BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Rowan
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 10:54 PM

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

Before Medibank was introduced in Oz, the system here was very similar to the US system and we paid through the nose for medical attention. There might have been some variation between state jurisdictions (I was in Victoria at the time) and there were lots of little mutual benefit societies that covered prescriptions and the occasional doctor's bill but it was a hodge podge with much similarity to what I have been reading in this thread about the US system.

Then we got Medibank and the only ones who complained were the diehards of the AMA (equivalent to Britain's BMA); and while McGrath is "correct: in his description of them as a "Professional Association", they behaved much the same as any other trade union. On the rare occasions I travel to the US I make sure I take out travel insurance to cover having to cope with the money grubbers but, in Oz, I wouldn't swap any part of the Oz system (with all its flaws) for any part of the US system that I've seen close up.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 06:32 AM

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

Doug, I am FAR more concerned with knowing your take on the millions of American poor who have never experienced the kind of program you have in the United States.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 06:42 AM

The degree of civilisation of any country may be quantitively measured, based on how it treats its most vulnerable citizens, the poor, the sick, and the old.

On THAT scale of measurement Doug, just where would YOU say the USA sits, when compared to the third world, and to Europe, Canada, and Australia?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: The Barden of England
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 08:32 AM

DougR - I won't re-iterate my post of 23 Jul 09 - 06:46 AM, but hope you read it.
I now have a question for you. I am currently out of work, and at the age of 64 don't see much chance of working again before my retirement in June of next year. I need medication, check ups and blood tests, for which I pay absolutely nothing. How would I get this treatment in the USA for the same price?
John Barden

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Catherine Jayne
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 09:17 AM

I am so grateful that I live in the uk and my family and I are covered on the NHS for all our health care. I am steroid dependant asthmatic and I don't have to pay for any of my drugs or the medications that keep my pcos under control. Through the tax credits system here I'm entitled to free prescriptions, free dental and free eye exam and a voucher towards the cost of my glasses. Because I am eligable for the tax credits medical exemption certificate so is Paul.

I don't know how we would cope with prescriptions charges, medical bills from ambulances and A&E trips if we didn't have the NHS.

In January 2008 I found a lump in my breast. I went to the doctors who refered me to ST Barts hospital where I was seen within 2 weeks. I had a consultation, a scan and a needle biopsy all on the same day. I waited in the hospital for a couple of hours and I got the results the same day. The lump isn't cancer but I am being monitored by the same team. I have had 2 major operations on my legs, countless physiotherapy sessions, 2 high risk pregnancies and countless trips to A&E with my asthma sometimes being admitted to the ward, once to intensive care. All was covered by the NHS.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 01:29 PM

It seems as if Doug's worry is that if there was a health service in the hands of the Federal Government, it would be liable to be underfunded. That's not unrealistic, in the light of the tendency of governments, especially those of a "conservative" nature to cut back on any kind of public services as a way of funding tax cuts.

In the UK there is a limit on how far they can get away with that, so far as the NHS is concerned, because there is such strong public support for it, including the vast majority of those who vote Conservative, that this puts a limit on how far they get away with it, even if they wanted it - and of course the sensible ones among them would recognise that funding the NHS adequately is good politics.

But I suppose in the political climate of the USA there might be a real danger of this happening.

I'd have thought that there should be some way of building in some way of entrenching standards of medical provision so that it would be politically very hard to force them down. Basically it's a matter of human rights, though I can't see how there's currently in the US constitution to uphold those rights.

Unless and until that gets put right, the ultimate defence against the trimming of services that Doug evidently fears has to be the same as in the UK - the determination of service users to stop it happening, and their ability to use their vote accordingly.

However the same pressures which might serve at times to force down the quality of services, so as to enable tax cuts, surely exist in the private sector, where the profit motive would be the driving force, resulting in companies seeking to exclude people from receiving the help they have paid for, and doing so in a way that sounds pretty shocking.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 08:32 PM

AS long as a private alternative exists, the public system will continue to function---if it did a poor job, people would drop out. As long as there is a public alternative, the private outfits wull have to provide a reason to exist---which would most likely consist of some deluxe services.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 27 Jul 09 - 09:50 PM

McGrath: I'm less concerned with underfunding than I am inept management. The Democrats can always find something to tax.

