Wait lists are a problem. Solving them by adopting a system as inept and brutal as the USA's is not the answer. In fact, we have much of the answer in the Romanow Report.
Blame Canada
- Thread starter peapod
- Start date
Re: RE: Blame Canada
The problem is we're not fixing the system here. The solution is not just to throw more money at it: the system is unsustainable. I have NEVER said we should adopt an American style system. There are plenty of other models out there, if you would look beyond the US border.
Every one of your "facts and figures" come from a comparison of our system with the US, as such they only support my assertion that we should look elsewhere.
Reverend Blair said:
The problem is we're not fixing the system here. The solution is not just to throw more money at it: the system is unsustainable. I have NEVER said we should adopt an American style system. There are plenty of other models out there, if you would look beyond the US border.
Every one of your "facts and figures" come from a comparison of our system with the US, as such they only support my assertion that we should look elsewhere.
We can fix the system here. The numbers show that keeping our system fully public and addressing the inefficiencies is cheaper than changing the system.
Well this is kinda more about nascar and pepper telling us how much better the us system is than canada's. Again its really about greenbacks to them $$$$$$$$. I think we can now say...bullshit!
That's not at all true, MMMike. They show that a public system is cheaper because it does not duplicate services, does not require a new layer of paper pushers, and does not suck people out of the public system and pull them into the private system, which puts upward pressure on wages for health care professionals.
A public system allows us to control costs. A private or two tier system takes that control away.
A public system allows us to control costs. A private or two tier system takes that control away.
No, I'm saying that our system can be the best in world, that it can done affordably and sustainably, and that those who want a private or two tier system have looked at nothing but reports from the Fraser Institute, who has said that they want to do away with public health care in Canada.
You are being played by a bunch of greedheads who do not have your best interests at heart, MMMikey.
Think about this logically for a second. Private or public, you are the one who will pay. Private means that there has to be insurance companies, who need to make a profit, and private providers, who need to make a profit. To get people to work for them, they will have to pay more money and offer better benefits than the public system. They will need the latest equipment to attract customers. To keep track of what's going on, they will need office staff. All of those things have costs.
Now according to you, a two tiered system will not hurt the public system. That means that the public system will have to match pay and benefit levels in the private system. The public system will either have to match equipment, or rent time on privately owned equipment. They will need more beauracracy to keep track of what is public and what is private, as well as somebody to make sure that private facilites are up to standards.
Since only those who cannot afford private care will be left in the public system, and they will not have any extra money to support the public system, you will pay for the extra costs in the public system with your taxes. In addition to that tax money, you will have to pay for private insurance.
So you will be paying more, and you'll bitch about that.
You are being played by a bunch of greedheads who do not have your best interests at heart, MMMikey.
Think about this logically for a second. Private or public, you are the one who will pay. Private means that there has to be insurance companies, who need to make a profit, and private providers, who need to make a profit. To get people to work for them, they will have to pay more money and offer better benefits than the public system. They will need the latest equipment to attract customers. To keep track of what's going on, they will need office staff. All of those things have costs.
Now according to you, a two tiered system will not hurt the public system. That means that the public system will have to match pay and benefit levels in the private system. The public system will either have to match equipment, or rent time on privately owned equipment. They will need more beauracracy to keep track of what is public and what is private, as well as somebody to make sure that private facilites are up to standards.
Since only those who cannot afford private care will be left in the public system, and they will not have any extra money to support the public system, you will pay for the extra costs in the public system with your taxes. In addition to that tax money, you will have to pay for private insurance.
So you will be paying more, and you'll bitch about that.
Rationalize all you want Rev... experience has shown that systems that allow a greater private involvement in health care delivery or payment have better health outcomes and better cost control than our beautiful socialist system here. It just comes down to ideology, admit it.
Think about it Mikey. For once in your life, just sit down and feckin' think. What's cheaper... paying directly, or paying a couple of middlemen to make a profit?
It's really that simple.
Compare costs per capita or costs per GDP. Look at the studies. It's cheaper to have a public system.
It's really that simple.
Compare costs per capita or costs per GDP. Look at the studies. It's cheaper to have a public system.
Re: RE: Blame Canada
You're ignoring the enormous drive of business to acheive efficiencies. We've gone through this before. If governments were more efficient because they eliminate middlemen and profit, why doesn't the feds start up a car company and put Ford, GM, Toyota etc... out of business. Anything the government does is riddled with inefficiency and incompetence. The system itself is broken. Hospitals have little incentive to do more procedures because they are an expense. High demand equipment sits idle because they can't afford to run them.
