The issue of universal healthcare looks set to become a key topic in the run up to next years US Presidential election.

With Congress stalled on enacting a nationwide plan, individual states are starting to take matters into their own hands.

In California, Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger has just won approval from legislators for a major healthcare reform which will expand coverage to most of the states uninsured.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7157980.stm

There are quite a few states with serious and growing movements for universal health care.

http://www.michuhcan.com/

I dont know how much to put into the Rev Bates claiming 'patients were dumped on the street because of lack of insurance', this couldnt be right
in a modern nation.

I dont know how much to put into the Rev Bates claiming 'patients were dumped on the street because of lack of insurance', this couldnt be right
in a modern nation.

Unfortunately it is a very common occurrence in America these days.
Have you seen Sicko yet?

Oh come on Dharm-your not seriously gonna tell me that ill patients are being dumped on the streets of America-tell me it aint true.

Oh come on Dharm-your not seriously gonna tell me that ill patients are being dumped on the streets of America-tell me it aint true.

Read 'em and weep (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/17/60minutes/main2823079.shtml)....

Thanks Fran-or maybe I should say something different.

I just read the link-I like Anderson Cooper, he's a fine reporter, usually get him on CNN over here-we dont do CBS.

That said, Im very disturbed, and somewhat confused by the 60 minutes article.

Firstly-does it boil down to a financial check-before you get treated in American Hospitals-in LA anyway.

Secondly-If some criminal negligence isnt being committed by the said Hospitals-I will be surprised.

Arent we supposed to help and protect the ill-weak and vulnerable in society,

or is that one of those stupid European notions.

Im really shocked by this.

Read 'em and weep (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/17/60minutes/main2823079.shtml)....
that is sad, but it's also illegal.

For all..........including the millions of illegal aliens?:eek:

For all..........including the millions of illegal aliens?

They already use emergency care and then don't pay for it anyway. The proposed way would be cheaper then the current system.

I dont know how much to put into the Rev Bates claiming 'patients were dumped on the street because of lack of insurance', this couldnt be right
in a modern nation.

As you found out from Frannie, the nation you're assuming is *modern* is very much behind other countries in making sure the citizens have healthcare.

Aren't we supposed to help and protect the ill-weak and vulnerable in society.....

Get real, paul.

We're talking about the U.S. here.

Our wonderful Corporate run government in the U.S. will gladly lay out hundreds upon hundreds of billions of taxdollars every year when it comes to spending for the military and for war.......but when it's the health and well being of the citizenry that's under consideration, the taxdollars cannot be found. It's just "too expensive".

Well FT-to be honest I wouldn't have believed that this type of thing happened, if I hadn't read the link.

I find it amazing that not only the richest nation in history, but the richest state, in the richest nation in history can have its hospitals dump, not only people, but its own citizens on the street.

Some years ago I was having a drink with an American downtown,
just general talk, but I remember him saying to me,

''America is a bad place to be poor in'', I never really understood what he meant by that-but I'm beginning to. :(

Some years ago I was having a drink with an American downtown,
just general talk, but I remember him saying to me,

''America is a bad place to be poor in'', I never really understood what he meant by that-but I'm beginning to. :(

It, for me, is not so much that America is 'a bad place to be poor in'........it's just that the government in America, thanks to millions of brainwashed drones who continually vote against their own best interests, is far more dedicated to seeing to the profitability and continued well being of the military/Industrial complex than they are to addressing the needs of the populace.

The government here will -- again, thanks to tens of millions of fools who keep voting in politicians to run things who are complete lackeys of the Corporate State-- think nothing of spending 500 billion or a trillion taxdollars on disastrous and unwanted foreign wars and aggression, but will suddenly cry --"It costs too much!, we can't afford it!"-- when it comes to passing initiatives to provide for the common good....things like healthcare for all the People.

