political thoughts - read at own peril!

[narfire]

I've heard a lot of horror stories about people waiting long durations of time for procedures to take place or were on some kind of waiting list in Canada's Medical system.

You are so right...however the waiting periods do vary depending on the procedure. If you have chest pains and it is deemed you need an intervention it happens now. If you need a hip replacement and you are not a member of the military, RCMP or it is a compo claim, you could wait for a year.
Kind of a bummer there as one has been paying taxes all their life and now they want to cash in on the system and there is a wait.
Basically though, it can be a wait to get on the train, but once on it, the medical system (my experience) has been great.
Each province is responsible for how the medical $$ are spent/what doctors earn /nurses earn in the public system and have the option of charging a monthly premium as well. Most of the loot for medical comes from our federal government and transfered to the provinces.
Several years ago I read somewheres that if I were to pay $10,000.00 in federal income tax, $3000.00 of that goes to the medical system. I suspect that number is higher now.
There will come a time where Canada will have no choice but to implement or allow a two tiered system, more so than what is occuring today in certain cases. The current way of doing business is not sustainable in its current form with us baby-boomers starting to call in our taxes to provide all types of medical procedures.
A healthy lifestyle has certainly helped but my previous vocation has taken a toll on the knees.

[baltobernie]

For the purpose of this discussion (which has been remarkably civil, BTW) It doesn't make much difference why other nations, individuals and companies are buying T-bills. We can (and should) have serious discussions about unfair trade practices, currency manipulation, arms proliferation and so on. What I think is relevant to this topic is that the US has a unique position in world currencies due to its strength and size. I am arguing with statements made here that we are on the brink of ruin and that the PPACA will bankrupt the country. I claim that the rush to T-bills every time there's a hiccup in the world economy is proof that our currency is strong, even when the yield on those bills is essentially zero.

I should have been more clear. State and local gov have made difficult decisions. I'd like to clarify now. When has the federal government made such austerity measures.

What about the PRWORA?

Average monthly welfare payments, in constant 2006 dollars:

The Federal government generally screws up most things it fiddles with. Why on Earth would we give them the entire HC industry?

Only the FAA can do what the FAA does. You want airplanes flying on even thousands North/South in NY and East/West in NJ? It would be pretty messy over the Hudson River, wouldn't it? Only the FDA can do what the FDA does. Could Massachusetts test all prospective medications sold there? I've worked with the FAA, and goodness knows they could get a lot better. I've got a customer who invented a non-invasive blood sugar measurement device that the FDA has stonewalled for two decades. They need some help, too. How about we concentrate on making government better? That requires leadership and budgets. Unfortunately, neither political party has the stomach for it.

[maytag]

How about we concentrate on making government better? That requires leadership and budgets. Unfortunately, neither political party has the stomach for it.

COULD NOT AGREE MORE.......

[TX82FIAT]

Wow, I think we have found some common ground, I would not have thought these payments would have decreased. Can you elaborate on what is driving this decrease in payments?

[Daniel]

Narfire

How does Canada's Medical Coverage work in terms of the cost ? is there any limitations for the patient at
some point or cut off with the cost do they cover things like physical therapy, medication etc just curious, if
you wouldn't mind educating me a little about the system.

Bernie
I totally agree about our Government needing change ! if only we could live long enough to see this happen unfortunately
most major changes have taken place during very challenging times like the civil war, the great depression, WW2.
I hope we can see the light before one of these scenarios draws us back into the pattern of history repeating it's self.

[narfire]

[quote="Daniel"]is there any limitations for the patient at some point or cut off with the cost and how do they cover things like physical therapy, medication etc .

