Hillary care makes a comeback.........

[Trell]

1st.  I don’t have any problem with research, but tell me why it cost more for the same medication here then in Canada? Why is it illegal for us to go there to buy it??
Don’t have any problem with doctor or nurses wages.

2nd I don’t believe It.    Would like to see real research on that.    What I see is the insurance company charging doctors lots of money for insurance Have you seen any insurance company in trouble?, Any file for bankruptcy or lay off thoughts of people?     What % if there costs go to pay out for claims??  I doubt much…

3rd
That’s the whole reason for national healthcare; everyone that has a job will pay into it.
Illegals?  DEPORT THEM.  

4th Don’t believe it, Have not seen a lot of billion dollar settlements
Have not found it anywhere but I would like to see what % of gross or profit that is paid out for settlements.

I don’t have any problem with you believing that you are worth every penny at that government job with its great retirement and benefits.   I understand that you would not want any more money taken out of your paycheck for the government paid healthcare you have now.
But I do believe that most state/federal employees after you factor in both their great retirements and heath benefits are making much more then the average position in business..  That should never be the case.

Around here EVERY one wanted to be in the union,  GREAT Pay great benefits,  every government employees argues that they should be at least be making close to them.

But guess what when the unions tanked,   jobs went down to paying nothing, the government employees’ complain about wages and benefits.  Because they are not getting there raise every year no matter out good or bad the country is doing.  There standard of living wages….

[myelo]

Drug prices are lower in Canada because the government negotiates drug prices, there is more limited patent protection and the government can set prices of drugs sold in Canada.

It's actually legal to buy noncontrolled drugs from Canada provided a bunch of conditions are met: the pharmacy is registered, valid prescription, 90 day personal use and so on.

The theoretical reason for these restriction is because the FDA cannot ensure the safety of drugs originating outside it's jurisdiction. The real reason is because that's the way the US pharmaceutical industry wants it.

In any event, because the FDA doesn't want to be known for arresting granny trying to get her heart pills, they usually don't prosecute this cases.

[Maverick]

Gunther,

Please quote any of my posts here where I said the terms "universal health care" or that I was in favor of same.

You might try reading what I actually said vs what you are thinking. All I did was to point out that depending on the professionalism, benevolence and generosity of a pure for profit health care system is not the best system. Unless there is some kid of oversight, the for profit folks will pay attention to their bottom line, not your health. That's where agencies that monitor the performance of the health care insurance providers comes in. It's part of the licensing process. You DO know that a provider of insurance has to be certified and licensed don't you?

Originally posted by Gunthr
i'm surprized that you think universal health care is the answer, Maverick.  just on principle, i think its nuts to welcome a monumentally huge bureaucracy and a ton of new laws and tens of thousands of new federal employees all with their fingers in the pot so deep we will never get the pot back... and then only to have the kind of care that you get at the DMV from people who have jobs for life, and who know that you don't have any other choice but to eat whatever they serve you, like it or not, from a government organization that has no competition or incentive to perform.  that is a recipe for disaster.  you won't have more oversite, Mav, you will have far far less.  

just my.02... i know diff people have different situations.  but i think its bad for the country.

[Gunthr]

sorry Maverick, now i'm not sure what you are talking about.  i thought we were talking about the socialized medicine/universal health care concept where government runs or manages health care for everybody.

i can understand why some individuals might want that.  thats fine.  but i don't want to be dragged into it.

There is absolutely no way that government can deliver medical services better than the free market can, nor would it be as accountable to people as private companies.  private companies go bankrupt if they dont do their job.  the government can go on giving low quality services forever. because its nearly impossible to fire incompetent government employees, they just keep raising taxes.

think of the public (government) schools.  

i'd like to see some changes to the current situation, but not socialized medicine...

[Maverick]

IIRC the "system" that hillary is touting is a mandatory purchase of private insurance to cover everyone. The cost is to be subsidized. I don't think her "system" is workable or realistic.

I am not in favor of her system or Britains version either. I already made my point and reinforced it in my last post. I don't trust the for profit to adequately provide services without some kind of oversight. I really can't be plainer than that. I just do not know how.

[bj229r]

Canada's health care rules! If my wife and I had lived in rural western Canada she'd have died awaiting diagnoses and treat a couple years ago (Hodgkin's Lymphoma) As it was, we decided that Roanoke doctors were too slow in figuring out what was the cause of her coughing up blood and chest pain....chose U of VA (our PRIVATE insurance lets us chose anywhere in state, else 20% deductible if we chose, say Mayo clinic, etc) --they set up several tests, scans, biopsies, 1 small surgery, and finally a course of chemo in the space of 3 weeks from the first phone call. As opposed to Canada...

