Socialized Medicine

You will never be denied a needed surgey in USA.
Tell that to the family of the girl that died recently after being denied a transplant by her insurance company. And then repeat it to the many more people that face the same thing daily.
Isn't "almost" having a rupture kind of like not having one?
yes, and he did not suffer one because I called his father who called a local doctor and had him taken to surgery...not because the insurance company provided what it should have.

In fact the doctor that stepped in said my partner could have died if I had followed the orders of the previous doctor to take him home and bring him back tomorrow if symptoms persisted.
 
Didn't you see my point about Canadian cabinet officials coming to the US for medical care?
Because one person with money decides to go to a leading cancer clinic you think that is a mass trend??? The leading treatment centers for many diseases are outside the US. Does that mean the American cosmetic surgery business is unfit because many rich celebrities travel to Brazil for surgery?
 
Have you watched PMQ? Have you heard Parliament discuss what will or will not be treated?

PBP, you can complain about a lack of stats, yet you've produced none. People from all over the world come to the Cleveland Clinic, just a few miles from my office. Canadians who can carry private insurance so they aren't stuck with the public product.

In fact the doctor that stepped in said my partner could have died if I had followed the orders of the previous doctor to take him home and bring him back tomorrow if symptoms persisted.

An interesting feature of nationalised systems is that they typically have little or no recourse for malpractice. This is one reason those systems seem like a good idea to some docs.
 
H. L. Menken said:
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

First, the reality is that we have serious problems in healthcare in the US. Our costs are way too high and are spiraling upwards. As consumers, many of us don't see it directly because our insurance is, for the most part, paid for by our corporations. But our companies have been seeing double digit increases in premiums. The current system is simply unsustainable.

While we have some excellent care, the average is not as good as it should be. Our infant mortality rate is well below that of many other western nations. And we have too many instances of bad treatment, where people are improperly diagnosed, improperly treated, get infections while in the hospital, etc.

Our system of many different private insurance companies is terribly inefficient. Each company has their own forms, their own way for the providers to get reimbursed, etc. The paper-shuffling and bit-shuffling costs a huge amount of money. Each insurance company has a large staff of people who answer the phones, process claims, etc. Your doctor's office has a bunch of admin people who try to sort through the paperwork, and your doctor often has to spend time on the phone arguing with the insurance company to get a treatment covered. Furthermore, the amount of profit that the private insurance companies make would be enough to provide free healthcare to everyone in the US.

On several occasions I've had problems with insurance companies not wanting to pay a claim. The provider hadn't been paid once in six months. I called up the insurance company (Unum, IIRC) and they said that they had never received the claim (liars). I sent them the form. A month goes by, the provider doesn't get paid. I call up and they said that they had never received the claim (lied again). We did the dance again, with the same result -- the provider wasn't paid. So, I wrote up a letter to the company president, with CC's to the attorney general in my state of residence and the state's commissioner of insurance. I sent the letter FedEx and wouldn't you know it, the provider was paid in full within a week.

I have a friend who worked in one of the Blue Crosses about 10 years ago, processing claims. She said every week her supervisor would go through the office, pulling claims out of their inboxes and tossing the claims into the garbage.

Our insurance companies are part of the problem.

So is socialized healthcare the answer? Let's look at a couple examples. In Canada, it is illegal to run a private clinic. That is, a doctor can't decide to work for cash -- he has to get paid by the government. The result is significant rationing. If you need an MRI or a joint replacement or bypass surgery, be prepared to wait a long time. Hope your condition doesn't get worse while you wait! It works for the rich in Canada, because they simply go over the border to the US and pay cash.

A fellow that I have chatted with a couple times told me what happened to his family a few years back. I'll relate it as best as I can remember. He was born and raised in Canada. He went to medical school and did his residency in Calgary, IIRC. He has since moved to the US and works as an ER doc in Wisconsin. His family was skiing in Banff when his daughter took a bad fall on a Saturday. He examined her arm and believed that her elbow was broken. He called up the hospital where he had done his residency and spoke with one of his colleagues to see if he could bring his daughter in. His colleague told him that he could not bring his daughter to that hospital, he would have to take his daughter to the ER at the children's hospital. He was told to expect at least a 24-hour wait in the ER to be treated and that he could not fall asleep -- if he didn't answer when called they would go to the back of the line. And even when they did see a doctor, that it is likely that her daughter would not even see an orthopedic surgeon until the following Tuesday.

He gave his daughter some pain meds and flew her back to Wisconsin on Sunday morning. He took her to his hospital. The orthopedic surgeon operated on her arm that afternoon and his daughter made a full recovery. The surgeon told him that if they had waited until Tuesday that his daughter would not have regained full use of her arm.

The UK is a bit better in some respects. Unlike Canada, private clinics are legal. So if you have money, you can buy good care in the UK. If you don't have money, then you will have to wait. At the moment, there is a shortage of NHS dentists. There have been press reports about some Brits doing their own tooth extractions with a pair of pliers. The next time you meet someone from the UK, take a look at their teeth -- nasty.

