NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050206/NEWS01/102060083/-1/news01

WASHINGTON - About half of all bankruptcy filings in the United States occur because of health-related expenses - and that number is growing, a study released last week has found.

Wow I didn't know this! Would this be a good argument for universal gov-provided health care?

It would not surprise me to find that the other half are due to legal expenses.

This is one of the reasons I refuse to move to the United States.

My fiancé is currently living there, and her family are (understandably) enthusiasitc about me doing so ( I am British).

Having grown up with an NHS however, I would definitely worry about moving there with regard to medical expenses. Here, to see a GP there is no charge, no medical insurance payments, I just phone up, get an appointment and go down. I can have peace of mind in knowing whether there is something wrong with me, I don't have to worry about where the money for the visit is coming from.

In fact, I was there last summer and I suffered from extremely bad toothache, in the end the pain was so bad that I couldn't sleep and had to go to a dentist.

In the UK dentists are not wholly NHS funded, in fact the NHS only covers a proportion of the costs involved in pretty much all dental operations.

Even so, a root canal in the US would have normally cost $800, this is a figure the dentist himself quoted me, as I was a student and tourist, he offered to do it for 300. In the end I decided that I'd rather put up with the pain and just take codine for a fortnight than blow 3/4 of my budget for the holiday.

The consultation itself, no more than 10 minutes cost me $60.

When I returned home I had my root canal, plus more work done, including x-rays for about $150.

I'll let the figures speak for themselves.

I'll let the figures speak for themselves.

That's a good point. But still, the money had to come from somewhere (taxes on your paycheck or something) and in the end you still payed for it. It would just have been more inconvenient that you would have to pay from your pocket wiith money you thought was set aside for something else.

Suppose you were paying more in the taxes that were set aside from your own medical bills than you ever got back in medical service? In that case (as is often the case with gov. spending) you could have saved money by handling it yourself.

It would not surprise me to find that the other half are due to legal expenses.

Heh heh heh :D

That's a good point. But still, the money had to come from somewhere (taxes on your paycheck or something) and in the end you still payed for it. It would just have been more inconvenient that you would have to pay from your pocket wiith money you thought was set aside for something else.

Suppose you were paying more in the taxes that were set aside from your own medical bills than you ever got back in medical service? In that case (as is often the case with gov. spending) you could have saved money by handling it yourself.
all the other countries with national health care dont seem to have a damn problem, and besides you would only have to be paying as much as you do now anyway, because you see, people have to pay money for their very shitty private health care plan, if it was nationalized that money would be moved to taxes to the national government, and shit for some people the price might actually go DOWN and they would get full coverage not jsut chump change out of their insurance companies.

if anything speaks out against privatising anything, its the US healthcare system

That's a good point. But still, the money had to come from somewhere (taxes on your paycheck or something) and in the end you still payed for it. It would just have been more inconvenient that you would have to pay from your pocket wiith money you thought was set aside for something else.

Suppose you were paying more in the taxes that were set aside from your own medical bills than you ever got back in medical service? In that case (as is often the case with gov. spending) you could have saved money by handling it yourself.

Even if taxes do make up funding for these programs you still pay less than you would if it was all out-of-pocket. The fact that profit is not a factor in these figures when the government is running things saves a lot of money. You example of taxes being costlier is wrong.

http://www.pnwer.org/meetings/Summer2004/Presentations/Healthcare%20-%20Chris%20Ward.pdf

(somebody's presentation report but it is correct)

And then there is the security you have knowing you are always covered and if there is a big emergency you won't spend yourself into poverty and unemployment just to stay alive.

BTW Americans do spend A LOT in taxes towards Medicare and Medicaid ($1.6 trillion) on top of what they pay for insurance and the stuff that thier insurance is supposed to cover but they decide not to pay for you. It's a shame that so much is spent for little reward. It's like swimming upstream.

You have to read this more thorougly, than just drawing a conclusion.

First off, we might want to see what besides the prices is causing bankruptcy. Well, a logical, and easy to come to conclusion is lack of work. If someone is laid up in a hospital for extened periods of time, then they obviously aren't working. They aren't taking in money, and they aren't paying off existing debts. Even if their employer retains them, the employer isn't going to pay them at the normal rate, that's completely illogical. And other debts can be responsible, but a medical reason can be listed.

If you are previously poor and you go to a hospital for extended periods of time, even if you have health insurance all paid for and everything, bankruptcy is probably a tempting option.

Plus, The study claims to be about bankruptcy reasons since 1986, but, it only partook of five courts, including at least one in D.C. This amount seems of slight suspiscion. Espescially as they used a D.C. court. Since inner city D.C. is an incredibly poor area, the previous paragraph describes what's going on quite nicely. So, yes, I am questioning the study. Not very harshly, but I see some potential problems.

No. This is not an arguement for national health care.

that coming from you andalucia, i disregard that statement and point to teh fact that combined lack of income assumnig the money earner is in the hospital and your insurance provider only provides chump change amounts of money, i was in the hospital for a week under various taskes, the insurance provider barely ponied up a FRACTION of the total costs, we payed thousands of dollars out of pocket and the people we PAY MONEY TO EACH FUCKING MONTH barely paid squat

have you ever been in the hospital? or know anyone who has? if not, ask them how much their insurance covered

i must reiterate that if ANYTHING makes an excellent reason for nationalizing anything, it is the US healthcare system

That's a good point. But still, the money had to come from somewhere (taxes on your paycheck or something) and in the end you still payed for it. It would just have been more inconvenient that you would have to pay from your pocket wiith money you thought was set aside for something else.

