BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 08:48 PM

The Congressional Budget Office reported today that the Health Care Plan under consideration (The Waxman Bill) would not accomplish what Obama promised in the campaign it would do. That, plus the fact that two amendments have been attached to the Bill that many members of Congress find objectionable (Medicaid patients could receive abortions paid for by Medicaid and a "Hate Crime" bill)will, in tandem with cost, sink the Bill. I believe another factor that works against passage is Obama is pushing too hard to get the bill passed before Congress recesses for the summer.

Before you bombard me with charges that the CBO favors Republicans I would inform those that do not know that the Chief of the CBO is a Democrat and his position was formerly headed by Obama's current Budget Director.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: kendall
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 08:51 PM

We can afford trillions for missles to cream people that never did a damn thing to us, but we cant afford health care for our own people.
The only civilized country in the world that lacks basic health care.
It's barbaric.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 08:56 PM

Correction - I was looking at the wrong column on the chart when I wrote in the last post I made:

"It shows the USA as spending... far more per head than virtually every other country.

In fact the chat shows the USA as spending far more per head than any of the other countries in the OECD. $4,887 per head compared to $1997 per head in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 08:57 PM

Correction - I was looking at the wrong column on the chart when I wrote in the last post I made:

"It shows the USA as spending... far more per head than virtually every other country.

In fact the chart shows the USA as spending far more per head than any of the other countries in the OECD. $4,887 per head compared to $1997 per head in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 10:23 PM

Art and Carol,

HeyaSweeties! I know you know and we are with you, too. Thanks, darlin's.

Love kat & Rog

And, now, once again, I say Thank Goodness for Dennis Kucinich!:

Dennis Kucinich - www.Kucinich.us

Exciting Healthcare Update

Dear Friends,

With your support, your phone calls, your emails, we won a major legislative victory today for a state single payer health care option in the House of Representatives in Washington, DC. The House Education and Labor Committee approved the Kucinich Amendment by a vote of 27-19, with 14 Democrats and 13 Republicans voting yes.

The amendment propels the growing single payer health care movement at the state level. There are at least ten states which have active single payer efforts in their legislatures. They are California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington. The amendment mandates a single payer state will receive the right to waive the application of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which has in the past been used to nullify efforts to expand state or local government health care.

Under the Kucinich Amendment a state's application for a waiver from ERISA is granted automatically if the state has signed into law a single payer plan. With the amendment, for the first time, the state single payer health care option is shielded from an ERISA-based legal attack. Now that the underlying bill has been passed, as amended, by the full committee, we must make sure that Congress knows that we want the provision kept in the bill at final passage!

The state single payer option was one of five major amendments which I obtained support to get included in HR3200. One amendment brings into standard coverage for the first time complementary and alternative medicine, (integrative medicine). Another amendment drives down the cost of prescription drugs by ending pharmaceutical industry's sharp practices manipulating physician prescribing habits. An amendment stops the insurance industry from increasing premiums at the time when people are not permitted to change health plans; and finally an amendment imposing a requirement on insurance companies that they disclose the cost of advertising, marketing and executive compensation expenses (which generally divert money from patient care).

Please make sure you post this message on your social networking site, ask all your friends to get involved and encourage everyone you know to sign up at www.Kucinich.us so we can build full momentum behind this movement for real health care.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 11:05 PM

...ten states have active single payer efforts in their legislatures. They are ...New Mexico... The New Mexico legislature is adjourned, and will next convene in January 2011, except for a short budget session in 2010. I don't know what the status of the other states listed might be.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 11:20 PM

Well, he didn't say right now re' the States, art.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Health care, good? bad?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 02:01 AM

Too bad we can't take the insurance companies completely out of the picture, but the truth be told, they'd launch such a deluge of negative campaigning that the Americans who don't have any critical thinking skills will buy their clever (but vacuous) arguments and oppose the plan. Taking the obscene profits out of health care would be good for everyone. Except the insurance companies, of course.

I've given this some thought. They should buy out the employees of these companies with small plots of land and let them learn something useful, like raising crops or small herds of animals for a reliable local food source. Get them out of the gambling industry (where they bank that they can deny enough drug Rx costs and health treatments to enough people that they can make obscenely huge profits).

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,An NHS problem
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 07:34 AM

I'm a regular catter, but have decided to post this anonymously - it may become obvious why. If a JoeClone wishes to delete it, so be it.

