BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:35 PM

Medicare ~   signed into law on July 30, 1965 by Lyndon B. Johnson

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Emma B
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:35 PM

I read the whole 'essay' Scott W Atlas which includes the statement

"Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long—sometimes more than a year—to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer."


The National Health Service in England and Wales has focused attention and considerable resources on reducing waiting times for cancer patients

In 2000 a large survey based on cases diagnosed in 1997 found that the waiting times of patients with cancer in England varied across regions.
The shortest waits were found for patients with breast cancer, who waited a median of 14 days from referral to their first outpatient appointment and 35 days to first definitive treatment.
This group was the first for whom a maximum two-week wait between urgent referral and first appointment at hospital was proposed

Implementation began in 1999 and the national cancer waiting times database now shows that nearly all urgently referred breast cancer patients are seen within two weeks.
As this first target has been met, attention has turned to the wait between diagnosis and treatment.
A further target of a maximum one-month wait from diagnosis to treatment was also met for 99.7% of patients in the last quarter of 2005/2006, and a one-month wait from urgent referral to beginning of treatment for all cancers has been proposed for the year 2008

data from the BMC

Can anyone provide the information that waiting time from diagnosis to treatment for cancers is less than half of this in the US as stated

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:39 PM

Only read the first post. My apologies.

Dougie... "I'm perfectly satisfied with the medicare program I have now."

My mother and father taught me to help others if I can.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:40 PM

You hear different stories about waiting periods. I have a friend here in Ontario, Canada who got diagnosed with a brain tumor (I talked about it on another thread), and they dealt with it immediately. He went into the hospital for observation, was there for a week, got operated on to remove the tumor, and was back home after 10 days.

There was no charge for any of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:45 PM

"Posted June 16, 2009
Sources: Rasmussen

65: Percentage of voters who believe that every American should have access to quality healthcare
22: Percentage of voters who disagree
12: Percentage of voters who aren't sure
80: Percentage who oppose providing healthcare for illegal immigrants
11: Percentage who support healthcare for illegal immigrants"

Thanks, EmmaB for that post.

As I suspected, the question is very odd.

Imagine a question like "Do you believe that every American deserves access to rotton health care?"

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peter T.
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:49 PM

My suspicion is that the satisfaction people feel for their health care under any advanced system -- private or public -- is related to complicated feelings of attachment to care providers, hope, a respect for the medical profession, and a lack of catastrophe except for the few. Most people, most of the time are not going to a doctor, but have expectations that the care will be ok, mingled with apprehension. It is hard to judge this kind of thing through polls.

The point is how to obtain universal coverage (health care should be a right) in the best way. Private care mediated purely by a market has been shown not to work.   There are any number of economists who have showed why: health care does not work as a commodity or as a voluntary service (like going to the hairdresser). It is more like the fire department and the police.

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:53 PM

Imagine a question like "Do you believe that every American deserves access to rotton health care?"

Those poll results would appear to suggest that there are 22 per cent of Americans would agree with that proposition...

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:53 PM

Contrary to DougR's comment in his original post, there is no indication at all that Mr. Obama is contemplating that the
Federal government will eventually "dominate the health care system". In fact, no Democrats have even proposed anything remotely like the Canadian or UK National Health plans, except for people on the fringes such as Kennedy. FactCheck.org has looked at some of the numbers that are going around. For example, some 21% of uninsured are non-citizen immigrants, from all nations, illegal and legal. It is estimated that about 60% of all immigrants are undocumented. Immigrants use ER services less often than citizens. 45.7 million people lacked health insurance for at least some period of time (one day or more) in 2007 - the 47 million people is apparently an extrapolation based upon population growth.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:55 PM

It is an odd question, all right, pdq. Why wouldn't 100% of the people in a country want every citizen in that country to have access to qualithy healthcare?

Who do they NOT want given access to quality healthcare and why????? What possible justification would there be for denying quality healthcare to a citizen?

Personally, I think that even visitors to a country should have access to quality healthcare...I would certaily hope for it if I was travelling in some other country and suffered some medical emergency.

What is wrong with people? Do they think that money matters more than people's lives? Money was originally created to serve people...NOT the other way around! It's just a friggin' tool of exchange, for God's sake.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 01:58 PM

I have not had an eye check up in three years, because I can't afford it. I know I need new glasses, but I have thousands to pay off in hospital bills that were not covered by the insurance plan that I also have to pay for each month. My son has three wisdom teeth that need to be extracted, but we can't afford the hundreds of dollars it will cost, in spite of having him on my insurance plan.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:05 PM

Yes, 100% of respondants should say that "all people should have access to quality health care". Pollsters ask silly questions quite often

As far as the immigrant angle, I believe that 67% of the Mexican-born living in the U.S. have no health care plan, private or government. They use the emergency room more often than most, not less often.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:21 PM

"I believe that..." Your data source is...?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:39 PM

Well, here is a statement on the subject...

