Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A Public Health Insurance In The USA - Necessary?  
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3629 posts, RR: 29
Posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2585 times:

I know many people regard public health insurance systems as a "socialistic" invention from Europe, but was it ever considered in the USA?

I ask, because it seems to me that many companies have huge problems, because they pay for health insurance of their employees in the USA. For example, in Germany every company pays for their employees to a public health insurance company, which makes wages more expensive (that is a problem, of course), but that's it. The company has nothing to do with the health insurance or pension system, so when an employee doesn't work anymore, the company has no financial liability towards the person anymore (unless there are surplus payments which are in addition to the public system, of course).

So the system makes employment more expensive, however there exist no long-term risks.

Why did the US never consider such a system? In the current economy it seems that many companies have huge problems paying all these things.

So could it be that a public health system is actually more economical? Your thoughts?

46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13138 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2574 times:

We should have a single payer government run health care system in the USA, but because our system is one where part is public and part private control, including religious organizations, too many make money to ever want to change.
Right now in the USA, government assurances of health care is only for the old (over 65 of age with Medicare) and the poor (Medicade). People also very much fear that under government control, they will lose their right of choice of health care providers, especially doctors. Doctors fear losing even more control to government telling them what to do. We could have the Government banning abortion and other medical practices, especially advanced methods. The companies that run the insurance companies don't want to lose their cash and profit cows. The drug companies don't want to lose the income they make with our current system.
It will have to take a real crises to force a wide ranging socialization of medical insurance, such as a massive economic depression, to change our system. In the meantime, unless your poor or old enough or work at a decent level job, health insurance isn't affordable and this cannot continue. The costs of having over 40 million Americans without any health insurance is a deep shame.
The best idea would be to have a government subsidised insurance system, with insurance provided by non-profit or mutual organizations. Everybody would pay for their insurance via a tax on their pay, with rates progressively scaled according to one's pay. Higher income people could pay on their own for more selective coverage insurance.


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3629 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2568 times:

Thanks for your insights... As you might know, the German health care system is far from perfect, it has a lot of problems, as well, so I certainly don't think it is a solution worth copying, but in terms of medical standard, it certainly is one of the best worldwide (somehow based on exploiting the doctors, though, but that is another story).

As in the USA, we have a lot of lobbying groups working against each other, so the system is extremely difficult to modernize, as well, but at least it is universal, so all companies face the same costs, which I think is something good, because it makes predictions easy.


User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2551 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 1):
People also very much fear that under government control, they will lose their right of choice of health care providers, especially doctors.

Under Hillary Clinton's proposed plan (luckily destroyed by Congress) in the mid 1990s this fear would have been realized. Her plan called for complete government control of the health system. If you did have the money to see a doctor of your own choosing and willing to pay them for their services it was considered a criminal act under her plan. Scary thought in my opinion.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 1):
In the meantime, unless your poor or old enough or work at a decent level job, health insurance isn't affordable and this cannot continue. The costs of having over 40 million Americans without any health insurance is a deep shame.

People without health insurance have made the decisions in their life not to have insurance. It is not a right given to them by the Constitution. I'm sorry but I have no desire to see my tax money (and I pay a hell of a lot in taxes ever year) go towards a system where folks who continue to live in poverty based on their life choices will be rewarded with government handouts. Perhaps it is time for these folks to make a decision...big screen TV, Air Jordans, big mud tires for their truck or healthcare and an education.



"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26600 posts, RR: 75
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2550 times:

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 3):
If you did have the money to see a doctor of your own choosing and willing to pay them for their services it was considered a criminal act under her plan.

Then you obviously haven't read her plan.

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 3):
It is not a right given to them by the Constitution.

"Life, Liberty and Property" Sounds like it is



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2545 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 4):
Then you obviously haven't read her plan.

I did read the plan back in 1993 and was unimpressed and not a big fan of the complete government control and criminalization for going outside of the system.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 4):
"Life, Liberty and Property" Sounds like it is

We'll have to agree to disagree. That doesn't say anything about health insurance. That is not the role of the Federal government.



"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26600 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2541 times:

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 5):
We'll have to agree to disagree. That doesn't say anything about health insurance. That is not the role of the Federal government.

Again, all Americans have constitutional, federal protections for their life, liberty and property. Good health is necessary to both life (obviously) and property. Besides, health insurance is completely within the rhelm of the spending power and would most likely be handled by the states with federal funding..

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 5):
I did read the plan back in 1993 and was unimpressed and not a big fan of the complete government control and criminalization for going outside of the system.

