• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Canadian Tuggers / Healthcare in Canada

Status
Not open for further replies.

calgarygary

TUG Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I came across an interesting report that deals with healthcare increases between 2000 - 2007. I appreciate that the report was produced by a group that is supporting change. My question to our U.S. posters, do the statistics for your state resemble your experience?

Warning! This is a pdf file so if you have a slow connection, I wouldn't click on the link.
http://hcfan.3cdn.net/dadd15782e627e5b75_g9m6isltl.pdf
 

donnaval

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
959
Reaction score
92
Points
388
Location
Western PA
Gary--that report seems pretty accurate to me.

In the late 1990s, my husband and I were paying $226 per month for both of us to be covered under an excellent policy. This month, we are paying a bit more than $1100 per month for far less coverage--we have downgraded our coverage and increased our deductibles every couple of years in a vain attempt to keep costs "affordable."

Our monthly income has not gone up more than 400% over these years.

Our financial exposure has gone from $1,000 family deductible per year, with that being the total out-of-pocket, to $8,000 deductible ($3k for me, $5k for DH), and additional co-insurance up to a maximum OOP of $15k per year ($5k for me, $10k for DH)

I am currently attempting to secure less-expensive coverage for myself since my premium is going up another $68/mo. with higher annual and total OOP deductibles. My husband's policy will renew in January and we have no idea yet as to what type of increase to expect. As of yesterday, I have been denied by two different insurers, citing "pre-existing conditions" that were part of my medical history the last time I sought new coverage. So anyone who thinks that pre-existing conditions only matter for the previous 12 months--think again. One of my "conditions" was diagnosed more than five years ago. The other "condition" is the underwriter's interpretation that a condition might exist that has not been diagnosed--huh?

One of the companies denying new coverage to me is the company that currently insures me! I will of course retain this coverage but it has gone up 40% over the past three years and I foresee no end in sight. (Needless to say my income has not gone up 40% over the past three years. I wish!) My health has not changed, these "conditions" were present the last time I was approved, and these "conditions" were dismissed by my doctor years ago as "nothing serious." No treatment has ever been recommended or required. The only thing that has changed is I'm a couple of years older.

There is very little competition in our area, given the size of the market. BC/BS is the biggie here, followed by UPMC and HealthAmerica. After that you're dealing with Aetna and a handful of online companies. I have spent (conservatively) more than 100 hours over these past few weeks doing research, making applications, and speaking to representatives about insurance. I'm not just sitting back complaining about the high costs. I'm trying to do something about it, but I keep hitting :wall:

I'm healthier than most friends in my age group, take no prescription medications, and have not required any medical treatment other than routine check-ups (all of which said I'm in great health albeit a few pounds too heavy) for the past four years. But so far, two out of three of my best options have refused to give me new coverage.

I'm very happy for those who have had success with our current system. I have not, and foresee only more difficulties if it continues this way. I don't know the answers, but this system is screwy.
 

ricoba

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
6,272
Reaction score
2
Points
323
Location
Metro Los Angeles
You know it was suggested that this thread turn away from politics...yet politics keeps getting thrown in via links....:(
 

calgarygary

TUG Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
36
You know it was suggested that this thread turn away from politics...yet politics keeps getting thrown in via links....:(

If you are referring to the link I provided, I did so to find out if the financial numbers being used there are accurate which I think is a valid discussion in this thread. The site claims increases in insurance costs by state of 40 - 70% from 2000 to 2007. As in the case of almost every report viewable online, it comes from a group with a vested interest - if I or you can find reports on the cost increases from "neutral" parties, I would be happy to replace the link.
 

John Cummings

TUG Lifetime Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
5,020
Reaction score
80
Points
433
Location
Murrieta, California
It is virtually impossible to keep politics out of this type of discussion because it involves the role of government in our lives. That is a major difference between most Canadians and Americans. The majority of Americans favor a very limited government role whereas Canadians accept a larger government role. I am not arguing which is right but simply stating a fact and as such these type of threads always take on a political slant. I am going to bow out of this because I have nothing more to discuss and it should be obvious to all what I believe the role of government should be.
 

Icarus

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,095
Reaction score
0
Points
271
The only thing that's obvious to me is that you're a real character, John.

You personally benefit from the biggest socialized medical program in the US, and are proud of the fact that it costs you nothing, so, no, I don't think it's obvious at all.

