Question For The Canadians on The Board.

[Donal DeLay]

Your country has free healthcare, right? I assume you pay for it in taxes, right?

How much is generally taken out of your check to pay for the health care services in your country?

[WillieLee]

That's not how it works.

[Donal DeLay]

Then how does it work? Enlighten an ignorant American, please.

[Jef UK]

The Mighty Canadions get vouchers from the Titans of Tyranny in Sector 5.

[TIP]

Canadions?

:lol:

[WillieLee]

Canadions?

:lol:

They changed the name after Celine became famous.

[Donal DeLay]

I know that you pay through various ways, including sales tax in some provinces, but isn't it also taken out in personal income in some way, too?


Canadions?

:lol: Damn Bendis spelling!

[Brian Defferding]

Canadions?

:lol:

Now with ionic energy!

[TIP]

They changed the name after Celine became famous.

Her EGG SERENADE put her over the edge.

[TIP]

Now with ionic energy!

Wondonal Man?

[Jef UK]

They changed the name after Celine became famous.

I thought Canadion was merely your adopted home planet.

[Brian Defferding]

Wondonal Man?

Now with spaghetti straps! :D

[WillieLee]

I thought Canadion was merely your adopted home planet.

Don't give it away!

[TIP]

I thought Canadion was merely your adopted home planet.

Baconia is the place to be.

[Ultimate Lurker]

It's probably just part of what they pay in taxes, I doubt it's alloted a seperate deduction. It's just another government program. We don't have post office taxes and military taxes separate on our checks; I don't see why this would be different.

I could be wrong.

[TIP]

Now with spaghetti straps! :D

:heybaby:

[Donal DeLay]

*sigh*

:cry:

[TIP]

http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/ENGLISH/exhibits/posters/pics/16361_eggs_270.jpg

[Donal DeLay]

It's probably just part of what they pay in taxes, I doubt it's alloted a seperate deduction. It's just another government program. We don't have post office taxes and military taxes separate on our checks; I don't see why this would be different.

I could be wrong. That's what I'd like to know, but people are a little more interested in making fun of a spelling error like we're a newsarama board. It's turning into more of a headache than I want to have just to be sarcastic on paying my hospital bill.

And for those about to post it: yes, I'm trying google.

[Doc Randy]

It is paid out of a general fund.
As for the amount/costs, it is about 1/2 of what people in America pay for health care (both as per capita cost and % of GDP).

[Brian Defferding]

Canadians are stuck in line at the ER, that's why they haven't answered you yet :p

I keed, I keed

[TIP]

*sigh*

:cry:

A Canadion doc would probably say you've got a case of Eh-physema.

[WillieLee]

http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/ENGLISH/exhibits/posters/pics/16361_eggs_270.jpg

What we declined to tell the British is that we limited their egg imports. It's known as the Great Breakfast Scramble of 43.

[bartleby]

Canadians are stuck in line at the ER, that's why they haven't answered you yet :p

I suppose that's preferable to being stuck at home and not able to afford to even go to the hospital.

[Ultimate Lurker]

I suppose that's preferable to being stuck at home and not able to afford to even go to the hospital.

Or dying because your claim was denied.

[WillieLee]

It is paid out of a general fund.
As for the amount/costs, it is about 1/2 of what people in America pay for health care (both as per capita cost and % of GDP).

RandyOni is not a Canadian. Don't believe him.

[Brian Defferding]

I suppose that's preferable to being stuck at home and not able to afford to even go to the hospital because your state won't allow you to buy cheaper healthcare elsewhere.

Fixed

[Jef UK]

Try Ask.com .

[Jef UK]

Fixed

Let's ghettoize all of America!

[WillieLee]

That's what I'd like to know, but people are a little more interested in making fun of a spelling error like we're a newsarama board. It's turning into more of a headache than I want to have just to be sarcastic on paying my hospital bill.

And for those about to post it: yes, I'm trying google.

Okay, enough fun. The way it works is that for each $10K increment over the first $20k in income we pay $500. And for each $500 hospital fee we pay, we get vouchers for medical care. So the more you pay, the greater your chance to get treatment before the poorer people.

[WillieLee]

Fixed

And believe me, the Norwegians won't stop bitching at us for that decision.

[Brian Defferding]

Let's ghettoize all of America!

No, free puppies for all!

[Brian Defferding]

And believe me, the Norwegians won't stop bitching at us for that decision.

Seems like the Norwegian have plenty to bitch about anyway. (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1891543.ece)

[Dreaded Anomaly]

Fixed

This "elsewhere" place seems to have all of the cool businesses that sell everything as cheaply as possible and never try to exploit or cheat consumers. We should all just move there.

[WillieLee]

Seems like the Norwegian have plenty to bitch about anyway. (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1891543.ece)

And they still spend less than the US for healthcare!

