Cohen, maybe if you would just think of National Health as being one big HMO then you could get on board so that 45 million Americans could have some insuranc.
HMOs are for the youth and healthy. I had a cousin-in-law get cancer and her HMO basically said "thems the breaks". If she had not spent the rest of her life tyying to get better, she might have been able sue them like a mofo.
Glad you posted about this, Grizzled. Good to hear your perspective. My buddy, the Texan/Canadian in BC, has always had good things to say about your system, and has said that it's misunderstood in the States. He's never said it was perfect, but what is? At least you don't have 45-46 million without any health insurance, like we do down here. Heck, that's millions more than your entire population. I know people here in Texas who have no insurance. As a matter of fact, I think this state may have the highest number/percentage of uninsured in the country. Some are school teachers, who can't afford insurance for a spouse staying at home with a child. Cohen, I don't know if being "frozen" a good part of the year is healthy, or unheathy, but my friend used to come down here for the winters. He doesn't have the time to, any longer. What's funny, is that I have a photo, somewhere, of him running around naked in all that damn snow! Man, I wish I was half as healthy as he is. Maybe the cold is good for you.
I heard one of the bigger problems is alot of canadians work and pay taxes in the States but when something catastrophic happens or they retire, they move back to canada to collect retirement and recieve health benefits.
I was all set to charge in here with my opinion guns blazing, but I find that nyquil and Grizzled covered most of what I was going to say, so n'yah.. Oh, and I'm pretty sure that running around naked in cold weather is good for building a strong heart; in moderation of course.
Deckard: No doubt. The cold is good for the heart. That and we send our weak out onto the ice flows so they don’t burden the rest of us. Seriously though, here’s an overview of the evolution of the Canadian system for those who are interested. “Humanity First” http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-90-419/politics_economy/medicare/clip1 In Canada the idea of Medicare was championed by a Christian politician who believed that universal health care was a right and just and humane way for a government to treat its people. This man was a Baptist minister and was, by today’s standards, socially conservative and politically liberal. He was by no means a wasteful spender, however. His government was known for running the most efficient and business like civil service in the country, but they had principles and compassion for their people. I’m sure he would have said that this is what Christianity in government is really about. For Douglas personally this attitude was influenced by difficulties he and his family had when he was young, and by the struggles he saw people going through in his early years of ministry through the depression and the Dirty Thirties. He was easily one of if not the greatest and most influential leader in Canadian history. Here’s a quick overview of the debate in Canada going back to the 40’s. One thing that may not be clear here, to non-Canadians anyway, is that Medicare was first implemented in a small Province, Saskatchewan, in the early 60’s. Tommy Douglas, whose party was call the CCF or Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, later to become the New Democratic Party or NDP, was the Premier of Saskatchewan for most of this time. It proved to be so popular that by the late 60’s it was adopted Canada wide. Note also that healthcare and therefore funding for the Medicare program are shared by the Provincial and Federal governments, and so much of the debate has been about who pays what and what rights each level of government has. http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-73-90/politics_economy/medicare/ In recent years there have been debates about how well it’s working. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/ Within the last month a significant new agreement has been reached. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/deal.html With respect to overall cost: "In 1975, health-care spending in Canada was seven per cent of GDP," D'Cruz said. "By 2003, health-care spending had gone up to 10 per cent of GDP. That's a very significant change over a fairly long period of time." The costs are rising because of new technologies, new drugs and an aging population. Compared to other countries with similar economies, Canada's spending is in the ballpark, according to a report from the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development. The latest figures on what countries spend on health care come from 2002, when Canada spent 9.6 per cent of GDP on health care: • France 9.7%. • Germany 10.9%. • Denmark 8.8%. • Sweden 9.2%. At the high end of the scale is the United States, which spent 14.6 per cent of GDP on health care. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/priceofcare.html 14.6% of GDP and still something like 20% of your population has no, or inadequate, coverage. !!! Frankly, that’s just mind-boggling and almost incomprehensible to most non-Americans. In a nutshell, this is why your system is universally (outside the US anyway) considered to be so outrageously bad. But your political system is such that only the very wealthy can gain access to high levels of power, and the very wealthy don’t benefit from such a system. I think this has to be a central factor for why you’re so far behind in this area. It’s not that the rest of us are so much smarter. It’s just that we have more representative political systems that allow our governments and policies to better represent and serve the will of our people.
