If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
You want it both ways. The reason so many people in the US cannot
afford health care, why the cost of medical insurance is so high, and why the quality is so variable, is due to the business model used. The "market" determines the value, and since most of us eventually require healthcare of some sort, we are willing to pay whatever it costs, even allowing ourselves to get bankrupted doing it. By constraining costs by maintaining a socialized medical system, where, at least, in principle, all doctors get the same base wages within a category, and all people have equal access, the playing field remains relatively even. Once you allow individuals to opt out of the plan and go private, the best doctors will tend to leave the nationalized health plan because they can make more by opening private clinic. That leaves the mediocre doctors to care for those who can't afford private medicine or private insurance. They tried this in England, and the system is completely failing. There are two distinct tiers of medicine now, the "national plan" for those on fixed incomes, the poor, those out of work, and the "private plan" which is for those who have money in the bank or good benefits. Health care in Canada is rationed. It's not some service like getting your nails done. When people need it, they need it. I agree that waiting periods are too long. This is part of the sabotage going on to make people demand something else (like private or pay as you go services). Canada still has one of the best nationalized health services in the world. Our population lives longer and is healthier, and dollar per dollar our system is cheaper than the US by quite a bit, and the services there aren't great in most cases. Mal-practice insurance fees are out of the stratosphere, pediatricians are all but giving up because the cost of the insurance due to the high risk and liability of delivering children is not affordable. Creating a two tier health system will eventually be the end of nationalized health care in this country, and when that occurs you will be at the mercy of the private companies exclusively. We need to put more money into healthcare and clean up Ottawa, so that the money that is earmarked for health goes there. Unless you have lived in the US and had to pay a few hundred bucks every time you go to the doctor and lab, you might obtain a different perspective as to how valuable the health care system we have is. Art gary wrote: I would like to be able to pay for it here. Why should I not be able to if I want the service? If a doctor or hospital wants to set up privately, what business is that of the state to say no? I'm not saying I want to pay out of pocket but I would like the option to buy the insurance with possibly a deductible. Canada is only one of 3 countries in the world that do not allow the individual this option. "Arthur Entlich" wrote in message news:iPu5e.8637$yV3.7959@clgrps12... Since you want to pay for private medical, go down and find out what it really costs, and the quality of it. (I already know, because my family lives in the states, and the costs are unbelievable, particularly if hospitalization is required). But your problem is simple to get around. You might even get part of in reimbursed by your provincial gov't, but if not, so what, you say you want to pay out of pocket, right? So, why are you allowing your wife to suffer with her ear problem when the solution is a few miles down the road? Are there "communists" at the border who won't let the two of you go to the US and pay? Maybe you can stay with your friends down there, so you don't have any lodging costs. Art gary wrote: "Pavel Dvorak" wrote in message ... Matt Silberstein ) writes: [lot nuked] Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries try it, Works well in Costa Rica and Canada. It's really outside the comp.periphs.printers topics, but I cannot resist: Canadian health care system does not work. If you have to endure many months of pain before you can get an 'elective' surgery, like a hip replacement or fixing a herniated disk, or have to helplessly wait for diagnosis and then cancer treatment knowing full well that it may be too late when your turn in the hospital comes - and the law does not alow you to get it done fast privately if you want and can pay, then something is wrong, isn't there? (Well, unless you subscribe to the idea that if two people are drowning and you know you can save just one of them, you let both of them drown, because saving one would be unfair to the other you could not save.) Canadian health care system is OK for you if you a (a) rich enough to buy any urgent treatment outside the country, or (b) a high level politician or athlete who gets an immediate attention, or (c) generally healthy and all you need is to buy some aspirin from time to time. Pavel [rest nuked] I cant let that go either. We have excellent care when you get in. That is WHEN you get in. Good post here I like your analogy about the drowning. The RCMP get in ASAP, politicians get in ASAP, hockey players get in ASAP and WCB claims get in ASAP and people who can afford it go to the US. The average Joe waits. My wife has been waiting 8 months to see a specialist about an ear problem. We have friends in the US who say she would be in under a week. I would pay for that service here if the communists in power would let me. But alas like the only other 2 jurisdiction in the world, North Korea and Cuba, we are not allowed private health care. |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
