A question for Candadians and UK folks and the Universal Healthcare

[thaiturkey]

Quote:
100%!

 

[Dunkopf]

Quote:
100%!

Watch what happens at the ballot box. Too many people don't do any research in this country, or they consider research as listening to talk radio or opinion news. Most of their info is based on the opinions of people that are schilling for big corporations. We have 3 major stations that just report whatever will get them the most viewership. Political issues are just handled in 5 second sound bites of whatever is the most controversial. We have one major station that has mostly political opinion and is steeply slanted towards helping corporations. They put out a lot of stuff to rile people up, but it is all designed to promote our corporate mob. The other mob has no organization whatsoever and they are the mob that supports health care. There is very strong opposition because of that. People that are broke and in dire need of health care vote against themselves because of red herring issues. Unlike the UK we only have 2 parties. Sure we have people that proclaim to be a different party. If they want to get elected they have to run under the flag of one of the 2 major parties.

I heard that Sweden at one point in the not too distant past decided to totally restructure their government in order to avoid collapse. We may face that cross roads ourselves in the future. We will either end up with a fascist society much like Mussolini had with corporate heads running the government or we will end up with more of a socialist democracy. We can't stay together as a country with a willy nilly set of rules like we currently have. Laws are what make a society. Without laws you have anarchy where the people with the most guns are in charge.

 

[thaiturkey]

Quote:
100%!

Watch what happens at the ballot box. Too many people don't do any research in this country, or they consider research as listening to talk radio or opinion news. Most of their info is based on the opinions of people that are schilling for big corporations. We have 3 major stations that just report whatever will get them the most viewership. Political issues are just handled in 5 second sound bites of whatever is the most controversial. We have one major station that has mostly political opinion and is steeply slanted towards helping corporations. They put out a lot of stuff to rile people up, but it is all designed to promote our corporate mob. The other mob has no organization whatsoever and they are the mob that supports health care. There is very strong opposition because of that. People that are broke and in dire need of health care vote against themselves because of red herring issues. Unlike the UK we only have 2 parties. Sure we have people that proclaim to be a different party. If they want to get elected they have to run under the flag of one of the 2 major parties.

I heard that Sweden at one point in the not too distant past decided to totally restructure their government in order to avoid collapse. We may face that cross roads ourselves in the future. We will either end up with a fascist society much like Mussolini had with corporate heads running the government or we will end up with more of a socialist democracy. We can't stay together as a country with a willy nilly set of rules like we currently have. Laws are what make a society. Without laws you have anarchy where the people with the most guns are in charge.

It seems to be the same the world over. No-one is willing to make his own enquiries to establish the full facts, even in these days of the internet. I think that Europe was lucky in that, after WWII, people were ready for major change as the only way to get a better life and, hopefully, end wars in Europe. If the UK was thinking today about introducing a State health system it might not be so easy to make the change, As we have it and have benefitted from its existence, no-one would want it to be scrapped. We have seen in this thread just how easy it is to get information if you want it.

The UK has two major parties and one that always comes third. Today, the third holds the balance of power and is in a coalition government. There are other small parties such as the Green Party too. The Communist Party was disbanded because no-one voted for it. The two major Parties aren't a million miles apart in policy so you could argue that voters don't have a real choice. It's about levels of tax and public spending rather than anything else. The UK is broadly in favour of a mixed economy and that avoids much debate on the division between public and private ownership.

 

[mom'sfolly]

I think what is likely to happen to health care in the US is that a series of half measures that don't work will get voted in. These measures will sour people on the whole idea of affordable universal healthcare. These half measures will eventually be repealed and the only people to benefit will be the insurance companies. Even easy steps like making all insurance claims work the same is opposed by the insurance industry. Confusion and red-tape benefit the companies because it is easier to pay yourself then to keep resubmitting, and arguing with the companies.

I think that the misinformation and lack of personal fact checking gets people to vote against their best interest. Scare tactics work, that's why politicians use them.

In the UK third parties have more influence due to the parlimentary system. In the US, we don't form coalition governments. Simple majority wins the election, and third parties and independents rarely get a majority.

 

[PineappleMama]

Quote:
See you'd think right? Other countries have had varying systems in place for years. They've tweaked and updated and worked through the bugs... so everyone else doesn't have to.

