Posts like this make me glad to be Canadian.
What's it like to wait 6 months for surgery and share a room with 3 other patients? When I was there the hospitals felt 3rd world (Montreal)
Healthcare - Spiraling out of control
- Thread starter mikecarquote
- Start date
What's it like to wait 6 months for surgery and share a room with 3 other patients? When I was there the hospitals felt 3rd world (Montreal)
I wouldn't know. I visited my family Dr. because I had a lump in my arm pit. My family Dr. told me that he was fairly certain that it was a cyst, but just to be on the safe side he wanted to have it removed and examined. Within 2 weeks I was in the hospital for day surgery and my family Dr. had the lab results indicating that it was indeed just a cyst and nothing else.
My wife and I's 1st child was delivered by a mid-wife, which is also covered by the Province in Ontario in the comfort of our own home, with the mid-wife returning every day for 1 week to check up on my wife and child and perform every test that the hospital would have performed.
My brother has Crohn's and has had lengthy stays in the hospital, and never with more that 1 other person sharing the room.
Sorry, let me re-phrase.
We did not have to directly pay 'out of pocket' for it because our Provincial Health Care plan, that we as citizens pay in to, covered it for us.
Question: add up the fees stemming from physical examinations, lab work, imaging studies, hospital stay, surgery and various procedures, and any other type of therapy you and your wife have received.
Now, is the amount of money you have paid into your provincial health plan the same? If it is lower, indicating others have paid a portion of the cost, do you have a logical justification for allowing this? If the amount you have paid into the plan is higher - that is, you are paying for others - how is that a better use of your capital than that which you would otherwise choose?
I'm not necessarily calling you out trickykid. The majority of people I meet give little thought to this, and offer half-assed responses, such as "good societies take care of the least among them."
A personal on the average wage of £22,500 would pay £700 a year for the NHS. A bargain I would say for the great quality you get and the fact that my family would probably have racked up £10,000's of healthcare bills otherwise.
I know you're not calling me out, and please understand that my 'I'm glad I live in Canada' jab was just that, a friendly jab. I don't think I can really give you an in depth and statistically accurate analysis because I don't have the Hard numbers, nor do I care to look them up.
I was in Gettysburg, PA visiting family about a week ago and we all got in to some healthy discussions about this. I'm not sure how else to respond, other than the response you don't want to read, which is 'Good Societies take care of the least among them'. My wife and I both make above average wages so we definately fall in to the 'Paying for others' spectrum, however as children with immigrant parents, our parents came to Canada and basically worked dead end jobs to make ends meet so they (and us) would have fallen in the 'others paid a portion of the cost' spectrum.
So as a 34 year old, I have spent the 1st half of my life in one spectrum and the 2nd in the other. Assuming I stay gainfully employed through my middle ages, that would actually work out to be 2/3's in the 'paying for others' and 1/3 in the 'others paid a portion'. And I am perfectly ok with this because if it weren't for the assistance in the beginning, we may have not made it to where we are today.
Not paying out of pocket for expenses such as child birth, casts for broken limbs, MRI's, or (knock on wood) any life altering illnesses or conditions is a tremendous burden that I do not have to worry about. I know it isn't "free" but it's a small percentage of what my tax dollars go towards and I don't really even notice the deduction from my wages, considering my tax dollars also go towards other things that keep my municipality, province, and country operating.
On a side, note. That same relative living in Gettysburg,PA pays approx. $15,000 in property tax annually vs. my $2000 annually living in a bustling metropolis like Toronto.
So basically, your family gets healthcare paid for by others.
Welfare is a real bargain for the recipients. Not so much for the providers.
Thank you for this. I am a US citizen but have traveled many times to Canada and love it. Your explanation really gets the point across. NO matter how you see it, it is about caring about your country, citizens and understanding that you help others today so that you can be helped later when you need it.
Wh here is really ok with "donating" your hard earned dollars to fund wars you had no saying in in order to line the pockets of politicians and corporations? or to bailout private banks from the disaster they created themselves? Socialize losses, privatize profits.
Id rather my taxes go to a health system like the Canadian system than to all these other "patriotic" reasons.
On property taxes: well, you said it best and gave an example.
and what about overseas taxation?? the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that taxes its overseas citizens, subjecting them to taxation in both their country of citizenship and country of residence.
People, US Citizens=slaves for the government/corporations
i can't see it any other way.
Wh here is really ok with "donating" your hard earned dollars to fund wars you had no saying in in order to line the pockets of politicians and corporations? or to bailout private banks from the disaster they created themselves? Socialize losses, privatize profits.
Id rather my taxes go to a health system like the Canadian system than to all these other "patriotic" reasons.
On property taxes: well, you said it best and gave an example.
and what about overseas taxation?? the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that taxes its overseas citizens, subjecting them to taxation in both their country of citizenship and country of residence.
People, US Citizens=slaves for the government/corporations
i can't see it any other way.
That's kind of the whole philosophical argument though, isn't it? You could easily make the argument that it's very beneficial to the providers as well. For example, if given a choice, where would you rather hire employees? Sweden or Uganda?
Someone could easily make the argument that socialized medicine, strong government run police force, and the whole bit, provide for a healthy, strong population, which results in a very fertile environment to start and expand a business. Who wants employees that are constantly stressed out and burdened down because they can't afford to take their sick kid to the doctor? They're not going to be very productive.
