"OK"..you retire. But what about Health Care if your under 65???

[Dave McReynolds]

We are getting a worse product, for a higher price.

 

I agree, and I think it is instructive to examine why that is happening. Generally, a free market system will produce the best goods at the lowest price if it is allowed to operate freely. I'm sure that would also be the case with our healthcare system. However, we have decided as a society not to let our healthcare system operate freely, and I don't see that changing, regardless of how we restructure the system.

 

Look at two examples of constraints on the system: uncompensated care and malpractice judgements. Neither of these are going away, and neither is handled very efficiently under a free market system. Uncompensated care is handled by people wandering into the emergency room and demanding care. Malpractice awards are handled through the lottery of the court system.

 

Under a government run health system, there would be a variety of entry points into the system other than the emergency room, depending on the level of care needed. Hopefully, most people would enter the system before their need became urgent.

 

Under a government run health system, removal of incompetent doctors would probably be handled through a peer review process rather than the court system. Compensation of injured parties would be assessed and paid based on need rather than the persuasiveness of an attorney in convincing a jury.

 

Both of these changes would bring a new set of problems, no doubt. But I think Moshe is correct in saying that experience in other countries has already demonstrated that, given that we are unlikely to remove these constraints on our private medical system, a managed care system can deal with them more efficiently than a private system.

[Whip]

Larry,

 

Listen, I'm NOT belittling you. I am saying you are defending the free market system here, and usually the primary defense of such a system in classical economics is "best product for lowest price." But here we are not getting the best product, or the lowest price. We are getting a worse product, for a higher price.

 

This isn't about you - it's about being ideological at a point where the ideology contradicts ITSELF, namely advocating a free market solution where it's proven to not live up to its promise of best product at lowest price. How do you reconcile that in your mind?

 

-MKL

 

 

We are talking about different things. I am talking about the good of humanity and the motive of profit that is provided by the US capitalistic market. Without it innovation will be slowed. That is simple econ 101.

 

 

If you want to talk about OUR market as it related to OUR citizens I can tell you IMHO it is not a free market and that is the problem.

 

You cannot get MY health insurance(The one that cost less than my cell phone/cable bill) plan in NJ....can you? That is not a free market.

 

In order for me to get health insurance I have to be covered for things I do not need as mandated by the state. That is not a free market.

 

 

There are over 1200 different health insurance carrier in the US, less than ten are licensed to sell in CA. That is not a free market.

 

 

IMHO...A true free market would solve most of our problems regarding availability of health insurance.

 

IMHO...do away with the bidness deduction for health insurance and let individuals buy there own. Let me choose a plan that fits my needs. Competition would drive the costs down immediately.

 

 

We have the best care in the world....money can buy. Last time I checked we have the highest survival rates in the world for cancer and heart disease. IMHO....that is the best way to judge our care.

 

We suck because our markets are manipulated by crony political BS from all sides not because Big Bro isn't deciding things for us or collecting the money through taxes and deciding who gets how much care.

 

 

 

 

 

[Bob Palin]

IMHO...A true free market would solve most of our problems regarding availability of health insurance.

While making it impossible for those people who are sick to get insurance, that's why you are mandated to pay for insurance that covers things you are not going to get. We have a high profile member of this board with a family member that has diabetes, he's posted how much their premium is, most sick people would be priced out of the market. What if a person came down with MS and couldn't work - how would they pay for insurance, they would be dropped in an instant as soon as they missed a payment. Heart attack, motorcycle accident (you could easily have one and not be able to work)

 

The free market is not a suitable health care solution for any society that cares about its members.

[moshe_levy]

IMHO...A true free market would solve most of our problems regarding availability of health insurance.

While making it impossible for those people who are sick to get insurance, that's why you are mandated to pay for insurance that covers things you are not going to get. We have a high profile member of this board with a family member that has diabetes, he's posted how much their premium is, most sick people would be priced out of the market. What if a person came down with MS and couldn't work - how would they pay for insurance, they would be dropped in an instant as soon as they missed a payment. Heart attack, motorcycle accident (you could easily have one and not be able to work)

 

The free market is not a suitable health care solution for any society that cares about its members.

 

Therein lies the rub. As I see it Larry is arguing from a purely philosophical perspective. SOME of the noted failures of our system as Killer described above are not due to over-regulation, but to profit-motive trumping the need for care. This is impossible to argue with. But to Larry's credit, some of the examples he gave ARE due to the bumbling regulations we do have in place.

