Universal Health Coverage --- Call It Socialized Medicine

[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.

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

What is there to disagree with? It's a proven study...

[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.

What is there to disagree with? It's a proven study...

I disagree that because of preventitive care the price of care in a UHC setting will go down. The government will waste more than the savings. You seem to think that the government is the first and greatest solution to the problem. To me the government IS the problem. The regulations and mandates, allowing unlimited law suits and the unnecisary regulations drive up the cost of health care in this country. And now you want to give the whole thing to them.

[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.

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

Any UHC being less expensive than our non UHC and the federally run systems consuming less for overhead and red tape than the private system doesn't prove a thing? How does it not prove a thing? It proves that our current, private system is less efficient (read: costs more and/or delivers less) than any government run system anywhere in the world. Incuding right here in the US. It does prove that. You just can't admit that.

[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.

Any UHC being less expensive than our non UHC and the federally run systems consuming less for overhead and red tape than the private system doesn't prove a thing? How does it not prove a thing? It proves that our current, private system is less efficient (read: costs more and/or delivers less) than any government run system anywhere in the world. Incuding right here in the US. It does prove that. You just can't admit that.

No it doesn't prove anything. First of all I don't agree that canadians get better care. They wait for services, they are told what they can have and who can have it and some are denied by people that are trying to cut costs.

But most important is that Canada isn't America. What works there may not work here. We have a lot more people here than Canada does. They have a different system of government. And the US has a terrible track record of taking a well intentioned program and turning it into a money pit. I don't trust the federal government to run the entire nations health care. I will never think that they can do any better than what we have now.

Now if you want to talk about state run health care systems like MA and CA have then we might be able to come to an agreement. But this study does nothing to change my mind. In fact I am sure I could come up with a study that shows our health care is better. As a lot of you like to point out studies can be made to say anything you want them to say.

[GaryC 7]

You show an extreme distrust for the government is almost every other way. Why would you trust them for something this important?

[Carolyn 1]

For a country with such "great" medical care, why does it take so fricking long to get in to see a doctor here in the US?

[trailmix 77]

No it doesn't prove anything. First of all I don't agree that canadians get better care. They wait for services, they are told what they can have and who can have it and some are denied by people that are trying to cut costs.

But most important is that Canada isn't America. What works there may not work here. We have a lot more people here than Canada does. They have a different system of government. And the US has a terrible track record of taking a well intentioned program and turning it into a money pit. I don't trust the federal government to run the entire nations health care. I will never think that they can do any better than what we have now.

Now if you want to talk about state run health care systems like MA and CA have then we might be able to come to an agreement. But this study does nothing to change my mind. In fact I am sure I could come up with a study that shows our health care is better. As a lot of you like to point out studies can be made to say anything you want them to say.

Canadians in general do get better care - because they all get care. Whether the person in Brokemyleg Saskatchewan gets 'better' care than the guy in Brokemyleg Maine - who knows, probably about the same. The average Canadian doesn't get better care in general than you do Gary because you have insurance.

Canadians are not 'generally' told what they can have - it's a misleading statement. That said if your child needs cochlear ear implants for a hearing impairment, for example, they will only do this for 1 ear. Apparently there are some studies that say children learning to speak do better with 2. So there are a few constraints but it isn't generally applied.

If treatment is needed it is given, there isn't some big brother in the consultation room, they aren't referring to some red book to see if they can treat you today.

Also I've heard it bandied about that they tell you which Doctor you can see - not true, you can see any one that you like.

However, the system is not perfect. I actually don't think that the U.S. should adopt the Canadian system - I think they should come up with something that is their own. Maybe a UHC system that also allows private clinics and hospitals - everyone still has to pay in to the universal fund of course, but you have the option of buying your own insurance if you would like to have the option of private care.

I don't know if that is really the answer and I would take Canada's system right now over what the U.S. has to offer absolutely. Not because we personally can't or won't have insurance in the U.S. but it would disgust me not to be looking out for my neighbour.

[GaryC 7]

No it doesn't prove anything. First of all I don't agree that canadians get better care. They wait for services, they are told what they can have and who can have it and some are denied by people that are trying to cut costs.

But most important is that Canada isn't America. What works there may not work here. We have a lot more people here than Canada does. They have a different system of government. And the US has a terrible track record of taking a well intentioned program and turning it into a money pit. I don't trust the federal government to run the entire nations health care. I will never think that they can do any better than what we have now.

