10 Myths About Canadian Health Care, Busted

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Those assertions are simply not true. With any public benefits system just about anywhere, a certain (small) segment of the population will take unfair advantage of it. Rush Limbaugh has done a pretty good job of convincing people of the widespread existence of welfare queens who collect welfare, food stamps, and housing benefits for generations. These types of cases constitute a tiny minority, but nowadays, people on welfare are seen as lazy good-for-nothings who think the government owes them a living. I'm not saying that abuse of the system doesn't exist. I've known people (neighbors, friends of friends, etc.) who were able to receive federal assistance when they probably could have found work. But asserting that a lot of people (a majority, even?) abuse the system ignores the real causes of poverty--largely based on economic forces, not moral shortcomings--and essentially dismisses the plight of poor.

Here's an interesting page from APA that concisely debunks welfare myths. I know that this deviates a bit from the topic of health care, but it seems relevant.

Making 'Welfare to Work' Really Work

from the American Psychological Association?

APA publishes social and behavioral sciences books and journals, in addition to more clinically focused stuff. It also publishes an editorial style manual that's standard for most social sciences fields. [where's the geek icon?]

[Chica Yeyé 41]

I was totally against national health care in the USA until just the last few years. I have relatively good health and have depended on employer based health coverage all of my life. You really don't know how f*cked up the present system is until you really need it, depend on it, and try to use it. And I really didn't realize that until my wife went through a period of ill health, surgery, and hospitalizations. These insurance companies try to weasel out of paying, but are very happy to take your payments for their high priced premiums every month. It's their whole reason for existing...to make gobs of money on a system you cannot afford to live without. You have no idea what it feels like to get a $12,000 emergency room EoB (Explanation of Benefits) from the insurance company denying the claim. I have spent countless hours on the phone filing appeals on denied benefits, straightening out overcharges, and badgering them repeatedly for refunds due to us. I had to point out the overcharges because they sure as hell are happy to keep the money. This isn't some fly by night mom and pop insurance company...it's Blue Cross Blue Shield. There has to be a better way. National health care can't be any worst than what we have now!

Ever try to get an individual health care policy? We have been trying to keep my 22 year old step daughter with coverage ever since she got booted from my employer's policy (too old and not a student). She has epilepsy and nobody wants to cover her. UniCare offered a $3000 deductible 80/20% policy that excludes the epilepsy treatment from the coverage for 5 years for a $254.00 monthly premium. Tack that onto the $250 per month medication she needs along with the doctor visits the policy won't cover and it's unaffordable. We are trying to get her on the county Gold Card plan from the county hospital district. It's subsidized health care for low income people.

The way I see it the US profit driven system is set up to take premiums from only healthy people, deny paying claims when possible, and exclude people that are ill because it cuts into profits. Whose best interests is that in? Do you need a clue?

Peejay,

We rarely see eye to eye, but I wanted to tell you that I feel your pain. Medical bills are amongst the top reasons for folks filing for bankruptcy, and the emotional strain it puts on families with people with chronic conditions is just not a concern to these chopkufcs. the couldn't care less if your stepdaughter or my mamma in law, or anyone else needs attention TO LIVE A NORMAL LIFE. Apparently, good health is NOT a right, but a privilege. and that, at least in my eyes, is disgusting -- specially in a country that spends billions in designing cooler and easier ways to kill people (sorry, that's my disgust with military spending coming out).

My thoughts are with you peejay, and with your family

Those assertions are simply not true. With any public benefits system just about anywhere, a certain (small) segment of the population will take unfair advantage of it. Rush Limbaugh has done a pretty good job of convincing people of the widespread existence of welfare queens who collect welfare, food stamps, and housing benefits for generations. These types of cases constitute a tiny minority, but nowadays, people on welfare are seen as lazy good-for-nothings who think the government owes them a living. I'm not saying that abuse of the system doesn't exist. I've known people (neighbors, friends of friends, etc.) who were able to receive federal assistance when they probably could have found work. But asserting that a lot of people (a majority, even?) abuse the system ignores the real causes of poverty--largely based on economic forces, not moral shortcomings--and essentially dismisses the plight of poor.

Here's an interesting page from APA that concisely debunks welfare myths. I know that this deviates a bit from the topic of health care, but it seems relevant.

Making 'Welfare to Work' Really Work

from the American Psychological Association?

APA publishes social and behavioral sciences books and journals, in addition to more clinically focused stuff. It also publishes an editorial style manual that's standard for most social sciences fields. [where's the geek icon?]

