BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 07:25 AM

I often wonder, though, if one reason so many of you are satisfied is because so few of you have ever known anything else?

Right you are Doug- William the Conquerer brought The National Health to Britain & the Canadian System was implemented by Samuel de Champlain.

I do not for a second doubt that, Donuel. They [Health Insurance Companies]are the culprits.

I beg to differ, Bruce. The health Insurance Companies are the source. But the he CULPRITS are those, like Doug, who distribute the lies & bullshit the health insurance companies come up with.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 11:53 AM

The public option PLUS private insurers reminds me strongly of the last administration's effort to privatize Social Security. On the premise of SS going broke, it wanted to funnel more money out of it.

And now they postulate that if the American people were presented with the option of federally funded medical care, private insurers would go out of business. It doesn't seem to work that way.

The analogy of the US Post Office competing with FedEx and UPS, et al, is a good one. The US Postal Service, being federally funded and therefore cheaper, should command an allegiance from the American people that would drive competitors out of business. But it isn't true.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 12:56 PM

. . . and if the public option were such a real threat that it would drive private industry to collapse, they could inhibit or even cap enrollment for a decade or so while they test drive it, to include ironing out the funding to prevent "unfair subsidies."

It could even be subcontracted out to some extent, but the basic guaranty would be there.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 02:43 PM

Freedom Works are DC lobbyists who are coordinating with several of their health insurance clients and will be pumping millions of dollars into the 9-12 march that was first introduced to America on FOX by Glen Beck back in May.

9-12 is supposed to be the big show for the tea baggers and give superfisical credence to the grass roots movement of people who have been told that the Federal Government is totally fascist and Obama is similar to Hitler.



THis is one helluva extreme way to rid corporations of the bounds of regulatory law and taxes. Destroy the Country and instigate civil war to stop corporate regulation.

This is sedition but Palin lovers believe they are taking their country back.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 02:51 PM

Alice: "Setting the Record Straight?"

How can you post that with a straight face. Surely you have tongue planted firmly in one cheek.

Who do you relay on, and expect everyone else to rely on for "setting the record straight?"

ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA, a project of the Democratic National Committee.

Give me a break, Alice, please?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 02:55 PM

"This is sedition but Palin lovers believe they are taking their country back"

I think that some said the anti-Bush protests were sedition, but the Anti-Bushites believed that they were taking their country back.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 03:00 PM

When a country's leaders go to war, bb, would you not agree that the action should be based on a "clear and present" threat and not on lies and ulterior motives? LBJ furthered a war based on a lie and the ignominy will taint his name indefinitely.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 03:07 PM

And those protesting what THEY see as "lies and ulterior motives" on the part of the Democrats are somehow different ?

I guess it should be " Almost all men are created equal, as long as they agree with the Left."


To bemoan the same behaviour that was demonstrated by the Left when Bush was president, now that it is the Right acting out and Obama that is being criticised seems a lot like demanding special treatment for a specific political viewpoint.

I have given up on Amos actualling applying the same level of critical observation of Obama that he applied to Bush, but I see no reason to allow the march of the Ubermensch to go unremarked.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 03:41 PM

"CNN) -- Democratic members of Congress, party strategists, and even President Obama have tried their best to portray Republicans as obstructionists to health care reform, and want us to believe that if the effort fails, it's all because of the GOP.

That's bull. The failure to pass health care reform would be a yoke around the Democrats' neck, and the cause of losing the moment would be their inability to achieve unity among themselves.

Democrats have the perfect political hat trick. They control the White House, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House, with a strong majority in both houses.

But I'm reminded of something Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, told me nine years ago: Democrats know nothing about party unity.

Conyers was being interviewed for an election special I was working on for a now-defunct black cable network, and he said that if Democrats had a majority of the votes in the House, they had a unified group of only about 165.

That's because when you throw in the 50-something Blue Dog Democrats -- strongly conservative members whom some party loyalists liken to Republicans in Democrat clothing -- then you have a different kind of dynamic than you do in the GOP, where the strong base of conservatives typically stays in line.

Then, of course, you have the far-left members, loud and noisy, and oftentimes unwilling to compromise their positions in order to move legislation forward.

When you put the far left and the far right of the Democratic Party in one room, you will see fireworks that rival a Democratic-Republican fight.

And that's exactly what we are seeing on health care reform."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/20/martin.democrats.health/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 03:41 PM

It isn't a question of Right and Left. To believe that is as foolish as believing that the future of professional wrestling depends on who wins the match: Hulk Hogan (for the Left) or The Undertaker (for the Right). But the wrestling audience is dumb enough to believe that! And the American public (and quite a few other people) are dumb enough to believe that it's a fight between the Right and the Left.

