Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about. The system isn’t perfect, and needs tinkering, but some of the stuff I’ve heard on the US news makes me say “What country are you guys talking about?”
My own experiences with the US health care system have been extremely positive (the doctors didn’t want to go through the hassle of charging me and helped me out pro bono, basically. I was and will always be extremely grateful for their generosity.), but I had a friend whose aneurism had the bad grace to show up while he was working in Arizona. It cost him about $20,000., and up here it would have been completely covered.
Although our system in Canada is flawed, I think the general opinion in Canada is that we do not want the current American system, but we need to find our own way of relieving the issues. Our own medical associations and conservative think tanks are pushing for a system closer to NHS in England where there are public & private options, rather than a fully for profit private health system. Even most of the extreme right wing over at freedominion.ca (our own freepers), are calling for a complimentary system of private care to offset the pressure on our public system, not to dismantle the public system.
Maybe someone should start a thread where Americans can ask Canadians, Brits and Europeans about their own systems?
The trouble is, the average Canadian doesn’t hit the snags we’re talking about until they run up against a fairly serious health problem, which, thankfully, don’t happen that often for most people. So we’ll be hearing about people who were well cared for in relatively minor ways or who haven’t to this point needed care at all.
I do recall one Doper (though not his name :smack:) whose mother had to wait for nine months in Canada to begin cancer treatment. Canada’s incoming health care president recently announced that Canada’s health care system was in much worse shape than most Canadians realize, and I read just yesterday where in Vancouver, cutbacks are being mulled with regard to necessary surgeries due to waits and inadequate funding. I’ve posted cites already to both of these.
I suspect that much the same is the case in the U.K. and Europe as well.
I’ve seen those websites, and even among the members of the CMA who are criticizing the current system, there are no shouts to dismantle our system and take up yours, only to modify it to permit more private services and allow people to get insurance to cover private services.
Everytime there is a debate about healthcare, it seems people bring up the exceptions, not the rule when it comes to health care. I am sure the Canadians here have relatives and friends or have gone through something themself such as cancer and can address those questions.
It would be ridiculous to say that no important treatment is ever delayed in the UK, or that mistakes are never made. But they are very rare. One death, or one moment’s suffering is obviously one too many, but I do have confidence in our system (partly from personal experience), and, as has been evidenced by these two threads, I think most people in the UK feel the same way.
So in other words a system that is more like ours (:D), and which admits that government can’t afford to give its people the care they need.
Look, I’m not saying the way things are here now is perfect or even great. But it is very good for a great many people. For them it doesn’t require waits and it doesn’t rise or fall on the ability of insurance companies to pay for their care. I would like to see some sort of system by which people without it could obtain insurance, but it needs to be implemented in some way that precludes government from control of it.
I understand, and having recently remembered who you are, I am very glad you’ve had the assistance you’ve had as well. I also hope things are going well for you and yours.
There is more I’d like to say about my concerns with regard to government health care but I need to leave now, so I’ll just say I think it’s a bad idea to create a populace that has to depend on government largess for its care, that it’s a bad idea to create an environment where people expect to be cared for by society rather their own efforts, and that people sacrifice a great deal of freedom and choice once they decide they are better off being cared for than being responsible for caring for themselves.
FWIW, I do favor government assistance for people with physical or mental disabilities, and to help their families deal with their associated costs and burdens as well.
No, as I said before, more like the NHS in England. The single payer system would still be in place with the provinces as a source of primary insurance. The private services would be secondary and any insurance for these services would be supplemental.
Same here, for a great many of the people here our system is great, with little or no waits or other oversights - there are those who have slipped through the cracks, there are occasional mistakes (isn’t that why there are malpractice suits?), no system is perfect - but this is a debate in a thread which is a poll.
When your company negotiated a contract with your pharmacy benefit insuruer, they agreed that the generic would be the preferrable medication to prescribe because it costs them, and most likely you (lower copay on generic) less, why being equally effective. A “desk jockey” didn’t switch your Rx. A actual legally trained and registered pharmacist at your insurer contacted your doctor and got approval for a switch to the preferred drug based on you employer approved plan. Your doctor agreed - though he could have refused if he wanted, and forced you to pay a much much higher copay. Now it is true that the insurer made a larger profit on the generic than the brand, but it also saved you and your company money at the same time. win - win - win.
So, bottom line - if you really really really want the brand you have 2 choices - pay the much higher copay/cost yourself or go talk to your HR department and get them to agree to pay for it and contact your insurer, who will gladly fill the Rx with the branded drug and charge your employer the appropriate cost.
Sure. Money is fungible. If the government taxes the upper income brackets at, say, 60%, they lose a little economic opportunity in the short term.[ul][]But if the taxation is consistent across that bracket, the prices they would pay for various scarce goods & privileges will tend to be lower than without the taxes, so they aren’t really 60% down in real goods & services.[]And if the government then spends that money providing services to lower-to-middle incomes, then that sector doesn’t have to pay as much for those services, have more disposable income, & they can a) invest in new businesses, & b) buy more consumer goods. Which grows the economy, & our upper-income guy has more clients & makes his money back.[/ul]
I disagree with the OP statement, I believe healthcare like fire protection and police protection and children’s education is a matter of public policy.
Many times in the past it was said “If you can’t afford to educate your kids, don’t have them.”
As I’ve pointed out at one time things like Fire protection were actually paid for by people NOT cities. If your home caught on fire you called YOUR fire protection people to put out the flames and that was that. Those firemen had no interest if your neighbor’s homes also went up in flames because it caught from your home.
The part that is really sad is there is so much government waste, that I understand people’s feelings.
As Hank Kimball from “Green Acres” said “There’s a fine example of government in action putting two people to work where there was only one before”
