If you lived in Canada, you would HAVE to pay for MANDATORY health care

[Clintonista2]

Through your income taxes. I don't think that's a bad thing, and if you read Hillary's plan, you would see that what you pay would be determined by how much you make (as it is under ANY universal single-payer system).

[redqueen]

1. Healthcare or insurance?

:shrug:

[Telly Savalas]

41. Insurance.

Providers are generally private entities where the bills are paid by government-run insurance programs.

[redqueen]

57. Right, thanks... the "government-run" before "insurance" makes all the difference.

:hi:

[smalll]

2. Don't say "MANDATORY health care" - you don't have that in Canada,

and it's not in Hillary's plan. Only John Edwards has said (twice) that he will force you to go to the doctor.

[Clintonista2]

7. "Mandatory health care" meaning, you HAVE to contribute

whether you want to or not.

[smalll]

11. (I did guess that's what you might have meant.)

:)

[theHandpuppet]

21. Here in the U.S., we have to contribute to WAR....

Whether we like it or not. I'll take the health care.

[Macchendra]

39. or be fined?

I don't think Canada is fining people $2000

[Clintonista2]

40. Umm worse

If you don't pay your taxes, bad things happen.

[annabanana]

55. And you can access the healthcare, If you need it..

I don't think you would be forced to the Dr.'s office.

[LanternWaste]

76. To me, one of the above seems forced, the other seems like a requirement.

"force you to go to the doctor." = mandatory check ups & physicals?

or

"force you to go to the doctor." = he's going to come to your house, beat you into submission, eat your cats before cold cocking you, throwing into the trunk of his car and driving you to the doctor himself?

To me, one of the above seems forced, the other seems like a requirement.

[William769]

3. You forgot one small detail.

It's Hillary's, hence the ape shit going on.

[Macchendra]

37. Dismiss it as a dislike of the person... that's what bush would do

heh

[Lars39]

4. I think how much you currently owe for medical bills should be

taken into consideration, too.

[angstlessk]

5. BUT, if it is insurance rather than health care..does not matter how much or how little

that comes out of your pocket..it is how MUCH ends up in the CEO's pocket..and he can only do that by denying YOU health care!

[mainegreen]

6. Except in Canada your taxes don't go up if your sick.

:shrug:

[Clintonista2]

9. Under Hillary's plan, insurance companies can no longer charge higher rates for those with

Pre-existing medical conditions.

[mainegreen]

12. Where did it say that?

I'm not saying it doesn't say that, but when I downloaded that thing off her site I read that they can't deny you coverage, but that isn't the same thing as they can't change rates for different classes of people.

[Clintonista2]

23. I'll quote it off the document on her website:

"For insurers, to end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions or expectations of illness and ensure high value for every premium dollar"

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf

[mainegreen]

28. This is what she says in her pdf

1) Eliminating Insurance Discrimination: The plan creates rules that all insurers must
follow, ensuring that no American is denied coverage, refused renewal of an insurance
policy, unfairly priced out of the market, or charged excessive insurance premiums.
Health plans will compete on cost and quality rather than avoiding patients who need
insurance the most. The plan will:

* Require Guarantee Issue: Insurers must offer coverage to anyone who applies and
pays their premium. This protection, known as guarantee issue, will ensure that no one
is ever denied coverage because they are sick or an insurer fears they will be.
* Require Automatic Renewal: Insurers will be required to automatically renew
policies if the enrollee wishes to stay in the plan.
* Require Strong Rating Protections: Insurers would be prohibited from charging
large premium differences based on age, gender, or occupation (for example, a
standard set of modified community-rating protections).
* Require Minimum Stop-Loss Ratios: Premiums collected by insurers must be
dedicated to the provision of high-quality care, not excessive profits and marketing.

I italicized her item 3: it indicates that a) insurers can change rates based on the following criteria -at least-: age, gender or occupation. And those are listed as the protected groups. So she is saying that you can alter rates based on what group you belong to. The insurance companies will drive a truck through this.

The only way this absurd private/universal thing will work is if you allow 1 class of persons: the person class and if you make a universal fee schedule to set maximum amounts allowed charged/minimum amounts paid for any procedure.

[me b zola]

24. Why waste billions on insurance companies as middle-men?

For-profit health care is the problem.

