Your head is safe... mine on the other hand..... I can't even blame it on not being sober or something..... But that 845 Billion doesn't even include all the other money spent on Medicare or all the other programs that are in place today. But 27,000 is correct but that is still about 3 times as much as the insurance costs for covering both Chris and I (not just counting my costs either but my employer's too). And that cost is only if the cut payments to the doctors 2 years from now, something that is not assured of happening, and raise enough taxes on other items like soda and botox injections. Face it, no matter who's in charge no politician (Republican or Democrat) is going to bring it in for that price. And we all know that's a starting point that will only increase of the years, never decrease. I guess one of my biggest problems is not only do they take your tax money and spend that for you on what they think you need, now they are looking to tell you of the money you have left you WILL spend it on something you may or may not want. Sure I need heath care today at my age. But when I was in my 20s not so much. Jamie
Hey Jamie Curious here, not trying to fan the flames here (not yet anyway... ), last year if I recall you had a pretty serious medical procedure and I have to plead ignorance on this because I am unsure of the answer. Did this medical procedure that you had to endure cost you anything out of pocket. I assume you have some form of insurance coverage, either through your employer, a private plan or a combination of both. Someone once told me that despite having insurance, a doctor's visit or a hospital emergency visit still cost's you on top of everything else. In the course of a year you currently pay "X" for your insurance premiums, does that cover 100% up to a certain amount or is there a deductible amount that means you pay 20%, insurance pays 80%, etc.,. Is there a maximum amount of payout that insurance will provide? One of the criticisms I hear from your side of the border regarding Canada's current health care is wait times, access to things like MRI's etc., so I can speak with defensive posturing all day long, but I really don't know enough about your current health care system other than (again) second hand material. Thanks
Single heart by-pass surgery. Suspected it April 16th. Made a appointment with the cardiologist 30th. Had a stress test on the 29th, had angioplasty May 5th. Delayed my surgery till after my 2 week trip to TTR, had it on May 26th. If I hadn't been headed to TTR I would have gone under the knife on the 6th. I'm paying about $42 a week for my insurance for Chris and I. Total bill for my treatment, operations, hospital stay, and rehab was close to $100,000. My co-pay was about $500 overall. Am I blessed with the plan I have? You bet. Would I want it for everyone? You bet. Am I willing to pay for everyone else's insurance? Not so much. There are those that need help and we have currently about 75 different government programs to do that. There are those that don't see health insurance as a priority and that's their choice. I also know people that the case a beer a week is where they spend their money and complain that the government has the duty to provide them coverage because it's their right. Heath cover is something you earn or is given to you as a gift but I don't see free health care as a right. Sorry. Jamie
Thaks for being up front Jamie. So you pay 42 per week or about 2200 a year, and then on top of that the procedure cost you out of pocket about 500. Insurance paid close to 100 000, did I understand all that correctly? Does the insurance get involved to the tune of "we don't really believe he needs a quadruple bypass, a triple bypass should be sufficient and less money", do they ever say "No, you cannot have this procedure". I am not fishing or trying to build a case or anything here, I just don't know the answer. I've mentioned before, I have Ulcerative Colitis, 2 years ago I went to emergency with abdominal pains and some bleeding, I had also quit eating for 4 days (I was throwing everything up that I ate, it wasn't by choice). In Emergency they took a look at me, and then made a decision to keep me in emergency overnight. The next day they processed me and I remained for another 5 days in a semi-private room. During the course of that stay, I was subjected to numerous tests and put under for a colonoscopy, I was kept on a drip the entire time I was there, my understanding was that it was a steroid drip mixed in with that other stuff that rehydrates you. The final out of pocket cost for me was Zero. I do regular follow up's for this condition about every 6-12 months, just a check up with the specialist. Last week I had another colonoscopy which is done at a regular hospital, take up a room, be put out and have the procedure completed and then sit in recovery for about an hour, so tie up hospital facilities for about 3 hours. All of this does not cost me anything out of pocket either. Now I do realize that we pay a premium in taxes as compared to you. There is also some resentment similar to the feelings that you describe. But as far as I can tell, it is not a feeling of resentment towards people who are unemployed or underemployed or on welfare and are recieving this type of healthcare. We have had healthcare like this since I believe around 1946, so we are into our third generation of "free" healthcare. The resentment I believe is towards people who abuse the system in other ways. People have cold symptons and go in to Emergency on a Saturday or someone has a bloody nose and goes in, this is the type of abuse or taking advantage of the system that I resent. The underemployed, I believe we are thankful they have healthcare because we all realize that one day that could be us. "there but for the glory of God go I". Just a few notes on our