As a UK based sufferer of Cluster Headaches, I have HUGE admiration and gratitude for the FREE healthcare and subsidized medication that I am entitled to; I am equally outraged that there are American sufferers who do not have access to the same treatment. Here's a piece that was sent to me by a friend in America. No doubt it will step on a few toes politically, but the pure logic of it transcends political affiliation :-/ I hope I don't get flamed!:

Emailed to me via a friend in the USA

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.

You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.

You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.

You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country (Iraq) that posed no threat to us.

You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion (and counting) on said illegal war.

You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.

You didn't get mad when you saw the Abu Grahib photos.

You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.

You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed Hospital.

You didn't get mad when we let a major US city drown.

You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.

You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.
Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with you, but helping other Americans ... well forget that.

;D

Wow. I had no idea the complex politics of one of the biggest nations in the world.....could be so simple! ;D

Joe

(AS I always tell my kids, beware the answer that sounds quick and easy...someone smarter then you has already tried it)

::)

Buzz wrote on Sep 16^th, 2009 at 11:24am:

...FREE healthcare...

Ohhh-ho-ho-ho-ho!! Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That's a good one! FREE healthcare!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Why stop there? How about free houses? Free food. A free car. Free clothing. Free pets. Free booze. Free smokes. Just make it all FREEEEEEEEE!!!!!

I gotta stop - I'm cracking myself up!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Buzz,

With all due respect, and not a flame, you have been getting your information from faulty sources.  The listing you gave from the email is to faulty it is not worth responding to. 

I'll only address one of the items with a question:  Would you want to trust your health care to the same government that has wasted Billions of dollars that were supposed to have built up the levees that allowed the city to drown?  When they show the integrity to properly spend the moneys allocated for our safety I might consider allowing them to have input on my healthcare.

BTW, would you please define "free"?

Jerry

Gee, at least he didn't say *you all* or *y'all*, because then I'd really have to be pissed that someone thinks that every American feels just like this.  8-)

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

We in the UK do not get free health care, it is paid for by the people for the people with thier tax.

The government does not magic money out of nowhere, The work force of the counrty raise the money needed, I pay for everyones healthcare as does everyone else who pays tax.  I would not change our system, but there is room for improvement in how the money is managed.

I am happy to pay the tax (well sort of , tax always hurts) so that all can be treated.  I do belive we should all contribute to the whole, but some people need a kick up the backside to contribute something in thier lifetimes rather than just taking.

But it is hard for us Brits to understand countrys that do not look after thier own people, and even harder when you are talking about a country like the USA.  There  does not seem to be a logical reason why everyone should not recieve good basic healthcare when you are talking about the working population paying a few extra dollars on thier tax.   

If the moden world  countries cannot look after its own how can we expect the third world countries to do better .

On a generic note the mighty Pound/Dollar/Euro rules the world-  because people mostly see only as far as thier own needs and are reluctant to give up a little of what they have for the whole.  They see themselves as hard working and deserving and why should they give to those who do not deserve. Let someone else help, someone else give ,  someone else to step up first

On a simple level  I do belive that the day we all start looking after every one and not just our selves the world would be a far better place to be.

I do not claim to have the answer , to be honest I do not really know the question but I know with all my heart that if we truly wanted to we could all give more.

Brew wrote on Sep 16^th, 2009 at 2:06pm:

Buzz wrote on Sep 16th, 2009 at 11:24am: ...FREE healthcare... Ohhh-ho-ho-ho-ho!! Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-haaaaa! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D That's a good one! FREE healthcare!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Why stop there? How about free houses? Free food. A free car. Free clothing. Free pets. Free booze. Free smokes. Just make it all FREEEEEEEEE!!!!! I gotta stop - I'm cracking myself up!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Brew, I think its a bit sad that someone who suffers from CH cannot see the benefits of free healthcare to those who cannot afford it. I find it staggering that the "World's Greatest Democracy" doesn't view proper healthcare as an enshrined right for its citizens.

Here in the UK we pay National Insurance contributions - a small part of our wage every month. This money goes to fund amongst other things, our National Health Service (which is also funded by government raised taxes).

All UK residents are entitled to the benefits of the NHS. In my case, this means I can visit the doctor without paying a penny, as often as I need to. I can get just about any prescription drug (in whatever quantity is prescribed) for just £7.60 (Free if I am unemployed). If I need O2 I simply make a phone call. It costs me nothing.

The benefit to me is huge, the cost very little. In overall terms to the UK economy, the NHS does account for a very large chunk of the national budget, but it hasn't bankrupted us. In fact, it can be argued that we have a healthy, productive workforce that keeps our economy in good shape (provided the banks behave :-)).

I can see that to implement such a scheme in the US would require a giant leap of faith by all stakeholders, but lets be honest here, people with low incomes at the very least deserve the right to healthcare of an equal standard to those who can afford to pay. 

It breaks my heart to see a fellow CH sufferer battling to pay for treatment and medication.

(BTW, in Zimbabwe, my home country its just the same as the US: The rich can afford medical treatment, the poor cannot. The only difference is that Zimbabwe is a Third World country - and has the worst performing economy on the planet)

Callico wrote on Sep 16^th, 2009 at 5:13pm:

Buzz, With all due respect, and not a flame, you have been getting your information from faulty sources.  The listing you gave from the email is to faulty it is not worth responding to.  I'll only address one of the items with a question:  Would you want to trust your health care to the same government that has wasted Billions of dollars that were supposed to have built up the levees that allowed the city to drown?  When they show the integrity to properly spend the moneys allocated for our safety I might consider allowing them to have input on my healthcare. BTW, would you please define "free"? Jerry

Hi Jerry, thanks for your response.
I will admit that my original post is obviously written by someone who is firmly on the "Lets Have Universal Healthcare" side of the fence. Each point is to some extent arguable depending on your political affilliation, however, on balance, it still seems bizzarre that there is such a strong stance against universal healthcare.

Regarding "trusting a government" to properly manage the funding of such a scheme, well the US is a democracy and its up to you, the voters to extract the best performance from your politicians. Money for health services or building levees or whatever can tend to dry up when it is used on other "projects" (Iraq? etc.)  In the case of New Orleans, you have had a string of both Democrat and republican governments who have neglected that poor city and her people for decades. It up to you Americans to ensure that that never happens again: MAKE your government perform and do the same when/if you get a healthcare system.

My definition of "Free":  Perhaps I was wrong to say "Free" because we as taxpayers do fund the NHS through our various taxes and our monthly contributions to National Insurance. However, there is no real pain in this because the benefits are so enormous - ad those who need treatment generally do get it - at no cost.  To give you an example, I have a friend who survived Leukemia.  He was in hospital for over a year and nearly died a few times. The Chemo therapy so ravaged his immune system that he now has to take a lot of medications on a daily basis - to the extent that he has a dedicated full height fridge full of various drugs. He told me that the fridge's contents were worth nearly £100,000 (he's on an experimental programme too). He pays nothing.  As a result of this, he's back at work again, a productive member of society earning money AND PAYING TAXES.

No one can expect a universal healthcare system to ever be perfect. There will always be flaws, gripes, waste, shortfalls etc. but that is how life works; we as humans are always striving to perfect things. Its an unending process, but its what holds society together. :-)

And here in the USA everyone (well everyone who works) pays for Medicaid so that everyone has access to healthcare.  We also fund emergency rooms to provide healthcare to all who come in the door.

Everyone in the USA has access to healthcare, not everyone has health insurance.

I guess the big difference between the socialist view here and the constitutional view is that there is no provision in the US Constitution for a nationalized healthcare system. I happen to believe in a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution.

No need to get your knickers in a knot.

A big problem with this thread, is the initial post.

MOST of the subjects listed, we got VERY pissed off about!  Yes, they happened, but it does NOT mean we didn't get pissed about them!

Chuck

Viva UK healthcare system. [smiley=headbanger.gif]
the best i 've ever heard. ;)

ClusterChuck wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 8:43am:

A big problem with this thread, is the initial post. MOST of the subjects listed, we got VERY pissed off about!  Yes, they happened, but it does NOT mean we didn't get pissed about them! Chuck

Perhaps, Chuck, but from the outside looking in, I have seen far more vitriol, protests, beating of breasts, angry community meetings, wailing and gnashing of teeth etc over the US healthcare debate than any of the other subjects.  I guess the thing we all have in common though is that we have governments who ride roughshod over us pretty much whenever they choose!

black wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 9:11am:

Viva UK healthcare system. [smiley=headbanger.gif] the best i 've ever heard. ;)

It works for me and I'm very, very grateful!  Is it perfect? No way! Can it be improved? Indeed! But it is a national treasure all the same.

:-X :-X :-X

Melissa wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 10:59am:

:-X :-X :-X

I'll see your  :-X :-X :-X and raise you  :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X

Ok, I can't stand it anymore.

Buzz, are you wanting to truly understand the reasons why there are millions in the U.S. who are against Federal Government run health insurance, or are you merely trying to get an emotional rise out of people?

Brew wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 7:55am:

I guess the big difference between the socialist view here and the constitutional view is that there is no provision in the US Constitution for a nationalized healthcare system. I happen to believe in a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution.

Aside from the topic at hand, while Jefferson made many verbal efforts to interpret the Constitution, such as what is said about him here, which seem aligned with your post,


Quote:

The purpose of a written constitution is entirely defeated if, in interpreting it as a legal document, its provisions are manipulated and worked around so that the document means whatever the manipulators wish. Jefferson recognized this danger and spoke out constantly for careful adherence to the Constitution as written, with changes to be made by amendment, not by tortured and twisted interpretations of the text.

his actions however did not follow strict adherence.  And whether any departure from its provisions may constitute a socialistic view, that can be perhaps thought about by his description of the Louisiana Purchase, where he seems fully aware of it being unprovided for, yet consenting its good.


Quote:

"[The Louisiana Purchase was] laid before both Houses [of Congress], because both [had] important functions to exercise respecting it. They... [saw] their duty to their country in ratifying and paying for it so as to secure a good which would otherwise probably be never again in their power. The Constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, still less for incorporating foreign nations into our Union. The Executive, in seizing the fugitive occurrence which so much advances the good of their country, have done an act beyond the Constitution. The Legislature in casting behind them metaphysical subtleties and risking themselves like faithful servants, must ratify and pay for it and throw themselves on their country for doing for them unauthorized what we know they would have done for themselves had they been in a situation to do it. It is the case of a guardian investing the money of his ward in purchasing an important adjacent territory and saying to him when of age, I did this for your good; I pretend to no right to bind you. You may disavow me, and I must get out of the scrape as I can. I thought it my duty to risk myself for you. But we [were] not disavowed by the nation, and their act of indemnity [confirmed] and [did] not weaken the Constitution by more strongly marking out its lines." --Thomas Jefferson

A key note reoccuring today is that "case of a guardian" that is an untrustful or resentful factor, even considered infringing liberty.  But it may have happened back then that, with "their act of indemnity", perhaps not unwise, had made a strengthened America, also providing a breadbasket, despite "unauthorized" and paid for as a nation.  He writes his "risk" allowed for whatever criticism, but was not "disavowed". 

Wrong or right, he chose with awareness to willingly act out of bounds of the Constitution and acknowledged this "duty" of deciding an "important function" in the "situation".



Actions here have shown departure from strict constructionist views, seemingly differing with the verbal description of the first quote and yet not seemed to "weakened the Constitution", in the circumstance by T. J.'s opinion.

There has to be a reason why the other western countries in the world decided to adopt some kind of health care.

Let's work on it.

Charlie

Quote:

Why stop there? How about free houses? Free food. A free car. Free clothing. Free pets. Free booze. Free smokes. Just make it all FREEEEEEEEE!!!!!

Not free!  Let's go the Senate route and fine them.  Fine the homeless if they don't buy a house, that will put an end to the homeless problem!

Melissa wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 11:26am:

Ok, I can't stand it anymore. Buzz, are you wanting to truly understand the reasons why there are millions in the U.S. who are against Federal Government run health insurance, or are you merely trying to get an emotional rise out of people?

I'd like to understand.  I'd like to understand how Government-run health insurance that levels the playing field is less palatable than families forking out thousands of dollars each year for health insurance. My interest in this subject is genuine because it is on this very forum that I have read about people having to purchase welding oxygen. People being limited to 9 doses per month (of imitrex) by their health insurance. People having to pay out $13,000 per year for family Health Insurance. It is here that I have learnt about the waste of resources with patients complaining about being sent for very expensive, unnecessary tests etc etc. 

Surely therefore you can expect me to find that hard to understand when here in the UK (the 51st state???) we have a system that does in fact work. A system that is not pumped full of cash but which forces health providers to be careful with resources, to understand that delivery of health is not about splashing cash, but about maximising the benefit derived from available resources.

I want to understand what the nay-sayers don't like about that.

Finally, I have several American friends who either wholeheartedly agree or disagree with the statement in my original post so clearly, there is no right and no wrong. And interestingly, most Brits I know  simply cannot understand at all why anyone wouldn't want a government run health service.

Charlie wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 2:38pm:

There has to be a reason why the other western countries in the world decided to adopt some kind of health care.

Because the people of those countries allowed their governments to get away with another power grab. Many people today have no clue what their personal liberty means, so they sacrifice it for so-called security all the time.

The yearning to be truly free burns in the hearts of very few anymore.

Brew wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 2:45pm:

Charlie wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 2:38pm: There has to be a reason why the other western countries in the world decided to adopt some kind of health care. Because the people of those countries allowed their governments to get away with another power grab. Many people today have no clue what their personal liberty means, so they sacrifice it for so-called security all the time. The yearning to be truly free burns in the hearts of very few anymore.

Good heavens!  Having access to healthcare is a sacrifice of my liberty? Being able to order O2 to alleviate a condition that restricts my life is a sacrifice of my liberty?

...or on the other side of the coin, having no way of paying for medication whilst others can IS liberty?

If you are so hung up about liberty and the erosion of it, Brew, please re-read the list of said erosions in the first post of this thread. That's really where your liberty's going.

My view is this: Governments are owned by the population in general; from the richest to the poorest, the youngest to the oldest. We are all stakeholders. Private enterprise is owned by far fewer people and therefore controlled by the  interests of those fewer people. Great if you're one of them, not so great if you ain't. It surely makes sense therefore, that a democracy of Free Americans must make their government responsible for its their wellbeing. The alternative is to allow private enterprise (the wealthy few) to make decisions outside of your control. Not much liberty there!

Brew wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 2:45pm:

Many people today have no clue what their personal liberty means, so they sacrifice it for so-called security all the time.

That made a lot of controversial news here this first decade.

Quote:

That made a lot of controversial news here this first decade.

Thanks for posting that Kev. It's great being so free.

Charlie

Buzz wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 3:16pm:

Good heavens!  Having access to healthcare is a sacrifice of my liberty? Being able to order O2 to alleviate a condition that restricts my life is a sacrifice of my liberty?

Giving the government the power to make critical decisions about your health care IS a sacrifice of your liberty.

I don't expect you to get it. When you start from a point of not having much liberty in the first place, your point of reference is a bit skewed.

Kevin_M wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 3:29pm:

Brew wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 2:45pm: Many people today have no clue what their personal liberty means, so they sacrifice it for so-called security all the time. That made a lot of controversial news here this first decade.

Huh? This first decade of what? The 21st Century, or the first decade of this country's existence.

Oh, yeah. Forgot to add: Everything is Bush's fault (even Kanye West). Everything will be his fault until everyone who lived during the time that he lived is dead. Then add 80 years.

Just wanted to get that out of the way. I concede.

Virtually all Americans want lower cost, high quality health care with choices.

That isn't being debated.

A well thought out plan that would actually reduce overall total costs would be overwhelmingly accepted.

Spreading the same total cost over more people via higher taxes is not the same as actually reducing overall cost.

I have seen nothing in the current set of proposals that would actually reduce overall health care costs.

I have yet to see a Government program of any kind, run efficiently. They are ALL going broke at an alarming rate.

The GAO agrees with me.

Buzz wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 3:16pm:

Brew wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 2:45pm: Charlie wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 2:38pm: There has to be a reason why the other western countries in the world decided to adopt some kind of health care. Because the people of those countries allowed their governments to get away with another power grab. Many people today have no clue what their personal liberty means, so they sacrifice it for so-called security all the time. The yearning to be truly free burns in the hearts of very few anymore. Good heavens!  Having access to healthcare is a sacrifice of my liberty? Being able to order O2 to alleviate a condition that restricts my life is a sacrifice of my liberty? ...or on the other side of the coin, having no way of paying for medication whilst others can IS liberty? a democracy of Free Americans must make their government responsible for its their wellbeing. The alternative is to allow private enterprise (the wealthy few) to make decisions outside of your control. Not much liberty there!

It's astonishing how much you don't 'get it'.  Like Brew said, it's difficult to discuss liberty when you are coming from the perspective that governmental control IS liberty while private enterprise is NOT liberty.

Us Americans have access to whatever we want.  We have access to medical service.  We can call an O2 supplier and purchase oxygen.  You seem to think we are unable to do that.....but yes, when we receive service, we are asked to pay for it. 
I went out to dinner last night and after I was finished, the waiter asked me to pay for it.  Does this mean my personal freedom has been comprimised? 


Quote:

...or on the other side of the coin, having no way of paying for medication whilst others can IS liberty?

Yes!!  Thats the definition of liberty!  I'm glad you are beginning to understand.  You are free to do as you wish.  You reap what you sow. 

I work hard for what I have.  My neighbor sleeps til noon and then parties til midnight.  We are both enjoying our personal freedom.  The fact that I can pay for medical service and he is unable to pay IS, IN FACT, LIBERTY.

Brew wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 3:46pm:

Huh? This first decade of what?

Quote:

here this first decade.

Kevin_M wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 4:12pm:

Brew wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 3:46pm: Huh? This first decade of what? Quote: here this first decade.

That really clears it up.   :-X

Kevin_M wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 4:12pm:

Brew wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 3:46pm: Huh? This first decade of what? Quote: here this first decade.

Still totally not understanding, Kevin.

Loopy wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 4:19pm:

That really clears it up.

Do you need it clearer?

If I were to refer to this year, or this century, would it be totally perplexing?

Nevermind, man.

BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 4:09pm:

Buzz wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 3:16pm: Brew wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 2:45pm: Charlie wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 2:38pm: There has to be a reason why the other western countries in the world decided to adopt some kind of health care. Because the people of those countries allowed their governments to get away with another power grab. Many people today have no clue what their personal liberty means, so they sacrifice it for so-called security all the time. The yearning to be truly free burns in the hearts of very few anymore. Good heavens!  Having access to healthcare is a sacrifice of my liberty? Being able to order O2 to alleviate a condition that restricts my life is a sacrifice of my liberty? ...or on the other side of the coin, having no way of paying for medication whilst others can IS liberty? a democracy of Free Americans must make their government responsible for its their wellbeing. The alternative is to allow private enterprise (the wealthy few) to make decisions outside of your control. Not much liberty there! It's astonishing how much you don't 'get it'.  Like Brew said, it's difficult to discuss liberty when you are coming from the perspective that governmental control IS liberty while private enterprise is NOT liberty. Us Americans have access to whatever we want.  We have access to medical service.  We can call an O2 supplier and purchase oxygen.  You seem to think we are unable to do that.....but yes, when we receive service, we are asked to pay for it.  I went out to dinner last night and after I was finished, the waiter asked me to pay for it.  Does this mean my personal freedom has been comprimised?  Quote: ...or on the other side of the coin, having no way of paying for medication whilst others can IS liberty? Yes!!  Thats the definition of liberty!  I'm glad you are beginning to understand.  You are free to do as you wish.  You reap what you sow.  I work hard for what I have.  My neighbor sleeps til noon and then parties til midnight.  We are both enjoying our personal freedom.  The fact that I can pay for medical service and he is unable to pay IS, IN FACT, LIBERTY.