[redqueen]

30. Oh I think we all know why.

Playing ball with profiteers means you get a cut of the spoils.

[tsuki]

32. Amen.

[Hieronymus]

66. Insurance companies are the reason the US spends twice what France spends

and one gets better care in France.

[SoCalDem]

59. She said they could not EXCLUDE you.. not that they would not charge you more

Which is kind of what we already have.. Even sick people CAN find coverage,if they are willing to PAY for it.

[w8liftinglady]

8. Does the Canadian Government administer,or do private insurance companies-just curious?

this seems to be the thing that many people object to.

[Clintonista2]

15. That is a VERY valid point, but I'm directing this post at the people who

complain that they will be *forced* to pay for health insurance. In Canada, if you make money, then you are contributing, regardless of how much money you make. In response to your original question, in Canada the federal/provincial governments are the sole payers.

[ncabot22]

22. I think the fear is...

in dealing with insurance companies, period. I saw "Sicko" and, if I am correct, insurance companies are a pain in the ass to deal with. You or I could go to an emergency room in Canada and get health care, period. In the US, you have to submit forms to insurance companies, etc. I could be wrong but I think the insurance companies are a big part of the problem in the US.

Why not just make Medicare available for all? In essence, Medicare is universal health care, right?

[Clintonista2]

29. I agree that insurance companies are the problem, however

My point is, that even under a fully universal single-payer system, you're still FORCED to pay. People on DU are complaining, because they don't *want* to pay, yet they still want a single-payer system, under which, you are still FORCED to pay for coverage.

[ljm2002]

52. That is *not* what DUers are complaining about!

We all understand that the monies have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere would be taxes. We already pay taxes and we understand how that works. Single-payer is the ultimate insurance method: spread the risk over the entire population, and let people get the health care they need, no questions asked and no strings attached. No one would ever again have to lose their home and their life savings due to a catastrophic illness. And the best part is, by eliminating the profit motive, costs go down (although at the macro level, that would probably neutralized due to the large number of people who would now have coverage -- but then getting coverage for everyone is one of the points of doing this).

All the proposals we are seeing so far, with the exception of Kucinich's plan, will still keep the private insurers involved. I see that as a pathetic attempt to paper over the fundamental failings of this system. It is unwieldy, it is expensive, and it is heartless. I pay for health insurance through a company plan, and it isn't cheap either. I'd just as soon pay it through taxes instead, and know that I'd get the care I needed and so would the guy down the street and so would the homeless and everyone. It's how it should be.

[sagesnow]

74. Edwards said last Sunday ...

at the Harkin Steak Fry that he would pay for Universal single payer health care by reinstating the tax cuts Bush gave the wealthy when he came to office.

[mudesi]

16. Privately owned hospitals are FUNDED by the government

The care is administered by doctors, nurses, etc, without having to worry about whether or not the patient will pay. That's all there is to it.

[leftchick]

20. yes, it is pretty simple

FOR PROFIT needs to GO! Too bad some folks don't see it.

[roamer65]

17. It is run by each provincial government.

Funded by a mix of provicial taxes and transfer payments to the provinces from federal taxes. However the provinces are bound by the rules of the Canada Health Act. In Ontario, it is known as OHIP for "Ontario Health Insurance Program". I'm American, but I have used their system. One simple form when you go into a clinic. They simply checked a box for what province gets billed. Mine was obviously "Other" and I had to pay. It was only the equivalent of $60 USD for the ugent care clinic visit when the exchange rate was better.

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/program/ohip/ohip_mn.html

[Lisa]

49. exactly -- the provincial governments issue plastic cards ...

Different from the national ones proposed by the Clinton administration. (Actually, as someone who moved from Ontario to BC, it would have been nice to have portable coverage, rather than having to get a new card in BC.)

[ncabot22]

18. The government takes care of health care in Canada

I have supplemental health insurance through my employer but every Canadian has health care. My employer pays my MSP fees, too. If he didn't, I'd pay about $50 a month. Some provinces, I believe, do not have MSP fees.

Our health care is subsidized by the gov't through taxes. It is a less complicated system than the US has.

I have to say I am very happy with the Canadian system. I've never had long waits and the two times I've been to an emergency room I have never seen a bill or had to deal with insurance. I hope the US gets a similar system, rather than mandated insurance for all.

