“There is a growing body of evidence that, by an array of pertinent yardsticks, the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care,” a New York Times editorial argued. “Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th. More recently, the highly regarded Commonwealth Fund has pioneered in comparing the United States with other advanced nations through surveys of patients and doctors and analysis of other data. Its latest report, issued in May, ranked the United States last or next-to-last compared with five other nations — Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom — on most measures of performance, including quality of care and access to it. Other comparative studies also put the United States in a relatively bad light.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Politico on Too many exemptions
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Chrisfrommactown on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
336 Comments
yup
I am only too sure that the study reviewed research and development?
Perhaps what medical equipment all these countries were using?
The training these doctors received, where it was perfected and where they got it from?
Oh yes… I am only too sure…
Yeahbut… Americans SPEND way more for second-class healthcare. We’re Number One! We’re Number One.
The conservative meme that the Marketplace should drive healthcare in America has ruined us. You have a heart attack, are you gonna shop around for the cheapest Emergency Room? You kid’s got a hot appendix, so you’re gonna sit down and negotiate the price with a surgeon? Please.
Drive by the doctors’ parking at local hospitals and count the Ferraris, Porsches, and Escalades. Drive by a for-profit health insurance headquarters sometime and count the Mercedes. A third of every premium dollar you spend on for-profit health insurance goes for corporate perks, stock dividends, and thousands of people whose only job is to deny your daughter state-of-the-art cancer treatment.
BushCo and the Republic Party actually *made it a crime* to negotiate lower prices for Medicare pharmaceuticals in America! Where’s the “marketplace” in that little sweetheart deal?
Most certainly, someone will come on this thread and bitch about “illegals” using up Americans’ health services. Don’t even try until you get the *top*-feeders who profit from America’s sick, sick healthcare system.
It doesnt really matter what the WHO says…the NY Times will not be silenced until HillaryCare is instituted.
Then all will be well.
Then, where will all the Canadians, British, French go to actually get medical care….?
Dont forget..all those great healthcare plans you Cessna, Spirit, Boeing , Hawker et al will all be shut down.
They are all waiting for the Gubment to step up and take over…then they will kick their plans out and you will ALL be on Medicare or whatever they choose to call it.
Ford Motor has already stated the instant the US gets Universal care…they are gone. Bill Ford has been making speeches to that affect outside the US for years.
heh…buh-bye.
“mrbill” –
Have you ever met a senior citizen who’s willing to give up their Medicare coverage?
Compare life expectancy and infant deaths. We look pretty dismal there, too.
Time for a change in the way health care is delivered.
“Dont forget..all those great healthcare plans you Cessna, Spirit, Boeing , Hawker et al will all be shut down.
They are all waiting for the Gubment to step up and take over…then they will kick their plans out and you will ALL be on Medicare or whatever they choose to call”
This has not been the experience in Canada. You still get supplemental insurance benefits from your employer- for example they cover a private hospital room and prescription drugs- which Health Canada does not cover.
There is little doubt that France has the best health system. I mean, if you have a baby there, the government sends a nanny to your house to clean up and do your laundry for you!
Did they count wait time for basic diagnostic tests?
Did they count wait time for basic treatments?
I don’t know, that’s why I ask. Waiting several weeks for an MRI when you think you may have cancer would be like torture. But it’s common in the UK and Canada. You need Chemo? Come see us in 6 weeks.
“Heckler” wrote:
“I don’t know…,” then proceeds to assume the worst.
Well, not the worst.
Try this: Under America’s for-profit system, my family physician suggested I contact a specialist for a diagnostic test. I called them last week. They can get me in for an appointment next *MARCH!!!* With insurance. With a referral. Next March.
I called my family physician and asked if that were okay. He said, “It’s probably not life threatening, so–”
“*PROBABLY!!??*” I explained.
So he suggested a different specialist, outside of his for-profit business arangement. (He later mentioned, “I’ll probably get in trouble with (the for-profit corporation that owns his practice), but call these people.”
They can see me in November.
It “probably” won’t kill me. But my doc’s gonna catch hell from his bean-counters.
Another opinion straight from the NY Times. No slant there. The WHO. . .no slant there. I’m not familiar with the ‘highly regarded’ Commonwealth Fund. However if the NY Times is going to cite them I’m sure there is no slant there.
Give me a break.
LTP: Never heard of such a thing outside of socialized health care. What is this diagnostic test that is so unavailable?
One thing that you can be certain of. If there really is a waiting list like that, the market will be moving to fill the need and cash in.
outlander,
Yeah. And moving to deny people coverage, because that’s where the money is.
Let’s talk about the market:
In 2004 my wife needed and ambulance trip. our insurance did not cover the trip, so that was $500 out of pocket.
When we looked into why my STATE-PROVIDED health care plan did not cover an ambulance trip by STATE-PROVIDED ambulances, we found that that PPO just did not use Sedgwick County emergency services.
So, what she should have done, to be covered, was call the appropriate PPO to find out which provider she needed, then call the appropriate emergency service and wait for them to get here from Reno County!
This is what they call a SCAM, folks, plain and simple. Even if you are lucky enough to get health care in this country, be prepared to be scammed (often) by your provider.
But all you conservatives will shout “Socialized medicine!” like shouting “fire” in a crowded theater–but what you really mean is that it is more important for the HMOs and drug companies make their outlandish profits than for people to to have access to decent affordable health care.
So much more important that you will use a buzz word to cut off all discussion about the obvious problems in the current system.
So, in effect, the almighty dollar and its trickling-down effect are more important to some people than the welfare of living people. They call this GREED, people–a shameful position that our “Christian” president espouses.
Shameful!
The USA doesn’t massage it’s statistics, other countries do.
How they count infant deaths and so on. Just look at the methodology, and then ask the question again.
You have to remember that half the population of the USA is under government health care! The more the people are on government health care the worse it gets.
Yet, the leftist neo-marxist want government to control all of our health care? LOL Oh the fraud that will take place in our health system. It will just bankrupt us.
You know how much fraud happens under medicaid, medicare, state run health care programs? In the billions of dollars. Nationalize health care will be much worse.
Another example on Japan! They have high life expectancy, mostly due to their lifestyle and diet. The media reports they spend less money on health care than the USA. Which is true! But what they forget to tell you is that Japan spends more on perspirations drugs per person than the USA. A lot more!
So the key to long life is to spend more money on drugs! Not a chance with Democrats, because Pharma companies are evil rich corporations.
Our health sucks, because the people are sucking their own health. We are the fattest nation on earth. Obesity is causing more health problems than tobacco. Super Size Me! A Nation of Fatties!
I loved Bill Maher’s response on our nations health care status. “Why are we so sick?”
As reported in the Daily Mail a few months ago:
“Cleaners at an NHS hospital with a poor record on superbugs have been told to turn over dirty sheets instead of using fresh ones between patients to save money.
Housekeeping staff at Good Hope Hospital in Sutton Coldfield, have been asked to re-use sheets and pillowcases wherever possible to cut a £500,000 laundry bill.”
Ick.
This appears to be a news story from Great Britain. Say, don’t they have socialized medicine there? I didn’t think that profit pressures existed in socialized medicine.
Delsol-
WHat county were you in when she needed the ambulance call? And who did you call? 911? from a cell phone, or residenc
Not socialized medicine! Socialize Health Care!
“I have never advocated for Socialize Medicine” – Hillary Clinton
Play on words! Typical Hillary fashion. She’s advocating Socialize Health Care.
Delsol! Define Greed!
Waiting several weeks for an MRI when you think you may have cancer would be like torture. But it’s common in the UK and Canada. You need Chemo? Come see us in 6 weeks.
Posted by: Heckle
Just try getting that MRI or chemo without health insurance!
If you don’t have health insurance apply for government health care. They accept people without health insurance.
Spending more money on drugs will not produce longer lives – it just produces more profits for the drug companies and their shareholders.
The US healthcare system is based on profit. There should be certain areas in our country, if we truly profess to be a Christian country, that should be sheltered from the raping by corporate greed. Health care should be one of those areas.
Suprised? No. “Sicko” is true.
If you don’t have health insurance apply for government health care. They accept people without health insurance.
Posted by: Joe Williams
What planet do you live on? Government healthcare is for the elderly, disabled or Medicaid. The working poor do not qualify for such programs
Isn’t it ironic that a Republican is advocating for people to go get health insurance from a government program??? I thought it was you guys that advocated for everyone to take care of themselves – now we know your secret – you’re all on some government program yourselves? NO wonder my taxes are so high.
Spending more money on drugs will not produce longer lives – it just produces more profits for the drug companies and their shareholders.
The US healthcare system is based on profit. There should be certain areas in our country, if we truly profess to be a Christian country, that should be sheltered from the raping by corporate greed. Health care should be one of those areas.
Posted by: maidmarion | August 14, 2007 at 08:37 AM
First off, i don’t know where you get yourinformation, but there are lots of drugs that prolong life.
Second, so medicine and medical care should be free?
Prolong life or prolong breathing? I don’t know where you get your information but I work for a pharmacy.
Did I say medicine and medical care should be free? No….. I am advocating for everyone in the US to be able to have basic health care insurance provided. If you want to purchase additional insurance, then it is up to the individual.
I view this is as a public safety issue. With healthier people, then maybe our Emergency Rooms would not be used as a primary care physician’s office. With healthier people, then maybe the minor health issues would not grow into major health issues because the person delays getting medical treatment?
Just why do Republicans resist the idea of every American being able to get health care? I don’t understand that thinking but then again, I don’t understand greed.
Heckler, I don’t know what planet you live on, but it’s the same way HERE. Just went through all of this with my dad. Was 5 full months from his initial symptoms to the removal of his diseased organ, which thankfully, was MISDIAGNOSED as cancer. 2 months had gone by from the time of his CT scan to when they finally determined something was wrong–and after we had already been told the CT was clear. Insurance demanded he go through a certain type of biopsy which isn’t so good (but it’s cheaper)- when the tests showed they missed, so he had to go through another surgery and biopsy, then the final surgery to remove the organ.
Anonymous, if you think that’s bad, hotels are perfectly legal to keep the same bedspreads that were used for the last 30 days without washing no matter how many people stayed in there.And many doctors are releasing patients into hotels post surgical procedures.Oh and yeah, that was WITH insurance. If he had none, I’m sure we’d still be waiting.
Republicans would not approve of Jesus because he healed people without sending them a bill!
I disagree with you on the medication thing. Meds do prolong life. From antidepressants/antipsychotics to cancer drugs, they not only improve quality of life, but also life.
The difference being, political_mom, that in America, you are free to choose to stay at a (presumably) low-cost hotel that doesn’t change sheets if that’s what you want, or if that’s what you can afford.
It’s not forced on us by the state.
There is little doubt that France has the best health system. I mean, if you have a baby there, the government sends a nanny to your house to clean up and do your laundry for you!
Posted by: Kev | August 14, 2007 at 05:54 AM
You’re $hittin me right? Does she show up in one of those pretty little french maid outfits too?
Ahhh to be a communist….
To those who believe that providing free health care is the Christian thing to do:
Where does the money used to pay for this healthcare come from? Does it come from taxes?
If so, please remember that taxes are extracted from us through the coercive force of government. In other words, by theft.
What would Jesus say to that, I wonder?
Or, as a funny guy wrote:
There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as “caring” and “sensitive” because he wants to expand the government’s charitable programs is merely saying that he’s willing to try to do good with other people’s money. Well, who isn’t? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he’ll do good with his own money — if a gun is held to his head.– P.J. O’Rourke
“Prolong life or prolong breathing? I don’t know where you get your information but I work for a pharmacy.”
I don;t care where you work, I have family and friends that would not only not have life, but not have useful lives, if it were not for the drugs they take. I guess i do care where you work. In your view, you are taking money -by your employment- from people who in your view are perpetrating a lie. Hmmm.
“I am advocating for everyone in the US to be able to have basic health care insurance provided. If you want to purchase additional insurance, then it is up to the individual.”
Whatis basic health care? And who should pay? ASNd you were the one debasing the system based on “profit” As I read your post, there should be no profit. Prhaps I misunderstand your meaning?
Hi Littlejohn–She was at S. Rutan Street in College Hill when the call was made to 911 from a residence on that street.
WSU INSURANCE (Kansas Prefer PPO, Preferred Health Systems) DIDN’T HAVE SEDGWICK COUNTY EMT AS A PROVIDER.
Since whe was in WIchita, if this was an emergency transpoort, fight the bill. Sedgwick county EMS has an exclusive contract within the city limits, with the backing of city ordinance if I recall.Somebody is full of crap. iF this was an emergency transport, they cannot withold claim because of waiting for a REno county transport.
SImply, someone is lying to you.
delsol, I think you’ve made an excellent case for disassociating the provision of health insurance from employment.
This way, you would have been free to choose the insurance that met your actual needs, instead of being forced to choose from the one or two plans your employer decided to provide.
And you description of the defects of how a STATE-PROVIDED health plan didn’t cover STATE-PROVIDED ambulances — that was great! What a forceful argument against the state being involved in healthcare!
I see many are content to break out the buzzword rather than discuss a HORRIBLE SYSTEM and how to improve it.
All universal health care plans need not be single-payer. Look up those of Germany and Australia–much more of a “co-pay” based system than that of France, Britain, or Canada.
The fact is that every single industrialized country, socialist and capitalist (Japan, Australia) has a universal health care system EXCEPT US…
…because we are morally weak and think dollars are more important than people’s health and well-being.Shameful!! You will let your grandparents suffer when their pension plan goes bankrupt (as mine did) and they have to pay out of pocket off their SS income, unable to work or get insurance!!
Shameful!!
Shameful!! You will let your grandparents suffer when their pension plan goes bankrupt (as mine did) and they have to pay out of pocket off their SS income, unable to work or get insurance!!
Shameful!!
Posted by: delsol | August 14, 2007 at 09:13
I don;t let my grandparents, or my father, suffer at all. Medicare pays for most of his medical bills. I pay for his prescription drug coverage. Why not try the same for your grandparents?
A hundred years ago Progressives were advocating public water and sewer systems because individual outhouses and cysterns were creating sever health problems. In some cities entrepreneurs built for-profit systems (for wealthy neigborhoods, naturally) but eventually it dawned on folks that clean water and sanitary waste treatment was in the public good and a basic human right.
Today, every other industrialized democracy on the planet has come to the realization that basic health care is a human right.
Just as, a hundred years ago, the for-profit water companies went out of business, 21st Century for-profit health insurers and providers will pass. It’s inevitable. Just like the guys who work at the water plant get salaries, healtcare workers will be paid well for what they know and do, but the middleman profit-takers will be cut out of the equation. Just like today’s water and sewer systems, you’ll still pay a portion of the cost of the service and (horror of horrors!) taxes will contribute to the infrastructure of the system. And just as those who have the resources and are so motivated to add water filters and softeners and sprinkler systems to their basic water service, 21st Century healthcare recipients will have plenty of opportunites to supplement their basic coverage. (Nancy Reagan isn’t gonna die in a Welfare Ward; she’ll pay the extra for a private room.)
Screeching buzzwords like “Socialized Medicine” is a Republic Party trope dating back to the 1940s. It was a meaningless scare tactic then and is even more irrelevant today, when up to 33 cents of every for-profit insurance premium dollars goes for corporate perks instead of healthcare.
Universal healthcare is a basic human right. And until we get in in the United States, we are not really civilized.
Nanny nation. Take care of me from cradle to grave because I can not do it myself. Shameful.
The Romney plan, which he initiated while governor of Massachusetts (with the support of Dems in the legislature) is being talked about as a model for the rest of the country. An alternative to nationalized health care. Everyone in the state has health insurance with the lower incomes paying nothing. And it cost less than the state was paying out before. Here is a link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5330854
Admittedly, this is an editorial, but it shows where health care-under Universal healthecare- is going:
http://thegentlecricket.blogspot.com/2006/04/sb840-bringing-failures-of-canada-to.html
Littlejohn – you obviously need a remedial course in reading comprehension – I am talking about corporate GREED taking over our health care system.
Yes, I do work in a pharmacy and I know exactly how much the price went UP on our drugs AFTER Bush’s so-called free prescription plan for the elderly.
If there is no greed in the drug companies, then why are the US drugs so much higher than the rest of the world? Even those drugs manufactured in the same plant overseas – once they reach the US market – they are doubled or even tripled in price? Why do you think this is such a great plan? Do you have stock in those drug companies???
Basic health insurance should be available to each US citizen. I see nothing wrong with my tax dollars going to pay for such a plan to allow people access to their primary care physicians for basic health care. After all, my tax dollars are now being spent to provide health care for the Iraqis who are trying to kill us, so why not just give it our own citizens?
Or are you also a stockholder in Halliburton?
Why are you so deadset against providing basic health care to your fellow US citizens? Why are you so scared?
outlander, where is the evindce of the cost savings of the Massachusetts plan? The article you cited described the passage of the bill in April of 2006. At the time of its writing, there was no experience on which to base such a claim.
Even now, with the law barely more than one year old, and with some provisions coming into play only last month, is anyone in position to judge its merits?
If Romney’s plan can help everyone to have basic health care, then I’m all for it. Personally I do not care what they call it – socialized medicine or nationalized health care. Makes no difference to me.