Ah! so you are saying that your democracy is not a liberty?  That your government is imposed and not yours as a citizen to guide and drive?  That you would eschew your inviolable democratic right, as enshrined in your constitution, in favour of the whims of a private enterprise scheme?

If you can't trust your government, vote in a new one and keep doing so until your politicians learn to toe the line. That is freedom, that is liberty. Allowing private enterprise to run roughshod over your democracy is not freedom.

And please, when I say "Free healthcare" I do not mean that no one pays. What I mean is that it is accessible to all so that those who need it get it. Its only fair and logical that everyone contributes a little of their income to make something that would be a national asset, something for Americans to be proud of where each and every person is a stakeholder. I'm not talking of taking away choice, or depriving the entrepreneurial etc. but not everyone can be a Vice President of a big company, able to afford private health care. America like every other country has lots and lots of medium and low-paid workers.  I bet most would love to access the health care they need rather than the health care they can afford.

Again, I reiterate, my interest in this subject is driven out of empathy for fellow CH sufferers. I love a good debate too and am interested in understanding the totality of the whole Healthcare issue.  ::)

What we need is more Europeans telling us how our government should work or how mean we all are because we don't want their system over here.

Brew could not possibly be more correct.  When the government decides who gets what, it is not Liberty.  Sadly, we have given up a lot of Liberty in the name of compassion for our fellow countrymen, but that doesn't make it right or good.  In fact, on the course that this president is on, we will give up more freedoms than under any other administration.  But don't you dare say anything against his policies, because you know, that's racist.

Loopy wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 4:41pm:

this president

Clear enough, which.

BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 4:09pm:

Buzz wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 3:16pm: Brew wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 2:45pm: Charlie wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 2:38pm: There has to be a reason why the other western countries in the world decided to adopt some kind of health care. Because the people of those countries allowed their governments to get away with another power grab. Many people today have no clue what their personal liberty means, so they sacrifice it for so-called security all the time. The yearning to be truly free burns in the hearts of very few anymore. Good heavens!  Having access to healthcare is a sacrifice of my liberty? Being able to order O2 to alleviate a condition that restricts my life is a sacrifice of my liberty? ...or on the other side of the coin, having no way of paying for medication whilst others can IS liberty? a democracy of Free Americans must make their government responsible for its their wellbeing. The alternative is to allow private enterprise (the wealthy few) to make decisions outside of your control. Not much liberty there! It's astonishing how much you don't 'get it'.  Like Brew said, it's difficult to discuss liberty when you are coming from the perspective that governmental control IS liberty while private enterprise is NOT liberty. Us Americans have access to whatever we want.  We have access to medical service.  We can call an O2 supplier and purchase oxygen.  You seem to think we are unable to do that.....but yes, when we receive service, we are asked to pay for it.  I went out to dinner last night and after I was finished, the waiter asked me to pay for it.  Does this mean my personal freedom has been comprimised?  Quote: ...or on the other side of the coin, having no way of paying for medication whilst others can IS liberty? Yes!!  Thats the definition of liberty!  I'm glad you are beginning to understand.  You are free to do as you wish.  You reap what you sow.  I work hard for what I have.  My neighbor sleeps til noon and then parties til midnight.  We are both enjoying our personal freedom.  The fact that I can pay for medical service and he is unable to pay IS, IN FACT, LIBERTY.

You and I frequently disagree when it comes to political sentiment, but I could not agree more!  Well said!

Jerry

Loopy wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 4:41pm:

What we need is more Europeans telling us how our government should work or how mean we all are because we don't want their system over here.

Ok, give me 20 mins to think of a post..! ;)


Lefty..!

Buzz wrote:
"And please, when I say "Free healthcare" I do not mean that no one pays. What I mean is that it is accessible to all so that those who need it get it. Its only fair and logical that everyone contributes a little of their income to make something that would be a national asset, something for Americans to be proud of where each and every person is a stakeholder."

I pull out one phrase from this portion of your post, "Its only fair...", and ask you to define "fair".  What is fair about taking away what I have worked for to give it to someone else who has been lazy and not willing to work or to take the risk to improve himself.  If I were to go to my neighbor and demand he pay for my healthcare and held a gun on him to make him do it it would be called robbery.  However, if the government comes to me and does the same it is called taxation. 

Our freedom is in our ability to make wise choices to improve our lives, not in having someone else to pay for our excesses and unwillingness to take care of ourselves.

Jerry

Edited because I somehow left out the quote.

BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 4:09pm:

Buzz wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 3:16pm: Brew wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 2:45pm: Charlie wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 2:38pm: There has to be a reason why the other western countries in the world decided to adopt some kind of health care. Because the people of those countries allowed their governments to get away with another power grab. Many people today have no clue what their personal liberty means, so they sacrifice it for so-called security all the time. The yearning to be truly free burns in the hearts of very few anymore. Good heavens!  Having access to healthcare is a sacrifice of my liberty? Being able to order O2 to alleviate a condition that restricts my life is a sacrifice of my liberty? ...or on the other side of the coin, having no way of paying for medication whilst others can IS liberty? a democracy of Free Americans must make their government responsible for its their wellbeing. The alternative is to allow private enterprise (the wealthy few) to make decisions outside of your control. Not much liberty there! It's astonishing how much you don't 'get it'.  Like Brew said, it's difficult to discuss liberty when you are coming from the perspective that governmental control IS liberty while private enterprise is NOT liberty. Us Americans have access to whatever we want.  We have access to medical service.  We can call an O2 supplier and purchase oxygen.  You seem to think we are unable to do that.....but yes, when we receive service, we are asked to pay for it.  I went out to dinner last night and after I was finished, the waiter asked me to pay for it.  Does this mean my personal freedom has been comprimised?  Quote: ...or on the other side of the coin, having no way of paying for medication whilst others can IS liberty? Yes!!  Thats the definition of liberty!  I'm glad you are beginning to understand.  You are free to do as you wish.  You reap what you sow.  I work hard for what I have.  My neighbor sleeps til noon and then parties til midnight. We are both enjoying our personal freedom.  The fact that I can pay for medical service and he is unable to pay IS, IN FACT, LIBERTY.

Brian,
Hate to rain on your parade, but your reasoning is faulty (italicized and in blue).  That's a pretty damned big brush your using to paint those who can't afford healt coverage (and I am in NO way supporting a govt. controlled health plan).  What about those people who work hard, pay their bills, buy a few groceries and don't have extra money for insurance?  There are actually more people who fall between the cracks than those you mention.

No health care for the poor?  Balderdash.  My best friend developed non-Hodgkins lymphoma.  She had no insurance of any kind.  She did not pay one penny for any of her hospital stays, treatments or medication, nor was her family responsible for any debts incurred before her death (she went through experimental treatment as a last resort).  We looked at what her treatment cost and it was well over half a million dollars.

I think Marc pretty much hit the proerbial nail on the head.

"Virtually all Americans want lower cost, high quality health care with choices.

That isn't being debated.

A well thought out plan that would actually reduce overall total costs would be overwhelmingly accepted.

Spreading the same total cost over more people via higher taxes is not the same as actually reducing overall cost.

I have seen nothing in the current set of proposals that would actually reduce overall health care costs.

I have yet to see a Government program of any kind, run efficiently. They are ALL going broke at an alarming rate.

The GAO agrees with me."

The broken toys need to be fixed before the government tells me that I have to buy new ones.

One thing I will say with regards to tort/liability, the US is a sue happy population, where it's relatively rare in the UK.  Also, primary care is BIG in the UK, where it's not so big here (there is a tremendous shortage of PCP in the US).

And for those of you who seem to think that there are no socialized health programs that are paid for by me, et al, think again, Medicaid, Medicare, state run children's programs (We have LaChip for the in between earners), public health units, university hospitals that provide free health care and I'm sure there are more that I'm just not thinking of right now.

Quote:

I have seen nothing in the current set of proposals that would actually reduce overall health care costs.

And yet we are told that the public option will be paid for through elimination of waste.

I think I know which eliminated waste he's talking about. It's the male bovine type.

Callico wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 4:56pm:

Buzz wrote: "And please, when I say "Free healthcare" I do not mean that no one pays. What I mean is that it is accessible to all so that those who need it get it. Its only fair and logical that everyone contributes a little of their income to make something that would be a national asset, something for Americans to be proud of where each and every person is a stakeholder." I pull out one phrase from this portion of your post, "Its only fair...", and ask you to define "fair".  What is fair about taking away what I have worked for to give it to someone else who has been lazy and not willing to work or to take the risk to improve himself.  If I were to go to my neighbor and demand he pay for my healthcare and held a gun on him to make him do it it would be called robbery.  However, if the government comes to me and does the same it is called taxation.  Our freedom is in our ability to make wise choices to improve our lives, not in having someone else to pay for our excesses and unwillingness to take care of ourselves. Jerry Edited because I somehow left out the quote.

I see. So some factory worker who suffers from cluster headaches and cannot afford top level medical treatment like his boss can expecting someone else to pay for his EXCESSES? His unwillingness to take care of himself?

At least I know how my cluster headaches started now! Excess and self neglect, apparently. Thank you Callico!

What needs to be realised and accepted and supported by society is that we NEED the low wage earners.  It is their work and lower wages that keep our prices down. We DEMAND lower prices yet the very 'machine' that contributes to those lower prices (and indeed contribute to the economy all the way up to the wallets of the corporate heavyweights), the lower paid workers must receive second rate "maintenance". We all benefit from their efforts yet don't want to do anything to ensure their health and happiness?  That is sad. That is unjust. And that is blinkered, short-term thinking that will benefit no one in the long term.

Sick people deserve access to the treatment they need, not the treatment they can afford. You can't get better and be productive again if you cannot afford proper healthcare. Instead, you become a permanently ill, unemployed, unproductive burden on on society, looked down upon and cursed by the very people who created you.

Kinda reinforces why we issued The Declaration of Independence and went our own way.

Hey Buzz, explain to me WHY the healthcare insurance HAS to be Goverment run??  Especially when there are other options?

Melissa wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 5:59pm:

Hey Buzz, explain to me WHY the healthcare insurance HAS to be Goverment run??  Especially when there are other options?

I never said it HAS to be government run. It is though how I assumed it should be, probably because we have a good working example of a social health system here in the UK.  My biggest concern is that unless there is a way of controlling the profits (i.e. making sure that the scheme is SERVICE and that a major percentage of profits made are channeled back into funding the provision of services) made by a private sector initiative, then it would soon turn into a profits race and whilst the owners make billions, the service reduces.

I think a mutual society, owned by its members could work very well (and I'm sure in America that schemes like that already exist) but I'm interested to see what sort of nationwide plan could be enacted.

Right now, the evidence is on this message board that the status quo isn't working for some people, who in lots of threads make reference to being unable to afford proper treatment/adequate medication etc.

I am surprised that as a group of people sharing a common illness that there isn't consensus that our peers, our fellow sufferers here deserve equal treatment. I have heard lots of viewpoints about "liberty" here but very little about compassion and humanity - without which, liberty is stillborn.

Buzz wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 6:14pm:

I am surprised that as a group of people sharing a common illness that there isn't consensus that our peers, our fellow sufferers here deserve equal treatment. I have heard lots of viewpoints about "liberty" here but very little about compassion and humanity - without which, liberty is stillborn.

I see NOTHING here that says fellow sufferers do not deserve to have treatment.  I DO see that there are some who believe in personal responsibility for their own lives, which includes securing a job, purchasing insurance, etc.  We cannot be the nanny for everyone in this nation.  Now I understand how difficult that is at this time in our struggling economy, but pushing through a Federal program such as a public option is not helping the situation, it's just adding to a multi-trillion dollar defecit.  Not only that, it's unconstitutional.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Melissa wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 6:35pm:

[quote author=51666969130 link=1253114665/50#50 date=1253225678]I am surprised that as a group of people sharing a common illness that there isn't consensus that our peers, our fellow sufferers here deserve equal treatment. I have heard lots of viewpoints about "liberty" here but very little about compassion and humanity - without which, liberty is stillborn.

I see NOTHING here that says fellow sufferers do not deserve to have treatment.  I DO see that there are some who believe in personal responsibility for their own lives, which includes securing a job, purchasing insurance, etc.  We cannot be the nanny for everyone in this nation.  Now I understand how difficult that is at this time in our struggling economy, but pushing through a Federal program such as a public option is not helping the situation, it's just adding to a multi-trillion dollar defecit.  Not only that, it's unconstitutional.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

I don't for a minute assume Americans are not taking responsibility for their own lives. Of course there are a few who don't but they are just that: a few. Again, I repeat, I am talking about the people on the forum WHO ALREADY STATE that they cannot afford adequate health provision. I never mentioned whether or not they are employed/employable/unemployable.

With regard to the budget deficit, I cannot comment on the macroeconomics other than to say that a universal healthcare plan could, via scales of economy cost each individual considerably less, freeing up more of their cash to be spent in the general economy.  Which could get things moving again very nicely. :)

Buzz wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 6:43pm:

Melissa wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 6:35pm: [quote author=51666969130 link=1253114665/50#50 date=1253225678]I am surprised that as a group of people sharing a common illness that there isn't consensus that our peers, our fellow sufferers here deserve equal treatment. I have heard lots of viewpoints about "liberty" here but very little about compassion and humanity - without which, liberty is stillborn. I see NOTHING here that says fellow sufferers do not deserve to have treatment.  I DO see that there are some who believe in personal responsibility for their own lives, which includes securing a job, purchasing insurance, etc.  We cannot be the nanny for everyone in this nation.  Now I understand how difficult that is at this time in our struggling economy, but pushing through a Federal program such as a public option is not helping the situation, it's just adding to a multi-trillion dollar defecit.  Not only that, it's unconstitutional. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE I don't for a minute assume Americans are not taking responsibility for their own lives. Of course there are a few who don't but they are just that: a few. Again, I repeat, I am talking about the people on the forum WHO ALREADY STATE that they cannot afford adequate health provision. I never mentioned whether or not they are employed/employable/unemployable. With regard to the budget deficit, I cannot comment on the macroeconomics other than to say that a universal healthcare plan could, via scales of economy cost each individual considerably less, freeing up more of their cash to be spent in the general economy.  Which could get things moving again very nicely. :)

The fact is health care companies (insurers, hospitals, doctors, pharma, medical supply, convalescent care, rehabilitation, therapists, nurses, technicians, etc.etc. etc.) are all in it to make a profit. Every single last one of them, and THANK GOD THEY ARE!  If there was no motive to provide these services (i.e. profit) and all we depended on was the heavy hand of the government to make doctors, nurses, hospitals, technicians, medical suppliers, therapists (i.e.everybody in the business) provide these services "for the good of the nation", well we would be SCREWED.

That's where this is going.  Today, it's the insurers that are evil (because they are only in for evil profits).  Tomorrow, it's your doctor (because he charges enough to pay for his education).  The profit motive is WHY we have the best health care system on the planet.  With 300 million people in America, you're going to have some people who are unhappy.  You're going to have some unethical behavior by almost anybody, anywhere at anytime.  So, I guess the only way to fix that is to destroy the system instead of addressing the real issues like tort reform, illegal aliens, and insurance companies malfeasance. 

Many of us support the kind of reforms that would actually help the system rather than fundamentally removing yet another one of our freedoms.

Claiming that opposing a public option is akin to denying the helpless their medical care is disingenuous. We have over 170 Federal government programs to help the less fortunate... and nearly every one of them is broke or going broke because the Federal government has shit for brains when it comes to managing our money.

Buzz wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 5:47pm:

Callico wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 4:56pm: Buzz wrote: "And please, when I say "Free healthcare" I do not mean that no one pays. What I mean is that it is accessible to all so that those who need it get it. Its only fair and logical that everyone contributes a little of their income to make something that would be a national asset, something for Americans to be proud of where each and every person is a stakeholder." I pull out one phrase from this portion of your post, "Its only fair...", and ask you to define "fair".  What is fair about taking away what I have worked for to give it to someone else who has been lazy and not willing to work or to take the risk to improve himself.  If I were to go to my neighbor and demand he pay for my healthcare and held a gun on him to make him do it it would be called robbery.  However, if the government comes to me and does the same it is called taxation.  Our freedom is in our ability to make wise choices to improve our lives, not in having someone else to pay for our excesses and unwillingness to take care of ourselves. Jerry Edited because I somehow left out the quote. I see. So some factory worker who suffers from cluster headaches and cannot afford top level medical treatment like his boss can expecting someone else to pay for his EXCESSES? His unwillingness to take care of himself? At least I know how my cluster headaches started now! Excess and self neglect, apparently. Thank you Callico! What needs to be realised and accepted and supported by society is that we NEED the low wage earners.  It is their work and lower wages that keep our prices down. We DEMAND lower prices yet the very 'machine' that contributes to those lower prices (and indeed contribute to the economy all the way up to the wallets of the corporate heavyweights), the lower paid workers must receive second rate "maintenance". We all benefit from their efforts yet don't want to do anything to ensure their health and happiness?  That is sad. That is unjust. And that is blinkered, short-term thinking that will benefit no one in the long term. Sick people deserve access to the treatment they need, not the treatment they can afford. You can't get better and be productive again if you cannot afford proper healthcare. Instead, you become a permanently ill, unemployed, unproductive burden on on society, looked down upon and cursed by the very people who created you.

Buzz,

You are intentionally misinterpreting what I said.  I never said anything about what caused CH.

I am one who has fallen through the cracks, and I'm glad I had the freedom to pull myself BACK through the cracks without having to depend on the government to take care of me cradle to grave.  There was a period of about 6 yrs following my companies bankruptcy that I could not get insurance due to my diabetes, nor for my wife due to her MS.  During that time I had to use Medicaid for some of our medical necessities.  Trust me, if you ever had to go that route you would NEVER for a moment want to go with a government medical system.  During that time I also went chronic, and learned to treat myself mainly through this board and some links I picked up on this board that lead to other helps. 

You didn't answer my question.  Instead as do many you tried to go the ad hominum route and obfuscate the issue.  Once again I ask you to define what is "fair".  That definition is the turning point of this whole argument.  You seem to think it "fair" to take from those of us who have worked hard and put by a bit and give it to those who do not and will not work to get ahead.  I believe in having a safety net for those who NEED it, as I did at one point, but NOT for those who will not do anything to improve their lot in life.  I don't know how it is in the UK with your class system that tends to hold some back, but here in the States there is no limit on those who are willing to pay the price to get ahead.  Some obviously have more talents and abilities than others, but there is no limiting their opportunity to improve themselves to the level of their ability and drive.

