Interesting parallels with the Canadian fight for universal healthcare

[Againsheila]

Anyone living in the border of Canada notice the Canadian refugees fleeing into the USA to take advantage of our wonderful heath care systems?

No?

Me, neither.

Another Republican myth shot down in flames by reality.

Actually, many of the wealthy in Canada do come down here for medical treatment. That way they don't have to wait in line with everyone else. If we were to establish a similar healthcare plan, they'd probably be flying to Europe, meanwhile, our people, and I mean those that are not wealthy, would be getting much better healthcare.

We have the best healthcare in the world...for those that can afford it, and to heck with the rest of us. One of the young men living in my home is on disability. They just pulled 3 of his teeth because medicaid refused to fill them again after the fillings fell out.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ahh, but interestingly enough, he decided that Canada's health care system was inferior after he went on a fact finding trip where:

Which means, they are not saying thier health care is inferior to the US...
They are saying their health care is inferior to even more socialized nations.

In fact, in that article, Doig is actually backing up Mr Obama's point that private health care has a place in a country with a public system, as evidenced here:

You are misreading the article. Whether the epiphany occurred in the EU or on the road to Damascus, the operative part of the sentence was " a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred."

Which has nothing to do with public or private health care. There are just as many, if not more, "bureaucrats" in between you and your doctors in private health care than in public health care. That's why administrative costs for private health care are higher, not lower.



You'll go over the rightie interpretation of what they think the Obama administration had in mind. Or are you claiming some ability in clairvoyance perhaps?

But, if the news is to be believed, the point is moot, as the administration and its allies claim that this will no longer be in the bill.

We shall see. It will either happen now, or ten years down the line anyway, when average costs for a family of four will be over $36,000, which is completely unsupportable.

Therefore, showing weaknesses in plans such as Canada's may be obviated.

One hopes.

"Which has nothing to do with public or private health care. There are just as many, if not more, "bureaucrats" in between you and your doctors in private health care than in public health care. That's why administrative costs for private health care are higher, not lower."

Wrong.
There are no bureaucrats standing between you and the doctor of your choice in the private system.
At the point where your chosen insurer declines your request, you may pay for same if you wish.
The implication re: ObamaCare is that, as in Canada, it will be illegal to purchase your own procedures.

And wrong about the costs.

1. Including fraud estimates with administrative costs, Medicare is 7% more expensive.

2. Administrative costs themselves are misleading because treating an elderly population is more expensive than a random population. Mathematically, this skews the percentages to make administration seem less under the government plan.

3. And speaking of bureaucrats, did you know that the British healthcare system is the 3rd
largest employer in the world, after the Red Army, and the Indian Railway System?


"You'll go over the rightie interpretation of what they think the Obama administration had in mind. Or are you claiming some ability in clairvoyance perhaps?"
In English, please.

"when average costs for a family of four will be over $36,000, which is completely unsupportable...'
1. Healthcare costs are declining, not increasing:
2003 8.6%
2004 6.9%
2005 6.5%
2006 6.7%
2007 6.1%
Compare to 10.5% in 1970 and 13% in 1980

It is the cost of the education system which are spinning out of control, but since this system is a liberal bastion, it's control is not questioned.

So, to review, it is your contention that ObamaCare, that does not increase the number of physicians, pays less for procedures, includes no tort reform, and has a board that will dictate what procedures and pharmaceutical are most 'efficient,' will result in
1. better quality care
2. without rationing care
3. without decreasing access
4. not diminish private insurance plans while adding dozens of mandates to policies
and
5. do these at lower costs.

Would that be your testimony?

Remember, you are under oath.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Shhhh.....

Don't tell them the truth.

Let them live in their FoxNews fantasy where America does everything better than all the other countries in the world.

SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.
Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.
"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."
The Canadian Press: Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors

This is because Canada is facing the same problems as every other country is regarding health care - rising costs and how to pay for it.

But despite this, Canadians do not want to change the fundamental system of healthcare.

How much is due to the fact that, in a pinch, they can come south?

 

[Diuretic]

The wealthy can go wherever they like for health care, I think that's almost a universal. The Canadian provinces which run health care in Canada don't forbid their citizens from travelling internationally for any reason so wealthy Canadians can go wherever they like for health care. That's one of the good thngs about being wealthy, you really don't have to stand in line with everyone else. For anything.

