One of the issues that faces the Canadian system is that the
population is aging, as the baby boom generation starts to reach 65,
or senior citizen status. In the US the same issue will soon be
challenging the Medicare for seniors.  The cost of providing cancer
care, and/or treating diabetes, heart and lung disease will expand  as
more require the care.... and will survive longer with the diseases.
One advantage of having a universal plan is that all will be paying
for the system; rich and poor, young and old, and healthy and
otherwise.  What the for profit carriers are counting on is the idea
that some clients will be sufficiently profitable, to satisfy the
shareholders,and those who are not will not be covered. From the point
of view of the patient, that works if they die of the first heart
attack, or the first bout with cancer, or even as the result of an
accident.
The other problem that is built into the system, stems from the fact
that it is the mds that run the system. In Canada they are paid on a
per visit basis, whether or not a service is rendered. Some
communities are experimenting with community health services, which
puts the doctor on salary, and brings the many services that may be
required under one 'roof;. That includes counselling, labs, physio,
dental pharmacology, etc.  There is also  a possibility of the
services of physicians assistants, and/or nurse practitioners, thus
freeing the doctors of the mundane, and those cases that really need
other treatment, or referral to social services or other
sources......long before hospital  and surgery becomes necessary.(the
most expensive part of the system).
In the sixties (when the Canadian system was established, )many parts
of the hospital system were based on womens work, and at the time,
there was no demand for women to be well paid. That has
changed....there are no longer many nuns, or young women to  do the
work as an act of charity. At the same time, some of the advances in
surgery have made long hospital stays a thing of the past. Where once
a heart patient would be in hospital for months, now they are up and
around in days and weeks, and back at home with in home services.

On Dec 27, 7:42 am, "mike [never forget] 532"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Establish Medicare Part "E" for All Americans Under the Age of 
> 65:http://buzzflash.com/articles/node/7294
> In Canada, the universal health care system is simply called medicare
> -- and that's what it should be in the U.S.  And instead of the 1342-
> page proposal Hillary Clinton put together that was a politically
> jerry-rigged, confusing plan -- or the Obama proposal that would
> leave
> insurance companies pretty much intact (whose goal is to make money
> by
> reducing care as much as possible) -- it would be the simplest and
> boldest political move to simply propose to Congress this sentence to
> become law: "All Americans under the age of 65 will be covered by
> Medicare Part 'E.'"
>
> Simplicity is often the most audacious and successful strategy.
> Since
> Medicare for seniors became the law in 1965 as part of Lyndon
> Johnson's "Great Society," it has become the government program most
> embraced by Americans.  Any Republican or Democrat who would dare run
> against Medicare risks a landslide defeat at the polls in any
> statewide or national election.
>
> You can't tinker with a broken, for-profit medical insurance system
> and make it work.
>
> The Republicans are scared to death that if all Americans were
> covered
> by Medicare (with the health insurance companies shoved to the
> sidelines of supplemental insurance), it would lead to a new
> confidence in government.  In fact, we could be wrong, but we don't
> know of any government that adopted single-payer medical care and
> then
> rolled it back.  That is because even when it is flawed, it is wildly
> popular.  Just do a poll among seniors in South Florida.  Even
> Republicans on the West Coast of the Sunshine State love Medicare, as
> they -- ironically -- denounce "socialized" medicine!
>
> There is no reason not to cover all Americans under Medicare through
> Medicare Part "E."  Of course the insurance companies and
> pharmaceutical firms will send their squadrons of lobbyists out in
> full force.  But as far as effective public policy and returning our
> nation to competency in government after an administration that let
> the multiple incompetencies and greed of Wall Street and the
> military-
> industrial complex run our nation into the ground, there would be no
> restorative as powerful as extending the Medicare program to all
> Americans.
>
> So we are a bit discouraged to have read in the Boston Globe that the
> Obama Administration, through HHS Secretary-designate Tom Daschle, is
> going to negotiate with Congress -- and that there is already an 89-
> page "policy paper" being circulated on Capitol Hill representing the
> Obama position on health care reform.
>
> That's 89 pages too long.
>
> All that's needed, as we said, is this sentence: "All Americans under
> the age of 65 will be covered by Medicare Part 'E.'"
>
> It would keep any plan from death by a thousand GOP and lobbyist
> cuts,
> and it would provide America a health care plan beloved by those who
> are currently using it.
>
> And it would restore a respect for government among millions and
> millions of Americans who have become disenchanted by the disastrous
> legacy of the Bush Administration.
>
> It's the kind of savvy, brazen move that gives the Republican
> leadership cold shivers.
>
> Because it is stunning in its simplicity and effectiveness.
>
> And the only way that you could argue against it is to make a case
> against Medicare.
>
> And let the GOP just try to do rip Medicare to shreds.  They'll go
> down in flames.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to