BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 12:08 PM

My 23 year old daughter (in the US) was worried about costs of her health care. Her condition (adrenal dysfunction) dictated that she go immediately to emergency room for saline drip and cortisol injection and monitoring, if she ever caught cold or flu.

She was constantly worrying about how to pay for the last hospital visit, god forbid future ones. The last words her father heard her say were "If Loki (boyfriend) has given me his flu, I'll kill him." 40 minutes later her dad found her unconscious. A couple of hours later after repeated attempts to get her heart going and keep it going, the doctors gave up. No more Andie.

If there had been public health care in the US, maybe she would not have hesitated to go to hospital as soon as she felt the slightest bit ill. If she were not afraid of the costs she might still be alive.

One the other side of the coin - I am living in the UK with moderate rheumatoid arthritis. Treatments used so far have not made any improvement to my condition or quality of life. There are stronger treatments, but my current level of inflammation do not put me in the category to receive these.   

So in answer to the question by OP... there should not be a price on health care or quality of life. However, even with the public health care system there is a price, if your illness doesn't tick the right boxes for best care to optimise quality of life, then you must go for private care, if you can afford it. But still I would rather the public system than the mercenary capitalist system in US.

I read somewhere that the highest grossing industry globally is petrochemicals and the second highest health care, phamaceuticals and insurance. It is all about money in the end.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: daylia
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 12:08 PM

Agreed, LH and Ebbie. Nothing is "free" as the gov't money comes from taxes (which are among the highest in the world here in Canada) and it's wisest to get second, even third opinions before making final decisions re expensive dangerous drugs/treatment.

But I'm not so sure my repairman's experience has nothing to do with public health care. If new state-of-the-art technologies like MRI imaging were not 'free at the point' but billed to the patient instead, as is common in the US, how many family physicians here would put a patient through an ordeal like this without even bothering to do a relatively simple, inexpensive thing like an old-style eye checkup first??

I would like to think, not many. If any!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: daylia
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 12:30 PM

omigod Virginia Tam, I am so sorry to hear about the tragic loss of your precious daughter    words just seem so useless I cannot even begin to imagine the devastation, your grief and anger at the whole damn f'n system!!!!   Wishing you and yours every good and healing thing you can possilby imagine,

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Royston
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 12:48 PM

VT, I didn't know that about your family and I am so sorry to hear about your daughter.

I've come very late to this thread and I am so shocked and saddened by the terrible experiences people have had. Doesn't that amount of sadness and fear answer the original question?

One gets the impression, correct me if I'm wrong, that a growing number of people in the USA seem to be living in a state of fear and terror about illness and medical misfortune that only exists today in the worst of third world countries? Shouldn't all citizens of all developed nations find it shocking that "We" allow this situation to exist?

I know that some humanitarian relief organisations have projects in the USA because of the extent of healthcare denial. Take a look HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 12:56 PM

And as for the (by now) threadbare argument by the far right-"Would you like to see your health care run like the Post Office?--I can only say 2 things. 1) I think the USPS does a damn fine job and 2) if there was no Post Office, Fedex and UPS would triple their rates in a flash. Nobody's trying to force you to use a national health care service; it would just be nice to have the option.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 01:02 PM

"Free". Good point. It is not free.

On the other hand, neither is fire protection. Good point.

So, where is the balance? Which is what this thread is about.

My mother would say that we should look after each other... but... I am repeating myself. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Royston
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 01:58 PM

Gnu,

"Free". Good point. It is not free.

On the other hand, neither is fire protection. Good point.

In the European model it is Free at the point of consumption or need so that anyone can access whatever healthcare they need without being put to proof of entitlement and without being tested for ability to pay. Now that is true "freedom".

So, where is the balance? Which is what this thread is about.

My mother would say that we should look after each other... but... I am repeating myself. Sorry.

You make a good point. We should all care for and about each other. When it comes to providing modern healthcare to an entire population, we have to club together and create a structure for healthcare and we each have to pay for it according to our ability to pay. It's called government and taxation. With my taxes I buy civilisation.

To my thinking, I cannot regard my life as civilised or "free" if I live in a society where one single person has to live in fear that they cannot access the most basic mechanisms for health and security that my, and our, labours are all directed at achieving and advancing.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 02:07 PM

Royston

There are Christian charities in really poor areas that provide clinics. My younger daughter Hilary had to use them ("Jesus loves you sermon" included) until she had worked long enough for current company. Now she has moderate bit of health insurance subsidized by the company. Given her preexisting condition (she has auto immune problems too - liver, ovaries and thyroid) she cannot get full health insurance, even if she and or her company paid for it.