 

Ultimately if health care centers around "health" and "care" I see Killer's examples as FAR more pressing than Larry's. My choices or lack thereof of coverage vs. yours in Texas are nothing compared to a family that has to go destitute because a working member gets sick and kicked off the rolls, and has to literally go broke before going on the dole. That's not right.

 

-MKL

[Whip]

If you wanna make a subsidies Big Bro high risk pool, I could be talked into it.

 

But...if the person had insurance from the beginning they should not be dropped.

 

L

 

 

BTW....it is hard to get insurance after the car or house catches fire.... Or if there is a hurricane in the gulf.

[Whip]

The free market is not a suitable health care solution for any society that cares about its members.

 

 

If you can afford a cell phone and cable TV I should not pay for your health insurance.

 

L

[Whip]

Back to the OP.

 

If you can retire before 65, we should not subsidies your healthcare while you wait for Big Bro/me to pay for it.

 

 

L

 

 

 

[moshe_levy]

Larry-

 

In every debate I have ever seen on this subject, I have seen more agreement than disagreement. Unlike many such arguments I have seen the abstract ideological stuff abandoned pretty quickly. Most anyone with experience in the system knows its many faults from both the under and over regulation size.

 

Making the argument even more "settled" is the experiences all around us in other countries who are paying less, and getting more. Maybe there is a way to get the plusses of our system and the plusses of theirs in one. Many countries that adopted better plans than ours tried to accomplish just that - the "best" of everything.

 

If we put our minds to it, we can do it too. But our system this year is crippled with the political circus and it is taboo to even hint at compromise these days.

 

-MKL

[Whip]

IMHO the other countries are successful because they don't have to pay for their defense, we cover that for them.

 

..and our market is used to keep their costs down. Like prescription drugs in Canada.

 

Our people through our higher costs subsidies the world.

 

There are dudes in Bali right now having sex because we have a bunch of folks willing to pay big time for Viagra.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

There are dudes in Bali right now having sex because we have a bunch of folks willing to pay big time for Viagra.

 

I don't care so much about that, but what I want to know is if it was legal for them to get married in Bali?

[Whip]

By the numbers the mandate is a very good idea. Then let the market truly become free and watch what happens.

 

 

 

IMHO.....the only good idea in the present plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Whip]

There are dudes in Bali right now having sex because we have a bunch of folks willing to pay big time for Viagra.

 

I don't care so much about that, but what I want to know is if it was legal for them to get married in Bali?

 

 

Did not mean it that way.

 

 

 

But ..... nice come back.

 

 

[moshe_levy]

I'm not sure I see that connection. Let's use Canada as an example since there are Canadians here that can jump in and elaborate if I say something wrong.

 

The Canadians pay less per patient than we do, and by nearly every available metric of quantitative AND qualitative data, receive better care. Sure, you may find some metric here or there that says we have an advantage somewhere or another, but taken as a whole I have never seen a convincing case that we have a superior system to theirs. And they pay less. Much less.

 

This relates to our defense spending how, again? Explain so I can try to understand your point better.

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

By the numbers the mandate is a very good idea. Then let the market truly become free and watch what happens.

 

 

 

IMHO.....the only good idea in the present plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed. Ironic that that's the part that is likely to be thrown out!

[marcopolo]

IMHO the other countries are successful because they don't have to pay for their defense, we cover that for them.

 

..and our market is used to keep their costs down. Like prescription drugs in Canada.

 

Our people through our higher costs subsidies the world.

 

There are dudes in Bali right now having sex because we have a bunch of folks willing to pay big time for Viagra.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jeez Whip, I'm glad I'll sleep well tonight knowing that everything for us up here is being taken care by you guys down there. Ever hear of hyperbole?

[Whip]

I'm not sure I see that connection. Let's use Canada as an example since there are Canadians here that can jump in and elaborate if I say something wrong.

 

The Canadians pay less per patient than we do, and by nearly every available metric of quantitative AND qualitative data, receive better care. Sure, you may find some metric here or there that says we have an advantage somewhere or another, but taken as a whole I have never seen a convincing case that we have a superior system to theirs. And they pay less. Much less.

 

This relates to our defense spending how, again? Explain so I can try to understand your point better.

 

-MKL

 

 

Canada pays less for prescription drugs than we do because the people that make them recoup their R & D from the profits in our market same with most if not all of the innovations in the world. In Canada they would not get the drugs for the price they do if not for the money being made in our market. Same with the medical devices and high tech life saving innovations. The world cannot afford to kill the golden goose.

 

 

Canada can afford healthcare for the peeps because our army has kept them from speaking Russian or Mandarin. They don't spend very much on their military. If ya wanna say we spend too much and it is our own fault for signing these treaties we could prolly find a lot of common ground.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Whip]

IMHO the other countries are successful because they don't have to pay for their defense, we cover that for them.

