Cost of health care

[Tom]

Kelso posted an excellent question in another thread that probably deserves it's own home.

Doctors are equally free to CHARGE A DAMNED SIGHT LESS for their services.


Isn't one of the main causes of high health care costs the concious desire of the medical community to insulate itself from the business end of the profession? Aren't doctors now able, like 46 does all the time, blame the HOMs for all the problems, while everyone one of them has the power to cut prices? With health insurance paying so much so often, what market forces exist to control health care costs? If people had to pay for thier own proceedurs and drugs, you can probably make book that prices would be dropping faster than McCain in Iowa!

[46zilzal]

There are a lot of doctors who overcharge, but MOST people do not know the HUGE overhead in running a practice (usually about 45-50% of your gross income), no safety net themselves unless they are in a group practice, huge malpractice premiums, continuing medical education requirements and need to continually keep up with journals (this alone requires a lot of time), and long long hours. Your life often is put on hold for a very long time.

The overhead for dentists is even higher so before you rag on all of them, try to understand the process.

The "bean counters" who try to practice medicine, ARE the cause of higher premiums as they don't know shit, just the bottom line. Their entire purpose of being is to DENY coverage.

[Grits]

DOCTORS are some of THE MOST BUSINESS SAVVY individuals, I know.

Doctors are big business, THE bottom line, and they are excellent at arranging and creating every opportunity to benefit their line.

I have a 30 year relationsip with Duke Medical Center. My son's doctor is Professor of Pediatric Cardiology and Associate Dean of Admissions of Duke's Medical School.

For so many years, she has taught, and practiced pediatric cardiology at Duke, while noting the majority of her students who go into private practice in cities throughout the nation upon their graduation, where in their first year of practicing medicine they bring home, many times over, the salary that a long tenured physician makes at a large teaching hospital.

Honey, there ain't nothing more business savvy than a young, promising, physician with a lucrative career ahead of him or her. If you don't believe it, ask one in private practice.

[46zilzal]

Honey, there ain't nothing more business savvy than a young, promising, physician with a lucrative career ahead of him or her. If you don't believe it, ask one in private practice.
Another of the long line of reasons why I left. The newer generation, on the whole, doesn't give a crap about the patient and just grope for more and more cash. It is disgusting.

We had a few when I was going through school and they would drag old drunks off the street and talk them into surgery ...do outrageous things to people. I am sad to report that, down the line, these same individuals caused a lot of harm and un-necessary suffering as two of them had their licenses revoked.

[Grits]

There are a lot of doctors who overcharge, but MOST people do not know the HUGE overhead in running a practice (usually about 45-50% of your gross income), no safety net themselves unless they are in a group practice, huge malpractice premiums, continuing medical education requirements and need to continually keep up with journals (this alone requires a lot of time), and long long hours. Your life often is put on hold for a very long time.

The overhead for dentists is even higher so before you rag on all of them, try to understand the process.

The "bean counters" who try to practice medicine, ARE the cause of higher premiums as they don't know shit, just the bottom line. Their entire purpose of being is to DENY coverage.

You really wanna go 'round and 'round--let's talk denistry. And understanding the process ain't rocket science Zilly.

You ARE right, today's breed of doctor, albeit, medical, dentistry, whatever specialty . . . 99% of them have $ signs for hearts.

How many dental assistants you know living in 300K homes or above? With an even greater priced home at the beach? And driving, foreign made automobiles?

How many dentists working beyond 4 1/2 days a week? Cut out every Friday at noon for that beach house, if the office is open at all on Friday. Play golf late Wednesday afternoons as well.

How many dentists on call weekends? Zero.

How many dentists paying the same malpractice premium as an Obstetrician?

Cosmetic dentistry, oh man, there's one even more lucrative. There's no end to what these guys and gals charge. Everybody wants that million dollar smile. Few have the dental coverage to pay for it though. And these folks are laughing all the way to the bank.

Dentistry, in this country has become a formal degree and license in outright theft.

. . . I have to be really careful here 'cause I've had far, far, too many years of experience with physicians--fine ones, some of the best; to be tolerant of what is coming out of medical and dental schools today.

[46zilzal]

On the whole, I agree with you, they are over-priced, but they have a per room overhead of about $125,000.

And a few, at our major General Hospital, are on call.

[Grits]

On the whole, I agree with you, they are over-priced, but they have a per room overhead of about $125,000.

And a few, at our major General Hospital, are on call.

For a dentist . . . . $125K is nothing more than "walk around money" Zilly.

[Marshall Bennett]

I spent two days in the hospital a year ago . Basically a few blood test , an IV , not much else . My doctor blamed medication on my problem so he cut it in half and I was released . My insurance Co. was billed $14,000 for the two days . I had the bill audited . Turns out I was charged over $5000 for test I didn't receive and another $1500 for drugs I didn't receive . Needless to say the bill was adjusted .
Now just imagine how many others receive the same bullshit billing and do nothing . You'd think this practice would be deemed illegal but isn't . These institutions have a free hand in ripping off as many as they can for however much they want ..... So much for the cost of health care !!!!!

[lilmegahertz]

Three years ago, I suffered an ectopic pregnancy, appendicitis and had a partial hysterectomy done at the same time. We almost lost our home and our cars. I work in a warehouse. I do not make the sort of wage which allows me to get seriously ill. The message I got was only the rich can afford to get sick and the middle-classers better not think of having surgery no matter how life threatening.

[ljb]

Prescription drug costs began escalating right after the ftc allowed drug companies to advertise their wares. The giant pharmaceuticals now spend as much or more on advertising as they do on research. Hmmmm ?

[46zilzal]

My father paid into his health insurance for over 45 years at the same company. He used it twice....TWICE in all those years and when he died, after three days in the hospital the insurance carrier refused to pay.

A quick court appearance later with a geriatric specialist lawyer and lo and behold they came through.

Disgusting parasites. The "bean counters" think people don't have the where with all to fight back. Surprise.

[46zilzal]

Prescription drug costs began escalating right after the ftc allowed drug companies to advertise their wares. The giant pharmaceuticals now spend as much or more on advertising as they do on research.


I saw a drug ad the other day which simply gave the drug name, NOT A MENTION OF WHAT IT WAS FOR.....then said "ask your doctor." What a load of crap. Self-diagnosis is one thing but to just throw a drug NAME up there? ludicrous.

Most all drug ads should be where the experienced practitioners can evaluate them one to another. The internet is large enough and if the user is smart, often providing enough real information, for interested patients to find out about the meds they are interested in without "trumpin up" business this way.

[jognlope]

The insurance execs play golf with the AMA heads, it's a fact.

[jognlope]

What about electricity, a government-sanctioned monopoly posing as a nonprofit? You're paying for the life styles of the employees, not electricity or its delivery. You're paying for inflated customer service pool that might as well be replaced be a computer menu since they don't do anything but regurgitate what the computer tells them anyway. You're paying for high salaries, huge pensions and early retirement. Not electricity or the delivery of it.

[46zilzal]

What about electricity, a government-sanctioned monopoly posing as a nonprofit? You're paying for the life styles of the employees, not electricity or its delivery. You're paying for inflated customer service pool that might as well be replaced be a computer menu since they don't do anything but regurgitate what the computer tells them anyway. You're paying for high salaries, huge pensions and early retirement. Not electricity or the delivery of it.
My wife recently found that out as she quit her position with the Hydro company here.

[Grits]

Three years ago, I suffered an ectopic pregnancy, appendicitis and had a partial hysterectomy done at the same time. We almost lost our home and our cars. I work in a warehouse. I do not make the sort of wage which allows me to get seriously ill. The message I got was only the rich can afford to get sick and the middle-classers better not think of having surgery no matter how life threatening.

The wealthy can afford to get sick, this is true. The 20% copay that is not paid by their insurance coverage, is usually not a problem for them.

The poor, also, can afford to get sick due to the fact that they are enrollees in all entitlement programs. And therefore, deemed not responsible for payment. They are not billed, period--medicaid is.

The middle class is absorbing the healthcare costs in our country, the responsibility of healthcare payment is being passed on to us. It rests on our shoulders so that those who are enrollees and termed "without means" get the same quality of care as you and me. And, they do, everyday.

One has to consider though, what is wealth, in regard to being faced with catastrophic illness today?

.......And a note of personal experience, and habit. ALWAYS request an itemized statement that can be audited after being hospitalized, regardless of length of stay, reason for admission, whatever. This is not offered, and one has to request such. Hospitals do NOT want to bother with this, and as MB indicated, there is reason for this. Fraud takes place every hour of every day where medical claims are processed. While those claims are being generated, our insurance premiums are being escalated.

[46zilzal]

Itemized is the way to go. Usually you will find ridiculous bills for changing your water, $1.50 styrofoam cups, linen changing fees, $2.00 aspirins and the like. all HIDDEN if you don't ask to know WHERE the charges were pigeon-holed. THEY (the HMO's) think you are too stupid to figure out how they are stealing from you. They are hoping that the emotion of the situation will blind you to the realities.

My sister works at a large hospital and does the billing and has enlightened me to the large scale rip-off's that are part and parcel of the "bean counters" game plan.

[Grits]

What about electricity, a government-sanctioned monopoly posing as a nonprofit? You're paying for the life styles of the employees, not electricity or its delivery. You're paying for inflated customer service pool that might as well be replaced be a computer menu since they don't do anything but regurgitate what the computer tells them anyway. You're paying for high salaries, huge pensions and early retirement. Not electricity or the delivery of it.

My utility bills aren't as high as my damn medical insurance premiums each month. (And as I noted the other day, knock on wood, I'm in excellent health.)

And Blue Cross and Blue Shield is probably one of the wealthiest NON-PROFITS in the nation. .....So wealthy in fact, that due to outrage from its premium holders here in Carolina, they've allowed FREE generic prescriptions for months at a time over a period involving the last two years.

Am I thrilled with this little bone, accordingly, hell no--they've been gouging me for years and they'll continue to do so.

You talk about living well. Blue Cross and Blue Shield wrote the book.

[kenwoodallpromos]

There are a lot of doctors who overcharge, but MOST people do not know the HUGE overhead in running a practice (usually about 45-50% of your gross income), no safety net themselves unless they are in a group practice, huge malpractice premiums, continuing medical education requirements and need to continually keep up with journals (this alone requires a lot of time), and long long hours. Your life often is put on hold for a very long time.

The overhead for dentists is even higher so before you rag on all of them, try to understand the process.

The "bean counters" who try to practice medicine, ARE the cause of higher premiums as they don't know shit, just the bottom line. Their entire purpose of being is to DENY coverage.
I have several questions:
1) Is the overhead for veterinarians so many times lower that they can charge many times less and why is their pay so much less? Is it that they are not treating humans so and the treatment decisions are often made on a finacial consideration as opposed to OK to every teat and whim of the Dr?
1) What is the average difference in office visit etc costs to cash patients vs. public program (like medicaid) patients vs. private insurance patients?
3) What % of doctors get some form of $$$ benefit from certain drug companies or specialists they point their patients toward, like with free drug samples?
4)What is the difference strictly in $$$ charged per hour for the same doctor for an office visit vs. their personal pay for performing suegery or a hospital visit?
5) what % of doctors you know went to public universities and what is the % saving of tuition for them vs a private university that the public helped pay for their education? Do drs who went through public universities charge less since their schooling was less? Do they take public program patients or charge less when cash paying taxpayers see them at their office? Are they doing any no-pay public service doctoring to thank the public for their education?
6)Why do any hospitals not have a 7X24 clinic next to the emergency room at a greatly lowered cost for pstients who have relatively minor problems but are at the emergemcy room solely because there is no regular doctor's office or walk-in clinics are open longer then bankers' hours 5 days per week in most areas?

[Grits]

KWP, this is a lot to answer, a lot to digest . . . right now, I've got other things I need to get to work on, here at home, instead of diddling online. LOL And I'm sure you must have some familiarity, some inkling, with the answers to your questions, as we all have yearly physicals, and more often than not, have been into a hospital emergency rooms at some point in our lives. And we've all probably been given "product samples" by our physicians.

Now, as far as veterinarians. I don't know about yours. But mine . . . he makes an annual salary that is probably commiserate with that of my own physician. In other words, his charges for my dog can easily rival those of my physician.

My dog, who is only 6 years old and who he diagnosed with allergy problems has cost me upwards of $1,000 in the last 4 months. (Certainly more than myself.) His professional fee for office visits and her various drugs, oral and injectable, and medicated shampoos have all cost close to the same amount that you and I would pay for the "human" equivilent.

.....Nah, my veterinarian comes from a long generation of Auburn Vet School grads, his son is there now and I'm helping pay for the child's education, believe me. He had made enough before age 50, he could have easily retired or extended his winter vacations hunting in Alaska and Wyoming--which he does every year.

We always talk horses, he has a photo of Secretariat over his desk. He interned at Rood and Riddle in Lexington years and years ago.

[Grits]

One thing though, my vet doesn't make what my dentist does. :lol:

[kenwoodallpromos]

I have wild ideas about some of the answers but only from a very narrow view geographical and experience wise, so I am pretty much in the dark.
But I think those are some questions that could relate to both Tom's and 46's post.
My knowledge of vet and human medical professional earnings is only from the Federal Occupational info. It says vet make like between $50k to $75k (taxable income?). And that neurosurgeons like my nephew is working toward make like $500k to $600k.

[ddog]

every study of medical costs I have seen has a great majority of the total costs paid in the last 3-6 months of life.

Is this not still the case?

doctors salaries and all the rest are easy stalking horses and I am sure everyone is against waste and fraud but unless the studies have changed the problem is people are demanding heroic efforts that are past all true benefit.

???

[MikeDee]

From your first quote Tom:

what market forces exist to control health care costs? If people had to pay for their own procedures and drugs, you can probably make book that prices would be dropping faster than McCain in Iowa!

There are no market forces that exist to control cost and I don't believe that knowing how much things cost and paying yourself would result in lower prices.

I'm on one of those high deductible plans where I pay the first 2 grand. So I see the retail price, and the negotiated health care price and I pay myself.

For example the retail price for Full body CT scan is $5313. (I know these prices since I have had a CT scan for the last 4 years) The medical insurance negotiated price is $681.

Have you ever tried to shop for a CT Scan? Don't bother you can't. No one at any lab or hospital has any idea what the price is.

When you go to the doctor next time ask the person you give your co pay to how much the retail price of the visit is? She won't know.

Some things just do not work in a open and free competitive (for profit) market. In my opinion health care is one of them. Health care in this country is broken. The old competitive market bromides will not fix it.

I think it is wonderful that we have the medical research, technology, drugs and procedures that can help us all live longer better lives. But we deserve a much better health delivery system that is fair, regulated, and affordable.

We have got to get over the illusion that regulation of certain industries in this country is a dirty word.

P.S. Electricity generation and distribution does not work in a free market either. (but well save this for another thread).

[Bubba X]

Kelso posted an excellent question in another thread that probably deserves it's own home.




Isn't one of the main causes of high health care costs the concious desire of the medical community to insulate itself from the business end of the profession? Aren't doctors now able, like 46 does all the time, blame the HOMs for all the problems, while everyone one of them has the power to cut prices? With health insurance paying so much so often, what market forces exist to control health care costs? If people had to pay for thier own proceedurs and drugs, you can probably make book that prices would be dropping faster than McCain in Iowa!

Everything everybody has mentioned is true to some extent. In the end, there are 4 reasons HC costs so much in the U.S.:
- It' privately funded
- Innovation happens here and it's costly
- Availability and use of expensive procedures
- Public Sentiment not strong enough for change

Funding
--------
Even in countries with "universal HC," it's never free. It just comes out of taxes. But we spend FAR more over all in the US than elesewhere. US 16% of GDP, Canada 10%, Cuba 7%. In the US, 55% of HC is privately funded (Employer/Indiv plans) and 45 % is Gov't paid.

Both the overall amount of funding and the private nature of most funding in the US is what drives innovation.

Innovation
------------
Innovation is good but it is expensive and a major reason it happens in the U.S. is due mainly to the extent our HC is privately funded. Whether that's good or bad is your call. It may cost $.02 to make the Crestor pill you took last night, but it probably cost $50 million to make the first one.

You will rarely see innovation coming out of Canada or the UK, simply because there is virtually no funding for it.

Innovation creates new and valuable, but expensive, procedures and treatments.

Availability and use of expensive procedures
------------------------------------------
The US spends a far greater % of HC on treating people with advanced disease and illness than any other country. 97% of our HC dollars go to treating 50% of our population. 23% goes to treating 1% of our people. It far more likely that a very sick person in the U.S. gets access to the most advanced treatment possible than anywhere else.

Things are this way in the US because, really, that's how we want things.

Public Sentiment
----------------
Until the U.S. as a whole starts talking about determining ways to temper the growth of development of new technologies and also the use of expensive technologies through cost-benefit type analysis. That is not an easy conversation to have.

In the end, there is some inneficiency at all levels but when you hear politicos talk about solving our HC cost problems through bettter managemet, that's nonsense. Anyone could cut costs briefly on a "one-time" basis, but you CANNOT slow the rate of increase without slowing innovation and availability.

Decent, balanced reading includes, www.nber.org (http://www.nber.org/)), www.kff.org (http://www.kff.org/)). Most of the top University Econ departmants have white papers that cover the topic.

[The Judge]

I almost laughed I live in San Francisco Ca. even after the so called mortgage melt down there aren't any $300,000 homes not even a shack. There aren't any slums in San Francisco not like in other cities.