There are people out there who think the present model of health care can
survive if we just keep throwing money at it. Where does this money come from? My taxes have only been going up and up and are taking a greater percentage of my income every year. Those Americans with good health care can afford the premiums and enjoy much lower tax rates. If we had the lower tax rates here we could also afford to buy excellent health care coverage. Lets not always compare two tiered health care to the US. There are much better models around the world which we will have to one day (soon) seriously look into. Ralph Klein is the only Premier thinking ahead. Health care cost are spiraling upward exponentionally. The population is aging - increasing the use on the system, and we do not have the population growth needed to sustain this system. Waiting lines only get longer and longer - even though in Alberta we are pumping more and more money into the system every year. As a side note, I heard a fellow say on a talk show the other day that Sweden has NO waiting list. You need the service, you are in. I am enclosing an excellent article from the Western Standard to help us all think "outside the box". Two-Tier health works all around the world Monday, 11 October 2004 Candis McLean When it comes to health care, Canadians seem convinced there are only two options: the Canadian way, with our universal health system and no access to privately funded medical procedures; or the American way, with no guaranteed care and many citizens left uninsured. Yet in reality there are as many different options as there are countries in the developed world, and of all the models out there, Canada is getting the least bang for its health care buck, according to health analyses conducted by the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute. Of 30 developed countries in the world, all but two--the U.S. and Mexico--have programs that ensure access to care regardless of ability to pay, Nadeem Esmail, a health policy analyst for the free market think tank, told the audience at a Calgary luncheon in June. Of the 28 remaining countries with universal health care access, every single one of them also allows access to private care for those citizens who choose it. "If you look at the four health care systems with the best measurable health outcomes--Sweden, France, Australia and Japan--all of them allow patients to contract for private care," Esmail says. "If you look at the seven countries that have no waiting lists, the same is true." Even the United Kingdom, the system upon which Canada's was based, permits a parallel private health care system that offers the same services as those provided by the public sector, and allows its residents to buy from private insurers and health providers. Of developed countries, "only Canada disallows the delivery of privately funded services," says Esmail. Yet while Canada has the highest age-adjusted spending on health (10.8 per cent of GDP, compared to 7.2 per cent in the U.K.), Canada does not rank first in access to care, supply technologies or number of physicians. According to Esmail, better health outcomes for money spent enjoyed by other governments worldwide often come when health policies permit cost-sharing between patient and government. The majority of developed countries require patients to pay "nominal or not-so-nominal fees" to access physicians, says Esmail. That leads to less demand, as people are less likely to abuse a system that is not entirely free, with no detrimental effect on health. Esmail holds up Australia as an example Canada might want to emulate. There, roughly 15 per cent of total health care expenditures come from patients' pockets. Physicians can bill any amount they wish, but the government reimburses patients only 85 per cent of a standard fee it has established. In addition, he says, there are major advantages gained by allowing the contracting-out of services to the private sector. Even though bills may still be covered largely by taxpayers, allowing private clinics to operate leads to greater efficiencies through competition--without disenfranchising the poor or financially ruining citizens facing catastrophic medical expenses. The key lesson for Canadians, he says, is that allowing privately funded purchases of core health services, and allowing the private sector to deliver that care, means a better system, because patients are getting the care they want and are not simply stuck with accepting the care the government will deliver to them--no matter how inadequate it may be. While many Canadian politicians warn that allowing any private care will result in so-called two-tier health care, implying that some Canadians will have access to better care than others, Esmail says