View Full Version : Show Me the Money!
"Michael Moore ends the movie "Sicko" with a lie. It may not be an intentional lie, but it is a falsehood, nonetheless. Michael Moore ends the movie saying that every European country offers "free" health coverage to their citizens and every European country provides such coverage through a "single payer" system.
Both statements are untrue. It is a sad commentary on the pathetically, uninformed state of the health care policy debate in America that health care journalists and American political leaders do not simply know that both of the statements are untrue and that they have not responded clearly and quickly to correct the error.
So what makes these statements untrue? Reality. Most European countries directly charge their citizens for their health coverage. It is not "free" anywhere. Some nations require people to buy coverage from health insurance companies that look very much like American health insurance companies. Other countries use a payroll tax on everyone's paycheck to pay for health coverage. In those countries, each citizen pays a portion of their weekly paycheck for health insurance - - just like our Social Security payroll deduction. In Germany, each employee pays 7 percent of each paycheck for health care and each employer matches that 7 percent. People also can spend additional money to buy better coverage.
The government of the Netherlands takes 9 percent of a worker's paycheck every week to purchase health coverage - - it's hard to figure out how Michael Moore can legitimately call such a payroll deduction "free."
Also, when the government of the Netherlands deducts that 9 percent, or when Germany deducts their 14 percent -- they do not use, as Mr. Moore incorrectly claims, a "single payer system" like Canada to provide the actual health insurance for each citizen. Each of those countries has multiple health plans - or "sickness funds" -- that people choose among. Citizens of Switzerland and the Netherlands choose between competing health plans to purchase their coverage.
So "Sicko" ends with a double lie: Coverage in Europe is not "free," nor is it provided through a pure, Canadian-like single payer system. "Sicko" either deliberately misleads us or is unintentionally wrong.
Each country in Europe has found its own unique path to universal coverage. Switzerland has no government health program at all. Everyone in Switzerland is required to purchase from one of nearly 100 competing insurance companies. (The Swiss government pays for coverage for the poor.)
What about France - - a country Michael Moore described as Eden in "Sicko?" The government uses a sales tax approach and uses that money to buy a basic (not comprehensive) package of coverage for about 80 percent of the French people. The basic government benefit coverage is somewhat incomplete, however, so 92 percent of the people in France now purchase additional private insurance to fill in the 20 - 40 percent gap in various parts of their government benefits. About 20 percent of the French people skip the government program completely and purchase only private coverage. In either case, the coverage isn't free and is not handled through a Canadian single-payer model.
It's unclear from the movie whether Mr. Moore knows that he is not telling the truth about Europe's health care systems, or whether he is still low on a learning curve relative to health care financing and delivery. The learning curve seems pretty steep. He criticizes the U.S. government Medicare drug benefit in "Sicko," and he claims with some passion that the Canadians handle drug coverage much better. So how does the Canadian government actually handle drug coverage? Seven out of eight provinces do not cover non-hospital drug costs for anyone other than low income seniors. The federal government does not cover anyone.
People in those seven Canadian provinces might actually prefer the American Medicare system of partial coverage (favored by over 80 percent of enrollees), which Mr. Moore seems to sneer at in the movie. American Medicare drug coverage can have a "donut hole" in the middle. Seven of eight Canadian provinces skip the donut and give the citizens only the hole.
"Sicko" also tells the story of a Canadian on a golf vacation in Florida to illustrate the alleged superiority of the Canadian insurance and care delivery system because - - Mr. Moore claims in the movie - - the Canadian actually rushed home to Canada when he needed health care rather than getting that care in Florida. A valuable piece of information that "Sicko" conveniently does not mention at that point is that the Canadian government health coverage does not travel. Americans who are insured almost always have health coverage that covers at least emergencies whenever we travel. Canadians, however, have such long backlogs for care in so many places that the Canadian government benefit program can't afford to let people simply leave Canada to access care elsewhere. So the Canadian system that Mr. Moore so eagerly advocates decided not to let its health care benefits "travel" outside of Canada. Canadians in Florida, therefore, actually do return to Canada for care when they can... not because they don't think Americans deliver quality care, rather because their government does not cover care in America.
Again, it's not clear if Mr. Moore is low on the learning curve on that point, or more directly duplicitous. We will probably learn which statement is true as the debate progresses.
There are rumors Mr. Moore offers $10,000 rewards for anyone who can prove that any point in his movies is untrue. Since he says that "every" country in Europe uses the Canadian model, and since there are quite a few countries in Europe, does he owe $10,000 per country or just $10,000 for getting Europe wrong as a package? Or is it $10,000 per country on "single payer" and another $10,000 per country for "free"?
We can let his conscience decide. Money is owed, however."