Now if you want to talk about state run health care systems like MA and CA have then we might be able to come to an agreement. But this study does nothing to change my mind. In fact I am sure I could come up with a study that shows our health care is better. As a lot of you like to point out studies can be made to say anything you want them to say.

Canadians in general do get better care - because they all get care. Whether the person in Brokemyleg Saskatchewan gets 'better' care than the guy in Brokemyleg Maine - who knows, probably about the same. The average Canadian doesn't get better care in general than you do Gary because you have insurance.

Canadians are not 'generally' told what they can have - it's a misleading statement. That said if your child needs cochlear ear implants for a hearing impairment, for example, they will only do this for 1 ear. Apparently there are some studies that say children learning to speak do better with 2. So there are a few constraints but it isn't generally applied.

If treatment is needed it is given, there isn't some big brother in the consultation room, they aren't referring to some red book to see if they can treat you today.

Also I've heard it bandied about that they tell you which Doctor you can see - not true, you can see any one that you like.

However, the system is not perfect. I actually don't think that the U.S. should adopt the Canadian system - I think they should come up with something that is their own. Maybe a UHC system that also allows private clinics and hospitals - everyone still has to pay in to the universal fund of course, but you have the option of buying your own insurance if you would like to have the option of private care.

I don't know if that is really the answer and I would take Canada's system right now over what the U.S. has to offer absolutely. Not because we personally can't or won't have insurance in the U.S. but it would disgust me not to be looking out for my neighbour.

From what I have read the Canadian way outlaws private care. That is a huge restriction IMO. I have seen story after story of people needing what would generally be considered urgent treatment but told to wait for weeks or months for it. The idea that someone else has that control over what the doctor can and cannot do is a very big gripe for me. With insurance at least what is covered and what is not is spelled out in the policy. At least I know up front what is covered.

I want to see a state run system, not a federal government system. Don't get rid of employer paid insurance but just have a state run system to help those that don't have insurance. If your goal is for everyone to get care then why be against it? I just don't want a federal UHC. Is that so hard to understand?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They wait for services, they are told what they can have and who can have it and some are denied by people that are trying to cut costs.

That's what happens each and every day in America. Just at a significantly higher cost - per capita <$3K in Canada vs. >$7K in the US.

If for nothing else - and there are more benefits to it as I have firsthand experienced, I'd prefer the UHC for the savings.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

For a country with such "great" medical care, why does it take so fricking long to get in to see a doctor here in the US?

I've never had to wait more than a few hours to see my PCP.

Specialists are another matter. Weeks, in my wifes case months. It's nuts.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You show an extreme distrust for the government is almost every other way. Why would you trust them for something this important?

I trust the government with protection from outside aggression, crime, fires, disasters and in other emergency situations. Really, anything my life and the life of my family depends on, I will trust the government over solely profit oriented corporations any time.

[trailmix 77]

From what I have read the Canadian way outlaws private care. That is a huge restriction IMO. I have seen story after story of people needing what would generally be considered urgent treatment but told to wait for weeks or months for it. The idea that someone else has that control over what the doctor can and cannot do is a very big gripe for me. With insurance at least what is covered and what is not is spelled out in the policy. At least I know up front what is covered.

I want to see a state run system, not a federal government system. Don't get rid of employer paid insurance but just have a state run system to help those that don't have insurance. If your goal is for everyone to get care then why be against it? I just don't want a federal UHC. Is that so hard to understand?

Yes it does, it is against the law to open a private service. The doesn't mean it never happens - but you are right. There have been conversations about allowing it in Alberta, but most people are not in favor of it at this point (mostly because there aren't enough health workers in general and it would be a drain on the existing services).

I'm not a Dr. so I can't say what would or wouldn't require urgent treatment and I see those same stories - but we don't know the background and as I said, it's not a perfect system.

Ok so let's go with your suggestion. A state run system which will cover everyone who cannot afford a decent policy. Also allow for employer paid private insurance. Sounds good on the surface until something big happens which the insured person isn't covered for or is under-insured for - and they lose all their savings and possessions. Since you are only covering the un-insured in your scenario the under insured person wouldn't qualify therefore they would have to lose everything in order to claim government assistance. There would be an outcry! "Why should I lose my home and car and my savings when that 'poor' person gets the same treatment at the taxpayers expense!!"

What about not being able to change your job because you are tied to your employer sponsored (see employee sponsored - it's reducing your wages) insurance due to a pre-existing condition.

Bottom line everyone has to participate, everyone has to be covered. If you still offer private services that's ok, but it is separate insurance you will have to buy either on your own or through an employer.

