Kickas.org Forums Ankylosing Spondylitis General Discussion #1 AS Web Support Group What to do about healthcare? Can it be fixed?

Hey all, I've been watching this discussion with some interest. Someone was asking about the Canadian system. This explanation of our system and its history from Wikipedia is pretty good:

Healthcare in Canada

In 2002, the Romanow Report on healthcare was issued. This 392 page report was commissioned to make recommendations on how to improve the system in Canada. It was paid for by Canadian tax payers. To my knowledge, it has been largely ignored by our government. I could be very wrong about that.

One thing of interest, when Paul Martin Sr. first tabled a national hospital insurance plan in 1957, the main objectors to this idea were virtually the same as those in the United States: doctors, insurance companies and big business. In 1960, the Canadian Medical Association spoke out against publically funded healthcare. In 1966, Medicare was formally adopted by the Liberal minority government, with support from the New Democrats as the "tie-breakers" in Parliament, with the government covering 50% of costs. In 1978, doctors began "extra-billing" (i.e. charging fees on top of what the government paid them for covered services) to increase their incomes. This practice was banned in 1984 when the Canada Health Act was passed.

Pharmaceuticals are not currently covered beyond individual provincial programmes (i.e. Trillium here in Ontario) designed to help lower income people, those on disability and those with catastrophic med costs. Dental is also not generally covered beyond whatever employer benefits people might have.

Our healthcare system does have problems; problems that I truly hope they are working hard to overcome. However, I can categorically state that had we not established Medicare in 1966, my father would have died, I am certain, because my mother would not have been able to pay the bills for his increasing health problems beginning in 1967. I would not have the sister that I've been so frightened for lately and I would not have my two beautiful nieces in my life. I'm sure that many families here can tell similar stories, but my entire family (pretty much bar none) has benefitted from our system and the fact that we do not have to pay for our healthcare beyond whatever provincial levy there is (which is generally covered by employers here in Ontario). Our Premiers keep insisting the feds give them more say in things (and less accountability for how our healthcare transfer dollars are spent), and every time the feds give in to them, things get worse. At least, that's how it appears to me. Sometimes, someone has to hold the reins lest the team run rough shod over everything.

Regardless, as a rule (for the most part), the government does not dictate what we can or cannot choose as a treatment (unless it is experimental or has not been proved to the satisfaction of Health Canada). I might have to wait an incredibly long time in ER (depending where I am and most of you have heard my rants on the state of downtown ERs), but I cannot be turned away because I have the wrong insurance or no insurance at all.

Anyway, I'll shut up now and listen again for a while.

Warm hugs,

Kat, I have always liked the way you think.

This article puts the question into either the correct prospective, or the wrong prospective, depending on your point of view. As I said earlier in this thread, when you make it personal (and saying, "I can categorically state that had we not established Medicare in 1966, my father would have died." makes it very personal indeed) you have no choice but to be in favor of universal healthcare coverage. That is, unless you have a stone for a heart. If I could, I would pay for all of my friends to have healthcare coverage. Let's see, at $1,200.00 US per month. times all of my friends, I would be broke in about… less than one month. So, the question remains, do you make national policy on emotion? Or, do you make national policy on something remotely resembling fact. The fact is, the USA can't afford it any more than I could. If the USA goes broke, how are we helping anyone? A cost of over $1 trillion (too many 0's) will put the USA into debtor nation status far further than we are right now.

I would rather help folks the good old-fashioned way. If there is someone who needs healthcare coverage that doesn't have it, let each of us pay for one person until that person can pay for himself/herself. It is an unwieldy way to handle it, and full of problems, but it is accomplishing the goal of covering folks without breaking the bank. I know, it's not very practical, but then again, I'm not often very practical. Heheh.

Hi, Kat:

I appreciate very much Your story, and only WISH that the US were as sensible as Canada. You see in the US, we have to plan WHEN to get sick: We are front-loading our nationalized healthcare plan by PAYING for it three years before the first part is actually funded, and potentially as many as six years before the uninsured actually become insured, but it gets better because this first round expires after ten years, so the uninsured should plan on getting sick in five--but not ten--years from when the legislation passes. Not bad for only doubling the national debt!

