How to Save Billions On Health Care Now

Pantagruel wrote:

May I as a Canadian slip in a a bit of information in this debate in your country about the cost of universal health care.
My wife and I are in our 70’s and have had to meet a few serious medical challenges in the last 10 years, some of them life threatenning. In every single instance, we have been treated immediately and competently.
Today our health is being constantly monitored by our family physician and specialists, and we are both well and enjoying the peace of mind that comes with knowing that should something occur, we would be immediately treated.
While our system is government funded, it is not government run. It is privately run just like yours. We choose our own doctors, just like you do.
Does our system compare favourably in all points to yours? Probably not. There has to be a small cost of ensuring that every citizen is covered. Wealth, employment status or preexisting conditions do not matter at all.
Why does the Canadian system cost so much less than the American one? Most likely because medical fees are set by the government. The fact that there are no insurance companies involved looking for maximum profits may also be a big factor!

Pantagruel wrote:

Wealth, employment status or preexisting conditions do not matter at all.

Speeders are Murderers wrote:

<quoted text>
That sounds bad to me. Fatties and smokers and boozers and druggies have little incentive to change their ways. I want the deliberately unhealthy ppl to pay more.

Speeders are Murderers wrote:

Hundreds of billions of health care $ are lost every year because of the millions of easily preventable car crashes. I'd like a war on speeders, drunk drivers and cell-phone drivers.
Another thing is stop letting illegals use our ERs for free. This is entirely the fault of congress which passed the EMTALA Law 20 years ago.

Pantagruel wrote:

<quoted text>
Wealth and employment status have nothing to do with unhealthy habits. Preexisting conditions possibly in some cases. My heart disease is not my fault. Its a family condition. I do not smoke, drink excessively, take drugs, etc.
Don't punish the vast majority of people who do not behave responsibly in order to punish those that do. Retribution and revenge are never sound bases for social policy, whether we are talking medicine or justice, or any other area for that matter.
A negative approach normally brings negative results.
I am always impressed by the amount of patriotism manifest in the US. Of course you have reason to be proud of your country. But what I don't understand is why love of country does not extend to love of (and care for) fellow countrymen.

Jeffery Wright wrote:

If You're Fat, Go Give Birth in a Gutter
...or, at least not in our birthing center, say the noble souls at this UK facility:
Weston General Hospital, in Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, has a low-risk midwife maternity unit and can only safely admit women with a body mass index (BMI) of up to 34.

Pantagruel wrote:

<quoted text>
Creating specific medical facilities for low-risk situations sounds like a very reasonable way to make a more efficient use of available services. If obesity creates a higher risk situation in giving birth (and it probably does), then such birthings should not be directed to low-risk centres that are not designed to deal with those situations. Makes eminent sense to me.
This appears to me to be exactly the reverse of discrimination against obese people. It is a logical approach to ensure that such people are not put in a situation where services to deal with their particular condition are not available.

hard hitter wrote:

<quoted text>How much are you taxed on your wages?(percentage)

Pantagruel wrote:

<quoted text>
My income tax rate is 22%. And if the government determined that a tax increase was necessary, I would not object.
In my view, you cannot put a price tag on the peace of mind that comes with living in a well organized community, with excellent schools, affordable higher education, full medical services for everyone, a good social safety net for those who need help, a solid, strongly regulated banking system, an excellent publicly funded broadcasting system that provides in-depth news analysis (à la BBC), a justice system that focuses on rehabilitation (that is on prevention of future victims more than on revenge for past ones),…etc etc
All this did not happen by chance. It is basically the result of good government supported by sufficient financial resources through taxes.
Traditionally, Canadians have tended to see government as the principal agent capable of ensuring the common good.
And we still do. While we are currently governed by a minority Conservative government, the majority of Canadians voted for left of centre parties (liberals, socialists and ‘greens’) in the last election.
The majority of Canadians see society as a ship where the quality of our individual rooms is dependent on the soundness of the ship as a whole. The true pursuit of happiness includes the happiness of others.
I hope that my children and my grand-children will continue to be inspired by this philosophy and protect this wonderful system that earlier generations, including my own, I am proud to say, have set up in Canada.
Forgive the length of this message, but I don't think tax rates should be discussed without giving some context...

hard hitter wrote:

<quoted text>Well isn't your glass half full, myself on the other hand can't afford the increase in taxes that this "health care" is going to cost.
The Gov't cant spend the over 30% they get now from me wisely, this will just be another gov't run disaster.

Pantagruel wrote:

<quoted text>
30% plus, of course, whatever you pay for medical insurance. Incomplete medical insurance, by the way, which excludes such things as preexisting conditions.
Insurance companies may spend your money wisely indeed, but for whose advantage ? Yours, or CEOs and shareholders?