healthcare. We do have some wait times, if I called today to see my regular Dr. and I wasn't worried about time of day, it would take about three days. If I insisted that it had to be after working hours, between 5 and 9 at night, it might take me three weeks. In emergency we a traige system is set up, a triage nurse assesses you and gives you a rating between 1 and 5, the higher the rating the ooner you get in. I had a kidney stone in 2002 and was almost in the fetal position, I got in within 15 minutes. Other times I have waited over an hour, and in those cases if an ambulance showed up with a car accident or something, you would get pushed further back. As far as things like an MRI go, it is dependant on your family Dr's assessment. One of the guys I work with had a disk in his neck require removal from going through the front of his neck. The wait time to get an MRI to determine the requirement was about 2 weeks. I had another employee who slipped playing pick up soccer and twisted his knee. The Dr. made him wait about 6 months to get his MRI and by the time he got in, the MRI howed no damage. So there can be wait times, but they do not put anyone into jeopardy. Just a few thoughts from a Canadian perspective, personally and from personal experience I am very happy with my health care and-no offense-wouldn't want to be subjected to yours. Thanks
Your hosptial stay would have cost me $150 a day for a private room. The emergency room fee would have been wavied if I was admitted. Your follow procedures would run $100. As far as wait times if I want to see a specific doctor I might have to wait a couple of days, any doctor in the office, today or tomorrow. I was in last Thursday to the doctor. We discussed when I was going through my heart stuff that the MRI at the time found a 5mm nodule in my upper right lung. Now those things are there in a lot of folks with no problems, but at the time we said that after 6 months we should have a look at it again. So on Thursday I said it's been 6 months. They made the appointment, I asked for this Wednesday as it was my most open day this week. My appointment is at 9:15 AM. It will cost me $100 co-pay. Yeah, I'm having to pay more but I'm not responsible for someone being taxed to death to pay my bills. I think the biggest resentment here is the association of heath care with an entitlement. We had generations of people raised from generation to generation on welfare. Grandparents, parents, kids all collecting. It was their due, their right to collect the money. We all know someone that for no reason of their own need help. It's when people say receiving help is their right that I have a problem. God helps those that help themselves first. Jamie
Thanks again Jamie I think it is a cultural difference then between the US and Canada. I was born in 1965 and have always had health care with no additional stress placed on my parents as a kid or myself as an adult. I have grown up in a town of about 2500 people an hour out of Toronto and the amount of people within the town on some sort of social assistance is very negligible and for the same families to remain on social assistance through generations is even less. It may be that they move to the bigger surrounding cities as being on welfare or something they are more liable to require bus transportation which is not available where I am at. Having said all that, why does the debate always degenerate into a Republican/Democratic mudfest. It appears that one of the biggest items that Obama got elected on was his pledge to do something about health care. Now that he has attempted to do something, the mud starts slinging and he gets all of these different idealogical labels from Communist to whatever. Then more mud gets thrown and as the saying goes, if you throw enough mud at the wall, something is bound to stick. I have been reading a lot of Matt Taibbi's articles, and although he may be labelled as a left winger (I don't even think he plays hockey), I haven't heard anyone refute anything he says. Is the Republican's answer (again I am not fanning the flames here, I don't know the answer), to maintain the status quo, or is it a modified change, or something perhaps more radical in the opposite direction. The opening line of this whole post from Zackman was an example of government waste. How much of that is truly the responsibility of the Democrat's. Would it have existed before, but perhaps spread out differently, would it be virtually the same, would it be less or more? I suspect it would be virtually the same, there may be more emphasis on waste in other sectors, but the grand total would probably have been identical. Jamie, one of your earlier retorts was surrounding the car bailouts, do you think it would not have ocurred if the Repuclican's were in power. Would the bailout have been different, would loans have been forgiven, or would the car companies have actually gone under. GM is already starting talk about repaying federal loans to both the US and Canada (not sure if you are aware but the bailouts were roughly the same on a per capita basis from this side of the border). The wall street fiasco's and the payouts from the government, I believe they ocurred last September (08) when the Republican's were still in power. Matt Taibbi's most recent article discussed the payouts and the self implosion's of Bear Steins (sp) and the Lehman Brother's and how quite possibly they were pushed over the edge by Goldman Sachs and a few others, (I recall an old Mafia adage, when someone disappears, look around to see who is left). I would love to have someone analyze that article and give a review on it (Henry perhaps, hw711, I believe he works in the financial sector). Just some thoughts from a confused neighbour, I don't know the answers to a lot of these questions, I just get amazed how it becomes so politicized???
