BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 06:39 AM

Well "the average American" managed to see through the lies about Obama and elect him, so you shouldn't write them off completely.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: The Barden of England
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 06:46 AM

I had my 6 month check-up with my GP yesterday. Today I had my yearly blood test, and got my medication for the next 2 months (3 different sorts of pills) and placed my request for renewal of same for 17th. September - total cost - Nothing. When in work I handed over about 25% of my gross pay in National Insurance and Income Tax, but for that I am getting all my health needs covered and when I reach 65 next year, I will get a pension too. I would never vote for a Government who tried to get rid of our National Health system, and really can't understand why some of our friends across the 'pond' see a National Health Service as something that's linked to communism or 'Liberal'. Insurance is there to make a profit plain and simple.
John Barden

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: lompocan
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 11:47 AM

Ernestine is back and in great form.

Lily Tomlin on Health "Insurance"

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 11:53 AM

Good for Ernestine! I do hope we wake up.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 02:04 PM

"I would never vote for a Government who tried to get rid of our National Health system

Any party which said that was their intention would be unlikely to have any candidates elected. (Of course that doesn't stop stop politicians from trying to sneak through disguised policies heading in that direction after they'd been elected...)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 05:56 PM

With all the bitching about English healthcare, I still find a number of older folkies returning to England from the States...just for the healthcare. Haven't noticed any migration the other way.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 08:47 PM

I listened to Obama's press conference on health care last night. I thought he was pathetic. He accomplished nothing. The press corps tossed him "soft" questions and he responded with a lecture repeating the same old same old he has been saying for months.

I think his performance last night hurt rather than helped his cause.

Now we learn that even though he has "cried wolf" repeatedly if the Congress doesn't act NOW, the senate will adjourn for the summer break and there will be no vote on a Bill for the foreseeable future.

The more people learn about what is in the Bill, the less support it receives from the public.

Although Art Brooks took issue with me when I stated that the President and the Congress would be exempt from participation in the proposed health plan it is quite clear now that they would be. If it's not good enough for them, what evidence is there that it would be good for everyone else?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 10:22 PM

I have yet to see anything that says they will be exempt. They will have the same option available to them that I, and everyone else, will have...keep your current plan if you want to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 11:13 PM

Has anyone but me seen the Charlie Rose TV show with Denis Cortese of the Mayo clinic and White House Office of Management and Budget Director Peter R. Orszag?

First, Charlie Rose is one of the best shows anywhere to learn some things about the issues, and second...Mr Cortese and Mr. Orszag did better than anyone I have heard in clarifying it all and cutting thru the crap. I cannot possibly summarize it all here, but if you can find a clip, or are willing to read a LOT, you will have a better idea of not only what is NEEDED, but what all the politics is about....

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jul 09 - 12:01 AM

I check Charlie Rose every week night, Bill D. Sometimes he has a celebrity of some sort whom I'm not really interested in but usually it is meaty stuff and I watch the whole thing. I also like it when he runs old, archived shows about a certain person or issue. I learn a lot from that man and the people he brings on. A very good thing about Charlie Rose is that he does his homework.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 01:45 PM

Of course people have the right to take out private medical insurance in Britain as well. And of course you can choose your NHS doctor too - here's an official information page explaining about that.

I think there seem to be some very peculiar ideas floating about in the USA. If stuff like that is what the "media blitz" mentioned above is saying, people should be aware they are being told lies by people with a financial interest in maintaining the status quo.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 05:31 PM

Some years back, while I was working at a radio station, I slipped on a piece of cellophane that someone had torn off a cigarette pack and dropped on the floor. Buggered my knee really well. I had to go to the doctor and, among other things, have about 20 cc. of fluid drawn off my knee, Ace bandage, stay off the leg, all of that.

My doctor submitted the bill to Blue Cross (I'm no longer with them!). Blue Cross responded, saying, "We don't cover things like that." I asked the radio station's program director if the station had insurance coverage for accidents while working. He said yes, but he also said, "Here's what you do. Go out to the Blue Cross office, make sure there are customers in their waiting room, and raise hell. Be very loud. You'll get some action."

So I did. There were a half-dozen people in the waiting room. I went to the desk and gave the letter I got to the clerk. She looked at it and said, "That's right, Mr. Firth, we don't cover accidents of this sort." "Well," said I in my loudest newscaster's voice, "if you don't cover things like this, then what the hell am I paying premiums for!??"

She shushed me up and hustled me into a small office. A moment or two later a woman came in with the letter I had handed the clerk, very apologetic, and said, "I'm awfully sorry, Mr. Firth. There's been a clerical error. Of course we cover accidents of this nature. We'll mail payment to your doctor this afternoon."