But your political system is such that only the very wealthy can gain access to high levels of power, and the very wealthy don’t benefit from such a system. I think this has to be a central factor for why you’re so far behind in this area. It’s not that the rest of us are so much smarter. It’s just that we have more representative political systems that allow our governments and policies to better represent and serve the will of our people. So true, it would be interesting to see what percentage of the 45 million uninusred in the US vote. I bet it is pretty low.
My way to solve the problem. Medicare for all Americans. Has to be simple and understandable to make it harder for the special interests to sow confusion. Remember's Hiliary's complicated insurance company laden plan that they destroyed with the Harry and Louise ads. If you don't want the plan and want to keep buying your private insurance ,if you can afford it and aren't disallowed by pre-exising conditions and the other complicated attempts to increase profit by having only relatively healthy patients who pay premiums, go for it. I can forsee the following: 1) "Jesus, forgive me I know the Pastor said it is a sin to vote Democratic, but my wife needs an operation. Forgive me, Jesus, I am weak and can't stand to see her suffer any more." or 2) At $ 25,000 per year and a couple of kids, (no appreciable income tax) I'm going to just have to vote Democratic because my husband needs back surgery surgery, even if we have to start paying more income tax. or 3) John Kerry (whatever Democrat) loves gays and was against the Vietnam War, but just this once I'll have to vote for him so Aunt Sally can get her heart operation. 4) A few progressive church's "even if you have insurance it is your Christian duty to think of others who are unisured and this is not result of their sins, vote for national health even if you have to pay more taxes." and unfortunatley the all too common 5) I've got mine (insurance) so any old argument against national insurance seems valid as it might raise my taxes.
Grizzled, thanks for the laugh! If anyone were here, they would have come running into the study to find out what was so darn funny. That was an excellent overview of the Canadian system. It is staggering that we spend so much for healthcare in the States, and so many are uninsured, or under-insured. Yes, if you can afford it, we most probably have the best there is. We are told that often enough, and I have seen it in action. But the average American doesn't get a Denton Cooley for a heart surgeon. The average American doesn't have a six figure income, and can afford the best health insurance. Some segments of our population, when it comes to politics, remind me of the working class Southerners at the beginning of the Civil War. They might not ever be able to afford a slave, in fact the odds were extremely high that they never would, but they would spill the last drop of their blood to protect the rights of those who could. Sometimes, I look at today's Republican Party, and I see many good Americans, who have been convinced to spill the last drop of their political blood to protect the rights of the wealthy. It's quite a good deal for those at the top. And very bad for the country, in my opinion.
Another interesting fact that might solve the controversy is how much our 14.6% which is more than the typical say 9.6% spent in Canada or the other advanced democracies. How much of the 14.6% (the extra 5.0%) is made up of insurance company advertising, commissions, sales costs, profit, excess paperwork, as every compnay has its own forms, insurance company physicals and hundreds of other expenses you don't have in National Health Care. These expenses have absolutely nothing to do with providing health care. Not to mention the profits to shareholders, which again arguably has nothing to do with providing health care. I guess there would be some sort of societal cost in laying off all the insurance company, agents, personnel and all the I would guess several hundred thousand people who do medical billing but if we could get good health care for the same amount, wouldn't it be worth it. If Canda spent 50% more on health care like we do couldn't they eliminate some of the lines and buy more advanced equipment which seems to be the principle complaint.
Grizzled, Nice to see you, you've been mentioned as MIA. Should have started my own thread on Canadian Healthcare to drag you out of lurk mode.
It's both sad and scary when such major changes on such an important issue are proposed by those totally ignorant of the topic. FWIW, I'm in favor of government-funded healthcare coverage, but NOT socialized healthcare. They're different things. Ultimately, our broken system will be far superior to socialized systems, although their systems will benefit greatly by what our market-based system 'learns'. The problem has always been that in an effective market-driven system, one must be able to quantify quality and value. That has been nearly impossible in healthcare, but the managed care market is changing that. We have only scrathed the surface, but it's happening now. People will be able to select providers, medical groups and hospitals based on their performance, not on what you brother-in-law's harir stylist thinks. Healthcare is NOT a commodity. It varies SUBSTANTIALLY from provider to provider, and until otherwise, it should be driven my market forces to allow it to improve. There are lives at stake, and I do not trust some giant federal beauracracy to manage the required CQI. In fact, we can see what happened when HCFA/CMS contracted-out Midecare to HMOs: costs dropped enough to allow for additional benefits (such as prescription drug coverage and extended longterm care) that the feds could not provide under the normal program. Why not educate yourself before just espousing some stereotypical fanatic-liberal viewpoint? As with all companies, people, nations, er...humans, not all acts by HMOs are 'nice' and not all are 'evil'. I've seen both and can argue from the middle; can you?