Suppose you were paying more in the taxes that were set aside from your own medical bills than you ever got back in medical service? In that case (as is often the case with gov. spending) you could have saved money by handling it yourself.
actually, the canadian government spends less per capita on health care than the american government, yet we don't have to pay out our asses to see the doctor.

why? well, your government gets to deal with the insurance companies who are trying to grab as much money as possible, thus it is costing me less in taxes to have my universal health care than it's costing you to have a pay as you go system like over there.

all the other countries with national health care dont seem to have a damn problem, and besides you would only have to be paying as much as you do now anyway, because you see, people have to pay money for their very shitty private health care plan, if it was nationalized that money would be moved to taxes to the national government, and shit for some people the price might actually go DOWN and they would get full coverage not jsut chump change out of their insurance companies.

if anything speaks out against privatising anything, its the US healthcare system
what makes you think they dont have problems? they have huge problems paying for it, making healthcare available in a timely manner, keeping up with cutting edge procedures...

in many countries public health is in crisis.

what makes you think they dont have problems? they have huge problems paying for it, making healthcare available in a timely manner, keeping up with cutting edge procedures...

in many countries public health is in crisis.
well i assume you have proof for your statement

that coming from you andalucia, i disregard that statement and point to teh fact that combined lack of income assumnig the money earner is in the hospital and your insurance provider only provides chump change amounts of money, i was in the hospital for a week under various taskes, the insurance provider barely ponied up a FRACTION of the total costs, we payed thousands of dollars out of pocket and the people we PAY MONEY TO EACH FUCKING MONTH barely paid squat
Then your insurance provider sucks. Get a new one.

Oh, and I might just ignore you.


Yes you asshat. In fact...I was in the hospital watching my grandfather die right before my very eyes not very long ago. My sister has been in the hospital for appendicitis, my mother was in the hospital for surgery. And insurance covered almost everything.

[QUOTE=]i must reiterate that if ANYTHING makes an excellent reason for nationalizing anything, it is the US healthcare system
If the reason is so excellent how come I don't see it?

I love the holier-than-thou attitude. :upyours:

so anyway

i heard this on the radio. the piece said that half of those bankuptcies that are caused by medical bills were with people who HAD health insurance. more disturbing yet eh?

so anyway

i heard this on the radio. the piece said that half of those bankuptcies that are caused by medical bills were with people who HAD health insurance. more disturbing yet eh?
Not really, I was able to outline a model under which this makes sense earlier.

that coming from you andalucia, i disregard that statement
Now that I think about it, asshattery is perfect reason for an ignore. Goodbye!

you never answered whether you had ever been in the hospital for an extended amonut of time

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050206/NEWS01/102060083/-1/news01

Wow I didn't know this! Would this be a good argument for universal gov-provided health care?

No. It is not the job of government to protect people from the sort of personal disasters to which all of mankind is prone.

You have to read this more thorougly, than just drawing a conclusion.

First off, we might want to see what besides the prices is causing bankruptcy. Well, a logical, and easy to come to conclusion is lack of work. If someone is laid up in a hospital for extened periods of time, then they obviously aren't working. They aren't taking in money, and they aren't paying off existing debts. Even if their employer retains them, the employer isn't going to pay them at the normal rate, that's completely illogical. And other debts can be responsible, but a medical reason can be listed.

If you are previously poor and you go to a hospital for extended periods of time, even if you have health insurance all paid for and everything, bankruptcy is probably a tempting option.

Plus, The study claims to be about bankruptcy reasons since 1986, but, it only partook of five courts, including at least one in D.C. This amount seems of slight suspiscion. Espescially as they used a D.C. court. Since inner city D.C. is an incredibly poor area, the previous paragraph describes what's going on quite nicely. So, yes, I am questioning the study. Not very harshly, but I see some potential problems.

No. This is not an arguement for national health care.

if you have to go to the hospital and you dont have insurance or you have inadequate insurance, there is no way you can pay for it.

my son had to get a few stitches in his head a few months ago. the bill for an hour in the emergency room was $1000

my nephew had an emergency appendectomy. the bill is over $20k.

who can pay money like that? if you cant afford insurance, you cant afford to get sick.

now there are some government programs for "indigents" that might help my nephew pay some of those bills. he is hoping to get all but a couple thousand paid for. that would leave an amount of money he could pay over time. he doesnt know yet if he qualifies for these programs but its the only way the hospital/doctor are getting paid for their services.

even if the study has flaws, there IS a problem in this country for people who are uninsured. you get excellent emergency treatment but you are saddled with a debt you cant hope to ever pay.

it IS an arguement for national health care but it isnt enough in my mind to say we MUST have it.

The fact that profit is not a factor in these figures when the government is running things saves a lot of money. You [sic] example of taxes being costlier is wrong.

http://www.pnwer.org/meetings/Summer2004/Presentations/Healthcare%20-%20Chris%20Ward.pdf

(somebody's presentation report but it is correct)


Nice link! It's obvious that in Canada gov. drugs cost less per person than in U.S. The last argument I could make against it is that lack of profit curbs the drive to enter and improve the drug industry so it can better meet people's needs; or perhaps that there is more to the U.S. per-person expidentures than drug companies seeking profit, but of that I am not sure. Maybe the U.S. has rigged the drug market in such a way that competition can't drive down prices because the drug companies work together as they set prices and send lobbyists to Washington.

