Hello everyone,

Interesting thread. I'm an American who's lived, for extended periods, in various parts of Canada and the U.S. over the past 30 years, so I've personally experienced both sides. (I've learned firsthand how much HMOs can suck!) Anyway, I'll post a link to the best article I've found explaining the Canadian system vs. the U.S. Hope it's helpful.

(My two cents)
~Portwest

Here is a link that might be useful: Mythbusting Canadian Health Care

The tort system represents about 5% of healthcare costs. A recent study from the New England Journal of Medicine attributed 13%-16% of those costs to cases that were not founded. The survey found that one in six people injured by malpractice were wrongly denied compensation. The study further noted that most people injured by malpractice do not even bring a claim. So eliminating error from the present system (properly compensating those wrongly denied compensation, while denying recovery to those whose cases prove to be unsubstantiated) would raise the cost of the current system. Providing compensation to all malpractice victims would raise it significantly.

Moreover, you can't point to a single state - not even Texas where "tort reform" has reduced malpractice litigation to near zero - where that has translated into cost reductions. The most favorable thing you can infer from the "tort reform will cure healthcare costs" crowd is that they're misinformed. An awful lot of the most prominent voices are either health and insurance industry lobbyists, or are with organizations heavily funded by those industries - don't confuse them with disinterested observers.

If you really think that medical malpractice is at the core of the healthcare industry's problems, the most obvious solution is to go with a single payer, universal healthcare system. That way most of the future economic losses that are presently borne by the victim would instead be borne by the state, and not included in malpractice verdicts. Why, do you suppose, none of the lobbyists qua "tort reform advocates" acknowledge that fact - the factor that most differentiates our malpractice tort recoveries from those in other common law nations? Could it be... because it would put their paymasters out of business?

Incidentally, due to issues of distribution of care, although it's by far the most expensive system in the world we don't have "the best health system in the world". As of the last time the World Health Organization completed a ranking, as measured by outcome we rank 37th, placing us right between Costa Rica and Slovenia. Canada's #30 was not much better but it spends a lot less per person; the U.K. was at #18. France ranked #1, and Italy ranked #2. How about that.... (See 'Worlds Best Medical Care?', New York Times, August 12, 2007).

Consider also the comments of former Cigna PR executive, Wendell Potter, on Bill Moyers: Visiting Tennessee, where volunteer doctors organized an event to provide free medical care, "But what I saw were doctors who were set up to provide care in animal stalls. Or they'd erected tents, to care for people. I mean, there was no privacy. In some cases-- and I've got some pictures of people being treated on gurneys, on rain-soaked pavement." That doctors can provide quality care under such circumstances is a testament to their dedication and skill, but it's a scathing indictment of the notion that the current U.S. system is "the best in the world".

This excerpt from your link makes ME believe we NEED tort reform more than ever -- (perhaps the proper reforms in the INSURANCE industry as well !!)

"Payment of claims not involving errors occurred less frequently than did the converse form of inaccuracy nonpayment of claims associated with errors. When claims not involving errors were compensated, payments were significantly lower on average than were payments for claims involving errors ($313,205 vs. $521,560, P=0.004). Overall, claims not involving errors accounted for 13 to 16 percent of the system's total monetary costs. For every dollar spent on compensation, 54 cents went to administrative expenses (including those involving lawyers, experts, and courts). Claims involving errors accounted for 78 percent of total administrative costs.

Conclusions Claims that lack evidence of error are not uncommon, but most are denied compensation. The vast majority of expenditures go toward litigation over errors and payment of them. The overhead costs of malpractice litigation are exorbitant."

"It is impossible to buy junk food with food stamps. One spends his/her own cash to buy junk food, using the food stamps for authorized food."

Absolutely not true.

It may vary from state to state, different areas may have different overseers for the program. But in our state, food stamps may be used for any food "suitable for human consumption." That includes candy, soda, and lobsters. They may not buy hot, prepared food, (cooked chicken from the deli, cooked lobster, hot sandwiches from the sandwich shop).

You are likely thinking of WIC, which does provide vouchers for specific basic items: milk, formula, cereal, eggs, cheese and peanut butter.

As I read the entries, I am amazed by the amount of misinformation/disinformation and outright shortsightedness of some people. Even in the face of someone from Canada (e.g., Oilpainter) dispelling the Canadian health care boogeyman hip-replacement myth (how many times have I heard that before), some people are still stuck to their false beliefs.