Try re-reading it



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5037 posts, RR: 44
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2535 times:

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 3):
Under Hillary Clinton's proposed plan (luckily destroyed by Congress) in the mid 1990s this fear would have been realized.

Government controlled healthcare does not need to jeopardise that freedom of choice. We have government controlled healthcare here in Belgium, yet I can go to any doctor I want, and any hospital I want.

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 3):
I'm sorry but I have no desire to see my tax money (and I pay a hell of a lot in taxes ever year) go towards a system where folks who continue to live in poverty based on their life choices will be rewarded with government handouts.

Biggest misconception about government healthcare. A government controlled system, when it's set up the right way, will actually cost you less in taxes than what you pay now in taxes and private insurance.

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 5):
That doesn't say anything about health insurance. That is not the role of the Federal government.

Every other Western country disagrees.


User currently offlineAa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3350 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2534 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Thread starter):
I know many people regard public health insurance systems as a "socialistic" invention from Europe, but was it ever considered in the USA?

Yes, it was. We already offer insurance to the elderly and to the poor.

Quoting TheSonntag (Thread starter):

So could it be that a public health system is actually more economical? Your thoughts?

Economical at the cost of patient care.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 1):
We should have a single payer government run health care system in the USA, but because our system is one where part is public and part private control, including religious organizations, too many make money to ever want to change.

Why is "religious organizations" in there? My mom was an intensive care nurse for many years. She worked at two Catholic hospitals, a Jewish hospital and two community hospitals and she always said the care in a faith based hospital was far better than the community hospitals (and she worked in Lehigh Valley, a highly regarded community hospital).

American healthcare is better. For example, according to one book, Market Driven Healthcare, the UK and Canada owned 1 MRI per million, while we owned 11 per million. We owned 27 CT scanners per million, while Canada had seven per millon and the UK four.

A Journal of the American Medical Association study found that both Canada and New York state had few unnecessary cardiac surgeries. However, the rate we perform cardiac procedures is three times higher. That's because the Canadian system cannot provide for all of its patients properly. 70% of US patients with left main coronary artery disease were operated within seven days. In Canada, 70% of people with the same disease waied thirty-one to sixty days. This caused a 300% increase in death or nonfatal heart attack. But at least it was free.

The median American that has a heart attack returns to work three weeks faster than the median Canadian that suffered a heart attack, and less than 40% of Americans changed their work habits, compared to 57% of Canadians.

Canadian radiation onoclogists suggest waiting time between cancer diagnosis and treatment should be less than two weeks. But the average waiting time for a Canadian was 61 days, which is close to nine weeks.

AAndrew


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2525 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 7):
Government controlled healthcare does not need to jeopardise that freedom of choice. We have government controlled healthcare here in Belgium, yet I can go to any doctor I want, and any hospital I want.

If the goverment is the sole provider, what sort of choice is that? Is your only other option not to seek any health care at all?

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 7):
Biggest misconception about government healthcare. A government controlled system, when it's set up the right way, will actually cost you less in taxes than what you pay now in taxes and private insurance.

Maybe in Belgium, but I have yet to see an instance in the US where a government program was cheaper than a privately run one.

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 7):
Every other Western country disagrees.


Disagree all you want and do it your way. That doesn't mean we have to follow. We would probably disagree on the fundemental role of government.

Andrew said it very succinctly and I have heard the same thing through anecdotal evidence. The healthcare system in the US has its flaws, but so does everyone else's. I would like to see a change in the way health insurance is sold and adminstered in the US, and I would like to see more disclosure and rationality in how services are priced. I think that placing this in the hands of the government is the absolute worst way to solve the problem.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26600 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2514 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 7):
Biggest misconception about government healthcare. A government controlled system, when it's set up the right way, will actually cost you less in taxes than what you pay now in taxes and private insurance.

Absolutely. The UK has a massive public health care and pension system and the average Briton pays 1% less in taxes, including both personal income and social security/national insurance, than the average American.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2509 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 10):
Absolutely. The UK has a massive public health care and pension system and the average Briton pays 1% less in taxes, including both personal income and social security/national insurance, than the average American.

And if they want to see a government doctor they have to sit on a waiting list. If they want to pay their own way or have private insurance then the waiting list goes bye bye. Under Clinton's plan there would be no private insurance. That bothers me a whole lot.