LINK (http://acuf.org/issues/issue91/070909med.asp)
adigirl
09-12-2007, 04:34 PM
It doesn't change the fact that your health care system sucks. Our health care system needs work as well but it is better than the US.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It doesn't change the fact that your health care system sucks </div></div>
That's why the most popular place for re-constructive surgery in Canada is...Cleveland, Ohio.
That's also why the medical traffic along the border of the U.S. and Canada is practically one-way, and that is Canadians flooding to American hospitals for surgeries either their doctors cannot perform, or surgeries they have to wait 16 months for.
Canadian myth # 1,566, smashed! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
adigirl
09-12-2007, 04:46 PM
Cut and paste the statistics please.
"Medical tourism is simply the process of traveling abroad to a specific destination to obtain certain medical procedures. Medical tourism is certainly not a new concept. Canadians and Europeans have been traveling outside their regions for years to obtain medical procedures due the long waiting periods associated with socialized medicine"
LINK (http://www.medretreat.com/medical_tourism/faq_s.html)
"For prompt attention and immediate treatment, thousands of
Canadians flock to hospitals in Detroit, Seattle, Cleveland, Buffalo, N.Y, and Rochester, Minn"
"Canada has had socialized medicine for 20 years, and the same pattern of deteriorating facilities, overburdened doctors, and long hospital waiting lists is clear. A quarter of a million Canadians (out of a population of only 26 million) are now on waiting lists for surgery. The average waiting period for elective surgery is four years. Women wait up to five months for Pap smears and eight months for mammograms. Since 1987, the entire country spent less money on hospital improvements than the city of Washington, D.C., which has a population of only 618,000. As a result, sophisticated diagnostic equipment is scarce in Canada and growing scarcer. There are more MRIs (magnetic resonance imagers) in Washington State, which has a population of 4.6 million, than in all of Canada, which has a population of 26 million.
In Canada, as in Britain under socialized medicine, patients are denied care, forced to cope with increasingly antiquated hospitals and equipment, and can die while waiting for treatment. Canada controls health care costs the same way Britain and Russia do: by denying modern treatment to the sick and letting the severely ill and old die.
Despite standards far below those of the United States, when variables such as America’s higher crime and teenage pregnancy rates are factored out, and when concealed government overhead costs are factored in, Canada spends as high a percentage of its GNP on health care as the United States. Today a growing chorus of Canadians, including many former champions of socialized medicine, are calling for return to a market-based system."
LINK (http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=2251)
"Canadians flocking to U.S. for health care"
LINK (http://health.einnews.com/news/knee-replacement)
"Ontario will be spending 85 percent of its budget on health care by 2035. "We can't afford a state monopoly on health care anymore," says Tasha Kheiriddin, Ontario director of the federation."
"The federal government and virtually every province acknowledge there's a crisis: a lack of physicians and nurses, state-of-the-art equipment and funding. In Ontario, more than 10,000 nurses and hospital workers are facing layoffs over the next two years unless the provincial government boosts funding, says the Ontario Hospital Association, which represents health care providers in the province."
LINK (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705)
"Canada and North Korea are the only countries with laws banning the purchase of insurance for hospitalization or surgery.
Meanwhile, the average wait for surgical or specialist treatment is nearly 18 weeks, up from 9.3 weeks in 1993, according to the Fraser Institute, a right-wing public policy think tank in Vancouver. A Fraser study last year said the average wait for an orthopedic surgeon was more than nine months. "
LINK (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705)
That's worth an encore: Canada and North Korea are the only countries with laws banning the purchase of insurance for hospitalization or surgery
Wonderful.
adigirl
09-12-2007, 04:58 PM
These are news articles. Not statistics gathered scientifically.
de·ni·al /dɪˈnaɪəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-nahy-uhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an assertion that something said, believed, alleged, etc., is false: Despite his denials, we knew he had taken the purse. The politician issued a denial of his opponent's charges.
2. refusal to believe a doctrine, theory, or the like.
3. disbelief in the existence or reality of a thing.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: adigirl</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These are news articles. Not statistics gathered scientifically. </div></div>
Where are your statistics the U.S. healthcare system "sucks".
I lived under and used both the European and Canadian healthcare system.
Both have pro's and cons, but regardless of which one you use, you are never left without basic healthcare coverage.
In the USA, you could be left in a position where your basic medical needs require you to pay for them.
You can try to defend your system all you want Speedy, the information shown on actual cases on TV and the Internet speaks for itself.
Hans, your ignorance is showing again.
Ever hear of Medicaid? Medicare? Miship?
Didn't think so.
A hospital cannot refuse ANYONE for care, insurance or not.
The only reason someone would not have insurance is because they were too lazy to fill out the forms needed to get one of the three coverages mentioned above. Not quite sure what to do after that. If filling out some forms is too much to ask for health coverage, well, I don't know what to say.
