Are you serious?

First you want to "dumb down" our healthcare system to the 10 Weeks or longer (that your own sources confirmed as I quoted from them).

Now you want to turn over control of YOUR health care needs to the government?

Yep. Socialism is right around the corner, probably followed closely thereafter by Marxism.

Mr. Wondering, what is wrong with exploring OTHER options than just the steamroller approach of a complete government takeover?

Why do you THINK the government, bureaucrats and all, can manage their way out of a paper bag, much less manage a healthcare system?

If your assertion that "Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable:," WHO IS CURRENTLY IN CONTROL of Medicare and Medicaid? It's the GOVERNMENT. And what is causing the "problem" with those systems? It's the DEMAND for services, both on the indigent end and on the elderly end....and the Baby Boomers are coming!

They are already trying to cut benefits and limit use of the system. But they can't do much because they WILL get their butts tossed out of office if they mess too much with the system.

But WHERE are the REVENUES going to come from to support the increasing outflow for services rendered?

Can we all say...TAXES.

It's not unsustainable by a long shot. The claim of unsustainability is a red herring to push an entire agenda.
A quote from the article points to the political alliances that have been formed to push the agenda of the Democratic party, Government takeover of the health care industry. (Socialism)




The government is 100% in control of THIS system already. Of course it's broke as a result.



"trade-offs" are what we all expect in a capitalistic system.

"Trading Economic Systems", however, we should oppose.
Our choices; Facism, Socialism, or Capitalism.

Taxes versus premiums.

They are the same dollars...and premiums are outpacing Taxes except everybody pays and everybody gets coverage.

I'm not so disillusioned to believe that the $12,000 per year I'm spending on Insurance won't translate to maybe $13,000 or more in Taxes on ME someday because I am a higher bracket income earner than many. It's really against my financial interest to support such a plan. Right now...based upon my readings...per capita the US is spending around $5,200 per person on healthcare. I might have to pay $12,000 or more per year in taxes to sustain that number. But, at least, I'll be guaranteed coverage...be it waiting in line a little longer or dealing with beauracrat red tape and everyone (able) will be paying in.

Remember...there are a lot of young working Americans that just risk it and aren't paying into the system at all. More and more people that could afford it are just opting to spend their money on rent, food, cars, etc. and foregoing healthcare because it's simply to expensive and not a priority to them yet. The premiums (and the inherent tax within them) simply do not correlate to their risk of needing the healthcare system and they KNOW IT. They can just go bankrupt.

Services DO NEED to be looked at but rationing can only be done by elected officials and not based upon duty to shareholders and the bottom line. Primary care must be emphasized such that outcomes of the entire system are quickly improved versus looking at the improving individual outcomes scenario's.

It's a mess and a convoluted problem. But eliminating the burden of redundant middlemen over redundant pools of individuals/risk .... the first quick fix of ONE pool and ONE payer - "everybody in" will offer the most immediate savings, the most immediate leverage to contain cost and the most immediate way for solutions to be implemented across the board in one PAINFUL for some, swipe.

Mr. Wondering

p.s. - If you think single payer is a step towards Marxism then why aren't Canada or England communist countries yet. Their systems is are quite old, after all. IMO, the quickest way to get to Marxism is through a workers revolution....when the proletariat lash back at the bourgeoisie. When the people with money neglect the needs of the ever growing working poor and strip them of their dignity, they themselves create the circumstances ripe for rebellion. The biggest threat to capitalism is not socialism (which we've had for years even IN the current US Healthcare system as we regulate premiums, we don't auction off donated hearts and kidneys to the highest bidder, we have Medicare and Medicaid, etc)...no, the biggest undermining threat is the working classes lack of control of their own workplace, more and more their own healtcare and society as a whole.

While I can't speak for Britain or Canada, I can say that in Australia, nationalised health care has been a disaster creating a whole tier of second class citizens who sometimes (for non urgent cases) have to wait in line for simple operations.

Many people die on waiting lists.

My brother in law is a physician. He practiced his speciality in England before his retirement.

He had patients on his government waiting list for years. He also saw pay-as-you-go patients in a private practice arena.

Many times, people tired of being on the government waiting list - and paid out of pocket to see him earlier. His speciality does not usually involve life-or-death urgent decisions .... but sometimes it might. He's a dermatologist.

