NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/culture/canada/9742

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-04 | 3.6 KB

Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9742 talk.politics.medicine:462
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,talk.politics.medicine
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.columbia.edu!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu!gld
From: [e-mail] (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Canadian health insurance -- Is Microsoft the next
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The Network News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 03:33:56 GMT
Lines: 63

[e-mail] (Charles Kincy) writes:
>[e-mail] (Luc Bauwens) writes:
>
>>Furthermore (and this is a key to the issue of cost-effectiveness),
>>the Canadian system does a great job at spending enough money where
>>it's most cost-effective: in preventative medicine.
>
>Yah, like taxing the hell out of cigarettes.  :)

Why not?  Why should I pay for a smoker's added risk?  Smokers can lie
their face off down here during their insurance examinations *and* get
cheap smokes, then run up a huge insurance tab after "I just puffed
a few samples last week, doctor ..." -- yeah, right! (-;

>Before I see the government jump into nationalized health insurance,
>I would first like to give deregulation and demonopolization and
>private insurance reform a chance.  If that works, maybe a *limited*
>government health insurance program to catch people that fell through
>the cracks.  [Kinda like Medicaid, but much better.]
>
>Just those three things would probably bring the American system
>closer to the Canadian system in fairness and efficiency.
>
>I resist a suddenly-imposed governmental health insurance scheme
>with every bone of my body, though.  I just don't think it would
>do any good without taking the above steps first.

Think about this: with managed competition, HMO's will impose a sort
of pseudo-socialized medicine upon America -- an HMO accountant will
be the third party in the doctor-patient relationship just like over
in countries with real socialized medicine (versus public insurance).

While noting that the actual (not propoganda) Canada/France/Germany
systems are actually hybrid public/private, Germany's difference is
that their public insurance is "voluntary" -- but, no private basic
insurance can be bought for any money not due to legislation, but
because no private company is stupid enough to have a risk pool of
two dozen ... one cancer in the bunch, and it's game over.  To get
supplementary insurance to cover deductibles (which I advocate for
Canada, and has been attempted in Quebec but vetoed by the federal
Conservatives), non-medical amenities (private room, ambulatory
transport, etc.), the first question you're asked is if you have
the public basic insurance; if the answer is not <Ja!>, they show
you the door.

The HIAA (Health Insurance Assoc. of America) is touting universal
*insurance* because the HMO's present the biggest risk to their future
existence under managed competition.  Preserving real insurance means
getting updated files from their Canadian offices to figure out where
they can position themselves and a new card has been laid down in the
health lobbying poker game.

>Sorry to boot you with my jerking knee.  I think I might've learned
>something from it.  :)

Oww!!!  Quick, somebody grab a rope and tie it down ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> [e-mail]         Support NAFTA
> [e-mail]             Eat Mexican  (El Teddy's ad)