Logical result of gov't run medical care..in UK.

[Smiling Assassin27]

When government alone manipulates the resources available for medical care, which a public option will eventually make a reality, it will also control the decisions in regard to care. This is not a leap, it's a logical deduction and one that is empirically proven. Call it fear mongering if you wish, but the fact that this is occurring in a government run health care model is the REAL scary thing. Death by dehydration is not a medical care option, it's a murder.

Sentenced to death on the NHS
Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors have warned.

By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
Published: 10:00PM BST 02 Sep 2009


Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.

Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.


As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.

“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."

The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.

The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours.

Developed by Marie Curie, the cancer charity, in a Liverpool hospice it was initially developed for cancer patients but now includes other life threatening conditions.

It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government’s health scrutiny body, in 2004.

It has been gradually adopted nationwide and more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England currently use the system.

Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor.

They look for signs that a patient is approaching their final hours, which can include if patients have lost consciousness or whether they are having difficulty swallowing medication.

However, doctors warn that these signs can point to other medical problems.

Patients can become semi-conscious and confused as a side effect of pain-killing drugs such as morphine if they are also dehydrated, for instance.

When a decision has been made to place a patient on the pathway doctors are then recommended to consider removing medication or invasive procedures, such as intravenous drips, which are no longer of benefit.

If a patient is judged to still be able to eat or drink food and water will still be offered to them, as this is considered nursing care rather than medical intervention.

Dr Hargreaves said that this depended, however, on constant assessment of a patient’s condition.

He added that some patients were being “wrongly” put on the pathway, which created a “self-fulfilling prophecy” that they would die.

He said: “I have been practising palliative medicine for more than 20 years and I am getting more concerned about this “death pathway” that is coming in.

“It is supposed to let people die with dignity but it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“Patients who are allowed to become dehydrated and then become confused can be wrongly put on this pathway.”

He added: “What they are trying to do is stop people being overtreated as they are dying.

“It is a very laudable idea. But the concern is that it is tick box medicine that stops people thinking.”

He said that he had personally taken patients off the pathway who went on to live for “significant” amounts of time and warned that many doctors were not checking the progress of patients enough to notice improvement in their condition.

Prof Millard said that it was “worrying” that patients were being “terminally” sedated, using syringe drivers, which continually empty their contents into a patient over the course of 24 hours.

In 2007-08 16.5 per cent of deaths in Britain came about after continuous deep sedation, according to researchers at the Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, twice as many as in Belgium and the Netherlands.

“If they are sedated it is much harder to see that a patient is getting better,” Prof Millard said.

Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients Association, said: “Even the tiniest things that happen towards the end of a patient’s life can have a huge and lasting affect on patients and their families feelings about their care.

“Guidelines like the LCP can be very helpful but healthcare professionals always need to keep in mind the individual needs of patients.

“There is no one size fits all approach.”

A spokesman for Marie Curie said: “The letter highlights some complex issues related to care of the dying.

“The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient was developed in response to a societal need to transfer best practice of care of the dying from the hospice to other care settings.

“The LCP is not the answer to all the complex elements of this area of health care but we believe it is a step in the right direction.”

The pathway also includes advice on the spiritual care of the patient and their family both before and after the death.

It has also been used in 800 instances outside care homes, hospices and hospitals, including for people who have died in their own homes.

The letter has also been signed by Dr Anthony Cole, the chairman of the Medical Ethics Alliance, Dr David Hill, an anaesthetist, Dowager Lady Salisbury, chairman of the Choose Life campaign and Dr Elizabeth Negus a lecturer in English at Barking University.

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: “People coming to the end of their lives should have a right to high quality, compassionate and dignified care.

"The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is an established and recommended tool that provides clinicians with an evidence-based framework to help delivery of high quality care for people at the end of their lives.

"Many people receive excellent care at the end of their lives. We are investing £286 million over the two years to 2011 to support implementation of the End of Life Care Strategy to help improve end of life care for all adults, regardless of where they live.”

[epicSocialism4tw]

Its a logical conclusion.

[gyldenlove]

I hate it when doctors have to make medical decisions, those things should clearly be left to insurance company bureaucrats.

[Bob]

Its the logical conclusion that Obama came to as well and stated as much before he became president, and felt it would take 10 - 15 years. Obama also stated: "I happen to be a proponant of the single payor system" while speaking to the AFO CEO ... but I guess, he now is telling us the truth???

This is all about control, and destruction of any sector of the economy if need be to obtain power over it.

[Bob]

I hate it when doctors have to make medical decisions, those things should clearly be left to insurance company bureaucrats.

Doctors dont want this crap either -- I know -- and in much higher percentages MD's dont want this lunacy. The majority of Americans dont want this force-fed plan. Anyone who does not think bankrupting America is great (as a chance to grab more power) oppose this --except for those able bodied folks who do not have healthcare plans. I was in this group for periods of time, then I got an education. The pople who should really oppose this plan (and are in increasing numbers are those with disabilities and the elderly -- as it will screw them over first -- by adding more debt to an already strained system.

Doctors know, they will have less control under more government run healthcare just like they have less control with Medicaid and Medicare.

[ghwk]

As I beat my head aginst the brick wall of stupidity that has destroyed any meaningful debate of health care, I ask you why do you think private insurerers are any less caculating than how you propose the govt. to be??? Seriously, instead of just bashing a gov. program. tell me what is so RIGHT about our current health care system as it is not competitive and rations care in the exact same way you would accuse the gove. of doing?

[gyldenlove]

Doctors dont want this crap either -- I know -- and in much higher percentages MD's dont want this lunacy. The majority of Americans dont want this force-fed plan. Anyone who does not think bankrupting America is great (as a chance to grab more power) oppose this --except for those able bodied folks who do not have healthcare plans. I was in this group for periods of time, then I got an education. The pople who should really oppose this plan (and are in increasing numbers are those with disabilities and the elderly -- as it will screw them over first -- by adding more debt to an already strained system.

Doctors know, they will have less control under more government run healthcare just like they have less control with Medicaid and Medicare.

How does that have anything to do with the article? it clearly states that the decision is made by a team of healthcare professionels lead by a senior physician. Right now those decisions are made by insurance company lackeys in the States, and you say that is better than doctors making those decisions?

[ghwk]

Bob was labotomized due to rationed private health care. Ignore him.

[Smiling Assassin27]

I hate it when doctors have to make medical decisions, those things should clearly be left to insurance company bureaucrats.

Zing.

The problem is that doctors are clearly making the wrong choices, not that insurance companies should be making decisions in their stead. The overarching point is that recommending that somebody just volunteer to die so as not to be a financial and social drain is repulsive and, as Britain demonstrates, a highly problematic and error-ridden element of government run health care.

Sure, it may still happen with private insurers, but the evidence seems to point to these mercy killings being much more prevalent in a system that the government funds and administers.

[rastaman]

When government alone manipulates the resources available for medical care, which a public option will eventually make a reality, it will also control the decisions in regard to care. This is not a leap, it's a logical deduction and one that is empirically proven. Call it fear mongering if you wish, but the fact that this is occurring in a government run health care model is the REAL scary thing. Death by dehydration is not a medical care option, it's a murder.

Great article by "Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent". I'd love for her to come to America and investigate our current "For Profit-Private Corporatized Health Insurance"!

Boy imagine her logical conclusion? She would no doubt put to shame and bring to light how an industrialize might and wealth such as a country of the US could operate such a unsustainable profit driven healthcare system that allows over 47 million of her citizens to go w/o medical care and services.

[Smiling Assassin27]

As I beat my head aginst the brick wall of stupidity that has destroyed any meaningful debate of health care, I ask you why do you think private insurerers are any less caculating than how you propose the govt. to be??? Seriously, instead of just bashing a gov. program. tell me what is so RIGHT about our current health care system as it is not competitive and rations care in the exact same way you would accuse the gove. of doing?

First, if we are going to implement a plan which will create massive deficits (CBO has already gone on record that Obamacare will), don't you think we should at least get better coverage? Better treatment? Will we under this plan? Burden of proof lies with the proponents, but they have been unable to come up with a single way in which care will get better. Medicare, Medicaid, VA Hospitals, and the IHS (Native American) are shining examples of what to expect. Are these 'better'? If you say 'yes', you're wrong.


Second, the idea of reforming the system is not at all what is being opposed. What is being opposed is making such an enormous change without consulting constituents, or even having a chance to read the bill. Why would leaders try to do this and add stuff into the bill in the middle of the night? Does this not bother you at all? If the plan is so bloody good, why can it not withstand criticism and debate in the light of day? The logical conclusion is that COngress and the Prez don't want us to know what's in the bill. I and others object to doing business this way.

Third, do we have any examples of similar programs in existence that we can refer to to assess likelihood of success? Yes we do. 30,000 Canadians are passing up free health care plans in their countries to go to other countries for their care. Why? The British plan has legitimate and HUGE problems in terms of funding, facilities, personnel, and yes, adequate care. We see doctors cutting corners and sentencing people to death rather than administering care to them.