we're already there. "A survey out of Ontario found that 80 per cent of physicians had been involved in cases where patients had received preferential access to care for non-medical reasons," he says. Wealthy Canadians--and even high-ranking politicians--can fly to the U.S. or other countries for care, while the well-connected pull strings to get themselves faster access to the treatments they need. "This means that good Canadians waiting in queue for what the government is going to give them are the ones to suffer," says Esmail. "Arthur Entlich" wrote in message news:L5b6e.17160$vt1.4135@edtnps90... You want it both ways. The reason so many people in the US cannot afford health care, why the cost of medical insurance is so high, and why the quality is so variable, is due to the business model used. The "market" determines the value, and since most of us eventually require healthcare of some sort, we are willing to pay whatever it costs, even allowing ourselves to get bankrupted doing it. By constraining costs by maintaining a socialized medical system, where, at least, in principle, all doctors get the same base wages within a category, and all people have equal access, the playing field remains relatively even. Once you allow individuals to opt out of the plan and go private, the best doctors will tend to leave the nationalized health plan because they can make more by opening private clinic. That leaves the mediocre doctors to care for those who can't afford private medicine or private insurance. They tried this in England, and the system is completely failing. There are two distinct tiers of medicine now, the "national plan" for those on fixed incomes, the poor, those out of work, and the "private plan" which is for those who have money in the bank or good benefits. Health care in Canada is rationed. It's not some service like getting your nails done. When people need it, they need it. I agree that waiting periods are too long. This is part of the sabotage going on to make people demand something else (like private or pay as you go services). Canada still has one of the best nationalized health services in the world. Our population lives longer and is healthier, and dollar per dollar our system is cheaper than the US by quite a bit, and the services there aren't great in most cases. Mal-practice insurance fees are out of the stratosphere, pediatricians are all but giving up because the cost of the insurance due to the high risk and liability of delivering children is not affordable. Creating a two tier health system will eventually be the end of nationalized health care in this country, and when that occurs you will be at the mercy of the private companies exclusively. We need to put more money into healthcare and clean up Ottawa, so that the money that is earmarked for health goes there. Unless you have lived in the US and had to pay a few hundred bucks every time you go to the doctor and lab, you might obtain a different perspective as to how valuable the health care system we have is. Art gary wrote: I would like to be able to pay for it here. Why should I not be able to if I want the service? If a doctor or hospital wants to set up privately, what business is that of the state to say no? I'm not saying I want to pay out of pocket but I would like the option to buy the insurance with possibly a deductible. Canada is only one of 3 countries in the world that do not allow the individual this option. "Arthur Entlich" wrote in message news:iPu5e.8637$yV3.7959@clgrps12... Since you want to pay for private medical, go down and find out what it really costs, and the quality of it. (I already know, because my family lives in the states, and the costs are unbelievable, particularly if hospitalization is required). But your problem is simple to get around. You might even get part of in reimbursed by your provincial gov't, but if not, so what, you say you want to pay out of pocket, right? So, why are you allowing your wife to suffer with her ear problem when the solution is a few miles down the road? Are there "communists" at the border who won't let the two of you go to the US and pay? Maybe you can stay with your friends down there, so you don't have any lodging costs. Art gary wrote: "Pavel Dvorak" wrote in message ... Matt Silberstein ) writes: [lot nuked] Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries try it, Works well in Costa Rica and Canada. It's really outside the comp.periphs.printers topics, but I cannot resist: Canadian health care system does not work. If you have to endure many months of pain before you can get an 'elective' surgery, like a hip replacement or fixing a herniated disk, or have to helplessly wait for diagnosis and then cancer treatment knowing full well that it may be too late when your turn in the hospital comes - and the law does not alow you to get it done fast privately if you want and can pay, then something is wrong, isn't there? (Well, unless you subscribe to the idea that if two people are drowning and you know you can save just one of them, you let both of them drown, because saving one would be unfair to the other you could not save.) Canadian health care system is OK