posted on March 11, 2003 01:18:49 AM new
I was watching TV today and saw a news article about "universial health care" and that this was health care awareness week here in Michigan. The governor and other state lawmakers were in attendance at this conference. Everyone agreed that such an idea is outstanding and should be the goal of every responsible polititian.
Only one problem, it doesn't work. When the government has control of something, and there is no room for any competition from the private sector, then failure usually is the end result.
Take for example the situation in Ontario, Canada. In Windsor Ontario, on the radio station CKLW, they recently discussed on their "open line" call in format show, about the CRISIS in the OHIP, Ontario Health Insurance Plan.
When you are transported to the hospital in the US, you are taken into the emergency room for evaluation and treatment. In Windsor, at the Hotel-dieu Grace Hospital, as they indicated on the radio show, you WAIT in the ambulance until an opening in the ER comes available. It was said this could be sometimes several hours. The show host, and many of the callers blame irresponible usage. The citizen (taxpayer) feels that since I'm paying for it with my taxes, I should be able to use it any time I want. This includes for such things as sore throats, common colds and other such things.
Last week, I went to a clinic owned by a local hospital. The doctor I saw, originally from Ontario, said he was a refuge from the Ontario system. The reason he left was, while billing $300,000.00 for the OHIP every year, his pay was about 24,000.00. That's Canadian dollars too. I told him that my ex-wife works at a local hospital and several of her co-workers are from Ontario. He replied, there is no money to pay for nursing care. So the nurses come to Michigan for jobs.
Several of there former Canadian nurses also indicate that the rooms are the old ward type. There is no private or semi private rooms. Four beds to the room is a standard. My doctor also said, "your room might be a stretcher in the hallway until they have a real room for you." You are stretcher # 1, stretcher # 2, and so on.
He said most Canadians think its great, no cost health care, "until they have to use it."
posted on March 11, 2003 03:45:38 AM new
Nah! Socialise? , Make it user-pays.
The lower ‘classes’ pay more proportional tax and earn less proportional national income, but give them only as much health care as they can afford.
Let ‘natural’ economic selections dictate who lives on to breed.
Oh Yes, These hero’s who probably cost min. 100K each of tax payers’ money to train, are the real ‘bleeding hearts’ here.
A 'practiced' ‘full-time’ doctor in USA or Canada or Australia, earning Canadian $25K/Year???
Yeah right!! I know heaps of’em.
Heaven help you!, if you work down a mine shaft and come home to hear that your child needs a new lung.
“The show host, and many of the callers blame irresponible usage”
If so then it’s out of ignorance, not out of ‘over availability’.
But the points you make seem to be an attempt to lend support for ‘privatising’ and how exactly can you necessarily see the medical benefits of making medicine more efficient with exclusivity.
It will weed out the irresponsible??, I don’t know that it’s a big problem, but I believe there is plenty of research to show another cause which does not lay with the ‘consumer’.
Have you ever heard the term ‘over-prescribing’. It's not a new left wing term.
posted on March 11, 2003 03:50:26 AM new
One admitting doctor doing triage can resolve the jam at the door. If they don't do that it's because they choose to do business that way.
posted on March 11, 2003 04:49:56 AM new
There has to be some middle ground solution where government and the private sector can cooperate to keep costs down. I don't know what it is. I consider myself lucky that it "only" costs 500.00 a month to insure my family. My own coverage is provided by my employer. Since my family is healthy and has never even met our deductible, it sure grates on me sometimes when I think about what I could do with that $6,000.00 a year I am spending, essentially to subsidize others' care. Pretty pricey peace of mind if you ask me.
posted on March 11, 2003 05:55:19 AM new
austbounty,
I knew there would be someone to make a remark such as yours. And it just turned out to be you!!
[b]A 'practiced' ‘full-time’ doctor in USA or Canada or Australia, earning Canadian $25K/Year???
Yeah right!! I know heaps of’em.
[/b]
Please tell me why this doctor now practices medicine in the state of Michigan??? He is licensed in both Ontario and Michigan, but he chooses to work in Michigan. Why??? Could it be that he likes driving to the US everyday, waiting in line to clear US Customs, which takes a little longer nowadays since 9-11. Or could it be that he enjoys a better standard of living on the wages he makes from the hospital clinic he works for???
