Single payer is the only system that can really work, but it MUST be combined with a national system of health care facilities that are publicly funded and operated. It is an area that must be taken out of private hands entirely if it to work and provide health care for all at a total cost that is supportable. The current crop of plans that incorporate private insurance companies and for profit providers totally ignore the fact that insurance is the problem...NOT THE SOLUTION. Both at the provider level and at the insurer level the objective is to maximize profit for minimal service...... It will always be the case so long at the system remains in private hands.

Howard

Upon review while the structure of the CPP is as I outlined, the payout is less then the 1200. I was going by memory and the 1200 is if you decide to draw at a later age. It your option to draw on it at 65 or to delay it to 70.

The true payout is around 898$$ at 65. IF i decide to draw at 70, the latest I can wait it is 1200 therebouts. Of course this is adjusted for Inflation so in 20 years time it will be higher.

It *IS* fully funded in that they have enough in the fund to pay out to the turn of next century.

What is good about this system is that while the funds are invested in very conservative securities, the taxpayer pays no management fees. None of that money flows to brokergaes or Bloor Street.

We had a system similar to yours up until the early 90's , a purely pay as you go but the Government decided it would not be sustainable and had it revamped.

Now one problem. You mentioned you were a farmer. I grew up on the farm. My Uncles all still farm. Unless you worked sometimes in your life for a Company and regular paycheck you are out of luck for the CPP. You can still get OAS and the GIS.

Indeed as I understand it the OAS and GIS were specifically designed fopr Farmers and the Self employed who never paid into the CPP

PK

CPP the way you portray it it sounds like heaven. I can't even believe such a thing exists! I am giddy! You have got to be kidding. Holy crap! Sing the praises of Canada from the highest mountain to the lowest valley. The two best things I have ever heard - run at arms length from the govt and invested in conservative securities! Thanks for all the info. MOre of this "nuts and bolts" stuff whould be posted in the site. I bet hardly anyone in CD would have ever guessed how Canada funds part of its retirement fund. Thanks. Marc

Just looking at the tax schedule for Canada I believe the states are more progressive. The tax difference between someone making 38,000 and 123,000 is a mere 7%. Our top marginal rate is 35% on incomes over 350K. Yikes

So like in the states, you folks have a "federal" tax and then the provinces are like a "state tax" in America plus a national retail sales tax of 6% - but no SS or medicare tax which in the US is defferent for employers and employees. what is this canadian pension plan? Is it our version of SS?

Yes taxes in Canada are progressive. WE also have a GST which is akin to a VAT tax of 6 percent. This on all items outside things like food and rent.

Federal rates in Canada are as follows.

0-37885 15%
37850-75769 22%
75770-123184 26%
123185 and up 29%

These are federal rates. Note we do not pay Social security taxes butdo pay into Unemployment insurance Capped at around 780$$ per year AND a seperate Canada Pension plan Capped at around 2000$$ per year.

Each province then has a seperate tax rate.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

Taxable income, Much like America is income defined after certain deductions taken off such as a personal of some 9000$ and exmeptions for Children, a spouse ,relocation to find jobs and so on and so firth.

The GST paid by consumers is returned to people earning less then a Certain amoutn of income.

Now I am not clear how Europe works but from what I understand they use the VAT In lieue of personal income taxes. Not that they dont pay income taxes, but that they tend to be a lower rate and they tax consumption instread.

If we have readers from the EU they can correct me If I am wrong.

PK

ThomasMoore 8/10 2:27PM

Your point is well taken re "lesser evilists". Do you have a better suggestion as to how to refer to those who encourage people to vote for a candidate because he/she IS the "lesser evil" of those whom the MSM has determined to be "electable"? I did not use the term to demonize, but as a descriptive short cut for those who make this argument. If it is generally considered now to be a pejorative, I was not aware of that. What's a better phrase?

Are canadian taxes progressive - that is do the wealthy pay more of the tax burden? I gave read in Europe that most western European countries pay a VAT - value added tax - on every item purchased. So, for instance a new pair of shoes will cost x plus in an extra 23% in France or 17% in the UK. each nation has a different VAT rate. Can anyone attest to this? Or is it hogwash?

After losing my job three years ago, due to a cardiac condition, I was told in an exit interview that I could continue my health insurance by paying into the COBRA program. The only problem with that idea is that without a job, I couldn't afford to make the COBRA payments. Hence, my health insurance was effectively cut off. Now, at this point, if I get sick or have an accident, I'd better hope real hard that it isn't debilitating because my only recourse would be to sit back and wait to die. I'll be voting for someone besides the Democrats or the Republicans and will gladly vote FOR any intelligent candidate who proposes instituting a national health care system.

As with anything else they choose to get involved with, the insurance industry's interference in U.S. health care has caused massive and spiraling inflation which only adds to the already rapid downfall of American health care.