[Donal DeLay]

Okay, enough fun. The way it works is that for each $10K increment over the first $20k in income we pay $500. And for each $500 hospital fee we pay, we get vouchers for medical care. So the more you pay, the greater your chance to get treatment before the poorer people.

That's 500.00 yearly?

Like, someone making 30k a year only pays 500.00 a year, and someone making 100k/year pays 4k/year?

But how is that paid for by the individual citizen? A certain amount deducted per paycheck? Like, 10.00 a check each week?

[Brian Defferding]

This "elsewhere" place seems to have all of the cool businesses that sell everything as cheaply as possible and never try to exploit or cheat consumers. We should all just move there.

Ha. But seriously, no. Most likely it's just the premiums and deductibles that will be significantly lower. Which helps towards resolving that affordability issue, and it's something that can be accomplished if one worked with their state government, and Congress.


And they still spend less than the US for healthcare!

Right, it's such a great system!

[WillieLee]

That's 500.00 yearly?

Like, someone making 30k a year only pays 500.00 a year, and someone making 100k/year pays 4k/year?

But how is that paid for by the individual citizen? A certain amount deducted per paycheck? Like, 10.00 a check each week?

Income levels are predetermined at the start of each tax year. Which is why Canadians can't quit their jobs before the year is up or they pay a penalty. Then at tax time you have to pay your lump sum for your medical fee.

[WillieLee]

Right, it's such a great system!

You're aware that it's ranked much, much higher than the US?

[Brian Defferding]

Hey Donal - this link might help you:

http://www.medhunters.com/articles/healthcareInCanada.html


In Ontario, for example, an individual with taxable income of C$48,500 (US$40,500) would pay a premium of C$575 (US$480) in the 2005 tax year.

According to World Health Organization (WHO) 2001 statistics, Canada's total expenditure on health as an expenditure of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is 9.5%. This can be compared with 13.9% in the United States and 7.6% in the United Kingdom. And Canada ranks 30th on the WHO's year 2000 report on the cost effectiveness of global healthcare.

Health expenditures in Canada have increased in recent years. In 2000–2001, health expenditures totaled C$97.6 billion (US$81.5 billion), an increase of 7.2% when compared with 1999-2000. The figures given for 2000–2001 amount to C$3,174 (US$2,652) per capita.

The largest part of the government healthcare budget goes to hospitals. As a percentage of overall healthcare spending, spending on prescription drugs has increased in recent years, whereas it has decreased for doctors.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

You're aware that it's ranked much, much higher than the US?

Those rankings are socialist propaganda!

[Ashton]

I don't think they're called Canadians but rather Canucks instead.

[Brian Defferding]

You're aware that it's ranked much, much higher than the US?

That's not saying much, I hope you know.

[WillieLee]

Those rankings are socialist propaganda!

Damn socialists!

[JasonWGBB007]

every time we have to go visit a doctor or go to the hospital we must sacrifice a virgin at sun up.... unfortunatly we are running out of virgins...




EDIT: reading everyone elses posts it seems I have been going about the wrong way of getting free health care.... uh oh... luckily we don't have capital punishment

[WillieLee]

That's not saying much, I hope you know.

When you spend more money on services you are supposed to be getting better results.

[Brian Defferding]

When you spend more money on services you are supposed to be getting better results.

You can have better health care without putting everybody in the poor house. And while I agree with what you said, Canada is no shining beacon of that, seeing as they rank not much more above the US.

[skeematic]

Health Care in canada is generally done through the provincial government. For instance, I live in Alberta, and up until Jan 1 2009, we paid about 40 bucks a month towards our Alberta Health Care, and we were covered pretty much for your general stuff, like going to a clinic etc, up to emergencies. Not everything is covered however, such as ambulance rides or plastic surgery etc, but many people get insurance under Alberta Blue Cross or Sunlife Financial or other insurance companies. On January first of 2009, or what i like to call "tommorrow", the alberta government is stopping the alberta health premiums, because apparently we have a giant surplus that we dont have to pay for it anymore, so thats cool.

Im not really sure on what role the Canadian Government itself plays, nor do i know what the other provincial governments do, but thats what i can tell you for Alberta.

[WillieLee]

You can have better health care without putting everybody in the poor house. And while I agree with what you said, Canada is no shining beacon of that, seeing as they rank not much more above the US.

Did I claim that Canada has the best health care system? We still rank ahead of the US while spending much less money on the system. As someone who believes in governments spending less money I find it odd that you continue to fight against universal health care seeing as it's much more efficient than what the US has.

