In late October I experienced several bouts of vertigo. Over the course of three to four weeks I saw two ear/nose/throat doctors, a neurologist, received an ENG, horizontal balance testing and an MRI that was analyzed by two different doctors. In the end the vertigo turned out to be of unknown origin and may continue, which is common.

Contrast that with this Canadian story: “Her client, Lindsay McCreith, would have had to wait for four months just to get an MRI, and then months more to see a neurologist for his malignant brain tumor. Instead, frustrated and ill, the retired auto-body shop owner traveled to Buffalo, N.Y., for a lifesaving surgery. Now he's suing for the right to opt out of Canada's government-run health care, which he considers dangerous.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010266

My employer pays between five and six thousand dollars per year to insure my entire family of five with this level of healthcare. Why is it that if the federal government steps in, it is expected to cost $110 billion for inferior coverage? Can't there be a system in which the government pays the premiums to a private provider (or some variation) and give the uninsured far superior coverage for about half the cost? If there are regulations barring this then re-write them.
We’re talking about life and death, aren’t we?

Everyone does need insurance and we can't be averse to the idea that the most cost effective and medically sound solution is through the private sector.

Goodbye for now, again.

Hope to see you soon, Brooks.

Stay well, Brooks, or in the case of the vertigo, get well.


Of course the government program will cost more. After all they have all those layers of bureacracy to support.

I add my best wishes to you along with Sedan and Frogger, Brooks.
Take care. :)

Not to derail the thread from you Brooks, but I recently had my first real experience with American health care that I'd also like to share.

I went to go see a psychiatrist about a month ago because I felt there was something wrong with how I deal with social situations. Whether it was at school, work, or just even with my friends I found it virtually impossible to enjoy socializing as I became worried and afraid on what people would say, what they would think of me, etc.. Turns out I was right and I was diagnosed with Social Anxiety Disorder. As I'm still a full-time student I'm covered by my dad's insurance (Kaiser Permanente) but apparently Kaiser only operates through their own psychiatrists. So, even though I've already been diagnosed I have to sit around until mid-January until I can get in and see a Kaiser psychiatrist to be evaluated. Treatment can't really start until I'm on medication as Social Anxiety Disorder is related to a chemical imbalance in the brain. It's pretty frustrating as even though I'm aware of the problem I can't do anything to change how my body reacts when I'm confronted with a social situation.

I honestly don't know enough about the pros and cons of private and socialized health care to form a solid opinion on which is better. It's probably the bleeding heart in me, but I've always felt that there's something fundamentally wrong with for-profit health care. I wouldn't want our police or firefighters to be for-profit, and I don't see health care as being much different. If one of the biggest cons to socialized health care is the waiting, which I'm doing right now anyways, from my perspective socialized health care looks pretty darn good to me.

Hope you get better, Brooks.

Not to derail the thread from you Brooks, but I recently had my first real experience with American health care that I'd also like to share.

I went to go see a psychiatrist about a month ago because I felt there was something wrong with how I deal with social situations. Whether it was at school, work, or just even with my friends I found it virtually impossible to enjoy socializing as I became worried and afraid on what people would say, what they would think of me, etc.. Turns out I was right and I was diagnosed with Social Anxiety Disorder. As I'm still a full-time student I'm covered by my dad's insurance (Kaiser Permanente) but apparently Kaiser only operates through their own psychiatrists. So, even though I've already been diagnosed I have to sit around until mid-January until I can get in and see a Kaiser psychiatrist to be evaluated. Treatment can't really start until I'm on medication as Social Anxiety Disorder is related to a chemical imbalance in the brain. It's pretty frustrating as even though I'm aware of the problem I can't do anything to change how my body reacts when I'm confronted with a social situation.

I honestly don't know enough about the pros and cons of private and socialized health care to form a solid opinion on which is better. It's probably the bleeding heart in me, but I've always felt that there's something fundamentally wrong with for-profit health care. I wouldn't want our police or firefighters to be for-profit, and I don't see health care as being much different. If one of the biggest cons to socialized health care is the waiting, which I'm doing right now anyways, from my perspective socialized health care looks pretty darn good to me.

Hope you get better, Brooks.

Look at it this way, CBL... you're only waiting because you prefer to have your insurance pay for it. If you want to be treated TODAY, you can be... but it'll come out of your pocket.

In other words, you have a CHOICE right now. Something you wouldn't have with socialized health care.

Life-threatening situations are much different. Nobody should ever have to wait to be treated for those... and aren't if they use the resources available to them.

;)
SMW

P.S. to Brooks: Hope you get better soon, dear. We miss you around here.

If you want to be treated TODAY, you can be... but it'll come out of your pocket. In other words, you have a CHOICE right now. Something you wouldn't have with socialized health care.

Let me make sure I understand this: you believe that if this country were to develop some sort of universal healthcare system for all its citizens, every other doctor on the planet would somehow, um, disappear? Poof?

Let me make sure I understand this: you believe that if this country were to develop some sort of universal healthcare system for all its citizens, every other doctor on the planet would somehow, um, disappear? Poof?

No, I'm sure you could still find a private doctor... say, in Mexico, who would treat you. Curious about why you choose to say "on the planet?" Are the Dems promising to cover every human on earth now???

I don't know how a universal healthcare system for ALL citizens would work and neither do you, Frannie. So don't pretend that you do.

All I said was that you have a CHOICE now. As do doctors. The very word UNIVERSAL contradicts the word INDIVIDUAL.

That's my point.

No, I'm sure you could still find a private doctor... say, in Mexico, who would treat you.

Didn't you just tell CBL that s/he could get treatment right now if s/he was willing to pay for it out of pocket? How would that change if this country provided basic medical coverage for all its citizens? Suddenly our money wouldn't be good in any other country? I'm afraid your premise is unsound: Universal healthcare would NOT impact anyone's right to spend their own money on healthcare. What it would do is provide basic medical coverage for those who aren't independently wealthy.

You are correct that if you have enough money, you can do whatever the hell you want as far as getting medical treatment right now, even if you DO have health insurance. The problem, if course, is that the vast majority of us do not have that kind of money, and growing numbers of us are losing health insurance through our employers (and/or having to pay far more into the program to get the coverage).

Bottom line: Those who have money can get healthcare anywhere they like. Those who don't, can't. Universal healthcare insurance would simply make it possible for those who don't have any coverage to get treatment without going bankrupt and ending up on the public rolls, anyway. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, you know.

Let me make sure I understand this: you believe that if this country were to develop some sort of universal healthcare system for all its citizens, every other doctor on the planet would somehow, um, disappear?

Curious about why you choose to say "on the planet?" Are the Dems promising to cover every human on earth now???

Yep.

You figured it out.

That is exactly the argument that she was trying to make.

Gee, you're smart.

:rolleyes:

Didn't you just tell CBL that s/he could get treatment right now if s/he was willing to pay for it out of pocket? How would that change if this country provided basic medical coverage for all its citizens? Suddenly our money wouldn't be good in any other country? I'm afraid your premise is unsound: Universal healthcare would NOT impact anyone's right to spend their own money on healthcare. What it would do is provide basic medical coverage for those who aren't independently wealthy.

You are correct that if you have enough money, you can do whatever the hell you want as far as getting medical treatment right now, even if you DO have health insurance. The problem, if course, is that the vast majority of us do not have that kind of money, and growing numbers of us are losing health insurance through our employers (and/or having to pay far more into the program to get the coverage).

Bottom line: Those who have money can get healthcare anywhere they like. Those who don't, can't. Universal healthcare insurance would simply make it possible for those who don't have any coverage to get treatment without going bankrupt and ending up on the public rolls, anyway. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, you know.

I somewhat agree, Frannie. However, since nobody KNOWS how a universal healthcare system would work, nobody KNOWS how doctors will react to it. Is there any guarantee that a universal system will be any more 'patient-friendly' than the HMO CBL's dealing with now? Do you foresee EVERY doctor in American rushing to sign up in a govt sponsored program when it's hard enough to get them to agree to provide medicare/medicaid services now?

Guess I'm just not convinced doctors will be willing to put in all the years necessary to get a practice going, then jump for joy that the govt will now mandate how much they can charge and how and when they'll get paid.

Take away the competition and we may just end up with good doctors fleeing to other locations.

How do you see that part of the issue unfurling?

Yep.

You figured it out.

That is exactly the argument that she was trying to make.

Gee, you're smart.

:rolleyes:

Just going by what the lady SAID, FT. I'm sure it won't affect YOUR planet, however... whereever that might be.

:rolleyes:

I somewhat agree, Frannie. However, since nobody KNOWS how a universal healthcare system would work, nobody KNOWS how doctors will react to it.

This is sort of silly logic, don't you think? If we never did anything that hadn't been done before, we'd still be sitting in cold, dark caves, eating roots and grubs.

Is there any guarantee that a universal system will be any more 'patient-friendly' than the HMO CBL's dealing with now?

Is there any guarantee that it won't? (Besides, CBL's experience with Kaiser is no different than mine was, years ago: their version of "patient-friendly" still sucks, apparently.)

Guess I'm just not convinced doctors will be willing to put in all the years necessary to get a practice going, then jump for joy that the govt will now mandate how much they can charge and how and when they'll get paid.

But that's what the %$#@! insurance companies are doing right now. And taking billions in profits (out of the doctors' pockets AND yours and mine), in the process.

Take away the competition and we may just end up with good doctors fleeing to other locations.

Or, we could end up with doctors being intensely relieved that they don't have to deal with all picayune paperwork that the money-grubbing insurance companies force them to deal with in order to get paid, AND we could end up with everyone getting basic medical coverage, AND we could end up with affordable prescriptions, AND doctors could get back to actually spending time with their patients (caring for others is WHY the got into the biz in the first place, right?) instead of having the insurance companies tell them they must see X number of patients per hour or risk not being paid, AND doctors wouldn't have to spend half their income on med-mal insurance, AND...

Well, I think I've made my point.

Hope you feel better Brooks

Fran,

Strange and unbelievable as it seems under certain public health care systems you cannot go to a private doctor even if you are willing to pay. You MUSR use the government's doctors and wait your turn, sometimes for a very long time.

Check out both the Canadian and British systems.

Strange and unbelievable as it seems under certain public health care systems you cannot go to a private doctor even if you are willing to pay. You MUSR use the government's doctors and wait your turn, sometimes for a very long time.

Check out both the Canadian and British systems.Is there some reason we have to duplicate their systems?

