Canadian Healthcare and the Public Option

[vinnie97]

What happens when a single-payer system is introduced and it ain't pretty:

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=11145 (massive waiting lists, traveling to America so as to not wait for what Canadian govt. mandates as "elective" surgery, stringent guidelines on doctors resulting in rationing, "wait list" insurance)....youtube interviews at the link.

As America moves closer to a government-controlled health care system, anxious Canadians want to set the record straight about life under their country's "universal" system.

Join the Mackinac Center as it journeys across Canada, documenting harrowing stories from real Canadians of long waits, physician shortages, doctor lotteries, special treatment for insiders and being forced to travel abroad for basic medical care.

They're desperate for a way out. And they want YOU to know about it.

Introduction: "Oh. Canada?" - (LIVE NOW) Meet the Canadians who have a warning for us (2:26):



"Medical Tourism" - (SNEAK PEEK LIVE NOW!) Hear from Canadians so desperate for treatment they're leaving the country (5:00):



"Wait List Insurance" - (SNEAK PEEK LIVE NOW!) See what happens when Canadians try to demand better service from their system (3:23):




"Doctor Lotteries" - Find out what Canadians need to do just to get a family physician:




"Breaking the Physicians" - Discover how rationing and shortages impose impossible burdens on Canadian doctors:



"Power Plays" - (AVAILABLE WEDNESDAY) See how unions, politicians and bureaucrats take away choices from doctors and patients:


When their health care system fails them, many Canadians come to the U.S. for treatment. Each video leaves Americans with one simple question: If America adopts the same kind of system, where will you go?

I'm not sure why tort reform and current health insurance industry reform (competition across state boundaries and coverage requirements for the ill) can't be tackled without this boondoggle (a power/voter grab disguised as "healthcare for all") that the leftists are trying so hard to slam down the majority's throat.

[Deff Gordon]

each one of those issues can be applied to right here in the US and multiplied by tens of thousands as far as denials go.

coming from somebody that has an insurance license- it's much worse here.

[vinnie97]

Well, I simply have to question if federalizing it makes it better for all in the long run. The cost alone has many people on edge. Starting with more, ahem, conservative reform doesn't seem like a bad start.

[matias pecile]

wow wow radical .. gtfo with your "multiplication" .. lefty.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Deff Gordon

each one of those issues can be applied to right here in the US and multiplied by tens of thousands as far as denials go.

coming from somebody that has an insurance license- it's much worse here.

for starters: you can sue your insurance company... you can change your insurance company.... Canadians can't do either. We certainly have room for improvement but moving in the direction of Canada is, imo, making it worse for reasons I've explained elsewhere but I'll do it again just because I know you love reading it over and over... if government healthcare was cheaper and better then a private company would already be doing it for a profit. The gov't steps in and acts when we are willing to accept inefficiencies and higher costs because they get burried in a huge budget. Gov't healthcare programs are subsidized by private care - be it private insurace, employer provided or cash payers. They pay more to make up for the gov't shortfall. As you decrease the subsidizers and increase the subsidized you need more and more from fewer and fewer until they cannot make up the difference. At that point harder choices need to be made... provide less care/charge more money but in what ratios? The notion that public options will provide better care at lower costs doesn't pass the blush test.

[Deff Gordon]

your assuming that we won't have insurance companies any more.
they'll still be here and open to litigation.

as for any of that other mumbo jumbo... blah blah blah... there can be a base plan set and insurance companies can sell nice supplemental insurance like they did prior to 1997 regarding Medicare. it can work the same... makes sense. fixes a lot of problems. blah blah blah.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Deff Gordon

your assuming that we won't have insurance companies any more.
they'll still be here and open to litigation.

And I illustrated why that's a potential outcome to be taken very seriously.

Why would employers continue to pay for EEs healthcare when they can save money by not offering it? There would probably be a narrow band offered for highly compensated employees (and members of Congress) and that would be about all that would remain of private insurance. We'd have a much more drastically stratified system.