One disadvantage of the NHS system is that cases like the one in this thread arise. It would hardly be human if the people concerned did not fight tooth and nail for their child/husband/wife/parent to try and get them the best possible treatment. Sometimes the point at issue is a question of using a generic versus a named drug, at other times it is whether NICE [a sort of control board] has authorised the drug. However, the hard truth is that we as ordinary citizens rarely know enough to understand whether the differences involved between a generic drug and the named drug are significant or not. For example, if the 'amount' of an active component varies by up to 45% as that thread states, it does not follow that the effectiveness varies significantly, or even at all. It could, of course, but it is drug dependant. And of course, the company making the named drug is hardly going to underplay the benefits of using their product.

A petition can only really take the decisions out of the hands of NICE and put it into the hands of politicians who, as a rule, know nothing about it and are more concerned with the effect on whether they get re-elected than on the medical consequences. So I am afraid, in my view, these sorts of petitions are not in the best interest of the citizens overall. A petition that "politicians should follow the recommendations of NICE" [which that thread says isn't happening] is another matter, and I'd be happy to sign that one.

All this might suggest I'm posting to the wrong thread. I don't think I am because my main point is that with an NHS system hard choices still have to be made, and we, as ordinary people, become exposed to those choices. They are not simply things the medics involved in the specific case decide. Moreover, it introduces a risk that medical decisions get overridden by polical ones.

One thing we have to recognise is that sometimes the NHS simply can't do things in the way those actually involved in the heartbreaking events would like. In a private scheme, as long as can pay, you can have virtually anything you like, but that is something you have to give up with a NHS-like scheme.

A further complication in the way the NHS is set up is that treatment is all-or-nothing [I believe]. You cannot have the NHS treat 90% of a condition then 'top-up' something with a privately chosen medicine. In this case, for example, the people involved cannot choose to pay extra and have the non-generic drug.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 12:10 PM

"Single-payer health care is a term used in the United States to describe the payment of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers from a single fund. It differs from typical private health insurance where, through pricing and other measures taken by the insurer, the level of risks carried by multiple insurance pools as well as the coverage can vary and the pricing has to be varied according to the contribution of risk added to the pool. It is often mentioned as one way to deliver universal health care. The administrator of the fund could be the government but it could also be a publicly owned agency regulated by law. Australia's Medicare, Canada's Medicare, and healthcare in Taiwan are examples of single-payer universal health care systems."

This term seems to be easily misunderstood. That may be by accident or by intent.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 18 Jul 09 - 02:21 PM

About the health care legislation mentioned "in at least ten states" plus a "just for fun" thrown in...


"Sheila Kuehl was first elected to the California State Assembly in 1994, becoming the first openly gay person elected to the California legislature. She was later a founding member of the California Legislative LGBT Caucus. She served as Speaker pro tempore during the 1997–98 legislative session, becoming the first woman in California history to hold the position. After three terms in the Assembly, she was elected to the California State Senate in 2000, beating Assemblyman Wally Knox in the Democratic primary. Re-elected in 2004 with 65.7% of the vote, she has repeatedly been voted the 'smartest' member of the California Legislature.

In 2006, she sponsored a bill that would prohibit the adoption by any school district in California of any instructional material that discriminates against persons based on their gender or sexual orientation.

Throughout her career as a legislator, Kuehl has taken a leadership role on health care policy. Her foremost objective has been securing passage of legislation to establish a single-payer health care system in California. SB 840 passed both houses of the legislature in 2006, but was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger; it was reintroduced in 2007 and again passed the state Senate, with a vote pending in the Assembly. SB 840 passed both houses of the California legislature in August 2008 and was, again, vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger."


Sheila Kuehl played Zelda in the Dobie Gillis television show.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 12:07 AM

I've often wondered what happened to Zelda!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,Romanyman
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 01:54 PM

The trouble with those of you in the USofA is that you have never thought beyond the mighty dollar, that is sad, how many poor people die every year because your doctor want thousands just to say sorry you need a specialist, and then you have to pay him, he then gives a kick back to the original doctor, and so it goes round, you all just sit on your butts and say, well thats the way it is, duh, over here i go to my doctor, if need be i get a referal to the specialist, get an operatin, whatever, cost to me, nowt , nil, nadda, nothing, zero,

However, there is a cost of course, this done by way of national insurance, a tax if you like, but its paid by me and its a tiny amount per week, it covers everything from ingrowing toe nails to the dreaded disease, yes we have private health care but as in the U.S, its limited, costly . Unless you have been within a national health system i doubt you will understand, but its simple and easy to set up, then again those fat cat doctors, insurance types, will hate it, oh dear how bloody sad. forget the money think of someone you love dying because they cant afford healtcare, gladly that dont happen here. best i can say is learn about it , use it, do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 04:19 PM

" Moreover, it introduces a risk that medical decisions get overridden by polical ones."