It, for me, is not so much that America is 'a bad place to be poor in'........it's just that the government in America, thanks to millions of brainwashed drones who continually vote against their own best interests, is far more dedicated to seeing to the profitability and continued well being of the military/Industrial complex than they are to addressing the needs of the populace.
Why do you think we're rich in the first place?! I mean, seriously - have you ever really given it a thought, or were you just too busy ripping who and what we are to delve into the simplicity of it all?

You can't possibly be this clueless...

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

The above quote is attributed to Alexander Tytler although the origin is unknown.

Sounds like what'll happen if everyone becomes a liberal, OP. :thumbs:

Dosent insurance companies-state government-federal government, someone set aside some funds for cases such as Miss Reyes.

I would have thought the Insurers-this sort of publicity they dont need.

It shows them as uncaring-financially driven.

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

The above quote is attributed to Alexander Tytler although the origin is unknown.

Good quote, OP. I couldn't agree more.

BTW... hope you have a Happy New Year!

:)
SMW

Read 'em and weep (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/17/60minutes/main2823079.shtml)....

Of course this situation in L.A. is unacceptable, but there are also many free clinics here in the U.S. also.

http://www.beacononlinenews.com/dailyitem.php?itemnum=490

Good link, OP. I was born in DeLand, Florida. :)

Well that's someones theory but most likely not Alexander Tytler and I don't buy it anyway. Are you trying to say a democracy does not work? "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

The above quote is attributed to Alexander Tytler although the origin is unknown.

Well that's someones theory but most likely not Alexander Tytler and I don't buy it anyway. Are you trying to say a democracy does not work?
I have no idea who initially said this (only that it was attributed to Tytler)

And no, I think we need a balance of both liberal AND conservative leadership. Without that balance, we will be doomed to failure. It's not either/or, it's both.

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

The above quote is attributed to Alexander Tytler although the origin is unknown.

Health Care is a human right, not a "gift".

Sounds like what'll happen if everyone becomes a liberal, OP.

Actually, DF, that sounds exactly like what we have going on right now with corporations and the wealthy, giving themselves generous gifts from the public treasury in multi-Billion dollar contracts for companies like Haliburton and Blackwater and giving tax breaks to the wealthy while at the same time spending is out of control.

Liberals would utilize government to do what it is supposed to do, provide services to the people to promote the general welfare. That is not a "generous gift", that is the purpose of government.

Well that's someones theory but most likely not Alexander Tytler and I don't buy it anyway. Are you trying to say a democracy does not work?

I agree, I don't buy his premise either.

Health Care is a human right, not a "gift".
Your personal opinion or is it a law?

Why not; Auto insurance? Orthodontics? Breast implants? Life insurance? Doctoral level education? Access to the internet? A home? A guaranteed job?

Where do we stop what is a "right"?

Millions of Americans have the choice for medical insurance, but choose to not enroll and pay for it. Is that a "right" thay they must pay for it? Or should just some of the people pay for all of the people's coverage?

Why not; Auto insurance? Orthodontics? Breast implants? Life insurance? Doctoral level education? Access to the internet? A home? A guaranteed job?


Because Health Care is a matter of life and death, as I have already explained numerous times. Breast implants and access to the Internet are not.

:thumbs:

Having a guaranteed house and a job could be a matter of life or death as well.

Because Health Care is a matter of life and death, as I have already explained numerous times. Breast implants and access to the Internet are not.

:thumbs:
Both of those affect economic ability, which to many people, is more important than life. Here's a question. How much should society have to pay for people who are nothing but drains on it?

Having a guaranteed house and a job could be a matter of life or death as well.

Thats why cities like Detroit run shelters for the homeless.
I don't see how having a "guarenteed" job would be a matter of life or death.

Both of those affect economic ability, which to many people, is more important than life.

Nonsense. To both points.


Here's a question. How much should society have to pay for people who are nothing but drains on it?

Are you seriously trying to suggest that everyone without health insurance is a drain on society?