I worry myself frantic about her and lack of care, when her problems worsen.

My mom has coverage through her medicare and because she worked for the US Federal government for 27 years and because she is widow of service man. Still it is not ideal care and it costs her more than she can afford.

My siblings, cousins and their families have no coverage whatever, as they are non-salaried, wage workers or self employed. Particularly bad in Hopewell, Virginia area as the chemicals from the number of factories there have so poisoned my the environment and close and extended family. There are lots of health issues and they are worse with each subsequent generation. I imagine many residents of Hopewell and surrounding areas experience above average health care issues.

What I said about petrochemicals in earlier post. Maybe it is a conspiracy. Sell us stuff and gives us jobs making stuff that make us sick. Then make more money on our suffering.

Don't even get me started on the mortuary lobby in the US. Talk about ghouls.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 02:11 PM

It seems that our health care system in the US is taking some pretty hard knocks on this thread. I think the major problem with our system is cost, not quality of care. Since some of the folks have shared their medical experiences, I'll offer a recent one I had to support my POV.

On March 17 (yep, St. Patrick's Day)of this year, around 2:00 AM I was awakened by an extreme case of indigestion. I have been plagued with that problem for many years but about two years ago my doctor prescribed a medication (which costs me $3.00 for a month's supply)had cleared up that problem so I was a bit concerned. Then I felt a tightening in my chest. I took my blood pressure and it was way above normal. I decided that to be on the safe side I should go to the nearby hospital and have them take a look at me. I awoke my wife and we drove to the emergency room at Scottsdale Health Care. I was tended to immediately (it was not particularly crowded that time of morning). My blood pressure was still a bit elevated so they decided to admit me to take some tests (cardiac catheterization). The Cardiologist saw me that morning and also suggested that I take a Stress Test and they scheduled one. The result was abnormal so Angioplasty was recommended.

I had Angioplasty in 1993 which revealed that I had about 80% blockage in a artery on the back side of my heart. They weren't doing stents in those days, and because of the location of the blockage, a balloon was not considered as an alternative so they did nothing.

The new Angioplasty revealed that I had NO blockage and my arteries were normal. Even the blockage found in 1993 was not present.

I was released on the 21st of March and the total bill was $28,000+.
My out of pocket cost was $50.00.

My coverage: Medicare administrated by a private insurance company (HMO).

What's not to like about our health care system? In spite what Ebbie posted earlier, not all right wingers hate Medicare and Social Security.

I realize this does not address the problem for those who do not have health care, but I hope the Administration and the Congress can address that problem without screwing up the current system

Many of you (Certainly Ebbie)are of the opinion that we can "have our cake and eat it too." In other words, if a single payer plan is adopted, and we are satisfied with our current plan, we will have the option to keep our current plan. I don't think that will happen. If a single payer plan is adopted it will drive the private insurance companies out of business. We will have no option because there will be no option.

Art: I don't know where you have been but if you have not heard discussion, even encouragement for a single payer plan for the US, you are on a different planet than I am.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 02:23 PM

Doug... "It seems that our health care system in the US is taking some pretty hard knocks on this thread."

That viewpoint is yours. I am only proferring simple arguements against user pay medical care. Others are doing the same.

My viewpoint is that the US (richest country in the world, leaders of the free world... give us your poor... whatever) system of health care seems antiquated and cruel.

Now, if you don't like my viewpoint, you tell Mum. But, be careful because she's getting pretty good with her cane.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Royston
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 02:23 PM

VT,

What I said about petrochemicals in earlier post. Maybe it is a conspiracy. Sell us stuff and gives us jobs making stuff that make us sick. Then make more money on our suffering.

I'm with you on that one. Pharma companies finding chemicals then inventing conditions to go with them - ADHD and some other "psychological" conditions being prime examples.

Then we get into the question of should we really trust Pharmaco's to develop a bloody cure for anything. Take RA for example. Arguably one of the most common and debilitating autoimmune conditions. A range of very expensive treatments, I'm sure. How could a capitalist ever consider looking for a cure? They'll never do it.