Here's the deal: you guys trumpet your supposed "superior" health care system, yet at the same time the number of Canadians coming to the U.S. for certain health care compared to the reverse is about 50 to 1. Your words betray reality (which is par for the course when talking about those cherished Canadian myths that are so easily shattered).
Return of Too Many Daves
09-12-2007, 06:02 PM
I don't really care about the USA's health system, since I never use it. The Americans' are big enough to look after themselves. However, in my opinion the Canadian system, particularly in communities like this sucks.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hans, your ignorance is showing again.
Ever hear of Medicaid? Medicare? Miship?
Didn't think so.
A hospital cannot refuse ANYONE for care, insurance or not.
The only reason someone would not have insurance is because they were too lazy to fill out the forms needed to get one of the three coverages mentioned above. Not quite sure what to do after that. If filling out some forms is too much to ask for health coverage, well, I don't know what to say.
Here's the deal: you guys trumpet your supposed "superior" health care system, yet at the same time the number of Canadians coming to the U.S. for certain health care compared to the reverse is about 50 to 1. Your words betray reality (which is par for the course when talking about those cherished Canadian myths that are so easily shattered).
</div></div>
Feel free to read out the numbers below Speedy. I highly doubt that 47 million people are not insured because they are to lazy to fill out a form. Although I have to admit the idea is tempting to blame it on laziness.
The United States is alone among developed nations with the absence of a universal healthcare system. Healthcare in the U.S. does, however, have significant publicly funded components. Medicare covers the elderly and disabled with a historical work record, Medicaid is available for the poor, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program covers children of low-income families. The Veterans Health Administration directly provides health care to injured U.S. military veterans and current servicemen and women through a nationwide network of government hospitals (non-injured veterans are often not covered).[8] Together, these tax-financed programs cover about 27% of the population[9] and make the government the largest health insurer in the nation. In 2001, only the governments of Iceland and Norway spent more per capita on healthcare.[10] This care is generally provided by privately owned hospitals or physicians in private practice, but public hospitals are common in older cities. Just under 60% of Americans receive health insurance through an employer, although this number is declining and the employee's expected contribution to these plans varies widely and is increasing as costs escalate. A significant and growing number of people cannot obtain health insurance through their employer or are unable to afford individual coverage. Currently, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that 16% of the U.S. population, or 47 million people, are uninsured. More than a third of the uninsured are in households earning $50,000 or more per year.[9] Some uninsured are people under age 30 who don't believe they need to purchase health care; others are eligible for Medicaid but have not applied. The cost of medicines is frequently not covered by insurance, and it is common for U.S. citizens to travel to Canada and Mexico for drug purchases at prices far below those in their home areas. A few states have taken serious steps toward universal health care coverage, most notably Minnesota and Massachusetts, with a recent example being the Massachusetts 2006 Health Reform Statute.[11] Other states, while not attempting to insure all of their residents, cover large numbers of people by reimbursing hospitals and other health-care providers using what is generally characterized as a charity care scheme; New Jersey is perhaps the best example of a state that employs the latter strategy. It is typical for most forms of general liability insurance sold in the U.S., such as home, automobile, or business insurance to have a significant premium allocation for medical damages. The U. S. legal system, which has the highest number of attorneys per capita of any country in the world, is available to assist in proving liability and collecting the money for medical bills from such insurances.
And on a side note, I find it rather amusing you bash Canadian and European health care systems, without ever having used them. Unless you have used them in the past, but I would not know about that.
Crusty
09-12-2007, 07:04 PM
It's hard to argue this one.
The patients are merely following the doctor's and nurses over the border. To stay in Canada and practice medicine one would need integrity to combat the lure of US money.
Doctor's with any kind of specialty will make exponentially higher pay over there... we all know that. That is having the impact on our health system the most. Canadians have to follow the physicians south. We simply can’t afford them and Canada just doesn’t breed a loyalty that would inspire people to stay here for less money.
Obviously we open our doors to invite Doctor’s from around the world to practice here but again the ones with any specialty are also lured to the US leaving us pretty shallow when it comes to Medical care.
It's a sad truth, but one we can't really argue.
US $$$$$$$$$ wins.
DoubleXL
09-13-2007, 02:40 AM
I have used the healthcare system in Canada throughout my life. I have had minor reconstructive surgery.
My tonsils have been removed.
My wife and I have had 2 children
and she has had some procedures as well.
We regularly see our doctors. What prescriptions we have are either covered by OHIP, or by our employers coverage. There are also programs here that will cover drugs outside of OHIP.
I have never had to wait very long for any procedure. The care we have recieved has always been good.
We have never had to pay a dime out of our pockets for ANY of these procedures. Neither my wife and I are poor.
I would say our system for the most part does pretty damn good.
The government even covers some plastic surgery.
Keep in mind I didn't knock the US system, just stating my personal experience with the Canadian system.
