I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Off-Topic: Talk about anything you want. => Topic started by: Phraxis on November 11, 2009, 02:31:38 PM
-
First complete disclosure being Canadian, I believe Government should provide education, healthcare and defense of it's citizens and only engage in other activities upon serious reflection. I have been watching the efforts to reform Healthcare in the USA with great interest. I have learned that dialysis is covered under a seperate program which offers a form of universality that has to offer great comfort in contrast to the pressures that affect other users of health care.
Key issues as I see them:
healthcare is expensive, especially in the US which spends more per capita than any other country producing less than ideal results;
it is going to get more expensive as there is an infinate demand, ask anyone who has received the diagnosis of cancer;
allot of our poor health can be preventable with lifestyle changes;
for profit organisations will charge all the money that is available;
cost is rationing based on means, as is availability;
My question is how do people feel about the public option?
for profit means, max revenue, and minimize costs (does that not mean charge lots, and deny treatments especially expensive ones)?
all the advertising seems explicitly self serving stay where we are because the future is unknown, well the future as it is is known, bankruptcy.
Your thoughts are welcome.
-
I would hate to be under the US medical system. Being an Aussie we have a system akin to Canada's. I was watching Letterman when Obama was on, he was promoting his 'medicare' reforms and Letterman was kissing his 'a**hole'. Then a few nights ago he starts calling Obama a facist for the same principle. My God, I keep hearing about the mortality rates for chronically ill patients in the US and can only wonder, why are they so against it?
My son has a reaction to the drug gentamician and if he was to take it he could loose his hearing altogether (gentamician and other strong drugs destroys something in the ear and caused deafness, my son is moderately/severe hearing impared requiring hearing aids due to his birth). Now when he had tooth that was in danger of becoming infected after he fell and snapped it in half and had to have it removed at 3, so i used the public dental system. He required sedation and day surgery. after advising them of his reaction and the need to protect his hearing his wait time went from 12months to 1.5 months under the public system he was in and out.
Also under this system until the day he turns 18 all of his hearing needs (tests and ALL EQUIPMENT including seimens hearing aids and FM systems) are provided by the government at a cost of $35 per year to me to cover batteries.
Chronically ill patients also have acess to this free of charge dental service as do pensioners (chronically ill as the teeth can make us more ill esp for immunosupressed people).
Now with GP's and sepcialists, it depends upon the Dr. We either pay upfront and then get a substantial rebate from the medicare office or the Dr bills medicare direct. Most do have a gap though (but a lot of nephs out here bulk bill to medicare as do most of our surgeons) so to see a specialist it may cost you anywhere from $0 to $60 (OBGYN's seem to be the dearest).
Out here you are automatically covered by the government for emergency medical if you are a citizen, permanent resident (of Australia) or a citizen of a county that provides recipricol healthcare to our citizens/residents (eg NewZealand, UK, Ireland, Italy etc). So if you travel here from one of those countries and things go belly up you wont be left with a fortune to pay off in medical costs, the respective government foots the bill. (only for emergency's). A Brit (sorry but there is a joke out here, cold climate - esp Brits backpackers are forever underestimating our climate and getting into trouble esp in the outback, they take about 2lts of water with them into the remotest places - eg deserts Hello 40c heat constantly - and wonder why they almost die) recently got lost in the bush for a few days out here, the search went on and on and when they found him he had to be hospitalised. Now this man then went home about 1or 200k richer than when he came. He paid for nothing, not to the rescue and not the hospital fees. He got hte money from a tv station for selling his story. He promised money to the rescue association and only ended up donating about 10k i think (after much outcry and whiplashing from his father).
Being under medicare and being chronically ill i've never had to wait for surgery. As i've said previously they don't give us time to think. Your booked into the surgeon and then there is no messing about with HMO's you are done within a few weeks depending upon the need of your surgery. Even if you do have health cover, they can't tell you they wont allow you to use a certain specialist for these types of surgeries. They can only control elective and dental. They have no say in chronic treatment matters.
Hypothetical: I watched some show where a child was denied a bone marrow transplant in the US becuase the HMO wrote it off as an experimental procedure. Out here even if you DON'T have health cover the government would foot the bill of the procedure.
HMO's in Australia.... Provide things like hospital cover for elective surgeries (surgeries that will improve your quality of life but if not done are not life threatening), general dental, obstetrics and they give you a private hospital room. For renal patients it means that the person who opens you up in surgey and does the surgery is one and the same (eg medicare... a Fellow will do the initial cut for surgery and prep. The professor will then perfom the surgey. The Fellow will then close you up.. I mention 'fellow' fully qualified surgeon, not a student.)
Also for Dialysis, we don't have that argument about, my hmo wont let me do this many hours of treatment or wont let me do this. We manage our own treatment, lenght, days etc.
It does have it's downfalls though, don't get me wrong. No system is perfect, you do wait ages for elective surgeries if you don't have private health insurance. The ER is sadly understaffed, Dr's and nurses are overworked, more Dr's become stupid GP's rather than actually having to get a speciality (but i'd rather them be a stupid GP than a bad surgeon!). But for when things go topsy turvey i'd hate to have to rely on a HMO to save me.
For the life of me, I can't understand why so many Americans are against Obama's health care reforms. It sounded like a good idea. From what i understood he isn't even planing on a government controlled health regime, he was talking about a fund for people to purchase health cover. But then, i'm guessing the ones who are most against it are those in a larger tax bracket who can afford to forkout when their HMO wont and then they poison the minds of the uneducated with scare tactis by calling him a commi or facist.
-
Every system has its problems.
8)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/12/2740763.htm
Dialysis emergency: ministers agree to talks
By David Coady
The West Australian and South Australian health ministers have confirmed they will attend an emergency meeting on Central Australian dialysis services this week.
The Northern Territory Government says 28 patients from interstate are currently receiving renal dialysis treatment in Alice Springs.
But the Territory health department stopped accepting new patients from other jurisdictions in February because resources are stretched.
The Territory Government says if interstate patients want to access services in the Territory, their own governnments should foot the entire bill for their treatment.
The chair of the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory, Stephanie Bell, says poor planning is to blame for the shortage of dialysis services.
"What's hampering efforts in terms of renal care is a lack of governments across the Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia simply not planning," she said.
"The lack of planning is at the expense of Aboriginal people's lives.
"And that's not acceptable."
Talks between the three jurisdictions are slated to take place tomorrow in Adelaide.
-
I , like you have been glued to the tube trying to understand why people are so against this healthcare bill. I am Canadian, and in many adds that I have seen , its compared to "The Canadian Healthcare" I love my health care... I have had bumps in the road I spoke up and got them fixed. I have looked into going to Missouri next spring and I don't have health care, but Nova Scotian Gov, will cover me because they want dialysis patients to have quality of life.
As far as I am concerned government is there to spend OUR money one education, infrastructure, education and defense . People you don't know what you are missing!
-
It all comes down to taxes. And most Americans are trying to figure out the whole healthcare bill also. I have great healthcare coverage. It is through my husband's work. He pays nothing for his and $200 a month for mine. All we pay are co-pays for doctors and medicines, usually $10 or $20. I know we are very fortunate. Others are not. I think there is a lot of misuse of the system. The doctors send you for an MRI for everything now. Use to be, if you got an MRI you knew you were really sick. We are overtested and a lot of that has to do with fear of malpractice suits. Uh-oh, I got on a roll!! Sorry! I think there are problems in every system. We hear horror stories from every country. And no one likes change. It will be interesting to see what evolves. I will step off my soap box now :rofl;
-
2 year wait time for a colonoscopy like in Canada. No thank you.
There are alot of reasons people are against this bill.
Some of which are.
The stealing of funds from medicare.
Mandatory premiums for abortion
Mandatory everyone buy insurance
Penalties of extra taxes and prison if they do not buy insurance.
Kinda goes against everything this country was founded on.
-
2 year wait time for a colonoscopy like in Canada. No thank you.
That has not been the experience of my husband, myself or anyone I know. Not even close.
-
:rant;
author=Zach
Every system has its problems.
I never said it didn't, i admitted there were problems in our system, just can't see why people are so under-treated in the richest country in the world and one man is trying to change it and getting ridiculed for it.
The West Australian and South Australian health ministers have confirmed they will attend an emergency meeting on Central Australian dialysis services this week.
The Northern Territory Government says 28 patients from interstate are currently receiving renal dialysis treatment in Alice Springs.
But the Territory health department stopped accepting new patients from other jurisdictions in February because resources are stretched.
The NT is not a state, it is funded directly by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth give each state a budget from which they are to provide healthcare etc for THEIR OWN residents. (if residents from other states travel for holidays that is sorted out no issues there). What these other two states (WA, SA) are doing is making their residents for whom they have recieved money for travel hundreds of KM's to get treatment in ANOTHER region (kind of like a phoenix resident travelling to Nevada for treatment) rather than providing adequate treatment for it's own people. It is the Health ministers being greedy. They are well funded states forcing the NT to fork out almost 2mil (and rising) in medical costs for residents of other states. Look at the map of Australia and you will see how far they are travelling to get to Alice Springs. If their Govts could be bothered they could be directed to local hospitals for treatment. By sending their own patients to NT for treatment they are stretching NT's resources beyond its funded capacity. SA and WA are funded to cope with their residents needs, NT is not. The WA and SA govts are basically stealing from their counterpart... that is a beauracratic problem.
