BS: US Health Care Reform

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lox
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 05:41 AM

hahahahaha

Awesome Carol!

"If I have the money I should get first priority!"

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 12:22 AM

The Billionaires for Wealthcare would like to thank the Teabaggers, Birthers, and Deathers for their blind support

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 12:03 AM

This looks like a very interesting read on the topic: NY Times review of "One Injury, 10 Countries: A Journey in Health Care" by T. R. Reid (the review is by Abigail Zuger, M.D.)

From the review:

Mr. Reid, a veteran foreign correspondent for The Washington Post, knows from personal experience that there are indeed a dozen better alternatives. International postings from London to Japan familiarized him with many of the world's health care systems. Then a chronic shoulder problem offered the opportunity for an unusually well-controlled experiment: Mr. Reid decided to present his stiff shoulder for treatment around the world.

One shoulder, 10 countries. Admittedly it's a gimmick, but what saves the book from slumping into a sack of anecdotes like Michael Moore's 2007 documentary "Sicko" is a steel backbone of health policy analysis that manages to trap immensely complicated concepts in crystalline prose.

"The Healing of America" blends subjective and objective into a seamless indictment of our own disastrous system, an eloquent rebuttal against the arguments used to defend it, and appealing alternatives for fixing it.

...

Mr. Reid starts with a methodical clarification of terms. First: universal health care. Far from a single socialized system, the various plans other countries use to cover all their residents are quite distinct. Some are as private as our own, and most offer considerably more in the way of choice.

In Japan, and many European countries, private health insurers — all of them nonprofit — finance visits to private doctors and private hospitals through a system of payroll deductions.

In Canada, South Korea and Taiwan, the insurer is government-run and financed by universal premiums, but doctors and hospitals are private.

In Britain, Italy, Spain and most of Scandinavia, most hospitals are government-owned, and a tax-financed government agency pays doctors' bills.

In poor countries around the world, private commerce rules: residents pay cash for all health care, which generally means no health care at all.

Similarly, what Americans often consider a single unique system of health care is an illusion: we exist in a sea of not-so-unique alternatives. Like the citizens of Germany and Japan, workers in the United States share insurance premiums with an employer. Like Canadians, our older, destitute and disabled citizens see private providers with the government paying. Like the British, military veterans and Native Americans receive care in government facilities with the government paying the tab. And like the poor around the world, our uninsured pay cash, finagle charity care, or stay home.

---

And, in other news, a poll funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and published in the New England Journal of Medicine (as reported on NPR) finds that nearly 3/4 of doctors polled would like some sort of public option (for most, a combination of public and private). This is at odds with the AMA position. ("The survey even found widespread support for a public option among doctors who are members of the American Medical Association, a group that's opposed to it. The AMA fears a public option eventually could lead to government putting more limits on doctors' fees.") A followup bit on NPR points out the the AMA is not particularly representative of doctors as a whole in the U.S. any more. And the AMA is careful say, "And so I think that's why we need to be very clear about what does the AMA articulate for," says Rohack. "It's to make sure that everyone has coverage that's affordable, that's portable and that is quality — that is, it covers the things you need to cover because you've got a medical condition or developed a medical illness." (From the NPR story on the poll.)

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 09:35 PM

Ain't no rabbit... Jus' another way of creatin' something akin to a public option... Both the Netherlands and Switzerland are using it and costs are comparable to other European countries in terms of % of GNP...

I donno... I do beleive there will be something that provides a decent level of competition or whatever passes will fail to bring down costs...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Maryrrf
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 08:39 PM

This thread on CIGNA health insurance was posted on Facebook. Interesting viewing.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 12:50 PM

" . . . if anyone didn't like it, there would always be the opportunity to join a privately-run plan."

Maybe, but we don't actually know that, do we? If the public option includes employees whose employers have chosen to pay the 8% of payroll tax (as in HR 3200, which may or may not be Obama's "my plan") to fund the "public option" rather than purchase coverage, those people would have to use their own after tax dollars to find a plan, if not in the exchange (where pre-exisitng damages and chronic illnesses will certainly be subject to guaranteed issue and at mandated rates, and where the individuals perhaps have vouchers or credits representing that 8% paid on their behalf) which itself seems to be destined to become the sole "public option," (ignoring the expanded Medicaid eligibility) then the individuals would have to purchase coverage in the remaining individual market, where prices may be sky high and not subject to guaranteed issue (?)

