Where do you live? I can find out.

thanks,but no thanks,i don't need you to "find out" .....i can google just as well as you can.

Sorry, just trying to help. Didn't want you to go without health care if you didn't need to.

[quote name='Shebee' date='Jul 15 2009, 06:11 PM' post='297378']

"I really do hate when people slip through the cracks. I'm sorry. I also want to say that I admire women who work and support their children. It is very hard. We do have an unemployment system and health care is available to most families. (So is college through pell grants.) ...and no job is Secure.

...and please don't assume that everyone has big, beautiful houses & etc. Probably most women here has been or are a single moms raising kids. "



Slip through the crack....that is interesting!!!!! Talk about your wannabe's.

AM DONE NOW!!! I HAD MY SAY...PEACE OUT

AND JUST WHAT ARE YOU SORRY ABOUT???

Very well said.

sorry, i didnt intend to start a war here...

PLEASE TRY TO BE KIND TO ONE ANOTHER!

THIS IS MY STORY---

my husband has bought our health insurance ever since we were married in 1982...we have paid high premiums and lower premiums...had high deductibles and low deductibles...but what does a person do when you lose your job and the reasonable insurance rates offered by a job ?? we have been forced to pay COBRA rates (700.00 per month) for 1 yr now and we can no longer afford to pay them...and 2 1/2 yrs ago i was diagnosed with cervical cancer stage IIIA (which is in remission--Thanks to God). my husband is lucky to have found a part time job in this economy and it doesnt offer health insurance....We are not eligible for state offered insurance unless we are without insurance for 6 months---WHAT HAPPENS IF MY CANCER COMES BACK?? I am actually terrified---BUT I AM GOING TO TRUST GOD TO KEEP ME HEALTHY AND PRAY THAT OUR COUNTRY CAN PASS A HEALTH REFORM BILL THAT WILL COVER ME AND MANY OTHERS LIKE ME(with pre-existing conditions).
even when my husband's job goes full time i am not assured to be accepted for health coverage due to my pre-existing condition..

please allow those of us that need this coverage to have a little hope...my husband is not a loser and neither am i..we have never sponged off of the government----we do not spent our money frivolously...we have always paid our bills before pleasure.....

I PRAY THAT GOD IS WORKING ALL THINGS TO THE GOOD FOR THOSE THAT LOVE HIM, AND HAVE BEEN CALLED ACCORDING TO HIS PURPOSE!

please try to be a little more caring of our fellow PS sisters!

You poor thing, I'm sure you didn't plan on this heated debate. Most of us do not get upset and understand this is just a debate. Unfortunately it seems some take it personally, even though it wasn't meant that way.

I do understand your situation. I think if you read through my posts and that of others, none of us say that everyone who cannot afford insurance is irresponsible and that there are definitely situations that warrant some type of help, and yours is obviously one of those. It has to be very scary with your condition to have no insurance. I also worry, because all it will take is one more ER visit or hospitalization and we are in deep trouble financially, since DH salary is being cut in half.

But I've seen many other proposals that can address your situation and mine that do not involve such massive gov't control and rationing, and that give us more choices than we will get with a gov't plan, in addition to not costing hundreds of billions of $$$ every single year or requiring us to fork over huge amounts of money in the form of taxes.

The present proposal is a very bad one, and is not the only, nor the best one. We all need to take a deep breath and intelligently explore the alternatives and not let our emotions cause us to make a snap decision that will put us in debt for generations, limit our choices, and decrease the present quality of healthcare.

MY COMMENTS IN BOLD



As far as serious illness and people being ready to lose everything due to medical bills, there should be help for people in these dire straights. But for example, if my neighbor who has a mini-mansion house, goes on extravagant vacations every year, eats out frequently, has expensive vehicles, wears expensive clothes, chose not to pay for health ins. when clearly they could have, and then one of them gets a serious illness and stands to lose everything due to medical bills, then that was their choice and I should not be forced to pay to bail them out when I have been frugal and wise with my money and sacrificed some fun stuff to pay for medical coverage. In that case, they should lose their house and drive less expensive cars, and perhaps get some gov't help to live in a much smaller, modest home. And if anyone thinks they should have more than that, well, they most certainly should be the ones to donate or hold a fund-raiser event to help the family. It's sounds caring to express care and concern by asking the taxpayers to foot the bill, but too often people who want taxpayers to pay to help someone are unwilling to sacrifice to donate their own money outright. DH and I have done charity work and do contribute to help those in need, even in our circumstances. I don't need someone forcing me to be charitable, especially when most of the tax dollar goes to pay for beaurocracy and inefficient gov't administration. Charity is not charity if one is forced to do it. And it rightly belongs in the realm of private citizenry, not the gov't.