The Territory Government says if interstate patients want to access services in the Territory, their own governnments should foot the entire bill for their treatment.
The chair of the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory, Stephanie Bell, says poor planning is to blame for the shortage of dialysis services.
"What's hampering efforts in terms of renal care is a lack of governments across the Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia simply not planning," she said.
"The lack of planning is at the expense of Aboriginal people's lives.
"And that's not acceptable."
Talks between the three jurisdictions are slated to take place tomorrow in Adelaide.
Now the money that the NT health dept is forking out to pay for the health care of other states patients could easily go to opening up much needed wings of their own hospitals, pay for the new HD unit to open. The Alice is the NT's 2nd largest city, yet their population doesn't even reach 30,000. It is a state pretty much the size (or bigger) then texas, with it's population spread out over a very inacessible and large area. They get less money becuase they have less population (the actual population density being 0.16person per square km). Having people travel from other states to acess their facilities is reducing the infastructure available to its own residents. Wouldn't your state kick up a stink if it had to start proving state funded infastructure to other states residents at their own cost? (actually in this case it would be like your poorest state providing infastructure to california at no cost to california). No govt would stand for it.
Basically, if the other patients decided to move to NT, then they would be accepted. If i travel to the NT and i book in, i would be accepted for HD, no cost. I could book into any centre in the country at no cost to me.
The states the people are coming from are well funded and generate their own income (Western Australia has a very rich government, they almost never became part of australia becuase they have the greatest ability to support themselve through mining and have the smallest population/landmass ratio). The NT isn't a state. It used to be part of SA but they handed control back to the Commonwealth Govt as it was too large an area with the smallest population (not any more though). The NT has a lot to pay for now with a lot of national heritage and world heritage sites to pay for. I honestly don't see why they should be forking out millions to treat patients when the patients governments are better funded and their treatment is included in their states budget.
Also the state of US natives isn't that great, in order to get half decent medical treatment they took it over for themselves. The US govt did little to support them.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2605
I still stand by my opinion. I don't see how trying to improve a healthcare regime makes obama a facist/commi. I've only ever heard the term 'free clinic' in relation to the US, at first i had no idea what that meant, i understand now. People who have no health cover dying becuase they can't afford to get health treatment in the ER. People getting shot, run etc and then declaring bankruptcy becuase they are alive????????
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
Access to an emergency room for uninsured patients does not qualify as access to coordinated care. While physicians are required to stabilize patients in an emergency, they are not required to treat the condition comprehensively. (from above article)
Read that and tell me you don't want some kind of health reform? Read it and tell me that all of your citizens (we wont even bring in permanent residents) have acess to basic healthcare needs. Tell me that the average citizen without cover can acess a GP. US patients have to APPLY for medicare. For me it is a birth right. I don't have medical insurance. We are looking at it becuase my hubby needs his teeth fixed, my son needs dental and i don't want to burden the public funded dental system too much, i mean the govt forks out heaps for me to have the quality of life i do. I pay a few hundred each year in tax to cover medicare
I'm not saying that the current proposal is the 'best' one on the table but, Obama is speaking of a fund to help ALL people have health insurance. It may not be the best way, but the beauty of a democracy is that YOU can speak up if you have a better way (honestly having worked in the insurance industry, can;t understand why you'd want those money hungry bastards running the most important infastructure in the country). Having more than 20% of the population (and rising) denied acess to basic medical treament becuse they are too poor to afford it is horrid, especially in the richest country in the world. The US spend more each year on military operations than medical care for its own people.
Anyway, that's my rant. As i said the current proposal may not be the best one but anything, any typ of funded healthcare/rebate that gives everyone the RIGHT to acess medical has to be better than one where only the rich and lucky get acess.
OH and by the way, $200 a month is way too expensive over here for hospital and medical coverage for an entire family! To be covered for myself, hubby and son (regardless of how many children it is the same premium for 1 or 6) it is $154 per month ($36 a week for family cover). We claim sports equipment, remedial massage, alternate medicines, eye care etc. The TOP cover for a family (again regardless of the size) with 100% free dental cover for kids under 18, hospital and extras is $200 per month.
So yeh no system is perfect, but when people die purely becuase they have NO acess to medical it is a poor state of affairs. The US needs to find a solution that suits it, OBama even said that. He stated Medicare like Canada/Australia or NHS like UK wouldn't suit the US but he's willing to try to rectify the situation. How long do some of you have to wait to get a fistula put in just becuase your HMO dones't like you choice of Dr or the hospital the DR works out of??????? I got mine in 2 weeks after I decided to have it done, at my hospital with the Dr I chose. I got a private room, a tv and when my fistula failed i called my nurse she called ahead to the hospital and i was admitted, in a bed within 5 minutes of walking through the door, the op was scheduled for the next day (would have been that day but i'd had lunch) and my fistula was saved! And no I didn't pay a cent! (all in all by the time i noticed my fistula failed to the time i was admitted, including driving time it was under 2 hours).
-
2 year wait time for a colonoscopy like in Canada. No thank you.
That has not been the experience of my husband, myself or anyone I know. Not even close.
As to the colonoscopy I was told this by a member of another board I am on. He is from Canada and was just given that wait time.
By one report in 2006 in five priority areas of medical care, the majority of them had a score range of 60-69% of the population meeting the goals set for treatment time.
Meaning 31-40% were not being treated within that period.
Sorry but that doesnt seem all timely to me.
Headline from the CBC News in 2007
Wait times for surgery in Canada at all-time high: study
Quote from the story.
"It's becoming clearer that Canada's current health-care system cannot meet the needs of Canadians in a timely and efficient manner, unless you consider access to a waiting list timely and efficient"-
Your Supreme Court said something similar in 2005.
"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care"
Sorry but from what I have read and my understanding of what they have said, is that there are problems with with wait times.
I guess your view and my view of what is a long wait are different.
-
2 year wait time for a colonoscopy like in Canada. No thank you.
This has never happened to me , my family or anyone I know, Why would we lie? mean really, why would we lie to fellow dialysis patients??? Whats in it for me to say I love my health care. Do you think Obama is cutting me a check to get you to change your mind?
-
I've got to say I have no problem paying my Australian taxes (even though they just sent me an assessment which is WRONG and I have to fight it !! :rofl;) when we get such a high level of care. Yes, there are rots, and people getting welfare who probably shouldn't(oh, a whole other "debate" I know) but our health system, despite it flaws (long waits for elective surgery, etc) does pretty well. We all get dialysis, with 0 reuse, and the govt spends $85k/year to keep us alive... plus supports home hemo, PD etc (ok, we don't have nxstage here, but I'm sure that will come in time). I basically pay zero upfront for dialysis, which also includes EPO shots, iron etc - hell they even throw in a cuppa each session. This stuff costs REAL money and I for one appreciate it (not to mention the staff training and all that as they ONLY use division 1 nurses for dialysis). My neph is one of the most senior specialists in the country and is head of medicine for one of the local universities. This bloke charges me $0 to see him (he just charges the medicare rate - no gap!). I mean that is awesome! I would happily pay to consult with him but he just won't. Amazing.
And then there was the situation with my mother. Short form of her story was she got a DVT on a flight from OZ to London in the 90's. The DVT travelled from her leg up to her lung/heart area and became what is known as a pulmanary(spelling?) embolism. It was such a bad state that nothing could be done for her here, and they gave her 5 years. Well then it was revealed that apparently docs at UCSD (San Diego) had a treatment for that kind of condition. So the govt forked out costs for my mother and sister to attend San Diego and undergo the operation (around $600,000 in costs). They said something like they would fund it because it was not something that could be provided in Australia but would be covered by them. Unfortunately once my mum got to the US and they had a closer look at her internals even they couldn't do anything for her and they returned home empty handed.. but OUR health system was willing to support one citizen to that sort of tune.. well that was amazing to us.
I do realise we have a much smaller population to deal with - but that also means a smaller pool to tax... however I think by and large we do pretty well at least health care wise.
-
2 year wait time for a colonoscopy like in Canada. No thank you.
This has never happened to me , my family or anyone I know, Why would we lie? mean really, why would we lie to fellow dialysis patients??? Whats in it for me to say I love my health care. Do you think Obama is cutting me a check to get you to change your mind?
Man you just love to try to start an argument......................
Sorry but your little red herring if you are lying are not is not the issue nor was it even suggested.
Just because it didnt happen to you personally or someone you know, doesnt mean it isnt happening.
Because wait times are happening, I give an example of a ultrasound with info pulled from the Manitoba site.
Mind you this time is after the average of 8 weeks to see the GP first in Manitoba.
Those waits listed may not seem excessive to you but they are to millions in the US.
-
Mandatory everyone buy insurance
Penalties of extra taxes and prison if they do not buy insurance.
Kinda goes against everything this country was founded on.
Do you have car insurance right now?
I thought so, it is mandatory or you get fined.
Have you fought against that?
-
Mandatory everyone buy insurance
Penalties of extra taxes and prison if they do not buy insurance.
Kinda goes against everything this country was founded on.
Do you have car insurance right now?
I thought so, it is mandatory or you get fined.
Have you fought against that?
Auto insurance is the most misused comparison.
Auto insurance only applies to those that drive a vehicle. Not the population as a whole. Also people only have to have liability auto insurance.
The basis of auto insurance (liability) is to protect others from damage you may cause them.
This is entirely different from health insurance.
