Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Canadian Researcher: go die at home, we need your bed



Or, just pass the euthanasia bill and get it over with.

---

Nice try Speech but you left out half the article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowtax4eva

Wow, I love how a (most likely) republican website that posted that article condensed it down to make it sound horrible. I read that article in it's original form and it stated that more people are CHOOSING to return home to die when they know they have little time left, with today's modern medicine people can be told more accurately how much time they have left when they have a serious disease. There is never pressure to leave a hospital from a government agency or the hospital itself.

Here is another paragraph from that article that most websites that re-posted it left out



While I dont like the suggestion that more people SHOULD do this to bring the percentage even lower, this is one persons opinion, not the opinion of our government.

I'd say overall we have better health care in Canada, no one sits around at home with a serious injury or disease hoping it will get better or that it's not as serious as they think, or worrying about how much it will cost if they go in to a hospital. No one sits in an ER waiting room with a life threatening injury and even in my families case we have been in the ER a few times (broken bones and cuts requiring stitches) and have not waited unreasonably long and we live in a city of 1.2 million. I dont know why so many people in the US want to cast a bad light over government run healthcare, it really helps out those who can't afford it. And for those who want to pay more for faster service can go to a private clinic.

---

I think Canada has it going on in terms of healthcare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

Nice try Speech but you left out half the article.

---

No, I posted an entire article and none of the other. The link was for all to explore as much as they want to. I can't be blamed for telling half the story when it was entirely up to you to decide how much of it you wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

No, I posted an entire article and none of the other. The link was for all to explore as much as they want to. I can't be blamed for telling half the story when it was entirely up to you to decide how much of it you wanted.

---

Our healthcare network, of which I am part of through the Cdn. Red Cross, assists these people when they come home. They don't necessarily die at home, but it releases beds for others. I have been at many bedsides, and I can tell you, we Personal Support Workers make it completely comfortable for those in need of 'passing at home'.

Who wants to die in a hospital ? So what is your point ?

Tick a caring PSW in the Canadian healthcare system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tickle

Our healthcare network, of which I am part of through the Cdn. Red Cross, assists these people when they come home. They dont necessarily die at home, but it releases beds for others. I have been at many bedsides, and I can tell you, we Personal Support Workers make it completely comfortable for those in need of 'passing at home'.

Who wants to die in a hospital ? So what is your point ?

tick a caring PSW in the Canadian healthcare system.

---

Tick, I applaud people like you just as I applaud hospice workers here. I have no problem with people dying at home instead of a hospital, I'm sure that's more like it used to be. I really didn't have a point, just posting the news to see the reactions. And boy did you guys react, even being accused only telling half the story when I didn't really say anything. Sometimes it's just interesting to see which way the knees jerk. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

tick, I applaud people like you just as I applaud hospice workers here. I have no problem with people dying at home instead of a hospital, I'm sure that's more like it used to be. I really didn't have a point, just posting the news to see the reactions. And boy did you guys react, even being accused only telling half the story when I didn't really say anything. Sometimes it's just interesting to see which way the knees jerk. ;)

---

Hey, knee jerk reaction because we have been under the gun by so many members here in the last few months. LOL. I love our healthcare system, it has been kind to myself and my family over the years, having seniors being cared for in the hospital system, is what I mean.

I love my clients, and care for them in their last hours. I have one very precious native ritual I do when I know they have passed. It is opening the window in their room so their spirit can pass unemcumbered into the open air and be free.

Peace


Tick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tokugawa

Why must it be so that a social medical plan must necessarily exclude all private coverage? That is most certainly not the case here in Australia. Here, if you should choose to go private, then you will receive some or all of your medical levy back, depending on the coverage you have. Some people choose to go private, as they feel it makes sense for them to do so. Most however, are quite happy with the service provided by the government, and this sentiment does in fact contribute to the quality of product offered by private organizations.

At the moment, I am quite happy with the government scheme. However I can see the advantages of private insurance, and may at sometime in the future switch to private coverage. A lot of the arguments presented here seem to be based more on ideological or procedural criticisms that are, in my view, quite irrelevant to any "social vs private coverage" debate.

For myself, I consider that NO child should suffer a lack of ANY treatment due to financial constraints. Vaccinations (including for cervical cancer), breast and cervical screening, prostate checks, utrasounds for expecting mothers (plus all number of maternal checks/services which are too numerous too list), all provided "free" under the government system.