Maidmarion-
I can read just find, do not try and do a smokescreen
point by point
” Yes, I do work in a pharmacy and I know exactly how much the price went UP on our drugs AFTER Bush’s so-called free prescription plan for the elderly. ”
Your original point about drugs was not the cost, but that they do not prolong life. Your were called on it, and your employment selling lies (by your standard) so you throw up a smokescreen about price. Bad for you.
“If there is no greed in the drug companies, then why are the US drugs so much higher than the rest of the world? Even those drugs manufactured in the same plant overseas – once they reach the US market – they are doubled or even tripled in price? Why do you think this is such a great plan? Do you have stock in those drug companies???”
No, I don;t have stock in drug companies. Nice try though. The simple fact is that certain countries price control drugs. Now, who do you think pays the difference? the american consumer. But I guess you are for the government controlling prices that companies can charge? For their products, which they spent millions on developing?
“Basic health insurance should be available to each US citizen. I see nothing wrong with my tax dollars going to pay for such a plan to allow people access to their primary care physicians for basic health care”
All I did was ask you to define basic healthcare, you are the one that stated everyone whould have basic healthcare, and could purchase extra. Why don;t you just answer the question instead of attacking?
“Or are you also a stockholder in Halliburton? ”
What the HELL does Halliburton have to do with anything. Nice try, but waaaay of the mark. Dumb in fact
“Why are you so deadset against providing basic health care to your fellow US citizens?”
Again, all I asked was questions. Please reread my posts!
“Why are you so scared?”
I am not, why are you so stupid?See, my remark didn;t make any sense either
“
Maidmarion,
Then you should also be aware of the tremendous cost of R&D. You should also know that only one out of three medications survives from inception to FDA approval. Where exactly do you think the funding for this comes from?
LJ and Sol, just a little point but not mentioned in the above is the fact that once they have paid the price to get FDA approval they only have a few years to get their investment back before everyone gets to produce the drug.
Oh yes, communism, giving people healthcare. Gosh what a flipping horrible place to be in to hope that people who can’t afford healthcare don’t get it.
It’s their own faults afterall, the working poor. They should be working 4 jobs 24 hours a day!
As long as some people have access to healthcare, they don’t care about the reasons why others dont. But hey, as long as they get their hamburger for a buck.
They act as if universal healthcare would be taking something from them…taking their money, taking their first in line status. Even though it’d all even out in the long run. I don’t understand what the difference is between paying 1000 a month for your little group to have medical care PLUS what you pay in taxes for government care, and paying 1000 to the government for everyone having medical care.
“…because we are morally weak and think dollars are more important than people’s health and well-being.”
When dollars become more important than people, you have the failed health care system we now have.
We will never have socialized medicine in this country, in spite of its demonstrated advantages. Also we will never have an exclusively market driven health care system – even though there have been demonstrations of this type of program’s ability to save money. So, likely we will adopt a mixed type of program and thus looking to the programs in Austrailia and Germany would make the most sense for USA policy makers.
“As long as some people have access to healthcare, they don’t care about the reasons why others dont.”
My sister-in-law and her family ‘have no health care. Her son broke his wrist recently. He is now in a cast. He has a return appointment on Thursday for a checkup. Seems to me they are taken care of.
Every ER in America has to provide service to anyone entering. Don’t over-dramatize this like there are people dying in the street. There are already gubment programs to help those that can’t afford insurance.
Political Mom-”Oh yes, communism, giving people healthcare. Gosh what a flipping horrible place to be in to hope that people who can’t afford healthcare don’t get it.”
Who here has stated that giving people healthcare is communism, or they hope that people people who cant afford healthcare cdon;t get it.?
LJ,
There is little doubt that France has the best health system. I mean, if you have a baby there, the government sends a nanny to your house to clean up and do your laundry for you!
Posted by: Kev | August 14, 2007 at 05:54 AM
You’re $hittin me right? Does she show up in one of those pretty little french maid outfits too?
Ahhh to be a communist….
Posted by: SolDevVB | August 14, 2007 at 08:58 AM
“They act as if universal healthcare would be taking something from them…taking their money, taking their first in line status.”
Oh BS. It might take their money, the bill has to be paid by somebody. I suppose that they should have no right to the money they make. nobody I have ever heard has said ANYTHING about their “fine in line status”
So solDevVB-
I have lost your point. Is your point that universal healthcare is communism?
The “demonstrated advantages” of socialized medicine?
I must have overlooked those. Just what are those advantages?
Nope. You asked where PMom got communism. This is the only place I saw it. I was calling the French communists.
Okay. then I read your first post correctly. The second I was unsure about.
I’m reminded of a political slogan that began popping up in Belgrade in the late 90s:
Cradle to the grave. No one gets you there faster.
A broken wrist is one thing. And your sister is going to pay for it. A lot.
What about when it’s symptoms that aren’t so immediate? Those are the people we get to too late. And LJ, you KNOW this.
France isn’t a communist state. Sol knows this. So please.
Was the United States a communist state in WW2 when the working mothers that were needed were provided meals and daycare at the government’s expense so they could keep working?
Almost everything wrong with our health care delivery system is caused by government intervention.
Using life expectancy comparisons to show our system is worse than others is bogus. Comparing infant mortality rates with other countries is also bogus.
The absolutely last source I would use for the quality of our health care system is WHO! No political agenda there!
Culture and politics is our downfall, not the health care system.
Hank
Drug companies spend money on developing new drugs, but they also spend massive amounts on advertising and providing perks to doctors who prescribe their meds. It’s a huge money making industry that is more concerned with profits than with the wellbeing of American citizens.Why not universal healhcare? Sure, anyone can go to an emergency room to try and get help in an emergency, but what about those who can’t afford basic health care? Try going into an emergency room and telling them that you want to get blood drawn for a lipd profile because you don’t have insurance or the money to go to the doctor and you can’t qualify for Medicaid.We take reasonably good care of the elderly and the poor…why not everyone else in between? We’re a rich country, why not spread it around a little more evenly? I can’t get private medical insurance because I have a history of cancer…is it right that I should be forced into bankruptcy if I get sick again? Why not provide decent healthcare on a sliding scale for those who aren’t covered by a group?It seems like in the most powerful and rich country in the world, we should be able to provide assess to affordable healthcare for everyone.
Littlejohn, that’s great that you can help out your grandparents. What if I can’t help out mine?
They are supposed to suffer real-world consequences because of an ideological preference?
Eagle and NYT
The WHO is a political SHAM.
The United Nations runs the WHO.
The same organization that ran the “Oil for Food” program in Iraq, remember the corruption in that program?
Look, the WHO survey penalizes private systems.
NO MATTER WHAT actual outcomes patients might have, the WHO is biased against non-socialist systems so those systems are penalized.
The WHO stacks the deck, their studies and surveys are fraudulent political hack pieces.
The “demonstrated advantages” of socialized medicine?
I must have overlooked those. Just what are those advantages?
Posted by: anonymous |
Three words: Health outcome data.
“NO MATTER WHAT actual outcomes patients might have, the WHO is biased against non-socialist systems so those systems are penalized.
“The WHO stacks the deck, their studies and surveys are fraudulent political hack pieces.”
It’s all a conspiracy, everybody panic! – Oops, sorry, I am not fleettwood.
Seriously though, living in the paranoid ubber conservative world must be incredibly frightening. I won’t even bother to point the logical fallacy of this argument. If you’re like ECON 101, you don’t need no stinking logic…
“Culture and politics is our downfall, not the health care system.”–hank price
You’re partly right, Hank–it’s insurance and drug lobbying that have lined the pockets of politicans, backed by a vocal Adam Smith-esque pro-free market-at-any-costs media lobby (Limbaugh, Boortz, et. al.) that believes in a UTOPIAN FREE MARKET that is EVERY BIT AS UNWORKABLE AS MARXIST COMMUNISM.
(I can hear the gasps now…) Don;t believe it? Why do we need insurance at all? It’s nothing but protection money, anyway! Not what Adam Smith thought would be needed!
What about the FDA? Socialized control of the food and drug market!
What about our k-12 public education system? It’s not in the Constitution that everyone has a right to a basic education! SOCIALIZED EDUCATION!!!!
Darn government nannies!!
Hi Anonymous–i just saw your post at 9:13
“And you description of the defects of how a STATE-PROVIDED health plan didn’t cover STATE-PROVIDED ambulances — that was great! What a forceful argument against the state being involved in healthcare!”
Of course, it was a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT company that the state was (miserably) contracting with that made that ambulance policy(because the State of Kansas is code word for the State of Cheap).
You can try to dumb down into an oversimnplified specious argument…but it’s still an example of the kind of health un-care you can expect from a private company that values dollars over health.
Kind of like Chinese toys!!!!
“Why not provide decent healthcare on a sliding scale for those who aren’t covered by a group?’
I asked for a definiton of basic health care, and all I got was an attack by another poster I will ask you, wht is the defition of decent healthcare, and who should pay what?
“Littlejohn, that’s great that you can help out your grandparents. What if I can’t help out mine?
They are supposed to suffer real-world consequences because of an ideological preference?
Posted by: delsol | August 14, 2007 at 10:25 AM
What if you can? Why shouldn;t you? Why should I?I have seen lots of folks moan about the high cost of healthcare for their parents, or their financial plight yet unwilling to give up one iota of personal pleasure or possessions, instead they want the government to help. My reply to them: Why should I if you won;t?
“And you description of the defects of how a STATE-PROVIDED health plan didn’t cover STATE-PROVIDED ambulances — that was great! What a forceful argument against the state being involved in healthcare!”
Of course, it was a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT company that the state was (miserably) contracting with that made that ambulance policy(because the State of Kansas is code word for the State of Cheap).
You can try to dumb down into an oversimnplified specious argument…but it’s still an example of the kind of health un-care you can expect from a private company that values dollars over health.”
And I say someone is lying.As I stated, Sedgwick County EMS has an exclusive transport right within the city of WIchita. Period.
…and, on top of being virtually worthless in certain situations, this health “care” plan offered by Preferred Health Systems cost about $300 per month in premiums.
Shoot, I thought Republicans were all about keeping money in the pockets of the regular folk? Don’t you realize that this system is EXPENSIVE as well as inadequate?
You bastard!!!!I am not lying!!!
I know it sounds ridiculous…but that’s the point!!! I have provided the details of the company and the particular plan!Call ‘em up!!! (although I have changed plans as of that incident–they may have changed it since 2004)
Preferred Health SystemsKansas Prefer PPO–see who the ambulance provider is.
U.S. drops to 42 nd in world in life-expectancy rankings
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Stephen OhlemacherASSOCIATED PRESS
A baby born in the United States in 2004 will live an average of 77.9 years. That life expectancy ranks 42nd, down from 11 th two decades earlier, according to international numbers provided by the Census Bureau and domestic numbers from the National Center for Health Statistics.
Andorra, a tiny country in the Pyrenees mountains between France and Spain, had the longest life expectancy, at 83.5 years, according to the Census Bureau. It was followed by Japan, Macau, San Marino and Singapore.
Researchers said several factors have contributed to the United States falling behind other industrialized nations. A major one is that 45 million Americans lack health insurance, while Canada and many European countries have universal health care, they say.
“Something’s wrong here when one of the richest countries in the world, the one that spends the most on health care, is not able to keep up with other countries,” said Dr. Christopher Murray, head of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5047113.html
It goes on to quote Murray as saying that “an awful lot of people believe” that US healthcard is the best in the world when in fact it is NOT.
*******
One quick fix would be to have the gov’t step in and tell healthcare companies that they can offer healthcare to all for a reasonable price or they will be replaced by programs that will do it instead.
A problem as big as health care has become needs a big solution. Only the federal government is big enough to deal with it. It’s why we citizens created government to begin with.
BTW, when Michael Moore claims that CUBANS living under COMMUNISM have longer life-expectancies than we in the US, he is right.
Statistically there is little difference, but based strictly on the latest figures, Cuban lifespans are slightly longer than Americans.
Spin that, free-marketeers . . .
I looked it up. Currently listed as “Eaglemed”–an air ambulance provider.
http://www.flyeaglemed.com/wichita/
Their website says”A ground ambulance based in Wichita is available to take patients from airports to the hospitals. This ambulance can and has been activated to respond to and assist in local disasters.”
guess what happens when you’re not an airport?!
Here’s the page that shows their provider list. select “ambulance”, then “sedgwick”, then “submit”
http://www.phsystems.com/members/provider_fr/index.html
And then write me a public apology for calling me a liar.
If you click the link I posted at 10:58, select the “Preferred Plus of Kansas.”
I find it interesting none of the critics of universal healcare coverage have addressed my 9:19 AM post.
Guess they aren’t able to deal with logic and history. They’d much rather insult, attack, and lie.
(sigh)
Hank is running true to form. When the statistics show that your position is crap, attack the statistics!
He knows better than the full-time “head of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.”
That’s the thing about CONs these days. They not only draw conclusions based on ideology, they make up their own FACTS to support their fore-gone conclusions.
That’s the same process, btw, we saw with BushCo. driving the country to war in Iraq.
Start with the conclusion: we want Iraq’s oil.
And work backward to create “facts” to support that conclusion: Saddam is a dictator, he poses a threat, he has TONS and TONS of WMD’s and we KNOW WHERE THEY ARE, he can deliver them in 45 minutes and create a mushroom cloud over an American city.
When all the FACTS are proven to be lies, justify it by the conclusion: “well . . . we got the oil.”
And what is the American obesity rate Capn? How many still smoke? How many have a diet that would kill a horse? How many –prepared foods – have zero nutritional value?
Instead of people taking responsibility for THEMSELVES, lets create a MASSIVE corrupt government entity and throw BILLIONS at it. That’ll make it go away !!!
You bastard!!!!I am not lying!!!
I know it sounds ridiculous…but that’s the point!!! I have provided the details of the company and the particular plan!Call ‘em up!!! (although I have changed plans as of that incident–they may have changed it since 2004)
Preferred Health SystemsKansas Prefer PPO–see who the ambulance provider is.
Posted by: delsol | August 14, 2007 at 10:49 AM
Before calling me names, please see my post at 9:10 am. Who did I say was lying?
That has never been more true than the present, Capn. I have never seen such defensiveness and ideological demogogery from Republicans as in the last 6 years or so.
“health savings accounts” indeed—that’s the system we already have!!!!
I have a question. Other countries tell the drug companies what the prices will be for their drugs (at a much lower rate than the US). Why don’t the drug companies say no and not sell any of their drugs in thoses countries? Surely they are not selling these medications at a loss. If they are still making a profit (but not as much of one) in other countries with price control, why are the same drugs sold in the US at 2-3 (or more) times the price?
Emergency transport is limited within the city limits of Wichita to Sedgwick COunty EMS. Period. If your insurance company said you had to contact RENo county EMS for emergency transport, THEY ARE LYING! PERIOD!
Good points, LTPFTL.
Government taking more control of health care runs counter to the CONs contradictory generalization that “government causes more problems than it solves” and “government is never as efficient and beneficial as the free market,” so the CONs CAN’T respond to your evidence.
All they can do is name-call with “socialized medicine.”
Sorry, but I missed your 9:10 am post.
We did try to fight it, but to no avail. Eventually with that sort of stuff they start sending you into so many phone queues and requesting so many useless letters that they wear you down (the airlines do this too).
Sorry for jumping out my skin, Littlejohn. I think somehow i was expecting that someone would not believe it.
NOW. I want an apology. A public apology, from DELSOL, for calling me a BASTARD and misstating what I said. COme, Own up or shut the hell up.
CapnAmerica, suppose you are not one of Fidel Castro’s cronies.
Would you exchange the health care you’d receive in Cuba for what you received in America?
But see, Littlejohn, the problem is that they can list as “provider” whomever they want–they do not list an in-network ground ambulance provider for Sedgewick County, only Eaglemed, the air ambulance provider.
That means that Sedgwick County EMS will come and pick you up, and you really have no choice on it, as you say…but your insurance will not cover it, because you had the wrong ambulance get you, and you pay out of pocket.
Delsol-We were typing at the same time. WE are back to an even keel. But, I would continue the fight. Frankly, according to my understanding of Wichita CIty Ordinance, it is a code violaiton for anybody to do an emergency transport other than Sedgwick COunty Ems. THey (insurance) cannot force you to break the law.
Well, I thought I did apologize, but sure:I am sorry for not reading back in the thread, misunderstanding Littlejohn’s post, accusing s(he) of calling me a liar, and
for calling him/her a bastard.
It was unwarranted.
Sol–
You’re saying that Cubans don’t smoke? They don’t over-eat?
I never saw more smokers than when I lived in Japan. And the daily ritual of knocking back saki at the bar after work is well-known and true.
Maybe one reason Americans are so fat is that they work so much.
We work more than any other country in the world, except for S. Korea.
Hard to keep in shape slogging away at a desk . . .
That’s it, you know, they aren’t forcing you to break the law, they are forcing you to pay for it.
Actually, they cannot list anyone they want. They must provide for nearest emergency transport. It may take a few days, but i will try and gather the information you need to tell theinsurance company to pay, or be prepared to fight.
Anonymous–
Good question.
Depends on what it is. If it were treatment for a chronic problem requiring a long drug regeimin (sp)–like for allergies or AIDS–I’d probably go with the Cuban system.
