<p>When my dad needed a hip replacement in North Carolina, it was scheduled about two weeks after the doctor ordered it, which meant he was out of pain about 24 weeks sooner than the “goal” in Canada. Knowing what kind of pain – and the limitations it imposed on him – I wouldn’t be too thrilled with a system that considered it successful if he got it within 6 months. YMMV. (And the folks in Nova Scotia who don’t even get close to that goal. Gack.) Stack up all the requirements (get referral from primary care doc, wait for chance to see orthopedic surgeon, get the referral for the MRI, wait for the MRI, get back to the surgeon, get the recommendation for surgery – and then wait for the surgery) and I would not be in the least surprised to see that the entire process took longer than a year in some places.</p>
<p>And if your dad didn’t have health insurance, how long would he be waiting to save up enough money to pay for the $40-50,000 surgery out-of-pocket? The hospital isn’t going to take a credit card.</p>
<p>I’m not willing to trade away fast access for the Canadian system – and I suspect that is why there is still so much resistance to the single payor system here. Central planning models simply aren’t my cup of tea.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Single payer is actually extremely popular among its users in the US (Medicare).</p>
<p>Of course, it is not without its problems; many complain that its payment structure (low payment rates, but willing to pay for a lot of things without complaining as much as other insurance companies do) encourages more care, even if that does not result in better care. And it plus Medicaid cost the government as much (as a percentage of GDP) as socialized schemes in other countries, but cover only about a quarter of the population instead of all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right. Most personal bankruptcies are due to medical bills. And most of those people had insurance at the start of the bankrupting illness. Illness –> loss of job –> loss of insurance. We are all one major illness away from financial ruin. How can any decent country allow this?</p>
<p>[Study</a> Links Medical Costs and Personal Bankruptcy - BusinessWeek](<a href=“Businessweek - Bloomberg”>Businessweek - Bloomberg)</p>
<p>I am extemely happy with my insurance,and i bet many others are also…however, there is a need to provide health insurance for those who can’t afford it, and here is my plan…we provide all costs associated with med school to those willing to work a certain amount of years in a low cost environment for those who can’t afford healthcare…</p>
<p>This institution,clinic,whatever will not provide top shelf healthcare,but solid heathcare at affordable prices…maybe even similar to that in Canada…</p>
<p>polarscribe-there are all kinds of state pools, foundations funds, etc. established all over the US for people without insurance. There are actually very few people in the US that do not have access to insurance, however there are a lot that choose not to have coverage. Honestly, I wouldn’t advise most people TO take COBRA, individual plans through most insurance companies are MUCH less expensive. Oh, and hospitals DO take credit cards…I am also going to assume the poster talking about her Dad the Dad is old enough to be on Medicare too, so non-issue. There is no reason NOT to have health insurance in the US, except for those that choose not to take the coverage, and I know of many. One woman I know had to have surgery, has not had health insurance BY CHOICE for at least 5 years, and yes I know for sure it was by choice, the hospital excused her bills totaling $40,000–well the foundation at the hospital picked up the cost of those bills is more accurate.</p>
<p>Everyone keeps touting Medicare as this great plan, obviously they don’t use it. If you ONLY have Medicare, it isn’t a great plan. It comes with a lot of limitations and high co-pays. If you add a Medical Advantage plan to Medicare, you have better coverage, but that still costs money. </p>
<p>I am thrilled to death with our medical plan, small business plan, company of about 50 people. What people here fail to realize is it isn’t the insurance companies that determine your coverage, it is your EMPLOYER. They pick what is and is not covered and how much they are willing to pay for premiums. Taking to your HR department and letting them know you want options would be more beneficial. Also, too many people shop on premium alone and don’t really examine the real costs of the coverage. Our out of pocket premiums are a bit higher for the plan we selected but our out of pocket costs are less and off-set the higher premium costs, by a lot.</p>
<p>There are all kinds of tax savings incentives for people, flex-spends accounts, HSA’s, etc. yet fewer than 25% nationwide take advantage of these options. Cost are also driven up by people that use the ER as their primary doctor, frivolous law suits, etc… Consumers are as much to blame for the high insurance costs for the irresponsible use of plans. Not that everyone is doing this but I am sure you all know people that run to the doctor every time their child sneezes…</p>
<p>Steve…I am glad you are thrilled with your plan…</p>
<p>I’m not thrilled with my plan…</p>
<p>I’m not thriled with the following either…</p>
<p>“Fact!
