Yeah but it's only the rich people who do it, and it happens very little compared to the number of people who get adequate health care. More people who already don't get adequate health care will as a result, even if a small portion of the population encounters problems.

I agree this is an issue with universal health care of course. The way it's done in Germany (and the way obama wants to do it) you don't have this problem though, it's just with the Canadian/Hillary way. Either way though even in Canada a much larger portion of Canada's population (almost everyone) gets health care than in the US, and they spend less on it too.

I'm with 1veedo on this - your comment here seems to say that these occurrences are anything but in the extreme minority compared to the successes of the system, which is somewhat dishonest.

Try some comparisons:

• Individual failures vs individual successes under the system you are highlighting
• Individual failures under this system vs individual failures the the current USA model

I'd also raise the issue that you are looking at specific cases under one country's system and trying to generalize it to say that 'any socialized health care system will be like this' - the thread topic for a start tries to make that point - that's also dishonest.

Stories like this are a pretty much a daily occurance. And, its not just Canada. I've heard of similar problems in the U.K.

.. hardly substantial figures, but OK, let's go with that:

Assuming 1 or 2 of these negative occurences daily, you would need to compare that to:

a.) The number of treatments that occur daily that have no such problems in that country
b.) The number of negative occurrences daily in the health system in the USA (e.g. people turned away from teatment because their insurance or lack thereof doesnt cover it)
c.) The number of treatments that occur daily without such problems in the USA.

That might give you some kind of glimpse of a comparison, but even so, there is still an issue of comparing apples and oranges to a degree.

Tell that to the lady who sat on a gurney for five days waiting for a hospital bed. I'm sure that will make her feel much better about it. Tell it to the 24 people in front of her, and however many behind her in line for a hospital bed too.

Or tell it to this guy.

Well why don't you tell this to the millions of Americans who either have no healthcare or who have crappy insurance? I think you missed kevmartin's point completely or are trying to avoid it. There are far more people who don't get adequate healthcare in the US than there would be if we had socialized healthcare. The number of people in Canada with access to adequate healthcare is going to be something like 99%* versus a much lower number in the US. Something like 15% of Americans have NO health care and among those that do have health insurances many don't get the best coverage in the world.

For example most insurance providers in the US will not pay your emergency room bills unless you call them 24 hours in advance during work hours (eg not on weekends). Because of this many people postpone emergency treatment just because they know they cant afford the hospital visit. This doesn't always result in death but that doesn't mean it's not important. In cases such as strokes (or ministrokes) immediate attention is necessary to minimise the health impact and waiting 24 hours (or 3 days over a weekend) results in significantly greater, irreversible brain damage. Another problem would be a broken bone. And this is only one example, I'm just using it to illustrate what I'm talking about.


*If you consider distance to the nearest hospital this might be lower, idk.

People can buy any kind of health insurance they want. A good chunk of the uninsured just decide they don't want to afford it. The problem is the crooked thinking where people think its someone else's responsibility to pay for their health care instead of buying it themself. There's also the problem of too much government involvement even in our system - this helps drive prices up.

A 27 year-old man, a smoker even, living in my same zip code only has to pay $80 for a plan from Kaiser Permanente with a $25 copay. Come to my neighborhood, see a movie, buy some popcorn and a drink, eat at Outback Steak house, rent a couple DVDs, and stop by Starbucks on your way home and you've spent more than $80.

Here is what I'd pay for a family like mine. This is in Hawaii.

Rasczak many people simply cant afford this. Furthermore this is the low-end insurance (I'm sure you see "HMO" there?); the kind that makes you call 24 hours in advance during work hours before they'll let you go to the ER. Furthermore you're just taking a left turn around me and kevmartin's point.

Go look up where it says they have to call 24 hours before they go to the ER.

Why can't they afford it? You realize we already have medicare and medicaid for low income and elderly right?

Suppose both man and woman are only making $10 an hour in their late 30's.