So the wealthy, wherever they are, are doing okay.

Now, about the rest of us. We rely on whatever we can get. I'm very lucky, I live in Australia. We have a single payer health care system that's funded by our taxes. It doesn't matter how poor (or rich) you are, you will get necessary care and it's not necessary to purchase private (or I think some might call it "supplemental") health care, but you can (I have it). As a system it's good - not flawless I stress. I also have to stress there are only 21m of us, this isn't a difficult country to govern and I'm not for one moment suggesting our system would be transplanted anywhere else, there are too many variables.

The principle of our system of health care is that you get the care you need. If you earn an income above a certain amount then you pay a tax levy which is used to fund the health care system. If you are unemployed or not earning above that level you don't pay the levy but you are not precluded from getting the care you need. That's the philosophy of the system. You don't lose your health care if you lose your job, that's why I suppose it's a form of "universal" coverage.

But you can still travel to any country in the world to purchase health care. And people do. Some procedures aren't available here so individuals either pay to have it where they can get it or - as is frequently the case - charitable foundations connected with hospitals will pay for such treatment (now and again they will have an appeal and we call kick in for an individual to get care - the last one I remember was a child who had a very rare eye cancer and had to go to the UK for treatment). That's the UK....... where they have the NHS.

So, what's my point. My point is that the current health care debate is very interesting and it looks as if the insurance companies are on a winner. From what I read the proposed changes will be defeated. That means Americans will get to keep the current system right? You won't have universal health care, right? But the wealthy will still not have to stand in line. How about Joe and Josephine Average? How are they going for health care now? What if Joe loses his job - does he lose his health care as well? What if Josephine can't pay for non-emergency medical treatment? Does she have to go without?

 

[elvis]

Shhhh.....

Don't tell them the truth.

Let them live in their FoxNews fantasy where America does everything better than all the other countries in the world.

SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.
Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.
"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."
The Canadian Press: Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors

This is because Canada is facing the same problems as every other country is regarding health care - rising costs and how to pay for it.

But despite this, Canadians do not want to change the fundamental system of healthcare.

East Germans didn't want to change everything they were used to, either.

 

[Vast LWC]

"Which has nothing to do with public or private health care. There are just as many, if not more, "bureaucrats" in between you and your doctors in private health care than in public health care. That's why administrative costs for private health care are higher, not lower."

Wrong.
There are no bureaucrats standing between you and the doctor of your choice in the private system.
At the point where your chosen insurer declines your request, you may pay for same if you wish.

Which is exactly the same as it is in Canada...

The implication re: ObamaCare is that, as in Canada, it will be illegal to purchase your own procedures.

As far as I know it is NOT illegal to pay for health care in Canada. Perhaps you have some information I do not?

And wrong about the costs.

1. Including fraud estimates with administrative costs, Medicare is 7% more expensive.

I have provided figures on several other threads showing the opposite is in fact the case, and that in the US, the cost of publicly insured health care is in fact 15% cheaper than private alternatives, according to data from the Department of Health and Human services, perhaps you have some data that backs up the above assertion?

2. Administrative costs themselves are misleading because treating an elderly population is more expensive than a random population. Mathematically, this skews the percentages to make administration seem less under the government plan.

What?

3. And speaking of bureaucrats, did you know that the British healthcare system is the 3rd
largest employer in the world, after the Red Army, and the Indian Railway System?

But yet the British still spend half as much as we do per patient.

"You'll go over the rightie interpretation of what they think the Obama administration had in mind. Or are you claiming some ability in clairvoyance perhaps?"
In English, please.

Makes sense in context...

you said:

If you like, I'll go over the surreptitious steps that the Chicago cabal had in mind.

To which I responded:

"You'll go over the rightie interpretation of what they think the Obama administration had in mind. Or are you claiming some ability in clairvoyance perhaps?"

Clairvoyance being psychic abilities, usually to tell the future or read minds.

"when average costs for a family of four will be over $36,000, which is completely unsupportable...'
1. Healthcare costs are declining, not increasing:
2003 8.6%
2004 6.9%
2005 6.5%
2006 6.7%
2007 6.1%
Compare to 10.5% in 1970 and 13% in 1980

These numbers don't change the fact I pointed out. Health care keeps increasing at the same rate in total dollars, the percentages go down because the TOTAL keeps growing.

