Universal Single-Payer Health Care Poll

There has been a discussion of single-payer in some threads and some folk(s) believe that if Universal Single-Payer were put into place the communists and socialists win and their freedoms would be abridged.

Some folk(s) also believe that we're mostly Marxist/Leninists here on DU and that we would be glad to abridge their freedom to go out and pay extra for extra "health care"...

So, in order to detect the true mood of DU'ers, I've volunteered to post her/his poll request...

I've added a third option 'cause I'm curious about how many on DU don't want Universal Single-Payer at all...

because the hybrid system costs more. Not to the citizen, it costs the government more.

This has been proven in places like Australia.

for things like private hospital rooms and cosmetic surgery done purely for vanity reasons (as opposed to correcting deformities).

I already had, before I even entered that post. I was responding to PDJane who I think may have misunderstood option 1.

why?....
private rooms cut down on infections,speeds recovery time,provides more room for bedside medical devices,and more room for the nursing staff to treat or help in the patient movement.

Be much cheaper and more efficient to have Nurse Practitioners and EMTs available for them.

Check out SiCKO and the house call doctors in France...

from recent surgery. It was mainly for incision wound care, but they also monitored my blood pressure and answered all my questions, listening to my lungs, etc.

My insurance paid for it and it was a great experience. The VNA is a terrific group of nurses. Plus, just seeing a patient every day during an important time in your care when you are essentially house bound is a safety check.

If so, then of course it should be covered under single payer.

In any case, it should be covered when medically necessary.

IMHO, when it's not medically necessary it probably is less expensive and more efficient to double up and have two per room. I've unfortunately had more than one hospital stay and I was often glad for the companionship of a roommate.

I really like that.

doesn't necessarily include insurance, either. What if you want to pay for an MRI because you don't want to wait two months, and have the money to do so? Should you be denied that right? I don't think so.

that shouldn't be a problem.

I foresee that there will be private clinics for that kind of thing.

Seriously, does anyone think the bigwigs, wealthy, politicians, etc., won't be moved to the front of the line? ha I have a bridge to sell ya' if you think they're going to wait patiently at the back of the queue with everyone else. You think your senator is going to wait for two months for that MRI when s/he can be moved to the front of the line in one of the best hospitals. They'll have the "POWER" to get to the front of the line in the best hospitals and clinics. The best we can hope is the ability to have supplmental insurance and the freedom to go to private clinics if the wait is too long.

That will be set up strictly to care for the medical needs of the 1%. And you know what, I don't care, as long as everybody else can get the same quality care we have now. Usually anyway.

I think you may be falling for some of the insurance company propaganda. Supposed long waits is one of their biggest talking points.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I know the waits for diagnostic technology in other countries can be longer than I've ever had to wait with insurance. (Not that my insurance doesn't suck in other ways.)

No, I don't want to wait months to find out that my cancer has returned. No, thanks.

My grandmother has little waits under Medicare, but that's because Medicare isn't responsible for the technology that is available right now. When we have to depend on some government officials to decide how much they're going to spend on technology, things are going to be a bit different. And it bugs the heck out of me that we won't get a healthcare program because this is going to be a huge sticking point. You think the hospitals in Canada just send a bill to the government for all the equipment they want? No, higher ups determine how much is going to be spent. Look it up.

and you're claiming that that will happen doesn't make it so. I haven't heard any stories about it happening in Canada.

What very likely has happened is that people here in the US have died because they NEVER got a diagnosis because they NEVER went to a doctor because they didn't have coverage.

You're talking about unsupported hypothetical situations. I'm talking about what's happening right now in the US. People are suffering and people are dying either because they have no coverage or because corporate bureaucrats, who have no accountability to voters, are deciding how health care dollars will be spent and denying necessary care to sick people.

As far as I can tell, the long waits for necessary care in Canada are a myth. You're letting insurance company propaganda frighten you.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, things in Canada were really as bad as you claim. Nowhere is it set in stone that we would have to do things the same as Canada. Nowhere does it say that we have to copy any mistakes they've made.

Whew....

I'm tired of answering this crap...

:hi:

Your plan doesn't allow for supplemental insurance. According to you, there's no room for debate about this.

Well we'll see just what kind of plan will go through, and it won't be the one that is the most drastically different from what we have now. The voters won't vote it in! Didn't you learn anything from Senator Clinton's fiasco! Come on. You know I have a point. You need the votes. Making it a crime to go outside the system is going to doom whatever chances we have of getting good national health care.

Make it like Social Security, everyone contributes but you still have choices for supplemental insurance, and we'll get our healthcare.

When and if there's a President who would sign ANY legislation that's good for people, there will be a process in the Congress (resembling the manufacture of sausage) that will change this legislation.

For more details (and an attempt at offering the peace pipe) -- See my post #148...

I feel strongly about this issue and I hate seeing people who have been mislead by propaganda.

Of just about every debated issue, in fact.

Difference of opinion does not make one a sheeple being misled by propaganda. It just means one has a difference of opinion, oftentimes.

Saying someone is misled by propaganda is an insult. But I suppose you meant it that way.

But when things go wrong for you because your province has the worse statistics for that particular procedure, you're stuck with no options.

The wait times vary from province to province for various procedures...just like here; however, here you you could have more options if you have supplemental insurance.

So maybe you and I aren't that far apart.

Part of any US universal care plan should include constant monitoring of results with attention given to shortcomings.

And that is a very good way to run the system. Choice and monitoring.

Canada monitors it's wait times - for instance - in all provinces, so that glitches can be addressed. Unfortunately, if you're the one currently stuck in the glitch, that's not going to help you.

Best wishes!

We can't allow people to opt out of the universal system, but we can allow them to pay for (or purchase insurance for) extra service.

that a little more money wouldn't fix...

They have libertarian-conservative assholes in their Legislature too.

And their present Prime Minister is a piece of work, too! (What were they THINKING?)

hundreds, if not thousands, of times with our shameful over-priced, under-performing system.

Those kind of privileged characters would pay to be treated like the royalty they think they are...

You don't know very much about health care, do you? Health care professionals take care of the people with the most NEED first -- they don't ask income or class when deciding who to treat next or when to schedule a needed test or procedure...

HR676 - Single-Payer would allow them to return to their jobs instead of having to deal with the anti-health-care for profit insurance leeches...

I ALREADY GRANTED YOU THOSE PRIVILEGES!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3497068&mesg_id=3498778


HOW MANY TIMES MUST WE TELL YOU THAT UNDER SINGLE-PAYER YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE THAT OPTION!!!!!!!!!!!

Which means that ONLY the rich will have options. Yes, I have a problem with that!

Health care professionals triage the most needy for urgent care, but when you are talking about a wait list, do you really think a senator or wealthy person with power is going to wait as long as Joe Blow for an MRI or heart bypass? IF you can't get supplemental insurance, even the wealthy will be looking for the best doctors under the national system. Why pay $75,000 for expensive medical care if you can pull some strings and get the best treatment for free in one of the nations best hospitals? Some of the cheapest people I know are rich.

George Bush doesn't have to pay to get the best treatment, does he? The rich will get the best treatment, as usual, and the middle class will be screwed, as usual. What's new? :sarcasm:

What the HELL do you mean?

Please stop spreading this crap!@!!!!!

Do you mean this?

"Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHI program. Exceptions to this rule include coverage for cosmetic surgery, and other medically unnecessary treatments. Those who are displaced as the result of the transition to a non- profit health care system are the first to be hired and retrained under this act."

What the FUCK are you talking about...

"wealthy person with power is going to wait as long as Joe Blow for an MRI or heart bypass?"

If someone needs an MRI or a bypass they're going to FUCKING GET IT!!! No matter who the hell they are!!!

Geeeeeeeezzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!

What part of the health care mafia do YOU work for???

You're sure pushing a lot of bullshit health industry talking points....

Yeah, that says exactly what I'm saying. You can't get health insurance except for a bunch of crap like plastic surgery. Yeah, right! There won't be such a thing. No profit! That is totally bogus.

Health care mafia? ROFLMAO I run a very small business from my home. And business is slow right now, which is why I have time to be here. My husband is a programmer.

"What part of the health care mafia do YOU work for??? "

Even as recently as a year ago I would have scoffed at the question. These days, though...

The Single Payer System has been getting some serious traction. Maybe Sicko was the catalyst, maybe it wasn't-- but after the film was released, I've noticed a lot of PR movement in the Health Care Industry. Big Pharma and chain drug stores are advertising lists of drugs they're suddenly selling for next to nothing (out of the kindness of their hearts, no doubt), and now we begin to hear more and more "anecdotal" evidence attempting to add credibility to 15 year old GOP/Libertarian talking points. The internet version of the successful "Keep big government out of our medicine cabinets" crap that ran in 1993.

A number of concern trolls worried about long lines-- but the best they can do (so far) are variations of the "I have a friend who has a friend who lives in France and had to wait four and half million years for a bottle of aspirin..."

My favorite bit: The Nanny State (Ooga-Booga-Booga!) Ogre getting trotted out with great fanfare. "John Edwards says he'll eat your children if you don't get an annual check-up..."


But all of the new found concern, all of the "righteous" indignation at big brother, all of the attacks on candidates who support single payer... well, I think it means they're scared. They're starting to sweat a little bit.

Good.

I'm not one. A difference of opinion about how to run a NATIONAL - everyone pays - everyone is covered - healthcare plan and we're trolls? Geesh.

Mighty inclusive of you.

Don't put out the welcome mat, will ya? I'm afraid it might be covered in poison.

Why get offended if you're not a target?

You inferred that anyone I disagree with is a troll? Open your mind-- just a little bit. You're gonna assume that your interpretation of what I say is the absolute and only truth out there, and then get offended by it?


Perspective. It's not just for breakfast any more...

to waiting one month for an hmo to deny it. then fighting them for six more months.

compared to not having the option of health care at all like me and 48 MILLION of my brothers and sisters!!!!

No kidding!

We're arguing about how it's going to work, not whether or not we want it. You seem hell bent on forgetting that.

That is there is a special hospital for them on the hill.
Honestly I am in favor of that because they are doing the people's business (or the corporation's business, but you get the point).

Do YOU seriously think that the wealthy actually wait to see a doctor NOW? ReallY??????? Naive much?

Seriously, open your eyes. Those people don't even go to the same doctors you and I go to. And if they do, they are by default at the head of the line. And I actually know this for a fact, as exactly 5 people in my close social circle are multi-millionaires(if not billionaires...we never discuss money. it's impolite) In my wider social circle there are more, but I can assure you the same rules apply to them.

3 of them have close friends who are doctors and can call them at home literally any time. 1 of the 3 listed above is working on a project with his doctor to develop and build a health care complex. Another of the 5 is the son of a Dr.

You need to step into the real world. Most people in this country are just the livestock that feed the farmer. Occassionally they get to sample the table scraps, but, trust me, they'll never sit at the table with the farmer. NEVER.



My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

But according to some, everyone - rich and poor, powerful or not - is going to queue up. haha Do you really believe that? No, you don't do you.

The rich will have the best care at the best hospitals, AS USUAL.

And if your care sucks, you'll be stuck. That's why I want supplemental insurance. You see, I don't have a crystal ball. I don't have the power to see the future and know that what we get is going to be as good as France. In this country? Yeah, right. It'll take decades if not longer to accomplish that. Supplmental insurance will be MUCH less expensive than insurance now, and insurance companies will have lost their power and hold over us. They'll shink, many will disappear, and and the ones that hang around will have to be consumer friendly or they won't make money! Right now, we're at their mercy.

I know how siingle payer works. We all pay in, we go to our own doctor, blah, blah, blah. There's way more to it than that, however. How much funding for hospitals? How much funding for technology?

You priorities are yours and you get to live with them. Just know that the rich will always have priveledge and favor... ALWAYS.

I for one would like to see people, like my sister, be able to get the tests she needs and the PT she needs. But that ain't happening because she was unlucky enough to lose her job to outsourcing and could only find contract work which left her with no insurance when she had a stroke.

Screw what the rich have.

Focus, instead, on helping the majority of workers in this country.


My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

Is seeing that we all get better care. See if you can understand this. Think about it. My point is that the rich will have options that the middle and upper classes (not the wealthy) who currently have insurance will NOT have. We do not have to limit our choices in order to provide quality care for those who currently have nothing. I'm for more choices for as many people as possible, not just the wealthy and privileged. It's a given they'll have more choices. It's not a given that you have to take away choices from everyone in the middle.

