Posted: 26 Sep 2008 09:18 Post Subject:
I'm not sure if that's true, but in USA you can receive subsidized medical coverage through the public funded medical programs.
The Medicaid is such a program that is designed to provide medical support to the nation's poor. Hence, the per capita income remains the primary qualifying criteria for receiving benefits under the Medicaid program.
Posted: 26 Sep 2008 09:40 Post Subject:
Yes, Medicaid has been designed to offer medical help to people living below the national per capita income level and may not be able to receive health coverage from the other conventional sources.
However, the benefits received from the Medicaid program have a ceiling. Under Medicaid program one may not receive more than 83% of his total medical expenses. The qualifying criteria for Medicaid are also quite stringent, and that is why a sizeable section of the poor population is still leading a life without any health coverage.
Posted: 26 Sep 2008 11:03 Post Subject:
Hi Rupert, I have heard that Medicaid is currently facing some problem with the fund, & that is mainly due to the relaxation given in the eligibility criteria. It has actually covered people who otherwise may not qualify for the program.
Can u throw some light upon it?
Posted: 26 Sep 2008 11:12 Post Subject:
Well, the Medicaid program is recently facing the shortage of funds, mainly due to the increase in the cost of the prescription drugs. The medical expenses over the years have increased many fold, creating pressure both on the personal and the federal budget.
However, your version is right too, during the years of prosperity the government had relaxed the eligibility criteria for Medicaid to a great extent & had allowed many to receive the coverage. The objective was to expand the benefits of the program and to bring larger population under the purview of health coverage.
The idea was no doubt great, but it however had reduced the fund available for the program, since the finance hadn't increased sufficiently with the expansion of the number of recipients.
Posted: 26 Sep 2008 01:15 Post Subject:
While it is true, it's publicly funded... meaning Canadians still pay for the service. Also, it has it's faults. Waiting times on treatment is one complaint. Would you want the US govt to tell you what treatment you need and what you don't?
Posted: 26 Sep 2008 06:59 Post Subject:
I live in Canada and am happy to be able to answer your question.
Health care is mostly publicly funded. I'll give examples of what is covered and what is not covered:
- Doctors visits
- Hospital visits
- most types of surgeries & other hospital treatments
- emergency medical
- x rays & other diagnosit test
- prescription drugs (but there are plans that are geared to income)
- dental (some regional governments have plans for lower income people)
- chiropractic, massage, psychology
The downside - there are long waiting lists for certain medical treatments like hip and knee replacements. The 'quality of life type of treatments" have a lower priority and longer wait times. Urgent/life threatening needs are generally treated quickly.
Slowly but surely the "not covered" section grows. And more and more private clinics are opening that oeprate on the edge of what the government is supposed to cover.
Hope that helps!