An Interesting Look at Universal Health Care - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Sparhawk · 03-06-2004, 02:28 PM

Quote:

A Heftier Dose To Swallow
Rising Cost of Health Care in U.S. Gives Other Developed Countries an Edge in Keeping Jobs
By Kirstin Downey
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 6, 2004; Page E01

For each mid-size car DaimlerChrysler AG builds at one of its U.S. plants, the company pays about $1,300 to cover employee health care costs -- more than twice the cost of the sheet metal in the vehicle. When it builds an identical car across the border in Canada, the health care cost is negligible.

In the battle for manufacturing jobs, the United States has always been at a disadvantage compared with underdeveloped countries where wages are low. But the rapidly rising cost of health care in the United States means that even developed countries sometimes have an edge when it comes to keeping jobs, according to interviews with dozens of corporate executives, legislators and health care consultants.

The United States has lost nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs since July 2001, with 43 consecutive months of manufacturing-employment decline, from about 17.3 million jobs to about 14.3 million in February 2004. During the same period, the manufacturing workforce in Canada has generally remained stable, at about 2 million jobs, even though the unemployment rate is higher there, at 7.4 percent, than in the United States, where it is 5.6 percent.

And, although both nations lost auto manufacturing jobs in 2000 and 2003, the decline was only 4 percent in Canada, compared with 14 percent in the United States.

Jim Stanford, an economist with the Canadian Auto Workers union, said employers who could operate in either country save $4 per hour per worker by choosing Canada. "That's a reasonably significant differential. . . . It's one of the reasons Canada's auto industry has done a lot better," he said.

In a joint letter circulated in Canada in November 2002, officials from Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler said "the public health system significantly reduces total labour costs . . . compared to the cost of equivalent private health insurance services purchased by U.S.-based automakers."

High health care costs have "created a competitive gap that's driving investment decisions away from the U.S.," Ford Vice Chairman Allan Gilmour said in a speech at a recent auto industry conference. "If we cannot get our arms around this issue as a nation, our manufacturing base and many of our other businesses are in danger," he said, according to a transcript of the speech.

Gilmour, who is leading a Ford study of health care, said it may be necessary to prod government officials to consider policy changes to reduce health care costs, although he declined to specify what changes should be made. "I do know that significant reform is necessary," he said. "Right now the country is on an unsustainable track and it won't get any better until we begin -- business, labor and government in partnership -- to make a pact for reform."

But while the Big Three automakers told Canadians that their nationalized health insurance system helped preserve jobs, and lobbied the Canadian government last year to maintain the program, their corporate executives are not willing to go that far when it comes to health care in the United States.

Business trade groups here advocate small steps, such as helping workers care for themselves better, urging them to stop smoking and lose weight, and shifting costs to employees. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for example, backs such proposals as tort reform, electronic prescription writing and providing better information on the quality of care by doctors and hospitals.

The Bush administration has proposed some targeted efforts to help individuals pay for their care, through tax credits and health care spending accounts that officials say would lower taxes and help people pay for health care.

Most of Bush's Democratic opponents for president would like to see more aggressive governmental action, ranging from Sen. John F. Kerry's (D-Mass.) plan to expand care for poor children and create a federal insurance pool to help employers pay for catastrophic care to Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich's (D-Ohio) proposal for a universal, single-payer system that would cut costs by eliminating insurance company paperwork.

Manufacturers outside the auto industry are also concerned about health care costs and employment.

"We can't just continue to shift jobs out of the United States, not just manufacturing jobs, but all kinds of jobs, and health care is playing a role," said William A. Rainville, chief executive of Kadant Inc., a Massachusetts-based manufacturer of papermaking equipment. "It's like we're in a stream with no control over it."

Rainville said his company will spend about $6,500 on health care for each of its 525 U.S.-based employees this year, while health care costs for its 45 Canada-based workers are minimal. "Our U.S. workers are the most productive, but it doesn't make up for the health care," he said.

Rainville said he has considered moving production to Canada. "As an American it concerns me, but as a businessman, I don't have much of a choice. You need to do what's right for the business."

The cost difference is striking. Employers in Canada pay only about $50 a month, or $600 a year, mostly for optional items such as eyeglasses and orthopedic shoes, said Elaine Bernard, executive director of the labor and worklife program at Harvard Law School. "Health care is significantly cheaper for corporations in Canada," she said. U.S. employers pay more than 10 times as much -- an average $552 a month per employee for health insurance, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

In the United States, General Motors spent $4.5 billion on health care last year for its 1.2 million American workers and retirees, at a cost of about $1,200 per car, said Tom Wickham, a GM spokesman. Ford spent $2.8 billion last year on health care, a Ford spokeswoman said. DaimlerChrysler spent $1.4 billion on health care for its 97,000 U.S. workers and 107,000 retirees last year, for an average cost of $1,300 per mid-range car priced at $18,600, said Thomas J. Hadrych, the company's vice president of compensation, benefits and corporate services. "The reality is it is a significant cost element we struggle with on a year-over-year basis," Hadrych said.

Meanwhile, the number of people insured by their employers is shrinking, which means that employers who continue to pay for employee health care must pay more. Employer health care costs rose 12 percent in the past year, on top of a 16 percent increase the previous year, according to Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby Inc., a human resources consulting firm.

"This is the seventh straight year of double-digit price inflation," said Helen Darling, a former Xerox Corp. executive who heads the National Business Group on Health, an association of 182 companies. "Prices started climbing in the bubble economy, but companies then were making a lot of money, everybody was living like they made a lot of money," and the escalation was relatively unnoticed at first, she said.