This is exactly what is happening now when the insurance lobby owns the congress.
The political decisions are being bought and the medical decisions now take a back seat.
The CEO stand between the doctor and the patient. You can still pay and pay and not
get served with a private insurer.

NHS in other countries are not overriding medical decisions through politics. Only in the US where lobbyists control the doctors. Big Pharma and the AMA are examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 05:42 PM

Kendall (and others)... barbaric is polite. How anyone can condone the suffering of their brothers and sisters in the name of greed is... beyond barbaric.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 08:35 PM

Well, I really doubt that anyone in particular is condoning the suffering of their brothers and sisters in the name of greed. The real problem with making anything happen in a democracy is that minor thing called "majority rule".   Mr. Obama, assuming he wanted to, really cannot wave a wand and make things happen. He must first get legislation introduced that accomplishes a particular purpose and then get at least 51 Senators and 218 Representatives to vote for it.   Anything that has any chance at all of passage must be relatively moderate, as Americans define the term.

Each of these people is individually elected by the residents of the state (for Senators) or Congressional District they represent.    Regardless of what some people, including some people on Mudcat, would want you to believe, the vast majority of our elected representatives are honest and well-meaning individuals. They are not paid anything under the table by insurance companies, the AMA, or anybody else, and the US Congress is not owned by anyone.   They serve their constituents, not the national party or any corporate lobbyist, and they have to go back home and explain their positions to those people. Most are elected with 55% or less of the votes cast and, if their votes do not reflect the will of the voting public, they will serve only one term.   The 20% or so who are non-party centrists will shift over to the other guy.

Congress is trying very hard to craft a health care plan that can both pass this Congress and (from the Democratic Party's perspective) allow it to survive more than two years. This is why there isn't, and never will be, any single-payer proposal submitted to Congress (other than the sort of bill that is proposed without a hope of passage and dies in committee).   The American public is simply not interested in giving that much control over something as important as their health care to the Federal government.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 11:25 PM

The only real problem with the NHS in UK is the "Post Code Lottery"
Which CAN mean a patient cant get the drugs or treatment required in a reasonable period !
One thing for sure is that in UK a low paid working person will NOT be bankrupted by developing a minor illness , NOR be put off getting treatment until the condition they have has reached a critical point !
Michael Moore's "Sicko" has been mentioned earlier . I agree there IS a lot of 'propaganda' in the film , but there is also a frightening amount of straight fact about what the Insurance Companies will do to avoid paying out at all if they think they can get away with it .

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 02:58 AM

The "Postcode Lottery", while real enough, is one of those problems that is inherently unwinnable. The UK is divided into a number of largely autonomous regions for health provision. That immediately raises the issue of whether the treatment available should be identical in them all, or do you allow for differences. It would seem pretty obvious, for example, that there should be greater provision for treatment for poisoning by certain agricultural chemicals in the countryside than in the centre of the city. Conversely, there needs to be investment in the medical 'disaster training' involving evacuation from the underground system in London, Newcastle etc which isn't relevant to rural areas (or more precisely, the kinds of disasters differ.)

So it follows that with any degree of independant planning, there must be different priorities in spending and that will inevitably lead to differences in what is available, if only in the waiting periods by the regions.   

Much of the press - particularly but not exclusively the tabloids - bemoans and demonises thr "postcode" lottery. It never, of course, considers the alternatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 11:05 AM

