"Free" health care!

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-01-2003
"Free" health care!
250
Thu, 07-22-2004 - 7:15pm
I wonder how many of you have had to live without health insurance? You say that health care is not a right? NO WONDER! You have always had a place for the bills to go other then your mailbox! How many of you have ever asked what the actual cost of your prescriptions are? Do the math! Do you have any idea what it is like to call around from doctor to doctor trying to find one who would see you WITHOUT insurance? Have you ever stood at your doctor office and humbly asked for samples instead of a prescription because u know that your $360 check wont stretch enough to cover your $280 med bill AND the doctor appt. Don't even mention medicaid! If you make enough money to buy food and scrape by...you do not qualify.

Go ahead and be technical but if you ever run into some bad luck you will see things in an entirely different light!

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 4:26pm
“Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't there something called 'social security' in the US? Isn't it an entitlement to all old people?”

I’ve not read through the other posts yet, but no. S.S. is not an entitlement. In order to qualify for SS a person is required to work at least 40 quarters (10 years) to receive benefits. Some benefits are transferable though. If a spouse dies, the surviving spouse and/or children do have rights to some of those benefits.

I get where you are going with the rest of your post, but am short on time. Without trying to sound insulting I think you are falling into the trap that many do, at times, myself included. I’ve mentioned before I’m a socialist at heart. I don’t like the idea of wasting resources via duplication and that is what usually occurs in a capitalistic society. We have several (let’s just say 8 as an example) private companies seeking a cure for liver cancer, each company doing very much the same tests and studies. If medicine were more socialized, we could have one company do the research and save the resources spent by the other seven companies for other research.

There is nothing wrong with the line of reasoning above or those ideas you’ve expressed other than, well… they don’t work. In most areas, when resources are pooled in this way, the result is not better research or cheaper medicine in the long run. In this example, the one company studying liver cancer would perform ok for a while, but eventually bog down in its’ own bureaucracy (this process can take decades, but is inevitable). It is the continual pressures of competition that forces these companies to remain efficient. So even though we can point at 8 companies and say: “there’s a lot of waste and needless duplication of work” we also know through experience that in the long-term this waste is much less than the waste generated by a centralized bureaucracy.

One other thing to keep in mind as well, governments have overhead. As with Canada, the government takes some of that healthcare money to manage the money coming in, going out, establishing guidelines, enforcement of policies, and so forth. In the US, that overhead is more than 20%, I’m not sure about Canada’s (i.e. if we give a billion to fund section 8, about $780 mil. goes to housing, the other $220 mil goes to government administration). This is one of the reasons why I’ve mentioned that Americans (and Canadians) would be better off just sticking a portion of their spending in a shoebox and not paying for healthcare through taxes, the citizens could save 20% or more of these costs by doing it themselves.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 4:40pm
There are a lot of reasons why Canadians may want to move to the US. (Actually I know quite a few Americans living here).

One main reason is career opportunities. Having such a small population base there just aren't as many opportunities in certain fields. My brother-in-law has a PHD in physical chemistry and requires a HUGE special machine for his type of work (don't ask me to explain it....it's over my head). Consequently, he is at Berkley now. There is one such machine in a Manitoba based University in Canada but Manitoba isn't the most exciting province (sorry folks....my Mom's from there) and the winters are legendary in their coldness so perhaps weather does play a factor.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 4:44pm
<>

In a perfect world, I would have to agree but the vast majority don't do that. They'd rather just spend any surplus they might have on the new shoes....maybe even with a credit card (and then there's nothing left to put in the box).

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 4:52pm
Actually, I looked this up, and it turns out the overwhelming majority of the population in Canada is paying a teeny bit more income taxes than in the US (as a percentage of gross income). However, when you take into consideration that those taxes included healthcare, not to mention a whole lot of other benefits including 1 year maternity benefits, the result is that our 'disposable income" is either better or the same as our american counterparts. It's a big myth that we have less disposable income. This is true for people making up to about $180K per year, so that's hardly a small segment of the population. And for those making more than that, the reality is that they use a whole variety of tax shelters anyway to reduce their tax burden.

According to the OECD Americans's average disposable income is 81.7 % of their gross income. Canadian's average disposable income is 81.8%

An very interesting article. Not exactly related to it, but I stumbled upon it today.

Oops. the link..

http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/search.php?display_article=vn293canadaed

Edited 7/26/2004 4:55 pm ET ET by nicecanadianlady


Edited 7/26/2004 4:56 pm ET ET by nicecanadianlady

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 5:23pm

<>


Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 5:27pm
Great post Wrhen!!

Canadians spend $64 Billion a year on healthcare!? Isn’t that like $20,000 per person?

“According to Dr. Walker, hospitals absorb 55 percent of the total annual healthcare budget. The Fraser study found that nonmedical staff – including painters, electricians, and cooks – tend to be paid 50 percent higher than their counterparts in nonmedical industries. "We are not controlling our costs," he says.”

Yup, that’s pretty much what I was talking about in another post. When open competition is removed, institutions become lethargic over time and operate so inefficiently that they produce more waste than having multiple companies do the same research, but forced to continually be competitive. Look at any socialized program and you will see the same thing. This problem was the downfall of nations and is the downfall of a number of other institutions (public schooling comes to mind).


“Canada lags even further behind in access to high-tech equipment, including machines used for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed axial tomography (CAT) scans.”

Yea, the American system is so terrible. I got an MRI about 5 years ago. They could have gotten me in for it the SAME day it was recommended. The problem was it conflicted with MY schedule, so I got it 2 days later, not 2 months later.

Americans wouldn’t put up with this type of shoddy system.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 5:41pm
Yup, I get cheaper medical stuff by asking my doctor if they are doing any studies. Usually the costs drop by 50% or more. Shoot, I got a nuclear treadmill test (about $5,000) for free a few months ago. Although I did have to wear one of those embarrassing robes for about 3 hours instead of 1.5 hours for the “paying” customers ;)
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 6:16pm
I would have to see that article, but my initial response is that’s an erroneous assessment. Canada predominately funds their healthcare through a sales tax, not an income tax. This would reduce their disposable income an additional 10-20%, making them have much less disposable income than us in America.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 7:53pm

<>


Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 7:58pm

<,This would reduce their disposable income an additional 10-20%, making them have much less disposable income than us in America.>>


Renee ~~~

Pages