It's both sad and scary when such major changes on such an important issue are proposed by those totally ignorant of the topic. We can agree on that. Are you doing a TJ proclaiming yourself infallible? FWIW, I'm in favor of government-funded healthcare coverage, but NOT socialized healthcare. FWIW that is what Medicare originally was and still mostly is. My mom takes her card to the doctor or hospital of her choice. In fact, we can see what happened when HCFA/CMS contracted-out Midecare to HMOs: costs dropped enough to allow for additional benefits (such as prescription drug coverage and extended longterm care) that the feds could not provide under the normal program. In fact All the HMO's in Houston stop providing drugs. My parents like many others lost their drug benefits when this happened. There was one left and I believe they stopped, too. My mom was dependent on the goodwill of Fizer for some of her meds, now Fizer has dropped it. People will be able to select providers, medical groups and hospitals based on their performance, not on what you brother-in-law's harir stylist thinks. Who isn't in favor of that? Such groups as the FDA and NIH haved traditonally been more accurate in their info than drug and tobacco and other companies with a vested financial interest in health info. Cohen, you failed to address the argument of the additional 5o% spent in the US system is the result of paperwork, marketing and proftis and other expenses not needed when government is the insurer, Hopefuly Why not educate yourself before just espousing some stereotypical fanatic-liberal viewpoint? name calling is not the best you can do. Please explain why the system in Canada and the other advanced democracies is inherently the result of a "stereotypical fanatic-liberal viewpoint"? I think your vested financial interest in the present private health care system system is showing if your above arguments are the best you can muster.
Dotors in the US are not usually thought of as "totally ignorant" of the topic of the US health care system. Nor are they generally considered as espousing some stereotypical fanatic-liberal viewpoint ************ Almost Half of US Physicians Favor National Health Insurance posted 11/26/03 50% of the physicians in the US support legislation to establish national health insurance, according to results of a survey published in the Annals of Internal Medicine for November 18. Until this report, there have been no broad, across-the-board surveys of randomly selected physicians in all specialties across the country that addressed physician attitudes about the financing of national health care. In the belief that the success of health care reform may depend on physician support, Dr. Carroll, at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, and Dr. Ronald T. Ackermann, with the University of Washington in Seattle, surveyed physicians randomly selected from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. They mailed questionnaires to 3188 physicians, 60% of whom returned them. The authors estimate that their sample could provide an accurate estimate of the views of US physicians with a sampling error of less than 3%. Of the 1650 respondents, 49% supported legislation to establish national health insurance and 40% opposed it. Primary care providers, those with at least 20% of their patients on Medicaid, practitioners in inner cities and those in non-private practice were more likely than their counterparts to advocate this legislation. Among those endorsing national health insurance, 61% also supported a single federal payer to achieve that goal. Altogether, 26% were in support of a single payer system. Even with increases in Medicaid eligibility and the enactment of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the number of Americans lacking health insurance has grown over the past 25 years. Dr. Kellermann, at Emory University in Atlanta, maintains that, in addition to its deleterious effects on individuals and families, lack of insurance coverage threatens the financial viability of heath providers. link
Originally posted by glynch Are you doing a TJ proclaiming yourself infallible? No, I never claimed to be infallible. But I've been in this industry for almost 20 years and can recognize ignorance. My statement is not without merit. Simply read on. FWIW that is what Medicare originally was and still mostly is. My mom takes her card to the doctor or hospital of her choice. And because it failed at controlling costs and monitoring quality (and fraud), the HMO plans surged in growth when Seniors were permitted to enroll in them. And who do you think administers Medicare? Google 'medicare financial intermediary'. In fact All the HMO's in Houston stop providing drugs. My parents like many others lost their drug benefits when this happened. There was one left and I believe they stopped, too. My mom was dependent on the goodwill of Fizer for some of her meds, now Fizer has dropped it. The fact is, that most HMOs pulled out of the Medicare market entirely because the last Administration dropped the reimbursements so much that it was no longer profitable. Therefore, Seniors lost their extra benefits and Medicare had to start paying all the bills INSTEAD OF THE 95% OF EXPECTED CHARGES that they paid the HMOs. Great deal, huh? Who isn't in