[JasonWGBB007]

Health Care in canada is generally done through the provincial government. For instance, I live in Alberta, and up until Jan 1 2009, we paid about 40 bucks a month towards our Alberta Health Care, and we were covered pretty much for your general stuff, like going to a clinic etc, up to emergencies. Not everything is covered however, such as ambulance rides or plastic surgery etc, but many people get insurance under Alberta Blue Cross or Sunlife Financial or other insurance companies. On January first of 2009, or what i like to call "tommorrow", the alberta government is stopping the alberta health premiums, because apparently we have a giant surplus that we dont have to pay for it anymore, so thats cool.

Im not really sure on what role the Canadian Government itself plays, nor do i know what the other provincial governments do, but thats what i can tell you for Alberta.
was Ralph Klein in Alberta? cause I thought he screwed your economy...

or was that Manitoba...

I don't really know much about the Prairies to be completely honest lol

[WillieLee]

Health Care in canada is generally done through the provincial government. For instance, I live in Alberta, and up until Jan 1 2009, we paid about 40 bucks a month towards our Alberta Health Care, and we were covered pretty much for your general stuff, like going to a clinic etc, up to emergencies. Not everything is covered however, such as ambulance rides or plastic surgery etc, but many people get insurance under Alberta Blue Cross or Sunlife Financial or other insurance companies. On January first of 2009, or what i like to call "tommorrow", the alberta government is stopping the alberta health premiums, because apparently we have a giant surplus that we dont have to pay for it anymore, so thats cool.

You better check to make sure since about $6 billion of your surplus vanished with the price of oil.



Im not really sure on what role the Canadian Government itself plays, nor do i know what the other provincial governments do, but thats what i can tell you for Alberta.

The federal government pays about 40% of the provincial costs through direct and indirect funding.

[Brian Defferding]

Did I claim that Canada has the best health care system? We still rank ahead of the US while spending much less money on the system. As someone who believes in governments spending less money I find it odd that you continue to fight against universal health care seeing as it's much more efficient than what the US has.

I never said you did WillieLee. Getting confrontational, aren't ya?

Yes, the United States health care system is "sick" and needs fixing. It's problems don't come from our country not being a universal health care system though. This country is not a free market system in the slightest, anyone who says so is either naive or completely delusional. In fact, most of the problems have to do with the government. There are plenty of smaller things that can be done to resolve its issues (one I already mentioned in this thread).

-Push the states to allow purchasing for health care across all state lines
-Push to reduce the minimum requirements for services
-Allow prescription drugs from other countries to be imported and sold in the US
-Push all states to allow a Health Savings Account that can be used during unemployment
-Take personal steps towards giving to charitable causes, like Children's Health Fund and cancer research groups
-Push legislators to make out-of-pocket expenses 100% tax deductible
-Live and eat well

These are sensible, reachable goals, compared to an overhauling system like many UHC advocates preach. We need to get our shit together and make these changes. Put your life and health care in yours and your doctor's hands. Or, we can put the American Congress and President in charge of one's health care. I think I'll choose the former, thank you.

[WillieLee]

I never said you did WillieLee. Getting confrontational, aren't ya?

Not at all. You mentioned Canada when no comparison had been made. That's usually how you start to shift threads. I'm keeping my eye on you.



Yes, the United States health care system is "sick" and needs fixing. It's problems don't come from our country not being a universal health care system though. This country is not a free market system in the slightest, anyone who says so is either naive or completely delusional. In fact, most of the problems have to do with the government. There are plenty of smaller things that can be done to resolve its issues (one I already mentioned in this thread).

-Push the states to allow purchasing for health care across all state lines
-Push to reduce the minimum requirements for services
-Allow prescription drugs from other countries to be imported and sold in the US
-Push all states to allow a Health Savings Account that can be used during unemployment
-Take personal steps towards giving to charitable causes, like Children's Health Fund and cancer research groups
-Push legislators to make out-of-pocket expenses 100% tax deductible
-Live and eat well

These are sensible, reachable goals, compared to an overhauling system like many UHC advocates preach. We need to get our shit together and make these changes. Put your life and health care in yours and your doctor's hands. Or, we can put the American Congress and President in charge of one's health care. I think I'll choose the former, thank you.

Has anyone done an actual analysis of the cost savings for these proposed changes?

[Doc Randy]

-Push the states to allow purchasing for health care across all state lines

I hear this one periodically and laugh every time I hear it. There is a very good reason why this won't work. If I live in Oregon and purchase an insurance plan based out of Kansas, I now have two incompatible state legal systems with conflicting jurisdictions that I would need to use to adjudicate any legal issues.

Say the Kansas-based insurance company takes my money but then denies my claim, what legal options do I have in Oregon? I would need to get a lawyer based in Kansas and licensed to practice law in Kansas to settle any disputes in my absence while I continue to work in Oregon.

Or we could possibly set up a federal legal frame work to prevent these issues, but I suspect you would be opposed to that also.

