Canadians: tell us about your health care system

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Who pays the bills Clabo?

Who appoints the councils that control what happens in say the Province of Alberta.

The doctor I cited was a member of one of the original elected councils. Then they went to political appointments with NO healthcare professionals on the council. Hmmmmmmm.

So while the government pays for the healthcare and politicians appoint who serves on the councils containing no healthcare professionals that determine the direction of healthcare within a province....it's not socialized.

QUACK!

If you have to wait for an extended period of time to see a doctor...isn't that kinda like getting between a patient and the doctor?

[Wayne Watling]

So Wayne...my friends who are paying $8400 locally annual insurance premiums would be paying $10, 904 in Canada?

Not exactly Ken, the $5K figure is just the total $ amount divided by the the total number of Canadians. Because heathcare is funded by the tax system, some folks would be paying more and others less, according to how much tax you pay. A single mum with 3 kinds would hardly pay anything for their healthcare (as it should be).
In my opinion this is a perfect system for healthcare, capitalism has no place here. Cosmetic and elective medicine is different of course and there is some debate on what constitutes elective surgery.

[Josh Reet]

This thread should just be axed under the "no political talk" clause. I have a feeling it has run it course. I'm going back to talking about tools.

EDIT: OP removed personal opinion. I edited him belittling himself.

[Heather Thompson]

My husband and I pay 978.00 per month for health care, 11,736.00 per year, when COBRA runs out my husband will be uninsurable, he has a tremor. He had an upper and lower GI a few months back, cost about a 1000,00 out of pocket, took about 25 minutes. The health care system in this country needs to change, I was raped as a small child, it hurt less than what is happening now.

Heather

[Eric Larsen]

Ken, it seems that "the bottom line" is always your biggest concern.

One of my favorite lines from any movie comes from Platoon: "Free your mind and your ass will follow."

If we all stood up and said, "This has gone far enough." I am 100% unequivocally certain that we're smart enough to work up a solution. We don't have a money problem. We have a willpower problem.

We both know that most of California's problems stem from the crushing effect illegal aliens have on their economy. Anything California does is going to have to be filtered though the lens of hundreds of thousands of undocumented aliens.

But does that mean the rest of the country should stagnate? That people should be denied treatment just because some middle manager needs to bring profits up 4 percent this quarter?

We are smart enough to fix this. The radical fringe yelling, "No! No change. Nothing at all. No. No. No. No." receives too much attention. We should dismiss them as dead weight and fix this problem without them. They're partof the problem, anyway.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Josh,

You feel it should be axed because someone disagrees with you? What is you definition of a mellow thread? One where eveybody gets together and nods their heads in agreement? A lot of the problems arise because of that type of flock mentality.

Because someone dare ask questions?

Where did I flame anyone?

I simply asked questions and cited a newpaper article.

I can cite others who are Canadian friends who have brought family member to the US for treatment and diagnosis.

You cannot separate the cost of healthcare from the politics if you are going to use tax dollars to pay for it.

You cannot separate the number of malpractice cases (deserved and undeserved) from healthcare discussions.

You cannot separate the quality of healthcare from the cost of healthcare. You can say you need to make it more cost effective....more efficient...but nothing is free. Even in Canada, somebody is paying the bills.

I'll agree the healthcare system needs to change but to rush into it without a lot of forethought on how to pay for it is being financially irresponsible.

As much as proponents would like to oversimplify the subject it cannot be done. It's much more complex than that.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

So now we get personal Erik?

They are nearly bankrupt because of FINANCIAL IRRESPONSIBILITY.


It didn't work there and it eventually it won't work elsewhere?

[Eric Larsen]

I'll agree the healthcare system needs to change but to rush into it without a lot of forethought on how to pay for it is being financially irresponsible.

And how many decades would you like to study it? Or do we just wait until a government that is more in line with your ideology is in place?

We as a nation are about as useful as the Judean People's Front from Life of Brian:




We've talked long enough. A good plan put into place today is far better than a perfect plan put into place 10 years from now. And most of America agrees with that.

[Greg Peterson]

What exactly is it that health insurance companies provide that a single payer system can not?

Or even more precisely, just what do health insurance companies bring to the table?

[Rob Robinson VT]

What exactly is it that health insurance companies provide that a single payer system can not?

Or even more precisely, just what do health insurance companies bring to the table?

Duh, both are really easy! Profit for their shareholders!

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Uh...Rob.....what's wrong with profit in a capitalistic society?

Does your employer pay you? ....maybe with profit?...... surely not with unpaid debt.....

[Horton Brasses]

the rest of our skiing holiday was cancelled.

That's a shame.

Not minimize the rest of your points, I just picked that out.

[Belinda Barfield]

Because heathcare is funded by the tax system, some folks would be paying more and others less, according to how much tax you pay. A single mum with 3 kinds would hardly pay anything for their healthcare (as it should be).

Not to be argumentative, I'm just curious. Why should a single mum with three kids pay any less for health care that a single woman, or anyone else?

[Eric Larsen]

Uh...Rob.....what's wrong with profit in a capitalistic society?

Does your employer pay you? ....maybe with profit?...... surely not with unpaid debt.....

It strays over the line and becomes wrong the second the profit is on "human misery" and not goods and services.

Making a buck on chemotherapy is wrong. (Paying the doctors, nurses, and technicians a fair wage to ease suffering is quite proper. Nobody is arguing that. Giving a hospital administrator a seven-figure salary for keeping costs down and revenues up is wrong. That's what we're arguing.)

Charging a sick person 400% more for medicine to ease their pain is wrong.

Denying health care to someone who has a life threatening illness in the name of profit is wrong.

Forcing people to choose between food and health care is wrong.

Forcing people to go bankrupt over illness is wrong.

And it's all done because it's profitable to do so. That's not just wrong, it's evil.



Throughout history, there have always been the "status quo" side and the "try something else" side. Their names change, but there's always one side in favor of doing nothing (or the least amount possible). That side is NEVER right. They weren't right about breaking away from England. They weren't right about ending slavery. They weren't right about giving women the right to vote. They weren't right about civil rights. And they aren't right about health care, and a host of other issues.

[Anthony Scira]

It strays over the line and becomes wrong the second the profit is on "human misery" and not goods and services.

Making a buck on chemotherapy is wrong. (Paying the doctors, nurses, and technicians a fair wage to ease suffering is quite proper. Nobody is arguing that. Giving a hospital administrator a seven-figure salary for keeping costs down and revenues up is wrong. That's what we're arguing.)

Charging a sick person 400% more for medicine to ease their pain is wrong.

Denying health care to someone who has a life threatening illness in the name of profit is wrong.

Forcing people to choose between food and health care is wrong.

Forcing people to go bankrupt over illness is wrong.

And it's all done because it's profitable to do so. That's not just wrong, it's evil.



Throughout history, there have always been the "status quo" side and the "try something else" side. Their names change, but there's always one side in favor of doing nothing (or the least amount possible). That side is NEVER right. They weren't right about breaking away from England. They weren't right about ending slavery. They weren't right about giving women the right to vote. They weren't right about civil rights. And they aren't right about health care, and a host of other issues.

Well said.........