Now the knee jerk reaction is the one you had--so you'd rather be at the mercy of insurance companies, blah blah. This is a straw man. It's like saying that those who are against a pull out in Iraq are for more Iraqi civilian deaths. Nobody is FOR being victimized by insurers. The question is whether this bill will be better. That is where the debate must be. Proponents have been unable to tell us WHY this plan would be better and have met our questions for clarification and our objections with replies of 'Just shut up and take the plan. Our lawyers understand it, and that's all that's important.'

I have read the bill. So have many others. THIS bill is a joke. One that 70% of the legislators who will vote on haven't read and do not understand. Do you want a half baked and loophole riddled plan that will create huge deficits and gaps in care, or do you want reform that addresses real shortcomings?

Have you read HR 3200? I refuse to believe that it is filled with such stupidity that NONE of it would even be considered by Dems in their bill. Do it right or don't do it at all.

[Rohirrim]

When we passed Medicare in the 60s Reagan said it signaled the end of freedom in America and we'd all be socialists soon. I don't know what he meant by "soon." It's been forty years. Now, the hysterical Right is warning us that the public option will evolve into a single payer system like the UK's. Maybe if the Right would come down to Earth and stop being such screaming meemies, we could actually do something reasonable to repair our dysfunctional health insurance system. Of course, this would require adults exercising reason.

[ghwk]

First, if we are going to implement a plan which will create massive deficits (CBO has already gone on record that Obamacare will), don't you think we should at least get better coverage? Better treatment? Will we under this plan? Burden of proof lies with the proponents, but they have been unable to come up with a single way in which care will get better. Medicare, Medicaid, VA Hospitals, and the IHS (Native American) are shining examples of what to expect. Are these 'better'? If you say 'yes', you're wrong.


Second, the idea of reforming the system is not at all what is being opposed. What is being opposed is making such an enormous change without consulting constituents, or even having a chance to read the bill. Why would leaders try to do this and add stuff into the bill in the middle of the night? Does this not bother you at all? If the plan is so bloody good, why can it not withstand criticism and debate in the light of day? The logical conclusion is that COngress and the Prez don't want us to know what's in the bill. I and others object to doing business this way.

Third, do we have any examples of similar programs in existence that we can refer to to assess likelihood of success? Yes we do. 30,000 Canadians are passing up free health care plans in their countries to go to other countries for their care. Why? The British plan has legitimate and HUGE problems in terms of funding, facilities, personnel, and yes, adequate care. We see doctors cutting corners and sentencing people to death rather than administering care to them.

Now the knee jerk reaction is the one you had--so you'd rather be at the mercy of insurance companies, blah blah. This is a straw man. It's like saying that those who are against a pull out in Iraq are for more Iraqi civilian deaths. Nobody is FOR being victimized by insurers. The question is whether this bill will be better. That is where the debate must be. Proponents have been unable to tell us WHY this plan would be better and have met our questions for clarification and our objections with replies of 'Just shut up and take the plan. Our lawyers understand it, and that's all that's important.'

I have read the bill. So have many others. THIS bill is a joke. One that 70% of the legislators who will vote on haven't read and do not understand. Do you want a half baked and loophole riddled plan that will create huge deficits and gaps in care, or do you want reform that addresses real shortcomings?

Have you read HR 3200? I refuse to believe that it is filled with such stupidity that NONE of it would even be considered by Dems in their bill. Do it right or don't do it at all.

I think you missed the point of my post. At least I hope you did. I am not FOR the current proposal, the idea of a single payor plan has been ruined by self interest groups. I am also NOT FOR what some people currently seem to be defending, through attacking a govt. plan, that our current private system is functional. I agree we must do this right but there is no consensus as to what right is.

I merely rail against those that defend the current health care system and bash anything a govt. offers simply because it is offered by the gov.

Does that clarify at all? I think you and I are in agreement overall.

[frerottenextelway]

They live longer than us, must be doing something right.

[Rohirrim]

They live longer than us, must be doing something right.

Isn't it inspiring to see how hard these people work to protect the profit margin of the insurance giants and big pharma? Even if it drags down the country.

[tnedator]

Great article by "Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent". I'd love for her to come to America and investigate our current "For Profit-Private Corporatized Health Insurance"!

Boy imagine her logical conclusion? She would no doubt put to shame and bring to light how an industrialize might and wealth such as a country of the US could operate such a unsustainable profit driven healthcare system that allows over 47 million of her citizens to go w/o medical care and services.

What she sees is more and more of her countries doctors turning to private insurance, and more and more doctors, giving up NHS pay and changing their practice to fee-for-service. Both patients and doctors are unhappy with the NHS.

So, in your approch, 300 million should suffer for the 10 million or so AMERICANS that are uninsured other than by choice?

[Bob]

Bob was labotomized due to rationed private health care. Ignore him.

Good argument....

More likely under this Admin however....on a mass scale, or at least the 7% that trust government more than the American people...

[Bob]

When we passed Medicare in the 60s Reagan said it signaled the end of freedom in America and we'd all be socialists soon. I don't know what he meant by "soon." It's been forty years. Now, the hysterical Right is warning us that the public option will evolve into a single payer system like the UK's. Maybe if the Right would come down to Earth and stop being such screaming meemies, we could actually do something reasonable to repair our dysfunctional health insurance system. Of course, this would require adults exercising reason.

I guess I respect Reagan even more now....

Maybe he was just ahead of the curve....

Idiot, do you even know how much Medicare is in the red? The future obligations of this program are stagering -- if you want to save it -- dont add another 50 million. If you want to bankrupt it, create a crisis to exploit to create a new system, that does not resemble our current one -- go right ahead... "back to USSR" baby....

[Bob]

Isn't it inspiring to see how hard these people work to protect the profit margin of the insurance giants and big pharma? Even if it drags down the country.

Isnt it inspiring to see how hard you work to protect and expand the negitive profit rates of this government, as that money will come from profitable sectors, and producing sectors to prop up wasteful, corrupt government.

[rastaman]

First, if we are going to implement a plan which will create massive deficits (CBO has already gone on record that Obamacare will), don't you think we should at least get better coverage? Better treatment? Will we under this plan? Burden of proof lies with the proponents, but they have been unable to come up with a single way in which care will get better. Medicare, Medicaid, VA Hospitals, and the IHS (Native American) are shining examples of what to expect. Are these 'better'? If you say 'yes', you're wrong.


Second, the idea of reforming the system is not at all what is being opposed. What is being opposed is making such an enormous change without consulting constituents, or even having a chance to read the bill. Why would leaders try to do this and add stuff into the bill in the middle of the night? Does this not bother you at all? If the plan is so bloody good, why can it not withstand criticism and debate in the light of day? The logical conclusion is that COngress and the Prez don't want us to know what's in the bill. I and others object to doing business this way.

Third, do we have any examples of similar programs in existence that we can refer to to assess likelihood of success? Yes we do. 30,000 Canadians are passing up free health care plans in their countries to go to other countries for their care. Why? The British plan has legitimate and HUGE problems in terms of funding, facilities, personnel, and yes, adequate care. We see doctors cutting corners and sentencing people to death rather than administering care to them.

Now the knee jerk reaction is the one you had--so you'd rather be at the mercy of insurance companies, blah blah. This is a straw man. It's like saying that those who are against a pull out in Iraq are for more Iraqi civilian deaths. Nobody is FOR being victimized by insurers. The question is whether this bill will be better. That is where the debate must be. Proponents have been unable to tell us WHY this plan would be better and have met our questions for clarification and our objections with replies of 'Just shut up and take the plan. Our lawyers understand it, and that's all that's important.'

I have read the bill. So have many others. THIS bill is a joke. One that 70% of the legislators who will vote on haven't read and do not understand. Do you want a half baked and loophole riddled plan that will create huge deficits and gaps in care, or do you want reform that addresses real shortcomings?

Have you read HR 3200? I refuse to believe that it is filled with such stupidity that NONE of it would even be considered by Dems in their bill. Do it right or don't do it at all.

The only discrepancy about your rant is the fact the industrialized countries around the world and their CITIZENS who have Universal Single Payer-National Health care, are not breaking their necks and selling their souls to adopt the current "For Profit-Denial of Service-pre-existing condition denial of service" AMERICAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!!! :sunshine:

Remember, its the insurance companies who are standing btwn you and your doctors. And For Profit Private Corporate Health care providers make their profits by DENYING YOU CARE!

Here's another dirty little secret, health spending is projected to double if we stay on our current path, middle and lower income families are at high risk of losing their coverage or facing long-term stagnant incomes.

Employer-sponsored health coverage for families increased by 119 percent between 1999 and 2008. It now cost a family of four btwn $11K to $13K to buy Healthcare policies An even scarier finding: The report determined that rates could jump by 94 percent in the coming decade--to $23,842 per family.

Lastly, without health care reform, small businesses will pay nearly $2.4 trillion dollars over the next ten years in health care costs for their workers, 178,000 small business jobs will be lost by 2018 as a result of health care costs, $834 billion in small business wages will be lost due to high health care costs over the next ten years, small businesses will lose $52.1 billion in profits to high health care costs and 1.6 million small business workers will suffer “job lock“— roughly one in 16 people currently insured by their employers.

