BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 07:04 PM

On Tuesday I called an ambulance since I had sudden chest pains. The crew did an ECG with the vehicle parked in the street, didn't spot anything much but drove me to the hospital anyway.

I was seen by a doctor within minutes of arriving, hooked up to an ECG, had blood tests and was taken to the acute admissions ward later that night.

Blood tests showed I'd had a mild heart attack, so I was sent up to the cardiology ward, was seen by pretty much the whole cardiology team including the top guy, got an angiogram on Thursday, sent home with a month's supply of various pills on Saturday and I'm to see them again on Wednesday. Meanwhile I've been assigned to an acute cardiac rehabilitation nurse and should have a community home-visit nurse later in the week.

Cost: nothing. Forms filled out: two - consent forms for the angiogram and a prospective research study. Insurance bureaucrats involved: none.

I would NEVER, EVER consider visiting the US again.

The food was shit, though. (That bit of the NHS is contracted out to private enterprise).

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 06:44 PM

LH-
It's only disgusting when either of the sides has nothing to offer in terms of solving a problem. There's nothing at all wrong about arguing two different philosophies.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 06:36 PM

Partisan politics is almost always disgusting.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 06:11 PM

But there is an asymmetry in this.

In all political battles there are two ways of operating and thinking. One is about trying to achieve a desired goal, insofar as that can be done.   The other is about exploiting the situation as a way of doing down the other side.

And that latter way of thinking appears to be dominant among the opponents of the proposed (and extremely moderate) changes whch are being pushed by Obama. So far as I can see, nine-tenths of what is being proposed is perfectly consistent with stuff that has at various times been proposed by Republcans, and the rest of it is stuff that in any other country would be seen as pretty conservative.

But instead of seeing this as a chance to cut a deal and produce soemthing which, however imperfect in their eyes, would get rid of at least some shameful and degrading aspects of American society, they smell blood and throw over all principle in search of a victory of sorts - in which the actual wellbeing of millions of their fellow Americans are seen as totally irrelevant.

It's all rather disgusting.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 11:31 AM

You know what, Donuel? The basic program is to drive up fear, hatred, and division between different groups of people in the society through extreme rhetoric. So Fox agitates the most doctrinaire Christians and hardline conservatives with those sort of scare stories. At the same time, the more liberal media outlets agitate their constituency with other types of scare stories from the opposite angle. The 2 sets of stories work in tandem to great effect. Both sides drive up the fear and outrage factor in the population. Christians get scared of gays and atheists. Gays get scared of Christians. Atheists get scared. Conservatives get scared. Liberals get scared. People on this forum get scared.

They all think to themselves...."if only it weren't for those bastards (the other section of the population that they're scared of)...this would be a decent country!"

That keeps the public disorganized and it consumes their energy in fruitlessly fighting with each other. It provokes a few violent incidents here and there which helps to further drive up the fear factor. This provides apparent justification for increasing police powers and reducing civil rights and surveillance in order to "protect" people. It results in the world's largest per capita prison population.

The screws on society tighten.

The people actually running the show benefit from all that and increase their control.

If the shit REALLY hits the fan someday, they will declare martial law. And at that point the game is up. They will have won totally, they will have established their fascist New Order, and the public will have lost the game by wasting all its energy fighting amongst itself and against itself instead of challenging its real masters and controllers.

This is not a fight between the "Right" and the "Left". It's just made to look that way in order to keep ordinary people divided against themselves. It's a fight between a few incredibly rich "haves" (who own both the conservative and the liberal major media outlets) and 150 million "have-nots".

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 10:09 AM

Sally's Onion link includes;
"We have over 40 million people without insurance in this country today, and that is unacceptable," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said. "If we would just quit squabbling so much, we could get that number up to 50 or even 100 million. Why, there's no reason we can't work together to deny health care to everyone but the richest 1 percent of the population."


In reality, 100 million is just about right when you include people who pay at great expense for privately owned health care INSURANCE but then are denied partial or total compensation by HMO fine print.

