$40 billion for Booze, cigarette, and drug addicts?

[Curiosity]

You actually think the government do not access health information about individuals? What world do you live in?


Medical assistance paid by the government is not necessarily in hospitals alone...medical assistance exists in mental institutions, jails, when visitors from other countries are injured, homeless centers, addiction withdrawal centers, foster care homes, old age facilities...when indigents are in a fight and are seriously hurt - none of those bills are ever paid - except by what the hospitals can demand from the government purse - which is paid by the people.

The ERs and Urgent Care facilities are used to the maximum by people who have no health coverage - and they are not turned away.

It isn't just Mexican babies - that doesn't even come close to the total number of non-paid cases just in California alone.

I don't know what kind of health insurance you have but I repeat my husband had a Glioblastoma Stage IV - you can imagine the staggering cost of diagnoses issues alone and until it was determined to be terminal, heroic and costly measures were implemented daily.

We didn't have exceptional insurance either because being young we weren't expected to up our coverage until down the line.

I received no bills. I receive no benefits through my job because I am self-employed and contribute to my own health insurance coverage - a fee I am pleased to pay. My husband had regular coverage through his employer and the V.A. - his portion was deducted at payroll. I pay mine quarterly.

I guess everyone has different coverage - and we are all right or all wrong - whatever.

Disallowing anyone from health care be it in Canada or the U.S. is a bad concept of what health care is. The care and feeding of the people of a nation regardless of what the disease and/or cause is determined...should be the primary goal of every government however it is paid for.

 

[Curiosity]

Re the question of instant citizensship

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2005/April/other/border_baby.xml

CBP Border Patrol agents deliver baby girl
On February 27, 2005 Border Patrol Agents delivered a baby girl in the back of a Border Patrol sport utility vehicle in the parking lot of the Freer, Tex. Border Patrol station. Two anonymous good Samaritans had earlier called the station to advise that a pregnant woman was in distress on the side of the road near the border city of Laredo, Tex.

Agents responded to the call and found a pregnant 27-year-old Mexican woman who had crossed illegally into the United States. The woman, who was seven months pregnant, told agents that she had crossed the border with two men led by a smuggler. She had been walking for five or six days. The smuggler abandoned her when she became too exhausted to keep up with the rest of the group.
In the throws of labor and in severe pain, the agents transported the woman to the Freer station where Senior Border Patrol Agent Marisol Cantu tried to calm the woman down. It soon became clear that the there was no time to transport the woman to the hospital.
A border baby is born
Agent Cantu, a member of the Border Patrol Border Area Rescue Team (BART) and a trained emergency medical technician (EMT) recognized that the baby was crowning and caught the baby as she emerged from the birth canal. Agent Jerry L. Doyal, a former hospital corpsman in the Navy, pinched the umbilical cord with his fingers and gave the mother oxygen until an ambulance arrived. "I've never seen anyone that far along stranded in the desert," said Agent Doyal. Agent Jerry Cabriales, who is also a trained EMT, assisted in the delivery. The premature baby girl weighed less than two pounds and was named Sarai Marisol in honor of Agent Cantu. Mother and baby were both transported to a Corpus Christi hospital.

The baby is an American citizen because she was born on U.S. soil. However, it is uncertain whether mother and baby will stay in the U.S. or return to Mexico. While this story is heartwarming and highlights the rescue and EMT skills of Border Patrol agents, for many it also raises a controversial issue.

Our youngest citizens
Many pregnant women who live near Mexican border communities, or who migrate to border areas from the Mexican interior, wait until they begin labor and then cross legally into the United States using a border crossing card or “laser visa.” But instead of shopping, these women are crossing the border to deliver their babies. There are even clinics on the United States side that advertise in Mexico that they deliver babies, obtain birth certificates, passports, and associated paperwork for a set fee. The only hard and fast rule is that immigrants must be able to pay. There is evidence that this practice is not limited to areas near the Mexican border. In fact, thousands of pregnant South Korean women travel to the U.S. on tourist visas to give birth and obtain U.S. citizenship for their child—which for a male child is a means for avoiding the Korean military draft.


An industry has developed around this practice with travel agents specializing in “birth tours” and clinics providing post-natal care which includes transportation services. For those seeking entry into this country it is a small price to pay for legal entry and social service benefits that accrue with citizenship. Even if the child returns to the mother’s home country, at 21 years of age, he/she can sponsor other family members for immigration into the United States.


