A proposal for national health care and how does it compare to Canada’s?

[Clete]

Look at this blueprint for a national health care plan for all Americans and tell me what you think. It was formulated by a group of doctors known as Physicians for a National Health Plan. Canadians, please weigh in and tell us how it compares to your country’s national health care. As a matter of fact tell us how you feel about your health care. When you answer, be sure to keep in mind that our health care isn’t available if you can’t pay for it like yours is. Here is the beginning of the proposal, but read the whole thing on the website. I think it would work for us. To those who think it can’t be paid for please read the whole proposal because it explains how it can be done.

<snip>
What is National Health Insurance?
April 14, 2003

Who is Eligible

Every person living in the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and i.d number once they enroll at the appropriate location. Social Security numbers may not be used when assigning i.d cards. No co-pays or deductibles are permissible under this act.

Benefits/Portability

This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, inpatient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics, and practices.

Conversion to a Non-Profit Health Care System

Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHI program. They shall not be prohibited from selling coverage for any additional benefits not covered by this Act; examples include cosmetic surgery, and other medically unnecessary treatments.

Cost Containment Provisions/ Reimbursement

The National USNHI program will annually set reimbursement rates for physicians, health care providers, and negotiate prescription drug prices. The national office will provide an annual lump sum allotment to each existing Medicare region, which will then administer the program. Payment to health care providers include fee for service, and global budgets.

The conversion to a not-for- profit health care system will take place over a 15 year period, through the sale of U.S. treasury bonds; payment will not be made for loss of business profits, but only for real estate, buildings, and equipment.<snip> more…

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what_is_national_health_insurance.php

[JanMichael]

1. Where can I sign up?!

I'll take a longer look at the site, my first take was that they had used real world numbers which is very positive, then try to see how it emulates the French system which is #1. So far it's similar but I'll have to lay them side by side.

One note for detractors: The facts regarding large scale National Healthcare systems are in our favor, not yours, k'?

Real world results over the ninny screams of "I had to wait 6 months for my wart to get removed" please.

Just the facts man.

[Clete]

2. I'll be looking forward to your assessment JanMichael.

I know you are very close to these social issues and are well informed. I hope that I am right that this could be the one.

[JanMichael]

4. This isn't a complex issue. The Facts are behind us.

We pay more and insure less. Our inflation is higher and we aren't as Healthy.

Where does that money go? You know where. To the Frists if America and they will defend "their" money with lies and conjecture.

Facts. They do not have them and we do. That's why so few are blind enough to argue this issue.

The only honest answer for them, the naysayers, to give would be to admit that they simply don't care to trade Dividends for Progress.

I might actually respect the one who would say such a thing...Obviously though there is little in "middle ground" with that person but at least he, or she, wouldn't be mistaken for Liberal/Progressive or Humane.

[cosmicdot]

3. a kick 'cause we need something

hopefully sooner than later

[Clete]

5. I hope someone cares about their health care

because our situation in this country is deteriorating pretty badly. If we get a Democrat in the WH in 2004, you need to know what you want him to do. I of course favor Howard Dean because as a doctor he has a first hand knowledge of the problems and favors a national health system as well.

[JanMichael]

6. Is his proposal close to a Single Payer System?

Doesn't really matter that much since anything that Bush does will screw everyone outside the top 5%...

[Clete]

7. I think it is but I'd have to go to his website to verify it.

He has a system he set up in Vermont to try to get a broader based coverage for everyone especially children, but even he has admitted that the states can't do it alone and they need help from the federal government.

[Clete]

8. His isn't as comprehensive as the plan outlined in

this post. Here is a link with other links to his health plan.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_health

His plan incorporates some medical systems in place already as contrary to the above which is really a nice plan. I think he is thinking of what he can ram through a Republican Congress. He is being practical. It would be a start anyway.

