It's true if YOU or I tried to walk across the border looking for a discount they wouldn't allow it. But the medical expenses (including taxation) of Canadian citizens are exponentially lower because they have costs under control.

When I went to NZ and got some stitches re-done they wouldn't let me use their national health service for free because I injured myself before entering the country. Cost me $150. When I got a particularly nasty piece of vana pulled out of my foot a few months back at a local ER the bill was $1500 and remained above $300 after insurance. For some lady with a half a medical degree, a scalpel, some tweezers, and a bit of gauze. That's what I call a racket.

An appropriate name might be Child Molester Politics:
Free candy up front, but the van ride goes to very dark places.

Don't take my word for it ...

Unlike in the United Kingdom, where health care is socialized and hospitals are run by the National Health Service,
in Canada health care is technically delivered privately, although given the Kafkaesque regulations and restrictions
that govern it, the system is by no means market-based. In fact, Canada’s government-controlled health-care system
has become more restrictive than communist China’s.

Debates about health-care policy typically revolve around three key metrics: universality, affordability, and quality.

Canada passes the first test with flying colors: Every resident of the country is insured under the CHA, with
covered procedures free at the point of delivery. While medical providers are independent from the federal
government, they are compelled to accept CHA insurance —and nothing else — by a prohibition on accepting
payments outside the national-insurance scheme so long as they wish to continue accepting federal health-transfer
funds. The spigot of money from Ottawa thus ensures a de facto government monopoly in the health-insurance market.

The CHA provides and ensures universal coverage from the top down. In Canada, the government determines what
procedures are medically necessary. Bureaucrats, not doctors, decide which procedures and treatments are covered
under the CHA — based on data and statistics rather than on the needs of patients. While private insurance does exist —
an OECD report found that 75 percent of Canadians have supplementary insurance — it applies only to procedures
and services that fall outside the CHA — including dental work, optometric care, and pharmaceutical drugs.

When it comes to affordability, the Canadian system also passes, if just barely. Canadians pay for health insurance
through their taxes; most never see a medical bill. But that doesn’t mean the system is affordable. Au contraire, it relies
almost entirely on current taxpayers to subsidize the disproportionately large health-care needs of elderly Canadians
in their final few years of life. Rather than pre-funding the system to deal with the coming tsunami of aging Baby Boomers,
Canada’s provincial governments pay and borrow as they go — and rank among the most indebted sub-sovereign
borrowers in the world. According to Don Drummond, an economist appointed by Ontario’s Liberal government to
help fix its finances, Canada’s largest province is projected to see health-care costs soar to the point where they will
consume 80 percent of the entire provincial budget by 2030, up from 46 percent in 2010.

In the meantime, to address scarcity in the health-care system, government central planners ration care and cap the
number of procedures offered in a given year, leading to queues, longer wait times, and a deterioration in the quality of care.
Speaking of which...

When it comes to the final metric, quality of care, Canada lags behind most other developed Western nations. A 2014 report
by the Commonwealth Fund ranked Canada tenth out of eleven wealthy countries (ahead of only the United States) in
health-care quality, and dead last in timeliness of care. The report showed that 29 percent of adult Canadians who fell ill
and needed to see a specialist waited two months or longer, and 18 percent waited four months or longer, compared with
6 percent and 7 percent of Americans, respectively.

Canada’s quality of care is poor, and it continues to deteriorate in the face of a looming fiscal crunch and further rationing.
In Canada’s single-payer system, citizens cannot pay directly for procedures, and they cannot purchase private insurance
to cover services provided by the CHA. They must instead wait in line or seek health-care services outside the country.

The System’s Mysteriously Enduring Popularity

Canadian health-care outcomes are relatively poor, and yet the state-controlled system is beloved by Canadians. A 2012 poll
by Leger Marketing in Montreal found that 94 percent of Canadians consider universal health care “an important source of
collective pride.” The reasons for this are complicated.

