American health care crisis

[Jay]

The private sector is lobbying like crazy to get the Canada Health Act scrapped and for jurisdiction to be re-assigned to the provinces-- divide and conquer.

So now we see who really invaded the health system....it wasn't the capitalist pigs after all, it was the other pigs.


So the BNA was written with divide and conquer in mind?

The idea is that it is provincial jurisdiction and it is up to the provinces to decide how they run their healthcare....in Ontario's case I'm very willing to bet we would see a blended system, as opposed to a completely provincial run system.

After screwing up this federally run system, they now want a shot a daycare! :lol:

 

[Toro]

Wow Toro, we arn't even on the list?

We're somewhere on the list Sassy, but below America.

Its not on because people often don't pay attention to Canada. Unfortunately.

 

[thecdn]

However, how many people do you know living in America look to Canada as the solution?

Not too many because (Oh no, he's going to say it again!), most Americans know very little about other countries systems and have been told from birth - "USA good, other countries bad."

Simplistic? Yes. But I could only wish it wasn't true in so many cases.

 

[pastafarian]

Sure, and then throw in the caveat "paid for with higher taxes" and you are comparable to "Elvis is still alive" numbers.

Again, Toro shows that pulling conclusion out of one's ass is not as reliable as reading :roll: .

Eighty percent (up from 71 percent in 1999) say it's more important to provide health care coverage for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes, than to hold down taxes but leave some people uncovered.

And congratualtions for showing that the most technologically-advanced country in the world is number one in at least one area of medical treatment. Check infant mortality, you'll find the US just below Cuba.

I think the US beats the Sudan in all areas of health care, if that helps your case... :roll:

 

[Jay]

http://www.onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/

Why the focus on Canada? Doesn't our health care system here in the U.S. have its share of problems?

The U.S. health care system is in desperate need of reform, however, the solution that some are proposing is a total government takeover of medicine inspired by the Canadian government-run health care system. Since most Americans know very little about medicine as practiced by our northern neighbor, our film is a warning to look before you leap. We think that many Americans would be surprised to know that Canada (like Cuba and North Korea) makes it illegal to purchase private healthcare for yourself or a loved one - and that the adoption of a so-called "single-payer" system would represent a major restriction of the freedoms that Americans now enjoy.


Doesn't Canada spend less than the U.S. while getting better access to health care?

Officially, Canada spends less on health care than the U.S. However, costs are controlled by arbitrarily limiting the number and availability of doctors, specialists, operating room hours, high-tech equipment, diagnostic tests, drugs and expensive treatments. In short, the government limits the supply of health care in order to hold costs down. The result: shortages, rationing, and long wait lists.



I haven't seen the movie part yet...

 

[Toro]

Pasta

You are offering vague generalities.

Do the math.

The GDP of the US is $13 trillion. Healthcare accounts for about 15% of GDP, or roughly $2 trillion. A little less than half of medical spending is provided for by the government. Canada's government spends about 75% on healthcare. So that's about $500 billion in new taxes you'd have to assess on the American people, or about $2000 per person each year. So if you're a family of four, then your taxes are going to go up $8000. Even if you make the incorrect assumption that medical spending would fall to the levels of GDP in Canada, that's still $6000 in taxes.

If you think that would fly in America, you're dreaming.

Also, to understand why there will not be universal healthcare in the US, read your own link

Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.

That's why there will be no change. When the chips are down, the insured are very happy with their coverage. And there are a lot more insured than uninsured.

 

[Curiosity]

Pasta

Things seem to go flying over your head and you are not open the possibilities I see for the health care in the U.S.A.

Perhaps you believe the U.S. population should not only spread money around the world to the nations in neglect and suffering, and ignore their own people? Then you again start criticizing the U.S. Health Care system such as it is? Which is it? Bad global provider of funding and assistance or bad health care provider?

Pick one - the American people have had to.

Privatization to you seems to represent one doctor charging exhorbitant fees to a limited number of "deeply insured" or "cash customers" right?

I see large groups of "chosen" as opposed to HMO or PPO medical suppliers giving choice, giving good bargain for the services because the like services would all be utilizing much of the same hospital and rehab services, centered in a local facility negating travel times between. Medical centers set up for total family care - from birth to death and in between - with sharing of equipment and facilities and staffing rotating along with teaching schools. These could be a 24/7 operating basis for testing especially. Do you know how much testing equipment sits idle on weekends alone?

