Government Run Healthcare- Good or Evil

Hi All:
Got a knee walker yesterday which helps, but I ordered a RollerFoot (see rollerfoot.com) which hopefully will be here by tomorrow 10AM (which is my first surgery)
The knee walker has a handle bar which will be in the way during my surgery, I'm hoping the Rollerfoot will enable me to perform surgery and still be NWB.

Kevin:
My ultrasound revealed quite a gap and complete rupture. I'm scheduled for Friday morning! Hmmmmmm
I'm TRYING hard to be just a patient here. It's not easy.

Steve

 

Steve:

Good luck and please keep us informed of your progress. One bright side to all of your hardship and stress...you will now have a much better appreciation of what your own patients go through during the perioperative period during their foot and ankle surgeries.

My thoughts and prayers will be with you.

 

Very nice of you Kevin, I appreciate it.

I've already noticed one thing....using crutches for a day and a half.....my pecs are out of shape!!!!!! lol

Steve

 

Eric,

You brought up the point about a fictitious family in California, I was only responding. What I'm pointing out is that people have options and too many times don't use them, are not willing to change, and then blame the system. Your family of four (which had the option not to have children if they can't pay for their health care coverage), living in California (which is expensive), that can't pay for health care coverage on a particular salary (indicating working one job), is typical of the entitlement attitude in this country.

I have stated it many times, that we have the richest poor in the country whom also have the most opportunity for advancement. I'm stating that in order to afford health care for the family you elected to have, you may need to move to where it is more economical to live and actually work more than 40 hours a week. The entitlement attitude it that no matter how I live my life, no matter what adversity befalls me, someone else should be there picking up my pieces and paying my way.

I don't know what your definition of "significant" is, but with our country having less than ten percent (I gave the reference and study already) not having formal health insurance, I would not call that significant. I would love to see it at 0% but not at the expense of the entire country.

Your personal scenario of the worker that gets sick is not as grave as you profess. The free market we live in now would provide for that person, Medicaid, disability, unemployment and possibly social security and Medicare coverage. That worker would also have resources such as the local church, family, and a multitude of other charitable organizations. So no, it's not as tough you would like people to believe.

You ask if everyone is supposed to strive to be above average. Of course. Should they strive to be below average? Our current average is very low and getting lower. I hope everyone is striving for more than that.

My best,

 

Jon:

I agree with you on just about each and every point.
I think we often forget that we all have FREE WILL.

For better or worse, we all make choices that we need to live with -

the question is do OTHERS need to live with our decisions AND PAY FOR THEM AS WELL?

I for one say NO.

Steve

 

Aren't you unbelievably lucky that you can pay. And you are a member of the luckiest wealthiest few percent on the face of the planet. You did not earn all your opportunities, the biggest one was simply being born in the right place at the right time, and not every one gets that break. Talk to some one who works in social work and your naive views stand some chance of becoming a little less blinkered. There are loads of folks out there who cannot take advantage of your marvellous system of ruthless (fully market driven) capitalism. Granted there may be a few who milk the system but look at your justice system....the idea is that it is better for a few guilty ones to go free than one innocent person go to jail....a great philosophy. Health care should be the same.....every one should get the best available, with the tab picked up by us all
regards Phill Carter

 

It's not a choice to born in a low socio-economic group, it's not choice to be born of low IQ, it's not choice to be born 'not as noushy as some to take advantage of the system', it's not choice what happens to you from conception on (eg trauma, losing job, unable to work, brain damaged personality changes etc etc.

We all live in a system, some are better able to prosper, some don't want to (which shouldn't penalise their offspring), some can't!
mark

 

The worry is rarely helping out the underprivileged, but what what precedence it begins setting for the future.

Probably unjustly, but still something that lingers in the back of the mind.

 

As an NHS podiatrist I would like to point out that the maximum waiting time should be 18 weeks! Within my department it is unusual to wait no more that 6 weeks. As for all patients being referred if they need nail sugery the rule is usually only if infection present or the patient is high risk.

 

- "ONLY" 22 MILLION without health insurance
- Our uninsured are that way because "for some reason" they choose not to pay for it ignoring the denials for preexisting conditions and sudden cancellations when major illness actually occurs
- Believing that only someone with a high income is deserving of health care. Some podiatrists like to charge a lot for their services but think the waiter that serves them at their favorite restaurant is not deserving of health care.
- Touting how much it would cost US taxpayers to provide the currently uninsured with care when the data shows that any number of other health care systems around the world provide better care at half the cost.
- Ignoring facts to back up beliefs
- Claiming anyone can get all their care just by showing up in the ER when that is patently untrue (tendon ruptures yes, tendonitis, bunions, heel spurs, hallux limitus, ganglion cysts, warts etc. etc ad nauseum no.

