New Bush Health plan same as Harpers Mentor/Advisor...

Freethinker

Electoral Member
Jan 18, 2006
315
0
16
The new Bush plan for health care is centred around health care savings accounts. You put money away to help with your own health care:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/CSM/story?id=1546506

Health savings accounts

Health savings accounts are tax-free accounts that individuals or businesses can set up at banks or credit unions, in conjunction with the purchase of high-deductible, so-called catastrophic health insurance. Individuals can now contribute as much as $2,600, and families as much as $5,150 each year. Bush is expected to propose increasing these limits. The accounts are to be used for routine medical expenses, such as checkups and pharmaceutical costs. The insurance is there as a backup in case of a health emergency.


Interestingly enough, this is also a pet plan of Tom Flanagan, Stephen Harpers mentor/confidant/strategist:

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/article.pl?sid=05/05/09/2119243

Lined up against him are those true believers who have long made up the Reform and Alliance faithful – not to mention Flanagan himself. He has never blanched at owning up to his most contentious beliefs: scrapping medicare in favour of personal medical savings accounts – a policy adopted by some U.S. corporations

The parallels just keep coming.
 

Gerald24

New Member
Jan 29, 2006
34
0
6
Red Earth Creek
Do you Think your Health care is actually free, I have to laugh at Canadians who mock other Countries or I guess the USA for there health care. The Canadians say ( The Government pays for our Health care ) well last time i looked at my 48% of my paycheck going there it was us the people who are the Government. I guess it fools us into believing that it is free.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
There is a difference between paying the Government to pay for services, and paying for services out of your own pocket — those who are unable to pay into any sort of Government revenue still have access to medical services.
 

Freethinker

Electoral Member
Jan 18, 2006
315
0
16
Gerald24 said:
Do you Think your Health care is actually free, I have to laugh at Canadians who mock other Countries or I guess the USA for there health care. The Canadians say ( The Government pays for our Health care ) well last time i looked at my 48% of my paycheck going there it was us the people who are the Government. I guess it fools us into believing that it is free.

Man I wish I was in your tax bracket, 48% taxes just for health care???

The move to private health care accounts is just another way of saying poor people don't get medical care.

The extreme conservative agenda seems to be if you are poor or happen to develop a chronic disease; tough luck and it hurts to be you.

What do you suggest people with disabilities do? Off themselves so you can have a nicer car?

There are dozens of variations on this Ghandi quote:
"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."

I like this Warren Buffet variation:

"Let's say that it was 24 hours before you were born, and a genie appeared and said, 'What I'm going to do is let you set the rules of the society into which you will be born. You can set the economic rules and the social rules, and whatever rules you set will apply during your lifetime and your children's lifetimes.' And you'll say, 'Well, that's nice, but what's the catch?' And the genie says, 'Here's the catch. You don't know if you're going to be born rich or poor, white or black, male or female, able-bodied or infirm, intelligent or retarded.'
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Freethinker said:
The move to private health care accounts is just another way of saying poor people don't get medical care.

The extreme conservative agenda seems to be if you are poor or happen to develop a chronic disease; tough luck and it hurts to be you.

What do you suggest people with disabilities do? Off themselves so you can have a nicer car?


You really believe that?
 

Freethinker

Electoral Member
Jan 18, 2006
315
0
16
RE: New Bush Health plan

Which part?

That if you move to personal health care accounts instead of medicare, the poor are screwed? Absolutely. Most working poor can barely tread water and often rely on credit cards to get them to the next check. They are not going to have any money to put in a "Personal Medical savings account".

The next part was an observation of some extreme neocons who seem to advocate a society with no safety net. Do I believe there are those here who advocate getting rid of or gutting to the point of uselessnes , the social safety net? Yes I believe there are some here with that view.

The last part was a question of what the most vulnerable should do without the safety net? Not a statement.
 

pastafarian

Electoral Member
Oct 25, 2005
541
0
16
in the belly of the mouse
As is his habit when confronted with an argument he cannot counter, Jay posted:

You really believe that?

I'll take the leap of logic and guess that if someone potsts something, it means that they believe it.

I'll put a better better question to you Jay: what makes you think it is not true?
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
"I'll take the leap of logic and guess that if someone potsts something, it means that they believe it."

Sometimes people say things they don't really believe just to spite their opposition...


What makes me think it isn't true is I have never met a Canadian who advocates letting poor people die in the streets because they can't afford healthcare.
 

sanch

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2005
647
0
16
Re: RE: New Bush Health plan

Freethinker said:
Which part?

That if you move to personal health care accounts instead of medicare, the poor are screwed? Absolutely. Most working poor can barely tread water and often rely on credit cards to get them to the next check. They are not going to have any money to put in a "Personal Medical savings account".

The next part was an observation of some extreme neocons who seem to advocate a society with no safety net. Do I believe there are those here who advocate getting rid of or gutting to the point of uselessnes , the social safety net? Yes I believe there are some here with that view.

The last part was a question of what the most vulnerable should do without the safety net? Not a statement.