And then there is the security you have knowing you are always covered and if there is a big emergency you won't spend yourself into poverty and unemployment just to stay alive.
That's very true. But what about this- if people had the money in their hands that they could re-invest in their own economic security in whatever way they choose (business, stocks, or something) they might improve their financial situation so that the expense of drugs would never be too significant a problem to them.

But I am only playing devil's advocate and in general agree with your well-founded points. I would be interested in your response however.

Oh, and I might just ignore you.

Yeah, knowing Reaper that wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Yeah, knowing Reaper that wouldn't be such a bad idea.
god forbid you people listen to a different opinion, usually on most topics, i would agree and tell you to ignore me, but here i have a legit point

Wow I didn't know this! Would this be a good argument for universal gov-provided health care?
No. That'd just transfer costs to thhe taxpayer. And since tax revenue probably can't keep pace with the program's costs, the deficit will make this current one look very good. That'll send interests rates sky-high. And this is not a fantasy, considering how quickly healthcare costs are growing.

Even if taxes do make up funding for these programs you still pay less than you would if it was all out-of-pocket. The fact that profit is not a factor in these figures when the government is running things saves a lot of money. You example of taxes being costlier is wrong.

Where do you get the idea that the government is more efficient because they aren't forced to make a profit? You must have never dealt with a govenment bureaucracy. On the other hand, profit driven companies must be efficient because profit demands it.

One thing that would benefit the medical industry in the US would be the removal of all hacks. If insurance companies would refuse to insure bad risks and if medical licensing boards would revoke some licenses, I think the costs of insurance and the costs of medical care would drop like the stock market when an AFC team wins the Superbowl.

No. It is not the job of government to protect people from the sort of personal disasters to which all of mankind is prone.

Yes it is. In fact that is exactly what a responsible government is supposed to do.

From the police to the fire department to the military and so on, ensuring the health and safety of its citizens is the very reason government exists.

Where do you get the idea that the government is more efficient because they aren't forced to make a profit? You must have never dealt with a govenment bureaucracy. On the other hand, profit driven companies must be efficient because profit demands it.

One thing that would benefit the medical industry in the US would be the removal of all hacks. If insurance companies would refuse to insure bad risks and if medical licensing boards would revoke some licenses, I think the costs of insurance and the costs of medical care would drop like the stock market when an AFC team wins the Superbowl.
its not so much efficiency as giving a damn. the private industry only cares about profit, thats why everything costs a shitload and we are putting in more money than we are getting out. i rather trust some beaurcracy whose asses are on teh line if they psis it off than an industry dealing with my well-being that cares more about profit than my well being

Where do you get the idea that the government is more efficient because they aren't forced to make a profit?

I was saying it was cheaper. However both private and public systems are equally efficient as long as they are well managed and BOTH ARE WELL MANAGED. The only detectable differences are because of operational differences and there is no statistical advantage for either.

This is a report by the CDC on the 2 systems. Nice read. (to be honest I only read the 'key findings' section)

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/jcush_analyticalreport.pdf

The interesting thing was how better the poor (who are more often to be sicker) are treated in Canada and how easier the access to care is. They are less likely to be sick ALL the time which improves their economic position. Thus, reducing the institutional poverty that is more prominent in the US.

You must have never dealt with a govenment bureaucracy. On the other hand, profit driven companies must be efficient because profit demands it.

And when insurance agencies don't want to pay out for your medical expenses, THAT'S in the name of profit as well.

I have dealt with federal bureaucracy. They do try to make processes as fast as possible. They do adopt faster technologies to speed things up. No one wants a pile-up of work.

Private industries have their bureaucracies as well and they are more likely to think about their bottom lines before they think of you. Not the kind of people I want watching over my health.

Yes it is. In fact that is exactly what a responsible government is supposed to do.

From the police to the fire department to the military and so on, ensuring the health and safety of its citizens is the very reason government exists.

You misread my post. I didn't refer to anything like that. My point was that the government in the US is to provide for things which promote the general welfare, the common defense ... things which help everyone, not a select group of people.

You misread my post. I didn't refer to anything like that. My point was that the government in the US is to provide for things which promote the general welfare, the common defense ... things which help everyone, not a select group of people.

Police help victims of crime.

Fire Department helps victims of fire.

Hospitals help victims of disease.

You are right. We need to eliminate these programs that cater to these minority groups. I know I've never been in a fire so good riddence to the fire department. And honestly, what are the odds of my house burning down with me inside?

Waste of my precious tax dollars.

Police help victims of crime.

Fire Department helps victims of fire.

Hospitals help victims of disease.

You are right. We need to eliminate these programs that cater to these minority groups. I know I've never been in a fire so good riddence to the fire department.

Waste of my precious tax dollars.
and i dont recall ever being robbed, fuck the police

Police help victims of crime.

Fire Department helps victims of fire.

Hospitals help victims of disease.

You are right. We need to eliminate these programs that cater to these minority groups. I know I've never been in a fire so good riddence to the fire department. And honestly, what are the odds of my house burning down with me inside?

Waste of my precious tax dollars.

Police are funded by local government, State Police are funded by National Government. Fire departements are almost exclusively funded by local government. Hospitals do not protect others from criminal activity, nor do they protect everyone's home in a given district from fires. Hospitals are funded by the insurance and payments of those they help.

If you would like to have hospitals funded locally instead of funded by the insurance and fees of those they help, by all means do so.

Even if taxes do make up funding for these programs you still pay less than you would if it was all out-of-pocket. The fact that profit is not a factor in these figures when the government is running things saves a lot of money. You example of taxes being costlier is wrong.

http://www.pnwer.org/meetings/Summer2004/Presentations/Healthcare%20-%20Chris%20Ward.pdf

(somebody's presentation report but it is correct)

And then there is the security you have knowing you are always covered and if there is a big emergency you won't spend yourself into poverty and unemployment just to stay alive.

