Summer said:
And I've been there and done that also, and I know what I am talking about. Perhaps Ohio should catch up to New York then in that area?
Americanization of health care in Canada
- Thread starter Karlin
- Start date
And I've been there and done that also, and I know what I am talking about. Perhaps Ohio should catch up to New York then in that area?
I think not said:
I had that problem in both New York AND Ohio, not to mention that I've had friends in the same situation across the country, including some who are in it right now as we speak. Perhaps you don't know everything you think you know?
Which part of been there done that didn't you grasp Summer? Maybe you think you had exhausted all avenues and yet you didn't? Can you be more specific about what happened?
RE: Americanization of he
I exhasted them all, ITN. Perhaps you should explain what avenue you had open to you and how you availed yourself of it, instead.
I will outline for you the following examples, two of them my own at different times and places:
Person A, working a combined total of 45-50 hours a week at two part-time jobs, getting insurance at neither, making too much for any governmental insurance program, yet earning too little to afford private insurance.
Person B, in same basic situation as Person A, only with the addition of a prior health problem that pushed the insurance rates even higher and thus even further out of reach - but for whom no government-sponsored program existed.
Person C, same boat again as Person A, only with a minor child as well. There was coverage available for the child, but not for her, and her ex-husband was a dead-beat dad who'd totally disappeared and paid none of his court-ordered child support.
Person D, employed by a company that did not offer health insurance benefits (was in a niche that did not require them to provide it) and making just enough to not qualify for any gov't. health program but not quite enough to afford private health coverage.
Person E, supporting herself and her unemployed parents on a job that kept her schedule just two hours shy of the 40 per week level at which the company would have been required to provide health coverage. The household income was (her paycheck and her parent's unemployment checks) too high for anyone to qualify for gov't. health coverage, but again there was not quite enough money for private coverage. COBRA coverage from her father's old job (her mom had not received coverage from her employer) cost more per month than the family income, and would not have covered the employed daughter in any case as she was over 19 and not a full-time student anywhere.
Person F, unemployed, unable to afford COBRA, but ineligible for any gov't. health program because of past income history being too high.
It happens every day.
I exhasted them all, ITN. Perhaps you should explain what avenue you had open to you and how you availed yourself of it, instead.
I will outline for you the following examples, two of them my own at different times and places:
Person A, working a combined total of 45-50 hours a week at two part-time jobs, getting insurance at neither, making too much for any governmental insurance program, yet earning too little to afford private insurance.
Person B, in same basic situation as Person A, only with the addition of a prior health problem that pushed the insurance rates even higher and thus even further out of reach - but for whom no government-sponsored program existed.
Person C, same boat again as Person A, only with a minor child as well. There was coverage available for the child, but not for her, and her ex-husband was a dead-beat dad who'd totally disappeared and paid none of his court-ordered child support.
Person D, employed by a company that did not offer health insurance benefits (was in a niche that did not require them to provide it) and making just enough to not qualify for any gov't. health program but not quite enough to afford private health coverage.
Person E, supporting herself and her unemployed parents on a job that kept her schedule just two hours shy of the 40 per week level at which the company would have been required to provide health coverage. The household income was (her paycheck and her parent's unemployment checks) too high for anyone to qualify for gov't. health coverage, but again there was not quite enough money for private coverage. COBRA coverage from her father's old job (her mom had not received coverage from her employer) cost more per month than the family income, and would not have covered the employed daughter in any case as she was over 19 and not a full-time student anywhere.
Person F, unemployed, unable to afford COBRA, but ineligible for any gov't. health program because of past income history being too high.
It happens every day.
Re: RE: Americanization of he
This is where I lose you and I asked for more details, details meaning figures, not names of people.
I currently know someone with a family of 4 earns around $40,000 a year, costs him $350 a month for himself and wife and his kids cost him I think $15 a month each or thereabouts.
My situation put me in a bracket under poverty lines years ago, but I assume you speak of middle class such as the example above?
I don't doubt people are uninsured because they can't afford it, however a great many others simply don't make it a priority, but I suspect you know that already.
