How SHOULD Health Care Work?

[emily47017]

Does it allow them to opt out

of the single payer system? Does it allow them to keep the money they save? Does it allow them to pay out of pocket for treatements not covered by the single payer?

nope, yup, and not applicable.

the point of spreading risk across the whole population is A) a large pool has greater clout in negotiations over price, B) a large pool is better able to absorb the blow when someone gets really sick, and C) it drastically reduces bureaucracy and waste. if you don’t want to use the services available to you, that’s your business, but you can’t opt out of paying your fair share.

the way the PNHP proposal is funded involves a 2% income tax. do you have health insurance? take your monthly premium, and subtract from it 2% of your monthly income. unless you’re making a heck of a lot of money or have only the barest minimum of insurance, you’re going to save money. that money will be yours to keep.

(when i was working, i was making about $1000 a month shelving books at the library, and paying $90 a month for my premium. under the national system, i would pay $20/month, or just under a quarter of what i had been paying.)

now add a broken leg. my brother broke his femur in a skiing accident, and the total cost of the surgery, cast, brief hospital stay, and a month lost at work cost upwards of $20,000. how big is your deductible on that barest minimum of catastrophic insurance? what percentage of the bill will the insurance company cover after the deductible is met?

if you were saving x number of dollars a month by paying 2% on your income instead of a premium, the additional cost to you for a broken leg would be nothing. all those savings would belong to you, and live happily in your wallet.

cash-for-service seems like an okay idea, but it means we’d end up with some version of a two-tier system: one for the rich and one for everyone else. that’s what would ensure that the system was, indeed, set up for the lowest common denominator. that said, i’m not strictly opposed to doctors setting up a cash practice, though having eliminated the problem of battling insurance companies for approval, payment and inclusion in PPO lists, in addition to the massive piles of paperwork, i don’t know why they would bother. either way, you’d still have to pay your fair share for the national system.

but your real question was about things that aren’t covered in a single-payer system: EVERYTHING’S COVERED IN A SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM! the long lists of excluded procedures you see in your insurance pamphlet? gone. the restrictions on the number of times you can see a doctor for the same condition? gone. the discrepancies between types of illnesses, some being covered more comprehensively and some getting the shaft? gone. the only things excluded are those not medically necessary. face lifts. liposuction. i think we can all agree that individuals ought to pay for those themselves.

a person with private health insurance is a person who needs to sweat about what’s not covered; a person with single-payer insurance knows that it’s all covered.

furthermore, the only people deciding what is or isn’t medically necessary are you and your doctor, not a profit-minded bureaucrat in a call center in las vegas. talk about other people making your health care decisions for you… that’s what we’ve got going now, and it’s a durned nightmare.

But most people don’t have

that dilemma – the poor can get the pap smear free.if they live in a big city or have the transportation and gas to get to a big city, if they know who to call and where to look, and if they have it together enough to bring proof of income and fill out all the paperwork. those conditions knock out a whole lot more people than you might think… i’ve been eligible for free pap smears all my life, but i’ve never gotten around to getting one. i’ve always paid to save the hassle. but the pap smear was only an example. insert whichever routine test/procedure makes sense to you.

 

[jman507]

but your real question was about things that aren’t covered in a single-payer system: EVERYTHING’S COVERED IN A SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM! the long lists of excluded procedures you see in your insurance pamphlet? gone. the restrictions on the number of times you can see a doctor for the same condition? gone. the discrepancies between types of illnesses, some being covered more comprehensively and some getting the shaft? gone. the only things excluded are those not medically necessary. face lifts. liposuction. i think we can all agree that individuals ought to pay for those themselves.

a person with private health insurance is a person who needs to sweat about what’s not covered; a person with single-payer insurance knows that it’s all covered.

furthermore, the only people deciding what is or isn’t medically necessary are you and your doctor, not a profit-minded bureaucrat in a call center in las vegas. talk about other people making your health care decisions for you… that’s what we’ve got going now, and it’s a durned nightmare.