BTW Americans do spend A LOT in taxes towards Medicare and Medicaid ($1.6 trillion) on top of what they pay for insurance and the stuff that thier insurance is supposed to cover but they decide not to pay for you. It's a shame that so much is spent for little reward. It's like swimming upstream.
You forgot to mention the HUGE profits of the middle man in US healthcare.....the insurance companies.

There is also a bureaucratic boondoggle to the administration of US health plans.

On a per capita basis here in Canada, the cost of health care is approximately 1/3 that of the US, therrefore the taxes that go towards health care are no where near what some people claim them to be.

Police are funded by local government, State Police are funded by National Government. Fire departements are almost exclusively funded by local government. Hospitals do not protect others from criminal activity, nor do they protect everyone's home in a given district from fires. Hospitals are funded by the insurance and payments of those they help.

And all of those levels of government are paying for things thanks to the taxes they collect.

(BTW just listing how all those things are paid for isn't really a counter-argument)

What I was demonstrating is that anyone can be one of the victims at any time. These institutions are there to help us all when the worst happens. We could all become the select few you warned us about at any time so it is silly to say we shouldn't cater to them. We always cater to the minority with police and fire departments. Heaven help us if the majority of people in the country suddenly needed all at once. Everyone severely burned by a rabid group of arsonists?

You also seems to be forgetting that police, fire and health departments have prevention programs to make sure these things don't happen in the first place. It is when these things happen do we need these services. And of course it could happen to any of us. The possibility for disaster would be greater if they did not and this is all possible because of funding by taxes.

Would they do these same prevention programs if it was mainly an insurance biz? HELL NO! That means less victims and less ways for them to make money!

Have you noticed health insurance isn't covering as much as it used to? Did you know that outpatient care is practically non-existant in the US? Why is that? Less return business of course! You are more likely to get sick again and be re-admitted under the US system, where in Canada the Victorian Order of Nurses makes house visits to make sure you don't get re-admitted.

I've always wondered: If health insurance and personal payments are a good things, why not extend it to the police and fire departments instead of paying them through taxes? Makes perfect sense. I don't use either. In fact I use the health system more. No more suing the police for unlawful confinement, in fact there would be a clause for it and an instant cash award if some cops beat ya.

Could be a good idea!


If you would like to have hospitals funded locally instead of funded by the insurance and fees of those they help, by all means do so.

You likely didn't know this but the provinces in Canada run their own health systems. Provinces are, of course, equated to states in the US. Feds just provide the cash.

I did not say local government should take the job.

Police are funded by local government, State Police are funded by National Government. Fire departements are almost exclusively funded by local government. Hospitals do not protect others from criminal activity, nor do they protect everyone's home in a given district from fires. Hospitals are funded by the insurance and payments of those they help.

If you would like to have hospitals funded locally instead of funded by the insurance and fees of those they help, by all means do so.
the fire department doesnt protect anyone from fires either, smoke detectors do. the fire department just puts em out. where as hospitals and doctor visits DO protect people from illnesses

nice try

And all of those levels of government are paying for things thanks to the taxes they collect.

(BTW just listing how all those things are paid for isn't really a counter-argument)

What I was demonstrating is that anyone can be one of the victims at any time. These institutions are there to help us all when the worst happens. We could all become the select few you warned us about at any time so it is silly to say we shouldn't cater to them. We always cater to the minority with police and fire departments. Heaven help us if the majority of people in the country suddenly needed all at once. Everyone severely burned by a rabid group of arsonists?

You also seems to be forgetting that police, fire and health departments have prevention programs to make sure these things don't happen in the first place. It is when these things happen do we need these services. And of course it could happen to any of us. The possibility for disaster would be greater if they did not and this is all possible because of funding by taxes.

Would they do these same prevention programs if it was mainly an insurance biz? HELL NO! That means less victims and less ways for them to make money!

Have you noticed health insurance isn't covering as much as it used to? Did you know that outpatient care is practically non-existant in the US? Why is that? Less return business of course! You are more likely to get sick again and be re-admitted under the US system, where in Canada the Victorian Order of Nurses makes house visits to make sure you don't get re-admitted.

You likely didn't know this but the provinces in Canada run their own health systems. Provinces are, of course, equated to states in the US. Feds just provide the cash.

I did not say local government should take the job.

I never stated that you did. I only suggested that you could, and that was before I knew you were Canadian.

I never indicated that I thought listing services was a counter-argument. I was indicating that those services which you mentioned were all paid for from either local or state government.

Allow me to expand my earlier statement to include local and state government. If the voters at either level decide they want to pay for everyone to have free health care, that's their business.

It's better to have healthy bankrupt people than a government-run healthcare system that doesn't work.

I was saying it was cheaper. However both private and public systems are equally efficient as long as they are well managed and BOTH ARE WELL MANAGED. The only detectable differences are because of operational differences and there is no statistical advantage for either.

This is a report by the CDC on the 2 systems. Nice read. (to be honest I only read the 'key findings' section)

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/jcush_analyticalreport.pdf

The interesting thing was how better the poor (who are more often to be sicker) are treated in Canada and how easier the access to care is. They are less likely to be sick ALL the time which improves their economic position. Thus, reducing the institutional poverty that is more prominent in the US.



And when insurance agencies don't want to pay out for your medical expenses, THAT'S in the name of profit as well.