Look at HIV - the medical industry have now developed hugely expensive treatments that can keep 10's of millions (and increasing in the third world) patients kind-of-alive for almost a complete human lifetime. The incentive for Pharmaco's to develop a cure is...what? Can anyone see a motive for them?

Sorry, this seems to be thread-creep.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 02:30 PM

Doug, almost all of the discussion I have heard on single-payer comes from the right, in the process of saying that this is what the Administration and the Democrats are after. What Mr. Obama has said is that, if we were starting from the beginning, we should seriously look at single-payer but, since we are not, we should fix what we have and make the existing system work.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 02:43 PM

As it has been pointed out time and again, the Corporate Bureaucrats stand in the way of
the doctor's decisions and the patient. Government could do a better job than what we
have now.

The US could use a little more socialism like France and England particularly in health care.

Medicare and Social Security are not really going broke like some of the Republican defenders of rich corporations claim. Taxpayer money is getting eaten up by unnecessary foreign
invasions. It could be spent on American healthcare for all.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Royston
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 02:52 PM

DougR,

Nobody doubts that the US system has world-leading medical services. The debate is about access to those services.

You get great healthcare...only because you are able to pay for it and because insurance company actuaries have calculated that you are a "good risk".

Now the experience of others is that they are in a vicious circle of not having enough money to buy in to the best the system can offer or to buy in to it all.

Worse than that, some of the people least able to pay (because their health issues may exclude them from the best sectors of the labour-market) have the most serious need for high quality healthcare. Because they have needs, the insurance companies react very quickly to make darn sure they are priced out of the system entirely.

Your "comfort" in the status quo is only as real as your next premium-payment. In an economic downturn that is affecting all layers of society (save for the usual winners), how safe, secure and "free" do you really think you are?

The point of the European model is that taxes pay for all emergency medical services. There is NO private provision for emergency treatment. That is deemed sacred, it cannot be left to "the market".

Beyond that the NHS provides a standard of guaranteed care, free at the point of need or consumption, to every citizen. And that is world-leading care for ALL our medical needs.

For non-emergency medical need, there is a thriving private healthcare industry for cash-buyers or those who choose to take out insurance cover.

The benefits of this are that private provision can get you treated more quickly than in the NHS (if your condition is chronic as opposed to acute) and it can get you treated in better comfort and conditions. That is the only difference. In Europe you insure for a gold-star service. The state provision is still pretty darn good.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 02:57 PM

Doug's story there confirms what no one disputes - medical treatment in the States is as good as it comes - if you can get it paid for through insurance.

But the other stories in the thread show what happens when that isn't the case, and it's a picture that really does show the USA system as it operates today in a very bad light.

If it ain't broke don't fix it, as they say - but the corollary of that is, if it is broke, do fix it. And isn't that supposed to be the American Way?

As to quite how you do it, no doubt there is room for disagreement and discussion - but I can't see how any one can disagree that it does needs to be fixed and fixed without any further delay. Not if they want to be able to look themselves in the mirror and not be embarrassed.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:03 PM

Rap, comment about the VA. My Father & my step father both went to the VA & both never came out.
My brother's been going since he came home from Viet Nam, they still haven't figured out what's wrong with him. One of my best freinds as a young'un also went into the VA after he came home from Viet Nam, they couldn't figure out his problems either so as soon as he got out he killed himself, he couldn' take the pain & the uncertinally any longer.
These (with the exception of my brother) all happened at main Boston facility in Jamacia Plain.

Most people I know consider the most important part of their job & of keeping their job, the medical coverage & even then they are afraid that if something happens as it nearly did to me they are in fear of losing their home, being let go at work (even thought that's illegal), not being able to afford the cost if it turns out to be long term.
Many here in the US "work for coverage". Olf people who should be trying to take it easier. I guy I used to work with was unemployed for a while & lost his insurance. He found out he dying from cancer & is trying to go back to work to cover the medical bills he's already incured & to try for future coverage, he has no future.

The poorer folks make decisions almost daily weither to spend money on food or meds & which of those they need to cut back on without causing them the worst of problems which oly leads to worstening their health conditions.

Any laaarge company that is self insured has only to go be federal regs & doesn't have to comply with any state regs which gives them, usually the lesser stringent & cheaper regs to go by. They don't have to cover kids after the of 18 or 19 unless they're in college & then only up till (I think 23). Some states have moved that age to 25 reguardless if they're still in school.

Old folks & young adults are the most underinsured after the poor.

