OK, so Medicare and Medicaid have been around for over 40 years and they are still screwed up. Are you guys seriously thinking that voting "new" people in is going to change that? Don't you think maybe, sometime during the past 40 years that's already been tried and HASN'T WORKED?

Keep in mind we are speaking about US..

Please explain to me how medicare and medicaid are screwed up.

Medicare spends less than half as much on administrative costs than the average HMO. LESS THAN HALF.

So why do you think a private company is so much more efficient?

Would rather privatize it?

You are also leaving out the VA. The VA use to be the best run government health care until the Bush adminstration.

My mother ran a huge nursing home facility in FL for 20 years until retiring last month. My stepmother has been a midwife at a government run hospital for 10 years. My father has been a Medicare recipient for the last 7 years. I have heard horror stories from them, their co-workers, my own doctor, nurses and doctors in other locations, and since I took classes and am interning to do coding work and work with Medicare/caid, IMO, it's screwed up.

My father has kept his supplemental policy which he refuses to get rid of.

Meanwhile, like I said, I recently had almost $200K in medical bills and most were paid by BCBS before I even got home. It takes months to get something from Medicare/caid and they kick it back more times than they take it. The "joke" is that they are all trained to turn them all down the first time, lol.

People who think the health system is going to all warm and cozy if they elect the "right" people and get UHC are truly looking through very rose colored glasses. And if my book wasn't in the car, I could give you the ICD-9 code for that. :thumbsup

Who says I think the armed invasion was a good idea? We sure as hell shouldnt have done that either. Its put us trillions in the hole and got us very little.

Bullshit it is. Look at all the stories now about people having to sue NHS in britain because the government doesnt want the expense of keeping their family members on life support. The cost of medical treatment is skyrocketing in britain to the point where they are trying to pay obese people to exercise. Their system is in a big decline, and people are getting less healthy every day.

If you really want to end up with a government bureaucrat assigning a dollar value to your life, then making a judgement call on whether you should get your treatment or not, by all means, continue forward with UHC.

[/quote]
Which apparently doesn't happen in the States, although the costs per capita are higher than anywhere else.

This once again ridiculously simplifies the problem.[/QUOTE]

It will, but it will be other pockets that will be filled.

I can't judge as I haven't read any stories like this, the only thing I know that ANY TIME there is something happening in healthcare in UHC countries - it's always the top news, why?

Because it's NOT widely accepted to not to treat people who would be too expensive to cure or not to insure those at all..

This is again a total misunderstanding to the UHC model - someone really painted a MASSIVE DEVIL on the wall.

There are NO dollars to be "assigned" to your life, you get what you have to get according to the diagnose, there is NO question about how much that costs.

It's NOT private companies deciding if they want to pay to keep you in shape or not, according to the diagnose and your premium world's most expensive program (if you are lucky to get any insurance at all).

You're obviously saying the system needs change and improving. I can only speak for myself here but I'm not saying introducing a UHC will magically solve everything, I think it's more about improving the existing system for everyone.

Keyword: improving.

And your existing system obviously needs it.

Am I saying Canada has it perfect? No. But I am saying I wouldn't trade ours for yours, not in a million years.

The only way you will truly have a great health care system in your country is if people stop arguing and railing against change and first just admit there needs to BE change... and then work together to build a better system. Canada certainly isn't the greates model to look to, but it does have it's strong points. So too do the health care setups in Sweden, Germany, Australia, and many other countries. There HAS to be enough good examples there to take something from each one and adapt it to the US.

What bothers me about your posts on this thread Peaches is that you seem to rail against any type of government involvement but I get the impression you desperately want to keep things as they are, yet you seem to admit that improvements are needed. Which is it?

I predict change is coming in the US. Maybe within the next 5 years. Will you be ready for it?