I would like to see a system where a basic level of coverage is provided for everyone, funded by a single payer, the government. You don't need state-owned hospitals or state-employed doctors to do this, you are merely cutting the blood-sucking insurance companies out of the loop for standard medical care. People would still be free to choose their own doctors, and procedures not covered by the basic plan could be paid for out-of-pocket or through private supplemental insurance or even a tax-free medical savings account. Nearly 30% of what we pay for health care now goes to administrative overhead -- a cost that could be drastically reduced by instituting a single payer system. The savings thereby gained would pay for covering the newly insured, who would also gain access to preventive care and seek expensive emergency treatment less often.

Fran,.....Strange and unbelievable as it seems under certain public health care systems you cannot go to a private doctor even if you are willing to pay..

Really?

Name one.

I already named two.

This is sort of silly logic, don't you think? If we never did anything that hadn't been done before, we'd still be sitting in cold, dark caves, eating roots and grubs.

If a system works for over 80% of the population, why toss it out and invent a new one? Tweak it... improve it... but start all over? Maybe we should reinvent the wheel to see if we get better gas mileage?

Is there any guarantee that it won't? (Besides, CBL's experience with Kaiser is no different than mine was, years ago: their version of "patient-friendly" still sucks, apparently.)

Maybe I'm overly-cautious, but I want something more than Hillary Clinton's promise that a new system would be better. Including some hard facts on how much it's gonna cost me to cover every person in this country.

But that's what the %$#@! insurance companies are doing right now. And taking billions in profits (out of the doctors' pockets AND yours and mine), in the process.

Interesting premise. Wonder what'll happen to the thousands... maybe millions of people who work in the insurance industry today? Those 'profits' you talk about pay their salaries, you know?

Or, we could end up with doctors being intensely relieved that they don't have to deal with all picayune paperwork that the money-grubbing insurance companies force them to deal with in order to get paid, AND we could end up with everyone getting basic medical coverage, AND we could end up with affordable prescriptions, AND doctors could get back to actually spending time with their patients (caring for others is WHY the got into the biz in the first place, right?) instead of having the insurance companies tell them they must see X number of patients per hour or risk not being paid, AND doctors wouldn't have to spend half their income on med-mal insurance, AND...

You've GOT to be kidding with this one. Do you really think insurance companies (OK, with the exception of HMO's) tell doctors how to run their practices... how many patients they have to see and how long they have to spend with them? And the elimination of medical malpractice suits opens up a whole new set of scary possibilities! Who wants to go to a doctor who's IMMUNE from being sued if he/she screws up your care??

Well, I think I've made my point.

Don't get me wrong, Frannie, you have some valid points. But no hard evidence. Certainly not enough to persuade me that our entire healthcare system needs to be tossed out the window.

I have an appt with a new doctor this afternoon. Although I have health insurance (paid by my employer), it won't cover the cost of the very expensive medication I need. (over $6,000 per dose) So I did the same thing I did last year... applied for and was approved for a grant from a private foundation which pays the co-payment for people who have insurance, but can't afford such expensive treatment. If I didn't have insurance, there are other foundations I could apply to for help. Without treatment for my auto-immune system disorder, I would be totally disabled.

So, from a personal standpoint, before anyone messes with the system that allows me to be treated, I want more guarantees than mere speculation in an effort to garner votes.

SMW

Is there some reason we have to duplicate their systems?

I would like to see a system where a basic level of coverage is provided for everyone, funded by a single payer, the government. You don't need state-owned hospitals or state-employed doctors to do this, you are merely cutting the blood-sucking insurance companies out of the loop for standard medical care. People would still be free to choose their own doctors, and procedures not covered by the basic plan could be paid for out-of-pocket or through private supplemental insurance or even a tax-free medical savings account. Nearly 30% of what we pay for health care now goes to administrative overhead -- a cost that could be drastically reduced by instituting a single payer system. The savings thereby gained would pay for covering the newly insured, who would also gain access to preventive care and seek expensive emergency treatment less often.

Sedan gets it. There's no reason we have to do things exactly as other countries have. We can take the best of what they've done and go from there.

Do you really think insurance companies (OK, with the exception of HMO's) tell doctors how to run their practices... how many patients they have to see and how long they have to spend with them?

Hard to believe, isn't it, but that's the reality of the situation. If the doctor wants to stay in business, he must dance to the insurance company's tune.

Our healthcare system is in crisis. Insurance companies (including Medicare) pay physicians less for their services than they used to even as the cost of malpractice insurance is skyrocketing. To compensate for their decreased revenue (and pay off their enormous educational debt), most physicians are forced to see more patients per day than their predecessors did. Many modern physicians see 30-40 patients per day. The average office visit is only 11 minutes long, which doesn’t leave much time for in-depth discussions. Physicians are also saddled with copious paperwork mandated by insurance companies. This leaves them less time to look up the newest treatments for each patient, research appropriate clinical trials, or perform other time consuming “extras” that they would gladly offer you if only they had the time. In short, the system is making it harder for physicians to provide exceptional care and many patients are feeling the need to advocate for themselves. --Insight Medical (http://www.insightmedicalconsultants.com/insightmedicalcg.html#why%20need)

The tendency by physicians to write scripts rather than to actually spend time with the patient to determine the cause of the problem is perpetuated by the insurance companies, who tell the physician how to practice by only paying for specific therapies. The physician is forced to make decisions due to economics rather than because this is the right way to treat the patient. Also, the physician cannot afford to spend the amount of time with a patient that would be required to actually solve the problem. He or she must see twelve or more patients per hour just to cover overhead and malpractice and still make a living wage.

Unfortunately, the patient ultimately suffers from this form of medicine. -- Finding a solution to our health care crisis (http://www.helium.com/tm/511507/debate-health-crisis-country)

While the insurance companies, especially the HMO organizations, tell me they don't make clinical decisions, the financial limitations they impose and the curtailing of hospital treatment force all doctors to accept the new standard of care imposed by their rules. Many caring, conscientious doctors find the present climate of practice a real dilemma between what they KNOW would be optimal and what insurance will cover. --William H. McMicken, M.D (http://members.tripod.com/~FamilyDoc/ascvd18.htm)

I have an appt with a new doctor this afternoon.

Let us know how many minutes s/he spends with you, won't you?

Although I have health insurance (paid by my employer), it won't cover the cost of the very expensive medication I need. (over $6,000 per dose) So I did the same thing I did last year... applied for and was approved for a grant from a private foundation which pays the co-payment for people who have insurance, but can't afford such expensive treatment. If I didn't have insurance, there are other foundations I could apply to for help. Without treatment for my auto-immune system disorder, I would be totally disabled.

So, from a personal standpoint, before anyone messes with the system that allows me to be treated,

But this system doesn't allow you to be treated! You have to go elsewhere for handouts because the system is so badly broken.

Let us know how many minutes s/he spends with you, won't you?



But this system doesn't allow you to be treated! You have to go elsewhere for handouts because the system is so badly broken.

I don't care if the doctor spends 30 seconds with me... it's the treatment I need, not hand-holding.

This is what concerns me, Frannie. Will the American taxpayers be responsible for footing the bill for my $6,000 meds? (not to mention the other thousands of people who take the same meds?) The issue I'm facing really has nothing to do with routine healthcare... it's the price of newly developed biologic drugs that come as a result of stem-cell research. They are truly wonder drugs for those of us that need them. But who can afford them? Not me... and certainly not the taxpayers.

Unless something is done to bring down the price of what pharmaceutical companies are allowed to charge, everything else done to improve the system will be moot. What should we do to allow them to recoop their research costs... add that to the universal healthcare system, too?

Too many questions.. not enough answers. What I'm doing now works. Therefore my opinion will continue to be... don't mess with what works.

SMW

Originally Posted by smartmouthwoman
Do you really think insurance companies (OK, with the exception of HMO's) tell doctors how to run their practices... how many patients they have to see and how long they have to spend with them?


Frannie: Hard to believe, isn't it, but that's the reality of the situation. If the doctor wants to stay in business, he must dance to the insurance company's tune.

That's simply not true, Frannie. Doctors choose which insurance companies to partner up with... not the other way around.

To say otherwise defeats your whole premise.

I don't care if the doctor spends 30 seconds with me... it's the treatment I need, not hand-holding.

Normal people need more than 30 seconds to review their medical history and issues with a new doctor.

This is what concerns me, Frannie. Will the American taxpayers be responsible for footing the bill for my $6,000 meds? (not to mention the other thousands of people who take the same meds?)

Oh please. You don't care about the average American taxpayer. You're content to let Joe Schmoe go into bankruptcy trying to afford basic medical care, rather than doing something to actually fix the problem. You'd rather maintain the broken status quo because (a) your employer currently offers a health insurance program and (b) you get your outrageously overpriced drugs for FREE as a handout from a private group; everybody else can drop dead so long as you get what YOU need. What about those people who need the same drug you do, who don't get charity drug handouts? Don't you care about them? :rolleyes:

Unless something is done to bring down the price of what pharmaceutical companies are allowed to charge, everything else done to improve the system will be moot. What should we do to allow them to recoop their research costs... add that to the universal healthcare system, too?

Too many questions.. not enough answers. What I'm doing now works. Therefore my opinion will continue to be... don't mess with what works.


How you can continue to insist that our healthcare system works is beyond me, particularly when it isn't working for YOU. * shakes head *

As for the cost of prescription drugs, you do realize, don't you, that what you're paying for is marketing and advertising costs, plus outrageous salaries for Big Pharma executives, plus profits for shareholders - NOT the cost of the the drug (or R&D), itself?

LINKS HIGH DRUG PRICES TO ADVERTISING, PROFITS, AND ENORMOUS EXECUTIVE SALARIES

Washington, D.C. - A new report by the consumer health organization Families USA refutes the pharmaceutical industry's claim that high and increasing drug prices are needed to sustain research and development. The report documents that drug companies are spending more than twice as much on marketing, advertising, and administration than they do on research and development; that drug company profits, which are higher than all other industries, exceed research and development expenditures; and that drug companies provide lavish compensation packages for their top executives.

The report comes on the heels of a recent Families USA analysis that found prices rose more than twice the rate of inflation last year for the 50 most-prescribed drugs to seniors.

Among the nine pharmaceutical companies examined in the report - Merck, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pharmacia, Abbott Laboratories, American Home Products, Eli Lilly, Schering-Plough, and Allergan - all but one (Eli Lilly) spent more than twice as much on marketing, advertising, and administration than they did on research and development, and Lilly spent more than one and one-half times as much. Six out of the nine companies made more money in net profits than they spent on research and development last year. [see chart 1.]

The report also documents profligate spending on compensation packages for top pharmaceutical executives. The executive with the highest compensation package in the year 2000, exclusive of unexercised stock options, was William C. Steere, Jr., Pfizer's Chairman, who made $40.2 million. The executive with the highest amount of unexercised stock options was C.A. Heimbold, Jr., Bristol-Myers Squibb's Chairman and CEO, who held $227.9 million in unexercised stock options. [see charts 2 and 3.]