Many office visits don't even require the need to be seen by a doctor - especially follow up care or changing dressings or taking temp, BP, PulseOx discussing symptoms. PNA or Doctor's Assistants can do these without supervision. Medical people are noteworthy very bad planners economically, and they need some advisors to plan medical communities for large centers, not in competition with each other but working in tandem to give the best for the buck.

The bankruptcy situation is fact as one of the major causes of families especially being hit with improbable medical costs - often a chronic unexpected or catastrophic one-time event - with no medical plan in place. Bankruptcy is not a regular feature for many families - even with health care problems. It is a last resort. It does not define the health care situation here. Much of the medical debt is never paid - ever. Impossible to do so.

These would be negated if everyone paid into a medical plan of their choice either through payroll deduction or contribution through companies set up for collection purposes - whatever. These could be based similarly to the situation of the individual and can be adjusted as more children are added to a family, or retirement takes place. Of 300 million people, if 50 million were unable to contribute the funding would be considerable and appropriate for the needs of the country.

It has to start somewhere but the U.S. dollar keeps being spent on other countries in the global network - countries who do need help and as I said the U.S. people and the government are generous to a fault, but the problem here is the needs of the people paying the taxes are not being met satisfactorily.

If the medical situation can meet expectations and relief for some families, whoever dreams up the vision will have won a permanent place in the hearts of the people.

Remaining in place the keystone of all of this: choice - of doctor - of treatment - of cost (with variable options) - and time.

I forgot one more thing:

That the plans for the people of the U.S. are the same ones which government officials and employees avail themselves of. Choice is also release of information by all these centers so we know where weaknesses and needs lie.

Government having special medical plans is to be terminated immediately. Exempt from this would be active military who have their own special medical plans until retirement or if chronically ill or handicapped - until death.

I won't go on Pasta because you seem to prefer sarcasm and negativity to ideas which you will not entertain.

 

[pastafarian]

Ah, Toro, finally a real argument from your side!

Let me look into your numbers and I'll get back to you.

About the stats you cite. You're right, it's strange. I did notice that and wondered why the low evaluation by repondents of the health care system in general when the satistifaction people registered with their own health care is high. I don't know.

 

[darkbeaver]

You're confusing Government with the corporate pigs who have infiltrated it.

I wasn't aware there was a seperation of powers in Canada. I've never been confused about the distinction. I've always seen them as one entity.

You are saying private health care is inevitable in Canada and I agree if there is no attempt to stop it. The most obvious way to start is to invest in the public system and fix all the problems so private care is not continuously invoked as the only alterantive.

Yelling about corporate pigs is not going to solve any problems.

I agree with what you say, the problem and the solution have been evident for years, the private sector has constantly advocated for a two tiered system, once the foots in the door it's only a matter of time before they own it.
Yelling about the godamn thieving lying corporate pigs is the only way to address the problem because they are the damn problem.
If you see the government and the corporations as the same thing then you have missed the boat, democracy was supposed to
prevent the asendency of religion or business or martial or any other special interest group above the commonwealth of the citizen, once any of these interests gains the upper hand then the people suffer, the wall between public and private must be strenghtened and maintained, corporations do not serve the public interests in any way shape or form.

 

[Curiosity]

TheCdn

I don't get it?

If you hate it - why do you stay and put up with it?

You need a warmer climate? Bermuda, Australia, NZ, Cuba, plenty of warm climes. You should be happy, not living in a place you hate.

I don't hate everything about it, just certain things that get to me and I speak up about. If I still lived in Canada I'm sure I'd find something to complain about. Who lives in a paradise where nothing is wrong?

This reminds me of being over on army.ca. A site largely for current and former members of the armed forces with a very pronounced right wing bias. I think at least 4 people there said I should leave the US if I hated it so much. Of course they were much more belligerent about it and not as nice as you...

If I can find a programming job in my language of expertise/experience I'd strongly consider going back but I until then I'll just stay here walking around in shorts, tshirt and bare feet in January wondering what that white stuff falling from the sky on the news is

PS If anything I'd want a cooler more moderate climate. Last week we hit 90 a couple of times with more of the same next week. Soon to start 4 or 5 months of high humidity hell here.....