[tnedator]

The only discrepancy about your rant is the fact the industrialized countries around the world and their CITIZENS who have Universal Single Payer-National Health care, are not breaking their necks and selling their souls to adopt the current "For Profit-Denial of Service-pre-existing condition denial of service" AMERICAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!!! :sunshine:



Really, then why is it becoming a necessity for companies in the UK to offer private health insurance to attract good workers? Why are many medical practices choosing to convert half, or their whole practice to fee-for-service.

You really shouldn't make statements such as that when you have no first hand knowledge.

[Bob]

The only discrepancy about your rant is the fact the industrialized countries around the world and their CITIZENS who have Universal Single Payer-National Health care, are not breaking their necks and selling their souls to adopt the current "For Profit-Denial of Service-pre-existing condition denial of service" AMERICAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!!! :sunshine:

Remember, its the insurance companies who are standing btwn you and your doctors. And For Profit Private Corporate Health care providers make their profits by DENYING YOU CARE!

Here's another dirty little secret, health spending is projected to double if we stay on our current path, middle and lower income families are at high risk of losing their coverage or facing long-term stagnant incomes.

Employer-sponsored health coverage for families increased by 119 percent between 1999 and 2008. It now cost a family of four btwn $11K to $13K to buy Healthcare policies An even scarier finding: The report determined that rates could jump by 94 percent in the coming decade--to $23,842 per family.

Lastly, without health care reform, small businesses will pay nearly $2.4 trillion dollars over the next ten years in health care costs for their workers, 178,000 small business jobs will be lost by 2018 as a result of health care costs, $834 billion in small business wages will be lost due to high health care costs over the next ten years, small businesses will lose $52.1 billion in profits to high health care costs and 1.6 million small business workers will suffer “job lock“— roughly one in 16 people currently insured by their employers.

Profits = Bad -- are you sure your name isnt Van Jones, self-described Radical Communist and advisor to the president?

[Rohirrim]

I guess I respect Reagan even more now....

Maybe he was just ahead of the curve....

Idiot, do you even know how much Medicare is in the red? The future obligations of this program are stagering -- if you want to save it -- dont add another 50 million. If you want to bankrupt it, create a crisis to exploit to create a new system, that does not resemble our current one -- go right ahead... "back to USSR" baby....

How's that survivalist cabin in the backwoods of Montana going, Koczinski? Stocking up the canned goods?

[Rohirrim]

Really, then why is it becoming a necessity for companies in the UK to offer private health insurance to attract good workers? Why are many medical practices choosing to convert half, or their whole practice to fee-for-service.

You really shouldn't make statements such as that when you have no first hand knowledge.

Why should we worry about the UK system? We're not going to have anything resembling that here. Perhaps if you people could set aside your abject terror, you could start making some sense. I swear, the right is like a bunch of prairie dogs. They see a shadow on the grass and the whole herd goes berserk.

[rastaman]

Profits = Bad -- are you sure your name isnt Van Jones, self-described Radical Communist and advisor to the president?

Mr. Right Wing Extremist-Corporatist....yes profits by greedy corrupt Republican funding Health insurers are BAD when PROFITS are accepted over providing services and medicine to millions of Americans. Yes PROFITS ARE MADE when you denie services to patients to increase profits.

Yo Bob, Corporate Republican run For Profit Private Healthcare is broken, unsustainable, a rip off, bankrupts families, and will bankrupt this country w/o reforms.

America has just survied 8 years of a President who gave away the country to the Corporate facsist on Wall Street, Banks, the War Industries, and to tax evaders of the richiest 2% in this country.

So really "Bob" what the hell are you talking about?

[rastaman]

Really, then why is it becoming a necessity for companies in the UK to offer private health insurance to attract good workers? Why are many medical practices choosing to convert half, or their whole practice to fee-for-service.

You really shouldn't make statements such as that when you have no first hand knowledge.

You and Bob (to name a few) shouldn't host the UK's system of Healthcare as if that country is the only Industrialized country providing Universal-Single Payer Health system! Once again, the citizenry of the UK are not not knocking down the doors of America to buy into America's private for profit corporate rip-off medical insurance.

So TNED.....do you and Bob want to comment on how the Universal-Single payer Healthcare systems are doing in Germany, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Japan, and Korea. By the way, China will soon unveil its on Universal-Single payer HCS from all the trillions of dollars they have made from trading-bilking the U.S.

Here are the facts:

The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation

Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money.

The US denies access to health care based on the ability to pay. Under a universal health care system all would access care. There would be no lines as in other industrialized countries due to the oversupply in our providers and infrastructure, and the willingness/ability of the United States to spend more on health care than other industrialized nations.

Single payer, universal health care administered by a state public health system would be much more democratic and much less intrusive than our current system. Consumers and providers would have a voice in determining benefits, rates and taxes. Problems with free choice, confidentiality and medical decision making would be resolved

For profit, managed care can not solve the US health care problems because health care is not a commodity that people shop for, and quality of care must always be compromised when the motivating factor for corporations is to save money through denial of care and decreasing provider costs. In addition managed care has introduced problems of patient confidentiality and disrupted the continuity of care through having limited provider networks.

[rastaman]

They live longer than us, must be doing something right.

Bingo! The GOP and conservatives great mythical agrument is that the United States has the best health care system in the world. When the facts are:


Myth One: Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990


Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960


Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.


Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana


Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.

[Garcia Bronco]

As I beat my head aginst the brick wall of stupidity that has destroyed any meaningful debate of health care, I ask you why do you think private insurerers are any less caculating than how you propose the govt. to be??? Seriously, instead of just bashing a gov. program. tell me what is so RIGHT about our current health care system as it is not competitive and rations care in the exact same way you would accuse the gove. of doing?

BEcause under the current system you can appeal to the governemnt as an arbitrator. You cannot do this when Government is the other end of the contract. SS is a failure. Medicare is a failure. Medicaid is a failure. How much more proof do you need?!?!

[Garcia Bronco]

Bingo! The GOP and conservatives great mythical agrument is that the United States has the best health care system in the world. When the facts are:


Myth One: Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990


Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960


Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.


Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana


Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.


The US hasn't gone down, because of us other countries have gone up. Quit hating your country.

[Rohirrim]

BEcause under the current system you can appeal to the governemnt as an arbitrator. You cannot do this when Government is the other end of the contract. SS is a failure. Medicare is a failure. Medicaid is a failure. How much more proof do you need?!?!

So, you don't mind the government as arbitrator, but are against it as regulator or provider? And are you saying you can't petition government? You can't complain to your congressman? Medicare and Medicaid work very well. They need stricter fraud oversight, for sure.

Here's the question that those who defend the profits of the insurance giants must answer: How does a "for profit" system provide for those people (currently over forty million) who fall below the bottom line of coverage affordability? Simple.

[rastaman]

The US hasn't gone down, because of us other countries have gone up. Quit hating your country.

Stop being in denial! The group of un Americans that hate their country are die hard Republican-radical conservatives in this country. :pimp:

[epicSocialism4tw]

When we passed Medicare in the 60s Reagan said it signaled the end of freedom in America and we'd all be socialists soon. I don't know what he meant by "soon." It's been forty years. Now, the hysterical Right is warning us that the public option will evolve into a single payer system like the UK's. Maybe if the Right would come down to Earth and stop being such screaming meemies, we could actually do something reasonable to repair our dysfunctional health insurance system. Of course, this would require adults exercising reason.

Sorry man, but you have little understanding of the issue.

There are inherent problems, such as taking care of the gaps in medicare and finding a way to even out the cost of medicine for the middle class who skate on a razors edge when it comes to major procedures, but our doctors are losing more and more money to the federal government every year as they continue to reimburse at rates around 40%.

Do you wonder why you get overcharged at the hospital? Its because the fed only pays about 40% of what they are billed!

You dont want Obama's socialist crew getting more control of what doctors can be allowed to be paid. Obama would rather fund abortions in Africa with American dollars.

[Rohirrim]

Sorry man, but you have little understanding of the issue.

There are inherent problems, such as taking care of the gaps in medicare and finding a way to even out the cost of medicine for the middle class who skate on a razors edge when it comes to major procedures, but our doctors are losing more and more money to the federal government every year as they continue to reimburse at rates around 40%.

Do you wonder why you get overcharged at the hospital? Its because the fed only pays about 40% of what they are billed!

You dont want Obama's socialist crew getting more control of what doctors can be allowed to be paid. Obama would rather fund abortions in Africa with American dollars.

You do "smug" very well. Do you practice in front of a mirror? With a little sniff, sniff and a raise of the nose like some little b**** at a garden party?

Wrong again, bonehead. Stop looking for a silver bullet. Especially one covered in the ideology you prefer. There are numerous and sundry reasons for the out of control costs of health care. Sure, government programs are part of it, but they also fill an important niche in the health care needs of the people of this country. So there is a trade off. Think of where our costs would be if all the old folks on Medicare were suddenly uninsured? You don't want to contemplate that, do you Sunshine?

