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

[Jay]

Re: RE: New Bush Health plan same as Harpers Mentor/Advisor.

jay,

no response to my post showing how Ralphy's claims of healthcare costs consuming an increasing percentage of gov costs is attributable to cuts in other areas?

if the gov only spent on healthcare, healthcare would be 100% of the budget, but that does not mean that it is unsustainable. These numbers need to be looked at in context.

I'm sorry I missed that post.

 

[Freethinker]

Re: RE: New Bush Health plan same as Harpers Mentor/Advisor.

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

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

I stated my opinion based on what I see as the view of some here that we should scrap medicare. Then you ask me all incredulous if I actually believe people think that.

So when asked about who should pay for healthcare:

Mine and yours.

It seems you are one of the very people who thinks governement healthcare should be scrapped?

 

[MMMike]

Re: RE: New Bush Health plan same as Harpers Mentor/Advisor.

The truth about health spending in Alberta
Much has been said over the past few years about health care costs. Here in Alberta, both the government and the Mazankowski commission have argued that costs are increasing by 10 percent a year and that health spending will soon consume half the provincial budget. Based on these figures, the government says that Medicare is "unsustainable."

But the truth is that the sky is not falling. The figures presented by the government are misleading because they don't account for factors such as inflation and population growth. When these adjustments are made, it becomes clear that for most of the past ten years spending has been flat or declining. In fact, despite our province's obvious wealth, we have been spending less on health care (sometimes significantly less) than the national average.

Totally irrelavant. The only measure that matters is health spending as percentage of GDP. Inflation and population growth should be reflected in higher GDP.

The records show that health spending in Alberta hit bottom in the mid-90s at the height of the so-called Klein Revolution and basically stayed there until 1999. Spending over the past two years has grown, but this is largely the result of efforts by Alberta's regional health authorities to catch-up for years of under-funding. After years of deep cuts, the RHAs are finally investing in long-over due capital projects. They are also hiring nurses and other health workers to bolster staff levels, which had fallen below the national average.

The bottom line is that health spending has increased only gradually - so it is a gross exaggeration to say costs are "spiraling out of control." The real spending trends simply do not justify the radical actions being proposed by the government.

Health care cost increases in excess of GDP growth are by definition unsustainable. Look at the dearth of investment in infrastructure and education as proof of that. The healthcare blackhole has sucked it all up.

Claims that health spending will soon consume half of the provincial budget are not borne out by the evidence. About 35 percent of the Alberta budget currently goes to health care, up from about 25 percent in 80s. But this jump has more to do with declining spending in other program areas than actual spending increases in health care.

25% increase (as a percentage of total budget costs) seems pretty unsustainable to me. These kind of cost increases are only sustainable if we gut all other program spending except for healhcare.

Even using the government's own figures, the cost of our health care system translates into only about $6.50 a day for each Albertan - a figure that most people in the province would probably feel comfortable with given the importance of health care.

Whenever critics want to minimize the cost they will present it as cost per day. Since the vast majority of income taxes are paid by a small fraction of the population that $6.50 per day is more like $20.00 per day for those that actually foot the bill.

Who wrote that article anyway... organized labour?

 

[Jay]

Which is an opinion based on political ideology.

Absolutely. And believing in free healthcare is also an opinion based on political ideology.

American's have the right to the "pursuit of happiness" does that mean the government needs to take you to the movies every evening and pay for your beer?

The supreme court agrees with me. You have a right, an inalienable right to healthcare and if the government can't provide it, as they have clearly shown, you must have an alternative to that. It isn't subject to a vote in the Commons...period.

One nurse that worked in Emergency in Ontario was on CBC yesterday saying "we have had a problem with over crowded emergency rooms for 23 years"

You have had plenty of time to show us the government can manage this. 23 years ago Mike Harris wasn't running Ontario....you have no excuses.

Some of us believe that healthcare is a right that should be available to all people, because we can afford it and despite what the government would have us believe, it is OUR tax money.

It is our tax money, and instead of wanting higher taxes the people have demanded lower taxes. The issue isn’t going away.


And it's my tax dollars too. Healthcare is a right in the sense no one can refuse you healthcare. It doesn't mean we have to have a single payer system.

Does "democracy" mean my pay cheque is up for debate in the House? What of my posterity? That is where the real right lies.

IF the Canadian people were to vote against a public, single payer health insurance, then we'd have to let it go because that's democracy.

