Martin Baxter wrote:
katy wrote:
P.S. for Katy, presbyopia does not mean that I'm Presbyterian.
I knew that, Martin. So how much of your tax dollar per annum do
you contribute for health care?


Guess I should have included the smiley. ;-)

The average Canadian family pays about 48% of it's income in taxes,
(federal and provincial income, federal and provincial sales, booze,
gas..etc.), 40% of that goes to health care.

Cheers
Marty

OK, so according to 2001 stats, a median family income in Canada was
about 68k and you are paying around 13k out of your taxes for health
care that doesn't cover some things. If we were to COBRA (pay for
total policy on own) our BCBS plan, which covers many of the things
you've listed as exclusions, would cost us 9K per annum for a family
policy. We do have some small co-pays, which usually add up to
another 1.5k/annum ... and when we need something done, it's done
quickly and efficiently. The E-room thing is the same all
over...the mortuary has to follow you in before they'll see you
immediately...My aunt, 80 years old, has her Medicare A and a
Medicaid policy on top of that. She went into the dovs 2 weeks ago
for pain in her hip...her surgery is scheduled for next Tuesday...he
wanted to do it this week but she had to make arrangements for her
cat and had some other personal things she wanted to get done. My
sister has foster kids, all on Meidcaid policies. They're seen
immediately, no co-pays. (I'm just sticking the welfare stuff
....Medicaid...in here because someone will immediately jump in
screaming about the poor and disadvantaged...who BTW, are never
turned away of there is a legitimate concern..).

katy wrote:

Martin Baxter wrote:
katy wrote:
P.S. for Katy, presbyopia does not mean that I'm Presbyterian.
I knew that, Martin. So how much of your tax dollar per annum do
you contribute for health care?


Guess I should have included the smiley. ;-)

The average Canadian family pays about 48% of it's income in taxes,
(federal and provincial income, federal and provincial sales, booze,
gas..etc.), 40% of that goes to health care.

Cheers
Marty

OK, so according to 2001 stats, a median family income in Canada was
about 68k and you are paying around 13k out of your taxes for health
care that doesn't cover some things. If we were to COBRA (pay for
total policy on own) our BCBS plan, which covers many of the things
you've listed as exclusions, would cost us 9K per annum for a family
policy. We do have some small co-pays, which usually add up to
another 1.5k/annum ...

So we pay about about the same allowing for exchange, there are however
two important differences: Everbody gets equal coverage here including
the indigent. No one can get dumped by his carrier.

Cheers
Marty

Martin Baxter wrote:
katy wrote:
Martin Baxter wrote:
katy wrote:
P.S. for Katy, presbyopia does not mean that I'm Presbyterian.
I knew that, Martin. So how much of your tax dollar per annum do
you contribute for health care?

Guess I should have included the smiley. ;-)

The average Canadian family pays about 48% of it's income in taxes,
(federal and provincial income, federal and provincial sales, booze,
gas..etc.), 40% of that goes to health care.

Cheers
Marty
OK, so according to 2001 stats, a median family income in Canada was
about 68k and you are paying around 13k out of your taxes for health
care that doesn't cover some things. If we were to COBRA (pay for
total policy on own) our BCBS plan, which covers many of the things
you've listed as exclusions, would cost us 9K per annum for a family
policy. We do have some small co-pays, which usually add up to
another 1.5k/annum ...

So we pay about about the same allowing for exchange, there are however
two important differences: Everbody gets equal coverage here including
the indigent. No one can get dumped by his carrier.

Cheers
Marty
Does your medical coverage put age limits on some procedures like in
Great Britain? It is my understanding that in GB, if you are over
50, kidney transplant and I believe, dialysis, are not
available..also some heart treatments.

katy wrote:


Marty
Does your medical coverage put age limits on some procedures like in
Great Britain? It is my understanding that in GB, if you are over
50, kidney transplant and I believe, dialysis, are not
available..also some heart treatments.


Not arbitrarily, sometimes out of necessity, my uncle had an aneurysm on
the anterior descending aorta, they wouldn't try to repair it as they
they thought the procedure itself would probably kill him, he was 82 at
the time.

Cheers
Marty

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
katy wrote:


Marty
Does your medical coverage put age limits on some procedures like in
Great Britain? It is my understanding that in GB, if you are over
50, kidney transplant and I believe, dialysis, are not
available..also some heart treatments.


Not arbitrarily, sometimes out of necessity, my uncle had an aneurysm on
the anterior descending aorta, they wouldn't try to repair it as they
they thought the procedure itself would probably kill him, he was 82 at
the time.

