Government run health care

[sasvermont]

What you said about requiring a brain, was rude. Nice try to dismiss it so easily.

[Puckstop31]

What you said about requiring a brain, was rude. Nice try to dismiss it so easily.

Fair enough. I apologize for being rude.

Any comments on the substance?

[Randi]

Sara, I so very sorry your friend is going through this. I can imagine how frightened she must be. I am one of those who have met her, and I will definately send her a card.

Concerning the possible change of the health care system in USA, I have to believe that it’s out of ignorance that so many are against it - or simply that people have no clue how such a system would work. It’s done in many European countries. It’s not perfect, but it secures everybody, whether they are rich or poor. We can get treatment in hospital for free, and I do think that should be a right for any person. Yes, we do pay more tax in European countries, but we can afford it, and we can count on free health care and feel reasonable safe.

At least some Americans have this view on healthcare:

“I am willing to pay $583.33 a month to prevent me from having ANOTHER $50,000 dollar bill for a one week hospital stay, like I had xx years ago. The following week I had to be rushed to another hospital and the bill was even higher with all the things they did to me. Fortunately at that time, I had excellent insurance and I only paid less than $200.00 for the whole thing. Things are different for me today. I have the same condition and NO insurance.

I am willing to pay $583.33 a month to be able to show the money-making doctors that they don't have to worry about me when they treat me. I don't want to be sent home ONE DAY before I need to be.”

And here’s an article from The Washinton Post that will enlighten you on health care in other countries:

5 Myths About Health Care Around the World

As Americans search for the cure to what ails our health-care system, we've overlooked an invaluable source of ideas and solutions: the rest of the world. All the other industrialized democracies have faced problems like ours, yet they've found ways to cover everybody -- and still spend far less than we do.

I've traveled the world from Oslo to Osaka to see how other developed democracies provide health care. Instead of dismissing these models as "socialist," we could adapt their solutions to fix our problems. To do that, we first have to dispel a few myths about health care abroad:

1. It's all socialized medicine out there.

Not so. Some countries, such as Britain, New Zealand and Cuba, do provide health care in government hospitals, with the government paying the bills. Others -- for instance, Canada and Taiwan -- rely on private-sector providers, paid for by government-run insurance. But many wealthy countries -- including Germany, the Netherlands, Japan and Switzerland -- provide universal coverage using private doctors, private hospitals and private insurance plans.
ad_icon

In some ways, health care is less "socialized" overseas than in the United States. Almost all Americans sign up for government insurance (Medicare) at age 65. In Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, seniors stick with private insurance plans for life. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the planet's purest examples of government-run health care.

2. Overseas, care is rationed through limited choices or long lines.

Generally, no. Germans can sign up for any of the nation's 200 private health insurance plans -- a broader choice than any American has. If a German doesn't like her insurance company, she can switch to another, with no increase in premium. The Swiss, too, can choose any insurance plan in the country.

In France and Japan, you don't get a choice of insurance provider; you have to use the one designated for your company or your industry. But patients can go to any doctor, any hospital, any traditional healer. There are no U.S.-style limits such as "in-network" lists of doctors or "pre-authorization" for surgery. You pick any doctor, you get treatment -- and insurance has to pay.

Canadians have their choice of providers. In Austria and Germany, if a doctor diagnoses a person as "stressed," medical insurance pays for weekends at a health spa.

As for those notorious waiting lists, some countries are indeed plagued by them. Canada makes patients wait weeks or months for nonemergency care, as a way to keep costs down. But studies by the Commonwealth Fund and others report that many nations -- Germany, Britain, Austria -- outperform the United States on measures such as waiting times for appointments and for elective surgeries.


In Japan, waiting times are so short that most patients don't bother to make an appointment. One Thursday morning in Tokyo, I called the prestigious orthopedic clinic at Keio University Hospital to schedule a consultation about my aching shoulder. "Why don't you just drop by?" the receptionist said. That same afternoon, I was in the surgeon's office. Dr. Nakamichi recommended an operation. "When could we do it?" I asked. The doctor checked his computer and said, "Tomorrow would be pretty difficult. Perhaps some day next week?"

3. Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies.

