What's right about our health-care system

[beth p v]

Valid question

I think your question is a very valid one, (national safety) and it does not have to be viewed as off topic since it affects healthcare budget in both the US and Canada. It is easy enough to stay within the healthcare discussion.

Many countries have lived within their own borders for the most part, traded with others to get the resources needed, and life goes on for them. By looking at Canada's budget carefully, you can see they have done a pretty good job at keeping things fairly even. (Hopefully, Canadians will not be influenced by watching our government in action.)

Other countries, the US included, have literally gone to 3rd world countries and garnered their resources for a song. As the affected countries grow and develop, they begin to realize there are plenty of other markets besides the US that are willing to pay them more. The war was the US knee-jerk reaction to being dissed. The US government was perfectly willing to overlook Sadam's taunting behavior until it was clear he was not going to be selling as much oil to us or for a cheap enough price.

The US doesn't make many goods anymore. We farm that stuff out to other countries because the US businesses make high profits using foreign workers in striving countries. Our highest priced real estate (like most of Manhattan) is owned by other countries. Two thirds of our money is invested outside the country, so when the US citizens don't have money to spend, the economy plummets. This is why Bush is pushing through that tax rebate because most citizens will spend it, thus creating sales in the market arena, which in turn ups the statistics for sales. This makes the US look like it is doing better internally, although it is really like your parents giving you money that you can only spend at your family's store. It produces receipts that your family has done more business, when in reality, it came from the family business cash register to begin with.

While this money is going through this silly cycle, it is not available for healthcare. This makes less freed money in the pie chart and the government is well aware that many people will consider their rebates as a windfall and are more apt to spend it than not. (If everyone just kept it at home, and didn't bank it, the leaders would really be in a quandary because their ploy would look awful statistically.) So anyway, the Pentagon part of the pie chart will stay pretty constant until the government gets the oil.

My husband and I have an airtight passive solar home (no solar panels needed) and as long as the sun is shining, my heating bill is zero. On cloudy or really cold days, we heat with wood. This type of living is terrible for the government and the oil companies, because the US economy would collapse if all its citizens were not purchasing oil products. Until the businesses come up with another resource to generate sales, they will keep pushing oil at us.

If you really look at an Atlas and determine who is truly interested in wasting time and resources to invade the US, the list is very short. What most countries want is for us to go home, and leave them alone. Yes, there are a few countries that definitely need watching, but we could be more effective by getting out of the countries who are not any threat. Our military is spread out way too thinly. There is a saying...."don't be dumb enough to make more enemies that you can handle". Bush is definitely going over his limit, and our military families and citizens without healthcare are paying the price with their suffering and deaths. Sadly, I do not see this changing in the near future. Do you?

Just throwing out this thought.... addressing the amount of time Canadians have to wait to get some medical treatments. If the 50,000,000 uninsured people in the US all had equal healthcare like Canada, what do you suppose the wait times would be in the US? Even more to the point, if most Canadians could get faster medical care by denying a million of your weakest citizens (mostly elderly, children, mentally ill, homeless, and jobless) any healthcare, would that be an acceptable solution?

It's a lot to think about.

Take care,
Beth

 

[jimmoyer]

.....addressing the amount of time Canadians have to wait to get some medical treatments.

If the 50,000,000 uninsured people in the US all had equal healthcare like Canada, what do you suppose the wait times would be in the US? Even more to the point, if most Canadians could get faster medical care by denying a million of your weakest citizens (mostly elderly, children, mentally ill, homeless, and jobless) any healthcare, would that be an acceptable solution?
--------------------------------------------------Beth p v ----------------------------------------------------

That's a macabre question.

That makes me think, that often we refuse to learn from each other. The US is about to have this great debate about National Health Care and few of us, let alone our leaders, are discussing in non-demagogue detail the experience of other nations.

Maybe we can learn from others and pick the best out of their systems. But often with every good point, tied to it is the bad point --- like our virtues often contain the seeds of our downfall.

With providing health care to everyone --often some wait time goes along with that benefit, n'est pas ?