I'm not an expert on the system. There is another canuck here that was employed as an administrator and would have way more insight as to the details... but ..
Anyway there is not really a limit to the cost of services in that a family say in lower socio-economical state with a kid that need a heart or lung transplant, they get on the list and get it no different if the family earned 1 million/year.
We are entitled to I think 10 physio appointments per year and so many chiropractic as well. After that you might be on your own. If it was work related injury the compo looks after you as it is a kind of private insurance scheme and they want you back on the job as quickly as possible so as to reduce the weekly benifits paid out.
If the hospital in your area cannot deal with an issue, say an involved surgery, then you can get shipped out , possibly to another province to have it delt with, no cost to you.Hospitals might have a specialty like burn unit, spinal chord injuries, heart... Sometimes they will send paitents to the states for very specialised surgeries but the families living expenses are not covered.
As for meds... you might be fortunate to work for an employer that will have a med program and you only pay a fraction of the cost. Same as when you beome a senior...discounts as well. The meds definately can be tuned up. dispensing fees are getting up there where meds in a pre existing dose and course could be issued in bubble packs insted of continually counting pills.
We pay a monthly premium in BC for medical coverage but it is pro rated to a yearly wage of I think it was $32,000.00 and then it is about $53.00/month/person(adult)
The system is not perfect by any means and it is getting less perfect as the baby boomers start tapping into the medical system. Hospitals in the lower mainland have on several occasions had so many people in emergency they took over a Tim Horton's coffee shop in the hospital to deal with them. Many were walk ins with sniffly noses but the very well trained admitting nurses will quickly assess and shuffle you along as severity is catorgorized. Once on the train, the care I thought is great. The food sucks for the most part (seemed like boiled fish and chips at Lions Gate)
I believe 80% of the cost of the system is wages, nurses (rn's) $30-40/hour . GP's get a set fee per patient visit and specialists I believe a fee for service.
Hope that helps
Chris

[TX82FIAT]

“The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part,” Roberts wrote.

• “The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it.”

• But “it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but (who) choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”

So the new healtcare car plan is just a new tax? Cool!! Love more taxes. The people of the US surely would have been in favor of more taxes making this even more popular.

Roberts made a point of noting that he and the other justices “possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

I think that statement by Roberts is very clear.

[Kent124]

Only the FAA can do what the FAA does.

Agreed. Only the FAA investigates the impact of skydiving porn acts on pilots.

How about we concentrate on making government better? That requires leadership and budgets. Unfortunately, neither political party has the stomach for it.

Agree again.

On the chart... it comes directly from Health & Human Services (HHS), which has as much credibility as Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS): none.

I’ll note one warning sign and let our readers contemplate what the truth really is.

Note #1: HHS is quoting figures not in “dollars” but in “2006 dollars”.
What? A dollar, is a dollar, is a dollar isn’t it? Nope.

[baltobernie]

On the chart... it comes directly from Health & Human Services (HHS), which has as much credibility as Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS): none. ...What? A dollar, is a dollar, is a dollar isn’t it? Nope.

Economists often use "constant dollars" when then want to counteract the effects of inflation or deflation on the subject they are measuring. Yeah, it's a little more of "lies, damn lies and statistics". One problem is that a true A/B test cannot be performed in a dynamic environment. It's entirely possible, for example, that the roaring economy had more of an impact on claims than Clinton's "end welfare as we know it" bill.

[Kent124]

Economists often use "constant dollars" when then want to counteract the effects of inflation or deflation on the subject they are measuring.

I've been around the block once or twice before and am well aware of numerical masturbation; whether it comes from economists, accountants employing GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles), off-budget spending, or the BLS (Bullsh*t Labor and Statistics).

baltobernie, by presenting a chart with manipulated individual figures and not the actual change in total cost in dollars, I believe you are disingenuous in having an honest open discussion on the topic. In my eyes, you have lost all credibility.

[courtenay]

Kent, before you challenge Bernie's honesty and credibility and accuse him of being disingenuous, could you please help me understand how you believe the chart he presented is something other than what it is purported to be - i.e. a chart that shows the amounts that individuals have received over a period of time as measured in constant dollars. If you have statistics that show otherwise please present them. To simply accuse Bernie of being dishonest without presenting a counter "honest" argument is IMHO disingenuous.

[TX82FIAT]

Folks, let's keep the discussion civil. I don't think anyone has crossed that line but we do often get worked up rather quickly. I think the chart is a very telling chart and the reason for the constant 2006 dollars is that the chart only goes up to 2006. Therefore, it stands to reason you have to weight the dollars for the difference in value over time. However, this chart also speaks to me in some other ways. I'd love to see the next six years of this chart. Notice the spending crests around 77 - 78. It then decreases rapidly during the early 80's and through the 90's during economic boom time. Does anyone have this chart with data from 2007 - 2012. The missing five years will tell more about the need for welfare in tough economic times. We could post a chart showing the increase/decrease in food stamp programs. Would that chart show a similar decline during the same period? Is that decline related to changes in policy or changes in need?