She continued to apologize for the foolish mistake as I thanked her and departed.

The following day, when I say the program director, he said, "Clerical error?" "Yep," I said. "Standard ploy," he snorted, and added something about a bunch of cheap, chiseling bastards.

I have several other stories of similar incidents, but that gives the general idea.

####

On "This American Life" this morning (this will be discounted by some on this thread because it was over my local NPR affiliate), I heard the story of a woman who was diagnosed with a particularly aggressive form of breast cancer. She was quickly scheduled for a radical double mastectomy. A few days before the operation, she was told by her health insurance company (Blue Cross) that they would not cover her because she had a pre-existing condition. When asked what the pre-condition was, they responded that she'd had a skin condition that could possibly have been pre-cancerous.

"It was teenage acne, for Chrissake!!"

They still say they won't cover her.

There's no way she can pay for it on her own. The down payment (money up front to the hospital) for the operation necessary to save her life will cost $30,000, which she simply doesn't have. And at last report, neither Blue Cross nor the hospital will cut her any slack.

They interviewed a couple of insurance company executives and they were adamant. Sorry for the woman, but—company policy! Wouldn't budge an inch!

Hell is not hot enough!!

There is something radically wrong with the American health care "system." It's all about money.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: The Barden of England
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 05:43 PM

That is a criminal waste of life. Come on you guys in the USA - what is so wrong with National Insurance? How can you let your politicians treat you in such a shoody way?
John Barden

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 05:45 PM

For anybody dependent on private insurance where "pre-existing conditions" are seen as disqualifying people from getting what they nave been paying for through premiums, it seems likely that things are liable to get pretty hairy.

Improved understanding of the human genome is likely to demonstrate that an enormous range of conditions needing urgent medical help are in a sense "pre-existing conditions".

Of course that could undermine the whole racket, since what's the point of paying for insurance that isn't going to come through when needed?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 05:45 PM

Re "rationing". I'm on Medicare (thank the Lord), and when I went in for cataract surgery last week, I was informed that, although the FDA has approved variable-focus implant lenses, Medicare wouldn't pay for them. SO..I opted to pay for the lenses and let Medicare handle the surgery costs. What's the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 05:59 PM

Dick, what are 'variable focus lenses' as compared with standard?

What did the out of pocket difference run to?

Keep in mind that Medicare never pays 100% of a covered procedure. So it can run to real money.

I will be having cataract surgery soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 07:10 PM

Art Brooks: Obama, in his multiple speeches, has declared, with a straight face mind you, that if you like your current plan, you can keep it. However, if the government establishes a plan of it's own, private insurance companies will not be able to compete with it. They will disappear. How can one keep his/her current plan if the plan no longer exists?

If GB and Canada have such great health plans, why do so many Brits and Canadians (lots of them) flock to the U.S. to get needed services they are told they will have to wait months to receive in their respective countries?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 08:05 PM

Doug, the current "government plan", which is called Federal Employees Health Benefit Program", is nothing but a set of contracts with private insurance companies. The business about a new, entirely government run, program is entirely speculation and does not appear in any of the proposed legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 08:31 PM

We've got private medical insurance here too, Doug. Of course it has to offer a good deal in order to compete with the NHS. If the American private insurance schemes aren't able to survive in competition with a government scheme, that's a sign they can't be offering a good enough deal. The good schemes would survive and get better.

I can't see why anyone would want to go to America to get quicker treatment, - if the are in a position to pay privately to get treatment more quickly, they can do it here too.
No doubt there are cases where the state-of-the-art in some particular field is better in the States (and there are cases where the same would apply in reverse). The rotten ones would go under, and good riddance.

But what would never happen here would be a case like that Don Firth just mentioned, about the lady denied cancer treatment because of the small print in her insurance. And there wouldn't be any waiting around to see a specialist either - here is a chart showing how local hospital trusts throughout England measure up to responding to a referral for suspected breast cancer.

You really do seem to have been sold some very strange notions about public and private health services in the UK, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 08:33 PM

We've got private medical insurance here too, Doug. Of course it has to offer a good deal in order to compete with the NHS. If the American private insurance schemes aren't able to survive in competition with a government scheme, that's a sign they can't be offering a good enough deal. The good schemes would survive and get better. The rotten ones would go under, and good riddance.

I can't see why anyone would want to go to America to get quicker treatment, - if the are in a position to pay privately to get treatment more quickly, they can do it here too.
No doubt there are cases where the state-of-the-art in some particular field is better in the States (and there are cases where the same would apply in reverse).