Also, why are there so many nurses from Ontario working in Michigan. My ex wife says one of her co-workers drives from London, Ontario to work in Michigan. The city of London, Ontario has a population of about 85,000. There must be a least one hospital there. This trip is 80 miles one way. Maybe she only does this just to rack up the mileage on her car. Right?
One more thing. If I worked in a mine shaft, the chances are that I would need a new lung, not my child. And also, I have had 2 kidney transplants in the last 15 years. My doctor from Ontario said under the socialized medicine, I very likely would not be given a second transplant.
posted on March 11, 2003 06:09:25 AM new
There should be a limited Socialization of medicine. Only certain procedures should be covered and below a certain income.
Such as:
Routine annual physicals should be covered.
Many problems could be treated inexpensively if they are caught early enough.
Emergency treatment, but only TRUE emergency treatment. Your child having the sniffles is not an emergency, there had better be a bone hanging out....
If the government were to pay, even partially, for some of these procedures, the cost to the government NOW would be greatly reduced and also health care workers and hospitals wouldn't be in such an economic crisis.
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both boldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
- Julius Caesar
posted on March 11, 2003 06:35:31 AM new
HALIFAX (May 8, 1998) – Problems of patient access to medical services resulting from doctor shortages are being reported in communities across Canada, according to a new national study released today by the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC).
In provinces such as Ontario, where family doctor numbers have declined, the Ontario College of Family Physicians report doctors in their 70s coming out of retirement or unable to retire because there was no replacement to look after their patients.
This is scary! Among the other results of Canada's system of socialized medicine: the government has been "delisting" previously covered services and rationing of care to the elderly is widely practiced.
posted on March 11, 2003 06:59:10 AM new
Bad Idea.
Socialism (in any form) has been proven to be a defective system. People will just coast along and take advantage of the systems until they fail. It ultimately takes away all incentives to improve or progress.
We need to reverse the trends towards Socialism in American healthcare or it will be descending into mediocrity like our educational system.
posted on March 11, 2003 07:09:04 AM new
Instead of saying "let the government pay" we should be saying "let the taxpayers" pay.
Government funds is not aid from a foreign entity. Government funding removes value from an economy just as any other cost might, with some exceptions. Government funding generally is inefficient.
In order for a universal system to work, there must be a private profit motivated link in the system to control costs and abusive use of services.
There must also be a truely universal system in which every American is enrolled and pays a premium. If you're unemployed, the govt can pay the premium, if you're part of the working poor, govt can subsidize the premium.
But this still doesn't address one of the major problems of health care and that is inflation of costs.
How can there be a competitive health care delivery system ? How can you shop around for coronary or a Gall Bladder operation ? It is almost completely foreign to the health care system for competitive pricing, except for one aspect of it and that is uninsured procedures such as plastic surgery and the laser eye operations.
It seems that in cash quasi-medical services, there is a pricing competition.
This tends to show that perhaps health insurance is actually subsidizing rising prices of health care and lack of true competition, and quasi price fixing in health care. If an insurance policy states that it pays 80% of a procedures costs, what incentive is there to lower the cost of the procedure ? If an insurance policy states that it will pay X amount of dollars for a procedure, why charge less ?, and in fact, it is better to charge more that that amount.
There is also a need to have primary practioners that are not medical doctors and flood the market with them. There is no reason for the amount of training a primary care physician has for 99% of their services.
Why do you need $400,000 worth of education and all those years in the medical schools to look at a sore throat and prescribe an anti-biotic ? Except perhaps in very isolated areas, most GPs will send away a broken bone and many will no do emergency sutures - they send them to emergency rooms.
In fact, a primary care specialist could be trained quicker and cheaper, and do just as good a job. All GPs in major metro areas pass off any procedure that can not be done in their offices anyway.
If you go in for a suspect mole, they pass you off to a dermatologist if it looks suspicious. Detect a hernia ? They send you to a surgeon. You do not need an extensive medical degree to recognize cases and pass them off, nor do you need an extensive degree and its costs to be a primary care giver in our present system.
posted on March 11, 2003 09:33:09 AM new
Sounds like a good idea, but I wouldn't want it. Our healthcare system is pretty lousy now, make it socialized, and you its just going to be worse
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on March 11, 2003 09:58:58 AM new
No to socialized medicine. NO NO NO!! Government making health decisions I hope is NEVER allowed.
