On a related note... 4 countries with better health care than ours: http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/f...ntries-with-better-healthcare-than-ours-.html The whole story? Of course not. One of the many sides of the story that the opponents of health care reform fail to recognize? You bet.
Some other interesting articles...it seems that the majority of the people who claim that Canadian health care isn't good are Americans who have never been Canadian citizens. From the horses mouth, most polls and surveys conducted in Canada, for Canadians (and in the UK as well) show that they LIKE their system, they are HAPPY with it, and consider it BETTER than America's (failing and vastly more expensive) system. http://www.bellinghamherald.com/letters/story/1005151.html http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/72229.html?storylink=MI_emailed http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2499 Some other stuff that I learned that I didn't know before...interesting largely because vocal third-party "opponents" to what is often combined together in a close string of sentences as "socialism" and "Canadian health care" apparently didn't realize this either: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/PrescriptionForChange/Story?id=2582976&page=1 http://bcn.boulder.co.us/health/healthwatch/canada.html http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3764&updaterx=2009-05-27+01%3A34%3A22 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/04/canadians-defend-their-he_n_277684.html ...link after link, article after article...a VAST majority of Canadians are HAPPY with their health care, and think it is BETTER THAN AMERICA'S system...no matter how hard right-wing Americans try to tell them to the contrary to serve their own interests. You will hear some complaints...it isn't perfect. Then again, a democratic republic has its issues now and again too. Some complaints were "waiting in line too long". That was the primary one that I saw when Canadians were critiquing their own system. But IMHO, that's a small price to pay for actually being able to receive care in the first place.
By some of the vids I watched I have to agree the Canadian system may work. In the good old USA I waited almost three weeks to get pins put in my collar bone while my insurance/doctors decided what was covered. If I pay x-amounts of dollars year after year to cover me when I get hurt, why the delay. Not to mention, when I set up my life insurance somebody had to come to my house to decide if I am worth insuring. What??????? Im paying you in case I get hurt. In a 10 year period I dont get hurt. But on the 11th year of paying I do. Now I owe you money some how and im not covered for this or that?????? I had a appendix swell up years ago. The doctor bills were in the range of 12,000$ and they could not confirm my problem. Many years later I still have an appendix. So I should have payed 12,000 for no real answer.
I hear ya. An ex-GF of mine pays close to $500 a month now partly because of a "pre-existing condition." She is bi-polar and switched companies after losing a job and lapsing coverage for a short time. Nobody would cover her after that because of her illness. I don't know what she has now, but I remember her mentioning COBRA a lot. Don't know what that is, as I've never had it. But yeah...if you do the research, Canadian (and UK) health care makes ours look like a third-world nation in comparison. We spend the most money by far, and yet we are the least happy with our coverage and our system, according to every poll and study I can find via Yahoo and Google.
and what about history's lesson about the failure of (quazi) capitalism run amok? (hint- we're living it now) :yawn:
Cobra is basically you are screwed. In the mean time were gonna pretend we care. In the long run we will screw you more. While COBRA is a sound option, often a short-term or private policy can provide a better rate with comparable coverage. Before enrolling in COBRA, you can compare rates from major providers to make sure you are getting the best deal. COBRA is offered to workers who become unemployed through voluntary or involuntary termination of their job, but it is not offered to every terminated employee. Before you do anything, determine your COBRA eligibility by talking to your former employer. Spouses and dependent children are eligible for COBRA coverage through their unemployed family member as long as they were covered before termination occurred. It's important to note that while COBRA insurance can initially appear to be cheaper than private health insurance, the terminated employee will end up paying more for their coverage than they did when they were fully employed once they have left their position. This is because most employers pay a part of the insurance costs on behalf of the employee, but this stops once the employee is no longer with the company. Because of this cost increase, it can beneficial to compare rates from multiple insurance companies to find the best combination of rate and coverage for you and your family. COBRA insurance packages usually include expenses for doctor care, hospitalization and outpatient treatment. What is usually not covered is prolonged hospital care, surgery and prescription medication. Dental care is sometimes offered, but not always. Life insurance is not offered even if that was a part of the former employee package. With a private health insurance policy, the former employee can often pick and chose coverage that is most important, which can drive costs down during this time of transition. Compare rates from major providers today to see if you can save over your COBRA insurance rate.
I didn't know there existed such a strong anti-socialist sentiment among many of you, and many in the government, until recently when topics such as this one became popular to debate. :?: :beer:
As far as COBRA goes, my cost for COBRA was going to be $1500+ per month for my wife and myself. Our only negative is controlled high blood pressure. With the Stimulus deal in place we only pay $500/mo. It isn't cheap, but it is better than comparable coverage from other insurance companies (rates were $750 - $2000 per month) or no coverage at all. No coverage is not an option.
Agreed. And I'll add that from (my) experience (unlike fewinhibitions' experience) CoBLAH is WAY more expensive than seeking out some other option. Here's what kills me: You lose you job and are given the "option" of CoBLAH. Option? It costs too much. Less than 25% of the people that qualify get it, because they won't have any money left for food and shelter after losing their job. Eat and sleep or get health insurnce...hmmm, let me think about that one. Plan? Option? A "safety net?" (ha) The net asks you to pay the whole premium plus administrative fees...whatever. Its a sham, a smoke screen, a joke. The powers that be never really wanted to help "us"...it will make the unlucky bastard find another job right quick though.
Wow...yeah, Cobra sucks the big one! Thank you for the info! FEWINHIBITIONS...man, I wish no coverage was no option! I'm still single so...eh...I guess I can still pretend that I can get away with it. But once I find a job, you're darn tootin' I'm gonna be buying insurance! Yay for a $200/mo bill I can't afford! :?: $1500 a month to cover your FAMILY?!?! That's highway robbery. I'm sorry man, what a joke. Wow!
