U.S. health system costs four times more to run than Canada’s single-payer system

[Lil bear 3,831]

17 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

I appreciate yours and Burnt's input.   It's nice to hear about it from folks that actually experience it who  are believable, rather than what is written on some website.  I have never visited a doc while in Canada, so all I know is what I read.  What you describe sounds pretty much like what I've experienced here in the US.

 

One thing that would be interesting to find out is how much you paid for universal up in Canada (I'm assuming via payroll deductions?) vs what you have to pay here in the US via insurance premiums.

Not sure about Canada .. but Australian single payer public health cover.. 1.5% levy on income.  
On an income of $100,000 the levy is $1500. I’d pay almost that for 1 month ACA insurance premium here. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Lil bear

[Lemonslice 4,553]

2 hours ago, Lil bear said:

Not sure about Canada .. but Australian single payer public health cover.. 1.5% levy on income.  
On an income of $100,000 the levy is $1500. I’d pay almost that for 1 month ACA insurance premium here. 

Different provinces manage their healthcare systems differently.  Some variation in how things are financed, and covered services.  

 

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-care-system/reports-publications/health-care-system/canada.html

Edited January 21, 2020 by Lemonslice

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

9 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

I appreciate yours and Burnt's input.   It's nice to hear about it from folks that actually experience it who  are believable, rather than what is written on some website.  I have never visited a doc while in Canada, so all I know is what I read.  What you describe sounds pretty much like what I've experienced here in the US.

 

One thing that would be interesting to find out is how much you paid for universal up in Canada (I'm assuming via payroll deductions?) vs what you have to pay here in the US via insurance premiums.

Universal is paid by taxes. But this is primary healthcare benefits, and some extended benefits for minors and elderly. Otherwise, we have supplementary insurance for dental, vision, pharma, etc., but to reiterate, minors and elderly tend to get these covered by universal, particularly the vision, and dental is more covered in the elderly. It's interesting because I've found the healthcare in Alberta better, yet our (avg/eff) income tax (which I talked to you about) and sales tax (Alberta=5%, federal only, no provincial tax) are way lower. It does show the strength of cost-control potential under universal. Of course, I have to stress that this situation does not mean the same thing is plausible in the US. The benefits of this system also go well beyond the mere cost, like intangibles such as quality of life. I will say.. the current system in the US can't stay as is, it's a disaster. So, something needs to budge, and Republicans have to be part of the conversation. Both Obamacare and Trump's version of Obamacare, while marginally different (individually taking on cost, or coverage), were equally useless in addressing the overall factor of price (including co-pays+PD costs) and access, which far more, affect whether or not people actually get care.

 

/500 edits

Edited January 21, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Steeleballz 7,550]

23 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

It's interesting that people are relying on the federal government to "fix" this problem. It's the states and local communities that should be more involved in things like this, they have a better chance of representing the interests of their demographics than the federal government.

 

    Who else is going to "fix" it. Insurance companies? Pharmaceutical giants? Drug stores? The medical community? The VP of finance at a big hospital. The poor sisters of charity (who actually own some of the biggest health systems in the US). Sure they all want to fix. They want to fix it in a way that keeps the cash cow alive. Just like Obamacare. It's not going to happen.

 

    From what I see, (and I get to see a lot), more entities are trying to get their piece of the pie than make sure there is anything left to go around. There is only one end consumer of health care and that is the public. When you get to that scale, there is basically one realistic venue for change. No one else can do it. Private health care reform is nice to talk about, but we already know what that is like. It's what we already have. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

15 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Who else is going to "fix" it. Insurance companies? Pharmaceutical giants? Drug stores? The medical community? The VP of finance at a big hospital. The poor sisters of charity (who actually own some of the biggest health systems in the US). Sure they all want to fix. They want to fix it in a way that keeps the cash cow alive. Just like Obamacare. It's not going to happen.