I'd totally agree with a system like the one presented by Reamond. That would be much better than our current system, imo.
There must also be a truely universal system in which every American is enrolled and pays a premium. If you're unemployed, the govt can pay the premium, if you're part of the working poor, govt can subsidize the premium.
And what Reamond speaks of is already happening in HMOs. Lots of appointments where the patient does not need to see a doctor, and where a nurse practioner would do the trick. I'd vote for that.
posted on March 11, 2003 10:26:45 AM newThere must also be a truely universal system in which every American is enrolled and pays a premium.
That is the Canadian system. The premiums are handled differently depending on the province.
In Alberta, the premium is deducted from an employee's paycheck, or if you don't work for a company, you pay the premium direct to the government.
In Quebec, I vaguely recall that I had to do a calculation on my tax form as to how much I owed in the way of health premiums and the was part of the income tax I paid. That was several years ago so it may be handled differently now.
I can't remember how it was handled in Ontario (except that my employer paid the premium owed).
In Manitoba where I am now, there is no separate premium - it's buried in the provincial income tax rate I pay with the provincial government paying for health care from general income tax revenues.
Irene
[ edited by stockticker on Mar 11, 2003 10:31 AM ]
posted on March 11, 2003 12:31:42 PM new
Americans aren't Canadians, and America isn't Canada. Either self-pay or socialized medicine can work fine. Ultimately in both there is some sort of cap on how much of what is available becomes actually available to an individual. As long as that cap is not tampered with, everything works fine.
In Capitalism it is understood that the rights of an individual to a particular type of care or technology are unlimited by the system, but that the person's personal right to receive it as an individual extends only as far as they can personally come up with the money to pay the full bill themselves.(Every year wealthy patients fly in from other countries who consider American medicine worth every $ they spend, and they pay in cash, in full, with no insurance offset, and are greatful for the opportunity to take advantage of out technology and medical outcomes). Here the natural cap is the money the person can bring to the table.
In Socialism, however, it is understood that the individual should consider health care a basic human right without having to pay, or at least not pay very much, but they also are raised to understand that not everything available will necessarily be available to them if they need it. They are also taught to understand that they have no right to influence that decision--that all decisions made regarding what they get, and how and if they get it, will be made by others on their behalf. (Most socialized countries have an age cutoff after which the provision of life preserving costly treatments like kidney dialysis are no longer considered worth it to societal cost containment and benefits to provide. About 10-15 years ago, the cutoff in England was age 55, peak executive career age for America. All patients being kept alive by dialysis were simply discontinued from the program at age 55, and died instead of getting their next scheduled dialysis.) Here the natural cap is the apportionment of provisions of service based on overall societal decisions, decided by where the health care $$$ achieve the most societal benefit as a whole, and decided from the health care providers' perspectives alone.
What can't work is thinking like a Capitalist and paying like a Socialist. Americans in general acknowledge that the increased care and technology, and high degrees of accuracy and minimized side effects and low risks they want, costs money. They are not usually willing to accept that, however, when it involves their life or the life of their family member. In those cases they demand as their right everything available to anyone, sometimes even for elderly relatives with only a year or so to live even after the treatment is successful, and demand that it be done with someone else's money because they can't afford it. If it is cheaper in Canada, they will spend their health care $$$ in Canadian pharmacies, pushing up compensatory drug prices in America. If Canadians or Mexicans or South Americans, need care their countries doesn't provide, they cross the border --and rather than paying, apply for welfare or status which grants insurance benefits, driving up the cost of insured healthcare.
The real answer is to understand that there is no such thing as somebody elses money, and that what is available with somebody elses money or somebody else's system is not an outside individual's personal right. Pick one or the other and be greatful. Those who can't sincerely do that need a trip to some outlying villages of India and Africa and Asia. There, the natural cap is that there is nothing at all available, and people simply cry, stay sick, starve, or die.
What has left the American health care scene is a combination of gratitude and common sense.
posted on March 11, 2003 12:56:11 PM newsocialized medicine can work fine. Maybe 'can' is the key word. From what I've read about the way Canada has it's health care set up....it's expensive as all get out...and there's long waits to see doctors and for surgery....and medical professionals are underpaid and leaving the profession.
What I was agreeing to on Reamond's post was keeping our system the same way it is now. But ALL would have insurance. And the only part our government would play in health care would be to act WITH insurance companies in provided the 'insurance' for all. The government only paying for the premiums of those [or % thereof] who could not afford it.
