Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Not at all.
A very appropriate question indeed.
GG
A very appropriate question indeed.
GG
Government Shutdown
- Thread starter slowGEEZR
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
Yeah.....and according to US News and World Report, life expectancy for cancer patients five years and beyond is almost 50% better here in the states vs. Canada, our MRI scanning capability per one million people is four times that of Canada.
Bottom line is this and I've preached this for years........ everybody first and foremost needs to take personal responsibility into account to start. As for affordable insurance above and beyond, yes I too believe it is needed.
jmschnur
Well-known member
My brother just signed on and said he saved $2000. Must be lost of different results out there.
J
J
What is this in reference to? His employers plan ? He signed up w the government plan? What I was referring to was identical coverage between last year and this year. I could save a boat load if I chose something that was less benefit rich and I decided that I would simply pay when I got sick.
jmschnur
Well-known member
Plan covers two people, his wife and himself . He has a one employee business. Coverage according to him is better through the exchange. I do not know the deductible. He lives in Arizona. He said he signed up with the same company he had before.
He said he saved $4K
I assume one could buy gap coverage to cover the deductible if he wanted.
J
He said he saved $4K
I assume one could buy gap coverage to cover the deductible if he wanted.
J
Last edited:
Intermechanico.
Not inflammatory at all. I have lived 30 min or less from the border my entire life and love Canada.
I guess I found it odd that one of the biggest scare 'tactics' by opponents is the concept of a 'waiting list' which these psychotherapists used as a marketing benefit to their practice (having the lack of a wait list) And here I am in Canada and it is not republicans talking about wait lists and doctors not accepting the government plan - but a Canadian based group. The possibility of doctors saying 'I'm not going to participate'.
On the other side their claim was 'reasonable prices'. Guys? When is the last time you went to a doctor and price was in the discussion? So, that is the conversation that I find interesting. Both sides could make an argument 1) doctors will opt out and health insurance will even further divide the classes as great care can be had if you can afford to pay the price vs waiting with the masses. Or.....2) it is working - it is forcing the medical industry to look at what people can afford for a service-- not what an insurance co can pay. I'm not arguing either. And I'm not talking about when you get a cold.
I am still concerned that companies are going to reduce their employers coverage to the point that it is offered but it isn't worth the policy it's printed on.
I don't have any issue with the intent of the program - just the reaction to the market to it and where that leaves us when the dust settles.
Dave - if the MRI technology you mention is accurate - the question that needs answered is 'Why doesn't Canada have this?' I mean the tech is there. I would think better imaging quality would be important to anyone that has cancer. Is it cost?
Not inflammatory at all. I have lived 30 min or less from the border my entire life and love Canada.
I guess I found it odd that one of the biggest scare 'tactics' by opponents is the concept of a 'waiting list' which these psychotherapists used as a marketing benefit to their practice (having the lack of a wait list) And here I am in Canada and it is not republicans talking about wait lists and doctors not accepting the government plan - but a Canadian based group. The possibility of doctors saying 'I'm not going to participate'.
On the other side their claim was 'reasonable prices'. Guys? When is the last time you went to a doctor and price was in the discussion? So, that is the conversation that I find interesting. Both sides could make an argument 1) doctors will opt out and health insurance will even further divide the classes as great care can be had if you can afford to pay the price vs waiting with the masses. Or.....2) it is working - it is forcing the medical industry to look at what people can afford for a service-- not what an insurance co can pay. I'm not arguing either. And I'm not talking about when you get a cold.
I am still concerned that companies are going to reduce their employers coverage to the point that it is offered but it isn't worth the policy it's printed on.
I don't have any issue with the intent of the program - just the reaction to the market to it and where that leaves us when the dust settles.
Dave - if the MRI technology you mention is accurate - the question that needs answered is 'Why doesn't Canada have this?' I mean the tech is there. I would think better imaging quality would be important to anyone that has cancer. Is it cost?
Oh ok. Truly the devil is in the details in health policies. But I'm glad he saved some dough. My wife's coverage options and mine have gone thru the roof. She works for a hospital and I work in the automotive sector. The coverage being offered by our companies has increased more than it ever has in 25 years. Now, I'm not talking about a different plan that I could go try to find or one with different benefits. Both companies have been very profitable.
My concern is market response. Health care up to this point has been something they offered to be competitive - not out of the goodness of their hearts.
jmschnur
Well-known member
Given pollution levels is the cancer rate lower in Canada than the U.S?
Infant mortality is an interesting statistic. The U.S. Is at best in the middle looking at this one.
J
Infant mortality is an interesting statistic. The U.S. Is at best in the middle looking at this one.
