Canadian Auto Insurance

All car insurance is the same, right? Wrong. Anyone from the United States moving to Canada or moving from Canada to the United States will find that car insurance in both countries is different. It may be hard to fathom how there can be variations in car insurance since there seems to be enough stipulations with car insurance the way it is but, being that the two countries are different, there are differences to be aware of.

Canadian car insurance basics

Let's say you're a U.S. Citizen moving to Canada. You know that in the United States you have an insurance card. In Canada, you do receive something similar that goes by a different name. It is called your Canadian Inter-Province Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Card, or your "pink card." As far as how you use the card and carry it, it works the same in both countries, such as for showing proof of insurance upon request and using it in case of an accident.

However, the way injury claims are handled can vary based on the province. A good example of this is the fact that Quebec car insurance requires that injury claims are taken care of by a government program, rather than a private insurer. If the accident or the injury due to an accident takes place outside of Quebec, then that is when the private insurer takes care of the claim.

The Canadian government requires that private insurers within the territories and provinces have a standard set of terms and conditions available with the policy. This means that all terms and conditions will be consistent between all of the insurance companies. After this point, the provincial and territorial governments then set additional standards and what they decide to be the lowest limits available for liability coverage on the vehicle.

Another difference you will find between U.S. car insurance and Canadian car insurance is that Canadians do not receive printed policies when the insured is covered under a government insurer. The vehicle registration is actually proof of that insurance since the registration to the car cannot be drawn up without some kind of insurance being placed upon the vehicle.

U.S. Car Insurance Basics

Where Canada requires drivers to be insured by either a private insurer or a government insurer, the United States is chalk full of private insurers that are regulated by their respective states. It is required in most states than an individual carry at least some degree of liability insurance. Liability covers bodily injury liability. Many individuals who do not have liens on their vehicles will carry liability insurance because it is more cost effective than full coverage. Full coverage is required when there is a lien on the car. This usually means that the car is owned by a bank, such as when a person has acquired the car through financing and has not yet paid the car off.

Something else in the U.S. that is different than in Canada is that the Canadian Provinces of Manitoba, Quebec, and Saskatchewan do not allow an individual to sue for pain and suffering when a motor vehicle accident has occurred. The only way to do this is if any permanent disfigurement has occurred, severe disability, very severe mental or psychological damage, or death.

Similarities

Nevertheless, there are similarities between the insurance of both countries and that is the fact that there are many different deductibles and price ranges available. That means each person has their own policy that they carry that can be different than everyone else?s in terms of the rate, the deductible, and the coverage. Most importantly, both of these car insurance systems work to ensure the insured are taken care of.

Frequently Asked Questions

QUESTION:
Can I get canadian auto insurance with an American drivers license?
I just moved to Canada from Washington State. I haven't been able to get my canadian driver's license but I NEED insurance on a vehicle I just bought. Can I get auto insurance with my Washington license or do I need a canadian license?
- ANSWER:
  you probably need a Canadian license
QUESTION:
Do canadian auto insurance company absorb the first traffic ticket?
I got my first traffic ticket for failing to stop on red right turn. I will get 3 points off with this ticket if i lose, will auto insurance companies forgive this first offence???
- ANSWER:
  They will hold it against you for at least the next 3 years.
QUESTION:
Does daily commuter to Canada from US need buy separate Canadian Auto Insurance?
If I live in US but work in Canada, do I need buy a separate Canada auto insurance in addition to my US auto insurance for daily commute into Canada from US (cross the border everyday)?

Or can I just use my US auto insurance to cover my everyday driving in Canada as well?
- ANSWER:
  Yes. You are using your car for work, not as a tourist.
  
  You'll be filing for income tax twice, of course, in spite of your work visa.
QUESTION:
What Canadian online Auto Insurance company can give me immediate coverage.?
Most companies want an application filled out, then mailed, then 2 weeks to activate. Please be specific. Thanks
- ANSWER:
  I don't know about Canada, but I have purchased several policies online here in the U.S. and as long as you pay for it with a credit card or a check then they can print you out a receipt and you have instant coverage. I would do some more searching like "instant coverage online in Canada."
QUESTION:
UK citizen needing Canadian auto insurance (help!)?
Im in Montreal temporarily and will be on a few occassions over the next year. So having a car already here in Montreal I decided to try and make the most of it while Im here. So I called RBC from the UK and received a quote for auto insurance, "just give us a call when you get here and quote this reference number" said the nice voice at the other end. All was well and good. I call RBC today and all of a sudden I need a Quebec driving licence. Ive now called a few places and all are saying I need Quebec licence. I can rent a car if I like and be insured, but cant drive my own car? Can anyone advise if there is anything I can do do to obtain insurance while in Canada.
Whaaaaat the fuuuu?!!
- ANSWER:
  Ignore Kinley, he's the resident spammer. Automobile insurance in Canada is a provincial jurisdiction, therefore the rules in Quebec do not apply in Ontario which do not apply in British Columbia, etc. The rules in Quebec are pretty cut and dry when it comes to needing a Quebec licence, and it appears that everyone is applying the same rule uniformly. I know in British Columbia you can register a vehicle with a foreign licence (you would need to obtain a B.C. licence within 90 days of taking residency in the province), however the cost to transport a vehicle to British Columbia, have it inspected and registered and insured and then transport it to Quebec would be prohibitive to say the least. Plus once the vehicle has been in Quebec for more than 30 days it must be registered and insured in Quebec, so it would ultimately be a lesson in futility. The Quebec version of the Canadian Automobile Association is used to dealing with International Driver's Lincences, so they may be your best (and probably last) hope. Try them at:
  
  www.caaquebec.com
QUESTION:
who governs canadian auto insurance?
- ANSWER:
  Try reading this! I found it online,
  