Do not forget that our current privatized health insurance system/scam was a golden goose invention ushered in by the Nixon Administration. In this case they were not crooks, they were murder for profiteers.





_________________________________________________________________
FOX News Alert (as I heard it from a Megyn Kelly interview of the National Review editor this morning at 9:15 )

The National Review says that all people in wheel chairs and ALL returning Veteran soldiers who end up in wheel chairs will be given end of life advice to end it all. If you are unable to contribute to society or "chew the leather anymore" you will be urged to consider your options since goverment health care will do its utmost to keep you in hopeless poverty with diminished benefits.
Our newly uncovered study gives legitimacy to the the spectre of DEATH PANELS as an insidious plan to eliminate undesirable high cost medical care for Veterans, our sacrificing heros, as well as anyone the government considers undesirable. Perhaps all outspoken Christians will be the undesirables that the Socialist Goverment will want to eliminate.




Well I guess we better say goodbye to all our wheel chair friends and Christians while there is still time. (Do not confuse the National Review Magazine with the Nation Magazine)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 10:28 PM

That's a brilliant piece of political satire, Sandy, and right on the bullseye.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 09:20 PM

TRUTH

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 04:39 PM

FFS, this is very simple. Should people suffer and die because they cannot afford healthcare?


"If living was a thing that money could buy
The rich would live, and the poor would die
All my trials, Lord.."

Dammit, it may be an American song but I think I WILL start singing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 04:13 PM

We've got a decent enough private hospital near us. Big reception room with comfy chairs, which some people like, I suppose. (I don't, it doesn't feel like a hospital to me.) Sometimes our local NHS hospital will make use of the private hospital's services, to ease some rush. More typically the private hospital will call in the NHS to take over when something is going wrong with a case, and they need a bit more expertise.

Or people in a hurry will use the private hospital to carry out a test of some kind - if it indicates treatment is needed, that can be carried out by the NHS, making use of the private hospital's test results to save time and expense.

But all this is completely irrelevant to what should be the issues in the States at present. Whatever happens they are going to have to muddle along with their strange and costly system. The relatively minor changes being proposed would make it fairer and less damaging to the millions who fall through the net, or get chucked overboard, but it would still be essentially the same system.

Looking at it selfishly, the big advantage of the proposed reforms would it that it would be harder for those in positions of responsibility to fend off criticism of any aspect of the NHS by pointing at the USA. "Think how much worse it could be if you lived over there..."

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 03:08 PM

""Don: If I needed knee replacement and had to wait six to eight weeks to get the operation, I'd be less charitable than you are.""

Yes mate, but I'm talking about a system that treats EVERYBODY who needs it, and not just those who have the right company package, or a well stacked deposit box.

There's bound to be a bit more competition, but it gives the lie to the twerps YOU choose to quote, who falsely claim that patients wait years or even die on waiting lists.

I could, of course have chosen to go private, since that system IS ALSO AVAILABLE HERE, and saved a couple of weeks. I may still end up in the local private hospital, since the NHS also purchases care from them, at reasonable rates, which takes up any gaps in their private schedule. The SOLE advantage of the private route is, so I have heard, that the food is better.

THE CARE IS IDENTICAL!

Cut it any way you like mate, we have completely destroyed every objection you have raised. Get wise to the FACTS. OUR SYSTEM WORKS!

And it would work just as well for YOU.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 02:32 PM

Ron Paul Quotes


Dennis Kucinich Quotes


Moonbeam Candidate? More Kucinich Quotes


I do like much of Kucinich's thinking, especially: "You say the American people need health insurance? I say the American people need health care.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: The Barden of England
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 12:57 PM

'When will you ever learn?'
'When will you ever learn?'

with my apologies to Pete Seeger.

John Barden

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 12:11 PM

As far as I can see, Doug, Obama is pretty much doing what all your presidents do. He's cooperating with the Big Money corrupt forces that run your country. I think you know, Doug, that I despise both the Democratic and Republican parties... ;-) I like the Democrats a bit better than the Republicans in a general sort of sense (and so do about 80% of the other people in Canada), but I still despise both those parties anyway. They are the chains that bind you.

