 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / November 2008How many jobs depend on the Detroit Three?
MSN Money http://atu.ca/9bf8 The New York Times clears up a screwy statistic that's being thrown around in the automaker bailout debate http://atu.ca/1f4 . Does the industry really support one in 10 jobs in this country? That's what Newsweek http://atu.ca/197 and others are reporting. Turns out the figure is misleading. It comes from a 2003 study by the Center for Automotive Research http://atu.ca/8cbb0 , one that was commissioned by a group of car makers. The study says the auto industry supports taxi drivers, car washers, mechanics, car rental companies and public highway construction, among others. In other words, pretty much any job connected to a car. Citing this study is a bit of a stretch, since it covers how cars overall contribute to the U.S. economy, while the bailout centers on just three companies. The Times points out other ways the study is irrelevant. It uses data from 1998 to 2001, but the number of jobs in car and parts manufacturing have fallen since then. "In other words, the loss of a single American car company wouldn’t necessarily dissolve all those jobs that the entire auto industry 'supports,'" writes Catherine Rampell. "The failure of General Motors, for example, wouldn’t eliminate the entire car-wash industry." The same research group came out with another study this month that's much more relevant, the Times says. That study says a contraction of the Detroit Three would lead to job losses of 2.5 million to 3 million next year. That's still an alarming number, but nowhere near as alarming as one in 10 jobs (about 14 million). And the research group says about half of those jobs could be recovered within two years. If you were one of those that lost a job, what would you eat for three years. > MSN Money http://atu.ca/9bf8 > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > research group says about half of those jobs could be > recovered within two years. > MSN Money http://atu.ca/9bf8 > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > research group says about half of those jobs could be > recovered within two years. They might be "recovered," but with non-union jobs that will have much worse wages and benefits. So those 3 million "recovered" workers will depress the median income (and hence the consumer purchasing power) of the U.S. anyway.  SignatureSteven L. Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me. >> MSN Money http://atu.ca/9bf8 >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > They might be "recovered," but with non-union jobs that will have much > worse wages and benefits. Oh my gosh! You obviously are not paying attention to what's going on. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > They might be "recovered," but with non-union jobs that will have much > worse wages and benefits. > > So those 3 million "recovered" workers will depress the median income > (and hence the consumer purchasing power) of the U.S. anyway. Non union jobs do not represent "much worse wages and benefits". Most of this country's workforce is non-union and a very large percentage of those do quite well in non-union jobs. Certainly, the auto workers would have a difficult time finding a job that compensates them in the same manner they have grown used to, but hell man - that is part of the problem. Their wages and compensation have ballooned way beyond any definition of reasonable for the work performed and the skills and knowledge required. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > > They might be "recovered," but with non-union jobs that will have much > > worse wages and benefits. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -Mike- > mmarlowREM...@alltel.net In 2006 a typical UAW-represented assembler at GM earned $27.81 per hour of straight-time labor. A typical UAW-represented skilled-trades worker at GM earned $32.32 per hour of straight-time labor. Between 2003 and 2006, the wages of a typical UAW assembler have grown at about the same rate as wages in the private sector as a whole – roughly 9 percent. Part of that growth is due to cost-of-living adjustments that have helped prevent inflation from eroding the purchasing power of workers’ wages. The total cost will drop to $62 per hour in 2010 when the linchpin of the contract - a UAW administered trust fund - starts paying retiree health care costs. But that's still $9 more than the $53 per hour that GM estimated Toyota now pays in the U.S., and the gap could be even wider. Toyota spokesman Mike Goss said the company's total labor costs at its older U.S. plants are around $48, with about $30 per hour in wages. But GM pays pensions for its retirees, something Toyota isn't having to do yet. Still, hard to demand existing workers take a pay cut for this. In article <17053879-db09-4606-a979-9a2597d1f9b3@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > The total cost will drop to $62 per hour in 2010 when the linchpin of > the contract - a UAW administered trust fund - starts paying retiree > health care costs. Difficult to compete with next door Canada, where all get basic health care for life at a very reasonable fee per individual. That Canadian advantage lowers company costs significantly. Many Canadians like their cars to be built in NAFTA. GM's small cars from Korea are not desired, coming cars from China will be less desired in the current economy. We remember the Yugo, which was recently discontinued, probably because their high scrap rate was not environmentally kind. http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=6298078&page=1 Those who were still buying the Yugo obviously didn't know any better. The B3 cars have been selling well in Canada this year. > In article > <17053879-db09-4606-a979-9a2597d1f9b3@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > The B3 cars have been selling well in Canada this year. Yeah, well we pay for it in our taxes, both corporate and individual, plus the price of gasoline. I always hear that private is better and more efficient than public in all cases so you must be mistaken. >>> The total cost will drop to $62 per hour in 2010 when the linchpin of >>> the contract - a UAW administered trust fund - starts paying retiree >>> health care costs. >> Difficult to compete with next door Canada, where all get basic health >> care for life at a very reasonable fee per individual. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> The B3 cars have been selling well in Canada this year. > Yeah, well we pay for it in our taxes, both corporate and individual, > plus the price of gasoline. > I always hear that private is better and more efficient than public in > all cases so you must be mistaken. There are plenty of countries with universal health care that is not like the Canadian system -- and even with a choice of private insurers. Perce >>>> The total cost will drop to $62 per hour in 2010 when the linchpin of >>>> the contract - a UAW administered trust fund - starts paying retiree [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Perce Actually we do have some private insurers. > Actually we do have some private insurers. Since when? The fact that that was illegal was the focus of a CDN Supreme Court ruling a few years ago. >> Actually we do have some private insurers. > > Since when? The fact that that was illegal was the > focus of a CDN Supreme Court ruling a few years ago. Our insurers sell packages for prescription drugs and upgrades to hospital stays. That type of thing. There are newer companies trying to sell "extended" insurance for actual services like operations etc. This seems to be mainly driven by B.C., Alberta and Quebec. There was a court decision that said it was against people's rights to forbid private insurance or something like that. Aside from the prescription drug and hospital room type insurance, this is relatively new. > >> Actually we do have some private insurers. > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Aside from the prescription drug and hospital room type insurance, this > is relatively new. Thanks. These supplement plans generally aren't viewed as insurance in the US, thus the question. Just a difference in nomenclature. As for something like that: "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin. "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health-care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care. The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital health care result in physical and psychological suffering that meets a threshold test of seriousness.² What is interesting in this debate is how we have blue collar people sniping at other blue collar workers because they make more than them. Instead of saying "I want to be paid as much as them" they say "they make too much". How does this even make sense? Seems like big business has everyone convinced that blue collar people should be living sub-middle class lives, living paycheque to paycheque. These other blue collar workers should be trying to get their wages increased rather than someone else's wages decreased. What should be looked at is why blue collar wages are so low. How is it that people in the developed world accept having to compete for jobs with people in China and India not to mention Mexico? Is their cost of living the same? We should be addressing globalization and free trade and whether it makes sense to compete directly in all areas of trade. Maybe we should only trade in areas that are beneficial to all considered rather than just the corporations. > What should be looked at is why blue collar wages are so low. How is it > that people in the developed world accept having to compete for jobs with > people in China and India not to mention Mexico? Is their cost of living > the same? I don't see where union blue collar wages are all that low. But that's neither here nor there. The American way of life in recent years is to live at a level 15-25% higher than what is earned. That's why there is so much market volatility now. When people are earning $25/hour, they try to live like they're making $35/hour. Never mind the taxes that are taken out; I want what I want and I want it NOW! Not everybody has this way of thinking, but enough do to make a difference. I have never had more than 1 credit card in my life, and I pay it off as soon as I get the bill because I don't want to pay the interest. The only reason I kept one is for credit rating purposes. For most purchases, I use my debit card, or wait until I can afford it. I'm retired now, living off my checking account until my SSI kicks in. I didn't make a lot of money in my 45 years of working, but I didn't let myself get deep into debt, which explains why I could retire a little early. Of course, that's just me- your lifestyle may vary greatly. >> What should be looked at is why blue collar wages are so low. How is it >> that people in the developed world accept having to compete for jobs with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't see where union blue collar wages are all that low. But that's > neither here nor there. Actually, I said blue collar, not union blue collar. I see some people writing into various blogs saying that they only make $18/hour and people who make $28/hour are overpaid. One guy said he couldn't afford a new car and so he resented that auto workers could. He should be asking why he is making so little that he can't afford a new car rather than ask why others can. The American way of life in recent years is to live > at a level 15-25% higher than what is earned. That's why there is so much > market volatility now. When people are earning $25/hour, they try to live [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Of course, that's just me- your lifestyle may vary greatly. > Actually, I said blue collar, not union blue collar. I see some people > writing into various blogs saying that they only make $18/hour and > people who make $28/hour are overpaid. One guy said he couldn't afford a > new car and so he resented that auto workers could. He should be asking > why he is making so little that he can't afford a new car rather than > ask why others can. It seems thats the current trend in American thinking. Bring down the top as a way to help the bottom. Punish those who worked hard to get to the top. Trouble is, you can't raise the bottom by bringing down the top. >> Actually, I said blue collar, not union blue collar. I see some people >> writing into various blogs saying that they only make $18/hour and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > top as a way to help the bottom. Punish those who worked hard to get to > the top. Trouble is, you can't raise the bottom by bringing down the top. And now competing with Mexican or Asian workers is just another way to bring down the top. These corporate big wigs are probably laughing in their sleep at the way they put us in this position (I'm not blue collar incidentally). Get real! Corporate big wigs did not put "US" in this position WE did it to ourselves, by buying too many imported products. Why is OK for "US" to take advantage of the lower wages and fewer restrictions on business by buying imported products to save money, yet NOT OK for business to take advantage of those same things, to increase economies of scale, so as not to go OUT of business? There are a lot more workers in a corporations that need their job as well, besides just those that make the product. Don't give me that "We have no choice" crap, if Americans did not buy imported products, store owner would not stock imported products, period >>> Actually, I said blue collar, not union blue collar. I see some people >>> writing into various blogs saying that they only make $18/hour and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > These corporate big wigs are probably laughing in their sleep at the way > they put us in this position (I'm not blue collar incidentally). The problem is that the government is supposed to do what is best for the economy in the long run and enabling outsourcing of jobs is not in the best interest of the economy. You can't expect every person on the street to see the implications of their actions 20 years down the road but governments should be able to do studies which would have shown that. That is, if they cared about the economy and not just the GDP numbers. > Get real! Corporate big wigs did not put "US" in this position WE did it > to ourselves, by buying too many imported products. Why is OK for "US" to [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> These corporate big wigs are probably laughing in their sleep at the way >> they put us in this position (I'm not blue collar incidentally). >The problem is that the government is supposed to do what is best for >the economy in the long run Where it the world did you ever get that idea? You silly boy. In the U.S., the "government" is supposed to do what is in the best interest of the politicians. It is up to the U.S. electorate to make the politicians understand that it is in the politicians best interest to do was is in the best interest of the voters. The electorate has not done that yet. Ya'll better READ you constitution if that is what you believe the US government is to do. Actually the federal government powers are very limited. The only real power granted to the federal government was to protect the borders. Many of our "problems" were caused by the federal government. When the people allowed it to extend the meaning of the Commerce Clause. The purpose of which was to stop any state laws from restricting commerce AMONG the states. How the hell did we the people ALLOW the federal government to tell us how many MPG our vehicles could get, that we chose to buy, or what safety equipment we had to buy, or what wages an employer had to pay the people who were willing to work for them, or regulate how or where we bought our guns? How the hell did we ever allow a law that gives our "Citizen Legislators" a pension for "serving" their county? How did we ever allow our government to tell us where and how we pray when the Constitution says it can make "NO LAW" regulating the practice thereof. There is no such thing in the Constitution as the "separation of church and state." What is says in the government can no more "not establish," then can it "establish" religion You are correct it is NOT the "governments" fault. It is the fault of the governed who continue to give up the rights granted to them in the constitution >>The problem is that the government is supposed to do what is best for >>the economy in the long run [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that it is in the politicians best interest to do was is in the best > interest of the voters. The electorate has not done that yet. >Ya'll better READ you constitution if that is what you believe the US >government is to do. Actually the federal government powers are very >limited. The only real power granted to the federal government was to >protect the borders. The U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with anything. The U.S. Supreme Court has been wiping it's a.s with the Constitution for 150 years. No reason to stop now. I notice you did not answer the question > The problem is that the government is supposed to do what is best for the > economy in the long run and enabling outsourcing of jobs is not in the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>> These corporate big wigs are probably laughing in their sleep at the way >>> they put us in this position (I'm not blue collar incidentally). Well obviously I am saying that it is not OK but many people cannot see that because it takes a little forethought. > I notice you did not answer the question > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >>>> These corporate big wigs are probably laughing in their sleep at the way >>>> they put us in this position (I'm not blue collar incidentally). > It seems thats the current trend in American thinking. Bring down the top > as a way to help the bottom. Punish those who worked hard to get to the > top. Trouble is, you can't raise the bottom by bringing down the top. And it carries over into all aspects of life. Look at the education system- X% of students don't attend class, do homework, or pass tests, so instead of holding them back a year, let's just make the curricula easier. So now, 10th grade math is taught in the 12th grade. If you want to have some fun, go to any store, make a purchase (say the total is $3.72), and give them a $5 bill. After they've punched that in, tell them you've got the change and hand them 3 quarters. Oh boy! You can see the smoke coming from their ears! >> It seems thats the current trend in American thinking. Bring down the top >> as a way to help the bottom. Punish those who worked hard to get to the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > bill. After they've punched that in, tell them you've got the change and > hand them 3 quarters. Oh boy! You can see the smoke coming from their ears! That's not even funny. You'd think a cashier would be anticipating this after, oh, I don't know, the second or third day on the job. But there's either a lot of noobs running the registers, or they just can't be arsed to even put a minimal amount of thought into their job. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>> It seems thats the current trend in American thinking. Bring down the >>> top as a way to help the bottom. Punish those who worked hard to get to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > nate No, it isn't funny, it's sad. It's sad that a high school graduate can't figure out simple math in their heads, that they have to find a calculator to figure it out. It's sad that cashiers in fast food chains can't read the menu, so there has to be a picture of a Big Mac on the register keys. It's sad that a lot of posters have no idea that spelling, grammar, and sentence structure would help them out immensely in getting an answer to there question. But that's the American way now, isn't it? It's the dumbing of America. God forbid that we should ever make anyone feel bad about themselves. Soccer games with no scores kept because "there are no losers here." I'm sure their first job will take all this into account (he said with dripping cynicism). "SC Tom" <SC@Tom.net> wrote in message >. It's sad that a lot of posters have no idea that spelling, grammar, and >sentence structure would help them out immensely in getting an answer to >there question. I'm sure it was a typo, but still funny. > "SC Tom" <SC@Tom.net> wrote in message >>. It's sad that a lot of posters have no idea that spelling, grammar, and >>sentence structure would help them out immensely in getting an answer to >>there question. > > I'm sure it was a typo, but still funny. Actually, I did it on purpose. You're the only one that caught it, or at least commented on it ;) >> "SC Tom" <SC@Tom.net> wrote in message >>>. It's sad that a lot of posters have no idea that spelling, grammar, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Actually, I did it on purpose. You're the only one that caught it, or at > least commented on it ;) You mean "there question" ? >> "SC Tom" <SC@Tom.net> wrote in message >>>. It's sad that a lot of posters have no idea that spelling, grammar, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Actually, I did it on purpose. You're the only one that caught it, or at > least commented on it ;) There or their? I do that often and most of the times they give me an extra dollar in change. LOL >> It seems thats the current trend in American thinking. Bring down the >> top as a way to help the bottom. Punish those who worked hard to get to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the change and hand them 3 quarters. Oh boy! You can see the smoke coming > from their ears! >> It seems thats the current trend in American thinking. Bring down the >> top as a way to help the bottom. Punish those who worked hard to get to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the change and hand them 3 quarters. Oh boy! You can see the smoke coming > from their ears! You must have a vastly different education system then us Ontarian's do. My 6 year old is being taught things that I wasn't taught until grade 7. Likes like you even missed the never end a sentence with a preposition rule, and a few others, in seventy grade, as well. ;) >> And it carries over into all aspects of life. Look at the education >> system- X% of students don't attend class, do homework, or pass tests, so [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You must have a vastly different education system then us Ontarian's do. > My 6 year old is being taught things that I wasn't taught until grade 7. Pot, meet kettle. Try running a spell-check, or grammar check, Mike...Unless you did get to grade "seventy", which bassed on your post's, is possible. > Likes like you even missed the never end a sentence with a preposition > rule, and a few others, in seventy grade, as well. ;) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> You must have a vastly different education system then us Ontarian's do. >> My 6 year old is being taught things that I wasn't taught until grade 7. > Pot, meet kettle. Try running a spell-check, or grammar check, > Mike...Unless you did get to grade "seventy", which bassed on your post's, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>> You must have a vastly different education system then us Ontarian's do. >>> My 6 year old is being taught things that I wasn't taught until grade 7. It is true that cashiers are not taught how to make change anymore. The correct way is to count up from the total price to the amount tendered. The cashier should count the change to themselves first, then to the customer. When the transaction is treated as a math problem, mistakes are made. Steve R. > It is true that cashiers are not taught how to make change anymore. The > correct way is to count up from the total price to the amount tendered. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Steve R. You are correct, but the fact remains that most cashiers can't do simple counting in their heads. But it is still a math problem. . . SC Tom > What is interesting in this debate is how we have blue collar people > sniping at other blue collar workers because they make more than them. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > trade in areas that are beneficial to all considered rather than just the > corporations. How much is too much? Wages are generally (but not always) paid in accordance with skills and responsibility. Machinists and electricians usually make more than assemblers, who usually make more than janitors. I don't know that business has the blue collar worker convinced of anything. They have work available, The worker can accept the wage or move on to some other place. If not enough workers apply, the business will offer a higher wage. As long as people accept what is offered, it must be acceptable to enough people. You state that blue collar wages are so low. Give some specifics please. I know plenty of blue collar workers that make $25 to $45 an hour. What they have in common is that they possess more skill, have more education and training, than those that do not make that much. In my company, blue collar workers make from $10 to $28. Wide range of wages, wide range of skills. Wages, of course, are just one portion of the cost of having an employee. Insurance, pension, healthcare, vacation time, and all the other benefits are added to the base cost. Your last sentence is interesting. How about some examples? If the corporation benefits, do others benefit also? Here is one example. Corporation A makes televisions. They pay their workers a good wage and sell the TV for $3500. The company makes a small profit, they sell about 500 units a week. Corporation B designs televisions, but has them manufactured in some far off land. They employ a few skilled people, but only have a low paid warehouse staff to move the cheap TV from import container to the shipping dock. They sell the identical featured TV for $500, they sell 5000 of them a week, make a good profit, and you and I can afford one. Maybe even two of them. Who benefits? Look around your house and see how many items we have that are not affordable if made here by highly paid workers. I don't know the answer but it is just as much a moral dilemma as a business decision. The same guy that complains of imports, complains of making low wages, will scour the town to find the lowest possible price on his TV, turn of the ball game and take about the star that is making $10 million a season and think he is not paid enough because his ERA is better than the guy on the other team that makes $15 million a year. Pogo was right. >> What is interesting in this debate is how we have blue collar people >> sniping at other blue collar workers because they make more than them. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > accordance with skills and responsibility. Machinists and electricians > usually make more than assemblers, who usually make more than janitors. Within a company yes, but not throughout the economy as a whole. Are people working on a factory line that much more skilled than a janitor? Is a janitor more skilled in a GM factory than one in a factory that makes dryers and is non unionized? Do you think people should be able to raise their family on $18/hr? In what locations is that enough to pay for a house and car and raise a family? > I don't know that business has the blue collar worker convinced of anything. Well obviously so many people are attacking these line workers for being overpaid. Who do you think puts that idea out? Certainly not unions. Do all of these people just come to that idea on there own? > They have work available, The worker can accept the wage or move on to some > other place. If not enough workers apply, the business will offer a higher > wage. As long as people accept what is offered, it must be acceptable to > enough people. Yes, but when these companies can threaten to move the work to China, what option do these people have. That is why I say that the workers are not benefiting from globalization. The corporations are by being able to sell things here and make them somewhere else. Of course, when people are no longer able to buy the products, then the problem with the approach begins to show as it is now throughout the retail industry. > You state that blue collar wages are so low. Give some specifics please. I > know plenty of blue collar workers that make $25 to $45 an hour. I gave an example of some people making $18/hour. Some people say minimum wage is acceptable for some of these people. Do you think no one is making minimum wage? So there you go. Everyone making minimum wage is an example. The fact that you have to ask indicates you are arguing from an ideological perspective rather than actually thinking things through. What they > have in common is that they possess more skill, have more education and > training, than those that do not make that much. In my company, blue collar [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Pogo was right. "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message > Within a company yes, but not throughout the economy as a whole. Are > people working on a factory line that much more skilled than a janitor? > Is a janitor more skilled in a GM factory than one in a factory that makes > dryers and is non unionized? Generalizations are generally wrong, but yes, the line worker is often, but not always, more skilled. Some janitors are doing that job becuase it is the best they have the ability to do. Others are doing it waiting for an opening as an assembler or fork truck operator and will jump at the chance to advance. > Do you think people should be able to raise their family on $18/hr? In > what locations is that enough to pay for a house and car and raise a > family? No, it is not. That is why apartments and used cars have a market. What should everyone make? Doctors can make $200k a year so should we pay everyone that much? >> I don't know that business has the blue collar worker convinced of >> anything. > > Well obviously so many people are attacking these line workers for being > overpaid. Who do you think puts that idea out? Certainly not unions. Do > all of these people just come to that idea on there own? Most people that think they are overpaid are either jealous and don't have the skills or motivation to do more, or are just plain cheap even though they are making more. I honestly don't know what the job is worth on the line but I'd guess at $20 to $25 with higher rate for higher skills or performance bonuses. Certainly not $10 or $40. > Yes, but when these companies can threaten to move the work to China, what > option do these people have. That is why I say that the workers are not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > problem with the approach begins to show as it is now throughout the > retail industry. We all want to buy cheap TV (or fill in name of your favorite appliance), but we don't want to pay $25 an hour to assemble them in the US if it means we'd have to pay a lot more for them. We won't pay $399 for a dishwaster at the local dealer because Home Depot has them for $379. This is the reason for my Pogo reference in my last post. . If you are too young to know, Pogo was a comics character who said the famous line "we have met the enemy and it is us" > I gave an example of some people making $18/hour. Some people say minimum > wage is acceptable for some of these people. Do you think no one is making > minimum wage? So there you go. Everyone making minimum wage is an example. > The fact that you have to ask indicates you are arguing from an > ideological perspective rather than actually thinking things through. IMO, the minimum wage should be $10/hour and yes, some people should be earning that amount. Such as a high school kid stocking shelves at the grocery store. >"Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message >> Within a company yes, but not throughout the economy as a whole. Are [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >line but I'd guess at $20 to $25 with higher rate for higher skills or >performance bonuses. Certainly not $10 or $40. Performance bonus in a Union auto factory? I'd like some of what you are smoking!!! >> Yes, but when these companies can threaten to move the work to China, what >> option do these people have. That is why I say that the workers are not [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >earning that amount. Such as a high school kid stocking shelves at the >grocery store. <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote in message > Performance bonus in a Union auto factory? I'd like some of what you > are smoking!!! That is one reason I never wanted to work in a union shop. I want to be recognized and paid for my skills, ability, performance, and whatever else gets me a raise. I'm certainly not thrilled about carrying some drone doing the minimal amount of work. If this was 1928, I'd be pro-union and probably be one of the organizers. Not in the world today. Whenever I was looking for a job, if the HR guy told me they give all employees a turkey for Thanksgiving as well as a turkey and a bonus at Christmas, I walked away. Companies that were offering me turkeys and bonuses were obviously NOT going to pay me enough ALL year LOL > Performance bonus in a Union auto factory? I'd like some of what you > are smoking!!! It is the deficiencies in our school system that encourages mediocrity in the guise of "fairness." The answer to that is always 'we need more money.' The most expensive school system in the US is Washington DC. The cost per student would send others to some colleges, yet it has the worst academic record. To hell with political correctness. Keep the kids back untill their parents realize THEY need to get involved or they reach sixteen. Educate those that want to be educated so they can move up in the world and to hell with those that do not want to be educated. Some of my great grand-children play soccer in a league that does not keep score, so as nto to offend those that lose. Ask any one of them who one and they will tell you who won. The world is full of competition and the kids know it but many forget that fact when they go out into the world it seems. Those are the ones our government sends a check to buy their vote and the rest of us pay the "price." >> What is interesting in this debate is how we have blue collar people >> sniping at other blue collar workers because they make more than them. [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Pogo was right. I'm having a hard time understanding how my parents could become completely literate during the depression and yet the city of Detroit has a functional illiteracy rate near 50% due to underfunding. Do they have less money to spend than schools did during the depression? > It is the deficiencies in our school system that encourages mediocrity in > the guise of "fairness." The answer to that is always 'we need more [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] >> >> Pogo was right. > I'm having a hard time understanding how my parents could become > completely literate during the depression and yet the city of Detroit has > a functional illiteracy rate near 50% due to underfunding. Do they have > less money to spend than schools did during the depression? Funding and literacy are only loosely connected. The USA spends the highest per pupil, yet we are ranked #10 for literacy. It takes high standards and hard work by