Canada is excellent for emergency care sure. I also lived in Canada :) But the problem with both UK and Canadian system is the non-emergancy care.

I played soccer at a pretty decent level while in Canada and a guy in my team was suffering from crazy headaches. He begged and begged for an mri because everything they tried didn't work drug wise. He was on a waiting list for an mri for 5 months in ontario. The mri revealed he had been given all the drugs for no reason, and the problem was some weird abnormality in his neck / spine that was pushing on his brain giving him the headaches.

After 5 months waiting on the mri, his condition was upgraded to emergency and he had an operation which corrected the problem within a few days.

I am no fan of the US system for sure, but on the insurance plan we have currently there is no waiting. You get the referral fast from your doc and you arrange an appointment that week with the specialist / clinic.

When we move back to the UK first thing I will buy is additional private medical insurance for these kind of things.

Not always:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...32203-sun.html

Stories like this are all too common here.

Also the survival rate for cancer is higher in the US probably because people here usually have to wait longer for treatment.

Health care in Canada is generally good when you can get it.

Which blue is 41%? i am having trouble differentiating the colors.

Well, I'm sure you can figure out how but when I got to the part on the application about a drug test I stopped. if I tested positive then what? Anyway, doesn't matter cuz I am not a big fan of insurance these days anyway. Why bet against the people with the odds? You know those insurance plans they try to sell you at Best Buy? I NEVER take them.

Doc, as far as the comments on FOX news and "talk radio hosts" I'm 39 years old. I've been in favor of smaller government since before FOX news even existed. Over the years I've come to believe in somewhat bigger governments than I did back then but overall I'm still somewhat libertarian in my views regarding the role of government though I don't go the extremes that they do.

There's many different ways of considering what the role of government should be.

In my ideal state I would have not have created Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare and so on. I don't believe those functions should be paid for by everyone in a society collectively. I don't believe in collective social welfare. I didn't say in what way that is better to me. I don't think most people will get better healthcare/welfare/retirement under a system where we don't take from some to give to others. if you take from some and give to others of course there will be many receiving more than they put in and they will be better off. All these things of course follow and are the legacy of the Bismarckian state. I think the smaller functions of the state before that era were preferrable.

That being said we already have those programs above and I don't think it would be fair to the people on the receiving end of them to just take them away. I think Medicare D was a huge mistake but I don't think you can take it away now.

I don't have any problems or criticisms of Canada's health system. None. It's just a different view held by most Canadians of what the function of government should be. If that is what Canadians want, great. Pay for it, plan it, do it.

I do, anyway, believe the US will head in this direction. People tend to want more services and governments are getting bigger in scope and power rather than smaller. It doesn't scare me. I don't think the country will fall apart. Life will go on. The tilt toward more liberal democracy with greater collective socialization continues on. For better or worse.

Carlos, 93% of Pfizer's revenue comes from drug sales (Lipitor $13 billion, Norvasc $4.8 billion, Zoloft $2.1 billion, Celebrex $2 billion, Viagra $1.6 billion, etc etc). 9 drugs over $1 billion in sales.

Most of Pfizer's products are developed by the Pfizer R&D team; an $8 billion per year research department. They have 12,000 scientists currently researching and developing 242 drugs in 11 different therapeutic areas.

Her. ummmm, not an issue for me, Doc. I'm willing to bet we are in completely different tax brackets.

I've read Hillary's healthcare plan. Not sure everyone else has. I haven't read Obamas. Has he provided details?

Hillary's plan requires raising the top tax rate to 39.5% to partially offset the cost of her plan. So again for me, this is MANY, MANY times what I would ever have to receive in healthcare. This is of course, true for all high income individuals. Now if you believe the rich should pay more for the healthcare of the poor, I won't argue with you. That is your belief. It's not right, it's not wrong. It's a preference about what kind of world you want to live in.

But let's not pretend that is not what it will be at least in some of the systems being proposed by the potential future presidents of the US.

Don't forget that with public health care, you are also no longer forced to pay auto liability insurance, because any injury resulting from accident is already covered. Infact deduct pretty much any kind of liability insurance you're paying for anything now. I've always thought it was fucked up that the law mandates you be a customer of a private business.

Unfortunately, that is not what is being presented by the politicians here in the US. You would still be able to keep your insurance BUT you would still pay into the universal system.