But the fact is, Canadians overwhelmingly want our current system, but in a form that provides timely access to services.

Jay, in a democracy, our rights are precisely what the majority of us say they are.

Lies about unsustainability and unmanageable costs are simply anti-democratic propaganda.


The system is sustainable if we want it to be so.

The Canadian people want tax cuts. That can’t mean we continue with the same line of thinking. Democracy has already spoken.


We need a public/private system.

 

[Jay]

It seems you are one of the very people who thinks governement healthcare should be scrapped?

Sorta....I'm just not going to fall for the "poor people are going to die in the streets if we allow some people to pay for your own healthcare" argument.

 

[nomore]

Wrong. They would be bound by the provisions of the NAFTA agreement. You need to educate yourself on the implications of Chapter 11 so that you can understand why people are so apparently hysterical.
Here's a start.

Remarkably, NAFTA also provides foreign investors the ability to privately enforce their new investor rights. Called "investor-to-state" dispute resolution, this extraordinary mechanism empowers private investors and corporations to sue NAFTA-signatory governments in special tribunals to obtain cash compensation for government policies or actions that investors believe violate their new rights under NAFTA. If a corporation wins its case, it can be awarded unlimited amounts of taxpayer dollars from the treasury of the offending nation even though it has gone around the country's domestic court system and domestic laws to obtain such an award.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. You are misinterpreting that, and somehow thinking it would eliminate the public system, in which it wouldn't and couldn't. That clause does not affect any publicly offered services, that are obtained by public/government revenues.

This is just a myth. Period. There's no evidence for this oft-repeated assertion whatsoever.

ummm, yeah right.
Hospital and physician expenditures for 2001 were $43.48 Billion and in 2005 $52.75 Billion. That's a 9 Billion increase in 4 years! You think this is sustainable? And that is only for hospitals and physicians. There are way more costs asociated with healthcare.
Just look at the cost differentials in the last few years, the ever increasing number of health services, and costs to those services, especially the cost to the healthcare system from perscription drugs. Not to mention the upcomming "baby boom" population that is aging.
You even proved lack of sustainability with your own statement. Our taxes didn't decrease, yet all that funding that was taken away from the provinces went somewhere. So obviously there has to be changes to sustain the system, either cutting other services, or increasing taxes....or the best scenario, make it more efficient.

Personally, I think people should have the right to as much stuff as they can afford, but not at the expense of others' health or safety.

And what if people can afford better health? Should they not be allowed to get it? Just because some people make more money, dosen't make them any less human, or have less rights.

If the public healthcare system can be made to equal the care provided by private systems, and if it can be finacially sustainable, without over taxation...then I am all for the public system.

The problem lies in the socialist hypocracies, that always want more services, more services, more services, and then they sit back and say..."hey why are my free services so crappy"...well duh, the money for these "leach" services has to come from somewhere.

So in short, if we can make smaller more efficient government, less useless services, then take that money we just saved and put it into healthcare, then by all means do it. I would be perfectly satisfied with that.

 

[Freethinker]

It seems you are one of the very people who thinks governement healthcare should be scrapped?

Sorta....I'm just not going to fall for the "poor people are going to die in the streets if we allow some people to pay for your own healthcare" argument.

How will allowing some people to pay for their own health care make any real significant impact on government healthcare spending, unless you force some people to pay for it?

 

[I think not]

Isn't health care in Canada delivered by private entities and paid for by the government?

 

[I think not]

Public systems around the world

In Australia the current system, known as Medicare, was instituted in 1984. It coexists with a private health system. Currently, the tax levy system of funding Medicare has led to a severe revenue shortfall, with increased costs to patients. This has triggered reforms to the scheme by the Howard government. Many critics claim that these reforms are in fact a move away from the principle of universal health care.

Canada has a federally-sponsored, publicly funded medicare system. Each province may opt out, though none currently do. Canada's system is known as a single payer system, where basic services are provided by private doctors, with the entire fee paid for by the government (a single payer) at the same rate. Other areas of health care, such as dentistry and optometry, are wholly private.

Cuba has a wholly government-controlled system that consumes a large proportion of the nation's GDP. The system does work on a for profit basis in treating patients from abroad. Cuba attracts patients mostly from Latin America and Eastern Europe by offering care of comparable quality to a developed nation but at much lower prices. While the government system is free to all, patients frequently pay out of pocket for drugs that are in short supply in the public system.