Staying with our capitalist system:
Those who could afford the higher premiums would have more 'coverage'....say the 80/20%, those with less or government paid for coverage would have less, say 50/50%. Just like it really is now. Those who can afford better 'insurance programs' have them. BUT the difference would be that those who are un-insured would be covered.
Or leave our health care system as is. I personally would never vote for a system like Canada's.
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 11, 2003 12:59 PM ]
posted on March 11, 2003 01:29:07 PM newThose who could afford the higher premiums would have more 'coverage'....
That's the way it works in Canada too. Most large companies contract with private insurance companies and provide supplementary health care insurance to their employees. Such supplementary insurance can also be purchased by individuals.
For example, my company supplementary medical benefits included many items not covered by public insurance e.g. semi-private hospital room, ambulance to hospital, physiotherapy, prescription drugs, eye glasses/contact lenses, out of country coverage and a biggie for me a maximum of $3,000 (US$2,000) per year in dental care with insurance paying 100% for certain procedures such as fillings, cleaning and x-rays and 75% for other items such as bridges and crowns.
By the way, Canadian public insurance will sometimes pay for treatment in the U.S. when such treatment is not available in Canada or the expected waiting period is considered too lengthy.
Irene
[ edited by stockticker on Mar 11, 2003 01:35 PM ]
posted on March 11, 2003 02:05:40 PM new
Thanks, Irene - I was under the impression that the 'coverage' was provided directly from the government, and it had been paid directly to the government...not thru employers. Okay...who pays the doctors and all medical care providers salaries please? Who decides how many doctors [all medical care providers] are needed? And who makes the decision if that 'un-available' procedure in the US gets granted or denied, the doctor or some government 'oversight' committee? [Or for any 'unusual' type of care.] And... full of questions here.....do you agree that Canadian doctors are leaving the Canada medical system in large enough numbers to be 'felt' by your citizens?
For me, I kind of like the way our system is now....but have read [here] so many others say so many American's are un-insured. I've never personally experienced that as in CA all where able to go to any county hospital for care. Yes, we taxpayers pay the cost for that, but I've never seen the figures that compare the cost of providing insurance for those who have none vs the cost of paying for a system like yours.
posted on March 11, 2003 03:15:13 PM new
"Socialism (in any form) has been proven to be a defective system."
That's simply not an accurate statement.
Look at the Scandanavian countries. Heck, look at Cuba.
It comes down to what society wants.
The goal of Canadian heath care originally was that each person would recieve the care available at no cost.
Canadian Health care was fine until Brian Mulroney came into power and started the process of dismantling it so that it is now very scary to get sick in many parts of Canada.
It comes down to what a society wants.
I think that it's capitilist practices that destroy real health care.
Governments are us. They are the voters. We decide who gets elected and they should reflect what we as voters want.
If you don't want public health care and vote that way then you can't complain when you can't afford to get treatment.
Proper preventitive care can save billions. Allowing the politics between Doctors and nurses can save even more. It's only recently that we are seeing more Nurse Practioners here in Canada.
And what the drug companies are doing to us is scary.
The simple fact is that socialized or group medicine works. Economies of scale work.
If you want them too.
And a healthier society is a more productive one filled with less crime and ills.
posted on March 11, 2003 03:17:15 PM new
In truth, I haven't paid much attention to our health care system. I've been blessed with good health all my life (I think it's been 3 years since I've even had so much as a cold).
Hospitals here are government funded. Doctors submit claims to the government for reimbursement with respect to the patients they see if such claims are covered by health insurance. Otherwise the patient or patient's insurance company is billed.
Tempted by the higher pay, there has been a steady stream of doctors and nurses heading to the U.S. ever since public health insurance came into being in the late 1960s. That has always been a source of concern, particularly considering the high cost of training these doctors and nurses receive only to see them head south.
Yes, there are a lot of flaws in our system but I am glad to know that I never have to worry about going bankrupt to pay for health care.
I would like to see modest fees implemented for every visit to a doctor. Maybe that would discourage hypochondriacs and cut down on other types of unnecessary visits.
I also wish there was better control to ensure that charges by doctors were legitimate. A patient never sees the claim a doctor submits and never even signs any paperwork.