We have danced around some of the real issues which is frankly what kind of person makes these kinds of callous bogus rationalizations? The answer to that is the reason there are roadblocks to health care (not just reform) for too many in this country.

 

Steve:

How did the surgery go?? Hope the post-op period treats you well!

 

All the best Steve, wishing you a speedy recovery. Hope you know a decent foot and ankle surgeon
:drinks

 

While I respect your opinion, I think that there a few things both you and my fellow Americans should consider.

In the Unites States we do not refuse care! As a 4th year student I rotated through Richmond Heights Hospital. I was never handed a list of "acceptable" services or procedures. I saw a level of care given to patients that compelled me to volunteer for every procedure both the Attendings, and Nursing Staff, would allow. There was no thought to cost of treatment when it came to the patient. I'm sure Actress who died as a result of a skiing accident might agree. Perhaps, if the Canadian Physicians had ordred a CAT Scan, they may have caught the Sub-Dural Hematoma.

You are correct when you point out that the lobbyists have a choke hold in Washington. However, it is the Trial Lawyers who rule here! A Bill of greater than 1100 pages is about to be passed, and not 1 bit about Tort Reform. If My Government LOVES England's Medical System, then let's also adopt Their Tort Reform. If I bring Suite Against you and lose, I pay for my Lawyer as well as yours. WOW! Wouldn't that cut down on frivalous Law Suits! I think that Sheakespeare was right about the Lawyers!!!

Also..... You may not be aware of this from Down Under! But, States Limit the # of Insurance Companies that can sell insurance in each State. I'm sure alot of people are getting paid on that one!! 1100 plus Insurance Companies and I can only choose from a dozen!! Competition drives down prices!! Simple Economics!! There's always someone who will work harder and cheaper!

So, as an American and a Physician, I'm not ready to throw out the baby with the bath water quite yet! I'd prefer to make a Real attempt at the 1st 2 things!

Respectfully Yours:

Mark Poplawski DPM
Full Time Practice

 

Hi KEvin and LAwrence:
I feel like I've split the thread here with my personal medical "issue"
Sorry
Surgery went well. DOn't know all the details yet since I was out of it for a while and my surgeon was gone by the time I was back to reality. I'll talk with him today sometime.

In a Jones type compression bandage with a horseshoe splint, using my knee roller.
Not much pain.
I'm to take Lovenox for couple of weeks. Not really excited about that but - again - just trying to be a patient and not second guess my doctor.
You know what they say, he has has himself for a doctor has a fool for a doctor.
Not to worry, back to work Monday.We'll see how that goes.

thanks again
Steve

 

Good to hear.....off to he racketball court in only 4 months!!:drinks

 

"Aren't you unbelievably lucky that you can pay. And you are a member of the luckiest wealthiest few percent on the face of the planet. You did not earn all your opportunities, the biggest one was simply being born in the right place at the right time, and not every one gets that break. "

Well......as for being unbelievably luck I assume you mean because I was born in the US (since you know nothing else about me really)
We are TALKING about those in the U.S. aren't we. THey all had the same UNBELIEVABLE luck I did.

I'll never buy into the LUCK thing, sorry. Most of us that are successful worked very hard to here and made some good decisions.

Look at our President? The poor, minority, silver spoon, right place....on and on just doesn't work anymore does it?????

Like I said, free will. DOn't make light of it, it's true.

Steve

 

You got it! See my other posts for references. The latest is that almost all agree there are 11million illegal immigrants and many statistics and studies believe it is as high as 20 million.

Health care is free in Canada. All one has to do is register and sign up. I don't have the number at my finger tips but it is a large percentage of the population. Even when it's free people don't care about their health. That is a large number of the population that has not gone to the doctor for preventive health care which ends up costing society a great deal. That is, the society that is foolish enough to drag every one down trying to cover everyone.

 

Relevant to the current discussion methinks.
American Journal of Public Health, sept 17, 2009 published online ahead of print Sep 17, 2009
"Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults"
Abstract
Objectives. A 1993 study found a 25% higher risk of death among uninsured compared with privately insured adults. We analyzed the relationship between uninsurance and death with more recent data.
Methods. We conducted a survival analysis with data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey....
Conclusions. Uninsurance is associated with mortality. ....

