National Health Care

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

How many moms work fulltime in the workforce solely to ensure that the family has health insurance?

One can make the argument that guaranteed health insurance would be family-friend, and entrepreneur-friendly, and cheaper.

Entrenpreneur ship is based on availability of capital. Paying more taxes which is what national health insurance would do would lessen the availability of capital.

If what you are saying is correct then does Canada, France, or England have more entrepreneurship than the US?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

And here's some interesting data on pediatric healthcare in Quebec. As a parent, something about this chart gives me the willies:
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/transfor...aediatric.html

The way they do things in Quebec gives most people the willies

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Entrenpreneur ship is based on availability of capital. Paying more taxes which is what national health insurance would do would lessen the availability of capital.

If what you are saying is correct then does Canada, France, or England have more entrepreneurship than the US?

increased taxes doesn't necessarily mean more money out of my pocket if I no longer have to pay insurance premiums. How much do me and my employer pay per month for insurance? I think it is 1500 per month or something like that.

What is 12x1500? You're saying that taxes will increase by that much, even for people making 45k a year?

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

I guess we have to agree to disagree. If access is the only thing or the most important thing to measure a health system by then I guess you are right. I however, think that it is only a component of determining what the best system is.

Well, it's not me, it's the World Health Organization. And I don't know how unbaised they are, but they took into account overall population health, mortality rates, the cost/benefit ratio of the health care provided, fairness of system financing, and the nation's ability to respond to the population's changing needs. The last measure is the only one in which the US fared well. In all the other categories the US came in near the bottom or last.

But like you said, it depends on how you define and measure system quality. And, with the US having such a large population, it may be difficult to construct a fair comparison regardless.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

increased taxes doesn't necessarily mean more money out of my pocket if I no longer have to pay insurance premiums. How much do me and my employer pay per month for insurance? I think it is 1500 per month or something like that.

What is 12x1500? You're saying that taxes will increase by that much, even for people making 45k a year?

First of all YOU don't pay 1500 a month. Your company and you pay 1500 a month. (Btw I doubt its 1500 a month closer to 1k). Additionally, I believe our overall taxes would go up by that much. How do they pay for it in Canada? 18% sales tax, increased Income tax.

[Mormon Red Death]

btw... I just looked up income tax rates in canada and geez o pete they are high

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

First of all YOU don't pay 1500 a month. Your company and you pay 1500 a month. (Btw I doubt its 1500 a month closer to 1k). Additionally, I believe our overall taxes would go up by that much. How do they pay for it in Canada? 18% sales tax, increased Income tax.

but BG has already shown that we pay close to double per capital in healthcare.

So you are saying we pay LESS? Or are you saying that Canada's costs would HALVE if they went to the US system?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

but BG has already shown that we pay close to double per capital in healthcare.

So you are saying we pay LESS? Or are you saying that Canada's costs would HALVE if they went to the US system?

Do you think going to a national healthcare system would DECREASE our current per capital expenditures?

Just because Canada's per capita expenditure is allegedly less than the US, I fail to see the logical connection that would indicate our per capita expenditures would significantly decrease under a new system.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Do you think going to a national healthcare system would DECREASE our current per capital expenditures?

Just because Canada's per capita expenditure is allegedly less than the US, I fail to see the logical connection that would indicate our per capita expenditures would significantly decrease under a new system.

there would be some arguments:

1. increased negotiating power for medicines by the govt.
2. better preventative care, leading to decrease in emergency care

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

there would be some arguments:

1. increased negotiating power for medicines by the govt.
2. better preventative care, leading to decrease in emergency care

Both of these are assumptions, probably bad assumptions.

Right now the Government pays a significant portion of health care costs through Medicare and Medicaid, but these have not positively affected the costs of medicines.

Lifestyle issues affect emergent care more than access IMHO.