Was listening to the news this morning and one story was about the death of the actress, Mz Richardson a couple weeks ago. Turns out that if she had been given a simple test she would likely still be alive. But that this test was not authorized under the Canadian health system because of cost. Top that off with the long delay in getting her to medical treatment because of the lack of helicopter medevac service and you have a relatively young woman dead because of inadequate health services due to Government regulation. Is this what we really want in America? :(

Of course it's not. As a nurse I am quite frightened by the idea of socialized medicine. I won't be able to order an ultrasound if I feel that there might be a shoulder dystocia because it's "too expensive." That simple test could save the life of the baby I am ordering it for.

Hello 450:

I don't want the government in the examining room with me and my doctor... But, right now, I've got the government in there AND an insurance adjuster.

Frankly, I don't know what the insurance adjuster is doing there. Certainly HE'S going to deny me services too, just like you think the government is going to, otherwise he WOULDN'T be there. No?

Why do YOU think he's there? Or do you even get that he is. Certainly the email you get from the right wingers isn't going to tell you about them.

Seems to me, that health care would get a whole lot cheaper, and be more widely available if we removed ONE of those FOUR people from the examining room..

What?? You don't think insurance companies are making money here?

excon

Excon, my love,

Did you not know that we, as medical professionals, can manipulate the insurance companies when necessary? Yes, there are billing codes, etc. but when there is a medical necessity, we can re-code the procedures so that your insurance company will pay. And, it's LEGAL!

Excon, my love, Did you not know that we, as medical professionals, can manipulate the insurance companies when necessary? Yes, there are billing codes, etc. but when there is a medical necessity, we can re-code the procedures so that your insurance company will pay. Hello again, J:

Me theenks you could do the same with the government. I don't know why not.

excon

Government Run Universal Health Care isn't universal, doesn't create health, and doesn't care.

Government-run Universal Health Care results in rationing of health care, which means that millions of people won't get the care they really need. Therefore, it is NOT universal.

Government-run healthcare doesn't provide health care. It provides, at best, health insurance, and at worst, miles of red tape. Therefore it doesn't provide health.

And government-run agencies are crewed by people who don't give a damn... go to any Department of Motor Vehicles office and tell me if that statement isn't true. The government and its employees don't care.

Elliot

Hello again, J:

Me theenks you could do the same with the government. I dunno why not.

excon

Lack of competition.

In the end, insurance companies are businesses. If they get a reputation for not covering the procedures that they say they are going to cover, clients will go elsewhere for coverage. So it is in their best interests, in the end, to provide the services they promise. In the end, that's how they get new customers and make money. That incentive doesn't work in a single-payor government-run system that doesn't have competition.

There is no incentive for the government to pay out on benefits, and every incentive for them to make it as hard as possible to obtain benefits. Every penny they don't spend on health care is another dollar that some politician can use for his pet pork project.

That's why it won't work to change codes in a government-run system.

Elliot

government-run agencies are crewed by people who don't give a damn... go to any Department of Motor Vehicles office and tell me if that statement isn't true. The government and its employees don't care.Hello again, Elliot:

Tell me why you think the insurance agent gives a damn, or cares about you at all. You're HAPPY to have HIM in the examining room with you... I can't tell why. Maybe you own insurance company stock. Come on, El. Don't keep secrets. Why do you think your insurance company is going to treat you any better than the government would?

I can tell that you're IGNORING the insurance agent issue. That tells me a LOT.

excon

I read the whole story in the Globe and mail about the timeline of Ms. Richardson's events. I'm curious to know what this simple test is 450donn. By the report it is possible that nothing would have helped Ms. Richardson who walked away from the scene of her ski fall of her own accord. Not even a helicopter flight would have helped. An autopsy would reveal more details.

Hello again, Elliot:

Tell me why you think the insurance agent gives a damn, or cares about you at all. You're HAPPY to have HIM in the examining room with you.... I can't tell why. Maybe you own insurance company stock. Come on, El. Don't keep secrets. Why do you think your insurance company is going to treat you any better than the government would?

I can tell that you're IGNORING the insurance agent issue. That tells me a LOT.

excon


As I said, because they are in the business of making money, it is in their best interests to keep their clients happy. Ergo, they usually are. It doesn't matter whether the employees really give a damn or not, because they HAVE to do their best for the client or else they get fired by a company that wants to be competitive.

The government has no such incentive to keep employees happy because they have no competition.

Elliot

Hello Need:

He might be referring to an MRI. Another poster suggested that the LACK of an MRI meant that the Canadian health system was CUTTING necessary services. Ergo - BAD, and that's what killed her!

But, of course, in a small ski town, there's no MARKET for an expensive MRI machine. In my home town of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, in the very much market driven economy, there wasn't an MRI machine either.

I suppose one could blame the market based system for that failure... But, that would be stupid, kind of like blaming this failure on Canada's system...

excon

I read the whole story in the Globe and mail about the timeline of Ms. Richardson's events. I'm curious to know what this simple test is 450donn. By the report it is possible that nothing would have helped Ms. Richardson who walked away from the scene of her ski fall of her own accord. Not even a helicopter flight would have helped. An autopsy would reveal more details.

globeandmail.com: Saving Morgan: The lesson of Natasha (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090402.whead02/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home)




Morgan was whisked to the local emergency room, where doctors ordered a CT scan and immediately put her on a helicopter to Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital in Cleveland. She was operated on in the early hours of March 20.





The actress was skiing at Mont Tremblant resort, north of Montreal, on March 16 when she fell on a beginner's hill. She initially said she was okay, and waved off medical assistance. Two hours later, she began showing symptoms of a brain injury. By the time she arrived at a specialized Montreal hospital, seven hours had passed. She was airlifted home to New York the next day, already said to be brain dead, and died on March 18.






In almost every hospital in the US, regardless of size, a Cat Scan is available.
A cat scan should have been ordered and performed asap. Any ER doctor will tell you that an emergency CT of the head can be done WITHOUT having to clear it with insurance, lack of insurance or with some Medicare or Medicaid clerk.
If this happened in the US, her death would be deemed negligent and a malpractice suit would have been filed within a week!


On Google maps it appears that Montreal is within 100 miles of the resort.

? Did the late Mrs Richardson get flown by helicopter [ a common occurrence in the US ] or by ambulance?

? Why did it take SEVEN hours to get a cat scan?

? Why did she get airlifted to the Mt Sinai in NY - could they not handle her condition in "a specialized Montreal Hospital?"





G&P

I agree 100% with ETW
The stimulus even has a provision that will set up a board that will review and decide IF THEY feel a person should receive surgery and other medical things. They can decide that you are sick and dying and/or too old and deny you because they want the money in their pockets.

I agree 100% with ETW
The stimulus even has a provision that will set up a board that will review and decide IF THEY feel a person should receive surgery and other medical things. They can decide that you are sick and dying and/or too old and deny you because they want the money in their pockets.How is that different from the insurance companies doing the same thing for their profit?

I think it will get worse with the government being in charge of who gets help. Same but way worse.

I guess it depends on the governmental situation in each country.

I read the whole story in the Globe and mail about the timeline of Ms. Richardson's events. I'm curious to know what this simple test is 450donn. By the report it is possible that nothing would have helped Ms. Richardson who walked away from the scene of her ski fall of her own accord. Not even a helicopter flight would have helped. An autopsy would reveal more details.

I remember the article quite clearly appearing in the Toronto Star. Ms. Richardson refused to wear a helmet that would have saved her life, and she also refused medical care, and was offered it 3 times. As for a 'simple test' being too expensive, wouldn't you think that her family had enough money to pay for five or six of them if they were needed.

Hello Need:

He might be referring to an MRI. Another poster suggested that the LACK of an MRI meant that the Canadian health system was CUTTING necessary services. Ergo - BAD, and that's what killed her!

But, of course, in a small ski town, there's no MARKET for an expensive MRI machine. In my home town of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, in the very much market driven economy, there wasn't an MRI machine either.

I suppose one could blame the market based system for that failure... But, that would be stupid, kinda like blaming this failure on Canada's system....

excon

Canadian govt. is not cutting necessary services. I live in a small town in Ontario with a new hospital. We have an MRI and catscans are done on a daily basis, ordered up by the client's physician. As for ultrasound, I had one the other day. Quite simple really.

I have heard too many stories about health care being denied to SOME people or that it was too little too late. But I do believe you on the Richardson case because something told me that it was because she didn't bother getting the necessary help.

I have heard too many stories about health care being denied to SOME people or that it was too little too late. But I do believe you on the Richardson case because something told me that it was because she didn't bother getting the necessary help.

No health care is denied any Canadian, new or otherwise. We have all paid into it over the years through employee deduction (it is now up to the employer to make these contributions). I am quite happy the way I am treated, and I imagine others are too.

Where do you hear these stories ? It is up to the individual to keep on top of his/her healthcare, make appts. Show up for appts. For procedure. No one else can do that for them.

I am in healthcare, as you know, I know how the system works, and from my standpoint it works perfectly for my clients, who by the way, come out of the hospital into homecare, cared for by Personal Support Workers, paid by socialized medicine until they can function on their own.

So, where do we fall down on the job ?

Tick

I find it interesting that the Canadians have not answered why it takes 7 hours
To be evaluated for head trama?


Tickle in your post 17 are you
1] blaming the victim?
2] by this statement:



As for a 'simple test' being too expensive, wouldn't you think that her family had enough money to pay for five or six of them if they were needed.


a] are you implying a dual standard of care based on ability to pay?
b] a cat scan of the head in a paient with a recent history of head trauma and changes in consciousness is STANDARD OF CARE IN THE US - ask any ER physician in the US.

Docs questioning Quebec's urgent care resources - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/09/richardson.injury.timeline.gupta/index.html)






Natasha Richardson came to Mont Tremblant ski resort in eastern Canada last month for what was supposed to be a skiing getaway.


Actress Natasha Richardson died after suffering an epidural hematoma in a fall during a ski lesson.

But what she may not have known is some doctors have been arguing that if a person here is in need of urgent care at a medical trauma center, he or she may not be able to get there fast enough. The only way to get to the closest trauma center from here is to drive 2½ hours to Montreal. No helicopter medical service is available...


Another ambulance was dispatched to the resort. This time, the paramedics went inside and worked on Richardson for 33 minutes before transporting her to the closest hospital an hour away, but it is not a trauma center.

In the US, EMS "scoops and runs," that is get the patient and stabilize en route rather than try to stabilize on the scene. Same situation occured with Princess Diana. Why bring her to an unqualified hospital ??????????!!!!!!!!!!


In an open letter to the citizens of Quebec sent to the Montreal Gazette, Dr. Michael Churchill Smith, director of professional services at the Montreal General Hospital, said incidents like Natasha Richardson's should serve as a wake-up call to Quebec. "It is no longer morally acceptable for our citizens who, in the moment of their greatest needs, do not have access to a rapid transit system that gives them the best chance to not only survive, but to survive with a quality of life."


The following statement is typical of a bureacrat that sees things in terms of cost and not as a person in the medical field.



Daniel LeFrancois, director of Quebec's pre-hospital care, told the Gazette that cost is prohibitive when a one-hour flight costs $6,000. It's a question of resources and priorities focusing on "the biggest gain for the biggest need," he said.





If this had been an ordinary citizen there would be no press.

Just something to think about when the politicians promise "universal healthcare."






G&P

inthebox, I am not prepared to argue with you regarding our healthcare system. Ms. Richardson refused care when she came of the slopes. If she had gone directly to emergency, the way the ski instructors were suggesting, she may have had a chance. That is what I read in the paper.

Our heathcare works for me and my family and has done for several years. My son has some pretty expensive healthcare every six months and will for the rest of his life. He is 27, his condition was diagnosed at l8. Hopefully he will have these benefits for quite a while longer.

I have benefits too and I am 66, inthebox. I can go the hospital and have a catscan, MRI, any procedure that I want, and don't have to pay dime. Can you say that??

I don't care about Ms. Richardson. Callous, but I take care of my own. Why weren't her family up front as soon as she collapsed. No one said her husband or family were with her that day. She was alone, albeit not contemplating any accidents, but she did refuse a helmet.

I have healthcare here in Ontario Canada and being in the healthcare sector, I know I will be treated the way I want to be.

You don't want universal heathcare, okay, that's fine with me.

ms. tickle

One can also notice how many Canadians come to this board looking for medical advice because they can't afford to see a doctor - it's pretty much all americans. Both systems have individual cases that one could dig up to try make a point. I agree with tickle, we are overwhelmingly happy with our system here. If you don't like it then that's fine.

I am glad that you have healthcare, but it would be foolish to deny the fact that TIME and ACCESS played a role in the death of Mrs Richardson.

CNN, not reputed for being "right wing," had this segment from Dr Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon, and it was 2 hours after the event since her first call to seek medical help, and then it was FIVE HOURS till she got to Montreal. The ambulance took 2 and a half hours and a helicopter would have taken half an hour or less, but as per lack of resources and decisions from Quebec's "pre-hospital care" a helicopter was deemed "cost prohibitive."

BTW Tickle, at least you are honest saying you don't care, but what if it were you or a loved one in the place of Mrs Richardson? Would you deem that kind of emergency care and that result acceptable for you?

In the US, with our lack of "universal healthcare," if this case happened to any citizen, lawyers would be lining up to, justifiably, file a malpractice / wrongful death suit, and they would win.


This is worth repeating;




In an open letter to the citizens of Quebec sent to the Montreal Gazette, Dr. Michael Churchill Smith, director of professional services at the Montreal General Hospital, said incidents like Natasha Richardson's should serve as a wake-up call to Quebec. "It is no longer morally acceptable for our citizens who, in the moment of their greatest needs, do not have access to a rapid transit system that gives them the best chance to not only survive, but to survive with a quality of life."[




As to


"I can go the hospital and have a catscan, MRI, any procedure that I want, and dont have to pay dime. Can you say that ???"


I would like to see the wait time, the actual bill in order for you to prove that statement.






G&P

inthebox,
Please read tickle and my posts just above yours.
Thanks.
NK.

NK:

I have.

I am glad you are content with the Canadian heathcare system. Yes, anyone can point to specific examples of failure in ANY healthcare system, private or socialized. No system is perfect all the time.


Certainly the faults of the American healthcare system - expense, wastefullness, litigation, ER waits, waits to see a primary care physician, insurance company interference with medical decisions based upon cost, lack of an integrated communication between doctors, variations in care, big pharma influence, bankruptcies due to medical costs etc...
All these are big problems and open for discussion...

But the notion that socialized medicine is the best thing for the population as a whole and for every single person under its auspices... is very much debatable.

The notion that politicians can promise the moon and the sun to a knaive population that wants to believe in those promises has to be tempered with reality.








G&P

inthebox, when I required an ultrasound, doctor gave me the requisiton, I was at the hospital the next day and having it done; same for a catscan for my husband, next day, MRI, next day. We never see the billings, don't have to and never will. Why would you want to see the biling for it ? What would that tell you ? Would it matter ?

Her husband, Liam Neeson was in Toronto filming at the time of her accident. I saw no mention of him attending her at the that time or after. Surely he had the funds for a helicopter, even if the Quebec govt. didn't? So, yes, family dropped the ball. I haven't heard anything of a class action lawsuit from the family yet.

You are a very negative person. I would not want to be in your shoes. I have lived in the US where there was no money for my son's care when he was 2. Hospital bill was $5000 for two days in pediatric care. We moved back up to Canada immediately after he was out of hospital and have never regretted the decision.

Tick

The notion that politicians can promise the moon and the sun to a knaive population that wants to believe in those promises has to be tempered with reality.But the population is not *naive*. Only the doomsayers believe that a system can be perfect. Pretty much most people are indeed grounded in reality unless you feed them other information. I'll agree that your politicians differ from ours and perhaps our system would not work in your country. Once again feel free to click on any topic innthe healh and wellness section and take stock of who asks the questions. Not many from Canadians as they will actually go to their GP without worried about having to repay the cost or fighting with an insurance company.

NeedKarma and Tickle,

Is Erbitux an approved treatment for colon cancer in Canada yet?

What is the average wait time for senior citizens to receive medical care in Canada? I have heard that 5 days waiting in the ER is not uncommon in places like Winnipeg. Ottowa PROMISES a 4-week wait for radiation therapies to begin... and I read a news story where they failed to meet that promise. In the USA, you get radiation therapy as soon as you are ready for it, and there are no 4-week wait periods to contend with. Why are there 4-month waiting periods for MRIs for patients who have been suffering from seizures, headaches and nausea?

(As a side note, I witnessed a patient suffer a gand-mal seisure this past Thursday. She is 25 years old, never before having suffered a seisure of any type, but is a Type II insulin-dependent diabetic. She had a series of diagnistic tests performed within HOURS on the onset of the seizure, including MRIs, blood workups, neurological tests, and a whole bunch of stuff I can't even pronounce. She is still in the hospital, but she received care IMMEDIATELY, and there was no delay in testing or treatment. I question whether Canada's health system would be as quick or as thorough, due to lack of equipment and personnel.)

I hear that patients with chronic back pain are waiting years for treatment. Is this true? I suffer from chroonic back pain and can see my physician within a couple of hours, and if needed, get surgery within a couple of days.

Are there MRI machines in every hospital in Canada yet? What is the average wait for diagnostic tests in Canada? Does it take more time for a human or an animal to receive a PET scan in Canada? Word is that patients wait days, even weeks, for a PET scan machine to become free, while the machines are used in animal experiments.

I also hear that 1.5 million Ontarians can't find a family physician because of a lack of practitioners. We may fail in terms of INSURANCE COVERAGE here in the USA, but there is no shortage of trained medical personnel. EVERYONE can find a doctor here, even if they have to go to the ER to do so.

The big argument in favor of universal single-payer health care in the USA is that there are supposedly 48 million Americans without health insurance. The problem is that this 48 million number is a crock.

Of that 48 million, what they don't tell you is that 11 million of them are young single adults aged 18-30, in perfect health, who have CHOSEN not to pay for insurance that they don't need yet.

Another 11 million are illegal immigrants. Incidentally, illegal immigrants may not have health insurance, but they most certainly have health coverage... from free clinics and hospitals.

Of the remaining 26 million, we need to examine their situations. The question asked in 2007 (the year of the study that produced this information) was "Have you been without health insurance during any time in 2007?" Many respondents said yes. However, the polsters never asked "How long were you off insurance?"

The Heritage Foundation did some investigating and found out that half of respondents who said that they were off insurance for 'part of 2007' were uninsured for less than 6 months, any many only for a few weeks. Almost 3/4 of all respondents were back on isurance within 1 year. The fact that these people were never accounted for when they went back on insurance totally changes the situation.

So now we are down to 19 million, or roughly 6% of the US population that is uninsured.

And as I said before, that 6% of the population STILL is covered for health care by free clinics and hospitals.

So the "problem" that universal health care is supposed to fix is a tiny one, compared to the incredible damage that will be done to our medical system that will effect the other 94% of us adversely.

Elliot

ET,
Don't know. I haven't faced any of that, nor has anyone in my family.

NK,

I am an EMT, my brother is a doctor and most of my family are patients of one sort or another. I have also lived with universal health care (in Israel). So I know a lot about this subject.

I personally have taken sick people with no medical insurance to hospitals and have seen them taken care of to the same degree as patients with full coverage.

I have seen patients in the USA get care as soon as they ask for it, and have also seen patients in Israel wait on line in the "Kupat Cholim" universal healthcare system for literally days on end.

On the other hand, I've also seen Israeli hospitals treat Palestinians with no medical insurance as if they were Israelis, so I've seen both the good and the bad in the Israeli universal health system.

(But I have also seen uninsured Palestinians who weren't even part of the healthcare system given care while Israelis who are covered by the system waited... so I don't know whether the care for Palestinians is part of a PC culture or based on the strength of the system. A discussion for another time.)

I've seen patients in the USA who would have died anywhere else live because they had the right technology in the right place at the right time and didn't have to wait for it. And I've seen patients who should have lived die because they didn't get the care they needed because they weren't in the USA.

I mentioned Israel's system. The advantage that Israel's universal health system has over other universal health systems around the world is that Israel is still a major innovator of medical technologies... on par with the USA in terms of medical breakthroughs. What that means is that even though there are long lines and mediocre care within the system compared to private health care, they make up for it with innovative treatments, medicines and technologies not available in most other universal health systems. That technological advantage of innovation is able to offset the natural disadvantages of a universal health system.

But as a general rule, even Israelis don't like their universal health system. Most of them go to private doctors as soon as they are able to afford it, using Kupat Cholim for only the most basic care. That's another advantage that Israel has over other government-run universal healthcare systems... the system is by-choice. Those who want and can afford private medical coverage are able to get it without hassle. Which brings the natural competitive forces back into the system, which is in turn what inspires the innovations discussed above. The system really is a free-market system, with the government being one of the competitors. A poor one by most standards, and one that would have failed long ago if not for the government's treasury to keep it afloat. But Israel offers alternatives to a single-payer system.

In any case, my point is that I know universal healthcare from the inside as well as the outside. And I know private healthcare from inside and outside. And based on my experience, universal healthcare is ALWAYS 2nd best (or worse) to private health care.

So, NK, I know that you haven't faced any of that. But I have. Trust my greater experience in this area.

Elliot

Hello:

I don't understand how people who DON'T have the system, can tell people who DO have the system, that the system sucks... Specially when the people who DO have the system, like it.

I spose they don't really know anything about their own system, do they? You righty's are getting sillier every day.

excon

All right, excon, let me put this in a way that you might be able to understand.

You have been in prison. Was it a government run prison, or was it a privately run one that was contracted by the government?

Government-run prisons SUCK. You know that better than anyone else here. Privately-run prisons suck too, but a lot less than government-run ones. They suck, but they don't SUCK. For one thing, they tend to be more efficient. For another, quality tends to be better (food quality, accommodations, etc.). Not GOOD mind you, but better.

So... which do you want running your healthcare? The government that SUCKS or the private company that only sucks? Or for that matter, the company that competes with the one that sucks and therefore doesn't suck?

You don't have to be part of a system to know whether it works or not. I was never a communist, but I know that the Soviet Union fell because of it. I've never been in prison, but I know it sucks (or SUCKS, depending on where you are).

But again, unlike most here, I HAVE lived in a country with government-run healthcare. And it really does SUCK.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

Actually, private prisons are MUCH worse... But, we can have that argument on another thread...

I hate the government too, but I found that I hate insurance companies worse.

Interestingly, I like the way Medicare is handled, and I like the way Social Security is handled... Yes, I'm pleasantly surprised... They answer their phones. They know what they're talking about. There were no lines when I had to go in. They pay the bills. The money is in the account when it's supposed to be.

What's not to like?

So, all we need to do is have the government write the checks, and throw the insurance companies OUT of the equation. I PROMISE you it will be cheaper, better and we can cover everybody...

Really, I've done the math.

excon

If we REALLY want to cut medical expenses, we need to re-impose the rule that forbade lawyers to ADVERTISE.

I know, I know. Off thread!

Ex if you hate third party payors [ gov or private ins ] why don't you just pay everything out of pocket?




G&P

If we REALLY want to cut medical expenses, we need to re-impose the rule that forbade lawyers to ADVERTISE.Hello gal:

I agree. The Pharmaceutical companies too.

excon

So, NK, I know that you haven't faced any of that. But I have. Trust my greater experience in this area.Sorry mate, you have experience in Israel, I have experience in Canada - two different things. Feel free to speak of your Israel experiences but don't extrapolate them to all countries' systems.

Ex if you hate third party payors [ gov or private ins ] why don't you just pay everything out of pocket?Hello in:

Before the insurance companies and/or the government set the prices, I could afford to pay my own way. I'd be happy to go to back to that time. It was affordable when my medical care was just between me and my doctor.

Back then, the doctor submitted the bills and the insurance company paid them... That ain't happening today.

excon

I agree with NK. I haven't faced any of the problems you mention, and I have cared for two elderly family members in the last 15 years. If not for our healthcare system, I would have gone broke caring and providing for medical treatment for both of them.

Tick

Anyway according the NY Slimes , former Democrat leader in the House of Representatives Richard Gephart,who ran for the Presidency with UHC as his signature issue ,is now urging the President to slow down his rush towards UHC .


According to Mr. Gephardt, incremental additions of coverage for children or low-income workers may be the most Congress can muster to complement cost containment. But better to build confidence by pocketing those gains, he said, than to insist on more drastic, immediate steps and face a dispiriting repeat of the Clinton-era fiasco he experienced up close as House majority leader.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/us/politics/13caucus.html?_r=2

That is always the left's backup plan... incrementalism.

I agree that there is a need to get ambulance chasers out of the game.

The answer to the insurance concern could be "health-status insurance" which has been proposed by University of Chicago economist John Cochrane.Cochrane claims that with health-status insurance, free markets can solve the problem of how to insure people with pre-existing medical conditions and "provide life-long, portable health security, while enhancing consumer choice and competition."
"Health-Status Insurance: How Markets Can Provide Health Security" by John H. Cochrane (Cato Institute: Policy Analysis) (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9986)


"Market-based lifetime health insurance has two components: medical insurance and health-status insurance. Medical insurance covers your medical expenses in the current year, minus deductibles and copayments. Health-status insurance covers the risk that your medical premiums will rise."

He proposes that each person would start by buying a health-insurance policy, with or without the aid of an employer or a government subsidy for the poor at a competitive rate for a healthy person . They would also have a separate "health-status insurance" that would pay out anytime a serious illness drove up the basic premium. The health-status-insurance payout would make up the difference between the original premium and the new premium.


Under Cochrane's proposal, if an insured person develops an expensive condition, a lump-sum payment would be deposited into a health-status insurance account that would be available only to pay medical insurance premiums. This restriction would limit the temptations to commit fraud or to spend it and then show up at an emergency room unable to pay. In addition, if the insured becomes healthier and his premiums decline, the money could then be returned to the insurer.

Insurance companies would no longer have an incentive to dump sick people because those with pre-existing conditions would have the funds to pay higher premiums. Insurance companies instead would compete for their business and have an incentive to specialize in cost-effective care for chronic diseases.

I agree that there is a need to get ambulance chasers out of the game. Hello again, tom:

But, you're happy to leave the insurance companies IN the game... I don't know why. The insurance company never made me well. They're just there sucking off the deal. They don't NEED to be there. If you want to pay them, you MUST be a stockholder. I cannot imagine WHY you want them to make money off your health care. I really can't imagine it.

excon

I do not believe that the government insuring me is going to work. Oh I know ;in a pinch they can always bleed us to death with taxes or deny us services when they go in the red like they do with the so called Social Security insurance . I've seen too much delay in services from the combined Medicare Medicaid systems or shoddy care at medicaid and VA hospitals/facilities to know that I don't trust them running the whole show.

I don't trust them running the whole show.Hello again, tom:

But you DO trust the insurance company?? Wow. Maybe your experience is better than mine - or speech's.

I don't have a bad insurance story to tell you. Fortunately, I've been able to cover my health care out of my own pocket lo these many years.

But, I just bought insurance. I'm paying through the nose for it, and I bought it through AARP. It ain't a second rate company. Do I have a good policy?? I have no idea. I didn't read through that fat document with all the small print... But, I wonder what all that small print was saying... I'll bet it WASN'T saying how many procedures I'm going to be eligible for... Nahhhh. It was listing all those services I WOULDN'T be eligible for.

I'll bet the chances are that I'll get one of THOSE fine print diseases, and not one of the GOOD kinds... The insurance company has to make a profit, after all.

The bigger question is, why should I have to worry? I'm paying my hard earned dollars for coverage, and I'll bet I don't have any, when it counts.

Steve?? Your fellow right winger?? He was having some difficulties with his insurance a while ago. I can't remember what it was exactly, but I'll bet it didn't turn out well for him... The insurance company has to make a profit, after all.

excon

Tickle,

Do you work for a living? If you do, your would likely have insurance in our system. Even if you didn't have insurance, though, the hospitals would have given you care anyway. That's how our system works.

You are assuming that anyone who is not covered by government health insurance has no health insurance at all. Yes, if you had to pay out of pocket for the medical treatment for your family members, you would have gone broke. But not being on government health care DOESN'T mean that you aren't covered at all.

Everyone over 65 is covered by Medicare.

Everyone with low income and low resources is covered by Medicaid on a needs-based system.

Poor children are covered by S-CHIP.

There are free clinics throughout the USA that cover anyone who needs the care.

There are various state programs for healthcare for the poor.