  http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/1999/propertye.html
  
  Good Luck!
QUESTION:
What does Canadian Direct Insurance (Alberta) Auto SEF CDI 1 Travel Protection cover me for? US Rental Cars?
Renting a car in the states, have collision, liability etc on my policy along with these SEF's. Do I need to buy any coverage in the states? SEF CDI 1, 2 and 3, SEFs # 18,20, 23A, 27, 35, 37, 44
- ANSWER:
  SEF 27 is legal liability coverage for damage to non-owned vehicles. This information is from an Alberta government website.
  Why has your insurance broker not explained the coverages, which should all be listed by name in your policy, not just number?
  As a retired Manitoba broker, I can tell you I never let a policy holder leave without having an explanation of the basics of his policy. I can also tell you it went in one ear ona out the other for many people. More than once the signature on the application was used to protect brokers from accusations that limits or charges for optional coverages were never explained. This is the problem with on-line coverages. 9 times out of 10 the person on the phone is not licenced at all, which is why you are occasionally referred, right at the end, to a licenced broker, or, more often, the person is only a level 1 broker, working in a boiler room with several level one brokers, under the supervision of a level 2 or 3 broker.
QUESTION:
I need Auto insurance for the Yukon?
I am looking for a canadian auto insurance company for coverage in the yukon. Having trouble finding one online. Can anyone help? Thanks
- ANSWER:
  possibly check with your local yellowpages for broker in your area. maybe the company you have property insurance with also offers auto insurance.
QUESTION:
Auto Insurance kicked the entire family off the policy because a secondary driver is guilty of carelessdriving?
A family with 3 vehicles and 4 drivers is now removed from Insurance for good because of one careless driving and no previous accidents. It is heard of and will it effect the rates for the other drivers once they change insurance companies?

In addition, this Canadian insurance company does not want to repair the damages of the vehicle or agree to any claims

Any feedback will be appreciated. Thanks
- ANSWER:
  Insurance companies have underwriting rules and if those rules state they will not insure a driver with a Careless Driving conviction then that is their rules. Keep in mind a Careless Driving conviction is a SERIOUS conviction. Most insurers will not insure someone with a Careless driving conviction, and the ones that will is going to surcharge you at least 50% for that conviction alone. It would help to know which province you live in (saying a "Canadian insurance company..." isn't very helpful) would be helpful, however I'm guessing you're not in B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Quebec because those provinces have government run auto insurance schemes and would not drop you unless your license was invalid. In the other provinces with private insurance schemes you may want to speak to your broker/agent about either: a) excluding the driver with the Careless Driving conviction from the policy completely (the driver will not be able to drive any of the vehicles); b) insuring the driver with the Careless Driving conviction and one of the vehicles elsewhere and excluding the driver from the policy insuring the other 3 drivers and two vehicles (person will only be able to drive one vehicle but they'll still be able to drive). This way the insurer will still renew the policy, even if for only some of the vehicles. This is not a guarantee that they will go along with this but if you're looking to stay with the same insurer this may be the only card you have to play.
  As for your other point about the company does not want to repair the damages, what was the reason the company gave for not wanting to cover the damages? Was the driver's license suspended at the time of the accident?
QUESTION:
Have someone deal with this auto insurance companies in Canada? who do you recommend?
pcinsurance.ca
insurancehotline.com
kanetix.ca
carinsurance.ca
belairdirect.com
insuranceq.com

listed here http://autoinsurancecanada.info/canadian_auto_insurance_companies.htm
- ANSWER:
  I reocommend RBC insurance, they were 0 dollars cheaper then the next guy. Just get a online insurance quote. I got one from http://www.auto-insurance-knowledge.com/24-hour-insurance-quote-auto.html
  
  This compared all the major companies and gave me the 4 best prices!
  
  Hope that helps
QUESTION:
Has anyone used Canadian Direct Insurance and experienced any issues or problems?
They offer great rates for auto insurance but before considering switching to them I'm curious as to whether other people in Alberta or British Columbia have had pleasant or unpleasant experiences with them.
- ANSWER:
  I don't know anything about that particular company, but you could probably check their stability with A.M. Best or Standard & Poor's.
  
  Does your province have an Insurance Regulator? You may be able to check with them for consumer complaints against the company.
QUESTION:
Any good online place for auto insurance for canadians?
like esurance.com for americans...or even just a a place to search all the providers
Cory, I see how you got over 200 points...stupid no good answers hahaha

People, post places you know of
- ANSWER:
  Why don't you just get out your phone book and call an insurance agent in your town?
QUESTION:
UK Auto Insurance, for a recent arrival from Canada?
Hi,
I moved to the UK as a company transfer from Toronto, Canada about 6 months ago. I'll be staying on for a few more years so am planning to buy a used automobile (BMW). Any tips and advice on getting the best insurance deal, for someone in my situation?
I'm 39, male, have a clear record, and could get insurance papers from my prior Canadian insurer. I do plan to get a UK driving licence very soon, prior to my purchase date.

Thank You!
- ANSWER:
  The UK licence is really a must to get a lower insurance premium. It is going to be high though as you will start with no No Claims Bonus.
  Under normal circumstances your Canadian recod will count for nothing.
  My best tip is that you need to talk to a number of Car Insurance Brokers and given the full info they are the best to help you.
QUESTION:
u.s. allsate auto insurance / is this valid to drive to canada for holiday ?
is the us automobile insurance valid to drive to canada ? do you need any extra insurance or short term canadian supplemental insurance to meet any canadian insurance laws ?
- ANSWER:
  Your U.S. insurance is just as valid in Canada as it is there. Same for Canadians driving in the States. By the way, Allstate operates in Canada as well.
QUESTION:
What is the Process of bringing my Canadian Fiancee to the United States?
I need some help understanding this process! What Visa does she need to apply for, and will she be able to work in the US until our wedding (in 2 years)?? Will she be able to get American Auto Insurance with a Canadian drivers license?
- ANSWER:
  She cannot work in the US until you are married unless she can get her own work visa
QUESTION:
Do canadians have free auto insurance too?
or just free healthcare?
I wanna move to Canada...lol
Oh BTW for those of you who said Canadians have long waits at the DR, are you Canadian? Do you Really know?
Watch the movie Sicko
trust me you will be left speechless....
- ANSWER:
  no way. but not a bad idea...
QUESTION:
I am moving to Loganville, GA soon. Any suggestion about banks and auto insurance companies?
I am a Canadian. How soon should I get a new driver's license upon arrival? and for my car to get a new GA tag ?
- ANSWER:
  most states require that you get your license there within 30 days as well as your auto insurance. call an independent agent to find your insurance. they can look at many companies to find the best fit for you as well as the best rates and discounts. it is also good to have a local agent when you need any help with your policy or any claims.
QUESTION:
Auto Insurance Survey for Canadians-For a College Essay?
I am doing an Essay on Public VS. Private car insurance in Canada, If any Canadians who Read this would copy and paste this form, then fill it out and submit it as an answer that would be very much appreciated. Also any information you have about public vs. private insurance, such as your person experience's with them, or how your insurance might vary from the norm would be helpful.
Thank you.

