platinumnk:

We all know that Medicaid pays low.
what happens when you work more for less?

They pay low compared to what? The services rendered ( i doubt it)
There is a difference between paying low and paying fair or for services rendered.
If you have car, i bet you have insurance because it required in most states. How come you are not fighting to abolish that as well, so that way when you hit someone or someone hits you both of you can duke it out Naija style to determine who will pay who.
My point is, have health insurance cover everyone and keeping it affordable is part of living in a sophisticated society and i think most Americans should welcome this development.

YES WE CAN!!!

America now joins the rest of the civilised world in having universal coverage.

This is what change looks like. Haters can go suck on a fat one.

montelik:

This is not fair. See the sheer advantage the Obama supporters have in this debate. Only Platinumnk versus all of you . Its not fair, where are the reinforcements. Kobojunkie, Jesoul, Tayo-d e.t.c.   show face nah.

This is not about obama supporters or haters. Its about common-sense reform.
Please help plat though, she seems not to know what the bill is about. She's been talking salaries all day.

montelik:

This is not fair. See the sheer advantage the Obama supporters have in this debate. Only Platinumnk versus all of you . Its not fair, where are the reinforcements. Kobojunkie, Jesoul, Tayo-d e.t.c.   show face nah.

na u see am

tpia.:

something working in europe and canada doesnt necessarily mean it will work in the US.

it only worked when Canada put a cap in private practices. .  makes you wonder why Doctors were rushing to open them?

davidylan:

plat are you a physician? family members? or planning to marry one?

I plan to run my private practice, family members- yes
marry?
200,000 - 250, 000 increase tax affects also

Kaiser5000:

just have different exexpectationsn how they want to spend their lives.
Just as a simple thought, since you keep harping on how much doctors and nurses make. Just because they make it now does not mean it is justified or that they can not live on less and still have a great life. Do some research and you will find that CEO's in Japan have a cap on how much they can make but here in the states there is no thing as a limit on CEO pay. Does that mean CEO's here are doing a better job? In the states sports stars, movie starts etc make millions but it does not mean they cannot get less and still be happy or not do as well a job as they have been doing.

How many people you see here  going to Europe for treatment
So Doctors should be paid less? After Medical school and loans? And who said that they will usher inVacations? DID obama put that in the bill? if not its irrelvant.
How many people you know that actually work in medical professions instead of reading newpapers?
A Nurse in Germany after 20 years will earn 40K
A nurses starting salary is higher than that.  
I am not saying they shouldnt work on the healthcare, they should work on the direct cost between the Hospitals and Insurance rather than saying hey lets tax people because they have more

plat are you a doc? how can you run a private practice? for what? A nursing home?

i dont really see any reason for comparing the US health system to europe and canada anyway, seeing how a lot of doctors from those places still run to the US to work.

Compare that to the number of US doctors who work in other countries.

The vast majority are there on humanitarian missions. They dont go to other countries for "better opportunities" although of course all that may change now.

Kaiser5000:

They pay low compared to what? The services rendered ( i doubt it)
There is a difference between paying low and paying fair or for services rendered.
If you have car, i bet you have insurance because it required in most states. How come you are not fighting to abolish that as well, so that way when you hit someone or someone hits you both of you can duke it out Naija style to determine who will pay who.
My point is, have health insurance cover everyone and keeping it affordable is part of living in a sophisticated society and i think most Americans should welcome this development.

You see what is given, not what is taken away. What happens when you work for less with greater volume?
Can anybody answer the reason the Canadian Gov put a cap on private practices?

If the Healthcare system was so great why didnt they stick to hospitals?

davidylan:

plat are you a doc? how can you run a private practice? for what? A nursing home?

in school to be a Practicioner- anymore irrelvant questions?

platinumnk:

in school to be a Practicioner- anymore irrelvant questions?