for you if you a (a) rich enough to buy any urgent treatment outside the country, or (b) a high level politician or athlete who gets an immediate attention, or (c) generally healthy and all you need is to buy some aspirin from time to time. Pavel [rest nuked] I cant let that go either. We have excellent care when you get in. That is WHEN you get in. Good post here I like your analogy about the drowning. The RCMP get in ASAP, politicians get in ASAP, hockey players get in ASAP and WCB claims get in ASAP and people who can afford it go to the US. The average Joe waits. My wife has been waiting 8 months to see a specialist about an ear problem. We have friends in the US who say she would be in under a week. I would pay for that service here if the communists in power would let me. But alas like the only other 2 jurisdiction in the world, North Korea and Cuba, we are not allowed private health care. |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
This article is pure unadulterated BS. It is the line from the Fraser
Institute (financed by private insurance companies, among others) that they have been hawking (a word selected for more than one reason) for years. Ask "average" people from England if their health system has improved now that private doctors and clinics have come about. I am not opposed to nominal user fees, because indeed people have become abusive here in Canada with their use of the medical system. I see people in hospital emergency wards who have no right to be there. They should be at a clinic. Every patient that enters the hospital emergency system costs upwards of $500 to process, and more often than not, gets worse care for it than they would visiting a local medical clinic. So, yes, education is a requirement. And why does Canada's medical care cost more than other countries. It's simple. We are right next to the US, and they suck every nurse, practitioner and doctor they can coerce into moving to their services, so we have to pay more to keep them here. That old "we already have two tired medicine because the politicians and the rich can cheat" argument is also an old saw. It just so happens I live in Dr. Keith Martin's riding, and I have had numerous discussions with him. He is the MP who used to be a Reform party member and is now a "Liberal" and he has been pushing two tier medicine for years. I won't argue that some people don't successfully abuse the system, and get to queue jump, but that no more validates making it a national system than saying because gun control doesn't eliminate every gun related crime, we should issue everyone a gun (come to think of it, you might like that, considering your affinity for Ralph Klien, the "Western Standard" and the Fraser Institute (can we say "red-neck" boys and girls?)). Funny how you are so hip on getting those waiting lines reduced, you are in favor of paying for your medical treatment, you admit your wife is suffering, and yet you won't go to the US, who will gladly take your money for the services and get the issue taken care of (and boy will you pay for it). Certainly, waiting lists have to be improved upon, but with shortages of doctors and nurses and hospital rooms being closed down, that can't happen. I have lived both sides of this game, and I know which works and why. In fact, I have lived in several countries with assorted medical systems, and I can say categorically that Canada HAD the best one I ever experienced when I arrived here in the early 1980s. There is a reason Tommy Douglas, the father of Canadian medicare, was voted "Greatest Canadian" a few months back. Canadians recognize the value of a nationalized medical system, now we just have to learn how to properly use, fund and administer it. As as to your taxes... if your taxes are going up significantly, then so has your income, the value of your home, and so on, because taxes have been dropping in Canada otherwise (that's, in fact, one reason the medical system has been suffering). We pay higher taxes here for the lifestyle we have. Our range of wealth here is compressed and we are better for it. More people fit in the middle class as a result, unlike in the US where "free enterprise" allows for despairingly unfair distribution of wealth. We also have 1/10th the population but the same landmass to take care of, so one would expect costs to be higher here. We also have a lot less violent crime, a lot cleaner water and air, a lot lower infant mortality rate, and a longer lifespan, and when you actually look into the cost of private health care, private care of the elderly, and so on, we get off cheap compared to the US. Oh, and by the way, you might want to check out the tax percentages in those countries the Fraser Institute mentioned. Take a look at the rates for Sweden, France, Australia and Japan, and see where we fit relative to the services we receive for that tax money. I bet you we have the lowest cost of the bunch (and if we can get the government to stop stealing our money, we'd be even better off);-). Funny how the Fraser Institute forgets to mention that. I just did some research, and although it is difficult to get direct equivalencies on taxes here's what I found: Japan: 10-37% income tax (8.5% of income goes directly to health and dental care) France: 10-48% income tax, 19.6% VAT/GST Australia: 17-47% income tax 10% VAT/GST Sweden: 68-92% taxes (total, came from another chart, and by the way the 92% was for an income of only $64K US) Canada: 16-29% income tax 7% VAT/GST Art gary wrote: There are people out there who think the present model of health care can survive if we just keep throwing money at it. Where does this money come from? My taxes have only been going up and up and are taking a greater percentage of my income every year. Those Americans with good health care can afford the premiums and enjoy much lower tax rates. If we had the lower tax rates here we could also afford to buy excellent health care coverage. Lets not always compare two tiered health care to the US. There are much better models around the world which we will have to one day (soon) seriously look into. Ralph Klein is the only Premier thinking ahead. Health care cost are spiraling upward exponentionally. The population is aging - increasing the use on the system, and we do not have the population growth needed to sustain this system. Waiting lines only get longer and longer - even though in Alberta we are pumping more and more money into the system every year. As a side note, I heard a fellow say on a talk show the other day that Sweden has NO waiting list. You need the service, you are in. I am enclosing an excellent article from the Western Standard to help us all think "outside the box". Two-Tier health works all around the world Monday, 11 October 2004 Candis McLean When it comes to health care, Canadians seem convinced there are only two options: the Canadian way, with our universal health system and no access to privately funded medical procedures; or the American way, with no guaranteed care and many citizens left uninsured. Yet in reality there are as many different options as there are countries in the developed world, and of all the models out there, Canada is getting the least bang for its health care buck, according to health analyses conducted by the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute. Of 30 developed countries in the world, all but two--the U.S. and Mexico--have programs that ensure access to care regardless of ability to pay, Nadeem Esmail, a health policy analyst for the free market think tank, told the audience at a Calgary luncheon in June. Of the 28 remaining countries with universal health care access, every single one of them also allows access to private care for those citizens who choose it. "If you look at the four health care systems with the best measurable health outcomes--Sweden, France, Australia and Japan--all of them allow patients to contract for private care," Esmail says. "If you look at the seven countries that have no waiting lists, the same is true." Even the United Kingdom, the system upon which Canada's was based, permits a parallel private health care system that offers the same services as those provided by the public sector, and allows its residents to buy from private insurers and health providers. Of developed countries, "only Canada disallows the delivery of privately funded services," says Esmail. Yet while Canada has the highest age-adjusted spending on health (10.8 per cent of GDP, compared to 7.2 per cent in the U.K.), Canada does not rank first in access to care, supply technologies or number of physicians. According to Esmail, better health outcomes for money spent enjoyed by other governments worldwide often come when health policies permit cost-sharing between patient and government. The majority of developed countries require patients to pay "nominal or not-so-nominal fees" to access physicians, says Esmail. That leads to less demand, as people are less likely to abuse a system that is not entirely free, with no detrimental effect on health. Esmail holds up Australia as an example Canada might want to emulate. There, roughly 15 per cent of total health care expenditures come from patients' pockets. Physicians can bill any amount they wish, but the government reimburses patients only 85 per cent of a standard fee it has established. In addition, he says, there are major advantages gained by allowing the contracting-out of services to the private sector. Even though bills may still be covered largely by taxpayers, allowing private clinics to operate leads to greater efficiencies through competition--without disenfranchising the poor or financially ruining citizens facing catastrophic medical expenses. The key lesson for Canadians, he says, is that allowing privately funded purchases of core health services, and allowing the private sector to deliver that care, means a better system, because patients are getting the care they want and are not simply stuck with accepting the care the government will deliver to them--no matter how inadequate it may be. While many Canadian politicians warn that allowing any private care will result in so-called two-tier health care, implying that some Canadians will have access to better care than others, Esmail says we're already there. "A survey out of Ontario found that 80 per cent of physicians had been involved in cases where patients had received preferential access to care for non-medical reasons," he says. Wealthy Canadians--and even high-ranking politicians--can fly to the U.S. or other countries for care, while the well-connected pull strings to get themselves faster access to the treatments they need. "This means that good Canadians waiting in queue for what the government is going to give them are the ones to suffer," says Esmail. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