Bottom line in my opinion you simply cannot compare Canadian health care system with the US, they are vastly different in nature.
Summer said:
This is where I lose you and I asked for more details, details meaning figures, not names of people.
I currently know someone with a family of 4 earns around $40,000 a year, costs him $350 a month for himself and wife and his kids cost him I think $15 a month each or thereabouts.
My situation put me in a bracket under poverty lines years ago, but I assume you speak of middle class such as the example above?
I don't doubt people are uninsured because they can't afford it, however a great many others simply don't make it a priority, but I suspect you know that already.
Bottom line in my opinion you simply cannot compare Canadian health care system with the US, they are vastly different in nature.
I really don't see a difference in the care provided to my US or Canadian patients, so I think the systems are comparable. It's just the funding that's different.
My insurance plan is only about $80 a month (changed in January). I'm young, healthy, single with no dependents and have no pre-existing conditions. The coverage has a high deductible ($3500 a year) and sort of spotty coverage (no coverage for meds, pregnancy, etc), but at least if I'm in a car accident I won't be left with hundreds of thousands of bills. Health insurance doesn't have to be excessively expensive if all you want is bare bone coverage.
My insurance plan is only about $80 a month (changed in January). I'm young, healthy, single with no dependents and have no pre-existing conditions. The coverage has a high deductible ($3500 a year) and sort of spotty coverage (no coverage for meds, pregnancy, etc), but at least if I'm in a car accident I won't be left with hundreds of thousands of bills. Health insurance doesn't have to be excessively expensive if all you want is bare bone coverage.
Re: RE: Americanization of he
Sorry, but not everyone I know gives me all the minute details of their personal income, ITN, nor do I feel it necessary that I share the personal details of mine with you or anyone else. Suffice it to say that these incomes were above the threshold at which the government would have provided health insurance, but were not high enough to allow those earning them to purchase private health insurance after paying for housing, groceries, utilities and transportation to get to work. And yes, I am talking about people who are at least ostensibly middle-class.
Also, I think that some of our misunderstanding here is because you may be confused about what I mean by "PRIVATE insurance". Private insurance, for purposes of this discussion, is insurance that the individual pays for out of his/her own pocket with no input from an employer. "Employer-sponsored insurance" on the other hand is group insurance provided via one's employer and at a reduced rate to the insured that reflects both the group status of the coverage (group health insurance is cheaper due to risk factors and how they are calculated) and the fact that the employer generally foots at least a portion of the premium, with the remainder being paid by the insured employee.
A person who does not receive employer-sponsored health coverage and who is not eligible for government coverage may seek private individual or family coverage, but it will be at a higher rate than what most people pay for the coverage offered via an employer. Your friend earning $40k a year and paying $350 for family coverage (an unusually low rate for that these days, btw) is almost certainly getting that coverage via his employer. That same coverage independently obtained would likely cost at least twice as much, if not more. Given that, I should think it would be easy to see how a person or family without access to employer-sponsored health insurance could find themselves in that economic no-man's-land between being able to afford to buy their coverage independently and being eligible for gov't. coverage.
Many people simply cannot afford coverage. Some could afford it and don't buy it because it isn't a priority, but that's neither here nor there for purposes of this discussion (the morons we will always have with us) but even if it were, there's certainly no call to penalize their spouses or children for the idiocy of the head of household in any case.
I think not said:
Sorry, but not everyone I know gives me all the minute details of their personal income, ITN, nor do I feel it necessary that I share the personal details of mine with you or anyone else. Suffice it to say that these incomes were above the threshold at which the government would have provided health insurance, but were not high enough to allow those earning them to purchase private health insurance after paying for housing, groceries, utilities and transportation to get to work. And yes, I am talking about people who are at least ostensibly middle-class.
Also, I think that some of our misunderstanding here is because you may be confused about what I mean by "PRIVATE insurance". Private insurance, for purposes of this discussion, is insurance that the individual pays for out of his/her own pocket with no input from an employer. "Employer-sponsored insurance" on the other hand is group insurance provided via one's employer and at a reduced rate to the insured that reflects both the group status of the coverage (group health insurance is cheaper due to risk factors and how they are calculated) and the fact that the employer generally foots at least a portion of the premium, with the remainder being paid by the insured employee.