Rules for citizenship
Baby Sarai’s citizenship and the citizenship of the more than 200,000 babies born to illegal immigrants in this country is as a result of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads in part, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."


Immigration policy pundits have long debated the interpretation of this clause and whether it should convey citizenship to anchor babies, so called because they act like an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and potentially other family members into permanent U. S. residency.


America follows the English common law rule of “right of soil.” Under this rule citizenship is determined by one’s place of birth. Anyone born in the United States or its territories (like Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Guam), are American citizens regardless of their parents’ citizenship status. The boundaries that determine citizenship are not complex. Those born within U.S. ports and harbors or within 12 nautical miles of U.S. borders are also American citizens. Even babies born on planes flying over the United States or its territories receive U.S. citizenship. The ship or plane’s country of origin makes no difference regarding citizenship.


The price of citizenship
Regardless of whether they come as tourists or cross the desert with a smuggler, delivering a child in the United States is the ultimate benefit. Families view citizenship as a gift that they can bestow on their children, opening avenues of education, employment, and an entrée into our way of life. The debate over whether these babies should be citizens will rage on but the important lesson to be derived is that many foreigners see great value in that which we may take for granted—United States citizenship. LK

 

[Jay]

Those born within U.S. ports and harbors or within 12 nautical miles of U.S. borders are also American citizens.

OMG...that means we don't need to worry about a larg portion of Windsor anymore!

 

[#juan]

many foreigners see great value in that which we may take for granted—United States citizenship. LK

Gee. And many of those same proud citizens wear Canadian maple Leaves on their lapels while abroad.

 

[Jay]

That's because they know Canadians don't have any money....it keeps the muggers away.

 

[tracy]

You actually think the government do not access health information about individuals? What world do you live in?
.

The same one you do. Why do you think those laws were enacted? Why do you think it would be any different here or in Canada? And even if you do think the payer has access to all your information, why would it be preferable for that payer to be a private company? This fear is what lead to HIPAA in the US and it is a crazy complicated thing hospitals are serious about because hospitals (both in Canada and the US) need to maintain their acreditation and that includes being able to show how they enforce privacy laws. It isn't a small deal. Just last night we had to write up a lab person because she tubed us up some results. She should have hand delivered them because they might have been seen by someone who shouldn't see them. You can hear everyone chattering "HIPAA...blah...blah.. HIPAA".... Our computers all track where we go. God forbid you try to look up information for another nurse, cause if it isn't your patient, you don't need to know so that's a violation. It is excessive. So, no... I don't think other people are reading all about my health info all the time.

 

[tracy]

I don't know what kind of health insurance you have but I repeat my husband had a Glioblastoma Stage IV - you can imagine the staggering cost of diagnoses issues alone and until it was determined to be terminal, heroic and costly measures were implemented daily.

We didn't have exceptional insurance either because being young we weren't expected to up our coverage until down the line.

I received no bills. I receive no benefits through my job because I am self-employed and contribute to my own health insurance coverage - a fee I am pleased to pay. My husband had regular coverage through his employer and the V.A. - his portion was deducted at payroll. I pay mine quarterly.

I guess everyone has different coverage - and we are all right or all wrong - whatever.

I think that's pretty great coverage. I chose a higher deductible plan. My choice. I don't mean to point that out as a complaint, just had to add that many of us do in fact pay for our healthcare like we should. We don't qualify for any free care and we pay our bills on time and in full.

The VA system seems to be constantly criticized, but even there I've never heard of anyone refusing to go because they didn't want the government getting access to their health information.

I'm sorry that you had to go through this with your husband. I can't even imagine what that must have been like. I'm glad your insurance stepped up and the system worked like it should so that at least finances didn't need to be on your mind at that time. I know that the healthcare system could stand some changes (I'm talking about Canada and the US), but I truly believe that we are usually given the medical care we need and are lucky to get it regardless of how it's paid for (even if our lifestyles beforehand weren't perfect). I don't think I could go to work everyday if I felt otherwise.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: $40 billion for Booze

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, we need to concentrate more on preventative medicine and we need to keep private health care entirely out of this country.
Private health care and insurance are discraceful crime ridden activitys. Prescription drug abuse costs are only now beginning to be measured and the lost productivity associated with it promises to dwarf the traditionally abused tobacco and booze. Apparently our overworked doctors have been drugging the guts out of us for years, and the worst pushers in the world are drug salespeople and the big pharmaseutacle corporations they work for. Prescription drugs are also not properly researched tested thanks to deregulation and voluntary compliance, another example of corporate abuse.

