BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 06:24 PM

...various posts from this thread:

"...the recent large poll that showed that 72% of those polled supported national health care, and were willing to pay increased taxes for it? " ~ dick greenhaus

"Please give poll data about the "72% want socialised medicine". The wording of the question is absountely vital. ~ asked I

65: Percentage of voters who believe that every American should have access to quality healthcare   ~   Emma B (ex Rasmussen)

I still don't see any evidence that the American people are jumping up and down, demanding that our health care delivery system be natioinalize.

Yes, health care the 20% who are not happy must be addressed.

Where does Obama think his mandate to nationalize private enterprize comes from?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 06:15 PM

"Not only will it require more doctors (because a lot more people will be seeing doctors)to operate such a system, but pay scales may be too low to attract university students into the medical profession."

One of the items in Obama's plan is to get medical students through school without such a huge debt. A lot of that can be done without a big increase in subsidies.

" If that is so, why do so many people from other countries (lots from Canada)come to this country when they require medical services?"

We DO have some of the best 'cutting edge'..(sorry) specialists with the finest equipment in the world, and we DO get people from everywhere; but many of our own citizens have almost no access to these specialists.

I would rather have more doctors who are not specialists, but are decent GPs than have a smaller number of A1++ experts that I am not able to get near.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 06:12 PM

On the topic of whether or not salaries (as opposed to profits) in a government-operated system would be adequate to attract students into medicine, please look at the Department of Veterans Affairs. All VA physicians are salaried, although many also work as professors of medicine at university medical schools. The VA consistently has higher than average system-wide ratings by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations for both quality of care and patient satisfaction. (2002 VA mean score 93, ationwide mean score 91) I worked as a human resources director in the VA for many years, and the only facilities that had difficulty attracting highly qualified and board certified physicians were in rural areas, and that problem is not unique to the VA.

Once again, of course, a single-payer system is not and never has been on the table in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 06:07 PM


y;

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 05:51 PM

I'm a Brit now living in the USA.

In 2003 I was diagnosed with cancer of the womb. I was given the diagnosis on the Monday and had a total hysterectomy on the following Thursday. I had been waiting for an operation on a bunion, a final wait of about 18 months from diagnosis to operation, and that was carried out in February 2004. None of that cost me a penny, apart from the cost of prescriptions, as was the case for all my medical treatment up to that point in my life. It would have been nice to have had faster treatment for the bunion, which was extremely uncomfortable and restricted my ability to walk any distance, but I accepted that as part of having free healthcare at point of service.

In the USA Kendall and I have good healthcare and, from what I can make out, our insurance premiums are a lot less than some others have to pay. I have a co-pay on all medical treatment that caused me to curtail a course of physical therapy for a hip complaint and prescription charges are a lot higher than was the case in the UK. On the whole, however, Kendall and I are fortunate insofar as health care is concerned.

What I find difficult to deal with is when I hear of others who really do have a problem keeping up with medical bills. One friend who has had to have quite a lot of tests done for an ongoing complaint has difficulty finding the cash to pay the deductible under the cover until the insurance kicks in. We hear of children with no medical cover at all, of people being forced into bankruptcy because they could not afford the thousands of dollars that it would cost to keep their families covered for medical treatment.

Then there are the tales of people with ongoing medical conditions who lose their jobs and their medical insurance. Many of them are unable to afford to continue the cover that might be available as it would cost too much and are unable to get any other cover because of an existing medical condition. At the same time we hear that some free clinics are closing because of lack of funds. leaving less and less outlets for those who cannot afford to pay either for insurance or their medical bills.

In the UK these people, who have enough problems already would, at least, be secure in the fact that they would have medical attention when needed.

The situation in the UK for dentistry is, right now not so good, with fewer National Health dentists to be found and long waiting lists to get on the books of those available. Many in the UK have not had dental treatment for some time and that situation doesn't seem to be showing any sign of getting better.

Last time I was in the UK, as a senior citizen, I got a free eye exam and would probably have got a slightly better deal on the required glasses, but was not there long enough to have them made up.

I love my life in the USA and, as I say, am fortunate to have good medical cover. I wish that the same was true for all others in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 05:35 PM

My alarm was at that polling result - I was horrified to see that it seems to say that 22 per cent of Americans do not think that "all people should have access to quality health care".