[SidDithers]

9. Here's Info about the Canada Health Act.

Health care in Canada is a provincial / territorial responsibility, but is mostly funded by the federal government through transfer payments to the provinces. In order for the provinces to recieve the transfer payments, they must provides services which meet federal guidelines. The 5 criteria of the Canada Health Act are:

1. public administration: the administration of the health care insurance plan of a province or territory must be carried out on a non-profit basis by a public authority;

2. comprehensiveness: all medically necessary services provided by hospitals and doctors must be insured;

3. universality: all insured persons in the province or territory must be entitled to public health insurance coverage on uniform terms and conditions;

4. portability: coverage for insured services must be maintained when an insured person moves or travels within Canada or travels outside the country; and

5. accessibility: reasonable access by insured persons to medically necessary hospital and physician services must be unimpeded by financial or other barriers.

more info at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/medicare/home.htm

From my own experiences - it's not perfect, but it's pretty good. It can move slowly at times, and quickly at other times. It's not as comprehensive as the plan outlined above, in that dental, eyeglasses and perscription drugs are not included. Many employers provide supplemental health benefits which do cover these items. And there are programs for low income families to get assistance with things like perscription drugs. The "medical emergency will bankrupt my family" scenario is not nearly as feared in Canada as in the US.

An example - I'm self employed, so don't have additional coverage for dental etc. My wife has put her career on hold for a few years to be at home with our 2 young kids. Last summer, her doctor found a lump in her throat. It took a couple days to get into an ultrasound clinic, about a week to get results from that (inconclusive), a week to get an appt with a surgeon for a needle biopsy, about 2 weeks to get pathology results from that (inconclusive). The decision was made to remove half of my wife's thyroid, and surgery was quick, 5 days after the decision was made. Pathology on the lump that was removed took about a month. Once it was determined that the lump was cancerous, surgery was again pretty quick, 3 or 4 days i think.

So, we had probably 6 appts with our family doctor and the surgeon, 2 surgeries with 2 days in hospital for each, plus pathology x 2 as well, all over a period of about 3-4 months. Total cost: $24 for 4 days of phone service in the hospital. If we'd had extra coverage, we might have had a private room in the hospital instead of a room with 3 others in it, but would not have received any different, or quicker, care.

Oh, and her thyroid medication is not covered, but is about $15 for a 3 month supply.

Sid

[Clete]

10. Do you like your system?

The reason I ask is I have known Canadians who have said that they would rather pay to get fast appointments. I think you guys don't realize that it's not that easy to pay for all your medical especially if you have a chronic disease and the appointments aren't that fast here either even when you do pay.

[SidDithers]

11. Yeah, I do.

From personal and family experiences, we've never encountered a situation where a delay has caused undue hardship or complications. If you need immediate treatment, you can get it. But for some services, there is a wait. Diagnostic imaging can be notoriously slow, depending upon the urgency required.

I think that the Universality provision is important to making the system workable. Being able to pay to get quicker access is, in my opinion and for lack of a better word, unfair. Rich or poor, citizen or immigrant, we're all equal under the Canada Health Act.

Maybe that principle of equality should be more pervasive in society.

Sid

[Clete]

12. It's good to know that your wife is doing fine.

You guys should never ever let the conservatives dilute your health system. They will try, but you can't let them.

[FlaGranny]

43. Your wife's scenario is

much like it would have taken place in the US, from my experience.

[JanMichael]

13. Hmmm.

Interesting that the anti-NHC peeps left this alone.

:kick:

[Clete]

14. Yeah, I thought they would be in here

trying to rip it apart. You know those trolls are PR people hired by the health industry to infiltrate boards like this to use scare propaganda to frighten people away from NH.

[TheYellowDog]

16. I am not absolutely opposed to a NHC system,

I'm just kinda happy with my insurance plan, Clete. :shrug:

[TheYellowDog]

15. I have a question

Is it moral, in a supposed free-market society, to ban private health insurers from operating? You would put a shitload of people out of jobs?

[redeye]

18. Three answers:

1) No.

2) Why should society be free-market here (I'm being a devil's advocate here, I don't like that part either)?

3) As long as there's redistribution of money in the form of welfare and of work in the form of cuts in the workweek, putting people out of work is positive because it gives them more free time.

[Clete]

22. Is it immoral for people and especially children to die from lack of

health care? Also the plan, has a fifteen year phase in plan to make the transition relatively painless while administrative workers find other employment. The insurance industry will always find a niche to sell their product so they won't be going out of business soon. The health care providers who are today employed by the industry will still be there, except that they will be paid by the government.

I know a woman whose husband died of multi-sclerosis without any medical care because there was no money to pay for his treatment and he didn't fit into any of the programs for people like him. So he died an agonizing death with not even access to painkillers. Is this moral when we supposedly have the best medical system in the world as far as cutting age technology?

