[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Then what did you mean by asking if grandma had wasted resources prior? Isn't it that some people are grasshoppers and others are ants?

I meant that it's not so black and white. There are grasshoppers, ants, and pillbugs. By giving free drugs to ants, you create pillbugs that cause stumbling grasshoppers.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Some people think that being an ant or a pillbug shouldn't be permitted in this context. Because refusal of medicine isn't acceptable but refusal of fritters is (to mix metaphors). Pretty much just like the Oberon county fire debate, except instead of a house burning down it's a person dying. It's not an entirely unreasonable premise.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Some people think that being an ant or a pillbug shouldn't be permitted in this context. Because refusal of medicine isn't acceptable but refusal of fritters is (to mix metaphors). Pretty much just like the Oberon county fire debate, except instead of a house burning down it's a person dying. It's not an entirely unreasonable premise.

And yet there are houses burning down and people dying every day. While it is not unreasonable to feel compassion for hardship (and a great many within the community do in multiple ways), it's just common decency not to ask unless absolutely necessary. Anything beyond that is various degrees of thievery. Others' kindness mistaken for weakness, etc...

I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to appreciate the cycle or want to contribute to it.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

There's this thing called "advance directives." It is a legal document that states YOUR wishes when it comes to everything from whether you want CPR to what sorts of other live-preserving acts you want.

At 24, my wife and I already have this set up. I believe it was Five Wishes that she ordered.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I]As Snow-i said, you'd be a fool to scrimp and save just to have it be sucked into the system and end up getting the same facilities/treatment as the others who didn't scrimp. No, I don't think that's fair.

Am I perfectly clear to you now, or would you like to read your own agenda into my posts again?

Much more clear to me now, thanks. I apologize for misunderstanding you and that's why I explained my take-away from your post. What do you suppose is my agenda?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Who in their right mind would form a militia to defend our borders, once the government starts doing it for us? Who in their right mind would build their own roads and bridges, or put out their own fires, or capture their own criminals? Worry less about who does a necessary job, and worry more about what that entity is doing to reduce the need for that job in the first place.

Which is a great argument against your initial post. How could putting our entire society on the dole for government run healthcare reduce the need for more government? Hmm?

How is reducing the need for financial planning and intelligence by individuals in our society going to help our country's financial future? How about reducing the need to perform any job and still receiving the same treatment as someone who spent their entire life contributing to society?

Your supposition basically breaks down the very foundation of capitalism. Wealth and value are created NOT BY MONEY but by those who create/perform goods/services. If you want a strong economy you encourage people to create goods and services, not encourage them to sit at home and wait for the government to take care of them through forced confiscation of the fruits of their would-be labor.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Much more clear to me now, thanks. I apologize for misunderstanding you and that's why I explained my take-away from your post. What do you suppose is my agenda?

Thanks for revisiting my post. I apologize for misunderstanding you in turn. I mistook you for someone else round here who has a ready-made argument just waiting to copy n paste the minute someone with an apparently opposing viewpoint posts.

Rhetorical questions sometimes make me feel like Admiral Akbar.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Which is a great argument against your initial post. How could putting our entire society on the dole for government run healthcare reduce the need for more government? Hmm?

That's my point, there's plenty of good arguments so you don't have to waste time on the bad ones.

How is reducing the need for financial planning and intelligence by individuals in our society going to help our country's financial future?

Money comes from people working. People can't work if they're sick. If people refuse to do what's best for themselves to keep from getting sick, then removing their option to make the wrong decision can increase the number of people working.

Your supposition basically breaks down the very foundation of capitalism. Wealth and value are created NOT BY MONEY but by those who create/perform goods/services. If you want a strong economy you encourage people to create goods and services, not encourage them to sit at home and wait for the government to take care of them through forced confiscation of the fruits of their would-be labor.

If people are going to save for themselves, then either system would work. If people are not going to save for themselves, then only one system would work, the system where they don't have a choice about it. I'm not saying the latter is the world we're living in, all I'm saying is that being forced to do what you should be doing anyway, just because your neighbors aren't doing what they should be doing anyway, is not necessarily a bad outcome. It's only bad if the entity doing the forcing is doing it wrong.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Not to be cold or anything but it sounds like it's past your grandma's time. Death is a scary thing to come to terms with but I wouldn't want my family or the government keeping me alive in such a condition. Im not sure medicare is doing her or you guys any favors here..

This system is not setup to allow suicide. Medicare is not keeping her alive medically speaking, it is helping to fund her, but she is not being kept alive via machinery. I think it would be colder to say "sorry Grandma, we don't want Medicare to be funding making your remaining time comfortable"

I snipped these 2 cuz they kinda go together. What would you do without medicare? Probably the same thing many countries/cultures do today. Most cultures are more family oriented than Americans; The children take care of the parents and grandparents when they get too old, often times they live together or within walking distance. This idea is incompatible with Americans because it requires SAVING money for the FUTURE. It requires WORK. It requires being accountable and responsible. Americans would rather be hedonistic; party and drink every weekend or night and live paycheck to paycheck then demand unemployment checks and free health care when things go bad. Americans have gotten so spoiled they believe these things are a RIGHT.

I disagree. These things are incompatible with our society. My wife's Mom's husband died, so it is just her and my wife. It would be financially impossible for one of them to have stopped working for multiple years to give Grandma the around-the-clock care she needs at this point. Neither are medically qualified, so any lawsuit from other hypothetical family members who don't get along with us would probably have a good chance to win.

I don't think medicare or the current "insurance" system/model is sustainable and Ill tell you why...

It's a pyramid scheme; they whole point is to get FREE health care. In a lifetime, Nobody puts as much into the system as they take out.... That's why you sign up for insurance/medicare to begin with. Insurance companies solution to this is to jack up rates every year to pay off the care that wasn't fully paid for the previous years. Any idea that involves pooling of money doesn't work.

Does this apply to any pooling of money, i.e. any insurance scheme - including something like auto insurance? I'm not saying that the two are comparable, I'm just looking for clarification here.

Random ramblings by chupacabra

when people say that medical care is a right, they are saying they have a right to drugs, medial devices, technology, and doctor's services. If having access to the most advanced cancer treatment machines and drugs is a right then that would mean it was a right 200 years ago as well....I wonder what people said then...even though such technology didnt exist. "we have a right to be cured of all this stuff".

Imagine that you spend time and money to invent a treatment for liver cancer and as soon as you announce it liberals and young people are screaming and shouting how greedy your pharmaceutical is for not giving it away for free. And that they HAVE A RIGHT to use your invention, your services, your technology. Maybe you'd wish you never invented it in the first place.

In my opinion is a treatment to something costs $100,000 or more. Then for all practical purposes the technology does not exist to treat that illness.

Whether you want to use the word "right" or not, what good is all of our medical innovation in keeping people comfortable, dealing with hearts prone for failure, cancer, etc. if it is not utilized? By switching to making family tend to failing health matters this ensures that we shut off access to health care, because nobody would be able to afford it. Yes there is a huge cost inflation going on due to the way Medicare and private insurance are currently setup, but services in volume also drive prices down. If we switch to a service where only a limited number of families are customers, this could also drive prices even further up as the practice moves from what be a high volume low cost business model to a low volume high cost model.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This system is not setup to allow suicide. Medicare is not keeping her alive medically speaking, it is helping to fund her, but she is not being kept alive via machinery. I think it would be colder to say "sorry Grandma, we don't want Medicare to be funding making your remaining time comfortable"
...
It would be financially impossible for one of them to have stopped working for multiple years to give Grandma the around-the-clock care she needs at this point.

Am I the only one that thinks these two paragraphs totally contradict each other? First you say she doesn't need all this stuff, it's just there to make her comfortable. Then you say she does need 24-hour "care." What do you mean by "need?" What do you mean by "care?" I'm not trying to be nosy, but without specifics there's no way for this thread to proceed in a reasonable manner.

so any lawsuit from other hypothetical family members who don't get along with us would probably have a good chance to win.

Lawsuit? Where did that come from? What would they "win," the responsibility to take care of all this themselves?

what good is all of our medical innovation in keeping people comfortable, dealing with hearts prone for failure, cancer, etc. if it is not utilized?

What good is any cutting edge technology if you don't give it to everyone? What good were supercomputers or mobile phones 20 years ago? What good is space tourism or luxury yachts or personal robotic servants?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Am I the only one that thinks these two paragraphs totally contradict each other? First you say she doesn't need all this stuff, it's just there to make her comfortable. Then you say she does need 24-hour "care." What do you mean by "need?" What do you mean by "care?" I'm not trying to be nosy, but without specifics there's no way for this thread to proceed in a reasonable manner.