 

..and our market is used to keep their costs down. Like prescription drugs in Canada.

 

Our people through our higher costs subsidies the world.

 

There are dudes in Bali right now having sex because we have a bunch of folks willing to pay big time for Viagra.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jeez Whip, I'm glad I'll sleep well tonight knowing that everything for us up here is being taken care by you guys down there. Ever hear of hyperbole?

 

 

"A Canadian law authorizes a review board to order a price reduction whenever the price of a drug exceeds the median of the prices in six European countries plus the United States. Since all the European countries intervene in various ways to hold down drug costs, Canada in effect piggy-backs on other countries' price controls.

 

So why not do the same thing south of the border? Trouble is, drug companies are willing to sell for less in Canada and elsewhere only because they can sell for more in the United States."

 

Posted Thursday, May 25, 2000, at 7:46 PM ET...Slate online.

[moshe_levy]

Canada pays less for prescription drugs than we do because the people that make them recoup their R & D from the profits in our market same with most if not all of the innovations in the world. In Canada they would not get the drugs for the price they do if not for the money being made in our market. Same with the medical devices and high tech life saving innovations. The world cannot afford to kill the golden goose.

 

 

Canada can afford healthcare for the peeps because our army has kept them from speaking Russian or Mandarin. They don't spend very much on their military. If ya wanna say we spend too much and it is our own fault for signing these treaties we could prolly find a lot of common ground.

 

Re the first part, how do you differentiate between "recouping R&D" and "gouging," exactly? If the SAME pill from the SAME manufacturer sells in Canada for $15 and here for $150, is it not possible that there is some dishonest gouging, not just "recouping R&D" going on?

 

Re the second part I am still totally unclear on it. You are explaining Canadian EXPENDITURE on defense, saying the Canadians can afford the COST of their health care system because we subsidize their defense. (I will not touch that opinion with a 10 foot pole - merely trying to understand your argument). The premise is they can spend MORE on health care because of lower expeditures elsewhere. Yet, the Canadians are paying LESS per patient, not more. So I'm still unclear on what that whole argument is all about.

 

-MKL

[Whip]

By the numbers the mandate is a very good idea. Then let the market truly become free and watch what happens.

 

 

 

IMHO.....the only good idea in the present plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed. Ironic that that's the part that is likely to be thrown out!

 

 

 

Obviously states could do it and see how it works. I would be all for it in Texas.

 

 

[Whip]

Canada pays less for prescription drugs than we do because the people that make them recoup their R & D from the profits in our market same with most if not all of the innovations in the world. In Canada they would not get the drugs for the price they do if not for the money being made in our market. Same with the medical devices and high tech life saving innovations. The world cannot afford to kill the golden goose.

 

 

Canada can afford healthcare for the peeps because our army has kept them from speaking Russian or Mandarin. They don't spend very much on their military. If ya wanna say we spend too much and it is our own fault for signing these treaties we could prolly find a lot of common ground.

 

Re the first part, how do you differentiate between "recouping R&D" and "gouging," exactly? If the SAME pill from the SAME manufacturer sells in Canada for $15 and here for $150, is it not possible that there is some dishonest gouging, not just "recouping R&D" going on?

 

Re the second part I am still totally unclear on it. You are explaining Canadian EXPENDITURE on defense, saying the Canadians can afford the COST of their health care system because we subsidize their defense. (I will not touch that opinion with a 10 foot pole - merely trying to understand your argument). The premise is they can spend MORE on health care because of lower expeditures elsewhere. Yet, the Canadians are paying LESS per patient, not more. So I'm still unclear on what that whole argument is all about.

 

-MKL

 

 

My defense argument is a budgetary one as you understand it. IMHO...if they had to build and sustain an army the pressure on their economy would be too much and they would not have universal care.

 

Their healthcare is cheaper because of our market and many other societal differences. Like....They don't have as many crack babies nor as much violence. And the really wealthy people with the most expensive care come to the US.

 

Last time I played golf I met just such people. They were from Edmonton. Owners of a bowling alley and sporting goods store. He was at the San Antonio Medical Center for a check up after having open heart surgery. He couldn't wait the 6 months. Claimed he would be dead if he had waited for his turn. He said he paid $25K cash and was very happy with the results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

By the numbers the mandate is a very good idea. Then let the market truly become free and watch what happens.

 

 

 

IMHO.....the only good idea in the present plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed. Ironic that that's the part that is likely to be thrown out!