This makes no sense to me. Then you should cancel all your home/care insurance because your premiums go up because some "rich guy with a mansion" keeps having accidence. Or there is some guy making false claims.
If you live in Canada, then you must be aware of the many news stories of people who could not get tests, treatments in a timely manner and suffered either permanent health damage or death? Just google it and you will find many stories, videos, etc. Yes, it's free, but there is plenty of evidence out there showing that the quality is lacking, as are the choices of drugs, treatments, as is the timeliness of care.

I am aware that NO system is perfect, but I've never heard of anyone not able to get tests. That is totally false. I have lupus and lyme and I am able to get any test I want at any time from anywhere.
I also get treatment in a timely manner. I can see my dr's in a days notice.
I don't need to google it, I've lived in this country my entire life and never heard of this EVER!
We can get ANY drug we want. All of Canada is the same.

Everything you said here is incorrect and feeds into the hype!

"In the US, medicine is all about profit and not about helping it's citizens. " Then why do your own doctors and gov't officials and many Canadians come here for treatment? Are you saying profit is bad? If you have your own business and are providing a service, would you continue to do it if you did not make a profit? That statement is simplistic and simply not based on any factual info. The free market and the ability to make a profit is what drives economic growth and success, spurs invention and innovation, and the competition it engenders benefits us all as businesses and doctors compete for our business. I'm quite weary of the whole "the rich are evil and profit is bad" mentality. It shows a profound lack of understanding of economics and what drives societies to prosper. Who do you think provides the jobs? Does it have it's problems? Of course, but you will never have perfection anywhere, and even the poor here are rich by comparison of the poor in many other countries. The problem comes when we can't allow imperfection and demand the gov't make everything perfect, but it will be at the expense of our freedom and will severely limit our choices. Nothing is every truly 'free'.

I've also heard of Americans going to Germany (Farrah was one) to get treatment and heard of Americans going to Mexico to get treatment.
Every country has diffferent options.
Canadian do the same.
Medicine should NOT be a business.
If you would rather pay higher taxes for your medical bills to be paid, by all means, volunteer to do it, just allow me MY choice not to do it and to deal with my own health care issues. If all the people who say they want 'free' health care were asked to be the ones to pay the extra taxes voluntarily, it would be interesting to see how many would do it. I would wager that they would be less enthusiastic about it. People who want the gov't freebies like to be generous with other people's money.

I'm glad you are happy with your health system, but so am I with mine even though it is a hardship on us.. There are lots of studies and information about the ugly underbelly of 'free' health care that anyone can find if you are truly interested in learning all aspects of it.

really? Find me the studies and I would LOVE to read them! Are these studies writen by Americans who fear medicare?

I have a problem with my hard-earned tax money paying for health care for people who clearly can afford to pay for ins., but choose not to because they want their big house, toys, and vacations, or of illegals that come here.

I am SURE there are very few people who do this and there are abusers in every system. It's called DEMOCRACY! If you truly are interested in knowing the problems, there are plenty of articles here. Just pick the country and read:

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthc...zed.html#canada

This is only one of hundreds of sources.


I hope other Americans on here do not buy into this because it's all incorrect.
I live here and live the system so until you have lived it, this is all propaganda

Bravo-me too!! Lets keep praying and hoping.

it is good to hear from someone who has good care from there government-I hope we are blessed with care soon as well.GOD-bless

I have a few friends in the US in the same boat.
Our system is not perfect, but I never lose sleep over how I'm going to pay.

Good luck and sending you good vibes


And ladies, let's not fight. Power in numbers, United we stand, divided we fall.
Let's keep our wits about us

Thank you peacesoul for an excellent post

My responses are encased in ****. Sariah.

I am willing to pay more taxes in order for health care to be more affordable available to all. I don't know that any one plan will answer all needs, but it's an embarrassment to me as an American citizen that we don't have universal affordable health care for EVERYONE. We can spend billions on weapons and war and then let people go without medical insurance and often, medical care as a result.

I am one of THE most fortunate of people. My health insurance is provided by my employer. I am not wealthy by any means. My DH and live VERY frugally by choice - to give you an idea, we live in a 600 square foot little house (and love it!). We don't have any TV - let alone a big screen! LOL

Yet, my heart breaks for people without affordable health care. I work with people who don't work full time (but would if they could) and can't afford insurance. Monthy premuims for ONE person are over $500 per month. If the part time people take insurance, they don't have any or enough money left to live on. This is a reality, a sad, sad reality.