To start with, you're the one who brought the utterly irrelevant doctors pay into the equation.
Secondly . . . you're a practitioner of what exactly? you're not a doctor so cut the crap about doctors pay, its not like you truly care about it.

Face the issues, you've been sidestepping them while providing us irrelevant charts of doctor salary scales.

tpia.:

i don't really see any reason for comparing the US health system to Europe and Canada anyway, seeing how a lot of doctors from those places still run to the US to work.

Compare that to the number of US doctors who work in other countries.

The vast majority are there on humanitarian missions. They dont go to other countries for "better opportunities" although of course all that may change now.

What doctors are you referring to? The ones coming from Nigeria, Russia or any East European country? How many have you seen come from western Europe, Scandinavia etc?
If any comes from Western Europe they are because they know they can game the system here.
Saying that because it works in Europena and Canada does not mean it will work here, well we can say that for anything,

davidylan:

To start with, you're the one who brought the utterly irrelevant doctors pay into the equation.
Secondly . . . you're a practitioner of what exactly? you're not a doctor so cut the crap about doctors pay, its not like you truly care about it.

Face the issues, you've been sidestepping them while providing us irrelevant charts of doctor salary scales.

Thank you! Could not have said it better.
She is in massage therapy school and coming here to complain about doctor's pay,

What is it about this bill that so much threatens some people for them to be giving death threats on some congressmen?

As for me, this is a good bill.

davidylan:

To start with, you're the one who brought the utterly irrelevant doctors pay into the equation.
Secondly . . . you're a practitioner of what exactly? you're not a doctor so cut the crap about doctors pay, its not like you truly care about it.

Face the issues, you've been sidestepping them while providing us irrelevant charts of doctor salary scales.

What happens when you work more for less?
For example If I went to a mechanic that was used to get paid 100 for an hour of treatment, and then they turn around and make him work 100 for 3 hours.
Im in school, skipping over words?  
Since you fail to see the correlation, then I have nothing else.
I would not want a frustated mechanic that is forced to work more hours for less pay working on my car.

**Turns Sade on **


the System is one to be experienced
have a read:
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/canuglytruth.html

Kaiser5000:

Thank you! Could not have said it better.
She is in massage therapy school and coming here to complain about doctor's pay,

Na dia she dey?

platinumnk:

What happens when you work more for less?
For example If I went to a mechanic that was used to get paid 100 for an hour of treatment, and then they turn around and make him work 100 for 3 hours.
Im in school, skipping over words?  
Since you fail to see the correlation, then I have nothing else.
I would not want a frustated mechanic that is forced to work more hours for less pay working on my car.

you dont understand what you are talking about . . . period.

Kaiser5000:

Thank you! Could not have said it better.
She is in massage therapy school and coming here to complain about doctor's pay,

Please refrain from adhomiems they dont contribute to the discussion.

Plat we're just pulling your legs oh . . . dont take everything here seriously pls.

Socialized medicine has meant rationed care and lack of innovation. Small wonder Canadians are looking to the market.
Mountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbitux—a proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the body—and Aucoin went to a clinic to begin treatment. But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoin’s insurance didn’t: she received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. Yet another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, covered by insurance companies—in the United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario, Canada.

When Aucoin appealed to an official ombudsman, the Ontario government claimed that her treatment was unproven and that she had gone to an unaccredited clinic. But the FDA in the U.S. had approved Erbitux, and her clinic was a cancer center affiliated with a prominent Catholic hospital in Buffalo. This January, the ombudsman ruled in Aucoin’s favor, awarding her the cost of treatment. She represents a dramatic new trend in Canadian health-care advocacy: finding the treatment you need in another country, and then fighting Canadian bureaucrats (and often suing) to get them to pick up the tab.