I cannot believe that one in five Americans actually do believe that, and hope that there must have been some kind of misunderstanding or polling error. Perhaps the question they were asked was misleading, and they thought they were being asked something else, perhaps they thought they were being asked, in Doug's words, whether "everyone should have health care insurance," which isn't the same question at all.

I think pdq was quite correct when he said '100% of respondants should say that "all people should have access to quality health care".'

Surely the discussion should be about what is the best way to achieve that result. The NHS isn't the only way - there are many other systems throughout the world, in the various countries in Europe and elsewhere. But the bottom line is the same "universal health care free at the point of use". I hope the USA will come up with its own system achieving that which will measure up to the quality of its best medical know how.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 05:32 PM

My alarm was at that polling result - I was horrified to see that it seems to say that 22 per cent of Americans do not think that "all people should have access to quality health care".

I cannot believe that one in five Americans actually do believe that, and hope that there must have been some kind of misunderstanding or polling error. Perhaps the question they were asked was misleading, and they thought they were being asked something else, perhaps whether they thought, in Doug's words, "that everyone should have health care insurance," which isn't the same question at all.

I think pdq was quite correct when he said '100% of respondants should say that "all people should have access to quality health care".'

Surely the discussion should be about what is the best way to achieve that result. The NHS isn't the only way - there are many other systems throughout the world, in the various countries in Europe and elsewhere. But the bottom line is the same "universal health care free at the point of use". I hope the USA will come up with its own system achieving that which will measure up to the quality of its best medical know how.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Sorcha
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 05:06 PM

My husband and I are OK, he has an employer who provides fairly good insurance but we pay thru the nose for it.

I do not know of ONE SINGLE PERSON under the age of 35 who has ANY HEALTH coverage at all! NOT ONE! Minimum wage jobs do NOT provide health coverage.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 04:39 PM

I've read the complete thread now, and am happy that so many of you offered your views. Let me make this clear: I did not start this thread to start petty arguments. I thought those of us who live in the U.S. could benefit by hearing the experiences of those who live with a single payer health care system. To me it has been interesting to read the responses.

Just a few comments on the posts: Dick: Do you really think "we have the worst health care system extent?" If that is so, why do so many people from other countries (lots from Canada)come to this country when they require medical services?

Ebbie: Evidently I was wrong when I wrote that 15 million Americans were uninsured. I apologize.

EmmaB: Thanks for posting the "blue clicky", 'What's Good about NHS.', I'll read it.

Daylia: You mention in your post that where you live (Canada I think) there is a shortage of doctors. That is one thing proponents of our current health care system fear will happen if we go to a single payer system. Not only will it require more doctors (because a lot more people will be seeing doctors)to operate such a system, but pay scales may be too low to attract university students into the medical profession.

McGrath: It is unclear to me if you are being critical of our health care system or critical of the American people. The poll revealed that less than 100% of the participants didn't agree that everyone should have health care insurance. If it is the former, have you experienced our health care system, and found it lacking? If it is the latter, your comment suggests that the American people are not charitable. I think we have a pretty good record of helping people out when there is a need.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 03:39 PM

Rapaire: Yes, Repaire, that occurred to me after I posted the question. The trillion dollar figure is, in fact, over ten years.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 03:08 PM

Our jury system, among other things, is built on the premise that the majority is right. But there's nothing stranger than people.

A few years back Alaska voted to move the Capital from Juneau to a newly-selected neutral spot (Willow, not too far from Wasilla), not much more than a crossroads.

A group got an initiative on the ballot requiring that a study be done first to determine approximately how much money it would cost to create a new town from scratch, build governmental buildings, etc.

When Alaska found how much it would cost - it was enormous - the state voted down the Capital move.

But: 68,000 voters said, "NO, we don't need to know."

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:56 PM

My mother thinks so, McGrath. She was raised that way. And she sees things getting worse instead of better... I feel so sad for her when she sees her life's work and her ideals and the things her generation fought and died for being stolen by greedy bastards.

Anyone who says different is scarey.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:53 PM

Sorry, pdq. At that point, I had Social Security in mind. The politically far-right in this country despise both SS and Medicare.

I have had one really rich friend in my life (he has since died) and he always complained about SS, that it just complicates taxes and record keeping.

I said, Why accept it then?

And he said, Because it's mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:47 PM

Yes, 100% of respondants should say that "all people should have access to quality health care".

But they didn't, did they? That's pretty scary.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:39 PM

Well, here is a statement on the subject...