 

 

 

Obviously states could do it and see how it works. I would be all for it in Texas.

 

 

I don't believe it would be a practical solution on a state level. If there were a state mandate for all residents to have health insurance, then that state would have to have a source for affordable insurance policies that would cover previously uninsured people, whether contracted through insurance companies or otherwise. I don't believe any individual state would be able to do that. If a particular state were able to offer policies to everyone, then it would be a magnet for everyone from all other states who had serious uninsurable medical needs. If a person were about to be bankrupted for a serious medical issue, then they would almost certainly move to ANY state where that wouldn't happen. No state, even if they could arrange for affordable insurance for a population with a normal range of health problems, would be able to provide health insurance for a group heavily weighted toward expensive medical problems.

 

With a national mandate, that wouldn't be a problem.

[Whip]

By the numbers the mandate is a very good idea. Then let the market truly become free and watch what happens.

 

 

 

IMHO.....the only good idea in the present plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed. Ironic that that's the part that is likely to be thrown out!

 

 

 

Obviously states could do it and see how it works. I would be all for it in Texas.

 

 

I don't believe it would be a practical solution on a state level. If there were a state mandate for all residents to have health insurance, then that state would have to have a source for affordable insurance policies that would cover previously uninsured people, whether contracted through insurance companies or otherwise. I don't believe any individual state would be able to do that. If a particular state were able to offer policies to everyone, then it would be a magnet for everyone from all other states who had serious uninsurable medical needs. If a person were about to be bankrupted for a serious medical issue, then they would almost certainly move to ANY state where that wouldn't happen. No state, even if they could arrange for affordable insurance for a population with a normal range of health problems, would be able to provide health insurance for a group heavily weighted toward expensive medical problems.

 

With a national mandate, that wouldn't be a problem.

 

We do it with car insurance?

 

The state could have a min catastrophic plan that is part of getting a drivers license. In no time there would be car/health all in one plans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[moshe_levy]

Larry-

 

Is the scale of costs associated with car insurance even a fraction of a fraction of costs associated with health insurance? If a person is kicked off his car insurance following an accident, he can't drive - if he's kicked off his health plan, then what? He goes broke, and dies? What's the plan?

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

We do it with car insurance?

 

The state could have a min catastrophic plan that is part of getting a drivers license. In no time there would be car/health all in one plans.

 

When the cost of getting car insurance gets too high, people just don't drive. Or they drive anyway and just take their chances.

 

When the cost of getting medical insurance gets too high, people die. Or they show up at the emergency room and just take their chances.

 

Or stated another way, I doubt that anyone makes a decision about moving from one state to another based on car insurance regulations. It's just not that big of a factor in most people's lives. But if I'm facing a multi-hundred thousand dollar medical problem, you can bet that I would move to a state where I could sign on to some kind of a plan where it would be covered.

[Whip]

Larry-

 

Is the scale of costs associated with car insurance even a fraction of a fraction of costs associated with health insurance? If a person is kicked off his car insurance following an accident, he can't drive - if he's kicked off his health plan, then what? He goes broke, and dies? What's the plan?

 

-MKL

 

 

Okay

 

 

He/she can't drive/ride on public roads without health insurance.

 

 

Just like I can't ride a MC without a helmet unless I have min health insurance.(In TX)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Whip]

We do it with car insurance?

 

The state could have a min catastrophic plan that is part of getting a drivers license. In no time there would be car/health all in one plans.

 

When the cost of getting car insurance gets too high, people just don't drive. Or they drive anyway and just take their chances.

 

When the cost of getting medical insurance gets too high, people die. Or they show up at the emergency room and just take their chances.

 

Or stated another way, I doubt that anyone makes a decision about moving from one state to another based on car insurance regulations. It's just not that big of a factor in most people's lives. But if I'm facing a multi-hundred thousand dollar medical problem, you can bet that I would move to a state where I could sign on to some kind of a plan where it would be covered.

 

It all has to go together with freeing up the market. I bet a min catastrophic healthcare plan would be cheaper than car insurance for folks under thirty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MT Wallet]

I have to agree with Ken, in large part, on this one. Most researchers I have known who work in universities are primarily motivated by the interest they have in their research. Much the same type of interest that someone might have in learning how their motorcycle works. The researchers would like to be paid a reasonable salary for their efforts, but are not looking to get rich off it.

 

Of course, there is a whole other group of researchers, many of whom started in universities, who have ventured out into business and definitely are looking to get rich from it. Different strokes for different folks

 

I wasn't trying to say that the researcher is the one making money (there are exceptions) when I say the research or the compound discovered is sold or licensed. It is the University or college who retains a propriatary interest. I think every researcher wants to see their discovery brought to market and to be successful to treat or cure a disease.

