Does this mean that you have to cover the full cost of outpatient drugs yourself? In our socialized health care system (Scandinavia), quite a few life-saving and/or really expensive drugs - even rather mundane stuff like insulin or hypertension medications - are covered as well. For those things we pay a small deductible, up to a certain limit (I think it’s about 400$) for one calendar year. If you exceed that limit, you get refunded.
ETA: Ordinary doctor’s fees and travel costs associated with medical treatment are also included in the maximum health costs one has to pay in a year.
Yes. The average working person pays the full cost of outpatient drugs. The government(s) try to keep a lid on drug costs, pay for the outpatient drugs for seniors (65+), for very poor peope who are on social assistance (welfare) or disability, and for status Indians. Depending on which province you live in, the government may help if you are facing extraordinary drug costs, and may help if you have a particular ailment. Just as a lot of Americans look at Canada’s health care system with envy, I look at a lot of European health care systems wiith envy, because for the most part, our health care system does not cover outpatient drugs, which are a vital part of health care.
Another shred here. Several members of my family have had major operations with hospital stays, and have not paid a dime. Several friends as well. In fact, The only extra costs I can think of would be paying extra for a private room.
I thought that conservatives had established that it is not valid to compare the US to other countries when it comes to healthcare; i.e., the fact that every other industrialized country in the world pays less for healthcare is not an indicator that it will work in the US.
Is that only true if the comparison is unfavorable?
Seriously? You want to count “mileage”? And not everyone travels to the hospital via ambulance you know.
Many people do not. This is not really part of the costs of a hospital stay.
Now I know you’re joking. The costs incurred by your friends and family do not impact your own costs. If your pal bought you a present, it will not force you into bankruptcy. If you opt for a TV or phone in your room, that’s on you - it’s not part of your “hospital stay”. You might as well ask “did you order a diamond bracelet from the shopping network while in hospital?”
Acupuncture, chiropractic, massage therapy, naturopathy, physical therapy and non-surgical podiatry are covered in BC for 10 visits for the first $23 per visit. You may have to pay above this $23, so congratulations, you’ve made your first valid point.
You are incorrect. The vast number of operations are not emergency scenarios. My father had a heart valve replacement, cancer surgery and other procedures, none of which involve an ambulance. This is typical. You are wrong.
His pre-op care was handled by his GP, all of which was covered. Seeing a specialist is covered. You are correct about meds for those without extended insurance.
Did you know there are programs that help with these costs, or help with travel? For example, Please see the BC Travel Asssistence program. Just because you are ignorant of such programs does not mean that they do not exist.
Sorry about your mother. The meds are an issue, but the rest of your argument falls flat. “often picked up Tim’s on her way up?” This would force her into bankruptcy? Sitting at the hospital being bored would force her into bankruptcy?
When come back, bring argument.
Not relevant to the discussion. The discussion is about being forced into bankruptcy due to medical costs. Taxes, including income or sales are not medical costs that force people into bankruptcy.
Of course people in Canada pay for their medical care using taxes. You’d have to be a moron to not know that. However, people in this thread are not morons. They are talking about the EXTRA costs that they have to bear PERSONALLY. That is because the debate is about the EXTRA costs that you have to bear which might force you into bankruptcy.
Yes we pay taxes. No, the taxes are not medical costs that force you into bankruptcy.
Bottom lint? The argument about costs for medicine is valid. The rest of your arguments are fallacious or downright silly.
The US can do what it wants with respect to health care, but has chosen not to provide health care for most of its citizens. The USA has greater GDP both per capita and in aggregate than than most first world nations, so there is no reason that it could not have socialized health care and reap the health and economic benefits that come with socialized health care (better health for less cost, as demonstarted by the World Heath Organization), just as the other first world nations have done.
Whether the USA can and whether the USA will provide health care for all its citizens, are two different things, for what is standing in the way of better and less expensive health care for the USA is attitudinal. The USA is often different from much of the rest of the first world in a number of social areas – hot button issues such as hand guns, incarceration rates, death sentencing, evolution, gay marriage, militarism, and socialized health care come to mind. When a conservative says that socialized health care can not work in the USA, the truth of the matter is that that conservative does not like socialism and therefore will not supprot socialized health care. The ideology is driving the platform.
BTW, Canadian conservatives tend to be very much in favour of socaliazed health care. For example, the Conservative Party of our most conservative province, Alberta, just chose its new leader (who will become Premier), who ran on a platform of increased public health care, et alia. The first line of her platform on health care was: “Alberta families want access to a strong, universal publicly-funded health care system.”
When Canadian conservatives (with the exception of the odd crank) discuss health care, it is in terms of how socialized health care can be improved and how it and private health care can work side by side, not how it should be abandoned in preference of the American system.
EMAC is parroting the right wing talking points. They presume to speak for the residents of other countries no matter how often they are told the residents love their health care. Most Americans hate ours.
Countries with health care and good social safety nets are much happier . Living in fear of getting sick is not a positive in your life. Losing everything you work for, because you get sick, is terrible.