Irene
[ edited by stockticker on Mar 11, 2003 03:22 PM ]
posted on March 11, 2003 03:22:23 PM new
Was free...now it costs a fortune.
Same thing could happen here.
Cuba?? Oh yea, I'd want to move there for sure. [not]
Could happen here if enough people vote for it. Yes, and about 10 years ago Hillary Clinton proposed a program...it failed. Sure...that could change, but I'd doubt it.
posted on March 11, 2003 03:33:21 PM new
Thanks Irene - I wish you at least another 50 years of good health.
I appreciate the questions you could answer. But the one's you weren't able to answer would be BIG concerns to me.
You mention not going bankrupt. With the way our laws are set up here, bankruptcy doesn't mean a person loses their home, car, and certain most other personal belongings when they file for bankruptcy. Huge medical bills are one of the best reasons people would use our bankruptcy laws. My BIL became disable, had three major surgeries, tons of doctor bills and they filed for bankruptcy. Nothing in their life was taken away. The only change is they now have to life on his disability income, rather than his wage.
posted on March 11, 2003 07:25:48 PM new
pasttothepresent says,
(Most socialized countries have an age cutoff after which the provision of life preserving costly treatments like kidney dialysis are no longer considered worth it to societal cost containment and benefits to provide. About 10-15 years ago, the cutoff in England was age 55, peak executive career age for America. All patients being kept alive by dialysis were simply discontinued from the program at age 55, and died instead of getting their next scheduled dialysis.)
So, under the medical standards in England, if I'm a person who is 50 years old and needs kindey dialysis, I should start saving for my furneal. Can you imagine the EMOTIONAL TORTURE this person will go through as well as the family knowing the GOVERNMENTS CLOCK IS TICKING!!
Let's compare this 50 year old man with kidney disease with another person. This 50 year old man worked all his adult life, paid taxes, raised a family, and now has poor health. The government thinks he is not worth anything and is disposable. Compare him to a 20 year old scumbag. This scumbag kidnaps an 8 year old girl walking home from school. He rapes her and beats her. Her is sentenced to 20 years in prison. Is that a better use of taxpayers money? How does this scumbag contribute to society? Who makes the desicion to treat the kidnapper with greater need that the older person? Right now, in the state of Michigan, it costs about $40,000 a year to keep someone in prison, about $35,000 a year for dialysis.
Didn't Hitler deciede that certain groups of people were better to keep, and that certain groups were dispoable. If you were mentally retarded, handicapped, disfigured, gay, and Jewish, then you were seen as not needed in society, and therefore disposed of.
Cuba? That's a laugh and a half. When Elian Gonzalase was return to Cuba, American news media showed a picture of the house he would live in with his father. A government owned, plain jane, cement block beauty. As the Cuban government said is was newly remodeled. Yes! It had a fresh coat of blue paint.
posted on March 11, 2003 11:02:57 PM new
My comments about health care in England learned during a tv interview with a British nephrologist about 10 years ago was not to recommend that approach, nor to recommend the approach that if a transplant requires 6 figures of $$$ that the person should be personally required to pay it all with no help every time. I picked obvious examples to illustrate the point that there is no such thing in any country of unlimited health care, and there really isn't anyone else's money, so limits are going to exist.
The expense of what is medically possible has exceeded anyone's ability to pay for it to the maximum for everyone who wants everything available in pretty much every country. France has fairly good socialized medicine available, but they pay 60-80% of their gross income for government taxes. America has the best health care in the world, and the whole world clamors after it.
When there isn't enough money to go around limits get set. There are government limits on what treatments are available in America based on cost containment decisions. Capitalists are willing to pay lots for quality health care. Socialists are schooled to be amazingly accepting of the rationed limits as normal. I hoped my comments would point out that some of what is perceived as appropriate involves the matching of the expectations of the people to the system. If Americans want the benefits of capitalism with the budget of socialism they will never be happy, because it can't happen. Nobody really likes to hear that.
The next time you are questioning why your premium is so high, multiply it by 12 and ask yourself how many days of hospital care with medical treatment or surgery in today's economy that would buy. I guarantee there are many in your insured group's company who are exceeding that many times over in a single month of care or less--in a fraction of a day for a transplant. To get hi quality of care for low $$$ it requires that most people stay healthy so the $$$ can go for the really costly things.
