Hello:

Is it bad, or is it good?

excon

I could ask you exactly the same reversed question, almost..

In the case of the UK we have a two tier system.
"Free" care is available to ALL, but it is possible to purchase insurance to cover non-emergency issues or join the looooooong waiting lists.

Everyone can been seen for Emergency cases and treatment without the need of insurance.
Now payment doesn't guarantee "better" care, just quicker care.

Hello ben:

Thanks... But, is it good or bad?

We dump sick people on the street if they can't pay. Do you?

excon

Hello ben:

Thanks.... But, is it good or bad?

We dump sick people on the street if they can't pay. Do you?

excon

Who dumps sick people on the street besides Michelle Obama and David Aexelrod (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1122691,CST-NWS-hosp23.article)?

No one is denied health care in America. We spend a fortune on health care for the poor, the near poor,etc. No one showing up at an ER can be turned away.Not even illegal aliens .

I'd have to say that we Canadians have it pretty good.

Health care is paid for by the government, in other words, doctors visits are covered, so are surguries and stays at the hospital (unless you get a phone and TV in your room, then it's around $7/day).

Contrary to what some people believe it's not hard to get in to see your doctor and there are many walk in clinics as well. I usually get in the same day I call, the longest I've had to wait is 2 days. The hospital can be a chore, there are too many people, not enough doctors but you still get pretty prompt "service".

As far as special services (MRI's, CT scans etc) it's a first come first serve sort of thing unless your doctor suspects something life threatening, then you're bumped. You can also pay in order to be bumped.

I'm pretty happy with our health care system here, it could be better, but all in all we're pretty lucky.

Hello ben:

Thanks.... But, is it good or bad?

We dump sick people on the street if they can't pay. Do you?

excon
As everyone pays in their taxes, what's bad about it and NO sick people are never dumped on the streets as there's no requirement to pay.


I'd have to say that we Canadians have it pretty good.

Health care is paid for by the government, in other words, doctors visits are covered, so are surguries and stays at the hospital (unless you get a phone and tv in your room, then it's around $7/day).

Contrary to what some people believe it's not hard to get in to see your doctor and there are many walk in clinics as well. I usually get in the same day I call, the longest I've had to wait is 2 days. The hospital can be a chore, there are too many people, not enough doctors but you still get pretty prompt "service".

As far as special services (MRI's, CT scans etc) it's a first come first serve sort of thing unless your doctor suspects something life threatening, then you're bumped. You can also pay in order to be bumped.

I'm pretty happy with our health care system here, it could be better, but all in all we're pretty lucky.

Very similar to UK, I think the only difference is we have to pay for prescription meds at about $10 an item, which considering the retail price of some meds is extremely good value.

Yes cosmetic and elective surgery you have to pay for, after all it's not contributive to a healthy life.

This includes medical care, dentistry and ophthalmics.
Of course paid for "upgrades" are available.

No one showing up at an ER can be turned away.Not even illegal aliens .Hello tom:

That IS the line, isn't it? But, if someone shows up at an ER who needs hospitalization or long term care, they give him a band-aid and put him on the street. That is JUST SO!

If we're going to have this discussion, you're going to have to tell the truth. Facts DO count. I promise you, there are NO uninsured patients IN the hospital getting cared for.

excon

Hello tom:

That IS the line, isn't it? But, if someone shows up at an ER who needs hospitalization or long term care, they give him a band-aid and put him on the street. That is JUST SO!

If we're going to have this discussion, you're going to have to tell the truth. Facts DO count. I promise you, there are NO uninsured patients IN the hospital getting cared for.

excon

I'm not tom, but my daughter, uninsured and broke, received excellent care in both San Diego and Amarillo. She spent 6 weeks in intensive care here and another 2 in SD, plus several more weeks in a regular room. She had the care of a top Infectious Disease doctor, Nephrologist and Pulmonologist and continued to see them and an excellent Gynecological Oncologist afterward and never paid a penny. Nobody in this city goes without health care except of their own choosing.

Will Obama offer paid "upgrades?" And if so, how will that help him reach his goal of tackling "disparities in health care?" How could he do that if some are still able to pay for better care than others?

THE TRUTH... I know someone in a gvt run alzheimers nursing home going on 2 years now while their application for medicaid is tied up in bureaucratic BS . That person is getting excellent 24/7 care . When this person's application is approved he will receive for the rest of his life medical care for alzheimers and any other illness he gets while there .