Her needs have been ramping up over the years. They range from running errands for her, tracking her meds, taking her to the doctor, making sure she is stocked up on stuff she needs, getting showered/dressed, meals, structuring her day, keeping her happy, etc.

It doesn't sound like much, but it is literally exhausting... We tried to do this on our own when she lived in a retirement residence (which is basically like dorms for old people: housing + meals, but that's it). She is partially OCD which definitely makes things worse, but still, you underestimate these things until you have to deal with this.

Surely somebody other than me has had a similar experience?

Lawsuit? Where did that come from? What would they "win," the responsibility to take care of all this themselves?

No, in the event of a death the lawsuit could sue for negligence. People will sue for anything, even family. I know somebody involved in legal inheritance of possessions legal stuff, for instance.

What good is any cutting edge technology if you don't give it to everyone? What good were supercomputers or mobile phones 20 years ago? What good is space tourism or luxury yachts or personal robotic servants?

Well, I don't know, this is a good question. Doesn't most technology eventually move from elite and rare to commonplace?

[Athens]

I don't know if this has been covered yet, I skipped half the posts. But the only reason US health care costs so much to the tax payer is because you have so many different systems. You have Private and public running side by side. Private companies cherry pick healthy people while Government run insurance companies pick up the rest. End result, Insurance companies get rich, tax payer pays for everything. You have Medicare, Medicaid , And one other one im missing which are public insurance and public/private delivery, then you have private insurance, private delivery and then public delivery for those that are not insured. Administration costs are highest in the world because of the multiple systems let alone multiple companies involved. Then add the in network requirements which limits a covered person to limited choices of delivery and if your not near a in network hospital when you need care your out of luck....

My personal opinion to fix it

Method one, mandate a min coverage clause that all insurance companies provide and require them to accept all applications. Those that can't afford coverage the state pays the premiums for. IE I make lots of money and pay insurance company directly while my mom is unemployed and can't pay the state pays her premiums. Either way the hospital is dealing with the insurance company and the insurance company is paying for it. End Medicare, Medicaid and other public run systems. Insurance companies will complain they will have to raise rates because its going to cost them more. Well it is going to cost them more because they cant cherry pick healthy well off people and ignore unhealthy or poor people.

Method two, move towards the Canadian system which is really misunderstood by Americans. Single public insurance company in each state, privately run hospitals and doctors. Remove the private insurance company out of the picture for basic care and let them take on the slack for special stuff and luxury items. It will reduce administration costs and make things much simpler for the health care providers while providing universal coverage to all.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Administration costs are highest in the world because of the multiple systems let alone multiple companies involved.

That's 1 theory; but I would say the main reason costs are the highest in the world is only because other nations are keeping the costs artificially low at the expense of their entire economy. The US with all its problems still has the wealthiest middle class and most stable economy of them all.

Then add the in network requirements which limits a covered person to limited choices of delivery and if your not near a in network hospital when you need care your out of luck....

What is a good solution for this problem? Should we force insurance co's to pay for any doctor you choose? And if so How do we make sure that doctor doesn't charge $10,000/hr for a common cold visit?

My personal opinion to fix it

Method one, mandate a min coverage clause that all insurance companies provide and require them to accept all applications. Those that can't afford coverage the state pays the premiums for.

How do we prevent the Insurance co from abuses, such as making the premium ridiculously high (say 20,000/month) for your mom, then the state has to pay.

Either way the hospital is dealing with the insurance company and the insurance company is paying for it. End Medicare, Medicaid and other public run systems.

How do we stop the hospital from charging whatever they want to the insurance co (ultimately driving up costs for everyone)? Since people dont price shop for the cheapest hospital themselves.

Insurance companies will complain they will have to raise rates because its going to cost them more. Well it is going to cost them more because they cant cherry pick healthy well off people and ignore unhealthy or poor people.

It wont cost them more. They will just pass the quadrupled cost of premiums on to you.

move towards the Canadian system which is really misunderstood by Americans. Single public insurance company in each state, privately run hospitals and doctors. Remove the private insurance company out of the picture for basic care and let them take on the slack for special stuff and luxury items.

What constitutes special stuff and luxury items,where is the line drawn? For example is cancer treatment a special case? or are is only cosmetic stuff, eye doctor, dental? And whats basic care? to me basic care is strep throat, vaccinations cheap stuff like that.
I hear of people all the time that cant get good cancer treatment or any complicated treatment so they come to the US. It's severely rationed in Canada right?

[el chupacabra]

… .

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

So she doesn't need round the clock medicare funded medical attention to live?

No, she doesn't... She needs it to be comfortable with her remaining time since she's immobile and weak, but she is not being kept alive by this care.

It might be more financially possible if the government didnt tax you guys your whole lives to pay for this; then you could've saved the money yourselves.... and probably had some to spare... Again I wonder how people deal with these situations in counties that dont offer gov payed for hospice.

At $4000/month that's a tall order for a lot of people. Prices have to be reduced, plain and simple.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

That's 1 theory; but I would say the main reason costs are the highest in the world is only because other nations are keeping the costs artificially low at the expense of their entire economy. The US with all its problems still has the wealthiest middle class and most stable economy of them all.

No actually its fact, and im not talking about all medical costs, I said Administrative costs. That is the people hired to administrate the business side of things. It takes a group of people at a family doctors office to deal with all the insurance companies for the patients from getting approval to billing.

What is a good solution for this problem? Should we force insurance co's to pay for any doctor you choose? And if so How do we make sure that doctor doesn't charge $10,000/hr for a common cold visit?

Price schedule, every item part of basic coverage, the coverage that every one gets and cant be denied has a price attached to it. Can be totally arbitrary or it can be negotiated with Doctor unions / organizations. Broken Arm $300.00, Broken leg $600.00 so forth....

How do we prevent the Insurance co from abuses, such as making the premium ridiculously high (say 20,000/month) for your mom, then the state has to pay.

Well if they are charging $20 000 a month there is a good chance not a single person would be buying insurance from them including the state.

How do we stop the hospital from charging whatever they want to the insurance co (ultimately driving up costs for everyone)? Since people dont price shop for the cheapest hospital themselves.

Already answered above

It wont cost them more. They will just pass the quadrupled cost of premiums on to you.

Your already paying it through taxes, either way your paying it. Insurance companies cherry pick rich healthy people and leave the sick or poor to the tax payer. Having every one under the same pool will hurt insurance companies profits thats for sure.

What constitutes special stuff and luxury items,where is the line drawn? For example is cancer treatment a special case? or are is only cosmetic stuff, eye doctor, dental? And whats basic care? to me basic care is strep throat, vaccinations cheap stuff like that.

TV in room, cable, private room, special more expensive dinners, parking, sponge baths would be luxuries.......

Basic care is any medically needed procedure to restore quality of life to normal or as close to normal after injury or sickness.

I hear of people all the time that cant get good cancer treatment or any complicated treatment so they come to the US. It's severely rationed in Canada right?

Total propaganda from your health industry fighting tooth and nail to persevering its profits. People fall through the gaps in every system in every country. We are no different then the person in a NY emergency room ding and being left dead in the chair for 30 hours before some one noticed. Some times a doctor fails to order a test that should have been ordered and it becomes to late to treat the cancer or sometimes when you live in Rural Canada you have to wait a year to get a knee surgery done while some one in Toronto or major city only has to wait 6 weeks. Sometimes our medical system will transfer patients to a US hospital and pay the bill because of a situation. Example a few years ago in 2007 a hot air balloon accident which resulted in it crashing in a mobile home park and setting 2 trailers on fire injured over a dozen people and killed 2 people. A couple hours later a driver crashed into a East Indian wedding party injuring almost 20 people. Between the 2 accidents just hours apart a mother going in labor for a complex birth was air lifted via BC Air Ambulance to a Seattle hospital to give birth and stayed there for a week before being transported back to Vancouver all covered under BC Medical. Other times Rich people who don't want to wait a couple weeks for a CT Scan or want access to a experimental treatment not approved here they go and pay out of pocket in the US. Big deal. When Steve Jobs needed a liver transplant he had to shop out of state to get one because the wait time in California was going to kill him. Anything you have seen about Killer wait times and government approval required for what ever is all cherry picked worst case "cracks" that should never have happened or BS lies.