It is the cost of the education system which are spinning out of control, but since this system is a liberal bastion, it's control is not questioned.

Education makes up less than 1% of the budget. Teachers are all underpaid. Education costs are not "spinning out of control" in any way, shape or form.

Defense, on the other hand, is in fact spinning out of control, and has been for quite some time. But since defense is a conservative bastion, and provides lots of pork to Red states, it's "control is not questioned".

So, to review, it is your contention that ObamaCare, that does not increase the number of physicians, pays less for procedures, includes no tort reform, and has a board that will dictate what procedures and pharmaceutical are most 'efficient,' will result in
1. better quality care
2. without rationing care
3. without decreasing access
4. not diminish private insurance plans while adding dozens of mandates to policies
and
5. do these at lower costs.

Would that be your testimony? Remember, you are under oath.

1. The same or better, ON AVERAGE, yes.
2. Not more so than private health insurance does, if you're not rich
3. Not at all
4. Of course there will be some diminishing in the NUMBER of private plans, as the less efficient plans are phased out, and the more efficient ones take their place.
5. Yes, absolutely.

 

[Toro]

How much is due to the fact that, in a pinch, they can come south?

Less than 1% come south, though it is an issue that gets brushed aside up north.

Very few people consider it as an option.

Canadians can pay for their healthcare. However, there can be no competing insurance plan with Canadian Medicare.

 

[Vast LWC]

And, I think it's worth mentioning that:

Private health care insurance gets to foist much of their older, sicker consumers onto public health care, through Medicare...

And Public Health Care, per patient, is STILL cheaper than Private health care. in the United States.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Which has nothing to do with public or private health care. There are just as many, if not more, "bureaucrats" in between you and your doctors in private health care than in public health care. That's why administrative costs for private health care are higher, not lower."

Wrong.
There are no bureaucrats standing between you and the doctor of your choice in the private system.
At the point where your chosen insurer declines your request, you may pay for same if you wish.

Which is exactly the same as it is in Canada...

The implication re: ObamaCare is that, as in Canada, it will be illegal to purchase your own procedures.

As far as I know it is NOT illegal to pay for health care in Canada. Perhaps you have some information I do not?



I have provided figures on several other threads showing the opposite is in fact the case, and that in the US, the cost of publicly insured health care is in fact 15% cheaper than private alternatives, according to data from the Department of Health and Human services, perhaps you have some data that backs up the above assertion?



What?



But yet the British still spend half as much as we do per patient.



Makes sense in context...

you said:



To which I responded:



Clairvoyance being psychic abilities, usually to tell the future or read minds.



These numbers don't change the fact I pointed out. Health care keeps increasing at the same rate in total dollars, the percentages go down because the TOTAL keeps growing.

It is the cost of the education system which are spinning out of control, but since this system is a liberal bastion, it's control is not questioned.

Education makes up less than 1% of the budget. Teachers are all underpaid. Education costs are not "spinning out of control" in any way, shape or form.

Defense, on the other hand, is in fact spinning out of control, and has been for quite some time. But since defense is a conservative bastion, and provides lots of pork to Red states, it's "control is not questioned".

So, to review, it is your contention that ObamaCare, that does not increase the number of physicians, pays less for procedures, includes no tort reform, and has a board that will dictate what procedures and pharmaceutical are most 'efficient,' will result in
1. better quality care
2. without rationing care
3. without decreasing access
4. not diminish private insurance plans while adding dozens of mandates to policies
and
5. do these at lower costs.

Would that be your testimony? Remember, you are under oath.

1. The same or better, ON AVERAGE, yes.
2. Not more so than private health insurance does, if you're not rich
3. Not at all
4. Of course there will be some diminishing in the NUMBER of private plans, as the less efficient plans are phased out, and the more efficient ones take their place.
5. Yes, absolutely.

I. "In a decision that opens the door to more privatized health care, the Supreme Court has ruled 4–3 in favour of a Quebec patient and doctor who challenged the province's ban on private health insurance for medically necessary services.

The case involved Quebec doctor Jacques Chaoulli and his patient George Zeliotis. They argued that Zeliotis's year-long wait for a hip replacement in 1997 violated his right to life, liberty and security under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

At issue was whether the prohibition on private health insurance contained within Quebec's Health Insurance Act and Hospital Insurance Act were justifiable protections of the public health care system or whether they deprived individuals of a basic right. "

Supreme Court strikes ban on private health insurance -- Eggertson 173 (2): 139 -- Canadian Medical Association Journal
This from a 2005 Supreme Court decision which modifies the Canadian Healthcare Act ban on private insurance.
In six of the 10 provinces there are still restrictions.