I won't tell you that that explanation wasn't accurate or honest, but I'm
betting his age had as much or more to do with the response than his general
health and condition. It's called rationing.

Max

In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
katy wrote:


Marty
Does your medical coverage put age limits on some procedures like in
Great Britain? It is my understanding that in GB, if you are over
50, kidney transplant and I believe, dialysis, are not
available..also some heart treatments.


Not arbitrarily, sometimes out of necessity, my uncle had an aneurysm on
the anterior descending aorta, they wouldn't try to repair it as they
they thought the procedure itself would probably kill him, he was 82 at
the time.

I won't tell you that that explanation wasn't accurate or honest, but I'm
betting his age had as much or more to do with the response than his general
health and condition. It's called rationing.

I see. When you can't afford it, it's not rationing. Right?

This topic makes for a *great* argument.

The USA rations on money. Canada arguably rations on age. There have
been suggestions put fwd that various treatments be denied people who
smoke, are clinically obese etc etc. I suspect it's going to happen.

Oz's idol in the last Aussie Fed election proposed giving priority in
public (ie taxpayer funded) hospital care to people over 75 in an
attempt to buy votes. I had a lotta fun asking why a 75+ y/o was a
better target for a limited resource than say a 5 y/o with a long
future in front of her.

PDW

"Peter Wiley" wrote
The USA rations on money. Canada arguably rations on age. ....

There'd be no need to ration if supply wa close to demand and the reason it is
not is because supply is artificially limited - in the USA by the MD's union,
just as other trade unions like electricians and plumbers did before the
do-it-yourself trend. Imagine what electricians might charge if you had to get
a prescription for a light bulb.

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article et,
Maxprop wrote:


I won't tell you that that explanation wasn't accurate or honest, but I'm
betting his age had as much or more to do with the response than his
general
health and condition. It's called rationing.

I see. When you can't afford it, it's not rationing. Right?

I presumed something I shouldn't have--that your uncle lived in a place with
socialized medicine. Perhaps that was not the case. In socialized
medicine, health care is always rationed. I don't know if that answers your
question, because I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

This topic makes for a *great* argument.

The USA rations on money. Canada arguably rations on age. There have
been suggestions put fwd that various treatments be denied people who
smoke, are clinically obese etc etc. I suspect it's going to happen.

Not here. The discrimination lawsuits would clog the legal system worse
than it already is.


Oz's idol in the last Aussie Fed election proposed giving priority in
public (ie taxpayer funded) hospital care to people over 75 in an
attempt to buy votes. I had a lotta fun asking why a 75+ y/o was a
better target for a limited resource than say a 5 y/o with a long
future in front of her.

The answer: politics. But you already knew that.

Max

"katy" wrote in message
...
Martin Baxter wrote:
katy wrote:
Martin Baxter wrote:
katy wrote:
P.S. for Katy, presbyopia does not mean that I'm Presbyterian.
I knew that, Martin. So how much of your tax dollar per annum do
you contribute for health care?

Guess I should have included the smiley. ;-)

The average Canadian family pays about 48% of it's income in taxes,
(federal and provincial income, federal and provincial sales, booze,
gas..etc.), 40% of that goes to health care.

Cheers
Marty
OK, so according to 2001 stats, a median family income in Canada was
about 68k and you are paying around 13k out of your taxes for health
care that doesn't cover some things. If we were to COBRA (pay for
total policy on own) our BCBS plan, which covers many of the things
you've listed as exclusions, would cost us 9K per annum for a family
policy. We do have some small co-pays, which usually add up to
another 1.5k/annum ...

So we pay about about the same allowing for exchange, there are however
two important differences: Everbody gets equal coverage here including
the indigent. No one can get dumped by his carrier.

Cheers
Marty
Does your medical coverage put age limits on some procedures like in Great
Britain? It is my understanding that in GB, if you are over 50, kidney
transplant and I believe, dialysis, are not available..also some heart
treatments.

The "Hillary Health Care Plan" was a classic example of health-care
rationing. Over 50 and need dialysis? Sorry. Transplants after the same
age--wait your turn, and everyone younger gets first shot. Sounded a lot
like Russia.

Max

"Martin Baxter" wrote
So we pay about about the same allowing for exchange, there are however
two important differences: Everbody gets equal coverage here including
the indigent. No one can get dumped by his carrier.


The problem in both (all?) countries is the lack of good old capitalistic
competition. The solution for the USA is to use our anti-trust laws to break
the back of the American Medical Association. Don't hold your breath ....