I have dealt with federal bureaucracy. They do try to make processes as fast as possible. They do adopt faster technologies to speed things up. No one wants a pile-up of work.

Private industries have their bureaucracies as well and they are more likely to think about their bottom lines before they think of you. Not the kind of people I want watching over my health.
Okay, here's a case in point. Public schools are run by the government. They are neither cheap, nor do the folks in charge really give a damn about anything else other than making tenure and getting the next paycheck. If they were spurred on by competition, they would be cheaper than they are now, and they would be far more responsive to the customers.

Public schools in Atlanta are funded to the tune of about $10k/per pupil/per year. That is similar to several of the well know private schools in Atlanta. Lovett is $13-$15 for a far superior education.

There is no part of government that is any different.

I never stated that you did. I only suggested that you could, and that was before I knew you were Canadian.

I never indicated that I thought listing services was a counter-argument. I was indicating that those services which you mentioned were all paid for from either local or state government.

Allow me to expand my earlier statement to include local and state government. If the voters at either level decide they want to pay for everyone to have free health care, that's their business.

Wow. I didn't know you didn't know I was Canadian! :eek:

Thought I made that point clear already. Ah, well...

As far as the state/local health thingy is concerned it wouldn't be as good as one that gets it's funding federally. Such a program would need federal sponsorship to be really effective for a variety of reasons.

Wow. I didn't know you didn't know I was Canadian! :eek:

Thought I made that point clear already. Ah, well...

As far as the state/local health thingy is concerned it wouldn't be as good as one that gets it's funding federally. Such a program would need federal sponsorship to be really effective for a variety of reasons.

If you're willing to list them, I would be willing to try and illustrate why they wouldn't be effective here in the US.

Wow I didn't know this! Would this be a good argument for universal gov-provided health care?
No, but it is a good argument for outlawing bankruptcy.

It's better to have healthy bankrupt people than a government-run healthcare system that doesn't work.
oh yes because we know the ones in britain and canada dont work for shit :rolleyes:

Okay, here's a case in point. Public schools are run by the government. They are neither cheap, nor do the folks in charge really give a damn about anything else other than making tenure and getting the next paycheck. If they were spurred on by competition, they would be cheaper than they are now, and they would be far more responsive to the customers.

Public schools in Atlanta are funded to the tune of about $10k/per pupil/per year. That is similar to several of the well know private schools in Atlanta. Lovett is $13-$15 for a far superior education.

There is no part of government that is any different.

Then there are the additional fees like books, travel and uniforms that the private schools charge.

Can't say I know a lot about the private/public education situation in the US. Got a link? Anyone else got a link? Linksh pleash! Ebijudicate me!

I didn't even know a public school teacher could get tenure. I thought that was a university/college thing.

I have noticed that the government has been using that voucher program a lot and that it has been paying for people that can't afford the fees. Tax money is still being spent anyway. I just don't understand why they don't just reform the public school system to match how private schools are run (or whatever is supposed to make them better).

But, like I said, my knowledge in the education front is limited. Which is very ironic. :D

If you're willing to list them, I would be willing to try and illustrate why they wouldn't be effective here in the US.

Well...it's not really of a 'not work' things with the US. It's more of an optimization of resources thing. I would work. It is just a matter of implementing it. Both US and Canada share some of these traits even though they use different methods. But there are some benefits to the centralized system (cheaper for one and it maintains quality!) and it is right on par with most things the privatized system offers (services).

Other than people being brainwashed by lobbyists flooding the media with "it won't work" scenarios and politicians in bed with the same health industry lobbyists I don't see how regular americans would NOT want public health care.

Anyways, if you want to read a long wordy version:

http://www.cha.ca/documents/final_executive_summary.htm

Short paraphrased version follows:

1) Equipment. For the big ticket items to basic supplies. Building hospitals and multi-service clinics even in remote areas. Items distributed due to need and optimally placed so access is

2) Operation guidelines. Handling the needs of the population, common ailments in that area, etc. while maintaining efficiency.

3) Communication. Creates a forum where health professionals can discuss changing health needs between different departments (rural/urban, nursing, home care, practitioners, and so on). Having it centralized improves such communication.

4) Standardization. Ethics and Procedure are more honestly monitored. For example: No unnecessary bloodwork since tests are free and there is no point to it if there is no profit. Basically there are no unnecessary procedures.

5) Privacy. Having health services under one bureaucratic umbrella makes certain that personal information will be less likely made public like what could happen if transferred between two seperate entities. What stays in the system, stays in the system.

6) Adequate research funding and sharing of research information. The kind of info that wouldn't be made public by private industries due to copyright or other financial concerns.

7) Better coordination of resources. No one runs out of flu vaccine in Canada!

Then there are the additional fees like books, travel and uniforms that the private schools charge.

Can't say I know a lot about the private/public education situation in the US. Got a link? Anyone else got a link? Linksh pleash! Ebijudicate me!

I didn't even know a public school teacher could get tenure. I thought that was a university/college thing.

I have noticed that the government has been using that voucher program a lot and that it has been paying for people that can't afford the fees. Tax money is still being spent anyway. I just don't understand why they don't just reform the public school system to match how private schools are run (or whatever is supposed to make them better).

But, like I said, my knowledge in the education front is limited. Which is very ironic. :Dbecause rpeublicans are dipshits and instead of actually trying to fix a problem they demonize what they decry as the democrats solution and propose their own shittier bandaid

and everyone else are dipshits for not actually trying to fix the damn problem

because rpeublicans are dipshits and instead of actually trying to fix a problem they demonize what they decry as the democrats solution and propose their own shittier bandaid

Your arguments would carry more weight if you kept the profanity out of it.