The rich will have the best care at the best hospitals, AS USUAL.

If there is a single universal health insurance scheme, and the providers -- doctors, hospitals, labs -- are paid the same for delivering services to the rich as they are paid for delivering services to the poor, why would the rich have access to better services than the poor?? Maybe their good buddies in the medical profession will reserve appointment times for them ... but really, how far do we want to take this argument?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=190&topic_id=21786&mesg_id=21816

Hand
Fri Jul-13-07 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
15. Here's an anecdote for you.

One time I needed a chest x-ray, which is done by the same procedures that I and others have described--get the form, go to the hospital, hand it in, show your card, etc.

<I'd just note that in Ontario, x-rays and blood tests are done at private labs, which take the requisition form your doctor gives you, swipe your health card, provide the service, and bill the public plan for the fee on the fee schedule.>

Since this is a public first-come-first-served service, there's often a bit of a lineup, which there was this day (took maybe half an hour from the time I walked in the door). Anyway, while I was waiting in line, I noticed that my federal MP (member of the House of Commons, equivalent to a US congressman) also waiting in line in his suit next to the usual lineup of people in jeans and t-shirts or whatever. He didn't jump the line, didn't think of pulling rank on anyone, and was content to hang out until his name was called like everyone else.

I talked to him on the way out since I had voted for him and liked what he said in Commons--he was just there to have an old basketball injury checked on. That's pretty much the way it works in a near single-tier system--to the greatest extent possible, everybody's equal and gets the same level of service.

That's perhaps the greatest benefit, IMHO, of a single-payer universal health care system--it's as near to fully democratic as it can be (given that folks with money and/or education generally tend to be able to take better care of themselves). In that way, it helps bind together all strata of society in very real and very important ways. I think people are aware of this and do not begrudge the taxes they pay for the health system, even though the benefits may go more to others than themselves.

Note that there are benefits to a single-tier system beyond the basic fact that everybody gets health care. The society also gains more generally by enhancing individuals' adherence to its core values and commitment to the common good and collective success of the society.

When Paul Martin was briefly the Liberal Prime Minister here a couple of years ago, the right wing tried to create a scandal by alleging that he used private health care services. (Imagine living in a place where it would be scandalous that the head of government used private health care services ...)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/05/07/Martindoctor_040507.html

-- Now, there is a problem in Quebec with the government not enforcing the law against private delivery of services covered under the public plan. Lack of political will, and all that. But there *are* private elements to the health care system itself -- for instance, outfits that provide services under the workers' compensation scheme in Ontario, which fall outside the public plan, and various other services that are required otherwise than for individual health care.

Opposition politicians are calling Paul Martin a hypocrite after finding out that his personal physician heads a private health care clinic in Montreal.

Dr. Sheldon Elman is the founder and CEO of the Medisys Health Group. He has been Martin's doctor for 23 years.

Martin says he's never used private health care. ... "My primary health coverage...is my medicare card and that's what I use all the time when I go to a public clinic," says Martin. "I don't believe in queue-jumping."

The right wing was wrong.

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&Page=archivemartin&Sub=statementsdeclarations&Doc=statement_20040507_197_e.htm

Response to a story in the Ottawa Citizen

May 07, 2004
Ottawa, Ontario

The Prime Minister’s Office today issued the following statement in response to a story in today’s Ottawa Citizen:

“Prime Minister Martin’s longtime family physician Dr. Sheldon Elman has offices in a downtown Montreal medical clinic, Medisys. Medisys is a medical clinic accessible to all members of the public. It provides services regularly to anyone with medical need. Indeed, INFO-SANTE, a publication of the Quebec government advertised the clinic as one available to the public in downtown Montreal. Dr. Elman has been the Prime Minister’s family doctor for over 20 years – predating the founding of the Medisys clinic.

While Medisys also provides executive health care services to individuals, Prime Minister Martin does not have an executive health care plan. Like any other Canadian, he uses his health card to pay for treatment provided by his doctor. Should he have need for other services such as physiotherapy, dentistry or blood tests (which under Quebec’s health care plan are not publicly insured), he relies on his employer-provided medical benefits plan – the same plan available to all Parliamentarians. He also has a medical benefits plan from his former company CSL Inc. but again, that does not include membership in an executive health care services plan.”

Helps explain that "supplemental insurance" thing, too (although "blood tests" really are very definitely covered under Quebec's plan - see the DU thread I linked to above - so I don't know what that's about).


So anyhow, all I'm hearing is "the rich will always be with us". Maybe so, but there is simply no reason to say "the rich will always get better health care", at least not when it comes to medically necessary, publicly insured services.

I'm for more choices. Some people aren't.

Question. Who determines what is medically "necessary?" in Canada. Does the individual doctor determine that, or does a committee determine what is elective and what is medically necessary? I don't mean individual cases. I mean things in general - like bunion surgery. Or surgery and procedures that might be somewhat experimental. And if it's determined not necessary, can you go outside the system and pay for it? And even if it is your individual physican's decision right now, who's to say things won't change when there is a scarcity of funds?

Why in the hell would anyone trust this government when this government took us to a war we had no business being in? I trust this government about as much as I trust my health insurance provider!

Let me ask you, Mr. Canadian.

How well do you trust the American government? Please answer the question.

...

...

...

I rest my case.

Done.

Stick a fork in it.

Have a nice day. Really. I say that with no malice. I intend to have a very nice day. :)

Question. Who determines what is medically "necessary?" in Canada. Does the individual doctor determine that, or does a committee determine what is elective and what is medically necessary? I don't mean individual cases. I mean things in general - like bunion surgery. Or surgery and procedures that might be somewhat experimental. And even if it is the individual doctor right now, who's to say things won't change when there is a scarcity of funds?

Well, you've just covered all the bases there, haven't you?

Even if the answer is what you apparently hope it isn't, well, that doesn't matter, because, well, things could change.

The answer is what you apparently hope it isn't.

Who determines what is medically "necessary" in Canada? Doctors.

Yes indeed, the gummint bureaucrats make the decision in the first instance by developing the schedules of services and fees. If the service isn't on the schedule, there's no fee for it.

For the consumer:
http://consumerinformation.ca/app/oca/ccig/abstract.do?language=eng&abstractNo=OR000015&text=&language=eng

Do you have Ontario Health Insurance (OHIP)? Would you like to know what medical services you can claim? OHIP Schedule of Benefits describes for you what services your OHIP will cover for you and what it will not.

This information is available on-line and some information is available in hard copy format.

For service providers:
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/ohip/sob/sob_mn.html

Physician Services
Schedule of Benefits April 1, 2007

* Numeric Index of the Schedule of Benefits under the Health Insurance Act. (PDF)
April 1, 2007
* Amendments regarding Emergency Department Diagnostics to the Schedule of Benefits under the Health Insurance Act (PDF)
April 1, 2005

If you find anything missing (as we have noted, bunion surgery is there -- it's then the doctor who decides whether a particular bunion surgery is medically necessary, I guess, just like the doctor would in the case of breast reduction, say), shout.

There are indeed things like experimental treatments that run into the tens of thousands of dollars a month that a few people have been unable to get. They tend to take the government to court when it happens; we do a lot of that up here. Sometimes the courts agree with them, sometimes the courts defer to the government as it being a matter of public spending policy that courts should not interfere in. So now you must tell me: how many people's employer-based plans, say, in the US, cover such things? And what would the deductible / co-pay element amount to?

If a service is on the schedule, MY DOCTOR decides whether I need it. My doctor never ever ever consults with any insurance bureaucrat about what service to provide me. My doctor then provides the service or refers me to a specialist to provide the service or books me into hospital to provide the service or gives me a requisition for a lab to provide the service. Period.

Doctors' billings are audited. And there are caps on annual billings by doctors in some situations, especially specialists, I believe. Every year, there will be some bozo caught double-billing for time or some such. Probably costs more to catch 'em than what's recovered, but it's one of those things that has to be done.

Could this change? Well, hmm. I guess a meteorite could strike the earth, or Canadians could suddenly decide they preferred to have insurance bureaucrats deciding what medical care they get. I'm not reinforcing my roof just yet.


Why in the hell would anyone trust this government when this government took us to a war we had no business being in?

I seem to have missed something. Aren't we premising this discussion on there being a change of government in the US?


Let me ask you, Mr. Canadian.

I guess I neglected to mention that the biopsy that kept me in hospital for three days was a cervical biopsy.


How well do you trust the American government?

Well, not so much, eh? I do like to hope that one day the people of the US will trust one another.


I rest my case.

If only you had one ...

People would only have to queue up for necessary care if the system is held artificially inadaquate.

There's enough money in our system now to provide Health Care for all that would make the care in France seem inadequate...

Without the profit stolen from us by the health insurance leeches and big pharma we will be able to provide more funding for local neighborhood CLINICS, hospitals and technology. Don't forget that most of the research into medical technologies is done with TAXPAYER dollars, after which the for-profit corporations take the results of OUR RESEARCH and grab the gravy by gouging US.

"We the People" must drive this effort in our masses. We must UN-ELECT anyone who gets in our way. We must cut the corporations out of the process. Thanks to the deprivations and built-in contradictions of the for-profit health industry, the momentum is going in our direction.

We must keep up the pressure.

We'll get the Health Care System we fight for...

but private rooms are common there.

that one would still HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE to the Single-Payer system according to their means but that they would be free to spend extra money for other private "health care" options IN ADDITION to the mandatory Universal coverage...

Just as it is in every country that's smart enough to have Universal Single-Payer or "Socialized" health care...

We're not talking about a system that allows the for-profit mafia to have any place in the Universal system.

HR676 would eliminate the for-profit leeches from our system...

because the administrative costs can be reduced to 2% to 3%. Allowing private insurers to collect corporate welfare would be more costly to the taxpayers. The insurance companies need to get out of the health care industry and find something else to insure. Don't worry about them, they will be selling you pet insurance and other types of disaster insurance before long.

ENTIRELY out of the public system:

http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676_2.htm

Brief Summary of HR 676

· The United States National Health Insurance Act establishes an American national health insurance program. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income, or health status.
· With over 45-75 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are under- insured, the time has come to change our inefficient and costly fragmented non health care system.

Who is Eligible

· Every person living in or visiting the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and ID number once they enroll at the appropriate location. Social Security numbers may not be used when assigning ID cards.

Health Care Services Covered

· This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, in patient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics and practices. No co-pays or deductibles are permitted under this act.

Conversion To A Non-Profit Health Care System

· Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHI program. Exceptions to this rule include coverage for cosmetic surgery, and other medically unnecessary treatments. Those who are displaced as the result of the transition to a non- profit health care system are the first to be hired and retrained under this act.

Cost Containment Provisions/ Reimbursement

· The National USNHI program will set reimbursement rates annually for physicians, allow for "global budgets" (annual lump sums for operating expenses) for health care providers; and negotiate prescription drug prices. The national office will provide an annual lump sum allotment to each existing Medicare region; each region will administer the program.

· The conversion to a not-for-profit health care system will take place over a 15 year period. U.S. treasury bonds will be sold to compensate investor-owned providers for the actual appraised value of converted facilities used in the delivery of care; payment will not be made for loss of business profits. Health insurance companies could be sub-contracted out to handle reimbursements.

Proposed Funding For USNHI Program:

· Maintaining current federal and state funding of existing health care programs. A modest payroll tax on all employers of 3.3%. A 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners. A small tax on stock and bond transfers. Closing corporate tax loop-holes, repealing the Bush tax cut.

Canada tried a system with no co-pays and it proved to be way too expensive...

Canada tried a system with no co-pays and it proved to be way too expensive...


Canada ELIMINATED co-pays, which we call extra-billing, quite a few years ago. It is ILLEGAL. There are NO fees chargeable or payable by any patient in connection with any service covered by the public plans. (Now, when I googled, I did see someone saying that OHIP was going to pay a percentage of her bunion surgery ... but maybe we can just leave bunions out of this for now.)

Every once in a while, some right-wing government or letter-to-the-editor writer starts talking about charging $5 for an unnecessary emergency room visit, or any emergency room visit. To keep the ignorant riff-raff from clogging up the system.

