BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children

Subject: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 06:40 AM

According to BBC TV NEWS, there are currently 45 million US citizens deprived of health care, of which 9 million are children.

Also according to the same source, a move to bring 4 million plus of those children into access to proper care will be vetoed by Gauleiter Bush, on the grounds that it goes against the governments principle that everyone should look after himself.

Is this true?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Alba
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 07:08 AM

It is true Don! Unbelievable as it sounds but there you have it.
Seems that GW will give his opinion about this in his Radio address today.
Following the Prez will come the Democractic Radio address which will be delivered, not by a Politician this time, but by a 12 yeard old boy.
The young Boy's speech will have my attention.
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John O'L
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 07:18 AM

From The L.A. Times:

In a statement released after the House voted, Bush reiterated his intention to veto the bill, calling it "part of the Democrats' incremental plan toward government-run healthcare for all Americans."

Brings Stalin to mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: jacqui.c
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 07:50 AM

He reckoned that this bill would allow free health care for middle class children. I would love to wipe that smirk off his face.

I love this country but despair at the thought that a leading world power can allow large numbers of its citizens to either go without, or to put themselves in bankruptcy in the event of a major illness.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 08:02 AM

No it's not true.

There are millions who do not have health insurance. Nobody is deprived of health care.

We are moving toward universal health care. We have a few rough patches to figure our way through. One of them is that our notion of medical care -- as with the rest of our economy -- followed a different track than did Europe's. We followed a track that was more market-based.

That meant that our doctors, nurses, health-care providers offered their trained services with the notion that, not only was it a field in which they were interested, but, after the often grueling and expensive road it took to get to their positions, they would be well compensated.

It is very hard for a democratic government to suddenly confiscate a portion of the private sector without making some sort of compensation for the very workers that they intend to then indenture.

Besides, following the model we have for so long, the USA has led the world in medical care, research, development, to such an extent that our Universities are -- in very large percentage -- populated by foreign students wishing to avail themselves of our "health care system" that is thought -- only by us -- to be such a failure.

Much of the inflated and difficult-to-afford health care problem stems from our being stuck somewhere in the middle between socialized medicine and market-driven medicine. The beaurocratic tinkering and the political wrangling that empowers many with promises to give one sector the labor of another is making it very difficult to rationally and objectively look at the facts and decide the best course for our future.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 08:21 AM

Is that Bush using his left or right hand?

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: GRex
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 08:26 AM

John Hardly

    Can we assume that your income is derived from private health care?

Thank God that I live in the UK.

         GRex

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 08:30 AM

I find it incrduluous that Bush, after signing one pork bill after another that benefited mostly Repubs in Congress would chooze to make his stand on fiscal responsibility with this program???

(But, Bobert... It ain't about fiscal responsibility... It's about the "s" word...)

Sh*t??? What's that got to do with it???

(No, Bobert.... The big "s" word... You know, ahhhh....SOCIALISM...)

Geeze, I never thought of it that way... Reckon it's better to have sick kids then lettin' them socialistic commies get a toe hold right here in the greatest country in the world... Spit...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 08:52 AM

Some things are obviously much more important than making sure poor people - have proper medical treatment.

Only in America, among rich nations. For American I suppose that's something to be ashamed of. But for the rest of us it's something to be thankful for - I don't mean thankful that the USA is like that, but that no one else is.

"...our Universities are -- in very large percentage -- populated by foreign students wishing to avail themselves of our "health care system" that is thought -- only by us -- to be such a failure"
No one would deny that America has some wonderful health provision - if you can afford it. That's true of quite a lot of countries in the Third World as well. Maybe we need a new category - "the medical Third World" with the USA at the head of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 08:53 AM

To be fair to Bushy (hard though that is for me), the bill he is threatening to veto basically increases the number of children covered from 6 million to 10.5 million. He wants a bill that simply extends the current program.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 09:19 AM

"That meant that our doctors, nurses, health-care providers offered their trained services with the notion that, not only was it a field in which they were interested, but, after the often grueling and expensive road it took to get to their positions, they would be well compensated."

So, it's about making sure that Doctors can continue to afford Mercedes and Country Club memberships? How dare the little kids try to take that away.

In the words of Dr. Evil "boo-frickety-hoo". A whole lot of people are in fields that they are interested in, and went through grueling and expensive training, and don't make a fraction of what doctors do.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Alice
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 09:49 AM

Not having health insurance does keep a person from having health care.
I have experienced that myself, with my son and my friends.
Not every part of the country has health care for non-insured people.
And, if you wind up in the emergency room without health insurance here,
you are charged a higher rate than someone with insurance, and you must
prove that you will pay the bill before you receive care.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 10:32 AM

kids aren't turned away. In fact, it is illegal to turn people away from emergency rooms. That's part of one of the biggest problems we have with our "health care system" -- it is hardest hit in parts of the country with the biggest illegal immigration problems -- like California -- where the inability to turn away illegals is breaking the system. Nobody is turned away. Those who pay for their insurance have to make up the difference for those who either cannot afford, or choose not to have health insurance.

It's not about Mercedes and country club memberships. My brother is a periodontist. By the time he finished school in his early forties, he had ammassed over $100,000 in school debt. He drives used cars and has never belonged to a country club. He worked hard, put himself through school without government help, and graduated number one in his class.   The year he took his national board exam for dentistry, he got the highest score in the country (he shared that honor with a woman in CA. Yes, I'm proud of him). That's not at all uncommon. He chooses to do all of the medicade work that comes into his clinic pro bono because it costs him more to recover costs from the government beauocracy than it does to just take the loss.   But he doesn't turn anyone away. He wouldn't if he could, but he can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Alice
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 11:11 AM

I'm not in California, I'm in Montana.
There is one hospital in this town. The residents of
this country who do not live in or near a large city do
not have recourse to a facility that will accept them
if they cannot pay. The closest large city to us is
2 states away, Denver or Seattle, and if you don't have
money for a doctor, you don't have money to travel, either.
John, you are living in a different world than
many people, so you can't relate to the situations we find
ourselves in.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: SINSULL
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 11:19 AM

John Hardly,
Do you really think that access to an Emergency Room is suitable "health care" for anyone let alone children? It means that every simple cut or cold goes unattended until the child has a serious problem. It means that Mom and baby or child sit literally for HOURS amid contagious people waiting to be seen while burns and broken limbs and heart attacks are (appropriately) seen first.
These same Moms work and so they are reluctant to go to the hospital ER unless it is critical.
When my son has a bad cold, I took him to the doctor. When he had a strange rash, I took him to the doctor. The cold was asthma. The rash was due to anemia. Both could have caused him serious health problems had they not been treated immediately. I had health insurance.
I think the republicans are right - Medicare was the first step. Child health care will follow and eventually health care for all. It works in other countries. The rich will still have access to private health care and doctors driving Mercedes will still afford them.

For those supporting nationalized health care, keep in mind that things will change very quickly. Non-emergency and elective surgeries will not be immediately available. Now if my doctor finds a suspicious lump, I see a specialist the same day or within 24 hours. That simply won't happen. You will wait for surgeries that you think are critical but the doctors know better. As with everything else, there will be a downside.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 11:24 AM

Alice,

It nearly breaks my back to pay for my own health insurance. It always has. I've been self-employed for thirty years.

The difference is that I don't expect that it is my right to indenture the people who work in health care just because I want their services and cannot pay for them. If I expect to change our country's implied contract with the millions of health care workers who took it upon themselves to labor and risk to put themselves in a field of their choice, then I expect that their compensation should somehow figure into the new "contract".