Jerry

Callico wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 9:27pm:

Buzz wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 5:47pm: Callico wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 4:56pm: Buzz wrote: "And please, when I say "Free healthcare" I do not mean that no one pays. What I mean is that it is accessible to all so that those who need it get it. Its only fair and logical that everyone contributes a little of their income to make something that would be a national asset, something for Americans to be proud of where each and every person is a stakeholder." I pull out one phrase from this portion of your post, "Its only fair...", and ask you to define "fair".  What is fair about taking away what I have worked for to give it to someone else who has been lazy and not willing to work or to take the risk to improve himself.  If I were to go to my neighbor and demand he pay for my healthcare and held a gun on him to make him do it it would be called robbery.  However, if the government comes to me and does the same it is called taxation.  Our freedom is in our ability to make wise choices to improve our lives, not in having someone else to pay for our excesses and unwillingness to take care of ourselves. Jerry Edited because I somehow left out the quote. I see. So some factory worker who suffers from cluster headaches and cannot afford top level medical treatment like his boss can expecting someone else to pay for his EXCESSES? His unwillingness to take care of himself? At least I know how my cluster headaches started now! Excess and self neglect, apparently. Thank you Callico! What needs to be realised and accepted and supported by society is that we NEED the low wage earners.  It is their work and lower wages that keep our prices down. We DEMAND lower prices yet the very 'machine' that contributes to those lower prices (and indeed contribute to the economy all the way up to the wallets of the corporate heavyweights), the lower paid workers must receive second rate "maintenance". We all benefit from their efforts yet don't want to do anything to ensure their health and happiness?  That is sad. That is unjust. And that is blinkered, short-term thinking that will benefit no one in the long term. Sick people deserve access to the treatment they need, not the treatment they can afford. You can't get better and be productive again if you cannot afford proper healthcare. Instead, you become a permanently ill, unemployed, unproductive burden on on society, looked down upon and cursed by the very people who created you. Buzz, You are intentionally misinterpreting what I said.  I never said anything about what caused CH. I am one who has fallen through the cracks, and I'm glad I had the freedom to pull myself BACK through the cracks without having to depend on the government to take care of me cradle to grave.  There was a period of about 6 yrs following my companies bankruptcy that I could not get insurance due to my diabetes, nor for my wife due to her MS.  During that time I had to use Medicaid for some of our medical necessities.  Trust me, if you ever had to go that route you would NEVER for a moment want to go with a government medical system.  During that time I also went chronic, and learned to treat myself mainly through this board and some links I picked up on this board that lead to other helps.  You didn't answer my question.  Instead as do many you tried to go the ad hominum route and obfuscate the issue.  Once again I ask you to define what is "fair".  That definition is the turning point of this whole argument.  You seem to think it "fair" to take from those of us who have worked hard and put by a bit and give it to those who do not and will not work to get ahead.  I believe in having a safety net for those who NEED it, as I did at one point, but NOT for those who will not do anything to improve their lot in life.  I don't know how it is in the UK with your class system that tends to hold some back, but here in the States there is no limit on those who are willing to pay the price to get ahead.  Some obviously have more talents and abilities than others, but there is no limiting their opportunity to improve themselves to the level of their ability and drive. Jerry

Jerry, to answer your question about fairness, it is "fair" that any American can use America's road system regardless of the amount of tax that he/she pays; Mr Rich has no more right to use the road system than Mr Poor.   The same argument could be applied to a universal healthcare scheme in which all Americans could participate so that they get the medical care that they NEED as opposed to just what they can AFFORD.

I do realise that there are countless schemes already in exisitence - Medicaid being one of them, yet you yourself have said that being on Medicaid is an experience not worth repeating. Why should Medicaid not be better? You weren't being punished. You were a victim of circumstance in a very difficult situation, suddenly placed in a position of financial hardship and in deep NEED of good medical treatment.

Coincidentally, I have a story that is very similar to you having also had a business collapse etc just as my CH got to a point that I was in need of regular, expensive medical care. Care that I got. Medication that I got. All thanks to the National Health Service.

My view from the outside looking in is that America is blessed with thousands of brilliant people running brilliant organisations that have the potential to benefit many more people than they do already. All I'd like to see is some way of joining all of these enterprises together in a way that a national asset, like your wonderful road system, is created for the benefit of all people. I'm NOT advocating that they stop making profits but I am strongly advocating that any PROFITEERING is brought under control.

Again, I reiterate, the system works pretty well here in the UK and its benefits to the country as a whole are many.

You might not know this either, Buzz, but most states have their own government healthcare for the poor, disabled or children.  Those who are in a difficult part of life have access to these programs, in my state it's the Oregon Health Plan. 

So, my point is, there IS coverage for those who are not ABLE to provide for themself.  There is also cheap coverage which is only for catastrophic illness or if you get hit by a bus.  This coverage does not cover your check-ups, but it would cover you if you got hit by a bus.

BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote on Sep 18^th, 2009 at 5:27am:

You might not know this either, Buzz, but most states have their own government healthcare for the poor, disabled or children.  Those who are in a difficult part of life have access to these programs, in my state it's the Oregon Health Plan.

In WI, we have BadgerCare.

BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote on Sep 18^th, 2009 at 5:27am:

You might not know this either, Buzz, but most states have their own government healthcare for the poor, disabled or children.  Those who are in a difficult part of life have access to these programs, in my state it's the Oregon Health Plan.  So, my point is, there IS coverage for those who are not ABLE to provide for themself.  There is also cheap coverage which is only for catastrophic illness or if you get hit by a bus.  This coverage does not cover your check-ups, but it would cover you if you got hit by a bus.

Thank you BMonee, I'm beginning to get a better understanding of what is and what isn't available. Unfortunately, what we pick up in the news is only ever the  broad brushstrokes of the situation (slanted in favour of the news channel's political affiliation) and never the details or more subtle counter-arguments.

I guess the main drive is for standardisation so that there is equality across the Union??

In California it's MediCal

In Kentucky it is called Bourbon. It doesn't cure everything, but you really don't care.

Jimi wrote on Sep 18^th, 2009 at 9:59am:

In Kentucky it is called Bourbon. It doesn't cure everything, but you really don't care.

Now THAT seems like a plan I could admire!!! ;D

Jimi, lol

Buzz wrote on Sep 18^th, 2009 at 8:54am:

[quote author=212E0C0D0606370B062E0C0D06062E020D630 link=1253114665/56#56 date=1253266059] I guess the main drive is for standardisation so that there is equality across the Union??

No, the main drive for socialized medicine is political power. "If you vote for the other guy, he's going to take this away from you." (And give it back to the guy I stole it from to give to you).

Grinner62 wrote on Sep 18^th, 2009 at 10:56am:

Buzz wrote on Sep 18th, 2009 at 8:54am: [quote author=212E0C0D0606370B062E0C0D06062E020D630 link=1253114665/56#56 date=1253266059] I guess the main drive is for standardisation so that there is equality across the Union?? No, the main drive for socialized medicine is political power. "If you vote for the other guy, he's going to take this away from you." (And give it back to the guy I stole it from to give to you).

Hmmm cynical, but understandable. Surely though the same could apply to any of the existing public structures in the US? Also, in the UK where politicians are just as slimy, there is a degree of "The Tories will cut NHS Funding" claims by Labour and "Labour has wasted taxpayers money on poor NHS budgetary control" claims by the Tories etc, but the fact is, in general terms, the National Health Service stands firm like a rock weathering whoever's/whatever's storm.  For us, the NHS has to some extent become a bargaining chip used by the UK electorate to ensure our politicians are respectful of our wishes:  Mess too much with our health service and you're out!

Buzz wrote on Sep 18^th, 2009 at 11:34am:

Grinner62 wrote on Sep 18th, 2009 at 10:56am: Buzz wrote on Sep 18th, 2009 at 8:54am: [quote author=212E0C0D0606370B062E0C0D06062E020D630 link=1253114665/56#56 date=1253266059] I guess the main drive is for standardisation so that there is equality across the Union?? No, the main drive for socialized medicine is political power. "If you vote for the other guy, he's going to take this away from you." (And give it back to the guy I stole it from to give to you). Hmmm cynical, but understandable. Surely though the same could apply to any of the existing public structures in the US? Also, in the UK where politicians are just as slimy, there is a degree of "The Tories will cut NHS Funding" claims by Labour and "Labour has wasted taxpayers money on poor NHS budgetary control" claims by the Tories etc, but the fact is, in general terms, the National Health Service stands firm like a rock weathering whoever's/whatever's storm.  For us, the NHS has to some extent become a bargaining chip used by the UK electorate to ensure our politicians are respectful of our wishes:  Mess too much with our health service and you're out!

Exactly like Social Security here, on so many levels.  That doesn't change the fact that it's going broke.

Loopy wrote on Sep 18^th, 2009 at 12:09pm:

Buzz wrote on Sep 18th, 2009 at 11:34am: Grinner62 wrote on Sep 18th, 2009 at 10:56am: Buzz wrote on Sep 18th, 2009 at 8:54am: [quote author=212E0C0D0606370B062E0C0D06062E020D630 link=1253114665/56#56 date=1253266059] I guess the main drive is for standardisation so that there is equality across the Union?? No, the main drive for socialized medicine is political power. "If you vote for the other guy, he's going to take this away from you." (And give it back to the guy I stole it from to give to you). Hmmm cynical, but understandable. Surely though the same could apply to any of the existing public structures in the US? Also, in the UK where politicians are just as slimy, there is a degree of "The Tories will cut NHS Funding" claims by Labour and "Labour has wasted taxpayers money on poor NHS budgetary control" claims by the Tories etc, but the fact is, in general terms, the National Health Service stands firm like a rock weathering whoever's/whatever's storm.  For us, the NHS has to some extent become a bargaining chip used by the UK electorate to ensure our politicians are respectful of our wishes:  Mess too much with our health service and you're out! Exactly like Social Security here, on so many levels.  That doesn't change the fact that it's going broke.

Just another Ponzi scheme designed to give people hope, pick their pockets, and defer the bill until it's unpayable. Or at least until the next administration.

I just got my Social Security statement the other day. I've contributed over $90,000 in my lifetime to Medicare and Social Security. Any guess what that amount might be had I been allowed to keep that money and invest it conservatively for my own retirement costs?

Quote:

I just got my Social Security statement the other day. I've contributed over $90,000 in my lifetime to Medicare and Social Security. Any guess what that amount might be had I been allowed to keep that money and invest it conservatively for my own retirement costs?

A quick guess would say over $225,000, but thats pretty conservative. 
Don't forget, though, your employers over the years have matched your $90k through employer taxes.  If your employers could give it to you instead of the federal government, you would now have around $500,000 just sitting in CDs.....and CDs have one of the lowest rates of return of any investment out there.

I'm sure an extra half million at your age wouldnt really make that much of a difference for your and your family.  You'll get to collect maybe $1500 a month starting the decade after next....so I don't know what you're complainin' about.

;)

I know. Listen to me kvetch.

Buzz,

If you’re not out trying to piss folks off and really want an answer why Americans are so angry over the pending health care legislation and other egregious laws passed by a rogue congress led by 60’s era radical hippie dopers now in power and the most radical administration in over 200 years led by a Marxist trained community organizer steeped in liberation theology and surrounded by radical and communist czars…  Read our Declaration of Independence!

Our founding fathers formed this great Nation to get away from bullshit like this and wrote the US Constitution to prevent it from ever happening again.

We’ve lost more freedoms and run up the largest deficits in the last 9 months than in the history of the United States. If the most radical administration and congress in our Nation’s history are allowed to continue on their present course, they’ll dismantle the Constitution, destroy the fabric of the most productive economy in the world, and in the process, achieve their goal of reducing the US to a third world nation status run by a communist dictator.

We will not stand idle while these social progressive idiots destroy us.  We’ll gladly vote them out of office and send them your way if you think they’re doing such a bang up job…

These are true facts, just as Obama has been deep in bed with ACORN for many years and out to enact “social and economic justice,” another euphemism for redistribution of wealth

If you want to debate the real issues…  I’m here.

V/R, Batch

The latest Rasmussen poll:

    Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed.

    Just 43% now favor the proposal, including 24% who Strongly Favor it. …

    If the plan passes, 26% of voters say the quality of care will get better, and 51% say it will get worse. In August, the numbers were 23% better and 50% worse.

    Fifty-one percent (51%) say passage of the plan will make the cost of health care go up while 20% say it will make costs go down. In August, 52% thought the plan would lead to higher costs, and just 17% thought it would achieve the stated goal of lowering costs.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

---

I encourage the president to continue on his Magical Mystery Tour. The more he opens his mouth, the more people fall in love with his ideas.

Batch wrote on Sep 18^th, 2009 at 2:55pm:

Buzz, If you’re not out trying to piss folks off and really want an answer why Americans are so angry over the pending health care legislation and other egregious laws passed by a rogue congress led by 60’s era radical hippie dopers now in power and the most radical administration in over 200 years led by a Marxist trained community organizer steeped in liberation theology and surrounded by radical and communist czars…  Read our Declaration of Independence! Our founding fathers formed this great Nation to get away from bullshit like this and wrote the US Constitution to prevent it from ever happening again. We’ve lost more freedoms and run up the largest deficits in the last 9 months than in the history of the United States. If the most radical administration and congress in our Nation’s history are allowed to continue on their present course, they’ll dismantle the Constitution, destroy the fabric of the most productive economy in the world, and in the process, achieve their goal of reducing the US to a third world nation status run by a communist dictator. We will not stand idle while these social progressive idiots destroy us.  We’ll gladly vote them out of office and send them your way if you think they’re doing such a bang up job… These are true facts, just as Obama has been deep in bed with ACORN for many years and out to enact “social and economic justice,” another euphemism for redistribution of wealth If you want to debate the real issues…  I’m here. V/R, Batch

I take it you're on the fence with regard to this issue then? ::)

Brew wrote on Sep 18^th, 2009 at 3:10pm:

The latest Rasmussen poll:     Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed.     Just 43% now favor the proposal, including 24% who Strongly Favor it. …     If the plan passes, 26% of voters say the quality of care will get better, and 51% say it will get worse. In August, the numbers were 23% better and 50% worse.     Fifty-one percent (51%) say passage of the plan will make the cost of health care go up while 20% say it will make costs go down. In August, 52% thought the plan would lead to higher costs, and just 17% thought it would achieve the stated goal of lowering costs. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE I encourage the president to continue on his Magical Mystery Tour. The more he opens his mouth, the more people fall in love with his ideas.

Clearly a complex issue and clearly too little is known about any ACTUAL plan. I can understand peoples' mistrust of any scheme that appears to be more vapour than substance. I guess the current government needs to spell out more clearly what it intends to deliver and how ALL stakeholders will benefit. :-/

I guess the current government needs to listen to the will of the people that elected it, not spend so much time deriving new ways to blow smoke up its collective skirt.

Americans don't take well to being told what to do. Our elected officials are supposed to work for us, not the other way around.

Melissa wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 11:26am:

Ok, I can't stand it anymore. Buzz, are you wanting to truly understand the reasons why there are millions in the U.S. who are against Federal Government run health insurance, or are you merely trying to get an emotional rise out of people?

Thank you.

JeffB wrote on Sep 18^th, 2009 at 9:27pm:

Melissa wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 11:26am: Ok, I can't stand it anymore. Buzz, are you wanting to truly understand the reasons why there are millions in the U.S. who are against Federal Government run health insurance, or are you merely trying to get an emotional rise out of people? Thank you.

Jeff, if you bother to read the thread you will see that I have respectfully (from the position of someone who would support a social healthcare scheme) asked questions, made counter arguments and hopefully stimulated people to think beyond the (often emotional, not factual) rhetoric of politicians.

At the end of the day, regardless of what politicians of any affiliation say, there is STILL a significant number of Americans, hardworking, honest or otherwise, who cannot afford the healthcare that they need. Where do I arrive  at this conclusion? On these very pages.

An emotional rise is not what I seek, but I guess it is an inevitable consequence of asking questions to which there can be many 'answers' depending on political affiliation, personal circumstances, and what people choose to see as right and wrong.

Some people in this discussion have educated me by filling in gaps in my knowledge and showing me what I believe to be valid counter arguments. Others have just become angry and have missed the opportunity to enlighten me further.

Why do I care? Two reasons:
1. I have empathy for CH sufferers and would like to see a situation where all sufferers have access to the treatment they NEED as opposed to the treatment they can only afford.
2. America's internal and external politics do resonate across the world. When America sneezes, we all catch a cold - and lately, the US has been sneezing rather a lot.

Buzz,  socialized healthcare isn't going to cure the complaints you see on this forum.  We still won't be able to get O2 because the Government panel which decides what treatments are appropriate will say O2 is not for headaches.  Trex will still cost a fortune and the Government will be just as stingy with it.

If people are concerned that all have health care, I encourage them to make regular donations to their local free clinics.

Bob P wrote on Sep 19^th, 2009 at 7:24am:

Buzz,  socialized healthcare isn't going to cure the complaints you see on this forum.  We still won't be able to get O2 because the Government panel which decides what treatments are appropriate will say O2 is not for headaches.  Trex will still cost a fortune and the Government will be just as stingy with it. If people are concerned that all have health care, I encourage them to make regular donations to their local free clinics.

Your argument assumes that no one will make the effort to clearly demonstrate the beneficial effects of O2 for CH treatment. Governments need educating too and as patients, we have a duty to ourselves to educate our governments via our doctors, lobbying etc.  This website alone is perhaps the singlemost valuable resource worldwide that CH sufferers have in changing government thinking.

My own experience with CH has been radically improved since introducing this wonderful site to my doctor, who in turn introduced it to several other doctors in my area. Their understanding of the condition grew and their allocation of budget for various treatments was better prioritised; my use of O2 that was originally considered to be a prohibitive luxury by one doctor is now seen as a basic necessity.  You could have the same situation in the US.

Buzz wrote on Sep 16^th, 2009 at 11:24am:

As a UK based sufferer of Cluster Headaches, I have HUGE admiration and gratitude for the FREE healthcare and subsidized medication that I am entitled to; I am equally outraged that there are American sufferers who do not have access to the same treatment. Here's a piece that was sent to me by a friend in America. No doubt it will step on a few toes politically, but the pure logic of it transcends political affiliation :-/ I hope I don't get flamed!: Emailed to me via a friend in the USA You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President. You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy. You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed. You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed. You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country (Iraq) that posed no threat to us. You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion (and counting) on said illegal war. You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq. You didn't get mad when you saw the Abu Grahib photos. You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people. You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans. You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden. You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed Hospital. You didn't get mad when we let a major US city drown. You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark. You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with you, but helping other Americans ... well forget that.

Buzz:
Your initial post should in a sense already have answered most of your questions. 

I do agree with others who have mentioned that We as Americans were VERY PO'd at most of the things mentioned in your initial post.  Just because you didn't hear of rioting in the streets etc doesn't mean that the American public was not PO'd

Now on to the matter at hand.  You question why we Americans balk at having a "Government Run" Health plan or Ins plan or ANYTHING ELSE Government Run for that matter, I defer you back to your original post, would we as Americans want a gov. that let the above things happen in charge of ANYTHING that personally relates to each of us???  UM NO!!!

Our Gov. and many of those in it have proven themselves untrustworthy in the past. 

We ask for Legislative/Gov reform of almost any kind and what do we get instead???
Corruption, political back biting, kick backs, misappropriated funds, financial (congressional) Bills with enough earmarks to almost negate what the initial Bill was for in the 1st place, Big Gov for Big Business, a Gov that caters to the Rich, Fraud, A Moron as President (Aka 2nd George Bush), Filibusters, Lobbyists / Big Business blocking or trying to block an action that people want taken (the Ins. Companies are a Big Business), A Gov. that doesn't care about the Elderly and Social Security Benefits (they have been siphoning off of SSI (Social Security Income) and Medicaid for different things on and off for years, now what happens to the baby boomers who are becoming eligible for SSI ?), pork barrel spending by the Gov. (Common who really needs a Gold sink, or a 900.00 toilet seat???), and Gov. employees using gov funds for trips, clothing or other personal uses.

Now you add the above paragraph to your initial post and ask yourself,  Would you want that kind of Gov. in charge of your health care???