Health insurance premiums for California families
rose 153.5% since 2002, more than five times the
rate of inflation.”</p>
<p>Oh yeah…I forgot about last year…Anthem Blue Cross raised my premiums twice…and tried to hide this by shifting the way customers pay from every 2 months to every month.</p>
<p>Blue Cross raised my premiums 30% last year…and raised my co-pays and deductible.</p>
<p>I should also add that the rate increases people have seen over the past 2 years are a direct result of the health care reform, and specifically the elimination of lifetime limits to all policies. With no stop gaps in place the actuaries have to figure worst case and that is going to drive up rates. I think it is a good thing, but it comes with a high cost. Same thing for the elimination of higher rates for pre-existing conditions. Everyone will have to absorb those cost now, not just those with the medical conditions like you saw before. Those with rated policies will probably see a slight decline in that portion of their rates where “healthy” people will see an increase. It’s just the way ratings and pricing work.</p>
<p>The one element of the Canadian vs US plan that has been left out is how much higher the tax rate is in Canada to pay for their “free” medical care. The only thing a single payer plan would do would be to shift the source of money from one line item to the next, from “insurance premiums” to “federal taxes”.</p>
<p>dstark–without making this political, there are outside influences that have distorted that rate increase, namely the undocumented residents of your state…address that issue and you will see your rates come down.</p>
<p>No…</p>
<p>Last year…I looked at the numbers…</p>
<p>No…</p>
<p>I don’t know why some people don’t want the government to tell them what they can and can not do but have no problem with corporations telling them what to do…</p>
<p>Steve, Canada spends 5% less of its GDP on health care than the United States does. No matter what way you slice the pie, they are spending significantly less than we are. There are no insurance corporations leeching billions of dollars in profit out of the system - money not spent on improving care or saving lives, but on making shareholders richer.</p>
<p>You have not demonstrated that the tax increases necessary to pay for universal coverage would be equal to or greater than the money spent on private insurance, charity care, uncollected bills written off, emergency room overuse by the uninsured, etc.</p>
<p>Again, BC/BS did not do this to you, you choose to keep that policy. They suggested other options and you are adamant about keeping your Grandfathered plan because you might get a rate increase, well you are already getting a rate increase but you aren’t getting the advantages of the newer plans.</p>
<p>Again, address the issues of what is driving costs in California, and it isn’t the insurance companies like you think. The 2014 changes are on the table and in that is the requirement that everyone have coverage, including the undocumented workers. People are up in arms about this but it is the one part of the health reform that WILL keep costs down, if it doesn’t get cut.</p>
<p>I don’t understand the no’s and your comment in your last post–or what they relate to.</p>
<p>Steve…really…</p>
<p>BlueCross has been raising my rates double digits for 10 years…</p>
<p>You don’t know what you are talking about…</p>
<p>Sorry…</p>
<p>polarscribe–how much of your current income do you spend on insurance premiums and costs in an average year?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s like saying I have “access” to a BMW because there’s a dealer down the street I can buy from. Great - except I can’t afford the payments on a BMW!</p>
<p>“Access” to insurance is meaningless when the premiums demanded are utterly unaffordable for the average American working-class family, much less those who are unemployed.</p>
<p>Steve: it’s complicated, and I’d have to crunch some numbers, because half the year I’m covered under a grad student plan and the other half under FEHB during my summer job. A few thousand dollars would ballpark it.</p>
<p>Suffice to say that with my pre-existing condition (long-term anticoagulation therapy after a life-threatening pulmonary embolism) if I didn’t have a job, I would be uninsured. There is no way I could afford the premiums.</p>
<p>And with tens of millions of unemployed Americans through no fault of their own, don’t tell me how people should just go get a job. I’m sure it’s just that easy.</p>
<p>dstark-how long ago did the undocumented workers in CA begin to become a problem…I really DO know what I am talking about. The problem is, you are too focused on what BC is doing to you and not looking at the whole picture. Also, have you looked into getting a job where you could go on an employer plan to keep your costs down?</p>
<p>I just ran an online quote through Anthem of CA. For their most expensive plan, $4500 deductible with no copays, HSA compatable, 100% coverage after deductible met for a 54 year old woman. Monthly premiums are at $373. If you put that $4500 into an HSA, your taxable income is also reduced by $4500 so saving however much on taxes as well.</p>
<p>Steve…ok.give me the numbers that show that undocumented workers caused my premiums to go up 30% last year.</p>
<p>I want to see the facts…</p>
<p>polarscribe–if you didn’t have a job you have many choices, and your preexisting conditions have no relevance and haven’t since HIPPA laws went into effect. As long as you don’t have a defined gap in coverage (63 days) insurance companies can not deny you for preexisting conditions so if you move from a group plan to an individual plan within that time frame, you are fine.</p>