To be equivalent it would need to be that everyone is mandated to carry full coverage auto insurance whether they had a vehicle or not.
Most are for having the industry reformed. But some serious questions needs addressed with these mandates and the high prices costs that are coming out of this bill.
-
P.S. I don't like to start fights, its my opinion, and it just so happens to be the complete opposite of yours!
-
If we are talking about auto/life insurance, you will really get my attention. I have 4 members of the family who all are agents for one of the largest insurance companies. Very successful agents. They are rewarded for selling more and more policies. Last year one of their bonuses was a week long Mediterranian cruise, all expenses paid. Every year they go on two major trips paid for by the company and 3 "small" trips. They literally have been around the world compliments of the company. Australia, Hong Kong, multiple trips to Europe. They just got back from Austria. Someone needs to blow the whistle on them. (even if they are family :rofl;) Seems like the same mess as the banks.
I think the everyday sales taxes is where there is a difference in the countries. I know when in London, it seemed like I wasn't paying sales tax,but then learned it was "built into" the price---something like 17%. You get a form, if you are traveling, that you can get a "refund" on those taxes if you aren't a ciitizen. If our system suddenly changed to that--everyone would flip out. We want it all, but don't raise our taxes to pay for it! Something needs to change, but no one wants to be the one effected. I, for one, would be glad to do my part if it helped everyone get fair health care. Oh Lord, why did I ever respond to this post :rofl; I don't like conflict.
-
Sorry BigSky - lies, damn lies and statistics.
Rest assured you tear up an ACL skiing you will have a wait, but you need a colonscopy, or some urgent treatment you will get it as fast in Canada as you would in the US. (Just to be fair, I will not ask how long it takes an inner city kid without gunshot wound to get an MRI through a GP in LA or Baltimore)
Anecdotally, I walked into an emergency ward and said "my doctor told me to come here cuz he thinks I am having a heart attact" and I was greeted by name -- Dr called ahead-- in a bed in under two minutes and test started. In the next three days there probably are no test, scans, or investigations that exist anywhere on Earth that did not take place. And the cost to me or my insurance plan -- zero.
Now our tax bill is higher but not if you add the average cost of medical insurance to a US tax bill.
But I am not argueing the Canadian system versus USA. I am asking about the US system, which many experts say will collapse under it's own cost, and is recognized for spending the most per capita but does not create the healthiest population. And with reform underway and efforts to provide coverage to everyone -- a kind of democratic and worthwhile goal -- I am intersted in people's thoughts.
-
Sorry but there was no reason for the individual to lie. He gains no benefit from lying in the matter.
(Just to be fair, I will not ask how long it takes an inner city kid without gunshot wound to get an MRI through a GP in LA or Baltimore)
Sorry but that is a sham question IMO.
In the US almost all gunshot wound victims go to see a ER doctor, not a GP. If one was going to a GP would indicate that it was not so severe that it needed an MRI in the first place.
You describe getting emergency treatment. Stuff that is a real emergency is supposed to be treated right away.
Of note I said nothing about emergency treatment. I am talking normal non emergency treatment times.
However to lump a colonoscopy into ER treatment, I dont think so. A colonoscopy for the most part is not an emergency treatment, however it should be a might damn faster than a 2 year wait for him.
Its misguided to compare what a country spends on heath care as being some indicator that should show a healthy population.
Now our tax bill is higher but not if you add the average cost of medical insurance to a US tax bill.
Yes but we spend money differently and the US gives hundreds of billions of dollars away each year.
The US spends billions of dollars more in health care in our country that is in fact used to subsidize the health care of other countries.
Sure their needs to be reform. However this bill is getting far away from just reform.
So far its $15,000 for the cheapest family plan. Not quite the reform people are looking for.
I might add I am not comparing our systems either.
However I am not buying that your system is all that great either and has plenty of its own problems and in fact is also collapsing under its own costs.
-
I really don't understand why people are not fighting for health care here in the US. I feel that we need it very badly. This stuff about wait times is b/s. What is your wait time for a test if you don't have insurance?
I don't think that the quality or presence of health care should be determined by your employer, and that's what happens in the US. Some companies have great health care and some
companies offer no health care. It just seems fundamentally unfair. It's only the greatest system in the world if you have insurance.
The media here paints the uninsured as deadbeats, and that's not the case. More and more companies are dropping heathcare because they can't afford it so the employees are just stuck. The new thing is to offer limited coverage plans. They seem great, but they cap benefit at $15,000 or $20,000 a year. That won't cover even a broken leg.
-
I am lucky to have insurance through work and also through my Husband, and all I'm saying is I'm glad to be havng my transplant before all this passes here
-
Bigsky - I don't usually enter into these forum opinion items such as health care but I can't let your comments about wait time go unchallenged. The wait time right now in the US is very long for certain things and if you don't have insurance your wait is not only long but in some cases you don't even get scheduled. I have anecdotal information of my own with friends with heart conditions that don't have insurance not getting the level of care that my husband received when he had a heart scare. They couldn't get him into testing fast enough. Yet my friend waits by the side until she is bad enough to go to an emergency room. That certainly isn't saving any money. I've had cancer and then I was a Reach for Recovery volunteer and I found then that the uninsured received a different level of care than I received. Again, not scientific but it opened my eyes about who gets service. My daughter is a social worker and she tells stories of the poor actually being discharged from the hospital with no follow up and no where to go. She used to work with the mentally impaired. If they had to go to the hopsital for a medical issue it was usually to the emergency room because the population she worked with didn't have insurance and at the end of the day they were dumped into taxis to ride off into the night to where? this was in Michael Moore's movie Sicko and I thought he was exaggerating but my daughter said she had seen that happen more than once. Why is that? They don't want to keep them overnight in the hospital because there is no insurance for them to pay for the overnight but if it were me - I would be able to stay overnight if necessary. And that just isn't right in this day and age.
Let us not forget that if you actually look at the evidence of the other country medical plans you will find that we are way down on the list for positive outcomes. So they must be doing something right.
I find it amazing that we are the only nation with private companies making big dollars off people being sick. Why is that?
I am favor of single-payer and we can't get it enacted fast enough. Just doing away with the paperchase for those of us with private insurance will save enough to pay for it. I heard one talk show say that the UK was the last country to enact single-payer and it was suggested the U.S. get all their reports, plan, and just start hacking away at enacting it. We gotta get this done.
Just my opinion.
-
Very well said Slywalker. I agree completely. The bottom line in the US is the ability to pay. The US system provides a two tier medical service which in itself is not only immoral but is a denial of what I believe to a basic human right. The right of all citizens of a modern western democracy especially the richest and most powerful nation in the world to be treated under one criteria only. That of need rather than the size of bank account.
Why do some Americans, and some in very influential positions run a mile when the word 'social' is mentioned? Is there still some lingering hangover of McCarthyism going on here, that paranoid delusion that anything labeled 'social' will send the USA onto a helter skelter into an all out communist state?
As a civilized nation social justice cannot be separated from health care.
The UK NHS is not perfect and there are problems where the resources spent for various treatments can vary depending on which NHS trust serves your area but at least if your finances are limited you will get the same quality treatment and care as anyone else using it and be none the poorer for it.
-
The wait time right now in the US is very long for certain things and if you don't have insurance your wait is not only long but in some cases you don't even get scheduled.
Yet our wait times are still considerably shorter.
Dems are merely using the "uninsured" as their scapegoat for their political means. This is why this bill goes far past mere reform.
The idea of masses of uninsured is a farce.
The claim is 47 million. Subtract out illegals and those who can afford to buy insurance but chose not to do so and the number drops to roughly 22 million people.
Which means less than 9% of the American People are truly without insurance. Yet that 9% still does have access to health care even if it is not as good as the insured and may not be in a timely manner.
So forgive me if I and millions of others do not want to jump on board of a system that your advocating that when translated to the US very well may take us from 22 million without medical care in a timely manner to upwards of 112 million not getting medical care in a timely manner.
Why do some Americans, and some in very influential positions run a mile when the word 'social' is mentioned? Is there still some lingering hangover of McCarthyism going on here, that paranoid delusion that anything labeled 'social' will send the USA onto a helter skelter into an all out communist state?
Has nothing to do with McCarthysim. It has to do with we are founded as a Constitutional Republic and the government needs to act as such. Instead we have one particular party trying to push us into being an oligarchy.
-
The wait time right now in the US is very long for certain things and if you don't have insurance your wait is not only long but in some cases you don't even get scheduled.
Yet our wait times are still considerably shorter.
Dems are merely using the "uninsured" as their scapegoat for their political means. This is why this bill goes far past mere reform.
The idea of masses of uninsured is a farce.
The claim is 47 million. Subtract out illegals and those who can afford to buy insurance but chose not to do so and the number drops to roughly 22 million people.
Which means less than 9% of the American People are truly without insurance. Yet that 9% still does have access to health care even if it is not as good as the insured and may not be in a timely manner.
So forgive me if I and millions of others do not want to jump on board of a system that your advocating that when translated to the US very well may take us from 22 million without medical care in a timely manner to upwards of 112 million not getting medical care in a timely manner.
Why do some Americans, and some in very influential positions run a mile when the word 'social' is mentioned? Is there still some lingering hangover of McCarthyism going on here, that paranoid delusion that anything labeled 'social' will send the USA onto a helter skelter into an all out communist state?