First, there is a well-propagated, pernicious myth that Canadians are pioneers in health care, and that access to care is a
basic human right. The universality of the system has become a key part of Canada’s national identity, thanks in no small
part to propagandists who ignore the widespread suffering wrought by the CHA in order to paint the country as some sort of
socialist utopia.

Second, the system’s costs are hidden. Many Canadians — and many progressives abroad — like to think that health care is “free”
in Canada, when in fact, Canadian taxpayers pay, on average, $10,500 per year for all their health-care needs. Canadians
simply have no concept of how much the services they consume cost, since the CHA prohibits providers from ever showing patients a bill.

Finally, there is the fact that Canada’s single-payer system is made possible only by an accident of geography: It is propped up
by the U.S. health-care industry next door, which provides a parallel private system for very sick and very rich Canadians while acting
as the driving force for global medical innovation.

Ultimately, the antidote for Canada’s poor health outcomes and long wait times has been for Canadians to seek care elsewhere.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446689/canadas-single-payer-health-care-system-cautionary-tale

1) Yeah at first I thought Macsak was just being a dick, but he did catch me giving evidence for what I remembered saying rather than what I actually wrote. 2) Taking a step back and actually attempting to listen to him helped me dig a little deeper and refine my point. It's clear we don't agree on this particular subject but at least now there's a tiny sliver of mutual respect that we might be able to improve on when it comes to other issues in the future. Not sure if that's how it's supposed to work but it's much better than the usual mud slinging that people have mistakenly labeled as debate recently.

1) Who's saying is isn't. . . 

2) Yup.  I'm often like that with people.  I might not agree with them, but when I point out things that are not logical or irrational in their thought process, I generally am met with a more stand-offish response.  When they realize that I'm not intending to pick on them and in a way trying to understand their point and to also help them maybe see things in a different (or corrected) light, then the tone changes. 

And yes, I wish the mutual respect thing was more common.  On all sides really.  I don't really care if people agree with me, but many don't even take the time to hear me out.  They are only listening to what I am saying/writing and looking for things to counter as opposed to listening, digesting and then seeing how to respond.  That said, I feel that so many tend to go with whatever the MSM, their trusted friend/advisor, etc tell them and not take the time to look into for themselves and come up with their own view point.  One of our true freedoms, which I see so many failing to exercise. 

you'd be surprised how much i agree with your point about things being worse than most in the general public believe (because that's how it's presented in MSM)
 

There you go.  Ruining your online image. . . 

Off topic, but it went there.  But whatever happened to those tour busses from WA that went over the border into Vancouver for drugs?  It was common when I lived in WA, but it's been over 10 years ago. 

Off topic, but it went there.  But whatever happened to those tour busses from WA that went over the border into Vancouver for drugs?  It was common when I lived in WA, but it's been over 10 years ago.

Drugs?  You'll have to be more specific ...   

Drugs?  You'll have to be more specific ...   

Prescription/legal

Not the whacky tobaccy and others.  That was easy enough to get in Seattle.  Or so I was told. . .

Prescription/legal

Not the whacky tobaccy and others.  That was easy enough to get in Seattle.  Or so I was told. . .

From a few Google results, it appears the general answer is Canadian pharmacists will only fill a prescription signed by a Canadian doctor. 

It's also against US federal law to buy pharmaceuticals outside the US.  That's why the Republicans put a bill up for a vote to allow buying from Canada.

Buying Prescription Drugs From Canada: Legal or Illegal?

But is it legal to buy medications from Canadian pharmacies?   

The answer is, technically no, but U.S. officials are allowing it to happen.

Under the Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987, it is illegal for anyone other than the original manufacturer to bring prescription drugs into the country. However, federal officials have decided to exercise "enforcement discretion" in dealing with prescription drugs brought across the border, provided the drugs are not narcotics or other controlled substances. This means that as long as a person brings back no more than a three-month supply for personal use, border officials generally look the other way, Thomas McGinnis, director of pharmacy affairs for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in March 2001. Patients generally may order refills in amounts up to a three-month supply without interference.

https://www.elderlawanswers.com/buying-prescription-drugs-from-canada-legal-or-illegal-1204

It's true if YOU or I tried to walk across the border looking for a discount they wouldn't allow it. But the medical expenses (including taxation) of Canadian citizens are exponentially lower because they have costs under control.