After the economy began to slump, however, executives began to worry. They shifted some of the growing cost to employees by raising insurance premiums and co-payments. Other companies have stopped offering health insurance or have raised premiums so high that some workers can't afford them.

Most other industrialized countries -- Canada, Japan and those in Europe -- have government-funded health care systems with universal coverage. Canadians, for example, pay higher income taxes and a 15 percent sales tax to support the nationalized health care system.

"Suffice it to say Canada and Germany have a socialized form of health care" that delivers quality care at a lower cost for a larger number of people, without placing all the expense on employers, said Hadrych, of DaimlerChrysler. "The burden of it falls on the government, not just on employers," he said. In the United States, "we carry the full brunt of it."

Hadrych said political pressure on the health care system a decade ago, when the Clinton administration proposed changes, helped keep prices down for several years, but when the political pressure eased, companies began increasing their prices again. He said he believed the country was moving toward what he called a "more comprehensive" solution to the problem in 2001, but that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks diverted everyone's attention.

"Prior to 9/11, we saw a lot of interest on the Hill with respect to the health care issues," he said. "After 9/11, it all shifted," and, he said, momentum for a bigger solution was "not there."

"A lot of people think a single-payer system is better," he said.

I've never thought about health-care from the employer's perspective before, and this article really made me think about this issue in a different way. I'm not sure what the solution to this will be, but I'm definitely more inclined towards a single-payer system.

Strange Famous · 03-06-2004, 02:37 PM

A national health service, from the cradle to the grave, is one of the basic standards of a civilised nation.

Seaver · 03-06-2004, 02:45 PM

Quote:

A national health service, from the cradle to the grave, is one of the basic standards of a civilised nation.

Fair enough, point to me a single nation that has an efficient and working national health service. England is the prime example, their health services are horrible and have been overbudget every single year since they were implemented.

Strange Famous · 03-06-2004, 02:50 PM

Russia has a suburb health service in the 80's

Ustwo · 03-06-2004, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
Russia has a suburb health service in the 80's

HA!

Russian doctors couldn't pour piss out of a boot in the 80's and were lucky if they even knew it was piss.

I've seen the 'results' of the communist health care in my own office, you are really really reaching if you want to pretend they had anything close to western standards.

nanofever · 03-06-2004, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
Russia has a suburb health service in the 80's

Horrible joke of the day: In Soviet Russia, suburbs move to you.

Scipio · 03-06-2004, 04:21 PM

I always figured big business would want to get out of the business of providing health care for their workers. It's something that the people demand, yet no one wants to provide. Don't we usually pass the job off to the government when that happens?

Seaver · 03-06-2004, 05:26 PM

Quote:

I always figured big business would want to get out of the business of providing health care for their workers. It's something that the people demand, yet no one wants to provide. Don't we usually pass the job off to the government when that happens?

Well, they know if it's not them to pay it directly it's almost guaranteed that the'll be paying it through taxes.

Quote:

Russia has a suburb health service in the 80's

I know you REALLY like socialism, but come on... that's like us saying that with capitalism not one person will be unemployed.

stevie667 · 03-07-2004, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seaver
Fair enough, point to me a single nation that has an efficient and working national health service. England is the prime example, their health services are horrible and have been overbudget every single year since they were implemented.

actually, it was quite respectable in it's hay-day, and still does a good job, it's just the government thats been screwing it up.
but still, i'd much rather be hit by a car here and be treated by an underpaid stressed doctor than go over to the states and worry if my insurance was up to date while some dude worked on me before sending me back home with a huge bill so he could get another big wad of cash, i mean patient, through the door.

filtherton · 03-07-2004, 12:39 PM

I think that we'll see universal health care as soon as the corporations that have sway in washington figure out that it is in their best financial interest to lobby congress for said healthcare.
Which is to say, pretty soon, at this rate.
I think if it isn't careful, the hmos and will overcharge themselves out of business. Hospitals too. I'm almost afraid to go into biotech because i think the healthcare industry is about to go through a "correction". Just what they deserve, though.

pocon1 · 03-07-2004, 01:19 PM

Sure, the businesses in Canada don't pay for health care, the people do through their extraordinary levels of taxes. I was just in Canada. 20% taxex for purchases? Jesus Christ thats a lot. But If we had that, then we would not have our businesses putting money into a health plan. So it all works out the same.

irateplatypus · 03-07-2004, 03:19 PM

what gets lost in this whole debate is the understanding that no matter who is responsible for healthcare (government or the private sector), it will have to be paid for by the people using the resources. you aren't getting a great deal in a socialized healthcare system, just because you don't pay the bills as you incur them doesn't mean you aren't paying for them.

personally, i would rather have my health care provided by a system that encourages competition and choice rather than a monolithic government program that has less incentive to improve itself or eleminate fraud.

the politicians love to scare you with all manner of statistics about how people don't have health insurance. but how many people do you know that haven't been treated when they really need it in the US? For gosh sakes, we treat illegal aliens all the time because it is unlawful to turn someone away from the emergency room.

the system ain't broke, you must question those who still want to fix it... especially when the changes make them the gatekeepers of public health.

Scipio · 03-07-2004, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Well, they know if it's not them to pay it directly it's almost guaranteed that the'll be paying it through taxes.

Oh, so they're footing the bill so they won't have to pay for it with taxes? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that corporations were in the process of scaling back health benefits. Just look at the union settlement in California. The only people who have solid health care under that system are the old unionized employees. Health care cuts too deeply into the bottom line, and makes domestic companies less competitive.

