Yes but Larry, what if you want an MRI from a mall? Can you do that in Canada? I don't think so. And why should I have to pay for some bum's health care? The only people who can't afford health care are the lazy welfare cases and immigrants. Why should I have to pay for them? Canada is just some socialist society where the only colour is grey and the only thing they eat is oatmeal. I demand choice, and multiple colours and flavours, and MRI's from shopping centre's! Anything less and the terrorists win.
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]>wrote: > > thought people would find this interesting comparison between the US > and Canadian systems. I think it shows how much the opponents of > health care reform have lied. > > > http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/12/22/f-health-care-canada-us-reform-access.html > > A tale of 2 insurance approaches > \ > Patients line up on hospital beds outside a crowded emergency room at > Montreal's Sacre Coeur Hospital in 2002. Patients line up on hospital > beds outside a crowded emergency room at Montreal's Sacre Coeur > Hospital in 2002. (Paul Chiasson/Canadian Press) > > When the United States Senate took a big step on Dec. 21, 2009, > towards approving the biggest-ever reform of the American health-care > system, it ensured that for the most part the way health care is > delivered would not change very much. > > What was approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives > before it was not a march to Canadian-style "socialized medicine," > but rules that would maintain the U.S. as the only industrialized > nation in the world without universal health-care coverage. > > The countries that make up the World Health Organization adopted a > resolution in 2005 encouraging countries to develop health financing > systems that would provide universal health care, which it defined as > "securing access for all to appropriate promotive, preventive, > curative and rehabilitative services at an affordable cost." > > What the United States and Canada have in common when it comes to > health care is that it is administered by insurance companies. In > Canada, those companies are public, funded by tax dollars and > controlled by the provinces and territories like British Columbia, > Ontario and Nova Scotia. > Waiting times for some procedures may be longer in Canada, but you > won't be billed afterwards. > > In the U.S., those companies are for the most part private > for-profit corporations that sell you or your employer coverage plans. > For those who are unemployed, there's Medicaid a government-run > insurance program that provides basic benefits to the very poor only > if they meet certain eligibility requirements that vary from state to > state. For those over the age of 65, there's Medicare another > government-run program that provides universal health care for > seniors, as long as they meet residency requirements and have paid > into the program. It does not cover the cost of prescription drugs or > vision and dental care. There are private options that offer that > coverage. > > In 2008, there were 43.6 million Americans under the age of 65 with no > health insurance. For most of them, their main option for care is to > go a hospital emergency department when they get sick. Under U.S. > federal law, a hospital must treat a person who shows up in the > emergency department, regardless of their ability to pay. The hospital > can bill the patient and try to collect. > > You have to qualify for health-care coverage in Canada as well. > Normally you have to live in a province for three months to be > eligible. You have to be a Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant. If > you're out of work, you're still covered for whatever services your > province insures. > > Canada's 5 'pillars' > > The Canada Health Act sets out the primary objective of health-care > policy across the country. That objective is "to protect, promote and > restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and > to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial > or other barriers." > > The federal government transfers money to each province or territory > to cover part of their health-care budget, as long as they meet the > following five criteria: > > * Public administration: provincial and territorial health > insurance plans must be administered and operated on a non-profit > basis by a public authority whose books are publicly audited. > * Comprehensiveness: a health-care insurance plan of a province or > territory must cover all insured health services provided by > hospitals, physicians or dentists in a hospital setting. The services > of other health-care practitioners may be covered. > * Universality: health insurance must be available to all who meet > residence requirements on uniform terms and conditions. > * Portability: you're covered by your home province if you're in > another part of the country on business or on vacation. > * Accessibility: you should have reasonable access to hospital, > medical and surgical-dental services on uniform terms and conditions > and not be charged extra for insured services. > > In the U.S., health care is administered by many for-profit insurance > companies. Canada's system is also based on insurance plans, but > they're administered by the provinces and territories.In the U.S., > health care is administered by many for-profit insurance companies. > Canada's system is also based on insurance plans, but they're > administered by the provinces and territories. (iStock photo) > > While it may take longer to access some of those services depending on > which part of the country you live in, you will eventually receive > care. > > Under the proposed changes in the United States, 30 million previously > uninsured people will join the ranks of the covered. Health insurance > would be mandatory unless you had a religious objection. Anyone else > who declined to buy insurance would pay a fine. Low- and > moderate-income people would receive government subsidies to help pay > their insurance premiums. > > It's estimated that as many as 18 million would still be without > health insurance. A third of them would be illegal immigrants. > > Modified status quo? > > Health insurance plans would still be administered by large > corporations. The Senate bill does not include a provision for a > government-run insurance company as an alternative to the private > companies. > > Employers and people without coverage at work could buy plans in a > national exchange. But there would be some key changes: insurance > companies won't be able to deny coverage to people with pre-existing > conditions. Insurance companies would not be able to charge higher > premiums based on medical conditions or gender and they would not be > able to set lifetime limits on health coverage. > > Even with health-care reform in the United States, Americans will > still be paying substantial out-of-pocket expenses. Depending on the > details of the legislation that President Barack Obama signs, health > insurance may cover anywhere from 60 to 90 per cent of a patient's > expenses. > > The American Medical Association has come out in favour of both pieces > of legislation, saying the changes will improve choice and access to > affordable health insurance coverage and eliminate denials based on > pre-existing conditions. > > One of the key goals of reforming the American health-care system is > to get costs under control. Health insurance premiums have been rising > much faster than incomes have grown and depending on which study you > believe administrative costs eat up anywhere from 12 to 31 per cent > of all money spent on health care in the United States. > > The U.S. spends more on health care ($7,439 per person in 2007) than > any country on the planet yet fails to deliver consistent care to > about 15 per cent of the population. > > A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in August > 2003 found that the U.S. was spending a lot more than Canada on > health-care administration and that the gap grew from $307 per > capita in 1999 to $759 per capita in 2003. The study concluded that > the U.S. could save a lot of money by adopting a Canadian-style > health-care system. > > > On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Isn't that the definition of the big lie technique? > > > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 12:39 PM, denstar <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Palin is a bastion of facts and knowledge. Up there with Dan Quayle > >> and Bush 43. > >> > >> Do you really think that if you repeatedly use words in a certain > >> manner, it will change the definition of the words? > >> > >> Oh, yeah. NM. > >> > >> Carry on! =) > >> > >> -- > >> Good means not merely not to do wrong, but rather not to desire to do > wrong. > >> Democritus > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Sam wrote: > >>> > >>> So you're saying Palin wasn't lying? > >>> > >>> More on the life panels and rationing of health care: > >>> > >>> What Doctors and Patients Have to Lose Under ObamaCare > >>> Changes to Medicare will give the feds control of surgical decisions. > >> > >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:309792 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