Much less so than here. It may seem to Americans that U.S.-style free enterprise -- private-sector, for-profit health insurance -- is naturally the most cost-effective way to pay for health care. But in fact, all the other payment systems are more efficient than ours.

U.S. health insurance companies have the highest administrative costs in the world; they spend roughly 20 cents of every dollar for nonmedical costs, such as paperwork, reviewing claims and marketing. France's health insurance industry, in contrast, covers everybody and spends about 4 percent on administration. Canada's universal insurance system, run by government bureaucrats, spends 6 percent on administration. In Taiwan, a leaner version of the Canadian model has administrative costs of 1.5 percent; one year, this figure ballooned to 2 percent, and the opposition parties savaged the government for wasting money.
ad_icon

The world champion at controlling medical costs is Japan, even though its aging population is a profligate consumer of medical care. On average, the Japanese go to the doctor 15 times a year, three times the U.S. rate. They have twice as many MRI scans and X-rays. Quality is high; life expectancy and recovery rates for major diseases are better than in the United States. And yet Japan spends about $3,400 per person annually on health care; the United States spends more than $7,000.

4. Cost controls stifle innovation.

False. The United States is home to groundbreaking medical research, but so are other countries with much lower cost structures. Any American who's had a hip or knee replacement is standing on French innovation. Deep-brain stimulation to treat depression is a Canadian breakthrough. Many of the wonder drugs promoted endlessly on American television, including Viagra, come from British, Swiss or Japanese labs.

Overseas, strict cost controls actually drive innovation. In the United States, an MRI scan of the neck region costs about $1,500. In Japan, the identical scan costs $98. Under the pressure of cost controls, Japanese researchers found ways to perform the same diagnostic technique for one-fifteenth the American price. (And Japanese labs still make a profit.)

5. Health insurance has to be cruel.

Not really. American health insurance companies routinely reject applicants with a "preexisting condition" -- precisely the people most likely to need the insurers' service. They employ armies of adjusters to deny claims. If a customer is hit by a truck and faces big medical bills, the insurer's "rescission department" digs through the records looking for grounds to cancel the policy, often while the victim is still in the hospital. The companies say they have to do this stuff to survive in a tough business.

Foreign health insurance companies, in contrast, must accept all applicants, and they can't cancel as long as you pay your premiums. The plans are required to pay any claim submitted by a doctor or hospital (or health spa), usually within tight time limits. The big Swiss insurer Groupe Mutuel promises to pay all claims within five days. "Our customers love it," the group's chief executive told me. The corollary is that everyone is mandated to buy insurance, to give the plans an adequate pool of rate-payers.

The key difference is that foreign health insurance plans exist only to pay people's medical bills, not to make a profit. The United States is the only developed country that lets insurance companies profit from basic health coverage.

In many ways, foreign health-care models are not really "foreign" to America, because our crazy-quilt health-care system uses elements of all of them. For Native Americans or veterans, we're Britain: The government provides health care, funding it through general taxes, and patients get no bills. For people who get insurance through their jobs, we're Germany: Premiums are split between workers and employers, and private insurance plans pay private doctors and hospitals. For people over 65, we're Canada: Everyone pays premiums for an insurance plan run by the government, and the public plan pays private doctors and hospitals according to a set fee schedule. And for the tens of millions without insurance coverage, we're Burundi or Burma: In the world's poor nations, sick people pay out of pocket for medical care; those who can't pay stay sick or die.
ad_icon

This fragmentation is another reason that we spend more than anybody else and still leave millions without coverage. All the other developed countries have settled on one model for health-care delivery and finance; we've blended them all into a costly, confusing bureaucratic mess.

Which, in turn, punctures the most persistent myth of all: that America has "the finest health care" in the world. We don't. In terms of results, almost all advanced countries have better national health statistics than the United States does. In terms of finance, we force 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills. In France, the number of medical bankruptcies is zero. Britain: zero. Japan: zero. Germany: zero.

Given our remarkable medical assets -- the best-educated doctors and nurses, the most advanced hospitals, world-class research -- the United States could be, and should be, the best in the world. To get there, though, we have to be willing to learn some lessons about health-care administration from the other industrialized democracies.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Thank you Randi for posting that. The xenophobia of some people in this country is embarrassing. There are many successful systems out there that could be adapted to the U.S.

