Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Vital Signs For National Health Insurance
Searing headlines about local job cuts sharpen interest in universal health-insurance coverage. The topic grabs the attention of those vulnerable families and voters broadly defined as the middle class, the engine of change.
Increasingly, the focus is on national single-payer health insurance. Acceptance of the concept is growing, especially among a key constituency: doctors.
Two years ago, I opined the health-care system was not yet bad enough for real change to occur. The economy was propped up by easy credit and the soon-to-be-exposed liar loans of a fraudulent housing boom. The link between having a job and access to medical care was still secure for so many.
Well, yes, the number of Americans without health insurance was estimated at 47 million - a staggering figure - but the topic and threat seemed comfortably distant from most households.
At the same time, coverage was eroding for many wage earners. Benefits were being cut, insurance exclusions were mounting, co-payments and deductibles were climbing, and children of the middle class were entering a stark economy where employers can no longer afford to offer coverage.
Single-payer health insurance is about who pays the bills, not who provides the medical care. Instead of having private insurance, everyone pays into a common fund. Nothing about the health-care-delivery system changes.
No one is employed by the government except the people who write the checks. Call it Medicare for everyone. Instead of waiting until age 65 for decent medical care, everyone - everyone - has access to a doctor.
The public's interest in guaranteed health insurance has been picking up in polls, but a significant change was reported this spring in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading medical journal. A study found 59 percent of U.S. physicians now support national health insurance, a jump of 10 percentage points in five years.
Support for national health insurance - private doctors paid by a federally administered plan - has gained support across medical specialties, according to Dr. Aaron E. Carroll, of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research at Indiana University's School of Medicine in Indianapolis.
Doctors have layers of frustrations with the current system of private insurers, Carroll said in a telephone conversation this week. Serving on the front lines of the medical system, they see the toll on patients without insurance and on the underinsured.
For all the grousing about reimbursement rates paid by Medicare, Carroll said doctors work within an operating model that is easier to navigate, and with vastly lower overhead expenses than hundreds of private insurers. Doctors are fed up with the hassles and billing refusals by different people at different companies with different procedures.
Carroll even sees a national single-payer health-insurance plan offering relief for such knotty problems as malpractice insurance. Most of the legal battles focus on the cost of future health care after a bad outcome. Universal coverage resolves that issue. That leaves a much smaller pool of cases where the fight is over punitive payments for true negligence.
The professional and political mosaic of a national single-payer health system is taking shape. In January, the American College of Physicians endorsed single payer as a pathway to universal coverage. In June, the U.S. Conference of Mayors adopted a resolution in support of HR 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Seattle, is an articulate proponent of the legislation.
So far, the presidential candidates are behind the curve on health-care reform. Dr. John P. Geyman, professor emeritus of family medicine at the University of Washington, laments that Republican John McCain offers no new ideas and Democrat Barack Obama's incremental approach falls short of a fix.
Geyman argues the inefficiencies and high overhead of the current health-care system have led to under-use of essential care for vulnerable populations, and a significant amount of unnecessary and inappropriate care for those who can pay for it.
Change is coming. McCain and Obama owe voters a coherent health plan. Their future employment depends on it.
Lance Dickie's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is ldickie@seattletimes.com; for a podcast Q&A with the author, go to www.seattletimes.com/edcetera
Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company
71 Comments so far
Show AllMarc the CPP is something like your SS with certain substantive differences.
It is a fund run at arms length from the Government. It does not count as tax revenues to our Governmnet when they measure the size of the surplus or deficit.
This bit of chicanery was used by Clinton and Bush to hide the true size of the US Budget imbalance.
The money can not be spent. Instead it is invested in various securities, generally of the highly conservative type . I think it earns a return of around 7 percent on average.
There is no using that fund to spend on current programs while issuing IOUS against the fund as the US Government does.
Were I to retire today I would get about 1200 a month from this.(Based on memory of my last update from the Government)
In addition we also have the OAS which comes from general tax revenues. This just a flat payout to everyone over 65. Going by memory it around 500$$.