 

If you don't believe things are money driven I suggest you write software for free! Yes, give it away for the betterment of society. No excuses just do it! Doesn't work in the real world. That was my point.

 

I have done that several times over the last few years for this very web site.

 

Bob you are to be commended for contributing, but this is a limited venue. The point I was trying to make comparing Ken to a drug company with the profit removed for the sake of altrueism is that giving all of one's skills, wares, products away for the betterment of one's fellow man without profit would be akin to working for free. Then how would you feed your family or carry on life? I was trying to focus on the impracticality of it.

 

Lets keep in mind that health care, regardless of which country sponsors it, isn't "free". You are either paying for it in taxes or, in the U.S, directly or through the employer.

 

As I posted several pages back, I've seen uncomplicated health care become more technical, complicated and expensive everytime our politicians stick their noses in to "reform" the system.

[moshe_levy]

Richard and Ken are both right.

 

Richard is right. What kind of a murky, gray world would we have if an individual was handcuffed from achieving his true potential in search of a better life for himself (i.e., rational self interest)? If a man cannot profit from his work, then he is a slave. Pure and simple. Opponents of this view tout the famous "from those according to their abilities, to those according to their needs." There is nothing less moral philosophically than that idea!

 

Ken is right too. What kind of society do we have when an able firefighter watches a family's house burn down because a $75.00 voluntary tax wasn't collected. What kind of a situation would we put parents in, whose child is dying, but weren't fortunate enough to be able to afford care that would definitely save him/her? Is a poor person's life REALLY worth less than a rich person's? Where is that line? If you think about a society in these terms, the thinking and by extension the society is doomed.

 

You must agree with Richard if you have even a cursory understanding of what American economics *should* be. You must agree with Ken if you have even a shred of human conscience. WE must find a way as a people to balance these interests in a way that moves our society forward together without violating the essential principles we believe in.

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

Larry-

 

Is the scale of costs associated with car insurance even a fraction of a fraction of costs associated with health insurance? If a person is kicked off his car insurance following an accident, he can't drive - if he's kicked off his health plan, then what? He goes broke, and dies? What's the plan?

 

-MKL

 

 

Okay

 

 

He/she can't drive/ride on public roads without health insurance.

 

 

Just like I can't ride a MC without a helmet unless I have min health insurance.(In TX)

 

 

What Dave and I are saying is you are tying a monumental cost to a minor cost. You are equating potentially one of the most brutal financial bills of your life at the very moment you are least able to pay - with driver's insurance, which at worst even here in NJ (highest rates in the nation) is an inconvenience that comes nowhere near breaking people financially and driving people into the poor house. Health care CAN do that. It's not a fair comparison.

 

-MKL

[Peter Parts]

OK, we all know the answer is Canadian.

 

I'd say one key element in the Canadian way is not that the government runs it, but that it is a "single payer" system. That is, we have just one health insurance company in each province. Related to that is the law that - while all doctors and even hospitals are owned privately... kind of - nobody can bill citizens except through the government insurance agency.

 

In Canada, there are many examples of companies getting exclusive rights to do a certain business. And there is a further category of government agencies that operate just like businesses (AKA "Crown corporations").

 

So what are US examples?

 

There's the post office. That is a particularly horrible example since it is ultimate pandering as the US Congress can't even vote to eliminate Saturday delivery after all these years of trying.

 

Companies that run airports or toll highways? New condo inspection/insurance companies (as in Ontario)? Car insurance (as in British Columbia)?

 

Folks, if you could just hear the sympathetic groans in Canada (and the entire rest of the world) when we listen to US discussions of health care.

 

Ben

[MT Wallet]

Ben, what you suggest isn't without merit and validity. When you say each province has an insurance company; is it the same insurance company across all provinces? How was it determined which insurance company got the contract? How does Canadian insurance work for you when you Winter here and get sick?

 

I'm not sure if a single payer would work here for reasons you cite like USPS. I think seperate competing insurance companies can deliver the goods if government got out of the way. Health care used to be affordable many years ago. Government, state and national, got involved and started mandating coverages be included in basic insurance packages and naturally rates rose. I think we need to reverse course and go back to what works(ed) without the mandates. People could buy a basic policy-no frills or drugs that would cover the vast majority of health needs and then add features as they needed. The alternative is of course government sponsorship and I don't like that. The example of the house burning while the firefighters watched is what government can do to you and or for you.