The TRUTH is that part of the high costs of health care for everyone else is this type of subsidizing . This business that medicine is free or inexpensive because the gvt runs it is a fallacy when you factor in the taxes needed to run these plans.

Hello tom:

That IS the line, isn't it? But, if someone shows up at an ER who needs hospitalization or long term care, they give him a band-aid and put him on the street. That is JUST SO!

If we're going to have this discussion, you're going to have to tell the truth. Facts DO count. I promise you, there are NO uninsured patients IN the hospital getting cared for.

Excon

I personally know uninsured patients in US hospital, but that would violate HIPPA laws ;)

Go to any ER in the US and ask the ER doctor if he sees uninsured patients or even knows the payor status of the patients he or she sees.

As to FACTS here is one for you:

YFile - One-day summit to discuss the future of health care in Canada (http://www.yorku.ca/yfile/archive/index.asp?Article=5325)

Supreme Court Challenges Canada's Health-Care Assumptions (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012787)







wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice John Major. "Inevitably where patients have life-threatening conditions, some will die because of undue delay in awaiting surgery."









The US healthcare system IS FLAWED - no doubt - a majority of physicians in some polls favor a single payor system>

The Doctors' Revolt | The American Prospect (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_doctors_revolt)







The latest sign is a poll published recently in the Annals of Internal Medicine showing that 59 percent of U.S. doctors support a "single payer" plan that essentially eliminates the central role of private insurers.






Just remember that ERISA laws reduce the ability to sue .


Is the medico-legal environment the same, worse , or better in Canada or England or Sweeden?







G&P

I'm not tom, but my daughter, uninsured and broke, received excellent care in both San Diego and Amarillo. She spent 6 weeks in intensive care here and another 2 in SD, plus several more weeks in a regular room. She had the care of a top Infectious Disease doctor, Nephrologist and Pulmonologist and continued to see them and an excellent Gynecological Oncologist afterward and never paid a penny. Nobody in this city goes without health care except of their own choosing.

So how did she not pay a penny for all that hospital stay with no insurance? Who do you think paid for it? Most people would be paying that hospital and doctor bill for the rest of their lives.

In Russia their citizens get free health care. Tourists get free health care. If you are an illegal alien in Russia you don't. You must prove citizenship to get health care.

It's the same way in Canada. Americans just can't sneak over the border and get free health care. They must prove citizenship.

I'll betcha dollars to donuts that in all the other countries where they have universal health care that the citizens must prove citizenship to get free health care. Unless they can prove they are a tourist.

I'll betcha dollars to donuts that in all the other countries where they have universal health care that the citizens must prove citizenship to get free health care. Unless they can prove they are a tourist.Hello twink:

If they're NOT citizens, then they'd be tourists. No?

excon

Don't forget us down under here Ex. We're much like Britain's system. We have our flaws but overall most people like it.
And many politicians have been lynched in the past for even mentioning going down the path of the US system.

Hello again:

I don't know. So far, we've got 3 countries reporting in, and 100% of them like it.

Does that means these people don't know what they're talking about?

excon

So how did she not pay a penny for all that hospital stay with no insurance? Who do you think paid for it? Most people would be paying that hospital and doctor bill for the rest of their lives.

I know who paid for it, the point is Ex said "there are NO uninsured patients IN the hospital getting cared for" and that's simply not true.

Ex
That sure is a representative sampling !

The stimulus provides for the creation of a federal health care bureaucracy not unlike Hillarycare including $19 billion to adopt Health Information Technology (HIT) systems;and the creation of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology along with a 15-member board of officials . Decisions that should be made by doctors and patients will belong to bureaucrats deciding cost-effectiveness.

I don't know if that is how the universal care works elsewhere. But that is what has been proposed here.

It creates the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, which will decide which treatments you should get, whether you should get them, and whether they should even be available.

It is supposedly modeled after a British board which helps run the National Health Service. Curley can comment on this board if he chooses . I have heard it is horribly inefficient and overly bureaucratic. The Brit board approves or rejects treatments after calculating the cost of the treatment against the number of years the patient is expected to live to decide if it's worth giving the patient the treatment . The British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) proposed that the National Health Service use age as a measurement of a patient's worthiness for treatment. To illustrate where that leads;In 2006 it was decided that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get the drug to save the other. After all, how many years would they be needing two good eyes?

So treatment is denied or rationed based not on a doctor's and patient's decision but on the whim of a bureaucrat. If that's the system you want you are welcome to it.