Has nothing to do with McCarthysim. It has to do with we are founded as a Constitutional Republic and the government needs to act as such. Instead we have one particular party trying to push us into being an oligarchy.
Dems are merely using the "uninsured" as their scapegoat for their political means. This is why this bill goes far past mere reform.
Has nothing to do with McCarthysim. It has to do with we are founded as a Constitutional Republic and the government needs to act as such. Instead we have one particular party trying to push us into being an oligarchy.
BigSky aren't you guilty of doing a similar thing in citing the Constitution as a means to oppose health reform?
The notion that one social act of government is going to push the nation into an obliarchy is hysterical rubbish and you know it. It just answers the question I raised in my last post.
The claim is 47 million. Subtract out illegals and those who can afford to buy insurance but chose not to do so and the number drops to roughly 22 million people.
Leaving aside the appalling and inhumane suggestion that illegal immigrants should be denied health care (presumably be left to die on the streets er Hello! they are still Human Beings!) in the UK National Insurance is deducted from wages at source by the employer in the same way as income tax and those who are unemployed get their insurance paid by welfare benefit. If this is the system your government proposes then the problem of the ones who can afford to pay but don't is solved.
Which means less than 9% of the American People are truly without insurance. Yet that 9% still does have access to health care even if it is not as good as the insured and may not be in a timely manner.
Oh so that's OK is it. 22 million people treated as second class citizens in health care just because they can't afford to pay.
In the final analysis it's not about the constitution or an obliarchic state is it. Its about about maintaining the status quo so that you and millions of others keep your priviliged payed for place in the pecking order at the expense of others less fortunate. God forbid that you should have to join the 112 million of the hoi perloi in the line for health care.
The whole basis of your argument is as dishonest as it is fatuous and is just an attempt to hide your hidden selfish and shameful agenda.
-
Why is "socialism" used when describing a single-payer health system when it is not used for our public run schools, police, fire protection and other public services offered by the government (state and/or federal).
Just wondering...............................
-
That's what i was trying to say earlier, why was letterman basically calling Obama a commi becuase of his health plan. 22 Million people without health cover.... that is the whole Australian population. If you were one of those 22 mill who couldnt afford health cover would you think it was fair?
Forget your own situation, we can always deal with ourselves. What if you couldn't afford health cover and your work didn't provide it, you weren't eligable for medicare and your CHILD got sick, what if they got chronically sick. How would you cope, would you still think the system was fair if your child was one of those 9%. I'm not American but i have a fair enough of an idea to udnerstand that you use the medical system and you have to pay for it (unless you can acess a 'free clinic').
Don't forget your situation can change in a heartbeat. You can go from being top dog to underfoot in a matter of moments, wouldn't you like to know you were going to be cared for in any event? Out here we pay a medicare levy in our taxes, we pay around 100-200 per month for family private health cover. If you don't have health cover and you are above a certain threshold then you incur a surcharge on your tax.
-
BigSky aren't you guilty of doing a similar thing in citing the Constitution as a means to oppose health reform?
The notion that one social act of government is going to push the nation into an obliarchy is hysterical rubbish and you know it. It just answers the question I raised in my last post.
Not at all.
Our government was founded as a Constitutional Republic and as such its not playing politics demanding they stay within the confines of that Constitutional Republic especially when this bill goes far past health care reform.
I never said anything about one social act. You should feel ashamed and embarrassed for trying to take it out of context.
Leaving aside the appalling and inhumane suggestion that illegal immigrants should be denied health care (presumably be left to die on the streets er Hello! they are still Human Beings!) in the UK National Insurance is deducted from wages at source by the employer in the same way as income tax and those who are unemployed get their insurance paid by welfare benefit. If this is the system your government proposes then the problem of the ones who can afford to pay but don't is solved.
It's appalling and inhumane? Really.......then you can start sending $1200 a month to the US to take care of these illegals. What not going to send it? Whoops not so appalling and inhumane now is it if you are the one being asked to be stuck with the bill.
Illegals are not citizens of this country, but are in fact criminals. Illegals cannot work here legally, so they are not paying taxes. In order for them to work and have taxes deducted from wages they had to commit identity theft and use someone SS number.
It maybe different in your country, but in the US it goes that criminals are not suppose to benefit from their crimes.
Oh so that's OK is it. 22 million people treated as second class citizens in health care just because they can't afford to pay.
Ohh but is so bright to think we should add 100 million more to those ranks.
In the final analysis it's not about the constitution or an obliarchic state is it. Its about about maintaining the status quo so that you and millions of others keep your priviliged payed for place in the pecking order at the expense of others less fortunate. God forbid that you should have to join the 112 million of the hoi perloi in the line for health care.
The only way to get that analysis is if you lack the understanding of our founding system of government and how it operates today.
This liberal idea of yours that since the system isnt perfect for everyone, so we should really f*** it up for everyone is asinine at best.
Our Constitution can be changed. It clearly outlines the process to change it. Instead we have a government ignoring its limitations of operation
The whole basis of your argument is as dishonest as it is fatuous and is just an attempt to hide your hidden selfish and shameful agenda.
Ahh breaking out the ad hominem attacks.
Typical of a liberal.
Funny how you think we should take on your busted ass system that isnt fairing any better in treatment or coverage for the people.
Sure most agree there needs to be reform and that everyone should have coverage.
But really now.... is it too much to ask that the government does it within the confines of its powers as by the Constitution. Is that really too much to ask?
-
Why is "socialism" used when describing a single-payer health system when it is not used for our public run schools, police, fire protection and other public services offered by the government (state and/or federal).
Just wondering...............................
States have more rights to operate than the Federal government does. IE the 10 th Amendment.
-
Sorry can a moderator please delete this post. Lost it when sending Thanks I will redo it tonight
-
The UK NHS is not perfect and there are problems where the resources spent for various treatments can vary depending on which NHS trust serves your area but at least if your finances are limited you will get the same quality treatment and care as anyone else using it and be none the poorer for it.
Not true. If you are unlucky enough to suffer from a very rare genetically inherited disease
(Lupus/SLE/MCTD with very rare genetically inherited components in my case)
and if this disease causes you ESRF, you might not be able
to find any NHS-GP/specialist/rheumatologist/nephrologist to medically treat you
and you might find youself in the same situation as I find myself:
no NHS-medical care at all, no NHS-doctor to go to for medical help.
I have read that some NHS-GP's have up to three thousands NHS-patients registered with them in their NHS-Surgery
(they get paid by the Health Authority for every NHS-patient registered with them...)
... and in my experience NHS-GP's do not have the time/are not interested to take on NHS-patients like myself
who are suffering from a chronic rare genetically inherited diseases.
NHS Health Authorities are not interested to assist rare cases like myself either,
because rare cases do not have a voice in the NHS-system.
That is why I am left without any NHS-GP/specialist/nephrologist to go to...
...and privately paid blood tests show (no NHS-blood tests for me), that my kidneys only work 10% now.
Where is the humanity there, I wonder?
-
It does not cost more, it provides at least the equivalent care to those that have healthcare now, and it covers everyone. How can a single payer, Government system not be the better?
I know I said I did not have a position but BigSky made me mad. Don't take me too seriously, I am on allot of presidone, free predisone, but steroids nonetheless.
-
It does not cost more, it provides at least the equivalent care to those that have healthcare now, and it covers everyone. How can a single payer, Government system not be the better?
I know I said I did not have a position but BigSky made me mad. Don't take me too seriously, I am on allot of presidone, free predisone, but steroids nonetheless.
Oh please.
If it wasnt going to cost anymore there would be no need to force the 20 million people now who choose not to buy coverage into paying for coverage, not to mention the increased taxes Congress wants to enact to pay for it along with the 500 million obama wants to steal from medicare.
-
Can there not be a compromise, no one is saying the Canadian way, Aussie way or the UK was is perfect, we are just saying IT WORKS FOR US. Is there not some other way the U.S could take care of its people while still working with in its consitituion/prinicples?
From my understanding the U.S system is the exact opposite to the Australian system. For Aussies healthcare is very affordable and it SUPPORTS the MEDICARE system. For the U.S health insurance is abismally high and MEDICARE supports it where it's cover isn't adequate. Our system is that under our constitution the federal govt controls the money but the states control individual healthcare systems. It isn't perfect but it does work FOR US. We are used to it so it seems quite simple for us. Yeh low population density areas sometimes are under funded or over used but each govt is trying to work out that as well but that isn't to say they are without medical becuase they aren't there are hospital they are very stretched though. Country people often travel to Sydney for treatment. But i'm sure over in the U.S country people have to travel for medical as well. I'm guessing that in the less populated regions of oh say Texas some people have to travel to major cities for treatment becuase the hospital in their area is in adequate/smaller than the larger city hospital. (i used Texas becuase in a country that is almost equal in size to the U.S we only have 6 states and 2 territories plus a few outlying islands so our states have a much larger area to cover with population density being higher at the coastal regions. Once you go over the mountains (on the east coast) population starts to dwindle off as it gets drier and drier).
-
From my understanding the U.S system is the exact opposite to the Australian system. For Aussies healthcare is very affordable and it SUPPORTS the MEDICARE system. For the U.S health insurance is abysmally high and MEDICARE supports it where it's cover isn't adequate.