Of course, people most likely to use ERs are people with kids, people with socioeconomic disadvantages that make them less likely to have a settled relationship with a primary care provider, people without family supports, and like that. People who can't really afford $5 much of the time. People of whom some would inevitably be deterred from seeking necessary treatment by the charge imposed.

Intelligent heads usually prevail, pointing out that the collecting of the stupid fees would cost the system more than it would gain by it.

I know that things vary from province to province, but copays are not illegal. For example, I know for a fact that Ontario has a sliding scale of copays for drug prescriptions that is based on income.

The Ontario health insurance plan ("OHIP") does not cover prescription drugs. This is a major flaw.

So you definitely don't know that "Ontario has a sliding scale of copays for drug prescriptions that is based on income".

I pay full pop for my prescriptions. If I didn't have such a high income, I would probably buy into the provincial plan for prescriptions, which is optional and a lot of people don't know about (I didn't until recently). Because it is a sliding scale, it is of no value to me.

Ontario has a completely separate thing called the Ontario Drug Benefit, for seniors and low-income people:
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/program/drugs/drugs_mn.html

Through the Ontario Drug Benefit Program, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care covers most of the cost of prescription drug products listed in the Ontario Drug Benefit (ODB) Formulary. If you belong to one of the following groups of Ontario residents and you have valid Ontario Health Insurance (OHIP), you are eligible for drug coverage under the ODB Program :

* people 65 years of age and older;
* residents of long-term care facilities;
* residents of Homes for Special Care;
* people receiving professional services under the Home Care program;
* Trillium Drug Program recipients.

In addition, if you are receiving social assistance (the Ontario Works program or the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP)), you are eligible for ODB coverage.

... ODB eligible people may be asked to pay some portion of their prescription drug product costs.

Single seniors (people aged 65 or older) who have an annual income of $16,018 or more and seniors in couples with a combined annual income of $24,175 or more pay a $100 deductible per senior before they are eligible for drug coverage. After these seniors pay the deductible, they then pay up to $6.11 toward the dispensing fee each time they fill a prescription for a covered drug product in Ontario in the benefit year.

All other ODB eligible people, including Trillium Drug Program recipients, may be asked to pay up to $2 each time they fill a prescription. Trillium Drug Program applicants must also pay a quarterly or prorated deductible that is based on their income before they are eligible to receive drug coverage.

The whole thing is computerized through pharmacies, so however all that deductible and co-pay business works, it's figured out for people who are eligible. Basically, the poor pay $2 per prescription - unless the pharmacy waives it. My guy around the corner, an independent pharmacist and truly nice guy recently voted community businessperson of the month, waives it. Some chains do too, following the Wal-Mart loss leader philosophy. And that $2 co-pay was the recent invention of the late and very unlamented Mike Harris conservative government, and needs to be done away with now.

Meanwhile, governments negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for bulk prices, which means that we pay less for most drugs than people in the US pay, whether they're paid by a govt plan, by a private supplemental plan or out of the individual's pocket.

I hope I've helped.

So much for your assertion that co-pays are illegal in Canada...

Let me try it again, 'k? I mean, maybe you really really didn't get it the first time.

A universal single payer public health plan doesn't have to cover prescription drugs. Prescription drugs, like dental care and eyeglasses, are really entirely different from health care, which is generally understood to refer to medical services provided by medical practitioners or in hospitals.

The Canadian system in most provinces started out as hospital insurance and expanded to become an insurance plan that covers all medically necessary services. In some provinces, it covers prescription drugs. But the Canada Health Act, which governs what medically necessary services must be provided under the provincial plans, does NOT contain any provisions relating to prescription drugs, or dental care, etc.

The rules governing HEALTH INSURANCE prohibit extra-billing by doctors, i.e. charging fees over and above what the public plan pays. The provincial plans do NOT require that insured persons pay ANY PORTION of the charges by health care services providers for medically necessary services.

DRUG PLANS are not part of the health insurance system in Canada. They are programs operated by SOME provincial governments. The rules governing the provincial health insurance plans do NOT apply to them.

I understand that USAmericans automatically think "prescription drugs" when they think health insurance. Two reasons: first, prescription drugs are often extremely expensive in the US, and that is what the problem largely is for low-income seniors, say; second, your private insurance schemes today generally cover a multitude of things, including prescription drugs, and not just medically necessary health care services, so that's what you think of when you think health care insurance.

We deal with the problem of the high cost of prescription drugs in two ways: first, by negotiating lower prices with the drug companies; second, by providing targeted assistance programs for seniors and low-income people in provinces that do not have universal drug plans.

So let me say it once again.

For medically necessary services covered by the provincial health insurance plans under the national standards they are required to meet, THERE ARE NO CO-PAYS or DEDUCTIBLES.

Want to dance around the truth some more?

It's so easy to say false things and leave those who care about the truth to type all the words to prove the falsity of the things. In a court, no one would be permitted to say things like you've said without providing evidence of their truth; if anyone said such things and failed to provide evidence, what s/he said would just be stricken from the record, and no one would have to bother their heads about them.

In public discourse, there is no arbiter but the audience. The audience can't make you retract something you say when it is false, or rule it never said and instruct everyone to ignore it. People who care about the quality of public discourse don't go around injecting falsehoods into it. People who care more about getting their own way than about the public interest are apparently perfectly happy if they manage to fool at least some of the people at least some of the time, on the other hand.

A universal single payer public health plan doesn't have to cover prescription drugs. Prescription drugs, like dental care and eyeglasses, are really entirely different from health care, which is generally understood to refer to medical services provided by medical practitioners or in hospitals.

I guess this is where we really disagree. I believe that prescription drugs are an integral part of health care, you do not.

I guess this is where we really disagree. I believe that prescription drugs are an integral part of health care, you do not.

Nah. It's just where you make the latest in a long and apparently inexhaustible series of false statements.

If you were to start retracting them now, you might be done by Christmas.

paying that much in taxes and not getting prescription coverage. YIKES!

Prescriptions like blood pressure medication are just as vital to some people's well being as surgery is to another.

How a person can say that you are making false statements when in reality all you did was quote them directly :)

How a person can say that you are making false statements when in reality all you did was quote them directly :)

Does the smileyface mean "let's all pretend the statement I am making is not false"?

Here's the false statement in question:

I believe that prescription drugs are an integral part of health care, you do not.

Since I never said that I don't believe that prescription drugs are an integral part of health care, and I do not believe that prescription drugs are not an integral part of health care, your statement about me is false, purely and simply. And I won't be believing that you didn't make it with full knowledge that it was false.

What I said was that a health insurance plan does not necessarily cover prescription drugs. Fuckin' duh.

I also said that the failure of the Ontario plan to cover prescription drugs was "a major flaw", to actually do some of that funny quoting stuff you seem to be so incapable of doing yourself. If I believed that prescription drugs are not an integral part of health care, I really just can't imagine why I would have said that.

Any other faerie tales you'd like to tell?

You belive that a universal single payer public health plan doesn't have to cover prescription drugs, and that prescription drugs, like dental care and eyeglasses, are really entirely different from health care, which is generally understood to refer to medical services provided by medical practitioners or in hospitals.

Care to dispute that one? I await your spin...

Do all health insurance schemes in the US cover prescription drugs, dental care and eyeglasses?

If not, how do you plan to spin that?

A health insurance scheme CAN COVER WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO COVER. How much more too obvious can that be??

Does Medicare in the US cover dental? Doesn't look like it:

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicareDentalCoverage/

Medicare Dental Coverage

* Overview

Currently, Medicare will pay for dental services that are an integral part either of a covered procedure (e.g., reconstruction of the jaw following accidental injury), or for extractions done in preparation for radiation treatment for neoplastic diseases involving the jaw. Medicare will also make payment for oral examinations, but not treatment, preceding kidney transplantation or heart valve replacement, under certain circumstances. Such examination would be covered under Part A if performed by a dentist on the hospital's staff or under Part B if performed by a physician.

Statutory Dental Exclusion

Section 1862 (a)(12) of the Social Security Act states, "where such expenses are for services in connection with the care, treatment, filling, removal, or replacement of teeth or structures directly supporting teeth, except that payment may be made under part A in the case of inpatient hospital services in connection with the provision of such dental services if the individual, because of his underlying medical condition and clinical status or because of the severity of the dental procedure, requires hospitalization in connection with the provision of such services."

You want a universal plan that covers dental? GO FOR IT.

In Ontario, where I'm at:

- people on social assistance are eligible for optometry exams and eyeglasses, and some dental services, as part of their social assistance benefits

- low-income seniors and people on various kinds of public benefits are eligible for prescription drugs at a very low co-pay / annual maximum, which some pharmacies waive (and which was only instituted fairly recently by an extreme right-wing provincial government, and which I DO NOT WANT to continue)

- most employed people have dental/drug/eyeglasses coverage through employer-based supplemental insurance (that also includes life insurance, disability insurance and other benefits)

- working people with low or moderate incomes may buy into the provincial public drug coverage plan for a very reasonable premium

People like me don't have drug/dental/eyeglasses coverage in a public plan. People like me don't need it. But I'd very gladly pay into such plans through taxes - more than I'd ever get out of them - if we instituted universal plans to cover them.

Having access to free dental care and eyeglasses and prescription drugs is DIFFERENT from having access to free MEDICAL CARE.

If you don't believe me, ask any of those millions of people in the US who don't have access to any medical care because they can't afford to pay for either insurance or services.

If you don't want to start out with a plan that gives those people access to medical care but not to free dental care or eyeglasses or prescription drugs (or if you can't figure out a way to provide those people who do need assistance with such things outside a health insurance scheme, as we have), then DON'T HAVE ONE. Have a plan that includes all those things. Feel entirely free. I have never ever suggested that you should do otherwise.

So I am still entirely unable to figure out WHAT YOUR POINT IS. What is your point??????

Does post #203 accurate reflect your position?

Of course it accurately reflects my position.

A HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN CAN COVER WHATEVER SERVICES THE PARTIES TO THE PLAN AGREE TO COVER.

What is wrong with you????

That is a simple statement of fact.

It is also a simple statement of fact that MEDICAL SERVICES, i.e. services provided by MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS, are not the same as dental services or pharmaceutical services or products. Likewise, they are not the same as fast food services or tailoring services.

Things can be DIFFERENT and still grouped together for a specific purpose. You can group together dental services and medical services for the purpose of a universal single public payer health insurance scheme if you like, and as some Canadian provinces do. FEEL FREE.

I keep asking you what your point is, you keep not having one.

Your point appears to be that some Canadian provincial health insurance plans are unacceptable to you because they do not cover things that you think should be covered (in the US, I presume; I'd hate to think that you were telling us how to run our country).

SO THE FUCK WHAT? I genuinely do not get it. So what if some Canadian provinces do not cover all the services you would like to see covered under a "health care" insurance plan? (You feel free to just keep ignoring that those services ARE covered under other programs for people who are unable to pay for them out of pocket. No need to be anything but disingenuous on the internet, after all.)

I continue to be without a clue as to what point you have been engaged in making, or what you think you may have proved.

If you want to argue about what a universal public payer health insurance plan IN THE U.S. should cover, go find someone to argue about that with, is all I can suggest. I am not and have never been engaged in that argument.

Now I'll just get back to swinging my lamp around in the dark, looking for that honest woman who has to be there somewhere ...


On edit:

Perhaps you think you've proved your claim that Canada tried a no co-pay system and abandoned it because it was too expensive.

That statement continues to be false.

Ontario introduced co-pays FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS for those who had previously received prescription drugs free of charge under PROGRAMS SEPARATE FROM THE HEALTH INSURANCE SCHEME not because it was too expensive to provide them free of charge, but because the party in power was a vindictive right-wing party that set about systematically dismantling the province's social security net in every way it could, including by slashing basic living allowances for social assistance recipients and nickel and diming social assistance recipients and other low-income people in every way it could think of, while granting tax cuts to the rich. Sound familiar at all?

How could it have been "too expensive" to maintain the free-of-charge system if the government could afford to give massive tax cuts to the rich??

Sorry, that's a loaded question. It WASN'T "too expensive" to maintain the free-of-charge system, so you can't answer the question.

You could always retract the false statement you made, of course.

(a) I make a huge income and take hypertension meds. They cost me about $20 A MONTH, for two prescriptions: generic rampiril (Altase) and the usual multisyllabic hydro-whatsit
http://canadian4drugs.org/altase.php
My clinic sometimes gives me sample freebies, because ...