Quoting Aa757first (Reply 8):
American healthcare is better. For example, according to one book, Market Driven Healthcare, the UK and Canada owned 1 MRI per million, while we owned 11 per million. We owned 27 CT scanners per million, while Canada had seven per millon and the UK four.

While you and I agree on the market driven model make sure your statistics look at those numbers versus percentage of the population. Since we are many times larger populationwise than the UK or Canada it is expected that we have more of the equipment.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 9):
Maybe in Belgium, but I have yet to see an instance in the US where a government program was cheaper than a privately run one.

That's my concern. The next thing you know they'll all want to be unionized as if being a civil servant isn't protection enough.

[Edited 2006-03-05 19:39:03]


"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5037 posts, RR: 44
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2507 times:

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 9):
If the goverment is the sole provider, what sort of choice is that? Is your only other option not to seek any health care at all?

I can choose any doctor and any hospital I want, as I said before. The government does not run the hospitals, other independent organisations do this, some faith-based, some linked to universities, etc. They are paid for by the government based on the number of patients and the care they provide, and are allowed to make a profit. Just not by increasing their charges, as those are government controlled. So they compete by providing the best possible care. This increases quality and keeps costs under control at the same time.

Same goes for doctors: they are not paid a monthly wage by the government, they are paid based on how many patients they treat: a doctor who sucks at his job won't have many patients and will go out of business. It's sort of a 'free market', but the bills are paid through the government. This way costs are controlled while keeping the quality at the highest.

And the results show: just ask all the British who check into our hospitals every year because they are so much better than theirs.

And Andrew provided a pretty blinkered picture, comparing the US system to just one or two others, at least of which (the one I know best, the UK) is seriously screwed up, and then using that to come to a wrong conclusion that this is exemplary for all government run systems.

[Edited 2006-03-05 19:42:16]

User currently offlinePilotsmoe From United States of America, joined May 2005, 249 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2502 times:

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 3):
People without health insurance have made the decisions in their life not to have insurance. It is not a right given to them by the Constitution. I'm sorry but I have no desire to see my tax money (and I pay a hell of a lot in taxes ever year) go towards a system where folks who continue to live in poverty based on their life choices will be rewarded with government handouts. Perhaps it is time for these folks to make a decision...big screen TV, Air Jordans, big mud tires for their truck or healthcare and an education.

Sorry, but most people can't afford it. An idea how much insurance cost per month? About $1200, and that's if you're perfectly healthy


User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2502 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 7):
Biggest misconception about government healthcare. A government controlled system, when it's set up the right way, will actually cost you less in taxes than what you pay now in taxes and private insurance.

I doubt this would be true in America. There is a population of 300 000 000 and several million illegal immigrants and the health care bureaucracy necessary to create a government controlled system would be so massive it would boggle the mind and probably stifle the economy.

It is a lot easier to have "free" healthcare in a place with small geography and smaller population.

I don't think Americans would mind a government health care system if it they were 100% sure it would work as you say - cheaply - the problem is no one believes this.

Also, I have to say that as with all policies, government health care has its drawbacks. People who argue for a European style luxurious social system never acknowledge the drawbacks.

For instance, one of the biggest disincentives to having a baby is AND SHOULD BE that you can't afford it. In Europe, especially in the UK, I see all kinds of couples who have kids almost without a thought because there is no economic cost (to them!) in doing so.

While the ideal of numerous "free services" may be a more humane system, they also produce an economy that is high in taxes, low in new job creation, and consistently 20-25% less wealthier than the American model.*

It is perfectly valid, and just a matter of choice, to want a higher overall average of care/benefits (American model) than to ensure a higher overall minimum of care/benefits (European model).

Europe has a better safety net, but the cost is this also limits the upper level of success and innovation. America has a small safety net and the cost is that many millions live in more or less perpetual poverty and estrangement from a prosperous economy. Both are valid choices and both have their pros and cons.

Cairo

*http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

[Edited 2006-03-05 20:15:39]

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26600 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2493 times:

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 11):
And if they want to see a government doctor they have to sit on a waiting list.

Wrong.

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 11):
Under Clinton's plan there would be no private insurance. That bothers me a whole lot.

Try checking again



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2491 times:

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 11):
And if they want to see a government doctor they have to sit on a waiting list. If they want to pay their own way or have private insurance then the waiting list goes bye bye. Under Clinton's plan there would be no private insurance. That bothers me a whole lot.

What nonsense is this? I can see a 'government doctor' at any time.


User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2488 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 16):
What nonsense is this? I can see a 'government doctor' at any time.

