Canadian, British and American healthcare

[billc]

I found this interesting discussio with Glen Beck, John Stossle and Penn Jillette on the problems with both American and Canadian healthcare. Jillette brings up the point that if people could by a catastrophic insurance plan, for serious medical problems, it would help our system deal with costs.

 

[Ken Morgan]

One I posted eleswhere, but then i'm done on this topic.

My nine year old nephew has had and continues to have more surgeries then any child should ever go through, there would be no possible way my sister, and our extended family could have ever paid for all of them.

A couple of years ago my sister was visiting my Aunt and Uncle in Scotland, my Nephew, the same boy, had to be rushed to their emergency department because of a medical issue. Not even a citizen of the UK, the Dr’s treated him, and sent him on his way, no cost, no mess, no fuss, no money, no insurance. No problem.

A few years ago both my Mom and Dad had serious health issues, my Mom had cancer, my Dad had heart problems. All happened in the same week. Quicker then you can snap your fingers, my Dad was in the best hospital, with the best Dr having a triple bypass, and my Mom was in the best hospital with the best cancer specialist have surgery and subsequent radiation and drug treatments. Minimal waiting, no ********, get in and get it done.

Our system isn’t perfect by any means, but when I talk to my American friends, (half of my friends on FB are American), I hear serious horror stories when it comes to medical treatment.

What Obama is doing, with you folks being forced to buy health insurance from private companies is wrong, there are much better ways to run national health care.

BTW, did I ever tell you that I’m a Conservative party member? Card carrying? Active in the community? And there is zero chance I or my party will ever get rid of Canada’s socialized medical care.

 

[billc]

Ken, I agree with you, there are ways to fix the American healthcare system so that all of our citizens can get the medicine they need. Obama care is not it. If we let Obama care kick in, it will be impossible to get rid of. Mark Steyn always points out that in Britain, their system was set up from scratch. He points out Our new system is already full of waivers, for McDonald's and 3M and other companies, plus the Pharmaseutical companies have their hand in it and the AARp is in there, it is starting out full of corruption and it will only get worse.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Constitutionally, the US Federal government has no business getting involved in health care. Amend the USC, and create a real program for ALL Americans that is affordable, efficient and effective, and I'm fine with it. Personally, I like the idea of being able to get my ills taken care of with the ease and headacheless Ken described. But it's currently not legal the way the current system is done.

 

[CanuckMA]

You might be able to do it without an amendment to the Constitution. Even the Canadian system is not truly centralized. It is administared by the provinces. The federal govt sets minimal guidelines and ensures compliance by transfering of funds for healthcare, but most is paid out of the Provincial income taxes.

The feds involvement is not all that different from Washington telling the States that they can set the drinking age to whatever they want, but they won't get highway money if it's less that 21.

What you need is to get rid of the insurance companies' involvement.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

What the US Constitution allows is set forth in Article 1, Section 8.
Health care, retirement care, medical care, etc aren't listed.
The argument for the US Gov doing it is through a combination of 'implied power' and the definition of "general welfare", a vague and problematic clause, which is why the CSA removed it from their almost verbatim copy of the USC.

Leaving the Constitutional argument aside here though.

Assuming you can figure out a legal means of financing it, a composite system of providing all American's with basic care and emergency care along with allowing for 'luxury care' options seems to work best. Arni and I banged out a solid idea for this in previous ah, arguments, on the topic. Costs can be controlled by scale of economics, medical staff can be trained and kept through a system similar to existing military compensation. (ie the serve 2 years in the Army, get 2 years college idea). Basic care and needs would be provided through a sliding scale based on income (ie poor person pays little to none, Bill Gates pays full price) that can be tied to IRS/SSI records (system currently used for other programs).
So things like an annual eye exam and glasses would be covered. You'd pay for contacts and LASIK yourself. Dental care, exams and fillings would be included, but gold and ruby crowns not. Tattoo removal and boob jobs wouldn't be covered, but that gall bladder operation would be. And so on.