That's one heck of a run-on sentence, I know, and perhaps I missed something fundamental (e.g. in exchanges versus public option versus co-ops) so that it is actually a nonsense question . . . but I just can't figure it out.

(I'm pretty sure, though, that the exchange becomes a (the) publicly funded backstop to provide coverage, starting with $2 billion thrown into a pot by the feds (as in HR 3200), and funded with public dollars as appropriate and required beyond the 8% collected and premiums otherwise paid. Obama said before Congress this woyuld take four years to fully implement, and he would use Sen. McCain's idea of a different public option in the interim.)

Maybe Bobert's right and Obama is going to pull a rabbit out of his hat with a still undisclosed "my plan," but then why would he have said $900 billion over ten years - the same as current HR 3200 estimates?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 11:43 AM

Calm down, public optioners...

"The Public Option" isn't the only way to achieve the desired results... If you look at the Neatherlands you will find that their pooling system is regulated and non-profit and works as well as any other system...

Me thinks that if I know this then Obama and the Dems do, as well, and that he really does have a future option (no pun intended) of coming off the public option to let the Repubs and flat earthers think they won one...

Just the way I see it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 11:31 AM

In addition to our country's poor availability of health care to the sick and injured, we have a problem with many poor neighborhoods lacking grocery stores with fresh fruits and vegetables. Some areas have only convenience marts with junk food and fast food restaurants. The promotion of corn syrup in products has grown in recent decades. Some areas are unsafe for kids to play outside or walk to school. We've discusssed the Mountain Dew Mouth here on mudcat. There are many areas of the US that discourage health in the way people grow up without nutritious diets, without exercise, with too many kids learning to smoke from everyone around them smoking.

I recently saw news on a mobile van business selling fresh fruits and vegetables in urban areas where people don't have a fresh food store available to them. Prevention means more than testing, and we need to examine how the Dept. of Agriculture, the Dept. of Transportation, the Dept. of Education could all contribute to helping Americans live healthier.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 11:09 AM

Why does everybody assume that a "public option" would be funded by tax dollars? The US Postal Service is a model of how it could work. And whether or not you believe that the Post Office does a good job, it exists, and is still the most economical way to get written mail and packages delivered.

A workable public option healthcare organization could easily be funded by members who choose to participate; it would have to be a national (or at least a multi-stste) operation to make it portable and to give it enough bargaining leverage to force costs down. And, of course, if anyone didn't like it, there would always be the opportunity to join a privately-run plan.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 08:24 AM

All of the above is true, but what Lox says about it being paid from the public purse will not happen now.

             It could be that the lobbyists--if one can assume they're all on the same page--do not want tort reform, because it is really lack of tort reform that mandates all the extensive testing.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Sep 09 - 10:21 PM

That's true about juries, Bill. They are easily chosen, controlled, and manipulated to secure a desired result.

I think heric is also dead right when he says: "lobbyists did it all first. Republicans are just shouting like class clowns when another kid's school project has been messed up"

Lobbyists are the key. Lobbyists are the ones in control of this agenda, and that means that the insurance companies and other big money outfits who employ the lobbyists are the ones really controlling how the legislators deal with the matter.

No surprise to me.

Dennis Kucinich is pointing all this out on his website. I bet the mainstream news media don't even talk about it, do they? About what Dennis Kucinich is saying, I mean...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Sep 09 - 10:07 PM

Dick Greenhaus 'nailed it'....

There are courses taught in how to 'play' a jury, and well-worn techniques in selecting & rejecting jurors to get the result you want!

There is well-worn saying something to the effect that "a jury consists of 12 people assembled to determine who has the best lawyer"

A panel of experts is FAR more likely to determine whether or not real malpractice has occured. (yes, I realize that selecting the panel has its own pitfalls, but it would be easier to oversee than juries)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 13 Sep 09 - 07:31 PM

You nailed it, Lox, but he passed that up. And the Republicans have virtually nothing to do with it - lobbyists did it all first. Republicans are just shouting like class clowns when another kid's school project has been messed up.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lox
Date: 13 Sep 09 - 07:05 PM

Its about setting something up that is simple and that works.

Its purpose is to make health care available to the lowest strata of society.

The funding will ultimately come from the public purse.

Facing up to these realities is the first step.

