[villagegolfer]

Isn't single payer health insurance run by the government? I have heard many horror stories about health care in England and Canada. I do not think I want that here in the USA.

[LoriAnn]

Medicare is run by the government! It is the most effective provider of healthcare insurance in the world when you consider outcomes and availability of services. The difference between our country and Canada is that the providers are not run by the government. We will keep our quality with a one payor system as long as providers/vendors remain privatized. The American people have been purposely lied to in an effort to scare them into rejecting a single payor system. The lies are spun by those who stand to lose the most if the American people gain the most in services under a one payor system. Of course, we all know that loser would be the insurance industry.

[villagegolfer]

Originally Posted by LoriAnn

Medicare is run by the government! It is the most effective provider of healthcare insurance in the world when you consider outcomes and availability of services. The difference between our country and Canada is that the providers are not run by the government. We will keep our quality with a one payor system as long as providers/vendors remain privatized. The American people have been purposely lied to in an effort to scare them into rejecting a single payor system. The lies are spun by those who stand to lose the most if the American people gain the most in services under a one payor system. Of course, we all know that loser would be the insurance industry.

Your close to turning this into a political discussion.

[Hal :-)]

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

Isn't single payer health insurance run by the government? I have heard many horror stories about health care in England and Canada. I do not think I want that here in the USA.

I think you play right into their hands by accepting the propaganda. The rest of the develop world has gov't run health care. Individuals have no measurable out-of-pocket cost and everyone gets care. Here, we spend twice as much per capita, have 40 million people without coverage, and by most every study have poorer results.

Someone in this thread suggested the Gov't should essentially compete with private industry. That's a great solution. Unfortunately, it can't happen. The industry would fight it to the death. Isn't it interesting that the common rant is that Gov't can't do anything right and if it did it would be too expensive. Yet, private industry couldn't complete.

Actually, as bad as it is, we're fortunate that private industry isn't truly responsible for all our Health Care. The taxpayer takes care of the most expensive. If private insurance had to cover the expensive end-of-life care and such, no one could afford the premiums. The private insurance industry only works with gov't funded care for the elderly, containing their cost through coverage caps and lifetime benefit limits, restricting eligibility and eliminating coverage on pre-existing conditions. Basically, they can only handle the young, healthy segment of the population.

[LoriAnn]

Well said, Hal!! Propaganda abounds. Medicare is at risk of being insolvent because it spends EVERYTHING it receives in Patient care. While Wellpoint reported a increase in profits of 91% and Humana reported increase by 61% and United Health increased profits a staggering 346%. Research their profits, you'll be shocked! When we talk about privatizing Medicare we are suggesting we put every dollar earmarked for healthcare in this country in the hands of insurance companies that are posting record profits. Profits are generated from cuts and denial of services. The twice per capita spending on healthcare in this country has alot to do with the massive profits. It's shamful! Why wouldn't we place every dollar into a system (medicare) that is already in place and puts emphasis on providing services for their insured. What would be wrong with Medicare from Cradle to Grave? As long as the providers/vendor are privatized the quality will remain exceptional and the access to care will remain quick and easily available. The "scarey" commercials about government run healthcare in Canada with the long waits are sponsered by insurance companies trying to protect profits! When is the last time you had a long wait for services with Medicare? In this country, as long as Medicare is willing to pay, a vendor will expand to provide the service. Oh wait, that would create jobs, hmmmm.......

[Bambi]

I was a hospital nurse in a border state (Michigan). I took care of a quite a few patients from Canada, who crossed the border - expecially for othro surgery- because of the wait in Canada. They were private pays but said it was worth it. I also knew three Canadian nurses in the hospital - who drove over the bridge or thru the tunnel to work in Mi- equipment, staffing, etc. was better here.
Not too sure it is propaganda.

[LoriAnn]

I don't think anyone doubts the criticism of Canada's healthcare system, bambi. The propaganda is that the United States would face the same issues as Canada if there was a one payor system. The long waits in Canada is because the hospitals and many other providers of medical testing are public instead of private. Canada govt controls the number of hospitals including surgery sites. In the United States, all providers including hospitals are private. Any qualified individual or group can develop a business plan and open a hospital, homecare, hospice, DME, lab and other testing sites. There are physician owned hospitals and testing centers all over the country. There will never be a shortage in surgery sites, testing, hospitals as long as capitalism can function.

[villagegolfer]

Government now owns part of automobile production.

[Hal :-)]

Originally Posted by Bambi

I was a hospital nurse in a border state (Michigan). I took care of a quite a few patients from Canada, who crossed the border - expecially for othro surgery- because of the wait in Canada. They were private pays but said it was worth it. I also knew three Canadian nurses in the hospital - who drove over the bridge or thru the tunnel to work in Mi- equipment, staffing, etc. was better here.
Not too sure it is propaganda.

The US rations on ability to pay, Canada rations based on need. The Canadian may have to wait for services if it's not deemed an emergency or a serious immediate need. In the US it's all about the dollar. The fact is the person with the dollar in the US with also get preferential treatment. Have you ever heard of someone with money getting an organ transplant while others wait on the list?

My wife worked in a children's hospital near the border and they often had patients from across the border. Mostly they were severe cases that the Canadian facility was ill prepared to handle, or the Canadian hospital simply had an unmanageable census increase. However, in these cases, the Canadian system paid all the cost.

All that aside, the important thing is the cost and the results. In terms of results, Canadians are simply healthier overall, have a longer life expectancy, and less disease and illness. On cost, since we spend twice what Canada does we should be able to take their system, as is, and produce a win-win. Maybe only spend 50% more than they do and reduce our cost by 25%.

