Public Option close to being dropped

[guyski79]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Yep. From what I've read, in England, even much of the middle class has to pay 40%. How sad is that? Working hard to make a middle class salary, only to see nearly HALF of it gone to the government?

People can argue all they want that the socialized European programs are better because the people there are healthier and the costs are lower and so on, but lets be honest - Europeans are healthier because they have better diet and exercise habits, which in turn leads to them having fewer health needs and lower costs.

Like I said, we're right there with our tax rates, it's just that our taxes pay for different things.

About Europeans having better diet and exercise habits--that seems really over-simplified and unsubstantiated.

And I'm not sure you can attribute better diet and exercise to lower healthcare costs.

With any equipment or services for a procedure, the intial capital is all up-front, so then incremental costs go down as more people use it.

Why do the same procedures cost much less in other countries (~$1400 for an MRI in the US, versus ~$90 for an MRI in Japan)?

 

[jvesco22]

I'm still undecided. But, I heard a girl in class today say "I hope it passes. I can't wait for free healthcare!"
Wow. Maybe she's never paid taxes before. Looking at Germany's tax rates (income tax over 50%), I'd say it's not really "free" under than system.

I think there's a bit too much misinformation out there, and gullible people. And funny lookin' politicians. 🙂

Was she eating a twinkie and sippin on diet coke?

 

[bigal40]

I'm still very curious about bigal40's reasoning though.

To my understanding, the only winners from the death of the public option are the insurance companies. They're doing backflips over the news.

There is like 10 page thread about this. I think it is called "Do you support the public option"

Also insurance companies supported having a public option as long as there was an individual mandate requiring insurance for all. They know that people will prefer private insurance to govt insurance. Where do you see insurance companies doing backflips over the news?

 

[bigal40]

And I'm not sure you can attribute better diet and exercise to lower healthcare costs.

You also can't associate lower health care costs to having a public option.

The same procedures cost much less in other countries (~$1400 for an MRI in the US, versus ~$90 for an MRI in Japan).

The only problem is that all of the hospitals in Japan are running in the red.

 

[rosebud1]

Those are for elective procedures. Wait-times are almost the same for essential procedures.

Plus if you have money, you can always go private in Canada and the UK. And insurance is ALL private in Germany.

I love it when conservatives try to attack the public option by saying:

1) Since it's not-for-profit, the public option can cut corners and will drive private insurance out of business.
2) Government is wasteful and inefficient, so how can we count on them to manage health insurance?

Those two criticisms are logically inconsistent and mutally exclusive. It can be one or other. It can't be both.

Easy access to elective procedures is one of the US's high points right now. We definitely shouldn't be throwing that away. I couldn't imagine having to wait several months to get a procedure that would improve my health.

And points 1 and 2 aren't mutually exclusive. The government is wasteful and inefficient AND they cut corners. The govt spends a lot of money, there's no denying that, but they budget poorly and spend money in all the wrong places, leaving not enough funding where it's needed the most, leading to crappy programs.

 

[guyski79]

You also can't associate lower health care costs to having a public option.



The only problem is that all of the hospitals in Japan are running in the red.

Well, if only 73% of private insurance money actually goes to patient care. The remaining 27% goes to profits, advertising, and administrative overhead.

In contrast, 96% of all Medicare money goes to patient care. So yes, with a more efficient system, I think you could cover the same amount of people with less money.

You're absolutely right about Japan. The hospitals are running in the red and many are having a hard time staying open. But it's an example of how the government can introduce cost controls.

It's an extreme example of cost containment, and they've probably gone too far with it, but it's an example we can learn from nonetheless.

 

[rosebud1]

Like I said, we're right there with our tax rates, it's just that our taxes pay for different things.

True, but only the highest tax bracket.

The middle class in America doesn't pay anywhere near 40%.

 

[guyski79]

Easy access to elective procedures is one of the US's high points right now. We definitely shouldn't be throwing that away. I couldn't imagine having to wait several months to get a procedure that would improve my health.