Hello again:

I don't know. So far, we've got 3 countries reporting in, and 100% of them like it.

Does that means these people don't know what they're talking about?

Excon

Nope. One person each from 3 countries is a rather small statistical sample, though.

What I don't get, ex, is for a guy with so many suspicions about government you seem intent now on letting government take care of us. When did you start trusting the government? I don't, never did, and never will. I don't see how it can possibly be sustainable, as "the father of the Quebec public health care system" now admits (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=288921903474479). I can see cost cutting measures like those in the UK where patients are told to "treat themselves (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574282/NHS-patients-told-to-treat-themselves.html)."

I don't see how the feds can make better health care decisions than the patient and doctor can, yet Obama plans on a committee to do just that. As I said before, I don't see how Obama can end the "disparities" in care if some can still buy better care than others.

While a laudable goal to have quality care for everyone, I think the whole thing is a cruel sham that will be just one more way for government to have power over us. Knowing the kind of radical nitwits that think this is the best thing since sliced bread, I can see things like Baroness Warnock believes, that old people, particularly those with say Alzheimer's, have a duty to die (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1058404/Old-people-dementia-duty-die-pushed-death-says-Baroness-Warnock.html).


'If you are demented, you are wasting people's lives, your family's lives, and you are wasting the resources of the National Health Service.

I'm not a conspiracy kind of guy, but these people are serious, and they're far from alone... and I don't want to say I told you so.

No, tom and I are not the same people - we just both had the same brilliant opening thought.

So treatment is denied or rationed based not on a doctor's and patient's decision but on the whim of a bureaucrat. If that's the system you want you are welcome to it.Hello again, tom:

I don't know the difference. If you're insured, you've got an insurance bureaucrat making your health decisions for you.
Personally, I'd like NEITHER of them deciding on my health care... But, if somebody has to be a gatekeeper, I'd rather have the GOVERNMENT bureaucrat in the examining room with me instead of the INSURANCE bureaucrat.

You, on the other hand, like the insurance guy in there with you. I don't know why.

excon

While a laudable goal to have quality care for everyone, I think the whole thing is a cruel sham that will be just one more way for government to have power over us. Knowing the kind of radical nitwits that think this is the best thing since sliced bread, I can see things like Baroness Warnock believes, that old people, particularly those with say Alzheimer's, have a duty to die (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1058404/Old-people-dementia-duty-die-pushed-death-says-Baroness-Warnock.html).



Or how about Daschel who's book the Obama plan is purportedly modelled after ? He said that health-care reform “will not be pain free” and that seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.
NICE

Just one thing is driving me crazy. Government controlled healthcare isn't free healthcare - it is taxpayer funded healthcare.

If you want a glimpse into what socialized healthcare in the US would be like, look no further than your VA. We all know what an efficient and caring place the VA is.

My father used his VA benefits for a chronic stomach complaint. They treated him for several years with Prilosec for heartburn when in fact he had stomach cancer. Had this been caught in the early stages, I believe he would still be here.

For those desiring US Government Healthcare: be very careful what you wish for - you may get it.

EX
Did not say I was happy with the current system?But I have a chance to get the treatement my doctor recommends now (and yes appeals to the insurance companies at times can be frustrating ) .But come on ! I just detailed what is happening in nations with so called universal care .

My wife's 80+ year aunt was treated with laser surgury to correct her deteriorating eye sight and did not have some a$$ hole in Washington deciding her worthiness. She got quick care and her insurance paid for it. They did not make a decision on her worthiness to get the treatment .

At least with the insurance companies we are customers . What you propose is desk jocky so called public servant deciding someone should go blind.

I just detailed what is happening in nations with so called universal care .Hello again, tom:

You have YOUR details, and I have MINE. They don't line up. So, there's something funny with our details...

I wish we could believe our details. But, your details are produced by the insurance and pharmaceutical industry, and mine are produced by left wing loons.

All I know is the insurance companies are getting RICH off my health care. They're getting rich off the front end by selling health insurance... Then they get rich off the back end by selling malpractice insurance... There was a time when they had a place at the table, and with policy's paid for by the employer too... But, you and I both know, that model is dead.

I don't have a dog in this fight except my old bones.