And after all, doesn't it say on our Constitution that we created this government to, among other things, see to the "general welfare" of our people? Fix the fraud, practiced by many doctors and health care establishments, against Medicare and Medicaid and the picture might just change dramatically. We also have to take in the entire concept of "fee for service" practices, where health care providers make more the more procedures they prescribe. Not to mention look into some kind of tort reform. It's not an easy fix.

Too bad your side would rather run around screaming "Socialists!" and "Death Panels!" than actually come to the table, sit down like grownups, and work it out.

[ghwk]

The US hasn't gone down, because of us other countries have gone up. Quit hating your country.

WTF?? Are you for real? Still waiting to hear why our current system works so well in your mind.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Too bad your side would rather run around screaming "Socialists!" and "Death Panels!" than actually come to the table, sit down like grownups, and work it out.

Yeah. That's it. :loopy:

Lets ignore the fact that the socialistocrat supermajority controls legislation in this country right now. The fact is well established that the power is completely, 100% in the hands of the socialistocrats. There is no other party right now. They are it. They are alone. The repubs are absolutely powerless (by their own fault). The socialistocrats are in complete control. Whatever happens happens because they will it to be so for one reason or another.

There is no coming to the table. This is not about dealing with republicans, its about Obama finally getting something close to a clue as to what America is really about...about what the people will accept and what they will not. Obama is finding out very quickly what will make the American people revolt. Its best that he quit pushing the envelope.

Obama doesnt want to come to any table to deal. He wants socialism in America, and he wants it before everyone wakes up to his agenda.

Obama has already established that by using subversive legislation techniques and his patented 11th hour fear-mongering.: "Pass this bill or the nation goes down the tubes tomorrow."

Obama has strong-armed his own party into passing ridiculous bills that have been rightly scritinized by the American people. This is no time to raid the people's coffers to pay for abortions in Zimbabwe. The unemployment rate is at unnerving levels. People want their money, and they are completely justified in that desire. Times are tight. This is no time to take even more money from the pockets of the people for a poorly conceived attempt at installing a grand socialist program in this country.

Being an American does not mean letting Obama's smiling, deceptive, untrustworth hand further into your wallet. Being an American means balancing your resources and helping out by your own means. This is what has made America the greatest nation in the world.

[rastaman]

Yeah. That's it. :loopy:

Lets ignore the fact that the socialistocrat supermajority controls legislation in this country right now. The fact is well established that the power is completely, 100% in the hands of the socialistocrats. There is no other party right now. They are it. They are alone. The repubs are absolutely powerless (by their own fault). The socialistocrats are in complete control. Whatever happens happens because they will it to be so for one reason or another.

There is no coming to the table. This is not about dealing with republicans, its about Obama finally getting something close to a clue as to what America is really about...about what the people will accept and what they will not. Obama is finding out very quickly what will make the American people revolt. Its best that he quit pushing the envelope.

Obama doesnt want to come to any table to deal. He wants socialism in America, and he wants it before everyone wakes up to his agenda.

Obama has already established that by using subversive legislation techniques and his patented 11th hour fear-mongering.: "Pass this bill or the nation goes down the tubes tomorrow."

Obama has strong-armed his own party into passing ridiculous bills that have been rightly scritinized by the American people. This is no time to raid the people's coffers to pay for abortions in Zimbabwe. The unemployment rate is at unnerving levels. People want their money, and they are completely justified in that desire. Times are tight. This is no time to take even more money from the pockets of the people for a poorly conceived attempt at installing a grand socialist program in this country.

Being an American does not mean letting Obama's smiling, deceptive, untrustworth hand further into your wallet. Being an American means balancing your resources and helping out by your own means. This is what has made America the greatest nation in the world.


Why do my right wing family members keep telling me to buy guns, canned foods, and cash out my bank and stick it in a safe bolted to my floor? I don't get where the Obama paranoia comes from when he's only been there for 240 days. How do we explain away cyclical nature of Conservative America Paranoia. Why are these GOPers afraid of their shadow? Is it generational guilt?

What were the protests supposedly about? Taxes and government spending. But in fact, the President's economic program has already cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans—and state and local tax increases would be far steeper without the protestors' other target, the Obama stimulus package, which provides recession-fighting funds to state and local governments.

Incoherent as a program, Teagate was relatively insubstantial as a protest. The usual suspects—from Fox News to Karl Rove—dutifully, at times desperately, hyped it as an outpouring of public dissatisfaction. A writer for the right-wing Manhattan Institute managed to see "the tidal wave of the future" in the tea leaves. But truth confounds belief. Nate Silver, the master of political statistics who predicted the 2008 election results almost precisely, compiled a crowd count from "reasonably non-partisan and credible sources." He calculated a total of just over 300,000 protestors at hundreds of sites.

Teagate is not the only sign of paranoid reaction. Gun sales have reached record levels, fueled by the improbability that the President is plotting new gun control laws. Republican Senator Jim DeMint arraigns Obama as "the world's best salesman of socialism." The comically malaprop Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has proclaimed her fears about Obama creating "re-education camps for young people" through the new National Service Bill named for Edward Kennedy, which is scheduled to be signed into law at a White House ceremony Tuesday. (You can bet she won't be there.)

Decades ago, conservatives were people who took very seriously the task of defending our institutions. They deplored mob tactics as irrational and destructive. Today, conservative organizations send out instructions on how to disrupt a political meeting and how to divert the police so they cannot protect besieged speakers. Other people bearing that label defend the incendiaries or find clever ways to avoid criticizing them.

Traditional conservatives are very rare these days, and those now bearing the term are interested in defending incendiaries and not protecting our hallowed institutions. Today the word “conservative” applies to people who are willing to wreck our political institutions to defend insurance and pharmaceutical companies and to impose their narrow, warped values on the rest of us.

[Rohirrim]

Yeah. That's it. :loopy:

Lets ignore the fact that the socialistocrat supermajority controls legislation in this country right now. The fact is well established that the power is completely, 100% in the hands of the socialistocrats. There is no other party right now. They are it. They are alone. The repubs are absolutely powerless (by their own fault). The socialistocrats are in complete control. Whatever happens happens because they will it to be so for one reason or another.

There is no coming to the table. This is not about dealing with republicans, its about Obama finally getting something close to a clue as to what America is really about...about what the people will accept and what they will not. Obama is finding out very quickly what will make the American people revolt. Its best that he quit pushing the envelope.

Obama doesnt want to come to any table to deal. He wants socialism in America, and he wants it before everyone wakes up to his agenda.

Obama has already established that by using subversive legislation techniques and his patented 11th hour fear-mongering.: "Pass this bill or the nation goes down the tubes tomorrow."

Obama has strong-armed his own party into passing ridiculous bills that have been rightly scritinized by the American people. This is no time to raid the people's coffers to pay for abortions in Zimbabwe. The unemployment rate is at unnerving levels. People want their money, and they are completely justified in that desire. Times are tight. This is no time to take even more money from the pockets of the people for a poorly conceived attempt at installing a grand socialist program in this country.

Being an American does not mean letting Obama's smiling, deceptive, untrustworth hand further into your wallet. Being an American means balancing your resources and helping out by your own means. This is what has made America the greatest nation in the world.

I'm starting to see an Andy Kaufman type of thing coming through your posts. Ha!

[Bronx33]

Why do my right wing family members keep telling me to buy guns, canned foods, and cash out my bank and stick it in a safe bolted to my floor?


Ohhhhh bull****..... and if you agree with the speed in which obama is trying to cram this stuff through your foolish this breakneck speed which obama demands all this stuff is what bothers me it just seems to me you don't even care and rubber stamping stuff that effects our lives is just fine, well dude ( i want to know what we are giving our ok on) is that ok with you or shall we just give obama a free run without question? ( cause that's what you are supporting)

[tnedator]

Why should we worry about the UK system? We're not going to have anything resembling that here. Perhaps if you people could set aside your abject terror, you could start making some sense. I swear, the right is like a bunch of prairie dogs. They see a shadow on the grass and the whole herd goes berserk.

To you first question, look at the title of the thread and then get back to me.

To your statement. Do you really think the UK people envisioned their health care system looking anything like what they currently have? Maybe it they had feared shadows, they wouldn't be ****ed now. Food for thought....

[Bronx33]

THIS GUY IS ONE COOL CAT

<embed type='application/x-shockwave-flash' src='http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/foxnews1-foxnews-pub01-live/current/videolandingpage/fncLargePlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf' id='mediumFlashEmbedded' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' bgcolor='#000000' allowScriptAccess='always' allowFullScreen='true' quality='high' name='undefined' play='false' scale='noscale' menu='false' salign='LT' scriptAccess='always' wmode='false' height='275' width='305' flashvars='playerId=videolandingpage&playerTemplateId=fncLargePlayer&categoryTitle=Health Care&referralObject=9085919&referralParentPlaylistId=19d7b8500c13fb2a903fb9742 d79d71c5d8d78bc&referralPlaylistId=df4b3c7f18eea1b3fb97a8f822a8879 495713cb3' />

[Bronx33]

The only discrepancy about your rant is the fact the industrialized countries around the world and their CITIZENS who have Universal Single Payer-National Health care, are not breaking their necks and selling their souls to adopt the current "For Profit-Denial of Service-pre-existing condition denial of service" AMERICAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!!! :sunshine:

Remember, its the insurance companies who are standing btwn you and your doctors. And For Profit Private Corporate Health care providers make their profits by DENYING YOU CARE!