In the US "Medicare" is the existing government run health insurance which is mandatory for people over 65. The reimbursement rates paid to the physicians and to the hospitals from Medicare are much lower than those of private insurers. Hence, those who are paying for private insurance are subsidizing the government plan. In the proposed US Health care reform there is a proposed cut of some $5 to 6 hundred billion dollars in the Medicare budget to pay for the proposed system. The Medicare system is so poorly funded now that it is projected to bankrupt in less than five years.
If you are covered only by US Medicare there are many doctors who will not take you as a patient. Therefore to ensure access to health care, one must purchase a "medicare gap" type coverage from a private insurer. With the additional cuts in Medicare being proposed to pay for the "reforms" in the private system this problem will made worse not better.
So the projections are that the proposed changes will result in higher insurance premiums, higher taxes, and less access to quality health care for 85% of the US citizens.
As far as the US being a "rich" nation, the US government is over $12 trillion in debt with an annual operating deficit exceeding 1.5 trillion in this year alone. In the next ten years our national debt will likely double because of the huge government operating deficits. This debt is presently being financed by people around the world in China, India, and other countries. The US dollar is experiencing a significant decline in value against other currencies and against gold as the US dollar printing press rolls merilly along.
The financial mismanagement of the US, if left unchecked, could bring down the entire world's economy.
-
My god is that true, i remember when the Aussie dollar was 60c U.S, now it's floating between 80-90c i think it hit as high as mid 90's last year. Talk about bad governments, before this d**K head PM Rudd we have now we were in the black, the last PM, howard (smart, but not everyone liked him, i'm a liberal all the way so i voted for him, not the jerk in now who flees the country everytime things get hot) anyway, howard had our budget in the black, now it's been what, 12 motnhs and were in billions of debt and Rudd expects us to pay for it. Howard and Costello (his treasurer) also had 64 billion put away in a future fund, guess what Rudd wanted to raid it the moment he came into office, havent heard much about it now, they have been real quiet, he wanted to pull it out and use it to upgrade the internet????? jerk or what?
But there has to be some resolution to the problem, i can understand why people are angry that it will take away from medicare but there has to be a way for the U.S people to come up with something and say enough is enough. People say the U.S is the richest becuase it has the largest trading budget of all countries, the largest tax income etc. the Aussie budget probable wouldn't run New York but even this idiot PM project we'll be out of debt again in 5 years (so long as we the people pay back the stimulus packages through our tax!!!).
But i still don't think that Obama is a commi for trying to fix it, perhaps he isn't going about it the right way but he is trying, and he come across as a very intelligent man so i'm scratching my head, there has to be a better way. It's obvious our way WILL NOT work in the U.S it doens't fit into the principles of your country but you have to admit there is something that could/should be done!
-
The Medicare system is so poorly funded now that it is projected to bankrupt in less than five years.
This seems a makeup statement to me. Would you please give out a source to support it. It does not do any good to debate the healthcare reform when using false statements.
Edited: Fixed quote tag error - okarol/admin
-
Thanks for fixing tag
Edited: Fixed quote tag error - okarol/admin[/b]
-
Jie,
Try using your search engine before concluding something is true or false. There are numerous sources available on this topic. Type in Medicare Trustees Report.
-
OK. Here is the 2009 Medicare Trustees Report:
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2009.pdf
I copied Table 4 here for Medicare historical numbers and 10-year projection. It is clear that Medicare has the record asset just ending in 2008, the most recent year. During the most recent 5 years, Medicare has 102.1 billion dollars of surplus. It is projected, without any healthcare reform or medicare changes, the taking in money will be less than the expenditures starting in 2009. However, the Medicare is still projected to have US$93.1 billions 10 years in the future.
Table V.E4.—Total Medicare Income, Expenditures, and Trust Fund Assets during Fiscal Years 1970-2018
[In billions]
Fiscal year Total income Total expenditures Net change in assets Assets at end of year
Historical data:
1970 $7.5 $7.1 $0.3 $2.7
1975 16.9 14.8 2.1 11.3
1980 35.7 35.0 0.7 19.0
1985 75.5 71.4 4.1 31.9
1990 125.7 109.7 16.0 110.2
1995 173.0 180.1 −7.1 143.4
2000 248.9 219.3 29.6 214.0
2001 266.3 241.2 25.2 239.2
2002 285.5 256.9 28.6 267.8
2003 286.0 277.8 8.2 275.9
2004 307.6 301.5 6.1 282.1
2005 349.4 336.9 12.5 294.6
2006 422.3 380.5 41.8 336.4
2007 457.1 434.8 22.2 358.7
2008 474.6 455.1 19.5 378.1
Intermediate estimates:
2009 489.6 499.8 −10.3 367.9
2010 512.9 521.3 −8.4 359.4
2011 547.8 555.7 −7.9 351.5
2012 585.3 567.6 17.7 369.2
2013 623.7 622.8 0.9 370.1
2014 652.1 691.0 −38.9 331.2
2015 680.3 713.9 −33.6 297.5
2016 724.8 791.4 −66.5 231.0
2017 766.3 836.0 −69.7 161.3
2018 814.7 882.9 −68.2 93.1
Note: Totals do not necessarily equal the sums of rounded components
Now, please show your source that the medicare is "projected to bankrupt in less than five years".
-
Now that you have reviewed the numbers, does there appear to be a "surplus" of $500 billion in Medicare to "cut" to fund the health care reform costs being proposed?
The numbers in the table are based on the assumption of continuing AS IS. That is, no cuts to funding and a continuation of the underfunded doctor reimbursement rates. These underfunded rates have been "fixed" by congress on an annual basis since 2003 and is proposed to be fixed for the next ten years in a separate bill from the health care reform bill called the doctor fix. This fix is projected to cost the Medicare Fund an additional $250 billion over the next ten years.
-
The table means nothing because it is combining all assets that Medicare controls. Part A will be broke and Parts B and D cannot be used to pay for Part A.
Reading the reports own highlight section gives the very grim picture of Medicare.
The HI trust fund is not adequately financed over the next 10 years. At the beginning of 2009 the assets of the HI trust fund were $321 billion and are projected to be exhausted during 2017, under the intermediate assumptions. The HI trust fund does not meet the short-range test of financial adequacy. Although the short-range financial status of the HI trust fund has not been considered satisfactory since 2003, the outlook has further deteriorated as a result of the current economic recession.
The SMI trust fund is adequately financed over the next 10 years and beyond because premium and general revenue income for Parts B and D are reset each year to match expected costs. However, further Congressional overrides of scheduled physician fee reductions, together with an existing “hold harmless” provision restricting premium increases for most beneficiaries, could jeopardize Part B solvency and require unusual measures to avoid asset depletion. Part B costs have been increasing rapidly, having averaged 7.8 percent annual growth over the last 5 years, and are likely to continue doing so. Under current law, an average annual growth rate of 5.5 percent is projected for the next 5 years. This rate is unrealistically constrained due to multiple years of physician fee reductions that would occur under current law, including a scheduled reduction of 21.5 percent for 2010. If Congress continues to override these reductions, as they have for 2003 through 2009, the Part B growth rate would instead average roughly 8.5 to 9.0 percent. For Part D, the average annual increase in expenditures is estimated to be 11.1 percent through 2018. The U.S. economy is projected to grow
by 4.5 percent on average during this period, significantly more slowly than either Part B or Part D.
-
I must confess that I do not know the fine details of this entire US healthcare debate, but I do know that I find it absolutely horrible to think that (a) some people have had to declare bankruptcy or sell their homes, etc., because of hospital bills, (b) people are refused at hospitals, even in an emergency situation, because they don't have insurance or the ready cash.
Why I can't understand that is because I am from a developing country, and no one has to pay for medical treatment, unless they want to. I admit that going public does mean longer waits, but at least no one is denied medical treatment because of their financial situation.
Don't you have public education along with private education in the US? Why not public healthcare along with private healthcare?
-
It is no doubt that Medicare and Social Security will need to be fixed when the baby boomers retire. Healthcare reform is part of the efforts. More have to be done. One age delay for Medicare and Social Security will save us a few years, or a slightly increase of tax rate will help too. If the "Death Panels" thing can be implemeted effectively, it will save a lot of money too. Just think how much money was wasted for the FL lady!
As the 500 billion dollars saving from Medicare, it is the combination of reductions in Medicare’s payment rates in the fee-for-service sector and reining in the popular Medicare Advantage program. If these cuts work as the way it is planned for, it should not affect the Medicare projection. Medicare’s Part A Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted by 2017 without heathcare reform. With Healthcare reform, the White House projected it to extend for another 7 years. No matter what arguments are used, it is a false statement to say the Medicare is "projected to bankrupt in less than five years". I am sure Medicare will be here 5 years from now and will be here for a much longer time.
As the Healthcare reform, I can see the pitfalls of arguments of both sides. Dem. forget the minus sides, and Repu. forget the plus sides. No one can exactly figure out the net effects on private insurance premiums. For example, how much the cut from Medicare would pass to private insurances, how much the removal of pre-existing conditions affects the premiums, how much the reduction of uncollectable debts due to less uninsuranced would help private insurance premiums, how much the competition from the public option or Co-Op would reduce the premiums, and whether the increase of patients would result in lower prices. This creates a lot of uncertainty. Many things may need to change over time to make it work and control the cost. All I know is that the status quo is not sustainable, and something must be done. I wish both parties can work together to make it happen. Unfortuantely, politicians do not operate this way. GOP had its chance during the Bush 8 years and now it is the chance of Dem.
