the emergency room, the pharmacy. They aren't charged a dime at the Doctors office. The doctors get paid, though. Do you have any idea how they do that?" I guarantee you that anybody who doesn't already know anything about Canada's system will say, "uhhh.....I don't know....taxes?"
As far as meds, my brother's are $10 per pill. That's $300/mo. He got laid off from his job and has two kids. His wife was bringing in almost the entire household income for a little over four weeks waitressing. I don't mean this as an appeal to emotion because it's my brother. It's just one of a million examples of how your neat little world where a person just "don't go out to eat one month" or "go to walmart one less time" is a load of crap. How in the hell is someone making $6/hour supposed to afford $300/mo meds? By going to walmart less? c'mon....
Now you're going to have to explain to me in more detail what in hell you're talking about when you are comparing my statement about Canadians paying less in health care with Bush's tax rebates. Your coming out of left field. I feel like you have a point and just got sidetracked or something. Anyway, I don't know what you mean by insignificant. I think they were significantly irresponsible, but I still don't see how these things are related. Canadians pay less than half what we pay for healthcare. Period. They pay less private, out-of-pocket expenses (way less) and they pay less in taxes than we do for healthcare. They do.
On ER: It's simply disingenuous to say that America provides basic healthcare to all its citizens based on our ER being unable to refuse service. A number 1, the financial consequences of making use of the ER make it prohibitive in practice. It's like saying, "look how charitable I am. I will hand over $5000 in cash to any impoverished person who approaches me," when in reality you do give them $5000 in cash, but you also chop off both their legs and arms. B number 2, I am concerned with the inefficiency and cost of our crappy healthcare system. The fact that we refuse to help with cheap-ass generic hypertension meds, and will ignore a growing problem until it turns into a crisis and THEN pay for a $100,000 surgery boils my blood. It's wasteful.
Drew, ask yourself how America manages to spend more, per capita, in tax money for public healthcare than Canada when uninsured Americans (virtually the only ones who have access to that tax money) are only allowed to go to the Emergency room. hint: the answer is contained within the question
-
Drew, you simply aren't giving people credit.
I give them all the credit in the world for knowing the difference and still choosing to use the words they do.
They ain't that dumb.
See above for the response to that.
Every one of those people you quoted knows that the services are paid for with tax money and that the tax money is paid by the citizens of the country. When RayB says, "in Canada, that ER trip would have been free." He knows that it comes from tax money. It's exactly the same as if someone asked you how much you're charged to have the police come out to your house after a vandalism.
If I EVER heard anyone say their police visits are free, I'd agree with you, however, the common complaint is that Officer Squarenuts is hassling them, and "after all, I pay their salary".
It would be perfectly reasonable to say, "We don't get charged anything. Police visits are free."
To dismiss my point, you may find it reasonable. Real world experience, and your very own dealings demonstrate that it isn't spoken of like that, yet when speaking of health care, it is. It's harmful and misleading to the very people who fit in the "I don't fit in any category that will get me health care" niche. It's purposeful for that very reason, however much you wish to dismiss it.
People just aren't that dumb, Drew. They're not. Walk up to any stranger. Say, "Hey, did you know that in Canada EVERY single person has access to Health Care. They can go to the doctor, the emergency room, the pharmacy. They aren't charged a dime at the Doctors office. The doctors get paid, though. Do you have any idea how they do that?" I guarantee you that anybody who doesn't already know anything about Canada's system will say, "uhhh.....I don't know....taxes?"
Explain why, then, the taxes Canadians are charged are the dirty little secret no one talks about when holding up their system as a model America should be striving to exemplify. Your argument would hold water if the American public were being informed of the cost to each of them SIDE BY SIDE with the utopia Canada's system is described as. Look at this VERY thread! It can't even be pointed out about the waits for general services as a con to their system! Why not? Because it DOESN'T SELL, and until people compare apples to apples, ("free" system compared to America's current "solution") it's a valid point.
See ya on Tuesday - I'm off to work and you're off to Frisco. :)
-
Explain why, then, the taxes Canadians are charged are the dirty little secret no one talks about when holding up their system as a model America should be striving to exemplify. Your argument would hold water if the American public were being informed of the cost to each of them SIDE BY SIDE with the utopia Canada's system is described as. Look at this VERY thread! It can't even be pointed out about the waits for general services as a con to their system! Why not? Because it DOESN'T SELL, and until people compare apples to apples, ("free" system compared to America's current "solution") it's a valid point.
Drew, how is it that you can write something eloquent and on-target, then come up with this ??
Canadians pay less in taxes to support health care than Americans pay in taxes to support health care. [I think we should be spending more and have access to private supplemental insurance, but these are the facts of the tax matter.]