Is that who we are? It is if you are a conservative. They figure fuck everybody else, I have coverage.
Unless you get sick. Then the thrill of fighting with insurance companies awaits you.
Money driven medicine is flawed. Allowing an insurance company a chance to increase profits by denying coverage you have paid for, is wrong.
I got a $20 bill after my last operation but it was for the TV. For one day. In my defense I had to turn it on to drown out the crowd that was constantly at my roommates bedside.
Let’s get something clear, I am not in any way parroting right wing talking points. You made a statement that was flat out wrong. Me correcting you on that does not make me blindly right wing, nor does it mean I am parroting talking points.
It is a fact that Canadians do go bankrupt from medical costs.
It is a fact that health care in Canada is not free. Everyone pays into it. Just because they don’t see a bill after surgery does not mean they didn’t pay a dime. They paid plenty. And further to that, socialized medicine in Canada was initially paid for through deficit spending, that today’s tax payers have to make up for.
No one is denying that, except to say that getting sick sucks no matter where you live. My mother had tremendous care and survived while my friend’s mother in the US did not.
No, that’s just your fall back when you don’t understand what’s going on. You don’t know anything about the Canadian system. Accept that and stop making things up.
I spent years trying to educate conservatives about their misconceptions about Canadian health care. Now I get to go through all that again with liberals.
Canada’s health care system is a million times better than the US, but that does not mean it’s perfect. And for the US to switch will not instantly fix everyone’s problems. Getting sick will still suck, and people will still go bankrupt as a result.
Lots in both systems, but admittedly none in BC, only in Ontario, NB, and NS.
For fucks sake, I did not say “Everyone travels to the hospital by ambulance.”
What I said was that ambulance rides are NOT covered in all provinces under all conditions. Hence, they are a medical cost that the patient will pay out of pocket for.
I also didn’t say those would drive people into bankruptcy. My point was that they technically count as “medical expenses.”
If you look at the Harvard study **Gonzomax **clings to so tightly, the one that claims over 60% of bankruptcies are medical related, they include thing such as travel costs, lost income, and helping to take care of family members.
To that last point, it is not always the person that is sick that goes bankrupt. It is entirely possible for a family member to go bankrupt paying for an elderly parent or extremely sick child. Again from personal experience, my grandmother spent over 7 years in a nursing home, not paid for by the government, and blew through the money she had saved for retirement in about 5 years. Once that was gone the burden fell on my family and caused financial strain.
There is more to medical costs than simply the surgery.
Yes, I do know not everyone travels by ambulance, but I was am EMT a long long time ago so I do know how many will. I also know that in my home town there were several smaller hospitals that did minor surgery, but major operations were done at one central facility. Most of our time was spent transferring patients to and from the major facility before and after surgery. I admit that I don’t know if patient transfer was covered.
And yes, mileage counts, especially in Canada, and particularly for rural Canadians. My mother had a 35-45min drive to get chemo that included a toll bridge, because there was one facility for her region. Others taking chemo at the same time drove hours. Again my mother’s treatment was every three weeks, some go every week, others go every day.
Does this cause bankruptcy, probably not. Is this a medical cost, hell yes.
I say hell yes, because her private health insurance reimbursed for a lot of that.
But many people do, and it is part of your medical costs. If you are required to take a specific prescription for your operation, that means your operation costs you money.
You act as if medical costs are born by the patient themselves. Consider major surgery on a very young child or very old parent. Who do you think will be covering those costs? Who do you think will go into bankruptcy?
Point being, the surgery costs more than a dime.
Are you familiar will Ronald McDonald house? Look it up.
Again, consider an extended hospital stay for a child. Unless you think they should just sit there and stare at the wall.
Which is really all I need, but the rest are valid too.
No, you are mixing terms, and trying to ascribe something to me that I didn’t say. My point was simply that some major surgeries will involve an ambulance. I was simply trying to say that emergency surgery isn’t usually minor in nature.
We know the doc visits were covered. Point here was that those visit usually come with pre-op instructions like take 4 of pills a day for the next three weeks until your operation. Or wear this neck brace until you can get an MRI. External costs that are part of the operation, might not covered by the government. Meaning the operation costs more than a dime.
Yes, I did know about that. Does mean the costs aren’t there.
Nope, not bankruptcy. You’re falling for gonzomax’s clever little trick of arguing two separate points at once, then trying to combine them. He FIRST fictitious statement was that no Canadian goes bankrupt from medical expenses. His SECOND fictitious statement was that a major operation wouldn’t cost a dime.
You should learn to use that right.
Again, there are two separate issues, the first being bankruptcy, the second that an operation doesn’t cost a dime. Healthcare in Canada is not free, by any stretch of the imagination. Everyone pays into it though income and sales tax. Hell, I just paid into it visiting Toronto a few weeks ago. You’re welcome.
But all of these costs are VERY relevant to the discussion because the Havard study lumps it all together when labeling a bankruptcy as either medical or other.