Reverend Blair said:
You're ignoring the enormous drive of business to acheive efficiencies. We've gone through this before. If governments were more efficient because they eliminate middlemen and profit, why doesn't the feds start up a car company and put Ford, GM, Toyota etc... out of business. Anything the government does is riddled with inefficiency and incompetence. The system itself is broken. Hospitals have little incentive to do more procedures because they are an expense. High demand equipment sits idle because they can't afford to run them.
I've worked in private enterprise, MMMikey. The "enormous drive of business to acheive efficiencies" is a myth. What business does is try to produce profits. Any savings they may generate through "efficiencies" is more than gobbled up by the profit margin.
Let's say that they bust the union so that support workerss get $8.00 bucks an hour instead of $12.00. That's considered an efficiency in business even though it has a negative impact on the local economy. Do you think that saving will be passed on to the consumer? Not bloody likely. What happens is that the managers who busted the unions all get raises for their brutal, quasi-legal tactics, and any left-overs go to feed the bottom line. The consumer sees none of it and may actually see a rise in costs because those profit margins always have to grow to keep the share prices up.
Let's say that they bust the union so that support workerss get $8.00 bucks an hour instead of $12.00. That's considered an efficiency in business even though it has a negative impact on the local economy. Do you think that saving will be passed on to the consumer? Not bloody likely. What happens is that the managers who busted the unions all get raises for their brutal, quasi-legal tactics, and any left-overs go to feed the bottom line. The consumer sees none of it and may actually see a rise in costs because those profit margins always have to grow to keep the share prices up.
Nascar_James said:
Only the poorest people can qualify for medicaid, you even said so yourself. Lower to middle clase people who can't afford insurance will be left without any kind of coverage.
quit fudging the truth nero.
Who are the uninsured?
Approximately 45 million Americans, or 15.6 percent of the population, were without health insurance coverage in 2003. The number of uninsured rose 1.4 million between 2002 and 2003.(1)
Nearly 82 million -- about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2002 or 2003 without health coverage.(1)
The percentage of people with employment-based health insurance dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 61 percent in 2004. This is the lowest level of employment-based insurance coverage in more than a decade.(2,3)
In 2003, 27 million workers were uninsured because not all businesses offer health benefits, not all workers qualify for coverage and many employees cannot afford their share of the health insurance premium.(4)
The number of uninsured children in 2003 was 8.4 million - or 11.4 percent of all children. (1)
Young adults (18-to-24 years old) remained the least likely of any age group to have health insurance in 2003 - 30.2 percent of this group did not have health insurance. (1) Based on three year average (2001-2003), people of Hispanic origin were the least likely to have health insurance. An average of 32.8 percent of Hispanics were without health insurance during that time. (1)
Why is the number of uninsured people increasing?
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
Who are the uninsured?
Approximately 45 million Americans, or 15.6 percent of the population, were without health insurance coverage in 2003. The number of uninsured rose 1.4 million between 2002 and 2003.(1)
Nearly 82 million -- about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2002 or 2003 without health coverage.(1)
The percentage of people with employment-based health insurance dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 61 percent in 2004. This is the lowest level of employment-based insurance coverage in more than a decade.(2,3)
In 2003, 27 million workers were uninsured because not all businesses offer health benefits, not all workers qualify for coverage and many employees cannot afford their share of the health insurance premium.(4)
The number of uninsured children in 2003 was 8.4 million - or 11.4 percent of all children. (1)
Young adults (18-to-24 years old) remained the least likely of any age group to have health insurance in 2003 - 30.2 percent of this group did not have health insurance. (1) Based on three year average (2001-2003), people of Hispanic origin were the least likely to have health insurance. An average of 32.8 percent of Hispanics were without health insurance during that time. (1)
Why is the number of uninsured people increasing?
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
uh huh...some more truths to nero's and pepper kids fudging :? :?
OC&PA: We’ve all seen our health care costs go up in the last couple of years. Why are we spending so much on health care?
GA: For me the answer is, “It’s the prices stupid.” The major reason why we spend so much more than other countries is not because we’re getting a lot more services. We’re not getting more services. In fact, we get fewer doctor visits and hospital days than most other industrialized countries. It’s not malpractice or an aging population.
The reason why we spend so much more money on health care in the United States than they do in other industrialized countries is because we spend 2 to 2.5 times more for the same services offered in other countries. This includes prescription drugs, doctor visits or a day in the hospital.
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/articles/2005/anderson_prices.html
OC&PA: We’ve all seen our health care costs go up in the last couple of years. Why are we spending so much on health care?