But if Canadians are looking to the United States for the care they need, Americans, ironically, are increasingly looking north for a viable health-care model. There’s no question that American health care, a mixture of private insurance and public programs, is a mess. Over the last five years, health-insurance premiums have more than doubled, leaving firms like General Motors on the brink of bankruptcy. Expensive health care has also hit workers in the pocketbook: it’s one of the reasons that median family income fell between 2000 and 2005 (despite a rise in overall labor costs). Health spending has surged past 16 percent of GDP. The number of uninsured Americans has risen, and even the insured seem dissatisfied. So it’s not surprising that some Americans think that solving the nation’s health-care woes may require adopting a Canadian-style single-payer system, in which the government finances and provides the care. Canadians, the seductive single-payer tune goes, not only spend less on health care; their health outcomes are better, too—life expectancy is longer, infant mortality lower.

Thus, Paul Krugman in the New York Times: “Does this mean that the American way is wrong, and that we should switch to a Canadian-style single-payer system? Well, yes.” Politicians like Hillary Clinton are on board; Michael Moore’s new documentary Sicko celebrates the virtues of Canada’s socialized health care; the National Coalition on Health Care, which includes big businesses like AT&T, recently endorsed a scheme to centralize major health decisions to a government committee; and big unions are questioning the tenets of employer-sponsored health insurance. Some are tempted. Not me.

I was once a believer in socialized medicine. I don’t want to overstate my case: growing up in Canada, I didn’t spend much time contemplating the nuances of health economics. I wanted to get into medical school—my mind brimmed with statistics on MCAT scores and admissions rates, not health spending. But as a Canadian, I had soaked up three things from my environment: a love of ice hockey; an ability to convert Celsius into Fahrenheit in my head; and the belief that government-run health care was truly compassionate. What I knew about American health care was unappealing: high expenses and lots of uninsured people. When HillaryCare shook Washington, I remember thinking that the Clintonistas were right.

My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks.

I decided to write about what I saw. By day, I attended classes and visited patients; at night, I worked on a book. Unfortunately, statistics on Canadian health care’s weaknesses were hard to come by, and even finding people willing to criticize the system was difficult, such was the emotional support that it then enjoyed. One family friend, diagnosed with cancer, was told to wait for potentially lifesaving chemotherapy. I called to see if I could write about his plight. Worried about repercussions, he asked me to change his name. A bit later, he asked if I could change his sex in the story, and maybe his town. Finally, he asked if I could change the illness, too.

My book’s thesis was simple: to contain rising costs, government-run health-care systems invariably restrict the health-care supply. Thus, at a time when Canada’s population was aging and needed more care, not less, cost-crunching bureaucrats had reduced the size of medical school classes, shuttered hospitals, and capped physician fees, resulting in hundreds of thousands of patients waiting for needed treatment—patients who suffered and, in some cases, died from the delays. The only solution, I concluded, was to move away from government command-and-control structures and toward a more market-oriented system. To capture Canadian health care’s growing crisis, I called my book Code Blue, the term used when a patient’s heart stops and hospital staff must leap into action to save him. Though I had a hard time finding a Canadian publisher, the book eventually came out in 1999 from a small imprint; it struck a nerve, going through five printings.

Nor were the problems I identified unique to Canada—they characterized all government-run health-care systems. Consider the recent British controversy over a cancer patient who tried to get an appointment with a specialist, only to have it canceled—48 times. More than 1 million Britons must wait for some type of care, with 200,000 in line for longer than six months. A while back, I toured a public hospital in Washington, D.C., with Tim Evans, a senior fellow at the Centre for the New Europe. The hospital was dark and dingy, but Evans observed that it was cleaner than anything in his native England. In France, the supply of doctors is so limited that during an August 2003 heat wave—when many doctors were on vacation and hospitals were stretched beyond capacity—15,000 elderly citizens died. Across Europe, state-of-the-art drugs aren’t available. And so on.