A relative of mine recently finished a year long course of treatment for cancer that would total tens of thousands of dollars, for a total cost of something like $500, that was only detected because of the free government check up provided, and the government advertisment that convinced her to have it done in the first place.

---

Exactly! I've been trying to get that through to these guys too. Our two tier system down under here works well! Everybody (almost) gets the care they require at an affordable price.

The US is already in a 2 tier system (of which I have little problem although I do have suggestions to improve it. )

Our 2 tier system has the majority of the people in private insurance and the few who need it ,or who have become eligible due to age or service to the country are in a government managed system. Roughly 30%

The much vaunted 47 million uninsured is a deceptive stat. The U.S. Census Bureau report in 2006 that 9.5 million people of the uninsured were not U.S. citizens but can be treated anyway, under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Seventeen million of the uninsured lived in households having incomes of more than $50,000 and could easily afford private insurance but choose not to. Eighteen million were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, healthy enough to survive without paying for health insurance and made the decision to spend their money elsewhere. Fifty percent of the unemployed who actually lost coverage regained their health insurance in four months.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf
Yes there are gaps ,but it is no wheres near as bad as has been portrayed .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The US is already in a 2 tier system (of which I have little problem although I do have suggestions to improve it. )

Our 2 tier system has the majority of the people in private insurance and the few who need it ,or who have become eligible due to age or service to the country are in a government managed system. Roughly 30%

The much vaunted 47 million uninsured is a deceptive stat. The U.S. Census Bureau report in 2006 that 9.5 million people of the uninsured were not U.S. citizens but can be treated anyway, under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Seventeen million of the uninsured lived in households having incomes of more than $50,000 and could easily afford private insurance but choose not to. Eighteen million were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, healthy enough to survive without paying for health insurance and made the decision to spend their money elsewhere. Fifty percent of the unemployed who actually lost coverage regained their health insurance in four months.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf
Yes there are gaps ,but it is no wheres near as bad as has been portrayed .

---

I still think Canada has a much better system. Even if you can afford health ins. It is out of control in terms price and denial of claims. The whole health system is so out of whack . We could use a good lesson in efficiency, cost control, reasonable rates, and more.

I also think there should be a secondary type emergency room. There is something wrong when an area with the name "emergency" attached is treating minor issues. Just like the 911 system. It is too broad. It is used for everything from reporting a murder to reporting a cat stuck in a tree. Why don't we have 811 for lesser emergencies?

As I said ;there are things that it could be improved on without scrapping it . Part of the problem is that each state has it's own mandates about what should be covered. Fine let them . But also give the consumer the ability to purchase coverage across state lines. Maybe I don't want NY's mandated coverage for acupuncture for weight control .


Maybe I want to have a basic coverage and a secondary catastrophic plan . People who have been offered the ability to take out health care accounts have not been complaining. There are hundreds of things that can be addressed within the framework of the system we already have.

The funny thing is that the radicals in the gvt. Are not proposing anything at all resembling the Canadian system. Looks to me to be closer to the British model Regardless I will oppose a move towards either .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

I still think Canada has a much better system. Even if you can afford health ins. it is out of control in terms price and denial of claims. The whole health system is so out of whack . We could use a good lesson in efficiency, cost control, reasonable rates, and more.

I also think there should be a secondary type emergency room. There is something wrong when an area with the name "emergency" attached is treating minor issues. Just like the 911 system. It is too broad. It is used for everything from reporting a murder to reporting a cat stuck in a tree. Why don't we have 811 for lesser emergencies?

---

I think that depends on the location. In our city of 200,000 we have 2 hospitals with trauma centers, 1 private and 1 public - though it is a privately owned hospital. BOTH will treat anyone, the public hospital HAS a "secondary" ER for just such patients AND clinics across town to serve every day needs. Our adult daughter who suffers from AIDS was served well by the public health care system including excellent care from specialists in private practice while she lived here. If it works for us why the heck can't it work for everyone else?

Remember this ?


Obama Drops Plan to Bill Veterans' Private Insurers - washingtonpost.com

For those who expect government to take care of all their healthcare needs via a one payor scheme, you have been warned that Obama cannot even keep the promise to take care of those that have served in the military.