That's $800 per week, $3200 a month, combined income. After taxes, they'll have about $2800 left to take home. After they pay their medical insurance, they'll have $2300 left. That's plenty enough for a modest apartment's rent, a few bus passes, and enough rice, beans, brocolli, and turkey meat to keep the family fed. What's the problem?

Most (all?) HMO providers make you do this. I know for a fact my insurance does and in my state it's pretty much in the only insurance option available (unless you're rich). They also have a bunch of other retarded policies about who can give tests etc. I cant see any other doctor besides my primary, not even when I'm at college, even if the doctor is in the HMO. This is the same way for most other (all?) hmo programs as well.You're just babbling here I think the fact that something like 15% of Americans cant afford health care proves that "many" (as I said) cant afford it. The qualifier is arbitrary but 15% of 300 million people is a lot of people. Even amoung people who do pay for health insurance they still complain that they can barely afford it (living paycheck to paycheck).

Give me a link so I can read the language in the contract. I have never heard of anyone showing up at the E.R. after being in a traffic accident or having a heart attack, and being told they aren't covered for emergency medical care.

Or are you talking about people who go to the emergency room with a non-emergency condition?

From the Kaiser Permanente (the organization in the plan I quoted above) member handbook:

Your Plan covers Emergency room treatment for Medically Necessary Emergencies only.

Any illness or injury is alarming. However, not all conditions are Medically Necessary Emergencies. A Medically Necessary Emergency has three requirements:

The condition must begin suddenly or unexpectedly and require immediate medical or surgical care.

You must seek care as soon as possible after the condition begins; and
Prompt treatment must be necessary to avoid serious bodily injury or death.

Medically Necessary Emergencies include, but are not limited to, conditions such as heart attacks, severe chest pain, strokes, severe bleeding, poisoning, major burns, loss of consciousness, serious breathing difficulties, spinal injuries and shock.



Babbling? Is this how you dismiss facts, figures, and reason so you don't have to counter it?

That 15% you talk about - do you mean they can't afford it, or that they simply don't have insurance of any kind? Is "can't" the same in your mind as "don't want to?"

Let me ask you this: If there is a household income of $50,000 a year, can they afford medical insurance?

As I recall from when I was in the States, anyone could show up at the ER and be treated - but there would be an issue of a bill to pay nevertheless. I don't remember much more detail than that unfortunately.

I'm sure they'll treat you you'll just get a nice little bill in the mail from your insurance company for the full price of the visit a month later.My plan "covers emergency room visits" as well. I just have to get it approved as an "emergency" first. I think officialy they recommend calling 24 hour in advance to get enough time to process your claim but once it's processed they will cover you. It can also be filed by someone other than yourself (eg the hospital or your PCP).

In most emergencies you're not going to look on a checklist and decided if it's covered you're just going to go to the ER. Nor is the hospital going to wait much longer than an hour for the claim to get processed; they'll probably start treating you if it takes too long at your expense. I remember when I broke my arm a few years ago my parents were billed entirely for my treatment because we didn't call ahead of time. The hospital got my insurance card and they were under the HMO but because it was on a weekend they were unable to approve treatment through my insurance company (or PCP however it's supposed to be done) so they just went ahead and started treatment.

This is what my insurance says about emergencies: http://www.chccarelink.com/framesetd...mmunity=Member

Pretty much the same thing yours said so for all we know the insurance that you're quoting could be just like mine (yours doesn't talk about the aproval part like mine though so it might be different). If you read what they say, for example, they say "If you do not have time, go to the nearest hospital emergency room"; they did not say it would be covered, just that you should still go to a hospital. They also say officially that you dont need preauthoration but I know for a fact that this is done at a hospital when you go into an emergency room because this is what they actually told us over the phone (and is why you give them your insurance information upfront). Plan Documents probably has more information.