And points 1 and 2 aren't mutually exclusive. The government is wasteful and inefficient AND they cut corners. The govt spends a lot of money, there's no denying that, but they budget poorly and spend money in all the wrong places, leaving not enough funding where it's needed the most, leading to crappy programs.

Like I said, always the option to go private in the UK and Canada.

You can bypass the lines and wait-times.

 

[FasterThanAll]

I can't disagree with that, but politicians made that dumb girl think that way.

http://graphs.gapminder.org/world/

It's obvious that (1) America is doing something wrong with our spending on healthcare (2) we're all fat-unhealthy people. It's probably a combination.

Plot life-expectancy vs. total health spending (% of GDP) on the Gapminder's graph and you'll see we're spending incorrectly.. The US spends 15% of the GDP on healthcare and live to be 78 (mean).
Japan spends 7.9% and lives to be 83 (mean). There's a host of other nations that spend less, and live longer. **The winner looks to be the U.A.E., who spend 2.6% of their GDP on healthcare but live as long as Americans do (78 years, avg.).

The problem with me is this: we don't need to spend more, just spend better. No need for tax increases.. just spend like Singapore does (apparently they live 2 years longer, on average, but the US spends over 400% more).

This is possibly a poor philosophy, though. When you look at the graph "life expectancy vs. government share of total health spending" the nations that are doing the best basically have their healthcare dollars spent for them!
Maybe there's a another problem with the US (3) we suck at making decisions with our health.

 

[guyski79]

True, but only the highest tax bracket.

The middle class in America doesn't pay anywhere near 40%.

See, but you're wrong.

If you're middle class ($33,000-$82000 yearly income), you pay 25% federal taxes.

State income taxes range anywhere from 3-9%.

Together, that makes 28-34% total income tax.

Lower than 40%, yes, but not significantly so. You're right in the ballpark.

By comparison, the income tax rate is only 20% for lower tax bracket in the UK (they only have 2, and the lower one is 0-£37,400).

And it's 40% for the higher tax bracket (anything above £37,400).

 

[bigal40]

Well, if only 73% of private insurance money actually goes to patient care. The remaining 27% goes to profits, advertising, and administrative overhead.

In contrast, 96% of all Medicare money goes to patient care. So yes, with a more efficient system, I think you could cover the same amount of people with less money.

These numbers are misleading. A larger percentage of Medicare money goes to patient care b/c the older and ill on medicare have much higher health care costs than the rest of the country.

The overhead costs per enrollee are $509/person on medicare compared to $453/person on a private insurance plan.

You're absolutely right about Japan. The hospitals are running in the red and many are having a hard time staying open. But it's an example of how the government can introduce cost controls.

It's an extreme example of cost containment, and they've probably gone too far with it, but it's an example we can learn from nonetheless.

You're right it is an extreme example but you presented like the "cost" of MRIs in America were artificially inflated 15 times, when in fact they are artificially deflated in Japan.

 

[bigal40]

Like I said, always the option to go private in the UK and Canada.

You can bypass the lines and wait-times.

But why would you subject the majority of the country to this subpar care when better is available?

 

[bigal40]

See, but you're wrong.

If you're middle class ($33,000-$82000 yearly income), you pay 25% federal taxes.

State income taxes range anywhere from 3-9%.

Together, that makes 28-34% total income tax.

Lower than 40%, yes, but not significantly so. You're right in the ballpark.

By comparison, the income tax rate is only 20% for lower tax bracket in the UK (they only have 2) is 0-£37,400.

And it's 40% for the higher tax bracket (anything above £37,400).

Your forgetting Britains VAT of 18% on everything you buy compared to a sales tax of about 7% in the US.

So no your looking at 58% tax rate in Britain and a 35%-41% tax rate in the US.

 

[kami333]

See, but you're wrong.

If you're middle class ($33,000-$82000 yearly income), you pay 25% federal taxes.

State income taxes range anywhere from 3-9%.

Together, that makes 28-34% total income tax.

Lower than 40%, yes, but not significantly so. You're right in the ballpark.