Part of the problem is if everything is covered patients and doctors will have be very prudent on what they choose to be done. So the list may be gone, but there will still be an informal list or else it’ll keep costing more and more. No matter how large the pool is to negotiate, what cannot be negotiated is break even or profit, if the amount of available money will lead to net loses. There will always be the question, how much percenatage of the GDP do we want to sink into the health system? If we want to cut off the amount of money we put in, what is going to take the hit: access, options, and/or care?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Originally Posted by vern humphrey
Does it allow them to opt out of the single payer system? Does it allow them to keep the money they save? Does it allow them to pay out of pocket for treatements not covered by the single payer?

nope, yup, and not applicable.
If they are not able to opt out, they are not making their own decisions – they are precluded from forumlating a plan tailored to their own needs, and must accept a one-size-fits-all approach.

How are they allowed to keep the money they save – is there a budget, and some reward for staying under budget?

And for treatments not covered – for example, in England not so long ago, people over 55 were not covered for kidney dialysis – can a man choose to save his life by paying out of his pocket?
emily47017;2439789:
the point of spreading risk across the whole population is A) a large pool has greater clout in negotiations over price,
A large pool is one thing, but you’re talking monopsony – and you remember what the vaccine monopsony did to this country when a British company accidentally contaminated a batch of flu vaccine?

B) a large pool is better able to absorb the blow when someone gets really sick, and C) it drastically reduces bureaucracy and waste. if you don’t want to use the services available to you, that’s your business, but you can’t opt out of paying your fair share.

Bingo! The bureaucracy decides what’s best for you, and if you don’t like it, you still have to pay.
the way the PNHP proposal is funded involves a 2% income tax. do you have health insurance? take your monthly premium, and subtract from it 2% of your monthly income. unless you’re making a heck of a lot of money or have only the barest minimum of insurance, you’re going to save money. that money will be yours to keep.
And when I need a treatment that isn’t covered, or the waiting list is so long I’ll die before my name comes up – I fly to India and pay for it out of pocket, eh?

emily47017:

(when i was working, i was making about $1000 a month shelving books at the library, and

paying $90 a month for my premium. under the national system, i would pay $20/month, or just under a quarter of what i had been paying.)
Tell me when a government program like this ever didn’t exceed orginal cost estimates by a factor of 10 or more.

[but your real question was about things that aren’t covered in a single-payer system: EVERYTHING’S COVERED IN A SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM! the long lists of excluded procedures you see in your insurance pamphlet? gone. the restrictions on the number of times you can see a doctor for the same condition? gone.

That’s not true – as I pointed out, in England people over 55 were not covered for kidney dialysis.

All of sorts of bad things happen in single payer systems – for one thing the monosopny seeks to hold down costs by underpaying medical care personnel – who then immigrate to other countries. Canada is leaking doctors to the United States at a great rate.

Many of these doctors have their practices just south of the border – and do a land-office businesses on Canadians who come to the US to get treatment they can’t get in Canada, or would die before their names came up.

[/quote]

 

[vern_humphrey]

Part of the problem is if everything is covered patients and doctors will have be very prudent on what they choose to be done. So the list may be gone, but there will still be an informal list or else it’ll keep costing more and more. No matter how large the pool is to negotiate, what cannot be negotiated is break even or profit, if the amount of available money will lead to net loses. There will always be the question, how much percenatage of the GDP do we want to sink into the health system? If we want to cut off the amount of money we put in, what is going to take the hit: access, options, and/or care?

If everything is covered, then we’re going to be shelling out big buicks for tummy-tucks, breast enlargmements, sex-change operations and so on. And, if we don’t like that – we have to pay anyway!!

Is that really what we want?

 

[emily47017]

If everything is covered, then we’re going to be shelling out big buicks for tummy-tucks, breast enlargmements, sex-change operations and so on. And, if we don’t like that – we have to pay anyway!!

did you even read my post? everything medically necessary – including dialysis for 55 and older – is covered, and purely cosmetic stuff is not.

single-payer insurance means nobody is making your health care decisions but you and your doctor. the money you’re paying (or, largely, not paying) funds the system wherein you can make your own decisions. any other system demands the involvement of private bureaucrats who want to make as much money as possible, therefore deny deny deny.

listen: even if hypothetically you don’t own a car and never drive anywhere, you still have to pay for roads and road repair. even if you are never the victim of any crime, you still have to pay for a police force. you know you’ll get sick someday (you know you’ll have to drive a car or have your wallet stolen), and when that happens you won’t have to be rich to pay for a stay in a private hospital (or hire a team of sherpas or a private mercenary).