This does not mean I despise the ordinary Americans who belong to those parties or vote for them...it means I despise the party machine at the top of each party, the machine that controls the whole thing.

I like Obama as a person. I like how he carries himself and I like the way he speaks. I don't like the corrupt $ySStem he is serving. Therefore I expect I will disagree with many of his decisions and policies as time goes by. That was inevitable.

The one politician down there I really appreciate is Dennis Kucinich, and he's the only one I would have worked for if I were an American citizen. (I also do like some of Ron Paul's ideas.)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 12:08 PM

The answer McGrath, is that the "anyone else's" are stubbornly ignorant of the facts and/or believe that being patriotic means opposing anything Obama supports.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 11:59 AM

Since the proposed reforms don't actually envisage anything in any way comparable to the NHS, or involving any kind of single payment provider, it seems very peculiar that the attention seems to be focussed on such irrelancies by opponents.

Even if it were accurate to describe as "socialized medicine" systems of health care supported by conservative governments around the world, there appear to be no proposals to introduce such a system.

There doesn't seem to be much attention paid to such aspects of the proposed reforms as stopping insurance companies from imposing unfair restrictions on paying customers, or imposing conditions about "existing conditions". I can see why the insurance companies might dislike that kind of change, but I cannot see why anyone else, however suspicious they might be of "socialized medicine", could be anything but enthusiastically in support of such measures.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 01:34 AM

Tell me it ain't so, L.H.! Tell me you ain't bailing out on Obama!

All Obama is interested in is serving another four year term. I think he might settle for less if he could be assured of that.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 10:51 PM

There are always improvements needing to be made in any existing health sytem, Doug, and the Canadian one is no exception to that. It has, however, been of great benefit to the general population since it was begun in the early 1960s (as far as I recall, that's when it started), and it has worked far better than the USA's health care system...and at less cost.

It's not perfect. Neither is yours. It is under strain from a growing population and a weakened economy. So is yours. You can always find someone to complain about our health system. I can find plenty more people to complain about yours.

87% of our public favors our health system. When was the last time you got 87$ of your public to approve of something like that?

How does 87% support for our Canadian health care compare to 7% disapproval for it, Doug? How happy would you be if you were president and you could get that kind of public support for the national health care system in the USA?

I think you'd be ecstatic. It practically amounts to acclamation.

The reason Americans are afraid of socialized medicine is simple:

1. they don't know anything about it
2. they aren't familiar with it
3. they are subjected to a flood of scare propaganda by the private interests that are profiting from robbing your public to make big profits

It is ignorance that keeps Americans stuck right where they are.

But don't worry too much, Doug, because I think Obama is just going to strike the sort of deal the health insurance companies want him to...it will benefit them, not the public...and you won't get socialized medicine. You'll get some kind of bastardized system that is not anything like socialized medicine, and the rest of the world will look at you and shake its collective head in disbelief.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 10:29 PM

Mary, thanks for that video link!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 10:19 PM

Funny, no one is complaining about Acorn and Union members being bussed to Town Hall meetings to support Obama Care. Lots of complaints about normal every day citizens showing up to oppose it though.

Don: If I needed knee replacement and had to wait six to eight weeks to get the operation, I'd be less charitable than you are. My wife had to have a knee replaced and there was nothing like that lapsing between the diagnosis and the operation. As a matter of fact, she went for her last check-up on the knee on a Friday and I mentioned to the surgeon that she had been complaining about her hip hurting too. I took a picture of the hip and even I could see that it was broken. We estimate it had been for fifteen months. He scheduled hip replacement for the following Wednesday.

Somewhere out there there MUST be somebody who, though he or she could afford health insurance but doesn't have it drives a Rolls Royce.