And yet... here we are... they've been trying for ... what 30 years? 40 years? To get some kind of plan passed, they've had all those years to study other plans, pros and cons... and yet THIS is what they came up with. What was the point in spending all those years (and money) researching and fighting just to end up with something like this?!?!

Brings to mind the old story... two women fighting over one baby... cutting it in half to give everyone some of what they wanted was NOT the best choice... and yet, that's kinda what if feels like they've done... rather than getting a GOOD plan passed, one that will improve people's lives... instead they just wanted to pass SOMETHING so they could mark it off their list. Lame, very lame. THEY worked the system... but I don't think the system was working for us.

Exempt wise... maybe they didn't word it as an exemption, but it amounts to the same thing. Every other citizen has to provide themselves with insurance... some, their jobs do it, some don't but in the end it's on the citizen to have it or else. These folks do not have that burden because unlike private companies they are Guaranteed benefits... no ifs, ands, or buts about it, guaranteed. Thus they do not have to worry about breaking the law if they can't afford it, job doesn't offer it, lose job, etc.

Imagine a law saying it was illegal to run... obviously those without legs/unable to use them wouldn't have to worry about breaking that law, ever, not even if they wanted to.... same difference here.

And riddle me this one... you break the law you are punished (depends on the crime but jail or fines or community service) in the hopes that it will teach you a lesson, so you won't do it again... well... if you cannot afford insurance, pretty common from where I'm sitting... and you are fined because you broke the law... well, you may have taken the punishment but it doesn't change your finances, except in the negative, to where you can suddenly afford it.... just because you WANT to, doesn't mean you CAN... so every year you'll just keep getting punished for something you can't stop... well that's not true, I suppose you could take on a second or third job solely to pay for insurance to avoid the fine... somehow that doesn't make a lot of sense to me when the point of the law was to Improve People's Lives... anyone else confuzzled by that or is it just me that doesn't get it?

 

[redhen]

I also REALLY worry about how they will handle non-emergency medical issues...
Right now my insurance HAS to pay for my infertility issues.. (even though it still costs me $10 grand this cycle..)
Anyways.. without ins coverage.. it could cost me 30,000 or more... so...
what will happen to folks that DO still need medical intervention.. but its not considered a real medical emergency or issue.. they consider it an "elective" issue.. kinda like a boob job or tummy tuck... i'd guess.. cause having a baby isnt a medical necessity.... even if you NEED medical intervention ..

I know women in Canada that are going through infertility issues too.. and you should hear the things that they HAVE to PAY for... and how FAR they have to travel to see a specilist... and how LONG it takes them to even get into the doctor...
they do NOT have the choices that i have here in the USA with my health insurance coverage...
It makes me sick that i could end up like that...
I feel like my govt is taking away MY medical rights and choices...

 

[ivan3]

I’m going to preface this post with a couple of quotes. The first is from Kyle Bass’ testimony before the FCIC (Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission) in January of this year. Bass was a former trader with Bear Stearns and tried to warn his former colleagues of what was coming, they gave his advice a pass. Bass subsequently made over a billion during the collapse. The quote has to do with Freddie and Fannie but is applicable to the health care mess.
The second is a quote from a speech given by the CEO of the Dallas Fed at the ht. of the crisis 9/25/08.

With $5.5 trillion of outstanding debt and Mortgage Backed Securities Guarantees, the quasi‐public or now in‐conservatorship Fannie and Freddie have obligations that approach the total amount of government‐issued bonds the US currently has outstanding. There are so many things that went wrong or are wrong at these so‐called GSEs that I am not sure where to start. First, why were two for‐profit companies with boards, shareholders, charitable foundations, and lobbying arms ever given the "implicit" backing of the US Government? The Chinese won't buy them anymore only because our government won't give them the explicit backing. The US government cannot give them the explicit
backing because the resulting federal debt burden will crash though the Congressionally‐mandated debt ceiling (which was recently raised to accommodate more deficit spending). These organizations have
been some of the single largest political contributors in the world over the past decade with $200 million being given to 354 lawmakers in the last 10 years or so. Yes, the United States needs low cost mortgages, but why should organizations created by Congress have to lobby Congress? Fannie and Freddie used the most leverage of any institution that issued mortgages or held mortgage backed bonds. At one point in 2007, Fannie was over 95X levered to its statutory minimum capital with just 18 basis points set aside for losses. That's right, 18 one hundredths of one percent set aside for potential losses. They must not be able to put humpty dumpty back together again. If they are to exist going forward, Fannie and Freddie should be 100% government‐owned, and the government should simply issue mortgages to the population of the United States directly since this is essentially what is already happening today, with the added burden of supporting a privately‐funded, and arguably insolvent, capital structure.