By comparison, the income tax rate is only 20% for lower tax bracket in the UK (they only have 2) is 0-£37,400.

And it's 40% for the higher tax bracket (anything above £37,400).

You also have to add in FICA and Medicare, which can be about 7.5% in that tax bracket.

 

[rosebud1]

I think it's pretty hard to compare the US to other countries. How many other developed nations have 300 million people coming from a such a huge variety of backgrounds and living such different environments?

Japan and most of the European countries are small (both population-wise and geographically) and pretty homogeneous culturally. The US is extremely large and very diverse in comparison...it's a LOT harder to come up with a federal, one-size-fits-all plan here.

 

[guyski79]

But why would you subject the majority of the country to this subpar care when better is available?

Because not everyone can get that care, as we're seeing in our country right now.

I believe there needs to be some sort of safety net, some basic level of care available to the entire population.

 

[Narmerguy]

This is very dissapointing. The worst part was just watching all the important parts get ditched piece by piece until none of the stuff that matters is really being implemented. The democratic party is far too unorganized to even be considered one party half of the time. They get nothing done meanwhile the Republicans are quite unified in their attempt to make sure that the other group doesn't win. American politics needs some reform.

 

[guyski79]

I think it's pretty hard to compare the US to other countries. How many other developed nations have 300 million people coming from a such a huge variety of backgrounds and living such different environments?

Japan and most of the European countries are small (both population-wise and geographically) and pretty homogeneous culturally. The US is extremely large and very diverse in comparison...it's a LOT harder to come up with a federal, one-size-fits-all plan here.

Agreed, which is why I don't support single-payer for the US.

It can't possibly work here because we're not starting the system from scratch.

I'm for as many options as possible to lower costs and give coverage to everyone.

People want to skewer the free market and blame it for our healthcare problems, but we really don't have a free market healthcare system--only the illusion of one.

You can't buy insurance across state lines. The AMA had a report a few months back that up to 90% of health insurance markets (metro areas and states) are covered by 1-2 insurers.

The insurance companies have de facto monopoly in most places.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it used to be the same way with car insurance. You used to not be able to buy it across state lines. There were no national insurance carriers, but then national carriers like Geico came along and lowered prices by improving competition.

 

[Caesar]

If you add the amount people are paying for health insurance, to the amount they pay total on taxes, I think you would find that were are paying basically the same. 🙂

Also, just putting it out there, the US spends a higher percent GDP on health care than other nations (even those with universal coverage).

 

[7starmantis]

I believe there needs to be some sort of safety net, some basic level of care available to the entire population.

Sadly enough there is one right now. Its called the ED.

 

[guyski79]

Your forgetting Britains VAT of 18% on everything you buy compared to a sales tax of about 7% in the US.

So no your looking at 58% tax rate in Britain and a 35%-41% tax rate in the US.

For highest tax brackets:

UK: 40% income, 18% VAT, 58% total tax rate
US: 35% income, 7% sales, 7% FICA and Medicare, 49% total tax rate

For middle class:

UK: 20% income, 18% VAT, 38% total tax rate
US: 25% income, 7% sales, 7% FICA and Medicare, 39% total tax rate

We're right there on par with our jolly "socialist" chaps across the pond.

Sure, it's a higher tax rate for the UK in the highest bracket, but not a substantial difference.

 

[ncguy2005]

Those are for elective procedures. Wait-times are almost the same for essential procedures.

Plus if you have money, you can always go private in Canada and the UK. And insurance is ALL private in Germany.

I love it when conservatives try to attack the public option by saying:

1) Since it's not-for-profit, the public option can cut corners and will drive private insurance out of business.
2) Government is wasteful and inefficient, so how can we count on them to manage health insurance?

Those two criticisms are logically inconsistent and mutally exclusive. It can be one or other. It can't be both.

While I do agree that those two points are stupid, I have to say some arguments are legitimate concerns.

For example, a concern is that those who private insurance refuses to cover ( due to pre-existing conditions) will flock the to the public option. Wouldn't this drive cost up?