Imagine this: a universal legal care mandated and run by the government. You get on the wait list for a government appointed attorney that the government chooses for you on the government's timetable - no more fee-for-hire attorney. No one would go without an attorney - sound good?

American legal system is a mess and a convoluted problem. But eliminating the burden of redundant middlemen over redundant pools of individuals/risk .... the first quick fix of ONE pool of attorneys and ONE payer - "everybody in" will offer the most immediate savings, the most immediate leverage to contain cost and the most immediate way for solutions to be implemented across the board in one PAINFUL for some, swipe. Everyone has a government appointed attorney. The government pays whatever they determine is fair.

They will not be the same dollars, as not everyone has the same coverages.

I am also not interested in a single-payer system due to my desire for different coverages. My family uses a great deal of alternative medicine that would not be covered regardless. Which is why an HSA and a high deductible work best for us. I am not interested in more tax burden for less services, we already have this program and it's not working.

BTW, Europe is moving toward socialism. Hence, the one currency system called the Euro--first major step toward socialism.

Mr. W., you are a rational, logical, thinking man.

Granted, your primary support for a Government run, Single Payor "Insurance" system seems to have a strong emotional content to it, as what I "hear" you primarily "leaning on" is the idea that there ARE "uninsureable" people currently who can't buy health insurance (if there isn't a State run High Risk Pool insurance plan available to them) or who simply can't afford the premiums for a plan, who need coverage.

There are others, equally true, who COULD afford a health insurance plan but who CHOOSE not spend their money on one. So let's "cut" those "CAN but CHOOSE NOT TO" people out of the "equation," okay? They are the ones who would love someone else to pay for whatever they want, including healthcare.

That leaves those who can't qualify medically or who really can't afford the premiums for a health plan that they could qualify for.

In addition, there are people who have high premiums for their plans NOW, and who would like to see a lower premiums but want the coverage so they are not hurt "big time" if a catastrophic event were to occur.

Now, back to your statement in the quotation:

Taxes versus premiums.

They are the same dollars...and premiums are outpacing Taxes except everybody pays and everybody gets coverage.

They are NOT the same dollars for a number of reasons.

1. Taxes are forced confiscation of your funds. You have NO choice in the matter. You simply HAVE TO pay whatever they decide to charge you, like the current Medicare Tax that all working people have to pay whether they are on Medicare or not. Under age 65, or not on Medicare, you still have to PAY for the costs of others who ARE on Medicare. If you don't pay the taxes, the government has their "gestapo" arm of the IRS who can "freeze" all your bank accounts, etc. So there would be NO choice.

But now you will be paying for everyone if you get your Single Payor Healthcare system, both ways, under 65 and over 65. As more and more of Baby Boomer retire from the workforce, you WILL pay more and more.

2. The COST of service from the Providers won't change, unless the government tries to implement the same sort of "allowable" charges that they do with Medicare. THAT amount is already too low for Providers, so the Providers will have to decide to "participate" or not participate if they expect to be paid. BUT they won't have a "choice" with the Single Payor System because there wouldn't BE any other "choice."

3. With all the "concern" over the Mortgage crisis and the Automotive crisis and the effects on the "average person" and the employees of the those systems driving the "bail out," do you think that the government would be equally concerned about the Providers and all the "support" staff of Hospitals and Doctor's Offices? If THEY "have to" pay them more to "keep the doors open," where will all of this money come from? The government doesn't EARN a penny, they TAX wage earners. They WON'T get a dime from the unemployed and probably not from a large percentage of those who don't earn enough to pay income taxes (though they WILL probably confiscate "healthcare taxes" like they do the Medicare tax. So the TAXES will NOT be the "same dollars," they will be considerably higher. Especially if they try to use the same reasoning about who gets to PAY the taxes as they are using for their "income redistribution" plan.




The problem with your "might have to pay" calculation is that there is no way to "predict" with any accuracy what it would be. It IS safe to assume that it would be AT LEAST what you are projecting, but as more and more of the Baby Boomers enter the Medicare system, your Medicare Taxes will also beging to escalate rapidly too.

Right now, Medicare Part A benefits are FREE to everyone who has worked AT LEAST 40 quarters in their lifetime. If they have not, they can still get Part A, but they have to pay a HEFTY premium for it. In 2008, the Medicare Part B premium is $96.40 per month, usually deducted from a person's Social Security check, but that amount goes up EVERY year, as do the Part A deductibles and corresponding co-payments for Medicare services.