But this desire not to learn from others outside our borders is true of many nations.
Example: The Europeans write over a 500 page constitution that gets rejected on referendums. Could they have learned what the States did with a constitution ?
Of course not, because they are better than us. And yet the historical origin of the different states had enough differences in culture, temperament, economy as do the Euro countries to encourage a parallel analogy. Even Ben Franklin gave credit to the Iriquois for the concept of Federalism.


Another example:

Are Palestinians taught the concept of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, an action incorporated by Ghandi, and by Martin Luther King ? I read an interesting article about such cross-acculturation in an Isreali prison, where an Americian-Isreali reporter asked what the Palestinian prisoner thought of such Passive Resistance ? And was he aware of this early civil rights history in the US ?

The Palestinian's reaction ? No, he was not aware of such foolishness. Why ? Why subject yourself to firehoses and spitting? It is unacceptable to allow that insult upon yourself. There's no sense to it.

So do we learn from each other ?

Our egos get in the way. Our opinion of the other gets in the way. Our national self-myth-making gets in the way.


But !!

Pero !!

On the flip side of learning from each other:

Actually, the way the world is with so many differences and different points of view, we have the best chance in the world for some of us to learn something from each other.

Imagine, take a leap with me, the greatest fear of all of mine is one mind-think, where nations no longer differ, where people all over the world have the same thoughts, the same ideas. That is truly the worst we can hope for.

And yet we move towards that day all the time. In our own lives we do it. We naturally associate with like-minded people.

Conclusion:

Let us learn from each other, but hopefully Hegel's description of the dialectic, whereby an anti-thesis arises a rebel to the Thesis, we then merge to a Synthesis which then becomes the new Thesis, which then begets a rebel, challenging Anti-Thesis will prove we will never have a one-world mind-think.

This is how we vett an issue. This is how we learn. This twin, this tao, this binary, this dual, this Left and the Right.


HEALTH:

I'll tell you that I am thoroughly baffled by the pros and cons of every system of health care. Both sides continue to have very valid points and both sides continue to ignore their weaker points.

It appears to me that in the end, any system will have its pros and cons, and that the best system will still have faults but claim the higher honor of a simpler and fairer quality to it all.

Ideology of course will get in the way of pragmatism, but neither is good without the other when you look further into it.

Foreign Policy: To Beth:
My reactions to some of your points really do need a separate thread.
Overall you make an excellent point. On the particulars when added up, I see a different picture of the world would have emerged than the one you see.

 

[#juan]

Somebody suggested that we should compare our health care system with western European countries to get a better idea of where we stand as far as the quality of our health care is concerned. Part of the problem is that we, like the U.S., have put our doctors on a pedestal. The average income of doctors in Canada is something over $120,000.00/year. In the U.S. the average doctor makes around a $150,000.00. Specialists in both countries make considerably more. Doctor's salaries in the E.U are considerably lower. In Europe doctors don't earn more than other professionals. The biggest difference between the U.S. and Canada is the amount we spend on our respective systems and how we spend that money. Medical insurance is big business in the U.S., far bigger than it is in Canada.....Thank goodness, because that is where a lot of American health care dollars go.

 

[Zzarchov]

you see YoungJoonKim the only problem with that is this....when you turn communist and like give this free education system like cuba your doctors get paid the same as like a hotel worker...actually less cause the hotel worker gets tips tossed to them...there is very little incentive, except in the odd altruistic person....unfortunatly we cannot rely on those people to be high in numbers.....

Also there is no incentive for research like money...look at china...they mimic well out society but what do they actually come up with on their own....

We have more hotel workers than Doctors currently, so the option of the same pay but altruism and free schooling would seem to cause no shortage of applicants.

If someones only motivation for being a doctor is money, I think I'd rather just take care of myself.

 

[beth p v]

I have some research to do....lol!

You have made some wonderful points and given me much to mull over. I want to study some of your references in your comments so I can answer you with as much intelligence as I can muster. As we age, my husband and I find learning such a joy and like to take the time to research things before we share in a conversation. Thankfully, our son is the same way. When people resort to yelling at each other and drown out an opposing thought, then ideology has run amuck. It is refreshing to discuss an issue without all that nonsense.