What if there were no private insurers? The veterans [ you or I in Obama's world ] would either be footing the bill or have their healthcare denied, delayed, or rationed.


Obama talks a good game... and that is all.






G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I think that depends on the location. In our city of 200,000 we have 2 hospitals with trauma centers, 1 private and 1 public - though it is a privately owned hospital. BOTH will treat anyone, the public hospital HAS a "secondary" ER for just such patients AND clinics across town to serve every day needs. Our adult daughter who suffers from AIDS was served well by the public health care system including excellent care from specialists in private practice while she lived here. If it works for us why the heck can't it work for everyone else?

---

I'm not sure I understand. Was the public hospital "free", did she have insurance, or did she just pay straight out of pocket? What good is the public or private hospital if you can't afford the care or the ins. Premiums? Who is paying for this care? The government? You?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

I'm not sure I understand. Was the public hospital "free", did she have insurance, or did she just pay straight out of pocket? What good is the public or private hospital if you can't afford the care or the ins. premiums? Who is paying for this care? The government? You?

---

The "public" hospital was sold to a private company on the condition they provide care for those who can't afford it, though a portion of our property taxes do go to the hospital district as well. The private hospital will not turn anyone away and also provides assistance up to 100 percent for those who can't afford to pay without a dime taken from the taxpayers. But my point was there are areas that employ "a secondary type emergency room" as you suggested, and areas that manage to care for their citizens of all walks in both public and private practices and we manage.

Could it be better? Sure, but what makes anyone think the federal government can run health care better? They've done so well with everything else they've touched haven't they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

The "public" hospital was sold to a private company on the condition they provide care for those who can't afford it, though a portion of our property taxes do go to the hospital district as well. The private hospital will not turn anyone away and also provides assistance up to 100 percent for those who can't afford to pay without a dime taken from the taxpayers. But my point was there are areas that employ "a secondary type emergency room" as you suggested, and areas that manage to care for their citizens of all walks in both public and private practices and we manage.

Could it be better? Sure, but what makes anyone think the federal government can run health care better? They've done so well with everything else they've touched haven't they?

---

Note the bolded text. So taxes do pay for some of it in the way of property taxes. You say it will provide up to 100% for those who can't afford to pay. And that not a dime is taken from the tax payers? Well, except that property tax allotment. So, where does the money come from to run this hospital? How do they assess how much someone can pay them? I mean this sounds too good to be true. Free health care without tax payer help. Washington should check this out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

Note the bolded text. So taxes do pay for some of it in the way of property taxes. You say it will provide up to 100% for those who can't afford to pay. And that not a dime is taken from the tax payers? Well, except that property tax allotment. So, where does the money come from to run this hospital? How do they assess how much someone can pay them? I mean this sounds too good to be true. Free health care without tax payer help. Washington should check this out.

---

No, I said the private hospital here will provide up to 100 percent assistance to those who can't afford it. It gets nothing from the hospital district taxes. It is a Baptist/Catholic hospital which in itself is a unique pairing, and its mission is to serve the people. Private pay, endowments etc make up the difference and it is consistently named one of the country's best hospitals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

No, I said the private hospital here will provide up to 100 percent assistance to those who can't afford it. It gets nothing from the hospital district taxes. It is a Baptist/Catholic hospital which in itself is a unique pairing, and its mission is to serve the people. Private pay, endowments etc make up the difference and it is consistently named one of the country's best hospitals.

---

Now that sounds like an idea I could sink my teeth into. Churches stepping forward to help the community. Along with private pay and endowments. However it is paid for, the bottom line is that everyone can get their medical needs met regardless of ability tp pay. That's what I'm talking about! The way health care should be . No wonder it has consistently named one of the country's best hospitals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

Now that sounds like an idea I could sink my teeth into. Churches stepping forward to help the community. Along with private pay and endowments. However it is paid for, the bottom line is that everyone can get their medical needs met regardless of ability tp pay. That's what I'm talking about! The way health care should be . No wonder it has consistently named one of the country's best hospitals.

---

My question is, who is not getting health care in this country based on their ability to pay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

My question is, who is not getting health care in this country based on their ability to pay?

---

Oh, everyone is getting healthcare now? Then what is all the hoop-la about if it is no problem. Problem solved.

I provided the stats on the uninsured .