Rest assured, however, that your $13,000 per year estimate is very likely WAY low, if not the 1st year, it will be over a very short timeframe, if for no other reason than the government is "flat broke." There IS no money in Social Security. There is no money in Medicare to speak of and they already project to "run out" of money in the near future. And they have no money to pay for Healthcare services for the "under 65" crowd for services that are increasingly costly every year.




I hear that sort of thing a lot. "I'll get health insurance when I need it." The problem they don't want to face is that you can't GET insurance AFTER you "have the wreck."

No one will pay to rebuild your house or fix your car if you don't have insurance BEFORE the problem happens.

Same thing with health insurance.

And for those who who "fit" your example in the quotation WILL NOT have the "option" of NOT paying for insurance. The government will mandartorily confiscate the money from them and they will have no choice but to pay whatever the government sets as the "premium" that they will call a "tax."



I'm sorry, Mr. W., but I am NOT interested in "rationed" healthcare service. WHO decides YOU are not "in need" of care when YOU think are in need of care? Some bureaucrat in "la la land DC?" Some political "hack" who wants to "look good" so they can get promoted for NOT authorizing your care, or delaying your care until you die and they don't have to pay? You know, sort of like they do current with the $255 death benefit and KEEP all of your Social Security payments, not to mention the ridiculous "death tax" that they confiscate simply because you had the "nerve" to die.



The "middleman" that you keep focusing on is NOT the problem. And there will be NO savings because the cost of service is just not that different, nor are the administrative costs that the government simply "hides" by not accounting for it in the system that is supposed to "have control" over the system. The government "costs shifts" the expenses into other areas. The private sector can't do that. The private sector MUST, by law, account for ALL administrative costs.

The government is playing a "shell game" on administrative costs and the "middleman costs" will simply be replaced by bureaucrats.



Yes it IS a "step towards Marxism." The Marxist philosophy is: FROM each according to his ability, TO each according to his need." Of course, it is the Government who decides what YOUR "ability to pay" is and it decides who has a need for YOUR money whether or not they do anything to earn it or have a "need" that could have been met through their own efforts. It's called "Welfare" to give a somewhat nicer sounding name.

But if really think that the current system is Socialistic (it is) and that it is "working," then you really do need to look closely at the system and see that it is "tolerated" but it is NOT "working." It ONLY works because the "costs" that it will not pay for are "shifted" to insurance companies.

Would you like a few "real life" examples of how well it "works?" I can give you some if you are interested. All I need to do is tell you about Medicare Part C and Medicare Part D, both of which are run by private insurance companies who have to follow the rules set by the government.

But each year each company has to decide to participate or not participate with the "rules" for the coming year. Care to guess what happens frequently?

FH,

I may be mistaken, but I can't recall a single democracy that slowly converted to some socialist philosophies that later metamorphasized into a communist country. Marxism/Communism is, I believe, historically always preceeded by a revolution of the disgruntled underclass (at least, be a few men claiming to represent them (Castro). Of course, this excludes the invasion and take over by a Communist Country.

Unemployment, poverty, lack of food, denial of basic services (including healthcare), etc. are what drive revolution. "They" don't revolt because you offer them universal health coverage.

Perhaps it is your emotions that are interferring with your logic here.

Mr. Wondering

Perhaps. I make no claims that I don't love my country and that I don't love freedom of choice and capitalism as THE "engines" that have driven our great nation. So there IS an "emotional component" in that I don't want to see our freedoms further destroyed and appropriated TO the government and TAKEN AWAY from the people.

Your "argument" in response to Pepperband's post, however, also shows your emotional investment in "your side" and once again does not address the FACTS.

You "objected" to the comparison with attorneys, but that is not the point and was not the point of her post. I won't speak for Pepperband, but I will try to use your response to her as an illustration for further clarification.

You cite that the "differences" lie in that "Some people will never need an attorney in their lifetime" and that "attorneys work on a contingency fee" and that "attorneys are appointed for indigent or people who cannot afford one in criminal cases."

But then you also go right into the emotional argumentation of "Strangly, though underpaid...there is no shortage of attorney's willing to take the jobs. However, I suspect you know this and are just "hating" on attorneys just like you "hated" on that idiot Nancy Pelosi. Hate isn't healthy. It will eat you up. Just breathe, life is wonderful."