Again, I have insurance as a full time employee. But, if I change jobs, because of my cancer and other medical stuff - I'm uninsurable unless I'm in a large group plan that must accept pre existing conditions. This last year, I had 2 laproscopic surgies. I spent less than 6 hours TOTAL for each surgery in the hospital - no overnight stays, etc. The bill for both surgeries now exceeds FIFTY THOUSAND dollars!!!!! My insurance paid almost all of this amount! If we had not had insurance, we would have to mortgage our home and likely be approaching bankruptcy due to other ongoing medical bills in addition to the surgeries. I know people who are in that horrible horrible and wrong situation. This is not who we are as a country, is it?

I have many dear friends in Canada and they are all quite pleased with their care and access. I'm not saying that the Canadian program is what we need, but it seems to at least recognize health insurance/care as a basic human right.

I hope that significant changes are made so ALL of us can have affordable insurance with quality care. We must do better. We must. We are better than how we are now. Kathleent

It's ridiculous that once again a thread has turned into a heated argument.....it doesn't even really matter what we all think about the healthcare reform.....it's not like those opposed to it will be able to stop it from happening ...and it's not like those who are for it can push it through.....whatever happens,happens and then we will all have to deal with it...either way,some will benefit,others won't....

Nicely said!



by the way...Heated? Not yet. It is fine that we all have opinions. Strong opinions...Even about each other.

We cannot expect for everybody to love us, unconditionally, like God. (Oh, gee, did I mention God? ...don't suppose I will get flack about that, too?) LOL! and I do LOL, again! Peri-meno plays he** on us. What a cruel trick of nature.



Where there is no wood, there is no fire! (Was that from the Bible or a Fortune Cookie???? Perhaps it was from experience? ) LOL!



However, have you not learned a lot? I have. Heated discussions are good for us. It exposes us to all angles. Most of us have been to every corner and back...and sometimes left there for a long time.



Food for Thought? eh?


This is not a bad discussion. It's OK. We all have very strong opinions. At our age, we are actually entitled to them. We earned them. We should be allowed to voice them.

The board discussions are sometimes meant to to provoke...to make one to change what they think or at least question it.
This is good for us. There should not be a limit on an innocent post. It should not get deleted because someone has had a bad day or etc. We all have had them, too.


At least for a while we forget that we don't ever sleep at night or when we do we sweat profusely...LOL ....or something worse, like dreaming while fully conscience?



Personally, I like to hear many opinions. I love research papers. Now that I am on bios, I can actually remember what I have read. I can almost write a co-coherent sentence!

I want health care reform. I want accountability. If I have to pay extra...fine...but, I want to know that is going to people who need it. That is not a lot to ask, is it?

Have a good night all of my PS sisters,

Shebee

Kathleen,
I agree with you, there needs to be a way so that people aren't totally devastated financially by huge medical bills, and that they can get the care they need in a timely manner, and also retain their choices. There are ways to do this without gov't bureaucrats (who are far removed from individual situations) dictating policies and restrictions and whose goal is to contain health care costs as much as possible, necessarily rationing many aspects of health care to achieve this. I think we can all agree gov't bureaucracy is grossly inefficient and poor stewards of taxpayer money so much of the money that should be going directly to the person who needs the care and their providers will instead be funneled into paying for the administrative costs.

Check out this chart by the Democrats of how this will be organized.

http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/House-Demo...Health-Plan.pdf


I was stunned to see the sheer number of gov't agencies that will be required to administer this. It will be a black hole that will eat up massive amounts of taxpayer money just to pay for salaries, buildings, supplies, health care benefits for those employed there that will be better than what we are offered, on and on. This is efficient? And it's safe to say that as with every gov't program, it will get bigger and more costly as time goes on.

The issue here is gov't-controlled healthcare vs. a plan that will address the same health needs without excessive control and waste. It seems inevitable that the longer a country has gov't health care, the longer the wait times, the less docs they have, the more it costs, the more they have to ration to contain costs, the more the taxes must be raised to pay for it all. France in 2008 reported their program being $9 billion in debt despite people paying 21% income tax.

Who we are as a country really is more about how we as individuals handle ourselves and treat others, not about what we are forced to do by the gov't. The beauty of freedom is that people take it upon themselves to solve their own and society's problems without gov't intervention. There are amazing things done in the private sector to to help those in need. And judging by some of the other proposals I've seen, they are far better and more efficient than the current one on the table.

This is not about free health care vs. no health care. It's about finding a way to help those who need it without large amounts of taxpayer money being wasted on huge, inefficient gov't bureaucracy when that money should rightly be going to make health care affordable for all, and allowing us to have choices without some gov't Bureaucrat on high in Washington making decisions that should be left to doctor and patient. What gov't gives, gov't controls. Our free-market system while it has it's flaws, has still produced one of the most prosperous nations on earth and some of the best medical care and innovations, while history shows that nations whose gov'ts control business and welfare programs suffer from increasing debt, shortages of goods and services, and loss of freedoms.