Hospitals are required to treat anyone, regardless of ability to pay.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers have programs to give away needed medicines to poor families in need for free. (Every one of the major pharm. Companies has such a program.)

Your assumption that anyone who does not belong to a government-run single payer system is automatically going to go broke paying for their healthcare is incorrect. There are safety nets in place for those who need it. We do not need the government to go socialist in order for it to be done. We're already doing it.

Hi wolverine, I don't give a rats bum what you guys have down there. I am so through with all your attitudes about our healthcare system, and unless you have been under a rock, I think that's what we were all discussing.

Where did you get the idea that I was discussing YOUR healthcare needs. I lived down the states for quite a while years agoWITHOUT health insurance. So I know for sure not everyone is covered. I paid out of pocket to have my son down there, the most quick way I could on an in and out 'same day delivery' if you want a really good description. It cost me $700 in l982 and I wasn't young then either. I didn't find any free clinics in Flint Michigan then.

Yes, I work for a living and I am over 65, two jobs, over 65 and enjoying my socialized medical coverage,without any resrtrictions, because believe it or not I am healthy happy very young almost 67 years old.

Where did you get that I am assuming anything ?

Tick

Some thought should be given to CO-OP health insurance.
Where I live it works pretty will for real estate insurance. These companies were formed 100 years of so ago for the benefit of farmers. Their rates are MUCH better than commercial insurance companies, because the insured people are actally members of the company. Non-profit, as far as I know.

Here is an interesting idea


Health Reform Without a Public Plan: The German Model - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/health-reform-without-a-public-plan-the-german-model/)





None of these countries uses a government-run, Medicare-like health insurance plan. They all rely on purely private, nonprofit or for-profit insurers that are goaded by tight regulation to work toward socially desired ends. And they do so at average per-capita health-care costs far below those of the United States —...


Many Americans oppose such a mandate as an infringement of their personal rights, all the while believing that they have a perfect right to highly expensive, critically needed health care, even when they cannot pay for it. This immature, asocial mentality is rare in the rest of the world. An insurance sector that must insure all comers at premiums that are not contingent on the insured's health status — a feature President Obama has promised — cannot function for long if people can go without insurance when they are healthy, but are entitled to premiums unrelated to their health status when they fall ill.





I wonder if there any here from Germany, Switzerland, or the Netherlands that can give us their impressions.





G&P

Hello again:

Can one Righty tell me why they want the insurance companies in the mix??

What is so great about paying an insurance company?? Especially, when you don't have to... I don't get it. You think they're going to approve more services than the government would?? Why would you think that??

excon

Sorry to burst the liberal balloon, but health care does cost. And yes, you do have to pay either as an individual or as a society.

That is the IMMATURE mentality : I deserve the best, the instantaneous health care and not have to pay for it.

Why do you have to pay a third party [ insurance or the government through taxes ] for something that should be paid for out of pocket?

The thing is, the government makes you pay [ through medicare, medicaid, social security ] for the healthcare of OTHERS. It is a PONZI scheme.

BTW EX do you get your healthcare exclusively through the VA or Medicare, or do you have "gap" / supplementary insurance to cover what the VA or Medicare won't pay for?

Medicare only covers 80% of charges, and you still have to cover the 20 % don't you.

Imagine the tax increase to cover that 20%, then again you libs LOVE TAXES.





G&P

Why would a righty want insurance?

We might be fine paying office calls, immunizations, etc. But what happens if we get a diagnosis of some dread disease with the astronomical costs involved?

That's why ANYONE needs insurance. Right?

Hello gal:

Ok, we're getting somewhere here. You just want your BILLS paid. Me too. Cool.

Look, I don't like the government. I don't want them involved in my life any more than you do. But, it seems to me, that if my health care has to involve either an insurance company (who has to make a profit), or my government (who doesn't), that it would be cheaper for everybody if we eliminated the insurance companies altogether, and had a single payer - the government.

That way everybody would be covered, and I wouldn't have to worry about gap insurance, supplemental insurance, part D, Part A, the doughnut hole. I could live my life and when I got sick I could just go in...

Did I say cheaper and better?? Sorry. I don't think I have insurance that covers dementia.

excon

With insurance there is still a degree of choice. With everyone herded into gvt care ,a triage approach is adopted with everyone maybe getting essential care ;but expensive treatments restricted to those who can afford the 2nd level of the tier .Inevidibly those would also be gone as the much maligned big pharma opt out of the development of expensive drugs like cancer fighting Herceptin because the reduction in demand would not justify the costs of development .

Would a market system work to reduce costs and thus make health care more available and affordable ? Yes .
How do I know ?
Because market forces work already in non-coverable elective health services. Cosmetic surgery is one such example. Consumers compare prices and services because they know their insurance will not cover it. As a result it is one of the few sectors of the health care industry where prices are dropping;and have been in real costs for the last 15 years.


The growing popularity in the use of walk in clinics ,concierge doctors and even "medical tourism" shows that American people in fact want market choice ;not government run care .

Good points TOM

Another area that prices have declined in because it is subject to supply and demand, and because there often is no third party payor, is in eye surgery to correct nearsightedness.


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

I think where the government should get involved in IS MANDATING minimum HEALTH INSURANCE coverage. This would be similar to laws mandating car insurance. This would allow a greater number of the "healthy" to contribute to insurance risk pools. It is these currently healthy people that have no health insurance coverage that unfortunantly may be involved in a major trauma [ car accident for example ] that really costs society as whole.
Or these folks get diagnosed with something really bad - like cancer or heart failure, and now they are uninsurable or the premiums are so high as to make them virtually uninsurable.



I think the government should also regulate the health insurance industry in at least this regard:
Mandate a certain minimum percentage of
"sick" [ cancer, heart disease and other chronic illnesses being the major costs ] people to insure. An insurance company should not only cherry pick the young and healthy and refuse to cover the sick or be able to raise the rates on the truly sick as to make them uninsurable.
-----------------------------------------------

We know the current state of healthcare is not acceptable [ in the US ]. It is easy to pick apart whatever system is currently used here or in other countries. The change should be in coming up with a better soultion.

What other suggestions are out there?






G&P

Girl's heart operation cancelled THREE times because of a shortage of hospital beds
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1172552/Girls-heart-operation-cancelled-THREE-times-shortage-hospital-beds.html?ITO=1490#)
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 3:37 PM on 22nd April 2009


A three-year-old girl waiting for vital heart surgery has had her operation cancelled three times in as many weeks because of a shortage of hospital beds.

Ella Cotterell was due to have an operation to widen her aorta artery in her heart on Monday at Bristol Children's Hospital, but her surgery was cancelled 48 hours before because all 15 beds in the intensive care unit were full.

Ella, of Bradley Stoke, Bristol, had open heart surgery when she was just nine days old and suffered a stroke at 18 months.

Her parents Ian Cotterell, 44, and Rachel Davis, 40, were told in October that she would need the operation within 12 to 18 months.

The surgery was first scheduled for April 2, but was postponed because of last-minute emergency cases coming in.

It was re-arranged for four days later but again the operation was cancelled for the same reason.

A third date was organised for April 20 and last Thursday she went to the children's hospital for pre-operative tests.

But on Saturday morning her parents received another call from the hospital, explaining her operation would have to be cancelled yet again.

Michele Narey, manager of the Women's and Children's division at the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, said: 'The decision to cancel any patient for any procedure is taken extremely seriously but is sometimes unavoidable because of the need to effectively manage emergency patients requiring beds on a day-to-day basis.

'We know that cancelling procedures can cause additional stress for patients so we will always seek to avoid this wherever possible.

'We are continually reviewing our procedures to improve the management of emergency patients through our hospitals to avoid cancellations.

'We cannot discuss individual cases because of our duty of confidentiality to patients and their families.

Three-year-old Ella Cotterell with her parents Ian and Rachel and six-year-old brother Liam

'We take all complaints very seriously and we are working with the family to resolve this situation.'

At just a week old doctors discovered Ella's aorta hadn't formed properly and she had open heart surgery to repair it.

At 18 months old she suffered a stroke after falling down the stairs at her home and banging her head, temporarily paralysing the left side of her body.

In October, during one of Ella's six monthly reviews, an MRI scan found she had a narrowing of the aorta.

Doctors carried out two angioplasties, where small balloons are inflated to remove the blockage, but neither worked.

She is now taking an adult dose of medication to control her blood pressure.

Last week Ella went to hospital to undergo blood tests and a cardiogram in preparation for her surgery and was shown her hospital bed only to be disappointed for a third time.

Her mother Rachel Davis said today she was devastated when the hospital told her the surgery would be cancelled because there were not enough beds.

'My husband and I were in tears,' she said.

'When our six-year-old son Liam asked what was wrong we told him Ella's operation had been cancelled again and he said we should tell Gordon Brown.'

Ella, now three, at just nine days old after having emergency heart surgery

The family are now waiting for another surgery date.

'We have asked the doctors if she really needs the surgery as she is so happy at the moment and is running around like a normal little girl, but she could drop down dead at any moment,' said Ms Davis.

'Twice I have been told that she may not make it through the night and there have been times when I have gone into her room in the morning and wondered whether she'd still be breathing.

'She loves the attention and going to hospital is like an adventure to her, she doesn't realise they are going to cut her open, she just likes to play games with the nurses so she has been disappointed when we've told her the operation has been cancelled time after time.

'Its horrendous because you mentally prepare yourself that she may not survive the operation or she may be permanently disabled, because it is high risk surgery.

'We have been counting down the days, it is the waiting that is so hard.

'We have a family day out with Ella as the surgery gets closer and you can't help but think that it might be the last time we do something like this together.'

Ms Davis, who works part time as an accident and emergency nurse at Bristol's Frenchay Hospital, called on the Government to plough more money into the NHS before a child died on the waiting list.

'I have worked in the NHS for 22 years so I know what happens in hospitals,' she said.

'I cannot fault the doctors and nurses for all they have done for Ella, she would not be alive today without them.

'The surgeons at Bristol Children's Hospital take cases from all over the South West and Wales and they are desperately trying to get through the list.

'I believe Ella is the tip of the iceberg and that there are many other families out there that have had their operations cancelled many more times but have not spoken out about it.

'This is a national problem, there are not enough resources in the NHS and it is about prioritising.

'Children who need routine grommet operations are seen quickly yet the children who need life-saving surgery are waiting because there are not enough intensive care beds and staff.

'It is a matter of time before a child dies on the waiting list and I don't want it to be Ella.

'If that does happen the Government will have blood on their hands.'

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/04/22/article-1172552-04984A56000005DC-973_468x741.jpg

Patient Statements | Health Care Problems (http://www.healthcareproblems.org/category/patient-statements)

Health Care Professional Statements | Health Care Problems (http://www.healthcareproblems.org/category/health-care-professional-statements)


If you watched CBS's “60 Minutes” on Sunday, April 4, then you saw the same horrifying story I did. Budget cuts had to be made at the county hospital in the recession, the hospital CEO said. Outpatient chemotherapy clinic is closed. Letters go out to the patients. Treatment ends. People suffer with growing tumors, broken bones from metastasized cancers; people suffer to breathe. The budget is cut. It's horrifying stuff this national disgrace. (If you didn't see it, you can watch it here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/03/60minutes/main4917055.shtml).)

Patient Statements | Health Care Problems (http://www.healthcareproblems.org/category/patient-statements)

Health Care Professional Statements | Health Care Problems (http://www.healthcareproblems.org/category/health-care-professional-statements)

Thanks, NK. I'm supposed to be disturbed by a bunch of anonymous statements? For all I know you wrote them.

There are clearly more people complaining there so it's obvious you have the broken system by your logic.

There are clearly more people complaining there so it's obvious you have the broken system by your logic.

I guess I must have missed where it's "clear" that more people are complaining here. I'd also guess this Nevada situation is an isolated case, if they were never smart enough to provide more than one public hospital for the whole state then they're dumber than a box of rocks.

I'd also guess this Nevada situation is an isolated case,It funny how when I post it it's an isolated case but when you post it it's representative of the whole system. Yes, I'm laughing at you.

It funny how when I post it it's an isolated case but when you post it it's representative of the whole system. Yes, I'm laughing at you.

What's even funnier is I never said or implied "it's representative of the whole system." I posted the article without comment... and, I haven't changed my name to "Daily Mail Reporter." Hope you still have your sense of humor.

I will highlight something from the article for you though, 'This is a national problem, there are not enough resources in the NHS and it is about prioritising."

Hello:

You guys are starting to sound like Olbermann and O'Reilly. Oy vey!

excon

Hello:

You guys are starting to sound like Olbermann and O'Reilly. Oy vey!

At least now I know you like O'Reilly... oops. :D

No health care is denied any Canadian, new or otherwise. We have all paid into it over the years through employee deduction (it is now up to the employer to make these contributions). I am quite happy the way I am treated, and I imagine others are too.

Where do you hear these stories ? It is up to the individual to keep on top of his/her healthcare, make appts. show up for appts. for procedure. No one else can do that for them.

I am in healthcare, as you know, I know how the system works, and from my standpoint it works perfectly for my clients, who by the way, come out of the hospital into homecare, cared for by Personal Support Workers, paid by socialized medicine until they can function on their own.

So, where do we fall down on the job ?

tick

I was happy to hear this from you. My daughter is married to a Canadian. She is here in Atlanta right now, going through the immigration procedure. She is going for "permanent resident" status. Health care was something that I was concerned about. I want my child to be taken care of when needed. Thank you for your input.;)

Tick,

Where you fall down on the job is with regard to rationing of health care.

Your country lacks doctors. There aren't enough of them to go around because doctors are underpaid by the government and there is a flat fee system. Better doctors leave Canada for other places where they can earn more and charge whatever the market will bear for their services. This leaves your system understaffed.

Your country lacks diagnostic equipment such as MRIs. These units are expensive, and in a system where the government determines how many there should be and where they should go, there is inevitably a shortage of critical equipment.

As a result of these critical shortages of personnel and equipment, there are lines and rationing of care. Something that takes a week to treat in the USA ends up taking months just to go through diagnosis in Canada, and then even more time while Canadians wait to be treated.

Then there is the issue of medicine development and approval. While it is true that new meds in the USA might take time to be approved by insurance companies, it is nothing compared to the way the Canadian government regularly denies the use of new meds for patients because of the expense. Older, less effective meds are used instead.

As a result of longer lines and the decisions not to use newer meds, your cancer survival rates are significantly lower than ours. We have the highest overall cancer survival rates in the world. The USA's overall survival rates are 91.9% compared to 82.5% in Canada.

CTV.ca | Canada gets high ranking for cancer survival rates (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716/cancer_statistics_080716?hub=MSNHome)

Here are some other interesting statistics from the Frazier Institute's 2007 report.

Time waiting to be seen in ER
Less than 1 hour:
Canada - 39%
USA - 53%

4 hours or more:
Canada: 24%
USA: 12%


Wait time for specialist:
Less than one week
Canada: 10%
USA: 20%

More than 4 weeks
Canada: 57%
USA: 23%

Wait for elective surgery
Less than 1 month
Canada: 15%
USA: 53%

4 months or more
Canada: 33%
USA: 8%

Overall system view:
Only minor changes needed, system works well
Canada: 21%
USA: 23%

Fundamental change needed
Canada: 61%
USA: 44%


THAT is where you are falling down.

Elliot

I said I work in heathcare Wolverine. So I have a front row seat. Our SMALL TOWN, I say 5000 residents has a state of the art hospital and an MRI. I don't see that as following down on the job. There are cancer treatment facilities within a one hour drive each way. One in Kingston, Ont. And one in Oshawa, On. And several in Toronto. I don't see where we have a problem.

I should be retired, but, have diabetes and some other health issues. My meds are paid for by the government (I pay $6.00 per prescription for my part) because I am on old age security at 67 and I have only the best called up by my doctor. I know if I need medical assistance I can go into my hospital at a drop of the hat. I don't wait for any procedures, I can have them the next day. I am only a drop in the, bucket. I wonder how the other part of Ontario is treated.

I care for seniors and non seniors every day during my job with Cdn. Red Cross. I KNOW what they have accessed, what ops they have had, what they will have to have and I KNOW they are treated properly.

And being in the front line of healthcare, I can assure you that there is no shortage of doctors in our part of Ontario.

Where do you as a non-Canadian get off with your opinion anyway. You are only reading stats (old ones at that), reading opinions of probably non-Canadians. I am living my dream of having good healthcare over 65.

If you Google 'MRIs in use in Canada' on Google, there is a wealth of information that makes your information quite unsatisfactory.

This sort of makes your argument laughable.

Obama: The Grand Strategy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/23/AR2009042302983.html), By Charles Krauthammer


Unified theory of Obamaism, fifth (final?) installment:

In the service of his ultimate mission -- the leveling of social inequalities -- President Obama offers a tripartite social democratic agenda: nationalized health care, federalized education (ultimately guaranteed through college) and a cash-cow carbon tax (or its equivalent) to subsidize the other two.

Problem is, the math doesn't add up. Not even a carbon tax would pay for Obama's vastly expanded welfare state. Nor will Midwest Democrats stand for a tax that would devastate their already crumbling region.

What is obviously required is entitlement reform, meaning Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. That's where the real money is -- trillions saved that could not only fund hugely expensive health and education programs but also restore budgetary balance.

Except that Obama has offered no real entitlement reform. His universal health-care proposal would increase costs by perhaps $1 trillion. Medicare/Medicaid reform is supposed to decrease costs.

Obama's own budget projections show staggering budget deficits going out to 2019. If he knows his social agenda is going to drown us in debt, what's he up to?

He has an idea. But he dare not speak of it yet. He has only hinted. When asked in his March 24 news conference about the huge debt he's incurring, Obama spoke vaguely of "additional adjustments" that will be unfolding in future budgets.

Rarely have two more anodyne words carried such import. "Additional adjustments" equals major cuts in Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

Social Security is relatively easy. A bipartisan commission (like the 1983 Alan Greenspan commission) recommends some combination of means testing for richer people, increasing the retirement age and a technical change in the inflation measure (indexing benefits to prices instead of wages). The proposal is brought to Congress for a no-amendment up-or-down vote. Done.

The hard part is Medicare and Medicaid. In an aging population, how do you keep them from blowing up the budget? There is only one answer: rationing.

Why do you think the stimulus package pours $1.1 billion into medical "comparative effectiveness research"? It is the perfect setup for rationing. Once you establish what is "best practice" for expensive operations, medical tests and aggressive therapies, you've laid the premise for funding some and denying others.

It is estimated that a third to a half of one's lifetime health costs are consumed in the last six months of life. Accordingly, Britain's National Health Service can deny treatments it deems not cost-effective -- and if you're old and infirm, the cost-effectiveness of treating you plummets. In Canada, they ration by queuing. You can wait forever for so-called elective procedures like hip replacements.

Rationing is not quite as alien to America as we think. We already ration kidneys and hearts for transplant according to survivability criteria as well as by queuing. A nationalized health insurance system would ration everything from MRIs to intensive care by myriad similar criteria.

The more acute thinkers on the left can see rationing coming, provoking Slate blogger Mickey Kaus to warn of the political danger. "Isn't it an epic mistake to try to sell Democratic health care reform on this basis? Possible sales pitch: 'Our plan will deny you unnecessary treatments!' . . . Is that really why the middle class will sign on to a revolutionary multitrillion-dollar shift in spending -- so the government can decide their life or health 'is not worth the price'?"

My own preference is for a highly competitive, privatized health insurance system with a government-subsidized transition to portability, breaking the absurd and ruinous link between health insurance and employment. But if you believe that health care is a public good to be guaranteed by the state, then a single-payer system is the next best alternative. Unfortunately, it is fiscally unsustainable without rationing.

Social Security used to be the third rail of American politics. Not anymore. Health-care rationing is taking its place -- which is why Obama, the consummate politician, knows to offer the candy (universality) today before serving the spinach (rationing) tomorrow.

Taken as a whole, Obama's social democratic agenda is breathtaking. And the rollout has thus far been brilliant. It follows Kaus's advice to "give pandering a chance" and adheres to the Democratic tradition of being the party that gives things away, while leaving the green-eyeshade stinginess to those heartless Republicans.

It will work for a while, but there is no escaping rationing. In the end, the spinach must be served.

I said I work in heathcare Wolverine. So I have a front row seat. Our SMALL TOWN, i say 5000 residents has a state of the art hospital and an MRI. I dont see that as following down on the job. There are cancer treatment facilities within a one hour drive each way. One in Kingston, Ont. and one in Oshawa, On. and several in Toronto. I dont see where we have a problem.

I should be retired, but, have diabetes and some other health issues. My meds are paid for by the government (I pay $6.00 per prescription for my part) because I am on old age security at 67 and I have only the best called up by my doctor. I know if I need medical assistance I can go into my hospital at a drop of the hat. I dont wait for any procedures, I can have them the next day. I am only a drop in the, bucket. I wonder how the other part of Ontario is treated.

I care for seniors and non seniors every day during my job with Cdn. Red Cross. I KNOW what they have accessed, what ops they have had, what they will have to have and I KNOW they are treated properly.

And being in the front line of healthcare, I can assure you that there is no shortage of doctors in our part of Ontario.

Where do you as a non-Canadian get off with your opinion anyway. You are only reading stats (old ones at that), reading opinions of probably non-Canadians. I am living my dream of having good healthcare over 65.

This sort of makes your argument laughable.

I didn't make up these statistics, Tick. Most of them came from YOUR country's medical statistics. The stats aren't that old ---2 years old for the ones from the Frazier Institute. FYI, the Frazier Institute is a Canadian-Based health care thinktank, and CTV News is a Canadian broadcast company. No non-Canadians in the mix.

As to where I get off with my opinion... Obama is proposing a medical system based on the Canadian system. Why shouldn't we study your system, learn about it, and find out if it really works or not?

And from a statistical standpoint, your system is not as effective or as efficient as our, in terms of outcomes and availability of services. That fact is not open for debate. The statistics are there for anyone to review. The fact that you, luckily, have not experienced that pattern is a very good thing. Perhaps because of your connection to the medical system in Canada you get preferential treatment. Perhaps not. The fact is that you do not have experience that matches the ongoing trends of your country just means that you are luckier than many. Good for you, and I hope that this continues to be your experience. But it is not the experience of many of your countrymen.

And knowing that, I have no desire for our statistical outcomes to lower themselves to match yours. That is the basis and reason for my opinion regarding the Canadian health system.

Coincidentally, I hold the same opinion of the UK's, Australia's, and the EU's medical systems. I also hold a similar opinion of Israel's government-run system. I'm not picking on Canada. I'm picking on every system of nationalized health care that has failed to meet the same levels of care as the USA's private system.

I live in the US. I hear stories of people not getting their kidney transplant ,etc. because they don't have the money. In my opinion no one should ever be denied health care because of money. Not everyone qualifies for medicare, or medicaid, Their employer doesn't provide health ins. They don't fall into the poverty level, but neither can they afford health ins. There are too many who fall between the cracks in this country, Ins. Should be available to everyone.

I live in the US. I hear stories of people not getting their kidney transplant ,etc. because they don't have the money. In my opinion no one should ever be denied health care because of money. Not everyone qualifies for medicare, or medicaid,. Their employer doesn't provide health ins. They don't fall into the poverty level, but neither can they afford health ins. There are too many who fall between the cracks in this country, Ins. should be available to everyone.

CozyK,

If anyone in the USA was denied a kidney transplant or use of a dialysis machine because of inability to pay, then the hospital in question should be sued, because that is against the law. In the USA, no patient may be turned away from necessary medical services because of lack of ability to pay.

Please also keep inm mind that not being able to afford medical insurance is not the same as not receiving medical CARE. In the USA there are plenty of people without medical insurance. But NOBODY has to go without medical care. Anyone who does go without medical care is doing so out of lack of knowledge of the law or for their own personal reasons.

You should also be sure to corroborate any stories you hear with some form of evidence. I hear stories all the time too about bad medical care or medical care refused for lack of ability to pay. Most of them (not all) turn out to be false, or else there are parts of the story that weren't given over in the original version. Usually, if a patient dies due to lack of treatment, it is because they didn't want to stay in the hospital because they were afraid of their illegal alien status or something like that. It had nothing to do with being refused treatment. So you should corroborate these stories before assuming they are true.

Elliot

CozyK,

If anyone in the USA was denied a kidney transplant or use of a dialysis machine because of inability to pay, then the hospital in question should be sued, because that is against the law. In the USA, no patient may be turned away from necessary medical services because of lack of ability to pay.

Please also keep inm mind that not being able to afford medical insurance is not the same as not receiving medical CARE. In the USA there are plenty of people without medical insurance. But NOBODY has to go without medical care. Anyone who does go without medical care is doing so out of lack of knowledge of the law or for their own personal reasons.

You should also be sure to corroborate any stories you hear with some form of evidence. I hear stories all the time too about bad medical care or medical care refused for lack of ability to pay. Most of them (not all) turn out to be false, or else there are parts of the story that weren't given over in the original version. Usually, if a patient dies due to lack of treatment, it is because they didn't want to stay in the hospital because they were afraid of their illegal alien status or something like that. It had nothing to do with being refused treatment. So you should corroborate these stories before assuming they are true.

Elliot

Are you telling me that no American falls between the cracks?

ETWolverine,

Does not know anything.

Wolverine, I am a Personal Support Worker with cdn. Red cross, I don't get preferential treatment. I don't have pull if I need a medical procedure. I have to go to my doctor for a referral and a requisition the same as everyone else. I follow the usual channels, but I don't have to wait.

Tick

wolverine, I am a Personal Support Worker with cdn. red cross, I dont get preferential treatment. I dont have pull if I need a medical procedure. I have to go to my doctor for a referral and a requisition the same as everyone else. I follow the usual channels, but I dont have to wait.

tick

I am a regular canadian. Everything that tickle said is true. I live in a small town as well. I have no problems getting mri or other things done. No problem going to the doctor, no problem going to hospital, no problem getting anything that is necessary needs to be done. My wife is also epileptic and we have had nothing but amazing things done when medical care is needed. It has not cost a cent.

Hello Canadians:

There's something in your water. You obviously don't know when you're being ill served. That's why you should listen to us Americans. We're the world leader, and we didn't get that way without knowing what's going on. We know more about your system than YOU do.

You silly Canadians.

excon

Lol

I am SO glad there are other Canadians here to uphold our structure in healthcare. Thanks Jesushelper for chiming in. Have not heard from NeedKarma in a few days, but it is gratifying. My son chimes in and says he is happy with services in Toronto General, he has a defib and has to have regular 6 months. Check ups. His cardiogolist, Dr. Stephen Wigle was just awarded the order of Canada by Governor Jean for his contribution for the cardio field.

We are so lucky, jesushelper, and so blessed.

Tick, regards

I am a regular canadian. Everything that tickle said is true. I live in a small town as well. I have no problems getting mri or other things done. No problem going to the doctor, no problem going to hospital, no problem getting anything that is necessarily needs to be done. My wife is also epileptic and we have had nothing but amazing things done when medical care is needed. It has not cost a cent.

I feel good having my daughter move there after your and Ticks endorsements.
Thank you.:)

I feel good having my daughter move there after your and Ticks endorsements.
Thank you.:)
No problem cozyk. I am sorry you had to read through all the negative publicity and I can assure you that your daughter will be well taken care of.

Regards

Tick

Are you telling me that no American falls between the cracks?

Are you going to address my question ET?

CozyK,

If anyone in the USA was denied a kidney transplant or use of a dialysis machine because of inability to pay, then the hospital in question should be sued, because that is against the law. In the USA, no patient may be turned away from necessary medical services because of lack of ability to pay.

Please also keep inm mind that not being able to afford medical insurance is not the same as not receiving medical CARE. In the USA there are plenty of people without medical insurance. But NOBODY has to go without medical care. Anyone who does go without medical care is doing so out of lack of knowledge of the law or for their own personal reasons.

You should also be sure to corroborate any stories you hear with some form of evidence. I hear stories all the time too about bad medical care or medical care refused for lack of ability to pay. Most of them (not all) turn out to be false, or else there are parts of the story that weren't given over in the original version. Usually, if a patient dies due to lack of treatment, it is because they didn't want to stay in the hospital because they were afraid of their illegal alien status or something like that. It had nothing to do with being refused treatment. So you should corroborate these stories before assuming they are true.

Elliot


The law is EMTALA

It only refers to ER care. Unfortunantly a lot of folks that don't have health nsurance, or can't afford primary care, get their primary care from the ER.

This;
1] costs society a lot more, because ER care is more expensive.
2] with non-urgent care taking up a greater percent of ER time, this increases time wait time for all.

