BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 03:25 PM

Don T, in what important ways does the NHS differ from the Medicare system in the US?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 02:58 PM

I have been a beneficiary of the British NHS since my birth at the beginning of 1941, and in the whole of that time I have received treatment (emergency, surgical etc.) completely free of charge, and I have never been asked to pay back one red cent of what that treatment cost.

Throughout my working life I have paid very reasonable National Insurance contributions fom my wages, so that others may have the same service.

There can be no possible system of healthcare which better serves the needs of both rich and poor without favour or bias.

It is only very recently that spectacles and (due to a reduction in dental practitioners willing to do NHS work)dental treatment have been placed largely outside of the NHS remit, and most of us can live with that.

If there is one thing I would change about the system, it is this. I would remove much of the bureaucratic superstructure, and place the budgets of health services in the hands of those who know how to spend them.......The DOCTORS.

That said, I am eternally grateful for the fact that my medical history has NOT left me with a huge debt to a rapacious bunch of moneygrabbing profiteers, which I would be utterly incapable of repaying.

Those who are happy with corporate insurance schemes such as Medicare are, I think, labouring under a delusion that they will always be covered. Experience of insurance (both buying and selling the stuff), leads me to suspect they will be very disappointed at some future time.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 01:30 PM

The Senate sub-committee vote went strictly according to party lines. Unless Obama et al. can hold all of his Democratic congressional members together, which is doubtful, his proposals face a rough time.

The Democrats may be able to get some stopgap legislation through, but it looks like comprehensive revision will not be accomplished in the near future.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 01:11 PM

That doesn't strike me as a particularly accurate account of what motivated Bevan and co. More to the point, I doubt if that argument will assist those in the US who would like health reform to persuade the doubters.

But I will go along with your sentiment that "we'd better watch it in the UK as well".

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 12:07 PM

McGrath, as usual, is correct about the importance of the service being free at the point of delivery. However, the general argument here misses a very important point.

All the major social reforms of the last century or so, from the 40-hour week, paid holidays, free education, sick pay, old age pensions, equal pay for women, abolition of child labour and so on occurred not because those in power were persuaded by logic or morality. They occurred because they were perceived to be necessary in order to stave off revolution by a politicised, organised, class-conscious workforce.

Most of them were first conceded at a time when there still appeared to be an alternative way of organising industrial societies besides US/Western European style capitalism. In order to maintain the legitimacy of liberal-democratic capitalism, reforms like the NHS were conceded as a result of working-class struggle by a ruling class that saw conceding such reforms as a preferable alternative to the revolution they feared.

Now that no-one is talking about an alternative to capitalism the ruling class has no incentive to make any concessions for the simple reason that the bastards aren't scared anymore.

There is no mass, effective class-based political movement in the United States and so there will be no significant reform of the healthcare system.

And we'd better watch it in the UK as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:22 PM

In the past three months we have spent over $700 extra for doctor visits and prescription copays for a bout with pneumonia; that's with health insurance. And, it will be more once i get the bill for the ER visit. It's extra money we don't really have. It might not have cost so much if the nurse practitioner who first saw me had diagnosed correctly and treated me aggressively. My doctor agrees with me on that. We went through a comedy of errors with the front office people, etc., and that is not the first time that has happened. I would be very wary, any more, of going to a less-than-a-doctor for any seemingly acute problems.

Whatever they do, it needs to be as simple and worry-free as possible for everyone and they need to do it NOW! My daughter works for a hospital collection agency - first collector, so there's no pressure, just get payments lined up. She knows people who have put their homes in trust to be sure that they don't possibly lose them if the medial bills get to be too much; she has even recommended it to some of her clients to help them out. That's just plain wrong to have such stress.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 09:19 PM

The time for nationalized healthcare was before Hillary tried to get it passed the first place. The advertising budgets of the drug companies and private insurance companies are the only things that prevent more people from realizing that.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dwditty
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 08:35 PM

My problem with the status quo is that, for example, at the last company I worked for, I paid over $1100 per month for health insurance - and lousy coverage at that. High deductibles. $40 co-pays for medicing. (I have one medicine for which it is cheaper to pay cash tahn the co-pay to have insurance pay for it.) Obviously, this is a company that no insurance company wants for a client...and that is the rub. The insurance companies hold all the cards. If someone is risky - jack the price. Pay doctors whatever the hell they (the insuarance companies) want regardless of the bill. Access to health care should not be dependent (in my opinion) on whether a person works for company A or company B. Personally, I would like to see national helth, but that is just me. At the very least, the cost of medical insurance should be a level playing field.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 07:36 PM

I disagree that the system is not broken. People with unlimited disposable income can afford to pay as many buckets of money as they wish. But for the person who is living with one eye monitoring next month's mortgage/rent, the family's food budget, the children's school clothes, the occasional night out on the town or the annual vacation, and who is all too aware that if he or she loses the job it will all come crashing down cannot begin to afford the insurance costs each month for the whole family.