But single-payer systems—confronting dirty hospitals, long waiting lists, and substandard treatment—are starting to crack. Today my book wouldn’t seem so provocative to Canadians, whose views on public health care are much less rosy than they were even a few years ago. Canadian newspapers are now filled with stories of people frustrated by long delays for care:

vow broken on cancer wait times: most hospitals across canada fail to meet ottawa’s four-week guideline for radiation
patients wait as p.e.t. scans used in animal experiments
back patients waiting years for treatment: study
the doctor is . . . out
As if a taboo had lifted, government statistics on the health-care system’s problems are suddenly available. In fact, government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. Health officials in one Nova Scotia community actually resorted to a lottery to determine who’d get a doctor’s appointment.

Dr. Jacques Chaoulli is at the center of this changing health-care scene. Standing at about five and a half feet and soft-spoken, he doesn’t seem imposing. But this accidental revolutionary has turned Canadian health care on its head. In the 1990s, recognizing the growing crisis of socialized care, Chaoulli organized a private Quebec practice—patients called him, he made house calls, and then he directly billed his patients. The local health board cried foul and began fining him. The legal status of private practice in Canada remained murky, but billing patients, rather than the government, was certainly illegal, and so was private insurance.

Chaoulli gave up his private practice but not the fight for private medicine. Trying to draw attention to Canada’s need for an alternative to government care, he began a hunger strike but quit after a month, famished but not famous. He wrote a couple of books on the topic, which sold dismally. He then came up with the idea of challenging the government in court. Because the lawyers whom he consulted dismissed the idea, he decided to make the legal case himself and enrolled in law school. He flunked out after a term. Undeterred, he found a sponsor for his legal fight (his father-in-law, who lives in Japan) and a patient to represent. Chaoulli went to court and lost. He appealed and lost again. He appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. And there—amazingly—he won.

Chaoulli was representing George Zeliotis, an elderly Montrealer forced to wait almost a year for a hip replacement. Zeliotis was in agony and taking high doses of opiates. Chaoulli maintained that the patient should have the right to pay for private health insurance and get treatment sooner. He based his argument on the Canadian equivalent of the Bill of Rights, as well as on the equivalent Quebec charter. The court hedged on the national question, but a majority agreed that Quebec’s charter did implicitly recognize such a right.

It’s hard to overstate the shock of the ruling. It caught the government completely off guard—officials had considered Chaoulli’s case so weak that they hadn’t bothered to prepare briefing notes for the prime minister in the event of his victory. The ruling wasn’t just shocking, moreover; it was potentially monumental, opening the way to more private medicine in Quebec. Though the prohibition against private insurance holds in the rest of the country for now, at least two people outside Quebec, armed with Chaoulli’s case as precedent, are taking their demand for private insurance to court.

Rick Baker helps people, and sometimes even saves lives. He describes a man who had a seizure and received a diagnosis of epilepsy. Dissatisfied with the opinion—he had no family history of epilepsy, but he did have constant headaches and nausea, which aren’t usually seen in the disorder—the man requested an MRI. The government told him that the wait would be four and a half months. So he went to Baker, who arranged to have the MRI done within 24 hours—and who, after the test discovered a brain tumor, arranged surgery within a few weeks.

Baker isn’t a neurosurgeon or even a doctor. He’s a medical broker, one member of a private sector that is rushing in to address the inadequacies of Canada’s government care. Canadians pay him to set up surgical procedures, diagnostic tests, and specialist consultations, privately and quickly. “I don’t have a medical background. I just have some common sense,” he explains. “I don’t need to be a doctor for what I do. I’m just expediting care.”

He tells me stories of other people whom his British Columbia–based company, Timely Medical Alternatives, has helped—people like the elderly woman who needed vascular surgery for a major artery in her abdomen and was promised prompt care by one of the most senior bureaucrats in the government, who never called back. “Her doctor told her she’s going to die,” Baker remembers. So Timely got her surgery in a couple of days, in Washington State. Then there was the eight-year-old badly in need of a procedure to help correct her deafness. After watching her surgery get bumped three times, her parents called Timely. She’s now back at school, her hearing partly restored. “The father said, ‘Mr. Baker, my wife and I are in agreement that your star shines the brightest in our heaven,’ ” Baker recalls. “I told that story to a government official. He shrugged. He couldn’t fucking care less.”