This is an Example Filled out by my Dad:

Insurance information needed

Public or Private Insurance: Private
Insurance Company: Lombard
Age: 55
Gender: Male
number of Traffic Convictions in past 3 years: 1
At Fault Accidents in past 3 years: 0
not at fault in last 3 years: 3
Make: Chrysler
Model: Pacifica
Year: 2004
Rent, Lease or Own: own
Do you have collision?: Yes
if so, then Deductible: 500
License type: G
years licensed: 39
Marital Status: Divorced
Cost per year: 00

additional Information:
Multi Line Policy: house and car insured for one lump sum

here is the Form to Fill out, Thank you very much again for your help

Insurance information needed

Public or Private Insurance:
Insurance Company:
Age:
Gender:
number of Traffic Convictions in past 3 years:
At Fault Accidents in past 3 years:
not at fault in last 3 years:
Make:
Model:
Year:
Rent, Lease or Own:
Do you have collision?:
if so, then Deductible:
License type:
years licensed:
Marital Status:
public or private:

additional Information:

And I forgot to ask,
Please include the province and town in which you live
- ANSWER:
  That's way too much info for anyone to want to post on a public forum.
QUESTION:
good auto insurance?
i have quite a complicated issue with insurance
1. im CANADIAN andi go to school in the states but do not hold a Michigan drivers license -however i CAN get one
2. i have no document history in michigan so this puts me at a high premuim

so is it possible for the insurance companies to insure me in michigan and use my canadian driving history....im 21 years old female...also i was thinking if it is possible to put it under my parents plan who are canadians but if they could purchase an american insurance plan and use there canadian driving history to get a quote...thanks!!
- ANSWER:
  You really need to talk to an insurance company to find out all this. Usually they won't because of the status of the people...like your parents aren't citizens of the state and that is not legal here anyhow. Maybe so close to Canada it may be. So, it is worth asking. I think you'll have to buy it on you and males of your youth are the highest risk and the states and the areas base premiums on the probability of an accident happening to you and that is based on the amount of actual accidents that did happen in the past...that is how some areas have lower premiums than others do. Lets say NYC, you'd have to be really wealthy to own a car and insure it right? Good luck and I pray that things fall in place for you and you will be able to drive soon. Miss Mary
QUESTION:
Vacationing to Canada but insurance will only cover for 30 days.?
I'm planning to vacation to Canada for more than 30 days but my auto insurance is only willing to insure me for said time once I get over the border. Is there any other way to insure my automobile without getting a Canadian license/plates? Thanks.
- ANSWER:
  That's odd. Your US car insurance should cover you for long as you are in Canada. As long as you are not staying in Canada, you should be good to go. Consider finding a different insurance company.
QUESTION:
Can I Canadian work in Insurance in the U.S?
I am a lic. insruance agent with an OTL and I also held my RIBO 6 months ago I am considering moving to the U.S in the next 6 months is there any way that I would be able to legaly continue my career in the U.S? Is it hard if I have to get Lic. in the U.S for insurnace when I say Insurance I mean property and auto
- ANSWER:
  Each state does the licensing. There is no restriction on citizenship to sell insurance.
QUESTION:
american car insurance while living in canada?
i am an american citizen, living in toronto............can i have american auto insurance while living in canada?.........

i have an ontario drivers license and ontario auto plates...........

help me please........these canadian rates are outrageous
- ANSWER:
  Maybe you could get a quote from insurers you get from yellow pages,. the internet, the TV, the radio.
QUESTION:
aussie tourist: I want to buy a car & drive it to Alberta, Canada. what's my best options for ins & reg??
I will be living in Alberta for 6 months. I want to travel within the USA for one month prior to arriving in alberta and possibly 2 months after i leave alberta. Can i get auto insurance through a canadian ins company if i want to register it in california?
also can anyone suggest the names of any decent insurance companies to go through. i am 23 and have a good driving record
- ANSWER:
  As far as I know the INS here in Alberta will cover you in the states as well. However, a good option would be to phone or check out: www.ama.ab.ca it's the Alberta Motor Association. I personally have it, it's a wonderful company for INS and travel issues. Plus they're all super friendly and helpful. You can also pick up a booklet for any province and/or state you plan on driving in, and it tells you all the best places to stay and eat and visit.
QUESTION:
Car Insurance in US?
My truck is registered in NF Ontario with auto insurance, I need to know
1- Can I get insurance from a US company if its registered in Ont? My husband is a US resident, Im Canadian

2- what needs to be done to register the truck into the US? What does it cost?
thanks
- ANSWER:
  To register it in the US it would have to be registered to your husband's US address. That means actually going through customs and having the truck imported into the US and titled there. Are you separated? Or do you just mean he is a US citizen? If he doesn't actually live in the US, the whole question is moot. Does he get the truck as part of the property settlement? If the truck is yours, you are resident in Ontario, it has to be registered and insured in Ontario. Insurance companies are licenced by provincial and state authorities. US companies cannot insure vehicles registered in Canada unless they have branches in Canada, licenced to insure in Canada, like State Farm. In that case, A Canadian licenced broker, not an American one would issue the policy. Dem's da law!!
QUESTION:
Will car insurance be regulated next like Canada?
They have a government group called ICBC that dictates what auto insurance carriers may pay out; everything thing goes through the government. My friend was in a very bad accident and has been waiting more than a year 1/2 to get even 5,000 for a major back injury with two doctors (1 american 1 canadian) on board proving she has to change her entire field of work and will have pain for teh rest of her life.