1: Health care in the U.S. is a for-profit system. The insurance industry & big pharma are here to make $$$. They quite frankly don't give a d*mn about your health. If you are still clueless about this, watch 'Sicko' or read/watch Bill Moyer interviewing former health insurance executive Wendell Potter: Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients

2: If you are afraid of the boogeyman (socialized medicine), you should also be afraid of the police, military, firefighters, teachers, post office, postage stamps, street lights, roads, the sidewalk, parks, public transportation, marriage license, birth certificate, etc.

3: Single payer universal health care is the only option for our health care 'system.' For more information about single payer universal health care, check out this excellent site: Single Payer FAQ

4: The 'Obama Plan' is NOT single payer, socialized medicine, or anything that would solve the U.S. health care problem. It is, in short, a give-away to the insurance industry & big pharma.

5: The massive health bill in the House (H.R. 3200) is presently nothing more than a continuation of the same thing ~ corporate health care that makes $$$ out of people's poor health/misery while giving the facade that big pharma will come out with the next magic pill to cure everything. The Weiner Amendment would replace this hideous bill with single payer universal health care (H.R. 676). It already made a HUGE hurdle by getting through the House Energy & Commerce committee and some time in September, it will be debated on the House floor and brought to a vote.

6: If you care about having access to health care, go to Health Justice to find out ways you can get involved. If you are happy with the way things are, just do nothing and corporate health & big pharma will take care of you.

I'm an American but have lots of family in Canada. My Mother here in the US and my Aunt in Canada both needed hip replacement surgery. My Mother got in in 10 weeks and owes a ton of money in bills not covered by Medicare. My Aunt got in in 9 weeks and owes nothing.

All health care should be non-profit and I mean real non-profit. There should NEVER be insurance executives like UNITED HEALTHCARE's that make millions and millions of dollars when anyone is not covered for care. We pay NOW for all the uninsured. That's partially why health care costs are so high. The costs are shifted so we already pay for the people who show up in the ER for Strep Throat because they have no regular doctor.

The US does not have the best healthcare in the world. Not even close. There are options. TJ Reid a journalist went to 10 countries and looked at their different systems. None are perfect but most are better than ours.
My brother has MS. He bought a cheap high deductable individual plan - well guess what - he can not get coverage from any other insurance with this preexisting condition and he is paying more than $12,000 per year for medications. It is destroying his family. This could happen to anyone - as could a job loss. It is an illusion that if you have insurance you are safe - it could be gone tomorrow if your job was.

Healthcare has become a Medical Arms Race. All the hospitals competing only drives UP costs in healthcare. It makes every system/hospital have to have the latest and greatest to compete but that technology is incredibly expensive.

We have given this country away to the huge business interests and made ourselves so dependent upon that model that we can't let them fail. There are huge companies that don't pay their employees enough or keep the hours just below benefit levels so those employees go and get the state plans for low income or go without. WE ARE SUBSIDIZING billion dollar corporations this way as well. Also nuts! We need to collaborate, we need to get rid of FOR PROFIT health care, we need to cover everyone for care. We need to do what we can to help our own health but also realize that we do not have total control of illness happening to us. We can have a combination of government coverage and private insurance - other places do it.

I've got family on both sides of the border. One of them deliberately up and sold everything in the US after having a member of her family get leukemia. They moved to Canada. They were well insured in the US but just couldn't stand it. The system.

What happens when there is blatant malpractice? Can a doctor or nurse be sued under Obama's plan? Would it even be legal to sue a government employed medical provider? I understand that there are many frivolous lawsuits, but sometimes they are appropriate and absolutely 100% necessary. Who will oversee the quality of our health care providers?

I worked as an RN at a veterans hospital. The paper work was horrible and I was appalled at the general care that was available to the patients. Then, I went to work at a private hospital and was shocked by the difference. The care at the private hospital was far superior to the government run hospital. It made me sick to know that our veterans were getting such second-rate care.

Medicare for all Americans or Medicare for no one.

In the 70's we knew a family that came from New Zealand. Don't know about what their health care is like now, but back then one of their kids needed a tonsilectomy. The poor child had to wait 2 years with sore throats and illness but yes the operation was finally done. Is that what we're facing?

pekemom--you are clutchimg at straws. It didn't matter what kind of health care you had then. That kid waiting for a tonsilectomy had nothing to do with health care and everything to do with doctors. They had just discovered that the tonsils served a purpose.My sisters and I all had them out at the same time. Only 1 sister had a problem but the doctor suggested we all get one so we did.