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

This law does not apply to group practices or non- emergent care.

Even medicare and medicaid, the proto typical US government socialized medical plan is no guarantee of acess:

When Doctors Opt Out - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993462778328019.html)


So though, well meaning, "universal healthcare" is not logistically possible.
As much as all of us may want and desire free universal healthcare it won't happen.
You can think of healthcare as goods and services - these are never free, whether it is healthcare, or food, or shelter, or electricity. These things are provide because people work to provide these services; the nurse, the doctor, the farmer, the carpenter, the e;ectric plant worker, the roughneck out on the oil rig, the truck driver that delivers goods, NONE OF THESE FOLKS WORK FOR FREE.

That is why things including healthcare costs.

The question is can government provide a service , quicker, more cost efficient, and at a higher quality then the private sector?

Compare US postal. Would there be Federal Express or UPS if the US postal service did not have some deficiencies?

Compare medicare part D vs Walmart $4 prescription?

Even the US military contracts out to "private security firms" like Bleackwater.

Compare Harvard or Yale or MIT to your local community college or state university.

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

What third party payors like medicare or private insurance does is add and inflate the costs of doing business. Costs that are passed onto the consumer.

Health Care Spending As Part Of GDP -- Historical (http://www.karlloren.com/healthinsurance/p1.htm)
1960 - healthcare was 5.1% of GDP
1993 - healthcare was 13.4 % of
Note that Medicare was passed in 1966


If doctors and hospitals had to compete for business based on price, results, service and what the consumer could pay, then over time the cost for everyone would go down.





G&P

The law is EMTALA

[QUOTE]It only refers to ER care. Unfortunantly a lot of folks that don't have health nsurance, or can't afford primary care, get their primary care from the ER.

This;
1] costs society a lot more, because ER care is more expensive.
2] with non-urgent care taking up a greater percent of ER time, this increases time wait time for all.


Absolutely correct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


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


What third party payors like medicare or private insurance does is add and inflate the costs of doing business. Costs that are passed onto the consumer.

Right again.




If doctors and hospitals had to compete for business based on price, results, service and what the consumer could pay, then over time the cost for everyone would go down.



SO TRUE!! This is what I was thinking all along.

Why thank you?

Only catch is
1] will doctors and hospitals agree
2] what of those who have been paying into the medicare and medicaid system only to benefit others.








G&P

1] will doctors and hospitals agree
2] what of those who have been paying into the medicare and medicaid system only to benefit others.Hello in:

The doctors and the hospitals don't set the prices... The insurance companies do. Your solution would work if the insurance companies didn't object...

Frankly, I can't believe you didn't mention them. Your side never seems to. Do ALL rightwingers own stock in State Farm??

But, of course, they would object.. In fact, the system you propose WAS the system we had back then when everybody COULD afford their coverage. Then the insurance companies found out that they could make a LOT more money, and they decided to change the equation.

excon

Yes I forgot to include the insurance companies AND the government.


G&P

Are you going to address my question ET?

Sure they do. But not at the rates of 35-56% that fall through the cracks in the Canadian system.

Sorry I didn't answer sooner. I assumed that you read the statistics I posted, which answered that question.

But, you're happy to leave the insurance companies IN the game.... I dunno why. The insurance company never made me well. They're just there sucking off the deal. They don't NEED to be there. If you want to pay them, you MUST be a stockholder. I cannot imagine WHY you want them to make money off your health care. I really can't imagine it.


First off, you say that the insurance company never made you well. How many times has the gubment made you well?

Secondly, you asked why we would want insurance companies to be in charge of health insurance rather than the government.

The GOVERNMENT makes more money if you die than if you live. Not only do they have to pay old people Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, they also don't get much from them in the way of taxes. 90% of all medical costs are for old people, but they contribute the least to the system. It is in the best interest of the government for old people to die than for them to linger on for years... it lowers their expenses, and anything they don't pay to old folks who are dead goes back into the treasure chest (or their pet pork projects). Old people are an EXPENSE in a government run healthcare system.

But for private insurance companies, old people are sources of income. The longer they live, the more premiums the insurance companies collect. The more old people they can collect from, the richer they get. It is in their best interest to get old people the best care they can get, because for every old person that dies, it's one less premium check they are getting every month. Thar's gold in them thar old folks.

THAT is why insurance companies are a better bet than government-run health care. I'd rather have my insurance decisions handled by a guy who wants me to live so that he can make a buck than by a guy who would prefer that I die so he can make a buck.

Elliot

Sure they do. But not at the rates of 35-56% that fall through the cracks in the Canadian system.

Sorry I didn't answer sooner. I assumed that you read the statistics I posted, which answered that question.

I have found that, just from doing my job, people 'fall through the cracks' as you say, because they either miss appointments, don't follow up with their doctors, and don't understand their afflictions, are non compliant with their meds (which causes innumerable problems all the way down the line).

They have Personal Support Workers, assigned by the Access Centre when they leave the hospital, and think that particular PSW will keep them in line; their family fall through on the job, thinking the PSW will follow through. But we don't do that, we are not assigned to do that. We are their to make sure they are clean, diapers changed, remind them of their meds, keep them fed (sometimes we have to put them right in their mouths) which goes way beyond our scope of practice, just to make sure they have them.

I don't know, Wolvervine, 35 to 56 (? ) of people in our healthcare system fall through the cracks when actually the cracks are initiated by themselves, then they complain when they aren't treated properly. They aren't treated properly because they are non compliant regarding meds and procedures.



Tick

Regardless of how other nations handle this (and there are recent reports of UK denying cancer drugs) . The fact is that we are getting greater details on how the Administration will handle the "growing costs" of health care. It has a lot less to do with choice ;but more central bureaucratic decisions on what health care should be available to Americans.

Ezekiel (Zeke )Emanuel (Rhambo's brother) is a policy advisor for OMB and author of the book Healthcare Guaranteed . He says that the problem with the US health system is that doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too literally and seriously... especially the part about 'use my power to help the patient to the best of my ability and judgment'. This is of course what a patient going to doctors also expects from them. He argues that medical students should be instructed "to move toward more socially sustainable, cost-effective care." He says the trend "from 'do everything' to palliative care shows that change in physician norms is possible."
http://www.fresh-thinking.org/publications/JAMA_perfect_storm.pdf

Among the gold plated services he would eliminate is 'spacious hospital rooms' ."Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy, comfort and auxiliary services than do hospital rooms in most other countries,"

Obama cannot allow the doctors to continue to give gold plated treatment to patients and keep his pledge to reduce costs.

Inside the bucket list stimulus bill was the beginnings of the changes the President has in mind. Doctors will be obliged to enter treatments of a patient into an electronic database. The doctor will be advised by electronically delivered protocols on "appropriate" and "cost-effective" care. Harvard's Dr. David Blumenthal has been named the national coordinator of health information technology.
The law gives billions of dollars (19.5 billion allocated ) in incentive payments to doctors and hospitals that buy and use the system, with penalties starting in 2015 for those who don't make the switch.(I won't get into the debate about privacy rights and access to all these medical records here ) .
So there you have it... reduced costs through managed scarcities and government hacks making decisions overruling your doctors on which care is best for you.

Inside the bucket list stimulus bill was the beginnings of the changes the President has in mind. Doctors will be obliged to enter treatments of a patient into an electronic database. The doctor will be advised by electronically delivered protocols on "appropriate" and "cost-effective" care. Harvard's Dr. David Blumenthal has been named the national coordinator of health information technology.
The law gives billions of dollars (19.5 billion allocated ) in incentive payments to doctors and hospitals that buy and use the system, with penalties starting in 2015 for those who don't make the switch.(I won't get into the debate about privacy rights and access to all these medical records here ) .
So there you have it ...reduced costs through managed scarcities and government hacks making decisions overruling your doctors on which care is best for you.

Gee, I must have missed those spacious hospital rooms he's referring to. The only ones I've ever seen were for expectant mothers. All that privacy from a curtain is certainly too much to ask for, and no sense in furnishing decent food or TV when you should be sick and miserable. Perhaps the first thing to go should be the new hospital gowns (http://www.wkbw.com/healthy/43314212.html) being designed to provide a little modesty for your backside, but then why waste all the design work that's so far taken nearly 3 years? It only takes a design team 5 years to design a new hospital gown apparently... probably part of the same smart people that think "cost-effective," government directed (rationed) health care is all the rage.

Tom;

Dr Emanuel is an MD, PHD,

The Department of Bioethics - Our People (http://www.bioethics.nih.gov/people/emanuel-bio.shtml)


But I wonder if he has direct patient care responsibilities day to day or if he is one of those academic ivory tower types that likes to dictate to those in the trenches,

In the linked article he implied that thoroughness in a physician is a bad thing.
I hope he realizes that primary care physicians treat the WHOLE person not just a complaint or one organ system and that thoroughness is what catches things like cancer early. If the diagnosis of cancer is not made in a timely manner the patient sufffers, there is malpractice liaability, and it may cost more to treat the complications.

He does not qualify that US physicians earn double the income. Maybe they work longer hours, specialize, have to pay school loans off, have to pay malpractice, the cost of living here is higher etc.

Then near the conclusion he thinks " many more experiment are needed" -----HMMM I wonder if he is referring to that 1990s HMO experiment in which capitated care helped piss off patients and doctors at the same time .
----- YEAH RIGHT, we need more government intrusion in our lives like we need an overutilized and uneeded colonoscopy.





G&P

YEAH RIGHT, we need more government intrusion in our lives like we need an overutilized and uneeded colonoscopy.Hello again, in:

I'm not a government kind of guy. They're doing stuff they shouldn't be doing, like the drug war. And, they're also NOT doing stuff they SHOULD be doing, like being the single payer in health care.

Even though you Reaganites don't believe government has a role, it really does. For example NOW, you probably want the US Department of Health looking into the Swine Flu pandemic, rather than Swine Flu Busters, Inc. I'd rather drive on a road made by my department of highways, instead of Acme Roads, Inc.

Health care had it's time in private hands. If it hadn't been manipulated for profit, it would still be cheap enough for all of us to use WITHOUT government interference. But, that isn't what happened.

So, to make it affordable again, we need to eliminate all the changes the drug, insurance and pharmaceutical lobby had us make over the last 30 years, or have the government take it over.

Either way is fine with me.

excon

You forget that it is the makers of Relenza and Tamiflu; those evil profit making, capitalistic, private sector pharmaceutical companies; that make the treatment.

And it is those non-VA, non- governmental physicians, doctors, nurses, hospitals, EMS workers in the private sector that are at the front line and will be responsible for treating the majority of whatever outbreak occurs.

I guess since you believe in single payor government run healthcare that should you get the swine flu, which is not my wish, you will get your healthcare exclusively at a VA medical center?




G&P

If this becomes an epidemic will everyone thank President Bush for stock-piling Tamiflu and other antibacterials ? Will they thank him for war-gaming pandemic scenarios with senior officials, and increasing the CDC sample identification capabilities... much of which is being shared with the Mexicans now to contain the outbreak ? When they remember the swift calm response of Obama will they also remember that the chess pieces he played with were already on the board ? Will they remember that at the outbreak the HHS Sec was not confirmed yet and there is no Surgeon General ?

I didn't think so.

Will they remember that at the outbreak the HHS Sec was not confirmed yet and there is no Surgeon General ?

I didn't think so.

NO, but thanks for reminding us.

Why must it be so that a social medical plan must necessarily exclude all private coverage? That is most certainly not the case here in Australia. Here, if you should choose to go private, then you will receive some or all of your medical levy back, depending on the coverage you have. Some people choose to go private, as they feel it makes sense for them to do so. Most however, are quite happy with the service provided by the government, and this sentiment does in fact contribute to the quality of product offered by private organizations.

At the moment, I am quite happy with the government scheme. However I can see the advantages of private insurance, and may at sometime in the future switch to private coverage. A lot of the arguments presented here seem to be based more on ideological or procedural criticisms that are, in my view, quite irrelevant to any "social vs private coverage" debate.

For myself, I consider that NO child should suffer a lack of ANY treatment due to financial constraints. Vaccinations (including for cervical cancer), breast and cervical screening, prostate checks, utrasounds for expecting mothers (plus all number of maternal checks/services which are too numerous too list), all provided "free" under the government system.

A relative of mine recently finished a year long course of treatment for cancer that would total tens of thousands of dollars, for a total cost of something like $500, that was only detected because of the free government check up provided, and the government advertisement that convinced her to have it done in the first place.

[
QUOTE=Tokugawa;1712019]Why must it be so that a social medical plan must necessarily exclude all private coverage? That is most certainly not the case here in Australia. Here, if you should choose to go private, then you will receive some or all of your medical levy back, depending on the coverage you have. Some people choose to go private, as they feel it makes sense for them to do so. Most however, are quite happy with the service provided by the government, and this sentiment does in fact contribute to the quality of product offered by private organizations.

At the moment, I am quite happy with the government scheme. However I can see the advantages of private insurance, and may at sometime in the future switch to private coverage. A lot of the arguments presented here seem to be based more on ideological or procedural criticisms that are, in my view, quite irrelevant to any "social vs private coverage" debate.

For myself, I consider that NO child should suffer a lack of ANY treatment due to financial constraints. Vaccinations (including for cervical cancer), breast and cervical screening, prostate checks, utrasounds for expecting mothers (plus all number of maternal checks/services which are too numerous too list), all provided "free" under the government system.


Wonderful post. I agree with you that NO child should suffer a lack of any treatment. I also believe that no life saving care should be held back from anyone because of lack of funds.

Canadian Researcher: go die at home (http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2009/05/20/Dying-at-home-improves-hospital-efficiency/UPI-46311242798054/), we need your bed


As a way to help free up hospital beds, a Canadian researcher suggests people should be encouraged to die at home rather than in a hospital.

University of Alberta researcher Donna Wilson says that there's been a dramatic change in the location of death of Canadians. Up until 1994, about 80 percent died in a hospital, but that number has dropped to 61 percent.

Wilson says she would like to see the number drop further to 40 percent as baby boomers age because this could reduce wait lists and free up hospital beds for those who need life-saving treatment or surgery.

It's also a much more dignified death for a family member, Wilson says.

Wilson calculated that in the next 20 years the number of people dying could double and if death rates in hospital stay at 80 percent it means a potential tie-up of every single bed in Canada for three days of the year -- because each person takes up a bed for an average of 10 days. (UPI)

Or, just pass the euthanasia bill (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09051404.html) and get it over with.

Wow, I love how a (most likely) republican website that posted that article condensed it down to make it sound horrible. I read that article in it's original form and it stated that more people are CHOOSING to return home to die when they know they have little time left, with today's modern medicine people can be told more accurately how much time they have left when they have a serious disease. There is never pressure to leave a hospital from a government agency or the hospital itself.

Here is another paragraph from that article that most websites that re-posted it left out


"My guess is that a lot of it has to do with the fact that death is no longer unexpected," said Wilson. "A lot of people are dying at an advanced age and you begin to accept that fact that it's going to happen and it [can be] a dignified event. If you take the person to the hospital.. . Care is by strangers rather than family members."

This study, published in Social Science & Medicine, comes at a good time as Canadians watch the population age. Wilson predicts the number of people dying each year will double, maybe even triple, in the next 10-20 years because of the aging baby-boomer population.

While I don't like the suggestion that more people SHOULD do this to bring the percentage even lower, this is one persons opinion, not the opinion of our government.

I'd say overall we have better health care in Canada, no one sits around at home with a serious injury or disease hoping it will get better or that it's not as serious as they think, or worrying about how much it will cost if they go in to a hospital. No one sits in an ER waiting room with a life threatening injury and even in my families case we have been in the ER a few times (broken bones and cuts requiring stitches) and have not waited unreasonably long and we live in a city of 1.2 million. I don't know why so many people in the US want to cast a bad light over government run healthcare, it really helps out those who can't afford it. And for those who want to pay more for faster service can go to a private clinic.

I dont know why so many people in the US want to cast a bad light over government run healthcare, it really helps out those who can't afford it. And for those who want to pay more for faster service can go to a private clinic.

Actually, the heads up (http://dustmybroom.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11678:canadian-researcher-canadians-should-die-at-home-to-help-free-up-hospital-beds&catid=47:canadiana) came from a Canadian.

Canadian Researcher: go die at home (http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2009/05/20/Dying-at-home-improves-hospital-efficiency/UPI-46311242798054/), we need your bed



Or, just pass the euthanasia bill (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09051404.html) and get it over with.

Nice try Speech but you left out half the article.

Wow, I love how a (most likely) republican website that posted that article condensed it down to make it sound horrible. I read that article in it's original form and it stated that more people are CHOOSING to return home to die when they know they have little time left, with today's modern medicine people can be told more accurately how much time they have left when they have a serious disease. There is never pressure to leave a hospital from a government agency or the hospital itself.

Here is another paragraph from that article that most websites that re-posted it left out



While I dont like the suggestion that more people SHOULD do this to bring the percentage even lower, this is one persons opinion, not the opinion of our government.

I'd say overall we have better health care in Canada, no one sits around at home with a serious injury or disease hoping it will get better or that it's not as serious as they think, or worrying about how much it will cost if they go in to a hospital. No one sits in an ER waiting room with a life threatening injury and even in my families case we have been in the ER a few times (broken bones and cuts requiring stitches) and have not waited unreasonably long and we live in a city of 1.2 million. I dont know why so many people in the US want to cast a bad light over government run healthcare, it really helps out those who can't afford it. And for those who want to pay more for faster service can go to a private clinic.

I think Canada has it going on in terms of healthcare.

Nice try Speech but you left out half the article.

No, I posted an entire article and none of the other. The link was for all to explore as much as they want to. I can't be blamed for telling half the story when it was entirely up to you to decide how much of it you wanted.

No, I posted an entire article and none of the other. The link was for all to explore as much as they want to. I can't be blamed for telling half the story when it was entirely up to you to decide how much of it you wanted.

Our healthcare network, of which I am part of through the Cdn. Red Cross, assists these people when they come home. They don't necessarily die at home, but it releases beds for others. I have been at many bedsides, and I can tell you, we Personal Support Workers make it completely comfortable for those in need of 'passing at home'.

Who wants to die in a hospital ? So what is your point ?

Tick a caring PSW in the Canadian healthcare system.

Our healthcare network, of which I am part of through the Cdn. Red Cross, assists these people when they come home. They dont necessarily die at home, but it releases beds for others. I have been at many bedsides, and I can tell you, we Personal Support Workers make it completely comfortable for those in need of 'passing at home'.

Who wants to die in a hospital ? So what is your point ?

tick a caring PSW in the Canadian healthcare system.

Tick, I applaud people like you just as I applaud hospice workers here. I have no problem with people dying at home instead of a hospital, I'm sure that's more like it used to be. I really didn't have a point, just posting the news to see the reactions. And boy did you guys react, even being accused only telling half the story when I didn't really say anything. Sometimes it's just interesting to see which way the knees jerk. ;)

tick, I applaud people like you just as I applaud hospice workers here. I have no problem with people dying at home instead of a hospital, I'm sure that's more like it used to be. I really didn't have a point, just posting the news to see the reactions. And boy did you guys react, even being accused only telling half the story when I didn't really say anything. Sometimes it's just interesting to see which way the knees jerk. ;)

Hey, knee jerk reaction because we have been under the gun by so many members here in the last few months. LOL. I love our healthcare system, it has been kind to myself and my family over the years, having seniors being cared for in the hospital system, is what I mean.

I love my clients, and care for them in their last hours. I have one very precious native ritual I do when I know they have passed. It is opening the window in their room so their spirit can pass unemcumbered into the open air and be free.

Peace


Tick

Why must it be so that a social medical plan must necessarily exclude all private coverage? That is most certainly not the case here in Australia. Here, if you should choose to go private, then you will receive some or all of your medical levy back, depending on the coverage you have. Some people choose to go private, as they feel it makes sense for them to do so. Most however, are quite happy with the service provided by the government, and this sentiment does in fact contribute to the quality of product offered by private organizations.

At the moment, I am quite happy with the government scheme. However I can see the advantages of private insurance, and may at sometime in the future switch to private coverage. A lot of the arguments presented here seem to be based more on ideological or procedural criticisms that are, in my view, quite irrelevant to any "social vs private coverage" debate.

For myself, I consider that NO child should suffer a lack of ANY treatment due to financial constraints. Vaccinations (including for cervical cancer), breast and cervical screening, prostate checks, utrasounds for expecting mothers (plus all number of maternal checks/services which are too numerous too list), all provided "free" under the government system.

A relative of mine recently finished a year long course of treatment for cancer that would total tens of thousands of dollars, for a total cost of something like $500, that was only detected because of the free government check up provided, and the government advertisment that convinced her to have it done in the first place.

Exactly! I've been trying to get that through to these guys too. Our two tier system down under here works well! Everybody (almost) gets the care they require at an affordable price.

The US is already in a 2 tier system (of which I have little problem although I do have suggestions to improve it. )

Our 2 tier system has the majority of the people in private insurance and the few who need it ,or who have become eligible due to age or service to the country are in a government managed system. Roughly 30%

The much vaunted 47 million uninsured is a deceptive stat. The U.S. Census Bureau report in 2006 that 9.5 million people of the uninsured were not U.S. citizens but can be treated anyway, under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Seventeen million of the uninsured lived in households having incomes of more than $50,000 and could easily afford private insurance but choose not to. Eighteen million were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, healthy enough to survive without paying for health insurance and made the decision to spend their money elsewhere. Fifty percent of the unemployed who actually lost coverage regained their health insurance in four months.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf
Yes there are gaps ,but it is no wheres near as bad as has been portrayed .

The US is already in a 2 tier system (of which I have little problem although I do have suggestions to improve it. )

Our 2 tier system has the majority of the people in private insurance and the few who need it ,or who have become eligible due to age or service to the country are in a government managed system. Roughly 30%

The much vaunted 47 million uninsured is a deceptive stat. The U.S. Census Bureau report in 2006 that 9.5 million people of the uninsured were not U.S. citizens but can be treated anyway, under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Seventeen million of the uninsured lived in households having incomes of more than $50,000 and could easily afford private insurance but choose not to. Eighteen million were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, healthy enough to survive without paying for health insurance and made the decision to spend their money elsewhere. Fifty percent of the unemployed who actually lost coverage regained their health insurance in four months.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf
Yes there are gaps ,but it is no wheres near as bad as has been portrayed .

I still think Canada has a much better system. Even if you can afford health ins. It is out of control in terms price and denial of claims. The whole health system is so out of whack . We could use a good lesson in efficiency, cost control, reasonable rates, and more.

I also think there should be a secondary type emergency room. There is something wrong when an area with the name "emergency" attached is treating minor issues. Just like the 911 system. It is too broad. It is used for everything from reporting a murder to reporting a cat stuck in a tree. Why don't we have 811 for lesser emergencies?

As I said ;there are things that it could be improved on without scrapping it . Part of the problem is that each state has it's own mandates about what should be covered. Fine let them . But also give the consumer the ability to purchase coverage across state lines. Maybe I don't want NY's mandated coverage for acupuncture for weight control .


Maybe I want to have a basic coverage and a secondary catastrophic plan . People who have been offered the ability to take out health care accounts have not been complaining. There are hundreds of things that can be addressed within the framework of the system we already have.

The funny thing is that the radicals in the gvt. Are not proposing anything at all resembling the Canadian system. Looks to me to be closer to the British model Regardless I will oppose a move towards either .

I still think Canada has a much better system. Even if you can afford health ins. it is out of control in terms price and denial of claims. The whole health system is so out of whack . We could use a good lesson in efficiency, cost control, reasonable rates, and more.

I also think there should be a secondary type emergency room. There is something wrong when an area with the name "emergency" attached is treating minor issues. Just like the 911 system. It is too broad. It is used for everything from reporting a murder to reporting a cat stuck in a tree. Why don't we have 811 for lesser emergencies?

I think that depends on the location. In our city of 200,000 we have 2 hospitals with trauma centers, 1 private and 1 public - though it is a privately owned hospital. BOTH will treat anyone, the public hospital HAS a "secondary" ER for just such patients AND clinics across town to serve every day needs. Our adult daughter who suffers from AIDS was served well by the public health care system including excellent care from specialists in private practice while she lived here. If it works for us why the heck can't it work for everyone else?

Remember this ?


Obama Drops Plan to Bill Veterans' Private Insurers - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/18/AR2009031803394.html)

For those who expect government to take care of all their healthcare needs via a one payor scheme, you have been warned that Obama cannot even keep the promise to take care of those that have served in the military.

What if there were no private insurers? The veterans [ you or I in Obama's world ] would either be footing the bill or have their healthcare denied, delayed, or rationed.


Obama talks a good game... and that is all.






G&P

I think that depends on the location. In our city of 200,000 we have 2 hospitals with trauma centers, 1 private and 1 public - though it is a privately owned hospital. BOTH will treat anyone, the public hospital HAS a "secondary" ER for just such patients AND clinics across town to serve every day needs. Our adult daughter who suffers from AIDS was served well by the public health care system including excellent care from specialists in private practice while she lived here. If it works for us why the heck can't it work for everyone else?

I'm not sure I understand. Was the public hospital "free", did she have insurance, or did she just pay straight out of pocket? What good is the public or private hospital if you can't afford the care or the ins. Premiums? Who is paying for this care? The government? You?

I'm not sure I understand. Was the public hospital "free", did she have insurance, or did she just pay straight out of pocket? What good is the public or private hospital if you can't afford the care or the ins. premiums? Who is paying for this care? The government? You?

The "public" hospital was sold to a private company on the condition they provide care for those who can't afford it, though a portion of our property taxes do go to the hospital district as well. The private hospital will not turn anyone away and also provides assistance up to 100 percent for those who can't afford to pay without a dime taken from the taxpayers. But my point was there are areas that employ "a secondary type emergency room" as you suggested, and areas that manage to care for their citizens of all walks in both public and private practices and we manage.

Could it be better? Sure, but what makes anyone think the federal government can run health care better? They've done so well with everything else they've touched haven't they?

The "public" hospital was sold to a private company on the condition they provide care for those who can't afford it, though a portion of our property taxes do go to the hospital district as well. The private hospital will not turn anyone away and also provides assistance up to 100 percent for those who can't afford to pay without a dime taken from the taxpayers. But my point was there are areas that employ "a secondary type emergency room" as you suggested, and areas that manage to care for their citizens of all walks in both public and private practices and we manage.

Could it be better? Sure, but what makes anyone think the federal government can run health care better? They've done so well with everything else they've touched haven't they?

Note the bolded text. So taxes do pay for some of it in the way of property taxes. You say it will provide up to 100% for those who can't afford to pay. And that not a dime is taken from the tax payers? Well, except that property tax allotment. So, where does the money come from to run this hospital? How do they assess how much someone can pay them? I mean this sounds too good to be true. Free health care without tax payer help. Washington should check this out.

Note the bolded text. So taxes do pay for some of it in the way of property taxes. You say it will provide up to 100% for those who can't afford to pay. And that not a dime is taken from the tax payers? Well, except that property tax allotment. So, where does the money come from to run this hospital? How do they assess how much someone can pay them? I mean this sounds too good to be true. Free health care without tax payer help. Washington should check this out.

No, I said the private hospital here will provide up to 100 percent assistance to those who can't afford it. It gets nothing from the hospital district taxes. It is a Baptist/Catholic hospital which in itself is a unique pairing, and its mission is to serve the people. Private pay, endowments etc make up the difference and it is consistently named one of the country's best hospitals.

No, I said the private hospital here will provide up to 100 percent assistance to those who can't afford it. It gets nothing from the hospital district taxes. It is a Baptist/Catholic hospital which in itself is a unique pairing, and its mission is to serve the people. Private pay, endowments etc make up the difference and it is consistently named one of the country's best hospitals.

Now that sounds like an idea I could sink my teeth into. Churches stepping forward to help the community. Along with private pay and endowments. However it is paid for, the bottom line is that everyone can get their medical needs met regardless of ability tp pay. That's what I'm talking about! The way health care should be . No wonder it has consistently named one of the country's best hospitals.

Now that sounds like an idea I could sink my teeth into. Churches stepping forward to help the community. Along with private pay and endowments. However it is paid for, the bottom line is that everyone can get their medical needs met regardless of ability tp pay. That's what I'm talking about! The way health care should be . No wonder it has consistently named one of the country's best hospitals.

My question is, who is not getting health care in this country based on their ability to pay?

My question is, who is not getting health care in this country based on their ability to pay?