Would I like less government in my life? Yep. I think they're doing a horrible job in education. I think they're doing a horrible job in social security/retirement. I think they're doing a horrible job with the "war on drugs". I think they're doing a horrible job with road upkeep, police, etc.

I live in an area that has an all volunteer fire department. We do just fine. My subdivision has it's own roads that WE as residents take care of. We do just fine. My son was in a charter school which was ranked as one of the top 5 schools in the country when he was there - again, run by parents and school administration. Meanwhile the Atlanta public school system, which pays more per student than most public schools in the state, has some of the lowest scores in the state. Money down the drain. The public hospital is about to be closed down unless someone from the private sector comes in to save it. Hell, look at the self appointed border patrol run by citizens - it actually catches illegal immigrants.

So far, the private sector has shown me they can do a better job of doing most things than the government.

For those of you in the US, go pick up a copy of this months Consumer Reports - some interesting things in there. Most interesting is how skewed the public is on how much they think medical items cost. One example is that drugs account for 10% of health costs whereas consumers think the number is several times that amount. I know for a fact that my Dr. charges less per visit now than he did when he took Medicare/Medicaid patients because now he doesn't have to make up what he wasn't get paid. We have a government that is known for overspending. I mean puhlease - Medicare covers VIAGRA for goodness sake. Yes, my tax dollars go towards making sure Grampa has a good hard on for Grandma. :1orglaugh With universal healthcare you can damn sure expect the clever folks to get boob jobs, face lifts, etc all on the government dime.

CD, if supplemental insurance isn't worth anything in Canada (our offices were in Scarborough to give you an exact idea of where they worked), then why did everyone want it?!! This was something they were paying out of their own pockets - the company wasn't covering it except for the father of the owner :thumbsup

I didn't say it wasn't worth anything, I just said that it's not always the "must have" that some pretend it is. It's not all that costly though, certainly not like what you seem to be suggesting anyway. Here all it does is ensure that if you are admitted into hospital you get either a private or semi-private room (subject to availability). It doesn't ensure you get a "better doctor", special treatment, different nurses or better food than anyone else. It gives you some extra insurance benefits of course, which is always good to have. But there are a lot of people here who don't have it and do just fine.

I had supplemental insurance for all the years I worked in health care, it was built into my benefits package. For the past 10 years that I've been working for myself from home I haven't bothered to get it, and frankly I don't see the need for it so far. When I go on a trip I buy travel insurance anyway. I do have critical illness insurance which is a whopping $60 a month (oooh!), which covers me in case I develop a condition where I would not be able to run my business for an extended period due to illness or injury. It also covers me in case I have to seek treatment in the US or another country. (I actually recommend any small business owner have critical illness insurance)

Maybe one day I'll again start paying into the supplemental plan (Blue Cross), I don't know. I'm retired from the hospital I worked at now, maybe in a few more years I'll be retired from everything else I'm doing, who knows. :D

This has turned into quite an argument about the overall role of government and whether government is better or worse than private enterprise and whether things should be controlled at the federal or local level.

Regardless of your philosophical view on these issues, you can't deny the FACT that Canada and other industrialized nations with universal health care SPEND LESS per person on health care and receive MORE BENEFITS than we do in the U.S.

I can only speak for how it is here, but I wanted to say that all these comments like "government health care" got me thinking... and these people need to know that just because the goverment legislates the system that doesn't mean polititians are donning lab coats and performing surgeries. :D

All the same doctors and nurses and support staff are all still in place, each medical facility still has it's own administration and it's own budget. From my experience of it the only time the "government" ever entered into play was when there was going to be a large change in policy or practice (such as outsourcing hospital food services) or when one of the several unions were in contract negotiations. Other than that it's just a regular old hospital, you never percieve "the government" when you're there at all.

One huge difference though is when you're a patient and you are discharged you get a fond farewell from the staff... and no bill. :winkwink:

I'll say it again...

People willfully asking for the federal government to take more of their money, is like lending a crack addict money. They say they are going to use to it go check into rehab, but show up at your door again in a couple days after another bender.

These people are some of the worst money managers the world has seen... at least when it comes to money that isnt theirs. Im sure most of their personal finances are in order.

UHC would be no different. All these extra taxes would come it, and they will go on a shopping spree, like we have never seen. Then when it comes time to pay for medical services, they will give china a call and ask for a trillion or two to cover it.

