US Healthcare Reform

[Phraxis]

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.

[jennyc]

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.

[Zach]

Every system has its problems.



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.

[kimcanada]

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!

[paris]

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     

[BigSky]

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.

[monrein]

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. 

[jennyc]

 
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).

[BigSky]

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.

[kimcanada]

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?

[RichardMEL]

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 !!  ) 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.

[BigSky]

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.

[YLGuy]

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?

[BigSky]

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.

[kimcanada]

P.S. I don't like to start fights, its my opinion, and it just so happens to be the complete opposite of yours!

[paris]

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  )  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       I don't like conflict.

[Phraxis]

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.

[BigSky]

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.

[bette1]

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.

[lizabee]

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

[Slywalker]

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. 

[Ken Shelmerdine]

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. 

[BigSky]

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.

[Ken Shelmerdine]

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.
 


 

[Slywalker]

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