There is no dirty little secret.
Cheers.
-
I've heard that both ways. I'd like to see the facts on that.
What do Canadians pay in taxes? I talk to them and they say that they pay more?
I know they pay an income tax that's less than the US / State taxes, but dont they also pay a 17% sales tax on top of that?
I'd be for a federal health care system if I thought the government could actually manage it. We have enough trouble with Medicare and Medicade now.
I pay about $47 a week just for an 80/20 plan. No vision. I pay $15 for dental. I'd pay that to the fed without blinking if I had some assurance that the doctors wouldn't form a freaking union and strike.
They'd turn from private business to a govenmental agency. You'd have to fill out triplicate forms to see them. That's what I'm afraid of, taking the drive out of the medical system to do more.
-
Canadians pay less in taxes to support health care than Americans pay in taxes to support health care. [I think we should be spending more and have access to private supplemental insurance, but these are the facts of the tax matter.]
That is because Canada's hospitals will turn nonCitizens away if they cannot pay. I've seen it happen. They do not pay for health care for millions upon millions of illegal aliens on a daily basis the way the US does. If they did that, Canadians would be paying more than the US does.
There is no way in hell any politician here would ever speak out against treating illegal aliens, so that problem will never go away. Thus, we do provide socialized health care, but we provide it to millions of people who don't pay ANY taxes.
-
I've heard that both ways. I'd like to see the facts on that.
See my post earlier in the thread ... per capita GOVT spending on health care is higher in the US than in Canada. Stats available readily from the WHO.
What do Canadians pay in taxes? I talk to them and they say that they pay more?
Oh, we do ... and people here like to THINK that it is for health care so that we can feel good about it and can taunt those heartless 'mericuns. Truth be told, I'm not sure where the heck it all goes (although we tend to do stupid things like blow over a billion dollar on a gun registry program that doesn't even work).
I know they pay an income tax that's less than the US / State taxes, but dont they also pay a 17% sales tax on top of that?
Sales tax depends on jurisdiction and ranges from 7% to 16% (although maybe there is a 17% jurisdiction)... but that's a whole other story.
Cheers.
-
What do Canadians pay in taxes? Not just one tax, I'm talking about the final amount they pay.
We have federal, state, local income taxes here. We also have property taxes, sales taxes, car taxes, etc.
What do Canadians actually pay?
-
Having lived in both places, I'd say Canadians pay 10-15% more in taxes than we do here in the states.
That figure is a percentage of gross income, not of taxes. So, say that you make $10,000. In the US you'll probably pay, in various taxes, what, 40% of that, meaning $4,000. In Canada you'd get taxed something like $5,500.
I know the "sales tax" in NS is actually two separate taxes. There is the regular sales tax of 10% and a goods and services tax of 7%, or at least that's how it was when I left.
-
We have pretty much the same types of taxes.
Income taxes vary wildly at the lower end of the income range, depending on tax credit situation (e.g. my wife was earning 40K a year and ended up paying very little tax because she claimed 21K in child care costs as well as 8K basic personal credit).
At the higher end (say 80K and up), you are looking at basically 45-50% combined federal and provincial income tax.
[EDIT: Should have mentionned that the 45-50% is actually a marginal rate that applies to the income over a threshold]
http://www.taxtips.ca/tax_rates.htm#FederalTaxRates
Property taxes can vary wildly by location and year. Here in Toronto, taxes are based on a "Market" Value assessment that can jump rapidly (mine has increased 50% in the five years I've owned this house).
Cheers.
-
See, that's pretty much most people, though. CAN$80,000 is considered high end? That's like $45,000, which really is barely average here in MA. A person making $45,000 in eastern MA cannot own a house unless they are single with zero debts. A person making $45k with kids, they can barely afford rent, nevermind a home.
-
See, that's pretty much most people, though. CAN$80,000 is considered high end? That's like $45,000, which really is barely average here in MA. A person making $45,000 in eastern MA cannot own a house unless they are single with zero debts. A person making $45k with kids, they can barely afford rent, nevermind a home.
It certainly is most homeowners in metropolitan centres.
I picked 80K because it seemed representative of where the marginal rates started crossing over to the higher ranges.
C$80K is actually about US$65K, but is still not a killer income (if I earned that, there would be no way that we could live now that my wife isn't working). There are parts of the country, however, where that is actually a good living.
I should note (not in defense of our tax system, mind you) that the tax brackets are designed to determine when you should make a "full" contribution to the system and reflect the fact that having additional, higher brackets for high earnings doesn't typically improve the tax revenue situation for the government.
Cheers.