Now for health care, I belong to an HMO when I get a prescription filled they put on the receipt the cost of the drug and then my cost and show the "savings" let me say this anyone that is not receiving the group discount is in big trouble. No adverage wage worker would be able to pay the full price of drugs for long.

So if you have a chronic disease such as high blood pressure or diabeties you will be broke or you will coverage (private or welfare of some sort) or you will go without medicine at some point.

We all know this we all heard about the seniors eating pet food so that they can pay for their meds. The question is what to do about it ? What about signal payer? http://www.grahamazon.com/sp/what2.php.

I am just starting to look into this. The one thing I like is it goes with you in other words you can leave and go to another job. So people won't leave their jobs because they have health care. People should leave jobs and go elsewhere this allows someone else to take their place, it creates opportunity.

[Grits]

BubbaX thank you for posting AND for showing the link for www.kff.org (http://www.kff.org/). One could spend days-weeks, there, reading, in depth, that which gets only brief reporting on our nation's prime news channels, and evening newscasts. The site is an education in what is wrong with healthcare in our country. It is also a vault of what is current, and too, what is good.

I think most of what is mentioned in the thread so far is no doubt, true, rather than as you've indicated, to some extent. It doesn't take a degree in Economics, which I certainly do not have to realize the extent of our problems.

Innovation happens in other parts of the world, as well as here, on our own soil. Given, of course, we are the leaders--but then, we are the leaders in most every other area as well. (Not sure how long that may continue, noting, that could be another thread too.)

Let's get down to the nitty gritty. The absolute driving force, the very core of private funding in our nation equates to one word and that is GREED.

It may well have cost a drug company 50 million to get a medication to market, but really, at the prices being charged for every single pill, how long might it take for that drug company to recoup their investment today? We both know the wealth that drug companies enjoy, we both know those same drugs that they sell for said amount here in our nation, are being shipped overseas to other nations daily, where they are sold for a much lesser amount? And why is that?

If one removed the televised advertising of drug companies, at this point, every prime network in the nation would go belly up.

Equipment and expensive procedures, sure they're costly. Those procedures take place each day, many imperative, and some maybe, unnecessary altogether. Technology is a marvelous thing, and as you noted, its keeping us alive much longer today. And as another poster commented, look at the costs involved in the latter stages of acute illness.

Physicians and Healthcare companies charge what they do today, simply because, they can. On one of the pages of the KFF website is the report that healthcare costs increased 87% from 2000 to 2006, more than four times the growth in wages. And of course, its worth nothing, they have one of the largest lobbying structures in the nation.

This isn't about public sentiment NOT being strong enough for change; this is, to me, more about the fact that "the public ain't got a snowball's chance in hell" attempting to take on Congress and Lobbyists regarding Healthcare Reform. . . . And every spineless mouth you see running for president ain't doing a whole lot either since it could hurt their election possibilities.

As long as we have a group of men who think nothing of raping the citizens of a nation, while they quietly gain Earmarks for their specific states, regions, etc., while they afford themselves more pay raises, more benefits, etc. WE will always be a nation involved in healthcare that is eroding, but beneficial to the extremely wealthy and to the poor enrollees of entitlements.

Our problems are only going to increase as the nation's population is aging, and those individuals are in tremendous need. And the familes that are without insurance coverage is growing each day.

. . . . I'm not real good at debating . . .its not my deal. I can only speak from experience and heart, and sometimes both can fall, woefully, short.

Everything everybody has mentioned is true to some extent. In the end, there are 4 reasons HC costs so much in the U.S.:
- It' privately funded
- Innovation happens here and it's costly
- Availability and use of expensive procedures
- Public Sentiment not strong enough for change

Funding
--------
Even in countries with "universal HC," it's never free. It just comes out of taxes. But we spend FAR more over all in the US than elesewhere. US 16% of GDP, Canada 10%, Cuba 7%. In the US, 55% of HC is privately funded (Employer/Indiv plans) and 45 % is Gov't paid.

Both the overall amount of funding and the private nature of most funding in the US is what drives innovation.

Innovation
------------
Innovation is good but it is expensive and a major reason it happens in the U.S. is due mainly to the extent our HC is privately funded. Whether that's good or bad is your call. It may cost $.02 to make the Crestor pill you took last night, but it probably cost $50 million to make the first one.

You will rarely see innovation coming out of Canada or the UK, simply because there is virtually no funding for it.

Innovation creates new and valuable, but expensive, procedures and treatments.

Availability and use of expensive procedures
------------------------------------------
The US spends a far greater % of HC on treating people with advanced disease and illness than any other country. 97% of our HC dollars go to treating 50% of our population. 23% goes to treating 1% of our people. It far more likely that a very sick person in the U.S. gets access to the most advanced treatment possible than anywhere else.

Things are this way in the US because, really, that's how we want things.

Public Sentiment
----------------
Until the U.S. as a whole starts talking about determining ways to temper the growth of development of new technologies and also the use of expensive technologies through cost-benefit type analysis. That is not an easy conversation to have.

In the end, there is some inneficiency at all levels but when you hear politicos talk about solving our HC cost problems through bettter managemet, that's nonsense. Anyone could cut costs briefly on a "one-time" basis, but you CANNOT slow the rate of increase without slowing innovation and availability.

Decent, balanced reading includes, www.nber.org (http://www.nber.org/)), www.kff.org (http://www.kff.org/)). Most of the top University Econ departmants have white papers that cover the topic.

[46zilzal]

Most are not aware of all the drugs (that fail FDA passage due to side effects) are "dumped" into third world markets where only killing 2-3% is acceptable.

These bastards have no moral problems with that, and charging the crap out of them for the "honor" of that risk.

EVERY weekend, many of our border pharmacies are crammed with buses of seniors coming up to fill prescriptions at less than half the costs in Washington state. They can also get codeine over the counter here.

[hcap]

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i

"I'm both a health-care-card-carrying Canadian resident and an uninsured American citizen who regularly sees doctors on both sides of the border. As such, I'm in a unique position to address the pros and cons of both systems first-hand. If we're going to have this conversation, it would be great if we could start out (for once) with actual facts, instead of ideological posturing, wishful thinking, hearsay, and random guessing about how things get done up here."

[Tom]

Oh, well, hcap finds some broad who lives in two countries ( the law after her? :lol:) and that makes it all true.

[bigmack]

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i


Your posts are so staggeringly jaded they become comical. Ironic, coming from someone who is as serious as a stroke. Don't forget to smile every now & then.

Speaking of strokes, I think your search engine is stuck on the same rummage.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/1598.jpg

Fitting, your avatar is from Denmark. Sounds like they have some issues that you might want to address as well.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/1599.jpg

[hcap]

Tom, I've already posted studies showing some advantages of single payer health care systems as practiced by the vast majority of industrialized nations.

Since the logic of those studies did not impress you, I thought I would provide an anecdotal account. After all that's pretty much the opponents of universal health care systems do here all the time.

Btw, you must be getting bored with your Rush/O'Reilly/Coulter/Levin/Savage/Ingraham anti-McCain tirade.
Why else would you deem to bypass Gatekeeper Iggy? :lol:

[JustRalph]

Tom, I've already posted studies showing some advantages of single payer health care systems as practiced by the vast majority of industrialized nations.

But you never address the problems or the fact that all of those systems are going broke. And none of them are even half the size that ours would be.

[Tom]

Another Inconvenient Truth.

[robert99]

They are certainly not going broke.
Health costs and as it gets more and more sophisticated in its available treatments it costs ever more. That is one huge issue that will cripple the USA system - insurance will cover less and less of what becomes available.
The current USA system costs double per patient - that is for the ones who actually receive treatment. So it is possible, in theory to treat twice the number of USA patients without any increase in overall cost. The second big issue is whether USA is capable of organising anything on that scale and complexity. So a State led "universal" system might be more practical than a National one.

[hcap]

robert is quite right. Most objective studies show we spend a much greater percentage of GDP on health care than all the other industrialized nations.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/figure-1.gif
BM sez...
Fitting, your avatar is from Denmark. Sounds like they have some issues that you might want to address as well.
Attention BgMk, Denmark spends 1/2 of what we do.
Signed Peace Girl. :jump:

Don't feel threatened. Avatars of little girls with peace signs are simply meant to stimulate dwindling human empathy and failing conscience. Both failures are abundantly clear here. Thankfully the Bush years are coming to an end.

[bigmack]

Don't feel threatened. Avatars of little girls with peace signs are simply meant to stimulate dwindling human empathy and failing conscience. Both failures are abundantly clear here.
Far from threatening, I find the use of children for causes beyond their ability to grasp, insufferable. Predatory symbolic placement with an unwitting participant is a good start to indoctrinization.

[Tom]

He reminds me of Kinko the Clown with that stupid thing.
Search for him at YouTube and see if you agree.:lol:

And since when was health care quality measured in dollars?

Pretty colors in the chart, though.

[hcap]

BM sez..Far from threatening, I find the use of children for causes beyond their ability to grasp, insufferable. Predatory symbolic placement with an unwitting participant is a good start to indoctrinization.
The insanity of war is easily understood by a child. Too bad it's a hot to trot issue for some so-called adults. I suspect sending their moms and dads out to secure resources, in a war of choice is REALLY the height of "predatory".

Having a child demonstrating for peace is not exactly "indoctrination". Certainly not in the sense that 46 points out. And "unwitting" is more appropriately used describing choices the Iraqi people did not make. Remember there are now 4 million + Iraqi refugees, and 1,000,000 additional Iraqi deaths caused by our rush to war.

An "unwitting" child with a peace sign is not something to get riled about unless of course it is the guilt you feel. Then it is understandable.

And "insufferable" more aptly describes your silly literary facade.

Get used to the guilt. You deserve it.

[hcap]

He reminds me of Kinko the Clown with that stupid thing.
Search for him at YouTube and see if you agree.:lol:

And since when was health care quality measured in dollars?

Pretty colors in the chart, though.If health care is not judged by ROI, what should be used? Return on Bananas?

R.O.B :lol:

[46zilzal]

But what other outlet for all the testosterone laced anger can these chicken hawks demonstrate??

Pathetic

[russowen77]

I don't have any real data. I do wish we had the quality of health care they get in Germany. Those folks are real pros from my time in a hospital there. They actually kept the patients in the loop. Not like the US at all.

[hcap]

The chart I posted above shows Germany spending $2,983 as compared to the
$5,711 we spend. Quality?

http://www.medhunters.com/articles/healthcareInGermany.html

From year 2000......

Q: What is the quality of care in each system?

A: In the WHO's year 2000 report for global healthcare, Germany ranked 25th out of 191 countries based on a cost/effectiveness ratio (the USA came 37th and Canada 30th). Although some hospitals have certain wards designated solely for the use of private patients, people in state-regulated insurance plans and those with private insurance use the same hospitals. On the whole, patients who are not privately insured are at no medical disadvantage and receive the same standard of care as the private patients.

So,it seems the Germans pay substantially less than we do but beat us in quality.
You might want to check with Tom
Maybe he has the stats on R.O.B

[bigmack]

An "unwitting" child with a peace sign is not something to get riled about unless of course it is the guilt you feel. Then it is understandable.

Get used to the guilt. You deserve it.
With the amount of guilt you choose to be mired in, what's the point in my involvement? Do you walk down the streets of Monroe with a deep shame in being part of this country? I thought so.

Well, Buckaroo, that's your choice. Wallow in it all you want. Point fingers of blame and expect guilt to be felt where there will never be.

Some of us choose not to live in FantasyLand. How bout we globally start pensively thinking about world peace? Really thinking hard about it. We could hold hands and sing Kum Bai Ah. Then, these conflicts will simply go away and we'll all live with birds chirping and smiles on our collective faces.

But then what would you do to fill the void in your need to "fight the power" and create monsters of men? Start a coin collection?

[magwell]

With the amount of guilt you choose to be mired in, what's the point in my involvement? Do you walk down the streets of Monroe with a deep shame in being part of this country? I thought so.

Well, Buckaroo, that's your choice. Wallow in it all you want. Point fingers of blame and expect guilt to be felt where there will never be.

Some of us choose not to live in FantasyLand. How bout we globally start pensively thinking about world peace? Really thinking hard about it. We could hold hands and sing Kum Bai Ah. Then, these conflicts will simply go away and we'll all live with birds chirping and smiles on our collective faces.

But then what would you do to fill the void in your need to "fight the power" and create monsters of men? Start a coin collection? Bigmack, you hit the nail on the head..........case closed. thank you

[hcap]

BM sez..With the amount of guilt you choose to be mired in, what's the point in my involvement? Do you walk down the streets of Monroe with a deep shame in being part of this country? I thought so.
..Some of us choose not to live in FantasyLand.
The foreign policy of this administration originated, and is presently mired in Fantasyland. Along with it's supporters.

I will not "wallow" in the shame I feel for the administration destroying so many innocents. Actually you should. I will however call it to your attention. Particularly when you brought it up. You steered this off health care by finding fault with my Avatar. Kinda dumbass. And off topic

Meanwhile it appears your Avatar should be able to do the math of health care. A high-falutin' calculator is it bunky? Well then dividing our costs-$5,711 we spend, by say, oh let's say, what do you think BM--- Denmark $2,746? We get a simple answer. Of course if you think the entire medical establishment of Denmark stands around holding hands and sings Kumbaya while counting up their costs, I understand your skepticism.

On the other hand if your Avatar is simply a random number generator, I understand your inability to divide by 2.

[bigmack]

I will not "wallow" in the shame I feel for the administration destroying so many innocents. Actually you should. I will however call it to your attention.
I should feel shame? I'll get crackin' on that, just for you.

It's not the numbers of the Danish Health Care System you want to discuss. It's not really a discussion about anything that would amount to a hill of beans. It's "pick a topic - any topic" and you'll show how F'd up the country that you live in is in comparison with all the magical countries that are so much better at doing things and living than we are.

I see your disdain for this place. Do you grasp how deeply seeded it is within you? It just seems like an odd preoccupation for someone to live like that.

You seem like an articulate fellow and I have no ill-will with you. I simply suggest that you lighten up and get happy every once in a while. I've been through Orange County NY and it's a beautiful place. Know that there is plenty of good here and most are doing what they think is best.

[hcap]

You choose to marginalize those that disagree. The old love it or leave it rhetoric popular way back when, curiously made a comeback pretty much after we invaded Iraq. Particularly on this board.

Do you accept the possibility that criticism of a countries leaders or policies is doable without one hating ones' country and without being a traitor?

I revived this thread with a post from an individual living in both Canada and the USA. Speaking to health care issues. I reposted a graph comparing costs.

Don't know why you took this moment to rail on my anti-war sentiments.
Certainly is not material in discussing health, unless you simply want to attempt an all encompassing psychoanalysis impeaching my motives. Dr Freud you are not qualified.

[Tom]

That would be zill taking the thread off toppic once again.
Too bad that great Canadian helth care can't cure his focusing problems.

[ddog]

But you never address the problems or the fact that all of those systems are going broke. And none of them are even half the size that ours would be.

And so is this one, for CERTAIN on it's present course.


What seems to be missing is that the small business can hardly provide this and with wages for the bottm half at least stagnant, that half WILL vote for some kind of gvt backed system before they or their kids will die in the streets.

So, fix it now ,get catastrophic risk moved out of the regular private ins. and into some type of GVT backed risk pool and then the ins. co. without that risk can lower prices for what's left and then people may be able to afford it or get ready , because Hillary and the DEMS will steam roll full bore right over the other 30% that doesn't want it.

You don't think ALL those women and Asian/Latino that are going to put her in are not going to expect that do you, really?
At this point as fast as the Repubs are retiring from the House, etc. , you could have Dems with all of it come Jan'09.



Just to end on a lighter note for the attitudinally challenged....

Yeah , I know, don't -- worry-- be happy.
:sleeping:

[JustRalph]

And so is this one, for CERTAIN on it's present course.



Wrong. There are several plans that can stabilize the prices. health savings accounts etc. But nooo! We can't do that. It would benefit those who work more than those who don't.

[hcap]

Oh oh. Socialist Europe according to some here is gonna be broke soon, while the "pure" good ole' US of A, a shinning beacon of capitalism will show the pinko Europeans that health care and other commonwealth social support programs can't possibly work.

PARIS (Reuters) - The U.S. economy lost the title of "world's biggest" to the euro zone this week as the value of the dollar slumped in currency markets. -- Reuters.com

[Tom]

$396 billion in the budget for mediccare and we STIKLL need more government HC?????

Look, the government cannot do ANYTHING the right way - they are 100% inept. especially the dems - they can't even figure out to run a primary - they need do-oves, they can't count ballots - they are a group of fools on a national level, and we want them to run our health care??????

Hey, no do-overs with heart attacks.

[jballscalls]

Health care is a necessity and it's expensive. i went to the doctor last year and my insurance company deemed it an unnecessary visit and i had to pick up most of the slack.

there's gotta be a way to reduce the cost isnt there?? Ralph mentioned a savings plan?

[hcap]

$396 billion in the budget for mediccare and we STIKLL need more government HC?????

Look, the government cannot do ANYTHING the right way - they are 100% inept. especially the dems - they can't even figure out to run a primary - they need do-oves, they can't count ballots - they are a group of fools on a national level, and we want them to run our health care??????

Hey, no do-overs with heart attacks.
Some governments can. Without sacrificing quality. And without going broke.
Are you saying the imperialist Brits, the cheese eating surender monkey French the Krauts and the lousy Herring-eating Socialist Scandinavians can do it and we can't??? Old Europe can and we can't?

