At what cost a human life?

[Renegade]

We don't need new ideas. My household already pays well over $875 a month for healthcare for only 2 poeple. This is more costly than private, out of pocket, US coverage with top medical care.

Is this $875 for healthcare insurance? Or does that include a new pair of glasses every month? Or are you on a really expensive medication?

There is no way that your health premiums are $875 a month. This is an exageration. I used to pay $93 per month for my son and I. $63 when I was considered "low income". So $875 is kinda high IMO.

Here's an estimate of how much is spent provincially on healthcare:

In 2005–2006, provincial and territorial governments are estimated to have spent an average of 38.6% of their total program expenditures on health care.

Provincial and territorial governments are expected to spend an average of $2,931 per capita on health care in 2006–2007

link

One way to estimate how much of your tax goes on healthcare is take 39% of your provincial tax bill. (primairly income and PST).

[Charles Anthony]

I agree with user fees and users having to share some of the cost similar in concept to a deductable.

Why should users share some of the cost?

Where you and I differ is I don't see income as a factor which should affect one's healthcare insurance cost.

I do see it as a factor. I can use "health-care insurance cost" as a method to hide the redistribution of wealth. Kill two birds (maybe even three if we count all of my crony-friends in the healthcare industry) with one stone. My ultimate statist goal could be to redistribute wealth.

Now I do realize that there are cases of serious conditions which would cause some individuals to expend a huge component of their income on health insurance. That can be handled by putting a cap on the insurance cost as a % of income, but I would set the cap very high so that large majority of the population doesn't reach that cap.

That can not be handled if the public purse is going empty and demand is rising.

[Renegade]

Why should users share some of the cost?

To give users incentive to minimize use of the system. If the cost to the user is zero, they have every incentive to overuse the system.

I do see it as a factor. I can use "health-care insurance cost" as a method to hide the redistribution of wealth. Kill two birds (maybe even three if we count all of my crony-friends in the healthcare industry) with one stone. My ultimate statist goal could be to redistribute wealth.

Yes but that is not one of my statist goals. I don't think the state shoudl have any part in wealth redistribution.

That can not be handled if the public purse is going empty and demand is rising.

Sure it can. The state ultimately has control over the cap and the low-income threshold which determine how much state subsidy is put in. If the public purse is going empty because of escalating costs, it simply can raise the bar on the cap, or lower the income threshold at which it subsidizes.

[mikedavid00]

Is this $875 for healthcare insurance? Or does that include a new pair of glasses every month? Or are you on a really expensive medication?

There is no way that your health premiums are $875 a month. This is an exageration. I used to pay $93 per month for my son and I. $63 when I was considered "low income". So $875 is kinda high IMO.

I love these posts. It's this tone of post love. It's like the 'there's no parts of Canada with 30% visible minorities. Then they realize later they are wrong because they never did the research. I guess poeple think the money for healthcare falls out of the sky. Guess what, tax payers pay for healthcare.

Calculating how much you pay for healthcare each month.

Take your housholds gross yearly income.

Divide that by 2.

Divide that number by 12.

Mulltiply by 0.25

=Monthly healthcare costs

You will see that this number can probably buy you a private plan in the US. If you are poor, it cannot.

The difference is, in the US your employer most likely pays for your healtchare or a good majority of it. Thus, Americans have less taxes. If you can't afford it, then you pay $10 a month HMO which I still consider to be much better than Canada's healtchare system.

Realize that if we had a private/public system and a functioning immigration policy, we would have taxes similar to the US. We are taxed so much because of our healthcare system. This is why Canadians pay more tax.

Does the healthcare system work in Canada? Yes it does. But it DOESN'T when people use it that haven't paid into it. It's really that simple. Over 20 years this happened and now it's broken. We can't get taxed anymore.

This is why I constantly beat on the drum that healthcare and immigration should be the first priority in Canada. Certainly not the enviroment and new idealisms.

[Remiel]

But mike, how exactly do you plan on calculating how much Americans pay into health care when they buy that loaf of bread, or jar of honey?

[Charles Anthony]

However, there is a huge difference between saying that the gov't should make use of the free market tools when it makes sense and saying that the gov't should leave everything to free market.

Give one good reason why the government should make use of the free market tools when it can use brute force instead? The government can outlaw risky behavior and unhealthy food.