In Finland, the publicly funded medical system is funded by taxation and every citizen has state-funded health insurance. The system is comprehensive and compulsory, like in Sweden, and a small patient fee is also taken.

In France, most doctors remain in private practice; there are both private and public hospitals. Social Security consists of serveral public organizations, distinct from the state government, with separate budgets that refunds patients for care in both private and public facilities. It generally refunds patients 70% of most health care costs, and 100% in case of costly or long-term ailments. Supplemental coverage may be bought from private insurers, most of them nonprofit, mutual insurers. Until recently, social security coverage was restricted to those who contributed to social security (generally, workers or retirees), excluding some poor segments of the population; the government of Lionel Jospin put into place the "universal health coverage". The majority of French doctors are in private practice. In some systems, patients can also take private health insurance, but choose to receive care at public hospitals, if allowed by the private insurer.

In Ghana, most health care is provided by the government, but hospitals and clinics run by religious groups also play an important role. Some for profit clinics exist, but they provide less than 2% of health services. Health care is very variable through the country. The major urban centres are well served, but rural areas often have no modern health care. Patients in these areas either rely on traditional medicine or travel great distances for care.

In Hong Kong, both private and public clinics are common, while public hospitals account for the majority of the market.

In Israel, the publicly funded medical system is universal and compulsory. Payment for the services are shared by labor unions and the government.

In South Africa, parallel private and public systems exist. The public system serves the vast majority of the population, but is chronically underfunded and understaffed. The wealthiest 20% of the population uses the private system and are far better served.

In Sweden, the publicly funded medical system is comprehensive and compulsory. Physician and hospital services take a small patient fee, but their services are funded through the taxation scheme of the County Councils of Sweden.

In 1948, the United Kingdom passed the National Health Service Act that provided free physician and hospital services to all people resident in the United Kingdom. Most doctors and nurses are on contracts, and receive salaries, a fixed fee for each patient assigned, and enhanced payments for specialized treatments or skills. The National Health Service has been amended from time to time, but is largely intact. Around 86% of prescriptions are provided free. Prescriptions are provided free to people who satisfy certain criteria such as low income or permanent disabilities. People that pay for prescriptions do not pay the full cost. For example, in 2004 most people in will pay a flat fee of £6.40 (€9.64, US$11.76) for a single drug prescription regardless of the cost (average cost to the health service was £11.10--about €16.70, US$20.40--in 2002). (Charges are lower in Wales, and the administration there is committed to their eventual elimination.) Funding comes from a hypothecated health insurance tax and from general taxation. Private health services are also available.

The United States has been virtually alone among developed nations in not implementing a universal healthcare system. However, the U.S. health system does have significant publicly funded components. Medicare and Medicaid coverage is financed from taxation, but care is generally provided by privately owned hospitals or physicians in private practice. Medicare is a federal government program providing coverage to people age 65 or older. Medicaid is a federal and state program providing coverage to low-income and disabled persons. The Department of Veterans Affairs directly provides health care to U.S. military veterans through a nationwide network of government hospitals. However, a significant number of people exist who do not obtain health insurance through their employer, are unable to afford individual coverage or elect not to purchase it, and are not elderly or poor enough to qualify for Medicare or Medicaid coverage. Currently, it is estimated that 17% of the U.S. population is uninsured. A few states have taken serious steps toward universal health care coverage, most notably Minnesota. Other states, while not attempting to insure all of their residents, cover large numbers of people by reimbursing hospitals and other health-care providers using what is generally characterized as a charity care scheme; New Jersey is perhaps the best example of a state that employs the latter strategy.

 

[Jay]

How will allowing some people to pay for their own health care make any real significant impact on government healthcare spending, unless you force some people to pay for it?

You lost me....please rephrase.

 

[pastafarian]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. You are misinterpreting that, and somehow thinking it would eliminate the public system, in which it wouldn't and couldn't. That clause does not affect any publicly offered services, that are obtained by public/government revenues.

Still wrong, , but more so because I pointed it out to you before. Are you just making stuff up as you go along, like the bolded part of your quote?

Here's a fact for you:

UPS is using Chapter 11 of NAFTA to demand financial compensation of $185 million from Canada's federal government. This amount will double if UPS wins damages to date.
UPS claims its potential profits are being limited by Canada's publicly funded network of mailboxes and post offices.