Oh, everyone is getting healthcare now? Then what is all the hoop-la about if it is no problem. Problem solved.

I provided the stats on the uninsured .

Oh, everyone is getting healthcare now? Then what is all the hoop-la about if it is no problem. Problem solved.

You avoided the question - it's one worthy of an answer. Tom did provide stats on the uninsured, but I'm asking specifically who is not getting health care in this country? Can anyone tell me?

who is not getting health care in this country? Can anyone tell me?Hello again, Steve:

The 47 million uninsured... Going to an emergency room is NOT health care.

Do you think I could get my perscriptions for blood pressure medicine written there on an ongoing basis?? No, of course not. They don't DO that, and THAT'S what health care IS. Going to the ER after my heart popped ISN'T health care.

excon

The 47 million uninsured

See #108
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/socalized-medicine-liberal-health-plan-335694-11.html

see #108Hello tom:

Ok, 37 million. Does that make you feel better??

excon

Only if you concede that most of them are uninsured by choice.

Hello again, Steve:

The 47 million uninsured.... Going to an emergency room is NOT health care.

Do you think I could get my perscriptions for blood pressure medicine written there on an ongoing basis??? No, of course not. They don't DO that, and THAT'S what health care IS. Going to the ER after my heart popped ISN'T health care.

excon

I guess you missed where in my community our public ER has a secondary center for the poor and indigent to take care of their needs. They also have a clinic for primary care. We still have many doctors who treat people in private practice who don't have insurance and work with them on payment. We have good doctors here that treat Medicaid and Medicare patients. I don't know of anyone here that goes without health care if they want health care. Do you have a bunch of people up there that do? Who are they, because no one here gets turned away on health care.

The system is in need of extensive repairs, yes, but who goes without health care? That is the problem isn't it, all those millions of people that don't get health care because they can't afford it? Or is that "just words?"

Tom, I'd be interested in hearing your ideal plan for health care .
You say ours could use some improvements but shouldn't be scraped. In a perfect world, what would it look like?

Seventeen million of the uninsured lived in households having incomes of more than $50,000 and could easily afford private insurance but choose not to. Hello again, tom:

Your math is fuzzy. Let's just take this ONE example, and I promise to use numbers that are favorable to YOUR argument.

Let's say this only a TWO person household. Federal, state, and local taxes are going to reduce the $50,000 down by (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by a WIDE margin), and say 35%. The real number is probably closer to 50%.

That leaves a family of TWO, the princely sum of $2,708, or LESS, per MONTH to live on. Now, they have to pay their mortgage, car payment and credit cards. Then they have to buy food, gas and electricity...

And, you say they can easily afford health insurance?? You're nuts.

excon

I guess you missed where in my community our public ER has a secondary center for the poor and indigent to take care of their needs. They also have a clinic for primary care. We still have many doctors who treat people in private practice who don't have insurance and work with them on payment. We have good doctors here that treat Medicaid and Medicare patients. I don't know of anyone here that goes without health care if they want health care. Do you have a bunch of people up there that do? Who are they, because no one here gets turned away on health care.

The system is in need of extensive repairs, yes, but who goes without health care? That is the problem isn't it, all those millions of people that don't get health care because they can't afford it? Or is that "just words?"

What funds are paying for the secondary center? It is nice when good doctors treat people without ins. And work with them on payment. Wouldn't that be nice if that could be counted on? Unfortunately it is not a stable arrangement. It doesn't happen everywhere, it just depends on the kindness of their heart.

I know people that will not go to a doctor when they really should because it cost them too much just to walk in the door. Then if there are any test or prescriptions, that is tacked onto the already high minimum cost. I know that when my kids were little, and I needed to take one to the doctor, I'd try to put it off, because even with ins. The deductables were high, the office visit was high, and cash flow was so tight. Everything needs to be regulated. The cost of ins, drugs, Dr. visits, hospital stay, tests, mental health care, and even the $15 aspirin they give you in the hospital. It is insane and needs to be totally reconstructed. If costs were brought down to reasonable levels, there would not be such a tizzy aver the health care issue.

What funds are paying for the secondary center?

I explained that previously. I'm not arguing that the system is fine, it needs repair - I already said that, too. You just argued that people are going without health care because they can't afford it. Do these people you know forgo health care because they can't find a doctor who will work them or do they even try? They don't want to sit in an ER? They have no clinics or other assistance available?

The reasons we're at this stage are too numerous to go into, but I categorically reject the idea that government run health care is the answer. They don't read the darn bills they pass now so why should I trust them to pass massive health care legislation that already has the government deciding which treatments are best for you as one of its major features?

Of the 47 million Americans who supposedly don't have healthcare:

11-12 million are illegal immigrants

15 million are between the ages of 18 and 35, the ages least likely to need insurance, and so they have CHOSEN not to buy health insurance. They can afford it, they just don't want it.

Of the remaining 20 million or so, 60% were without insurance for less than 4 months, and then went back on health insurance... mostly because of employment changes.

So we are now talking about roughly 10 million Americans who are without insurance for a "significant period of time" against their wishes.

So we are no longer talking about 15% of the population, but rather 3% of the population.

So for that 3%, we're going to get rid of our free market system and become socialists? We're going to screw 97% of the population in order to "help" that 3%?

Do those 10 million people need help? Yes. Do we need to restructure the entire medical system in the USA to provide that help? HELL NO!!

Elliot

but I categorically reject the idea that government run health care is the answer. Hello again, Steve:

You do. I think you do so because of ideology. I'm on your side too... I'm no lover of government. I don't want them IN the examining room with me and my doctor either - if I could forget for a minute, that an INSURANCE ADJUSTER is in there with us right now.

They're BOTH there for the same reasons - and that's to limit my services, and pay the bills for services they DON'T limit.

I see NO difference between the two, except that some of the money I spend on insurance goes to pay for the private schooling of the CEO's children. The money I'd pay the government would go towards insuring everybody.

That's my view.

excon

I see NO difference between the two, except that some of the money I spend on insurance goes to pay for the private schooling of the CEO's children. If the government was in there instead, the money I'd be spending would go towards insuring everybody.

That's my view.

excon

THAT'S where you're wrong. Your money won't be going to help insure other people. It will be going to the government troth to be used for whatever the government decides to use it for... just like your social security. And when the government decides that they need more... ostensibly to help insure more people, but in reality to pay for more government programs... they will simply take more of it. As you said, excon... once the nose of the camel is in the tent...

Elliot

Of the 47 million Americans who supposedly don't have healthcare:

11-12 million are illegal immigrants

15 million are between the ages of 18 and 35, the ages least likely to need insurance, and so they have CHOSEN not to buy health insurance. They can afford it, they just don't want it.

Of the remaining 20 million or so, 60% were without insurance for less than 4 months, and then went back on health insurance... mostly because of employment changes.

So we are now talking about roughly 10 million Americans who are without insurance for a "significant period of time" against their wishes.

So we are no longer talking about 15% of the population, but rather 3% of the population.

So for that 3%, we're going to get rid of our free market system and become socialists? We're going to screw 97% of the population in order to "help" that 3%?

Do those 10 million people need help? Yes. Do we need to restructure the entire medical system in the USA to provide that help? HELL NO!!!

Elliot

I'll counter that HELL NO with a HELL YES!! EVEN if all your math were correct, that's 10 million people at least! You don't think that is a signaficant number of people??

I'll counter that HELL NO with a HELL YES!!! EVEN if all your math were correct, that's 10 million people at least! You don't think that is a signaficant number of people???

I didn't do the math, the Heritage Foundation did.

And yes, it is a significant number of people. I said that we need to help them. But let's be sure not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The system works well for 97% of the population. The other 3% should be helped. But we shouldn't be changing a system that works 97% of the time for one that has failed again and again everywhere it has been tried.

The UK is now looking at private health coverage options to "supplement" the government run system. Canada's government is looking at opening up their system to allow patients to pay out of pocket instead of being stuck in the government system where they aren't being properly serviced. These "models" of government run health care are looking at the private market for solutions to their problems. The government CANNOT service people the way the private insurance companies and providers can.

So let's not take the 97% of people who are covered and place them in a lower (and often insufficient) level of coverage than they want and need just to help the 3% who are having trouble affording coverage.

Elliot

With a hell yes
The government option of health care is not the answer.

Like the political talk show host in my area
Quinn and Rose say why would you think that these Democrats that have bankrupted the cities they governed over be able to do a better deal with health care? Any financial thing the government has taken over has gone financially down the tubes and in debt over their heads.

hello again, steve:

You do. I think you do so because of ideology. I'm on your side too... I'm no lover of government. I don't want them in the examining room with me and my doctor either - if i could forget for a minute, that an insurance adjuster is in there with us right now.

They're both there for the same exact reasons - and that's to limit my services, and pay the bills for services they don't limit.

I see no difference between the two, except that some of the money i spend on insurance goes to pay for the private schooling of the ceo's children. The money i'd pay the government would go towards insuring everybody.

That's my view.

Excon

Bingo!!

I didn't do the math, the Heritage Foundation did.

And yes, it is a significant number of people. I said that we need to help them. But let's be sure not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The system works well for 97% of the population. The other 3% should be helped. But we shouldn't be changing a system that works 97% of the time for one that has failed again and again everywhere it has been tried.

The UK is now looking at private health coverage options to "supplement" the government run system. Canada's government is looking at opening up their system to allow patients to pay out of pocket instead of being stuck in the government system where they aren't being properly serviced. These "models" of government run health care are looking at the private market for solutions to their problems. The government CANNOT service people the way the private insurance companies and providers can.

So let's not take the 97% of people who are covered and place them in a lower (and often insufficient) level of coverage than they want and need just to help the 3% who are having trouble affording coverage.

Elliot

I AM insured. It cost a friggin fortune and my coverage is sorry, and my deductable is high. I'm one of your 97% that is covered. My daughter is over 18, in college, and has to have 12 hours to qualify for ins. Last quarter she could only get in 11. Therefore, no insurance. One time, she just pulled a class out of the air to get her 12 hours, to remain on our ins. Plan. It was cheaper to pay for more school and take something she didn't need, than to get separate ins. The system is so out of balance that having private insurance isn't what it's cracked up to be. So yippie, we are in your 97% of people that are the lucky ones. A good major over haul is needed. You must have missed all those posts from the Canadians that were so pleased with their system. I didn't. I paid close attention because my daughter has married a Canadian, will e living there, and I had concerns. Fortunately they put my mind to rest. We have committees for everything in Washington. What is wrong with getting some of the best and the brightest brains together. Give them the task of examining, evaluating, following and troubleshooting other nations health care systems, and use that info to devise a plan that is good for us? Why stand by this ridiculous system we have in place now. I don't understand your loyalty to it

My wife also had coverage when she went to undergrad, it was nice.

That is possible, because it is factored into the tuition and most college aged students are healthy and therefore cost less to insure.

Whether gov or private, healthcare costs are factored as a societal whole. We subsidize each other, the healthy subsidize the sick.

See post #48






G&P

[QUOTE=inthebox;1751334]My wife also had coverage when she went to undergrad, it was nice.

That is possible, because it is factored into the tuition and most college aged students are healthy and therefore cost less to insure.

Whether gov or private, healthcare costs are factored as a societal whole. We subsidize each other, the healthy subsidize the sick.

See post #48



Are you saying the school provided her health ins. Where do you live or where does she go to school? Is the coverage good or do you finally meet your deductible around the end of Dec. Our ins. Doesn't even start to pay until we meet our 5000.00 deductible. But we have to have it for catastrophic possibilities. We are caught between a rock and a hard place. Basically we just pay premiums just in case something catastrophic happens. The first thing they do to you in the emergency room is ask for your proof of ins. Doctors office, same thing. And you must pay before leaving. So, I want to know how the uninsured are getting in to see a doctor. Tom says no one is turned away.
G&P[

University of Kentucky, this despite Coach Calipari's salary, but hey what a recruiting class !

I think health insurance co's should compete NATIONALLY because of this:

Blue Cross, Blue Shield and UnitedHealth have 'near-monopoly' on health insurance in Florida -- OrlandoSentinel.com (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-bizinsurance-report-florida-052109052109may21,0,4228690.story)


No choice and no competition is not "free market" - this is where the government needs to step in - OM did I just say that :p - see post #48's link.




G&P

Obama is still in campaign mode if you haven't noticed, he along with the DNC are organizing health care kickoff parties (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hckickoff) to push his agenda. I hope they're as successful as their last brown shirt campaign (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/organizing-brown-shirts-330956-2.html#post1624075).

No experience is required to host or attend--we'll give you everything you need to make it a success.





How can this be grass roots when it is someone [ the administration ] giving you everything you need [ the agenda or policy to pursue ]?





G&P

How can this be grass roots when it is someone [ the administration ] giving you everything you need [ the agenda or policy to pursue ]?

That's part of the ruse.

Another dissent on socialized medicine in the UK...


Karol Sikora: This health care 'reform' will kill thousands (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Karol+Sikora:+This+health+ca re+%27reform%27+will+kill+thousands&articleId=46dca304-6d08-432c-84e4-f7992e75e77f)

Tuesday, May. 12, 2009

One of the more unproductive elements of President Obama's stimulus bill is the $1.1 billion allotted for "comparative effectiveness research" to assess all new health treatments to determine whether they are cost-effective. It sounds great, but in Britain we have had a similar system since 1999, and it has cost lives and kept the country in a kind of medical time warp.

As a practicing oncologist, I am forced to give patients older, cheaper medicines. The real cost of this penny-pinching is premature death for thousands of patients -- and higher overall health costs than if they had been treated properly: Sick people are expensive.

It is easy to see the superficial attraction for the United States. Health-care costs are rising as an aging population consumes ever-greater quantities of new medical technologies, particularly for long-term, chronic conditions, such as cancer.

As the government takes increasing control of the health sector with schemes such as Medicare and SCHIP (State Children's Health-care Insurance Program), it is under pressure to control expenditures. Some American health-policy experts have looked favorably at Britain, which uses its National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to appraise the cost-benefit of new treatments before they can be used in the public system.

If NICE concludes that a new drug gives insufficient bang for the buck, it will not be available through our public National Health Service, which provides care for the majority of Britons.

There is a good reason NICE has attracted interest from U.S. policymakers: It has proved highly effective at keeping expensive new medicines out of the state formulary. Recent research by Sweden's Karolinska Institute shows that Britain uses far fewer innovative cancer drugs than its European neighbors. Compared to France, Britain only uses a tenth of the drugs marketed in the last two years.

Partly as a result of these restrictions on new medicines, British patients die earlier. In Sweden, 60.3 percent of men and 61.7 percent of women survive a cancer diagnosis. In Britain the figure ranges between 40.2 to 48.1 percent for men and 48 to 54.1 percent for women. We are stuck with Soviet-quality care, in spite of the government massively increasing health spending since 2000 to bring the United Kingdom into line with other European countries.

Having a centralized "comparative effectiveness research" agency would also hand politicians inappropriate levels of control over clinical decisions, a fact which should alarm Americans as government takes ever more responsibility for delivering health care -- already 45 cents in every health-care dollar. In Britain, NICE is nominally independent of government, but politicians frequently intervene when they are faced with negative headlines generated by dissenting terminal patients.

For years, NICE tried to block the approval of the breast cancer drug Herceptin. Outraged patient groups, including many terminally ill women, took to the streets to demonstrate. In 2006, the then-health minister suddenly announced the drug would be available to women with early stages of the disease, even though it had not fully gone through the NICE approval process.

A more recent example was the refusal to allow the use of Sutent for kidney cancer. In January, NICE made a U-turn because of pressure on politicians from patients and doctors. Twenty-six professors of cancer medicine signed a protest letter to a national newspaper -- a unique event. And yet this drug has been available in all Western European countries for nearly two years.

In Britain, the reality is that life-and-death decisions are driven by electoral politics rather than clinical need. Diseases with less vocal lobby groups, such as strokes and mental health, get neglected at the expense of those that can shout louder. This is a principle that could soon be exported to America.

Ironically, rationing medicines doesn't help the government's finances in the long run. We are entering a period of rapid scientific progress that will convert previous killers such as heart disease, stroke and cancer into chronic, controllable conditions. In cancer treatment, my specialty, the next generation of medicines could eliminate the need for time-consuming, expensive and unpleasant chemo and radiotherapy. These treatments mean less would have to be spent later on expensive hospitalization and surgery.

The risks of America's move toward British-style drug evaluation are clear: In Britain it has harmed patients. This is one British import Americans should refuse.

Karol Sikora, a practicing oncologist, is professor of cancer medicine at Imperial College School of Medicine, London, and former head of cancer control at the World Health Organization.

Yet Japan and Australia both have the highest cancer survival rates on the planet, have done for decades. How can this be so? Both have evil and un-American health systems.

Don't know about the Aussies .But I'm willing to bet that the Japanese diet is healthier than it's American counterpart.

Yesterday the AMA ;the largest organization of doctors in the country came out and stated that it was not happy with the idea of changing our health care system to a European style government run( can I say that Mr President ? No say public option).

The NY Slime reports that
While committed to the goal of affordable health insurance for all, the association had said in a general statement of principles that health services should be “provided through private markets, as they are currently.”

The new system as envisioned would offer a government run medical insurance, subsidized by the taxpayers, in competition with the private insurance industry .With the government dictating the terms and creating mandates and penalties like taxing of worker "benefits " .Supporters of this plan surmise that sooner or later the private coverage option would be driven out of business. Incrementally they will achieve their ultimate goal of a single-payer system (but don't dare call it socialism the President advised yesterday). The President boldly declares without providing any evidence that this will improve the quality of care at lower cost while guaranteeing universal coverage.

I would add that those in Congress who push for this plan are already covered by a gold plated insurance plan subsidized by the taxpayers. But ;what they envision for thee is different and substandard to what they receive. Do they expect us to believe that they will wait for critical treatment while some politburo hack from the “Ministry of Wellness” slowly sifts through the red tape before approval ?

What is unstated is that the market and thus the cost of care is already distorted by government intervention.

In 2007, Americans spent about $2.2Trillion on healthcare. Of that, about 20% was spent on Medicare, 18% was spent on Medicaid, and 7% was spent in other public programs. This means that about 45% of all healthcare spending was already controlled by government.

The Federal Government sets its prices through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMMS). It establishes the reimbursement for doctors, physicians, drug companies, etc.
Reimbursement rates set by CMMS do not cover the cost of healthcare. As a result, private payors effectively subsidize healthcare for Medicare and Medicaid users.

Last year hospitals lost $30 Billion on Medicare and that only represents about a third of their businees. With the whole system operating under such inefficiency these losses would bankrupt the entire hospital sector.

And the economics of Medicaid are much, much worse. The President said it was imperitive to fix the private medical care system because it is hopelessly broken and it is imperitive that it be done now. But what has he done to address the programs like Medicare and Social Security that the government already manages and are in far worse shape ? NADA !

And for the doctors; there is a certain compensation they merit for all the preparatory education and internship that is required to make a competent doctor. If doctors determine that they can get a better return on their investment and labor elsewhere then quality doctors will leave the profession for more fruitful plains .

The only problem with the American health care system is the "gaps" ;the uninsured (no matter how many there are ) . That can easily be addressed without dismantling the system . The underlying premise in the debate as argued by those who want the government to run the show is that we the people are too stupid to make our own decisions. The nanny-state must satisfy our needs and wants.

If you need a record of success in gaging performance just see what happened when the government decided that polices to address affordable housing should be implemented and imposed on the market. That really worked out well!

Hello again, tom:

More no, huh? That ain't going to work.

I agree too, that we're headed to single payer. I just wish we'd get there because all this middle ground stuff ain't helping.

excon

To the extent that Medicare and Medicaid "works" now can only be attributed to the massive subsidization of the programs by private payers and future generations .There are unpaid bills now for the government run system that has created a crisis of the plans and snowballs into the costs of private care now .

If partial public coverage subsidization doesn't work ,then how can a complete turnnover of the system to a subsidized plan work ? It doesn't make sense.

If partial public coverage subsidization doesn't work ,then how can a complete turnnover of the system to a subsidized plan work ? It doesn't make sense.Hello tom:

We've been here before too. Maybe the righty koolaid makes you forget stuff.

Let me see. I'm just guessing, but I bet the health insurance industry brings down several BILLION dollars a year. According to a report, the big three carriers in my state alone, Regence BlueShield, Premera Blue Cross and Group Health Cooperative saw profits increase from $11 million in 2002 to $243 million in 2003 and $431 million in 2006. If my state is average, I cold assume that they're dragging down around $21,550,000,000 nationwide. Yup. That looks like several BILLION $$$'s to me

That's a lotta scratch. You could insure a bunch of people for that - probably ALL the people who don't have insurance now, and have some left over for your family too.

But, I'm just guessing.

excon

Hello tom:

We've been here before too. Maybe the righty koolaid makes you forget stuff.

First of all, LEFTIES drink koolaid. RIGHT-WINGERS drink either scotch (high-end, single malt, with an expensive cigar) or beer.


Let me see. I'm just guessing, but I bet the health insurance industry brings down several BILLION dollars a year. According to a report, the big three carriers in my state alone, Regence BlueShield, Premera Blue Cross and Group Health Cooperative saw profits increase from $11 million in 2002 to $243 million in 2003 and $431 million in 2006. If my state is average, I cold assume that they're dragging down around $21,550,000,000 nationwide. Yup. That looks like several BILLION $$$'s to me

That's a lotta scratch. You could insure a bunch of people for that - probably ALL the people who don't have insurance now, and have some left over for your family too.

But, I'm just guessing.

Excon

First of all, what is the source of your figures?

Second of all, what is the basis for your extrapolation? Are you taking into consideration any companies that LOST money?

Third, what was the sources of income for these companies? Was it investment income or operating income? (I suspect the former, but I haven't seen the financial statements so I can't really comment.)

Fourth, what is wrong with profit? When individuals or corporations make a profit, they usually plug that money back into the economy, either through investment in their own business, investments into other businesses, or via savings (the banks lend out the money that is held in savings accounts). When the GOVERNMENT makes a profit (if ever), it disappears into the black hole of government spending and doesn't go back into the economy. So what is wrong with a company making a profit? When did profitability become a crime?

Every other government that has tried nationalized healthcare has FAILED. In Oregon, where WE tried it, it has failed. In the VA system, where we tried it, it has failed. Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt. What makes you think that THIS TIME they're going to get it right?

You're right, we can't sustain this half-and-half thing we have going now. That's why the government has to get out of trying to run healthcare. They can't do it, they have failed at it over and over again, and people have died because of it.

In the American system as it is now, EVERYONE has healthcare, but not everyone has health insurance. Everyone must be given health care under the law, and cannot be turned away for lack of ability to pay.

In nationalized health systems, everyone has health insurance, but not everyone gets health care. Because everyone is covered, the care has to be rationed, and millions of people fail to receive the treatments they need in a timely manner, because doctors are underpaid, overworked, and lack the materials needed to care for all the patients.

Which do you prefer? Total insurance coverage with a lack of care, or total insurance care, with a lack of insurance coverage?

I know which one I prefer.

Elliot

Fourth, what is wrong with profit?Hello again, El:

I LOVE profit... And, if the insurance companies took some of their profits and attempted to cover the uninsured, I wouldn't want to be taking their business away... But, they sent their kids to private school instead. In fact, for the same money, the government can provide health insurance to EVERYBODY. It IS in everybody's interest to make sure the uninsured ARE insured.

I'll even go so far as to say that adequate health care is a RIGHT. Yup. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's a common - like water and electricity. Everybody should have water. That's why the government controls the water. IF the health care industry hadn't abused the privilege of serving us, I wouldn't be in support of taking it away from them. But they DID abuse it.

excon

I'll even go so far as to say that adequate health care is a RIGHT. Yup. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's a common - like water and electricity.
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."
Abe Lincoln

He also said that no one was entitled to the rewards of the coerced sweat of another mans brow. He was talking about slavery but he might just as well have been talking about "entitlement".

Hello again, El:

I LOVE profit... And, if the insurance companies took some of their profits and attempted to cover the uninsured, I wouldn't want to be taking their business away... But, they sent their kids to private school instead.

What is the problem with keeping school teachers employed? Why is the way in which they spend THEIR profits from THEIR hard work YOUR issue?

And guess what, most insurance companies have programs for community assistance for the poor.

But even if they didn't, who are YOU to mandate that they should spend THEIR money to cover the uninsured. You're pretty charitable with other people's money, aren't you, excon.



In fact, for the same money, the government can provide health insurance to EVERYBODY.

And health care to NOBODY. Thanks but no thanks. I'd rather have health CARE for everyone than health INSURANCE for everyone any day of the week.


It IS in everybody's interest to make sure the uninsured ARE insured.

Why?


I'll even go so far as to say that adequate health care is a RIGHT.

Again, you are confusing health CARE with health INSURANCE. Even if you assume that health care is a right (which is a mighty big assumption for a supposed libertarian to be making), the government isn't going to provide health CARE. They are only going to provide health INSURANCE. In doing so, they are going to cause a RATIONING of care due to overloading the system (the real reason for the high cost of health care). Which means that while everyone will have health INSURANCE, nobody will have HEALTH CARE.

And where do you find a right to health insurance in the USA?


Yup. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's a common - like water and electricity. Everybody should have water.

Even people who don't pay their water bill? And should they have the SAME water as everyone else?

And why should I pay for someone else's water? What's in it for me? What obligates ME to pay for it? What did I do that makes me indebted to this other guy who is not paying for his own stuff? When did I incure this obligation?

What is the other guy, who is not paying for his water or health insurance obligated to do for me? Or is it only a one-way obligation? Does he owe it to me to a) get a job, b) stay off drugs and drink, c) not be a criminal, d) do everything he can to become able to start paying his own way so that I don't have to pay for him?


That's why the government controls the water.

Yep, and we see how well that's working. Did you know that farmers in Southern California are being denied water for their farms by the government because the government wants to save a school of fish. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2009/03/31/abc-judge-cuts-water-california-farmers-save-endangered-fish) So much for the idea that water is a right for everyone. Apparently this government that you are so willing to trust to make decisions about your health care are more interested in saving a school of fish than they are about saving starving farmers. THEY CARE MORE ABOUT FISH THAN PEOPLE. And this is who you want to be in charge of YOUR health care decisions. Well not me, excon.

THANKS AGAIN FOR PROVING MY POINT. The government is incapable of taking care of people. The government cannot solve the problem. Government IS the problem.



IF the health care industry hadn't abused the privilege of serving us, I wouldn't be in support of taking it away from them. But they DID abuse it.

Excon

No they didn't abuse us. They have done exactly what they were contracted to do. They have BEEN abused...

By patients and doctors who scam the insurance companies in order to increase payments to doctors and benefits to patients,

By slip-and-fall lawyers out to sue every doctor, hospital and insurance company with deep enough pockets to gain their clients (and themselves) a multi-million-dollar widfall,

By governments that have regulated the hell out of them so that they lose their profitability entirely and are now trying to cap the premiums they can charge, and are now even trying to run them out of business.

You have it so bass awkward, you can't even recognize where the inequity is coming from. You're blaming the victim for the crime and turning the guilty party (government) into the hero.

You have SOOOO drunk the koolaid. You have become exactly what you claim to despise... a drone who is taking the word of the libs in GOVERNMENT as the gospel truth.

Elliot

Beware Obama's words as I've said before. He's using innocuous sounding words like he just wants to provide a "public option."

He's also using words that sound sweet to the ear, like "If the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep them honest and it will help keep their prices down."

Since when is the federal government supposed to be competing with the private sector? And since they make the rules isn't that a bit of an unfair advantage?

So tell me, what's going to be the result to the private sector when the government starts competing - with taxpayer dollars, unlimited deficit spending capabilities and regulatory power?

Every other government that has tried nationalized healthcare has FAILED. In Oregon, where WE tried it, it has failed. In the VA system, where we tried it, it has failed. Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt. What makes you think that THIS TIME they're going to get it right?

That is not what the Canadians on this board have been saying. They love it



In the American system as it is now, EVERYONE has healthcare, but not everyone has health insurance. Everyone must be given health care under the law, and cannot be turned away for lack of ability to pay.

My friends son has leukemia. Their medical bills are up into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even with their insurance, they are taking a beating from the bills. The saving grace is at least they are not having to empty their 401k, sell their home, sell their cars and other assets. If they did not have insurance, they would end up losing everything they had, they would be destitute and the gov would step in with welfare etc. So, the cost of them NOT having ins. Would come right back down to the tax payer.

