"System is imploding"

[ringzero]

Regarding discussion in another thread about the Canadian medical system:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw

.

[sappyg]

"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig

this is a good article.
when you get down to the nuts and bolts of the issue itself.... health care.... one wonders if this is something that has an ultimimate solution. probably not. if you try to make everyone happy you will please no one.
i guess it really comes down to how much people are willing to pay (in taxes), for less and how much the government should be involved in private enterprise.
curious though, the other thread was not aimed at Canadian healthcare but all nations with nationalized healthcare and only to have input on the bennifits of those programs. sadly, only Canadians responded and i know there are many here of other nationalities with similar systems in place.   

[BIG-TARGET]

And the Obamaunists want the same system in the states

[Freudian Frog]

And the Obamaunists want the same system in the states

Right? =(

[Grant Lamontagne]

That's the same scare tactic they have been using since the 70's.  Perhaps it was going on before that, but I wasn't born until then.

That and "by the time you reach retirement age, there won't be any money left for pensions!"

Sure.... and the Easter Bunny has a side job selling AK-47's.

 

Def

[BIG-TARGET]

That's the same scare tactic they have been using since the 70's.  Perhaps it was going on before that, but I wasn't born until then.

That and "by the time you reach retirement age, there won't be any money left for pensions!"

Sure.... and the Easter Bunny has a side job selling AK-47's.

 

Def

I thought the Easter bunny co-piloted a black UN Helicopter with Santa Claus?

[sappyg]

That's the same scare tactic they have been using since the 70's.  Perhaps it was going on before that, but I wasn't born until then.
 
Def

by they i assume you mean Canadian gov't or the Canadian health care system.
it does stand to reason that science, method and technology has grown since 1970 and that costs have risen for even basic treatments as a result.  also, i think we have grown to expect more goods and services from then until now and we will attempt to use gov't to fill in those gaps to reach those expectations. that is human nature.
really, should'nt they be there to protect us from ourselves and our loose expectations? moreover, it is now time (unfortunately), to define these expectations and resolve what is realistic and what is not.
     

[Grant Lamontagne]

Increased taxation, decreased spending... where's the money going?

History has taught us that when the government gets too disassociated with the people, taxes get too high and benefits get too low that there is almost always a revolution of some kind.  I'm guessing within our lifetimes we will see some major changes.

Def

[ufox9al]

I will declare my bias upfront, I prefer Canadian health system. Now, with that disclaimer out of the way, you do know that in the US the healthcare costs are 16% of the GDP while in Canada they are 10%? That difference doesn't seem to make Americans 80% healthier... My relatively educated guess is that that 6% (or more) is corporate profit.

As for the article, it's the same as climatologists pushing the human-induced global warming doctrine - they get money from it! If the head of the CMA said "everything is great, no worries", how could he justify requests for more funding?

[sappyg]

As for the article, it's the same as climatologists pushing the human-induced global warming doctrine - they get money from it! If the head of the CMA said "everything is great, no worries", how could he justify requests for more funding?

agreed... i think we need more Canadians in the US senate. 

[665ae]

As for the article, it's the same as climatologists pushing the human-induced global warming doctrine - they get money from it! If the head of the CMA said "everything is great, no worries", how could he justify requests for more funding?

agreed... i think we need more Canadians in the US senate. 

My only comment on this is the following...

How many people are in Canada?  Compare that to how many people are in the US (Both legally and "illegally")

(I have a lot more comments, but I won't bore you with them)

[Chako]

What does that have to do with anything?

Larger population base means more funding, means the system should work better then ours in Canada, which has very few people, less of a taxable population, and is stretched thin far and wide.

I just don't get that comment. 

But that is besides the point isn't it?

I read online earlier today, that the barter system is alive and well in the US regarding health care.

To me, that is scarier than anything up here. You may say that it’s a small percentage of the population, but its growing, especially with this recession. People are falling through the cracks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32420772/

[665ae]

What does that have to do with anything?

Larger population base means more funding, means the system should work better then ours in Canada, which has very few people, less of a taxable population, and is stretched thin far and wide.

It doesn't necessarily mean more funding... don't forget the US also has approx 20 million "illegal" aliens that would be able to access the health care system, and who won't be paying taxes to help fund it.  More people using it than funding it.

What I see is a system that will start out stretched to the limit with regards to the number of people it can service.  Then, when the number of Doctors start to decline (like what happened to Canada), the Doctor to Patient ratio will skyrocket.

Why does a barter system scare you? 

[ducktapehero]

Let's not forget that since the US has so many more people, the actual system will have to be much bigger. And since it's a gov't run operation there will be inefficiencies and gobs and gobs of red tape.


Like I said before, comparing these countries that have 30-60 million with the US is apples and oranges. If you really want to see how gov't run health care will work in a large, populous and economically and racially diverse country look at the former Soviet Union and/or China.

 

[Medic82]

You can debate as much as you want about what system is best, but one thing is for sure. When you have a system that will not treat the weakest people in society because they can’t afford health insurance and they have to rely on charity and good will to be treated for the simplest things then something is just plain wrong.