 

No you did not earn a birth in the US, and not everyone lucky enough to be born there has the same other circumstances you were lucky enough to have. You probably have an IQ over 100?...plenty don't, and it's not their fault, they were unlucky enough to born at the shallow end of the gene pool. All the hard work in the world with an IQ of 50 at $5 an hour is not going to fulfill the great American dream. With what we know about genetics you really are kidding yourself when you deny the luck component.
regards Phill

 

"You probably have an IQ over 100?...plenty don't" "born in the shallow end of the gene pool."

oh, so the uninsured are stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or they are genetically inferior!!!!!!!!!

I'm sure they will be happy to know that it really isn't their fault. Let's make them all feel better about things and certainly not make them feel responsible for themselves.

Oh man, you do have a "slightly" (insert cough) different view of the world than I do.


I believe any person can achieve greatness, or success, whatever success may mean to them.

Don't put barriers around people, it just makes it harder for them to achieve. HAve a little faith in your fellow man.

Steve

 

It's just as easy to overlook that those poor choices are costly to a society that elects to pay for all the repercussions of those poor choices.

 

It is safe to say that the author you are responding to was recognizing another inconvenient fact i.e. by definition 50% of the population has a less than average IQ. And yes, they tend on average to earn less. You are fortunate to have the intelligence to become a doctor. That you used it to advance yourself is to your credit. The reality is that not everyone has that opportunity or ability regardless of how hard they try. They will always be stuck in relatively menial jobs. Jobs that do not provide health insurance. They are not less worthy than you or I in getting that health care. There are millions of them out there. To not cover them is immoral. When they show up in an ER with an Achilles tendon tear they don't get to come back and have an ultrasound or MRI. They have to follow up with a regular clinic - one they can't afford. They also don't get to come back to the ER to have their tendon repaired and again for post op care. They also don't get PT after surgery. Count yourself fortunate.

Some folks are born on third base and think they hit a triple.

 

I did not bring up a point about a single fictitious family. I brought up a point about a family that earned the medium income with the hope that the reader would extrapolate from that half of the families in the state earn less than that. A family that earned the median income could, if they scrimped and saved, pay for health insurance and save a meager amount in a health savings account. However, the lower third of income families probably could not. That is a third of real families and not a single fictitious family. The medical system needs everyone to pay in for society to be able to afford the infrastructure.

What options are you pointing out? Are you saying that the poorest third of the families in California should pack up and move to Louisiana or Mexico or Canada. (Where they would be vilified for being immigrants.) Is your solution that everyone should be wealthy? How does that work?

Yes, there are people who abuse the entitlement system. I don't like it either. However, there are hard working people who deserve health care and can't afford it.

Are you saying that a young couple who accidentally become pregnant, and are poor, should seek an abortion because they can't "afford" to have children. A significant portion of births are the result of failed birth control. Are you saying a young poor married couple should abstain?

Doesn't the inefficiency of the current system bother you. We, as a country, pay more per person for health care than any other country and that expenditure doesn't even cover everybody. Are you saying that the US is not capable of doing what other countries can do.

I had a friend with ALS. He had to spend down all his families assets to qualify for Medicare and that was only after "being poor" for over a year. He had the wherewithal to put most of his wealth in a residence so his wife didn't lose everything. However, his family would have been better off under "socialized" medicine. Bankruptcy due to medical costs is a problem. No, people are not dieing, poor and destitute, in the streets, but it's not as good as you would like people to believe.


Kind regards,

Eric

 

Mark::bang:
I have to preface this with, I'm going to sound like an arrorgant American to all. Even though this is not the case.

I'd like to tell a short story of a boy born to a Steel Worker, who later purchased a Pub. This family did not own a car until the boy turned of age. They went on 1 vacation a year, and if you coundn't get there by Greyhound(Charter Bus) they couldn't go. When this boy finished Highschool he applied to College, was accepted, but did not have the heart to ask his parents for money he knew they didn't have. The kid then got a job as a Toll Collector on the New Jersey Turnpike and then began College paying his own way as he went. By the way he was the first one in his family to attend College.

The kid was me!!

This is what makes America Great. Adversity builds Character! Successful Americans, or those soon to be successful, are Optomists at heart. Edison failed a thousand times before success! Bill Gates started in his garage.

America is not a Government, America is a set of ideals and principals rooted in FREEDOM! If you are raised with these ideals you have been given the power to overcome any obstacle. This is a concept very hard to grasp for Non-Americans, because Non-Americans only read about it in books.