[Whip]

Larry-

 

Is the scale of costs associated with car insurance even a fraction of a fraction of costs associated with health insurance? If a person is kicked off his car insurance following an accident, he can't drive - if he's kicked off his health plan, then what? He goes broke, and dies? What's the plan?

 

-MKL

 

 

Okay

 

 

He/she can't drive/ride on public roads without health insurance.

 

 

Just like I can't ride a MC without a helmet unless I have min health insurance.(In TX)

 

 

What Dave and I are saying is you are tying a monumental cost to a minor cost. You are equating potentially one of the most brutal financial bills of your life at the very moment you are least able to pay - with driver's insurance, which at worst even here in NJ (highest rates in the nation) is an inconvenience that comes nowhere near breaking people financially and driving people into the poor house. Health care CAN do that. It's not a fair comparison.

 

-MKL

 

 

That is the fault of NJ. In Texas it would be less than one thousand a year. That is the problem. NJ sucks.

[Peter Parts]

Ben, what you suggest isn't without merit and validity. When you say each province has an insurance company; is it the same insurance company across all provinces? How was it determined which insurance company got the contract? How does Canadian insurance work for you when you Winter here and get sick?

 

I'm not sure if a single payer would work here for reasons you cite like USPS. I think seperate competing insurance companies can deliver the goods if government got out of the way. Health care used to be affordable many years ago. Government, state and national, got involved and started mandating coverages be included in basic insurance packages and naturally rates rose. I think we need to reverse course and go back to what works(ed) without the mandates. People could buy a basic policy-no frills or drugs that would cover the vast majority of health needs and then add features as they needed. The alternative is of course government sponsorship and I don't like that. The example of the house burning while the firefighters watched is what government can do to you and or for you.

 

The federal government sets certain rules and principles. These are so dear to the hearts of all Canadians (who aren't doctors) that there would be blood in streets to change them. For example, no private medicine (.... kind of). And no extra billing (like to get to the head of the queue).

 

Each province runs its own plan and they differ a tiny amount (some provinces have health fees for people or companies... but it really is just one big pocket whoever you think you are taxing). Coverages differ a tiny amount too. Works fine. We LOVE it. Can't recall ANYBODY who didn't like it overall.

 

BTW, some Canadians have gold-plated extra plans from work (as public servants) to cover dentists, orthotics, massage, psycho-therapy, private hospital rooms, etc.

 

My point is that respecting US inclinations, a single-payer system is important even if it is kind of run by a company, not a ministry.

 

Gawd, is it ever horrible, medical-wise, when we stay at our Florida condo. Our Canadian insurance covers us some (at Canadian rates) and I have Medicare hospital benefits, luckily.

 

Given the potential costs, Canadians almost always buy supplementary travel insurance even for a few days in the US. For the two of us elderly folks, runs like $10/day. And that's with a $1000 deductible - so we'd pay for any office visits. Easy to book on the web or to buy annual trip plans.

 

Ben

[marcopolo]

The other advantage of a single-payor system that has been cited over and over again (by those who profess to know these things) is the significant reduction in administrative costs with regard to billing etc. That's part of the reason we pay less per capita for health care up here. But, it would seem that that horse left the barn a couple of years ago for you folk down south (as in south of the 49th parallel). At the risk of going off on a bit of a tangent (but then this thread has been on a tangent for a few days), during the great debate in the U.S. over health care a couple of years ago, my wife and I were on a three-week ride in the U.S. While we would never raise the subject, when some folk inevitably discovered we were Canadian, we were quizzed quite a bit on the Canadian system. Generally, I'd say that most people we encountered expected us to trash our system and were surprised when we said we liked it, warts and all. Obviously there had been a lot of propaganda spread. One of the more interesting conversations we had was with a woman in Pennsylvania who ran a B&B. She told us how she had been scared to death that she'd fall ill before turning 65 and being covered by Medicare (she had been covered for about six months when we spoke with her). We asked how she liked Medicare and she was very positive, especially the relief she felt in terms of not being at risk of going broke because of illness. That prompted me to ask whether, given how good she thought Medicare was, every American should be covered from the day they were born. Her answer was something along the lines of she had earned it and they hadn't. Guess it was not too surprising an answer, given all the Glenn Beck books on her coffee table.

 

As Peter said, no Canadian with even half a brain would cross the Canada-U.S. border without supplementary out-of-country health insurance (yes, private insurance). Yes, our provincial plan covers us to a certain extent, but my wife and I have a plan that costs $9/month and gives us an unlimited number of trips each year to the U.S., so long as no one trip exceeds forty-two days (you can buy more, even when on the road if you're going to be delayed). The coverage is for $5M.