The Cdn -thanks for the explanation

You just seemed to find life miserable whereas I thought Florida was a nice place to live. Forgot about the humidity though.

I enjoy California but there are some things which make me shake too - but weighed against the options - I prefer my status quo. We have horrible forest fires almost every summer here and the air quality is enough to choke a camel....but there are so many wonderful things to enjoy.

If you are just naturally a grizzler - I can appreciate that - it is just I wouldn't want anyone to spend their time in a place they hated... life is way too short.... if you were in the military you know how valuable life is.

Between you and me I would love to have moved to Australia or New Zealand because I believe their more simple way of life and honest open friendliness seems to be what I would enjoy most - but the travel was too far from my Canadian families. I have met people from both "down under nations" and have become good friends with them. But I plopped down here, enjoy my work and my friends and it's close enough to "get away" to other places if the mood strikes.

Always greener pastures..... none of my business sounds like you are on an HMO or PPO with the "generic" kind of thingy.... what rot eh? I went over some of these Plans which they hit the senior people in my community with every year....enough to make you want to say to heck with it...party and drink yourself to death or spend your retirement fund in Vegas hahaha.... (that's what the seniors say anyway - I love their feisty spirits).

Just please find some place to enjoy yourself....nobody should sentence themselves to living in a spot they really don't love most of the time....

 

[Jay]

http://www.ccac-accc.ca/news.asp?frontpage=473

Were he still living in Ottawa, he'd be out of luck -- unless he wanted to dig very deep into his own pockets.

What he needs is Avastin. It's the world's first anti-angiogenic cancer treatment that works by inhibiting blood flow to tumours, causing them to become dormant or shrink.


Unlike chemotherapy, which affects all cells in the body, Avastin targets tumours directly and works best when used in combination with chemotherapy.

It was approved last fall by Health Canada for use in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, but most provinces have decided against funding Avastin. While British Columbia is making it available on a case-by-case basis, Ontario is among those refusing to shell out. Quebec is undecided, but two Montreal hospitals provide it to patients.

SYSTEM 'NOT FAIR'

"It's not fair, the system is not looking after us after paying so much into it for so many years. This is the first time we've ever really gotten into any major sickness and the government of Ontario has rejected the financing of this drug."

 

[Jay]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1085676420292_81085620/?hub=Health

TORONTO -- Ontario's health minister appeared to run afoul of his political masters Thursday when an apparent bid by George Smitherman to reinstate provincial funding for sex-change procedures was abruptly shot down by his own government.
Smitherman had reportedly been working for months to restore Ontario Health Insurance Plan coverage for sex changes in cases where an individual has been diagnosed with a gender identity disorder.

But news of the plan had barely seen the light of day Thursday before senior Liberal insiders were saying it wouldn't happen.
"Reinstating sex-change operations was not in the provincial budget introduced last week," said one Liberal insider.
"It is not one of our health-care priorities, and therefore there is no plan to reinstate funding for those procedures at this time."
An Osprey News report based on an interview with Smitherman said the minister had officials in the ministry working on reinstatement of the coverage, cut by the Conservatives in 1998.

But the optics of restoring the funding on the heels of a budget that delisted eye exams,chiropractic services and physiotherapy, were clearly unpalatable to senior Liberals in Premier Dalton McGuinty's office.

They system is a joke defended by "ideologues".

 

[thecdn]

I've heard that Kalifornia has much less humidity than Florida but I've never been there. It sure looks pretty on tv though. And everyone is so beautiful

I've always been cynical towards the american health care system but lately we've become more cynical about things in general. Having issues with some of the neighbours, we are the wrong colour - white. And we can't afford to move because of the boom in housing costs. We couldn't afford to buy our own house today.

The job is great and the kids are happy so that's the main thing. If we were that unhappy we'd move back. I guess I'm just the embodiment of the old saying, "A soldiers not happy unless he's bitching about something."

 

[Curiosity]

TheCdn

Well I'm relieved you just like grizzlin 'n bitchin....that's what keeps soldiers alive - you have just kept the habit going.

California is fine - but it also has huge problems and if I had a young family I would not want public education here at all.
I would have private (expensive) schooling or home schooling (not by me).....