Funding this, is 1 of 2 of the major problems. 1st is the Constitutionality. 2nd also falls under #1, but if 1 can be solved, 2 would fall into place. Funding would I expect come from a combination of payroll deductions, sales tax, and taxes on products like tobacco, combined with the usual maze of user fees. This however would seem to run afoul of USC Article 1-Section 9 absent resolving the initial Constitutional challenge.

 

[Tez3]

Boob jobs are included in the NHS if they are reductions, some women have a lot of pain with large breasts so really need to have them reduced.

And I'm not expecting rude remarks here guys, so keep thoughts to yourself

Our dental stuff isn't free though it's at reduced costs. What's a ruby crown? Heard of gold but not ruby.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

What's a ruby crown?

Me being a smart ***. Reference to the folks that go designer on their teeth, gold grills, glue on jems, etc.

 

[Tez3]

Me being a smart ***. Reference to the folks that go designer on their teeth, gold grills, glue on jems, etc.

Ah! No reflection on the NHS but my crown still stuck in with superglue, no point in having it fixed until I give up martial arts lol! I pay for my own contact lenses too, I get through a lot because they get squeezed out when grappling, bit like my tooth really. I might have a gold crown put in when I'm very old, it might help attract the young men I intend to chase.

 

[ballen0351]

My issue with Govt Heathcare system is simply a matter of rights vs responsibility.

What responsibilitys do you have when you earn the "right" to health care?

I pay for my health insurance approx $5000 a year. So in order to keep my costs down My family and I have the responsibility to try and be as healty as we can. So we Eat well, stay active, dont smoke, dont do drugs, we drink very little. All this helps keep us healthy and out of the Docs office which helps keep my insurance cost down. I have a stake it the process or as Biden likes to say I have "skin in the game"

Now take these so call "poor" people that thru my taxes Im responsible for paying for their health care. What Responsibility do they have?

All these "poor" people that cant afford health care so they recieve Medicade from the Govt. So you would think since they get free health care they would try to keep my costs down to be less of a burden on me right? Since I dont make alot I'd much rather use my money to pay for my kids schooling or food or even a nice night out with my wife.
If we are just going to be giving programs away then person that gets them needs to have a responsibility.

 

[CanuckMA]

Most of those poor people don't have access to preventative health care. They make use of emergency rooms at a much greater cost.

It's funny, I have 'free' healthcare, but I still take care of myslef.

 

[ballen0351]

Most of those poor people don't have access to preventative health care. They make use of emergency rooms at a much greater cost.

It's funny, I have 'free' healthcare, but I still take care of myslef.

Actually most of the "poor" people have medicade so they already have govt health care thats the point.

Im glad you take care of yourself keep it up. Help keep your health care cost down. Id just like to see the same here before Id even consider being ok with allowing my taxes to go even higher.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Ahhhhh….I don’t want to be on this thread!!!

Working with the logic you suggest, (and I do understand the path you’ve chosen), then the USA should have some of the healthiest people in the world, certainly in comparison to countries with socialized medicine.

The USA has the highest obesity rate in the world, double that of Canada, and 30% greater then the UK. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

The USA has a higher rate of smoking then some countries with socialized medicine, but not others.

There are of course stats all over the board on various health related subjects that we can bat back and forth, but I think the main argument is, that there is no reasonable correlation to defend one side or the other.

People are going to eat, drink, sloth and whatever other activities they wish, because until we’re in our thirties, we are all of the understanding that we are going to live forever.

Again, to beat a dead horse…. Socialized medicine is not the enemy, the half-assed way your government created the monstrosity it has become, and is in turn shoving it down your gullet, is.

 

[billc]

Ken, be honest, Canadian healthcare isn't that great either. If it was, all of your rich and famous and politicians wouldn't be coming down here to get advanced medicine.

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/a-health-care-horror-story-from-canada/

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-06/...health-care-system-mayo-clinic?_s=PM:POLITICS

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

Mark Steyn wrote this column about why obamacare will be worse than canadian healthcare:http://lonelyconservative.com/2009/...re-will-be-even-worse-than-europe-and-canada/

 

[billc]

I thought that this Mark Steyn youtube piece deserved a little attention. This is from a time when he filled in for Rush and gave a little talk about health care.