[FONT="] 1. The problem w/ "looking ahead and paying for yourself," Cilantro, is that some people can't even pay their rent, nor eat well. Do you think they are going to be able to afford health care? Plan ahead? Some people are lucky to make it from check to check thanks to capitalist exploiters. They don't plan, they survive. Heath care should be a right not a privilege, nor a burden. 2. "People think that someone else should pay for their health care." Yes, just like other people pay to school children that aren't theirs, pave roads they don't drive on, fund wars they think are useless, and fight fires at homes of people they don't know...that's socialism. Reject that. Of course you could. That's the plan of the Neo-cons and/or neoliberals in Washington. Privatize, or Capitalize, EVERYTHING, and Capitalize off of it (Haliburton and Blackwater come to mind. Now there's a domestic enemy). Problem is that the inequality only worsens with Capitalism or Authoritarian Socialism, a tragedy indeed, for common folk. As I said in an earlier post, this is the USSA. There is a hint of socialism already in effect in this country. Why not health care too? 3."I find very amusing that all this thread people's opinion of whether health care should be socialized is directly related to a good or bad experience that the person has had recently with medical care. This is not exactly principled reasoning." Your own reasoning is that "50 years ago, everybody paid for their own health care"....and that "Every experiment the world has seen with socialism ends up in the same types of abuses." How is pointing to the success and failure of cases different than your reasoning? [/FONT]
I say no coverage is not an option is because I have had some major medical in the past, covered and not covered. It took me 12 years to pay off the uncovered injury. The covered injury I didn't have to pay a single penny. If it wasn't for the stimulus deal that pays 65% for those currently laid off, we would be in serious sh!t financially.
4. "the people in charge have a different set of rules." You got that right Cilantro, and that's the problem itself. The socialism that is at the bad end of the slippery slope you and all the other socialist haters point to is not "real" socialism at all. State socialism, or authoritarian socialism, is delegated by a few people in charge, it’s hierarchical. This inequality in power is not a true socialist ideal. The elected have more power than the fools that voted. "I hate Communism because it is the negation of liberty and because for me humanity is unthinkable without liberty. I am not a Communist, because Communism concentrates and swallows up in itself for the benefit of the State all the forces of society, because it inevitably leads to the concentration of property in the hands of the State . . . I want to see society and collective or social property organised from below upwards, by way of free associations, not from above downwards, by means of any kind of authority whatsoever . . . That is the sense in which I am a Collectivist and not a Communist." [quoted by K.J. Kenafick, Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx, pp. 67-8] 5. Divert is right, we are seeing the repercussions of capitalism, "casino capitalism" (and a truly un-free (regulated) market, regulated in favor of the big guys, not the commons). You want socialism of the worst kind? Just look at what happened recently. Capitalist bankers got away w/ billions. The profits were privatized, yet the bailout was socialized. The capitalists are socialist when convenient, for them, not the commons. The socialism of capitalists, authoritarian socialism, robs from the commons and pads the pockets of the few. What could we do? Nothing but bitch and complain. Did they get away with it? Yes. Because the system is for, by, and of the pimps that rule, not "the people." 6. Authoritarian brands of socialism have had a bad history, you are correct. So has capitalism. With capitalism small and medium firms do exist, but a few big firms dominate because they have the capital to compete to the extent of reducing the number of their competitors-- competition eating completion. Authoritarian socialist want the same power. Libertarian socialists say to hell w/ that, why should ‘the party’ have power over 'the person?’ All power to all people. The health care issue (and beyond), to me, is one of capitalism vs. socialism. I reject capitalism and authoritarian socialism because they are both enemy of the people. 7. What’s wrong with capitalism? The abuse you talked about Cilantro…Capitalism is abuse and theft. It’s too big to cover here, but here is a basic issue I have w/ capitalism. Worker B produces goods 1-20. The price to produce them, materials, overhead etc., is paid for by producing and selling 1-15. Therefore, 16-20 are ‘surplus-products.’ The profits come from goods 16-20. 1-15 pays the worker and the boss, 16-20 pay the boss (or non-working investor) again! The boss capitalized on worker B’s labor. The boss does nothing for 16-20, the worker does, but the boss steals it from worker B. Who is the leech? Who is abusing who? "…what is property, what is capital in their present form? For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the State, to live without working . . . [and so] the power and right to live by exploiting the work of someone else . . . those . . . [who are] forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 180]
This makes absolutely no sense. Do you really believe that the "boss" does nothing to earn the profit on goods 16-20? What about the financial risk he/she assumes in starting the business to produce the goods in the first place? If the business fails, Worker B goes and finds a new job - no risk of loss to him. However, if the business fails, the boss loses his entire investment. It's this basic risk vs. reward analysis that drives capitalism and is what made the US so prosperous. What would be the boss' incentive to take on such risk if he was only going to make either the same or marginally more than Worker B who has absolutely no risk?
The Canadian system is set up a lot like Medicare. Except that the Canadians are willing to live with waiting more than American grannies are, which keeps costs down. (I know they do other things too...) The British system is similar to the VA, meaning that the govt owns the doctors & pays them directly. I.e. straight-up, pure socialized medicine. The system proposed yesterday by the Senate Democrats is a lot like the Netherlands system. Basically we're going to force people like Goose to either buy insurance that he's currently not buying, or we'll fine him. The insurance companies will gladly take his premium, and use it to cut the premiums of old people, who will then vote Democratic forever. FYI, this was also the Clinton plan, which Obama ran against.