Second, it's not the corporations that would pay for public health care, it's the citizens.

Note that I'm not advocating any specific scheme of government facilitated health care, just the principle of increasing government involvement, be it through state-run insurance or whatever.

In a sense, it seems like the costs would stay the same, and that the costs would just be moved around. In the end somebody would pay for it. The companies pass the costs along to somebody.

However, that's not quite true. If the government became the provider of the majority of health insurance in the country, it would have the chance to exercise monopsony power over the drug companies and drive down costs. Wal-mart does it all the time, and in a sense it has made large swaths of our economy more effecient. Only in this case, the result will be not only a rearrangement of health care costs, but also a reduction in the aggregate cost of health care. The savings could either be returned to the tax payers, or reinvested in research and development.

brianna · 03-07-2004, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by irateplatypus
the politicians love to scare you with all manner of statistics about how people don't have health insurance. but how many people do you know that haven't been treated when they really need it in the US? For gosh sakes, we treat illegal aliens all the time because it is unlawful to turn someone away from the emergency room.

the system ain't broke, you must question those who still want to fix it... especially when the changes make them the gatekeepers of public health.

No, i don’t know anyone who has been turned away. However, I do know people who have incurred medical bills so high that their personal credit was ruined for 20 years. I know people who have put off going to the doctor when they were really ill because they couldn’t afford it. These are just two signs that the system is broke -- people shouldn’t have to incur life changing debt or risk their health because they do not have the advantage of health care.

james t kirk · 03-07-2004, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pocon1
Sure, the businesses in Canada don't pay for health care, the people do through their extraordinary levels of taxes. I was just in Canada. 20% taxex for purchases? Jesus Christ thats a lot. But If we had that, then we would not have our businesses putting money into a health plan. So it all works out the same.

Ummm, try 15%.

8% provincial sales tax.

7% Federal GST (Goods and Service Tax)

The GST replaced the former manufacturer's tax which was built into the price of everything you purchased.

When I lived in Wisconsin, my employer (large corporation) had an employee health benefits plan, which still cost me about $300.00 a month on top of their contribution (which was substantial if i recall.)

If you lost your job, you were in serious trouble, and there was a lifetime limit of $1,000,000 I could claim if i recall correctly. After that, you were out the door. So, if you had a sickly kid or something like that you were fucked.

I can see benefits to both ideas, but if given the choice, I will take universal health coverage as would pretty much everyone i know.

prb · 03-09-2004, 12:09 PM

Healthcare in this country needs fixing. Way too many people can't afford health insurance and end up filling for bankruptcy when someone in the family is faced with medical bills they can't afford. Sure, if your condition is serious you can get care from a hospital emergency room, but the cost is prohibitive for those without insurance and when the patient can't pay, taxpayers foot the bill. Some kind of Universal Healthcare Insurance plan may be the only way to go. After all, the principle upon which insurance works is to spread risk among as many as you can in order to reduce the risk to any single premium payer. If the risk is spread among everyone, well...

Additionally, Universal Healthcare ought to provide savings to businesses in reduced costs to provide health insurance; reduce overall healthcare expenditures by allowing people to receive preventive care before their health problems become serious (and , thus, more costly); making premiums more uniform and, thus, more efficiently computed and collected, reducing administration costs; eliminating the need for PPOs and HMOs which should reduce litigation against them for denying coverage and which should eliminate the ridiculous pay being given to the CEOs of these companies; and, verdicts in tort cases (personal injury suits) would fall dramatically since medical costs are the single most expensive damages in those cases driving verdicts.

But it makes too much sense, so it won't happen.

ARTelevision · 03-09-2004, 12:17 PM

I like what irateplatypus said.

I'll ditto that.

Tomservo · 03-09-2004, 02:27 PM

The United States government pays more per capita for health care than any nation in the world.

Read it twice if you need to.

We spend nearly twice what Canada does, while 11% of children and 20% of working adults have no health insurance. I do not blame the government for these failures, but as long as pharmaceutical companies can afford to buy multiple Super Bowl ads at $2.4m per 30 seconds, reform is needed. I believe universal health care can work- it does in Canada, contrary to popular belief (And has its critics without a doubt.).. and our military hospitals served me for many years without negative incident. Why we couldn't tailor public hospitals to the populace is beyond me.

james t kirk · 03-09-2004, 02:49 PM

I have often heard the arguement that a government run system discourages inovation.

I am not so sure about that one.

I think there was more inovation back in the 40's and 50's then there is now. Back then the gov'ts of the world used to finance research through universities and they found a vaccine for polio, TB, and host of others. They pioneered heart transplant surgery, and pace makers.

Now, everything is private sector (the large drug companies) and maybe public private partnerships. What was the last big medical break through that you can recall in the last 10 years???

What universal health care coverage does is eliminate the profit angle. Hospitals and doctors don't operate on that principle any longer.

Doctors in Canada often migrate to the US in search of more buckage, but often they come back too. They grow tired of being accountants and having to deal with money issues and would prefer to practice medicine. There is no doubt that a doctor in the USA makes more than a doctor in Canada. But they don't do too badly here either, don't kid yourself.

And I will bet you that every med student at Univ. of Toronto when he or she had his entrance interviews gave the "I want to help humanity speech" in order to get accepted. Well, if that's the case, and you know that Canada has a universal health care system, you shouldn't be leaving Canada upon graduation to the USA. I would think that they should pay back the government for the cost of their heavily subsidized education. (That's the lefty in me talking!)