Return of Too Many Daves
09-13-2007, 07:13 AM
3 year waiting list for a GP?
We've been told you can jump some of that list if you are young fit and healthy, not very fair that is it?
Does that mean you are neither young, fit or healthy?
Yeah, I have nothing to complain about as far as the Canadian system is concerned. But having had both hospital experience and experience at being at the side of numerous deathbeds of people who are rich and poor, I can clearly see that there is a two tier system, whether it is formally recognized and structured that way or not. Not everyone is equal, even in Canada.
Cataract surgery, for instance, can be done quickly (if you have the money - something like $1500 per eye) or you go on a 1 yr waiting list.
Return of Too Many Daves
09-13-2007, 09:03 AM
I wouldn't consider myself young fit or healthy but apparently the doctors here would. But that's besides the point, I still think it is unfair, whisper it quietly in case Speedy hears, but it is called a social conscience. LOL. He'll have me burnt as a communist.
Soundbear
09-13-2007, 09:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Cataract surgery, for instance, can be done quickly (if you have the money - something like $1500 per eye) or you go on a 1 yr waiting list. </div></div>
First diagnosis on my cataract was probably two years, but immediate action was not necessary. My doctor told me to wait till it became too much of a problem for me. When I finally noticed it interfering with my vision, I was booked in. It was no more than two months for the surgery.
That wasn't in Toronto, was it? Maybe we should be sending Torontonians up there. We've had numerous seniors here waiting a long time for cataract surgery.
Soundbear
09-13-2007, 09:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wouldn't consider myself young fit or healthy but apparently the doctors here would. But that's besides the point, I still think it is unfair, whisper it quietly in case Speedy hears, but it is called a social conscience. LOL. He'll have me burnt as a communist. </div></div>
Seems to me that the basic idea is to ask everyone to kick in a little to pay for the basic medical needs of everyone. Most democracies will do that. But some won't.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: adigirl</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It doesn't change the fact that [US] health care system sucks. Our health care system needs work as well but it is better than the US. </div></div>
The continued ignorance of so many people on this subject still baffles me. People continue to parrot the same old health care argument without knowing at all what they are talking about.
The US healthcare system does not suck. In many ways, it is far superior to the Canadian system for the m,ajority of users. They could use a lesson or two from Canada on funding a state run system, but in overall terms of access to timely diagnoses and treatments, Canada does not even come close -except for the Canadians that pay to use the US facilities, on top of state run healthcare north of the border (in a two-tier system that Ottawa says doesn't exist, despite the fact that many of them also use it).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seems to me that the basic idea is to ask everyone to kick in a little to pay for the basic medical needs of everyone. Most democracies will do that. But some won't. </div></div>
Then you have the US, slammed by many Canadians who know little or nothing about US healthcare other than the same old garbage that they mindlessly repeat. The US actually spend more per capita than Canada and many other countries on publicly funded healthcare, but unfortunately, in a comparatively inefficient manner.
As for healthcare that sucks, I would place the Sault closer to that category than any other place that I have been. The flaws of OHIP are very apparant in the Sault, where a large part of the problem stems from the fact that your infrastructure, insurer, provider, government oversight, and regulating body are all the same. OHIP is actually administered like an HMO, but an HMO with no alternative choices. In isolated towns like the Sault this "you-get-what-you-get" method of delivery results in extensive wait times, lack of care and shortages of equipment and personnel. It makes me sick to see my relatives in SSM literally dying because of the lack of quality care. Tests are refused and treatments are delayed because OHIP says so. Unfortunately, the once great Canadian healthcare has devolved into a political tool as much as a mediocre healthcare system.
Some food for thought: If Americans took even half of the savings in the difference between income tax amounts deducted in the US and Canada, They could buy healthcare insurance that would smoke OHIP, and still probably have enough left over to fund an improved public system. I know that about 1/3 the money I save in income tax since moving here is more than enough to cover my insurance premiums (including the employers share) for healthcare and life and disability; and OHIP plus my OPS benefits could not even come close to the level of coverage and care that I have now.
Soundbear
09-13-2007, 12:58 PM
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/15/1198/
"The studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that the United States, which has the most expensive health system in the world, underperforms consistently relative to other countries and differs most notably in the fact that Americans have no universal health insurance coverage."
DoubleXL
09-13-2007, 02:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Shadow</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: adigirl</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It doesn't change the fact that [US] health care system sucks. Our health care system needs work as well but it is better than the US. </div></div>
The continued ignorance of so many people on this subject still baffles me. People continue to parrot the same old health care argument without knowing at all what they are talking about.