Free market has no place in health care. The rules are different.

[redeye]

How...

How will letting private health care exist in addition to public, universal health care reduce quality of life or increase death rates?

[Clete]

29. Did you read the whole proposal?

There would be no for profit HMO's or insurers except for things like plastic surgery. Everyone will have access to health care as they always have, except that they don't have to worry about paying, except for their participation in the program. They can chose their own doctors and it will be available no matter how many times they change jobs.

The only people who are going to be out of money are the fat cat CEO's of these companies and the stockholders. CEO's will alway find another place and stockholders will buy different stock. No one will really lose and there will be everything to gain.

[redeye]

42. Yes, I did

I just don't understand why shouldn't private companies be allowed to offer for-profit health services. Ordinary people won't be bothered because they will still go for public health care, but rich people will at the same time be able to get private health care.

[Clete]

46. You know nothing is written in stone.

This is only a proposal and once things go through Congress they do get re-written and compromised in part. But, the privatized health care industry won't even let this much get through. Look what they did to Hillary. Their all or nothing approach has derailed every attempt to cover everyone with a health plan. Not only that, they are using your health care dollars to pay a very powerful lobbying team in Washington.

[loyalsister]

34. My questions

Is it moral to apply capitalism to people's well being (whereby providors intentionally try to provide the least amount of care in exchange for the greatest profit margin)? It has been repeatedly documented that this is how managed care operates in this country. Clauses in insurance coverage very often disallow provisions for things like transplants or other life saving procedures.
Your argument cuts the other way. A healthy population is a functional population. When people have health coverage they have the freedom to take risks. Get an education, start small businesses, change jobs if they'd like, etc. Can you imagine the pressure service occupations would feel if employees felt more like they could move on if they were unhappy? The cashiers at Walmart wouldn't be as worried about getting fired for trying to strike.
If healthcare and childcare were available, welfare would practically become a nonissue. It would be so insignifigant that it would almost be impossible for Republicans to legitimately complain about. People would need it less if healthcare were available without welfare.

[TheYellowDog]

17. I also have a problem with the enormous costs

that would burden us, stemming from other people who choose to abuse drugs like alcohol, nicotine, and cocaine, and resulting in large rehab bills that would be paid by the community at large.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

19. Answer me this one

Why is it that EVERY SINGLE INDUSTRIALIZED country besides the US has national healthcare? Why is it that we somehow can't afford it?

[TheYellowDog]

21. It's not that we can't afford it,

and it's not that I don't admire your Dean stump line, but why should we necessary do what other countries have done? You would put hundreds of thousands of people out of jobs with this plan, people who work for the private insurance companies.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

28. Thanks for the admiration, now cut the crap

I'll readily admit that I heard this on the debate the other night. I couldn't remember who said it, but it did get me thinking. And yeah, I like Dean just fine, but I'd also be fine (to a lesser extent) with Kerry, maybe even Edwards, Clark, and definitely Kucinich or Sharpton or Moseley-Braun if any of them stood a chance in hell. Now that we've dispensed with the stealth-accusation about stealthy support of one candidate over another, let's discuss the real issue at hand.

Before I was laid off, my insurance premiums rose by about 20% each year for two successive years. There are many millions of Americans in the same boat I was in. I see you saying fuck 250 million Americans, so long as the insurance workers have their jobs. I hate to baldly expose the idiocy of your statement, but there you have it.

While we're at it, do you support NAFTA and free trade in general? Careful how you answer.

Moreover, don't you think that we should make cigarette smoking mandatory in this country? If we didn't, the health nuts might be responsible for lots and lots of farmers and manufacturing workers losing their jobs.

Looking forward to your reply.

[Clete]

37. It's already been proved that this won't happen.

Insurance companies will find something else to insure. They always do. Insurance companies really should only be insuring for the unusual the disaster. This is their function. Since health care is something that everyone is going to need eventually, the model doesn't apply and that is why our health system is in such shambles.

[redeye]

23. We can't afford it...

...because we have loony libertarians who think that an average tax rate of 17% is too high (why do I remember learning in econ that in most modern, moderately capitalistic societies, government expenditure is 30% of the GDP, and hence the average tax rate with a balanced budget is 30%?), and because most Americans value money more than they do life.