Just FYI if you want to ever be taken seriously.

Learning to check spelling and punctuation couldn't hurt either.

Well...it's not really of a 'not work' things with the US. It's more of an optimization of resources thing. I would work. It is just a matter of implementing it. Both US and Canada share some of these traits even though they use different methods. But there are some benefits to the centralized system (cheaper for one and it maintains quality!) and it is right on par with most things the privatized system offers (services).

Other than people being brainwashed by lobbyists flooding the media with "it won't work" scenarios and politicians in bed with the same health industry lobbyists I don't see how regular americans would NOT want public health care.

Anyways, if you want to read a long wordy version:

http://www.cha.ca/documents/final_executive_summary.htm

Short paraphrased version follows:

1) Equipment. For the big ticket items to basic supplies. Building hospitals and multi-service clinics even in remote areas. Items distributed due to need and optimally placed so access is

2) Operation guidelines. Handling the needs of the population, common ailments in that area, etc. while maintaining efficiency.

3) Communication. Creates a forum where health professionals can discuss changing health needs between different departments (rural/urban, nursing, home care, practitioners, and so on). Having it centralized improves such communication.

4) Standardization. Ethics and Procedure are more honestly monitored. For example: No unnecessary bloodwork since tests are free and there is no point to it if there is no profit. Basically there are no unnecessary procedures.

5) Privacy. Having health services under one bureaucratic umbrella makes certain that personal information will be less likely made public like what could happen if transferred between two seperate entities. What stays in the system, stays in the system.

6) Adequate research funding and sharing of research information. The kind of info that wouldn't be made public by private industries due to copyright or other financial concerns.

7) Better coordination of resources. No one runs out of flu vaccine in Canada!
Why are Canadians wasting their time trying to tell the Americans the benefits of universal healthcare while they keep trying to tell us that our system is somehow inferior?

Exhibit A:

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003/august/administrative_costs.php

Bureaucracy in the health care system accounts for about a third of total U.S. health care spending – a sum so great that if the United states were to have a national health insurance program, the administrative savings alone would be enough to provide health care coverage for all the uninsured in this country, according to two new studies.

The studies illustrate the failure of the private, fragmented and business-oriented U.S. health care system to control administrative costs, as compared to Canada’s single-payer system.

Exhibit B:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040503-084924-5336r.htm

The data -- which the authors said should serve as a wakeup call for the U.S. healthcare industry and government -- covers Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand and the United States on 21 key measures -- including outcome indicators that rate survival, outcome indicators that look at avoidable events, and process indicators, such as breast cancer screening or tomography.

"None of the five countries is consistently the best or the worst on all 21 indicators," said Gerard Anderson, a lead researcher from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. "So if you're looking for the place to go to get the best care, there isn't a single place, you've got to be selective."

Exhibit C:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/Rising_Health_Costs.html

It's not surprising that businesses worry about developments in the health sector since health coverage has become one of the largest expenses for many U. S. employers. Employers' health-care costs, which are expected to rise 12 percent this year, have doubled since 1999 for each active employee to an average of $7,308. (Companies have also downloaded costs onto workers and retirees.)......

.....Both U.S. and Canadian governments spend approximately the same on healthcare-in 2001, Canada spent 7 percent of GDP while the U.S. government spent 6.7 percent. But in the U.S., 75 million are without insurance at some point every two years while in Canada, government spending provides health coverage for everyone.........

.....According to the International Journal of Health Services, "the average ranking for the United States on 16 health indicators in a 1998 comparative study of 13 countries by Starfield was 12th, second from the bottom.

Exhibit D:

http://consumeraffairs.com/news03/health_costs.html

The overhead cost of operating the United States health-care system is more than three times that of running Canada's on a per capita basis, and the gap is getting bigger, according to a study published today in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Exhibit E:

Life expectancy at birth (years), 2000-05 79.3 Canada
Life expectancy at birth (years), 2000-05 77.1 US

Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births), 2002 5
Under-five mortality rate (per 1,000 live births), 2002 8 US

Exhibit F:

http://www.osba.org/hotopics/hlthcare/storm.htm

Fact: In Oregon, insurance cost increases have averaged 19.2 percent annually for the last four years. Today, based on OSBA’s annual Salary and Benefit Survey, an average of $8,200 is spent for each teacher’s insurance package in the state. That’s 82 percent higher than the average 10 years ago.

Another sobering fact: If costs increase as projected, some Oregon school boards could face a price tag for one employee’s family health care coverage that equals one new teacher’s annual salary.
I could go on and on posting links but I always seem to get the same response from US posters, mostly negative. :(

This shouldn't be about ego, it should be about saving lives?

Wait at least two years, before raising any good points people. Until then, they will all fall on deaf ears in the US.

In just two years the US gets a "new" congress. Four and we get a new administration. Perhaps one of them will encourage a more reasonable ear to other nations' successes. Perhaps then this issue with medical coverage can be solved...But I doubt it.

The lobbying groups for the healthcare industry will never, NEVER let slip just how bad a job they are doing at keeping our nation healthy. They will never let the public see how much they are gouging the US on prices, how bloated and inefficient they are. It would go against their interests.

They and their apologists will fight tooth and nail to make sure it never enters the public conciousness; like all good scams they require silence and blind trust to work.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/heriot200502110735.asp


It finds that 54.5 percent of all bankruptcies have "a medical cause." But "medical cause" is used as a term of art here. In fact, the study does not claim that injury or illness was the primary cause of those bankruptcies. And, perhaps more importantly, it does not claim that the bankruptcies were caused by the crush of medical bills.