The US healthcare system does not suck. In many ways, it is far superior to the Canadian system for the m,ajority of users. They could use a lesson or two from Canada on funding a state run system, but in overall terms of access to timely diagnoses and treatments, Canada does not even come close -except for the Canadians that pay to use the US facilities, on top of state run healthcare north of the border (in a two-tier system that Ottawa says doesn't exist, despite the fact that many of them also use it).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seems to me that the basic idea is to ask everyone to kick in a little to pay for the basic medical needs of everyone. Most democracies will do that. But some won't. </div></div>
Then you have the US, slammed by many Canadians who know little or nothing about US healthcare other than the same old garbage that they mindlessly repeat. The US actually spend more per capita than Canada and many other countries on publicly funded healthcare, but unfortunately, in a comparatively inefficient manner.
As for healthcare that sucks, I would place the Sault closer to that category than any other place that I have been. The flaws of OHIP are very apparant in the Sault, where a large part of the problem stems from the fact that your infrastructure, insurer, provider, government oversight, and regulating body are all the same. OHIP is actually administered like an HMO, but an HMO with no alternative choices. In isolated towns like the Sault this "you-get-what-you-get" method of delivery results in extensive wait times, lack of care and shortages of equipment and personnel. It makes me sick to see my relatives in SSM literally dying because of the lack of quality care. Tests are refused and treatments are delayed because OHIP says so. Unfortunately, the once great Canadian healthcare has devolved into a political tool as much as a mediocre healthcare system.
Some food for thought: If Americans took even half of the savings in the difference between income tax amounts deducted in the US and Canada, They could buy healthcare insurance that would smoke OHIP, and still probably have enough left over to fund an improved public system. I know that about 1/3 the money I save in income tax since moving here is more than enough to cover my insurance premiums (including the employers share) for healthcare and life and disability; and OHIP plus my OPS benefits could not even come close to the level of coverage and care that I have now. </div></div>
Maybe this is just your personal experience. Like I said before, I cannot comment on the American system. On the other hand, no one I know has experienced any issues with care in the Sault. There may be some wait times, but none that caused anyone to die.
Return of Too Many Daves
09-13-2007, 03:10 PM
I think a 3 year waiting list for a GP is an issue.
DoubleXL
09-13-2007, 04:43 PM
That would be an issue. I never had to wait that long. I got in to see one in about 2 weeks.
Return of Too Many Daves
09-13-2007, 07:14 PM
Sorry 3 year waiting list to GET ie register with a GP.
starterwiz
09-13-2007, 11:44 PM
Took three years to get a Nurse Practitioner, and the Doc she's under is making decicions about my health, and he's never met me!!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: adigirl</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It doesn't change the fact that your health care system sucks. Our health care system needs work as well but it is better than the US.</div></div>
Thats true.
Out of the whole movie, the only thing that is foung to be wrong, was a comment made about another country.
Now this may have already been said, but even through payroll deduction, or what not you still pay.
What they mean by free is; When you goto a hospital for something, you don't receive a bill. If you do, that bill goes to an insurance company.
So yeah, techinically it isn't free. BUt unlike the states, they don't receive huge bills, from which they have to mortage their house just for a cast.
I also find it funny that when speedy is proven wrong, he either quits posting or comes back with sarcastic remarks.
I know alot of people that go and have been to the states for procedures.
My sisters friend, went to Detroit for a stomache stapling thing, OHIP paid for it, and had it done there.
As mentioned before, more and more specialits are moving there because of the better pay, we lack these specialists so people go where they go!
Speedy in the long run, both systems have pro's and con's, Canadians just have more pro's. Sure we have to wait a bit longer, and there are some flaws, but in the end you get what you pay for.
I also chalk up the long waits in the waiting room to people sitting there with an ear-ache or a scratch on their knee taking advantage of the free care.
"Proven wrong"???
Where" How?
I quit posting after a while because you guys simply go into 'attack' mode when one of your cherished myths are exposed as the lies they are.
DoubleXL
09-14-2007, 04:07 PM
Speedy, you really have not proven anything. We all have experience with the system, and each of us have different experiences. You could tell me 12 different points on why the Canadian system is flawed, but unless you directly experience those things you are not likely to believe.
That Canadians flood the U.S. hospitals, and the reverse does not happen, tells me quite a bit, thank you. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
DoubleXL
09-14-2007, 04:12 PM
The United States is more populated, therefore has more specialized hospitals. Canadians usually don't have to pay to use American hospitals -- OHIP in Ontario will usually cover any medical procedure which cannot be performed for whatever reason in Ontario.
Not true. The article talks of how Canadians on vacation in the U.S. need to fly back to Canada for medical procedures because the Canadian system will not cover them outside of Canada.
A policy like that is just shy of neanderthal, my friend.
