james bond
Well-Known Member
It is better than what we have now in the United States with Obamacare. The liberals and Obama screwed up the healthcare system so everyone could get covered. It consolidated the insurers, so there is less competition and costs are higher now for less coverage. Employers do not want to pay in full for this coverage anymore. The one good that they did was everyone is now covered. Conservatives have to realize the changes that took place from the 1970s and address the new problem and not just say get rid of Obamacare. We can't go back to the old system. If the conservatives do not respond so that the United States has something like the Canadian Healthcare System, then I expect their politicians to be tossed out on their fat ****s in a hurry.
Conservatives still want everyone who wants insurance to pay their fair share. What the conservatives have to understand is everyone should be covered under a healthcare system, not just those without pre-existing conditions or the poor who cannot afford insurance. For example, a debilitating illness to one member of a family could take that family and put them into poverty from which they cannot recover. Thus, they're going to sue someone if they're is liability on the part of government or someone with deep pockets. The medical care costs are too high and this is one of the reasons. It isn't just politicians and lobbyists at work in the United States.
One of the shiny examples of healthcare for all is the single-payer system in Canada. This seems to work in that many people are satisfied with the system, but there are faults such as the best doctors do not work in that system.
Harvard Healthcare Study
"Why Canada?
Thirty years ago, there was no significant difference in the provision of health care in Canada
and the U.S. Since 1971, however, the two countries have gone in dramatically different directions
with dramatically different results.
To highlight some of the more important differences, in the U.S. today,
over 37 million people are without health insurance and a further 53 million are underinsured, which means that they are inadequately insured in the event of a serious illness.
Canada, by contrast, not only offers all of its residents comprehensive health care, but it does so at a far lower cost than in the U.S. While Canadians spend 8.7% of their Gross National Product on health care, or the equivalent of $ 1,483 (U.S.) per person, the U.S. spends 11.8% of the GNP, or $ 2,051 per person for a health care system that doesn't provide health care for all.
For Americans, health care coverage depends primarily on whether health insurance is provided by their employer or through two major public programs, Medicaid for the poor and Medicare for the elderly. For both public and private employees, health care benefits and cost vary tremendously. By making workers dependent upon their employer for health care, there is an extra burden on workers who are forced to change or lose their jobs in the U.S. Also, a growing number of people with a history of health problems, or with what insurance companies deem to be "pre-existing conditions," find themselves "uninsurable." With rising health care costs, many employers in the private sector do not provide any health care benefits at all. Most employers, whether private or public, are attempting to shift the cost of health care programs onto workers. Medicare, for example, now covers only about 40% of the health care costs of the aged.
All Canadians, rich and poor, regardless of the state of their health, age, or employment status, are covered by the same comprehensive system. Canadians go to the doctor of their choice
and receive hospital care for free. There are essentially no financial barriers to health care in Canada,
and there is an ample supply of physicians. Private insurance that duplicates the comprehensive services covered by the provincial plans are prohibited. Co-payments, deductibles, and direct patient payments to providers for covered services are also not permitted."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/healthc.pdf
Differing Opinions
Liberals
AARP
5 Myths About Canadian Health Care - AARP
HuffPo
Americans Who've Used Canada's Health-Care System Respond to Current Big-Lie Media Campaign | The Huffington Post
Conservatives
Still don't have one except to repeal Obamacare?
Conservatives still want everyone who wants insurance to pay their fair share. What the conservatives have to understand is everyone should be covered under a healthcare system, not just those without pre-existing conditions or the poor who cannot afford insurance. For example, a debilitating illness to one member of a family could take that family and put them into poverty from which they cannot recover. Thus, they're going to sue someone if they're is liability on the part of government or someone with deep pockets. The medical care costs are too high and this is one of the reasons. It isn't just politicians and lobbyists at work in the United States.
One of the shiny examples of healthcare for all is the single-payer system in Canada. This seems to work in that many people are satisfied with the system, but there are faults such as the best doctors do not work in that system.
Harvard Healthcare Study
"Why Canada?
Thirty years ago, there was no significant difference in the provision of health care in Canada
and the U.S. Since 1971, however, the two countries have gone in dramatically different directions
with dramatically different results.
To highlight some of the more important differences, in the U.S. today,
over 37 million people are without health insurance and a further 53 million are underinsured, which means that they are inadequately insured in the event of a serious illness.
Canada, by contrast, not only offers all of its residents comprehensive health care, but it does so at a far lower cost than in the U.S. While Canadians spend 8.7% of their Gross National Product on health care, or the equivalent of $ 1,483 (U.S.) per person, the U.S. spends 11.8% of the GNP, or $ 2,051 per person for a health care system that doesn't provide health care for all.
For Americans, health care coverage depends primarily on whether health insurance is provided by their employer or through two major public programs, Medicaid for the poor and Medicare for the elderly. For both public and private employees, health care benefits and cost vary tremendously. By making workers dependent upon their employer for health care, there is an extra burden on workers who are forced to change or lose their jobs in the U.S. Also, a growing number of people with a history of health problems, or with what insurance companies deem to be "pre-existing conditions," find themselves "uninsurable." With rising health care costs, many employers in the private sector do not provide any health care benefits at all. Most employers, whether private or public, are attempting to shift the cost of health care programs onto workers. Medicare, for example, now covers only about 40% of the health care costs of the aged.
All Canadians, rich and poor, regardless of the state of their health, age, or employment status, are covered by the same comprehensive system. Canadians go to the doctor of their choice
and receive hospital care for free. There are essentially no financial barriers to health care in Canada,
and there is an ample supply of physicians. Private insurance that duplicates the comprehensive services covered by the provincial plans are prohibited. Co-payments, deductibles, and direct patient payments to providers for covered services are also not permitted."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/healthc.pdf
Differing Opinions
Liberals
AARP
5 Myths About Canadian Health Care - AARP
HuffPo
Americans Who've Used Canada's Health-Care System Respond to Current Big-Lie Media Campaign | The Huffington Post
Conservatives
Still don't have one except to repeal Obamacare?