Even a single person can't afford it.

During college, my daughter worked as a temp for a really BIG insurance company and while she was there, the CEO retired. With a pension and perks that amounted to more than 35 million dollars.

That's a HELL of a lot of premiums.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 07:12 PM

"...the transition to a single payer would probably be terrifying for many."

I think that's what is so puzzling to people who have lived most of their lives in such a system, and cannot envisage how it can be possible to cope with the idea of a set-up where you have to worry about whether it will be possible to pay for medical treatment you need - whether the insurance company will be willing to pay up, even if you are insured.

It sounds as if somebody has done a great job in persuading people they need to be terrified about changing to a system where those kind of worries are few and far between.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 06:39 PM

Mum, 82 years old, is failing by the day. Eyesight, knees, hips, oldtimers... thank goodness we live in Canada. It ain't perfect, but it beats living in a country that don't give a fuck.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 06:31 PM

I think ultimately it will be good, but the transition to a single payer would probably be terrifying for many. I am glad they will keep some structures in place as they move toward some form of universal coverage. It is not totally broken; it is just not available for too many, some of whom could afford to pay at least something, just not the whole amount. We should try to extract a reasonable amount from every financially able person, on a sliding scale, depending on use etc. Nothing that would cripple them or ruin them financially, but bring in income and reduce recreational or unnecessary doctor visits.

There are tons of things that can be done. First of all, unless you have something really complex, a nurse educator can probably do a better job than many doctors. Some very easily-trained positions can be filled with unemployed people -- such as reception, maintenance, some medical records work, data entry etc. Also, easily-trained and totally monitored unemployed people could be used to provide some human contact and follow up for chronic conditions -- have you taken your blood pressure today, tested your blood sugar, gotten some fresh air, taken your medications. Monitored phone calls and perhaps home visits by lpns etc. could go a long way.

One thing that is not mentioned is the reduced stress that would come from knowing your extended family members would be covered -- for some of us we are OK but family members might not be, and how much could we have to chip in for their care?

We really need to address the extensive doctor use by some people -- some are lonely and in need of social contact. This could be satiated by people with an AA degree rather than an M.D. or RN. There could be group discussions for people with diabetes, or lupus, or kidney stones.

Again, lots of neighborhood clinics, employing as much as possible neighborhood people. Public hospitals in low-income neighborhoods with community colleges attached right there for training and education.

Better biology training in high school so people can move shovel-ready into LPN or RN or tech programs right after graduation.

It is really important to hire impoverished people right at the point of use. I remember working for a while at Harborview in Seattle, which serves many very low-income people. I was struck by the number of recent Etheopian and Etutrian??? immigrants who would come in pleading for any sort of work -- janitorial, groundswork, cafeteria.

Someone as smart as me and Obama can work all this out. We have sick people, unemployed people, ..here is a plan...the unemployed people can take care of the sick people. Win-win.

I am not one who sees all sorts of evil lurking in this system -- I just don't see a well-developed system is all. And we need health workers -- for prevention and encouragement and helping people watch their diet and exercise...these health works could get some sort of certification, again be closely monitored to see they are not dispensing actual medical advice -- but could go a long way in preserving health. And so much of health depends on the basics -- food and shelter and a crime-free neighborhood so you can go shopping, so stores will flourish in your neighborhood -- the linkage of crime to poor health has many aspects, which I will discuss at some point. If you can't get outside for fear of the young gang members, you can not get good groceries. You can not get exercise. You can not see your doctor or hairdresser or church group. You can not get Vitamin D, which is linked to so much. Someone needs to bring this to the attention of the ygm and ask them to cease terrifying their neighbors. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 02:44 PM

Obviously, everything has to be paid for. But "free at the point of use" is the point here. If I had to shell out hundred of pounds for a replacement hearing aid it'd be a real pain, even if I can do it. And there are a good few people who just couldn't. And when it comes to major medical treatment where it's not a cae of a few hundred but a lot of thousands

"Free at the point of use" makes sense. Road maintenance costs money. Running a fire service costs money. But it'd be a drag if every time you wanted to walk down the road outside your house you had to pay an admission charge. Or if your house caught fire you had to pay the firecrew before they could do anything about it.

It's the basis of private insurance of course - except there there's exclusions and exceptions, and paperwork to try to get payment agreed in advance, or to get back the money you've paid out.