There is no rationed treatment or government involvement in treatment at all. Doctors are independent. The system is priority based, the highest priority stuff gets done first. No amount of money is going to change your position for something only your condition will. IE if I go to the Emergency room for a broken arm, and some one comes in with a heart attack some one else comes in with a head injury and a kid comes in with a broken arm to, im going to be waiting 4 hours while the heart attack and head injury person is looked at first and the kid is looked after before me too. I go in with symptoms of a stroke im pushed ahead of every one else. If I need open heart surgery or im going to die that surgery is going to be done in hours or days depending on what it is. If I need my knee replaced so I don't need pain killers to walk I could be looking at 3 months and in some parts of the country longer. Last time I needed anything I had this pain in my neck and I got a Ultrasound for my neck in a week. Was supposed to be 3 weeks but some one cancelled and I got a call and was asked if i could make it there in 30 minutes. It showed something but was not clear enough so I got scheduled for a CT scan. My closest hospital was going to be a 4 week wait to get the CT scan so I told my family doctor I am willing to go to any hospital in a 100km to get it faster. I got booked at a hospital in Vancouver 30km away for a week later. So CT scan and Ultrasound done in 2 weeks. I also had a range of blood work done, almost everything on the chart was ticked off. In the end nothing was really that wrong, no cancer and not life threating so I saw a neck specialist 6 months later. Had it been something wrong it wouldn't have been 6 months. Point is I got fast care and I could have waited 4 weeks for the CT scan but I said I was willing to travel to get in faster and the assistant at the office called a bunch of hospitals to find me something sooner. And all of this was of ZERO cost. No co-pay, or deductibles. Doctor says you need something its covered thats the end of it. A health exam for say ICBC isn't covered so a doctor can charge some one directly, $20.00 is the typical cost. Same for a doctors note to a employer costs $20.00 so there are some costs here and there not related to actual medical care.

Doctors themselves are NOT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, thats the UK system. They are independent private businesses. Same for hospitals which are independent private run organizations that are public and private funded. This is the only part the government has direct involvement really is how much funding they provide a health authority which determines how many beds the hospital has open. BC Government provides Frasier Health Authority X number of dollars, the Health Authority decides how much of that money goes to which ever of its hospitals it operates based on usage.

As a patient, I can go to any hospital, any doctor I want. No In Network BS. If I feel sick I dont have to call MSP to ask if I can go see a doctor. I just go see the doctor. If the doctor thinks something is wrong he orders what ever tests he thinks I need. Blood work, CT scans whatever he thinks I need. I go get the blood work, I go get the scans. Doctors dont have to call MSP to get approval to order a test. If I need a operation the doctor will book the operation and the operation gets done. No co-pay, no deductible just treatment. And no interference. I pay $57.00 a month for medical. If I made less then 25 000 a year I wouldn't even be paying that. And If I made under $20 000 a year I wouldn't pay a cent.

What I cant do is go to a hospital and say I want a CT scan, here is some money. If I want one and my doctor and other doctors I go try and convince all say no my only option is to go to the US or one of the private clinics here and pay out of pocket. But chances are if every doctor you see says no you don't need it, you don't need it. If a doctor says no and you really think you need it go to another doctor.

Thats how the system works in BC and I suspect most of the country. And I can tell you as a first hand user of the system it works well. Its sad when people fall through the cracks or mistakes are made but it happens. You can't expect a major hospital in every 5000 person town out in the boonies either. Vancouver General does the majority of heart operations for the entire province of BC. Some one from Port Hardy might end up waiting longer for a knee replacement then some one living in Vancouver but there flight and hotel costs are paid for.

[Athens]

PS before you spend time finding news stories of failures in the Canadian medical system, I could (wont) go do the same thing of the US medical system to. Both countries have lots of medical failures that make the news so there is no point. Looking at news worthy mistakes, those 1 cases out of tens of thousands of successful treatments don't prove anything either way.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

No actually its fact, and im not talking about all medical costs, I said Administrative costs. That is the people hired to administrate the business side of things. It takes a group of people at a family doctors office to deal with all the insurance companies for the patients from getting approval to billing.

By far the single largest administrative burden on the local doctor's office in the US is Medicare/Medicaid processing.

Price schedule, every item part of basic coverage, the coverage that every one gets and cant be denied has a price attached to it. Can be totally arbitrary or it can be negotiated with Doctor unions / organizations. Broken Arm $300.00, Broken leg $600.00 so forth....

An arm can be broken in one place or thirty. Leg, same. IMO, this is a relatively silly proposition. There are also varying degrees of the quality of care. If I want to pay exorbitant fees for the best doctor in the city, I should be allowed to do it and he or she should have an extremely good reason to be the best. I understand that in any system there are pitfalls and merits and for what it's worth, I'd rather be nowhere else on the globe when it comes to serious health concerns or injury. While approximately 80% of Americans are happy with the quality and cost of their own care, we are not being efficient with the manner in which we're managing resources. In short, we're encouraging wasteful behaviors and neither system is doing a thing to mitigate the increasing costs of health care.

Well if they are charging $20 000 a month there is a good chance not a single person would be buying insurance from them including the state.

Sounds like a win for the free market philosophy. States or Provinces beholden to Centralized funds are encouraged to utilize them in a wasteful manner to ensure a stable allotment. Then, you have the State or Province repeatedly whining to the Centralized authority for additional funding. After all if you can operate on less, you'll get less... and who wants that?

Your already paying it through taxes, either way your paying it. Insurance companies cherry pick rich healthy people and leave the sick or poor to the tax payer. Having every one under the same pool will hurt insurance companies profits thats for sure.

Increasing risk pools decreases cost. There are ways of managing risk without disrupting 1/6th the US economy. Speaking of misinformation; there's a great deal of it with regard to the degree of profit suggested of the insurers in the US. Health coverage is among the least profitable of insurance products and the reason why most insurers offer a wealth of various types of insurance. It's a popular talking point among proponents of nationalized care, but it's misinformation none the less. Your notion of "cherry-picking" rich people is simply not true. I'm of decent income and work among many lower income and we have the same insurance, same coverage, same doctors and btw I'm perfectly fine with that. I also know those in poor health of varying incomes who are also insured and receiving care. You mentioned something of being "out of luck" trying to find doctors in-network and this is not the problem you seem to think it is either. You're not "out of luck". In most cases there is simply a slight difference in cost between in-network or out-of-network providers with your insurer still picking up the lion's share of the tab. We can leave some to the taxpayer or all to the taxpayer. I'm not sure what you're driving at here.

Basic care is any medically needed procedure to restore quality of life to normal or as close to normal after injury or sickness.

See above. This is as ambiguous a statement as to be almost entirely meaningless. Who shall define "quality of life" or "normal"?

Total propaganda from your health industry fighting tooth and nail to persevering its profits. People fall through the gaps in every system in every country. We are no different then the person in a NY emergency room ding and being left dead in the chair for 30 hours before some one noticed. Some times a doctor fails to order a test that should have been ordered and it becomes to late to treat the cancer or sometimes when you live in Rural Canada you have to wait a year to get a knee surgery done while some one in Toronto or major city only has to wait 6 weeks. Sometimes our medical system will transfer patients to a US hospital and pay the bill because of a situation. Example a few years ago in 2007 a hot air balloon accident which resulted in it crashing in a mobile home park and setting 2 trailers on fire injured over a dozen people and killed 2 people. A couple hours later a driver crashed into a East Indian wedding party injuring almost 20 people. Between the 2 accidents just hours apart a mother going in labor for a complex birth was air lifted via BC Air Ambulance to a Seattle hospital to give birth and stayed there for a week before being transported back to Vancouver all covered under BC Medical. Other times Rich people who don't want to wait a couple weeks for a CT Scan or want access to a experimental treatment not approved here they go and pay out of pocket in the US. Big deal. When Steve Jobs needed a liver transplant he had to shop out of state to get one because the wait time in California was going to kill him. Anything you have seen about Killer wait times and government approval required for what ever is all cherry picked worst case "cracks" that should never have happened or BS lies.