A third source of income for those over 65 is the GIS or guaranteed income supplement. This is means based meaning the more sources of income you have once you reach 65 and the greater that amount, the less paid out in the GIS.
Keep in mind our provinces tend to have higher tax rates then your States as you can see from the link I provided.
PK
"So far, the presidential candidates are behind the curve on health-care reform."
Notice how the Greens' leader is not a presidential candidate here? Gosh, which is better, rewarding the Rep/Dems who are "behind the curve" on health care, or supporting those that are leading the charge? I guess picking up the phone to find out what McKinney and Nader have to say is too much work for this reporter.
One way or the other its coming. Big business has decreed it.
We just better make sure its single payer.
As a new Canadian and former American , America needs a health care system. My life and health has changed so much for the better with it. Canadians live on average 4 years longer and I can see why when it cost next to nothing to get top healthcare.
The British made the change to National Health in 1948 when their nation was in still in bad shape after the war. It will, perhaps, take a similar "sickness" in America to force us, kicking and screaming, to join other developed countries, and cure ourselves of the cancerous disease of private health insurance. Personally, I don't know anyone who has health insurance. If I or anyone I know is injured or gets sick, we are dead, period, unless the will of God, or charity, helps us. It is immoral to make a profit providing health care unless you are actually a care provider. Sucking off profits that merely inflate the cost of life saving services is evil, period. The conservative trolls that infest the country, and this website, will all say how horrible the systems are in other countries, and how long people have to wait. My best friend died two years ago because she could not afford care. 101,000 innocent Americans die each year because they wait FOREVER. We actually don't have a health care system. Criminal conservatives like to pretend we do, like they pretend about everything. A pretend war on drugs, a pretend war on terror, phony wedge issues like gay marriage, flag-burning, gun control, abortion, and so forth, dominate their paranoid universe and they pretend real issues, like global climate disruption, don't exist. Let's make sure that if we get single payer health insurance that these folks get some help for their psychosis. Their "culture of life" is killing us all.
Yes, and that single payer has to be the government.
I don't want to hear about what role insurance companies will play in the single payer system. They have never been anything but parasites and have no legitimate place anywhere in the health care system.
If their strangle hold on congress can be broken the rest should be easy.
The corporatists have endorced a payment system that keeps the private insurance companies in play. It is nothing more than using medical consumers (you and me) as tax payers (you and me) money laundered in to the hands of the private insurance companies! This will actually set back the move to single payer.
Hollow point August 8th, 2008 2:24 pm
Didn't you hear? It will take you months and months to get health care in Canada standing in those long lines.
Insurance companies have no place in health care except in writing policies for folks that want a suite at the hospital.
Nietzsche August 8th, 2008 2:35 pm
If their strangle hold on congress can be broken the rest should be easy.
Truer words never spoken!
Among the major candidates, only Nader and McKinney support a single-payer national health plan. Why do otherwise knowledgeable people ignore the fact that these two candidates are more qualified than either Obama or McCain and that they have an equal chance of winning the Presidency?
John M. Wages, Jr.
US House Candidate, MS-01
www.VoteJohnWages.com
Medicare is NOT decent health insurance. It does not cover eyecare or dental care, and the supplementals that the elderly buy are not much better for all that they are expensive.
When they finally wake up in the US and have single payer health care as opposed to a disease treaatment system (If you can afford it) I will be long dead since I am almost 71 now.
Doctors are for it - Big business is NOW for it - The people are for it. Only a few special interests are opposed to it. Hopefully the politicians will buckle and do the right thing.
What does single payer mean? I have heard the term used, but don't understand who this payer is? Also, what is meant by universal coverage? Is there any difference?
Single payer means only one agency pays the bills, as if everyone in the country had Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Universal coverage means that everyone-- rich or poor, sick or healthy-- is covered.
Most "first world" countries, and even many "third world" countries, have universal single-payer coverage-- health care is considered a human right.