Universal Healthcare or Death!

 

[Curiosity]

Tracy

But the government is getting the funding to pay for the medical care in Canada from the taxation of working people isn't it? You still pay for "free health care" - it is just collected differently? If not where does the money come from if not taxation?

This is the same method for people on payrolls all over the U.S. as well - they pay "medical" as a separate item, but it is all collected just as withholding is. Problem here is we have fewer people paying through payroll deduction because many of them are paid in cash and still use the system the rest of us are paying for.

The difference I see between Canada and the U.S. (and to me being as stubbornly independant as I am)...is important we can choose our providers, go to other specialists outside of our regular group...and generally muck around with who we wish to take care of us.

We can stay with our primary providers for prevention and the regular stuff.... and if we have something a bit more puzzling, or if we don't feel satisfied with the care we are getting, we are free to see a specialist to give another opinion.

I don't know how "free" Canadians are any more - it has been 19 years, but there were some restrictions even in the kind of care I could receive under the Canada plan and if I wanted more, I would have to pay for it myself.

Same as here....only some "extra" doctor or professional service can still be covered.

Prescriptions are pretty good - which is my primary concern because of my lungs. I get Advair and Combivent for $20 for a triple pack each. This is around a three month supply.

The testing on my husband was huge and that would have done some damage financially (or so I thought) but I didn't know about catastophic care and it was also covered. When they finally figured out what he had the Cancer Society also contacted me and of course the V.A.

 

[Said1]

The difference I see between Canada and the U.S. (and to me being as stubbornly independant as I am)...is important we can choose our providers, go to other specialists outside of our regular group...and generally muck around with who we wish to take care of us

We can chose our own providers and don't need referrals in all instances. I've also never had a physician (I've had 2) who's been stingy with the referrals either.

 

[tracy]

WC, I completely agree that our "free healthcare" isn't free. I actually point that out to people down here quite often. It is cheaper though any way you look at it.

The problem I have with payroll deductions for healthcare is that a lot of us aren't offered it. I wanted a change from my last hospital for a bit, so I took a travel job. I am technically only employed for 3 months at a time with each contract. Now, I'm never going to be out of a job and I can stay with them as long as I want (thank you nursing shortage!), but because I am a temporary worker the company doesn't offer me the option of buying health insurance through them. So, I have to buy my own plan. It works for me. Again, I'm not complaining about my plan. I'm young, single, pretty healthy and could afford that $4K. But, I can see how a lot of people couldn't do that or even afford the insurance in the first place, so I have a lot of sympathy for those families I look after who I know will never pay their bill. With a few bits of bad luck, that could be any one of us. I used to think something like that could never happen to me, but I've seen it happen to people just like me. I also see so much waste in the hospital that I don't feel sorry for people who complain about how much money we spend on healthcare.

As far as being free to see anyone you want in the US... well, that depends on your plan. Try doing that on medical. Try doing it with an HMO. I chose a PPO for that very reason. The HMO plan I had before would not pay if I wanted to see a provider out of their plan. They wouldn't even pay if I was hospitalized in a hospital not on their list. I never had that problem in Canada. Referals can be inconvenient, but they are easy to obtain and I think they are good at preventing waste (people seeing specialists they don't need to see). My PPO plan actually requires that I go through my primary doc before getting a referal as well. I don't have a problem with that.

 

[Colpy]

I think I was somewhat misunderstood in my original post.

I am dedicated to the idea of accesible health care for all. When I said I would rather pay for my own health care than have its existence used as an excuse to keep me on the "straight and narrow", I intended it to be a indication of how much I dislike social engineering by blackmail, NOT an indication I was not commited to our social safety net.

Phew!