[redeye]

20. And how high would these costs be?

I don't see France and Canada having too many problems with universal health care. And besides, the costs don't really matter unless property rights are more important than people's lives, which they are not.

[TheYellowDog]

24. Well, I see that you don't value property rights.

It's all about you, I guess.

[redeye]

26. Don't I?

I don't value them as highly as I do life, that's all. Basically, I think that the government should protect the following rights in descending order: life, liberty, prosperity, property, and ideology. It's not that I don't support property rights in theory; it's just that in practice I'd rather trade them off in part than trade liberty or life or prosperity in part.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

31. You've already stated that it's all about YOU

You are happy with your personal insurance plan. You've already stated that, leaving the clear implication that you care nothing about the common good. Ergo, you're not qualified to speak on this subject.

[Lars39]

25. I'd be happy to be so burdened.

I am looking at a $4000 hospital bill for an outpatient surgery. I am going to spend 2-3 days in the hospital for the next surgery. Wonder what THAT bill will be? I think there's enough money to pay for insurance for everyone in this country, if the military spending is cut.

[TheYellowDog]

27. Yes,

and then what happens when we get attacked again? You are never going to be able to slice defense in a post-9/11 world.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

30. Well golly

Maybe we could cut nuclear weapons research and production, and make the world a better place in so doing.

Or maybe we could quit making the rest of the world want to attack us because we're taking over the world one piece at a time.

You'd do well to construct arguments that go deeper than surface-level, freeper-like emotional response.

[TheYellowDog]

32. It's funny for you to chastise

ME for emotional responses. All of the arguments in this thread put forward by you and others are purely emotional. Facts aren't important. A lot of the defense budget is tied up in troop pay, good housing for them, education, and health care. But, those things don't matter to you, right?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lars39]

33. Yeah, ratchet up the fear.

Wait 'til you have cancer or some other disease, but no insurance. The states aren't receiving the money necessary to implement the Homeland measures now. The states are either going further in debt to conform, or they are cutting corners. I feel safer. :eyes: Lot of standard points you mention.

[redeye]

45. We won't

The military can't protect the USA from terrorist attacks. It can from conventional warfare, but terrorism ain't conventional warfare. The best way to protect the USA is not to continue funding a military juggernaut that then doesn't produce sufficient results but to cut the conventional military almost to shreds and invest in intelligence services.

[Clete]

35. I have heard all these arguments before.

These are the talking points the industry uses to poison health care in this country. There is no evidence that drug abuse happens because of free health care. As a matter of fact, if you apply the rules of logic to your argument, you will discover a big fallacy there.

Communities are already burdened with the uninsured using emergency hospitals as clinics for non-emergency ills because it is the only way that they can get care.

[sandnsea]

38. We ALREADY pay for that

First, most people's health problems are related to their lifestyle in one way or another. You'll pay for people who pig out at McDonald's, end up with diabetes and heart disease, but have a hissy fit over treating a drug addict.

Second, the cost of treating people without health insurance or money to pay for care is already absorbed by everybody else anyway. The cost of treatment goes up, insurance pays more, health premiums go up. Not to mention taxes for drug/alcohol treatment. And you can just kick nicotine right out of there because cigarette taxes are there specifically to cover increased health costs. The community at large already pays for all of this in one way or another.

Third, if we brought VA, military and workmens comp money into the picture, we'd probably see even more savings for business and better care for them as well.

My biggest reservation about a national health plan is that I've had health care at a military hospital. I was not impressed and I really wouldn't want to see that as a national standard. It's better than nothing, but not a whole lot better. If my son had had to depend on military hospital care instead of being flown to a civilian hospital, I have no doubt he would have died. That's the most important factor in this whole debate. What would health care, under a government system, really look like.

[Clete]

40. The beauty of the system outlined above by these physicians is

that the health care providers, doctors, clinics and hospitals are still privately owned. Every year they negotiate their fees so that everone is getting what they need, patient and physician. The difference is that they send their bills to a single payer, who reimburses them. In the military the health care providers are hired and payed for by the military and operate more like an HMO so the quality of care goes down.