"Pharmaceutical companies charging skyrocketing drug prices like to sugar coat the pain by saying those prices are needed for research and development," said Ron Pollack, Families USA's executive director. "The truth is high prices are much more associated with record-breaking profits and enormous compensation for top drug company executives."

Pollack added, "Drug companies' commitments to research and development are dwarfed by those companies' expenditures for marketing, advertising, and administration." -Pay, Profits, and Spending by Drug Companies (http://www.actupny.org/reports/drugcosts.html)

Big Pharma is a big part of why our healthcare system needs a complete overhaul. If you remove the extra costs Big Pharma and the insurance companies add to the equation (marketing/advertising, exorbitant salaries, etc.), actual healthcare costs drop dramatically. It's an astoundingly simple concept; why don't you get it?

Doctors choose which insurance companies to partner up with... not the other way around.

Sure they can choose which money-grubbing health insurance company to deal with. Why don't you give us the list of the "good" money-grubbing health insurance companies that make the proper practice of medicine possible? Tell us which ones don't pay their top execs multiple millions of dollars every year. Fill us in on the health insurers that have earned so much profit, they actually returned money to policyholders. Which ones have lowered their premiums and co-pays? Which ones stopped insisting that you and your doctors precisely fill out endless pointless paperwork or risk not being paid/covered?

We'll wait. :)

Sure they can choose which money-grubbing health insurance company to deal with. Why don't you give us the list of the "good" money-grubbing health insurance companies that make the proper practice of medicine possible? Tell us which ones don't pay their top execs multiple millions of dollars every year. Fill us in on the health insurers that have earned so much profit, they actually returned money to policyholders. Which ones have lowered their premiums and co-pays? Which ones stopped insisting that you and your doctors precisely fill out endless pointless paperwork or risk not being paid/covered?

We'll wait. :)

Leaving for doctor now... please send me your check in the amount of $6,000 and I'll buy into your Universal Health Care for All Americans plan.

;)
SMW

Were Im living at present comes under the UK National Health System.

The Government pays for standard healthcare for everyone.

A doctors appointment is usually within 24 hours.

Going to casualty 'ER' can be a different matter.

Depending on the time of day,and the extent of injury or ailment,you could find yourself waiting anything between 1 and 4 hours.

Also it is not uncommon for victums of fights brought into casualty to find their attackers to follow them to hospital were more trouble erupts,tho this usually is a weekend problem.

Operations:

Once again its a bit of pot luck.

I have heard of extremes were cancer sufferers have had to wait months for treatment,sometimes when their apointment arrives,theyve already died.

On the otherhand patients being treated within weeks.

Ive read here some saying,''yes but you have a choice''.

What about all those people who dont have any savings,or cant get finance,they dont have a choice,but silently wait until its their turn.

Is there some reason we have to duplicate their systems?

I would like to see a system where a basic level of coverage is provided for everyone, funded by a single payer, the government. You don't need state-owned hospitals or state-employed doctors to do this, you are merely cutting the blood-sucking insurance companies out of the loop for standard medical care. People would still be free to choose their own doctors, and procedures not covered by the basic plan could be paid for out-of-pocket or through private supplemental insurance or even a tax-free medical savings account. Nearly 30% of what we pay for health care now goes to administrative overhead -- a cost that could be drastically reduced by instituting a single payer system. The savings thereby gained would pay for covering the newly insured, who would also gain access to preventive care and seek expensive emergency treatment less often.
I actually think this sounds fairly logical. Wary as I am of the government spending more money, I'd have to see some figures...

Anyways I think a tax-free savings account specifically for medical purposes would be a great idea. Seems odd that we don't already have that.... Although it would be very easy for rich people to use it as a loophole to pay even less taxes, as if they don't have enough loopholes already!

Is there some reason we have to duplicate their systems?

I would like to see a system where a basic level of coverage is provided for everyone, funded by a single payer, the government. You don't need state-owned hospitals or state-employed doctors to do this, you are merely cutting the blood-sucking insurance companies out of the loop for standard medical care. People would still be free to choose their own doctors, and procedures not covered by the basic plan could be paid for out-of-pocket or through private supplemental insurance or even a tax-free medical savings account. Nearly 30% of what we pay for health care now goes to administrative overhead -- a cost that could be drastically reduced by instituting a single payer system. The savings thereby gained would pay for covering the newly insured, who would also gain access to preventive care and seek expensive emergency treatment less often.

Sedan, you always have the best posts on this issue. But maybe that's cause I completely agree with you!

Good posts, y'all.

Paul, your input was very interesting. Sounds like it operates much the same as our system, except the govt pays for it. While I agree with your statement about poor, uninsured people having no choice but to endure long waits for medical care, I don't think that's a fault of the healthcare system. Poor people don't usually have access to fancy cars or luxury homes either. When you're low on funds, poor people have to do alot of unpleasant things rich people don't have to do. Even Hillary can't fix that social injustice. ;)

Sedan, I have one big objection to your plan. Are all the trained insurance workers put out of a job gonna end up going to work for Uncle Sam? Sounds too much like communism to me. If I want the govt to pay for my every need, I'll move to a communist country.

DF, you made the smartest comment of all... first we need to find out how much all this is going to cost. Then how it's all going to be paid for. And I'm gonna hate it if someone tries to say, "We could spend the billions we're spending in the war on terroism." Great. Then anybody who has the notion can run over here and show us what they think of us because all our money's tied up in healthcare.... forever. One other point... non-taxed medical funds sound good in theory. Only problem is, one has to pretty much be able to see into the future and figure out how much one is gonna need. Plus it really isn't much good for poor people.

Our system works for over 250 million insured people. And the other 50 million have access to healthcare in the form of county hospitals and charitable resources. I'd dare say the insurance industry employs at least a few million of those. Seems to me what people are really saying is toss the whole system out the window because too many people are making money and the govt is gettin left out.

Welcome to America.

;)
SMW

Normal people need more than 30 seconds to review their medical history and issues with a new doctor.

Just returned from my appt., Frannie. And I'm happy to report the doctor spent more than 30 MINUTES talking to me, taking notes, discussing the history of my disorder and meds I'd tried and how they worked. He then examined me from head to toe. My insurance company got their money's worth. So did I. Hate to disappoint you.

Oh please. You don't care about the average American taxpayer. You're content to let Joe Schmoe go into bankruptcy trying to afford basic medical care, rather than doing something to actually fix the problem. You'd rather maintain the broken status quo because (a) your employer currently offers a health insurance program and (b) you get your outrageously overpriced drugs for FREE as a handout from a private group; everybody else can drop dead so long as you get what YOU need. What about those people who need the same drug you do, who don't get charity drug handouts? Don't you care about them? :rolleyes:

I don't care about the average American taxpayer? Honey, I AM the average American taxpayer! And nobody, especially me, said anything about maintaining the status quo. I admit there are problems. MY point is, that HANDOUT is available for anyone with enough sense to reach out for it. And if they don't have enough sense, healthcare workers can lead them to it... like they did me. There are now MILLIONS of people who are taking the same drug I'm taking. And plans in place to assure that anyone who needs it and can't afford it... can get it. Don't try to over-dramatize the situation by saying things like I don't care about anybody but myself. That's rude and unnecessary.


How you can continue to insist that our healthcare system works is beyond me, particularly when it isn't working for YOU. * shakes head *

Here's another point you seem to not get. The system IS working for me. Yes, there's alot of redtape. After today's consultation, the doctor told me he'll hand off the paperwork to his FULL TIME staff person who does nothing but deal with insurance companies and private charities to authorize treatment. Bless his heart for having to hire an extra employee to handle that. Bless my heart for having to wait two weeks for all the details to get ironed out before I can get my first infusion. But most of all, BLESS THE HEARTS of those 'overpaid' researchers and pharmaceutical companies who developed this drug. It's been a miracle for many, many people like me. And it's the tip of the iceberg for what's coming in the future. I nearly fainted when I heard how much it costs. I couldn't even fathom a drug being that expensive. But I guarantee you, if YOU had a disabling condition and YOU found a drug that all but eliminates the symptoms (it's not a cure... there is no cure... yet), YOU'D be willing to go out of your way to make sure you could get it. Even if you didn't have a DIME to your name. Like everything, the price will eventually go down. How you, a person who knows nothing about the cost of developing a new medicine can even put a price on a miracle drug is beyond my understanding. Obviously, you've enjoyed good health. Bless your heart.

As for the cost of prescription drugs, you do realize, don't you, that what you're paying for is marketing and advertising costs, plus outrageous salaries for Big Pharma executives, plus profits for shareholders - NOT the cost of the the drug (or R&D), itself?

Big Pharma is a big part of why our healthcare system needs a complete overhaul. If you remove the extra costs Big Pharma and the insurance companies add to the equation (marketing/advertising, exorbitant salaries, etc.), actual healthcare costs drop dramatically. It's an astoundingly simple concept; why don't you get it?

Maybe I don't get it because so much of it is bunch of bologna, it's hard to separate the good part. And the fact that I don't want to unilaterally wipe out a whole system that WORKS just because it's not perfect and some people are making too much money . That's really what it comes down to, you know? That concept is even more astoundingly simple and I'm very surprised you have such a hard time getting it.

:rolleyes:
SMW

Here's another point you seem to not get. The system IS working for me. Yes, there's alot of redtape. After today's consultation, the doctor told me he'll hand off the paperwork to his FULL TIME staff person who does nothing but deal with insurance companies and private charities to authorize treatment. Bless his heart for having to hire an extra employee to handle that. Bless my heart for having to wait two weeks for all the details to get ironed out before I can get my first infusion. But most of all, BLESS THE HEARTS of those 'overpaid' researchers and pharmaceutical companies who developed this drug. It's been a miracle for many, many people like me. And it's the tip of the iceberg for what's coming in the future. I nearly fainted when I heard how much it costs. I couldn't even fathom a drug being that expensive. But I guarantee you, if YOU had a disabling condition and YOU found a drug that all but eliminates the symptoms (it's not a cure... there is no cure... yet), YOU'D be willing to go out of your way to make sure you could get it. Even if you didn't have a DIME to your name. Like everything, the price will eventually go down. How you, a person who knows nothing about the cost of developing a new medicine can even put a price on a miracle drug is beyond my understanding. Obviously, you've enjoyed good health. Bless your heart.


Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a thing, ain't it, SMW? :@@:

You start out with a declaration of how well our healthcare system is working for you, and everything that follows exposes exactly how broken it truly is. Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you honestly not see the conflict in your statements?


alot of redtape - essentially eliminated with universal healthcare
paperwork - drastically reduced with universal healthcare
a FULL TIME staff person who does nothing but deal with insurance companies - eliminated with universal healthcare
having to hire an extra employee to handle that - eliminated with universal healthcare
overpaid researchers and pharmaceutical companies - bargaining with Big Pharma will necessarily be included with universal healthcare; when they can no longer rape patients over drug costs, they'll have to pay their CEOs far less, spend far less on marketing/advertising, etc.
how much [the drug] costs [consumers] - see above
Even if you didn't have a DIME to your name - people are currently going bankrupt trying to pay for healthcare; others simply suffer and die because they have no medical coverage. Not everyone has the access or the wherewithal to get someone else to pay for their drugs, the way you have.
Like everything, the price will eventually go down - like the price of gas has gone down?
the cost of developing a new medicine - as I've already documented, Big Pharma currently spends twice as much on marketing/advertising its drugs as it spends developing them
How you can even put a price on a miracle drug - Big Pharma does, and as you can attest, it's quite hefty; as I've shown, the reason it's so expensive is Big Pharma's outrageous expenditures on marketing, advertising, and extreme salaries. Why aren't you outraged at them?


Maybe I don't get it because so much of it is bunch of bologna, it's hard to separate the good part.

No; after having had a few exchanges with you on various topics over time, I honestly think it's because your brain is broken.

Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a thing, ain't it, SMW? :@@:

You start out with a declaration of how well our healthcare system is working for you, and everything that follows exposes exactly how broken it truly is. Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you honestly not see the conflict in your statements?


alot of redtape - essentially eliminated with universal healthcare
paperwork - drastically reduced with universal healthcare
a FULL TIME staff person who does nothing but deal with insurance companies - eliminated with universal healthcare
having to hire an extra employee to handle that - eliminated with universal healthcare
overpaid researchers and pharmaceutical companies - bargaining with Big Pharma will necessarily be included with universal healthcare; when they can no longer rape patients over drug costs, they'll have to pay their CEOs far less, spend far less on marketing/advertising, etc.
how much [the drug] costs [consumers] - see above
Even if you didn't have a DIME to your name - people are currently going bankrupt trying to pay for healthcare; others simply suffer and die because they have no medical coverage. Not everyone has the access or the wherewithal to get someone else to pay for their drugs, the way you have.
Like everything, the price will eventually go down - like the price of gas has gone down?
the cost of developing a new medicine - as I've already documented, Big Pharma currently spends twice as much on marketing/advertising its drugs as it spends developing them
How you can even put a price on a miracle drug - Big Pharma does, and as you can attest, it's quite hefty; as I've shown, the reason it's so expensive is Big Pharma's outrageous expenditures on marketing, advertising, and extreme salaries. Why aren't you outraged at them?


No; after having had a few exchanges with you on various topics over time, I honestly think it's because your brain is broken.

Here's a concept... why don't you post something about YOUR own experiences with the American healthcare system? Even though you keep trying to restate MY experiences in a negative light to prove your own point, I've yet to see you give any hard examples of why sweeping changes need to be made. Have you, a family member, friend, coworker... anybody you know, ever been denied medical treatment? Do you know of anyone who's actually died because of red tape? Anyone who couldn't get the meds they need, regardless of their income and the cost of the drug?

Unless you have some REAL facts to share, you're just spewing rhetoric... much like every Democrat I've heard so far. If the system is so broken, surely somebody here has some examples to share... even if you don't.

So far, I've seen stories of people being inconvenienced. Paul is the only one who states cases he knows of where people with cancer have died waiting for treatment IN IRELAND.

Before anyone clamors to search the web for horror stories which may or may not be true, I'm only interested in personal experiences. We get enough fictional examples from those running for office.

SMW

P.S. to your comment about the price of gas. Why don't we just shut down the oil businesses and let the govt run that industry, too? You people keep it up, and we'll be the Socialist Union of America before we know it.

You people keep it up, and we'll be the Socialist Union of America before we know it.

Haven't you realized yet that that is exactly what some of them want.

Haven't you realized yet that that is exactly what some of them want.

I haven't realized it until recently, Frogger. But every idea the libs have to 'improve the system' seems to end with... let the govt take control. Not only is our govt not designed to be an administrative machine, it's also not very efficient in managing the few administrative systems it's in charge of now. Makes you wonder if they've never had any occasion to deal with the Social Security Admin... or the IRS? LOL, SS has had my stepdad's date of birth transposed since he was in the military... in WWII. He tried for years to get it corrected, finally realizing the best way to deal with it is just to remember to put the date he knows they have anytime he's dealing with them. For everything else, he uses his real b'day. The thought of the govt running our healthcare system makes me break out in hives.

;)
SMW

Here's a concept... why don't you post something about YOUR own experiences with the American healthcare system? ... If the system is so broken, surely somebody here has some examples to share... even if you don't.

I can't afford health coverage. Haven't had an employer that offers it since 2004, although I'm just about making enough now where I can afford the $300+ per month it will cost to insure privately.

Here's an example from my own life, though, since you're so intent on ignoring the factual data I've already provided. A few months ago, my rooster got me a good one on my arm; his spur went in pretty deep, lots of blood. I washed it out and disinfected it the best I could, but within a few hours it was clear that it was infected. By the following morning, I had no choice but to go to a doc-in-the-box. After waiting about an hour, a doctor finally poked his head in the exam room door. Took one look at my arm, said "Yup. That's infected," and walked out. That brilliant five-second determination cost me $250. The scrip he wrote me cost another $75. Had to borrow money later that week to put gas in the car, since $325 out of my monthly budget wiped me out.

This is what nearly 50 million people have to deal with on a daily basis, because they cannot afford to pay the exorbitant prices insurance companies charge us to get basic medical care. Does this sound like it's working to you?

I've yet to see you give any hard examples of why sweeping changes need to be made. Unless you have some REAL facts to share... needlessly hyper-partisan comment follows

I've provided plenty of reasons - and offered significant documentation on the massive expenditures created by insurance companies and Big Pharma (marketing and advertising costs, exorbitant salaries, etc.) to back it all up - yet you still refuse to see how health insurance companies and Big Pharma have desperately crippled our healthcare systems.

I give up. Your brain really is broken.

P.S. to your comment about the price of gas. Why don't we just shut down the oil businesses and let the govt run that industry, too?

Mr. Bush is working on that as fast as he can.

I had no choice but to go to a doc-in-the-box. After waiting about an hour, a doctor finally poked his head in the exam room door. Took one look at my arm, said "Yup. That's infected," and walked out. That brilliant five-second determination cost me $250.

You'll have to excuse me for being skeptical. I don't believe the doctor simply took one look at your arm, said, "Yup. That's infected." and walked out. Anyone who has been to any doctor knows that is not what happens and that no office visit with a doctor last only five seconds.

I honestly think your dislike of our private health care system is causing you to grossly exaggerate.

I can't afford health coverage. Haven't had an employer that offers it since 2004, although I'm just about making enough now where I can afford the $300+ per month it will cost to insure privately.

Here's an example from my own life, though, since you're so intent on ignoring the factual data I've already provided. A few months ago, my rooster got me a good one on my arm; his spur went in pretty deep, lots of blood. I washed it out and disinfected it the best I could, but within a few hours it was clear that it was infected. By the following morning, I had no choice but to go to a doc-in-the-box. After waiting about an hour, a doctor finally poked his head in the exam room door. Took one look at my arm, said "Yup. That's infected," and walked out. That brilliant five-second determination cost me $250. The scrip he wrote me cost another $75. Had to borrow money later that week to put gas in the car, since $325 out of my monthly budget wiped me out.

This is what nearly 50 million people have to deal with on a daily basis, because they cannot afford to pay the exorbitant prices insurance companies charge us to get basic medical care. Does this sound like it's working to you?



I've provided plenty of reasons - and offered significant documentation on the massive expenditures created by insurance companies and Big Pharma (marketing and advertising costs, exorbitant salaries, etc.) to back it all up - yet you still refuse to see how health insurance companies and Big Pharma have desperately crippled our healthcare systems.

I give up. Your brain really is broken.



Mr. Bush is working on that as fast as he can.

I'm sorry to hear about your recent injury. Just wonder how long it's been before that when you've needed to see a doctor. $325 is alot of money... but spread out over what, say 6 months or a year... not much. Most major cities now have emergency and routine medical clinics available in GROCERY STORES. Read an article the other day where someone actually went there to take a series of allergy tests that would have cost thousands of dollars with a private doctor and they had to pay only $60... for the same results.

As long as you continue to use terms like 'crippled our healthcare system' and try to tell me 50 million uninsured people in America have run-ins with roosters on a daily basis... I just can't relate to your determined stance to throw out the whole system and start all over. Too much drama.

Sounds like what you really want is for the govt to provide YOU with health insurance and explains alot about why you keep throwing up the fact to me that my employer pays for mine. We all pay a price for choices we make... I choose to work for an employer who is concerned enough to provide insurance. You choose to work for yourself. Just don't expect me to jump thru hoops to provide you with everything you're missing out on by being your own boss. There's a price to pay for freedom from having a boss over your shoulder. In your case, it's paying for your own health insurance... or medical care, whichever you prefer.

Guess I don't get your comment about Bush and the price of gasoline. But I'm pretty sure the meaning has a negative slant to it. Never heard you say anything nice about anything except chickens and I doubt you'd turn over a new leaf by complimenting the president.

:rolleyes:
SMW

You'll have to excuse me for being skeptical. I don't believe the doctor simply took one look at your arm, said, "Yup. That's infected." and walked out. Anyone who has been to any doctor knows that is not what happens and that no office visit with a doctor last only five seconds.

I honestly think your dislike of our private health care system is causing you to grossly exaggerate.


I have not exaggerated in the least. I had a deep puncture wound on my forearm and the whole area around it was red and swollen. Doesn't take more than five seconds for anyone with a brain to know that it was infected. The doctor took one look and knew, just as any simpleton would, that I had a raging infection. No need to put me on a freakin' EKG, yanno? He said he'd write me a scrip for antibiotics and walked out of the room. Five-second "examination." End of story.

I have not exaggerated in the least. I had a deep puncture wound on my forearm and the whole area around it was red and swollen. Doesn't take more than five seconds for anyone with a brain to know that it was infected. The doctor took one look and knew, just as any simpleton would, that I had a raging infection. No need to put me on a freakin' EKG, yanno? He said he'd write me a scrip for antibiotics and walked out of the room. Five-second "examination." End of story.