A person who does not receive employer-sponsored health coverage and who is not eligible for government coverage may seek private individual or family coverage, but it will be at a higher rate than what most people pay for the coverage offered via an employer. Your friend earning $40k a year and paying $350 for family coverage (an unusually low rate for that these days, btw) is almost certainly getting that coverage via his employer. That same coverage independently obtained would likely cost at least twice as much, if not more. Given that, I should think it would be easy to see how a person or family without access to employer-sponsored health insurance could find themselves in that economic no-man's-land between being able to afford to buy their coverage independently and being eligible for gov't. coverage.
Many people simply cannot afford coverage. Some could afford it and don't buy it because it isn't a priority, but that's neither here nor there for purposes of this discussion (the morons we will always have with us) but even if it were, there's certainly no call to penalize their spouses or children for the idiocy of the head of household in any case.
Figures are the issue Summer, disclosing Person A's income can be virtually anyone, I hardly think you are divulging anyone's personal finances.
I'm going to call my friend and ask him for exact numbers and I'll get back to you how and where he gets his insurance.
I'm going to call my friend and ask him for exact numbers and I'll get back to you how and where he gets his insurance.
Re: RE: Americanization of health care in Canada
True, but a $3500 deductible can be an insurmountable obstacle for many people. If coverage doesn't kick in until after you've already paid out $3500 from your own pocket, the insurance is basically useless unless you already have an extra $3500 in your pocket to spend in the first place. The only case in which it would come into play would be some catastrophic situation in which you land in the hospital or something and the bill mounts up past $3500 from the get-go and the insurance picks up the tab for the rest and you get a bill later from the hospital for your $3500 portion. But if you're using it to pay for things like doctor visits, etc. (and especially if no meds are covered), and you don't have the money to pay for those visits out of pocket until the $3500 deductible has been met, you simply will wind up never using the coverage.
Most people don't realize it, but that's actually part of why insurance companies offer such policies... they know full well that they will make money from the premiums paid in, but that many people will never actually use a dime of their coverage in an average year. So the only one to really benefit from this equation in most cases is the insurance company. That isn't health-care delivery; that's just legalized racketeering.
tracy said:
True, but a $3500 deductible can be an insurmountable obstacle for many people. If coverage doesn't kick in until after you've already paid out $3500 from your own pocket, the insurance is basically useless unless you already have an extra $3500 in your pocket to spend in the first place. The only case in which it would come into play would be some catastrophic situation in which you land in the hospital or something and the bill mounts up past $3500 from the get-go and the insurance picks up the tab for the rest and you get a bill later from the hospital for your $3500 portion. But if you're using it to pay for things like doctor visits, etc. (and especially if no meds are covered), and you don't have the money to pay for those visits out of pocket until the $3500 deductible has been met, you simply will wind up never using the coverage.
Most people don't realize it, but that's actually part of why insurance companies offer such policies... they know full well that they will make money from the premiums paid in, but that many people will never actually use a dime of their coverage in an average year. So the only one to really benefit from this equation in most cases is the insurance company. That isn't health-care delivery; that's just legalized racketeering.
ok, i know i am going to get slammed for saying this, but in reality $3500 is pocket change in today's world. heck, $10000 is chump change in today's world.
RE: Americanization of he
ITN, the actual numbers don't matter, especially as these examples range over two decades' time and the lines for who qualifies for what have shifted during that span, as have the buying power of a dollar AND the cost of insurance premiums.
The whole point is that insurance not sponsored by an employer is prohibitively expensive for many people and their families, and that there is a far-too-large grey area in which people find themselves without access to health insurance.
Not only that, but even people who get coverage through their employers can have problems that don't occur with a Canadian style system. When you change jobs, you usually wind up having a change in insurance as well, to the new employer's plan. Quite often, there is a period of anywhere from 3 months to 6 months with the new employer where a new hire is not eligible for coverage under the employer's plan, and the only option is to purchase coverage independently, with the prohibitive cost this entails. Now, one can hope that the new job pays enough to allow for that, but often this is not the case. In addition, even if coverage can be afforded, there is the issue of preexisting conditions. If you wind up having to change jobs in the middle of your spouse's chemotherapy, guess what's not going to be covered under your independent insurance OR your new employer's plan? Ditto for your son's diabetic care, your daughter's scoliosis, or your own thyroid condition.