I am not for giving the Gov. more power and removing more of our freedoms in the process.  Think about this for a moment, one of our current Gov. Leaders "Hillary Clinton" to be exact said something like this a few years ago; 'The people are not smart enough to know what they need for health care.' START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE    

Until our government becomes more fiscally responsible there is no way in hell I'd even let them balance my check book or even attempt to pay my bills for me hell they'd probably earmark the crap out of my money and not a single bill would get paid.  No this doesn't have anything to do with insurance or health care but I'm sure you get my meaning.

Just my  [smiley=twocents.gif]

JustNotRight wrote on Sep 19^th, 2009 at 12:09pm:

Buzz: Your initial post should in a sense already have answered most of your questions.  I do agree with others who have mentioned that We as Americans were VERY PO'd at most of the things mentioned in your initial post.  Just because you didn't hear of rioting in the streets etc doesn't mean that the American public was not PO'd Now on to the matter at hand.  You question why we Americans balk at having a "Government Run" Health plan or Ins plan or ANYTHING ELSE Government Run for that matter, I defer you back to your original post, would we as Americans want a gov. that let the above things happen in charge of ANYTHING that personally relates to each of us???  UM NO!!! Our Gov. and many of those in it have proven themselves untrustworthy in the past.  We ask for Legislative/Gov reform of almost any kind and what do we get instead??? Corruption, political back biting, kick backs, misappropriated funds, financial (congressional) Bills with enough earmarks to almost negate what the initial Bill was for in the 1st place, Big Gov for Big Business, a Gov that caters to the Rich, Fraud, A Moron as President (Aka 2nd George Bush), Filibusters, Lobbyists / Big Business blocking or trying to block an action that people want taken (the Ins. Companies are a Big Business), A Gov. that doesn't care about the Elderly and Social Security Benefits (they have been siphoning off of SSI (Social Security Income) and Medicaid for different things on and off for years, now what happens to the baby boomers who are becoming eligible for SSI ?), pork barrel spending by the Gov. (Common who really needs a Gold sink, or a 900.00 toilet seat???), and Gov. employees using gov funds for trips, clothing or other personal uses. Now you add the above paragraph to your initial post and ask yourself,  Would you want that kind of Gov. in charge of your health care??? I am not for giving the Gov. more power and removing more of our freedoms in the process.  Think about this for a moment, one of our current Gov. Leaders "Hillary Clinton" to be exact said something like this a few years ago; 'The people are not smart enough to know what they need for health care.' START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE     Until our government becomes more fiscally responsible there is no way in hell I'd even let them balance my check book or even attempt to pay my bills for me hell they'd probably earmark the crap out of my money and not a single bill would get paid.  No this doesn't have anything to do with insurance or health care but I'm sure you get my meaning. Just my  [smiley=twocents.gif]

Well said, Ginger!

I think that about sums up the whole discussion!

Chuck

Buzz... Thankyou.

Your logic is sound and input very valid. Allways good to have an outsider looking in.

Buzz I think you held your corner with true elegance and style with this debate.

I have read everyones posts and still do not understand.
I see that there is so much distrust of every one and  such a fear of lose of liberty  that  all  I see is "it is mine and I am not sharing it with anyone" and  "you can't make me because of The Constitution" attitude

I think although we speak the same words,  there is a vast differance in their meaning  , our cultures are vastley different in so many ways that it is a bit of a shock when it becomes so obvious.

I am also not attacking you or the USA, your policies are for your Goverment and your Countrymen, but sometimes they make no sense to others looking in.

But the joy is that I can say that as you can air your views because both Countries have the freedom to do so.

I do not agree with your views on some things but remember I am a friend, so be gentle with me :)

mummymac wrote on Sep 19^th, 2009 at 3:23pm:

.........................................But the joy is that I can say that as you can air your views because both Countries have the freedom to do so. I do not agree with your views on some things but remember I am a friend, so be gentle with me :)

An often overlooked point.

Marc

Buzz wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 5:47pm:

What needs to be realised and accepted and supported by society is that we NEED the low wage earners.  It is their work and lower wages that keep our prices down. We DEMAND lower prices yet the very 'machine' that contributes to those lower prices (and indeed contribute to the economy all the way up to the wallets of the corporate heavyweights), the lower paid workers must receive second rate "maintenance". We all benefit from their efforts yet don't want to do anything to ensure their health and happiness?  That is sad. That is unjust. And that is blinkered, short-term thinking that will benefit no one in the long term. Sick people deserve access to the treatment they need, not the treatment they can afford. You can't get better and be productive again if you cannot afford proper healthcare. Instead, you become a permanently ill, unemployed, unproductive burden on on society, looked down upon and cursed by the very people who created you.

Buzz without doubt, that is one of the most intelligent and elegant pieces of writing I have witnessed on this board since I've joined.... ;)

Lefty..!

Buzz, I'd gladly be a friend, but I'm not sure what you consider to be excellent health care. When my English friend's husband needed a stent in his heart, he had to WAIT 6 MONTHS till there was an opening in the schedule....if that is excellent managed medical care, I'll take what I've got, thankewverrymuch! He was a flipping time bomb, and easily could have had a massive heart attack while waiting his turn! How long would it take for a small lump in a breast to become metastasized, inoperable and a death sentence? Or a blockage in one's colon? What if a Dr was too busy to fit in a broken leg?
I've been very fortunate to have excellent medical coverage, and wonderful doctors. I'm also pretty damn healthy....knock on wood.........
In my honest opinion, I could see the US continuing with privatized medicine, along with some kind of COBRA(obviously, much more affordable than it currently is) for those who are unemployed, because I DO believe we should all have health care, but we DON'T need more people trying to take advantage of our system of assistance(read abuse), and I think Malpractice Insurance should GO AWAY..Doctors SHOULD be accountable for their jobs.... if I screw up in Real Estate, I have a choice....pay outrageous premiums  for errors and omissions insurance, in addition to a HUGE deductible, or stay the straight and narrow...I prefer the latter.I am accountable. In such a litigious society, there should be some checks and balances, but it should NOT come down to greed... on anyone's part.......especially when the only soul who wins is the Attorney.
So, my friend across the pond, we BOTH have our issues, and there are solutions to each side as well as pitfalls. I, for one, prefer to be in charge of my own medical care, and that means a good Dr who is available when I need her.and I get that right here in the good ole USofA ....blessins onya, Buzz!
Cathi

Quote:

Marc wrote on Sep 19th, 2009 at 5:16pm: mummymac wrote on Sep 19th, 2009 at 3:23pm: .........................................But the joy is that I can say that as you can air your views because both Countries have the freedom to do so. I do not agree with your views on some things but remember I am a friend, so be gentle with me :) An often overlooked point. Marc

Ditto..!

Lefty..!

The other over-looked point is that it's become more political that a health care debate. Republican Social Conservatives needed an opening. Here it is. Let the games begin by getting together some of their most noisy members in town halls and marches. As is seen in these debates, health care is only a part of their fear.

Give us the liberty to choose who lives or dies because of lack of access. We're not far from that as a slogan in these marches.

Charlie

Everyone in USA has access to health care!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bob P wrote on Sep 19^th, 2009 at 7:22pm:

Everyone in USA has access to health care!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just depends how deep in debt we want to go and how many creditors we want to have to deal with to access it.

Thanks Ginger.

You've saved me some valuable with your recent response.

Steve G

Charlie wrote on Sep 19^th, 2009 at 6:01pm:

The other over-looked point is that it's become more political that a health care debate. Republican Social Conservatives needed an opening. Here it is. Let the games begin by getting together some of their most noisy members in town halls and marches. As is seen in these debates, health care is only a part of their fear. Give us the liberty to choose who lives or dies because of lack of access. We're not far from that as a slogan in these marches. Charlie

Charlie, Democrats are not separated from the political aspect either...

When are we going to stop defending the damn politicians is what I want to know??

Thank you all so much for your responses.

What I have surmised from this discussion is that Americans have several widely divergent views of what is "Freedom" or "Liberty" - to the extent that one man's freedom is another's oppression; as a low-paid labourer working hard each day in the fields or factories, I would feel 'oppressed' by the view that I shouldn't be entitled to a state-run social healthcare scheme.

My other observation is that America seems no longer to be a democracy: There is a lot of mistrust of "the government".  It is as though "the Government" is separated from the process of electing your representatives; that your elected representatives don't/cannot change the way the government works. As though they cannot make the government more trustworthy, more reliable.

I can see what has happened: Big business has huge influence over both lawmaking and day-to-day government.  Big business has usurped the American peoples' right to shape and influence the way the government is run. Yes, the very "liberties" that nurture and encourage enterprise, that fuel the American Dream have also created the monster that actually deprives Americans of their full democratic rights, and the government they want. You need to regain control!!!

To haul the above back into the context of the social healthcare debate, I think that America needs a system that will, across all states, provide a certain level of guaranteed healthcare to every single citizen regardless of their income or position in society. A level of healthcare that provides reassurance to all families that sickness is not going to bankrupt them. A level of healthcare that gets sick people better and back to work as quickly as possible.

Does this take away choice? No way. People can still choose to contribute to private health insurance schemes if they wish, affording them even better treatment. And there would be a benefit to those people too: Their health insurance providers would have to compete against the universal healthcare scheme in terms of the value they offer their clients. Gone would be the rafts of unnecessary tests, the unnecessary appointments at connected 'specialists' etc.  The cost of healthcare would drop. Quite a lot, I think.

Getting acceptance of such a scheme is never going to be easy. There are too many vested interests held by people and organisations who feel they would lose something as a result (their unfair commercial advantage???). If you look at a universal Healthcare scheme as part of the fibre, the fabric of America, just like your highways where all citizens have an entitlement to use, then it becomes a vision worth holding on to.

Is Universal Healthcare a communist plot?  No. Think again of America's great road system, paid for through taxes, owned by the people: it could be argued that such a system is pure socialism.  I bet no one would want all the roads to be privatised and made into toll roads!!

In the intricately tangled world of politics as media entertainment, a tidbit of evidence to one's taste can bring a temptation to swallow.  Zealots can be arrogant about what they accept as true because the easiest way to say something shocking is to be wrong and in order to outvie, overstretching the contest between pride and reality.  In this confusion of groundless imagination, thoughts of greater smartness condemn those who differ, swayed by private passion and personal rivalry, defending a point as if a fort in hostile territory to keep the enemy in the wrong.  Partisan combat, cloaked in a garb of virtue.
  And absurdly seeming a worthwile venture, using the method to advance a cause when persuasion has lost efficacy -- antagonistic pessimism.

Yeah, there's some noise out there.

What was the issue again?

I concur with Kevin!

Cathi

mummymac wrote on Sep 19^th, 2009 at 3:23pm:

I see that there is so much distrust of every one

Not everyone, just the government.  When the *governement* agrees to accept the same health plan(s) that they want everyone else to have then I may not be so *suspicious* of them.


mummymac wrote on Sep 19^th, 2009 at 3:23pm:

I see that there is so much distrust of every one and  such a fear of lose of liberty  that  all  I see is "it is mine and I am not sharing it with anyone" and  "you can't make me because of The Constitution" attitude :)

Then you haven't really read this whole discussion have you?  Most of us have said that we don't have a problem with some type of program that will assist people with obtaining health care.  We just don't want the govt. shoving something down our throat, especially when none and I mean NOONE, has any idea of what they are proposing.

BTW, it's not President Obama anymore, it's Madame President Pelosi.

Nice job Kevin & Buzz.

There's a lot of cash to be made by encouraging things like Glenn Beck & fellow travellers. The more they do to encourage people to act out fear of "guvment" on TV, the better for far right revenue.

FOX has a powerful financial interest in fostering, promoting, and screeching about bizarre paranoid conspiracy theories. They make most of their money on misinformation. It's easy too and easy find acolytes. It's a take on super market tabloids which have no trouble finding patrons.

"Follow the money" though doesn't explain everything. Nope. It only explains 90% of everything. In terms of Fox and the Tea-Baggers, 2% of the rest is racism, and the other 8% is comedy.

Buzz has a good point at the end of his post. If we're lucky at the least we will be able to treat health care like a public service rather than for a profit only system.

Charlie

Okay, so we know what we don't want and we all have *ideas* as to what some of the problems are.  So.....what do *you* think could make a better/ more workable system?  We can all bitch until the cows come home, but until we start thinking oin terms of what we would like to see change and workable solutions, we're just adding to the problem.

Tort reform-small part of the problem, but a part of the problem, no less.

Sky rocketing costs and brand new procedures that replace the old standards that have been used for many years with excellent results (like Lobster mentioned in the other thread, the new open MRI as opposed to the closed MRI) or in my case, something that  years ago required jsut an x-ray, now required a CAT scan).

Control fraud.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

And for those of you in the UK, could problems be on the horizons with the NHS Foundation Hospitals?

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Simple for me:

Universal single-payer.....not gonna happen this time.

That health care doesn't depend on money.

Realistically:

The public option (unlikely now) and letting Medicare negotiate drug purchases. Shame on us for letting such a thing come to pass in the first place.

Not letting drug companies tie their support by forcing us to buy only their expensive non-generic drugs.

Make health care like a public service sounds good to me.

Do something about tort reform so long as it makes sense and not just satisfy anti-guvment types.

Charlie

Rather than subsidising the insurance companies by forcing everyone to have insurance and taxing the hard working successful to pay the premiums for the less ....., I'd like to see a breakdown of the skyrocketing costs so I could make a knowledgable decision on what can be done to reduce them (I bet not one of the Congress yahoos knows what that breakdown of costs is, much less what is in the bill that is supposed to fix it).

Can someone from the UK tell me more about the following article?  Is this *standard* procedure?

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Bob P wrote on Sep 21^st, 2009 at 8:26am:

Rather than subsidising the insurance companies by forcing everyone to have insurance and taxing the hard working successful to pay the premiums for the less ....., I'd like to see a breakdown of the skyrocketing costs so I could make a knowledgable decision on what can be done to reduce them (I bet not one of the Congress yahoos knows what that breakdown of costs is, much less what is in the bill that is supposed to fix it).

Good point, no one seems to talk about the breakdown.

How can we make good long range decisions without clearly defining the problem?

Marc

Marc wrote on Sep 21^st, 2009 at 9:07am:

How can we make good long range decisions without clearly defining the problem?

This is the very definition of politics.

No public service is run on the basis of "costs". A public service is run on the basis of pre-determined budgets.

The breakdown of costs you want is I think, a red herring. It is not impossible to forecast the costs of running a health delivery scheme based on projections. A consultative process that includes all stakeholders will help arrive at the cost of such a service. Lets not forget, however, that the "cost" is not the correct starting point.  The correct starting point is the amount of money people would be prepared to spend on a monthly basis.  That in turn would determine the budget available per capita which in turn would determine the state-by-state, city-by-city, town-by-town, allocation.

It is down to setting fair prices and fair standards of treatment where profitability is still possible and encouraged, but profiteering and waste is brought under control.

If you consider a public service style socialised healthcare system as the "backbone" of American healthcare, entrepreneurs and insurance companies etc. can then apply their minds to enhancing the healthcare infrastructure by nurturing the backbone and creating new products and opportunities that work alongside the system.

Quote:

Lets not forget, however, that the "cost" is not the correct starting point.  The correct starting point is the amount of money people would be prepared to spend on a monthly basis.

That's what the last car salesman I encountered tried to convince me of. I told him different. I said that I know what this car cost his dealership, therefore I want him to tell me how much profit he needs to make on it (because I am a reasonable man). I also tell him that it needs to be his best offer because I'm headed down the road to ask the same question of his competitors.

[quote author=6C6D647C696C697A646166080 link=1253114665/99#99 date=1253537993]Can someone from the UK tell me more about the following article?  Is this *standard* procedure?

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE


Such a sad, tragic story. I Feel so sorry for the mother and wish she'd had a different outcome. I am afraid, I think the little baby would have died anyway, but the medical staff should have at least TRIED to save it.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Getting back to reality, however, whilst the story is tragic, it is the product of medical guidelines, not a the National Health Service.   The guidelines were created by the INDEPENDENT Nuffield Council on Bioethics, not the British government and not the National Health Service.  As is  often the case, it is quite likely that other countries including the United States would have similar guidelines thanks to the sharing of knowledge between our doctors, professors, universities and other spheres of Academia.  What certainly does NOT happen, is an accountant sits down and says "babies below 22 weeks must die."

I noted too that there are lots of American media organisations incorrectly/disingenuously laying the blame for this tragedy at the door of the UK's NHS. My 5 minutes' very easy research has shown that to be patently unture.  The only conclusion I can reach therefore, is that much of the objections to a national healthcare scheme are based on similar scaremongering by a partisan media, creating untruthful reports.

Brew wrote on Sep 21^st, 2009 at 10:23am:

Quote: Lets not forget, however, that the "cost" is not the correct starting point.  The correct starting point is the amount of money people would be prepared to spend on a monthly basis. That's what the last car salesman I encountered tried to convince me of. I told him different. I said that I know what this car cost his dealership, therefore I want him to tell me how much profit he needs to make on it (because I am a reasonable man). I also tell him that it needs to be his best offer because I'm headed down the road to ask the same question of his competitors.

Brew, I think we're on the same page here: The costs have to be derived from what people are prepared to pay, not from what the health providers claim their service costs.

Right... so when I ask how much that procedure costs, I'm going to hear "How much you got, boy?"

Loopy wrote on Sep 21^st, 2009 at 11:18am:

Right... so when I ask how much that procedure costs, I'm going to hear "How much you got, boy?"

No. There needs to be consensus from the people that they are prepared to contribute X% of their income each month. This will determine the amount available and from there (obviously with a good deal of bargaining and concessions by all stakeholders) budgets can be set. 

There is nothing quite as inefficient as a business/organisation whose expenditure is not moderated by a budget. Budgeting and allocating funds would help ensure that all Americans receive value for money.

While on this topic and things that piss us off, how about the fact that when US citizens turn 65 and go on Social Security we have NO CHOICE but to go on medicare.  Not only do we have to take that coverage, we have to pay for it again!!!!!  We have paid for it our entire working lives.  And as if that is not enough, it is in our best interest to get an additional policy, which we have to pay for, to cover what Medicare does not cover. 

Now wouldn't it be better to do what is proposed with the new health care bill and, as they are saying, if you like what you have you can keep it.  I think that seniors should be given the same option. My husband and I  pay through the nose for our health insurance and that is through the State Retirement System.  Our general coverage is pretty good but when it comes to surgery????? not so much.  Right now I need extensive surgery on my foot.  But, the co-pays to the doc, surgery center, etc., etc., etc, that have to be paid in advance, make it impossible for me to have the surgery.  So----now----I will probably end up with a much worse condition and who knows what I will have to have done. 

So, for me, I might like to think about a national plan, or at least something that limits the co-pays when you are already paying out your ass for coverage.

Just venting, sorry everyone.

Louise

Oh, I left out one thing in my "rant".  Adam, my son, and CH sufferer, is a very hard working individual.  His employer does not provide health insurance, or even offer it at a reduced rate.  So-----he has none.  He works hard, but does not make a ton of money.  Some weeks we scrape by to get him O2, but that is one thing he will never be without.  We may not have anything else, but he will have that.  So, yes that is another reason that I would be willing to look at a nationally [b][i]OFFERED[b][i] plan.

All, working, tax paying US citizens are paying for all, non-working, non-tax paying citizens by way of Medicade.  Perhaps Adam should shove his dignity and personal committments in a drawer and become dependent on the Medicare system.  I hear that they are well taken care of.  It would save him $150 everytime he sees the doctor, not to mention the medical testing and the O2.  Therefore, he rarely sees the doc.  I am fortunate enough that I have a raport with her and she will generally listen to Adam via me and let him try what he wants to try.  But it shouldn't have to be like that.