So while our system is clearly broken, it isn't clear to me that socialized healthcare is the solution. If there is one thing that I trust about our government, it is that the government will screw up anything as complicated as a two-car funeral. It is my understanding that France's system is something of a hybrid and in better shape than the UK's system. But it would require a significant cut to provider salaries, and the AMA has a lot of clout.

Whatever solution we choose will need to address a number of problems including:

- providing coverage to everyone
- reducing healthcare costs (prescription costs, doctor's salaries, administrative expenses, claims processing expenses, etc.)
- healthcare quality

Any "solution" that does not do something to reduce underlying healthcare costs is bound to fail.
 
Want some more info zukiphile or would you like to try and counter?

I would like you to answer the questions posed to you before you move on to googling for sources.

I would also like to know if you knew about George Soros' involvement with the Commonwealth fund before you cited its study as persuasive.
 
So what does the nation feel is a "likely" expense for my family for health care? 4 of us, 2 teens (one is extreme bicycle jumper) 2 of us, me and junior hog hunt with out guns and face down mad hogs as often as possible with possible severe injury, threat of dismemberment is high, 2 of us... wife and i smoke ciggs. I am a daily drinker, wife and daughter are over weight (junior could lose a few pounds too). Make us "persona non grata" at the hospitals with out cash and send me a check each month!
Brent
 
I would like you to answer the questions posed to you before you move on to googling for sources.
Which question? I just showed that the very nations people are wanting to say have "broken systems" seem to be doing a much better job than we are doing ourselves.

Refusing to learn from others successes as well as your own failures is willful ignorance.
 
Three things, first, given the track record of the Fed, why in the world would anyone still think that it is capable of performing the task of providing this?

Second, there is marked difference between wants, needs, and rights. Just wanting something or needing something doesn't mean you have a right to it. It especially doesn't mean that there is right to force others to provide it. This is an entitlement mentality.

Last, the Fed is looked to FAR too much to solve problems. That should be the last, not the first place to look. Problems need to be addressed within the scope they influence. Few things are as personal and private as your health. Far and away from a national concern or threat. Should an epidemic occur that effects the nation that's another animal but scope of personal health problems doesn't expand past one's family, friends, and possibly community. It shouldn't be addressed past it's scope.

The morbid obesity of the Fed is a direct consequence of misapplying it to become a provider for individuals instead of the organ of protection it was intended and be.
 
The same questions, reproduced below, I've posed twice before that you've not answered. I would also like to know how much you knew about the Commonwealth fund before you presented its report.

Have you watched PMQ? Have you heard Parliament discuss what will or will not be treated?

Attributing a policy difference to ignorance is not circumspect.
 
It's not one person pbp. Many Canadians are traveling out of their country (primarily to the US) for treatment
The pieces you cite are"op ed" pieces and do not deal with large numbers or substantial or verified claims.

Plus, noone said Canada has a perfect system either.

Instead of trying to tear down other systems (just because that is what Rush does) people should start looking at the good in each system.

The one post I made that discussed a possible solution and asked for imput was quickly overlooked in favor of more sensationalism and scare tactics.
 
Have you watched PMQ? Have you heard Parliament discuss what will or will not be treated?
Yes, how is it any worse than private health care companies doing the same and randomly deciding which claims to fight and which to pay?

Well, enough political talk for me today. I have to go to the gunshop and try and decide between a Sig or a SA 1911. :)
 
Instead of trying to tear down other systems (just because that is what Rush does) people should start looking at the good in each system.

ironymeter.gif


Dismissing people's points as scare tactics or sensensionalism is a dodge. And you still have not disclosed what you knew about the Commonealth Fund before citing it has persuasive.

Quote:
Have you watched PMQ? Have you heard Parliament discuss what will or will not be treated?

Yes, how is it any worse than private health care companies doing the same and randomly deciding which claims to fight and which to pay?

Because you can get a new insurance company with a telephone call. Governments and their bureaucracies are less easily changed. Having government make people's treatment decisions for them is odious to most americans who've had experience with government. They may hate insurance companies too, but it isn't insurance companies who drive canadian specialists elsewhere.


Here are some facts, PBP.

1. You can socialise your risk of incurring medical cost all you like. It is called insurance. What is objectionable as unfair is to use the government to take your neighbour's money to pay your bills.

2. Once you reduce the cost of a commodity to the consumer to zero, you make the demand infinite. This requires rationing. Government rationed healthcare has the appeal of curdled milk.

3. Citing instances of poor insurance service is not an argument in favor of nationalisation, unless you can persuasively argue that government would somehow compel better service than medical providers want to give consentually.



Is there anything beside healthcare you would like to socialise? People certainly should have some sort of right to water, correct. After all, water is far more necessary for life than medical care.

Should the government pay our waterbills?
 
The pieces you cite are"op ed" pieces and do not deal with large numbers or substantial or verified claims.