(b) Low-income Seniors and social assistance recipients HAVE A DRUG PLAN, under which they pay a $2 co-pay to a max of $100/year for their prescriptions IF the pharmacy doesn't cover the co-pay, which many do (so they don't need the sample freebies).

(c) Anyone who is employed where there is a supplemental employer/employee paid insurance plan, which includes anyone with a union (yes, we still have them up here) or working for most any employer with more than a handful of employees, HAS DRUG COVERAGE, under which there will be some sort of minimal co-pay.

(c) Anyone who falls between the cracks will be eligible for some sort of coverage, e.g. buying into Ontario's Trillium plan.


Is there some way I can make this clearer to the peanut gallery?

1. PRESCRIPTION DRUGS ARE CHEAP in Canada, as compared to the US.

2. PEOPLE WHO NEED ASSISTANCE with prescription drug costs in Canada get it, and pay FAR LESS in the way of co-pays and deductibles than anyone with private insurance in the U.S. pays.


Let me know what you're not getting, an I'll keep trying to help.


Oh, and if you want to tell me how much I pay in taxes ... especially as compared to how much you pay in taxes PLUS PRIVATE INSURANCE PREMIUMS and the co-pays and deductibles associated with private insurance plans (not to mention all the other things you pay for privately that my taxes pay for, like lower post-secondary tuition fees, a better social safety net all round, etc.), I'll be interested.

That I expect will be utilized before long. Pet insurance? Appearance insurance? Think about it-coverage for that boob job or vanity dental or hair plugs. Most people would make only a couple of claims in their life, with no death benefits to have to pay.

I also think that they would encourage people to up their car or home insurance. Why insure your house for a measly 200k? Shouldn't you have enough to get a real upgrade......

If everyone is covered under the single payer plan, but people could still buy extra insurance I think this would be similar to the system in England.

If people have a choice to go private or public, this is not feasible since than the government would only get the more expensive people.

Edit: This was meant as a reply to the original post.

that EVERYONE MUST CONTRIBUTE according to their means to the Public system.

The questioner assumed that DU'ers wanted to LIMIT everyone to the public system and never allow them to choose (for whatever reason) to ADD additional coverage.

If the Public system were done right, like detailed in HR676, most of the folks who would opt for additional coverage would probably be the elitist ubber-classes who want mucho service from their health care providers and would, like in Britain, pay for it...

People shouldn't have a choice to go public or private - all should have to pay into the system like Social Security. People should then be free to spend on top of that if they choose to do so. I know I couldn't spend much on health care, but when it comes to my kids, if I needed to fork over a couple of thousand dollars I could. That is a win/win, imo, and will readily win more votes.

what you've got at the moment. And we bitch and complain all the time, but the simple truth is that if I want to see a doctor I can go to the one ten minutes from my house, wait about 30-45 minutes and get in for free. (Except on Sundays, when you get a rebate of more than 50% of the cost.)

Hospitals are another matter, but when you're going in sometimes it's actually better to pretend you *don't* have private health insurance so you'll be whisked off to the public ward and given more urgent and better attention. (And it costs you a hell of a lot less.)

It's not perfect, but it's decent. Plus having the option to also take out private healthcare here gives me the one thing I *can't* get from the government (though that may change if Labor wins office at the end of the year) and that is dental care. My healthcare provider gave two free dental visits per year recently but now it just subsidizes them about 85%, which is still excellent.

FWIW, I don't consider myself a socialist, but I strongly support single payer universal health care.

Or am I misunderstanding the words in option 1?

The question posed by our brother/sister in another thread was whether she/he would be allowed to buy extra coverage above that supplied by "We the People" by a Universal, well-funded, Single-Payer System.

I don't know why she/he would want to since "We the People" would be highly motivated to make sure that our Health Care needs were completely and safely covered by OUR system, but some people have been taught by the fear mongers to be afraid. :shrug:

have in answering option 1 in the poll? Thanks.

:shrug:

Canadians - as a whole - are very satisified with their nationalized health care system. They are quite proud of it, in fact. That still doesn't preclude the fact that there are Canadians who come here for services because of wait time. If a person chooses to opt out of the queue and pay for an MRI out of pocket or with additional insurance money, what's the problem? I'm not wealthy at all, but if I thought my child was seriously ill and I could find two grand to pay for a test, you bet I would do it.

I know what it's like to wait for a probable diagnosis of cancer. Been there, done that. Thank you very much.

My daughter lives in British Columbia. I have friends there. In my opinion, they have the best possible situation - Canadian health care with American back up!
A lot of Americans would like the same choices.

"Canadian health care with American back up!" while ME and 48 MILLION other USAmericans are WITHOUT ANY HEALTH CARE COVERAGE AT ALL...

That's pretty fucked up!!! :grr:

there are Canadians who come here for services because of wait time

I've been a Canadian for 55 years and I've never met one. I hear they exist, though.

What I do know of are Canadians who go to the US for treatment that is covered by their provincial plans. There are a few facts of life to remember here.

The Canadian population is 1/9 the size of the US population. We simply don't have the concentrations of anything that you have: movie production studios, comedy club audiences, MRI machines. Economies of scale exist in the US that we don't have.

There is a lot more room in the US system for variations in demand than there is here. The equipment and services that exist to serve a dense population of nearly 300 million can absorb bumps in demand a lot better than the equipment and services that exist to serve a population of 32 million -- strung out from one ocean to the other, with some more scattered around in pretty remote areas.

So you would have "Canadian health care with American back up" built into your system already. Your system has the resources to provide the services. Ours will always be more vulnerable to temporary or location-specific shortages, just because the same services have to be provided for a much smaller population in a proportionately larger territory.

The other cause of unmet demand in Canada is underfunding. That has nothing to do with the structure of the system, and everything to do with the political will to make the system work, or the lack thereof. The underfunding that started some 15 or 20 years ago, with the federal government under the Liberals downloading costs to the provinces by withdrawing huge amounts of funding, and right-wing provincial governments in places like Ontario closing community hospitals and forcing skilled staff to go elsewhere, won't be fixed overnight, even if the political will returns. We have doctor shortages because of a failure to fund places in medical schools to supply the doctors that any idiot knew were going to be needed in a growing and aging population, radiation therapist shortages because they all left when they lost their jobs. This has nothing to do with the structure of the system.


If a person chooses to opt out of the queue and pay for an MRI out of pocket or with additional insurance money, what's the problem?

Ask a Brit what the problem was when two-tier health care was introduced there. If you imagine that a lot of people who want to pay for the ability to jump the queue, and are able to do so, are going to want to keep paying taxes for services they aren't using but a bunch of poor people use, well, you haven't been following recent history, I think.

But if a two-tier system is really what it takes to get universal coverage in the US going, then that's what you'll have to settle for. In Canada, it took decades to get what we have now. Public health insurance started in one province, then spread to others. It started with hospital insurance -- more or less "catastrophic" coverage -- and then was extended to healthcare generally. It used to allow for opting out and extra-billing by doctors, now it doesn't. Whether a two-tier system can evolve into a genuinely universal system that provides equitable coverage for everyone is a matter of political will, the most important thing being to maintain funding levels in the public tier.

The Houston medical center sees quite a number of people from Canada and all over the world. :)

Anyway, I completely believe you that problems are caused by underfunding and have nothing to do with the structure of the system! Reading about your system, I understand that people are very happy with it, but that the problems are due to funding - not enough funding for technology in some provinces, etc. These are serious concerns for people who already have good coverage. I want coverage for every person. People shouldn't have to go bankrupt because of cancer. Little kids shouldn't go without health care!

It's good for people to read your post, and see the problems that can be caused by underfunding. Do I trust politicians to fund our healthcare the way it should be funded? Hell, no. "We the people" want the war to end, but that's not happening, either. We want better school funding. Not happening. Why do I think the government is going to adequately fund health care?

My daughter loves her health care providers in British Columbia and so do my friends there, but I understand that care is not equal among the provinces.

of homeless, and working poor, and 1/6 of the population with NO health care, and having over 50% of our taxes go for a useless fucking war machine, etc. etc.

But it IS damn cold up there...

You're right if you mean to say that they don't have heavy concentrations of homeless, but they are there. My daughter in Canada works with the homeless.

Yep, huge amounts of our money go to a war that "We, the people" don't support. I'm not real keen on believing that the government is going to listen to our desires about anything, so I guess I'm just a lot more jaded than you. When you have leaders like Pelosi on our side, why should I have a lot of confidence? Answer me that one? She's one of THEM.

I have a daughter and a son in law. They've always had it pretty tough and have almost NEVER had health insurance. Luckily there's a real honest to goodness primary care Doc that she's been going to since she was a kid and that health programs for kids -- for my grandson.

If I'm lucky and careful, I'll be able to get Medicare in just under 2 years. I'm damn relieved that I'm that close and hope I can make it. My son in law and daughter and grandson can't. My 48 MILLION brothers and sisters can't.

I want them all to have guaranteed HIGH-QUALITY health care. I believe it IS a right, especially in a country as affluent as this one is. I believe that it's a crime of the highest order that we don't already have it...the Civilized world does...

I MUST remain positive because if no one believes it can happen, it NEVER will...

So I believe it will...



-----

Yeah, Pelosi is a significant disappointment.

My partner is livid that she ever voted for her...

We The People are the government. Government is not the problem, it is the only mechanism we have to create and maintain any kind of equitable society, and that includes the middle-class that you, I assume, are a part of.

Raygun was a stupid, stupid, man that never had any understanding of how anything worked, nor what the consequences of the actions he advocated would be. He was an actor, and his only talent was knowing how to deliver a line. Please, re-examine the assumptions that you appear to work under. In reading your position in this thread, you seem to have accepted a great deal of misinformation that has become "common knowledge" over the last 30 years or so.

Suffer from a disconnect?

Oh, geesh

We the People are SUPPPOSED to be the government, but when the best you can get are leaders like Pelosi who is one of "them," I'm not putting my hopes in the government. I will work for change, while at the same time safeguarding as many choices as possible. Disconnect? I don't think so. Campaigns cost millions of dollars to run. Just by virtue of who is in the pool to run (hint - those with lots and lots money) - it's obvious what kind of government we are getting. Heck, the average Joe Blow can't afford to run for dogcatcher these days. "We, the People?" :beer: I stopped drinking the Kool-aid a long time ago.

Misinformation?

I don't think so.

We are spending billions on a war that the majority of people don't want, and it doesn't look like it's going to end anytime soon. The DEMOCRATIC Party doesn't have enough guts to do the right thing. Lobbyists run this country now - not "We, the People."

If we had half a chance to make a fraction of the changes we would like to see - especially in the area of social justice - there'd be a lot less anger on this board.

Besides, I happen to believe that it would be unconstitutional to ban private contractual arrangements between a healthcare provider and patient.

Our homelessness problem is different from the problem in the US overall, though. We don't tend to have homeless families, for instance. Homeless people are generally one or more of people with substance abuse problems, people with mental health problems, and young people with problems at home / general social adjustment problems. And we aren't doing enough for them, and yes, when it gets damned cold, there are a few every winter who freeze to death sleeping under bridges. (All of them could have chosen to sleep in a shelter instead, not that the shelter option is one I would want for myself.)

And all of them have access to health care, free of charge and to whatever extent they need.

I am a patient/client/member of a community health services centre, by choice. These facilities were mostly organized during the 1970s, as non-profit clinics operated by elected community boards, funded by the Ontario health ministry, with several in the big cities and at least one in most smaller cities. (Quebec's network of community health centres is much more extensive, for instance.) All have expanded to provide a broad range of health and social services. For example, my diabetic partner sees a foot care specialist regularly at his, and we can meet with a dietician there whenever we want (he also sees an endocrynologist, an opthalmologist and a cardiologist periodically, and has regularly scheduled visits at the hospital endocrynology dept.) Mine runs well-baby groups, smoking cessation groups, women's support groups. I get a form to fill out when I go in, and one of the questions is whether I want to take a shower.

We also have needle exchanges, and committees and staff at the downtown health centres that work with substance abusers and street prostitutes. My sister's partner's mother was a director of a clinic who introduced a methodone program many years ago.

And the chorus: all of the services provided to all of these people are covered either by the health plan or by some form of social services core funding through the community clinics. The doctors as well as the nurse practitioners and other staff are on salary, and it is common for doctors to job-share, many of them being women who take time for childbearing and childrearing. I have "my" doctor, but I can also see any doctor available, or nurse practitioner.