Yes, I STRONGLY agree with your assertion that "life is wonderful.

But you have previously stated clearly that you DON'T think life is "wonderful." You have done so with your support for abortion on demand that ENDS the lives of millions of babies. So I see this as an inconsistent, if not "selective" appeal to the emotional content of the "value of a human life," or at least to only "some life." I happen TO believe in the inherent value of all human life, at whatever stage of its life it happens to be.

SOME attorneys work on a "contingent" fee basis, some work off of "retainers" and some, the majority I presume, ONLY take cases that THEY want to represent. The NEED of a given client IS NOT the "motivating factor" in most attorney's decision to "treat" their case. It IS based on money. NOW, some attorneys DO also choose to help "a few" people with Pro Bono (free) care."

HOW is that different from Doctors and Hospitals?

MANY Doctors donate their services, here in the USA and around the world, especially in the area of "Medical Missionaries." Hospitals are NOT allowed to "turn away" anyone, regardless of "ability to pay," who presents with an Emergency. THAT is one of the reasons why Emergency Rooms have become "walk in clinics" for anyone, regardless of a "true emergency" or not. Hospitals WILL prioritize (triage) the cases based on a "severity" or "immediately life threatening" basis, hence the "wait times" for people to be seen because the law also states that NO ONE can be seen or treated unless THAT case is under the direct supervision of a licensed Doctor.

IF someone were treated, say by an ER Nurse with YEARS of experience, and something happened where the patient or patient's family didn't think the "outcome" was all that they wanted, GUESS who gets pulled into COURT on a "malpractice" suit?

But EVEN a wait in the ER of a few hours is NOTHING compared to the average WAIT time of 10 weeks in the Canadian system to be seen and treated. But, you might say, that is NOT an emergency condition. And you would be right. But BEYOND "emergency care" there IS a huge difference in ACCESSIBILITY of the healthcare system.

You "got on" Pepperband for her brother-in-law AND you "backhanded slammed" him for "daring" to earn more money by treating a nasty, self-indulgent, "private pay" person.

"Well, there's the problem. His private care is interferring with his public practice. The lines wouldn't be nearly as long for the general public if the system didn't allow the wealthy to take cuts (except by going out of the country). Also note that nobody is receiving his medical care as he wastes time travelling between his private and public practice. Very inefficient."

Mr. W., with all due respect, who are YOU to determine what HE can do with HIS time and his ability to earn an income by seeing patients of his choosing? Why not require that attorneys NOT be "allowed" to treat any equivalent of a "private pay" client? Why not have the attorneys stop "wasting their time" traveling between "clients who cannot afford an attorney's fees and those who can afford them?"

What you ARE arguing for here is the equivalent of Indentured Servitude, if not outright Slavery, for Medical Personnel. You are arguing that they MUST spend all their time in "public, low or no, wage 'service' that is dictated and mandated by the Government on the basis of anything else being "inefficient." "Inefficient?" Have you ever looked at the "efficiency of government?" Have you ever seen "wasteful spending" from government on all sorts of "pet projects" that they want to do for Political reasons? They TAKE our money and USE IT for whatever they want to use it on, with NO accountability beyond "how to secure their butts in their Senate or Congressional Seats for the rest of their lives." They FEED at the public trough, and then they want to DICTATE what YOU can or cannot make.

That is PRECISELY what they have done with my own ability to earn a living helping Medicare clients choose a plan that will best suit THEIR needs. They have cut my income in half with one stroke of their bureaucratic pen and told the insurance companies "either comply or you will not be allowed to sell ANY Medicare products."

Not "Marxist?" Maybe not if you want to define "Marxism" as "Communism." But that is NOT what Marxism is. Marxism is simply "FROM each according to his ability, TO each according to his need." It is the "extreme" end to Socialism. It is a PHILOSOPHY, not a "government." Democracy, Socialism, Communism…they are all FORMS of government that involve the CONTROL of people BY the Government.

The "Communism part" comes from government takeover of key sectors of the economy and the "dictatorial rule" of persons in power.

Just HOW FAR away from all of that do you see the USA headed with the huge Democratic push for Socialism, complete with the complete "takeover" of the entire Healthcare sector of the country?


