I'm supposed to believe

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Canada has had national healthcare for years, successfully. it may not be perfect but it beats the hell out of the US system.

d'ya think that might have something to do with the high taxes in canada?

Oh please, charles if you had a 10% tax rate you would survive just fine. In NS we had a 14% tax rate and I still had a lot of money when I was working.

10% tax rate as in an increase of or what? if you mean a flat 10% tax on my federal taxes i'd make more money

sales tax. and increase taxes on rich people.

sales tax is fine, but what do you define as "rich" as our definitions might clash.

anyone worth over 1 million

yay i'm safe then

[dalegg 143]

[A] national health program could reap tens of billions of dollars in administrative savings in the initial years, enough to fund generous increases in health care service not only for the uninsured, but for the underinsured as well ....

How?

By cutting much of the red-tape and bureaucratic waste and overhead that the private health care system has produced. Seriously, I've never seen so much bureaucracy around clinics and hospitals as I have here in the US.

Replacing private overhead with government overhead will create less bureaucratic waste? Why am I so skeptical?

[NAM3 0]

some more to think about please ckeck out

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726

and

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...stephen+colbert

what I belive is stronger establishment can hide facts for a while but not forever

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[A] national health program could reap tens of billions of dollars in administrative savings in the initial years, enough to fund generous increases in health care service not only for the uninsured, but for the underinsured as well ....

How?

By cutting much of the red-tape and bureaucratic waste and overhead that the private health care system has produced. Seriously, I've never seen so much bureaucracy around clinics and hospitals as I have here in the US.

Replacing private overhead with government overhead will create less bureaucratic waste? Why am I so skeptical?

I don't know why you would be. Look at the numbers. No public health care system (not even those in the US - Medicare/Medicaid) have as much of an overhead and bureaucratic waste as the private system currently not funtioning here. Nowhere near as much, not even in the same ballpark. I think the private overhead in the US health care system is somewhere in the 30% range. It's low to mid single digits for the public programs here in the US and elsewhere.

I take 4% - 5% overhead as opposed to 30% any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

[A] national health program could reap tens of billions of dollars in administrative savings in the initial years, enough to fund generous increases in health care service not only for the uninsured, but for the underinsured as well ....

How?

By cutting much of the red-tape and bureaucratic waste and overhead that the private health care system has produced. Seriously, I've never seen so much bureaucracy around clinics and hospitals as I have here in the US.

Replacing private overhead with government overhead will create less bureaucratic waste? Why am I so skeptical?

I don't know why you would be. Look at the numbers. No public health care system (not even those in the US - Medicare/Medicaid) have as much of an overhead and bureaucratic waste as the private system currently not funtioning here. Nowhere near as much, not even in the same ballpark. I think the private overhead in the US health care system is somewhere in the 30% range. It's low to mid single digits for the public programs here in the US and elsewhere.

I take 4% - 5% overhead as opposed to 30% any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Also, the higher the number of insurance companies, the higher the overhead since every company replicates the bureaucracy already existing in another company.

Lastly, private coompanies, despite popular myths, are usually less efficient that the government because there is less public oversight. You can see that at work in any place where the government has hired contractors to provide services formerly provided by the government.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The worst aspect of it is how non-medically trained insurance staff can interfere directly in a patients treatment, often with life-threatening consequences. My father in law almost had a heart attack a couple of years ago because his insurance provider decided he didn't need his regular checkups with the cardiologist.

Not to mention some insurers won't insure anyone with a serious or ongoing (pre-existing) condition, or will set premiums so high that the person could never afford it.

[dalegg 143]

Lastly, private coompanies, despite popular myths, are usually less efficient that the government because there is less public oversight. You can see that at work in any place where the government has hired contractors to provide services formerly provided by the government.

We are seeing two totally different things.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Lastly, private coompanies, despite popular myths, are usually less efficient that the government because there is less public oversight. You can see that at work in any place where the government has hired contractors to provide services formerly provided by the government.

We are seeing two totally different things.

I can speak from experience there. The UK government hired private contractors to maintain the country's (formerly publicly operated) rail network. It was a disaster - maintenance was not being done in a timely manner, corners were cut to save money which resulted directly in a number of train derailments which caused injury not to mention a few deaths.

[keltic 1]

The worst aspect of it is how non-medically trained insurance staff can interfere directly in a patients treatment, often with life-threatening consequences. My father in law almost had a heart attack a couple of years ago because his insurance provider decided he didn't need his regular checkups with the cardiologist.

Not to mention some insurers won't insure anyone with a serious or ongoing (pre-existing) condition, or will set premiums so high that the person could never afford it.

exactly!!! and what really bothers me is that insurance companies can play doctor and defacto prescribe meds as they see fit, via formularies... for the most part, generics work the same as brand, but there are times when a certain brand works better for an individual than others... also, sometimes they even will change the entire family of medication... and to get any kind of exemption, you have to go thru trying every other option the insurance company wants first... so, find a med that works for you, have your insurance company change what you are allowed to have to something else... that doesnt work, they change it to something else, which still doesnt work... then maybe if your doctor writes a letter to them stating you need that specific med, they might let you have it... meanwhile, its going on a few months that you havent been getting effective treatment... ive seen that scenario many times... and even experienced it myself

[Cristy 4]

The worst aspect of it is how non-medically trained insurance staff can interfere directly in a patients treatment, often with life-threatening consequences. My father in law almost had a heart attack a couple of years ago because his insurance provider decided he didn't need his regular checkups with the cardiologist.

Not to mention some insurers won't insure anyone with a serious or ongoing (pre-existing) condition, or will set premiums so high that the person could never afford it.

Very true. In Canada you get health care regardless of your health. Only your Dr. and you decide on treatment.

I know when my husband went to add us to his insurance they wanted to see my health card from Canada to prove I had coverage or they would not treat pre existing conditions....which sucks cuz I have one child with severe ADHD/LD and 2 with asthma. I don't understand how they can say they won't cover someone like that.

[*Robert* 2]

gimmy... i don't believe you're afraid of anyone!!!