Which is why I made the statement that it doesn’t matter if it’s a $1000 or $100,000 in terms of bankruptcy.
A person in rural NS that goes into debt because of the travel costs to and from chemo is the same stat as a person in Chicago that walks to chemo but goes into debt because of the cost of the treatment itself.
Further to the travel issue, many Canadians are flown to major city centers like Toronto for complicated procedures. The government pays for all of that–for the patient. Parents of small children, or children of elderly parents still have to pay out of pocket for their travel. The government will even pay to send patients to the US for treatment when facilities in Canada are not available. But the travel expenses for the family count as medical, and could potentially put them in financial difficulty.
It’s the end result of trying to manipulate statistics to push an agenda. The Harvard study, in my opinion, lumped everything they could under “medical expenses” and as a result got a nice high number that made the President and **Gonzomax **very happy.
But if you are going to use that methodology in the US, you also need apply it equally in Canada. Which means that the number of medically related bankruptcies in Canada will also be surprisingly high.
Well, actually that wasn’t the discussion. But keep in mind the Harvard study includes family related costs, not just personal costs.
I didn’t say they were. I was simply reminding the audience that operations in Canada are not free, even if you don’t see a bill.
No, the bottom lint is that stuff deep in your bellybutton that smells a bit funny.
When talking about bankruptcy, it’s not up to you to say what may have pushed someone over the edge. Just like in the US, there are Canadians living pay check to pay check, that are one accident away from financial ruin. Getting sick may just be the last straw.
ETA Wow, I wrote a lot! One last thing:
That’s pretty much the point. The Harvard study doesn’t make a distinction for “how close to bankruptcy” the person was. It is true that people in the US, no where near bankruptcy, can be pushed there from medical costs. It’s why the US system sucks so badly. But that doesn’t mean people in Canada can’t also be pushed into bankruptcy, it just means those people were probably closer to start with.
I paid for TV for a friend while she was in hospital for a few weeks, and as a bit surprised at the cost – looked to me like the hospital was using it as a profit centre rather than offering it on a cost recovery basis. Since I don’t even have TV at home (I didn’t bother upgradding/converting when we went digital), the cost of hospital TV is not the sort of thing that particulary care about, and more to the point, simply isn’t the sort of thing that would push a person into banckuptcy.
The thing I hate most about health care in the US is the surprise factor. I went to a chiropractor last week, and when scheduling the followup I asked what the cost for a visit was–they didn’t seem to know. The woman said, “somewhere between $80 and $160.”
You don’t know that, nor does the Havard study make that distinction. I don’t want to have to argue the case that IT WILL cause bankruptcy, simply that a) it could be considered a medical cost, and b) it’s possible it could push someone over the edge.
After that, it becomes a medically related bankruptcy. The Harvard team would give you a questionnaire, and you’d say your last big bill–that pushed you over the edge–was from the hospital. And yes, that’s a stupid way of viewing it, which is why that 62% number is such an exaggeration.
Sorry if I’m jumping in late here, but I’m another shred. I had a major surgery about a year ago and paid nothing. I was given pain medication from the hospital on discharge and a community health nurse came to my home to check on my incision and remove my staples a week later.
I paid nothing.
Now, I suppose I may have taken a regular Tylenol or two once I was done with the Percocet and Tylenol #3 issued by the hospital, but the 12 or so cents that cost me didn’t push me into bankruptcy, I’m happy to report.
So an ambulance ride could in some improbable situation cause someone, somewhere to go bankrupt. Therefore it is the same as here where millions of bankruptcies have been caused by medical countries.
Parotting the right wing mantra is making you look foolish. Those who live in the countries you pretend to have knowledge of ,are trying to straighten you out. Listen a little.
No, but nice try. You claimed first that “In Canada and many other countries, nobody declares bankruptcy because of health care.” That was false, do you now admit that?
Second you tried to claim that “In Canada, you can have a major operation and not pay a dime.” To which I pointed at the cost of an ambulance as being more than a dime.
What others have pointed out doesn’t actually help your case, just highlights the way Canadians view health care costs.
I didn’t say that an ambulance ride would cause bankruptcy, I simply pointed it out as a medical cost NOT covered by the government, just like parking and transport, meds, and medical supplies.
You cited the Harvard study multiple times, you should at least read it, and see what they consider medical costs (hint, it includes sick family members). What you’ll then be forced to realize is that if you apply the same methodology to bankruptcies in Canada you’ll find that more than “nobody” has medically related bankruptcies.
The things I’ve listed add up, and eventually cause someone struggling financially to eventually file for bankruptcy in both the US and Canada. Accept that and move on.
Spelling parroting wrong makes someone look foolish. Talking about the health care in a country they don’t have experience in makes a person look foolish. Then trying to correct someone from that country is even more foolish.
Just admit you were wrong and let this die.
You mean the country I grew up in and have family still living in? The country you said “nobody declares bankruptcy because of health care.” That country?
I live in YOUR country now, and I’m straightening you out, listen.