 

[ballen0351]

Ahhhhh….I don’t want to be on this thread!!!

Working with the logic you suggest, (and I do understand the path you’ve chosen), then the USA should have some of the healthiest people in the world, certainly in comparison to countries with socialized medicine.

The USA has the highest obesity rate in the world, double that of Canada, and 30% greater then the UK. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

The USA has a higher rate of smoking then some countries with socialized medicine, but not others.

There are of course stats all over the board on various health related subjects that we can bat back and forth, but I think the main argument is, that there is no reasonable correlation to defend one side or the other.

People are going to eat, drink, sloth and whatever other activities they wish, because until we’re in our thirties, we are all of the understanding that we are going to live forever.

Again, to beat a dead horse…. Socialized medicine is not the enemy, the half-assed way your government created the monstrosity it has become, and is in turn shoving it down your gullet, is.

If you dont want to be here then dont come its pretty simple actually just dont click the link to this thread.

Your making my point for me. Nobody here takes responsibility for their actions there all fat unhealthy, smokers ect so why on earth do I want to help pay for them? If im responsible enough to take care of myself and my family then I should be left alone. if your not then suffer the results. The left always talks about evolution well part of that is survival of the fittest. If your not smart enought to put down the Candy bar and marlboros then why should I have to pay for your diabetes meds and your lung cancer treatments.

Its like the story of the 3 little pigs. The two lazy pigs dont have to do anything but party and have fun with the 3 pig busts his butt to provide form himself and when the crap hits the fan the first 2 go mooch of the 3rd.

I have no problems with socilaized medicine if thats what your country wants and your happy with it then keep it. In my country first its UnConstitutional and 2nd I get tired of all you guys with govt health care systems tell us how great it is and how ours is broken. If yours is so great then how come anyone with money from Canada runs down here to Johns Hopkins, UCLA medical center, or any other of the top hospitals in the US.

 

[billc]

And more NHS horror stories:http://angusdeionallandsundry.weebly.com/nhs-the-other-side.html

This is one of my favorite stories about bad medical treatment. This is the broken ankle story I spoke about in another post.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ilders-broken-ankle-unless-quits-smoking.html

 

[Bob Hubbard]

There is no such thing as "Free" health care. Someone, somehow, pays for it.

Pulling from Wikipedia here. Bold notations are mine.

Health care in Canada is delivered through a publicly-funded health care system, which is mostly free at the point of use and has most services provided by private entities.[1] It is guided by the provisions of the Canada Health Act.[2] The government assures the quality of care through federal standards. The government does not participate in day-to-day care or collect any information about an individual's health, which remains confidential between a person and his or her physician. Canada's provincially-based Medicare systems are cost-effective partly because of their administrative simplicity.[citation needed] In each province each doctor handles the insurance claim against the provincial insurer. There is no need for the person who accesses health care to be involved in billing and reclaim. Private insurance is only a minimal part of the overall health care system. Competitive practices such as advertising are kept to a minimum, thus maximizing the percentage of revenues that go directly towards care.[citation needed] In general, costs are paid through funding from income taxes, although three provinces also impose a fixed monthly premium which may be waived or reduced for those on low incomes. There are no deductibles on basic health care and co-pays are extremely low or non-existent (supplemental insurance such as Fair Pharmacare may have deductibles, depending on income).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

Canadian's like the system. Walk in, show your card, get treatment and leave. It's simple. It's effective, it works, but it's not perfect. Some treatments have long waits, and some non-covered ones are about as expensive as the US. I know at least 2 Canadians who went abroad for dental work rather than have it done at home due to the costs. The article listed goes into great detail on the hows, whats, %'s and so on that make up the meat of the CHS. I recommend reading it before criticizing the Canadian system.

Also read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Health_Act

The Canada Health Act (CHA) [2] is a piece of Canadian federal legislation, adopted in 1984, which specifies the conditions and criteria with which the provincial and territorial health insurance programs must conform in order to receive federal transfer payments under the Canada Health Transfer [3]. These criteria require universal coverage (for all "insured persons") for all "medically necessary" hospital and physician services, without co-payments.