Both extremes of the political spectrum are marred by hate, or at least something very similar to it. On the far left you get people who think the "ignorant, backwards, bible thumpers" are eroding progress of the country and trying to restrict the civil liberties of the populace. On the far right you get people who think the "godless, wasteful, degenerates" are destroying the tradition and historic values of the country and are trying to impose liberal civil liberties (while restricting others like gun owernship) on the populace. It might be true that these 'haters' are the minority on both sides, but they make the most noise, get the most press, and probably, unfortunately, have a lot of influence. It's a mess, really. I trend fiscally conservative, socially liberal which means I basically have no political party to call my own, or I have to seriously sacrifice one of my values to 'fit' in with either the Democrats or Republicans. This is a great evil of a two party system (and really, in the US it is) and I would wager it adds to the immense pressure and tension between the two parties. As for healthcare -- I agree with Jamie that the welfare system in the US is a massive joke and seriously abused. Welfare reform is always one of my top domestic priorities and yet neither party does much to address it. Do I think welfare should exist? Most definitely! Do I see any reason why those receiving welfare (excluding those with delimiting disabilities) shouldn't be out on the highway picking up trash, mowing the parks, or cleaning rivers? Not so much. The difference for me though, is that healthcare for everyone and welfare aren't the same thing. I do trend towards the thought that healthcare should be a right (funny enough it is in Mexico according to the constitution.) We have free (compulsory) primary and secondary education here in the US (supplemented with private schools for those who choose and higher education is not free) and it isn't considered welfare. Healthcare represents the same ideal for me. Yes, there are a ridiculous amount of public healthcare programs for the poor and the elder, but it seems to me a better idea to get rid of these programs, and just have a single healthcare for everyone program. Aside from my personal stance on the universal healthcare, as a small business owner (less than 10 employees), something has got to give. Our healthcare premiums increase every new period (6 months) and have since we started offering the option. As we shoulder the majority of the cost from our employees ( 90%), healthcare is our single biggest expense outside of payroll, by a magnitude of order, and it just keeps getting bigger. And we are one of the good guys -- tons of businesses have no health plans, and for folks like my step dad who toils all day long working construction (non-Union) he loses a paycheck a month to pay for their healthcare. That's just insane to me. And sad.
I disagree, Obama got elected because the economy tanked and he promised fast, immediate, changes in US economic policy (i.e. provide Billions in economic stimulus to spur job growth). To date, this economic policy has been a resounding failure, plus added trillions to the National debt. Obama and his advisors said unemployment would not go higher than 8%, instead unemployment has reached 10.2% and is still rising! With this deep recession, War in Iraq & Afghanistan, Americans see Heathcare reform further down the list of National priorities and NOT the top priority. He has spent way too much attention on Healthcare and not enough on jobs and the economy. This is why Obama's job approval rating is steadily decreasing and he's now getting heavily criticized – Obama has lost focus on the economy. You’re on the right track here. Both the Democrats AND Republicans are to blame for excessive waste & using taxpayer’s money irresponsibly. Americans are angry that these politicians continue to add trillions to the Nation debt and increase taxes. Bush was not fiscally conservative while in office, he actually increased the size of Government. However, Democrats are even MORE wasteful and fiscally irresponsible by insisting to increase the size of Government and significantly expanding major entitlements. Once these costly, bloated, entitlements are put into place, they can never be eliminated. BTW – I’m not a registered Republican, although I have voted as one in the last several elections. In fact, when I was first eligible to vote, I registered as a DEMOCRAT mainly because my parents were the classic lifelong true believers. 9/11, combined with a college education in economics, plus now being a taxpaying property owner has enlightened my political views. I now consider myself a capitalist and politically conservative American.