This is a whole 'nother aspect of the plan in my particular province, and as I noted, more extensively in Quebec. Because it is extremely cost-effective, there is a move to extend some of its features to the private sector, where doctors would have group practices and patients would be registered with them, and fees would be paid by "capitation" - flat fees for patients enrolled, presumably with a scale depending on the category of patient. I don't have any particular problem with that, since it's what I've been doing for years anyway. I do have a problem with the newfangled "walk-in clinics" operated as private practices on a first-come first-served basis. They do not make for good long-term patient care.

Anyhow, just some more grist for the mill!

You're a very good sport!

"I don't know why she/he would want to since "We the People" would be highly motivated to make sure that our Health Care needs were completely and safely covered by OUR system, but some people have been taught by the fear mongers to be afraid."

Oh, you mean like "We the People" are highly motivated to end the war? Do you see the war ending anytime soon?

Afraid? How about realistic? Pragmatic?

The problem with you is that you won't admit for a moment that the system will do anything but fund everything "YOU" ever need because you have to believe that. Well, the system won't. That's why people come here and pay when their countries provide otherwise excellent healthcare - because that cutting edge, very expensive technology isn't widespread in their countries. Even in Canada, the ability to access expensive technology varies from province to province. And, YES, I do know that for a fact, so please don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Do the research yourself, but then, why would you want to do that? You might have to concede that people have a genuine interest in maintaining supplemental insurance, and it's not just for show or because they are rich and spoiled.

It's even more severely rationed here -- and for 48 MILLION of us, it's inaccessible without being bankrupted...

I'm certain that most of the people who come here for their "special needs" (or out of impatience) are generally quite affluent (and impatient) -- not run of the mill folk like us.

Are there any stats to prove different? Where are you getting your information? Is it just anecdotal?

just because "We the People" are highly motivated to do something, doesn't mean it actually gets done and gets done correctly. In many cases, even when "We the People" are highly motivated to achieve something, we often disagree about how to do it. If everyone pays into the system, why is it an issue if someone wants to spend even more of their own money to get something done privately? If the public system does completely and safely cover all our needs, the private system won't have any customers. If it doesn't, there would be at least some way for some people to address it's shortcomings. If enough people start to move to private coverage for the same reason, it will give us a good idea as to what issues we need to address in the public system, won't it?

on the types of care available through a single-payer system. Simply to avoid costs.

The basic single-payer care could be supplemented with employer-based or other private insurance. But it would be a fraction of what it is now.

Unless the highest standard of care is available to each and EVERY person in the country through the Universal System, it won't work...

It's not a matter of money, we already spend nearly DOUBLE per person than the French do and have 50 millions uncovered. The French arguably have the best system in the world at just over half the cost...

It's not a matter of money, it's a matter of political will and what kind of society one wants to live in...

I think that people here are arguing over things which they actually agree upon, only haven't come to the proper terms of the argument.

That we get single payer government run healthcare seems to be well agreed upon, but with that we, as a people, will insist upon being able to get cosmetic dental work (bridges, caps) as well as elective procedures.

I doubt that there will be insurance available for these things, after all, the only way an insurance company can make a profit is to get more in from the subscribers than they pay out...

Currently, the present situation can be disguised because we don't want to lose our houses and life's savings in case we happen to have a brain aneurysm. It's kind of a reverse lottery...

Of course, there is going to be some limits. And supplemental insurance would be a fraction of what it costs, now.

Why should there be any limits on Health Care?

If you think supplemental insurance would be a fraction of what it costs now you're mistaken. Supplemental insurance will be a luxury item for the rich so they can get more "customer service" and be treated like the entitled assholes they are...

One would NOT have an option to opt out of paying for national health care. Like Social Security, you wouldn't have a choice.

Or one would simply pay out of pocket for - say - an MRI if the wait was too long and he could afford to go to a private clinic.

I can't imagine not having those options. We're already the safety valve for Canadians who don't want to wait.

The way I see it - a country that doesn't have provide health care for it's citizens just isn't very humane, and a country that doesn't allow citizens to freely contract for medical services outside the system isn't very free.

When Senator Clinton started her health care discussion while Bill was president, the right shouted her down because they believed that Americans wouldn't be able to go outside of the system. That reeks of control, rationing, nothing you can do about it.... It's not going to fly. Didn't we learn anything back then?

http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676_2.htm

Brief Summary of HR 676

· The United States National Health Insurance Act establishes an American national health insurance program. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income, or health status.
· With over 45-75 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are under- insured, the time has come to change our inefficient and costly fragmented non health care system.

Who is Eligible

· Every person living in or visiting the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and ID number once they enroll at the appropriate location. Social Security numbers may not be used when assigning ID cards.

Health Care Services Covered

· This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, in patient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics and practices. No co-pays or deductibles are permitted under this act.

Conversion To A Non-Profit Health Care System

· Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHI program. Exceptions to this rule include coverage for cosmetic surgery, and other medically unnecessary treatments. Those who are displaced as the result of the transition to a non- profit health care system are the first to be hired and retrained under this act.

Cost Containment Provisions/ Reimbursement

· The National USNHI program will set reimbursement rates annually for physicians, allow for "global budgets" (annual lump sums for operating expenses) for health care providers; and negotiate prescription drug prices. The national office will provide an annual lump sum allotment to each existing Medicare region; each region will administer the program.

· The conversion to a not-for-profit health care system will take place over a 15 year period. U.S. treasury bonds will be sold to compensate investor-owned providers for the actual appraised value of converted facilities used in the delivery of care; payment will not be made for loss of business profits. Health insurance companies could be sub-contracted out to handle reimbursements.

Proposed Funding For USNHI Program:

· Maintaining current federal and state funding of existing health care programs. A modest payroll tax on all employers of 3.3%. A 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners. A small tax on stock and bond transfers. Closing corporate tax loop-holes, repealing the Bush tax cut.

to vote for it. Of course Bush will veto it like Arnold did a similar health care plan that passed the legislature in California, but we still need to persist.

who will sign it!!!

is that funding it for the rest of us would become a low priority. It's what has kept the NIH in the UK deteriorating. Oh, it still works, but it's like the difference between a county hospital and the VA here.

My own feeling is if Paris Hilton wants private health care, she can book a first class flight to Thailand to get it.

we must eliminate the ubber-rich...

We MUST win the Class War...


Hmmm. OT

If we do the Public Single-Payer system right, no one will have to opt-out for health reasons, only for vanity...

Canadians come here for VANITY!

Yeah, that's it!

They have one of the best systems in the world, and some still come here.

WHY?

Vanity?

Wait times, maybe? Cutting edge technology?



Ding, ding, ding!

You don't appear to have a clue... :shrug:

And I'm getting fatigued explaining to you that HR676 gives you the choice to purchase health care or "insurance" outside of the Universal Single-Payer system if you want to...only to have you ask the same damn question again...

"Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHI program. Exceptions to this rule include coverage for cosmetic surgery, and other medically unnecessary treatments. Those who are displaced as the result of the transition to a non- profit health care system are the first to be hired and retrained under this act. "

What insurance is that going to be? There will be no insurance for medically unnecessary treatments, since that won't make a profit. Does the writer of this bill take everyone for idiots? Some of us do understand the profit motive.

If you're going to criminalize supplemental coverage or the ability to go outside of the system, your system won't fly with a lot of voters.

The most competitive and the most ambitious people come here and succeed because they know they can make more money practicing medicine or developing cures or doing research. That paradigm naturally boosts the amount of talented people. The boon and the bain of the system is capitalism.

It's what allows us to keep the best and the brightest. But it also means that the poor, proportionally, bear more costs while the richest reap proportionally more benefits for the amount they pay out.

Jam a stick into the system by having everyone pay equally, disband the insurance system and pay doctors on par with what other countries pay them.

Yes, there will be attrition by the "talented" to set up "private" clinics. But frankly, I'll take moderate health care (which is what most poor people are getting now anyway) with Dr.s who do the work because they want to and not so they can buy another boat, over health care where I pay out the ass for my 15 minute slot where I can ONLY DISCUSS ONE HEALTH PROBLEM AT A TIME - as per new insurance requirements.



My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

You seem very angry, The CAPITALIZATION in all your posts is a clue.

I have a few questions, this HR 676 you are screaming about, other than Conyers/Kucinich does it have any co-sponsors?

Any Presidential candidates (excluding DK of course) supporting it?

What are the chances of passage?

Thank you in advance for your restrained answer.

Love your quote by de Gaulle.

I see we share a similar sentiment about politicians. :)

They don't want it to be debated or brought up for a vote. All the folks in the house know that and know why so the number of co-sponsors has no relevance to whether it's good legislations.

The People sure as hell agree that Universal Single-Payer is the way to go even if their congresscritters don't...

The charitable motive for not debating or voting on HR676 is that the liar in chief would veto it and there's NO way to override -- too many republicans and "conservative" Dems. So the leadership will let it simmer until there's a Dem Prez who would sign it into law.

The uncharitable motive is that too many of them are in the pay of the health insurance mafia and big pharma.

And, yes, I do get a little heated on this subject. There's NO GOD DAMN GOOD reason that 48 million of us, including ME, should be left out in the cold -- one accident or illness away from absolute poverty or crushing debt.

Edwards' "plan" doesn't even exist in the Congress -- HR676 does and could easily get the support of most of the people if it were explained to them.

I'm CERTAIN that it would get the support of 98% of the folks who've seen SiCKO!


There, "restrained" enough bunky?

like DU your not "easily" getting most to support it. Could be that DU is "in the pay of the health insurance mafia and big pharma."?

By the way, you did ok on the "restrained" part, even with the gratuitous name calling.

That's why a small minority on this board are not "easily" convinced...

Last time I looked it was 142 to 13 FOR Single-Payer...

-----------------

Aw, "bunky" is a time-honored, psuedo-friendly mild appellation... :)

A somewhat mild and restrained response to semi-veiled sarcasm... :)

pay into it. If they choose to pay on a cash basis for whatever luxury accommodations they want, it is up to them as long as Congress doesn't let them not pay into the system or try to privatize part of it. There will always be doctors who won't want to participate and who will run their practices on a cash basis and those who will want to pay cash. The important thing is to make sure that they do pay into the system and are issued a health card that they can choose or not choose to use so that the rest of us can also have access to decent health care.

All they have to do is how "UNFAIR!!!" and morons will let them do it.

No, any national health system has to be the only game in town.

If they want people to kiss their asses in a gold plated system, let them fly their private jets to Thailand.

Any other way, they will stop paying for it themselves and make damned sure it's unfunded for the rest of us.

is why you aren't going to get a nationalhealthcare system!

When Senator Clinton floated the idea of national healthcare years ago, what did rightwingers scream about the most? "You won't be able to go outside the system! If there's waits, too bad. It's going to be a CRIME to go outside the system and pay for your own MRI!" And on and on. And guess what? People do care about that. They don't want to feel like they are at the mercy of their government, anymore than they like being at the mercy of insurance companies.

Don't believe me? Watch it happen again. And lose.

Everyone wants medical SECURITY, but not everyone wants a socialist system that makes it a crime to pay for an ct scan!

where the government runs the health care and all the doctors and nurses are employees of the government. SPUHC allows healthcare providers to be individual businesses. The only difference is that the taxes are collected by the government and the doctors and other health care providers bill the government for payment. Everyone is issued a health card to get the health care they need, not just the healthy ones the insurance companies want to cherry pick for profits.

:nuke:

No more soup for you!!!!

mind. They still need to pay into the system, just like Social Security. No exceptions. Then they can choose whether to partake of the system or fly to another country.

The first choice looks to me like a "buy up" option.

It's like schools. Everyone pays for public ones, even people without children and people who send theirs to private schools.

your kids there but you must pay taxes to support those schools. It's your choice not to use the benefits you pay taxes for. But it's not fair to innocent children to deny them an education or health care just because of the circumstances of their birth.

Maybe we'll have strength in numbers and be able to tell the rich to shut up since it isn't their system anyway. Kind of like we do with social security.

:shrug:

So in a functional democracy they cannot defund our social programs. Of course that raises a related problem: we don't have a functional democracy.

and how much power do you think you have in relation to Buffett, Soros, Gates, or even Scaife?

If the wealthiest 0.5% want the system defunded because they can access emergency care outside it, they will make sure it is defunded and that their taxes will go down.