If it were complicated surgery, like colon cancer and bowel reconstruction, I’d go American.
Well, look, follow the links. I admit I don;t know the law in this case, but they are clearly doing just what you say they cannot.
This is a three-year old case that has been put on the shelf if not forgotten. I would be hard-pressed to come up with the documentation. Nonetheless, I would be more than willing to assist in getting Preferred to change their policy.
Regarding the 9:19 post:
You assume that only the state can provide what are often erroneously assumed to be public goods. In today’s world, where we look to the state to provide things like arenas and concert halls, I can understand how you have come to that view. But it doesn’t have to be that way.
I would say that your interpretation of “basic human rights” is something I don’t agree with. The problem is that universal health care conflicts with property rights, which are a basic human right.
And yes, taxes are a horror! You are correct in that assessment that they are a violition of basic human rights. At least that;s what I though you said.
Also, can you tell me where you read about the excessive corporate perks at for-profit health insurance companies? Now if we had a competitive market for health insurance, the fact that some companies are able to earn (or waste, depending on your point of view) so much is a signal for other companies to enter the market. Then competitive forces can drive costs down. Our current system is so regulated that average folks don’t have much choice in their insurance. Competition doesn’t much come into play.
BTW, “Sicko” interviewed a person from Ohio who had had the exact same scenario happen to them–a ride on an “elective, out of network” local ambulance that they had to pay for. I don’t know the details–if she was away from home, etc.–but there is anecdotal evidence that this practice is not as uncommon as it should be.
Our health care does cost more. Figures related to it. But when measuring our health, we should be looking at our individual habits that contribute to our bad health: exercising and diet. We as Americans tend to suck at both of these. Our fast food diet mentality and lack of exercise both contribute to things like diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, etc. Most of which if we just changed some of our habits would likely decrease dramatically. Easier said than done. But I’d love to see a comparison of apples to apples health care, and if someone does have an appropriate link for something like that, if it proves we still stink at health care than so be it.
Capn,
I do agree with you about our work habits, but walking 30 minutes a day, and drinking water instead of soda while at work(coffee is better than soda due to just the sodium in soda), or take the stairs instead of the elevator would still go a long way in addressing some of our health issues.
I don’t understand why we don’t look at our own contributory habits in addition to the cost/benefit relationship of our health care.
“Property rights” are a basic human right?Tell it to the Native Americans!!!
(CBS) Obesity is about to become this country’s leading cause of preventable death.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/12/60II/main628877.shtml
So the mortality rates are bunk. It isn’t a failing health care system, it is adults failing to be self disciplined.
“Lack of exercise and too much food are not only making us fatter, they’re leading to increases in other diseases, such as diabetes. “
“ride on an “elective, out of network” local ambulance that they had to pay for. I don’t know the details–if she was away from home, etc.–but there is anecdotal evidence that this practice is not as uncommon as it should be.”
The keyword is “elective” That may have been the real disqualification. Some bean counter decided an ambulance ride was unnecessary. A decision that can also be fought, if necessary, and fairly easily won, with documentation
And Delsol-
I would suggest that there is no provider listed for one reason, there is no choice in Wichita. Period. the question is moot. there is only on answer. Not true with EagleMED. You need to get your money bgack
Since we are sharing anecdotal evidence, I will share this:
Recently a member of my family went to the ER with a broken arm. Before driving to the hospital they informed us that our insurance would be accepted.
Another member in the same family under the same insurance went to the same ER with a non-emergency need.
Within a week a bill for hundreds showed up for the non-emergency care. Turns out that the hospital in question was not ‘in-network’. However the emergency care was paid by the insurance as in-network care due to the emergency.
So in this case the hospital was misleading by stating, ‘Yes we take that insurance.’ So when they had little time to select a provider that decision had little financial impact. However when you can select a provider the decision has financial implications.
“However the emergency care was paid by the insurance as in-network care due to the emergency”
Correctly so
“Another member in the same family under the same insurance went to the same ER with a non-emergency need.”
first mistake
The second?In non emergency, not knowing who your provider is. Sucks, but appropriate, since it was the emergency patient that requested information about insurance coverage, they were correct. THe non emergency patient made an incorrect assumption
“annonymous” –Regarding the 9:19 post:
[snips]
“…the fact that some companies are able to earn (or waste, depending on your point of view) so much is a signal for other companies to enter the market. Then competitive forces can drive costs down…”
Your naivte is charming, but your faith in pure Adam Smithism is silly in the real world of business. In practice, capitalists will charge not just “whatever the market will bear,” but whatever they can get.
In the real world, if I run a gas station with a storage tank full of $3-a-gallon gasoline, and the other stations inn town get a new shipment of product they must sell at $3.10-a-gallon, I’m going to match the competitors’ price. It’s just good business and it’s how things work in the real world (albeit, not in your precious theory). Further, people spend $8-10-a-gallon for bottled water that’s the same stuff that comes out of the tap. Why doesn’t someone sell plastic bottles of 2-cents plain anymore? Because they can get a dollar-a-bottle for in in the real world market.
And in this specific case, healthcare is not market-driven but need-driven. My local surgeon can run a sale on appendectomies but if I don’t need to have my appendix taken out, his marketing ploy is meaningless. And if you suffer a heart attack, you’re in no position to negotiate the price of bypass surgery.
As far as your kvetching about regulations, tell ya what I’m gonna do. If you need bypass surgery, I’ll do it for you here at my place for a hundred bucks. No, I’m not “qualified” (there’s all those regulations, ya know?), but it’ll save you a lot of money! We could kill two birds with one stone. And you, probably. But what a bargain!
Ford Motor has already stated the instant the US gets Universal care…they are gone.
why??it would save them a bundle of money.
anyway ford is barely making it. they have no reason to talk like they know how to compete.
you people try to scare us about anything that is gaad.
it’s funny how many other countries do just fine or better than us in education and health care.
“Ford Motor has already stated the instant the US gets Universal care…they are gone.
why??it would save them a bundle of money.”
Of course it would. Your point being what, exactly? that companies won;t do at their own cost what the government is going to do? That government is a better provider? What?
the problem is that this is an entitlement society.
the government thinks they are entitled to as much as possible.
when someone needs help the government says, oh we can’t do anything to help you mooches.
why is it so bad to give back to taxpayers. congresspeople get it all for free. let’s make them pay for everything, like we have to.
Littlejohn, my oprganization has a health care specialist who handles claims, questions, and plans.
“Elective” was my word to describe that we, according to Preferred, “elected” to use the out-of-network provider. I went over this with our specialist, followed procedures for appeal, filled out the forms, wrote the letters; then personally appealed the decision to uphold the original charge by calling and complaining, and tried repeatedly to make the case according to Preferred’s plan regulations. The only recourse, after pursuing this for two months, would have been to sue them.
“Out of network ambulance provider” was official reason for the denial of the claim.
By the way
Someone, up thread, made an offhand comment about “other countries” setting prices for drugs.
Not really true! Canada has a “maximum charge” for prescription drugs which rarely, ever happens. The MARKET price, in Canada, is cheaper, due to caps on damages, no “class-action” lawsuits, and a lower standard of living (caused, perhaps, by higher taxes??)
I dispute the claim about FoMoCo’s position against national health care–in fact, they are FOR health care reform. They have been a corporate leader in trying to get government co-pay for health care expenses, not the opposite:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-04-07-ford-health-care_x.htm
Sheesh.
Everything Econ 101 said is wrong.
Lawsuits make hardly a blip in the costs.
The fact is that Canada gov’t negotiates lower drug costs with the drug companies and it gets them.
The US could do the same thing, but Worst. President. Ever. paid Big Pharma back for its buying of his administration by making that impossible here.
“dispute the claim about FoMoCo’s position against national health care–in fact, they are FOR health care reform. They have been a corporate leader in trying to get government co-pay for health care expenses, not the opposite:”
You are correct! They want government provided healthcare. Then they FOMOCO would not have to pay for it.
As to your ambulance situation, I would sue. You have a solid case if it was for emergency care. You are not requred to wait for an out of county ambulance without paying it yourself, you are not required to aid in breaking the law without paying for it, simply. They are lying. But, up to you. I understand the frustration. I have dealt with insurance companies myself. SOmetimes, it takes a great deal of preservereance and headache, sometimes more than it;s worth. Sometimes,it takes a call to the insurance commisoiner. Done that to, worked just fine.
“Lawsuits make hardly a blip in the costs.”
I doubt that, including the insurance cost, but perhaps
“The fact is that Canada gov’t negotiates lower drug costs with the drug companies and it gets them.”
Quite true. It’s called price caps
“The US could do the same thing”
How?And negotiate on whose behalf? The insurance companies? In Canada, it is a government run healthcare system.
thanks for your input, Littlejohn–that’s where they get you–they assume it is not worth it to you to sue over $500–it’s often not worth the hassle or expense.
Re: FoMoCo– if we’re talking corporate welfare, i would much rather assist a company to provide good health care to its entire work force then give them tax breaks that end up in CEOs’ pockets.
This has not been the experience in Canada. You still get supplemental insurance benefits from your employer- for example they cover a private hospital room and prescription drugs- which Health Canada does not cover.Posted by: Kev
So much for privatized healthcare!
THOSE THAT CAN AFFORD IT WILL CONTINUE TO GET BETTER CARE. All you will do is dumb down healthcare for the middle class.
LTP,
Of course capitalists charge whetever they can get. By the way, that is the same as “whatever the market will bear,” unless there is intervention.
Capitalists have a duty to earn as much profit as they can. It’s the only reliable signal that resources are being allocated to their best use. It is the absence of economic calculation and profit that doomed socialiasm, and will doom government control of medicine in America, should it be attempted.
Now, you may be confusing capitalism with what most large businesses are in favor of, which is a market that is regulated in their favor. That is what most businesses and their lobbyists long for, and spend huge sums trying to achieve.
As for as your water example, don’t you think people should be able to buy whatever type of water they want? Even if you think they are mistaken in their desire for expensive bottled water, isn’t it still their privilege to buy it, if that’s what they want?
Then how does my opposition to regulation of health insurance meld into your basement operating room? That type of nonsensical argument doesn’t illustrate any point.
“The US is $8.3 trillion in debt and has to borrow $2.5 billion a day to keep paying bills.”
Could any of you advocating socialized healthcare please tell me who is going to pay for it?
Money has to come from somewhere.It’s not like earmarks that just come out of thin air, is it?
By the way, bottled water is not the same product as what comes from the tap. It’s purified, perhaps flavorings, minerals, or vitamins are added, it’s often sold ice cold and at a place where your tap is not available.
People must place a subjective value on these attributes, or there would not be much of a market for this product.
“Could any of you advocating socialized healthcare please tell me who is going to pay for it?
Money has to come from somewhere.It’s not like earmarks that just come out of thin air, is it?
Posted by: American Way | August 14, 2007 at 01:12 PM”
We could reallocate the money being spent f-in around in the Iraqi sand box.
Or, what about the absurd amounts we spend on current health care premiums?
“The absolutely last source I would use for the quality of our health care system is WHO! No political agenda there!HankPosted by: Hand Price | August 14, 2007 at 10:17 AM ”
Ok, what, pray tell, is the political agenda of the World Health Organization?
The WHO statistic is misleading. It was measured by “fairness in financing health care” not on the effectiveness of health care.
Any statistic that accurately measures health-care systems across nations must satisfy threecriteria.
First, the statistic must assume actual interaction with the health care system.
Second, it must measure a phenomenon that the health caresystem can actually affect.
Finally, the statistic must be collected consistently acrossnations.
The above criteria was not followed in the WHO report.
Deficits for the European Health Care System. – The Globe”British Medical Association”
The U.K. – Experts have projecteda healthcare deficit of 10.9 billion euros this year could rise to 29 billion euros by 2010, unless action is taken.
Looking further ahead, the report says the deficit could rise to 66 billion euros by 2020.
as dennis miller says…walmart apparently doesn’t have a weight limit for customers
why are there so many fat people and worse, fat kids.
U.S. Life Expectancy Drops in Comparison to Other Countrieshttp://www.sportsgeezer.com/sportsgeezer/2007/08/us-life-expecta.html
The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2 percent here [in the United States], yet 61.7 percent in France.
In Britain -you’re a woman with breast cancer, then you have a 1 in 2 chance of dieing.
…Or you can stay here in the U.S. and have a 1 in 4 chance of surviving.
Perhaps you should reread my posts, “anonymous.”
A market-based approach to healthcare is doomed because the need for healthcare isn’t market driven.
There’s no “market” for clean water and sanitary sewer services. A hundred years ago just about everybody got by with cisterns and outhouses. But populations became more concentrated and people were, in effect, shitting in the drinking water.
However appropriate some of the institutions of healthcare coverage might have been in the past, today’s American healthcare system has too many people shitting in the cistern.
In 1986 the U.S. Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Thisrequires emergency rooms to treat any person who shows up seeking medical treatment, regardless oftheir ability to pay.
Michael Moore forgot to mention that fact.
The U.S. has a higher five-year survival rate for victims of heart attacks than Canada, due to thefact that we do more bypass surgeries and angioplasties in the U.S. Hospitals in the U.S.also commit fewer errors than hospitals in countries with single-payer systems likeAustralia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.
Five times the survival rate for Heart Attacks in the U.S., imagine that.
I am sick and tired of people (I’m referring primarily to you, delsol) who have no education or expertise in the the fields of public health and policy dismissing the hard, diligent lifelong work of experts (i.e. WHO, UN) from around the world as a SHAM! All an ignorant, outdated red-scare monger need do is mutter a few facile sound bites from conservative talk radio verbatim without investigating ANY of their statements for themselves from a variety of sources. The best science dictates that you conduct studies and analyze data in as unbiased a fashion as possible followed by EXHAUSTIVE PEER REVIEW . Even if your results disagree with your expectations or personal beliefs, you FIND THE BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE DATA, rather than the other way around. Just because the WHO might find some statistics about the United States healthcare system that aren’t as flattering as we’d like, that doesn’t mean you dismiss everything that they do.
Furthermore, I am deeply disturbed by folks who have such a deep hatred and distrust for the United Nations that some go as far as to advocate its dissolution or US withdrawl. Was the Oil for Food scandal involving Kofi Annan’s son, Kojo, an embarassment to the institution? Yes. Was Secretary General Annan exonorated and his involvement dismissed? Yes. Does one scandal and the inevitable corruption of bureaucracy justify the dissolution of humanitarian work done by UNICEF, the World Food Program, UNESCO, just to mention a few? Absolutely not. Imagine if people advocated that we throw out our US government model because of Watergate, Iran Contra, or other numerous scandals and indisretions. “The US government did something bad, so they can’t do anything right.” Grow up.
In addition, if you believe that there is some sort of epic conspiracy or agenda on the part of researchers all over the world from different institutions and backgrounds with regard to health statistics, climate change, or anything else that might benefit from the United States making some reforms, you are a wingnut, pure and simple. Go back and watch your X-Files.
The primary reason is that the U.S. has lower life expectancy is that we are ethnically a far morediverse nation than most other industrialized nations. Factors associated with different ethnicbackgrounds — culture, diet, etc. — can have a substantial impact on life expectancy.
If they are needing emergency services.And the patient is still liable for the bill (collectibility is questionable, I guess).
Essentially that law says the hospital must treat those that need emergency care even if they are uncertain of the patient’s ability to pay for that treatment.
Youtube move:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVZp6xPA7tk“The Lemon” demonstrates how single-payer health care systems have a lot in common with the failedeconomic systems of Soviet-era eastern Europe. Stuart Browning
The facts ignored by the worshipers of Michael Moore:
- Every economic disadvantage person in the U.S. is entitled to health care under Medicaid or thethousands of Charity Based health care solutions.
- 14,000,000 people choose not to enroll into Medicaid programs
- 12 – 20,000,000 people counted in Michael Moore’s movie are illegal immigrants of whom cango into almost any health care facility and receive free health care.
- 8,000,000 people who do not receive health care are either apathetic (they don’t care or don’t like Doctors), are among the transient mentally ill (impossible to track), are criminal and avoidestablishments of any kind.
There are people who make above $50,000 a year who do not buy health care insurance because they would rather have the latest electronic widget, a new car or buy a house above their means in which they can’t really afford.
“We could reallocate the money being spent f-in around in the Iraqi sand box.”Posted by: brian
Short sighted, not enough money, and driven by current events. Nope.
“Or, what about the absurd amounts we spend on current health care premiums?”Posted by: delsol
I don’t think I pay an absurd amount for healthcare. I get what I pay for. I get good healthcare.How much do people owning a 40,000 SUV, pay on the loan? Is that too much?
I am willing to pay a LOT more for my families health – than a stupid car.
You get what you pay for. Nothing in life is free. The only way to pay for socialized medicine is with revenue from the treasury.
A treasury that is broke and a national debt out of control.
It’s like the dried up rivers and wells in Kansas: AND YOU WANT TO PUMP OUT MORE???????
2003 – “Problems in the French health system were exposed last year, when a heat wave killed around 15,000 mostly elderly people.
All over France, hospital wards were closed down this month to allow staff to go on holiday. Trolley beds containing dehydrated old people piled up in hospital corridors while large wards, filled with expensive resuscitation equipment, were locked and inaccessible, until the government belatedly declared an emergency.
