Bottom Line on Obamacare

[andreisdaman]

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.


http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12523427?source=share_fb

you realize you lost 3333 after the first sentence right???

[andreisdaman]

Is the internet unconstitutional?

I can't find the word in there.

Thanks.

Genius post reported

[Soul Crusher]

Genius post reported

95er.

[George Whorewell]

Bump for anyone who wants to discuss the Roberts decision.

[howardroark]

Is the internet unconstitutional?

I can't find the word in there.

Thanks.

Are you stupid or do you really think the internet is run by the federal government?

[andreisdaman]

Are you stupid or do you really think the internet is run by the federal government?

uhhhhhh.....actually...i t is

[Roger Bacon]

uhhhhhh.....actually...it is

okay........ 

[avxo]

uhhhhhh.....actually...it is

I assume you are referring to ICANN. If so, then what you're saying has a kernel of truth to it.

[GigantorX]

Bump for anyone who wants to discuss the Roberts decision.

I think he was influenced by the Lefts language during the decision making process. It was pretty much "if you strike down this law then we will ruin the image of the court", Roberts got cold feet as evidenced by his strange, poorly thought out and incomprehensible wording of his decision.

He had a chance to do right, but failed as he was influenced by outside forces which isn't supposed to happen.

This whole shit show sets a really, really ,really bad precedent.

[Soul Crusher]

I think he was influenced by the Lefts language during the decision making process. It was pretty much "if you strike down this law then we will ruin the image of the court", Roberts got cold feet as evidenced by his strange, poorly thought out and incomprehensible wording of his decision.

He had a chance to do right, but failed as he was influenced by outside forces which isn't supposed to happen.

This whole shit show sets a really, really ,really bad precedent.

Roberts originally voted to vote down the mandate and changed his vote at the last minute due to the assault by Leahy, Obama, the MSM, etc. 


Notice how they focused on Roberts and not Kennedy beforehand to the vote?  That was because it was leaked how Kennedy was so adamant that the entire law be struck down and Roberts was a little wishy washy. 

Obama's thuggery and threats worked, sadly.   Roberts, instead of upholding the reputation of the court, made a mockery of it by issuing a ridiculous ruling that that the mandate WAS NOT A TAX for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, but could possibly vbe viewed AS A TAX for purposes of the rest.   He ruled it against the commerce clause, but instead vastly increased Govt powers by issuing this insane ruling. 

Of course to the "ends justify the means" Democrats, they could care less, but most people see this treason for what it is - bowing down to the Tyrant in Chiefs' threats.   

[andreisdaman]

I think he was influenced by the Lefts language during the decision making process. It was pretty much "if you strike down this law then we will ruin the image of the court", Roberts got cold feet as evidenced by his strange, poorly thought out and incomprehensible wording of his decision.

He had a chance to do right, but failed as he was influenced by outside forces which isn't supposed to happen.

This whole shit show sets a really, really ,really bad precedent.

wow....very tortured logic here...."influenced by the left"..hmmmmmm...all of sudden Roberts a pantsy of the left, succumbing to pressure?...not likely,,,,,,it was actually one of two things....that Roberts truly felt that the court had drifted too far to the right and that guys like Alito-Scalia-Thomas were simply voting in lockstep with every single decision and not looking at cases on the merits.....and he felt he had to remedy this by actually being fair....


or he had an ulterior motive and wanted to maintain some respect for his court by swinging the other way upholding the bill thus avoiding public erosion of the good will the court has enjoyed....

either way to say that Roberts succumbed to pressure from Obama is truly and pathetically laughable....lotta crybabies here who are gasping at straws (again) to figure out why they lost on this issue....it just had to be Obama and the MSM AGAIN

[Soul Crusher]

wow....very tortured logic here...."influenced by the left"..hmmmmmm...all of sudden Roberts a pantsy of the left, succumbing to pressure?...not likely,,,,,,it was actually one of two things....that Roberts truly felt that the court had drifted too far to the right and that guys like Alito-Scalia-Thomas were simply voting in lockstep with every single decision and not looking at cases on the merits.....and he felt he had to remedy this by actually being fair....


or he had an ulterior motive and wanted to maintain some respect for his court by swinging the other way upholding the bill thus avoiding public erosion of the good will the court has enjoyed....

either way to say that Roberts succumbed to pressure from Obama is truly and pathetically laughable....lotta crybabies here who are gasping at straws (again) to figure out why they lost on this issue....it just had to be Obama and the MSM AGAIN

Go read the reports from CBS and Salon.com before typing jackass.   I swear - you 95ers are such a joke and usually get 95% of everything dead wrong just to support your Messiah.   