Sinking Under the Cost of Covering the Uninsured Immigrants

Wednesday, March 12, 2003
By: Dan Stein

Last week was "Cover the Uninsured Week," a public relations scheme designed to draw attention to the fact that more than 40 million U.S. residents do not have health insurance, and one in three people in this country lacked coverage at some time during the past two years. The growing number of people who do not have health coverage is a legitimate crisis that threatens not only public health, but also economic stability.

There are many factors contributing to the alarming increase in the medically indigent in the U.S. However, one critical factor fueling the crisis was noticeably absent from the "Cover the Uninsured Week" campaign. Immigration, as much as any other factor, has helped transform large sectors of the American labor force into uninsured workers.

As laudable as the effort to promote health coverage for all workers is, doing so without addressing the current unprecedented levels of immigration to the United States is akin to bailing water out of a leaky boat, while ignoring the hole in the hull. Immigrants themselves not only constitute a disproportionate share of the medically uninsured in the United States, the ripple effect of mass immigration is causing many native workers to lose employer-provided health benefits.

Combined legal and permanent illegal immigration to the United States is about 1.5 million per year - a figure that has been unaffected by recession or unemployment rates. Immigrants are three times more likely to lack health insurance than those born here. And one out of every four people without insurance — 10 million residents — is an immigrant, according to the Census Bureau. The problem is especially acute among Hispanics, the nation's largest immigrant group and now our largest minority group. An astounding 52.2 percent of Hispanics residents do not have health coverage.

According to the 2000 Census, Cook County contained 1,064,703 foreign-born residents, nearly 20 percent of the county's population. If national statistics hold true, immigration alone would account for nearly one quarter million uninsured persons in Cook County alone. Other counties counties around the country are reeling from mass immigration as well.

According to a survey by the National Association of Counties, 67 percent cited immigration as a cause of their increased costs for public health care.

As many new immigrants have moved into formerly unionized blue-collar jobs, employee health insurance has been among the first benefits to eliminated. Employers just aren't very likely to provide a health package for workers who are earning minimum wage, especially if those workers also happen to be illegal aliens. Moreover, native workers, who used to do those jobs at higher wages, also join the ranks of the medically uninsured.

The ripple effect of mass immigration extends even beyond the immigrant workers and the natives they displace. Direct competitors of companies that have used mass immigration to cut costs are also forced to slash employee benefits in order to stay competitive. Meanwhile employers in other segments of the economy, less affected by mass immigration, have seen their health insurance bills skyrocket, as the cost for providing health care to the uninsured is passed along to those who have insurance.

Proponents of current U.S. immigration policies often extol the virtues of "cheap labor," and claim that our economy could not function without it. "Cover the Uninsured Week" stands as stark evidence that cheap labor isn't cheap. It just means that we are going to pay the bills in the form of higher taxes, higher health insurance premiums and higher anxiety for millions who have no coverage at all.

Obviously, many factors have contributed to the health care crisis in America. It would be naïve to suggest that addressing mass legal and illegal immigration to the United States will magically cure what is ailing our health care system. But it is equally naïve to declare that everyone in America ought to have the benefit of health coverage, while we brings millions more people to this country who are apt to be without it, and who often compete directly with those who already work in this country without health benefits.

Everyone is in favor of covering the uninsured. Paying for it is another matter, as is setting limits on the numbers of new uninsured people who come to this country every year. The difference between a PR stunt and legitimate public interest crusade is how much political capital people are prepared to expend to achieve a worthy goal. Without including immigration reform in the campaign, "Cover the Uninsured Week," promises to be just a PR stunt.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:47 PM

Yes, 100% of respondants should say that "all people should have access to quality health care".

But they didn't, did they? That's pretty scary.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:53 PM

Sorry, pdq. At that point, I had Social Security in mind. The politically far-right in this country despise both SS and Medicare.

I have had one really rich friend in my life (he has since died) and he always complained about SS, that it just complicates taxes and record keeping.

I said, Why accept it then?

And he said, Because it's mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 02:56 PM

My mother thinks so, McGrath. She was raised that way. And she sees things getting worse instead of better... I feel so sad for her when she sees her life's work and her ideals and the things her generation fought and died for being stolen by greedy bastards.