Having the guts to build it so that the poorest in society have their health interests met as opposed to ensuring that the richest in society have their interests met is the next step.

This is an unavoidable factor.

The richest - who already have health care - will not want to pay tax dollars to help the poorest.

That is what they will do their best to avoid.

Sucking up to them will result in nothing of any use being built.

Obama has to be courageous plain and simple.


He will be accused of being socialist etc.


This will be the test of his mettle.


What's it going to be?


doing what needs to be done regardless of the lies that will be told about him etc ...

or bowing down to republican pressure and giving america an empty useless vessel.


Its time. Men or Mice.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Sep 09 - 02:54 PM

2 points:
a)The practice of defensive medicine is cenrtainly encouraged by the fact thet the healthcare industry makes a bundle from unnecessary testing.

b)Rather than limit the size of malpractice awards, just remove malpractice suits from juries, and have them tried by an expert panel (who just might know of what they're judging).

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 09:36 PM

Bobert - Yes, I agree that the Democrats can pass something without Republican participation. But they would need to concede on a few issues if they want to pass something that will be of very much help to the American people.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 09:17 PM

What have the Repubs offered that would make the Dems think they have to give anything, Rigs??? Don't answer that 'cause the answer is absolutely nothing at all...

One has to offer something in excahnge in any negotiation... The Repubs just hate Obama and want health care reform stopped regardless of its worth... The Repubs did this to Clinton because the were scared to death that if health care reform had gone thru back then then the Dems would have been heros for decades to come... The Repubs don't want that to happen...

There is no wiggle room here so screw the Repubs... They have shown their hand... Too late for them... Way too late...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 08:53 PM

"Medical malpractice reform can be implemented to reign in costs of any and all health... It has nothing to do with choosing the system's financing structure..."

    "The same is basically true about illegal immigrants receiving care."


               I think that's probably true, but if the Democrats wanted to get something meaningful passed, they could concede these two issues and the opposition wouldn't have much ammunition.
               Everyone knows that the reason they don't is: (1) The Trial Lawyers are one of the Democrats strongest financial supporters, and (2) they're trying to solidify the Hispanic vote.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 08:48 PM

Yes, LH, you're right. When the cost is outrageous to begin with the demand for compensation is elevated. But all the tests are backup for when something might go wrong.

               And McGrath is right too. Shit happens! It isn't always somebody's fault.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 07:59 PM

Medical malpractice reform can be implemented to reign in costs of any and all health care financing structure regardless of type, from the small town doctor who gets paid in produce by farmers to a universal single payer NHS. It always could be and always can be attempted. It has nothing to do with choosing the system's financing structure, which is the issue before the country right now. It's a cynical side issue being used as a wedge issue.

The same is basically true about illegal immigrants receiving care. They get it now. Stop it now - stop it in the future, but don't change the subject just to make the real issue seem even more complicated and divisive than it already is.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 07:57 PM

The reason that US patients recieve more tests has nothing to do with malpractice... It has to do with profit...

"Sooner or later it all comes down to money..." (Springsteen)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 06:38 PM

So long as malpractice is all about culpable behaviour, fair enough. But we live in a world where things go wrong, and someone else isn't always to balme, and that is a truth that can get lost.

When something happens which means we need extra help, or extra resources, we should be able to get them as of right, and it shouldn't depend on whether someone can be blamed or not. Where a society fails to recognise that and to make adequate provision, that inevitably fuels the litigation culture.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 06:26 PM

Righto, Rig. I think that's where I might look first too. But I think Carol's point about the high costs of treatment in the USA probably has much to do with it as well.

Think about it. You get free treatment in Canada...and the doctor doesn't handle it right. So maybe you sue him for malpractice. But then, say, you get the same treatment in the USA...the doctor doesn't handle it right...and it also costs you $35,000! In which case are you more likely going to get REALLY angry at the doctor and launch a malpractice lawsuit for big bucks?

Seems pretty obvious to me...when you've just lost $35,000 dollars, that's when. Lawsuits are driven by two motivations:

1. revenge
2. and the desire to cash in.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 05:46 PM

"Malpractice is handled here (in Canada) just the same way it is in the USA, Rig. You bring legal action against the doctor and the courts handle it from there... It is irrelevant to this discussion... So who is driving it?"