That's just the stage show, folks. That's what is put in front of the public to divide and conquer them.

The people who are actually running the show do not represent either the Right or the Left, they represent themselves and their huge money interests. The show is put on to keep people divided against each other and distracted while the Big Money interests walk off with the spoils.

They put presidential candidates in front of you like a couple of professional wrestlers and let you fight over who's going to win for nearly a year! After the phony "victory" is won by either one side or the other, the next figurehead president plays the game...and the game is owned and controlled by the richest interests in the land, and your vote makes no difference to those people.

You are mesmerized by the stage show. All Doug can think about is how bad the Democrats are...and he waits hopefully for every sign of trouble for Obama. All you faithful Obama supporters can think about is how bad the Republicans are, and you wait hopefully for every sing of trouble for them. And it doesn't matter, because it's just a wrestling show to keep you distracted.

Both those parties (with the exception of a few courageous outsiders like Dennis Kucinich) supinely serve the great monied interests that really run the USA and determine policy. That's the major corporate entities and the largest banks. The medical insurance companies are part of that consortium of rich corporate interests. That's why they're getting their way on this health care thing, while the public tilts at partisan windmills.

You don't live in a democracy, you live in a corporate oligarchy with managed elections and bought politicians. It isn't a case of Right and Left at all. It just looks that way, because that is the easiest way to keep ordinary people divided and wasting their time and energy fighting with each other for their whole lives, instead of challenging their real (but hidden) masters...people whose names they don't even know, people whose faces they would not recognize.

Check out this link:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/inside_the_great_american_bubble_machine

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 03:49 PM

Since I can trust most here to commment without reading the rest of the article, I'll post the end...

"Democrats have floated the idea of going it alone and passing health care reform. Some have said the president will pay a big price among independent voters if he does that.

Well, tough.

If health care was his first priority to getting elected, that should remain the case. Damn the 2010 midterm elections, and damn the 2012 presidential elections.

Congress has been trying for more than six decades to achieve health care reform, and the Democrats have all the stars lined up to do so. Of course, even with their large majority, it won't be a cakewalk getting a bill passed in the Senate.

If it doesn't happen now, I don't want to hear any carping from the left. Your own party had a shot and screwed it up. Democrats, you will have no one to blame but yourselves. It's now or never. So stop whining about the Republicans and get your own house in order."

about the author

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 06:00 PM

I wonder what kind of person feels good about people who buy private heath care then are canceled if they try to use it
or
people whose rates go up if a co worker gets cancer
or
if their insurance company uses the pre existing condition scam
or
when rates have doubled in 5 years
or
when poorer people are denied bone marrow transplants for their children who only have months left to save their life.
or
the dozens of other despicable excuses the middle men of health care make money by denying the help people paid for.

Is it a person like the single payer critics that post here?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 07:03 PM

I often wonder, though, if one reason so many of you are satisfied is because so few of you have ever known anything else?

Do you really honestly wonder that Doug? There've been accounts quoted in the thread, and linked to, of person after person who has experience the American system and the alternatives, and who come down emphatically for the alternatives. And the countervailing examples where people prefer the American system having lived under other systems, they just aren't there.

True enough, you've got good medical care, if you can afford it, and that's great. Sometime it's going to be better than people have elsewhere, for those who can afford it. After all, you pay enough for it.

But for millions of Americans it's out of reach - and for millions more Americans it is liable to be snatched away from them overnight, if (and when) they lose their work-related insurance, through no fault of their own whatsoever. Your neighbours, your friends, your relatives, hung out to dry.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 07:47 PM

"I often wonder, though, if one reason so many of you are satisfied is because so few of you have ever known anything else?"

We HAD no health care. Now, everyone does.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 08:00 PM

That is why, McGrath, I think Obama should have concentrated on helping the "have nots." Those who cannot afford health care, those who have pre-existing problems that prevent them from getting it, and those who lost health care when they changed jobs. When this thread began I mentioned a figure of (as I recall)15 million that would fall in those categories. I was derided, hooted, called an idiot, etc. for stating such a low figure. The figure is closer to 50 million, they cried!

The latest reports I have heard peg the figure at around 12 million. The figure is arrived at by estimating the number of people who qualify for a federal program and have not applied, people who can afford health care but prefer to drive a Rolls Royce or live in a 8,000 sq. ft. home, and young people who don't think they need it. Estimates of the number in this group is around 15 million. Then there are an estimated 12 million illegals living in the country who are owed nothing.

