Universal Health Coverage --- Call It Socialized Medicine

[trailmix 77]

Now it all makes sense:

We Welcome Canadian Patients.

http://home.earthlink.net/~doctorlrhuntoon/

Makes sense of what? That there is a longer waiting time in Canada (probably - I have no statistics to back this up) for non life threatening procedures than there is in the U.S. - the reason for this, probably, is that the U.S. excludes so many from the system as opposed to Canada where no one is excluded?

As for the article:

And, last but not least, there is charity. No hospital ever turns any patient away because of lack of funds. Hospitals and the physicians on call at those hospitals are required by law to treat all patients presenting to the emergency department irrespective of ability to pay. And we do it all the time. It's a total myth that you can't come to the hospital because you "don't have insurance" or "can't pay.

Charity? So one can take from this statement that the hospital in turn does not then raise the prices it charges insured persons to cover this cost?

The Amish don't have "insurance coverage," yet they have existed for centuries via a charitable tradition of voluntarily sharing others' burdens and medical expenses. This same concept has been implemented via other churches and religious organizations in conjunction with MSAs and has been proven by AAPS members like Dr. Alieta Eck and associates to be a much more affordable alternative to traditional health insurance.

Sounds like a description of universal health care to me.

http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?v...0000e2015acRCRD

Gary, I wasn't implying that the U.S. has no charitable organizations - that places like St. Judes don't exist and I am sure they do brilliant work (as do the Shriners).

However, if you are underinsured or not insured in Brokemyleg Maine, I don't think you are going to travel to St. Judes to get your leg set and the Hospital in Maine is certainly not going to 'absorb' the cost, the people with insurance pay for those that don't have insurance.

I also wonder what would happen to American wages if employers were not saddled with huge insurance premiums?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I also wonder what would happen to American wages if employers were not saddled with huge insurance premiums?

I tend to think that I'd get to see at least a portion of the almost 10K my employer currently contributes towards the health insurance for my family.

[GaryC 7]

I also wonder what would happen to American wages if employers were not saddled with huge insurance premiums?

I tend to think that I'd get to see at least a portion of the almost 10K my employer currently contributes towards the health insurance for my family.

You wouldn't get any of it. Your taxes would go up to pay for the UHC. They would no doubt go up more than what your employer is paying now because it would add all those that are not insured. That money has to come from somewhere.

[no name 1]

I also wonder what would happen to American wages if employers were not saddled with huge insurance premiums?

I tend to think that I'd get to see at least a portion of the almost 10K my employer currently contributes towards the health insurance for my family.

You wouldn't get any of it. Your taxes would go up to pay for the UHC. They would no doubt go up more than what your employer is paying now because it would add all those that are not insured. That money has to come from somewhere.

As opposed to the (high) premiums paid currently to cover those that are uninsured?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I also wonder what would happen to American wages if employers were not saddled with huge insurance premiums?

I tend to think that I'd get to see at least a portion of the almost 10K my employer currently contributes towards the health insurance for my family.

You wouldn't get any of it. Your taxes would go up to pay for the UHC. They would no doubt go up more than what your employer is paying now because it would add all those that are not insured. That money has to come from somewhere.

Again, Gary, you haven't been following the threat. Among other advantages, putting people in a position to be able to get preventive and early care will be cheaper than treating all those un- and underinsured in the ER's. The lower cost that UHC's elsewhere generate bear out the validity of this very statement. There was a stat put out there: Canada pays less than 3K per capita for universal care while we pay over 7K per capita for partial care. For my family, this means 9K vs. 21K. I'd prefer the former cost over the latter. Especially seeing that we'd get a better state of health overall for the US population as a benefit. There are savings to be realized if we were to abandon the failed privatized model whether you want to acknowledged this fact or not.

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

I also wonder what would happen to American wages if employers were not saddled with huge insurance premiums?

I tend to think that I'd get to see at least a portion of the almost 10K my employer currently contributes towards the health insurance for my family.

You wouldn't get any of it. Your taxes would go up to pay for the UHC. They would no doubt go up more than what your employer is paying now because it would add all those that are not insured. That money has to come from somewhere.