But I'm glad you're able to speak for a "majority of Americans".

-David
 
Last edited:

Elan

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,455
Reaction score
409
Points
468
Location
Idaho
The only thing that's obvious to me is that you're a real character, John.

You personally benefit from the biggest socialized medical program in the US, and are proud of the fact that it costs you nothing, so, no, I don't think it's obvious at all.

But I'm glad you're able to speak for a "majority of Americans".

-David

Could not have said it better!
 

Liz Wolf-Spada

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,094
Reaction score
2
Points
423
Location
Wrightwood, CA
I think this is an important topic to discuss. If we can stay focused on the issues and not on our agreements or disagreements our wonderful moderators will, I'm sure, let's this thread continue.
Liz
 

Carolinian

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,644
Reaction score
936
Points
598
Location
eastern Europe
Here is an interesting insight as to government decisions on health care policy, from today's Daily Telegraph of London,

The British NHS (National Health Service) has said that neither children nor the elderly are high on its priority list for swine flu vacine.

Children are considered ten times more likely to contract the disease, and are considered ''superspreaders''. Moreover, children represent 17% of swine flu deaths so far in the UK.

The elderly tend to be more at risk of death if they contract the disease, but then in any government run system tend to be viewed as expendable.

Welcome to the Brave New World of government-run medicine.
 

Laurie

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,055
Reaction score
789
Points
498
Location
NC

"Roger"

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,414
Reaction score
3,213
Points
598
Here is an interesting insight as to government decisions on health care policy, from today's Daily Telegraph of London,

The British NHS (National Health Service) has said that neither children nor the elderly are high on its priority list for swine flu vacine.

Children are considered ten times more likely to contract the disease, and are considered ''superspreaders''. Moreover, children represent 17% of swine flu deaths so far in the UK.

The elderly tend to be more at risk of death if they contract the disease, but then in any government run system tend to be viewed as expendable.

Welcome to the Brave New World of government-run medicine.
While it is true that the UK tends to discriminate against the elderly, this is NOT a government vs. non-government issue.

It is the CDC (a US government agency) which sets the priorities for flu shots in the United States. Furthermore, it is Medicare (another government program) which guarantees the seniors will have the ability to pay for the shots.

If it weren't for the government (in the US) and it were left to private enterprise (in other words, there were no government involvement), my bet is priorities would be based upon ability to pay (code for who has medical insurance).

The bottom line is that as far as flu shots go, if you endorse US priorities, you need to give thanks to government intervention. If it were not for that, it would be otherwise.

[An addedum about UK priorities. Discrimination against the elderly is also apparent with regard to transplants. They set strick age limits. In the US, priorities are set up by UNOS - a government created enterprise supposedly independent from the government, but not always. They too have age limits, but more liberal. Age, however, is one of the factors considered when there are competing claims for the same organ.]
 

Icarus

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,095
Reaction score
0
Points
271
The elderly tend to be more at risk of death if they contract the disease, but then in any government run system tend to be viewed as expendable.

More disinformation being spread by the same person.

That's the exact opposite of what I've read. Older people that are otherwise healthy tend to get a mild case of the disease, and are not considered a priority for the swine flu vaccine. That's the exact opposite of the normal flu vaccine.

-David
 
Last edited:

"Roger"

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,414
Reaction score
3,213
Points
598
...The British NHS (National Health Service) has said that neither children nor the elderly are high on its priority list for swine flu vacine...
Actually that turns out not to be quite true either. The priority list for Britain is

  1. Those between 6 mo. and 65 with underlying conditions (the most vulnerable to die)
  2. Pregnant women (very vulnerable)
  3. Those living with the above (given that they might infect to above groups)
  4. Senior citizens
Note, that while senior citizens are the lowest among what the government has identified as priority groups (nless, of course, they have an underlying condition), they were still given priority over the general population.

For a full discussion of the effect of swine flu upon the elderly and a suggested list of priorities offered by swine flu experts in America,

go here
 

Carolinian

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,644
Reaction score
936
Points
598
Location
eastern Europe
The UK has had a startling percentage of ''otherwise healthy'' people among those who have died of swine flu, particularly recently, as the Daily Telegraph has pointed out. So the ''underlying conditions'' have less relevence. And one would think that all in a group that is considered ''superspreaders'' of a disease and ten times more likely to contract it would be immunized. The Senior Citiizens as reported in the Telegraph is also highly conditional, rather than all senior citizens.