I'm sure you're smart enough to know that not all doctors are alike. If I were you, in preparation for the next accident you may have, I'd find myself a doctor closeby who's a little more reasonable and has better bedside manner. Can't tell whether you're exaggerating about the EKG or not. Did he actually order an EKG for you?

Just wonder how long it's been before that when you've needed to see a doctor. $325 is alot of money... but spread out over what, say 6 months or a year... not much. Most major cities now have emergency and routine medical clinics available in GROCERY STORES. Read an article the other day where someone actually went there to take a series of allergy tests that would have cost thousands of dollars with a private doctor and they had to pay only $60... for the same results.

That's incredible! (As in not believable.) Got a link?

As long as you continue to use terms like 'crippled our healthcare system' and try to tell me 50 million uninsured people in America have run-ins with roosters on a daily basis... I just can't relate to your determined stance to throw out the whole system and start all over. Too much drama.

Talk about drama. :rolleyes: You asked for a personal example; I gave you one. If you honestly believe I was "trying to tell you 50 million uninsured people in America have run-ins with roosters on a daily basis," it's just one more example of how incredibly twisted your thinking is. My medical needs are generally small, it's true, but people get smashed up in car wrecks every day. It could even happen to you.

you keep throwing up the fact to me that my employer pays for mine.

I bring it up because that could change at any minute. More and more employers are dropping or drastically reducing the healthcare coverage they offer employees because they can't afford the outrageous expenditure.

What's Wrong with America's Health Care (http://www.aflcio.org/issues/healthcare/whatswrong/)
In 2005, nearly 45 million U.S. residents had no health insurance, and the numbers keep growing. Because employers increasingly are moving in the direction of providing Wal-Mart-style health coverage by shifting health care costs to employees, America’s workers struggle to pay higher premiums, deductibles and co-payments—if they can afford such coverage at all.

Of the nearly 45 million Americans without health insurance, nearly one-quarter or more than 10 million are children. Read the AFL-CIO Executive Council's call for a universal health care system based on Medicare. (http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/thisistheaflcio/ecouncil/ec03062007.cfm)

Working families are experiencing double-digit increases in the costs of health insurance, more out-of-pocket costs for doctor visits and skyrocketing prices for prescriptions, forcing many to delay getting needed medical care or worse—to decline coverage for themselves or their families because of cost.

Health care costs are rising at five times the rate of inflation. According to the Center for Studying Health System Change, health care spending rose 10 percent in 2002 and that followed a slightly more than 10 percent increase in 2001—the largest jump in more than a decade. In the first six months of 2003, health spending rose another 8.5 percent. Premiums for employer-sponsored coverage increased nearly 13 percent in 2002. As employers refuse to pay their fair share, this trend may result in millions of workers losing their employer-based coverage.

Employers are responding to growing cost pressures by shifting more and more health care costs onto workers, especially through larger co-pays and deductibles that must be paid at the time treatment is sought. Other cost increases hitting workers include larger hikes in the cost of family coverage, less access to needed prescription drugs through stricter HMO formularies and higher prices for more comprehensive coverage.

Sure hope it doesn't happen to you...

I'm sure you're smart enough to know that not all doctors are alike. If I were you, in preparation for the next accident you may have, I'd find myself a doctor closeby who's a little more reasonable and has better bedside manner.

People with no health insurance don't have a lot of choices, and must take what they can find. Doc-in-the-box shops are generally "quick and dirty," no frills, no holding or wringing of hands, etc.

Can't tell whether you're exaggerating about the EKG or not. Did he actually order an EKG for you?

* giggle * Of course I was joking. It was a simple infection,and it cost me $325 out of pocket to be treated. God forbid I should ever break a leg. :eek:

People with no health insurance don't have a lot of choices, and must take what they can find. Doc-in-the-box shops are generally "quick and dirty," no frills, no holding or wringing of hands, etc.



* giggle * Of course I was joking. It was a simple infection,and it cost me $325 out of pocket to be treated. God forbid I should ever break a leg. :eek:


Sure they do. In fact, people with no health insurance have MORE choices than people with insurance do! Why? Because you can go to any doctor you want... we have to go to doctors in our network. Sorry, Frannie, but there's no way I believe a 'doc-in-a-box' charged you $250 for a simple office visit. I go to a world-renowned specialist and his office call is $175... with or without insurance. I know, I've had to pay it out of my pocket a time or two in the past.

I believe it's Brooks who has the tag on his profile... if you have to exaggerate to make your point, you've already lost the argument.

I agree and hereby declare you the loser in this one.

SMW

That's incredible! (As in not believable.) Got a link?

http://www.fortherecordmag.com/archives/ftr_04022007p24.shtml

http://www.med-basics.com/coverage/Doc_Box.pdf

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17761

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11148598/

I could do more... but surely you get the point. You really need to get out more, Frannie. These aren't all that new.


Talk about drama. :rolleyes: You asked for a personal example; I gave you one. If you honestly believe I was "trying to tell you 50 million uninsured people in America have run-ins with roosters on a daily basis," it's just one more example of how incredibly twisted your thinking is. My medical needs are generally small, it's true, but people get smashed up in car wrecks every day. It could even happen to you.



I bring it up because that could change at any minute. More and more employers are dropping or drastically reducing the healthcare coverage they offer employees because they can't afford the outrageous expenditure.



Sure hope it doesn't happen to you...

I've been without health insurance for years at a time, dear. When I worked for a small company that didn't offer it and when I went into biz for myself. I know the pitfalls. I also know that I had enough sense to do some research and get the facts I needed to know -- like where to go for help... BEFORE I needed help. I was well-prepared to sit in the waiting room of the county hospital if that's what I needed to do. And like I said before, there are many charities out there to help people with chronic conditions who don't have insurance. Additionally, I had a friend who became VERY ill with double pneumonia and ended up spending 1 week in ICU and 1 week in CCU at a cost of over $100,000. He had no insurance, even though he was admitted to a private, non-charitable hospital, because he was in respiratory distress when he arrived at the ER and they are not allowed to turn people with life-threatening conditions away. His case was handled thru their foundation... called the Golden Cross, and he can still go there today for follow-up care.

You're singing to the choir here, Frannie. I've been where you are (no insurance) and I didn't suffer... nor did I expect the govt to come to my rescue. You're a big girl now... surely you're capable of taking care of yourself.

Thanks for the links about the grocery store clinics, SMW, but I was asking for documentation about the guy who “went there to take a series of allergy tests that would have cost thousands of dollars with a private doctor and they had to pay only $60.” I still find that incredible.

As for the links you provided, these little mini-clinics are a great idea and I’m all for them. Unfortunately, there don’t seem to be any in my area (the closest is 165 miles away). I’m guessing there are probably some other people across the country who also don’t have access to them. Beyond this, a fair portion of the patients at these clinics have treatment costs covered by their health insurance; that’s why the clinics accept an insurance co-pay and help people fill out the claim forms. This still doesn’t solve the problem of 50 million (and growing) without insurance. Finally, as each of the articles noted, these clinics offer very limited services – treatment for cuts and abrasions, colds and flu, and so on. What suggestions do you have for the uninsured when they, say, contract tuberculosis or cancer or fall down some stairs and break an arm or crack a skull? Grocery store clinics are of no use to them.

You're a big girl now... surely you're capable of taking care of yourself.

Sure I am; I’m more concerned about the people who aren't. I can manage. I don’t like it (who would?), but I can manage. What concerns me more are all the others who can’t. What about them? If we don’t find a way to provide basic medical treatment for all our citizens now, we’ll certainly pay more for it later, when the uninsured with untreated simple illnesses progress to the point they’re on death’s bed, are admitted to the ER, and are suddenly an even greater cost to every one of us. I’d rather pay now for the ounce of prevention, than later for the pound of cure, thanks.

SMW, you keep trying to make our differences on universal healthcare personal. It isn’t about my experience or yours, it’s about everyone else’s. You and I are reasonably intelligent and resourceful; when push comes to shove we can find a way to deal with our various health needs. I’m able to scrounge around to find enough cash to cover the insane cost of treatment for a simple infection. You’ve got the resources to find, apply and qualify for someone else to pay the insane cost of your expensive meds. Not everyone is as “lucky” as you and I are, in that we are able to manage our own health care needs when what’s there (or isn’t there, in my case) isn’t enough. Too many others don’t have jobs, don’t have enough money, don’t have the transportation, or the availability, or the savvy, or the determination, or the brains to work around the gaps in our healthcare programs the way you and I have.

WHY we should have to scrounge around on our own to find a way to make our healthcare ends meet is the bigger question, and you don’t seem to have any thoughts about that. The fact that you have health insurance and it still doesn’t cover your needs doesn’t seem to register with you.

In the richest country in the world, with the most resources, the cleverest minds, and the most opportunity, I think it’s a crime that people are losing their life savings, their homes, their pensions, their retirement funds, all over healthcare. Don’t you?

Beyond all of this, I'd be interested in seeing documentation/research to support your arguments. I've supplied plenty of data to support my belief that healthcare costs are too high and why they’re too high, that too many are uninsured and why that number is growing exponentially, that we need a complete overhaul of our healthcare programs, and so on, and all you seem to offer in response is "It'll never work!" Can you give us hard evidence that a universal healthcare program would be more expensive than what we have now, that it would be less effective, that it can’t work in this country, etc.? Can you prove to us that charities can cover all the gaps for everyone, the way they have for you?

Thanks for the links about the grocery store clinics, SMW, but I was asking for documentation about the guy who “went there to take a series of allergy tests that would have cost thousands of dollars with a private doctor and they had to pay only $60.” I still find that incredible.

Did you read the price menus? Allergy tests were even cheaper than I quoted. You're in denial, Frannie and nothing you see or anyone can say will make you understand that it's YOU who doesn't see the big picture here.

As for the links you provided, these little mini-clinics are a great idea and I’m all for them. Unfortunately, there don’t seem to be any in my area (the closest is 165 miles away).

Now how did I KNOW that's what you were going to say. Again, don't expect the taxpayers to make things right for you because you CHOOSE to live in the boonies. That's not our problem and I don't plan to contribute to the comfort of your lifestyle.

I’m guessing there are probably some other people across the country who also don’t have access to them. Beyond this, a fair portion of the patients at these clinics have treatment costs covered by their health insurance; that’s why the clinics accept an insurance co-pay and help people fill out the claim forms. This still doesn’t solve the problem of 50 million (and growing) without insurance. Finally, as each of the articles noted, these clinics offer very limited services – treatment for cuts and abrasions, colds and flu, and so on. What suggestions do you have for the uninsured when they, say, contract tuberculosis or cancer or fall down some stairs and break an arm or crack a skull? Grocery store clinics are of no use to them.