-
Chad, these are Canadian dollars, not pesos.
-
Wow, a lot of reading crap into my crap that wasn't crapped.
I'd love to live in the Maritimes again, but there aren't any jobs. People don't make money there because there is no money to be made. You're a lobsterman or you work in a store or restaurant. That's it. And you can't just go out and become a lobsterman without paying half a million dollars for a lobster license, something that never gets sold. Lobster licenses get handed down from father to son.
Sure, someone where I lived could live like a king on $70k, but there isn't $70k to be made.
-
I'd love to live in the Maritimes again, but there aren't any jobs. People don't make money there because there is no money to be made. You're a lobsterman or you work in a store or restaurant. That's it. And you can't just go out and become a lobsterman without paying half a million dollars for a lobster license, something that never gets sold. Lobster licenses get handed down from father to son.
Sure, someone where I lived could live like a king on $70k, but there isn't $70k to be made.
Don't be so sure ... they put a lot of $$$ into infrastructure (it still ticks me off that there are folks out there who get double the DSL speed I do here in Toronto) and wooed some big call centres ... dunno exactly what the job situation is, but my understanding is that it has changed.
-
That's what I'm saying. There is no apples to apples comparison of taxes or health care from the US to Canada.
I don't know what to make of it.
I am not opposed to having such a national healthcare system if I knew I could expect good service.
It's a huge problem in the US for hardworking, taxpaying, responsible people. One screw up like cancer or an "emergency" triple by pass and you have lost everything you ever had.
People here are working way beyond what they should simply to have the health care. They need perscriptions, they need the security, and there is no way people of average income can "just get their own"
Cobra extension of healthcare at my employer is $729 a month for the 80/20 plan. Wow. If you needed it to cover say a new baby or some major issue that's comming up right after you leave it's a bargain. But that's a house payment for most people.
I know of at least two people who have health problems and have fake ID's. They just go to emergency rooms and get it and leave. That' not right. I don't blame them for finding a way to survive. Illegals get better treatment here than the citizens is my big pain. It puts us all at risk when health care centers go under because of the strain.
My fear is that we would put this plan in place and then find that we stopped people from being doctors 10 years down the road by fixing their income.
I get this from just some people I talk to, but Canada is so screwed up they don't know what language to speak. As I understand it's harder to find an english speaking doctor because all of them move here to make a decent living. The French speaking doctors stay. English speaking people have a tough time up there.
I don't know if that's the way it is because I don't live there. But I have heard from "non" political people that Chad is right. They are having trouble getting ontime/ondemand care when they need it. That's scary for a lot of us. I don't want the government to tell me I don't need this or that, or even when I can get it. That's a sticky point.
-
Don't be so sure ... they put a lot of $$$ into infrastructure (it still ticks me off that there are folks out there who get double the DSL speed I do here in Toronto) and wooed some big call centres ... dunno exactly what the job situation is, but my understanding is that it has changed.
I used to write applications for call centers. That is one of the worst jobs ever. They get paid minimum wage, are given quotas that are literally impossible to fill and their pay is often partially contingent on meeting those quotas. They get yelled at all day by people who didn't want to be called. Turnover at call centers is like 400% a year and the average length of employment is less than 3 months.
-
Don't be so sure ... they put a lot of $$$ into infrastructure (it still ticks me off that there are folks out there who get double the DSL speed I do here in Toronto) and wooed some big call centres ... dunno exactly what the job situation is, but my understanding is that it has changed.
I used to write applications for call centers. That is one of the worst jobs ever. They get paid minimum wage, are given quotas that are literally impossible to fill and their pay is often partially contingent on meeting those quotas. They get yelled at all day by people who didn't want to be called. Turnover at call centers is like 400% a year and the average length of employment is less than 3 months.
Sorry ... wasn't suggesting that the frontline folks would be making bigger salaries, but having run a call centre in a previous life, I know that *I* made a reasonable salary.
Cheers.
-
what's a "call center" ?
-
Telemarketers, phone support, customer service, etc. A place where you have a large amount of employees making and/or receiving phone calls.
-
Drew, how is it that you can write something eloquent and on-target, then come up with this ??
It's a gift, really. I'm like a savant or something. ;D
Where'd I put my helmet?
-
heck yes! I will pay more in tax dollars for health care.
lets see here.
insurance cost $75.00 a week
just paid $100.00 for 2 bottles of pills ( copay) also need to refill 3x
dentist cost $200.00 a visit for 4 visits per person ( 4 people in my house)
doctor copay of $25.00
I think my tax difference would be less
long waits in ER? try the VA here in KY! I bring a book,GBA, and a small DVD player. Not once has my father in law got out of there in less than 8 hrs
we go 2 times a week. blood work,and trying to get this leg cut off. VA canceled operation 2x because of potassium level to high
(hay! a new record for me only 2 misspellings) ( could not do that again if I tried) ;D
-
It's funny how people will regularly drop hundreds to keep their car running, or to fix something on their home, or to maintain some possession... yet won't even consider spending the same to maintain their health. I don't understand that.