Kennedy, Clinton & Obama had very good propsals until they started hitting the "StonedWalled" consertivites. Damn Congress for thinking they are better than the rest of us & that they deserve a "free for
them but not for us" (we pay their coverage with our tax dollars but they don't want us to pay for ours from that same tax revenue, fuck them) medical insurance plan that the rest of us are going to die for.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:27 PM

Barry, you do know that Members of Congress pay exactly the same (generally about 1/3 of the total cost)for their health insurance as any other Federal employee, don't you? With exactly the same co-payments and deductibles?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Royston
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:36 PM

Artbrooks,

How much do Congressmen pay themselves each year?

How much does a clerk in a Federal office take home?

What is your point?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 05:53 PM

Easy lads... easyyyy.... fact is, there is a division between rich and poor (a different discussion?), but singling out particular divisions does not address the basic question of human compassion being either desirable as a goal or undesirable as a greed.

Both have a cost. Who do you pay? Good or greed?

It appears it depends on how "good" off you are and how much you can afford your greed. If you are well off, you can sleep well at night. If not, lack of sleep will kill you quick. Little solace, except it's cheaper.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:14 PM

Ron (not his real name) is the husband of one of the women who work here. During the Namtime Ron was a "black" sniper in Laos and Cambodia as well as in Vietnam. He was shelled and suffered three concussions. He was literally sprayed with Agent Orange AND Agent Blue.

Now, after long battles with the VA and with the learning that comes with the passage of time, he is considered 100% disabled. He has:

*90% hearing loss
*Type II diabetes
*PTSD at the worst level
*a suspected brain tumor
*one leg shrinking (it's 1.25 inches shorter than a year ago)
*peripheral neuropathy

All of these are being treated by the VA...now. But he left Vietnam in 1970. It took from 1975 to 1998 to get his PTSD affirmed and treated, the diabetes was confirmed in 2002. There were similar timescales for the other things.

Why?

Because the VA had to learn that PTSD wasn't something that would cure itself. It had to learn the AO caused Type II Diabete and peripheral neuropathy. Then it had to get Congressional approval to deal with them! It's like calling a committee meeting to discuss how to deal with the fire under your desk.

Troops coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan have the benefit of the battles fought by the Nam vets to get chemical poisoning and PTSD recognized (and the fight is still going on).

In the meantime, a lot of good people died....

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:16 PM

The point is that far more US citizens work wage jobs with companies that do not have health insurance option. There are more people working those jobs than most middle and upper socioeconomic classes think or want to believe.

And more will be as the higher end jobs melt away in the recession. And Don't be surprised when companies decide that 30/70 split on heath care costs is too expensive and decide to do 50/50 or 60/40.

The US government has to reign in the big hospital corporations and pharmaceutical companies. It's their greed that has caused the insurance to go up.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Emma B
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:19 PM

This is not intended to 'knock' America but,
any discussion of healthcare in the developed world ought to begin with a plain fact

Among the OECD's 30 members -- which include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom -- there are only three lacking universal health coverage.
The other two happen to be Mexico and Turkey, which have the excuse of being poorer than the rest (and until the onset of the world economic crisis, Mexico was on the way to providing healthcare to all of its citizens).

The third, of course, is America.

The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in a study Health Care Reform in the United states
documented the gross "discrepancy" between the enormous amounts that Americans spend on healthcare and the value received for that expenditure, the study found that the United States ranks poorly among OECD countries on measures of life expectancy, infant mortality and reductions in "amenable mortality," meaning deaths "from certain causes that should not occur in the presence of timely and effective healthcare."

Although the public share of health expenditure in the United States is much lower than any other OECD country except Mexico, the public expenditure on healthcare is much higher per capita than in most OECD countries.
So Americans pay a lot more in taxes devoted to medical care -- not including insurance premiums, co-payments, fees, and other health costs -– than taxpayers in those 27 countries that have universal coverage.

The supposed downsides of universal coverage, such as lack of access to sophisticated medical technologies, are belied in many of these countries.

For instance Japan has lower per capita health expenditures than the United States (and universal coverage,) but its citizens have greater access to MRI machines, CT scanners and kidney dialysis equipment than Americans do.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:24 PM

While I had my private health insurance:

1) As diagnosed by Chicago neuro-hotshots physicians, I had TEN f-ing years of spinal and neck surgeries all through the 1990s. These symptoms, after I finally got to Mayo Clinic for another expert opinion in 1997, were correctly, at long last, diagnosed as MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS!!!