The Barden of England: If you lived in the United States and qualified for Social Security (as the majority of citizens aged 62 to 65 do)you would receive a monthly check from the government, the size of which, is based on the amount during your working life you paid into the program. A small amount is deducted from the check to pay for your medical care (Medicare). You would not be eligible for Medicare until age 65, but you can start drawing SS at age 62. The longer you wait to draw, the larger the amount of the check.

When you have Medicare, prescription drugs can be purchased at a very reasonable price (I pay $3 per prescription)I also am eligible as a veteran of the U. S. Army for Veteran's Administration medical care. I get some of my prescribed drugs from the VA at very reasonable cost.

(As an aside, does the British Government provide health care to it's veterans?)

I cannot offer a suggestion regarding what you might do if you lived in this country and you are under age 65. You would have no problem with emergency care, you can go to any emergency room and it would be against the law not to treat you. You would be billed for the services but many people do not pay the bill (which accounts in large measure for the increased cost of our health care). Those who can afford to pay are charged for services provided to those who cannot.

Peace: We are friends who just happen to have different views on this subject. I am not heartless. There were many years when my family and I did not have health care insurance. Fortunately, there came a time when we could afford it.

I would far prefer to have our government concentrate entirely on providing free health care to those who cannot afford health insurance than try to completely reorganize the current system and run the risk of screwing everyone else's health plan up. It would also be much less expensive than what Obama has in mind too.

DougR

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

Thank you very much, Doug. I feel the same way.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 02:09 AM

As an aside, does the British Government provide health care to it's veterans?

There are two answers to this. The veterans are UK citizens. The UK provides health care to all its citizens, free at the point of use. So yes.

There is, however, continuining arguments about whether veterans need special care over and above the 'normal' NHS. An example would be do we need specialist hospitals which concentrate on battle-related wounds, PTSD, and so on. We used to have them, but we have less now [I think].

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 08:14 AM

Inept management is always a problem in any system, private or public. But I have never seen any indication that the system in the USA which excludes millions of its citizens, is any less liable to poor management than the universal health care systems which all other wealthy countries provide.

"You would have no problem with emergency care, you can go to any emergency room and it would be against the law not to treat you." How about when some poor person needs a heart transplant, a double mastectomy, or a hip replacement, and isn't covered by insurance - or in insured with a company that finds a way of weaseling its way out of accepting responsibility to cover such treatment?

"...those who cannot afford health insurance" is a category that potentially includes millions of people currently in good jobs with good insurance cover, who could find themselves losing all that overnight through no fault of their own.

Walking through life on a tightrope can't make for restful nights.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 06:37 PM

I would think that British veterans would be accorded medical care as they are in the U.S., McGrath, for the reasons you stated. My experience with the US VA has been excellent.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 07:37 PM

VA. Another good example of single-payer National healthcare. For some.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 28 Jul 09 - 07:56 PM

True, Dick. Through the years the VA has had it's ups and it's downs. For several years it had a terrible reputation. Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, though, the Congress has been a lot more supportive and they appear to be operating pretty efficiently.

Maybe the VA should run Obama's new health care program!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 10:34 AM

Mebbe so. I've heard (and I'd love to see some hard data) that the VA's costs per patient are less than three-quarters of those of private insurers, and these costs have been dropping every year, while private plans have been escalating. I think that the VA woul be an excellent model to study in developing a universal health care program. Though it may be too socialist for some.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,romanyman
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 11:35 AM

Having lived and worked in the US im afraid though my lifestyle was much better, i will stick to the UK for everything else, sadly the american dream has a massive price tag, be it health or whatever, sadly, from the years i was there, everyone i met was obsessed with wealth no matter what, the US tax system in my opinion was better than UK, that is fairer, so until as previously stated the mighty dollar stops ruling the brain of all, you will just have to put up, with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dwditty
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 11:35 AM