The other thing is that Americans often think it's going to be some exotic disease that's going to get them and that they need state of the art everything. The truth of the matter is that it probably something pretty basic (heart attack, etc.) that gets them. 95% of the population needs sound basic health care than they will ever need exotic health care.

Zeld2.0 · 03-09-2004, 04:34 PM

I was going to reply but james t kirk's post on government financed research is indeed interesting to ponder upon...

Thinking back at the 1930's to 1960's during their heydey I do see how (largely in part of World War II and the Cold War) many breakthroughs (from nuclear weapons, power, jets, medical procedures, etc.) did accelerate by many years... interesting to ponder upon...

stevie667 · 03-10-2004, 05:39 AM

thats partly the reason why there havn't been very many breakthroughs recently, most of the major diseases (heart disease, cancer, arthritis) are so complicated to sort out, as most have several vectors of infection (for lack of the appropriate word).
but, i think that the pharmacutical companies need a kick up the rear. yes a cure for cancer would make trillions, but in there here and now, it's easier and cheaper to concentrate on finding new drugs for existing and curable diseases.

unfortunatly, it all comes down to economics, not whats good for the populance.

fuzyfuzer · 03-11-2004, 06:43 AM

do you really think that a doctor wants to become like a teacher or an employee of the govt in there local governments look what they do to them right now here in st louis they are saying we don't have enough money so we just aren’t going to pay you how do you think that a doctor is going to feel after he just worked a 90-95 hour week and gave up most of his life and his "boss" says we can't pay you right now because we giving the money to the poor people that you just helped (or insert federal/local program here)
socialized medicine doesn't work because when you dictate the quota that a doctor makes he might work really hard for two weeks out of the month but not work after that because he can't make any more and no matter how much you want to help other people you don't want to give up your life for nothing

right now there are specialties like neurology that the wait to actually see the doctor is 4.5 months how long do you think that is going to get if socialized medicine were introduced because if everyone were to be suddenly covered for a specialty like that more people would go making an already heavily strained system collapse under far to much weight (there are only 7 neurologist for more than a million people in the St Louis area) not to mention the problems with neuro-surgery (I mean only graduating 125 surgeons is absurd)

Just my beliefs

Phaenx · 03-11-2004, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
A national health service, from the cradle to the grave, is one of the basic standards of a civilised nation.

I see it as the banner of a bloated oversized government myself.

fuzyfuzer · 03-11-2004, 07:21 AM

i also agree with Phaenx i don't think the demecrats even want to go back to the days of LBJ's great society so no one wants to go too far from supply side and health care may end up being one of the first steps

Ustwo · 03-11-2004, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fuzyfuzer
i also agree with Phaenx i don't think the demecrats even want to go back to the days of LBJ's great society so no one wants to go too far from supply side and health care may end up being one of the first steps

The great society destroyed the black family, I can't see why we don't give socialized medincine a shot, I mean what could go wrong?

Superbelt · 03-11-2004, 09:40 AM

There was a scary six month gap between me graduating from college and when my health coverage kicked in at my new job.

My coverage stopped at the end of the month when I graduated. I had to search for a job for a bit, then when I got it, there was a 90 day probationary period where I wouldn't have any coverage.

My alternative was to extend my fathers insurance to me outside of college. That would have come to me at a cost of 470 dollars per month. I couldn't afford that. My options were to borrow money to cover such an expensive extension of benefits or tough it out for that period and hope I didn't get sick or break anything in the mean-time.

I chose the latter, and thank God that nothing happened to me to have made it a disastrous choice. I don't think americans should have to fear for their health like I had to at that time.
Under a national health plan, we wouldn't. Noone would have had to make the choice I made.

Health care in this country is insane. 4% of the nations GDP is Health Care Administration costs alone. That is a lot of wasted money.
Your hospital bills are as expensive as they are, 86 dollars for a single aspirin, because the prices have to be inflated to cover the uninsured and those unable to pay their bills. That makes your premiums rise, and you really are paying for a national health care service as it is anyway because of that. Only as we are now, the national health care goes through a filter of companies working that system for a profit.

National Health Care is in this countrys best interest.

Mr. Mojo · 03-11-2004, 09:42 AM

Old article about Tom Green & Canadian Health Care

<a target=new href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm000602.shtml">TOM GREEN'S HIDDEN HEALTH-CARE LESSON - LINK</a>

Two Questions:
Where would you rather have a heart operation: Cuba and its free health care system for all, or the USA?

And why do the leaders of the world come to the US for operations?

Sparhawk · 03-11-2004, 11:08 AM

I think it's a little bit of faulty analysis to say that "We have the best specialized care in the world, and it's due to the fact that we don't have a nationalized health care service." I mean, it might have played a small role at the start, but there's so much more to it, like our premier medical schools, America's innovative spirit, the country's reputation for attracting the best and the brightest.

I don't think any of those other reasons would suddenly become invalid if we made the switch to a national system.

james t kirk · 03-11-2004, 03:28 PM

Well, given that Canada has a lower infant mortality rate, and a longer life expectancy rate than that of the USA, we must be doing something right. Irrespective of Tom Green's nuts.

Here's the link to the CIA website for the USA.....

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/us.html

USA Infant mortality rate:
total: 6.75 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 7.46 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 6.02 deaths/1,000 live births (2003 est.)
USA Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 77.14 years
female: 80.05 years (2003 est.)
male: 74.37 years

Here's the link to the CIA website for Canada.....