Isn't it easier to argue with an insurance rep than a government buereaucrat sitting behind that phone?

What are your thoughts? Will this regulation be next??
- ANSWER:
  I seriously doubt it. Insurance is managed per state. Each state has an Commissioner of Insurance and the Board of Insurance that regulates who can sell auto and home insurance in each state, what is required for coverage amounts, and they even work with your states DMV to keep rates competitive based on the area that you live in. If you live in a major city but you live downtown, your rates may be less than say someone that lives in the suburbs, about 15 minutes from downtown, that must take the highway or main road into the city every day to work. Most rates are based per city and county and by the "law of averages" for each. This means that rates are based on the incidents within a given area, as I demonstrated above. Those that live in or around major roadways that are considered high traffic areas are most likely to have an accident which makes their premiums higher, where as someone that lives in a very rural area with very little traffic may have premiums at a third of the price. Yes, the state does make money, a minimal amount, on each policy written in that state and is a huge source of income for that state.
  Health care, on the other hand, can be regulated by the federal government based on their "federal regulations" on health mandates and federal and state laws that apply to those in the medical feild. It is only up to the state what companies are allowed to do business in that state. The universal health care reform takes away their control over kick backs and favoritism based on state based premium rates.
  If insurance was federally regulated, as it is in Canada, then yes, it would be easier to speak to a rep than a beaurocrat, but since Canada has the Universal healthcare system in place, your friend will still be able to have continued medical care without them paying more money for on going expenses unlike here in the states where the care continues based on the amount of your coverage limits allow, then after that, you would begin to sue the person directly. You also have to remember, insurance claims reps are trained to appease and take care of claims and bills, but they are restrained by the limits of coverage the client covered. To expect a "settlement" which this would be, your friend will be waiting for a little while longer because of her life long injury, the bills she has accrued, and the coverage limits the person had that caused the accident. I hope things do get better for her soon though.
QUESTION:
Going to Hawaii: Need to buy drivers insurance for 2 weeks - I'm under 25.?
Hi all,

I am going to Hawaii from 13 to 29 December, and I would definitely like to rent a car. Here are a few facts:

1) I am over 24 but under 25
2) I am a Canadian citizen but I have a Greek passport (I study in Ottawa).
3) I do have an international driving license.
4) I only have health insurance provided by my university; no auto insurance whatsoever..

I checked around and found many car rental companies in Hawaii that offer car rentals with small or no additional cost to young drivers. So the issue for me is the insurance. Could you please advise me on my best options? Should I buy insurance from here (Canada) or there? How much should I expect to pay for 2 weeks? Any companies that you recommend?

Thanks a lot in advance.
- ANSWER:
  rent a car place offers insurance if you want it that woul d be a place to get it
QUESTION:
Canadian driving records?
When I go to buy auto insurance in Texas after driving in Alberta for over a year, will insurance companies know:
1. at fault claims
2. not at fault claims
3. Tickets (speeding stunting etc.)
from Alberta
?
- ANSWER:
  It will depend on the insurance company, but in most cases, they will do everything they can to obtain your prior driving history, otherwise they could be taking a total chance on you, which most insurance companies are not apt to do.
QUESTION:
American health care: A Canadian asks some questions?
As a Canadian, I'd like some assistance from American readers who can help confirm or dispel some common notions about the health care system in the United States.

Here are my questions:

What really happens to an uninsured American who walks into a hospital or a doctor's office looking for some medical assistance? Are they promptly shown the door because they don't have coverage?

What happens if you're in an auto accident and in need of life saving surgery? Can you be refused surgery if you can't show proof of coverage?

Can uninsured Americans get medical treatment with a promise to pay later? If yes, what happens if they can't pay?

What would a family consisting of two parents and two kids pay (roughly) per month for private health insurance?

There are many people in the States who shun the idea of idea of universal health care. What are your main reasons for resisting this kind of system?

Do hospitals routinely kick out patients whose insurance has run out?
EDIT: I need to clarify one issue regarding the universal system in Canada: Freedom of choice when it comes to picking a doctor is very much allowed in Canada. I can give you a personal example: My father was being treated for prostate cancer by a urologist who lacked any sort of bedside manner. My family wanted nothing more to do with this doctor as far as future treaments go. Were we stuck with this specialist? Not at all. My father simply asked our family doctor for another referral to another urologist--done, fulfilled, no questions asked.

Things aren't perfect under a universal health care system, but lack of choice when it comes picking a doctor is simply not the case.
- ANSWER:
  It's almost as if no one knows what they are talking about. Lets set some stuff straight.
  
  1) |Universal Health Care would cost alot more than insurance| Who told you that, your insurance company? I find that very laughable. The average cost of health care per person per year is 7500 dollars. The average income per household per year is 45000 dollars. That means currently 30% of your money goes to your health insurance company. Imagine if only 15-20% of your money went to universal health insurace. And even that may be too high. So you are paying LESS money on for your care.
  
  2) |It would cost too much for America to do| Yea very laughable also. There is close to 300 million people in america. Assuming 2/3 are over 18(meaning pay taxes) that means 200 million people are paying 15% of 45000 on average. That is about 1.4 trillion dollars per year. If it follows current socialized medicine trends. Such as medicaid and medicare. 6% would go to admin costs(payroll etc). Under universal health care 300 billion dollars would be saved a year by cutting the middle men out of insurance companies and making it a signle payer health care system (Universal Health Care) That means that there is 1.5 trillion dollars to spend on health care now.
  