I guess you will still only eat freedom fries. Not them stinkin' french fries!!!

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/figure-1.gif

[Tom]

Try comparing apples to apples, hcap - your constant perch stories are getting old. Big Mack was right....:lol:

[wonatthewire1]

I don't know what the problem is

$$$ makes the world go...

There is a orthopedic surgeon in our town who has 7 different Porches and a garage to keep them in - drives a Lexus in the winter

:D

[hcap]

Try comparing apples to apples, hcap - your constant perch stories are getting old. Big Mack was right....:lol:
Are you saying we can't compare our government to other governments?

[Tom]

Yes, and we can't compare our population to anyone else's either.
No only ours, but half of Mexico's as well.

[hcap]

So we live in a bubble? Isolated from the rest of the civilized world?

Sort of like Escape from New York ?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082340/

The one where Manhattan is now a
giant penal institution and totally kept separated from the rest of the world

"In 1998, when the US President crashes into Manhattan, now a giant max. security prison, a convicted bank robber is sent in for a rescue"

Snake Plissken aka George W Churchill
http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/M/4c/jM/0Q/jN/wY/TZ/tF/kX/nB/na/B5/lM/B5/VM/yA/zN/0k/zN/3Y/TM/B5/VM._CR0,0,216,216_SS90_.jpg

Maybe George W had this romantic notion in mind when commenting....
"I must say, I'm a little envious. If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed. It must be exciting for you … in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks."

Or maybe it explains why in fact he DOES live in a bubble.

[skate]

Oh oh. Socialist Europe according to some here is gonna be broke soon, while the "pure" good ole' US of A, a shinning beacon of capitalism will show the pinko Europeans that health care and other commonwealth social support programs can't possibly work.

PARIS (Reuters) - The U.S. economy lost the title of "world's biggest" to the euro zone this week as the value of the dollar slumped in currency markets. -- Reuters.com

What would the size of the dollar have to do with Being Number One. love to here...

worlds biggest WHAT?

As a mater of fact, the best thing that could happen to the USA, economically, is the very fact that the dollar decreased.


And, you are dumping the whole of Europe together, which in turn, i'll judge, is at best equal to the USA, since the USA holds 28% of the WORLDS gdp.

Seems, you continue to miss what is taking place, it's called Global.

the fact that others are becoming MORE Capitalistic, happens to be "What the game is ALL About". Boing!;) .

Ya see, it's a world "Together" we seek, not Divided. :eek:

[hcap]

Let's see..

The skate recipe for good times.

1-Unlimited Debt is good
2-Low paying McJobs are better than skilled high paying manufacturing jobs
3-The fall of dollar only means wondrous things to come.
4-Invent a time traveling Delorean. Go back to 1955 and buy either....
(a). A MacDonalds Franchise
(b). Shares in IBM, then wait a bit and then buy Apple

And specifically for readers of your nonsense. Redial the Delorean to the early 40s' and.......
(c).Talk your father into celibacy :jump:

[skate]

he counts:jump: he counts:jump:


:sleeping:

[keilan]

A wealthy hospital benefactor was being shown around the hospital.
During her tour she passed a room where a male patient was masturbating furiously.

'Oh my GOD!' screamed the woman. 'That's disgraceful! Why is he doing that?'

The doctor who was leading the tour calmly explained, 'I'm very sorry that
you were exposed to that, but this man has a serious condition where his
testicles rapidly fill with semen, and if he doesn't do that at least five
times a day, he'll be in extreme pain and his testicles could easily rupture.'

'Oh, well in that case, I guess its okay,' said the woman.

As they passed by the very next room, they saw a male patient lying
in bed while a nurse performed oral sex on him.

Again, the woman screamed, 'Oh my GOD! How can THAT be justified?'

Again the doctor spoke very calmly:
'Same illness, better health plan.'

[JustRalph]

was the patient named SPitzer

[Tom]

Was he wearing black socks? :eek:

[PaceAdvantage]

That joke has to be against the TOS....then again, just by using "TOS" I think I added to Keilan's joke....

[skate]

Let's see..

The skate recipe for good times.

1-Unlimited Debt is good
2-Low paying McJobs are better than skilled high paying manufacturing jobs
3-The fall of dollar only means wondrous things to come.
4-Invent a time traveling Delorean. Go back to 1955 and buy either....
(a). A MacDonalds Franchise
(b). Shares in IBM, then wait a bit and then buy Apple

And specifically for readers of your nonsense. Redial the Delorean to the early 40s' and.......
(c).Talk your father into celibacy :jump:

Talk about stupidity...and so fitly, considering the Author.

[hcap]

Which author, the one one who wrote the original recipe?
Or the reporter who compiled the reprint?

[hcap]

Oh, Mr Author, Mr Author.....

More on "Old Europe". You remember Rummy dismissing any European Country
not onboard the "coalition of the willing train".

BTW, anyone even remember "coalition of the willing"?
How about Freedom Fries?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080326130520.le9n7dc0&show_article=1

The European single currency breached 1.57 dollars on Wednesday after a buoyant reading on business sentiment in Germany, the biggest economy in the 15-nation eurozone, analysts said.

In European trading, the euro climbed to 1.5717 dollars from 1.5647 in New York late on Tuesday.

Against the Japanese currency, the dollar fell to 99.36 yen on Wednesday from 99.98 on Tuesday.


Damn pinko, socialist, degenerate going bankrupt soon Old Europe. How can they be uppity and run a successful economy AND also a successful Health Program? Maybe it's a secret plan to insult the free market.

[hcap]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/01/8018/

Doctors Support Universal Health Care: Survey

"WASHINGTON - More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.

The survey suggests that opinions have changed substantially since the last survey in 2002 and as the country debates serious changes to the health care system.

Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

The 2002 survey found that 49 percent of physicians supported national health insurance and 40 percent opposed it.

[skate]

,funny how time can change most anything.

i always thought we had a National Health program.

Now if we start looking at the details, NOW that's being more specific.

Could you give me some (all) specifics they voted on....?


Also, anyone going into a Hospital in the USA, will get Health Service.
So, i figure we are talking about "who will pay more upfront:". If that is the case, then most doctors should agree with Up-the-front money.

I say, let's get -it-up.:cool:

[hcap]

skate:i always thought we had a National Health program.
You thought wrong bunky. From the article which I am sure you did not read...

'PATCHWORK"

The United States has no single organized health care system. Instead it relies on a patchwork of insurance provided by the federal and state governments to the elderly, poor, disabled and to some children, along with private insurance and employer-sponsored plans.

Many other countries have national plans, including Britain, France and Canada, and several studies have shown the United States spends more per capita on health care, without achieving better results for patients.

An estimated 47 million people have no insurance coverage at all, meaning they must pay out of their pockets for health care or skip it.

Contenders in the election for president in November all have proposed various changes, but none of the major party candidates has called for a fully national health plan.

Insurance companies, retailers and other employers have joined forces with unions and other interest groups to propose their own plans.

“Across the board, more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care, and a majority now support national insurance as the remedy,” Ackermann said in a statement.

The Indiana survey found that 83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine specialists, 65 percent of pediatricians, 64 percent of internists, 60 percent of family physicians and 55 percent of general surgeons favor a national health insurance plan.

The researchers said they believe the survey was representative of the 800,000 U.S. medical doctors.


skate:Also, anyone going into a Hospital in the USA, will get Health Service.Not a health plan, and does absolutely nothing for preventative diseases. How about dental?
And for that matter something you should follow up on......psychiatric care :lol:

[skate]

[QUOTE=hcap]skate:
You thought wrong bunky. From the article which I am sure you did not read...

/QUOTE]

Wrong. i did read the article, but i'll admit, i can't justify reading crap from you or ralphy, i try...

If you weren't so good looking, i'd say you are a definite 'ASS HOLE''.

Hey, wait just a minute, what do you look like?

[hcap]

I can understand your hostility towards me. But why Ralph? Although I disagree with him on most everything, at least he can EXPLAIN his position and he speaks and writes English. Try it sometime.

[skate]

Hey look, Nitro, this is really very easy, since everything i say is also said in your post, get it?


Look, cover is as cover does and since "THEY SAY" in your post "no single" Cover, then that does leave room to say "we have Coverage". May not be good, may be good but "COVER WE GOT". Since your post says "the cover is Patchwork" ITS cover, no less.

Now, the reason The-Skate says that we have coverage is because of the fact that ANYONE (even Stupids) can go into Any Hospital and receive Med Help to its fullest. Any time any where in the USA.

If you can refer to your post, which says the following:
An estimated 47 million people have no insurance coverage at all, meaning they must pay out of their pockets for health care or skip it.

Your post is Not correct because if the person going into the hospital does not have Money, then that said person does not have to Pay, the cost goes to the persons with insurance.

[hcap]

Are you suggesting going to an emergency room is a "national health care plan"?? What about heart surgery? Cancer care? Diabetes? Dental work" Psychiatric care? The immediate care provided by emergency rooms for injuries, accidents and acute health problems does not constitute a "national health care plan"??

http://www3.acep.org/patients.aspx?id=25902

Even so emergency care represents less than 5 percent of the nation's $1.5 trillion in health care expenditures.

The argument that "Your post is Not correct because if the person going into the hospital does not have Money, then that said person does not have to Pay, the cost goes to the persons with insurance." is not correct. Costs eventually go to the public in general in the form of taxes and donations. Emergency care is funded as well by Medicare and many hospitals themselves. But if "emergency care represents less than 5 percent of the nation's $1.5 trillion in health care expenditures", The "public" is not being burdened. Or insurance companies.

Problem is what do we do about the folks who need regular and preventative care? And how do we make health care less costly per capita for all of us as demonstrated by the success of national health plans in almost all the other industrialized nations? That's why the feedback from this survey of doctors is notable.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/01/8018/

Doctors Support Universal Health Care: Survey

"WASHINGTON - More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.

[skate]

Exactly what i've been saying.

When you say:

"""""""""""Problem is what do we do about the folks who need regular and preventative care? And how do we make health care less costly per capita for all of us as demonstrated by the success of national health plans in almost all the other industrialized nations? That's why the feedback from this survey of doctors is notable."

The word HOW, is what i'm talking about.

Your survey does NOT say How. What it does say is "we want the Money".

And i say "give them all the money", nobody wants to give them all the money as much as i do , so give the money to them, happy.;)

[hcap]

The survey says most doctors want a national health plan.
Originally Posted by skate:
The word HOW, is what i'm talking about. Your survey does NOT say How. What it does say is "we want the Money".
Maybe it says the doctors want to help their patients and themselves

How???? A national health plan.

Generally that refers to some sort of government organized or controlled single payer or combination of insurance companies and gov. administration plan.


I would bet they are not in favor of putting more nurses on the night shift in hospital emergency rooms. Mr Nitro

That "HOW"is automatically vetoed.

[JustRalph]

I can understand your hostility towards me. But why Ralph? Although I disagree with him on most everything, at least he can EXPLAIN his position and he speaks and writes English. Try it sometime.

I think hell has frozen over........... when you and I are on the same page...........something in the universe has changed...........but I agree with you. come on Skate..............pull it together man.......one day at a time :lol:

[Tom]

If 50% of doctors are in favor of it, it must be bad!!!!
they sure are not looking out for us in this thing.

BTW, Hillary announced her plan would only cost 5-10% of our income. Translate - 15-20% and probably our health to boot.

Mandatory anything is never good.
Like anything with Hillary behind it.

[hcap]

I think hell has frozen over........... when you and I are on the same page...........something in the universe has changed...........but I agree with you. come on Skate..............pull it together man.......one day at a time :lol:
I have suggested to skate he use Firefox. More than once.
Built in spell checker. That would help

Unfortunately, there is no babble checker. :cool:

[Tom]

Spell checker?
Where in FF? I've got it checked off to check my spallibng as I tbpe, but as you can se, it doens't work to well. :rolleyes::D

[hcap]

If skate is interested and does try FF, go to Tools/Options/Advanced and as Tom says "I've got it checked off to check my spallibng as I tbpe" should work.

Why Tom ther ain'yt anithang rong wit da centinse. Don'it confeuse us.
Pu-leesae

[lsbets]

I guess I'm the odd one out, but I enjoy the challenge of skate's posts. I can usually decipher their meaning, and I get a kick out of his back and forth with his beloved "Hiccups".

[hcap]

Decipher is the right term. However the mounting monthly costs in aspirins and eye-drops may be too much. Just came across these.

http://faodistributor.firstaidexchange.com/images/products/M-702.gif

Bottle size is just about correct :rolleyes:

[hcap]

Da skate sez:The-Skate says that we have coverage is because of the fact that ANYONE (even Stupids) can go into Any Hospital and receive Med Help to its fullest. Any time any where in the USA.Firefox is Stupid friendly.

[skate]

I guess I'm the odd one out, but I enjoy the challenge of skate's posts. I can usually decipher their meaning, and I get a kick out of his back and forth with his beloved "Hiccups".





victory!

Also, have we noticed JustlyRalph and Hiccups are only a Belch
apart. as we bring together the Unbrungables.

[hcap]

Da skate sez:
The-Skate says that we have coverage is because of the fact that ANYONE (even Stupids) can go into Any Hospital and receive Med Help to its fullest. Any time any where in the USA.Psychiatric care too? Do most "Stupids" qualify or must they also be wrong, illiterate and condescending like you?

This "Stupids" comment has gotta be the worst. Even for you.

[Tom]

hcap...the mentally ill are given jobs in Congress.

[Gibbon]

and their psychotherapists work on wall street.

[hcap]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N07438178.htm

Dutch health system rated best, U.S. worst - polls
07 Jul 2008 20:21:57 GMT
Source: Reuters

NEW YORK, July 7 (Reuters Life! ) - Americans are the least satisfied with their health care system, while the Dutch system is rated the best, according to new research.

Polls about health care in 10 developed countries by Harris Interactive revealed a range of opinions about what works and what doesn't.

In the United States a third of Americans believe their system needs to be completely overhauled, while a further 50 percent feel that fundamental changes need to be made.

"Given that all countries other than the U.S. have universal health care systems in place, this may invite questions on why the U.S. remains the only wealthy, industrialized country without such a system," Harris president George Terhanian told Reuters.

In the Netherlands, where health care is financed by mandatory health insurance, 42 percent of people think their system works well and needs only minor changes.

And only nine percent of the Dutch think a complete overhaul is necessary, compared to 12 percent in Canada and Spain, 15 percent Britain and France, 17 percent in Germany and New Zealand, 18 percent in Australia and 20 percent in Italy, according to the polls of more than 1,000 people in each country.

[bigmack]

Americans are the least satisfied with their health care system, while the Dutch system is rated the best, according to new research.
Gee golly, I'm convinced. Let's move forward and adopt a tax structure like the Dutch system as well.

Being the simp you are, you failed to cut & paste the last line of your "give me something negative about the US, anything" article:
It is by no means clear through these surveys that universal health care systems represent the so-called magic pill.

[hcap]

Never said it was a magic pill.

I am saying all western industrialized countries have a adopted a strong mix of single payer plans with with some private input. And all of these others have rated their health systems better than we have rated ours.

Oh the link I provided does give you a chance to read the full article.
Accuse me some nefarious shenanigans some other time BM.
Simp? Very kind BM

[Tom]

So where is the democrat congress on this?

THEY could pass tax credits to relieve a lot of health care costs for the majority of people. Why have they done nothing?

All heath expenses 100% deductable up to $10,000 - pass it this month.
Oh, wait, they are investigating horse racing. Priorities.

[JustRalph]

great plans...........if you could see a doctor when you needed it. Or if they didn't bankrupt the countries................. :ThmbDown:

Don't confuse great "Health care" with great "health insurance"

Nowhere in any of these countries do the two work together.

You can have all the insurance or government provided plans you want. But if you can't see a doctor when you need it..............what the hell good is it.

I like being able to call my doctor and see him two hours later, or drop into the urgent care anytime I want. Find that with any of the plans overseas.

Btw, "Mandatory health insurance" means you are forced to buy from the government. Find me one program the government runs better than the private sector?

If you want this kind of healthcare, then go online and book your move!!

[NJ Stinks]

Group health plans are always cheaper than individual health plans. Imagine the whole country in one giant health plan. It can only be bad news for the medical industry and good news for us. Are they all gonna move offshore? If so, where?

One thing overlooked when comparing us with countries offering social medicine is that in places like the UK you can still get immediate attention if you are willing to pay for it privately. And you can still buy private health insurance to help pay for private medical care if you want it - as hcap said.

But if you are in an emergency situation, you aren't going wait much longer in a government-run hospital in the UK than you would in our hospital emergency rooms.

So cheer up. Money still talks.

As for health care tax credits, it's not a bad idea as long as the tax credits can exceed someone's tax liability. In other words, if the allowable tax credit is $1,000 and your total tax liability is $500, you still get a $500 refund. If not, a lot of people - especially older people - are not going to get the full benefit.

Same thing with a $10,000 health care deduction. What good does it do you if you don't have the income to deduct from?

[Tom]

Where is it written that the government is responsible to provide us with health care? Everyone seems to taking that as a given. It is not.

[Tom]

Same thing with a $10,000 health care deduction. What good does it do you if you don't have the income to deduct from?

Then we need to address another way these people take care of themselves.
Besides the free ride, I mean.

[NJ Stinks]

Where is it written that the government is responsible to provide us with health care? Everyone seems to taking that as a given. It is not.