“Old people’s homes – where 50 per cent of the casualties occurred – were operating with reduced and, sometimes, temporary staff. At one home in the Paris area, visited by French TV, there were two auxiliary staff to cope with 60 residents during one of the worst nights of heat. Seven people died that night. Those old people’s homes which were unable to cope were discouraged from sending patients to hospitals, which were also unable to cope.”
The massive death toll in France has been blamed on France’s labour laws which contributed to severe staff shortages in the public health and aged care systems during the country’s summer vacation, as well as a lack of air-conditioning in French medical facilities. The government of Jacques Chirac and his Minister for Health, Jean-François Mattei, were condemned for failing to issue warnings and not recalling staff back to work as news of mortality spikes were being reported from the health surveillance authorities.
It was estimated that 20 percent of France’s health care system went on vacation during the heat disaster. This included staff at rest homes.”
“- 14,000,000 people choose not to enroll into Medicaid programs”
Facts have sources, what are the ones for this?
The median wait time for medical treatment in Canada in 2006 was 17.8 weeks.
Waits for things like gastric bypass and sleep apnea got Canadian treatment are routinely 4-5 years.
By the way, I noticed that I was actually referring to Hank in the above post, not delsol. My apologies, delsol. I believe we’re largely on the same page.
There’s nothing wrong with the healthcare in America. Nothing is perfect, but giving it to the government and all their paperwork bureaucracy is NOT going to make it better. You like the IRS? Wait until IHS starts working your bills.
What are the real numbers of those without healthcare? Do we subtract the 12 million illegals? Can we subtract those who are eligible for healthcare at their work – but refuse to pay for it?
What is the true number of truly needy?
If you must, define who really needs assistance, document their circumstances and provide for those with need.
If you simply don’t LIKE to spend “so much” on healthcare, suck it up. How much is your life worth anyway?
For the rest of us who have good insurance, good family doctors, and good hospitals:
LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE!!!!
LTP,
Faulty analogies don’t make for convincing argument.
How can you say there is no market for healthcare?
It’s true that in our present system, there are huge distortions that warp usual market forces. The fact that few people even know how much someone else pays for their medical care is an example.
With government-supplied healthcare, these distortions will become greater. As consumers pay nothing for each additional unit of healthcare consumed, the demand for it will increase rapidly.
At the same time, as government seeks to “control” the costs, the supply of healthcare is likely to fall. Evidence of this is the number of physicians that will not accept new medicare patients due to the low rate of pay.
This leads to shortages, which in all cases is a problem of prices not clearing the market.
ksescapee,
You weren’t referring to me. I’ll put my knowledge of the healthcare system in this country and other countries against anyone on this BLOG.
I repeat, the government is the cause of our healthcare problems, not the fix.
Hank
I repeat, the government is the cause of our healthcare problems, not the fix. Hank
Amen Hank!
Unfortunately, many on this blog believe the government is the ANSWER to all problems in life.
It’s like a religion to them. You can’t argue with someone about his religious beliefs and expect to win.
Why don’t you back up your claims with evidence or logic for once, then, Expert Hank? Seems like all you ever do is make impossibly broad proclamations.
Delsol, you can’t believe what Hank writes. It is all part of his political agenda.
American Way, I myself am not for government, and I am for NON-PROFITS and I am for OVERSIGHT. I am NOT for government intervention.
The profit motive must be kept in check–it is counterproductive in education, utilities, the arts, and must be monitored in other areas such as media, food, health and drug products–as long as that can be done by independent parties, i don’t care who does it.
It doesn;t have to be government. THe advantage government has is in mandating participation and compliance.
We could go the other way and be like China, if you like. Then you might pay double the market value for clean water that hasn’t been tainted with lead, or something–which is effectively what we are doing with our health “care” “system.”
While on vacation I talked with many from Alaska who don’t buy into the WG argument and I talked to many Canadians who had some eye opening things to say about their healthcare. They were well informed and knew that we will be dealing with universal healthcare in the near future.
I didn’t have one tell me they love their healthcare program. Long lines. Never seeing the same doc twice unless they are the next one available. No appointments. You just take the last chair in line and move up when a person is called in. Long waiting periods for crucial tests. Limits by age for what we think are routine tests.
One did tell me that they thought everyone should have access to healthcare and he also said that the well to do routinely go to the US and pay for private healthcare.
The tax on him was over 50%. He was 27 and single. Gas there was 4.10 a gallon. Milk over 5 dollars. Their sales tax rate was 13%. Do the math. Not much left over for the good life.
Before we put in a person pushing socialized medicine we should do our own research and make an informed decision.
“Unfortunately, many on this blog believe the government is the ANSWER to all problems in life.
Posted by: American Way | August 14, 2007 at 02:26 PM ”
You got that right. That is why we need to vote the big governemnt, big spending Republicans out of office. They want the government involved in all parts of people’s lives; wouldn’t it be better to get the government out of our lives and live and let live?
See, I told you, Hotdog said it…as long as he’s not the one suffering, who cares.
The biggest cause of disappointment is differing expectations. Any progress on healthcare, whether it is moving toward a universal government plan or away from that, must begin with a discussion and conclusion regarding the role of the government in ensuring its citizens are healthy. It is pertinent to clarify the expectation of all Americans regarding what the government will provide toward their healthcare.
Does the government have a duty to ensure that all Americans receive some level of healthcare? If so, what level and why?
See, Grm, I think you’re making things up. I have friends in Canada too, and that’s NOT what they tell me. They tell me the wait is because their doctors either split practices between there and the US (they make more money here)…or they just up and leave there. It’s a doctor shortage. And they DO get to stick with one doctor.
At my clinic here in my town, I might not even get to see my own doctor, I can see any of their associates or PA’s. And I have to pay cash before I see them.
“- 14,000,000 people choose not to enroll into Medicaid programs”
Facts have sources, what are the ones for this?
Posted by: brian | August 14, 2007 at 01:53 PM
http://www.insure.com/articles/healthinsurance/analysis.htmlAnalysis: Politicians Using Flawed Data on Uninsured Population
“This is no minor statistical snag, as the Census Bureau reports there are more than 15 million “uninsured” individuals in households with less than $25,000 of income. Many of these individuals meet the income test for Medicaid or SCHIP eligibility, but they are not technically enrolled and are therefore considered by the Census Bureau to be uninsured.”
======For Children:http://www.cbpp.org/mcaidprt.htm
5,147,000
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-94-52
Low Income Elderly who are eligible for Medicare,
but do not enroll in Medicaid (they are eligible)1.8 million
http://coveringkidsandfamilies.org/actioncenter/files/FAQs.docSCHIP program for children not enrolled:est. 5 million
http://www.house.gov/list/press/ca34_roybal-allard/pr070801.html“Nationwide, two out of every three uninsured children in the United States are eligible for coverage through SCHIP and Medicaid, but are not insured. Final passage of the CHAMP Act (H.R. 3162) will provide 11 million children, including five million additional children who are eligible but not enrolled in the program, with health insurance coverage across the United States.”
=============http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/health/main534856.shtmlNearly 5 million children are eligible for government-funded health insurance but remain uninsured, five years after the government created a program for kids in working poor families to complement Medicaid.
Yup. Mandating national health coverage for even the uninformed slackers will help bring my costs down, too, there’s no doubt about it.
Is your point, political_mom, that in Canada a person doesn’t get to see a doctor, while in the U.S. you do get to, after paying a little bit, see your doctor or one of his highly qualified associates?
And if that is your point, which is preferable?
Delsol, I would say to you, even though you didn’t ask me, that as long as we have a world of scarce resources, the calculation of profit, and seeking to maximize it is the only reliable way to allocate those scarce resources.
And resources are scarce, even in the fields you mentioned.
Who do you trust to best allocate scarce resources: those entrepreneurs who, by recognizing areas where resources could be more profitably used, earn a profit by redirecting misused resources, or government bureaucrats?
Or the independent parties you mentioned: if they were to control the allocation of resources, by what authority would they do so? And in whose interests? Wouldn’t they end up making the same bad decision as the government?
Sorta like school, eh?You want private school, you can do that, but you still have to pay your propery taxes.
Kansas wrote:
Every economic disadvantage person in the U.S. is entitled to health care under Medicaid or thethousands of Charity Based health care solutions.
- 14,000,000 people choose not to enroll into Medicaid programs
- 12 – 20,000,000 people counted in Michael Moore’s movie are illegal immigrants of whom cango into almost any health care facility and receive free health care.
- 8,000,000 people who do not receive health care are either apathetic (they don’t care or don’t like Doctors), are among the transient mentally ill (impossible to track), are criminal and avoidestablishments of any kind.
There are people who make above $50,000 a year who do not buy health care insurance because they would rather have the latest electronic widget, a new car or buy a house above their means in which they can’t really afford.
———–
You actually believe the crap you say don’t you? You haven’t a clue bud. I applied when I wasn’t working for medical assistance through a reduced clinic, my husband made 12 dollars an hour at the time if I recall, my son profoundly disabled at that time- I couldn’t work. Family of FOUR. Denied for making TOO MUCH MONEY.
Anytime we step foot into an ER, we have to pay that bill eventually. Thousands of dollars sent to collection agencies, taken to court for. It doesn’t come free. And I’m sure out of those thousands of dollars, I ended up paying for care I didn’t even receive…as the other people’s fees that they never collected on are added to MY bill more than even someone who has insurance.
People chose not to enroll in the Medicaid programs because they either don’t know they’re eligible, or don’t know which ones to choose, or CAN’T for medical reasons. Do you have any idea how many people I would find barely living because they had nobody to look after them?
“See, I told you, Hotdog said it…as long as he’s not the one suffering, who cares.”Posted by: political_mom
PM, why don’t you go find out which specific guns you want to ban and which ammunition you want pulled.
You might do a better job at that than you do trying to speak for anyone else on this blog.
(but I f-king doubt it)
I would ban 50 caliber incendiary rounds for recreational hunting. :D
(they are probably already banned, was just being snide) – imagine that. :)
“And resources are scarce, even in the fields you mentioned.”–anonymous
hmmm…How much are we spending on that war in Iraq?
Come on. You Republicans should understand the concept of more effective distribution of resources.
If Ford’s pension plan becomes a national responsibility, imagine how much they can take and put where you capitalists want it–in the CEO’s yacht.
I don;t trust anyone whose motive is their own wallet when a concept requiring fairness is concerned–that’s the quickest way to defeat fairness.
Why don;t you back to the 19th century, with your Rockefeller-like ideas about capital? Been boning up on your economic theory through classics like Ayn Rand, or something?
“their doctors either split practices between there and the US (they make more money here)…or they just up and leave there. It’s a doctor shortage. ”
And geee whiz boys and girls, what the HECK do you expect will happen in the USA when you nationalize healthcare? Why do you suppose we have all those foreign doctors in America?
Good-bye good doc’s!
Those should be allowed Kansas, but only for rabbit hunting.
Uh, I thought we were talking about healthcare, silly me. Well gee whiz, let’s throw in a gun statement so we can ignore what hotdog said.
Still, no on answers my question. What level of healthcare is what everyone is ‘entitled” to? What is “basic” healthcare? My personal belief is that those who call for universal healthcare and so on expect ALL healthcare to be considered a basic right, except for elective type surgeries and treatments, not usually covered by insurance anyway. Am i right?
“In Britain -you’re a woman with breast cancer, then you have a 1 in 2 chance of dieing.”
Posted by: Kansas, aka TROLL | August 14, 2007 at 01:38 PM
Since you REFUSED to provide the date of that statistic on the ‘SiCKO’ thread, it’s safe to assume it was BEFORE Britian REDUCED the wait times
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/30/AR2007063000367.html“A tripling of British government spending on health care in over the last decade to $187 billion, has meant that patients are treated quicker.”
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/06/sicko-offers-gl.html#comment-74505466
” don;t trust anyone whose motive is their own wallet when a concept requiring fairness is concerned–that’s the quickest way to defeat fairness. ”
I agree. and that includes those who want the government to take care of them, and vote for politicans that increase their entitlement
Well, delsol, I am not a Republican, so I don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish by labeling me such.
A foundation of capitalism, I might add, is private property rights. If somehow I became responsible to pay for Ford’s pension, how is that respectful of my property rights?
Now Republicans might like that idea, but they are hardly capitalists, and any way, I am not a Republican.
Tell me, do you know what happened to the price of kerosene during Rockefeller’s day?
I don’t know if it has been addressed, but I will bring up a point:
When you make health care universal, it will not be very long before it is the lowest standard of free care for all.
What do I mean?
Simple:
If there is a hospital which provides better treatment somewhere or has better equipment, how long do you think it will take before the courts rule that health care must be equal?
As soon as equality is brought in by the courts, you will see standards. To meet those standards unversalily we would have to bring down the level of care, not bring up everyone else.
So within a decade you would see the equality of care go up while the standards come down.
What I don’t understand is how we can sit here and see what a mess Social Security is, what a mess Medicade is, and what a mess many other government run programs are and then actually want the government to run the entire health care system.
Just one more thing to go bankrupt and be mismanaged by our government.
Basic and emergency care should be paid for. Period. That means if you have a lump, you should be able to make an appointment and be seen to find out what it is.
Preventative care, therapies, in-home care etc. We already have those, and most of them are covered by government already. Basic med.What I would NOT include are electives.
Another issue to consider:
“”Primary care is on the verge of collapse,” said the organization, a professional group which certifies internists, in a statement. “Very few young physicians are going into primary care and those already in practice are under such stress that they are looking for an exit strategy.”Dropping incomes coupled with difficulties in juggling patients, soaring bills and policies from insurers that encourage rushed office visits all mean that more primary care doctors are retiring than are graduating from medical school, the ACP said in its report. ”
http://www.rense.com/general69/rpom.htm
The link is at rense.com, but the story is from Reuter’s–I saw it originally hanging up at my doctor’s ofc–the third doctor I’d tried in this town, because the first two gave me the very type of rushed McMedicine the article describes.
How do you figure Nathan…we already HAVE standards set that everyone must meet. Why do you think that would have to change?
Let’s just say it simple, I want free health care for all the poor and middle class people.
And all the rich people should pay for 100% of it.
Then and only then will I and many like me have health insurance.
Sigh. No. We ALL pay into it. We ALL benefit.
Just like now..only more equally. I’m trying to save YOU some money. Those with insurance have the biggest bills of all. It’s such a scam.
P-mom, we need the electives along with the basic care.
How else am I ever going to get that boob job I need?
So Politial Mom-
AS I understand you, all medical treatment should be covered, except for electives.
So, since the total healthcare dollar cost is around 2 trillion dollars, about 7000 per person, who is going to pay the bill? You have at least three in your family, so about 21000 for your famly alone.
PMom,
You accuse me, then don’t have any facts to back your statements up.
You just give a single account of yourself and that’s it.
BTW, 12.00/hour is under 25,000 per year and you are most likely eligible for health care under Medicaid, SCHIPS or at least eligible for MANY of the low cost health insurance plans offered through the State Insurance Commission as referral agents.
Or PMom, you can continue to exist in your misinformed status about being eligible for health care assistance.
It’s up to you PMom. If you don’t care about looking into health care programs provided by the Federal government and the State of Kansas, I’m not gonna drag you by the arm to show you what’s available.
” don;t trust anyone whose motive is their own wallet when a concept requiring fairness is concerned–that’s the quickest way to defeat fairness. ”
Since WHEN does the US Constitution provide for FAIR????????????????????????????????????????????
Why do you libs feel life has to be fair????
You won’t be happen until you dumb down the top half, pass out equal wages for all, and everyone lives in a white trailer provided by the government (OSHA inspected w/gas masks)
Life is not fair. It was not meant to be fair.
What do you want to know Delsol?
Hank
No, life was meant to be Communist.
Everyone works.
Everyone gets paid the same wage.
All assets get divided up equally.
Basic and emergency care should be paid for. Period. Basic med.What I would NOT include are electives.Posted by: political_mom
Maybe you could go to work or the government (a j.o.b.) and write up all the “approved” basics and exactly WHAT those are.
Send it in with the list of automatic guns you would ban and which ammo………..
You are gonna be a busy beaver PM.
It’s nice when someone else can decide everything for you in life. Won’t it be nice when you are the one doing it?
Political Mom,
What I mean is that certain hospitals have better equipment and service than others.
That would have to change. Only the lowest level of care and equipment which can be provided for all would be acceptable if things are to be equal.
You simply do NOT know what you are talking about Kansas. I went there. I was told flat out I was x dollars per year over the limit- I was maxed out on the sliding fee scale.
It doesn’t matter now, I work now. We’re not in that position anymore. But at the time, my need was great, and there was nothing available to me.
Re the attacks on medical care in other countries — WHY should we repeat their mistakes?
A good CNBC video interview of Moore,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pcuw-_AOk6g
At about 1:40, Moore says we should take one thing they do right in Canada, the one thing they do right in Britian, the one thing they do right in France, and put it together and call it the American system.
Oh I get you now. I don’t think it’d be different than now. If this hospital doesn’t have the equipment, they’ll send you to the one that does.
You are correct Max.
What we are hearing here is:
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” Karl Marx
Of course even the communists themselves fought over the Marxist or Lenin views.
Can’t wait until the United Socialist States of America get’s to debating these same old dead issues.