Not everyone has kind words for Baker. A woman from a union-sponsored health coalition, writing in a local paper, denounced him for “profiting from people’s misery.” When I bring up the comment, he snaps: “I’m profiting from relieving misery.” Some of the services that Baker brokers almost certainly contravene Canadian law, but governments are loath to stop him. “What I am doing could be construed as civil disobedience,” he says. “There comes a time when people need to lead the government.”

Baker isn’t alone: other private-sector health options are blossoming across Canada, and the government is increasingly turning a blind eye to them, too, despite their often uncertain legal status. Private clinics are opening at a rate of about one a week. Companies like MedCan now offer “corporate medicals” that include an array of diagnostic tests and a referral to Johns Hopkins, if necessary. Insurance firms sell critical-illness insurance, giving policyholders a lump-sum payment in the event of a major diagnosis; since such policyholders could, in theory, spend the money on anything they wanted, medical or not, the system doesn’t count as health insurance and is therefore legal. Testifying to the changing nature of Canadian health care, Baker observes that securing prompt care used to mean a trip south. These days, he says, he’s able to get 80 percent of his clients care in Canada, via the private sector.

Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the health-care system’s problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him down. “This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,” he fumed to the New York Times, “and in which humans can wait two to three years.”

And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day’s clinic, for instance, handles workers’-compensation cases for employees of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital’s emergency room.

This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain’s government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party—which originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as “Americanization”—now openly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: “The big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.” Last year, the private sector provided about 5 percent of Britain’s nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to voucherize certain surgeries, offering patients a choice of four providers, at least one private. And in a recent move, the government will contract out some primary care services, perhaps to American firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente.

Sweden’s government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm’s primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city’s largest hospitals. Since the fall of Communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany: increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority of German hospitals will remain under state control). It’s important to note that change in these countries is slow and gradual—market reforms remain controversial. But if the United States was once the exception for viewing a vibrant private sector in health care as essential, it is so no longer.

Yet even as Stockholm and Saskatoon are percolating with the ideas of Adam Smith, a growing number of prominent Americans are arguing that socialized health care still provides better results for less money. “Americans tend to believe that we have the best health care system in the world,” writes Krugman in the New York Times. “But it isn’t true. We spend far more per person on health care . . . yet rank near the bottom among industrial countries in indicators from life expectancy to infant mortality.”

One often hears variations on Krugman’s argument—that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use, and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health. Americans live 75.3 years on average, fewer than Canadians (77.3) or the French (76.6) or the citizens of any Western European nation save Portugal. Health care influences life expectancy, of course. But a life can end because of a murder, a fall, or a car accident. Such factors aren’t academic—homicide rates in the United States are much higher than in other countries (eight times higher than in France, for instance). In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don’t die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.

And if we measure a health-care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates bear this out. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50 percent; the European rate is just 35 percent. Esophageal carcinoma: 12 percent in the United States, 6 percent in Europe. The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2 percent here, yet 61.7 percent in France and down to 44.3 percent in England—a striking variation.

Like many critics of American health care, though, Krugman argues that the costs are just too high: “In 2002 . . . the United States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman, and child.” Health-care spending in Canada and Britain, he notes, is a small fraction of that. Again, the picture isn’t quite as clear as he suggests; because the U.S. is so much wealthier than other countries, it isn’t unreasonable for it to spend more on health care. Take America’s high spending on research and development. M. D. Anderson in Texas, a prominent cancer center, spends more on research than Canada does.