That was the exact time my son was little and needed a tonsilectomy. The doctor wouldn't do the operation until it got so bad it affected his hearing. With-in a few weeks he was in the hospital. It was the doctor not health care.

I remember when health care cime to Canada. We were fearful too. But you know for all intents and purposes we only switched health insurance companies from for profit to the government nonprofit. Good health care that doesn't leave you in the poor house

You're right oilpainter, I did not know the whole story, only the way they told it to me, they said there was a long waiting list. Never was in New Zealand so I can't say how things really were.

ilene in neok, your example of costs out of control is SPOT ON. I always wonder where all the money is going for basic office visits. $60/5 minutes equals $720/hour. The office I occasionally go to is always full of patients, most on some sort of group health plan. It would be better to scrap all health insurance for anything below $1K-$5K (or whatever reasonable amount based on income) spent by the average patient and then we would see prices come down for basic services. Guess what, people might start shopping prices for health care when they have to come up with the full amount and not just a copay.

Emergency and heart surgery will always be pricey, but that is what insurance is for (rare events that strike the average person). It is a necessary expense for most people who try to balance the risks in life.

Many people confuse health insurance with health care. Insurance is not health care, it is just administration and overhead and profit margins that gets between the provider and patient.

A single payer system, public or private, that keeps overhead expenses extremely low would free up so much more money for actual health care. One pool of insured, versus the thousands we have today, would be much more efficient at spreading risk. Those who are 45-64 years old with a chronic, but manageable, health condition would not face huge premiums under a single payer system. This would be a great encouragement for people of all ages to become business owners or entrepreneurs (if they so desired) and not have to rely on the group health plan that a large employer provides. Considering that most large employers have been the first to embrace outsourcing to third world nations, isn't it about time we tried to promote small business is this country?

I have been on private health insurance, groups plans and uninsured at various points in my life. I find the group plans to be much better for the consumer, albeit not sustainable in the long-term in their present form. Medicare, even with its low overhead, may not be sustainable given that our country has a huge national debt and no piggy bank to fall back on. I guess we could auction off our federal properties if we had to (heresy, I know).

A reasonable comprise concerning cost control and health rationing would be to have independent panels make the decisions and not those who are elected. I'm sure this has already been done in many other countries that have some form of single payer system.

Those employed in the health insurance industry could be retrained in other health care areas where there will be plenty of new jobs based on our aging population.

It's hard to tell who is telling the truth because the bill is massive, or bills, as there seems to be three of them? None of the politicians involved seem to be willing to answer anyone's questions, just spew out insults.

Anyone see Barney Frank's townhall meeting? If American citizens re-elect these people next time around they only have themselves to blame.

I agree with kathgrdn. Barni Franke is acidic to say the least. I can't believe the arrogance of our current President, Nancy Pelosi, and Robert Gibbs. None of them answer any question that is asked! They are all down right rude! They all need to be voted out!

Has anyone figured out how this President plans on paying for this health care plan that is being shoved down our throats? It is written in this bill that the government has the right to dip into our bank accounts without our permission! They are going to take money out of our accounts to pay for this attrocity!

Yes, I agree we do need a better health care system.But the one being proposed is not what we need! One of the reasons this country is so strapped right now is because we are footing the bill for millions of illegal aliens. This has to stop! American citizens can only afford so much, and right now, too many of us are hurting and suffering and will not be able to pay for this current Presidents agendas!

FYI: Politicians have their own health care insurance, which the voting public is not included . When this President and his family sign on for the same health care he is prosposing for us, then I might consider going along with it, but then and only then!

Our children, grandchildren, and great grand children are going to be paying for these debts. Outrageous to say the least!

Oh, my. I saw the entire B. Frank clip and though his response was gentlemanly. She was a kook telling lies, for pete's sake, and intended to provoke him! Please tell us you don't support that kind of tactic.

Serious debate is welcome on both sides, but please, no vitriol or lies. None of us here really know the facts and figures, so all we have is our gut feelings, and that won't reform health care! Who here thinks it DOESN'T need reforming?

"When this President and his family sign on for the same health care he is prosposing for us, then I might consider going along with it, but then and only then!"

I would also like to see the President, Senators, Congress, and all federal/military employees lead by example and be part of any proposed new health plan.

vinh, thanks for the link about the Single Payer proposal from Physicians for a National Health Program. I am surprised the President has not gotten behind this, especially considering that many providers back this proposal. I agree with what PNHP proposes.