Well, the DEVIL on the wall, IMHO, is how UHC advocates paint the current medical system. Yea, I'll agree, its less than ideal in many cases and needs reform, but the number of uninsured in this country is relatively small, at 15%. If you break down those stats even farther, you find that 60% of those people are well ABOVE the poverty level. Your likely to find big screen tv's in their homes and all the bling they can carry, because they have made a conscious choice not buy health insurance. I'm not one to put a gun to the horses head to make them drink.

63% of the uninsured are below age 34.... the healthiest age group.

There is no crisis. Most definitely not large enough to create what will surely be the largest gov bureaucracy we have to date, along with a huge tax increase, that will once again overburden the middle class with the weight of it.

Social security checks, welfare checks, section 8 housing checks.. all government run, all arrive exactly on time, every month.

My landlord loves the people who get government checks, or section 8 housing since they always have the rent, always on time. Nice to not have to pester late payers, or serve evictions.

I think doctors would LOVE a system where they dont have to pay a staffer just to call an insurance pig just to try to squeeze a fucking dollar out of them. Nothing could be worse than what we have now for christs sake is what I think they'd be saying.

If a doctor is pissed at waiting for a check because of a broken old system never meant to be used as it is, maybe they should fire the extra staff they feel they HAVE TO HAVE in order to simply deal with people they should never have to deal with! Again, not JUST increases, you have to include the CUTS that will be able to be made as well.

Havent we all seen stories where a doctor gives up on that mess and goes into a "cash for service" practice instead? They refuse to take insurance at all! Cash only. No paperwork, no bloated staff, no refusals to pay for treatment to save someones life because of some insurance company saving their own profits.

The handwriting on the wall could hardly be clearer that this old system is more than one foot in the grave.

Imagine that instead of giving your money to privte insurance, you put it into yearly CD's or some other short term low or no penalty investment. ONLY to be used when you have a doctor appointment. You'd be just as well off, and worth more money too. Because if you have a serious illness, you can bet your ass that your insurance company is going to fight like hell to NOT PAY for your treatment. Dont kid yourself on that point, there's been plenty of testimony before congress proving that with no doubt.

The idea I like the best, that I've heard floating around, is to make medical insurance, except for catastrophic cases, illegal. Medical prices would drop so fast its ridiculous. But I dont think it could happen.

Medicare and medicaid are systems that are used to pay for healthcare. That fact that you know people who work in a government run hospital or nursing care facility has nothing to do with medicare or medicaid.

With a universal system, you show up at the doctor, they decide what treatment you need, and then they bill the government for the treatment.
You never have to worry about what's paid for and what isn't.
You'll never get a bill and never have to fight over whether or not something was covered.

Your experience with BCBS is unique....ask the millions of people who have been denied treatment by an HMO because of a pre-existing condition or because the treatment was considered "experimental" or any other of the dozens of reasons they give for not providing treatment.

We can't really base our national health care plan on your individual experience with Blue Cross. All of the data available overwhelmingly shows that a universal single payer system is superior to the system we currently have in the U.S.

I don't know the details of what you're referring to....but if family members want to keep a brain dead person on life support for 20 years I can totally understand why the doctors would go ahead and pull the plug. :2 cents:

I don't know why Canada would require it. My family in New Zealand does not legally require any insurance at all. Insure your own property, only if you want to. All injury to anyone, and even loss of income, is covered.

Forcing people to patronize private businesses feels damn corrupt to me.

lol what a killer idea, hehe.

You're wrong. We don't force anyone to patronize private business. The government runs the driving insurance here, in Manitoba it is called MPIC (Manitoba Public Insurance Corp). If you own a vehicle and want to drive it you must be insured, period.

There are hundreds of privately owned insurance agents here, but when it comes to the part of their business that deals with insuring drivers ALL of them work under the umbrella of the provincially owned insurance corp.

You may have a better system in your country, I don't know, but ours is in some ways pretty good. In some ways, like a lot of other places, it sucks balls.