as for waiting lists, with private insurance (and this would include the bare bones catastrophic plans that an MSA system depends on), there’s generally a 1 year waiting period for any organ transplant. that’s regardless of how long the waiting list for matching donors is… it’s purely the for-profit industry waiting for you to die so they don’t have to pay. single-payer knows it has to pay, so the incentive is to get your transplant done as soon as possible so your recovery period is more likely to be smooth – that is, less expensive.

people already fly to india to get treatment, mostly because it’s cheaper! under single-payer, there *is no medically necessary treatment *that isn’t covered.

the balance between over-treatment and under-treatment is an interesting one; under our current system the incentive is entirely on the under-treatment side, even if you’ve been faithfully paying your premiums for years. can we agree that that’s not just? can we agree that it’s a case of other people making your health care decisions for you?

so how to avoid swinging the pendulum the other way? britain offers bonuses for doctors who are successful in preventive care – more patients quitting smoking and whatnot. there could also be something akin to a yearly audit. how many heart surgeries vs. patients who’ve managed to start exercising and lower their cholesterol count? peer reviews, best practices panels, continued healthy debate… or some combination of all of the above. i suppose there will always be those who try to beat the system, just as there are today with the profit mongers who make your health care decisions for you. we just have to do the best we can.

 

[vern_humphrey]

did you even read my post? everything medically necessary – including dialysis for 55 and older – is covered, and purely cosmetic stuff is not.

What about abortions? Will abortions be covered?

single-payer insurance means nobody is making your health care decisions but you and your doctor. the money you’re paying (or, largely, not paying) funds the system wherein you can make your own decisions. any other system demands the involvement of private bureaucrats who want to make as much money as possible, therefore deny deny deny.

Then how come all nations with single-payer systems have rules that deny or restrict care?

listen: even if hypothetically you don’t own a car and never drive anywhere, you still have to pay for roads and road repair. even if you are never the victim of any crime, you still have to pay for a police force. you know you’ll get sick someday (you know you’ll have to drive a car or have your wallet stolen), and when that happens you won’t have to be rich to pay for a stay in a private hospital (or hire a team of sherpas or a private mercenary).

But I’m not told what kind of car I can buy, nor am I forced to install the state-supplied burglar alarm (which probably doesn’t work.)

as for waiting lists, with private insurance (and this would include the bare bones catastrophic plans that an MSA system depends on), there’s generally a 1 year waiting period for any organ transplant.

Now there’s a smoke-screen for you!!

There is a waiting list for organ transplants because there aren’t enough organs avilable.

There is a waiting list for surgery in Canada and England because of bugetary reasons!

that’s regardless of how long the waiting list for matching donors is… it’s purely the for-profit industry waiting for you to die so they don’t have to pay.

As in Canada and England?

single-payer knows it has to pay, so the incentive is to get your transplant done as soon as possible so your recovery period is more likely to be smooth – that is, less expensive.

Wrong.

There is a window for an organ transplant. If it is not transplanted into a recipient, it can’t be kept in the freezer indefinitely – so if transplants were delayed, the organs would be wasted.

people already fly to india to get treatment, mostly because it’s cheaper! under single-payer, there *is no medically necessary treatment *that isn’t covered.

Like abortions and sterilizations?

the balance between over-treatment and under-treatment is an interesting one; under our current system the incentive is entirely on the under-treatment side, even if you’ve been faithfully paying your premiums for years. can we agree that that’s not just? can we agree that it’s a case of other people making your health care decisions for you?

Nope – the balance is on the over-treatment side. Have you never heard someone say, “I might as well go to the doctor! I pay the premiums, don’t I?”

so how to avoid swinging the pendulum the other way? britain offers bonuses for doctors who are successful in preventive care – more patients quitting smoking and whatnot.

And I have seen cases (on the telly when I was in Britain) of doctors refusing to treat patients who smoked.

there could also be something akin to a yearly audit. how many heart surgeries vs. patients who’ve managed to start exercising and lower their cholesterol count? peer reviews, best practices panels, continued healthy debate… or some combination of all of the above. i suppose there will always be those who try to beat the system, just as there are today with the profit mongers who make your health care decisions for you. we just have to do the best we can.