They go to a COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Frannie. How many times do I have to say that before it sinks in? There are HOSPITALS that accept people with no insurance and no money. The grocery store clinic would've been perfect for your injury... had you not chosen to live in an area where such services are not provided. Maybe you should consider moving closer to affordable medical care? Other people have to... why shouldn't you? LOL on the 'most clinics accept insurance' -- so what? So it covers the $59 they charge to treat injuries such as yours?

Sure I am; I’m more concerned about the people who aren't. I can manage. I don’t like it (who would?), but I can manage. What concerns me more are all the others who can’t.

Exactly WHO are these 'others' Frannie? Do you think those 'others' aren't as smart and you and I? Do you think they NEED the govt to take care of them because they're too stupid to take care of their self? If so, you shortchange the intelligence of our citizens. They have just as much access to FREE healthcare (if they can't afford to pay for it) as you and I have. If they have money to pay for it, all the better, they have more choices.

What about them? If we don’t find a way to provide basic medical treatment for all our citizens now, we’ll certainly pay more for it later, when the uninsured with untreated simple illnesses progress to the point they’re on death’s bed, are admitted to the ER, and are suddenly an even greater cost to every one of us. I’d rather pay now for the ounce of prevention, than later for the pound of cure, thanks.

Newsflash, dear... you're NOT the one paying for it now. We all do when it comes to community hospitals that are paid for by our property taxes. As in my friend's case, the Methodist Church ended up paying for his care. I can't see where any of that costs you a dime. Now if a National Healthcare System was put into place, believe me, it'd cost all of us PLENTY.

Beyond all of this, I'd be interested in seeing documentation/research to support your arguments. I've supplied plenty of data to support my belief that healthcare costs are too high and why they’re too high, that too many are uninsured and why that number is growing exponentially, that we need a complete overhaul of our healthcare programs, and so on, and all you seem to offer in response is "It'll never work!" Can you give us hard evidence that a universal healthcare program would be more expensive than what we have now, that it would be less effective, that it can’t work in this country, etc.? Can you prove to us that charities can cover all the gaps for everyone, the way they have for you?

Let's see, you're asking me to provide evidence of how much this grand scheme will cost us? When even those who are pushing it have made no effort to provide any hard numbers? Sorry, I'm no magician and can't pull accurate numbers out of a hat. And neither can they.

I'm done with this discussion, Frannie. You refuse to listen to anything I say just because I talk about personal experiences and don't just parrot what I hear my favorite politicians talking about or some article on the internet points out. You're the one who's brainwashed here and frankly, I'm a little surprised at how blindly you keep swallowing the same hype they keep feeding you. Actual experiences of REAL Americans are more valuable in deciding what this country needs than the rhetoric of a hundred politicians. And to think, the libs call us consvs SHEEP. You're the biggest BAAAAAAAA around on this subject. If Hillary Clinton stopped real quick, you'd run 6 inches up her backside.

Besides, I think it's all a moot point anyway, because the majority of Americans won't buy into it. In fact, I'd be willing to bet this one issue will end up being the downfall of the Democrats in 2008. No one in their right mind will vote for someone based on 'healthcare in every pot' promises without a plan and figures to back up how it's going to be accomplished. And that's something none of the candidates can (or WILL) come up with.

I know I'll do everything within my power to make sure nobody takes away the healthcare system that works for me and my family. I'm pretty sure there are at least 249,999,999 other insured people who will agree with me. And we'll continue to take care of the 50,000,000 without insurance who can't afford healthcare. Just like we're doing now... thru community resources and charities.

SMW

You seem very angry and upset, SMW. Is it because your “solutions” to our “unbroken” healthcare system in this country are so limited, shortsighted, selfish, and naïve?

As for the links you provided, these little mini-clinics are a great idea and I’m all for them. Unfortunately, there don’t seem to be any in my area (the closest is 165 miles away).

Now how did I KNOW that's what you were going to say. Again, don't expect the taxpayers to make things right for you because you CHOOSE to live in the boonies. That's not our problem and I don't plan to contribute to the comfort of your lifestyle… The grocery store clinic would've been perfect for your injury... had you not chosen to live in an area where such services are not provided. Maybe you should consider moving closer to affordable medical care? Other people have to... why shouldn't you?

Perhaps you should have done a bit more research on these grocery store clinics before offering them as the grand healthcare solution for nearly 50 million uninsured. If you had, you’d know that there are only about 100 of these clinics in the entire country (RediClinic has 12 in Houston, seven in Austin, one in San Antonio, two in NW Arkansas, two in Tulsa OK, and nine in Richmond, VA; MinuteClinic has about 70 clinics in 23 states; Quick Care has five locations in Omaha, NE). Yes, there are plenty in Texas (and y’all got yours, so what do you care, right?), but Texas isn’t the center of the universe despite what you may think, and not even you, with your astounding ability to overpower extreme cognitive dissonance, can possibly believe that places like San Francisco, Portland, Denver, Cincinnati, and Louisville are “the boonies.”

Exactly WHO are these 'others' Frannie?

Well, there are 47+ million of them. I’m afraid I can’t provide names, but the US Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/usernote/table2usernote.xls) can give you more detail on demographics if you’re that interested.

go to a COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Frannie. How many times do I have to say that before it sinks in? There are HOSPITALS that accept people with no insurance and no money.

And how do you suppose those community hospitals pay for the care they provide for “free?”

Newsflash, dear... you're NOT the one paying for it now. We all do when it comes to community hospitals that are paid for by our property taxes.

There you go! You’re catching on. Community hospitals provide “free” healthcare by taking it out of property tax revenues. Newsflash, dear… I pay property taxes. Had I gone to the local community hospital and pretended I didn’t have any money, I’d end up paying for that “free” healthcare later on down the line, anyway.

So, in response to your insistence that I should have gotten “free” treatment for my infection through deceit by feigning destitution at a community hospital, I can only shake my head. I chose not to add the additional tax burden to myself and everyone in my state by telling lies about my ability to pay for treatment.

I guess deception in such things, and burdening others with personal financial responsibilities comes easier to some. It just wasn’t in me.

Now if a National Healthcare System was put into place, believe me, it'd cost all of us PLENTY.

Well, I'd rather believe documented statistics, if you don't mind. Do you have any data on how much more universal healthcare would cost the average taxpayer than our current system does?

to take care of the 50,000,000 without insurance who can't afford healthcare. Just like we're doing now... thru community resources and charities.

Do you have any stats on how much these "free" community resources actually cost taxpayers? Can you show us some data proving that charities are able to cover the ever-widening gap in basic healthcare for the uninsured?

Sedan, I have one big objection to your plan. Are all the trained insurance workers put out of a job gonna end up going to work for Uncle Sam?You know, it's funny -- when America loses jobs in the manufacturing sector the standard right wing response is to say it's in the name of efficiency, let the market run it's course, these people were stupid not to have other skills and so on. But when completely unproductive paper-pushing jobs are at risk now all of a sudden your concern is for the displaced workers? Pardon me for not taking this 'big objection' of yours very seriously. And no, they won't all wind up as government workers -- there wont be anywhere near enough paperwork for them to push since the game of "pass the bill to the other guy" will no longer be played.

Researchers at Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Canada's quasi-official health statistics agency, analyzed the administrative costs of health insurers, employers' health benefit programs, hospitals, nursing homes, home care agencies, physicians and other practitioners in the U.S. and Canada. They used data from regulatory agencies and surveys of doctors, and analyzed Census data and detailed cost reports filed by tens of thousands of health institutions in both nations. They found that health care bureaucracy cost Americans $294.3 billion in 1999. The $1,059 per capita spent on health care administration was more than three times the $307 per capita in paperwork costs under Canada's national health insurance system. The authors found that bureaucracy accounted for at least 31 percent of total U.S. health spending in 1999 vs. 16.7 percent in Canada. Cutting U.S. health bureaucracy costs to the Canadian level would have saved $209 billion in 1999.

http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/node/3409
Sounds too much like communism to me. If I want the govt to pay for my every need, I'll move to a communist country.ROFL!!

I guess moving to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia or anywhere in Western Europe is out of the question then.

All of these 'commie' countries provide universal health insurance for their citizens. :eek:

Incidentally, our taxpayer dollars are funding universal coverage in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Are we turning them into communist countries as well?

I already named two.
Inaccurate misrepresentation of the system.

In IRL/UK you can have medical Insurane and be registered with a GP on the NHS.

In the Rep Ire.there is a NHS system,but you also have to pay a reduced fee for care,I think its up to e50 now.

I somewhat agree, Frannie. However, since nobody KNOWS how a universal healthcare system would work, nobody KNOWS how doctors will react to it. Is there any guarantee that a universal system will be any more 'patient-friendly' than the HMO CBL's dealing with now? Do you foresee EVERY doctor in American rushing to sign up in a govt sponsored program when it's hard enough to get them to agree to provide medicare/medicaid services now?

Guess I'm just not convinced doctors will be willing to put in all the years necessary to get a practice going, then jump for joy that the govt will now mandate how much they can charge and how and when they'll get paid.

Take away the competition and we may just end up with good doctors fleeing to other locations.

How do you see that part of the issue unfurling?

You are flipping the argument around - as usual with you. You talk and talk and confuse yourself.

The discussion is whether doctors who are part of the UNIVERSAL government socialized medicine will treat patients who want to pay out of pocket. I don't believe any UNIVERSAL health plan restricts doctors from treating you if you want to pay by means OUTSIDE of the proposed UNIVERSAL healthcare.

You seem very angry and upset, SMW. Is it because your “solutions” to our “unbroken” healthcare system in this country are so limited, shortsighted, selfish, and naïve?

The main thing that upsets me, Frannie... is people like you who are too cheap to buy your own medical insurance, although I have no doubt you can well afford it, because you would rather play the martyr and cry for national coverage so you don't have to dip into your own pocket.

Perhaps you should have done a bit more research on these grocery store clinics before offering them as the grand healthcare solution for nearly 50 million uninsured. If you had, you’d know that there are only about 100 of these clinics in the entire country (RediClinic has 12 in Houston, seven in Austin, one in San Antonio, two in NW Arkansas, two in Tulsa OK, and nine in Richmond, VA; MinuteClinic has about 70 clinics in 23 states; Quick Care has five locations in Omaha, NE). Yes, there are plenty in Texas (and y’all got yours, so what do you care, right?), but Texas isn’t the center of the universe despite what you may think, and not even you, with your astounding ability to overpower extreme cognitive dissonance, can possibly believe that places like San Francisco, Portland, Denver, Cincinnati, and Louisville are “the boonies.”

