We Need Government Healthcare Like Canada!

[Cecilie1200]

Huh

View attachment 307631

What country do you live?

USA!

Then why did you write: "I worked with a guy who had to move to America because his pain level was a 7 and couldn’t be seen for months."

Freudian slip?

Because - as is obvious to anyone who can read English (ie. not you) - he worked with the guy after the guy moved to America. Duuuuhhhh.

So he came to America and got a job so he could get healthcare?

Jitss617 is a paid poster from Canada. He works for Putin to interfere in our election process.

Are you jealous because you have to spew nonsense for free?

 

[Cecilie1200]

WOW!! Another Canadian?

But wait, there's more! If you have an HMO, you also have co-pays for being admitted to the emergency room and hospital. These typically run from $600.00 to $3000.00. Is it any wonder that consumer healthcare costs are the number one reason for bankruptcy?

Wow, you're just spewing random shit relating to not a damned thing.

At least you clarified for us all that you are, in fact, out of your mind.

If you followed his posts you would know that he's out of his mind.

Because I've outed you and yours?

No, because you babble utter nonsense and then brag about how "brilliant" it was.

I've outed you and yours. Suck it up, you'll just come back under a different name.

"I've declared that I'm right and you're wrong, so just accept that I win!"

You've spewed meaningless insults and then declared a victory you could never earn. Suck it up and come back under a different debate tactic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sign in a Canadian Emergency Waiting Room: Be grateful you have to wait. It means you're in no danger of dying. Thank you for your patience.

And wait...and wait...and wait.

I have to say, anytime I've gone to the emergency room, I've never waited. Either good timing or I waited too long in the first place.

As I said, every system has it's flaws. They are different from one another, but I've yet to read about a healthcare system that is perfect.

What I get perturbed by is when people come here and tell us how our system sucks so badly, and everyplace else around the world has such great government healthcare. The left tells us it's all the insurance companies fault, and not the government which is the real problem.

If we want to bring down the cost of our healthcare, get government out of it, not bring more government in.

The insurance companies are the reason you costs are so high, not the government. We pay administration of 7%, and some of the European companies pay even less - 5% of thereabouts. The US is around 35%. A big chunk of that is insurance company profit, "loss prevention", and administration, in other words, denying claims.

"No, no, I know more about your system than you do, because I was told to believe I do!"

Your system. You're not an American?

SHE'S not an American, shitforbrains. Honestly, how do you even manage to walk and breathe at the same time without getting confused?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Profits are what's left after taking X in amount of money, and paying X out. Health insurance companies (as I posted) have the lowest profit margin of other insurance companies. Yes, those profits are after administration costs along with all the other costs.

DumBama forced insurance companies to pay 85% of collected premiums on claims which decreased their ability to make profit. Insurance companies operate by taking your premium money, investing it, and the profits they gain from those investments help offset the claims they payout. So premiums had to increase because of that loss inflicted on them by the Democrats, who think they know how to run businesses better than the businesses do.

Left to their own without government intrusion, insurance companies are vastly more efficient than the government. That's why government hires the insurance companies to handle their billing for Medicare and Medicaid. If you eliminate insurance companies, then the government would have all those additional administrative costs, and we save very little.

You left out a whole range of expensive things that private insurance does which single payer does not, all of which reduce costs.

Underwriting: insurance companies have an entire department of actuaries reviewing your application, medical reports, and deciding on your premiums are. Single payer has a minimum wage data entry clerk inputing you name address and SS number.

Private insurance has a pre-approval process where doctors and nurses contact the insurance company to determine whether the company will pay for their proposed treatment. Medical staff at the insurance company decide if they will pay for it. Single payer doesn’t do pre-approvals, therefore eliminating the salaries and expenses hospitals, doctors’ offices and insurers. This frees medical staff to provide treatment to more patients, lowering costs to all.

No third party billing. With only one bill to send out to the government office, and no copses to collect, your receptionist can do the paperwork.

Lop off the administration and insurance company profit of 20% (I checked Ray - it’s 20% not 15%), add in the savings to doctors and hospitals for pre-approvals and billing -another 10% and you can easily save 30% on Administration

Third party billing charges between 7.9 to 10.9% of their billing’s with a monthly minimum of $999. That’s BEFORE we talk about pre-approval costs.

Single payer, enters the doctor name, posts his patient billings by OHIP number to confirm their card number is active and eligible, and issues a cheque. One bill to one insurer. No muss, no fuss, no medical reviews.