The poor are eligible for Medicaid. It's not a great system as first you have to use up all your resources to cover medical costs and then you are eligible. You have to remember in the US the rich are very reliant on poor workers for a variety of services which involve human contact. Flus, colds and other contagious illnesses do not respect class bounderies and if you have sick workers then you could easily get sick. Even the neocons understand this.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidEligibility/
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
They're discussing this on CBC radio right now....
 

nomore

Electoral Member
Jan 5, 2006
109
0
16
LOL, oh my god you guys are hilarious. If you guys really think that anyone is planning on scrapping the entire public healthcare system, you guys have some serious problems with conspiracys.

First off the left wing walrus article you posted is all based on speculation, not facts. Not to mention it was written before the cons even had their platform layed out.

Second off, no elected official has proposed making a U.S style healthcare system in Canada, it is a very unique system in the world, and not many countries actually model their system like it, even though every other industrialized nation in the world offers some sort of parallel private healthcare system. Why can you guys not understand that no-one wants a U.S healthcare system!Canada is the last industrialized nation in the world to disallow, by law, private care that is already covered by the public system. Our healthcare system is dated, and actually mimmics communist systems, it is not sustainable....
we need to get with the times. All the other countries have seen the light(except Cuba, and North Korea), and it works, so why does the Canadian Government continue to infringe on our rights by denying us services? mostly because people are not properly informed of the real facts....the first thing that comes to their minds when they hear private healthcare, is the U.S, even though no-one wants that system, and no-one is even proposing that system.

Get over it, and enough with your scare tactics, even though that seems to be the Liberal way these days.
 

Freethinker

Electoral Member
Jan 18, 2006
315
0
16
Re: RE: New Bush Health plan same as Harpers Mentor/Advisor.

Jay said:
What makes me think it isn't true is I have never met a Canadian who advocates letting poor people die in the streets because they can't afford healthcare.

Well Flanagan (Harpers Mentor and chief strategist) is an advocate of scrapping medicare and replacing it with private health care accounts. Under such a system there would be large numbers of people with no coverage. What were they discussing on CBC? I was at work and missed it.

nomore said:
LOL, oh my god you guys are hilarious. If you guys really think that anyone is planning on scrapping the entire public healthcare system, you guys have some serious problems with conspiracys.

First off the left wing walrus article you posted is all based on speculation, not facts. Not to mention it was written before the cons even had their platform layed out.

Get over it, and enough with your scare tactics, even though that seems to be the Liberal way these days.

I was just pointing out the parallels between GOP and Harper chief strategist Flanagan. Marci McDonald is a highly respected journalist and no Liberal partisan, she was the person who blew the lid of Paul Martins Steam Ship lines controversy. If there are any inaccuracies, Flanagan could sue for libel.
 

pastafarian

Electoral Member
Oct 25, 2005
541
0
16
in the belly of the mouse
What private healthcare advocates who think we're going to get a better system don't realize or don't care about is encyclopedic, but a few of the relevant points are as follows:

1. No one who knows what's going on cares about private service delivery, since at least 40% of the services nationally are already delivered by private companies who bill through the public system. The issue is public insurance (single-payer) vs private insurance.

2. This is an issue because we will have to accept the American system. Why not the Beligian system, for example? Because we're not bound to Beligian firms by NAFTA, that's why. In particular, non-US or non-Mexican firms cannot launch Chapter 11 challenges to any subsidies or state-supported adminstrative bodies to force the government to allow their private insurance companies and their associated HMO's to administer our health care. So, we will have to allow American (or Mexican) firms in first, ensuring that we get a US-style system.

The US system is far less efficient than the US sytem and the outcomes are worse. Common sense dictates that most doctors will seek to work in the system that can't legislate against extra-billing and price-fixing , so that the public system will suffer.

Will we end up with 10% of our population withoput ANY coverage at all? I don't know, but it's pretty cold to want to risk it for no good reason, especially since the majority of the US uninsured are children.

Will healthcare payments become the leading cause of bankruptcies in the Canada as they are in the US?

The problems with the system that make the drooling uber-capitalists say we NEED a parallel system were caused by 12 years of Martin budgets stiffing the provinces on trabsfer payments to fund autographed golf balls, fill the black hole of HRDC, corporate tax cuts and the Gun Rip-offery.

Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater to get an expensive, profit-driven system, let's keep our single-payer system, cancel the GST cuts and put more money into recruiting, hiring from overseas and training doctors.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Re: RE: New Bush Health plan same as Harpers Mentor/Advisor.

pastafarian said:
2. This is an issue because we will have to accept the American system. Why not the Beligian system, for example? Because we're not bound to Beligian firms by NAFTA, that's why. In particular, non-US or non-Mexican firms cannot launch Chapter 11 challenges to any subsidies or state-supported adminstrative bodies to force the government to allow their private insurance companies and their associated HMO's to administer our health care. So, we will have to allow American (or Mexican) firms in first, ensuring that we get a US-style system.

Wouldn't this affect something like the Liberals daycare proposals too?
 

sanch

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2005
647
0
16
Will we end up with 10% of our population withoput ANY coverage at all? I don't know, but it's pretty cold to want to risk it for no good reason, especially since the majority of the US uninsured are children.