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/ca.html

Canadian Infant mortality rate:
total: 4.88 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 4.39 deaths/1,000 live births (2003 est.)
male: 5.36 deaths/1,000 live births
Canadian Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 79.83 years
male: 76.44 years
female: 83.38 years (2003 est.)

I maintain, you would be hard pressed to find too many Canadians who would give up their universal health care. No-one trusts companies to do right by their employees (myself included). It's not the way. I do actually trust the government as strange as that might sound.

Ustwo · 03-11-2004, 03:51 PM

And James, did you maybe think there might be other reasons as to WHY the numbers are different that have nothing to do with health care?

Think about it.

Bossnass · 03-11-2004, 04:40 PM

Canada has semi-privatized health care, not a great big socialist system. It is ultimately goverment funded but there is some competetion, and in my belief there is a higher level of public trust and professional competancy throughout the field.

No health system is perfect, but I believe that Canada is still about the best in the world. Most critical services are covered although we aren't coddled. My basic Alberta Health Care costs $132 quartly. My brother's fiance's sister was hit with a $1712 ambulance ride that had to come out of pocket- but only because she could afford it.

The PST portion of our consuption taxes doesn't go towards health care, except on a provicial basis, which is relativly insignifcant in health care contributions. As an Albertan, I pay no PST and incidently lower provincial income tax too.

james t kirk · 03-11-2004, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
And James, did you maybe think there might be other reasons as to WHY the numbers are different that have nothing to do with health care?

Think about it.

Well, when i have worked in the states i have observed that americans tend to be much fatter than Canadians on average. You see a lot of 350 pound women walking around in Michigan!

Even NYC, when i was there in the spring, I remember thinking the streets were going to be packed with babes. In reality, it was packed with fat chicks. Toronto has far hotter women, and I am not saying that cause I live here cause someone from Montreal would say that Montreal has far more beautiful women than Toronto (I disagree, though they do dress well in Montreal.)

Nancy · 03-11-2004, 10:24 PM

national health service is the only reason why I don't mind paying 40% in taxes (Denmark) since my ass is covered 24-7 no matter where I am in the world

sprocket · 03-14-2004, 09:58 PM

Sorry, I might support nationalized healthcare if I knew the government wouldnt fuck it up. Call me cynical but I dont think the government will have a chance in hell at providing healthcare in the US in a way wich is an improvement over the current system. They just dont have the track record to be trusted with that kind of responsibility.

Bob Biter · 03-14-2004, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk
Toronto has far hotter women, and I am not saying that cause I live here cause someone from Montreal would say that Montreal has far more beautiful women than Toronto (I disagree, though they do dress well in Montreal.)

Covering your ass, are you James? Let's agree that the Canadian metropolises (esp. Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver) all have hot women.

There.

Now, as for nationalized healthcare in Canada. The main services are covered by the government. If I go to the doctor with a broken arm, he/she will swipe my medicare card through the little machine, fix me up, and send me on my way. Simple as that. However, some services, such as blood tests, are offered by private clinics. You could just go to a hospital or public clinic to get checked out, but results would take longer to come through this method than by popping into a pay clinic. I got blood tests results within 4 days that way, instead of having to dick around for 2-3 weeks.

Basically, as was said before, it's semi-privatized, although us Canadians can always depend on basic service at all times.

Superbelt · 02-25-2005, 04:46 AM

Thought I'd dredge this up since I am again looking for a new job.

So here's the deal. I need to do a 240 hour internship for grad school. I also want to leave my current job. It's not taking me anywhere and the pay is wholly insufficient. I won't be able to do this internship plus maintain a required minimum of 40 hours a week there anyway (hours would conflict and I need to do my internship now)
My internship that I will most likely get needs me at least 30 hours, so I am going to have to go look for another job that I can work 30 hours a week that offers me access to a health care plan.
The alternative is to pay about 900 bucks a month for health insurance for my wife and myself.... or try and make it without health insurance.

The gap I am likely to see can range anywhere from 2 months, which will mean insurance kicks in at my new job right away (if my internship offers me an immediate position) or 5 months if a full time job from my internship requires me to wait 3 months first (like many jobs do).

So I am looking at 60-70 hours of work a week plus graduate classes in my life for a period of 2 to 5 months.
This will be really fun, but should be unnecessary fun if we had Universal Care.

NCB · 02-25-2005, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Thought I'd dredge this up since I am again looking for a new job.

So here's the deal. I need to do a 240 hour internship for grad school. I also want to leave my current job. It's not taking me anywhere and the pay is wholly insufficient. I won't be able to do this internship plus maintain a required minimum of 40 hours a week there anyway (hours would conflict and I need to do my internship now)
My internship that I will most likely get needs me at least 30 hours, so I am going to have to go look for another job that I can work 30 hours a week that offers me access to a health care plan.
The alternative is to pay about 900 bucks a month for health insurance for my wife and myself.... or try and make it without health insurance.

The gap I am likely to see can range anywhere from 2 months, which will mean insurance kicks in at my new job right away (if my internship offers me an immediate position) or 5 months if a full time job from my internship requires me to wait 3 months first (like many jobs do).

So I am looking at 60-70 hours of work a week plus graduate classes in my life for a period of 2 to 5 months.
This will be really fun, but should be unnecessary fun if we had Universal Care.

Why do you so strongly feel that I and other citizens should have to pay for your health insurance?

Superbelt · 02-25-2005, 05:01 AM

You shouldn't have to pay for MY health insurance. My contributions to the system would cover me. The need is for the overlap.