Sorry if I offended anyone.  I get very territorial when it comes to my children.

Love y'all anyway
Louise

Sounds like " from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

That sounds to me like the excrement from a large bovine creature. 

JMHO
Jerry

Louise Barham wrote on Sep 21^st, 2009 at 3:27pm:

Oh, I left out one thing in my "rant".  Adam, my son, and CH sufferer, is a very hard working individual.  His employer does not provide health insurance, or even offer it at a reduced rate.  So-----he has none.  He works hard, but does not make a ton of money.  Some weeks we scrape by to get him O2, but that is one thing he will never be without.  We may not have anything else, but he will have that.  So, yes that is another reason that I would be willing to look at a nationally [b][i]OFFERED[b][i] plan. All, working, tax paying US citizens are paying for all, non-working, non-tax paying citizens by way of Medicade.  Perhaps Adam should shove his dignity and personal committments in a drawer and become dependent on the Medicare system.  I hear that they are well taken care of.  It would save him $150 everytime he sees the doctor, not to mention the medical testing and the O2.  Therefore, he rarely sees the doc.  I am fortunate enough that I have a raport with her and she will generally listen to Adam via me and let him try what he wants to try.  But it shouldn't have to be like that. Sorry if I offended anyone.  I get very territorial when it comes to my children. Love y'all anyway Louise

Spoken like a true Mother... that's one thing I can say for sure... I totally agree with you 101%

LadyLuv

Although I don't want to offend any one either, but if the shoe fit... so be it

Bob P wrote on Sep 21^st, 2009 at 8:26am:

Rather than subsidising the insurance companies by forcing everyone to have insurance and taxing the hard working successful to pay the premiums for the less ....., I'd like to see a breakdown of the skyrocketing costs so I could make a knowledgable decision on what can be done to reduce them (I bet not one of the Congress yahoos knows what that breakdown of costs is, much less what is in the bill that is supposed to fix it).

[smiley=thumbsup.gif] Nicely put Bob!

Quote:

There is nothing quite as inefficient as a business/organisation whose expenditure is not moderated by a budget. Budgeting and allocating funds would help ensure that all Americans receive value for money.

Wait a minute, I thought you were arguing *for* the government option.

Since when has our government operated on a budget?  Why do you think a large percentage of us are SCARED to death of yet another government run money pit?  Jesus wept...

One of the things rarely reported is that doctors are not legally required to accept Medicare, or Medicaid, for that matter. My twerp neurologist accepts Medicare, which I have, but recently stopped accepting Medicaid because he says it doesn't  reimburse quickly enough to his liking. Something twisted there but I will give the guy a break as he charges $63 for a visit which is probably a third of most neurologists.

One of the biggest problems for us is our "fee for service" system. It's a recipe for runaway costs that are hard to imagine. Most, GOP and Democrats say that this has to stop. Don't hold your breath though.

Charlie

Charlie wrote on Sep 21^st, 2009 at 7:10pm:

One of the things rarely reported is that doctors are not legally required to accept Medicare, or Medicaid, for that matter. My twerp neurologist accepts Medicare, which I have, but recently stopped accepting Medicaid because he says it doesn't  reimburse quickly enough to his liking. Something twisted there but I will give the guy a break as he charges $63 for a visit which is probably a third of most neurologists. One of the biggest problems for us is our "fee for service" system. It's a recipe for runaway costs that are hard to imagine. Most, GOP and Democrats say that this has to stop. Don't hold your breath though. Charlie

Charlie:

This is a point that my dad and I have discussed a few times the problem is two fold one on the Medical "Business" side of things and the other on the Ins. "Business" side of things both are in the Business of Making money.   In the mean time people who can't afford it or are on non accepted forms of medical aid, insurance, savings plan or what ever other option you can think of are left out in the cold.

Until both are put into some kind of checks and balances we will continue to be in a vicious cycle.

Which leads us right back to the issue at hand and Gov. involvement which anyway you look at it ISN'T necessarily a Good Idea to fix the problems.

The only viable option that I can see and even it has it's draw backs is to "regulate" the medical and ins. industries with some sort of over site and without making the people pay more than they are now and not making the people get ins (or pay for) gov provided ins. on top of what they are already paying for it. (You know it will be added on top of the deductions on your paycheck that they are already taking out.)(** I am mainly speaking of those of us that do have ins. even though it may be a crappy plan.)

The problem with ins. co.'s is that, if they aren't making money/profit they drop parts of our coverage in order to make a profit.  This shouldn't be allowed to happen, not with Medical coverage at least.

The problem with the medical system is that they are allowed to pick and choose which types of insurance they will accept.  (Frankly I can't see how a Doctor who took the Hippocratic Oath can do this, because in the end he or she is causing harm, when he denies a patient care for these reasons. **One Phrase in Hippocratic oath is "First Do No Harm!") Not to mention the Sky Rocketing costs of medical care, they charge 20$ for 1 freakin tylenol in a hospital for crying out loud, (that was what I was charged for one the last time I was in the hospital which was years ago).

Just my  [smiley=twocents.gif] again.   :)

Charlie,

The reason your Dr quit accepting Medicaid is legitimate.  In Illinois because of the tremendous numbers of illegal aliens using the system Medicaid is bankrupt and unable to pay its bills.  It used to be the providers had to wait 6 months to receive payment at 50% of the billed rate they now have to wait 9 months or longer, and often have to settle for 40%.  I don't know about you, but when you sell something on Ebay can you afford to wait 9 months and then only get a portion of your price?  I couldn't, and neither can the Drs.

Jerry

Buzz, understanding the whole story behind US healthcare is a very complicated thing. To make it a little easier...

In the US Social Security is said to run out of money in a few years, the same for Medicare and Medicaid. Why? Money has and is paid into those systems always, and are separated on our pay statements.

Our inept government does not separate those funds paid in for any of the above. Are we to expect that somehow they will see the light????

For those of us that can see the light and the way our gov is, the biggest problems with health care costs are not being addressed. It's not politically profitable.

Don

Loopy wrote on Sep 21^st, 2009 at 6:30pm:

Quote: There is nothing quite as inefficient as a business/organisation whose expenditure is not moderated by a budget. Budgeting and allocating funds would help ensure that all Americans receive value for money. Wait a minute, I thought you were arguing *for* the government option. Since when has our government operated on a budget?  Why do you think a large percentage of us are SCARED to death of yet another government run money pit?  Jesus wept...

You write as though there is no option but to have the same inept, wasteful government practices.  You don't have to accept second best. Think outside the box.

If the money was ring-fenced  and controlled by an organisation made up of all stakeholders including the government, doctors, patients, insurance companies etc you could get value for money.

The one thing that is 100% true is that such a programme is possible.  The only thing that could cause it to fail is the self-interest of certain groups who have had an easy ride, profiteering from patients and their insurers.

JustNotRight wrote on Sep 21^st, 2009 at 9:25pm:

Charlie wrote on Sep 21st, 2009 at 7:10pm: One of the things rarely reported is that doctors are not legally required to accept Medicare, or Medicaid, for that matter. My twerp neurologist accepts Medicare, which I have, but recently stopped accepting Medicaid because he says it doesn't  reimburse quickly enough to his liking. Something twisted there but I will give the guy a break as he charges $63 for a visit which is probably a third of most neurologists. One of the biggest problems for us is our "fee for service" system. It's a recipe for runaway costs that are hard to imagine. Most, GOP and Democrats say that this has to stop. Don't hold your breath though. Charlie Charlie: This is a point that my dad and I have discussed a few times the problem is two fold one on the Medical "Business" side of things and the other on the Ins. "Business" side of things both are in the Business of Making money.   In the mean time people who can't afford it or are on non accepted forms of medical aid, insurance, savings plan or what ever other option you can think of are left out in the cold. Until both are put into some kind of checks and balances we will continue to be in a vicious cycle. Which leads us right back to the issue at hand and Gov. involvement which anyway you look at it ISN'T necessarily a Good Idea to fix the problems. The only viable option that I can see and even it has it's draw backs is to "regulate" the medical and ins. industries with some sort of over site and without making the people pay more than they are now and not making the people get ins (or pay for) gov provided ins. on top of what they are already paying for it. (You know it will be added on top of the deductions on your paycheck that they are already taking out.)(** I am mainly speaking of those of us that do have ins. even though it may be a crappy plan.) The problem with ins. co.'s is that, if they aren't making money/profit they drop parts of our coverage in order to make a profit.  This shouldn't be allowed to happen, not with Medical coverage at least. The problem with the medical system is that they are allowed to pick and choose which types of insurance they will accept.  (Frankly I can't see how a Doctor who took the Hippocratic Oath can do this, because in the end he or she is causing harm, when he denies a patient care for these reasons. **One Phrase in Hippocratic oath is "First Do No Harm!") Not to mention the Sky Rocketing costs of medical care, they charge 20$ for 1 freakin tylenol in a hospital for crying out loud, (that was what I was charged for one the last time I was in the hospital which was years ago). Just my  [smiley=twocents.gif] again.   :)

An interesting post, Ginger, thanks.

I think I see a solution here: There needs to be a standard/basic insurance plan that is acceptable across the board. This plan must be offered by all insurers (government subsidised???) and must guarantee a minimal level of treatment. It can form the basis of every one's medical insurance and the insurers can then offer enhancements which patients can purchase.

Skyhawk5 wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 1:50am:

Buzz, understanding the whole story behind US healthcare is a very complicated thing. To make it a little easier... In the US Social Security is said to run out of money in a few years, the same for Medicare and Medicaid. Why? Money has and is paid into those systems always, and are separated on our pay statements. Our inept government does not separate those funds paid in for any of the above. Are we to expect that somehow they will see the light???? For those of us that can see the light and the way our gov is, the biggest problems with health care costs are not being addressed. It's not politically profitable. Don

It is indeed complicated. And therein lies the problem.

What is needed is a simple, single system that everyone understands.  That system needs to be regulated NOT by government but by all stakeholders so that the medical profession can operate profitably, patients can receive the care they NEED etc, etc.

A decent social healthcare plan is possible. Indeed, I think its actually pretty easily possible, but there are many who would like you to believe its would not be so. Why? Because they are having an easy ride right now.

As a country renowned for the imaginative spirit of its people, I know the US could make equitable healthcare part of the American dream.

Skyhawk5 wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 1:50am:

For those of us that can see the light and the way our gov is, the biggest problems with health care costs are not being addressed. It's not politically profitable.

I wouldn't be familiar with an expression of what "politically profitable" means, but there are aspects of what are fundamentally politically unpopular, such as asserting "those of us that can see the light" about gov and costs. 

Nonetheless, political entrepreneurship has been shown to be prevalent.

What has seemed inherent to the extent of more than a creeping suspicion in the recent past and been a proven before, private enterprise has shown, perhaps through lobbying now, the ability to extract huge sums from federal operations, a main motivation for paid voice on an issue.  Not FOR anything unless a way can be seen to make gov a device for exploitation. 
  We don't have a Teddy Roosevelt (give'm Hell Harry made a V.P. ticket in part on his popularity contributing here) to represent us in this arena and a basic fear could arise of a continuance and even an acceleration as a result from this kind of legislation. 
  In some areas, it appears companies know how to win bids from gov, but not how to do the work, making extreme waste.  Whose interests are really being looked out for when it may be a clinging impression gov is for public interest?  What is the design in place presently that has been engineered by this political entrepreneurship? 

Suspicion is warranted that any legislation decided may see its way to profit commerce more than individuals.  The track record is subpar to what we might consider efficient business with our money, whereas we seem the investors without input or say in the choices implementing programs.  Democracry being subservient and ignored when money is talking much louder.

Change from the chance of this scenario is a good idea, trusting it will actually happen is in part a problem, but the future of healthcare can seem a luxury item expense.







Any resemblence to real life would be accidental.

Tort reform is not on the health-care agenda.
43% of the members of Congress are lawyers.

Well, being the bean counter I am.... Since I went on medicare in March, I figure I'm ahead for the year.... It's costing me about 12% of my SS to have medicare plus a supplement policy, BUT it's the first time in years I've been ABLE to AFFORD to go to the doctor.

My medications (that I HAVE to have) have been costing me over $200 a month - they now cost me about $15 a month (worth the $38 a month I pay for the extra coverage for RX). My doctor can run tests that he needs without me thinking how to pay for them (my supplement covers what medicare doesn't) and I don't pay anything out of pocket.

If medicare is socialized medicine - then I'm all for it. Of course there's some fraud in it - and that needs to be eliminated (checks and balances would cure that), but it's helped a lot of seniors who can't afford to be sick.

That's my opinion and doesn't represent the views of this forum probably.

Hugs BD :-*

BarbaraD wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 10:16am:

Well, being the bean counter I am.... Since I went on medicare in March, I figure I'm ahead for the year.... It's costing me about 12% of my SS to have medicare plus a supplement policy, BUT it's the first time in years I've been ABLE to AFFORD to go to the doctor. My medications (that I HAVE to have) have been costing me over $200 a month - they now cost me about $15 a month (worth the $38 a month I pay for the extra coverage for RX). My doctor can run tests that he needs without me thinking how to pay for them (my supplement covers what medicare doesn't) and I don't pay anything out of pocket. If medicare is socialized medicine - then I'm all for it. Of course there's some fraud in it - and that needs to be eliminated (checks and balances would cure that), but it's helped a lot of seniors who can't afford to be sick. That's my opinion and doesn't represent the views of this forum probably. Hugs BD :-*

Barbara, you have just illustrated the whole point of a socialised healthcare system. :-)

There are a lot of political (pseudo)reasons why people don't want such a scheme, but so far all of the stumbling blocks I've had explained to me are things that can be overcome.

Healthcare only costs what it does because its been allowed to become hideously expensive. Why? because there is no one to reign in what is charged.  There is no one to put a brake on run-away expenditure, on unnecessary tests, on profiteering.  There is a balance that can be found between the needs of patients and the right of medical practitioners/hospitals etc. to make a profit. It just takes a little imagination and preparedness to make compromises.

Hello Buzz... a question if that is OK with you.

Could you please describe the climate around malpractice over there relative to that in the USA?

Medical care here is often driven more by fear of a malpractice suit than by medical necessity.

Examples from various net articles...

It can cost an ob-gyn in South Florida $209,000 a year to insure for delivery of babies.

Last summer, Crowder received his malpractice insurance renewal notice -- and a payment coupon for $150,000.

* In 2000, a Philadelphia jury socked four physicians and two hospital defendants for $100 million for bad outcomes suffered by a baby born at 26 weeks of gestation.

Lobster wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 1:03pm:

Hello Buzz... a question if that is OK with you. Could you please describe the climate around malpractice over there relative to that in the USA? Medical care here is often driven more by fear of a malpractice suit than by medical necessity. Examples from various net articles... It can cost an ob-gyn in South Florida $209,000 a year to insure for delivery of babies. Last summer, Crowder received his malpractice insurance renewal notice -- and a payment coupon for $150,000. * In 2000, a Philadelphia jury socked four physicians and two hospital defendants for $100 million for bad outcomes suffered by a baby born at 26 weeks of gestation.

Lobster,

I have had a very brief look around for precise information relating to professional indemnity insurance for the medical profession, but have found nothing specific that would give you a definitive comparison between the US and the UK.

That said, there is a growing "lawsuit culture" in the UK that is becoming similar to that in the US. Already certain types of insurance are becoming very expensive thanks to the recent upsurge in legal companies offering to sue on behalf of victims, on a "no-win-no-fee" basis.  I am sure that there will be an inevitable rise in lawsuits against medical practitioners as "victims" try to extract cash.

A culture of lawsuits is iniquitous as it benefits no one in the long run, unless the lawsuit provides to the victim genuine compensation for a genuine loss.  In my opinion, any malpractice should be dealt with at General Medical Council or Court level and the practitioner sanctioned in accordance with what is prescribed in law. Lawsuits should reserved only for exceptional circumstances.

With the above in mind, unless the UK gets a grip on this obscene and ruinous practice of exchanging justice for cash, our medical profession will be rendered too expensive thanks to their crippling insurance bills.

Below is one website I found that wasn't trying to sell me indemnity insurance. Its not that useful, but its a start...

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Barb is right. Nobody at her advance age like me.... ::) has to worry much about health care with Medicare. Medicare works well and part of it is that it bears a lot of features of the Canadian system.

As my ultra conservative neighbor says: "Expand Medicare. It's the only way people will understand it." I like that too because it will add millions of voters who will scream bloody murder at anyone who tries to fool with it. Never has there been a better third rail in American politics. Of course, it's too simple and easy to denouce. No money for big drug and evil insurers.

Charlie

At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself...

Without profit motive, how does the quality of healthcare not decline?

If there is no incentive to get into the business, why would anybody get into the business?  Why even *try* to find a medicine that works for some malady if there is no possibility that it is profitable?

Why spend $1,000,000 on an education if there's no opportunity to make it back in that line of work?

The 'free market' is not perfect.  Far from it.  Man is not perfect and perfection cannot be expected.  So we have given government the power to enforce the social contract that exists not because we wrote it, but because it exists.

That 'social contract' is expressed in the Declaration and Bill of Rights.  This form of government, one that acknowledges that all of us have fundamental rights given to us all by a higher power (without requiring any of the citizens to pledge allegiance to any specific deity or person) was unprecedented.  Though it was written by those who had slaves, it had already been acknowledged by the framers that the idea of slavery was incompatible with the documents.  My point is, they knew that strict adherence to the enumerated rights of the people, and more importantly, the specific limitations of government, would give rise to the greatest nation in the history of mankind.  On that topic, sane people can have vigorous disagreement, but it cannot be denied that the USA has led the world in wealth production, advances in the standard of living, and many other areas.  Where we have faltered, it is where we have ventured in to socialist and/or Marxist policies.  Detractors point at our disaster of an economy as a perfect example of the failure of capitalism, yet the cause of the collapse can be pinned directly on government intervention in free markets.

I fear this is what is beginning to happen with healthcare, only the consequences will be far worse.

Loopy wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 7:50pm:

Detractors point at our disaster of an economy as a perfect example of the failure of capitalism,

Wouldn't it be "corporatism" instead? :-/ 

I usually don't agree with a LOT of what Arianna Huffington writes, but came across this quote from one of her blogs on her website as she was encouraging everyone to go see Michael Moore's new movie (yeahhhh right, like I'm going to pay for that!).  Anyway, I found it interesting...


Quote:

In capitalism as envisioned by its leading lights, including Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall, you need a moral foundation in order for free markets to work. And when a company fails, it fails. It doesn't get bailed out using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money. What we have right now is Corporatism. It's welfare for the rich. It's the government picking winners and losers. It's Wall Street having their taxpayer-funded cake and eating it too. It's socialized losses and privatized gains.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Charlie wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 7:02pm:

...................... No money for big drug and evil insurers....................... Charlie

Last month the drug companies were "evil" too. Did they suddenly grow halos become "unevil" because the White House is taking their special interest money?

If the insurance companies start lining pockets in the White House, will become "unevil" too?  ;)

It's all about party politics and growing a power base instead of fixing a real problem. No change - same old same old.