After one particular hospital stay, I was billed $300.00 for six aspirin, $45.00 for a box of Kleenex, $462.00 for a catheter which was never even used, $3,600.00 for two different doctors that I never even saw, much less consulted with, $1380.00 for a portable heart monitor, $1,750.00 for two sets of X-rays, $55.00 for a set of ugly, stretch socks with rubber on the soles, $500.00 for three days worth of nearly inedible meals, and @250.00 for the use of a wheelchair. Now, even taking inflation into account, most of the above could've been easily bought online for less than 20% of what I was actually billed for.

And what's the kicker, you might ask? My insurance company refused to pay a good chunk of the bill, saying that the hospital had padded and over-inflated their actual costs and that they (the insurance company) could only cover a small percentage of the total cost of my stay... AND the hospital told me that my insurance company had told the hospital exactly what they would pay out for each item BEFORE I even checked into the hospital. So, I guess my real question is... Who's fucking who?

Marc In Canada it funded via the Government. First at the provincial level, then at the Federal level. The split used to be 50/50 with the feds raising money in taxes then transferring it back to the provinces.

On a Per Capita basis the United States Government pays marginally more for health care then does the people of Canada. Added to that of course would be much more from US Citizens to get Private care. I am speaking only of the Government portion here .

Now there is a problem in that if the Government is worried about balancing the Budget they can cut these transfers which in turn hurts the system.

On the other hand Governments that tend to ignore the system, tend to get punished at the polls.

Europe has different systems. IN France it a blend of public/private with Universality.

PK

I get the feeling that everyone wants it but no one wants pay for it

anyone want to reply to my post?

BTW in recent polls to determine who Canadians though the "Greatest Canadian" was, Tommy Douglas won.

He helped to introduce a number of Social programs post WW11 and was a Political leader of the utmost integrity.

A socialist to the bone he weatherd many attacks against his character with grace. This was during the Anti-communist hysteria.

They do not seem to make them like him anymore. His constituency was always the people and especially the poor and working class.

pk

GwNorth August 9th, 2008 11:19 pm

I'm with hollow point, very interesting. I really didn't know how it got started. Its beginning to look like it may take a state here to get the ball rolling.

And you are certainly right hollow point, its going to take involvement.

H2O August 10th, 2008 11:27 am

I'd like to suggest that demonizing the folks that don't sgree with you as "lesser evilists" is not that conducive to converting undecideds. It reminds me too much of Rovian tactics. Just a thought.

H2o. You are free to cite these posts or use them whenever you wish, and good luck to you and fellow progressives in the United States.

pk

GwNorth: Thank you SO much for your input!

Your post of 8/9 10:50PM raises an EXCELLENT point. When the the interest of the gov't is invested both in healthcare for its people and in controlling the cost of same it DOES look at the role it can play in disease prevention which leads to regulation of disease producing entities such as you mention. I have long believed that many of the diseases of "civilized" man are produced either directly or indirectly through all the crap we are introducing into the environment through our methods of production. Private insurance companies, while they may "promote" healthy lifestyles, have no power to regulate environmental pollutants nor interest in doing so.

Your post of 8/9 11:19 PM illustrates precisely the point us 3rd party people are trying to make:
"This is important to all Americans who think they waste a vote voting a third party. Canadians voted for a Third party….while this did help the Conservatives of Diefenbaker win the elections of 1957.

Had the Liberals won an outright majority in 1963 and Canadians not have voted for the NDP, I think our adopting Universality and single payer owuld have been delayed by years. (Again they resisted such for 17 years until they became a minority Government) ......

In my opinion, if Americans are afraid or reluctant to vote a third party because it will allow the Republicans the win, you will not get single payer or universality. Both parties will remain in the pockets of the Corporations."

I realize that the argument will be made that we don't have a 3rd party here like the NDP in Canada, but there are two observations I will make in that regard:
1) we never will have if the lesser evilists prevail for the simple reason that every argument that is made against voting 3rd party at the nat'l. level can be made at the local and state levels as well, to whit: don't vote for a 3rd party cause that will put the Rep. in power. This argument amounts to - don't support a 3rd party until that party is strong enough to actually take power. Like Athena fully formed from the head of Zeus, this is beyond the pale.
2) it is not necessary to be able to take power before effecting powerful change - the NDP was not in power when it used it's leverage to get single payer. It was enough to demonstrate to the Liberal party that it (the Liberals) would have no power without the support of the NDP. In our (USA) case, it would not be necessary even to have a 3rd party voting bloc in Congress, though that would be good and something to keep working for, - all it is necessary to do is demonstrate clearly that the Dems, e.g. will have no power without the support of the 3rd party voting bloc of the electorate.

Thank you, again! You have demonstrated that the strategy we are promoting works and that, in fact, it may be the only one that does - there is nothing so powerful as the threat of the loss of power, the threat is useless when TINA rules public perception (the NDP was the alternative), and the threat must be actualized - no single payer, no Liberal power.