But what would never happen here would be a case like that Don Firth just mentioned, about the lady denied cancer treatment because of the small print in her insurance. And there wouldn't be any waiting around to see a specialist either - here is a chart showing how local hospital trusts throughout England measure up to responding to a referral for suspected breast cancer.

You really do seem to have been sold some very strange notions about public and private health services in the UK, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 08:40 PM

Doug, please define "so many"!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 09:03 PM

The only people who keep telling me about Brits and Canadians coming to the United States to get better or faster medical treatment are people who a) obviously know little about the British and Canadian (and French, and Swiss, and Norwegian, and Danish, and on and on ~ including Thai) national health systems. And who favor keepint the American "system" as it is ~ a cash cow for the insurance companies to the detriment of many patients.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 09:10 PM

I know of a few people who have, Don, but they had LOTS of money. One didn't want to wait five/six months for a new hip and the other was looking for a miracle cure for (I think) liver cancer. I don't begrudge either having the cash and going. But, that speaks to their respective wealths (is that a word?), and NOT the Canadian system of Universal Health Care.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 10:40 PM

DougR- If government-run organizations are as bad as you say, and if there's a choice, why wouldn't private comapnies be able to compete?

Ebbie-"Variable focus" implants cost me $2500 each. Single focus implants would have been covered by Medicare. I chose to pay the extra because it offered me the possibility of doing away with eyeglasses, which I've been wearing for some 75 years. The point I was trying to make is that any insurance plan will have some exclusions---though not as many as you find by being uninsured. What we can hope for is that whatever plan develops, it will provide an at least acceptable level of care for everyone. IF i were 95 years old and needed a heart transplant, I'd think it unreasonable to expect a plan to provide it; if I could afford it I'd probably opt for it. Pretty simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 11:37 PM

Thanks, Dick.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 02:39 PM

And, just to point it out, the system that DougR is currently enjoying---Medicare--is a sigle-payer nationalized healthcare system.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 03:00 PM

Doug,

When Brits travel to the USA for treatment, it is almost always for one of two reasons.

1). It is a new treatment, developed in the USA, which has not yet crossed the pond, and therefor is only available (at great expense) in the US.

2.) It is a highly speculative procedure which British doctors do not recommend, but the patient (understandably) is inclined to clutch at straws where death is the alternative.

I don't think you will ever find a British citizen who believes that you system is half as good as ours overall.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 03:21 PM

One interesting aspect of the setting up of the NHS was that at the time it was fiercely opposed by the British Medical Association, the Professional Association for Doctors.

Now the BMA is about the strongest advocate of the NHS system - here is what it has to say these days about some of recent changes which have crept in over recent years:

"The BMA wants to see the NHS restored to a public service which is publicly funded, publicly provided and publicly accountable. And according to a recent poll by GP newspaper, 75% of doctors also want to see a cap on commercialisation." (From a BMA website Look after our NHS")

I have no doubt that after a decent universally available health system has eventually been achieved in the USA, the very doctors who are currently ranked in opposition to it will in time become its strongest champions.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 03:23 PM

One interesting aspect of the setting up of the NHS was that at the time it was fiercely opposed by the British Medical Association, the Professional Association for Doctors.

Now the BMA is about the strongest advocate of the NHS system - here is what it has to say these days about some of recent changes which have crept in over recent years:

"The BMA wants to see the NHS restored to a public service which is publicly funded, publicly provided and publicly accountable. And according to a recent poll by GP newspaper, 75% of doctors also want to see a cap on commercialisation." (From a BMA website "Look after our NHS")

I have no doubt that after a decent universally available health system has eventually been achieved in the USA, the very doctors who are currently ranked in opposition to it will in time become its strongest champions.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 03:44 PM

It is true that the Medicare program in the US is a single payer system but it allows private insurance companies to administer Medicare funded programs. I have already pointed out, using personal experience, how effective I believe that system to be. I have more confidence in a private insurance company administering such a program than the federal government. I worked for the federal government in Washington, D.C. for two years (National Endowment for the Arts)and did contract work for that agency for seven years so I had an opportunity to see the bureaucracy operate at close range. It ain't a pretty sight.

I was asked the reason profit oriented insurance companies could not compete with a government operated health care plan: it's because the government would not have the cost of "profit" built into it's operation. That would allow the government to operate more cheaply than the private companies can. "Cheap" does not always ensure quality of care or service.