Why don't we instead look at other systems that work and then adopt the pragmatically proven solutions. And it should be said that despite its flaws, the Canadian Medicare system works far better for far less than the US system.

And universal health care, regardless of how we get there, would fix many of the cost issues.

[Glenn H]

While the Canadian system works well for generalize practitioners it does NOT work well for specialized ones. Too many Medical graduates are leaving for the States because of money and benefits (after they fulfill their residency).

Also they only allow so many people to take the MCATS each year (again this is for Ontario I am speaking, might not be all of Canada) so new batches of doctors are limited and this system needs to change because of the aging Baby Boom generation.

[Donal DeLay]

Now we're talkin info!


Income levels are predetermined at the start of each tax year. Which is why Canadians can't quit their jobs before the year is up or they pay a penalty. Then at tax time you have to pay your lump sum for your medical fee.

Say whaaaaaaat!?


Hey Donal - this link might help you:

http://www.medhunters.com/articles/healthcareInCanada.html

Thanks, Defferdude.

[Brian Defferding]

Not at all. You mentioned Canada when no comparison had been made. That's usually how you start to shift threads. I'm keeping my eye on you.

I'm not all that crafty of a poster.


Has anyone done an actual analysis of the cost savings for these proposed changes?

Minnesotans buy a health plan that contains 62 mandates, while families in Idaho can buy a plan with 13 mandates. In New Jersey, a family HMO costs over $1600/month, while a family can buy a HMO plan in Pennsylvania for less than half that. Sure, some states the cost differential wouldn't be that much. But for other states with the more expensive requirements, it's a significant difference.

As for prescription drug reimportation, it all depends on how it's implemented. The Congressional Budget Office concludes (http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/archive/prescription_drug_reimportation.shtml) that "average prices for patented drugs in other industrialized countries are 35 percent to 55 percent lower than in the United States." However, if the FDA has extensive extra testing on the reimported drugs, the added cost could defeat the purpose of allowing it. Furthermore, according to Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (http://www.phrma.org), it takes 12 to 15 years for a drug to be available to the public from its testing process. Newer drugs that might be available in other countries to resolve their conditions may still have to wait longer for FDA approval, which in the end could turn into higher prices. In the name of safety and efficacy, that is, many who would be willing to shoulder the risk of an unsafe or inefficacious drug are left sitting on their hands. The FDA does have a process for some patients to volunteer taking treatments that go around the FDA's regulations, but that FDA-controlled process takes time and money too. I think a proper implementation would be to relax some FDA regulations for drug testing (but not all), allow an easier, simpler and more efficient process for patients to take non-FDA approved drugs, and avoid any federal or state government price controls (which is hampering drug prices in Britain right now).

Regarding making outo-of-pocket medical costs tax deductible, a book titled Healthy, Wealthy and Wise: Five Steps to a Better Health Care System by John Cogan, R. Glenn Hubbard, and David Kessler, Stanford University Business School professors, proposed this idea; and their estimate is it would save $8 billion annually. However, their proposal would mean a regressive tax deductible rate, while I suggest a more progressive rate, so the middle class gets the lion's share of the benefit.


I hear this one periodically and laugh every time I hear it. There is a very good reason why this won't work. If I live in Oregon and purchase an insurance plan based out of Kansas, I now have two incompatible state legal systems with conflicting jurisdictions that I would need to use to adjudicate any legal issues.

How right you are. How often would this happen? Does a similar problem happen often with something similar, like auto insurance?

Do you think the patient would realize the risk involved and take responsibility for reading the fine print of the coverage? If not, how is that the system's fault again?


Why don't we instead look at other systems that work and then adopt the pragmatically proven solutions. And it should be said that despite its flaws, the Canadian Medicare system works far better for far less than the US system.

Not by much. According to the much championed WHO ratings, Canada is 30th. That's nothing to brag about.

Instead of overhauling the whole system, why don't we take those certain changes - that are, once again, reachable and sensible - to lower the cost of care? They are multiple measures that, added together, can make health care costs more affordable.


And universal health care, regardless of how we get there, would fix many of the cost issues.

I get a chuckle when I read this. If anything, it only exchanges one problem for others.

[Doc Randy]

Deff,

What are your objections to cost controls via monopsonistic power?

Do you object to allowing open enrollment and people/businesses buying into medicare?

I never said Canada's system was the one we should focus on. There are 29 better systems to look at. I simply said Canada's system is significantly better in terms of cost to teh average citizen and society.

Also, and I don't know how anybody could laugh at the notion that UHC reduces costs. It provides for preventative care and early detection for all which is far cheaper than late-term medical procedures.

[Scott Chantler]

RandyOni is not a Canadian. Don't believe him.

I actually bestowed Honourary Canadian status on all of the Oni guys years ago.

Yes, I can do that.

