House Democrat Health Plan

[PureX]

How awful. Poor family! Quite a good example of how the private insurance system is bad for the economy overall when educated, qualified individuals with decent earning potential are intentionally staying at or below the poverty level to qualify for insurance for their kids.

We need to get it into our heads in this country that free market capitalism is ANTITHETICAL to the health and well being of the society in which it operates. This form of commerce, and the businesses that engage in it are NOT OUR FRIENDS. They exist to exploit us, like parasites. And like most parasites, they will stupidly and blindly destroy their own hosts in pursuit of maximum profits. We must come to understand this in america before we destroy ourselves with our own unbridled greed.

 

[Reverend Rick]

We need to get it into our heads in this country that free market capitalism is ANTITHETICAL to the health and well being of the society in which it operates. This form of commerce, and the businesses that engage in it are NOT OUR FRIENDS. They exist to exploit us, like parasites. And like most parasites, they will stupidly and blindly destroy their own hosts in pursuit of maximum profits. We must come to understand this in america before we destroy ourselves with our own unbridled greed.

America is a capitalist country. Americans have fought and died for this system. Many of us believe it is the best system on earth. There are plenty of socialist countries out there and I invite you to pick one.

The reason so many people cannot make a decent living any more is because we are no longer an industrial nation thanks to all the trade agreements we make that are not in this country's best interest.

Then you have this cap and trade issue. That will flat kill any industry that has remained here in the states. It will raise utility bills on Americans making substandard pay.

Gone are the days where an uneducated person with no trade can make a decent living. Instead of giving them a job, the likes of you want the rich man to give it all away for free. This is reverse slavery. How is it any different when the poor sit on their butts and have the rich support them?

 

[Alceste]

America is a capitalist country. Americans have fought and died for this system.

Shame on you! Americans are fighting and dying for "freedom" and "democracy", not "capitalism". Yes, fine, if we're completely honest, we can see they are in fact dying for "capitalism". But they sure as hell don't know that, and who are you to destroy their beautiful delusions?

Many of us believe it is the best system on earth. There are plenty of socialist countries out there and I invite you to pick one.

How 'bout I just stay where I live, in Canada, where families do not have to choose between saving the lives of their loved ones and staying in their homes, and capitalists still get to do whatever it is they do all day without fear of financial ruin as a result of an illness even they can't afford?

Gone are the days where an uneducated person with no trade can make a decent living. Instead of giving them a job, the likes of you want the rich man to give it all away for free. This is reverse slavery. How is it any different when the poor sit on their butts and have the rich support them?

I don't give a fiddler's fart what the rich people of America do. If it were up to me, I'd just move all the uninsured Americans up here, where they don't have to worry about this kind of ideological nonsense stinking up the public debate, and where they can have genuine economic mobility and contribute to Canada's economy. This is what happens when people don't have to stay at jobs that are going nowhere for fear of losing their health insurance, or keep from working in order to stay poor enough for access to Medicaid.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The rich have taken a beating in the last year. California is the perfect example of taxing the rich and giving to the poor. They are close to bankruptcy. This whole ideology of unfair sacrifice on one group of people will not work. If we want a better healthcare system, it will require sacrifice on everyone's part, not just on the backs of people making more than 250,000.

 

[yossarian22]

The rich have taken a beating in the last year. California is the perfect example of taxing the rich and giving to the poor. They are close to bankruptcy. This whole ideology of unfair sacrifice on one group of people will not work. If we want a better healthcare system, it will require sacrifice on everyone's part, not just on the backs of people making more than 250,000.

try having at doing a small amount of research before making claims like this. California is screwed because its legislative process is garbage and needs to be totally reworked.

 

[Reverend Rick]

try having at doing a small amount of research before making claims like this. California is screwed because its legislative process is garbage and needs to be totally reworked.

So you do not believe there is a mass exodus of rich folk who are tired of draconian taxes in your state? I'm just repeating your Governor's words.

 

[Alceste]

So you do not believe there is a mass exodus of rich folk who are tired of draconian taxes in your state? I'm just repeating your Governor's words.

Right, because the Terminator is a paragon of reason and intellectual accomplishment.

 

[Jackytar]

If you strip away the acrimony, Alceste has brought up a good point. I've heard it said that capitalism has been hindered in America by our current health care system. New small business start-ups are discouraged, in part, by having to "go it alone" with individual health care coverage for yourself and your family.

On the other hand, if you are in the health care field, as I am, and want to start a small business, as I have, forget about Canada. As much as Americans go into hysterics about socialized medicine, Canadians do the same with any suggestion of a two-tier system. Having a bigger house or a nicer car is okay, but when it comes to your health care Canadians are ridiculously egalitarian, in spite of the problems with government-run health care in Canada. The Canadian Supreme court ruled about three years ago (IIRC) that preventing private health care is unconstitutional. So the government said, okay - if you are a private provider you cannot bill medicare. In other words, if you use a private service you pay for your health care twice - once through mandatory taxes and again, in full, at the private facility.

Jackytar

 

[Copernicus]

America is a capitalist country. Americans have fought and died for this system. Many of us believe it is the best system on earth. There are plenty of socialist countries out there and I invite you to pick one.