  3) |Doctors will care less becuase they will make less money| False again. There is 800,000 doctors in america. The average pay of a docter per year is 95,000. That means that 760 billion dollars will go to pay. That leaves 740 billion dollars left for medicine alone. medicine costs would also cut nearly in half by cutting the middle men out. medicine sales total last year where close to 500 billion dollars. cut that in hald and subtract it from 740 billion. 490 billion dollars left to budget.
  
  4) |There will be no motivation to advance medicine if there is no money left for medicine research| I say 490 billion dollars a year is ALOT of money just for research. I doubt it will all even be spent. There will be an excess of 100 billion a year. Which could go to anything tax payers see fit.
  
  5) |Universal Health Care obviousley isn't working since canada is having people come to america for surgeries| Millions of people each year buy medication from canada becuase it is cheaper. In Canada there isn't a wait time in emergency rooms, or life and death operations. The people coming to america for surgery are coming for elective surgeries (Plastic surgery, hair transplant, non-life threatening stuff, etc.)
QUESTION:
POLL: For the *wonderful* ladies and Gentlemen of P&S?

Do you think the chick who plays "Flo" on the Progressive auto insurance commercials is cute? I think she is! ; )

Poll # 2 for the Canadian P&Sers...
Did you have a nice Thanksgiving?
- ANSWER:
  She's super cute!
  (:
QUESTION:
enforcement of american judgment against canadian national?
i was involved in a auto accident in michigan with a trucker from canada,after all was said and done he was ordered to pay 6968.70 to me in restitution,so im wondering will his insurance pay this bill or will he have to pay after he gets out of jail? and how hard will it be to make him pay being hes from another country and the judment was in a american court?
Thank you
- ANSWER:
  U.S. auto insurance covers liability in any U.S. state or Canadian province (but NOT in Mexico) up to the minimum amount specified in the laws of that jurisdiction, even if the policy limits are lower. If the same is true of Canadian auto insurance and MI's limit is at least 00, then his insurance will cover the full amount. If neither he nor his insurance pays and the truck was impounded (in the U.S.), ask the judge to award you title to the truck. I think that most trucks cost at least 00.
QUESTION:
Auto accident claim issues (preferably from canadians)?
Alright, so I was in an accident on Monday where 2 vehicles hit each other head on in an intersection and then slammed into my vehicle. I was sitting at a red light, its in no way my fault.

The police got involved and took down all of our statements. I didn't get the other 2 drivers info seeing as the police were writing it down and I thought I'd get all that information soon. It's now Wednesday and I haven't heard anything. My truck was drivable, but the radiator broke free from the mounts during the accident stopping the fan from working... so long story short, my truck is no longer drivable until insurance goes through.

I went to the police station today and they told me the report wasn't ready yet. Is it possible to get them to just give me the contact info for the other 2 drivers or not? I just cant do anything until I talk with their insurance company... but at the same time its not clear who's going to be at fault in this case. So I'm stuck with a rental that I'm having to pay out of my own pocket for until I talk with their insurance company.

I live in alberta and we don't have no fault insurance here. So someone who's a canadian and knows about this sort of stuff would be very useful.
I guess I left a part out. I dont have collision on my insurance policy. Therefore, my insurance company isnt going to help me at all, I've talked with my agent 2 times already.

If I had collision, I could pay the deductible and my insurance company would front the money for the repairs and bill the insurer of the driver at fault.

But seeing as I don't, it's up to me to chase after the insurer to get my repairs done.

I have the file number, but I don't have insurers or the information for the other 2 drivers.
- ANSWER:
QUESTION:
POLL: For the ladies and Gentlemen of P&S?
Do you think the chick who plays "Flo" on the Progressive auto insurance commercials is cute? I think she is! ; )

Poll # 2 for the Canadian P&Sers...
Did you have a nice Thanksgiving?
- ANSWER:
  Yknow,she's one of those "inexplicable" cuties,she's cute as a button on a Teddy Ruxpin,but you really can't zero in on WHY. It just goes to show what I've always said,most of us are more than the sum of our' parts.You simply cannot disect a human being,categorize the pieces and create something just as good! There's usually an "X" factor that completes us.
  
  I'm not Canadian,but I'm sure most of them were cool.They're great.I have a Canadian contact,I'll make it a point to ask her:)(:
QUESTION:
Bank of Canada concerned about government, household debt, Is this a joke of the day?
OTTAWA - Mounting governmental and household debt are posing new risks to the stability of financial systems, the Bank of Canada said Thursday in its most recent analysis.
The central bank's semi-annual "Financial System Review" finds that overall conditions have improved in the short term since it last reported in June.But it adds that record-high debt by Canadian households pose an elevated medium-term risk if a second financial or economic shock were to materialize. Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney has warned in the past about Canadians getting in over their heads with large mortgage commitments that don't appear problematic given today's low interest rates.

If the Government is worried about the general public- 1. they would not impose new taxes e.g. house taxes, HST and other taxes, 2. Would control increase in auto insurance what they always made false promises during elections, 3. Would control increase toll on 407 which was the property of the Canadian people and sold to their sweethearts.4. They would never increase their pay by 25% without public opinion. Usually Canadians are too busy to earn their bread and butter that they do not have time to oppose government's decision. Even if we oppose nothing would happen. Love you Canada. O Canada, O Canada
- ANSWER:
  The household debt is Canada is high but our economy is in better shape than US or EU countries. Our banks are solid and real estate prices are rising. We do not have high unemployment, bankruptcies, foreclosures, bank failures or TARP as in US. The lower interest rates are giving the consumers incentive to get loans to buy property and consumer goods.
QUESTION:
It has always been against the law to cover your face in public Why should Muslims in Quebec be different?
New Quebec law: Uncover your face if you want to deal with provincial government

1 hour, 49 minutes ago

By The Canadian Press

MONTREAL - Muslim women will need to uncover their faces from now on if they want to deal with the Quebec government, according to landmark legislation tabled Wednesday in the province.

In doing so, Quebec has delved into sensitive territory where governments in Canada have largely avoided treading. The bill tabled in the legislature says people obtaining - or delivering - services at places like the health-or auto-insurance boards will need to do so with their faces in plain view.