Sinking Under the Cost of Covering the Uninsured Immigrants

Wednesday, March 12, 2003
By: Dan Stein

Last week was "Cover the Uninsured Week," a public relations scheme designed to draw attention to the fact that more than 40 million U.S. residents do not have health insurance, and one in three people in this country lacked coverage at some time during the past two years. The growing number of people who do not have health coverage is a legitimate crisis that threatens not only public health, but also economic stability.

There are many factors contributing to the alarming increase in the medically indigent in the U.S. However, one critical factor fueling the crisis was noticeably absent from the "Cover the Uninsured Week" campaign. Immigration, as much as any other factor, has helped transform large sectors of the American labor force into uninsured workers.

As laudable as the effort to promote health coverage for all workers is, doing so without addressing the current unprecedented levels of immigration to the United States is akin to bailing water out of a leaky boat, while ignoring the hole in the hull. Immigrants themselves not only constitute a disproportionate share of the medically uninsured in the United States, the ripple effect of mass immigration is causing many native workers to lose employer-provided health benefits.

Combined legal and permanent illegal immigration to the United States is about 1.5 million per year - a figure that has been unaffected by recession or unemployment rates. Immigrants are three times more likely to lack health insurance than those born here. And one out of every four people without insurance — 10 million residents — is an immigrant, according to the Census Bureau. The problem is especially acute among Hispanics, the nation's largest immigrant group and now our largest minority group. An astounding 52.2 percent of Hispanics residents do not have health coverage.

According to the 2000 Census, Cook County contained 1,064,703 foreign-born residents, nearly 20 percent of the county's population. If national statistics hold true, immigration alone would account for nearly one quarter million uninsured persons in Cook County alone. Other counties counties around the country are reeling from mass immigration as well.

According to a survey by the National Association of Counties, 67 percent cited immigration as a cause of their increased costs for public health care.

As many new immigrants have moved into formerly unionized blue-collar jobs, employee health insurance has been among the first benefits to eliminated. Employers just aren't very likely to provide a health package for workers who are earning minimum wage, especially if those workers also happen to be illegal aliens. Moreover, native workers, who used to do those jobs at higher wages, also join the ranks of the medically uninsured.

The ripple effect of mass immigration extends even beyond the immigrant workers and the natives they displace. Direct competitors of companies that have used mass immigration to cut costs are also forced to slash employee benefits in order to stay competitive. Meanwhile employers in other segments of the economy, less affected by mass immigration, have seen their health insurance bills skyrocket, as the cost for providing health care to the uninsured is passed along to those who have insurance.

Proponents of current U.S. immigration policies often extol the virtues of "cheap labor," and claim that our economy could not function without it. "Cover the Uninsured Week" stands as stark evidence that cheap labor isn't cheap. It just means that we are going to pay the bills in the form of higher taxes, higher health insurance premiums and higher anxiety for millions who have no coverage at all.

Obviously, many factors have contributed to the health care crisis in America. It would be naïve to suggest that addressing mass legal and illegal immigration to the United States will magically cure what is ailing our health care system. But it is equally naïve to declare that everyone in America ought to have the benefit of health coverage, while we brings millions more people to this country who are apt to be without it, and who often compete directly with those who already work in this country without health benefits.

Everyone is in favor of covering the uninsured. Paying for it is another matter, as is setting limits on the numbers of new uninsured people who come to this country every year. The difference between a PR stunt and legitimate public interest crusade is how much political capital people are prepared to expend to achieve a worthy goal. Without including immigration reform in the campaign, "Cover the Uninsured Week," promises to be just a PR stunt.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:21 PM

"I believe that..." Your data source is...?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:05 PM

Yes, 100% of respondants should say that "all people should have access to quality health care". Pollsters ask silly questions quite often

As far as the immigrant angle, I believe that 67% of the Mexican-born living in the U.S. have no health care plan, private or government. They use the emergency room more often than most, not less often.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:58 PM

I have not had an eye check up in three years, because I can't afford it. I know I need new glasses, but I have thousands to pay off in hospital bills that were not covered by the insurance plan that I also have to pay for each month. My son has three wisdom teeth that need to be extracted, but we can't afford the hundreds of dollars it will cost, in spite of having him on my insurance plan.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:55 PM

It is an odd question, all right, pdq. Why wouldn't 100% of the people in a country want every citizen in that country to have access to qualithy healthcare?