-
heck yes! I will pay more in tax dollars for health care.
lets see here.
insurance cost $75.00 a week
just paid $100.00 for 2 bottles of pills ( copay) also need to refill 3x
dentist cost $200.00 a visit for 4 visits per person ( 4 people in my house)
doctor copay of $25.00
I think my tax difference would be less
long waits in ER? try the VA here in KY! I bring a book,GBA, and a small DVD player. Not once has my father in law got out of there in less than 8 hrs
we go 2 times a week. blood work,and trying to get this leg cut off. VA canceled operation 2x because of potassium level to high
(hay! a new record for me only 2 misspellings) ( could not do that again if I tried) ;D
It's almost as if you didn't read this thread! Dental care hasn't even been discussed other than some folks telling us that's not a Canadian item, IIRC. You'd drop the payment of $75/week for your insurance to pay higher taxes for government health care which I'm guessing would add up to somewhere in the $75/week range. You'd pay that to get health care similar to, if not IDENTICAL to the care your father-in-law already recieves, which sounds EXACTLY like the Canadian system that's being discussed. To top it all off, when describing what GOVERNMENT-RUN health care is like, you don't speak of it in glowing terms, it sounds as if you're describing some awful chore you would gladly pawn off on someone else or push off until another day.
Dawayne, I wonder if it's dawned on you that the people currently in charge of the sucky service you already are aware of are the SAME people who would be in charge of ensuring that the higher tax dollars you're willing to jump at go to pay for the SAME type of sucky service.
And again, my point is made by someone else without them even realizing they're describing the problems I'm talking about. Someone who's aware of how a crack government health care system IS NOT the answer, but doesn't realize many are asking for more of the same.
-
It's funny how people will regularly drop hundreds to keep their car running, or to fix something on their home, or to maintain some possession... yet won't even consider spending the same to maintain their health.
-
So you're paying $75/week and it doesn't cover prescriptions? I bet you can find better insurance than that.
-
Not to beat a dead horse, but the following article was referred to me concerning the cost differentials between the US and Canadian health care systems. It is a little dated (1989), but raises some interesting points.
In 1985, insurance and prepayment administrative overhead (managing the flow of paperwork and money) cost Americans $95 each and Canadians $21 each (in Canadian dollars). In fact, Canadians spent less per capita to administer their universal comprehensive coverage than Americans spent just to administer Medicare and Medicaid (approximately $26 per capita).
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n5_v39/ai_7621819
Thought some of you might find it interesting.
Cheers.
-
Yep. It makes sense that inferior care costs less per capita.
-
Chad, you sound ridiculous. You just make claim after claim with absolutely no corroborating evidence. Do you honestly believe that the entire Canadian healthcare system is inferior to Medicaid and Medicare? I mean, it's one thing to claim that Canada's system is worse than the U.S. healthcare system as a whole. You'd still be wrong, but it's at least one thing... But to just stick to your guns like a damn broken record even when it's narrowed down to speak only of Medicare and Medicaid, and then say, "uh....I'm not here to convince anyone," when asked where you get your information is just lame.
-
CT -- c'mon you can do better than that ...
The interesting part is the difference in ADMINISTRATIVE costs -- if costs less per capita to ADMINISTER the entire Canadian health care system than it costs to ADMINISTER Medicare and Medicaid -- that's without considering quality of care (even then, if you make the argument that Medicaid and Medicare are better than the whole Canadian system, then I want to know what they're prescribing you so I can get some).
Personally I find it amazing that anybody is less efficient that the Canadian government (and the provincial governments) ... I always thought we were number 1 in that department!
Cheers.
-
Medicare and Medicade get ripped off pretty good in the US. Fraud is rampant, but they try and keep it to a minimum.
Medicare is for the disabled and retired. Medicade is for the very poor and the very old in nursing homes.
Medicare doesn't pay for a lot of stuff. Medicade stiffs doctors pretty good.
My question on this has always been what would happen to the medical community in the US if the government became the main healthcare insurance provider? Just how much would they pay and what would be restricted?
Here in TN they have tried a universal healthcare program called TennCare. It's really enhanced medicade. Hospitals here decided they wouldn't take TennCare patients. They had the administration of the program priviatized, and one of the two companies that administered it screwed it up totally. The program is failing because people from every bordering state were cashing in on it.