 

    From what I see, (and I get to see a lot), more entities are trying to get their piece of the pie than make sure there is anything left to go around. There is only one end consumer of health care and that is the public. When you get to that scale, there is basically one realistic venue for change. No one else can do it. Private health care reform is nice to talk about, but we already know what that is like. It's what we already have. 

The problem is, when the discussion of publicly funded healthcare comes into play, people have such drastically different ideas, there's no viable outcome on the federal level that isn't more of the same garbage as now. It's DOA.

 

California's universal would've been bold, if it actually addressed the cost issue, and didn't waste so much on illegals. Any public coverage trying to compete with these inflated costs are going to be monumental waste, as we see with every level of public health coverage. Much like the issue with broadband infrastructure, when communities wanted better than AT&T, Verizon, etc. would provide, they contracted out for their own municipal broadband. Constituents got what they wanted. Seems like a far more viable solution, especially one wanting more immediate change. Local communities are better represented, can make this issue work for them in a way the federal government can't.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

The problem is, when the discussion of publicly funded healthcare comes into play, people have such drastically different ideas, there's no viable outcome.

 

California's universal would've been bold, if it actually addressed the cost issue, and didn't waste so much on illegals. Any public coverage trying to compete with these inflated costs are going to be monumental waste, as we see with every level of public health coverage. Much like the issue with broadband infrastructure, when communities wanted better than AT&T, Verizon, etc. would provide, they contracted out for their own municipal broadband. Constituents got what they wanted. Seems like a far more viable solution, especially one wanting more immediate change.

 

  Even something simple like municipal broadband ends up a mess sometimes. Comcast and Verizon lobbied in court in Colorado to get it banned. The legislative result was that anywhere existing broadband exists, communities first need a referendum. Even if that passes, existing providers get first crack at providing service. Going back to 2011, 92 communities have voted in favor of having a municipal broadband in Colorado, and so far only 1 community actually has it available.

 

  When it comes to health care reform, it gets exponentially more complex than something like broadband. My guess is if they don't go with a large single payer, its just going to be different versions of Obamacare type reform that doesn't really address the problems that exist. The current trend towards all the consumer driven plans is what the private industry tends to come up with. A fancy name for getting more money out of people in return for less service. In the end, you have even more people who don't even want to go to the doctor.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

17 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Even something simple like municipal broadband ends up a mess sometimes. Comcast and Verizon lobbied in court in Colorado to get it banned. The legislative result was that anywhere existing broadband exists, communities first need a referendum. Even if that passes, existing providers get first crack at providing service. Going back to 2011, 92 communities have voted in favor of having a municipal broadband in Colorado, and so far only 1 community actually has it available.

 

  When it comes to health care reform, it gets exponentially more complex than something like broadband. My guess is if they don't go with a large single payer, its just going to be different versions of Obamacare type reform that doesn't really address the problems that exist. The current trend towards all the consumer driven plans is what the private industry tends to come up with. A fancy name for getting more money out of people in return for less service. In the end, you have even more people who don't even want to go to the doctor.

Yeah, it would be naive to assume there would be no external threats to adoption, but nonetheless its the easiest and most representative (democratic) path, with the easiest methods of quantifying costs, which would actually help later on if/when a federal law comes into play. The idea of just ramming a federal single payer through is unequivocally the left's idea, and it's going to be awful, likely just as worse if not worse than now, except taxpayers are entirely on the hook rather than a growing portion of it. Look at how easily a law such as Obamacare, that was passed with a Democrat supermajority, was just torn up, both picked at legislatively, and by the courts. Something like this would require a very broad consensus on the federal level, one which would be akin to the bipartisanship required for a Constitutional Amendment. Barring some of the wonderful ideas of late (re: a thread I recently started) to completely upend the Republic and add over a hundred states to the USA, no more than half of the states are going to be on board with this.