No, Ebbie, I would not be surprised to see someone who is a staunch defender of Obama's efforts to nationalize health care interviewed on Fox news. As I matter of fact, proponents are on Fox News daily. I don't recall seeing professional people such as the former president of the Canadian Medical Society interviewed, but there are few of them around. When someone like Dr. Brian Day, MD, speaks, he does so with experience and authority.

Dr. Day also said: 5 million Canadians do not have prescription drug coverage; at any given time, 1 million Canadians are waiting for services and another million waiting for surgeries; Doctors in Canada have overwhelmingly urged an overhaul of the Canadian system. The evaluation of the 29 medical systems (with Canada coming in 29th)was NOT the effectiveness of teh system, but value for money spent.

Please note: I am not saying the above, I'm merely reporting what the former president of the Canadian Medical Association said.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 08:53 AM

Max has posted a video on Facebook that I think warrants viewing. The campaign to derail the public option is slick, well organized, well financed and relentless. I personally know a person who works for a well known insurance company who is outraged and considering quitting her job of 23 years (she's clerical, not in a decision making position, and has a family to support) because she is so disgusted at how this company is bussing people out to "Town Hall" meetings in the guise of "ordinary citizens". America is being manipulated. Here's the You Tube Clip .

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 08:11 AM

P.S. BB- the budget was balanced before your hero Georgie & his crew took office.

Remove his excesses & idiocies & the financial picture will look whole a lot better.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 07:21 PM

Sigh.

You're perilously close to becomming a Frankian dining room table, Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 07:19 PM

Yeah, Donuel, most of the actual medical care I've had over the years has been pretty good. Most of the hassles I've had in the process came from insurance companies.

Polio at the age of two left me with paralyzed legs and scoliosis (spinal curvature, which is why my back goes out easily). Also, there is what is known as post-polio syndrome, which often affects polio victims when they get older (such as me). It manifests itself as tiring very easily, with lots of sore muscles because of the need to substitute one set of muscles to do the job of another. I have to use my arms and shoulders a lot because I can't use my legs. My shoulders can get pretty danged sore. Overuse. But what's the choice?

Another post-polio manifestation that one must stay on top of all the time is the intestines—elimination. "Lack of motility" is what they call it, making it necessary to ride herd on anything resembling constipation, which can develop into worse, life-threatening things.

With that lovely scenario to go on, I sometimes wonder, when I get into the kind of binds that sent me to the emergency room on June 12th, when and if the insurance company will claim that it stems from a "pre-existing condition" and leave me hanging in mid-air.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 06:56 PM

And YOU will now make Obama President for life, so there is no risk of any reductions in the future? If not, how will you stop the rationing needed to make his other promises ( balanced budget et al) happen????


Or is a little logic too much for you to deal with?

If we can't keep funding for those under the BIA ( which have NEVER been funded to the degree needed, under ANY administration) why do you think this will be different?

It takes the entire working population of the US to fund the PRESENT Medicare syste ( look at your paystub) : How is it going to be expanded? Or has it been so poorly implemented ( by ALL administrations) that the "savings" will magically appear? If so, I want a refund of (some of) my past contributions. Just the ones during Democratic administrations, OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 06:50 PM

Specificallt, the VA and BIA systems.

Ya mean the systems that the Republicans since Reagan and especially your hero Georgie- boy cut the budgets of, while exhorting us to "Support the Troops"?

That one, BB?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 06:36 PM

Uninsured citizens number over 40 million.
The health insurance corp propoganda says its only 15 million.


Don Firth, You got off easy with several sticks of dynamite 8*(
My son had numerous blockages that can be life threatening and spent 4 days on a drip. Gladly those days are long over.

Your triple play combination complication was a damn shame but your care sounded very good.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 05:50 PM

A new little wrinkle in the health insurance industry:

Early in June, this year, I threw my back out. Just one of those things. You reach for something, something in your back goes "POP!" and you wind up feeling like you have a nail in your back. Bothered the hell out of me for several days.

Then, in the wee small hours of June 12, I woke up really feeling rotten. My lower back hurt like hell and I felt like a truck had driven across my lower abdomen—several times! Extremely painful!