-
That's what we have in Australia, Dad got his hip replacement done under the private sector using his health insurance. Rather than wait the 2 years to get it done in the public hospital he went to hills private and had it done as soon as he could afford time off work.
I must confess that I do not know the fine details of this entire US healthcare debate, but I do know that I find it absolutely horrible to think that (a) some people have had to declare bankruptcy or sell their homes, etc., because of hospital bills, (b) people are refused at hospitals, even in an emergency situation, because they don't have insurance or the ready cash.
Why I can't understand that is because I am from a developing country, and no one has to pay for medical treatment, unless they want to. I admit that going public does mean longer waits, but at least no one is denied medical treatment because of their financial situation.
Don't you have public education along with private education in the US? Why not public healthcare along with private healthcare?
-
As the 500 billion dollars saving from Medicare, it is the combination of reductions in Medicare’s payment rates in the fee-for-service sector and reining in the popular Medicare Advantage program. If these cuts work as the way it is planned for, it should not affect the Medicare projection. Medicare’s Part A Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted by 2017 without heathcare reform. With Healthcare reform, the White House projected it to extend for another 7 years. No matter what arguments are used, it is a false statement to say the Medicare is "projected to bankrupt in less than five years". I am sure Medicare will be here 5 years from now and will be here for a much longer time.
That extra 7 years is most likely another fabrication by the WH. Not going to happen because of these implementations.
Obama uses the figure of 47 million uninsured people and they claim its only going to cost less than a trillion dollars over ten years to insure them. Other words 100 billion a year (His number is including illegals, which causes many other political problems)
Compare that to Canada who has less people, with roughly 33 million and spends just over 181 billion this year.
So in ten years Canada with cost increases is looking at most likely nearly 2 trillion dollars for its program.
The US is going to insure nearly 1.5 times the people for half the money?
Medicare will only be around because Congress will have to pull money from another area to fund it or raise taxes considerably.
Otherwise they run the risk of revolt and worse happening to them as people do not like being taxed for days, months, years, decades and the government then to turn around and say "ahh shucks were not providing you your promised insurance after a lifetime of paying for it".
Jenny
There are many reasons people do not want this bill.
You say yours is affordable. Which it is from what I have read on the net about it. The net lists 1.5% of wages. Then 1% more if one makes over a certain amount.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the rate in the US will be 17%-20% of pre tax wages.
-
I forgot to add that in my country there is a 1% Health Levy on income.
-
We have the madicare levy added to tax plus a loading if your over 30 and don't have health cover.
-
If you have a fire in your kitchen do you tear down the whole house and rebuild or just repair the fire damaged kitchen.
The vast majority of Americans some say as many as 83+% are very happy with there insurance. So why are we looking to revamp the whole system for 20% of the people?
Of the people that are NOT COVERD many are young people who CHOOSE not to be coverd on there own accord. So they truly shouldn't even be counted in the stats as uncovered they just dint want to pay the 30/40 dollars a paycheck to recv. insurance.
So the almighty want to spend over a trillion dollars to make the system even slower and longer and on top of it this wont cover everyone like Obamacare is suppose to.
So for about a quarter(likely much less) of what the govt. wants to spend we could insure the people who are uninsured and thus everyone would be insured and the MAJORITY of the people would be and stay happy.
Lets also remember this is America and anything the govt. touches goes WAY OVER in actual costs. IE. SS Medicare Post office ect ect.
And just recently a major discovery was made. breast cancer isn't really that big a deal. They dint want to check patients as often as we do. They are now even saying there is no need to teach young ladies how to do a self breast examine. So rationing has started before the plan has even begun. And the great wise people who decided breast cancer screening isn't truly needed until certain ages?? Well none of them are cancer specialist. So we will have panels of people some with NO MEDICAL BACKGROUND AT ALL dictating what people do and dint need.
And maybe just maybe doctors in America wouldn't order so many tests if they couldn't be SUED out of there practice. Malpractice reform is MUCH needed but the laweys like Obama wont even talk think or consider reform which is one of the biggest reasons for out of control pricing.
I have said over and over as have so many Americans we truly need to revamp the healthcare in America. But so many of us fear letting Govt. be in total control. Some people like big govt. But so many more want govt out of our lives and to do what they are suppose to do. What the constitution states they should do. But hey the constitution is little more then a piece of paper that gets trampled on on a daily basis.
:twocents;
-
But hey the constitution is little more then a piece of paper that gets trampled on on a daily basis.
Don't think you'd be better off with a constitution like the UK's. That's not even a piece of paper; it's not written. ::)
The US healthcare cost per capita is twice that of the UK, yet only some of the population get the full benefit. For them, it's the best healthcare in the world, but so it should be in view of the cost. I'm sure reform could produce considerable improvements, especially regarding administrative costs. It's unfortunate that the only alternatives being suggested are other countries' systems, non of which are as good as the USA's best. The reform should be aimed at retaining the best quality and extending the benefits to the whole population.
I would like to be able to say to out National Health Service that they should follow the US system, because it's better. Unhappily it's worse (overall) so I have to continue to put up with our NHS.
-
If one wants to see US government run health care just look at Indian Health Services. You will see just how bad it is.
-
Gosh! I never realised that you had a separate health service for American Indians. Why is it different from everyone else?
-
In treaties with various Indian tribes they were provided with health care and is given to all recognized tribes.
So most reservations have health care provided or funded by the US government on their reservations.
Even off the reservation in some areas there are IHS funded Indian Clinics to provide some basic needs.
However Indians are free to use the same system as anyone else if they wish, they just have to pay for it like everyone else.
-
I was not sure where to put this thought: News Article (Te: UK outrage...) or Healthcare Reform?
Here it is:
Many NHS/GP’s/doctors/specialist do not appear as if they respect
NHS-patients and they use them as guinea-pigs without consideration.
I have been trying very hard to find a rheumatologist/nephrologist who can
medically stop my Lupus/SLE-flare-up destroying my kidneys (kidney-function ~10%).
Some of the specialists I have contacted (in other countries) informed me, that
they were assured by NHS-authorities that I am being medically cared for under the NHS.
That is not true, I have not seen a NHS-GP for almost 6 years
& I am under no NHS-specialist/rheumatologist/nephrologist.
In fact, I have not been informed by any NHS-doctor about dialysis, transplant etc. or anything else.
Furthermore, a medical letter (11th April 2005) states, no NHS-specialist with medical expertise/experience
can be found in the UK to treat my Lupus/SLE/MCTD. In other words, the letter states clearly that
I have no medical treatment because there is no medical expertise under the NHS to treat my Lupus/SLE/MCTD.
Why are specialists in other countries, who are willing to help me medically,
told that I am medically cared for under the NHS when the truth is
that I have no NHS-medical care and no NHS-GP/doctor/rheumatologist/nephrologist to go to?
-
Find out from those doctors in another country whom they talked to with NHS. From there confront that person within NHS and tell boldly ask them why they are telling the doctors in other countries saying you are being treated when in fact you have a letter from NHS stating you are not in fact being treated because there is no medical expertise under the NHS system to treat you and in fact you havent been able to get treatment in the past 6 years.
If anything contact another doctor out of country, tell them of the problems and forward a copy of the letter about not being able to get treatment but that NHS openly lies to outside doctors telling them you are being treated.
-
I always include a copy of the medical letter (dated 11th April 2005) which states there is no medical expertise in the UK-NHS to treat my SLE/MCTD. My application is to receive health-care & treatment to stop my SLE/MCTD-flare-up destroying my kidneys further. My kidney function is only 10% now.
This letter of 11th April 2005 is vitally important, because the NHS-Medical-Chairman of my District NHS-Health-Authority (who happens to be the NHS-GP with whom I am registered with & whom I have not seen for almost 6 years now...no other NHS-GP in my district lets me register with them...) explains very clearly, that I do NOT receive NHS-medical care and it explains a lack of expertise/experience to treat my Lupus/SLE/MCTD in the UK; this letter of 11th April 2005 also explains, why my Lupus/SLE/MCTD was NOT diagnosed in the UK in the first place.
This letter of 11th April 2005 is backed up by a proceeding letter (30th March 2005) by Professor L.T. Gilmore formerly of the Royal College of Physicians, that “it looks as if all avenues have been explored” for me to receive NHS-health-care in the UK.
No solicitor/lawyer in the UK takes my case.
I have been told on the phone on 4th November 2003 by Ms Lee Morris (Personal Secretary to Sir Liam Joseph Donaldson) that the NHS-GP with whom I am registered with, informs people, who enquire about my well-being, that he provides me with NHS-medical care. Not true. This NHS-GP also tells people that he gives me regular check-ups on the NHS. Not true. I have not been to his NHS-Surgery for almost 6 years. This NHS-GP is also the NHS-Chief Medical Adviser to my NHS-Health-Authority and no other NHS-GP in the district lets me register with them. I am registered under the NHS with the Chief Medical Adviser to my Health Authority (PCT) & do not receive NHS-health-care in my ESRF. Unfortunately no one challenges this NHS-GP’s misleading statements.
I have read that some NHS-GP’s have up to three thousand NHS-patients registered with them in their NHS-Surgery. They get paid by the Health-Authority (& government) for every NHS-patient who is REGISTERED with them...but no one checks-up whether these registered NHS-patients do receive NHS-health-care. It is my experience that NHS-GP’s/doctors/specialists do not take the time/are not medically interested to medically care for NHS-patient with a rare, chronic, genetically inherited disease (in my case Lupus-SLE/MCTD with very rare components).