Why make life harder for everyone, most especially for people who are sick and frightened? All for the sake of some ideological commitment to avoid "socialized medicine"?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 01:29 PM

Doug, the point has been made over and over on this thread that nationalized health care is not free- but free at the moment you need it. Sit up and pay attention,if you please.
******************************

Has anyone else noticed the new television ads? They've been running in Alaska for at least a week, raising the alarm: "Can you trust Washington with your life?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 01:18 PM

Kevin: Your hearing aid is not FREE. Your taxes pay for it. Nothing in life is free except maybe advice.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 12:19 PM

My apologies if this has already been posted; it just came in my email and I thought it would be of interest:

Dennis Kucinich - www.Kucinich.us

Healthcare: Change the Debate
Support a Real Public Option

Dear Friends,

In mid-May, in an effort to reach consensus, President Obama secured a deal with the health insurance companies to trim 1.5% of their costs each year for ten years saving a total of $2 trillion dollars, which would be reprogrammed into healthcare. Just two days after the announcement at the White House the insurance companies reneged on the deal which was designed to protect and increase their revenue at least 35%

The insurance companies reneged on the deal because they refuse any restraint on increasing premiums, copays and deductibles - core to their profits. No wonder a recent USA Today poll found that only four percent of Americans trust insurance companies. This is within the margin of error, which means it is possible that NO ONE TRUSTS insurance companies.

Then why does Congress trust the insurance companies? Yesterday HR 3200 "America's Affordable Health Choices Act," a 1000 page bill was delivered to members. The title of the bill raises a question: "Affordable" for whom?.

Of $2.4 trillion spent annually for health care in America, fully $800 billion goes for the activities of the for-profit insurer-based system. This means one of every three health care dollars is siphoned off for corporate profits, stock options, executive salaries, advertising, marketing and the cost of paper work, (which can be anywhere between 15 - 35% in the private sector as compared to Medicare, the single payer plan which has only 3% administrative costs).

50 million Americans are uninsured and another 50 million are under insured while for-profit insurance companies divert precious health care dollars to non-health care purposes. Eliminate the for-profit health care system and its extraordinary overhead, put the money into healthcare and everyone will be covered, everyone will be able to afford health care.

Today three committees will begin marking up and amending HR3200. In this, one of the most momentous public policy debates in the past 70 years, single payer, the only viable "public option," the one that makes sound business sense, controls costs and covers everyone was taken off the table.

In contrast to HR3200 ... HR676 calls for a universal single-payer health care system in the United States, Medicare for All. It has over 85 co-sponsors in Congress with the support of millions of Americans and countless physicians and nurses. How does HR-676 control costs and cover everyone? It cuts out the for-profit middle men and delivers care directly to consumers and Medicare acts as the single payer of bills. It also recognizes that under the current system for-profit insurance companies make money NOT providing health care.

This week is the time to break the hold which the insurance companies have on our political process. Tell Congress to stand up to the insurance companies. Ask members to sign on to the only real public option, HR 676, a single-payer healthcare system.

Hundreds of local labor unions, thousands of physicians and millions of Americans are standing behind us. With a draft of HR3200 now circulating, It is up to each and every one of us to organize and rally for the cause of single-payer healthcare. Change the debate. Now is the time.

The time to act is now!

Sincerely Yours,
Dennis


PS - Over the next several months, I will be engaging all of you with frequent updates and will ask you to continue a movement to fight for what needs to be done now; ending this war in Iraq and stopping the escalation in Afghanistan, attaining true single-payer healthcare for all Americans, standing up for my brothers and sisters of organized labor.

After you have contacted your member of Congress, please tell us your thoughts and ideas on how you are organizing your friends and neighbors towards a single-payer movement and all of the other issues that are important to us.

Contact us at [e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 10:06 AM

It's not just in life-threatening situations that the NHS comes up trumps.

Like many of us my hearing's deteriorated a little with the years. So I've got a digital hearing aid for each ear, courtesy the NHS, completely free of charge.

On Monday the bit that holds the battery fell off, because the plastic hinge had worn out, what with getting opened and closed every day.

So this morning I called into the audiology department at my local hospital and asked the lady at the desk if they could fix it. "You'll have to have an appointment" she says, and clicks into her computer to set one up. "Will 11.15 be OK?" It was five past 11 at the time.

Though I must admit it was 11.20 before I was in fact seen.

There and then I was given a brand new digital hearing aid, programmed on the spot to match my prescription, and adjusted to fit on to my earpiece. Not a penny to pay, and no paperwork at all.

That's the NHS for you, the way it's supposed to work, and the way it does work does most of the time in my experience. So to anyone worried about "Nationalized Healthcare" what I have to say is, "Come on in, the water's lovely."