Returning briefly to your assertion that "Some people will never need an attorney in their lifetime" (your direct quote was: "Most people go their entire lives without desperately needing an attorney"), my response would be "so what?" MOST people go their entire lives without "desperately needing a physican or a hospital" too. What does that have to with the analogy to attorneys? MANY, if not "most" people DO need the assistance of an attorney for more "not so desperate" things, such as a Mortgage, a Will, a Power of Attorney, etc.

Those people who DO desperately need health care are called "Emergency Room Patients." Others have "life threatening" medical problems that are NOT emergencies, but ARE "desperate" if they want to live. But under Socialistic Medicine, it's "take a number and wait in line." The PRO Single Payor Source, Socialized Medicine model you used of the Canadian system has already PROVEN that "wait in line" approach, no matter HOW "desperately YOU might think you need to be "seen and treated."

YOUR own source confirmed that the BEST OF CASES, the WAIT TIME is an "average" of 10 weeks. And we all know what "averages" mean….some a little shorter and some a little longer. But any way you slice it, it is approaching 3 MONTHS. Do you have a feeling for how much conditions can worsen in 2 or 3 months, let alone the 26 WEEKS they "decry" as too much time when a doctor provides services outside of "indentured servitude to the public system?"

Furthermore, your comparison of criminals getting "free care from an attorney" is RESTRICTIVE. Why NOT make it available to CIVIL cases too? Attorneys are expensive and people should not "have to" pay more than a State run "allowable fee" or State mandated "free service" as they impose on the Medical community.

Why NOT make ALL attorneys have to abide by a Government imposed fee structure and to provide care for everyone regardless of their "ability to pay" for it themselves?

Collect an "Attorney Legal Aid" fee in the form of Taxes and then provide legal services to any and all according to THEIR need, not the Attorney's need. Remember…."FROM each according to his ABILITY, TO each according to his need."

Ability does NOT have to just refer to MONEY. It can also apply to a field of expertise, such as Medicine or Legal expertise.





I got it. Vietnam was NOT taken over by people who wanted to impose a Communist form of government on the entire nation. China did NOT "take over" Vietnam. They "assisted" them to take it over FOR THEMSELVES.

Castro has been in power "By accident" of the "misled voting public."

Many of the Islamic countries DON'T want to IMPOSE Sharia Law on everyone in their countries, and to impose it upon everyone, everywhere, if they can.




Uh huh. And what sort of "revolution" do you think the "public" might choose IF and WHEN they find out that they cannot get treated WHEN and HOW they want to be treated and there is NO place else to turn because the Government is the SOLE source for healthcare?

Just how "patient" do you think the citizens of America really ARE when it begins to impact THEM personally?

No, but they are driving on your roads and using other benefits of your taxes (police services for example).

I have been saying the very same thing. Why are we arguing?

(snipped out a bunch of quote in quote re immigration)

PRECRIPTIONS ARE NOT COVERED under Canada's universal coverage!!!! I have a drug plan at my work. If I didn't, *I* would pay for these too. The only people who have public drug coverage are seniors. If you send in your receipt to your US insurance, it is likely they would reimburse you. But the drug store here obviously is not going to have a relationship with a foreign insurance company so why would they accept it?

I will see if I can find one for you but there are numerous reports of fees for services in the US vs Canada. The same treatments in the US are usually quite a bit more. We citizens generally have no idea since we don't get a bill.

Illegal aliens and people with no money, documentation or a health card get health care as well. They just get billed later. Nobody dies in the ER because they cant produce a card. As for province to province - this is one thing I don't care for, but it is the provincial gov't that pays for health care and it's one of the ways they cover the cost. Buying out of province health insurance when you travel is rediculously low anyway. (also if you happen to need health care somewhere else and didn't buy insurance, if you raise a bit of noise with your MPP they'll usually partially cover it under your own provincial coverage)

Our health care system is something we take great pride in. I could say people in the US complain how evil Canadian socialist system is.

It is universal for Canaidan citizens and residents. One of the reasons for their diligence in asking for paperwork is because of the high incidence of fake health cards carried by Americans (apparently they used to be easy to get). Sorry, but our population of 30 million cannot possibly pay for your population of 300 million. But probably 1 in 3 patients in border hospitals is an American. Universal doesn't mean we are the global providers of free health care, sorry.