I think it is arrogant to dismiss people, or excuse them! Knowledge is learned, not passed on to Aristocrats. Granted that some people are born with inherant talent for one thing or another. But to say an IQ test will dictate success totally dismisses hard work, and testicular fortitude.

The leaps and bounds that technology and industry, since the birth of the U.S. is exponential, compared to any other time in history. The reason is Freedom, in all it's glorious forms!

I wish everyone could feel this! But those born into Maternal Governments will never get it!

Mark

 

Millions stuck in menial jobs that can't afford health insurance?

I thought the reason we looked the other way and allowed MILLIONS of illegals enter from Mexico was because NO ONE ELSE WOULD DO THESE JOBS!

Liberals. You drive me crazy. You use the same argument to argue both sides.

So which is it?

The lower incomes people are just to stupid and genetically unable to advance, or the poor are stuck in jobs that just don't pay enough, or is it that illegals do all the work that no proud American would do (because Americans already have better jobs ergo, why not buy insurance?) or is it we need to pay for illegal that don't have coverage, or just the "stupid" illegals, or just the lazy stupid americans... who? Why?

Alan: I think you're mixing up the issues. I honestly do not believe there are 30 or 40 million Americans that do not have insurance because they are too stupid to get a good job or they are genetically incapable of advancement.
That's ridiculous.
Please.
Are there those that we, as a society need to help, of course. And we do, by the $$$BILLIONS.

Do we need to revamp our entire healthcare system because of a "crisis" that not even the experts agree exists?
No.
I for one do not.

Steve

 

you're 'stirring my juices' Mark... nah make that I'm going to be sick

 

You're right.....it does make you sound like an arrogant American. Amazing how blind you can be and still function. As a culture you live so far beyond your means that the entire world is propping you up with their savings and the environmental overdraught is becoming quite frightening......but that's OK because no doubt the greatest culture in the world will also clean up after itself........have you heard the one about how kangaroos can fly just like the pigs in the USA.
regards Phill

 

Eric,

Forget the fictitious part. I know you meant an "average" family. My points remain the same. If people are born into a society that does not hand them everything, they by default, are taught the lessons that if you don't earn it yourself, you don't get it. If they are born into society that provides for them at every turn, they get taught the lesson that you can live without regard for your future and "deserve" whatever you want.

No, the "system" deserves to make the point that your hard honest work will most likely result in a good and fruitful life. The "system" is here to protect freedoms and opportunity, the rest is up to you.

My solution is that when you stop having those that do the right things only to have their money taken away and given to someone else who didn't, you will have people empowered with self responsibility and ultimately self reliance.

So why are those people "poor?" Is that because they live in a country where they are free to work as hard as they like? Because they live in a country that provided them with a free education? Because they live in a country with more opportunity to succeed than any other? Or, is it because they didn't feel it necessary to study hard, take care of themselves, develop a skill, or work hard? Are you proposing that an extremely large (one third) percentage of Americans are "poor" because of bad luck and nothing attributable to them personally? There is no rule that says a certain percentage of a population must be poor. What is poor by the way?

Oh, and yes, if you live in a state where you can't provide for your family or afford health insurance, than YES, move, stay, do whatever it takes. I said nothing about abortion. And YES again. Birth control, abstain, whatever it takes. Are you proposing that everyone should have intercourse without restraint or thought of birthing a child into any environment? Are you insinuating that if you want and can't afford children, you just go ahead and have as many as you like then stick your hand out to the government and demand and expect aid?

You obviously have not read my other posts as you continually ask the same questions. I have provided all the reference needed for you to refute them but you have not. We do not "pay more per person" than any other country. Where are those stats? People spend more here because of all the reasons I provided you earlier. I can't continue to repeat myself and have you postulate with no substance to back it. If you were more informed, you would find that "other countries" are getting away from centralized medical delivery and are in as much trouble if not more than us. I provided those studies too. Where are yours?

I'm sorry to hear about your friend with ALS. Did you know that the current proposal for socialized health pays minimally for diseases with know know cure and known short terminal courses? I personally, had health insurance when I didn't have a family and only a few dollars in my pocket. I had no wealth to "spend down" since I spent it all on the cost of living and health insurance. I have always had it because I know how devastating it could be without it. With a family, I would take on a second or third job in order to cover myself and my family.