And the old cliche of the country club lounging, mercedes driving doctor is outmoaded and inaccurate. The majority (when I last saw the statistics) of med students (other than foreign students) are women from the middle class who worked hard to achieve in high school.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: pdq
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 11:27 AM

"The rich will still have access to private health care..."

That is an assumption you should not make. When the US goes to a national socialized medical system, private practice will be outlawed. The plan designers are not interested in talking the doctors into joining the new system. Like Hillary, they want the power to tell you what to do or face consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Alice
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 11:29 AM

I don't have a problem with health care workers getting fair compensation. I never said they should not be paid fairly. I have been self employed without the ability to afford health insurance and employed by companies that could not afford to provide health insurance.
Not everyone's experience is the same as yours. My values are that life and death situations are more important than profit.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 11:36 AM

"John Hardly,
Do you really think that access to an Emergency Room is suitable "health care" for anyone let alone children?"

No. But that's not the question I was answering, is it?

The unqualified statement was "45 million US citizens deprived of health care, of which 9 million are children". They are not deprived of health care. They cannot be turned away. We are not the cruel bastards that Don (wysiwyg)T implies in his initial post. We are not depriving anyone of health care. What we have is millions of people without health insurance, not without health care..


"The rich will still have access to private health care and doctors driving Mercedes will still afford them."

But as you know, the sticking point to our adopting universal health care is that those same "wealthy" -- that is, anyone making more than $75,000 per annum -- will have to pay for universal health care for EVERYONE first...and THEN, if they can still afford it on top of that paying for health insurance, they can then pay for private health care. It's the only way that universal health insurance can be paid for.

Do the doctors you know drive Mercedes? The ones I know do not. My brother drives a 2004 Dodge Caravan. My doctor drives a honda. In fact, I don't know a doctor who drives a Mercedes.

"For those supporting nationalized health care, keep in mind that things will change very quickly. Non-emergency and elective surgeries will not be immediately available. Now if my doctor finds a suspicious lump, I see a specialist the same day or within 24 hours. That simply won't happen. You will wait for surgeries that you think are critical but the doctors know better. As with everything else, there will be a downside. "

Yup. On top of that -- competition and market forces being what they are -- those dependent upon the new universal health care will not get be best doctors. The best doctors will be going to the private practices where they can be be paid for their labor, knowledge and risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Alice
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 11:39 AM

A doctor, even if not the best doctor is better than NO doctor, which has been our family's experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 11:41 AM

"My values are that life and death situations are more important than profit."

Everybody works for a "profit". "Profit" is nothing more than compensation for labor or risk. You say you value life more than profit. So, probably, does the average doctor. You are implying by that use of the word "profit" that you think that a doctor makes too much "profit". But what other field requires so much education, so much labor, and so much risk in order to profit?

I profit from my clay work. You profit from your artwork. There is nothing wrong with profit.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Alice
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 11:44 AM

John, we support firefighters, police and public schools without them being for profit. I did not imply a doctor makes too much profit.

YOU DEFINITELY HAVE A CHIP ON YOUR SHOULDER ABOUT THIS SUBJECT.

There are systems that are non-profit that can well compensate professionals for their work, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 11:52 AM

Alice,

Not everyone who does not agree with a liberal has a chip on his shoulder. Sometimes (and I know this is a stretch for a liberal to understand, much less believe) people just disagree. And sometimes those disagreements are for very good reasons.

"There are systems that are non-profit that can well compensate professionals for their work, too. "

This sentence is an oxymoronic sentence. Compensation IS profit.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Alice
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 11:56 AM

Compensate...to pay.
Firefighters get paid, compensated for their work.

John, I'm going to ignore the Liberal name calling. Not worth my time.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 12:42 PM

Nobody is deprived of health care.

The high cost of health care DOES cause deprivation for some:

No one seems angrier than the patients who have been denied care. Vicki Readling of North Carolina was diagnosed with breast cancer after she had quit her job and lost her employer's insurance. Readling purchased temporary insurance for herself, but when it expired she was told that because of her pre-existing condition — cancer — she would now have to pay $27,000 a year for a new policy. With an income of $60,000 and twin sons in college, she couldn't afford it.

There are plenty more stories where that came from. My own personal: I went without health insurance for several years because it was more than our rent payment and we could not afford it. I did not go to a doctor except under dire circumstances because it would have led to even more expenses we could not afford (probably the heart surgery I needed.) ER's may have to take anyone, but hospitals do NOT have to provide heart caths, MRIs etc. to any poor person who walks in off the street, nor do specialist doctors have to accept a person who cannot afford to pay them. THAT is Denial of Healthcare. I do NOT mean every doc should open their doors and go broke. I DO mean this country has to find a way to revolutionise health care NOW>

That meant that our doctors, nurses, health-care providers offered their trained services with the notion that, not only was it a field in which they were interested, but, after the often grueling and expensive road it took to get to their positions, they would be well compensated.

It is very hard for a democratic government to suddenly confiscate a portion of the private sector without making some sort of compensation for the very workers that they intend to then indenture.

Besides, following the model we have for so long, the USA has led the world in medical care, research, development, to such an extent that our Universities are -- in very large percentage -- populated by foreign students wishing to avail themselves of our "health care system" that is thought -- only by us -- to be such a failure.

Hmmm, let's see are teachers "well-compensated?" Esp. the teachers who are in our Universities teaching all those nasty furriners? Or, the ones who start our children out on the road of learning? Should they expect to be well-compensated like, oh, I don't know, say doctors?

our "health care system" that is thought -- only by us -- to be such a failure.

Did you not read the first posting? WE are not the only ones who think our system is such a failure. Most of the world agrees!

Your arguments are full of holes, John.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 12:59 PM

Doctors in the UK with our National Health Service do very well indeed financially.

And if you want to pay for private medicine, directly or through some insurance scheme, it's there. It can be handy for getting tests done in a hurry - but when it comes to actual treatment, most sensible people stick with the NHS. Not just because it's less expensive but because its more trusted, and rightly so.

And the NHS model isn't the only one - there are other ways of running things in countries across Europe and elsewhere. What they have in common is that they all aim to provide a medical care system in which no one gets left out because they can't afford it. Not just "an Emergency Room", proper preventative medicine and proper treatment.

America is so far a I know unique among wealthy countries in having a system that excludes millions of its citizens. (And yet has a medical system that is very much more expensive overall.)

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 01:06 PM

"Doctors in the UK with our National Health Service do very well indeed financially"

That may well be, but it ignores that they did not start out in one system and end up in another. US doctors have TONS of upfront costs to get into medicine. When the government confiscates the industry, those doctors may well be left hung out to dry.

Alice,

"Liberal" is not name calling. If you can't discuss, then don't, but don't make this about me. If you disagree with me, argue with me. But don't say I have a chip on my shoulder (when that would be quite beside the point -- even if I DID have one) or claim that I am calling you "names". Liberal is a relatively accurate term when we are arguing these issues that, against better solutions, have become political. Call me a "conservative". I've never thought that was "name calling".

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Emma B
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 01:30 PM

In fact John when the NHS was founded here after WW2 the doctors were in exactly the position you have described above.

Despite many early misgivings, its founding principle — all citizens should enjoy good medical and health care free at the time of need and irrespective of their ability to pay — caught the public imagination and the professional idealism of many doctors.

John I think everyone knows that perfectly legitimate terms can, and are, frequently used perjoratively. I think it's easy to recocognize when this is the case too.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 02:03 PM

"I think it's easy to recocognize when this is the case too"

Quite obviously not, since "liberal" was taken as such when it was not meant as such.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 02:07 PM

It's a common thing, in recent times, for "liberal" to be a "dirty" name when used by conservatives; kind of like calling you a right-wing nut. Argue it all you want, it is still used in a derogatory fashion on a daily basis in our society.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 02:13 PM

You think "liberal" equates to "right wing nut" and not to "conservative"?