There is no rationed treatment or government involvement in treatment at all. Doctors are independent. The system is priority based, the highest priority stuff gets done first. No amount of money is going to change your position for something only your condition will. IE if I go to the Emergency room for a broken arm, and some one comes in with a heart attack some one else comes in with a head injury and a kid comes in with a broken arm to, im going to be waiting 4 hours while the heart attack and head injury person is looked at first and the kid is looked after before me too. I go in with symptoms of a stroke im pushed ahead of every one else. If I need open heart surgery or im going to die that surgery is going to be done in hours or days depending on what it is. If I need my knee replaced so I don't need pain killers to walk I could be looking at 3 months and in some parts of the country longer. Last time I needed anything I had this pain in my neck and I got a Ultrasound for my neck in a week. Was supposed to be 3 weeks but some one cancelled and I got a call and was asked if i could make it there in 30 minutes. It showed something but was not clear enough so I got scheduled for a CT scan. My closest hospital was going to be a 4 week wait to get the CT scan so I told my family doctor I am willing to go to any hospital in a 100km to get it faster. I got booked at a hospital in Vancouver 30km away for a week later. So CT scan and Ultrasound done in 2 weeks. I also had a range of blood work done, almost everything on the chart was ticked off. In the end nothing was really that wrong, no cancer and not life threating so I saw a neck specialist 6 months later. Had it been something wrong it wouldn't have been 6 months. Point is I got fast care and I could have waited 4 weeks for the CT scan but I said I was willing to travel to get in faster and the assistant at the office called a bunch of hospitals to find me something sooner. And all of this was of ZERO cost. No co-pay, or deductibles. Doctor says you need something its covered thats the end of it. A health exam for say ICBC isn't covered so a doctor can charge some one directly, $20.00 is the typical cost. Same for a doctors note to a employer costs $20.00 so there are some costs here and there not related to actual medical care.

Doctors themselves are NOT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, thats the UK system. They are independent private businesses. Same for hospitals which are independent private run organizations that are public and private funded. This is the only part the government has direct involvement really is how much funding they provide a health authority which determines how many beds the hospital has open. BC Government provides Frasier Health Authority X number of dollars, the Health Authority decides how much of that money goes to which ever of its hospitals it operates based on usage.

As a patient, I can go to any hospital, any doctor I want. No In Network BS. If I feel sick I dont have to call MSP to ask if I can go see a doctor. I just go see the doctor. If the doctor thinks something is wrong he orders what ever tests he thinks I need. Blood work, CT scans whatever he thinks I need. I go get the blood work, I go get the scans. Doctors dont have to call MSP to get approval to order a test. If I need a operation the doctor will book the operation and the operation gets done. No co-pay, no deductible just treatment. And no interference. I pay $57.00 a month for medical. If I made less then 25 000 a year I wouldn't even be paying that. And If I made under $20 000 a year I wouldn't pay a cent.

What I cant do is go to a hospital and say I want a CT scan, here is some money. If I want one and my doctor and other doctors I go try and convince all say no my only option is to go to the US or one of the private clinics here and pay out of pocket. But chances are if every doctor you see says no you don't need it, you don't need it. If a doctor says no and you really think you need it go to another doctor.

Thats how the system works in BC and I suspect most of the country. And I can tell you as a first hand user of the system it works well. Its sad when people fall through the cracks or mistakes are made but it happens. You can't expect a major hospital in every 5000 person town out in the boonies either. Vancouver General does the majority of heart operations for the entire province of BC. Some one from Port Hardy might end up waiting longer for a knee replacement then some one living in Vancouver but there flight and hotel costs are paid for.

First of all, Steve Jobs may have gone out of state for care, but he certainly didn't go out of country. You've gone through a great deal of effort to compare the two systems and to suggest that perhaps the US should model something more resembling the Canadian system. You've suggested that el is being duped by misinformation, but there's little to suggest your information has any more integrity. While I appreciate your thorough breakdown of the Canadian system, you should know there's a reason health care is at the top of the list of concerns to voters in both Canada and the US; the systems are not sustainable. Your costs per month and my costs per month are virtually the same and in fact most in this country have the same quality of care and costs that I have and are happy with it. You will hear horror stories of the US system and they are no more valid than those of the Canadian system. Either way, that's not the question. The question is are these systems sustainable and the answer is no.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

By far the single largest administrative burden on the local doctor's office in the US is Medicare/Medicaid processing.

I wouldn't be surprised, everything the US government does seems to be more complex and complicated then it needs to be

[quote]

An arm can be broken in one place or thirty. Leg, same. IMO, this is a relatively silly proposition. There are also varying degrees of the quality of care. If I want to pay exorbitant fees for the best doctor in the city, I should be allowed to do it and he or she should have an extremely good reason to be the best. I understand that in any system there are pitfalls and merits and for what it's worth, I'd rather be nowhere else on the globe when it comes to serious health concerns or injury. While approximately 80% of Americans are happy with the quality and cost of their own care, we are not being efficient with the manner in which we're managing resources. In short, we're encouraging wasteful behaviors and neither system is doing a thing to mitigate the increasing costs of health care.

[/quote

I was being very very general with the price schedule, its more complex then that but it was just to give a general idea how abuses can be limited. There are thousands of procedures plus time and medications and equipment used but overall a negotiated pricing scheme thats reviewed every 5 years can go a long way in controlling costs and keeping every one some what honest. And I agree with you that people should have the right to buy and pay as much as they want for any services they want. Its why I don't think a Canadian system would work in the US. A Canadian system is def better then what you have now but not a real answer. Between the 2 options I pointed out from my own opinions I think the first one is the best option. It puts in some parts of the Canadian system in for control but leaves the insurance a private business like the American model. It keeps them from running a muck and stops the unfair distribution of sick and poor people to the state run options. In that model the price schedules only applied to insurable stuff. Though I didn't point on it, the door is open for any one to pay anything they want outside of insurance for what ever they want.

Sounds like a win for the free market philosophy. States or Provinces beholden to Centralized funds are encouraged to utilize them in a wasteful manner to ensure a stable allotment. Then, you have the State or Province repeatedly whining to the Centralized authority for additional funding. After all if you can operate on less, you'll get less... and who wants that?

I dont think i fully understand this part

Increasing risk pools decreases cost. There are ways of managing risk without disrupting 1/6th the US economy. Speaking of misinformation; there's a great deal of it with regard to the degree of profit suggested of the insurers in the US. Health coverage is among the least profitable of insurance products and the reason why most insurers offer a wealth of various types of insurance. It's a popular talking point among proponents of nationalized care, but it's misinformation none the less. Your notion of "cherry-picking" rich people is simply not true. I'm of decent income and work among many lower income and we have the same insurance, same coverage, same doctors and btw I'm perfectly fine with that. I also know those in poor health of varying incomes who are also insured and receiving care. You mentioned something of being "out of luck" trying to find doctors in-network and this is not the problem you seem to think it is either. You're not "out of luck". In most cases there is simply a slight difference in cost between in-network or out-of-network providers with your insurer still picking up the lion's share of the tab. We can leave some to the taxpayer or all to the taxpayer. I'm not sure what you're driving at here.

To be honest lots of information I read seems to be biased against the US health care system just as Americans get a lot of bad information bais against Canada's health care system. I think its fair to say we are all misinformed about each others system. I didn't even know about this in-network stuff until I watched Sicko. Moore was driving at a point and is bias like the next guy so when they did that bit about the kid dieing from a fever because she was told to take a taxi to a in network hospital I assumed that was just a crack and not the norm just like how people die up here from failures. So I don't put much faith in that. But every state has a very special medical environment and with all the different providers, insurance companies I think while in your case its pretty fair between sick and healthy people there are probably insurance companies that only cherry pick and other abusers too. And its not just the medical system but large companies that play the holes to. Walmart employees the most people who require state medical help and actively encourages it costing the tax payer tons of money too. I saw that in 2 different bias documentaries against wal-mart, so perhaps its not really the case they encourage it but still out side factors like that affect costs to which I didn't hit on with my original post.

See above. This is as ambiguous a statement as to be almost entirely meaningless. Who shall define "quality of life" or "normal"?


First of all, Steve Jobs may have gone out of state for care, but he certainly didn't go out of country. You've gone through a great deal of effort to compare the two systems and to suggest that perhaps the US should model something more resembling the Canadian system.

Had to stop there, I dont think the US should or could ever use the Canadian system. I don't think it should even try. It could use a few elements of it, which is only the insurance side of things. Our medical systems are way more alike then dis alike with the biggest difference being totally private insurance with single payer public insurance for basic care. Eyes, Dental are 100% the same in both countries. Optional extra insurance for us is exactly the same as your regular insurance with co-pays, deductibles, getting permission for procedures and so on. The only thing I think is wrong with the US is having to many different systems, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, plus a few others with most of state options not having enough in payers in the pool to really drain the tax payer. My first option even said to away with all of the state run systems.

You've suggested that el is being duped by misinformation, but there's little to suggest your information has any more integrity. While I appreciate your thorough breakdown of the Canadian system, you should know there's a reason health care is at the top of the list of concerns to voters in both Canada and the US; the systems are not sustainable.

The issues in Canada are a bit different then in the US, same end results. Screw-ups, out of control costs. If you want me to post my perspectives with whats affecting ours I can, I didnt think any one would be interested.