It isn't, of course. But wouldn't you be proud to live in a country that makes sure all of it's citizens have access to health care when needed? I can understand why a hard-working American gets to live in a better house in a better neighborhood. But I can't understand wealth being the determining factor when it comes to health care for fellow Americans.

When World War II ended, the "Band of Brothers" mentality was everywhere. Namely because Americans - rich and poor - fought side by side in the war. Nobody wanted anybody who was man enough to cover their back in battle to lose out after the war. So things like Social Security benefits were increased by 77% in 1950; the spread of health insurance coverage - from less than 10 percent of the population having coverage in 1940 - grew to nearly 70 percent by 1955 (source BlueCrossBlueShield); and the GI Bill of 1944 offered returning soldiers education and training, loan guaranty for homes, farms or businesses, and unemployment pay.

In short, Americans made sure we had each other's back during and after World War II. Maybe that's why that era really felt like The Greatest Generation. We can't get that feeling back by just waving the flag. We have to earn it.

[acorn54]

Where is it written that the government is responsible to provide us with health care? Everyone seems to taking that as a given. It is not.
justice oliver wendell holmes said "taxation is the cost of having a civilization".
in a civilized society people are tended to when ill. to contain costs this means preventative care also. waiting till the last moment to care for the sick in an emergency room is ineffiecient.

[riskman]

Another take on Health Care:


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/armstrong1.html

[robert99]

Group health plans are always cheaper than individual health plans. Imagine the whole country in one giant health plan. It can only be bad news for the medical industry and good news for us. Are they all gonna move offshore? If so, where?

One thing overlooked when comparing us with countries offering social medicine is that in places like the UK you can still get immediate attention if you are willing to pay for it privately. And you can still buy private health insurance to help pay for private medical care if you want it - as hcap said.

But if you are in an emergency situation, you aren't going wait much longer in a government-run hospital in the UK than you would in our hospital emergency rooms.

So cheer up. Money still talks.

As for health care tax credits, it's not a bad idea as long as the tax credits can exceed someone's tax liability. In other words, if the allowable tax credit is $1,000 and your total tax liability is $500, you still get a $500 refund. If not, a lot of people - especially older people - are not going to get the full benefit.

Same thing with a $10,000 health care deduction. What good does it do you if you don't have the income to deduct from?


NJ,

Everyone would like to be able to afford to pay their own medical care but no country can ever pay all its citizens enough to cover the ever escalating bills and to me a national scheme is the lesser of two evils - people staying ill in misery despite a simple but unaffordable cure available or a small restriction of free choice but peace of mind that you will get excellent "free" treatment whoever you are and whatever befalls you or family. National schemes are far cheaper as the Government puts pressure on medical wages, fraud and fraudulent treatments, fees and drug costs as well as bulk buying. I can see my local free doctor 500 yards away within 2 hours or he will home visit directly if I am too ill. If I am really ill or injured an ambulance or helicopter complete with paramedics will be with me within 10 minutes. When it comes to the end of life then the hospice charities could not do a better job caring for your loved ones if they were paid in gold bars.

You are right and UK citizens can also go private as well as national "free" scheme but those institutions mainly only do the routine operations/ treatments and leave it to the national hospital consultants to come in to do the high risk, high skill operations. If there is a hold up at the national hospital for a particular operation, they will also pay to treat you free in other EU countries or private practice.

Perhaps in US the vested interests are far too strong and the misinformation far too long embedded.

[skate]

All the people in this country "Citizens OR not" do get health care.


Wake up

[skate]

When it's free, people want, even if not needed. the more they want, the more the demand. the more the demand, the higher the price.

then the controls, walla, socialisticallyalized.

then you scratch... you're out, sweatheart:cool:

in the mean time , they call IT bitch.

[hcap]

Ah, the Shakespeare of the off topics has opined. On Scandinavian health care plans:
.

Or in other words--Something is rotten in the state of Denmark:jump:

[robert99]

All the people in this country "Citizens OR not" do get health care.


Wake up

Skate,

Awake or not your statement does not appear to be correct.
Eventual, partial or non-treatment is not health care.

"How does being uninsured harm individuals and families?

Lack of insurance compromises the health of the uninsured because they receive less preventive care, are diagnosed at more advanced disease stages, and once diagnosed, tend to receive less therapeutic care and have higher mortality rates than insured individuals.

Regardless of age, race, ethnicity, income or health status, uninsured children were much less likely to have received a well-child checkup within the past year. One study shows that nearly 50 percent of uninsured children did not receive a checkup in 2003, almost twice the rate (26 percent) for insured children.

The uninsured are increasingly paying “up front” -- before services will be rendered. When they are unable to pay the full medical bill in cash at the time of service, they can be turned away except in life-threatening circumstances.

About 20 percent of the uninsured (vs. three percent of those with coverage) say their usual source of care is the emergency room.

Studies estimate that the number of excess deaths among uninsured adults age 25-64 is in the range of 18,000 a year. This mortality figure is more than the number of deaths from diabetes (17,500) within the same age group.

According to one study, over a third of the uninsured have problems paying medical bills. The unpaid bills were substantial enough that many had been turned over to collection agencies - and nearly a quarter of the uninsured adults said they had changed their way of life significantly to pay medical bills."

[robert99]

When it's free, people want, even if not needed. the more they want, the more the demand. the more the demand, the higher the price.

then the controls, walla, socialisticallyalized.

then you scratch... you're out, sweatheart:cool:

in the mean time , they call IT bitch.

I only comprehend the first bit which is a presumption without any facts to back it up. There is no price - it is "free" at point of use. As it is permanently free and always there, there is no need to "panic buy" health care to put the non-existent market price up. You use it when you need it - no more. As there are early prevention plans and screening there is reduced demand at the critical illness stage. Costs are controlled by experts in health and annual budget not by medicos inventing bills and pumping up drug costs passed on to insurance companies. Figures already given show that the costs are far less than the USA system which even then does not reach every US citizen. Socialist management means fairness, security of service, lower costs and higher quality and has been well proven over the last 60 years.

[hcap]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/03/12

Report: US Health Care System Is a Liability
Americans spend a lot more than top countries, but aren’t as healthy

by Anthony Shadid
WASHINGTON - If the global economy were a 100-yard dash, the U.S. would start 23 yards behind its closest competitors because of health care that costs too much and delivers too little, a business group says in a report to be released Thursday.

The report from the Business Roundtable, which represents CEOs of major companies, says America's health care system has become a liability in a global economy.

Concern about high U.S. costs has existed for years, and business executives - whose companies provide health coverage for workers - have long called for getting costs under control. Now President Barack Obama says the costs have become unsustainable and the system must be overhauled.

Americans spend $2.4 trillion a year on health care. The Business Roundtable report says Americans in 2006 spent $1,928 per capita on health care, at least two-and-a-half times more per person than any other advanced country.

[ArlJim78]

TOP TEN REASONS FOR OBAMACARE ARE BASED ON FALSE INFORMATION

http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/10836-Top-Ten-Reasons-For-ObamaCare-Are-Based-On-False-Information.html


The details of ObamaCare are largely being left to Congress, the same body that stuffs the federal budget with earmarks, waste, and other programs that are not requested. ObamaCare is premised on claims for drastic changes in health care and major increases in government programs being necessary. Those claims are largely specious.

Below, the top ten specious premises for ObamaCare are discussed:

1. Comparing US Health Care To Other Developed Countries
2. US Health Care Spending Is More Than We Can Afford
3. Reform Overhaul Will Yield Major Savings4. Increased Evidence-Based Medicine And Health Information Technology Will Significantly Improve Care and Reduce Costs
5. Present Administrative Costs And Insurer Profits Are Too High
6. US Consumer Dissatisfaction Requires Drastic Health Care Changes
7. Health Care Costs Are So High They Are A Major Cause Of Personal Bankruptcy
8. The Number Of Uninsured Is So Large That Drastic Health Care Changes Are Necessary
9. More Preventive Care Will Better Serve Consumers And Save Costs
10. Health Care Consumers Are Being Served By Drastic Health Care Changes

details at the link...

[Tom]

Check out Glen Beck’s site for details, but here is a good microcosm of why
health care costs so much…….GOVERNEMENT INTERFERENCE.

A doctor in NY was offering a deal for people who had no HC insurance and could not afford quality care. For $79 a month, he would offer unlimited visits to his office.

The government stepped in and forced him to limit that offer only to maintenance visits and to charge an additional $33 for each specific illness visit. The law prevents doctors from charging less than some minimum cost.

So good quality HC is once again compromised by DEMOCRAT morons.

[The Judge]

a hundren and ten posts about health care costs and not one mention of greedy LAWYERS it was only a few short years ago that the blame for high insurance rates for auto's was "lawyers". The industry pushed and got no-fault in many states.

Insurance rates are through the roof in all states . In Medicine again it was the lawyers states put caps on the amount of money you can recover from a doctor or hospital in California its $250,000 per occurance. If a doctor kills mom $250,000 split between all the relatives no matter how many. Cut off the wrong leg $250,000 I guess they will cut off the correct one for free.

Point is it was all a pack of lies to get where Joe Blow couldn't sue it had nothing to do with greedy lawyers or saving "you" money. Too wit no one has mentioned lawyers.

[nijinski]

Your Auto Mechanic can charge $95.00 an hour as well as some beauticians
and repair man etc.
I worked for Primary care (family doctor) as well as specialists who joined them. Over 20 years.
The overhead as mentioned is quite high yet the payments per visit are
dropping ,lower and lower.
Have you ever seen the prices of medical supplies? we even have to pay to get Medical waste picked up.
Ask your family Doc someday about the price of Med school and whether
or not it is worth it to run a family practice these days.
I have seen my bosses start at 8am and leave the office at 9pm.
People want their calls returned ,scripts faxed forms filled out letters sent
to bosses, Disability papers referrals test results and the list goes on.
Everyone has a question they want answered,free of charge.
People call because they read something on the internet or they want the office to authorize more Viagra for the weekend.
Bottem line is physicians should be entitled to make a good living, they have
paid their dues. I agree some may be dishonest or greedy, but that is in
almost every profession.
PS after you pay your mechanic and your car still dies, it's hard to sue for malpractice.

[hcap]

I guess all these folks qualify for the Tom Anchors Away Award.
Probably ALL welfare queens.


"Barack Obama frequently cited research showing that medical expenses were a contributing factor in 55% of all personal bankruptcies. A new study says he was wrong. It was actually more than that:

The study found that medical bills, plus related problems such as lost wages for the ill and their caregivers, contributed to 62% of all bankruptcies filed in 2007....Medical insurance isn't much help, either. About 78% of bankruptcy filers burdened by healthcare expenses were insured, according to the survey, to be published in the August issue of the American Journal of Medicine.

....Most people who filed medical-related bankruptcies "were solidly middle class before financial disaster hit," the study says. Two-thirds were homeowners, and most had gone to college."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-medical-bankruptcy4-2009jun04,0,4193398.story

[Tom]

Anchor = one who drags down another by forcing him to pay way.

Could well be a bunch of anchors, hcap.

The other side of your coin is that someone else have to pay not only his way but someone else's, too. Thus, an anchor.

[Secretariat]

Anchor = one who drags down another by forcing him to pay way.

Could well be a bunch of anchors, hcap.

The other side of your coin is that someone else have to pay not only his way but someone else's, too. Thus, an anchor.

Tom,

This is true. If government gets out of the way, and let's pure capitalism work here than only those who can afford to pay would truly be covered. This would mean that Medicare and Medicaid would compeltely go away and the insurance industry would essentially set prices.

My guess is that the life expectancy of older people would shorten dramatically as many simply could not afford the premiums as their income is curtailed in older years, and they would simply die at home. The costs are phenomenal. Medicare covers the sickest of the sick in our society, the elderly. No insurance company would take that one without profit. Medicaid is very hard to get except for the disabled and the poorest of the poor. It is tougher to qualify than you think and my guess is Medicaid will become even harder to obtain in the future due to budget concerns. Approximately 50 million people do not have insurance, and 100 million may not be covered due to pre-existing conditions or their coverage is inadequate or they may be squeezed with huge deductible costs to afford any insurance at all.

I think Obama's plan is a drop in the bucket. It's pretty useless in my opinion. Without Single Payer Healthcare I don't think it'll improve much if at all.

As long as businesses have to pay for healthcare for their employees they are at a disadvantage against foreign competitors who don't have to pay for healthcare for their employees. The employer looks for cheaper options or keeps wages down to make up those costs or increases his price to cover the costs. The concept of employer healthcare is limited as well. It allows limited choice based on an empoyer's selected options as well.

For those unemployed and we'r talking millions of people here, they simply cannot afford healthcare when their COBRA runs out if they can even afford COBRA.

It's a pathetic situation, and one other countires dont' have to worry about, OR our own elderly for the most part. In essence we already have socialized National Healthcare for our most at risk population - elderly and poorest. Extending it to the rest of us woudl allow employers to cut costs, doctors and hospitals to cut adminstrative costs, people to worry less about illness and their budget. Will it cost more? sure. Will it actually provide a service? sure. We socialize the Police Department, Fire Department, even the Military. We even already socialize health care for portions of our population but discriminate based on age and income for others. Will a Single Payer system like Medicare be enacted under the Dem's? Not a chance. The insurance lobby is too strong. Baucus wouldn't even sit one Single Payer advocate at the hearings. I laugh when I hear about the liberals. There are so few actual liberals in Congress. When you have a guy like Ben Nelson or Arlen Spector or Max Baucus with a "D" after their names please be aware they are more Republican than Democrat ,and maybe actually even more corporatists than anything. I do admire Specter on one thing. He actually had the courage to pretty much admit when he changed party it as only to still have a chance to win.

Ok, my rant is over for the day.

[Secretariat]

I forgot one thing. An interesting Reuters article on health care:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090604/us_nm/us_healthcare_bankruptcy

Medical bills underlie 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies: study


WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Medical bills are involved in more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, an increase of 50 percent in just six years, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday.

More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine.

"Using a conservative definition, 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92 percent of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5,000, or 10 percent of pretax family income," the researchers wrote.

"Most medical debtors were well-educated, owned homes and had middle-class occupations."

The researchers, whose work was paid for by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said the share of bankruptcies that could be blamed on medical problems rose by 50 percent from 2001 to 2007.

"Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," Harvard's Dr. David Himmelstein, an advocate for a single-payer health insurance program for the United States, said in a statement.

[46zilzal]

Overhead is the killer. Each fully equipped room is over 50K and then there is the ancillary staff. MOST of my friends in primary care are now in groups to cut his overhead.

[delayjf]

Reading through this tread, I can’t help but wonder what effect a few simple changes to our medical system would have.

Step one – HMO’s and hospitals run as non-profit organizations. While I do believe in capitolism. Consumers don’t have a choice as to if they want the product or not.

Mandate that Doctors list their prices so consumers can shop around.

Reduce the liability of Doctors and Medical Pharmaceutical companies to willful negligence.

Emphasis catastrophic coverage for expensive procedures and healthcare savings accounts for more routine procedures.

Revamp healthcare administration – How?? No clue.

[The Judge]

what I don't get, the one thing that the right wing, the left wing , the gay, the straight, the Catholic, the Protestant,the old as well as the young, the communist and the capitalist all agree on in other countries is "National Health Care" there would be a revolt by all of them "if " someone tried to change it. Yet here no National Health Care. I wonder why? It couldn't be horror stories coming out of the countries with National Health Care, because their aren't any. No bodies laying in the streets. gurneys lining the hospital halls ( a sight I have seen in many emergency rooms here.)

The right on this board scorer the internet in search of such horror stories and all they can find is a couple of isolated incidents. Heck Michael Moore made a full length feature movie about tragedies here. You can't poop poop this because it was Michael Moore, if they weren't there he wouldn't have found them.

I admit there there would be some serious planning and screening done because it would mean 47,000,000 -50,000,000 more people would now be covered. Rules on who would be covered would have to be tighten by that I mean legal/illegal.

Even if a person was illegal and they got hit by a car something would have to be done or if they had a communicable disease they would have to be treated but I am sure that could be worked out. We could bring people from some of the other countries and let them help us get started.

Why is this important because we are human beings a person these days are afraid to take chances if they have a job with health care they will not leave freeing up the job for someone else because the family needs the health care.
There would be more freedom now theres a word the right wing likes to here.
More enterpenures would spring forth. It would unleash the Capitalist spirit.

The link posted by ArlJim78 is a good reason for National Health Care/ Single payer reform.

[Tom]

The dem goal of health care is not to provide good health care to everyone. It is to control a large percentage of the economy. It has never been about people receiving health care.

There are many ways to ensure everyone can receive appropriate health care. Neither party has ever stumbled onto any of them. The current spending by the dems - more in the last 6 months than in the last 30 years - will only prevent more people from getting it. Stupidity is not a good way to govern.

In a nation as bountiful as ours, everyone should have the care they need.
Will never happen in a nanny state. The solution is not to take from one to pay for another.

[DRIVEWAY]

The dem goal of health care is not to provide good health care to everyone. It is to control a large percentage of the economy. It has never been about people receiving health care.

There are many ways to ensure everyone can receive appropriate health care. Neither party has ever stumbled onto any of them. The current spending by the dems - more in the last 6 months than in the last 30 years - will only prevent more people from getting it. Stupidity is not a good way to govern.

In a nation as bountiful as ours, everyone should have the care they need.
Will never happen in a nanny state. The solution is not to take from one to pay for another.

There are many ways to ensure everyone can receive appropriate health care.