Here's an article that addresses the issues you so glibly dismiss:

Canada has made reservations to the NAFTA to protect medicare, but these reservations fail to recognize the public/private nature of the health care system, resulting in uncertainty as to what services are protected from application of some of the NAFTA’s key provisions.The expropriation provision [Chapter 11] presents particular concerns for reform, as the reservations provide no protection from its application.

On the sustainability of the current system, well in its current form it probably is not sustainable, but that doesn't mean that the only option is a parallel private system.

 

[Jay]

http://www.cupw.ca/pages/document_eng.php?Doc_ID=758

"“By this logic, every public service from health care to education to the CBC could face similar lawsuits,” said Bourque. We don’t intend to let foreign corporations destroy our public services without a fight, both inside and outside the court room.”"


So this would apply to education too....

 

[pastafarian]

So this would apply to education too....

You are correct, sir!

This is one of the reasons why people were protesting NAFTA.

 

[nomore]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. You are misinterpreting that, and somehow thinking it would eliminate the public system, in which it wouldn't and couldn't. That clause does not affect any publicly offered services, that are obtained by public/government revenues.

Still wrong, , but more so because I pointed it out to you before. Are you just making stuff up as you go along, like the bolded part of your quote?

Here's a fact for you:

UPS is using Chapter 11 of NAFTA to demand financial compensation of $185 million from Canada's federal government. This amount will double if UPS wins damages to date.
UPS claims its potential profits are being limited by Canada's publicly funded network of mailboxes and post offices.

Here's an article that addresses the issues you so glibly dismiss:

Canada has made reservations to the NAFTA to protect medicare, but these reservations fail to recognize the public/private nature of the health care system, resulting in uncertainty as to what services are protected from application of some of the NAFTA’s key provisions.The expropriation provision [Chapter 11] presents particular concerns for reform, as the reservations provide no protection from its application.

Well now you are getting into subjective analysis of the clause. I assume you are talking about Annex II C-9, which is ment to protect the canadian healthcare system. I will agree it has it's flaws, but the problem is that the flaws apply, whether there is a private paralell system or not. Mainly due to the way our public system works. We already have private area's of healthcare, but the costs are paid for by the government. These services could very easily fall into claims by U.S owned company's which operate in Canada.

 

[pastafarian]

nomore, I realize that there is confusion on both sides of the issue about the fact that as much as 30% of Canadians' healthcare dollars are spent on privately delivered services. The real issue is that of single-payer system or a market-driven insurance system.

Incidentally, from the viewpoint of the patient, the potential unaffordability of our healthcare services is an issue we need to address regardless of how these services are paid for, since the patient will be SOL in the face of out-of-control costs whether he can't get them because the private insurers won't pay for them or because the public system can't.

 

[Jay]

"We already have private area's of healthcare, but the costs are paid for by the government. These services could very easily fall into claims by U.S owned company's which operate in Canada. "


This would be were I'm going with my argument....

Although I agree it is a valid point, I'm not so sure we need to be as worried about Chapter 11 as some are suggesting.

 

[tracy]

Isn't health care in Canada delivered by private entities and paid for by the government?

It's a mix (public and private). You are right that it is paid for by the government.

I can't believe that anyone could possibly want anything other than a single payer system. Anything else is just adding so much more inefficiency and cost to the system it's ridiculous. That's the main reason the US spends more on administrative costs. If our system is already unsustainable (which I don't believe), then the way to improve things isn't to add another layer of paperpushers.

Back to the original topic as far as I'm concerned... Bush on HSAs: Good. Let's keep coming up with other ways to help people pay for health costs

 

[Freethinker]

How will allowing some people to pay for their own health care make any real significant impact on government healthcare spending, unless you force some people to pay for it?

You lost me....please rephrase.

You have several post about the 40% cost of health care, indicating it is too high, then post that we should be paying ourselves. When I ask ask for a clarification, you then state you think Allowing some people to pay their own health care is good...

I am trying to find out what you are trying to say. Are you saying having some people pay for their own health care will somehow help. In which case I don't think so, unless you force them...

What exactly are you proposing that will help with the cost of health care that you consider too high?

 

[the caracal kid]

the problem with "single payer" is they hold a monopoly on what services are provided!

if the public system does not want to cover everything then there needs to be a way for private systems to offer those services. As with so much, there needs to be a proactive aspect to the public system, and a reactive aspect to a private system (spend public money keeping people in good health, and covering the core health functions, let private systems cover the rest)

 

[tracy]

You can purchase your own services that are not paid for by the public system. That's how people get breast implants or go to an accupuncturist.