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.
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?
Having cash - and choices - is an advantage.
In Canada, you can have cash but no choice if the provincial health system determines that your chemo won't start for 6 months. They will then go to the US for care. If you have no cash, you will get looked after at the pace determined for you.
In the US, if you have cash, you also have choice and will have the best potential outcome. However, if you have no cash, you may have choice but will not do as well as you would in Canada.
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.
Before the ACA many went bankrupt with insurance. How? One reason is if you are very ill, can not work, eventually you will be terminated and lose your coverage. Another reason before the ACA pre-existing conditions could apply forcing the insured to pay out of pocket. The other reason is flat out denial of treatment. The issues I see with the ACA is premiums can be high for some, all depending on what county or state one lives in. But it appears everyone using the ACA has high deductibles and co-pays. Many pay a premium every month and find that they pay plenty up front for treatment in order to meet their deductible which runs into the thousands.
Before the ACA many went bankrupt with insurance. How? One reason is if you are very ill, can not work, eventually you will be terminated and lose your coverage. Another reason before the ACA pre-existing conditions could apply forcing the insured to pay out of pocket. The other reason is flat out denial of treatment. The issues I see with the ACA is premiums can be high for some, all depending on what county or state one lives in. But it appears everyone using the ACA has high deductibles and co-pays. Many pay a premium every month and find that they pay plenty up front for treatment in order to meet their deductible which runs into the thousands.
Bad healthcare plans are bad no matter what you call them.
You are correct about losing coverage if you lose employment, unless you pay for COBRA. However, if you change employers they can't consider pre-existing conditions.
Bad healthcare plans are bad no matter what you call them.
You are correct about losing coverage if you lose employment, unless you pay for COBRA. However, if you change employers they can't consider pre-existing conditions.
That's true changing employers in order to avoid pre-existing conditions. Those who were very ill would have issues. COBRA was instituted in the late 90s I believe with the ex-employee paying the full cost of the insurance for a certain amount of time, then would eventually lose that also, and would have only 62 days to find employment in order to avoid pre-existing condition clause. Some large cracks people fell into that effected not only the ill but the entire family.
employment-based health coverage IS a recipe for medical bankruptcy, especially in an at-will employment environment. I can't believe people need that spelled out for them in this day and age. You must be trolling..
employment-based health coverage IS a recipe for medical bankruptcy, especially in an at-will employment environment. I can't believe people need that spelled out for them in this day and age. You must be trolling..
For most people it works well. Now with ACA if one loses employment they can immediately sign up for one of the plans on their exchange. That is true 'in this day and age'.
For most people it works well. Now with ACA if one loses employment they can immediately sign up for one of the plans on their exchange. That is true 'in this day and age'.
Difference is that unemployed person in the USA is expected to continue paying those monthly healthcare payments whereas the Canadian unemployed worker continues to receive healthcare regardless of employment status.
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.
Excuse me for having a life away from my computer. I had a great weekend; how was yours?
You were ignorant because you believed that the Canadian Medical Association was a Canadian government organization. Why, I don't know. Are the Teamsters a US government organization? Is the New York Bar Association a New York Government association? No? Then why would the Canadian Medical Association--a voluntary membership, non-government society, not much different from a union or professional association--be a Canadian government association? Why would you think it was?
You're obviously not stupid; and as you remarked in a post somewhere, your ex was Canadian. You should, through discussions with her (him?) know better. I believe you admitted in subsequent posts that the CMA was not a Canadian government organization, and backtracked on your claim. Fair enough.
But to claim that the CMA is a Canadian government organization in P&OC when you undoubtedly knew better--that's just plain deceiving.
That's what bothered me so much, that I had to post a correction.
Difference is that unemployed person in the USA is expected to continue paying those monthly healthcare payments whereas the Canadian unemployed worker continues to receive healthcare regardless of employment status.
True enough, can't argue there, although a low-income US worker would either get ACA credits or if their income is very low would qualify for Medicaid.
Excuse me for having a life away from my computer. I had a great weekend; how was yours?
You were ignorant because you believed that the Canadian Medical Association was a Canadian government organization. Why, I don't know. Are the Teamsters a US government organization? Is the New York Bar Association a New York Government association? No? Then why would the Canadian Medical Association--a voluntary membership, non-government society, not much different from a union or professional association--be a Canadian government association? Why would you think it was?
You're obviously not stupid; and as you remarked in a post somewhere, your ex was Canadian. You should, through discussions with her (him?) know better. I believe you admitted in subsequent posts that the CMA was not a Canadian government organization, and backtracked on your claim. Fair enough.
But to claim that the CMA is a Canadian government organization in P&OC when you undoubtedly knew better--that's just plain deceiving.
That's what bothered me so much, that I had to post a correction.
Wow. You continue to lob insults, insinuate that I shared information under nefarious circumstances (which is a really petty and silly thing, considering I corrected myself immediately) and maintain a sidestep to answering MY question about the validity of the actual data itself. You know - the data that started this conversation in the first place.
I don't think you are really interested in having this discussion. You're just being confrontational and frankly, a bit abusive. The fact that it "bothered you so much" that I erroneously referred to the CMA as a gov't organization and that you are having such difficulty rising above this says something a little discomforting about your temperament. You seem like a very angry person with a giant chip on your shoulder.
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.