Incidentally, many physicians are fed up with our system. The private insurers are slow at paying and often don't pay at all because they decide it's not a necessary treatment or procedure. This system outlined above leaves the decision to the physicians as to how much care is needed. Many physicians are dropping insurance and HMO's and demanding cash up front because they are tired of not being properly reimbursed for their services.

[sandnsea]

62. The system is broken

I agree with that. I just worry about what we would actually end up with under a single payer plan, because of my experience with the military. It wasn't the doctors or other staff, they were great. They just didn't have the time or the newest technologies to give the same quality of care civilian hospitals had.

Also here in Oregon, the Oregon Health Plan has had some weird consequences. Or maybe it was their plan all along. But no matter the size of town I've ever lived in, there was always 2 or 3 separate doctor's offices or clinics. Now, each small town has one clinic and I think all the doctor's have to practice out of it. It's like the State designated clinic or something and in order to get Medicaid reimbursement you have to be in it. You'd think a doctor would open up an office to cater to insured people, but they don't here. I don't really understand it, maybe it's just not allowed. Now here, there's alot of doctors and the technology seems fine, but the care is weird. It's like everybody gets a pain pill or an anti-depressant and that's medical care. It's just strange. I go to another town to get health care, alot of people do actually. That's another reason I hesitate about how this would all end up delivering service. And Oregon's system is having serious financial problems and so is Vermont's, although you don't hear about it unless you actually make an effort to go read recent news reports.

Still, I certainly think it's worth giving it a try. We just can't keep going the way things are.

[Clete]

63. One think Dr. Dean said back when he was

Governor of Vermont was that the states can't do it alone. They need federal assistance to make the system work.

[alarimer]

39. my father

who is a complete right winger actually told me a couple of weeks ago that he thinks we need a system like Canada's. I almost fell out of my chair I was so shocked. I agree that something has to change and I think a single-payer system is probably the way to go. I don't know how the Canadian system works or how successful it is but it must be better than what we have with spiraling costs and decreasing benefits.

[HEyHEY]

41. Canadian here

For starters our health care isn't as good as people think. It is in shambles currently and can be quite a nightmare if you need something. We don't get free dental or eyecare. And I pay about $70 bucks every two months I think to be apart of it. This plan seems pretty good though.

[Clete]

44. Could you elaborate what you mean by shambles?

I pay $171.00 a month for a policy that I can't use because I can't afford the deductible, yet I keep it in case I get cancer or something, then I will have to find the $1,000 somewhere. $35.00 a month sounds good to me. I don't get dental or eyecare on my policy either. I have been putting off a surgery I need because I don't have the $1,000 and 20% co-pay.

[HEyHEY]

47. Sure

The waiting lists are so big for seriously important operations. If you go into an emergency room, you could wait for hours. It's because for yers the system was abused by people...I have friends who would go to the doctor because they had a cold.There's nothing you can do for a cold...why the fuck are they going to a doctor? So things like that had us spending too much money, so now the system is broke. And they are re-building it. But certain provinces have different ideas, and the Feds cut a lot of funding and downloaded the cost. Now some provinces have user fees, some don't. Some provinces have better/worse equipment, Some charge $100 per ambulance ride. It's all very dis-organized right now.

[FlaGranny]

49. You could wait for hours in an emergency room?

Ain't that a shame. Every time I've had experience with an emergency room, the wait has NEVER been less than 5 hours, sometimes much longer.

[HEyHEY]

50. yeah but I mean even with a dislocated shoulder

or a pellet in your chest

[HEyHEY]

51. there was a story two years ago

ABout a woman who gave birth, by herself in a hallway of a hosptial because there was not enough staff around and she couldn't find anyone

[FlaGranny]

52. A pellet in your chest, you might get in

right away. If you have a dislocated shoulder or a broken arm you sit and wait just like everyone else does. A heart attack or dangerous physical signs will get you in right away. Anything else, you wait your turn, and I've heard of waits from 4 to 8 hours and longer.

I've seen folks sitting with blood soaked bandages. They will give you a wheelchair to sit in if you look like you feel pretty bad. But the ONLY thing that gets you in immediately, if you walk in to an emergency room, is dangerous vital signs, i.e., you may be in danger of immediately dropping over. An ambulance ride to the hospital will get you in faster, though.