I am happy with the Norwegian government run system, it has it’s flaws but in my opinion it is better than the US run system, but we are only 5 million people that live in Norway.

[Grant Lamontagne]

What does that have to do with anything?

Larger population base means more funding, means the system should work better then ours in Canada, which has very few people, less of a taxable population, and is stretched thin far and wide.

It doesn't necessarily mean more funding... don't forget the US also has approx 20 million "illegal" aliens that would be able to access the health care system, and who won't be paying taxes to help fund it.  More people using it than funding it.

What I see is a system that will start out stretched to the limit with regards to the number of people it can service.  Then, when the number of Doctors start to decline (like what happened to Canada), the Doctor to Patient ratio will skyrocket.

Why does a barter system scare you? 

At least with the barter system you know the prostitutes will be well cared for...

Def

[ducktapehero]

When you have a system that will not treat the weakest people in society because they can’t afford health insurance

I don't have a problem helping the "weak" people in society. Most Americans don't. Hell, we are some of the most charitable people on Earth.

However, WAY too often it isn't the weak but merely the lazy who have problems. I'm sorry but I've met a lot of people in my life and 95% of the "poor" people I've met are poor because of stupid decisions they've made. Not because of the "evils of capitalism". From getting in trouble with the law to getting pregnant in high school to having too many credit card and etc etc.

So, why should us people who were smart enough to not screw up our future be stuck with their medical bills?

Like I said, I have no problem helping those who NEED help. Bad things happen, we all get unlucky streaks now and then, but I think it's wrong for for hardworking people in society to have to pay for lazy parasites.





Edited to add:After reading this I sounded heartless. I want to clarify something. I am against gov't run health care but I am also smart enough to realize that the current system is broke. I am a hard core capitalist and I think that competition is the key to good health care.

The problems right now are plenty 1) HMO's (which was another wonderful gov't idea), too much gov't involvement and rules. Liability concerns, a LOT of medical bills are the result of stupidly high lawsuits for malpractice suits. Insurance is killing the private doctors.

Now, I propose that the gov't NOT supply the insurance but basically set up some guidelines about how it wants most people covered and then let competition work out the details. Due to competition, we have personal computers that are more powerful than the ones that sent man to the moon, I truly believe that if we let businesses actually compete against each other they can drive the cost of health care back down.

[sappyg]

finally....... a post from another nationality.... now.... could you let us know what your tax rate is medic88?
the way i see it:
if we have 47 million uninsured that # is comprised of 20 million illegal. now we are down to 27 million... but waite... there' more....
of that 27 million i'll wager that 15 million or more are already on gov't assistance i.e housing, food stamps, SSI, medicade/ medicare .... now we're down to 17 million. of the 17 million i think there are at least 8 million that would'nt participate in any program whatever and are hard core umeployable.... now we are down to 9 million. but waite... there's more....
of those 9 million clearly 7 million (or more), would work and likely have insurance if they could find or had not lost their job. i don't have a problem giving the assistance these people desearve and i think we can do that w/o raising taxes or creating yet another gov't agency. 7 to 9 million people has a lot of clout. they should not have to go broke from a short term delima.
frankly, no one is refused care in the US.... the rest of us pay for it through our insurance premiums anyway. this issue does seem to be manufactured for a desired result. 

[ufox9al]

...
Like I said before, comparing these countries that have 30-60 million with the US is apples and oranges.
...

You do have a point, but you may not realize that it has already been considered and dealt with. Even with 33 million people, Canada chooses not to have Federal government running healthcare. The health care is provincially administered, and the role of the Federal government is managing "equalized" transfer payments to the provinces, as well ad acting a a sort of a watchdog on the quality of care. Also, even running health programs within a province like Ontario (13 or so million people, and ) requires more granular management. Currenlty there are 14 LHINs ("local health integration networks") set to manage integrated care. This may sound like more "administrative waste", but again, healthcare spending in Canada is 10% of GDP vs. 16% in the US.

On the subject of illegal immigrants. Canada has around 100,000 of those, which indeeed is nothing compared to the US. However, for years we have been getting approximately 300,000 (or 1% of population) of legal immigrants, who are immediately entitled to health care. This includes many elderly people thorugh family re-unification, who put additional strain on the system. This is how Canada chose to structure our immigration system, and I disagree with a number of policies that are totally messed up, but as far as health care is concerned, the system somehow survives.

The only real "drawback" of the public health care is that the government, on behalf of the taxpayers, aggressively goes after the "freedoms" of smokers and tobacco companies through heavy taxation, anti-smoking advertizing, etc. Having accepted the link between tobacco smoking and health issues as a medically proven fact, I do not have an issue with this. Smoking a different plant is a whole different story though

[ufox9al]

...
frankly, no one is refused care in the US.... the rest of us pay for it through our insurance premiums anyway. this issue does seem to be manufactured for a desired result. 
...

Now we only need to find out whether it is manufactured by the islamic terrorists who control Obama administration, or those pesky Canadians who want US to suffer the same misery as they do in their igloos.