OK, first of all I don't have an HMO. For some reason people seem to think that an HMO is the only insurance you can get. That's wrong. You can have an HMO, PPO (which I have), major medical, surgical/hospital only (what I used to have), etc.

The people I talked about and MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES are with Medicare/caid. Tom - guess what? Most of the office staff where I'm interning spends their time ON THE PHONE WITH MEDICARE/CAID trying to track down payments. It's great that Section 8 checks are getting out and thank goodness they finally put food stamps on a card since people were selling for them 1/2 their value to buy drugs instead of food, but the medical part of the government still ain't running well.

Then I hear "Yay" for getting rid of health insurance companies. That is exactly what Michael Moore advocates. Thankfully not even Billary is that blindsided by stupidity.

As I said, yes, I think things are broken. I think we let WAY too many Americans and illegals get away with free care. That's why I said a while back that the way I start fixing it is to make a minimum of catastrophic insurance MANDATORY (on both the consumer and the provider side) for everyone in the US. You don't have it? Cash upfront, thankyouverymuch. And if you're too poor to afford $100 a month, then you qualify for Medicaid - now go to the county hospital ;)

I wouldn't expect us to release gov healthcare and it go smooth. It took Canada some 20+ years to iron out all the issues.

I really don't understand why people are against the gov healthcare. It's an insurance policy offered by the gov and it will force the insurance/medical industry to deregulate. If the gov is offering a much cheaper alternative, the mass of people will use it, unless the insurance industry matches rates. Which is a good thing for us people that can already afford insurance and a great thing for those who are dieing and can't get any help.

So doc, are you basically advocating a government run insurance company to compete with the private sector? I could deal with that. That's pretty much what GA offers for kids right now. I was looking and a family of 4 can make up to $48K a year to qualify for the state kid's program. It covers dental too and it's $10-35 per kid with a max of $70 per family. I'm sure there were people who canceled their current family policies and put their kids on the state program. Again, that would be mandatory insurance like I was talking about :)

From where I sit I certainly don't miss them. :D

I have no worries about eligibility either, I'm covered for life. Ahhh I bask in the stupidity of it all. :winkwink:

At least

and we're still evolving and improving it. :2 cents:

Canada doesn't have the national defense bill that you do because Canada, and Europe, have lived under the American security blanket for over 50 years. Instead of having to spend money on "useless" things like national and continental defense Canadians and Europeans have been able to build up massive welfare states by spending money on social programs instead.

The European welfare states are unsustainable and are heading for disaster.

You still have them, doofus :thumbsup MM is talking about getting rid of health insurance companies - period. That means you wouldn't have the option of that supplemental plan you used to have and probably not the critical care plan you have now. He wants the government to run it ALL with no allowable extras for those who can afford it. Yes, I heard it out of his own mouth not once, but twice.

Now surely even YOU think that's stupid :upsidedow

I never said we don't have them you goof, I said I don't miss them. (remember in one of my earlier posts where I said I don't currently have supplemental insurance? You did read it, right? Hello?)

But you're right, there will always be insurance companies, because not all insurance is health insurance. Life, travel, critical illness etc. People should be free to purchase that sort of insurance as much or as little as they want.

Hell, putting money into a registered retirement savings plan fund is a form of insurance. :D


"Doofus" :1orglaugh:thumbsup

It's a term of endearment here in the south - really!! :)

You're saying Canada is a welfare state? News to me.

I wonder, what are the percentages of people on welfare in Canada as compared to that of the US? Not numbers, percentages. Of course the US is going to have more since they are 10 times larger in population than us.

That's why the ":1orglaugh:thumbsup" is where it is. :D


doofus

I'm not really advocating, I'm just trying to make clear what people don't understand. They think taxes, worse health, or gov ran telling us blah, whatever it is. That's just fear of the known and uneducated. This is a great thing, gov insurance that is cheap for everyone and if it actually took a strong enough hold it would force the medical industry to deregulate.