I think we are all after the same thing, just that we have different opinions as to how best to achieve it.

http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/House-Demo...Health-Plan.pdf







Where are the people? Who is benefiting? I'll read some more...

Thanks everyone for a wonderful discussion. I also want to commend Leanne for the wonderful job she does as a moderator. With we hormonaly challenged women it can't be easy and you do an excellent job.

I see some issues that haven't been addressed and wanted to throw those out for discussions. 1. Litigation that drives up the price of health care. 2. patents that drive up the cost of pharmesuticals. 3 and the most relevant to the discussion thus far.. the working poor. It seems to me that those employed by mid-large companies generally have reasonable insurance premiums and can attain adequate care, those who are considered indigent or unable to work generally have access to state aid and can attain reasonable care yet those who are unemployed, employed by small businesses or work part-time jobs and often 2-3 part-time jobs are unable to attain reasonable insurance rates. These are the people most in need of help and the ones who are most often falling through the cracks yet there are more and more of them as our jobs are shipped overseas and we are left with service type jobs. What is there hope?

IMHO - 1. Litigation needs to be available because there are doctors who are dangerous and they need to be stopped. My cousin was misdiagnosed with dystonia and given overdose of botox and has left her face and neck pretty much paralyzed. It's been over a year and she is still having to wear a brace to keep her neck up. Turns out it was a simple blephrospasm probably due to menopause. My brother died from laproscopic gallbladder removal. It was at a teaching hospital and when he complained of pain the nurses ignored it thinking he was just a wimp and the doctors were too busy going from room to room with the students to give it much concern.. until they sent him to ICU and then try to excuse their neglect. In neither of these cases have any of us sued but.. I did call to put in a complaint on the doctor and was told that a complaint won't go in their file unless there is litigation. Why is that?

2. Research is expensive and someone has to pay for it so patents are the current form of insuring that the pharma gets recouped but has it gone too far?

3. These are the people I want my tax dollars to help. While I agree that there are some people who don't manage their money very well I find that most people without insurance are living without adequate income or without reasonable options for insurance.

I don't think the current plan is the right plan but I do think we have to do something... I'm not sure now is the time to make health care available to all but I do think we need to make provisons for those mentioned ablove I think we could afford it too if we focused more of our dollars on getting rid of the abuse and streamlining the beurocracy.

Ok.. that's all my sleepless mind can do for now... forgive any misspellings... my brain isn't functioning very well.

How do I seem to be interested in arguing? Am I not allowed to express my opinion like you are? Of course I am. It's debate, easy enough
Just one thing I will say, I'm not "new" to the planet nor this US vs Canada health care debate, so I've been over this subject many times so I know about "the other side" and I've asked many questions. I'm not taking out of my butt here.
And which blanket statements have I made?
Was I getting upset?

Here is my email
I'll read everything you send and won't be bias

Peacesoulj@yahoo.com

Knock yourself out

Why is it whenever there is a good debate. women have to go and dirty it up with so much damn drama? ......geez ladies, come on. Let's get a grip. seriously. All of this is toxic and feeds the "beasts" inside!

Dear 'Sariah'
Visit the Middle East where insurance is only for the rich.Lots of fancy Hospitals and Top Notch care.You can also go private and be treated like nobility
But for the poor,which is about three quarters of the population ,the situation is awful Filthy, crowded wards ,not enough Doctors,very reluctant Nurses=probably because the pay is so poor.
About a month ago a very nice man doing some repair work for us in our Hotel suffered a severe head injury.We rushed him off to a private hospital but the E.R. staff

All the Best
Elizabeth would not touch him until I turned up,put down a substantial deposit and signed a paper promising to pay for all his health care.Thank God he survived and is now at home with his family.
So as you can see we have a very long way to go.

I wasn't trying to be rude or anything,it's just that i told you that's not how thing are where i live and you asked where i live so you can find out....sounding as if i wouldn't already know how it works here,which i do.Sure,if someone goes to the ER and is referred to a specialist for follow up care,they will be seen by the specialist,whether they can pay or not....but it's not free as you suggested,you still have to pay...and seeing a specialist costs thousands of dollars in my town.....maybe where you live they will give a discount if you tell them you have to pay out of pocket,but not here...and you said "by law" they have to see you at least once.....but there's no law that says it's a freebie...

I think one of the main points of healthcare reform is so that people don't have to struggle to have insurance....if you had the choice of affordable coverage or to keep struggling,you're saying you'd rather struggle?

Ok..let's go back and deal with the word cracks & I'm Sorry. ...and let's go back and not pull any words out of contex.I did not bother to to pull any post or explain what I was "sorry" about because it looked like a fishing expedition to me to provoke a fight of some sort. I just chalked up to someone having a tough day. I don't believe anyone here called anyone a loser.

