I know it's been discussed often, but can I hear from citizens of other countries with universal or government run healthcare?

[Mary]

Just for my peace of mind, because sometimes I feel crazy in the midst of all the conservative US comments about how terrible the system is and how people have to wait months for basic care, etc. I'd like some consolidated information please. What do you think of your system verses ours?

[Karen]

I lived in the US for a few years in high school. My mum was a nurse at that time. I have a daughter with a chronic illness (type 1 diabetes)
You could not pay me enough to live in the US and deal with that system. I think it is inhumane.

Medical decisions are made between me and my doctor (and I choose my doctor without restriction). We have never waited for medical care. I have two friends whose children have needed significant amounts of medical care in the last year or so. One required a life flight to Sick Kids in Toronto from our local hospital, experimental drugs, huge number of specialists, tests, interventions, long hospital stays etc. Unfortunately this child has on-going and severe medical issues. The length of time they wait for consultations or specialists numbered hours - not days or weeks. The out of pocket cost to them - $0

I have another friend whose daughter needed an MRI for a serious but not life threatening diagnositic issue. She had an appointment within a week locally or could have waited another couple of weeks to see the child specialist at Sick Kids. She was referred to a different specialist following the MRI and had the appointment within 3 weeks.

The medical system would pay for a pump for my daughter if/when we choose to go that route and helps with the cost of supplies. I don't worry that my mother's medical needs will leave her bankrupt and living with me (that alone makes me :yay: - lol).

So much of what I read and heard during the US election about Canadian health care was flat out lies it was scary.

[Spark]

I agree with Karen. I have never had a problem choosing, changing, or leaving doctors or even specialists at will. I have never had to wait long for a procedure, never paid a doctor for anything, or ever felt "pushed to the back of the line." We vaccinate sparingly and only some; this has never been an issue other than a topic for discussion with my doctor.

When Sofia had her finger cut off in the van door, she had an emergency room visit, 2 plastic surgeries, countless consultations with physio, overnight stays, etc. etc. and all we paid for was parking at the hospital. I had a midwife for the beginning of both my pregnancies and a homebirth (had it happened) would have been covered by our health care plan. I would NEVER choose to live in the US (love you guys, but...lol) over Canada. Our taxes cover so many of what I consider basic human rights/needs that I really don't have a problem paying into the pool. I don't beleive that my living standard is any lower than American middle class, despite the difference in taxes here.



Death Panels and other lies told by some are so laughable it borders on ridiculous. I certainly am not saying that our system is perfect, as no system is without it's flaws, but what I can say is that I get the same care as the homeless guy on the corner, and the millionaire up the road.

[Sarah]

Others can be articulate about the reasons -- I merely froth. Health care is the single most important reason why I will never, ever live in the US.

[Spark]

I agree Sarah. I love many things about the U.S (Hostess Apple pies available at GAS STATIONS, people!) but I just don't understand how the country doesn't "take care" of their people. It makes me kind of sad. This is in no way made as a judgment - I personally don't understand it, and think that there are vast differences in general political viewpoint between Americans and Canadians going back to the way our individual countries came to independence.

[Chryse]

Just based on the stories I hear from here, I would never, ever choose US healthcare over Canada's. I cannot imagine having to wait to attend to urgent health concerns because of not having insurance. I cannot fathom having to pay the amount some people pay each month for insurance. The cost of co-pays and deductibles staggers me.I have seen people here live in pain for months - years - because they didn't have access to insurance. I have read people debating wether or not they should go to the doctor or ER over severely worrying symptoms - all because they are concerned about the cost. It boggles my mind.

I love our healthcare. I can see any doctor I choose. I can go to the ER and not worry about how much is in my savings account. When it was discovered I had a rare eye disease as a child, I had monthly appointments with the head of pediatric opthomology at our children's hospital for years, and my parents paid nothing for these. It took a month from first visit to surgery to have my cataract removed, and a big part of that wait was only because of the medicine I had to take leading up to the surgery. It was a week between my follow up appointment and the laser surgery to remove the bits of cataract that couldn't be removed with the scalpel. My grandmother received a liver transplant in her seventies. The wait between the discovery of my grandfather's colon cancer and his surgery was four days. When I took Teagan to the ER when she hit her head and gashed it open, the only bill I had was the sixty dollars for the ambulance. My homebirth was completely covered with no out of pocket expenses.

No, it is not perfect. Each province administers it's own system, so it can be quite different from province to province. For instance, I believe Quebec pays for the dental care of children up to a certain age. In Ontario, all dental care is paid out of pocket, or by supplemental insurance. Supplemental insurance is offered by most employers, and used to cover dental care, eye care, perscription drug costs, chiropractic care, and a host of over things. It is not terribly expensive. I think the most we have ever paid for a family of three is 100 dollars a month. We currently pay about 65 dollars a month.

There are frustrations and problems. Many of my friends are nurses, and are currently being shuffled around to new units as they try and push a whole bunch of nurses to retire so they don't have to have layoffs. Layoffs that I believe are completely unneccessary, and that in five years, when they have saved a bunch of money, they will then have a big push to hire more nurses. Opthomologists aren't covered by Ontario's healthcare, so eye doctor appointments are paid for by supplemental insurance, unless you have a medical condition that necessitates regular eye appointments. I preferred when one regular eye checkup a year was covered, because I think eye health is very important, and easily accessible to those without supplemental insurance. Dental health isn't covered, again something that is covered by supplemental insurance. Some dental things are though - for instance, I have jaw issues, and if I decide to get jaw surgery in the future to correct this, it will be covered by the province, as it is deemed "medically necessary" dental surgery.

There are logistical problems that plague our heathcare - we are a country with a small population spread out over a big area - this means that many things need to be duplicated in areas with small populations - just because the next closest hospital, clinic, etc is too far away. For instance, our town is 7,000 people, and we have a hospital. The next town over is half an hour away, and they have a hospital for 10, 000 people. The next town over from that is 45 minutes away, and has it's own hospital. You don't really need 3 hospitals to serve 30k people, but each town needs it's own, because we are too far away from each other.

There can be long wait times for surgeries for non life threatening conditions. From the research I did last year, the wait times are on par with the American system as it stands now - so I don't consider that to be an unacceptable consequence of our healthcare system. All personal experience I have had with life threatening conditions - heart attacks, cancer, etc, have been dealt with swiftly, with no waiting.

Overall, I love our healthcare system. There is room for improvement, there are things that will need to be addressed as the baby boomer population continues to age, but I would not ever, ever trade our system for the one the US has in place now.

[Tangwystl]

I'm going to ditto everything Chryse said! And add that I think because the US population is so much bigger it would in a way facilitate the fixing of a couple of our problem like the small town hospitals she mentioned.

I have never ever had a problem seeing a doctor. And if I don't want to wait to see my doctor which usually takes 2 weeks to get an appointment I can go to a drop in clinic if it's an emergency visit that doesn't necessitate an actual emergency room like a UTI or minor stitches.

All of Muriel's ADD care is covered, we get related parenting classes covered. All of her testing was covered. My supplemental insurance is 180 a year! My parents would be completely bankrupted and dirt poor if they had had to pay for all my mom's medical proceedures.

It boggles my mind and makes me so upset when American on here post about their medical issues and how they are scared of the bills. It makes me want to cry, some of the decisions people have to make, it's so unfair.

It's the single biggest reason why I would never ever ever want to live in the US.

[mudcreekmama]

I've lived in three provinces - two of the richest and one of the poorest, and access and quality of care has been the same across the board. I've had no problems accessing care. Because I have kids with preexisting conditions we even have extended benefits - dental coverage continues through adulthood as opposed to becoming a pay for service when they reach their teens.

When I have had drugs that are not covered by our provincial health plan the drug co has provided them free of charge even.

I have never in my life had to compromise between the care my doctor/midwife/dentist and I agree I need and what the state will cover. NEVER.

People say we have waits for elective surgery? Yup. M needed a referral to a specialist because of his feet. He had to wait three weeks to see him. He saw him two days ago. He has to wait til early May for the surgery. He'll get to do it earlier if there is a cancellation that opens up a surgical spot at either of the hospitals in our area. He could have it even earlier if we wanted to drive an hour to Halifax. Is it any faster in the US?



I agree with Karen. I have never had a problem choosing, changing, or leaving doctors or even specialists at will. I have never had to wait long for a procedure, never paid a doctor for anything, or ever felt "pushed to the back of the line." We vaccinate sparingly and only some; this has never been an issue other than a topic for discussion with my doctor.

When Sofia had her finger cut off in the van door, she had an emergency room visit, 2 plastic surgeries, countless consultations with physio, overnight stays, etc. etc. and all we paid for was parking at the hospital. I had a midwife for the beginning of both my pregnancies and a homebirth (had it happened) would have been covered by our health care plan. I would NEVER choose to live in the US (love you guys, but...lol) over Canada. Our taxes cover so many of what I consider basic human rights/needs that I really don't have a problem paying into the pool. I don't beleive that my living standard is any lower than American middle class, despite the difference in taxes here.



Death Panels and other lies told by some are so laughable it borders on ridiculous. I certainly am not saying that our system is perfect, as no system is without it's flaws, but what I can say is that I get the same care as the homeless guy on the corner, and the millionaire up the road.

[jerzymama]

I think the US needs better improved healthcare. I think it is a HUGE mistake to compare the US with any other country's current system - Canada has a total population of about 35 million people. The US has 300 million people. You cannot compare delivering healthcare to a population 10x's that of another country's. It's simply not a realistic comparison for a thousand reasons. It's like comparing education in a private school of 25 students and a large public school that has 2,000 students. You cannot possibly deliver the *same* thing in the same way. For better or worse. If you want to compare health sytems, you need to look at countries with similar populations - i.e. China, Indonesia, India, etc.



Just for my peace of mind, because sometimes I feel crazy in the midst of all the conservative US comments about how terrible the system is and how people have to wait months for basic care, etc. I'd like some consolidated information please. What do you think of your system verses ours?

[Tangwystl]

I think the US needs better improved healthcare. I think it is a HUGE mistake to compare the US with any other country's current system - Canada has a total population of about 35 million people. The US has 300 million people. You cannot compare delivering healthcare to a population 10x's that of another country's. It's simply not a realistic comparison for a thousand reasons. It's like comparing education in a private school of 25 students and a large public school that has 2,000 students. You cannot possibly deliver the *same* thing in the same way. For better or worse. If you want to compare health sytems, you need to look at countries with similar populations - i.e. China, Indonesia, India, etc.

I don't think we are debating implementation has to be different. Just that government run health care is not a bad thing in itself.

ETA: American media seems to say a lot of things about our sytem that just are not true.

[mudcreekmama]

I think a larger population base makes it easier though. You do not have to worry about excessive duplication of services as we do. (our poulation may be tiny but our landmass is as big as yours) compare yourselves to Britian for population density.

[elizabeth]

I think the US needs better improved healthcare. I think it is a HUGE mistake to compare the US with any other country's current system - Canada has a total population of about 35 million people. The US has 300 million people. You cannot compare delivering healthcare to a population 10x's that of another country's. It's simply not a realistic comparison for a thousand reasons. It's like comparing education in a private school of 25 students and a large public school that has 2,000 students. You cannot possibly deliver the *same* thing in the same way. For better or worse. If you want to compare health sytems, you need to look at countries with similar populations - i.e. China, Indonesia, India, etc.

The issue isn't really access to health care or improvement of health care though, it's access to health care coverage (I don't think that it should be called health care insurance, since it really isn't insurance in the traditional financial sense of the word, what most people have is coverage).

Sorry, JM, this isn't really directed at you. It's just my own little peeve about these discussions.

[Jewel2]

and a whole host of other factors. Even population wise, China wouldn't be a good comparison -- they have over 1 billion people, so it is not at all a similar population profile to compare.

There are many different developed nations with universal health insurance. And they do it in different ways. And they manage it w/ very different population/land mass profiles. Not just Europe and Canada, but Australia and New Zealand, and also Japan (about 127 million people I think) and South Korea. We are pretty much alone among industrialized nations in not having universal health insurance (and even a lot of developing nations have it -- like Brazil).

Plus, the current health plan is really different from Canada anyway. Canada is single payer like Medicare (I think it's even called Medicare?) and this plan relies heavily on private insurers.


I think the US needs better improved healthcare. I think it is a HUGE mistake to compare the US with any other country's current system - Canada has a total population of about 35 million people. The US has 300 million people. You cannot compare delivering healthcare to a population 10x's that of another country's. It's simply not a realistic comparison for a thousand reasons. It's like comparing education in a private school of 25 students and a large public school that has 2,000 students. You cannot possibly deliver the *same* thing in the same way. For better or worse. If you want to compare health sytems, you need to look at countries with similar populations - i.e. China, Indonesia, India, etc.