The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver, B.C.-based think tank, has done yeoman work keeping track of Canada's socialized health-care system. It has just come out with its 13th annual waiting-list survey. It shows the average time a patient waited between referral from a general practitioner to treatment rose from 16.5 weeks in 2001-02 to 17.7 weeks in 2003. Saskatchewan had the longest average waiting time of nearly 30 weeks, while Ontario had the shortest, 14 weeks.

Waiting lists also exist for diagnostic procedures such as computer tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound. Depending on province and diagnostic procedure, the wait can range from two to 24 weeks.

As reported in a December 2003 article by Kerri Houston for the Frontiers of Freedom Institute titled "Access denied: Canada's health-care system turns patients into victims", in some cases, patients die on the waiting list because they become too sick to tolerate a procedure. Miss Houston says hip-replacement patients often end up non-ambulatory while waiting an average of 20 weeks, and that's after waiting 13 weeks just to see the specialist. The wait to get diagnostic scans followed by the wait for the radiologist to read them just might explain why Cleveland, Ohio, became Canada's hip-replacement center.

Adding to Canada's medical problems is the exodus of doctors. According to a March 2003 story in Canada News, about 10,000 doctors left Canada in the 1990s. Compounding that exodus is the drop in medical school graduates. According to Miss Houston, Ontario has turned to nurses to replace its bolting doctors. It is "creating" 369 new nurse practitioner positions to take up the doctor shortage.

Some patients avoided long waits for medical services by paying for private treatment. In 2003, British Columbia enacted Bill 82, an "Amendment to Strengthen Legislation and Protect Patients." On its face, Bill 82 is to "protect patients from inadvertent billing errors." That's on its face. But according to a January 2004 article by Nadeem Esmail for the Fraser Institute's Forum and titled "Oh to be a prisoner," Bill 82 would disallow anyone from paying the clinical fees for private surgery, where previously only patients were forbidden to do so. The bill also empowers the government to levy fines of up to $20,000 on physicians who accept these fees or allow such a practice. That means it is now against Canadian law to opt out of the health-care system and pay for your own surgery.

Health care can have a zero price to the user, but that doesn't mean it's free or has a zero cost. The problem with a good or service having a zero price is that demand will exceed supply.

link
Another study:
link

The total waiting time for patients between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, increased to 17.8 weeks this year from 17.7 weeks observed in 2005. The slight increase in the average is the result of an increase in wait times in seven provinces: B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. This masked the decreased wait times experienced in Alberta, Ontario and Newfoundland.

“These waiting times are the second-longest Canadians have ever experienced, despite record levels of health spending and numerous commitments made by provincial and federal governments,” said Nadeem Esmail, Director of Health System Performance at The Fraser Institute and co-author of the survey.

“Canadians should not expect to see any dramatic improvement in waiting times as a result of the latest federal-provincial agreements regarding waiting lists. The long waiting times for medically necessary services are a symptom of a much greater problem: a poorly designed health care system.”

[FBBone]

Trell,  if the govt wants to put a program together that people could opt out of, I'd be all for it.  But forcing me to pay for a program that I don't need or want is over the line.  If the feds want to put together a group plan that lower income earners can join and benefit from, fine.  Just leave me out and keep your grubby hands outta my piggy bank.  If they can negotiate lower drug costs for the less skilled workers or unemployed, ok by me, they should be able to finance it all on what those people are contributing, after all they should have all the leverage they need.  

I guess what we all know will happen is what bothers me the most.  The people that have jobs will be paying in while the same lazy bastards that are already sucking welfare dry use the benefits without ever contributing a dime.

[Rolex]

- I can go to any doctor, dentist or hospital I choose and can get seen same day, easily. The longest I have ever had to wait was going to see a specialist. I could not get in until the afternoon. They called my cell phone about 30 minutes before they could see me to give me time to get there.

- I am in the highest income group for coverage. My monthly premium is about $230/month. Average income people pay a premium of about $120/month. Low income premium is about $60/month.

- There are no preexisting conditions for coverage. No one is denied medical care. If someone is legitimately unable to pay the premium (e..g. temporarily out of work) a smaller monthly amount is accepted.

- 30% deductible; however, total amount is capped every month for each level of premium. Average income people can never pay more than about $270/month out of pocket for any treatment, surgery or test, including hospitalization costs.

- The average out of pocket cost for an office visit is less than $8.

- Doctors and dentists have a private practice (with surgery privileges, if part of their practice, at hospitals) or work for a university or local hospital. Hospitals are non-profit. Daily costs even for food are non-profit, about $4 per day. Doctors are salaried employees and well-paid. They are not motivated by money to perform procedures.

- A few year ago, I was transported by ambulance for emergency room treatment, followed up by an MRI and CAT scan. My out of pocket expense was about $50.