They already use emergency care and then don't pay for it anyway. The proposed way would be cheaper then the current system.

Jeeeeeeeeeeeez!

http://img485.imageshack.us/img485/7865/idiotwb3.png

Are you seriously trying to suggest that everyone without health insurance is a drain on society?

What if they have access and chose not to take advantage of it? Should they be forced to do so? Should they be "qualified" for coverage because they choose to spend their money on other things that they deem more "important" that health insurance?

If you choose to gamble and you lose, I have little pity for you. It's life.

What if they have access and chose not to take advantage of it? Should they be "qualified" for coverage because they choose to spend their money on other things that they deem more "important" that health insurance?

Yes, they should have coverage even if they are currently young and healthy and wouldn't normally spend their money on it in the so-called "free" market.

Accidents Happen.
Diseases Spread.

Health Care isn't something you can think of in a bubble, as if it were isolated to each individual like buying shoes.




If you choose to gamble and you lose, I have little pity for you. It's life.

Health Care should not have to be a gamble in the first place.

:thumbs:

I have several employees. All of the "over 40" crowd takes my health plan (they pay $15/week, I pick up the balance of about $215 per month). I have a single mom that is 25 that decided that she didn't want the insurance for her and her kids (2 and 5). A few weeks ago her youngest was diagnosed with leukemia and immediately started chemotherapy (I have directed her to St.Jude's in Memphis... where they will treat and help her and the child, and no cost... This is a great hospital and great people BTW).

Should she have taken my health insurance at the employee rate? Yes. Should I be responsible fo pay additional taxes for those that are too cheap and/or stupid to take advantage of my plan? No. Am I assisting this young lady with monies from my own pocket (and allowing her to maintain employment even though she can't work but a few days a week...the boy is having severe reactions to the chemo)? Yes.

Like I said... gamble and you may pay... unless you find some dumbass (like myself) that will help you even if you choose badly. I help all I can and I try to do the best that I can... I just can't always support EVERYONE that makes a poor decision.

Blaming the victim of a bad system does not seem productive to me.
As I said, Health Care should never have to be a gamble in the first place.
Your story really highlights that point, in my opinion.

Blaming the victim of a bad system does not seem productive to me.
As I said, Health Care should never have to be a gamble in the first place.
Your story really highlights that point, in my opinion.
What is "bad" in my offering of insurance at a VERY fair price?

Meh.....

Your opinion of this "bad system" tells me all I need to know about your lack of knowledge of this problem (and it's innocent casualties). When you mature, and your nuts drop from within your belly, come see me for some real world discussion. Until then, keep your silly analysis of this issue to yourself.

Come to the "real world" and then I will show you a few things (if you can allow yourself to say "I don't know" and are willing to actually LEARN a bit... grasshopper).

What is "bad" in my offering of insurance at a VERY fair price?


The current profit-based system that forces people to have to gamble with the health care is what is bad.

Come to the "real world" and then I will show you a few things

What do you think you have to show me? Sounds like you are the one who needs to learn how to say "I don't know".

Lighten up.

:grouphug:

I DO know... it is you that has no clue....

If you think what I offer my employees is "bad" then I feel sorry for your grasp of logic. I cannot make people make "wise" decisions... I only offer them the choice (I would force them to accept, but that is illegal... the same as the 401K I have that pays $ to $ on their contributions). I cannot make dumb-shits think for themselves. Should our illustrious government make them do " the right thing"?

If you think what I offer my employees is "bad" ...

Your inability to comprehend a simple point is astounding.

:rolleyes:

I don't know what your malfunction is... perhaps you are just too old to learn anything new.

Should our illustrious government make them do " the right thing"?
Absolutely not.

Absolutely not.

I don't believe in forcing people to go buy for-profit insurance either.

I don't believe in forcing people to go buy for-profit insurance either.
I simply mistrust forcing people to rely on the government. They should not have that much power.