Thank you so much for respecting this particular thread and not using this place to discuss our different perceptions of the US's foreign policy. I will do my very best to keep away from that topic here, too, beyond touching upon where taxes are being used in Canada and where taxes are being used in the US. We do have to touch upon those other areas of our budgets just enough to see if our total national budgets could be adjusted to better address the healthcare issues.

I am so glad to share thoughts with someone who sees both the plusses and the negatives of having diversity. I certainly agree that life would be very surreal if we all were the same. Diversity keeps us challenged and motivated. You seem to have a good grasp of understanding the pitfalls generated with comparing US and Canadian health care systems when we are only discussion the best parts of each system. It is highly more educational and positive to discover how to strengthen ones own weaknesses, explore what others are doing around the world, then use common sense in making beneficial changes.

I will give your post some deserved thought this evening and get back to you.

Take care,
Beth

 

[beth p v]

Somebody suggested that we should compare our health care system with western European countries to get a better idea of where we stand as far as the quality of our health care is concerned.

I think it was suggested that Canadians could look at systems more similar in style to their own, to better discover ways to lessen a weakness. That way, it can be discovered if all the similar systems in the world have the same weakness. Even more interestingly, one could contemplate if fixing a weakness creates more havoc in another aspect of the system. For example, there are physician assistants who can also see patients, order tests, and write prescriptions in some countries. If Canada trained more physician assistants and gave them the power to work in the places where there are the longest wait times, would that help fix the problem or create more serious angst. Would there be more complaints because folks would feel they were not being seen by a "real" doctor? Would doctors find these PAs threatening and become discontented? Every solution causes a counter reaction that has to be weighed.

Part of the problem is that we, like the U.S., have put our doctors on a pedestal. The average income of doctors in Canada is something over $120,000.00/year. In the U.S. the average doctor makes around a $150,000.00. Specialists in both countries make considerably more. Doctor's salaries in the E.U are considerably lower. In Europe doctors don't earn more than other professionals.

The things we accept as normal in society sometimes is really quite appalling and foolish, if you step back and truly think about it. Most everyone appreciates hockey in Canada. Athletes are often put on pedestals, but since they bring such excitement and joy, one player can make 7,600,000 in one year. Other than perpetuating a sport in the souls of hockey enthusiasts, is this athlete worth the work and contribution of 63 Canadian doctors trying to keep a nation healthy? I get as excited watching hockey as the next person, but can't help to step back and ponder how society has put such odd disproportionate values on things. I bet few Canadians would sacrifice one admired hockey player for 63 doctors. On the other hand, if a person was in an accident and needed immediate care, that person might suddenly change his or her mind.... and vote for the doctors...lol. Perspective is always affected by circumstances.


The biggest difference between the U.S. and Canada is the amount we spend on our respective systems and how we spend that money. Medical insurance is big business in the U.S., far bigger than it is in Canada.....Thank goodness, because that is where a lot of American health care dollars go

Yes, and the important part of any big business is keeping the stockholders flush and happy. If that breaks down, then the CEOs grab a huge bonus check, the company fails, and everyone scurries away, leaving the actual policy holders without a thing. The Canadian government does not have to make a profit in health care, but just do its best to break even (which is no easy task, either).

Take care,
Beth

 

[#juan]

by beth pv
I think it was suggested that Canadians could look at systems more similar in style to their own, to better discover ways to lessen a weakness. That way, it can be discovered if all the similar systems in the world have the same weakness. Even more interestingly, one could contemplate if fixing a weakness creates more havoc in another aspect of the system. For example, there are physician assistants who can also see patients, order tests, and write prescriptions in some countries. If Canada trained more physician assistants and gave them the power to work in the places where there are the longest wait times, would that help fix the problem or create more serious angst. Would there be more complaints because folks would feel they were not being seen by a "real" doctor? Would doctors find these PAs threatening and become discontented? Every solution causes a counter reaction that has to be weighed.