Tom, the floor is yours. Please elaborate.

[46zilzal]

Check out Glen Beck’s site for details, but here is a good microcosm of why
health care costs so much…….GOVERNEMENT INTERFERENCE.

Beck who suffers from Korsakov's syndrome? Really a reliable cirrhotic source

[Tom]

Beck who suffers from Korsakov's syndrome? Really a reliable cirrhotic source

Are you insinuating people with illnesses are not capable of communicating?
Pretty sad stance for an alleged doctor to take.

[46zilzal]

Are you insinuating people with illnesses are not capable of communicating?
Pretty sad stance for an alleged doctor to take.
one of the mainstays of Koraskov's is confabulation.

[Tom]

There are many ways to ensure everyone can receive appropriate health care.

Tom, the floor is yours. Please elaborate.

Put health care costs back into the free enterprise system. Get government out of it. Allow policies to be tailored better to what people actually need. My health care needs are far different from a 20 yer old college student.
Stop paying for health care of illegals. They are not our responsibility. Bill Mexico back, whatever.

Cut through the red tape - allow the system to function like a business.
A doctor in NYC had a deal where patients paid something like $78 a month and got back unlimited care for selected treatments. The Government shut him down. I posted a link to the story here a couple of months ago.....

[RaceBookJoe]

Said it before and i will say it again. I find it strange that so many people harp on "healthcare" , when the majority of people dont care about their own health....smoking,drinking,overweight,eating toxic food, lathering chemicals on their bodies. rbj

[DRIVEWAY]

Put health care costs back into the free enterprise system. Get government out of it. Allow policies to be tailored better to what people actually need. My health care needs are far different from a 20 yer old college student.
Stop paying for health care of illegals. They are not our responsibility. Bill Mexico back, whatever.

Cut through the red tape - allow the system to function like a business.
A doctor in NYC had a deal where patients paid something like $78 a month and got back unlimited care for selected treatments. The Government shut him down. I posted a link to the story here a couple of months ago.....

Costs are completely out of control. A growing number of Doctors will not accept Medicare/Medicaid or HMO's. They insist that you pay their rates and submit the bills to these carriers. The Doctors want to increase cost. However, this is free enterprise.

Allow for unregulated insurance policies. Keep the Government from creating standards. Free enterprise at it's best will create low cost policies with an inch of fine print that means rejected claim on the back end.

Cut through the REDTAPE would be accomplished with a single payor system. But there's nothing to worry about there because advocates of a single payor system can't even get a seat at the table during congressional hearings. That's Free Enterprise at work since they own most of the House of Representatives.

The Insurance and Pharm companies block any discussion of single payor.

As far as the NYC doctor is concerned. He is a health care providor not an insurance company. Let's assume he's an honest and honerable man that lives up to his commitments. However, there may be others who would not. How does anyone regulate that. What happens if the Doctor is too busy to see you? Does he refer you to someone else and pay for the appointment?

This country spends 17% of it's GDP on health care. This is 50% higher than any other country. It's a confused combination of government sponsored, free enterprised based and legislative mandates.

Everyone wants more. Doctors, Insurance Agents, Drug Companies etc.
The consumer wants more coverage for less money.

There is no country in the world that has a 100% based free enterprise Health care system.

Tom, I give you credit for having that much faith in a 100% Free Enterprise Solution.

[robert99]

Bone headed bureaucracy means even a perfect service might not be quite working in UK.

Thr NHS pays an annual bonus to doctor practices which have demonstrated improved practices to achieve a reduction in reported complaints.

A practice has been penalised because for a whole year it has received no complaints. Which means there’s a claim form criterion it was unable to fulfil. Because you can’t demonstrate how you resolved a complaint when there was no complaint to resolve.


http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=20&storycode=4122842&c=3

[boxcar]

Even if your figs were true, and our costs are high for health care, you must not forget that we get what we pay for! American health care is the best on the planet. If you want "cheap" (and believe me, in the end it isn't so cheap) health care, get it in some socialist country where the quality of care can't hold a candle to ours.

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

Even if your figs were true, and our costs are high for health care, you must not forget that we get what we pay for! American health care is the best on the planet. If you want "cheap" (and believe me, in the end it isn't so cheap) health care, get it in some socialist country where the quality of care can't hold a candle to ours.

Boxcar
Yes but NO ONE can afford it as it is far and away the number one cause of brankruptcy.

I send medication to my wife's cousin in Oregon. A simple muscle relaxant which is over the counter here at $45.00 a bottle costs him over $140. as it requires all those extra fees to slap a label on it. Same med just fewer clowns profiting from it.

[robert99]

Even if your figs were true, and our costs are high for health care, you must not forget that we get what we pay for! American health care is the best on the planet. If you want "cheap" (and believe me, in the end it isn't so cheap) health care, get it in some socialist country where the quality of care can't hold a candle to ours.

Boxcar

Actually you don't get what you pay for - 45% of all USA health costs go down the drain into administration, whilst in more efficient Socialist countries administration is around 6%. USA individuals pay for drugs at top dollar. Socialist countries bulk buy the same drugs at huge discounts.

The World Health Organisation (WHO), who are unbiased and better informed, last ranked the USA health system as 37th. Far behind many Socialist countries and even behind Dominica and Costa Rica.


http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

[delayjf]

The World Health Organisation (WHO), who are unbiased and better informed, last ranked the USA health system as 37th. Far behind many Socialist countries and even behind Dominica and Costa Rica.

The above is true because one of the major factors used in their rankings was the availability of healthcare to all its citizens. As a result, the US healthcare system was penalized in the ranking due to the fact that its not universal coverage.

[Secretariat]

Even if your figs were true, and our costs are high for health care, you must not forget that we get what we pay for! American health care is the best on the planet. If you want "cheap" (and believe me, in the end it isn't so cheap) health care, get it in some socialist country where the quality of care can't hold a candle to ours.

Boxcar

You really beleive this stuff don't you.

Rush Limbaugh wrote in See, I Told You So, "Ask anyone you know from a foreign country which country is the envy of the world when it comes to health care,"

YET - "According to a Gallup poll published by the Toronto Star, only 2 percent of all Canadians believe that the U.S. has a better health care system than their own."

I think your perceptions are wishful thinking. We have higher mortality rates, a lower life expectancy and yet higher costs than many industrial nations that do have universal coverage.

We have great emergency care, but

[PaceAdvantage]

Beck who suffers from Korsakov's syndrome? Really a reliable cirrhotic sourceSource please....

[Lefty]

tom, you're right. if Obama and the dims get control our healthcare they will have even more control on our lives. Under the guise of prevention, they will tell you what to eat, drink, what kind of house and what kind of car you may have. You do what they term as bad behavior and you're taxed taxed out of your "bad" habits. This administration is getting close to making the "Orwellian
Nightmare" a fact of life.

[Tom]

Tom, I give you credit for having that much faith in a 100% Free Enterprise Solution.

Beats the HELL out of having the government involved in it in any way. The government never does anything:

1. Right
2. On time
3. Under budget
4. Efficiently
5. Effectively.

I give you credit for being totally closed minded about it, though. Obama likes Sheeple.

[witchdoctor]

The system is broken. Unfortunately, having trained in a VA system, I am worried about the way the government running healthcare. Somethings I saw while at the VA include

1.We were not allowed to do PTCA during the month of September because it was he end of the fiscal year and we were out of balloons and they could not/would not order any more until October when the new fiscal year began. When a patient presented with a MI we could only give thrombolytics and then had to sit on the patient for weeks unless they had surgical anatomy.

2. During a code, the nurse taking care of the patient walked out to take a lunch break. When the fellow filed a complaint with Human Resources, he was called into the Chief's office and was told that he should not have filed a complaint and there was nothing they could do since she was union and was entitled to take a break even though the code was ongoing. Not only that, the fellow was given 6 months probation.

3.The medicine floors were staffed 1 nurse for 12 patients. Most hospitals staff their medical floors with 4-5 patients per nurse and that is often cutting it close.


I looked at this plan and the only way that I feel that is going to work is that we ration care. No more treatment of Cancer or heart attacks after a certain age. I don't know where the age limit will be but I suspect itis going to be 75 years old.

[boxcar]

Actually you don't get what you pay for - 45% of all USA health costs go down the drain into administration, whilst in more efficient Socialist countries administration is around 6%. USA individuals pay for drugs at top dollar. Socialist countries bulk buy the same drugs at huge discounts.

The World Health Organisation (WHO), who are unbiased and better informed, last ranked the USA health system as 37th. Far behind many Socialist countries and even behind Dominica and Costa Rica.


http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

The World Heath, eh. Another socialist organization. And if the US is so bad, gotta wonder why so many of the well heeled come here to take care of their major problems? Why aren't they flocking to the other 36 countries who are supposedly so freakin' superior? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

You really beleive this stuff don't you.

Rush Limbaugh wrote in See, I Told You So, "Ask anyone you know from a foreign country which country is the envy of the world when it comes to health care,"

YET - "According to a Gallup poll published by the Toronto Star, only 2 percent of all Canadians believe that the U.S. has a better health care system than their own."

I think your perceptions are wishful thinking. We have higher mortality rates, a lower life expectancy and yet higher costs than many industrial nations that do have universal coverage.

We have great emergency care, but

Yeah...I really believe this stuff" because it's true. At least in this country, there aren't waiting lists that are months long! In other countries people die because the lead time for major health care is ridiculously long. In fact, it's so long, they look to go out of their own "great" system to see if they can get care elsewhere.

And what would the Canucks know about our health care system? Are they here on this side of the border everyday acquiring care from our system? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[DRIVEWAY]

The World Heath, eh. Another socialist organization. And if the US is so bad, gotta wonder why so many of the well heeled come here to take care of their major problems? Why aren't they flocking to the other 36 countries who are supposedly so freakin' superior? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Mia Farrow went to Germany for treatment.

[DRIVEWAY]

Beats the HELL out of having the government involved in it in any way. The government never does anything:

1. Right
2. On time
3. Under budget
4. Efficiently
5. Effectively.

I give you credit for being totally closed minded about it, though. Obama likes Sheeple.

Please return any social security checks that might come your way. The US Gov has no idea what it's doing.

[NJ Stinks]

I give you credit for being totally closed minded about it, though. Obama likes Sheeple.

Like you're not close-minded, Tom.

:lol: :lol: :lol:



(OK. Quick question: Who here is not close-minded? :D )

[hcap]

Anchor = one who drags down another by forcing him to pay way.

Could well be a bunch of anchors, hcap.

The other side of your coin is that someone else have to pay not only his way but someone else's, too. Thus, an anchor.Your so-called demeaning and simplistic Anchor theory of social justice does not apply to those filling bankruptcy for medical reasons. I think you were walking under the tail end of the "Queen Mary",

http://www.cunard.com/assets/images/headers/OurShips/QM2landingHeadShip.jpg.................

when it's anchor fell on YOUR head. Sort of like Issac Newton sitting under a tree and originating the theory of gravitation.

Read the study.......

http://pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/

[Tom]

Hey hcap. for you information, I had nothing to do with anyone going bankrupt - it is NOT my responsibility to pay for their mistakes. I work for my money, no one help me out - screw this hand out mentality. How many of those filed for bankruptcy on their computers, after saw the ad for a lawyer on their big screen TV? Not my fault, not my problem.

Hey Driveway......SS is a perfect example - I get to put in X dollars over my lifetime and get back X-Y dollars. If that money had never been taken from me, I would be far better off. Every dollar I eventually get out of SS is MINE toe begin with - probably three of mine.

[lsbets]

Another bullshit study championed by the left?

"Elizabeth Warren has another study out showing that medical expenses contribute to more than half of all bankruptcies--indeed, this time, it's 70%, up from the 50% she found in 2001.

Now, it is possible that this is true. The fact that it seems to disagree with every other study I've ever read that is not authored by Elizabeth Warren, and also, the self-reports of the people in her study (only about a third of whom attribute their bankruptcy to a health problem) could just be a fluke. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong.

Yet upon closer examination, it turns out that it is not just wrong, but actively, aggressively wrong. Warren and her co-authors have obscured important and obvious facts that call the integrity of the work into serious question."

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/06/elizabeth_warren_and_the_terri.php

The folks pushing this could care less about healthcare, their concern is with power, control, and centralization to create their vision of "utpoia". Anyone who supports these fools deserves what they get, sadly we will all get it.

[The Judge]

again why is it that the countries that have it the right wing loves it if it is so bad? The one thing all factions agree on is National Health Care in the countries that have it. What do they know that we don't and are afraid to find out.

Why isn't the right wing trying to dismantle "National Health Care" in their own country if it is so bad? Can someone answer this question.

[DRIVEWAY]

Hey hcap. for you information, I had nothing to do with anyone going bankrupt - it is NOT my responsibility to pay for their mistakes. I work for my money, no one help me out - screw this hand out mentality. How many of those filed for bankruptcy on their computers, after saw the ad for a lawyer on their big screen TV? Not my fault, not my problem.

Hey Driveway......SS is a perfect example - I get to put in X dollars over my lifetime and get back X-Y dollars. If that money had never been taken from me, I would be far better off. Every dollar I eventually get out of SS is MINE toe begin with - probably three of mine.

SS is a multifaceted program. There are survivor benefits, widow(er) benefits, disability benefits, supplemental income benefits and retirement benefits.

If you look upon it as purely a retirement program, then you will be disappointed.

However, they pay on time and make some adjustments for inflation.

[The Judge]

the VA has never been properly funded. It has always been an open secret that the VA was giving inferior treatment to the Veterans of this country. It is my understanding that even this has improved. Look at the Walter Reid Hospital incident and it was suppose to be at the top as far as quality.
Their is no question in my mind that once a Senator and his family are in National Health Care there will be plenty of balloons around to do any test the doctor wants and then some.

As far as a nurse walking off on a code because she is union I find hard to believe their must be more. Why do I say this because I know nurses and they themselves would not stand for another nurse walking out in an emergency situation. These are as dedicated a group as you are likely to run into. They are nurses in a union not union members with a job as a nurse.

By the way nurses are unionized in private hospitals also, more than likely the same union as the nurse you mention in your post.

Nurses are the one who stay behind taking care of the sick and wounded while the others are headed for safety. No, the nurses themselves would handle this person who walk off on a code if in fact happened.

[Tom]

If you look upon it as purely a retirement program, then you will be disappointed.

However, they pay on time and make some adjustments for inflation.

I look at for what it is - a tax on me that I have no say in. The money is mine and it is stolen from me. I don't are what it is used for, I pay more out than I will get back. If I had all that money over the years, I would be taking care of myself and my family 100% out what I earned. The gov has stepped in and totally screwed it up, yet again. SS was a piss poor idea from day one and it is worse today.

[Tom]

The one thing all factions agree on is National Health Care in the countries that have it.

What does that mean?

[RaceBookJoe]

Mia Farrow went to Germany for treatment.

Probably because in Germany, there are treatments available that arent allowed in the US. Lots of alternative-type stuff that the FDA has no use for because there isnt a ton of money to be made. Germany has some great cancer treatment/curing going on....but none of it has to do with any type of national health care system. rbj

[46zilzal]

And what would the Canucks know about our health care system? Are they here on this side of the border everyday acquiring care from our system? :rolleyes:

Boxcar
NO, it is mostly the other way around with buses flocking up here to border towns to buy medications that won't break them. Codeine is over the counter here as are many muscle relaxants. Prescription medications are far cheaper.

[Lefty]

Medicare is going broke. it's a govt healthcare program. so if we can't even fund a prgm for some of us, how will we fund a healthcare program for all of us? Please answer that.

[boxcar]

NO, it is mostly the other way around with buses flocking up here to border towns to buy medications that won't break them. Codeine is over the counter here as are many muscle relaxants. Prescription medications are far cheaper.

You see...this is typical of you liberals. We talk about health care, you talk about something different -- prescription drugs. Two different things -- related, yes -- but different. Health care = doctor visits, doctor treatments, hospital stays, emergency room service, surgery, etc. In fact, here in the U.S., with the vast majority of health plans, covered people who have medical insurance and prescription drug insurance are issued two different insurance cards. And another reason, insurance companies do this is to make it easier for people to opt out of one or the other.

Now, Mr. know-it-all Zilly that you know the difference, you're going to argue that we nationalize the entire health care industry -- the 7th largest in the U.S. -- so that people can get cheaper drugs? And you measure the quality of of the entire health care system by one just one aspect of it? To your twisted way of thinking, you want to bring the entire industry under the control of the state so that everyone has access to cheaper drugs? You want to have career government bureaucrats determining who gets what care based primarily upon their assessment of benefit-cost ratios, and not primarily upon the needs of the patient or his or her doctor' professional opinion? You want health care essentially rationed out to whom some state bureaucrat determines is worthy -- just to get cheaper drugs? :bang: :bang: Isn't this a wee bit of an overkill? :bang:

Now, I'm not suggesting that the present system cannot stand some reform -- but reform in an area or two is one thing -- government takeover is something else!

Boxcar

[Track Collector]

When we handicap a race, the Past Performances of a horse are absolutely essential in helping us to make a decision as to whether or not to use that horse in some type of wager.

If the government were a horse and you were looking at the past performances (records) of running and administering various programs, would you wager on this horse's next race (Nationalized Health Care)?

When it comes to critical issues like health care, I am not wagering on poor past performances with the "hope" that this next government program will be significantly better than previous ones.

Also, from the trainer intent angle, I'm not convinced that those pushing Nationalized Health Care are REALLY concerned about us as opposed to what's in it for them (e.g. power, control, personal wealth for themselves and their buddies).