Holy shit. How could I EVER be perceived as polite with a bar set so high?

What is there in my use of the word (above) that would make you take it perjoratively? ...how could my use of it POSSIBLY be construed as the equivalent of "right wing nut"?

...and why are there four damn cheerleaders for the one who referred to ME as "Having a chip on (my) shoulder" -- the only true perjorative slung in the entire goddamn thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 02:30 PM

"Hmmm, let's see are teachers "well-compensated?" Esp. the teachers who are in our Universities teaching all those nasty furriners? Or, the ones who start our children out on the road of learning? Should they expect to be well-compensated like, oh, I don't know, say doctors?"

And, just for the record...as long as the perjoratives are being slung around here toward me. There is nothing about my posting that implied ANYTHING negative about foreign students in our universities. Nothing.

I did not say "furriners". I did not imply "furriners". I didn't imply anything negative about there bieng foreigners in our universities. I merely observed the obvious -- if our "health care system" is SO BAD, then why are we the high-water mark in the world for medical education? That was it. No "furriners". No negative.

Your implication was derogatory toward me. Directly. Not implied.

Have a different opinion. Argue facts. I expect to lose more than my share of arguements here.

But don't tell me I have a chip on my shoulder and dislike "furriners" in our universities (or at the very least, that I am so backwards that I don't know how to say or spell "foreigners". Yes, I only have a BS in art. And I make more than my share of typos. But I don't have an accent and I'm not afraid nor resentful, nor anything else negative about foreign students in our universities). And don't tell me how I must mean the word "liberal" and then tell me that I am the negative one in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 02:34 PM

And, yes, university professors in medicine programs are well compensated. Ask them. They chose to stay in the very competitive academic medicine because it is rewarding in many ways AND it is less risky than practice. Many do both.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 05:33 PM

I have to pick up (probably thread creep) on the comment about 'teacher compensation'....my oldest daughter, nearly 26 with a BA in early education and KNOWN for being fabulous with children just managed to get a position in the school system as an Ed TEch 3 == she grabbed it because a) it gets her in the system and b)gives her medical insurance which I have been providing for her in her 'role' as assistant to me.......and for this she is being paid the princely sum of $13600 per year. WE hope with all our hearts that she will get a teaching position in 08 -- her salary will double to a stunning $27000 -- I make so much more than that selling houses which is so much less important........

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Alice
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 06:34 PM

Here is a link to the 12 year old's radio address mentioned at the start of this thread.


http://audio.cbsnews.com/2007/09/29/audio3311482.mp3

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 06:37 PM

RANT ALERT!!

You're house is on fire and you call the fire department. Before they will come to put out the fire, they have to check to make sure you have fire insurance on your house, and that you are covered.

Someone is trying to break into your house, so you call the police. There again, if you don't have the proper insurance coverage, you're on your own.

Would we tolerate this kind of system? Certainly not!

So why do we tolerated the same thing in our health care system?

####

I've had plenty of experience with the American health care system, and with American health insurance companies. A couple of examples:

In February of 2000, I fell in the bathroom and broke my left leg. Femur. This, on top of having had polio when I was a toddler. I wound up in the hospital for about three weeks, and came out with a titanium rod in my left femur. The surgeon undoubtedly earned his dime with a tidy bit of surgery and by the usual medical standards. The charge was several thousand dollars, a nice piece of change for an hour's work in the operating room. By the way, he's long out of medical school and any student loans have long since been paid off.

Fortunately, I am covered by my wife's health insurance (she works for the Seattle Public Library and has benefits as a city employee). But we do have to pay a substantial part of the premiums ourselves.

What gravels me is the other doctor, the rehabilitation physician who, I was told, was overseeing the physical therapy during my three week stay in the hospital.

There were a couple of different young physical therapists who were putting me through various exercises, along with a couple of really crackerjack nurses and orderlies. The hospital staff I saw every day was super!

But the doctor! Presumably, she was supervising what the physical therapists were doing, but I've had enough physical therapy in my life to know that what they were doing with me was standard procedure, and they needed no doctor's supervision to know what to do. During the three weeks, I saw them every day. During that same time, I saw the doctor five times, for about five minutes each time. She never touched me or examined me. Frankly, I don't know what she was doing in my room other than that she felt like insulting someone and I was handy. Once she dropped in when my sister, Pat, was visiting me. Pat is a graduate nurse. Pat tried to ask the doctor a couple of relevant questions about my treatment, and the doctor flew into a rage at being questioned, and stalked out of the room.

The doctor did nothing on any of those visits that could have been of benefit to me.

Yet, she charged my health insurance company $110 for each visit. What did she do to earn that $550? Not a damned thing that I could see! And that, by the way, was in addition to her basic case fee.

My bill for three weeks in the hospital was $24,000. The doctors' fees were in addition to that.

####

Along with my manual wheelchair, I have a power wheelchair. It can move at a good, swift jogging pace, it has a 25-mile range on a full charge, and with it, I can go a lot of places that I couldn't otherwise, including riding the city busses (which are equipped with wheelchair lifts). A couple of months ago, the batteries had to be replaced. It takes two 12-volt deep-cycle batteries. The charge to have Care Medical (where I bought the chair) replace the batteries was $500 ($220 per battery, plus $60 for installation).

I asked the technician who was installing the batteries "Why so much?" "Well," said the tech, "the batteries are classed as medical equipment, and they figure some insurance company is going to pay for them anyway."

I checked the labels on the batteries and called my nephew, who works for an auto supply store that, among other things, sells batteries. He said, "Those are standard marine batteries, like for a power boat. You can get them at any battery store. They should cost about 50 bucks apiece, max! Next time your chair needs batteries, fer gawdsake, call me!"

Something is bloody rotten, not in the State of Denmark (I think the Danes have this all worked out), but most certainly in the American health care system!

It's a freakin' disgrace!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 06:41 PM

The fire department and Police department are not paid by homeowner's insurance.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 06:42 PM

"Do the doctors you know drive Mercedes?"

I have seven doctors in my immediate family. Two drive Mercedes. Five belong to country clubs. All have vacation condos in the Carribean. All go on ski trips every winter. All make many times the US average salary. Yes, all work very hard. And so do a lot of people who have none of the perks listed above.

John Hardly, I admire your brother. I do not believe he is typical.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 06:44 PM

So you're saying that medical care shouldn't be paid by insurance either. I get it. It certainly would cut down on cost.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Alice
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 06:49 PM

John, that was the point I was trying to make up-thread.
Our fire and police protection is something we all agree
is important to public safety. We pay for it collectively to
protect everyone equally. We can do the same with health care,
and doctors could be well paid, just as other countries do.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 06:51 PM

It might be an interesting exchange -- government bureaucracy for insurance profitability. I do think that insurance companies have fueled the problem far more than they've helped.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 06:52 PM

There is more money and less paperwork in private practice than in public practice. However, not all doctors are in it only for a buck.