[Clete]

53. Well, I can't sympathize.

The last time I was in an emergency room, some guy was bleeding in the waiting area and another had a broken leg. They had to wait their turn like everyone else. The only time I ever saw an instant admission where somebody went in before anyone else, it was because a woman had a heart attack in the waiting room. They took her right in thank god. I don't think Canada has worse emergency rooms than we do. Wouldn't you resent having to pay for this bad service though?

[HEyHEY]

55. Oh yeah

People are furious right now

[Clete]

58. You know you guys are spoiled.

If your system get destroyed, you will have to pay to be treated like that. I am sure the snake oil salesmen (insurance) are already sowing the seeds of discontent among Canadians. They will tell you that private insurance will change all that. It won't, trust me. It seems your system needs some adjusting, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

[FlaGranny]

56. I was taken right in to the emergency room

one time. I had an acute attack of pancreatitis. You can't believe the pain that causes unless you've experienced it. My BP was 220/120 from the pain. As soon as I was ruled out for a heart attack, though, I waited a loonngg time in the emergency room before anything else was done. Finally, after about 4 hours I got a shot of morphine.

[FlaGranny]

48. I don't get dental or eyecare either, unless I pay extra,

AND I would kill to pay $70 every two months for my health care. I pay nearly $400 a month just for myself, and I don't go for care when I need to, because I also have to pay a $20 copayment for the doctor, etc., etc. So I pay a lot more than you do and I haven't seen a doctor in almost two years (I have elevated BP, cholesterol, osteoarthritis, and multiple sclerosis), because everything costs extra. Last time I saw my doctor he said come back in three months. Fat chance!

[Clete]

54. I used to pay that.

I found out I could get a PPd. for less, but it doesn't cover a whole lot either, but it will help if you have a catastrophic disease. You should look into it. I figured $400 a month was $5,000 a year I was getting nothing for.

[FlaGranny]

57. I hope I don't sound too stupid, but

what's a PPd? The old brain don't won't like it used to. :-)

[Clete]

59. Damn I forgot.

It's preferred participating something or the other. It's not much different than an HMO except that you can use it for any participating physician instead of having one assigned to you. It also pays very little of anything. If I go to the doctor I pay for everything out of my pocket because the deductible is so high, yet I still save money over the $400 a month job.

[FlaGranny]

60. Ah, got ya - a preferred provider organization.

I've had one before. If I got one with a high deductible it might be cheaper, but with my preexisting conditions, I could get in a lot of trouble coming up with a big deductible. Anyway, in less than two years I'll be eligible for Medicare. Private policies I've checked have been even more expensive.

Edit: I think that will cost $57 a month and the deductibles and copays won't be too difficult in that case. Medicare supplementary insurance I've looked into is pretty expensive too, most costing $300 a month or more. I might have to take an HMO but I hope not. I hate begging for care and waiting for them to approve of the care your doctor wants to give you.

[Clete]

61. If you do medicare, like my husband, he pays $146.75

for the AARP copay. This is the only thing we pay out of pocket except his prescriptions and the Medicare premium, which is deducted from his Social Security. His medical bills average $3,000 a month so you can imagine we'd be living under a bridge without Medicare. Also the first time you enroll in a copay they can't deny you for pre-existing conditions, in California anyway.

[FlaGranny]

64. Thanks, Clete. I knew AARP had a supplemental

but I forgot all about it. I'll look into that too. I expect it will be many years (at least I hope) before my medical bills would go that high monthly. My conditions are all "mild", but you havta know the insurance companies don't care. My husband is lucky to have VA care, which so far has been extremely good. He pays for it because of his status, but it costs probably what we'd pay for a bad insurance policy. He's had cancer and arteriosclerosis. Cancer "cured." Arteriosclerosis under control. He will be eligible for Medicare in 10 months. I'll be eligible in 21 months. I hope we make it without any major medical disasters.

[MrPrax]

65. You Live In A Premium Province?

I don't pay premiums as it is part of the taxes...you must be in BC, Alberta or Ontario?

Premiums are based on income...if you do about 35 bucks a month, then you are an income earner over the top subsidies.

Much less if you are a low income person and family

...And don't fall into the trap of thinking the Canadian health system is a right off.

It's not in a shambles for instance and waiting lists are to be expected if EVERYONE is covered as opposed to a 'rationed' system where the lists are going to be shorter because those who aren't covered just go without or die...