Spent a full year visiting Calgary (at least once a month). TV commercials replete with complaints about their doctor shortage.

Wonder why ?

Because no one wants to live in Calgary?

Rural America is pretty short on doctors too.

I live in rural America and whenever my wife and I need a medical appointment it’s either that day or the next. And that includes specialists and special procedures like MRI’s.

What you suffer from is Ruralphobia, brought on by spending your live surrounded by concrete.

I grew up on a farm 20 miles from the nearest town with under 1000 people. I know exactly what I’m talking about.

Did someone force your family at gunpoint to live there?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Profits are what's left after taking X in amount of money, and paying X out. Health insurance companies (as I posted) have the lowest profit margin of other insurance companies. Yes, those profits are after administration costs along with all the other costs.

DumBama forced insurance companies to pay 85% of collected premiums on claims which decreased their ability to make profit. Insurance companies operate by taking your premium money, investing it, and the profits they gain from those investments help offset the claims they payout. So premiums had to increase because of that loss inflicted on them by the Democrats, who think they know how to run businesses better than the businesses do.

Left to their own without government intrusion, insurance companies are vastly more efficient than the government. That's why government hires the insurance companies to handle their billing for Medicare and Medicaid. If you eliminate insurance companies, then the government would have all those additional administrative costs, and we save very little.

You left out a whole range of expensive things that private insurance does which single payer does not, all of which reduce costs.

Underwriting: insurance companies have an entire department of actuaries reviewing your application, medical reports, and deciding on your premiums are. Single payer has a minimum wage data entry clerk inputing you name address and SS number.

Private insurance has a pre-approval process where doctors and nurses contact the insurance company to determine whether the company will pay for their proposed treatment. Medical staff at the insurance company decide if they will pay for it. Single payer doesn’t do pre-approvals, therefore eliminating the salaries and expenses hospitals, doctors’ offices and insurers. This frees medical staff to provide treatment to more patients, lowering costs to all.

No third party billing. With only one bill to send out to the government office, and no copses to collect, your receptionist can do the paperwork.

Lop off the administration and insurance company profit of 20% (I checked Ray - it’s 20% not 15%), add in the savings to doctors and hospitals for pre-approvals and billing -another 10% and you can easily save 30% on Administration

Third party billing charges between 7.9 to 10.9% of their billing’s with a monthly minimum of $999. That’s BEFORE we talk about pre-approval costs.

Single payer, enters the doctor name, posts his patient billings by OHIP number to confirm their card number is active and eligible, and issues a cheque. One bill to one insurer. No muss, no fuss, no medical reviews.

Spent a full year visiting Calgary (at least once a month). TV commercials replete with complaints about their doctor shortage.

Wonder why ?

Because no one wants to live in Calgary?

Rural America is pretty short on doctors too.

Canada won't pay competitive wages (compared to the U.S.).

True, their wages are much lower. But in this country, it doesn’t matter how much you want to pay, it’s hard to recruit physicians to Duluth.

Then don't live in Duluth. And don't assume that people who DO live in Duluth are too stupid to make life choices without your "benevolent" elitist assistance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you want to see the left's heads explode, offer them universal healthcare with the stipulation that it is citizen run. No government or politician can touch it or the money. Their heads go BOOM!

I've been promoting universal healthcare run by a private, non-profit, for years. Conservatives call it "socialism."

We all know that if politicians and government controls it, it will be a corrupt mess. Also, able body mooching lazy deadbeats need not apply. I'm not going to work overtime to pay the healthcare bills for some fat ass lazy bum. I'm happy to contribute to the truly needy who can't work a job and need our help. I'm NOT going to fund FREE shit for everyone. Another stipulation, STOP demonizing doctors and nurses. Forcing them to work for less to fund this is not the answer. Our best and brightest will run from the healthcare profession in droves. You will get your healthcare from a bunch of stupid shit losers who scored a D- in school and accidently kill patients on a regular basis.

The HMO Act was deregulated and now it's a corrupt mess.

Right, because healthcare should be rationed and patient care decisions should be based on controlling costs not what's best for the patient. In other words Liberal Care.

You've just been told that is not the case; quit broadcasting untrue propaganda. Do you work for the AMA or what?

So you're categorically denying it? And have you any proof that things work differently?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wow, you're just spewing random shit relating to not a damned thing.

At least you clarified for us all that you are, in fact, out of your mind.

If you followed his posts you would know that he's out of his mind.

Because I've outed you and yours?

No, because you babble utter nonsense and then brag about how "brilliant" it was.