J
InterMechanico
Well-known member
We do have a waiting list for some surgeries (mostly elective, such as knee replacements), and it's my understanding that we need more MRI machines. Bear in mind though, if any of us don't want to wait, we have access to for profit clinics (operating rooms) where there is a membership fee, and the surgery is still paid for by MSP (Medical Services Plan). It has been debated over the last few years whether or not these clinics are legal under our system, but they persist anyhow. http://www.falsecreekhealthcare.com/
Some people choose to pay extra (I think it's roughly $4000.00 initially, somewhat less yearly after that) to avoid any wait times, but most people stay within the system because they'd rather keep their money in their pocket. It's is a fallacy that we have no private health care here; we have private clinics, dentists, chiropractors, etc..., but the enrollment in the private medical clinics is so low (above), that I think it's safe to say that most Canadians feel satisfied with the service they get.
Infant mortality is an important factor, because it overwhelming sways life expectancy. Life expectancy is a the mean age of death, meaning that if (like in the 1800s) a large number of children don't live past their first birthday, it pulls the overall number down much further than deaths a few years below the mean level.
I believe that cancer rates are not dissimilar between our two countries. Outcomes in the U.S. may be better, but I believe that is only in a few forms of cancer, and that data is not really up to date. I think air quality has improved greatly in the last two decades in both of our countries, due to improvements in technology in the automotive sector, and strict regulations for emitters of pollution. Also, if pollution levels are lower in Canada, it's only because there is 1/10th the population in a larger land mass.
I'm not sure I agree. When hiring employees, a comprehensive benefit package is a very helpful tool to lure prospective employees. I think companies will and do use these types of compensation to stand out in the eyes of prospective employees, especially when a constricted economic situation prevents them from competing monetarily.
Some people choose to pay extra (I think it's roughly $4000.00 initially, somewhat less yearly after that) to avoid any wait times, but most people stay within the system because they'd rather keep their money in their pocket. It's is a fallacy that we have no private health care here; we have private clinics, dentists, chiropractors, etc..., but the enrollment in the private medical clinics is so low (above), that I think it's safe to say that most Canadians feel satisfied with the service they get.
Infant mortality is an important factor, because it overwhelming sways life expectancy. Life expectancy is a the mean age of death, meaning that if (like in the 1800s) a large number of children don't live past their first birthday, it pulls the overall number down much further than deaths a few years below the mean level.
I believe that cancer rates are not dissimilar between our two countries. Outcomes in the U.S. may be better, but I believe that is only in a few forms of cancer, and that data is not really up to date. I think air quality has improved greatly in the last two decades in both of our countries, due to improvements in technology in the automotive sector, and strict regulations for emitters of pollution. Also, if pollution levels are lower in Canada, it's only because there is 1/10th the population in a larger land mass.
I'm not sure I agree. When hiring employees, a comprehensive benefit package is a very helpful tool to lure prospective employees. I think companies will and do use these types of compensation to stand out in the eyes of prospective employees, especially when a constricted economic situation prevents them from competing monetarily.
InterMechanico
Well-known member
If that is true, then I think you have even higher rates of survival to look forward to in the future. My girlfriend and I were discussing the benefits and drawbacks to both of our systems, and concluded that the following changes would benefit our systems:
USA- find ways to make care more inclusive, not based on ability to pay or current health status
Canada- Replace silly yearly inclusive budgets at hospitals with per patient funding. We though this would go a long way to reducing wait times and increasing efficiency at our hospitals. In the current funding model, a hospital is given a set operating budget for a given year. The fewer patients they treat, the further that money will go. The really silly thing is that each hospital is given plenty of money to operate properly (Health care funding in British Columbia is something like 60% of total budget). If hospitals had to compete for patients, I believe outcomes would improve and wait times would be reduced.
Kevin
Well-known member
I have read before that the infant mortality rate statistics don't paint an accurate picture of the actual care provided. Here in the US, we have led the way at saving (or trying to save) premature babies. We attempt to save babies that other countries don't even attempt to do. You also have to look at the number of babies that are born with severe medical problems due to drug addicted mothers, of which we have higher numbers than most other countries. These situations are not an indication of having bad health care service.
The same also goes for life expectancy. America is a fat country. I looked up the percentage of obese individuals in BC, Canada and it is around 15-19% of the population, here in the US it is around 35%. Can't this play a large role in not only our life expectancy but even our health care rates in general? This is why I don't like comparisons between countries, without any considerations for other factors that might play a role in the statistics.
Timm- I'm still waiting to see what my rate might be. I'm even wondering if I'll be one of those who will receive a notice of cancellation, lord knows that I really need a plan that covers contraception at this stage in my life.
InterMechanico
Well-known member
You're right. There are too many variables to consider, and a raw statistic does not accurately portray the picture; e.g: Breast cancer survival rates Canada/USA:
Survival rates in the USA are better than in Canada. This has been attributed to better screening rates in the USA (a good thing). However, included in that survival rate figure are a vast number of benign tumors, statistically considered to be cancer, but a generally low risk and very survivable. In Canada we find less of them, but they aren't a risk to begin with. Caveat: Our screening rates should be improved.