I do not much care if the healthcare delivery vehicle is public or private. I do believe that everyone should have access to whatever it is, at the same coverage and at the same cost. I work for employer A and pay $1100/month for crappy coverage (small company). A friend works for the state and pays $200 for far better coverage. Why? I think if anyone in any government position - local, state, county, federal, etc.) paid the same as every other citizen, you would see great changes in how things work. As far as I can tell, the only winners in the whole system are the insurance companies - get rid of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 01:42 PM

In answer to a question posed above about people who have experienced both systems, what we have here in the US and government run programs, Jack the Sailor has experienced both. He says that the system in Canada is just as good as that in the US in terms of quality and wait times, and far, far better at delivering care to the largest number of people.

Here in the US, he has experienced the best our system has to offer, and he has also experienced what it's like for people who don't have access to the system at all (because of pre-existing conditions). He is praying for the US to adopt a system like what they have in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Jul 09 - 01:46 PM

Health insurance costs for Federal employees (including Members of Congress) vary according to the plan chosen by the employee. For example, Blue Cross vs. Postal Workers, high vs. low option, self vs. self and family, fee-for-service vs. HMO, etc. The government pays 75% of a weighted average and the employee pays the rest. If an individual wants a plan with lower co-payments and deductibles and greater benefits in one area or another, he can get it - and pays more for it.

The cost of VA care per patient is something on the order of 80% of the national average, while (system-wide) the quality of care is well above the statistical average. However, since the VA isn't an insurance system, one cannot really compare its costs with that of "private insurers". This report, while a couple of years old, has all kinds of numbers for the data-obsessed. Having worked in the VA system for a number of years, I'd say that there are three core reasons for that lower cost: all VA physicians (and other staff) are salaried, so there is no charge-per-procedure; the VA aggressively negotiates when it buys pharmaceuticals and other medical items; and the nationally integrated electronic patient record system eliminates the need for maintaining, copying, filing and transmitting paper records (as well as improving the quality of care).

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 01 Aug 09 - 12:11 PM

This just in.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Aug 09 - 12:41 PM

One can use the VA as compared to private insurance to show that government run health care can be not only as good as private insurance, but even better than private insurance. I laughed pretty hard when Jon Stewart cornered Bill Crystol into admitting that our government run health care in the form of the VA is the best in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Aug 09 - 12:48 PM

One reason I really wish the USA would get its act together on universal health care is because I think you'd probably do it rather well, and that might well have the effect of improving what we've got.

But the main reason is the kind of distress caused to Mudcatters and other decent Americans who fall through the cracks - as demonstrated in post after post on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,BanjoRay
Date: 01 Aug 09 - 01:08 PM

I've just spent a month having radiotherapy in a Sheffield hospital for prostate cancer. The hospital was excellent, with superb staff and lots of helpful insight. I'm over 65 so all drug prescriptions are free. It's cost me nothing, and I had to wait no more than a couple of months, and I had some very high tech scans.
I've had to worry about nothing outside the disease itself, which with luck has now been beaten. Wake up, America, and get it done!!

Prior to the nationalisation of our health service in the '40s, the main objectors were the medical profession (just like the AMA). Very few of them would now like to go back...

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Aug 09 - 02:45 PM

Those of you who can see nothing wrong with putting your health in the hands of private insurance companies should consider just what an insurance company IS.

When you insure you are saying "I bet I'm going to get ill". The insurance company says "I bet you don't", and takes the amount of your stake from you.

They are BOOKMAKERS in all but one detail.

They not only set the odds, THEY OWN THE TRACK AND THE BLOODY HORSES.

So, if you ever you see an insurance company go bankrupt, you can be certain THAT'S the one that has been dealing honestly.

Wise up and get a system that looks after people, not shareholders.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,stringsinger
Date: 01 Aug 09 - 03:43 PM

National Health Care works. In the States we call it Medicare.
In England, Canada, France, Sweden and other civilized countries,
there are no real complaints about it. Even US congresspeople and senators get it. The only ones who don't want it are the executives of the major insurance companies in the US. "Some will rob you with a six-gun and some with a fountain pen"...W. Guthrie.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Aug 09 - 03:54 PM

The only ones who don't want it are the executives of the major insurance companies in the US.