... It is very easy for NHS-GP’s/doctors to behave in an abusive manner towards a NHS-patient like myself. I already have been totally traumatized by past experiences of medical negligence, medical catastrophies, very abusing NHS-GP’s/doctors etc.
NHS-GP’s/doctors “only” have to behave in an abusive manner towards me to make sure I would never ever enter their NHS-Surgery again. They get paid by the NHS annually to have me registered with them, whilst doing nothing medically for me and no one cares. To back themselves up they “only” have to send me by post a letter like the one from 11th April 2005, stating there is no medical expertise in the UK-NHS to treat my SLE/MCTD.
There is no NHS-authority to investigate and no solicitor/lawyer takes my case.
Because of my first kidney failure in 1971, I have been registered with “the best NHS-nephrologists” in London from 1980-1995. None of them investigated my medical symptoms or my ill-health, and that is why my SLE/MCTD was not diagnosed in the UK despite the fact that these NHS-nephrologists knew how I suffered: kidney failure in 1971, ten years later cerebral haemorrhages, chron. osteomyelitis and in 1991 the stroke. It never occurred to these NHS-nephrologists that there was a medical reason for my ill-health and medical catastrophies at a very young age. I suffered because I had no NHS-medical care when I needed it.
I was told by Sara, on Friday, 5th September 2003, on her very last day of work at my NHS-Health Authority (PCT) in London, (before she returned to Australia), that it was well known I was being discriminated against, and NHS-PCT-Chief Executive Paul Haigh knew about it. (I do not comprehend, why he should have an interest in me being discriminated against, but that is what Sara told me). She also told me on the phone it was well known that I was being sent to useless NHS-medical-appointments, so that it appeared as if I was receiving NHS-health care, but it was known these appointments were of no medical value to me whatsoever. She told me she felt sorry for me. That was on the 5th September 2003. If I can locate Sara and if she is willing to testify there is still no solicitor/lawyer in the UK to take my case. The NHS does not seem to tolerate criticism & there is no lawyer in the country to fight for the human rights of a NHS-patient in ESRF to receive medical care.
On 23rd September 2003 I received a letter from Miss Lee Morris, Personal Secretary to Sir Liam Joseph Donaldson, NHS-UK-Chief, informing me that my “difficulties to receive healthcare are being investigated” and that my NHS-Health Authority is aware that Sir Liam Joseph Donaldson has an interest in the outcome of the investigation. To my knowledge nothing was ever investigated and I know of no outcome except that I am in a Lupus/SLE-flare-up causing my ESRF, without NHS-medical care and without any NHS-GP/specialist/rheumatologist/nephrologist to go to, but with a letter of 11th April 2005 confirming there is no NHS-specialist with medical expertise/experience to be found in the UK to treat me.
When I complained about dirty NHS-Hospital rooms, useless NHS-appointments, men & women-patients cluttered in the same NHS-Hospital room in their beds without any dignity, abusing NHS-GP’s, abusing NHS-doctors, drunken NHS-doctors, bad NHS-health service, No NHS-GP/specialist for medical NHS-care for over 13 months after suffering a stroke, abuse before suffering a stroke, terrible abuse whilst in Hospital with the stroke, no NHS-health-service, no NHS-stroke-rehabilitation, no NHS-information about dialysis or transplant in my current ESRF, no NHS-nephrologist to go to in my ESRF, no SLE/MCTD specialist who could try to stop my SLE/flare-up destroying my kidneys further etc, no NHS-eye-specialist, no NHS-gynaecological examination for over 7 years, etc... I am always told that on the NHS “you pay nothing ... therefore: you expect nothing and get nothing...” and “there is no such thing as a free lunch...”
My very serious complaints have been “investigated” by Ombuds”man” Ms Abraham, Health-Care Commissioner Miss Warner, Miss Sally Taber and many others, stating that they cannot find fault with the medical and personal abuse on my person through the NHS. How can I possibly put my trust into such a health-service?
I have tried to ask private health Insurances for help, but – even if I would be able to afford it now - because of my terrible health history (first kidney failure when just over 17 years old, ten years later cerebral haemorrhages, then in 1987 chronic osteomyelitis, a stroke in 1991 and now ESRF), private Health Insurance Companies in the UK would not allow me to register with them.
The only chance I see is to find a SLE/MCTD-specialist in another country who is willing to assist me to stop my SLE-MCTD-flare-up destroying my kidneys further.
I don’t know how much time there is left, because I know from privately paid blood-tests that my kidneys only function now ~10%....
-
In my humble opinion: we are screwed.
-
Hello kitkatz, I have just googled what your expression means
and I believe you summed it all up in one short sentence:
"Screw-up" (the noun) = a big mistake.
"To screw up" ............. = to make such a mistake.
"Screwed up" .............. = something which has been severely damaged and/or very poorly designed.
Thanks for your understanding... the question is now: why has it been so severely damaged and/or so very poorly designed?
-
Patients 'routinely neglected' at NHS hospital where hundreds died in squalor
By Fay Schlesinger, Andy Dolan and Tim Shipman
Last updated at 12:02 AM on 25th February 2010
• Up to 1,200 patients died unnecessarily because of appalling care
• Labour's obsession with targets and box ticking blamed for scandal
• Patients were 'routinely neglected' at hospital
• Report calls for FOURTH investigation into scandal
Not a single official has been disciplined over the worst-ever NHS hospital scandal, it emerged last night.
Up to 1,200 people lost their lives needlessly because Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust put government targets and cost-cutting ahead of patient care.
But none of the doctors, nurses and managers who failed them has suffered any formal sanction.
Indeed, some have either retired on lucrative pensions or have swiftly found new jobs.
Former chief executive Martin Yeates, who has since left with a £1million pension pot, six months' salary and a reported £400,000 payoff, did not even give evidence to the inquiry which detailed the scale of the scandal yesterday.
He was said to be medically unfit to do so, though he sent some information to chairman Robert Francis through his solicitor.
The devastating-report into the Stafford Hospital-shambles' laid waste to Labour's decade-long obsession with box-ticking and league tables.
The independent inquiry headed by Robert Francis QC found the safety of sick and dying patients was 'routinely neglected'. Others were subjected to ' inhumane treatment', 'bullying', 'abuse' and 'rudeness'.
The shocking estimated death toll, three times the previous figure of 400, has prompted calls for a full public inquiry.
Bosses at the Trust - officially an 'elite' NHS institution - were condemned for their fixation with cutting waiting times to hit Labour targets and leaving neglected patients to die.
But after a probe that was controversially held in secret, not a single individual has been publicly blamed.
The inquiry found that:
• Patients were left unwashed in their own filth for up to a month as nurses ignored their requests to use the toilet or change their sheets;
• Four members of one family. including a new-born baby girl. died within 18 months after of blunders at the hospital;
• Medics discharged patients hastily out of fear they risked being sacked for delaying;
• Wards were left filthy with blood, discarded needles and used dressings while bullying managers made whistleblowers too frightened to come forward.
Last night the General Medical Council announced it was investigating several doctors. The Nursing and Midwifery Council is investigating at least one nurse and is considering other cases. Ministers suggested the report highlighted a dreadful 'local' scandal, but its overall conclusions are a blistering condemnation of Labour's approach to the NHS.
It found that hospital were so preoccupied with saving money and pursuit of elite foundation trust status that they 'lost sight of its fundamental responsibility to provide safe care'.
Health Secretary Andy Burnham accepted 18 recommendations from Mr Francis and immediately announced plans for a new inquiry, to be held in public, into how Department of Health and NHS regulators failed to spot the disaster.
But Julie Bailey, head of the campaign group Cure the NHS, condemned his response as 'outrageous' and backed Tory and Liberal Democrat demands for a full public inquiry into what went wrong.
Tory leader David Cameron said: 'We need openness, clarity and transparency to stop this happening again.' Gordon Brown described the scandal as a 'completely unacceptable management failure' and revealed that the cases of 300 patients are now under investigation.
He told MPs the Government was belatedly working on plans to 'strike off' hospital managers responsible for failures. The hospital could also lose its cherished foundation status.
Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said 'These awful events show how badly Labour has let down NHS patients. It should never again be possible for managers to put a tick in a box marked "target met" while patients are pushed off to a ward and left to die.'
The Francis probe was launched following a Healthcare Commission report on Stafford Hospital in March last year. It found that deaths at the hospital were 27 to 45 per cent higher than normal, meaning some 400 to 1,200 people died unnecessarily between 2005 and 2008.
Two weeks before the report's publication, the Trust's chief executive Martin Yeates was suspended. He eventually resigned in May after being offered £400,000 and a £1million pension pot.
• Cheerleader has leg amputated after doctors dismiss cancer as 'growing pains'
The Francis report said staff numbers were allowed to fall 'dangerously low', causing nurses to neglect the most basic care. It said: 'Requests for assistance to use a bedpan or to get to and from the toilet were not responded to.
'Some families were left to take soiled sheets home to wash or to change beds when this should have been undertaken by the hospital and its staff.' Food and drink were left out of reach, forcing patients to drink water from flower vases.
While many staff did their best, Mr Francis said, others showed a disturbing lack of compassion to patients.