Amidst all the heated blather about how the bills should be paid, there's a more fundamental problem: Why are the bills so damned high?
Young doctors entering practice often drag along load of a quarter to a half-million dollars in student loans. This is a direct result of Med schools underutilizing their highly paid staff (who, like other doctors, use the student loan argument to justify exorbitant rates.)
A series of government scholarships to be awarded to students willing to agree to a period of community service would be a huge step forward.
So would opening up more teaching facilities--I don't believe that the number of medical schools has increased over thae past thirty or forty years, while the general population has been expanding at a better-than-healthy rate.
    Then, reduce balkanization of health care. I currently am seeing no fewer than six doctors on a regular basis--most of who look at the same blood test results, give me a cursory examination, and fill out their Medicare reports. Much of what I encounter on a recurring pattern of visits to doctors' offices can be handled just as well by a med tech; required blood test could easily be shared by all the doctors involved.
    Drug pricing is so outrageous that it's almost unbelievable. I just had cataract surgery, and one of the prescribed eyedrops I have to use costs (without a haealthcare plan discount) $78 for a five milliliter bottle: that's roughly $15000 per liter for something that's about 99.5% water.)or bout $7500 per pound. And that's not an unusual rip-off---injections of Procrit, commonly used in cases of anemia, and typically required every two to three weeks, are billed a $2500 per poke. I know all about the amount of research and testing the drug companies perform, but I also know about their bloated profits.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 06:53 PM

And outrageous awards to malpractice victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 07:05 PM

What should it be worth when a surgeon amputates the wrong leg - and then has to go back and cut off the correct one? Not all malpractice awards are outrageous.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 08:38 PM

Heard today that the status quo lobbiests have spent over $20M in the last 3 months to derail Obama's plan...

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: lompocan
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 06:24 PM

I have been working vigorously to inform people in my community about a single payer system. I see a major ethical issue here, and I am surprised at how many Americans use so many excuses to avoid the ethical situation of caring for people's health. Money, fear of socialism (without understanding what socialism really means), political ideology (as opposed to rationally looking at the issue), but most of all is the notion that the government will automatically mess things up. So many mythologies are clouding their reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 07:36 PM

""One thing we have to recognise is that sometimes the NHS simply can't do things in the way those actually involved in the heartbreaking events would like. In a private scheme, as long as can pay, you can have virtually anything you like, but that is something you have to give up with a NHS-like scheme.""

This is pure egregious nonsense.

The NHS ensures that those who cannot afford to pay still receive all the treatment they need.

THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD TO PAY CAN CHOOSE ONE OF A NUMBER OF PRIVATE SCHEMES WHICH SUPPLY THEIR NEEDS TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANY WHO DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS. HSA and BUPA, to name but two.

Of course neither will treat emergencies, nor will they get involved in either pre-existing, or long term chronic cases, which tells you all you need to know about private health care funded by insurance.

They WILL insure you against Yakbite, PROVIDED it doesn't occur in a zoo, or in Russia/Mongolia.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 07:52 PM

I should point out that you CAN have NHS care for your emergencies, pre-existing, and long term chronic problems, and still use private care for other things, IF YOU SO CHOOSE.

What you cannot do is mix private and NHS care for the same illness (so called topping up).

This, I believe will change, in the fullness of time, but you do have to ask yourself why anyone who could afford to pay for drugs which are too expensive for the NHS (especially when the benefit is very marginal) would not pay for the whole of their treatment, and leave NHS resources for those who REALLY need them.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 08:01 PM

Don, I have a similar situation to your last question...that is, I have free point of service care available to me and I have an insurance plan that I pay for. I normally use the latter, since I can afford it and the other system (the veterans' healthcare system), while excellent, is stretched. However, there have been occasions (such as some forthcoming brow surgery) that my insurance refused to pay for but that I had approved through the veterans' system with no problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 08:21 PM

And of course if you want a test of some kind in a hurry, you can pay for that from a private hospital, and if it indicates you need medical treatment have that through the NHS on the basis of that test.

As I write earlier, I'm really puzzled by why people who haven't some financial stake in the present US system should be frightened of a change to something which could give them far more security, and in practice, far more choice as well.   

But I suppose it's largely a matter of rigid ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 01:44 AM

""One thing we have to recognise is that sometimes the NHS simply can't do things in the way those actually involved in the heartbreaking events would like. In a private scheme, as long as can pay, you can have virtually anything you like, but that is something you have to give up with a NHS-like scheme.""

This is pure egregious nonsense.

The NHS ensures that those who cannot afford to pay still receive all the treatment they need.


While I agree about giving all the treatment people *need*, the thread referred to is talking about what people *want*. In particular, they want branded drugs rather than generic. The cost implications of that are huge, and I can't help noticing the petition doesn't include the phrase "and we are willing for our taxes to be increased to cover the costs."

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 06:09 AM

What you cannot do is mix private and NHS care for the same illness (so called topping up).