But like I said earlier, the costs of emergency care and sunset care for the uninsured is being passed onto those of us who have insurance. (ie. through our employer who pays us less because of it)
Universal Care cuts out the waste and gets it all upfront. In the long run it should be cheaper for us all. And better for society as a whole.

NCB · 02-25-2005, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

You shouldn't have to pay for MY health insurance. My contributions to the system would cover me. The need is for the overlap.

But like I said earlier, the costs of emergency care and sunset care for the uninsured is being passed onto those of us who have insurance. (ie. through our employer who pays us less because of it)
Universal Care cuts out the waste and gets it all upfront. In the long run it should be cheaper for us all. And better for society as a whole.

1. No offense, but you're a grad student with an internship. Having been down that road before, I know what interns get paid. I'm also aware of how little (if any) taxes they pay. Are your contributions up to this point suffiecent with the health coverage you're wanting?

2. Universal HC cuts the waste???? Name me one govt program that's run smooth and effiecently.

Look, I hear what you're saying about the gaps. It would suck if, God forbid, something catastrophic should happen to you during that period. However, your solution doesn't match the problem. It's like trying to kill an ant with a flamethrower. It's overkill. Perhaps more affordable gap plans should be encouraged?

Superbelt · 02-25-2005, 05:30 AM

I am a grad student with a full time job right now who wants an internship instead. So I am paying sufficient taxes right now. The internship will be short term so it will really not affect my tax line come december.

You can argue it but Canada has run very successfully. A good Nat Health plan runs even or a small loss, not at a profit.

The bottom line to me is we all pay the markup for sunset health care to the uninsured that could have been done much cheaper with preventative medicine.
And, health care should be a basic part of every american's life.

What is overkill is wasting 4% of this nations productivity in Health Care Administration.

03-06-2004, 02:37 PM	#2 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	A national health service, from the cradle to the grave, is one of the basic standards of a civilised nation. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-06-2004, 02:50 PM	#4 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Russia has a suburb health service in the 80's __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-06-2004, 04:21 PM	#7 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	I always figured big business would want to get out of the business of providing health care for their workers. It's something that the people demand, yet no one wants to provide. Don't we usually pass the job off to the government when that happens? __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

03-07-2004, 03:19 PM	#12 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	what gets lost in this whole debate is the understanding that no matter who is responsible for healthcare (government or the private sector), it will have to be paid for by the people using the resources. you aren't getting a great deal in a socialized healthcare system, just because you don't pay the bills as you incur them doesn't mean you aren't paying for them. personally, i would rather have my health care provided by a system that encourages competition and choice rather than a monolithic government program that has less incentive to improve itself or eleminate fraud. the politicians love to scare you with all manner of statistics about how people don't have health insurance. but how many people do you know that haven't been treated when they really need it in the US? For gosh sakes, we treat illegal aliens all the time because it is unlawful to turn someone away from the emergency room. the system ain't broke, you must question those who still want to fix it... especially when the changes make them the gatekeepers of public health. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

03-09-2004, 12:17 PM	#17 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I like what irateplatypus said. I'll ditto that. __________________ create evolution

03-07-2004, 12:39 PM	#10 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I think that we'll see universal health care as soon as the corporations that have sway in washington figure out that it is in their best financial interest to lobby congress for said healthcare. Which is to say, pretty soon, at this rate. I think if it isn't careful, the hmos and will overcharge themselves out of business. Hospitals too. I'm almost afraid to go into biotech because i think the healthcare industry is about to go through a "correction". Just what they deserve, though.

03-07-2004, 01:19 PM	#11 (permalink)
pocon1 Banned	Sure, the businesses in Canada don't pay for health care, the people do through their extraordinary levels of taxes. I was just in Canada. 20% taxex for purchases? Jesus Christ thats a lot. But If we had that, then we would not have our businesses putting money into a health plan. So it all works out the same.

03-09-2004, 12:09 PM	#16 (permalink)
prb Psycho	Healthcare in this country needs fixing. Way too many people can't afford health insurance and end up filling for bankruptcy when someone in the family is faced with medical bills they can't afford. Sure, if your condition is serious you can get care from a hospital emergency room, but the cost is prohibitive for those without insurance and when the patient can't pay, taxpayers foot the bill. Some kind of Universal Healthcare Insurance plan may be the only way to go. After all, the principle upon which insurance works is to spread risk among as many as you can in order to reduce the risk to any single premium payer. If the risk is spread among everyone, well... Additionally, Universal Healthcare ought to provide savings to businesses in reduced costs to provide health insurance; reduce overall healthcare expenditures by allowing people to receive preventive care before their health problems become serious (and , thus, more costly); making premiums more uniform and, thus, more efficiently computed and collected, reducing administration costs; eliminating the need for PPOs and HMOs which should reduce litigation against them for denying coverage and which should eliminate the ridiculous pay being given to the CEOs of these companies; and, verdicts in tort cases (personal injury suits) would fall dramatically since medical costs are the single most expensive damages in those cases driving verdicts. But it makes too much sense, so it won't happen.

03-09-2004, 02:27 PM	#18 (permalink)
Tomservo Crazy Location: Los Angeles, CA	The United States government pays more per capita for health care than any nation in the world. Read it twice if you need to. We spend nearly twice what Canada does, while 11% of children and 20% of working adults have no health insurance. I do not blame the government for these failures, but as long as pharmaceutical companies can afford to buy multiple Super Bowl ads at $2.4m per 30 seconds, reform is needed. I believe universal health care can work- it does in Canada, contrary to popular belief (And has its critics without a doubt.).. and our military hospitals served me for many years without negative incident. Why we couldn't tailor public hospitals to the populace is beyond me.