All I gotta say is that, thanks to Obama, I get "free" healthcare through my dad's policy until i'm 26, even though I can afford a policy of my own right now. That's bound to drive policy costs up.
Still missing the point.
You're paying 700 pounds a year, but if the service is worth tens of thousands of pounds, someone, somewhere is still paying for it.
So while it's a bargain for you, it's an unnecessary expense for someone else. How is that in any way better than one paying for their own healthcare?
That wasn't me arguing for it above. To put it simply, a problem shared is a problem halved. It's much easier for lots of people to put a little bit of money in that a few people putting lots of money in. Even if we spend thousands this year we may spend very little the next. We also save a huge amount of costs on medicine etc because most of the overheads have been cut by extreme amounts. If I go to a pharmacy here I can pick something up that would cost far, far more in the US. The NHS can afford to buy in bulk and is not attempting to make a profit off it therefore making it cheaper.
There are also very different philosophical views between the US and Europe. The US seems to believe the line of thought that every man should keep whatever money he has earned because it is his. Europe tends to believe that every human should have some basic rights such as equal opportunities (A somewhat shared philosophy in the US but more successful over here) and also that a human has a right to a healthy life. Currency was invented as an easier way of trading, in our minds it makes little sense to put a virtual concept ahead of fragile life.
This is why American's see Europeans as stupid because of high taxes and less freedom in charity whereas European's see American's as inhumane and outright horrific. It will be a long time for either side to agree with the other.
If it is beneficial to the provider, then the market can provide such exchanges. No need for government force to generate tax revenue.
Also, it is not exclusively philosophical. It's a matter of physical reality. Someone is paying for the service, and because we have some knowledge of incentives, if the person consuming isn't the person paying, we end up with fraud, waste and abuse.
That's a silly line of discussion. I am free riding on someone else if I leverage healthcare costs paid for with welfare. I am compounding the issue without solving the problem.
Next, I only care about productivity when it comes to employees. If the Ugandans are more productive, great. If not, they are SOL.
If that was true, then the market could duplicate the system. The point of the state is to take with force, not by permission.
You're making my argument. Businesses will provide for worker comfort to increase productivity because it is profitable. We don't need socialized medicine to get the incentives right.
How does making one person's problem the problem of two people, somehow halve the problem? The problem is the same size, you're simply creating a trick by hiding half of the issue.
That's because the US patent system is designed to maintain monopoly profits for Big Pharma. It has nothing to do with the efficiency of the NHS.
Is it not his? When you work, did you earn the money or not?
You have a right to a healthy life, but you don't have a right to force me to make you healthy. That would compromise my quality of life.
The problem with nonsense socialism like you just explained, is that it creates a conflict between your right to health and my right to freedom. Real rights don't create conflicts, they define boundaries so that conflicts are less likely to happen.
It has nothing to do with Americans or Europeans. It has to do with morality and rational thinking. There are many criminals and idiots on both sides of the pond, and likewise a minority who understand the fundamental irrationality of a family getting welfare and thinking they are getting a "good deal".
Governments buy consent from the dull and ignorant by giving them "free" stuff stolen from the productive members of society. Your good deal means someone else made sacrifices for you.
health care spending, per capita in 2007 :
USA = $7,300 total, $3,200 paid by the government
Canada = $3,900 total, $2,800 paid by the government
I always laugh at the "we don't want to be socialist like them other countries" comments in regards to this issue, because as far as collecting money by forced taxation for health care, the USA is already the number one offender in the world.
I don't see any evidence of that Guerilla - in theory you are right, but it's just not happening and has been declining for some time. Employers don't care about employees in many industries period any longer.
No matter where you are on the political divide Health "CARE" in the U.S. is broken.
It's the one thing I COULD have gotten behind Obama on and the closest I come to a socialist in any aspect. For those of us who are considered "wealthy" health care is a burden - but for anyone who is just scraping by it's insane.
I pay out of pocket for the first 25k and have an account I pay into every month so I know we are covered in the event of an emergency. The alternative is to pay for a GOOD policy at 15kish a year for my family. We don't use that much - so it's silly for us. In the event that a big problem happens (like last year) we've got protection.
I can afford that - most people can't. And more and more employers aren't providing insurance.
I'd NOT complain if a portion of my taxes went to provide healthcare to working people. I do complain because we spent our monies giving to hundreds of other countries around the world while we've got people hurting here. Health Care could be subsidized for the amount we spend on just a few military and foreign aid programs for example.
I am just talking out my ass - but this whole health care thing has been turned into a cluster fuck down political lines because it's a BAD plan written by insurance companies probably.
Right now it costs about 15k per family to insure with good coverage. By good coverage I still mean you have restrictions, and ultimately the insurance company is in control whether or not you get a procedure. Hell the Delaware Insurance Commissioner just sued BC/BS for not approving tests that were saving lives -- and several people died. So the argument about death panels and getting crap approved through a national policy is just what we put up with now.
So if the government "taxed" you at 5k (it would probably be MUCH less based on the rates other countries spend) per year for basic coverage and allowed you to purchase premium 'care" insurance on top of that you would have a problem with it?
All it would take is a opt out (you don't get taxed, and you don't get coverage) to make it constitutional and remove most of the argument that anyone can come up with.
Employers are going to keep reducing pay (not keeping up with inflation) and reducing benefits. Hoping they do the right thing is like licking a piece of barbwire and hoping it doesn't hurt this time