Anyone who thinks we aren't already paying for each others medical insurance is naive. Every time we buy a can of soup - we are contributing to the medical insurance of someone else.

So we continue to provide healthcare in the most inefficient way possible.

Hurray for us...

[Cinder & Smoke]

As Americans search for the cure to what ails our health-care system,
we've overlooked an invaluable source of ideas and solutions: the rest of the world.
All the other industrialized democracies have faced problems like ours,
yet they've found ways to cover everybody -- and still spend far less than we do.

Given our remarkable medical assets -- the best-educated doctors and nurses,
the most advanced hospitals, world-class research -- the United States could be,
and should be, the best in the world. To get there, though,
we have to be willing to learn some lessons about health-care
administration from the other industrialized democracies.

Hey Randi ...
We'll have an opening in the White House in a few short years ---
Would you be interested?

[RICHARD]

Randi,

I read thru the article and there are a few points that the writer seems to have missed.

No mention of the lawsuits for meds, implants and procedures that go wrong.

A good percentage of the techs, nusrses and docs are foreign born and educated.

-------------------

Innovation in health care are often stifled by lawsuits because 3 people out of 100,000 have some side effect or die from the treatment.


I do not know if you get the commercials on TV about a new medicine to treat nail fungus and at the end the announcer says that taking the medicine will cause 7 or 8 side effects that may make you SICKER than the original malady.

The current regime in control makes it sound like the problems with healthcare will magically disappear with a new law/bill.

The system has to be reformed by first controlling the costs of treatment and materials. People refuse to understand this and think that any opposition to the president's push to get HIS idea for healthcare enacted is racist or anti Obama.

These ideas show the desperation and the unwillingness to look at the whole picture, It's far easier to making the topic into a political struggle than it is to look out for the people that need to have any kind of health care.


Don't fall for the media horse crap about health care reform.

The writer also makes the assumption that we do not have the "world's greatest" heathcare.

I have to say we have the best facilities and the best treatment options, the problem is with the ability to provide those services and facilities to everyone here in the states.


The rest of the world have their systems in place and would have the same kind of outrage and problems trying to implement a change to those programs, just like we are going thru.

I do agree that the money making part of the system in the U.S. is part of the problem, so he did write the truth about that.

The real danger and cost to health care here in the United States are the people who have no qualms about letting a bunch of AH politicians determine the future of medicine.

In essence we are giving them a blank check to determine what is best for us.

It's like getting a prostate check from a homeless person off the street.
You pay for the exam, get the exam and have invested in a bottle of booze to keep the drunk, drunk.

[Randi]

Thank you for the offer, Phred - although I have to decline. I'm getting too old and lazy.

Richard, we don't do all these lawsuits over here, doctors get it right the first time. ..... No, of course, sadly, mistakes happen, and people do get a lot of money if something goes wrong.

As far as I know, we don't have a lot of foreign doctors here, but they ARE looking for some. I don't know how well educated they are, compared to ours, but if they're not, I'm sure they'll get the proper training here.

The danger of the American health system is that a lot of people think only about themselves! We all should do more to help others. It helps us all and therefore helps you too.

[RICHARD]

Thank you for the offer, Phred - although I have to decline. I'm getting too old and lazy.

Richard, we don't do all these lawsuits over here, doctors get it right the first time. ..... No, of course, sadly, mistakes happen, and people do get a lot of money if something goes wrong.

I just passed over a story where a lawsuit against the tobacco company was settled for I don't know how many millions of dollars.

You can be assured that if you bring a lawsuit against any company for a med you were given for an illness and even if the case does not go to trial the company will settle out of court in order not to have a judgement go against them.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/Travel...web3111644.htm

wow!

[Edwina's Secretary]

Those who want to use fear -- say things like "now women under 40 will not be allowed to have mammograms!" also like to talk about how great our healthcare is now.

As if pretty offices make for quality healthcare. The objective measures of healthcare - life expectancy, infant mortality, etc. - the US consistently lags.

I have to laugh when I read this statement too...

The current regime in control makes it sound like the problems with healthcare will magically disappear with a new law/bill.

Talk about horse crap? I have NEVER heard anyone in the current administration say that.