My wife called Medic One (tax supported—part of the Seattle Fire Department), the EMTs checked me out, couldn't find anything obviously wrong (not a heart attack, no bullet wounds, etc.), but I was obviously in great pain, so they heaved my keister onto a gurney and hauled it to the nearby Swedish Hospital emergency room.

The question was, did I possibly have a compression fracture of the spine, a herniated disk, or something else. And why the pain in the lower abdomen. Appendicitis? After much questioning, poking, taking samples of various bodily fluids, and both an MRI and a CAT scan, they determined that, in addition to a spinal subluxation (fixable by either surgery—pricy and painful—or a few sessions with my neighborhood chiropractor for far less money and not that much discomfort—I opted for the latter), I had a bladder infection, the beginnings of an intestinal blockage, and a lot of referred pain from this unholy combination.

They prescribed an antibiotic for the bladder infection, something akin to several sticks of dynamite for the intestinal blockage (I won't dwell on the lurid details), and enough pain killer to keep Rush Limbaugh smiling for weeks.

Mostly better now. The bladder infection and the intestinal problem have cleared up and my chiropractor makes house calls. The back is much better.

Now—

Any time you go to an emergency room and have things like MRIs and CAT scans, it's gonna be pricy! How much this little fandango is costing my insurance company (I'm covered under my wife's policy, which is an employee benefit she gets from the Seattle Public Library), I haven't heard yet. I haven't yet receive a summary from the insurance company, nor a bill from the hospital (there will probably be a substantial co-pay).

But—

I did get a letter from the insurance company, complete with a detailed questionnaire. Where did the accident take place? Was it in a automobile? Who was at fault? Do they have insurance? Or was it at work? Or in a place of business? Or someone else's residence? Do they have liability insurance? Was it an assault? Has my assailant been captured? Have I hired an attorney?

You get the picture.

Underlying message:   We don't want to have to pay this! Who can we sue!??

I called their 800 number and after drilling down through several layers of recorded messages, explained to the first live person I encountered that the reason for my visit to the emergency room was NOT an accident. I woke up that morning in great pain and sicker that Hector's pup, and my wife and I decided that I needed to get to a hospital for immediate attention.

They accepted this, but the disappointed tone in the person's voice was heart-rending!! Unless they could find some other out, they were actually going to have to ante up.

Somehow, I don't see this kind of weasel-like ducking and dodging happening in a government run single payer health care system.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 04:47 PM

You mean, it might be about the almighty dollar?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 04:46 PM

I imagine for most of the people crying wolf - leaving aside the people protecting their investments in insurance companies and so forth - it's not really lack of compassion, but rather a total lack of confidence in the ability of the United States to do what pretty well everyone else has managed to do. The other side of "only in America".

Maybe they are right.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 04:25 PM

Maryrrf... yeah, right, indeed. The richest country in the world. The world leader. Leader of the free world. Unless you are at the arse end of the herd when the lions arrive... then, tough luck eh?

The lack of compassion in such a system is frightful.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: The Barden of England
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 04:20 PM

Still banging on in a political vein I see. It's so sad.
What about your countrymen who have not, will not, and will never get cover from your oh so wonderful insurance companies?

'When will they ever learn?'
'When will the ever, learn?'

You can harp on about one idiot on the news who says "National Health care is rubbish" when you don't take a blind bit of notice the many of us here who use it and say 'No it isn't'. We're obviously wrong since we've not been on the television. I don't understand the 'I'm all right and the rest can go hang' attitude.
John Barden

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 04:17 PM

Basically it's a matter of "Why don't you join the civilised world?"

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: heric
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 04:01 PM

The artist formerly known as Michael Jackson.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 03:59 PM

Doug R,
    Name one person "who can afford health care but prefer to drive a Rolls Royce or live in a 8,000 sq. ft. home".

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 03:33 PM

"(The BIA has had problems for eons.) "

And that is a reason to want the government involved with our medical care???