Your costs per month and my costs per month are virtually the same and in fact most in this country have the same quality of care and costs that I have and are happy with it. You will hear horror stories of the US system and they are no more valid than those of the Canadian system. Either way, that's not the question. The question is are these systems sustainable and the answer is no.

I would be shocked if your monthly cost is the same as my monthly cost. Of the dozen or so friends I have in the US the average seems to be a good $400 a month for medical insurance with some paying higher then that. I don't bother looking at websites for average costs, I just ask my friends and its been pretty consistent at being that high. BUT if you are referring to how much I also pay in taxes, the last break down I saw in a recent documentary about the subject showed Americans paying more of there tax money into Medical then every one else on the planet as well.

I guess what is fair to say, My min costs for most medical care excluding dental, hearing and vision is much cheaper then yours and covers more then your cheap options (which i could be wrong about but im pretty sure im not) but if I include private coverage for Dental, Hearing, Vision, my costs are as high as yours because Dental, hearing, Vision can be 110 to 250 bucks a month depending on options and add MSP's 57 that puts me in the 300 range already.

But honestly I dont think the US needs a Canadian system. I think my first option would go a long way in fixing the majority of the problems while keeping it a private system.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I wouldn't be surprised, everything the US government does seems to be more complex and complicated then it needs to be.

The biggest problem is that there have been so many scammers victimizing the Medicare system so many times, costing tax payers so much money (millions and millions) that regulations have been adjusted and updated to make it hard to scam-and hard to fill out paperwork is simply a reflection of regulatory attempts to block scammers.

I'd like to see people who defraud Medicare spend LOTS of time in prison. They cost us all a lot of money, and do so by corrupting a system that's supposed to provide medical care for those who can't afford it themselves.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The biggest problem is that there have been so many scammers victimizing the Medicare system so many times, costing tax payers so much money (millions and millions) that regulations have been adjusted and updated to make it hard to scam-and hard to fill out paperwork is simply a reflection of regulatory attempts to block scammers.

I'd like to see people who defraud Medicare spend LOTS of time in prison. They cost us all a lot of money, and do so by corrupting a system that's supposed to provide medical care for those who can't afford it themselves.

Why not just fine them $5000 plus the cost of what ever the scam was plus interest. Your trading one cost to tax payers for another cost to tax payers. Spending the next 30 years paying off a 45 000 debt with wages being garnished and so forth seems more fitting.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Why not just fine them $5000 plus the cost of what ever the scam was plus interest. Your trading one cost to tax payers for another cost to tax payers. Spending the next 30 years paying off a 45 000 debt with wages being garnished and so forth seems more fitting.

A monetary fine has not seriously impacted the scam artists. When they get caught, they pay really steep fines (someone is bankrolling them in almost all cases) and they go start a new "business" or something. Hard time in a nasty prison would be more incentive to not re-offend. But deals to find out who got these individuals set up and financed would also be a good thing.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

A monetary fine has not seriously impacted the scam artists. When they get caught, they pay really steep fines (someone is bankrolling them in almost all cases) and they go start a new "business" or something. Hard time in a nasty prison would be more incentive to not re-offend. But deals to find out who got these individuals set up and financed would also be a good thing.

I think Jail should be reserved for dangerous people only. The costs are not worth putting non dangerous people in jail. Constant repeat offenders maybe. But for most crimes electronic monitoring, fines, restrictions, harassment would probably be better solutions. Honestly I don't see why we don't sentence non violent criminals to 2 years in military service. The military is already being paid to do its thing with or with out them. They are supervised, will get disciplined, and maybe even come out a better person. Very least it can be a dam hard environment for some one who didn't intend to be there. "This is your third theft of vehicle, I sentence you to 2 years service at Fort Worth. " I would love to see that.

[ghporter]

First, I do NOT want to give weapons to anyone who has shown antisocial tendencies-"Military" service would not be an option. On the other hand, the infrastructure throughout North America has languished without proper upkeep through the last half of the last century, so there is a "service" possibility that may have merit as a "pro-social penance" sort of punishment... I agree that paying just to lock up bad people, even those who prey on the poor and elderly, is distasteful, but we still have to do something beyond monetary fines because they simply have not worked.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I wouldn't be surprised, everything the US government does seems to be more complex and complicated then it needs to be.

A fairly typical byproduct of bureaucracy and Canada is no exception.

I was being very very general with the price schedule, its more complex then that but it was just to give a general idea how abuses can be limited. There are thousands of procedures plus time and medications and equipment used but overall a negotiated pricing scheme thats reviewed every 5 years can go a long way in controlling costs and keeping every one some what honest.

Even so, the simplified examples given pose problems for the idea and it is difficult to imagine more complicated examples fitting more elegantly. I think simple tort reform would be as effective as a fixed-fee program essentially creating health care trade unions in that it would reduce the ridiculous premiums necessary for malpractice insurance against an increasingly litigious society. There are other means of allowing people across the country in various trades to pool their risk and reduce costs. This is hampered by State-formed insurance monopolies. There are over 1300 insurers in the US, people with their pooled risks should have access to these insurers regardless of their state of residence. This would increase choice and encourage a more competitive environment. Using insurance charters, states could compete for charters simplifying the laws and regulations that govern health care.

A Canadian system is def better then what you have now but not a real answer.

I disagree. A Canadian system is not definitely better than what we have now and that is precisely why a Canadian model is no answer at all.

Between the 2 options I pointed out from my own opinions I think the first one is the best option. It puts in some parts of the Canadian system in for control but leaves the insurance a private business like the American model. It keeps them from running a muck and stops the unfair distribution of sick and poor people to the state run options. In that model the price schedules only applied to insurable stuff. Though I didn't point on it, the door is open for any one to pay anything they want outside of insurance for what ever they want.

HSAs and compatible plans would go a long way toward putting the cost factor back in the hands of patients and encourage disciplined use of the system as opposed to getting medical care for say... restless leg syndrome.

I dont think i fully understand this part

States or Provinces are allocated a block of funds through the Federal government (centralized authority or entity) and are often means-tested. i.e. some regions have greater health care demands than others. This puts States or Provinces in the position of securing their allotment by demonstrating their need through wasteful spending.

But every state has a very special medical environment and with all the different providers, insurance companies I think while in your case its pretty fair between sick and healthy people there are probably insurance companies that only cherry pick and other abusers too. And its not just the medical system but large companies that play the holes to. Walmart employees the most people who require state medical help and actively encourages it costing the tax payer tons of money too. I saw that in 2 different bias documentaries against wal-mart, so perhaps its not really the case they encourage it but still out side factors like that affect costs to which I didn't hit on with my original post.

This is why it is important to encourage disciplined use of the system. People are much more shrewd with their own money than someone else's. This is the painful fact of human nature. By placing more of the responsibility of the costs in the hands of the individual through tax-sheltered HSAs etc... you are placing the buying control in the hands of the consumer and the consumer will be more apt to shop for their care and discriminate their own medical needs as opposed to panels making that decision for them.

Eyes, Dental are 100% the same in both countries.

In that they must be covered by insurance? Yes, but this is included in most insurance plans in the US and comprises a portion of one's health care expenditure. More on that in a minute.

I would be shocked if your monthly cost is the same as my monthly cost. Of the dozen or so friends I have in the US the average seems to be a good $400 a month for medical insurance with some paying higher then that. I don't bother looking at websites for average costs, I just ask my friends and its been pretty consistent at being that high. BUT if you are referring to how much I also pay in taxes, the last break down I saw in a recent documentary about the subject showed Americans paying more of there tax money into Medical then every one else on the planet as well.

I might suggest putting the Michael Moore documentaries to rest for a while. The average American per US Bureau of Labor statistics, spends approximately $2,853 a year for their health care. That's not only for health insurance, but for their entire health care expenditure annually. BTW, this includes dental and optometry. That's $230/month in total healthcare expenditure, almost half what you claim your "dozen or so friends" are paying on average. i.e. they're either getting ripped off in the worst way possible or you're being less than honest. To put this "crisis" into perspective, most Americans spend more on eating out and entertainment than they do their own health care.

I guess what is fair to say, My min costs for most medical care excluding dental, hearing and vision is much cheaper then yours and covers more then your cheap options (which i could be wrong about but im pretty sure im not)

I'm actually 100% certain you're wrong.

but if I include private coverage for Dental, Hearing, Vision, my costs are as high as yours because Dental, hearing, Vision can be 110 to 250 bucks a month depending on options and add MSP's 57 that puts me in the 300 range already.

Which statistically has you paying more per month than the average American and well more than what I pay.