03-09-2004, 02:49 PM	#19 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	I have often heard the arguement that a government run system discourages inovation. I am not so sure about that one. I think there was more inovation back in the 40's and 50's then there is now. Back then the gov'ts of the world used to finance research through universities and they found a vaccine for polio, TB, and host of others. They pioneered heart transplant surgery, and pace makers. Now, everything is private sector (the large drug companies) and maybe public private partnerships. What was the last big medical break through that you can recall in the last 10 years??? What universal health care coverage does is eliminate the profit angle. Hospitals and doctors don't operate on that principle any longer. Doctors in Canada often migrate to the US in search of more buckage, but often they come back too. They grow tired of being accountants and having to deal with money issues and would prefer to practice medicine. There is no doubt that a doctor in the USA makes more than a doctor in Canada. But they don't do too badly here either, don't kid yourself. And I will bet you that every med student at Univ. of Toronto when he or she had his entrance interviews gave the "I want to help humanity speech" in order to get accepted. Well, if that's the case, and you know that Canada has a universal health care system, you shouldn't be leaving Canada upon graduation to the USA. I would think that they should pay back the government for the cost of their heavily subsidized education. (That's the lefty in me talking!) The other thing is that Americans often think it's going to be some exotic disease that's going to get them and that they need state of the art everything. The truth of the matter is that it probably something pretty basic (heart attack, etc.) that gets them. 95% of the population needs sound basic health care than they will ever need exotic health care.

03-09-2004, 04:34 PM	#20 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	I was going to reply but james t kirk's post on government financed research is indeed interesting to ponder upon... Thinking back at the 1930's to 1960's during their heydey I do see how (largely in part of World War II and the Cold War) many breakthroughs (from nuclear weapons, power, jets, medical procedures, etc.) did accelerate by many years... interesting to ponder upon...

03-10-2004, 05:39 AM	#21 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	thats partly the reason why there havn't been very many breakthroughs recently, most of the major diseases (heart disease, cancer, arthritis) are so complicated to sort out, as most have several vectors of infection (for lack of the appropriate word). but, i think that the pharmacutical companies need a kick up the rear. yes a cure for cancer would make trillions, but in there here and now, it's easier and cheaper to concentrate on finding new drugs for existing and curable diseases. unfortunatly, it all comes down to economics, not whats good for the populance.

03-11-2004, 06:43 AM	#22 (permalink)
fuzyfuzer Insane Location: st. louis	do you really think that a doctor wants to become like a teacher or an employee of the govt in there local governments look what they do to them right now here in st louis they are saying we don't have enough money so we just aren’t going to pay you how do you think that a doctor is going to feel after he just worked a 90-95 hour week and gave up most of his life and his "boss" says we can't pay you right now because we giving the money to the poor people that you just helped (or insert federal/local program here) socialized medicine doesn't work because when you dictate the quota that a doctor makes he might work really hard for two weeks out of the month but not work after that because he can't make any more and no matter how much you want to help other people you don't want to give up your life for nothing right now there are specialties like neurology that the wait to actually see the doctor is 4.5 months how long do you think that is going to get if socialized medicine were introduced because if everyone were to be suddenly covered for a specialty like that more people would go making an already heavily strained system collapse under far to much weight (there are only 7 neurologist for more than a million people in the St Louis area) not to mention the problems with neuro-surgery (I mean only graduating 125 surgeons is absurd) Just my beliefs __________________ "The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited" "Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

03-11-2004, 07:21 AM	#24 (permalink)
fuzyfuzer Insane Location: st. louis	i also agree with Phaenx i don't think the demecrats even want to go back to the days of LBJ's great society so no one wants to go too far from supply side and health care may end up being one of the first steps __________________ "The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited" "Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

03-11-2004, 09:40 AM	#26 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	There was a scary six month gap between me graduating from college and when my health coverage kicked in at my new job. My coverage stopped at the end of the month when I graduated. I had to search for a job for a bit, then when I got it, there was a 90 day probationary period where I wouldn't have any coverage. My alternative was to extend my fathers insurance to me outside of college. That would have come to me at a cost of 470 dollars per month. I couldn't afford that. My options were to borrow money to cover such an expensive extension of benefits or tough it out for that period and hope I didn't get sick or break anything in the mean-time. I chose the latter, and thank God that nothing happened to me to have made it a disastrous choice. I don't think americans should have to fear for their health like I had to at that time. Under a national health plan, we wouldn't. Noone would have had to make the choice I made. Health care in this country is insane. 4% of the nations GDP is Health Care Administration costs alone. That is a lot of wasted money. Your hospital bills are as expensive as they are, 86 dollars for a single aspirin, because the prices have to be inflated to cover the uninsured and those unable to pay their bills. That makes your premiums rise, and you really are paying for a national health care service as it is anyway because of that. Only as we are now, the national health care goes through a filter of companies working that system for a profit. National Health Care is in this countrys best interest.