 

The most depressing part is with the increasing polarization on the federal level, such an idea is even more unlikely. However, local changes are still very much plausible. You are correct concerning some state rules, like the broadband franchising rules, these are (healthcare) barriers to overcome, but more realistic ones.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Boiler 43,432]

The single payer scheme seems to be to ensure that most of the vested interests get to keep their noses in the trough at the populace's expense, a glorified OCare. Until the money runs out.

[90DayFinancier 910]

8 hours ago, Boiler said:

The single payer scheme seems to be to ensure that most of the vested interests get to keep their noses in the trough at the populace's expense, a glorified OCare. Until the money runs out.

Ocare=ACA?  Not a single payer system...do you have another example?

[Boiler 43,432]

The issue is not so much the delivery, after all what system is government sourced and provided outside of totalitarian regimes? 

 

I know the Swedish system is mixed.

 

The issue I see particularly in the US, certainly in the UK and no doubt elsewhere is cost, an ever increasing cost. You do not need to be a mathematical genius to work out the sustainability. 

 

The logic of using Insurance as a funding source of significance escapes me, however to use that as a primary excuse would be illogical, just look at the VA.

 

 

 

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

14 hours ago, Boiler said:

The issue is not so much the delivery, after all what system is government sourced and provided outside of totalitarian regimes? 

 

I know the Swedish system is mixed.

 

The issue I see particularly in the US, certainly in the UK and no doubt elsewhere is cost, an ever increasing cost. You do not need to be a mathematical genius to work out the sustainability. 

 

The logic of using Insurance as a funding source of significance escapes me, however to use that as a primary excuse would be illogical, just look at the VA.

 

 

 

  I think we discussed this before. Health insurance was added as an employment benefit that employers could offer back when wages were capped. Perhaps it was a good idea at the time, but that time is long gone, and health insurance should have been scrapped a long time ago. The better question would be the logic of persisting with such a silly concept long after we all realize it's not working.

[Boiler 43,432]

8 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  I think we discussed this before. Health insurance was added as an employment benefit that employers could offer back when wages were capped. Perhaps it was a good idea at the time, but that time is long gone, and health insurance should have been scrapped a long time ago. The better question would be the logic of persisting with such a silly concept long after we all realize it's not working.

The US systems in general is designed to be adverse to change.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

53 minutes ago, Boiler said:

The US systems in general is designed to be adverse to change.

Yep. The founders wanted more harmony through conflict. Either an idea is acceptable enough to be adopted by a more unified country, or, it isn't. Those wishing to tear apart the Republic are those who want their whims catered to and right now, it was designed to hold ideas up for deliberation and thought. I like the idea of universal, I just see it being awful, and you won't get a functional system that works for the US as a whole unless people across the spectrum have had input. Until then, the most sensible is local.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[NikLR 13,220]

On 1/19/2020 at 9:52 PM, ALFKAD said:

Better healthcare costs more.  That’s why Canadians come here and pay out of pocket.  I’m not saying it’s worth 4 times what Canadians pay, but obviously THEY think it is.  Or perhaps they just don’t want to wait 20 weeks to be seen.  Me?  I can get an appointment in about one week or less.

Never had an issue with Canadian health care in BC or Alberta.  Granted if you live in a smaller city or town, you may have less selection and a longer wait time.  But despite many health issues, including cancer scares, never had an issue.  I haven't otherwise had any family complain other than a dr should have moved quicker on an item but that could be said of any dr. 

[NikLR 13,220]

19 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Yep. The founders wanted more harmony through conflict. Either an idea is acceptable enough to be adopted by a more unified country, or, it isn't. Those wishing to tear apart the Republic are those who want their whims catered to and right now, it was designed to hold ideas up for deliberation and thought. I like the idea of universal, I just see it being awful, and you won't get a functional system that works for the US as a whole unless people across the spectrum have had input. Until then, the most sensible is local.

Technically Canadian health care is provincial so maybe state by state?