       Yes it is relevant to this discussion because both Obama, the leaders of Congress, and the Republicans all say that one of the major problems with healthcare is the spiraling cost. A large part of the costs are the reality of defensive medicine--as Sawzaw points out--and the ridiculous awards that are given to claimants in court, much of which ends up in the pockets of attorneys.

      As to who is driving it: The Trial Lawyers Association seems to be the group who continue to keep the Democrats from going anywhere near tort reform. So that's where I'd look first.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 03:25 PM

You mean, Lox, that you don't have the recourse of reattachment? lol

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lox
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 03:18 PM

Rig,

If you go to bbc.co.uk and click on news, and then type NHS into thee bbc internal search engine you will find examples of how the NHS compensates people who have suffered from gross negligence.

One thing that every health system globally has in common however is that if someone accidentally amputates your leg, they cannot unamputate it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 02:45 PM

I think part of it may be the fact that we pay so much money for health care in this country. Since we pay so much (both in premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, as well as in fees at the point of service), we expect the very best in care, and if we don't get that, we get revenge.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 12:46 PM

There's no question that there is an ongoing orgy of very costly litigation (much of it unjustified) going on in the United States...and not just in regards to the medical profession. It seems to affect almost everything these days.

And that results in a lot more expenses for everybody.

So who is driving it? Is it due to aggressive marketing of their services by lawyers or is it due to a lot of spoiled and combative people who are looking for someone to give them a hell of a lot of money, because they feel entitled to their own five minutes of notoriety and financial windfall? Or is it due to a great many abuses of the general public by profit-seeking scoundrels? Or all three of those?

What do you think, Sawzaw? I know something is behind it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 12:07 PM

Massachusetts Medical Society First-of-its-kind Survey of Physicians Shows Extent and Cost of the Practice of Defensive Medicine and its Multiple Effects of Health Care on the State Physician's group says fear of liability costs billions in defensive medicine, reduces access to care, and may be unsafe for patients; calls for fundamental change of medical liability system

Waltham, Mass. -- November 17, 2008 -- A first-of-its-kind survey of physicians by the Massachusetts Medical Society on the practice of "defensive medicine" – tests, procedures, referrals, hospitalizations, or prescriptions ordered by physicians out of the fear of being sued – has shown that the practice is widespread and adds billions of dollars to the cost of health care in the Commonwealth. The physicians' group says such defensive practices, conservatively estimated to cost a minimum of $1.4 billion, also reduce access to care and may be unsafe for patients.

The Investigation of Defensive Medicine in Massachusetts is the first study of its kind to specifically quantify defensive practices across a wide spectrum and among a number of specialties. The study is also the first of its kind to link such data directly with Medicare cost data.

The survey queried physicians in eight specialties between November 2007 and April 2008: anesthesiology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, general surgery, neurosurgery, orthopedics, and obstetrics/gynecology. Lead researchers were Manish K. Sethi, M.D., of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery of Massachusetts General Hospital and a member of the Medical Society's Board of Trustees and its Committee on Professional Liability, and Robert H. Aseltine, Jr., Ph.D., of the Institute for Public Health Research at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington. The results were released to physicians last week at the Medical Society's 2008 Interim Meeting of its House of Delegates, November 14-15 in Waltham.

The study is also believed to be one of the largest of its kind with nearly 900 physicians completing the survey.

"This survey clearly shows that the fear of medical liability is a serious burden on health care, said Dr. Sethi. "The fear of being sued is driving physicians to defensive medicine and dramatically increasing health care costs. This poses a critical issue, as soaring costs are the biggest threat to the success of Massachusetts health reform efforts....

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 11:46 AM

A 2006 study found neurologists in the United States ordered more tests in theoretical clinical situations posed than their German counterparts; U.S. clinicians are more likely to fear litigation which may be due to the teaching of defensive strategies which are reported more often in U.S. teaching programs. Counting both direct and indirect costs, other studies estimate the total cost of malpractice between 5% and 10% of total U.S. medical costs.

Defensive medicine is the practice of diagnostic or therapeutic measures conducted primarily not to ensure the health of the patient, but as a safeguard against possible malpractice liability. Fear of litigation has been cited as the driving force behind defensive medicine. Defensive medicine is especially common in the United States of America, with rates as high as 79% to 93% , particularly in emergency medicine, obstetrics, and other high-risk specialties.