:)

You need to make your reps vote for the Conyers/Kucinich bill. The people who want insurance companies are framing the debate to go their way. If you get to "choose" between universal health care and private health care, you will not get universal health care.

The rich people will buy their private health care for the prestige and they will get the best. All the money they have to spend on health care will get spent on THEIR own care and not get put into a common pot for everyone.

So the universal health care will be funded by poorer people. There will be less money to get distributed among a greater number of people.
And there will be too few rich people using that system.

Who gets the ear of the decision-makers? The rich people. If they're not using the universal system they won't bitch about it when it isn't working and it won't get fixed.

I have this argument all the time in Canada. About health care, about education ... you name it.

Social Security whether they want to use it or not. There are rich people who don't collect Social Security because they don't need it even if they have paid into it. Health care should work the same way. Also, insurance can't be sold on the open market except for stuff national health care doesn't cover like plastic surgery or pet insurance.

"I have this argument all the time in Canada. About health care, about education ... you name it."

Why are you having that argument in Canada? Canadians are very happy with their system. They have the best of both words. Good, universal coverage that everyone must pay into, and U.S. healthcare if they don't want to queue up for that MRI!

Or do you mean that there are other Canadians who would like the choice of private clinics, etc.?

Many doctors have never liked socialized medicine. There was a doctors strike in the early 60's when the policies and programmes were first put in place. It was ugly.
And just recently they elected a pro-privatization doctor to lead the Canadian Medical Association.
This is how they spin it. Privatization if necessary, not necessarily privatization

Tommy Douglas warned us up to his dying day that we'd have to be vigilant forever, that we'd have to work endlessly to keep our health care public. He was right.

"Who gets the ear of the decision-makers? The rich people. If they're not using the universal system they won't bitch about it when it isn't working and it won't get fixed."

That goes for a lot of things in Washington, but not for everything. Social Security isn't going anyway because the voters have more power than the rich when it comes to stuff like this! Sure, it may change in some not so fundamental ways someday to make it work better, but we're always going to have it.

If we push for good universal care, and have the votes for it, we should get a good system. It'll take time, but we'll get it.

purchase insurance for elective surgeries/treatments.

As Kucinich explained insurance companies would not be able to compete for basic health coverage, necessary surgeries etc. but they would be able to offer plans for cosmetic reasons.

I voted for option 1 WITH the understanding that people could purchase insurance for elective surgeries/treatments.
As Kucinich explained insurance companies would not be able to compete for basic health coverage, necessary surgeries etc. but they would be able to offer plans for cosmetic reasons.

That is EXACTLY the Canadian system.

The public plan covers medically necessary services. Anything else, you can pay for yourself, however you like. But insurers may not sell coverage for the services covered by the public plan, and private insurance may not be used to pay for them.

I had three little lumps removed from my leg a year ago. My primary care physician and the dermatologist were completely sure they were in no way problematic (but of course the tissue was examined anyway). They just irritated the hell out of me and i wanted them gone. (The dermatologist cautioned me that I would have scars ... as compared to lumps, I guess ... and I figured oh well, there went my career as an ankle model.) I paid the guy $200, and they're gone. I'm self-employed, and don't have supplemental insurancy.

My good friend is having her second bunion surgery this fall. Bunion surgery is regarded as ineffective by the medical profession, apparently, and isn't covered by the public plan. (I have another friend who had it done, and she concurs.) My friend is a public servant and has a whopping gold-plated supplemental insurance plan, premiums employer/employee paid, through her employment. It's all covered.

Vasectomies are covered by the plan here. Want a vasectomy reversed, you pay for it yourself, or through supplemental insurance, if it's covered.

I had a biopsy about 15 years ago that required three nights in hospital. I desperately wanted my own room, so when I won the lottery for the private room, I paid the extra $60 a night out of my pocket. Most supplemental plans will cover that. When I broke my foot about 10 years ago, the orthopaedic surgeon inquired whether I had supplemental insurance, because if I did I could get the fibreglas cast instead of the plaster, i.e. I'd be able to bathe. I said no, but how much was it. He said $100. I said I want it, I'll pay for it. He said no, you don't want to do that, and I figured I looked low-income, which I wasn't, so I insisted. Gimme it. He said no, really, you don't need a cast. Just be careful for a few weeks. So I was.

My father went into hospital 4 years ago -- went directly to ER on a Friday evening on return to Canada from several weeks in Florida, was examined, was given an appointment with an orthopaedic surgeon for Monday, went back to ER on Sunday because of leg pain, fearing a clot, lung x-ray revealed spots, had biopsy a few days later and remained in hospital for the next six weeks. Everything - absolutely everything, from kleenexes to medications to daily visits from internist, orthopaedic surgeon and oncologist - was covered by the plan. We paid for parking. (We Canadians always seem to mention that we pay for parking. It's the only thing we can think of that we pay for, and it's expensive.) And then from when he was delivered to my sister's home 30 miles away by ambulance until he died two days later, everything was covered - ambulance, fancy inflatable hospital bed, morphine drip, little accessories like lip moisteners, visiting nurse, doctor on call. I paid for an Atavan prescription, $25 out of pocket, because the sublingual version wasn't on the plan; otherwise, it might have cost the seniors' $2 co-pay, if the pharmacy didn't waive it.


If you can buy insurance for the same services as are covered by the universal plan, you have a two-tier system. The reason that this is usually permitted is that doctors and other providers will then provide a different level of service for people with private insurance that pays them more, and keeps the rich from whining -- faster appointments with specialists, better room service meals in hospital, etc. Since there is in fact absolutely no expansion in the services available within the system, all this does is bump people in the public plan farther down the line. Obviously. And if the rich happen to become disenchanted with the taxes they are paying so the poor can have health care ... well, you get what the NHS was in the UK in the early 90s. A shabby, crappy system that didn't deliver.


My understanding of Option 1 in this poll is that it refers not to a universal plan with supplemental insurance for non-covered, non-medically necessary services, but to a two-tier system in which people can go public or go private for their insurance, and presumably for their services (if they want to pay out of pocket rather than via insurance; this became common in the UK when the NHS was trashed).

This is what Edwards' proposal is: a two-tier system combined with a requirement that everyone obtain insurance somewhere, whether in or out of the public plan.

I would never accept it for myself, and I vehemently oppose any attempt to introduce a second tier into the Canadian system. But if I were in the US and had no insurance at all, and this would give me access to the public plan, I might think it was a good first step.

But if I were picking my ideal system, I can't imagine why I would pick that one. Unless I were seriously short-sightedly self-interested.

in a detailed manner and with many examples of what supplemental insurance might cover, it was a joy to read.

Listening to the hour long discussion with Kucinich on the universal plan he emphasizes why the two tier system will not work for the reasons you have stated above. It will still take a few years to implement HR 676 and will be quite a departure from what we are used to, but I do believe that we do not have the time to waste taking half measures.

I was sorry to hear of your father's passing at the end of the paragraph, although it sounds as if he had the best of care and was surrounded by loved ones in a home environment at the end. My mom had a four year fight with cancer at the end while fighting the insurance company. There really should be a better way.

Thank you again and I really appreciate you sharing your experiences.

P.S. Sounds like I voted wrong in this poll.

My dad was ultimately found to have metastasized melanoma -- the original site was never determined, but when he died, 6 weeks after he first went to the ER, it was found to have invaded all of his major organs, as well as his bones, the cause of the pain and breakages he originally sought attention for.

I could have mentioned the bone scans, radiation therapy, the MRI he didn't have although the appointment had been made w/in 3 days and then cancelled because he had a pacemaker (another whole take of doctor visit, hospital EKG, doctor visit, admission to ICU, all in an afternoon, intercity ambulance to a tertiary care centre, one of those "world-class" places, for the pacemaker implant, etc.), and the hip surgery he didn't have, although it was scheduled on a Sunday evening on 2 days' notice, purely for pain relief, when he was determined not to be a candidate for surgery and rejected at the ER door, we later realized because of his heart condition. He died 4 days later, of a heart attack (mercifully and all that), because like his father he had a quadruple coronary artery blockage but had never been diagnosed because he had never had any symptoms - the hip breakage had occurred when he dismounted from his standard 10-mile bicycle ride, at age 72.

Several months later, my brother had a melanoma on his leg diagnosed and removed. My mum has stuff removed from her skin every six months or so, most by the freezing techniques, some surgically; her whole family has skin cancers, although no melanomas; but it was novel in my dad's family. One reason I was leery about those lumps. I understood that my brother was going to have genetic screening, but I gather he's never got around to it. The dermatologist told me that if the screening showed a genetic link for the melanoma, he would immediately do whatever scans and exams of me he thought were needed, and monitor me from then on. And the chorus: all paid for by the public plan.


To have had to fight with an insurance company during those six weeks of my dad's illness ... no one should have to do that. And of course my parents were low-income seniors, so any cost at all would have been a problem (barring contributions from children, of course). It hurts to hear things like what your mum went through in that respect. I was pretty peeved at having to pay for that Atavan (should have mentioned -- Ontario doesn't cover drugs in the public health plan; seniors and the poor get a separate drug benefit) but I know very well: all my troubles should be such little ones. So should yours.


PS - I think you answered the poll right -- the intent was to reflect the Canadian-style system, I gather: public plan for medically necessary services, with no opting out; supplemental private plan for non-covered services for those who want it.

pain and we found out that it had spread to her bones, so I understand a little about the bone scans, radiation, chemo etc. that were done over the next four years. They actually had decent insurance, but there were many times we had to resubmit claims or pay a portion. Little by little the bills, in addition to the disease, eat away at the person and their family.

The plan sounds wonderful in comparison with what many now have here in the U.S. and you have laid out the some of the reasons we should not be looking at the two tier system that people are advocating.

Within the next 5, 10, 15 years our government will need to cover more people between our returning vets and all those going into the Medicare system, we need to spend the profits on health care and not add them to the bottom line of for profit companies. Valuable time will be wasted trying to put into place a system that may or may not develop into a single payer system.

And thank you sharing the additional stories, we all need to learn more about the proposed plans and how they might impact us and those around us.

NO TWO TIER SYSTEMS!!!

I'd want the same health care delivery system as we now have (they'd just be happier not having to deal with the for-profit insurance company leeches and second guessers - we'd ALL get better care then).

I'm talking about a single-payer, all of us, instead of the for-profit leeches...

All over a reasonable multiple of poverty level and all employers pay in a progressive manner according to their means (the richer they are the higher the percentage of income they pay -- just like income tax) -- no exceptions.

Edwards' proposal sucks!!!

--------------

Disclaimer:

I didn't create the poll questions that was the work of someone who shall remain nameless (unless she/he chooses otherwise) who hinted that DU was so far out that he/she thought that they'd vote for option #2 'cause there are too many Marxist-Leninist totalitarians here... :shrug:

So in order to placate that person of low post count, I posted this poll.



It didn't work... :eyes:

you express things so clearly, I just have to applaud. This is exactly what I was thinking up thread: NO TWO TIER SYSTEM.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

And you've definitely got it.

I've said recently how impressed I am at how easily universal single public payer health insurance now rolls off the tongues of people at DU, as compared to four years ago, say.

Now get no two-tier system out there!

Places that have adopted two tiers may look good now, but give 'em a few years. It is virtually inevitable that the public tier will get starved for funds, and deteriorate.

for people who want to insure against procedures not considered "medically necessary", such as cosmetic surgery, laser eye surgery, and other luxury items. Otherwise, single-payer health care should be the norm.

:shrug:

They'd lose money. Want plastic surgery. Sign up, then make them pay. What a money loser! LOL Plastic surgery will always be paid for from private funds, I suspect.

If DK thinks that there will be insurance for that, he's not as smart as I thought. :(

There will never be private insurance to cover elective procedures--it simply doesn't make any sense financially.

You can't get that kind of insurance, now, what makes anyone think we will get it later? If there was a way to make money on it, we'd have it already!

If HR 636 ?? says that we can get that kind of insurance if it's available, it's just a dupe line to fool people. Or the people who wrote the bill are stupid. Either way, it doesn't impress me, and makes we wonder about the rest of the bill.

Oh, welll, I'm in favor of Edwards' plan anyway, because I think his plan has the best chance of getting implemented. We're going to get to single payer in incremental steps, in my opinion. I don't think the voters are going to do a major overhaul.

