Better to be middle class in Canada or United States for health care?

[TheIronSheik]

I grew up in a middle class Canadian family with a father working a lumber mill job with a great union benefits and all health care benefits[A rightwinger worst nightmare]. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like cause we pay a couple % higher in taxes, we have a lot less stress to worry in case our child as a serious health issue about going bankrupt.

No, the Canadian health care system is not perfect, but at the same time it does not makes us socialists that people like the Hannity's, Beck's and Palin's accuse us of.

[MLU]

People are just scared of change. That's all. They will rant against the very idea that you might have to wait a couple months to see a physician in exchange for not having to pay them directly. Meanwhile, they enjoy the freedom to file bankruptcy due to the high costs of their medical bills and health insurance. Who knows how the ACA will turn out? Lots of people will make their predictions, but because you can't accurately predict how businesses and industry will react, no one really knows.

Anyone throwing around the word "socialist" to describe any American politician should be drug into the street and shot immediately. That kind of stupid spreads fast and there's no known cure.

[blackadder]

Originally Posted by TheIronSheik

I grew up in a middle class Canadian family with a father working a lumber mill job with a great union benefits and all health care benefits[A rightwinger worst nightmare]. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like cause we pay a couple % higher in taxes, we have a lot less stress to worry in case our child as a serious health issue about going bankrupt.

No, the Canadian health care system is not perfect, but at the same time it does not makes us socialists that people like the Hannity's, Beck's and Palin's accuse us of.

A single payer system works for much of the Western world. And in most places with single payer health care infant mortality, life expectancy and a whole range of vital statistics are better than in the United States.

If your single measure is healthy outcomes, then the single payer system seems to have a better record.

That said, the devil is in the details. I don't oppose the concept but I doubt it can be done effectively in the United States by Washington DC, which is controlled by corporate lobby money. You risk another bloated, inefficient, corrupt monster that exists more to serve as a cash cow to special interests than to deliver quality health care at an affordable rate.

[Beast]

Bottom line is that healthcare should be about healthy results not profit margins.. Whether the ACA is effective remains to be seen, but at least there was action taken instead of continuing on the current, unsustainable path..

[Ken-Bob]

My understanding is that the ACA is based more on the Swiss health care system than most others. I haven't done extensive research on the similarities, differences and results but, at first glance, it appears that the Swiss system is quite a bit better than the current US system but lags behind systems such as Sweden and France (which are closer to single payer).

I think the ACA is a step in the right direction. Considering that we'll likely never be like Sweden, I guess we have to be thankful for whatever improvements we can get.

[blackadder]

Originally Posted by Ken-Bob

My understanding is that the ACA is based more on the Swiss health care system than most others. I haven't done extensive research on the similarities, differences and results but, at first glance, it appears that the Swiss system is quite a bit better than the current US system but lags behind systems such as Sweden and France (which are closer to single payer).

I think the ACA is a step in the right direction. Considering that we'll likely never be like Sweden, I guess we have to be thankful for whatever improvements we can get.

And that might work well if say, Minnesota, wanted to implement it.

Most of the single payer systems in Europe operate on smaller state units, with some variation according to country. What is the population of Switzerland? 5 or 6 million?

When you take this and push it down on 50 states and 300 million people...?

[Ken-Bob]

Originally Posted by blackadder

And that might work well if say, Minnesota, wanted to implement it.

Most of the single payer systems in Europe operate on smaller state units, with some variation according to country. What is the population of Switzerland? 5 or 6 million?

When you take this and push it down on 50 states and 300 million people...?

While that's an interesting argument, at this time I can see no reason why it couldn't work.

[the-commish]

Originally Posted by blackadder

A single payer system works for much of the Western world. And in most places with single payer health care infant mortality, life expectancy and a whole range of vital statistics are better than in the United States.

If your single measure is healthy outcomes, then the single payer system seems to have a better record.