Sorry if I mispoke. Is there not a waiting list for procedures and such. Preventative care is one thing but actually getting work done via surgery you all have to wait do you not?



"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2485 times:

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 17):
Is there not a waiting list for procedures and such. Preventative care is one thing but actually getting work done via surgery you all have to wait do you not?

For some proceedures, yes. Although waiting lists tend to be for a few specific operations and are falling.


User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2481 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 18):
For some proceedures, yes. Although waiting lists tend to be for a few specific operations and are falling.

Those waiting lists were one of the big campaign points in the elections last year weren't they? It was interesting to be in the UK last year and talk with folks about the domestic side of things with Blair and the rest of the MPs since we in the US (and I would suppose most of the world) only see the international side of things in the news.



"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26600 posts, RR: 75
Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2479 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 18):
For some proceedures, yes. Although waiting lists tend to be for a few specific operations and are falling.

Not to mention that "waiting lists" are for non-emergency surgeries.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3629 posts, RR: 29
Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2451 times:

Having a public health system does not mean that you cannot have a private system on top of it. For example, the German public system guarantees you a lot of treatments, but, as said before, treatment of the individual patient leaves something to be desired. Usually, you cannot have a room for yourself in a hospital, for example.

You can easily opt to buy a surplus, private insurance. Besides, Germany has not "one" public health insurance, it has several hundred public insurance companies (I do not think that is very desireable, because more than 45% of the money is used on adminstration, while private insurance companies use much less money on administration). But if the system workes, there is competition between the companies (it leaves a lot to be desired, but nevertheless).

In Germany, you must be insured in a public health insurance company if you a) are employed by a company, b) are a student or retired.

Only if you are working independant, like for example being an artist or lawyer, you do not have to be public insured, in this case you can insure yourself private. When you are employed as a serviceman by the state, you are insured by the state itself. The system is fragmented because it dates back to the 1890s when Bismarck invented it, as far as I know it was the first state or one of the first states with a public health system.

When you must be insured by a public company, you can still opt for private surplus insurances.

However, the general standard is very high already. The problem in our system is that doctors get more money from private insurances than from the public ones, which leads to a certain tendency that private insured people are treated better, but, as said, there are ways to reduce this problem.

The whole system is due to be reformed, but how it will be changed is not yet discussed, yet chances are very high right now, because we have a grand coalition in the parliament. If they manage to agree on a new system, we might get a new public insurance system.

The problem with the German system is that it is, in principle, paid from the workers and employers, which makes work more expensive. For example, the Danish system is paid entirely from tax, thus taxes are higher. I still prefer the German system, because my impression is that treatments are better than in Denmark, where waiting lists are a more common occurrence.

Nevertheless, I think a public health system is a must for any modern state. It costs a lot of money, but since everybody bears the same burden, it does not affect competition. In Europe, the main problems are not the health systems, but the fact that every country uses a different system so that this can lead to competition between the member states, and I don't want to have a "race to the bottom".


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2451 times:

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 3):
It is not a right given to them by the Constitution.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 4):
"Life, Liberty and Property" Sounds like it is



The only time the phrase "life, liberty, and property" appears in the Constitution is in the 5th Amendment:

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

This text clearly does not impose an obligation on the government to provide health care. Moreover, the right to one's life does not obligate someone else to provide life-saving services like health care any more than the right to own property obligates someone else to surrender their property to you or the right to free speech obligates someone to listen to you. This is the crucial difference between negative rights, which can be enjoyed by everyone at the same time, and positive rights, which coercively benefit some at the expense of others and violate their negative rights.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2443 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 20):
Quoting 777236ER (Reply 18):
For some proceedures, yes. Although waiting lists tend to be for a few specific operations and are falling.

Not to mention that "waiting lists" are for non-emergency surgeries.

IIRC one of the campaign points against Labor last year was that some people had died while waiting for their surgery and that wasn't a good thing.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 22):

Well said B2707SST.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 6):
Besides, health insurance is completely within the rhelm of the spending power and would most likely be handled by the states with federal funding..

Just what the states need...another unfunded mandate from the Federal government.



"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently offlineAa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3350 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2434 times:

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 11):

While you and I agree on the market ndriven model make sure your statistics look at those numbers versus npercentage of the population. Since we are many times larger populationwise than the UK or Canada it is expected that we have more of the equipment.

It's on a per million basis. Proportionally, we have more CT scanners and MRIs than the UK and Canada.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 21):
Nevertheless, I think a public health system is a must for any modern state. It costsrna lot of money, but since everybody bears the same burden, it does not affect competition.