Unfortunately that doesn't appear to be quite true, because it wouldn't matter if they were the only ones. But one way or another they have succeeded in persuading a lot of otherwise reasonable people to believe that the proposed changes means some kind of risk to their own health care. As PT Barnum put it "there's a sucker born every minute".

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Aug 09 - 04:23 PM

Vast amounts of money being poured by the insurance companies into propaganda campaigns against national health (like the infamous "Harry and Louise" commercials at the beginning of the Clinton administration—which have been resurrected), raising the specter of "socialism" (a word not all that many people understand, but assume it's the worst of evils, failing to recognize that police and fire protection are "socialistic," paid for by taxes, as are the street and highway systems, and most public transportation) – and again, huge amounts of money spent to lobby in Washington (i.e., bribe Congresspersons).

Where do the insurance companies get all this money? Premiums paid by the insured, money that's supposed to go for paying for health care.

3% of the cost of Medicare goes to administrative costs, the rest to benefits. Over 20% of insurance company money (from premiums) goes to administrative costs. Then, there are other expenses, like advertising, propaganda, lobbying, and – executive salaries and stockholders.

Main goal of the insurance companies:    pay for health care? No. Maximize profits. And one of the ways they do that is to deny benefits whenever they can cobble up an excuse to do so (and there are some real horror stories there!).

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 01 Aug 09 - 04:50 PM

A quote from my friend Bruce's post: "A good friend of mine has a bumper sticker that reads,
"Won't it be great when education has all the money it needs and the airforce has to hold bake sales to buy bombers?"

While I share his friends view of bombers the RCAF has few of them. Living on an an Atlantic island I have tremendous respect for the airforce's search and rescue division. These SARTECHS often jump from planes and choppers into the freezing Atlantic (or Pacific or Arctic) Ocean to rescue others in distress. They are my heros! Their equipment is often less than state of the art and the planes that they fly would be antiques if they were autos. It is there that money needs to be spent rather than on weapons of war. My fear is that they may have to hold a bake sale as well!
Bruce, I share your history of growing up poor, and when medicare was introduced in Canada doctors protested but soon realized that it worked in their favour because there would be no more on-collected bills, at least for those with the compassion to treat first and bill later.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Aug 09 - 07:02 PM

Well, the difference here in the U. S., Sandy, is that in their zeal to cater to big business, a distressing number of our senators and congressmen do things like refusing to cancel military contracts for such things as the F-22 fighter plane, designed for a Cold War situation and essentially useless for the kind of conflicts we find ourselves in now and anticipate possibly finding ourselves in the future--and which the Pentagon neither needs nor wants--in order to keep great wads of the military budget flowing into businesses in their home districts.

In the meantime, 47 million Americans are going without health insurance because they can't afford the premiums.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 12:26 PM

"...(like the infamous "Harry and Louise" commercials at the beginning of the Clinton administration—which have been resurrected), " Don Firth

This time, though, Don, Harry and Louise are working for the other side.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,DougR
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 12:28 PM

My wife and I are recovering from the effects of record extremities of Arizona heat in Durango, Colorado. What a relief.

Back to the subject, however. Much has been made of the number 47 million who are without health care in the U.S. I don't believe, however, anyone on this thread has pointed out that several million (12 to 20 million, no one knows for sure) are not citizens of the United States, another few million are young people who give little thought to getting sick and would rather spend their money on the fun things in life, instead of health insurance. The balance want health insurance but cannot afford it. Estimates of the number I have heard that make up the latter, are around 12 million.

If the congress were to concentrate on the 12 million rather than run the risk of screwing up everybody else's program, perhaps there would be more enthusiasm for the Bills that now linger in Congress.

Support for a federal single payer program decreases daily from the voting public as people learn more about the proposed programs.