Making health care available for 12 million citizens would cost a helluva lot less than trying to completely overhauling the entire health system, and probably would be doable.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 08:27 PM

Coincidentally, I read a news report of the US census bureau figures on this very subject this morning, as Republicans are putting out propaganda about the numbers.

This is one article regarding the problem, written in January 2008, while Bush was still president!
From medscape.com

Census Bureau: Number of U.S. Uninsured Rises to 47 Million Americans are Uninsured: Almost 5 Percent Increase Since 2005

Click here for article http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567737

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 08:54 PM

I was derided, hooted, called an idiot, etc. for stating such a low figure.

And rightfully so, Doug, since your figure (see the post following yours & other reliable sources)then, and now, is bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 09:05 PM

Propaganda everywhere so the extreme ends are 12 millon and 47 million. So, yes, why not target that ~20 million people with the public option, at least making the voluntarily uninsured chip in and funding the rest from taxes and surcharges on private pay premiums (and adjusting for the existing public programs - even rolling them in to one program: Medicare for All Who Need It.) That would be one hell of a lot more honest and salable than just layering on employer and insurer mandates in the same old crappy fashion and pretending it's "reform" and a job well done.

Make a public option for 20 million people and work on it. Calibrate the funding and the subsidies and level the playing field while starting at the heart of the matter.

Regardless of special interests there are many people who don't want to be conned, on one side AND the other. How in the world the public option moved from the central issue to a side issue is just beyond my comprehension. (I have a feeling that the Dems were afraid to set out the true costs, and may have been willing to blur them with the lobbyists' obfuscatory proposals. The Swiss Menace article profiled a family of three which elected for some extra benefits and ended up at a current premium of $1,000 per month.)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 09:12 PM

(Of course the Swiss only have 7 or 8 million people and extrapolation won't work. I'm not suggesting that we would be facing $1,000/mo each!!)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 09:26 PM

Hmmm. I just heard Dr. Brian Day, MD, a orthopedic surgeon, in Vancouver, and former president of the Canadian Medical Society, interviewed on the Fox News Network by Bill O'Reilly.

The Doctor's evaluation of the Canadian plan is not as rosy as most Canadians here have reported. The two major faults: high cost, and rationed care. He said that the accreditation group that evaluates European health care plans recently ranked Canada's plan 29th out of 29 plans evaluated.

He said that the cost of the program has increased to the point that it likely will not be sustainable.

He also said that reports of rationing are not exaggerated and has become a very serious problem.

He did not recommend the US modeling it's program after Canada's.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Aug 09 - 09:57 PM

Doug, would you have expected FOX to interview someone who was in favour of the Canadian system?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 01:09 AM

Supposedly, although I haven't found the direct cite:

Breast cancer: 54% survival UK versus 75% US
Prostate cancer: 43% survival UK versus 81% in US

National Cancer Intelligence Center
http://www.swpho.nhs.uk/dataandstats/default.aspx

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 02:05 AM

Government now pays for nearly half of all health care in the U.S.


The average family making COBRA premium payments (after getting canned, for you Brits, you have a right to take over those employer sponsored premiums for 18 months - and a lot longer in California)pays $1,078 per month.

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7875.cfm

The average monthly premium for an individually purchased policy was
$217.75 for one person and $483.25 for a family in 2007.

http://www.ahip.org/

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 02:23 AM

The points:

(1) Long after this reform debate ends, we are going to need a national discussion on cost containment in Medicare that will make this debate look like a walk in the park. I imagine we'll have to let you baby boomers bleed it almost dry, because that's the way you have always lived your lives.

(2) Cost savings from destroying the employment based model would save far more, to be used for funding the unlucky, than "eliminating waste" ever possibly could.

(3) We need a modified Swiss model. Modified, but not hammered into trash by our routine legislative processes.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 02:29 AM

"...people who can afford health care but prefer to drive a Rolls Royce or live in a 8,000 sq. ft. home," DougR

#1. That must be a whole new category, Doug.
#2. If the Rolls or the digs are the equivalent of monthly health care, them is some premiums.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 08:23 AM

Doug, 7% of Canadians would prefer an American style health care system to the one we've got. 7 per cent. 87 per cent of Canadians approve of our health care system and consider it much superior to the one in the USA.