Defensive medicine takes two main forms: assurance behavior and avoidance behavior. Assurance behavior involves the charging of additional, unnecessary services in order to a) reduce adverse outcomes, b) deter patients from filing medical malpractice claims, or c) provide documented evidence that the practitioner is practicing according to the standard of care, so that if, in the future, legal action is initiated, liability can be pre-empted. Avoidance behavior occurs when providers refuse to participate in high risk procedures or circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 11:12 AM

Malpractice is handled here (in Canada) just the same way it is in the USA, Rig. You bring legal action against the doctor and the courts handle it from there.

It is irrelevant to this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: number 6
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 11:06 AM

Malpractice insurance is paid for 'out of pocket" by Canadian physicians .... then again since they are basically civil servant employees earning an income dictated by the government this insurance takes a good hunk of $change$ out of their paycheck.

Case in point ... my friend the pathologist. Yhe triage department of the Saint John Regional Hospital has a severe shortage if required doctors ... so bad that that patholists we're ask to fill in during the evenings. My friend thought he'd help out ... but declined when he found out his insurance rates would increase dramatically.

but ... with all that being said, malpractice isn't a problem with national healthcare ... it is a result of just plain simple human greed.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 10:55 AM

Speaking of Lindsay Graham, did anyone else notice that he brought his hands together to clap at one point during Obama's speech and thought better of it at the last minute and just rubbed his hands together instead? That was pretty funny. And sad.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 10:41 AM

Malpractice is a strawman that has so little to do with healthcare reform that it is a joke... I mean, less than 1/10thof 1% of what is spent on health care is for law suits... Now when one considers that we spend 17% of our GNP on health care and less than 1/10th of 1% is for law suits then we're really talking about a non issue in the big scheme of things...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 09:32 AM

Joe Wilson has raised more the $700,000.00 since he "You Lie" incident. He's on his way to re-election.

Folks in The Palmetto State have always been a little off- they've also given us the Civil War and Lindsay Graham - and I'm not sure which one's worse.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: number 6
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 09:08 AM

"The Americans should take to the streets about it. They should have done so decades ago, because when it comes to health, they are being incredibly deceived."

I agree Lizzie ..... by cutting the unnecessary, deceitful and obscene military budget by about about 3/4'rs they could provide enough adequate health care for all the people and still have some chump change left over, .... and still be able to defend themselves

biLL ... and I'm not yankee bashing here ... but do apologize once again if I'm thread drifting ... am I ??

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 08:40 AM

The history of health care in America has a lot to do with it, but I'd still be interested in knowing how they handle malpractice awards and cases in the UK and Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 08:34 AM

Apologies for the errors above. I think I need to see a doctor about my Spellchecking and Missed Out Words gene..... :0)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 08:32 AM

I don't think you should be allowed to called yourself a 'civilised' country until every single person in your country has access to free health care, regardless of their background.

It staggers me that the USA still doesn't have a healthcare system...and it also staggers me that so many people over there have to have medicals every time they want to apply for a job.

Yeesh! What a terrible invasion of privacy.

No nation should make the people who pay the taxes to keep that nation functioning, should also make its people live in constant fea of becoming ill, or having an accident.

I'm lucky, I have never even had to *think* about being ill, needing emergency surgery etc, because my country IS 'civliised' (in that respect at least) and the NHS is there for us all.

It's not rocket science is it? The American people have simply been denied free healthcare because it is a Corporate Business over there and those who have become mega wealthy do not want to relinquish their control.

The Americans should take to the streets about it. They should have done so decades ago, because when it comes to health, they are being incredibly deceived.

If we can do it, if Canada can do it, if many other countries can do it, then so can the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 07:42 AM

Good post, Brucie...

Yo, LH... Do you really expect the corporate owned media to tell the people the truth about how the US spends 17% of its GNP on health care but can't crack the Top 20 in life expectancy of infant mortality... 2nd Question: Even if the corprate media did tell the people the truth about these unfotunate statistics, do you believe that the people who are so filled with hate toward Obama and the media would believe it??? I think not...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lox
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 06:32 AM

"OK, so now a guy from the UK is bashing one from Canada,"

Perhaps Number 6 and I should be the arbiters on whether or not we are bashing each other.

I'm pretty confident that he would agree that I responded to points that he made and not to any aspect of his character.

That's called engaging in debate.

And when he responded to my questions he wasn't bashing me either.

