I seriously doubt that any study that examined Americans purchasing prescription meds from a foreign source would include non-approved snake oil purchases.
eta: Well, a stupid study would. This is where you have to examine your sources. Peer reviewed? Reputable medical journal? Or sombody’s blog?
It seems that you are thinking of the uninsured or underinsured, or poorly insured in the US as an insignificant number. I don’t think they are.
Just off the top of my head,
This group can decrease the overall health of a population by:
-Not being able to seek preventative medicine, pre or post natal checkups
-delaying much needed medical advice and/or intervention, leading to complications
-recieiving poorer quality health care than those with good insurance
-having denied or delayed by insurance companies needed treatment.
I think this is the root of the issue here. I don’t see this as a problem that everyone in Canada is treated the same, and everyone has the same wait (based on medical need). The amount either country can spend on healthcare is finite. It has to be divided up somehow. I think that healthcare is too important to be simply divided up by giving it to the highest bidder. I believe that there are signifiant societal benefits to a single payer system where the limited resources of healthcare are divided up according to health need.
I acknowledge that this is far, far too “socialist” for many in the USA. Bricker had a very honest post in another thread, where he said (paraphrased, apologies if I get it wrong), that he simply did not want to pay for someone else’s healthcare. He didn’t want to, didn’t think it was fair, and thought each person should look after themselves.
I totally disagree, but can see that this is where many in the USA are coming from.
Actually I was thinking in the opposite direction…the negative impact of government run health care. No, the number of uninsured is not insignificant but it is nowhere near the number that health reform advocates like to mention. The problem here is finding a way to insure those who cannot afford insurance…not those who choose NOT to buy it even though they can afford it. Another problem is how to deal with those who are uninsured by choice, not necessity, but benefit from being able to show up at an emergency room and get treatment. I, for one, do not favor the government forcing anyone to buy health insurance but I’m not in favor of letting those that choose not to pay for treatment die in the street.
I completely agree with Bricker but this argument simply doesn’t work here anymore. If we can pay for welfare, food stamps, and a host of other services for those in need then it is difficult to make the argument that healthcare is any different.
I think the biggest problem is that third-party payers will always cause prices to go up. Here, insurance companies take a set amount per month and (in theory) we have access to the care we need without thinking of costs. In Canada, price increases mean less equipment or longer wait times. The problem is the same. We need a way to get the decisions back into the hands of the end-user in order to address cost. How that is possible I have no idea but I don’t think either of our systems is ideal.
This is definitely not the case of insurance. Insurance by its nature is a bet. A person not taking insurance is betting that his health is good enough so that he can get away cheaper by paying directly. He might be right on average, but the variance in health care expenses means that the outliers start draining money from hospitals and go bankrupt. Insurance written for one person also has to take this variance into account, and also consider that those who want it will on average require more health care than those who do not - and rates are higher as a result. Employer-subsidized insurance does better since there is a larger pool and everyone must participate. This lets the insurance companies be more precise in their rate setting, and lower rates. A nationwide UHC is even better.
Add to this that countries or large insurance companies have better bargaining power with medical providers than individuals do (especially because the individuals usually show up in time of need.) When you buy a TV you can shop for the lowest price or even decide not to buy. Much harder to do if you have chest pains, and doctors know this.
I completely agree that neither system is ideal. You won’t hear too many people in Canada who will say that our system is perfect, and should not be changed - far from it! When prices increase (as they inevitably do - either inflation or new technologies), we don’t just increase wait time or get less equipment - we must increase the funding to the system, through increasing insurance premiums or taxes, finding efficiencies, or changing government spending priorities. There is intense public pressure to get the best bang for the buck in Provincial healthcare spending.
The bottom line is to get the best possible medical treatment for everyone in society at the lowest possible cost.
People “overusing” the system because they think that it’s “free” is a concern. One way of helping this in British Columbia is the increase in HelathLine services - a person can make a call to a nurse to talk about health issues, and see if they should go to their doctor or to emergency or just drink plenty of liquids. This has saved a bundle. And the Province funds it, because it can be shown that it saves the Province money in the long run.
One minor point - many people talk about our “Government run” healthcare. This is both true and not true. The individual Provincial governments pay for healthcare through a combination of taxes (general revenue) and collecting insurance premiums. (In Alberta, premiums were eliminated Jan 1/09, because this province has lots of money). They also set the fees that doctors receive for services (in a complex negotiation) They have a role in public health issues (center for disease control) They fund services by funding health authorities, and have some control over the top management thereof, but don’t run the day to day operations of hospitals and GP services. Medical decisions and patient safety are in the hands of professionals.
We have had many Canadians post here to the contrary. Everyone does not have to wait for every surgery.