Have you ever tried to hold a discussion about single-payer to anyone who is brainwashed about "socialized" medicine, long waits in these other countries, the excessive cost to the taxpayer, etc.? You can't reason with these people. They have no concern or compassion for those who suffer, die, go without care; those who end up in endless debt or bankruptcy. Comments I've actually received: "I don't believe in people getting 'something for nothing'"; "If people don't have health insurance or can't afford to go to the doctor it's their own fault- it's poor planning"; "Why do people keep having kids if they can't afford them?" "Why should I have to pay for someone who can't afford it/isn't working" etc.; "If you want a system like those other countries have, maybe you should move there."
I have actually stopped talking to one "friend" (now former) who had no compassion or understanding at all for me when I had to find a way to get help to undergo a lengthy wait and red tape to get a diagnosis and treatment for a serious condition. It's my fault, you see, that I don't have insurance. You shouldn't change or lose a job, and no matter how high the premiums, copays and deductibles get, you should be able to cover the costs.
Have you ever tried to hold a discussion about single-payer to anyone who is brainwashed about "socialized" medicine, long waits in these other countries, the excessive cost to the taxpayer, etc.? You can't reason with these people. They have no concern or compassion for those who suffer, die, go without care; those who end up in endless debt or bankruptcy. Comments I've actually received: "I don't believe in people getting 'something for nothing'"; "If people don't have health insurance or can't afford to go to the doctor it's their own fault- it's poor planning"; "Why do people keep having kids if they can't afford them?" "Why should I have to pay for someone who can't afford it/isn't working" etc.; "If you want a system like those other countries have, maybe you should move there."
I have actually stopped talking to one "friend" (now former) who had no compassion or understanding at all for me when I had to find a way to get help to undergo a lengthy wait and red tape to get a diagnosis and treatment for a serious condition. It's my fault, you see, that I don't have insurance. You shouldn't change or lose a job, and no matter how high the premiums, copays and deductibles get, you should be able to cover the costs.
The current system goes way beyond just the political influence of the insurance industry. It is unexcelled at keeping workers in a state of insecurity, and thereby, keep wages low. Few US employers I know of support single payer healthcare.
notice that doctors with 6 and 7 figure salaries, are mostly silent while one in six folks within their communties go without decent care. like the insurance companies, pharma, hmo's, they are cleaning up at the expense of 47 million! fuck em all!
Anyone who has trouble understanding single payer health care see SICKO including the special features on the DVD. Then block everything you hear in the US from the media about Canada health care.
Go to Canada if you can or call or email some real Canadians. Ask the following:
1. Are you concerned about going to the US and getting sick? What would you do?
2. Would you agree to give up your health care system for the US (self proclaimed) 'best health care in the world.'
3. If more than half of the people wanted an improvement in Canadian health care would it happen?
4. .....ask any thing else you think of
notice that doctors making 6 and 7 figure salaries are mostly silent about this travesty. they care more about their luxurious lifestyles than you and me!
Basically Canada has "Single Payer Insurance" . The Doctors/Hospitals or health care services simply bill the Goverment for services. This billing based upon a pre approved fee schedule for services. As in the Governmnet says we will pay 50,000$$ for a liver transplant.
There are no insurance companies or HMOS involved in this process at all.
This alone saves a huge amount of money. A medical office in the states needs 3 and 4 times more staff just to process billing with all the various health care providers. They might have to bill 5 or 6 different companies and or get approval from several organizations.
With the Government being billed for all work, there is also no chance that a person will refuse to pay his bills..thus no colection agencies trying to squeeze 200 dollars a month out of a patient.
If you examine such a system it is much cleaner. Insurance companies have no business being involved in a health care decision. Collection agencies have nothing to do with providing health care...HMOS are simply an in between guy just handling billing and claims and again having nothing to do with health care.
In truth the for private system is much less efficient and much more bureaucratic. Billions of dollars are eaten up in processes rather then providing care. Add that to profits that these companies must make and the Consumer is paying way more then they should for health care. The bulk of the costs to the consumer have NOTHING to do with the health care that is provided.
In Canada, the Government is in fact the Insurance provider. They collect the premiums via our taxes .
Like all progressive tax systems some pay more in taxes some less, but everyone is covered even if they pay no taxes at all. Thus Universality and portability.
Portability is often overlooked and is a tremendous boon .
2. Would you agree to give up your health care system for the US (self proclaimed) 'best health care in the world.'
Not(self proclaimed) at all.