Medicare has worked in Canada for decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 06:55 PM

Speaking of the fire department, did you know that if you are NOT in a district that pays fees into the system that the fire department will NOT respond to a fire call? At least it is so in Alaska. I couldn't believe it, when it happened in Juneau.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 07:00 PM

The answer for that is Mutual Aid Agreements.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 07:14 PM

One of the problems in that scenario, Ebbie, is that likely the fire personnel would like to respond, but if they are acting 'outside policy', their life insurance and medical coverage is void, and any liability issues would fall directly on the firefighters themselves. The correct place for pressure to fix that situation is on the districts that are being chintzy with their payments.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 07:22 PM

Well, I worked for over 20 years for a government health care system, paid for by taxes, which serves a patient population which is older than average and generally in poor health. All staff, including physicians, are on salary and receive pay commensurate with their qualifications and experience; many of the physician staff are also on the faculties of medical schools and most of the medical care facilities actively participate in the training of health care professionals at all levels. The system and the facilities within it consistently receive evaluation scores well above the US average from the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, and cost per patient treated is well below the US average.

I am, of course, speaking of the Department of Veterans Affairs...once called (before 1989) the Veterans Administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 07:42 PM

Ahhh, unless I missed soething here, this bill is about funding a program for kids from families that are either below the povert level or under 200% of the poverty level...

(Geeze, Bobert, ain't 200% above the povert level like being rich???)

No, it doesn't mean that at all... 200% over the povert level for a family of 4 is about $40K a year... Now $40K may sound like a lot of money but for a family of 4 is ain't enough for ends to meet in most faililies.... And this isn't about careless spending... It just the realities of the cost of living... The poverty levels are way low and for a good reason... The politicans don't want us to really have any idea how many families are truely struggling...

But, none the less, this thread isn't about socializing health care... It's about keeping kids heathy...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 07:45 PM

"The fire department and Police department are not paid by homeowner's insurance."

Johm, that is exactly my point. One calls the fire or police department in case of an emergency. Often, the need for health care is the same kind of emergency.

Figure it out.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Alice
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 07:48 PM

Don, he did. See John's post a couple messages later.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Bee
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 07:54 PM

Hmmm... GPs here (Nova Scotia) apparently gross an average of $150,000 per year, specialists $250,000 and up. Teachers here start around $30,000 and quickly rise to 60 or $70,000.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 07:55 PM

Incidentally, a single aerial ladder truck (ladder extension of about 70') equipped, costs about $900,000. This one, which makes my mouth water would cost well over a million dollars.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 08:19 PM

I suppose it would be possible to devise a system in which all doctors had their premsies and their equipment and eveything expropriated and they had to work for a pittance. But that certainly isn't how universal free-at-the-point-of-use health provision has been organised in virtually every wealthy country other than the USA.

If it's really those kinds of worries which are stopping America join the rest of the world in providing universal medical care, someone has been fooling you for certain.

You're house is on fire and you call the fire department. Before they will come to put out the fire, they have to check to make sure you have fire insurance on your house, and that you are covered.

They actually used to do it that way in Engkland, and I believe in America as well. They gave it up eventually, largely because they realised that fire doesn't respect house boundaries, or make distinctions between who is insured and who isn't. And the same goes for disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 08:29 PM

There is nothing inherently wrong with socialism, IMO.
Let's just get people health care!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 09:09 AM

"The unqualified statement was "45 million US citizens deprived of health care, of which 9 million are children". They are not deprived of health care. They cannot be turned away. We are not the cruel bastards that Don (wysiwyg)T implies in his initial post. We are not depriving anyone of health care. What we have is millions of people without health insurance, not without health care.."

Somewhat disingenuous, don't you think, John?

The fact that nobody can be turned away from ERs, constitutes only access to emergency care.

Tell me, where can someone without funds or medical insurance go when he needs, for example, a hip replacement, or any one of a hundred other treatments that are not emergencies?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Peace
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 12:51 PM

Some Canadian news:

"The Liberals have made another campaign promise to boost Ontario's health care by giving men over the age of 50 free prostate cancer exams."

I post that little snippet with NO COMMENT. ABSOLUTELY NO COMMENT. NONE. WHATSOEVER. AT ALL. FINALE. THAT'S IT. THE END.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Peace
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 12:52 PM

PERIOD!

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: pdq
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 01:13 PM

It would be nice to have a lucid discussion about socialized medicine v. private health care but this thread has such an asinine title that such discourse is compromised from the start.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 01:28 PM

Y'know, I'm all for reform. And I think that insurance is a big part of the problem. AND...I'm one of the guys who could greatly benefit if I could make everyone else pay for my health insurance. It's back-breaking to pay for what is essentially catastophic insurance.

But the more I think about it, the "fire insurance" analogy breaks down. For one, we have fire departments that are not paid for by fire insurance, Right? That's what was said upthread to make the point -- why should doctors be paid my health insurance (as system that seems not to be working) when firefighters are paid by taxes?

But we have fire departments. And they aren't paid for my fire insurance. Right?

But we still have fire insurance. Have to, even.

Why?

Because the biggest, most meaningful share of cost in the incident of fire is the damage done. The firefighter puts out fires. He doesn't come back the next day and rebuild your house or your business building.

And we'd never consider changing that arrangement. Why? ...because on top of a whole boatload of possibilities and probabilities sits the inequity of payout. That is: why should I, on my poverty-level income, be forced to pay for Bill Gate's house, should it catch fire?

When we think of health care, we demand our right to it -- no matter what it costs anyone because it holds the possibility of life-threatening consequences should we not be given it as a human right. (never mind the side discussion of whether we have a right to the doctor's time and labor).

But most healthcare expenditures are NOT life-threatening. And who gets to be the arbitor over what the public is obligated to pay for? Botox injections? Breast implants? Penil implants?

And do you think that the cost of a hip implant is arbitrarily high? Do you think it is not expensive? What does society owe you? How expensive does a non-life saving medical procedure have to be before you finally say...."hmmm. maybe I'm taxing my neighbor just a little more than is fair"?

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Peace
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 01:43 PM

"The cost of a total hip implant varies, depending on the type of implant used. Typically, a total hip procedure includes four major implant components and the total implant price ranges from $4000 to $6000 (USD). "

Costs are similar in Canada.

After about one decade of severe hip pain, I went to a doctor, was X-rayed and diagnosed with osteo problems in the left hip, and also with the concommitant cysts that accompany the condition in the hip. I was slotted for surgery a year or so down the road and had the hip replaced. I could not have afforded it without socialized medicine. The replacement was not cosmetic. It was necessarey to alleviate the pain I'd endured and make life somewhat worth living.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 01:46 PM

And following on Don(Wyziwyg)T's post just above:

Regular physical examinations are essential to maintaining health at any age. And a physical exam is not considered "emergency care."

A child develops a cough that won't go away. Not an emergency. Just a cough. It really ought to be checked, but a visit to the doctor is more than the youngster's family can afford and still pay next month's rent. Or what about a woman getting regular mammograms? What if she can't afford them? Or a low-income older man (but not old enough for Medicare) who has developed an intestinal problem that won't go away—not life-threatening as far as he can tell, but there's always the chance it could be colon cancer, which, if detected in time. . . .   But he has no health insurance.

One can list a whole litany of symptoms that should send one to a doctor to have them checked. Any little anomaly can turn out to be something serious, which, if caught early enough, can be easily taken care of, but if neglected—because one can't afford to go a doctor unless it is an obvious emergency—can turn out to be fatal if not treated in time.

Considering how well it works in other countries, just what—exactly—is wrong with a government funded single-payer health care system for the entire population? Tell me! What?

"But that's Socialized Medicine!!"

Yes. So—?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 02:08 PM

I'm sure you aren't a mean-spirited person, John (in fact from seeing your posts around the Cat I know you aren't). But that bit there:

And do you think that the cost of a hip implant is arbitrarily high? Do you think it is not expensive? What does society owe you? How expensive does a non-life saving medical procedure have to be before you finally say...."hmmm. maybe I'm taxing my neighbor just a little more than is fair"?