When I went to NZ and got some stitches re-done they wouldn't let me use their national health service for free because I injured myself before entering the country. Cost me $150. When I got a particularly nasty piece of vana pulled out of my foot a few months back at a local ER the bill was $1500 and remained above $300 after insurance. For some lady with a half a medical degree, a scalpel, some tweezers, and a bit of gauze. That's what I call a racket.

An appropriate name might be Child Molester Politics:
Free candy up front, but the van ride goes to very dark places.

Don't IV's cost only $2 to make, but the hospital charges you $600?

When I needed some stitches in my hand a few years back, I got the bill and the x-ray was something like $30 and the cost of the physician to do the stitches was something like $500! I swear the stitches took like 5 minute.  And the damn physician didn't even numb the entire area.   

Anyways, that disparity in the charge for what amounted to about 10 minute of work max being $500 always stuck with me.

I also have friends in the pharma business, both pharmacists and sales side.  You wouldn't believe the markup on some of the meds!  I mean yeah, I get the rules and how much the drug companies invest into developing the drugs and that much of that is losses by the drug companies over time, but dayum. 

All this discussion of drugs, doctor bills and hospital bills is depressing me. 

I have not received the hospital bill from my wife's last visit and her time in the physical rehab center. Three total weeks. Those are going to be the biggies. 

Already got the two ambulance ride bills at $1,200 each. One ride was 6 miles and the other was 8 miles. I have only received one of the two emergency room visits. That one was $1,500.

I know all these bills are due to arrive any day. Makes me sick just thinking about it...

All this discussion of drugs, doctor bills and hospital bills is depressing me. 

I have not received the hospital bill from my wife's last visit and her time in the physical rehab center. Three total weeks. Those are going to be the biggies. 

Already got the two ambulance ride bills at $1,200 each. One ride was 6 miles and the other was 8 miles. I have only received one of the two emergency room visits. That one was $1,500.

I know all these bills are due to arrive any day. Makes me sick just thinking about it...

Dayum Inspector. . . 

I recall when my dad was in rehab a while back.  I saw the bill when it came in.  Thankfully he retired from C&C HNL and has dual coverage. Anyways, I was going through the bill and just for REHAB, not the hospital stay before that, I saw things adding up to well into the 5 digits.  Then I got to the amount owed and it was something like $2.  I looked back and it was a box of Kleenex that I recall my dad requesting one night.  It made me laugh and strangely I have always remembered that. 

Anyways, hoping for better health for your wife AND YOU AS WELL!  Very important to take care of your physical and mental health! 

Don't IV's cost only $2 to make, but the hospital charges you $600?

If you ever read the report on the $6 Tylenol, it explains how the hospitals changed their accounting to assign overhead charges to every direct billing item they could.

You know how the garages now charge a hazardous material disposal fee, rag and miscellaneous supplies fee, etc?  Imagine if they billed like hospitals.  Those charges would be distributed according to what it took to deliver the service/part installation.  They would also include profit to pay for electricity, tools, building maintenance, insurance, etc.  Every overhead cost would be apportioned and assigned to everything you use/receive. 

It's the concept hospitals use.  For an IV, you're not just buying the IV unless you are stabbing yourself with the needle, using your own alcohol wipes, buying the needle, tubing and stand, performing the procedure in your house, and so on.

Military commissaries tack a surcharge onto every purchase to pay for their overhead costs, so the actual cost of the products can be easily compared to costs in other stores.  But that OH cost is always there, whether they itemize it separately or add it to the cost of each item as a mark-up.

Dayum Inspector. . . 