Marc

Loopy wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 7:50pm:

At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself... Without profit motive, how does the quality of healthcare not decline? If there is no incentive to get into the business, why would anybody get into the business?  Why even *try* to find a medicine that works for some malady if there is no possibility that it is profitable? Why spend $1,000,000 on an education if there's no opportunity to make it back in that line of work? The 'free market' is not perfect.  Far from it.  Man is not perfect and perfection cannot be expected.  So we have given government the power to enforce the social contract that exists not because we wrote it, but because it exists. That 'social contract' is expressed in the Declaration and Bill of Rights.  This form of government, one that acknowledges that all of us have fundamental rights given to us all by a higher power (without requiring any of the citizens to pledge allegiance to any specific deity or person) was unprecedented.  Though it was written by those who had slaves, it had already been acknowledged by the framers that the idea of slavery was incompatible with the documents.  My point is, they knew that strict adherence to the enumerated rights of the people, and more importantly, the specific limitations of government, would give rise to the greatest nation in the history of mankind.  On that topic, sane people can have vigorous disagreement, but it cannot be denied that the USA has led the world in wealth production, advances in the standard of living, and many other areas.  Where we have faltered, it is where we have ventured in to socialist and/or Marxist policies.  Detractors point at our disaster of an economy as a perfect example of the failure of capitalism, yet the cause of the collapse can be pinned directly on government intervention in free markets. I fear this is what is beginning to happen with healthcare, only the consequences will be far worse.

Bingo!  Well said.

Jerry

Callico wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2009 at 1:32am:

Loopy wrote on Sep 22nd, 2009 at 7:50pm: At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself... Without profit motive, how does the quality of healthcare not decline? If there is no incentive to get into the business, why would anybody get into the business?  Why even *try* to find a medicine that works for some malady if there is no possibility that it is profitable? Why spend $1,000,000 on an education if there's no opportunity to make it back in that line of work? The 'free market' is not perfect.  Far from it.  Man is not perfect and perfection cannot be expected.  So we have given government the power to enforce the social contract that exists not because we wrote it, but because it exists. That 'social contract' is expressed in the Declaration and Bill of Rights.  This form of government, one that acknowledges that all of us have fundamental rights given to us all by a higher power (without requiring any of the citizens to pledge allegiance to any specific deity or person) was unprecedented.  Though it was written by those who had slaves, it had already been acknowledged by the framers that the idea of slavery was incompatible with the documents.  My point is, they knew that strict adherence to the enumerated rights of the people, and more importantly, the specific limitations of government, would give rise to the greatest nation in the history of mankind.  On that topic, sane people can have vigorous disagreement, but it cannot be denied that the USA has led the world in wealth production, advances in the standard of living, and many other areas.  Where we have faltered, it is where we have ventured in to socialist and/or Marxist policies.  Detractors point at our disaster of an economy as a perfect example of the failure of capitalism, yet the cause of the collapse can be pinned directly on government intervention in free markets. I fear this is what is beginning to happen with healthcare, only the consequences will be far worse. Bingo!  Well said. Jerry

It would be easy to create a system where profiatbility is possible but profiteering is held in check. The UK's healthcare system is a (not perfect) living breathing example where patients generally get exceptional value for money yet healthcare providers make enough to stay in business, some more profitably than others, which can be attributed to better management of their resources/businesses.

The days of a free ride need to be brought to an end; healthcare providers must succeed on merit, not obscene profits from mediocre service.

Marc wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 10:24pm:

Charlie wrote on Sep 22nd, 2009 at 7:02pm: ...................... No money for big drug and evil insurers....................... Charlie Last month the drug companies were "evil" too. Did they suddenly grow halos become "unevil" because the White House is taking their special interest money? If the insurance companies start lining pockets in the White House, will become "unevil" too?  ;) It's all about party politics and growing a power base instead of fixing a real problem. No change - same old same old. Marc

To me, that's a clear illustration of how big business's ruthless, unchecked capitalism is usurping democracy, riding rough shod over the American Dream, forcing ordinary people into the sidelines. 

Quote:

...I have HUGE admiration and gratitude for the FREE healthcare and subsidized medication that I am entitled to...

Quote:

The days of a free ride need to be brought to an end;

So some are entitled to a free ride, but others aren't? You can't have it both ways. More evidence to me that you're just here to stir up some shit.

Brew wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2009 at 4:16am:

Quote: ...I have HUGE admiration and gratitude for the FREE healthcare and subsidized medication that I am entitled to... [quote]The days of a free ride need to be brought to an end;

So some are entitled to a free ride, but others aren't? You can't have it both ways. More evidence to me that you're just here to stir up some shit.[/quote]

Brew, I am not here to stir up sh1t.  You will notice that this discussion is now 6 pages and has many different viewpoints. Why should only my carefully considered and  respectfully articulated viewpoints be stirring the sh1t? If you don't like what I or anyone else has to say, present a counter argument or butt out.

With regard to the snippets of my writing you quoted, each has a very different, very easily identifiable context. To attempt to put them in the same context so as to make it look like I am making hypocritical statements leads me to just one conclusion: you are stirring the sh1t.

Finally, in the series of unpleasant, judgemental and ill-tempered private messages you instigated, you told me to "have a nice life" which apparently means you are done talking with me. So be done.

Oh, I'll butt out alright. I just felt the need to point out to others how hypocritical your socialist philosophy is. I've accomplished my goal.

Now y'all have a nice life, y'hear?

Brew wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2009 at 7:39am:

Oh, I'll butt out alright. I just felt the need to point out to others how hypocritical your socialist philosophy is. I've accomplished my goal. Now y'all have a nice life, y'hear?

Well you failed to make your point. In fact, you amplified mine.

I guess it depends on your perspective.

Now you go ahead - the last word is yours.

Brew wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2009 at 7:55am:

I guess it depends on your perspective. Now you go ahead - the last word is yours.

Oh goodness me no! I couldn't possibly have the last word, sir! Its yours, I insist! [smiley=bow.gif]

Melissa wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 8:32pm:

loopy wrote: Detractors point at our disaster of an economy as a perfect example of the failure of capitalism,

Not as much a failure as might be reflecting a certain shortcoming in part.



Melissa wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 8:32pm:

I usually don't agree with a LOT of what Arianna Huffington writes, but ... I found it interesting...

Quote:

In capitalism as envisioned by its leading lights, including Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall, you need a moral foundation in order for free markets to work. ...

This hits on something long a part to be understood, but difficult to be seen trickling down.

Reforms were required in the Progressive Era of the early 20th century to counter the some of the worst results of the Gilded Age of capitalism.  But by presupposing that capitalists had a sense of social responsibility, which would prevent the need for aggressive federal intervention in the marketplace, things didn't turn out that way leading to the Depression.  Coincidentally the time when the term "special interests" was coined.
  In today's world, the CEO of Exxon/Mobil has expressed social responsibility at their annual meeting as the duty to continue marketing oil as America's energy.  A far different tune than what might have been intended by the term.

Kevin_M wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2009 at 8:24am:

Melissa wrote on Sep 22nd, 2009 at 8:32pm: loopy wrote: Detractors point at our disaster of an economy as a perfect example of the failure of capitalism, Not as much a failure as might be reflecting a certain shortcoming in part. Melissa wrote on Sep 22nd, 2009 at 8:32pm: I usually don't agree with a LOT of what Arianna Huffington writes, but ... I found it interesting... Quote: In capitalism as envisioned by its leading lights, including Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall, you need a moral foundation in order for free markets to work. ... This hits on something long a part to be understood, but difficult to be seen trickling down. Reforms were required in the Progressive Era of the early 20th century to counter the some of the worst results of the Gilded Age of capitalism.  But by presupposing that capitalists had a sense of social responsibility, which would prevent the need for aggressive federal intervention in the marketplace, things didn't turn out that way leading to the Depression.    In today's world, the CEO of Exxon/Mobil has expressed social responsibility at their annual meeting as the duty to continue marketing oil as America's energy.  A far different tune than what might have been intended by the term.

Unfortunately "social responsibility" has become an elastic term that can be stretched and manipulated to give a sheen of decency to almost anything.

Unchecked capitalism is as much a thing to be feared as unchecked socialism; Both are systems that in their purest sense discount the human spirit. Take either system however and combine them with humanity and simple ethics and morality and they become so alike as to be indistinguishable.

I also wish to make an observation on capitalism and free markets. Some in this discussion have blamed government interference in the free markets as the cause of the latest financial meltdown. I disagree.  There is no such thing as a free market economy in a world where there are economies that have differing levels of freedom. Economies HAVE to be nudged and prodded along a chosen path, reacting to the environment created by other economies. Fore example, America has to put in place various mechanisms to sustain its economy in light of competition from China and other emerging markets. American farmers and manufacturers seek protectionist measures to ensure their survival. Protectionism is not part of a free market economy; it could be argued that it is very socialist.

Taking this back into the realm of the healthcare debate, I think that peoples; scepticism is quite possibly based on their fear (thanks to politicians' skewed rhetoric) of words like "social healthcare". The "S" word means to them, Gulags, empty shelves, bleak, cold streets, a life stripped of colour and vibrancy... the old vision of Soviet Hell. And who wouldn't oppose something that conjures up such visions?

A factor being ignored in the present debate is the amount of choice presently available to every US resident.

Your insurance company is evil?  There are 200 others that will take your business instantly if you are in good health. 

Your doctor or hospital is evil?  Pick another.

Your drugs are too expensive?  Use another pharmacy, perhaps an overseas one.

If you find that they are all just a 'bad', then you are probably learning the reality of the situation... good health care is complex and expensive. 

Ironically, at the same time we are screaming for lower rates we are also asking for increased lifetime max amounts and coverage of pre-existing conditions.

Pre-existing conditions... someone with no insurance comes down with cancer... so they get a low-end job with benefits... and magically the insurance company is supposed to cough up $500,000 in treatment.  It's magic!

Lobster wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2009 at 9:40am:

A factor being ignored in the present debate is the amount of choice presently available to every US resident. Your insurance company is evil?  There are 200 others that will take your business instantly if you are in good health.

A little story.  2007 my company outsources to Manilla and the Dominican Republic.  Those remaining were only in the HQ building in FL.  I opt for the COBRA payments to keep insurance, which got crappier in the last year and the payment was reasonable.
  Two months later with the changes complete, the COBRA payments more than double.  Corporate got themselves very dandy insurance coverage, not a dime for any visit, even specialists. 
  Well, I stay on this beautiful coverage to the limit of COBRA's 18 months, then had to buy my own policy.  With cluster headaches and, well, an enlarged prostate controlled ok with generic medication, I was turned down by three large insurance companies for coverage.  Willing to pay, denied.
  Ok, soonafter my new employer provided coverage, earned after a one year evaluation (got around to after 16 months).  My doctor I've worked for 15 years with clusters does not accept it.  They provided a list of 25 doctors in a milage area that will and recommended a nearby one. 
  Not so hot on the idea of starting over new with this condition so I just pay to see the same ol' doc.  Maybe I'm just stubborn with change.

There seemed a problem in this along the way.

Lobster,

You still have those choices with public healthcare. We still pick our own doctors and what pharmacy we want to use.

Chris

Lobster wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2009 at 9:40am:

A factor being ignored in the present debate is the amount of choice presently available to every US resident. Your insurance company is evil?  There are 200 others that will take your business instantly if you are in good health.  Your doctor or hospital is evil?  Pick another. Your drugs are too expensive?  Use another pharmacy, perhaps an overseas one. If you find that they are all just a 'bad', then you are probably learning the reality of the situation... good health care is complex and expensive.  Ironically, at the same time we are screaming for lower rates we are also asking for increased lifetime max amounts and coverage of pre-existing conditions. Pre-existing conditions... someone with no insurance comes down with cancer... so they get a low-end job with benefits... and magically the insurance company is supposed to cough up $500,000 in treatment.  It's magic!

Lobster, your points all make a lot of sense. 

Regarding pre-existing conditions, this makes a strong case for a social healthcare system that is put in place to look at patients needs rather than their means. 

It is possible to maintain financial stability in such a system because at any given moment there are many more healthy people than unhealthy people. There would also need to be a line drawn in the sand that separates "needs" and "wants" in terms of expectations of both patients and health delivery; A cost effective health delivery system would from the outset have to live within modest means. Efficiency would be key and wastefulness could not be tolerated. For doctors, hard work would bring worthwhile rewards. Hospitals would have to innovate to create paid-for add-ons to boost profitability. I'm not here to create a set of specifications - I ain't qualified but yet again, I cite the fact that all the above works okay in the UK and should be able to succeed in any first world country.

Kevin_M wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2009 at 10:18am:

Lobster wrote on Sep 23rd, 2009 at 9:40am: A factor being ignored in the present debate is the amount of choice presently available to every US resident. Your insurance company is evil?  There are 200 others that will take your business instantly if you are in good health.  A little story.  2007 my company outsources to Manilla and the Dominican Republic.  Those remaining were only in the HQ building in FL.  I opt for the COBRA payments to keep insurance, which got crappier in the last year and the payment was reasonable.   Two months later with the changes complete, the COBRA payments more than double.  Corporate got themselves very dandy insurance coverage, not a dime for any visit, even specialists.    Well, I stay on this beautiful coverage to the limit of COBRA's 18 months, then had to buy my own policy.  With cluster headaches and, well, an enlarged prostate controlled ok with generic medication, I was turned down by three large insurance companies for coverage.  Willing to pay, denied.   Ok, soonafter my new employer provided coverage, earned after a one year evaluation (got around to after 16 months).  My doctor I've worked for 15 years with clusters does not accept it.  They provided a list of 25 doctors in a milage area that will and recommended a nearby one.    Not so hot on the idea of starting over new with this condition so I just pay to see the same ol' doc.  Maybe I'm just stubborn with change. There seemed a problem in this along the way.

Wouldn't it be reassuring to know that under a universal healthcare scheme you'd be automatically entitled to the treatment you need through no reason other than you are a United States citizen?

Barbara:

Thank you for your explaination on medicare and supplement.  I have been misinformed.  I at least feel a little better now.  Of course, with my luck, it will be gone in 4 years and it won't matter anyway.  That is what I am opposed to in "paying in advance" for benefits not to come for years.

As a former lobbyist (I know, ugly word), if we got rid of them, or at least put the limits on them that we have in South Carolina, and had term limits in Congress, we might get further.  Tort reform is out of control.  Even though I worked for injured people, it is way over the top for what some people gain out of injuries.  However, medical malpractice is not as easy to get as some think.  A doctor can do about whatever they want, and unless when all is said and done, you are worse off than you would have been without the "error" you are not entitled.  Ahhhh, and there is the word that maybe we should be looking at, ENTITLEMENTS.  You can ask my children and grandchildren about that.  They learned very early on that the word entitled did not exist.  Work for what you want, EARN what you get.

L

Just one last observation and I will leave this thread.  As in Congress "the bickering has to stop".  If we put this much time, effort and emotion into curing Ch, our time would be better spent.

Love to all
Louise

Useful information: START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Here's an interesting article:

Let's Pay Doctor
Couldn't we fix the health care system by paying doctors less?
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

(BTW, not saying I agree with it, just some more ideas that are being tossed around)

Melissa wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2009 at 12:45pm:

Here's an interesting article: Let's Pay Doctor Couldn't we fix the health care system by paying doctors less? START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE (BTW, not saying I agree with it, just some more ideas that are being tossed around)

I don't think you could FIX the healthcare system by paying doctors less. You could have a minor impact on its costs.

I think there needs to be a balance struck between what is a reasonable income for a doctor, given the cost of their training etc, and what is a reasonable cost to the patient. Right now, on balance it seems that patients are paying through their noses whilst doctors are rolling in cash.

I think the bigger issue is all the organisations that crowd around the health delivery system all suckling away at its lifeblood in pursuit of profit rather than in pursuit of the interests of the patient.

You have a huge, complicated health delivery status quo that I think needs someone brave enough to do a clean sheet proposal for a new more equitable deal where patients (the "customers") come first. 

More food for thought.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Under HIPAA regulations it is currently illegal for an insurance co, to refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions, if the person is currently covered by another policy.

If the former policy has expired at the time of application for a new one then yes they can refuse.
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE
Don       

Good posts kids.

Just some thoughts I have while my blood was boiling while reading....certainly not in sequence.

During my recent look into our bizarre health care system....forget politics....several years ago, Specialists salaries in the U. S.  averaged $274,000....certainly much more by now.

I agree that the MRI is one of the most overused things in existence. Dozens of the things popped up around here when MRIs got so lucrative. Mostly we are sent to one of these places rather than the hospital that has its own. Nice.

My story about MRIs is that when I had my T. I. A. a couple years ago, I was told that I'd have to go 76 miles to Buffalo so they could keep me under observation. This included an MRI. I won't go into it here but I would have to be at death's door to have another.....Anyway, when they learned this on the way up, the conversation from the front was about how much less money this would bring and that it wouldn't be worth as much for them. I guess it ruined their day. I'll never forget overhearing that little gem.

Anyway, as I have said: Evil drug and perhaps even more evil insurance companies are salavating over the current plan. These people sound so sweet but as someone else put it: They and politicians behave like vegetarians in Congress but carnivores at home. When the insurance companies start to complain about it, that's when we are on the right track.

Charlie

Charlie wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 2:15am:

Good posts kids. Just some thoughts I have while my blood was boiling while reading....certainly not in sequence. During my recent look into our bizarre health care system....forget politics....several years ago, Specialists salaries in the U. S.  averaged $274,000....certainly much more by now. I agree that the MRI is one of the most overused things in existence. Dozens of the things popped up around here when MRIs got so lucrative. Mostly we are sent to one of these places rather than the hospital that has its own. Nice. My story about MRIs is that when I had my T. I. A. a couple years ago, I was told that I'd have to go 76 miles to Buffalo so they could keep me under observation. This included an MRI. I won't go into it here but I would have to be at death's door to have another.....Anyway, when they learned this on the way up, the conversation from the front was about how much less money this would bring and that it wouldn't be worth as much for them. I guess it ruined their day. I'll never forget overhearing that little gem. Anyway, as I have said: Evil drug and perhaps even more evil insurance companies are salavating over the current plan. These people sound so sweet but as someone else put it: They and politicians behave like vegetarians in Congress but carnivores at home. When the insurance companies start to complain about it, that's when we are on the right track. Charlie

It is just too easy to take advantage of a "captive" market. We aren't doctors so we cannot make a judgement call on what is a valid/worthwhile treatment and what is an unnecessary or over-the-top treatment. We are also told again and again how much machines such as MRI scanners etc cost as a way of justifying the huge costs of scans. I smell a rat and would guess that most MRI scanners have paid for themselves in a matter of months judging by what people claim to have been paying.

The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money.  - Margaret Thatcher

Charlie, sorry but that story sounds implausible.  It sounds good enough for a mention in an Obama speech, but implausible.

Buzz, in your 'getting to know you' post, you talk about how useless your NHS doctor was and that you had to 'go private' in order to get proper treatment, and still had to do battle with them to get approval for O2.

How is your system better?

Seems like the discussion has come down to:

"Should this country continue to allow medicine to be a profit making business? If so, what profit is considered reasonable?"

Interesting that this train of thought has become so prevalent in our country. 

If we all move to Sherwood Forest, who will feed us?

Marc

Quote:

"Should this country continue to allow medicine to be a profit making business? If so, what profit is considered reasonable?"

It looks as though we have to sit back then when "reasonable" means greed, trickery, incompetence and outright criminality then?

It's immoral and disgusting. Other people are aghast when they learn of our twisted system.

If Wall Street needs money, fine. I'm all for making a buck but stop killing people to get it.

Charlie

Charlie wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 5:56pm:

It looks as though we have to sit back then when "reasonable" means greed, trickery, incompetence and outright criminality then? It's immoral and disgusting. Other people are aghast when they learn of our twisted system. If Wall Street needs money, fine. I'm all for making a buck but stop killing people to get it. Charlie

Funny how you don't see a middle ground. Why do you feel that it needs to be one extreme or the other?

