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.
Originally Posted by aneftp The real issue is some Canadians would rather have a US health system. I said "some". I didn't say "most".
I've only met one, but then, he was crazy. He thought we should merge with the US, has a confederate flag hanging in his house, is a rabid racist and thinks doctors are inserting nanoprobes into medication to keep tabs on the populace.
Last edited by weltschmerz; 04-05-2013 at 04:36 PM..
Most of the Canadians I know (having married one and lived with her in her country for many years, that's quite a few - and they live in Canada year-round) may grumble about their taxes, because everyone does, but when pressed on the point, most agree that they get value for their money.
Absolutely. I feel that it's money well-spent.
Don't forget, it also covers things like generous maternity leaves, cheap daycare, extremely reasonable university tuition and a host of other programs, not just healthcare.
I didn't actually call the pre-ACA system in the U.S. "free market", you'll observe. I referred to it as "market-driven". But if you prefer a term which adequately describes our old system and distinguishes between it and various models, Bismarckian or Beveridgite, of universal health care, I'll be happy to adopt your term.
My point is that the main function of cost doesn't change under ACA nor would it under a single payer system. Adopting a single payer system while doing nothing about the cost achieves nothing. In the countries that have a single payer system the government limits how much can be spent and oddly the healthcare system itself is more competitive than the US system is.
My point is that the main function of cost doesn't change under ACA nor would it under a single payer system. Adopting a single payer system while doing nothing about the cost achieves nothing. In the countries that have a single payer system the government limits how much can be spent and oddly the healthcare system itself is more competitive than the US system is.
I'm not sure I understand your phrase "main function of cost". Are you saying that healthcare costs something, regardless of the system of administration? Or are you saying that a single-payer system can have no effect on its costs?
Absolutely. I feel that it's money well-spent.
Don't forget, it also covers things like generous maternity leaves, cheap daycare, extremely reasonable university tuition and a host of other programs, not just healthcare.
My niece recently graduated from the best medical school in the country. Total cost was about $27,000, for the whole nine yards. Not having to go bankrupt paying medical bills and not having to take out second or third mortgages on our homes to send our kids to university makes our taxes worth every dime.
Last edited by weltschmerz; 04-05-2013 at 04:37 PM..
My niece recently graduated from the best medical scholl in the country. Total cost was $bout $27,000, for the whole nine yards. Not having to go bankrupt paying medical bills and not having to take out second or third mortgages on our homes to send our kids to university makes our taxes worth every dime.
And, incidentally, contributes to cost-containment in Canadian healthcare, since medical professionals have less need to recoup their huge initial investment.
My government screws up everything, all the taxes go to boondoggles, croanies and lobbyists. I dont trust them with my tax dollars I certainly wont trust them with my health.
We are not Canada, Aus, Sveden
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz
Absolutely. I feel that it's money well-spent.
Don't forget, it also covers things like generous maternity leaves, cheap daycare, extremely reasonable university tuition and a host of other programs, not just healthcare.
I'm not sure I understand your phrase "main function of cost". Are you saying that healthcare costs something, regardless of the system of administration? Or are you saying that a single-payer system can have no effect on its costs?
I'm saying that healthcare costs something regardless of the way it is administered and that a single payer system won't likely lower costs. The main function of cost is the actual monopolistic healthcare system. The Dr's, hospitals, technology, drugs, etc. A single payer system would not have to compete with anybody to deliver the best service at the lowest cost so it isn't likely to lower end user cost.
With competing insurance companies they have an incentive to lower admin costs, but a single payer system doesn't have that incentive and would probably charge taxpayers the actual cost of healthcare. Normally, insurance companies take premiums, invest those premiums, and pay out claims. The difference between the premiums + investment profits and claims paid out is their profit spread. The profit spread is used to cover claims and admin fees.
Countries with socialized healthcare don't have a monopolistic healthcare system. Their hospitals aren't colluding to fix prices. They are allowed to have specialized clinics. Competition is allowed to occur and the amount that can be spent by taxpayers is capped so those countries can actually afford a single payer system.
I'm not sure I understand your phrase "main function of cost". Are you saying that healthcare costs something, regardless of the system of administration? Or are you saying that a single-payer system can have no effect on its costs?
No, What the OP meant is the ACA does almost nothing to curb cost. In fact it just "shifts" costs around.
The main players: Hospitals, Big Pharma, And Insurance will still get their 100% of the pie.
The health providers will end up taking a hit. The semi affluent (What CNN likes to describe as "the HENRYs" High earners not rich yet) end up paying much more. Yet those "poor" people who make 400% of poverty can get subsidized healthcare. But the semi affluent may end up paying probably 15% of their health dollars on care. The young healthy may end up paying 300% more in premiums than they do today. Vermont says in 2014 the young healthy male will end up paying $317 a month in premiums while the 2013 premiums would have been around $100 for the same plan.
There won't be a savings with their ACA. Physicians will still end up ordering more and more tests to cover their butts cause nothing in the ACA controls costs against litigation.
You have your "mid levels" providers like NPs slowly but surely demanding "equals" reimbursement. You will still have your same 20-30 levels of "coordinators" at hospitals who are non clinical getting paid.
Nothing is done to curb medical education cost. So more students will still go into specialty care.
Basically the lobbyists win. Like they always do.
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.