The reality is that large numbers of people in Canada and the UK end up going to private health care. Do the following google:

london private clinic

There are huge numbers of private clinics in London. That's because huge numbers of people are going to them. If the NHS in the UK was so great, why would there be such a big business opportunity for private clinics there?

No one exactly knows how many Canadians come to the US for healthcare. But it is very large numbers. Call up the Cleveland Clinic or Mayo or Buffalo. You keep trying to deny it, but the reality is that there are huge problems in Canada's health care system that are masked because the upper class in Canada come to the US for serious healthcare treatments. The Canadian people and government know it is true and admit it. It is time for you to grow up and admit it too.

That does not mean that our system is the best. It isn't. It is badly broken. But the UK and Canada are not working models to follow. France might be. But UK and Canadian healthcare systems are broken worse than ours.
 
The one post I made that discussed a possible solution and asked for imput was quickly overlooked in favor of more sensationalism and scare tactics.

You're the one overlooking stuff. I, for one, have made a few points and asked a few questions that you haven't even acknowledged.

To wit:

--One of your main complaints about our current system is the "greed and abuse". How do you propose to counter the abuse that's inevitable when you remove the incentive for moderation of consumption when it comes to health care?

--I said that the only way to do that is to let government bureaucrats decide what's a necessary treatment and what isn't. How is that any better than an HMO bureaucrat making the same decision? (And don't tell me that the government pencil-pusher is motivated by the common good instead of profits.)

It's kind of ironic that you tell folks that "refusing to learn from others successes as well as your own failures is willful ignorance", but you laud SS, Medicare and Medicaid as "working" without even addressing the points about cost overruns and payer/payee imbalances. I think you're being pretty selective with your ability to recognize failure...it's overly sensitive when it comes to the system under which you live, and overly lenient when it comes to systems with which you have very little, if any, personal experience.
 
PBP,
"How about regulations that require medical care be not-for-profit or even non-profit.

Care givers such as Shriners and others seem to operate fine with a not-for-profit system"

I think if you pull their financial statements you will find that revenues exceed costs and they end up with a "surplus". That the surplus does not go in part to shareholders or to government in taxation is about the only difference between it and "profit". Shriners also take in, I suspect some level of volunteer effort that is not paid for at market rates, so the costs of services may be understated somewhat.

Fact is they have to go out to the same markets to buy the same drugs and equipment, pay doctors reasonably, etc., as even the VA does. Some ops are more efficient than others in any endeavor or business, and that is a people factor. When any organization defaults to serving "policy" more than its mission, or serves other goals than the mission, the mission suffers. You will recall Walter Reed Army Hospital, in the news last year...

Government is no more immune to this than private industry. There is a huge difference between the two however, in that when you cannot be fired no matter how badly you screw up, and your clients have no alternatives, you have no worries that poor performance will cost you anything.

Socialized medicine leaves no or few alternative suppliers to the government. Government employees are virtually untouchable except for egregious or illegal acts. Those two factors produce a higher likelihood of failure in the mission (public education largely being a case in point). I don't like monopolies, whether government or private, though some have to occur.
 
To best show how people think, you can pretty much divide the polar thoughts into whether the debater pays for service, or wants it free.

about two years ago, I saw a young pro-basketball player learn who those "dirty fat cats" really were. You know, the guys who make up 1% of the top earners of the population, stick the little guy and run The Trilateral Commission.

The cameras were rolling when the young player opened his first paycheck, and found out he was now in that 1% group. He made some comment about how the government was "taking too much."

As for Social Security, I'm getting my money back, that's all. I paid in, the government took care of my parents and in-laws, and now I've aged into that same demographic.

Oh, a few weeks ago, most folks around here found that the Green Bay Packers game would only be broadcast to people on the dish, but not on cable.

The most common remark I heard was, "The government should do something."

Last time I checked, football was a business, contracts to the media were signed and paid, and "free Americans" could choose who provided their TV service.

You guys want Big Brother for free drugs and TV, but then you carp about mismanagement and Social Security.

My Dad had a saying, "Just because you can speak out of both sides of your mouth, you're not bilingual."
 
Not all greed! i worked for cash before I goofed up driving an SUV and crunched up my better left arm...
I DO NOT WANT SOCIALIST HEALTH CARE! Those bum azz mooches/leaches that do can pound sand in their azz! They had the same opportunity to excel in school as i did. They also coulda sat down with the "guidance counselor" to see where they stand... most coulda went to college. Those not capable had the same offers I did at apprentice programs and factories and plants that provide health care.
Maybe take some of the regulation off insurance agency to offer lower cost coverage... But don't consider government coverage as even sub standard...
Those that get severely injured already get ER care. Those milking for "lortabs" will be found out... For me i am now done with hospital/specialist care. I owe 500,000 in bills but they won't get it...
I had fully paid Blue cross with a "union" employer and buddy I utilized it hard! Un insured I just go when we must. I have a rough and tumble family of 4 and aside from my rollover we have 3 ER visits in 3 years total!
brent
 
Back
Top