That said, the devil is in the details. I don't oppose the concept but I doubt it can be done effectively in the United States by Washington DC, which is controlled by corporate lobby money. You risk another bloated, inefficient, corrupt monster that exists more to serve as a cash cow to special interests than to deliver quality health care at an affordable rate.

Medicare IS a single payer system; you know, single payer system (government takeover of health care) is what many on here like to call "socialism", and they may have a point here. At the same time, I don't see these people on Medicare who are decrying a "government takeover" of health care being willing to give up their own Medicare. Be consistent. Either **** or get off the pot!

[blackadder]

Originally Posted by the-commish

Medicare IS a single payer system; you know, single payer system (government takeover of health care) is what many on here like to call "socialism", and they may have a point here. At the same time, I don't see these people on Medicare who are decrying a "government takeover" of health care being willing to give up their own Medicare. Be consistent. Either **** or get off the pot!

Medicare is also rife with fraud and waste. Overbilling, overtesting, over-subscribing, etc.

I'm thinking more of the classic European system. Cradle to grave single payer.

[the-commish]

Originally Posted by blackadder

Medicare is also rife with fraud and waste. Overbilling, overtesting, over-subscribing, etc.

I'm thinking more of the classic European system. Cradle to grave single payer.

That's true! But it is also the single payer system that, while many on here rail about socialism, is socialism that they would not want to give up. That was my point, even though it may have been outside the thread topic.

[FatiusJeebs]

Originally Posted by MLU

People are just scared of change. That's all. They will rant against the very idea that you might have to wait a couple months to see a physician in exchange for not having to pay them directly. Meanwhile, they enjoy the freedom to file bankruptcy due to the high costs of their medical bills and health insurance. Who knows how the ACA will turn out? Lots of people will make their predictions, but because you can't accurately predict how businesses and industry will react, no one really knows.

Anyone throwing around the word "socialist" to describe any American politician should be drug into the street and shot immediately. That kind of stupid spreads fast and there's no known cure.

I think the real issue is control. This all sounds wonderful....but do you really think the government will stop there? They are already going after food...cars...lifestyle...so on and so on. Giving the government permission to regulate and control things is never a good idea....thats the real fear. At least in my book it is.

[blackadder]

Originally Posted by the-commish

That's true! But it is also the single payer system that, while many on here rail about socialism, is socialism that they would not want to give up. That was my point, even though it may have been outside the thread topic.

Oh, I agree on the whole "oh my god socialism!!" thing.

I just think a lot of these things are doomed to bloat, abuse and bureaucratic paralysis when you try to run it from a Federal capital.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by FatiusJeebs

I think the real issue is control. This all sounds wonderful....but do you really think the government will stop there? They are already going after food...cars...lifestyle...so on and so on. Giving the government permission to regulate and control things is never a good idea....thats the real fear. At least in my book it is.

I heard they already proposed a bill that you have to eat 2 lbs of broccoli a week..

[Oye]

Originally Posted by blackadder

Medicare is also rife with fraud and waste. Overbilling, overtesting, over-subscribing, etc.

to the tune of $50 billion in 2010, according to the GAO.

That's 50 billion in a year.

Meanwhile, the Feds are promising to save $50 billion dollars by 2021.

That's despairing. What we save in 6 years will be enough to pay for the fraud in a single year.

While some aspects of this are certainly a step in the right direction, I'd feel more confident if the dept. had a history of tracking down, arresting, and prosecuting offenders at a higher and more efficient rate than they are/have been.

This has been going on for a while and entrenched entitlements on the part of those companies/individuals profiting will be tough to control.

It's frustrating - frustrating to see the GAO produce such a number from a single year (some estimates are double that) and it goes ignored. BUt the same number is supposed to enlist confidence, over a period of a half dozen.

[FatiusJeebs]

Originally Posted by Beast

I heard they already proposed a bill that you have to eat 2 lbs of broccoli a week..

We're doomed!!