[RC]

10. Canada you have Health Care, whether you can afford it or not. The US has

health insurance, if you can afford it.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

13. I do not have a problem with that as long as the corporacrats aren't BLEEDING US DEAD.

I haven't read Hillary's plan.

I do know that health insurance companies (hell, ALL MAJOR INSURANCE COMPANIES) are making a fucking bundle off human hardship.

Why not make those greedy fucks do like the rest of us do and that is make a living rather than a million from their trade especially when their trade is in HUMAN COMMODITIES?

[Cleita]

14. Hillary's plan would be far more costly than extending

and improving Medicare for all. You do pay for Medicare through your payroll taxes but you can't use it until you are sixty-five. How much better would it be for everyone to be able to pay into and partake of it? Like Social Security, Medicare has a cut off amount meaning the very rich don't pay their fair share. Lifting the cut off on both Social Security and Medicare would flood the coffers and preserve the programs for future generations.

Hillary's plan would add a payroll tax. This is not a very efficient solution in my estimation. By not eliminating the problem, the for profit health care parasitic middle men, she is not solving the problem and only making it more costly.

[Greyhound]

51. You got it, she wants to keep her contributors fat and happy, at our expense,

while subjecting everyone to the denied claims and false proclamations of "experimental treatments". IOW, everybody without a trust fund gets shoved into the shittiest of HMO care denial scams while pouring even more billions into the insurance industry's coffers.

[PDenton]

53. Payroll tax = penalize employement

Wasn't it Al Gore who said we need to cut payroll taxes?

[cgrindley]

19. In 2003, in BC, I paid $72 per month for a family

beyond my income tax. It is not a burden and people should be FORCED to pay it. Not only that, but all HMOs should be nationalized, disbanded and their employees fired and private health care should be made illegal. It's the only way forward.

[slackmaster]

35. Information about Canadian income tax rates for 2003

Just some data to feed into the discussion:

http://www.unb.ca/transpo/mynet/mtw80.htm

My only comment is those are somewhat higher than people paid in the USA.

[treestar]

46. And they don't even get a world-dominating military for it

:sarcasm:

[Lisa]

48. another BCer here -- there are also subsidies available for those MSP premiums

(the extra amount paid on top of what's deducted from payroll as part of our income tax -- some provinces like BC and Ontario do this, to help meet the escalating health care costs)


http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoben/premium.html

The current adjusted net income thresholds are:
$20,000 - 100 percent subsidy
$22,000 - 80 percent subsidy
$24,000 - 60 percent subsidy
$26,000 - 40 percent subsidy
$28,000 - 20 percent subsidy

[Manifestor_of_Light]

50. What if you have no earned income? No job? Then what?

How poor do you have to be to not pay premiums? Do they throw your butt in jail if you don't pay, in which case your health problems can get worse because you don't get your medication or any treatment for anything acute (here the jails are that way, I've heard).

[Clintonista2]

61. Hillary has said that she will release more details regarding people who can't afford it

soon.

[cgrindley]

75. Well, you don't pay at all if you make less than 20k

I made a good income, so I had to pay 72 bucks per month. Poor people don't have to pay anything.


PS it's socialized medicine.

[gollygee]

25. Our country already pays tons in healthcare

it isn't like we'd be paying the tons we're paying now PLUS a new tax.

[Clintonista2]

45. My OP isn't necessarily about cost, it's about the hypocracy of those who want "choice"

Many DUers are complaining that they don't want to be FORCED to pay for health insurance, even if it's offered at a lower price. Yet, the same DUers say that they would not object to a universal single-payer system. What I'm saying is, even if you woke up tommorow, and had a Canadian-style system, you would still *HAVE TO PAY* for coverage, through your income taxes.

[Forrest Greene]

26. Shucks.

I pay taxes in the United States, & all I get is this rotten War.

A-and that's sure as hell mandatory, too.

[depakid]

27. Yeah, but you'd have to pay MUCH LESS

both individually and in aggregate.

Plus, you can walk into a physician's office when you need to and not have to hassle with paperwork, deductibles and copays.

Talk about a win/win.

[Clintonista2]

43. True, but you can't expect to reform the system overnight

Baby steps.

[awoke_in_2003]

54. just the reduction of paperwork

would be worth it. Go to one doctor, provide all info. Go to another, do it all over again. It is senseless.