DoubleXL
09-14-2007, 04:17 PM
That is a different story. I am talking about when they are in Canada, and there is not a hospital available to handle the operation. OHIP will cover it. It is up to the person vacationing to purchase additional insurance for when they leave the country. Anytime I travel outside of Canada I always purchase some supplimentary coverage just for that trip.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am talking about when they are in Canada, and there is not a hospital available to handle the operation </div></div>
Thanks for making my case.
DoubleXL
09-14-2007, 04:24 PM
It all comes down to one reason. Greed. Plain greed.
Too simplistic.
The reason is socialized medicine does not work. It's a wonderful idea; but it does not work.
DoubleXL
09-14-2007, 04:30 PM
Obviously though Speedy, your system is not working exactly either. Mitt Romney is taking a different approach in Mass. which I thought was creative.
DoubleXL
09-14-2007, 04:38 PM
Socialized medicine does work. Because it is working now. People leave the country to have operations performed because they believe that because they have money they should be able to jump to the front of the line. I don't believe that is proper. All humans should have the same treatment, not dependant on class.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AHDoubleXL</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People leave the country to have operations performed because they believe that because they have money they should be able to jump to the front of the line. </div></div>
No, people leave the country to have operations performed because they are willing to put their health first, before their money. We have one CT scanner and one MRI in SSM, each with a service area of approximately 130,000 people. This would be ridiculous if it wasn't so tragic. Since the service is available (despite being up to a couple of months wait), patients have no alternatives but to wait, except in extreme priority cases. How far can cancer advance in the months it takes to finally get your doctor to send you for a routine screening, for which you may have an 8-12 week wait?
Look at the bright side, for every line jumper who values his health more than his cash, it lessens the wait time for everyone else who either can't or won't pay to avoid unsatisfactory wait times for a service that we need to pay out of town specialists to read the results of anyway.
If I was concerned that my cancer had come back and I was on the waiting list for a doctor, and the emergency doctor who knew nothing of my medical history wouldn't push to get me the tests ASAP, if at all, then I think I would sell my car and pay the $600 for an MRI in Soo Mich, rather than risk my health simply because "I shouldn't have to pay because I have OHIP".
Sometimes people don't know how bad things are until they have something to compare it to.
To be fair, the Sault and other isolated northern towns are extreme examples of failing healthcare. When I lived in southern Ontario in a major center, the wait times for an MRI were only 3 weeks, as compared to the 9 weeks (bumped to 13 before I actually had it) I had to wait in the Sault. Plus, they also had a radiologist in town who could actually read the damn thing and report in less than 3 weeks additional time, like I also had to wait in the Sault. There was also much less wait than the 3-6 years it takes to get a family doctor in the Sault, so not all Canadian healthcare is as bad as in SSM.
Still, OHIP wouldn't even cover the procedure that I had done in Florida -the option simply wasn't available to me at all, because OHIP wouldn't pay and there are no other alternatives besides "take it or leave it" under the so-called universal healthcare. It was not available, and OHIP wouldn't cover a dime even though it was readily available elsewhere.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: T-pot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What they mean by free is; When you goto a hospital for something, you don't receive a bill. If you do, that bill goes to an insurance company.
So yeah, techinically it isn't free. BUt unlike the states, they don't receive huge bills, from which they have to mortage their house just for a cast. </div></div>
I don't see a bill either. It goes to the insurance company too, and my premiums are also done through payroll deduction. I guess that means that my US healthcare is "free" too.
Return of Too Many Daves
09-14-2007, 05:13 PM
Socialised health care works.
I can't believe Speedy can't see that the US system isn't ideal either. What about all those children without health care (should they get a job)?
Well, all I can say is that when I turn on the radio station in the morning on my way to work, I hear commercials promoting US hospitals. I have been hearing it for years now.
If they really are so good, then I am sure there's no need for them to advertise every single morning.
And if the US health care system is so good and covers people so well, I fail to see why this hospital in question advertises sliding fee scales every morning.
Return of Too Many Daves
09-15-2007, 08:00 AM
The one touch tin opener advertises a lot too and that is BRILLIANT!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Socialised health care works.
I can't believe Speedy can't see that the US system isn't ideal either. What about all those children without health care (should they get a job)? </div></div>
I never said the U.S. system was "ideal". You should really try to stay focused, Dave, and actually debate people on what they say, and not what you want them to say in order to make your job easy.
The fact is socialized medicine does not work. It really is that simple.
as for the U.S., again I'd ask you guys to research programs such as Medicaid or MISHIP, among many others. These programs ensure all children are covered. If a parent is too lazy to fill out forms then they are to blame, not the government.
I want you to find me one story of a child with no insurance being refused medical assistance in the U.S.
Soundbear
09-15-2007, 09:49 AM
"...actually debate people on what they say,..."
SPEEDY, SOMEONE HAS HIJACKED YOUR SOONET ACCESS!!!
Soundbear
09-15-2007, 10:13 AM
Yup, it's true. Better call in.
