Interesting. . .Canadians use average of $220k in health care over lifetime

[kevinbgoode1]

and even more interesting, rich and poor are fairly similar in those expenses - AND they contribute roughly the same percentage of income to the government to pay for that publicly available health care system as well!

I still do not understand why our own country is so determined to maintain a system of profit-driven, hyper-inflated, needless middlemen discount-negotiators-for-a-fee, $10 for a box of tissues "health care" that requires so many Americans to trade their health care for bankruptcy court!

People in the lowest-income group have $237,500 in lifetime health costs, compared with $206,000 for the highest-income group. The wealthy live an average of five years longer than the poor. But the wealthy also tend to be healthier, so their lifetime cost to the health-care system tends to be less.

The lowest-income Canadians (those earning less than $24,000 a year) pay 5.8 per cent of their income for health care, while those in the highest-income group (more than $72,000) pay 7.5 per cent. Of course, that does not mean that they pay equal amounts of money. The poor pay, on average, $1,020 a year, compared with $8,650 for the wealthy.

According to the calculations from CIHI, having publicly funded health care is equivalent to an 18.3-per-cent boost in income for the country’s poorest citizens and results in an income loss of 4.6 per cent for the wealthiest. For middle-income Canadians, it is pretty well a wash, the equivalent of a modest 2-per-cent gain in income.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/canadians-use-average-of-220000-in-public-health-care-over-lifetime/article11913571/#dashboard/follows/

So is the big stink in this country really that this is a "redistribution of income?" Why is it that Republicans can't view a healthy populace as not only essential to everyone's public health, but necessary for such things as a strong national defense and an efficient workforce?

[RC]

1. To answer your last question,

Because that would get in the way of their profits. Who cares about poor sick people anyway? They have a yacht at their vacation mansion to pay for.

[idwiyo]

2. K&R "redistribution of income" and "why should I pay for other people 'unhealthy' lifestyle".

The second reason is definitely not limited to Republicans only. Never mind "it will be abused".

My take on it: I will gladly increase my contribution to NHS as long as it means that everyone in UK regardless of if they are a resident or not have access to the healthcare system when they need it.

My responsibility is to make sure I pay my NHS contribution to the best of my ability. Everything else is irrelevant.

[galileoreloaded]

3. and we also need to have a discussion about end of life spending

ie the amount that gets spent in the last year.

sometimes just because we can do something doesn't meant we should.

[Nye Bevan]

4. That is a very difficult discussion to have.

Personally if I was 90 years old and dying of cancer I don't think I would want $100,000 worth of chemotherapy and/or surgery to extend my life by 6 months. But when people ask for this, who wants to tell them "no"?

[galileoreloaded]

5. agree, but thats why we need a discussion.

i wonder daily whether we can keep the promises we have made to 76 million boomers and the answer is increasingly returning as a no.

its tough.

[idwiyo]

6. Not if it means deciding for someone else what is and isn't appropriate.

I firmly believe that Right to Die is a Basic Human Right. I also firmly believe that I have no right whatsoever to discuss what is and isn't appropriate when it comes to someone else. If another person wants to be kept alive as long as possible it's their right. What's mine is to pay my NHS contribution and mind my own business.

[galileoreloaded]

7. and that is the issue.

i am wondering if gen x and the millennials will be forced to wrest control of the countries finances from boomers and make tough choices.

[idwiyo]

8. Can you be a little bit more specific? What "tough choices"?

[Nye Bevan]

9. Here's one example of a tough choice.

Should the NHS spend a quarter of a million pounds to extend the life of a 92-year old cancer sufferer by 6 months, when the alternative is giving them palliative end-of-life care which would be more comfortable but have the patient die sooner?

It's hard to give an unequivocal "yes" or "no" answer here; the very definition of a "tough choice".

[galileoreloaded]

10. thank you. could not have said it better. nt

[idwiyo]

12. Yes it should if that's what patient wants. It is not your or my business to speculate what is or

isn't the right treatment. That is between the patient and their doctor.

Sooner or later UK will sort out Right to Die law. Some will chose euthanasia instead of prolonged treatment or palliative care. I will support either choice without a hesitation.

As I said already, I will be happy to pay even larger contribution to NHS to make sure that everyone have access to the healthcare that they need, when they need it. And I mind my own business when it comes to other people choices. And so should you. Their life, their choice. It is that simple.

[Monk06]

11. It's corporate taxation. That's why corporations hate government. They think the government

is stealing money through taxation and public expenditure that rightfully belongs to them.

There is no democracy in the world. We live under a corporate autocracy where ever in the world we live.