So how come Britain is losing doctors? Almost 2/3s of new doctors in Britain are from Muslim countries. Native Brits have stopped going into medicine.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

There is a waiting list for surgery in Canada and England because of bugetary reasons!

That’s only part of the picture. There is a shortage of health care in some districts and waiting lists in those districts which do not have a shortage because of the runaway health care associations.

We have plenty of folks from other countries who are willing to requalify in order to practise here. However, the associations pull the courses out from under them so that they can’t requalify.

Therefore there are shortages of practitioners. That has little to do with govt and a lot to do with Family Compact which is not elected.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s only part of the picture. There is a shortage of health care in some districts and waiting lists in those districts which do not have a shortage because of the runaway health care associations.

We have plenty of folks from other countries who are willing to requalify in order to practise here. However, the associations pull the courses out from under them so that they can’t requalify.

Therefore there are shortages of practitioners. That has little to do with govt and a lot to do with Family Compact which is not elected.

Well, any organization which has the power to make binding policy is part of government, even if not officially.

Here’s some information on England:

ocregister.com/ocregister…le_1756372.php

Some 40 percent of Britain’s practicing doctors were trained overseas – and that percentage will increase, as older native doctors retire, and younger immigrant doctors take their place. According to the BBC, “Over two-thirds of doctors registering to practice in the UK in 2003 were from overseas – the vast majority from non-European countries.” Five of the eight arrested are Arab Muslims, the other three Indian Muslims. Bilal Abdulla, the Wahhabi driver of the incendiary Jeep and a doctor at the Royal Alexandra Hospital near Glasgow, is one of over 2,000 Iraqi doctors working in Britain.

Aneurin Bevan, the socialist who created the National Health Service after World War II, was once asked to explain how he’d talked the country’s doctors into agreeing to become state employees: “I stuffed their mouths with gold,” he crowed. Sixty years later, no amount of gold can persuade Britons to spend their working lives in the country’s dirty, decrepit hospitals (they spend enough of their nonworking lives there, waiting to be seen, waiting for beds, waiting for operations). According to a report in the British Medical Journal, white males comprise 43.5 percent of the population but now account for less than a quarter of students at UK medical schools. In other words, being a doctor is no longer an attractive middle-class career proposition. That’s quite a monument to six decades of Michael Moore-style socialist health care.

 

[Pondero]

Coming in at this late stage of the debate, I can only speak from experience, personal experience as a Canadian on the health care debate.
First of all I don’t have private health insurance, apart from what the Ontario government gives to every resident, I am over 65 years old, and officially retired.

Yes, retired or not over 65 or not I can and do visit my doctor whenever I think it necessary and I don’t pay a cent for that out of my own pocket. If I have a certain blood test or whatever, for prostrate cancer, I do pay the lab that does the work a standard fee of $20. If I have X rays of any kind next door to my local lab, I don’t pay one red cent. I have had a whole series of X rays for below the belt work, nothing was found of any significance, but I have a copy of the detailed medical results given to me by my doctor. If I have a spot on me, as I did last year, I go immediately to my dermatologist ( without a referral from my doctor) and get it attended to. In my case I am lucky, I can get Dr.Simone (Order of Canada recipient) of Canadian Food for Children ( if he is in the country and not helping people in Haiti or elsewhere) by phoning on a Monday and appearing at his residence and office the next day at noon. All this is free , but I do contribute towards his charity - but I don’t have to give him one penny.

Last year as I mentioned somewhere on one of these many threads a couple of months ago, I had a triple coronary bypass op at Sunnybrook last October. I paid nothing for this at all except to a fee to cover the cost of a TV set in my hospital room.

I now have follow up re-hab treatment at the Trillium close to where I live twice a week. I pay nothing for it, neither do any of the other participant patients. I am told by a relative who is an actuary that in the USA medical costs for my triple coronary by-pass could amount to $250,000.

Yes, I am very satisfied personally with the health care in Ontario, Canada. Oh! before I forget, once the hospital found out one of my arteries was 80% blocked another one 60% and a third one 20% I was scheduled for surgery in less than a week. How’s that for a short waiting time.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No one denies there are some winners in a single-payer system. But every dollar spent on health care is paid for by someone. You don’t see a line in your income tax form where you calculate how much of your taxes go for healthcare – if you did, you might be shocked. And if you were younger, in good health, and not seeing a doctor between one year and the next – it would be more of a shock.