Do you think you represent the "peace of Christ" on this board?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That Canadians flood the U.S. hospitals, and the reverse does not happen, tells me quite a bit, thank you. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</div></div>
Here is where you are PROVEN wrong.
We go to specialists in America, we don't flood your hospitals with common problems such as a broken arm or stitches.
We go to your hospitals for knee and arm surgeries, plastic surgery, boob jobs, lypo.
SPECIALISTS! All because our specialists go there because they get paid more, because are health care is free!
Also Speedy, most of your health care plans do cover travel, as well as ours! Our health care plans, that you can pay extra for.
The Canadian government pays for your health to the extent of keeping you alive.
I have a health benefit from work, that pays for all of my travels. If I were that Golfer in florida, I'd receive medical attention there for free! If I choose not to, my travel is paid for!
Your comparing your "Health plan insurance policies" to our FREE health care. FREE Health only covers so much, the extras you pay for. Is that so hard to grasp?
If you didn't have any insurance policy and needed stitches, you'd go to the hospital, go get stitches and have a bill either before you leave or mailed to you.
If I didn't have any insurance healthy policy and needed stitches, I'd goto the hospital, go get stitches, and go home, not worrying about having to pay!
Thats the difference in our health care! To mention a golfer in Florida rushing home for medical attention and saying Canada doesn't cover costs, but your plans do, is comparing apples and oranges.
Because if the golfer did have extra insurance, he would be covered for travel!
The Berean
09-15-2007, 08:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you think you represent the "peace of Christ" on this board? </div></div>
Better than you for sure.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> We go to specialists in America</div></div>
You guys illustrate the deficiencies of socialized healthcare much better than I can! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
As well as going to these CANADIAN specialists in the US, it is our government who pays for it!
And, yet again. Read the whole post. If you are going to cut and paste, atleast quote the whole post. About the SPECIALISTS being CANADIAN!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> CANADIAN specialists in the US</div></div>
It really is impossible for me to thank you guys for all the help you give me.
The fact Canadian doctors want to come to the U.S. to practice and learn their trade tells me even more what a disaster socialized medicine is.
Thanks, T-Pot! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
Speedy, the real reason is that they can make a much better wage there because you simply pay them more. However, this extra money has to come from somewhere. And it's not coming from your government, it comes from private funding. Which in turn comes from the people that use your system.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Speedy, the real reason is that they can make a much better wage there because you simply pay them more. However, this extra money has to come from somewhere. And it's not coming from your government, it comes from private funding. Which in turn comes from the people that use your system.
</div></div>
And the reason you guys are taxed so damn high is because there is no such thing as "free healthcare".
What's your point?
Soundbear
09-16-2007, 03:13 PM
Question: When one of the uninsured 47 million in the USA goes in for the emergency help they cannot be denied, are they billed for it??
Yes, and most of the time they do not pay it. The government pays some, but some is just written off.
The person who is billed can pay that hospital one dollar a month if they so choose. There is no amount too small.
And your number of 47 million is misleading. Many of those people are recent college graduates working at menial jobs until they find a job in their professional field of study. Also reflected in that number are people who are in-between jobs.
The number 47 million is not static; in other words, it doesn’t represent the same 47 million people from year to year. It is a fluid number that is overly-represented by people between jobs and recent college grads.
Soundbear
09-16-2007, 03:29 PM
"And your number of 47 million is misleading. Many of those people are recent college graduates working at menial jobs until they find a job in their professional field of study. Also reflected in that number are people who are in-between jobs."
And if one of this "fluid" number gets sick??
The point is that in Canada they won't be billed at all. Sure taxes are higher. So is health coverage.
Most of the time they don't pay??? I wonder how many ruined lives and lost homes "most of the time" really means??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And if one of this "fluid" number gets sick?? </div></div>
Then that's when Medicaid, MISHIP, and any other of those type of programs comes into play. You guys don't want to discuss Medicaid and such programs because it takes away a favorite arguing point for you.
You talk of horror stories of Americans who have loss their houses, etc. What is the number?
Yet somehow waiting 18 months for important surgery in Canada is brushed aside as no big deal.
Would you rather lose your home or your life?
Love the irony of it all.
stupefied
09-16-2007, 03:33 PM
Neither system is perfect and neither system is free. At around $4500.00 yearly per capita the Canadian system is not doing well. Like someone mentioned a ways back a person can get much better coverage in the States for a portion of the decreases in taxes.
A socialist system in a capitalist country, things will have to change or it will just keep getting worse. Privatization is inevitable to a degree.
". The Fraser Institute's annual report "Waiting Your Turn" estimates that Canadians are waiting for nearly 800,000 medical procedures. If the Canadian system was adopted in the U.S. -- and you assume one person per treatment - that would translate to nearly 7.3 million Americans. Not 7.3 million Americans theoretically without health care due to a lack of insurance -- but 7.3 million Americans who need medical treatment but cannot get it without being on long waiting lists."