Our health care is unquestionably the best in the world. There is no one that can dispute that fact. If anyone does dispute it they are not being truthful.
Only problem is 70% can't afford the best and 25% don't get any at all. So it's true, but only if you can afford it.
Not acceptable.
I don't want to seem stupid, but to make the point clear, the single payer is the government. Universal means all people in the US are covered, or are all citizens covered? how does this system work in other countries? Does everyone pay into it or is payment based upon income tax? are there any differences between, say canada and European nations?
Thomas More . I would liek to know on what you base the statement that the health care system in the United States is the best in the world.
To be perfectly frank, the REAL measure of a health care SYSTEM is not in the treatments provided but in preventing people from becoming ill in the first place.
The very very rich in America, that top 1 percent are NOT healthier then the majority of the people in Japan as example.
Now once something breaks down, the US is great at rushing out hi-priced technology to treat that person, but that does not make a health care system nor in my mind is it health care.
It is "illness treatment"to me means a very different thing. If a system forced to more and more "illness treatment" then the system as a health care system is already a failure.
A society where the people live long and healthy lives without the continous intervention of Doctors with treatments ,drugs and surgeries, is a superior health care system.
That means a healthier lifestyle and there no way in the world the US leads here.
PK
Marc,
Physicians for a National Health Program has a very informative website, see link below. I also recommend the book "Health Care Meltdown: Confronting the Myths and Fixing Our Failed System," by Robert H. Lebow.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php
Well, here might be a very good question for everyone. If we regard a universal single payer system as a good alternative to what we have now - can the universal single payer system BE IMPROVED UPON? In other words can we do even better than this model? Can it be improved upon? Perhaps the universal single payer system is good - but could be better. Let me know - i get the feeling we are all interested.
There is NO objective measure that would rank US health care in the top 10 in the world except money spent. We spend more for bad care or no care for millions of people than anybody in the world.
The rich and powerful do get elaborate and often unnecessary or Hail Mary procedures like Micky Mantle's liver transplant that extended his pain and killed the proper liver recipient. They also get to jump ahead of more important medical cases because they are VIP's.
One argument on this site is that Congress pays premiums for health care just like us. Bullshit. NO INSURANCE COMPANY WILL JERK A Congress person or their family around. I spent 9 months getting an insurance company to pay a doctor $40 for two copays I didn't have to pay because I was double covered by the same insurance company so I qualified for the best of either policy.
Single payer systems that writers dream up are based on a system that now operates where competitive and individually billed plans shore up the system.
Medicare does not operate in a vacuum.
It depends on the other parts of the system to hook into. The other parts are supported by the local Blue Cross Blue Shield or the local HMO.
Medicare arbitrarily, on an every day basis, lowers payments to providers, forcing many of them to opt out of that system. This passes more costs on to the other parts of the system. Hospitals, of course may find it tough to opt out of Medicare, so they eat the cost differential. In other words, when the going gets tough, Medicare forces others to pick up the pieces.
If Medicare is the only system in town, who will pick up the pieces?
?
?
?
GwNorth August 8th, 2008 9:11 pm
I said health care. Not health care system. You won't find anywhere else on Earth that has finer facilities, finer Doctors, better techniques, or better drugs. Our health care that is available is better than anyones. If you can afford it.
I'd say our health care system ranks somewhere below whale doo-doo on the floor of the ocean. Canada's is better, France's is better. I'll take our's over Englands or any socialized system however.
"That means a healthier lifestyle and there no way in the world the US leads here."
You've got that right.
Well Thomas we shall just have to disagree on terminology.
:)
I am speaking of health care. You are speaking of illness treatment.
At THAT i can not even agree with your termonology with the finer doctors/facilities etc. That is simply a function of money and not the system.
In other words it has nothing to do with the United States...any RICH country willing to spend 500,000 dollars to treat some celebrities hangnail can provide the same.
This is akin to saying that a country has a better transit system because more people in said country drive a ferrari.
Paying 100 dollars to get an aspirin served to a person on a fluffy red pillow has little to do with treating a patients illness.