Yes, our taxes are higher. But to compensate, we aren't paying for health insurance. Our middle class is not as shrunken as yours and actually you guys work way harder than we do if you look at vacation times etc. We also get things like 1 year parental leave (can be taken by mother, father or split between both) upn the birth of a child. People don't work harder or longer just to pay tax, trust me.

They have done a few things to try to minimize this (or at least minimize the cost of this). We have family doctors, then we have walk-in clinics (these are often open after hours) and then the hospitals. The ER is for emergencies only - if you go in with a sniffle, they will send you to the clinic next door. Clinics tend to have longer waits and are for these types of things where you aren't going to drop dead in the waiting room, but you still want treatement before your family dr opens the next morning.

This is true about everything, not just health care.

Please don't twist the facts. THis implies people are waiting 10 WEEKS in an EMERGENCY ROOM!!!!! Nothing could be further from the truth. Wait times are for SCHEDULED PROCEDURES, not emergency treatment, which is seen on a triaged basis much the same as your your hospitals. These scheduled procedures are the ones that uninsured Americans don't even get AT ALL until it becomes a life threatening situation and they have to go to the ER.

You like your system and that is fine. We like ours and that's why it's different than yours. We acknowledge the problems with ours and we are trying to fix it. But to suggest anything that conjures an image of someone bleeding to death for 10 weeks waiting for attention is outlandish.

Mr W.

I think I figured out where the 30% skim is going. Granted these figures are from 2005, but the final cost is still mind-boggling. You can realistically add about 6% a year in pay increases to these figures since that's the average per year raise for CEOs. This is just the CEO's salaries. Now imagine adding in the vice presidents, board of directors, and stock holders. No wonder some people end up paying $50 for a band aid.

CEO Salaries Health Companies

United Health Group
CEO: William W McGuire
2005: 124.8 mil
5-year: 342 mil

Forest Labs
CEO: Howard Solomon
2005: 92.1 mil
5-year: 295 mil

Caremark Rx
CEO: Edwin M Crawford
2005: 77.9 mil
5-year: 93.6 mil

Abbott Lab
CEO: Miles White
2005: 26.2 mil
5-year: 25.8 mil

Aetna
CEO: John Rowe
2005: 22.1 mil
5-year: 57.8 mil

Amgen
CEO: Kevin Sharer
2005: 5.7 mil
5-year: 59.5 mil

Bectin-(Di)ckinson
CEO: Edwin Ludwig
2005: 10 mil
5-year: 18 mil

Cardinal Health
CEO: James Tobin
2005:1.1 mil
5-year: 33.5 mil

Cigna
CEO: H. Edward Hanway
2005: 13.3 mil
5-year: 62.8 mil

Genzyme
CEO: Henri Termeer
2005: 19 mil
5-year: 60.7 mil

Humana
CEO: Michael McAllister
2005: 2.3 mil
5-year: 12.9 mil

Johnson & Johnson
CEO: William Weldon
2005: 6.1 mil
5-year: 19.7 mil

Laboratory Corp America
CEO: Thomas MacMahon
2005: 7.9 mil
5-year: 41.8 mil

Eli Lilly
CEO: Sidney Taurel
2005: 7.2 mil
5-year: 37.9 mil

McKesson
CEO: John Hammergen
2005: 13.4 mil
5-year: 31.2 mil

Medtronic
CEO: Arthur Collins
2005: 4.7 mil
5-year: 39 mil

Merck
CEO: Raymond Gilmartin
2005: 37.8 mil
5-year: 49.6 mil

PacifiCare Health
CEO: Howard Phanstiel
2005: 3.4 mil
5-year: 8.5 mil

Pfizer
CEO: Henry McKinnell
2005: 14 mil
5-year: 74 mil

Well Choice
CEO: Michael Stocker
2005: 3.2 mil
5-year: 10.7 mil

WellPoint
CEO: Larry Glasscock
2005: 23 mil
5-year: 46.8 mil

Wyeth
CEO: Robert Essner
2005: 6.5 mil
5-year: 28.9 mil

TOTAL 2005: 559.8 mil

TOTAL 5-Year: 14.9 billion

Fortune 500 Health Care: Insurance and Managed Care
Revenue vs. Profit In Millions

Want2Stay

Check out this British Columbia, Canadian Interactive website where you can ascertain wait times down to procedures and an actaul physicians. *Note the fine print on each page where it indicate that these numbers don't reflect emergency cases which are handled in, I think, two weeks or less in a great percentage of the cases (this depends on the specific procedure).