On the other side of this argument, if we force insurance companies to cover these people... it would still essentially drive cost up... just in the private market rather than through taxes...

Which one is the lesser of two evils?

 

[chman]

If you add the amount people are paying for health insurance, to the amount they pay total on taxes, I think you would find that were are paying basically the same. 🙂

Also, just putting it out there, the US spends a higher percent GDP on health care than other nations (even those with universal coverage).

Stop using logic! It is against the rules of the health-care debate.

 

[FIREitUP]

nm already been said.

 

[wanderer]

For highest tax brackets:

UK: 40% income, 18% VAT, 58% total tax rate
US: 35% income, 7% sales, 7% FICA and Medicare, 49% total tax rate

For middle class:

UK: 20% income, 18% VAT, 38% total tax rate
US: 25% income, 7% sales, 7% FICA and Medicare, 39% total tax rate

We're right there on par with our jolly "socialist" chap across the pond.

Sure, it's a higher tax rate for the UK in the highest bracket, but not a substantial difference.

You can't just add the VAT onto the income tax to come out with the total tax rate, because you don't spend your entire income or even your disposable income for that matter.
There are a ton of taxes that complicate the matter, and most people don't even pay what their tax rate would indicate due to exemptions and the fact that tax rates (I believe) are marginal not fixed (if you make 100,000 you aren't taxed at the same rate for every dollar you earn).

 

[guyski79]

While I do agree that those two points are stupid, I have to say some arguments are legitimate concerns.

For example, a concern is that those who private insurance refuses to cover ( due to pre-existing conditions) will flock the to the public option. Wouldn't this drive cost up?

On the other side of this argument, if we force insurance companies to cover these people... it would still essentially drive cost up... just in the private market rather than through taxes...

Which one is the lesser of two evils?

But an integral part of the current reform will be to ban insurance companies from denying coverage to those people with pre-existing conditions.

In addition, the reform will cap the principles for those high-risk patients at some level, and insurance companies will no longer be allowed to drop patients once they get sick.

These stipulations will pass as part of the bill at a bare minimum. I guess I can be thankful for that.

 

[guyski79]

You can't just add the VAT onto the income tax to come out with the total tax rate, because you don't spend your entire income or even your disposable income for that matter.
There are a ton of taxes that complicate the matter, and most people don't even pay what their tax rate would indicate due to exemptions and the fact that tax rates (I believe) are marginal not fixed (if you make 100,000 you aren't taxed at the same rate for every dollar you earn).

True, it's over-simplified. But I use it to refute the claim that people in Western Europe pay so much more in taxes than we do. They don't.

We pay a lot in taxes but just get different things back in return.

 

[rosebud1]

Agreed, which is why I don't support single-payer for the US.

It can't possibly work here because we're not starting the system from scratch.

I'm for as many options as possible to lower costs and give coverage to everyone.

People want to skewer the free market and blame it for our healthcare problems, but we really don't have a free market healthcare system--only the illusion of one.

You can't buy insurance across state lines. The AMA had a report a few months back that up to 90% of health insurance markets (metro areas and states) are covered by 1-2 insurers.

The insurance companies have de facto monopoly in most places.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it used to be the same way with car insurance. You used to not be able to buy it across state lines. There were no national insurance carriers, but then national carriers like Geico came along and lowered prices by improving competition.

I agree with this. I'm all for everyone having access to insurance, but I hate the idea of having a nation-wide government option that basically rules the market. At one point, I think there was something in the bill that would ban private insurance companies from writing any new policies after a certain date. They could keep their existing customers on existing plans, but not take on any new customers without special approval. The lack of choice in something like that scares me. I don't want my insurance options to be decided for me by a government that's too busy looking out for 300 million other people.

Ideally, I'd like to see legislation that encourages more private options.

If the government has to be more involved in healthcare reform beyond that, it should be on a much more regional level. For example, FL, AZ, and NV are going to need lots of focus on what to do with illegal immigrants who drain the system. I doubt that the Dakotas have the same problem, instead they may want to focus on improving healthcare availability in rural areas. Different parts of the country have vastly different needs.