[Tom]

If the gov were horse, I'd shoot it! :eek:

[boxcar]

When we handicap a race, the Past Performances of a horse are absolutely essential in helping us to make a decision as to whether or not to use that horse in some type of wager.

If the government were a horse and you were looking at the past performances (records) of running and administering various programs, would you wager on this horse's next race (Nationalized Health Care)?

When it comes to critical issues like health care, I am not wagering on poor past performances with the "hope" that this next government program will be significantly better than previous ones.

Also, from the trainer intent angle, I'm not convinced that those pushing Nationalized Health Care are REALLY concerned about us as opposed to what's in it for them (e.g. power, control, personal wealth for themselves and their buddies).


Very well stated! :ThmbUp:

Race Track Life (whether it be on or off) microcosmically reflects the larger world around us with astounding accuracy. No one in his right mind would handicap a race, and then decide to bet a horse in the win pool whose pp data little or no redeeming value. But yet...liberals on this forum are so quick to do just that with certain politicians and with the government, generally, even though the government's track record is worse than poor! There are people who will naively tout the state as being the champion of health care -- as having the "winning" :rolleyes: ideas for the health care industry. But on what basis? In what, specifically, are such people's hopes grounded? From whence does all this optimism for positive, beneficial change find its roots?

And your analogy touching "trainer's intent" is equally spot-on. Why are libs so eager to go against the true nature of things? I have stated and clearly demonstrated on this forum the irrefutable and universal truth that all societies function under the fundamental assumption that all men are untrustworthy, until it can be proven otherwise. This is the real, true nature of life. But what have politicians done to prove to us their trustworthiness? What have politicians done to earn our trust? And I believe it is this universal truth that primarily motivated our founding fathers to write a constitution that would severely limit the powers of government. The founding fathers had a fundamental distrust of government -- and rightfully so, I might add.

Great post, TC!

Boxcar

[DRIVEWAY]

Medicare is going broke. it's a govt healthcare program. so if we can't even fund a prgm for some of us, how will we fund a healthcare program for all of us? Please answer that.

Your absolutely right. The inflation rate in health care is greater than 10%. Costs are completely out of control.

The solution is to reduce costs.

Congress is holding hearings to deal with this issue. Only problem is that the best solution SINGLE PAYOR SYSTEM has no seat at the table.

The AMA, Hospitals and Insurance Companies are all blocking their attendance. These entities own the congress. There's no chance of reform.

Costs will continue to spiral. By 2020 the premium for an individual health insurance policy maybe triple what it is today. :bang:

Ironically, the only entity that can turn this around is the government. :lol:

[robert99]

The World Heath, eh. Another socialist organization. And if the US is so bad, gotta wonder why so many of the well heeled come here to take care of their major problems? Why aren't they flocking to the other 36 countries who are supposedly so freakin' superior? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

They are.
Get a passport, educate yourself and go to Harley St, London.
You will see Arab sheiks and their families, people rich and poor from all over the world filling up the waiting rooms. Go to Paris, go to Amsterdam, go to Düsseldorf, go to Geneva - same scenario etc etc.

[46zilzal]

They are.
Get a passport, educate yourself and go to Harley St, London.
You will see Arab sheiks and their families, people rich and poor from all over the world filling up the waiting rooms. Go to Paris, go to Amsterdam, go to Düsseldorf, go to Geneva - same scenario etc etc.
American exclusive-ism: called wearing BLINDERS to the rest of this green ball we call earth.
See it all the time. Best dentistry in the world is in Poland and not as expensive.
Lots of people going to India and the Philippines for hip surgery as 60 Minutes reviewed recently.

[Tom]

Then feel free to go there.
No one asked you to come here.

[boxcar]

They are.
Get a passport, educate yourself and go to Harley St, London.
You will see Arab sheiks and their families, people rich and poor from all over the world filling up the waiting rooms. Go to Paris, go to Amsterdam, go to Düsseldorf, go to Geneva - same scenario etc etc.

Yeah...I'll bet they're "filling up the waiting rooms" -- and waiting and waiting and waiting.

An economic fact of life is this, sir: There are only three marketable components that all businesses offer: Price, Quality and Service. Two things about these: It is IMPOSSIBLE to offer all three and stay in business. You can offer two of the three but always at the expense of the other. So...if the socialized medicine system in these countries is boasting about how great its low costs (prices) are to consumers (patients), then you can be certain that this comes at the expense of either the Quality or the Service aspect of the care (or even both for that matter!). I repeat this again -- and any astute, knowledgeable business person would agree -- in the business world, it's impossible for a business to offer all three components and stay solvent for any length of time. Only two of the three can be offered.

This is why I stated earlier: We might have a pricey system; but in this country you do get, for the most part, what you pay for -- which is Quality and Service. And when it comes to my own personal health -- I'll take Quality and Service any day over a cheap, cut-rate Price.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

American exclusive-ism: called wearing BLINDERS to the rest of this green ball we call earth.
See it all the time. Best dentistry in the world is in Poland and not as expensive.
Lots of people going to India and the Philippines for hip surgery as 60 Minutes reviewed recently.

What you call "excluvise-ism", I call exceptionalism. And I'll take this any day over second rate mediocrity.

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

They are.
Get a passport, educate yourself and go to Harley St, London.
You will see .... people rich and poor from all over the world filling up the waiting rooms. .

I've been to London.
You could have written:
"Go to any street in London, you will see people rich and poor from all over the world filling up restaurants, bars, museums, the tube...."

From what I saw, Britain is paying the price of building an Empire in the 19 th Century. Now it's "chickens have come home to roost."

[jognlope]

Just a hunch: Those who bash national health insurance ALREADY HAVE INSURANCE!!!! and dont' have to worry about getting a malignant tumor or some disease BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE INSURANCE!!!!!

[46zilzal]

IF the crowd learned ANYTHING about those already insured, they can get, and often do get CANCELLED all the time.

There is a great movie about managed care called Damaged Care staring Laura Dern as Dr. Linda Peeno who came forward to blow the whistle on these crooks in managed care.

[Marshall Bennett]

The problem is , much like everything else in Obama's move towards socialism , those that have end up paying for those that have not . Nationalizing heath care won't be any different . I say to those wanting socialized medicine , move to Europe and take up residence .

[46zilzal]

The problem is , much like everything else in Obama's move towards socialism , those that have end up paying for those that have not . Nationalizing heath care won't be any different . I say to those wanting socialized medicine , move to Europe and take up residence .
I am the recipient of good health care and live a mere 15 miles from that border.

[newtothegame]

The thing I believe most people here are forgetting is that for every "slice" of the pie you look at you will get a different result. For example....robert is on here telling us how great the health care nationalized is in Britian...
Ok Robert....so hows the pollution taxes feeling for ya? Seems I read somewhere that "gas guzzlers"...(which by the way who determies what a gas guzzler is?)..are charged like 25 pounds a DAY to drive into the city? Isnt this like a congestion charge??? So on your way to your ohh so great health care centers....they rob your wallet??? Sounds like fun to me!!! Ohh and lets not for get about the 6500 per year in emission charges (if you don't own a bicycle or hybrid) lol. Isnt this all based on how much emissions cars emit per kg/m? And we are not even touching the prices of gasoline yet in Britian.
But my point is that you can look at ANY aspect of life and find its good and bad flaws. What not many here are looking at is OVERALL quality of life.
There is a huge reason people from all over the globe come to AMERICA. OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE....
Can I probably find better seafood somewhere else in the world? Likely...
(although since I live on the gulf...I do have my doubts)..lol
But OVERALL, I will gladly take the United States over ANY other country...(or at least for now. Who Knows after good ole Barry is done in the white house).

So...in summation....46...Robert...and others who believe it is so great elsewhere....Please, don't let us TYRANTS here in the U.S bother you any longer. There are Borders which amazingly work both ways. You can leave just as you have come. Passports as I understand them usually provide for access in both directions.

[46zilzal]

Sadly you haven't caught on: Number ONE is a past tense phrase in an increasingly widening arena. You cannot continue to piss ON and piss OFF the rest of the world and not suffer blow back

[newtothegame]

Britain's cost of living is highest in the Western world (that's £38,000 a year for typical family)

By Sean Poulter (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Sean+Poulter)
Last updated at 1:56 PM on 28th June 2008
Britain has the highest cost of living in the Western world, it is claimed today.

A Middle Britain family’s annual bills for a home, food and other essentials – estimated by a firm of international economists – total £38,880.

This figure has leapt by more than £2,000 a year compared with calculations made four months ago by the same experts.


this artricle was from a dailymail.co.uk news article last year....

Yep, your national health care system might be a bit lower...but aren't you really paying for it elsewhere????

[The Judge]

I have posted exactly what I meant at least twice before so far no answer so I will do it again. Maybe this time someone will answer.

There are at least 36 countries with some form of National Health Care System including, England,France,Canada,Australia,Sweden,Ireland,Ita ly,
Belgium, and Saudi Arabia. Why is it that both right wing and left wing of these countries agree on this one issue? "DON'T TOUCH NATIONAL HEALTH CARE ''

They want National Health Care and not Private Care as we have in the United States. How could this be? If National Health Care is so bad? Not only do they want it but it would be "the kiss of death" for any politician to come out against National Health Care.

Waiting for an answer.

[newtothegame]

Sadly you haven't caught on: Number ONE is a past tense phrase in an increasingly widening arena. You cannot continue to piss ON and piss OFF the rest of the world and not suffer blow back

I personally have not tried to piss of anyone.....
What I am saying is if it is so bad....why bother with us? I am not running to canada, living on a canadians dime...then turning around and telling them how much they suck? I am not year after year accepting monetary funds ( such as the one the U.S pays to most of the modern world and not so modern in the form of humanitarian aid) then complaining about from where it came after acceptance.
please...for all you countries who hate us so much.....DON"T accept our aid. Don't come here and then complain about how bad we are...you have options...
just look at the proposed bill in the house where Mr hussein and his run of the mill democrats are now trying to pass a TWO BILLION DOLAR swine flu bill (for further prevention). But you rarely see or hear about the 200 million in humanitarian aid in same bill for pakistan. I know we could better use that 200 million here.

I am sure you can find many resources on how much the U.S gives the rest of the world in Aid...

[newtothegame]

I have posted exactly what I meant at least twice before so far no answer so I will do it again. Maybe this time someone will answer.

There are at least 36 countries with some form of National Health Care System including, England,France,Canada,Australia,Sweden,Ireland,Ita ly,
Belgium, and Saudi Arabia. Why is it that both right wing and left wing of these countries agree on this one issue? "DON'T TOUCH NATIONAL HEALTH CARE ''

They want National Health Care and not Private Care as we have in the United States. How could this be? If National Health Care is so bad? Not only do they want it but it would be "the kiss of death" for any politician to come out against National Health Care.

Waiting for an answer.


this is just a stab judge.....
and I have no research to back this up...just purely speculation on my part...But I would assume that it is because for a politician to come out against this, it would be there death politically. Why? How about alot of people depend on said same health care programs. It would cost them votes. I don't believe it has anything to do with the quality of said system. I believe it has to do with the people who are dependent on said system.
For example...try and have a politician take away welfare programs here in the U.S.....the lower income levels would not have it. And the lower income levels far outweigh the higher income levels in sheer numbers. Its all about votes.

[The Judge]

on who has some form of National health care. Including Afghanistan,and Iraq which according to the article the United States pays for those countries Nationalize Health Care from United States War Funding.
http://www.gadling.com/2007/07/05/what-countries-have-universal-health-care/

[The Judge]

thanks for your post you at least gave it a shot. Lets just say I disagree with you.

[newtothegame]

thanks for your post you at least gave it a shot. Lets just say I disagree with you.
And its ok to disagree...but, I would suggest you look at the world poverty levels. Look at per capita income..and then correlate those levels to countries with nationalized health care.
I believe it goes back to ancient times in this theory...but if you control the masses with wealth, or lack there of, you control their lives. I would gladly take nationalized health care if I couldnt afford anything else....:bang:

[newtothegame]

Just look at the above post I made for Britian....

HIGHEST COST OF LIVING IN THE WORLD....
Nationalized health care....
See the correlation?

Poor chaps can't afford anything else lol

[Tom]

Sadly you haven't caught on: Number ONE is a past tense phrase in an increasingly widening arena. You cannot continue to piss ON and piss OFF the rest of the world and not suffer blow back


Caution! Meaningless post!
:4::6: is dreaming again.

[Tom]

I have posted exactly what I meant at least twice before so far no answer so I will do it again. Maybe this time someone will answer.

Waiting for an answer.

Originally Posted by The Judge
The one thing all factions agree on is National Health Care in the countries that have it.

Waiting to find what you are talking about - READ what you wrote. WHAT is the one thing all factions agree on??????? Your sentence has no meaning. Subject but no predicate.

[boxcar]

Britain's cost of living is highest in the Western world (that's £38,000 a year for typical family)

By Sean Poulter (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Sean+Poulter)
Last updated at 1:56 PM on 28th June 2008
Britain has the highest cost of living in the Western world, it is claimed today.

A Middle Britain family’s annual bills for a home, food and other essentials – estimated by a firm of international economists – total £38,880.

This figure has leapt by more than £2,000 a year compared with calculations made four months ago by the same experts.


this artricle was from a dailymail.co.uk news article last year....

Yep, your national health care system might be a bit lower...but aren't you really paying for it elsewhere????

The highest cost of living but cheap, affordable health care for all, right? :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

thanks for your post you at least gave it a shot. Lets just say I disagree with you.

You disagree because his argument is dead-on target. Our SS system is due to go belly up soon, as one would expect of a pyramid scheme. Sometime in the foreseeable future someone is going to have make some very hard decisions -- going to have to implement some radical reforms to keep the scheme alive. But I can tell you this: One of those radical steps will not be the repeal of this insipid, moronic system because too many people are hooked on its opium.

This is exactly the way the welfare state works. The state wants to get everyone doped up on its [welfare] drugs. Today "free" health care. Tomorrow "free" education. Next day, "super affordable" housing, etc., etc. Are these [welfare] junkies going to criticize the system? Criticize any of the social programs? Not hardly! The only criticisms will come from those who are too smart and too insightful, for only these will be able to see how destructive, demeaning and degrading socialism really is to human beings -- how it robs people of their self-esteem, their self-worth and individuality. And here's the worst part: Once the welfare state sucks all these precious values out of a person, chances are excellent, he'll never realize that he's been reduced to nothing more than a ward of the state -- a number -- like a SS number, for example. He'll never miss his self-esteem, his self-worth, his uniqueness as an individual because how can he miss what he no longer has? Just the way most alcoholics cannot see that they are what they are due to a long term drinking problem so, too, the welfare junkie will be unable to see what he has become over time. Just as the alcoholic sold his soul to the bottle, likewise the welfare addict will have sold his soul to the state.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

judge, rest of you libs, Nobody will answer my question. if Medicare is going broke govt insuring SOME of the people, how do we pay for healthcare for ALL of the people. You want national Healthcare; how do we pay for it? I need you advocates to answer.
Judge, oh how easily you dismissed the fact that GB has the highest cost of living.
Jog, I have healthcare, but pd for my own until I was 40.

[The Judge]

money for National Health Care then where is all the money for private health care and prescription medicine coming from? How is that countries a lot poorer then the United States can afford national health care but not the United States.


Private health care cuts benefits and raises cost, kicks sick clients off and denies care as a matter of daily business, and this is better then a National System. Sure it is until its you.

The money they are making hand over fist will go to the National Health Care. Its not a question of money its a question of will.

Where do we want to put our tax dollars. People in other countries say health care. Sooner or later we will see the light and say the same thing.

No money for Medicare now thats something you would have to explain to me. Are you saying that the people on Medicare were suppose to pay the freight I don't think so.http://money.cnn.com/retirement/guide/retirementliving_healthcare.moneymag/index3.htm

[Tom]

I want a shot of what he's drinking!

[boxcar]

money for National Health Care then where is all the money for private health care and prescription medicine coming from? How is that countries a lot poorer then the United States can afford national health care but not the United States.

Judge, that's why they're poor!!! Again, look at England where the cost of living is about the highest in the world.


Private health care cuts benefits and raises cost, kicks sick clients off and denies care as a matter of daily business, and this is better then a National System. Sure it is until its you.

Read Daschel's book than then tell us that when his recommended policies are adopted for national health care which system cuts benefits the most! In that book he recommended that the state allow older people to die rather than spend the money on keeping them alive when they are seriously ill. All a state bureaucrat would be concerned with is is cost-benefit ratios. Say, hello to state-sanctioned and mandated euthanasia. Don't forget: It is you libs who are enthralled with the Culture of Death!

And cutting benefits and raising cost is not peculiar to the health care industry. Let's take just one example. Remember the time when you used to be able to buy a 1/2 gallon of ice cream for cost X? Then the food processors decided to CUT the size down to 1.5 qts. which represented a whopping 25% decrease in product? For awhile, the cost remained the same -- X. But now the cost has changed -- it's higher than X was for packaging that contained 25% more product. Welcome to the real world, you wimp.

The money they are making hand over fist will go to the National Health Care. Its not a question of money its a question of will.

How terribly naive you are. Of course, it's all about money and power. BO is on another money-power grab. Taxes will increase significantly, but the qualify of health care will decline. Heck...it's already on the table to tax employee's medical insurance deductions. If the state is so concerned about people having choices and opting to receive quality health care, why would he want to penalize group policy holders by taxing their insurance deductions? Wouldn't this be this fascist pig's way of forcing people into the government system -- just like everyone is forced to pay into the SS pyramid scheme, even though they despise that system?