03-11-2004, 09:42 AM	#27 (permalink)
Mr. Mojo Addict Location: NYC	Old article about Tom Green & Canadian Health Care <a target=new href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm000602.shtml">TOM GREEN'S HIDDEN HEALTH-CARE LESSON - LINK</a> Two Questions: Where would you rather have a heart operation: Cuba and its free health care system for all, or the USA? And why do the leaders of the world come to the US for operations? __________________ When I jerk off I feel good for about twenty seconds and then WHAM it's right back into suicidal depression

03-11-2004, 11:08 AM	#28 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	I think it's a little bit of faulty analysis to say that "We have the best specialized care in the world, and it's due to the fact that we don't have a nationalized health care service." I mean, it might have played a small role at the start, but there's so much more to it, like our premier medical schools, America's innovative spirit, the country's reputation for attracting the best and the brightest. I don't think any of those other reasons would suddenly become invalid if we made the switch to a national system. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

03-11-2004, 03:28 PM	#29 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	Well, given that Canada has a lower infant mortality rate, and a longer life expectancy rate than that of the USA, we must be doing something right. Irrespective of Tom Green's nuts. Here's the link to the CIA website for the USA..... http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/us.html USA Infant mortality rate: total: 6.75 deaths/1,000 live births male: 7.46 deaths/1,000 live births female: 6.02 deaths/1,000 live births (2003 est.) USA Life expectancy at birth: total population: 77.14 years female: 80.05 years (2003 est.) male: 74.37 years Here's the link to the CIA website for Canada..... http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/ca.html Canadian Infant mortality rate: total: 4.88 deaths/1,000 live births female: 4.39 deaths/1,000 live births (2003 est.) male: 5.36 deaths/1,000 live births Canadian Life expectancy at birth: total population: 79.83 years male: 76.44 years female: 83.38 years (2003 est.) I maintain, you would be hard pressed to find too many Canadians who would give up their universal health care. No-one trusts companies to do right by their employees (myself included). It's not the way. I do actually trust the government as strange as that might sound.

03-11-2004, 03:51 PM	#30 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	And James, did you maybe think there might be other reasons as to WHY the numbers are different that have nothing to do with health care? Think about it. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-11-2004, 04:40 PM	#31 (permalink)
Bossnass Détente Location: AWOL in Edmonton	Canada has semi-privatized health care, not a great big socialist system. It is ultimately goverment funded but there is some competetion, and in my belief there is a higher level of public trust and professional competancy throughout the field. No health system is perfect, but I believe that Canada is still about the best in the world. Most critical services are covered although we aren't coddled. My basic Alberta Health Care costs $132 quartly. My brother's fiance's sister was hit with a $1712 ambulance ride that had to come out of pocket- but only because she could afford it. The PST portion of our consuption taxes doesn't go towards health care, except on a provicial basis, which is relativly insignifcant in health care contributions. As an Albertan, I pay no PST and incidently lower provincial income tax too.

03-11-2004, 10:24 PM	#33 (permalink)
Nancy Femme Fatale Location: Elysium	national health service is the only reason why I don't mind paying 40% in taxes (Denmark) since my ass is covered 24-7 no matter where I am in the world __________________ I have all the characteristics of a human being: blood, flesh, skin, hair; but not a single, clear, identifiable emotion, except for greed and disgust. Something horrible is happening inside of me and I don't know why. My nightly bloodlust has overflown into my days. I feel lethal, on the verge of frenzy. I think my mask of sanity is about to slip.

03-14-2004, 09:58 PM	#34 (permalink)
sprocket Psycho Location: In transit	Sorry, I might support nationalized healthcare if I knew the government wouldnt fuck it up. Call me cynical but I dont think the government will have a chance in hell at providing healthcare in the US in a way wich is an improvement over the current system. They just dont have the track record to be trusted with that kind of responsibility. __________________ Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

02-25-2005, 04:46 AM	#36 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Thought I'd dredge this up since I am again looking for a new job. So here's the deal. I need to do a 240 hour internship for grad school. I also want to leave my current job. It's not taking me anywhere and the pay is wholly insufficient. I won't be able to do this internship plus maintain a required minimum of 40 hours a week there anyway (hours would conflict and I need to do my internship now) My internship that I will most likely get needs me at least 30 hours, so I am going to have to go look for another job that I can work 30 hours a week that offers me access to a health care plan. The alternative is to pay about 900 bucks a month for health insurance for my wife and myself.... or try and make it without health insurance. The gap I am likely to see can range anywhere from 2 months, which will mean insurance kicks in at my new job right away (if my internship offers me an immediate position) or 5 months if a full time job from my internship requires me to wait 3 months first (like many jobs do). So I am looking at 60-70 hours of work a week plus graduate classes in my life for a period of 2 to 5 months. This will be really fun, but should be unnecessary fun if we had Universal Care. Last edited by Superbelt; 02-25-2005 at 04:49 AM..

02-25-2005, 05:01 AM	#38 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	You shouldn't have to pay for MY health insurance. My contributions to the system would cover me. The need is for the overlap. But like I said earlier, the costs of emergency care and sunset care for the uninsured is being passed onto those of us who have insurance. (ie. through our employer who pays us less because of it) Universal Care cuts out the waste and gets it all upfront. In the long run it should be cheaper for us all. And better for society as a whole.

02-25-2005, 05:30 AM	#40 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I am a grad student with a full time job right now who wants an internship instead. So I am paying sufficient taxes right now. The internship will be short term so it will really not affect my tax line come december. You can argue it but Canada has run very successfully. A good Nat Health plan runs even or a small loss, not at a profit. The bottom line to me is we all pay the markup for sunset health care to the uninsured that could have been done much cheaper with preventative medicine. And, health care should be a basic part of every american's life. What is overkill is wasting 4% of this nations productivity in Health Care Administration.