Now, you say that everyone has health CARE, not just health INSURANCE. Why do I hear about benefits to raise money so little Johnny can have the operation. Or those jars that are always in the convenience stores collecting money for some persons medical care.
I am going to assume that this is just to help cover the huge amount still owed by the patient after the ins. Company pays their part.

Anyway, this is the way it goes if someone does Not have INSURANCE but does get the CARE as you say everyone gets.

They go in the hospital, get the care, can't pay, the hospital absorbs the cost, but passes it on to the consumer through higher health care cost.

The next patient comes in, incurs an inflated hospital bill since costs were increased because of the last guy that couldn't pay. So, the hospital absorbs this non paid bill, by increasing health care cost again.


This continues to happen. And with the job losses occurring during this recession more and more people are left without ins. So, now, more health care cost go unpaid and therefore go up. Which takes money from the private ins, which causes premiums to go up.. Vicious circle.

A family without insurance will hesitate going to their doctor, IF they go at all. Then we have sick people running around, infecting healthy people, causing more people that can't afford a doctor visit and we are back to that vicious circle. A circle of disaster that could have been avoided with a simple visit and an antibiotic.

Do you see where I am going with this. YOU and I STILL end up paying since our health care cost are out of control because of a patients inability to pay. And for families that go bankrupt from paying their full amount, we pick up the tab for that on the back end through welfare.

Private insurance companies have a vested interest in DENYING claims. Some of the policies we have had through the years make you jump through hoops of fire to get something approved, go around the world to get a referral, have tight restrictions
On what and how much of a drug you can have. They try every trick in the book to make it more difficult and therefore DISCOURAGE heath care because it eats into their profit. And as we have been shown, their profit is not suffering.

When I was pregnant, my doctor ordered an ultrasound. He wanted it done in his office right away. The fine print on the policy said no. You have to drive over to abc clinic, get it done, and have it sent back to your doctor. My baby was in distress and it was needed right away. I paid it out of my pocket to have it done in my doctors office and I'm glad I did or I would not have my son today. A national plan would not involve coordinating Doctor A, that can practice only at Hospital B, and have to have ultrasounds done at clinic C. It would all be under one huge umbrella.


In nationalized health systems, everyone has health insurance, but not everyone gets health care. Because everyone is covered, the care has to be rationed, and millions of people fail to receive the treatments they need in a timely manner, because doctors are underpaid, overworked, and lack the materials needed to care for all the patients.


And a private ins. Company has to cover everyone that buys a policy so the care has to be rationed and many treatments aren't covered so the profit and loss statement will be heavier on the profit side of the ledger. Their purpose is to use your premium money, invest it to make more money, and come up with ways not to pay your claim. Paying health claims is the last thing they want to do. And, of course when they do have a period of less profit they just raise the premiums. Once again, who is paying for this. YOU and I.


Greed is factored into health care in this country, and therefore the best interest of a patients care is barely even on the radar. Greed for higher profits is effecting the number of people that can even purchase it at all. And you know where that leads us. Back to you, me, and the gov picking up the pieces.

In a perfect world, national coverage would be in effect. The health of a person would be the first priority. Cost of care would come back down to earth. Good health care, yields healthier people yields less health care needed, yields less money spent on health care. It is a win win for all and not just super bonuses for the few. The tax payer would be tapped once up front, and not be involved in picking up the pieces AFTER treatment as in gov assistance or inflated health care cost. Meanwhile super bonus people over at private ins. Company are sitting in their 2nd home enjoying their ski vacation.

You are going to pay one way or the other. I say pay up front, have a healthier population, have regulations to keep it all fair and above board, make it easier to obtain that care, cut out all the ifs, ands, buts, and loopholes of a policy, and get the greed of high profits out of the picture.

I am not familiar with all the intricacies of economics or insurance. I do however know what makes logic sense to me. Putting health care decisions into the hands of people that will make more by not covering me is like letting the fox guard the hen house.

One other thing. Since my husband and I started purchasing health coverage 29 years ago, the premiums have sky rocketed while the coverage has decreased. That is yet another problem caused by the lousy method in which health care is handled in this country. It definitely needs an overhaul.

Hello again, c:

**Greenie** In fact, **DOUBLE Greenie**

excon

Hello again, c:

**Greenie** In fact, **DOUBLE Greenie**

excon

Thank you con, that means a lot coming from you.:)

That is not what the Canadians on this board have been saying. They love itThis is correct.

This is what we have in America. How many people die every day because they don't have health insurance? How many people die because their insurance won't cover the tests that might save them? How many Americans have died in the Midde-East because our leadership didn't equip them with the necessary protective equipment to go to war? Go watch the movie CHANCE and get a clue! I have spoken to regular citizens in Canada, England, Norway, and spent three years in Germany, and the only people who I hear complaining about those health care systems are Americans, who know nothing about those systems. I have yet to find someone in that country that dislikes their health care system, nor are they voting to trash it and go to a system like we have. Maybe if enough of the 40,000,000 people die because they don't have access to health care in America then you Pro-Life advocates will realize the hypocrisy of your thinking and will start supporting a system that promotes not only pro-life for the unborn, but pro-life for the children and adults in America. And, by the way, I am a retired officer who has free medical care for myself and my family, and am more than willing to sacrifice a delay in getting care so all Americans can have access to a system of health care.

Canadians contrast their health care to U.S.'s - Washington Times (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/11/canadas-health-plan-contrasted-with-us/)






The Canadian system insures everyone, and all Canadians have access to basic and critical health care without ever seeing a doctor or hospital bill.


Very good

Nevertheless, the demands on the system have led to waiting lists for treatments such as MRI scans, cataract and artery bypass surgeries and hip replacements.

The trade off

That's one reason why 70 percent of Canadians have some form of supplemental health insurance, whether or not they plan to visit the United States.

The Canadian system needs fixing, said Dr. Robert Ouellet, president of the Canadian Medical Association.

"We have improved waiting times from years to months in most areas, but people still wait too long even in emergency rooms," he said


Both the U.S. and Canadian governments, he said, would do well to examine systems such as one in the Netherlands, which provides universal and broader-based health care through a small number of regulated, private health insurers and government funding at a slightly lower cost than in Canada.


Dr. Catherine Kurozu, a Canadian doctor who has been practicing obstetrics and gynecology in the U.S. and Guam for 13 years, said, "In Canada, there's an egalitarian attitude I admire. Medical treatment in America depends almost entirely on what insurance company you have and what state you live in.

Is that because culturally, Americans are individualists and American society is more diverse ?



For Canadian Raymond McEwan, American hospitals are among the best in the world but are focused on making as much money as they can per patient, while in Canada the goal is good medical care for everyone


There has to be a balance here.

"In Canada, the first thing I was asked coming off the plane was, 'Are you in pain?' " he said. In the American hospital, he said, he waited an hour in the emergency room and then five hours more in various rooms without ever being asked whether he needed pain relief.

"It seemed like everyone in the American hospital was working on commission and trying to get me to sign for this and that treatment," he said. "In Canada, it's not about making money."






Clearly, US healthcare has to be reformed. There are too many groups that have a financial stake: Hospitals, doctors, insurance companies. How do you harness the American profit motive that brings innovation and advances to healthcare with the Canadian ethic of egalitarianism where everyone accepts some sacrifice for the benefit of the group as a whole?








G&P

This is what we have in America. How many people die every day because they don't have health insurance? How many people die because their insurance won't cover the tests that might save them? How many Americans have died in the Midde-East because our leadership didn't equip them with the necessary protective equipment to go to war? Go watch the movie CHANCE and get a clue! I have spoken to regular citizens in Canada, England, Norway, and spent three years in Germany, and the only people who I hear complaining about those health care systems are Americans, who know nothing about those systems. I have yet to find someone in that country that dislikes their health care system, nor are they voting to trash it and go to a system like we have. Maybe if enough of the 40,000,000 people die because they don't have access to health care in America then you Pro-Life advocates will realize the hypocracy of your thinking and will start supporting a system that promotes not only pro-life for the unborn, but pro-life for the children and adults in America. And, by the way, I am a retired officer who has free medical care for myself and my family, and am more than willing to sacrifice a delay in getting care so all Americans can have access to a system of health care.

I'm so glad you posted this. Wish I could plaster it all over the place. And this coming from a person with free medical care. Speaks volumes and I love it.:)

That is not what the Canadians on this board have been saying. They love it

Oh really? Well the majority of Canadians seem to disagree with the Canadians who happen to be on this board. Please read the attached report.
20841

In particular, please see page pages 16 & 17 for a comparison of American and Canadian satisfaction rates.

Simply put, while the Canadians on this board seem to be satisfied with their health system, most Canadians do not share their optimism. And since we are talking about the systems as a whole, rather than individual stories, I'll take the national statistics as an indicator.


My friends son has leukemia. Their medical bills are up into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even with their insurance, they are taking a beating from the bills. The saving grace is at least they are not having to empty their 401k, sell their home, sell their cars and other assets. If they did not have insurance, they would end up losing everything they had, they would be destitute and the gov would step in with welfare etc. So, the cost of them NOT having ins. Would come right back down to the tax payer.First, I am sorry that your friend's son is suffering from lukemia. It is a devastating disease, and I pray for his full recovery.

That said, I know that the medical bills are high, and that paying for her son's medical care is expensive. But the thing about the US health care system is that even if they suddenly become unable to pay (ei: Dad loses his job and his insurance coverage, Mom has to take time off to be with her son during his procedures, the house burns down, the market crashes, and they are left without a penny to their names, G-d forbid) they will STILL RECEIVE MEDICAL CARE FOR THEIR SON. And it will be the same care, by the same doctors they have been seeing until now. Most likely, they will receive free meds from the pharmaceutical companies (they may already be receiving reduced rates or even free meds) all of which have programs to help individuals get the meds they need. The hospitals are not allowed to turn them away. THAT IS THE LAW.


Now, you say that everyone has health CARE, not just health INSURANCE. Why do I hear about benefits to raise money so little Johnny can have the operation. Or those jars that are always in the convenience stores collecting money for some persons medical care.Good question.

Most of the time, the drives I have seen are to try and find someone to donate an organ or blood or bone marrow. When the drives are for money, usually the money is going for RESEARCH FOR A CURE rather than to pay for an already existing procedure. I suggest that you look closely at what the money being raised is going for. Is it for a specific procedure for a specific person, or is it for research, and the person's name is attached simply to give a face to the disease. Check it out and get back to me.



I am going to assume that this is just to help cover the huge amount still owed by the patient after the ins. Company pays their part.

Be careful in your assumptions. See above.


Anyway, this is the way it goes if someone does Not have INSURANCE but does get the CARE as you say everyone gets.

They go in the hospital, get the care, can't pay, the hospital absorbs the cost, but passes it on to the consumer through higher health care cost. True.


The next patient comes in, incurs an inflated hospital bill since costs were increased because of the last guy that couldn't pay. So, the hospital absorbs this non paid bill, by increasing health care cost again.True again.



This continues to happen. And with the job losses occurring during this recession more and more people are left without ins. So, now, more health care cost go unpaid and therefore go up. Which takes money from the private ins, which causes premiums to go up.. Vicious circle. You are correct. However, you are missing huge parts of the equation.

1) The cost of health care is driven up by doctors and hospitals having to pay for malpractice insurance because of fraudulant or frivolous litigation. The more lawsuits there are, the higher the insurance companies have to charge the hospitals and doctors to cover their risk and still remain profitable. Estimates from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation back in 2003 showed the direct cost of medical malpractice insurance, medical malpractice legal defense and administrative costs of medical malpractice totaled about 0.5% of total hospital expenses. That may not seem like a lot, but it is a HUGE factor in the cost of medicine. Furthermore, we have been seeing a trend of rising awards by juries in malpractice cases, which further drives up costs. Between 1991 and 2002, the average malpractice award increased by 52%. Incidentally, (or perhaps not so incidentally) between 1991 and 2002, medical care costs rose by 52% as well. You do the math.

2) To counter the possibility of medical malpractice lawsuits, doctors and hospitals practice what is referred to as "defensive medicine". That is, they slam the patient with every test imaginable so that they can document the fact that they checked every conceivable possibility. It is a method known in the finance world as CYA, or Cover Your @$$. It is not known how much of medical expenses are associated with defensive medicine or unnecessary tests. There have been numerous studies to try to determine how much defensive medicine is costing hospitals, but there has been no conclusive study that everyone can agree on. Nevertheless, the cost of defensive medicine is a large part of the rising costs of health care.

So yes, you are right that the rising cost of healthcare is connected to the expenses associated with the inability of some patients to pay. I agree. But there are bigger factors involved in that medical expense increase that you are completely ignoring.


A family without insurance will hesitate going to their doctor, IF they go at all. Then we have sick people running around, infecting healthy people, causing more people that can't afford a doctor visit and we are back to that vicious circle. A circle of disaster that could have been avoided with a simple visit and an antibiotic.Yes... a visit that they would not have been denied and an antibiotic that they could have gotten for free. Don't blame the system for the bad choices of the people who made them.


Do you see where I am going with this. YOU and I STILL end up paying since our health care cost are out of control because of a patients inability to pay. And for families that go bankrupt from paying their full amount, we pick up the tab for that on the back end through welfare.And how does a government-run program save us from that fate? Instead of paying higher medical insurance costs and medical care costs, we will instead pay 70%+ of our income in taxes to cover universal healthcare. So instead of SOME people going broke, EVERYONE ends up going broke. And when the government-run health system no longer receives the money it needs to cover the medical needs of the entire population, it will have to start rationing that care. It will close down hospitals, decrease the availability of diagnostic machinery, decrease the number of nurses, aids and administrators in hospitals, pay doctors less, and limit the procedures that people can get and who can get them. This is not a case of fear-mongering, Cosyk. This is what is HAPPENING in the UK, Canada and other countries that have government-run health care. The UK has begun denying certain breast-cancer drugs to women because of the cost and lack of availability. The Netherlands has gone so far as to start euthenizing patients against their wills in order to keep national medical costs down. This is REALITY, Cosyk. It is fact, not fear mongering.


Private insurance companies have a vested interest in DENYING claims. They have a vested interest in keeping patients alive, because alive, they are a source of income... someone has to pay their insurance premiums. Every living patient is a source of income to them.

The government, on the other hand, has a vested interest in denying claims. Old people, retirees, don't pay taxes because they generally don't have income. Thus, a living person who is old and needs medical care is nothing more than an drain on the system. He is an COST CENTER not an income generator. Therefore, it is better for the government to allow that person to die and concentrate their resources on the younger person who can get better and go back to work so that they can drain him of more of his income. Thus, old people are denied coverage, as in the Netherlands.


Some of the policies we have had through the years make you jump through hoops of fire to get something approved, go around the world to get a referral, have tight restrictions on what and how much of a drug you can have. They try every trick in the book to make it more difficult and therefore DISCOURAGE heath care because it eats into their profit. And as we have been shown, their profit is not suffering.And you think that going to a government-run system is going to IMPROVE THAT SITUATON? What have you been smoking?


When I was pregnant, my doctor ordered an ultrasound. He wanted it done in his office right away. The fine print on the policy said no. You have to drive over to abc clinic, get it done, and have it sent back to your doctor. My baby was in distress and it was needed right away. I paid it out of my pocket to have it done in my doctors office and I'm glad I did or I would not have my son today. A national plan would not involve coordinating Doctor A, that can practice only at Hospital B, and have to have ultrasounds done at clinic C. It would all be under one huge umbrella.First of all, every medical policy that I have ever seen has an emergency clause built in for emergent need of any procedure or test. I question the story you are telling. I don't doubt that it happened the way you said it, but I can almost guarantee that your insurance company would have paid for it after the fact if you had laid the facts before them and had your doctor back up the claim.

BTW, my son was the product of an emergency c-section due to a prolapsed i-cord. He was born in a different hospital and under a different doctor than the one "pre-approved" by the insurance company. And guess what... the insurance company paid for all of it: the surgery, the anesthesiologist, the longer recovery time, the U-Sound, all of it. Because it was an EMERGENCY.

So I know a bit about how these things work.


And a private ins. Company has to cover everyone that buys a policy so the care has to be rationed and many treatments aren't covered so the profit and loss statement will be heavier on the profit side of the ledger. The insurance companies don't provide the services. There is no rationing by insurance companies. And if you want a procedure that is not covered, you have the option of choosing a different insurance company OR paying out of pocket.

On the other hand, in a government-run system the government is the SOLE provider of medical insurance AND medical care. There is no such thing as paying out of pocket... it is illegal... and there is no other choice of insurer besides the government. If you want or need a procedure that isn't covered, you're screwed. There is no option.


Their purpose is to use your premium money, invest it to make more money, and come up with ways not to pay your claim. Paying health claims is the last thing they want to do. This may be true. But the VAST majority of claims are paid anyway. And those that are not are generally eaten by the hospital. Under a government-run system, there will be no freebies by hospitals. If the government doesn't cover it, you die, because if the government doesn't cover it and a doctor does it as a freebie, he gets fired and possibly jailed. (It has happened in Canada in a number of cases, so don't tell me I am just making it up.)


And, of course when they do have a period of less profit they just raise the premiums. Once again, who is paying for this. YOU and I.Of course we're paying for it. But we are getting what we pay for, by and large. Under a government-run system, they will take 70% of our income and STILL ration care, which means that we won't get what we need when we need it.



Continued...

Greed is factored into health care in this country, and therefore the best interest of a patients care is barely even on the radar. Greed for higher profits is effecting the number of people that can even purchase it at all. And you know where that leads us. Back to you, me, and the gov picking up the pieces.Again, I will ask you what I asked above: do you really think that a government-runs system will improve that? Do you really think that the entity that operates with the efficiency of the post office and the sensitivity of the IRS is going to have your best wishes at heart? More so than the company who's best interest is in keeping you alive so that you remain an income stream for them? Again, what have you been smoking?


In a perfect world, national coverage would be in effect. The health of a person would be the first priority. Cost of care would come back down to earth. Good health care, yields healthier people yields less health care needed, yields less money spent on health care. It is a win win for all and not just super bonuses for the few. The tax payer would be tapped once up front, and not be involved in picking up the pieces AFTER treatment as in gov assistance or inflated health care cost. Meanwhile super bonus people over at private ins. Company are sitting in their 2nd home enjoying their ski vacation.The first few words of this paragraph shows why you are wrong. "In a perfect world". The problem is that this ISN'T a perfect world. In a perfect world, everyone cares about everyone else, everyone is looking out for the best interests of everyone else, and nobody is worried about limited resources. But this isn't a perfect world. In this world, the government doesn't give a cr@p about you, doesn't have your best interests at heart, only cares about it's own bottom line and it's bottom line is better off with old sick people GONE, and there ARE limits to resources that cannot be overcome by government. That is why nationalized health care fails EVERYWHERE it is tried. There has never been a successful demonstration of government-run healthcare in the long term... "success" being defined by patient outcomes and public satisfaction with the system and "long-term" being defined as 10 years or more.


You are going to pay one way or the other. I say pay up front, have a healthier population, have regulations to keep it all fair and above board, make it easier to obtain that care, cut out all the ifs, ands, buts, and loopholes of a policy, and get the greed of high profits out of the picture.And I say that I want the choice of what coverage I want, which hospitals, doctors and other practitioners I go to, what procedures I wish to pursue, and what medicines to consume without some government bureaucrat who doesn't know me, know my problems or know anything about medicine making medical decisions for me. If I'm going to pay anyway, I'd rather get what I pay for than get screwed out of it by the government.


I am not familiar with all the intricacies of economics or insurance. I do however know what makes logic sense to me. Putting health care decisions into the hands of people that will make more by not covering me is like letting the fox guard the hen house.You call that logical? You should be AGAINST government run health care, not for it. The government makes more money with you DEAD than ALIVE. Insurance companies make more if you are alive than if you die. You decide which you like better from a logical standpoint.


One other thing. Since my husband and I started purchasing health coverage 29 years ago, the premiums have sky rocketed while the coverage has decreased.So change insurance companies to one that gives better coverage. Under the current system you have that option. Under a government-run system, you won't. You'll be STUCK!!


That is yet another problem caused by the lousy method in which health care is handled in this country. It definitely needs an overhaul.No question, the system needs an overhaul. But going to a government-run, socialist, single-payer, no opt-out system with no choices is NOT the overhaul we need.

You seem to be putting forward the usual "false choice" of either making a bad change to a government system or making no change at all. That is the false choice that Obama keeps feeding us: if you don't want to follow him, it means you don't want to do anything at all, and better a "bad" change than no change at all. BULL$H!T!! Those are not the only two choices. There are lots of options for lowering health care costs besides becoming communists. We can control medical costs by creating tort reform (remember that 52% increase in medical costs I mentioned above?), we can create greater efficiencies in the field of medicine, we can lower unnecessary regulatory costs, etc.

Why does the choice we make have to be either communism or nothing? That is how liberals are framing the argument, and it is a false argument. Instead of dismantling a system that 85%+ of the population is satisfied with (according to the attached study), why not try to improve that system instead so that the other 15% can come on board and find satisfaction themselves? Wouldn't that be a more cost-effective approach?

Elliot

Why does the choice we make have to be either communism or nothing?
That's where your argument fails.

Oh really? Well the majority of Canadians seem to disagree with the Canadians who happen to be on this board. . Since your report is missing...

Single Payer Health Care System (http://bcn.boulder.co.us/health/healthwatch/canada.html)

"I have read all about the health care plans in the paper. I have done a little work to find out what the general public Canadians think about their health plan. Everytime I see a car with Canadian license plates, I go up and talk to them. They are all nice to talk with, and I ask them how they like their health care plan. So far, 99% of the Canadians I've talked to like their system. They say it is such a peace of mind and the service at the doctor's office and hospitals is really quite good. If the ordinary run of the people like it, that's all we need to know."
According the Harris Poll of all industrial nations, Canadians are the most satisfied with their health care.

National. Most Canadians satisfied with health care: report (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Health/National+Most+Canadians+satisfied+with+health+care +report/1618047/story.html)

Most Canadians are satisfied with overall health-care services, according to a federal report released Thursday. The report says life expectancy continues to improve for Canadian women and men

10 Health Care Myths: Understanding Canada's Medicare Debate - Diemer.ca (http://www.diemer.ca/Docs/Diemer-TenHealthCareMyths.htm)

Myth #5: Americans may pay more for health care, but they get better health care as a result.
Reality: Studies show that on average, Canadians are more likely to receive needed care quickly than Americans. Canadians get more physicians visits per capita than Americans, more immunizations, more hospital admissions, and more surgical procedures. A survey of 10 OECD countries showed that Canadians were the most satisfied with the care they received, while Americans were the least satisfied. In fact, Canadians are more than five times as likely to be satisfied with the health care they receive than Americans.

You are correct. However, you are missing huge parts of the equation.

1) The cost of health care is driven up by doctors and hospitals having to pay for malpractice insurance because of fraudulant or frivolous litigation. Hello El:

Couple things...

I'd be for capping malpractice awards, as long as we can cap the damages suffered by the victims of bad doctors... But, that ain't going to happen. Sounds kind of unfair to limit one, and not the other... If your daughter were maimed by a bad doctor, you wouldn't want her award limited. Would you?

You also assume that it's the big bad lawyers who are responsible for the large jury verdicts... But, it isn't. We DO have judges who'll throw crap out. Or maybe you think that the civil courts in this country are like the lottery... Do you really think that?? No, you're not crazy. But you do like to spout crazy stuff without thinking about too much.

So, if we overhauled some of the WAY doctors do business, maybe we could reduce these mistakes. You know the ones I'm talking about - the ones that keep interns up for 24 hour shifts...

We could also computerize our medical records. That'll reduce mistakes by a whopping margin. But, that's something you righty's oppose too.

Actually, in all that long winded crap you wrote, I didn't find any solutions at all - just NO!

excon

[QUOTE=ETWolverine;1800649]Oh really? Well the majority of Canadians seem to disagree with the Canadians who happen to be on this board. Please read the attached report.
20841


I tried to read your report but when I clicked on it, it was no longer available. What's that all about?


In particular, please see page pages 16 & 17 for a comparison of American and Canadian satisfaction rates.

Wish I could. How many pages was this attachment?


[QUOTE]Simply put, while the Canadians on this board seem to be satisfied with their health system, most Canadians do not share their optimism.

Isn't it curious how only Canadians that love their healthcare are on this board. Where are the Canadians that don't care for the plan? Why aren't they speaking up? Especially if MOST do not like it, looks like we would see some of that here. Odd...



And since we are talking about the systems as a whole, rather than individual stories, I'll take the national statistics as an indicator.

So far, I've not seen the national statistics. Was that in the attachment that no longer exist? Therefore all I have to go on are the first hand individual stories.


First, I am sorry that your friend's son is suffering from lukemia. It is a devastating disease, and I pray for his full recovery.

Thank you.


That said, I know that the medical bills are high, and that paying for her son's medical care is expensive. But the thing about the US health care system is that even if they suddenly become unable to pay (ei: Dad loses his job and his insurance coverage, Mom has to take time off to be with her son during his procedures, the house burns down, the market crashes, and they are left without a penny to their names, G-d forbid) they will STILL RECEIVE MEDICAL CARE FOR THEIR SON. And it will be the same care, by the same doctors they have been seeing until now.

Yes, after they have lost everything they own they will continue to get the same care. If Dad loses his job, or whatever happens to them that makes them pennyless, the hospital is still going to go after any asset they have. Then the family has to file bankruptcy. The Bill goes unpaid, hospital absorbs cost, and here we go again. What makes you think that a national health ins. Would cease paying for the care if Dad lost his job?



Most likely, they will receive free meds from the pharmaceutical companies (they may already be receiving reduced rates or even free meds) all of which have programs to help individuals get the meds they need. The hospitals are not allowed to turn them away. THAT IS THE LAW.

You keep saying this. Like this would not be the law under universal care. What makes you think that this law would change? And big woop, your way can bankrupt a family. What are they going to go home to? The homestead act keeps creditors from taking their home, but what else do they have after paying the astronomical hospital cost. Being able to get the care under the law is only half the battle. Then you have to wonder. If I say to them, I can not pay you, are they going to get the best care, or some sort of minimal half a$$ care.

I'm going to take a break now, but I will get back to you on your other points.

I think what is missing here is that there are more than 40 million Americans without health care insurance or access. I would be surprised if any of them like the American system. I don't like it, and I have free health care and use it as little as possible. We don't need health insurance in the United States. Insurance doesn't get you needed health care procedures. We need comprehensive health care like the military. Everyone talks about Canada, but most every western country in the world has national health care except the United States. Americans who oppose a national health care system might have something to lose if one were implemented. Those same Americans would likely let their family members go homeless if they lost their jobs. The day will come when they get theirs. What goes around, comes around.

Wow, heated board.

I'd just like to mention that No one means will satisfy every one. Those who have tons of money and need not worry about healthcare don't want to change things, while those who can not afford it want to. (Generally speeking.)

In Canada our health care is not 100% free, we pay Taxes/Fees/and for some special equipment like braces, casts, meds, and so on. This is a far cry from the privatised health system of the U.S.A.

I often ponder the idea of Capitalism and how it's affected out cultures/society in North America. From what I can tell, people have gone from struggling to survive, to surviving, to coping with life, to enjoying life, to taking more than we need and never being saticfied. I know personally tones of people that are choked with the Canadian Health system, but bemindful a lot of those are people who use drugs (this includes Alcohol), or simply won't work with the medical professionals, especially when dealing with mental health. (that I suspect is more a product of the mental illness than the individual's opinion of them.) Yes, Doctors make mistakes that cost lives some big, some small; but who are we to sit here and say they are to blame for our issues? How many of us eat unhealthily? Yeah, maybe we Canadians need to wise up and stop killing ourselves (being so self absorbed/selfish) and expect some one who is doing what they can to help others to fix us. This I suspect is similar in the U.S.A.

It's easy to criticize the efforts of some one who is trying to help others, but it takes some one who is truly worth listening to, to take up the challenge and try to give aid to the system. Sitting around debating whether health care is being adiquitly applied or not is not going to help, when we could be volunteering our time to improove the system.

Does it matter how many people die because things are run the way they are? Yes, of course it does, but we are in no position to judge a system we do not understand. So if you want to say something about it, get up off your lazy A$$ and go learn about it, or shut up and suck it up. We are all human and we make mistakes, so forgive yourself, and for give those who make mistakes that hurt you.

Any one else with thoughts?