 

Now back to your regularly-scheduled program.

[Peter Parts]

My experience exactly. Why do Americans think Canadians don't like our health insurance?

 

At 71, I have to pay a lot more for private out-of-Canada insurance than does Marcopolo, I suppose. Pity, I never even use up my $100 free drug deductible each year, do weights, swim, bike, and much more.

 

Ben

[MT Wallet]

My experience exactly. Why do Americans think Canadians don't like our health insurance?

 

At 71, I have to pay a lot more for private out-of-Canada insurance than does Marcopolo, I suppose. Pity, I never even use up my $100 free drug deductible each year, do weights, swim, bike, and much more.

 

Ben

 

The short answer is "waiting times for treatments." Like Canadians, we in the U.S. know what little we know about each other's systems through information derived from the media mostly and to a lesser degree personal encounters with folks who are in the systems. Our media reports the story of the guy who had to go to NY for the cat scan he couldn't get on a timely basis in Canada who then praises the U.S. system for saving his life. We might get the impression that this is the norm. We get reports like the one recently whereas an impaired Canadian baby came to the U.S because the Canadian system denied him care because his condition was hopeless/terminal. He got care (a surgery) here but died a few weeks later anyway. Another example is Brock Lesner, a fighter, who got diverticulitis (a gut infection) while in Manitoba. The guy claims he had to return to the U.S. to get the care he wasn't getting in Canada. It's stories like these that make your system look to be less than ideal.

 

Maybe your political environment is different (more stable) than ours. Politicians (fact based not political) down here pander to every segment of voters. It is my opinion that this makes single payer goverment sponsored health care a scary unstable prospect. A pandering politician can give a benefit today and due to political pressures either screw it up tomorrow or take it away completely. Perhaps your MP's or PM's don't use healath care like a political football as ours do.

 

Overall it sounds like you all are satisfied with single payer. So are you saying there are no shortcomings-at all? Your system is so perfect it can't be improved upon? I'm not being arguementative because I'm truely curious.

 

Back to the OP's original question: Was your pre age 65 retirement forced or a voluntary departure from work? Were you not planning to work ever again?

If you are into occassional work, like for a "Kelley Services" type outfit, they might offer some insurance. Several years (18) ago I worked part time for a similar outfit called Rapid Design Service. I think they were bought up by some one but, they had an insurance package they offered thier employees. I took the assignments I wanted and rejected those I didn't want but still had insurance as I recollect. Just a thought and another alternative.

 

 

[Bob Palin]

Overall it sounds like you all are satisfied with single payer. So are you saying there are no shortcomings-at all? Your system is so perfect it can't be improved upon? I'm not being arguementative because I'm truely curious.

 

There isn't a system in the world, of any kind doing anything, that is perfect and can't be improved upon.

[MT Wallet]

Overall it sounds like you all are satisfied with single payer. So are you saying there are no shortcomings-at all? Your system is so perfect it can't be improved upon? I'm not being arguementative because I'm truely curious.

 

There isn't a system in the world, of any kind doing anything, that is perfect and can't be improved upon.

 

No!, you're kidding me. I'm suggesting we've been presented an idealized view of the system. Now I'll ask pointedly, Where are the glitches? I've asked previously,"What's not to Like" I didn't get a response. I posted above and and I'm waiting. Seriously, I want to know for reasons other than arguement.

 

So far I've missed any contributions or comparisons in health care from the Brits or Europeans. What's your health care like? Could you retire early and feel like your health coverage was ideal? Does your system have deficient areas?

[Peter Parts]

In Toronto, we live close to some of the best teaching hospitals in Canada - might even walk to them. We experience no delays that seem like much or any lack of access to specialists, tests*, and care as compared to the perhaps a wealthy person in a big city in the US.

 

I wish the crowd in my ophthalmologist's office was smaller at my annual (always free) visit.

 

If you live further out of town, in Canada or the US, maybe you'd be less satisfied.

 

But rushing to the core, the real question is whether you want a system that has "death panels" or one that has no prioritization except "the Gold Standard" (he with the gold, decides the standard)? Second, what degree of societal unfairness are you prepared to accept? Third, how much of your national wealth are you prepared to devote to health care (including, of course, health maintenance)?

 

I think that covers most of the waterfront.

 

I hope those of us posting from Canada have indicated that our system, with its shortcomings, seems to have overwhelming public support. It has found reasonable positions on each of the three questions above.

 

I also think it is obvious that the US system is deemed absolutely awful by an awful lot of people, and more so by experts.