As P.J. O’Roark said, “If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it’s free.”

At the same time, we have had Canadians on these forums accuse the United States of “poaching” Canadian doctors – and demanding we penalize any Canadian doctors who come to the United States.

Clearly, there are problems in the Canadian system, too.

 

[emily47017]

What about abortions? Will abortions be covered?

ah, this is a difficult one for catholics. medically necessary abortions will be covered, as well as artificial birth control and surgical sterilization. however, catholic hospitals/doctors/clinics receiving payment from the national plan will be under no obligation to offer those services.

your taxes are already subsidizing at least some abortions; medicaid covers abortion in my state, and while i don’t know for sure i reckon the VA and the health care plans that public employees and members of congress enjoy also offer abortion.

Then how come all nations with single-payer systems have rules that deny or restrict care?

can you find me some information on those rules? i did a really quick google search and didn’t turn up anything particularly compelling… if you can find me something to read i’ll happily read it and respond.

But I’m not told what kind of car I can buy, nor am I forced to install the state-supplied burglar alarm (which probably doesn’t work.)

nobody will tell you what doctor to see or what medications to take.

There is a waiting list for organ transplants because there aren’t enough organs avilable. There is a waiting list for surgery in Canada and England because of bugetary reasons!

you missed my point: private health insurance imposes waiting periods too, for their own profit-minded budgetary reasons.

Nope – the balance is on the over-treatment side. Have you never heard someone say, “I might as well go to the doctor! I pay the premiums, don’t I?”

erm, no. maybe you have. anyway, going to the doctor early and often isn’t what creates a burden on the system. waiting until it’s too late and the medical care needed is the very most expensive available – that’s what’s a burden on the system.

And I have seen cases (on the telly when I was in Britain) of doctors refusing to treat patients who smoked.

did they get in trouble? private insurance companies are happy to deny coverage to people who smoke or have pre-existing conditions – gah! i can’t believe we haven’t talked about pre-existing conditions yet! – and that’s just considered good business sense.

So how come Britain is losing doctors? Almost 2/3s of new doctors in Britain are from Muslim countries. Native Brits have stopped going into medicine.

that’s an interesting statistic. where did you find that info? not knowing much about the socialized system in britain (which is different from single-payer in that the doctors are actually government employees), i can’t speculate on that.

But every dollar spent on health care is paid for by someone.

right you are! in the US, 60% of those dollars are paid for by the state and federal governments. another 19% is paid for by employers, and the last 17% comes out of our pockets. remember what you were saying earlier about prices at the ER being jacked up to cover the uninsured? and how silly that was to make only sick people pay double for that service rather than spreading the risk among everyone, including the healthy?

 

[emily47017]

Coming in at this late stage of the debate, I can only speak from experience, personal experience as a Canadian on the health care debate.

wow! thanks for posting, pondero. i’ve been getting more and more jealous of canadians…

 

[vern_humphrey]

ah, this is a difficult one for catholics. medically necessary abortions will be covered, as well as artificial birth control and surgical sterilization. however, catholic hospitals/doctors/clinics receiving payment from the national plan will be under no obligation to offer those services.

But every Catholic who pays taxes would be forced to subsidize the killing of children.

your taxes are already subsidizing at least some abortions; medicaid covers abortion in my state, and while i don’t know for sure i reckon the VA and the health care plans that public employees and members of congress enjoy also offer abortion.

So why make things worse? Why pour more money into this grisly crime?

can you find me some information on those rules? i did a really quick google search and didn’t turn up anything particularly compelling… if you can find me something to read i’ll happily read it and respond.

I already gave a couple – England, for example, used to deny kidney dialysis to people over 55.

In fact, Walter Williams (and econmist at George Mason University) once did a talk show where he had set up calls with officials in various nations on their health care system. The British rep tried to dance around this, and finally admitted it.

Then Wilson asked him, “What do you say to someone over 55? Do you tell him his government has decided to let him die?”

The shocked response was, “NO! We would never tell him that. We tell him, ‘Medical science holds no hope for you.’”

Wow! Not only do they let him die, but they **lie **to him about it!

nobody will tell you what doctor to see or what medications to take.