Interactive British Columbia Waittime website


Actually...that BC link is but one link off the main Canada Health Care System's website about improving wait times in Canada. I haven't read hardly any of it yet...so it may offer much to support the private health insurance rackets opinion or it may not, or both. But it's very accurate, informative and up to date and certainly a handy tool if one lives in Canada. What a sterling example of governmental waste and inability [sarcasm].

WAIT TIMES IN CANADA



Mr. Wondering

p.s.- FH did you mean you value all life, unless you are a 50 year chronically ill person with no health insurance??? You clearly support the expidited death of the uninsured or is it they only have "vaule" IF they pay your premiums?

You are using numbers that include stock options. That is not the same as salaries. Stock options do not affect the cost of medical insurance.
You also included drug companies.
And the profit you quoted is before tax and still equates to on average 3% profit from the entire industry. Not 30%!

Of course they do. Isn't that what drives the profit motive...paying dividends to share holders.

True. The list does include drug companies. In my estimation they should be next on the list of this mess. Last week my dad went to the doctor for a simple cold and the co-pay for the antibiotic they prescribed him was $80.


The profits are still minus the ridiculous salaries these CEOs are paid. I know I sure couldn't sleep at night knowing people were being denied health care so I could profit to this extent off the misery and misfortune of others. I guess it's just business though.

Want2Stay

Don't look now but in the past two weeks that we've been arguing this matter...

Over One Million US workers filed for unemployment claims and will soon likely be joining the ranks of the uninsured.

Over 500,000 new unemployment filings per week average over the last four weeks.

wow
Unemployment numbers adjusted


You see...the YEARS and YEARS the "private health insurance" racket spent brainwashing these now or soon to be uninsured persons with rhetoric, lies, and fear (of communism, of waiting in lines, of government) are all whipped away with a single pink slip.

In some ways...recessions are good for big corporations (the ones that can survive it) because they can literally dump all their older employees, you know the ones nearing the really risky and expensive medical part of their lives or the guy in Accounting whose young daughter needs a heart transplant or the mother Vice President whose son is a hemopheliac (sp?), without anyone really noticing. In a couple years, when Obama pulls us out of this Republican nightmare, they can hire back young healty workers at subtantially lower premiums. Yippee..."Value" added....depending on what you value.

The figurative you, are nuts if work at ANY corporation and don't think this will happen to you. It will. Corporations don't really care about you and as you age...you become MORE and MORE of a liability rather than an asset. They must CHURN employees now....to maintain their bottom lines...which is their DUTY to their shareholders. They can't legally single out the aged or the sick so they must have seemingly systematic methods of doing it to LARGER groups of workers over regular intervals of time....like how about 1980, 1990, 2001, 2006, 2008.

Mr. W

W2S, I agree with you that the salaries are absurd. I have personally purchased prime time radio spots for months on end telling listeners how much insurance executives are paid. I have gone out on a limb with this advertising, in an effort to educate the listeners in my market area. I personally record these spot, telling my name and what company I am with, naming the insurance companies and naming the executives as well. I have researched these issues well. Trust me when I say that these companies are NOT happy with me!
I also am well educated in the difference between salaries and stock options. Simply stated, salaries are paid for through the cost of premiums. Stocks & options are paid for by investors.

I just don't believe government takeover of an entire industry, or ANY industry, is the correct answer for any issue.



We still must understand that the insurance company is in the business of selling a product that manages the risk involved in RELIEVING peoples misery.
Insurance companies do not profit from peoples misery, it's the opposite------they only profit when people have NO misery.
No claims = greater profits. And the risk management company we call insurance is here tomorrow or they go out of business.
It's called capitalism........STILL the best system in the world!

The Doctors profit from misery.
The Denists profit from misery.
The Plumbers profit from misery.
The Accountants profit from misery. (our tax code)
The lawyers profit from misery. (maybe they create it too)
The Mechanics profit from misery.
The Computer Technician profits from misery.
The Funeral Homes profit from misery.
And the list goes on and on and on!


Capitalism - Maybe not perfect.....But still the best system to operate within!