 |
 |
There was a time (long ago and in a galaxy far far away) when the governmental leaders of Canada had a vision. It was an all embracing vision that guaranteed the right of every human being in the entire country to the absolute best health care available. This meant that we were all on the same access level: the rich and the poor. The spin off from this in terms of a benevolent society, in terms of making sure poor kids were properly cared for, and that single mothers also had proper coverage, was unmistakeable. The entire society benefitted in so many layered ways, not immediately apparent to the uninformed eye. It is something like every dollar spent on early education saves multiples (some have pegged it at 7 or 8) of dollars in the child's future. We're talking here about the long term effects of mistreatment and abuse of children that end up costing society millions in crime, hospital and health care, loss of employment, cost to employers of continued illness, and this is still not mentioning their effect on their own families when they become adults. I'm off topic. But now that our government has lost its vision, now that those with higher incomes believe that their health care will be 1) better (it won't) and 2) cheaper (nope again, not in the long term) we are in the throes of creating a 2 tier system, which will decimate not only the solid humane and workable health care system, but will also have a destructive effect on the humanity, the caring, the decency of our society. Sorry for the tirade. I channel my anger to targets like this. It keeps me sane. Thanks for the question. I know I didn't answer it. I just wanted to blow off some steam. Hope no one's offended.. Barb -----Original Message----- From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> To: Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN <[log in to unmask]> Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 1:17 PM Subject: HMOs and Canadian health care > It doesn't seem likely that avoiding HMO's is an option for >most Americans. A newspaper article on the Managed Care Bill >passed by the House on Friday, reported that managed health-care >plans cover more than 75% of privately insured Americans. > > Our local newspaper also reported that a group of local >physicians who have become so fed up with interference by the >area HMOs, are trying to start their own, doctor-run health plan. >Is this happening in other parts of the country as well? I >believe it was brought on mainly by the threat of one of the >local insurers (our HMO) to withhold a percentage of their >payments to the doctors because they were ordering too many >expensive tests and prescribing too many expensive medications >(like Requip, I suppose.) The HMO claimed it would have to either >(a)withhold these payments from the doctors or (b)increase their >premiums. I believe it turned out that the doctors will be fully >paid; we haven't heard about our premiums yet. Oh yes, the HMO >did make a good profit last year. > > In spite of these comments, and my previous HMO complaints, >I do realize my family is still among the fortunate ones - we do >have comprehensive medical insurance and a prescription plan. The >millions of Americans lacking any medical insurance or those with >very limited coverage are the ones in the greatest need of >meaningful health care reform. > > I was wondering about the views of the Canadian list >members. Some Americans believe if we ever do get National Health >Insurance it should be modeled after the Canadian system. Others >are very opposed to it. Do you have similar problems with your >National Health System, as we do with the HMOs, or do you think >it generally provides well for your health care needs? I think >many of us in the U.S. would be interested to hear about your >experiences. > >Thanks, >Linda Herman >[log in to unmask] >