Anyone who says different is scarey.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 03:08 PM

Our jury system, among other things, is built on the premise that the majority is right. But there's nothing stranger than people.

A few years back Alaska voted to move the Capital from Juneau to a newly-selected neutral spot (Willow, not too far from Wasilla), not much more than a crossroads.

A group got an initiative on the ballot requiring that a study be done first to determine approximately how much money it would cost to create a new town from scratch, build governmental buildings, etc.

When Alaska found how much it would cost - it was enormous - the state voted down the Capital move.

But: 68,000 voters said, "NO, we don't need to know."

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 03:39 PM

Rapaire: Yes, Repaire, that occurred to me after I posted the question. The trillion dollar figure is, in fact, over ten years.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 04:39 PM

I've read the complete thread now, and am happy that so many of you offered your views. Let me make this clear: I did not start this thread to start petty arguments. I thought those of us who live in the U.S. could benefit by hearing the experiences of those who live with a single payer health care system. To me it has been interesting to read the responses.

Just a few comments on the posts: Dick: Do you really think "we have the worst health care system extent?" If that is so, why do so many people from other countries (lots from Canada)come to this country when they require medical services?

Ebbie: Evidently I was wrong when I wrote that 15 million Americans were uninsured. I apologize.

EmmaB: Thanks for posting the "blue clicky", 'What's Good about NHS.', I'll read it.

Daylia: You mention in your post that where you live (Canada I think) there is a shortage of doctors. That is one thing proponents of our current health care system fear will happen if we go to a single payer system. Not only will it require more doctors (because a lot more people will be seeing doctors)to operate such a system, but pay scales may be too low to attract university students into the medical profession.

McGrath: It is unclear to me if you are being critical of our health care system or critical of the American people. The poll revealed that less than 100% of the participants didn't agree that everyone should have health care insurance. If it is the former, have you experienced our health care system, and found it lacking? If it is the latter, your comment suggests that the American people are not charitable. I think we have a pretty good record of helping people out when there is a need.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Sorcha
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 05:06 PM

My husband and I are OK, he has an employer who provides fairly good insurance but we pay thru the nose for it.

I do not know of ONE SINGLE PERSON under the age of 35 who has ANY HEALTH coverage at all! NOT ONE! Minimum wage jobs do NOT provide health coverage.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 05:32 PM

My alarm was at that polling result - I was horrified to see that it seems to say that 22 per cent of Americans do not think that "all people should have access to quality health care".

I cannot believe that one in five Americans actually do believe that, and hope that there must have been some kind of misunderstanding or polling error. Perhaps the question they were asked was misleading, and they thought they were being asked something else, perhaps whether they thought, in Doug's words, "that everyone should have health care insurance," which isn't the same question at all.

I think pdq was quite correct when he said '100% of respondants should say that "all people should have access to quality health care".'

Surely the discussion should be about what is the best way to achieve that result. The NHS isn't the only way - there are many other systems throughout the world, in the various countries in Europe and elsewhere. But the bottom line is the same "universal health care free at the point of use". I hope the USA will come up with its own system achieving that which will measure up to the quality of its best medical know how.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 05:35 PM

My alarm was at that polling result - I was horrified to see that it seems to say that 22 per cent of Americans do not think that "all people should have access to quality health care".

I cannot believe that one in five Americans actually do believe that, and hope that there must have been some kind of misunderstanding or polling error. Perhaps the question they were asked was misleading, and they thought they were being asked something else, perhaps they thought they were being asked, in Doug's words, whether "everyone should have health care insurance," which isn't the same question at all.

I think pdq was quite correct when he said '100% of respondants should say that "all people should have access to quality health care".'

Surely the discussion should be about what is the best way to achieve that result. The NHS isn't the only way - there are many other systems throughout the world, in the various countries in Europe and elsewhere. But the bottom line is the same "universal health care free at the point of use". I hope the USA will come up with its own system achieving that which will measure up to the quality of its best medical know how.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 05:51 PM

I'm a Brit now living in the USA.

In 2003 I was diagnosed with cancer of the womb. I was given the diagnosis on the Monday and had a total hysterectomy on the following Thursday. I had been waiting for an operation on a bunion, a final wait of about 18 months from diagnosis to operation, and that was carried out in February 2004. None of that cost me a penny, apart from the cost of prescriptions, as was the case for all my medical treatment up to that point in my life. It would have been nice to have had faster treatment for the bunion, which was extremely uncomfortable and restricted my ability to walk any distance, but I accepted that as part of having free healthcare at point of service.