Very well said. As a single individual, my employer offers excellent Medical, Dental, Life Insurance, Accident Insurance, and Vision coverage. I pay about $58 a month for these benefits ($696 yearly) out of my own pocket with my employer paying the balance. I’m enrolled in a HMO which covers unlimited hospitalization, $20 doctor visits, and $10 - $20 prescription co pays. I can choose any doctor and specialist with a referral. If not an urgent matter, I may wait 1 or 2 days to get a routine doctor’s appointment. However, I would NEVER fear: Weeks or Months of waiting for an MRI, Cancer treatment, or a Heart procedure. Nor do I worry today about healthcare rationing, healthcare denial, or find it necessary to travel to another country for treatment to save my life. American healthcare is the best in the world and I like what I have and do not what the Government to force changes down my throat. On the other hand, American healthcare is absurdly expensive. Q: Should EVERYONE have such a good Medical plan? A: Possibly, if one were to stay in school, get a worthwhile college degree, or vocational training, and get with a good corporation, or own your own business. Better yet, become a Government employee or a union member (i.e., UAW) with even more generous benefits. Q: Should EVERYONE have a BASIC, AFFORDABLE, healthcare plan that can prevent personal bankruptcy? A: Yes, it must be affordable but not funded by taxpayers. Q: Are you serious, No new Government healthcare entitlements? A: Correct, Medicare / Medicaid along with other government programs provide billions & billions of dollars to cover the elderly, disabled, and destitute poor today. No one in America is dying in the streets due to being refused healthcare – ER rooms are full of people with no insurance and they cannot be turned away by law. No need for more costly, inefficient, bureaucratic, wasteful Government programs. No need for a Government takeover of American healthcare, either. Q: How do you make affordable healthcare available to everyone that wants it? A: Through increased free market healthcare competition. Today by law, an American cannot buy health insurance across state lines. In other words, for example an individual in Michigan cannot buy health insurance in Florida, Oklahoma, or Arizona which can be cheaper. Yet, an individual CAN buy Auto, home and life insurance across state lines. This makes no sense what-so-ever. Also create healthcare group cooperatives which individuals can join and buy insurance cheaply via negotiated volume discounts. Focus on preventive care, rather than treatment after the fact, etc. Capitalism always fosters competition better than any government bureaucracy. Furthermore, National Polls show 80% of Americans say they are satisfied with the quality of health care they receive. But, 3 out of 4 are dissatisfied with the total cost of health care in the United States. The point being that the American healthcare system needs some improvements and reforms. NOT a Government takeover, or a whole bureaucratic overhaul…
There's doing something about the problem and then there is doing something about the problem. It needs fixed, not completely replaced which seems to be the goal. At worst we're looking at a complete change to a single payer system like you have (stated goal of several of the current leadership) at best we're looking at the first step to that goal. Why is the only way anyone can fix something is to completely replace it and if you only want to fix what's bad and leave what's good you get labled as wanting nothing but keeping the status quo? No I don't think it would have been handled the same way. Yes there may have been low cost government loans, that's happen in the past. I don't think we would have bought stock in the company nor told the "greedy" bondholders and stockholders to throw away their hard earned money and accept pennies on the dollar for their investment. These folks, some retirees investing their life savings, put their faith in the company to pay them back with interest over time. Then along comes the government that invests 20% and tells the folks holding 80% of the company's debt to stop being "greedy" and accept 20% of the new company while the government takes 60% and gives the Unions another 20%. In other words foolish you - give up 3/4 of your investment and be happy about it. Like the new policy that if you have a home loan and you owe more on the house than it's worth, just head on down to the courthouse and a judge will lower your mortage to match the price on the house. Sounds good on paper but where does the rest of the loan money go? I mean the bank loaned you 100,000 and now is holding a mortage woth 65,000. where do they get the other 35,000? That's 35,000 that depositors put into their banks. They need to be able to pay that back, with interest. Poof! It disapears in the new Obama world... take it out of your profits you greedy bloodsuckers! Does anyone really wonder why so many banks are failing when the government gives their money away without any reguard as to the impacts to each bank? See this is the problem I have with people and their selective memory and understanding about how the government works. Last September a Republican was President but the Democrates held the House and Senate. The President recommends positions but the Congress passes the laws. They do not have to follow his recommendations. People seem to forget that it was Barney Frank that called the banks before Congress and demanded that they find a way to lend money to those that currently could not get loans.. meaning those that did not meet the current requirements for getting a loan. Things like having the ability to pay it back... hmmm interesting concept. Anyway he basically said that if they didn't he would make their life a living hell. So they did. They lent money to those that didn't normall qualify. So here you are as a bank with lots of money lent to questionable repayment posibilities. What do you do? You try and get them off your books. So you package them up with some good one to even out the mix and sell them to someone that is biggeer and has more of an ability to stand the hit if they don't pay. The big guys are getting a deal because they are getting these loans at a discount and if they all pay they will make lots of money. But they don't all pay so Banks start losing money, lots of it. And then Barney Franks, remember him?, calls them in front of Congress again and ask how could they be so decitful as to lend money to people they know couldn't repay them? How could they be so greedy as to engage in bad business practices just to earn a buck? Because they did that he was going to make their life a living hell. So the Bankers were screwed from the beginning. I'm not making this up or revising history. Go to the library and read the newspapers from September 07 through September 08 and watch the major financial headlines. It's all there. Jamie
