The Community of Disc Golfers and About All Things Disc Golf

Request of All Members for This Discussion Thread

Please notify Terry, either within the DGRUS network or by direct email, terry.pirate.calhoun@gmail.com, or call me, (734) 883-4407 if you see inappropriate language, name calling, or other such posts in this thread. It's a hot topic on which lots of people are used to reading and perhaps posting in ways that are not appropriate inside DGRUS - so I ask your assistance in helping me stay on top of it.

Disc Golf in Canada is free and easy ......... kind of like our health care system.

Our Medicare system is just like a long straight pull down the middle ........ very effective and takes the worry and pain of being sick in Canada. Prior to 1963 we had a system like America. Private insurance and no insurance mostly people got sick and just had to pay a bill. Doctors never got fully paid for their services and monies were hard to collect. Since Medicare's inception everybody in the country is on the same premium, usually half paid by your employer. Everybody is covered. Emergency care is treated first, no one dies from lack of care and the care is wonderful. If you need a new knee and it's not emergent you wait a year. New heart valves right away. It's a wonderful way to live assured that you have coverage.
I had a recent conversation with an American doctor while cruising on the cruise ship to Alaska. I said why are you Yanks so afraid of Medicare. He said it was basic greed. That I didn't understand.

He said all the folks that have good health coverage now and have the where with all to pay for it, don't want the universal healthcare for all because it will take away resources from them. Doctors and nurses will be not so able to just look after their high priced needs. Just basic greed. As a proud Canadian one of about 88% that love the Canadian system I say Push On get the system that covers everyone.

Views: 23

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Folks, if people want to engage in this discussion in DGRUS that is fine with me. But the guidelines still apply, including Rule #1: Behave as though everyone in here is your friend.

I can't do much about the civility on political blogs, Facebook, and town hall meetings, but I can in here. If there's a discussion in here about this issue, it will be civil.

Jeff, why don't you try again without all the CAPS and words like "crap," "BS," and "blows," please.
Freedom of this and freedom of that ..... our system is paid for by all for all ....... everybody is covered all doctors get paid well and it's better than accepting chickens in lieu of cash as pre Medicare. .......... If you are a doctor perhaps your earnings will go down some but how much is too much .......... I know there is never enough but we in Canada know in the end ..... you can't take it with you ..... we are proud that healthcare is not an issue here .... it's a done deal, everybody in the country has great healthcare period. Like the doctor said it's all about greed. Private is about P R O F I T the same kind of profit and excesses that causes world banks to collapse.
Two Putt posted the following, plus one sentence which I have removed from this repost. If you want to repost yourself, Two Putt, please do so and I will delete this post of mine:

[begin quote] Canadian health insurance is compulsory, monopolistic, and administered by the various provincial governments under strict control of the federal government. It is illegal for a Canadian citizen to carry private insurance coverage for any health care services covered by the government. Physicians are told by the government how much they can charge for their services; drug prices are set by the government. The supply of medical services in Canada is completely rationed, with no significant private alternative.

The alleged "low cost" of Canadian health care is thus no less a fraud than it was in the Soviet Union. Canadians may not pay the price in dollar terms ... but they pay a steep price indeed in terms of care denied or delayed and the poor quality of service provided by unhappy medical practitioners whose incomes do not match their skill and training. [end quote]
Thanks Terry but that pretty much sums it up. We live in two very different societies, two very different forms of government.

What is wrong with profit? If it weren't for profit, you would have no economy what so ever, you would only have government which would seem to be the answer you are looking for. I'm sorry but I want less government, not more.

I did notice that you failed to address the issues of Candians waiting for health care, or you seem to accept that as the norm. Sorry but if I have a bad knee, I don't want to wait weeks or months or years for someone to decide that I'm ready to have it corrected. That should be my decision. My freedom of choice.
I'd like to share this item comparing the American and Canadian healthcare systems.

I'd also like to share a new survey of American physicians, which indicates that the majority would like to see some form of "public option" enabled from the current health care reform proposals.