Just a note of clarification. The majority of non-insured children are not in the poverty group. For 1996 there were 7.2 million non-insured, “non poor” children and 3.4 million non insured poor children. There are two very different problems here. For the non poor group the parents for any number of reasons have decided not to get health insurance. The government has determined they have the resources to do so and so they are not eligible for Medicaid. The poor children are not covered even though they are eligible for Medicaid. So technically they are covered. The problem here is that while eligibility for children is about $38,000 household income in some states the cut off point is $10,000 for adults. There might be confusion about coverage or adults who are not eligible do not get their children covered.

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr981.pdf

The US health care system does have advantages for certain people. I have great coverage. But as a whole it is not a system that should be emulated. Even if one takes away a lot of the hyperbole used to demonize the system it still has a lot of very recognizable problems. Why would any country want to copy what is essentially a mess?

I would agree that Canada should stick with a public health model. It’s something Canada can easily afford if the resources and priorities are allocated properly. And a great public system will ward off all the talk of creating a private alternative.

I think the health care system was Thatcherized under Mulroney. Then it was never built back up again when the Liberals returned to power. It has to be maintained to work properly.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
The biggest issue with the US health care is its spiraling costs, $1.9 trillion per year, more than half of that spent by federal and state governments.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
I'm still wondering why it is the loudest proponents to "free healthcare" are frick'n teachers and auto manufacturer employees making 75K a year.
 

pastafarian

Electoral Member
Oct 25, 2005
541
0
16
in the belly of the mouse
Wouldn't this affect something like the Liberals daycare proposals too?

Absolutely, Jay.

I depends on how eager US firms are to enter the private daycare market here, and whether they could make the case to the WTO that a universal public system (which doesn't exist yet in this province, I dunno if Quebec's system qualifies) threatens their profitability.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Thanks Pasta.

I don't think the Quebec system qualifies...it seems to depend on the start up date.

I suppose my question is why would the liberals propose something that is going to be under the same challenges from Chapter 11?

Does this prove the Liberals plan was garbage, or does it explain why they didn't fulfill their promises on this...I don't get it.

I think there are reasons to not buy into the Chapter 11 arguments…..but I'm still trying to sort this out.
 

nomore

Electoral Member
Jan 5, 2006
109
0
16
Re: RE: New Bush Health plan same as Harpers Mentor/Advisor.

pastafarian said:
1. No one who knows what's going on cares about private service delivery, since at least 40% of the services nationally are already delivered by private companies who bill through the public system. The issue is public insurance (single-payer) vs private insurance.
exactly, and no-one is advocating eliminating public insurance.

pastafarian said:
2. This is an issue because we will have to accept the American system. Why not the Beligian system, for example? Because we're not bound to Beligian firms by NAFTA, that's why. In particular, non-US or non-Mexican firms cannot launch Chapter 11 challenges to any subsidies or state-supported adminstrative bodies to force the government to allow their private insurance companies and their associated HMO's to administer our health care. So, we will have to allow American (or Mexican) firms in first, ensuring that we get a US-style system.

I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion, because the structure of the system, has nothing to do with who offers the services. U.S companies can offer it, Canadian companies can offer it, Mexican...who cares, because they would all still be bound by the rules and regulations set out by OUR system, and OUR system would not be anything like the U.S

pastafarian said:
The US system is far less efficient than the US sytem and the outcomes are worse. Common sense dictates that most doctors will seek to work in the system that can't legislate against extra-billing and price-fixing , so that the public system will suffer.

I'm not sure how the U.S system can be less efficient than itself. :lol:

But I will assume, you ment the U.S system is less efficent than Canada's. This I will totaly agree with. That is exactly why no-one is proposing a U.S style system!

pastafarian said:
Will we end up with 10% of our population withoput ANY coverage at all? I don't know, but it's pretty cold to want to risk it for no good reason, especially since the majority of the US uninsured are children.

I do know. and the answer is NO. A parallel system would keep the fully funded public system in operation. All the paralell system would do is give people the proper rights afforded to them under a free market society, and allow them to seek private care if they want it. All it does is give people choice.

Socialists are always the first to scream when a right or freedom is taken away, and yet they have completely hypocritical views when it comes to this. I just don't understand it. Either you want freedom or you don't.

pastafarian said:
Will healthcare payments become the leading cause of bankruptcies in the Canada as they are in the US?

No, see above. If you don't want to pay, go to the public system. However if you feel like paying for private insurance, then you should be allowed that right. Many many people pay car insurance costs, and they have the right to get their car fixed at a location of their choosing in the event of an accident. So why should someone's car get better treatment than their health?

pastafarian said:
The problems with the system that make the drooling uber-capitalists say we NEED a parallel system were caused by 12 years of Martin budgets stiffing the provinces on trabsfer payments to fund autographed golf balls, fill the black hole of HRDC, corporate tax cuts and the Gun Rip-offery.

That is only one reason, there are several others, including quality of care, loss of talented doctors to other countries, the fact that the fully funded public system is not sustainable, etc.