This sort of "gapping" doesn't occur with Canadian-style healthcare provision.
ITN, the actual numbers don't matter, especially as these examples range over two decades' time and the lines for who qualifies for what have shifted during that span, as have the buying power of a dollar AND the cost of insurance premiums.
The whole point is that insurance not sponsored by an employer is prohibitively expensive for many people and their families, and that there is a far-too-large grey area in which people find themselves without access to health insurance.
Not only that, but even people who get coverage through their employers can have problems that don't occur with a Canadian style system. When you change jobs, you usually wind up having a change in insurance as well, to the new employer's plan. Quite often, there is a period of anywhere from 3 months to 6 months with the new employer where a new hire is not eligible for coverage under the employer's plan, and the only option is to purchase coverage independently, with the prohibitive cost this entails. Now, one can hope that the new job pays enough to allow for that, but often this is not the case. In addition, even if coverage can be afforded, there is the issue of preexisting conditions. If you wind up having to change jobs in the middle of your spouse's chemotherapy, guess what's not going to be covered under your independent insurance OR your new employer's plan? Ditto for your son's diabetic care, your daughter's scoliosis, or your own thyroid condition.
This sort of "gapping" doesn't occur with Canadian-style healthcare provision.
Re: RE: Americanization of health care in Canada
It ain't pocket change when you don't have it and that lack is what keeps you from being able to seek medical treatment for yourself or your spouse or child.
the caracal kid said:
It ain't pocket change when you don't have it and that lack is what keeps you from being able to seek medical treatment for yourself or your spouse or child.
Re: RE: Americanization of health care in Canada
Maybe in your world, there are many that consider $3,500 an enormous amount of money.
Divide that figure by the minimum wage, you have to work 4 months to earn that money, before taxes.
Yep, you just got slammed :wink:
the caracal kid said:
Maybe in your world, there are many that consider $3,500 an enormous amount of money.
Divide that figure by the minimum wage, you have to work 4 months to earn that money, before taxes.
Yep, you just got slammed :wink:
glad i could bring you two together.
it does not change the fact that $3500 is a pittance these days. Perhaps what you speak of says more about what is considered the poverty line in north america?
it does not change the fact that $3500 is a pittance these days. Perhaps what you speak of says more about what is considered the poverty line in north america?
Summer, we can both go back and forth on this health care issue forever, the fact of the matter is, both systems need a serious overhaul. There is no such thing as a perfect system. The funding vehicle may be different but that is not where it ends.
I hear my own set of stories from the great white north, everybody has a story to tell. Government sponsored care in Canada is equal to our very own medicaid, sorry but thats the way I see it.
I hear my own set of stories from the great white north, everybody has a story to tell. Government sponsored care in Canada is equal to our very own medicaid, sorry but thats the way I see it.
Re: RE: Americanization of health care in Canada
Actually I never knew what a caracal was till I saw you kid Beautiful animal btw.
$3,500 is a pittance when it comes to spending, not earning.
the caracal kid said:
Actually I never knew what a caracal was till I saw you kid
Beautiful animal btw.$3,500 is a pittance when it comes to spending, not earning.
Re: RE: Americanization of health care in Canada
Not really, CK. $3500 would be considered a lot of money by many people who live nowhere near the poverty line, on BOTH sides of the border.
the caracal kid said:
Not really, CK. $3500 would be considered a lot of money by many people who live nowhere near the poverty line, on BOTH sides of the border.
thats my point. the poverty line is actually artificially low. poverty hits well before you get to the poverty line. this is why the gap in services hits that you and ITN were discussing. The governments use the poverty line numbers to make assistance decisions while earning double the poverty level can still leave people broke. I really do not know how anybody gets by on less than $80000 in a major CA city (and that is as a single person).