[Brian Defferding]

Deff,

What are your objections to cost controls via monopsonistic power?

Do you object to allowing open enrollment and people/businesses buying into medicare?

I never said Canada's system was the one we should focus on. There are 29 better systems to look at. I simply said Canada's system is significantly better in terms of cost to teh average citizen and society.

Also, and I don't know how anybody could laugh at the notion that UHC reduces costs. It provides for preventative care and early detection for all which is far cheaper than late-term medical procedures.

I think it's a naive belief UHC proponents have to think "hey, look at Canada! Look at Norway! Let's adopt the same system here." In America, price controls have failed in every application throughout history.

Let’s take electrical power. There was a crisis just a few years ago when rolling brown-outs threatened to turn to static black-outs. Of course, some people blamed private power suppliers. But one should think about that. Why would private companies that make money selling you something purposely run out of what they sell you, making you hopping mad in the process?

Right. They wouldn’t. That would be counterintuitive.

Price controls were the cause of the "energy crisis" of the 1970s and of the California energy crisis of the 1990's - only the wholesale price of electricity was deregulated there; controls were placed on retail prices. Since the utility companies have been paying more for electricity than they were allowed to charge their customers, they were operating in the red and the financial markets are downgrading their bonds. Thus, the wholesale prices went really far up and the consumers had to pay high prices while the utilities were going bankrupt.

-The U.S. government has controlled milk production for almost 70 years. Most U.S. dairy farmers work within a government system set up from policies made during the New Deal to give thousands of small dairies a guaranteed market for their milk and to even out prices for consumers. Farmers who participate in regional pools operated by the federal government or the states deliver raw milk to cooperatives or food processors. They get a guaranteed price, whether the milk ends up in a gallon jug, cheese, butter or ice cream. In Arizona and other federally regulated regions, the Agriculture Department uses a formula to set the price processors pay for raw milk, issuing "milk marketing orders." This pricing formula not only squelches out any potential for farmers to thrive and profit, it has collateral damage. (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/05/business/fi-cheese5) This strict pricing formula prevents interstate trade of milk, thus fleecing customers with a chance to buy better, cheaper milk. It is really astounding to see how the pricing formula hasn't changed and no one from Congress has made a serious attempt to repeal these ridiculous regulations.

-Hawaii has a state-imposed government price control on gas (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9071642/). Every day, a committee meets up to discuss the supply and figure out what the wholesale price is, then agree on the appropriate price. The result? Hawaii typically has the highest price per gallon in all 50 states. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/05/AR2006050501294.html)

Systematic failure of price controls over the last hundred years. Which is why I find it all the more pragmatic that another form of government price control is unrealistic and shouldn't be done again.

So here's my question for you Randy - Why not attempt a system that allows the usual supply and demand with lesser government intervention? Why are you so opposed to that? If we take the mandates, trade barriers and some testing regulations down, see what we can do to make treatment more available and allow for experimentation for those willing to further innovation, this can allow for lower drug prices and furthering medicine.

[Humphrey_Lee]

You're aware that it's ranked much, much higher than the US?

Fuck dude, the back alley guy giving wire hangar abortions and splinting broken bones with rebar and an old, soiled t-shirt is ranked much higher than the US. At least he's being honest with who he is and not cramming unbelievably expensive pills that may or may not work down your throat...

[WillieLee]

I'm not all that crafty of a poster.



Minnesotans buy a health plan that contains 62 mandates, while families in Idaho can buy a plan with 13 mandates. In New Jersey, a family HMO costs over $1600/month, while a family can buy a HMO plan in Pennsylvania for less than half that. Sure, some states the cost differential wouldn't be that much. But for other states with the more expensive requirements, it's a significant difference.

As for prescription drug reimportation, it all depends on how it's implemented. The Congressional Budget Office concludes (http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/archive/prescription_drug_reimportation.shtml) that "average prices for patented drugs in other industrialized countries are 35 percent to 55 percent lower than in the United States." However, if the FDA has extensive extra testing on the reimported drugs, the added cost could defeat the purpose of allowing it. Furthermore, according to Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (http://www.phrma.org), it takes 12 to 15 years for a drug to be available to the public from its testing process. Newer drugs that might be available in other countries to resolve their conditions may still have to wait longer for FDA approval, which in the end could turn into higher prices. In the name of safety and efficacy, that is, many who would be willing to shoulder the risk of an unsafe or inefficacious drug are left sitting on their hands. The FDA does have a process for some patients to volunteer taking treatments that go around the FDA's regulations, but that FDA-controlled process takes time and money too. I think a proper implementation would be to relax some FDA regulations for drug testing (but not all), allow an easier, simpler and more efficient process for patients to take non-FDA approved drugs, and avoid any federal or state government price controls (which is hampering drug prices in Britain right now).

