Socialised Healthcare

[Abe_the_Man]

Then feel free to donate part of your income to a private charity that helps with health care costs of lower income people. If the rest of the world agrees with you then there should be no problem. Why you feel the need to compel this value on people like me who disagree with you is beyond me.

I do. It's called health tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Canada

Ontario charges a tax on income for the health system. These amounts are collected through the income tax system, and do not determine eligiblity for public health care. The Ontario Health Premium is an additional amount charged on an individual's income tax that ranges from $300 for people with $20,000 of taxable income to $900 for high income earners. Individuals with less than $20,000 in taxable income are exempt.

Ho many Americans can get coverage for $300-$900 per year? Remember $900 is the maximum you pay even for a high income earner. You're not exactly having your money ripped from your wallet in this case.

 

[Abe_the_Man]

oh and another thing about my above post. That $300-$900 per year guarantees you will never be denied a necessary service.

 

[Abe_the_Man]

I don't know the exact figures, but if you're a US taxpayer you're definitely paying money (or having it "ripped from your wallet" if you like) to help with the healthcare costs of lower income people. And, unless you are in fact a low income person, getting nothing back for it (other than some quiet satisfaction, I presume). At least I'm getting something for my contribution to my country's healthcare system!

I'm glad you brought that up!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_healthcare#United_States

Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 15% of GDP, the highest in the world.[13] Despite this, only an estimated 84.2% of citizens have some form of health insurance coverage, either through their employer, purchased individually, or through government sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

Health care spending in Canada is projected to reach $160 billion, or 10.6% of GDP, in 2007. This is slightly above the average for OECD countries. In Canada, the various levels of government pay for about 70% of Canadians' health care costs, which is slightly below the OECD average. Under the terms of the Canada Health Act, the publicly-funded insurance plans are required to pay for medically necessary care, but only if it is delivered in hospitals or by physicians.

So we see here that Canada spends 10.6% GDP to cover 100% of the population while the US spends 15% GDP to cover 84.2% of the population. This also covers your chrystal's thing as services deemed medically necessary only if it is performed by a physician in a hospital. So gurus, seers and psychics are not covered by the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_healthcare#United_States

The cost of health care premiums is rising much faster than the general rate of inflation or employee wages. Since 2001, premiums for family coverage have increased 78%, while inflation has risen 17% and wages have risen 19%, according to a 2007 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

It seems to me that it's US citizens having their money ripped RIPPED from their wallets. Your country spends more of it's GDP than any other country in the world for healthcare while a third of your citizens aren't covered by it. All the while the cost for the consumer has increased 78% since 2001 while in the same period wages have risen only 19%.

Who's getting more ripped off?

 

[Iamme]

First I've seen of this thread.

Having the gov't intervene is the bandaid approach. We need to get to the cause of why people cannot afford health care. Health care simply cannot be allowed to cost so much!! $5,000 or whatever just to go thru a CAT scan? Why?!?! Explain that one. They do not cost that much, those machines. Are they trying to pay off the machine after a few visits? Come on!!

My next door neighbor who had colon cancer and almost died claimed his bill is now at about a quarter mil and climbing. He was in the intensive care about 3 weeks. NOT 30 years! What?! That is ridiculous. Should only cost $15,000 or 30,000 tops!

THAT is where our problem lies. It is actually BECAUSE of all the gov't intervention..the regulations...and red tape, that prevents further competition. The whole thing is a racket, from the drug companies on through the insurance carries. Falsified claims go on and doctors and hospitals elevate costs for Medicaid, etc. Do you know how much they charge for one pill in the hospital? This has to stop people! They have to be ORDERED to knock this stuff off or go to prison. And health insurance cannot go up 20% a year. I had to quit my carrier because of this! It mathematically does not work out after a while. Nobody is paying me 20% wage increases every year.

What good is a gov't if they can't fix such a problem? And I do not mean by keeping the status quo and simply blanketing everyone under some health plan! No, we just need the costs held in check. No quarter mil bills for any procedures that take less than a month! No way, no how...the B*^&%!

 

[CaptainManacles]

I do. It's called health tax.

No you don't. A health tax is the polar opposite of what I was talking about, and that is clear as day if you were being intellectually honest.

 

[Dan O.]

Canada has decided to collectively provide for their citizens health care needs in the form of a health tax where the well to do chip in to help those in need. It's their right to do so as a free nation. What right to you, CaptainManacles, have to tell them what they can and cannot do?

 

[Wildy]

Well, first I would look to friends and family for financial support. Maybe private charity but that's a wing and a prayer. Other then that, the same thing that happens in Canada or anywhere else if there aren't the doctors/resources/technology to save my life. I die. It happens. Socializing medicine doesn't change that fact. It just takes away my ability to choose how much I value my survival compared to other things in my life.

Wait wait wait. That sounds like you don't like having the option to not go bankrupt when receiving healthcare?

What exactly is this choice that you are losing?