In the USA Kendall and I have good healthcare and, from what I can make out, our insurance premiums are a lot less than some others have to pay. I have a co-pay on all medical treatment that caused me to curtail a course of physical therapy for a hip complaint and prescription charges are a lot higher than was the case in the UK. On the whole, however, Kendall and I are fortunate insofar as health care is concerned.

What I find difficult to deal with is when I hear of others who really do have a problem keeping up with medical bills. One friend who has had to have quite a lot of tests done for an ongoing complaint has difficulty finding the cash to pay the deductible under the cover until the insurance kicks in. We hear of children with no medical cover at all, of people being forced into bankruptcy because they could not afford the thousands of dollars that it would cost to keep their families covered for medical treatment.

Then there are the tales of people with ongoing medical conditions who lose their jobs and their medical insurance. Many of them are unable to afford to continue the cover that might be available as it would cost too much and are unable to get any other cover because of an existing medical condition. At the same time we hear that some free clinics are closing because of lack of funds. leaving less and less outlets for those who cannot afford to pay either for insurance or their medical bills.

In the UK these people, who have enough problems already would, at least, be secure in the fact that they would have medical attention when needed.

The situation in the UK for dentistry is, right now not so good, with fewer National Health dentists to be found and long waiting lists to get on the books of those available. Many in the UK have not had dental treatment for some time and that situation doesn't seem to be showing any sign of getting better.

Last time I was in the UK, as a senior citizen, I got a free eye exam and would probably have got a slightly better deal on the required glasses, but was not there long enough to have them made up.

I love my life in the USA and, as I say, am fortunate to have good medical cover. I wish that the same was true for all others in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 06:07 PM


y;

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 06:12 PM

On the topic of whether or not salaries (as opposed to profits) in a government-operated system would be adequate to attract students into medicine, please look at the Department of Veterans Affairs. All VA physicians are salaried, although many also work as professors of medicine at university medical schools. The VA consistently has higher than average system-wide ratings by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations for both quality of care and patient satisfaction. (2002 VA mean score 93, ationwide mean score 91) I worked as a human resources director in the VA for many years, and the only facilities that had difficulty attracting highly qualified and board certified physicians were in rural areas, and that problem is not unique to the VA.

Once again, of course, a single-payer system is not and never has been on the table in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 06:15 PM

"Not only will it require more doctors (because a lot more people will be seeing doctors)to operate such a system, but pay scales may be too low to attract university students into the medical profession."

One of the items in Obama's plan is to get medical students through school without such a huge debt. A lot of that can be done without a big increase in subsidies.

" If that is so, why do so many people from other countries (lots from Canada)come to this country when they require medical services?"

We DO have some of the best 'cutting edge'..(sorry) specialists with the finest equipment in the world, and we DO get people from everywhere; but many of our own citizens have almost no access to these specialists.

I would rather have more doctors who are not specialists, but are decent GPs than have a smaller number of A1++ experts that I am not able to get near.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 06:24 PM

...various posts from this thread:

"...the recent large poll that showed that 72% of those polled supported national health care, and were willing to pay increased taxes for it? " ~ dick greenhaus

"Please give poll data about the "72% want socialised medicine". The wording of the question is absountely vital. ~ asked I

65: Percentage of voters who believe that every American should have access to quality healthcare   ~   Emma B (ex Rasmussen)

I still don't see any evidence that the American people are jumping up and down, demanding that our health care delivery system be natioinalize.

Yes, health care the 20% who are not happy must be addressed.

Where does Obama think his mandate to nationalize private enterprize comes from?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 06:25 PM

When I began my current job in May, 2003, the City paid 100% of the medical insurance for me AND my wife (and my family if I had had one). There were $10 co-pays, a maximum we had to pay before the insurance kicked in, vision and dental were and are voluntary -- but 100%?!?!?!?! I hadn't heard of such a thing in years!

Now the City pays 100% for me and 90% for my wife. Co-pay has gone to $20, we pay $10 for up to 90 days or 100 each generic drugs and $30 for name brand. Dental and vision are still voluntary; we have to pick up the first $500 each ($1,000 total) of the med costs.

My upcoming rotator cuff surgery SHOULD cost me less than $500 out of pocket.

Between FY2009 (current fiscal year) and FY2010 the city faced a 13% increase in med costs; they were able to argue it down to 0%. Nevertheless, over the 6 years I've now been here the City's medical insurance costs as risen a total 57% -- that is just the City's costs, it does not include the amount contributed by the employees.

This include police and fire, which are high-risk jobs, but no more so than some in other industries.