Marc

A truly 'free' system is an extreme that has never existed in the US.  We have always depended on the enforcement of a moral order, codified into law by a system of representative government.  This is what keeps the free market in check so that it does not become what Charlie paints it out to be.  When it gets out of balance, our system allows for new laws to deal with it.  Charlie's argument is flawed because it presupposes that the entire system is broken and anybody who is in the business of making their living in the medical field is a greedy leech.

There are hundreds of millions of people who are happy with their insurance and the way the medical system works.  There are (and always will be, under any system) some people who are not happy with the system.  This does not warrant wholesale destruction of a system that literally has over 250 million happy customers, and which employs millions of people (all who make money).

The idea that the system is sooooo broken that it needs the have the government running it is just not justified.

Didn't a 5 year old boy related to someone on this board just get word they are getting a life-saving transplant?  How does that happen in a socialized system?

I say we need to fix what is broken, not allow our theoretically 'limited' government to take over yet another critical part of our lives.  Tort reform would drastically change the way in which doctors provide care.  As it is, they order far more tests than necessary just to cover their ass, and this raises costs for everybody.

So after all this pissin and moanin what have we come up with that is better than what we got right now? Nada. The folks in Washington are gonna do as they damn well please.

   As Edgar says" It is what it is"

       Potter

Marc wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 6:25pm:

Funny how you don't see a middle ground. Why do you feel that it needs to be one extreme or the other?

Marc wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 5:20pm:

"Should this country continue to allow medicine to be a profit making business? If so, what profit is considered reasonable?" Interesting that this train of thought has become so prevalent in our country.  If we all move to Sherwood Forest, who will feed us?

Kind of some extreme example in itself.



Quote:

Seems like the discussion has come down to:

Still may be that rising costs could make it affordable to fewer, or be content with very cheap policies having pages and pages of exclusions that make you wonder what it does cover.

Kevin,

I honestly feel that my comment is far less extreme that the verbiage that spawned it.

We all know that the system needs fixing, that isn't being debated. Yet, it's truly rare these days to see the middle ground being seriously explored. Everyone is becoming adept at fine tuning extreme examples to defend their "side."

As a point of reference, I lost a good paying job (career) in January. My health insurance premiums are almost twice my mortgage payment. After working at an executive level for 20+ years, I'm performing grunt labor to make ends meet.

Yet, I cannot accept a heavy handed approach to "making my life easier" at the expense of the whole." Big, expensive, far reaching decisions need to be well designed and thought out - not rushed through in order to gain or increase a political power base. I take my voting responsibility very seriously.

Experience has taught me not to take bait.

Balance in all things, Sir.

Marc

Marc wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 7:13pm:

Balance in all things

Something I was pointing out.



Quote:

Seems like the discussion has come down to:

I just wasn't so compatable with the determining.


:)

Kevin_M wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 7:36pm:

Marc wrote on Sep 24th, 2009 at 7:13pm: Balance in all things Something I was pointing out. Quote: Seems like the discussion has come down to: I just wasn't so compatable with the determining. [quote]My health insurance premiums are almost twice my mortgage payment.

It's seems putting a price on life, health, has a high ceiling to move within, as one aspect.


:)



[/quote]


_{meant to modify previous post, but...}  ::)

I can see that I have successfully converted everyone to my way of thinking. This has been a valuable exercise and a good use of my valuable time.

Well, I suppose my work here is done now, so I must move on to covert the next group ........ ;)

Marc

My comments, from the perspective of newly diagnosed serious illness, so TOTALLY biased...that up front...politics be damned, these are personal comments...


Loopy wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 6:38pm:

A truly 'free' system is an extreme that has never existed in the US.  We have always depended on the enforcement of a moral order, codified into law by a system of representative government.  Reminds me of the stop signs or crosswalks put up AFTER a child is killed....reactive NOT proactive. This is what keeps the free market in check so that it does not become what Charlie paints it out to be.  When it gets out of balance, our system allows for new laws to deal with it.  Charlie's argument is flawed because it presupposes that the entire system is broken and anybody who is in the business of making their living in the medical field is a greedy leech. I've got absolutely no problem with a system that rewards work, effort, and expertise with financial gain. It's called making a living. In my own business, we frequently are distained for charging for our services...all too often we are expected to provide those for free because, after all, our customers have OTHER costs of doing business.... it truly is mind boggling. Fair compensation for fair work is not a concept I dispute. That said, a recent test I had cost $8,000. My health insurance company is refusing to pay (fighting that one). Have yet to hear a good reason why (tho I suspect it is the cost ALONE, as the procedure is standard diagnostics). There is no way it should cost that much...no way. Thousands yes, those machines are expensive, but 8 grand, no way. Part of the problem IS what is being charged...it's what the market will bear and that's our system...the market needs to change. There are hundreds of millions of people who are happy with their insurance and the way the medical system works.  I keep hearing this...and I have yet to meet them. I'm thinking "happy" is a relative concept, with the alternative of NO health care insurance as the unthinkable alternative. Many a clusterhead can comment on the trials of our system. For myself, the fight just to get O2 covered took years of diligent and anguishing work (helped immensely by what I learned at ch.com and the truly remarkable folks here). Likewise triptan coverage...years to get the amounts I needed...years of unneeded suffering. Years of hearing "we don't cover that BECAUSE we don't" ..it was like arguing with a 5 year old...only I know exactly what the motivation was....deny, deny, deny...and hope I went away. I didn't, the beast taught me something about perseverance.... There are (and always will be, under any system) some people who are not happy with the system.  This does not warrant wholesale destruction of a system that literally has over 250 million happy customers, and which employs millions of people (all who make money). Again, I aint one of the happy ones...I take what I can get and damn glad of it...but happy? NOPE. What scares me...what causes me actual fear for my life... is: that any day my employer could determine that health coverage is a cost they no longer wish to bear (almost happened this year, next year who knows?) that any day my employer will no longer be willing to accomodate my "special" needs because of this illness. I'm an "at will" employee...the next mistake I make could be my last...and they would be totally within their rights to decide my services were no longer needed. that I am 54...11 years away from medicare...and would be without insurance that can and WILL be denied because I have a pre-existing condition. that the medical costs I will incur will bankrupt me and make my hoped for retirement a nightmare. that beyond my own selfish needs there are millions who would be in the same boat. Ask any ER what they think about "uncovered" patients...they are gonna see more...and we all pay for that The idea that the system is sooooo broken that it needs the have the government running it is just not justified. It is busted...or at least running on 3 wheels. I have no idea how to fix it...I really don't...and I'm not sure anyone else has either...and that there is scary. Didn't a 5 year old boy related to someone on this board just get word they are getting a life-saving transplant?  How does that happen in a socialized system? WHAT? Where does that come from? I appreciate your comments...they are well thought out and cogently stated...whether I agree or not...but THAT is crap. I say we need to fix what is broken, not allow our theoretically 'limited' government to take over yet another critical part of our lives.  Tort reform would drastically change the way in which doctors provide care.  As it is, they order far more tests than necessary just to cover their ass, and this raises costs for everybody. Previous comments indicate that government is the solution...now it's not, I am puzzled. Myself? I don't know...but tort reform?..oh my yes...with the current system and the lawyer lobby...not expecting it's gonna happen... Best, Jon

Loopy wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 2:40pm:

Buzz, in your 'getting to know you' post, you talk about how useless your NHS doctor was and that you had to 'go private' in order to get proper treatment, and still had to do battle with them to get approval for O2. How is your system better?

Loopy, with hindsight, I believe that the particular NHS doctor I had at the time was more personally obstructive than the NHS itself; he had a giant ego and was not the most popular doctor at his practice. When I moved to London I wasn't registered at a London NHS surgery, so I decided, since I was earning a good daily rate, to go to a private doctor. She got me the appointment with the City of London Migraine clinic. Mr Blau  the neurologist) confirmed what I knew all along and prescribed Verapamil.

I then registered with my local NHS centre and have been nothing but impressed. They are conscientious, allowing me to automatically renew prescriptions but insisting on a brief check-up every few renewals. They have a daily walk-in service where no appointment is needed and they happily signed off on my O2; I have 6 big tanks and two small portable tanks, renewable as often as i need. They only give me 2 Imigran Jabs at a time, but I can ask for replacements on an as needed basis - there is no cost-derived limit.

The NHS does have its downsides. It is a long way from perfect. I am fortunate that I can choose to 'go private' if I want, thanks to my other half's private healthcare cover, on which I am now included. When I foolishly decided I'd start running in order to get fit and lose weight, I injured my knee. My NHS doc ordered scans. I had the choice of going to an NHS centre in several days' time or going to a private facility on the same day. I went private. It was nice, the place was like a hotel and the specialist was very charming but frankly the only real benefit was I got my knee scanned earlier.

Hope that explains!

Marc wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 5:20pm:

Seems like the discussion has come down to: "Should this country continue to allow medicine to be a profit making business? If so, what profit is considered reasonable?" Interesting that this train of thought has become so prevalent in our country.  If we all move to Sherwood Forest, who will feed us? Marc

Profit is good. Profiteering is bad.  A modest profit made on an inefficient (and therefore expensive) system is bad. A modest profit made on an efficient system is good.

I find it absolutely staggering the amounts of money some tests cost patients.  I put this down to the fact that patients are a captive market, NOT down to the investment in equipment.

Loopy wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 6:38pm:

Didn't a 5 year old boy related to someone on this board just get word they are getting a life-saving transplant?  How does that happen in a socialized system?

The UK's NHS undertakes many, many transplants every year. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE The main problem they face is lack of donor organs.

Loopy wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 2:35pm:

The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money.  - Margaret Thatcher

The problem with politicians' soundbites is that they usually lack any meaningful substance and become straws that people clutch on to in order to keep their own beliefs afloat.

Loopy wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 2:35pm:

The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money.  - Margaret Thatcher

Oh, maybe Maggie was just a fan like I was from '70 -'73 of English rocker Alvin Lee.  He visited Detroit about twice a year at the time, also introducing new kicker bands like J. Geils, Cactus, even Poco that I can remember.  I got Ric Lee's drumstick one night in a stagefront melee after missing the first band that night throwing up in an unlocked janitor's closet.  Everything was there to clean it up!   8-)


"I'd Love to Change the World"

...

Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more

I'd love to change the world
But I dont know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you

Population keeps on breeding
Nation bleeding, still more feeding economy
Life is funny, skies are sunny
Bees make honey, who needs money, monopoly

I'd love to change the world
But I dont know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you
 
...

Loopy wrote on Sep 24^th, 2009 at 2:35pm:

The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money.  - Margaret Thatcher

Thanks Loopy, just the mere mention of that monsters name has turned the milk in my coffee sour... ::)

Anyone else for a fresh cup...!


Lefty..!

I'm completely happy with my medical insurance.  Have never disputed a charge or questioned a prescription.  Got O2, no questions asked.

I'm extremely happy with our health care/insurance.   It is not cheap (over $300.00 a month for just the two of us and that's medical only) and we have a $500.00 deductible per person, then it kicks in and pays at 90% in system (we have a PPO-Preferred Provider Organization).

I have a wide range of physicians services that I can choose from.  However, all those physicians/services have a contract with our provider that state how much they can charge for services.  I

can use my last medical problems as an example.  I injured my wrist/hand.  The doctor billed $120.00 for the office visit, my insurance company excluded $77.81, covering $48.19, and given that I had met my deductible, I paid $4.82.  *If* I didn't have insurance, I would have been stuck with the original amount.

That being said, *if* they/the doctors are willing to accept that amount from my insurance company (and most likely many others).  Why not just charge that to begin with?

OTOH, my daughter has preexisting conditions, the only insurance we could get her cost $190.00 a month with a $2000.00 deductible and not much choice in doctors.  We have used the charity system, both locally and out of town.  I wouldn't send my dog to the local charity hospital, but the flagship teaching hospital is wonderful.

There's got to be a way to fix this problem.  We keep ranting about the *poor* people we'll have to subsidize when there not the problem.  It's those who fall between the cracks that make up the majority of those without health care.  The working poor (or simply those who work and cannot afford astronomical prices for insurance).

Buzz wrote on Sep 25^th, 2009 at 3:48am:

.........Profit is good. Profiteering is bad.  A modest profit made on an inefficient (and therefore expensive) system is bad. A modest profit made on an efficient system is good............. ...................

Buzz,

I understand your point and the intent behind it.

But, to whom are you willing to grant the power to make the decision of what amount of profit is OK for others to make?

Marc

Marc wrote on Sep 25^th, 2009 at 11:15am:

I understand your point and the intent behind it. But, to whom are you willing to grant the power to make the decision of what amount of profit is OK for others to make? Marc

Hey! I thought your work here was done.... ;D

deltadarlin wrote on Sep 25^th, 2009 at 8:53am:

I'm extremely happy with our health care/insurance.   It is not cheap (over $300.00 a month for just the two of us and that's medical only) and we have a $500.00 deductible per person, then it kicks in and pays at 90% in system (we have a PPO-Preferred Provider Organization). I have a wide range of physicians services that I can choose from.  However, all those physicians/services have a contract with our provider that state how much they can charge for services.  I can use my last medical problems as an example.  I injured my wrist/hand.  The doctor billed $120.00 for the office visit, my insurance company excluded $77.81, covering $48.19, and given that I had met my deductible, I paid $4.82.  *If* I didn't have insurance, I would have been stuck with the original amount. That being said, *if* they/the doctors are willing to accept that amount from my insurance company (and most likely many others).  Why not just charge that to begin with? OTOH, my daughter has preexisting conditions, the only insurance we could get her cost $190.00 a month with a $2000.00 deductible and not much choice in doctors.  We have used the charity system, both locally and out of town.  I wouldn't send my dog to the local charity hospital, but the flagship teaching hospital is wonderful. There's got to be a way to fix this problem.  We keep ranting about the *poor* people we'll have to subsidize when there not the problem.  It's those who fall between the cracks that make up the majority of those without health care.  The working poor (or simply those who work and cannot afford astronomical prices for insurance).

This is yet another person who is personally happy with a system that is portrayed as totally broken

Those lower rates that the doctors accept are called negotiated rates.  There are achieved through economies of scale, and are the perfect example of the free market actually providing monetary benefit to the average person (average being one of the 250+ million insured people, that is).  Unlike Medicare, these rates are pretty much what they say they are, negotiated between the insurers and the doctors and hospitals.  Like anything else, there are disputes and adjustments all the time.  Contrast this with Medicare where the rates are IMPOSED, not negotiated.

And, I have to say, $190 a month is a fantastic rate.  I was paying $2800 a month while between jobs on COBRA.  Having a pre-existing condition naturally means she *will* cost more to the insurance company.  How is it unfair to charge her more?  Or I suppose I should pay for that, right?  It's my civic duty, right?

And, of those who 'cannot afford' health insurance, I'd like to see what other things they are NOT sacrificing, like big screen TV and satellite bills, astronomical cell phone bills, drugs, hobbies, what have you.  All of us make choices, some good and some bad.  Why should I be made to pay for someone else's extremely bad choices, including what they budget for in their life?

Our system has big flaws.   But why not fix it instead of destroying it?  Socializing even more than we have already will destroy it, and will quite probably lead to many more deaths.

Brew wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 3:44pm:

Buzz wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 3:16pm: Good heavens!  Having access to healthcare is a sacrifice of my liberty? Being able to order O2 to alleviate a condition that restricts my life is a sacrifice of my liberty? Giving the government the power to make critical decisions about your health care IS a sacrifice of your liberty. I don't expect you to get it. When you start from a point of not having much liberty in the first place, your point of reference is a bit skewed.

This point always comes up... I live in Canada, socialized healthcare galore much like in the UK.  We don't have panels of experts deciding who lives and who dies, OBVIOUSLY.  Although healthcare is government run, they try to save EVERYBODY they don't prioritize and pass-up opportunites to provide health care.  They CANNOT.  We pay for it in our taxes, so I'll get the absolute best care until I kick the bucket.

The point is GOVERMENT is supposed to be representative of the people.  If you don't trust your government, that just reflects the level of trust you have in the American voter...

Quote:

If you don't trust your government, that just reflects the level of trust you have in the American voter...

Well, shyaaahh!

ding ding ding ding

get that man a prize!

Quote:

Charlie, sorry but that story sounds implausible. It sounds good enough for a mention in an Obama speech, but implausible

Sorry about that. Surprise that the ambulance service was tied in with the hospital. Knock me over with a feather.


Quote:

Funny how you don't see a middle ground. Why do you feel that it needs to be one extreme or the other?

A person has been said to die every 12 minutes for lack of health care in this country. That's why.

What we have now makes me warm all over:

Insurers without serious oversight, allow everyone with cash to have a shot at competent health care, so long as it makes a whole lot of money for people with no interest in health care and doesn't kill too many of the right people.

Charlie

Brew wrote on Sep 25^th, 2009 at 1:39pm:

Quote: If you don't trust your government, that just reflects the level of trust you have in the American voter... Well, shyaaahh!

Not necessarily true.

**********************************
It also depends on the following:

How good or bad of a lair the politician is or was during elections.

What said politician actually does or doesn't do while in office.

The Level of Ethics in each politician.
**********************************


Personally I have more faith in the American people than I do it's elected leaders, for the reasons posted above and in previous comments I've made on this topic.

NOW, we're getting somewhere!  IF you have medical insurance, you are paying a premium for that coverage, and if you have coverage, JUST LIKE YOUR HAZARD INS(aka Homeowners' Insurance), there are pages and pages of legalese attached stating what is covered and what is not, and what the limits would be in the event of a.....a..whatever, appendix removal. IS It appropriate? I hate reading that term "reasonable and customary", coz it seems their( this insurers') impression of R&C is about 10-15 yrs behind........so perhaps we need to look to the policy itself, to make some discoveries and adjustments....
BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT......
I still contend that, Malpractice Insurance should be outlawed! Doctors...as well as MANY other professionals-should have to have accountability...in the case of a Dr, shouldn't he earn the respect of his patients, inasmuch as, when they come to see him, he SHOULD BE very aware of their need to have him perform his very best, or it will live on his conscience till the day he dies? If a doctor is good, she deserves to be well compensated for a job well-done.....
THEN, we need to make the public aware that the legal system is there for HEINOUS, ok, GRIEVOUS acts which really SHOULD have been avoided.........and if there is a criminal act..........thumbscrews, and no license!
Anywhooo,
Just a thought.......
Cathi

Yep.

But we live in a world where a jury will award $10 million dollars to a person because McDonalds served coffee that was so hot, that she actually got burned by it.

Marc

Loopy wrote on Sep 25^th, 2009 at 1:00pm:

The problem with this is, she should not have been penalized because the insurance co. did not follow the letter of the law.  In Louisiana, insurers can only go back one year on pre-existing conditions.  They went far beyond that, therefore she could not get decent health insurance.   We could have hired an attorney and fought this out in court, however, in the meantime, she would have been uninsured.  She ended up in the high risk pool. [quote author=595A5A454C350 link=1253114665/179#179 date=1253898018And, of those who 'cannot afford' health insurance, I'd like to see what other things they are NOT sacrificing, like big screen TV and satellite bills, astronomical cell phone bills, drugs, hobbies, what have you.  All of us make choices, some good and some bad.  Why should I be made to pay for someone else's extremely bad choices, including what they budget for in their life?

This pony just doesn't do tricks for me any more.  Show me the statistics.  How many people on here, Ch.com, are working stiffs who don't have insurance or are under insured and cannot afford to pay for their medicine or to even see a doctor?   What about the minimum wagers that work at places that don't offer insurance?  Please don't hit me with the argument that they can get better jobs with health care.  If everybody gets a better job, then I hope you don't enjoy eating at Sonic or shopping at your local dollar store.