ICBC is the auto insurance monopoly in BC that runs like a business. It has invested in many educational campaigns to encourage safe driving in order to reduce the cost of its claims. However, such measures are only possible when there is a gov't mandated monopoly.

That makes no sense. Can you substantiate that claim? I can give you a common example to the contrary.

In a free market no company would invest in a compaign that would likely help their competetors.

You are trying to manipulate the market and you run into the problems that market-interventionists face: you focus on a tool as a goal.

Have you seen any advertizements for no-name brands recently? They benefit from the advertizements of the major competitors.

Are all of the major leading brands dupes?

The objective of a risk based premium is to make money. The objective of a tax credit/educational compaign is to promote better health.

You do not get it. The risk-based premium can potentially promote better health too.

Why should users share some of the cost?

To give users incentive to minimize use of the system. If the cost to the user is zero, they have every incentive to overuse the system.

Are you sure that "minimize the use of the system" is your goal?

Yes but that is not one of my statist goals. I don't think the state shoudl have any part in wealth redistribution.

That is a bold statement. Tell me what any one of your statist goals might be.

Sure it can. The state ultimately has control over the cap and the low-income threshold which determine how much state subsidy is put in. If the public purse is going empty because of escalating costs, it simply can raise the bar on the cap, or lower the income threshold at which it subsidizes.

I am suggesting that if the public revenues continue to drop, a government can "raise the bar" and "lower the threshold" all it wants but that will not provide universal health-care.

[Renegade]

Take your housholds gross yearly income.

Divide that by 2.

Divide that number by 12.

Mulltiply by 0.25

=Monthly healthcare costs

Where did you come up with this? You get vastly different numbers using this calcualtion than if you used 39% of provincial taxes paid.

[Renegade]

Are you sure that "minimize the use of the system" is your goal?

No it is not the goal. The goal, at least as I see it, is a system which pools health care risks so that on an individual basis heath care costs are affordable to the vast majority. Minimizing use of the system (or more correctly stated, minimizing the cost incured by the system) is one factor which can help achieve the goal.

Tell me what any one of your statist goals might be.

The protection of individual rights.

I am suggesting that if the public revenues continue to drop, a government can "raise the bar" and "lower the threshold" all it wants but that will not provide universal health-care.

I never stated it was universal. Universal health-care is a myth. Even in our system healthcare is rationed and some people never get it, and die waiting. So how is any other system universal? In the face of infinite demand, and finite resources, no system can ever be truly universal and every system must constrain demand and ration resources.

[Saturn]

However, there is a huge difference between saying that the gov't should make use of the free market tools when it makes sense and saying that the gov't should leave everything to free market.

Give one good reason why the government should make use of the free market tools when it can use brute force instead? The government can outlaw risky behavior and unhealthy food.

Nonsense. The government cannot effectively outlaw anything.

The government can, is and should use "free market" tools to keep costs under control while achieving maximum benefit for its citizens. Letting the free market take over means higher costs overall and fewer citizens benefitting from this increased expenditure. Overall free market health-care (or car insurance or education) means pay way more - get way less for the average Canadian. Anyone who doesn't realize that is either not an average Canadian or a confused average Canadian who cannot distinguish between reality and spin.

[mikedavid00]

Paid how much? If I've paid $1 into the system is it enough?

If I'm a Canadian and I haven't paid into the system, do I still get to collect medical benefits?

You're over complicating things with your idealisms which are proven not to work.

Tax payers can handle the burder of a small portion of people who have not paid into the system that are using it. This would include the poor. Again, a small portion of society.

Tax payers cannot handle a large portion of people who have not paid into it.

The real question is, what is 'paying into it'? You need look no further than auto insurance.

Here is a simple example:

If the average person pays $50 per month on auto insurance between the ages of sixteen and sixty-five, they have paid $29,400 to insurance. Now that’s the bare minimum for insurance. Maybe that person gets into a fender-bender three times, and the damage equals to a total of $6,000. Where does the $23,400 go?

It goes to the small portion of poeple who have had complete write offs or toalled their vehicles. Thus, everyone pays to cover the other person for the safety that you will get covered if something happens to you one day. However, the average person will never get their money back in payments through their lifetime.