I simply mistrust forcing people to rely on the government. They should not have that much power.

Socialized Health insurance simply makes sense, the same way socialized Fire and Police services do.

I don't think it is giving anyone undue "power".

Oldphart-Id like to commend you for helping out the single mum-in what must be a nightmare time for her.

That said-tho I admit I dont understand your health system that well, it seems to me to rely on people being financially responsible.

Most kids I know, ie 18-25 seem very irresponsible when it comes to money,
and have a 'it will never happen to me' attitude.

On healthcare Americans portray an 'Im alright jack' attitude to their fellow countrymen/women.

At the very least, Insurance Companies should have a slush fund to pay for uninsured homeless, and down on their luck citizens, surely.

At the very least, Insurance Companies should have a slush fund to pay for uninsured homeless, and down on their luck citizens, surely.

It can't happen here because there is no profit in it and in America the courts have stated that corporations' first responsibility are to make a profit for their shareholders.

It can't happen here because there is no profit in it and in America the courts have stated that corporations' first responsibility are to make a profit for their shareholders.
Theres nothing like enshrining Capitalism in Law.

Tho, let me get this right.

You can buy shares in Medical Insurance Companies on the stockmarket.

So you can be a shareholder and pay Insurance at the same time.

So everytime you get sick and your insurance pays out, you make money.

As for a slush fund, these companies shouldn't have to be forced to set money aside.

It makes good sense for them to do this on a voluntary basis.

PR is very productive for a companies image.

The chief impediment to adopting a universal health care system is also the one thing that is wrong with the current system;
There are more lawyers and insurance company employees in the system than there are doctors, nurses, and medical technicians.

The health insurance 'industry', along with a legal system that somehow manages to reward frivolous litigators, will always stand in the way of meaningful health care reform.

Damn blood-sucking lawyers, they simply stand to make too much money off of other people's misfortune.

:mad:

Over here, anyone who works has 'National Insurance Contributions' taken out of their wage packet before they get them.

Or self employed people have them added to their tax bill.

Tho this means that everyone working pays for the unemployed and bums,

its rare for anyone to be be unemployed all their lives, tho being a bum is a different argument.

So most if not all people pay into the pot at sometime.

Rich or poor can register with a doctor and see him for free.

If you need a script, you pay for it, if your unemployed, you sign the back of it and get it for free.

Anyone can walk into a hospital and get free treatment-anytime.

Tho you can also have the option of private insurance.

Private insurance admittedly most times gets operations done quicker, so

one system balances out the other.

The health insurance 'industry', along with a legal system that somehow manages to reward frivolous litigators, will always stand in the way of meaningful health care reform.


Should Doctors be immune from malpractice suits?

Should Doctors be immune from malpractice suits?

Absolutely not. But there are legitimate law suits, and then there are law suits that are generated by frivolous opportunists and profiteers.
The former is an expected byproduct of the system, and the latter is a cancer (no pun intended) in the system that only serves to drive up costs.

Absolutely not. But there are legitimate law suits, and then there are law suits that are generated by frivolous opportunists and profiteers.


In my experience, when you get to each individual case, the only difference between the two is which side of the lawsuit you are on. The prosecuting attorneys always consider it a legitimate law suit and the defending attorneys call every law suit frivolous.

The myth that our system is "plagued" by frivolous law suits is propagated by the defense attorneys, because to them, every case is frivolous.

So which are you, a physician or a lawyer?

I can only speak from my own experience.
I've got quite a few close friends who are physicians and/or health care providers, and my own wife has worked as a pharmacy tech in two different hospitals.

Frivolous malpractice lawsuits are alive and well sir, and they outnumber the legitimate ones, at least in my observation.

I'm sure you've got your own stories to tell.
Personal ones, that is.
I'd be glad to hear them.

So which are you, a physician or a lawyer?

My experience is from the perspective of the lawyers, and the lawyers represent both sides so I feel I have a pretty even handed view of the issue.