2) So much for the American health system being good if you have privately paid for health insurance. I still had it then. It paid for this trip to Mayo just fine---even though the damn guys at Columbus Hospital in Chicago missed the diagnosis by the distance from here to the moon! (My opinion.)

3) At Mayo clinic, I had yet another neck surgery to fix something the earlier surgeons messed up.

4) While recovering at Mayo Clinic, I had a MAJOR exacerbation of my, as yet undiagnosed, MS. I was literally paralyzed.

5) After TWO Months as an inpatient -- St. Mary's Hospital at Mayo Clinic, and after 3 MRIs, a spinal tap, and other diagnostic stuff---on the last day I was there in that hospital---I finally got the diagnosis FOR SURE.

6) Mayo Clinic was the only place that suspected, or even MENTIONED, MS as being my problem!!

I've told this story in other threads here--so I'm sorry to repeat myself. There is more, but that's it for now. I'm exhausted!

Love,

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Royston
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:27 PM

Oh Em,

I am truly in awe of your sagacious perspicacity.

And I am not taking the P!

Thank you!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 06:44 PM

gnu: I certainly will tread lightly from now on. I do not wish to run afoul of your mother.

Royston: I am no different that any other U.S. citizen who receives a check monthly from the Social Security Administration. The cost of my participation in the Medicare program (which is part of the Social Security Administration and is available to all retired citizens who have paid into the program)is deducted from my monthly SS checks. My private insurance company is paid by Medicare to administer the plan I am affiliated with. There are lots of companies to choose from. My plan also offers a dental plan (an extra $38.00 per month paid by me), and a prescription drug program. I take only generic drugs and they cost $3.00 for a one month supply. Sometimes I order drugs from the Veteran's Administration because they allow one to order three months supply at one time. The cost is $16.00 for a three month supply).

Art: One of my concerns about the various programs being kicked around in Washington is that members of Congress will not be participating in whichever plan is signed into law. It seems to me if the program is good enough for the constituents, it should be good enough for employees of the government.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Emma B
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 07:04 PM

Royston, your ebullient panegyric is incommodious :)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 07:20 PM

Doug, the plan envisioned by Mr. Obama and the Democratic side of Congress includes "keep your current insurance plan if you like it". If various Senators and Congressman like their plan (and it's ok but not great - I was on it for years), than they can keep it. So, by definition, they will be participating in whichever plan is signed into law.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: bobad
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 07:30 PM

Much grist for the mill: Canadian and American health care systems compared

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 09:20 PM

Doug-
Me too. But how about the folks that aren't on Medicare? I've got mine, Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:27 PM

When my hip was replaced I'd had to wait about six months for the operation. However, I'd lived with the pain for about 9 years at that point and six months more didn't seem to be all that much.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 01:30 AM

Art: I urge you to do a bit more research on the plans being considered. If, as Obama wishes, the federal government offers a plan to compete with private insurance companies, there will be no more private plans ergo, no choice to remain in your current plan. No private company can compete with the federal government. Therefore, there will only be one plan available ...a single payer plan.

Also, everything I have heard and read indicate that the Congress, at least, will not participate in whatever plan is signed into law. They will keep the plan they have now. I'm not sure if that applies to other federal employees or not.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:47 AM

People complain about things like waiting lists on the NHS. I had to have my gall bladder out almost 10 years ago, and I did wait a fair time for my operation and had it postponed twice, but to be honest it was not a life-threatening condition, and while I suffered discomfort whenever there was an "attack", it was not really the end of the world.

As I have found out over the past year, though - the minute the NHS suspects you have cancer, good lord, the care is good. As it happens, my mother was recently treated for cancer in America, so I could compare our two experiences quite easily. She has worked for about 20 years in local government, so her benefits package is, I assume, a good one.

What I found is that, while I was fast-tracked into the local breast clinic the moment my GP suspected cancer, and was able to have all of my tests done at one time, in one place, and had all of the results back quite quickly, my mother had to go to different places for each of her tests, with some of the results taking several weeks to be returned. Both the speed and the continuity of care were fantastic in my case - the same doctor I saw on my first visit was the one who performed my operation. My mother saw many different people over a period of several weeks. This makes a big difference: I found that, when you are feeling quite vulnerable, knowing your surgeon and support staff is extremely helpful - you develop a relationship of trust with them. If there's anything you are unsure about or any questions about your care, you have no hesitation in ringing them. I was able to have all of my treatment in the little hospital in my local town, rather than having to go to some big hospital in a nearby city (that option was offered to me, but I preferred being in a familiar environment where I knew people).