Oh, I’m sorry. We already are.—–
“Life is not fair. It was not meant to be fair.”
Which is precisely why it’s proper to use democracy to make things fair–or to “get mine”–the current operating philosophy.
There is a difference between acknowledging the inherent inequities of life, and worshipping them as some kind of inviolate principle.—–
You’re so full of it Hotdog. Seriously.
Nathan, you want the same medical equipment in all hospitals?
Regardless of location, population area, number of patients seen, hospital size?
Or would all hospitals made to be the same size?
‘”From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need”’
Is there anything wrong with the logic of this quote? Why?
USE DEMOCRACY TO MAKE THINGS FAIR?
Oh, you mean to steal from those who have earned money, and give it to those who did not.
I get it.
Fair.
SOCIALIST!
Max,
Excuse me, did I hear someone call for me?
“Life is not fair. It was not meant to be fair.”
No more golden rule, Christians?
Oh, that’s right–the Republican party has the “Ron Paul Dollar Uber Alles” conservatives AND the “Sam Brownback Every Sperm is Sacred” conservatives.
One wants the libertarian de-regulated caveat emptor no taxes get rich scams ok approach;
the other wants the monitor all of your most private thoughts, force you to read the bible in school, practice Christian ethics in the government, get rid of all the gays approach to government. Ever heard of No Child Left Behind?
How do you reconcile the two….?
The current idea in American politic’s is:
Covet what my neighbor hasand figure out a way to legally take it from him.
“SOCIALIST!”
Gee, Maxie, think ya could be just a little more shrill? I recommend Zoloft®.
If believing in fairness (some call it “justice”) makes me a ’socialist’, that’s fine–the word doesn’t scare me.
But it seems I’m in pretty damn good company:******************************”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html*****************************
The bible never said men should be equal in material things.
But for you Socialist/Communists, what do you care what the bible says?
What happened to your separation of church and state crap?
delsol, I don’t think it’s fair that you got to post so many more meaningless words than I did.
Therefore, the monitor should reduce what you posted to make it fair.
Further, the monitor should take your extra posted words and give them to me.
No Rage, you’re not in good company. You are in a big company with 50% of America earning less than $29,000 per year.
And your group wants to steal from the top group – I get that.
Now, I just want all of you to celebrate being Socialists, and accept yourselves for what you are.
Don’t call yourselves fair or just though.
That has nothing to do with what you want to do.
Max, how do you feel about public education and the way it is funded?
Would you rather pay out of pocket, directly & in full, for your health care?
We already have so many things like this–do you have a choice in funding the military? No!
The point is that pure capitalism, practiced in this country in the 19th century, didn;t work evry well. Neither does marxist communism.
Some compromise far between these models is what most functioning governments use. Demonizing every collective. national, or regulatory practice as “socialist” or “communist” is really only a means to shutting down debate.
Posted by: Rage
Now Rage, don’t you go confusing FAIR with EQUAL.
They are not.
Further, it says we were created equal. As life demonstrates, we don’t all go to our graves with the mostest and biggest toys.
When you quote another poster, does that count in your daily word quota?
“delsol, I don’t think it’s fair that you got to post so many more meaningless words than I did.
Therefore, the monitor should reduce what you posted to make it fair.” Hotdog1
If someone gets rich through a scam, delsol, that implies fraud.
Almost as important as the nonagression axiom, fraud is decidedly anti-libertarian.
Sheesh.
Max–get some help.
If the label Socialist shuts down your debate because you finally recognize your thievery, so be it.
How about this, ‘dog:
“I get rich off you with no oversight and minimal law”
versus
“I control your social practices and ensure lockstep conformity of your personal life”
resulting in “how do you ensure the inherent straightness and christianness of all while satisfying the capitalist gluttons”
W tried it. Didn’t really work out.
By the way, delsol, did you find out what happened to the price of kerosene under Rockefeller, or the price of steel under Carnegie?
Economic fairness and social fairness are the apples and oranges of fairnesses.
Debating whether to allocate economic resources unfairly to create social fairness is kind of silly isn’t it?
Thanks for revealing your true agenda, Max. We will remember to completely ignore you from here on, since your goal is to shout epithets at others in order to stop the conversation.
Those who want things, but don’t want to work for them, will never cease their begging for it.
This blog shall boil over in perpetuity with whiners, criers, and beggars.
Delsol, then please explain the difference between “capitalist glutton” and “person who wants others to pay for their health care or something else through the coercive power of the state.”
“Now Rage, don’t you go confusing FAIR with EQUAL.”
Obviously, I’m not.
*YOU* were the one crowing about the sanctity of unfairness, as if it were a law of nature. A nice way of dodging the real issues.
Kinda like this ridiculous meta-discussion.
W tried it. Didn’t really work out.
Posted by: delsol
And more government intervention in our private and most personal lives will not work out either.
PMom,
Sorry you feel that way about what I posted. I’ll leave you with a SCHIP scenario. The SCHIP is a health care systems for children, provided since 1997. This scenario is from 2001 I believe. It determines the eligibility of a participant by income.
*note – millions of children are not enrolled in SCHIP and they could be.
“SCHIP ScenarioA married woman with three children (under age 18), lives in North Carolina and works full-timeas a personal care aide with a home care agency earning $17,068 annually. Her husband earns$22,746 per year working as a painter. They have a combined gross annual income of $39,814, but neither job offers health insurance coverage.
Generally, the current maximum annual family income for participation in North Carolina’sChildren’s Health Insurance Program for a family of five is $41,340. Because the family income is under the $41,340 limit ($3,445 per month), the children are eligible to participate if space is available.”
note: This scenario is from North Carolina, but the scenario in Kansas for 2007 would be quite similar if applied.
Does the term “robber baron” mean anything to you, anonymous?
How about that Murray guy in Utah insisting that an earthquake is responsible for that accident, when he has no evidence to support his claim? Typical behavior in that industry.
Someone asked How you going to pay for socialized medicine? No real answers.
But consider this:
US Headed for Financial Disaster
(CBS) This segment was originally broadcast on March 4, 2007. It was updated on July 8, 2007. (can’t get any more liberal than that)
When the stock market soars or plunges, everyone pays attention. But short term results aren’t that important to the man you’re about to meet. David Walker thinks the biggest economic peril facing the nation is being ignored, and for nearly two years now he has been traveling the country like an Old Testament prophet, urging people to wake up before its too late. Who is David Walker and why should we care?
As correspondent Steve Kroft first reported earlier this year, he is the nation’s top accountant, the comptroller general of the United States. He’s totaled up our government’s income, liabilities, and future obligations and concluded that our current standard of living is unsustainable unless some drastic action is taken. And he’s not alone. It’s been called the “dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows” – a set of financial truths so inconvenient that most elected officials don’t even want to talk about them, which is exactly why David Walker does.”I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan but our own fiscal irresponsibility,” Walker tells Kroft.
David Walker is a prudent man and a highly respected public official. As comptroller general of the United States he runs he Government Accountability Office, the GAO, which audits the government’s books and serves as the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress. He has more than 3,000 employees, a budget of a half a billion dollars, and a message he considers urgent.
“I’m going to show you some numbers…they’re all big and they’re all bad,” he says.
So bad, that Walker has given up on elected officials and taken his message directly to taxpayers and opinion makers, hoping to shape the debate in the next presidential election.
“You know the American people, I tell you, they are absolutely starved for two things: the truth, and leadership,” Walker says.
He calls it a fiscal wake up tour, and he is telling civic groups, university forums and newspaper editorial boards that the U.S. has spent, promised, and borrowed itself into such a deep hole it will be unable to climb out if it doesn’t act now. As Walker sees it, the survival of the republic is at stake.
“What’s going on right now is we’re spending more money than we make…we’re charging it to credit card…and expecting our grandchildren to pay for it. And that’s absolutely outrageous,” he told the editorial board of the Seattle Post Intelligencer.
You have heard this before, from Ross Perot 15 years ago. You might have even thought the problem had been solved, when President Clinton announced, “Tonight, I come before you to announce that the federal deficit … will be simply zero.”
“Well, those days are gone. We’ve gone from surpluses to huge deficits and our long range situation is much worse,” Walker says.
“President Bush would argue that the economy is in pretty good shape, unemployment is down, the deficit is actually less than expected,” Kroft remarks.
“The fact is, is that we don’t face an immediate crisis. And, so people say, ‘What’s the problem?’ The answer is, we suffer from a fiscal cancer. It is growing within us. And if we do not treat it, it could have catastrophic consequences for our country,” Walker replies.
The cancer, Walker says, are massive entitlement programs we can no longer afford, exacerbated by a demographic glitch that began more than 60 years ago, a dramatic spike in the fertility rate called the “baby boom.”
Beginning next year, and for 20 years thereafter, 78 million Americans will become pensioners and medical dependents of the U.S. taxpayer.
“The first baby boomer will reach 62 and be eligible for early retirement of Social Security January 1, 2008. They’ll be eligible for Medicare just three years later. And when those boomers start retiring in mass, then that will be a tsunami of spending that could swamp our ship of state if we don’t get serious,” Walker explains.
To illustrate their impact, he uses a power point presentation to show what would happen in 30 years if the U.S. maintains its current course and fulfills all of the promises politicians have made to the public on things like Social Security and Medicare.
What would happen in 2040 if nothing changes?
“If nothing changes, the federal government’s not gonna be able to do much more than pay interest on the mounting debt and some entitlement benefits. It won’t have money left for anything else – national defense, homeland security, education, you name it,” Walker warns.
Walker says you could eliminate all waste and fraud and the entire Pentagon budget and the long-range financial problem still wouldn’t go away, in what’s shaping up as an actuarial nightmare.
Part of the problem, Walker acknowledges, is that there won’t be enough wage earners to support the benefits of the baby boomers. “But the real problem, Steve, is health care costs. Our health care problem is much more significant than Social Security,” he says.
Asked what he means by that, Walker tells Kroft, “By that I mean that the Medicare problem is five times greater than the Social Security problem.”
The problem with Medicare, Walker says, is people keep living longer, and medical costs keep rising at twice the rate of inflation. But instead of dealing with the problem, he says, the president and the Congress made things much worse in Dec. 2003, when they expanded the Medicare program to include prescription drug coverage.
“The prescription drug bill was probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s,” Walker argues.
Asked why, Walker says, “Well, because we promise way more than we can afford to keep. Eight trillion dollars added to what was already a 15 to $20 trillion under-funding. We’re not being realistic. We can’t afford the promises we’ve already made, much less to be able, piling on top of ‘em.”
With one stroke of the pen, Walker says, the federal government increased existing Medicare obligations nearly 40 percent over the next 75 years.
“We’d have to have eight trillion dollars today, invested in treasury rates, to deliver on that promise,” Walker explains.
Asked how much we actually have, Walker says, “Zip.”
So where’s that money going to come from?
“Well it’s gonna come from additional taxes, or it’s gonna come from restructuring these promises, or it’s gonna come from cutting other spending,” Walker says.
He is not suggesting that the nation do away with Medicare or prescription drug benefits. He does believe the current health care system is way too expensive, and overrated.
“On cost we’re number one in the world. We spend 50 percent more of our economy on health care than any nation on earth,” he says.
“We have the largest uninsured population of any major industrialized nation. We have above average infant mortality, below average life expectancy, and much higher than average medical error rates for an industrialized nation,” Walker points out.
Walker says we have promised almost unlimited healthcare to senior citizens who never see the bills, and the government already is borrowing money to pay them. He says the system is unsustainable.
“It’s the number one fiscal challenge for the federal government, it’s the number one fiscal challenge for state governments and it’s the number one competitive challenge for American business. We’re gonna have to dramatically and fundamentally reform our health care system in installments over the next 20 years,” Walker tells Kroft.
And if we don’t?
“And if we don’t, it could bankrupt America,” Walker argues.
You’re probably expecting to hear from someone who disagrees with the comptroller general’s numbers, projections, and analysis. But hardly anyone does. He is accompanied on the wake-up tour by economists from the conservative Heritage Foundation, the left-leaning Brookings Institution, and the non-partisan Concord Coalition. The only dissenters seem to be a small minority of economists who believe either that the U.S. can grow its way out of the problem, or that Walker is over-stating it.
“The Wall Street Journal for example calls you ‘Chicken Little,’ running around saying that the ’sky is falling, the sky is falling,’” Kroft remarks.
“Unfortunately they don’t get it. I don’t know anybody who has done their homework, has researched history, and who’s good at math who would tell you that we can grow our way out of this problem,” Walker replies.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke validated much of Walker’s take on the situation at congressional hearings this year, and so did ranking Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee. Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota is the chairman.
Sen. Conrad thinks David Walker is “providing an enormous public service.”
Asked if he agrees with Walker’s figures and his projections, Sen. Conrad says, “I do. You know, I mean we could always question the precise nature of this projection or that projection. But, that misses the point. The larger story that he is telling is exactly correct.”
Conrad acknowledges that most people in Washington are aware how bad the situation is. “They know in large measure here, Republicans and Democrats, that we are on a course that doesn’t add up,” the senator tells Kroft.
“Why doesn’t somebody do something about it?” Kroft asks.
“Because it’s always easier not to. ‘Cause it’s always easier to defer, to kick the can down the road to avoid making choices. You know, you get in trouble in politics when you make choices,” Sen. Conrad says.
Asked if he thinks taxes should be raised, the senator says, “I believe first of all, we need more revenue. We need to be tough on spending. And we need to reform the entitlement programs … we need to do all of it.”
But he admits he doesn’t think there’s a consensus for raising taxes.
“Any politician who tells you that we can solve our problem without reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is not telling you the truth,” Walker told an audience at the University of Denver.
Over the next year, the nation’s top accountant will be traveling to the early primary states, telling voters that we need to begin raising taxes or government revenues and put a cap on federal spending if we want to maintain our economic security and standard of living.
“If you tell them the truth, if you give them the facts, if you explain this in terms of not just numbers but values and people, they will get it and empower their elected officials to make tough choices,” Walker argues.
Asked if he knows any politicians willing to raise taxes or cut back benefits, Walker says, “I don’t know politicians that like to raise taxes. I don’t know politicians that like to cut spending, but I think what we have to recognize is this is not just about numbers. We are mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren at record rates, and that is not only an issue of fiscal irresponsibility, it’s an issue of immorality.”
Latimer massacre…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattimer_Massacre
the robber baron way: too bad for you, i’m going to get mine
Delsol, isn’t “robber baron” merely a label? Did you find out about the prices, or are you even interested in facts?
What do you mean, no real answers?
We did in fact give real answers, several!!!!
How you gonna pay for this freakin’ war??????
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need”’
Is there anything wrong with the logic of this quote? Why?
Posted by: brian | August 14, 2007 at 03:27 PM
so, if I see you walking down the street, hit you in the head and take your money, then give it to a homeless person, is it okay?
No more comments about spending allowed from the War-and-Spend Republicans!
anonymous: it’s only Wiki, but it’s good enough:
“Robber baron was a term revived in the 19th century in the United States as a pejorative reference to businessmen and bankers who dominated their respective industries and amassed huge personal fortunes, typically as a direct result of pursuing various allegedly anti-competitive or unfair business practices. The term may now be used in relation to any businessman or banker who is perceived to have used questionable business practices in order to become powerful or wealthy.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)
Here’s an example of the lunancy of government:
With the recent proposed higher income limits for the SCHIP program, some families that qualify for SCHIP (in effect, the government is telling them they are poor) earn enough that they may be subect to the alternative minimum tax, which is a tax originally designed to ensnare rich people who evaded tax.
So which is it: are these families poor, or rich? Or poor and rich at the same time?
I bet not one person on this thread that needs health care insurance or knows someone that needs it will bother to investigate what health care is there for them.
That is the biggest problem, apathy.
“so, if I see you walking down the street, hit you in the head and take your money, then give it to a homeless person, is it okay?
Posted by: Littlejohn | August 14, 2007 at 03:51 PM”
You assume my ability is greater than that of a homeless person. You also assume that it would be against my consent to give money to a homeless person, thus the hitting in the head.
Try again without the assumptions.
Still no answer on who is going to pay, and how much? 2 trillion dolalrs a year, 7000 per person. WHo is going to pay? How much is THEIR share? Okay, let’;s break it down
0 to 25000 household income pays how much of their own costs?
25K to 50K how much of their own costs?
50 to 100K how much?
100k to 250K how much
above 250K how much”?
anonymous,
Income determination is not complex, but it’s not simple either. Primarily it’s based on the number of dependents or the case of health care, children in a family.
One can make a relatively good wage and still get health care for their children if the family provider does not qualify for Medicaid.
Very well. I will tightenit down. I see Charles Koch walking down the street., He giveas a homeless man a dollar. Knowing that the homeless man cannot even get something to eat for $1, I hit Charles Koch in the head, take 50% of his money, and give it to the homeless guy. Is that specific enough? Or do you just not want to answer the quesiton
The TROLL got the statement that heart attacks get better treatment in the US than in Candada from this POS website:
http://freemarketcure.com/singlepayermyths.php
This CON with a blog did link to an actual article however to back up his contention.