[sandnsea]

31. But we'd know how much we're paying

and not have to wait until the end of the year to see how much of a tax credit we'd get.

They've got to put out plans with real figures.

[Clintonista2]

33. Well, actually, in Canada you're not shown how much of your income tax goes directly to health care

[sandnsea]

34. Well that's not what I said

I said you'd need to know how much you're paying every month, that you couldn't wait until the end of the year for a tax credit. I presume you have a budget.

[Clintonista2]

42. How much you pay will obviousley depend on many factors

Including which plan you have/would have.

[Trillo]

36. Where is HRC's plan?

Got a link?

Here's what bothers me about Universal plans that keep private health insurers intact, typically along side a single-payer plan: the goal of any corporation is to eliminate competition. Hence, any medicare or single-payer inclusion will, in the long term pressure applied legislatively by private insurers, result in the watering down of the basic medicare or single-payer coverage, and will likely result in leaving private insurance as the only comprehensive plan in the end.

The boundless greed, and willingness to subvert nature, of corporations must never be underestimated.

[librechik]

38. yeah--and it's a lot less than insurance premiums here in the states.

so they pay lots less than we do for better care, across the spectrum.

[Solon]

44. Are your deducts and co-pays also based on how much you can pay? n/t

[pinto]

47. (aside) All employees and employers pay into Medicare today. 1.45% of wages, each.

Usually noted on pay stubs as "EE Medicare Tax", for Part A (inpatient services).
---------------------------------------------------

Recipients additionally pay a monthly premium, currently $88.50/month, for Part B (outpatient services).

MEDICARE PREMIUMS AND DEDUCTIBLES FOR 2006

Summary

The Medicare Part B monthly premium will be $88.50 in 2006, an increase of $10.30 from the current $78.20 premium. The 2006 premium is roughly the same as the CMS actuaries have been projecting since early this year.

----------------------------------------------------

It's a good program, overall.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

56. Same here in the UK. We all pay in.

Did anyone ever believe that universal health care was actually free?

[redqueen]

58. You all pay in, but it's not private, for-profit insurance companies is it?

That's what Hillary's plan involves. We wouldn't pay in to a government-run payer system or insurer... that money would go to privately-owned, for-profit insurance companies.

[Clintonista2]

60. The topic isn't about the morality of insurance companies, it's about

people on DU who are pissed off because they would *HAVE* to pay for health insurance under Hillary's plan. What I'm saying in my OP is, even if Hillary's plan took insurance companies out of the equation completely, and gave you 100% single-payer universal health care, you would still *HAVE* to pay for coverage, whether you wanted to or not.

[redqueen]

62. You're being intentionally disingenuous. I hope.

Cause NOBODY is bitching about having to pay.

What people are bitching about is WHO gets the money.

[Clintonista2]

64. Of course they are bitching about having to pay

Take a look at this topic, for example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1827761&mesg_id=1827761

[redqueen]

A little help for you... check post 23 for clarification.

"Mandatory in the sense of forcing me to purchase health insurance from a profit driven company is not what I want.

Mandatory in the sense of taking the $500 per month I'm already paying in "employee contributions" and puting it into the tax revenue stream to pay for single payer health insurance with no profit motive for doctors, that's what I do want. "



Jesus Fuckin Christ.

[Clintonista2]

70. That one comment doesn't prove that people aren't bitching about having to contribute

The OP was talking about not being able to pay for health insurance, they weren't talking about not wanting their money to go to insurance companies. I understand that there are people who are purely angry about having to give money to insurance companies, as you pointed out, however, that is not the topic of my OP.

[redqueen]

72. That was the person who posted the OP.

Hence... my usage of the term "clarification".

Any other examples of people who actually ARE just mad about having to pay?

[iamthebandfanman]

63. what if ur unemployed and submit no taxes?

[Clintonista2]

65. Hillary has stated that she will be releasing more details soon, focusing on that question

[Rosa Luxemburg]

71. the mega rich should pay for you

like all those CEOs who are making several million a year!

[redqueen]

73. No, under Clinton's system, WE pay THEM!

:bounce:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

67. having lived in Canada, they seemed to have a nice health system

[Clintonista2]

69. As a Canadian, I agree

[Kelly Rupert]

68. Right now you have to pay through taxes, and you pay more.

The per-capita government burden as regards healthcare is twice in America what it is in Canada.