The only negative some people might have with this Single Payer System is philosophical. They would say it was forced upon them and not their choice. Fine, allow them to continue with their higher cost, private or group health insurance plan. If Single Payer was implemented properly, I believe most people and employers would shift to it because it will offer the same benefits at a lower cost. Its hard to argue against efficiency and volume of scale.

The health insurance companies are now trying to preserve their existence using traditional scare tactics. Pharma seems to have changed course from 1994 and wants to be part of any new health plan. I hope something positive comes out of this debate.

hapyfrustrated,
why don't you take a deep breath and quit believing all the lies. There is nothing in the proposed bill that allows the gov't in to your bank accounts without your permission. That is one more Republican lie, as is paying for illegal aliens. The bill is also not going to "kill grandma". I am stunned what sheep the american people have become!
I guess if you repeat things often enough, people will believe anything you tell them. Barney Frank did A GREAT JOB!!!!!

"There is nothing in the proposed bill that allows the gov't in to your bank accounts without your permission."

Technically correct- but they will take your money just the same. It's called taxes.

I remember a time when health insurance was cheap - it covered all tests and hospitalizations. The "big stuff." One had to pay out of pocket for doctor visits, childhood immunizations, and even prescriptions. Major medical would pick up a percentage if they went past a set limit. Then the HMO's came in vogue. People started to expect to pay a health insurance premium and have all services and meds covered. It's easy to see why costs have escalated. That doesn't even include the fraud the exists in the system.

I have always believed that health care insurance should be just like car insurance - it should cover the big, unexpected stuff.

I have deliberately been avoiding this thread for days because I knew I'd have to post again and nobody seems to be listening so to me it's just wasted effort. But I made a mistake and read some of the posts and now I have to post.

I have been around the block a few times. I remember when not everyone had insurance and yes, insurance was for the BIG things. You paid for an office visit out of your pocket, and you filled out your own paperwork if you had something big happen, and then gave it to the doctor to fill in his part, and then you were the one who sent it in and bird-dogged it. That was back in the day when I could make $4 an hour working as a secretary and a visit to the doctor cost $8. Something's really gone wrong, now, when a doctor can charge you TEN TIMES what you make an hour for the privelege of you seeing his (or her) P.A.

Yes, doctors have expenses and overhead. But they also have big huge houses and expensive cars. I remember when a doctor drove the same kind of car his patients did and he didn't have a trophy wife.

But, that aside, DancingQueen is right in that insurance should not be a for-profit business. I have seen people lose their jobs for minor infractions when their presence on the company insurance increased the company's group insurance premium, be it because of their physical condition or their age. COBRA is the cruelest joke in America. No one who loses their job can afford to make the payments, and even if they did, it's only temporary. I've known some people whose insurance company cancelled their policy because they were getting too expensive to cover. Others are dealt with more simply: just up the premium till they can't afford to pay it.

It all comes down to money, doesn't it? Those who have insurance, whether it be through the company they work for or Medicare or whatever, are scared to death they might have to be taxed more than they already are. I didn't hear anybody squawking about all the pork-barrel projects in each and every bill that gets passed. Now THAT's something to get up in arms about. You don't want to pay for health insurance but you'll help pay for a bridge to nowhere and hundreds of thousands of other projects. Any lawmaker who refuses to sign a bill until it includes one of his pet projects should be tarred and feathered and run out of town.

So let's have some common sense here. Aren't we even a little bit embarrassed to let people in other countries see us running around like Chicken Little? Educate yourself and quit listening to all these people that are using scare tactics and passing out mis-information like candy! They have their own agenda. Maybe it is that they, themselves, are stupid and scared (two conditions that are a real one-two punch). Or maybe they're mad because Obama got elected, for whatever reason, and don't want him to succeed at any cost. Or maybe they're being paid by the big insurance companies to spread fear. Think about it, these big insurance companies have so much to lose. Yet they're making noises like, "Oh, yeah, Mr. President, we'll cooperate.... we'll do anything we can...." then by the back door they'll grease somebody's palm that doesn't look like they're connected to them to scare the bejeezers out of uneducated people and make them think they're going to have their hands in our bank accounts, deny us medical care when we're old, and drag their feet in providing care otherwise.

