Was Canada's health care the problem?

Political discussions
User avatar
Col Hogan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 12230
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:29 am
I am a fan of: William & Mary
Location: Republic of Texas

Re: Was Canada's health care the problem?

Post by Col Hogan »

D1B wrote:
Profits are out of control. 99.9% of people require regular exams and relatively low cost outpatient services and procedures. I don't like the idea of having to pay for the Neotron 6000 Kidney Nephron Accellerator and the 27 nurses and technicians it takes to operate it. Again, most need basic care and that's where government buying power can make a difference.

More insane is our military budget. I would rather have my tax money and government intellectual resourses dedicated to healhcare versus billion dollar bombers and ships.

Our goverment is supposed to do what we tell them to do.
And the government is doing what the people told them to do with military spending...

It's called the Constitution...you know, that messy little document you scream about if someone violates your "Constitutional" rights...Well, it's an all or nothing...either you want the Constitution, or you don't...

The Constitution mandates the military, and refers to it numerous times...The Constitution contains no mention of health care...but it does contain an Amendment (approved by "The People") that says if it's not contained in the federal responsibilities outlined in the Constitution, then it's left to the states responsibility...
“Tolerance and Apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.” Aristotle

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 30411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: Sailing the Gulf of Mexico

Re: Was Canada's health care the problem?

Post by UNI88 »

OL FU wrote:
D1B wrote:
Yeah good post OF.

Profits are out of control. 99.9% of people require regular exams and relatively low cost outpatient services and procedures. I don't like the idea of having to pay for the Neotron 6000 Kidney Nephron Accellerator and the 27 nurses and technicians it takes to operate it. Again, most need basic care and that's where government buying power can make a difference.

More insane is our military budget. I would rather have my tax money and government intellectual resourses dedicated to healhcare versus billion dollar bombers and ships.

Our goverment is supposed to do what we tell them to do.
One of the reasons that profits are out of control is because typical market forces aren't in play. People pay way to much for insurance and because people pay way too much for insurance they run to the damn doctor every time they scratch a finger ( I exaggerate) because it only cost them the $25 dollar co-pay. Or they run to the emergency room because they have no insurance and no that the emergency room is legally obligated to treat them. I remember when insurace had a real deductible so that I had to think about what I was going to do for the first $500 or $1000 before the insurance was going to kick in anything. Made me think twice about running down to the doctor for scratch.

Once again, stating the obvious I don't have the answer but if real market forces were in play much of the over demand medical services would subside.

Also, we have the real difficult choices of costs versus benefits that no one likes to talk about because you sound like a heartless son of a bitch when you do but at what age and health benefit do you say, you are too old for a heart transplant. A tough thing to talk about when its your relatives.

as far as the military expenditures, I don't disagree. It would be foolish to think that we don't need a strong military and that the dangers of the world are over but I do think it is time for America to realize and tell the world, we aren't the only protectors of your freedoms. you can't simply expect us to defend you while you spend your dollars on healthcare and we spend ours on missles. Of Course, this would also require us to understand the same thing.

Very true OF. My employer switched last year from a standard plan to a high deductible health plan (HDHP). Before that we had a $500 individual/$1500 family deductible with a $20 co-pay and I had to pay 30% of the cost of dependent coverage of roughly $600/month. With the High deductible plan we have a $2500 individual/$5000 family deductible with no co-pay after the deductible is met and I don't have to pay anything for dependent coverage. The cost to my employer actually dropped enough so that they could cover 1/2 the total deductible (through contributions to an HSA account). I actually pay less out of pocket on an annual basis with the HDHP than I did before and it costs my employer less as well simply because people on HDHP's typically put more consideration into whether they need to see a doctor and the plans cost less as a result. Sharing the risk with the individual/family drives down the costs.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm

MAQA - putting the Q into qrazy qanon qult qonspiracy theories since 2015.

It will probably be difficult for MAQA yahoos to overcome the Qult programming but they should give being rational & reasonable a try.

Thank you for your attention to this matter - UNI88
OL FU
Level3
Level3
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:25 pm
I am a fan of: Furman
Location: Greenville SC

Re: Was Canada's health care the problem?

Post by OL FU »

UNI88 wrote:
OL FU wrote:
One of the reasons that profits are out of control is because typical market forces aren't in play. People pay way to much for insurance and because people pay way too much for insurance they run to the damn doctor every time they scratch a finger ( I exaggerate) because it only cost them the $25 dollar co-pay. Or they run to the emergency room because they have no insurance and no that the emergency room is legally obligated to treat them. I remember when insurace had a real deductible so that I had to think about what I was going to do for the first $500 or $1000 before the insurance was going to kick in anything. Made me think twice about running down to the doctor for scratch.

Once again, stating the obvious I don't have the answer but if real market forces were in play much of the over demand medical services would subside.

Also, we have the real difficult choices of costs versus benefits that no one likes to talk about because you sound like a heartless son of a bitch when you do but at what age and health benefit do you say, you are too old for a heart transplant. A tough thing to talk about when its your relatives.

as far as the military expenditures, I don't disagree. It would be foolish to think that we don't need a strong military and that the dangers of the world are over but I do think it is time for America to realize and tell the world, we aren't the only protectors of your freedoms. you can't simply expect us to defend you while you spend your dollars on healthcare and we spend ours on missles. Of Course, this would also require us to understand the same thing.

Very true OF. My employer switched last year from a standard plan to a high deductible health plan (HDHP). Before that we had a $500 individual/$1500 family deductible with a $20 co-pay and I had to pay 30% of the cost of dependent coverage of roughly $600/month. With the High deductible plan we have a $2500 individual/$5000 family deductible with no co-pay after the deductible is met and I don't have to pay anything for dependent coverage. The cost to my employer actually dropped enough so that they could cover 1/2 the total deductible (through contributions to an HSA account). I actually pay less out of pocket on an annual basis with the HDHP than I did before and it costs my employer less as well simply because people on HDHP's typically put more consideration into whether they need to see a doctor and the plans cost less as a result. Sharing the risk with the individual/family drives down the costs.
One of the other problems is government mandated coverage. I think most of this comes from the states although I am not sure. For example, some states mandate coverage for dependancy problems. In other words, if a covered person decides they are an alcoholic then the insurance company has to provide coverage for that. Now I understand the difficulties of dependency issues but the more things that are forced upon the payers of insurance to cover, then more ridiculous the premiums and the tighter insurance companies are going to be on payouts. Understand the alcoholism example is simply that, an example. There are multitudes of forced coverage items that have taken the market place out of health care.
Post Reply