Canadian morning news television commercials are a jungle of electric beds, step-in bathtubs, reverse mortgages ... morning news is for old folks -- and supplemental insurance ads. For all the things your public plan doesn't cover: dental, eyeglasses, private hospital rooms, prescriptions.

It used to be uncommon for people without employer-contributed group plans to have supplemental insurance. The industry is going after our money hot and heavy now, and given the growing number of people who are contract and self-employed workers, there's a market.

http://www.useblue.com/assurance-sante/trouver-produit/liste-protections.en.html

Core Health Benefits

If you're not covered by a company health plan, Blue Choice is the cost-effective way to ensure you're protected. It provides coverage that compliments your provincial health plan, with a wide range of extended health care benefits like vision care, hearing aids, nursing care, dental, prescription drugs and hospital coverage at an affordable monthly premium.

It also pays for visits to naturopaths and an assortment of other quacks.

Now, the elective surgery part generally comes only with employer-based group insurance. Otherwise, you get into self-selecting - people only buy the insurance if they want bunion surgery. (Similarly, I couldn't buy in to the Law Society's group plan for me and my assistant, which we only wanted to do because she had kids and wanted dental coverage, precisely because of that fact: people like me alone wouldn't buy in, people who were going to be expensive would. There was a minimum group size, as a result, to spread the risk better.) Here's what federal public servants get with theirs:

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/tb_862/pshcpd-drssfp/pshcpd-drssfp_e.asp

It covers elective surgeries -- like my friend's bunions.

I can't imagine why there would be anything to prevent employers obtaining such policies for their employees if the US had a universal single-payer plan for medically necessary services.


I have to say I'd be surprised if individuals in the US can buy insurance at present to cover elective surgery -- I would think the same self-selecting problem would pertain. Am I wrong? If you have an employer-based group plan, for instance, that covers medically necessary services, can you go buy a policy to cover bunion surgery and nose jobs?

If you don't have an employer-based or other group plan, and you are buying your own policy, will it cover elective surgeries? And if so, any idea of what it will cost? And might we not be talking about a rather small group of people here, who can afford such things now, if such things there are?

And will there be co-pays and deductibles in both employer-contributed and individually purchased policies for basic health care?

Would not eliminating co-pays and deductibles and significantly reducing annual premiums just about make up for having to pay for one's own cosmetic nose job, if one could otherwise have got it under an insurance policy?

I mean, not to mention what the satisfaction of knowing that there weren't 45 million people in one's society who didn't have health insurance would make up for.

Bunion surgery isn't considered elective surgery here. Most insurance companies will commonly pay for it, but I'm sure there must be plans that don't. Although I suspect elective surgery also has a secondary meaning, such as not immediately necessary?

Americans don't have insurance to cover elective surgeries like nose jobs and breast implants. You're right. People would self select, so it wouldn't work. All that must be paid out of pocket. The house bill as written says that we can purchase insurance for those kinds of surgeries, and I think it's a joke.

Thank you for sharing this information with us. My daughter lives in BC and she is very happy with the health care she receives. I also have friends there who are very happy with their providers, but joke that they have the best health care in th world - Canadian and American. :)

Americans don't have insurance to cover elective surgeries like nose jobs and breast implants. You're right. People would self select, so it wouldn't work. All that must be paid out of pocket. The house bill as written says that we can purchase insurance for those kinds of surgeries, and I think it's a joke.

As compared to ... the joke you have now, which, as you say, is exactly the same in that respect? I don't get it.

I also have friends there who are very happy with their providers, but joke that they have the best health care in the world - Canadian and American.

Yes. I believe you'll find that I've addressed that joke quite amply in another post, in reply to one of the many times you've told it.

Bunion surgery isn't considered elective surgery here. Most insurance companies will commonly pay for it, but I'm sure there must be plans that don't.

Yes, the thing is, you'll find that most group plans in the US, for instance, combine features of a policy that covers medically necessary services with other things. The two are split here.

As for bunion surgery -- on a quick google:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B75DJ-4GB79PV-K&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1053450155c1048f08498242fa75aa28
(if that doesn't work, look for "Tailor’s Bunion: A Review")

... The management of recurrent tailor’s bunion is still controversial. If the recurrence is due to undercorrection, or if the initial procedure was not the best suited to that particular patient, then revision surgery may be helpful, after the cause of the failure has been established. Although unpopular, resection should be considered as the final salvage procedure.

-- as I understand it, recurrence and failure are such a common problem that the surgery is regarded as ineffective overall, and therefore not a good investment by the insurer. But you could feel free to demand bunion surgery coverage under your universal plan.

Although I suspect elective surgery also has a secondary meaning, such as not immediately necessary?

Well, the tonsillectomy I had when I was in law school was certainly elective in that sense, and in the sense that I could have lived my whole life without having it and possibly not lived much differently. The public plan still covered it, because it was recommended by the ENT who considered it to be medically necessary, as one option for treating my problem. The other option - continue seeing doctors and getting prescriptions when I got infections - would also have been covered. I was also covered for two nights in hospital after I disobeyed instructions, travelled and painted my bedroom instead of taking it easy for two weeks, and haemorrhaged. Adult tonsillectomy carries more risks than first-term abortion.

Our plans don't use the term "elective surgery". It's a negative definition -- if it isn't "medically necessary", it isn't covered. Surgery to correct a deviated septum is medically necessary; surgery to make one's nose cuter isn't. (I've decided against deviated septum surgery and bunion surgery in my own life, btw; both, so far, just seem like more hassle and pain than they're worth.) A medical service that treats a condition that interferes with health is covered. "Medically necessary" of course also covers all services relating to pregnancy, including pre-natal care and delivery or termination, and other services that are needed in order to maintain health, like cholesterol tests, chest x-rays and mammograms. "Medically necessary" hasn't actually been defined, but we knows it when we sees it.

Since I don't have bunions, I don't know much about it. I was using someone else's example. :)

I just wanted to say that when researching your healthcare sites on line, the term elective surgery is used quite often, which is why I asked for a better understandng of the term's use in Canada.

Best wishes.

It is a painful condition that can severely inhibit mobility.

would be surprised what passes for elective surgery in other countries.

I think some people would be surprised what passes for elective surgery in other countries.

I'd love to know. Do you have details about Canada that you could share, maybe? I may be in the dark.

Don't be a tease, now.

There for you to see.

Have a go!

Lordy. If y'all are all that worked up about bunion surgery, you might want to put a question on the ballot about it.

I've googled a bit, and as it turns out Hallus Valgus/Varus are on the fee schedule for the Ontario plan, so I wasn't right:
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/pub/ohip/physmanual/pm_sec_4/4-53.html
-- I guess some bunion surgeries are covered and some are not. My friend's was apparently regarded as not especially painful or mobility-inhibiting. Neither are mine. They may become that way before I die, but they aren't now and they may never be.

I'm rather surprised that my friend had it done. Her mother did, many years ago, and her mobility has been severely impaired ever since ... I suppose they must be better at it these days.

I had it all wrong. My friend just telephoned to tell me her surgeon had had a cancellation and she's going in for her second bunion surgery next week. She is hugely pissed that she's being evicted from hospital the next day, and will have to look after herself. (I think the purpose of the call was to see whether I'd go spend the weekend, and I might have; when she had her first she was my next-door tenant, and I waited on her hand and foot. But this time my family is coming to town, and she's moved an hour bus ride away, and my car's out of commission, so she's outa luck.)

Anyhow, I started to get at how she shouldn't be vilifying the public plan for this because it was her supplemental plan paying for it, and she got indignant and said it was not, it was OHIP.

So OHIP pays for bunion surgery because it's regarded as what you said and she repeated to me (urging me to go get my own foot smashed up like hers): painful and mobility-impairing.

But then it evicts you from hospital the next day.

So then I said she should check out her cadillac supplemental plan and see whether it might pay for visiting home care for a couple of days, and first she said it wasn't a cadillac plan and everybody thinks civil servants have all these benefits they don't have ... but she'd look into that. Looking at that link I gave the other day, I think probably not. But she's got three grown kids.

the place doing it (which they already offer). Why let an insurance company skim profits of the top of it, just pay it.

You are brainwashed into thinking insurance is actually insurance. Want insurance for those procedures? It is called a bank account. Pay in to it every month and when you want a procedure you pay for it.

"Some folk(s) also believe that we're mostly Marxist/Leninists here on DU and that we would be glad to abridge their freedom to go out and pay extra for extra "health care"...

BULL. If that is a not-so veiled reference to my post, you know I did NOT say most. I said some. I implied a few, in fact, over the course of my posts. JUST AS THE POLL IS SHOWING.

I voted for option ONE. We need a change, and single payer similar to Medicare seems to be the way to go.

that Edwards plan has the most chance of being put into effect. I think that incremental change is most likely to be voted in, so I'm going with that first. I'm a realist, I suppose.

then Edwards patchwork quilt that would require the passage of more one bill

and is NOT UNIVERSAL sure as hell can't pass...

I'm not willing to allow me and millions of others to be left out in the cold! :grr:

Edwards bill is going to pass a lot easier than the C/K bill. It's not my choice, since I think most insurance companies should be gone and I want unversal coverage for everyone. Those who are very responsive to patient needs will find a niche in supplemental insurance, but you know they won't be raking in the money they are now. I totally agree that as long as the middle man is getting a huge cut of our general healthcare funds, we won't have a fiscally responsible plan.

:hi:

And quacks, and frauds, and incompetent medical professionals are NOT allowed to move from state to state to rake in millions.........I am in favor of individual choice, but remember: people who serve us in the health care field, they should be capable, competent, and nationally currently-licensed...... computers can give us that info within a minute. Why is this not the standard, as it is in Canada, the UK, France, Germany......even China.....??? People who deliver health care need to get a standard fee for service, adjusted for inflation in certain areas over others, doctors and nurses in NYC make more than in Mississippi. That's what all other countries can do NOW with computers, licensing boards, regulations, and openness.......why not here in the USA?

I figure Canadians are Free as well as Costa Ricans .

So Why would we be any different :shrug: ?

I think the fear of Universal Health care like many
other Changes that society has faced over the ages is
generational obstacle .

Young people are more apt to accept it .

People of your generation Dad, lived through completely
different propaganda that I never faced as Gen X .

All that Conditioning is hard to shed .

Peace Out

insulin pumps, laser surgery, and prescription drugs must never be limited by government spending. but government should buy the most needed prescription drugs in mass quantities. a bottle of insulin costs the individual over $100 in this country, but in the UK the price rarely exceeds $10.

the government would help us most by regulating the price of primary care, increasing funding for basic medical research, and insuring everyone under a single-payer system. but it must not selectively ban expensive procedures, ration primary care, or dictate what we can eat and drink. Canada and most of Europe have the best equilibrium, but a slippery slope is used to provide health-care in nations like ours and China.

I'm for universal, single-payer, NOT FOR PROFIT Healthcare.

I'm for cutting the private insurance industry out of the health care system.

Getting care "privately..." would that mean paying more money because you have more, because you expect to get a higher quality of care?

I'm for equal access to high quality health care as a right. If ranking people into "haves" and "have nots" according to what they can afford to pay for health care is still part of the picture, I'm not for it.

I'M FOR exactly what you posted. :hi:

A Universal Single-Payer system, "We the People" being the payer and the system accountable to "We the People", not to rich shareholders of corporations, with the for-profit leeches cut out, with clout to use against big pharme -- we tell THEM what we're willing to pay for drugs and if they don't like it, we'll open up our own factories and produce them ourselves!

A System that is funded at least as well and is at least as comprehensive and successful as France's system...

This is from the site Physicians for a National Health Program and it explains in detail what single payer health insurance actually is.

Physicians for a National Health Program is a nonprofit organization of 14,000 physicians, medical students and health professionals who support single-payer national health insurance.



Is national health insurance “socialized medicine”?
No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for the government and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. Examples also exist in Great Britain and Spain. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized financing, or socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage their medical practices or hospitals.

The term socialized medicine is often used to conjure images of government bureaucratic interference in medical care. That does not describe what happens in countries with national health insurance. It does describe the interference by insurance company bureaucrats in our health system.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#socialized

main site......

http://www.pnhp.org/

Your friend should note that people who strongly support personal liberty have been running away from the GOP in recent years, as that party's agenda has become more controlled by the social conservatives who want to regulate what we do in our bedrooms, limit our choice in marriage partners, remove autonomy over how we handle the end of our lives, and generally oppose personal liberty in the name of religious morality.

