Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Universal Health Care for USA

Our Canadian health care system is suffering to some degree. There's queue jumping and (I believe from experience) some rationing of care for the useless eaters. As Tamper Lad expressed, if you're a somebody, you get better and quicker treatment. I'd be surprised if that didn't happen everywhere with universal health care. But you do get treated, and emergency care seems to be well delivered, and people don't get so easily wiped out by a medical problem. Drugs still cost, so does travel for special treatment, so some people do face financial problems even with public health care.

Usually the criticism from the U.S. is the cost to taxpayers. But what sort of society do you want to live in? If I'm okay, because I can afford medical care, but my neighbour is ruined because his wife has cancer... what's the point of a society? In theory, we band together to share the burdens, so the whole group benefits overall. Maybe I'm just an old socialist, but I never understood the allure of living in the penthouse with an underclass swirling below me.

However, all I can say is good luck, America. Where the funding for any sort of system is going to come from... maybe sell off the national parks and the rest of the highways. And from what we've seen of how the financial system is operating, I would suspect any health care system would be structured to the advantage of the health care industry, with the primary purpose of transferring more public funds to private hands.

Where do you get the ten grand figure? Under the system I'm advocating we pay just over one third of what the US forks out. THE UK pays LESS THAN HALF THE US COST for universal healthcare that covers all major deases accidents etc. This idea that we pay huge sums is absolute rubbish. Yeah we have higher tyaxes than the US but that is because we have subsidised travel, social security and a range of things the US Doesn't. In terms of health we pay far less than the US.

(snip)

SAL wrote:

Quote

...Where do you get the ten grand figure?...

Take what my household here in the States paid per month in 2008 just to maintain coverage. (Don't add the costs of medicines, actual doctor's visits, or anything else.)

$850 (U.S.) a month X 12 months = $10,200 paid in 2008. I did round it off a bit in my earlier posts, just for clarity's sake.

Bear in mind that we don't have children. If we did, the expenditure for each child would drive the cost up further. Again, this would happen even before anyone in the household actually saw a doctor.

If I were divorced or widowed in my current condition, the insurance would lapse because I wouldn't be able to continue the coverage, not even at half what it costs now.

You'll have to do the monetary conversion. That's not my strong suit.

But as I try to explain to doubters like rickshaw (and they're everywhere, even in "progressive" Oregon. We had our own attempt at statewide single-payer about five years ago and it was clobbered at the polls), I just can't fathom how government care could turn out worse than this has.

Nobody can explain to me why expanded Medicare/Medicaid, for instance would be this costly for two people. (Both of whom, in a better economy, would be working. Right now, only my husband has a job. He's self-employed, so the full burden of insurance is on him.) Frankly, even if it cost as much on paper as our current plan does, it would be better: Because once it was in place, nobody could suspend it due to loss of employment, change of employment, accelerated medical conditions, death of a spouse, and so on.

But Americans have a maddening tendency to act like panicked babies when we hear the word "TAXES!" It's like our brains shut off and we can't think things through, because we're too busy screaming for Mommy to save us from the evil tax monster.

But I invite rickshaw1 and anyone else to explain to me how Socialized Medicine could possibly run two American citizens 10K in taxes a year and give us, comparably speaking, next to nothing for what we pay. Under Socialized Medicine, even that huge amount (more than 1/4th what our household made last year, incidentally) would be the end of what we were charged. Under the current system, it's just the beginning of what a private system is entitled to extract from American citizens.

(snip)

FC wrote:

Quote

...I would suspect any health care system would be structured to the advantage of the health care industry, with the primary purpose of transferring more public funds to private hands...

That is, in fact, precisely what Obama's proposing. Expand the obligation of the consumer, while in no way expanding the obligations of the producer/provider.

Just one more reason to be glad that I don't vote for these people anymore.

I once heard at a seminar that IBM directly pays the health care costs of its US employees. Ie the doctor sends the bill to a payment processor who bills IBM the precise amount of the payouts.

Direct reimbursements are on the order of $2.5 billion for 125,000 US employees. This is for active employees only. The big cost centre are the retirees who get any benefits paid out in their pension plans. So IBM pays $20,000 per employee/per year for healthcare.