I would pick America to compare us with. That country has a socialist-dominated school system, military, police force, fire department, postal service, medical services (for veterans, impoverished citizens, and retired citizens), food distribution (for impoverished citizens), etc. They are just like us, but they are wedded to socialist programs for so many services. If we actually studied those socialist institutions, we might see where they apply to health care.

The reason so many people cannot make a decent living any more is because we are no longer an industrial nation thanks to all the trade agreements we make that are not in this country's best interest.

Yet we are the ONLY industrialized country without national health care as a guaranteed civil right. So why is our manufacturing base bleeding out to all those countries with socialized medicine? Corporations should be shunning them and moving their factories and jobs INTO our country. What gives?

Then you have this cap and trade issue. That will flat kill any industry that has remained here in the states. It will raise utility bills on Americans making substandard pay.

On the other hand, raised utility bills are preferable to raised sea levels in the long run. Since our coal-fired electricity is a major part of the problem, other countries take the entirely unreasonable position that we should spend more to fix it.

Gone are the days where an uneducated person with no trade can make a decent living. Instead of giving them a job, the likes of you want the rich man to give it all away for free. This is reverse slavery. How is it any different when the poor sit on their butts and have the rich support them?

First of all, most of the poor don't sit on their butts, having worked them off for low wages most of their lives. I know people who have worked multiple jobs just to make ends meet, and they don't have any health care benefits. That, by the way, includes the vast majority of illegal immigrants, who will not be entitled to benefits under any of the current bills before Congress. As for the rich, they are the ones who stand to lose the most if government doesn't help them secure it with stable institutions. Coincidentally, they also happen to be the ones who can most afford to spend a greater portion of their income to help sustain the system they depend on for their substantially more comfortable lives. It is ridiculous to call it "reverse slavery" when they suffer nothing like slaves, let alone those who work long hours to produce the goods and services that they consume. It is wonderful when rich people recognize their debt to society and dispose of excess income in charity, but it is far more sensible not to build and maintain a system in which the rich get richer and the poor poorer. In the end, that is a recipe for social disaster.

 

[Alceste]

If you strip away the acrimony, Alceste has brought up a good point. I've heard it said that capitalism has been hindered in America by our current health care system. New small business start-ups are discouraged, in part, by having to "go it alone" with individual health care coverage for yourself and your family.

On the other hand, if you are in the health care field, as I am, and want to start a small business, as I have, forget about Canada. As much as Americans go into hysterics about socialized medicine, Canadians do the same with any suggestion of a two-tier system. Having a bigger house or a nicer car is okay, but when it comes to your health care Canadians are ridiculously egalitarian, in spite of the problems with government-run health care in Canada. The Canadian Supreme court ruled about three years ago (IIRC) that preventing private health care is unconstitutional. So the government said, okay - if you are a private provider you cannot bill medicare. In other words, if you use a private service you pay for your health care twice - once through mandatory taxes and again, in full, at the private facility.

Jackytar

It's not quite that simple. Private insurance has always been available to enhance the basic standard of care. Having a policy would entitle you to things like free ambulance rides, a private hospital room, a certain amount of compensation for disastrous injuries, a percentage of the cost of pharmaceuticals and dentistry, chiropractors, maybe the occasional massage... Many employers provide private policies like these, and other people sign up individually. The level of the coverage varies from one policy to another.

In addition, private facilities can and do bill the government for their services. In fact, that's the basis of the entire system. Family doctors own and operate their own businesses. Labs are very often private. In fact, most non-hospital treatments and services are provided by the private sector.

We have single-payer health care, not socialized health care. This means the government of each province, being the only game in town, has some serious bargaining power. The private sector provides the services and the taxpayers pay the bill, but since we negotiate as a team rather than individuals we get a way better deal. Half-price, last I checked.

I don't know where you're getting your information. There was a case in Quebec where the court ruled private clinics are prohibited from charging service fees to the patient, but private clinics receive the standard government fee for their services.

 

[Jackytar]

I don't know where you're getting your information.

From memory but here...

On June 9, 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in a case dating from 1997, in which a patient, along with his physician, sued Quebec after a year-long wait for hip-replacement surgery. In a decision highlighting the persistent problem of waiting lists in Canada , the Court voted four to three to invalidate the long-standing prohibition on private insurance for services that are available under Quebec's public health care plan. Subsequently, the court postponed the effective date until June 2006.

The Court's majority found that "waiting lists for health care services have resulted in deaths, have increased the length of time that patients have to be in pain and have impaired patients' ability to enjoy any real quality of life." Although the decision was specific to Quebec, it implies that provincial governments cannot ban private care unless they guarantee that the public system will meet patients' needs without excessive waits.

source

Subsequent to this ruling, the only way a private provider can charge a fee to a client for core services (those covered by medicare) is if they opt out of the medicare system altogether. Because of this, private providers are limited to affluent neighborhoods where their clients do not even get a nominal benefit from medicare for services rendered even though they shoulder the bulk of the taxes. This rule effectively eliminates any possibility that a two-tier system will emerge. Private providers of core services make up a very tiny percentage of health care delivery in Canada, and only in a few provinces.