 

[guyski79]

I agree with this. I'm all for everyone having access to insurance, but I hate the idea of having a nation-wide government option that basically rules the market. At one point, I think there was something in the bill that would ban private insurance companies from writing any new policies after a certain date. They could keep their existing customers on existing plans, but not take on any new customers without special approval. The lack of choice in something like that scares me. I don't want my insurance options to be decided for me by a government that's too busy looking out for 300 million other people.

Additionally, I think that if the government has to be involved in healthcare reform, it should be on a much more regional level. For example, FL, AZ, and NV are going to need lots of focus on what to do with illegal immigrants who drain the system. I doubt that the Dakotas have the same problem, instead they may want to focus on improving healthcare availability in rural areas. Different parts of the country have vastly different needs.

 

[wanderer]

True, it's over-simplified. But I use it to refute the claim that people in Western Europe pay so much more in taxes than we do. They don't.

We pay a lot in taxes but just get different things back in return.

I don't believe your estimates even give a ballpark figure. There are probably some scholarly articles that can give you a better idea of the difference in taxes.
In addition to the problems with coming up with actual amount of taxes people pay there's also the issue of tax incidence.

 

[guyski79]

.

 

[bigal40]

Because not everyone can get that care, as we're seeing in our country right now.

I believe there needs to be some sort of safety net, some basic level of care available to the entire population.

If you really wanted a safety net then why wouldn't you support a high deductible(>$5000) plans along with with HSAs?

 

[guyski79]

If you really wanted a safety net then why wouldn't you support a high deductible(>$5000) plans along with with HSAs?

I think HSAs are a good idea, for those that can actually afford them.

But of course they aren't a magic bullet, no solution is.

My biggest problem with HSAs, however, is that they do nothing for people with pre-existing conditions.

 

[rosebud1]

It is a serious issue at the moment. Illegal immigrants don't have insurance (and can't get it because they're not legal residents), so they all flock to the ED as their primary source of healthcare.

So does the government give them coverage, which would likely only encourage more illegal immigration? Or do hospitals have to find another way to keep the ED from being taken advantage of? It's a tough ethical dilemma and it's constantly on the news out here (I live in the southwest).

 

[guyski79]

It is a serious issue at the moment. Illegal immigrants don't have insurance (and can't get it because they're not legal residents), so they all flock to the ED as their primary source of healthcare.

So does the government give them coverage, which would likely only encourage more illegal immigration? Or do hospitals have to find another way to keep the ED from being taken advantage of? It's a tough ethical dilemma and it's constantly on the news out here (I live in the southwest).

Give the people that are already here amnesty and citizenship, I say.

Obviously we can't open the borders and take everyone, we just don't have the resources and infrastructure. But these are hard-working people that want to be productive and have the same opportunities we take for granted.

If they're citizens, then they CAN buy insurance, plus they'd pay taxes. I don't think that we need to worry about "encouraging" more immigration. Immigrants already have all the incentive they'd ever need to want to come here.

I live in a border state too (CA) so it's an issue I feel strongly about.

 

[Caesar]

Give the people that are already here amnesty and citizenship, I say.

Obviously we can't open the borders and take everyone, we just don't have the resources and infrastructure. But these are hard-working people that want to be productive and have the same opportunities we take for granted.

If they're citizens, then they CAN buy insurance, plus they'd pay taxes. I don't think that we need to worry about "encouraging" more immigration. Immigrants already have all the incentive they'd ever need to want to come here.

I live in a border state too (CA) so it's an issue I feel strongly about.

Heck yeah, they are future tax payers! And immigrants love Cali, and Cali needs the money. I mean, we can spend money sending them home, or make money keeping them here. How this is not made this simple in Washington is beyond me.

 

[guyski79]

Heck yeah, they are future tax payers! And immigrants love Cali, and Cali needs the money. I mean, we can spend money sending them home, or make money keeping them here. How this is not made this simple in Washington is beyond me.