But they will tell me what treatments I can’t have.

you missed my point: private health insurance imposes waiting periods too, for their own profit-minded budgetary reasons.

When and where? I never had my health care carrier impose a waiting period on me – and never knew anyone who did.

erm, no. maybe you have. anyway, going to the doctor early and often isn’t what creates a burden on the system. waiting until it’s too late and the medical care needed is the very most expensive available – that’s what’s a burden on the system.

So how come Government health plans don’t emphasize preventive visits?

did they get in trouble? private insurance companies are happy to deny coverage to people who smoke or have pre-existing conditions – gah! i can’t believe we haven’t talked about pre-existing conditions yet! – and that’s just considered good business sense.

No, they didn’t get in trouble.

Neither did the bureaucrats who broke up the world premier heart-lung transplant team. They closed the number one heart-lung transplant hospital in the world and dispersed the team.

On the telly, the unctious bureaucrat said, “It will be better. Each team member can train a new team at his new location.”

This was followed by a team member who said, “I’m the anesthesiologist. How can I train a surgeon? How can a surgeon train an anesthesiologist?”

that’s an interesting statistic. where did you find that info? not knowing much about the socialized system in britain (which is different from single-payer in that the doctors are actually government employees), i can’t speculate on that.

Go back up a few posts and you’ll see my cites.

right you are! in the US, 60% of those dollars are paid for by the state and federal governments. another 19% is paid for by employers, and the last 17% comes out of our pockets. remember what you were saying earlier about prices at the ER being jacked up to cover the uninsured? and how silly that was to make only sick people pay double for that service rather than spreading the risk among everyone, including the healthy?

And we should turn our money and our health care over to a guy who says, “I’m from the government. You can trust me?”

What you propose is the double-whammy. To health care providers, it’s a monopsony – one buyer and many suppliers. That’s not good.

To the citizenry, it’s a monopoly – many consumers and only one seller. That’s not good, either.

 

[vern_humphrey]

wow! thanks for posting, pondero. i’ve been getting more and more jealous of canadians…

Funny how the roads are not clogged with people heading to Canada because of their health care system.

 

[emily47017]

I already gave a couple – England, for example, used to deny kidney dialysis to people over 55.

used to, you say. what made them change that?

So how come Government health plans don’t emphasize preventive visits?

britain does, and i mentioned some other ways a US system might try to do that. removing barriers to access goes a long way, and in the US money is the biggest barrier.

Go back up a few posts and you’ll see my cites.

jeez, i feel like a total idiot. i still can’t find them. what’s the post number?

Funny how the roads are not clogged with people heading to Canada because of their health care system.

i’d go! if i had a car.

 

[mary_bobo]

wow! thanks for posting, pondero. i’ve been getting more and more jealous of canadians…

Don’t be. While the poster you cited has had good results, I darn neared died while living there for three years and what happened to me would never have happened in the states, especially with the medical training I have, I was not a dumb consumer. I have gone into details before and won’t bore you with them, but suffice to say, while I loved my time in Canada and made many good friends there, I cannot recommend their health care system at all.

 

[cynic]

I don’t believe healthcare should be a commodity. I believe it is a right that should be funded collectively, from tax, and available to all, with subsidies for drugs given to patients below an income level.

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

The Canadian and English healthcare systems looks interesting.

I agree that emphasis should be made on the preventing diseases. Why wait for the disease to happen in the first place, right? Less cost and better for everyone’s health.

Personally, I’ve had private insurance for many decades now and enjoy the privelege of going to the doctor without being problematic about payment because the card usually pay for doctor’s consultation fees, laboratory fees, hospitalization and surgery.

I realized, that all is going well right now because I do not suffer from any major medical problem and the yearly medical tests done on me are usually routine.

However, while I was reading through my HMO’s booklet, I realize that in case major medical problems, I am not as protected as I thought I was. There are many loopholes that would prevent me from being covered in case of serious and possibly needing of prolonged medical care. It is important to read everything before you sign.

Also, the setting of age limit (usually between ages 60 -65)imposed by HMOs is a big concern for me because with my parent are getting old, this is the time when they need medical care, yet that is the time it is witheld from them. I felt that such policies of private health organizations were detrimental and discriminatory to the elderly.