Art Brooks: I'm beginning to wonder if we live in the same country. You are under the impression that the ultimate goal of HB 3200 is NOT to eventually create a government run health care program?

I'll see if I can find some figures about how many patients from Canada or Great Britain annually seek health care in the U. S.

A question: How many of you who have government run health care programs have ever experienced the kind of program we have in the United States?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 03:46 PM

We did in Canada, until Tommy Douglas came along. What it meant was that only people with money could afford health care.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 03:48 PM

Let me help save you the looking, Doug.

http://cthealth.server101.com/myth_canadians'_use_of_healthcare_in_the_u_s_.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 03:50 PM

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/19


Another, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 03:57 PM

Doug, is your government intending to do away with your present health coverage?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 04:06 PM

A well balanced article from The Denver Post:

http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427

Sorry if that's posted twice. But then, it's worth reading twice.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 04:28 PM

I recently heard about a man, an American, who went to Thailand for a hip replacement. The procedure was done by an experienced Thai doctor, complete with a full surgical staff, in a modern hospital, and included a six week period of recuperation and rehabilitation in what was very much like a resort. The whole thing cost a fraction of what it would have cost him in the United States.

And—when added to the air fare for he and his wife to and from Thailand, plus the cost of their whole stay there, it still came nowhere near what a hip replacement would cost in the U. S.

In fact, it turns out that global health tours are quite a thriving—and growing—business. State of the art medical and dental procedures done in clean, modern hospitals and clinics with the latest equipment, well trained and experienced doctors and staff, and much lower cost, almost always a fraction of what the same procedure would cost in the U. S.

So—who's going where to get what done?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 04:38 PM

Doug, at this point, there is no bill. None, nothing, nada, nicht. The House is working on reconciling 3 different versions, one of which is called HB 3200. The Senate has their own ideas. None of them say anything about requiring or encouraging anybody to drop the coverage they currently have, although if the ultimate "government plan" is cheaper and better, I expect they will do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: mg
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 04:41 PM

I don't see why we can't have a huge number of medical clinics right away..hire carpenters and plumbers to retrofit old properties, hire a NP, a medical records/office person and a janitor (which is going to be more and more important as epidemics catch on)...there are 3 + jobs in many communities...a storefront that is rescued from blight...preventive care and immunizations and routine care taken care of right from the start. It would be a single payer situation..

Phase in other stuff down the road or if this is totally successful keep expanding. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 04:50 PM

A good friend of mine has a bumper sticker that reads,

"Won't it be great when education has all the money it needs and the airforce has to hold bake sales to buy bombers?"

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 05:00 PM

That link GUEST gave there didn't work - this one does http://www.charlierose.com/

Whether it's worth following up I don't know, because I haven't watched it yet.

But I have read this article in today's Observer (London), about the testimony of a former health insurance executive who developed a conscience when he visited a free field hospital for poor people in Virginia, and resigned - and it's well worth reading :

Whistleblower tells of America's hidden nightmare for its sick poor

...People queued in long lines to have the most basic medical procedures carried out free of charge. Some had driven more than 200 miles from Georgia. Many were treated in the open air. Potter took pictures of patients lying on trolleys on rain-soaked pavements.

For Potter it was a dreadful realisation that healthcare in America had failed millions of poor, sick people and that he, and the industry he worked for, did not care about the human cost of their relentless search for profits. "It was over-powering. It was just more than I could possibly have imagined could be happening in America," he told the Observer.

Potter resigned shortly afterwards. Last month he testified in Congress, becoming one of the few industry executives to admit that what its critics say is true: healthcare insurance firms push up costs, buy politicians and refuse to pay out when many patients actually get sick. In chilling words he told a Senate committee: "I worked as a senior executive at health insurance companies and I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick: all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors."

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 05:18 PM

Excellent find, McG of H.

Will he name those who have been bought?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 05:22 PM

Have a look here.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 05:48 PM

"...I don't see why we can't have a huge number of medical clinics right away..hire carpenters and plumbers..." ~ mg

Now there is some reasonable thinking. Congress approved 3.01 trillion dollar in the last year for bailouts and bullshit make-work jobs.

We dont't have to nationaluize heath care to start fixing things. Just start doing something positive now!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 06:15 PM

Since there aren't any more med schools or med school graduates than there were 30 years ago, who's going provide service at all those new clinics? Plumbers and carpenters?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 06:51 PM

Here's an example of the myths that some people in the US believe about the NHS. A friend couldn't believe that I, being over 50, would support "socialized medicine" in the US. He'd been told (he couldn't remember where he heard it) that people over 50 were considered 'too old' to benefit from medical treatment in Britain, because they felt the resources would be better allocated to younger people with a longer lifespan ahead of them. Since the fifty plus were over the hill anyway, the NHS didn't treat their ailments.

