[speechlesstx]

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

[excon]

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

Hello again, tom:

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

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

excon

[tomder55]

While a laudable goal to have quality care for everyone, I think the whole thing is a cruel sham that will be just one more way for government to have power over us. Knowing the kind of radical nitwits that think this is the best thing since sliced bread, I can see things like Baroness Warnock believes, that old people, particularly those with say Alzheimer's, have a duty to die.

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

[Emland]

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

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

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

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

[tomder55]

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

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

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

[excon]

I just detailed what is happening in nations with so called universal care .

Hello again, tom:

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

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

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

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

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

excon

[Curlyben]

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

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

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

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

Hope that makes sense.

[tomder55]

WITHOUT regard to payment.

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

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

[excon]

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

Hello again, tom:

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

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

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

excon

[tomder55]

Thanks Curley

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

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

[tomder55]

I sincerely believe that anyone should be able to walk into any treatment facility and get treated, WITHOUT regard to payment.

I wonder why we have to pay for food. Why do we have to pay to have a roof over our head? Human compassion should be put ahead of capitalism…let's not pay for anything…everything should be free in the interest of universal human "rights".

[excon]

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

Hello again, tom:

Yeah, that's me - unrealistic and Utopian.

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

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

excon

[tomder55]

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

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

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

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

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

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

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

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

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

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

excon

[tomder55]

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

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

[Skell]

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

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

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

[Skell]

Thanks Curley

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

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

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

[speechlesstx]

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

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

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

[earl237]

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

[inthebox]

EX:

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

Immigration debate hits home for liver transplant patients - Los Angeles Times

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

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


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

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


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

Theft of veterans' ID data - Security- msnbc.com

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


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

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

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

Insurer's exit is sign of ailing malpractice market | OB/GYN News | Find Articles at BNET


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

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

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


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







G&P