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 01:24 AM

No need to apologize, artbrooks, it was my fault.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 12:12 AM

One of the infuriatingly brainless aspects of it is that for some reason, and time after time, we act as though we have to start from scratch, the wheel has to be re-invented every time. Why is that? Why can't a country look at the experiences in other countries and cherry-pick, so to speak? Why do we pretend that we know best?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Rowan
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 09:27 PM

From reading the entire thread I get the impression that, while various Canadian jurisdictions have versions of a nationalised health care system, Britain's version is the one regarded as the benchmark. This may be because it was the first to become well known and because it attempted to 'go the whole hog', so to speak. Sandra is the only one to post on the Oz system, which used to be much the same as Britain's prior to the introduction of the NHS. It was costly for us low-paid people and I was glad to be covered by Melbourne Uni's arrangements with its health service and engagement with the three local hospitals (Royal Melbourne - largely built for US servicemen during WWII, Royal Women's and the Dental Hospital) and the Victorian Optometry College.

When the nationalised health care system was introduced by the Whitlam govt (nationally, as a Commonwealth program), almost the only objectors were the medicos, whose union (the AMA) complained bitterly about govt control of their salaries. This was largely a repeat of the nonsense from their BMA equivalents as described above. Originally, copayments were required only for specialists. When the conservatives (they call themselves Liberals) got back into govt they dismantled the universal aspects of coverage but these were reinstated when the Hawke govt got in. The conservatives weren't game to take on the electorate with a complete dismantling, when they got in, so we now have copayments for almost everything and a penalisation if you don't have private insurance.

That said, I've had a menisectomy, a couple of sessions with kidney stones, two kids delivered and brought up and a colon resection, all in public hospitals at no cost. I have a good relationship with my GP and Ophthalmologist, both of whom have kept tabs on me in hospital. crutches loaned, scripts, physio; all were provided as required and at no extra cost.

Another aspect of the Oz system is the control exerted by the Pharmaceutical Goods agency. Advertisements for specific medical treatments (including medicines) are not allowed in Oz and prescription medicines are assessed for inclusion in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; once included, most cost the customer no more than about $30 ($5.30, once you're officially an Old Fart) and, should you spend more than about $1500 in a year, you become eligible for further cost reductions. This has meant my expenses for long term treatment for glaucoma have been no more than $50 for the drops (now I'm an Old Fart, this has reduced to $10.60) and the copayment every six moths for the ophthalmologist. The govt covers the rest of the wholesale price of the prescription medicines and negotiates with pharmaceutical multinationals to cap the wholesale prices they wish to charge. Needless to say, the multinationals have tried every trick in the book to get rid of the Pharmaceutical Goods agency; the latest situation (introduced by the late and unlamented conservative coalition) was the removal of the most independent pharmacological academic from the assessment panel and have him replaced by a couple of "industry representatives". Even with this handicap, the system is still working.

But dentistry is still suffering from an 18th century view that it is not medical in nature so cannot be covered by the national health care system; the school-based dental service for schoolkids was dismantled by the conservatives when they were last in govt.

It costs me nothing for ambulance transport, even if I'm beyond the black stump, where the Royal Flying Doctor Service does it all.

Contrast this with my observations in South Carolina a few years ago. An African-American man died of a cardiac infarct because he lived in an area that was so poor it paid no County taxes; this meant the ambulance refused to attend, as it could not reclaim its expenses. A muso friend in Columbia has to spend an enormous part of her salary to deal with various optical problems even though employed in a govt funded agency (which the Governor is trying to close) and thus, presumably, covered by an employer-funded insurance policy.

Oz and a few other countries may not have contributed the same number of medical innovations as the US (although, for Oz at least, I'd put money on parity on a per capita basis, and most European countries innovated before the US existed) and I regard most of Scott Atlas' assertions -as posted by Ebbie- as mere jingoism but I reckon the health care I have access to as the equal of anything available east of the Pacific Ocean and, because the money I pay goes to the govt (and thus back to me in services available) rather than directly to those with a profit motive uppermost, I suspect it is more cost-effective across the whole community.

Cheers, Rowan.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: kendall
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 08:51 PM

Any American who has traveled in Canada or the UK knows the lies our medical and insurance fat cats are telling us. They are frantic to save their cash cow so they lie and lie some more knowing the uneducated will believe them.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Emma B
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 06:59 PM

Now I'm 64 and 'jubilada' I get my UK prescriptions free - fortnately, I think I've only had one course of antibiotics in a 12 month period and I elect to buy non prescription drugs 'over the counter' although I'm eligible to receive these too.

As I'm also a 'country woman' my doctors surgery is, in addition. a dispensary so I don't have to travel to get prescriptions made up.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 06:37 PM

Prescription drugs in Canada are costlier than I can afford, so I just don't for the most part.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 06:30 PM

"The asthma drugs cost me about Cdn$150 per month."

they cost me less than UK £5 per month. The other thing I realised during my mum's illness is that perscription charges in the US and even Canada can be pretty debilitating...