But to do it right, we really should look across the pond. The World Wealth Organization identified France and Italy as having the best health care, out of 190 countries. Since we were down at 37th, we should probably look to emulate them.

[villagegolfer]

Originally Posted by Hal :-)

The US rations on ability to pay, Canada rations based on need. The Canadian may have to wait for services if it's not deemed an emergency or a serious immediate need. In the US it's all about the dollar. The fact is the person with the dollar in the US with also get preferential treatment. Have you ever heard of someone with money getting an organ transplant while others wait on the list?

My wife worked in a children's hospital near the border and they often had patients from across the border. Mostly they were severe cases that the Canadian facility was ill prepared to handle, or the Canadian hospital simply had an unmanageable census increase. However, in these cases, the Canadian system paid all the cost.

All that aside, the important thing is the cost and the results. In terms of results, Canadians are simply healthier overall, have a longer life expectancy, and less disease and illness. On cost, since we spend twice what Canada does we should be able to take their system, as is, and produce a win-win. Maybe only spend 50% more than they do and reduce our cost by 25%.

But to do it right, we really should look across the pond. The World Wealth Organization identified France and Italy as having the best health care, out of 190 countries. Since we were down at 37th, we should probably look to emulate them.

It is late and I'm about to retire for the evening, but there are tons of evidence that the World Wealth organization has skewed the statistics to make the USA look bad. Surprise huh?

[Hal :-)]

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

It is late and I'm about to retire for the evening, but there are tons of evidence that the World Wealth organization has skewed the statistics to make the USA look bad. Surprise huh?

Hmm, my typo and you copied it. I meant Health Organization (WHO). I assume we were on the same subject. I didn't even know there was a Wealth Organization (WIWO).

Anyway, WHO did the study more than a decade ago and hasn't repeated it because it was so difficult. Criticism is always easy. I think there's general recognition that our system is far from the best, definitely the most expensive, and fails on results. Here's an interesting Business Week article on France's system. Not perfect, but superior, #1 in the study.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...8/b4042070.htm

With third party payer, the cost will always increase, and with private profit motive they'll increase further. The insurance provider (govt or private) and the health care provider agree on all cost and services. It all feeds back to the consumer in premiums or taxes. Most often, the consumer doesn't even see a bill. My wife had open heart surgery, 9 days hospital, and we never saw a bill or statement. They could have charged for 12 days, or anything else. As easy as my typo. I think the best system would integrate the consumer in the process, if for no other reason then to audit the statement. Ideally, the consumer should pay directly and be reimbursed somehow.

[Barefoot]

[quote=LoriAnn;406541]I don't think anyone doubts the criticism of Canada's healthcare system. [quote]

Originally Posted by Hal :-)

The US rations on ability to pay, Canada rations based on need. The Canadian may have to wait for services if it's not deemed an emergency or a serious immediate need.

All that aside, the important thing is the cost and the results. In terms of results, Canadians are simply healthier overall, have a longer life expectancy, and less disease and illness. On cost, since we spend twice what Canada does we should be able to take their system, as is, and produce a win-win. Maybe only spend 50% more than they do and reduce our cost by 25%.
them.

LoriAnn, you commented that "you don't think anyone doubts the criticism of Canada's healthcare system". Well, I doubt the criticism, and I'm Canadian.

Hal's observations are correct. If a Canadian has a serious medical situation or needs immediate surgery, they will receive immediate top-notch medical care without cost! Those who have serious health issues go immediately to the head of the line, as they should. If the situation is not critical, for instance arthroscopic knee surgery, I just waited for four months for surgery, and I find that acceptable. With the huge strain placed on the Medical System by Boomers, health needs will have to be prioritized.

Now, back to the topic of SS.

[Hal :-)]

[quote=Barefoot;407224][quote=LoriAnn;406541]I don't think anyone doubts the criticism of Canada's healthcare system.

LoriAnn, you commented that "you don't think anyone doubts the criticism of Canada's healthcare system". Well, I doubt the criticism, and I'm Canadian.

Hal's observations are correct. If a Canadian has a serious medical situation or needs immediate surgery, they will receive immediate top-notch medical care without cost! Those who have serious health issues go immediately to the head of the line, as they should. If the situation is not critical, for instance arthroscopic knee surgery, I just waited for four months for surgery, and I find that acceptable. With the huge strain placed on the Medical System by Boomers, health needs will have to be prioritized.

Now, back to the topic of SS.

Thank you Barefoot, for your knowledgeable input. We Americans are a bit spoiled. We often think we're entitled (to revert back to the original topic of this thread), and we don't want to wait for anything. However, I suspect we could even satisfy that need given our level of expenditure.

Your four month wait seems long, but we also have built-in delays for service. My Dad passed last year of Esophageal cancer. He was 85. I honestly feel he would still be here if the system was more responsive. He had to start with his primary physician, who sent him to an ear-nose-throat specialist, who sent him for a endoscopic exam. Then back through the chain and another primary referral to a oncologist for review with radiologist, surgeons, chemotherapy specialist to determine treatment. Each step has delays to schedule appointments. Ultimately, due to his age and mobility, he was scheduled for Radiation only, in combination with a new study drug. It seemed to worked since he moved from an all liquid diet to being able to eat anything he liked. The final scan showed the esophageal cancer taken care of. Unfortunately, the cancer had spread to the liver and there were no options. Sorry for the long winded story. But the point is, our system can be equally slow. Our system is built to provide private profits all along the way. There's a lot of extra steps and often excessive testing and lab work. Cost are secondary since they can be pushed back to premiums. With single payer, like Canada, the concentration is simply providing care with minimal cost.

OK, back to SS. Hmmm. As a Canadian, how does that affect you?