Who do they NOT want given access to quality healthcare and why????? What possible justification would there be for denying quality healthcare to a citizen?

Personally, I think that even visitors to a country should have access to quality healthcare...I would certaily hope for it if I was travelling in some other country and suffered some medical emergency.

What is wrong with people? Do they think that money matters more than people's lives? Money was originally created to serve people...NOT the other way around! It's just a friggin' tool of exchange, for God's sake.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:53 PM

Contrary to DougR's comment in his original post, there is no indication at all that Mr. Obama is contemplating that the
Federal government will eventually "dominate the health care system". In fact, no Democrats have even proposed anything remotely like the Canadian or UK National Health plans, except for people on the fringes such as Kennedy. FactCheck.org has looked at some of the numbers that are going around. For example, some 21% of uninsured are non-citizen immigrants, from all nations, illegal and legal. It is estimated that about 60% of all immigrants are undocumented. Immigrants use ER services less often than citizens. 45.7 million people lacked health insurance for at least some period of time (one day or more) in 2007 - the 47 million people is apparently an extrapolation based upon population growth.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:53 PM

Imagine a question like "Do you believe that every American deserves access to rotton health care?"

Those poll results would appear to suggest that there are 22 per cent of Americans would agree with that proposition...

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peter T.
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:49 PM

My suspicion is that the satisfaction people feel for their health care under any advanced system -- private or public -- is related to complicated feelings of attachment to care providers, hope, a respect for the medical profession, and a lack of catastrophe except for the few. Most people, most of the time are not going to a doctor, but have expectations that the care will be ok, mingled with apprehension. It is hard to judge this kind of thing through polls.

The point is how to obtain universal coverage (health care should be a right) in the best way. Private care mediated purely by a market has been shown not to work.   There are any number of economists who have showed why: health care does not work as a commodity or as a voluntary service (like going to the hairdresser). It is more like the fire department and the police.

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:45 PM

"Posted June 16, 2009
Sources: Rasmussen

65: Percentage of voters who believe that every American should have access to quality healthcare
22: Percentage of voters who disagree
12: Percentage of voters who aren't sure
80: Percentage who oppose providing healthcare for illegal immigrants
11: Percentage who support healthcare for illegal immigrants"

Thanks, EmmaB for that post.

As I suspected, the question is very odd.

Imagine a question like "Do you believe that every American deserves access to rotton health care?"

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:40 PM

You hear different stories about waiting periods. I have a friend here in Ontario, Canada who got diagnosed with a brain tumor (I talked about it on another thread), and they dealt with it immediately. He went into the hospital for observation, was there for a week, got operated on to remove the tumor, and was back home after 10 days.

There was no charge for any of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:39 PM

Only read the first post. My apologies.

Dougie... "I'm perfectly satisfied with the medicare program I have now."

My mother and father taught me to help others if I can.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Emma B
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:35 PM

I read the whole 'essay' Scott W Atlas which includes the statement

"Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long—sometimes more than a year—to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer."


The National Health Service in England and Wales has focused attention and considerable resources on reducing waiting times for cancer patients

In 2000 a large survey based on cases diagnosed in 1997 found that the waiting times of patients with cancer in England varied across regions.
The shortest waits were found for patients with breast cancer, who waited a median of 14 days from referral to their first outpatient appointment and 35 days to first definitive treatment.
This group was the first for whom a maximum two-week wait between urgent referral and first appointment at hospital was proposed

Implementation began in 1999 and the national cancer waiting times database now shows that nearly all urgently referred breast cancer patients are seen within two weeks.
As this first target has been met, attention has turned to the wait between diagnosis and treatment.
A further target of a maximum one-month wait from diagnosis to treatment was also met for 99.7% of patients in the last quarter of 2005/2006, and a one-month wait from urgent referral to beginning of treatment for all cancers has been proposed for the year 2008

data from the BMC

Can anyone provide the information that waiting time from diagnosis to treatment for cancers is less than half of this in the US as stated

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:35 PM

Medicare ~   signed into law on July 30, 1965 by Lyndon B. Johnson

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:35 PM

At age 80, my eyes were starting to fail, and I had new lenses implanted by a laser clinic, both eyes, but a month apart.
Five years later, my "new eyes" are doing fine.

The sole cost (Alberta, Canada) was the taxi to the clinic, and taxis for the yearly check-up (eyes are dilated for part of the examination).