But honestly I dont think the US needs a Canadian system. I think my first option would go a long way in fixing the majority of the problems while keeping it a private system.

I think there are other ways that can make a much more profound impact on our system.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A fairly typical byproduct of bureaucracy and Canada is no exception.


Even so, the simplified examples given pose problems for the idea and it is difficult to imagine more complicated examples fitting more elegantly. I think simple tort reform would be as effective as a fixed-fee program essentially creating health care trade unions in that it would reduce the ridiculous premiums necessary for malpractice insurance against an increasingly litigious society. There are other means of allowing people across the country in various trades to pool their risk and reduce costs. This is hampered by State-formed insurance monopolies. There are over 1300 insurers in the US, people with their pooled risks should have access to these insurers regardless of their state of residence. This would increase choice and encourage a more competitive environment. Using insurance charters, states could compete for charters simplifying the laws and regulations that govern health care.


I disagree. A Canadian system is not definitely better than what we have now and that is precisely why a Canadian model is no answer at all.


HSAs and compatible plans would go a long way toward putting the cost factor back in the hands of patients and encourage disciplined use of the system as opposed to getting medical care for say... restless leg syndrome.


States or Provinces are allocated a block of funds through the Federal government (centralized authority or entity) and are often means-tested. i.e. some regions have greater health care demands than others. This puts States or Provinces in the position of securing their allotment by demonstrating their need through wasteful spending.


This is why it is important to encourage disciplined use of the system. People are much more shrewd with their own money than someone else's. This is the painful fact of human nature. By placing more of the responsibility of the costs in the hands of the individual through tax-sheltered HSAs etc... you are placing the buying control in the hands of the consumer and the consumer will be more apt to shop for their care and discriminate their own medical needs as opposed to panels making that decision for them.



In that they must be covered by insurance? Yes, but this is included in most insurance plans in the US and comprises a portion of one's health care expenditure. More on that in a minute.


I might suggest putting the Michael Moore documentaries to rest for a while. The average American per US Bureau of Labor statistics, spends approximately $2,853 a year for their health care. That's not only for health insurance, but for their entire health care expenditure annually. BTW, this includes dental and optometry. That's $230/month in total healthcare expenditure, almost half what you claim your "dozen or so friends" are paying on average. i.e. they're either getting ripped off in the worst way possible or you're being less than honest. To put this "crisis" into perspective, most Americans spend more on eating out and entertainment than they do their own health care.


I'm actually 100% certain you're wrong.


Which statistically has you paying more per month than the average American and well more than what I pay.


I think there are other ways that can make a much more profound impact on our system.

Oh Buddy, how do you sleep at night? You devil you! I had to check....Those numbers you quoted from the government are almost 4 YEARS OLD! Nevermind that they represent some sort of "consumer unit"...the income "number" reported for 2009 is $62,857! Is that the average annual income too? Holy Cow! Americans are doing great! I will give you credit for finding these "sources" that fit your agenda, but ANYONE in the real world knows the true cost is much higher than your Mayberry-esque figures...

[besson3c]

If the Canadian system is not better, why are average life expectancies there higher?

You can point to our obesity problem, but with so many Americans without access to preventative health care and aren't in the habit of consulting with a doctor I'd be inclined to think that the problem is also related to access to health care.

Perhaps average life expectancy is not the best metric to determine which health care is the "best", maybe there is no "best", but this metric seems about as good as any.

[besson3c]

I'm tired of people ragging on Canada who don't know a damn thing about it. I think going forward we should ask people for their direct experience with Canadians and/or health care there rather than fussing over biased news sources and their anecdotal stories used to prop up their pre-existing narrative.

Honestly people, America is great, but the whole access to health care thing and our absolutely ridiculous (multiple exclamation marks) costs certainly do not make our health care system our country's pride and joy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Oh Buddy, how do you sleep at night? You devil you! I had to check....Those numbers you quoted from the government are almost 4 YEARS OLD! Nevermind that they represent some sort of "consumer unit"...the income "number" reported for 2009 is $62,857! Is that the average annual income too? Holy Cow! Americans are doing great! I will give you credit for finding these "sources" that fit your agenda, but ANYONE in the real world knows the true cost is much higher than your Mayberry-esque figures...

Please cite where those numbers are 4 years old stumblinmike. They are consumer expenditures published by the US Bureau of Labor statistics under the US Dept of Labor for April 2009 as referenced in the bottom-left side of the graphic. These expenditures come out of an annual household income of $63,091 per year on average, before taxes as indicated in the article.

Are you paying $400/month on your health care stumblinmike?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If the Canadian system is not better, why are average life expectancies there higher?

You're kidding right? I'm certain we've been over this at least a few times. Tell ya what... since you're a big fan of firsthand knowledge, I'm not going to give this one to you. Google around it and show me how life-expectancy measurements between the US and Canada indicate Canada's superior care. When you find that you're unable to establish this, have a read of some of those biased cites you've been avoiding to learn a little more about the demographic differences. *Hint, it's much more than just obesity.

You can point to our obesity problem, but with so many Americans without access to preventative health care and aren't in the habit of consulting with a doctor I'd be inclined to think that the problem is also related to access to health care.

As someone who has been on both sides of the fence with poverty-level income at one time and now a decent income; I've never once had a problem with access to health care. Not once. Not myself, not my wife, and not my children. Never. I'm not kidding you and I know I've told you a billion times, but it is the absolute 100% truth; if you do not have health care in the US, you're not trying. It's as simple as that.

Perhaps average life expectancy is not the best metric to determine which health care is the "best", maybe there is no "best", but this metric seems about as good as any.

In fact it's the worst. Let me know when you've figured out why.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm tired of people ragging on Canada who don't know a damn thing about it. I think going forward we should ask people for their direct experience with Canadians and/or health care there rather than fussing over biased news sources and their anecdotal stories used to prop up their pre-existing narrative.

Honestly people, America is great, but the whole access to health care thing and our absolutely ridiculous (multiple exclamation marks) costs certainly do not make our health care system our country's pride and joy.

To be clear besson, I'm not "ragging" on the Canadian health care system. I've been citing the problems our systems share and clearing up misinformation about the US system. I'm not citing "Canadian health care horror stories" or ragging on either one of them. I've been responding to Athens in kind.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Please cite where those numbers are 4 years old stumblinmike. They are consumer expenditures published by the US Bureau of Labor statistics under the US Dept of Labor for April 2009 as referenced in the bottom-left side of the graphic. These expenditures come out of an annual household income of $63,091 per year on average, before taxes as indicated in the article.

Are you paying $400/month on your health care stumblinmike?

I went directly to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditures press release (Oct. 2010). I didn't rely on Visual Economics (Unraveling Complexities in Financial Data!) misleading piechart. No wonder your wrong so often. You have to go to the source!

I am extremely fortunate to have health insurance, for which I pay just under $300 per month. My employer picks up the balance. I WAS paying $600+ when I wasn't covered by my employer. Those are real world numbers, buddy. You'll have to get out more to see how the "little people" are doing!

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

HSAs and compatible plans would go a long way toward putting the cost factor back in the hands of patients and encourage disciplined use of the system as opposed to getting medical care for say... restless leg syndrome.

Could you explain this a bit more?

[quote
States or Provinces are allocated a block of funds through the Federal government (centralized authority or entity) and are often means-tested. i.e. some regions have greater health care demands than others. This puts States or Provinces in the position of securing their allotment by demonstrating their need through wasteful spending.

[/quote]

Oh I totally agree, absolutely no argument about this one and I've seen it many times. Our Education system is a perfect example of waste to this effect which I have seen with my own eyes. Schools that did find savings made sure they had waste some place else because if they could save they would have funding reduced because it showed they didn't need as much vs being able to use the same funding in other areas they wanted to. To ensure the same level of funding they wasted money. Its pathetic.

This is why it is important to encourage disciplined use of the system. People are much more shrewd with their own money than someone else's. This is the painful fact of human nature. By placing more of the responsibility of the costs in the hands of the individual through tax-sheltered HSAs etc... you are placing the buying control in the hands of the consumer and the consumer will be more apt to shop for their care and discriminate their own medical needs as opposed to panels making that decision for them.