[andreisdaman]

Go read the reports from CBS and Salon.com before typing jackass.   I swear - you 95ers are such a joke and usually get 95% of everything dead wrong just to support your Messiah.   

you are so stupid....this has nothing to do with Obama...despite every effort you make toward linking him to everything in your life.....in your mind he's probably the cause of your erectile dysfunction as well...

[George Whorewell]

wow....very tortured logic here...."influenced by the left"..hmmmmmm...all of sudden Roberts a pantsy of the left, succumbing to pressure?...not likely,,,,,,it was actually one of two things....that Roberts truly felt that the court had drifted too far to the right and that guys like Alito-Scalia-Thomas were simply voting in lockstep with every single decision and not looking at cases on the merits.....and he felt he had to remedy this by actually being fair....


or he had an ulterior motive and wanted to maintain some respect for his court by swinging the other way upholding the bill thus avoiding public erosion of the good will the court has enjoyed....

either way to say that Roberts succumbed to pressure from Obama is truly and pathetically laughable....lotta crybabies here who are gasping at straws (again) to figure out why they lost on this issue....it just had to be Obama and the MSM AGAIN

Brilliant legal analysis  

So up until this past Supreme Court session ( where in practically every single case prior Roberts concurred with the conservatives on the court and wrote numerous opinions to that effect) he suddenly said to himself "Aww shucks, i'll ignore the law, ignore Supreme Court precedent, ignore the facts, ignore the legislative history, ignore the words of the statute and look at the merits (whatever that means) so I can be more "fair".

He obviously caved to external pressures and had to draft an incomprehensible opinion in furtherance of what amounts to a legally impossible outcome.

And what public good will are you talking about? Unless the court votes for monstrosities like Miranda rights for terrorists, abortion or some other abomination, the MSM and morons like you bitch about how bad and "mean" the court is.

Here's what it is once and for all: You are a fucking idiot who doesn't know anything about the healthcare law, the Supreme Court or how to shower properly. Those three shortcomings are all interrelated and go a long way toward explaining why you think Obama is a good president.

[andreisdaman]

Brilliant legal analysis  

So up until this past Supreme Court session ( where in practically every single case prior Roberts concurred with the conservatives on the court and wrote numerous opinions to that effect) he suddenly said to himself "Aww shucks, i'll ignore the law, ignore Supreme Court precedent, ignore the facts, ignore the legislative history, ignore the words of the statute and look at the merits (whatever that means) so I can be more "fair".

He obviously caved to external pressures and had to draft an incomprehensible opinion in furtherance of what amounts to a legally impossible outcome.

And what public good will are you talking about? Unless the court votes for monstrosities like Miranda rights for terrorists, abortion or some other abomination, the MSM and morons like you bitch about how bad and "mean" the court is.

Here's what it is once and for all: You are a fucking idiot who doesn't know anything about the healthcare law, the Supreme Court or how to shower properly. Those three shortcomings are all interrelated and go a long way toward explaining why you think Obama is a good president.

its really weird how you bump for whoever wants to discuss the Supreme Court ruling then when its discussed you proceed to into name-calling and the obligatory Obama-bashing....as if Obama twisted Robert's arm to vote for the bill....everything was fine and hunky-dory when the court was upholding conservative thought but they vote one time for a liberal bill and you freak out and like 3333, say it has to do with Obama and the MSM..why not throw in the black panthers, ACORN, etc since you are on a roll, you girl......this has nothing to do with my opinion or whether the court is bad or mean as you put it....I thought we were going to have an intellectual conversation you fag cry-baby....I just speculated on what his motivation might be.....you emphatically state his decision had to be based on his having caved to external pressures.....why would that be so???.,,I guess you can read minds.... Roberts has the only job in the world where he does not answer to anyone.....he doesn't owe anyone an explanation as to his thought process yet you, the quasi-law graduate fagboy can ascertain from a bodybuilding board his true motives.....

