Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At any rate, I agree with the others above: our system is not "cratering." The Texan who claims that it is, is obviously uninformed, and not familiar with our system at all.
You were so quick to jump on me and even call me ignorant, yet so slow now to respond to my rebuttal. I'm still eager to engage and discover what it is about the data that I provided that you find so ignorant, if you are willing to indulge me.
My own family's experience shows how Canada's system is great - as long as you don't have to wait.
One relative needed bypass surgery - urgently. He was booked for surgery the next day with one of Canada's top heart doctors. A good outcome although the after care was poor.
Another needed a MS diagnosis via MRI. 11 month wait as it wasn't considered urgent.
Canada's system covers everyone equally (at least generally, I realize it will differ by province) and access is determined by urgency. Therefore those with means will go elsewhere for faster coverage.
The US's system is inequal. Those with means will be seen right away. Therefore those without the means will go elsewhere for cheaper coverage.
One's viewpoint of either system will depend on your personal situation.
Actually I have family in Canada and one of them is very sick (possibly dying) because of the healthcare system. Specialist waits take more than six months up there. We don't know what to do. It looks like I'm going to have to attend the genealogy up there pretty soon...
I've never had a problem with Canadas healthcare system,But If your family member is having a problem rather than complaining about your perceived delusions of the Canada healthcare system maybe you should make arrangements to have them pay a visit to America where they can get their maladies sorted out immediately eh.
My own family's experience shows how Canada's system is great - as long as you don't have to wait.
One relative needed bypass surgery - urgently. He was booked for surgery the next day with one of Canada's top heart doctors. A good outcome although the after care was poor.
Another needed a MS diagnosis via MRI. 11 month wait as it wasn't considered urgent.
Canada's system covers everyone equally (at least generally, I realize it will differ by province) and access is determined by urgency. Therefore those with means will go elsewhere for faster coverage.
The US's system is inequal. Those with means will be seen right away. Therefore those without the means will go elsewhere for cheaper coverage.
One's viewpoint of either system will depend on your personal situation.
How many Canadians go bankrupt do to a serious illness?
How many Canadians go bankrupt do to a serious illness?
None that I know of.
I have a question, anyone can answer if they have an idea.
Under the ACA in the US, what would the costs be, including insurance, for someone under 65 who has had myriad of health issues?
The example I will use is my mother. Two hips replaced, partial mastectomies on both breasts due to cancer. brain tumour. Plus a few other hospital stays for things I can't even remember.
I'm interested in the cost before ACA for the hips. After ACA breast cancer and brain tumour.
How many Canadians go bankrupt do to a serious illness?
The answer of course is "none". How many Americans with good health coverage go bankrupt due to a serious illness? The answer there is probably close to none.
If I have a heart attack and need surgery, I know that I will be out of pocket around $5,000 maximum. I will also get after-surgical care and therapy as needed as part of the maximum.
If I have cancer and want to get IMMEDIATE treatment despite the fact that it's a slow-growing tumor, I know that I will be out of pocket around $5,000 maximum. If, heaven forbid, I get the heart attack and the cancer in the same year, it's still $5,000 maximum. And that's per family, per year.
My 70+ year old relative had to pay $0 out of pocket. However, after 4 days he was sent home from the hospital to fend for himself with no after care nor therapy, just a pamphlet and directive to see his regular doctor in 2 weeks.
As I've said in another thread, the "haves" do have a higher quality of care in the US. The "have nots" do much better in Canada. It is up to each society to decide which system they prefer and the costs thereof.
My own family's experience shows how Canada's system is great - as long as you don't have to wait.
One relative needed bypass surgery - urgently. He was booked for surgery the next day with one of Canada's top heart doctors. A good outcome although the after care was poor.
Another needed a MS diagnosis via MRI. 11 month wait as it wasn't considered urgent.
Canada's system covers everyone equally (at least generally, I realize it will differ by province) and access is determined by urgency. Therefore those with means will go elsewhere for faster coverage.
The US's system is inequal. Those with means will be seen right away. Therefore those without the means will go elsewhere for cheaper coverage.
One's viewpoint of either system will depend on your personal situation.
No matter what, in any situation regarding anything having cold hard cash is an advantage. Changing the system never changes that. You can hate that fact with every ounce of your being and it will still always be true. I think this is your point?
I have a question, anyone can answer if they have an idea.
Under the ACA in the US, what would the costs be, including insurance, for someone under 65 who has had myriad of health issues?
The example I will use is my mother. Two hips replaced, partial mastectomies on both breasts due to cancer. brain tumour. Plus a few other hospital stays for things I can't even remember.
I'm interested in the cost before ACA for the hips. After ACA breast cancer and brain tumour.
She doesn't work and has no living spouse.
Depends on the plan and the level of coverage.
Assuming she doesn't have much of an income she will probably receive credits that will offset much if not all of the premium fee.
If, prior to the ACA taking effect she didn't have coverage then she'd be paying whatever a hospital would charge, which is usually an inflated "retail" rate. If she had a cheap "catastrophic coverage" policy she'd probably have paid a lot.
In the US, most "good" insurance policies are tied to employment. That's just the way it is. I've always had very good to excellent coverage, and for many years the employer paid 100% of the cost.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