But then...I know it is an administration not a regime...

We need to focus on facts - not the hyperbolic hysterical horse crap people make up.

[Edwina's Secretary]

What you said about requiring a brain, was rude. Nice try to dismiss it so easily.

Oh SAS! You didn't recognize the new, kinder, gentler version??

[Karen]

By the way, I had my annual physical today, and asked my doctor about the mammogram study.

She replied that she thinks I should get one anyway. She stressed that there are no risks associated with getting one annually in terms of radiation exposure over time. And, she added, she's in her forties, and she's still planning on getting one annually.

So I will have my squish-o-gram in a couple weeks. I don't "do" pain for beauty's sake - hence not having pierced ears or wearing high heels, but I will endure pain for my health's sake.

[Edwina's Secretary]

She stressed that there are no risks associated with getting one annually in terms of radiation exposure over time. And, she added, she's in her forties, and she's still planning on getting one annually.

If there is no risk...why are the techs behind a lead shield?

I don't think there is enough data one way or the other.

But if you feel confident in the advice of your healthcare provider - I think you should follow his/her advice - and not be controlled by profit-driven insurance company executives!

[sparks19]

well... I have lived in both worlds... "Free healthcare" in canada and the US system. BOTH systems are severely broken.

read the latest on my step father's saga who has been severely ill for at least a year... can no longer work... can't even make his weekly Drs appts without being totally run down for days unable to even get off the couch. went in for lung surgery (his second in less than two months) and was kicked out of the hospital because they just didn't have room for him. a man who is 60 years old having more infection removed from his lungs than his doctor claims he has ever seen. well you can read the thread if you wish. It was a disaster.

he is still not back to normal. still not able to work, still not able to do more than cook a meal and sweep the floors without being totaly run down and still no closer to a diagnosis than he was a year ago and can't get the REAL care he needs because they just don't have room and he isn't going to die tomorrow.

people here can't afford to get the care and suffer from the same problems.... but making it "free" for everyone isn't going to save everyone. There HAS to be an inbetween.

they can't make it work properly in Canada with a FrACTION of the population and you may be thinking "well more people more money for taxes" well ... also think of it this way... more people to go to emergency and run to the doctor for every cough and sneeze and that IS what happens. when it becomes "free" people will go for EVERYTHING because they can. emergency rooms, hosiptal beds, doctors offices will become totally clogged. I went to emerg with mono one year... didn't know it was mono. severely swollen throat to the point I couldn't swallow and it was affecting my breathing. I waited TWELVE hours in emerg. My father insisted I had to be seen (I was a teen) I was in really bad shape. couldn't eat, coudl barely drink, trouble breathing he thought I was having an allergic reaction to something after going to the ONLY doctor in town that was taking new patients and she pushed me off with some antibiotics and an "OH sorry you will be fine here you go" as she did everytime I came to her.

i've seen both and with a larger population it just DOESN'T work either way. there HAS to be middle ground.

as for mammograms...

I will have one every year as soon as I can get them. it's MORE likely I will die from breast cancer than die from radiation. with large breasts and with my grandmother dying from cancer (not breast cancer though) I will get the testing when I can. I give myself regular exams but sometimes it doesn't show up as obviously as some think nor does it show up in the exact areas people thing.... can even be under the armpit. I am a large breasted woman and I DO and will continue to take it seriously whether I need to pay for it or not.

[Lady's Human]

The techs are behind lead shielding because they would recieve many times beyond the PEL or TLV through a day of work were the shielding not in place.

The person getting the mammogram does it once a year (if that)

Your rough dose of radiation from natural backgraound sources is roughly 350 millirems, depending on lifestyle.

A mammogram exposes you to 70 millirems. Given that, the level of exposure is comparatively minimal.

The person doing the mammogram does it repeatedly throughout the day, day after day, year after year.

As radiation damage is cumulative, they need the shielding.

[blue]

Health Care is not a Right. Health Care is a service.

Freedom of Speech is a Right, not a service. The Right to protect your self, ala the 2nd Amendment, is not a service.

Sparks and LH should be ashamed of themselves for bringing logic and real life experience into a purely emotional argument.

[WHITEPOST]Sarcasm[/WHITEPOST]