They get people here all the time on TennCare fraud of perscriptions. Lortabs and oxyconten. They get on Tenncare then sell pain killers.
Not good, but par for the course in Government administration of a program. Local hospitals were getting really stiffed. Big writeups and editorials on how local small hospitals were in the red due to the non-payment or refusal of payment from the program.
HMOs can be sued. I don't know if the government can. They do have ways to appeal decisions, but when the chips are down, you have to wait months to do that. Would that really help?
Plus, how would it politicise the program? Would a universal healthcare program paid for by tax dollars have to exclude catholic and baptist hospitals? Would people begin to object and pull any reproductive work? Do we have to pay for sex changes?
Lots of questions we haven't explored yet. Would the program ballon and cost like 3X what it was supposed to? What government program doesn't grow so large we can't handle it? Iraq, the Big Dig, Highway funding, urban housing, etc. What would be different here?
-
Yes, I would have to say that numbers, charts, and studies are more important than hands on experience.
Wait, they are not.
-
Not to beat a dead horse,
I'd have never thought that there truly WAS a smiley for everything, but from this point forth, I shall never doubt the power of the smiley, no matter how obscure! I don't think this discussion is a "dead horse", and think others still find it worth discussing, but CJ, I can't resist the urge to pass this along to you based on your comment - use it freely whenever :D
I present:
-
CJ, I can't resist the urge to pass this along to you based on your comment - use it freely whenever :D
Thank you, kind sir ...
;)
Cheers.
-
"The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute keeps track of Canadian waiting times for various medical procedures. According to the Fraser Institute's 14th annual edition of "Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada (2004)," total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, rose from 17.7 weeks in 2003 to 17.9 weeks in 2004. For example, depending on which Canadian province, an MRI requires a wait between 7 and 33 weeks. Orthopaedic surgery might require a wait of 14 weeks for a referral from a general practitioner to the specialist and then another 24 weeks from the specialist to treatment."
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=705 (http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=705)
And the link from CJ demonstrates yet again why a move to give the U.S. GOVERNMENT the reigns for health care isn't the answer. The "administrative costs" never seem to define whether costs such as malpractice or legal fees are factored into the equation. Again I point back to the Canadian government and the "limits" on compensation should their doctors screw something up. CONVINCE me that when Johnny or Susie Angelface loses a limb or has some infection/disease go nuts due to waits even CLOSE to the Candian system that their parents won't want to sue the pants off Aunt & Uncle Sam, and anyone else they can throw a lawyer at.
Lawsuits the size awarded in America wouldn't simply be dropped for the "good" of everyone who'd be in the system. It's either accept a system that can demonstrably show a drop in comparable service or reduce the costs of lawsuits (among other things) to help with total costs. When people can "win the lottery" after spilling a cup of coffee in their laps (and there surely are examples for medical cases of stupid judgements like this), the cost isn't simply eaten by the loser of the suit. Does it stand to reason that costs not only will increase for THAT case, they'll increase for FUTURE cases that are CERTAIN to arise? Does it stand to reason that insurance for hospitals and doctors increase yearly, maybe even monthly, and in hefty quantities? If you had a claim a month on your car insurance, is it reasonable for you to expect that your costs WON'T go up? Does it stand to reason that if the GOVERNMENT gets to run your health care, the costs of the lawsuits (that, GUARANTEED, will continue to happen) won't be passed on?
The entire arguments on costs AND services are well and good on paper, but as Chad points out, it's the experience. It's not going to wash with Americans - when they wait for weeks on end, the "solution" that lies north of our borders IS NOT the solution when anyone can see that we Americans can take something like that and increase the costs faster than you can blink.
Susie Angelface will be on the nightly news for weeks on end with an eyepatch from her Lasik gone wrong and the hundreds or maybe thousands of dollars from the "settlement" (like she'd get from the "solution" being touted) are gonna make her the poster girl for government hosing "the little people".
-
I don't think this has to be an all or nothing thing. The U.S. system sucks. BAD. It's awful. But it's not like we have to have either ours or Canada's system. I think Canada's system, as it is, is better than ours. It certainly is statistically.
That said, I think it's stupid that Canada outlaws a parallel private healthcare system. They are the only nation, of all the many industrialized nations with socialized healthcare that does this. I don't think that people with money should be denied the ability to go above and beyond what's provided by the state, just like a person in the U.S. can hire private security guards to supplement the police.