For example, the study classifies "uncontrolled gambling," "drug addiction," "alcohol addiction," and the birth or adoption of a child as "a medical cause," regardless of whether medical bills are involved.

Maybe that's why only 28.3 percent of the surveyed debtors themselves agreed with the authors that their bankruptcy was substantially caused by "illness or injury."

The authors' decision to include any case in which the debtor had paid out more than $1000 in medical expenses in the course of two years as a bankruptcy with a "medical cause" is not just questionable. It's downright misleading.


It's hard to see why a serious scholar would use the mean instead of the median if the point of the study is to demonstrate fairly that a large proportion of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. Means don't show that.


At least one of the authors — Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a Cambridge Hospital internist and associate professor of medicine at Harvard, makes it clear that she does indeed have an agenda — health-care coverage that is universal and comprehensive

But Dr. Woolhandler's diagnostic skills leave something to be desired here. If medical debt is not the problem in these bankruptcies, more comprehensive health-care coverage is not the solution. Indeed, in some cases, it may even be counterproductive

As a brit who has family all over the world, i am extremely grateful for the NHS.
Thank God for Nye Brevan!!

that coming from you andalucia, i disregard that statement and point to teh fact that combined lack of income assumnig the money earner is in the hospital and your insurance provider only provides chump change amounts of money, i was in the hospital for a week under various taskes, the insurance provider barely ponied up a FRACTION of the total costs, we payed thousands of dollars out of pocket and the people we PAY MONEY TO EACH FUCKING MONTH barely paid squat

have you ever been in the hospital? or know anyone who has? if not, ask them how much their insurance covered

snip....

I spent 11 days in the hospital, 5 days in intensive care, 12.5 hours on the operating table, 2 surgical treams (neurosurgery and thoraxic specialist) for open spine and chest surgery. Private room. 6 months of therapy.

Total out of pocket <$1000 U.S. I was very satisfied by this and it completely reinforced my faith in our system, here in the U.S. I had selected a decent insurer that paid up when necessary.

I have since had to change insurers due to moving but was similarly careful in selecting a good insurer and I continue to be satisfied.

I spent 11 days in the hospital, 5 days in intensive care, 12.5 hours on the operating table, 2 surgical treams (neurosurgery and thoraxic specialist) for open spine and chest surgery. Private room. 6 months of therapy.

Total out of pocket <$1000 U.S. I was very satisfied by this and it completely reinforced my faith in our system, here in the U.S. I had selected a decent insurer that paid up when necessary.

I have since had to change insurers due to moving but was similarly careful in selecting a good insurer and I continue to be satisfied.
I am sure that all Americans do not enjoy a "cadillac" insurance coverage that you obviously have?

Since Bush took office, the number of Americans without health insurance has climbed by 4 million, to nearly 44 million.

In Canada, the above would have been zero out of pocket expenses.

I am sure that all Americans do not enjoy a "cadillac" insurance coverage that you obviously have?

snip for irrelevance...

In Canada, the above would have been zero out of pocket expenses.

No, I just have one of the programs offered through work. In fact, I've got one with the lowest premiums available from my employer.


I don't mind paying for services, I get to choose, I get to fire those that don't live up. With work like I required, that's very important. It made me feel much more relaxed about what was going to be done and I think it impacted the outcome. I did not go with some of the original teams that were going to perform.

Oh, and when we discovered the problem, I was able to walk right into the office of a couple of specialists and, with a reasonable wait, confer with the doctors there about options and their opinion.

edited to correct typo.

No, I just have one of the programs offered through work. In fact, I've got one with the lowest premiums available from my employer....

If we would start thinking about this whole health insurance thing more rationally, we might be able solve the problem.

Roll the clock back to World War Two. FDR puts freezes on wages, so companies must find a way to compete for the best workers. One of the offerings turned out to be for health care. See, it is a problem that the Democrats caused, after all.

Now, imagine that he had decided to offer food benefits, instead. Bear with me, it sounds silly, but I think it's a good analogy. We would have a system in place where one would pay, say, $400/month into a food insurance program. For that payment, one would be able to walk into a participating grocery store and take all the food you thought you needed. Sounds like a pretty good way for the food insurance company to go TU, doesn't it?

Well, that's what we've done with health care. We have created a system where we can have all the medical care we WANT. The problem is that we spread the cost out over the working population, because FDR screwed up. So now, thirty and forty dollar office visits are lumped in with the $10,000 operations. Plus, the fed has mandated so much coverage, that insurance companies have to charge even more.

Take maternity benefits as an example. I don't want anymore children, why should I have a policy that includes them? Or anything else? We don't buy auto insurance that way, why shouldn't we tailor health insurance to our needs? Because FDR screwed up and now we have this current state where insurance companies only want to insure large groups at favorable rate so that they can spread the risk from all the government mandates out over a large population.

The best answer is to just do away with policies that pay for every sneeze and shot. Buy major medical insurance and pay for the office visits yourself.

The best answer is to just do away with policies that pay for every sneeze and shot. Buy major medical insurance and pay for the office visits yourself.

That is, in effect, what I've got. Buying insurance for regular maintenance visits is conterproductive. Insurance is to protect yourself against hardship. Paying the dentist $50/ 6 months and the General Physician $75 every year for the checkups are not hardship, they are as sure as needing to replace the shingles within 15 years on a 10 year roof, or periodic oil changes on my vehicle. Add it to the budget.