That would come far more appropriately from someone who was mean-spirited.

(Matthew 25:31–46)

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 02:09 PM

Disingenuous, John.

The reason people have fire insurance is not to prevent fires, but to pay for the damage if a fire takes place. It is not to pay the fire department, which is paid for by taxes. Because the fire department is paid for with taxes, they come and put out the fire whether you have insurance or not.

But if you don't have health insurance, many doctors will not threat you. In fact, there is a substantial number of doctors who won't see people who are on Medicare because they don't feel that Medicare pays enough!

To be denied necessary health service because you don't have either insurance or enough personal wealth to cover it. . . .      Well, I think a strong case could be made that if the person dies as a result medical neglect, through no fault of is own, except not being rich enough, then there is a very powerful moral and social issue here.

Considering some of the discussions (arguments) we've had on another subject, especially from the position you have taken in them, I'm surprised that you don't see this immediately.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Peace
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 02:16 PM

I don't think that what John meant to imply. Medicare--name it how you will--simply means that every working person pays into it. But the level of care is the same for everyone regardless of circumstance. It means things like maybe being in a room with three other people. Maybe being awakened by your 'neighbour' going to take a pee at 2:30 AM. It means maybe having to help a bit when ya can. It is socialized medicine. Do some folks take advantage? Yes. We do have doctors who treat some folks for their hypochondria. But they dispense placebos and the people go away happy after paying for sugar pills at the pharmacy. Hey, those doctors are treating a mental condition.

Medicare is a no-lose situation. If you don't need it at all, count your blessings. If you do, there it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 02:21 PM

"The reason people have fire insurance is not to prevent fires, but to pay for the damage if a fire takes place. It is not to pay the fire department, which is paid for by taxes. Because the fire department is paid for with taxes, they come and put out the fire whether you have insurance or not."

Exactly. And our emergency rooms will "put out a fire". The taxes required for putting out fires are not in any way indicative of the kind of taxation that will be required to "rebuild the houses"/give everyone any kind of medical procedure that they wish as well as what they need.

"But if you don't have health insurance, many doctors will not threat you. In fact, there is a substantial number of doctors who won't see people who are on Medicare because they don't feel that Medicare pays enough!"

Well, I'll repeat myself because you apparently stop reading my posts as soon as you can think of an arguement to make against a particular point LOL! My brother does all his medicare/medicade practice pro bono because medicare/medicade does not pay enough to recover even the bookwork required to process and recover it. Doctors are not all sons of bitches who don't give a damn. Again, my brother treats them even though he knows he will not be paid. (for his financial safety, I will not be giving his address! LOL!).

"Considering some of the discussions (arguments) we've had on another subject, especially from the position you have taken in them, I'm surprised that you don't see this immediately."

This is the false dicholomy so usefully employed by Jim Wallis -- that if you don't accept that government is the best means of providing a Christian solution, then you are not appropriately Christian. I reject that. It is, again, a false dichotomy.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 02:46 PM

I do read your posts all the way through, John.

Bravo for your brother. There should be more doctors like him. But unfortunately, as I said, there are a substantial number of doctors who refuse Medicare patients because they feel that Medicar doesn't pay them enough.

No false dichotomy at all. And let's leave Jim Wallis out of it. I was refering to what Someone Else said. But McGrath was far less subtle than I was trying to be, and apparently he was right in pointing it out explicitly.

Take out your Bible and read the verses he refers to.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 02:52 PM

I am pretty sure that a properly organised universal health system, along the lines of the various models that have been established in other countries, would be a better set-up for your brother, John. I don't know where the idea has come from that doctors are worse-off financially in such systems.

Obviously no one is saying "Doctors are not all sons of bitches who don't give a damn." Some of them probably are, just as is the case in any walk of life, but even if none of them were, there are people who are going to be too proud or simple to ask for that kind of help - especially at early stages of a medical problem, which is the best time to treat all kind sof conditions.

There's never going to be any shortage of occasions for professionals to go the extra mile. But sitting back and relying on them to fill major gaps in the system, rather than all pitching in together to provide an across the board service is taking that goodwill and humanity for granted. "Only in America" isn't supposed to mean that kind of thing..

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 03:03 PM

"But unfortunately, as I said, there are a substantial number of doctors who refuse Medicare patients because they feel that Medicar doesn't pay them enough."

And yet, you dismiss this? Are they all (like my brother) lying? And why (provided you could sufficiently suspend your disbelief LOL!) if my brother is not lying, would doctors not, then, be afraid of a whole system that guarantees that every procedure will be underfunded?

And when the government effectively confiscates my brother's practice -- a practice that, in addition to other huge sacrifices and expenses, he went through a stretch of five years working three practices -- one: his own, two: as itinerate periodontist for a region from Athens to Akron, OH, and three: at a practice in Columbus, OH -- usually putting in 16+hour days, six days a week...

...will they even consider the equivalent compensation that they might, say, and eminent domain takeover? I doubt it.

I'm telling you, it's just not that simple. It sounds wonderful to play on the class envy of everyone's visceral hatred for doctors, but I can tell you, it's just not that simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 03:06 PM

Facts:

The World Health Organization ranks the U.S. health care system 37th in the world for quality and 55th for fairness.

The United States is the only industrialized country that does not have universal health care.

Not doing very well for that "Shining City on the Hill," are we?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 03:14 PM

John, I am not calling your brother a liar, and no, there is not some kind of "class hatred" for doctors. Get REAL!

You're deliberately misrepresenting what I have posted, which is not the first time you've done that.

I've said all I have to say on this thread (not that I won't be back). Let others read and make up their own minds.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 03:17 PM

Who hates doctors? The main reason for wanting a proper health service might be for the sake of the patients, but making things better for the medical workers is another pretty strong reason.

You find very few doctors in European countries who would want to go over to the American way of medicine. And that wouldn't just be because they care about their patients, it'd also be because they care about themselves.

If there's any hate around in this thread it seems to be directed, rightly or wrongly, at some of the people running your Insurance Companies.

Where do these fantasies about how doctors must lose out in a proper health service come from? Or, if it's a matter of your reforms actually being designed in a such as way that they would lose out, I'd suspect that has to mean they have been designed precisely in order to look bad - because that just ain't how it works out in other systems.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 03:22 PM

John you have not done your homework on the historic "Fire insurance" system that there used to be in the UK.

But back on the primary argument.

We take the position that necessary health care ought not to be witheld because the recipient is poor. We call it the "welfare state". Many of us throughout the world think of it as a hallmark of a civilised society.

Others of us also think it scandalous that a person exercising such critical judgement a a doctor or dentist should be permitted to work a 16-hour day 6 days a week. It is detrimental to public safety.

If a few rich people are made less rich as a result, that is a small price to pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 03:53 PM

Jim McDermott is the Representative from the Seventh Congressional District in Washington State. The Seventh District includes Seattle, where I live. In the last election, he received 85% of the vote. So the voters in this district apparently think he's doing something right.

And Jim McDermott was a doctor before he entered politics. And still is.

Here is what Rep. McDermott says:    CLICKY.

I was proud to vote for the man. And I will vote for him again if he chooses to run again.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 04:09 PM

Well, the way he puts it, it looks pretty hard to argue against:

Reform will not change how health care is delivered, only how it's paid for.

Health care providers will continue to do business as they already do, competing with one another, striving to be the best.

Under my plan people can choose their doctor and hospital, an incentive for innovation and a reward for excellence.

For health care providers, national health insurance means a guaranteed revenue stream.

For Americans, national health insurance means coverage for everyone.