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: $40 billion for Booze

You already pay for your health care through taxation, so I don't know what you mean about paying for your own. The advantage of universal healthcare is that it provides puchasing power of size and removes the profit motivation which you can't get involved in if you want affective affordable service. In a private plan the profit is what's serviced and protected and the patients needs are met only after the capitals requirments are met. So there is no way that a private healthcare system can efficiently look after healthcare of citizens when thier in the business of looking after stockholders first and foremost. So those people who support the privitization of health care in Canada are out of thier minds if they think it will provide better service. It won't unless you have lots of bucks to invest in the bizz. Fix the problems with medi-care and forget about private healthcare.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Private Care in Canada

I would be in favour of some sort of compromise, in terms of the relationship between private care and public care in Canada — en particulier, avec le règlement du Cour suprême du Québec. I think that private care would be an appropriate "side" to the public system, so long as there would be legislation with enough force to ensure that every citizen has timely care, and that people aren't abusing private care for the purpose of "jumping queues".

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: $40 billion for Booze

FiveP a two tiered system is the foot in the door that the privateers have long sought, once it gets its foot in the door
what makes you think it will stop untill it owns everything.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Preventing Private Takeovers

darkbeaver, I would suggest that we need to search for some sort of compromise, before rulings such as that made in the Supreme Court of Québec occur in the high courts of other Provinces of Canada¹ — or², though I would hope not, the Supreme Court of Canada. If ever the Canada Health Act were to be found in contravention of the Constitution Act, 1982, then public health care in Canada would be decimated.

I would suggest that in order to stop private health care, we have to accept that it does have a role to play — so long as citizens are getting the care they need, and they are not paying for private care out of their pockets.

:!: Revision : (1, 2) Corrected a typing error.

 

[Curiosity]

Re: RE: $40 billion for Booze, cigarette, and drug addicts?

WC, I completely agree that our "free healthcare" isn't free. I actually point that out to people down here quite often. It is cheaper though any way you look at it.

The problem I have with payroll deductions for healthcare is that a lot of us aren't offered it. I wanted a change from my last hospital for a bit, so I took a travel job. I am technically only employed for 3 months at a time with each contract. Now, I'm never going to be out of a job and I can stay with them as long as I want (thank you nursing shortage!), but because I am a temporary worker the company doesn't offer me the option of buying health insurance through them. So, I have to buy my own plan. It works for me. Again, I'm not complaining about my plan. I'm young, single, pretty healthy and could afford that $4K. But, I can see how a lot of people couldn't do that or even afford the insurance in the first place, so I have a lot of sympathy for those families I look after who I know will never pay their bill. With a few bits of bad luck, that could be any one of us. I used to think something like that could never happen to me, but I've seen it happen to people just like me. I also see so much waste in the hospital that I don't feel sorry for people who complain about how much money we spend on healthcare.

As far as being free to see anyone you want in the US... well, that depends on your plan. Try doing that on medical. Try doing it with an HMO. I chose a PPO for that very reason. The HMO plan I had before would not pay if I wanted to see a provider out of their plan. They wouldn't even pay if I was hospitalized in a hospital not on their list. I never had that problem in Canada. Referals can be inconvenient, but they are easy to obtain and I think they are good at preventing waste (people seeing specialists they don't need to see). My PPO plan actually requires that I go through my primary doc before getting a referal as well. I don't have a problem with that.

Tracy sorry - just saw your reply to me

I was just going to ask you if your plan was more expensive because you are not a long term employee. It does make a great deal of difference and I can see the point of many employers regarding investment. Some employees have to work six months or nine months before they begin to sign on for health and other benefits. There are plans which you can carry around but they are probably like yours - more expensive - but at least you have coverage until you settle into a long term position.

I was thinking of parents with children in terms of medical care - rather than a single gal who can pick and choose her jobs and in reality you are enjoying your profession in seeing other places in the world and tasting a bit of life ... can't blame you there!

Even some HMOs and PPOs will refer you to outside specialists not on their lists depending upon the diagnosis itself. I found two similar situations one in Canada and one in the U.S. with my sister who was in VGH with lymphocytic leukemia - and her medical team offered to fly her anywhere to get on a testing protocol either in Canada or the U.S. They even talked on the phone to my friend's husband who is an oncologyst to explain to me what they were trying to do and to find out if he had some trials going in S. California they could get her into. The same thing was offered my husband but he died before the team could get him transported. I often think much goes on in the background among doctors themselves in extreme cases where they throw the rules out the window...

Of course there are always the ones bound by the limitations of the health provider, but that is why I would rather work harder and longer or extra or whatever to ensure I have good medical care.