Peace and kindness be with you.

washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/15/AR2009061501545.html)





"If current spending and utilization trends continue, the Medicare program is fiscally unsustainable. . . . Part of the problem is that Medicare's fee-for-service payment systems reward more care -- and more complex care -- without regard to the quality or value of that care."



Read between the lines
.
Therefore less care and simple care will be pushed, by bureacrats with no medical training other than looking at outcomes data without regard to all the variables that lead to that outcome. The only variable they are really looking at is money.







The administration has put a spotlight on what it considers wasteful spending, but it has offered sparse details as to how it would change the incentives that produce the waste.






This administration looking at wasteful spending!! Maybe the taxpayor money that was wasted appeasing the UAW would have been better put to use in funding medicare, soc security, medicaid!!

What kind of outcome is that POTUS Obama?
He wasted billlions upon billions and the outcome, bankruptcy, is still the same.


And speaking of doing something about reducing healthcare costs, why has Obama not addressed TORT REFORM.

The caps they speak of relate to "punitive damages." There are no limits to awards given regarding lifetime medical expense.


VA officials grilled about improperly sterilized medical equipment - Politics AP - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1100374.html)


This is gov healthcare : they cannot even properly sterilize colonoscopes!



G&P

ET, I'm back to address more of your points.




Good question.


Most of the time, the drives I have seen are to try and find someone to donate an organ or blood or bone marrow. When the drives are for money, usually the money is going for RESEARCH FOR A CURE rather than to pay for an already existing procedure. I suggest that you look closely at what the money being raised is going for. Is it for a specific procedure for a specific person, or is it for research, and the person's name is attached simply to give a face to the disease. Check it out and get back to me.


I've seen some of BOTH kinds of drives. But mostly, I've seen the "help us pay for the operation" type. See, here's the deal. EVEN if it is the law that no one can be denied the care they require, doesn't keep it from wiping out all the money that a family does have first. Appropriate health care should never leave a family destitute.



True.

True again.


You are correct. However, you are missing huge parts of the equation.

1) The cost of health care is driven up by doctors and hospitals having to pay for malpractice insurance because of fraudulant or frivolous litigation. The more lawsuits there are, the higher the insurance companies have to charge the hospitals and doctors to cover their risk and still remain profitable. Estimates from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation back in 2003 showed the direct cost of medical malpractice insurance, medical malpractice legal defense and administrative costs of medical malpractice totaled about 0.5% of total hospital expenses. That may not seem like a lot, but it is a HUGE factor in the cost of medicine. Furthermore, we have been seeing a trend of rising awards by juries in malpractice cases, which further drives up costs. Between 1991 and 2002, the average malpractice award increased by 52%. Incidentally, (or perhaps not so incidentally) between 1991 and 2002, medical care costs rose by 52% as well. You do the math.



Maybe you should have said... The cost of health care is ALSO driven up by...
I agree that med malpractice is another system that has just gone crazy. That is another issue that deserves careful investigation. Another challenge for another day. But, we have seen by the Canadian example that their health care system is a lot more practical, simplistic, and efficient.



2) To counter the possibility of medical malpractice lawsuits, doctors and hospitals practice what is referred to as "defensive medicine". That is, they slam the patient with every test imaginable so that they can document the fact that they checked every conceivable possibility. It is a method known in the finance world as CYA, or Cover Your @$$.


Yes, it sucks. This defensive CYA method is due to the greed of lawyers and their get rich quick immoral clients. Anytime greed is involved it taints the system. The same way greed has been introduced into the cost of health care in general.



Yes... a visit that they would not have been denied and an antibiotic that they could have gotten for free. Don't blame the system for the bad choices of the people who made them.

When is the last time you had a doctor visit that was free? Free doesn't kick in until you are completely pennyless. If you have $50.00 bucks, and that $50 is needed to pay toward the food, heat, or childcare bill, you can't say... "hey I do have a little money, but it has to go for other things, so could you just go ahead and treat me for free?" And the medical receptionist says, oh yeah, no problem, after all it is THE LAW. We can not turn you away.
And by the way, does this LAW that you keep putting in caps apply to everything?
Free care for anything from a sore throat, to a broken arm, to a heart transplant? If you can't pay, no problem? I'm finding that hard to imagine.


And how does a government-run program save us from that fate? Instead of paying higher medical insurance costs and medical care costs, we will instead pay 70%+ of our income in taxes to cover universal healthcare.


Where did you get the figure 70%?
If the system is run as well as I keep reading about in Canada, medical cost will drop. A huge reduction in administrative cost will happen. Buying duplicate diagnostic equipment will cease. Everything will be streamlined instead of the clusterfook that we have now.
Employers will not be buying health ins. For their employees. Families will not be paying huge insurance premiums. All of these things will factor into the bottom line of the cost and you could very well be walking around with more money in your pocket than you have now.


]
So instead of SOME people going broke, EVERYONE ends up going broke.

Totally disagree. No one goes broke. Via taxes, everyone pays the same percentage.



And when the government-run health system no longer receives the money it needs to cover the medical needs of the entire population, it will have to start rationing that care. It will close down hospitals, decrease the availability of diagnostic machinery, decrease the number of nurses, aids and administrators in hospitals, pay doctors less, and limit the procedures that people can get and who can get them. This is not a case of fear-mongering, Cosyk.

Not cosyk. Cozyk. I don't feel like going into all the money saving factors again, but they will cause health care cost to go down. I haven't heard from anyone in the UK, so I can't speak to that. If it is failing them, then maybe they should take a look at how the Canadians are doing it. Because I have spoken to Canadians. My daughter is married to a Canadian.


The Netherlands has gone so far as to start euthenizing patients against their wills in order to keep national medical costs down. This is REALITY, Cosyk. It is fact, not fear mongering.



Euthenizing patients against their will?:eek: There is a word for that. It's called murder. I'd like for you to show me something that backs this up because I'm not buying it. And again, it's not cosy. Look at my name and picture on your left.


They have a vested interest in keeping patients alive, because alive, they are a source of income... someone has to pay their insurance premiums. Every living patient is a source of income to them.

Not buying this either. You are cheaper dead. Example. Family of 5 is paying their health ins. Premiums. One family member dies. Family still continues paying basically the same premium. Plus, ins. Company has one less person to take from their piggy bank.



The government, on the other hand, has a vested interest in denying claims. Old people, retirees, don't pay taxes because they generally don't have income. Thus, a living person who is old and needs medical care is nothing more than an drain on the system. He is an COST CENTER not an income generator. Therefore, it is better for the government to allow that person to die and concentrate their resources on the younger person who can get better and go back to work so that they can drain him of more of his income. Thus, old people are denied coverage, as in the Netherlands.

This is a fair observation about the old folks. But the gov is not in the business of making a profit. Giving out bonuses. Keeping those stockholders happy. Overpaying top executives. Their purpose is to just take care of business, not show huge profits. On the other hand, private ins. Companies have to consider all those things, so it is in their best interest to deny, deny, deny.


And you think that going to a government-run system is going to IMPROVE THAT SITUATON? What have you been smoking?


Don't smoke, never have. Therefore, my mind is very lucid.


First of all, every medical policy that I have ever seen has an emergency clause built in emergent need of any procedure or test. I question the story you are telling.
I don't doubt that it happened the way you said it, but I can almost guarantee that your insurance company would have paid for it after the fact if you had laid the facts before them and had your doctor back up the claim.

Or we could just do away with all this headache, red tape, and crap, and make all things equal. It feels like so much effort is made in putting obstacles in the way of the patient to discourage care which boost the profit of the ins. Company.



BTW, my son was the product of an emergency c-section due to a prolapsed I-cord. He was born in a different hospital and under a different doctor than the one "pre-approved" by the insurance company. And guess what... the insurance company paid for all of it: the surgery, the anesthesiologist, the longer recovery time, the U-Sound, all of it. Because it was an EMERGENCY.


Very nice it turned out that way for you. Bet you were sweating that until it was all approved weren't you? I was running a high fever after my son was born. The ins. Company had only committed to paying for 2 day hosp. stay. My doctor had to take her time to go to the ins. Company and state her case as to why I should remain in the hospital longer than the two days. What a pain.


The insurance companies don't provide the services. There is no rationing by insurance companies. And if you want a procedure that is not covered, you have the option of choosing a different insurance company OR paying out of pocket.


We all know that the ins. Companies don't provide the service. Duh? Right, there is no rationing of the service, there is rationing of what services they will pay for.
So what are you saying here? I'm going along, my husband is paying his part of his employer subsidized health ins. Right there, you can assume that our out of pocket is going to be less doing it this way, than what we could ever purchase without the employer assistance. So we find out that my head transplant isn't covered, so we drop our present ins. And go out searching for another one that will cover my pre-existing head condition, and have premiums that are not monumentally higher than our employer subsidized ins. Yeah, that's quite a choice.:mad: Or we have the "choice" to pay out of pocket.:rolleyes:


On the other hand, in a government-run system the government is the SOLE provider of medical insurance AND medical care. There is no such thing as paying out of pocket... it is illegal... and there is no other choice of insurer besides the government. If you want or need a procedure that isn't covered, you're screwed. There is no option.

And other than purely cosmetic procedures, name a care that would be denied.


This may be true. But the VAST majority of claims are paid anyway. And those that are not are generally eaten by the hospital. Under a government-run system, there will be no freebies by hospitals.

Hospitals have freebies?? Where, what??



If the government doesn't cover it, you die, because if the government doesn't cover it and a doctor does it as a freebie, he gets fired and possibly jailed. (It has happened in Canada in a number of cases, so don't tell me I am just making it up.)


Show me that you are not making it up.


Of course we're paying for it. But we are getting what we pay for, by and large.

You think?! :eek:I know that we pay premiums all year, and by the time we have finally met out deductible, we start a new year. Private Ins. Company gets our money, we have been paying out of pocket for health care all year, so who is the winner here? BUT, we don't dare not have ins. Because any major illness or injury could ruin us. So, the best case scenario is we pay premiums all year and not have to use it.




Under a government-run system, they will take 70% of our income and STILL ration care, which means that we won't get what we need when we need it.

Your reasoning is filled with assumptions.


Continued... [/QUOTE]

ET, I'm back to address more of your points.


I've seen some of BOTH kinds of drives. But mostly, I've seen the "help us pay for the operation" type. See, here's the deal. EVEN if it is the law that no one can be denied the care they require, doesn't keep it from wiping out all the money that a family does have first. Appropriate health care should never leave a family destitute.

You are assuming health care as a right. You are also assuming that the excersize of rights should have no monetary cost involved. And you are also assuming that a government-run health care system won't leave even MORE people destitute because of the 70%+ tax rates we will be paying to cover it. All three of these assumptions are just that... assumptions of facts not in evidence.

Have you heard about the homeless guy in Wondergirl's library? Ask her about him some time.



Maybe you should have said... The cost of health care is ALSO driven up by...

I did say that. Please re-read it.


I agree that med malpractice is another system that has just gone crazy. That is another issue that deserves careful investigation. Another challenge for another day.

No, that IS THE ISSUE. That is where the cost of medical care is really being driven up. A 52% increase in med malpractice awards has resulted in a 52% increase in medical costs. Cut medical malpractice-related costs and you can cut medical expenses by just as much. Do you really think that lowering medical expenses by as much as 52% won't help matters? That IS the issue.


But, we have seen by the Canadian example that their health care system is a lot more practical, simplistic, and efficient.

Efficient?

Waiting 22 months (in Saskatchewan) for an MRI is efficient? (Canadian Medical Association Journal, March 2004)

A shortage of doctors (2.1 per 1000 residents in Canada, compared to 3.1 per the OECD average) and nurses (8.8 in Canada vs. 9.7 average) is efficient?

1,370 OB-GYN (as of December 2008) in all of Canada, (to cover 14 million women under the age of 65 in Canada) is efficient? And the Society of OB-GYNs of Canada is expecting than number to decrease by as much as 1/3 within the next 5 years due to barriers to entry into the field and the number of current OB-GYNs that will be retiring. That will leave about 900 OB-GYNs to cover 14 million women. You call that efficient??

How are you defining efficiency, cosyk?


Here's something interesting:
A February 28, 2006, article in The New York Times quoted Dr. Brian Day as saying, "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years." The Canadian Health Coalition has responded succinctly to these claims, pointing out that "access to veterinary care for animals is based on ability to pay."

What this is saying is that a PRIVATE PAY SYSTEM IS MORE EFFICIENT IN TERMS OF WAITING TIMES THAN A SINGLE-PAYOR SYSTEM.



Yes, it sucks. This defensive CYA method is due to the greed of lawyers and their get rich quick immoral clients. Anytime greed is involved it taints the system. The same way greed has been introduced into the cost of health care in general.

So you're solution is to trash the 85% of the system that works en toto? Don't bother trying to fix it, just throw it all out and get something more costly, less efficient, and with fewer options?

Tell me, when your car has a flat tire and a noisy engine, do you go out and buy a new car? A car that isn't as fast, doesn't have A/C and only has AM radio? Or do you fix the flat, repair the engine and continue driving a perfectly good car?

Our medical system has some problems. It's got a flat, maybe some knocking and pinging, and occasionally stalls. It works fine 85% of the time, probably more. And it can be fixed liked new with relatively minimal cost, and it is STILL a Cadillac. So instead you want to buy a beat up, old Honda that only works 40-50% of the time and has a long history of stalling at the most inconvenient times under other owners.

This is efficiency?


When is the last time you had a doctor visit that was free? Free doesn't kick in until you are completely pennyless. If you have $50.00 bucks, and that $50 is needed to pay toward the food, heat, or childcare bill, you can't say... "hey I do have a little money, but it has to go for other things, so could you just go ahead and treat me for free?" And the medical receptionist says, oh yeah, no problem, after all it is THE LAW. We can not turn you away.

Happens every day of the week and twice on Sunday in every hospital in the United States.


And by the way, does this LAW that you keep putting in caps apply to everything?

Nope. It doesn't apply to elective surgery like a boob job or a nose job. It does apply to any and all medically NECESSARY procedures.


Free care for anything from a sore throat, to a broken arm, to a heart transplant? If you can't pay, no problem? I'm finding that hard to imagine.

That's because you haven't spent as much time as me in ERs. I've spent waaaayyyyy too much time in ERs as an EMT. I used to see it every day. Check it out before you doubt it. Go to any ER in your area (especially trauma ERs), spend a day or two, and see how many patients come in for a sore throat, a bellyache, sniffles, cold, flu, whatever, and see how many of them are seen by an intern or resident, given a perscription for an anti-biotic or something, and told to go to the hospital pharmacy to fill the scrip. And then check out how many of them actually pay the bill. (The number approaches zero.) You'll be amazed at how easy it is to get good medical care in the USA, even if you can't pay. And THAT is my point. In the USA, there is 100% medical coverage. There is just a shortage of INSURANCE coverage.




Where did you get the figure 70%?

The current average tax rate for citizens of the UK, all taxes included (sales, VAT, capital gains, income, real estate, etc.)


If the system is run as well as I keep reading about in Canada, medical cost will drop.

Where are you getting the idea that the system is run well? What have you been reading? Because the Canadians themselves (as a whole) don't seem to agree with you.


A huge reduction in administrative cost will happen.

Exactly what part of the efficiency of the US government leads you to believe that administrative costs will become more efficient? Have you seen the administrative costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? Have you seen the administrative costs of the US Postal Service? Of the Military? Of the IRS? Administrative costs to HOSPITALS might go down. But overall administrative costs to the government will skyrocket, and will double or triple the current costs.


Buying duplicate diagnostic equipment will cease.

Yeah... that's working real well for Canada. Remember that 22 month wait in Seskatchewan for an MRI? Are you willing to wait 22 months for an MRI because some government bureaucrat decided that your area doesn't need an extra MRI machine? This is reality, Cosyk. This is what is happening all over the world in government-run health care systems.


Everything will be streamlined instead of the clusterfook that we have now.

Yep. I'm sure that the lines we wait on for basic care will be very streamlined.

There is nothing efficient and "streamlined" about the government. Government-run health care is no different than any other government-run program.


Employers will not be buying health ins. For their employees. Families will not be paying huge insurance premiums. All of these things will factor into the bottom line of the cost and you could very well be walking around with more money in your pocket than you have now.

If the cost is not shared by the employer and employee, where will the government get the money to run the program?

Answer: from YOU. So instead of SHARING the cost with your employer, you will take on 100% the burden yourself in the form of taxes.

And worse, since the government is so efficient, the costs will be HIGHER and the amount you will pay will be greater. But it will be in the form of taxes, not insurance premiums, so you'll feel better about it.

So... a higher cost, born comepletely by YOU and not shared by your employer, with more inefficiency as with any government-run program, fewer choices in terms of care, and less actual care because everything is "streamlined". This is your plan.

Yep... count me in...

Not.

Elliot

Hi wolverine, do you actually know how BIG Saskatchewan is ? There aren't very many major centers in that whole province. And because of that, very few doctors scattered all over.

There isn't a problem with doctors and nurses and MRIs in a province that is SMALLER with a lot of MAJOR CENTERS. Do you understand that ?

Alberta is the same way. And Any province in between British Columbia and Ontario. We are not all that well populated.

There isn't a waiting list for MRIs in COBOURG ONTARIO WHERE WE HAVE A NEW HOSPITAL AND NEW DOCTORS AND NEW NURSES. Who are making the BIG BUCKS.

Cobourg is 2 hours east of TORONTO, Wolverine and GOSH we have a HELI PAD TO TAKE CRITICAL CARE PATIENTS TO TORONTO SO THEY Don't HAVE TO GO BY AMBULANCE !

For heavens sake, dispute some of this, wolverine.

Canada has so much to offer, including good healthcare.

Do you actually know, or can you research the member of the Canadian parliament who started it ?

Ms tickle who is quite happy with all

hi wolverine, do you actually know how BIG Saskatchewan is ? There arent very many major centers in that whole province. And because of that, very few doctors scattered all over.

There isnt a problem with doctors and nurses and MRIs in a province that is SMALLER with a lot of MAJOR CENTERS. Do you understand that ?

Alberta is the same way. and Any province in between British Columbia and Ontario. We are not all that well populated.

There isnt a waiting list for MRIs in COBOURG ONTARIO WHERE WE HAVE A NEW HOSPITAL AND NEW DOCTORS AND NEW NURSES. Who are making the BIG BUCKS.

Cobourg is 2 hours east of TORONTO, Wolverine and GOSH we have a HELI PAD TO TAKE CRITICAL CARE PATIENTS TO TORONTO SO THEY DONT HAVE TO GO BY AMBULANCE !

For heavens sake, dispute some of this, wolverine.

Canada has so much to offer, including good healthcare.

Do you actually know, or can you research the member of the Canadian parliament who started it ?

ms tickle who is quite happy with all

Thank you Tickle, I am so tired of debating with ET, someone too blind to see what is so obvious. You are just ANOTHER Canadian endorsing your health care. I've yet to see one that is not happy with your system.

Hi, cozyk, you are beating a dead horse. You will never, ever get him to say anything good about Canadian healthcare. There will always be a rebuttal.

Tick

Tick

hi, cozyk, you are beating a dead horse. You will never, ever get him to say anything good about Canadian healthcare. There will always be a rebuttal.

tick

tick

You are right tick. I spent a long time yesterday addressing his points. When I was just about to wrap it up, my computer froze. Then I was trying every trick in the book to un-freeze it and lost my reply. I wasn't about to do it all over again. It just wasn't worth it because I could tell by his rebuttals that his mind was clamped shut. And when he did not have a good reply, he relied on sarcasm or absurdity. I'm not giving that my time.

The attitude of some posters here regarding healtchare in Canada, just makes me sick, cozyk. Their thinking is so narrow minded. I don't know what Wolverine means about 'beaucrats have the say about what hospitals get an MRI', actually fundraising plays a big part in a hospital receiving an MRI. We have a really aggressive fundraising bunch in town and our hospital lacks for nothing.

And picking a Province such as Saskatchewan, which is almost the least populatedacross Canada for his tirade on hospitals without MRI, well, that is just unbelievable.

Waiting lists for catscans, MRIs and EKGs is just not what happens.

Tick

The problem is that the Canadian system is touted as the model that the US should follow.

I reject the idea that the United States system needs a fundamental overhaul and will oppose any move towards one modeled after the Canadian or British system. I have heard both pro and anti -arguments already . With 180 responses to this thread alone ;not including the other OPs covering the health care debate I think all players views are well known .

Hello my fine northern brethren:

There is ONE thing the Wolverine should like about your system. You can't sue a doctor, can you?

He doesn't like lawsuits against doctors. He thinks THAT'S what's driving up costs. It doesn't matter that a doctor MAIMED a patient, the doctor should be protected... I wonder why?? Does he have doctors in his family?? Why does he want to protect the doctor and NOT the patient?? It don't make no sense to me.

He also pay's no attention to the 20 or so billion $$$$'s the health insurance industry makes each year. Hmmmm. Does he have health insurance agents in his family?

excon

I reject the idea that the United States system needs a fundamental overhaul Hello again, tom:

Healthcare expenditures in the U.S. in the late 1990s were about 14 percent of GDP. They have now grown to almost 18 percent. In 2007, over 60 percent of personal bankruptcies were triggered by medical expenses that people could not cover. Uninsured or underinsured families are ballooning. Americans spend far more per capita than any other "advanced" country and yet the World Health Organization ranks the U.S. 37th in terms of health performance. Whether it is infant mortality, life expectancy, and all other measurements, the U.S. is far behind the rest of the Western world.

Yet, you and your ilk think things are just fine. I got to wonder what you've been smoking...

That's also why this overhaul will be foisted upon you, because you're not willing to be part of the solution. How can you fix something you don't think is broken??

excon

Foist... To impose (something or someone unwanted) upon another by coercion or trickery

Foisted is indeed the proper word for what is happening

Your concern is costs ? Increasing the size and scope of government's role in health care and further squeezing a private marketplace will drive up costs and drive down quality every single time. I have no problem with subsidizing those who generally need help . I object to subsidizing the majority of America who are more than able to choose their own level of care and insurance .

[QUOTE=tomder55;1804290]The problem is that the Canadian system is touted as the model that the US should follow.

Well, all the Canadians on this thread rave about it. Why would you not want to model your system after one that is a success? My experience with our present system has been many years of nightmares. I don't even want to begin going into the hoops I've had to jump through or the distances I've had to drive to get a doctor that participated in "my plan".
Every time we've moved and every time my husband changed jobs it was especially horrible.
Give me one plan, for every body, and in every town, anywhere in the US . Stop with the "pre-existing" condition loop hole. When someone loses their job, they shouldn't also lose their insurance.

I'm not a person that is pro "hand out". I think that he who works hardest should get the most. But just like our gov protects our lives with our military, it should also protect EVERY life with a health plan.

Well, all the Canadians on this thread rave about it.

Good for them .Let them keep it . There are huge differences between our countries.

Foist .... To impose (something or someone unwanted) upon another by coercion or trickeryHello again, tom:

What you call coercion or trickery, I call losing an election. To me, foist means having 60 votes - and they DO.

excon

hi wolverine, do you actually know how BIG Saskatchewan is ? There aren't very many major centers in that whole province. And because of that, very few doctors scattered all over.

There isn't a problem with doctors and nurses and MRIs in a province that is SMALLER with a lot of MAJOR CENTERS. Do you understand that ?

Alberta is the same way. And Any province in between British Columbia and Ontario. We are not all that well populated.



Please note, Tickle, that I also looked at it on a numner of practitioners per 1000 residents basis as well. Regardless of population OR population density, Canada ranks below the WORLD average in terms of practitioners per population. That is a problem, regardless of how densely populated or how much of a population center we are talking about.


There isn't a waiting list for MRIs in COBOURG ONTARIO WHERE WE HAVE A NEW HOSPITAL AND NEW DOCTORS AND NEW NURSES. Who are making the BIG BUCKS.

Cobourg is 2 hours east of TORONTO, Wolverine and GOSH we have a HELI PAD TO TAKE CRITICAL CARE PATIENTS TO TORONTO SO THEY Don't HAVE TO GO BY AMBULANCE !

For heavens sake, dispute some of this, wolverine.

Canada has so much to offer, including good healthcare.

Tickle, I live in one of the most densely populated cities in the world. I have family that lives in some of the LEAST densely populated areas of the USA. ALL OF OUR CITIES HAVE HOSPITALS WITH HELIPADS for trauma transport and inter-city transport, and we all have doctors who are paid "the big bucks". What you are seeing as wonderful recent developments in your health system in the major cities of Canada are the NORM in the USA and have been the norm for decades.

What is new and wonderful for YOU is old hat for me. I'm happy that your system is seeing improvement. But you guys are at least 20 years behind us in these developments. Your system's inherent inability to react and change with times and needs has you two decades behind where you should be.


Do you actually know, or can you research the member of the Canadian parliament who started it ?

ms tickle who is quite happy with allNo idea. I looked up which hospital you are talking about. I assume you are speaking of Northumberland Hills Hospital. I know that NHH opened in 2003, but I don't really have any more information than that. Please feel free to educate me.

I did notice that the brochure that was sent out in 2003 for the opening of the hospital listed CT Scanner, Dialysis, and Digital X-Ray as "new services" being offered (as compared to old services being expanded). What this tells me is that there was no CT Scanner, Dialysis and Digital X-Ray available at NHH prior to the completion of the new construction in 2003.

Huh? I cannot think of a hospital in the USA today that doesn't have at least one CT scanner, dialysis machine and digital X-ray machine. And if they don't, they can send folks to the hospital next door or even to private providers for these services. My grandfather, who died of kidney disease 20 years ago, had his choice of dialysis locations. You just got your dialysis machine in 2003?

Again, why are you guys so far behind us in availability of services. I'm glad things are improving for you, but why is it taking so long?

And why would I want to change our system to one in which it takes 20 years longer to provide services that I should already have available to me?

Your new, wonderful hospital in Cobourg is terrific, and I'm happy for you. But what about the folks in Saskatchewan who don't have access? Do they not count because they live in rural areas?

Canadians point to the lack of medical insurance coverage in the US system... but even insured Canadians in rural areas of Saskatchewan can't get the services they need, by your own admission, because they are too remote and there isn't enough resources to provide the full coverage in remote areas. Whereas while some Americans may be uninsured, they still have access to medical resources. Which of us is better off?

You aren't helping your position Tickle, by pointing out the wonderful NEW breakthroughs in the Canadian system, when those breakthrough simply indicate how long it is taking you to catch up to our current state of medical service availability.

Elliot

Good for them .Let them keep it . There are huge differences between our countries.

You have something against being happy with your system? They are happy and you say, "let them keep it". I swear I don't get you.

Every time we've moved and every time my husband changed jobs it was especially horrible.


I agree portability and the preexisting condition issues need to be addressed ( so I am in favor of some change despite excon's allegation ) .
In fact I'll go further and say that the employers should not be responsible for providing coverage at all. That is an antiquated system that came about when Roosevelt foisted (I like that word )wage controls on the country . The employer invented the benefit to skirt the controls and it stuck.

It would be better that any individual were given whatever tax benefit given to the employer to own their own insurance plan . The increased competition among the insurance providers would drive down costs by that act alone.

You have something against being happy with your system? They are happy and you say, "let them keep it". I swear I don't get you.

I can't change their minds about it . But ET's point which is valid and appears irrefutable by the evidence is that the care available there is subpar to what is available here. It is something I don't think we want to sacrifice because there are some gaps in coverage or cost problems . Those can be addressed without a major overhaul .

I can't change their minds about it . But ET's point which is valid and appears irrefutable by the evidence is that the care available there is subpar to what is available here..Hello tom:

I don't know what evidence you're looking at, other than the Wolverines schtick, but check this out:

Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 83% of total Canadian spending (public and private).

One commonly cited comparison, the World Health Organization's ratings of "overall health service performance", published in 2000, which used a "composite measure of achievement in the level of health, the distribution of health, the level of responsiveness and fairness of financial contribution", ranked Canada 30th and the U.S. 37th among 191 member nations. This study rated the US "responsiveness", or quality of service, as 1st, compared with 7th for Canada. The average life expectancy for Canada was 80.34 years compared with U.S. at 78.6 years.

To ME, spending LESS per capita, and living longer and having a lower level of infant mortality means THEIR health care system is BETTER than ours...

Course, when you say it's better here, you mean it's better here for the rich. I'll bet THEY live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate... But, when you measure EVERYBODY, Canada kicks our butt...