:hippie:

You can't solve it while keeping insurance company profits.

"supplementary private insurance" will remain the defacto insurer in a hybrid system.

able to privately contract health care? I'm sure plastic surgery and optional surgery could be obtained privately.
Other than that why would anyone want private health care?

And it's for those people who aren't rich and can't afford to pay cash for things they may not get or get easily in the national system. It opens opportunites for more people - not just the wealthy, and with a national healthcare system in place paid for by ALL and available to ALL, it severely reduces the amount of money that any insurance company will ever make. Most would go out of business.

Even in countries with good healthcare - like Canada - the care and wait is not standard from province to province. It should be, but it's not. There's glitches. I'm just a realist, who doesn't believe we're going to get the perfect system fully funded. Think of all the things that aren't adequately funded right now, and you will know from where I speak. Is it going to be better than what tens of millions have now? Damn, I sure hope so!

I want coverage for all and realistic choices, not pie in the sky. For that, I'm probably thought of as a rightwinger. OOOOh, I'm a freeper here to cause trouble. I don't care. I know I'm not far right, and I'm not I'm not far left as some here. And it's why people like me are probably going to have more influence over healthcare. There's more of us. There's simply more "in the middle." People don't want to be tied to their employer's insurance carrier. And a lot of people don't want to be tied to a government plan that makes it criminal to get care outside of that plan.

No one has to be "patient" with me, or tell me to read this or read that. I simply have a different opinion. And I have NOT drunk the kool-aid.

I hope I explained that to your satisfaction. :)

to get helath care at all. And I have kaiser, supposedly one of the best. Just like in sicko, when I filed a complaint it was judged by a group of people (nameless), as was the appeal. No doctor even met me to see if my complaints were real. (A simple procedure done by a nurse instead of a doctor left major unnecessary scars. They still haven't even looked at them. I had an appointment with a doctor, but was attended by a nurse. ) So, I'm not keen on our health care at all. I have no idea what will happen when I need real medical care. But I'm paying 4000 a year for not much...

My insurance provider is more inept than evil, but that's because my husband works for a rather progressive company that is self insured. We have coverage for stuff a lof of people don't. Yes, I realize we're very fortunate. It could all end tomorrow, too, if he ever loses his job.

Anyway, if most insurance companies were run out of business, those that stuck around would have to be much more consumer friendly, because we wouldn't HAVE to join them. KWIM? Right now, they make the rules as lobbyists, and we're stuck paying their ridiculous fees for lousy coverage. It sucks, I know.

I hope we can get something better for all Americans soon.

The Public system should be so damn good that we don't need any private "health insurance" to supplement it. Anything less would be a crime against the People.

I doubt that there's any "need" for supplemental insurance "coverage" in any of the Civilized nations who've decided that Health Care is a basic right and have funded it decently. This whole "supplemental insurance" thing is a red herring thrown down to scare people.

There is a second tier of medical practice in Britain, the only major country with a true "Socialized" system. It's popularly known as Harley Street in London (as I remember). This tier is like a five star hotel -- it's not necessarily better medicine (just as a 5 star hotel is not necessarily a better hotel) but it provides more "customer service"; more obeisance to the demands of the entitled classes.

This 2nd tier is NOT medically necessary...


Health Care IS a BASIC RIGHT rather than a privilege to be used like a club... It should be Universal, Efficient and Complete!


Bye the bye, I've NEVER seen a congresscritter, celebrity or ubber-rich snob jumped to the head of the line at the library. I've never heard of a Senator's house fire put out instead of the house of a poor person.

Then answer this:

Do you have health care provided by your employer? What happens if you lose your job?

Do you have Medicare?

If you've got one of the two, are you one of those who thinks, "I've got mine, the hell with you?"


I can't imagine anybody who DOESN'T have insurance saying the US doesn't need a single-payer plan.

Isn't anyone but the wealthy a pink slip away from health care? How many people who are unemployed can afford the Cobra payments?

I was an employee twice in the 21st Century (the rest of the time I've been "older" and freelance and therefore UTTERLY unable to afford "health insurance")...

Both of my jobs were outsourced within 2 years.

I then had the choice of Cobra coverage.

Same Kaiser Plan, EXACT same coverage:

2002: $230 per month
2005: $550 per month!

Needless to say, my medical coverage ENDED upon my lay off in 2005...

-------------------------------

I don't think we're far apart.

I hope, pray and would work like hell to make sure that OUR public system, OUR Universal Single-Payer system be one that would cover ANY reasonable eventuality and would be funded at such a level that we could eliminate long wait times for medically necessary procedures.

We could have a much healthier population since preventative care would be within the reach of everyone.

With a little help from "We the People", we could emulate the Cuban system (and the system we USED to have) and place clinics in neighborhoods instead of having our health care delivery system monopolized and clustered around difficult to access corporate "hospital" complexes.

We would CERTAINLY have a happier group of people working in Health Care (You should HEAR my partner - the oncology nurse - talking about our Corporate "health care" system - you'd plotz - 'cause it's so messed up, it's dangerous to our health). Health care professionals would be happier because they would be allowed to practice MEDICINE instead of fight with the health insurance mafia gatekeepers for permission to practice medicine as the for-profit corporations define it.

Believe me, I understand your fears. I suspect that the Soviet system was like the one you're afraid of -- no other options, that's the bogey man that the health insurance mafia is trying to scare us with.

I can't IMAGINE left, liberal and reasonable right-thinking Democrats and (the very few) reasonable right-thinking republicans passing any system in this country that would totally preclude any medically reasonable choices.

:hi:

Peace to you, too.

You know, one of the reasons we are far apart is because you look at Cuba and say, "Well, if they can do that, why can't we?" When I look at Cuba, I don't see the same things you do. I firmly believe that they have a two-tier system in that country. Yes, they have PLENTY of doctors. Human beings are cheap. Labor is cheap. Technology is not. The technology that is available there to the higher-ups and people who pay (good moneymaker for Cuba) get much more than the average person. I'm not going to argue. I've done my research. Any website or article that I would put up you would say has an "agenda." Well, Michael Moore had an agenda, too.

I don't look at Sicko and see the truth. I see propaganda. It has about as much truth as what we hear from our insurance companies. Each is giving only one side. That's the nature of debate, I'm afraid. Both sides show plenty of truth. They also leave out a LOT.

I've chosen to do my own research and know the truth is in the middle somewhere.

I hope you have a wonderful weekend! I think I would like you just based on your name. :) I'm a very proud mom of bio and adopted children. In fact, one of my children is disabled, and will need care when my husband and I are gone. I have a strong, personal interest in seeing that our country adopt more humane policies towards the ill and disabled.

Take care.

So why the fuck are you here? Do you imagine that someone else is interested in knowing that you have done your research, when you persistently refuse to present the results? (Got anything to back up the meme about breast cancer survival rates in Canada yet?)

If you are here to persuade, why not make the effort? Why not present something in the way of fact and/or argument that is persuasive?

Each is giving only one side. That's the nature of debate, I'm afraid.

You forget that in genuine debate, people present facts and arguments -- as Michael Moore does. And as you refuse to do.

Repeated Memes are not persuasive. But they sure can be effective, eh?

I assume so, given how fond some people ... and big insurance corporations ... are of spewing them.

Michael Moore is on a mission and uses propaganda just like the other side. In fact, I have been lurking here for quite a while, and I remember a discussion by some members here who disliked his tactics. Everytime he dices and splices, exaggerates or lies, he gives the other side amunition.

According to Michael Moore, the Canadian system is practically flawless. If that were so, the Canadian Supreme Court would not have ruled the people have a right to go outside the system. As your Supreme Court put it (and I am paraphrasing) "the right to be on a waiting list is not a right to medical care." And that's why your country now has private clinics.

A little bit of learning is such a wonderful thing, isn't it?

Unlike you, I have read the trial decision, the appellate decision and the Supreme Court decision -- in the original French in all cases, by the way.

And I know which ones got it right. And it wasn't the Supreme Court. You are aware, of course, that Supreme Courts are not gods. They are authoritative -- but not necessarily right. One would think that living with the US Supreme Court, you'd understand this.

And that's why your country now has private clinics.

No. And not merely because Canada does NOT have private clinics operating outside the public plan in most places. But, if Quebec eventually does (it's still an open question), it will be because there is an extremely well-organized, well-funded corpoate right wing in Canada doing its level best to destroy the public health insurance system.

You want to lick its boots and pretend it's acting in the public interest, you feel free.

It's been a while since I read about the decision, but didn't the plaintiffs actually come to the U.S. to get the care they needed?

And how long did they wait before coming here?

Inquiring minds reading might want to know the answer to that question since obviously I tell so many falsehoods!

Goodness. Why bother reading THE DECISION, eh?

didn't the plaintiffs actually come to the U.S. to get the care they needed?

Of the two initial plaintiffs, one was a doctor. That was Chaoulli.

Here, clean your brain:
http://www.tommydouglas.ca/research/200506
(Tommy Douglas invented medicare in North America)

Living dead' stalk health care

"LIKE zombies in the night, these ideas may be intellectually dead but never buried. They may lie dormant for a time... but when stresses build up, either in the health-care system or in the wider public economy, they rise up and stalk the land."

So wrote a team of health economists headed by UBC's Dr. Robert Evans in a health policy paper for the Ontario government 11 years ago. The "zombies" include all the buzzwords of the health privatizers -- deterrent fees, private health insurance, "parallel public/private" and the ultimate, a complete private, for-profit health system.

For years, the privatizers were kept on the defensive because the only example they could point to was the ultimate, the complete private, for-profit model in the U.S. Despite being the most costly in the world, it leaves more than 40 million Americans without any health insurance at all.

Then right-wing governments were elected in countries like France, Sweden and Australia. In no time, the "undead" leapt out of their coffins. They didn't just stalk the land. They became the law of the land.

Canada's privatizers could finally park the U.S. bogey. Surely Canadians had nothing to fear if "socialist" France, Sweden and Australia were doing it. ...

http://cupe.ca/insidechaoulli/insidechaoulli
(that's a union)

I'm not gonna excerpt that one. You need to read the whole thing.

Under most understandings of reasoning, a person would need to understand the other sides arguements, present them as honestly as possible, before you demolish them.

Michael Moore has a tendency to be one-sided. He admits as such. At the same time, he gives us the opportunity to think about what is broken in the US.

A month ago, I fell off the bicycle on the way to work. Cut my head open. I was about 2 blocks from my office. what does it sound like when, knowing i am going to have to see a doctor for stitches, I have to worry about what it will cost, with my hand on a bandage.

No one should need to be afraid of the cost of medical care. No one should have to think about the cost of stuff while they are sitting on the ground bleeding. Those who have no insurance, and those of us with bad insurance think about it a lot.

Yes, debate is two-sided.

There are two sides.

Michael Moore is on one side.

Be on the other side if you like. But Michael Moore has no obligation to be on both sides at once; see?

What side he is on is not the point. His propaganda is the point. I try to filter through the propaganda on both sides!

I stated that M. Moore has stated that he is indeed one sided (I think he has stated that they other side has had their say with the television adverts for various drugs).

I have not put myself on any side as of yet, except to say that the current system is a f%#king travesty. Please do not misrepresent me as having taken one side over another. I haven't (yet).

(On edit) in my case with my little accident, I worry about the costs even *with* medical insurance, because unless you work for the (federal, state, or city) government, or a very large company here (WA) its all this 80/20 crap, where the 20% you pay goes toward some deductible, except for the things that don't count towards the deductable (which seems like everything).

oh, and FYI, Stitches are considered surgery.

that no one should go without!

I just disagree that the U.S. should make it a crime to go outside the system, which the C K plan will do.

For example in H.R.676 for profit insurers are not allowed to cover what the government plan will. For profit insurers will be gone.

Now in your options you are phrasing it like people should still want the freedom to pay for and get care, which of course most would say yes (and have).

I don't think these results are at all reflecting what people think they are voting for.

I just posted it...

See disclaimer in post #100...

And my post #147...

An analogy--if my house catches fire, I get exactly the same fire engines that Bill Gates would get in an equivalent situation. He can probably afford a state of the art sprinkler and alarm system that I can't afford, but why should I care as long as we get the same fire engine?