After members of Congress, who have now returned home to face their constituents, I believe there will even less support for a single player plan in the U.S.

We will likely get some kind of plan, but it won't be the one Obama has been trying to sell.
DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 12:53 PM

Education in North America went that way, too, Doug. Hell, we followed the example of England around about the same time as the NZ government brought in the "Collaborative business model of education". It was fast making education a disater in those places and so, in our infinite wisdom, WE followed in their footsteps hoping to make the corrections to errors they'd made. And we did. We helped sustain a system that was based on a flawed premise. Education should NOT be a business. In my opinion, neither should health care.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 01:21 PM

So that's only 35 million people living in the United States without any kind of helath cover. So that's all right. If they get sick there is of course no danger that they'll pass any infections on to other Americans.

What I don't understand is where you get the idea that your own health care is threatened by having everybody else getting health care, Doug. It just doesn't work like that here, and it doesn't work like that naywhere else. The USA is completely unique anong rich countries in not having universal health care. Conservative governments, liberal goverenments, you name it, everyone else has it. Health care for all means that everyone benefits in the long run.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 01:23 PM

Obama's proposed plan is not a single payer plan, and neither is the House Resolution that has just passed out of committee.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Penny S.
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 03:42 PM

The second item in this broadcast is about health care in the States. A sort of revivalist medicine show, apparently, and serving neither immigrants nor the especially young.

Don't anyone ever say another word about British teeth.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Penny S.
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 03:55 PM

Nuts, I thought I had added the link.

Americana

I'll get it right some day

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 05:34 PM

The reality of the system in the US is that people die, because they cannot get the medical care they need. My daughter died!

Why anyone "in the self-professed greatest nation on earth" is prepared to let that happen to their fellow citizens is beyond me.

But then I think about Katrina and the devastation of New Orleans which still continues and I realise the apathy in the US is soul numbing.

People need to do more than say what they think with that occasional vote. They need to be activists and advocate for what is right and fair.

McGrath is right. We will never see American's "take to the streets" for this cause, because the ones who could make a difference the ones with the time, money and connections are comfortable with where they are and what they have.

The poor sod working 2 to 3 jobs per week just to keep roof and food for his/her family can't take to the streets. They don't have the bloody time. They can't miss work.

God, Why don't people get it!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 05:35 PM

If you can handle it, this interview (it runs about 42 minutes) will give you a good picture of the American health care system, why it's the way it is, and why it will be a real battle to change it.

The interview is with a health insurance company insider who had a "road to Damascus" experience, began to realize what is really going on, and could no longer support the industry he was working for and live with himself. This man knows—from the inside—what he's talking about. Facts and figures.

Take the time to watch it. Please!

CLICKY.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 05:45 PM

Or you can read the interview. The text can be found lower down on the page.

I note that one of the things that spurred Potter's decision was reading a favorite quote of mine. From Dante's Inferno:    "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, maintain neutrality."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 06:01 PM

Brilliant! Thank you Don.

I might just sleep better tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 06:12 PM

Pedantic drift: I suspect that ""The darkest places in hell" is more likely to be closer to what Dante would have said, since the lowest circles of his Hell are cold rather than hot.

Anyone got a source for where in the Inferno this remark comes?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 06:21 PM

Actually, since it's a translation from Tuscan dialect, the actual words tend to vary with the translator. But the idea is certainly clear enough.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 10:25 PM

"...health insurance company insider who had a "road to Damascus" experience,..."


                  Strangely enough, I was recently treated by an orthopedic sergeon who earned his medical degree in Damascus. A very pleasant young man--very competent.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Aug 09 - 11:31 PM

Health care for all means that everyone benefits in the long run.