That said, American health care is expensive. And Americans aren’t always getting a good deal. In the coming years, with health expenses spiraling up, it will be easy for some—like the zealous legislators in California—to give in to the temptation of socialized medicine. In Washington, there are plenty of old pieces of legislation that like-minded politicians could take off the shelf, dust off, and promote: expanding Medicare to Americans 55 and older, say, or covering all children in Medicaid.

But such initiatives would push the United States further down the path to a government-run system and make things much, much worse. True, government bureaucrats would be able to cut costs—but only by shrinking access to health care, as in Canada, and engendering a Canadian-style nightmare of overflowing emergency rooms and yearlong waits for treatment. America is right to seek a model for delivering good health care at good prices, but we should be looking not to Canada, but close to home—in the other four-fifths or so of our economy. From telecommunications to retail, deregulation and market competition have driven prices down and quality and productivity up. Health care is long overdue for the same prescription.

davidylan:

Plat we're just pulling your legs oh . . . dont take everything here seriously pls.

ok, but it doesnt help though

@Debo- how long do you have to wait to see a doc ? when u were in canada?

davidylan:

Plat we're just pulling your legs oh . . . dont take everything here seriously pls.

ok, spam took away my post

Kaiser5000:

What doctors are you referring to? The ones coming from Nigeria, Russia or any East European country? How many have you seen come from western Europe, Scandinavia etc?
If any comes from Western Europe they are because they know they can game the system here.
Saying that because it works in Europena and Canada does not mean it will work here, well we can say that for anything,

plenty of people migrate to the US from all the countries you mentioned.

and yes, for better opportunities, not just to "game the system".

The US is not canada and europe, no matter how much people try to make it so.

How many people you see here  going to Europe for treatment
So Doctors should be paid less? After Medical school and loans? And who said that they will usher inVacations? DID obama put that in the bill? if not its irrelvant.
How many people you know that actually work in medical professions instead of reading newpapers?
A Nurse in Germany after 20 years will earn 40K
A nurses starting salary is higher than that.  
I am not saying they shouldnt work on the healthcare, they should work on the direct cost between the Hospitals and Insurance rather than saying hey lets tax people because they have more
[quote][/quote]

Since it was hard for you to understand what i was trying to say, let me make it simpler for you.
1) I only referenced the vacation time in Europe to let you know that it may be difficult to make a direct comparison of the salaries in both places. They may be working less and that is why they are making less. Infact i can tell you as a matter of fact that they work less (since i worked there as well). I never said it was in the bill (try to read and understand)
2) There are government benefits that they receive because they make less that American would not even dream of. Ask your sister what is the percentage of her salary that she would get if she would loose her job? ask here how many "years" not months that she can get off from work paid when she has a baby and is sill be able to get back her old Job or equivalent and not get skipped over for promotion because she was out for 3 years.
3) You would be surprised to know how much i know about the medical profession (personally) including what i read in newspapers and comprehend unlike others, All u need to do is ask and i will let u know.
4) When you ask how many people do i see coming from the US to Europe for treatment, i would ask you, how may poor People or average citizens do u see coming here for treatment. And the kind of treatment they come here for how many average Americans even with insurance do u see getting that care and not go broke while they are at it? How many Europeans have u heard of that had to file for bankruptcy because they were ill? Do some research on that, since u know how to find graphs.
Your last statement did not make sense so i will not respond to that.

tpia.:


plenty of people migrate to the US from all the countries you mentioned.

and yes, for better opportunities, not just to "game the system".

The US is not canada and europe, no matter how much people try to make it so.

My point was that the first few countries i mentioned are poor countries that do not have a functioning system and that is why they are here. The other countries would not bother to come here to work. Read the post again.

Kaiser5000:

My point was that the first few countries i mentioned are poor countries that do not have a functioning system and that is why they are here. The other countries would not bother to come here to work. Read the post again.

so how do you explain the fact that they do bother to come, just not in huge numbers like the third world and eastern europe?

The issue here is the US currently provides better renumeration than most of these other countries.

platinumnk said . .