I probably am still not making a point with you. If you think everyone "deserves" whatever everyone else has then your mind set is probably miles away from self restraint, self reliance, and personal responsibility. You probably just can't figure out how all those poor families make it in such a land of minimal opportunity, oppression, limited freedoms, and barriers to success like free education.

God help us all and let me know when you can get a hold of your supporting stats that counter mine.

My best to you and your friend.

 

It would be interesting to have a few figures on Americas foreign borrowings and where the flow of money comes from and how big the debt is....and what would have happenned to the "greatest country on earth" if it's businesses and banks were not propped up by the public purse. The system that has been in place is a very long way from sustainable. But hey upper middle America is OK so that means everything must be FANTASTIC.
regards Phill

 

What is your source on Joe Wilson being right?

There is a clasic debating technique where you laugh of the premise of the question. This does not really further debate. I would like you to get started on France. What is wrong with the results in the French Healt system?

Regards,

 

"What is your source on Joe Wilson being right?"

My source??
Why Pres. Obahma, where else.

LISTEN to what he says.

No rocket science here.

Steve

 

One of the great things about this country is the belief in equality. That everyone has the opportunity to make themselves better. That is why it important to start with a level playing field and not give the wealthy a head start and saddle the poor with a health insurance tax they cannot offord. People will still strive to do better for themselves if they receive health insurance from the government. It's just not fair that people who try to buy individual policies have to pay three times as much per person as large groups of people.

Adam Smith, the economist who first described the invisible hand of the free market, said that taxes should be based on the ability to pay. Those that are wealthy should pay relatively more to support the infrastructure that is needed to run a country. At some point there is a crossover between free market capitalism and feudalism where the masses just support the rich.

Your first comment particularly bothers me. You obviously have not been reading your own posts. I looked back through your posts for sites and found these.

post # 65
Regardless, I think Medicare is one of the biggest scams perpetrated on the American public next to social security and then in turn on doctors.

As a practitioner, I am now subject to almost being required to accepting Medicare since it has been required and now used by those over 65. I am now subject to governmental requirement and paperwork, extensive and burdensome auditing, and the threat of substantial cuts in reimbursements every year. It also takes a very substantial portion of the population out of the private sector and therefore taking away a competitive force in the market. There are many other things I don't like about it but that's a good start. What exactly do you like about it?

post #66
Here's a good source of how many US. citizens are really in need of health care? The US Census Bureau, believe it or not, does not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. The facts again are that we have a 15.8% uninsured rate, with 10.2 million of those being non-citizens. Thirty seven percent of that figure contains households making incomes over $50,000, and it also includes people who are uncovered for only weeks or months at any given time in a year. Estimates are that only 8.9% of Americans need assistance with medical coverage [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...a313c8a94ec63]

You are correct that we spend more than just about every other country on out of pocket health expenses. The real question is what’s behind this number? The answer lies in the fact that Americans are allowed to go directly to higher cost specialists, where in other countries this access is limited. This direct access also affords the consumer some of the latest in medical technology which comes at a higher price. Other countries limit the numbers of, and access to, advanced medical care. Finally, and probably more importantly, is that this figure accounts for us being one of the wealthiest populations in the world. Americans choose to pay for more medical services such as preventive health care and plastic surgery. Statistically, we are more likely to seek medical care. This is no indicator in any sense of the overall cost of "standard medical delivery."

post #71
Medicare is easy to deal with? Here is a direct quote from a study performed by the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) concerning Medicare. “Customer service representatives rarely provided appropriate answers to questions, answering only 15 percent of our test calls completely and accurately. In addition, only 20% of the carrier Web sites we reviewed contained all of the information required by CMS.” [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02249.pdf]


post # 75
I don't understand how this addressed my question on how removing a subset of the population stops others from competing.


This is straight forward economics. I am speaking about competition among the private payer and that helping to drive down costs and increase coverages. I can't possibly get you to understand if it's difficult at this point. In the insurance industry it is a numbers game. The more you have in the system, the healthier the company, and the more leverage you have to increase benefits and decrease coverage amounts. So in your opinion, our largest medical insurer in this country, Medicare, isn't monopolistic? How, and why?





post # 84
Check the CDC and see that foreign born citizens have a nine times higher incidence of TB among other diseases. Tuberculosis resurgence in the U.S. has actually been linked to this immigration pattern. Illegal immigrants do not get checked for this disease as is required prior to all green cards awarded. [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no7/01-0482.htm]

We’re talking 11.4 million illegal immigrants. Estimates are actually as high as 20 million [http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0516/p01s02-ussc.html]. Do you seriously think this has a nominal impact on our health system and health state in the U.S.? Do you think this does not skew our per capita numbers on health care spending?