However, I will waste my time and pull the original post.





I replied...

I am still trying to figure out how in the world you could take offense to that?

I was agreeing with you.

I am sorry that our system allows families to "slip through the cracks of our current system and cannot get proper
treatment or medical care.

Did you skip over the part when I said that I admired you because you are working and supporting your children?

_______________________

Let's move on...

I read that there are ways to raise money to help pay for this new plan...A Pricey Prescription...


Increasing "sin taxes" on alcohol. ($16 per proof per gallon)

Raise cigarette taxes, again.

Imposed tax on any sugared beverage. (coke & etc.) (fat tax? Don't eat Fast Food)

Big money for requiring people with health insurance to pay taxes on what employer provides.
(extra taxes...most people already have high deductibles.)

Raise Medicare payroll tax

national sales tax, of up to 1.5 percent or more....

cuts to Medicare and Medicaid

--A new employer payroll tax


Pay or Play for small or large business owners ($500.00+ per employee)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~This list goes on and on. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If anyone thinks that they will be getting "free" health care, they are sadly mistaken.



We all will be paying for it in many sneaky ways, even the working poor. How much tax do you think we should pay?
How much do you think we are already paying. It would be interesting to see percentages.

We have sales tax, car tax, income tax...and etc. & ect. I really don't mind most of these because we benefit from them.

I am opposed to the government "living beyond it's means" and working to support our government.
...1 day pay for me...4 for the government. (LOL! An exageration, but not far off)



I want health care reform, too, but I am not anxious about what is being forced upon us. I don't think that the rich should be compelled to pick up an unfair share of it bill. ...and our future unborn generations should not start out in debt before they are born.

...and yes. I speak my mind and my opinions, but that does not mean that I don't respect yours. I do.

Shebee



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't want to get into a big debate myself. But somebody asked any Canadians out there to share their experiences with the health care system here.

I love our system. I had 4 children and never worried about paying for prenatal, postnatal or delivery. My babies were cared for throughout their lives, with no cost to us. I never have had to "think" about any of that when my kids were sick or injured. If a trip to the ER was necessary, it was just done. And over the years with 4 kids, there were many trips!!!

My father was Dx'd with prostate cancer and was treated within weeks. I had basal cell carcinoma in my face, and was treated within DAYS. My aunt recently had a lump removed from her mouth, it was malignant, she was treated within days also. My mother required surgery for prolapse, she had the surger...didn't worry about how she would pay for it.

I have a nephew that has neurofibromytosis, and he has had to have many MRIs and specialist appointments over the years.....his parents have never worried about how they were going to pay for his treatment. He is at very high risk for developing all sorts of horrible health issues....in the US he would never get insurance, unless it was super expensive and even at that, a lot of his stuff would be refused.

There may be horror stories out there regarding people not being happy with our system....no system is perfect, and people do slip through the cracks sometimes. However, I believe that the people here are overall overwhelmingly satisfied with our system. Our health care system is considered our country's most treasured asset!!

I'm one of the lucky ones that has very good heath insurance from my husbands employer. That being said, I know that if my husband lost his job or God forbid something happened to him I would be left with no health insurance and would be in trouble. I don't know what the answer is when it comes to health care reform but I do know that something has to change so that everyone can get health care if they need it. I know alot of people (some relatives) that do abuse the system and I find that frustrating but there will always be people that abuse everything so we still need to help the people that are doing everything they can and still can't afford health care. I know alot of people blame the insurance companies for the problems and maybe it true but in my opinion how can we blame the insurance companies for charging what they do when we know how much they have to pay out when we have a claim. I think my husband pays about $200 (not sure) a month for our insurance and we have to pay the first $1000 for our deductible but after that everything is 90% covered. My husband got food poisoning a few years ago and by the time the doctor could figure out what was wrong with him it cost our insurance company way more then we pay them to have coverage. I have heard that the hospitals need to charge the people with insurance so much to make up for the people that are on medicare because the government will only pay so much. I think doctors should be paid well for what they do but then again I see the kind of houses doctors have and I'm not so sure they need to be paid that much!! Anyway, all I know is something needs to be done but I don't know what the answer is.
I don't live in Canada or any other country so I don't know if their health care is good or not. I have heard people from other countries say both good and bad about their health care but again I don't live there so it's not my place to say if it works or not. I did find the comment somebody made on here about how the US citizens are being brainwahsed to believe bad things about other countries to be a bit insulting!!