Here's another dirty little secret, health spending is projected to double if we stay on our current path, middle and lower income families are at high risk of losing their coverage or facing long-term stagnant incomes.

Employer-sponsored health coverage for families increased by 119 percent between 1999 and 2008. It now cost a family of four btwn $11K to $13K to buy Healthcare policies An even scarier finding: The report determined that rates could jump by 94 percent in the coming decade--to $23,842 per family.

Lastly, without health care reform, small businesses will pay nearly $2.4 trillion dollars over the next ten years in health care costs for their workers, 178,000 small business jobs will be lost by 2018 as a result of health care costs, $834 billion in small business wages will be lost due to high health care costs over the next ten years, small businesses will lose $52.1 billion in profits to high health care costs and 1.6 million small business workers will suffer “job lock“— roughly one in 16 people currently insured by their employers.


Give a link atleast i have employee based healthcare thru my company for a family of 4 and i pay $2500 a year that $11K to $13K number seems really high and not accurate.

[tnedator]

Give a link atleast i have employee based healthcare thru my company for a family of 4 and i pay $2500 a year that $11K to $13K number seems really high and not accurate.

The company you work for is likely subsidizing 60-80% of the total premium costs.

While the guys on the left are guilty of fear mongering, spinning and smoke-screen tactics, the one accurate point is that health insurance costs are going up every year, as are health care costs. There are many reasons for this, among the major ones are the outrageous cost of malpractice insurance and practicing defensive medicine the President speaks of out of one side of his mouth, while saying he will not do ANYTHING about it with tort reform (because legal lobbies are major, major contributors to the Democratic party as are unions, which makes them untouchable).

Anyway, if you have not seen pretty significant premium increases over the last 5-10 years, then the company you work at is heavily subsidizing those increases.

[Bronx33]

The company you work for is likely subsidizing 60-80% of the total premium costs.

While the guys on the left are guilty of fear mongering, spinning and smoke-screen tactics, the one accurate point is that health insurance costs are going up every year, as are health care costs. There are many reasons for this, among the major ones are the outrageous cost of malpractice insurance and practicing defensive medicine the President speaks of out of one side of his mouth, while saying he will not do ANYTHING about it with tort reform (because legal lobbies are major, major contributors to the Democratic party as are unions, which makes them untouchable).

Anyway, if you have not seen pretty significant premium increases over the last 5-10 years, then the company you work at is heavily subsidizing those increases.


I understand but he did say ( Employer-sponsored )that still doesn't explain his high number it seems like cherry picking because alot of employers subsidize it's employees healthcare i just wanna see the source and tort BEING non existant in congress HR3200 IS bs simple catering to special interests ( which i hate)..

[Bob]

Here are the facts:

The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation
.

The WHO ranks nations quality of healthcare by using "acess" (as they define it) as a weighted determining factor in the over-all quality of care one receives. That in my mind shows how one can lie by using statitics -- So in short American healthcare gets dinged badly by those that rate our system as we are not as Socialised as other nations.

Guilty as charged -- for now anyway.

[Rohirrim]

The WHO ranks nations quality of healthcare by using "acess" (as they define it) as a weighted determining factor in the over-all quality of care one receives. That in my mind shows how one can lie by using statitics -- So in short American healthcare gets dinged badly by those that rate our system as we are not as Socialised as other nations.

Guilty as charged -- for now anyway.

That's odd. A few nights ago I was watching a guy who has been a physician for forty years who pretty much agreed with the WHO's assessment. How he put it was that the U.S. is the best in the world at what he called "Rescue Medicine." His point being that if something really bad happens to you, an accident, you're shot or stabbed, etc. etc... there is no better ER on Earth than an American ER. None so well equipped. No doctors so well trained.

When it comes to preventative care, disease, etc... we're not so good. Most people see their doctor for about five minutes (after waiting an average of 45 minutes) and then get some drugs. It's PDR medicine. Look up a symptom, hand out some drugs, rake in a copay, file for some insurance money and run to the next five minute patient. Bingo, bango, bongo.

[tnedator]

That's odd. A few nights ago I was watching a guy who has been a physician for forty years who pretty much agreed with the WHO's assessment. How he put it was that the U.S. is the best in the world at what he called "Rescue Medicine." His point being that if something really bad happens to you, an accident, you're shot or stabbed, etc. etc... there is no better ER on Earth than an American ER. None so well equipped. No doctors so well trained.

When it comes to preventative care, disease, etc... we're not so good. Most people see their doctor for about five minutes (after waiting an average of 45 minutes) and then get some drugs. It's PDR medicine. Look up a symptom, hand out some drugs, rake in a copay, file for some insurance money and run to the next five minute patient. Bingo, bango, bongo.

I agree with you (big shocker) on all of that.

The two points I would add.

First, based on people I have talked to in the UK, they have the same problem with the preventative care and little time with patients/doctors, which as I have pointed out is why so many workers are demanding private insurance and so many practices are moving from NHS to fee-for-service.

Second, while this is anecdotal and only based on a discussion with one person, but I was talking to a doctor that just finished her dermatology residency in Germany. I asked her if she would be part of their NHS (I am not sure what they call it) and she told me no. She said that new doctors have a hard choice. They can join the national health system and get guaranteed income, but that they have to see so many patients each day, that they can't spend the time they need to properly treat them, so she was going to open or join a fee-for-service practice, where she could spend the time she needed with each patient.

Now, I will qualify my second point by saying that most of the people I have spoken to in Germany are very happy with their health care, and that I know a number of German nationals living in England, and whenever possible, they choose to visit doctors and dentists when they are in Germany (visiting family and friends), because they feel it is much better than the UK's NHS.

[tnedator]

That's odd. A few nights ago I was watching a guy who has been a physician for forty years who pretty much agreed with the WHO's assessment. How he put it was that the U.S. is the best in the world at what he called "Rescue Medicine." His point being that if something really bad happens to you, an accident, you're shot or stabbed, etc. etc... there is no better ER on Earth than an American ER. None so well equipped. No doctors so well trained.

When it comes to preventative care, disease, etc... we're not so good. Most people see their doctor for about five minutes (after waiting an average of 45 minutes) and then get some drugs. It's PDR medicine. Look up a symptom, hand out some drugs, rake in a copay, file for some insurance money and run to the next five minute patient. Bingo, bango, bongo.

Ok, I dug up some stuff to back up what I was saying about doctors leaving the NHS and patients taking out Private insurance, even though they are paying taxes to get 'free' health care:

This is the NHS that is “safe” with New Labour. After twelve years there can be no excuse.

The number of people taking out Private Medical Insurance (PMI) has continued to rise in 2008, despite the recession, recent statistics from the Association of British Insurers (ABI) have revealed. According to the figures, in 2008 a total of more than six million people were covered by corporate or personal medical insurance, while a further one million were covered through Healthcare Trust arrangements. In total, more than seven million people have some form of private health insurance in the UK, which is an increase of 2.7 per cent compared to 2007.

Fair Investment (http://www.fairinvestment.co.uk/deals/news/insurance-news-Private-medical-insurance-on-the-up-despite-recession-3262.html)

I hate the need for private health insurance. I hate the need for private education. I believe that a good standard of health care and education should be available to all, independent of means and status.

Once again, people are voting with their feet. If the NHS is so good, why have over seven million people deserted it?

And it is not just the patients who are leaving.

The doctors are leaving (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6459337.stm)

The midwives are leaving (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3103830.stm)

The hospital nurses are leaving (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20001217/ai_n14363364/)

The community nurses are leaving (http://www.cdnaonline.org/index.php?Itemid=38&id=183&option=com_content&task=view)

The dentists are leaving (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3335992/One-in-five-dentists-ready-to-leave-NHS.html)

Soon there will be no one left. The NHS will be a ghost town.

http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2009/04/leaving-nhs.html

[Rohirrim]

I just don't see us installing an NHS type system in the U.S. The Brits' system was installed during WWII. I don't think that was ever going to happen here. The single payer is already long gone off the table. Now it looks like the public option won't even hang on. We'll be lucky if we get anything meaningful at all. And I really doubt we get anything that big pharma, the giant insurance companies or the AMA don't rubber stamp in advance. This is a tempest in a teapot. The game is rigged.

[tnedator]

I just don't see us installing an NHS type system in the U.S. The Brits' system was installed during WWII. I don't think that was ever going to happen here. The single payer is already long gone off the table. Now it looks like the public option won't even hang on. We'll be lucky if we get anything meaningful at all. And I really doubt we get anything that big pharma, the giant insurance companies or the AMA don't rubber stamp in advance. This is a tempest in a teapot. The game is rigged.