These are facts. The look pretty irrefutable to me.

excon

I have family that lives in some of the LEAST densely populated areas of the USA. ALL OF OUR CITIES HAVE HOSPITALS WITH HELIPADS for trauma transport and inter-city transport,
Rutland Regional Medical Center (http://www.rrmc.org/index.php)
"Vermont’s second-largest hospital" has no helipad. You fail - in caps to boot.

Hello my fine northern brethren:

There is ONE thing the Wolverine should like about your system. You can't sue a doctor, can you?

He doesn't like lawsuits against doctors. He thinks THAT'S what's driving up costs. It doesn't matter that a doctor MAIMED a patient, the doctor should be protected... I wonder why?? Does he have doctors in his family?? Why does he want to protect the doctor and NOT the patient?? It don't make no sense to me.

I never said that doctors shouldn't be sued if they screw up. What I said was that we need to reign in the FRIVOLOUS lawsuits. By doing so we protect both the doctors AND the patients... the doctors, because they won't have to defend (and pay for the defense of) nonesensical suits designed for payday payouts and nothing more, and the patients because the cost of care will be lower.

And AS I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES IN THE PAST, I'm not against large dollar lawsuits either. But let them go through a grand jury system first to determine merit, same as with criminal cases. If a grand jury sees no merit, the case will be thrown out. There will be no need for hospitals and insurance companies to give payouts to frivolous plaintiffs to make a case go away because it is more cost effective than defending the case because a grand jury will toss the case out. BUT if the grand jury sees merit in the case, let the case go forward, or let there be a settlement... for as much as the plaintiff can get.

A civil grand jury would lower the instance of frivolous lawsuits going to trial WITHOUT capping awards for legitimate cases. EVERYONE WINS!! Except the slip-and-fall lawyers who make their nut on filing frivolous lawsuits.

But I guess that excon has a slip-and-fall lawyer in his family that he needs to protect.


He also pay's no attention to the 20 or so billion $$$$'s the health insurance industry makes each year. Hmmmm. Does he have health insurance agents in his family?

ExconFirst of all, where do you get this $20 billion figure? Last time I checked, you had found a couple of companies that had made a million in profits or so and tried to extrapolate that to the entire industry (without knowing either the number of companies providing insurance OR the size of those companies). In other words, you are just making up that number. Can you back that number up?

Second, what percentage of sales is that $20 billion figure? If net profits are only 1 or 2%, that $20 billion isn't very much.

Let's do some math based on a few assumptions:

Assuming a typical insurance policy is $1500 per month (that's what I pay for COBRA for a family of 4),

Assuming that the 46 million uninsured figure is accurate,

Assuming that there are 300 million people in the united states (there are actually more, but that's a good round figure,

Assuming that 4 people is a "family" (not a very god assumption, but just for argument's sake)

That would mean that there are 254 million insured American, under 63.5 million policies, at a cost of $18,000 per year per policy, for a total insurance company revenue of $11.4 TRILLION.

WHICH MEANS THAT THE $20 BILLION OF PROFITS BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES IS 0.175%.

Even if we assume that my assumptions are completely off, and revenues are only 1/4 of what I have estimated, your estimate of the profitability of the insurance industry is still only 0.6999%... LESS THAN 1% PROFITABILITY.

And you are making it out to be some sort of windfall for the medical insurance industry??

Get real, excon. 0.7% profitability is no great number, and you know it.

Which gets us back to my old question of what you have against companies making a modest profit? And you call yourself a capitalist? By what standard?

Don't argue economics with me, Excon. You ought to know that by now. We've been doing this stuff for over 10 years together. You ought to know that you're not going to win an economics/finance argument with me.

Elliot

at a cost of $18,000 per year That assumes that the family never pays the insurance company for anything "not covered" for the whole year. Is that really the case?

We've been doing this stuff for over 10 years together. Hello again, El:

Yup. And, you ain't learned nothing yet.

excon

Rutland Regional Medical Center (http://www.rrmc.org/index.php)
"Vermont’s second-largest hospital" has no helipad. You fail - in caps to boot.

WRONG!!

FAA Information about Rutland Regional Medical Center Heliport (VT61) (http://www.airport-data.com/airport/VT61/)

This is the information from the FAA on Rutland Regional Medical Center's Heliport. The one they supposedly don't have.

YOU LOSE!!

Elliot

Cool, I wonder why they don't mention it on their site. I do indeed lose. You win. You must be having quite the orgasm now. :D

That assumes that the family never pays the insurance company for anything "not covered" for the whole year. Is that really the case?

NK, you are missing the point of the argument. The question in this case is not what families pay for medical care, but rather, what are the estimated combined revenues of medical insurance companies in the USA. What families pay outside of that is irrelevant to this argument.

Let me make this as simple as I can.

excon said that the insurance companies make (net income) $20 billion per year, and that this is too much.

My response was, is it really too much? In fact their combined net income is only about 0.175% of total revenue, which is actually very little. And I was showing how I arrived at my estimate of total revenues for the medical insurance industry. What families pay outside of that amount is irrelevant to the point I was making to excon.

Elliot

Cool, I wonder why they don't mention it on their site. I do indeed lose. You win. You must be having quite the orgasm now. :D

If you check the websites of MOST hospitals, you'll find that they try to gloss over the trauma medicine aspects of their services in favor of the "sexier" aspects of what they do. Trauma is bloody and turns people off. But a heart transplant is a romantic story. So they stress the more romantic stuff in their advertising.

It's pure PR.

Elliot

I care less about the corporations and more about people.

Hello again, El:

Yup. And, you ain't learned nothing yet.

excon


Aren't you even going to TRY to address the substance of what I said in my post? I'm not done whuppin' yer butt yet.

Elliot

I care less about the corporations and more about people.

So do I. But those insurance companies employ people. They also insure people. Attacking them falsely for their profitability hurts the people they employ and the people they insure. It tends to create more unemployed people who become uninsured people. Attacking whole industries does the same thing on a much larger scale.

Attacks on corporations have consequences for PEOPLE, NK.

Elliot

Attacks on corporations have consequences for PEOPLE, NK.
Like when you say to let big companies fail?

So do I. But those insurance companies employ people. They also insure people. Attacking them falsely for their profitability hurts the people they employHello El:

Like I said earlier, if health insurance is taken away from them, it's NOT like they don't have anything left to insure... There's your car, your house and your boat. There's your life and your income. Then there's your mortgage, and your business. Then there's your investments, and your bank accounts. Then there's those pesky derivatives.

Yeah, I think they'll be OK.

excon

I don't know what evidence you're looking at, other than the Wolverines schtick,


Tickle kind of confirmed it when mentioning that it takes fundraisers to get MRI equipment for the hospital .

Hello El:

Like I said earlier, if health insurance is taken away from them, it's NOT like they don't have anything left to insure.... There's your car, your house and your boat. There's your life and your income. Then there's your mortgage, and your business. Then there's your investments, and your bank accounts. Then there's those pesky derivatives.

Yeah, I think they'll be ok.

excon


Kill the medical insurance industry and hundreds of thousands of people who work in the medical insurance divisions of companies lose their jobs. They become unemployed and uninsured as well.

It also kills the taxable income of the insurance companies, resulting in lower income to the government to cover Obama's spending spree. This results in higher taxes on EVERYONE to make up the difference.

Kill or take over an industry or an industry sector, and it has a massive effect on the whole economy. And we're already reeling from the government takeover of the auto industry, the banking industry and the largest insurance company in the world. We're not just talking about medical insurance, excon. We're talking about other sectors of the economy as well, and we're already getting screwed over by it, economically speaking.

Plus, the government already owns AIG. They are regulating the hell out of derivatives. So we're no longer talking about the elimination of JUST the medical insurance divisions of these companies. We're talking about a takeover of the entire insurance industry in all sectors, not just medical. Plus banks, car companies, the securities industry, and whatever else he can get his hands on. Medical just happens to be this week's big push for takeover by Obama. It is neither his first industry takeover, nor will it be his last.

Elliot

Kill the medical insurance industry and hundreds of thousands of people who work in the medical insurance divisions of companies lose their jobs. They become unemployed and uninsured as well.

It also kills the taxable income of the insurance companies, resulting in lower income to the government to cover Obama's spending spree. This results in higher taxes on EVERYONE to make up the difference.

Kill or take over an industry or an industry sector, and it has a massive effect on the whole economy. And we're already reeling from the government takeover of the auto industry, the banking industry and the largest insurance company in the world. We're not just talking about medical insurance, excon. We're talking about other sectors of the economy as well, and we're already getting screwed over by it, economically speaking.

Plus, the government already owns AIG. They are regulating the hell out of derivatives. So we're no longer talking about the elimination of JUST the medical insurance divisions of these companies. We're talking about a takeover of the entire insurance industry in all sectors, not just medical. Plus banks, car companies, the securities industry, and whatever else he can get his hands on. Medical just happens to be this week's big push for takeover by Obama. It is neither his first industry takeover, nor will it be his last.

Elliot

Does lower taxes paid by insurance companies means higher taxes for everyone? I don't thinks so. President Bush not only lowered taxes on everyone, he went on the biggest spending spree in the countries history. Americans have learned that as long as you can find some fool to give you credit, you don't need to collect any money, or work for that matter, to go on a spending spree.

Does lower taxes paid by insurance companies means higher taxes for everyone? I don't thinks so.

That's because you don't understand the Laffer curve. Lowering tax RATES actually increases income to the government because more people are employed, more money is spent and more income is generated.

We're not talking about that. We're talking about a decrease in income by individuals and businesses, which results in lower tax income to the government... the exact opposite effect of what happens when you lower taxes.



President Bush not only lowered taxes on everyone, he went on the biggest spending spree in the countries history.

Until now. In six months, Obama has spent more money than Bush did in his entire 8 years, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Americans have learned that as long as you can find some fool to give you credit, you don't need to collect any money, or work for that matter, to go on a spending spree.

Yep. And Obama has learned that lesson well... he has single-handedly, in only 6 months, increased the budget deficit by 400% (a larger deficit than all past presidents combined), and increased the national debt by 7% so far, with more coming in the next 3 years. And that's before spending anything on nationalized healthcare.

The Republican spending between 2001 and 2006 was wrong. But Democrats have had the power of the purse since January 2007 and never cut a single penny of government spending... in fact they increased it massively with TARP, which they voted for against the votes of a majority of Republicans in Congress. Obama increased it even further with his stimulus bill, his TARP II, and his Omnibus Spending Bill, all of which received NO republican support. Not to mention his loans to and takeover of auto companies, insurance companies and banks.

Don't try to point at Bush, Amdeist, This is Obama's stuff, his crazy spending, and its only Dems who are backing it.

Elliot

AM what you describe and what ET was talking about are 2 different things . President Bush lowered tax rates which spured job growth and more taxable wages . ET is describing loss of jobs and thus taxable income.

( just a suggestion... you should put in a plug for your book in your signature .)

Hi, wolverine, yes our old hospital in Cobourg did have minimal facilities and small premises, to service the growing town and rural area, a state of the art hospital was necessarily to facilitate the new people arriving. The old hospital was built in the late l800s and added on to over the years. Was not suitable.

It did have catscan, but not dialysis, patients had to go to Kingston or Toronto for up dated services.

I don't understand why you say we are so far behind when people are sent from all over the world to access facilities in Toronto, especially Sick Kids hospital in Toronto, and Toronto General.

Tick

That's because you don't understand the Laffer curve. Lowering tax RATES actually increases income to the government because more people are employed, more money is spent and more income is generated.

We're not talking about that. We're talking about a decrease in income by individuals and businesses, which results in lower tax income to the government... the exact opposite effect of what happens when you lower taxes.




Until now. In six months, Obama has spent more money than Bush did in his entire 8 years, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.



Yep. And Obama has learned that lesson well... he has single-handedly, in only 6 months, increased the budget deficit by 400% (a larger deficit than all past presidents combined), and increased the national debt by 7% so far, with more coming in the next 3 years. And that's before spending anything on nationalized healthcare.

The Republican spending between 2001 and 2006 was wrong. But Democrats have had the power of the purse since January 2007 and never cut a single penny of government spending... in fact they increased it massively with TARP, which they voted for against the votes of a majority of Republicans in Congress. Obama increased it even further with his stimulus bill, his TARP II, and his Omnibus Spending Bill, all of which received NO republican support. Not to mention his loans to and takeover of auto companies, insurance companies and banks.

Don't try to point at Bush, Amdeist, This is Obama's stuff, his crazy spending, and its only Dems who are backing it.

Elliot

I won't argue with you, since you are clearly a Bushy conservative that still doesn't get it. Lowering taxes doesn't always generate jobs, nor more revenue for the government. Do your research. The Bush tax cuts contributed, along with underlying economic conditions, to a historic decline in federal tax revenue. In 2000 total federal tax revenue was as high in proportion to the U.S. economy as it had ever been. By 2004 federal tax revenue in proportion to the economy had fallen to its lowest level in almost fifty years. In recent decades the federal tax take has generally fluctuated between 17 and 19 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). By 2000, however, total federal tax receipts had reached 20.9 percent of GDP, their highest level since 1970 and matched only in 1944, when the federal government collected 20.9 percent of GDP in taxes at the height of fighting World War II. By 2004, however, federal tax receipts had fallen to 16.3 percent of GDP, which is not only the lowest level since 1970, but the lowest since 1959.

Like when you say to let big companies fail?

Yes. There are consequences to letting the company fail. But they are less than the consequences supporting it if it SHOULD fail, especially in the long run.

Giving GM billions of dollars and THEN letting it go to bankruptcy has much worse consequences than just letting them fail, because even MORE people are effected. (Especially when you screw around with who gets paid out first, the creditors or or the unions. But that's a discussion for another time.)

What should have happened is to allow GM and Chrysler to fail back in 2008, let them go through bankruptcy WITHOUT the government messing with them, and let them come out on the other side of bankruptcy with a better, stronger company, with no strings attached, and with the creditors made whole or almost whole in the end.

Now what's happening is that the companies took our money, are going through bankruptcy anyway (which all of us conservatives predicted would happen a year ago), the creditors are not being paid out and are going bankrupt themselves, the government has taken control of the companies, dealers are being put out of business, the unions have partial ownership of the companies, and the government is dictating what kinds of cars the companies can build.

The PEOPLE have been screwed worse by the government TRYING to "save" GM and Chrysler than if they had just let it happen a year ago. And it's because the government under Obama isn't concerned with what happens to the people. They're only concerned with taking control of the industry. Screw the people.

A risk/reward cost analysis is what should be driving these policies (bailouts and health care reform) in order to determine what's best for everyone. Instead we have political ideology driving the policies, with no regard for what is best for anyone.

That is why, when looked at from an analytical point of view, it just doesn't hold water.

Elliot

In essence it is the same calculation that has to go into whether to cut off the limb of a person. Yes, the person will be without a limb, and that is a BAD consequence. But if the alternative of keeping the limb is going to lead to massive sepsis and gross systemic failure, you choose the lesser of two evils and remove the limb.

Similarly, letting GM and Chrysler go bankrupt is a bad outcome. But if the alternative is massive debt for the entire nation, bankruptcies for investors, massive inflation, and an auto industry that isn't producing what the people want to buy, you let the companies go bankrupt.

When there is no good choice, choose the lesser of two evils.

Elliot

Yes. There are consequences to letting the company fail. But they are less than the consequences supporting it if it SHOULD fail, especially in the long run.

Giving GM billions of dollars and THEN letting it go to bankruptcy has much worse consequences than just letting them fail, because even MORE people are effected. (Especially when you screw around with who gets paid out first, the creditors or or the unions. But that's a discussion for another time.)

What should have happened is to allow GM and Chrysler to fail back in 2008, let them go through bankruptcy WITHOUT the government messing with them, and let them come out on the other side of bankruptcy with a better, stronger company, with no strings attached, and with the creditors made whole or almost whole in the end.

Now what's happening is that the companies took our money, are going through bankruptcy anyway (which all of us conservatives predicted would happen a year ago), the creditors are not being paid out and are going bankrupt themselves, the government has taken control of the companies, dealers are being put out of business, the unions have partial ownership of the companies, and the government is dictating what kinds of cars the companies can build.

The PEOPLE have been screwed worse by the government TRYING to "save" GM and Chrysler than if they had just let it happen a year ago. And it's because the government under Obama isn't concerned with what happens to the people. They're only concerned with taking control of the industry. Screw the people.

A risk/reward cost analysis is what should be driving these policies (bailouts and health care reform) in order to determine what's best for everyone. Instead we have political ideology driving the policies, with no regard for what is best for anyone.

That is why, when looked at from an analytical point of view, it just doesn't hold water.

Elliot

I don't totally disagree with your thinking, but am a firm believer that were the government not to help GM and Chrysler, Goldman Sacs, AIG, and others, this country wouldn't be recognizable anymore. As it is, I believe that not only are the economists totally wrong about a recovery this year, but it is still very possible that in the next two years, it will be much worse than the Depression of 1929. The media would have you believe that our children are going to have to pay for all these expenditures. The only way they will have to pay is with a return to a society where credit isn't available, and standard of living is based on family values and helping each other. If we return to that period, the country will be much better off. Life isn't about the American dollar, and enriching oneself at everyone else's expense.

Hello tom:

I don't know what evidence you're looking at, other than the Wolverines schtick, but check this out:

Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 83% of total Canadian spending (public and private).

One commonly cited comparison, the World Health Organization's ratings of "overall health service performance", published in 2000, which used a "composite measure of achievement in the level of health, the distribution of health, the level of responsiveness and fairness of financial contribution", ranked Canada 30th and the U.S. 37th among 191 member nations. This study rated the US "responsiveness", or quality of service, as 1st, compared with 7th for Canada. The average life expectancy for Canada was 80.34 years compared with U.S. at 78.6 years.

To ME, spending LESS per capita, and living longer and having a lower level of infant mortality means THEIR health care system is BETTER than ours....

Course, when you say it's better here, you mean it's better here for the rich. I'll bet THEY live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate... But, when you measure EVERYBODY, Canada kicks our butt...

These are facts. The look pretty irrefutable to me.

Excon



The facts need a further looking into. Take infant mortality.


CNN.com - U.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world, report says - May 10, 2006 (http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/)




Causes of death in the developing world were dramatically different from those in the developed world, the report said. In industrialized nations deaths were most likely to result from babies being born too small or too early, while in the developing world about half of newborn deaths were from infection, tetanus and diarrhea.

BigGovHealth | Infant Mortality and Premature Birth (http://www.biggovhealth.org/resource/myths-facts/infant-mortality-and-premature-birth/)

Note the references




The U.S.’ infant mortality rate is not higher; the rates of Canada and many European countries are artificially low, due to more restrictive definitions of live birth. There also are variations in the willingness of nations to save very low birth weight and gestation babies.





America's real infant-mortality problem. - By Darshak Sanghavi - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2161899/)






. By contrast, the majority of deaths in developed countries result from extreme prematurity or birth defects that kill a newborn in the first few days or weeks of life. According to a 2002 analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least a third of all infant mortality in the United States arises from complications of prematurity; other studies assert the figure is closer to half. Thus—at the risk of oversimplifying—infant mortality in the United States principally is a problem of premature birth, which today complicates just over one in 10 pregnancies.. .


But modern medicine isn't good at preventing prematurity—just the opposite. Better and more affordable medical care actually has worsened the rate of prematurity, and likely the rate of infant mortality, by making fertility treatment widespread. According to a 2006 Institute of Medicine report,.

Meanwhile, no amount of money or resources seems to reduce the rate of preterm births.. .


Throwing money at unproven programs for preventing prematurity, or at cash-cow NICUs, won't improve America's infant-morality rate. Instead, it's critical to follow the data—






That is a snap shot of why per capita costs are so high. Technology and critical care cost so much more than prevention. Advances in equipment, surgical techniques, pharmaceuticals,. basically keeping people alive; whereas 10 even 5 years ago these people would have died from their illness.


And most Americans expect the best, the most advanced, etc... right now. That is okay, but realize it costs money- that is to society as a whole.



Wondergirl mentioned her homeless person getting "free care" at the hospital because of medicaid, well IT IS NOT FREE TO SOCIETY. The hospital passes the costs of his care by getting government grants and or charging patients with insurance higher rates, the same rates that working people without insurance have to pay. The insurance companies pass the cost by raising premiums. The state and federal gov tax citizens for medicare and medicaid. So no money actually comes out of that homeless guys pockets, IT COMES FROM OUR POCKETS in the form of higher cost for service, higher taxes, higher premiums.


I think "universal healthcare" is a good ideal, but after you are done drinking the Koolaid be prepared for less advanced care, rationing, longer wait times, and less doctors. :o






G&P

I don't totally disagree with your thinking, but am a firm believer that were the government not to help GM and Chrysler, Goldman Sacs, AIG, and others, this country wouldn't be recognizable anymore.

As someone who works in finance, I can tell you that right now WITH the "help" of the government, this country isn't recognizable.


As it is, I believe that not only are the economists totally wrong about a recovery this year, but it is still very possible that in the next two years, it will be much worse than the Depression of 1929.

I agree. If the government doesn't stop trying to "help" us, it will be exactly as bad as the Great Depression, and for exactly the same reasons... government intervention.

Simply put, it was FDR's New Deal that drew out and deepened the Depression from what would have been a rather typical recession and bear market into a decade-long disaster. FDR raised taxes at the worst possible time, which is exactly what Obama is doing. FDR created massive welfare programs, Obama is creating a welfare state the likes of which even FDR would never have dreamed. FDR nationalized industries, Obama is nationalizing industries. FDR's Treasury Department printed money to pay for his welfare programs and drove up inflation, Obama is printing money and driving up inflation. FDR borrowed massive amounts driving up the national debt, Obama is borrowing massive amounts and driving up national debt. FDR created massive budget deficits to pay for his programs, Obama has quadrupled the budget deficit in under 6 months to pay for his programs. FDR created entitlements designed to help people but which killed the entire economy, Obama is creating massive new entitlement programs to "help" people that are bankrupting the country. Item by item, Obama is copying and surpassing FDR, with the same result as FDR had... the Great Depression.


The media would have you believe that our children are going to have to pay for all these expenditures. The only way they will have to pay is with a return to a society where credit isn't available, and standard of living is based on family values and helping each other. If we return to that period, the country will be much better off. Life isn't about the American dollar, and enriching oneself at everyone else's expense.

I agree with that philosophy in general. We would be better off without such easy credit.

But the money is already out the door. The lenders want to be repaid and will call for repayment when it is due. What are we supposed to do when CHINA calls in its notes? We cannot just simply declare bankruptcy without destroying the WORLD ECONOMY. We are not just an individual where if we don't pay, the market just goes on as it has been. We are not that insignificant. THe USA is the largest BORROWER, the largest LENDER, the largest PRODUCER, largest CONSUMER in the entire world. If we go under, the entire WORLD goes under with us.

It would be nice for some to believe that the USA just ain't all that... that we're not that important to the rest of the world. But that just isn't the reality. We are so much a central part of the WORLD economy that what effects us effects everyone else too. Trying to deny that fact is a recipe for disaster. And the rest of the world knows it too... that's why the comments of various world leaders (Sarkozy, Brown, Merkel, Putin, and others) have been warnings to Obama NOT to go the way of socialism and drag them down too.

If we don't pay our debts, the rest of the world suffers. We don't have the option of not paying our debts. We can't just brush off that responsibility without MASSIVE consequences... up to and including war (more wars have been fought over economics than any other reason EXCEPT religion.)

Ergo we or our children will HAVE to bear the burden of the debt that Obama is creating. We have no choice. And THAT will bankrupt us as individuals (or our children).

Elliot

I don't totally disagree with your thinking, but am a firm believer that were the government not to help GM and Chrysler, Goldman Sacs, AIG, and others, this country wouldn't be recognizable anymore. .

JPMorgan and 9 Other Banks Repay TARP Money - DealBook Blog - NYTimes.com (http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/jpmorgan-repays-treasury-as-tarp-exits-continue/?ref=business)

The MSM has cosistently portrayed the banks as the villlians they did not need a bail out, well they probably did not if they are able to be paying tarp back.

GM and Chrysler, same outcome now as it would have been 6 months ago, only difference is GOVERNMENT WASTED BILLIONS IN TAXPAYOR MONEY. :(

This country never stays the same, should we have bailed out 8 track makers, VHS manufacturers, Woolworth's, horse and carriage makers just to keep the country recognizably the same?







G&P

Here's (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/24/who%E2%80%99s-funding-the-obamacare-astroturf-campaign/) who's going to benefit from Obamacare, Soros and co. Turns out he's behind the "grass-roots" march on Washington today.

Wasn't Obama supposed to do something about lobbyist influence?

As someone who works in finance, I can tell you that right now WITH the "help" of the government, this country isn't recognizable.



I agree. If the government doesn't stop trying to "help" us, it will be exactly as bad as the Great Depression, and for exactly the same reasons... government intervention.

Simply put, it was FDR's New Deal that drew out and deepened the Depression from what would have been a rather typical recession and bear market into a decade-long disaster. FDR raised taxes at the worst possible time, which is exactly what Obama is doing. FDR created massive welfare programs, Obama is creating a welfare state the likes of which even FDR would never have dreamed. FDR nationalized industries, Obama is nationalizing industries. FDR's Treasury Department printed money to pay for his welfare programs and drove up inflation, Obama is printing money and driving up inflation. FDR borrowed massive amounts driving up the national debt, Obama is borrowing massive amounts and driving up national debt. FDR created massive budget deficits to pay for his programs, Obama has quadrupled the budget deficit in under 6 months to pay for his programs. FDR created entitlements designed to help people but which killed the entire economy, Obama is creating massive new entitlement programs to "help" people that are bankrupting the country. Item by item, Obama is copying and surpassing FDR, with the exact same result as FDR had... the Great Depression.



I agree with that philosophy in general. We would be better off without such easy credit.

But the money is already out the door. The lenders want to be repaid and will call for repayment when it is due. What are we supposed to do when CHINA calls in its notes? We cannot just simply declare bankruptcy without destroying the WORLD ECONOMY. We are not just an individual where if we don;t pay, the market just goes on as it has been. We are not that insignificant. THe USA is the largest BORROWER, the largest LENDER, the largest PRODUCER, largest CONSUMER in the entire world. If we go under, the entire WORLD goes under with us.

It would be nice for some to believe that the USA just ain't all that... that we're not that important to the rest of the world. But that just isn't the reality. We are so much a central part of the WORLD economy that what effects us effects everyone else too. Trying to deny that fact is a recipe for disaster. And the rest of the world knows it too... that's why the comments of various world leaders (Sarkozy, Brown, Merkel, Putin, and others) have been warnings to Obama NOT to go the way of socialism and drag them down too.

If we don't pay our debts, the rest of the world suffers. We don't have the option of not paying our debts. We can't just brush off that responsibility without MASSIVE consequences... up to and including war (more wars have been fought over economics than any other reason EXCEPT religion.)

Ergo we or our children will HAVE to bear the burden of the debt that Obama is creating. We have no choice. And THAT will bankrupt us as individuals (or our children).

Elliot

But the money is already out the door. The lenders want to be repaid and will call for repayment when it is due. What are we supposed to do when CHINA calls in its notes? We cannot just simply declare bankruptcy without destroying the WORLD ECONOMY. We are not just an individual where if we don't pay, the market just goes on as it has been. We are not that insignificant. THe USA is the largest BORROWER, the largest LENDER, the largest PRODUCER, largest CONSUMER in the entire world. If we go under, the entire WORLD goes under with us.

Apparently, we have major agreements on philosophy, but where we disagree is what we will do if China or anyone else for that matter calls in its notes? Not only can we declare bankruptcy, we are bankrupt. I can't imagine China or any other country accepting our worthless printed dollars in payment. There is no alternative, short of inflating the value of precious metals, and giving them what our government has in storage of those resources in payment of our debt. Short of that, we go to war. By your saying if we go under, the entire WORLD goes under with us assumes that everything revovles around the United States. I totally disagree with that comment. We could disappear tomorrow, and I assure you that life on earth would continue, and undoubtedly improve over the next five years. All our country has been is a leach on the rest of the world. If you had a stepchild that was taking all your resources to live, you would feel a sigh of relief if that stepchild disappeared. We are the world's stepchild!

By your saying if we go under, the entire WORLD goes under with us assumes that everything revovles around the United States. I totally disagree with that comment. We could disappear tomorrow, and I assure you that life on earth would continue, and undoubtedly improve over the next five years. All our country has been is a leach on the rest of the world. If you had a stepchild that was taking all your resources to live, you would feel a sigh of relief if that stepchild disappeared. We are the world's stepchild!