Health care and public safety related to illegal immigration, and not including education, costs $1 billion annually. [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8...migration.pdf] Other costs including violent crime, theft, MVA accidents causing a rise in insurance premiums. Other countries do not deal with illegal immigration of U.S. proportion. Canada is estimated to have a maximum of 120,000 illegal immigrants.


quoted by me in post # 86
Originally Posted by jpurdydpm
When the general public gets to keep more of what they make and use it to make personal and informed decisions, they will be able to pick a policy that is affordable and provides the coverage they need. As competition builds between insurance companies, this is the driving force that causes them to lower rates and present a better plan. It's called market capitalism and is THE reason why we are the success we are as a country today. Now we are trying to steer it in the other direction. I'm not so sure why that is so difficult of a concept to get.

From post 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpurdydpm
This is straight forward economics. I am speaking about competition among the private payer and that helping to drive down costs and increase coverages. I can't possibly get you to understand if it's difficult at this point. In the insurance industry it is a numbers game. The more you have in the system, the healthier the company, and the more leverage you have to increase benefits and decrease coverage amounts. So in your opinion, our largest medical insurer in this country, Medicare, isn't monopolistic? How, and why?

Post # 91
Here is the big picture. As long as the government is going to tax and withhold us into poverty, you are correct, it will be very difficult to afford the best health care possible. If working families would not be taxed as heavily as they are, and didn't have to pay into social security and Medicare, they would have more than sufficient funds to pay for health coverage and into retirement accounts.

Post #91
I keep hearing that quote of 3% yet anyone I challenge who brings it up can never give me the source. That's because it is simply not true. I will tell you exactly why if you provide me with the source. If I could replace Medicare with any one of my top ten payors and would do it gladly tomorrow, then why would I think Medicare is better?

referring to Medicare overhead







More from post #91
Quote:
Your analysis is faulty. There is competition between insurance companies, but there is not free competition between doctors when the insurance company panels limit doctors. You misunderstand me. I wasn't complaining about it. I was merely using it as an example to point out the fallacy of your argument. I chose to practice in the town I grew up in knowing that I would be disadvantaged by the insurance panel.


Ah, I see what you mean. If there is an entity that limits market competition then I guess those that like it will prosper and those that don't won't. That scenario creates market competition with their policy holders. If they limit the doctor pool and patients don't like it then they will go under. The public certainly has many other choices so there is no monopoly to which you speak.


Post 91
I keep hearing that quote of 3% yet anyone I challenge who brings it up can never give me the source. That's because it is simply not true. I will tell you exactly why if you provide me with the source. If I could replace Medicare with any one of my top ten payors and would do it gladly tomorrow, then why would I think Medicare is better?



More from 91
Quote:
You have stated opinions as fact as well. Most of your criticisms of Medicare apply equally well to insurance companies. The question is would rather have these decisions being made by someone who profits from their decisions or from someone who has to answer to an elected official? What is better for the country as a whole.

That was my laugh for the day. The most corruption occurring in this country on a daily basis is within our government. Just watch the news. The answer without a doubt is YES, I want a for-profit corporation making decisions. If we as a group, be it doctors or the insured, don't like what a company is doing and it affects their bottom line, then I can guarantee you there will be no quicker change than in that company. Your trust of Washington is remarkable - given history.​

Of the sites in those posts the majority were related to illeagal immigration and taxes which are weakly related to the subject of health care. Which questions do you feel that I have asked repeatedly that you have refuted with citations.

Regarding the percentage of money spent on health care see the Kaiser Family foundation.
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
in looking for that article I found:
In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States,
or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada.
N Engl J Med 2003;349:768-75.



Some of the unsubstantiated claims that you have made.

Regardless, I think Medicare is one of the biggest scams perpetrated on the American public next to social security and then in turn on doctors.
When the general public gets to keep more of what they make and use it to make personal and informed decisions, they will be able to pick a policy that is affordable and provides the coverage they need. As competition builds between insurance companies, this is the driving force that causes them to lower rates and present a better plan.



The most corruption occurring in this country on a daily basis is within our government. Just watch the news.
(which news?)

Ah, I see what you mean. If there is an entity that limits market competition then I guess those that like it will prosper and those that don't won't. That scenario creates market competition with their policy holders. If they limit the doctor pool and patients don't like it then they will go under. The public certainly has many other choices so there is no monopoly to which you speak.