Simple: Congressmen still have to answer to their xenophobic, racist constituencies.

 

[Caesar]

Simple: Congressmen still have to answer to their xenophobic, racist constituencies.

no they don't. Most are ignorant and don't even know who their congressman is until election time. They have to answer to attack ads and the Obama campaign showed exactly how to do that. I mean, the dude's pastor said God Damn America, and he won Indiana...

 

[wanderer]

Heck yeah, they are future tax payers! And immigrants love Cali, and Cali needs the money. I mean, we can spend money sending them home, or make money keeping them here. How this is not made this simple in Washington is beyond me.

The argument against that would be that immigrants would take more in different types of government aid than they would pay out in taxes. I'm not saying I agree with this, but this would be a potential answer.

 

[c5212]

Meanwhile, the real problems they had hoped to address will go unsolved,

This is the story of the United States government. Our two party system keeps juggling power back and forth and no true non-partisan ground is ever made. 🙁 so sad.

 

[guyski79]

The argument against that would be that immigrants would take more in different types of government aid than they would pay out in taxes. I'm not saying I agree with this, but this would be a potential answer.

That is an interesting argument.

I wonder if there's any possible evidence to back it up.

I would guess no, but it's still interesting.

 

[h1n1]

It is a serious issue at the moment. Illegal immigrants don't have insurance (and can't get it because they're not legal residents), so they all flock to the ED as their primary source of healthcare.

So does the government give them coverage, which would likely only encourage more illegal immigration? Or do hospitals have to find another way to keep the ED from being taken advantage of? It's a tough ethical dilemma and it's constantly on the news out here (I live in the southwest).

How are ED taken advantage of by illegals? Do they pay up in pesos or what.

 

[cardinal2010]

Such a dissapointment. Regardless of what passes now, it doesn't do enough to constrain the rise in costs needed to ensure long term universal coverage. I for one like Ezekiel Emanuels plan (Director of Bioethics at NIH and CBO healthcare advisor)

-Mandate a minimum level of insurance coverage (covering all services up to a certain cost/benefit ration, or $ per quality adjusted life year).

-Issue a federal "voucher" to everyone in the country, funded by taxes, equal in value to cost of health insurance covering this minimum level of coverage

-People take the vouchers, and purchase health insurance from private insurers on an insurance purchasing exchange, and can choose to pay extra for additional coverage above the minimum level, but on a non tax exempt basis.

Its a win/win. Everyone will have access to a solid level of health care, while those who want access to more expensive/less proven procedures can opt to pay more. It removes the tax exempt status from non cost-effective care, making it less utilized, saving money on expensive, unproven procedures. Taxes will have to increase to pay for the vouchers, but wages will also increase, because employer will have to pass the money saved from not providing health coverage into employees wages to remain competitive in the labor market. And care is still provided by private insurance companies, because people in this country are government'o'phobes

 

[rosebud1]

How are ED taken advantage of by illegals? Do they pay up in pesos or what.

Many of them don't pay at all...depends on their financial situation.

I don't have a problem with them as people, and I don't necessarily mind them being here, but with the way things are currently going, the financial burden is just too heavy. Some decision needs to be made, one way or another.

 

[rosebud1]

Such a dissapointment. Regardless of what passes now, it doesn't do enough to constrain the rise in costs needed to ensure long term universal coverage. I for one like Ezekiel Emanuels plan (Director of Bioethics at NIH and CBO healthcare advisor)

-Mandate a minimum level of insurance coverage (covering all services up to a certain cost/benefit ration, or $ per quality adjusted life year).

-Issue a federal "voucher" to everyone in the country, funded by taxes, equal in value to cost of health insurance covering this minimum level of coverage

-People take the vouchers, and purchase health insurance from private insurers on an insurance purchasing exchange, and can choose to pay extra for additional coverage above the minimum level, but on a non tax exempt basis.