Seriously though, "no one is refused care in the US"? Surely, you did not mean that. My co-worker spent a number of years as a hospital administrator in Jamaica Queens hospital in NY. I had to politely ask him to stop telling me all the stories, I just could not handle them...

[ducktapehero]

The only real "drawback" of the public health care is that the government, on behalf of the taxpayers, aggressively goes after the "freedoms" of smokers and tobacco companies through heavy taxation, anti-smoking advertizing, etc. Having accepted the link between tobacco smoking and health issues as a medically proven fact,

Fact? Maybe not so much if you actually dig a little.

http://www.lcolby.com/index.html

Now I'm not sating that smoking is good for you, however, I do think it has been greatly exaggerated about how "bad" it is for you. 

[ufox9al]

The only real "drawback" of the public health care is that the government, on behalf of the taxpayers, aggressively goes after the "freedoms" of smokers and tobacco companies through heavy taxation, anti-smoking advertizing, etc. Having accepted the link between tobacco smoking and health issues as a medically proven fact,

Fact? Maybe not so much if you actually dig a little.

http://www.lcolby.com/index.html

Now I'm not sating that smoking is good for you, however, I do think it has been greatly exaggerated about how "bad" it is for you. 

All I can answer to this link is:
http://www.elvis-is-alive.com/

[Grant Lamontagne]

Just to go back to the illegal immigrant thing... the Canadian system is actually set up to deal with that.  Each province issues a health card to citizens who are entitled to medical coverage.  People without a health card are treated and billed personally, or to their insurance if they have it.  Whoey, who was a legitimate citizen of Canada but whose ID wasn't up to date (things got confusing when he got out of school, but that's another ball of wax!) was charged for stitches he got in his hand after a slight accident at home. 

So, basically illegal immigrants will get treated, but will also be charged for the privilege.

Def

[ufox9al]

...Each province issues a health card to citizens legal residents, including citizens and landed immigrants, who are entitled to medical coverage...

Minor correction, the overall point is still 100% valid.

[sappyg]

...
frankly, no one is refused care in the US.... the rest of us pay for it through our insurance premiums anyway. this issue does seem to be manufactured for a desired result. 
...

Now we only need to find out whether it is manufactured by the islamic terrorists who control Obama administration, or those pesky Canadians who want US to suffer the same misery as they do in their igloos.

yes i did mean that. do you think that my premiums are based on me and my needs alone or do you think that they are based on the insures overall cost and spread among policy holder? here comes that nasty word again.... proffit.... there i said it... insurance companies are not in the charity business and niether am i. hard as it is to believe i work for proffit.... even gain and to increase my wealth.
if you want to live in an ingloo that is your business. i do not subscribe to a conspiracy theory. i do think that there are limits to the provisions rendered in the US constitution that limit our gov't's actions in this specific regard.
no one wants to see people suffer. i think most of us really want individual freedom and responsibilty. and brother... that takes hard work and sacrifice.  

[ufox9al]

Now, I propose that the gov't NOT supply the insurance but basically set up some guidelines about how it wants most people covered and then let competition work out the details. Due to competition, we have personal computers that are more powerful than the ones that sent man to the moon, I truly believe that if we let businesses actually compete against each other they can drive the cost of health care back down.

Devil is in the details. By making a reference to the computers you are missing a crucial point, which is that there is simply no positive "innovation" that is possible in insurance, banking, and, to a large extent, primary health care business. We have seen the fruits of competition and innovation in Wall Street "innovation" in the form of credit default swaps. This is capitalism in its pure form, and I doubt that many people would like to see more of it.

[665ae]

i do think that there are limits to the provisions rendered in the US constitution that limit our gov't's actions in this specific regard.

Did you just say Constitution?  That's a bad word in this country! 

[sappyg]

Now, I propose that the gov't NOT supply the insurance but basically set up some guidelines about how it wants most people covered and then let competition work out the details. Due to competition, we have personal computers that are more powerful than the ones that sent man to the moon, I truly believe that if we let businesses actually compete against each other they can drive the cost of health care back down.

Devil is in the details. By making a reference to the computers you are missing a crucial point, which is that there is simply no positive "innovation" that is possible in insurance, banking, and, to a large extent, primary health care business.

i respectfully dissagree and i openly admit to taking your statement out of context. ...
like all business we are involved in competition. i win... you loose.... you win i loose.... it is not for practice. it is for keeps. i don't need any practice at doing what i do and i dought any of us do. i admit that sometimes when i get up and go to work i am going through the motions... that is from practice. when i gotta make a difference in what i do.... that is from competition and i hate loosing.  

[sappyg]

i do think that there are limits to the provisions rendered in the US constitution that limit our gov't's actions in this specific regard.

Did you just say Constitution?  That's a bad word in this country! 

oooops..... i forgot where i was.

[Medic82]

finally....... a post from another nationality.... now.... could you let us know what your tax rate is medic88?

Sure. The tax rate on our income is not fixed, I have no debts what so ever so I pay around 36% income tax while a person that has a bank loan so he could buy a house will have to pay around 10% income tax.

Everything that you can buy in this country has a 25% sales tax, but on alcohol and tobacco the sales tax is around 80%.