Healthcare reform -- Can It Happen Here?

[HAL 9000 96]

However, if it were a percentage thing, don't you think that an additional 0.5% would probably be enough to cover such a plan?

How would I know?

Just being nicer to your humble paychek.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

4,000 per year? Per capita? That's about 3,800 USD a year.

That's a lot. In this country the per capita income is a shade less than 40,000 annually, right? So that's 9.5%.

Per capita in a state like West Virgnia is less than 30,000. So 4,000 there starts getting near 13%.

Well, in comparison, the US spends about $7,000 per capita.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

4,000 per year? Per capita? That's about 3,800 USD a year.

That's a lot. In this country the per capita income is a shade less than 40,000 annually, right? So that's 9.5%.

Per capita in a state like West Virgnia is less than 30,000. So 4,000 there starts getting near 13%.

Well, in comparison, the US spends about $7,000 per capita.

You know what's missing from th 3% number I posted earlier? That's just my contribution to my premium, it does not include my employers contribution.

I will need to recover some forgotten passwords to get access to that information.

[HAL 9000 96]

Which means there is a $hitload of $$$ being outright wasted on discretionary things that have little to do with actual health care in this country.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Which means there is a $hitload of $$ being outright wasted on discretionary things that have little to do with actual health care in this country.

Keep in mind that there are about 47 million uninsured in this country, yet we're paying about $7,000 per capita for healthcare, while everyone is covered in Canada and they're paying less than $4,000 per capita.

[HAL 9000 96]

Sick.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Which means there is a $hitload of $$ being outright wasted on discretionary things that have little to do with actual health care in this country.

Keep in mind that there are about 47 million uninsured in this country, yet we're paying about $7,000 per capita for healthcare, while everyone is covered in Canada and they're paying less than $4,000 per capita.

I assume the $4,000 number doesn't include prescriptions (since Canada doesn;t cover that) while the $7,000 number being used to compare does...

[HAL 9000 96]

I think the point is that preventative health + covered costs + drugs that are covered/subsidized adds up to a LOT less than what it would be here.

Remember that the cost of prescriptions are significantly less in Canada than in the US.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Which means there is a $hitload of $$ being outright wasted on discretionary things that have little to do with actual health care in this country.

Keep in mind that there are about 47 million uninsured in this country, yet we're paying about $7,000 per capita for healthcare, while everyone is covered in Canada and they're paying less than $4,000 per capita.

I assume the $4,000 number doesn't include prescriptions (since Canada doesn;t cover that) while the $7,000 number being used to compare does...

It should--the figure isn't based on who pays for what (insurance, government, patient) but the total expenditures. Prescription costs should be included in the Canadian amount; it doesn't matter who pays for them. Of course, the cost of medication is significantly lower in Canada because of the price controls, which would affect the amount.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Which means there is a $hitload of $$ being outright wasted on discretionary things that have little to do with actual health care in this country.

Keep in mind that there are about 47 million uninsured in this country, yet we're paying about $7,000 per capita for healthcare, while everyone is covered in Canada and they're paying less than $4,000 per capita.

I assume the $4,000 number doesn't include prescriptions (since Canada doesn;t cover that) while the $7,000 number being used to compare does...

It should--the figure isn't based on who pays for what (insurance, government, patient) but the total expenditures. Prescription costs should be included in the Canadian amount; it doesn't matter who pays for them. Of course, the cost of medication is significantly lower in Canada because of the price controls, which would affect the amount.

As far as I know, basic coverage in Canada does not include prescription medication (BlueCross BlueShield exists there, for instance) or any procedures that aren't considered "necessary." For instance, my wife had foot surgery several years ago and Alberta Healthcare wouldn't pay for that, since they said it wasn't necessary to her health, disregarding the fact that she absolutely required it. Fortunately, she was able to pay for it.

One thing I do have to point out is that I know the healthcare situation in Canadian province of Alberta; it may be different in Ontario, British Columbia or wherever else. Even if it is, that doesn't wipe away the fact that not everything is covered by Canadian healthcare.

Something else to consider, when comparing the healthcare systems between Canada and the United States, is that Canada has a much, much smaller overall population. The last time I checked, Canada had around 33 million people, whereas the U.S. has over 300 million. That's a huge difference and might help to explain why Canada's single-payer system can work in that country. If it had the same population as the U.S. does, the perhaps we'd see a very different picture.

[Yiyi and Chris 0]

Does the reform include a good paycheck for me????

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Which means there is a $hitload of $ being outright wasted on discretionary things that have little to do with actual health care in this country.

Keep in mind that there are about 47 million uninsured in this country, yet we're paying about $7,000 per capita for healthcare, while everyone is covered in Canada and they're paying less than $4,000 per capita.

I assume the $4,000 number doesn't include prescriptions (since Canada doesn;t cover that) while the $7,000 number being used to compare does...

It should--the figure isn't based on who pays for what (insurance, government, patient) but the total expenditures. Prescription costs should be included in the Canadian amount; it doesn't matter who pays for them. Of course, the cost of medication is significantly lower in Canada because of the price controls, which would affect the amount.

As far as I know, basic coverage in Canada does not include prescription medication (BlueCross BlueShield exists there, for instance) or any procedures that aren't considered "necessary." For instance, my wife had foot surgery several years ago and Alberta Healthcare wouldn't pay for that, since they said it wasn't necessary to her health, disregarding the fact that she absolutely required it. Fortunately, she was able to pay for it.