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:29 PM

It may be good (if you can get it, as you say, Kevin) but the fact remains that infant mortality in the US ranks very high, we don't live as long as citizens in many another country even though we spend a great deal more for health care and we work more hours than almost anyone else in the developed nations.

To me, the whole question sounds academic. Despite the far right's opinion, Medicare works- I can't even imagine in what condition the elderly in this country would be if it weren't for Medicare. Just about the best thing that FDR's administration came up with.

One-source health care with the option of private augmentation sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:04 PM

No one is suggesting that, if you can get it, the best American health care isn't extremely good. After all, as a nation you spend a far higher proportion of money on it than in most other countries, including the UK.

Americans should be proud of the quality of their health care. But they should be deeply ashamed of the fact that millions of their fellow citizens cannot benefit from it when they need it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 12:58 PM

"Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?"

Good. Very good. It's a virtual necessity in any modern society that has any sense of public responsibility, and it is already the choice of most countries in the developed western world. The USA is a glaring exception to that. The USA is being held back by a self-serving bunch of huge drug companies and huge insurance companies who have nothing in mind except protecting their gigantic profits.

They are busy telling lies and bribing Congressmen so that they can maintain the status quo.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 12:53 PM

that should be "on an employer health INSURANCE plan"

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Emma B
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 12:50 PM

Posted June 16, 2009
Sources: Rasmussen

65: Percentage of voters who believe that every American should have access to quality healthcare
22: Percentage of voters who disagree
12: Percentage of voters who aren't sure
80: Percentage who oppose providing healthcare for illegal immigrants
11: Percentage who support healthcare for illegal immigrants

March 5, 2009

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey

Seventy-two percent of those questioned in recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey say they favor increasing the federal government's influence over the country's health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans, with 27 percent opposing such a move.

The poll also indicates that health care is tied as the third most important issue for President Obama and Congress to deal with over the next year. Forty-eight percent said dealing with health care was extremely important, tied with education and trailing only the economy and terrorism as the most important issues

March 2, 2007 NY Times CBS poll

More people now see guaranteeing health insurance as important than did so at the end of the Clinton efforts in 1996.
At that time, 56 percent polled said it was the government's responsibility to do so, and 38 percent said it was not. In the current poll, 64 percent said the government should guarantee health insurance for all; 27 percent said it should not.

Moreover, an overwhelming majority in the current poll said the health care system needed fundamental change or total reorganization, just as they did in the early 1990s, when a deep recession and soaring health care costs galvanized the public and spurred the Clinton drive.

The poll also found overwhelming support behind the Children's Health Insurance Program, which covers many low- and moderate-income children and is up for renewal in Congress this year.
Eighty-four percent of those polled said they supported expanding the current program to cover all uninsured children, now estimated at more than eight million. A similar majority said they thought the lack of health insurance for many children was a "very serious" problem for the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 12:50 PM

From Ebbie's 12:40 post...


Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians."
               ~ Yes, about 80% of us are happy

Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain.
               ~   Yes, hugely expensive machines but worth every penny. This is part of the "escalating cost" but we expect more in 2009 than we did 50 years ago.

Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.
               ~ Well, France's contribution in the last 50 years was the "morning afer pill". Sorta equals out, er, probably not.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 12:41 PM

Unfortunately, I don't think I'll see health care free at the point of use in the USA in my lifetime. I don't even get coverage for eyecare through the insurance plan I have to pay for through my employer. I have to spend thousands on health care each year, even though I am on an employer health care plan. This country is crazy - it's a matter of life and death to our citizens to have health care, and the right wing politicians have blocked it all the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 12:40 PM

Here is another view:

Scott W. Atlas.
Senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of radiology and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical School.

1.Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.
2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.
3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.
4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.
5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.
6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom.
7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.
8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.
9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain.
10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.

"Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and care for the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries. "

Fleshed Out

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 12:26 PM

I missed out a couple of words in my last post so here goes again:

The bottom line is that universal health care, free at the point of use, has to be made available. There are various way of organising this, and some are better and some are worse, and there is room for argument about this kind of thing - but the principle is fundamental.

I cannot envisage how any civilised and humane society can fail to deliver this, or how any civilised or humane person can fail to support the principle.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 12:25 PM

Well, 15% (uninsured) of 308 million is about 47 million (uninsured), a figure Ebbie used.