True, and another problem that crops up regularly is getting doctors to work in smaller, outlying communties. It seems that most want to work in the larger centers, and we sometimes have to pay a bonus to get doctors to work in smaller centers.

by beth pv
The things we accept as normal in society sometimes is really quite appalling and foolish, if you step back and truly think about it. Most everyone appreciates hockey in Canada. Athletes are often put on pedestals, but since they bring such excitement and joy, one player can make 7,600,000 in one year. Other than perpetuating a sport in the souls of hockey enthusiasts, is this athlete worth the work and contribution of 63 Canadian doctors trying to keep a nation healthy? I get as excited watching hockey as the next person, but can't help to step back and ponder how society has put such odd disproportionate values on things. I bet few Canadians would sacrifice one admired hockey player for 63 doctors. On the other hand, if a person was in an accident and needed immediate care, that person might suddenly change his or her mind.... and vote for the doctors...lol. Perspective is always affected by circumstances.

I think professional sports are simply high priced entertainment. Entertainers, be they athletes or actors or musicians, have always been highly paid. There is no way to justify the obscene amounts of money some of these people can demand but as you say, "Perspective is always affected by circumstances. If you are flying accross the country in stormy weather, you rather hope the aircraft designer knew what he was doing.

by beth pv
Yes, and the important part of any big business is keeping the stockholders flush and happy. If that breaks down, then the CEOs grab a huge bonus check, the company fails, and everyone scurries away, leaving the actual policy holders without a thing. The Canadian government does not have to make a profit in health care, but just do its best to break even (which is no easy task, either).

One of the things that make our system work, albeit with it's faults, is the absence of that extra level of profit taking by big insurance companies.

 

[Kreskin]

The government though will likely go cheap on the amount of funding for services, making the healthcare provider cut corners and not offer the best services. Where we already have two-tiered service in Canada it is plain to see the difference.

 

[beth p v]

That makes me think, that often we refuse to learn from each other. The US is about to have this great debate about National Health Care and few of us, let alone our leaders, are discussing in non-demagogue detail the experience of other nations.

Sadly, what is discussed in debate, and what is actually put into action is predictably not similar. Since drug companies and insurance companies contribute to campaign funds, candidates get easily swayed by the conversational technique you mentioned. It is surprisingly easy to set up scenarios where a candidate contradicts himself or herself.

A fine example of this that we hear everyday is to ask someone if he believes in abortion. Once the answer is known, ask him if he believes in capital punishment. More than not, he will say yes for one and no for the other or visa-versa. He has contradicted himself. If you are ideally expecting him to take a stance one way or another about if all human life is sacred, then he cannot pass your test no matter how long he tries to explain himself. (I never knew the terms and origins of this kind of conversational interaction, but you have helped to educate me. Thank you.)


Maybe we can learn from others and pick the best out of their systems. But often with every good point, tied to it is the bad point --- like our virtues often contain the seeds of our downfall.

Ayuh.

But this desire not to learn from others outside our borders is true of many nations.
Example: The Europeans write over a 500 page constitution that gets rejected on referendums. Could they have learned what the States did with a constitution ?
Of course not, because they are better than us. And yet the historical origin of the different states had enough differences in culture, temperament, economy as do the Euro countries to encourage a parallel analogy. Even Ben Franklin gave credit to the Iriquois for the concept of Federalism.

This analogy is a bit harder for me to grasp, since when colonists came to settle in North America, the first groups were people who were being oppressed religiously in their own countries, so had that common thread. Surprisingly, they were not all Puritans. Some had no religious connections at all. Still, what they were seeking was freedom from the church and the monarchy choosing what they should believe. I don't see any thread that binds the Europeans together emotionally. Proximity is not important, or Canada and the US, (and Mexico) would not have such vast differences.

Another example:

Are Palestinians taught the concept of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, an action incorporated by Ghandi, and by Martin Luther King ? I read an interesting article about such cross-acculturation in an Isreali prison, where an Americian-Isreali reporter asked what the Palestinian prisoner thought of such Passive Resistance ? And was he aware of this early civil rights history in the US ?