Sorry, no thanks. I'm not necassarily against UHC in principle, but our government (the us gov) WILL fuck it up, royally.

BINGO.

8char

The US may spend more per person on health care but Canada spends more as a percentage of it's annual budget. Some provinces here are already spending 50% or more of their annual budgets on health care and that percentage keeps going up every year.

And yes we may receive more benefits than you but those benefits are rationed because of increased demand for a "free" commodity. The availability of benefits isn't much use if you can't receive them in a timely manner. There is a reason why many people here choose to go to the US to pay for treatments.

Also our technology and availability of new drugs lags behind yours by several years. That's another reason why many people here go to the US for treatment.

Here's another consqequnce of rationed health care - this one from the UK:

Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors

Then it's only a matter of time before some bureaucrat decides to add other "unhealthy" lifestyles, as determined by them, to the list.

How scary is that?

Hm, not in BC. They recommend every driver get $3 million third-party liability insurance. I guess if you cause someone else's loss of job/life due to the accident, you're still on the hook for it.

I think he was speaking more in terms of self. You aren't required to carry extra health insurance on yourself in order to drive a motor vehicle, is what I think he meant. And that's true, you don't. If you get in an accident and only you yourself is injured, you still get free healthcare, for example.

I think every province requires some level of 3rd party liability ins. Here in Manitoba I think the minimum is 1 million.

I just can't figure out why you still are in Canada .....

You're not required to carry auto health insurance on yourself in the US either. I've never had it.

I'll check that, seems that I messed that up with another company..

Well, not that it's your place to try and figure that out but why wouldn't I or shouldn't I still be in Canada?

Peaches you sound so anti-government. Base on your observation the government just screws up everything they touch.

By your logic you would support private companies like Blackwater to fight our wars, patrol our streets, border security, etc...


I believe in government when we put the right people in government. Republicans hate government and always put their cronies to ruin it. Hence, Katrina, FEMA, FDA, EPA, etc.

Look at the bigger picture. All developed coutries have UHC. Wake up Peaches because you may find yourself on the other end of health care.

What's interesting is that when I posted the exact same sentiments on this board 5 years ago as I have in this thread I received a lot more dissention and arguing from Americans back then. Now there's only a few who continue to resist. Seems a lot of opinions have either changed and/or a lot are just less vocal about criticizing my argument for UHC as they used to do. Tells me that in general, those people are a lot more open-minded these days, maybe had their eyes opened a tad wider.

Moore's movie amongst other things has obviously caused a snowball effect of awareness in the past 1-2 years.

The percentage is meaningless.
Canada doesn't have the national defense bill that we have.
If we got rid of the pentagon the percentage we spend on everything else would go way way up, but it doesn't mean we're spending more money.

This is a good point.

The republican argument goes back to Reagan's famous line "Government isn't the answer to the problem, government is the problem"
So during a republican administration political loyalty is the most important thing when staffing the executive agencies, NOT competence or experience. (Which is why we had the director of the Arabian Horse Association running FEMA, and why we have so many grads of Regent University working in the justice department)
If government does a good job then that ruins their argument that government CAN'T do a good job. So do you think they're really trying?

So should we just get rid of the government or should we demand that competent people run the government?
I vote for the latter.

If my HMO screws me over I have no recourse whatsoever....you're not even allowed to sue them.
If the federal health plan screws me over I can call a congressman, a senator, I can sue...there are lots of things I can do....and if I don't like the way they're running it I can throw them out in two years and get new people in there.

The point I think a lot of you folks who aren't living in the US don't seem to see is that the US has already screwed up the healthcare system they are in charge of: Medicare and Medicaid. If they haven't figured out how to run that in 40 years, do you really think we want to trust our health to them now?

If I could change the healthcare system, I would make a minimum catastrophic policy mandatory for everyone unless you're too poor in which case you're already covered under Medicare/caid. And heavy penalties if you don't and you pay for it in cash.

Seems like I labeled the board right - interesting discussion so far.

Just one against the:

"Government fucks everything up" argument

As we see in every country of the world, including the States that have no problem to finance an armed invasion - no government in the world needs to SAVE or create PROFIT...

(well at least in the ideal case when they don't save or create profit for interested / lobbying third parties..)

In every government observed healthcare system - the health of the patient is preffered over the cost of the treatment.

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.

I think that is where Peaches is at right now. Government sucks ass..so lets privatize it.

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.