Again, Gary, you haven't been following the threat. Among other advantages, putting people in a position to be able to get preventive and early care will be cheaper than treating all those un- and underinsured in the ER's. The lower cost that UHC's elsewhere generate bear out the validity of this very statement. There was a stat put out there: Canada pays less than 3K per capita for universal care while we pay over 7K per capita for partial care. For my family, this means 9K vs. 21K. I'd prefer the former cost over the latter. Especially seeing that we'd get a better state of health overall for the US population as a benefit. There are savings to be realized if we were to abandon the failed privatized model whether you want to acknowledged this fact or not.

In case he missed it in the other thread...

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1238393

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I also wonder what would happen to American wages if employers were not saddled with huge insurance premiums?

I tend to think that I'd get to see at least a portion of the almost 10K my employer currently contributes towards the health insurance for my family.

You wouldn't get any of it. Your taxes would go up to pay for the UHC. They would no doubt go up more than what your employer is paying now because it would add all those that are not insured. That money has to come from somewhere.

Again, Gary, you haven't been following the threat. Among other advantages, putting people in a position to be able to get preventive and early care will be cheaper than treating all those un- and underinsured in the ER's. The lower cost that UHC's elsewhere generate bear out the validity of this very statement. There was a stat put out there: Canada pays less than 3K per capita for universal care while we pay over 7K per capita for partial care. For my family, this means 9K vs. 21K. I'd prefer the former cost over the latter. Especially seeing that we'd get a better state of health overall for the US population as a benefit. There are savings to be realized if we were to abandon the failed privatized model whether you want to acknowledged this fact or not.

In case he missed it in the other thread...

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1238393

He did not miss it. He chooses not to pay attention to it. It's devastating to his case.

[GaryC 7]

I also wonder what would happen to American wages if employers were not saddled with huge insurance premiums?

I tend to think that I'd get to see at least a portion of the almost 10K my employer currently contributes towards the health insurance for my family.

You wouldn't get any of it. Your taxes would go up to pay for the UHC. They would no doubt go up more than what your employer is paying now because it would add all those that are not insured. That money has to come from somewhere.

Again, Gary, you haven't been following the threat. Among other advantages, putting people in a position to be able to get preventive and early care will be cheaper than treating all those un- and underinsured in the ER's. The lower cost that UHC's elsewhere generate bear out the validity of this very statement. There was a stat put out there: Canada pays less than 3K per capita for universal care while we pay over 7K per capita for partial care. For my family, this means 9K vs. 21K. I'd prefer the former cost over the latter. Especially seeing that we'd get a better state of health overall for the US population as a benefit. There are savings to be realized if we were to abandon the failed privatized model whether you want to acknowledged this fact or not.

I just don't have any faith that the federal government can do it cheaper. They have a proven track record of wasting money by the train load.

[trailmix 77]

Out of curiosity, if someone knows. If you are a senior citizen, in the U.S. and say you have a Government pension of around $12000.00 per annum. Say you need blood pressure medicine - is there some type of system in place where the government subsidizes this medicine so that you would only pay a flat fee of say $25, regardless of the cost of the actual prescription?

I was just thinking of this as this is a benefit in Alberta at least and I'm sure all provinces offer this with perhaps a different flat fee - which is also included when they calculate Canada's health care costs - I'm just wondering if there is something equivalent in the U.S. which is also factored in to your costs?

[no name 1]

I also wonder what would happen to American wages if employers were not saddled with huge insurance premiums?

I tend to think that I'd get to see at least a portion of the almost 10K my employer currently contributes towards the health insurance for my family.

You wouldn't get any of it. Your taxes would go up to pay for the UHC. They would no doubt go up more than what your employer is paying now because it would add all those that are not insured. That money has to come from somewhere.

Again, Gary, you haven't been following the threat. Among other advantages, putting people in a position to be able to get preventive and early care will be cheaper than treating all those un- and underinsured in the ER's. The lower cost that UHC's elsewhere generate bear out the validity of this very statement. There was a stat put out there: Canada pays less than 3K per capita for universal care while we pay over 7K per capita for partial care. For my family, this means 9K vs. 21K. I'd prefer the former cost over the latter. Especially seeing that we'd get a better state of health overall for the US population as a benefit. There are savings to be realized if we were to abandon the failed privatized model whether you want to acknowledged this fact or not.

In case he missed it in the other thread...

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1238393

He did not miss it. He chooses not to pay attention to it. It's devastating to his case.

Maybe if we start a 4th thread on socialzed medicine, we can get it right?