I DO think that health care is now a common, like electricity, and a right. No, not a Constitutional right... But, a HUMAN right. I sincerely believe that anyone should be able to walk into any treatment facility and get treated, WITHOUT regard to payment.

excon

It is supposedly modeled after a British board which helps run the National Health Service. Curley can comment on this board if he chooses . I have heard it is horribly inefficient and overly bureaucratic. The Brit board approves or rejects treatments after calculating the cost of the treatment against the number of years the patient is expected to live to decide if it's worth giving the patient the treatment . The British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) proposed that the National Health Service use age as a measurement of a patient's worthiness for treatment. To illustrate where that leads;In 2006 it was decided that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get the drug to save the other. After all, how many years would they be needing two good eyes?

So treatment is denied or rationed based not on a doctor's and patient's decision but on the whim of a bureaucrat. If that's the system you want you are welcome to it.

Yes the Board is inefficient and is the management of the actual hospitals and trusts, but what isn't when the government is involved.

Now their use of a longer ranging Triage system actual makes a lot of sense. After all you don't want to continually waste money and resources and transplants if the recipient then goes on to abuse the donated organ.
Or operate on someone when their quality of life simply doesn't justify the added expense, time and pain.
In that respect they do demonstrate some common sense.
This is where the private medical insurance steps in, basically if you want the treatment you are free to source it yourself and pay for it.

Hope that makes sense.

WITHOUT regard to payment.

There's the crux of the issue. All health care involves the efforts and labors of humans who deserve to be paid according to their worth. Like I said elsewhere ;this represents about a third of the GDP of the country . That is a huge takeover by the government . I'll repeat that... what is being proposed is the takeover by government of 1/3 of the GDP .
Millions of workers are employed in that effort.. all those greedy b*stards in the insurance ,pharmaceutical , medical devices,doctors ,nurses ,health care aides etc .

Your old bones had better have some extra cash because when the gvt. Starts making quality of life decisions for you I expect you'll be making that field trip to India to get your life saving care.

WITHOUT regard to payment.there's the crux of the issue. All health care involves the efforts and labors of humans who deserve to be paid according to their worth.Hello again, tom:

It IS the crux. Given what our national health care bill is TODAY, I submit that we'll get a bigger bang for our buck if we (1) throw the insurance guys out of the equation entirely, (2) go to a single payer system, and (3) cover EVERYBODY.

In fact, I think we'll have PLENTY of money left over to do some PREVENTATIVE health care, and even drug treatment on demand.

Yes, I think the insurance and pharma companies are getting THAT RICH!!

excon

Thanks Curley

What you describe is a 2 tier unequal system . I think proponents here believe (based on Excon's last posting ) is that in a universal system you can get what you want whenever you want without cost considerations.

That is unrealistic and frankly an unrealistic utopian view of what government is capable of . Unlimited demand increases demand and stretches resources beyond capability . That is why we hear so often stories of rationing as the solution with the government being the arbiter of who shoud and should not get treatment .

I sincerely believe that anyone should be able to walk into any treatment facility and get treated, WITHOUT regard to payment.
I wonder why we have to pay for food. Why do we have to pay to have a roof over our head? Human compassion should be put ahead of capitalism…let's not pay for anything…everything should be free in the interest of universal human "rights".

That is unrealistic and frankly an unrealistic utopian view of what government is capable of.... That is why we hear so often stories of rationing as the solution with the government being the arbiter of who shoud and should not get treatment .Hello again, tom:

Yeah, that's me - unrealistic and Utopian.

I don't know about the stories YOU hear about the government rationing health care... But, the stories I hear about the INSURANCE companies denying health care are astounding.

I seem to be arguing with myself about that. Do you not consider your insurance company to be a gatekeeper in the SAME way the government would be under universal health care?? If you don't, why?

excon

The problem the way I see it is that my employer is the gatekeeper. If insurance companies had to compete for my business then if I was unhappy with their coverage I would have a choice . I bet that if they had to compete they would find ways to reduce costs . As an example... they are allowed by the gvt. To write up administrative costs that they don't incure and they take advantage of it.

So yes the current system needs reform .I never denied it.
You think a single gvt. Server would be more efficient ? How could that be ? Show me where they demonstrate efficiency in anything they do ? NJ used to have long lines at motor vehicle inspection stations . They privatized it and now you can drive in without wait.

I already gave the story of the alzheimer's patient who is still waiting 2 years after application to medicaid to even start being covered by the system. Thankfully the facility he is at has not turned him away. That's your government at work.

Hello again, tom:

You're preaching to the choir. You KNOW I HATE the government. My only experience with them till recently, was with the DMV and the slameroo.

I recently turned 65. Can you imagine how bummed I was knowing that I'm now going to have to deal with Social Security and Medicare? I figured they'd be like the DMV on STEROIDS.