[Soul Crusher]

Americans See More Economic Harm Than Good in Health Law
Gallup ^ | July 5, 2012 | Gallup
Posted on July 5, 2012 9:17:57 PM EDT by Innovative

Americans are more likely to say the 2010 healthcare law upheld by the Supreme Court last week will hurt the national economy (46%) rather than help it (37%), while 18% say they don't know or that it will have no effect.

Independents polled: 34% help; 47% hurts the economy

(Excerpt) Read more at gallup.com ...

[andreisdaman]

Roberts originally voted to vote down the mandate and changed his vote at the last minute due to the assault by Leahy, Obama, the MSM, etc. 


Notice how they focused on Roberts and not Kennedy beforehand to the vote?  That was because it was leaked how Kennedy was so adamant that the entire law be struck down and Roberts was a little wishy washy. 

Obama's thuggery and threats worked, sadly.   Roberts, instead of upholding the reputation of the court, made a mockery of it by issuing a ridiculous ruling that that the mandate WAS NOT A TAX for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, but could possibly vbe viewed AS A TAX for purposes of the rest.   He ruled it against the commerce clause, but instead vastly increased Govt powers by issuing this insane ruling. 

Of course to the "ends justify the means" Democrats, they could care less, but most people see this treason for what it is - bowing down to the Tyrant in Chiefs' threats.   

Dude, Obama was as quiet as a mouse before the decision because he didn't want to piss the Justices off..where do you get this shit?

[Soul Crusher]

Dude, Obama was as quiet as a mouse before the decision because he didn't want to piss the Justices off..where do you get this shit?

Lol.   Remember his speech attacking the court you ouche?

[dario73]

Lol.   Remember his speech attacking the court you ouche?

[Soul Crusher]

Andre - like the rest of the 95ers are blind sheep to this con man.   they would accept a life of slavery in chains under the whip for this creep if he asked them to do so.  Obama has done nothing but shit on blacks for 4 years and they still worship this fraud, its pathetic. 

I saw one stupid ass Jamaican in the DD this morning with one of those early 90's Africa pendants and an Obama shirt that said "Myobama" and listed a punch of delusional shit like you see w Kwanza and shit like that. 

I just shook my head in disgust. 

 

[dario73]

Andre - like the rest of the 95ers are blind sheep to this con man.   they would accept a life of slavery in chains under the whip for this creep if he asked them to do so.  Obama has done nothing but shit on blacks for 4 years and they still worship this fraud, its pathetic. 

I saw one stupid ass Jamaican in the DD this morning with one of those early 90's Africa pendants and an Obama shirt that said "Myobama" and listed a punch of delusional shit like you see w Kwanza and shit like that. 

I just shook my head in disgust. 

 

That was Andre.

You should have taken a picture of the fool and posted it here so that we could all laugh at the liberal dummy.

[Soul Crusher]

That was Andre.

You should have taken a picture of the fool and posted it here so that we could all laugh at the liberal dummy.

Dude then go in an unmarked van that was all beat up with grafitti on it and a broken tail light. 

Welcome to Da Bronx aka Obamaville

[240 is Back]

33,

Do you believe Romneycare was a TAX upon the ppl of mass?

I mean, mitt called it a PENALTY.

but is there a frreakin difference?

[GigantorX]

33,

Do you believe Romneycare was a TAX upon the ppl of mass?

I mean, mitt called it a PENALTY.

but is there a frreakin difference?

Mitt has got himself into a dilly of a pickle here.

[Soul Crusher]

33,

Do you believe Romneycare was a TAX upon the ppl of mass?

I mean, mitt called it a PENALTY.

but is there a frreakin difference?

Yes its a tax.  




Both need to move on from this bullshit.  


The issue is the economy, period.   Obama is perfectly ok w this country deep sixing itself under his agenda.