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 05:55 PM

Doug, my apologies. Having been the target of a similar diatribe early in my experience on Mudcat, caused by my not knowing that the use of my name was reserved for another individual, I never use the simple "Art" here.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: John P
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 04:39 PM

Part of the problem is the US is that our business "leaders" were allowed to dismantle our economic system -- including health care -- by sending most of our jobs overseas. We have a health care system that depends on people having jobs. It's never worked for the unemployed and the poor, of course, but now it's also not working for the middle class. More and more people are out of work, and more and more employers are simply not offering insurance. We allowed a poor-but-sort-of-OK system to be dismantled, without requiring that anything be created to replace it. So now we have an even poorer system that's getting worse every day.

The whole concept of health care as a source of wealth for insurers and health care providers is absurd. The whole concept of having employers responsible for providing health care is absurd. The whole concept of having millions of children who can't go the doctor when they get sick is absurd. I say "absurd", but tragic is really a better word.

Another anecdote: a friend of mine needs a liver transplant. The hospital won't even talk to her about it unless she can show that she has insurance that will cover at least $500,000 toward a transplant, which is expected to cost between $500,000 and more than $1,000,000. The insurance she's been paying for for years only covers $250,000 toward a transplant -- in other words, they don't cover it (since she can't even make an appointment to talk to a doctor about it on that much insurance). She is scrambling to find supplemental insurance, but she has an extremely serious pre-existing condition. She will probably manage to get the transplant and stay alive, but she will also be financially ruined fro the rest of her life. Meanwhile, the insurance company executives, the doctors, the drug companies, and the owners of the hospital are all multimillionaires. How can anyone live with themselves when they are getting filthy rich while killing or ruining people?

I wish Obama was more ferocious about getting a real health-care system. The need to placate the wealthy - so they can get even more wealthy - is a real shame.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Charmion
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:20 PM

Another contribution from Canada, province of Ontario:

The Ontario Health Insurance Plan was introduced in 1965. I was eleven years old, and I remember that year as the time when our standard of living began a sharp upward trend. My mother had a chronic lung disease that had kept us poor; up to that point, we never ate anything that cost more than forty-nine cents a pound.

I have been a steroid-dependent asthmatic since my early 30s. In 1994, I suffered a retinal tear that required immediate surgery to ensure I would not go blind. Consequently, I have experience with both a potentially catastrophic injury and a chronic illness that requires constant management.

The eye problem was handled seamlessly and flawlessly by not one, but two world-class surgeons. One reason it went so well is that my city has a major teaching hospital that includes a world-class eye clinic. The other reason is that I recognized the grey shadow at the edge of my visual field as most likely the result of something wrong with my eye, so I went to my optometrist to find out what it was. I picked him because he has the equipment and experience to perform a basic retinal examination and, as a primary-care provider, he would see me without a referral. (Eye surgeons are not primary-care providers, and they don't see patients without referrals.) Sure enough, the optometrist knew an opthalmologist who saw me the next morning, and the first opthalmologist knew that my retinal tear was outside his area of expertise and sent me to the world-famous eye surgeon who fixed it within 12 hours. Total time from optometrist's office to eye surgeon's bench: 36 hours.

If we lived in the States, we would have needed a second mortgage on the house to pay the surgeon, but I walked away without so much as putting my hand in my pocket.

The asthma is a different matter. It is managed by me, with periodic consultation with my family doctor. In 20 years I have been assessed by a respirologist twice, once to establish that I do, indeed, have asthma, and once to establish that it is, indeed, getting worse as I get older. Thanks to 25 years of recurrent illness and the gentle, persistent nagging of my faithful family doc, I am extremely persnickety about: avoiding things that trigger attacks, taking all the medications as often as I should, and getting enough sleep, even when I would rather sing all night at the Getaway. I also go to see my family doctor whenever I catch a cold (as I do about twice a year, just like everyone else) because I know it takes only 24 to 48 hours to develop into bronchitis.

The asthma drugs cost me about Cdn$150 per month. Antibiotics run about $60 for each bout of bronchitis. I have never had any trouble getting into the doc's office; if he's jammed up, he will fit me in between people because he knows that I know exactly what's wrong with me. I get good results because (1) so far I am pretty good at figuring out what my problem most likely is, so I have not been subjected to the agony of protracted, expensive testing that doesn't produce diagnostic results, and (2) I follow the treatment plan religiously. It helps that my major problems are both common and treatable, and my family doc of 15 years is still on the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 02:08 PM

DougR, I'm on my knees with gratitude. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 01:59 PM

I will say one thing. The same "transport chair" in the US is about $100. Three times that here.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 12:59 PM

Ebbie: Wow! You are absolutely correct in your reply to Goatfell. And THAT'S a probable "first" on the Mudcat (that I agree with you on something).

Art: My apologies, and my fault. My post was not in reply to anything you wrote in your posts. I was directing my remarks to Artbrooks remarks regarding there being no interest in single payer plans in the Congress.