the three main components of education. The teacher, the parents, the students. Too many parents warehouse their kids in day care centers rather that spend time checking on their education, helping at school, and too many teachers are more interested in their pension, not to mention that strict discipline is not allowed and the kids just want to take the easy way out to get by. Reward the great teachers, dump the crappy ones, allow some discipline, demand A's and B's, not lower the passing grade five points. Sounds great but the teachers are not permitted to do that by the system ;) >> I'm having a hard time understanding how my parents could become >> completely literate during the depression and yet the city of Detroit has [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Reward the great teachers, dump the crappy ones, allow some discipline, > demand A's and B's, not lower the passing grade five points. "Ed Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message news:Bo%Vk.6713 > Funding and literacy are only loosely connected. The USA spends the > highest per pupil, yet we are ranked #10 for literacy. It takes high > standards and hard work by the three main components of education. The > teacher, the parents, the students. **********We spend an inordinate amount on children with learning disorders compared with bright children. IIRC, it is on the order of 1000:1, but dont quote me on that. Mind you , children with learning disorders need help, but we really need the bright ones to be well educated. We now spend three times more in equivalent dollars per student that we did a few decades ago, and are getting a poorer educated student. > Too many parents warehouse their kids in day care centers rather that > spend time checking on their education, helping at school, and too many [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Reward the great teachers, dump the crappy ones, allow some discipline, > demand A's and B's, not lower the passing grade five points. *********** Not wrong. Here we have another problem that the children must pass the TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) test, and the teachers must spend most of their time trying to "cram" the poorer students for this test than teaching them anything at all. It appears to me you answered your own question. I was educated by my parent during the depression, we were not allowed to go to school in southern Georgia back then ;) > I'm having a hard time understanding how my parents could become > completely literate during the depression and yet the city of Detroit has [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] >>> >>> Pogo was right. > It is the deficiencies in our school system that encourages mediocrity in > the guise of "fairness." No argument with that. > The answer to that is always 'we need more > money.' The most expensive school system in the US is Washington DC. The > cost per student would send others to some colleges, yet it has the worst > academic record. To hell with political correctness. Keep the kids back > until their parents realize THEY need to get involved or they reach > sixteen. That's all very well in principle, but how does a single parent (deserted by spouse) working two poorly paid jobs to keep roof over their heads and food on the table have time to become *adequately* involved in the children's education? What about children who leave the house, ostensibly for school, but never show up? Or the kids that show up at school but walk the hallways instead of going to class? (Both situations shown in a recent documentary about an inner-city school in Baltimore, MD.) What about schools that can't retain teachers for more than a few months, so that students have substitute after substitute, many of whom are not qualified to teach what they are assigned to teach and may not be good teachers at all? What about a system where schools depend for their finances on property taxes that dwindle further and further as industry and commerce flee the area? Perce The same things other parents do, check their homework, look at their report cards and HELP you kids learn. Hell my on grand son has a daughter who just turned three in September. She knows how and when to go to the bathroom, knows the colors, knows how to hold a pencil and can write more than half the letters in the alphabet, knows her right hand from the left and car ride a two wheel bicycle. Two of my daughters are teachers, a first grade teacher friend told me she has kids that have been in school for three mounts and can not do as well. Why? Her parents and I spend time TEACHING her. Kida that age have a brain like a sponge, they can lean whatever you teach them if you take the time to do so. >> It is the deficiencies in our school system that encourages mediocrity in >> the guise of "fairness." [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Perce "Percival P. Cassidy" <nobody@notmyISP.net> wrote in message >> The answer to that is always 'we need more >> money.' The most expensive school system in the US is Washington DC. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Perce There are many imbalances in society. None, however, will be solved by just throwing money at them and allowing the government to fix them. Single parents working crappy job can still check a child's report card and demand good grades. They can at least take an occasional peek at he homework. They can encourage their children to do better. Both parents and schools have to be allowed to discipline a child. We used to respect, maybe fear, some of the teachers, elders in the neighborhood, and our parents. Today, you cannot touch a kid or give them any sort of serious punishment. The kids just tell parents and teacher to "go f#$% yourself" and nothing is done about it. Teachers complain they have 15 kids in a class and cannot maintain control. My grammar school classes had 45 to 60 students and we behaved. Standards for both students and teachers must be raised to a higher level. It has been allowed to backslide in the past 20 years or so. Too many teachers are too stupid to be teaching. My granddaughter had an English teacher that could not speak fluent English and could not spell. It has been years since my own kids were in school, but I remember getting a note from a teacher. I sent it back with corrections! Get rid of many of the government mandates that schools have and let the good teachers teach. Don't hamper them with lawsuits because they spoke harshly to Johnny. One nun with a yardstick could handle 80 first graders or either graders. Today she'd be in jail for threatening. Oh, and 65 is failing, IMO. >>> The answer to that is always 'we need more >>> money.' The most expensive school system in the US is Washington DC. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> taxes that dwindle further and further as industry and commerce flee the >> area? > There are many imbalances in society. None, however, will be solved by just > throwing money at them and allowing the government to fix them. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > in a class and cannot maintain control. My grammar school classes had 45 to > 60 students and we behaved. Agreed. > Standards for both students and teachers must be raised to a higher level. > It has been allowed to backslide in the past 20 years or so. Too many > teachers are too stupid to be teaching. My granddaughter had an English > teacher that could not speak fluent English and could not spell. It has > been years since my own kids were in school, but I remember getting a note > from a teacher. I sent it back with corrections! Agreed. > Get rid of many of the government mandates that schools have and let the > good teachers teach. Don't hamper them with lawsuits because they spoke > harshly to Johnny. One nun with a yardstick could handle 80 first graders > or either graders. Today she'd be in jail for threatening. Agreed. > Oh, and 65 is failing, IMO. Depends on the kind of test and the grading system. The first paper I got back at an Australian university got 8/10. The teacher told the whole class: "Just so you know what your grade really means, we think that anyone who gets 8 1/2 should be up here teaching the class." The overall grading system was from 1 up to 7, with a recommended approximate "curve" for "sufficiently large" classes. (4 was the lowest "regular" passing grade; 3 was "we'll call this a pass, but it doesn't qualify you to take a class for which this was a prerequisite.") It was expected that approx. 3% to 5% of the class would get the top grade of 7, and faculty would get "please explain" notes if they deviated from the recommendations too far or too often. Some faculty -- and even some whole departments -- simply did not give grades of 7, especially if they could argue that the class was *not* "sufficiently large" for the curve to apply. I don't know what changes might have been made there since my time there. I talked recently with a retired prof. from a US private college. He said that when he graduated from that same college, there would be one Summa cum Laude and a handful of Magna cum Laude; now there is a whole slew of names on the Summa list. Along with the grade inflation there is title inflation in US academia when compared with the UK/Australian system. In the US almost every faculty member is some kind of "Professor," whereas a UK or Australian university might have only one Professor per department, the ranks below that being Reader, Senior Lecturer, Lecturer, Senior Tutor and Tutor Perce There is no question problems in our schools can be placed directly on parents that do not have control of the children. The fact that the majority of students in any school provided with the same learning opportunities, are LEARNING in those very same schools, proves that fact. >>>> The answer to that is always 'we need more >>>> money.' The most expensive school system in the US is Washington DC. [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > > Perce Probably because the politicians use class envy to get their vote, Workers in the US, unlike those in Japan, for example, prefer to buy products made in their own county to protect their own jobs, as well as the jobs that will be available for their children and grand-children. American will be from whoever if it they think it will saves them a few dollars ;) > What is interesting in this debate is how we have blue collar people > sniping at other blue collar workers because they make more than them. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > trade in areas that are beneficial to all considered rather than just the > corporations. My friend suffered a heart attack in Canada, it took THREE days for him to be seen by a Cardiologist, who told him he required bypass surgery. He said we will put you on a heart monitor in case you needed it BEFORE three months. He returned to the US and had the surgery the next day. When I had a heart attach I saw a Cardiologist at 5:30 PM the same day and the surgery the following morning >> >> Actually we do have some private insurers. >> > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > health care result in physical and psychological suffering that meets a > threshold test of seriousness.² > ..."Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Chief > Justice Beverly McLachlin. "The evidence in this case shows that delays [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > health care result in physical and psychological suffering that meets a > threshold test of seriousness.² That's what needed to be said. There's an ever-growing socialist mind-set that as long as anyone is better off than someone else, that's bad, and "good" means everyone is equal, even if everyone is extremely miserable, the important thing is that every one is the same. IOW, the mind set continues, having a very good average standard of living with some better off than others is not acceptable. Better that all incentive for people bettering themselves and their families individually be destroyed so that everyone can be equal. The U.S. is lagging all or most all countries in that sentiment, but unfortunately we are traveling down that road at an ever-increasing pace. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> Actually we do have some private insurers. > > Since when? The fact that that was illegal was the > focus of a CDN Supreme Court ruling a few years ago. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060216/que_health_care_060 215/20060217?hub=CanadaAM Not quite! The employee will pay a monthly fee for each member of his family, for whom he wants to buy coverage. GM set aside billions, starting in January, to set up a VEBA, like the Mittel Steel the foreign company that bought up most of America steel producers, did for the Steelworkers drug plan. Since a Voluntary Employee Benefit Association is completely TAX free the employees get much better benefits for far less money. The Steelworkers drug plan VEBA actually pays each family MORE than the former workers pay it in a year >> In article >> <17053879-db09-4606-a979-9a2597d1f9b3@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I always hear that private is better and more efficient than public in all > cases so you must be mistaken. What country are you talking about? > Not quite! The employee will pay a monthly fee for each member of his > family, for whom he wants to buy coverage. GM set aside billions, starting [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> I always hear that private is better and more efficient than public in all >> cases so you must be mistaken. >>>> In article >>>> <17053879-db09-4606-a979-9a2597d1f9b3@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>>> >>>> The B3 cars have been selling well in Canada this year. Actually, we haven't experienced the same issues as you have in the overall economy. Our stock market has tanked too though. > What country are you talking about? My c.nt is a regular troll and spammer. If he has a clue, he must have lost it in a dice game. I killfiled this sh.t a long time ago.. He is not even worth responding to. > > Difficult to compete with next door Canada, where all get basic > > health care for life at a very reasonable fee per individual. > > That Canadian advantage lowers company costs significantly. I've wondered why the B3 were shutting down plants in Ontario over the past few years, given that they are paying huge legacy heathcare costs for thousands of retired US auto workers and their surviving spouses. No doubt that US health care costs are a huge factor in the unprofitable operations of the B3. > Yeah, well we pay for it in our taxes, both corporate and > individual, plus the price of gasoline. I always hear that > private is better and more efficient than public in > all cases so you must be mistaken. If you're an American employee working for a company that pays the health insurance for your family, then of course you're going to think that private health insurance is the best. If you're an American employee that has to pay for family heath insurance out-of-pocket, or if you're the owner of a small to medium-sized company, the US health care system is a bitch and very costly to you. Ontarians don't realize how efficient our health care system is at allocating resources and controlling costs while delivering pretty good care, all without filling out insurance forms and worrying if your treatment will be approved. And naturally our drug costs are lower too. > Yeah, well we pay for it in our taxes, If you were an American and had to pay for health insurance for your family, you'd be forking out $10k to $12k a year for the same coverage you get from OHIP. There is no way that you're being over-taxed to anywhere near that amount. Don't forget too that built into the US health care system is the cost of malpractice insurance, which is huge because of no caps for punative dammage awards. Since we have caps for punative awards, malpractice insurance costs are much lower here. >>> Difficult to compete with next door Canada, where all get basic >>> health care for life at a very reasonable fee per individual. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > dammage awards. Since we have caps for punative awards, malpractice > insurance costs are much lower here. I am aware of what you are talking about. I am just explaining to some of them that we do pay for this from our taxes. It is not free. So when considering tax levels, we should probably instead consider health insurance costs + tax levels. > I am aware of what you are talking about. I am just explaining to some > of them that we do pay for this from our taxes. It is not free. > So when considering tax levels, we should probably instead consider > health insurance costs + tax levels. It's amazing how discussions of socialized medicine always turn into a shell game where the discussion goes around in continuous circles. You are correct - people in favor of socialized medicine talk as if it is free when it is obvious to the thinking person that the costs have to come from somewhere. Someone mentioned medicines are cheaper in Canada. Hopefully that problem will be fixed in the U.S. where we are subsidizing all the other countries by the difference that we pay for the same medicines by the price structures for U.S. vs. non-U.S. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> I am aware of what you are talking about. I am just explaining to some >> of them that we do pay for this from our taxes. It is not free. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > countries by the difference that we pay for the same medicines by the > price structures for U.S. vs. non-U.S. But health care is still 1/3 cheaper by % of GDP in Canada. >>> I am aware of what you are talking about. I am just explaining to >>> some of them that we do pay for this from our taxes. It is not free. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > But health care is still 1/3 cheaper by % of GDP in Canada. Is that an honest figure? Is that the *total* health care cost? Does everyone agree on that figure, or is it calculated using some Al Gore-type method that ignores certain inconvenient things and exaggerates others or includes some "savings" that should not be included? How much of that cost is the cost of medicines subsidized by the U.S. consumer and health care industry? What quality level has been lost to hit whatever the cost level is? SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > > But health care is still 1/3 cheaper by % of GDP in Canada. > > Is that an honest figure? http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/html/myth28_e.php -------------- in the U.S., healthcare spending as a proportion of GDP increased from 7% in 1975 to 15.3% in 2005. In Canada, the figures rose from 7% to 9.8% over the same time period, remaining constant at about 8 to 10% of the nations GDP for the last 20 years. ------------- 10% is 1/3 less than 15%. And just to be clear, some reports assign the name "medicare" to Canada's health care system. All readers should note that there is no such single pan-Canadian health care system. Each province operates it's own health insurance system, none of which go by the name "medicare". For example, health care in Ontario is funded by OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan). And there are complications when a resident of one province is treated in another province. If a resident of Toronto is diagnosed with some rare disease, he simply can't travel to a specialist in Vancouver (BC) and be treated and expect OHIP to pay for it without prior approval. And if there is no such approval, then he'll have to pay out-of-pocket for the treatment, or fight OHIP in court after the fact. This document: http://www.aims.ca/library/MPPI_pharma-revised_.pdf explains why drugs are cheaper in Canada. I think it over-emphasizes the "market separation" theory, which claims that the Canadian and US drug markets are sufficiently partitioned from each other so that the drug companies can charge different prices in each market according to what each market can afford, and since (according to the article) Canadians are "poorer" than Americans, then the drug companies must charge proportionately less for drugs in Canada to maximize sales and net-profits. The above document does not fully explain the effect on Canadian drug prices by the "Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB)". The PMPRB uses international price benchmarking to regulate Canadian prices, in effect creating price ceilings. The Canadian price for new products cannot be more than the average price of the seven international peers the PMPRB uses as the reference group. When it comes to health care in Canada, the PMPRB is the only federal agency or legal body that affects health care costs (specifically, drug costs) across all of Canada. But even with the PMPRB, the individual provinces themselves can (and do) negotiate their own drug prices directly with the drug makers, which usually results in prices that are less than what is dictated by the PMPRB. Back in the USA, just as malpractice insurance and court awards drive up healthcare costs, so too does law suits against drug companies drive up drug costs. To quote the article: "The US legal system in effect imposes a huge tax on pharmaceuticals that Canadians do not have to pay." One other thing makes US health care costs high (not mentioned in the above document) is that it's common in various state laws that health insurance purchasers (individual companies, municiple gov'ts, other entities, etc) can't band together into large groups and negotiate their own health insurance and drug plans. By being prevented by law from forming large purchasing groups, they can't enjoy the bargaining power that the Canadian provinces have. > What quality level has been lost to hit whatever the cost level is? What has been lost in the Canadian healthcare systems are the costs associated with lawsuits and malpractice insurance, and the costs associated with thousands (and even millions) of white-collar administrative jobs in both the health insurance companies and the healthcare delivery side (hospitals, private clinics, etc) that are involved with record keeping, billing, reimbursement tracking, and in general fighting over payments. All those back-office, paper-pushing jobs play absolutely no role in health care delivery to the patient, but yet are necessary to make the US health care system work. > And just to be clear, some reports assign the name "medicare" to > Canada's health care system. All readers should note that there is no > such single pan-Canadian health care system. Each province operates > it's own health insurance system, none of which go by the name > "medicare". For example, health care in Ontario is funded by OHIP > (Ontario Health Insurance Plan). And there are differences in what the different plans pay for and the costs they get in both premiums and taxes. a > explains why drugs are cheaper in Canada. I think it over-emphasizes > the "market separation" theory, which claims that the Canadian and US [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > charge proportionately less for drugs in Canada to maximize sales and > net-profits. But for prescription drugs the prices that will be paid are set by the plans. While it is based on the average of a basket of different country's prices, all but the US also have government price controls. So the pharms have the choice of either taking what the Canadian's will pay or not selling the medications at all. So, they are PAID proportionally less because that is all the Plans will allow. In fact, if a company produces a new medication and decides not to wait for the allowable price to decided upon by the bureaucracy, if the allowable price is less than what the pharm thought it was going to be, then the pharm has to return the difference. The drug companies must charge less to get ANY sales and profits. One interesting stat that argues for the idea that they are not really different markets if let alone is that Canadians pay more for generics than in the US. One of the (relative) cost savings for the US is actually more expensive in the Great White North. Another interesting stat is the the Western Countries and Japan all are comparable to the US in the PERCENTAGE of total healthcare expenditures go to drugs. This would tend to argue that if everybody spent the same total as the US, drug prices would be pretty much the same. > The above document does not fully explain the effect on Canadian drug > prices by the "Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB)". The > PMPRB uses international price benchmarking to regulate Canadian prices, > in effect creating price ceilings. The Canadian price for new products > cannot be more than the average price of the seven international peers > the PMPRB uses as the reference group. Which I just spent a whole bunch of time above explaining how it fits in, so I won't bother again (g)> > When it comes to health care in Canada, the PMPRB is the only federal > agency or legal body that affects health care costs (specifically, drug > costs) across all of Canada. But even with the PMPRB, the individual > provinces themselves can (and do) negotiate their own drug prices > directly with the drug makers, which usually results in prices that are > less than what is dictated by the PMPRB. But again, it is a take it or leave it. Sorta hard to "negotiate" under those circumstances. > One other thing makes US health care costs high (not mentioned in the > above document) is that it's common in various state laws that health [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > forming large purchasing groups, they can't enjoy the bargaining power > that the Canadian provinces have. Governments often exempt themselves from troublesome things like anti-trust laws (g). > > What quality level has been lost to hit whatever the cost level is? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > jobs play absolutely no role in health care delivery to the patient, but > yet are necessary to make the US health care system work. But there are still rationing methods included in the CDN system. Otherwise you couldn't control prices any better than we can. You ration by the queue and by budgets that can mean some hospital shut down except for emergencies toward the end of the year. >> And just to be clear, some reports assign the name "medicare" to >> Canada's health care system. All readers should note that there is no [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > the pharms have the choice of either taking what the Canadian's will pay > or not selling the medications at all. I remember this being negotiated during Mulroney's terms in office. > So, they are PAID proportionally less because that is all the Plans > will allow. In fact, if a company produces a new medication and decides [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > by the queue and by budgets that can mean some hospital shut down except > for emergencies toward the end of the year. >>> But health care is still 1/3 cheaper by % of GDP in Canada. >> Is that an honest figure? [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > jobs play absolutely no role in health care delivery to the patient, but > yet are necessary to make the US health care system work. Not to mention the profits the private companies make and refuse to divulge. People talk about how much less efficient public companies are (don't agree for the reasons stated by MoPar) but don't mention that private companies take out huge amounts in profits. We have to pay for that too but it is probably never mentioned as a cost by people advocating private over public because it is not considered a cost from the companies perspective. > > > But health care is still 1/3 cheaper by % of GDP in Canada. > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > "The US legal system in effect imposes a huge tax on pharmaceuticals > that Canadians do not have to pay." A 2004 CBO report concluded that capping awards at $250,000 for non- economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits "would basically save only 0.4 percent of the amount that's spent now" on health care. According to the report, "[M]alpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small." > One other thing makes US health care costs high (not mentioned in the > above document) is that it's common in various state laws that health [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > forming large purchasing groups, they can't enjoy the bargaining power > that the Canadian provinces have. And when the Republicans in Congress passed the Medicare prescription drug law, they protected their friends in the pharmaceutical industry by expressly forbidding negotiating for low drug costs. Thanks, fellows! > > What quality level has been lost to hit whatever the cost level is? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > jobs play absolutely no role in health care delivery to the patient, but > yet are necessary to make the US health care system work. And the costs associated with having for-profit insurers looking for ways to deny claims. In article <9eb5eb4c-f6f7-4a95-a8b0-b572e8aa08eb@l42g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, > A 2004 CBO report concluded that capping awards at $250,000 for non- > economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits "would basically save [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health > insurance premiums would be comparably small." There is another CBO study (as well as a couple in JAMA, one from Center for Medicare/Medicaid studies, and others) that suggest the impact from "defensive" medicine is much more than that. If you cut back the malpractice there would be other savings. However, I have yet to see one that convinces me that even with added costs, it would be a percent change over all. Although it might help. > > One other thing makes US health care costs high (not mentioned in the > > above document) is that it's common in various state laws that health [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > by expressly forbidding negotiating for low drug costs. Thanks, > fellows! Actually they only said that Medicare couldn't negotiate. The companies who actually run the programs can and have. Medicare's prescription drug program is structured so that insurance companies must compete for customers, which results in more choices and lets seniors search for the best value. In 2003, lawmakers estimated seniors would pay an average monthly premium for prescription drug coverage in 2009 of more than $44. According to government officials, their average monthly premium next year for the standard plan will be just $28. Compared to original projections, the cost to the taxpayers of the new drug benefit is $243.7 billion, or 39%, lower over 10 years than original estimates. Despite the fact that in the first year Part D was actual under budget and cheaper than forecast, it was still successful. A study by IMS Health and independent consulting firm that examines the impact of Medicare's prescription drug program on issues such as out-of-pocket spending, generic drug usage, access to therapy, and rates of compliance. Key findings: € Previously uninsured seniors benefited the most from the program, decreasing their out-of-pocket costs by 60% and increasing their use of pharmaceuticals by 26%. € Beneficiaries who switched from other third-party coverage to Medicare's prescription drug program decreased their out-of-pocket costs by 17% and increased their prescription use by 10%. € After reaching the initial coverage limit, only 6% of beneficiaries entered the "donut hole," nearly half (45%) of whom did not enter until the last quarter of 2006. Under budget, cheaper and doing pretty much what it was supposed to do. >re necessary to make the US health care system work. > > And the costs associated with having for-profit insurers looking for > ways to deny claims. Of course even the government plans don't cover a lot of things. You have to be in a condition that meets the government definition of "medical necessity" before treatment will be paid for under Mcare or MCaid. "Lloyd" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message news:9eb5eb4c-f6f7-4a95-a8b0- > "The US legal system in effect imposes a huge tax on pharmaceuticals > that Canadians do not have to pay." ************ I dont think the legal system imposes any particularly extreme taxes on pharmaceuticals. The pharmas use the USA to pay the profits that they can not ramp up in foreign countries which negociate the prices on a governmental level.....and do so with the blessing of the government. And when the Republicans in Congress passed the Medicare prescription drug law, they protected their friends in the pharmaceutical industry by expressly forbidding negotiating for low drug costs. Thanks, fellows! **************Congress in general and Republicans in particular have indeed protected the pharma industry. Disgracefully. > > "The US legal system in effect imposes a huge tax on > > pharmaceuticals that Canadians do not have to pay." > > I don't think the legal system imposes any particularly extreme > taxes on pharmaceuticals. Huge lawsuit payouts for punative dammage awards are essentially extreme taxes on pharma companies. You don't have large punative dammage awards in other countries. Only in the US. The cost of liability insurance for pharma companies must be factored into the price of the drugs they sell in the US. > The pharmas use the USA to pay the profits that they can not ramp > up in foreign countries ... The cost of doing business in other countries is cheaper vs the US, so the pharma companies can earn profits in those countries even if they sell their products at a lower price. You have some good arguments and information. However, I don't trust the numbers that show the percentages of GDP without seeing what went into the calculations. Remember how everything was "absolutely proven" about global warming by the UN and NASA (which by the way is still cooking its data books on that as recently as last month). So again, unless I see how the information was gathered and the calculations were made to support such conclusions, I take them with a huge grain of salt. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >>> But health care is still 1/3 cheaper by % of GDP in Canada. >> Is that an honest figure? [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > jobs play absolutely no role in health care delivery to the patient, but > yet are necessary to make the US health care system work. > You have some good arguments and information. However, I don't > trust the numbers that show the percentages of GDP without > seeing what went into the calculations. ------------------------- http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/35176.html The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) is the Government of Canada's agency for health research. Through CIHR, the Government of Canada invested approximately $25.5 million in 2006-07 in research on Canada's health-care system. The Facts In 2006, Canada was forecast to spend $148 billion on health care, an average of $4,548 per Canadian and a 5.8% increase over 2005. Of this, private-sector health spending (insurance and out-of-pocket expenditures) was expected to increase to $44 billion in 2006, accounting for 30% of total spending on health care. In 2006, health-care spending was expected to amount to 10.3% of the gross domestic product. Hospitals remain the single largest category of spending, accounting for almost 30% of total spending. In 2006, hospital spending was forecast at $44 billion. Drug expenditures were forecast to grow by 6% over 2006, accounting for 17% of total health-care spending. In 2006, Canada was forecast to spend $19.4 billion on physician services, up 7.1% from 2005. Most private-sector spending was expected to go to drugs and dentistry. --------------------- -------------------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_gross _domestic_product As of 2006, Canada has a total gross domestic product (GDP) of C$1.439 trillion ranking 8th in the world or (at purchasing power parity (PPP) roughly US$1.164 trillion, ranking 12th in the world. GDP per capita essentially total GDP divided by population for Canada is C$44,109 or US$35,778, ranking 7th worldwide. ------------------ ------------------ http://www41.statcan.ca/2007/3764/ceb3764_000-eng.htm In nominal terms, the value of all goods and services produced in Canada in 2006 was $1.45 trillionor just over $44,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. ------------------ Using the figure of $1.44 trillion as Canada's GDP for 2006, and using $148 billion for Canada's total healthcare cost for 2006, then 148/1440 = 10.28% (or 10.3%) This includes hospitals, doctors, drugs, even dental costs. Note: Only reconstructive jaw or mouth surgery is covered by OHIP. Practically all other dental work is either paid out-of-pocket (unless you're on welfare aka social assistance) or you have private dental coverage as provided by your employer. I wouldn't think that the $148 billion figure would include OTC products such as pain relievers, allergy pills, cold remedies, chicken soup, etc. Regarding US health care spending: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/edu/healthecon/02_he_review.html http://www.ptei.org/interior.php?pageID=95 -------------- http://facts.kff.org/?CFID=33132100&CFTOKEN=43374458 Health spending in the United States averaged $7,026 per person in 2006, totaling $2.1 trillion, or 16% of our nation's economy, up from 7.2% of GDP in 1970 and 12.3% of GDP in 1990 -------------- As a percentage of GDP, healthcare spending in the US seems to be rising at the rate of somewhere between 0.5% and 1% per year for the past 3 or 4 years. From the above sources, it currently sits somewhere between 14% and 17%. > >>> I am aware of what you are talking about. I am just explaining to > >>> some of them that we do pay for this from our taxes. It is not free. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Is that an honest figure? Is that the *total* health care cost? Probably. The US spends more per capita on health care than any other nation on earth. > Does > everyone agree on that figure, or is it calculated using some Al > Gore-type method that ignores certain inconvenient things and > exaggerates others or includes some "savings" that should not be > included? How much of that cost is the cost of medicines subsidized by > the U.S. consumer and health care industry? So you're saying the drug companies are cheating Americans by overcharging us compared to what they charge in other countries? But I thought free markets and capitalism were the solution to everything! > What quality level has been > lost to hit whatever the cost level is? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') In article <f47c1ee5-f005-4711-80a4-09a3dde020e8@3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, > > Is that an honest figure? Is that the *total* health care cost? > > Probably. The US spends more per capita on health care than any other > nation on earth. And ithas been that way for at least the last 15 years I have been following it. >>>>> I am aware of what you are talking about. I am just explaining to >>>>> some of them that we do pay for this from our taxes. It is not free. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Probably. The US spends more per capita on health care than any other > nation on earth. The other countries have rationed care, so it's not surprising. >> Does >> everyone agree on that figure, or is it calculated using some Al [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > overcharging us compared to what they charge in other countries? But > I thought free markets and capitalism were the solution to everything! Look - you just got nailed on half truths (the one about no one being able to negotiate on drug costs, and that private insurers look for ways not to pay claims - ignoring the fact that a gov't-run plan not only looks for ways to deny claims, but dictates such without recourse). So I guess one more lie won't be too surprising. How do you consider that our competing with non-free-market countries equates to our competing in a free market? >> What quality level has been >> lost to hit whatever the cost level is? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >> address with the letter 'x') SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message > Look - you just got nailed on half truths (the one about no one being > able to negotiate on drug costs, and that private insurers look for ways > not to pay claims - ignoring the fact that a gov't-run plan not only > looks for ways to deny claims, but dictates such without recourse). I made a statement that insurers look for ways to deny claims and I stand by it. It is not a lie at all. > "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message >> Look - you just got nailed on half truths (the one about no one being [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I made a statement that insurers look for ways to deny claims and I > stand by it. It is not a lie at all. (1) I was referring to what Lloyd had said (Lloyd wrote: "And the costs associated with having for-profit insurers looking for ways to deny claims." (2) I said it was a *half truth*, not an outright lie per-se, to point that out in this discussion because "gov't-run plan not only looks for ways to deny claims, but dictates such without recourse". To acknowledge one and deny the other is a half-truth (dishonest). I never said it was a lie - just a dishonest half-truth. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message >>> Look - you just got nailed on half truths (the one about no one being [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I never said it was a lie - just a dishonest half-truth. I was not discussing a government run plan, simply private insurance carriers. It is neither a half truth nor a lie,and is certainly not dishonest. This happens routinely here. >>> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message >>>> Look - you just got nailed on half truths (the one about no one [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > This happens routinely here. Except the discussion here is comparing the two. So we're not interested in the sound of one hand clapping. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > > I made a statement that insurers look for ways to deny claims > > and I stand by it. It is not a lie at all. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Except the discussion here is comparing the two. Ya, so .... ? > So we're not interested in the sound of one hand clapping. ? Private insurers -> try to deny claims Public insurers -> do not even employ claims agents or perform pre-approval for treatments How's that for "comparing the two" ? >>> I made a statement that insurers look for ways to deny claims >>> and I stand by it. It is not a lie at all. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Private insurers -> try to deny claims Never had my insurance try to deny a claim, nor has anyone I know. Two of the insurance companies I deal with send me paperwork every 6 months to ask if I have any claims to report, even minor ones. > Public insurers -> do not even employ claims agents or perform > pre-approval for treatments BULL. My FIL has a hell of a time every year with his SS, Medicaid and the doctors because the drugs that his wife are on are expensive. He has to take her in for evaluations every 6 months to see if they will pay for her treatments. > How's that for "comparing the two" ? SignatureSteve W. Near Cooperstown, New York I never heard of private insurers, but cant say that they dont exist in Texas. When I was running my own company about 10-15 years ago, I had to pay $800+ per month for my wife, son, and myself. No matter how well we followed the rules they established, they always found a "catch 22" and would not pay. Changed to another insurer.. Same thing. For that amount of money, I and my employees could have set up an unofficial pool and paid all our own bills. ALL of them. Under Norwegian national health, there were no claims to file at all. You just went to a doctor, paid your "egen andel", or surcharge, and that was the end of it. Surcharge was waived for those in economic low levels. I much prefer the Norwegian system. There ARE private doctors there if you dont like the triage system of the national health system. They are, I suppose, subsidized too and neither health care nor prescriptions are overly expensive. > I never heard of private insurers, but cant say that they dont exist in > Texas. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > unofficial > pool and paid all our own bills. ALL of them. The gotcha on that is that all it takes is a couple of people in your pool to get cancer and run up well into 6 figures in bills each to bankrupt your self-funded kitty. The same effect happens if you work for a small company with a 3rd party carrier and a handful of covered employees or family members come down with something catastrophic - the insurance company then looks at your company as an isolated high risk group and the rates for just your company go thru the roof. My philosophy with warranties and insurance in general is to self insure whenever possible except for things that could wipe you out financially. I used to think about shopping for a catastrophic health insurance plan to replace what I get thru work, but the irony is that employer provided insurance anymore has become just that, except they don't call it that. > Under Norwegian national health, there were no claims to file at all. > You just went [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > subsidized too and > neither health care nor prescriptions are overly expensive. Norway has its own problems. I've seen figures of what it costs in taxes and fees to buy a car in Norway. There ain't no free lunch. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > Norway has its own problems. I've seen figures of what it costs in taxes > and fees to buy a car in Norway. There ain't no free lunch. Cars are expensive due to the tax system, no doubt. But almost everybody owns one. Wages are much higher than here. For the foreigner coming into Norway, it looks hopeless. But in a small system (large country, small population, and great wealth) of this type, things seem to work well despite themselves. We have been paying $6-8 per gallon for gasoline for a long time.. About 10% less for diesel. It is difficult, but not impossible, to amass wealth there. But wealth is not really needed. Everything is taken care of including retirement. Goes very counter to the American way of life...but, it works and works well. When I first got there, I paid 92% in income tax. Later it dropped to 52%. And that paid for my social health, retirement, governmental expenses, etc, and I had money left over. If you look at US income tax, starting with about 28%, and add about 15% for social security, plus healthcare, etc.. it is surprisingly near the American model. And the advantages under Scandinavian socialism is that we have little crime, essentially no homeless, very low unemployment, high levels of education, and little cultural difficulties. Not for most Americans, but it worked well for me, and I would have never repatriated had it not been for the problems my wife had here with her aging parents. Really? I have an HMO, they negotiate with hospitals and drug companies to LOWER the prices, I need to pay. Generally abound half the Medicare reimbursement rates. In addition the HMO covers things that are NOT covered by Medicare. I have never been denied coverage for anything by my HMO. The premium I pay, for the extra coverage and lower prices, the HMO provides has been ZERO for the past three years. Where do you get your erroneous opinion, from Jay Leno? ;) > "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message >> Look - you just got nailed on half truths (the one about no one being [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I made a statement that insurers look for ways to deny claims and I stand > by it. It is not a lie at all. Few people realize medical as well as drug prices are set in the US by the government via the Medicare reimbursement rates. ALL Medicare reimbursement rates are set arbitrarily HIGH to cover the government reimbursement to doctors and Hospitals under US Hill Burton Act that requires every doctor and hospital that accepts Medicare reimbursement MUST provide no cost care to the indigent. If any doctor or hospital that accepts Medicare reimbursement charges ANY patient LESS than the Medicare reimbursement rates, they can be prosecuted for Medicare fraud. You may ask how does the federal government get to pass laws that do that? Doctors and Hospitals do have the right to negotiate with suppliers and insurance providers to charge less than the Medicare reimbursement rates to bring in more patients. That is why HMO, PPO and commercial insurance companies can provide more and better services for far less than Medicare reimbursement rates. The US government knows that if drug manufactures do not have sufficient income their will be far fewer medial breakthrough drug coming to market. The list of available drugs in Canada is far shorter than what is available to American. The reason the Canadian government simply can not afford to pay enough of the costs to the drug companies to develop new drugs. Drug companies spend billions every year in trying to develop new drugs but only as small percentage ever prove to be good enough to make it to market. Even when they do the sharks are waiting for them to fail over time. >> I am aware of what you are talking about. I am just explaining to some of >> them that we do pay for this from our taxes. It is not free. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > by the difference that we pay for the same medicines by the price > structures for U.S. vs. non-U.S. > > I am aware of what you are talking about. I am just explaining to some > > of them that we do pay for this from our taxes. It is not free. > > So when considering tax levels, we should probably instead consider > > health insurance costs + tax levels. > > It's amazing how discussions of socialized medicine Define socialized medicine. >always turn into a > shell game where the discussion goes around in continuous circles. You [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') >>> I am aware of what you are talking about. I am just explaining to some >>> of them that we do pay for this from our taxes. It is not free. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Define socialized medicine. Look up "socialism", then apply the concept to medicine. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > Ontarians don't realize how efficient our health care system is at > allocating resources and controlling costs while delivering pretty good > care, all without filling out insurance forms and worrying if your > treatment will be approved. Instead you worry about whether the line will too long and the disease will progress. At one time, although this has recently been corrected, you were 3 times more likely to die on queue waiting for a "nonemergent" heart bypass than you were to die on the table during the surgery. There is also a lag time (at least compared to the US) where many new drugs and procedures aren't available. Studies from the cardiologists, for example, show Canadians consisently have lower use of cutting edge medications, have higher incidence of handicaps and lower standardized quality of life scores. > And naturally our drug costs are lower too. Depends. Only the brand name medications are price-controlled. Many studies show Canadians pay more for generics because they aren't. > > Yeah, well we pay for it in our taxes, > > If you were an American and had to pay for health insurance for your > family, you'd be forking out $10k to $12k a year for the same coverage > you get from OHIP. There is no way that you're being over-taxed to > anywhere near that amount. But there is also no way you would get the same coverage. The US rations care by ability to pay. Other ration by access (as noted above for example). In Canada, you guys have a heavily subsidized system (with all of the demand dislocations that incurs), but government-run price controls. In the US we managed to also get a highly subsidized system, but since we don't have the control mechanisms supply and demand forces run rampant. Especially in a situation where there are high barriers to entry to the industry (you don't decide in 6 months to be a doc.) > Don't forget too that built into the US health care system is the cost > of malpractice insurance, which is huge because of no caps for punative > dammage awards. Since we have caps for punative awards, malpractice > insurance costs are much lower here. The other big cost is back office with so many different forms. Although many docs are most pissed off about the high levels of paperwork associated with government run programs. >> Don't forget too that built into the US health care system is the cost >> of malpractice insurance, which is huge because of no caps for punative >> dammage awards. Since we have caps for punative awards, malpractice >> insurance costs are much lower here. > The other big cost is back office with so many different forms. Although > many docs are most pissed off about the high levels of paperwork > associated with government run programs. In a recent radio discussion of health care schemes, someone claimed that Canadian hospitals do *not* have the enormous billing staff that one finds in the USA: they may have one or two just to deal with the Americans who come across the border and pay "full price" because it's still cheaper than in the USA. And don't imagine that the US and Canadian schemes are the only two ways to do things. Look at Australia, Taiwan, Japan, Switzerland, the UK and Germany, to name just a few. This whole discussion reminds me of a conversation with a friend who had worked in Chile under both the "socialist" (I mean *really* socialist, not what the Democrats get accused of) and the anti-socialist regimes: under socialism the basic necessities of life were affordable but in short supply; under the anti-socialist regime everything was plentiful, but few people could afford it. Perce Many American believe if they get government healthcare it will be "free," most understand we will have to pay but think it will be less costly. Not so, just look at Medicare and Medicaid, both cost more to provide than similar insurance coverage from the for profit insurers' and BOTH are going broke. IT WAS the government, with its inherent inefficiencies, getting into the healthcare business that drove the cost of medical through the roof. If you think not do a search. Look at the annual percentage increases in healthcare costs befor and after Medicare and Medicaid legislation was enacted. While you are searching you might do the same with the costs of automobiles before and AFTER the EPA and CAFE, as well as NHTSA legislation were enacted ;) >>> Don't forget too that built into the US health care system is the cost >>> of malpractice insurance, which is huge because of no caps for punative [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Perce > Many American believe if they get government healthcare it will be "free," > most understand we will have to pay but think it will be less costly. Not [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > healthcare costs befor and after Medicare and Medicaid legislation was > enacted. Yes, I guess all the new technologies and medicines had nothing to do with it. If that is your way of analyzing things, god help whatever company you used to work for. Anyway, let's look at inefficiencies of private companies. Canadians who live near the US border hear things that those of us who do not never hear. That is morning to nighttime advertising by the various HMOs. I believe that costs money. Then there is the paperwork regarding billing etc. It is much much greater when you have multiple sources to bill and get approval from. The cost of lawyers is much higer because you need more lawyers arguing as to who should pay for what. This amounts to hundreds of dollars per year per policy. Then, as I mentioned, what about profit margins? How high are they? 20%? 30%? Apparently the companies are too embarrassed to tell people how high they are. Unfortunately, when studies are done, massive profit margins are not taken into account because this is not seen as an inefficiency from a company perspective or a right wing think tank perspective but it is a cost to the end user just like some "inherent inefficiencies" that pro-private health care advocates like to talk about. What is higher? Government's inherent inefficiencies or corporate profit margins? Please provide some link to prove your answer. > While you are searching you might do the same with the costs of automobiles > before and AFTER the EPA and CAFE, as well as NHTSA legislation were enacted [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> >> Perce > Instead you worry about whether the line will too long and the > disease will progress. Absolutely not true. The only thing we have a waiting line for is elective orthopedic surgery. That's because our othopedic surgeons are very busy performing emergency hip surgery on EVERY senior citizen that slips and falls in their bathtub and breaks their hip. > you were 3 times more likely to die on queue waiting for a > "nonemergent" heart bypass than you were to die on the table > during the surgery. Cite? > There is also a lag time (at least compared to the US) where > many new drugs and procedures aren't available. Quite the opposite. Many new drugs and proceedures are available first in Canada (and Europe) before they become FDA approved. Robotic surgery systems were first used in Ontario before they became widely deployed in the USA. > Studies from the cardiologists, for example, show Canadians > consisently have lower use of cutting edge medications, have Translation: There is more use of generic drugs in Canada vs the usage of the exact same (and more expensive) branded-label drug. > higher incidence of handicaps and lower standardized quality of > life scores. "For almost a decade (up to the year 2001), Canada was ranked number one among 175 countries in the United Nation's Quality of Life survey." http://www.english-vancouver.com/canada-human-development/ Most and Least Livable Countries: UN Human Development Index, 2006: lhttp:/www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html Canada rank: 6 USA rank: 8 The criteria for calculating rankings include life expectancy, educational attainment, and adjusted real income. The 2006 index is based on 2004 figures. > > And naturally our drug costs are lower too. > Depends. Only the brand name medications are price-controlled. > Many studies show Canadians pay more for generics because they > aren't. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/adis/ahe/2008/00000006/00000001/art00002 Differences in Generic Drug Prices between the US and Canada Authors: Gooi, Malcolm1; Bell, Chaim M. Source: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Volume 6, Number 1, 2008 , pp. 19-26(8) Results: Using the lowest quote for each selected drug, 12 of the 19 (63%) generic medications were least expensive in the US, with an average saving of 47% per drug for these 12 drugs. Seven of the 19 (37%) drugs were least expensive in Canada, with an average saving of 29% per drug for these seven drugs. Overall, there was a sizable variation in prices for the same generic medications within and between the US and Canada. Conclusions: The lowest priced generic medications were not consistently found in either the US or Canada. The price controls and ensuing savings applied in Canada to prescription patented medications do not fully extend to generic medications. > > If you were an American and had to pay for health insurance for > > your family, you'd be forking out $10k to $12k a year for the > > same coverage you get from OHIP. There is no way that you're > > being over-taxed to anywhere near that amount. > > But there is also no way you would get the same coverage. Americans would like to believe that, but it's not true. Canadian doctors use the same drugs, devices, and proceedures, and have access to the same diagnostic devices (ultrasound, MRI, CT) that US doctors have. > The US rations care by ability to pay. Other ration by access (as noted above for example). In Canada, health care is rationed by need. If a Canadian doesn't need an MRI scan, he won't get one. If an American doesn't need an MRI scan, but he wants one, and is willing to pay for it, then he can buy one. > In Canada, you guys have a heavily subsidized system Use of the term "subsidized" is strange in that context. I could say that the US gov't is heavily subsidized (by taxpayers). Is that a useful statement to make? No. In both the US and Canadian healthcare systems, doctors are paid for their services. Companies that supply medical devices, hospital supplies, and drugs are paid for their products. Everyone is paid a negotiated price for what they provide. The difference is who the payer is (or how many payers there are), and how the payer(s) is/are funded. > Although many docs are most pissed off about the high levels of > paperwork associated with government run programs. Yes, in the US you have to deal with the federal programs of medicare and medicade. In Canada, we have no such federal programs that are involved in the payment of costs associated with medical services directly to either patients, or hosptials, or doctors. Instead, federal money that is "earmarked" for healthcare is transfered directly to provincial treasuries in bulk, and that money is combined with provincial income tax and provincial sales tax and all 3 sources of money are combined and form the pool of money that a province will draw from to fund (among other things) the health care system in that province. > > Instead you worry about whether the line will too long and the > > disease will progress. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > emergency hip surgery on EVERY senior citizen that slips and falls in > their bathtub and breaks their hip. The boys at the Frazier institute would tend to disagree. The found Hip replacements median total wait time (gp referral to treatment) was 20.7 weeks. You also have a waiting time of 4.6 weeks for medical oncology and 5.8 weeks for radiation oncologists. Neurosurgery waiting lists run 31.7 weeks. Actual wait times exceeded clinically "reasonable" times in 81% of the comparisons. http://preview.tinyurl.com/66d2ze > > There is also a lag time (at least compared to the US) where > > many new drugs and procedures aren't available. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Many new drugs and proceedures are available first in Canada (and > Europe) before they become FDA approved. > Robotic surgery systems were first used in Ontario before they became > widely deployed in the USA. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Translation: There is more use of generic drugs in Canada vs the usage > of the exact same (and more expensive) branded-label drug. Nope. Means there is more use of older generics which means (in the case of heart failure for instance) higher levels of angina, higher disability, lower quality of life. > > higher incidence of handicaps and lower standardized quality of > > life scores. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > educational attainment, and adjusted real income. The 2006 index is > based on 2004 figures. Which, of course, is a completely different kettle of fish from MEDICAL quality of life which looks at aspects of a person's life specific to whatever disease we are talking about. > > > And naturally our drug costs are lower too. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Conclusions: The lowest priced generic medications were not consistently > found in either the US or Canada. ****The price controls and ensuing savings > applied in Canada to prescription patented medications do not fully > extend to generic medications.**** Emphasis mine. Which goes to make my point since the savings was higher in the US (47% savings in the US vs 29%). I never said that individual ones weren't different, just that overall they cost more in Canada. They also cost more to the system since the ones that tend to be higher are also those that tend to be used more. > > > If you were an American and had to pay for health insurance for > > > your family, you'd be forking out $10k to $12k a year for the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > doctors use the same drugs, devices, and proceedures, and have access to > the same diagnostic devices (ultrasound, MRI, CT) that US doctors have. Frazier notes months long waits for for the above, with the longest for US. They have access to many, but not used the same. > > The US rations care by ability to pay. Other ration by access (as noted > > above for example). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but he wants one, and is willing to pay for it, then he can buy one. > That is what Canadians like to believe. > > In Canada, you guys have a heavily subsidized system > > Use of the term "subsidized" is strange in that context. No. Subsidized in this context means that much of the cost of a good or service is paid for by someone other than the person using the service in a way that hides the true costs from the user. We subsidize by having the employer pay much of the costs. You subsidize by splitting the subsidy more evenly between the government and the employer. No perjorative meaning here, just simple economics. > I could say that the US gov't is heavily subsidized (by taxpayers). Is > that a useful statement to make? No. Finally something we agree on. I would add not a real pertinent statement either. > In both the US and Canadian healthcare systems, doctors are paid for > their services. Companies that supply medical devices, hospital > supplies, and drugs are paid for their products. Everyone is paid a > negotiated price for what they provide. The difference is who the payer > is (or how many payers there are), and how the payer(s) is/are funded. Pretty much my point. > In Canada, we have no such federal programs that are involved in the > payment of costs associated with medical services directly to either [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > form the pool of money that a province will draw from to fund (among > other things) the health care system in that province. Which means also that you can't go to another province and get treatment paid for easily.. >>> Instead you worry about whether the line will too long and the >>> disease will progress. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > lists run 31.7 weeks. Actual wait times exceeded clinically "reasonable" > times in 81% of the comparisons. If it comes from the Frasier Institute, I would question their methodology. They are the ones who think it makes any sense at all to compare tax rates between countries. Only an idiot or someone who wants to mislead people, would do that. > http://preview.tinyurl.com/66d2ze >>> There is also a lag time (at least compared to the US) where [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] > Which means also that you can't go to another province and get > treatment paid for easily.. > If it comes from the Frasier Institute, I would question their methodology. > They are the ones who think it makes any sense at all to compare tax > rates between countries. Only an idiot or someone who wants to mislead > people, would do that. Since they use mostly the actual figures from the Provincial government, who would you like to use or are you still trying to suggest that there are no waiting lines? > > htt >> If it comes from the Frasier Institute, I would question their methodology. >> They are the ones who think it makes any sense at all to compare tax [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >>> htt As I said, they have a history of distorting things, not mentioning things or redefining things to the benefit of whomever it is who is paying their bills (ie Corporations). > >> If it comes from the Frasier Institute, I would question their methodology. > >> They are the ones who think it makes any sense at all to compare tax [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > things or redefining things to the benefit of whomever it is who is > paying their bills (ie Corporations). So who would you say are the people to talk to on this matter? Or are you just naysing. >>>> If it comes from the Frasier Institute, I would question their methodology. >>>> They are the ones who think it makes any sense at all to compare tax [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So who would you say are the people to talk to on this matter? Or are > you just naysing. What are we talking about again? Wait times? > >>>> If it comes from the Frasier Institute, I would question their > >>>> methodology. > >>> Since they use mostly the actual figures from the Provincial > >>> government, who would you like to use or are you still trying > >>> to suggest that there are no waiting lines? > >> As I said, they have a history of distorting things, not > >> mentioning things or redefining things to the benefit of > >> whomever it is who is paying their bills (ie Corporations). --------------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frasier_Institute The Fraser Institute is conservative and libertarian think tank based in Canada that espouses free market principles. Its stated mandate is to advocate for freedom and competitive markets. It generally opposes public policy solutions based on government spending, taxes, deficits, and regulation. Some of the public policy stands taken by the Institute include: greater free trade throughout the world, privatization of various government services, the freedom to own and acquire firearms without controls, marijuana legalization, competition in primary schooling, and greater private sector involvement in the delivery of healthcare insurance and services. --------------- --------------- WAITING YOUR TURN 17th EDITION Hospital Waiting Lists In Canada (2007) http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/wyt2007rev2.pdf --------------- Ontario represents 36% (12 million) of Canada's total population (33 million), so looking at Ontario's health care performance is representative of 1 out of every 3 Canadians. According to the above Fraser Institute document, the first segment of waiting: between referral by general practitioner and visit to a specialist for consultation in Ontario in 2007 was 7.6 weeks across an average of 12 medical specialties. The second segment of waiting: between the specialists decision that treatment is required and treatment in Ontario was 7.3 weeks. Therefore in Ontario, the average time between referral to a specialist and eventual treatment was 14.9 weeks. Note that there is high variablity based on speciality. As one would hope, the total wait time for ELECTIVE cardiac surgery (Canadian average) was 8.4 weeks, for radiation oncology was 5.7 weeks, medical oncology 4.2 weeks. The longest wait times was for othopedic surgery (38 weeks) and neurosurgery (27 weeks). My indirect personal experience with orthopedic surgery is that the people that eventually undergo elective orthopedic surgery aren't bothered by the wait time, and indeed they need coaxing and convincing to begin the process to see a specialist in the first place. Note that accident cases where a hip is broken almost always requires surgery with a few days of the accident, so don't get any ideas that those patients are waiting 38 weeks for their treatment. The same is true of emergent cardiac care. I don't know why neurosurgery has 27 weeks, except that again it's probably not a life-threatening situation, and perhaps if it's a brain cancer then maybe brain cancers are slow growing. You might also need lots of pre-surgical planning and tests for brain surgery. The report details that the time between seeing a specialist and being treated in Ontario in 2007 was 16.9 weeks for orthopaedic surgery, 2.8 weeks for elective cardiovascular surgery, and 7.7 weeks for ophthalmology procedures. The wait to see an orthopaedic specialist was 12.0 weeks and the wait to receive hip or knee surgery was 20.0 weeks. The median waiting times for angiography / angioplasty was 3 weeks, and for elective cardiac bypass surgery was 2.5 weeks. The report says this about wait times in other countries: ------------------------ Moreover, academic studies of waiting time have found that Canadians wait longer than Americans, Germans, and Swedes (sometimes) for cardiac care, although not as long as New Zealanders or the British. ------------------------- But no details about how much longer (days? weeks?). Further into the report, some details about the above statement indicate that it was based on data from the early 1990's. There seems to be absolutely no recent US data in that report to make a US - Canada comparison. The tone of the report is definately slanted towards portraying the data in a negative light, even though in many cases the wait times have been reduced from recent years. The report relies heavily on making conclusions on aggregate Canadian data, where some provinces (with relatively low population) tend to skew the wait-time results upward. So, can anyone identify US wait-time studies? OMG! In the US those folks might be put to death for heresy LOL >> >>>> If it comes from the Frasier Institute, I would question their >> >>>> methodology. [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > > So, can anyone identify US wait-time studies? >>>>>> If it comes from the Frasier Institute, I would question their >>>>>> methodology. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > competition in primary schooling, and greater private sector involvement > in the delivery of healthcare insurance and services. So IOW, with the single possible exception of the legalization of m.j., they are clear thinkers . You denigrate their evenhandedness, yet you present information from the Canadian government to compare it's own medical system to that of the U.S. that we are supposed to accept at face value. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frasier_Institute > > You denigrate their evenhandedness, yet you present information from > the Canadian government to compare it's own medical system to that > of the U.S. that we are supposed to accept at face value. Your statement above needs to unravelled or sorted out. I posted the information about the Frasier Institute and quoted some stats from one of their reports (that you seem to have ignored or are otherwise not commenting on). I did not make any comments previously about the Frasier Institute. That was done by someone else. >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frasier_Institute >> You denigrate their evenhandedness, yet you present information from [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I did not make any comments previously about the Frasier Institute. > That was done by someone else. You are correct - it was Tim. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > Kur > If it comes from the Frasier Institute, I would question their methodology. > They are the ones who think it makes any sense at all to compare tax > rates between countries. Only an idiot or someone who wants to mislead > people, would do that. Sorry, it wasn't you that made the original statements, although I do welcome you to come up with a better metric. BTW: WHO, the UN, EU, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Bank, and International Monetary Fund all compare tax rates between countries as part of their regular work. You might want to clue them on your findings. > If it comes from the Frasier Institute, I would question their methodology. > They are the ones who think it makes any sense at all to compare tax > rates between countries. Only an idiot or someone who wants to mislead > people, would do that. Please explain why you can't compare tax rates of different countries. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> If it comes from the Frasier Institute, I would question their >> methodology. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Please explain why you can't compare tax rates of different countries. Well you can but it doesn't really mean anything. For instance, why would you compare tax rates between Canada and the US? Canada has a balanced budget, the US does not. Anyone can reduce their taxes by running huge deficits year after year. We did it for a long time too. Also, different countries provide different services for those taxes. As you may have noticed, Canada provides universal health care as one of those services where the US does not. So in this case, it would make more sense to compare taxes + health care insurance premiums between the two countries. Then you can come up with all of the other extras and, as I said, it really becomes a complicated mish-mash and irrelevant. The fact that some people have to have this explained to them makes me wonder about the simplistic evaluation that some people use to formulate their opinions. >>> If it comes from the Frasier Institute, I would question their >>> methodology. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > wonder about the simplistic evaluation that some people use to formulate > their opinions. I didn't need it explained - I just wanted to know *your* reasons. On the other hand, you've got people who *do* the comparisons of other aspects (of different countries) that you mentioned without looking at such things as how much their people are paying in taxes to pay for it. That's the other side of your "can't compare taxes of different countries" coin. The right answer is that you look at all aspects *including* taxes. BTW - I highly agree with what you said about running deficits. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > In article <49282808.B6E73...@Man.com>, MoPar Man <Mo...@Man.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The boys at the Frazier institute would tend to disagree. Far-far-right-wing think tank. Really out on the fringe. >The found > Hip replacements median total wait time (gp referral to treatment) was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://preview.tinyurl.com/66d2ze http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/10_myths_about_canad.php > > > There is also a lag time (at least compared to the US) where > > > many new drugs and procedures aren't available. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > case of heart failure for instance) higher levels of angina, higher > disability, lower quality of life. Totally false. Most new drugs are simply repackaging or minor changes in ingredients to get that all-important patent and have exclusive rights for years. > > > higher incidence of handicaps and lower standardized quality of > > > life scores. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > MEDICAL quality of life which looks at aspects of a person's life > specific to whatever disease we are talking about. Life expectancy is directly tied to that. Anyway, he cited a source for his claim; other than your dislike for the evil "socialism" (which you cannot define), what's your source? > > > > And naturally our drug costs are lower too. > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Frazier notes months long waits for for the above, with the longest > for US. They have access to many, but not used the same. Frazier lies. > > > The US rations care by ability to pay. Other ration by access (as noted > > > above for example). [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the subsidy more evenly between the government and the employer. No > perjorative meaning here, just simple economics. Insurance, by its very nature, is a subsidy. In a month in which you don't use your insurance, you subsidize those who do. > > I could say that the US gov't is heavily subsidized (by taxpayers). Is > > that a useful statement to make? No. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Which means also that you can't go to another province and get > treatment paid for easily.. Try going out of network here. In article <39774198-4269-47a4-8391-f41e3e6d842b@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > Far-far-right-wing think tank. Really out on the fringe. > http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/10_myths_about_canad.php And you have the balls to rip on the Frazier people for one sidedness, > Totally false. Most new drugs are simply repackaging or minor changes > in ingredients to get that all-important patent and have exclusive > rights for years. Totally wrong. Long line of studies showing that "me too" drugs aren't. For instance if one SSRI antidepressant doesn't work, another one might. Same with heart and some other medications. If one of a class doesn't work, there are a number of drugs where another one might. The "minor" changes are often therapeutic changes. > > Which, of course, is a completely different kettle of fish from > > MEDICAL quality of life which looks at aspects of a person's life [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for his claim; other than your dislike for the evil "socialism" (which > you cannot define), what's your source? Find a single place in this where I said anything at all about socialism. That is a lousy word with little meaning. > > Which means also that you can't go to another province and get > > treatment paid for easily.. > > Try going out of network here. So there they are equivalent. > In article > <39774198-4269-47a4-8391-f41e3e6d8...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Totally wrong. No, you're wrong. Look at the past couple of years of Consumer Reports -- they've investigated this. >Long line of studies showing that "me too" drugs > aren't. For instance if one SSRI antidepressant doesn't work, another > one might. Same with heart and some other medications. If one of a class > doesn't work, there are a number of drugs where another one might. The > "minor" changes are often therapeutic changes. Seldom are. > > > Which, of course, is a completely different kettle of fish from > > > MEDICAL quality of life which looks at aspects of a person's life [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > So there they are equivalent. Except Canada spends a lot less, and everybody is covered. >> The boys at the Frazier institute would tend to disagree. > > Far-far-right-wing think tank. Really out on the fringe. And your the U.N. is a good source? So if the Frasier Institute said that the stop sign down the street was octagonally shaped and red, then it must be some other shape and color. Why not dispute the stated facts with ones that you think are more realistic. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') That is because many of those new drugs and procedures can not pass muster with the FDA. They, in essence, are "tested" on socialist healthcare patients like those in Canada, before they can earn approval of the FDA. Still others never earn approval of the FDA. The fact is over 70% of all the drugs developed around the world are developed IN the US, even those of foreign owned drug companies. Seven of the top ten hospitals in the world are in the US. That should tell you WHY we should not want a government healthcare system' If you think YOU do you were never in the military and if you were, you were never in a VA hospital ;( >> > Instead you worry about whether the line will too long and the >> > disease will progress. [quoted text clipped - 147 lines] > Which means also that you can't go to another province and get > treatment paid for easily.. > The boys at the Frazier institute would tend to disagree. The found > Hip replacements median total wait time (gp referral to treatment) was > 20.7 weeks. You also have a waiting time of 4.6 weeks for medical > oncology and 5.8 weeks for radiation oncologists. Neurosurgery waiting > lists run 31.7 weeks. Actual wait times exceeded clinically "reasonable" > times in 81% of the comparisons. WOW! I knew their system was bad, but I had no idea it was that bad. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > ...Most and Least Livable Countries: UN Human Development Index, 2006:... Oh please! There are too many agendas, hidden and otherwise, for anything that comes out of the UN to be believable. I've looked at their indices on this type of thing. Total b.s. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > > ...Most and Least Livable Countries: > > UN Human Development Index, 2006:... > > Oh please! There are too many agendas, hidden and otherwise, > for anything that comes out of the UN to be believable. Typical UN bashing. If they had an agenda, they'd put the US at the bottom of the list. Instead they put the US higher than most European countries. Why don't you find a similar list, but compiled by some US organization, and then tell me why I would find it more credible. >>> ...Most and Least Livable Countries: >>> UN Human Development Index, 2006:... >> Oh please! There are too many agendas, hidden and otherwise, >> for anything that comes out of the UN to be believable. > > Typical UN bashing... Believe me - it's justified. I won't go thru the laundry list. But the two items at the top of my list would be the global warming lie (which, notice, everyone has started calling "climate change" so that no matter which way things go - BTW - things are cooling off - they can say "See - we told you it would change!"). The second is the agreements they made back in the 90's with the gay organizations and NAMBLA to promote pedophilia all over the world as an acceptable thing - fortunately the U.S. Congress blew the whistle on that when they actually passed a resolution to not pay their U.N. dues until that crap was fixed. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > In article <4927484B.B7E75...@Man.com>, MoPar Man <Mo...@Man.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > of cutting edge medications, have higher incidence of handicaps and > lower standardized quality of life scores. In the US, if you don't have health insurance, the wait time is infinity. How is that better? > > And naturally our drug costs are lower too. > > Depends. Only the brand name medications are price-controlled. Many > studies show Canadians pay more for generics because they aren't. True, but there aren't generics for everything. > > > Yeah, well we pay for it in our taxes, > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > many docs are most pissed off about the high levels of paperwork > associated with government run programs. So the answer is, what, dozens of insurance companies, each with their own different sets of forms? In article <337aa6c9-b353-4ab2-a68f-d98c5a336c13@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > In the US, if you don't have health insurance, the wait time is > infinity. How is that better? Actually your wait time is until you get really sick and then the law says the hospitals HAVE to treat you. Never said it was better. I am merely pointing out that if we accept the Canadian(or Brit or Japanese or any other model) we are merely changing one set of nasty things for another. And 80% of the population is still covered. > > > And naturally our drug costs are lower too. > > > > Depends. Only the brand name medications are price-controlled. Many > > studies show Canadians pay more for generics because they aren't. > > True, but there aren't generics for everything. True, never said otherwise. Merely that much of the money saved by the price controls on name brands is spent on higher prices for the generics. In both cases, the percentage of the total health care expenditures that goes to pharmaceuticals is pretty much the same. So, > In article > <337aa6c9-b353-4ab2-a68f-d98c5a336c13@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > >> In the US, if you don't have health insurance, the wait time is >> infinity. How is that better? Ever heard of Medicaid? SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> In article >> <337aa6c9-b353-4ab2-a68f-d98c5a336c13@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ever heard of Medicaid? Oops - sorry Kurt. Didn't meant to make it look like that was your quote. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') "Lloyd" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message In the US, if you don't have health insurance, the wait time is infinity. How is that better? ************************************************************* One reason cost is so high is the people that do not have insurance are still treated. Don't take my word for it, stop by your local ER on a Saturday night and watch the crowds. > "Lloyd" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > still treated. Don't take my word for it, stop by your local ER on a > Saturday night and watch the crowds. Also look up "Medicaid". SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > "Lloyd" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > still treated. Don't take my word for it, stop by your local ER on a > Saturday night and watch the crowds. Emergency room treatment and "health care" are not synonymous. I was refused sleep clinic treatment under US insurance, even though the doctor said it was potentially life threatening. I got not only the clinic evaluation but corrective treatment in Europe under our universal care. Insurance companies often have a policy of refusing the first claim for ANYTHING. Here in the USA, doctors make a lot of money, lawyers perhaps make more, and the medications are subject to no price controls at all. We do not have an ideal -nor even a reasonable- health care system in the USA for a lot of people. >> "Lloyd" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Emergency room treatment and "health care" are not synonymous. More than you think. Many of the ER users are not ther for emergency treatment, but for common ailments that a family doctor or clinic should be attending to. This is far from being efficient, but many people with no insurance do get some treatment. We can get into the whole discussion about self responsibility also, but that as another tangent. > I was refused sleep clinic treatment under US insurance, even though the > doctor > said it was potentially life threatening. You have a crappy insurance comapny. Mine will do it, no problem. My wife had a sleep test done, my doctor wants me to have it also. No charge, covered in our plan. "Ed Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message news:3ggWk.9381 > You have a crappy insurance comapny. Mine will do it, no problem. My wife > had a sleep test done, my doctor wants me to have it also. No charge, > covered in our plan. I have had this happen with a number of insurance companies. The companies are sh.t, but it is largely because Texas laws allow them to be sh.t. > > Emergency room treatment and "health care" are not synonymous. > > More than you think. Many of the ER users are not ther for > emergency treatment, but for common ailments that a family > doctor or clinic should be attending to. In what country? In the US, if you're life is not at risk, then an ER doesn't have to treat you - or they'll just make you wait for hours in the waiting room if they think, or they know, that you don't have insurance coverage. >>> Emergency room treatment and "health care" are not synonymous. >> More than you think. Many of the ER users are not ther for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > treat you - or they'll just make you wait for hours in the waiting room > if they think, or they know, that you don't have insurance coverage. NOT TRUE. US law requires that an emergency room provide treatment for life threatening or potentially life threatening items regardless of ability to pay in any form. And if you walk into ANY emergency room any time of day you will find LOT'S of people there for crap that isn't close to an emergency. Bang your shin and get a bruise, head to the ER, eat too much and get sick, head to the ER. Have medicare or medicaid and feel like your ill, hit the ER. Happens ALL the time. It is the primary reason why hospitals and insurance are so damn expensive. Kid gets a sniffle, head to the hospital, kid has a minor fever, head to the ER. How about this one, if you have an appointment and have no way to the hospital, call an ambulance and say your feeling sick. ZOOM, your taken into the ER. I get to see this crap daily. SignatureSteve W. > > In the US, if you're life is not at risk, then an ER doesn't have > > to treat you ... > NOT TRUE. > US law requires that an emergency room provide treatment for life > threatening or potentially life threatening items regardless of > ability to pay in any form. Isin't that what I just said? > > or they'll just make you wait for hours in the waiting room if > > they think, or they know, that you don't have insurance coverage. > > And if you walk into ANY emergency room any time of day you will > find LOT'S of people there for crap that isn't close to an > emergency. And isin't that my second point? > Bang your shin and get a bruise, head to the ER, > eat too much and get sick, head to the ER. > Have medicare or medicaid and feel like your ill, hit the ER. And if you don't have insurance, they'll turn you away (if they don't - then explain why not). And if you do have insurance, you might wait for a few hours to be attended to. Because a bruise, or a sick stomach, is not a life-threatening condition. > Happens ALL the time. It shouldn't, if ER's are only legally obligated to treat life-threatening conditions without checking to see if the patient is insured. > It is the primary reason why hospitals and > insurance are so damn expensive. I doubt that's the reason. Trivial medical conditions are not expensive to treat. A heart attack, a broken hip, a car accident, a gun shot or knife wound - those are expensive. > How about this one, if you have an appointment and have no way to > the hospital, call an ambulance and say your feeling sick. ZOOM, > your taken into the ER. You won't see that in Canada. And I can't see how you'd see that in the US if the patient wasn't covered by insurance. (and the cost of an ambulance ride, whether necessary or not, isin't a cost to the hospital or the ER) Ever notice the proponents of government healthcare ALWAYS refer to "X" number of people without health INSURANCE in the US? One should take note they do not say no health COVERAGE. One reason some people chose not to buy healthcare and another is, millions of those without health INSURANCE in the US, get FREE healthcare in the US through Medicaid and the Hill-Burton Act. Like global warming it is more politics to win votes than fact. Do you really want to pay more for everything you buy like $8 gas, to get the second rate "free" coverage provided by the government? I know I don't >> "Lloyd" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > USA > for a lot of people. > "Lloyd" <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > still treated. Don't take my word for it, stop by your local ER on a > Saturday night and watch the crowds. Only for emergency conditions. Not things like non-emergency surgery, dialysis, etc. >> "Lloyd" <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Only for emergency conditions. Not things like non-emergency surgery, > dialysis, etc. BULLSHIT. They will treat you for ANYTHING in the ER. Maybe you should actually go and see, not just pulling it out of your a.s. I am an EMT and work with a fire department and an ambulance. The ER will take ANYTHING. They do sometimes prioritize based on actual injury, but on a slow day anything goes. Talk to any ambulance or care provider and they will tell you some of the crap they see. How about this one, person slips and falls. Has some swelling on the arm and localized pain. Straight to the ER. 12 year old kid with a SLIGHT fever, Straight to the ER. 52 year old kidney patient needs dialysis but couldn't get to the doctors. Into the ER with them. Been out drinking and have a sour stomach, head to the ER. and here's one that happens a LOT. Patient has a Dr. appointment but no car or bus. Call the ambulance and get taken to the ER, Then they walk in and say "Oh I feel much better now, Goodbye" Then they walk around the side of the building to their Doctors. SignatureSteve W. The ER will take > ANYTHING. They do sometimes prioritize based on actual injury, but on a > slow day anything goes. It might be that way, but it shouldnt be that way. Many hospitals are privately owned and live or die by the viability of their income. > The ER will take >> ANYTHING. They do sometimes prioritize based on actual injury, but on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > privately > owned and live or die by the viability of their income. Yep that old reality of existence versus the dreams of the idealist. Kind of like the only folks on welfare should be those who actually need it, not just anyone who applies and cries. ANY hospital that accepts any federal or state funding has to treat whoever comes in. Talk to the administrators some time and see how much money they have to write off the books as unpaid bills yearly. One of our local hospitals averages $5,000.00 a month in unpaid bills that they cannot collect, so they just write it off the books as charitable care. Read some of the medical journals and you will also discover that there are a LOT of doctors leaving the field of medicine because of the current laws and insurance costs. SignatureSteve W. Near Cooperstown, New York > Read some of the medical journals and you will also discover that there > are a LOT of doctors leaving the field of medicine because of the current > laws and insurance costs. My personal physician told me that years ago when I first started using his services, he was against universal health care. Now, he says that he and many other doctors would be glad to see it come. They get a lot of insurance cases where the company wont pay. It is driving them broke. My one son-in-law, an eminent cardiologist practicing in Wisconsin, closed his practice at age fifty and started teaching when malpractice insurance for a carpologist when up to $163,000 annually >> Read some of the medical journals and you will also discover that there >> are a LOT of doctors leaving the field of medicine because of the current >> laws and insurance costs. > My one son-in-law, an eminent cardiologist practicing in Wisconsin, closed > his practice at age fifty and started teaching when malpractice insurance > for a carpologist when up to $163,000 annually Not surprising. The insurance costs and the costs of all the continuing education is a HUGE dollar amount. SignatureSteve W. Near Cooperstown, New York >> when malpractice insurance for a carpologist when up to $163,000 >> annually That is certainly high for a guy that sorts apples and bananas. Definition of Carpologist Car`pol´o`gist n. 1. One who describes fruits; one versed in carpology. Perhaps but when you read the beginning of the sentence it should have been obvious that was mistyped and you would not have pissed away your time looking up the meaning of a mistype word LOL > My one son-in-law, an eminent cardiologist practicing in Wisconsin, closed > his practice at age fifty and started teaching when malpractice insurance > for a carpologist when up to $163,000 annually >>> when malpractice insurance for a carpologist when up to $163,000 >>> annually [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Car`pol´o`gist > n. 1. One who describes fruits; one versed in carpology. > Perhaps but when you read the beginning of the sentence it should have > been obvious that was mistyped and you would not have pissed away your > time looking up the meaning of a mistype word LOL While you think it may be time pissed away, I learned something. I was going to make a remark about the study of fish, but for the heck of it I did a Google search to see if there was such a word. I know something that I did not know before. > >> "Lloyd" <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > BULLSHIT. They will treat you for ANYTHING in the ER. No they will not. Only for emergencies. They will not do things like dialysis (until your condition turns into an emergency). >Maybe you should > actually go and see, not just pulling it out of your a.s. I am an EMT > and work with a fire department and an ambulance. The ER will take > ANYTHING. They do sometimes prioritize based on actual injury, but on a > slow day anything goes. No ER is going to provide non-emergency services. > Talk to any ambulance or care provider and they will tell you some of > the crap they see. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 52 year old kidney patient needs dialysis but couldn't get to the > doctors. Into the ER with them. Sure, after the condition has worsened into an emergency. > Been out drinking and have a sour stomach, head to the ER. > and here's one that happens a LOT. Patient has a Dr. appointment but no [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > Steve W. The only legal obligation: The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 requires that all patients presenting to an emergency facility, regardless of ability to pay, need to be screened for an emergency condition. If an emergency condition is found, the patient must be treated and stabilized before being transferred to another facility. 42 U.S. Code § 1395dd. > No ER is going to provide non-emergency services... > Sure, after the condition has worsened into an emergency. Sorry - but it's SOP in the community I live in. It's routine for doctors to have you go to the emergency room for treatment of routine kinds of stuff. I don't know how it came to be that way, but it's true. SignatureBill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >>>> "Lloyd" <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote in message >>>> In the US, if you don't have health insurance, the wait time is [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > No ER is going to provide non-emergency services. Happens all the time. I see it daily. >> Talk to any ambulance or care provider and they will tell you some of >> the crap they see. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sure, after the condition has worsened into an emergency. NOPE. Non-Emergency care happens all the time. >> Been out drinking and have a sour stomach, head to the ER. >> and here's one that happens a LOT. Patient has a Dr. appointment but no [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > stabilized before being transferred to another facility. 42 U.S. Code > § 1395dd. Some states have maintained that any time a patient is able to schedule an appointment — as opposed to showing up at an emergency room — the condition would not be considered an emergency. Others, including New York, have defined an emergency as any condition that could become an emergency or lead to death without treatment. And the term "Emergency Condition" has been defined in New York (and many other states as well) as ANY condition that could become an emergency or lead to death without treatment. "There are clearly situations that we consider emergencies where we need to give people chemotherapy,” Richard F. Daines, the New York State health commissioner, said in an interview late yesterday. “To say they don’t qualify is self-defeating in that those situations will eventually become emergencies.” From http://www.citidex.com/2525.htm Medical Emergency Care For life threatening medical crisis: The hospitals listed below have outstanding emergency treatment facilities (often referred to as "emergency rooms" for treatment of trauma, heart, stroke and other major medical crises. They are staffed with specialists in emergency medicine and have immediate access to the latest technology and operating rooms. For true medical emergencies, they communicate via radio with the transporting ambulance and literally meet you at the door. Waiting and the principle of "triage": Emergency rooms are not the place to go for minor medical problems or non life-threatening medical conditions (colds, flu, sprains) which can be better treated in a doctor's office or ambulatory walk-in care center. Otherwise, you are likely to wait for hours before speaking to a doctor because emergency rooms treat patients strictly on the triage principle of "medical urgency". The "admitting staff" quickly evaluates the seriousness of your medical problem. Life-threatening conditions and immediate medical crises (mother in labor, unconscious patient, serious bleed, heart attacks, etc. ) are given the highest priority, then patients in serious pain (e.g. broken bones), and last the patient who needs medicine for their cold. Notice that last line. The problem with EMTALA is that it does NOT define what an emergency condition is. It was originally written to prevent hospitals from refusing illegal immigrants and uninsured people treatment. The problem is that MANY of those same people have taken hospitals to court based on what THEY interpreted an "Emergency" to be. And they WON. Now many of the states have laws stating that ALL people who enter the ER be treated, regardless of the reason. Part of the definitions of Article 30 of the Emergency Services Law in NY 1. "Emergency medical care" means the initial management, treatment, and transfer of suddenly ill or injured patients. 3. "Emergency patient" means any patient making an unscheduled visit to a hospital emergency facility for emergency medical care. Being in this field I KNOW the laws and what happens if we break them in NY. The federal Law is just that FEDERAL. The thing is that States can enact tougher laws if they wish as long as those laws don't violate the Federal one. NY has done that as have many other states. SignatureSteve W. Near Cooperstown, New York > In article > <17053879-db09-4606-a979-9a2597d1f9b3@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > care for life at a very reasonable fee per individual. > That Canadian advantage lowers company costs significantly. yeah some of that is bogus.....but then again we all know how UNBIASED the Times is..... RIIIIIIGHT > MSN Money http://atu.ca/9bf8 > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > research group says about half of those jobs could be > recovered within two years. those studies do not include alot of small operations that sub support the parts makers > MSN Money http://atu.ca/9bf8 > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > research group says about half of those jobs could be > recovered within two years. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.