gary wrote:
There are people out there who think the present model of health care can survive if we just keep throwing money at it. Where does this money come from? My taxes have only been going up and up and are taking a greater percentage of my income every year. Those Americans with good health care can afford the premiums and enjoy much lower tax rates. This is an odd comment. Add up the premiums and their lower tax rates, and you'll find that they pay more for the same quality health care than we do. Most of them do not get good care - the private insurers just don't pay for it, because the employers want to keep premiums down. (I have read that about $2,000 of a car's price in the USA accounts for the health care benefits of the auto workers. In Canada, the cost is about half that, both in employer's health tax and in benefits cost, which is the main reason we build so many cars for the US market here.) NB that in Canada we already have two-tier health ca most full time workers have a health insurance plan that pays for items not covered by medicare. These are expensive: in the 1990s, my employer paid almost $5,000 per year per employee with a family. That was for dental and eyecare, a drug plan, and such things as orthopedics and post-operative physiotherapy, etc. These are all things that were and are covered by medicare in almost all European countries. (The high cost of these premiums is the reason that more and more employers are demanding that the employee pay a share.) You have only one wallet: you will have to pay for good health care one way or another. Does it make a difference whether the health care dollar goes to a government organised system, or a private insurer? The experience in the USA suggests that privately paid health care costs much more than our publicly paid system does. The two-tier systems your quoted article mentions have serious flaws - basically, health care is rationed by social class (ability to pay), not by urgency or need. I don't see why someone making $100K a year should be able to get his wart removed on demand and at his convenience, while someone making $30K a year must wait hours for few stitches in a cut hand. The fact is that no matter how you pay for it, there is only so much health care available - that is, there are only so many doctors, nurses, technicians, orderlies, etc. If there aren't enough _human_ resources, we will have waiting lists, or else the "market" will ration health care by pricing it out of reach of most people. Our Canadian health care problems arise from a shortage of human resources - people have to wait for hip surgery because there aren't enough surgeons and OR nurses, is all. Why? Because a) our politicians cut taxes in the 1980s and 90s, to satisfy complaints like yours; and b) they cut spending on medical schools to pay for those tax cuts - at a time when more medical schools should have been built. (It takes 12-15 years after high school to make a doctor: some of the kids graduating from high school this year may be available to heal you sometime after 2017, if we are smart enough to raise taxes to help pay for their medical education, so that they can afford to go to medical school.) These idjits also cut hospital beds, ORs, and a host of other things, all in the name of some stoopid "common sense" superstitions about some alleged difference between dollars paid to a government and dollars paid to a private business. (The waste and fraud that go on in private business far exceed that in government - it's just not reported as such, if it's reported at all. Just look at the "one time write downs" etc that show up in annual reports. What are these? The price of a more or less dumb decision. Who pays for it? The shareholders, via lower dividends; and the consumer, via higher prices. And sometimes the community at large pays too, via the destruction of a viable and useful business.) Sure our system has problems. But with all its problems, I prefer our Canadian health care system. You may know some of those lucky Americans who can afford good health care. I know, and know of, a lot who aren't as lucky. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fast, high demand warehouse printer | Pyrox | Printers | 6 | June 28th 04 03:03 PM |
can someone look at this? | steve | General | 3 | March 2nd 04 12:11 AM |
Club 3D radeon 9600, Pro or Value? | Digo | Ati Videocards | 2 | February 17th 04 11:06 AM |
Installing Ati Radeon 9700 drivers to Mandrake Linux 9.2 | Meinz | General Hardware | 2 | January 15th 04 07:09 PM |
"System temperature too high" warning | Dave Ulrick | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | September 3rd 03 03:03 PM |