A small FYI about how carelink works PCP stands for primary care provider, that's your main doctor that has to approve everything you do. You cant see anyone else and nobody, not even doctors at a hospital in an emergency situation, can authorize tests / procedures; this has to be done by your PCP. This doesn't mean the tests / procedures wont be carried out if nessesary, just that if they perform something without prior approval from your PCP (or your insurance company in cases where you're outside of the coverage area) you'll get charged for it.It depends on where they live, if they have kids, what other kind of bills they have etc. Obviously 15% of Americans don't think they can reasonably afford health insurance. Sure they probably could but then they wouldn't have enough money to live on. Living paycheck to paycheck doesn't give you much financial flexability to sign up for things like insurance, and I'm sure this is how most of the 15% group is living. I'm sure if you look at anual income verses insurance coverage you'll find that people who don't have insurance are people making less money whereas most people who make over maybe $75,000 probably do have insurance. It's not like this 15% is made up of uper-income individuals who just "don't want to pay"; it's probably made up of lower-middle class and poor people who "cant afford it."

There's something you should know about me - to people who've been around here a while, and the dozens that ran off with their tail between their legs its obvious, I'm not lazy when it comes to these little debates. I challenge everything.

Did you think I wouldn't go look at the link you gave me to your medical plan? I did. Here's what it says about needing preauthorization before you can get emergency care:

While emergency services do not require preauthorization, you should contact us within 48 hours or as soon as is reasonably possible. (That's within 48 hours after you get the care.)

Here's what your medical plan provider says about paying for the emergency care:

Carelink provides benefits for medical emergencies.

If you need emergency care when outside the service area and you have time, call (866) 676-7424 to locate a participating provider in your area. If you do not have time, go to the nearest hospital emergency room.

If you or a covered dependent requires continuing care while outside of the service area and you are on an HMO plan, all visits after the initial visit must be preauthorized by Carelink.

The fact is your plan does cover benefits for emergency care so you don't get billed for the amount later (as you claimed either ignorantly or dishonestly) and you don't need to preauthorization for emergency care.

That's after your initial visit, once the care is no longer an emergency.

Do you think Canadians have it better? They get what is available and have no other option unless they cross the border and pay out of pocket - and they aren't reimbursed for that. They're standing in line. People are spending days on a gurney in the ER waiting for a bed.

Thinking it doesn't make it true. Are you talking about people with cell phones, cable TV, car payments, internet access, people eating in restaurants, buying brand-new clothes, etc? Giving up things like that leaves enough money - probably more than enough, to buy health insurance.

Its only $90 a month for a 27 year-old who smokes in Hawaii, and we have one of the highest costs of living in the country. There's also the option of getting another part time job. Only 12 hours a week, at $10 per hour is enough to pay for a plan that covers a family of four like mine. How much time do you think the average person spends watching television a week? I'm guessing more than 12 hours a week.

Then they need to give some unnecessary expense and stop living paycheck to paycheck. Get another job. Or they need to locate a free clinic or charity that will help them, or sign up for medicare or medicaid if they qualify.

You're wrong again. 38% of those uninsured live in housholds with over %50,000 per year income. 20% of the uninsured live in housholds with over $75,000 per year. 40% of the unisured spend four times as much on things like alcohol, tobacco, entertainment, and dining out than they do on out of pocket medical expenses.

Some 2004 numbers:
36 million at the poverty level - that's 12.5% of the population

35.6 million were covered by Medicaid - government health care for poor people
39 million were covered by Medicare - government healthcare for the elderly

That's a total of about 75 million people who's health care is covered by the government - twice the number of people living in poverty.

So who are the 45 million that are uninsured?

14 million - 31% of them opt out of medicare, medicaid, schip, etc.

Hospitals try to get uninsured people who qualify for medicaid or medicare signed up for the programs, but the patients refuse to because they get the same care either way, so don't bother. That's putting a burden on hospitals.

Around 12 million here illegally get health care. You also have Mexicans that come here in an ambulance under the compassionate entry regulation - an ambulance in Mexico drives to the border, tells the border patrol "commpassionate entry" and by regulation, they have to let them through, and the American hospital has to treat the patient.