This, I believe will change, in the fullness of time

You are probably right, but it is a bit of a double-edged sword. Once we allow 'topping-up' it gives politicians a loophole not to increase the allocation to the NHS each year as much as they otherwise would have to. Over time, I think that could lead to a withering of the NHS. Without top-ups, the service really has to work properly as funded; with it it only has to work if 5% of the funds come from elsewhere. Then a few years later if 10% are from elsewhere ...

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 08:02 AM

""While I agree about giving all the treatment people *need*, the thread referred to is talking about what people *want*. In particular, they want branded drugs rather than generic. The cost implications of that are huge, and I can't help noticing the petition doesn't include the phrase "and we are willing for our taxes to be increased to cover the costs".""

DMcG, I would take issue with your statement that "what people want is branded, not generic, drugs".

In my experience, what people want is precisely the opposite. Only those too uneducated, or brainwashed by TV, to know the difference are demanding to pay four times as much for branded goods, as they can with so called "generics".

Are you one of those who buys 16 Aspro tablets, when he can buy Aspirin for a quarter the cost? Ditto, Nurofen four times more than Ibuprofen. Where topping up comes into the picture is with new drugs where, thanks to the monumental greed of the pharmaceutical companies, there is NO generic option, and the prices charged are extortionate.

NHS funds are limited, choices have to be made, and unfortunately it is difficult to justify spending thousands of pounds to, for example, give an already terminal patient an extra few months.

In an ideal world one could say yes to everyone. In reality, where I think WE are all living, one can't.

In response to your final comment, my dear fellow, we have been paying steadily higher tax to keep our NHS going since the 1940s, and we are managing quite nicely, secure in the knowledge that sudden illness, in the UK at least, is not a synonym for bankruptcy.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 08:46 AM

Maybe I've not expressed myself very well, Don, but I reckon we are agreeing. What the NHS does is amazing, and long may it continue. What you expressed as In an ideal world one could say yes to everyone. In reality, where I think WE are all living, one can't. is what I intended by sometimes the NHS simply can't do things in the way those actually involved in the heartbreaking events would like.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: 3refs
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 09:01 AM

My son was in a car accident last week and was transported to the hospital via ambulance. Thankfully, he wasn't seriously injured. I'm going in for knee replacement surgery(arthroplasty)soon and may require more back surgery after my MRI. It's not costing me a cent, other than the premium I pay on my income tax. I'd be in a financial mess if I had to pay for any of this! No, it's not perfect and sometimes there's a wait, but I'll take it as opposed to dying at the hospital door because I can't even get in!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 11:36 AM

The concept of "rationing" health care is as stupid as that of the fear of the word "socialized". We have , in the States, a sing;e-payer educational system. For those who want (and can afford) something else, we also have private schools. We have a nationalized Post Office. For those who want (and can afford) something else, we also have UPS, Fedex and DHL. No problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 11:45 AM

Brilliant analogies, Dick.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 11:50 AM

Don, it's also fairly easy to get private health insurance for injuries sustained in desert boating accidents, train derailments caused by aircraft landing on train tracks and self-inflicted damage caused by leaving the space capsule, provided yer over seventy years old.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 02:08 PM

Dick, that IS brilliantly put! Thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 02:15 PM

Let's face it. It's the greedy insurance execs and so-called health care business people who
are against national health care. They and their lobbyists are the problem.

NH works in almost every other civilized society in the world. It's all about greed,
fat paychecks for CEO's and concentration of power in the Insurance Lobby that is
against NH.

"Louise and Harry" was the biggest con job on the American public.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 05:45 PM

"It's the greedy insurance execs and so-called health care business people who are against national health care. They and their lobbyists are the problem."

In a sense that may be true, since these are the only people who might stand to lose in a change to a universal system which wasn't based on private insurance. But if they were the only people opposing such a change it wouldn't matter, since there can't be more than a relatively small number of them - a few thousands, a few tens of thousand, maybe let's imagine it moight be a million. In a country of 300 million.

The problem is this tiny minority seem to be punching way way above their weight, when it comes to influence and power.

How far is it that these vested interests have actually succeeded in convincing a good chunk of that 300 million? Or how far is it that, by one means or another, they have managed to get control of a significant number of the politicians who are supposed to represent the interests of that 300 million?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Rumncoke
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 06:04 PM

For most everyday things the British Health Service will provide adequate care when it is needed.

It is true that for some things some areas do not provide some drugs and others do - the so called post code lottery - and there are perhaps other things that could be done better, but for most of the population there will have been care and treatment from early in pregnancy to their leaving school, with no cost to their parents.