favor of that? Such groups as the FDA and NIH haved traditonally been more accurate in their info than drug and tobacco and other companies with a vested financial interest in health info. Being 'in favor' of something and having an incentive to see it come to fruition are two entirely different things, are they not? Which programs does the FDA and NIH support that help you determine the highest-quality Doctor for you? Yet Managed Care companies have been measured by HEDIS (look it up) for a number of years now, and it is started to be used to incentivize individual physicians. What does that mean, exactly? E.g., if primary care doctors don't provide the necessary mammograms, PAP smears, beta blockers, hypertentions drugs, immunizations, etc., they're going to start feeling it in their pocket. Those evil managed care companies are the ones doing this. Cohen, you failed to address the argument of the additional 5o% spent in the US system is the result of paperwork, marketing and proftis and other expenses not needed when government is the insurer, Hopefuly Why not educate yourself before just espousing some stereotypical fanatic-liberal viewpoint? name calling is not the best you can do. I did far more than that, yet you apparently failed to notice. 50% on paperwork? Please provide your reference. And I hope it includes which percent is spent on government mandated paperwork. Are you aware of the biggest, most expensive new bureaucratic requirements? It's called HIPAA. It's so prohibitively expensive, that it's forcing small carriers to be abosrbed by larger ones, reducing competition and choice for Americans. It was created by the previous Administration. As for the paperwork, how do you plan on doing away with it? Do you have any idea how complex healthcare is and how difficult it is to manage? Why do you think the Feds use the private sector for Medicare? How do you plan on adjudicating medical claims? Explaining benefits? Preauhthorizing services? Want to argue about the preauth process? When Managed Care was first implemented, estimates of unecessary and inapproriate care were as high as 30%. This care does not come without substantial cost, and not just dollars. Google 'iatrogenic', 'nosocomial', 'adverse drug event'. Please explain why the system in Canada and the other advanced democracies is inherently the result of a Why not educate yourself before just espousing some stereotypical fanatic-liberal viewpoint? Maybe if you reword that I could respond to it. I think your vested financial interest in the present private health care system system is showing if your above arguments are the best you can muster. You are presenting nothing, nada of substance. I've gone round-and-round for many hours with some of very bright folks in the industry including CEOs, Wall Street Analysts, Public Health, etc. All you can do is throw some superficial garbage out there and then expect us to fully nationalize one-seventh of our economy? Don't waste everyones' time. As for my 'vested interest', I help assess the quality of healthcare rendered and improve upon it. If and when those services are no longer required because the incentives no longer exist, then we should all be very concerned.
Thanks for the article. The docs agree with me. As I stated previously, I'm in favor of government-funded healthcare coverage, but NOT socialized healthcare. Doctors favor 'National Health Insurance', which is the same as my government-funded healthcare coverage, 49%-40%. Yet only 26% want nationalized healthcare (i.e. single-payor), so 74% DON'T AGREE WITH YOU. Now, after your oops, I'll add that I don't place as much stock in whether the docs agree with me or not as you apparently do. I know you're dying to know why, so I'll tell you. Read a little By John Eisenberg MD on what drives physicians. Not all the hats they where help the rest of us as patients and paying customers. For instance, doctors' ownership in labs and radiology facilities had to be oulawed because physicians would send people for diagnostic tests who did not need them. Now that might seem to only have an inflationary impact, yet most all tests have the risk of false positives. So that blood test you rec'd might not have been too painful, but having to go in for a liver biopsy because you were one of the 5% false positives certainly was NOT in your best interests. THAT is why unecessary and inappropriate treatments don't just raise costs, but actually impact the quality of life and in many cases each year, cause unnecessary deaths. So yeah, they agree with me, but I wouldn't mind if they didn't. They have their own motivations, including the pursuit of personal wealth, that don't nec benefit the rest of us.
Cohen, I think you misunderstood my first post. In addition why asume I am for no controls or audits. I have heard of games like the lab ownership issue with dotors. No doubt dotors and other health care providers try to defraud the system. Are you saying they don't try to do that with private insurers or the insurers with the doctors? I agree that the HIPPA law at least with regard to privacy is a beast with every hospital having its own medical release forms. What a nightmare. How do they handle privay in Canada? I certainly see a role for even private auditors if that is your main beef with single payer.