But with that said, Canada's healthcare system, as is, is better at preventing death from preventable causes than the U.S. And it costs WAY LESS. They don't just pay less in healthcare costs than us. They pay LESS THAN HALF what we pay. And for their money they get statistically better healthcare. Chad can b1tch to high heaven about how sucky the system was, but it works on paper. People are recovering better and more often. They are living longer. If nothing else, the waits clearly aren't killing them. And frankly, other countries do it a lot better than Canada. Many of them pay far less and get significantly better access and have better mortality stats without such long waits.
My point isn't about which system we should have, my point is about how badly our system sucks, how much we pay for it, and what can we borrow to make it better. I suspect that in many situations our system is much better for people who have access. Mortality stats are probably skewed in America because they take the population as a whole into account instead of only the population who has access to basic healthcare. People who actually have decent insurance might actually get superior healthcare to the average Canadian, but that isn't shown well in statistics that include the lower middle class and below, who don't have any access aside from ER.
I think a hybrid system would be best. A system that has universal coverage, like Canada in many respects, but one that still has private supplemental insurance and copays (sharing time-of-service costs would reduce frivolous use).
I don't think Canada's system is the model for the world. I just don't think it sucks nearly to the extent that ours does (and costs far far far less).
-
If Canada gets a two tiered system I'll be one of the first in line. I'd like to send the family to emerg for that fractured collarbone, but when cancer comes a-callin I'd like to pony up and have whatever it is cut out tomorrow, as opposed to waiting till it spreads to the four corners.
-
One of the problems with insurance based systems is that you only get the full benefits if you are able to keep up premium payments throughout your entire life. For example suppose you had a heart attack 5 years ago but made a good recovery. You then unexpectedly lose your job and find you have a choice between paying your medical insurance premiums or putting food on the table. Most people would stop paying the premiums.
The problem is that when you eventually get another job and find you can take out medical insurance again the insurance company will take account of your past medical history, and because you've had a heart attack the company will regard you as a high risk. So they will either charge you a cripplingly high premium or they will refuse to cover you for any heart-realted conditions. Either way you're screwed.
Basically the people who are most in need of medical insurance are the people who are least able to afford it.
-
I think they changed that, as long as you keep up premiums. As long as you were covered when the event occured, you are covered. There is no pre-existing conditions anymore. I had cancer and had to have cat scans all the time, still do from time to time, and it's not a preexisting condtion.
I don't know anybody that has health insurance outside their employer unless it's medicare. I know that when I checked, it was $500 + a month. Cobra extension off this company's insurance is $729 a month. Very expensive. I don't know who can afford that.
Shmokes makes a good point about the Canadian system, they don't allow private doctors. Now England does. Anybody from the UK that can weigh in?
Our system has problems, but I don't think it sucks. I still don't know how much the Canadian system costs. Overall, they pay more for taxes so it's really hard to tell. But if you factor in the premiums we pay, well, it might be equal.
Where are the stats and who made them that the Canadian healthcare system is better?
-
A couple are:
World Health Organization (http://www3.who.int/whosis/menu.cfm)
and
Nation Master (http://www.nationmaster.com)
-
I don't know anybody that has health insurance outside their employer unless it's medicare. I know that when I checked, it was $500 + a month. Cobra extension off this company's insurance is $729 a month. Very expensive. I don't know who can afford that.
I have insurance outside my employer, have for several years. That is changing at the start of September, though, as I'm finally going with a company plan. I have been an independent contractor during this period, paying fully out of pocket for medical care for myself and my family. The numbers you are quoting would only cover an individual. I have been paying roughly $1250/month for quality family coverage since about 2002.
-
In the Netherlands we have sort of a two tier system right now. You are government insured (people with lower income) or privately insured (higher incomes). It will change back to a single social plan soon. I haven't looked into the specifics, but I can't see how that's gonna improve things.
We had long waitinglists, but they are largely brought down by showing people which hospitals don't have waitinglists (or a shorter one) for their treatment.
What I usually don't like about when the government does something is that it costs them a huge amount more than it does when private companies take care of it. For instance I run a small company and because of that I was forced to participate in a government insurance plan for when I would be unable to work due to disease or injury (sorry don't know the english term for it). Their plan cost me twice as much as when I was privately insured for the same before and the government plan offered less coverage so that I had to pay extra to get it back up to specs!
-
We had long waitinglists, but they are largely brought down by showing people which hospitals don't have waitinglists (or a shorter one) for their treatment.
This falls down where I grew up. There was only one hospital. To get to another you had to drive several hours.
For instance I run a small company and because of that I was forced to participate in a government insurance plan for when I would be unable to work due to disease or injury (sorry don't know the english term for it).
Disability insurance.
-
Wow, $1250 a month? Wow.
Shmokes, I don't see where those links are conclusive at all.