I feel terrible that you and your wife have endured such an awful situation for so many years. If present efforts in Washington were directed to provide medical care for those who do not have it, I would support such a program 100%. I am not a stranger to the trials and tribulations caused by poor health in the family. My first wife suffered mightily for twenty some years from Rheumatoid Arthritis. She was hospitalized for twelve weeks in a coma during 1996. Her hospital bill was over a Million dollars. Fortunately, I was working and had good insurance co-paid by my employer and that hospital visit did not cost us a dime. I cannot even imagine what would have happened if we had not had insurance. I assume I would still be paying somebody every month.

Anyway, sorry for the confusion. I forgot there was more than one Art in the Mudcat.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 12:37 PM

Of course back in 1948 in Britain it was Nye Bevan in charge of getting the NHS set up, and Clem Attlee as Prime Minister backing him up. Back in the 1990s in the States it was Hilary Clinton with Bill Clinton backing her...

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 11:23 AM

Goatfell, if you don't want to be attacked, the first rule is: Don't attack.

Perhaps you are not aware that the Emergency Room of any hospital in America is required by law to treat ANYONE brought to its doors whether the person can pay or not.

This is why many people who don't have health insurance have no choice but to use the Emergency Room.

(Mind you, you will still be billed for the Emergency Room care but they often/usually don't get their money and don't expect to.)

If 'Harry Simms' is the man in the song that Peace posted, the story you recount is suspect. And please note that the incident in the song dates from the 1940s.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Emma B
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 10:20 AM

DMcG,
I'd been thinking about the very strong initial opposition to the setting up of the NHS myself

In America, health professionals have had to put themselves in debt to be trained, and that debt has restricted their lives for many years after medical school, internships, and residencies.
Of course, ideally, health care professionals should not be recruited on the basis of their hope of making a huge amount of money in this field, but on the basis of their desire to serve the well-being of their fellow citizens however, it is possible to understand very real fears that they will be severely finacially worse off under a universal care system.

One element in any reform should be a plan to ensure access to adequate financial support for tuition and the families of medical students, as well as to students in nursing, pharmacy, psychology, dentistry, chiropractic, and other related health-care professions


In January 1948 BMA members had voted 40,814 against the NHS Act and 4,734 for.
By April, when a second ballot was held, the vote was still 25,842 against and 14,620 for

General Practioners opposed state control on the grounds it would compromise their status as self-employed professionals and stop them selling on the 'reputation' of their practices when they retired.

On its first day - 5 July 1948 - three-quarters of the population signed up with GPs. Within a few months 97% had registered. This pressure removed any possibility of a boycott by GPs, as BMA leaders had considered.

Intertesting reading From the archives Doctors recall the inception of the National Health Service

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: daylia
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 10:15 AM

Art, reading about your troubles re being diagnosed with MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS just gives me the chills. SO sorry to hear about this ... geez, whats the moral of the story here ... when the doctor says MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, better heed the warning bells? I read somewhere that multiple sclerosis is one of the most misunderstood misdiagnosed conditions today...kind of a catch-all diagnosis, like schizophrenia. Hmmm ...

bobad, thanks for the link, thats an intersting comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 09:54 AM

DougR,
You misread what I wrote big time!

I have no private health insurance now, and have not had it since the outpatient parts of the insurance sponged up every cent of cash money I had.

We couldn't afford to pay the premiums, so we had to drop that American Family health policy. That was in 1997---12 years ago.

I am 68 now and am on Social Security and Medicare.

Because my wife was too ill to work enough over the last 40 years, she cannot qualify for Social Security or Medicare---ever.

In order for her to have health insurance through Illinois Medicaid, an absolutely miserable bureaucratic mess, I MUST remain destitute and poverty stricken, or else she'd have no insurance at all, and could not secure the 150 shock treatments she has needed for her ongoing drug-resistant depression.

SINGLE PAYER government run -- and paid for -- health insurance is our only hope for for getting out from under the constraints of Medicaid's impoverishing spend-down system.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 09:29 AM

it's worth recalling what a struggle introducing the National Health in the UK was. Here's a clip from the Wikipedia page on Aneurin Bevan:
=====
On the "appointed day", 5 July 1948, having overcome political opposition from both the Conservative Party and from within his own party, and after a dramatic showdown with the British Medical Association, which had threatened to derail the National Health Service scheme before it had even begun, as medical practitioners continued to withhold their support just months before the launch of the service, Bevan's National Health Service Act of 1946 came into force. After 18 months of ongoing dispute between the Ministry of Health and the BMA, Bevan finally managed to win over the support of the vast majority of the medical profession by offering a couple of minor concessions, but without compromising on the fundamental principles of his NHS proposals. Bevan later gave the famous quote that, in order to broker the deal, he had "stuffed their mouths with gold".
====