Consider this: across Canada, thousands of baby boomers and the elderly often wait years for knee and hip replacements; often in great pain while taking powerful narcotics. However, a dog in Canada can get a joint replacement operation at a veterinary hospital done in a matter of weeks.
LINK (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21227)
Crusty
09-16-2007, 04:30 PM
What kind of country are we that we would put our Pets needs above those of our own citizens. Disgusting.
Personally I'm going to start taking my pets to American vets. That way I can save a few bucks and support the country I have grown to love.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And if one of this "fluid" number gets sick?? </div></div>
Then that's when Medicaid, MISHIP, and any other of those type of programs comes into play. You guys don't want to discuss Medicaid and such programs because it takes away a favorite arguing point for you.
You talk of horror stories of Americans who have loss their houses, etc. What is the number?
Yet somehow waiting 18 months for important surgery in Canada is brushed aside as no big deal.
Would you rather lose your home or your life?
Love the irony of it all. </div></div>
I don't know anyone that had to wait 18 months for major surgery. If it is MAJOR then they are in right away, if it CAN wait, they do. What is the big deal?
I don't know anyone in Canada that has lost their house to pay for medical bills, and I don't know anyone that has lost their life to it.
Now speedy since you brought it up. Please explain Medicaid and Medicare.
how much is it, and what does it cover? I"m anxious to find this out, because if it is so glamourous as you say it is, why isn't EVERYONE on it, besides paperwork?
The Berean
09-16-2007, 09:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And if one of this "fluid" number gets sick?? </div></div>
Then that's when Medicaid, MISHIP, and any other of those type of programs comes into play. You guys don't want to discuss Medicaid and such programs because it takes away a favorite arguing point for you.
You talk of horror stories of Americans who have loss their houses, etc. What is the number?
Yet somehow waiting 18 months for important surgery in Canada is brushed aside as no big deal.
Would you rather lose your home or your life?
Love the irony of it all. </div></div>
My own experience??
Monday morning diagnosis. Tuesday afternoon surgery.
What waiting???
Here you go Speedy!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/index.html
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton announced
a $110 billion health care reform plan Monday that would require all Americans to have health insurance.
"Here in America people are dying because they couldn't get the care they needed when they were sick."
About 46.6 million people in the United States were without health care insurance in 2005, including 8.3 million children, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report released last year.
Crusty
09-17-2007, 03:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, and most of the time they do not pay it. The government pays some, but some is just written off.
The person who is billed can pay that hospital one dollar a month if they so choose. There is no amount too small.
And your number of 47 million is misleading. Many of those people are recent college graduates working at menial jobs until they find a job in their professional field of study. Also reflected in that number are people who are in-between jobs.
The number 47 million is not static; in other words, it doesn’t represent the same 47 million people from year to year. It is a fluid number that is overly-represented by people between jobs and recent college grads.
</div></div>
I think Speedy answered that question here ...
There's nothing misleading about it. Without health care is without health care. It does not matter what age you are, or what you do in life.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There's nothing misleading about it. Without health care is without health care. It does not matter what age you are, or what you do in life.
</div></div>
They ARE NOT without healthcare!!
Research Medicaid, for god sakes!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here you go Speedy!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/index.html
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton announced
a $110 billion health care reform plan Monday that would require all Americans to have health insurance.
"Here in America people are dying because they couldn't get the care they needed when they were sick."
About 46.6 million people in the United States were without health care insurance in 2005, including 8.3 million children, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report released last year.
</div></div>
Basically the same program she tried to shove down the American peoples' throats in '92, when she was co-President'.
Americans roundly rejected it then, they'll roundly rejected it now.
Mitt Romney has a far, far superior plan as far as healthcare goes. It offers a wider net of protection, without dismantling all the free market parts of the current system that work.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There's nothing misleading about it. Without health care is without health care. It does not matter what age you are, or what you do in life.
</div></div>
They ARE NOT without healthcare!!
Research Medicaid, for god sakes!!! </div></div>
Again, you make no sense. Why would the cencus bureau list them as not insured if they are, according to you?
Makes no sense now, does it.
So yes, they are without health care insurance.
Better luck next time.
They have no PRIVATE insurance, Hans. This isn't rocket science; stay with me here.
If you think there are 45 million people who either have no insurance or no recourse to Medicaid, then you are moving ever closer to the label 'insane'.
I see. So wat's covered with private insurance that's not covered with whatever these 45 million people are?
Well, you said they do not have private insurance. So there's clearly an advantage to having supplemental private insurance. So list the difference in coverage.
I am, can't help it that you can't read it.
In that case, I am going to play wow! Later Speedster!
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.