As the baby boomers peak with age related medical needs, that situation reverses. Americans sometimes don't realize how well they have had it. They also don't realize fully how much they have already lost. I'm not recommending that we kill the disadvantaged or require patients to be millionaires, just that we need both a little more gratitude and a little more common sense in the way we structure our expectations.
posted on March 12, 2003 08:00:24 AM new The largest hospital system, Columbia/HCA Health care, is currently the owner of 350 hospitals in 38 states, and continues to gobble up public hospitals left and right. Its CEO, Richard Scott, says that "Healthcare is a business like anything else," and "Is any fast-food restaurant obligated to feed everyone who shows up?" His company has a 20% gross profit target, and he has been meeting that goal, partly by lower costs for large scale purchase of medical equipment and supplies, but more importantly by union avoidance, "reengineering" nursing personnel (increasing their workloads, substituting non-nurses), and "cream skimming" (taking billable patients, dumping non-billables on other hospitals).
Beleive it or not, there are many posters here who will defend this position and the status quo of health care in the United States. Right now, there are over forty million people uninsured and that number is increasing as people lose their jobs and the economy spirals downward. The fact that health care is not available to so many people in the United States is shameful - as we march off to spend trillions of dollars to advance the Bush administration's quest for power.
as we march off to spend trillions of dollars to advance the Bush administration's quest for power.
Maybe you should rethink your position. Who is next.
2 METHODS OF TORTURE
Torture victims in Iraq have been blindfolded, stripped of their clothes and suspended from their wrists for long hours. Electric shocks have been used on various parts of their bodies, including the genitals, ears, the tongue and fingers. Victims have described to Amnesty International how they have been beaten with canes, whips, hosepipe or metal rods and how they have been suspended for hours from either a rotating fan in the ceiling or from a horizontal pole often in contorted positions as electric shocks were applied repeatedly on their bodies. Some victims had been forced to watch others, including their own relatives or family members, being tortured in front of them.
Other methods of physical torture described by former victims include the use of Falaqa (beating on the soles of the feet), extinguishing of cigarettes on various parts of the body, extraction of finger nails and toenails and piercing of the hands with an electric drill. Some have been sexually abused and others have had objects, including broken bottles, forced into their anus. In addition to physical torture, detainees have been threatened with rape and subjected to mock execution. They have been placed in cells where they could hear the screams of others being tortured and have been deprived of sleep. Some have stayed in solitary confinement for long periods of time. Detainees have also been threatened with bringing in a female relative, especially the wife or the mother, and raping her in front of the detainee. Some of these threats have been carried out.
posted on March 12, 2003 09:55:13 AM newThe next time you are questioning why your premium is so high, multiply it by 12 and ask yourself how many days of hospital care with medical treatment or surgery in today's economy that would buy. I guarantee there are many in your insured group's company who are exceeding that many times over in a single month of care or less--in a fraction of a day for a transplant
This actuary situation is why I stated earlier that all people must be enrolled in the insurance pool system. Spreading costs and risks is what insurance is about, however, "cherry picking" by insurance companies and employers is becomming more refined and less detectable. It is "weeding out" those that are more likely to consume larger amounts of health care.
Many people do not realize how it is done. Most employers now require prospective employees to give permission for a credit report. Do you have any health related information on your credit report ? A medical backruptcy, credit extended by a pharmacy or health company ? This is a red flag to not hire you because of possible health care costs.
How about your previous employment record ? Something as simple as days absent eventhough you are perfectly healthy can cost a job. How? If they see a block of several weeks off and your are a male, it looks like family and medical leave time off, so either it was a birth, or it was/is a possible health care problem.
Employers would like all employees to childless, and live like Mormons/7 Day Adventists. While they can not come out and say it, they are finding legal ways to tip them off. There are actually small employers that have had to cancel health insurance after the birth of one pre-mature baby with other health problems. The costs far exceeded what the small employer pool could ever overcome.
In any event, it does not require full fledged socialized medicine to correct these structural problems through federal regulations. Open up the primary care provider profession and have total population enrollment in the insurance pool, then have private insurance companies bid for the pools by region or other divisions.
If we don't correct the problems soon, the only entity to be served by the health care system will be the insurance companies.
[ edited by reamond on Mar 12, 2003 09:56 AM ]
full of questions here.....do you agree that Canadian doctors are leaving the Canada medical system in large enough numbers to be 'felt' by your citizens?