Some providors cannot compete because of insurance company panels bar from them from competing, how is this not a monopoly?


Now, I don't mind a few times not having a cite handy to support your opinions. However, I do mind when you say you have supported your opinions with citations when you haven't.

My friend passed about 2 years ago. When he did get Medicare it helped pay for van modifications for his wheelchair. Who would pay the health insurance premiums if you could no longer work?

One thing that I can't understand about conservatives is that they are mostly generous and very willing to lend a hand when someone needs it. However, when those same people band together and form a government, they get really upset when the government tries to lend a hand to people who need it. If we joined together and formed one national insurance pool it just might be more efficient for all of us. What we have now is not working and with health insurance premiums rising faster than wages, I don't see how it is going to get better.

Maybe I'll see you at a conference and we can discuss healthcare over a beer.:drinks

Eric

 

What specifically did he say that you thought was false regarding illeagal immigrants?

I saw him on Letterman last night. He sounded like he made sense.


Eric

 

Hi Eric:
The President has said, more than a few times, that he is not opposed (his way of saying he's for, I guess) giving illegals citizenship status as a way of "legalizing" the millions of illegals (mostly Mexicans) here in the US and dealing with the illegal immigrant problem.

There is no secret here, he has always said this. It's his stand and his position on illegals immigrants.

WELL - (this is where the NO ROCKET SCIENCE comes in) if you make all these illegals LEGAL US CITIZENS and ALL US CITIZENS will be covered by some sort of Tax payor Health Care plan, then any second grader (even a member of congress) can figure out the rest.

If you PLAN on pushing a plan legalizing these illegal immigrants; then don't go around saying that the health care proposal will not cover them. EVERYONE knows where this is going. They WILL be covered and WE will pay for them. THAT'S What Rep. Wilson was mad at, the obvious side stepping and lying to the Congress and the American people.

He will pay for illegal aliens because he plans on making them legal. Illegal immigrants will not be covered because there won't be any!

Political Babble.

Steve

 

If they become legal immigrants then they are no longer illegal. Remember our founding fathers who said it is wrong to have taxation without representation. If these immigrants pay taxes what is wrong with giving them services? They would be paying for it too. If immigrants have TB or some other communicable disease isn't' it better for the whole population that they get treated?

I hope you are coping well with the tendon rupture.

Eric

 

Hi Eric:

Good point ( just 230 years too late and misdirected to illegal immigrants, nothing really to do whatsoever with the colonies) -

but who said illegal immigrants are paying taxes????? THEY ARE ILLEGAL! NO LEGAL SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS. IF they are here to work but not to become citizens then they do not enjoy those rights a citizen enjoys, like any other country on the planet.

Why should they?

They have CHOSEN to come here illegally and stay here illegally.

I'm certainly not against immigrants becoming US Citizens, all of my grandparents did it.

THE DIFFERENCE! They entered here LEGALLY, 2 from Greece and 2 from Italy.

Lets try and focus. You asked why Rep. Wilson was correct when he said the President was lying.
I told you.

The questions was not whether one is for or against legalizing illegal immigrants, was it?

Taxation without representation????? THAT was a stretch (and I assume an attempt at humor).

Steve

 

The level playing field at life’s start is freedom and opportunity. Yes, life will be harder for some than others. When a government takes money from others and distributes it how it sees fit, we get into the messes we are in right now. You want more? That is why there is family, church, and community. All volunteer contributors. Government is there to maintain freedoms and opportunity not to give handouts because life is harder for some than others. We will have to agree to disagree on this point.

I never said that private health insurance didn’t need some fixing. I just don’t want ANY government intervention in health other than some regulation in the private delivery of it.

The top 10 percent of earners in this country already pay 80% of the tab. That’s not good enough for you? Adam Smith was an idiot. You can’t tax a society into prosperity.

I thank you for recapping my posts. I contend that I have provided far more substantiated claims than anyone else posting on this topic. I’m just looking for some back. I disagree that illegal immigration is not linked to health care and I did link it with those studies. High tax rates take money from the individual that could use it to buy health care. How is that a loose association? I substantiated my claim of 9% of the population without healthcare. And on, and on, and on….

Look at any news. Governmental corruption is in all of them.

Regarding the percentage of money spent on health care see the Kaiser Family foundation.
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

This reference is great Eric. First off it contains unsubstantiated conjecture about health outcomes in the U.S. Even the referenced study in the article did not substantiate the claim. The closest it came was that the U.S. has less “access” determined by per capita doctor to patient ratios and hospital beds to patient ratios and the number of transplants that are performed each year. It had NOTHING to say about outcomes of those procedures or how more hospital beds equates to better health care.