Surprise, surprise, it doesn’t really back up his contention:
Long-Term Mortality of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction in the United States and Canada. Comparison of Patients Enrolled in Global Utilization of Streptokinase and t-PA for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO)-I
Five-year mortality rate was 19.6% among US and 21.4% among Canadian patients (P=0.02). After baseline adjustment, enrollment in Canada was associated with a higher hazard of death (1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 1.28, P=0.001). Revascularization rates during the index hospitalization in the United States were almost 3 times those in Canada: 30.5% versus 11.4% for angioplasty and 13.1% versus 4.0% for bypass surgery (P<0.01 for both). After accounting for revascularization status as a time-dependent covariate, country was no longer a significant predictor of long-term mortality. These results were confirmed in a propensity-matched analysis.
Conclusions–Our results suggest, for the first time, that the more conservative pattern of care with regard to early revascularization in Canada for ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction may have a detrimental effect on long-term survival. Our results have important policy implications for cardiac care in countries and healthcare systems wherein use of invasive procedures is similarly conservative.
http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/01.CIR.0000142671.06167.91v1
Bottom line–this study concludes you have an increased risk of 1.8 percent of dying in Canada from a heart attack over 5 years.
That’s not even two people out of a hundred more. No doubt, greater differences than that can be found in different hospitals in the US.
Also, the conclusion is not that the system is bad, the conclusion is that treatment should change.
see. That is exactly the problem. I may have more resouorces available than the homeless man. In the desire to involuntary take money from me (tax me) to support the homeless, you have no idea whether or not I already give to the homesless, or programs that serve the homeless. The government has taken what is not theirs, and given it someone else. It’s calling stealing
Aww Capn, you spent all that time trying to disprove something I wrote.
Instead you could have been providing solutions to those who need health care instead of repeating the emetics of Michael Moore.
And Capn, I could care less about the Canadian System. I don’t live there and will never live there.
Pmom was gone for a while and just saw your post saying what I wrote about Cananda wasn’t true. Which part are you doubting?
The rate of national tax? Sales tax rate? Waiting lines? Give me a clue here. Maybe you and your friend need to dialogue more. Those facts came straight from the mouths of genuine Canadians.
Someone has to pay – taxes will go way up in the US if universal healthcare is instituted. No way around it. Quality of doctors will go down. Who wants to go into an industry where the average salary is $55,000 annually – when they are up to their ears in student loans?
Pmom provide me with some facts. I did a lot of talking to Canadians to see what they thought of their healthcare. They were all workers, one was a bus driver, a waitress, a dog trainer for the dog sleds and a cruise director.
When you say someones facts aren’t accurate then you need to be ready to prove that statement with facts.
Okay, just for fun: during Rockefeller’s building of his oil company, the price of kerosene fell from 26 cents to 8 cents per gallon.
And under Carnegie, steel rail dropped from $140 per ton to $35.
Did these men build their empires by ripping off the consumer, or by becoming the low-cost producer?
A government cannot exist without the consent of the people. America is a Constitutional democracy and, for the most part, any laws passed represent the will of the poeple within the constraints of the Constitution.
If a law was passed that an amount of money from a working person went to fund X for a homeless person, than there would be a persumption of consent by all people to that. That presumption of consent is the basis for a democracy.
Kansas and Littlejohn, i agree that apathy and cost are two big obstacles. The apathy problem is severe enough that insurance would need to be mandated, just like driver’s insurance is, in order to keep costs down for all.
The cost issue is really self-evident: I submit that we are already paying for it through the exorbitant premiums we pay. It’s just a matter of restructuring the costs and widening the pool.
The transition costs could be closing the Iraq money pit.
Besides, it would seem that some sort of pay-as-you-go model would best fit the American approach. And there would need to be private options available just like there are for the school systems.
“Did these men build their empires by ripping off the consumer, or by becoming the low-cost producer?
Posted by: anonymous | August 14, 2007 at 04:05 PM ”
Or by increasing the supply and the infrastructure to deliver the supply?
How are we ever going to pay for SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!
Gasp, boo, hiss!
Gee . . . how about we start with the 7,000 dollars a year we spend on health care for every man, woman and child in this country ALREADY.
I’m not convinced that a single payer system is necessary. Gov’t should step up and tell the so-called health care “providers” to start providing health care at a reasonable cost–or we’ll do it for you.
At any rate, the 15 percent of GDP we spend on health care is already the highest in the world.
We can’t afford NOT to reform the system.
Did these men build their empires by ripping off the consumer, or by becoming the low-cost producer?
answer C: by not paying their employees. It took Henry Ford to do that.
And the harm in that is what, brian? Too much kerosene and steel rails in the hands of consumers at low prices?
“…In the desire to involuntary take money from me (tax me) to support the homeless, you have no idea whether or not I already give to the homesless, or programs that serve the homeless. The government has taken what is not theirs, and given it someone else. It’s calling stealingPosted by: littlejohn | August 14, 2007 at 04:03 PM “
1. No money is involuntarily taken from you by taxation in America2. You are the government
Something else to consider in healthcare costs. In the little town of Ketchikan, Alaska there is no modern hospital. No ambulance service. If you have a heart attack or cut something off with your chair saw, you have to wait for the helicoptor to come for you. There will be a $3000 charge for this ride not covered by insurance.
When our healthcare is socialized, I am assuming that we will build a modern hospital there, have a heliport with coptor waiting just in case one of their 1,000 residents need it and pay doctors to go to that secluded island to give healthcare when needed.
The residents told us this was a risk they were willing to take to live where they wanted to. They knew the healthcare limitations and accepted them. This is one example. How many others just like it are out there?
delsol, if you want me to believe that, could you direct me to some evidence?
Brian-
Then the presumption is that the Iraq invasion is just, because laws were passed to make it so, by legislators elected by the people.That does not seem to be the general consensus on this blog. I realize it is apples and oranges, but the system works the same. That includes the Patriot act.
How ’bout Medicare for everyone?
It provides the basic standard “littlejohn” is kvetching about.
Since everyone would be covered, doctors would have to serve everyone and not cherry pick patients.
The standard of “basic coverage” is established. Private insurance could offer supplemental coverage to anyone who wants and can afford it.
Instead of insuring just the elderly (the people who’re most likely to need healcare services) the entire population would be represented in the risk pool and their contributions into the insurance plan wouldn’t go to for-profit companies’ executives, stockholders, and people hired solely to deny coverage.
Y’know what? All this blabber about *BEEG GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY* is conservative claptrap. Do you know who processes Medicare claims in Kansas (and Nebraska and Iowa and Missouri)? Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas. They do it for 3% of every dollar spent on Medicare benefits. Their costs for regular BC/BS coverage are higher because they have to pay advertising and marketing costs, commissions to salesmen, and (to compete with for-profit insurers) a legion of people whose jobs are strictly defined to deny coverage. Take away the for-profits and the guts of BC/BS of Kansas would survive, for 3 cents on the dollar.
For-profit health insurers typically eat up 30% of every benefit dollar for coporate perks, stock dividends, bureaucracies-to-deny-benefits, etc.
Would your taxes go up? A little. But you wouldn’t be paying (as most people do now) for health insurance, most co-pays and deductibles, and overall you’d pay *less* for full coverage than you’re paying now.
Oh, yeah. It’d mean *taxes!* But if the government spends your money more effeciently than the private sector does — and the government does that all the time (think about the cost of a 1st Class letter at the Post Office vs. sending something FedEx, or the cost of processing a Medicare claim in Kansas, just as examples) — more of the money you’d pay would go to what you pay for. And, *because* it’s the government, you’d have a voice every election day as to how things are working. Try that with Mutual of Omaha.
Some aspects of life in the 21st Century are too big for the private sector. The streets and highways you drive on are too big and too expensive to turn over to capitalism. Your water system and sewers are too big and too important to turn a corporate profit on Wall Street.
It might screw up a lot of long-held, deeply-believed political philosophies, but it’s the only solution that makes fiscal sense. Which is about as *conservative* as it gets.
The only-est way we’re gonna deal with this issue if if everyone erased the slate and looked at this problem without political prejudice. (Ha! As if that could happen!)
Not every enterprise in civilization is better because of the profit motive. Some things are better — education, highways, water, sewers, healthcare — are better if all the fincancial resources possible are dedicated to the problem at hand. Without a profit skimmed off the top for fat cats.
Every devloped democracy in the world — except America — has come to that conclusion. But America is big enough and rich enough to hold on to the fatted calf of healthcare profits to delay the inevitable realization that everyone in America has the basic human right to healthcare.
We’ll get there.
It might upset some yahoos who live in a past, non-existant, fantasyland where women plowed the south 40 and squatted and gave birth, or that the right faith-healer could lay on hands and cure cancer, or that living a righteous god-loving life would automatically result in longevity.
Healthcare is expensive. And every dollar possible we can spend on it should go toward it. We’ll still pay doctors for what they know and do, we’ll still hire nurses, we just won’t subsidize corporate CEOs’ golf clubs and “Econ101’s” commissions.
Small loss.
“Who wants to go into an industry where the average salary is $55,000 annually – when they are up to their ears in student loans?”
Uhhh…where do the college professors come from, Ksgrm?
Sheesh, again.
“And the harm in that is what, brian? Too much kerosene and steel rails in the hands of consumers at low prices?
Posted by: anonymous | August 14, 2007 at 04:10 PM ”
If you believe the end justifies the means, there is no harm in doing whatever is needed to get steel and fuel to people.
If you believe our society must act justly in all endevours, then there would be harm in getting the steel and kerosene by unjust means.
“Aww Capn, you spent all that time trying to disprove something I wrote.”
Posted by: Kansas, aka troll, aka liar | August 14, 2007 at 04:04 PM
It’s easier to just assume what Kansas posts is inaccurate… because it often is.
“No money is involuntarily taken from you by taxation in America”
Try to dissent from paying your tax and see what happens.
“You are the government”
That is so funny!
A simple example: I voted against the downtown arena sales tax in 2004. So I certainly didn’t volunteer to pay that sales tax.
But I guess I do in a way, as I haven’t moved away from Sedgwick County, but that’s hardly the point, and illustrates the tyranny of government more than anything.
And I am not the government, for if I was, I would kill myself!
It took Henry Ford to do that.
Posted by: delsol | August 14, 2007 at 04:10 PM
What? Henry Ford paid higher than average wages
http://www.worklessparty.org/timework/ford.htm\http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford#Labor_philosophy
Brian what you said about us being the government is true. That is why we had better all wake up and realize we have sent people to DC to represent us who don’t have our best interest at heart. Those we vote in should have their feet held to the fire until they represent us and our needs. My needs aren’t being met when I have to pay for someone who is to lazy to work to have the same healthcare I have.
“Brian-Then the presumption is that the Iraq invasion is just, because laws were passed to make it so, by legislators elected by the people.Posted by: littlejohn | August 14, 2007 at 04:11 PM”
No, the presumption is that the Iraq invasion happened with the consent of the American people. I say nothing about ‘just’.
Re: robber barons
Many companies provide a great benefit to humankind and reap the reward of that.
IBM and Microsoft for instance licensed copy-cat companies to make computers and this spurred competition and drove up performance and drove down computer prices.
Mac got left behind with their propriatary system.
That is a good example of a free market triumph.
On the other hand, many industries like oil refiners and utilities are near-monopolies and many buyers like Wal-Mart and Con-Agra are near-monopsonies.
These corporate powers control prices and influence gov’t to the point that their power is unchecked.
They are the robber barons.
You know cosmos, if you spent less time attacking me and providing solutions and entering into adult discussion on the WE Blog, you might get more respect.
Your continued multiple daily attacks on me do nothing but show what an a-hole you are.
LTP-
2 trillion dollars. 7000 per person. Who will pay?
And, medicare often will not even pay the cost of service. Ask any business manager of a healthcare provider. Oh I forgot, they will lie to you. They have a vested interest.
“In the desire to involuntary take money from me (tax me) to support the homeless, you have no idea whether or not I already give to the homesless, or programs that serve the homeless. The government has taken what is not theirs, and given it someone else. It’s calling stealing.”
This, of course, never really happens. Tax dollars are allocated for government programs and services, some of which are targeted at helping the poor. Programs which have rules, which can be (and are frequently) changed.
Whether or not you give to homeless in Wichita won’t do anything for someone in Detroit–or the person you never see or encounter.
I would personally rather have tax dollars help people out of that situation that have to persistently encounter them at the friggin’ Circle K.
You’re free to disagree, lj, but democracy is precisely how such questions are decided. Don’t pretend that it’s somehow something different or improper.
The closest thing we’ve seen to outright STEALING of tax revenues is probably Bush’s ‘faith-based initiatives.’
“when I have to pay for someone who is to [sic] lazy to work to have the same healthcare I have.”
How about people who work hard and don’t have the same healthcare you have?
And how about the people that work much harder than you?
They apparently deserve much better healthcare than you do.
I would like to see the basis for the 2trillion dollars.
I think that is like the infomercials where they say the product has a $129 value but it can be yours for $19.00.
$2Trillion dollars is not the cost of the healthcare, it is what the healthcare industry charges whomever for the services it provides.That is one of the main problems with the current healthcare situation – Charging too much (for whatever reason it may be).
“You’re free to disagree, lj, but democracy is precisely how such questions are decided.”
I completely agree. ANd so far, those who wish to not have Univeral Healthcare, or singleopayer healthcare, or social medicine, arein the majority. Democracy says you want health care, get it.
“$2Trillion dollars is not the cost of the healthcare, it is what the healthcare industry charges whomever for the services it provides. ”
What the heck does that mean?
If the U.S. medical care system is the best in the world, then let’s setup our fire departments the same way.
Make our fire departments non-government, for-profit corporations, and fund them with premiums paid by citizens.
littlejohn,Right on.
What we are debating now, is whether there should be a shift in the current philosophy of “you want health care, get it.”
If we the people decide there should, we will democratically change things (laws, Congresspeople, etc).
heres one source:
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
Make our fire departments non-government, for-profit corporations, and fund them with premiums paid by citizens.
Posted by: cosmos | August 14, 2007 at 04:24 PM
They originally were.
If you go to the Wal-Mart and buy a t-shirt, you are CHARGED $3.99.
The COST of that t-shirt is the $1 that Wal-mart bought it from China for, the $.50 transportation from China to USA to your store, the $.25 worth of expenses allocated to it for store utilities, advertising, employee labor expenses, etc.
Gov’t should step up and tell the so-called health care “providers” to start providing health care at a reasonable cost–or we’ll do it for you.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | August 14, 2007 at 04:09 PM
What is a reasonable cost?
Ksgrm–
Taxes will probably go up under a single-payer universal health care plan.
But how much do you pay a month now for health care?
I pay on my single policy health care about 350 a month, most of which is picked up by my employer. I think that’s typical for a lot of people. Whether I pay it or my employer pays it, I still pay it because if they didn’t pay the health care, they could pay ME that money.
That’s some 4200 a year.
So my taxes could be raised 4000 a year, and I would still come out ahead on the deal if my level of care were the same.
Kansas,
If you didn’t post lies, switch nics, nit-pick, etc, you wouldn’t be known as a liar and troll.
The COST of that t-shirt is the $1 that Wal-mart bought it from China for, the $.50 transportation from China to USA to your store, the $.25 worth of expenses allocated to it for store utilities, advertising, employee labor expenses, etc.
Posted by: brian | August 14, 2007 at 04:28 PM
Sorry, wal-mart profit margins are less than that
“Sorry, wal-mart profit margins are less than that
Posted by: Littlejohn | August 14, 2007 at 04:29 PM”
WTF-ever, they were made up numbers to teach you about the difference between cost and sale price.
“littlejohn,Right on.”
What he said. . .
WTF-ever, they were made up numbers
Exactly.
teach you about the difference between cost and sale price.
Posted by: brian | August 14, 2007 at 04:30 PM
I know the difference. I have my own business.
So, you want to argue what profit margins are acceptable on sales. How about return on capitol invested?
LJ–
I’m not an expert but look at this.
If I am an employee at a big company, I am part of a “pool.” As I said in the last post, I pay about 350 a month for health care because I am in such a “pool.”
My brother who is self-employed pays 900 a month because he’s not in a pool.
That makes no sense. A whole bunch of self-employed people is a “pool” by themselves.
This is just a way to price-gouge people without bargaining leverage.
Similarly, people without insurance usually get charged MORE — two or three times more — for medical services by hospitals than people without insurance.
You’d think it should be exactly the opposite, but no. Individuals have no one negotiating prices for them, so they get screwed.
The government could stop that if they had the will.
“So, you want to argue what profit margins are acceptable on sales. How about return on capitol invested?
Posted by: littlejohn | August 14, 2007 at 04:33 PM ”
No desire to. That would be a pointless arguement pitting capitalism against social policy.
If I am an employee at a big company, I am part of a “pool.” As I said in the last post, I pay about 350 a month for health care because I am in such a “pool.”
My brother who is self-employed pays 900 a month because he’s not in a pool.
That makes no sense. A whole bunch of self-employed people is a “pool” by themselves.
of course it does. In a pool, the risks are spread through all the subscribed members. That includse healthy people, sick people, people with kids, people with nod kids. People who are single, etc. In an individua’s case. It is specific to his identifiable risk. That is the difference. Now, I would certainly think it fair, and acceptable, and even good, if all those individuals, or small companies, could form a “pool” to share the risks
No desire to. That would be a pointless arguement pitting capitalism against social policy.