To sum up, my impression was that the care I received under the nationalised system was much more holistic and "joined-up" than the care my mother recieved privately in America - I guess this is a feature of how the two different systems work. It was also a LOT faster, even though my mother's condition was far more serious than mine. I also got the impression that the NHS was a lot more personal, with the opportunity to get to know the people who will be looking after you right the way through.

I should add that my tumour turned out not to be cancer, but it was a feature of another condition which has a high rate of recurrence, so I remain under the care of the same team who originally treated me. There is something very reassuring in this.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: goatfell
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 04:42 AM

a man called Harry Simms was shot in America and his friends took him to the local hospital, but the the staff there wouldn't look after him because his friends couldn't pay the medical bill, so after a while another man came along and said that he would pay the medical bill, so the staff took him in but Harry Simms died, so much for you health care in America.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: goatfell
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 04:43 AM

I forgot to metion he bleed to death on the hspital steps before they took him in

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 05:59 AM

The Death of Harry Simms
(Aunt Molly Jackson and Jim Garland)

Come and listenm to my story, come and listen to my song.
I'll tell you of a hero who is now dead and gone.
I will tell you of a young boy, his age it was nineteen;
He was the bravest union man that I have ever seen.

Harry Simms was a pal of mine, we labored side by side.
Expecting to be shot on sight, or taken for a ride
By some life-stealing gun thug That roams from town to town
To shoot and kill our union men ehere e'er they may be found.

Harry Simms and I were parted at five o'clock that day.
"Be careful, my dear brother," to Harry I did say
"Now I must do my duty," was his reply to me
"If I get killed by gun thugsdon't grieve after me."

Harry Simms was walking up the track that bright sunshiny day,
He was a youth of courage, his steps were light and gay.
He did not know the gun thugs was hiding on the way
To kill our brave young hero that bright sunshiny day.

Harry Simms was killed on Brush Creek in nineteen-thirty-two.
He organized the miners into the NMU
He gave his life in struggle, 'twas all that he could do
He died for the union, he died for me and you.

The thugs can kill our leaders and cause us to shed tears
But they cannot kill our spirit if they try a million years.
And we will keep on fighting now we all realize
A union struggle must go on till we are organized.


Copyright 1947 by People's Songs, assigned to Stormking Music Inc. 1966
Note: Harry Simms, an NMU organizer, was gunned down near Pineville,
    KY, on the way to collect truckloads of food and clothing which
    had been collected from out-of-state for the striking Brush Creek
    miners. RG

Tune is a Buffalo Skinners variant.

RG

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 06:49 AM

President Obama's views.

"The Current Situation

Making sure every American has access to high quality health care is one of the most important challenges of our time. The number of uninsured Americans is growing, premiums are skyrocketing, and more people are being denied coverage every day. A moral imperative by any measure, a better system is also essential to rebuilding our economy -- we want to make health insurance work for people and businesses, not just insurance and drug companies.

The Solution

Reform the health care system:
We will take steps to reform our system by expanding coverage, improving quality, lowering costs, honoring patient choice and holding insurance companies accountable.

Promote scientific and technological advancements:
We are committed to putting responsible science and technological innovation ahead of ideology when it comes to medical research. We believe in the enormous capacity of American ingenuity to find cures for diseases that continue to extinguish too many lives and cause too much suffering every year.

Improve preventative care:

In order to keep our people healthy and provide more efficient treatment we need to promote smart preventative care, like cancer screenings and better nutrition, and make critical investments in electronic health records, technology that can reduce errors while ensuring privacy and saving lives."

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 07:09 AM

Pfizer (with Wyeth): net income in 2008--over 12 billion.
Johnson and Johnson: net income in 2008--over 10 billion.