They will have been immunised against common diseases, checked to see that they are growing properly, had their vision tested, to see if they require glasses, have regular dental checks and any treatments required all as a routine. Hopefully they will then reach adulthood fit and well and ready to go to work an pay taxes.

When they retire they will once again have free health care.

In the time in between if they are prescribed a drug or other treatment they pay a standard charge for it to be dispensed at the chemist - I think it is about 8 pounds.

If they require treatment after an accident, cataract surgery, appendectomy or knee replacement - it is done.

It seems to be a very sensible system to me.

If I catch flu I can phone up to confirm the symptoms and get treatment sent round to the house rather than go out and spread the virus. When a vaccine is developed I will be invited to go and have the jab.

The administration of an insurance funded health care system must cost so much that could be used to better effect on other things.

Anne Croucher

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 06:15 PM

Thing to keep in mind: Pharmaceutical companies and I think insurance companies donate/invest huge sums of money speaking against Public Health Care. They really know how to brain-wash folks, especially when in many cases a light rinse would do.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 06:22 PM

So, all this philosophy aside, does anyone know what Obama and Congress will do?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 06:37 PM

Obama will do what he can.

Congress will do what it must, or what it's told, depending on how far congressmen are in the pockets of corporate interests.

And of course, the public will get what the are given.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 06:43 PM

Where is the line where corporate lobbying becomes criminal conspiracy?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 06:49 PM

I really don't think that it's true that most, or even a significant percentage, of Americans think that the status quo - or some other system in which the insurance companies remain major players - is desirable. We...that is to say Congress...are engaged in negotiations attempting to come up with some kind of package that is minimally unacceptable to the largest number of people. That is, after all, the essence of consensus. Congress (with a few exceptions, of course) is not in the pockets of corporate interests at all. They are responsive to the wishes of their constituents, but they are subject to a media blitz which is paid for by the various corporations with an interest in the ultimate outcome. It is an unfortunate fact that some of them are easily led, and tend to believe things when they are told them over and over.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 07:01 PM

"a media blitz which is paid for by the various corporations with an interest in the ultimate outcome." Which is perilously close to criminal conspiracy, I'd suggest - at least, if that financial interest isn't openly stated as part of that "media blitz".

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

Because my question was serious, I do thank you for responding. It will have a bearing on Canadian health care down the road.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 07:42 PM

"...the various corporations with an interest in the ultimate outcome." Which is perilously close to criminal conspiracy,..."

Yes...I'd think so, but you can bet that their legal departments know where the lines are, and that no one will ever be indicted.

This is about 94.628% about **money**... various folk, from doctors to drug companies to insurance companies, have had many years to 'adjust' the system to maximize their profits, and they simply do NOT want any changes which might interfere. They make their political contributions accordingly....which means that 'most' members of Congress intend to be very careful what they vote for...and 40% are unlikely to cooperate at all! The convoluted 'explanations' of why they oppose the Obama plan are mostly just ways of avoiding saying, "I know which side my bread is buttered on."
   We all have our stories of exorbitant costs for everything from drugs to insurance premiums to ambulance rides..
(I was once charged something like $45 for 'triage' when I went to the emergency room with a cut thumb. The 'triage' consisted of my holding up my thumb with a bloody bandage and saying "I cut my thumb". I called to complain, and they said they'd 'take that charge off'. Most people don't even try...and those with insurance almost never worry about it. I could NOT remove the $90 or so charge for the 'instrument kit' which has needles, scissors, clamps...etc...made in Pakistan..which is **thrown away** afterwards, whether stuff in it is used or not. In my case, they used one needle to put 3 stitches in my thumb. No one could...or would ...tell me who actually profitted from that $90.") (Seems autoclaves are outmoded)

It seems the ONLY thing that will get real change done is lawmakers becoming more afraid of voters who WANT health care fixed than political contributors who do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 07:56 PM

When the President of the United States and the various members of Congress are in the same ER rooms as the rest of the people, THEN you will see change.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 08:48 PM

In America there has , for FAR too long been a very vociferous group
who tell the rest of the country that ANY Socialist policy will be opening the door to Russian Style Totalitarian Communism . I fear it will be a LONG time before your 'average' American can be convinced that this is NOT the case .

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 09:59 PM

I'm not sure there IS an 'average' American, but they had ALL better get over the idea that calling something "socialism" is: 1)true, and 2)relevant. If it is fair & beneficial, labels are foolish.