Actually that turns out not to be quite true either. The priority list for Britain is

  1. Those between 6 mo. and 65 with underlying conditions (the most vulnerable to die)
  2. Pregnant women (very vulnerable)
  3. Those living with the above (given that they might infect to above groups)
  4. Senior citizens
Note, that while senior citizens are the lowest among what the government has identified as priority groups (nless, of course, they have an underlying condition), they were still given priority over the general population.

For a full discussion of the effect of swine flu upon the elderly and a suggested list of priorities offered by swine flu experts in America,

go here
 
Last edited:

donnaval

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
959
Reaction score
92
Points
388
Location
Western PA
startling percentage of ''otherwise healthy'' people among those who have died of swine flu, particularly recently

I'm a little confused (constant state of mind lately)--I heard on the news last night that the swine flu vaccine wouldn't be available until October, so how can deaths occurring now, pre-vaccine, be blamed on any sort of rationing system?

And once the vaccine is available, what difference does having or not having a "priority list" make if you can't get the shot anyway due to not having insurance or not being able to afford the shot after paying huge monthly premiums?
 

Passepartout

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
28,463
Reaction score
17,213
Points
1,299
Location
Twin Falls, Eye-Duh-Hoe
And once the vaccine is available, what difference does having or not having a "priority list" make if you can't get the shot anyway due to not having insurance or not being able to afford the shot after paying huge monthly premiums?

Furthermore, if it weren't for 'government involvement' via Centers for Disease Control, and pressure on drugmakers, and a guarantee that the aforementioned government would buy (X) quantity of doses sight unseen or untested, there wouldn't be a vaccine until the drugmakers see a profit potential.

Jim Ricks
 

Clemson Fan

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
2,116
Reaction score
8
Points
398
Location
Ewa Beach, Hawaii
I am glad there is interest in the canadian system. It is very important to understand that THERE IS NO PROPOSAL FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, CONGRESS, DEMOCRAT, OR REPUBLICAN for anything like the Canadian or european systems. That has been deemed a dead issue from the very beginning. It really doesn't matter what health care is like in canada or any other single payer system because the United States of America will not be getting that kind of system . I guess it is good to know if you are travelling there.

That's a very good point. I'm a physician in the US and there are many days I envy a single payer system b/c I really have no love for the insurance companies. However, you cannot have a single payer system unless you have significant tort reform in the US which is not currently on the table. In places like Canada and Britian where there is a single payer system, there are very significant indemnification provisions in place for the physicians that are not in place here in the US.

There actually really isn't a current proposal on the table from the president. There's just a hodgepodge of ideas. Some are good and some are bad. Some are realistic and some are fantasy. IMO, one party is pro single payer but in the back pocket of the trial lawyer lobby and thus will not address that side of the equation while the other party wants to address tort reform but is in the back pocket of major insurance companies and thus not in favor of a single payer system. This leaves us with a potential hodgepodge patchworked bill that is difficult to understand.
 

Carolinian

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,644
Reaction score
936
Points
598
Location
eastern Europe
Single payer is a euphemism for government control. Soviet medicine was probably the largest example of a single payer system ever put in place, and the medicine it provided to the average citizen was dismal. If you have ever visited a former Soviet hospital, as I have, you would think it third world medicine. But for the elite there were special hospitals with the best qualified doctors, decent equipment, and better conditions. Even for the average Ivan, if they did not give their doctor, and others involved in treatment ''tips'', errors might occur, so everyone paid up. Whether it is the Soviet, British, or Canadian version of ''single payer'', it is not something I want for my care.


That's a very good point. I'm a physician in the US and there are many days I envy a single payer system b/c I really have no love for the insurance companies. However, you cannot have a single payer system unless you have significant tort reform in the US which is not currently on the table. In places like Canada and Britian where there is a single payer system, there are very significant indemnification provisions in place for the physicians that are not in place here in the US.

There actually really isn't a current proposal on the table from the president. There's just a hodgepodge of ideas. Some are good and some are bad. Some are realistic and some are fantasy. IMO, one party is pro single payer but in the back pocket of the trial lawyer lobby and thus will not address that side of the equation while the other party wants to address tort reform but is in the back pocket of major insurance companies and thus not in favor of a single payer system. This leaves us with a potential hodgepodge patchworked bill that is difficult to understand.
 