We do have a public health system. Quite a bit of the healthcare in the United States is paid for by the goverment, through Medicare, Medicaid, state programs, subisidies to hospitals, etc.

AAndrew


25 MD11Engineer : The drawback is that the public insurances and there especially the AOK's (which have to accept any applicant) are getting stuck with the bad risks (
26 TheSonntag : If I could change the system, I would make a public system mandatory and allow additional private insurances, however the public system would have to
27 Post contains links Gilligan : As to Hillary Care of 1993, this is one of the best summaries I've ever come across. http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/tp00.cfm Yes he has.
28 Greasespot : Lets see.......Where to complain....I needed an MRI on my knee( non-emergency) got it in 3 days.....needed a colonooscopy...2 days....Needed to go to
29 DeltaGator : Absolutely. Unfortunately we as a population have let the government slip one past us and the Federal government has overstepped its bounds in so man
30 MD11Engineer : Ok, I'm considereda good risk by the health insurance provider I'm with (a public one). My contribution is a percentage of my gross income (50% paid b
31 BHMBAGLOCK : Actually, a good family plan is considerably less than this. My brother in law is a Cardiovascular and Thoracic surgeon in central FL. He does quite
32 L-188 : The problem is that there are two cases existing of US goverment run health care systems-The Indian Health system and the Veterens Hospital system. T
33 N1120A : I said Funded by the Feds, administered by the states Um, try using a little less biased of a resource Excellent summary of the Canadian system.
34 DeltaGator : That's a failure waiting to happen. Well since you keep saying re-read it why don't you provide us something "less biased" (aka more liberal) for us
35 MD11Engineer : Any insurance is inherently"socialist". The goal is to spread the risk for an individual over a large group, based on the laws of propability. As for
36 Gilligan : Can't argue the facts of the article so you argue the source? What part of the article is not true? What part is not sourced and footnoted? Where is
37 Aa757first : Half, yes half, of Candian doctors leave Canada before even practicing medicine there. They do medical school in Canada and they're out to greener pa
38 Andaman : Even though it means higher taxes than in US, I want to keep the "socialistic" system in Finland: public health insurance, free university education f
39 BHMBAGLOCK : Wow! I knew empiracally that there was a large net flow from CA to US but had no idea it was this extreme.
40 Post contains links Centrair : I am an American living in Japan. My father is a doctor (former head of the Wisconsin Medical Ethics Board) and my mother is a nurse (education and pr
41 Post contains links Melpax : In Oz, you pay a 'Medicare Levy' which is 1.5% of your taxable income per year - this, in theory gives you access to free medical care, however if you
42 N1120A : Um, it has worked quite well in Canada where the provinces administer a federal mandate Um, "more liberal" is relative here. Heritage is a conservati
43 DeltaGator : Since when is the WSJ considered an unreliable resource? Oh wait, just in your mind because you disagree with their opinion. You still haven't produc
44 Gilligan : Then that is credibility in your opinion not in fact. The article quotes the plan verbatium which is what you asked Delta to read. If you then say th
45 Scott2187 : That's Belgium, not America...big difference there. none of us know what kind of plan they would come up with here in America. with people like Hilla
46 Post contains links Aa757first : Actually, there is a shortage of doctors, not even meeting demands. http://www.cpso.on.ca/Publications/Dialogue/0504/shortage.htm There is a nursing
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Health System In The USA posted Sun May 2 2004 18:40:37 by Dirkou
Health Care In The USA posted Mon Feb 4 2002 02:57:16 by PanAm747
St. Louis The Most Dangerous City In The USA posted Mon Oct 30 2006 19:11:33 by Charger
Pschology Behind The .99 Cents Tags In The USA? posted Sun Oct 22 2006 21:16:45 by Ghost77
One-way Car Rentals In The USA posted Thu Sep 21 2006 15:03:16 by Levent
Not Born In The USA - TV posted Wed Aug 30 2006 14:33:41 by Kieron747
The Gun Laws In The USA - What Is/is Not Allowed? posted Sun Jul 16 2006 17:31:31 by TheSonntag
Can I Watch Champions League On TV In The USA? posted Tue Apr 4 2006 20:19:53 by Sabena332
Authentication Of Documents In The USA posted Mon Mar 20 2006 03:01:35 by Rabenschlag
Volkswagen Bora (Jetta In The USA) posted Mon Feb 13 2006 16:49:28 by Bongo