When you get down to it, only 18% or so of the 45 million uninsured are really uninsured - that's what? 3 or 4% of the population? There's probably 3 or 4% of the population who are so irresponsible and indifferent about their own wellbeing that even if the government forced them by law to get regular health care and paid for it, they wouldn't comply.

Don't forget the free clinics all over the place. Are you donating to any of them by the way? That would be a good way for you to pay for people getting free medical care while you're waiting for the government to force you to pay the bill for them.

It's mostly made up of people who don't want to be insured because they get free care anyway or just don't want to spend the money in favor of spending it on movies, clubbing, partying, cigarettes, fast food, etc.

Trust me they do. If the doctors at a hospital cannot get ahold of your insurance to approve treatment it will not be covered. I already explained this in my above post. Have you ever been to an emergency room? What's the first thing they do before they even begin treatment? They get your insurance information, make a copy of your insurance card, and call your insurance provider to get everything approved. When I was at the hospital a few years ago for a broken bone they couldn't get ahold of my insurance provider but went ahead and began treatment anyway. The way its worded on the website they aren't considering this "preapproval;" preapproval would be calling ahead of time whereas if you don't call ahead of time the hospital gets it approved for you.

My parents were on the phone for days arguing with our insurance company to make them pay for it but their excuse was that it wasn't approved and that next time we should contact our PCP before going to the emergency room.

They explain what I said in the link I gave you as well; misconstruing what they say on the website doesn't change the truth, you have to look at it completely not partially. I think the page was very clear about how it works; this is what I've seen in my experience as well.I don't know what the point of this is. This is in response to where I said they recommend seeking emergency treatment even if you cant contact them.There's no option where I live either. There's only one hospital I can go to and everything is dictated by my PCP/insurance. Sure I could pay tens of thousands of dollars to get arbitrary tests and procedures ran (and/or go to a different hospital or doctor) but this is not in any way supporting your opinion because I am coercively restricted to do only what is approved by my insurance company (due to costs, the only reason people get insurance in the first place).Well many people qualify for medicare but there's a bracket between those who qualify for medicare and those who can afford actual health insurance. Also you're applying corelations here when you say "40% of the uninsured spend four times as much on things like alcohol, tobacco, entertainment, and dining out than they do on out of pocket medical expenses" -- this is true for lower-middle class people in general so it is not a casual relationship, rather there is a third factor involved.

We could start this from another angle too, to gain a slightly broader perspective. How much do prescription drugs cost generally in the USA, and in Canada if you wish to continue looking at that as an example, if one doesn't have private health insurance? Here in Australia, the public insurance scheme rebates the cost minus around $20 to the user of the vast majority of prescription drugs ('Toys' like Viagra are generally not covered by the scheme). If you are on a low income the rebate covers the full cost minus around $5.

Well the ER thing was just one example Rasczak ignored the issue at hand and just persued that. Health care in America is generally worse than in other postindustrialized countries, even if you do have health insurance, and it still costs more.


I can tell you just for reference, kevmartin, that perscriptions are fairly cheap on my insurance from what I can tell, depending on what it is I'm sure. I was on an antihistimine for vertigo for about two months and a month's supply was something like $6.87 (cant rember exactly, for some reason I think the full cost before insurance was close to $38 but I don't remember for sure). I remember expecting it to be fairly expensive, like maybe $20, but was surprised to find that it was really cheap.

No, I dont' trust you at all. You're either very dishonest, very stupid, or some combination of the two. You have been trying to convince me that emergency medical care is not covered by insurance without 24 hour preauthorization. I showed you in the information about your plan that you provided the opposite is true.

Now you've changed your argument - you are arguing that people won't receive emergency medical care unless they have insurance. You're making this argument even after I taught you about the government regulations that force hospitals to treat anyone who can get within a 100 feet of them regardless of ability to pay. Even illegal immi