Where do we want to put our tax dollars. People in other countries say health care. Sooner or later we will see the light and say the same thing.

I don't want to put my tax dollars. I want to keep my money because money in my pocket = Economic Freedom and Freedom of Choice. My Money in the State's Pockets = Economic Repression and Restricted Choice.

No money for Medicare now thats something you would have to explain to me. Are you saying that the people on Medicare were suppose to pay the freight I don't think so.http://money.cnn.com/retirement/guide/retirementliving_healthcare.moneymag/index3.htm

Why don't you explain to us how Medicare is funded? This should be interesting.

Boxcar

[The Judge]

untried experiment it has been and is being done in other countries. We can get them to help us. Its coming its just a matter of time.

You mean that the average American is better off then the average person from Sweden (where everybody drives a Volvo) England (where everybody including the police drives a Jaguar) Australia, France and Canada.

Things are so bad in Canada the Canadians are sneaking across the boarders in record numbers. Sorry I got that wrong way around, Americans are the ones doing the sneaking .

Why? To get medicine they can't afford to buy in their own country. Some don't sneak they take cruise ships and load up on prescriptions. They also sneak into Mexico or cruise into Mexico. You see its cheaper to take a cruise and buy medicine there then to just buy medicine here.

Americans have to go to other countries to stay alive.

[boxcar]

untried experiment it has been and is being done in other countries. We can get them to help us. Its coming its just a matter of time.

You mean that the average American is better off then the average person from Sweden (where everybody drives a Volvo) England (where everybody including the police drives a Jaguar) Australia, France and Canada.

Things are so bad in Canada the Canadians are sneaking across the boarders in record numbers. Sorry I got that wrong way around, Americans are the ones doing the sneaking .

Why? To get medicine they can't afford to buy in their own country. Some don't sneak they take cruise ships and load up on prescriptions. They also sneak into Mexico or cruise into Mexico. You see its cheaper to take a cruise and buy medicine then to just buy medicine.

Americans have to go to other countries to stay alive.

What a load of crap! And as I told Zilly, it's absurd to toss the baby out with the wash water! Just because meds are more expensive in this country doesn't mean we should nationalize the entire health care industry! It's overkill in the extreme because meds are just one aspect to the health care.

But since you brought up Canadians, they are coming here to this country to receive certain types of health care that they can't receive in their own country unless they're willing to wait and wait and wait and wait some more. Nothing like quality health care Canadian style, eh? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[The Judge]

the answer to the question "why is it that the right wing of other countries agree with the left wing of those same countries on the issue of National Health Care" come from newtothegame "the people of those countries are dependent on said system so the politicians there will not touch it. And from everyone else "it will make you poor like in England."

How about this, the right wingers with National Health Care like it. They tried it and wouldn't trade it for a private system no matter what. Think thats possible?

[lsbets]

How about this, the right wingers with National Health Care like it. They tried it and wouldn't trade it for a private system no matter what. Think thats possible?

It is not possible for anyone who believes in freedom and liberty. Anyone who supports a nationalized health care system believes in the supremacy of the state and does not support liberty. Philosophically the ideas of liberty and national health care are incompatible.

[chickenhead]

Philosophically the ideas of liberty and national health care are incompatible.

It sounds very good but doesn't mean anything.

philosophically, the idea of having a government or rules of any sort and liberty are incompatible. Anything less than complete freedom is less than complete freedom.

[boxcar]

It sounds very good but doesn't mean anything.

philosophically, the idea of having a government or rules of any sort and liberty are incompatible. Anything less than complete freedom is less than complete freedom.

Tell me you're kidding! So, are you implying by your remarkably ill-conceived, thoughtless statement that there's no qualitative difference between Totalitarianism and a Constitutional Democratic Republic?

Boxcar

[Tom]

We need limited - very limited - government to accomplish waht individuals cannot do alone - like sewers, roads, that type of thing. But it can never, ever, supercede individual freedom and responsibility.

[chickenhead]

Tell me you're kidding! So, are you implying by your remarkably ill-conceived, thoughtless statement that there's no qualitative difference between Totalitarianism and a Constitutional Democratic Republic?

Boxcar

I did not remotely imply anything about any political system, or their relative differences.

I was pointing out that lsbets argument, as stated, makes no distinction between them -- they are all bad. I stated a fact, not an argument. They are all philosophically incompatible with liberty. Government by definition is a compromise of individual liberty.

He made a blustery argument that sounds good, but if its valid to argue against Nationalized Health Care, its just as validly ends up disavowing any form of government. More "meat" is required to have real arguments about these thing, that allow room for the type of compromises we all make, for the government we want (like Toms post above). You have to leave room in your arguments for these things.

I haven't talked to lsbets for awhile, so I thought I'd razz him about it.
My post was addressed to him. Not to you and the madness that is the inside of your head.

Buh bye.

[lsbets]

You bring up a good point chick - what is the proper role in government as it relates to individual liberties? I would argue it is very well stated in the Declaration of Independence - that to secure the rights of men, governments are instituted among men. Government should exist for one reason only - to protect individuals from having their rights abridged. Those right being life, liberty, and property - with all other rights flowing from them. To paraphrase Ayn Rand - the individual is the society's largest minority, and one who does not believe in protecting the rights of the individual, does not believe in protecting the rights of minorities. When government seizes the wealth of one individual to benefit the "greater good" (I'll exclude defense because that is one of the few proper roles of government - protecting its citizens from hostile acts), that government has ceased to act as a moral government and is functioning as a tyrannical regime. No individual in society has the right to interfere with my right to life, liberty, and happiness, and neither does government. Yes, there is a need for the government to raise revenue - to provide the very few basic functions it should provide, but today's government does not resemble anything envisioned by the founders. To paraphrase Rand again - government was created to protect society from criminals, the Constitution was written to protect individuals from the government. Our government ceased acting as a moral one a long time ago, and we are rapidly descending into tyranny.

[Tom]

The best government is on that ensures you the right to do whatever you want and allows you to fail at it.

Here is where the libs all go wrong. No societies flourish without competition, people taking chances and getting rewarded for their successes. The libs, instead of encouraging the only way to prosperity, hate it but are willing to take it away fromthose who earned it and give it to those who did not. This path only leads on way - total failure when thsoe that they leech off go broke or go away.
This is why they are in favor of abortion - liberism leads to nothing and the sooner the better. Nothing about liberism makes any sense or leads to anything but failrue.

[chickenhead]

My only real critique of this is that our government has never been a moral one in those terms, not remotely close. Its a bit of an idealized fiction. Our government since day 1, has never been close to protecting the rights of the individual -- things have always been largely controlled by the whims of the majority, or the "powerful", whoever they may be.

Trade places with an 18th century black guy in Mississippi and I would guess your argument would be exactly the opposite as to whether the government does a better job of protecting individual rights now, or in the past. Certainly universal health care is a better form of tyranny than many we've imposed on individuals in our past.

The truth is, the government has and I suspect always will allow a tyranny of the majority, ultimately it has to to some degree -- it can try but realistically will not go against it for long. No government ever really has.

That's my own take on it -- it's the people, not the laws, that decide where we are ultimately going. (also why I'm not very optimistic)

I've given up on caring much about my own value judgments to these things -- things are the way they are, and I'm not smart enough to change them.

[robert99]

The thing I believe most people here are forgetting is that for every "slice" of the pie you look at you will get a different result. For example....robert is on here telling us how great the health care nationalized is in Britian...
Ok Robert....so hows the pollution taxes feeling for ya? Seems I read somewhere that "gas guzzlers"...(which by the way who determies what a gas guzzler is?)..are charged like 25 pounds a DAY to drive into the city? Isnt this like a congestion charge??? So on your way to your ohh so great health care centers....they rob your wallet??? Sounds like fun to me!!! Ohh and lets not for get about the 6500 per year in emission charges (if you don't own a bicycle or hybrid) lol. Isnt this all based on how much emissions cars emit per kg/m? And we are not even touching the prices of gasoline yet in Britian.
But my point is that you can look at ANY aspect of life and find its good and bad flaws. What not many here are looking at is OVERALL quality of life.
There is a huge reason people from all over the globe come to AMERICA. OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE....
Can I probably find better seafood somewhere else in the world? Likely...
(although since I live on the gulf...I do have my doubts)..lol
But OVERALL, I will gladly take the United States over ANY other country...(or at least for now. Who Knows after good ole Barry is done in the white house).

So...in summation....46...Robert...and others who believe it is so great elsewhere....Please, don't let us TYRANTS here in the U.S bother you any longer. There are Borders which amazingly work both ways. You can leave just as you have come. Passports as I understand them usually provide for access in both directions.

Newtothegame.

We have congestion charges £8 in central London to free up the centre of the city. Those who do not need to go through the centre go around it for free. Low polluting vehicles go free. Singapore has the same idea. Health care centres are within walking distance - we are a tiny country. My doctor is 300 yards away, optician 400 yards, dentist 400 yards and hospital 600 yards through the park.

I hope I have not given the idea that any particular system is best. WHO figures show that this common and increasingly expensive problem is tackled by other countries better and many worse than USA overall.
USA with the world's highest natural resource wealth should be leading the way that is all. We actually want you to be still leading the way as it pushes our systems to follow.

There are no free lunches - it all has to be paid for somehow. What the discussion is about is how it is to be paid. There are cost savings from a national system on drugs bulk buying, administration and better sharing of information, research and expertise. You also do not have to make savings set aside for a rainy health day. You have the freedom and peace of mind that whatever happens you will be cared for.
You are cared for very quickly too. I had an eye problem recently and went to the hospital for a check - was seen by triage nurse within 5 minutes and a full examination by consultant optomologist within the hour. Follow up appointment check was all done in 30 minutes. No one mentioned a bill - they only were concerned to ensure that my sight was not impaired. I am happy to pay my taxes for that peace of mind and care for all my fellow citizens.

If everyone in society was rich enough then all could go private. What posters seem to be saying is that I can afford it but don't want any of my taxes paying for those who cannot. People say that until devastating health problems strike their family and cripple their freedom and enjoyment of life - which again is unconstitutional. No man is an island. Isolationism is a weakness not a strength.

I don't know how these "economists" got £38,000 as UK living cost or a £2000 rise. The average income before tax is £26,000 and prices have dropped about 8% in the last year.

[Tom]

You only see half the story, Robert....why is it no one ever mentions that EVERYONE should share the work, not just the rewards. We have far too many here who can work but won't. That limits the care and other help we can give to those who really need it, a small percentage. Never once have I heard a lib talk about sharing the responsibility.

No man is an island. Isolationism is a weakness not a strength.

This applies more so to those who refuse to pitching.

[Lefty]

judge, who pays for healthcare? The people WITH healthcare.
corps include health care as part of a benefits pkg for workers in lieu of higher salaries. Self employed people pay their own. That's who pays for it, not the govt.
If the govt can't keep funding Medicare for a portion of us, how can they fund healthcare for all of US. please answer.
Also sweden is a much smaller than the U.S. Earlier in this thread, I put the cost of Canadian Healthcare to the govt there. It's microscopic compared to the 645 BILLION Obama has earmarked as a DOWNPAYMENT for National healthcare.
We can't afford it, judge.

[The Judge]

well better start looking for more money because its coming.

Don't look now but when you turn 65 your private insurer will make you get Medicare part A and B whether you want to or not. I take it Medicare is Government Insurance is it not.

I can only assume that this saves the Private Insurance Company money.

[Tom]

Lefty, Sweden doesn't have 22 million illegal mexicans on its role either.

[newtothegame]

Lefty, Sweden doesn't have 22 million illegal mexicans on its role either.

Illegal???? Give Obama time...that term will change too...:bang:

[Lefty]

Judge, medicare is going broke. You really think we can fund healthcare for everybody when in a few yrs we can't fund medicare? BTW, I'm 72 and i'm on my wifes private insurance, even though I have medicare. I'd hate to have to depend on medicare alone.
IN GB, they ration healthcare to seniors and some drugs are wittheld to cancer patients. Great system eh? Costs too much and there's rationing.

[The Judge]

National Health Care no doubt about. All which can be overcome. Just make sure we are all in it rich and poor then see how good a system you get.

Its coming ready or not.

[Lefty]

What can be overcome? The cost? That's a laugh. We can't over come the cost of Medicare. What about this don't you understand? Do you relish waiting for tests and surgery, when you need it? For some, death will come before they get the needed care. is that your idea of a good plan?

[chickenhead]

BTW, I'm 72 and i'm on my wifes private insurance, even though I have medicare. I'd hate to have to depend on medicare alone.
IN GB, they ration healthcare to seniors and some drugs are wittheld to cancer patients. Great system eh? Costs too much and there's rationing.

I have no interest in debating whether we should have universal health care here, I'm inclined to believe we are not willing to pay for it, just like we aren't willing to pay for anything else we do -- but you do realize that people in countries with universal insurance can buy private insurance also? People can pay for better service, just like they can here currently. A properly instituted universal insurance scheme sets a floor for service, not a ceiling.

Usually intentionally, this seems to be the most often confused aspect when people talk about this.

[DRIVEWAY]

I have no interest in debating whether we should have universal health care here, I'm inclined to believe we are not willing to pay for it, just like we aren't willing to pay for anything else we do -- but you do realize that people in countries with universal insurance can buy private insurance also? People can pay for better service, just like they can here currently. A properly instituted universal insurance scheme sets a floor for service, not a ceiling.

Usually intentionally, this seems to be the most often confused aspect when people talk about this.

Excellent Point.:ThmbUp:

[Tom]

A properly instituted universal insurance scheme sets a floor for service, not a ceiling.

Usually intentionally, this seems to be the most often confused aspect when people talk about this.

:lol::lol: Chick, you card, you! You had me going for a minute!

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

properly, instituted, government

:lol: Man, Chick, you are on a roll today!

[Lefty]

The point is moot, as Obama will tax private healthcare as income and most of the middle class will be forced into the universal plan, because they can't afford the tax. 250 million have healthcare in this country and some are willing to wreck the system to accomodate people who won't pay for their own healthcare. As for those that can't afford it, it's illegal for a County hosp to turn them down. It's just ceding more control of the govt. Ain'tcha had enough?

[DRIVEWAY]

The point is moot, as Obama will tax private healthcare as income and most of the middle class will be forced into the universal plan, because they can't afford the tax. 250 million have healthcare in this country and some are willing to wreck the system to accomodate people who won't pay for their own healthcare. As for those that can't afford it, it's illegal for a County hosp to turn them down. It's just ceding more control of the govt. Ain'tcha had enough?

If you become unemployed and your cobra runs out, you must buy an individual policy. This individual policy is approximateley 33% more than a similar group policy at any given employer.

Now realize the unfairness of this situation. Unemployed, health insurance 33% more and paid out of net income/savings while the employed pays out of gross income.

The effective cost to the individual has to be at least 120% more on a net income basis.

I'm paying for my own health insurance so I know the math.

Hope you don't have to deal with similar.

Now if the GOV gave me a tax credit to make up for this inequality, there would be people screaming that they should not have to indirectly pay for part of my health insurance.

I can understand their logic.

But please tell me why I should indirectly pay for part of the employed person's health care. Let the employed pay out of their net income as well.

These arguments cut both ways.

[Lefty]

I know, My wife has been on Cobra. But I still don't want the govt deciding what kind of care I get. Do you? Put them in charge of healthcare and they will take over every aspect of our lives, under the guise of prevention. It scares the hell out of me. Plus, no one has said how we pay for it. No one will adress that point. The judge is justa wishin ana hopin. How's bout you?

[DRIVEWAY]

I know, My wife has been on Cobra. But I still don't want the govt deciding what kind of care I get. Do you? Put them in charge of healthcare and they will take over every aspect of our lives, under the guise of prevention. It scares the hell out of me. Plus, no one has said how we pay for it. No one will adress that point. The judge is justa wishin ana hopin. How's bout you?

The GOV is in charge of health care. All the GOV employees, the VA, SCIP, Medicaid, Medicare, Legislative Mandates(can't turn away from county hospital).

The key here is to do a better job. The CONGRESS is under the control of the insurance, pharma, AMA lobbies.

CONGRESS must do what's best for their constituency.

9.4% unemployment which is probably 16% real unemployment means a large number of people are not only hurting but confronted with expense triage. Eat, utilities, rent/mortgage or pay for health insurance.

REFORM this health insurance system please.

[Lefty]

take a gander at this.
http://www.thestate.com/satopinion/story/806507.html

[DRIVEWAY]

Lefty

Thank you for providing that link.

Every health care system is subject to criticism. But when the USA spends 17% of it's GDP on health care and the second highest expenditure is 11% in France, we have to be able to do better than we are currently doing.

I'm afraid of Universal Health Coverage. That article made sure of that.

All I want the GOV to do is establish standards.
Standard Insurance policies(with minimum coverage policy mandatory)
Health care providor standards (similar to utility companies)
Bulk buy negotiations with PHARMA
Federal standards for medical records and access by authorized providers
Tort reform

Ultimately a 77 year old may not have all medical procedures available to them. But they could then buy insurance to provide extended benefits. Expensive, yes. But every 77 year old will understand reality.

Health care is not an unlimited resource. Life has it's limits as well.

I don't expect a heart transplant at 90 years of age, but I don't want a grandchild to die in the emergency room of appendicitis waiting for a health insurance clerk to approve treatment.