With retirement, the elderly also have a problem with procuring medicines. This is the age when they aren’t earning anymore and have to live out of their pension, which usually isn’t much. They get sick more often, yet the private HMOs do not cover them. They need more medicines, yet they have less paying capacity to buy them.

On the other hand, the young people who have medical insurance still are not keen on using them much because of the high prices of medicines. Some will even go so far as to deny that symptoms exists for fear of the cost of medicine will entail.

This is aggravated by the fact that the increase in cost of good, quality healthcare outpace the earning capacity of most of my countrymen.

I am just talking about the upper and the middle class. The poor people who have no capacity at all to pay-- may be accepted in governement hospitals, yet have to provide their own medicines and some medical paraphenalia. This is very hard for them as they hardly have money to pay for their own food at home.

So, who will take care of them? They can only look to the governement for help.

Also, since I have worked before in a private company that
provided medical care to patients, I have reservations as to whether it is good to mix business with healthcare.

For example, there was a time when the company encouraged the doctors to use facilities (like xray and laboratory) for patients (especially those with medical cards) by giving incentives like rebates to them, although I don’t think the system is effective now because the card companies started to questioning the volume of usage of patients. While I am not questioning the honesty of the medical doctors who are my friends, I am saying that that policy at that time, opened the possibility for abuse, to the detriment of the patient (EX: uneccessary xray is bad for anyone).

I think, in any privately owned healthcare company, the managers are encouraged to do what they can to get the revenues up. Their concern is both to make patients happy and their bosses happy. However, sometimes, it becomes a choice between the two.

On the other hand, public healthcare can sometimes be an uncaring system. For example, I did some duty in a government hospital where poor mothers get less “caring” treatment from healthcare people.

When patients can afford it, such as in private healthcare, they get extra TLC (total loving care). These are just my observations.

I think that both public and private healthcare systems have their pros and cons.

 

[Pondero]

Hi Mary Bobo:

My wife also has had her medical problems, which I won’t go into, but she is very satisfied with the quality of health care here in Ontario, Canada. Again, it cost her nothing.

A lot depends also on the hospital you choose to have surgery in. Some are better than others. For example, Sunnybrook is - in my opinion - the best in the Toronto region. You have only got to listen to the news about auto accidents on Highway 401 to know that, or to hear about some person shooting someone or stabbing someone in one of our Jane/Finch housing complexes . ( Unfortunately we have a Crips gang up there) Every one of the hard-cases is taken to Sunnybrook, by ambulance of helicopter. It is the hospital of choice, and they have lots of experience with death-door cases.

And Vern. People are flocking to Canada as they are to the USA, we have more than our share of illegal immigrants. North America with all its faults is the continent of choice - and it has nothing to do with health care.

 

[vern_humphrey]

used to, you say. what made them change that?

The fact that it became public knowledge that they were letting people did and lying about it.

britain does, and i mentioned some other ways a US system might try to do that. removing barriers to access goes a long way, and in the US money is the biggest barrier.

What Do We Really Know About Whether Health Insurance Affects Health?

Author: Levy, Helen ; Meltzer, David
Working Paper: What Do We Really Know About Whether Health Insurance Affects Health? ; December 2001
Research Highlight 2; March 2003
Q & A with David Meltzer, M.D., Ph.D.
Abstract:
It is widely assumed that lack of coverage has deleterious effects on health status. This assumption is based on two important causative relationships: first, that being insured is critically important to receiving appropriate and timely medical care and, second, that receiving appropriate and timely medical care has a significant effect on health status. We analyze the evidence that relates to these assumptions and conclude that, with the exception of a few studies of elderly and child subpopulations, there is little concrete evidence of the existence or magnitude of these causative relationships. This paper is one of six papers commissioned at the outset of ERIU to provide a critical synthesis of the existing literature on who does not have health insurance, why they do not have health insurance, and what difference health insurance makes. The papers appeared in final form in Health Policy and the Uninsured published by Urban Institute Press in 2004.

jeez, i feel like a total idiot. i still can’t find them. what’s the post number?

Don’t feed me straight lines like that – you know I can’t resist temptation.

One cite was post #68. You can also do a search on Walter Williams (whom I cited) and “Health care.”

i’d go! if i had a car.

Get packed – I’ll drive you.