A very wise man once told me that it is human nature for people to fear change. Even if their current situation is horrible, they are familiar with it and that's why they fight change even when they know it will make a lot of things better. We are in that mode now, friends.

You're afraid Government-run healthcare will ruin us? Good Lord! What do you think the big insurance companies are doing? If you actually trust them, then I'll be willing to bet you've never been in a position where you actually had to depend heavily on your insurance company. They don't give a Rat's You-Know-What about you except whether or not you make your premium payment on time.

We already have government run health care here in the US. It is called Medicare and Medicaid. It is NOT socialized medicine because most of our doctors are NOT employed by the US or state government. I supposed you could call the VA socialized medicine because I think the US government pays thier salaries.

Incidentially, if you listen to just one side of the aisle, you are NOT adequately informed.

caavonldy, can you please post a link for the information you described? I have heard the same thing but I think it's just propaganda put out by the republicans to scare people. I've not been able to find a link to the actual bill with that statement in it.

I see the new changes virtually the same old crap as our current system except it forces more suckers who can't afford it into an overpriced system.

Personally, I think it is unconstitutional to force you to buy something from a profit motivated corporation.

Socialized or not health care in the western world is severely overpriced in comparison to income growth of the populous and the only way to really lower prices is to eliminate insurance which is the guilty party to higher prices, deregulate the industry and legalize drugs but that will never happen.

The problem with our health care system and pretty much of most of the economy in the USA is it has turned into almost entirely into a solely predatory system in a span of 30-40 years.

We manufacture very little for export except agriculture (i.e banana republic) and print funny money to pay for it backed by the war machine that allows us to do that.

nothing to add to any arguement, just in Oct I got injured at home , not impressed by the US hospital, but since then constant harassment from their lawyers, to Blame some one! who is me! I fell over! I did respond once properly, and obviously this highly effective private system they lost my reply! I am really annoyed by this intrusion into my private health, and I say private health as in private to me, not the organization, and the letter are getting progressively more aggressive.
that said they did pay, but then the Hospital has been sending me demanding letters for payment ever since, I know they have been paid, but they threatened me with legal action in March when I knew they had been paid in Jan! this system is corrupt! and I told them so, thay said oh it's administrative error!, oh! a month after I pointed it out before! Hubby just had a kidney Stone, Will like to see if they try that trick again!

Republicans always trying to pull same Fear Uncertainty Death card to scare blind into keeping same dysfunctional high profit system.

I am really not impressed with US system period. All it does creates conflict btw insurance companies who are trying to enrich themselves and doctors who want another million $ house trophy wife etc. Customer treatment is a side-effect.

As someone who experienced both systems no way I could say US is better.

Intresting thread. I heard a few truths but mostly lies told to uneducated and ignorant Americans by mainly the republican conservative party. Who has a big ax to grind.
The Republican party is in fact mostly funded by the medical insurance and pharma companys. Thus their intrests lie in protecting these companys,and they do it very well.
It is a fact that not just Canada has a better health care system (It is only just a little better) The truth is the whole industrial world has a much better health care system than the US AND IT IS ALL GOVERNMENT REGULATED. The US is rated 37th in the world. Cuba is rated 38th.
You poor silly American sheep. You deserve what you get.LOL

A Money Saving Tips Forum is where Americans come to find out how to save money.

When people become uninsurable medically, they have a permanent problem.
Societies all over the world have faced this problem.
Except here.

Hope this helps.

Difficult situation here in the USA for medical care. I think the problem has always been too few people want to pay for it, and we are over charged for services we receive.

Well said totsuka. The problem has grown expotentially worse with the entitlement folks and rapid immigration. To further complicate it, many people have very unhealthy lifestyles and basically don't know how to live in a responsible and wholesome manner. There are society problems here that go beyond government......the government has simply taken this oppurtunity to exploit some.

"Socialized medicine" means a lot of different things. The system in Canada is different from the system in England, they're both different from the system in France, and all three of those are different from the system in Switzerland, and all four of those are different from Japan, and...

So that's why you get different answers when you ask about "socialized medicine." Because it depends what country you're talking about.

I've lived in both England and France; I don't like England's system. (That being said, all I had was the basic NHS--millions of people in the UK pay a little bit to have a supplemental policy from organizations like BUPA, and I understand that NHS+BUPA is definitely better than NHS alone.) But anyway... from my experience I don't like England's system, but I love France's. And what I know of Switzerland's--a dear friend of mine is a neuropsychiatrist there, so I have some insights from her--sounds good too.

