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.
Having good health care provided by the government independent of employment is always better than relying on your employer for the health of your family. Being chained to the employer is not good for worker's rights.
I don't disagree, but I wonder how the Democrats will persuade their union base who have better coverage than most at a smaller price can be talked into paying 10 percent of their salary in increased taxes when now they aren't even paying 10 percent of their true insurance cost.
I contract in a school and pay for my own health insurance. The teachers would have a stroke if they had to pay 10 percent of their salary for insurance that they currently get for 5 percent of true premium cost. This is part of the Democratic base. How do you get them onboard?
Being self employed and used to high premiums from unsubsidized Obamacare plans, I would welcome no local networks and an ability to cross state lines with guaranteed coverage.
I would support a health insurance plan that can be used nationwide, at any medical facility, and have a monthly payment that balances out with my monthly take home.
I don't disagree, but I wonder how the Democrats will persuade their union base who have better coverage than most at a smaller price can be talked into paying 10 percent of their salary in increased taxes when now they aren't even paying 10 percent of their true insurance cost.
I contract in a school and pay for my own health insurance. The teachers would have a stroke if they had to pay 10 percent of their salary for insurance that they currently get for 5 percent of true premium cost. This is part of the Democratic base. How do you get them onboard?
Being self employed and used to high premiums from unsubsidized Obamacare plans, I would welcome no local networks and an ability to cross state lines with guaranteed coverage.
A payroll tax where 8% is paid by the employer and 2% by the employee is a 10% payroll tax overall, but just like with health insurance premiums, the employer would pay most of it. Of course, in the end, the employee really pays all of it, whether its health insurance premiums or payroll taxes, as wages are just reduced by the premium amount the employer pays. The employer will resist any change to this system because it provides a lot of power over the employee and they really dont think they actually pay the premiums of the employees.
A national health care system that covers everything (except plastic surgery for vanity purposes) provides freedom to workers we havent seen in decades. Workers need to be educated about that.
Option 3. You pay for your healthcare, and I'll pay for my healthcare. Whether you pay out of pocket or use private health insurance should be up to each individual.
Well, you see we already have that system and it's broken because medical care in this country is out of reach for most and the means (private insurance) to get that care is also quickly becoming out of reach. So, in essence, your "option 3" is the reason so many want option 1 or 2. As a first world country we owe it to our citizens to provide them with healthcare.
If it works so well, why does even 1 Canadian come here?
If, and KNOW we won't have universal, etc, where are the Canadians going to go then?
If gov't is so good, why is PRIVATE insurance allowed and companies and people by it?
"Your employer may have an insurance plan that you can buy. Insurance companies can also sell you a plan.
If your employer has an insurance plan that you can buy, the plan can pay for some costs not covered by OHIP. You pay for this plan by paying a fee each month. Your employer will pay for part of the cost and you pay the rest.
Sometimes unions and professional associations have plans for their members.
You can also buy insurance from a private company."
Someone mentioned on Reddit what if someone had to go in for an emergency operation that cost $15,000.
If there was the three tier government insurance in place. The individual was part of the plan. Let's say they paid into tier 2. So 80% of that $15,000 is covered, $12,000. Then hopefully they have either supplemental insurance through work that covers additional 10%-20%. So let's say covers 20% of that $3,000 now, $600. Now they have an HSA with max contribution being $3,000. They can use $2,400 to cover and pay for the hospital bill.
Maybe if we could lessen that $15,000 by figuring ways to reduce that cost. Medical patents, malpractice, increase the financial return for hospital visits, tax reforms, and so forth. Could make that $15,000, hypothetically, be say $6,000. So $1,200 is covered. Another $240 is covered. So $960 is only paid out of pocket.
Do think there should be an 8% tax for healthcare. With 2% going to offer partial financial aid to those who cannot afford an emergency health service case by case basis. Then the 6% to fund universal care for those 75& older, those on permanent disability, and those actively serving in the Military/their immediate family members.
Then also 80% coverage for those on State Assistance for a lifetime max of five year's with no monthly premiums to pay for.
100% coverage for those homeless for 2 years and those unemployed for 1 year.
If it works so well, why does even 1 Canadian come here?
If, and KNOW we won't have universal, etc, where are the Canadians going to go then?