But I don't suppose that will stop the arguments against...

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Peace
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 04:12 PM

Truth is, McG of H, there are no good arguments against. It's the how that sparks controversy.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 04:15 PM

Perhaps there should be some arguments about the method of delivery.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 04:29 PM

"For health care providers, national health insurance means a guaranteed revenue stream."

Not if, as with medicare/medicade that stream is below the cost of doing business. This keeps being ignored as though you either don't believe it's true or it doesn't matter to you because it isn't your business that is being confiscated without compensation.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Peace
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 04:36 PM

To the contrary, John. Even doctors in Canada's system are not disallowed private practice. It's just that the things that get treated require to meet certain descriptors. Example: A little kid with facial deformity from fire or scarring. That child will be covered under our universal plan. How quickly the child can be scheduled for corrective surgery is another thing--might take a while, but it'll happen. Someone wants a bigger penis or bigger breasts to asuage their vanity, that kind of surgery would not be funded by universal medicare. HOWever, if a woman with extremely large breasts were to get a recommendation ofr reduction in size to maybe help with physical or psychological issues, that would likely be approved and the work done under universal medicare. Just takes some gettin' used to. Most doctors eventually open their own offices.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: kendall
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 04:45 PM

From what I've observed in the medical profession, the main reason some Doctors don't take Medicare patients is the friggin' paper work that they get saddled with.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 04:49 PM

"Just takes some gettin' used to. Most doctors eventually open their own offices."

Yup. And we have got millions of doctors already WITH their own offices who will lose those offices in many cases because the cost of doing business in them is fixed, but suddenly the schedule by which they are being paid is too low to support their business.

And there's nothing wrong with the way they've done business in the past. Their cost of doing business in not high by virtue of their careless, reckless, or opulent way of doing business. But it is fixed. So they, like my brother, will lose their business without compensation. Suddenly a business, the equity of which he had counted on as part of his ability to retire, is not worthless.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 04:52 PM

"Doctors don't take Medicare patients is the friggin' paper work that they get saddled with. "

And that would suddenly apply to every patient they have. It isn't laziness that makes them make that decision. Paper work is time. Lots of time. It is already a full time job. It would require even more. And less time for medical practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 04:54 PM

"now worthless", not "not worthless". One little letter, completely different meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: pdq
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 04:57 PM

If Don Firth wants me to pay for his health care, I must respectfully decline.

However, if he is offering to pay for my medical bills, I'm all ears.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 04:59 PM

This thread has been very educational for me, and I've enjoyed the discussion. But it's been brought to my attention that the title is quite inflamatory -- very troll-like -- and I probably shouldn't be adding to it. I have to admit that the person who brought that to my attention is right. I'll be happy to discuss it elsewhere, but this has the wrong starting point and, thus, will probably end up in the wrong ending point.

Thanks for the discussion anyway, fellas.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 05:03 PM

kendall, that is, indeed, a big part of it. But in most states, distribution of Medicare funds is administered by private insurance companies. In many doctors' offices and clinics, much of the office staff does nothing but insurance company paperwork.

By the way, I don't know how it works in other states (I presume they each have a designated insurance company), but in Washington State, the Medicare contract is handled by Aetna Insurance, a private insurance company. My experience with them (and my father's before me--he was a health care professional and had to deal with them), Aetna is one tight-fisted bunch who won't pay for much unless you wave the contract in front of them and threaten "Attorney!" Contemptible performance, considering the magnitude of the premiums they charge.

Single payer would result in a major reduction of paperwork, which, in itself, would reduce costs. Vote for universal health care. Save a forest!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: pdq
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 05:04 PM

Maybe Don Firth can start a new thread with a "neutral" title.

America's health care system needs work and an honest discussion is in order.

Subject: RE: BS: Proper health care for everyone
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 05:12 PM

Well, it's easy enough to change to heading on a post, and the thread has drifted away from going on about that lame duck in the White House anyway.

Whatpuzzles me is why critics of pro[posed reforms do not seem to be coming up with alternative proposals for ensuring universal medical care, free at the point of use. After all, as I have pointed out, there are a range of different ways of organising things to achieve that end.

Surely no one actually thinks that the existing American health system is satisfactory? So, if particlar proposals for bringing it up to scratch are seen as acceptable, why not alternative proposals that actually achieve what every other industrialised nation has achieved for its citizens?

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 05:16 PM

How about "Universal Health Care?"

No. With many of these folks here, that's hardly a "neutral" title. The first scream out of the box will be "Socialism! Socialism! That's un-American!!"

Nope. pdq, maybe you can come up with a neutral title. Give it a shot.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: pdq
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 05:21 PM

No, sir. You write so much better than anyone else on Mudcat. I cain't wright fer shidt.

Besides, I was taught to defer to my elders.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Peace
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 05:30 PM

OK then. If this is gonna get acrumonius/acrramoaneus/acrimoaneus/touchy, I'll start the damned thread. How's about, "Bush fucks up any hope for universal medicine in the USA"?

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: pdq
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 05:32 PM

Smooth. Real smooth.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 05:35 PM

Peace, I'll say this again, you have a wonderful way with words! :)

Says it all so succintly!

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Peace
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 06:11 PM

BS: Universal Medicine in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Fairer health care...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 06:19 PM

So has anyone got anything against that for a title - or as a goal?

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 06:24 PM

Sounds good to me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Peace
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 06:28 PM

My apologies. I already started the thread. Please, excuse me.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: pdq
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 06:28 PM

A humble suggestion here. If someone made an especially good post to this thread, simply copy'n'paste it to the new "neutral-titled" one.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 06:46 PM

"give everyone any kind of medical procedure that they wish as well as what they need."

Two points John, before you abandon the discussion.

1. This is not a case of elective as opposed to necessary surgery, but of necessary as opposed to emergency surgery, as I am certain you are well aware.

2. How dare you accuse a member of this forum posting under his proper Mudcat moniker of being a troll, simply because he asks whether something reported on an international news channel of considerable repute is true.

You are not noted for meanness of spirit, but this is unworthy of you.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 03:20 AM

The only thing wrong with this thread title was the word "begin".

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 04:10 AM

I also think an apology to Don is in order.

Don is a self confessed Conservative and could never be accused of being a left wing anti-Bush troll.
There is nothing basically wrong with a Conservative who tells the TRUTH.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 05:32 AM

Thank you for those kind words Ake.

I am not in any way anti Bush. I don't care about him enough to hate him.

What I hate is the way that he has changed a democracy into a quasi police state, and the fact that he is constantly bullying the weakest, poorest, and most vulnerable of the American people.

His actions are IMHO despicable in the extreme, and totally indefensible for a so called democratic president.

His political stance smacks more of Stalin, than Washington or Lincoln, and he needs to be stopped before he so arranges things that there is no opposition allowed.

It terrifies me that the world's number one nuclear power is in the hands of this idiot, who can wantonly and frivolously overrule the decisions of a democratic majority, and does so, apparently without rational thought.

This undereducated pseudo Christian megalomanic has his finger on the trigger of total nuclear destruction.

Am I the only person that finds that frightening?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 05:43 AM

A final post (on this thread) from me to return to the original post -

"The White House has announced that Mr. Bush will veto a bipartisan plan that would extend health insurance, and with it such essentials as regular checkups and preventive medical care, to an estimated 4.1 million currently uninsured children. After all, it's not as if those kids really need insurance — they can just go to emergency rooms, right?