Here's what's great about the system in France: everyone's insured and you can choose any doctor you want anywhere in the country; I never had any problem seeing a generalist doctor the same day I called for an appointment or a specialist within a week (Britain's NHS actually sends British patients to France to get surgery when the NHS is backlogged). Every prescription med on earth is available there for about 1/5 to 1/6th of the price it is in the States, and that's the price BEFORE you get reimbursed by your insurance. And their healthcare is cutting edge: world's first face transplant, world's first hand transplant, they were the first to identify the AIDS virus, they came up with the drug cocktail that turned AIDS into a chronic illness instead of a death sentence...

The way it works in France is that there is one huge insurance company, which is owned by the taxpayers, that provides basic coverage to everyone (everybody legal, anyway--not illegal immigrants). Then there are a bunch of smaller companies that offer optional supplemental policies that give you perks like higher reimbursement rates and coverage of things the basic insurance doesn't cover. The main insurance company reviews things every year or so and sets maximum prices for everything--doctor's visits, hospital stays, prices of each drug--and will not reimburse doctors/hospitals at all unless the doctors/hospitals agree to charge no more than that maximum price. So it's kind of like how insurers here set a "usual and customary" price for everything, and they cover only that amount--except in France, the doctor can't then turn to the patient and say, "Ok, I charged $500 and your insurer paid the usual and customary price of $260, so now you owe me $240."

And why does this work? Why are doctors not impoverished there? Because they have almost none of the overhead that doctors have here: there's one main insurance company for every patient, and the paperwork is almost nonexistent, so doctors and hospitals don't have to hire a ton of administrators to deal with all the different insurance policies. This difference is HUGE. When I lived there, every doctor in the country filled out the same form at the end of your office visit, and it took literally about 10-15 seconds to fill out; then you mailed that in and in a couple of weeks you got a check in the mail reimbursing you. Right when I left, they were switching to a system where you had a card that the doctor simply swiped in a machine like a credit card machine, and then, instead of mailing in the form and waiting for the check in the mail, you only had to pay the difference between what the insurance covered and the total price. (A visit with a generalist cost about $22 at the time, vs. about $40 for a specialist, and you paid 35% of that.)

So I mean... JUST PICTURE THIS... the DOCTOR took 15 seconds to fill out a form or swipe a card, and that's how he or she got paid. Whereas here, the doctor has to hire one or more secretaries to print out forms, take patients' payments, submit claims to insurance (and learn each insurance company's particular requirements), haggle with the insurance when they refuse to pay or don't pay enough, update patient information every time they change insurance companies... The difference in overhead cost is huge.

Also, you don't see hospital administrators and insurance company executives earning $500,000 a year like some of them do here. Patients aren't paying high salaries to anyone but the doctors and nurses themselves. Also, everyone has health insurance and lawsuit payouts aren't like they are here, so doctors don't need much in the way of malpractice insurance--if a doctor's mistake leaves you injured or sick, you're already covered because you already have comprehensive health insurance.

So in short, in the French system, the money spent on health care actually goes to health care, instead of to administrative and overhead costs and gigantic salaries for administrators and executives.

**The plan that is in the House is scary. They want to make it mandatory that everyone over age 65 must have a "end of life" consult to discuss withholding of antibiotics and denial of IV or tube feeding.**

That is a lie--I wish you hadn't believed it. Have you been to the hospital lately? ALL patients get the end of life consult--when they ask you if you have a living will, when they have you fill out a form to say whether you want to be kept alive artificially, etc., that's what that is. It has nothing to do with the health care bill, except that the health care bill wants all hospitals to follow the same rules on this.

I've been to the hospital way more than I would've preferred in the past ten years or so, for my mom, myself, my husband, my grandparents, my in-laws... Every one of us, if we were an inpatient or if we were going into surgery, had to fill out those forms. The hospital needs them so that it will have instructions, from you, on what to do if something terrible happens--they need to know whether you want them to keep you alive like Terry Schiavo or not; they need to know whether you've named someone to make decisions for you if you're in a coma, so that they know whose instructions to follow if you do end up in a coma; and so on. That's just common sense.

It's difficult to pay for social programs when there is uncontrolled immigration. The reason is obvious.

There is massive immigration in other countries too. Uncontrolled, illegal immigration. What about looking at what those systems do? Anybody willing to look into it?