Fox News wants quotes from Canadians who don't like our health care system. That's what they look for. If they want to find someone they can to the 7 per cent of our public who have a complaint of some kind. 7 per cent of 25 million people is 1 million, 750 thousands people!!!

Don't you think Fox can find a Canadian to criticize our health care system????? Duh! Of course they can.

But 87 per cent of our people like our system and think yours sucks. Doesn't that tell you something that Fox isn't bothering to tell you?

They're not bothering to tell you because they've been paid off by the Big Money people who run your present system or benefit from it.

Wake up and smell the coffee, Doug. You're a victim of corporate propaganda, and your country has the worst public health record in the developed world. Period.

You ask why the government wouldn't find it cheaper to just insure the people who don't have any coverage right now.

Well, Canada insures EVERYBODY....and we spend 1/3 less in government health costs PER CAPITA than the USA does...and everybody has health care. Everybody. How do we do that, Doug? How does western Europe do it? I wonder. You ought to give it some thought.

When you are lied to from cradle to grave, the truth just sounds unbelievable, I guess...

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 09:13 AM

""Kevin: Yes, it's obvious that those of you from countries that have a single payer system are very satisfied. Perhaps it will come to the U.S. someday. I don't think it will happen at this time. I often wonder, though, if one reason so many of you are satisfied is because so few of you have ever known anything else?""

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 09:17 AM

""Kevin: Yes, it's obvious that those of you from countries that have a single payer system are very satisfied. Perhaps it will come to the U.S. someday. I don't think it will happen at this time. I often wonder, though, if one reason so many of you are satisfied is because so few of you have ever known anything else?""

I often wonder, Doug, if that's the reason why YOU wish to deny your poorer compatriots the advantages YOU enjoy, simply through the nature of your employment.

GO ON, DO TELL!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 11:00 AM

The Private Taxation from the Insurance Mafia should speak for itself. It is wasteful,
inefficient and reform is necessary. Claims are denied because that's how they make money.

The Insurance Companies are the ones who "pull the plug on grandma". Obama should state this clearly. He should know.

Those that think the profit motive that guides Corporations are sacrosanct are
damaging the country.

As George Lakoff has said, the Public Option should be referred to as "The American Plan"
that serves everyone not just a Corporate few.

Republicans who are reacting in crazy ways at town hall meetings are only thinking of themselves when the selfishly refer to "freedom".

When guns turn up at Town Hall meetings, this is a tactic of fear, intimidation and
terrorism.

Wake up America!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 11:05 AM

"...Other recent Rasmussen Reports polling highlights the underlying political challenges. Thirty-two percent (32%) of voters favor a single-payer health care system . These voters make up a heavy majority of those who favor passage of health care reform. They view the current legislation as a baby step along the way to a single-payer system. Most Americans oppose a single-payer system and are seeking reassurance that the current plan will not head in that direction.

Overall, when it comes to health care decisions, 51% fear the government more than private insurance companies while 41% hold the opposite view.

Most Americans support the concept of reform, but cost control is seen as the most important aspect of reform . Also, voters simply don't believe the legislation will deliver the benefits that its advocates claim. Few believe it will increase patient choice or make health care affordable . In fact, most voters believe the passage of the current health care reform effort will lead to higher costs and lower quality of care .

The health care reform debate has helped push Obama's job approval ratings in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll to new lows."

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 11:13 AM

...51% fear the government more than private insurance companies...

Of course they do- a surprising number of this figure actually believe the bullshit the Republican ops are spewing out, death camps for the elderly, "socialism" and all the rest of it.

Perhaps if they were to take a poll of sentient beings, the numbers would be somewhat different...

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 11:17 AM

"The health care reform debate" with all the LIES being promoted by FOX news, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Republican house and senate politicians and their minions have impacted the polls. When people polled are told the truth, the results are that they more supportive of Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 11:31 AM

I wonder how many of the folks that are objecting to "the slippery slope" leading to "socialized " government run single-payer systems are currently on Medicare, which, oddly enough, is just such a system? Or are enjoying VA health benefits (which is also one of those Commie systems)? Any comments, Doug (who seems to be covered both ways)?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 11:54 AM

"The health care reform debate has helped push Obama's job approval ratings in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll to new lows." pdq

Yes, his ratings have dropped but to be truthful, they are still high.   Let's try truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 02:00 PM

NEW FACTS ABOUT NATIONALISED HEALTHCARE!

1. About eight weeks ago, my left knee, which has been painful for some time, mainly due to arthritis, collapsed, and I found myself on my knees in the middle of a road, with a driver standing on his brakes trying not to hit me. He succeeded!