Its a win/win. Everyone will have access to a solid level of health care, while those who want access to more expensive/less proven procedures can opt to pay more. It removes the tax exempt status from non cost-effective care, making it less utilized, saving money on expensive, unproven procedures. Taxes will have to increase to pay for the vouchers, but wages will also increase, because employer will have to pass the money saved from not providing health coverage into employees wages to remain competitive in the labor market. And care is still provided by private insurance companies, because people in this country are government'o'phobes

I like this idea better than the public option. I would say that the vouchers should only go to people who can't afford insurance on their own though - no need to give money to those who already have insurance or those who can reasonably afford it on their own.

 

[guyski79]

I like this idea better than the public option. I would say that the vouchers should only go to people who can't afford insurance on their own though - no need to give money to those who already have insurance or those who can reasonably afford it on their own.

Sounds like a pretty good plan, if and only if it also addresses the people with pre-existing conditions. Those people can't buy insurance at any cost.

If health insurance companies aren't forced to cover those high-risk people, then they won't.

There's just no financial incentive. If a patient pays a $10,000 premium but needs $30,000 per year in treatment, why cover them if you don't have to?

You know, we're the only Western country that allows health insurance companies to make a profit. And that's how we get into situations like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/04/aetna-forcing-600000-plus_n_380130.html

 

[Emmet2301]

This is the story of the United States government. Our two party system keeps juggling power back and forth and no true non-partisan ground is ever made. 🙁 so sad.

I completely agree. Usually there's too much fighting going on with Democrats trying to look out for basically EVERYONE and keeping people from being self-sufficient and Republicans bashing the Democrats for even the smallest things.

 

[guyski79]

I completely agree. Usually there's too much fighting going on with Democrats trying to look out for basically EVERYONE and keeping people from being self-sufficient and Republicans bashing the Democrats for even the smallest things.

That and our government system was built with the intention that changes would be very slow and incremental.

It's just too difficult to pass substantial laws through two houses.

Bicameral legislature FTL.

 

[Caesar]

This thread has gone nearly three pages without burning up in flames, Thanks for that guys!

If anyone tries to derail it, feel free to report the post. I have finals so I won't be here as much as I'd like to be this week. 🙁

 

[ncguy2005]

I'd like to just throw this in.. I emailed my trumpet professor (yes music majors have those) because he is from Canada to ask him what he thought of it personally... here is what he said:

"No that's certainly fine to ask... if you really want to know my opinion, I love the health care system in Canada. I've also asked my parents and friends what they think and, to be honest, I can't find anyone that would want to get rid of it. The media in America likes to exaggerate and make it look like a worse option than it is - don't believe the hype.

The biggest problem they say is that you have to wait 6 months or a year for certain operations. That actually may be true in some cases, but the argument doesn't hold any water because that wait is what happens with the free option. What doesn't seem to get mentioned is that anyone (at any point!) can opt to actually pay and get American-style coverage if they wanted to. But at the very least, everyone has the free coverage. And, of course, if there's truly a need to be attended to right away (emergency or otherwise) there is definitely no waiting!

They also tend to favor (favour?) preventive coverage - things like reduced (or "free") gym memberships. I say free in quotes because of course taxes are higher slightly in Canada but that is nothing that fazes anyone there when they know they're getting something good out of it. People there tend to think less of themselves and more of the greater good. Without going on a rant, some of the worst health care I've seen in my lifetime has been dealing with HMO doctors in the U.S. I had never seen anything so disorganized or incompetent such as what I've seen here in the U.S. when I was living in Canada.

One other side note - one of the main reasons for any waiting in Canada with the free option is simply because of a shortage of doctors in any given area. For example, they might have a 6-month waiting list for a hip replacement for someone not because they want them to wait because they're not paying. It's not callous and malicious, it's that there's not enough hip replacement doctors available... something that they are trying to work on from what I hear.

And, one last thing (before this becomes a term paper!) - the liberal nature of Canadians means that a lot of experimental drugs and new breakthroughs happen there vs. here. That is something that I believe is a plus for Canada... if I had been diagnosed with something bad here and the only cure was in Canada, I know where I would be headed!

Take all media hype with a giant salt lick 🙂 Hope that helps!"