There is a down side to this as well, some things need to be caught early and by waiting can totally change the out come. Cancer is a big one for that. For the most part people cant just go in for a CT scan or Ultrasound or testing with out a family doctor ordering it. So wasteful uses of resources are controlled here by that fact. And for the most part we don't have a problem with people using family doctors to much either. If something is not right, go to the family doctor if there is something wrong he orders what you need. BUT we also have a shortage of family doctors, entire world seems to so in the past when you could call in and get in the next day most of the time your waiting 3-5 days to get your appointment now. Our biggest waste is on Emergency room visits which are really really expensive for the system. And I've seen shows that report the same thing in the US. The problem is lack of options after hours and on weekends. Most doctors are 9-5 Monday to Friday. If you start feeling really bad at 8PM or on a weekend the only choice is a Emergency room visit. People with just common flu going to the doctor or hospital suck, they waste money because there isn't much any one can do about it. But some one waiting to go see the doctor or hospital because they have numbness in the left left that isn't going away because it costs something upfront, COULD end up with some one being in a sicker condition for waiting or death. What I think we both need is a stop gap in between. Assessment clinics open 24/7 which people can go to and get a assessment. This is most likely the flu, take these products for a few days to help and if nothing changes after x number of days make a appointment with your doctor to discuss further. Or my leg is numb should i call my doctor tomorrow or go tot he hospital, Go the hospital now. You know come to think about it all that is needed is education. Because I just don't think people know what to do. You can get good medication advice from a pharmacist for most conditions related to being sick. BC has a 24/7 Nurse hotline that you can call for advice to do exactly what I was referring to with he assessment clinic. But what really is lacking is the after hours clinics to get prescriptions for pain or infections. On a Saturday morning if I have one of those rare super migraines that only prescription pain killers deal with, its either don't do anything or hit the emergency room for a prescription. A lot of people with aches and pains and other non serious issues don't want to take time off work to go see a regular doctor and end up wasting resources at a hospital after hours to. Those people piss me off the most.

I might suggest putting the Michael Moore documentaries to rest for a while. The average American per US Bureau of Labor statistics, spends approximately $2,853 a year for their health care. That's not only for health insurance, but for their entire health care expenditure annually. BTW, this includes dental and optometry. That's $230/month in total healthcare expenditure, almost half what you claim your "dozen or so friends" are paying on average. i.e. they're either getting ripped off in the worst way possible or you're being less than honest. To put this "crisis" into perspective, most Americans spend more on eating out and entertainment than they do their own health care.

I don't put much faith in Michael Moore, he is very biased to get his points across. This is one of many good real documentaries I've seen exploring the subject. FRONTLINE: sick around the world: watch the full program | PBS I found this to be a very excellent one, compares Britain, Japan and Germany and I think Switzerland with the US system. I just noticed they have a 2010 one I might watch tonight too. I love Britain's approach to preventive medicines and care. I wish more of that was done here.

Which statistically has you paying more per month than the average American and well more than what I pay.

MSP Coverage $57.00 a Month (For whats Covered MSP - Medical and Health Care Benefits )
Optional Complete Coverage with Blue Cross, Everything selected $71.00 a month. (man I really should get that)

Total Price $128.00 a Month for just me

Family of 4 . MSP Coverage $114.00
Optional Complete Coverage wtih Blue Cross, Everything selected $190.00 a month

Total Price $304.00

BTW the 400+ prices I was given you for friends in the US are family plans not just individual's

Im curious what your coverage would work out to be as a individual and as a family all out of pocket no work benefits.

Ok so I have this one question. Everything I read from Wikipedia and other sources and from shows watched on PBS say the same thing, its expensive, complicated, limited. Health Stats comparing populations around the world shows the US way lower then most first world countries yet paying way more.

From Wikipedia

Administrative costs
The health care system in the U.S. has a vast number of players. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of insurance companies in the U.S.[69][143] This system has considerable administrative overhead, far greater than in nationalized, single-payer systems, such as Canada's. An oft-cited study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information determined that some 31% of U.S. health care dollars, or more than $1,000 per person per year, went to health care administrative costs, nearly double the administrative overhead in Canada, on a percentage basis.

And people I know in the US say most of its accurate with costs, and issues. So what am I missing here?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If the Canadian system is not better, why are average life expectancies there higher?

You can point to our obesity problem, but with so many Americans without access to preventative health care and aren't in the habit of consulting with a doctor I'd be inclined to think that the problem is also related to access to health care.

Perhaps average life expectancy is not the best metric to determine which health care is the "best", maybe there is no "best", but this metric seems about as good as any.

I want to try and answer this one. I don't think there is any difference in the actually delivery of care in both countries. We both have excellent care. I think the difference is the money side of things. Canadian's don't think about money at all with care. We don't have co-pays or fees. We don't feel well we go to the hospital or doctor. Americans do have co-pays, and insurance only covers say 80% to a limit and other sorts of limitations that puts a money cost involved in using the system. End result Canadians use it sooner and more often then some Americans leading to differences in care out come.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Please cite where those numbers are 4 years old stumblinmike. They are consumer expenditures published by the US Bureau of Labor statistics under the US Dept of Labor for April 2009 as referenced in the bottom-left side of the graphic. These expenditures come out of an annual household income of $63,091 per year on average, before taxes as indicated in the article.

Are you paying $400/month on your health care stumblinmike?

I hate stats because they can be twisted each way and never give a complete picture. The average american could be spending 200 a month on health care but what level of health care are they electing. There is so much choice which affects what is covered, what isn't. Going from a $500 deductible to a $1500 deductible can change the monthly rate by $100 a month for a example (figures pulled out of my head for example purpose only)

How many of those people are covered mostly by work and are paying for something extra not covered I mean polls really don't mean much. Its more realistic to go to a US insurer and get a quote right from the source.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As someone who has been on both sides of the fence with poverty-level income at one time and now a decent income; I've never once had a problem with access to health care. Not once. Not myself, not my wife, and not my children. Never. I'm not kidding you and I know I've told you a billion times, but it is the absolute 100% truth; if you do not have health care in the US, you're not trying. It's as simple as that.
.

I was going to say, access isn't the problem its bills. Some people elect to avoid seeing a doctor because they can't "afford" it. If they go they will still get looked at its not a physical stop to care, but they will "OWE" money they don't have or don't want to spend. Any one should be able to get care, but some wont because they cant afford it or get it soon enough when it matters to save a buck.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I want to try and answer this one. I don't think there is any difference in the actually delivery of care in both countries. We both have excellent care. I think the difference is the money side of things. Canadian's don't think about money at all with care. We don't have co-pays or fees. We don't feel well we go to the hospital or doctor. Americans do have co-pays, and insurance only covers say 80% to a limit and other sorts of limitations that puts a money cost involved in using the system. End result Canadians use it sooner and more often then some Americans leading to differences in care out come.

That's sort of what I was getting at when I spoke to access, although it looks like ebuddy took this more literal than I intended. To build upon what I was saying, I think a lot of Americans don't bother with preventative care because they don't have financial access to the sorts of procedures and tests and care that might come out of this, so they probably think why bother, I'll just deal with the discomfort...

I have known many Americans that don't want to go to a doctor even when they should probably in part because of financial stress and worries, it's a little off-putting.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To be clear besson, I'm not "ragging" on the Canadian health care system. I've been citing the problems our systems share and clearing up misinformation about the US system. I'm not citing "Canadian health care horror stories" or ragging on either one of them. I've been responding to Athens in kind.

I think we have been having a pretty good debate, I wouldn't say anything you have said is out of line either. Some of what you said conflicts with stuff friends have told me but you have to take my word over a lot of the stuff you get shown of our system that isn't true either. I think its been civil and a constructive debate so far.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's sort of what I was getting at when I spoke to access, although it looks like ebuddy took this more literal than I intended. To build upon what I was saying, I think a lot of Americans don't bother with preventative care because they don't have financial access to the sorts of procedures and tests and care that might come out of this, so they probably think why bother, I'll just deal with the discomfort...

I have known many Americans that don't want to go to a doctor even when they should probably in part because of financial stress and worries, it's a little off-putting.

Yup, its not a physical problem. If im sick 99% of the time the hospital is going to look at me, and clinics that deal with poor people. That 1% would be a failure of the system, some one not doing there job or a hospital doing something it shouldn't be doing. I wouldn't count those failures because failures happen everywhere. The expected norm is your sick you go to the hospital. The issue is how you pay for it. Can you out of pocket, or with family. Is there social programs to assist. Can you lose all your stuff for a bad debt. So it creates a physiological block to access.