When the U.S. economy is good tax revenue is high (Clinton era) and the need for extended social assistance programs decreases. We can debate the reasons why the economy was hard hit during Carter, why Reganomics worked or did not work; Why Clinton had a booming economy and tie it all together with Federal spending, Federal Revenue and social programs. Therefore, seeing this chart up through 2006 is misleading. I think we are more on the 1972 - 1977 increase trends right now. So, I'm not sure the chart proves that Government modified programs to decrease spending as much as a combination of economic and social need determined the decrease.

Am I the only one surprised to see health care take a 180 degree turn and be called a tax. I think it is a little disingenuous for focus of the healthcare bill to be on an individual mandate for two years. Really, this is brilliant. Both Democrats and Republicans were arguing over the wrong principle. Why…. Because that is the way it was presented and sold to the American people, the congress and the senate. This healthcare bill would not have stood a snowballs chance in hell of being passed if they called it what it really is in substance. “A Tax”. Brilliant deception. We are all so dumb, it took the Supreme Court to evaluate and boil this thing down to what it really is.

The Supreme Court upholds the constitution of all U.S. saying that the Federal Governments can not force citizens to purchase an insurance product under the interstate commerce act. Rather, the Federal Government has the power to exercise a new tax on the American people. Again, brilliant and we are talking about charts from six years ago when bush was in office. Hmmm!

[Jimb]

Im not sure I understand your objection to the term "tax".
EVERYTHING a government does or provides for its people is paid for through taxation....and government is never a money maker, its a spender.
Jim

[TX82FIAT]

I don't object to the term "Tax". I'm an accountant and should have thought of this as a tax sooner. Shame on me for not seeing this for what it was all along. I object to the word "Tax" not being used right from the start as people were being sold on the idea of a new healthcare program. I don't object to the term, I object to the term not being used for those selling the people a new tax under false pretense.

government is never a money maker, its a spender.

Goverment does not work in terms of profit and loss. They work in terms of bugetary accounting. It is conceivable that goverments can operated with a suplus. In fact, many counties around the globe are not in debt. At one point in time we were one of them. We need to move to an annual surplus budget just to pay down the previous 40 years debt. I would settle for a balanced budget where we can not spend more than we take in unless there is an exception voted on by congress.

As I stated earlier, governement spending is a slave to tax revenue, tax revenue should not be the slave to government spending. Borrowing should only occur when there are short term periods of need. What economic or finacial principle is it that we refer to for long term sustainablility of our country based on ever increasing spending a deficit budgets? Those principle do not exist!

[red107]

All I can say is wow what a debate. One thing is clear people are sure animated over this. I want first add I do not like some of what the President has done. But,and I do mean But, he is not the only person in Washington that has to be blamed!!!.
1. Health care reform has been a battle for at least 60 years. 1993 Then president Clinton wanted health care reform. During his 18 years in the Senate, Bennett, a Republican, co-sponsored health care reform bills containing the individual mandate. Yes folks the republican party first brought this to the table. Clinton Veto's the bill. I'm not sure if he used the new line item veto method. I need to research that. Line item veto was found unconstitutional later.
2. Enough with the partatism, congress should be working to make America better not to oppose everything the president says or does. Term Limits would fix this problem
3. My father spent 31 years in the military, I spent 20. In the Military we are taught if you have a complaint you better have an answer to fix said complaint. In other word if there is a problem you fix it!
4.Executive power was used by Obama recently, OK I get it, Bush used it also to protect Carl Rove. Fast and furious was started by the Bush administration and was called Wide receiver. Same program different name. So why didn't Issa call the former AG to get some background on it. Why didn't he allow a woman to speak on women health issue's
I am a registered Republican and I am sick and tired of what our party has become. I will not be supporting Romney because he has character issues and in my opinion not trust worthy. I will be supporting Ron Paul!!!