The Palestinian's reaction ? No, he was not aware of such foolishness. Why ? Why subject yourself to firehoses and spitting? It is unacceptable to allow that insult upon yourself. There's no sense to it.


At first, I was in the dark, but after reading about Civil Disobedience, this becomes clear. My husband and I pay our bills promptly and honestly, even taxes, but have this inner wish we had the power to be able to control where our taxes are used in the government. Although, neither my husband nor I agree with our government's foreign policy, and sadly know that some of our money will cause harm to an innocent person somewhere in the world, we still follow the law completely. I feel inner turmoil just admitting this, and can easily understand Thoreau's reason for not paying the poll tax.

So do we learn from each other ?

Our egos get in the way. Our opinion of the other gets in the way. Our national self-myth-making gets in the way.

No, we do not learn much from each other, thus the pendulum keeps swinging from one extreme to the opposite extreme. Still, when I look at the Canadian healthcare system, it seems reasonably managed and functional. Although Cuba is a poor nation, and doctors are highly underpaid, the health system is also fairly stable even though there is little money to work with. France's health care system seems to be stable, but perhaps a bit over the top for the governments of many countries. Still, for them, it works. We had an exchange student from Finland that stayed with us one school year in 1988, and he waited until he went back home at the end of the school year to have surgery on his knee, since his country had free health care. He was surprised, even way back then, that the US had not managed to have a more stable health care system.


Actually, the way the world is with so many differences and different points of view, we have the best chance in the world for some of us to learn something from each other.

Imagine, take a leap with me, the greatest fear of all of mine is one mind-think, where nations no longer differ, where people all over the world have the same thoughts, the same ideas. That is truly the worst we can hope for.

Agreed.

And yet we move towards that day all the time. In our own lives we do it. We naturally associate with like-minded people.


There is a need of belonging and security that runs through all of us, but sometimes when an odd situation presents itself outside of our inner boundaries, we can be pleasantly surprised.


Conclusion:

Let us learn from each other, but hopefully Hegel's description of the dialectic, whereby an anti-thesis arises a rebel to the Thesis, we then merge to a Synthesis which then becomes the new Thesis, which then begets a rebel, challenging Anti-Thesis will prove we will never have a one-world mind-think.

This is how we vett an issue. This is how we learn. This twin, this tao, this binary, this dual, this Left and the Right.

This is the hope. Unfortunately, some unsavory folks (that are savvy enough to understand the inner workings of the thought process) use it in as a means to perpetuate a false perception causing masses of people to feel threatened and insecure. Lower class workers have always been controlled by this sort of manipulation in history and the US is notorious for this sort of under-the-table manipulation. The government gives them just enough to keep them working, but not enough for them to feel secure or comfortable. They are given enough education to do the menial labor the government needs done, but not enough education to move out of their class. They are given limited medical help to keep them healthy enough to do the tasks required but not enough health coverage to feel equal with the social classes above them. This control has worked well in the US, and higher classes of society who understand this concept, feel it should continue as it is.

HEALTH:

I'll tell you that I am thoroughly baffled by the pros and cons of every system of health care. Both sides continue to have very valid points and both sides continue to ignore their weaker points.

It appears to me that in the end, any system will have its pros and cons, and that the best system will still have faults but claim the higher honor of a simpler and fairer quality to it all.

Ayuh, very true. And even in the best system, there will be flaws that will be presented as just unbearable and deplorable, That is human nature, isn't it? And there will always be a minority of citizens who have the skills and understanding to make things a bit better. The majority of the population in most societies is just living in the moment, and basically concerned with things they can easily experience and control.

Ideology of course will get in the way of pragmatism, but neither is good without the other when you look further into it.


yup.

Foreign Policy: To Beth:
My reactions to some of your points really do need a separate thread.
Overall you make an excellent point. On the particulars when added up, I see a different picture of the world would have emerged than the one you see.