O.K., it's not news that Mr. Bush has no empathy for people less fortunate than himself. But his willful ignorance here is part of a larger picture: by and large, opponents of universal health care paint a glowing portrait of the American system that bears as little resemblance to reality as the scare stories they tell about health care in France, Britain, and Canada."

read more......
Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 01:40 PM

interesting to note that in private health insurance 15% of income is for administrative purposes, whereas with the US Medicare and Veterans Admin. it is only 2%

also interesting to note that large US corporations are starting to push for some kind of govt. medical care - since its much more difficult to compete with foreign companies that dont have to contribute to health insurance costs for their workers..

for instance it costs CHrysler something like a $1000 less per car
to produce the same vehicle in Canada than the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 02:25 PM

Careful Don, you'll develop a conscience and vote Lib-Dem!

I had for a moment forgotten that you were somewhere to the political right of Ghengis Kahn. Surely in that case it is right for the weaklings to die so that the survivors form a stronger conquering race? Or do I misjudge you?

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 08:28 PM

Unworthy of you Richard.

You well know that I have always been at the far left of conservative thinking, notwithstanding that I do accept as fact that Maggie Thatcher did certain things that were right. I am also prepared to applaud anything that a Labour PM does right (if there is ever a labour PM - haven't seen one since 1979).

What a pity that the same willingness to give credit where due doesn't enter the political conciousness of most socialists.

I have a very well developed conscience, and am on record on this forum having stood up for the weak and vulnerable.

But vote Lib-Dem?......Now you are being really silly.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: gnu
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 03:52 PM

Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:12 PM

Gnu, I take it that huh? was about my comment re voting Lib - Dem.

To set your mind at rest, I was referring to our UK Liberal Democrats who are very different than the US Democratic Party.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:18 PM

What is absolutely unbelievable is one of Bush's stated reasons for vetoin' this legislation and that being that he thinks it is excessive federal "spending"... Spnding???

Here's aguy who has signed every Republican pork ladened bill that has ever been sent to him... Pork for just about every nonsensicle thing after another... And all during war time... Yeah, since when did Bush start caring about federal spending, fir gosh sakes???

He's jus' p.o.'d because the bill has come from the Dems... Had the Repubs put the same bill on his desk, he'd sign it...

Yeah, I know a good number of Repubs have voted for it but it is essentially a Dem bill...

I hope we never get another president as mule headed and obstinate as this current asse...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:55 PM

"Excessive federal spending."

Coming from him, that's ree-frickin'-diculous! Have you priced a needless war recently?

Also, he complained that he felt it might be a step toward "socialism." My goodness gracious, what a horrible thought!

I can't figure out if he's working from some arcane ideology (like, say, Social Darwinism) or if he's just a mean-spirited little weasel.

Maybe some of both.

Don Firth

P. S. In the interests of political correctness, my apologies to all weasels everywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: curmudgeon
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 05:11 PM

He also is loathe to deprive any of his friendly insurance company executives of any of their ill gotten gains - Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: gnu
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 05:25 PM

Don W.... um, no. Why do people assume to know what I am thinking and saying? I just decided not to post on another thread because of that. I may not post on any thread again that has anything to do with anything other than tunes or REAL bullshit. Geeeeeeezzzzeeee.

It was a simple comment which I thought was germain to this thread... as in, WTF???? As in, I could not believe it would actually happen until it did. Disgusting!

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 05:26 PM

Not to mention the $26B, yes billion, of our tax dollars he gave the airlines after 9/11... That little gift alone would nearly finance the entire difference between what he wants and what Congress wants...

But how quickly the Bushites forget things like the $26B... I haven't...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 06:46 PM

My apologies Gnu. I did not intend to upset you. With posts not always relating to their immediate predecessor, it's sometimes easy to mistake meaning.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 12:25 AM

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
John F. Kennedy

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 11:14 AM

After 729 days of serving in the Minnisota National Guard stationed in Iraq there are 2,168 soldiers that fell 6 hours short of the 730 day limit (BY US MILITARY CONTRACT) that would have made them eligible for the tuition assitence GI bill that they were hoping to get since signing up.

Sorry Charlie, if you think you have it tough there are 16 million poor kids in the USA who will not get health insurance since it costs about 3 weeks of the money spent waging war in Iraq per year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jon Anderson a Lt. in the MN Nat. Guard says the snafu to deny his troops the GI bill was intentional. How on earth can he know that?
Well Jon you can't have a war and eat it too. Maybe he is one of those phoney soldiers Rush talks about. The S chip is now shit since W vetoed it yesterday. sorry kids.

which leads us to
Congressman Murtha who was contacted by the Rush Limbaugh people about punishing people who misquote Rush. Murtha asked " Are you supporting my War Tax bill?" They said "NO". He said that they should if they are in favor of keeping this war going and fully funded. The War Tax bill would pay for the war now instead of borrowing the money from China and quadrupling the cost that is being passed down for the next 2 generations.

Bernenke is going to give the economy another shot of morphine to steady the market in the form of lowering interest rates and weakening the dollar to historic lows. Bush is giving Prozac to the market by waging war with a deficit beyond all absurd historic precedents. NO WONDER RUSH LIMBAUGH IS ON OXYCONTIN!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: DougR
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 08:05 PM

Bush is not opposed to renewing this program he simply opposes this Democratic boondogle that cost too much money because it covers not only kids but also adults. Also, he opposes the income level that would be eligible for support. The bill he vetoed would have allowed children in homes with a annual income of $60,000 to be eligible for the program.

Bush, and other like-minded Republicans want to renew the program at a more modest level and restrict participation to the kids it originally was designed to protect. Poor kids, no adults.

The Democrats are merely using the Bill as a political tool to try to distort Bush's position. If you don't believe that, see what happens when additional legislation is introduced designed by Republicans to bring about a compromise. If the Democrats are willing to compromise, then I am wrong. If they merely send the president the same bill again (as Senator Schumber has suggested they will do), it's all politics.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: DougR
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 08:26 PM

Er ...Schumer not Schumber.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 08:42 PM

Doug R Right ON!

Both Orin Hatch and Grassly support the child health care bill whole heartedly and we all know how they love to bash and distort Bush.

Use the CBC numbers and not just the Democratic or Republican spin.


The bill is basicly a block grant to the states who will then set what is a minimum standard of income for their area.

There is nothing in the bill that says the federal goverment has any say as to what kind of treatment is to be prescribed.

The war costs over 500 million a week, every week.

The child health care law would have cost 500 million 3 times a year.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: DougR
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 01:06 AM

I could be wrong ( I was in 1941) but I think both Grassley and Hatch are up for election in the next go-'round. That could explain their lack of support for the Administration. There isn't an elected politician in Washington that would take an unfavorabel position on a Bill if they thought it would cost them their seat. Democrat AND Republican.

I stand by my post. If the Democrats are REALLY serious about wanting to extend the healthcare program for poor children, they will agree to a compromise. If the continue to simply send Bush the same old Bill that he vetoed, it's politics.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 11:40 PM

There was some discussion, earlier, about folks not trusting our gov. to get it right if we did go with universal health care. I think we would get it right, eventually, but the following sure gives one pause:

By ROBERT PEAR
Published: October 7, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 — Tens of thousands of Medicare recipients have been victims of deceptive sales tactics and had claims improperly denied by private insurers that run the system's huge new drug benefit program and offer other private insurance options encouraged by the Bush administration, a review of scores of federal audits has found.

Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, says the Medicare drug benefit is saving people money.

The problems, described in 91 audit reports reviewed by The New York Times, include the improper termination of coverage for people with H.I.V. and AIDS, huge backlogs of claims and complaints, and a failure to answer telephone calls from consumers, doctors and drugstores.