A RWJF survey summarized in the September 14, 2009 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine shows that 62.9 percent of physicians nationwide support proposals to expand health care coverage that include both public and private insurance options—where people under the age of 65 would have the choice of enrolling in a new public health insurance plan (like Medicare) or in private plans. The survey shows that just 27.3 percent of physicians support a new program that does not include a public option and instead provides subsidies for low-income people to purchase private insurance. Only 9.6 percent of doctors nationwide support a system where a Medicare-like public program is created in lieu of any private insurance. A majority of physicians (58%) also support expanding Medicare eligibility to those between the ages of 55 and 64.
Here's a New England Journal of Medicine study comparing waiting times for knee replacement in the US and Ontario.

The waiting time in Canada for the initial orthopedic consultation was two weeks and in the US four weeks. Waiting time for surgery after knee surgery was planned was three weeks in the US and eight weeks in Canada. Americans waited a total of seven weeks less than the Canadians.

But the major different is outside of those statistics: Any Canadian who needs knee replacement gets it. Americans who have no insurance and cannot afford to pay the medical fees on their own, don't get it at all. How to figure "infinity" into the waiting times is beyond me :)

Frankly, I hope I never, ever need knee surgery, but if I do, I'll likely agonize on my own for far more than seven extra weeks before deciding to go through with it.
Here in the States we already have a medicare-medicade system. If they were to take the estimated 900 billion over 10 years, they are proposing now and place it into the current system and let it cover the so-called unisured, then we would all have insurance.

They tout our biggest problem here is the 47 million unisured's and this is why we need universal coverage, I disagree.

This from Investors Business Daily

It goes without saying that there now seems to be a broad consensus that the great tragedy of our health care system is that so many people go uncovered. One glance at the data certainly suggests that's the case.

That might be why a broad spectrum of politicians, ranging from Sen. Hillary Clinton on the left to Mitt Romney on the right, advocate universal health care as key to health reform. Even Wal-Mart has joined with its nemesis, the Service Employees International Union, to call for universal health care.

But, like so many other things that get spun in the media, most of what you know about the uninsured is wrong.

Take the idea that, somehow, this is part of the growing split between the haves and have-nots in this country. It's not that simple.

One of the shocking things in the Census Bureau's report this week on poverty and health care in America is that so many well-to-do people can easily afford health care, but choose to go without it.

The median household income, according to the data released this week, is $48,200. You might be surprised to discover that 38% of all the uninsured — that's almost 18 million people — have incomes higher than $50,000 a year. An astounding 20% of all uninsured have incomes over $75,000. These are people who can afford coverage.

Is it really a good idea to tax working people to subsidize those who refuse to pay for a necessity they could easily buy? The answer, of course, is no.

One other breakdown of the data is instructive. By far the group with highest share of uninsured is Hispanics. Some 34.1% of all Hispanics lack coverage.

That latter piece of data is alarming. Drilling even deeper, one finds that fully 27% of all the uninsured in the U.S. — that's 12.6 million people — aren't even citizens.

Not coincidentally, the government also estimates that about 12 million illegals now reside in the U.S., though some think tanks put the number as high as 20 million.

Putting the two together, this suggests that — surprise — a major reason for the uninsured "problem" is our failure to enforce our border.

By some estimates, another 20% or so is uninsured only for a couple of months a year. As TV journalist John Stossel recently noted, as many as a third of all those eligible for public health programs don't even bother to apply.

Once you whittle it down, you start to realize that the number of hard-core uninsured who are citizens is in fact fairly small — perhaps half the reported 47 million or less.

Yet it's not clear that shrinking the 47 million to zero would help all that much. Because the uninsured still get health care. They get it through Medicaid, the state-run, federally funded program for the indigent. They get care, by law, in any emergency room in the country.

No, that's not the best way to care for someone. But to say that people have "no access to health care," as we often hear, simply is a lie.