I know it's called fear mongering, bedwetting or whatever, but there are a lot of people, especially those that have had contact with foreign health care, that are concerned about Kucinech (however you spell that), Obama and others who said that a public option would be a stepping stone to single payer.

The reason is that once you are at single payer, then you are very near to NHS. 'Maybe' we could keep the health care system that we currently have with a single payer system that was hands off and just reimbursed, but it seems pretty unlikely. It might take 10 years or 20 years, but it seems very likely that in time a single payer would lead to an NHS (UK/Canada) type system.

That's not fear mongering, that's a legitimate concern.

[Rohirrim]

I know it's called fear mongering, bedwetting or whatever, but there are a lot of people, especially those that have had contact with foreign health care, that are concerned about Kucinech (however you spell that), Obama and others who said that a public option would be a stepping stone to single payer.

The reason is that once you are at single payer, then you are very near to NHS. 'Maybe' we could keep the health care system that we currently have with a single payer system that was hands off and just reimbursed, but it seems pretty unlikely. It might take 10 years or 20 years, but it seems very likely that in time a single payer would lead to an NHS (UK/Canada) type system.

That's not fear mongering, that's a legitimate concern.

But we have had a single payer system (Medicare) for over forty years and that hasn't happened. I actually like the idea of single payer just because what pisses me off worse than anything (I work in a hospital) is how many Americans' lives I see destroyed by health care costs while at the same time the CEO of United Health Care is building himself a ****ing palace. That's just bull****. I just don't see any way to pay for something that enormous, especially given the rampant fraud in Medicare and the governmental raiding that is bankrupting Social Security. And especially now when we seem to be hanging on by our fingernails. We cannot create more debt.

Anyway, however we solve this problem, I believe it will be done incrementally and organically. We're not going to just pass some enormous slab of legislation and drop it on the system we've got. Given the fix we're in right now, that won't work. But if we do nothing, health care costs will sink us too. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I remember somebody on here quoting Ben Franklin saying something like, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch." That's kind of what our health care system is now. And the American people are the lambs.

[tnedator]

But we have had a single payer system (Medicare) for over forty years and that hasn't happened. I actually like the idea of single payer just because what pisses me off worse than anything (I work in a hospital) is how many Americans' lives I see destroyed by health care costs while at the same time the CEO of United Health Care is building himself a ****ing palace. That's just bull****. I just don't see any way to pay for something that enormous, especially given the rampant fraud in Medicare and the governmental raiding that is bankrupting Social Security. And especially now when we seem to be hanging on by our fingernails. We cannot create more debt.

Anyway, however we solve this problem, I believe it will be done incrementally and organically. We're not going to just pass some enormous slab of legislation and drop it on the system we've got. Given the fix we're in right now, that won't work. But if we do nothing, health care costs will sink us too. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I remember somebody on here quoting Ben Franklin saying something like, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch." That's kind of what our health care system is now. And the American people are the lambs.

We have a single payer system for a select group of the population, and it is often offset by private insurance, and it is broke.

If all we had one one single payer system for all Americans, then health care as we know it would drastically change. Liberals tend to think for the better, conservatives (and many in the center) think for the worst. Unfortunately, only time (decades) of a single payer system would prove which side was correct.

One other comment. The left has done a good job of making corporations evil, to put the word "profit" in the same category as rape, murder, embezzling, genocide and other similar words. The fact is that I am happy that Bill Gates has a 50,000 square foot home, as I sit and post on this message board using IE8 on a Vista operating system, with my Xbox360 hooked up to my TV.

Corporations make profits. If they didn't, there would be no reason for them to exist. This is not a bad thing, because these same corporations create countless jobs. I am constantly amazed the way people have been brainwashed into believing that there is a wall-street vs. main street war that must take place -- that a company making a profit is a bad thing.

Can you honestly wonder why people don't fear socialism with talk like that? ???

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

<center> http://www.bartcop.com/hc-dying-treatable.jpg
</center>

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

<center> http://www.bartcop.com/palin-pigboy-tinfoil.jpg
</center>

[Rohirrim]

We have a single payer system for a select group of the population, and it is often offset by private insurance, and it is broke.

If all we had one one single payer system for all Americans, then health care as we know it would drastically change. Liberals tend to think for the better, conservatives (and many in the center) think for the worst. Unfortunately, only time (decades) of a single payer system would prove which side was correct.

One other comment. The left has done a good job of making corporations evil, to put the word "profit" in the same category as rape, murder, embezzling, genocide and other similar words. The fact is that I am happy that Bill Gates has a 50,000 square foot home, as I sit and post on this message board using IE8 on a Vista operating system, with my Xbox360 hooked up to my TV.

Corporations make profits. If they didn't, there would be no reason for them to exist. This is not a bad thing, because these same corporations create countless jobs. I am constantly amazed the way people have been brainwashed into believing that there is a wall-street vs. main street war that must take place -- that a company making a profit is a bad thing.

Can you honestly wonder why people don't fear socialism with talk like that? ???

Profit? I have no problem with anybody earning a fair profit for their goods and services. In fact, I expect the same for myself. But this is different:

In the past 18 months, California's five largest insurers paid almost $19 million in fines for marooning policyholders who had fallen ill. That includes a $1 million fine against Health Net, which admitted offering bonuses to employees for finding reasons to cancel policies, according to company documents released in court.

"This is probably the most egregious of examples of health insurers using their power and their resources to deny benefits to people who are most in need of care," said Gerald Kominski, associate director of the Center for Health Policy Research at the University of California at Los Angeles. "It's really a horrendous activity on the part of the insurers."

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

In a pending case, Blue Shield searched in vain for an inconsistency in the health records of the wife of a dairy farmer after she filed a claim for emergency gallbladder surgery, according to attorneys for the family. Turning to her husband's questionnaire, the company discovered he had not mentioned his high cholesterol and dropped them both. Blue Shield officials said they would not comment on a pending case.

------------------------------------------
For Teresa Dietrich, it was fibroids. The Northern California real estate agent was left to pay $19,000 after Blue Cross said she did not disclose a diagnosis of the benign uterine tumors. But Dietrich said the doctor who had written "fibroids" on her medical record never mentioned his suspicions to her. The bills destroyed her credit and cost her her home — and, in a comically cruel twist, the surgery proved the doctor was wrong.

"They said I had a condition I didn't even have," Dietrich said. "And they canceled me."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32729358/ns/health-more_health_news/


Now, shall we discuss credit card company practices? Bankers? Mortgage Brokers?

I have no problem at all with fair profit.

[kappys]

We have a single payer system for a select group of the population, and it is often offset by private insurance, and it is broke.

If all we had one one single payer system for all Americans, then health care as we know it would drastically change. Liberals tend to think for the better, conservatives (and many in the center) think for the worst. Unfortunately, only time (decades) of a single payer system would prove which side was correct.

One other comment. The left has done a good job of making corporations evil, to put the word "profit" in the same category as rape, murder, embezzling, genocide and other similar words. The fact is that I am happy that Bill Gates has a 50,000 square foot home, as I sit and post on this message board using IE8 on a Vista operating system, with my Xbox360 hooked up to my TV.

Corporations make profits. If they didn't, there would be no reason for them to exist. This is not a bad thing, because these same corporations create countless jobs. I am constantly amazed the way people have been brainwashed into believing that there is a wall-street vs. main street war that must take place -- that a company making a profit is a bad thing.

Can you honestly wonder why people don't fear socialism with talk like that? ???

Well the problem with corporations is that the ethos of profits can be taken too far.

Corporations are largely extensions of the Trusts developed in England that were created for a number of purposes
1) Tax Shelter - particularly for inheritances
2) To fund public works - i.e. a trust was created to handle the monies for a project that would prevent a corrupt individual from taking advantage
3) Later on for asset protection so that one can start a small business without exposing all their personal assets in that endeavor

It is of note however that Corporations are also required to promote profits ahead of people. The famous Dodge Brothers vs. Ford Motor Company SCOTUS case emphasized that profits would have to be put ahead of other considerations. Other judicial deciscions have further emphasized that corporations must promote profits ahead of workers, the public, the environment, etc. This has lead to a number of fundamental problems and issues with corporations that are coming to roost now.
1) Corporate interference with governmental affairs. I am personally of the belief that corporations are not persons and should not be entitled to enjoy the same government participation as private individuals. This has come to a pretty pass when issues on which the public is vastly opposed are nonetheless championed by both parties(as in the bailouts) due to desires of their corporate paymasters
2) The focus on profits has in part contributed to the wild speculation and bubbles that have lead to recent economic instability.
3) Assault on workers rights - Scabs, trying to avoid overtime pay, firing people after trial periods so that benefits are not pain, maintaining excess capacity to prevent labor strikes, etc.

Corporations are not inherently evil things and I too believe that some profit motive is needed. However in their current form corporations have begun usurping control of the government and need to be reigned in. Again corporations have no inherent rights - including no inherent right to exist. They only have the rights(and responsiblities) that we as a society extend to them and it is time to start redefining that role.