It says people's face-coverings will not be tolerated if they hinder communication or visual identification.

Premier Jean Charest told a news conference that the province was drawing a line in the sand in defence of two principles: gender equality, and secular public institutions.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100324/national/muslim_accommodations

==================================

It has always been against the law to cover your face or to hide your identity in public ---- it has always been an additional charge laid against bank robbers and muggers

Of course the police have been expected to and have always used some common sense --- Halloween for instance --- but other than some blindingly obvious exceptions it is and always has been illegal for you to be running around with your face covered in public

Why should Muslims or any other group be exempted from the criminal law ?
Why would the government of Quebec's decision come as a shock to anyone ?
No no we decided to go with the anti bank robber legislation we always had in this nation -- surprise ?

40 below driving wind and snow ---- the police will leave you and your balaclava alone Other than that expect to be asked a few questions
OK David

Here is the question again in slow motion

Why should ONE or ANY group be exempt from preexisting laws ?

Please make a case for why a group or groups should not be equals under the law

Explain the circumstances that exist in this case as mentioned in the news clip above as to motivate or necessitate or warrant a change in law
- ANSWER:
  There is not law in the Criminal Code outlawing one from covering his face, unless he is intending on committing an indictable offence.
QUESTION:
Should the US have socialized medicine, like England and Canada, or should we stay private?
As an American, the biggest ongoing fear that looms in the back of my mind is that I might have a catastrophic illness, or car accident injuries, that will wipe out my family financially. At the moment I have health insurance partially paid for by my employer--but US health insurance is very costly, and many plans won't cover you for extended hospitalization. The separate 'extended care' policies you can purchase have proved disastrous for people--the companies kept raising the premiums until people had to drop them (Consumer Reports advises against them).
2 of my 3 adult children are currently not covered because they are basically healthy young adults--but there's always the risk of a car accident or other such injury (auto insurance only protects you liability-wise).
I envy the English and Canadians their social medicine, just for the peace of mind it must give them.
Do you think the US should convert to socialized medicine?
How much is 7 pounds, English, in US dollars?

Even with insurance (which costs several ,000s/per year/person in the US) , I still have to pay - out of pocket per monthly prescription.

Personally speaking, I'd rather pay higher taxes for more minimal health care coverage, like England and Canada, than live with the fear of losing my home and all assets to medical care against my will (because if I have a stroke or become brain-dead, I can't speak for myself--and the 'living will' solution doesn't work very fast).

Then, too, it pains me to see my 94 yo father going through all these 'drug adjustments.' Most elderly patients I've seen in the US are on 5-20 drugs. Dad told me 4 years ago that he "wants to go." Dad's not happy. He said, "Never get old."

I don't think 'US medicine' is the best way to go. Sometimes I wish we could turn back the clock 100 years.
- ANSWER:
  I think it's preposterous how many Americans are at risk of total bankruptcy due to potential illness. Your 'basically healthy young adult' children are a case in point. ANYONE could be hit tomorrow by a major illness, even the most physically fit athlete. So the risk is always there.
  
  I'm a Canadian, and while we bitch and complain about our system, the truth is, it protects us in all but the most unique situation. Could it be better? Sure, much better. But would I (or most Canadians) switch it for a US style system? No.
  
  As to the argument that we have shortages, that is indeed true. The reason? The US is right next door, and the lure of your millionaire doctors is too much for some doctors. If the US had a similar system to us, the field would be level. If the US went to some form of government funded system, there would not be some mass exodus of medical personnel, all your current doctors would still exist, and all your medical schools would still keep pumping out doctors for the future. The US and Canada have similar rates of training for medical staff, we just lose more of ours to the lure of the bug buck down south.
  
  Every resident of a major industrialized nation should have access to proper medical care, and the US is one of the very few cases where that is not recognized.
QUESTION:
windsor / ontario canada labor day weekend?
US Citizen considering trying to take a short holiday to Windsor Ontario Canada / might drive to Toronto .

questions
1) do you need any extra insurance to meet any canadian driving laws ?
2) is allstate auto policy valid there ?
- ANSWER:
  You shouldn't need any additional insurance. I used to live in Detroit and drove there all the time without any problems. Most auto insurances will cover you in Canada, but you should call Allstate to check on your specific policy. Some companies will issue a separate certificate of coverage specifically valid for Canada which might make things easier if you get pulled over.
QUESTION:
Good morning. Some information and a question for you.?
One of the biggest debates the we continually have here on this forum is National Health Care. I'm finding more and more information with regards to other countries who have this and how it's failing.

Here are some excerpts and a link:
Who's Really 'Sicko'

In Canada, dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week. Humans can wait two to three years

"I haven't seen 'Sicko,' " says Avril Allen about the new Michael Moore documentary, which advocates socialized medicine for the United States. The film, which has been widely viewed on the Internet, and which will officially open in the U.S. and Canada on Friday, has been getting rave reviews. But Ms. Allen, a lawyer, has no plans to watch it. She's just too busy preparing to file suit against Ontario's provincial government about its health-care system next month.

Her client, Lindsay McCreith, would have had to wait for four months just to get an MRI, and then months more to see a neurologist for his malignant brain tumor. Instead, frustrated and ill, the retired auto-body shop owner traveled to Buffalo, N.Y., for a lifesaving surgery. Now he's suing for the right to opt out of Canada's government-run health care, which he considers dangerous. Ms. Allen figures the lawsuit has a fighting chance: In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that "access to wait lists is not access to health care," striking down key Quebec laws that prohibited private medicine and private health insurance.

In the U.S., 83 House Democrats voted for a bill in 1993 calling for single-payer health care. That idea collapsed with HillaryCare and since then has existed on the fringes of the debate--winning praise from academics and pressure groups, but remaining largely out of the political discussion. Mr. Moore's documentary intends to change that, exposing millions to his argument that American health care is sick and socialized medicine is the cure.