Posted by: brian | August 14, 2007 at 04:38 PM
It always comes to that. Those who cry or wail about excess profits are never willing to say what profits they think is acceptable.
Your statement “Charging too much (for whatever reason it may be).
Posted by: brian | August 14, 2007 at 04:21 PM
does not agree with what you just said
Littlejohn,
Looks like the non-government fire departments sometimes didn’t work very well, even for the “insured” buildings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_departments“In many western countries, fire brigades were originally created by insurance companies to safeguard the property of their policyholders. Those who bought policies were given a plaque that would be mounted in a prominent position on the structure to denote its protected status….Firemen summoned to burning buildings were expected to look for these plaques before fighting the fire. If the fire was in a building covered by a rival insurer, some brigades would deliberately obstruct that company’s fire brigade in an attempt to give rise to greater property damage (and subsequent expense to the insurer).”
Okay cosmos,
You are just a certified a-hole that is incapable of just posting in the Blog without attacking others.
Must be sad to be such a vindictive person like you cosmos 100 percent of the time.
cosmos-
You are correct
LJ–
The risks are spread out so cheaper prices are justified.
GREAT! Let’s spread the risks out as much as possible . . . TO EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN.
That will reduce the costs to as low as possible, right?
You’ve got a logical inconsistancy there, dude.
t took Henry Ford to do that.
Posted by: delsol | August 14, 2007 at 04:10 PM
“What? Henry Ford paid higher than average wages.”
Yes, that’s what i was saying, though I realize that it was counter to the spirit of my earlier posts.
Like Cap’n says above, not all corporations are bad, and Henry Ford was a true innovator (though flawed), and contrary to anonymous’ belief in supply-side economics on steroids, his example of Andrew Carnegie as the ultimate capitalist is a rather bizarre one given Carnegie’s legendary philanthropy and–dare I say it–EGALITARIANISM.
But for every Ford or Carnegie we can find many more that abused their employees through controlling housing, paying wages below the poverty line, running the workday well beyond 8 hours…all the abuses that resulted in 20th century workplace regulation!
If you buy the insurance companies’ logic that more people “spreads out risk” to the insurer, then the logical conclusion would be have a system that spreads out the risk as completely as possible–which is exactly what a single-payer nationalized system does.
Oops . . .
Kansas,
I’m only posting the truth.
You’re responsible for YOUR posts. You should admit that responsiblity, instead of making personal attacks on me.
You’ve got a logical inconsistancy there, dude.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | August 14, 2007 at 04:44 PM
I don’t think so, but we’ll play along. So,
1) the annual health care costs are 2 trillion dollars, or 7000 per person. reducing them by a third, still leaves 1..3 trillion dollars, or 42oo per person. So who pays? Everyone pasy their “fair share” or 4200? or are some going to pay less, so others can pay more? you see, under the subscription plan, everyone pays the same.
Everyone pays the same. oops
Ok, lj, leaving aside the general taxation issues, let’s say for this one program everyone pays the same.
Do I hear a conversion?
outta here for now. Maybe I can get to play later. Yall have a good night
Ok, lj, leaving aside the general taxation issues, let’s say for this one program everyone pays the same.
Do I hear a conversion?
Posted by: Rage | August 14, 2007 at 04:53 PM
if everyone pays the same, without tax subsidies, hence some pay none, others paya lot- I doubt I would have a problem with that
LJ–
Right, I think you’ve answered your own question.
We’re all taxed more–say, 4000 a person on the average. This frees up businesses to pay us more, probably more than the tax.
It also forces irresponsible people who gamble that they won’t get sick even though they can afford health care to get covered. (They’re irresponsible because they know that hospitals won’t let them die just because they don’t have coverage, which means somebody ELSE has to pay.)
Forcing people into the system drastically reduces costs to people paying for their health care, since we no longer pay for the slackers.
So it’s win-win. More people are covered. Actually ALL people are covered, and those of us who have been paying will pay less.
cosmos,
what I posted in the past doesn’t mean squat what I posted today.
Your incessant dragging past posts into current topics is getting extremely tiresome. Old posts or what people posted four months ago doesn’t mean squat.
Let it go and discuss the current topics. You are one deranged person cosmos. No one likes a whiner and you are whining multiple times on a daily basis.
Kansas,
Then tell us the date and source of the British statistic you posted upthread, at 1:38 PM TODAY.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/does-the-us-rea.html#comment-79489835
I see Kansas is again telling people to go get free healthcare from the government. And this coming from a Republican? No wonder my taxes are so high if every Republican thinks like Kansas.
“Your statement “Charging too much (for whatever reason it may be)…does not agree with what you just saidPosted by: Littlejohn | August 14, 2007 at 04:42 PM ”
My statement was “That is one of the main problems with the current healthcare situation – Charging too much (for whatever reason it may be).”
I should have said ‘…one of the main problems most people have with the current healthcare situation…’
I am not in favor of having the government tell private for-profit companies how much they can charge for things.I am in favor of a basic, minimum care level paid for by the government.
Maybe I have myself in a catch-22 situation, I don’t know. I don’t have all the answers.
We are already paying for the people without health care insurance by paying higher prices.
Do you really think people are doing without health care if really needed? No, these people are going to the Emergency Rooms, giving false names, false social security numbers and then when the bill comes – guess what – they cannot be found!
This happens all over this country and we, the taxpayers, are picking up the bill. Is this current health care system really working? I don’t think so.
From this thread, I see where those with good health care insurance don’t give a fat rat’s ass about the next guy. And that is the other problem. It’s that all too familiar mantra – I’ve got mine and to hell with you!
In 1986 the U.S. Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Thisrequires emergency rooms to treat any person who shows up seeking medical treatment, regardless oftheir ability to pay.
Michael Moore forgot to mention that fact.
Posted by: Kansas |
And who was president in 1986? Ronald Reagan. He was too busy with his Iran Contra affair to care about the domestic problems of the US people.
“Do you really think people are doing without health care if really needed? No, these people are going to the Emergency Rooms, giving false names, false social security numbers and then when the bill comes – guess what – they cannot be found!”
. . .and often for conditions that could have (and SHOULD have) been treated earlier, and at a tiny fraction of the cost.
Many foreign doctors are here because they come through the VA healthcare system.
Alot of foreign doctors come here to go to medical school because we taxpayers are paying their tuition.
So, either way, you’re going to have foreign doctors. But from the looks of some of these American-born doctors, I would rather take my chances with a foreign doctor.
Welcome, maidmarion.
Hope you become a regular!
maidmarion, are you related to littlejohn?I have also saw a Robin Hood posting lately. Another of your kin? :)
“No, these people are going to the Emergency Rooms, giving false names, false social security numbers and then when the bill comes – guess what – they cannot be found!
This happens all over this country and we, the taxpayers, are picking up the bill. Is this current health care system really working? I don’t think so.”
Any sources for this?
if everyone pays the same,Posted by: Littlejohn
YOu believe that!?!!
Everyone pay the same?????
Nawwwwwwww, means testing will ensure those poor people (sniffle, sniffle) will pay LESS and those G. damn filthy rich people will pay MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What the heck is wrong with you?You know liberals. They got the system bass awkward!!! You BELIEVE this BS???
Bridge for sale. I got a bridge for sale. Swamp land too.
Going, going, gone!
“Uhhh…where do the college professors come from, Ksgrm?
Sheesh, again.
Posted by: delsol | August 14, 2007 at 04:12 PM ”
Desol there is a great deal of difference between a college prof and a doctor. The hours they have to be available for one. Do you know any profs who are on call 24 hrs a day? Also the time to become a prof is much shorter that for a doc thus the large student loans.
Cap I worked in insurance for years and do understand how rates are developed. A bigger pool will give you more reasonable rates. When you have a group with mostly older workers it would be much higher. Insurance companies are ‘at risk’ businesses. They set a rate and then roll the dice that they will come out ahead at the end of the business year. Somestime they do and somestimes they don’t. They have the ability to bargain with certain hospitals and doctors plans to achieve better prices.
The situation with the person who was self employed needs to join a group where many like him can then be grouped together. There is strength in numbers. One organization is WIBA. This is made up of Wichita Independent Businesses. You join WIBA and pay a small annual fee (used to be $50) and are allowed to buy medical and dental insurance at a group rate.
There are many solutions out there that will work better than univeral healthcare. It just takes a little time to find them.
The risk borne by the insurance companies now will have to be absorbed by the government if companies have rates dictated by the gov.
Just curious here, how many people realize that R&D costs are subsidized by the taxpayers? You do know it’s a writeoff the costs associated with R&D work. Not a hard concept to see, do a little reading and see how much companies REALLY pay for R&D costs. It’s nothing more then a writeoff at the end of each year, but, when development has passed the required tests, the costs associated with those tests are then passed on to the consumers. This is after the writeoff (taxes) have been paid by YOU the taxpayers due to their tax writeoffs. Doesn’t make sense to me, but, welcome to the corporate world. They have to justify development and we have to pay them twice to do it.
How long does it take to become a doctor, ksgrm?
Phd and position at university=10 years of education, minimum, sometimes 12.
Profs do have a good deal in the downtime that doctors don’t get. But I don’t think doctors will be earning $55,000 a year on average, like profs do, either, even with a modified system.
Plus, I would expect that any health care system we have in this country would include a private option, like private schools, and like state lawyers and private lawyers.
Who wants to go to a Doctor who is paid $55,000 a year?
$155,000 a year?
$455,000 a year?
I want a highly skilled professional doctor, who has paid $300,000 to $500,000 for 8 to 10 years of college, suffered under 2 years of 80 hour residency weeks earning $40,000/year, then needs to work 40 years at 60 to 80 hour weeks to pay off all his debts, before he can start enjoying the fruits of his/her labor by the time they are 40 to 45 years old.
National Healthcare and Socialized medicine will cut our medical costs. It will also get us a bunch of flunky doctors, months long waits for medical care, people dying before they can be treated, but it will be free to you deadbeats.
You get what you pay for guys.
Stand up if you are willing to get in line to spend 1/2 million dollars and 10 years of hard work, BEFORE you start earning $55,000 per year.
Yeah, right.
SOCIALISTS.
Except for delsol, she’s a COMMUNIST.
Plus, I would expect that any health care system we have in this country would include a private option, like private schools, and like state lawyers and private lawyers.
Posted by: delsol | August 14, 2007 at 08:12 PM
Delsol this is what I have been writing about all day. Do the research. Educate yourself. Don’t believe something just because your favorite candidates say it is so.
In Canada there is no such thing as a ‘private’ doctor. They are all employed by the government and controlled by them. This was even one of the standards of Hillaries failed health care plan. A doctor would face severe penalties and maybe lose their license if they accepted private pay patients.
The advocates for this type of healthcare don’t have a clue what it entails. They are sheeple just being led in for the slaughter. The only ones who will come out ahead with this plan are the slackards who don’t want to hold a job so they can qualify for benefits. They can hardly wait.
Isn’t a “writeoff” just recognition that a company spent money developing a product, and therefore did not retain that money as income, and therefore will not pay income tax on it?
How does that translate to the taxpayers paying them?
I am a man, thanks Max, and no, I am not a communist. Yes, I have Marxist leanings, but there’s a difference between Marxism and communisim, and anyway I am a realist about the failures and impossibility of Marxism.
Socialist, yes, that’s me.
Thanks for thinking of me, though. I’m trying to spread my Red ways to all of my students–my conversion rate is about 95%. I bet your kid was in my class. Is he or she gay, by any chance? Certainly an atheist…
better get your friend McCarthy out from the grave.
“The only ones who will come out ahead with this plan are the slackards who don’t want to hold a job so they can qualify for benefits. They can hardly wait.”
you know, I’m offended by that. I have hard-working hard-working 60-year-old independent mother who has virtually no health care. In fact, my mother works for a small business owner who offers her health care for over $300 a month, which severely cuts into her meager $22,000 a year salary. You are sugesting she’s a slacker, unmarried, alone, high school education, in a near-menial job at 60? She may be a lot of things, but she’s no damn slacker.
You are out of touch with the realities of much of this country. what kind of people think that only the rich deserve health care? Who the hell are you to make a claim like that?
Forcing people into the system drastically reduces costs to people paying for their health care, since we no longer pay for the slackers.
So it’s win-win. More people are covered. Actually ALL people are covered, and those of us who have been paying will pay less.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | August 14, 2007 at 04:58 PM
So Capn,. You really think a family of four is going to ready to pay 16,000 a year for medical?Not on your life. I thnk you know that. It will be means tested, and only the people above a certain income will pay anything. Then they will pay ?????.See the problem is, the devil always in the details. It may be a great sounding idea to do something, till you get to the details. I don;t subscribe to the theory that people who want these things are evil, or vile, or anything else. THey are simply overlooking the reality of things. Kinda like my mother, a liberal of the first degree. SHe alwsys thought the government should do this or that for people, but complained about her taxes.
To clarify things, i am not opposed to anybody receiving energency care, lifesaving care, or the care of debilitating disease or injury, regardless of the ability to pay. However, they should be responsible for the bill, and try as best they can to pay it. If they cannot, they cannot. Write it off.
you know, I’m offended by that. I have hard-working hard-working 60-year-old independent mother who has virtually no health care. In fact, my mother works for a small business owner who offers her health care for over $300 a month, which severely cuts into her meager $22,000 a year salary. You are sugesting she’s a slacker, unmarried, alone, high school education, in a near-menial job at 60? She may be a lot of things, but she’s no damn slacker.
So, if she paid her own way, the minimum, if costs are reduced by 1/3. is 4k/year. If the current costs, about 7k per year. You think she would be okay with that? I doubt it. I think that what is desired is to shift more of the costs of living, plain old living, to the so called rich. That’s what I think
You know, my mother and many people like her need every penny they can get. 3K a year, yes, that would make a difference in her life–maybe she could stop borring money from my uncle to pay the lousy ARM she took to purchase her house a few years ago.
Could she make some changes to get ot together? Yes. But then again, she gets no vacations and really tries now. Why should she have to worry about what happens if she gets sick, at this age?
Sorry for all my typos. i just finish and hit the post key, unflinchingly…
that’s “borrowing” up there, not “borring”
Delsol – according to Kansas the other republicans, just have your mother stop working and get on the free healthcare bandwagon the government has.
I still can’t believe that Republicans are advocating for people to go get free healthcare from the government – but yet they detest Democrats who are trying to come up with a fair health care plan for everyone to participate.
Go figure.
The best doctor I had was a family doctor. The current healthcare system went to hell in a handbasket when all these specialists came on the scene.
What better way to provide preventative health care than to have a family doctor that knows you, your parents and siblings?
When the specialists came into being – that was when the famous 5 minute office visit came to be the ‘norm’. Now that we have corporations owning the doctors’ offices and no longer solo practices, the pressing need to make the bottom line even healthier makes the 5 minute exam a thing of the past.
Today’s health care is all about money and very little about the true health of the patient.
I am constantly amazed as to how many people think socialism is communism. These are two different things.
As I remember, Jesus made the fishes and loaves multiply enough to feed the entire group of people. Would he be considered a socialist because he shared his miracle of providing enough food?
So Capn,. You really think a family of four is going to ready to pay 16,000 a year for medical?Not on your life. I thnk you know that.
*****
LJ–
Kids who get vaccinated don’t have many serious health problems as a group, so their costs are negligable.
Of course there will be some means testing. If you don’t make anything, you can’t pay anything.
But that can be worked out. After all, that’s the way it is NOW.
*****
KSGrm still doesn’t explain her more work = better health care theory.
I’m thinking because KSGrm works average hard, she deserves average good health care. Generic drugs, colonoscopy, mamograms okay. Bypass surgery, nope, doesn’t work hard enough . . .
Maidmarion…when I went through cancer treatment, the last thing I would have wanted was my family doctor in charge. There is a reason why we have a great healthcare for those who can afford it, and that’s because a specialist is more knowlegable about a certain type of disease than a general practioner. When I got sick, I wanted an expert in charge of my care…and I got the best care I could get.
I have put a good bit of anecdotal evidence on this blog today. But it is personal. I come from a middle class background, grown up in the suburbs. And people close to me–working people, responsible adults–are genuinely suffering under a “system” that has run amok the last 15 years under the twin scourge of insurance rates and advertising dollars.
It is time to fix this beast. It is broken. National, universal, single-payer, public/private partnership–it’s all on the table, and no system is perfect. But what we have now is just plain junk that tries human dignity, bleeds many, and is completely out of reach for many more.
I’ll come off my soapbox and shut up now. (Until we get a real national debate going, anyway.)
Delsol–
You’ve got it exactly right.
Who are these “slackers” the reich-wing loves to excoriate. Now that kicked all the “welfare queens” off welfare, they have a new mainly imaginary enemy to rail against.
I don’t know any slackers. But I do know plenty of people like my daughter who earned a BA in what used to be called “Fashion Merchandising.” She worked for like three years at a family clothing store and showed them how to double their sales.
For that, she got two non-successive days off a week, and maybe two weeks vacation in a good year. Also, she got NO HEALTH INSURANCE.
Fortunately, she has since taken a new job with better benefits, but for those three years, she absolutely couldn’t afford health care, even though she had a full time job and was working over forty hour weeks.