That has nothing to do with my question.



Regarding making outo-of-pocket medical costs tax deductible, a book titled Healthy, Wealthy and Wise: Five Steps to a Better Health Care System by John Cogan, R. Glenn Hubbard, and David Kessler, Stanford University Business School professors, proposed this idea; and their estimate is it would save $8 billion annually. However, their proposal would mean a regressive tax deductible rate, while I suggest a more progressive rate, so the middle class gets the lion's share of the benefit.

Wow. $8 billion out of $2.26 trillion. The US should make the switch now!

[Brian Defferding]

Wow. $8 billion out of $2.26 trillion. The US should make the switch now!

I never said their plan was a complete resolution; plus I think the plan needs to make some changes anyway. Perhaps you missed that part where I mentioned where the middle class should get the lion's share of the deductions. I also think the tax deductible rate should be a lot higher; thus anyone that pays $3,500 of medical expenses would not get taxed and perhaps receive a refund.

[Brian Defferding]

That has nothing to do with my question.

It has everything to do with your question. Are you going to do that thing where you continue to be vague and not explain yourself and I have to pull teeth with you?

Or are you going to cooperate?

[WillieLee]

I never said their plan was a complete resolution; plus I think the plan needs to make some changes anyway. Perhaps you missed that part where I mentioned where the middle class should get the lion's share of the deductions. I also think the tax deductible rate should be a lot higher; thus anyone that pays $3,500 of medical expenses would not get taxed and perhaps receive a refund.

But you're still throwing around numbers without any actual data.

[WillieLee]

It has everything to do with your question.

No it doesn't. You just throw a wall of information that has no direct connection to my request. I asked for a study, not an offhand comparison between two states. As Randy pointed out, just because there are two different rates between states doesn't mean that people will be able to get coverage at those rates.

[Brian Defferding]

But you're still throwing around numbers without any actual data.

What data are you looking for?

[Brian Defferding]

No it doesn't. You just throw a wall of information that has no direct connection to my request. I asked for a study, not an offhand comparison between two states. As Randy pointed out, just because there are two different rates between states doesn't mean that people will be able to get coverage at those rates.

There can't be data for your request, because it all depends on the state. There is a wide variation in costs across the country. According to Milliman Medical Index (http://www.milliman.com/expertise/healthcare/products-tools/mmi/), among 14 metropolitan areas studied, healthcare costs varied by more than 35% from lowest to highest. The total medical cost in 2008 for a typical American family of four is $15,609 (compared with $14,500 in 2007). Every state and city has their own tax code. There is no possible study that can gather the exact data you're looking for.

Sorry man.

[Jordan K]

Canadians are stuck in line at the ER, that's why they haven't answered you yet :p

I keed, I keed

See now this kind of thing is a complete fallacy. I have been in the ER numerous times over the years and have never had to wait. When I was young I went through a window and when I went into the ER you better believe that they had me rushed into the operating room.

The only time I waited was when it was 3 in the morning and I broke my hand, and even then I waited cause I was in a small town.

The real drawback to the system is when you need to see a specialist in that you get refereed on an as needed basis. But if you need it, you are in there right away.

[Donal DeLay]

I actually bestowed Honourary Canadian status on all of the Oni guys years ago.

Yes, I can do that.

Can you do that for me so I don't have to deal with this medical bill?

[Scott Chantler]

Can you do that for me so I don't have to deal with this medical bill?

Sure. But with the title being honourary, I'm afraid you're on your own with the medical bills. ;)

[Hock]

Canadians are stuck in line at the ER, that's why they haven't answered you yet :p

I keed, I keed

A huge part of the reason ER waiting lines are so long is because so many fucking people go their with sprained ankles and other bullshit injuries that don't really need an ER visit.

[Donal DeLay]

Sure. But with the title being honourary, I'm afraid you're on your own with the medical bills. ;)

Damn you, Chantler! Damn you and your "canadian" bacon that isn't really bacon because it's balogna!

[Doc Randy]

In America, price controls have failed in every application throughout history.

Wow... you couldn't be more wrong.

The price controls I am referring to are the "buying with a bulk discount" kind, that do work. Public services have the power to collectively bargain for the lowest prices due to their volume purchases. For example, the VA does this with prescription drugs and as a result, the VA pays significantly less for drugs than the average citizen.

It is simple economics... a public insurance program that represents a huge portion of the population is able to negotiate for the best prices based on the volume.

In fact, one of the biggest problems with Medicare's prescription drug plan is that the GOP explicitly forbid Medicare from doing this (unlike the VA), and as a result, prices actually went up.

[Brian Defferding]

See now this kind of thing is a complete fallacy. I have been in the ER numerous times over the years and have never had to wait. When I was young I went through a window and when I went into the ER you better believe that they had me rushed into the operating room.