Cathi,
I'm going to have to disagree with you about malpractice.  There are good physicians who do no hard and are sued because something happened that noone could have foreseen or prevented.   Turn any tv on or read a magazine and you'll see an ad that reads, "child born with cerebal palsy?  The doctor may have caused this, call our law firm and we'll help you/your child get what they deserve".

As Marc said, "we live in a world where a jury will award $10 million dollars to a person because McDonalds served coffee that was so hot, that she actually got burned by it.".

Marc wrote on Sep 25^th, 2009 at 7:29pm:

McDonalds served coffee that was so hot, that she actually got burned by it.

Don't actually know what temp it was served at back then but held now at 170-180 degrees.  Hot, don't know if that can burn.  The apple pies are held at the same degree range and can be a cautious bite.  Much hotter though if right from the oven before cooled, the filling can stick as if napalm.  I'd eat it last to be safe or at least have a cold drink handy.

Delta, My reply is this...deep pockets...again, we are living in such a litigious society, if there WERE no way to pay the aSTRONOMICAL lawsuits, don't you think they'd go away? A large portion would, I assure you! And, yes, Lawyers who jump on the "Class Action" Bandwagon would probably be out of business.
As a Realtor, my company pays Errors and Omissions Insurance. I've always had a hard time with that..isn't it MY job to be certain I represent my clients WITHOUT error?? Doesn't matter ,says my attorney, ONE chink in my armor, and the whole company could go down in flames if I don't carry E & O.
So, it's not really for ME, it's for the client who wants to make some REAL money by finding something wrong with our transaction and suing me over it...
THAT'S when I say, malpractice insurance should go away. That will get the legal bloodhounds off our scent and they can go elsewhere!
Anyway, that;'s just my take on it......
Cathi

So, who's got the guts to set the new trend and go barefoot with no liability/E&O coverage?  ;)

I worked very closely with a the 7 Eleven corporate guys awhile back. They had a HUGE fund set aside for out of court settlements of "slip and fall" lawsuits. They were getting an average of one per day. Even with video of the person spilling a liquid, then "slipping" in their own mess, they discovered that it was cheaper to pay them off than go through the expense of a lawsuit.

I just love it when attorneys become elected officials.

Marc wrote on Sep 25^th, 2009 at 7:29pm:

But we live in a world where a jury will award $10 million dollars to a person because McDonalds served coffee that was so hot, that she actually got burned by it. Marc

And that is a good thing, IMO.


Quote:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants. McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue. McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay. McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills. McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible. McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

McFact #4 is very interesting - she wouldn't have sued McDonalds if they had agreed to a settlement ... for her medical bills!

In a perfect world:
- My daughter would have a pony.
- I would have a bowl of ice cream with every meal.
- My insurer would cover pre-existing conditions.

In my world:
- Our yard is too small for a pony.
- That much ice cream would make me a fat ass.
- It is not financially viable for an insurer to cover pre-existing conditions.

Cathi_Pierce wrote on Sep 25^th, 2009 at 6:36pm:

I hate reading that term "reasonable and customary", coz it seems their( this insurers') impression of R&C is about 10-15 yrs behind........

A provider charges $1000 for a procedure.
The insurer instead pays a UCR, say $600.  Depending on your policy, you are likely not liable for the difference due to your fine insurer negotiating UCR rates in advance with the provider community. 

Thus I am failing to understand your position.  Is it...
1 - We should pay the billed amount, even though it would double the amount of our health care cost.
or
2 -  Health Insurers are bad, with being able to give an real specifics.
or something else?

If your insurer sucks, what did you learn when you shopped your insurance business around?

monty wrote on Sep 26^th, 2009 at 12:14pm:

Marc wrote on Sep 25th, 2009 at 7:29pm: But we live in a world where a jury will award $10 million dollars to a person because McDonalds served coffee that was so hot, that she actually got burned by it. Marc And that is a good thing, IMO. Quote: McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants. McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue. McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay. McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills. McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible. McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE McFact #4 is very interesting - she wouldn't have sued McDonalds if they had agreed to a settlement ... for her medical bills!

Monty,

where does personal responsibility come in?  The reason the amount was lowered was the woman drove out of the drive with the coffee between her legs.  When she hit the brakes she squeezed her legs together and popped the top off of the coffee.  Where is that McDonald's responsibility?  Had she used the coffee in the appropriate manner she would have been fine.  I've done similarly.  Should I sue McDonalds?

Jerry

Quote:

But we live in a world where a jury will award $10 million dollars to a person because McDonalds served coffee that was so hot, that she actually got burned by it.

I'm hoping something can be done about bankrupting MDs for mistakes. However:

Contrary to what we are told by companies that are major shareholders in the very media that reports these things, successful monster lawsuits are rare. No one reports on the guy that won $5,000 in a lawsuit, only those that are big enough to sell the latest wonder drug make a splash. "Tort Reform," as it so often called, is a fantasy for every big corporation, not just the medical profession. The magic number is usually $250,000 as the maximum. Big companies are drooling over the possibility of such a thing. They can easily come up with enough lawyers to defend their iffy behavior, while you or I cannot. The goal is simply to wear us down. When there is a possibility of some serious financial discomfort, it might pay to make deals or simply pay up to aviod embarassment. With a limit, it's worth going all the way as the plaintiff will likely be forced to give up after realizing that the lawyers will wind up with more money than they, the winner. It would be a gold mine for companies with deep pockets that know that they can handle a suit that won't be very monetarily successful to the plaintiff, no matter the outcome.

If there was ever an illustration of a double-edged sword, this is it. However, when applied to medicine, there should be something we can do but some arbitary cap isn't necessarily healthy either.

Charlie

Callico wrote on Sep 26^th, 2009 at 1:36pm:

Should I sue McDonalds?

I might think the holding temp has been lowered and there is a sturdier cup design now and certainly the lid, too, which can also keep it warm longer.  It would be a harder case to press than when the older design and temp was used.

In the last couple years they've gone to a more quality(?) regular coffee to compete in the market better (probably with Tim Hortons).  Competition made simply selling crappy coffee very hot for more aroma wasn't wise for more than one reason.

Charlie wrote on Sep 26^th, 2009 at 3:21pm:

The goal is simply to wear us down.

Typically.


I think I caught a blurb on the radio about the Exxon/Valdez lawsuit paying out.  Quite a few recipients have passed away and most amounts seemed wonderingly if worthwhile after all the years.

Charlie wrote on Sep 26^th, 2009 at 3:21pm:

Quote: But we live in a world where a jury will award $10 million dollars to a person because McDonalds served coffee that was so hot, that she actually got burned by it. I'm hoping something can be done about bankrupting MDs for mistakes. However: Contrary to what we are told by companies that are major shareholders in the very media that reports these things, successful monster lawsuits are rare. No one reports on the guy that won $5,000 in a lawsuit, only those that are big enough to sell the latest wonder drug make a splash. "Tort Reform," as it so often called, is a fantasy for every big corporation, not just the medical profession. The magic number is usually $250,000 as the maximum. Big companies are drooling over the possibility of such a thing. They can easily come up with enough lawyers to defend their iffy behavior, while you or I cannot. The goal is simply to wear us down. When there is a possibility of some serious financial discomfort, it might pay to make deals or simply pay up to aviod embarassment. With a limit, it's worth going all the way as the plaintiff will likely be forced to give up after realizing that the lawyers will wind up with more money than they, the winner. It would be a gold mine for companies with deep pockets that know that they can handle a suit that won't be very monetarily successful to the plaintiff, no matter the outcome. If there was ever an illustration of a double-edged sword, this is it. However, when applied to medicine, there should be something we can do but some arbitary cap isn't necessarily healthy either. Charlie

Tort reform is not just about the lawsuits, it's about changing the behavior of virtually mandated waste.  The cost of medical care is astronomical in part because a lot of tests are run without any statistical medical justification simply because *if* a lawsuit were to come up later, the bases were covered.

It is interesting how all of these topics can be viewed so completely differently depending on your political leanings.

monty wrote on Sep 26^th, 2009 at 12:14pm:

Marc wrote on Sep 25th, 2009 at 7:29pm: But we live in a world where a jury will award $10 million dollars to a person because McDonalds served coffee that was so hot, that she actually got burned by it. Marc And that is a good thing, IMO.

With this logic, all of the oil companies should be open for litigation for knowingly selling a highly flammable (explosive) product. Same with O2 suppliers - they know darn well that their product can kill people. Damn, they are evil!

Don't even start me on people who actually dare to sell pizza fresh from the oven! Melted cheese at 400 degrees makes hot coffee look like child's play.

This concept is the very basis of our fundamental disagreement. I strongly believe in personal responsibility. Others want to be taken care of and any accident is because of evil corporations. If you burn yourself with hot coffee at home, do you sue your wife?

I know that it seems outlandish to some, but fresh hot coffee is actually hot enough to burn you. Wow, what a concept - someone needs to pay!

The divide continues to grow because of very fundamental differences in opinions of personal responsibility.

Spin it with other extreme examples, or any other way you want - that is the reality today: I had an accident, so SOMEONE must pay!

Marc

Loopy wrote on Sep 26^th, 2009 at 6:40pm:

Tort reform is not just about the lawsuits, it's about changing the behavior of virtually mandated waste.  The cost of medical care is astronomical in part because a lot of tests are run without any statistical medical justification simply because *if* a lawsuit were to come up later, the bases were covered.

Well said.

Quote:

With this logic, all of the oil companies should be open for litigation for knowingly selling a highly flammable (explosive) product. Same with O2 suppliers - they know darn well that their product can kill people. Damn, they are evil! Don't even start me on people who actually dare to sell pizza fresh from the oven! Melted cheese at 400 degrees makes hot coffee look like child's play. This concept is the very basis of our fundamental disagreement. I strongly believe in personal responsibility. Others want to be taken care of and any accident is because of evil corporations. If you burn yourself with hot coffee at home, do you sue your wife? I know that it seems outlandish to some, but fresh hot coffee is actually hot enough to burn you. Wow, what a concept - someone needs to pay! The divide continues to grow because of very fundamental differences in opinions of personal responsibility. Spin it with other extreme examples, or any other way you want - that is the reality today: I had an accident, so SOMEONE must pay! Marc

Believe it or not, Marc, I agree with you. No divide at all :o


Quote:

I might think the holding temp has been lowered and there is a sturdier cup design now and certainly the lid, too, which can also keep it warm longer.  It would be a harder case to press than when the older design and temp was used. In the last couple years they've gone to a more quality(?) regular coffee to compete in the market better (probably with Tim Hortons).  Competition made simply selling crappy coffee very hot for more aroma wasn't wise for more than one reason.

Yeah Kev. McDonalds is selling decent senior coffee here. I no longer have to remind them.... It's hard to compete with Hortons but they are.... I'm not about to drink the hot brown water that Burger King sells as coffee.

I have an idea though. McDonalds puts sugar on their healthy salads. Maybe we could sue..... ::)

Charlie

[quote author=2D2E2E3138410 li

Tort reform is not just about the lawsuits, it's about changing the behavior of virtually mandated waste.  The cost of medical care is astronomical in part because a lot of tests are run without any statistical medical justification simply because *if* a lawsuit were to come up later, the bases were covered.

It is interesting how all of these topics can be viewed so completely differently depending on your political leanings.
[/quote]

Loopy,you got it right!  I was in the ER the last two weekends for weakness in my right arm, and then the arm going totally limp for about 6 hours.  After CT scans, xrays, blood tests, etc they ordered two MRI's an MRA, and an MRA with contrast.  The Dr said he didn't believe they would show anything because all of the other signs were negative, "But we have to do it anyway."  Today I got the bill for $11,800, and that didn't include the second MRI that I had done yesterday.  They weren't done for my benefit, but for CYA.  We NEED tort reform now.

Jerry
Edit to add: The quotation above is from Loopy.  Somehow I goofed when trying to get the quote.  Sorry.

Tort accounts for less than 1% of medical costs nationwide.
Though an OBGYN in florida may pay 200,000 a year for liability, in Minnesota they pay around 20,000 a year. Less than I pay in liability for my company.

A small hospital in my area has no less than five MRI and other scanning centers within a mile of the hospital. The hospital itself has 2 nice new machines as well.
The five other MRI facilities are owned by small consortiums of doctor groups who practice through the hospital where they can feed the patient needs to their own facilities.
At last count the hospital only had about 200 beds.

Marc wrote on Sep 26^th, 2009 at 7:05pm:

Melted cheese at 400 degrees makes hot coffee look like child's play.

Yes, Mark, and the reason caution with pies was brought up, which are cooked for 12 minutes at a preheated 420 degrees.  Sticky filling, like cheese fresh from the oven can be menacing.  A system is explicit for a 10 minute cool-down before going to a 165-180 holding temperature, but it can happen that if they run out and you get one fresh from the oven in a rush followed by immediate consumption, please be aware.
  For a place fairly dependent upon being child-friendly, any toys in a Happy Meal should have the confidence of no danger with small, swallowable parts, recalls have happened in the past.  People get relaxed with no fear concerning certain reputations marketed and some corporate responsibility is important.

As for something like an oil spill, if a local water supply was ruined in a farming or fishing community, there would be some hardship of livelihood dismantling.  If in one's backyard so to say, compensation might be justified, although required to be legally sought.  Never know how long and hard that may be while handling the meantime.






Loopy wrote on Sep 26^th, 2009 at 6:40pm:

It is interesting how all of these topics can be viewed so completely differently depending on your political leanings.

I might find it the least interesting to understand this comprehended.

Tort reform needs to be applied across the board, not just to the medical profession (most insurers offer more than one type of insurance).  I've seen countless car accidents where no one was really hurt, yet, by the time all is said and done, the *victim* is given a little something for nothing!  I watched an accident where a small pickup accidentally bumped into the back of a full sized city bus.  Now, common sense tells you that if there was no damage to either vehicle, then the *impact* could not have been that much.  However, I watched them take people off that bus on stretchers with cervical collars and on back boards.

I worked as a rehab specialist with Workman's comp for five years.  I not only monitered the medical end, I also tried to get people back to work.  You would be amazed at the people who *can't* work, but can go out and ride their four wheelers and climb up and down ladders while hanging their Christmas tree lights.

We need to get away from the *you owe me* principal.

deltadarlin wrote on Sep 27^th, 2009 at 10:20am:

......................... We need to get away from the *you owe me* principal.

Yep

FINALLY!  This has come full-circle!
YES, there are problems with Politicians!
YES, the insurers charge too much!
YES, we are in a litigious society!
YES, people need to take accountability for all of these things!
WHICH people, you ask?? US!  WE! Us'ns!

(sheesh, I'm wearing out my soapbox)

Again, it's just my opinion, but, if you get into your brand-new safety assisted vehicle and proceed to drive like a maniac,subsequently killing yourself and your dog, should the auto company be sued for failing to warn you of that possibility....or should you BE ACCOUNTABLE (posthumously)?

And, where does this all lead to in Insurance? Whatever insurance, my E&O, your auto insurance, everyone's medical coverage? A LOT of it points to our legal system, attorneys who can spin a story to get someone off, or get them a check. The question is, how do consumers send the message that we don't want those greedy hands in our deep pockets?
Cathi-who really hates politics

MJ wrote on Sep 27^th, 2009 at 3:28am:

Tort accounts for less than 1% of medical costs nationwide. Though an OBGYN in florida may pay 200,000 a year for liability, in Minnesota they pay around 20,000 a year. Less than I pay in liability for my company. A small hospital in my area has no less than five MRI and other scanning centers within a mile of the hospital. The hospital itself has 2 nice new machines as well. The five other MRI facilities are owned by small consortiums of doctor groups who practice through the hospital where they can feed the patient needs to their own facilities. At last count the hospital only had about 200 beds.

My point with my post just prior to this one is that so much of the medical treatment is because of the fear of tort.  If my Drs were not afraid of possibly being sued I would not have had to undergo $11,800 worth of DUPLICATE tests.  (That does not count the Radiologist.)  We already knew there was no stroke.  We also knew it was not my heart, but I still underwent another chest X-ray and EKG, just to be sure they wouldn't be sued if "something happened".  I can promise you that if I have a recurrence of hemiparesis I will not go back to the ER no matter what my Dr (or my wife) wants me to do.  There is a place for testing, but it needs to be to determine what a problem is and not to determine that a shyster lawyer isn't waiting to try to get into the Drs pocket just because some minute possibility was overlooked, whether it was the issue or not.

Jerry

Right on the money, Jerry. Until I got serious about dealing with these expensive and iffy medical wizards, I used to put up with days of redundant or useless testing too. I'm old now and I argue all the time with them. For instance, I've been an epileptic for 50 years and I know what's necessary and what is BS when dealing with it. In a way, it resembles CH in that the patient learns a lot about treating the disease and it's hard to surprise us. My experience with good and bad neurologists made the diagnosis and handling of CH much less scary. Because of it, I was able to avoid "exploratory" surgery relating to CH. I guess I was "lucky."

Charlie

Quote:

As for something like an oil spill, if a local water supply was ruined in a farming or fishing community, there would be some hardship of livelihood dismantling.  If in one's backyard so to say, compensation might be justified, although required to be legally sought.  Never know how long and hard that may be while handling the meantime.

Yup. Another kettle of fish.

When a doctor cuts off the wrong arm or leg, the patient should be able to skin the quack alive. These are different and what the law was meant to cover. Without the possibility of some action, doctors might not be so concerned about safety....same for manufacturers.

I don't see suits against McDonalds as being something to be proud of though.

Charlie

Commercial Break!!


START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE



Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion...

That is so cute, Melly.     :)




The diaper held on well!

Kevin_M wrote on Sep 28^th, 2009 at 3:20pm:

The diaper held on well!

That's a no-load diaper.

Just wait until it gains some girth.

Brew wrote on Sep 28^th, 2009 at 3:35pm:

That's a no-load diaper. Just wait until it gains some girth.

:)


Saggin' bag?  Looks like the kid could shake the load on down a leg.

Kevin_M wrote on Sep 28^th, 2009 at 4:23pm:

Brew wrote on Sep 28th, 2009 at 3:35pm: That's a no-load diaper. Just wait until it gains some girth. :) Saggin' bag?  Looks like the kid could shake the load on down a leg.

Any port in a storm.

;D

Ain't Kids GRAND!!!   Wee ones got some moves even that young!   ;D

Cute Mel!

I must download video for my constipated friends.

Charlie

JustNotRight wrote on Sep 28^th, 2009 at 5:06pm:

Ain't Kids GRAND!!!   Wee ones got some moves even that young!   ;D

I see things simply: Judges are the people who hold tort reform in the palm of their hands.  It is they who can make a judgement about what is justice and what is "swapping justice for cash."  I suggest that instead of the politicians getting stuck in, the judges start taking a moral stance and concentrate on justice rather than cash.

Clearly, judging by the last two pages (dancing baby aside  ::)) it seems that the cost of medical delivery is not in the delivery of medicine but in the forking out extortionate amounts of cash to insurers who have to pay out gazillions in lawsuits; its not justice, its cashing in.

Commercial break over.

I usually don't watch commercials, may have to change my opinion on them.  Was nice while it lasted.

And Now Back to your regular scheduled programing...

JustNotRight wrote on Sep 28^th, 2009 at 8:58pm:

I usually don't watch commercials, may have to change my opinion on them.  Was nice while it lasted. And Now Back to your regular scheduled programing...

I'm sorry, I'm just so used to Britain's Kommunist State Broadkaster, the BBC: No Kommercials. No interruptions.