One thing I do have to point out is that I know the healthcare situation in Canadian province of Alberta; it may be different in Ontario, British Columbia or wherever else. Even if it is, that doesn't wipe away the fact that not everything is covered by Canadian healthcare.

Something else to consider, when comparing the healthcare systems between Canada and the United States, is that Canada has a much, much smaller overall population. The last time I checked, Canada had around 33 million people, whereas the U.S. has over 300 million. That's a huge difference and might help to explain why Canada's single-payer system can work in that country. If it had the same population as the U.S. does, the perhaps we'd see a very different picture.

That's why it's total healthcare costs per capita, nullifying any argument about the differences in the health insurance coverage or population between Canada and the U.S.. There should be no doubt in anybody's mind that a single payer system would be more efficient and with no profit motive, cost considerably less than what we currently spend.

I posted a piece yesterday from a Nobel Laureate Economist:

A modern economy also requires risk-taking. Individuals are more willing to take risks if there is a good safety net. If not, citizens may demand protection from foreign competition. Social protection is more efficient than protectionism.

Failures to promote social solidarity can have other costs, not the least of which are the social and private expenditures required to protect property and incarcerate criminals. It is estimated that within a few years, America will have more people working in the security business than in education. A year in prison can cost more than a year at Harvard. The cost of incarcerating two million Americans -- one of the highest per capita rates (pdf) in the world -- should be viewed as a subtraction from GDP, yet it is added on.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=2102067

......

There are so many things we can do to make our economy more stable than the current way of doing things. Having national healthcare is one huge step in helping to stabilizing our economy by providing a social safety net and elminating the potential for many Americans to be forever in debt over unpaid medical bills.

[DeadPoolX 9]

That's why it's total healthcare costs per capita, nullifying any argument about the differences in the health insurance coverage or population between Canada and the U.S.. There should be no doubt in anybody's mind that a single payer system would be more efficient and with no profit motive, cost considerably less than what we currently spend.

While I do believe that a single-payer system provided by the government would be less expensive, I can't agree with your statement about it being more efficient. When has the U.S. government ever tackled anything in an efficient manner? Regardless of which party or who is the president, the government's main claim to fame is the remarkable ability to screw up practically anything it touches.

Do I think it's right that healthcare decisions are often made by HMOs or PPOs? Of course not. They're hardly qualified to make medical decisions; however, politicians aren't either, nor are underpaid and uninterested civil servants, all of whom would be manning the helm of a government-run health plan.

The only people who should be deciding the course of healthcare are those with medical training and knowledge.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That's why it's total healthcare costs per capita, nullifying any argument about the differences in the health insurance coverage or population between Canada and the U.S.. There should be no doubt in anybody's mind that a single payer system would be more efficient and with no profit motive, cost considerably less than what we currently spend.

While I do believe that a single-payer system provided by the government would be less expensive, I can't agree with your statement about it being more efficient. When has the U.S. government ever tackled anything in an efficient manner? Regardless of which party or who is the president, the government's main claim to fame is the remarkable ability to screw up practically anything it touches.

Do I think it's right that healthcare decisions are often made by HMOs or PPOs? Of course not. They're hardly qualified to make medical decisions; however, politicians aren't either, nor are underpaid and uninterested civil servants, all of whom would be manning the helm of a government-run health plan.

The only people who should be deciding the course of healthcare are those with medical training and knowledge.

Like I've said before...it's a choice between two evils - insurance companies or government. IMO, the government is the lessor of those two evils because it has no profit motive, is accountable to the people, and we have the capacity to change the way it operates. All political cynicism aside, that's the reality of it. The same can't be said about insurance companies.

[DeadPoolX 9]

That's why it's total healthcare costs per capita, nullifying any argument about the differences in the health insurance coverage or population between Canada and the U.S.. There should be no doubt in anybody's mind that a single payer system would be more efficient and with no profit motive, cost considerably less than what we currently spend.

While I do believe that a single-payer system provided by the government would be less expensive, I can't agree with your statement about it being more efficient. When has the U.S. government ever tackled anything in an efficient manner? Regardless of which party or who is the president, the government's main claim to fame is the remarkable ability to screw up practically anything it touches.

Do I think it's right that healthcare decisions are often made by HMOs or PPOs? Of course not. They're hardly qualified to make medical decisions; however, politicians aren't either, nor are underpaid and uninterested civil servants, all of whom would be manning the helm of a government-run health plan.

The only people who should be deciding the course of healthcare are those with medical training and knowledge.

Like I've said before...it's a choice between two evils - insurance companies or government. IMO, the government is the lessor of those two evils because it has no profit motive, is accountable to the people, and we have the capacity to change the way it operates. All political cynicism aside, that's the reality of it. The same can't be said about insurance companies.

I hate insurance companies, so I'm not trying to defend them. But the problem with "no profit motive" is a lack of reason. Money is perhaps one of mankind's greatest motivators and if that gets taken away, many would feel the were would be little point in doing a good (or even decent) job at handling their job. The job in this case, of course, would be handling healthcare.

I'm not even so sure I believe the "no profit motive" thing, anyway. There are lots of government-run agencies that require fees. In fact, we're all fairly well acquainted with one of them, aren't we? Look at how much it costs individuals (and businesses) to perform legal immigration, not to mention the complete inefficiency as well.

You're right -- there is no "good solution." At least not one that would ever occur, so in the end, we'll still get screwed, but perhaps by a different entity.