Frannie, surely you realize that my list of quickie healthcare units was not all-inclusive. As with most Democrats, you'd rather sit back and have someone else do all the legwork for you while you sit and whine about things you're too lazy to figure out for yourself. I'm sorry that you used bad judgment in selecting a doctor to visit for your minor injury. A smart person would've established a relationship with a primary-care physican in your area as soon as you moved in, so medical care wouldn't have been a question of whether to seek a doc-in-the-box like you did... or a reputable physician who knows your history. Please don't expect me to pay for your bad judgment.

Well, there are 47+ million of them. I’m afraid I can’t provide names, but the US Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/usernote/table2usernote.xls) can give you more detail on demographics if you’re that interested.

And now that I've 'met' you, it makes me wonder how many of those 47+ million are in the same boat you're in? Self-employed and reluctant to provide insurance coverage for yourself, so you cry, "I can't afford it" and demand that the govt takes care of it for you?

And how do you suppose those community hospitals pay for the care they provide for “free?”

There you go! You’re catching on. Community hospitals provide “free” healthcare by taking it out of property tax revenues. Newsflash, dear… I pay property taxes. Had I gone to the local community hospital and pretended I didn’t have any money, I’d end up paying for that “free” healthcare later on down the line, anyway.

So, in response to your insistence that I should have gotten “free” treatment for my infection through deceit by feigning destitution at a community hospital, I can only shake my head. I chose not to add the additional tax burden to myself and everyone in my state by telling lies about my ability to pay for treatment.

If you had gotten 'free' treatment, you would be breaking the law, Frannie. Unless, that is, you were truly unable to pay. I never once said anything about you receiving 'free' treatment. You are twisting my words. No surprise there.

I guess deception in such things, and burdening others with personal financial responsibilities comes easier to some. It just wasn’t in me.

Well, I'd rather believe documented statistics, if you don't mind. Do you have any data on how much more universal healthcare would cost the average taxpayer than our current system does?

Please show me those documented statistics on how much universal healthcare will cost the average taxpayer. If you have them, you probably should consider sharing them with the Democrats since they seem to be at a loss to cite any statistics.

Do you have any stats on how much these "free" community resources actually cost taxpayers? Can you show us some data proving that charities are able to cover the ever-widening gap in basic healthcare for the uninsured?

I don't need any stats to prove the following statement, Frannie. Feel free to contradict it with FACTS of your own, if you have any.

EVERY PERSON IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE TODAY. IF THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR IT, IT WILL STILL BE PROVIDED, FREE OF CHARGE.

And yes, of course I pay for it with the taxes on my property. And so do you. And so does every other property owner in this country. So what? Do you think that will change with a universal health care system where we all pay for it thru our federal taxes? Show me a reason to believe 'your' system would be an improvement over what we have now... or shut up about it.

SMW

You are flipping the argument around - as usual with you. You talk and talk and confuse yourself.

The discussion is whether doctors who are part of the UNIVERSAL government socialized medicine will treat patients who want to pay out of pocket. I don't believe any UNIVERSAL health plan restricts doctors from treating you if you want to pay by means OUTSIDE of the proposed UNIVERSAL healthcare.

Sounds to me like you're the one who's confused. I'm not sure why you think I'm 'flipping the argument around' when you haven't even been involved in this discussion, but whatever, Mesk.

The point is NOT whether a person could visit a doctor outside a UNIVERSAL health plan... the point is, why would a doctor continue to practice in this country if he/she chose not to be a part of the UNIVERSAL healthcare system? Do you really expect highly educated professionals to sit back on their laurels and wait for a patient to become so disenchanted with the tax-payer supported sytem that they shell money out of their pockets to visit a doctor outside the loop?

Surely you jest.

SMW

You know, it's funny -- when America loses jobs in the manufacturing sector the standard right wing response is to say it's in the name of efficiency, let the market run it's course, these people were stupid not to have other skills and so on. But when completely unproductive paper-pushing jobs are at risk now all of a sudden your concern is for the displaced workers? Pardon me for not taking this 'big objection' of yours very seriously. And no, they won't all wind up as government workers -- there wont be anywhere near enough paperwork for them to push since the game of "pass the bill to the other guy" will no longer be played.

Researchers at Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Canada's quasi-official health statistics agency, analyzed the administrative costs of health insurers, employers' health benefit programs, hospitals, nursing homes, home care agencies, physicians and other practitioners in the U.S. and Canada. They used data from regulatory agencies and surveys of doctors, and analyzed Census data and detailed cost reports filed by tens of thousands of health institutions in both nations. They found that health care bureaucracy cost Americans $294.3 billion in 1999. The $1,059 per capita spent on health care administration was more than three times the $307 per capita in paperwork costs under Canada's national health insurance system. The authors found that bureaucracy accounted for at least 31 percent of total U.S. health spending in 1999 vs. 16.7 percent in Canada. Cutting U.S. health bureaucracy costs to the Canadian level would have saved $209 billion in 1999.

http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/node/3409
ROFL!!

I guess moving to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia or anywhere in Western Europe is out of the question then.

All of these 'commie' countries provide universal health insurance for their citizens. :eek:

Incidentally, our taxpayer dollars are funding universal coverage in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Are we turning them into communist countries as well?

Sedan, please... feel free to move to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia or anywhere in Western Europe if you're so inclined. I'm an American and see no reason to alter this country to mimic what those countries do. If I want to live with the Brazilian heathcare system, I'll move to Brazil.

Maybe you should go study up on socialism. You seem to be a little naive on how it functions.

And you didn't answer my question about what would happen to the displaced 1 million people who work in the health insurance industry today? A flippant remark referring to them as 'unproductive pencil-pushers' speaks volumes of your lack of understanding of the free-enterprise system.

:rolleyes:
SMW

P.S. BTW, do YOU actually have any experience with the American Medical system to share... or are you just hanging around to blindly push a popular liberal issue?

SMW, what personal experience do you have with "socialism"? Besides our socialized fire services or our socialized police services, that is...

Have you ever been to a socialist country?

What do you think you know about socialism that gives you the right to call Sedan "naive"?

:thumbs:
db

SMW, what personal experience do you have with "socialism"? Besides our socialized fire services or our socialized police services, that is...

Have you ever been to a socialist country?

What do you think you know about socialism that gives you the right to call Sedan "naive"?

:thumbs:
db

How about simple definitions for simple minds?

socialism

Definition
Economic system which is based on cooperation rather than competition and which utilizes centralized planning and distribution.

***********
socialism :
A political system where the means of production are controlled by the workers and all things are shared evenly. Socialist policies provide for government funding of many basic needs such as food, shelter, and medical care.

***********
So·cial·ism
noun

Definition:

political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to principles of fairness rather than market principles.

***********

IOW, directly opposite the Free Enterprise System, or Capitalism, as defined below:

Capitalism
An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.

Notes:
In such a system, individuals and firms have the right to own and use wealth to earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages with little or no government control. The function of regulating the economy is then achieved mainly through the operation of market forces where prices and profit dictate where and how resources are used and allocated. The U.S. is a capitalistic system.

Anything else about Socialist vs Capitalists you don't understand?

;)
SMW

WITH the health care system at the center of the political debate, a lot of scary claims are being thrown around. The dangerous ones are not those that are false; watchdogs in the news media are quick to debunk them. Rather, the dangerous ones are those that are true but don’t mean what people think they mean.

David G. Klein
Here are three of the true but misleading statements about health care that politicians and pundits love to use to frighten the public:

STATEMENT 1 The United States has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than Canada, which has national health insurance.



The differences between the neighbors are indeed significant. Life expectancy at birth is 2.6 years greater for Canadian men than for American men, and 2.3 years greater for Canadian women than American women. Infant mortality in the United States is 6.8 per 1,000 live births, versus 5.3 in Canada.

These facts are often taken as evidence for the inadequacy of the American health system. But a recent study by June and Dave O’Neill, economists at Baruch College, from which these numbers come, shows that the difference in health outcomes has more to do with broader social forces.

For example, Americans are more likely than Canadians to die by accident or by homicide. For men in their 20s, mortality rates are more than 50 percent higher in the United States than in Canada, but the O’Neills show that accidents and homicides account for most of that gap. Maybe these differences have lessons for traffic laws and gun control, but they teach us nothing about our system of health care.

Americans are also more likely to be obese, leading to heart disease and other medical problems. Among Americans, 31 percent of men and 33 percent of women have a body mass index of at least 30, a definition of obesity, versus 17 percent of men and 19 percent of women in Canada. Japan, which has the longest life expectancy among major nations, has obesity rates of about 3 percent.

The causes of American obesity are not fully understood, but they involve lifestyle choices we make every day, as well as our system of food delivery. Research by the Harvard economists David Cutler, Ed Glaeser and Jesse Shapiro concludes that America’s growing obesity problem is largely attributable to our economy’s ability to supply high-calorie foods cheaply. Lower prices increase food consumption, sometimes beyond the point of optimal health.

Infant mortality rates also reflect broader social trends, including the prevalence of infants with low birth weight. The health system in the United States gives low birth-weight babies slightly better survival chances than does Canada’s, but the more pronounced difference is the frequency of these cases. In the United States, 7.5 percent of babies are born weighing less than 2,500 grams (about 5.5 pounds), compared with 5.7 percent in Canada. In both nations, these infants have more than 10 times the mortality rate of larger babies. Low birth weights are in turn correlated with teenage motherhood. (One theory is that a teenage mother is still growing and thus competing with the fetus for nutrients.) The rate of teenage motherhood, according to the O’Neill study, is almost three times higher in the United States than it is in Canada.Whatever its merits, a Canadian-style system of national health insurance is unlikely to change the sexual mores of American youth

The bottom line is that many statistics on health outcomes say little about our system of health care.


STATEMENT 2 Some 47 million Americans do not have health insurance.

This number from the Census Bureau is often cited as evidence that the health system is failing for many American families. Yet by masking tremendous heterogeneity in personal circumstances, the figure exaggerates the magnitude of the problem.

To start with, the 47 million includes about 10 million residents who are not American citizens. Many are illegal immigrants. Even if we had national health insurance, they would probably not be covered.

The number also fails to take full account of Medicaid, the government’s health program for the poor. For instance, it counts millions of the poor who are eligible for Medicaid but have not yet applied. These individuals, who are healthier, on average, than those who are enrolled, could always apply if they ever needed significant medical care. They are uninsured in name only.

The 47 million also includes many who could buy insurance but haven’t. The Census Bureau reports that 18 million of the uninsured have annual household income of more than $50,000, which puts them in the top half of the income distribution. About a quarter of the uninsured have been offered employer-provided insurance but declined coverage.