GA: For me the answer is, “It’s the prices stupid.” The major reason why we spend so much more than other countries is not because we’re getting a lot more services. We’re not getting more services. In fact, we get fewer doctor visits and hospital days than most other industrialized countries. It’s not malpractice or an aging population.
The reason why we spend so much more money on health care in the United States than they do in other industrialized countries is because we spend 2 to 2.5 times more for the same services offered in other countries. This includes prescription drugs, doctor visits or a day in the hospital.
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/articles/2005/anderson_prices.html
New York Times:
Congress Weighs Big Cuts to Medicaid and Medicare
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: October 30, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 - Congressional committees have proposed substantial cutbacks in Medicaid and Medicare, the nation's largest health insurance programs, which together cover more than one-fourth of all Americans.
Forum: The 109th Congress
The two houses of Congress are expected to approve the changes in the next two weeks as part of competing bills to slow the growth of federal spending. Negotiators from the two chambers would then try to work out the differences.
The House bill would take all of its savings from Medicaid, the program for low-income people, while leaving Medicare, the program for those 65 and older and the disabled, untouched, as the Bush administration wants. By contrast, the Senate bill would squeeze savings from both programs.
Under the House bill, states would gain sweeping authority to charge premiums, increase co-payments and trim benefits for Medicaid recipients, so benefit packages would look more like the private insurance provided by employers.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that these changes would save the federal government more than $4 billion in the next five years, with savings of more than $3 billion for the states.
Governors of both parties, troubled by the soaring cost of Medicaid, have been pleading with Congress to let them make such changes. They said their record on welfare showed they could be trusted with the new authority.
Under the current Medicaid law and rules, co-payments for most adults cannot exceed $3 for goods and services like prescription drugs and visits to doctors.
The House bill, drafted by Representative Joe L. Barton, Republican of Texas, would gradually increase the maximum co-payment, to $5 in 2008. In later years, the ceiling would rise automatically, to match increases in the consumer price index for medical care.
States could end coverage for Medicaid recipients who refused to pay premiums, and health care providers could deny services to those who failed to pay the new charges. Poor children under 18 years old would be exempt from cost-sharing requirements.
"I trust the states," said Mr. Barton, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Representative Nathan Deal, Republican of Georgia, said, "If people have a personal stake in the cost of their health care, they will use it more responsibly."
But Representative Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin, said, "Higher co-payments will lead people to forgo needed medical care."
"To listen to some of the personal responsibility arguments," Ms. Baldwin said, "one might think that people line up to see their doctors the way they line up to see a rock concert or sporting event, and the only way to control this irrational hunger or thirst for medical care is to make it more expensive. I just don't buy that."
Federal auditors and investigators have repeatedly found that Medicaid overpays pharmacies. The Senate and House bills would reduce those payments. The Senate bill would also require drug manufacturers to give larger discounts to Medicaid, a provision not included in the House bill.
Craig L. Fuller, president of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, a trade group, said he did not understand how House Republicans could cut payments to pharmacies and increase co-payments for poor people without requiring drug manufacturers to make any contribution to the savings.
But Billy Tauzin, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a lobbying organization for brand-name drug companies, said the price concessions required by the Senate bill could hurt Medicaid recipients and other patients by forcing drug makers to "reduce research and development of life-saving medicines."
The White House has told lawmakers that they should not tamper with Medicare. President Bush does not want Congress to alter the prescription drug benefit, scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, or other provisions of the 2003 Medicare law.
House Republican leaders followed that advice, but the Senate did not. The Senate Finance Committee voted to eliminate a $10 billion fund that can be used to increase payments to private insurers, as an incentive for them to enter and stay in the Medicare program.
The committee chairman, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said the money was not immediately needed because private plans were rushing into Medicare.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel, has urged Congress to eliminate the $10 billion fund, saying it gives an unfair advantage to plans known as regional preferred provider organizations, or P.P.O.'s.
Karen M. Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, said, "This fund has been described as a slush fund by critics, but the reality is that beneficiaries, not health plans, will be helped by this funding."
With the extra payments, Ms. Ignagni said, more insurers would offer low-cost, high-quality benefits to people in rural areas and other markets where such options were unavailable.
The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association warned Congress that if it eliminated the $10 billion fund, it would show that "the government is an unreliable business partner." Blue Cross lobbyists said this would cause some insurers to reconsider their participation in Medicare.
Congress Weighs Big Cuts to Medicaid and Medicare
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: October 30, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 - Congressional committees have proposed substantial cutbacks in Medicaid and Medicare, the nation's largest health insurance programs, which together cover more than one-fourth of all Americans.