A one off, I thought, but two weeks later the same thing happened, in less dangerous surroundings, and over the course of several days it kept locking, then suddenly clicking free, in a most painful manner.

2. Five weeks ago, I went to my doctor (GP), and he referred me to a consultant orthopaedic surgeon.

This morning, I had my appointment with him and, after taking X-Rays, he explained the problem, and outlined the proper course of treatment, namely a knee replacement operation.

3. I am now awaiting a letter confirming the exact date of my pre op medical exam, and the operation date in either October, or November.

This will be followed by a four month course of intensive physiotherapy.

Those of you who insist on believing all the drivel about waiting times, reluctance to treat older patients, and healthcare rationing, should take note:-

First contact with the NHS to operation date, between 11 and 15 weeks.
Cost to patient of treatment, plus aftercare, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, NIL!

Are you reading me Doug?.......NOTHING!

A real bad system, don't you think, in the modern sense of "BAD", "WICKED".

You should all be telling your government "THIS is what we WANT", and making them listen.

Or are you really keen on paying through the nose for everything, to keep the vultures fed?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 02:21 PM

""Overall, when it comes to health care decisions, 51% fear the government more than private insurance companies while 41% hold the opposite view.""

Into which of the following three categories does the above statement fall?

Lies?
Damn Lies?
Statistics?

A few questions that need answering, before those figures have ANY credibility:-

1. Who did the sampling, and how was the sample obtained?
2. Who compiled the questions, and what was the nature of the questions asked?
2. Who interpreted the results of the poll, and can their impartiality be a) determined, and/or b) guaranteed?

If you ask a man would he like to get his healthcare free of charge, the most likely answer would be "YES!"

If you ask the same man would he like to be enrolled in a scheme that would make him wait years for treatment, and help him through death's door at the earliest opportunity, well, what d'ye think he'd say?

Well that is exactly how the Healthcare Insurers, the GOP, and the "I've got mine, so sod the rest" brigade are treating this matter, to the eternal disgrace, and shame of the American Nation.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 02:28 PM

Here's an interesting anecdote to compare with Don's post. Here in the US, the company my brother worked for went out of business. Normally you'd have the option to continue the insurance you had with the company as long as you pay the premium, for up to 18 months, but since the firm went out of business that option got screwed up. He has some preexisting conditions and he tried to get individual insurance, but every policy he found would have cost more than the amount he's getting on unemployment benefits per month, and they have preexisting condition clauses that would limit coverage for these conditions. He's trying to get a Continuation of Benefits Option worked out with one of his old company's subsidiarys, but the administrator is so swamped that he hasn't been able to get a straight answer, so at the moment he doesn't have insurance.

His knee was hurting so badly he went to the doctor on his own nickel. The doctor said he has a "Bakers Cyst" in his knee that needs to come out, but he would need to do an MRI to make sure, then they could schedule the surgery. My brother said forget it, he can't afford it. He managed to scrape up enough money to get a shot of cortisone to relieve the pain temporarily.   He had a job interview yesterday and hopefully he will get insurance again but even so there will probably be a six month preexisting condition clause. So he'll continue in pain, getting shots when he can afford it, while the knee continues to deteriorate.

By the way we have the best health care in the world here in the US..yeah right.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 02:31 PM

Setting up a special system just for people who are excluded under the present ones (so long as they aren't "illegals", of course, otherwise called "Your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free") is of course a possibility - though since it hasn't actually been done by either party in the sixty-two years since the British NHS was established, that seems to suggest that it wouldn't be easy to get the USA to get its act together on even such a basic reform.

But since the various medical sytems which other reasonably wealthy countries provide health care for all, at a level at least comparable to that in the USA, for a lot less money, it seems a rather arsy-versy way to go about it. Equal medical entitlement for all, financed by some kind of graduated national insurance scheme, is a lot simpler in the long run.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 02:39 PM

"Oh, you people. All this one-sided stuff is so tiresome. It is simple- just agree with me, and we'll all be happy."

(Channeling DougR)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 03:17 PM

Ebbie,


"It is simple- just agree with me, and we'll all be happy."

Seems like me that is what Obama and the Democrats are telling us (as well). But I guess since they are right, it must be ok.


BTW, has anyone looked at the satisfaction of those under the current "one-payer" systems that are run by the US Government? Specificallt, the VA and BIA systems. Is this the level of care that you are satsfied with?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 03:24 PM

bb, have you checked with Medicare recipients? (The BIA has had problems for eons.)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 03:33 PM

"(The BIA has had problems for eons.) "

And that is a reason to want the government involved with our medical care???