- The facility does all the paperwork. If you spend more than the monthly limit of deductible for an unusual event, you submit the bill and the refund is automatically transfered to your bank account. If you have long-term care that will exceed the limit regularly, it is automatically accounted for and no overpayment/refund is necessary.

- Childbirth is not covered by health insurance, unless there is some complication. Childbirth is not a disease. The total cost is about $1,500 for hospital expenses, but there are programs that pay for about 50% because of the low birth rate now.

The above is the national health insurance. Other plans exist for companies and employee contribution is variable - from some contribution to none. Included are free yearly exams that are quite extensive to catch any potential or existing problems early. Every locality has free yearly health screening exams for people over 50 years old under the national health care system.

It's called a national system, but it is administered locally so you can talk to someone face to face about any questions, including premiums and refunds.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Rolex
- I am in the highest income group for coverage. My monthly premium is about $230/month. Average income people pay a premium of about $120/month. Low income premium is about $60/month.

are you saying you pay more for the same bennies as a lower paid employee because you make more?
Seems odd - everyone here pays the same for the same coverage.

I paid less then $150 a month and had full dental, vision, medical ($10 copay) and scripts ($20) copay for a family of four. With both the boys now out of the house, it is less than $60 a month for the wife and I. Insurance is figured into my total compensation package and is clearly stated in an annual report every employee receives. Many can make more without the benefits at other places but to me with a family, I valued the benefit package into my pay - not to mention a 66% match on the 1st 10% into a Fidelity 401k plan & 5 weeks paid vacation.

[Tachus]

Originally posted by DYNAMITE
I've never claimed socialism provided utopia... but the closest we've come to it is here in the U.S. and like I said... the U.S. is a socialist state my friend.  Get used to the idea.

Oh and if you're the one providing the "education" that you claim I need...well, I'll gladly flunk out.  Because clearly you don't have a clue.

Tip-  the public library is there for you to use (oh no! Another Godless socialistic ideal that has caught on???  How dare they spend tax dollars in the public interest?)  Go there... check out a book.  Reading is fundamental

The term in economics refers to governmental control of industries, or price regulations in the market place. (Also can refer to the re-distribution of wealth.) So, we do have some socialist aspects at work in our country, however, that hardly makes us a socialist state. We still have a free market capitalist society by in large.

Best regards,
--Tachus

[Rolex]

Eagler: Yes, I pay more. It's still less than 2% of my monthly earnings. For an average earner, their premium is about 3.5% of monthly earnings. It's not necessarily odd, it's just different. That is for the national health insurance.

Corporate plans are different and employees pay anywhere from half to nothing of the premium, just like you.

[lazs2]

so rolex... how many illegals use your system there?   how much money is spent per year on settlements for malpractice lawsuits per capita?

What medical breakthroughs have come from your system compared to the US?

trell... I don't think that you will have to worry about how much drugs cost after socialized medicine comes in.... all will cost the same maybe cheaper here with less taxes... once all regulation and testing and research stops drugs will get cheap.

lazs

[CptTrips]

Originally posted by Shuffler
Obama's came out last year.... so did another running for the office. She late and has no idea how to pay for it..... guard your wallet.

Oh she knows EXACTLY how she's going to pay for it.  And yes, guard your wallet.

She knows it might cost 10-15 times that once implemented.  But by then its a done deal.  Its an entitlement.  And we know that once in place, entitlements are never reduced or eliminated, only expanded.



Wab

[gunnss]

Trell,
I am an Army vet and also a current employee of the DOT. On the first count, have you ever experienced the military medical system? Inadequate just barely begins to cover it, there aren't enough facilities for the Active duty soldiers let alone the dependents. Going to sick call usually blew away 4 or more hours before any one noticed you existed, I had a back injury one morning (embankment we were running PT on collapsed) and had to wait 3 hours for my turn... I had the most serious injury in the group injured.. the medical facility works hard, but the amount of care provided is simply not adequate to the task. I don't think a general medical program provided by the govemnt would be any different.
 As for Government employees getting high wages and prime retirement packages... FERRS, the current plan, is a supplement to Social Security, and while I am eligible to retire in 4 years, If I do I won't make enough from the retirement plan to pay my house payment.... as to wages... my yearly pay is less than .00024 cents per passenger that travels through our airspace in a year. No one in our facility is in a position to live large.
 Safety is the business of Government, infrastructure police, fire protection, and national defence, stuff that we need to maintain our society that doesnt make money. Health care for 350+ million people seems a bit out of the government's league.....
Regards,
Kevin

[lazs2]

Lets see... the reason our drugs cost so much is because of a federal socialist agency called the FDA...

The solution, as proposed by the socialists, is to make all medical care a federal program.

lazs