There is great scenery and not sure if all the people are beautiful because not sure if you are looking at the same kind of beauty I am... I find the Basque people and the Japanese people who are embedded in many hills around wine country near the coast are absolutely stunning in their blending in with the scenery....the Italians who I think have been here long before Columbus showed up....are terrific....so many Asians....and Latinos.....and Blacks have found a good life here....but it has become pricey as has Florida.

Best to sit tight and keep an eye on things as they fluctuate in price....farther up the east coast there are some surprising cheaper costs of living but I am more terrified of hurricanes you get in the east - even more than the earthquakes and fires in the west.

I have just spent the last few years buying houses and fixing them up and reselling them at a good profit.... if you hold them for two years a single person can appreciate $250,000 and a couple $500,000. without penalties. It has helped me plan my future a bit. I think with kids you have to take much more into consideration and if your family are happy where they are....you've got a big battle won.... bad neighbors are bad news.

 

[jimmoyer]

Good thread.

But every such thread such as this one, first has to put the
other guy down, battle his statements. And that's good.
We gotta get all the crap out of the way.

Once the dust settles, and we're not fighting, even
the proponents of their system know there are
problems.

I don't know of one Western First World Democracy:

1. NOT feeling the financial pain of their health system.

2. that there's a ballon payment coming up

3. that the party is about to end

4. that the demographics of aging populations are throwing a monkey wrench into it

5. that as our economies mature, inevitably health
care comes as a bigger expenditure than food, clothing.

6. that there are always inevitable inequities

7. Taking care of the problem of malpractice lawsuits
while allowing some justice to victims

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: American health care crisis

Ah, Toro, finally a real argument from your side!

Let me look into your numbers and I'll get back to you.

About the stats you cite. You're right, it's strange. I did notice that and wondered why the low evaluation by repondents of the health care system in general when the satistifaction people registered with their own health care is high. I don't know.

Now what I'm arguing is not that the system is perfect. Its not. HMOs are generally disliked almost as much as people dislike their cable companies! There are all sorts of problems with the US healthcare. Its just that when you knuckle down and get to the brass taxes, Americans wouldn't accept a universal healthcare system.

Americans are different than Canadians. There's a different mentallity down here. Whereas in Canada people don't trust corporations to deliver healthcare, in America, people don't trust the government to do so. The argument I often hear is if the government can't deliver the mail, how can you trust them to deliver your health services? (This is sort of ironic because I think the post office is pretty good.)

Having said that, you are going to see the government get more involved. The Pharmaceutical bill, despite its flaws, is an example. The population is aging, and people are going to demand more. There's going to be more retired people, and retired people vote.

Oddly, I occassionally engage in this discussion with my hardcore Republican friends with me taking the opposite side. I pose the argument that if the government is charged with protecting everyone from crime through the police and from foreign aggression through the armed forces, why isn't the government charged with protecting everyone from disease? What does it matter if you are killed by a terrorist or cancer? Dead is dead is dead. And more people will die prematurely from medical reasons than crime or acts of war.

That's a simplistic argument, but I think we here in America should pay more in taxes to increase government funding for medical services to the poor, which they already do to some extent. I just don't think a universal single-payer model is the way to go.

 

[thecdn]

Re: RE: American health care crisis

The argument I often hear is if the government can't deliver the mail, how can you trust them to deliver your health services? (This is sort of ironic because I think the post office is pretty good.)

I've never heard that phrase. But I would laugh at it as well because the mail delivery down here is outstanding compared to Canada.

Six day a week delivery/pickup at your house. Two days to get a normal letter from South Carolina to Kentucky. I couldn't get a letter across Calgary in two days. And they don't threaten to go on strike every Christmas.

 

[Toro]

RE: American health care

Absolutely thecdn.

But its even better in England. Maybe Blackleaf can correct me but when I lived there, mail was delivered twice a day and picked up four times a day, and that was second class mail. First class mail was delivered 6 times a day, and the post office gauranteed 98% delivery in one day anywhere in Britain. Heck, I once dropped off a resume in London, and got the rejection the very next day. I was impressed. That's almost as fast as the rejection I got from women in the bar!

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: American health care

We could feed the old to the poor, presto problems fixed, what's a good age to recycle the old through the system? I mean if they get to ripe they start to loose protien. I think this could be a cost effective solution.

 

[jimmoyer]

Darkbeaver gravitates towards the Soylent Green
solution, slowly but surely...

Behold the slow slide...