Dear Joyce,

Goodness! I never thought I would give you advise!!! I'm honored. The geek icon can be found usually at our Commies for Christ meetings on the VJ chatroom

I love APA style --- Bren, a chemist, says it doesn't make sense.... since carbon bonds and reactions are just soooo easy to understand for us simple mortals, eh????

Peace, Len, your number 1 fan.

[Peikko 1,575]

That's always the message trotted out, if you provide welfare, people will take advantage of the system. This is true, a few will, maybe even a significant percentage. However, that is not a good reason not to do it because there are an even more significant numbers of people who who need these benefits to get themselves back to being able to contribute to society who do not take advantage of the system.

As a society we accept the principle 'innocent until proven guilty'. Why do we do this? Because as a society we have determined that on principle it is better to free a guilty man than to jail one who is innocent. The same principle should be applied to welfare.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Those assertions are simply not true. With any public benefits system just about anywhere, a certain (small) segment of the population will take unfair advantage of it. Rush Limbaugh has done a pretty good job of convincing people of the widespread existence of welfare queens who collect welfare, food stamps, and housing benefits for generations. These types of cases constitute a tiny minority, but nowadays, people on welfare are seen as lazy good-for-nothings who think the government owes them a living. I'm not saying that abuse of the system doesn't exist. I've known people (neighbors, friends of friends, etc.) who were able to receive federal assistance when they probably could have found work. But asserting that a lot of people (a majority, even?) abuse the system ignores the real causes of poverty--largely based on economic forces, not moral shortcomings--and essentially dismisses the plight of poor.

Here's an interesting page from APA that concisely debunks welfare myths. I know that this deviates a bit from the topic of health care, but it seems relevant.

Making 'Welfare to Work' Really Work

from the American Psychological Association?

APA publishes social and behavioral sciences books and journals, in addition to more clinically focused stuff. It also publishes an editorial style manual that's standard for most social sciences fields. [where's the geek icon?]

Yes, well... I don't know if you read through the article carefully, but the individual studies cited are quite a bit out-of-date. Most are from the mid-to-late 1990s; I believe I saw one study from the 1980s as well. The significance of this is that times (along with the economy and job market) change, so what might have been a "good excuse" ten years ago may not accurately qualify today and vice-versa.

Edited February 13, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Those assertions are simply not true. With any public benefits system just about anywhere, a certain (small) segment of the population will take unfair advantage of it. Rush Limbaugh has done a pretty good job of convincing people of the widespread existence of welfare queens who collect welfare, food stamps, and housing benefits for generations. These types of cases constitute a tiny minority, but nowadays, people on welfare are seen as lazy good-for-nothings who think the government owes them a living. I'm not saying that abuse of the system doesn't exist. I've known people (neighbors, friends of friends, etc.) who were able to receive federal assistance when they probably could have found work. But asserting that a lot of people (a majority, even?) abuse the system ignores the real causes of poverty--largely based on economic forces, not moral shortcomings--and essentially dismisses the plight of poor.

Here's an interesting page from APA that concisely debunks welfare myths. I know that this deviates a bit from the topic of health care, but it seems relevant.

Making 'Welfare to Work' Really Work

from the American Psychological Association?

APA publishes social and behavioral sciences books and journals, in addition to more clinically focused stuff. It also publishes an editorial style manual that's standard for most social sciences fields. [where's the geek icon?]

Yes, well... I don't know if you read through the article carefully, but the individual studies cited are quite a bit out-of-date. Most are from the mid-to-late 1990s; I believe I saw one study from the 1980s as well. The significance of this is that times (along with the economy and job market) change, so what might have been a "good excuse" ten years ago may not accurately qualify today and vice-versa.

Yes, I did read through the study, which was published in 1998. It's essentially an update of a study done in 1973, which came to the same conclusion with staggeringly similar numbers. Welfare, of course, was a big news story in the mid to late 1990s because of PRWORA / TANF in 1996, but we don't hear a whole lot about it these days.

The point of my response was that these myths have been prevalent pretty much since welfare's modern inception in the 1960s (Johnson's War on Poverty). That this APA paper (and many of the studies cited) isn't recently published doesn't mean that suddenly these myths now resemble truths. And I'm not sure what "good excuse" would have worked in, say, 1997 (post-PRWORA) that now doesn't apply. But the myths still prevail, and people who have little understanding of the realities and causes of poverty still attempt to characterize poor people on public assistance as societal leeches.

I feel I need to mention again that I am aware that some people abuse the system. But as PH pointed out, that this occurs doesn't mean that assistance should be withheld from people who really need it.

Edited February 13, 2008 by AOS despair