I've outed you and yours. Suck it up, you'll just come back under a different name.

You exposed your mental instability.

To be fair, I don't think he ever actually managed to hide it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you want to see the left's heads explode, offer them universal healthcare with the stipulation that it is citizen run. No government or politician can touch it or the money. Their heads go BOOM!

I've been promoting universal healthcare run by a private, non-profit, for years. Conservatives call it "socialism."

We all know that if politicians and government controls it, it will be a corrupt mess. Also, able body mooching lazy deadbeats need not apply. I'm not going to work overtime to pay the healthcare bills for some fat ass lazy bum. I'm happy to contribute to the truly needy who can't work a job and need our help. I'm NOT going to fund FREE shit for everyone. Another stipulation, STOP demonizing doctors and nurses. Forcing them to work for less to fund this is not the answer. Our best and brightest will run from the healthcare profession in droves. You will get your healthcare from a bunch of stupid shit losers who scored a D- in school and accidently kill patients on a regular basis.

The HMO Act was deregulated and now it's a corrupt mess.

Right, because healthcare should be rationed and patient care decisions should be based on controlling costs not what's best for the patient. In other words Liberal Care.

This is the biggest fallacy about government funded health care. That the government controls what care you get, or rations care. The reality is that care is already being controlled and rationed by the insurance company, and yes, it's to control claims.

I have never been denied care by the government, but every one of my Americans friends has had their treatment or their claimed denied by their insurance company, or had to pay out of pocket for going to an "out of network" physician or hospital. My American friends complain endlessly about dealing with copays saying they felt poorly or they fell and thought they needed to go to emergency, but knowing the co-pays would be in the neighbourhood of $1000, elected to tough it out.

Every survey ever done says that co-pays keep sick people from getting treatment. Co-pays keep poor people from filling prescriptions they need for drugs. Co-pays simply prevent people from getting early treatment before the illness progresses to the point where treatment is no longer optional, but absolutely necessary, thus increasing treatment costs.

We get it. You think your system is absolutely perfect and without flaw.

So ******* live under it and stop trying to force the rest of the world to emulate you. Again, why are you so ******* insecure that you can't tolerate the existence of people doing something different?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The insurance companies are the reason you costs are so high, not the government. We pay administration of 7%, and some of the European companies pay even less - 5% of thereabouts. The US is around 35%. A big chunk of that is insurance company profit, "loss prevention", and administration, in other words, denying claims.

I've had private insurance for forty years and I've never had a claim denied for me, my wife, and my four children.

Helps a lot to actually learn the coverage offered instead of assuming, doesn't it?

It’s even better when there are no limitations or exclusions, everything is covered and nobody is ever denied.

Purge garbage.

There is as least one well publisized case where England would not approve an experimental drug and let a woman die (saying, in fact, she should shut up and and take it like a good Brit).

You ever take the time to read your insurance policy? Good luck with those experimental drugs.

The difference would be that the US government doesn't tell me that I can't pay for the experimental treatments out of my own pocket if I want to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not my fault you live in a crappy area and have no clue what’s going on in the real world.

I have no idea where you live but you definitely don't know what's happening in the real world. Every post you write proves that.

Well, let me clue you in to the real world, honey. Two weeks ago, I didn't have health insurance for myself. I got sick, quite painfully, on the way home from work. Despite being a self-pay, I got seen by a doctor the next day, got a prescription, and had my pills by that evening. All at a completely reasonable price.

 

[OldLady]

I much prefer the way many Americans wait for healthcare because they can't afford it.

So you just rather pay high taxes, have a VA version of healthcare and still die waiting...

Good to know...

Did you know Democrats could have avoided all this had they passed the Nixon/Kennedy plan?

Sure I'll pay higher taxes, untie my healthcare from my employer, allow me to pick my healthcare providers rather than the limited options of my health insurance, not pay premiums, not worry about preexisting conditions, no need for separate dental and vision care, drugs included at no additional cost.

It's not a VA version of healthcare btw.

There are issues for example what to do with the approximately 2 million people who would lose their jobs and the overall cost. It might be a little higher but if that gets everyone healthcare then the cost is probably worth it.

This by no means is a complete argument for or against medicare4all but should at least spark conversation.

Don't you think the government will need to hire workers to administer the new government plan? Do you think some of those two million insurance employees could find work there?

 

[Cecilie1200]

As I said, every system has it's flaws. They are different from one another, but I've yet to read about a healthcare system that is perfect.