Moreover, it's not clear that those who go the emergency care route are worse off. A study by health economists Helen Levy of the University of Michigan and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago found "no evidence" that boosting coverage for all would be a cost-effective solution to improve overall health.

If there is a real problem here it is a tax code that encourages third-party payment of our health care bills, thus driving up costs. An estimated 86% of all health care purchases go through third parties. As anyone with a credit card understands, letting someone else buy something for you without any controls is an invitation to financial disaster.

Making consumers responsible for spending their own health care dollars — and letting them benefit when they control costs — is the real answer to our "uninsured problem."

It would lead to lower costs, and wider coverage — something universal care advocates promise, but can't deliver.
Investors Business Daily. Hmm.

Anyone try to get a knee replacement at the ER?
How many disc golfers reading this have been without health insurance in the past five years? How many have family members who lack health insurance? How many have disc golf buddies who lack health insurance?

I've got an adult daughter and son living with me, neither one can really afford rent anywhere else, much less health insurance. (And neither is an undocumented alien.) I am very concerned, this fall, that one of them might get really ill with H1N1, and what little I have in retirement savings disappears to cover their medical expenses - *before* they get to the ER stage.
Terry and 7 Putts ....... just a good ol' Canadian stirring up the pot .......... here's a hoping you'all can sort it all out and respectfully work out a bill that will be much better than what's not working now..
Most disc golfers are without health insurance, as is the majority of the younger age group. Most by choice.

That is why I gave the example of expanding our current medicare-medicade system to cover those that truly can not afford coverage. I'm not touting our system as a great one, that would be foolish of me, but it is also foolish to think that the Canadian system is flawless. They both have their draw backs. I just don't feel we need a government take over to cover a largely inflated number of uninsureds. When you look deeply at the touted 47 million unisured number it actually comes down to around 10.6 million.

Terry, let me ask you a question.......
If we were to go to a one payer system, such as Canada....

Do you feel you would receive better care?
Do you think you would have more choices of type of care?
Do you think you would have better access to facilities and doctors?
Do you think the level of care would be better than it is now?
Do you think the government can manage the system better than the private sector?
First: I have a very excellent health insurance plan through the University of Michigan and am vested in it so that I can continue to get it, at ever-increasing cost each year, for life. Likewise, I am a 10 percent disabled Vietnam Veteran, so I am eligible for that (government run) healthcare system as well. So I'm a pretty special case.

If I had to count on whether or not I had coverage from one of the two above, twenty years from now, all things being equal, I'd bet that the Veteran's Administration coverage is far more likely to still exist for me than that the University of Michigan will still be providing much to help me pay for the healthcare insurance I have now. (Which I am using, instead of the VA, so that taxpayer money doesn't have to be spent for me . . . yet.)

Second: None of the proposals on the table in the various parts of the legislature call for anything like a one payer system, such as Canada has, so even to answer your questions about that is to accept a nonsensical hypothetical. Do I think whatever comes out of the legislature this fall will create a system in which I have more choices, better access, and better care? I don't know. But I do know that I would accept less than what I have if it meant that everyone could have good, solid coverage.

Finally: Do I think the government can manage the system better than the private sector? Yes. In that I do believe it would cover everyone, all the time, instead of most people, most of the time. To me that's a better managed system. We already have "death panels," they're composed of insurance company bureaucrats and attorneys.

Reply to Discussion


Blog Posts

Disc Golf Approach Shot Tips by Paul Ulibarri

Posted by Alan Barker on October 30, 2014 at 12:40pm — 1 Comment

State of Disc Golf: Disc Golf Growth

Posted by Alan Barker on January 29, 2014 at 2:26pm

What are your favorite Disc Plastics?

Posted by Alan Barker on November 4, 2013 at 1:38pm

2 Tips For Guys To Entice A Girls

Posted by Frederick Cranford on September 11, 2013 at 5:42am

Disc Golf Answerman Episode 6

Posted by CoolDaddySlickBreeze on August 13, 2013 at 4:40pm



© 2015   Created by Terry "the Pirate" Calhoun.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service