Art - if you aren't prepared to engage in the debate how do expect to learn anything?

As Carol pointed out, US catters have referred to the UK and Canadian systems on this thread.

I guess that makes my comments relevant.


In my view, the complex minefield of the alternatives being discussed is a beautifully crafted red herring o keep peoples minds occupied on absurd technicalities when the issue is that the worlds most allegedly advanced nation only provides health care to those who can afford it.


That isn't "yank bashing" that's an issue currently on the American political agenda having been brought up by the president of America.


Is he yank bashing too?



Don't be so precious Art.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: number 6
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 05:59 AM

Exactly Carol .... a case of too much government, especially when the governer's of the NHS are not physicians .... the biggest problem of NHS. This is the issue where harmonious balance has to be met ... especially in a capitalist system which both our countries have.


whooops


sorry ... thread drift ... I think ... but then it's a very confusing, misunderstood subject

again my apologies

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 05:14 AM

On the subject of New Brunswick's doctor shortage, it looks to me like the problem isn't with single payer health care itself, but rather with the way New Brunswick administers its single payer system.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 04:38 AM

Let me rephrase my last post...

"It's entirely appropriate in this thread for people from the UK and Canada to be discussing the relative merits of their systems because there has been an ongoing discussion by people in the US here in this thread that they still would like this country to adopt a single payer system. And there are also people in Congress who are trying to make that happen (note the message from Dennis Kucinich above)."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 04:26 AM

It's entirely appropriate in this thread for people from the UK and Canada to be discussing the relative merits of their systems because there has been an ongoing discussion by people in the US that they still would like this country to adopt a single payer system. And there are also people in Congress who are trying to make that happen (note the message from Dennis Kucinich above).

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Peace
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 01:19 AM

Manifesto: 'Lobbyists Nation of America' 16 Principles
Lobbyists destined to fill a void left by democracy's failings. Voters are irrational, cannot be trusted to act without guidance from lobbyists.

Lobbyists are the new behavioral nudgers guiding America. Forget behavioral scientists, special interest lobbyists will do the real nudging.

Lobbyists must nudge voters to elect "friendly" politicians. Lobbyists must invest millions to elect officials favorable to special interests.

Lobbyists are the new "unseen hand" of American Capitalism. Capitalism's new "unseen hand" is the enlightened deals of 261,000 lobbyists

Lobbyists will guide economic recovery for special interests. Congress, the president and regulators all have a price, find it and pay it.

Lobbyists protect special interests using taxpayer money. The wealthy will have ready access to the assets and credits of the Treasury.

Lobbyists amass extra capital anticipating a new meltdown. Plan ahead for the next recession by stockpiling benefits for your clients.

Lobbyists hire new blood directly from inside government. The contacts of senators and congressmen are worth millions to clients.

Lobbyists reward politicians, treat them like co-lobbyists. Everyone in Washington wants to get rich off big government, help them

Lobbyists must defeat programs unfavorable to clients. Programs that weaken the power of the rich must be aggressively defeated.

Lobbyist clients' interests come before public interest. Principles of fiduciary duty mean clients take precedence over public needs.

Lobbyists must defeat or gut financial literacy programs. Intelligent, informed investors undercut special interests; Kill the CFPA.

Lobbyists give traders access to commercial bank assets. Investment banks switched to get access to deposits for high-risk trading.

Lobbyists never help mortgagees and credit-card holders. Helping failing homeowners and card holders means less for bank insiders.

Lobbyists want cap-and-trade derivatives for a new bull market. America needs a new bubble, new bull -- global warming trades will do trick.

Lobbyists must reward the rich, eliminate the "death tax." Eliminating inheritance taxes assures continuity of wealthy gene pools.



From

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15038

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 12:53 AM

Thursday, January 25, 2007
Families USA Conference, Washington, DC
Thank you Ron Pollack and thank you Families USA for inviting me to speak here this morning.

On this January morning of two thousand and seven, more than sixty years after President Truman first issued the call for national health insurance, we find ourselves in the midst of an historic moment on health care. From Maine to California, from business to labor, from Democrats to Republicans, the emergence of new and bold proposals from across the spectrum has effectively ended the debate over whether or not we should have universal health care in this country.

Plans that tinker and halfway measures now belong to yesterday. The President's latest proposal he announced this week has some elements that are interesting, but it basically does little to bring down cost or guarantee coverage.