As for Medicare, all that I know is one needs supplemental insurance, since it has such wonderful coverage. And I am paying ( a lot) for it, my entire working career. When I do not get coverage for a number of years.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 03:59 PM

Doug R,
    Name one person "who can afford health care but prefer to drive a Rolls Royce or live in a 8,000 sq. ft. home".

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 04:01 PM

The artist formerly known as Michael Jackson.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 04:17 PM

Basically it's a matter of "Why don't you join the civilised world?"

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: The Barden of England
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 04:20 PM

Still banging on in a political vein I see. It's so sad.
What about your countrymen who have not, will not, and will never get cover from your oh so wonderful insurance companies?

'When will they ever learn?'
'When will the ever, learn?'

You can harp on about one idiot on the news who says "National Health care is rubbish" when you don't take a blind bit of notice the many of us here who use it and say 'No it isn't'. We're obviously wrong since we've not been on the television. I don't understand the 'I'm all right and the rest can go hang' attitude.
John Barden

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 04:25 PM

Maryrrf... yeah, right, indeed. The richest country in the world. The world leader. Leader of the free world. Unless you are at the arse end of the herd when the lions arrive... then, tough luck eh?

The lack of compassion in such a system is frightful.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 04:46 PM

I imagine for most of the people crying wolf - leaving aside the people protecting their investments in insurance companies and so forth - it's not really lack of compassion, but rather a total lack of confidence in the ability of the United States to do what pretty well everyone else has managed to do. The other side of "only in America".

Maybe they are right.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 04:47 PM

You mean, it might be about the almighty dollar?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 05:50 PM

A new little wrinkle in the health insurance industry:

Early in June, this year, I threw my back out. Just one of those things. You reach for something, something in your back goes "POP!" and you wind up feeling like you have a nail in your back. Bothered the hell out of me for several days.

Then, in the wee small hours of June 12, I woke up really feeling rotten. My lower back hurt like hell and I felt like a truck had driven across my lower abdomen—several times! Extremely painful!

My wife called Medic One (tax supported—part of the Seattle Fire Department), the EMTs checked me out, couldn't find anything obviously wrong (not a heart attack, no bullet wounds, etc.), but I was obviously in great pain, so they heaved my keister onto a gurney and hauled it to the nearby Swedish Hospital emergency room.

The question was, did I possibly have a compression fracture of the spine, a herniated disk, or something else. And why the pain in the lower abdomen. Appendicitis? After much questioning, poking, taking samples of various bodily fluids, and both an MRI and a CAT scan, they determined that, in addition to a spinal subluxation (fixable by either surgery—pricy and painful—or a few sessions with my neighborhood chiropractor for far less money and not that much discomfort—I opted for the latter), I had a bladder infection, the beginnings of an intestinal blockage, and a lot of referred pain from this unholy combination.

They prescribed an antibiotic for the bladder infection, something akin to several sticks of dynamite for the intestinal blockage (I won't dwell on the lurid details), and enough pain killer to keep Rush Limbaugh smiling for weeks.

Mostly better now. The bladder infection and the intestinal problem have cleared up and my chiropractor makes house calls. The back is much better.

Now—

Any time you go to an emergency room and have things like MRIs and CAT scans, it's gonna be pricy! How much this little fandango is costing my insurance company (I'm covered under my wife's policy, which is an employee benefit she gets from the Seattle Public Library), I haven't heard yet. I haven't yet receive a summary from the insurance company, nor a bill from the hospital (there will probably be a substantial co-pay).

But—

I did get a letter from the insurance company, complete with a detailed questionnaire. Where did the accident take place? Was it in a automobile? Who was at fault? Do they have insurance? Or was it at work? Or in a place of business? Or someone else's residence? Do they have liability insurance? Was it an assault? Has my assailant been captured? Have I hired an attorney?

You get the picture.

Underlying message:   We don't want to have to pay this! Who can we sue!??

I called their 800 number and after drilling down through several layers of recorded messages, explained to the first live person I encountered that the reason for my visit to the emergency room was NOT an accident. I woke up that morning in great pain and sicker that Hector's pup, and my wife and I decided that I needed to get to a hospital for immediate attention.

They accepted this, but the disappointed tone in the person's voice was heart-rending!! Unless they could find some other out, they were actually going to have to ante up.

Somehow, I don't see this kind of weasel-like ducking and dodging happening in a government run single payer health care system.

Don Firth