Its also why I think the US stats look poor for lots of care items because many people wait until they have no choice but then at that point its not curable anyways. Its why I have no faith in the stats about who lives longer and so forth anyways. Like all stats they can be twisted either way. Well covered American will go see doctor right away, poorly covered American might wait. Well covered American gets treatment in time to save him. Poorly covered American waited to long for treatment to be effective and dies. It was not the healthcare system that failed. Was economical situation that lead to failure for the poorly covered American. Great hospital, great doctors but fear of getting debt.

so ebuddy is right, the access is really there.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

I went directly to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditures press release (Oct. 2010). I didn't rely on Visual Economics (Unraveling Complexities in Financial Data!) misleading piechart. No wonder your wrong so often. You have to go to the source!

They break the numbers down into text in the actual article. I'm directly on the BLS link right now looking at the data and it shows a total healthcare expenditure (per unit which is 2.5 persons) of $3,126. $3,126 divided by 12 is $260/month. Assuming most are being paid biweekly; a 26 pay-period year is $240 every four weeks or approximately $240/month. Again, for a single unit which equates to 2.5 persons. The most contemporaneous data you'll find is 2009, but either way you want to slice it we're still a far cry from $400/month average as cited by Athens and yet you take issue with me?

Of course, it's telling that you wouldn't cite any numbers from THE SOURCE!™ because the facts don't support your shameless BS. Try again zealot.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They break the numbers down into text in the actual article. I'm directly on the BLS link right now looking at the data and it shows a total healthcare expenditure (per unit which is 2.5 persons) of $3,126. $3,126 divided by 12 is $260/month. Assuming most are being paid biweekly; a 26 pay-period year is $240 every four weeks or approximately $240/month. Again, for a single unit which equates to 2.5 persons. The most contemporaneous data you'll find is 2009, but either way you want to slice it we're still a far cry from $400/month average as cited by Athens and yet you take issue with me?

Of course, it's telling that you wouldn't cite any numbers from THE SOURCE!™ because the facts don't support your shameless BS. Try again zealot.

Apples and oranges, buddy! These statistics are old and muddled (2.5 people= 1 unit?!!). A simple google search (such as you recommended to Bess) of "average health insurance cost in US" quickly ends the debate. It's $400 bucks SINGLE! You have a family plan that is less than $300? You claim to Athens that is "well more than I pay"... well either you are a VERY fortunate person or you are a shoveler of BS! My experience with you leads me to the latter....

[Athens]

FOR #$%#$ SAKE

Can some one please do a free quote for me since I keep getting blocked for being in the wrong dam country

"Thank you for your interest in HumanaOne. Unfortunately we do not currently offer plans in your county. For your convenience, we have partnered with eHealthInsurance, to help you find an immediate solution. To learn more, click the Get Quotes button below to leave and be directed to the eHealthInsurance website."

HUMANA - Guidance when you need it most.

[Athens]

ok FINALLY got some quotes

$330.00 a month with $1000 deductible from Regence Coinsurance (whatever that is) 20% $25.00 per doctor visit, $500 Drug deductible, $2500 limit on drugs per year, Out of pocket limit $5500 whatever that means.

$118.77 a month with $5000 deductible from Assurant Coinsurance %50 $35.00 per doctor visit, no drug deductible, out of pocket limit $15 000

What is out of pocket limit?

And if you ask me the deductibles should count towards your monthly cost since you have to pay that portion of it anyways before your insurance even kicks in. So if I understand this right, anything you do related to health say a knee operation say its $4000, if the deductible is $5000 your basically paying the $4000 out of pocket and not using your insurance. If its $8000.00 you are paying $5000 and the insurance is paying the rest right? So that $118.77 a month is really $535 a month if you break the deductible down to 12 months.

[ebuddy]

Egadz man, there's just not enough time in a friggin' day ya know it? I've got Athens asking what out of pocket limit means while telling me what's wrong with the US health care system and a donkey behind him barking; YEAH MAN!!! WHAT HE SAID!!!

Athens, most Americans enjoy employer-sponsored health care. While that number is waning due to poor policy in Washington and must be corrected, it does not make a lot of sense to price an individual plan in Oregon for example. Why? Because less than 15 million Americans buy their own insurance in the individual market. To put this into perspective, that's 5% of the US population. Not to marginalize this bloc mind you as I've had numerous health care discussions here and have long-maintained that we need access to ALL insurers in the US, across state lines, pooling risk with people throughout the country. This actually applies to all insureds however and would go a long way toward reducing everyone's costs.

You appeared to be relatively open minded so I took the liberty of going beyond your "poll" of a dozen or so American pals to cite the actual, average cost of health care in the US as noted by the US Dept of Labor.

[stumblinmike]

Athens, excuse buddy, he's had a long day and gets pretty cranky...suffice to say health insurance is very expensive, you absolutely need it if you don't want to risk liens on future earnings (or bankruptcy!), and asking strangers here for advice is crazy! I have no idea if Canada has a better system. How could I? I'm an American! Best of luck to you, my neighbor to the north...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's sort of what I was getting at when I spoke to access, although it looks like ebuddy took this more literal than I intended. To build upon what I was saying, I think a lot of Americans don't bother with preventative care because they don't have financial access to the sorts of procedures and tests and care that might come out of this, so they probably think why bother, I'll just deal with the discomfort...

Preventive care comes before discomfort. winkee-face

The converse is also true in that our current system actually encourages a wealth of unnecessary procedures and tests and care while at the same time discouraging frugal health care shoppers. I can only assume health care access means the availability of health care. To use access any other way, particularly as unavailability is spin.

I have known many Americans that don't want to go to a doctor even when they should probably in part because of financial stress and worries, it's a little off-putting.

I'd suggest not to be off-put by the choices of others. You'll go crazy. People have very different ideas of what constitutes "when they should". Many Americans just don't like going to a doctor. Sometimes it costs accountability for an unhealthy lifestyle, they know what they need to do, and either they do it or they don't. Sometimes it's just plain ol' procrastination. After all, almost 8% of late tax filers are getting a refund! I wonder how many people decided they didn't get the root canal because of their copayment or because they didn't want a root canal. Some are wealthy enough to pay for their care outright and shop it aggressively, some are healthy and regular visits to the doctor simply aren't nor have they ever been necessary, some are under their parent's care... This doesn't mean they're wrong for not spending the money as no one knows the number of factors at play in their lives and you can't afford to care more for them than they care for themselves.

A Kaiser Commission study on the uninsured in the US found that 80% of the uninsured are eligible for Medicare/Medicaid. Of these, 25% remain unenrolled. This isn't a matter of cost or availability, this is simply signing on to available options. There are a great many who aren't as worried about health care as they are those things they've prioritized over it.

What should something like health care cost per month? Should it cost less than your cable bill? Less than your monthly car payment? Less than what you're spending on cigarettes, alcohol, movies, and eating out a month? Choices.

[Athens]

I just looked at Tax rates (and with out a full understanding of the US system I could be wrong) but it also appears for single people in the $35 000 range Canadians play less income taxes too. I don't get it, Americans like paying more for Medical and it appears more in Income Taxes (until you get into the 100 000+ range then Canadians get rapped)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Preventive care comes before discomfort. winkee-face

The converse is also true in that our current system actually encourages a wealth of unnecessary procedures and tests and care while at the same time discouraging frugal health care shoppers. I can only assume health care access means the availability of health care. To use access any other way, particularly as unavailability is spin.

This is a good point.

I'd suggest not to be off-put by the choices of others. You'll go crazy. People have very different ideas of what constitutes "when they should". Many Americans just don't like going to a doctor. Sometimes it costs accountability for an unhealthy lifestyle, they know what they need to do, and either they do it or they don't. Sometimes it's just plain ol' procrastination. After all, almost 8% of late tax filers are getting a refund! I wonder how many people decided they didn't get the root canal because of their copayment or because they didn't want a root canal. Some are wealthy enough to pay for their care outright and shop it aggressively, some are healthy and regular visits to the doctor simply aren't nor have they ever been necessary, some are under their parent's care... This doesn't mean they're wrong for not spending the money as no one knows the number of factors at play in their lives and you can't afford to care more for them than they care for themselves.

A Kaiser Commission study on the uninsured in the US found that 80% of the uninsured are eligible for Medicare/Medicaid. Of these, 25% remain unenrolled. This isn't a matter of cost or availability, this is simply signing on to available options. There are a great many who aren't as worried about health care as they are those things they've prioritized over it.

What should something like health care cost per month? Should it cost less than your cable bill? Less than your monthly car payment? Less than what you're spending on cigarettes, alcohol, movies, and eating out a month? Choices.

Are you making inferences here as to what the appropriate choice should be, or just illustrating the toughness of this issue? It is indeed a tough issue.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are you making inferences here as to what the appropriate choice should be, or just illustrating the toughness of this issue? It is indeed a tough issue.

I was trying to put health care into its perspective among other expenditures.