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 08:54 AM

If the USA government reduces the ability of greedy corporations to bleed dry the life savings of its citizens in need of life saving health care how can that be considered a bad thing? If it allows poor people to gain the same level of care as the rich, but still reduces the national average cost of these services how can that be considered a bad thing? This seems a no-brainer to those of us in other parts of the world. I think this question is less about health care and more about economics and profits.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 08:07 AM

Doug, you are clearly getting your information from a source other than the documented proposals, as further explained by FactCheck.org. I'm afraid there is no purpose in further discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 07:35 AM

Britain's per capita spend on health care is way below USA, but average life span is longer.
We must be doing something right.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Emma B
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 07:34 AM

In the early 1990s reformers also believed that the conditions were ripe for change; then, as now, soaring health care costs and growth of the uninsured population fueled public dissatisfaction

When Hillary Clinton was appointed chairwoman of the President's Task Force on National Health Care Reform. a Democratic Party staff member was quoted as saying -
"The health care lobby is one of the most formidable in Washington."
The 'usual' argument was made that -
"When liberals mean reform, they mean diminished excellence" and syndicated columnist and lecturer Cal Thomas stated "No matter what she does, she won't get the poor to stop smoking, lose weight, exercise more, give up fatty foods, or keep hypochondriacs from showing up at the hospital to be treated for hang-nails."

Since that time 'inaction and incrementalism have governed U.S. health policy, with the predictable result that both health care spending and the number of uninsured Americans have reached record levels' - New England journal of Medicine

I feel sure that Obama will also share the reality of Hillary Clinton's experience how great a challenge reform will be.
Two weeks after accepting this "mission impossible," she told a conference in Pennsylvania,
"It is a very difficult change to bring about.
The people who believe in changing the whole system ought to understand how difficult it is going to be to change even small parts, because of the interests that are arrayed against those changes."

The Clinton administration both underestimated the opposition and overestimated the support for reform

Jonathan Oberlander, Ph.D. writing on Learning from Failure in Health Care Reform in 2007 observed

"Firstly, in U.S. health policy, the status quo is deeply entrenched and, despite all its failings, the system is remarkably resistant to change, in part because many constituencies profit from it. Thus, although everyone decries the amount of money spent on health care, the political reality is that national health care expenditures represent income to health industry stakeholders, whose interests lie in ensuring even greater spending.

Second, many Americans are satisfied with their own health care arrangements, so reforms that threaten to unsettle those arrangements risk running afoul of the voting public.
Health care reformers must thread the needle by persuading the anxious insured that reform is in their best interest and that the uninsured can be covered without disturbing (and ideally, while enhancing) their coverage.

Third, expanding government authority over a health care system that accounts for more than $2 trillion and one sixth of the economy in a country that is ambivalent about public power is an inherently controversial exercise. No universal coverage plan, no matter how clever, can evade that ideological debate.

Fourth, paying for health care reform remains a formidable challenge. The Clinton plan collapsed largely because the administration could not secure congressional support for an employer mandate, but no obvious financing alternatives have emerged in the ensuing years, and persistent antitax politics and federal deficits constrain the options for reform.

Finally, the window for enacting a comprehensive plan for health care reform never stays open for long, so failure comes at a high price — namely, the loss of political will to do anything meaningful about the uninsured for some time to come.

The Clinton administration made no shortage of political miscalculations and strategic errors that helped to derail its campaign for health security. Yet it is easy to forget that Bill Clinton was not the first president to fail at health care reform: he was following in the footsteps of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Richard Nixon.

Ultimately, the demise of the Clinton plan says less about the administration's mistakes than it does about the extraordinary difficulty of adopting comprehensive health care reform in the United States.

For today's reformers, that is the most sobering lesson of all."

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 07:09 AM

Pfizer (with Wyeth): net income in 2008--over 12 billion.
Johnson and Johnson: net income in 2008--over 10 billion.

Fixing the medical system is half the problem. There's the other half.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 06:49 AM

President Obama's views.

"The Current Situation

Making sure every American has access to high quality health care is one of the most important challenges of our time. The number of uninsured Americans is growing, premiums are skyrocketing, and more people are being denied coverage every day. A moral imperative by any measure, a better system is also essential to rebuilding our economy -- we want to make health insurance work for people and businesses, not just insurance and drug companies.

The Solution

Reform the health care system:
We will take steps to reform our system by expanding coverage, improving quality, lowering costs, honoring patient choice and holding insurance companies accountable.

Promote scientific and technological advancements:
We are committed to putting responsible science and technological innovation ahead of ideology when it comes to medical research. We believe in the enormous capacity of American ingenuity to find cures for diseases that continue to extinguish too many lives and cause too much suffering every year.

Improve preventative care:

In order to keep our people healthy and provide more efficient treatment we need to promote smart preventative care, like cancer screenings and better nutrition, and make critical investments in electronic health records, technology that can reduce errors while ensuring privacy and saving lives."

