Well the expenditure for health care is very high here in Canada, If I remember correctly it is at least 50% of our budget. I don't know the exact numbers but that's because there are federal and provincial funds going into the system. In all fairness I may have had a couple beer before posting my earlier comments. But the question I have is this: If the US spends more per capita on health care than a country like Canada which has universal health care which delivers a more comprehensive service to its citizens, simply due to the fact everyone is covered, where is the money going? If companies/organizations like AARP profit so much from health care out of tax payers pockets isn't that actually an argument in favour of universal health care? Ah heck, politics confuses me. How about I rescind my previous ideas except for two. Term limits for everyone and my tongue in cheek launching bad politicians into the sun!
I think even the person farthest to the right agrees that in the end there will have to be tax increases to bring down the debt. The reason we are hard over against it right now is that we believe that there need to be the maximum cuts possible first. Otherwise any tax increase will reduce the need for cuts to bloated programs. I have a real hard time saying we need to cut defense and SS and other existing programs to pay for the massive addition of Obamacare that was just added. That was sold as be a cost reducer that they all now agree actually adds costs. A lot of the savings was based upon cutting payments to doctors that have already been cut by 35%. If you cut them anymore they will be treating patients at a loss. Sorry but that isn't going to happen, they will stop treating the people. Another government program will have to be born of government hired doctors to treat people with the taxpayer picking up the cost. So cut the Obamacare costs first and then let’s take a look at what's left to work with. Jamie
Dos, there are a lot of reasons why our health care costs are out of control. Part of it is the influence of big drug companies on the political system here in the US. For example, Obama's first choice to head up the cabinet post for Health, Education and Welfare was actually a lobbyist for the big drug companies. In Canada your drug prices are regulated by the government by bid. In the US our prices are left to the discretion of the drug companies. One of my clients was taking cancer medication. The cost in the US was over $8,000 a month. When he started buying the drugs in Canada his cost dropped to $3,000 a month. Also in Canada doctors can only perform so many procedures and, as such, their income is limited. One of my clients is a prominent surgeon. His income went up five fold by coming to the US and practicing here. Frankly, doctors in the US make substantially more money than they do in Canada. Another reason is the abuse of the system by so many patients. There was an article in the Buffalo paper about one welfare recipient who used an ambulance over 300 times in one year. All of the ambulance calls were because this guy wanted to see his friend who lived next to the hospital and he knew he would have to pay a taxi, but the ambulance was "free" to him because welfare would pay for it. Also many on welfare will go to the emergency rooms and get simple over the counter drugs because they are "free" to them, but if they went to a drugstore they would have to pay for them. As you can see there is a pattern here. Jamie's point is also well taken. If the money is there it will get spent. In fact if the money isn't there it will still get spent. Obamacare and the black hole that exists in so many government programs just has to be stopped or we will cease to exist. Pretty bleak assessment, but I still don't see a leader out there who can unite the people and change things.
The US essentially has comprehensive health care and the reason it cost more is because its of higher quality. I mention this not as a slight to CA BTW. And I lived in CA for 6 years, so I have an idea of what both places are like.
Whoooops, hackles raised, hair standing up... Please explain, higher quality??? higher costs are obviously not associated with higher malpractice insurance brought about by out of control insurance settlements by lawyers who charge on a percentage of the settlement rather than an upfront fee. But I digress, please feel free to explain the higher quality health coverage and how you quantify that. Beyond the old 2 days for an MRI versus 6 months. I am unsure how to quantify it myself, I don't have the answer, but we have discussed the topic in the past. Is better health care quantified by average life span, infant mortality rates, obesity levels, or any other variables?
NO, its not as these factors are highly influenced by lifestyle. Have you ever guessed at the average weight of the people around you in a Walmart store in the USA?
I suspect that the ultimate mandate for health care is to keep well people from getting ill, and ill people from getting dead. Ultimately I would suppose that the success or failure based on this would be measured in average life expectancy. Higher infant mortality rate reduces average life expectancy, increased obesity reduces average life expantancy, more smokers reduces average life expectancy, etc. Part of health care is communicating to the public the dangers and pitfalls of engaging in risky behaviours. Health care is more than hospitals, it is also public awareness. The high incidence of AIDs in Africa has as much to do with risky behaviours and low morality towards women as it does with substandard health care. (Obviously this is highly exagerrated as proximity to health care and drugs is a big factor here). But my point is that health care is more than Dr's and hospitals, it is public awareness, morality laws (no drinking underage, no smoking underage), etc... Bearing all of the health care factors in mind makes me wonder about the accuracy of your statement. Obviously waiting times, new procedures, etc is one component, but not the be all and end all.
Well my opinion is that differences in those factors are generally attributed to Canada's much lower population, larger size and broader mandate. Besides if there is a service that a nearby Canadian hospital can't offer that an American one does then the Canadian health care system (as well as the provincial sytem that actually administrates it) simply pays for your care in the American hospital. The metric that is most important to me is if someone living at or under the poverty line is in need for an expensive treatment, which is not immediately life threatening (removing emergency room care), how are they treated? Odds are that person in the US doesn't have insurance, what is the likelihood that they will be given that treatment? What I have always liked about the approach the Canadian (and other systems the UK for example) take is that it doesn't matter how much or how little you have monetarily. If the treatment is available you get it. If there is one service I feel should absolutlely be available to all people regardless of economic standing it's healthcare. Anyways I'm not trying to pick on the American system, just explaining what I do prefer about ours.
Keith, in your scenario the person would be covered under Medicaid and wouldnt pay a single dime and would have the same access as a person like myself that has employer provided insurance. As for the reason Canada doesnt have the best doctors, technology, and facilities is simply a matter of economics. We better be getting something better after all we are spending more than double per capita. I might mention that it is not my intention to slight Canada in any way. My family is of Canadian origin and I lived there for 6 years. I LIKE CANUCKS! However there are pretty stark differances in health care quality between the two that I have experienced in person.