The lesser evilists must be understood for what they are - champions of the status quo who are aiding the lesser evil party in resisting change by undermining and undercutting the leverage 3rd party candidates can exert. And they know it.

If it is all right with you, I would like to be able to use, or refer, to your post(s) in other venues to illustrate the effectiveness of the "strategy" we are promoting. (Although it is a sad commentary on our system when voting on principle is only considered legitimate when it is demonstrated as effective "strategy".)

I look forward to "hearing" from you again!

Can anyone tell me now health care systems in Canada and Western Europe are funded? If the are funded adequately? If the funding gets used specificaly for health care or is diverted to other government projects and programs? Any help here from the Canadian writers would be great.

Thomas M
Well one way is people getting together in every state and remind who has the vote and it is We the People not We the Wal Marts etc. Phone write protest what ever it takes.
GW north
good history lesson and I read about Tommy Douglas before. Americans have to remember sometimes it takes just one person to start the ball rolling in the right direction.

The lesson of how Canada got its own Universality is instructive. It was first adopted by the Province of Saskatchewan after special interest groups had resisted it for years.

This when the electorate voted in the CCF Governmnet (A Socialist party) of Tommy Douglas. (The CCF later became the NDP)

The Doctors of that province fought it tooth and nail and the "industry" put all manner of dire warnings at as to how bad it would be if Saskatchewan went that route.

Interestingly the doctors are now one of the strongest supporters of the system. They actually came out ahead.

Alberta then introduced a similar system. All provinces followed with like systems although none were true Universailty yet as these were all at the provincial level and were not standardized.

Now it 1963 (Douglas introduced it to saskatchewan in 1946 so some 17 years later. It did not happen overnight!)

At the time the Liberals were in power federally. They had a minority Government meaning they needed the Federal wing of the NDP to support them. The NDP held the balance of power. The NDP insisted that the Federal Government adopt and implement a nationwide Universal health care system in return for their support of the minority liberals.

This is important to all Americans who think they waste a vote voting a third party. Canadians voted for a Third party....while this did help the Conservatives of Diefenbaker win the elections of 1957.

Had the Liberals won an outright majority in 1963 and Canadians not have voted for the NDP, I think our adopting Universality and single payer owuld have been delayed by years. (Again they resisted such for 17 years until they became a minority Government)

Once the Liberals implemented the system and it took root across canada, it became so popular and such a bedrock value to the Canadian electorate , following Governments were loathe to rescind it.

The Liberals adopted it as their own. Even the Conservatives started claiming they were its Champions.

In my opinion, if Americans are afraid or reluctant to vote a third party because it will allow the Republicans the win, you will not get single payer or universality. Both parties will remain in the pockets of the Corporations.

You will be having this same debate 20 years from now.

PK

I don't know about the rest of you but I'm sick of paying VERY high premiums for health insurance and really being under insured. It just went up again about one hundred and some dollars and I have a ten thousand dollar deductable just so I can have some insurance. It's the pits! I'll be 65 next year and will at least get more coverage than I have now.

I think the point made about escalating medical costs EVERYWHERE is a good one but that said.

There a distinct advantage to a Government mandated system in this regard. A Government realizes that providing treatment to its citizens will always cost money in the form of taxes.

Thus in the long term it in the interests of that Government to provide true HEALTH care in that the health of existing citizens is protected so they do not get sick in the first place.

There is no such incentive in a for profit system. They can not make profits unless people are sick.

Now over the past few months the Canadian Government has taken the lead in the world in banning many Chemicals being used in our society such as the ban on certain plastics used in babies milk bottles and the like. I think they should move much more quickly in this area and examine many food additives and preservatives as well. (ie ASPARTAME)

A recent report by a team at a local University has suggested that the health care costs will grow much slower then people believe even with our aging population.

They have pointed out that peoples entering their 60s and 70's now are much healthier then the generation that came before them. This due in part to healthier lifestyles and their having access to the system via unversality and single payer most of their lives wherein the most troublesome of diseases and illnesses could be headed off before thye became more serious.

They also point out hat there much less of the lingering illness where a person hangs onfor years and years while being treated. People live longer but also tend to die quicker when they do come down with something like a cancer because the types that they contract can not be treated anyways.

If we want to control health care costs, I believe the best way is in preventive measures. Clean up the enviroment, the food supply and educate people in the benefits of a healthy lifestyle.

that in my opinion is the most effective method.

pk

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

sounds like no one is interested in other models. Guess I'm on my own - once again.

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

Thomas M
Think I will watch CBC coverage of the Olympics as they show all the countries not just USA USA USA like NBC.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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/

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Sorry, it is wwww.StudentsForTheEarth.org

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

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

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.

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?
?
?
?

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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 .

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!

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 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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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 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.

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.

One way or the other its coming. Big business has decreed it.
We just better make sure its single payer.

"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.

Marc 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