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 05:59 AM

The Death of Harry Simms
(Aunt Molly Jackson and Jim Garland)

Come and listenm to my story, come and listen to my song.
I'll tell you of a hero who is now dead and gone.
I will tell you of a young boy, his age it was nineteen;
He was the bravest union man that I have ever seen.

Harry Simms was a pal of mine, we labored side by side.
Expecting to be shot on sight, or taken for a ride
By some life-stealing gun thug That roams from town to town
To shoot and kill our union men ehere e'er they may be found.

Harry Simms and I were parted at five o'clock that day.
"Be careful, my dear brother," to Harry I did say
"Now I must do my duty," was his reply to me
"If I get killed by gun thugsdon't grieve after me."

Harry Simms was walking up the track that bright sunshiny day,
He was a youth of courage, his steps were light and gay.
He did not know the gun thugs was hiding on the way
To kill our brave young hero that bright sunshiny day.

Harry Simms was killed on Brush Creek in nineteen-thirty-two.
He organized the miners into the NMU
He gave his life in struggle, 'twas all that he could do
He died for the union, he died for me and you.

The thugs can kill our leaders and cause us to shed tears
But they cannot kill our spirit if they try a million years.
And we will keep on fighting now we all realize
A union struggle must go on till we are organized.


Copyright 1947 by People's Songs, assigned to Stormking Music Inc. 1966
Note: Harry Simms, an NMU organizer, was gunned down near Pineville,
    KY, on the way to collect truckloads of food and clothing which
    had been collected from out-of-state for the striking Brush Creek
    miners. RG

Tune is a Buffalo Skinners variant.

RG

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: goatfell
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 04:43 AM

I forgot to metion he bleed to death on the hspital steps before they took him in

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: goatfell
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 04:42 AM

a man called Harry Simms was shot in America and his friends took him to the local hospital, but the the staff there wouldn't look after him because his friends couldn't pay the medical bill, so after a while another man came along and said that he would pay the medical bill, so the staff took him in but Harry Simms died, so much for you health care in America.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 03:47 AM

People complain about things like waiting lists on the NHS. I had to have my gall bladder out almost 10 years ago, and I did wait a fair time for my operation and had it postponed twice, but to be honest it was not a life-threatening condition, and while I suffered discomfort whenever there was an "attack", it was not really the end of the world.

As I have found out over the past year, though - the minute the NHS suspects you have cancer, good lord, the care is good. As it happens, my mother was recently treated for cancer in America, so I could compare our two experiences quite easily. She has worked for about 20 years in local government, so her benefits package is, I assume, a good one.

What I found is that, while I was fast-tracked into the local breast clinic the moment my GP suspected cancer, and was able to have all of my tests done at one time, in one place, and had all of the results back quite quickly, my mother had to go to different places for each of her tests, with some of the results taking several weeks to be returned. Both the speed and the continuity of care were fantastic in my case - the same doctor I saw on my first visit was the one who performed my operation. My mother saw many different people over a period of several weeks. This makes a big difference: I found that, when you are feeling quite vulnerable, knowing your surgeon and support staff is extremely helpful - you develop a relationship of trust with them. If there's anything you are unsure about or any questions about your care, you have no hesitation in ringing them. I was able to have all of my treatment in the little hospital in my local town, rather than having to go to some big hospital in a nearby city (that option was offered to me, but I preferred being in a familiar environment where I knew people).

To sum up, my impression was that the care I received under the nationalised system was much more holistic and "joined-up" than the care my mother recieved privately in America - I guess this is a feature of how the two different systems work. It was also a LOT faster, even though my mother's condition was far more serious than mine. I also got the impression that the NHS was a lot more personal, with the opportunity to get to know the people who will be looking after you right the way through.

I should add that my tumour turned out not to be cancer, but it was a feature of another condition which has a high rate of recurrence, so I remain under the care of the same team who originally treated me. There is something very reassuring in this.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jul 09 - 01:30 AM

Art: I urge you to do a bit more research on the plans being considered. If, as Obama wishes, the federal government offers a plan to compete with private insurance companies, there will be no more private plans ergo, no choice to remain in your current plan. No private company can compete with the federal government. Therefore, there will only be one plan available ...a single payer plan.

Also, everything I have heard and read indicate that the Congress, at least, will not participate in whatever plan is signed into law. They will keep the plan they have now. I'm not sure if that applies to other federal employees or not.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 10:27 PM

When my hip was replaced I'd had to wait about six months for the operation. However, I'd lived with the pain for about 9 years at that point and six months more didn't seem to be all that much.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 09:20 PM

Doug-
Me too. But how about the folks that aren't on Medicare? I've got mine, Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: bobad
Date: 13 Jul 09 - 07:30 PM

Much grist for the mill: Canadian and American health care systems compared