Last edited:

Carolinian

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,644
Reaction score
936
Points
598
Location
eastern Europe
I'm a little confused (constant state of mind lately)--I heard on the news last night that the swine flu vaccine wouldn't be available until October, so how can deaths occurring now, pre-vaccine, be blamed on any sort of rationing system?

And once the vaccine is available, what difference does having or not having a "priority list" make if you can't get the shot anyway due to not having insurance or not being able to afford the shot after paying huge monthly premiums?

Victims are not waiting for the vacine to arrive to die of swine flu. Looking at patterns of deaths from the disease now helps determine how priorities should be set up for vaccination when the vacine arrives.

How expensive can a shot, or in this case series of two shots be?
 

Carolinian

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,644
Reaction score
936
Points
598
Location
eastern Europe
Laser eye surgery is not something covered by most insurance in the US, and therefore not something whose price is impacted by third party payors (insurance). It is thus one of the few areas of medicine in the US where the price has actually come down. I have no idea if it is free market in this area of medicine in Canada or not. But this is one area that at least on the US side may not offer a good comparision, and that may be the case on the Canadian side.

I have personally had a root canal and crown done in Hungary, where the price was a fraction of what it would have cost in the US and did that before I started working on this side of the pond. It was high quality, and many of the patients there were German, Austrian, or British ''dental tourists''. Poland also has a lot of dental tourism, drawn by the price. I have also had experience with continental European medicine when I needed examination of a condition to determine if it was merely cosmetic or something serious. I was not comfortable with the examination done in the country where I work, but the doctor only charged about $5 for the visit. I went to Switzerland for a second opinion where a specialist said he was confident that it was merely cosmetic but would have an ultrasound done if I wanted, which I did. The charge was so low that I did not even bother with the paperwork to turn it in to the US-based insurance company I have through my employer. Prior to that, a colleague had set up an appointment with another specialist in Romania for me, who was a medical school professor. I decided to go as another opinion would not hurt. Again a number of tests were done, with the same result. I do not know how much that would have cost as the doctor said because of who had sent me to him, he would not even think of charging me a fee. I was quite pleased with what I saw of Swiss and Romanian medicine. I don't know the basis of Swiss medicine, but I do know that the Romanian system has moved from a single payor government run system which was inherited from Communist days toward an insurance based system. I think the govenment still has some involvement in paying some costs but is decreasing its involvement.

I know generally among expats here that most would not want anything serious or even slightly serious done locally, and no one, even the local Brits I know, would use the British NHS if they could help it. The German, Swiss, Austrian, and Dutch medical systems seem to be given the best marks for quality. The two I know who have had experience with the Romanian system also have confidence in it. Interestingly, when I was in Veliko Turnovo, Bulgaria, there was quite a British expat community there, and I shared a table for dinner with two expat British couples who had retired to Bulgaria. They told me that not only did their British retirement money buy a better life in Bulgaria than it would back home, but the Bulgarian medical system was better than the NHS. I did not ask if Bulgaria had done as Romania had and move toward an insurance based system.



I realized I never reported that I personally traveled from the US to Canada for care! About 7 years ago, my husband and I decided we'd like to have laser surgery for our eyes. US prices ranged from $8000 to $12,000 total each for the surgery, and in several cases the surgery was not recommended due to the severity of my near-sightedness or for my husband because of astigmatisms. I heard from a friend who worked for an opthamologist(sp?) that Canadian docs were using a newer-generation laser machine and at a much lower cost, so we traveled to Toronto for an exam. Turns out my degree of myopia and my husband's astigmatisms were no problem at all for this up-to-date laser, and to make it even sweeter for us, the doctor was opening a new office in Niagara Falls which was closer for us. Long story short, our state-of-the-art eye laser surgery cost $800 US per person done in Canada--one-tenth of the best price I could have had it done for here. The only downside was we had to take two short vacations in Niagara Falls for the surgery and follow-up exams:cheer:

I also know several folks who travel to Canada for prescription drugs which they can buy much less expensively there than here.

I really appreciate the input from the Canadian folks here. It is very illuminating.
 
Last edited:

Carolinian

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,644
Reaction score
936
Points
598
Location
eastern Europe
John, there have been times when you and I have not agreed on timeshare issues, but you are right on the money on this one.