There will be many others offered in the coming campaign, and I am working with experts to develop my own plan as we speak, but let's make one thing clear right here, right now:

In the 2008 presidential campaign and Congressional campaigns all across the country, affordable, universal health care for every single American must not be a question of whether. It must be a question of how. We have the ideas. We have the resources. Now we have to find the will to pass a plan by the end of the next president's first term.

Let me repeat that: I am absolutely determined that, by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country. There's no reason why we can't accomplish that .

I know there's a cynicism out there about whether this can happen, and there's reason for it. Every four years, health care plans are offered up in campaigns with great fanfare and promise. I'm sure that this campaign season will be no exception. People evaluate them for a day, and then they move on to find out who made the latest blooper or gaffe on the campaign trail. And by the time a president is sworn in, the interest groups and the partisans have torn down whatever ideas have been offered... and we're back to business as usual.

But once those campaigns end, the plans collapse under the weight of Washington politics, leaving the rest of America to struggle with skyrocketing costs. For too long, this debate has been stunted by what I call the smallness of our politics - the idea that there isn't much we can agree on or do about the major challenges facing our country.

And when some try to propose something bold, the interests groups and the partisans treat it like a sporting event, with each side keeping score of who's up and who's down, using fear and divisiveness and other cheap tricks to win their argument, even if we lose our solution in the process. . . .

For years, the can't-do crowd has scared the American people into believing that universal health care would mean socialized medicine, burdensome taxes, rationing - that we should just stay out of the way, let the market do what it will, and tinker at the margins.

.. . .
This isn't a problem of money, this is a problem of will. A failure of leadership. We already spend $2.2 trillion a year on health care in this country. My colleague, Senator Ron Wyden, who's recently developed an interesting new health care plan of his own, tells it this way:

"For the money Americans spent on health care last year, we could have hired a group of skilled physicians, paid each one of them $200,000 to care for just seven families, and guaranteed every single American quality, affordable health care.

. . .

At a time when businesses are facing increased competition and workers rarely stay with one company throughout their lives, we also have to ask if the employer-based system of health care itself is still the best for providing insurance to all Americans. . . .

And so Washington no longer has an excuse for caution. Leaders no longer have a reason to be timid. And America can no longer afford inaction. That's not who we are - and that's not the story of our nation's improbable progress.

Time to Push Health Care Boundaries Again
Never forget that we have it within our power to shape history in this country. It is not in our character to sit idly by as victims of fate or circumstance, for we are a people of action and innovation, forever pushing the boundaries of what's possible. Now is the time to push those boundaries once more.
. .


Etc.
http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/ObamaHealthIns.htm

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Peace
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 12:32 AM

Sometimes countries ought to listen to their songwriters.

"The Power and the Glory" by Phil Ochs

Come and take a walk with me thru this green and growing land
Walk thru the meadows and the mountains and the sand
Walk thru the valleys and the rivers and the plains
Walk thru the sun and walk thru the rain

(CH) Here is a land full of power and glory
Beauty that words cannot recall
Oh her power shall rest on the strength of her freedom
Her glory shall rest on us all (on us all)

From Colorado, Kansas, and the Carolinas too
Virginia and Alaska, from the old to the new
Texas and Ohio and the California shore
Tell me, who could ask for more?

Yet she's only as rich as the poorest of her poor
Only as free as the padlocked prison door
Only as strong as our love for this land
Only as tall as we stand

But our land is still troubled by men who have to hate
They twist away our freedom & they twist away our fate
Fear is their weapon and treason is their cry
We can stop them if we try

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 12:25 AM

Who the hell are these public servants to tell us we're not even allowed to discuss Medicare for All or Wyden-Bennett? They are spineless nobodies serving the lobbyists, even after we thought we gave them so much power to effect "change we can believe in."

They tell us HR 3200 or nothing? The public debate should have had up to four options: Medicare for All, Wyden-Bennett, HR 3200, or status quo default. The debate couldn't have gotten any louder than it did anyway. The same people would be screaming the same things ("death panels!") anyway.

No vision. No spine. "Can't we all just get along and do what we were able to squeeze out of the lobbyists?"

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 11:59 PM

And why the hell not? You all should now why by now.

Because we've lost.

We're being taught there is no such thing as change we can believe in.

There is only the inexorable march of bureaucracy and "significant political resistance."

Look carefully.