Rationing Health Care

[chuckChuck]

So in the US they spend more than twice as much per capita and whole lot of it goes to the insurance companies and for profit system.

But this is the system a lot of you want?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So in the US they spend more than twice as much per capita and whole lot of it goes to the insurance companies and for profit system.

But this is the system a lot of you want?

Why do think insist that there are only 2 options? Personally, I am against insurance in general, why add an entire extra layer of bureaucracy and administration, which only serves to further remove any concept of personal responsibility?

Do you think it is a fair comparison to measure the cost of a system which rations services to meet the budget, vs one which provides full services on time to anyone willing to pay?

If my neighbor only has enough hay to feed his cows 3 bales per day, with no salt mineral, vitamins, or vaccines, even though they need 5 to stay healthy, stay in shape, have healthy calves, get back into calf, and all survive the winter, and my other neighbor buys expensive hay, and gives his cows 5 bales per day plus all the necessary supplements and vaccines etc., which will be cheaper per head? Which will have a better survivability rate?

That is exactly what you are comparing.

[wade]

A lot of people in Alberta were very concerned when the Department of Hiways was

privatized but still government funded years ago.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

A lot of people in Alberta were very concerned when the Department of Hiways was

privatized but still government funded years ago.

I have asked Chuck in the past to provide an example of where the government has provided a product or service more cost effectively than the private sector. To use his words, "we are still waiting". And I suspect we will be waiting for ever.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

For one thing the food industry is pushing unhealthy food in their marketing campaigns on kids who often dont have the discipline to make good decisions about healthy choices. And they don't want to reduce sugar, sodium and fat.

I've been thinking about the cognitive dissonance in the above statement.

So Chuck is convinced that the food industry is purposefully pushing unhealthy food on an unwitting population. The usual Marxist trope about evil corporations against their helpless victims. People who have nearly unlimited food choices, and the opportunity to educate themselves, but still choose the unhealthy options.

But against all evidence, he resolutely supports the big pharma industry pushing, no, pushing is not a strong enough word, forcing/mandating/coercing, a vaccine with questionable safety and efficacy, making massive profits in the process.

So big pharma should be trusted, but big food is out to kill us all?

[Landdownunder]

Around 45 per cent of all Australians have private hospital cover and more than half of those people have private extras cover, according to the latest data from APRA.

With premiums set to rise in the coming months — Medibank will be the first major provider to increase premiums on June 1 — it's time to consider whether to take out, keep, downgrade or ditch your private health cover.

So, does private health insurance represent value for money for most Australians?

More than 14 million Australians have private extras cover, which provides rebates on health services such as dental, optometry and physiotherapy.

Ms Mihm says it's good to review whether your extras insurance is giving you value.

"Some people don't need glasses or don't have any sports injuries that require a physio," she says.

"It's a good idea to downgrade the extras policy to something that costs less and is suitable for your usage — or chop it altogether."

Dr Lewis also suggests calculating whether "you're better off paying for those services up front", especially if you are not using your extras frequently.

Lifetime health cover (LHC) loading is another government initiative to encourage Australians to purchase and maintain private health insurance from a young age.

For every year you are over 30 years of age and have not taken out — and stayed on — private health insurance, you will have to pay a 2 per cent loading on top of your premium every year.

This means that, if you buy private health insurance for the first time at 40 years of age, you'll pay an extra 20 per cent on your premium per year until you turn 50: the LHC loading drops off after you pay it for 10 consecutive years.

"We've seen a 4 per cent increase in insurance uptake when people turn 31," Professor Zhang says, "but, out of those people, there are some who may not need it."

She recommends weighing up the cost of paying years of premium against the LHC loading, which usually adds up to "not much, a few dollars" per year — and whether you'll need to use private health cover in your 30s and 40s for things such as pregnancy and childbirth.

[Landdownunder]

little snap shot of private health.

had colonoscopy yesterday hmmm a whole 3 week wait.

bit of renovation done all good onwards and upwards

you private health may be bit different and inequitable according to glenn.

[jazz]

So the entire provincial health system begged Trudeau last month for a cash injection to stabilize the system. He gave an extra $4B over like 10 yrs.

Natives got twice that much today for whatever health care system they appear to be running on the side. Plus the cash can be used for whatever.

GD we are going to be broke when this is all over.

[sumdumguy]

Sure makes me feel like keeping records and paying income tax to this bunch.

[chuckChuck]

The resource rich provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan have all the resources they need to fund healthcare improvements on their own. Both provinces have substantial surpluses and they have chosen to underfund healthcare and education even while receiving large amounts of federal money.

[fjlip]

look how much more we would have...




Or how much more IF all of Canada used our own oil!

[Guest]

While we shoot ourselves in the foot