The Gov't plans would continue to offer less as reimbursement to providers than private plans who'd need to charge ever more to get doctors to accept their plans. The gov't can force doctors to accept their lowball price structure. Can you show me where gov't price fixing has been beneficial? In housing rentcontrol results in corruption and landlords who refuse (or cannot afford) to maintain their property... why would it be different for healthcare?

Originally Posted by Deff Gordon

as for any of that other mumbo jumbo... blah blah blah... there can be a base plan set and insurance companies can sell nice supplemental insurance like they did prior to 1997 regarding Medicare. it can work the same... makes sense. fixes a lot of problems. blah blah blah.

They can try but the rates would price most buyers out thus gradually strangulating the industry. Hell, some universal healthcare advocates have conceded that that is their long term goal. (Anthony Weiner just for one example NY-D)

[johnny861]

my question is how is the introduction of a public option control over the entire healthcare system?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by johnny861

my question is how is the introduction of a public option control over the entire healthcare system?

it isn't and I didn't say it was - I said it puts us on a very dangerous course to that end and gave reasons why

I think we'd be better off finding ways to open up competition between providers and let the market sort it out. I've offered lots of examples of what I meant from time to time in the varous ins threads.

[vinnie97]

In theory it wouldn't but in actuality, that is an entirely a different story. The control would become increasingly apparent and oppressive if the best financial option for most businesses involved offloading their employees onto the Federal plan (as PETA already illustrated).

[FarangBa]

Canadian Health Care: A Viable Model?

Close

You need to upgrade your Flash Player

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...201136742.html

[Deff Gordon]

Originally Posted by PETA

And I illustrated why that's a potential outcome to be taken very seriously.

Why would employers continue to pay for EEs healthcare when they can save money by not offering it? There would probably be a narrow band offered for highly compensated employees (and members of Congress) and that would be about all that would remain of private insurance. We'd have a much more drastically stratified system.

that was very much an issue and already brought up. won't happen. there will just be another choice for them to buy into. whether it's the non-profit company level or private insurance, that's up to them. they still will have to pay money into a plan. companies right now have the choice... again, your acting like they'll just stop. 1) it's tax deductible 2) attracts a better class of workers

truth be told.. fewer companies are offering insurance because they just simply can't afford it.

you're just looking at the far end of the spectrum of what could happen without looking at the middle area that would stop that.

The Gov't plans would continue to offer less as reimbursement to providers than private plans who'd need to charge ever more to get doctors to accept their plans. The gov't can force doctors to accept their lowball price structure. Can you show me where gov't price fixing has been beneficial? In housing rentcontrol results in corruption and landlords who refuse (or cannot afford) to maintain their property... why would it be different for healthcare?

again, another assumption without looking at the middle ground that would keep that from happening. nobody said they would be lowballing, but the inflation rate right now for health care far exceeds any cost of living increase 10 fold. Insurance companies already set the price... you go get something done, the insurance companies already have a predetermined price for what they'll pay for that work. that's how it works right now. so... who said anything about lowballing? prices are already set. again, don't overlook what's already in place.

They can try but the rates would price most buyers out thus gradually strangulating the industry. Hell, some universal healthcare advocates have conceded that that is their long term goal. (Anthony Weiner just for one example NY-D)

again, the market will adjust. free market will reign. insurance companies aren't going to fold up and not sell products. they will create new ones that fit the market place. this is more of you looking way over at some extreme without taking into account the reality in the middle.

[matt]

from a meeting i was in last week, i was told by a member of COA whose husband is a canadian citizen and goes to canada (from the us) for healthcare, you can get a secondary insurance in canada if you so choose. so you can pick your insurance.

i am not for or against anything in this thread so im not getting started, ha

[johnny861]

Originally Posted by vinnie97

In theory it wouldn't but in actuality, that is an entirely a different story. The control would become increasingly apparent and oppressive if the best financial option for most businesses involved offloading their employees onto the Federal plan (as PETA already illustrated).

So in the end, the private insurance companies would actually have to compete for customer loyalty?

[Deff Gordon]

companies won't be able to offload anybody... that is unless the republicans force that into the bill to fuck shit up. lol