II. "Advocates of a public plan assert that Medicare has administrative costs of 3 percent (or 6 to 8 percent if support from other government agencies is included), compared to 14 to 22 percent for private employer-sponsored health insurance (depending on which study is cited), or even more for individually purchased insurance. They attribute the difference to superior efficiency of government,[1] private insurance companies' expenditures on marketing,[2] efforts to deny claims,[3] unrestrained pursuit of profit,[4] and high executive salaries.[5]

However, on a per-person basis Medicare's administrative costs are actually higher than those of private insurance--this despite the fact that private insurance companies do incur several categories of costs that do not apply to Medicare.
When administrative costs are compared on a per-person basis, the picture changes. In 2005, Medicare's administrative costs were $509 per primary beneficiary, compared to private-sector administrative costs of $453. In the years from 2000 to 2005, Medicare's administrative costs per beneficiary were consistently higher than that for private insurance, ranging from 5 to 48 percent higher, depending on the year (see Table 1). "
Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance


III. "Medicare patients are by definition elderly, disabled, or patients with end-stage renal disease, and as such have higher average patient care costs, so expressing administrative costs as a percentage of total costs gives a misleading picture of relative efficiency. Administrative costs are incurred primarily on a fixed or per-beneficiary basis; this approach spreads Medicare's costs over a larger base of patient care cost."
Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance


IV. 2003 8.6%
2004 6.9%
2005 6.5%
2006 6.7%
2007 6.1%
Compare to 10.5% in 1970 and 13% in 1980

For purposes of comparison, education:
Tuition at private colleges and universities has increased anywhere from 5% to 13% every year since 1980. "
The Cost of a College Education

And for primary and secondary school:
"Based on statistics from the US Department of Education, the average cost of educating a student in elementary and secondary schools has risen from $6,200 in 1991 to $11,000 in 2005 an increase of 85%. "
US Education Market | Entourage Systems Inc.

"Education makes up less than 1% of the budget. Teachers are all underpaid. Education costs are not "spinning out of control" in any way, shape or form."
You are listing federal only. Judging by the results, you must be hallucinating to claim above. Clearly education costs are far outstripping healthcare- which actually works.


V. Your answers put you in the category of public school grad:
1. The same or better, ON AVERAGE, yes.
2. Not more so than private health insurance does, if you're not rich
3. Not at all
4. Of course there will be some diminishing in the NUMBER of private plans, as the less efficient plans are phased out, and the more efficient ones take their place.
5. Yes, absolutely.[/QUOTE]
Quality of care would be better with more patients but same number of doctors? The left's whipping boy is always the 'rich,' which I guess means your betters. Long waits means less access. Private plans are obiated in ObamaCare, contrary to what the President says, as you will be moved to a public option as soon as your plan increases premiums; this will be necessary due to multiple new mandates. Lower costs, as we have seen with Medicare.

Your answers are certainly not serious, nor truthful.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How much is due to the fact that, in a pinch, they can come south?

Less than 1% come south, though it is an issue that gets brushed aside up north.

Very few people consider it as an option.

Canadians can pay for their healthcare. However, there can be no competing insurance plan with Canadian Medicare.

While listening to Mark Steyn today, he stated that the problems with the socialized healthcare system in Canada is a major topic in every election.
Have you found this to be the case?

 

[Toro]

While listening to Mark Steyn today, he stated that the problems with the socialized healthcare system in Canada is a major topic in every election.
Have you found this to be the case?

Steyn - who is my favorite conservative columnist BTW - is correct. However, what is never discussed is scrapping the current system. The discussion is how to free up resources. The Canadian system is no different than every other system. They are grappling with how to deal with soaring costs.

At some point in time, something will have to give, and more private money will come into the system. But right now, Canadians generally do not want to change.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And, I think it's worth mentioning that:

Private health care insurance gets to foist much of their older, sicker consumers onto public health care, through Medicare...

And Public Health Care, per patient, is STILL cheaper than Private health care. in the United States.

actually, private insurance has nothing to do with that.

the government forces seniors to go on medicare. if they don't they lose their social security benefits