Health care is a good and like any other good, you wold rather have more than less. With most goods, you simply let the market pricing mechanism take care of how a good is distributed. It goes to those who are willing to pay the most for them.
As a society, we have decided that there are some things that should be distributed on a basis other than ONLY ability or desire to pay. Education is one example and a lot of people think health care is another example.
Conservatives believe that health care should be rationed but it should be rationed by the free market but they do believe it should be rationed.
This is incorrect economics. Goods have a point at which they hit a negative marginal utility. For some goods, that point is extremely high. For others it might be pretty low. I’d argue that health care as a good is one where marginal utility becomes negative very rapidly. Sitting here after a flu shot, I know for a fact I don’t want to go down and have another shot.
Main Entry: ration
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ra·tioned; **ra·tion·ing **\ˈra-sh(ə-)niŋ, ˈrā-
Date: 1859
1 : to supply with or put on rations
2 a : to distribute as rations —often used with out b : to distribute equitably c : to use sparingly
In other words, rationing consists of distribution of goods or services by a specific entity with the purpose in mind of controlling distribution in order to achieve a predetermined outcome, usually fairness or equitability of some sort but also to achieve the most effective use of the rationed goods or services, such as with fuel and iron in wartime, etc.
The only rationing of health care going on these days is by government agencies. The fact that some people can’t afford health care does not mean health care is rationed. Health care isn’t rationed any more than groceries, automobiles, eyeglasses or trips to Disneyland are rationed.
You mean, other words you added to change the meaning, that did not appear in the dictionary definition?
Perhaps if the word “rationed” is the problem, we could say:
“In Canada, access to medical care is limited by your need for it, based on medical expertise. You may have to wait in line if your condition is deemed non-urgent”
“In the United States, access to medical care is limited by whether you have insurance, and if that insurance covers your particular condition, and if the company has not cancelled your policy due to rescission You may not get treatment if you have no insurance, or if your insurance is cancelled.”
If resources needed to provide a specific service are limited, and the service provider raises prices in order to reduce the number of people seeking their service, is this a form of rationing?
Bricker said he didn’t care for paying for other people’s health care, which means he doesn’t only like single payer insurance or a public option, but health insurance itself, because the basic concept of health insurance is spreading the economic risk across all those who are insured. He may not like insurance of any kind.
we’ve got alot of problems in the states. personally i don’t care if we get a GOOD government health care plan or not, but if we do the cost shouldn’t be forced on those who make a higher income, which we all know it will be. if we can fix the graduated tax system. and not give income tax “refunds” to people that never put that much money into the system. with the right credits its possible for a low income family or one on the government dole, or one in govt subsidized housing, to get back MORE money than they pay in taxes for the year.
Or if your insurance company decides you’ve had enough of whatever treatment they have allowed you, regardless of whether your condition has been adequately addressed.
Opponents of universal health care need to understand that it’s not just the uninsured or underinsured that suffer under the current system, but those whose insurance companies focus on mazimising the profit margin rather than the allocation of health care, which is all of them as far as I can tell.
Great. Since you’ve got such a solid handle on my opinions, maybe you could cover for me over Christmas week? Just pop in any threads you see and leave my comments for me. I’m sure you’ll be spot on!
I don’t want to be forced to pay for someone else’s health care.
In a group insurance plan, every member pays. I don’t object to that. I object to joining a group where only some people pay, but everyone benefits. I object to joining a group in which I pay more than someone else merely because I make more money.
You pay for uninsured people now. And you will be paying twice as much in ten years if nothing is done.
Why do I pay to put your kids in public school? Why do I pay to put out your house fire? Why do I pay to uphold the legal system that you parasite on? Why do I pay to regulate the airwaves that you watch? Why do I pay to police your neighborhood? Why do I pay to make sure the drugs you take are safe?
Your argument is beyond silly. Unless you’re advocating letting poor people bleed to death you’re already okay with paying for poor people’s healthcare.
Why are you against paying less?
I could take Thursdays. Anyone else got Friday?
In order to be consistent, you should maybe think of living on an island all by yourself somewhere. You’d be freed of those awful responsibilities we have when we live in a society.
Seriously, I do see your point. As I’ve said before though, I tend to put health care in the category of “very important to society”, and I think I’m MUCH better off when everyone around me is healthy. I’m quite happy to be paying about half as much as you do in the US for comparable or better healthcare. Of course, if I get a big salary increase, I might end up paying proportionately more but I’m OK with that.
We don’t have very many in Canada with your way of thinking, but that’s OK - it sort of helps define the difference between the two countries.
Laughs. It would be my pleasure to do so. But perhaps not yours.
In any medical insurance pool, the healthy pay disproportionately to cover the medical costs of the unhealthy. That’s what spreading risk is all about. Face it, you don’t like insurance, period.