We consume about 45% of the world's resources, but we PRODUCE about 70% of the world's products. If this "stepchild" leaves, the rest of the world starves to death, because this "stepchild" is the only one that has the means of production capable of handling the needs of the rest of the world.

Yeah, they may breath a sigh of relief for a few days... right until Africa runs out of American grown corn and wheat to feed it's people, and the rest of the world runs out of refined oil to heat their homes and run their industry.

Case in point: The USA is the world's largest consumer of raw oil using about 70% of what is drilled worldwide, but we produce about 68% of the world's REFINED FUEL. If we shut down, the rest of the world freezes to death and has no fuel to run their manufactories. Iran is swimming in oil, but they have no refinery capacity. They get their refined oil from us. Russia is the second largest producer of refined oil in the world with about 15% of what is produced. They don't produce enough to support their own industry. They get it from us. And even WITH our full capacity, we still don't produce enough for the full consuption of the entire world. If we fail to produce refined oil because we are bankrupt, the entire world economy grinds to a halt due to lack of fuel. Or do you believe that the world can run on only 32% of the oil it currently consumes?

So in fact, we ARE the center of the world's economy, just based on refined oil production alone. I won't get into technology, pharmaceutical production, electronics, agriculture, and military power as they apply to the world economy.

Face it, Amdeist, where the US economy fails, so fails the rest of the world's economies. Forget linking to the dollar. Forget debt structure. This is just simple supply and demand. We supply what the rest of the world demands, and if we fail to provide that supply, the rest of the world grinds to a halt.

We cannot afford to go bankrupt, and the rest of the world cannot afford it either. WE ARE THE CENTER OF THE ECONOMIC WORLD, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

Elliot

We consume about 45% of the world's resources, but we PRODUCE about 70% of the world's products. If this "stepchild" leaves, the rest of the world starves to death, because this "stepchild" is the only one that has the means of production capable of handling the needs of the rest of the world.

Yeah, they may breath a sigh of relief for a few days... right until Africa runs out of American grown corn and wheat to feed it's people, and the rest of the world runs out of refined oil to heat their homes and run their industry.

Case in point: The USA is the world's largest consumer of raw oil using about 70% of what is drilled worldwide, but we produce about 68% of the world's REFINED FUEL. If we shut down, the rest of the world freezes to death and has no fuel to run their manufactories. Iran is swimming in oil, but they have no refinery capacity. They get their refined oil from us. Russia is the second largest producer of refined oil in the world with about 15% of what is produced. They don't produce enough to support their own industry. They get it from us. And even WITH our full capacity, we still don't produce enough for the full consuption of the entire world. If we fail to produce refined oil because we are bankrupt, the entire world economy grinds to a halt due to lack of fuel. Or do you believe that the world can run on only 32% of the oil it currently consumes?

So in fact, we ARE the center of the world's economy, just based on refined oil production alone. I won't get into technology, pharmaceutical production, electronics, agriculture, and military power as they apply to the world economy.

Face it, Amdeist, where the US economy fails, so fails the rest of the world's economies. Forget linking to the dollar. Forget debt structure. This is just simple supply and demand. We supply what the rest of the world demands, and if we fail to provide that supply, the rest of the world grinds to a halt.

We cannot afford to go bankrupt, and the rest of the world cannot afford it either. WE ARE THE CENTER OF THE ECONOMIC WORLD, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

Elliot

I don't agree, but the beauty is that we will see if we live long enough. Capitalism is going down, just as did the Roman Empire. J.B Haldane was correct when he wrote: Capitalism did not arise because capitalists stole the land or the workmen’s tools, but because it was more efficient than feudalism. It will perish because it is not merely less efficient than socialism, but actually self-destructive. (J.B.S. Haldane, I Believe)

I don't agree, but the beauty is that we will see if we live long enough. Capitalism is going down, just as did the Roman Empire. J.B Haldane was correct when he wrote: Capitalism did not arise because capitalists stole the land or the workmen’s tools, but because it was more efficient than feudalism. It will perish because it is not merely less efficient than socialism, but actually self-destructive. (J.B.S. Haldane, I Believe)

You truly believe that?

I suppose that the socialist system in the Soviet Union is still alive and working well.

I suppose that China's socialist system is efficiently feeding its people.

I suppose that the socialist system in North Korea is efficiently helping their economy move along.

I suppose the fact that the UK and Canada are both looking at injecting their single-payer government-run health care system with private supplemental health care is not a sign that their system is failing.

Socialism doesn't work on a large scale. In fact, even on the small scale it has failed miserably. There is a reason that most of the kibbutzim (communes) in Israel have failed and become PRIVATE CORPORATE ENTITIES instead. The kibbutz was supposed to be the model of socialism on a small scale, the one the whole world has been watching to see how it worked out. But after 60 years it has failed in almost all kibbutzim.

There is NOTHING efficient about socialism. Socialism neither distributes it's products efficiently, nor does it produce those products efficiently. That is why it fails every time.

Socialism is a failed experiment. It is an offshoot of the very feudalism that Capitalism replaced. What is the difference between the Lord of the Land that makes centralized decisions about how the people live their lives, produce their products, distribute their services, and run the methods of production, and a Centralized Government that makes centralized decisions about how the people live their lives, produce their products, distribute their services, and run the methods of production. Feudalism IS socialism IS fascism. At their essence they are all the same... centralized control over the lives of individuals and the methods of production and consumption. Every attempt at centralized control throughout history has failed, most often resulting in the deaths and suffering of millions. What makes you think that THIS TIME it will work better?

Capitalism is the only system that allows individuals the ability to control their own production methods, consumption methods, distribution methods, and use of the proceeds. It allows people to choose for themselves based on what works best for them. If one method fails, people are able to try other methods until they get it right, on a scale where the failure of one person does not cause the failure of everyone else. That makes the system as a whole more flexible to begin with. It also rewards hard work, skill and talent, so that those with a particular talent or skill have an incentive to work harder to develop that skill and talent... as opposed to everyone being paid the same for the same job, whether they are good at it or not and whether they actually do the work or not. That is a more efficient compensation system. It allows people to CHANGE what they do for a living, which is something that is not encouraged in a centralized-decision-making system. People can purchase whatever they wish without having to get government permission, because production meets demand in a capitalist system, whereas there are quotas and limits on production in a government-run system.

I do agree with you on one point: the American system is indeed failing. But it is not failing because the system is a capitalist system. It is failing because it is NO LONGER a capitalist system.

The sub-prime mortgage mess that started this whole recession is the fault of GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION in the lending practices of banks via FANNIE MAE, FREDDIE MAC and the COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT which FORCED banks to make loans that they otherwise would not have made because they were BAD LOANS. If not for government intervention (aka Central Planning) there never would have been a sub-prime loan program, much less a derivatives market for them.

If not for the unions (centralized planning again) and their demands for uninterrupted benefits for their RETIRED MEMBERS (who are no longer productive members of the union or the businesses) for decades after their retirement, the auto companies would not have found themselves involved in bad union contracts that drove up the costs of cars unnecessarily. If not for government-mandated regulation (central planning again) of gas mileage efficiencies, the costs of development of new automobiles would be about 20% lower than they are. If not for this government and union intervention, GM would not have gone bankrupt in the first place. They would be selling their cars like hotcakes, because they would have been CHEAPER and could have competed with the foreign companies that sell cars in the USA. The centralized-planning model is what killed the auto industry.

Socialism is what is killing the US economy, not capitalism. We haven't been a true capitalist society since FDR centralized planning for "recovery" from the Great Depression... especially when his Supreme Court ruled in favor of government control of private production for personal use in Wikard v. Fillburn (1942). The Wikard case eliminated free markets and private consumption and opened the door to the government controlling all means of production under the "interstate commerce clause" whether production was meant to be placed in the market or just for personal use. From that day forward, government was in control of everything we produce and consume. That is the day we were no longer a free-market capitalist economy and became a "central-planning" economy.

So yes, the US economy is failing. But it is the socialist ethos that is killing it, not capitalism. Capitalism is what will SAVE it.

Elliot

Your points are irrelevant. Capitalism is a dying concept in the United States. You can whine all you want about the reasons. Blame it on Madoff, AIG, Lehman Bros, or the thousands of other firms that are illiquid and have borrowed themselved into oblivian. Blame it on Americans who wised up and removed the Republican Leadership. Facts are facts, and the neo-conservative ideology has proven itself to be a huge mistake. I still blame our demise on the last eight years of irresponsible administration.

In the GDP growth department, last year India came in at 6.7%, Russia at 8.1%, Brazil at 5.08% and China a staggering 9%. Compare that to the United States' -6.3%, and you start to get an idea about why they consider themselves superior to America and her economy.

No matter how much you may think those numbers are manipulated, the bottom line is that they are all ahead of the West by light years. They are in regions that were once shackled by the constraints of socialism and outright communism, and are just now breaking free into the light. (Meanwhile the United States is steadily advancing its war on capitalism by increasing debilitating taxation and regulation by the day!)

To put this even more into perspective, the United States has a GDP of about $14 trillion annually. Comparatively, Brazil is at $1.9 trillion, Russia at $2 trillion, India at $1.2 trillion, and China at $4.3 trillion. That means that the combined output of these four nations barely equals two-thirds of the United States.

So yes, the US economy is failing. But it is the socialist ethos that is killing it, not capitalism. You keep repeating the word socialism but I don't think you know what it means.

To wit: http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like.php


Have you heard that the United States is headed toward socialism? Jonah Goldberg says it is. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby says it is. Phyllis Schlafly says it is. Richard Viguerie says it is. The Republican National Committee says it is. We must be getting pretty close.

How close? This is what socialism looks like:

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/socialism%20chart.png

Read the whole linked article, it's quite interesting.

You keep repeating the word socialism but I don't think you know what it means.

To wit: What Socialism Looks Like - Conor Clarke (http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like.php)

Read the whole linked article, it's quite interesting.

You are right on. Most Americans don't have a clue about what socialism is all about. They have heard that the other western countries that have national health care are suffering, yet the American capitalist health care system costs more per capita than any in the world, yet more than 40 million of that capita don't have health care benefits. Last evening, ABC news reported from a poll that 87% of Americans are satisifed with our health care system. That is a strange number because more than 15 percent don't have any health care insurance, and the number is growing daily. I would be hard pressed to believe that 87 percent of military members that have free health care are satisfied with their system. The people polled must have been those who have good health care insurance policies. Another strange anomaly is that most of the people in the military are for capitalism, when their very survival has been made possible by a socialist system. Yes, getting paid for your uniforms, your health care, your housing, and your retirement is not captialism, but socialism, and a significant number of military members retire and go to work for companies that are government contractors. Capitalism, I don't think so!

Let's talk about that expensive health care we pay for . Would cost be reduced in a public plan ? Not if you look at the figures for the biggest public provided plan we currently operate.



Medicare was created in 1965 to provide health care for Americans 65 and over. When introduced ,estimates of the hospital insurance portion ,Part A, would cost $9 billion by 1990. The real cost was $66 billion.
Parts A through C, was estimated $12 billion by 1990, but Medicare spent $107 billion in its first 25 years.
When Congress added Medicare Part D prescription drug benefits in 2003, the cost was estimated at $534 billion over 10 years.
Less than two years later, the government revised the figure to an estimate of $1.2 trillion over its first decade.

Another example is Medicaid's special hospital subsidy . That was estimated to cost $100 million in 1987 . But the real costs are $11 billion.

Sen Baucus estimates with a very rosy projection that the Dem plan will cost $1 trillion .He claims to have stripped $600 billion from the bill .

But Michigan Rep. Dave Camp, ranking minority member of the House Ways and Means Committee says that the public option plan going around Congress now according to
"independent, nonpartisan analysis cost $3.5 trillion (and again history shows that gvt. Rarely comes in below estimated costs )

I look at all these rosy estimates of savings as I do when comparing Boston's Big Dig ( a simple stretch of highway) . That was estimated at $2.6 Billion in 1985 . Real costs are more than $14.6 billion .

Now here's the real kicker. This is supposed to help provide care for the uninsured ? Well the study Camp cited also says that the public-option program will "likely crowd out 64 million individual contracts with existing private insurers."

Either they will be forced to sign onto the public plan ;or they will join the ranks of the uninsured . And if they join the public plan expect the costs to further sky rocket.

You keep repeating the word socialism but I don't think you know what it means.

I'm quite certain he does.


Read the whole linked article, it's quite interesting.

And let's see what Goldberg said, it's also quite interesting.


Don't Call It 'Socialism'! (http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2009/06/04/dont_call_it_socialism!?page=full&comments=true)

The government effectively owns General Motors and controls Chrysler, and the president is deciding what kind of cars they can make. Uncle Sam owns majority stakes in American International Group, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and controls large chunks of the banking industry. Also, President Obama wants government to take over the business of student loans. And he's pushing for nationalized health care. Meanwhile, his Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that it reserves the right to regulate any economic activity that has a "carbon footprint." Just last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said climate change requires that "every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory." Rep. Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, has his eye on regulating executive pay.

Of course, nationalization of industry is only one kind of socialism; another approach is to simply redistribute the nation's income as economic planners see fit. But wait, Obama believes in that, too. That's why he said during the campaign that he wants to "spread the wealth" and that's why he did exactly that when he got elected. (He spread the debt, too.)

And yet, for conservatives to suggest in any way, shape or form that there's something "socialistic" about any of this is the cause of knee-slapping hilarity for liberal pundits and bloggers everywhere.

For instance, last month the Republican National Committee considered a resolution calling on the Democratic Party to rename itself the "Democrat Socialist Party." The resolution was killed by RNC Chairman Michael Steele in favor of the supposedly milder condemnation of the Democrats' "march toward socialism."

THE HOPE FOR SOCIALISM

The whole spectacle was just too funny for liberal observers. Robert Schlesinger, U.S. News & World Report's opinion editor, was a typical giggler. He chortled, "What's really both funny and scary about all of this is how seriously the fringe-nuts in the GOP take it."

Putting aside the funny and scary notion that it's "funny and scary" for political professionals to take weighty political issues seriously, there are some fundamental problems with all of this disdain. For starters, why do liberals routinely suggest, even hope, that Obama and the Democrats are leading us into an age of socialism, or social democracy or democratic socialism? (One source of confusion is that these terms are routinely used interchangeably.)

For instance, in a fawning interview with President Obama, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham mocks Obama's critics for considering Obama to be a "crypto-socialist." This, of course, would be the same Jon Meacham who last February co-authored a cover story with Newsweek's editor at large (and grandson of the six-time presidential candidate for the American Socialist Party) Evan Thomas titled -- wait for it -- "We Are All Socialists Now," in which they argued that the growth of government was making us like a "European," i.e. socialist, country.

Washington Post columnists Jim Hoagland (a centrist), E.J. Dionne (a liberal) and Harold Meyerson (very, very liberal) have all suggested that Obama intentionally or otherwise is putting us on the path to "social democracy." Left-wing blogger and Democratic activist Matthew Yglesias last fall hoped that the financial crisis offered a "real opportunity" for "massive socialism." Polling done by Rasmussen -- and touted by Meyerson -- shows that while Republicans favor "capitalism" over "socialism" by 11 to 1, Democrats favor capitalism by a mere 39 percent to 30 percent. So, again: Is it really crazy to think that there is a constituency for some flavor of socialism in the Democratic Party?

When the question is aimed at them like an accusation, liberals roll their eyes at such "paranoia." They say Obama is merely reviving "New Deal economics" to "save" or "reform" capitalism. But liberals themselves have long seen this approach as the best way to incrementally bring about a European-style, social democratic welfare state. As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. (Robert's father) wrote in 1947, "There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals."

WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE

Part of the problem here is definitional. No mainstream liberal actually wants government to completely seize the means of production, and no mainstream conservative believes that there's no room for any government regulation or social insurance. Both sides believe in a "mixed economy" but disagree profoundly about where to draw the line. One definition of social democracy is the peaceful, democratic transition to socialism. A second is simply a large European welfare state where the state owns some, and guides the rest, of the economy. Many liberals yearn for the latter and say so often -- but fume when conservatives take them at their word.

Personally, I think socialism is the wrong word for all of this. "Corporatism" -- the economic doctrine of fascism -- fits better. Under corporatism, all the big players in the economy -- big business, unions, interest groups -- sit around the table with government at the head, hashing out what they think is best for everyone to the detriment of consumers, markets and entrepreneurs. But, take it from me, liberals are far more open to the argument that they're "crypto-socialists."

Conor Clarke either didn't read the article, is not intelligent enough to understand what Goldberg said, is in denial - or just plain dishonest.

I do agree with you on one point: the American system is indeed failing. But it is not failing because the system is a capitalist system. It is failing because it is NO LONGER a capitalist system.

Mark Levin nails it in 'Liberty and Tyranny '



"So distant is America today from its founding principles that it is difficult to precisely describe the nature of American government. It is not strictly a constitutional republic, because the Constitution has been and continues to be easily altered by a judicial oligarchy that mostly enforces, if not expands, the Statist's agenda. It is not strictly a representative republic, because so many edicts are produced by a maze of administrative departments that are unknown to the public and detached from its sentiment. It is not strictly a federal republic, because the states that gave the central government life now live at its behest. What, then, is it? It is a society steadily transitioning toward statism."



Capitalism is a dying concept in the United States....


I wouldn't know since I haven't seen it practiced in my lifetime . However I'd like to give it a try. I've seen this drift towards nanny state since before my parents were born and I think it's destructive.

Hello Righty's

An editorial note. If I wanted to read what righty's write, I would. That's why I don't post what lefty's write, because you're not interested, and you're not going to read it.

I'm interested in what YOU have to say. So, you don't bolster your arguments with me when you do that.

excon

I've seen this drift towards nanny state since before my parents were born and I think it's destructive. Hello again, tom:

Well, that's Obama's fault for sure.

excon

Hello Righty's

An editorial note. If I wanted to read what righty's write, I would. That's why I don't post what lefty's write, because you're not interested, and you're not gonna read it.

I'm interested in what YOU have to say. So, you don't bolster your arguments with me when you do that.

excon
. I don't know how anyone on this thread can find anything new to say about the situation with medical coverage socialized or not in either Canada or the US. It has all been re-hashed, chopped up and spit out so many times it is nauseating.

Ms tickle
cert. Personal Support Worker and Registered Nurses Aid in Ontario:rolleyes:

You are right on. Most Americans don't have a clue about what socialism is all about. They have heard that the other western countries that have national health care are suffering, yet the American capitalist health care system costs more per capita than any in the world, yet more than 40 million of that capita don't have health care benefits. Last evening, ABC news reported from a poll that 87% of Americans are satisifed with our health care system. That is a strange number because more than 15 percent don't have any health care insurance, and the number is growing daily. I would be hard pressed to believe that 87 percent of military members that have free health care are satisfied with their system. The people polled must have been those who have good health care insurance policies. Another strange anomaly is that most of the people in the military are for capitalism, when their very survival has been made possible by a socialist system. Yes, getting paid for your uniforms, your health care, your housing, and your retirement is not captialism, but socialism, and a significant number of military members retire and go to work for companies that are government contractors. Capitalism, I don't think so!


Having personal worked in the VA system and in now in the private healthcare system, I can tell you for a fact that most veterans use the system to get their medications. That is one of the few advantages. The other is that the VA completely uses electronic records and can therefore get and use the data to promote best practices based on the evidence.

However; most veterans also understand the compromises with the system: distant referral centers, waits for specialty care, perhaps a higher percentage of foreign medical grads and practice extenders [PAs, NPs instead of doctors ].

Most realize that better care is available privately and locally. It may cost more but is worth it. It really is a shame because veterans deserve better. As a whole these men and women are more grateful and appreciative than the average civilian.






G&P

An editorial note
I have included in my postings both contemporary and historical quotes before ;and will continue to do so.

An editorial note
I have included in my postings both contemporary and historical quotes before ;and will continue to do so.
Oh goodie!

One question: why?

Because sometimes they say it better than I can and the reference is important to the content of the debate... and I like doing it.

I don't tell anyone else how to conduct themselves here and will only comply with the rules set by the administrators of the site...

Alrighty then, keep spamming away.

Sounds like your MO
Spam posts may contain anything from a single link, to dozens of links. Text content is minimal, usually innocuous and unrelated to the forum's topic
Forum spam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_spam)

Yep, I'm sure all those green reputation boxes are because I spam. http://moransinc.com/forum/img/smilies/mccain3.gif


It almost seems like you are posting to convince yourself of something.

Nope

Replying to Excon's "editorial note "

This is the second article on this subject I've read in the last few weeks...

Canada Sees Boom in Private Health Care Business (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/canada-sees-boom-private-health-care-business/?test=latestnews)


Private for-profit clinics are a booming business in Canada -- a country often touted as a successful example of a universal health system.

Facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that Canadians are willing to pay for treatment.

"Any wait time was an enormous frustration for me and also pain. I just couldn't live my life the way I wanted to," says Canadian patient Christine Crossman, who was told she could wait up to a year for an MRI after injuring her hip during an exercise class. Warned she would have to wait for the scan, and then wait even longer for surgery, Crossman opted for a private clinic.

As the Obama administration prepares to launch its legislative effort to create a national health care system, many experts on both sides of the debate site Canada as a successful model.

But the Canadian system is not without its problems. Critics lament the shortage of doctors as patients flood the system, resulting in long waits for some treatment.

"No question, it was worth the money," said Crossman, who paid several hundred dollars and waited just a few days.

Health care delivery in Canada falls largely under provincial jurisdiction, complicating matters.

Private for-profit clinics are permitted in some provinces and not allowed in others. Under the Canada Health Act, privately run facilities cannot charge citizens for services covered by government insurance.

But a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Quebec opened the door for patients facing unreasonable wait times to pay-out-of-pocket for private treatment.

"I think there is a fundamental shift in different parts of the country that's beginning to happen. I think people are beginning to realize that they should have a choice," says Luc Boulay, a partner at St. Joseph MRI, a private clinic in Quebec that charges around $700 for most scans.

Yet advocates looking to preserve fairness claim that private clinics undermine the very foundation of the country's healthcare system.

"Private clinics don't produce one new doctor, nurse, or specialist. All they do it take the existing ones out of the public system, make wait times longer for everybody else while people who can pay more and more and more money jump the queue for health care services," said Natalie Mehra, member of the Ontario Health Coalition.

Canada spends $3,600 per capita on health care -- almost half of what is spent in the U.S. And while some in Washington look to its northern neighbor for ideas, the Canadian system is still changing.

"One can understand that this is evolving and a mix of private and public seems to be favorable in some context. On the other hand, we need to be really careful that we're not treating health care the way we treat a value meal at McDonalds," Dr. Michael Orsini from the University of Ottawa told FOX News.

Provincial governments now face the difficult job of finding a balance in meeting the country's health care needs -- reducing wait times and maintaining fair access without redefining the universal ideals at the core of Canada's health care system.

If Canadian health care is so great then why is private practice booming?

This is the second article on this subject I've read in the last few weeks...

Canada Sees Boom in Private Health Care Business (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/canada-sees-boom-private-health-care-business/?test=latestnews)



If Canadian health care is so great then why is private practice booming?

Private practice will boom in United States as well if we institute National Health Insurance. What is amazing, though, is that Americans look at Canada or England to justify why Universal Health Care doesn't work. What about Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and other Western Nations that have national health care? I just wrote Senator Bill Nelson about National Health Insurance. Americans don't need health insurance. They need health care. A health insurance based system will breed the same capitalist problems as did our financial system. Fraud, greed, lawsuits, overspending on technolgoy, etc. A system like the military and VA eliminates almost all of the excess costs. The government controls labor costs, material costs, licensure of providers, claims, lawsuits, etc. I spent 20years as a recipient of military health care and 12 years working in the system, and yes, there are complaints, but look at the $1.5 Billion in lawsuits in the civilian sector. Any system that motivates greed will not only increase costs, but lower quality!

Ava Isabella Stinson was born last week at St. Joseph's hospital in Hamilton, Ontario. Weighing only two pounds, she was born 13 weeks premature.Without immediate care should would be dead today. There was no time to wait on Canada's waiting list for admittance into a neonatal intensive care unit... nor were there any other hospitals in the Province she could be admitted into. Hamilton's unit is closed to new admissions half the time. Special needs infants are usually sent to the U.S.for care She was transported to a Buffalo NY hospital to suffer under our sub-par system.

TheSpec.com - Local - Parents separated from ill preemie (http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/590540)

You make a good point that people are overlooking, while the talk is centered around providing "health care" it's really about insurance. That's why I keep asking everyone that claims people go without health care just exactly who does? Anyone can get health care in this country, the beef is actually centered on people without health insurance and the ultimate goal is single payer 'insurance' with the government in complete control of our health care. Am I right?

You make a good point that people are overlooking, while the talk is centered around providing "health care" it's really about insurance. That's why I keep asking everyone that claims people go without health care just exactly who does? Anyone can get health care in this country, the beef is actually centered on people without health insurance and the ultimate goal is single payer 'insurance' with the government in complete control of our health care. Am I right?

You are absolutely right, and I am as adamantly opposed to a health insurance plan of any sort, single payer or otherwise. I do, however, disagree with you that anyone can get health care in this country. If they are critical, they might be able to get health care if they show up to an emergency room, but we don't have enough providers per capita to insure everyone can get health care. The reason I say they might is that there are trauma centers in this country, such as Parkland in Dallas, where people are triaged based on how critical their need for care. I am sure some have died waiting for others ahead of them.

You are absolutely right, and I am as adamantly opposed to a health insurance plan of any sort, single payer or otherwise. I do, however, disagree with you that anyone can get health care in this country. If they are critical, they might be able to get health care if they show up to an emergency room, but we don't have enough providers per capita to insure everyone can get health care. The reason I say they might is that there are trauma centers in this country, such as Parkland in Dallas, where people are triaged based on how critical their need for care. I am sure some have died waiting for others ahead of them.

Everyone that shows up in an ER in Texas gets health care. It's the law here. Is it the best system? No, as evidenced by the number of people in ER's with a cold, but no one gets turned away. Triage is a fact of life in any case.

Ava Isabella Stinson was born last week at St. Joseph's hospital in Hamilton, Ontario. Weighing only two pounds, she was born 13 weeks premature.Without immediate care should would be dead today. There was no time to wait on Canada's waiting list for admittance into a neonatal intensive care unit....nor were there any other hospitals in the Province she could be admitted into. Hamilton's unit is closed to new admissions half the time. Special needs infants are usually sent to the U.S.for care She was transported to a Buffalo NY hospital to suffer under our sub-par system.

TheSpec.com - Local - Parents separated from ill preemie (http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/590540)

You people make me sick. The little thing is now happily reunited with her parents and doing well, thanks to the hospital south of the border. So what the heck is your point. You latch on to one instance, and the Canadian side did all they could to find, hone onto and transport that baby to a hospital on your side who could care for her properly because she was so absolutely tiny.. OHIP will cover the baby's care, transport, neonatal and all. So, what is your point? Our health care system will cover the pediatric care for this infant, an astronomical fee, given the exchange rate of l5 cents on the dollar, by today's standards and the parents need not worry about anything other then seeing her, feeling her and loving her.

Can you say, in this instance, that a similar situation would be paid for under your non existent system?

All was done for the baby and will be done AND PAID FOR

Get a life and stop complaining and finding fault.

Tick

Nope. We don't want it in America. The government has no place sticking its nose in our health care system. As it is, the government already has its fingers in too many places where it shouldn't.

Nope. We don't want it in America. The government has no place sticking its nose in our health care system. As it is, the government already has its fingers in too many places where it shouldn't.I agree with you, I've seen what your government does and it shouldn't be in charge of much.

Nope. We don't want it in America. The government has no place sticking its nose in our health care system. As it is, the government already has its fingers in too many places where it shouldn't.

Speak for yourself! I'm totally with tick and the Canadian way.:mad:

The truth is revealing isn't it ? What I posted isn't an isolated incident but a common occurrence. Yeah we pay a price I guess .But there is no scarcity of needed service here. Here the exception is people who's care is inadequate .That can be addressed.

The truth is revealing aint it ? .Hello tom:

Look. I'm an easy guy. I want the truth, but it's difficult to see it behind all the BS. I hate the government. I don't want 'em to run anything... But, we've got some Canadians here, and they LIKE their system. I don't think they're liars. In fact, I think they know THEIR system better than you do. So, until I hear ONE of 'em mirror what you've said, I'm going to believe ''em.

That's just me.

excon