**It's difficult to pay for social programs when there is uncontrolled immigration. The reason is obvious.**

I assume you're talking about illegal immigration, since you used the word "uncontrolled." If you are talking about illegal immigration, it's a little puzzling--it's not as if illegal immigrants qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, food stamps, or any other form of welfare I can think of. And in countries with universal healthcare, they don't qualify for universal healthcare.

So I'm a little puzzled here... not seeing the connection.

Consider also the comments of former Cigna PR executive, Wendell Potter

Having been on CIGNA "health insurance" for several years, during which time we had to fight for every penny they paid for services rendered, I honestly can't put any trust in anything TPTB at Cigna might say -- including the remark referenced above.

If you are wondering what the Health care plan will cost, besides increased taxes and many more government agencies, you can refer to the letter from the CBO to Sen. Evan Bayh (D). This is from the CBO folks not Fox News, Glen Beck, Rush or Sarah Palin.

Scroll to pay 26 where you will find:
Single person making 44K will pay $6400. My family of five was paying $7600 for private insurance and we have a son with a preexisting condition. We recently switched me and the kids to my company's group plan but my 48 y.o. husband pays about $2100, not $6400. The government believes singles can afford 14% of their income for health insurance.

However, it gets worse! Take a family of four making 90K, which isn't a bad income but with a federal, state and local taxes, mortgages, property taxes, homeowners insurance, utilities, food, vehicle costs, home repairs and raising two kids there isn't much left over for most people. Well guess what? The government thinks this family will suddenly be able to pay 14K for insurance! That's right 16% of their income, plus increased taxes to boot.

What will happen? Why lots of these people won't be able to just absorb insurance costs doubling or tripling and they will default on their already devalued homes.

This is not a good solution folks.

You might want to check out Snopes

Sushipup,

The Snopes letter is not the same letter I have linked to. I linked to one from the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE (CBO), not a doctor from Indiana.

I have a suggestion for you, if you are going to comment on the veracity of a post, please have the class to read the link.

Your letter is dated 4 or 5 months before the bill passed, and it was changed many times before it was voted on. Got anything more up to date?

Let me get this straight, I link to a legitimate letter estimating costs, you link to a completely different letter to "disprove" me and now I have to offer more proof? Wow.

How about you show me the lower improved costs? You can't because they are higher.

Even Nancy Pelosi admitted they didn't know what was in the bill, they needed to pass it to find out what was in it. If I said something like that at my job I'd get fired. So you honestly believe that you can insure millions of additional people, create tens or perhaps hundreds of new government agencies and make services less expensive without a sacrifice in quality. It defies logic.

The system we had in place needed improvement, however, this is not it, not during the current economic times we live in.

Also, if it so wonderful, why won't congress and the first family take this coverage and why has the administration handed out over 700 waivers so cronies so they don't have to follow the expensive and onerous rules? One of the biggest beneficiaries of the waivers is the SEIU, who just happen to be big time Obama donors. Pay to play baby, pay to play, regulate your enemies, give your donor friends a pass .

**Also, if it so wonderful, why won't congress and the first family take this coverage**

That's sort of a confusing question--it seems like you think the new law creates new insurance policies that we all have to switch to, or something? And so you're wondering why Congress and the first family don't switch to the new policies? But the law doesn't do that. There is no coverage that Congress or the Obamas, or you for that matter, could switch to. The only new coverage options are the state-run exchanges for people with preexisting conditions who cannot get insurance on the private market, and a few new options for low-income people. But if you don't have a preexisting condition that has prevented you from getting insurance, or if you aren't low-income enough, you don't qualify for those new options. So there's nothing that Congress, the first family, etc., could switch to. Under the new law, you just keep your existing insurance (or move to whatever other policy your employer offers that you want). And so does Congress and the first family.

What the law does is (1) change the rules for insurance companies so that your existing insurance is more reliable, (2) requires everyone to have health insurance, and (3) creates more options for lower-income people and for people with preexisting conditions, so that such people can get insurance more easily (through state-run exchanges, Medicaid and so on).

So in other words, the coverage you have under it is the same as the coverage you have now--and the coverage Congress and the first family have is the same as what they have now--except with better rules: now your insurer can't cancel you for getting sick, can't exclude your kids for pre-existing conditions, as of 2014 also won't be able to exclude adults for pre-existing conditions, has to let you keep your children on your insurance until they're 26 if you want to, can't impose a lifetime cap on benefits, and so on.