Healthcare insurance works the exact same way. OHIP = Ontario Health Insurance Plan

Now with Canada healthcare, there is a massive, massive influx of poeple each year. More than anywhere else in the world per capita coming here with sickness, cancer, HIV, and elderly that need medical attention. These induviduals have NOT paid into the system so tax payers have to cover the burden of this.

Over 20 years, there becomes a limit where we can no longer be taxed more or we'll begin to lose jobs, houses, cars, and other things that are the point of living in any country.

Thus, we can no longer afford to keep the system running and have to ration out our healthcare to places that need it most (Ontraio). Rural hospitals cannot do procedures like take organs for transplants and other basic things that you might expect from any hospital.

The welfare state in Canada ONLY works when people who are covered have paid into it. Yes there will be a SMALL portion that have not paid into it, but in Canada these small portions have, over time, become LARGE portions.

This doesn't only apply for healthcare, it goes for any of Canada's services including childare, schooling, welfare, old age security etc.

In the US, people only get let into the country if they are there to work. They are NOT allowed to use HMO health services, and are NOT allowed to have any access to social services except schooling for children. Almost every other country is like this EXCEPT CANADA. We are the exception.

See, I have numbers to back up every statement made in this post, but I've done this before. I don't throw around idealisms like I know how to solve problems. People who are throwing around idealisms don't understand the problem to begin with. No offense to anyone. I can only spot where the problems are, and see who else is using a solution that is proven to work.

No social program will work if people if there is a growing abundance of people using it that haven't paid into it.

If you want to learn the truth, why not read this study from the Fraser Institute and then maybe you can learn the crux of Canada's problems:

Immigration and the Welfare State in Canada: Growing Conflicts, Constructive Solutions

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readm...?snav=pb&id=797

"The low taxes paid by a large number of immigrants

and the cost of the social benefits they consume

represent a fiscal burden on Canadian

taxpayers and lowers their living standards. As a

result, there exists a conflict between liberal immigration

policies and the viability of the welfare state."

"Since January 2002 the health examination includes a test for AIDS. According to the federal immigration department, in 2003, 677

foreigners who qualified for visas tested positive for the disease. Of these, 87 percent were granted immigrant visas presumably on

the judgment that they would not impose an unreasonable burden on the Canadian health care system. The information is from

Friscolanti (2004)."

[Saturn]

SHUT UP, you annoying thing! Get the heck out Canada already to join your kind - Ted Kaczynski, Tim McVeigh and the KKK.

[Riverwind]

You have raised this objection before as an argument for government run insurance, with the assumption being that insurance companies will unfairly differentiate against individuals where as the government would not. I've already said, I'm fine with the government running the health insurance, so I don't see this as a valid objection.

What is the point of having a government run insurance monopoly if it does not provide coverage to everyone? If you agree that everyone must be provided coverage then that also means the rates must be low enough to be affordable. The only way to ensure that is to tie rates to income.

I also object to statistical risk based premiums if they are not based on past behavior of the individual. If you have 3 accidents and make a claim then you should pay more for auto insurance. However, you have never made an insurance claim you should not have to pay more because some bean head has figured out that there is a statistical correlation between people that look like you and accidents. That is why I think any premiums introduced into the system to help limit demand should be based on usage - not risk.

[mikedavid00]

SHUT UP, you annoying thing! Get the heck out Canada already to join your kind - Ted Kaczynski, Tim McVeigh and the KKK.

The truth hurts! no!! head in sand time! hehehehe

If I could leave Canada, I would. Trust me. Unfortuntely, no other country allows people to just walse in.

Only Canada does that.

Thus Canada is an open country to the world.

[Renegade]

What is the point of having a government run insurance monopoly if it does not provide coverage to everyone? If you agree that everyone must be provided coverage then that also means the rates must be low enough to be affordable. The only way to ensure that is to tie rates to income.

I guess it depends upon what you mean by affordable. IMV only two extremes of the population would not be able to afford it. Those with very low incomes, and those with serious medical condiitons. If anything only those two groups should be subsidized. I have posted the average amount that is spent provincially per person on healthcare. Even if you assume the spread in risk-based premiums is between 50% of the average, to 200% of the average, IMV it is very affordable.