Fixing the medical system is half the problem. There's the other half.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Emma B
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 07:34 AM

In the early 1990s reformers also believed that the conditions were ripe for change; then, as now, soaring health care costs and growth of the uninsured population fueled public dissatisfaction

When Hillary Clinton was appointed chairwoman of the President's Task Force on National Health Care Reform. a Democratic Party staff member was quoted as saying -
"The health care lobby is one of the most formidable in Washington."
The 'usual' argument was made that -
"When liberals mean reform, they mean diminished excellence" and syndicated columnist and lecturer Cal Thomas stated "No matter what she does, she won't get the poor to stop smoking, lose weight, exercise more, give up fatty foods, or keep hypochondriacs from showing up at the hospital to be treated for hang-nails."

Since that time 'inaction and incrementalism have governed U.S. health policy, with the predictable result that both health care spending and the number of uninsured Americans have reached record levels' - New England journal of Medicine

I feel sure that Obama will also share the reality of Hillary Clinton's experience how great a challenge reform will be.
Two weeks after accepting this "mission impossible," she told a conference in Pennsylvania,
"It is a very difficult change to bring about.
The people who believe in changing the whole system ought to understand how difficult it is going to be to change even small parts, because of the interests that are arrayed against those changes."

The Clinton administration both underestimated the opposition and overestimated the support for reform

Jonathan Oberlander, Ph.D. writing on Learning from Failure in Health Care Reform in 2007 observed

"Firstly, in U.S. health policy, the status quo is deeply entrenched and, despite all its failings, the system is remarkably resistant to change, in part because many constituencies profit from it. Thus, although everyone decries the amount of money spent on health care, the political reality is that national health care expenditures represent income to health industry stakeholders, whose interests lie in ensuring even greater spending.

Second, many Americans are satisfied with their own health care arrangements, so reforms that threaten to unsettle those arrangements risk running afoul of the voting public.
Health care reformers must thread the needle by persuading the anxious insured that reform is in their best interest and that the uninsured can be covered without disturbing (and ideally, while enhancing) their coverage.

Third, expanding government authority over a health care system that accounts for more than $2 trillion and one sixth of the economy in a country that is ambivalent about public power is an inherently controversial exercise. No universal coverage plan, no matter how clever, can evade that ideological debate.

Fourth, paying for health care reform remains a formidable challenge. The Clinton plan collapsed largely because the administration could not secure congressional support for an employer mandate, but no obvious financing alternatives have emerged in the ensuing years, and persistent antitax politics and federal deficits constrain the options for reform.

Finally, the window for enacting a comprehensive plan for health care reform never stays open for long, so failure comes at a high price — namely, the loss of political will to do anything meaningful about the uninsured for some time to come.

The Clinton administration made no shortage of political miscalculations and strategic errors that helped to derail its campaign for health security. Yet it is easy to forget that Bill Clinton was not the first president to fail at health care reform: he was following in the footsteps of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Richard Nixon.

Ultimately, the demise of the Clinton plan says less about the administration's mistakes than it does about the extraordinary difficulty of adopting comprehensive health care reform in the United States.

For today's reformers, that is the most sobering lesson of all."

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 07:35 AM

Britain's per capita spend on health care is way below USA, but average life span is longer.
We must be doing something right.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 08:07 AM

Doug, you are clearly getting your information from a source other than the documented proposals, as further explained by FactCheck.org. I'm afraid there is no purpose in further discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 08:54 AM

If the USA government reduces the ability of greedy corporations to bleed dry the life savings of its citizens in need of life saving health care how can that be considered a bad thing? If it allows poor people to gain the same level of care as the rich, but still reduces the national average cost of these services how can that be considered a bad thing? This seems a no-brainer to those of us in other parts of the world. I think this question is less about health care and more about economics and profits.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 09:29 AM

it's worth recalling what a struggle introducing the National Health in the UK was. Here's a clip from the Wikipedia page on Aneurin Bevan:
=====
On the "appointed day", 5 July 1948, having overcome political opposition from both the Conservative Party and from within his own party, and after a dramatic showdown with the British Medical Association, which had threatened to derail the National Health Service scheme before it had even begun, as medical practitioners continued to withhold their support just months before the launch of the service, Bevan's National Health Service Act of 1946 came into force. After 18 months of ongoing dispute between the Ministry of Health and the BMA, Bevan finally managed to win over the support of the vast majority of the medical profession by offering a couple of minor concessions, but without compromising on the fundamental principles of his NHS proposals. Bevan later gave the famous quote that, in order to broker the deal, he had "stuffed their mouths with gold".
====

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 09:54 AM

DougR,
You misread what I wrote big time!

I have no private health insurance now, and have not had it since the outpatient parts of the insurance sponged up every cent of cash money I had.