 

Ben

*Hey, our MRI tests (free of course), are usually like at 3 AM. Pain. I read there are 6 times as many MRI machines per capita in the US. Tell me, friends, which MRI system are you willing to "pay" for?

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

"Death panels" is simply an inflammatory way of saying that the average person is unlikely to get all possible treatment available for all possible medical problems. It's like standing on the deck of a sinking Titanic with a bunch of other people looking at a lifeboat that is only capable of holding 40 people. How do you decide who gets a seat? Do you sell the seats to whoever has the most money, or do you figure out some other way to allocate them?

[Harry_Wilshusen]

 

Ben

*Hey, our MRI tests (free of course), are usually like at 3 AM. Pain. I read there are 6 times as many MRI machines per capita in the US. Tell me, friends, which MRI system are you willing to "pay" for?

 

 

Those MRI tests are not free. You just don't know how much they cost.

[Ken H.]

If the USA’s system was the best in the world, why has all the rest of the world moved away from it instead of to it?

 

As someone who spent all his working life in the US system until 4 years ago, and now having used the Canadian one, I can honestly say UHC is light years ahead of the private sytem. And in the USA I (unlike 4.9 million Americans) I always had employer provided partially paid group insurance. The endless insurance red tape, constantly increasing premiums, deny, deny, appeal, deny on everything, Long waits to see specialist, long ER times crowded with people in with a cold. You can have it.

 

Here I call, get an appointment within everywhere from days to a couple of weeks, get seen and treated by always courteous professionals, almost always on time, and all I have to do is show them my card. What’s not to like?

 

Regarding the popular belief of long Canadian ER wait times, this was one of my companies projects. Just went up last week: - Realtime ER Wait Times. Wonder what the numbers are for any major hospital in any major city in the USA? Are they made public?

 

And less anyone thinks the USA is the only one leading in medical research - U 0f A break through on supper bugs. Notice the last sentence - "Colleagues from Ottawa, Austria and Australia also contributed to the work, "

[Bob Palin]

Just went up last week: - Realtime ER Wait Times. Wonder what the numbers are for any major hospital in any major city in the USA? Are they made public?

 

Beginning to see billboards in Utah with the current wait time posted on them as an ad for hospitals.

[brennaman]

And less anyone thinks the USA is the only one leading in medical research - U 0f A break through on supper bugs. Notice the last sentence - "Colleagues from Ottawa, Austria and Australia also contributed to the work, "

 

I don't think anyone questioned Canada's contribution to research. But per capita, not sure it is up to par with the USA.

[Whip]

And less anyone thinks the USA is the only one leading in medical research - U 0f A break through on supper bugs. Notice the last sentence - "Colleagues from Ottawa, Austria and Australia also contributed to the work, "

 

I don't think anyone questioned Canada's contribution to research. But per capita, not sure it is up to par with the USA.

 

 

The entire world does research to sell to the US Market. We are the golden goose. The entire world will suffer if we take the profit out of the US market. Canadian healthcare cost will go up the minute we go to single payer. We subsidies the world's healthcare.

 

 

[Peter Parts]

Just went up last week: - Realtime ER Wait Times. Wonder what the numbers are for any major hospital in any major city in the USA? Are they made public?

 

Beginning to see billboards in Utah with the current wait time posted on them as an ad for hospitals.

 

Ontario is starting a website with real-time ER times. It is a way to pressure hospital managements to face their comparative performance stats.

 

It is partly correct to say individuals pay for MRI tests even indirectly. But it is fully correct to say I don't need to worry about the cost when my doctors sends me off to get one.

 

After reading Ken's post, is there anybody out there who would opt for the US system if they had to pay their own insurance premium?

 

Ben

[Whip]

Yes...and I do.

[KDeline]

Yes...and I do.

 

+2 and we do to. Nine hundred a month for my wife and I.

[Bill_Walker]

Yes...and I do.

 

+2 and we do to. Nine hundred a month for my wife and I.

 

And if you were working full-time (2080 hours/year) at the Federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr, that would leave you $4,280 a year ($357/month) for ALL your other living expenses. Less any taxes withheld, of course. Your solution may work for you, but there are millions of Americans who couldn't afford it.

[Ken H.]

Just went up last week: - Realtime ER Wait Times. Wonder what the numbers are for any major hospital in any major city in the USA? Are they made public?

 

Beginning to see billboards in Utah with the current wait time posted on them as an ad for hospitals.

And what are the numbers like? I honestly don't know. Is +/- 2 hrs (what's showing here) good or bad compared to other metro areas?