I think in many instances medical care for the poor and addicted and elderly are not given the best treatment whether we like to acknowledge the fact or not, but you probably realize the medical community are overwhelmed by need....whether we talk about it or not. Some doctors do streamline their practices to suit their preferences - but in my book who the hell would want that doctor?

As for referrals - my own doc is pretty much up on all kinds of stuff that I require, so I am fortunate in that area, but he is the first to say "I want so and so to have a look see".... and thus a referral is completed. I like his wife too - but she is more into the female part of regular check up stuff...which is a good mix in a doctor's group. If I hear of someone's work (which I was gleaning when my husband got this nasty thing)....I drove him crazy trying to get leads in the large Cancer Treatment Centers...I will ask...
trouble is you have to have a lengthy pre-treatment life-span - my husband had nine days before he presented ... not much time.

I wish people would concentrate more on being proactive in their health care and prevention - if they want to talk money and expense. We will however always have a large population to care for whether it comes out of our paycheck or pockets.

 

[tracy]

WC, my PPO does let me see anyone. That's the main reason I got it. The HMOs won't, that's how they claim to keep costs down. The PPO gives me a better rate when I see their doctors, but they will pay for me to see anyone I want. The discounted rate for my surgeon's appointment was $235 though, so I'd rather stay in the plan I was in a bit of a pickle when I changed jobs because I had just found out that I needed surgery. I considered getting a permanent job and the insurance that comes along with it, but like you said, I would have had to wait months to be covered and that's assuming it covered preexisting conditions. I figured it was better to wait 3 months and pay the $4K than to try to last 9 months and get it paid for with a better insurance plan, since the longer you wait the more likely you are to have complications and need the more severe surgery which would have required a 6 week break from work rather than one. It was just bad timing on my part and one of the few drawbacks of my job. In the grand scheme of things it isn't a huge deal for me. The good things about my job more than balance it out. If it had been something more serious like cancer, I would be on the first plane back to Canada because I couldn't afford that here.

OT, but I think it's great you ask your doc questions. Too many people won't. My own mother who is not even close to shy is too scared to ask questions of my father's doctor.

 

[fuzzylogix]

Re: RE: $40 billion for Booze

You already pay for your health care through taxation, so I don't know what you mean about paying for your own. The advantage of universal healthcare is that it provides puchasing power of size and removes the profit motivation which you can't get involved in if you want affective affordable service. In a private plan the profit is what's serviced and protected and the patients needs are met only after the capitals requirments are met. So there is no way that a private healthcare system can efficiently look after healthcare of citizens when thier in the business of looking after stockholders first and foremost. So those people who support the privitization of health care in Canada are out of thier minds if they think it will provide better service. It won't unless you have lots of bucks to invest in the bizz. Fix the problems with medi-care and forget about private healthcare.

Right on Beaver! I am absolutely amazed by people who go on and on about how inefficient a public health care system is and how they would get more from a private health care. As you say, private means a profit margin.

Health care costs and people have to accept that they either pay their insurance company, or they pay through taxes. I would rather pay for public NONPROFIT health care than pay for private health care, topping up the profit margin for the big CEOs.

Part of Canadas trouble with health care is the lack of workers in the system.. Twenty years ago, a government study looked at a graph of health care costs going up. The same graph showed the number of doctors going up. The study therefore in very FUZZY LOGIC said, "Therefore, doctors generate health care costs" so they cut back on the number of medical school positions. We are still struggling now to increase the number of physicians being graduated to fill retirement posts, especially with an ageing population needing more health care. And how many times have we seen nurses and lab workers laid off to fit a hospital's budget...and then a year later, the hospital is desperately short of workers. The reason in Ontario that many nurses are hitting the $100,000 list is because so many of them are doing double shifts.

Lets keep public health care, but let the government actually fund it. Instead of using it for corrupt practices or subs that sink, give me good health care. I PAY for health care all ready in my taxes. Stop the corruption of trying to get me to accept private health care. GIVE ME MY HEALTH CARE THAT I HAVE PAID FOR.
And stop blaming the health care workers as the cause of inefficiency that is wasting the money. It is the government corruption that has wasted the money.

 

[Said1]

Something like 40% of Ontarios budgetted expenditures are health care related and this is expected to increase. Pretty sad in light of services lost over the years.