We couldn't afford to pay the premiums, so we had to drop that American Family health policy. That was in 1997---12 years ago.

I am 68 now and am on Social Security and Medicare.

Because my wife was too ill to work enough over the last 40 years, she cannot qualify for Social Security or Medicare---ever.

In order for her to have health insurance through Illinois Medicaid, an absolutely miserable bureaucratic mess, I MUST remain destitute and poverty stricken, or else she'd have no insurance at all, and could not secure the 150 shock treatments she has needed for her ongoing drug-resistant depression.

SINGLE PAYER government run -- and paid for -- health insurance is our only hope for for getting out from under the constraints of Medicaid's impoverishing spend-down system.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: daylia
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 10:15 AM

Art, reading about your troubles re being diagnosed with MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS just gives me the chills. SO sorry to hear about this ... geez, whats the moral of the story here ... when the doctor says MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, better heed the warning bells? I read somewhere that multiple sclerosis is one of the most misunderstood misdiagnosed conditions today...kind of a catch-all diagnosis, like schizophrenia. Hmmm ...

bobad, thanks for the link, thats an intersting comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Emma B
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 10:20 AM

DMcG,
I'd been thinking about the very strong initial opposition to the setting up of the NHS myself

In America, health professionals have had to put themselves in debt to be trained, and that debt has restricted their lives for many years after medical school, internships, and residencies.
Of course, ideally, health care professionals should not be recruited on the basis of their hope of making a huge amount of money in this field, but on the basis of their desire to serve the well-being of their fellow citizens however, it is possible to understand very real fears that they will be severely finacially worse off under a universal care system.

One element in any reform should be a plan to ensure access to adequate financial support for tuition and the families of medical students, as well as to students in nursing, pharmacy, psychology, dentistry, chiropractic, and other related health-care professions


In January 1948 BMA members had voted 40,814 against the NHS Act and 4,734 for.
By April, when a second ballot was held, the vote was still 25,842 against and 14,620 for

General Practioners opposed state control on the grounds it would compromise their status as self-employed professionals and stop them selling on the 'reputation' of their practices when they retired.

On its first day - 5 July 1948 - three-quarters of the population signed up with GPs. Within a few months 97% had registered. This pressure removed any possibility of a boycott by GPs, as BMA leaders had considered.

Intertesting reading From the archives Doctors recall the inception of the National Health Service

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 11:23 AM

Goatfell, if you don't want to be attacked, the first rule is: Don't attack.

Perhaps you are not aware that the Emergency Room of any hospital in America is required by law to treat ANYONE brought to its doors whether the person can pay or not.

This is why many people who don't have health insurance have no choice but to use the Emergency Room.

(Mind you, you will still be billed for the Emergency Room care but they often/usually don't get their money and don't expect to.)

If 'Harry Simms' is the man in the song that Peace posted, the story you recount is suspect. And please note that the incident in the song dates from the 1940s.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 12:37 PM

Of course back in 1948 in Britain it was Nye Bevan in charge of getting the NHS set up, and Clem Attlee as Prime Minister backing him up. Back in the 1990s in the States it was Hilary Clinton with Bill Clinton backing her...

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 12:59 PM

Ebbie: Wow! You are absolutely correct in your reply to Goatfell. And THAT'S a probable "first" on the Mudcat (that I agree with you on something).

Art: My apologies, and my fault. My post was not in reply to anything you wrote in your posts. I was directing my remarks to Artbrooks remarks regarding there being no interest in single payer plans in the Congress.

I feel terrible that you and your wife have endured such an awful situation for so many years. If present efforts in Washington were directed to provide medical care for those who do not have it, I would support such a program 100%. I am not a stranger to the trials and tribulations caused by poor health in the family. My first wife suffered mightily for twenty some years from Rheumatoid Arthritis. She was hospitalized for twelve weeks in a coma during 1996. Her hospital bill was over a Million dollars. Fortunately, I was working and had good insurance co-paid by my employer and that hospital visit did not cost us a dime. I cannot even imagine what would have happened if we had not had insurance. I assume I would still be paying somebody every month.

Anyway, sorry for the confusion. I forgot there was more than one Art in the Mudcat.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 01:59 PM

I will say one thing. The same "transport chair" in the US is about $100. Three times that here.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:08 PM

DougR, I'm on my knees with gratitude. :)