If there are polls/numbers/facts/ let's get them out. It makes for a reasonable discussion. Anectodal evidence and opinion are not enough basis to throw out our entire health care system.

Please give poll data about the "72% want socialised medicine". The wording of the question is absountely vital.

I also heard that "67% of those in U.S. with no health care plan were born in Mexico". Anyone have more on that angle?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 12:20 PM

There is no single answer to Doug's original question.
Those who believe in "the greatest good for the greatest number"...i.e., Utilitarianism, will say 'good', while those who judge ANY change by the criterion "will it cost ME more, or make ME wait longer, or cut into MY profits?", are likely to say "No".

I assume that, at least at the beginning, *I* will see some things I don't like, as in some longer waits...but I am willing to deal with that in order to see drug prices controlled, medical malpractice insurance reduced, universal accesss to health care, and reduction in bureaucratic paperwork crap.

This, if adopted, will take WORK, as the current system is so entrenched that basic thinking will need to be altered...but we'd better do it now, or in a few years it will go from bad to **horrible**. (In my, and many experts' opinion)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 11:51 AM

pdq-
how does your "80% satisfied" figure jibe with the recent large poll that showed that 72% of those polled supported national health care, and were willing to pay increased taxes for it?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 11:39 AM

It's hard to make DougR's statement: …"there are around 15 million citizens or so that have no coverage at all" fit pdq's perception that "I think DougR meant 15%" uninsured not "15 million people".

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 11:15 AM

Universal health care free to all citizens should be the first priority of any nation. I have no complaints whatever about Government health care in Canada. I was able to choose my own MD. I have access to a local walk in clinic as well as access to emergency facilities when needed. I have always gotten good care and have been well served by dedicated and highly qualified doctors.
However, citizens need to respect the system as well. Emergency rooms often have a long waiting time for those who show up with "minor" problems. Thus a high number of complaints about waiting for hours. We ought to be more mindful of what emergency means and use walk in clinics for lesser ailments. Drs. often complain of the congestion caused in emergency rooms by those who would be better served elsewhere.
   I am forever grateful for our health care, it has served myself and my family very well over the years. If a nation of 32 million can do it..so can others..but they must have the will.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Stu
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 10:10 AM

Hear hear!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 09:48 AM

The bottom is that universal health care, free at the point has to be available. There are various way of organising this, and some are better and some are worse, and there is room for argument about this kind of thing - but the principle is fundamental.

I cannot envisage how any civilised and humane society can fail to deliver this, or how any civilised or humane person can fail to support the principle.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: daylia
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 09:35 AM

As a Canadian, I know very well the pros and cons of nationalized health care. The pros can be summed up in one sentence, already stated above -- when you're in desperate need of medical attention, you don't have to go broke to see a doctor, visit emerg, have the recommended surgery etc. And thats more than enough to balance out the cons, I guess, but believe me the cons are frustrating:

Here in Ontario, we have a worrisome shortage of doctors that just gets worse every year. MD's make more money in private systems, so a lot of young doctors just cross the border once they've graduated. My family doctor was killed in a plane crash 10 yrs ago   =[   I've yet to find another who's willing to take a new patient. *tg* I very rarely need a doctor! Because people like me end up waiting in noisy crowded infectious emergency rooms/clinics 8-12 hours or more, for even the simplest thing (ie a cream for bad case of poison ivy). And if I ever needed hospitalization, I'd be "cared for" by different doctors every day, none of whom know me or my medical history from a hole in the ground. Makes for impersonal, sporadic, fractured and sluggish doctoring -- I've watched it happen, with my own family.

Gov't covers visits to clinics, major surgery etc but not essential things like antibiotics, crutches, splints, casts, ambulance. Elective surgery, forget it. Post partum care, forget it (new moms/babies stay in hospital no more than 24-48 hrs these days, unless they pay for private/semi-private rooms and more time)
And the most common reasons to seek medical help -- ie eye exams, glasses, any form of dentistry -- well, forget those too.

All of this is why I've been learning/practicing alternative health care methods for years now. Healthy diet, regular exercise, herbal tonics and remedies, massage/relaxation techniques to counter arthritic tendencies, better ways of managing stress etc -- I don't know what I'd do without em all, at this point. WHich is a good thing, actually. People do best when they take responsibility for their own bodies/health management instead of relying on doctors/gov't to do it for them. Because, sadly enough, many of today's doctors -- espeically those working at free clinics -- are not really "healers" at all. More like legalized drug pushers, the lackies of the chemical/pharmaceutical conglomerates. Barely listen/look at you for more than 30 seconds before scribbling out some prescription and shooing you out the door.