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

I also wonder what would happen to American wages if employers were not saddled with huge insurance premiums?

I tend to think that I'd get to see at least a portion of the almost 10K my employer currently contributes towards the health insurance for my family.

You wouldn't get any of it. Your taxes would go up to pay for the UHC. They would no doubt go up more than what your employer is paying now because it would add all those that are not insured. That money has to come from somewhere.

Again, Gary, you haven't been following the threat. Among other advantages, putting people in a position to be able to get preventive and early care will be cheaper than treating all those un- and underinsured in the ER's. The lower cost that UHC's elsewhere generate bear out the validity of this very statement. There was a stat put out there: Canada pays less than 3K per capita for universal care while we pay over 7K per capita for partial care. For my family, this means 9K vs. 21K. I'd prefer the former cost over the latter. Especially seeing that we'd get a better state of health overall for the US population as a benefit. There are savings to be realized if we were to abandon the failed privatized model whether you want to acknowledged this fact or not.

I just don't have any faith that the federal government can do it cheaper. They have a proven track record of wasting money by the train load.

I don't think Reinhard or anyone is saying specifically it must be Federally managed. As I suggested earlier - why not have it partially funded by Federal Gov't but managed by each state according to Federal guidelines, much like how public education is handled?

[trailmix 77]

I just don't have any faith that the federal government can do it cheaper. They have a proven track record of wasting money by the train load.

What if an independent company ran the show - say a large insurance company but on a different principal - would you support universal health care then?

I'm not saying it's a good idea - just wondering if this is truly what's holding you back from jumping on the UHC train.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I also wonder what would happen to American wages if employers were not saddled with huge insurance premiums?

I tend to think that I'd get to see at least a portion of the almost 10K my employer currently contributes towards the health insurance for my family.

You wouldn't get any of it. Your taxes would go up to pay for the UHC. They would no doubt go up more than what your employer is paying now because it would add all those that are not insured. That money has to come from somewhere.

Again, Gary, you haven't been following the threat. Among other advantages, putting people in a position to be able to get preventive and early care will be cheaper than treating all those un- and underinsured in the ER's. The lower cost that UHC's elsewhere generate bear out the validity of this very statement. There was a stat put out there: Canada pays less than 3K per capita for universal care while we pay over 7K per capita for partial care. For my family, this means 9K vs. 21K. I'd prefer the former cost over the latter. Especially seeing that we'd get a better state of health overall for the US population as a benefit. There are savings to be realized if we were to abandon the failed privatized model whether you want to acknowledged this fact or not.

I just don't have any faith that the federal government can do it cheaper. They have a proven track record of wasting money by the train load.

I don't necessarily disagree - in general terms. But the fact of the matter is, has been and remains that the federal government is less wasteful, red-tape laden and bureaucratic than the private industry in the particular field we're discussing here.

[Peikko 1,575]

I get the feeling, and of course I could be wrong, that Gary isn't so much against Universal Health care, as universal health care run by federal governemt. I do understand that there is a perception (right or wrong) that a public system is dispraportionaltly subject to waste and unecessary paper pushing. I think this is an understandable concern, but not one that should jeapordize consideration of a system that could easily save the US billions while providing affordable health care for all.

[GaryC 7]

I also wonder what would happen to American wages if employers were not saddled with huge insurance premiums?

I tend to think that I'd get to see at least a portion of the almost 10K my employer currently contributes towards the health insurance for my family.

You wouldn't get any of it. Your taxes would go up to pay for the UHC. They would no doubt go up more than what your employer is paying now because it would add all those that are not insured. That money has to come from somewhere.

Again, Gary, you haven't been following the threat. Among other advantages, putting people in a position to be able to get preventive and early care will be cheaper than treating all those un- and underinsured in the ER's. The lower cost that UHC's elsewhere generate bear out the validity of this very statement. There was a stat put out there: Canada pays less than 3K per capita for universal care while we pay over 7K per capita for partial care. For my family, this means 9K vs. 21K. I'd prefer the former cost over the latter. Especially seeing that we'd get a better state of health overall for the US population as a benefit. There are savings to be realized if we were to abandon the failed privatized model whether you want to acknowledged this fact or not.

In case he missed it in the other thread...

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=1238393

He did not miss it. He chooses not to pay attention to it. It's devastating to his case.

No, I just don't agree with it. It doesn't prove a thing.