The only time I waited was when it was 3 in the morning and I broke my hand, and even then I waited cause I was in a small town.

The real drawback to the system is when you need to see a specialist in that you get refereed on an as needed basis. But if you need it, you are in there right away.

I know it's not as bad as some have claimed, I was just poking fun. But according to this paper by the American Student Medical Assocation: (www.amsa.org/studytours/WaitingTimes_primer.pdf)


On average, U.S. citizens experience some of the shortest wait times for non-emergency surgeries among industrialized countries, although the waiting times vary considerably by procedure [11]. Furthermore, the short waiting times apply mainly to those who have insurance; for those who do not, the waiting line is arguably infinite. Finally, the short waiting lists in the U.S. should be tempered with the realization that the lack of universal healthcare in the U.S. means less demand for the system. If there were universal healthcare without an expansion of capacity, one might see how waiting lines in the U.S. could increase [12].

In a cross-national survey of sick adults in five countries, 40% of people in the U.S. said it was either very difficult or somewhat difficult to see a specialist, compared with 53% in Canada. Of the U.S. respondents indicating it was difficult to see a specialist, 40% cited long waiting times (vs. 86% in Canada), 31% cited being denied a referral or having to wait for a referral (vs. 10% in Canada), and 17% cited not being able to afford private insurance (vs. 3% in Canada). 14% of U.S. respondents indicated they had a "big problem" with long waits to get an appointment with their regular doctor, compared with 24% in Canada. Based on this data, more Canadians than Americans report that waiting lines are a problem when trying to see their physicians, although some Americans experience this problem as well. Also, more Americans report problems with obtaining referrals and cost of care as obstacles to seeing specialists [13].

[Brian Defferding]

Wow... you couldn't be more wrong.

The evidence I've provided say otherwise.


The price controls I am referring to are the "buying with a bulk discount" kind, that do work. Public services have the power to collectively bargain for the lowest prices due to their volume purchases. For example, the VA does this with prescription drugs and as a result, the VA pays significantly less for drugs than the average citizen.

It is simple economics... a public insurance program that represents a huge portion of the population is able to negotiate for the best prices based on the volume.

In fact, one of the biggest problems with Medicare's prescription drug plan is that the GOP explicitly forbid Medicare from doing this (unlike the VA), and as a result, prices actually went up.

That's already been working in the private market. (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=f89b9918-2197-4f48-b2ff-33938da0ee67) Generic drugs are being offered for a fraction of the price (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2006-09-21-walmart-drugs_x.htm), and could possibly expand if the trade barriers were dropped.

[Scott Chantler]

Yeah, wait times here CAN be bad...it's one of the downsides of the system. But it's not nearly as bad as American conservative opponents of universal healthcare often make it out to be. You hear some horror stories, but those are the exceptions, usually. Even specialist-type stuff can go quicker than anticipated: my mother needed a new hip last year, and got it within about six weeks. Nothing to complain about there.

[WillieLee]

There can't be data for your request, because it all depends on the state. There is a wide variation in costs across the country. According to Milliman Medical Index (http://www.milliman.com/expertise/healthcare/products-tools/mmi/), among 14 metropolitan areas studied, healthcare costs varied by more than 35% from lowest to highest. The total medical cost in 2008 for a typical American family of four is $15,609 (compared with $14,500 in 2007). Every state and city has their own tax code. There is no possible study that can gather the exact data you're looking for.

Sorry man.

So the Institute of Medicine has been making up the data contained in their studies supporting UHC?

[Magnum V.I.]

That's not how it works.

Oh really Mr. Wikipedia?!


Damn you, Chantler! Damn you and your "canadian" bacon that isn't really bacon because it's balogna!

:lol: It's Bologna!!

[Brian Defferding]

So the Institute of Medicine has been making up the data contained in their studies supporting UHC?

Which studies, specifically? And which data?

[Ben]

Canadians are stuck in line at the ER, that's why they haven't answered you yet :p

I keed, I keedIn the US, there are lines at ERs because the uninsured use them for primary care! Seems like a much better system, huh?

[Doc Randy]

The evidence I've provided say otherwise.

That's already been working in the private market. (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=f89b9918-2197-4f48-b2ff-33938da0ee67) Generic drugs are being offered for a fraction of the price (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2006-09-21-walmart-drugs_x.htm), and could possibly expand if the trade barriers were dropped.

Do you read the articles you post? Because if anything, the first linked article backs up what I said 100% (which kind of contradicts you statement, "The evidence I've provided say otherwise."

My argument: That public institutions can pool their resources and use their monopsonistic power to negotiate the lowest prices.

From your posted article:



...
Our governments can no longer afford to ignore mounting evidence that we are paying too much for prescription drugs and the excess may be in the billions of dollars.