If gov't is so good, why is PRIVATE insurance allowed and companies and people by it?
"Your employer may have an insurance plan that you can buy. Insurance companies can also sell you a plan.
If your employer has an insurance plan that you can buy, the plan can pay for some costs not covered by OHIP. You pay for this plan by paying a fee each month. Your employer will pay for part of the cost and you pay the rest.
Sometimes unions and professional associations have plans for their members.
You can also buy insurance from a private company."
If it works so well, why does even 1 Canadian come here?
If, and KNOW we won't have universal, etc, where are the Canadians going to go then?
If gov't is so good, why is PRIVATE insurance allowed and companies and people by it?
"Your employer may have an insurance plan that you can buy. Insurance companies can also sell you a plan.
If your employer has an insurance plan that you can buy, the plan can pay for some costs not covered by OHIP. You pay for this plan by paying a fee each month. Your employer will pay for part of the cost and you pay the rest.
Sometimes unions and professional associations have plans for their members.
You can also buy insurance from a private company."
Let's put this into perspective. The numbers, that were calculated was 63,000...however this was done unscientifically and by a right wing think tank, the Fraser Institute, just by asking 12 specialists to guess what percentage of their patients received non-emergency care outside of Canada.
The numbers are suspect and there is no hard evidence to back them up, but let's say they are true. 63,000 people out of 37,000.000 is nothing.
They aren't all going to the US. The question was " outside of Canada ". Some go to Europe, Asia and Mexico.
The VAST majority of Canadians do not leave for care. The VAST majority of Canadians get excellent care at home.
As Normstad has pointed out, you have misunderstood what Extended Health Insurance is. It is NOT for covering the basics, but for prescriptions, eyeglasses and dental.
The government of Canada is actually looking at extending our UHC to include prescriptions, since plans vary from province to province, and don't cover everyone. Meaning here in BC if you are poor there is a Pharmacare program to help with costs. Having a national one will save money .
As for wait times. There is no wait time for urgent or emergency care. None. I know this from experience.
There are SOME wait times for elective or non-urgent care. Most are manageable, a few weeks, but some should be shorter. There is pressure to improve those times. This will vary by region of course.
That aside. I want you to imagine that you live in BC and have UHC. Imagine just having your health number on your driver's license.( it should be noted that one reason we went to photo ID on our Healthcards was because Americans were coming up and using the system illegally)
You feel ill. Your regular doctor is booked for the next few days, and besides, you are a couple of hours away visiting a friend. Imagine just being able to walk to any health clinic or hospital and see a doctor that day, and just show your health card. The ONLY paper work will be a health related questionnaire.
The doctor wants tests done. So you go to the nearest Life Lab, no appointment needed, show your card and your done.
You pay nothing out of pocket, you never see a bill, and you know if the tests show something urgent, you will be treated....without fear of costs.
So even though some wait times are not at their best ( and don't kid yourself there are wait times in every system including yours ) people LIKE our system. That's why we want it improved and not dismantled.
Having good health care provided by the government independent of employment is always better than relying on your employer for the health of your family. Being chained to the employer is not good for worker's rights.
Unions would disagree with you. See the 1949 In Re: Inland Steel Supreme Court decision, which was the final nail in the coffin allowing employers to lord over health plan coverage.
However, you can decouple from your employer without sucking on the government teat.
Your federal government just has to rescind a law and maybe enact another.
Congress can repeal the law that subsidies employer health plans. With employers no longer being subsidized by tax-payers, employers will drop health plan coverage like the Clap.
If necessary, Congress can tax employer health plans.
The employer always chooses the best plan for the employer, which is not necessarily the best plan for the employee.
Anyway, you'd be right back to where things were originally, when it was the employee, not the employer, who chose the health plan and the employer simply agreed to pay all or part of the cost of the plan.
So, the employer simply tells the employee the amount of their monthly health benefit and the employee shops around on market in State-wide pools to select the best plan for them and their family.
See how elegantly simple that is? And no giant government bureaucracy is necessary.
I would support a health insurance plan that can be used nationwide, at any medical facility, and have a monthly payment that balances out with my monthly take home.
So, basically, you want something for nothing and expect people like me to subsidize your Life-Style.
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.
