"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: 08-31-2003
Sun, 07-25-2004 - 7:57pm
"<>

Yes

<>

No we don't feel it's OK that government agencies waste the money. I'd mentioned that before."

You split my sentences wrong, the question, "Do people in Canada feel that that is also ok?" was to the question before that. I think I may already know the answer to that question though.

"However, it isn't the taxes that are the problem here. It's those who manage the money. Therefore the answer isn't to whine about one's tax money going to people who need it. Its to hold the government accountable for how they spend (or waste) that money."

I guess I see it differently. I don't whine about the people that need my tax dollars, I object to the continual hand out that doesn't use my tax dollars appropriately, and to be very honest, it doesn't take a genius to see that a lot of tax dollars don't actually benefit those that need it. Just look at the education system. Those underadvantaged kids aren't getting the benefit of tax dollars, heck, in Chicago they don't even have decent text books or libraries for kids. Isn't it sad that the schools are eager to take second hand books so they can have anything for the kids to read? I know Chicago school systems gets a heck a lot of money. I can't see how giving more tax dollars to politicians that can't get their acts together fiscally is going to help. Once they get more, they just want more later. If you were giving your child an allowance and had a % ear marked for specific items, like savings, school items, entertainment, clothing, and he/she spent it all, repeatedly on candy and junk food and movies, would you then increase the allowance so he/she had money for the items he/she really needs? Or would you expect him/her to adjust their spending? Why should we expect any less of our legislators? Why must I adjust my budget so they can spend more?

NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 4:21am

Thank you for your great posts in this thread, Suemox!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 4:36am
Yup, count me in. Actually, I don’t have health insurance right now, or for the last 3 years for that matter. Also, a side note; I’ve mentioned before that healthcare in Canada isn’t free. Everyone pays for healthcare there, every sandwich, diaper, jacket, jeans, or anything else they buy gets marked up like 20% to pay for their healthcare. Anyone here in the U.S. that wants a Canadian-style of healthcare can have it for themselves, just “pay” 20% of all your expenses into a shoe box and pull the money out later when the medical bills come. It’s really very simple.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 9:14am


Not a geek, but a dreamer!!! I think before they got their Utopia, the world basically was at war right? Actually many people would like this, but it would take soemthing miraclous to get 99% of the people to want the same thing and actually do something about it. But we have too many people in the world wanting for themselves instead of others. We have too many people in the world wanting to hold others back.

"Free" is just more or less an adjective anymore. Nothing is truly free, there is always something that one has to do or pay to get soemthing free.

Free lunch- I think not, whether it be paying for gas, clothes, tip or just your time makes this statement not true.

Free love- Hahaha! My ex can you tell you that is definately NOT true.

Free Air machines- Bologny!! They never work, so I either have to buy a new tire or pay for the air.

Freedom- We pay our government to help us retain certain freedoms, soldiers pay with their lives for freedoms, and lawyers get paid to give back someones freedom.

Free Health Care- No such thing anywhere. People pay for it with taxes, so it is not free. Even if a doctor gives you free service somehow it is paid back, so still not free.

Buy One Get One Free Sale at Payless- I want the expensive shoes (are there really any there) to be free. Plus we still pay taxes on them and in order to get one free you have to pay for something else. I caught on to their little game...... ;-)

All in fun, but there was a point there at the beginning! ( I think!)

Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 9:34am
No, I don't mind the question. He had cancer and lived in Ontario a short ways north of Niagara Falls. I don't recall the name of the town he lived in. This was about 10 years ago.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 10:07am

<>


Quite right, indeed!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 11:06am
What are you talking about? The GST? It's a sales tax, and it's 7%. It's not about paying for healthcare! Also, some things are GST exempt. Besides, we Canadians pay 10% of our GDP for healthcare, and americans pay 14%, and we have EVERYONE covered. From what I gather, only 11% of americans are happy with the american 'system', which is the LOWEST approval rating of all western countries. Doesn't that say something?


Edited 7/26/2004 11:08 am ET ET by nicecanadianlady
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 11:26am


What it says to me is that our government would much rather sink billions into protecting ourselves from enemies they have created, then to make sure the people that they are trying to protect are healthy.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 11:33am
Right now, I don't have health insurance. I pay about $28 per month for my prescriptions. The only reason, I pay this low amount is because I have asked my doctor for generic drugs.

A few years ago, I had the minimum health insurance from Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Unfortunately, I managed to sprain my ankle. I went to the doctor for my ankle and explained to him my situation with insurance. My insurance would only pay for 1 visit. The doctor wanted to see me two or three times about my ankle. I made arrangements to pay him for these visits with installments, which I did pay.

I've done the something with my dentist. I have never had dental insurance from my jobs. As a result, when I had a big bill, then I just paid it off with installments.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Mon, 07-26-2004 - 11:37am
How sad.

Additional information I had found for those who believe it's 'socialized medecine'...

- There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike the managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurer’s panel to obtain medical benefits. In Canada, I can see any doctor I wish! There are however some constraints when looking for a regular family doctor, but that's only because some doctors (especially older ones) just don't take any new patients because they're fully booked.

- There would be no management of care under a single payer, universal health care system unlike the managed care system which mandates insurer preapproval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer

- Although health care providers fees would be set as they are currently in 90% of cases, providers would have a means of negotiating fees unlike the current managed care system in which they are set in corporate board rooms with profits, not patient care, in mind

-Taxes, fees and benefits would be decided by elected officials, thus being democratic.

Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care system would be much more democratic and much less intrusive than the current system. Consumers and providers would have a voice in determining benefits, rates and taxes.

BTW. The US (and South Africa I think) are the only western, developed countries without national health care. Imagine how even MORE competitive the US could be if it's citizens were healthier and didn't have to worry about medical coverage!

Pages