As for the waiver, I really have a problem with Fox News and others leaving out a few critical details, like the fact that McDonalds, Universal Orlando (the theme park), and other very mainstream companies got it (and you can google "McDonalds political contributions" to see that most of McDonalds' donations went to Republicans), and the fact that the waiver only lasts for one year. Apparently the purpose of it is to let part-time lower-income workers keep their extremely basic plans, which do impose a lifetime cap on benefits, while the details of their new plans get ironed out and the new system gets up and running. Most employers don't offer such bare-bones plans, so they don't need a waiver.

I'm also a little confused by what you said about creating dozens or hundreds of new federal agencies. Here's an article (link below) that clarifies that.

I took a look at the letter you posted, but there's no sense in responding to it because it's not talking about the law that actually got passed. It's talking about certain things that, at the time the letter was written, were being considered. I'm just going to stick to the law we actually have, not a 15-month-old letter about other possibilities.

But I do want to point something out--you were comparing the price projections on page 28 of the letter to your own insurance premiums in 2010. Those price projections were for 2016. Even assuming those projections turn out to be correct--which would be a total fluke, since they were based on things that did not end up being passed in the actual law--it doesn't make sense to compare your price in 2010 to a projected 2016 price and then say, based on that, that the new law is going to increase your costs.

PS I forgot to mention that what creates the savings is the requirement that everyone have health insurance. The only way that insurance costs can be kept down--regardless of whether you're insuring health, your car, your home or whatever--is if low-risk people have insurance too. If the only people who buy insurance are the people who need to start using it immediately, insurance is going to cost a lot.

So the new law requires everyone to have insurance one way or another--whether through their employer, through a self-employed or student policy, through Medicaid or whatever else. The law doesn't tell you where to get it; that choice is yours. But you have to get it unless you have a religious exemption (some religions prohibit insurance--so for example, Amish people who live in Amish communities won't have to get it).

That way, a lot of people who are low risk will have insurance. Some of them will need it--I actually know two people who both had fairly minor accidents in their twenties when they didn't have insurance, and ended up over $30,000 in debt. Most of them won't need it, just like most of us never actually use our car insurance or homeowner's insurance, and that way, costs are kept low and the insurance is there if god forbid we ever do need it.

As a Canadian, it always amuses me to hear Americans lambaste "socialized" medicine by using the Canadian system as an example, citing anecdotal evidence of their neighbour's cousin's horrible experience. But you don't hear us Canadians complaining about our health service. I would think that should weigh more heavily.

It is true that they aren't complaining.

Canadians have a different system in each province.

--

When people become uninsurable, it's permanent.
In Canada can people move to another province when they are uninsurable?

I don't know of uninsurable people. We don't think of it as insurance. It's universal care. You don't lose access by getting cancer or becoming an alcoholic.

You can move and seek a slightly different coverage in a different province if you want. They're not that different but with unusual conditions maybe one would better serve you than another.

Somebody has to pay for it. We have 45 percent of Americans that don't pay any Federal Income Taxes right now. A good first step would be to lower that to Zero!. Yes, Zero percent. Then start to deport more illegal aliens. They are not needed and too expensive to support. Answer these two problems before demanding a single payer system in the USA.

Most of the people who do not pay income taxes are those with the lowest incomes, including many elderly social security recipients.

Nope. President Bush raised the level so I think it is for a family of four, 40k and no federal income tax. That is a big change and really hurting the country. Everyone should pay something.

Are you looking at an example like this? I'm also assuming that the wage earners pay social security and Medicare taxes.

I asked "When people become uninsurable, it's permanent. In Canada can people move to another province when they are uninsurable?

A response from tomgyrll (Fri, Feb 18, 2011) answered the question almost completely.

For the purpose of digging deeper to get clearer answers, I'll rewrite that answer to see if I have understood it correctly.

Please confirm or rebut.

The rewrite:
"I don't know of uninsurable people. We don't think of it as insurance. It's universal care. You don't lose access by getting cancer or becoming an alcoholic or whatever. When you move you AUTOMATICALLY RECEIVE THE SAME COVERAGE that everyone receives, in that province, which has a slightly different coverage from each other province. You can move if you want to and NOT LOSE COVERAGE. There are no insurability questions asked, so you are automatically insurable by definition, because you are Canadian. That is it. No surprises. From province to province, the definitions of coverage are not that different but with unusual conditions maybe one would better serve you than another.

--
I'm not aware of anyone moving to another province to get different free treatment. Has anyone seen this?
.