BTW I am not picking on you. I enjoy reading your perspective.
PK
marc melchiori said:
"Well, here might be a very good question for everyone. If we regard a universal single payer system as a good alternative to what we have now - can the universal single payer system BE IMPROVED UPON? In other words can we do even better than this model?"
Some months ago Frontline (can be seen on the web) did a one hour show on several of the modern health care systems: Japan, Britain, Germany, and Taiwan. What was interesting is that Taiwan ask the same question as you did when they went about designing their system--they tried to combine the best aspects of the extant systems.
thaddeusstephens wrote:
"If Medicare is the only system in town, who will pick up the pieces? "
Thaddeus, I think the answer is found in taking a large view of the problem. If we capture all the money that is being spent in this country on health care, we would have 80 to 100% more to spend than other typical OECD countries--in other words, other things being equal, we would then really have the best health care system in the world. (For OECD per cap expenditures, see http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm)
Yes this requires more equity. If we can't do the equity thing, healthcare is not the only issue we can't solve. To that, you can add the economy and the environment. (For the economy piece, see Stiglitz at http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/07/10862/) (For the environmental part, consider what a citizen needs to do to live a more eco existance: solar, hybrid, and locally produced food. With equity, we could all do that. As it stands now, maybe 20% of us can do that. See site below for more on this issue.)
www.StudentsForTheEarth.org
Sorry, it is wwww.StudentsForTheEarth.org
"Acceptance of the concept is growing, especially among a key constituency: doctors"
The Seattle Times is trying to dispense classist koolaid. The healthcare issue is not up to doctors. It's up to the people.
Thomas More
You don't know what you are talking about. Long lines in Canada? I have never had and my wife ( lived here all her life) never had to wait that long. England has an even better system than ours.
I am so glad to out of that shit hole of a country called america.
BTW I am not picking on you. I enjoy reading your perspective.
We spend more money on it for less than anyone else when it comes to the average citizen. You are right there, But if you have the money we have the best around. And we train the rest of the best.
Didn't think you were. Same here. Hope you went back and looked at that last post to you on Hiroshima by the way.
Hollow point August 9th, 2008 6:31 am
I was kidding. Trying to be sarcastic. Thats always the argument against single payer. Sorry! Should have put a (LOL) behind it.
Englands system is not like Canada's single payer system and let me assure you socialized medecine is NOT better than the crappy system we have. My English friends would trade in a heartbeat.
Sorry you feel that way about my country though. I love it.
The sad part of it is the current political establishment (that includes BOTH major parties) have signed on to a system that is not only not expanding the Medicare concept but that is bleeding the existing system. One mechanism for doing this is through so called medicare advantage plans whereby Medicare subcontracts out its payment functions to private insurers who take a nice little chunk for themselves such that Medicare is paying ~13% more for covered services through these companies than it would be paying through straight Medicare, rather like Medicare Part D whereby the gov't is subsidizing the outrageous profits of big Pharma.
At the same time the gov't is cutting reimbursement rates to actual healthcare providers such as physicians and hospitals. So the privatizing, "business friendly", profit promoting politicians of both parties are killing two birds (and a lot of people) with one stone. On the one hand they are underfunding payments through the public system with the predictable (and desired) result that both healthcare providers and recipients are increasingly grumbling about the inadequacy of the system causing them to drop out, and at the same time funneling these public dollars into the pockets of profit making private concerns. The leaders of both parties do not want a public system to work, but they can't do away with it outright because it is too popular, so they simply sabotage it from the inside, while continuing to give it lip service to mollify us. It is so outrageous and so transparent that you would think we would all have caught on by now, but apparently not.
Healthcare providers, at least the ones I know, are interested in providing healthcare. "Health" insurance companies are interested in denying it - for the simple reason that paying for their customers healthcare is, pure and simple, "overhead". And, we all know via Business 101, that one of the two cardinal rules of business is to decrease overhead. The other cardinal rule is to increase revenue. They have discovered that it is "good business" to invest in politicians as they are the ones who have the ability to funnel more and more public monies into their pockets.