As for Medicare, all that I know is one needs supplemental insurance, since it has such wonderful coverage. And I am paying ( a lot) for it, my entire working career. When I do not get coverage for a number of years.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 03:24 PM

bb, have you checked with Medicare recipients? (The BIA has had problems for eons.)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 03:17 PM

Ebbie,


"It is simple- just agree with me, and we'll all be happy."

Seems like me that is what Obama and the Democrats are telling us (as well). But I guess since they are right, it must be ok.


BTW, has anyone looked at the satisfaction of those under the current "one-payer" systems that are run by the US Government? Specificallt, the VA and BIA systems. Is this the level of care that you are satsfied with?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 02:39 PM

"Oh, you people. All this one-sided stuff is so tiresome. It is simple- just agree with me, and we'll all be happy."

(Channeling DougR)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 02:31 PM

Setting up a special system just for people who are excluded under the present ones (so long as they aren't "illegals", of course, otherwise called "Your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free") is of course a possibility - though since it hasn't actually been done by either party in the sixty-two years since the British NHS was established, that seems to suggest that it wouldn't be easy to get the USA to get its act together on even such a basic reform.

But since the various medical sytems which other reasonably wealthy countries provide health care for all, at a level at least comparable to that in the USA, for a lot less money, it seems a rather arsy-versy way to go about it. Equal medical entitlement for all, financed by some kind of graduated national insurance scheme, is a lot simpler in the long run.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 02:28 PM

Here's an interesting anecdote to compare with Don's post. Here in the US, the company my brother worked for went out of business. Normally you'd have the option to continue the insurance you had with the company as long as you pay the premium, for up to 18 months, but since the firm went out of business that option got screwed up. He has some preexisting conditions and he tried to get individual insurance, but every policy he found would have cost more than the amount he's getting on unemployment benefits per month, and they have preexisting condition clauses that would limit coverage for these conditions. He's trying to get a Continuation of Benefits Option worked out with one of his old company's subsidiarys, but the administrator is so swamped that he hasn't been able to get a straight answer, so at the moment he doesn't have insurance.

His knee was hurting so badly he went to the doctor on his own nickel. The doctor said he has a "Bakers Cyst" in his knee that needs to come out, but he would need to do an MRI to make sure, then they could schedule the surgery. My brother said forget it, he can't afford it. He managed to scrape up enough money to get a shot of cortisone to relieve the pain temporarily.   He had a job interview yesterday and hopefully he will get insurance again but even so there will probably be a six month preexisting condition clause. So he'll continue in pain, getting shots when he can afford it, while the knee continues to deteriorate.

By the way we have the best health care in the world here in the US..yeah right.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 02:21 PM

""Overall, when it comes to health care decisions, 51% fear the government more than private insurance companies while 41% hold the opposite view.""

Into which of the following three categories does the above statement fall?

Lies?
Damn Lies?
Statistics?

A few questions that need answering, before those figures have ANY credibility:-

1. Who did the sampling, and how was the sample obtained?
2. Who compiled the questions, and what was the nature of the questions asked?
2. Who interpreted the results of the poll, and can their impartiality be a) determined, and/or b) guaranteed?

If you ask a man would he like to get his healthcare free of charge, the most likely answer would be "YES!"

If you ask the same man would he like to be enrolled in a scheme that would make him wait years for treatment, and help him through death's door at the earliest opportunity, well, what d'ye think he'd say?

Well that is exactly how the Healthcare Insurers, the GOP, and the "I've got mine, so sod the rest" brigade are treating this matter, to the eternal disgrace, and shame of the American Nation.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 02:00 PM

NEW FACTS ABOUT NATIONALISED HEALTHCARE!

1. About eight weeks ago, my left knee, which has been painful for some time, mainly due to arthritis, collapsed, and I found myself on my knees in the middle of a road, with a driver standing on his brakes trying not to hit me. He succeeded!

A one off, I thought, but two weeks later the same thing happened, in less dangerous surroundings, and over the course of several days it kept locking, then suddenly clicking free, in a most painful manner.