ALL employees are mandatorily covered. They need not cover their families if they don't want to do so.

When (If) I retire, the whole thing changes. Right now I can't afford to retire, mostly because of the medical coverage.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 06:26 PM

"I think we have a pretty good record of helping people out when there is a need." DougR

Strangely, contrary to how we like to think of ourselves, the US doesn't donate NEARLY as much to disaster-stricken areas of the world, per capita, as many other poorer countries do.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 06:44 PM

Doug, it is true that there is presently a shortage of doctors in Ontario (I don't know about the rest of the country). I don't know why that is, but I doubt that it's because of our socialized national health care system, because that's been in place here for a long time. The shortage of family doctors, on the other hand, is a rather recent phenomenon. I would have to assume that fewer students have applied for doctor's training in the last 20 years, and I don't know what would have caused that to happen...it's still a very lucrative job, to say the least. Doctors and dentists in Canada are extremely well paid people.

The place that trains and exports the most medical doctors per capita is Cuba, and they have donated medical assistance to many other countries. A very large percentage of Cuban doctors are women. Most Canadian doctors are men, going by my experience.

A common myth spread by those who oppose the socialization of medicine in the USA is that you will be unable to choose your own doctor under a socialized health system. This is utterly untrue. Canadians choose their own doctor just the same as Americans do. If you like a doctor you choose him or her as your doctor. If you don't, you find someone else. It's entirely up to you who your doctor will be.

In my case, I chose a naturopath. He isn't covered by our national health insurance, because he's not an M.D. That's okay with me. I like his approach better, and it hasn't cost me anything I can't easily handle. If some health issue should arise that he cannot deal with, then I'll take it to an M.D. and I'll be covered by our national health plan.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 06:51 PM

I don't understand why there is not a call for a massive return to a public health system, which would be one-payer, to supplement those who have insurance and probably eventually to replace insurance-based programs.

Public health clinics staffed by PACs or nurse practitioners could probably handle 75% at least of care. Public health hospitals, such as we used to have, should be reinstated.

If certain medical professionals were given free education and licensed perhaps to only practice in public medicine there would be no problem with meeting demands. They keep saying a problem oft he nursing shortage is a lack of nursing instructors, so duh..let's start recruiting and training them right now. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 07:14 PM

I agree with all the, mg.

Some of the best treatment I got in the Army I got from medics, not from MDs.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: daylia
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 08:19 PM

some insights into Canada's doctor shortage

"The country has approximately 15,000 too few doctors, a figure roughly double the total number of students in all years of study at our 17 medical schools combined. At a doctor-patient ratio of just 2.3 per 1,000 population, we are 24th on the list of 28 industrialized countries. Approximately 1.5 million Canadians cannot find a family physician as a result.

..The doctor shortage began in the mid-1980s .. at the same time the last Trudeau government passed the Canada Health Act, which forbade user fees, balanced billing by doctors and private clinics and hospitals. Immediately, doctors began moving to the United States by the hundreds every year ..approximately 12,000 Canadian doctors have moved south. According to another article in the CMAJ last winter, "this is the equivalent of having two average-sized Canadian medical schools dedicated to producing physicians for the United States" every year for 25 years. Add to this the way politicians and bureaucrats deliberately reduced the number of medical school graduates -- the number fell 14% between 1991 and 2000 -- and it is easy to see why there are too few doctors in this country."

The doctor shortage is a very complex, ongoing nationwide problem. Ontario is hard hit, having the largest and fastest growing population + recent history of gov't cutbacks to education and public health care system (remember Harris?) Physicians get higher pay and better working conditions elsewhere. If they don't leave for the States, they leave for other provinces. And of those who choose to stay, less than 3% opt for positions in smaller towns/rural areas (ie the most underserviced places)

more info here

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: mmm1a
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 08:24 PM

I guess I'll put in my 2 cents. Being that this is a subject I have alot of interest in. I am all for a national health plan, being as I am one who would be greatly affected by it. 6 years ago I had health insurance and was satisfied with it. But then my employer and doctors decided I could no longer work because of my back. So no more insurance. I don't qualify for medicare either. At the time my husband was working for Amish and had no health insurance, but made fairly good money so we were in the process of looking for coverage privately. He then had a major heart attack and ended up after all was said and done with 60% of his heart gone , not functioning at all and of the 40% left only 17%working . I had to fight like hell to get medicaid, after fighting and getting medicaid, they covered everone til we were able to get social security disability. At that time they decided that my husband and kids would be covered but I no longer would be, their reasoning was we made too much money. My husbands spend down every month was 700.00 His medicines cost around at that time 3 to 4 hundred.so most of his expenses were out of our pocket with no money left for mine. The county We live in has no free clinic. I was told that I could get a job and get insurence for all of us. YeaH RIGHT no insurence would ever cover my husband. and every penny I would make would increase his spend down. Talk about being in a rock and a hard place.... Oh by the way We live in Indiana . Our governor is Mitch Daniels worst thing ever to happen to any State ..Thats why I say and would have has a bumper sticker