He added: 'I heard so many stories of shocking care. These patients were not simply numbers. They were husbands, wives, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, grandparents. They were people who entered Stafford Hospital and rightly expected to be well cared for and treated.'
Family who lost four loved ones
Kelsey Lintern was at the centre of one of the worst tragedies in the hospital’s appalling catalogue of failure.
She lost four members of her family within 18 months, her grandmother, uncle, sister and six-day-old baby.
Mrs Lintern, 36, almost became the fifth victim when a nurse tried to give her pethidine while she was in labour, despite her medical notes and a wristband clearly stating she was allergic to the drug.
The horrific story began in January 2007 when her baby daughter Nyah had to be delivered by her own grandmother because a distracted midwife was not looking.
The baby was not breathing but she was resuscitated, then discharged by a junior paediatrician just two days later, despite the family’s fears she was seriously ill.
She was not feeding properly and still appeared blue. She died four days later. A post-mortem examination revealed four holes in her heart. Mrs Lintern accepts that Nyah may have died in any case, but said the hospital should at least have ‘realised there was a problem’.
It was when she was in labour with Nyah that a nurse arrived with a syringe of potentially-fatal pethidine, oblivious to the fact Mrs Lintern was allergic to it.
In April 2007, Mrs Lintern’s sister, Laurie Gethin, 37, died of lung, bone and lymph cancer, which had taken 18 months to be diagnosed, even though she was displaying tell-tale symptoms.
Her body, with her eyes still open, was left on her blood-splattered bed in full view of other patients. Tests revealed that Mrs Gethin had ‘markers’ in her blood which can indicated cancer.
But it was only when she was sent for a scan at another hospital that tumours were discovered. Mrs Lintern’s uncle, Tom Warriner, 48, died in January 2008 after his intestine was accidentally pierced in an operation for bowel cancer.
A coroner ruled the death was accidental. That summer, her grandmother Lilian Wood Latta, 80, died hungry and dehydrated after suffering a stroke. She was left in her own excrement during her final days and the family said the dehydration was caused by staff failing to give her adequate fluids.
Mrs Wood Latta had been referred to the hospital by her GP after suffering a series of mini-strokes at home. She was moved between wards three times, and it was left to relatives to change her incontinence pads.
Her dying wish had been to see Mrs Lintern’s new baby Khalen, so, after checking with staff, Mrs Lintern took her daughter in. But as the frail pensioner held her great-grandchild, a nurse appeared and said: ‘What on earth is a baby doing here? You do know we’ve got MRSA and C-Diff on this ward?’
Mrs Lintern, who lives in Cannock, Staffordshire, with husband David and their two daughters, said: ‘It is called the caring profession. But where is the care?’
James Reay died in agony after a junior doctor at Stafford Hospital failed to check his medical history and gave him the wrong drug.
The 67-year-old former miner was admitted to A&E in May 2006 with a swollen leg. Medics administered the anticoagulant Heparin – but failed to take into account Mr Reay’s history of stomach ulcers, which are known to react badly to the drug.
Two days later he was rushed to another hospital where he died from internal bleeding after three weeks of intense pain. Yesterday his widow Olwen won a five-figure pay-off in an out-of-court settlement after Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust admitted liability.
Mrs Reay, 69, said: ‘I have won my case but to me it is blood money and I cannot enjoy it. I would rather have my husband.’
-
Just some random thoughts and/or observations;
1. I am not sure why those people who are afraid of "government control" of health care in the US are so willing to submit to "corporate control". I can understand not wanting the government to be in the decision making process that should exist only between a doctor and patient, but I don't understand the corresponding willingness to allow a profit-making business get to decide which procedures or which drugs you should have access to.
2. I am currently undergoing the pre-transplant process which involves getting lots of tests done. I can't just go to a lab and have these things done. No, I first have to get permission from a corporation...my health care company. This seems so anti-American to me. We yabber on about how we love our freedom, yet we allow a bunch of suits to decide how much dialysis we get. Do you ever wonder why, if frequent dialysis is so good, we don't get it in a clinic? It's because three days a week is all insurance companies will pay for. So much for freedom and liberty.
3. An insurance company is there to make a profit, no more and no less. They do not see you as a suffering patient. They see you as a liability, as a threat to their bottom line. All businesses in our capitalist economy that we so cherish are there to make a profit. They are there to maximize profits by increasing income (raising your premium) and reducing costs (denying your claims).
-
4. We have all heard that we should let our access to health care be governed by the rules of the free market. In a truly free market, there is wide competition and choice of demand. In other words, I get to decide when I want new shoes. I can decide to just hang on to my old ones. Or, I can decide to get the cheapest ones. Or, I can get Manolos. I get to choose. I can even go barefoot if I truly want to. My life doesn't depend upon it. Then, I can go to a huge variety of shops to get the shoes I want.
Our health care "market" is not free. How many of you have chosen to become ill? None, I suspect, so you are being forced to buy a product that you don't really want under normal circumstances. Now, how many of you have done lots of research and have decided exactly what kind of treatment you will get and from which set of doctors? I suspect that many of you don't have a choice of insurance company...you have your coverage through your employer, and IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER that gets to choose how you access health care in this country, NOT YOU. And if you have a pre-existing condition and can get health care, it will most likely be under an HMO, and THEY get to choose your PCP. Again, this seems very anti-American to me. Again, so much for liberty and freedom.
-
5. When I first moved back to the US, I bought my own annual policy. One week before expiration, I landed in the hospital. I accrued $25,000 in claims. The insurance company ended up denying my claims for all sorts of made up reasons. I went through their arbitration process, but they stonewalled me and never again communicated with me. I sued them and won. Are all of you that willing to let your health care be treated so dismissively? Do you really trust corporations that much?
6. How many of you know exactly how much your healthcare costs? The last time you were in a hospital having surgery, did anyone ever come to you with a price list of all treatments/procedures/drugs and ask you which ones you'd like to purchase? When some doctor you never heard of sticks his face in your room and asks how you are doing, do you get to say, "No, I don't choose to partake of your services, so don't send me a bill, thank you very much"? No, because this is NOT a free market. You are being forced to buy goods and services that you may not even need.
7. If you are so eager to put a cap on medical malpractice suits, that's fine, but don't complain if in the future, some medical mistake gives your kid brain damage and you have to pay for his care out of your own pocket for the rest of your life.
-
8. If you do not want to buy health insurance, then don't expect me to pay for you when you have an accident. The young and healthy may not think they will get ill, but they are often the ones who are in accidents. Anyone who for any reason may have to ever see a doctor should pay for health insurance and should contribute to the pool.
9. If you don't want any government interference in your health care, opt out of Medicare and see where that gets you.
10. All of this is moot as long as medical costs soar. We all pay, one way or another, and as long as medical costs keep rising so quickly, this debate will never be resolved.
11. Bottom line, it is immoral for the United States of America to let corporate interests decide the health of our nation. The Supreme Court's recent decision regarding the "personhood" of Corporate America is profoundly disturbing because it allows corporations to be treated as PEOPLE. You may hate the idea of "big government", but constitutionally, our government is by the people and for the people. A Corporation is for the profit for a few of the people, and if this is who you want making your health care decisions, then America is no longer representative of the ideal set out by our Constitution. Our current health care/insurance system is utterly and profoundly anti-American.
-
The UK national health scheme may have disadvantages compared to the USA but the perverse incentive to increase the number of surgical procedures isn't one of them.
I find the fact that 40% of children in the USA undergo cosmetic surgery astonishing. It's evident that this is entirely unnecessary because the corresponding rate in the UK is 1%.
-
The UK national health scheme may have disadvantages compared to the USA but the perverse incentive to increase the number of surgical procedures isn't one of them.
I find the fact that 40% of children in the USA undergo cosmetic surgery astonishing. It's evident that this is entirely unnecessary because the corresponding rate in the UK is 1%.
I would like to know where that stat came from- I think that is a gross exaggeration op., maybe among the rich- but not average kids-no way.
-
It does indeed appear to be a gross exaggeration, glitter. So I checked out the statistics with those on the World Health Organisation's web page.
The rate for the USA is 37.8%; corresponding statistic for the UK is 4.1% according to the WHO. So I guess my initial figures were sexed up a bit.
-
still- there is no way 37 % of kids are getting cosmetic surgury no way- thats almost half - my kids are very popular and have tons of friends, they went to a 3000 kid highschool ( they graduated last year) and I asked them and they have never heard of anyone in their school doing it either. but 37% might WANT it- its too expensive and I cant see parents struggling to send their kids to college paying for it. Maybe a few here and their but over 1/3- I dont beleive it.
-
The incidence does vary from one state to another. Florida is a state with low incidence, half the average for the whole of the US. States with double the average are HI; IA; KY; MI; NE; WV and WI.
I can understand your disbelief, glitter. This medically-unnecessary non-therapeutic surgery is euphemistically given a name that's different from my choice of "cosmetic". That's why such an outrageous procedure is so widely accepted.
Have a look here: http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/state-by-state/ (http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/state-by-state/)
-
The rate for the USA is 37.8%
:rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl;
-
Oh, wait a minute. I looked at that link, and those were statistics for "medically unnecessary" infant circumcision. If you want to call that "cosmetic surgery", that's fair enough, but you need to be clearer on your definition.
-
You have a point moosemom.
I had equated "medically-unnecessary non-therapeutic" with "cosmetic". Cosmetic surgery would have a theraputic value.
-
We, the taxpayers, are so screwed.