http://www.fcic.gov/hearings/pdfs/2010-0113-Bass.pdf

Even before tackling the task of cementing capital adequacy, we need to bear in mind that the TARP places one more straw on the back of the frightfully encumbered camel that is the federal government ledger. Other off-balance-sheet liabilities were already in place before Washington took on additional burdens from the reorganization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and whatever we realize—which may, after all is said and done, be a positive return—from the liquidation of collateralized loans made through the Fed to Bear Stearns and AIG, and now the Treasury’s discharging of “x” dollars of mortgage-related securities for which there is presently no palpable market. (I say “x” because under the proposal made, the taxpayers’ outlay is not $700 billion; it is the difference between $700 billion and the return earned on that $700 billion investment.)Foremost among the existing liabilities are some $13 trillion in unfunded Social Security benefits and Medicare obligations already promised to the people but as yet unfunded, an obligation that the Dallas Fed staff estimates at a present value of over $80 trillion.[8] The former comptroller general of the United States, David Walker, estimates the Medicare deficit to be less, only $34 trillion, so let’s work with his less-excitable numbers. With everything including Social Security and Medicare properly accounted for, Mr. Walker estimates that “as of September 30, 2007, the federal government was in a $53 trillion fiscal hole, equal to $455,000 per household and $175,000 per person.

http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080925.cfm

The emphasis in the quotes is mine. I’m of the opinion that health care is going to have to go to a single payer nonprofit system and the current `fix’, like that at Freddie and Fannie, is a near-beer palliative - not a cure. Do I have my own insurance? Yes. Do I expect my taxes to continue to rise to cover the unfunded Medicare system? Yes. Cut to the chase and fix the problem.

Have my disagreements with some of this org.’s positions, but they are on the right track: http://www.pnhp.org/

We’ll probably have to hit another `dip’, have the price of energy soar again or become ill from the constant demagogic soundbiting with nothing to show for it but another round of the same before enough folks actually read the numbers and get serious (another couple election cycles, I’d guess – if we have that amount time).

I’ll leave it to those so inclined to hunt down the names of the 354 lawmakers who received the 200 million from Freddie/Fannie.​

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote:
Simple answer to that one is ask someone on Medicaid. Or ask the people at the doctors office about medicaid. Being a guy I wouldn't know about that stuff but I haven't had medicaid say no to anything yet. I think the Medicaid/medicare system works good. If I want more I can still buy it as an add on. But its pretty complete. It just dont do dental.

 

[Dar]

Quote:
Remember each province handles health care differently ..

I dont know much about IVF... BUT my friend had to go through treatments and they were totally covered... she had to t-go to hamilton which is about an hour away.. so her case I guess is ont eh better end of the spectrum.

Boob jobs, Nose jobs, cosmetic stuff is never covered... but they look at infertility issues through a different pair of glasses...

 

[redhen]

Quote:
Simple answer to that one is ask someone on Medicaid. Or ask the people at the doctors office about medicaid. Being a guy I wouldn't know about that stuff but I haven't had medicaid say no to anything yet. I think the Medicaid/medicare system works good. If I want more I can still buy it as an add on. But its pretty complete. It just dont do dental.

Welp.. theres my answer right there..
Mass health...(our state funded insurance.). does NOT cover infertility treatments... And THATS my fear... that this universal health plan will be like THAT... they barely cover crap up here... i know because my foster kids are on it... you have to jump through hoops to get SO many things covered... it truly sucks.. so... why wouldnt this universal health plan be any different?

ETA:.. ooh well.. i'll stop whining now... lol..
nothing we can do about it anyways.. its a done deal...