What I get perturbed by is when people come here and tell us how our system sucks so badly, and everyplace else around the world has such great government healthcare. The left tells us it's all the insurance companies fault, and not the government which is the real problem.

If we want to bring down the cost of our healthcare, get government out of it, not bring more government in.

The insurance companies are the reason you costs are so high, not the government. We pay administration of 7%, and some of the European companies pay even less - 5% of thereabouts. The US is around 35%. A big chunk of that is insurance company profit, "loss prevention", and administration, in other words, denying claims.

So who do you think makes all those regulations for insurance companies?

I spent ten years in the business. One company I worked for had to have meetings every other Monday. Most of what was discussed were government changes in regards to Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance billing. More red tape or change of red tape. It drove those poor girls insane.

The left won't dare tell us where the expense is. For one, it would mean less government to make things better. Two, it would tell people that government was the problem all along, and certainly make people think twice about supporting government healthcare.

The insurance industry's net margin in 2017 ranged between 3 and 10.5%. Life insurance had the widest range between quarters, from 3% to 9.6%; property and casualty insurance were at 3% to 8%; and health insurance had the narrowest range of 4% to 5.25%. The net margin for insurance brokerages in 2017 was higher than that of the insurance industry overall, at 9.27% to 10.5%.

What are insurance sector companies usual profit margins?

Here's that Medicare-for-all study Bernie Sanders keeps bringing up

Pretty cool! Which offends you more - the cost savings or the saving of lives?

Its saving $450 billion per year and prevents at least 68,000 deaths per year, at the same time.

Did you read the link?

Who said they were planning to move? Flouncing off in a huff is a leftist move. Right-wingers stay and fight for their country, punkin.

 

[debbiedowner]

So who do you think makes all those regulations for insurance companies?

I spent ten years in the business. One company I worked for had to have meetings every other Monday. Most of what was discussed were government changes in regards to Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance billing. More red tape or change of red tape. It drove those poor girls insane.

The left won't dare tell us where the expense is. For one, it would mean less government to make things better. Two, it would tell people that government was the problem all along, and certainly make people think twice about supporting government healthcare.

The insurance industry's net margin in 2017 ranged between 3 and 10.5%. Life insurance had the widest range between quarters, from 3% to 9.6%; property and casualty insurance were at 3% to 8%; and health insurance had the narrowest range of 4% to 5.25%. The net margin for insurance brokerages in 2017 was higher than that of the insurance industry overall, at 9.27% to 10.5%.

What are insurance sector companies usual profit margins?

Here's that Medicare-for-all study Bernie Sanders keeps bringing up

Pretty cool! Which offends you more - the cost savings or the saving of lives?

Its saving $450 billion per year and prevents at least 68,000 deaths per year, at the same time.

Did you read the link?

Indeed I did. I wondered which is the more offensive - the savings of lives or of money. I'm certain rightwingers thoroughly disapprove of one or the other, or both.

Maybe Ray from Cleveland will enlighten us!

Gladly. The last healthcare salvation promised us a family would save $2,500 a year on healthcare insurance. It promised us no more garbage plans. All plans will provide quality care. The first word in the acronym stands for Affordable. If you like your doctor, you will keep your doctor.

All lies, every one of them. The plans are unaffordable, even the garbage plans. Insurance went up, not down. Some hospitals closed because of it, and others had to layoff a lot of people. Not everybody is insured.

Oh!!!! But this new government plan will save us all kinds of money!! Where did I hear that before???

Let me explain how some of this works: Government plans typically pay about 2/3 of the cost for services to providers. So providers increase their prices which the private insurance pays. This is why when you see hospitals or clinics close up, it's usually in poorer areas where almost everybody is on a government plan.

So what this estimated savings is not considering is what would facilities and doctors do when there is no private insurance to recoup government losses? The only way to keep these places open and people working is to force government to actually pay the full bill for everybody, and there goes all that savings. In the end, it would actually cost us more than it does now.

So who do you think makes all those regulations for insurance companies?

I spent ten years in the business. One company I worked for had to have meetings every other Monday. Most of what was discussed were government changes in regards to Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance billing. More red tape or change of red tape. It drove those poor girls insane.

The left won't dare tell us where the expense is. For one, it would mean less government to make things better. Two, it would tell people that government was the problem all along, and certainly make people think twice about supporting government healthcare.

The insurance industry's net margin in 2017 ranged between 3 and 10.5%. Life insurance had the widest range between quarters, from 3% to 9.6%; property and casualty insurance were at 3% to 8%; and health insurance had the narrowest range of 4% to 5.25%. The net margin for insurance brokerages in 2017 was higher than that of the insurance industry overall, at 9.27% to 10.5%.