If you start another thread in the appropriate spot, just give me a link to it, and I will share ideas and thoughts with you there. I would enjoy exploring opinions different than my own. I just don't want to be interacting with individuals who cannot keep an open dialogue when they are challenged. You made several references that were outside my educational knowledge, but I appreciated being motivated to research and did my best to understand the references you were using as the foundation for your ideas.

Take care,
Beth

 

[beth p v]

The government though will likely go cheap on the amount of funding for services, making the healthcare provider cut corners and not offer the best services.

This is happening already, to the point that some doctors in the US feel so uncomfortable that they are beginning to distance themselves from the insurance companies. Imagine if you are a doctor who has worked a lifetime in a community, know your patients well, and now you were being forced to limit the care you could give to your patients? The doctors are really caught between a rock and a hard place. If they opt out of an insurer's network, then patients in that network are forced to go elsewhere to a doctor that is in the insurers network. For the elderly, having to leave their doctor and begin seeing a stranger is traumatic. If the doctor generates too many referrals or too many medical procedures, then the network drops the doctor. So ordinary doctors are walking this fine line, and it has to take an emotional toll after a while.

Where we already have two-tiered service in Canada it is plain to see the difference.

Can you explain the two-tiered service in Canada? Being from the US, I am curious about this.

Take care,
Beth

 

[tracy]

The US presently uses 59% of its budget (including the war) at the Pentagon. Since businesses and citizens mostly pay for their own private healthcare, only 5% of the budget is spent on healthcare.
Beth

I find this figure unlikely, unless we aren't counting any state taxes. I work in California and am currently at my 4th hospital. It is the smallest unit I've ever worked on and the only one on which MediCal patients don't make up the majority of our patients. Every other unit was at least 75% MediCal (for those who don't know, Medi-Cal is like Medicare for babies, it's the state of California picking up the bill). Even privately insured patients would sometimes wind up having some of their bill absorbed by the hospital since they would reach the cap their insurance would pay within about 3 months.

 

[tracy]

The government though will likely go cheap on the amount of funding for services, making the healthcare provider cut corners and not offer the best services. Where we already have two-tiered service in Canada it is plain to see the difference.

I think the opposite is true. The government is keen to keep bills down, but they are so much better than private companies about it. If the private company can't make a profit off you, they won't offer you any services. That's why private healthcare in Canada is limited to plastic surgery, other simple surgical procedures, mri clinics and the like and it's why private health insurance companies here in the US do so much screening before they will sell you a policy. The government is the only payer willing to lose money on you and treat you anyways.

 

[beth p v]

I find this figure unlikely, unless we aren't counting any state taxes. I work in California and am currently at my 4th hospital. It is the smallest unit I've ever worked on and the only one on which MediCal patients don't make up the majority of our patients. Every other unit was at least 75% MediCal (for those who don't know, Medi-Cal is like Medicare for babies, it's the state of California picking up the bill). Even privately insured patients would sometimes wind up having some of their bill absorbed by the hospital since they would reach the cap their insurance would pay within about 3 months.

Hi Tracy,

I meant the Federal budget. Yes, states do even more, but those state taxes are paid by the working citizens of each separate state and vary greatly. By the way, thanks for taking such good care of our little ones! I hope people in your area are appreciative.

Take care,
Beth

 

[Kreskin]

I think the opposite is true. The government is keen to keep bills down, but they are so much better than private companies about it. If the private company can't make a profit off you, they won't offer you any services. That's why private healthcare in Canada is limited to plastic surgery, other simple surgical procedures, mri clinics and the like and it's why private health insurance companies here in the US do so much screening before they will sell you a policy. The government is the only payer willing to lose money on you and treat you anyways.

In the field I'm thinking of the way it works is the government pays the medical clinic a set amount for the treatment. Since the medical clinic can't make any money on the government assistance and they can't charge the patient for the difference they send those patients to a different clinic, a second tier service. The private profit-making service is superior.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Caanda's health care syste is great. I have had several operations, kidney stones, lower back surgery, thumb surgery and it has been great. Yay Canada!!!!!

When are monthly medical premiums in BC going to be eliminated? And a dental plan included as part of the medical plan? Boo BC.