I also object to statistical risk based premiums if they are not based on past behavior of the individual. If you have 3 accidents and make a claim then you should pay more for auto insurance. However, you have never made an insurance claim you should not have to pay more because some bean head has figured out that there is a statistical correlation between people that look like you and accidents. That is why I think any premiums introduced into the system to help limit demand should be based on usage - not risk.

I disagree. If there is an objective corelation, regardless of past behaviour, then that factor should be included. Why do you think male drivers under 25 pay higher rates regardless of their driving behaviour?

[Riverwind]

Those with very low incomes, and those with serious medical condiitons. If anything only those two groups should be subsidized.

I think any means tested system where you lose benefits if your income exceeds an arbitrary line is a bad idea because it discourages people from working harder. All social benefits should be tiered so no one is in a situation where choosing to support themselves leaves them with less money in their pocket.

I disagree. If there is an objective correlation, regardless of past behaviour, then that factor should be included. Why do you think male drivers under 25 pay higher rates regardless of their driving behaviour?

They shouldn't - it is tremendously unfair to penalize one person what they might do. A 16 year old should not pay anymore than anyone else until they make a claim or get caught driving irresponsibly. At that point a large premium increase is justified.

My main beef with statistical groupings is they are completely arbitrary and not particularily accurate because they always exclude relevant data which cannot be verified independently.

[August1991]

Answer the poll with the understanding that if the cost of saving a life is high, each of our taxes must go up to meet the need.

In the US, on average, the value of a human life is around $10 million.

There are different ways of calculating this but the basic principle involves what costs an individual would assume to avoid death.

IOW, we regularly make choices that make death more likely and our governments regularly make choices that destine some people to death. Politicians can fix a road and make it safer or they can build a hospital. But they can't do both. One hopes that they choose to spend the money where the most lives will be saved and if they need a rough measure, they should spend $10 million if it means saving a life.

Edited September 18, 2007 by August1991

[Topaz]

Perhaps the answer to the PRICE of health care is PREVENTATION or people getting regular checkups yearly. Cancer can be beaten if people had their yearly checkups. People also know their own family history, so if you know heart disease runs in your family you should be eating high fatty foods all the time and not exercising. Last night on a US radio show coming out of TX., the guy who was from Buffalo NY, commented about the election here in Ontario and how the #1 topic on the election was healthcare and how Moore had made a big deal about the Canadian healthcare system and ones like it, like the British, who were trying to change it from a social system because they don't work. The other guy on the show commented that he wanted to see a doctor with a very big yacht because that made him believe that he was a good and busy surgeon. I could also say that perhaps he charges alot for his time and may only do less the ten operation a year!! I've heard about US companies coming over to Canada and setting up business that will help you get any operation done in the US and so this is to help Canadians that don't want to wait for their operations. This, I guess would help the waiting list skrink but I'm not sure how much that government insurance would pay for this outside of Canada.

[Wilber]

I recall some advocates of the gun registry saying that if it saved one life it would be worth it. Maybe the same criteria should be applied to health care. Of course at a billion per life the country would be bankrupt in a week.

[jennie]

.....all that plus the issue of smokers, for instance. Do we spend the same amount of resource capital on a smoke induced lung cancer as the lung cancer of a second hand smoke patient?

Dollars for lives? Can't answer that. Our dollar may change value with the markets tomorrow so the issue is what percentage of our actual resources should be used perhaps.

Actuarial studies have shown that in their lifetimes, smokers use no more health services than the average. That is because smokers die sooner, so the health care system saves years of health costs.

So forget that stupid argument!

[Renegade]

In the US, on average, the value of a human life is around $10 million.

There are different ways of calculating this but the basic principle involves what costs an individual would assume to avoid death.

IOW, we regularly make choices that make death more likely and our governments regularly make choices that destine some people to death. Politicians can fix a road and make it safer or they can build a hospital. But they can't do both. One hopes that they choose to spend the money where the most lives will be saved and if they need a rough measure, they should spend $10 million if it means saving a life.

It's an interesting read. Personally I think it overstates the value. For example someone with $1 million in the bank, may pay $100,000 to increase his chances of living from 20% to 21%, but is unlikely to spend his last $100,000 on increasing it from 29% to 30%.

In addition, all life is not equal. It makes no sense to spend $10 million to save a life which is at or near the end of its life expectancy.