-
Wow, $1250 a month? Wow.
Yep. We make pretty heavy usage of it, too. No hesitation to call a doctor, see a specialist, bring the kids to the pediatrician for any reason. Hell, I will have an MRI on my back tomorrow morning to verify the healing process for the disc I injured.
-
We had long waitinglists, but they are largely brought down by showing people which hospitals don't have waitinglists (or a shorter one) for their treatment.
This falls down where I grew up.
-
I would assume that the majority of people live in (or near) cities and would thus have access to several hospitals (I have at least 35 hospitals within half an hour driving). Actually even if it does take a long drive, people will do that if their condition bothers them really (or they will choose to wait, but then it's their choice).
That's not really how Canada is populated. It always seemed that there are just as many people spread thinly about the extreme suburbs as there are in the major cities. It's a BIG place with a LOT of open space.
-
I don't know what you're smoking Fredster. I just clicked on the WHO link. it gives the following for life expectancy:
(Year born/Years lived)
United States
2000/76.8
2001/77.0
2002/77.3
2003/77.0
Canada
2000/79.1
2001/79.3
2002/79.8
2003/80.0
And for healthy life expectancy:
United States
2000/67.4
2001/67.6
2002/69.3
Canada
2000/69.7
2001/69.9
2002/72.0
-
That has a lot more to do with lifestyle than medical care. Canadians are lower stress and Canada doesn't have nearly the obesity numbers that Americans have. They don't have the sheer volume of car related deaths that Americans have either.
-
That may be so. It's neither here nor there. It's only two numbers and there are many that can only be usefully explained by quality of healthcare. I bring them up specifically (again) only because I can't tell where Fredster is getting his information.
-
I can relate personal experience on this one too... hell, where I grew up, most of the people were like 75+ years old. They did nothing, just sat around or drove a beat up pickup to someone else's house to sit around. It sure wasn't medical care keeping them alive since most of them hadn't seen a doctor in decades.
-
If only the world knew about you Chad. We could do away with think tanks and all sorts of research facilities. It's an incredible waste.
-
Yes, we could slip completely into a world of total abstraction. No one would have to leave the house, we could learn about the world via studies on websites. I mean, what is the point of going outside, anything worth experiencing is on the web.
Anyone old enough to fully remember life before the Net will tell you that real life experience is worth far more than reading the same info in a book.
-
Except when you make sweeping generalizations about an entire country based on your relatively narrow personal experiences. Next you'll tell us that Britney Spears isn't popular because not a single one of your friends likes her music. The statistics are based on personal experiences. They are just based on millions of personal experiences, rather than just ChadTower's.
-
For what it's worth, by the way, I spent about five years after moving away from home with no health insurance. And growing up dirt poor my parent's did have insurance through my dad's work, but there was a $2000 deductible so my parents all but refused to take us to the doctor. Many years we never even satisfied the deductible. My healthcare sucked growing up, and it sucked even worse when I left home.
There. I win. I have now proven conclusively that the U.S. healthcare system sucks. My methods should meet with full approval of ChadTower, as I have now used personal experience, rather than scientific research, to gleen basic truths about an enormous nationwide system.
::)
-
because I can't tell where Fredster is getting his information
From your data. Look at nationmaster. It looks like Canada is better in some respects, but not in all. There's more to the story than stats man. 37.5% of all stats are made up on the spot.
There are more factors to the story than just these stats. I read editorials both ways.
I hear the same things from Canadians that Chad is talking about. People in the UK are also dis-satisfied. However, I hear a lot of good things from Austrailians. Now do I talk to lots of them? No, but I do talk to a few.
So I'm open to the idea. I think it's sad that people are working way longer than they have to in order to protect themselves from health risks. My Uncle was 57, decided to retire early. He has a triple by pass. No insurance. It wiped him out. He was into $110 g of hospital bills. He lost his house, had to declare bankruptcy.
That's not right. I could go into personal stories about how HMO's screw hospitals too. It works both ways. I just don't know how the American public and the AMA would react to this. It would fundamentally change the price structure of Doctors.
Bush's approach hasn't been very effective. I agree that we should take a look at the lawsuits. That's a big price driver here (that taken from the opinion of 3 doctors that are personal friends of mine). One retired and said that he brough in $0.7 mil a year, but couldn't pay for his insurance and nurses from that. He barely cleared $80K. Not good for a doctor. Accountants make that.
So I have yet to endorse any move in that direction yet.
my parents all but refused to take us to the doctor
That explains a lot about you man.
-
my parents all but refused to take us to the doctor
That explains a lot about you man.