 

[#juan]

In the field I'm thinking of the way it works is the government pays the medical clinic a set amount for the treatment. Since the medical clinic can't make any money on the government assistance and they can't charge the patient for the difference they send those patients to a different clinic, a second tier service. The private profit-making service is superior.

I don't think that is necessarily the case Rick. I had a look at the schedule of what the private clinics are allowed to charge the government for a given procedure. Even the doctors are tied to a fairly strict fee schedule. I have to say here that the fees are quite generous and neither the clinics or the doctors are going to go broke any time soon. The profit taking we don't have yet is that of the big medical insurance companies. I sincerely hope it stays this way.

 

[Kreskin]

I don't think that is necessarily the case Rick. I had a look at the schedule of what the private clinics are allowed to charge the government for a given procedure. Even the doctors are tied to a fairly strict fee schedule. I have to say here that the fees are quite generous and neither the clinics or the doctors are going to go broke any time soon. The profit taking we don't have yet is that of the big medical insurance companies. I sincerely hope it stays this way.

Perhaps this area is a little different. In one province a specific healthcare procedure is paid by the government under certain conditions. They are the only province who cover it. That province has a clinic with specialist known as the best in the country at that procedure. If you go to them and pay cash they and that specialist will treat you. If you come in saying the province will pay them they send you to an affiliate and that specialist doesn't treat you.

 

[tracy]

In the field I'm thinking of the way it works is the government pays the medical clinic a set amount for the treatment. Since the medical clinic can't make any money on the government assistance and they can't charge the patient for the difference they send those patients to a different clinic, a second tier service. The private profit-making service is superior.

But again, they only offer services they can make a profit on. Those services are almost never the nitty gritty life and death stuff that really matters in the end because it's too expensive. You'll never see a private for profit icu because it wouldn't make a profit. Like you said, some of the best private practitionners will only treat you if you pay cash. It isn't because the province is cheap, it's because they make more money that way and they are businessmen in the end. Infertility treatment and plastic surgery are the most obvious examples.

 

[tracy]

Hi Tracy,

I meant the Federal budget. Yes, states do even more, but those state taxes are paid by the working citizens of each separate state and vary greatly. By the way, thanks for taking such good care of our little ones! I hope people in your area are appreciative.

Take care,
Beth

Thanks Beth. I think this is particularly an issue in border states. We treat a lot of people who will never pay because they aren't here legally so they have no insurance. Emergency rooms have the biggest problem with it. NICUs (where I work) are kind of lucky because the babies are citizens so they qualify for MediCal regardless of their parents' situation and so the hospital gets some money for their treatment.

 

[beth p v]

Thanks Beth. I think this is particularly an issue in border states. We treat a lot of people who will never pay because they aren't here legally so they have no insurance. Emergency rooms have the biggest problem with it. NICUs (where I work) are kind of lucky because the babies are citizens so they qualify for MediCal regardless of their parents' situation and so the hospital gets some money for their treatment.

Yes, the border states have a rough time with this. I don't see this changing as long as the big companies are allowed to break the laws and employ these hard working individuals. US companies lobby hard to keep this whole circle of corruption to continue because they don't have to pay any health insurance, thus making more profits for themselves and their stock holders. The government looks the other way, throws more money to camouflage it all, and comes up with expensive dumb schemes like building a giant wall between Mexico and the US. So the tax payers end up funding something that has little effect, and the big companies continue breaking the law and laughing all the way to the bank (which is usually overseas somewhere).

I still admire you for caring for all these people, no matter what country they are from or why they are here. Mexico needs to step up to plate and improve their own economy, but we have no excuse for looking the other way when US companies are enticing illegal folks to come here to work, either. Everyone is calling for new laws, but what good does that do if the laws are not going to be enforced anyway. It just wastes everyone's time and money and serves no helpful purpose. In a round about way, our government is using tax payer money to help US companies make more profits. It would be cheaper for the government to just give the money directly to the companies and stop exploiting all the innocent people caught in the middle of this foolishness.

Take care,
Beth