      DITCH MITCH

Ok rant over but when you hear about national health care keep in mjind those of us who are not totally in proverty but sure do got one foot in.

mmm1a

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 08:26 PM

There are levels of care involved, also. Some situations require basic care. Othere need more elaborate set ups to benefit the patient. Know a fellow who had to drive 260 km (520 km return) for kidney dialysis. Three times a week. What's happened now, three years later, is a bus that goes thru certain bigger centres and the dialysis is done on the bus. I expect three or four people at a time. Saves that fellow about 1500 km of driving per week.

Easier for the patients, easier on gas and the environment, and the people who do the travelling on the bus seem to enjoy it.

Canada's north hurts for Doctors and Dentists. Usual set up in communities is a nursing station. There are BSNs there (community health nurses who have science degrees in nursing) and they run the stations. A doctor visits about four times a year. Emergencies can involve planes, helicopters, jet boats, cars. There have been emergencies involving phones or radios. Ya do what ya have to do.

But the service is free. Dentist is usually in three times a year. More urgent cases are flown to hospitals that can handle the surgery/problem.I expect it's still much less expensive than building and staffing hospitals all over everywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 08:55 PM

Well, well, well...

Lets examine some of the myths about nationalized health care:

Myth #1: It is rationing...----------- Well yeah, it is... What we have now is severe rationing with 50 million people in the3 country having to use ERs for their health care... ER physicans come from all fields of medicine and aren't the folks who you need being your primary physican...

Myth #2: You won't be able to go to "your doctor"... No, in most cases you will... Not that "your doctor" is so great but that is a different story...

Myth #3: It's too expensive... Okay, lets looks at the facts... The US, with it's corrupted health care system, spends 17% of it's GNP on health care toady and isn't in top 20 in terms of life expectancy or infant mortality....

Myth #4: The government be making your health care choices... No, not really... But in some areas, yeah, it will... If you are 101 years old and year heart is failing they prolly won't authoize a heart tranplant... Right now these deciions are being made by folks who only have bottom line profit (for them) in mind...

Myth #5: Now is not the time... Wrong... With the US spending so much of it's GNP on health care there is no better time for it to make changes that will make it's economy competetive with countries who have allready bitten the bullet and are now spending alot less share of their GNP's on health care...

B~

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

My wife fell and broke her right hand. We were told by the EMTs to go to the Urgent Care center. An x-ray was taken but no break was seen; they splinted the hand and sent her home.

A week later she was called to the hospital. A radiologist had looked over the x-ray and had seen a break extending back from her middle finger. By then she'd worn the splint for a week and, with her other medical things kicking in, now had a frozen finger.

Okay. She went to an orthopod who specialized in hands. No sweat -- the break was healing nicely and he wrote a prescription for PHYSICAL therapy.

It was coded for OCCUPATIONAL therapy.

OT got her three visits to the therapist. PT would have gotten her at least 12 weeks. When she discovered this, she asked that the mistaken code be changed. "We can't do that! It would be fraud!" was the reply. "No it wouldn't," replied my wife, "it would be correcting a mistake." "It would be FRAUD!! What are you, a lawyer?"
"Yes," my wife replied, "I am. Are you?"

To make a long story short: according to the hospital we owe about US $5,000; we are contesting it and will continue to do so. She still has limited use of her right hand. Now we pay for her to go to a physical therapist, at $50 per visit, three times a month. It helps her, but the hand still has limited use.

Would a nationalized health care system have prevented this? Probably not. But as long as ANY system cares more about CYA than about the patient that system is less than satisfactory.

(Our hospital has been put under new management; the county no longer runs it. Things are slowly improving. When in the past you could get a job as a receptionist or insurance filer until you got married (yes, I'm picking on women here, but that's because of the Dominant Culture in this area) you now have to actually DEMONSTRATE you can do the job.)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 10:13 PM

I'll try to explain what went down for us:

We bought health insurance at a time when people were hospitalized for almost everything. While in the hospital, tests were run. When you were released from the hospital, you either, at least, had a diagnosis in hand -- or you were treated and cured. Very little was done on an out-patient basis back in the 1970s and '80s.