I can only speak from my own experience.
I've got quite a few close friends who are physicians and/or health care providers, and my own wife has worked as a pharmacy tech in two different hospitals.

Since physicians and health care providers are the defendants in malpractice suits, it makes sense that they would disproportionately consider those suits to be frivolous.


Frivolous malpractice lawsuits are alive and well sir, and they outnumber the legitimate ones, at least in my observation.


That makes sense considering you are coming at this issue from the perspective of the defendants in malpractice law suits.

In my experience, no matter what the defendants and their attorneys' say, if a plaintiff wins a malpractice case, it is because it was not frivolous.

One's an Optometrist.
A lady sued him because he correctly reported that her vision had degraded (three times over a four year period), and her cousin-lawyer calculated that he must be just 'scamming her, and trying to sell more eyeglasses'.
She sued, and she lost.
My friend paid for her to have two independent eye exams, at the doctors of her choice.
She was pushing fifty, and her vision was indeed on the decline.

One's a Gastroenterologist.
A guy sued him for some in-patient care.
Claimed he had been prescribed the wrong med, which caused a GI bleed.
The guy, as it turns out, was a bottle-a-day vodka drinker.
Yeah, it was the medication that caused a GI bleed, right?
They settled out of court, and my friend lost a lot of money.

One friend is a Nurse Practicianer(SP?)
She was sued because she kept a patient waiting too long, and the patient had 'lost valuable time at work'.
The patient, as it turns out, had a history of frivolous lawsuits in a tri-state area. Five lawsuits against medical professionals, and ten against major chain-stores.

Want me to go on, or are do you want to question my objectivity some more?

I definitely agree with you about frivolous lawsuits, Sparky. That's one of the major problems with the health care industry today. The doctors have to jack up their prices to pay for malpractice insurance, making insurance companies either jack up prices too so they can cover all that, or just not cover very much of the patient's treatment.

In my experience, no matter what the defendants and their attorneys' say, if a plaintiff wins a malpractice case, it is because it was not frivolous.


She sued, and she lost.

If she lost then it probably was frivolous.



Claimed he had been prescribed the wrong med, which caused a GI bleed.
The guy, as it turns out, was a bottle-a-day vodka drinker.
Yeah, it was the medication that caused a GI bleed, right?
They settled out of court, and my friend lost a lot of money.

If it was frivolous and it was definately not the medication, then why settle out of court?



The patient, as it turns out, had a history of frivolous lawsuits in a tri-state area. Five lawsuits against medical professionals, and ten against major chain-stores.

I am willing to bet he did not win either.


Want me to go on, or are do you want to question my objectivity some more?

No need to take everything so personally Sparky, but I stand by my point that the myth of "frivolous" law suits is overblown, especially when you are coming at it from the perspective of the defendants, as you are.

:hug:

If she lost then it probably was frivolous.
Which, pretty much, directly contradicts what you said above. Oh, and because I know you'll want me to point it out specifically...."In my experience, when you get to each individual case, the only difference between the two (frivolous and legitimate suits alike) is which side of the lawsuit you are on." - IOW, no lawsuit is truly "frivolous" in your opinion unless you wanna play a semantics game, right?

sweet now can drop my work health insurance

The chief impediment to adopting a universal health care system is also the one thing that is wrong with the current system;
There are more lawyers and insurance company employees in the system than there are doctors, nurses, and medical technicians.

The health insurance 'industry', along with a legal system that somehow manages to reward frivolous litigators, will always stand in the way of meaningful health care reform.

Damn blood-sucking lawyers, they simply stand to make too much money off of other people's misfortune.

:mad:
want tort reform? but don't want to screw the ppl that really get hurt by medical screw ups? you don't need damage caps or ending punitive damages. end awarding punitive damages to the plantiff.

if you lose a fender when someone runs a stop sign, you don't get the money from the fine do you?