I don't mind paying insurance, gov or to a corp, I'm just tired of being ass raped for pills, copays, or the threat of being dropped if something really goes wrong.

"Welfare state" doesn't refer to people being on actual welfare. It has more to do with the philosophy of how government is run.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state


The more you rely on the state to take of you the more control they have over you.

Gerald Ford said it like this:

And some good lines from the song "20th Century Man" by The Kinks:


One of the best anti welfare state quotes comes from Stephen Harper:

:thumbsup

America is a welfare state, as much as Canada is.

That's what I was thinking.


EonBlue -- I know that the term "welfare state" refers to a government's strategy on funding social programs. But you call someone's country a welfare state and most average people are going to equate it with having a lot of lazy people sucking the welfare teet.

Maybe it's best to clarify your precise meaning when labeling countries as such?

I don't know, just thinking out loud here. :D

There is no need for this, we will not make additional billions making people sign for a private insurance.

I would be interested about the number of those who CAN'T get any insurance (meaning declined).

If you can prove the people are volunteers not to have insurance I will publically state US is the craziest country in the world.

I cannot imagine anyone to ever risk to be at least pseudoinsured (as far as I know that you can get insurance around 100 - 150 USD) in a system where a minor to average health problem or accident will cost you thousands of dollars..

That's why I always doublecheck my travel insurance before crossing the border.

In any case - gamblers are not what we are discussing, anyone can gamble as much as they want with anything, but we are not discussing gamblers.

Another devil on the wall - I can't imagine more dangerous beaurocracy than letting someone to approve your cure - letting someone approve if you are in a bad shape or not, if they will cover that or not, if you are not too expensive.

Taxes? Well I have to rely on those, who know the local tax bracket from their practical experience to better judge that.

Anyway - with UHC you still have more chances to survive (you can't get declined) and you save the bill that you would have to pay for the cure in case you get seriously (meaning expensively) sick.

How about this then.

Canada is a welfare state, eh.

Ya hoser. :winkwink:

Fair enough. :)

And yes the US is also a welfare state it's just that Canada is more so and Europe even more.

Americans - and Canadians - would do well to look at the wall that the European countries are about to crash into and try to avoid the same fate.

The US and CA are just about the same with the welfare state idea. And for every bad Euro country we have a good Euro country we could study. We have a lot we could study, not that we will.

The US has the best medical care in the world.

You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Sure, some reform is needed, but socialized healthcare is the wrong fix.

WRONG.

Sure, our best hospitals and best physicians are better than other countries, BUT most of our population doesn't have access to those doctors and hospitals, only rich people do.

You have to look at the aggregate total, or mean, or average of all of the health care administered in this country and the cost of that care (or lack of care) and compare it to the other countries.
When you do that, we are far from the best.

lol :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

give me a sec to find a flag waving .....

http://3dflags.com/art/comps/usa0001...gif?1190601676

BTW, you also have the best cooking ....

All I know is that I pay $170 a year for insurance that will provide me a medical flight back to a hospital of my choice in the US in case something happens to me outside of the country. I feel a LOT safer carrying that in my wallet. Say what you will, but I like our private rooms, cable TV and even though the medical techs and ER doctors seem to be at the bottom of the barrel at least they're there paying attention to you and the good doctors are also here and waiting for me :)

Where do you get your insurance from???

Most families I know who have their own business pay at 1500.00 for HMO insurance.

Not really. The biggest "welfare state" component is health care and Canadian health care is way more socialized than in the US. Private health care is more or less outlawed in Canada for things that are provided in the public system.

There may be some that are doing well now but the entire European Union is heading for big trouble. Old Europe is dying. The only reason you should want to study it is to learn how to avoid the same fate.

You must be joking.

"Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases: and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. If by these and similar means the annual mortality were increased ... we might probably every one of us marry at the age of puberty and yet few be absolutely starved."
-Thomas Malthus, "An Essay on the Principle of Population"