Forum: The 109th Congress
The two houses of Congress are expected to approve the changes in the next two weeks as part of competing bills to slow the growth of federal spending. Negotiators from the two chambers would then try to work out the differences.
The House bill would take all of its savings from Medicaid, the program for low-income people, while leaving Medicare, the program for those 65 and older and the disabled, untouched, as the Bush administration wants. By contrast, the Senate bill would squeeze savings from both programs.
Under the House bill, states would gain sweeping authority to charge premiums, increase co-payments and trim benefits for Medicaid recipients, so benefit packages would look more like the private insurance provided by employers.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that these changes would save the federal government more than $4 billion in the next five years, with savings of more than $3 billion for the states.
Governors of both parties, troubled by the soaring cost of Medicaid, have been pleading with Congress to let them make such changes. They said their record on welfare showed they could be trusted with the new authority.
Under the current Medicaid law and rules, co-payments for most adults cannot exceed $3 for goods and services like prescription drugs and visits to doctors.
The House bill, drafted by Representative Joe L. Barton, Republican of Texas, would gradually increase the maximum co-payment, to $5 in 2008. In later years, the ceiling would rise automatically, to match increases in the consumer price index for medical care.
States could end coverage for Medicaid recipients who refused to pay premiums, and health care providers could deny services to those who failed to pay the new charges. Poor children under 18 years old would be exempt from cost-sharing requirements.
"I trust the states," said Mr. Barton, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Representative Nathan Deal, Republican of Georgia, said, "If people have a personal stake in the cost of their health care, they will use it more responsibly."
But Representative Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin, said, "Higher co-payments will lead people to forgo needed medical care."
"To listen to some of the personal responsibility arguments," Ms. Baldwin said, "one might think that people line up to see their doctors the way they line up to see a rock concert or sporting event, and the only way to control this irrational hunger or thirst for medical care is to make it more expensive. I just don't buy that."
Federal auditors and investigators have repeatedly found that Medicaid overpays pharmacies. The Senate and House bills would reduce those payments. The Senate bill would also require drug manufacturers to give larger discounts to Medicaid, a provision not included in the House bill.
Craig L. Fuller, president of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, a trade group, said he did not understand how House Republicans could cut payments to pharmacies and increase co-payments for poor people without requiring drug manufacturers to make any contribution to the savings.
But Billy Tauzin, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a lobbying organization for brand-name drug companies, said the price concessions required by the Senate bill could hurt Medicaid recipients and other patients by forcing drug makers to "reduce research and development of life-saving medicines."
The White House has told lawmakers that they should not tamper with Medicare. President Bush does not want Congress to alter the prescription drug benefit, scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, or other provisions of the 2003 Medicare law.
House Republican leaders followed that advice, but the Senate did not. The Senate Finance Committee voted to eliminate a $10 billion fund that can be used to increase payments to private insurers, as an incentive for them to enter and stay in the Medicare program.
The committee chairman, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said the money was not immediately needed because private plans were rushing into Medicare.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel, has urged Congress to eliminate the $10 billion fund, saying it gives an unfair advantage to plans known as regional preferred provider organizations, or P.P.O.'s.
Karen M. Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, said, "This fund has been described as a slush fund by critics, but the reality is that beneficiaries, not health plans, will be helped by this funding."
With the extra payments, Ms. Ignagni said, more insurers would offer low-cost, high-quality benefits to people in rural areas and other markets where such options were unavailable.
The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association warned Congress that if it eliminated the $10 billion fund, it would show that "the government is an unreliable business partner." Blue Cross lobbyists said this would cause some insurers to reconsider their participation in Medicare.
Kellen said:
Not so Kellen. I happen to know a fellow Oklahoman who by the way also owns a home and does not have any health coverage. He recently cut off a part of his finger while working on his car and was fully covered by Medicaid. He did not have to pay anything for his treatment.
liar liar...pants on fire :? :?
http://medicarerights.org/maincontenthistory.html
The Medicare+Choice program was enacted in 1997 to foster a Medicare program that relied heavily on private plans and to lower the costs of the Medicare program. It has failed on both counts.