I said no, not yes. As in no, that's not what I was asking, so why do you continue to act like that's what I was asking. In fact, why did you even originally ask if that's what i was asking when that's clearly not what I asked.

Actually you said "No?". Which isn't "that's not what I was asking". I interpreted it as in "So they guy wouldn't be covered then". Punctuation is such a wonderful thing.

 

[qayak]

It's obvious you haven't even tried to grasp the arguements against universal healthcare. That you think being able to add on private coverage is relevent speaks volumes of your ignorence on this issue.

Actually, you haven't presented an argument, just a bunch of reactionary rhetoric based on complete ignorance.

 

[Corsair 115]

Then feel free to donate part of your income to a private charity that helps with health care costs of lower income people.

Because here we have considered it, for many years now, to be a legitimate role of government and consequently pay taxes for it. By spreading it out amongst the entire population it lowers the costs for any one individual significantly.

"Peace, order, and good government" is the founding credo of Canada. So we don't have that same aversion to government that many Americans appear to have.

Why you feel the need to compel this value on people like me who disagree with you is beyond me.

You're in the U.S., correct? In which we aren't forcing anything on you at all. If you were Canadian, then your options would be to either emigrate from the country if it bothered you that much, or gather enough similar-minded people to petition the government to change the law.

 

[Rolfe]

CaptainManacles?

I'm still trying to figure out what it is you like about the system you're supporting. You want a choice of insurance providers, is that it? You get that with universal systems as well, if you opt for additional insurance. (And don't retort that you want to opt-out of contributing to the healthcare costs of poorer people, until you can show that the US tax system lets you do that as things stand.)

Or do you simply want to choose to remain uninsured, and trust to your current means to pay your way if and when you do get ill?

I'm genuinely confused about what it is you want and are getting from the system you're so keen on. Unless of course it's simply that you prefer a choice between several bad options rather than having a single good option imposed on you. (No, it can't be that either, because universal healthcare systems also allow choices, including insurance, and pay-as-you-go when you need the treatment.)

Just try to state your preference and desire in the healthcare market.

By the way, what would your game plan be if you happened to have a child affected with cystic fibrosis (remember, this one is lifelong care and often involves a heart-lung transplant)? Or your dearly beloved father needed a quadruple bypass? Or you yourself broke your spine in an accident which was your own fault?

Just curious.

Rolfe.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Canada has decided to collectively provide for their citizens health care needs in the form of a health tax where the well to do chip in to help those in need. It's their right to do so as a free nation. What right to you, CaptainManacles, have to tell them what they can and cannot do?

No they haven't. Some people in Canada have decided to force other people in Canada to provide collective health care. I have no problem with people pooling their resources or providing charity. And even if that were the case, I'm not telling them what they can and cannot do, I'm criticizing their policies. I am allowed to criticize Canada, correct? Seriously, equating criticism with attacking someone's rights is a hallmark of the intellectually lazy.

 

[Rolfe]

And even if that were the case, I'm not telling them what they can and cannot do, I'm criticizing their policies. I am allowed to criticize Canada, correct? Seriously, equating criticism with attacking someone's rights is a hallmark of the intellectually lazy.

Oh, you're getting it now!

See where you went wrong?

On the other hand, it allows those without large incomes or coverage by private insurance to get the health care they need to survive without worrying about being bankrupted by the costs.

Personally, I consider that benefit very valuable and worthwhile

If I recall correctly, one of the leading causes for personal bankruptcy in the U.S. is unexpected health costs..

[quoting Corsair].... Why you feel the need to compel this value on people like me who disagree with you is beyond me.

Now you see, criticising someone, or disagreeing with them, is not the same as compelling your values on them. Believing that it is, is obviously "intellectually lazy", don't you agree?

Let's now continue with this conversation/discussion. I had some outstanding queries for you I've posted twice now....

Rolfe.

 

[Beerina]

But does supposedly "removing the profit" slow the development of medical technology? And are such systems designed to remove the profit? Here in Australia we can still get private health insurance, we can go to private hospitals, there is nothing stopping us.

You have to understand that, currently, in America the drive among some isn't just for some kind of medical welfare or a "minimal" amount of care, ala providing schools or police or fire, but rather the mantra being chanted now includes the magic words, "single-payer", to emphasize that certain politicians are in it for the "big takeover", and to attempt to eviscerate alternative solutions.

For example, we have "Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs), in which you can divert a certain % of your salary, before taxes, into. Your insurance company manages this money, and the doctors, pharmacy, etc. get the co-pay 100% out of that account, rather than your pocket. (Insurance still pays most of it, this just covers your co-pay.) But at, say, a 20% tax rate, that's an extra dollar for every 4 you would have spent after taxes.

But this FSA is clumsy -- you can only change the % taken from your salary once per year. And, if you don't use it all, it doesn't roll over, but rather the government just takes the surplus. This is deliberately intended to scare people from using it, so they have more difficulty paying medical bills, so the political pressure to "reform" things stays as high as possible.