The fact of the matter is that not only would healthcare not suffer if the health insurance industry disappeared, but it would be healthier and cheaper. But there is a lot of money at stake for them here and apparently they have succeeded in buying off both political parties. McCain lives off the open Rep. philosophy of "Gov't should get out of the way." Obama has to walk a finer line - his constituents are, in theory, a bit more "Gov't should do good" friendly. So he sticks in a "Nat'l health plan" that people could "choose", knowing full well that much of the savings that would be gained from a single payer system because of the simplicity of billing, uniform payment fees, etc. would be lost when there are still many multiple payers involved, not to mention the tendency of private companies to cherry pick the healthiest customers (i.e. with the least overhead) leaving the sicker people for the public system, which basically is what we have now. In addition, he would subsidize premiums to help people pay for this insurance, i.e. subsidize the profits of private insurers. The subsidies he quotes, at this point, aren't so outrageous that they would be rejected outright, but the dirty little secret is that they are also not enough to get a policy that would provide adequate coverage through these private insurers. So, instead of his plan being a step in the right direction, it is actually a perpetuation of the current system. Which is why you don't see any of those "Harry and Louise" ads opposing his plan, as they did in the Clinton admin when the insurer's detected a threat to their bottom line. In fact, I suspect they feel their investment in Obama will pay off well. When asked "why not single payer?", he says "it's not politically feasible." This is code for "the insurance companies won't permit it." They are helping him pay for his campaign, they want something back, he won't disappoint. After the election, we have NO leverage. If there is no single payer plank in the Dem. committee platform, you will know the insurance companies have won again and we will continue to lose.
Another sad part of this all is that the folks who want you to abandon candidates that fight for single payer in favor of this supposed "better than nothing" plan are actually setting the cause back, not advancing it. The longer the Dems are convinced they can get elected without denying the private insurers a good chunk of the healthcare pie, the longer they will do it (it pays well) and the more of us will suffer for it. For me it's been too long already, I do not consent. No candidate who does not support single payer will get my vote. This is not just an empty threat on my part. I have done it before, I will do it again.
The Dems have called our bluff on too many issues - the war, trade, healthcare, etc. If you suggest that you will not vote for them without these issues and at the same time hint that you will indeed pull their lever in the voting booth, you have proven George Bush right - you constitute nothing more than "a focus group", and who needs to listen to them? Make no mistake, Cheney may have said "So?" out loud when asked about public opinion, but the Dems are saying the same thing under their breath.
ALL political parties must be given to understand that, no matter how much money they have in their campaign coffers, they will NOT gain office without giving us what we need instead of giving Wall Street what it wants. Sorry folks, but, The Nation's "pretty please" letter notwithstanding, the ONLY way to do that is to actually deny them the vote until they do.
exacty. the more progressive third party candidates out there, the more popular they are, the more traction and interest they gain, the more the democrats will be forced to look to more progressive values instead of running in the opposite direction as they have been doing again and again.
Joneden: so what was the clternative Taiwan came up with? I hear many people bashing this and that, but I for one would be interested in a better system than the system we have now and the system that we might have later. I think everyone can learn something.
Hi Marc....beyond the fact that they described it as a hybrid and that it is one of the latest formed, I don't recall a thing about it. I do recommend the Frontline show addressing the issue though. It was incredibly interesting.
I no longer have links to the original stories so go by memory. These just as examples how inhrently corrupt for profit systems are.
A Live saving drug that used to cost 4 dollars per tabet in the United States has seen the firm selling it increase the price by some 4000!! percent....it is now 160$$ per tablet.
Keep in mind that all development costs have been paid for. They justify this by claiming it used only by a limited number of people thus the company is doing a public service by keeping it on the market.
I really do not see how the "costs" to produce the drug or keep it on the market can suddnely go up 4000 percent. It price gouging...a gun held to the head....if you do not pay you die.
In another example a drug, long on the marketplace and selling fro pennies per tablet was discovered to have a dramtic effect on treating diseases it was not intended for. This new use prevented blindness in thousands of patients.
Again development costs paid for...it turning a profit at its pennies per tablet...The Company applied for and extended its patent even though they were not the ones who learned of the new treatemnt. They then bumped the costs by hundreds of times over.