It's not simply that Mr. Moore is wrong. His grand tour of public health care systems misses the big story: While he prescribes socialism, market-oriented reforms are percolating in cities from Stockholm to Saskatoon. Mr. Moore goes to London, Ontario, where he notes that not a single patient has waited in the hospital emergency room more than 45 minutes. "It's a fabulous system," a woman explains. In Britain, he tours a hospital where patients marvel at their free care. A patient's husband explains: "It's not America." Humorously, Mr. Moore finds a cashier dispensing money to patients (for transportation). In France, a doctor explains the success of the health-care system with the old Marxist axiom: "You pay according to your means, and you receive according to your needs." It's compelling material--I know because, born and raised in Canada, I used to believe in government-run health care. Then I was mugged by reality.

Consider, for instance, Mr. Moore's claim that ERs don't overcrowd in Canada. A Canadian government study recently found that only about half of patients are treated in a timely manner, as defined by local medical and hospital associations. "The research merely confirms anecdotal reports of interminable waits," reported a national newspaper. While people in rural areas seem to fare better, Toronto patients receive care in four hours on average; one in 10 patients waits more than a dozen hours.

This problem hit close to home last year: A relative, living in Winnipeg, nearly died of a strangulated bowel while lying on a stretcher for five hours, writhing in pain. To get the needed ultrasound, he was sent by ambulance to another hospital.

In Britain, the Department of Health recently acknowledged that one in eight patients wait more than a year for surgery. Around the time Mr. Moore was putting the finishing touches on his documentary, a hospital in Sutton Coldfield announced its new money-saving linen policy: Housekeeping will no longer change the bed sheets between patients, just turn them over. France's system failed so spectacularly in the summer heat of 2003 that 13,000 people died, largely of dehydration. Hospitals stopped answering the phones and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves.

http://socglory.blogspot.com/

Seriously, folks... Is THIS what we want for our country? A system that is failing elsewhere?
There have to be other alternatives, don't you think?
There is no doubt that our system has many flaws, but good grief, I can't begin to imagine it being improved under government control. I'm merely stating that there have to be other alternatives.
- ANSWER:
  The problem is that the status quo is not working. Personally, I've seen my insurance premium and co-pays go up every year, while the service level has dropped. Like or dislike Moore's position regarding socialized healthcare, he does have a MAJOR point here that the system is broken and may be beyond repair. The question is what do we do to fix it. I was talking to a Dr. about the movie the other day and he told me that one of the major reasons insurance costs continue to rise is that there are 45 million uninsured who's medical costs must be absorbed by those of us with insurance. Every bill that a hospital or Dr.'s office cannot collect on forces them to raise prices to offset the loss. Another area that needs to be looked at is malpractice suits. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there are an aweful lot of predatory law firms out there who make a living off of suing doctors and hostpitals, while their clients are used as pawns. This drives the cost of malpractice insurance up and puts good doctors out of business. I'm a liberal, but I have to say that I agree with the concept of Tort reform to some degree.
  Another issues is the fact that HMO's and Managed Care companies force doctors to see MORE patients than they should and cut corners. Since they negotiate service costs with the providers... providers must see more traffic to pay bills. This is not a desireable scenario when it comes to working with public health.
  I don't know if full socialized medicine is the answer... maybe there should be a system that allows people to opt out for private if they wish. I still feel that there are a few industries in this country that should not be 'for profit'. And healthcare is one of them.
QUESTION:
I am damaged my rental car in another country and need to know the cheapest way to pay it off.?
I am a Canadian backpacking through Australia and yesterday rented a car with Thrifty in Tasmania. This morning...being the smooth guy I am...managed to back in into a pole putting a big dent in the rear bumper. What is the best way to make sure I don't have to pay the full amount for damages (00!)? I have standard insurance with Thrifty and would have gotten their full insurance but I am under 23 so I couldn't. I am trying to find a way to not pay the 00 so any help would be amazing. I have part time driver insurance back home but I don't think that will cover it and my visa...as far as I know doesn't cover damaged rental cars. Would it be my best bet to go to an auto body repair shop and fix it their or? I am not quite sure what to do...but I want to try anything I can to not pay the 00. Any help would be amazing, thanks in advance!
Sorry for the bad spelling and grammar!!!
- ANSWER:
  Well you have two options but the first thing yo need to do is get the confirmation of amount of mioney that is going to spent, as a bumber won't cost you that much.
  
  Now the first option you have go directly to car rental company and pay the expense a they specify.
  
  The other option you have is get it repaired like it never happened from a local repair shop. But you may find difficulty in getting it repaired locally as no one will repair a rental car. But if some agrees then get it repaired. But I would warn of the fact if car rental company found anything wrong in this they may charge you for the whole bumper. And legally it is justified.
QUESTION:
What do you think about this article?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to 0 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.
- ANSWER:
  The author erects "profit" as the evil destroyer and "public-controlled" as the benevolent bringer of loving care. That's the fundamental flaw in this article. The fact is though, that whether or not profit is involved, and whether or not the system is nationalized are irrelevant to whether or not health care is effective.
  
  The primary issue is choice. The easier it is to say, "I don't like my health care, so I'm going to find another source which provides it.", the better health care will be. Fundamentally, the public option for health care will actually lead to a narrowing of options and alternatives. This is because there is only one government that will be providing it.
  
  Also, EVIL "profit" will be replaced by politics when the fabulous ONE system Obama wants is established. On the other hand, even though a for profit system is not ideal, which would you rather have:
  
  1. A for-profit system which offers multiple choices that you, as a consumer and a patient, can deliberate on.
  
  2. One system, which offers no choice, and is controlled by a singular powerful group of government officials who decide how medical care will get distributed, They can (and will) allow politics to get involved with those decisions.
  
  Canadians (who can afford it) often come to the US to get treatment. This isn't because they love the idea that the US system is based on "profit", it's because the US system offers more choice. Choice based systems, commensurately, also tends to have shorter wait times for getting procedures done.
  