Another thing that most people do not do is negotiate with their physician. If you tell them that you'll stroke a check or pay cashh, vice them having to file the paperwork, you can usually get 20% knocked off.

That is, in effect, what I've got. Buying insurance for regular maintenance visits is conterproductive. Insurance is to protect yourself against hardship. Paying the dentist $50/ 6 months and the General Physician $75 every year for the checkups are not hardship, they are as sure as needing to replace the shingles within 15 years on a 10 year roof, or periodic oil changes on my vehicle. Add it to the budget.

Another thing that most people do not do is negotiate with their physician. If you tell them that you'll stroke a check or pay cashh, vice them having to file the paperwork, you can usually get 20% knocked off.

Amen. The people that really suffer without traditional workplace-provided health insurance are the folks with high "maintenance" costs. They certainly aren't in the majority of any population and would be very high risks for insurance, yielding some high premiums. There should be a niche carved out of Medicare/Medicaid for them.

That's a good point. But still, the money had to come from somewhere (taxes on your paycheck or something) and in the end you still payed for it. It would just have been more inconvenient that you would have to pay from your pocket wiith money you thought was set aside for something else.

Suppose you were paying more in the taxes that were set aside from your own medical bills than you ever got back in medical service? In that case (as is often the case with gov. spending) you could have saved money by handling it yourself.

Private health care is insanely ineffecient and costly, with worse overall care than public systems. You pay taxes so, overall you send up paying less for a lower cost system.

/bump this thread id actually interesting

My uncle just had open heart surgery. Bill was 180 grand. Medicare paid 120k of it. He recieved a bill for 60k. He was a truckdriver before he retired. He now lives off social security. No way in hell they are getting that 60 grand. Because he doesnt have it! He is a married home owner. Might be possible for them to attempt to take the house after he is dead to get the money, but I doubt they will even be able to do that.

My uncle just had open heart surgery. Bill was 180 grand. Medicare paid 120k of it. He recieved a bill for 60k. He was a truckdriver before he retired. He now lives off social security. No way in hell they are getting that 60 grand. Because he doesnt have it! He is a married home owner. Might be possible for them to attempt to take the house after he is dead to get the money, but I doubt they will even be able to do that.

Illegal for the medical specialists to charge more than what Medicare paid.

Get a lawyer. Don't just blindly pay what you get billed.

Edited for typo.

Private health care is insanely ineffecient and costly, with worse overall care than public systems. You pay taxes so, overall you send up paying less for a lower cost system.


Very nice generality. What can you say to back it up? This is not just to spark flame, I really want to examine evidence.

In general, I find that with my dealings in the medical industry it is the regulatory burden and paper shuffling that adds cost, not private payment.

Show me where I am wrong.

Edited once again for typo. Geez, I can't type today.

This is one of the reasons I refuse to move to the United States.

My fiancé is currently living there, and her family are (understandably) enthusiasitc about me doing so ( I am British).

Having grown up with an NHS however, I would definitely worry about moving there with regard to medical expenses. Here, to see a GP there is no charge, no medical insurance payments, I just phone up, get an appointment and go down. I can have peace of mind in knowing whether there is something wrong with me, I don't have to worry about where the money for the visit is coming from.

In fact, I was there last summer and I suffered from extremely bad toothache, in the end the pain was so bad that I couldn't sleep and had to go to a dentist.

In the UK dentists are not wholly NHS funded, in fact the NHS only covers a proportion of the costs involved in pretty much all dental operations.

Even so, a root canal in the US would have normally cost $800, this is a figure the dentist himself quoted me, as I was a student and tourist, he offered to do it for 300. In the end I decided that I'd rather put up with the pain and just take codine for a fortnight than blow 3/4 of my budget for the holiday.

The consultation itself, no more than 10 minutes cost me $60.

When I returned home I had my root canal, plus more work done, including x-rays for about $150.

I'll let the figures speak for themselves.

Thats great but... as a student, how often are you really going to a doctor. How often are you going to the hospital ?

Being young your bearly ever getting sick, yet probably paying thousands upon thousands in taxes for the NHS you would otherwise have saved. Agreeably, NHS is better for the aged population, but not only makes no sense for the young, but is in some cases a financial burden. Your paying for services annually your not even using

snipped for brevity...

Even so, a root canal in the US would have normally cost $800, this is a figure the dentist himself quoted me, as I was a student and tourist, he offered to do it for 300. In the end I decided that I'd rather put up with the pain and just take codine for a fortnight than blow 3/4 of my budget for the holiday.

The consultation itself, no more than 10 minutes cost me $60.

When I returned home I had my root canal, plus more work done, including x-rays for about $150.

I'll let the figures speak for themselves.


Ok, I have conferred with 2 dentists with whom I am friends.
$800 is a morbidly high price to pay for a simple root canal. Not knowing more, it's tough to tell. $300 is much more like it for a straightforward job. It sounds as if you visited an unscrupulous Doctor that was preying on your being from out of the states. Of course, the cost may vary according to location and complexity of the work but...

They were careful to point out that in other countries, the definition of dentist varies. In the U.S. the dentists tend towards higher levels of education and are qualified and licensed to perform different tasks. In the U.S., the dentists are required to complete medical school, which will consist of at least 4 years of post graduate school preceded by 4 years of University. They are qualified as surgeons and the patient rooms are all operating rooms and must be maintained as such. They are qualified to diagnose, operate, and prescribe drugs for diseases of the face and neck. (Some states may vary somewhat as they are regulated by the states, not the federal gov.)

I did not accept them as experts on the systems in other countries so perhaps others can speak for them.