Mary – Beg to differ with you kind lady but I also have cancer and my caner doctor specialist was the coldest, uncaring, profit-driven man in the profession. I really did not need that man in my life! And this man was a part of the premier group in Wichita.
I found a smaller group of cancer doctors that are way more compassionate and I’m doing quite well thank you.
If you want to keep on with your specialist – then go ahead but just because they have that specialist rating does not make them a good doctor!
No, these people are going to the Emergency Rooms, giving false names, false social security numbers and then when the bill comes – guess what – they cannot be found!
This happens all over this country and we, the taxpayers, are picking up the bill. Is this current health care system really working? I don’t think so.”
Any sources for this?
Posted by: brian
Ask any third-party health care biller in the business and they will tell you this happens all the time. Usually in larger cities where the illegal population is the highest. We taxpayers are paying for all those who use and abuse the system but yet all I hear is that socialized medicine is bad. I don’t really care what the name of a system is but there has to be a better system than we have currently.
Capn, when Ksgrm retires, she gets nothing because she is not working anymore.
that’ll be a good, Swiftian policy. The living will save a lot of money because life expectancy will be so much shorter…
Maidmar…sorry you had such a bad experience. I really like my oncologist, he’s really knowlegable, kind, and a very competant doctor. There is always a bad apple in every bunch.I still think when it comes to serious illness, a specialist is the best way to go. I’ve been in the health profession for a long time and I know patients get the best care from doctors who focus primarily on their particular illness, whether it’s diabetes, heart disease, or mental health issues.
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2294.shtml
Here’s a weird idea: let’s ask some Canadians
Given all the horror stories we in the US hear about waiting times, lines, inefficiency, understaffing and such, I decided to ask Canadians how similar blood work would be handled there, what it would cost, what the waits would be like, and so on. So I asked Canadian participants on a couple of popular political/social-issues bulletin boards to react to CMcL’s story.
Just regular people from nearly every province — no government officials, no spin, no propaganda, no weird agendas. As it turned out, their sole common denominator was the desire to set the record straight and, in the process, inform their southern neighbors that we’re being lied to every single day by paid apologists and cheer leaders for the status quo.
I got 24 separate responses. Unfortunately, all of them won’t fit here, so I included only the 12 replies that focused narrowly on blood tests in particular, rather than using other medical procedures as evidence to refute the argument for the US market-based model.
(And there were quite a few of the latter; one from Angiej, a Canadian temporarily sentenced to living in Houston, who maintains that her father in Quebec would have died under the US system because he would have been denied coverage and couldn’t have afforded the procedure out-of-pocket. It’s a constant source of worldwide amazement that lack of medical insurance in the richest country in human history can carry the death penalty.)
I don’t pretend these stories are representative of the experiences of all Canadians in similar circumstances. Nor do I pretend this is a random sample large enough to draw statistically valid conclusions. It pays no attention to demographics, so responses can’t be weighted accordingly. I didn’t ask a series of scripted questions. In short, the whole thing is just anecdotal. (For serious statistical analysis, go here to pore over the numbers compiled by the World Health Organization comparing the overall effectiveness of 191 countries’ health care systems. More on that study below.)
All respondents preferred confidentiality, so screen names are the only identifiers used here. Each respondent is also identified by gender and province. Date and time stamps from emails are included. All statements are verbatim, except where edited for length or clarity (in italics). So, anecdotal or not, I think you’ll see a common theme emerge fairly quickly . . .
In their own words
We don’t often hear the unvarnished truth in a country that has perfected the art of spin. But when a dozen people who don’t know each other all say pretty much the same thing on the same subject, the circumstantial evidence mounts up quickly. I suppose they could all be in on some vast socialist conspiracy to subvert capitalism by ruining the best health care system in the world — as the US mess is routinely rated by our chest-thumping mass media shills. But probably not . . . Read on and decide for yourself.
daleo — male, AlbertaThu Jul-12-07 01:34 PM
I haven’t had a blood test for a long time, but my experience has been:
Go to doctor.Doctor gives you form.Go to clinic, get blood test.No bills.
Spazito — female, AlbertaWed Jul-11-07 10:53 AM
At my doctor’s office, after an examination, etc., my doctor would fill in a form detailing the tests to be done and give me a copy to give the lab technician. In the small city I lived in, prior to moving to a larger center last year, I would have to go from my doctor’s office up to the hospital where the lab is located, give the form to the clerk manning the desk at the lab and either wait while the lab technician finished up prior work or go right in and have the blood work done.
After that is complete, I go home and await a call from my doctor’s office, usually within the week, telling me the results.
There are no phone calls needed to okay the tests or anything else. There are no payments asked for or made.
SidDithers — male, OntarioWed Jul-11-07 11:01 AM
If your family doc wants to test your blood, they will write out a testing requisition form, indicating the type of testing to be done. The patient then takes that requisition form to either their local hospital, or one of a number of private labs to have the sample taken.
We’re fortunate in that there is a lab that operates out of the waiting room at our doctor’s office. My daughter needed a blood test not too long ago, and it was very easy. At the appointment with the family doc, we were given the blood test requisition, and then we walked across the waiting room to the lab office, waited about 10 minutes for her turn, and then had vials of blood drawn from her arm. No phone calls to insurers, no hassles and no cost to us.
Lautremont — male, ManitobaThu Jul-12-07 10:36 AM
I . . . decided to get a check-up finally after several years and much prodding from my wife. So I had to get a gamut of blood tests, and did so this past Monday. I walked down a couple of blocks to a doctor, having made no appointment. I showed them my provincial health card. They copied down the number, took my blood, and away I went.
I’d brought along a book to read, because after all, wait times in Canada are horrendous, right? I mean, that’s what the right wing would have us believe. I didn’t have time to read more than a paragraph before I was called in, and I was in and out of the place within 15 minutes. Free and easy like it ought to be. Yes, I know I pay for it with my taxes, but nothing will make you happier about paying taxes (and not nearly such onerous ones as you might think) than medical care that doesn’t bust your bank account.
ducati588 — male, OntarioSun Jul-22-07 12:43 AM
In Canada the doctor completes a card (5X8) for all of the required blood tests. You take this card to a blood/X-ray clinic, which is usually in the same facility, and the clinic staff draw blood as required. The results are sent to the doctor within a few days or quicker if necessary.
Virtually no wait in the clinic, and the tests are covered under the government plan. The tests are free.
Glarius — female, OntarioThu Jul-12-07 10:46 AM
This is very timely . . . I just went in this morning for blood tests . . .
The procedure here is this: My doctor, (who we choose ourselves and not the government, despite what right-wingers in the U.S.A. claim) on my visit yesterday gave me a requisition for blood tests which I took into the local lab this morning. The tests were performed promptly (I waited about 20 minutes) there were a few people ahead of me. That was it. No appointment necessary for the lab and NO COST. This is about the 8th time I’ve had these tests and it’s always the same. The case you describe here [CMcL's experience] is absolutely ridiculous. No patient should have to go through that kind of [nonsense].
Somehow or other it seems to me that the right-wing conservatives in your country have convinced your citizens that Universal Health Care is akin to that devil . . . communism . . . I keep hearing them say that our government runs health care. . . . choosing our doctors and deciding on treatment, etc. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Our doctors and hospitals make ALL the decisions and send the bills to the government. The government PAYS and that’s it.
GET UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE AMERICA! YOU GOOD PEOPLE DESERVE WHAT THE REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD HAS!!!!!!!
Hand — male, Nova ScotiaThu Jul-12-07 11:00 AM
I get blood work twice a year. Here’s how it goes.
1. My doctor fills out a form specifying the tests she wants done.
2. I take the form to the hospital where blood work is done.
3. I take a number deli-style, wait until it’s called, hand in the form and show them my provincial health card.
4. I sit back down and wait until my name is called.
5. I go in and get my blood samples drawn.
6. I leave. I don’t stop at the cashier because there’s no cashier.
7. The lab faxes the results to my doctor. I make an appointment to review them.
The whole process takes maybe an hour, maybe less, maybe more. Depends on how busy they are. Everyone does it this way. Nobody jumps the line, and as far as I know, nobody is denied service. If your health card is expired, they tell you to get a new one (free), but you still get the tests.
End of story. It’s based on the assumption that my doctor knows what tests I need and that no one is silly enough to ask for unnecessary blood work. What a concept.
There are no fees for these tests — the service is paid for via tax revenues.
gula — female, QuebecWed Jul-18-07 08:56 PM
Pretty much the same [as Hand] here in Québec, except that I go to a local community clinic (CLSC) for the blood samples as it is much faster than the hospital. They, the CLSC, then send the samples to the hospital which then sends the results to my doctor and so on. And of course, there is no cost involved.
ironflange — male, AlbertaTue Jul-17-07 10:58 PM
I get mine done four times a year. Other than that trifling difference, my experiences are identical to yours [referring to Hand, above]. The only variation is (4); I’ve learned the best times to go and don’t even have to sit down the odd time. I also have one particular test that has a standing order on it, I can go in anytime and get it with no form or anything. Oh yeah, I’ve forgotten my card at home a couple of times, so it’s a waste of twenty minutes when I have to retrieve it.
Bragi — male, OntarioFri Jul-13-07 07:43 AM
I just had my annual check up and my doctor ordered the usual tests (actually, about a dozen or so specific tests were checked off on the list.) The process went exactly as others here have described. It took about 45 minutes in total at a walk-in, first-come-first-served lab.
One thing I did have to pay for, though, is the (quite unreliable) blood test for prostate cancer, which for some bizarre reason is not covered by the Ontario health plan. I think I paid $25 for that test.
MrPrax — male, British ColumbiaFri Jul-13-07 08:25 AM
My mom had a blood test last week — she went to her GP for her check-up and he sent her for the usual blood test at a lab she likes to go to. No phoning involved, other than maybe phoning the doctor’s office for the test results.
I think the only time anyone has to call their provincial Medicare office is to inform them of a change of address or to get their premiums (in BC) adjusted because their income changed drastically and have to apply for a subsidized rate.
GirlinContempt — female, ManitobaTue Jul-31-07 06:51 AM
A couple of weeks ago, I called my doctor. I got in to see her within a few days. We talked about my concerns. She wrote me a little slip for blood work. I went down three floors in the clinic, sat down, and 15 minutes later had my blood taken. One week later, my doctor had the results. No money changed hands.
Stats back up the stories
That’s a dozen stories from the socialist hellhole to the north, where blood work doesn’t seem to exact quite the mental and financial toll it does in the lower 48. But these tales don’t exist in a vacuum; they’re supported by mountains of demographic and epidemiological evidence that sits in a gigantic World Health Organization database. When the WHO did its groundbreaking study in 2000 comparing health care systems in 191 countries, the US ranked 37th overall in a compilation of key indices that include average life span, average disease-free life span, average birth weight, infant mortality rate, access to necessary health care services, cost of those services and so forth. Thirty-seventh.
Which puts us among such famous mainstays of medical superiority as Slovenia (#38), a small part of the former Yugoslavia, and Domenica (#35), a Caribbean island nation of about 70,000 people comprising 289.5 square miles. And I think it’s safe to speculate that the US has fallen further in those rankings since 2000 because of growing inequity of access and steeply rising per capita costs.
Canada was ranked 30th at the time, but there are interim studies based on WHO methodology that suggest it’s climbing into the top 10. And who was number one? Think “freedom fries” and “freedom toast.”
A word on the democratization of health care
Here’s a picture you’ll never see in America: a member of Congress waiting in line with the commoners for his turn at the doctor’s office. Here it’s generally understood that the rich, the powerful and the well-connected have access to better quality health care than what’s available to the serfs, and that’s accepted by many as just another perk to which America’s modern feudal lords are entitled.
Canadians see things a little differently. Let’s let Hand of Nova Scotia describe his experiences under a single-tier, equal-access health care system:
“One time I needed a chest x-ray, which is done by the same procedures that I and others have described — get the form, go to the hospital, hand it in, show your card and so forth.
“Since this is a public first-come-first-serve service, there’s often a bit of a lineup, which there was this day (took maybe half an hour from the time I walked in the door). Anyway, while I was waiting in line, I noticed my federal MP (member of the House of Commons, equivalent to a US congressman) also waiting in line in his suit next to the usual lineup of people in jeans and t-shirts or whatever. He didn’t jump the line, didn’t think of pulling rank on anyone and was content to hang out until his name was called like everyone else.
“I talked to him on the way out since I had voted for him and liked what he said in Commons — he was just there to have an old basketball injury checked on. That’s pretty much the way it works in a near single-tier system — to the greatest extent possible, everybody’s equal and gets the same level of service.
“That’s perhaps the greatest benefit, in my opinion, of a single-payer universal health care system — it’s as near to fully democratic as it can be (given that folks with money and/or education generally tend to be able to take better care of themselves). In that way, it helps bind together all strata of society in very real and very important ways. I think people are aware of this and do not begrudge the taxes they pay for the health system, even though the benefits may go more to others than themselves.”
Amen.
“That’s perhaps the greatest benefit, in my opinion, of a single-payer universal health care system — it’s as near to fully democratic as it can be (given that folks with money and/or education generally tend to be able to take better care of themselves). In that way, it helps bind together all strata of society in very real and very important ways. I think people are aware of this and do not begrudge the taxes they pay for the health system, even though the benefits may go more to others than themselves.”Posted by: CapnAmerica | August 14, 2007 at 11:24 PM
And isn’t that exactly how insurance works? The healthy subsidize the sick: that’s just another way of expressing what insurance company actuaries like to call the Law of Large Numbers.
That’s the key to a single-payer system, btw. It’s why such a system will improve American healthcare.
The key is this: you can’t get out of paying into the plan. There is no other health insurance company enticing you (and your excellent health) into their new plan with lower premiums.
Plus, it’s run as a non-profit so there is no need to add the currently lawful “normal return on investment” to what’s already a very high sales margin. The only reason to add margin to the cost is to pay operational and admin costs.
And somebody upthread (Max?) needs to explain to us just how Big Pharma and Big Insurance company profits are allocated. Because I don’t think these “provider” profits, by far the largest costs to us as consumers of healthcare, are allocated to physicians.
We could pay family MDs $1,000,000/year and still save beaucaux bucks over our current healthcare system (aka the Drug Company and Insurance Giants Road to Wealth plan).
THAT’s who’s jacking healthcare costs up: Big Pharma and Big Insurance. Let’s cut Big Insurance out and then use our buyer power to rein in Big Pharma.
Leave my healthcare alone. Do NOT create another government dept like the IRS to handle my healthcare.
My healthcare is fine as it is. I do NOT need a handout. I enjoy a great level of service and pay for it.
Most Americans do, but they CRY and WHINE about it costing them too much. Booo Hoooo.
Do not mess up the majority to help the minority. Keep government out of my private, and very personal medical records.
I do NOT want government deciding:
Which doctor I will seeWhen I will see himIf I will see himAnd what for
I trust my HMO much more than I do some GS employee reviewing my case. And don’t lie about that one: YOU WILL NEED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES to “manage” (cough, snort, laugh) the new ENTITLEMENT SOCIALIST PROGRAM.
Have a nice day, and see you at the voting booth.
It will be close:49% RED51% BLUE
We may have the United Social States of America, but I’m going to fight it.
Not a popular view on this particular blog, but it is my own.And I know I am not alone.
At least the Socialists are finally standing up and being honest about who they are.
Anytime someone wants to make America more like Europe or Canada, they really mean they want America to be more Socialist.
If that’s what you believe, then at least be honest about it.
Those writing about the joys of Canadian medical service need to watch the History Channel series Ice Road Trucker. In one of the episodes a trucker comes down with a serious medical problem. Watch what he has to go through to get treated! Then LISTEN as he gripes about HOW MUCH HE HAD TO PAY.
It is government controlled alright, but you get to wait, and wait, and wait, and wait.
It ain’t free in Canada. They pay: THEY HAVE NATIONAL SALES TAX AND PROVINCIAL SALES TAX!!!
Whatdaya know!!!!!
If youall support getting rid of the IRS and the INCOME TAX, and suppport a national SALES TAX, I’ll convert for your free healthcare. Because then EVERYBODY pays. And you can have as much freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee stuff as you want. Because YOU ALL HAVE TO PAY.
“And isn’t that exactly how insurance works?”
Of course not! For-profit insurance companies look for any loophole to avoid paying at all. Have to go to the emergency room? Be assured they will conclude that anything short of life-threatening trauma is a “non-emergency” and try to deny coverage.
Government can be just as unjust, of course, but at least the profit motive is gone.
“Anytime someone wants to make America more like Europe or Canada, they really mean they want America to be more Socialist.”
Even if true, so what??
A argument is not somehow made invalid merely by attaching a lebel to it.
Dear Ms. Max,No one ever asked before, but thanks for the compliment.
See you at the Party meeting
I think I should tend to my aching head and not post anymore.
The “emergency room” anecdote was from recent experience.
Hi, flike! Welcome back!
“Government can be just as unjust, of course, but at least the profit motive is gone.”
Also gone is your ability to choose a different provider or insurance company. Of course most people don’t want to be bothered with choosing an insurance company. They let their employer do the deal. Then you complain that the coverage isn’t good enough. Yet somehow when the government decides what medical care you get will be some kind of improvement.
As for profit motive, consider political profit. Campaign contributions, earmarks, and special treatment would get far worse with those pesky consumers out of the way.