The CHA deals only with how the system is financed. Because of the constitutional division of powers among levels of government, adherence to CHA conditions is voluntary. However, the fiscal levers have helped to ensure a relatively consistent level of coverage across the country. Although there are disputes as to the details, the CHA remains highly popular.

The current Canadian system is relatively new, at 27 years old. Canadian's had the Constitutional arguments about if their federal government could/should get involved almost 3 decades ago. The consensus basically was, yes it could with limits. However, their system basically runs off revenues and GIVES every Canadian insurance.

The US version by comparison fines US Citizens if they don't BUY insurance from a private party or otherwise obtain it (ie employers, of government offerings if available and qualified for).

The Canadian system is however not a true National plan, as due to their own Constitutional limitations, the plan is run at the Provincial level, requiring Federal guidelines be met for reimbursement. (simplified for brevity).
The passed US system by comparison violates various clauses of the US Constitution as well as numerous State Constitutions, the later arguments not fully brought up in court.


The Canadian system works, because care and attention was paid to create a voluntary system that was left to the Provinces to implement. Some variation between each exists, however most Canadians as previous stated support the system due in part to it's simplicity on their part in using.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The British system has some key differences, however on the surface works similar to the Canadian one.

Again, pulled from Wiki, Bolding mine.

The National Health Service or NHS is the publicly-funded healthcare system in England. The term is also commonly used to refer to any other or all the national health services in the UK but there has never been only one system since they were created in 1948; only the English system is named without national qualification.

The NHS provides healthcare to anyone normally resident in England or any other part of the United Kingdom with most services free at the point of use for the patient though there are charges associated with eye tests, dental care, prescriptions, and many aspects of personal care. The NHS has agreed a formal constitution which sets out the legal rights and responsibilities of the NHS, its staff, and users of the service and makes additional non-binding pledges regarding many key aspects of its operations.[1]

The NHS provides the majority of healthcare in England, including primary care, in-patient care, long-term healthcare, ophthalmology and dentistry. The National Health Service Act 1946 came into effect on 5 July 1948. Private health care has continued parallel to the NHS, paid for largely by private insurance: it is used by about 8% of the population, generally as an add-on to NHS services. In the first decade of the 21st century the private sector started to be increasingly used by the NHS to increase capacity. According to the BMA a large proportion of the public opposed this move.[2]

The NHS is largely funded from general taxation (including a proportion from National Insurance payments).[3] The UK government department responsible for the NHS is the Department of Health, headed by the Secretary of State for Health. Most of the expenditure of The Department of Health (£98.7 billion in 2008-9[4]) is spent on the NHS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(England)

A recent comparative analysis of health care systems put the NHS second in a study of seven rich countries.[96] [97] The report put the UK health systems above those of Germany, Canada and the US; the NHS was deemed the most efficient among those health systems studied.

The NHS doesn't have ID check requirements, allowing non-UK residents to sneak in and get free treatment. There are some dental and optical plans available, and prescription coverage is included with nominal copays in most cases. Overall support by the British public rates over 80%.

Funding

The money to pay for the NHS comes directly from taxation. The 2008/9 budget roughly equates to a contribution of £1,980 for every man, woman and child in the UK.[16]

For comparison to the US system, see the previous post on the US/Canada comparison.

 

[billc]

An article from another post on NHS being short on Maternity beds.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/278301

From the Daily Mail original article about 4,000 women giving birth outside of hospitals because of a lack of beds.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ers-birth-lifts-offices-hospital-toilets.html

Pregnant Linda Corbett, 33, was turned away from one hospital and gave birth in a car as she dashed to another.
Her husband Chris, 39, delivered their daughter Iona in the back seat while her father raced to the hospital at 70mph.
'I was really scared but I had to hold

Ann Coulter has a series on Health care at her site, here is one of them:http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=327

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-offices-hospital-toilets.html#ixzz19qoTCTdF