Sheesh, think I better quit now. Can you tell my own experiences have resulted in a general lack of trust in Western medical practices? Just my 2c worth, anyway -- best wishes and take good care now, all.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Emma B
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 08:28 AM

The British national pastime is to complain about our (actually very moderate) weather

A close runner up would be to complain about the state of the National Health Service but, scratch the surface of any of these grouses, and few would want to see the American model in the UK

Although it's a rather long document I would recommend reading
What's good about the NHS and why it matters who provides the service

particularly parts 2 & 3 which deal with funding, risk pooling and risk sharing

"The architects of the NHS recognized that equity in health care could only be achieved by sharing the risks and costs of care across the whole of society from the rich to the poor and from healthy to sick........

It was for this reason the architects of the NHS embedded solidarity and collective provision into the structures for the funding and delivery of care"

Of interest is the section on how markets fragment risk pools by dividing the population into 'winners and losers' as profit is maximised where providers can pick the former and reject the latter

The 'losers' are those with chronic disease or disability or just those on low incomes.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 06:35 AM

Everyone in Australia is covered by Medicare Australia and almost half of Australians also have private health cover. Private funds say they provide the freedom to choose your own doctor, hospital and time of treatment.

I don't have private cover so when I had my cancer operation in January the only costs I had were a taxi ride to hospital, a bit of decent food from the cafe (public patents don't get enough food as the budget is very low), & several appointments with my Doctor. I was in a 4-bed surgical ward & received excellent attention from the staff. All subsequent appointments with my Surgeon were covered by Medicare. If I had private cover I would have had to pay out a substantial part of the gap between what Doctors & Hospitals charge & what Medicare reimburses and would have still been in the same ward getting the same treatment.

All around Australia we have queues for surgery & overstretched hospitals & emergency departments, & many low income people who can't afford to pay to see a doctor so head to the emergency dept for all treatment.

I'm also heading for cataract operations & my eye specialist expects me to be operated on within 3-6 months of getting on that list.

In Australia the good of National Healthcare far outweighs the bad points.

sandra

Oz Govt site comparing Health Insurance Policies of all Oz Health funds

Private health insurance reaches seven-year high (Feb 09)

Options for reforming Australia's health system A Background Note prepared by staff of parliament House library

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peter T.
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 06:02 AM

The question about costs is fairly overblown. We are citizens (as far as I can tell from the contributors) of civilized countries. Taxes, etc., are designed to pool our resources to do things together that we can't do as well separately. Health care, for a variety of reasons, is one of those things (it is not a commodity, and often not a service one is seeking voluntarily, so standard economics has problems marketising it in the most efficient way).   None of us is getting any younger. So why not spend it on something that we benefit greatly from, i.e. health care? It seems to me to be a good way to spend our money!!

My objection is that the current medical system is doing jobs that should be taken over by a decent public system of care for the elderly. Hospital beds and emergency rooms are being used as eldercare centres -- this is crazy, and shows no signs of stopping. I spend a lot of time in hospitals, and it is a terribly wasteful use of their resources.   

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 04:16 AM

The NHS saved my life-what can I say? Given the complexity and range of its services it does a staggeringly good job. Occassionally individuals within the NHS let it down but that is true of any organisation. A couple of weeks ago my mother fell out of bed during the night. An ambulance arrived within 5 minutes and having checked her out and made sure she as ok, they left, contacted my mother's GP who then phoned the next morning to establish the facts and called around in the afternoon to examine her. I cant ask for more than that. I shopped around for travel insurance recently and because of ongoing health issues could not get any I could afford -I would worry if health insurance was introduced to this country. Long live the NHS!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 03:55 AM

I should have made clear we live in the UK. So, yes, we fully support the NHS (and loathe all the tinkering that is going on that amounts to 'back-door privatisation' of many functions.) In my son's case, the private consultant's notes have been transferred into the NHS system and treatment pretty much continues. What the private insurance gained was mainly speed of access to consultants (in most cases mental health treatment has a LONG waiting list if it is not life-threatening), better rooms, and so on. Except for cutting down the time until he was first seen and the interval between subsequent sessions, I doubt if the medical treatment was any better.