I love the argument about health spending related to GDP or any other marker. U.S. healthcare spending is reported at 6% of our GDP. We do seem to spend more than just about every other country. The real question is what’s behind this number? The answer lies in the fact that Americans are allowed to go directly to higher cost specialists, where in other countries this access is limited. This direct access also affords the consumer some of the latest in medical technology which comes at a higher price. Other countries limit the numbers of, and access to, advanced medical care. Finally, and probably more importantly, is that this figure accounts for us being one of the wealthiest populations in the world. Americans choose to pay for more medical services such as preventive health care and plastic surgery. Statistically, we are more likely to seek medical care.

Looking at a more direct correlation, the figure on the cancer five year survival rate in the U.S is 62.9 percent. This can be compared to Great Britain’s at 44.8 percent. The U.S. also outperforms Canada’s five year survival rate in heart attack patients.
[http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/01.CIR.0000142671.06167.91v1]

A number of studies were performed across the globe that looked at adverse events (AEs) in hospital admissions. AEs are unintended injuries or complications resulting in death, disability or a prolonged hospital stay, that arise from direct health care management. The U.S. greatly outperformed all countries in this study (Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Canada). [http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/11/1678]

So how am I doing so far with my substantiation?

What is the explanation behind why the Italian Prime Minister Berluscone came to the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio two years ago for heart surgery? Or, maybe it would be easier to explain why Canadian Parliament Member Belinda Stronach ended up going to a California hospital for treatment of breast cancer.

Yes, governmental health care is doing so well for all those other countries and the doctors just love it too. Do you want the studies again on the patients that are dieing in governmental health waiting lines? That has to do with heath care right?

Eric, I would love to have a beer with you at one of the conferences.

Have a great one.

 

Just to feed the fire:

"Under the health care bill being considered in the Senate Finance Committee, Americans who fail to pay a penalty for not buying insurance could be charged up to $25,000 by the Internal Revenue Service or face up to a year in jail, according to congressional analysts"

 

The American Medical Association has weighed in on the new health care proposals.

• Allergists voted to scratch it but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.
  
  
• Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it.
  
  
• Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
  
  
• Obstetricians felt everyone's laboring under a misconception.
  
  
• Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.
  
  
• Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Pediatricians said, "Oh, Grow up!"
  
  
• Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness.
  
  
• Radiologists could see right through it.
  
  
• Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing.
  
  
• Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow.
  
  
• Plastic surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter..."
  
  
• Podiatrists thought it was a step forward but the Urologists were p!ssed off at the whole idea.
  
  
• Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas.
  
  
• Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.
  
  
• In the end, the Proctologists decided to leave the entire decision up to the a$$holes in Washington.

 

The original question was about how we outside the US perceive our systems of healthcare.
I'm a podiatrist in the NHS in Scotland (for the benefit of Americans, that's part of the UK, but not a part of England!) Patients self refer, and are seen within 6 weeks; often that waiting time is much shorter. If Nail Surgery is needed, (this was mentioned previously in the thread) it's carried out a couple of weeks later.
As a patient, I had an accident earlier this year, I was seen immediately in A&E, surgery was carried out the next morning, and I subsequently attended a physio clinic several times. I've also had other health problems in the past, and been very happy with the service.

As far as the US is concerned, I don't know a lot about their system, but I've learned a few things from this thread that seem to confirm my impression of it, and some that confirm my impression of some (not all, I hasten to add!) of the American people. So a few points:
Depending on who you believe, 16 - 47 million Americans have no health insurance, therefore limited access to healthcare. Some of you maintain that you have the best, most succesful country in the world. This doesn't even sound civilised to me, never mind successful.
One contributor asks why people earning $17500 a year CHOOSE not to have insurance. Maybe they CHOOSE to spend it on luxury items......like food and rent. I couldn't afford insurance or luxuries on that, and I suspect neither could the person who brought it up.
I think someone also used Barack Obama as an example of how people of all backgrounds can be a success in the US - is this the same country that segregated schools by race until the '60s?
One final point, the "leaps and bounds" in technology that have occurred since the formation of the USA (and helped to make it the worlds biggest economy) have mostly been due to other countries - Germans invented the car, Europe was already industrialised, most of the steam trains that ran across the US were built in Scotland, and we invented TV and the telephone (invented in the US by a Scot!), among many others - including the US Navy!