Over the life of operating a US business. An employee actually costs 3.5x what you pay out in salary once you work out the benefits.

From the Government of Ontario website, total public health expenditures are $4500 per capita. (This does not include the stuff we have to pay for, eye exams, physio, 'scrips.) Aside from the Canada Health Transfer (a transfer of $2400/capita) in Federal tax money, Healthcare in Ontario is primarily funded by two taxes. The Employer Health Tax is a payroll tax of up 1.95% depending on the size of the organization. The second tax is an income surtax on individuals of up to $900/year for income earners.

Let's just transplant IBM's entire US operation into Ontario.

IBM's cost for healthcare would be (based on an average salary/employee of 80-100k) 200-250 million. To give IBM employees what they would in the US (dental, drugs etc,) lets go with a plan from Manulife. Even if it were to cost $2000 per employee/year (on the high side) the expense would be $250 million. The total direct cost to IBM would be $450-500 million. Sure there would be other indirect taxes but do you really think the corporate taxes on IBM to fund health are 1.5 billion - 2 billion more than the US. In fact OECD estimates that in 2005 most Canadian Corporate Income taxes were lower than the US. Yes the IBM employees would be paying a 750 Ontario Health Tax (A 1% tax on income).

Be aware that payroll taxes are much higher in Canada than the US. This is because in 1995 our governments realized that the Canada Pension Plan would go bankrupt once the baby boomers retired so they reformed the system. In Washington, they've talked about the Social Security Trust Fund going tits up too but they haven't done anything about it in the twenty years they've had. One should expect that payroll taxes in the US will go through the roof or the whole program will die within the next 15 years.

Yes your typical IBM worker (and high middle class income earner) would pay higher taxes. They are generally okay with that. Its not like there's a wall keeping high-earning Canadians in the country working at the bayonet point of a enraged working proletarian statist worker.

At the low end, working poor are better off in Canada. Not only do they get healthcare, individual income tax in Canada does not kick in until $10,000 in income as opposed to $5700. Further, workers are refunded a negative income (of 5-10%)tax if earning income between 3500-9900 dollars. The net effect is that there is no federal income tax for anyone below around $12,000 in income.

I was of course thinking about our former Health Minister Alan Rock, who had a PSA test, a diagnostic scan, and prostate surgery all in the space of a week. Just to remove what was reported to be a very early phase tumor.

Yes Cleome, I'm obsessed with prostates. Maybe we should do a men's Yoga fundraiser for Prostate Cancer Research. When we do the sun salutation our pants would have "We Prostrate for Prostate" on the butts.

Cleome *and by the way, how do you pronounce that, Cleo-me or Cle-ohm?), I am not advocating any system right now. I'm not trying to convince you our anyone else of anything. I am, however, saying that leaping without looking seems to be the order of the day here, and that anyone that does that should not be complaining when the leap takes them over a cliff.

I don't like the current situation, and yes, society was formed so that the burderns would be spread and life would be better for the most served. But, and please dont' misunderstand this, I'm not agreeing with it, only stating a fact...NO system is going to solve all the problems, and as soon as ONE person has a story that tugs on the heartstrings, people are going to get all up in arms and say how the entire system sucks, and that it isn't fair and how oh how can the richest nation in the world *now debateable on that point, by the way* be so evil and uncaring and cruel and wah wah wah.

You know that's truth. Any story that is told from a single person perspective is going to be more humanistic, will any story told about a society in general is by definition going to be more big picture. The gnashing and wailing comes in when people try to apply micro techniques to a macro problem.

I've said above that I don't know the answer, but following the *ahem* long standing model of just throwing money at it rather than actual change and reform is a time proven, example proven recipe for disaster. Go ahead, chunk $1,500,000,000,000.00 at the problem without real, significant change designed to create a system that is sustainable in a monetary as well as service fashion and watch the economy go mushroom shaped.

I know this wont get through, but people...money is not that answer to every single freakin thing on the planet. Most times it is a wash (new education reforms anyone?) and at worse it significantly WORSENS the problem.