I think you hit the nail on the head, Floater; you can't argue an issue like this by using anecdotes. There will always be horror stories and cinderella tales in relation to any health system, but the bottom line is that people should not have to worry about whether they can see a doctor, dentist, eye doctor, or whatever specialist is needed each year, and should never have to choose whether to pay for food, rent, or medicines. In a country that possesses so many advantages, it is immoral to allow systematic deprivation on this level. There has been a lot of talk concerning whether we can "afford" to provide health plans to citizens, but surprisingly no talk about how expensive it will be NOT to provide it, particularly given our aging population. How can we possibly sustain a system in which the people who most need health care are deliberately denied insurance or offered it only at an exorbitant price? Not only is it as I said above immoral to treat human beings that way, but it hurts the economy if, say, a breast cancer survivor cannot seek a better job and advance her career for fear of being rejected anytime she tries to get on a new employer's insurance. As a society, we lose out on her productivity, and just think of all the people like that, who make career decisions based on how those decisions will affect health coverage. And beyond that, how much time do people lose worrying about how to pay for their next doctor visit when they could be doing something productive instead? I have excellent coverage myself, but feel guilty every time I go to the doctor or receive a treatment, because I know there are so many people who could not afford it, and that is just wrong. I wouldn't mind one little bit paying more (even a LOT more) in taxes so that everyone could have the same benefits that I do; nor would I mind paying taxes on my health benefits. There is no reason in the world why I deserve to be covered when others are not. And I wonder if people have stopped to think how ludicrous it is to have health benefits tied to employment of all things -- what do the two -- your health and your job -- have to do with one another? How as a society did we ever devise a system whereby we linked these to things, to the point where it just seems natural to equate jobs with health benefits? By taxing your health benefits paid by an employer, it would underscore the fact that employment and health coverage really should not go together; they are not like chocolate and peanut butter at all! And if the govt could provide affordable health care to people and take it off the shoulders of business, wouldn't that help businesses to prosper? I for one am delighted to see that this health care discussion has commenced.

Thanks for sharing. Does your system take care of preventative medicine as well...physicals and diagnostic testing?

I'm applauding WILDLY!!!!! Take a bow my dear witty!! BRAVO!!! (throwing confetti, jumping up and down!!)

Thank you for telling us something so positive-I really hope we get a similar plan here.It would be such a blessing.GOD-bless

Absolutely!!! And it also provides education for people...for example 'Living with Diabetes". Or learning to lower cholesterol, or high blood pressure. These classes are provided for free, same with prenatal classes and all childhood innoculations. Flu shots for people with higher risk health problems are provided by the government. Even home care for patients, say after a bad accident...who no longer need to be in hospital, but need blood tests for example, a lab tech will go draw the blood from the patient at his home.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomass...rance.health.us

During World War II, wage and price controls prevented employers from using wages to compete for scarce labor. Under the 1942 Stabilization Act, Congress limited the wage increases that could be offered by firms, but permitted the adoption of employee insurance plans. In this way, health benefit packages offered one means of securing workers. In the 1940s, two major rulings also reinforced the foundation of the employer-provided health insurance system. First, in 1945 the War Labor Board ruled that employers could not modify or cancel group insurance plans during the contract period. Then, in 1949, the National Labor Relations Board ruled in a dispute between the Inland Steel Co. and the United Steelworkers Union that the term "wages" included pension and insurance benefits. Therefore, when negotiating for wages, the union was allowed to negotiate benefit packages on behalf of workers as well. This ruling, affirmed later by the U.S. Supreme Court, further reinforced the employment-based system.⁵Perhaps the most influential aspect of government intervention that shaped the employer-based system of health insurance was the tax treatment of employer-provided contributions to employee health insurance plans. First, employers did not have to pay payroll tax on their contributions to employee health plans. Further, under certain circumstances, employees did not have to pay income tax on their employer's contributions to their health insurance plans. The first such exclusion occurred under an administrative ruling handed down in 1943 which stated that payments made by the employer directly to commercial insurance companies for group medical and hospitalization premiums of employees were not taxable as employee income (Yale Law Journal, 1954, pp. 222-247). While this particular ruling was highly restrictive and limited in its applicability, it was codified and extended in 1954. Under the 1954 Internal Revenue Code (IRC), employer contributions to employee health plans were exempt from employee taxable income. As a result of this tax-advantaged form of compensation, the demand for health insurance further increased throughout the 1950s (Thomasson 2003).

Another interesting note: The fact that people generally felt actual health insurance (as opposed to sickness insurance) was unnecessary prior to 1920 also helped to defeat proposals for compulsory, nationalized health insurance in the same period. Although many European nations had adopted some form of compulsory, nationalized health insurance by 1920, proposals sponsored by the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL) to enact compulsory health insurance in several states were never enacted (see Numbers 1978

Okay---I'm trying to keep an open mind but I'm still concerned and skeptical so I'm going to ask for some feedback on this. Would you really feel comfortable entrusting your health care to a government who also runs the Postal Service and Social Security? It's track record in these two instances is less than exemplary.

A few of you have posted that employment and health care have no business being paired together. The government was established to protect our rights and to protect us from foreign invasion. I am not so sure that the government should get itself involved in health care at all.

I have a sudden urge to sing OH CANADA. I am Peaceoul and I AM Canadian (Pass me the beer opener)....hahaha! Love those commericals.

I also have Basal Cell and had surgery in less than 2 weeks for removal.

I'm sorry you are insulted. The comment wasn't meant as in insult. I was only directed the comment at those American's who hear rhetoric and buy into it w/out knowing facts.

Again, sorry if u were insulted, the comment was meant as a fact and not to insult anyone on here.


I found this site with others talking about it, so I am not alone in my thinking here

http://digg.com/health/Debunking_Canadian_...th_care_myths_3

Here is a comment from this site. This is what I was saying, but with less passion and angst.

this is NOT my comment but from this site above

"You clowns seriously don't deserve national heathcare. You don't want it? No problem. Continue being ranked 47th in health care of all developed nations. Continue having an appalling infant mortality rate. Continue having your asses pulverized by insurance companies.
The joke is truly on you. All this ***** about long wait times, going across the border for medical treatment, bad quality care. It's all lies. Nobody in Canada would EVER give up our national health care. You Americans, you just don't get it. Healthcare is not a business. Most doctors don't spend 10 years in school so they can make lots of money. Most doctors actually have a passion for healing people. They have a passion for learning more about their discipline.
You Americans have it so wrong. Healthcare is not a "business". Well....in America it is. Its all profit. But in other countries, other more humane, compassionate countries, healthcare is a basic human right. You Americans, especially you conservatives, are ruining it for your whole country. You don't even think about what you are saying, or do any real research. You just watch fox news and assume whatever you hear is true. You don't even KNOW what you don't have.
So ***** it, you don't want national healthcare? Fine. This isn't some petty argument where you get to "win". This is your health. It is all you have. I really want you Americans to know just how absurd you look in the eyes of countries like Canada. Canadians live longer than Americans, and are healthier. This must be because we have such long wait times and crap quality health care"

Here is the article as well in case some want to read it

Debunking Canadian health care mythsBy Rhonda Hackett
Posted: 06/07/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT


What do we pay for, anyway?As a Canadian living in the United States for the past 17 years, I am frequently asked by Americans and Canadians alike to declare one health care system as the better one.

Often I'll avoid answering, regardless of the questioner's nationality. To choose one or the other system usually translates into a heated discussion of each one's merits, pitfalls, and an intense recitation of commonly cited statistical comparisons of the two systems.

Because if the only way we compared the two systems was with statistics, there is a clear victor. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to dispute the fact that Canada spends less money on health care to get better outcomes.

Yet, the debate rages on. Indeed, it has reached a fever pitch since President Barack Obama took office, with Americans either dreading or hoping for the dawn of a single-payer health care system. Opponents of such a system cite Canada as the best example of what not to do, while proponents laud that very same Canadian system as the answer to all of America's health care problems. Frankly, both sides often get things wrong when trotting out Canada to further their respective arguments.

As America comes to grips with the reality that changes are desperately needed within its health care infrastructure, it might prove useful to first debunk some myths about the Canadian system.

Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.

In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.

The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.

Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.

Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.

There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.

Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.

Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.

Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.

Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.

From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system.

And these are just some of the myths about the Canadian health care system. While emulating the Canadian system will likely not fix U.S. health care, it probably isn't the big bad "socialist" bogeyman it has been made out to be.

It is not a perfect system, but it has its merits. For people like my 55-year-old Aunt Betty, who has been waiting for 14 months for knee-replacement surgery due to a long history of arthritis, it is the superior system. Her $35,000-plus surgery is finally scheduled for next month. She has been in pain, and her quality of life has been compromised. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Aunt Betty — who lives on a fixed income and could never afford private health insurance, much less the cost of the surgery and requisite follow-up care — will soon sport a new, high-tech knee. Waiting 14 months for the procedure is easy when the alternative is living in pain for the rest of your life.

Rhonda Hackett of Castle Rock is a clinical psychologist.

Me too...

The US is my home and I love it dearly but IMO Canada does a lot of things right. But Donna is correct. The governemt was established to protect us and it has grown far beyond the inital intent. Is this good or bad? I don't know. You look at the SS situation and what was intended as a lending hand has become what a majority of people rely on for their entire retirement savings. The more we depend on government the less depend on ourselves. I also don't mind the taxes I pay now and don't mind helping those who are in need however if we continue to let it grow and grow soon we will all be giving our paychecks to the government and the only ones with paychecks to call their own will be those in power.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

“The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be NECESSARY AND PROPER for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States."