They weren't. I DIDN'T spend hours on the phone with them - EVER. I recently needed to change my direct deposit REAL FAST or I'd LOSE the money. Of course, I KNEW they couldn't do it in time, and I'd have to wait in a LOOOOOONG line just to get up to the window.

I didn't. There WASN'T a line, and they got it done in time.

Medicare?? They pay the bills, and they answer the phone.

Do I think government mandated health care is ideal?? No. Would it be better than the system we have?? YES, and by a LONG shot.

excon

Good thing you aren't or weren't disabled then . The waiting period for Medicare coverage for that is 2 years .

Anyway you are well aware about the future insolvency of both programs down the road . The programs you mention are about to get a huge influx of geezers entering the system demanding what's theirs .

Nope. One person each from 3 countries is a rather small statistical sample, though.

What I don't get, ex, is for a guy with so many suspicions about government you seem intent now on letting government take care of us. When did you start trusting the government? I don't, never did, and never will.

That's probably most of the problem. None of you guys trust anybody. You all think the world is out to get you. It must be hard to live that way Steve??

Thanks Curley

What you describe is a 2 tier unequal system . i think proponents here believe (based on Excon's last posting ) is that in a universal system you can get what you want whenever you want without cost considerations.

That is unrealistic and frankly an unrealistic utopian view of what government is capable of . Unlimited demand increases demand and stretches resources beyond capability . That is why we hear so often stories of rationing as the solution with the government being the arbiter of who shoud and should not get treatment .

We have the two tier system here too. And it works well I think. There is choice. I agree, Universal care for whatever and whenever seems unachievable. We have free care if you want it. We have paid care if you want it.

Thats probably most of the problem. None of you guys trust anybody. You all think the world is out to get you. It must be hard to live that way Steve???

Now Skell, there's a huge difference in distrust of politicians and paranoia. If there was any rampant paranoia in this country it was the last 8 years of libs worrying about the coming Bush theocracy and more recently, canceling the election (http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2255.shtml), decimating "the basic human rights of our citizenry" and the "large concentration camps...under construction around the US." Now THAT must be a miserable way to live.

Me? I just don't trust politicians as far as I can throw them and I believe it when radical Islamists chant "death to America." 9/11 gave us good reason to take them seriously.

I think socialized medicine is a good thing. People should not have to worry about losing their home and life savings because of an illness or accident that is not their fault. Even common heath problems such as hypertension and diabetes are quite expensive, and cancer treatment can cost a fortune for anyone who is not upper-middle class.

EX:

Here is more FACTS that dispprove your assertion that the uninsured are "dumped on the street" or don't get top notch care:





Immigration debate hits home for liver transplant patients - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-liver13apr13,0,1683353,full.story)

Puente's case highlights two controversial issues: Should illegal immigrants receive liver transplants in the U.S. and should taxpayers pick up the cost?







Is there a case of this happening in Britain or Australia or Canada?


No one from these countries mentioned the medico-legal situation.
That can add up to extra costs to the US medical system.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here is another potential problem with a single gov run system.

Theft of veterans' ID data - Security- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12916803/)

Talk about violation of your 4th amendment rights.
Sure this could happen just as easily with private insurance companies but I have not seen it in the news.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do agree that private insurers drive up the costs - profits, administrative costs for example.

However: the malpractice side is not always profitable for the insurers

Insurer's exit is sign of ailing malpractice market | OB/GYN News | Find Articles at BNET (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYD/is_3_37/ai_82879206)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The thing is healthcare is NOT FREE. People don't work for free. Hopitals and clinics are not built and maintained for free, equipment is not free, ambulances and the gas they use are not free. Education is not free. If you don't pay someone else does. Is that such a horrible thing to actually pay for goods and services?

Give me an example of another industry that does everything for free?
Do all lawyers work for free?
Does your grocery give away free food?
Does the President work for free?


To think that it should be provided for free is not logical nor tenable.







G&P

Then again here is the news from Britain about their system :

A plan to bring in managers from the private sector to manage failing hospitals
Private healthcare managers could be sent to turn round failing NHS hospitals - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4059589.ece)

Cancer patient given a choice ;take the drug the system permits which gives him a 1 in 6 chance of living or go out of the public system to use a drug that would double his chance of survival... at the price of losing his NHS care for good.
Cancer patients ‘betrayed’ by NHS - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4040168.ece)

Nearly all UK hospitals fail hygene standards .
Only five out of 51 hospital trusts pass hygiene test, say inspectors | Society | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/24/mrsa-hospital-hygiene)

20% of heart bypass patients dying because of delays in treatment.
The study, funded by the Department of Health, found the shortcomings were not to do with the actual surgery. The problems lay most often in delays in recognising that a patient was deteriorating after the operation, delays in getting senior clinicians to see a patient and failures to recognise that a patient had other, potentially complicating, problems.

Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report | Society | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/04/nhs.health2)

Elderly women forced to pull her own teeth because of a shortage of dentists... and NHS dentists refusal to treat her. Dentists complain the new system forces them to provide "conveyor belt care" and to "drill and fill" to meet meaningless targets..
As the article points out ;this is a common problem
Pensioner, 76, forced to pull out own teeth after 12 NHS dentists refuse to treat her | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-555589/Pensioner-76--forced-pull-teeth-12-NHS-dentists-refuse-treat-her.html)

Lung patients condemned to death because life saving drugs are denied them.
Yet the plans by NICE, the Government's drug rationing body, mean no life-extending therapies will be available to new patients because the cost of the most expensive exceeds its threshold of £30,000 per head.
Only the cheapest drug used to combat the condition will remain available for patients
Lung patients 'condemned to death as NHS withdraws their too expensive drugs' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-544112/Lung-patients-condemned-death-NHS-withdraws-expensive-drugs.html)

Women in labour are being refused entry to overstretched maternity units and told to give birth elsewhere
Women in labour turned away by maternity units | Society | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/21/health.nhs)

61 year old women told by NHS that she is too old to receive a routine heart operation .
NHS chiefs tell grandmother, 61, she's 'too old' for £5,000 life-saving heart surgery | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-521772/NHS-chiefs-tell-grandmother-61-shes-old-5-000-life-saving-heart-surgery.html)

One in eight NHS hospital patients still has to wait more than a year for treatment
One in eight patients waiting over a year for treatment, admits minister | Society | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/jun/08/health.politics)

UK lagging behind other western countries in its use of new drugs and survival rates
UK lagging behind on cancer drug access, study finds | Society | Society Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/may/10/cancercare.health)

There are many more articles I found like this... but you get the point .

How about Canada ?

Colon cancer patient has to go to US to get needed treatment .
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007 (http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html)

Women with tricky pregnancies sent to the US for delivery .

Canada, once able to boast about its high rank in the world for low infant-mortality rate – sixth place in 1990 – saw its rank plummet to 25th place in 2005
globeandmail.com: Health (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM. 20080505.wpregnant05%2FBNStory%2FspecialScienceand Health%2Fhome&ord=16874890&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true)

In a report titled The Wait Time Strategy the number of days between decision to treat and treatment is listed. These are the average number of days waiting for December 2006 and January 2007.
Cancer surgury 68 Days
Angiography 28 Days
Angioplasty 17 Days
Bypass surgury 48 Days
Cataract Surgury 183 Days
Hip Relacement 257 Days
Knee Replacement 307 Days
MRI 105 Days
CT 62 Days

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation/wait_times/providers/reports/wt_update_032905.pdf

More than 400 Canadians in the full throes of a heart attack or other cardiac emergency have been sent to the United States because no hospital can provide the lifesaving care they require here. Most of the heart patients who have been sent south since 2003 typically show up in Ontario hospitals, where they are given clot-busting drugs. If those drugs fail to open their clogged arteries, the scramble to locate angioplasty in the United States begins.
globeandmail.com: National (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM. 20080301.wheart01%2FBNStory%2FNational%2Fhome&ord=108782161&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true)

Waiting times for surguries are at an all time high .
Wait times for surgery, medical treatments at all-time high: report (http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/fraser-report.html)

While we are heading hell-bent towards a Canadian system ;Canada is moving towards an American like system.
Canada inches toward private medicine | csmonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0808/p06s01-woam.htm)

So basically what you are saying Tom is that no healthcare system actually works? Your's doesn't, Britains doesn't, Europes doesn't, Canada's doesn't, Australia's doesn't!

Perhaps Africa is the answer...

Skell ,I began doing my research on your system. Like you said it is a two tiered unequal system. The people with the means have the option to supplement their health care and about a third of the people do so. Our system has it at 1/3 of the people already receiving public run medical care... so ours is already 2 tiered giving massive gvt. Help to select demographics.
I guess it is a matter of debate which system is better . Both are flawed .