As a result of how things were in this era, the policy we had covered hospitalizations, yes, ---but not out-patient tests and procedures. These were out-of-our-pocket expenses.

Seemingly, all of a sudden, EVERYTHING changed with no warning. Most everything medical bbegan to be done on an out-patient basis. If you went into a hospital it was an emergency, or for specified surgery---and they tossed you out very quickly.

THAT is why I went broke. All the pre-admission outpatient tests, including CAT scans etc, were now paid for by me. THIS next statement IS TRUE: I had to show up at the CAT scan facility at Diversey and Sheridan Road in Chicago) with a cashiers check for a thousand dollars BEFORE they would take any pictures! I had insurance---but nothing was covered!

Buying a new policy, with more coverage, was impossible because we (CATCH 22!) both had pre-existing conditions now. And if you had pre-existing conditions, no insurance company would sell you a new policy unless you could pay a premium that had gone up by a factor of five -- or more.

I hope I'm making this clear!? Thanks, Mudcatters, for listening. It feels good to get it out.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 10:15 PM

It's entirely possible to have good insurance in the United States, and have access to very good heath care, the best doctors, etc. only to lose all this if you get seriously sick and can't work, because your insurance is tied to your job. Then the cycle begins, you lose your job, you lose your insurance (yes in many cases you have the right to keep the insurance you had with your job, but only IF you can continue to pay the premiums, which might be difficult if you are sick and not working.) Once the group insurance through the job is not an option, forget getting any kind of remotely affordable health insurance if you have a pre existing condition. So the downward spiral begins. mmmla's story is illustrative and happens every day. It's a national disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 10:27 PM

So is Art's.

ANY ONE of us in the US could have this happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 11:07 PM

Yes Art and I must have been posting at the same time. These occurences are not uncommon, and people who have done everything right, been financially prudent, worked, saved, and lived responsibly and within their means for their entire lives can be ruined by a health crisis. It is heartbreaking.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 12 Jul 09 - 11:43 PM

There is another active Mudcat thread on Michael Moore's movie Sicko. If my friends in the USA would take the time to rent and objectivly watch this it would answer many questions that they might have. No system is perfect but by degree the one which is universal for those who need it should be supported by all. Tomorrow your fortunes may change and you may find yourselves among those less fortunate. I have seen statements that people don't trust government, but does that mean that you are more willing to trust insurance companies to show more compassion?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 01:23 AM

There are certain essential public services which MUST be run by a government, not by private industry, because a government dispassionately serves ALL the people, not just the people who can pay. It doesn't do it for monetary gain, it does it to maintain a well-functioning society.

A health care system must serve all the people. Same as a police force, a legal system, and an armed forces. They are there to serve ALL the people, not just the people who can afford to pay them a fat user fee.

How would you feel if your house caught fire...and the fire department arrived to put it out....but they wouldn't do so until you paid them $35,000 dollars! That wouldn't be just or fair, would it? They'd be crooks if they did that....or they'd be "businessmen".

Well, thank your lucky stars that your taxes pay for the fire department and that it's provided by those taxes, because by God if it were not...and if you weren't rich...well, you could just sit and watch your house burn to the ground.

If the police were privately owned, they would also protect only those who could afford to pay their protection fee. And that's how it works for the Mafia. They have their own little private army, and those guys serve only the people who pay them. That's what your police would be if they weren't provided by taxes and government. They'd be a private army, and they'd be the enemy of most of the population.

That's the state of health care in the USA. It's been handed over to profit-seekers, corporate robber barons, and such profit seekers have no business running a vital public service which is needed by everyone in the whole society.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 01:38 AM

Hear,hear.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 02:05 AM

I'm a citizen in the US. I'm on medicare & pay in for the most coverage I can get which is taken directly out of my SS Disability cks. I'm also covered by my spouses employer. When I was healthy I had my own coverage which covered my wife & kids.
Now my wife can never leave her job (unless she gets a better one which has better medical coverage) because my medical/pescription costs are killing the both of us. The classification between 1, 2 & 3 tier drugs is a joke when you need some of the 3 tier drugs because there is no equal & I end up paying 50% of the cost as a co-pay which for some of my drugs come to $75 a month.
Art, I can fully well understand how it's killing you.
Around the end of August I drop into what's called a donut hole. That's where I pay 100% of my prescription costs last till the end of the yr. My secondary insurance kicks in for only some drugs, other drugs it refuses (so why do I have them in the 1st place? Cuz I'd be dead without it).
Yup, it's not bad here in the states until you really need it. You may get the up front services like transplants, surgery, rehab, reconstruction etc taken care, if you have coverage & only then if you've got the "right" kind of coverage but it's that lifetime stuff that comes afterwards that they beat you to death with.


Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 09:58 AM

FORTUNATELY, my brothers and I are (or can become) Disabled Veterans and use the VA Health Care System if we need to. There's a VA Clinic in the town each of us lives in, and full-blown VA Hospitals only a couple of hours away. I'll use it if I have to, but I'd rather they'd work with the people with TBI, multiple amputations, and so on. My ticket in is only hearing loss and (I contend) AO exposure. But our wives are NOT eligible....

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: daylia
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:22 AM

Geez, reading the stories here from Rapaire, Art, mmmla etc my heart really goes out to you    =[   and I feel fortunate that I'll probably never be up against anything quite like this, living here in Canada. But you know what they say about the grass being greener. THis little story, from the fellow who cleans/repairs my fireplace every year, is an example of the fiascos that can be created by "free" public health care, and might help some of you to feel a little better about your own health care system

A couple yrs ago, he started noticing a "hole" developing in the vision field of his left eye. Everything else seemed normal, except this worrisome little "hole" (round area where he could see nothing). His family doctor sent him to a neurologist. So he took a few days off work (unpaid, he's a private contractor so no "sick days") to travel to Toronto for consultations, MRI imaging and CAT scans (very expensive tests, as Art has mentioned, but "Free" in his case as it's paid for by the gov't).

Neurologist told him the tests were inconclusive, but judging by his symptoms he had multiple sclerosis - a most frightening, and stressful diagnosis. He was retested several times over the next year, and the diagnosis was always the same. None of the scans showed conclusively that it was multiple sclerosis, but that was the only explanation for his symptoms, according to this specialist.

He was prescribed an intensive drug therapy program for multiple sclerosis, to the tune of about $350/month. By now the poor guy was just beside himself. He could not afford the $350/month, was losing weight, losing his life savings with all hte days off work + travel back and forth to TO for more and more tests/consultations. And the "hole" in his vision was getting larger all the time. He had no idea what to do ...

till finally one day he mentioned his troubles to a customer like myself. The customer looked at him and said "Have you ever gone to an good old fashioned eye doctor?" Well, no. In over a yr of investigating this hole in his vision, not one of the doctors/specialists/neurologists he'd been sent to had ever just tested his eyes!

So he made an appt with an semi-retired eye doctor right here, in his home town. This doctor did a few tests, and the next day gave him the results --

He did not have multiple sclerosis. There was nothing wrong with his brain/neurology, and he did not need be on $350/month worth of dangerous drugs for the rest of his life. What he DID have was a tiny tear in the retina of his left eye. The tear gets larger in the spring/summer when the light changes, and it worsens under stress. Treatment: wear dark glasses or sunglasses in summer, and avoid excessive stress!!

Unfortunately, this kind of false diagnosis/unnecessary drug therapy is not uncommon here in Canada. ANd there's no way people like my furnace repairman can hope to get any compensation from the neurologists/specialists for their false diagnosis and all the pain and suffering, loss of time/money it cost him for the "Free" tests and consultations. He;s just some little nobody, they are the powerfully rich and respected ones with the BMW's and the mansions overlooking the lake ...

anyway, there it is, the other side of the coin. "Free" doesn't guarantee anything comes without a HUGE pricetag. Or that its helpful. Or even just "what the doctor ordered".

Thanks for sharing your stories, everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: theleveller
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:46 AM

Good in parts. It just depends which part of you needs treating and which part of the country you live in.

Oh, and it certainly isn't free. We pay compulsory National Insurance contributions along with our income tax Pay As You Earn deductions.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:03 AM

It would be silly to think that it's free. Government has no money that does not come from the people. But 'free at the point' is the point. In a sense it's the same as a retirement plan- you put money forward for the day that you need it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 11:39 AM

Good story, Daylia. You have just nailed why I don't have as much faith in the judgement of M.D.'s as most people I know do. They are known to make mistakes in diagnosis and they often prescribe unnecessary and very expensive drugs.

That's not a problem of a public health system. It's a problem of the M.D.'s themselves. They aren't necessarily as all-knowing as people imagine. I think it wise to also get examined by some alternative practitioners before going off on a course like your friend did and getting fleeced by conventional medicine.

Get more than one opinion, in other words. Then decide what to do. The M.D. may be right. He may not be. They're not gods.