2. Five weeks ago, I went to my doctor (GP), and he referred me to a consultant orthopaedic surgeon.

This morning, I had my appointment with him and, after taking X-Rays, he explained the problem, and outlined the proper course of treatment, namely a knee replacement operation.

3. I am now awaiting a letter confirming the exact date of my pre op medical exam, and the operation date in either October, or November.

This will be followed by a four month course of intensive physiotherapy.

Those of you who insist on believing all the drivel about waiting times, reluctance to treat older patients, and healthcare rationing, should take note:-

First contact with the NHS to operation date, between 11 and 15 weeks.
Cost to patient of treatment, plus aftercare, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, NIL!

Are you reading me Doug?.......NOTHING!

A real bad system, don't you think, in the modern sense of "BAD", "WICKED".

You should all be telling your government "THIS is what we WANT", and making them listen.

Or are you really keen on paying through the nose for everything, to keep the vultures fed?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 11:54 AM

"The health care reform debate has helped push Obama's job approval ratings in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll to new lows." pdq

Yes, his ratings have dropped but to be truthful, they are still high.   Let's try truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 11:31 AM

I wonder how many of the folks that are objecting to "the slippery slope" leading to "socialized " government run single-payer systems are currently on Medicare, which, oddly enough, is just such a system? Or are enjoying VA health benefits (which is also one of those Commie systems)? Any comments, Doug (who seems to be covered both ways)?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Alice
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 11:17 AM

"The health care reform debate" with all the LIES being promoted by FOX news, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Republican house and senate politicians and their minions have impacted the polls. When people polled are told the truth, the results are that they more supportive of Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 11:13 AM

...51% fear the government more than private insurance companies...

Of course they do- a surprising number of this figure actually believe the bullshit the Republican ops are spewing out, death camps for the elderly, "socialism" and all the rest of it.

Perhaps if they were to take a poll of sentient beings, the numbers would be somewhat different...

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: pdq
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 11:05 AM

"...Other recent Rasmussen Reports polling highlights the underlying political challenges. Thirty-two percent (32%) of voters favor a single-payer health care system . These voters make up a heavy majority of those who favor passage of health care reform. They view the current legislation as a baby step along the way to a single-payer system. Most Americans oppose a single-payer system and are seeking reassurance that the current plan will not head in that direction.

Overall, when it comes to health care decisions, 51% fear the government more than private insurance companies while 41% hold the opposite view.

Most Americans support the concept of reform, but cost control is seen as the most important aspect of reform . Also, voters simply don't believe the legislation will deliver the benefits that its advocates claim. Few believe it will increase patient choice or make health care affordable . In fact, most voters believe the passage of the current health care reform effort will lead to higher costs and lower quality of care .

The health care reform debate has helped push Obama's job approval ratings in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll to new lows."

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 11:00 AM

The Private Taxation from the Insurance Mafia should speak for itself. It is wasteful,
inefficient and reform is necessary. Claims are denied because that's how they make money.

The Insurance Companies are the ones who "pull the plug on grandma". Obama should state this clearly. He should know.

Those that think the profit motive that guides Corporations are sacrosanct are
damaging the country.

As George Lakoff has said, the Public Option should be referred to as "The American Plan"
that serves everyone not just a Corporate few.

Republicans who are reacting in crazy ways at town hall meetings are only thinking of themselves when the selfishly refer to "freedom".

When guns turn up at Town Hall meetings, this is a tactic of fear, intimidation and
terrorism.

Wake up America!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 09:17 AM

""Kevin: Yes, it's obvious that those of you from countries that have a single payer system are very satisfied. Perhaps it will come to the U.S. someday. I don't think it will happen at this time. I often wonder, though, if one reason so many of you are satisfied is because so few of you have ever known anything else?""

I often wonder, Doug, if that's the reason why YOU wish to deny your poorer compatriots the advantages YOU enjoy, simply through the nature of your employment.

GO ON, DO TELL!