Since I have never lived in a system that is run under a free market and consumer choice method ,then all I can advance is theory . The flaws of socialized and semi-socialized methods have already been demonstrated.

Brown apologises for unacceptable failings at Stafford 'Third World' hospital...
There can be "no excuses" for what happened to patients at Stafford Hospital, the Prime Minister said today as he apologised to families caught up in the scandal.
Gordon Brown promised relatives they would be entitled to an independent review of case notes and said standards "fell far short" of what people could expect from the NHS.
A damning report form the Healthcare Commission yesterday detailed a catalogue of failings at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, which runs Stafford and Cannock Chase hospitals.
Dehydrated patients were forced to drink out of flower vases, while others were left in soiled linen on filthy wards.
Brown apologises for unacceptable failings at Stafford 'Third World' hospital | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1162552/Brown-apologises-unacceptable-failings-Stafford-Third-World-hospital.html)

Brown apologises for unacceptable failings at Stafford 'Third World' hospital...
There can be "no excuses" for what happened to patients at Stafford Hospital, the Prime Minister said today as he apologised to families caught up in the scandal.
Gordon Brown promised relatives they would be entitled to an independent review of case notes and said standards "fell far short" of what people could expect from the NHS.
A damning report form the Healthcare Commission yesterday detailed a catalogue of failings at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, which runs Stafford and Cannock Chase hospitals.
Dehydrated patients were forced to drink out of flower vases, while others were left in soiled linen on filthy wards.
Brown apologises for unacceptable failings at Stafford 'Third World' hospital | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1162552/Brown-apologises-unacceptable-failings-Stafford-Third-World-hospital.html)

They say the same thing when a local VA hospital is found to have mold covered walls and substandard treatment.

It should never happen - but it does - everyday.

Hello tom:

That IS the line, isn't it? But, if someone shows up at an ER who needs hospitalization or long term care, they give him a band-aid and put him on the street. That is JUST SO!

If we're going to have this discussion, you're going to have to tell the truth. Facts DO count. I promise you, there are NO uninsured patients IN the hospital getting cared for.

excon
I disagree. Our library homeless guy (and my good friend) Jerry has had leg and foot infections over the years, has gone to an area hospital via the ER, was admitted, received IV treatments there for a couple of days, and then was sent to a rehab center for another 6 weeks or so of continuing treatment. Medicaid covered his expenses each time.

I disagree. Our library homeless guy (and my good friend) Jerry has had leg and foot infections over the years, has gone to an area hospital via the ER, was admitted, received IV treatments there for a couple of days, and then was sent to a rehab center for another 6 weeks or so of continuing treatment. Medicaid covered his expenses each time.

Greenie

Medicaid covered his expenses each time.Isn't Medicaid a form of socialized medicine?

Isn't Medicaid a form of socialized medicine?

Socialist, fascist, take your pick.

socialist, fascist, take your pick.So it should be abolished in your view?

Also could you tell me how you relate Medicaid to fascism (here's the definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascist))? Thank you.

Medicaid covered his expenses each time.Hello CB:

I disagree with your disagreement. Medicaid IS insurance. I'm sure they found a way to fit him in... I'm equally sure the ones who CAN'T fit it to any insurance program, get thrown to the curb - literally.

I say again, there are NO uninsured patients IN the hospital receiving treatment ANYWHERE in the wonderful free market system that we have.

excon

Hello CB:

I disagree with your disagreement. Medicaid IS insurance. I'm sure they found a way to fit him in... I'm equally sure the ones who CAN'T fit it to any insurance program, get thrown to the curb - literally.
excon

Too much Kool aid; Medicaid is not insurance; it's an involuntary government transfer program.

Too much Kool aid; Medicaid is not insurance; it's an involuntary government transfer program.Hello again, George:

Nope, it's insurance PAID for by the government, who took it from the taxpayers who have no say in where it's spent. Feel better now?

It's six of one - half dozen of another...

If what you're saying is, that EVERYBODY gets the treatment they need in this country, then I STRONGLY disagree. If you don't think hospitals dump uninsured patients on the street, then I STRONGLY disagree with you again.

excon

...it's an involuntary government transfer program.Is every government program that provides a service considered "government transfer program"? What is actually being transferred?

Hello CB:

I disagree with your disagreement. Medicaid IS insurance. I'm sure they found a way to fit him in... I'm equally sure the ones who CAN'T fit it to any insurance program, get thrown to the curb - literally.

I say again, there are NO uninsured patients IN the hospital receiving treatment ANYWHERE in the wonderful free market system that we have.