And there is no way that a thread about the far and away biggest political issue in the country today could ever be or have been anything but political. It is sort of like having a ''non-political'' discussion of abortion or Iraq policy.


It is virtually impossible to keep politics out of this type of discussion because it involves the role of government in our lives. That is a major difference between most Canadians and Americans. The majority of Americans favor a very limited government role whereas Canadians accept a larger government role. I am not arguing which is right but simply stating a fact and as such these type of threads always take on a political slant. I am going to bow out of this because I have nothing more to discuss and it should be obvious to all what I believe the role of government should be.
 

calgarygary

TUG Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Single payer is a euphemism for government control. Soviet medicine was probably the largest example of a single payer system ever put in place, and the medicine it provided to the average citizen was dismal. If you have ever visited a former Soviet hospital, as I have, you would think it third world medicine. But for the elite there were special hospitals with the best qualified doctors, decent equipment, and better conditions. Even for the average Ivan, if they did not give their doctor, and others involved in treatment ''tips'', errors might occur, so everyone paid up. Whether it is the Soviet, British, or Canadian version of ''single payer'', it is not something I want for my care.

I can not believe the misinformation that is being pushed by you. First you blame the Canadian system for the death of Natasha Richardson - which of course is far from the facts. I noticed you wouldn't reply about John Ritter's death which based upon the settlement, was a result of U.S. healthcare. So Carolinian, can you explain how one death exemplifies an entire system but the other does not? Just so there is no confusion, I do not believe that any single death or case represents an entire system. Nor do I believe that prudent use of a vaccine is wrong.

Now to directly suggest that Canadian healthcare is comparable to what existed or still exists in the Soviet Union is nothing more than propaganda. This is representative of the scare tactics that one sees in the news and makes one wonder why there can not be an intelligent debate of the topic without hysteria. Maybe the U.S. should do away with the whole concept of insurance because after all, isn't that the "collective" paying for the individual?
 

Carolinian

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,644
Reaction score
936
Points
598
Location
eastern Europe
It is not me who blamed the deficiencies of the Canadian medical system for the death of Natasha Richardson, but an American doctor who was knowledgable in those deficiencies and the differences betweent the systems. If you have a beef with her analysis, I suggest you take it up with her rather than me. I am not a medical expert. She is. Ditto the John Ritter situation. I do not know the details of the Ritter death, but an error by one doctor, if that is what happened would be a very different thing than the systematic deficiencies in the system described by the doctor who wrote the piece on Natasha Richardson. Are you a doctor? If not, do you have the background to challenge that doctor's assesement of the systematic deficiencies that led to Richardson's death any more than I would to comment on Ritter's. You may not like that I posted that expert opinion that challenges your own opinion, but I really am not an expert myself to add to what she had to say. If you are not an expert, why should your challenge have any credibility?

I am not saying that the British or Canadian or Soviet medical system are identical. They are however, all single payor, and seeing some of the residue of the Soviet system just happens to be the one that I have the most personal knowledge of. My information on the British or Canadian systems comes from other experts or people who have used them. One interesting similarity between the Soviet and proposed US system is that both involve a seperate and better system for the elite in government. Why should they not have to deal with the same care as every citizen? And I cannot imagine that a member of the government elite of the UK or Canada would have to put up with the same waiting lists as the average Joe for health care.

And lastly, something that does not agree with your own personal opinion does not make it ''misinformation''. I suspect that the doctor whom you disagree with over Natasha Richardson's death has a whole lot more professional crredentials to discuss that matter than you do.


I can not believe the misinformation that is being pushed by you. First you blame the Canadian system for the death of Natasha Richardson - which of course is far from the facts. I noticed you wouldn't reply about John Ritter's death which based upon the settlement, was a result of U.S. healthcare. So Carolinian, can you explain how one death exemplifies an entire system but the other does not? Just so there is no confusion, I do not believe that any single death or case represents an entire system. Nor do I believe that prudent use of a vaccine is wrong.

Now to directly suggest that Canadian healthcare is comparable to what existed or still exists in the Soviet Union is nothing more than propaganda. This is representative of the scare tactics that one sees in the news and makes one wonder why there can not be an intelligent debate of the topic without hysteria. Maybe the U.S. should do away with the whole concept of insurance because after all, isn't that the "collective" paying for the individual?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top