We have a bunch of dreamers in this country, unable to separate fact from fiction; it is a good thing we have a media on top of the whole thing and not in the pockets of the Daley Machine (sarcasm). If Elmer Gantry were only alive today...

HEALTH,
John

I still don't understand where all the tax dollars go if we (Canada) are the ones who have all these "socialist" programs to help us and you guys pay roughly the same amount of taxes as us. Still no one looking into that as the problem. Am I wrong?

Yes you are missing a key point

Frankly the US does much more in the world than Canada does and it is expensive. We have a lot of spending that canada does not because of the position of the last superpower and our defense obligations.

Massive military spending. It is expensive being the worlds policeman (don't get me started on the idiotic nation building we do) Plus we have a space program yea know. We spend as much on just NASA as Canada does on its entire military.

Foreign aid is much higher for US

paying interest on a massive debt we have dug over the last 20 years with both democrat and republican spending.

Increasing costs of medicare and medicaid will break the bank if we don't reform the US healthcare system period.

-Aha! Here we go...Hegemony is expensive! This is about healthcare, but I too could go on with you for hours (probably days)on end to get to the WHY.

-There's still the option to keep all this spending in America to create jobs- stimulus.

-Crashin stuff into the moon is cool.

-I SINCERELY hope you guys work this out for the good and well being of the people, not the ...

The USA may give more actual $$ in foreign aid. This is because they have a larger population. They actually only give 0.1% of their gross national income whereas Canada gives 0.33% of theirs.

If I may say, I can't help feeling that those opposed to a health care system like that of Canada or Great Britain are those who are already taken care of and, as with any "socialist" notion, they don't wish to help pay for others. I could be wrong.

I think it's a feeling that we all would jump to but have to try to overcome because taking care of everyone is the right thing to do. That's what it's all about.

Please don't think I have bad feelings for the USA. You are a beautiful nation. I would dearly love to live there - if it wern't for a few things. One of which is the healthcare.

Maggie

An economic stimulus must create jobs across a broad section of the economy and in multiple industries to be effective. I would argue the more we spend on healthcare the less we have to stimulate the economy and create jobs for the average american. Overall expensive healthcare is a drain on an economy and not a positive.

I think maybe the foreign aid to which Steve was referring is taxpayer-sponsored government aid. Perhaps 0.33% vs. 0.1% represents private charitable giving?

Also, while not against health care reform, I am against a health care system defined and potentially administered by our government. I, as do many others, want to see them in less and less of our lives and incorrectly spend less and less of our money. I am one without health insurance and am not "taken care of". It is not the responsibility of my fellow citizen to buy me (or anyone else) health insurance. I'm not opposed to helping (via tax credits, subsidies, etc.) those of lesser economic obtain health insurance. However, we also need to get those folks, that are able bodied, into the workforce so they have the means to put food on the table, a roof over their heads, and adequate health insurance. There are too many instances of folks living off the government dole and are content to let the government take care of them for the rest of their lives.

I believe that their are certain mandates or rules which the insurance companies need to follow/must play by. However, I do not wish to see my fellow citizens potentially taxed and/or harassed by an entity like the IRS since they make a choice not to purchase health insurance. My thought is that if you don't buy health insurance and are of economic means, then you potentially face a long time/life time as a debtor if you run into a health emergency. That said, there should also be rules for the consumers (open enrollment periods?) so that they don't game the system by procuring a policy when they are ill and then dropping it once they are well. Health insurance consumers must be greatly protected and afforded many rights, but the folks selling health insurance (as evil and unfair as they can be) must be protected from those that would be inclined to take advantage (per the aformentioned example).

I don't know what the answer is, but from my perspective, our country hasn't arrived at it yet. Just the fact that the partisan legislators want to arrive at a compromise on something as important and far reaching as a health insurance makes me sad and extremely angry simultaneously. Our health insurance policy is not something which should be developed through a partisan compromise. It should be developed with the best interests of the American citizen in mind, regardless of political affiliations and what not.

Sorry, got off on a tangent here, but sometimes it is hard not to deviate.

Stimulus so far: directly to insurance and auto.

Stimulus for healthcare: Construction, manufacturing across broadest range of industries imaginable (food - clothes -high tech), education, demand for directly related jobs like Doctors, nurses, janitors, security, paramedic, admin, you name it!

Or you could just throw like 50 billion to 3 auto companies... owned by standard oil...