Today, in 2004, private plans offering coordinated care are not available to 16 million people with Medicare (40%), because they have not found it profitable enough to offer coverage to all people with Medicare.1 While there are other types of private plans that offer coverage through Medicare, the vast majority are HMOs. Since 1999, the number private plans participating in Medicare has declined steadily. From 1999 to 2003, it went from 309 to 188.2 Many of the plans that have stayed have increased their premiums and reduced benefits, claiming increasing profit losses. Because of this inherent instability in the Medicare private plan marketplace, from 1999 through the beginning of 2004, over 2.4 million people with Medicare lost their HMO coverage and were forced to find new coverage.3 Nationally, only 12 percent of people with Medicare are now enrolled in Medicare HMOs.4
Furthermore, according to an August 2000 report issued by the U.S. General Accounting Office (Medicare+Choice: Payments Exceed Cost of Fee-for-Service Benefits, Adding Billions to Spending) and many other independent reports, people who enroll in Medicare HMOs actually cost the government more than if they were enrolled in the original fee-for-service Medicare program. Healthier people with Medicare who have lower than average medical costs are more likely to sign up for Medicare HMOs, leaving the sicker ones whose care is more costly in the original fee-for-service Medicare program. According to the GAO report, in 1998, Medicare paid HMOs an average of 13.2% more than Medicare would have spent if HMO enrollees had received care under the government-run Medicare program. The consensus of the GAO report and other independent reports is that risk-adjusted payments are needed to prevent financial losses to the program and to encourage plans to enroll high cost cases, otherwise increasing numbers of people enrolling in private plans will lead to a huge surge in per person costs in fee-for-service Medicare.5 However, experts agree that there are no good risk-adjustment methods yet established that would allow for government payments to reflect accurately the needs of members.
http://medicarerights.org/maincontenthistory.html
The Medicare+Choice program was enacted in 1997 to foster a Medicare program that relied heavily on private plans and to lower the costs of the Medicare program. It has failed on both counts.
Today, in 2004, private plans offering coordinated care are not available to 16 million people with Medicare (40%), because they have not found it profitable enough to offer coverage to all people with Medicare.1 While there are other types of private plans that offer coverage through Medicare, the vast majority are HMOs. Since 1999, the number private plans participating in Medicare has declined steadily. From 1999 to 2003, it went from 309 to 188.2 Many of the plans that have stayed have increased their premiums and reduced benefits, claiming increasing profit losses. Because of this inherent instability in the Medicare private plan marketplace, from 1999 through the beginning of 2004, over 2.4 million people with Medicare lost their HMO coverage and were forced to find new coverage.3 Nationally, only 12 percent of people with Medicare are now enrolled in Medicare HMOs.4
Furthermore, according to an August 2000 report issued by the U.S. General Accounting Office (Medicare+Choice: Payments Exceed Cost of Fee-for-Service Benefits, Adding Billions to Spending) and many other independent reports, people who enroll in Medicare HMOs actually cost the government more than if they were enrolled in the original fee-for-service Medicare program. Healthier people with Medicare who have lower than average medical costs are more likely to sign up for Medicare HMOs, leaving the sicker ones whose care is more costly in the original fee-for-service Medicare program. According to the GAO report, in 1998, Medicare paid HMOs an average of 13.2% more than Medicare would have spent if HMO enrollees had received care under the government-run Medicare program. The consensus of the GAO report and other independent reports is that risk-adjusted payments are needed to prevent financial losses to the program and to encourage plans to enroll high cost cases, otherwise increasing numbers of people enrolling in private plans will lead to a huge surge in per person costs in fee-for-service Medicare.5 However, experts agree that there are no good risk-adjustment methods yet established that would allow for government payments to reflect accurately the needs of members.
I had a sister and a brother inlaw who lived in Snohomish (sp) Washington. By any standards they would have been considered well off. For the purposes of this story, I will say their net worth was over a million dollars plus the home they owned. A year before their planned retirement, my brother in law developed a problem with vericose veins in his legs. Before I go any further I have to tell you that their health care premiums were over $1400.00 a month. Over the next eighteen months my brother in law had three operations on his legs that, including three stays in the hospital of over a month each, cost close to two hundred thousand dollars. My sister who was pushing her husband everywhere in a wheelchair suffered a heart attack. She had open heart surgery at a cost of $250,000.00 but the by-pass operation was not the success that was expected. Since my brother in law was not well enough to take care of her, she went to a nursing home that cost over four thousand dollars a month. 18 months later my brother in law then had a stroke that completely incapacitated him and he was in hospital for a month before he died.Medical costs, about $200,000.00. On hearing of her husband's death, my sister, merciflly, lived only another few days. I haven't mentioned the costs of all the trips to see specialists all over the western U.S. After all accounts were tallied up, they were broke except for a small equity in the house that they had to mortgage.
Nascar, your medical system is shit and so are your politicians who let it happen. We don't need, or want your system up here.
Nascar, your medical system is shit and so are your politicians who let it happen. We don't need, or want your system up here.
Here here juan!!!! And ours has its problems, but for nero to come here and try to con the rest of us that his system is better, is nothing but bunk! And we have proved that.