Except Douggie, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: The Barden of England
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 02:55 AM

DougR - We have Private Insurance for health are here in the UK too, and always have done. The National Health system has not caused any collapse in the standard that is offered by private health insurance, it is quite rightly there for those who can afford it, however, the National Health Service covers all at point of need free of charge - no need to claim from an insurance company. Your statement 'If the congress were to concentrate on the 12 million rather than run the risk of screwing up everybody else's program' confuses me somewhat. In what way would it screw up your insurance cover? The Private Health cover here in the UK is not there to subsidise the National Health Service - it doesn't, so how would your cover be affected?
John Barden

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 02:59 AM

I certainly hope we can achieve it soon. My preferences are for the magic wand preferably, but if that doesn't work, a combination of holding things in place that work fairly well now, a huge and rapid expansion of public health clinics and hospitals, mandatory insurance sliding scale of course, some fees collected for service, sliding scale, some increased taxation if necessary, which it will be.

Everyone who can not flat out pay top dollar for private care should expect some sacrifice...and some evaluation if all their care is necessary..like the people who do use doctor visits to get attention, relieve loneliness etc. I don't know what percentage that is..but I bet it is somewhat higher than necessary..not that their needs should not be met, but they could be met by a manicurist sometimes rather than a doctor, or a CNA perhaps. There could be some grouped educational visits...heart attack recovery patients meet Wednesday at 2...celiac disease at 1..taught by nurse educators...

And I think we should be screening people..like those lifeline screens that catch stuff early. Of course you can catch more than you can treat perhaps..but they can scan people for $119 and look at several risk factors in a church parking lot..why would it take a hosptial thousands to do one screenign? I know overhead, depreciation etc...but still, it can be done cheaper.

Immunizations...do it like in the army..line up..someone shoots you on one side and someone on the other..you could get through a bunch of school kids that way..

The doctor who diagnoses you and prescribes for you does not have to be the one to patiently answer questions for you. That again could be done in a group setting with a nurse educator.

And start training additional nurses and other medical people right now..free ride for certain income levels and agreement to serve in certain areas. No excuse. There is all sorts of educational money..target it to where it is needed.

And speaking of educational reform...Maine years ago turned out CNAs in high school..why doesn't every high school do that? Too stunned I know. Get kids on a health profession TRACK oh did she say TRACK yes she did...and they should be shovel ready on graduation ready to go to at least a 2 year program. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 08:04 AM

The National Health system has not caused any collapse in the standard that is offered by private health insurance... so how would your cover[age] be affected?

Of course it wouldn't be affected- but history amply proves that the last thing you want do is attempt to change Douggie's mind with facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 11:12 AM

mg, some good ideas, but I would find it hard to ever trust a nurse or PA again. Twice now they have missed a diagnosis of pneumonia, delaying treatment and causing a long recovery time. I also think you have to be very careful about passing off those who may need emotional support. A doctor needs to be a good listener and can sometimes suss out much of what it causing a person's loneliness/etc. that a manicurist etc. might miss, I mean a physical problem etc.

We have health insurance. I would gladly give it up for something like the government has in the UK. The other day I was calling for oxygen prices. The ONLY PPO (preferred provider - meaning they have a contract with the insurance co. and accept negotiated prices) will not just supply me with bottles of O2. I have to rent a concentrator from them, too, at partial expense to me. I own my own concentrator; I told them that was stupid, no thanks. The whole health care thing in this country is so stupid, sad, wasteful, sick, and a disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 11:17 AM

"Everyone" who woudl benefit most certainly includes Dougie. Better health care, or at any rate just as good as he's getting, but also no more nagging discomfort about the Mudcatters who have reported here about how they've been let down by the existing "system", let alone all the other people with similar experiences who aren't Mudcatters.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, goohowevd? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 03 Aug 09 - 12:03 PM

McGrath: I did not write that I rejoiced that a few million (your 35 million figure is still a bit high IMO)US citizens are without health care! I wish every citizen of the US could have super health care as our presidents enjoy and members of Congress enjoy.

I believe, however that the result of government take-over of health care would result in reduction in the quality of care and lead to medical rationing, particularly for old folks like me.

Perhaps the British government operates more efficiently than I perceive that our government does (the fiasco that resulted from the "Cash for Clunkers" legislation that occurred this weekend is an excellent example of what I mean, but THAT'S another story)and may account for the practically unanimous opinion on this forum that you Brits have the perfect health care system.

DougR