The latest indicator is the study released this week by researchers at the University of British Columbia that showed Canadians pay on average an astounding 50 per cent more than New Zealanders for a basket of common medicines.

The study shows how the diminutive nation with a population roughly the same as B.C. has been able to successfully haggle with pharmaceutical giants for much better prices than we are getting for similar products.
...

According to the UBC study, New Zealand achieves such low drug prices by using its power as a consumer to demand better deals from drug companies.

Bulk buying is neither a new idea nor one that is unknown in Canada. But we have done more talking about the notion than we have in trying to make it work. Now we can see how much our dithering may be costing us.

As a consumer, New Zealand has some advantages that Canadians don't. About 80 per cent of all prescription drugs are purchased by the central government, so it has close to monopoly powers.
...

The only way to keep health care affordable, regardless of whether individuals, employers or provincial health care plans are picking up the tab, is to ensure that every dollar goes as far as possible. Wal-Mart -- the world's largest retailer -- was successful in large part because it used the company's buying power to get better prices from manufacturers.

[Brian Defferding]

No, I read that part Randy. But Target, Wal-Mart and other pharmacies/retailers are working on that right now. Large retailers buying in bulk, like what they do for everything else in their stores, and sell them on the cheap.

[Brian Defferding]

In the US, there are lines at ERs because the uninsured use them for primary care! Seems like a much better system, huh?

Did I say it was better?

[Doc Randy]

No, I read that part Randy. But Target, Wal-Mart and other pharmacies/retailers are working on that right now. Large retailers buying in bulk, like what they do for everything else in their stores, and sell them on the cheap.

You would have to admit that the larger the company, the more leverage they have for bargaining, right? Bigger entities can negotiate bigger discounts by virtue of their volume purchasing, right?

So as big as Wal-Mart is and as nice a discount as they may get, surely you accept the logic that the Federal government, empowered by a monopsonistic status, can negotiate an even bigger discount.

It already works for the VA.
And it would work for Medicare if the GOP didn't explicitly forbid price negotiation and bargaining.

[Brian Defferding]

You would have to admit that the larger the company, the more leverage they have for bargaining, right? Bigger entities can negotiate bigger discounts by virtue of their volume purchasing, right?

So as big as Wal-Mart is and as nice a discount as they may get, surely you accept the logic that the Federal government, empowered by a monopsonistic status, can negotiate an even bigger discount.

Never in a million years. Here's why:

-Firstly, it's partly the principle involved. Everyone deserves to shop around and choose, with a large monopoly involved, the consumer choice is fleeced. Monopoly power in your vision works under the assumption that profit is mostly cut and everyone gets the cheapest deal. But government mass purchasing hides a lot of truths; the truths the competition reveals. For instance, a government can buy shoes at bulk from a shoemaker for a low price, but that will take away any chance of rival business at finding buyers for their product - a product that could be superior in quality, with profits going towards researching for a better quality shoe.

At the end of the day Randy: Every American citizen deserves to choose. No exception. Our right to live to our own means also means there will be risks, dangers and flaws, but those drawbacks are worth everything for us to live freely, responsibly, competitively and to be innovative. It was this nature that made America great and strong.

-To ramp up the power vested in the government to go to the high amount that your vision desires takes time and tax money, and when I say tax money, I'm also talking about how to fight against the pharmaceutical lobbying. Good luck with that.

A more realistic approach is to open up the markets on pharmaceuticals completely, open up the trade barriers, and relax some testing regulations/find ways to make new treatments (which isn't necessarily pills) more available to the public.

[Donal DeLay]

Oh really Mr. Wikipedia?!



:lol: It's Bologna!!
Not according to Canadions. ;)

[SMACK!]

$7,000 was deducted from my salary this year for my healthcare. I still had to pay over $1500 in hospital bills for my daughters birth. It makes no sense to me. What the hell am I paying for? The offhand chance I get cancer? I pay $7000 per year just incase I get cancer?

And as far as the right to choose, my insurance wouldn't pay for the hospital we wanted to go to, and because my company changed providers, my wife couldn't use the OB she wanted, the one who she was comfortable with, the one who delivered her first three kids. So I don't buy the whole choice argument.

[Brian Defferding]

$7,000 was deducted from my salary this year for my healthcare. I still had to pay over $1500 in hospital bills for my daughters birth. It makes no sense to me. What the hell am I paying for? The offhand chance I get cancer? I pay $7000 per year just incase I get cancer?

And as far as the right to choose, my insurance wouldn't pay for the hospital we wanted to go to, and because my company changed providers, my wife couldn't use the OB she wanted, the one who she was comfortable with, the one who delivered her first three kids. So I don't buy the whole choice argument.

America doesn't have complete choice in health care, hasn't been that way for a long time.