My inlaws are the same way. My wife's brothers had some real medical problems that often went untreated until they were practically terminal. I remember her youngest brother, who has bad asthma to begin with, getting brochitis. They let him lie on the couch until it was pneumonia. Then he started vomiting phlegm because there was too much of it in his lungs. Then he started turning ghost white. When they finally brought him into the ER, one of his lungs had collapsed and the other was hours away from collapsing. I think he was like 12. And these are people WITH insurance.
Some people just won't go to the doctor. Unfortunately, they also won't take their kids.
-
my parents all but refused to take us to the doctor
That explains a lot about you man.
For example?
-
The pez collection! No one who has been properly medicated would have that type of pez dispenser collection. :)
-
From your data. Look at nationmaster.
No help. I went to Nationmaster's homepage. Longest living is right there on the list of top graphs on the left-hand side of the page (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_lif_exp_at_bir_tot_pop)
It says Canadians (#12 on the list) live 80.1 years and Americans (#46 on the list) live 77.71 years.
I'm not, by any means, saying that this one statistic shuts the book on the matter. I'm just suggesting that you revisit the data as it appears you may have misread it. It overwhelmingly points in Canada's favor. I suspect that U.S. hospitals and doctors are truly top-notch, but that our statistics get pulled down overall by all the people with no access to our top-notch services. So even if Canada's hospitals are inferior, their overall stats are better because they give everyone access to them, and access to mediocre healthcare healthier than no healthcare at all.
But for what we spend in tax money on healthcare for the poor to go to the ER and have medicaid and medicare, we could provide basic coverage to every single citizen in the nation. Our system is inefficient and wasteful. And switching to a socialized system like this DOES NOT preclude us from having a parallel private system. We are already wasting spending the money. Why not spend it right to get more from it?
-
The pez collection! No one who has been properly medicated would have that type of pez dispenser collection. :)
Hmm...I have purchased fewer since I got health insurance...
-
I suspect that U.S. hospitals and doctors are truly top-notch, but that our statistics get pulled down overall by all the people with no access to our top-notch services. So even if Canada's hospitals are inferior, their overall stats are better because they give everyone access to them, and access to mediocre healthcare healthier than no healthcare at all.
I see where the data points to some factors being superior. But it's not a comprehensive study by any means.
Medicade and medicare patients in the US might be getting the shaft. My Mom was on Medicare and I had a tough time finding a doctor for her in her later years. They didn't want to take her, they had "enough medicare" patients.
You make a point that needs to be explored, even if Canada's hospitals are inferior,
Why are they inferior? Natural American Superiority? Are they inferior because they are now limited on profit making potential? Have they turned from a thriving business into the freaking post office?
Can I choose a doctor or is one assigned? Can he be sued for mistakes? How do I know if he's competent? What happens when I need care in the middle of the night for a blown appendix?
What if the doctor won't do a procedure? Will there be a doctor?
Will people abuse the system if they can suddenly have "free" and unlimited healthcare? Will students turn away from being doctors because there is no profit motive now?
Lots more than just money IMO. Lots more than some Stats.
-
Why are they inferior?
-
Natural American Superiority?
You're ---smurfing--- hilarious, Fredster. Seriously, that's about the goofiest thing I've ever seen on these boards.
-
The doctors are of inferior quality, usually, not because they are not American but because all of the best doctors migrate to the US where they are paid 3x what they are paid in Canada.
That sounds like a massive differential to me. Have you got any statistics to back that up or are you simply relying once again on your own personal experience?
-
Our system has problems, but I don't think it sucks. I still don't know how much the Canadian system costs. Overall, they pay more for taxes so it's really hard to tell. But if you factor in the premiums we pay, well, it might be equal.
To recap (stats previously in thread) ... in the US, you pay more to the private sector for health care AND you pay more to the government for health care.
Cheers.
-
If Canada gets a two tiered system I'll be one of the first in line. I'd like to send the family to emerg for that fractured collarbone, but when cancer comes a-callin I'd like to pony up and have whatever it is cut out tomorrow, as opposed to waiting till it spreads to the four corners.
We already have a two-tiered system ... of sorts.
There are plenty of situations where there are public and private healthcare practitioners offering the same services. I know ... been out of pocket pretty deep to jump some big lines.
Since we already have some precendent, it is just silly not to have private health care for some of the big issues. Well, in fact we do -- it's called the United States Of America -- we just can't buy insurance to fund it ... yet.
PS -- agree 100% with you, in case that was in doubt.
Cheers.
-
That sounds like a massive differential to me. Have you got any statistics to back that up or are you simply relying once again on your own personal experience?
Why start quoting studies now?
-
Why start quoting studies now?
I do admire your consistency!
;)
Cheers.