Medicare officials have required insurance companies of all sizes to fix the violations by adopting "corrective action plans." Since March, Medicare has imposed fines of more than $770,000 on 11 companies for marketing violations and failure to provide timely notice to beneficiaries about changes in costs and benefits.

The companies include three of the largest participants in the Medicare market, UnitedHealth, Humana and WellPoint.

The audits document widespread violations of patients' rights and consumer protection standards. Some violations could directly affect the health of patients — for example, by delaying access to urgently needed medications.

In July, Medicare terminated its contract with a private plan in Florida after finding that it posed an "imminent and serious threat" to its 11,000 members.

In other cases, where auditors criticized a company's "policies and procedures," the effects on patients were not clear.

The audits show the growing pains that Medicare has experienced as it introduced the popular new drug benefit and shifted more responsibility to private health plans.

For years, Democrats have complained about efforts to "privatize Medicare," and they are likely to cite the findings as evidence that private insurers cannot be trusted to care for the sickest, most vulnerable Medicare recipients.

But federal officials point with pride to their efforts to police the Medicare market, and they say that competition among private plans has been a boon to beneficiaries, offering more choices at lower cost than anyone expected.

"The Medicare drug benefit is saving seniors an average of $1,200 a year," said Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services.

Medicare officials said the audits also showed that insurers would be held accountable.

"The start-up period is over," said Kerry N. Weems, the new acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. "I am simply not going to tolerate marketing abuses."

The same insurance companies that offer stand-alone drug plans also sell Medicare Advantage plans, which provide a full range of benefits including coverage of doctor's visits and hospital care. Enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans has grown rapidly, to more than 8 million, from 4.7 million in 2003. Federal auditors found the same types of violations in both parts of the program.

Of the audits conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, 39 focused on drug benefits, 44 focused on managed care plans and 8 examined other types of private plans.

Medicare officials said that compliance problems occurred most often in two areas: marketing, and the handling of appeals and grievances related to the quality of care.

Many of the marketing abuses occurred in sales of the fastest-growing type of Medicare Advantage product, known as private fee-for-service plans. In June, the government announced that seven of the leading companies in this market, including UnitedHealth, Humana and Coventry, had agreed to suspend marketing of these plans. Medicare recently allowed them to resume marketing after they took steps to monitor their sales agents more closely.

Each Medicare plan has a list of preferred drugs, known as a formulary. Under federal law, patients can request coverage of other drugs that may be medically necessary. But many insurers do not have procedures to handle such requests, auditors said.

John H. Wells, the compliance officer at Bravo Health, defended the company's record, but he said: "The appeals and grievance process is very complex. It is very difficult for any plan to be fully compliant. In many cases, the government's guidance is unclear, so it's impossible for a business to know what to do."

These findings were typical of the deficiencies described in Medicare audit reports:

¶UnitedHealth, which serves more than six million Medicare beneficiaries, did not have an "effective program" to supervise its marketing representatives, agents and brokers. In some cases, United improperly denied claims without giving any explanation to beneficiaries. Peter L. Ashkenaz, a company spokesman, said, "We terminated a few agents and brokers for misrepresenting our products."

¶WellPoint, one of the nation's largest insurers, had "a backlog of approximately 354,000 claims" at certain Medicare plans offered through its UniCare subsidiary. The company's call center took an average of 27 minutes to answer phone calls from its members and 16 minutes to answer calls from health care providers. More than half the callers hung up before speaking to a company representative. Karen Brown, a spokeswoman for WellPoint, had no immediate comment.

¶In March, Sierra Health Services ended drug coverage for more than 2,300 Medicare beneficiaries with H.I.V./AIDS, saying they had not paid their premiums. In many cases, the premiums had been paid, and beneficiaries had canceled checks to prove it. Sierra initially refused to reinstate them, but eventually agreed to do so after repeated requests from federal officials. Peter O'Neill, a vice president of Sierra, said this particular drug plan, which attracted people with very high drug costs, would not be offered in 2008.

¶Humana, which covers more than 4.5 million people on Medicare, promised to investigate every complaint about its marketing practices, but it received so many complaints that it could not keep up. Many beneficiaries said they had received incorrect information from Humana agents. Medicare officials said some agents had not been adequately trained or supervised. Thomas T. Noland Jr., a senior vice president of Humana, said the company had taken "corrective action to improve the situation."

¶Humana did not always tell beneficiaries about changes in its list of covered drugs. In some cases, Humana did not explain its reasons for denying claims and did not inform beneficiaries of their appeal rights.

¶The Sterling Life Insurance Company, a subsidiary of the Aon Corporation, did not pay claims correctly or handle appeals in a timely way. The company has "a demonstrated pattern of failure" to meet Medicare performance standards. Problems were compounded by a rapid growth in enrollment. Sterling said it had taken steps to improve compliance.

¶Two sponsors of popular Medicare drug plans, MemberHealth and Bravo Health, did not act on requests for coverage of specific drugs within 72 hours, as required by the government. Bravo did not comply with federal rules requiring doctors to review all claims denied for a "lack of medical necessity."

D. Alan Scantland, senior vice president of MemberHealth, a subsidiary of the Universal American Financial Corporation, said, "We don't believe that we were compromising any beneficiaries' health because of what we were doing or not doing."

Representative Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the investigations subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he had "verified countless stories of deceptive sales practices by insurance agents who prey upon the elderly and disabled to sell them expensive and inappropriate private Medicare plans."

Kathleen Healey, a lawyer at the Alabama Department of Senior Services, said: "Despite the prohibition of door-to-door marketing, agents arrive on residents' doorsteps stating that the president sent them, or that they represent Medicare. Some telemarketers insist they are calling from Medicare, and they tell beneficiaries that they will lose their Medicare if they do not sign up for the telemarketer's plan."

Medicare has taken "vigorous action" to halt marketing violations, said Abby L. Block, a Medicare official.

But David A. Lipschutz, a lawyer at California Health Advocates, a nonprofit group, said that Medicare's generous payments to private plans still encouraged predatory sales practices.

"Every enrollee in a private Medicare plan is a potential source of substantial profits," Mr. Lipschutz said.

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 09:30 AM

DougR: Bush is not opposed to renewing this program he simply opposes this Democratic boondogle... So the Democrats are only going to be allowed to submit bills (even if they have substantial bipartisan support) without them being vetoed if they continue Bush/Republican policies without change? That would allow the Republicans to say during Campaign 2008 that the Democrats were in power for two years and didn't manage to accomplish a single thing. Clever, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 04:11 PM

Here's more on our *wonderful* health care system:

According to a new study released Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, children across the country — even those covered by health insurance — receive less than half of the health care measures that pediatricians recommend.

Study authors said that while they expected to find deficiencies, they were surprised at the extent of the problem.

"Before this study was done, most people thought kids were getting reasonably good care," said lead author Dr. Rita Mangione-Smith, associate professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine. "I have to say that, as a pediatrician, I was surprised that things were as bad as they were."

Mangione-Smith and researchers at the RAND Corp. created a set of 175 quality indicators based on national guidelines and the opinions of an expert panel of pediatricians.

The indicators cover such common childhood health care needs as preventive care, acute medical care and care for chronic medical conditions.

They then examined medical records from 1,536 children, randomly selected from 12 major metropolitan areas across the country, looking at all types of outpatient pediatric care, received from 1996 to 2000.

What they found was that children received only 46.5 percent of recommended care measures overall.

When examined by category, children received only 67.6 percent of indicated care for acute illnesses, which includes measures such as hospitalization for a severe fever.

Care for chronic medical conditions — scheduling follow-up visits after changes in asthma medication — was delivered only 53.4 percent of the time.

Three more pages about it, HERE.