90% of the solution is defining the problem. Let's define the problem.

Great discussion Lefty.

Thanks

[46zilzal]

Private insurance companies, in it for the PROFIT, really don't give a RAT's Ass for their insured clients. PROVEN time and time again.

When I was a junior in med school, the Kasier Permanente Hospital in Redwood City, California would not allow their staff doctors to treat a patient who ultimately exsanguinated not 35 feet from their ER door. About four staff physicians resigned in disgust.

They got their BUTT sued sucessfully, I might add.

[boxcar]

I did not remotely imply anything about any political system, or their relative differences.

You didn't have to because you took LS's original statement (which not an "argument", by the way) and took it to the absurd extreme. To your warped way of thinking, any form of human government is incompatible with Freedom. And you jumped off this deep end because, evidently, you read into LS's original remarks that he was talking about "complete freedom", when he never remotely implied any such thing! If he referred to any absolute at all, it was the "supremacy of the state" as opposed to (what most of us would have understood) to have been implied contrast to the "supremacy of the people".

To take your absurd statement to its logical end, anyone who believes in Freedom and Liberty must be a freaky, radical, lawless anarchist! It's got to be All or Nothing in your book for LS's statement to have any validity or meaning! And if it's not All 100% Unbridled Freedom, then it's ridiculous to talk about the incompatibility of some government program with Personal Liberty. You, sir, have truly gone off the deep end!

I was pointing out that lsbets argument, as stated, makes no distinction between them -- they are all bad. I stated a fact, not an argument. They are all philosophically incompatible with liberty. Government by definition is a compromise of individual liberty.

Actually, there was an implied distinction LS made because nationalized health care is a socialist program -- right out of the Socialism (i.e. Communism Lite) playbook.

And now again, you prove to all just how far off the deep end you have fallen. To your way of thinking all governments must be bad to Freedom lovers because all governments infringe upon Personal Freedoms. There is no distinction in your mind between Totalitarianism and a Constitutional Republic, for instance. They are morally equivalent! :bang: They're both equally as bad, since they both restrict Freedom. But do various forms of government restrict Personal Liberties to the same degree!? If not, then would it not be eminently more reasonable to conclude that governments that restrict their own power in order to allow their people to exercise as much Personal Freedom as possible would be a preferred form of government -- that not all governments are created equal as you have implied simply because all governments limit Personal Liberties? What an utterly simplistic notion -- this All or Nothing idea of yours!

He made a blustery argument that sounds good, but if its valid to argue against Nationalized Health Care, its just as validly ends up disavowing any form of government.

Only to your distorted logic! Again, this is tossing the baby out with the dirty bath water. It doesn't have to be All or Nothing. This is absurd on the face of it.

And LS made no "blustery argument", just a profoundly simple statement of fact! NHC is incompatible with Freedom because this isn't the role of government under the U.S. Constitution. The role of government is clearly laid out in that document and it sets strict limits on government power. But you won't find those limits imposed upon The People's Rights and Liberties, do you?

Now, LS did a great job in defending his position, but I will add one component that wasn't mentioned by him or Rand. Even more fundamental to the Pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness is the Freedom of Choice. Freedom finds its root in the Free Agency of Man. In order to pursue life, liberty and happiness, we must have as much freedom of choice as possible -- and what is possible is clearly laid out in the Constitution. The more power a government seizes for itself (even when it's through the ballot box), the fewer Freedoms we have because our Personal Choices become increasingly restricted. Our options disappear right before our eyes. It's either the state's way or its the highway (which would probably lead to prison or oppressive civil penalties for defying the power and will of the state).

Now, if you want to compromise with the devil, i.e. the state, then feel free. But I will not compromise with an inherently evil form of government (which Socialism is) because when I compromise I lose. I lose a piece my integrity. I lose a piece of my self-worth. I lose a piece of my self-esteem. I lose my motivation. I lose my incentive. I lose my fundamentally important Freedom of Choice piece by piece. And I'm not willing to sacrifice any of these precious life values for the state's empty promise of "quality health care at affordable prices" -- a promise that it will not keep because it cannot due to the business laws concerning Price, Quality and Service. Furthermore, when the state compromises, it never loses. The state always, always comes out on top. This is why the founding fathers opted (er...chose) to form a limited government -- which implies that The People's Liberties are also limited to SOME DEGREE. And a limited government is always a good thing because this ensures that The People will enjoy as much Personal and Economic Freedom as possible -- as feasible -- in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. The People will have control and power over their own lives, not some government that is loaded with corrupt, lying, greedy, power-hungry, career-minded, freedom-sucking politicians and bureaucrats who could care less about the real welfare of The People. Only the hopelessly naive and ignorant would believe for a nanosecond that any form of human government by nature is a benign, benevolent, caring, loving, compassionate and honest entity that always has the welfare of its citizens at heart. The founding fathers certainly didn't believe this. They had a very healthy distrust of government -- and justifiably so! Therefore, irrefutably clear emphasis in the U.S. Constitution is on the supremacy of The People -- not the government.

I haven't talked to lsbets for awhile, so I thought I'd razz him about it.
My post was addressed to him. Not to you and the madness that is the inside of your head.

Well...'scuse me to smithereens. But...if you want to have private conversations with members here, would not such mediums as email or PM be more suitable for that? I always thought that when someone posts something on a public forum that such posts were fair game for anyone? Have the "rules" changed? :rolleyes: And besides...how could I pass up the opportunity to call you out publicly on the insanity that must have buzzing around deafeningly inside your own bonnet, since no one in his right mind could have written the absurd garbage you did, otherwise!?

[qoute]Buh bye.[/QUOTE]

Well, nighty night to you too. Sleep tight and don't let the bedbugs bite.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Private insurance companies, in it for the PROFIT, really don't give a RAT's Ass for their insured clients. PROVEN time and time again.

Make sure you tell the whole truth. And the government would be in it for the POWER and for OUR TAX DOLLARS. So, if it's a choice between swimming with a barracuda (the insurance companies) and a man-eating great white shark (U.S. government, I'll take my chances with the former.

Boxcar

[hcap]

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like.php


We have got a ways to go before we turn into 1984.
Even if we nationalize 5 billion more, we still have a private sector dominating.
If efficacy is the guiding principle and not hysteria, a "socialized" helth care system as demonstrated by other industialized countries is superior.

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/socialism%20chart.png

[boxcar]

Once the camel has its stinking nose under the tent, there's no getting him out.
It's called Incrementalism.

Boxcar
P.S. 'Cap, Does that graph of yours and the numbers therein reflect the latest government seizures in the private sector? Banks? GM? Chrysler?

[ArlJim78]

the control of spending and regulation is where government exerts control over the economy and our lives, and not so much through direct asset ownership (although that too is rising). congress doesn't own very much, but they can tax, regulate, and dictate where a huge about of our resources are spent. the chart below shows government spending as a percent of GDP. you can see the spike up that occurs in 09/10. the only other time it was above 40% was during the WWII. I guess this is a good thing if you are a big believer in government planners and bureaucrats.



http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee294/alienmind_2007/gov%20spending/GDP.jpg

[chickenhead]

Now, if you want to compromise with the devil, i.e. the state, then feel free. But I will not compromise with an inherently evil form of government (which Socialism is) because when I compromise I lose. I lose a piece my integrity. I lose a piece of my self-worth. I lose a piece of my self-esteem. I lose my motivation. I lose my incentive. I lose my fundamentally important Freedom of Choice piece by piece.

The thing that amazes me is that so many people, of all political stripes, willingly hand over so much influence over their own personal psychic well being to the ebbs and flows of government -- or at least complain about it incessantly like drama queens.

I am a free man, living a wonderful life -- and I by and large do whatever my own mind and my own morals tell me I can do.

I generally have two direct dealings with the government each year -- when I pay my taxes, and when I register my car. I don't particularly enjoy my direct dealings, but neither do I spend the other 363 days of the year gnashing my teeth about it. They attempt to influence my life in many other ways, some which I agree with and follow, others which I disagree with and ignore.

So far as being ambivalent about health care -- it has nothing to do with me wanting to compromise with the government. I simply understand that when enough people don't like the way something works, it is going to change. I try to make it a rule to not be shocked and upset by things as basic as that.

Enough people don't like our health care system, and all signs point to it being unsustainable the way it is currently done, that it is going to change. Whether it happens this year, in 5 years, or in 20 years doesn't really matter -- it's going to change. It ceases to be an ideological argument once you reach that point -- people throw ideology out the window when something is broken, they would rather change it in an attempt to fix it, then listen to ideological arguments as to why they should be ok with it being broken.

What anyone worried about things like our budget, our spending, size or scope of government, etc. should be doing rather than wasting their time arguing about ideology -- is coming up with a different set of changes that will result in a better system. Because it is going to change.

[The Judge]

and their mistreatment of their own clients will be one of the main reason for the insistence of something new. Their arrogance will be the cause of their eventual demise. They may still be around but they will be a completely new animal.

[rastajenk]

To be replaced by government mistreatment of its clients? What's the upside?

[boxcar]

To be replaced by government mistreatment of its clients? What's the upside?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Exactly. The simpletons always believe for some odd reason: A) change is always for the better and B) government has all the answers and, therefore, is the solution.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

The thing that amazes me is that so many people, of all political stripes, willingly hand over so much influence over their own personal psychic well being to the ebbs and flows of government -- or at least complain about it incessantly like drama queens.

I am a free man, living a wonderful life -- and I by and large do whatever my own mind and my own morals tell me I can do.

I generally have two direct dealings with the government each year -- when I pay my taxes, and when I register my car. I don't particularly enjoy my direct dealings, but neither do I spend the other 363 days of the year gnashing my teeth about it. They attempt to influence my life in many other ways, some which I agree with and follow, others which I disagree with and ignore.

You react the way you do because you're probably a Fatalist at heart. In fact, you should have titled your post "The Fine Art of Fatalism". Or how 'bout: "Que Sera Sera"? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

It's called perspective -- the ability to separate inconvenience from oppression.

It keeps me from feeling like I'm losing my self worth, and my self respect, when I register my car, or obey the speed limit, like you apparently do.

[Tom]

Well, hcap and Michael Moore think it is a good idea......





:lol:

[boxcar]

It's called perspective -- the ability to separate inconvenience from oppression.

What you call "perspective" -- I call apathy. Your smug self-induced lethargy defies description and comprehension.

It keeps me from feeling like I'm losing my self worth, and my self respect, when I register my car, or obey the speed limit, like you apparently do.

No true self-respecting person would roll over and play dead for the state -- would permit the state to gain supremacy over the most personal and sensitive areas of his life -- such as one's physical or even mental heath. Whatever feelings of self-respect or self-esteem you may think you have are as bogus and fake as the phony occupying the white house. Self-deceived people of your ilk are nothing but weak, cowardly, mind-numbed drones -- a disgrace to society because when it comes down to it -- they lack a well-defined set of core values. This is why folks of your mindset are always so quick to talk "compromise" because they really don't have anything worth believing in -- worth hanging on to at all costs -- no life-guiding principles of inestimable value to steer them through the good and bad times -- except one, of course -- Que Sera Sera.

Ciao,
Boxcar

[hcap]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/07-0


Debunking Canadian Health Care Myths

by Rhonda Hackett

Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.

Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.

There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.

2 myths out of 8. Read the rest

[hcap]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/health/policy/07plan.html?_r=1

"But critics argue that with low administrative costs and no need to produce profits, a public plan will start with an unfair pricing advantage. They say that if a public plan is allowed to pay doctors and hospitals at levels comparable to Medicare's, which are substantially below commercial insurance rates, it could set premiums so low it would quickly consume the market."


.................................................. ......................................


....Most of the argument here is that a big government plan would just provide the insurance 'service' much more efficiently and cheaply than private carriers. And that the private carriers wouldn't be able to make any money off selling the service any more. But this is the argument that single payer advocates routinely make -- namely, that a lot of the money that goes into private health insurance goes to paperwork, much of which is tied to finding ways to deny people coverage. That, and the need to earn profits on providing the service.

Presumably if there were other quality advantages to the private plans, the carriers wouldn't be so worried that everyone would switch to the public plan. I think I might be open to some effective scare-mongering on that front. But the private carriers don't seem to have much confidence there's much to scare people about.

--Josh Marshal

[JustRalph]

This man is not a myth

X_Rf42zNl9U

[lsbets]

Ralph - that video can't be true - common dreams says there are no waits. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[The Judge]

these are people that were DENIED all together not told to wait 4 months . They can't get them at anytime and don't have the money to go elsewhere. It must be comforting to know that the MRI is out there and available, if you can come up with the extra money in addition to your premium payments.

http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/your_story/medical-insurance-company-denied-needed-mri-now-im-disabled

http://community.breastcancer.org/forum/47/topic/727995http://www.everydayhealth.com/blog/life-with-breast-cancer/health-insurance-denies-a-needed-mri/?comment_id=6081

Here's an article on the problem
http://apps.komen.org/Forums/tm.aspx?m=259639&mpage=1&print=

If you want to get an idea of just how wide spread MRI denials are in the good old U.S google "MRI denied by American insurance companies." Here it's a business decision its available but you aren't eligible and won't be 4 months from now or 4 years from now, you will never get an MRI your doctor say yes the money people say no.

[The Judge]

some of the links aren't working go to Google many horror stories there.

[Lefty]

I haven't had any problems with MRI's. My wife, as stated previously, had had several tests, which has included MRI's. A year ago, I had 2 myself.

[Lefty]

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15034/Canadian_Health_Care_Is_No_Model_for_US.html

h'cap, then there's this article.

[Lefty]

h'cap, uhoh, another one.


http://www.heartland.org/publications/health%20care/article/23229/Long_Waits_for_Health_Care_Are_Costing_Canadians_B illions_of_Dollars.html

[46zilzal]

Heartland organization. FUNNY STUFF

Same old crap that privatized systems do everywhere they are run, SOME yokel bean counter is deciding what is good medical care and NOT trained physicians.

[Tom]

So you want to fix that by having some yokel politician do it instead????
At least the first has some beans to count....the gov't won't have any for a couple of generations to come! We've gone flat barrack! :lol:

[Lefty]

http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2009/a-canadian-speaks-out-about-government-health-care/

zilly, My and my wife's doctors call all the shots. Under a govt plan it will be a bunch of dumbass govt officials deciding. Not for me. Tell me, how many billions does the canadian govt spend on health care?

[Lefty]

http://www.onthefencefilms.com/commentary/stuart/krugman.html

Oh, my, is a hero of the left, a liar?

[46zilzal]

http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2009/a-canadian-speaks-out-about-government-health-care/

zilly, My and my wife's doctors call all the shots. Under a govt plan it will be a bunch of dumbass govt officials deciding. Not for me. Tell me, how many billions does the canadian govt spend on health care?
Each province runs their own medical coverage and we bill what we did as there is no waiting to have some yokel okay it or not.

[ddog]

%GDP/Docs per 1000 peeps / beds per 1000 peeps / Avglife

U.S. 15.4%/2.6/3.3/78.2
UK 8.1% /2.3/4.2/79.4
Can 9.8%/2.1/3.6/ 80.6
Frnce 10.5%/3.4/7.5/80.6
Spain 8.1%/3.3/3.8/81.0

Us rank 41st in avg life expectancy- below all EU and many other nations.

Seems to me SOMETHING is wrong with that picture.

Guess just a lot more DOPES living here, too stupid to take proper care to avoid the bad outcome overall , or maybe we specialize in "fixing" things after they have progressed too far due to the high entry cost of care here or the "system" encourages profits at the extreme end of care , where the profit is the easiest to exploit.

The problem you always run into is that nobody thinks any cost is too high to bear in this market. The market doesn't and can't function in that way.
See housing bubble for a recent non life or death proof.

You always will overshoot to the extreme, there are not many rational actors when you talk life and death or on demand MRI for that matter.

People are not wired that way. We are irrational.


As to docs calling all the shots, that is not true, just because A shot is called does not mean all the shots were in range to begin with.

[Lefty]

How do you know there's no waiting? Are you inm every province at same time. adding it all up, how many billions, roughly, does it cost? Every Canadian I have talked to, refutes your assertions. My best friend's wife is from Canada and she visits relatives there regularly, and they say there are waits.
That aside, obama's plan will take away many of our freedoms under the guise of prevention. Bet on it!

[46zilzal]

How do you know there's no waiting? Are you inm every province at same time. adding it all up, how many billions, roughly, does it cost? Every Canadian I have talked to, refutes your assertions. My best friend's wife is from Canada and she visits relatives there regularly, and they say there are waits.
That aside, obama's plan will take away many of our freedoms under the guise of prevention. Bet on it!
Do you know how ludicrous that is?

Basing an ENTIRE country on the response of a few people from ONE geograpic area. That is akin to saying that there are long waits in Australia based upon a clinic in Adelaide. Really dumb

[Lefty]

right, zilly, EVERY Canadian i have talked to is wrong. I don't think so. Plus I have supplied articles. Can you answer my question about cost?

[The Judge]

if you had two MRI's and other people with insurance can't get one "what happened". How did you get so lucky and them so unlucky.

[Lefty]

judge, I couldn't begin to tell you. My wife had a neckback fusion procedure not quite 2 yrs ago. She's had a lot of problems and is going to have the operation again. In the last yr she's had about 8 MRI's. I've had 2. I'm afraid we won't get near this level of healthcare from ye old govt. Especially me. I'm 72, and seniors are the first to get rationed in a govt run healthcare plan.