[tnedator]

Well the problem with corporations is that the ethos of profits can be taken too far.

Corporations are largely extensions of the Trusts developed in England that were created for a number of purposes
1) Tax Shelter - particularly for inheritances
2) To fund public works - i.e. a trust was created to handle the monies for a project that would prevent a corrupt individual from taking advantage
3) Later on for asset protection so that one can start a small business without exposing all their personal assets in that endeavor

It is of note however that Corporations are also required to promote profits ahead of people. The famous Dodge Brothers vs. Ford Motor Company SCOTUS case emphasized that profits would have to be put ahead of other considerations. Other judicial deciscions have further emphasized that corporations must promote profits ahead of workers, the public, the environment, etc. This has lead to a number of fundamental problems and issues with corporations that are coming to roost now.
1) Corporate interference with governmental affairs. I am personally of the belief that corporations are not persons and should not be entitled to enjoy the same government participation as private individuals. This has come to a pretty pass when issues on which the public is vastly opposed are nonetheless championed by both parties(as in the bailouts) due to desires of their corporate paymasters
2) The focus on profits has in part contributed to the wild speculation and bubbles that have lead to recent economic instability.
3) Assault on workers rights - Scabs, trying to avoid overtime pay, firing people after trial periods so that benefits are not pain, maintaining excess capacity to prevent labor strikes, etc.

Corporations are not inherently evil things and I too believe that some profit motive is needed. However in their current form corporations have begun usurping control of the government and need to be reigned in. Again corporations have no inherent rights - including no inherent right to exist. They only have the rights(and responsiblities) that we as a society extend to them and it is time to start redefining that role.

The 'owners' of those corporations certainly do have rights. Politicians, pandering to their constituents for 'easy' wins, have attacked 'corporations' and turned 'profit' into a dirty word.

Where you sit right now, look around, whether at home or work. Computer screen, TV, electrical outlet, light, carpet, coffee cup, etc., etc. How many of those things were made by a 'for profit' company, and how many of those things were provided to you by a non-profit or government agency? How about the clothes you are wearing?

You guys need to step back and stop swallowing all of the rhetoric that is being fed from the politicians.

[Rohirrim]

The 'owners' of those corporations certainly do have rights. Politicians, pandering to their constituents for 'easy' wins, have attacked 'corporations' and turned 'profit' into a dirty word.

Where you sit right now, look around, whether at home or work. Computer screen, TV, electrical outlet, light, carpet, coffee cup, etc., etc. How many of those things were made by a 'for profit' company, and how many of those things were provided to you by a non-profit or government agency? How about the clothes you are wearing?

You guys need to step back and stop swallowing all of the rhetoric that is being fed from the politicians.

Maybe you are the one who needs to step back and wake up? Stop thinking everything is "all or nothing." Nobody is saying that we should outlaw corporations. What we are saying is that they should not control the government, and should have no voice in our political decisions.

[tnedator]

Maybe you are the one who needs to step back and wake up? Stop thinking everything is "all or nothing." Nobody is saying that we should outlaw corporations. What we are saying is that they should not control the government, and should have no voice in our political decisions.

I would be all for that, just as soon at the AFL-CIO and other union lobby's have no say. When the plaintiff's bar lobby have no say.

You are picking out one group, corporations, that have corrupted our governmental processes, but they are only one small part of the process.

You take corporations out of the lobbying position and you are left only with the unions to shove something like Card Check through, when polls are against it and Americans don't want to be forced into unions.

I don't like the amount of control and lobbying that special interest groups have in Washington, but you can't just pull out 'one' part of that equation and leave an unbalanced influence of power.

[kappys]

The 'owners' of those corporations certainly do have rights. Politicians, pandering to their constituents for 'easy' wins, have attacked 'corporations' and turned 'profit' into a dirty word.

Where you sit right now, look around, whether at home or work. Computer screen, TV, electrical outlet, light, carpet, coffee cup, etc., etc. How many of those things were made by a 'for profit' company, and how many of those things were provided to you by a non-profit or government agency? How about the clothes you are wearing?

You guys need to step back and stop swallowing all of the rhetoric that is being fed from the politicians.

What rights do you propose that the "owners" of these corporations have? Should they exceed the rights that you as a private citizen have? Again I am not suggesting we abandon corporations entirely, just that we redefine not only their rights but also their obligations. Profit is only a dirty word when it comes at the expense of real people.

You give some neat product examples. I can't speak for coffee cups, carpets, or clothes - these have all existed long before corporations did.

As for computers, the internet, most modern pharmaceuticals, MRI machines, CT scanners, etc. etc. much of the funding has come from the government. Do you think that all of the bench research necessary for these ideas to come to fruition has been at the hand of corporations? Most of it has been at the hands of government funded researchers at places like Harvard and MIT who obtain government funded grants, defense contract grants, etc. to perform basic research thereby socializing the cost of these fantastic developments.

As for balance I think it can hardly be claimed that the situation is balanced at present. Unions have no where near the influence that corporations do on our government.

[tnedator]

What rights do you propose that the "owners" of these corporations have? Should they exceed the rights that you as a private citizen have? Again I am not suggesting we abandon corporations entirely, just that we redefine not only their rights but also their obligations. Profit is only a dirty word when it comes at the expense of real people.

You give some neat product examples. I can't speak for coffee cups, carpets, or clothes - these have all existed long before corporations did.

As for computers, the internet, most modern pharmaceuticals, MRI machines, CT scanners, etc. etc. much of the funding has come from the government. Do you think that all of the bench research necessary for these ideas to come to fruition has been at the hand of corporations? Most of it has been at the hands of government funded researchers at places like Harvard and MIT who obtain government funded grants, defense contract grants, etc. to perform basic research thereby socializing the cost of these fantastic developments.

As for balance I think it can hardly be claimed that the situation is balanced at present. Unions have no where near the influence that corporations do on our government.

The democratic party caters to the unions, get tens of millions a year in contributions, and consider them a near automatic vote. Why do you think card check is such a hot liberal item, even though America doesn't want it?

As to inventions, yes some have come from grants to universities, but many of those grants are also funded by corporations, not just from government. Take the evil Pharam industry. They put billions into R&D, with the hope of making it up when they get one winner out of 10 or 20 or 100 research failures.

Where does the 'greedy' profits no longer become greedy? Should congress mandate only x% of profits, or $y of profit? Does that only apply to publicly traded companies, or also that small deli on the corner? Once you start stealing the money from private companies, to redistribute it, where does it stop? Do you take it all the way to nationalizing the companies (Chavez??) or just steal all profits over a certain $ or %?

[kappys]

The democratic party caters to the unions, get tens of millions a year in contributions, and consider them a near automatic vote. Why do you think card check is such a hot liberal item, even though America doesn't want it?

As to inventions, yes some have come from grants to universities, but many of those grants are also funded by corporations, not just from government. Take the evil Pharam industry. They put billions into R&D, with the hope of making it up when they get one winner out of 10 or 20 or 100 research failures.

Where does the 'greedy' profits no longer become greedy? Should congress mandate only x% of profits, or $y of profit? Does that only apply to publicly traded companies, or also that small deli on the corner? Once you start stealing the money from private companies, to redistribute it, where does it stop? Do you take it all the way to nationalizing the companies (Chavez??) or just steal all profits over a certain $ or %?

Compared to the billions of dollars that is put into pharma research via the government drug companies invest only small amounts into relatively refined products to begin with. I intentionally choose examples where the bulk of the research has taken the form of government grants and defense spending rather than private capital. The results are then taken by private corporations and refined slightly and sold at a high price for profit. Let us also not forget that big pharma spends a great deal of time researching "me too" drugs like lipid lowering drugs that are essentially identical to currently existing lipi lowering agents in order to get a piece of the pie(somehow without driving down drug costs since one would think they might try and undersell the competition yet they don't). Shouldn't that be patent infringement?(It's not because the fundamental research is from government grants and well published not from private corporate money). They also spend a great deal "refining" drugs by introducing minimal chemical modifications so that they can continue to sell the newer agent as a brand name. When these trials fail they are certain to include them in their stats regarding R and D costs and failure rates.

I am not in favor of card check. However comparing union spending/power to that of corporations is simply absurd. The three largest campaign donors to Republicans and Democrats are JP Morgan, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs - the only difference is the order. This is consistent from year to year. Do you wonder why both parties have an identical fiscal policy when it comes to banking/finance?

As for the profit question I do not propose any strict limits on most profits. The limits that I propose are on corporate rights. For example they should not have a right to participate in democratic governance which should be limited to individuals and nonprofits with charters set up specifically to advance a cause.

The most profitable form of corporation is a monopoly that can charge monopoly prices. AT&T was hugely successful as a monopoly, yet everything regarding phone service has improved since it was broken up and competition allowed into the marketplace. To big to fail is to me the same as saying to big to exist and corporate size should be regulated to prevent taxpayers from having to assume the risk of aggressive financiers.