One question and if you can reasonably answer it, I will drop it.
why did the Canadian Govt put a cap on Private Practices?

No such cap exists, there is no public funding for private hospitals however since patients pay out of pocket.

I think what plat is saying is that in countries where universal health care exists, doctors pay is generally lower than in the US and income tax rates for doctors here is lower since they arent paying any health care taxes.

In fact, a lot of people have been very patient (indeed) explaining to Platinum. . .the very issue she is struggling to properly comprehend! Look, everything you NEED to know to understand the bill is in IN THE BILL! Turn of that goddamned, godforsaken FOX-evil-shi.t NEWS that you have been reading like a bible or are you insane like those wingnuts? Do you know how it feels to parrot bull-shit so much that it begins to sound like the truth to you? That is what those ass.holes including you sound when you talk about things you refused to let your brains understand!

For your information, the US is far, far away from anything significant in good healthcare systems, based on worldwide rankings! US is rated #37 while Canada is rated #30! Before reading the list, I would have suggested Canada would be between 1 and 10, for the healthcare system is REALLY that GOOD! So, if you have no clue what you are talking about, don't go trying to indoctrinate us with that NONSENSE from FOX NOISE!

See http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html for worldwide healthcare rankings.

platinumnk:

What happens when you work more for less?
For example If I went to a mechanic that was used to get paid 100 for an hour of treatment, and then they turn around and make him work 100 for 3 hours.
Im in school, skipping over words?
Since you fail to see the correlation, then I have nothing else.
I would not want a frustated mechanic that is forced to work more hours for less pay working on my car.

**Turns Sade on **


the System is one to be experienced
have a read:
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/canuglytruth.html

Is this in the bill? Have you read the bill? Please don't be sucked into Republican propaganda. It is all about mid term elections at the expense millions of ordinary Americans. I don’t really understand what your problem is with this bill. I don’t understand your arguments since there is no ‘public’ option. I think everybody wins with this bill. I sincerely think you just want to join the imaginary ‘my tax to fund them’ divide because you think it is fashionable.

Congrats to America.

Up next, Naija. Go Jonathan go. . . YES WE CAN!!

It irks me when pple say Universal(National) Health Care is free.

Krayola:

Congrats to America.

Up next, Naija. Go Jonathan go. . . YES WE CAN!!

typing from toronto, unless you're lying.

If Yankee doctors are unhappy with their wages under Universal Healthcare, they should feel free to travel to Canada, UK or France

Or better yet, they should all open up Private clinics whilst Nigerians and Indians rush in to take their former jobs.

^^ such irony.

platinumnk:

Can anybody answer the reason the Canadian Gov put a cap on private practices?

In Canada there is alot of gray areas between the 1) Public (ak.a health insurance),  2 Private,  3 Privatly run clinics and  4 For- Profit- Clinics.

There is a cap only on what can be charged for the services, so this means that the G.P ( general practitioner) & Specialist has to charge the same amout that is covered under the public health sector.
I'll try to explain the different areas :

Public - is everything that the government covers.

Private - is everything the government doesnt cover, examples- ambulance, dental e.t.c So this will come out of your pocket unless you have private insurance. e.g  Great West Life, Sunlife e.tc

Privately -run Clinics - Same as the above (everything the govt doesnt cover)   Same rules and services apply as the public , so this means that just because you have the money doesnt mean that you'll skip waiting times    Actually to be seen, you'll have to have a doctor's referral. Most of these clinics have a contract with the government- meaning they are paid by the govt, the difference The equipments/ machineries are not funded by the govt.  Yet they say these clinics are "for profit clinic"  Confused yet    I know I am.

Then you have the- for - profit- clinics  -  These clinics exist in Quebec, the only province that is in violation of the Canada Health Act.  Well if you know the history of the "Québécois"   , then this should come as no suprise.
These clinics are exactly that. If you've got the money, you get the service, no wait times.