The founders left the phrase "promote the general welfare" deliberately vague so that future generations could use the government to do what they deemed necessary. Antifederalists who opposed the Constitution pointed to this phrase "promote the general welfare" (among others) with fear, arguing that it would give rise to a tyrannical centralized government that mowed over the rights of the people. The Federalist wish for this wording, however, prevailed. One of the first people to use it expansively was Ben Franklin, who believed that something should be done to eradicate slavery right away (in the 1780s) to "promote the general welfare," because in his opinion the continuation of slavery as a labor system would ultimately harm the nation and did not conduce to his general welfare. Alexander Hamilton's idea of the "general welfare" was to create a Bank of the United States, which Thomas Jefferson vociferously opposed, the point being that from the very founding of the nation the phrase "promote the general welfare" has been used very expansively, as it was meant to do. I don't think it's accurate to say that the government was established just for the limited goals that you delineate, dcamp. The Antifederalists who opposed the Constitution and fought hard against its ratification believed in the type of structure that you describe, but the Federalists who pushed for the Constitution (Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Madison, Jay) did not. Access to health care might not have loomed large in past periods of history as an issue, but for all sorts of reasons it has emerged as one today. If guaranteeing that all citizens get access to health care does not qualify as promoting the "general welfare," then I don't know what does.

I hear what you're saying Witty. But I'm still mulling this over in my mind. The term "general welfare" could open the way for government control and intervention in all kinds of issues where the government should not be involved. The governmental population is not comprised of businessmen/woman. They have made poor decisions in the past (as we all have----as everybody has) and I'm still leaning toward less government interference. I truly and sincerely believe that health care reform is necessary. I am not sold on the current proposal. I pray that another more feasible plan will surface. I just don't know what that would be.

Have a great day and I just want to say that I do respect your opinions even if I can't agree.

Donna

Hey here's a thought. You know how Jerry Lewis raises all of that money for MD on his Labor Day Telethon? Maybe all of the bigwig, millionaire entertainers could do the same. Give concerts and donate all the proceeds to a National Health Care Fund. Sounds good to me!

Perfect idea!!

I just wish we would hear more about this in terms we all could understand.can anyone tell me where to find all the facts about the new bill,and follow its progress?Thanks and GOD-bless

Here you go... all 615 pages!!

http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf

Thanks.However what I want is for someone to sit down and explain it to me-maybe if it moves forward more we will hear more about things like how much it will cost for premiums,deductibles etc.But I am assuming that will be a long way down the road(if ever)I truly want and need healthcare-as does my hubby.He never goes to the dr-it is too expensive.Thank GOD he is healthy.I only go once a year,unless I get sick-and thank GOD I am healthy as well.My peri issues aside of course.What do people do who have problems that require frequent dr visits and have no insurance?

You can find lots of articles and blogs by doing a google search, however I have yet to find an unbiased point of view, which is so typical in today's media if you ask me.

I googled "economist opinion on health care bill" and for every economist I found that said it WOULD work, I found another one saying why it WOULDN'T work.

If anyone finds an unbiased point of view, I would love to see it also!!

thank you witsend. i really appreciate you expressing that. i am not saying i am for any particular health care reform bill..any bill that guarantees healthcare to all is better than no bill at all...

I dont post often here, but I do read everything. I am an American with insurance.

I have to say, that this stuff scares me. This government never seems to get things right. Look at the recent stimulus plan. They dont often, tell it like it is. Half the times, I think thats because they dont know, themselves.

I think those with no insurance need it and want it so badly, that any plan looks like a good plan. First, whatever they plan on providing..will NOT be free. You will be paying for it. Second, the way they have this setup, could force everyone to be on it, whether we like it or not. Why would your place of employment keep the insurance you have now, when they can switch you to the government plan for less? I know that the company that employs my husband for the past 30 years has switch insurances several times, to save cost...and most times our contribution is more..plus higher copays. I just read where some small businesses will be forced to keep both insurances..and if they offer none, they will be taxed less than if they had to provide it. Why would they provide it then?

In the beginning, I thought that a government plan could work. It might cost us ALL less. Now I find it scarey, even for those without it. You want healthcare..but do you want inferior care..and still have to pay for it?

I just found this interview on fox news, which really worries me. It speaks about a panel deciding what your medical care should be? Also, is the president and his congress still Americans? You do know, none of them will be on this plan. How come?

Take a look at this and let me know what you think.

http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/25...o-something.htm

Title:
Health Care Control

Published: Fri, 17 Jul 2009

Description: Critics warn panel of experts could decide your medical care

Oops..the vid I wanted you to see, isnt the first one. I cant seem to link to the actual vid, but after the first is over, you can click on the one that says Critics warn panel of experts could decide your medical care. Thats the one I wanted you to see. I just tried to link to it again, but it doesnt seem to give a different link for that vid.