What are insurance sector companies usual profit margins?

Here's that Medicare-for-all study Bernie Sanders keeps bringing up

Pretty cool! Which offends you more - the cost savings or the saving of lives?

Its saving $450 billion per year and prevents at least 68,000 deaths per year, at the same time.

Did you read the link?

Indeed I did. I wondered which is the more offensive - the savings of lives or of money. I'm certain rightwingers thoroughly disapprove of one or the other, or both.

Maybe Ray from Cleveland will enlighten us!

Gladly. The last healthcare salvation promised us a family would save $2,500 a year on healthcare insurance. It promised us no more garbage plans. All plans will provide quality care. The first word in the acronym stands for Affordable. If you like your doctor, you will keep your doctor.

All lies, every one of them. The plans are unaffordable, even the garbage plans. Insurance went up, not down. Some hospitals closed because of it, and others had to layoff a lot of people. Not everybody is insured.

Oh!!!! But this new government plan will save us all kinds of money!! Where did I hear that before???

Let me explain how some of this works: Government plans typically pay about 2/3 of the cost for services to providers. So providers increase their prices which the private insurance pays. This is why when you see hospitals or clinics close up, it's usually in poorer areas where almost everybody is on a government plan.

So what this estimated savings is not considering is what would facilities and doctors do when there is no private insurance to recoup government losses? The only way to keep these places open and people working is to force government to actually pay the full bill for everybody, and there goes all that savings. In the end, it would actually cost us more than it does now.

I believe you failed to mention that the majority of those hospitals and clinics that closed were located in states who refused Medicaid expansion which normally how they survived before obamacare.

 

[froggy]

So you can wait 3 weeks after your general practitioner refers you to a specialist and 39 weeks for orthopedic surgery.

And Bloomberg says if you’re old, you can just die.

While Americans pine for 'Medicare for all,' Canadians look for US-style private insurance[/QUOTE

Everyone needs to take care of their self quit depending on someone else to take care of you

 

[debbiedowner]

I've said this before I think both sides will be disappointed if by chance Bernie is elected. The left won't get a full Medicare for all if any and the right will be disappointed because it didn't happen and destroy the country like they predicted.

 

[HappyJoy]

I much prefer the way many Americans wait for healthcare because they can't afford it.

So you just rather pay high taxes, have a VA version of healthcare and still die waiting...

Good to know...

Did you know Democrats could have avoided all this had they passed the Nixon/Kennedy plan?

Sure I'll pay higher taxes, untie my healthcare from my employer, allow me to pick my healthcare providers rather than the limited options of my health insurance, not pay premiums, not worry about preexisting conditions, no need for separate dental and vision care, drugs included at no additional cost.

It's not a VA version of healthcare btw.

There are issues for example what to do with the approximately 2 million people who would lose their jobs and the overall cost. It might be a little higher but if that gets everyone healthcare then the cost is probably worth it.

This by no means is a complete argument for or against medicare4all but should at least spark conversation.

Don't you think the government will need to hire workers to administer the new government plan? Do you think some of those two million insurance employees could find work there?

Probably.

 

[dblack]

I've said this before I think both sides will be disappointed if by chance Bernie is elected. The left won't get a full Medicare for all if any and the right will be disappointed because it didn't happen and destroy the country like they predicted.

"Socialism" in the USA settles out to corporatism.

 

[HappyJoy]

I've said this before I think both sides will be disappointed if by chance Bernie is elected. The left won't get a full Medicare for all if any and the right will be disappointed because it didn't happen and destroy the country like they predicted.

Agree, I don't care who is in the Whitehouse Medicare for all isn't going to happen anytime soon.

 

[dblack]

I've said this before I think both sides will be disappointed if by chance Bernie is elected. The left won't get a full Medicare for all if any and the right will be disappointed because it didn't happen and destroy the country like they predicted.

So, I guess you're just throwing 'barbs' here - but do you really "the right" thinks like that? Can you understand that some people, people who aren't evil and insane, think it's a bad idea to put government in charge of health care?

 

[karpenter]

So you can wait 3 weeks after your general practitioner refers you to a specialist and 39 weeks for orthopedic surgery.

And Bloomberg says if you’re old, you can just die.

While Americans pine for 'Medicare for all,' Canadians look for US-style private insurance

Never-Mind All That
The Gov't Provides It.
That's All That Matters