Again this has nothing to do with the claims by Drug Companies (Bogus in my opinion) that they have to recover R and D costs. Again it price gouging.
pk
joneden,
I saw that Frontline show. For anyone who did not see the program and wants to read about what the 5 countries have, see the link below. You can also watch the program. I thought Switzerland was the most inspirational for the US; they are a capitalist country with powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Yet they managed to get universal coveraged passed in 1994. If they can do it, why can't we?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/
GwNorth August 9th, 2008 2:36 pm
"Again this has nothing to do with the claims by Drug Companies (Bogus in my opinion) that they have to recover R and D costs. Again it price gouging."
I'd say those thieves are so far past price gouging, its more like price Grand Canyoning.
Thieves, pure and simple.
As a Canadian who lived in the States for a decade (and has worked in health care on both sides of the border), I have long argued that the US can do single-payer universal coverage even more efficiently than Canada does. Ninety percent of Canada's 33 million people live within 120 km of the US border, spread across over 5,000 km. The US population is ten times Canada's, and it is much denser, for the most part. Physically, that is.
Here's a link to an outline of what the Canadian federal government mandates: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-6/bo-ga:s_7//en#anchorbo-ga:s_7
i will check out the systems of taiwan and switz. I have been to europe on many occasions for business and canada, not the orient. Although my brother inlaaw is from taiwan. I think people need to look betonf the "single" payer system and look at what works in the world NOW. Times have changed. Even European systems are stretched tp the max. more imput is needed in this topic/forum. its vital to all of us. If there is something better we had better explore it.
Real Dim;
Gee Canadians live in the most southern part of Canada ( near the US border) maybe because at one time there wasn't a border and it is warmer the further south you go. That is where the trains run as well that would bring trade to these towns and don't forget the north shore of the Great lakes.
Thomas M
I am sure if you lived in Canada with its healthcare you would feel different about the US. I know at first I said that very thing that I wouldn't feel different but have found now I would never go back. It is like you can look at a situation like a 3rd party, a lawyer or marriage counsellor you can see both sides. When you are on the outside looking in the US looks much different. It is a real screwed up place and it doesn't have to be. good luck is all I can say
Thomas M
Think I will watch CBC coverage of the Olympics as they show all the countries not just USA USA USA like NBC.
Hey Hollow Point
"It is a real screwed up place and it doesn't have to be. good luck is all I can say"
We're working on it, we're working on it!!!!
"Think I will watch CBC coverage of the Olympics as they show all the countries not just USA USA USA like NBC."
Isn't that the truth. We aren't going to watch it this year (except for the 1500 meters), maybe a few others to try and send a message to advertisers. I wish we got CBC.
I'm extremely proud of the kid that carried our team flag in. Thats the America I love and grew up in and want back. Watch for him. He's a citizen now, but he's from the Sudan.
This kid will warm your heart.
Enjoy your CBC....yes its better than NBC by a long shot! Anytime.
Pax
sounds like no one is interested in other models. Guess I'm on my own - once again.
One point always made about the canadian system is the lack of Doctors in remote areas, or the access to MRIS or other such hi-tech diagnostic equipment.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with Universality or with Single payer insurance.
It has to do with Geography pure and simple and how our population is dispersed.
Peoples in the major centers do have ready access to such. It the remote centers where there a problem but an objective look at the reasons for that should make it clear as to why that is.
Doctors do not like to work in remote communities of 2 or 3000 people. Its just a fact.
It is not cost effective to put in hi-tech diagnostic equipment into towns of 2000 or 4000 people. No private company would do it. It makes far more sense to have those patients flown in to a major center.
Now that said some of these flight can be 8 hours long as Canada such a large country. Yes it a fact that if you live 200km outside Baker lake and need live saving surgery you will have access problems, but look at Baker lake on a map.
This is very different then a United States (The lower 48) where virtaully every center you might live in is no more then 2 or 4 hours from a major city by car.
It also a reason we have very different challenges then European countries. In an Iceland you can put everything in the Capital City and there no people that are so far away it impossible for them to travel there.
pk