For if the pressure eases, there goes "single payer" takeover. And it's' the takeover that some politicians are interested in, not actual medical care for people.

And if that slowdown didn't exist? Wouldn't that mean that you would have medical treatment at a rate so high that nobody could afford it?

No, that's not how capitalism works. When a new treatment is developed, it may be costly to roll out, and thus people would get charged more. Also, and this is important, it's the profit that drives innovation (and fame, of course, see my comment regarding politicians cynically relying on this alone to generate cures).

The real choice isn't between "first class expensive medical care" and "first class cheaper medical care". It's between "first class expensive medical care" and "second rate cheaper medical care".

You cannot have first class medical care without the best medical technology, and you cannot have that without profits driving innovation.

With a 20% slow down, would you feel you're getting your money's worth in the year 2100 with only 2080 level medical tech? How about 2007 with 1987 tech?

It's that simple, nothing more or less. Follow the money and power (or attempts to grab power.) They emphasize single-payer in the currrent nationalization narrative of certain politicians in the US.

 

[eir_de_scania]

Originally Posted by CaptainManacles
Well, first I would look to friends and family for financial support. Maybe private charity but that's a wing and a prayer. Other then that, the same thing that happens in Canada or anywhere else if there aren't the doctors/resources/technology to save my life. I die. It happens. Socializing medicine doesn't change that fact. It just takes away my ability to choose how much I value my survival compared to other things in my life.

My bolding.

I thought survival was necessary to value those other things in your life.

 

[fls]

You cannot have first class medical care without the best medical technology, and you cannot have that without profits driving innovation.

Can you elaborate on how this is relevant to a multi-payer vs. a single-payer system?

Linda

 

[Rolfe]

Seconded. The innovators still get paid in a universal healthcare system, so they still have incentive to innovate and compete.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

Seconded. The innovators still get paid in a universal healthcare system, so they still have incentive to innovate and compete.

Rolfe.

(Someone's probably said it already but...)

And since in a universal system the potential "customer" base will be larger there is potential for more profit.

 

[Corsair 115]

Some people in Canada have decided to force other people in Canada to provide collective health care.

You seem to be neglecting the fact that this was achieved by democratic means. That is, legislation was brought to Parliament and the duly elected members, the representatives of the population in their ridings, then voted on whether to make that legislation law or not.

The public retains the power to change the legislation by either demanding the government in power make changes to the existing law, or if during an election, by voting for the party which vows it will make the desired changes to the law.

The publically-funded health care system is also not a violation of anyone's rights, or else such a case would have been brought before the Supreme Court and won by the plaintiffs. We do have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

[Spock Jenkins]

(Someone's probably said it already but...)

And since in a universal system the potential "customer" base will be larger there is potential for more profit.

There is potential, however that hinges on how much control the "single payer" has over what they are willing to pay for certain medical procedures and other items. If the single payer decides they are only willing to pay $1,000 for a procedure that costs $1,250 to provide - then there isn't much profit in that.

That, in my limited understanding, is one of the major industry concerns over a national system in the U.S. Going to a system where the payer sets the price doesn't leave much profit to reinvest in research and innovation. It is a real concern here, because the current government programs do this very thing. A Doctor bills Medicare $1,000 - Medicare says, "Nope - we only pay $500 for that procedure. And no - you can't charge the patient for the difference." Doctor says, "Well, I guess I'll charge the next cash patient $1,500 to cover the difference." They won't have that option under single payer.

I'm certain there are counter-arguments, but it is a concern. This is part of what people are referring to when they say that the U.S. funds so much of the health care research and innovation.

If a pill costs a dollar to manufacture - the pharmaceutical company will export it to a country that will only allow them to sell it for $1.10 - because profit is profit. However, the bulk of their R & D profit will come from the U.S. due to lack of price controls as they can sell the same pill here for $3.00. In a single payer system, if the U.S. says they'll only pay $1.10 - from a straight profit perspective - the pharmaceutical company has to be sell the pill. They just won't have millions extra available to spend developing that next miracle drug.

I think the U.S. could take simple measures - such as reducing direct to consumer advertizing for perscription meds. This would curb the drug seekers thereby lowering demand while at the same time reducing the marketing expenses for large pharmaceutical companies. Also, they need to either eliminate or regulate the pharmaceutical wholesalers. Currently, there are no licensing or education requirements to pimp drugs to Doctors. As long as the wholesalers have quality "sales assets" - they seem to be very employable and do quite well financially. I don't want my doctor perscribing a medication because of their last golf outing or because they think it will improve their chances with the hot sales rep that just took them to lunch. I want them perscribing the best available medication for whatever complaint I have - or none at all if that's appropriate.

 

[JoeEllison]

(Someone's probably said it already but...)

And since in a universal system the potential "customer" base will be larger there is potential for more profit.

Yep, that was me, and I also mentions that costs to the consumer should also go down, so everyone wins... and, considering that it is a basic part of economics, you'd wonder why so many "fiscal conservatives" hate the idea.