Of course, millions of Americans have trouble getting health insurance. But they number far less than 47 million, and they make up only a few percent of the population of 300 million.

Any reform should carefully focus on this group to avoid disrupting the vast majority for whom the system is working. We do not nationalize an industry simply because a small percentage of the work force is unemployed. Similarly, we should be wary of sweeping reforms of our health system if they are motivated by the fact that a small percentage of the population is uninsured.

STATEMENT 3 Health costs are eating up an ever increasing share of American incomes.

In 1950, about 5 percent of United States national income was spent on health care, including both private and public health spending. Today the share is about 16 percent. Many pundits regard the increasing cost as evidence that the system is too expensive.

But increasing expenditures could just as well be a symptom of success. The reason that we spend more than our grandparents did is not waste, fraud and abuse, but advances in medical technology and growth in incomes. Science has consistently found new ways to extend and improve our lives. Wonderful as they are, they do not come cheap.

Fortunately, our incomes are growing, and it makes sense to spend this growing prosperity on better health. The rationality of this phenomenon is stressed in a recent article by the economists Charles I. Jones of the University of California, Berkeley, and Robert E. Hall of Stanford. They ask, “As we grow older and richer, which is more valuable: a third car, yet another television, more clothing — or an extra year of life?”

Mr. Hall and Mr. Jones forecast that the share of income devoted to health care will top 30 percent by 2050. But in their model, this is not a problem: It is the modern form of progress.

Even if the rise in health care spending turns out to be less than they forecast, it is important to get reform right. Our health care system is not perfect, but it has been a major source of advances in our standard of living, and it will be a large share of the economy we bequeath to our children.

As we look at reform plans, we should be careful not to be fooled by statistics into thinking that the problems we face are worse than they really are.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/business/04view.html

The erosion of employment-based insurance (http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp203)
More working families left uninsured

The decline in health insurance coverage continued unabated in 2006, driven primarily by the continued erosion in employer-provided health insurance. In 2006, 47 million Americans were uninsured, up nearly 8.6 million since 2000. The rate of those without insurance has grown 2.1 percentage points during this period, from 13.7% in 2000 to 15.8% in 2006.

Employment-based coverage is still the most prominent form of health insurance in the United States at 59.7% of all Americans; however, the rate of this coverage has fallen in every year since 2000. In 2000, 64.2% of Americans had employer-provided health insurance. By 2006, this percent had fallen 4.5 percentage points. Nearly 2.3 million fewer Americans had employment-based insurance in 2006 than in 2000.

This decline does not take into account population growth. As many as 13 million more people would have had employer-provided health insurance in 2006 if the coverage rate had remained at the 2000 level.

Because of these large declines in employer-provided health insurance, workers and their families have been falling into the ranks of the uninsured at alarming rates. There were almost 5 million more uninsured workers in 2006 than in 2000. While uninsured workers are disproportionately young, non-white, less educated, and low wage, workers across the socio-economic spectrum have experienced losses in coverage. Even the most highly educated and highest wage workers had lower rates of insurance coverage in 2006 than in 2000.

As with workers, the downward trend in employer-provided coverage for children (through their parents' employers) continued into 2006: 3.4 million fewer children had employment-based coverage in 2006 than in 2000. From 2000 to 2004, children were less likely to become uninsured as public-sector health coverage expanded. In 2005, that trend reversed and the number of uninsured children rose by 940,000 to over 8.6 million by 2006. This is the second year in a row that the rate of uninsured children has increased.

The safety net health programs—Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)—have kept millions of families insured when their employment-based benefits were lost. Unfortunately, medical inflation and state budget constraints have weakened this safety net. Congress has passed valuable legislation to strengthen SCHIP, however, President Bush vetoed their vote. Had the bill passed, 3.8 million more children would have been covered by health insurance (CBO 2007).

While Medicaid and SCHIP still work for many, it is clear that the government has not picked up coverage for everybody who lost insurance. The weakening of this system—notably for children—is particularly difficult for workers and their families in a time when they are facing the challenges of stagnant incomes. Though increases in employer-provided health insurance premiums have slowed, they are still much higher than the rate of wage growth or overall inflation (KFF 2007). Even for middle- or high-income families, serious unexpected illness can lead to grave financial difficulty or bankruptcy (Himmelstein et al. 2005).

Given the erosion of employer-provided health insurance and rising costs of medical care, now is a critical time to consider health insurance reform.

This report's central findings include:

• The number of uninsured Americans rose by nearly 8.6 million, from 38.4 million in 2000 to 47.0 million in 2006. This increase was due primarily to the precipitous decline in employer-provided health coverage for workers and their families.

• Nearly 3.9 million fewer Americans under 65 had employer-provided coverage in 2006 than in 2000. As many as 14 million more people under 65 would have had employer-provided health insurance in 2006 if the coverage rate had remained at the 2000 level.

• The downward trend in the rate of employer-provided health insurance continued for the sixth year in a row, from 68.3% to 62.9%.

• Jobholders experienced a significant decline in health insurance coverage from 2000 to 2006. In 2000, 74.8% of workers had employer-provided coverage, whereas 70.8% of workers had coverage in 2006.

• No category of workers was insulated from loss of coverage. Even full-time workers, workers with a college degree, and workers in the highest wage quintile experienced declines in coverage between 2000 and 2006.

• Children experienced declines in employer-provided health insurance coverage in each of the last five years. In 2000, 65.9% of children had employer-provided coverage, whereas in 2006 only 59.7% did, a fall of over 6 percentage points. Public health insurance is no longer offsetting these losses: for the second year in a row, the rate of uninsured children has increased.

• The decline in employer coverage was pervasive and felt throughout the country. When comparing the 2000-01 and 2005-06 periods, 38 states experienced significant losses in employment-based coverage for the under 65 population, with Utah, South Carolina, Maryland, and Georgia experiencing losses in excess of 7 percentage points. No state experienced a significant increase in their employer-provided coverage rate.

Conclusion
Social insurance is intended to insulate people from negative shocks such as job loss, illness, or natural disaster. Public insurance is intended to provide a safety net to people who have limited access to private insurance markets. Clearly, there are many Americans who fall through the growing gulf between employer-provided coverage and government health programs. A universal system, one that provides a minimum standard of care to everyone, would provide Americans with access to the type of health care appropriate for the most prosperous nation in the world. Taking insurance out of the job market and into the public sector has the potential to provide a stronger safety net, particularly during times of weak labor growth. More Americans would have steadier insurance access and increase their ability to get regular medical care.

From 2000 to 2006, the United States saw a substantial rise in the number of uninsured people. A continued decline in those with employer-provided health insurance, along with a weakening of the health insurance safety net, will undoubtedly leave more Americans without coverage and access to adequate health care. --Economic Policy Institute

:thumbs:

EVERY PERSON IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE TODAY. IF THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR IT, IT WILL STILL BE PROVIDED, FREE OF CHARGE.Thanks for shouting this out in red.

You have loudly and clearly demonstrated your complete and total ignorance of the facts anent this issue.

Medical Bills Leading Cause of Bankruptcy, Harvard Study Finds (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html)

Thanks for shouting this out in red.

You have loudly and clearly demonstrated your complete and total ignorance of the facts anent this issue.

Medical Bills Leading Cause of Bankruptcy, Harvard Study Finds (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html)


Well, declaring bankruptcy means you're probably not paying for your health care bills, so SMW is still technically correct. So yeah, even if you can't afford it, you will get healthcare, but you probably won't have access to much preventative or elective healthcare.

In the end the vertigo turned out to be of unknown origin and may continue, which is common. Brooks: the vertigo was probably caused by reading back-to-back posts by Mr. Shaman and REDWHITEBLUE2. Hope you feel better, the quality of the sarcasm has really gone down since you've been gone....

Yeah I miss Brooks too... And Shaman and RWB2 get on my nerves. :p

Brooks was, by far and away, the funniest poster we had here. I seriously miss his dry wit.

Originally Posted by smartmouthwoman--
EVERY PERSON IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE TODAY. IF THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR IT, IT WILL STILL BE PROVIDED, FREE OF CHARGE.


You have loudly and clearly demonstrated your complete and total ignorance of the facts anent this issue.

Whew. Thanks. I'm glad you said something Sedan.

For a minute there I feared that I was the only one here who thought --"Is there ANY person in this country truly THAT misinformed about the health care situation that they honestly believe that?!?!?"

Originally Posted by smartmouthwoman--
EVERY PERSON IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE TODAY. IF THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR IT, IT WILL STILL BE PROVIDED, FREE OF CHARGE.



Whew. Thanks. I'm glad you said something Sedan.

For a minute there I feared that I was the only one here who thought --"Is there ANY person in this country truly THAT misinformed about the health care situation that they honestly believe that?!?!?"

It's the truth, comrade. Even YOU could be qualified for free treatment of your mental health issues! Man, would that be a sizable task for modern medicine.

:lolhit:

It's the truth, comrade.

No, it isn't.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

Read that and you'll see just how wrong you are.

No, it isn't.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

Read that and you'll see just how wrong you are.

I don't read your propaganda, dear. When I haven't been able to afford medical care, I've gotten it for free. So can you.

Filing bankruptcy means you could have paid for the medical care YOU RECEIVED, but you just didn't choose to do so. Hospitals will take payments as low as $20 a month on an outstanding $100,000 bill. Filing bankruptcy is the way to get that debt off your back.

Tell us, FT, do you have that nasty capitalistic health insurance? Or are you another one sitting back waiting for a govt handout?

FT???? Did you leave in the middle of our discussion? Don't wanna admit whether you're either buying into the system or suckin on the govt tit, eh?

I guarantee you one thing... it's one way or the other.

;)
SMW

Yeah I miss Brooks too... And Shaman and RWB2 get on my nerves. :p

Shaman doesn't just get on my nerves, he gives me a friggin headache. I refuse to read any thread started by him until someone credible posts something in response.

Shaman doesn't just get on my nerves, he gives me a friggin headache.
I said this to him in the other thread, "Trying to parse your technicolor bullshit (if I don't have a seizure first) is difficult enough without having to worry about your usage of 3rd grade syntax too."

In short, he drives me frickin' nuts.

Ach he's ok.

Its been pretty quiet round here of late.

He always raises a response-like this one.

Ach he's ok.
Paul, you don't know. Shaman's been around for quite a while. He usually goes on long sabbatical, but like a bad penny, he always turns up again. He, at one point in time, forced the mods here to create a section of the fora that catered to his relentless thread starting. He's bad news, dude. In short, he's loonier than a shit house rat.

In short, he drives me frickin' nuts.Hmm.

That's a pretty short drive. :)