Jackytar

 

[twinmama]

How awful. Poor family! Quite a good example of how the private insurance system is bad for the economy overall when educated, qualified individuals with decent earning potential are intentionally staying at or below the poverty level to qualify for insurance for their kids.

PBS is also doing TV-document soon, I inform when it comes out.

 

[Alceste]

From memory but here...

source

Jackytar

OK. I see what you're referring to. Provinces have differing policies relating to duplication of coverage (private insurance for procedures that are covered by medicare). This finding only relates to Quebec's regulations, although it could have potential implications for other provinces with similar regulations.

Some other provinces have financial disincentives for private insurers covering things covered by medicare, while Alberta - bastion of conservatism that it is - actively encourages the private insurance sector to compete with the public sector in an effort to reduce wait times (after a massive spate of funding cuts in the middle of a budget surplus to ensure wait times got long, of course).

Albert Schumacher, the former president of the Canadian Medical Assoc., estimates 75 % of Canadian health care services are delivered privately and funded publicly.

Since a single payer system is all about who does the paying, this issue is not about whether private clinics can provide services covered by medicare - of course they can, and do, and send medicare the bill (which is prepared in accordance with the provincial fees schedule). This case was about the role of private insurance providers and how much, if at all, their coverage should duplicate coverage provided by the public system.

BTW, for the record, I strolled into an ER in the middle of Montreal with a headache in the middle of the afternoon and got an MRI within the hour. So take these 'wait time' stories with a grain of salt.

 

[Alceste]

Subsequent to this ruling, the only way a private provider can charge a fee to a client for core services (those covered by medicare) is if they opt out of the medicare system altogether. Because of this, private providers are limited to affluent neighborhoods where their clients do not even get a nominal benefit from medicare for services rendered even though they shoulder the bulk of the taxes. This rule effectively eliminates any possibility that a two-tier system will emerge. Private providers of core services make up a very tiny percentage of health care delivery in Canada, and only in a few provinces.

Jackytar

Nonsense. Where did you get that from? Almost all providers of core services in Canada are private. The question is simply 'who pays the bill'? If affluent people are willing to wait their turn like everybody else (even our most rabid anti-public-health-care propaganda mill only claims this is 17 weeks from first contact to final treatment, including diagnostics *), they almost certainly still get a superior standard of care due to perks included with their private insurance. If they want to jump the queue, they can pay out of pocket. They certainly don't have the audacity to go "Oh boo hoo I had to pay twice" - the people in the queue ahead of them need the treatment as much as they do. The people I know who've done this in Alberta are more gloaty about it than anything - paying out of pocket for diagnostics is kind of a status symbol.

Health care in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* edit, I should point out this statistic is almost certain to be misleading. The Fraser Institute are hardly credible sources for such things - I don't doubt they've included long-term treatment for chronic illnesses when tallying up the 'final treatment' date (death). If you want a real number I'll go get one.

 

[Jackytar]

Albert Schumacher, the former president of the Canadian Medical Assoc., estimates 75 % of Canadian health care services are delivered privately and funded publicly.

Right, these are the core services making up the 75%. Drugs, dental, vision, cosmetic surgery etc makes up the rest. The percentage of core services (like your MRI) provided by private providers is very small.

As for the waiting times, you ain't fooling me. Have you forgot I'm Canadian?

Jackytar

 

[Jackytar]

Nonsense.

Nonsense? It's right there in your own wiki link...

A physician cannot charge a fee for a service that is higher than the negotiated rate — even to patients who are not covered by the publicly funded system — unless the physican opts out of billing the publicly funded system altogether.

Jackytar

 

[Jackytar]

'nite Alceste

Jacjytar

 

[Alceste]

Right, these are the core services making up the 75%. Drugs, dental, vision, cosmetic surgery etc makes up the rest. The percentage of core services (like your MRI) provided by private providers is very small.

As for the waiting times, you ain't fooling me. Have you forgot I'm Canadian?

Jackytar

I think you're not getting it. The private sector provides almost all the services. The government pays the bill. What is it that you mean by "core services"?

I think you've forgotten you're Canadian. I'm a bit confused by it, actually. I think we're maybe determining "private" and "public" differently. I define a doctor with a private practice who bills the provincial government for services rendered instead of billing an insurance provider or directly billing a client as a "private service provider".

I take it you don't agree?

 

[Alceste]

"A physician cannot charge a fee for a service that is higher than the negotiated rate — even to patients who are not covered by the publicly funded system — unless the physican opts out of billing the publicly funded system altogether."

Yeh, don't know how it is you don't see the logic in that. What would be the point of a single-payer health insurance system if the government just coughed up any amount of money? The provincial governments set the fee schedule, but doctors work for themselves. If they don't like the fee schedule, they don't have to be part of the public system. Sounds private to me.

 

[Valjean]

In the US nobody knows what prices will be charged, not ever the Dr, as they're all negotiated with the insurance provider. Ten lanced boils, ten appendectomies = ten completely different prices, depending on your individual insurance plan and provider, plus how much time and effort you &/or your Dr want to take arguing with the insurance carrier.