I recall when my dad was in rehab a while back.  I saw the bill when it came in.  Thankfully he retired from C&C HNL and has dual coverage. Anyways, I was going through the bill and just for REHAB, not the hospital stay before that, I saw things adding up to well into the 5 digits.  Then I got to the amount owed and it was something like $2.  I looked back and it was a box of Kleenex that I recall my dad requesting one night.  It made me laugh and strangely I have always remembered that. 

Anyways, hoping for better health for your wife AND YOU AS WELL!  Very important to take care of your physical and mental health!

Thanks drck!

I remember when wife #2 was in the hospital. We had double coverage and I got a bill for $5. When her best friend came to visit she grabbed a rubber glove, blew it up like a balloon and used a sharpie to draw a face on it. Yeah, they charged me $5 for the one glove.

Thanks drck!

I remember when wife #2 was in the hospital. We had double coverage and I got a bill for $5. When her best friend came to visit she grabbed a rubber glove, blew it up like a balloon and used a sharpie to draw a face on it. Yeah, they charged me $5 for the one glove.

Really?   

Seeing as how much they waste, that's ridonkulous! 

Really?   

Seeing as how much they waste, that's ridonkulous!

She was in for gall bladder removal (ala the old way where they cut half around your stomach) for a week and all I had to pay for was that damn glove. I just paid it.

She was in for gall bladder removal (ala the old way where they cut half around your stomach) for a week and all I had to pay for was that damn glove. I just paid it.

Yeah, I know. . . 

There are a couple reasons. When poor people get money they spend it, and when rich people get money they invest it. The former promotes healthy economic activity while the latter ties up wealth in speculative bubbles like Bitcoin, real estate, art, etc. Henry Ford, for all his faults, understood the importance of paying his employees enough to buy his cars. Today's wealthy are so consumed by greed that they are undermining the social fabric on which their wealth depends.

And many of them do accept welfare that dwarfs social services through juicy subsidies and regulatory capture. What is the military industrial complex after all than welfare for weapons manufacturers?

Etc., etc., etc. from the same poster.

Yeah,yeah yeah. All kinds of bad stuff is going to happen... so you say. Anyone espousing the view of some version of "the end of the economy" just put your money where your mouth is and give us the timeline of exactly what is going to happen when, so we can see if your claims turn out to be true or false. Or would you (for some reason... easy to guess) rather just make apocalyptic generic predictions based upon ideological propaganda viewpoints while providing no ability at all to test the validity of your claims? Or is it like "global cooling" "global warming" "climate change" and none of us will know if it is true or not because the forecast is for the year 2100? But it's bad, really bad, and we need the government to intervene immediately and take control of the situation... especially given the government track record of running things efficiently and without any corruption or waste.

"The highly paid journalists at NBC and MSNBC who keep blasting President Trump’s tax reforms won’t have to wait for their rates to go down to benefit, since parent company Comcast likes the plan so much it is sending out $1,000 checks to employees.

Comcast announced on Thursday that it would award special $1,000 bonuses to over one hundred thousand employees because of the passage of tax reform and the FCC's action on broadband.

"The cable company’s generosity presumably extends to seven- and eight-figure stars, who have been railing nonstop against the landmark GOP reform as benefiting the rich at the expense of the poor.

Officials at NBC News and MSNBC declined to say if news stars like Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell and Chris Matthews would try to make it up to tax policy “victims” by redistributing their $1,000 windfalls.

So, will the anti-Trump newsers pocket the cash?

“The tax bill does, indeed, raise some dilemmas for the MSNBC commentators, now that the newly passed tax bill will directly benefit their wallets. But I say they should go ahead and take the Comcast cash and then donate it to a charity that can help low income workers. That provides some degree of moral consistency for the MSNBC on-air talent who condemned the tax plan as a giveaway to the rich, an economic class that would surely include most of them,” media critic Jeffrey McCall told Fox News.

“That’s a lot of money,” MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said on “Morning Joe” Friday morning when discussing the bonuses that several companies are handing out."

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/12/22/nbc-news-msnbc-hosts-could-receive-cash-windfalls-when-trump-signs-tax-reform-love-to-hate.html