[mudcreekmama]

So you can see what we get (and this is different in each province)

Nova Scotia's Health Insurance Programs are designed to provide eligible residents with coverage for medically required hospital, medical, dental and optometric services with some restrictions.

The Medical Services Insurance Programs are administered by Medavie Blue Cross on behalf of the Nova Scotia government. The Department of Health provides policy direction for the programs. The Hospital Insurance Program is administered directly by the Department of Health. The cost of providing these services to Nova Scotians is met through the general revenues of the province. You pay no premiums.

Please carry your signed Nova Scotia Health Card with you at all times. You must present it to the physician and/or hospital each time you need insured hospital or physician services.

Restrictions? Psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers are covered but psychotherapists are not...ummm I can't get a boob job covered unless I've had a mastectomy. My osteopath isn't covered (but is under extended coverage available through employers. Same with Chiropractors, massage therapists. Umm I have to pay for my dentist unless it's an emergency (the kids are covered for everything though). I pay a percentage for my drugs (100.00 script costs me 13.00) and my copayment was only 4.00 when I had extended coverage through M's employer.

[mudcreekmama]

We don't have a single payer. Each province is required to provide a universal plan but they determine how they go about it. My province has the same population of Chryse and Tang and Riversprite's municipality. We have our health coverage through Blue Cross because that makes sense for our tiny population of 1 million.

[elizabeth]

We don't have a single payer. Each province is required to provide a universal plan but they determine how they go about it. My province has the same population of Chryse and Tang and Riversprite's municipality. We have our health coverage through Blue Cross because that makes sense for our tiny population of 1 million.

What happens for cross province care? For instance, you live on a border so care in another province is actually closer to you, or you want to see a specialist (for instance, I know the majority of PH specialists in Canada are located in Toronto) and they are located outside of your home province?

[Jewel2]

Right, by single payer I mean the gov't entity (state (provincial) or federal) collects the fees (via taxes) and finances the health care insurance. There can be different single payers, and also private insurers, but the gov't entity is the main financer of the health insurance. And the single payer (the gov't insurer) contracts with private doctors (as opposed to England, eg, where health care providers are generally employees of the gov't). I don't mean there is only one payer in the whole country. That is actually one thing (among many) I think is great about Canada's system -- the ability for each province to customize.

[mudcreekmama]

The only province that has some sticking points with regards to billing is Quebec and I would get a bill from Quebec, which I'd have to submit to Nova Scotia when I got home - it would definitely be paid by the province. If any of us needed care in another province we'd get it. When I lived in Quebec I hopped the border all the time, my midwife was in Quebec, my OB was in Quebec my family doc was in Ontario, our specialists were mostly in Ontario (a few in Quebec). The one sticky point in that would be that if I needed care in Toronto lets say - the province would pay my transportation but not family members. They'd have to travel out of pocket unless an aide was deemed medically necessary (if a kid had to go to TO for treatment I'd get my transport covered too but I'd have to pay for caregivers for the other kids. We could get help from charities like Ronald McDonald House if we needed to stay in another centre for an extended period)

[Karen]

I don't know how it works for referrals (I live in Ontario so we have access here in province to everything we need) but if I were travelling and got ill or needed care in another province, I believe my home provinces is charge via my OHIP card/number. It would be invisible to me though. I just hand over my card and get the care I need.

[Tracy]

I think a larger population base makes it easier though. You do not have to worry about excessive duplication of services as we do. (our poulation may be tiny but our landmass is as big as yours) compare yourselves to Britian for population density.

I agree. The larger population should , in theory, make it easier. Based on population alone, there should be more clinics, more doctors , more hospitals, and much more accessible to healthcare.

[mudcreekmama]

The only province it would be an issue in is Quebec. They'd likely send you a bill which you'd submit to OHIP.

[kokoro]

Just for my peace of mind, because sometimes I feel crazy in the midst of all the conservative US comments about how terrible the system is and how people have to wait months for basic care, etc. I'd like some consolidated information please. What do you think of your system verses ours?

I never had to wait to see a doctor and when I left I would always be given loads of medications for a tiny fee.

I post on a message board about food allergies and from what I can see of the Canadian posters I would not want to be under their medical system if a had a child with food allergies. I see them having ped docs with all the power to decide if they get to see an allergist or not (and these peds are often under the mistaken assumption that you can't test for food allergies until age 2 when you can test a baby, literally). I see them having their care highly managed in a way that can endanger their children. I don't like what I see. It isn't *horrible* but it isn't what I would call good care, either, at least until they can get to an allergist. What I see from the British posters is downright chilling. They get totally wrong info from their doctors and sub par care that is very dangerous to the food allergic people. Ditto the Israeli posters. Scary, scary stuff. I don't know how much of this has to do with national health care or the US having top doctors in this area. I don't know. I do see the delay in getting proper care in Canada with regard to food allergies, though.

There are plans in the US that do that, too. I am so lucky I currently can just go see any specialist I like without having to get a referral. If someone is dealing with normal, general health issues then seeing a GP is good but with specialized, serious health issues I want to a doctor who specializes in that field.

I know very little about the Canadian system but I'm not impressed with it when it comes to food allergies.

[jerzymama]

Yes, I agree - I think there are slight but significant semantic differences - "available healthcare" and "access to healthcare" are entirely different ideas - as is health insurance/coverage.

The US needed (and needs) an improvement to healthcare delivery/access to all citizens -




The issue isn't really access to health care or improvement of health care though, it's access to health care coverage (I don't think that it should be called health care insurance, since it really isn't insurance in the traditional financial sense of the word, what most people have is coverage).

Sorry, JM, this isn't really directed at you. It's just my own little peeve about these discussions.

[Karen]

I never had to wait to see a doctor and when I left I would always be given loads of medications for a tiny fee.

I post on a message board about food allergies and from what I can see of the Canadian posters I would not want to be under their medical system if a had a child with food allergies. I see them having ped docs with all the power to decide if they get to see an allergist or not (and these peds are often under the mistaken assumption that you can't test for food allergies until age 2 when you can test a baby, literally). I see them having their care highly managed in a way that can endanger their children. I don't like what I see. It isn't *horrible* but it isn't what I would call good care, either, at least until they can get to an allergist. What I see from the British posters is downright chilling. They get totally wrong info from their doctors and sub par care that is very dangerous to the food allergic people. Ditto the Israeli posters. Scary, scary stuff. I don't know how much of this has to do with national health care or the US having top doctors in this area. I don't know. I do see the delay in getting proper care in Canada with regard to food allergies, though.

There are plans in the US that do that, too. I am so lucky I currently can just go see any specialist I like without having to get a referral. If someone is dealing with normal, general health issues then seeing a GP is good but with specialized, serious health issues I want to a doctor who specializes in that field.

I know very little about the Canadian system but I'm not impressed with it when it comes to food allergies.

My nephew has multiple food allergies - eggs, peanut, tree nut and dairy sensitivities. My sister didn't have problems getting him in to see an allergist prior to the age of 2 - I think he was about 17 months, and she gets excellent care. She lives near CHEO which is a large children's hosptial on Ottawa so that may be influencing her experience.

I have another friend who just had her 14 month old diagnosed with celiac and had no problems getting into an allergist as part of the diagnostic process, which she initiated with her dr at the suggestion of her naturopath, whom her doctor consulted with.

I am sure the reality lies somewhere between your impression of the situation and mine but I don't think that the standard of care is better in the US than in Canada or other countries that have UHC.

[Hobbes]

I'm not from another country, but we lived and worked in Germany for four years under their system. It's "single-payer universal insurance", but not government run health care (i.e. the doctors and hospitals are private, paid by insurance companies or the government insurance).

Your health insurance is paid for out of your taxes. You have the option to opt-out and get your own private insurance (thought the insurance companies are taxed of course and those taxes go to covering people who can't insure themselves).

We opted for the government insurance.

We chose our doctor. It was easy and no problem.

Because of my hypertension, I saw her twice a year. I never had to wait more than a few days to get an appointment. I never waited in her office for more than 15 minutes.

She was a great doctor, she'd spend at least 20 or so minutes with me each time, more or less depending on what I needed. She worked very hard to make sure I got exactly the right kind and right amount of medication.*

My medications were easy to come by and the copay was 10 euro a month for them.

When we adopted DD and brought her to Germany our experiences with her pediatrician were identical. No waits, great doctor, basically 'free'.

Oh, they took out about 300 euro a month (which was about 250 a month in dollars at the time) that last year in Germany. When we came to the US our insurance was 500/month. Twice the amount. And Kaiser wouldn't pay for the one medication I was getting in Germany and insisted on a 'like' but cheaper medication. I immediately had a severe reaction (to this day my leg will never be the same).

So, if it were all to health care and costs... I'd move back to Germany in a heartbeat... nearly literally :D


Just for my peace of mind, because sometimes I feel crazy in the midst of all the conservative US comments about how terrible the system is and how people have to wait months for basic care, etc. I'd like some consolidated information please. What do you think of your system verses ours?

[deeka]

I think the US needs better improved healthcare. I think it is a HUGE mistake to compare the US with any other country's current system - Canada has a total population of about 35 million people. The US has 300 million people. You cannot compare delivering healthcare to a population 10x's that of another country's. It's simply not a realistic comparison for a thousand reasons. It's like comparing education in a private school of 25 students and a large public school that has 2,000 students. You cannot possibly deliver the *same* thing in the same way. For better or worse. If you want to compare health sytems, you need to look at countries with similar populations - i.e. China, Indonesia, India, etc.

I don't agree. And I've never seen this argument made by any health policy analyst/health economist, whether for or against health reform. I don't think the relative sizes of the populations mean that much. The US is much bigger than Canada, but we also have many times as many health care providers. And any national program could be administered at the state or regional level if size was a concern. In fact, payments to health care providers by Medicare are made by regional contractors (many of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans that do a hefty business in processing and paying Medicare claims).

I've also never heard anyone say we should compare our health system with India's or China's. Seriously?!

[winterwoman]

One of the interesting developments over the past few years with our system (Canadian) is the implementation of cross-country measurements around specifically designated procedures - access to cancer treatment, knee/hip replacement, cataract surgery and a couple of others I can't remember (and possibly some other metrics that weren't discussed in the article I read). After listening to citizens' and doctors' criticisms of our system, which generally relate to wait times, Health Canada (the federal department, which sets policy) has taken steps to figure out how to fix it. Being able to measure and compare on a national scale has the benefit of trying to ensure that all citizens have equal access, and to spur on improvements to the system that are care-based, not profit based. I think this is positive, and only possible because we have government run health care. The infrastructure to gather those sorts of statistics only exist because it's government run, and because elected governments are accountable to people's satisfaction with the system, not profit-based corporations, there is more motivation to make care-based decisions.

Like the other Canadians on the thread, I love our system - it's not perfect, but it's really good. I don't begrudge any of the extra taxes that I guess I pay for it (I don't really think of it that way though), and I can hardly stand listening to stories of people who stay home sick because the care they need is out of their reach. Really, in a country as wealthy as the US, it's incomprehensible to me. I wish our system went further, and covered some drugs, more dental, and vision care, to be honest.

[jerzymama]

Well that's probably because I made it up all by myself! LOL Regardless, I do think it's a mistake to compare the US to other countries for many reasons, not only size. I think what will ultimately happen is that as a country we will develope a far more equitable system but one that is unique to the United States....

Honestly, I'm a little worried right now and not really appropos of this thread but the new law requires employers to report the value of health benefits on W2's..that concerns me.

[kokoro]

I'm glad your nephew is getting good care. You didn't give enough info for me to judge if your nephew got to see an allergist soon enough in *my* opinion. There should be *no* wait time *IMO* between when a child shows signs of having a food allergy and when that child gets seen by a specialist. I would guess your nephew might have had some signs of food allergies prior to 17 months old. I think 17 months old is *late* to see an allergist if there are obvious signs. I can only say my impression but most every poster in Canada posts about restrictions that we American posters do not deal with with regard to when they can see a specialist and other aspects of care for food allergies.
My nephew has multiple food allergies - eggs, peanut, tree nut and dairy sensitivities. My sister didn't have problems getting him in to see an allergist prior to the age of 2 - I think he was about 17 months, and she gets excellent care. She lives near CHEO which is a large children's hosptial on Ottawa so that may be influencing her experience.

I have another friend who just had her 14 month old diagnosed with celiac and had no problems getting into an allergist as part of the diagnostic process, which she initiated with her dr at the suggestion of her naturopath, whom her doctor consulted with.

I am sure the reality lies somewhere between your impression of the situation and mine but I don't think that the standard of care is better in the US than in Canada or other countries that have UHC.

[riversprite]

I'm glad your nephew is getting good care. You didn't give enough info for me to judge if your nephew got to see an allergist soon enough in *my* opinion. There should be *no* wait time *IMO* between when a child shows signs of having a food allergy and when that child gets seen by a specialist. I would guess your nephew might have had some signs of food allergies prior to 17 months old. I think 17 months old is *late* to see an allergist if there are obvious signs. I can only say my impression but most every poster in Canada posts about restrictions that we American posters do not deal with with regard to when they can see a specialist and other aspects of care for food allergies.

My very good friend's daughter is severely allergic to peanuts and most treenuts. I've never heard her complain about the care that her daughter has received either. My friend is very well informed and I would have heard about it if the doctors or specialists were saying anything ridiculous to her. She would definitely complain. LOL!

[sharrond]

and each system has its strengths and weaknesses. I'd say the strengths of the US system would be only available for the very few with expensive, comprehensive private health care or the funds to pay for care outright. I personally do not know of a Canadian friend or family member who's had to wait for care or pay out-of-pocket for access to doctors or drugs (except for my Mom, who had to pay a nominal fee for some blood cell boosting shot-nupogen?-can't remember...). Both my parents have had very expensive surgeries, long stays in ICU, palliative care treatments, hospice. All at no direct cost to our family. One my kids sees a pediatric gastro regularly with regular endoscopies-no cost. Ditto for DH.

Trying to think of more to type....

Sharron

[Karen]

nevermind

[Kari]

Lisa, with all due respect, I don't think you can possibly use the experience of what you read on your allergy website(s) as a basis for judging an entire healthcare system. I am the mother of a severely allergic child, and I interact with (IRL) many other parents of severely allergic children, and not one of us post on any food allergy message boards. I can only imagine that the same goes for many/most parents of children with food allergies in Canada.

You are seeing a small slice of people from other countries who post about what you interpret to be poor/improper care. You have also posted responses to me and other members here in the past that you feel we are being given incorrect information or improper care for our children - based on your opinions and experiences.

I'm just saying - we all know that you are an incredibly well-educated person when it comes to food allergy issues. However, please consider that when you say "You didn't give enough info for me to judge if your nephew got to see an allergist soon enough in *my* opinion.", it sounds as if you feel your opinion is more valid/important/educated than the parent of this child or the doctors who are providing care.

[Kari]

but what I can say is that I get the same care as the homeless guy on the corner, and the millionaire up the road.

I think this is part of the problem with US attitudes toward health care reform. Many wealthy/affluent people would protest and revolt at the thought of receiving the same care as the homeless guy on the corner, or even the same care as a regular midddle-class person.

It's probably a combination of the opinions that a) a homeless guy doesn't deserve the same level of care as a wealthy person and b) anybody who provides care to a homeless person must be a lesser-quality doctor. :-(

On top of all that, I truly believe that for some reason there are people who *want* people in our country to suffer financially from our current broken system. I don't quite understand why, but my best guess is that perpetuating a cycle of crushing medical-related financial burdens must somehow benefit people at the top.

[kokoro]

I was answering Mary's OP. I gave my opinion. karen seemed to be saying the truth is somewhere between my impression and what she said. I told her that she didn't giv
me enough info to change *my* mind. I was talking *only* about my opinion. I wasn't trying to change anyone else's opinion. You are thinking I meant things I didn't mean.

And just btw, Even though I want to be able to see specialists as I choose I actually would have chosen for the USA to have a system just like the Canadian one over what we had because it would help more people and be more fair. I find it extremely upsetting that many don't have access to healthcare. But that's not what I was writing about.


Lisa, with all due respect, I don't think you can possibly use the experience of what you read on your allergy website(s) as a basis for judging an entire healthcare system. I am the mother of a severely allergic child, and I interact with (IRL) many other parents of severely allergic children, and not one of us post on any food allergy message boards. I can only imagine that the same goes for many/most parents of children with food allergies in Canada.You are seeing a small slice of people from other countries who post about what you interpret to be poor/improper care. You have also posted responses to me and other members here in the past that you feel we are being given incorrect information or improper care for our children - based on your opinions and experiences.

I'm just saying - we all know that you are an incredibly well-educated person when it comes to food allergy issues. However, please consider that when you say "You didn't give enough info for me to judge if your nephew got to see an allergist soon enough in *my* opinion.", it sounds as if you feel your opinion is more valid/important/educated than the parent of this child or the doctors who are providing care.

[kokoro]

And also certainly a lot of people have posted here over the years saying the felt various doctors, relatives, and others were not informed about a whole host of subjects. People post all the time on topics such as giving birth, pregnancy, natural health, breastfeeding, etc. I'm certainly not alone in thinking the average ped doc is often not qualified to handle FAs because it takes specialisation.


Lisa, with all due respect, I don't think you can possibly use the experience of what you read on your allergy website(s) as a basis for judging an entire healthcare system. I am the mother of a severely allergic child, and I interact with (IRL) many other parents of severely allergic children, and not one of us post on any food allergy message boards. I can only imagine that the same goes for many/most parents of children with food allergies in Canada.

You are seeing a small slice of people from other countries who post about what you interpret to be poor/improper care. You have also posted responses to me and other members here in the past that you feel we are being given incorrect information or improper care for our children - based on your opinions and experiences.

I'm just saying - we all know that you are an incredibly well-educated person when it comes to food allergy issues. However, please consider that when you say "You didn't give enough info for me to judge if your nephew got to see an allergist soon enough in *my* opinion.", it sounds as if you feel your opinion is more valid/important/educated than the parent of this child or the doctors who are providing care.

[Tracy]

In Texas where I live now, my daughter had an allergic reaction that caused her mouth to swell up. I asked to be referred to an allergist and her Primary care provider wouldn't do it he did prescribe her an Epi pen and that was it..Other than telling me to Google allergies. I think you can get less than fantastic care anywhere.

[kokoro]

In Texas where I live now, my daughter had an allergic reaction that caused her mouth to swell up. I asked to be referred to an allergist and her Primary care provider wouldn't do it he did prescribe her an Epi pen and that was it..Other than telling me to Google allergies. I think you can get less than fantastic care anywhere.

I hate to hear stories like that, Tracey. Yes, certainly, I think the norm actually is that ped and general doctors (and unfortunately most ER docs) don't know enough to properly treat food allergies.

My impression is that the wait is longer to see an allegist in Canada and that more people have experiences like yours where they are refused a referral there than here. I certainly could be wrong. This is my impression from many, many posts about this topic. Maybe I should take a poll there about this topic.

[mudcreekmama]

I hate to hear stories like that, Tracey. Yes, certainly, I think the norm actually is that ped and general doctors (and unfortunately most ER docs) don't know enough to properly treat food allergies.

My impression is that the wait is longer to see an allegist in Canada and that more people have experiences like yours where they are refused a referral there than here. I certainly could be wrong. This is my impression from many, many posts about this topic. Maybe I should take a poll there about this topic.

But my kids were in to see our GP with a lingering cough and low O2 saturation (it turned out to be pertussis) and both of them had the blood work done for allergy testing the next day, and saw an allergist early the following week. M has allergies and hasn't needed a referral once diagnosed to pick his allergist.

I'm going to say this because it always niggles at me when people use a health related internet board to gather their personal stats - people self diagnose. People self diagnose their kids more frequently than they self diagnose themselves. We live in an era of hyper parenting and frankly...if I was on a board devoted to a particular health concern I would take what they said about completely dismissive doctors with a grain of salt. I mean, I've gotten "avoiding food allergies in infants" pamphlets from my GP's office. It isn't an unknown phenomena, even totally mainstream doctors tell mothers to use elimination diets at the first sign of issues when they're nursing. I was advised to avoid highly allergenic foods like peanut products while pregnant.

[kathy caribe]

I don't know what the terminology would be for what is available here in Mexico but I think it is something very similar to Canada's. There are 3 different levels. You have Centro de Salud where everyone is covered but they don't always have drugs to hand out (though sometimes in larger towns they do) but they are EVERYWHERE - even in (what we call) donkey villages (i.e. you can only get there by donkey). So, I'm guessing this is some federal type of health care. They offer (free) vaccinations, and other services (free to state residents) and many times the docs coming out of school are required to spend a certain amount of time working there. We have used a Centro de Salud in a tiny town where the doc was out back playing futbol with his (looked like 13yo) brother, we walked in, were seen immediately, diagnosed, and got free meds to another in a capital town for the same fee ($30 - about $3USD) where I waited an hour to be seen, given a cursory exam, prescribed drugs, received drugs (and strangely the diagnosis was spot-on).

Then you have IMSS which is another federal hospital and health care service. They have better technology and are available to anyone who pays a nominal fee (honestly, VERY nominal), qualifies by age or qualifies by taxes (i.e. anyone pulling a paycheck who has paid their IMSS taxes - and this is very fluid as, if you're hiring someone to work on, say, your house, you go down to IMSS and pay their taxes for them so they're covered if they get hurt on the job). Once you're in their system you're in for good. Pretty much everyone in the country is covered by IMSS. They don't have the best technology and sometimes drugs are lacking, but you will get basic services.

Then you have private docs and hospitals. This is where you'll find the middle class and most ex-pats. There is NO waiting time but you do pay for it. It doesn't even begin to touch the prices of the US and many hospitals will offer plans. For example, the top-rated hospital system in the country, Star-Medica (where many US-trained docs practice) has a service plan which severely discounts consultation fees and lab fees for somewhere around $200 ($16USD) a YEAR for the entire FAMILY. Consultations are then $250 (about $18USD) and a full blood panel around $300 (about $30 at the time).

But the private docs at the fancy clinics all have to rotate through the IMSS and general hospitals so there is really no elite standard of care.

We have no health insurance here because standard care is really so incredibly reasonable. The last time I went to the ER I was having an allergic reaction to a bug bite. I walked in around 7pm, was taken direct to an examination room, hooked up with IVs, drugs, etc. and walked out an hour later (all better) after paying (ok, I'll be honest, this is from memory - I can't find the record of the bill) around $1900 (about $158USD). This was at the "best" and most expensive hospital in town. Our palapero's father had a serious heart issue. He was taken to IMSS in Cancun and they decided to send him to Star-Medica in Merdia - all on their dime. So even for the very lower classes, from what I've seen and heard, the system works well.

BUT, what no other country in the world has that the US does is clinical trials and experimental therapies. If you have a serious illness and need cutting-edge technology or clinical trials, the US is the place to be. You can bet that if one of my kids developed Neuroblastoma, I'd be at Sloan-Ketterling (well, first I'd have to raise the $250,000USD to even be able to get an appointment, but I digress) as soon as finances allowed. There must be some way to allow the cutting-edge technology to survive amidst universal health care.

Oh, the other thing that I love about the Mexican health care system is that you totally own your own health. If you want a lab test, you simply go to a lab, tell them the test and get your results (normally the same or next day).

[Karen]

Lisa, with all due respect, I don't think you can possibly use the experience of what you read on your allergy website(s) as a basis for judging an entire healthcare system. I am the mother of a severely allergic child, and I interact with (IRL) many other parents of severely allergic children, and not one of us post on any food allergy message boards. I can only imagine that the same goes for many/most parents of children with food allergies in Canada.

You are seeing a small slice of people from other countries who post about what you interpret to be poor/improper care. You have also posted responses to me and other members here in the past that you feel we are being given incorrect information or improper care for our children - based on your opinions and experiences.

I'm just saying - we all know that you are an incredibly well-educated person when it comes to food allergy issues. However, please consider that when you say "You didn't give enough info for me to judge if your nephew got to see an allergist soon enough in *my* opinion.", it sounds as if you feel your opinion is more valid/important/educated than the parent of this child or the doctors who are providing care.

Thank you.

[Tracy]

Thank you for sharing this. I had no idea how the medical care worked in Mexico...Although, I admittedly, did walk into a Mexican doctor's office a few years back. Saw the doctor within two minutes of walking in, spoke with him about my migraines and walked out with a prescription for migraine medication all for $25. The office was immaculate and the staff all very friendly. (nt)

[shadesofgray]

Just for my peace of mind, because sometimes I feel crazy in the midst of all the conservative US comments about how terrible the system is and how people have to wait months for basic care, etc. I'd like some consolidated information please. What do you think of your system verses ours?

(I haven't read the other answers yet.)

I'm an American, but I've been living in Australia for more than a decade. I MUCH prefer our system here. I can go to any doctor I like. I might have the equivalent of a co-pay for doctor visits, but it's not much, and I could choose doctors that don't require a co-pay/accept the government rebate. I feel I have top notch health care, and I won't be bankrupted if I get sick.

I might have to wait for elective surgery on the public system, but in my experience, the wait has not been long. I can also buy (government subsidized for everyone who wants it) private health insurance, which means that I don't have to wait to have surgery. It is much cheaper than US health insurance. We pay for our system through an income tax. If we earn over $100K/year, we have to pay an extra tax if we don't buy the gov't susidized private health insurance.

One of the things that scares me about the possibility of going back to the US is not having health cover for my pre-existing chronic things (TMJ and bad wrists). I'm staggered that people are against a public option.

[serialmom]

One of the interesting developments over the past few years with our system (Canadian) is the implementation of cross-country measurements around specifically designated procedures - access to cancer treatment, knee/hip replacement, cataract surgery and a couple of others I can't remember (and possibly some other metrics that weren't discussed in the article I read). After listening to citizens' and doctors' criticisms of our system, which generally relate to wait times, Health Canada (the federal department, which sets policy) has taken steps to figure out how to fix it. Being able to measure and compare on a national scale has the benefit of trying to ensure that all citizens have equal access, and to spur on improvements to the system that are care-based, not profit based. I think this is positive, and only possible because we have government run health care. The infrastructure to gather those sorts of statistics only exist because it's government run, and because elected governments are accountable to people's satisfaction with the system, not profit-based corporations, there is more motivation to make care-based decisions.

The discussion on this bill was never informative enough. Too often, it turned into news bites about death panels and rationed care.

[azul99]

On top of all that, I truly believe that for some reason there are people who *want* people in our country to suffer financially from our current broken system. I don't quite understand why, but my best guess is that perpetuating a cycle of crushing medical-related financial burdens must somehow benefit people at the top.

I agree with this, and thnk it may be rooted in a view of healthcare as a business product, i.e. that you should only have access to it if you have earned that access through hard work, just as if it were comparable to a nice house in a good neighborhood, a flat-screen TV, etc.

There is a mentality out there that healthcare should be available to those who "deserve" it and that if you don't have health insurance, it must be because you are lazy.

[mudcreekmama]

In Canada we do not have three different levels. We have universal health care, we do not have private hospitals or doctors. There are financial incentives for doctors to practice in remote communities and Canada is a leader in tele-medicine - the federal government has a mandate to ensure that health care is the same regardless of where in the country you live and there are all sorts of initiatives to work on that. I know MANY specialists who live in their 4x4's in Quebec because they rotate between driving between remote northern communities (I guess what we'd call skidoo villages :-)) for consults and hospital practice in a larger centre. Those remote communities have practical nurses living there and a lot of consultation is done through telemedicine to help ensure people don't have to travel if they have ongoing medical concerns (like diabetes for instance)


I don't know what the terminology would be for what is available here in Mexico but I think it is something very similar to Canada's. There are 3 different levels. You have Centro de Salud where everyone is covered but they don't always have drugs to hand out (though sometimes in larger towns they do) but they are EVERYWHERE - even in (what we call) donkey villages (i.e. you can only get there by donkey). So, I'm guessing this is some federal type of health care. They offer (free) vaccinations, and other services (free to state residents) and many times the docs coming out of school are required to spend a certain amount of time working there. We have used a Centro de Salud in a tiny town where the doc was out back playing futbol with his (looked like 13yo) brother, we walked in, were seen immediately, diagnosed, and got free meds to another in a capital town for the same fee ($30 - about $3USD) where I waited an hour to be seen, given a cursory exam, prescribed drugs, received drugs (and strangely the diagnosis was spot-on).

Then you have IMSS which is another federal hospital and health care service. They have better technology and are available to anyone who pays a nominal fee (honestly, VERY nominal), qualifies by age or qualifies by taxes (i.e. anyone pulling a paycheck who has paid their IMSS taxes - and this is very fluid as, if you're hiring someone to work on, say, your house, you go down to IMSS and pay their taxes for them so they're covered if they get hurt on the job). Once you're in their system you're in for good. Pretty much everyone in the country is covered by IMSS. They don't have the best technology and sometimes drugs are lacking, but you will get basic services.

Then you have private docs and hospitals. This is where you'll find the middle class and most ex-pats. There is NO waiting time but you do pay for it. It doesn't even begin to touch the prices of the US and many hospitals will offer plans. For example, the top-rated hospital system in the country, Star-Medica (where many US-trained docs practice) has a service plan which severely discounts consultation fees and lab fees for somewhere around $200 ($16USD) a YEAR for the entire FAMILY. Consultations are then $250 (about $18USD) and a full blood panel around $300 (about $30 at the time).

But the private docs at the fancy clinics all have to rotate through the IMSS and general hospitals so there is really no elite standard of care.

We have no health insurance here because standard care is really so incredibly reasonable. The last time I went to the ER I was having an allergic reaction to a bug bite. I walked in around 7pm, was taken direct to an examination room, hooked up with IVs, drugs, etc. and walked out an hour later (all better) after paying (ok, I'll be honest, this is from memory - I can't find the record of the bill) around $1900 (about $158USD). This was at the "best" and most expensive hospital in town. Our palapero's father had a serious heart issue. He was taken to IMSS in Cancun and they decided to send him to Star-Medica in Merdia - all on their dime. So even for the very lower classes, from what I've seen and heard, the system works well.

BUT, what no other country in the world has that the US does is clinical trials and experimental therapies. If you have a serious illness and need cutting-edge technology or clinical trials, the US is the place to be. You can bet that if one of my kids developed Neuroblastoma, I'd be at Sloan-Ketterling (well, first I'd have to raise the $250,000USD to even be able to get an appointment, but I digress) as soon as finances allowed. There must be some way to allow the cutting-edge technology to survive amidst universal health care.

Oh, the other thing that I love about the Mexican health care system is that you totally own your own health. If you want a lab test, you simply go to a lab, tell them the test and get your results (normally the same or next day).

[Mary]

I think this is part of the problem with US attitudes toward health care reform. Many wealthy/affluent people would protest and revolt at the thought of receiving the same care as the homeless guy on the corner, or even the same care as a regular midddle-class person.

It's probably a combination of the opinions that a) a homeless guy doesn't deserve the same level of care as a wealthy person and b) anybody who provides care to a homeless person must be a lesser-quality doctor. :-(

On top of all that, I truly believe that for some reason there are people who *want* people in our country to suffer financially from our current broken system. I don't quite understand why, but my best guess is that perpetuating a cycle of crushing medical-related financial burdens must somehow benefit people at the top.

I agree and find myself wanting to ask them what the F is wrong with them.

[Mary]

I think the US needs better improved healthcare. I think it is a HUGE mistake to compare the US with any other country's current system - Canada has a total population of about 35 million people. The US has 300 million people. You cannot compare delivering healthcare to a population 10x's that of another country's. It's simply not a realistic comparison for a thousand reasons. It's like comparing education in a private school of 25 students and a large public school that has 2,000 students. You cannot possibly deliver the *same* thing in the same way. For better or worse. If you want to compare health sytems, you need to look at countries with similar populations - i.e. China, Indonesia, India, etc.

A lot of what I have a problem with is the flat out lies that get told about countries that have universal health care, like somebody above who mentioned election talking points. It's fear mongering and people believe it. If you(general) have problems with the concept, use real reasons like you(specific) did, don't make them up.

[Mary]

I don't think we are debating implementation has to be different. Just that government run health care is not a bad thing in itself.

ETA: American media seems to say a lot of things about our sytem that just are not true.

Yes, that's what I'm looking for.

[Spark]

There is a mentality out there that healthcare should be available to those who "deserve" it and that if you don't have health insurance, it must be because you are lazy.

This mentality makes me SO angry! Who doesn't "deserve" to be healthy? How can someone even entertain the idea that another HUMAN BEING doesn't deserve to have their vital needs met? A country is as strong as the citizens, and in the quest to be a strong, vibrant country, who WOULDN'T want every citizen to be operating at full potential? ARGH!

[Mary]

I was answering Mary's OP. I gave my opinion. karen seemed to be saying the truth is somewhere between my impression and what she said. I told her that she didn't giv
me enough info to change *my* mind. I was talking *only* about my opinion. I wasn't trying to change anyone else's opinion. You are thinking I meant things I didn't mean.

And just btw, Even though I want to be able to see specialists as I choose I actually would have chosen for the USA to have a system just like the Canadian one over what we had because it would help more people and be more fair. I find it extremely upsetting that many don't have access to healthcare. But that's not what I was writing about.

I did understand what you meant and I know that food allergies are a very passionate subject for you.

[Mary]

I have an aunt living in Australia and she seems to like the system also, she had to go to the hospital for an injury before getting her resident status (not a resident but I forget what it's called) and she was very suprised by how much less it cost.

[Karen]

Yes, that's what I'm looking for.

Mary have you ever watched this Frontline program?
Sick Around the World (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/)
It compares the US health care system with those inthe UK, Switzerland, Germany, Japan and Taiwan.
It's very balanced IMO, address costs, structure, satisfaction etc.
You can watch it online - and if you are curious about various health care systems it is an excellent starting point.

[Bickery]

This mentality makes me SO angry! Who doesn't "deserve" to be healthy? How can someone even entertain the idea that another HUMAN BEING doesn't deserve to have their vital needs met? A country is as strong as the citizens, and in the quest to be a strong, vibrant country, who WOULDN'T want every citizen to be operating at full potential? ARGH!

Exactly my thoughts!

[Tracy]

This mentality makes me SO angry! Who doesn't "deserve" to be healthy? How can someone even entertain the idea that another HUMAN BEING doesn't deserve to have their vital needs met? A country is as strong as the citizens, and in the quest to be a strong, vibrant country, who WOULDN'T want every citizen to be operating at full potential? ARGH!

My husband has a work acquaintance who told him that it's natures way of weeding out the weak. If they can't afford health insurance and become ill and die, then that's a form of survival of the fittest.

What has to go so wrong in a person's life that they treat other people like that?

[kathy caribe]

In Canada we do not have three different levels. We have universal health care, we do not have private hospitals or doctors. There are financial incentives for doctors to practice in remote communities and Canada is a leader in tele-medicine - the federal government has a mandate to ensure that health care is the same regardless of where in the country you live and there are all sorts of initiatives to work on that. I know MANY specialists who live in their 4x4's in Quebec because they rotate between driving between remote northern communities (I guess what we'd call skidoo villages :-)) for consults and hospital practice in a larger centre. Those remote communities have practical nurses living there and a lot of consultation is done through telemedicine to help ensure people don't have to travel if they have ongoing medical concerns (like diabetes for instance)

Sorry, I didn't mean that Mexico had 3 levels like Canada has 3 leves, but that Mexico's "universal" or whatever it is called is like Canada's "universal" or whatever it is called in that if you are a Mexican, you are covered. Basic right. YOu get your booklet and you're covered anywhere in the country (though from what I've seen, some states charge a copay if you're from a different state (saw this in Zacatecas with a person from Guanajuato)) for free.

[Spark]

I actually feel sorry for people who think that way. I can't imagine what being trapped by such internal vitriolic dialogue would feel like.

[anastasia]

I agree with this, and thnk it may be rooted in a view of healthcare as a business product, i.e. that you should only have access to it if you have earned that access through hard work, just as if it were comparable to a nice house in a good neighborhood, a flat-screen TV, etc.

There is a mentality out there that healthcare should be available to those who "deserve" it and that if you don't have health insurance, it must be because you are lazy.

Sadly I agree that this mentality is not uncommon; it is also simplistic and misguided (which I know you know). Plenty of Americans work extremely hard and still can't get healthcare coverage. I do think a lot of people who grew up with this mindset are good, kind people who really, truly just don't understand HOW broken the system is. If only it were as simple as "you work, you get healthcare."

Now, IMO that's still not good enough--all human beings deserve healthcare. But an awful lot of people do think that healthcare is something anyone in the US can get if they just work hard enough or make the right choices. This misconception is a huge barrier to real reform.

[Rosemary]

17 mos old may be late by you who are very aware of allergies, but many people are scratching their head and wondering what is wrong with their child with mystery skin rashes, belly aches and excema etc. My friend's son is very allergice but did not have any kind of an attack where it was obvious until he was 16 mos. Before that he was on formula and just starting foods - and aside from switching formula in the beginning, which isn't all that uncommon - there really was nothing that stood out. Looking back of course she sees a lot of his symptoms prior, but she had no idea at the time.


I'm glad your nephew is getting good care. You didn't give enough info for me to judge if your nephew got to see an allergist soon enough in *my* opinion. There should be *no* wait time *IMO* between when a child shows signs of having a food allergy and when that child gets seen by a specialist. I would guess your nephew might have had some signs of food allergies prior to 17 months old. I think 17 months old is *late* to see an allergist if there are obvious signs. I can only say my impression but most every poster in Canada posts about restrictions that we American posters do not deal with with regard to when they can see a specialist and other aspects of care for food allergies.

[kokoro]

be able to spot cases sooner, get kids tested, know how to properly use testing and how to evaluate the results and what to advise those truly allergic or would refer on to allergists but that often isn't the case. Nearly everyone I know who has a child who is allergic to foods had trouble with ped docs and GPs not knowing enough about food allergies. FAAN has published studies about this lack of knowledge and is trying to correct it. The reason it is a big issue for me is that my son could have died because of this type of lack of info. Looking back he had many symptoms that the ped blew off and that the books I had didn't explain as reason to see an allergist. So, when D was 2 we fed him just a single noodle at a restaurant and he could have died that day due to our lack of knowledge and his doctors' lack of knowledge.

Anyway, Canada does have some of the very top allergists in the world so once people get to see them I'm very sure they receive top notch care there.



17 mos old may be late by you who are very aware of allergies, but many people are scratching their head and wondering what is wrong with their child with mystery skin rashes, belly aches and excema etc. My friend's son is very allergice but did not have any kind of an attack where it was obvious until he was 16 mos. Before that he was on formula and just starting foods - and aside from switching formula in the beginning, which isn't all that uncommon - there really was nothing that stood out. Looking back of course she sees a lot of his symptoms prior, but she had no idea at the time.

[Karen]

be able to spot cases sooner, get kids tested, know how to properly use testing and how to evaluate the results and what to advise those truly allergic or would refer on to allergists but that often isn't the case. Nearly everyone I know who has a child who is allergic to foods had trouble with ped docs and GPs not knowing enough about food allergies. FAAN has published studies about this lack of knowledge and is trying to correct it. The reason it is a big issue for me is that my son could have died because of this type of lack of info. Looking back he had many symptoms that the ped blew off and that the books I had didn't explain as reason to see an allergist. So, when D was 2 we fed him just a single noodle at a restaurant and he could have died that day due to our lack of knowledge and his doctors' lack of knowledge.

Anyway, Canada does have some of the very top allergists in the world so once people get to see them I'm very sure they receive top notch care there.

I'm confused, given your post here, why you would judge my nephew's care, and by extension, the UHC in Canada, as lacking.

[Brenda]

I think this is part of the problem with US attitudes toward health care reform. Many wealthy/affluent people would protest and revolt at the thought of receiving the same care as the homeless guy on the corner, or even the same care as a regular midddle-class person.

It's probably a combination of the opinions that a) a homeless guy doesn't deserve the same level of care as a wealthy person and b) anybody who provides care to a homeless person must be a lesser-quality doctor. :-(


Kari, I think that this is one of the most accurate explanations for the vehemence of many people protesting universal health care that I have ever seen. It hurts me as an American to have to say that, but I do think you are very wise in your assessment.

[Tracy]

I saw someone on Bill Maher describe it as...Let's say you're on an airplane. You are sitting in first class and have paid a hefty price for your first class seat so you can sit in comfort, get special attention and you don't have to mingle with the minions. Well, the plane is over booked so some guy is upgraded to first class and he sits right next to you. He hasn't paid ANY extra money yet gets all the same comforts and treatment that you do. Now you are pissed because the minion is in first class and sitting next to you while YOU had to pay and he didn't.

They were laughing, but it's true. I think that's how people feel.

Sad.






I think this is part of the problem with US attitudes toward health care reform. Many wealthy/affluent people would protest and revolt at the thought of receiving the same care as the homeless guy on the corner, or even the same care as a regular midddle-class person.

It's probably a combination of the opinions that a) a homeless guy doesn't deserve the same level of care as a wealthy person and b) anybody who provides care to a homeless person must be a lesser-quality doctor. :-(

On top of all that, I truly believe that for some reason there are people who *want* people in our country to suffer financially from our current broken system. I don't quite understand why, but my best guess is that perpetuating a cycle of crushing medical-related financial burdens must somehow benefit people at the top.

[kokoro]

I said that I would have chosen (if it were my choice) to have a health care system like Canada's over what we had here because it would benefit many more people. I think it is *wrong* not to have universal health care and I'm very glad it recently passed here in the States.

My post what talking about Mary's OP regarding wait times. Ped doc and GP docs *in my opinion* are not usually good at handling food allergies. So, if a system requires anyone to get approval to see an allergist from a ped doc or GP, it is going to result in a lot of delays in people getting proper treatment due to this. There is enough delay already just from cases like my and my son's. I could have seen an allergist sooner but I didn't have the right information from books and from our ped doc, our naturopath, etc. If it had been up to our ped doc we wouldn't have probably NEVER gotten to see an allergist. He is so misinformed it is scary and could have cost DS's life. There is no small # of people who have ped docs and GPs refuse the refer to allergists.

I'm sure the Canadian system is much superior in many very important ways to the way the US system has been up to now. And Canada has very excellent allergists so I'm sure once people get to see them they get top notch care.



I'm confused, given your post here, why you would judge my nephew's care, and by extension, the UHC in Canada, as lacking.

[Karen]

I said that I would have chosen (if it were my choice) to have a health care system like Canada's over what we had here because it would benefit many more people. I think it is *wrong* not to have universal health care and I'm very glad it recently passed here in the States.

My post what talking about Mary's OP regarding wait times. Ped doc and GP docs *in my opinion* are not usually good at handling food allergies. So, if a system requires anyone to get approval to see an allergist from a ped doc or GP, it is going to result in a lot of delays in people getting proper treatment due to this. There is enough delay already just from cases like my and my son's. I could have seen an allergist sooner but I didn't have the right information from books and from our ped doc, our naturopath, etc. If it had been up to our ped doc we wouldn't have probably NEVER gotten to see an allergist. He is so misinformed it is scary and could have cost DS's life. There is no small # of people who have ped docs and GPs refuse the refer to allergists.

I'm sure the Canadian system is much superior in many very important ways to the way the US system has been up to now. And Canada has very excellent allergists so I'm sure once people get to see them they get top notch care.

I understand.
However I offered a counterpoint to your experience, which in fact turns out to indicate that my sister and my friend in fact got better, faster care for their children than you did and yet your implied that you felt her care was worse than what she would have received in the US.
I don't want to argue this - I am just confused as to why you would be so dismissive, given your own circumstances and your follow up posts that many people in the US don't have access to care that is any better than your own was.

Thanks for clarifying. :smile:
Karen

[Mary]

Thank you!


Mary have you ever watched this Frontline program?
Sick Around the World (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/)
It compares the US health care system with those inthe UK, Switzerland, Germany, Japan and Taiwan.
It's very balanced IMO, address costs, structure, satisfaction etc.
You can watch it online - and if you are curious about various health care systems it is an excellent starting point.

[~PQ]

Just for my peace of mind, because sometimes I feel crazy in the midst of all the conservative US comments about how terrible the system is and how people have to wait months for basic care, etc. I'd like some consolidated information please. What do you think of your system verses ours?

I like my American doctors and my American health insurance, I pay little to nothing out pocket, not only have I found it quick to get referrals and appointments with specialists (who I DO think are some of the best in the world.), but those specialists have cost us nothing and our air travel and hotel and meals have been covered as well. We pay a small copay for medications, have lots of preventative care options, and even non-traditional care like chiro and homebirth are covered. We're not rich and DH isn't a big wig at some big corp with a cadillac plan.... it's called Tricare and it's available to all military members and family.

Do I feel like we "deserve" this more than other Americans? No. I agree with whoever said our current system with for profit insurance corporations has set this scenario up though, and I do believe *my family* deserves this. I don't want anyone else to be denied this level of care- but I also especially don't want *my family* to lose it. Selfish? Sure- thats what continues the species. Looking out for my own children first.

It's SO frustrating to me- I look at my horrifically underinsured parents and what they are going through now for basic stuff- my mom seriously stopped getting her arthritis meds because of $$$, and is now taking generic arthritis-acetaminophen instead- and no it isn't making her all better. They are getting older and it's obvious their trust in social security is way misplaced and someday we're likely to be their only form of support- and how the hell do we provide health care for our elderly parents??

So I'm in this other-world where I HAVE the health care everyone wants, I don't WANT to move to Canada because I don't think they can be better than what I already have- I do NOT want to lose it (thankfully congress has written in protection for Tricare so it won't be touched w/ this new law).... but I want everyone else to have top level care as well.

Bleh, doesn't address the original post much at all I guess, but I wanted to point out that some of us do have the plans eluded to in this thread, and we're not the ubber rich at all.

[Mary]

So I'm in this other-world where I HAVE the health care everyone wants, I don't WANT to move to Canada because I don't think they can be better than what I already have- I do NOT want to lose it (thankfully congress has written in protection for Tricare so it won't be touched w/ this new law).... but I want everyone else to have top level care as well.

Bleh, doesn't address the original post much at all I guess, but I wanted to point out that some of us do have the plans eluded to in this thread, and we're not the ubber rich at all.

I have good insurance through my employer, as does my husband, and I feel exceptionally lucky to have it. There have been many times I had no insurance or much less insurance coverage and my health plan was "don't get sick." I really worry about my mom not having insurance and I hope this new plan will help her, but that won't be in place for 4 years and she needs to be able to go to the doctor now and can't afford it. There are so many working uninsured and underinsured. What I really, really don't get is the objection some people have to all people having access to healthcare.

[A_Marie]

I like my American doctors and my American health insurance, I pay little to nothing out pocket, not only have I found it quick to get referrals and appointments with specialists (who I DO think are some of the best in the world.), but those specialists have cost us nothing and our air travel and hotel and meals have been covered as well. We pay a small copay for medications, have lots of preventative care options, and even non-traditional care like chiro and homebirth are covered. We're not rich and DH isn't a big wig at some big corp with a cadillac plan.... it's called Tricare and it's available to all military members and family.

Do I feel like we "deserve" this more than other Americans? No. I agree with whoever said our current system with for profit insurance corporations has set this scenario up though, and I do believe *my family* deserves this. I don't want anyone else to be denied this level of care- but I also especially don't want *my family* to lose it. Selfish? Sure- thats what continues the species. Looking out for my own children first.

It's SO frustrating to me- I look at my horrifically underinsured parents and what they are going through now for basic stuff- my mom seriously stopped getting her arthritis meds because of $$$, and is now taking generic arthritis-acetaminophen instead- and no it isn't making her all better. They are getting older and it's obvious their trust in social security is way misplaced and someday we're likely to be their only form of support- and how the hell do we provide health care for our elderly parents??

So I'm in this other-world where I HAVE the health care everyone wants, I don't WANT to move to Canada because I don't think they can be better than what I already have- I do NOT want to lose it (thankfully congress has written in protection for Tricare so it won't be touched w/ this new law).... but I want everyone else to have top level care as well.

Bleh, doesn't address the original post much at all I guess, but I wanted to point out that some of us do have the plans eluded to in this thread, and we're not the ubber rich at all.

I would echo much of this post. AND go off on my own to say I am NERVOUS about this because of my experience as an educator. We are not that great IMHO at offering top rate services equitably, we cut education at times when we need it the most and to be honest where you live dictates what you get. How are we ever going to truly fund this animal? I believe a portion of healthcare is value based. Who's values are we going to use? I TRULY want everyone to have access I am just unable to fathom what an undertaking this will be.

[~PQ]

I have good insurance through my employer, as does my husband, and I feel exceptionally lucky to have it. There have been many times I had no insurance or much less insurance coverage and my health plan was "don't get sick." I really worry about my mom not having insurance and I hope this new plan will help her, but that won't be in place for 4 years and she needs to be able to go to the doctor now and can't afford it. There are so many working uninsured and underinsured. What I really, really don't get is the objection some people have to all people having access to healthcare.
See I don't feel "lucky" because luck implies we had no control over our situation- in reality, that health care is one of the main considerations of why my husband chose to spend his entire adult life in service. We have sacrificed a lot to have it.

I totally think everyone *deserves* access to healthcare. I just don't feel luck played any particular role in our having it.

[B T Mom]

See I don't feel "lucky" because luck implies we had no control over our situation- in reality, that health care is one of the main considerations of why my husband chose to spend his entire adult life in service. We have sacrificed a lot to have it.

I totally think everyone *deserves* access to healthcare. I just don't feel luck played any particular role in our having it.

I am in agreement with PQ.....we have retired Tricare and it is the best....however we moved, sacrificed a lot throughout the years and yes, Tricare was one of the main reasons we did this. For us it was the right choice. I want others to have care but boy I don't want to lose my level of care.

[Tangwystl]

Is Tricare considered government insurance? Or is it run by the military? Which I guess is still kind of the government. Just wondering because from what I've heard people talk about over the years it seems to me that any government run healthcare plans are actually really really good so I don't understand why so many people are opposed to having government run plans for everyone.

[Bickery]

See I don't feel "lucky" because luck implies we had no control over our situation- in reality, that health care is one of the main considerations of why my husband chose to spend his entire adult life in service. We have sacrificed a lot to have it.

I totally think everyone *deserves* access to healthcare. I just don't feel luck played any particular role in our having it.

The "luck" would be in being eligible to perform that service. Not everyone is eligible (age and sexual orientation are two barriers that I can think of -- and totally OT, but I was horrified last year to learn that I am now too old to begin service for was it the FBI or the CIA? due to my age!!! It has to do with being able to get in a particular number of years before turning a particular age, but still!)

I can't even imagine the sacrifices, though. It takes so much commitment from the entire family.

[mudcreekmama]

I've heard the same from other federal gov't employees. To me, EVERYONE deserves that level of insurance.

[Storymama]

The "luck" would be in being eligible to perform that service. Not everyone is eligible (age and sexual orientation are two barriers that I can think of)
Also, fit for duty encompasses physical health, moral fitness (prior criminal record), and ability to learn. Many productive citizens do not qualify for military service on those factors, as well.

[macaquinha]

Is Tricare considered government insurance? Or is it run by the military? Which I guess is still kind of the government. Just wondering because from what I've heard people talk about over the years it seems to me that any government run healthcare plans are actually really really good so I don't understand why so many people are opposed to having government run plans for everyone.

Yes, it is government insurance. The 'socialized medicine' that the anti-s are so anti-? Is Tricare.

As to the part I bolded: your guess is as good as mine. The only answer I can come up with is that the American people are even stupider than I thought. As I said in another thread, we're the laughing stock of the free world. I'm going to stop now because I can feel my blood pressure going up, and I have a high-deductible, pay-through-the-nose, individual health care plan* and can't afford to go to the freaking doctor just because the health care debate is making me sick.

*Because my husband is one of those irresponsible entrepreneurs who insist on starting their own businesses, which we all know Republicans don't believe in. :rolleyes

[~PQ]

Yes, it is government insurance. The 'socialized medicine' that the anti-s are so anti-? Is Tricare.

As to the part I bolded: your guess is as good as mine. The only answer I can come up with is that the American people are even stupider than I thought. As I said in another thread, we're the laughing stock of the free world. I'm going to stop now because I can feel my blood pressure going up, and I have a high-deductible, pay-through-the-nose, individual health care plan* and can't afford to go to the freaking doctor just because the health care debate is making me sick.

*Because my husband is one of those irresponsible entrepreneurs who insist on starting their own businesses, which we all know Republicans don't believe in. :rolleyesThey're not stupid, well not all of them :p, I think it's fear more than stupidity, and ignorance- which of course isn't the same thing as stupidity. We've watched our government fuck up a lot of stuff, and I don't mean GWB or Obama, I mean- always. Govt controlled health care is TERRIFYING for a lot of people and I can't blame anyone for being scared about something *so* different than what we have always had. I can say my govt healthcare is GREAT, but that doesn't translate into millions of more people suddenly being covered in some way. I think its idealistic and unrealistic to expect people to just accept an abrupt change to such a status quo- even when that status quo isn't working. Change is hard.

[Mary]

See I don't feel "lucky" because luck implies we had no control over our situation- in reality, that health care is one of the main considerations of why my husband chose to spend his entire adult life in service. We have sacrificed a lot to have it.

I totally think everyone *deserves* access to healthcare. I just don't feel luck played any particular role in our having it.

In my situation, I feel lucky because I have access to insurance that the majority of people I know don't. If I weren't working for my employer, I would have a very difficult time finding a job with healthcare benefits were I live. Did I get my particular job out of luck? Not really. I was hired based on education and experience and the impression I made. Compared to a lot of people, I still feel lucky.

[A_Marie]

Yes, it is government insurance. The 'socialized medicine' that the anti-s are so anti-? Is Tricare.

As to the part I bolded: your guess is as good as mine. The only answer I can come up with is that the American people are even stupider than I thought. As I said in another thread, we're the laughing stock of the free world. I'm going to stop now because I can feel my blood pressure going up, and I have a high-deductible, pay-through-the-nose, individual health care plan* and can't afford to go to the freaking doctor just because the health care debate is making me sick.

*Because my husband is one of those irresponsible entrepreneurs who insist on starting their own businesses, which we all know Republicans don't believe in. :rolleyes


I don't think I'm stupid. I'm just scared. Hey just so you know LOTs of doctors and hositals don't take Tricare. Are they going to be forced to take it now? That is the part that I don't understand when people make this argument. We are not able to just go to ANY dr. A portion of our care is given at military treatment facilityies which can be a mess. I am not posting its the end of the world as we know it status updates but I am fearful. I see a lot of what I consider VITAL services that are underfunded or unfunded. I have watched the government waste SO much money while my DH has been in the Coast Guard. I cringe at how this is going to work. I am TOTALLY for healthcare for everyone but I don't think that makes me stupid or crazy because I am concerned about how it will work.

[B T Mom]

I don't think I'm stupid. I'm just scared. Hey just so you know LOTs of doctors and hositals don't take Tricare. Are they going to be forced to take it now? That is the part that I don't understand when people make this argument. We are not able to just go to ANY dr. A portion of our care is given at military treatment facilityies which can be a mess. I am not posting its the end of the world as we know it status updates but I am fearful. I see a lot of what I consider VITAL services that are underfunded or unfunded. I have watched the government waste SO much money while my DH has been in the Coast Guard. I cringe at how this is going to work. I am TOTALLY for healthcare for everyone but I don't think that makes me stupid or crazy because I am concerned about how it will work.

Yes.....even though I like our healthcare (Tricare) there is truth in this - when we had our son at a military facility I was told how it would go. If I had wanted an epidural I would not have been able to have one because "we don't routinely give that option". Also no phone in the room (not a problem now with cell phones, I guess but at the time not an option), if you wanted to have a shower, the towels are down the hall.....and I was told I would go to certain classes again no option. When I had my hysterectomy, at the same facility, I met my surgeon the day before surgery. Again, if I wanted the surgery that was my only choice of doctors....it was made for me. Again, I had wanted the surgery option but only had it because some doctor went to bat for me .....they were going to say "no". In the year 2010 my healthcare goes very well but that is because I do not live near a military base......

Now, this is just one person, one example and most of these examples are 17+ years ago so times might have changes.

[Jill]

I will park next to you here.
My situation is a bit different in the sense that I don't have a government plan but instead a company self-funded plan. It's definitely one of the "cadillac plans" being so talked about. We pay no premiums and no copays, we go to anyone, anywhere, with no referrals necessary. They will even pay up to 70k per year for autism related services. This is by far the best health care plan I have ever heard about, and make no mistake about it - I do consider myself lucky to have it. Dave just happens to work for a company that has enough wealth to rollout a plan like this at no employee cost, and fund it themselves. It's administered by Blue Cross, so they do make a profit there obviously...I worry about what this will do to our plan, and other plans like it. That doesn't make me a bad person, a stupid person, or an uncaring person - but honestly, why would I want to lower my level of care? I wish EVERYONE had the same plan! Since that is impossible under our current structure (and since not every company can even afford to provide basic care fully funded) though, I am just hoping and praying that as things get ironed out and put into practice, it works out in everyone's best interest, not just the best interest of those who until now had no access. I think this is where my non-socialist self comes out - don't take from some to give to others, instead find a way to make what some have AFFORDABLE to others! I want health insurance/coverage reform - not healthCARE reform....to me, there is a very, very big difference.



I don't think I'm stupid. I'm just scared... ...I am TOTALLY for healthcare for everyone but I don't think that makes me stupid or crazy because I am concerned about how it will work.

[deeka]

Yes, it is government insurance. The 'socialized medicine' that the anti-s are so anti-? Is Tricare.

As to the part I bolded: your guess is as good as mine. The only answer I can come up with is that the American people are even stupider than I thought. As I said in another thread, we're the laughing stock of the free world. I'm going to stop now because I can feel my blood pressure going up, and I have a high-deductible, pay-through-the-nose, individual health care plan* and can't afford to go to the freaking doctor just because the health care debate is making me sick.

*Because my husband is one of those irresponsible entrepreneurs who insist on starting their own businesses, which we all know Republicans don't believe in. :rolleyes

I have to say I tend to agree with this. Americans are not a very forward-thinking or intellectual people. I think Churchill got it right when he said, "We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

[A_Marie]

I have to say I tend to agree with this. Americans are not a very forward-thinking or intellectual people. I think Churchill got it right when he said, "We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

Wow! Just what we needed in an honest debate some gross generalizations and put downs. :) Wait a MINUTE I thought only Republicans and conservatives did that.

[deeka]

I think this is where my non-socialist self comes out - don't take from some to give to others, instead find a way to make what some have AFFORDABLE to others! I want health insurance/coverage reform - not healthCARE reform....to me, there is a very, very big difference.

There is no way to have health insurance/coverage reform without healthcare reform. The use of expensive, unproven technologies and treatments is absolutely rampant in this country. We must begin to cut down on overuse of care if we are to have any hope of slowing down growth in the cost of health care.

There is no way to give everyone a "cadillac" plan. As a nation, we simply can't afford it.

As for taking some to give some to others, the reality is that this has already been going on for decades. Big employers wield a lot of power with insurers. They can negotiate low insurance rates for their employees because they offer so much business to the insurer. Insurers then turn around and charge smaller businesses and individual much higher rates. At the same time, insurers who cover large numbers of people wield a lot of power in the market for health services--they are able to negotiate low rates with health care providers. Providers often then turn around and charge other patients (covered by smaller insurers or self-paying) higher rates. When patients without insurance come to the hospital for care, who pays for their care? Self-pay patients and those working for small employers. (The big employers can say, "no thank you, we don't care to pay for that.") The buck is always being passed, and on the whole it is being passed to the people who are already paying a lot for their insurance and/or can least afford it.

As for your family personally, I would be surprised if the the big, wealthy company that your DH works for wasn't self-insured--that is, effectively operating as its own insurance company, paying out its own funds for employees' health care (although the plan may be administered by an outside organization and the company may have stop-loss insurance to protect itself from big losses--basically a high-deductible plan/catastrophic insurance plan for the company). Given its overall wealth and interest in attracting talented employees, I'd also be surprised if your DH's company didn't continue to offer cadillac plans, regardless of what happens with health reform.

[deeka]

Wow! Just what we needed in an honest debate some gross generalizations and put downs. :) Wait a MINUTE I thought only Republicans and conservatives did that.

Sorry. You have no idea how much I wish my opinion were different!

There is actually quite a bit of evidence that Americans frequently vote against their own self-interests. And I don't think that's because they want to be generous to others, LOL. I think it's because they just don't know the facts, aren't interested in knowing them, and/or don't believe them when they do hear them.

IMO, the election (and re-election) of George W. Bush and the rise of Sarah Palin are, at core, a triumph of anti-intellectualism. We used to want a really smart person in the White House. Now many Americans want someone "just like them." It would be fascinating if it weren't so frightening.

[Tangwystl]

I deffinately agree with you that the goal should be better coverage for those who don't have it and not take away from those who do have it already. That wouldn't make sense to me. I think I'd be worried about that too if I was you. It certainly doesn't make you stupid. I obviously don't get everything about the healthcoverage systems in the US because I don't understand quite how it would affect you if formerly ineligible people got the same level of coverage through a government/other plan.

[A_Marie]

Sorry. You have no idea how much I wish my opinion were different!

There is actually quite a bit of evidence that Americans frequently vote against their own self-interests. And I don't think that's because they want to be generous to others, LOL. I think it's because they just don't know the facts, aren't interested in knowing them, and/or don't believe them when they do hear them.

IMO, the election (and re-election) of George W. Bush and the rise of Sarah Palin are, at core, a triumph of anti-intellectualism. We used to want a really smart person in the White House. Now many Americans want someone "just like them." It would be fascinating if it weren't so frightening.

IMO Sarah Palin isn't on the rise here. She doesn't have a large following just a noisy one. Well I wonder how that statement would sound if you substituted the word American for Jewish, Gays, Polish, Women, Islamic Men or other groups. Would you think those statements are fair to make? But of course it is not bigotry in this situation becase its acceptable to lump Americans into one pile and call us stupid right?

[~PQ]

I have to say I tend to agree with this. Americans are not a very forward-thinking or intellectual people. I think Churchill got it right when he said, "We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities." ]A lack of sophistication/intellectualism does not equal "stupid".

Honestly this subthread makes me uncomfortable- because it's every nasty stereotype about liberals I have ever heard; intellectuals with superiority complexes who look down their noses on the common man. Really, it's every nasty thing Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Bill O, etc. have ever shmoozed out in those smarmy "make fun of" voices.

Americans are not stupid. They're not less intellectual as a whole than the average word citizen. There isn't some minority pocket of the population that's somehow brighter and more evolved than the US population as a whole, who can be easily identified by their willingness to support govt. run health care. It's an insulting and ridiculous notion.

[deeka]

IMO Sarah Palin isn't on the rise here. She doesn't have a large following just a noisy one. Well I wonder how that statement would sound if you substituted the word American for Jewish, Gays, Polish, Women, Islamic Men or other groups. Would you think those statements are fair to make? But of course it is not bigotry in this situation becase its acceptable to lump Americans into one pile and call us stupid right?

I AM an American. Born and raised and life-long resident. Just as African Americans and Jews and Gays and Poles and Women and Muslims are entitled to comment on their counterparts, so am I. :dunno:

[A_Marie]

I AM an American. Born and raised and life-long resident. Just as African Americans and Jews and Gays and Poles and Women and Muslims are entitled to comment on their counterparts, so am I. :dunno:

Oh in that case feel free to call people who don't agree with you stupid.

[deeka]

]A lack of sophistication/intellectualism does not equal "stupid".

Honestly this subthread makes me uncomfortable- because it's every nasty stereotype about liberals I have ever heard; intellectuals with superiority complexes who look down their noses on the common man. Really, it's every nasty thing Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Bill O, etc. have ever shmoozed out in those smarmy "make fun of" voices.

Americans are not stupid. They're not less intellectual as a whole than the average word citizen. There isn't some minority pocket of the population that's somehow brighter and more evolved than the US population as a whole, who can be easily identified by their willingness to support govt. run health care. It's an insulting and ridiculous notion.

I never used the word "stupid."

I don't look down my nose at the "common" man at all. I just don't want one in the White House.

And while I am a liberal and do consider myself to be a person with some intellectual interests, I don't think someone like me belongs in the White House either. The president should be much more skilled in a wide variety of areas than I am, and smarter than I am, too. So in that sense I'm putting myself in with the common man.

I do, however, think that there is a wide streak of anti-intellectualism in this country--that is, a prejudice against/fear of/disdain for intellectual pursuits and those who pursue them. I do not put myself in with that crowd, and yes, I do look down on people who espouse this belief. I think it's dangerous. I don't think everyone needs to interested in intellectual pursuits (goodness knows there are tons of things I'm not that interested in), but I do think one should have respect for those pursuits and recognize them as attributes.

ETA: and I'm not sure why I am taking all the heat here when someone else used the word stupid, LOL!

[deeka]

Oh in that case feel free to call people who don't agree with you stupid.

I never used the word stupid. I don't think that people who disagree with me are stupid. And I certainly don't think people who uninformed seeking additional information and understanding are stupid (in fact, I think they're smart to do so!). What I said was: (1) is that many Americans vote against their own self-interest, but I don't think the majority of them are doing it selflessly; and (2) that in the past several decades we have moved from a people who seek *leaders* to a people who seek *common men.* I don't think that's improved the political process or served the development of good public policy.

[Tracy]

I never used the word stupid. I don't think that people who disagree with me are stupid. And I certainly don't think people who uninformed seeking additional information and understanding are stupid (in fact, I think they're smart to do so!). What I said was: (1) is that many Americans vote against their own self-interest, but I don't think the majority of them are doing it selflessly; and (2) that in the past several decades we have moved from a people who seek *leaders* to a people who seek *common men.* I don't think that's improved the political process or served the development of good public policy.

For what it is worth, I never saw you use the word stupid. I don't know why that's being lobbed against you even though you've repeatedly clarified that you didn't use the word. Plus one can clearly read what you wrote and see that you didn't say that.

I do understand what you are saying. I thought the quote you used actually sums up what I've been feeling lately. This country doesn't seem to ever do the right thing without a fight. We didn't free the slaves without a war, we didn't give equal rights to women and blacks without an uprising, we won't give equal rights to gays, many don't want healthcare for all. Maybe that's what makes our country great? What we do have, we fought for.

Also, I hear you about the trend where people want a guy(Or gal) they can "Have a beer with" over the dreaded intellectual. We did hear about how the right was against the "Elite" which really seemed to mean, and educated black man. I'm not saying it, THEY were. How many times did we hear that Sarah Palin was "Just like one of us" and "Pretty" as opposed to bright, intelligent or well spoken? I'd say EVERY time.

I don't know how to classify that. I really don't, but I don't think it bodes well for whom our leaders might end up being.

[~PQ]

Because she quoted Macaquina and said she agreed with her.

[deeka]

Because she quoted Macaquina and said she agreed with her.

Yes, I did, but why are you and A_Marie going after me while making nice with Macaquina?

It's no big deal, just kinda surprised me after I read your posts to Mac.

[Tracy]

I understand what you're saying. But I often quote people and agree with their general opinion without agreeing with ever last word they use. After she clarified what she meant she was still being told that she herself used the word stupid and I'm just saying that I don't think that's particularly fair.

[A_Marie]

Yes, I did, but why are you and A_Marie going after me while making nice with Macaquina?

It's no big deal, just kinda surprised me after I read your posts to Mac.



Okay I take it back. You didn't call Americans stupid m did. You just agreed and called us nonintellectual. FWIW if I knew how to double quote I would have quoted you both in my response. I am frustrated by the idea that if I have concerns I am stupid. I pay extra to have a better standard of care with my Tricare. I pay out of pocket to have more choice because my experiences with some aspects of Tricare were so poor.

Oh and if M was engaged in this thread I would still be responding to her.

I pretty much stay out of talks like this because of this. But I feel like this is so important I am hanging in the Current Events forum because I WANT to know why although my heart is saying Yes to healthcare for everyone, I am scratching my head at where this money is coming from and what that means for MY family.

[deeka]

Okay I take it back. You didn't call Americans stupid m did. You just agreed and called us nonintellectual. FWIW if I knew how to double quote I would have quoted you both in my response. I am frustrated by the idea that if I have concerns I am stupid. I pay extra to have a better standard of care with my Tricare. I pay out of pocket to have more choice because my experiences with some aspects of Tricare were so poor.

Oh and if M was engaged in this thread I would still be responding to her.

I pretty much stay out of talks like this because of this. But I feel like this is so important I am hanging in the Current Events forum because I WANT to know why although my heart is saying Yes to healthcare for everyone, I am scratching my head at where this money is coming from and what that means for MY family.

I don't know how to say this any differently. I don't think you are stupid. I don't think seeking to learn more is stupid. As I said above, I think it's smart. I don't think that deciding this particular form of health reform is a bad idea means you or anyone is stupid. (I do find it frustrating when people decide it's a bad idea without understanding anything about it and how it differs from the current system. But I don't think that's what you or anyone on this thread is doing/has done.) I don't think being concerned about what this means for your own family is stupid. There are definitely people who can be at best unaffected, and at worst adversely affected by the new law, and while I don't agree that that means we shouldn't do it, I certainly can see why those people might be concerned or opposed.

FWIW, all things equal, this law isn't likely to directly affect me or my family very much, so I'm relatively neutral on the personal-impact front. I understand very well why, e.g., you and Jill (people with insurance that works for them and with children who need more than the usual amount of healthcare) might be very concerned about what the law means.

(Actually, you *did* respond to Macaquina above, and not nearly with the level of frustration you are directing at me.)

[kathy caribe]

Sorry. You have no idea how much I wish my opinion were different!

There is actually quite a bit of evidence that Americans frequently vote against their own self-interests. And I don't think that's because they want to be generous to others, LOL. I think it's because they just don't know the facts, aren't interested in knowing them, and/or don't believe them when they do hear them.

IMO, the election (and re-election) of George W. Bush and the rise of Sarah Palin are, at core, a triumph of anti-intellectualism. We used to want a really smart person in the White House. Now many Americans want someone "just like them." It would be fascinating if it weren't so frightening.

(wish I had that little guy standing and applauding)

TOTALLY agree with you here.

[~PQ]

Yes, I did, but why are you and A_Marie going after me while making nice with Macaquina?

It's no big deal, just kinda surprised me after I read your posts to Mac.I don't think I'm "going after" anyone, timeline was M. posted, I posted I disagreed and why, after I posted, you posted below me and agreed with her- so I reiterated to you, one time, I disagreed and why. It was 1 disagree post to each of you, for the same reason. It was the word "stupidity" that really bugged me, it seems uncharitable. Since you quoted it and said you agreed I assumed you meant, with the whole thing you quoted.

[deeka]

(wish I had that little guy standing and applauding)

TOTALLY agree with you here.

Are you SURE you agree with every word? ;-)

[Mary]

I have to say I tend to agree with this. Americans are not a very forward-thinking or intellectual people. I think Churchill got it right when he said, "We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

Why would you go and do that? I abhor generalizations like that, which are neither intellectual or forward thinking. We were having a nice, productive discussion.

[azul99]

Why would you go and do that? I abhor generalizations like that, which are neither intellectual or forward thinking. We were having a nice, productive discussion.

Mary, I don't understand this comment. What do you mean by "go and do that"? Deeka offered a theory as to why it takes our country so much time and effort to get things done, and the quote she used to illustrate her point is by a well-known and widely-respected prime minister. It is supported by the facts around historic events, as one of the previous posters (I forget who) pointed out.

Her comment *is* productive and offers a point of view that is valid (and indeed was espoused by Winston Churchill). So how is that problematic?

[jerzymama]

JFTR, Tricare is a division of the Department of Defense and comes out of their budget allowance. Many years ago it was administered directly by the DOD and the benefit was often times a living nightmare - ask people who fought for cancer treatments or to see pediatric endocrinologists. It has definately evolved into a wonderful beneift but this wasn't always the case - epecially compared to what was being offered by the civilian sector in most jobs at the time. Eventually Tricare contracted out the administrative aspects to PRIVATE companies and the service, benefits and overall functioning of Tricare improved exponentially.

Secondly, you should know that the most affordable Tricare option functions as an HMO and for most of the military (not necessarily the Coast Guard becase we tend to live in remote regions away from military bases) but for MOST of the military that means they MUST obtain their health care through Military Treatment Facilities which can oftentimes have many drawbacks, not the least of which is you do not your own personal "doctor", you see whoever is on duty that day. Also if you live within the "catchment area" (which is about 40 milies) and you need surgery (this happened to me in Seattle), you are prohibited from using a closer hospital and *must* get your care at the closest Military hospital with the surgeon that is *assigned* to you. Otherwise you have to seek treatment out of pocket if you want to go somewhere closer or jump through a thousand military bureaucratic hoops to be "released" from MTF. Finally you all understand that the Active Duty person has absolutely no option for "private" health care. He/She receives the healthcare that the military decides is necessary. If by some chance your health issue becomes too chronic and interferes with any of your ability to perform your *job*, you are excessed out of active duty status and your healthcare is then turned over the Veteran's Administration --- and we all know how wonderful *that* healthcare system is. And if you are relieved prior to full retirement the VA will ONLY treat the specific illness for which you were relieved of duty - nothing else.

The military has also recently begun enforcing EXTREMELY strict weight standards and a member has two opportunities to meet this standard - and then they are effectively kicked out. I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of weight related disease (heart disease, diabetes, HTN, etc.) is in no small part one of the motivators for tightening up this regulation. I cannot say too strongly that the ability of the DOD to provide healthcare is predicated on the idea that not that many people will access it.

FINALLY - the healthcare benefit offered federal employees is a completely separate and distinct thing and functions just like private health insurance - because the federal government has an extremely large pool applicants the cost of the health insurance is much cheaper and competitive. You purchase health insurance like everyone else - you get what you pay for. The cheaper plans cover less and are more restrictive and the more expensive options are more generous. When you need help with a claim, you dont call "the govt", you call your insurance company.

[jerzymama]

Except that in the previous 8 years we had a Rhodes scholar as President. The failure of the Democratic party to push through a more viable Presidential candidate isn't really the fault of the "anti-intellectuals". The rise of Sarah Palin? I would guess she's probably the reason that McCain lost the election. Is she a compelling celebrity? Absolutely. Do crowds form around her - mostly because she meets one of our culture's definitions of physical attractiveness? Absolutely. But I also think that most Americans (the quest for internet hits nothwithstanding) see her for exactly who she is...and she is not now, nor will she ever be a viable voice for mainstream American politics.

[Tracy]

Except that in the previous 8 years we had a Rhodes scholar as President. The failure of the Democratic party to push through a more viable Presidential candidate isn't really the fault of the "anti-intellectuals". The rise of Sarah Palin? I would guess she's probably the reason that McCain lost the election. Is she a compelling celebrity? Absolutely. Do crowds form around her - mostly because she meets one of our culture's definitions of physical attractiveness? Absolutely. But I also think that most Americans (the quest for internet hits nothwithstanding) see her for exactly who she is...and she is not now, nor will she ever be a viable voice for mainstream American politics.



I wouldn't be too sure about that. I think it would be a mistake for Liberals to settle back and think that is the case. After all, Ronald Reagan won for many of the same reasons you listed here for Sarah Palin.

[Tracy]

Mary, I don't understand this comment. What do you mean by "go and do that"? Deeka offered a theory as to why it takes our country so much time and effort to get things done, and the quote she used to illustrate her point is by a well-known and widely-respected prime minister. It is supported by the facts around historic events, as one of the previous posters (I forget who) pointed out.

Her comment *is* productive and offers a point of view that is valid (and indeed was espoused by Winston Churchill). So how is that problematic?

I agree. Also, I believe it might have been my post in which I gave examples of issues the American people have resisted doing for the sake of it being the "right thing" to do...IE Slavery, equal rights etc.

[deeka]

JFTR, Tricare is a division of the Department of Defense and comes out of their budget allowance. Many years ago it was administered directly by the DOD and the benefit was often times a living nightmare - ask people who fought for cancer treatments or to see pediatric endocrinologists. It has definately evolved into a wonderful beneift but this wasn't always the case - epecially compared to what was being offered by the civilian sector in most jobs at the time. Eventually Tricare contracted out the administrative aspects to PRIVATE companies and the service, benefits and overall functioning of Tricare improved exponentially.

Secondly, you should know that the most affordable Tricare option functions as an HMO and for most of the military (not necessarily the Coast Guard becase we tend to live in remote regions away from military bases) but for MOST of the military that means they MUST obtain their health care through Military Treatment Facilities which can oftentimes have many drawbacks, not the least of which is you do not your own personal "doctor", you see whoever is on duty that day. Also if you live within the "catchment area" (which is about 40 milies) and you need surgery (this happened to me in Seattle), you are prohibited from using a closer hospital and *must* get your care at the closest Military hospital with the surgeon that is *assigned* to you. Otherwise you have to seek treatment out of pocket if you want to go somewhere closer or jump through a thousand military bureaucratic hoops to be "released" from MTF. Finally you all understand that the Active Duty person has absolutely no option for "private" health care. He/She receives the healthcare that the military decides is necessary. If by some chance your health issue becomes too chronic and interferes with any of your ability to perform your *job*, you are excessed out of active duty status and your healthcare is then turned over the Veteran's Administration --- and we all know how wonderful *that* healthcare system is. And if you are relieved prior to full retirement the VA will ONLY treat the specific illness for which you were relieved of duty - nothing else.

The military has also recently begun enforcing EXTREMELY strict weight standards and a member has two opportunities to meet this standard - and then they are effectively kicked out. I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of weight related disease (heart disease, diabetes, HTN, etc.) is in no small part one of the motivators for tightening up this regulation. I cannot say too strongly that the ability of the DOD to provide healthcare is predicated on the idea that not that many people will access it.

FINALLY - the healthcare benefit offered federal employees is a completely separate and distinct thing and functions just like private health insurance - because the federal government has an extremely large pool applicants the cost of the health insurance is much cheaper and competitive. You purchase health insurance like everyone else - you get what you pay for. The cheaper plans cover less and are more restrictive and the more expensive options are more generous. When you need help with a claim, you dont call "the govt", you call your insurance company.

Thanks for pointing this out. It bears repeating that the health reform legislation and military/VA health care really have little to do with each other. As you've noted, DoD and the VA have their own health facilities and health providers. "The government" does not, and will not under health reform.

[jerzymama]

I dont know about that...I think that's a gross underestimation of Reagan's political ability and the time in which he became President. I absolutely did not agree with many of Reagan's policies but they were never entirely without intellectual merit..they were just policies and a POV I disagreed with.

[webbeccjo]

Mary, I don't understand this comment. What do you mean by "go and do that"? Deeka offered a theory as to why it takes our country so much time and effort to get things done, and the quote she used to illustrate her point is by a well-known and widely-respected prime minister. It is supported by the facts around historic events, as one of the previous posters (I forget who) pointed out.

Her comment *is* productive and offers a point of view that is valid (and indeed was espoused by Winston Churchill). So how is that problematic?


It may very well be true that there are a lot of people in America who are not forward thinking! but that doesn't preclude the fact that broad generalizations sometimes rub people the wrong way.
And the fact that a quote/comment espouses the pov or opinion of someone well respected (like Churchill), does not categorically make it appropriate or true.imo

I can't blame Mary or anyone else for not liking broad generalizations Its definitely a quote that could be interpreted as being one of those broad sweeping derogatory remarks. "You know how those Americans are!"

Tbh the quote or sentiment didn't really bother me too much, but I can totally see why someone might express a discomfort with such generalizations.
The quote is a broad negative generalization and the part that I find interesting is that its being supported as being OK not on its own merit, but because a respected prime minister said it.

Heck, Churchill also made a lot of rude derogatory comments towards women...none of which became appropriate simply because he was a well respected PM. lol

[azul99]

It may very well be true that there are a lot of people in America who are not forward thinking! but that doesn't preclude the fact that broad generalizations sometimes rub people the wrong way.
And the fact that a quote/comment espouses the pov or opinion of someone well respected (like Churchill), does not categorically make it appropriate or true.imo

I can't blame Mary or anyone else for not liking broad generalizations Its definitely a quote that could be interpreted as being one of those broad sweeping derogatory remarks. "You know how those Americans are!"

Tbh the quote or sentiment didn't really bother me too much, but I can totally see why someone might express a discomfort with such generalizations.
The quote is a broad negative generalization and the part that I find interesting is that its being supported as being OK not on its own merit, but because a respected prime minister said it.

Heck, Churchill also made a lot of rude derogatory comments towards women...none of which became appropriate simply because he was a well respected PM. lol

I'm not sure what you mean by "appropriate" or "true" - this is a Debate forum after all.

I never said that the fact that a prime minister said it makes it true - I said that Deeka's post quoted him, and that Tracy's post in response to that gave examples that supported Churchill's view.

Saying that is a "sweeping generalization" about Americans is an overstatement IMO. It seems to me that it is more accurate to say that it is one man's observation of how the U.S. system generally works (in the observer's view).

Given Churchill's vantage point, I do give more credence to his powers of observation on that particular topic than I would to an ordinary citizen's, for what that's worth, and I agree with Tracy that historic events in our country support Churchill's observation.

[Bickery]

I dont know about that...I think that's a gross underestimation of Reagan's political ability and the time in which he became President. I absolutely did not agree with many of Reagan's policies but they were never entirely without intellectual merit..they were just policies and a POV I disagreed with.

My clearest memory of Reagan is the Land of Confusion video.

[Karen]

Yes, it is government insurance. The 'socialized medicine' that the anti-s are so anti-? Is Tricare.

As to the part I bolded: your guess is as good as mine. The only answer I can come up with is that the American people are even stupider than I thought. As I said in another thread, we're the laughing stock of the free world. I'm going to stop now because I can feel my blood pressure going up, and I have a high-deductible, pay-through-the-nose, individual health care plan* and can't afford to go to the freaking doctor just because the health care debate is making me sick.

*Because my husband is one of those irresponsible entrepreneurs who insist on starting their own businesses, which we all know Republicans don't believe in. :rolleyes

I thought this was an interesting article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8474611.stm)about why people vote against their own self interests.

From the article:
But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.

In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.

Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?

If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them.

They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.

[kokoro]

I have lived in 2 other countries and traveled a bit around Europe and in my experience it seemed a much higher percentage of people in all those places kept up with politics a lot more, read a lot more, had political discussions and debates more than Americans. of course that is not true of every one but in general that is what I saw.

I do also feel that Sarah Palin could not have a fan base as large as it is and be taken seriously by as many as do without the component of the American population you are talking about existing.

We certainly have intelectuals in America. There are a huge number of well-informed, well-read, articulate Americans who vote based on hard work and thought but there are also far too many who vote based on things *I* find to be very surface level understanding of issues.



Sorry. You have no idea how much I wish my opinion were different!

There is actually quite a bit of evidence that Americans frequently vote against their own self-interests. And I don't think that's because they want to be generous to others, LOL. I think it's because they just don't know the facts, aren't interested in knowing them, and/or don't believe them when they do hear them.

IMO, the election (and re-election) of George W. Bush and the rise of Sarah Palin are, at core, a triumph of anti-intellectualism. We used to want a really smart person in the White House. Now many Americans want someone "just like them." It would be fascinating if it weren't so frightening.

[Mary]

It may very well be true that there are a lot of people in America who are not forward thinking! but that doesn't preclude the fact that broad generalizations sometimes rub people the wrong way.
And the fact that a quote/comment espouses the pov or opinion of someone well respected (like Churchill), does not categorically make it appropriate or true.imo

I can't blame Mary or anyone else for not liking broad generalizations Its definitely a quote that could be interpreted as being one of those broad sweeping derogatory remarks. "You know how those Americans are!"

Tbh the quote or sentiment didn't really bother me too much, but I can totally see why someone might express a discomfort with such generalizations.
The quote is a broad negative generalization and the part that I find interesting is that its being supported as being OK not on its own merit, but because a respected prime minister said it.

Heck, Churchill also made a lot of rude derogatory comments towards women...none of which became appropriate simply because he was a well respected PM. lol

Yes, that. I don't see what my dislike of such broad generalizations is hard to understand, especially when it came into a discussion intended to enlighten.

[Mary]

Productive is a matter of opinion. To me, it was just a negative generalization. She has the right to her opinion, and I mine. No hard feelings, I just disagree with the level of usefulness assigned to the comment.

[Tracy]

Yes, that. I don't see what my dislike of such broad generalizations is hard to understand, especially when it came into a discussion intended to enlighten.

See, I don't see that quote as a broad generalization. Especially in the light that historically, on many very important issues, it seems to be correct.

[JaamE]

I am in agreement with PQ.....we have retired Tricare and it is the best....however we moved, sacrificed a lot throughout the years and yes, Tricare was one of the main reasons we did this. For us it was the right choice. I want others to have care but boy I don't want to lose my level of care.

LOL, when i had Tricare it was a joke.... no one would take it except the base, and i refused to go to the base. The onl;y redeeming quality was the no-copay meds. Right now we have good insurance, but it still cost like $300/mo to have the kids and I added and once DH looses his job we'll have the state health care that very few docs take. I absolutely hate that he's stuck at a job he hates, that it hurting his body now, because *I* need to keep the health coverage or risk losing everything if my cancer comes back. The Cobra payment would be more than our mortgage, we'll have to do the state health care because we cant afford it otherwise.

[niteowll]

I like my American doctors and my American health insurance, I pay little to nothing out pocket, not only have I found it quick to get referrals and appointments with specialists (who I DO think are some of the best in the world.), but those specialists have cost us nothing and our air travel and hotel and meals have been covered as well. We pay a small copay for medications, have lots of preventative care options, and even non-traditional care like chiro and homebirth are covered. We're not rich and DH isn't a big wig at some big corp with a cadillac plan.... it's called Tricare and it's available to all military members and family.
.when my DH worked as a diesel mechanic for a union shop, this is the level and quality of insurance we had. SO I agree with PQ that plans can differ and it isn't necessarily based on income.

Now, working at a non-union shop and being in Management, our costs are much different. I can choose the care I want, pay for a different level of doctor, but I also have a lot of debt because I do this. my OOP expense was 40 per visit last year and now I believe it is 60.(plan changes in April each year) ER is 50%, so last week when I took Kelly for IV abx, I am sure my co=pay will be in the 600-800 range