Edited October 6, 2007 by trailmix

[KarenCee 3]

For a country with such "great" medical care, why does it take so fricking long to get in to see a doctor here in the US?

I've never had to wait more than a few hours to see my PCP.

Specialists are another matter. Weeks, in my wifes case months. It's nuts.

Generally I can see my PCP within a few hours. It's always been that way. That's why she's my PCP.

Specialists, on the other hand, it takes a while to get in (depending on the type specialist). It took a while (four months to be exact) to get our daughter into the hands of a very competent child neurologist. Unfortunately he is nearly two hours away in downtown Atlanta. Two hours because of traffic most times. Still, it's an all day thing to go see him. My husband and I have to take a whole day off from work and she has to miss a whole day of school. There just isn't one closer! There are a number of adult neuros in the area where we live however. Thank the gods our daughter's doctor is one of the best in his field in this country. Yes I have insurance...I have State Merit, insurance provided for State employees in Georgia. Supposed to be the best insurance, for an HMO that is. I guess what gripes me is that for FOUR months our daughter's epilepsy wasn't treated as well as it should have been. *sigh*

[trailmix 77]

For a country with such "great" medical care, why does it take so fricking long to get in to see a doctor here in the US?

I've never had to wait more than a few hours to see my PCP.

Specialists are another matter. Weeks, in my wifes case months. It's nuts.

Generally I can see my PCP within a few hours. It's always been that way. That's why she's my PCP.

Specialists, on the other hand, it takes a while to get in (depending on the type specialist). It took a while (four months to be exact) to get our daughter into the hands of a very competent child neurologist. Unfortunately he is nearly two hours away in downtown Atlanta. Two hours because of traffic most times. Still, it's an all day thing to go see him. My husband and I have to take a whole day off from work and she has to miss a whole day of school. There just isn't one closer! There are a number of adult neuros in the area where we live however. Thank the gods our daughter's doctor is one of the best in his field in this country. Yes I have insurance...I have State Merit, insurance provided for State employees in Georgia. Supposed to be the best insurance, for an HMO that is. I guess what gripes me is that for FOUR months our daughter's epilepsy wasn't treated as well as it should have been. *sigh*

I'm sorry to hear that. My Nephew had complications that may have come from his surgery in January - my Sister spent 5 months taking him from Dr to Dr trying to find out what was wrong with this healthy child who wasn't eating and went from a healthy 130 lbs to sometimes less than 90 lbs - he was finally admitted to the hospital and received a diagnosis and treatment (it was fully treatable without going in to details). I shudder to think what happens in a situation like that when the family doesn't have health insurance. They drive an hour each way to see his specialist.

Edited October 6, 2007 by trailmix

[Widge 0]

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.

Any UHC being less expensive than our non UHC and the federally run systems consuming less for overhead and red tape than the private system doesn't prove a thing? How does it not prove a thing? It proves that our current, private system is less efficient (read: costs more and/or delivers less) than any government run system anywhere in the world. Incuding right here in the US. It does prove that. You just can't admit that.

No it doesn't prove anything. First of all I don't agree that canadians get better care. They wait for services, they are told what they can have and who can have it and some are denied by people that are trying to cut costs.

But most important is that Canada isn't America. What works there may not work here. We have a lot more people here than Canada does. They have a different system of government. And the US has a terrible track record of taking a well intentioned program and turning it into a money pit. I don't trust the federal government to run the entire nations health care. I will never think that they can do any better than what we have now.

Now if you want to talk about state run health care systems like MA and CA have then we might be able to come to an agreement. But this study does nothing to change my mind. In fact I am sure I could come up with a study that shows our health care is better. As a lot of you like to point out studies can be made to say anything you want them to say.

Facts & Figures

DID YOU KNOW...

Canada spends only $3,165 per capita on health care, compared to over $7,000 per capita in the United States.

Source: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services

The life expectancy in Canada is three years longer than in the United States.

Source: World Health Organization

The infant mortality rate in Canada is 5.0 per thousand, compared with 7.0 per thousand in the United States.

Source: World Health Organization

24 percent of Americans did not seek medical care because of cost, compared to 5 percent in Canada.

Source: 'Inequities In Health Care: A Five-Country Survey,' Health Affairs.

There are nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance, compared with none in Canada.

Source: Centers for Disease Control

The median waiting time in Canada is only three weeks for diagnostic tests and only four weeks for specialist visits and non-emergency surgery.

Source: Statistics Canada

70 to 80 percent of Canadians feel their wait times are acceptable.

Source: Statistics Canada