Excon

Medicaid is taxpayor supported.

As to your last statement prove it!

Yesterday I took care of a 30 something your old male WITHOUT insurance. He was in the coronary care unit because he "unintentionally" took meth. Then he left against medical advice.


You really don't have a clue as to how much free healthcare is actually done.
Why don't you go to your local county hospital or catholic hospital and ask the doctors, nurses, and administrators exactly how much costs they have to eat.
This issue is even more acute along the Mexican border.




Shriners International - Home (http://www.shrinershq.org/Shrine/)

Children up to age 18 with orthopaedic conditions, burns, spinal cord injuries, and cleft lip and palate are eligible for care and receive all services in a family-centered environment at no charge—regardless of financial need.

If you know of a child Shriners Hospitals might be able to help, please call our toll-free patient referral line:

In the U.S.: 1-800-237-5055.
In Canada: 1-800-361-7256







Here is another





St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f2bfab46cb118010VgnVCM1000000e 2015acRCRD)

St. Jude is the only pediatric cancer research center where families never pay for treatment not covered by insurance. No child is ever denied treatment because of the family's inability to pay. St. Jude is financially supported by ALSAC, its fundraising organization.
















G&P

My sister had her gall bladder removed and was in the hospital for 3 weeks back in the 80s at Mercy Hospital in New Orleans. She has never had insurance.

I dated a young man that received treatment from St. Jude's for luekemia way back in the day. As far as I know they still treat without consideration of insurance.

My sister had her gall bladder removed and was in the hospital for 3 weeks back in the 80s at Mercy Hospital in New Orleans. She has never had insurance.
So who pays the hospital in that case?

Hello again:

Stop with the convincing... You're not going to win this argument by telling me about the exceptions to the rule.

It matters NOT who IS treated. It only matters who ISN'T.

excon

So who pays the hospital in that case?

I have no idea. Maybe the Catholic Diocese of that area? Mercy Hospital was a charity hospital. I don't know if they survived Katrina.

Hospitals treat without insurance and set up payment plans every day. A co-worker's husband tore up his shoulder in a go-cart wreck and was treated in the ER and stayed for a day or two in hospital. They worked out a payment plan. (They paid on it for years, though.)

My sister will be 50 this year and has never had traditional health insurance. She has never been turned away in an emergency, but doesn't go in for routine health checkups or for the arthritis that is setting in her shoulder because she doesn't want to pay out of pocket.

The healthcare is there, but it is getting so expensive that regular working folks can't afford it.

Hello again:

YouTube - Anderson Cooper on "60 minutes": Skid Row patient dumping (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q-yTFZUolg)

excon

Just imaging Tim Geithner,Sen Chris Dudd ,managing health care the way they've managed the financial crisis. Your government at work. I can tell you that Medicaid may be mother's milk... but it has taken over a year to get someone who is qualified and already residing in a nursing home their benefits. Who's paying ? Nobody. The nursing home is sicking the lawyers on anyone they can think of to get reimbursed .

Gordon Brown has apologized after an investigation showed that the British National Health Service run Stafford Hospital was so abyssmally bad that patients drank water out of flowerpots and that too many died in squalor or agony as untrained and undermanned staff were forced to meet “targets” instead of providing the care they advertised. Brown claimed these were “isolated” incidents also .


Brown apologises for unacceptable failings at Stafford 'Third World' hospital | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1162552/Brown-apologises-unacceptable-failings-Stafford-Third-World-hospital.html)


The commission's report - revealed in yesterday's Daily Mail - said at least 400 deaths could not be explained, although it is feared up to 1,200 patients may have died needlessly.



Daily Mail reader replies share some of their "isolated incidents " in the comments .A worthy read.

Our system serves 90% of the people well. We can do reforms to take care of the rest and handle issues like costs and legal aspects without scrapping the system we have .

Just an FYI: the Daily Mail is akin to the National Enquirer in the US.

How about the Times on line ? Is that an acceptable source for you ?

Gordon Brown apologises for 'inexcusable' failings at Stafford Hospital - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article5932341.ece)

There are 455 sources on the net with similar stories . Take your pick .

Just wanted for give you the heads up about that particular one to save any future embarrassment.

I'll give you the same heads up about the NY Slimes . I just use them because everyone thinks they are the paper of record.

Hello again,

YouTube - Anderson Cooper on "60 minutes": Skid Row patient dumping (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q-yTFZUolg)

Just in case you missed it the first time.

excon