As far as Cancer survival rates as a whole, they seem to be very close (within 10%) and may have to do with those variables (above).
Last edited by a moderator:
this is very informative - I think....... thanks....
jmschnur
Well-known member
I have read before that the infant mortality rate statistics don't paint an accurate picture of the actual care provided. Here in the US, we have led the way at saving (or trying to save) premature babies. We attempt to save babies that other countries don't even attempt to do. You also have to look at the number of babies that are born with severe medical problems due to drug addicted mothers, of which we have higher numbers than most other countries. These situations are not an indication of having bad health care service.
The same also goes for life expectancy. America is a fat country. I looked up the percentage of obese individuals in BC, Canada and it is around 15-19% of the population, here in the US it is around 35%. Can't this play a large role in not only our life expectancy but even our health care rates in general? This is why I don't like comparisons between countries, without any considerations for other factors that might play a role in the statistics.
Timm- I'm still waiting to see what my rate might be. I'm even wondering if I'll be one of those who will receive a notice of cancellation, lord knows that I really need a plan that covers contraception at this stage in my life.
The infant mortality rate ~ about twice that in France and Germany. The US is # 38 in life expectancy. I am not sure if attempts to save the lives of infants can affect this rate since the infants probably die in either case. With respect to drug addiction, intervention by a strong public health care system may well make a positive difference.
There are similar numbers of educational skills with the US not doing well .
Perhaps the US is unique and comparisons are not meaningful. I ,however, think that some of these comparisons bear serious consideration as the US moves forward attempting to compete in the worldmarket place.
One cannot fix problems if one does not accept there existence .
J
Last edited:
Horchem1972
Well-known member
I for one at the first of the year will see my insurance go up 33% per week and my deductible will quadruple. Some may have saved up front, but many of them will see their co-pays and deductibles doubled and even quadrupled. What about the fact that they blatantly lied about people not losing the coverage they had? It has came out that they new as much as 3-years ago that this was a lie. The last figure was over 2 million being kicked off their healthcare plans.
wow Horchem..... as I had said - my insurance has NEVER gone up 80%.... Now, a bit more news that I did not know that I found out today ... and maybe I am just clueless... But, apparently my company is being taxed more because of the affordable health care act.... Guess who is paying those taxes really? You guessed it - passed on to the consumer... that would be you and I. I asked an HR rep why the increase - and one of the reasons was the health care act and increased taxation on the company because of it.....
My brother's company (a very large corporation) - has told its employees they can go to the marketplace if they want - but if they do - they can not come back to the company health plan..... In other words, they are increasing the premiums on the company plan to push people off of it ...'if they choose' because the marketplace is cheaper...(at least for now)....and today I pay my premiums pre-tax... can't do that in the marketplace....
My wife works at a hospital -- a very successful one.... They were planning on a merge with another successful hospital... Affordable Healthcare act was one of the driving reasons stated....
Market reaction as I had stated...... My question is simply this -- are we increasing the health care costs and availability of health care in this country for 90% to cover 10%? Are the majority of 'for profit' companies going to try to reduce one of the biggest drains on their profits (i.e. health insurance) to try to become more profitable? I think this is everyone's concern.... I guess this is just all of us being 'neighborly'??? No... capitalism at work.....
Kevin
Well-known member
I was going off of memory, so today I tried to actually find a source. You're right, it might not actually be our "attempt" to save more lives of preterm babies, but our high IMR does appear to be due to our higher number of preterm babies. Here is an article put out by the Center of Disease Control, and under the heading of Infant Mortality in the US, it says, "The main reason that the U.S. IMR remains higher than that of European nations is because the United States has a high percentage of preterm births (6)." http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6231a3.htm The article then goes on to discuss the reason for higher preterm babies and our IMR, and it mentions the mothers health, environment, tobacco smoking, alcohol use etc. I still don't think we have a "health care" problem in as much as we have a "health" problem in general. Will having better access to health care, better insurance, or just throwing more money into health programs in general going to make the fat person start moving or the heroin addict drop the needle? I just don't think so.
I don't think republicans and/or conservatives don't accept that problems exist. I think the main difference between the two parties lies in their thought process behind the solutions towards fixing those problems. One thing for sure, I don't see an easy solution. I want to help those less fortunate, especially those whose circumstances don't allow them to help themselves, especially children. However, no matter how well intentioned I think the entitlement programs are, at this point they are increasing with each generation the number of people who use them as handouts instead of handups. We can't continue on that path.
Anybody catch the Doonesbury cartoon last Thursday (Nov 21) on this topic?
Absolutely hilarious. And sad.
http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2013/11/21#.UpPOBKUyFuY
Absolutely hilarious. And sad.
http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2013/11/21#.UpPOBKUyFuY
Last edited:
