PDA

View Full Version : How the proposed health care violates the constitution


County Mike
10-16-2009, 02:38 PM
Subject: Fw: An Opinion Not Yet Widely Circulated....
Tough reading no matter what direction you come from.

From a Constitutional Lawyer

The following comment is from Michael Connelly of Carrollton , Texas , a
retired attorney and constitutional law instructor who states he has read
the entire health care bill and has some comments, not about the bill,
but about the impact upon our Constitution.. It's a broader picture
than just health care reform.

Looks like something to sit up and pay attention to; once this sort of
thing happens, it will be irreversible.

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HEALTHCARE BILLS

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill
3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with
particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law.. I was
frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being
discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what
I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its
implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media
are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care,
particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are
involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion
services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of
the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of
business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions
about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats
and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital
admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical
devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In
fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of
providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient
cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of
government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this
law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of
the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power
between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S.
Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration
authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American
people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress
doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin
with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find
any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health
care.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama
administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your
personal financial information, and the information of your employer,
physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the
specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting
against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about
the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion
regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private
insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the Choices Administrator"
appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a
"tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of
the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work
because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or
appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of
property without the "due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so
much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively
nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment
that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the
provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people
nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many
areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you
get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power
and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members
of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to
support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be
able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I
was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I
would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they
consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript...html

There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly

Retired attorney, Constitutional Law Instructor, Carrollton , Texas

Michael Connelly is a retired attorney who is now a teacher, published
author, and freelance writer. As a former Military Intelligence officer
in the U.S. Army he is an avid student of American history including all
aspects of military history. His father 1LT Roy E. Connelly was an
officer in B Co. of the 87th CMB. He and his wife Kay reside in Dallas ,
Texas . They have six children including four sons who have all served or
are currently serving in the military.


As a young man he became an Eagle Scout and as an adult was a scoutmaster
for many years. All four of his sons are Eagle Scouts. Mr. Connelly is
also an officer in American Legion Post 597 in Carrollton , Texas .

Michael Connelly also teaches Evidence Law, Constitutional Law, and
Winning Strategy for the Courtroom via the Internet through colleges and
universities worldwide

http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/entries/general/the-truth-about-the-hea
lth-care-bills

18 Michael Connelly September 8, 2009

Thanks to everyone for your comments and interest. Even when people
disagree with me I appreciate what they have to say if it is done in a
respectful manner. This nation was built on the right to disagree.
It is difficult to cite specific sections of HR 3200 for several reasons.
First, much of what I refer to as being done by the bill may not be in
just one particular section. Instead the preparers attempt to hide their
actual intent by spreading things throughout the bill in different
sections. Second, any specific section I refer to by number may change as
the Congress returns from recess and starts trying to rework the bill to
make it seem more reasonable to the American people. In other words, what
is contained in Section 1173A that provides for government electronic
access to private information may be renumbered and contain something
totally different tomorrow.
However, here are some of the most pertinent sections dealing with some
of the areas you are asking about. Section 113 gives the government
control over all health insurance, private and public. Section 141
authorizes the appointment of the Health Choices Administrator. He or she
will answer to no one other than the President. Sections 201 and 203 give
this person the power to decide what benefits you can get in your
insurance, whether public or private. This opens the door for health care
rationing. This is further mandated by Section 225 that gives the
administrator complete control over hospitals and doctors. It sets the
fees that can be charged and the services that can be provided.
If the Administrator decides you didn’t need to be hospitalized the
hospital can be fined for “breaking the government rules.” This also
opens the door for the Administrator to force hospitals and physicians to
perform abortions. All health procedures will mandated by the government.
There is also no provision for services to be provided only to citizens
or legal residents of the United States. This means that since illegal
aliens get the services now, they will continue to do so.

Here is a link to the entire bill and you can look up these and other
provisions: http://thomas.loc.gov/. I hope you find this helpful

Crisco
10-16-2009, 04:00 PM
Change you can believe in.

Bonnie
10-16-2009, 04:06 PM
I feel like "we the people" have absolutely no power, no say-so, nothing, nada over what's happening to our lives. These elected @$$holes sit up there playing fast and loose with our lives and our health. :angry:

In the meantime, I guess, the President and his family and Congress and their families will not be effected by any of this new wonderful healthcare they're pushing on us, the people, they are supposed to be serving.

I guess that "Yes We Can" is really "Yes They Can"... :wink:

rearnakedchoke
10-16-2009, 05:02 PM
The US is one of the greatest countries in the world. If they get universal health care, it will only make them a greater country ...

eric84
10-16-2009, 08:45 PM
The US is one of the greatest countries in the world. If they get universal health care, it will only make them a greater country ...

How will it make the US a greater country? I don't mean that rhetorically, I'm asking you to tell us why. I think healthcare does need a sense of overhaul, but to be run by the government isn't in our best interest in my opinion. Here are a few of the issues I have a problem with in large.
- Government deciding on my healthcare options.....regardless if they are good or not, if they decide, they can change it at anytime. In a capitalism economy, it would be alot harder for a private insurance company to change your options... don't like it, go to another one.

- While I agree some people need aid, the majority of people i have met that need it are the ones that are too lazy to work. Along those lines I think the welfare system is very corrupt and needs to be cleaned up to.

- I think we need the government to be involved on certain things, but the more they start getting involved on, the more we go away from being the greatest country in my eyes.(yep, I said greatest!)

NateR
10-16-2009, 09:23 PM
The US is one of the greatest countries in the world. If they get universal health care, it will only make them a greater country ...

We already have the best healthcare in the world, why do we need to screw it up by letting the government take it over?

flo
10-16-2009, 09:35 PM
I feel like "we the people" have absolutely no power, no say-so, nothing, nada over what's happening to our lives. These elected @$$holes sit up there playing fast and loose with our lives and our health. :angry:

In the meantime, I guess, the President and his family and Congress and their families will not be effected by any of this new wonderful healthcare they're pushing on us, the people, they are supposed to be serving.

I guess that "Yes We Can" is really "Yes They Can"... :wink:

Well said, Bonnie, I totally agree with you.


We already have the best healthcare in the world, why do we need to screw it up by letting the government take it over?

Exactly! Just look what they've done with Medicare, Social Security, TSA, etc., etc. They only seem to be good at creating more burgeoning gov't bureaucracies (which they then mishandle). I'm sick of the empty promises from BOTH sides, they use policies that affect our lives as a means to an end to get elected.

OK, rant over. :happydancing:

flo
10-16-2009, 09:38 PM
Good points, Eric, I think you're right.

NateR
10-16-2009, 09:43 PM
Exactly! Just look what they've done with Medicare, Social Security, TSA, etc., etc. They only seem to be good at creating more burgeoning gov't bureaucracies (which they then mishandle). I'm sick of the empty promises from BOTH sides, they use policies that affect our lives as a means to an end to get elected.

Yeah, just look at the high quality and compassionate service you get at the Post Office and the DMV, now just imagine those same people deciding whether you live or die. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would be against government healthcare. :Whistle:

Crisco
10-16-2009, 09:50 PM
I don't know why exactly but it just feels better being screwed by a private company or then it does being screwed by my government.

That's all it is.

They are both going to screw us would just prefer it be done by a private company.

eric84
10-16-2009, 09:58 PM
I don't know why exactly but it just feels better being screwed by a private company or then it does being screwed by my government.

That's all it is.

They are both going to screw us would just prefer it be done by a private company.

Haha, I don't disagree... but isn't it nice when you get screwed, you can say screw them and switch companies? Kind of hard to switch governments.

Crisco
10-16-2009, 10:11 PM
Haha, I don't disagree... but isn't it nice when you get screwed, you can say screw them and switch companies? Kind of hard to switch governments.

And both are a bitch to sue.

Neezar
10-16-2009, 11:37 PM
We already have the best healthcare in the world, why do we need to screw it up by letting the government take it over?

Because misery loves company. :laugh:

Neezar
10-16-2009, 11:38 PM
I work with a man who said his daughter-n-law is with her husband in England and is pregnant. They told her that she was young and reasonably healthy. They also told her that unless she had complications during the pregnancy then she could birth at home with a midwife. Period. No options. She is on her way home. :laugh:


Yay, government run healthcare.

bradwright
10-17-2009, 02:21 AM
well let me just say that the government run health care that i'm provided with in Canada works just fine for me....i have never been told what doctor i could see or how i would be treated,heck if i went to a Doctor and didn't like what he had to say or didn't trust his opinion then i am free to see a different doctor,no extra charge...in fact no charge at all.

donaldbreland
10-17-2009, 04:35 AM
I got an idea. It will probably suck in many peoples eyes but the ones who need health care and are too lazy to work then the government needs to come by their house 2 or 3 days a week and make them clean the highways and cut grass that way they are working for their food stamps and their medicaid.

donaldbreland
10-17-2009, 04:41 AM
rearnakedchoke wrote:
The US is one of the greatest countries in the world. If they get universal health care, it will only make them a greater country ...

You are wrong again my friend. The United States is the Greatest Country in The World and how in the heck do you say that a government ran health care would be better. The Government can't even get our economy straightened out.
Still we have the freedom to choose what we want to in our FREE Country and your wanting them to take that away. If you want that then move to China.

rearnakedchoke
10-17-2009, 03:57 PM
rearnakedchoke wrote:


You are wrong again my friend. The United States is the Greatest Country in The World and how in the heck do you say that a government ran health care would be better. The Government can't even get our economy straightened out.
Still we have the freedom to choose what we want to in our FREE Country and your wanting them to take that away. If you want that then move to China.

It's debatable whether the US is the greatest country in the world ... that is your opinion ... but i agree, it is up there ...

there is another thread going on in this site where someone actually has to resort to asking for donations .. sorry, but that crap wouldn't even be an issue in canada or other countries with good health care .... it is sad that people who can't afford large procedures like that have to wait to pay for it first .... ridiculous ... ask her family if she would like universal health care ...

Neezar
10-17-2009, 04:46 PM
It's debatable whether the US is the greatest country in the world ... that is your opinion ... but i agree, it is up there ...

there is another thread going on in this site where someone actually has to resort to asking for donations .. sorry, but that crap wouldn't even be an issue in canada or other countries with good health care .... it is sad that people who can't afford large procedures like that have to wait to pay for it first .... ridiculous ... ask her family if she would like universal health care ...

If your child had to travel hundreds of miles for a medical procedure would your universal healthcare pay for the transportation? Would they pay for your room and board while there? Would they pay for your food?

That is what the donations where for. :)


p.s. Yes, why don't you ask that family if they would like universal health care? IF, and that is IF, that procedure is even available in Canada, ask that family if they would rather have that surgery performed on their child in Canada or in the US.

Neezar
10-17-2009, 04:58 PM
Btw, does anyone even realize that the people in the countries that have universal health care pay MORE than we do for insurance. :unsure-1:



Funding the system

Like the NHS in Britain, Canada provides a good but not perfect system of healthcare. The level of coverage varies across the country and many Canadians have supplemental private insurance coverage through group plans, which covers the cost of these supplementary services.

The Canadian Medical Association believes an estimated four million of Canada's 33 million population don't have a family doctor and more than one million are waiting for treatment.

Canada has 2.1 physicians per 1,000 people, while Belgium has 3.9, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Much of the resentment towards the healthcare system is caused by the fact that so much of Canada's already high tax goes towards it. The average Canadian family pays about 48 per cent of its income in taxes each year and, while rates vary from province to province, Ontario, the most populous, spends around 40 per cent of its tax revenue on health, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. :scared0011:

The federation, which campaigns for tax reform and private enterprise in healthcare, believes the system is suffering serious financial challenges. It calculates that by 2035, Ontario will be spending 85 per cent of its budget on healthcare.

(So they are begging for private enterprise. Amazing.)

The federal government and most provinces acknowledge there's a crisis: a lack of physicians and nurses, state-of-the-art equipment and funding. In Ontario, more than 10,000 nurses and hospital workers are facing layoffs over the next two years unless the provincial government boosts funding, says the Ontario Hospital Association, which represents healthcare providers in the province.

In 1984 Parliament passed the Canada Health Act, which affirmed the federal government's commitment to provide mostly free healthcare to all, including the 200,000 immigrants arriving each year. The system is called Medicare (no relation to Medicare in the United States).

Despite the financial burden, Canadians value their Medicare as a marker of egalitarianism and independent identity that sets their country apart from the United States, where some 45 million Americans lack health insurance.

In 2000 The World Health Organisation ranked Canada 30th in the provision of public healthcare and the United States 37th. France's system was ranked the best, followed by Italy, Spain, Oman and Australia.

mscomc
10-17-2009, 06:47 PM
Btw, does anyone even realize that the people in the countries that have universal health care pay MORE than we do for insurance. :unsure-1:

Well, i hear what your saying. But I think you are overlooking something. True, americans are probably paying less through an insurance premium than a canadian is through taxes in the inital part of ones life. BUT! what the canadian pays through his taxes remains fairly constant depsite how his health improves or worsens over the years. it wont decide if he pays more on his taxes. Whereas in the states (im getting this info from family members who are physicans, please correct me if im wrong:)) if you get sick again and again, your premiums will constantly go up and up.....I give you the case a man who was probably healthy most of his life, but now at 45 he gets type II diabetes.....what insurance company is going to give him a reasonable rate? he probably cant afford treatment now. In canada my father (who is type II diabetic) goes see the doc like 3 times a month, gets constant blood work etc etc and doesnt worry about payment.


I think you raise a good point though, about if you could be sick, where would i want to be sick and get treatment? If money was ABSOLUTELY NOT AN ISSUE, i would probably go to the states. lets face it, this is where all the major pharmaceutical companies and biotech companies are who develop new treatments....but money is a concern to me...

The old saying, theres two sides to every story, and truth lies somewhere in the middle can be applied to US and Canadian (and other countries) health care. Its true, In canada, everyone will get treatment if they need it regardless of age, geneder, past health problems etc. But by making it so available, we have decreased the quality of care that can be generated...thats just simple finances talking.

But on the other side of the coin....the U.S has great quality of care...if you can afford it. In other words its the flip in a way of Canada. Care is really good, but not as available.

-----I dont think either of us has it right just yet. There has to be a better compromise. Sorry for the rant, have a good day:)

Neezar
10-17-2009, 07:07 PM
Well, i hear what your saying. But I think you are overlooking something. True, americans are probably paying less through an insurance premium than a canadian is through taxes in the inital part of ones life. BUT! what the canadian pays through his taxes remains fairly constant depsite how his health improves or worsens over the years. it wont decide if he pays more on his taxes. Whereas in the states (im getting this info from family members who are physicans, please correct me if im wrong:)) if you get sick again and again, your premiums will constantly go up and up.....I give you the case a man who was probably healthy most of his life, but now at 45 he gets type II diabetes.....what insurance company is going to give him a reasonable rate? he probably cant afford treatment now. In canada my father (who is type II diabetic) goes see the doc like 3 times a month, gets constant blood work etc etc and doesnt worry about payment.


I think you raise a good point though, about if you could be sick, where would i want to be sick and get treatment? If money was ABSOLUTELY NOT AN ISSUE, i would probably go to the states. lets face it, this is where all the major pharmaceutical companies and biotech companies are who develop new treatments....but money is a concern to me...

The old saying, theres two sides to every story, and truth lies somewhere in the middle can be applied to US and Canadian (and other countries) health care. Its true, In canada, everyone will get treatment if they need it regardless of age, geneder, past health problems etc. But by making it so available, we have decreased the quality of care that can be generated...thats just simple finances talking.

But on the other side of the coin....the U.S has great quality of care...if you can afford it. In other words its the flip in a way of Canada. Care is really good, but not as available.

-----I dont think either of us has it right just yet. There has to be a better compromise. Sorry for the rant, have a good day:)

Don't apologize for the rant. Good stuff there.

But I don't think the people here realize what is going to happen if we go to universal healthcare. Our taxes will DOUBLE - everyone's taxes will double. You guys pay twice the amount of taxes that we do and 45% of it goes to cover healthcare costs.

If the working man realizes that right now he can get Premium private insurance for a fraction of the cost of the Medicare plan he will recieve under Universal, I just don't see how they could back this. Seems to me that the only people who will benefit will be the people who aren't willing to work. (People who don't work because of a legitamate disability get free insurance already. ALL kids get free insurance.)

Neezar
10-17-2009, 07:15 PM
But I don't think the people here realize what is going to happen if we go to universal healthcare. Our taxes will DOUBLE - everyone's taxes will double. You guys pay twice the amount of taxes that we do and 45% of it goes to cover healthcare costs.



My math isn't perfect but it looks like Canadian's pay out about 18% of their income on healthcare. So if your spouse also works then I assume they pays 18% also. That is alot of money coming from one household. We pay less than 5% of my husband's pay for the best insurance available in our area.

NateR
10-17-2009, 07:44 PM
Even the healthcare debate is already having an adverse affect on people's healthcare. My dad pays $4000 a year for health insurance for him and my mom, but now the insurance companies are so worried about the government taking over that they are requiring him to pay his full deductable ahead of time before they will even schedule him for a surgery. So he has to come up with $2800 or he can't get surgery done on the blocked artery in his leg.

My dad works for the public school system and if he can't afford to pay the deductable, then isn't that like having no healthcare at all?

So, if just the debate is having this effect, then what's going to happen if this nonsense actually gets passed?

bradwright
10-17-2009, 08:18 PM
Government and public health and public policy analysts often make a comparison of the Canadian and American health care systems because the two countries at one time had very similar health care systems until the Canadians began reforming their system in the 1960s and 1970s. The U.S. spends much more on health care than Canada, both on a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP. In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678,; in the U.S., US$6,714, The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%. In 2006, 70% of health care spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 46% in the United States. Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 83% of total Canadian spending (public and private).

Studies have come to different conclusions about the result of this disparity in spending. A 2007 review of all studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the US in a Canadian peer-reviewed medical journal found that "health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent. Life expectancy is longer in Canada, and its infant mortality rate is lower than that of the U.S., but there is debate about the underlying causes of these differences. One commonly-cited comparison, the 2000 World Health Organization's ratings of "overall health service performance", which used a "composite measure of achievement in the level of health, the distribution of health, the level of responsiveness and fairness of financial contribution", ranked Canada 30th and the U.S. 37th among 191 member nations. This study rated the US "responsiveness", or quality of service for individuals receiving treatment, as 1st, compared with 7th for Canada. However, the average life expectancy for Canadians was 80.34 years compared with 78.6 years for residents of the U.S.

The health care system in Canada is funded by a mix of public (70%) and private (30%) funding, with most services delivered by private (both for-profit and not-for-profit) providers.

Through all entities in its public-private system, the U.S. spends more per capita than any other nation in the world, but is the only wealthy industrialized country in the world that lacks some form of universal health care.

bradwright
10-17-2009, 08:36 PM
My math isn't perfect but it looks like Canadian's pay out about 18% of their income on healthcare. So if your spouse also works then I assume they pays 18% also. That is alot of money coming from one household. We pay less than 5% of my husband's pay for the best insurance available in our area.

i figured out what i pay for health care through my taxes and at the cost of $3700.00 per person on average that would make it slightly less then 5% for me.

Neezar
10-17-2009, 08:49 PM
i figured out what i pay for health care through my taxes and at the cost of $3700.00 per person on average that would make it slightly less then 5% for me.

Is that 3700.00 per person in the household?

So when you get that amount paid in, you don't have to pay anymore that year? Is that how it works?

Neezar
10-17-2009, 08:50 PM
Even the healthcare debate is already having an adverse affect on people's healthcare. My dad pays $4000 a year for health insurance for him and my mom, but now the insurance companies are so worried about the government taking over that they are requiring him to pay his full deductable ahead of time before they will even schedule him for a surgery. So he has to come up with $2800 or he can't get surgery done on the blocked artery in his leg.

My dad works for the public school system and if he can't afford to pay the deductable, then isn't that like having no healthcare at all?

So, if just the debate is having this effect, then what's going to happen if this nonsense actually gets passed?

He won't qualify for the procedure under universal health care.

bradwright
10-17-2009, 09:07 PM
Is that 3700.00 per person in the household?

So when you get that amount paid in, you don't have to pay anymore that year? Is that how it works?

i looked up what it costs per person for health care in Canada and it is some where around $3700.00 per person and that would be less then 5% of my income,
for my wife it would be around 8% of her income and i only have one child and he is working and it would cost him about 11% of his income.

we never actually pay for anything,the total cost for our health care comes out of our taxes but if I had no income what so ever I would pay nothing and still receive the exact same care as everyone else,

having said that it stands to reason that the people that work would pay more than the $3700.00 per person because they have to subsidise the people that dont work for what ever reason.

so yes you would be correct to think i pay more then 5% of my income towards health care but i'm not sure what that percentage would be,
i really dont think its any where near 18% though.

NateR
10-17-2009, 09:23 PM
Government and public health and public policy analysts often make a comparison of the Canadian and American health care systems because the two countries at one time had very similar health care systems until the Canadians began reforming their system in the 1960s and 1970s. The U.S. spends much more on health care than Canada, both on a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP. In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678,; in the U.S., US$6,714, The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%. In 2006, 70% of health care spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 46% in the United States. Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 83% of total Canadian spending (public and private).

Studies have come to different conclusions about the result of this disparity in spending. A 2007 review of all studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the US in a Canadian peer-reviewed medical journal found that "health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent. Life expectancy is longer in Canada, and its infant mortality rate is lower than that of the U.S., but there is debate about the underlying causes of these differences. One commonly-cited comparison, the 2000 World Health Organization's ratings of "overall health service performance", which used a "composite measure of achievement in the level of health, the distribution of health, the level of responsiveness and fairness of financial contribution", ranked Canada 30th and the U.S. 37th among 191 member nations. This study rated the US "responsiveness", or quality of service for individuals receiving treatment, as 1st, compared with 7th for Canada. However, the average life expectancy for Canadians was 80.34 years compared with 78.6 years for residents of the U.S.

The health care system in Canada is funded by a mix of public (70%) and private (30%) funding, with most services delivered by private (both for-profit and not-for-profit) providers.

Through all entities in its public-private system, the U.S. spends more per capita than any other nation in the world, but is the only wealthy industrialized country in the world that lacks some form of universal health care.

And let's hope it stays that way. We want quality over quantity.

Also, those are just numbers that can be interpreted to mean anything. Maybe Americans spend more on healthcare because they can actually see a doctor as soon as they get sick and don't get stuck on waiting lists.

NateR
10-17-2009, 09:26 PM
He won't qualify for the procedure under universal health care.

That's probably true, especially since he's over 60. Those death panels, that supposedly don't exist, would tell him that he's less of a burden on taxpayers if he just dies.

Government run healthcare = genocide for senior citizens

bradwright
10-17-2009, 09:39 PM
And let's hope it stays that way. We want quality over quantity.

Also, those are just numbers that can be interpreted to mean anything. Maybe Americans spend more on healthcare because they can actually see a doctor as soon as they get sick and don't get stuck on waiting lists.

actually Nate i'm not sure where you get your information from but i can see a doctor any time i want,i have never been on a waiting list for anything in my life,
a case in point...i had an eye injury at work a couple of months ago and i went from work to an ER where i had to wait for approx 1 hour to be seen by a doctor,after i was examined he referred me to see a specialist and i was able to get an appointment for the next day.

a lot of people here are put on waiting lists for things like an MRI or heart surgery or elective surgery,but not everyone needing those services are put on waiting lists....if you are sick enough that your life is in jeopardy you are looked after right away.
besides Nate there are a lot of people on waiting lists in the US as well.

rearnakedchoke
10-17-2009, 11:53 PM
And let's hope it stays that way. We want quality over quantity.

Also, those are just numbers that can be interpreted to mean anything. Maybe Americans spend more on healthcare because they can actually see a doctor as soon as they get sick and don't get stuck on waiting lists.

well, maybe because i live in a big city and there are services everywhere, i have or neither has anyone in my family had to go on a waiting list for any procedure ...

Neezar
10-18-2009, 12:19 AM
i looked up what it costs per person for health care in Canada and it is some where around $3700.00 per person and that would be less then 5% of my income,
for my wife it would be around 8% of her income and i only have one child and he is working and it would cost him about 11% of his income.



We pay 1200.00 a year, whole family, regardless of how many in the family.

Tyburn
10-18-2009, 12:23 AM
can someone please explain to me just what the ballence of the three sections of Governments is?

I understand what Judicial is...but what are the other two? and how do they ballence...

I cant really comment til I understand how the Government works in that way...and I'm afraid, other then knowing the Judicial branch is the be all and end all...I dont understand.

Anyone care to educate me....spiritwalker need not apply :ninja:

bradwright
10-18-2009, 01:01 AM
We pay 1200.00 a year, whole family, regardless of how many in the family.

you pay 1200 a year ? thats it for the whole family ?

well we dont actually pay anything the $3700.00 figure is what is spent on health care per person in Canada i only used it to show you that i dont actually pay 18% of my income toward health care,everything is covered by my tax's.

do you have a deductible when you see a doctor ?:unsure-1:

Neezar
10-18-2009, 01:11 AM
you pay 1200 a year ? thats it for the whole family ?

well we dont actually pay anything the $3700.00 figure is what is spent on health care per person in Canada i only used it to show you that i dont actually pay 18% of my income toward health care,everything is covered by my tax's.

do you have a deductible when you see a doctor ?:unsure-1:

:laugh: If your tax money pays for healthcare then, yes, you do pay something. You just give it to the gov and they distribute it.

But that website said that Canadians pay about 40% of their income into taxes. They also said that 45% of tax money is used for health care. Wouldn't that mean that just under half (approx 18%) of each person's taxes are being used for healthcare? :huh:

(I told you my math wasn't that great.)

Neezar
10-18-2009, 01:13 AM
you pay 1200 a year ? thats it for the whole family ?

well we dont actually pay anything the $3700.00 figure is what is spent on health care per person in Canada i only used it to show you that i dont actually pay 18% of my income toward health care,everything is covered by my tax's.

do you have a deductible when you see a doctor ?:unsure-1:

Have you personally had $3700.00 worth of medical treatment in the last year? :unsure-1:

Neezar
10-18-2009, 01:17 AM
i looked up what it costs per person for health care in Canada and it is some where around $3700.00 per person and that would be less then 5% of my income,
for my wife it would be around 8% of her income and i only have one child and he is working and it would cost him about 11% of his income.

we never actually pay for anything,the total cost for our health care comes out of our taxes but if I had no income what so ever I would pay nothing and still receive the exact same care as everyone else,

having said that it stands to reason that the people that work would pay more than the $3700.00 per person because they have to subsidise the people that dont work for what ever reason.

so yes you would be correct to think i pay more then 5% of my income towards health care but i'm not sure what that percentage would be,
i really dont think its any where near 18% though.

you pay 1200 a year ? thats it for the whole family ?

well we dont actually pay anything the $3700.00 figure is what is spent on health care per person in Canada i only used it to show you that i dont actually pay 18% of my income toward health care,everything is covered by my tax's.

do you have a deductible when you see a doctor ?:unsure-1:


Yeah, I thought you meant that you pay $3700.00 in taxes for healthcare and that's it for the year.

bradwright
10-18-2009, 01:27 AM
:laugh:

But that website said that Canadians pay about 40% of their income into taxes. They also said that 45% of tax money is used for health care. Wouldn't that mean that just under half (approx 18%) of each person's taxes are being used for healthcare? :huh:

(I told you my math wasn't that great.)

well i would have to say the website is right and wrong,
they are wrong about the amount of money we pay in tax's,its not 40%....its more like 55% when you combine all the different tax's we pay,(did it happen to say what province i would have to live in to only pay 40% tax? Alberta probably...they have it made over there.) but what they would be referring to when they say about 45% of tax money is used for health care is income tax only and there are a lot of people in Canada that pay a lot more income tax then i do (i pay about 25%) so my share would be a lot less then 18%...or at least that is what i think...although i could be wrong.

you didn't tell me,do you have to pay anything when you visit the doctor ?

bradwright
10-18-2009, 01:29 AM
Have you personally had $3700.00 worth of medical treatment in the last year? :unsure-1:

i'm not sure...i had to see a specialist about a problem i had but i have no idea how much that was.

Neezar
10-18-2009, 01:33 AM
well i would have to say the website is right and wrong,
they are wrong about the amount of money we pay in tax's,its not 40%....its more like 55% when you combine all the different tax's we pay,(did it happen to say what province i would have to live in to only pay 40% tax? Alberta probably...they have it made over there.) but what they would be referring to when they say about 45% of tax money is used for health care is income tax only and there are a lot of people in Canada that pay a lot more income tax then i do (i pay about 25%) so my share would be a lot less then 18%...or at least that is what i think...although i could be wrong.

you didn't tell me,do you have to pay anything when you visit the doctor ?

okay, gotcha.

55% :scared0015: Hot dayum!


Yes, sometimes I do have to pay a co-pay and sometimes I don't. I have a deductible on some things, too. So with 4 of us we pay co-pays of around $250 bucks a year for MD's and dental. Then if we have a hospital visit it is a $150 deductible per person. Luckily that doesn't happen very often.

bradwright
10-18-2009, 01:42 AM
okay, gotcha.

55% :scared0015: Hot dayum!


Yes, sometimes I do have to pay a co-pay and sometimes I don't. I have a deductible on some things, too. So with 4 of us we pay co-pays of around $250 bucks a year for MD's and dental. Then if we have a hospital visit it is a $150 deductible per person. Luckily that doesn't happen very often.

so you say your dental is covered ?
dental isn't covered under our health care we need insurance for that,
also an ambulance ride isn't covered either.

Play The Man
10-18-2009, 01:43 AM
can someone please explain to me just what the ballence of the three sections of Governments is?

I understand what Judicial is...but what are the other two? and how do they ballence...

I cant really comment til I understand how the Government works in that way...and I'm afraid, other then knowing the Judicial branch is the be all and end all...I dont understand.

Anyone care to educate me....spiritwalker need not apply :ninja:

I haven't read the whole thread but I think you must be referring to the three branches of government: Executive (i.e. President and his Cabinet), Legislative (i.e. Senate & House of Representatives), and Judicial (i.e. Supreme Court).

Their power is balanced. For example, the President (Executive) has the power to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court. However, the Senate (Legislative) must confirm the appointee. Once the justice is confirmed and sworn in, it is a lifetime appointment. The Justice theoretically is not beholden to the President or the Senate and will make decisions based upon the interpretation of the Constitution.

The President (Executive) proposes a budget but the House of Representatives (Legislative) originates revenue legislation.

The State Department (Executive) can negotiate treaties but the Senate (Legislative) must advise and consent before ratification.

The President (Executive) is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces but the Congress (Legislative) has the power to declare war.

Congress (Legislative) passes laws, but they can be overturned by the Supreme Court (Executive) as "Unconstitutional".

Neezar
10-18-2009, 01:49 AM
so you say your dental is covered ?
dental isn't covered under our health care we need insurance for that,
also an ambulance ride isn't covered either.

Dental is optional but we have it. And ambulance is covered. We live outside the city limits so we can call Air Vac (helicopter) and hitch a ride to the hospital if we choose to.

bradwright
10-18-2009, 01:56 AM
Dental is optional but we have it. And ambulance is covered. We live outside the city limits so we can call Air Vac (helicopter) and hitch a ride to the hospital if we choose to.

our air ambulance is covered,just not the ground one.
we have to pay for all of our own drugs as well.

Neezar
10-18-2009, 02:04 AM
our air ambulance is covered,just not the ground one.
we have to pay for all of our own drugs as well.

Doesn't that just make everyone call the air ambulance when they need to go to the hospital? :unsure-1:

I would. :laugh: (not really. I would have to be unconscious to get me in a chopper.)

We have a copay with drugs. However, most drug stores have generics for $4.00 per prescription. Most antibotics are free.