  Rather than trying to become our ultimate nanny by nationalizing health care, the Obama administration should instead be looking to promote choice and affordability. Ironically, this is best accomplished if the government strives to take politics out of health care rather than trying to make politics an overriding force that health care must contend with.
QUESTION:
Please read this article that I found and argue your side.?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to 0 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.
- ANSWER:
  I like my Insurance plan. I can go to the doctor I like. The insurance company doesn't dictate to the doctor what kind of treatment I can have. And I don't have huge co pays
  
  There is a misconception that poor people are just left out in the cold, and they can't get medical treatment. That is not true. Anyone can go to any public hospital and get treatment. The hospital is not allowed to turn anyone away regardless if they have insurance or not. There are MILLIONS of illegal immigrants in the U.S. who use public hospitals when they get sick. The majority of them don't pay anything. The taxpayers pick up the tab.
  
  I just don't think it's fair for the government to come along and force me to give up my insurance and go with the government health care program. Because they way the bill is written now, government health care could put a lot of private insurance companies out of business.
QUESTION:
Please read this article and argue your side. I have no opinion. Please help to clarify this confusing matter!?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to 0 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
- ANSWER:
  I agree with Hugh Curran. He does make an excellent point.
QUESTION:
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to 0 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
- ANSWER:
  This guy is an @sshole and so are you! You both just want someone to pay your bills for you. You want your neighbors to pay your bills! Why don't you ask your neighbors to buy you a house and a car too. Pay for your education as well. You make me sick! Go to Cuba and live you Communist bastard! Fcuk you!
QUESTION:
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to 0 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
- ANSWER:
  I agree.
  Not only do health costs tend to prevent proper treatment, emergency treatments often sink families. When the budget jumps up a thousand dollars extra a month (or more) most people can't manage it for more than a year.
  When you aren't throwing insurance and money around doctors don't try as hard. I've seen it between insured jobs as I sought a surgical way off medication.
  Also, hospitals play the hidden cost game. Why should a doctor bill you separately from the hospital he treats you in? And anesthesia? Not to mention the billing usually ends up with some kind of collection cost acting like an interest rate.
  We can do better than feeding the greedy. Look at what that did to Wall Street.
QUESTION:
Please read this article and argue your side. I have no opinion. Please help to clarify this confusing matter!?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to 0 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
- ANSWER:
  There are many points here that can be argued; I'm at work or I'd go into some of them more.
  
  Sure, health insurance is in it to make money. Why would any fool start a company and not make money?
  
  The problem with government being in the business is that they can't efficiently and accurately run what programs they have in place now. Waste is rampant. IT seems to be 20 years behind any good company. The US Government way of doing business would make any corporate CEO scream and yell.
  
  Topping the whole list is the 'middle class' fallacy. You either have money or you don't. America needs to change many things, and those changes are gonna happen. And yes, you'll see the gap widen between the have and the have-nots.
  
  The US has far worse problems than health care.
QUESTION:
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to 0 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
- ANSWER:
  Agree. There's also no profit for the military.
QUESTION:
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to 0 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
- ANSWER:
  No he doesn't...He is a Socialist Shill. A capitalist hater. Why in the world would someone invest 12 years of college to earn ,000 a year? Also, does The O'Bama guarantee that a doctor won't get sued? Will a doctor no longer have to pay malpractice insurance?
  Democracy may not survive as this Educated imbecile is clamoring, But I guarantee you a Republican form of government (the form of government in the US, NOT a Democracy) HAS to have a gap between the rich and the poor or the poor will have NO incentive to better their situation. Also by removing wealth from the one who earns it and gives it to those who don't provides an incentive to do one of two things. STOP making money or go make it where it is NOT taken away from you...Since the latest tax increase in New York City, watch to see how many rich leave that mess and how many poor move in to fill the vacuum.
QUESTION:
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to 0 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
- ANSWER:
  Very easy: he's wrong. People like this embrace but never admit to their desire to see confiscatory redistribution of all income in this country. This is just his wet dream to nationalize 15% of the economy.
QUESTION:
Can I Canadian work in Insurance in the U.S?
I am a lic. insruance agent with an OTL and I also held my RIBO 6 months ago I am considering moving to the U.S in the next 6 months is there any way that I would be able to legaly continue my career in the U.S? Is it hard if I have to get Lic. in the U.S for insurnace when I say Insurance I mean property and auto
- ANSWER:
  You will have to apply for a lisence in the US to see if your training/education is valid. You will probably have to write some tests to make sure that all the info that you know if relevant in the US. Or you might need to take some classes
QUESTION:
Please read this article and argue your side. I have no opinion. Please help to clarify this confusing matter!?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to 0 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
- ANSWER:
  Excellent article. Valid points. Important theme.
  
  Not ONE of the cons will read it. They are not the least interested in actually understanding the health care problem in America - they have feasted too long on a diet of soundbites and talking points.
  
  Even though doing so means that they are harming themselves, their loved ones, and their own family members.
  
  It's perverse.
QUESTION:
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to 0 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
- ANSWER:
  No he doesn't. For one thing there are plenty of other and better ways to measure the quality of health care than the way the WHO does it. One of those ways is to look at the outcome of people who do get sick. If you look at that data the conclusion is inescapable you've got a better chance of surviving in America than anywhere else. Does that mean we have the best health care, maybe but for sure it means that maybe those other programs are as good as claimed.
  
  The profit motive makes the consumer the king. Its why the cost of items that are produced in the free market go down and it forces manufacturers and distributors to meet consumer needs. Many grocery stores and gas stations are open 24 hrs a day, yet the post office is considering elimination of saturday delivery.
  
  The quality of cell phones and cell phone service has gone up while the cost has gone down. While the cost of postage is going up while service is being reduced, the cost of education is going up but I don't know anyone that says education is improving.
  
  Those who oppose the free market always like to through in the police and fire departments. But I say order a pizza and call 911 and see who gets there first the pizza or the police.

Canadian Auto Insurance

Frequently Asked Questions

Site Menu

Recent Posts

Blogroll