I don't know where these stories come from, but many of the uninformed believe them.

This type of misinformation has been reinforced time and again, over many years, by the very entities who are making out like bandits with the present setup.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 07:22 PM

Thank you, Peace, for providing those sources for information. However, the first one takes one to The Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care. One might wonder about the credibility of the information from such a group ...the objectivity that is.

The Denver Post article: Obama should hire that writer to help him sell his plan. I certainly didn't detect a great deal of objectivity in that article either. It was more a combination of facts and opinions. Example: Quoting from Rhonda Hackett's piece, "Those patients who do come to the US for care and pay out of the pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is." That's a judgmental, don't you think? Or, this one, "Claims (in Canada) are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for disbursal, while in the US claims are submitted to a "multitude" of insurance providers." I don't know about anybody else, but my claims are only submitted to a single insurance company, not to a multitude of them.

The second website provided, "Health Affairs" offers a study over ten years old and included only three states where Canadians might come to in the states for some kind of health care. True, geographically, they are closest to Canada but some of our best health care offering institutions are in Arizona, Minnesota, California, and Texas. Also, the study points out the difficulty of nailing down the exact number of Canadians that receive health care while they are in the US perhaps for other things. The study also points out that more Canadians seek health care in Canada than come to the US for health care. DUH!

Artbrooks: I am well aware that there is no single Bill being considered. I have concentrated my remarks on the House Bill because I think it is the one that has the best chance of being passed because of the large majority of Democrats in the House.

I never said that any of the Bills required or encouraged anyone to "drop" coverage they currently have (though I do believe the primary effort is intended to establish a single payer plan in the US). My belief is that if a government plan is adopted, my current plan will not exist.

You point out that if the ultimate government plan is "cheaper" and "better" you expect most people to use the government plan. I have no doubt that it will be "cheaper." "Better", however, IMO is a far reach.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 07:45 PM

With reference to maryrrf's post about 'Over 50's ' not getting NHS treatment , my mother has just been fitted for an NHS hearing at NO COST , and she is Ninety Three !!

So Much for your Over 50's exclusion

And with reference to Don Firth's post , AGAIN I say WATCH 'Sicko'
There are Ex Insurance Company people who got sick (deliberate) of earning large bonuses for finding ways to NOT pay out on legitimate
insurance Claims

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 08:04 PM

So "Universal Health Care" is considered an extreme and controversial aim, Doug? Not in any other country outside the Third World. "Only in America" surely isn't meant to mean that kind of special quality.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 08:33 PM

Doug, I DO understand your concern. I am aware that for the people who have good coverage, America's syatem is damned good. But for people who do NOT have your level of coverage, life inside the medical syatem just ain't so good.

As a human--who on occasion has compassion--it hurts somewhere deep inside to see a mother not be able to get the best health care available for her child. I was one of those kids. Back in the 1950s, I can recall my mom begging a doctor to come to where we lived because I was in agony. My right ear was infected and she had NO money to get me to a hospital, nor any money to pay even if we got there.

She made $22/week and our rent was $24/month. At month's end she had nothing left. As in the fridge was empty and the cupboards were bare. I saw that woman wear sneakers to work because she had had to get me school clothes. OK, another sob story. BUT, the doctor DID come. He asked about the swelling on my head. I'd been banging it against the wall to try and stop the pain of the ear.

He gave me an injection of what I now guess was antibiotics and left some pills with my mom. I do remember he asked for $5.00. I don't doubt that man is dead now, but he will live as long as I do, for sure. His kindness will never leave my memory.

Life HAS to be more than 'I've got mine and fuck the rest' because the day it isn't life will not be worth the cost. I am not suggesting YOU feel that way, Doug. I have read too many posts from you that speak against that type of thinking. So, that said, now what?

Your level of care will NOT drop. I think about James Herriot and his vet practice. Alf White was the kind of vet anyone could look up to. We need doctors like that, and a system that supports those doctors. Medicine should be about making people well, not making money. We have the priorities wrong. I hope it changes.

On another note, one of my children is studying neuro-science. She will become a doctor or scientist. IF she chooses medicine, I would be very proud of her should she choose to gross $100,000/year in a job that usually nets lots more than that. Money simply says what we are deemed to be worth. Volunteer work says what we ARE worth, imo.

Best wishes to you.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 08:38 PM

The HELL with it !! 300