[tnedator]

Compared to the billions of dollars that is put into pharma research via the government drug companies invest only small amounts into relatively refined products to begin with. I intentionally choose examples where the bulk of the research has taken the form of government grants and defense spending rather than private capital. The results are then taken by private corporations and refined slightly and sold at a high price for profit. Let us also not forget that big pharma spends a great deal of time researching "me too" drugs like lipid lowering drugs that are essentially identical to currently existing lipi lowering agents in order to get a piece of the pie(somehow without driving down drug costs since one would think they might try and undersell the competition yet they don't). Shouldn't that be patent infringement?(It's not because the fundamental research is from government grants and well published not from private corporate money). They also spend a great deal "refining" drugs by introducing minimal chemical modifications so that they can continue to sell the newer agent as a brand name. When these trials fail they are certain to include them in their stats regarding R and D costs and failure rates.

I am not in favor of card check. However comparing union spending/power to that of corporations is simply absurd. The three largest campaign donors to Republicans and Democrats are JP Morgan, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs - the only difference is the order. This is consistent from year to year. Do you wonder why both parties have an identical fiscal policy when it comes to banking/finance?

As for the profit question I do not propose any strict limits on most profits. The limits that I propose are on corporate rights. For example they should not have a right to participate in democratic governance which should be limited to individuals and nonprofits with charters set up specifically to advance a cause.

The most profitable form of corporation is a monopoly that can charge monopoly prices. AT&T was hugely successful as a monopoly, yet everything regarding phone service has improved since it was broken up and competition allowed into the marketplace. To big to fail is to me the same as saying to big to exist and corporate size should be regulated to prevent taxpayers from having to assume the risk of aggressive financiers.

You last paragraph is a VERY slippery slope.

Your second to last paragraph sounds good, but the fact is that many non-profits have abused their status and not only taking contributions, but in many cases tax dollars to further a candidate or party.

Regardless, while we don't see eye-to-eye on some specifics, I think we both think that there is too much influence exerted on Washington.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What rights do you propose that the "owners" of these corporations have? Should they exceed the rights that you as a private citizen have? Again I am not suggesting we abandon corporations entirely, just that we redefine not only their rights but also their obligations. Profit is only a dirty word when it comes at the expense of real people.


Post of the day! :thumbs:

[tnedator]

Post of the day! :thumbs:

Says the guy from the now broke, socialist republic of California.

[barryr]

If we want real reform with healthcare, tort reform needs to be included in it. Ridiculous lawsuits just drives up the costs for everybody, but since the trial lawyers have been in bed with the democrats for years, you're not going to see much in that area being done. And since it won't be taken seriously, then you can tell the democrats especially are not serious about it. Obama claims we ALL need to pull our full share, but apparently the trial lawyers are exempt.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ridiculous lawsuits just drives up the costs for everybody....

:oyvey: :bs:

Good God, don't ridiculous right-wing canards like this one have some sort of expiration date?

All the data shows that such lawsuits only account for a minuscule increase in the cost of health care.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/hc-wazoo.jpg

[frerottenextelway]

To you first question, look at the title of the thread and then get back to me.

To your statement. Do you really think the UK people envisioned their health care system looking anything like what they currently have? Maybe it they had feared shadows, they wouldn't be ****ed now. Food for thought....

Even the conservative right-wing party in the UK support the NHS, as do the people. And the UK has one of the weaker non-US health care systems.

[tnedator]

Even the conservative right-wing party in the UK support the NHS, as do the people. And the UK has one of the weaker non-US health care systems.

Which is why many of us want no part of back dooring a single payer, leading to NHS, trojan horse passed. It is now a way of life. Something like 70% of Brits (and most other western European countries) say that the NHS either needs major reform or complete overhaul. Why? Because it's broken.

It's far different reading or listening to liberals on TV talking about how great nationalized health care is. You need to talk to some of the people dealing with it.

We have a small percentage of our population dealing with emergency room or state/county run, crappy hospitals, but the Brit hospitals make them seem like the Mayo clinic.

This is simply a liberal mindset, it goes with spreading the wealth. We should ruin the health care of the 90% that are happy with theirs, to deal with the 5% that have no coverage or crappy coverage (I left out 5%, because of illegals, those that don't want coverage, etc.).

Anyway, another dead subject, because it isn't open to debate.

[frerottenextelway]

Which is why many of us want no part of back dooring a single payer, leading to NHS, trojan horse passed. It is now a way of life. Something like 70% of Brits (and most other western European countries) say that the NHS either needs major reform or complete overhaul. Why? Because it's broken.

It's far different reading or listening to liberals on TV talking about how great nationalized health care is. You need to talk to some of the people dealing with it.

We have a small percentage of our population dealing with emergency room or state/county run, crappy hospitals, but the Brit hospitals make them seem like the Mayo clinic.

This is simply a liberal mindset, it goes with spreading the wealth. We should ruin the health care of the 90% that are happy with theirs, to deal with the 5% that have no coverage or crappy coverage (I left out 5%, because of illegals, those that don't want coverage, etc.).

Anyway, another dead subject, because it isn't open to debate.

You think Europe thinks their health care system is broken compared to ours? Some of them (though not many) are a bit dinged up like in England and need fixed up, but they still mock ours, as they should.

Here's from the BBC - "Despite the concerns raised by the survey, 82% of respondents said they were proud of the health service, with half claiming it was still the envy of the world."

And England is far from the best. The best, according to most impartial experts, is France, which has a hybrid system. Switz, which has no public insurance (i believe), is also rated highly - because it is entirely non-profit and heavily regulated.

We should learn from what others do well - and learn from what they don't do well - and implement the best of it, not spout no, no, no, nonsense.

[tnedator]

You think Europe thinks their health care system is broken compared to ours? Some of them (though not many) are a bit dinged up like in England and need fixed up, but they still mock ours, as they should.

Here's from the BBC - "Despite the concerns raised by the survey, 82% of respondents said they were proud of the health service, with half claiming it was still the envy of the world."

And England is far from the best. The best, according to most impartial experts, is France, which has a hybrid system. Switz, which has no public insurance (i believe), is also rated highly - because it is entirely non-profit and heavily regulated.

We should learn from what others do well - and learn from what they don't do well - and implement the best of it, not spout no, no, no, nonsense.

This has been well documented. When Brits (and citizens of other western european countres) were asked what they thought about their own health care, it was given VERY low marks, in need of reform, etc. When the conversation turns to out polticians and media bashing their health care, then nationalistic pride kicks in and they change their tune.

Go back out to google.co.uk or google.de and search on things like "+poll +health +care +reform" and see what you get.

[frerottenextelway]

This has been well documented. When Brits (and citizens of other western european countres) were asked what they thought about their own health care, it was given VERY low marks, in need of reform, etc. When the conversation turns to out polticians and media bashing their health care, then nationalistic pride kicks in and they change their tune.

Go back out to google.co.uk or google.de and search on things like "+poll +health +care +reform" and see what you get.

I tried searching .fr, but it made my head want to explode.

What I wanted to find was one legit company doing polling across a variety of countries, which I did (to keep the standards the same, as polls can vary from one to another by so much).

Enjoy.

Dutch health system rated best, U.S. worst - polls 07 Jul 2008 20:21:57 GMT
Source: Reuters
NEW YORK, July 7 (Reuters Life! ) - Americans are the least satisfied with their health care system, while the Dutch system is rated the best, according to new research.

Polls about health care in 10 developed countries by Harris Interactive revealed a range of opinions about what works and what doesn't.

In the United States a third of Americans believe their system needs to be completely overhauled, while a further 50 percent feel that fundamental changes need to be made.

"Given that all countries other than the U.S. have universal health care systems in place, this may invite questions on why the U.S. remains the only wealthy, industrialized country without such a system," Harris president George Terhanian told Reuters.

In the Netherlands, where health care is financed by mandatory health insurance, 42 percent of people think their system works well and needs only minor changes.

And only nine percent of the Dutch think a complete overhaul is necessary, compared to 12 percent in Canada and Spain, 15 percent Britain and France, 17 percent in Germany and New Zealand, 18 percent in Australia and 20 percent in Italy, according to the polls of more than 1,000 people in each country.

The U.S. model, widely criticized on its combination of private insurance and publicly-funded programs, spends more on health care than any other nation worldwide but ranks low on overall quality of care, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

France's health system, based on compulsory national insurance, was ranked best in the world by the WHO in 2000, while Britain's National Health Service, the world's largest publicly funded system, was in 18th place.

The Harris comparison of the national surveys showed that 70 percent of the French and 59 percent of Britons think their health services are "the envy of the world."

Nearly 70 percent of Germans, a majority of whom receive coverage from state-funded insurance plans, feel that access to healthcare depends on a patient's ability to pay for it.

But at least 47 percent of those surveyed in all countries think there are some good things in their systems but they need to be improved.

"It is by no means clear through these surveys that universal health care systems represent the so-called magic pill," said Terhanian.

[tnedator]

I tried searching .fr, but it made my head want to explode.

What I wanted to find was one legit company doing polling across a variety of countries, which I did (to keep the standards the same, as polls can vary from one to another by so much).

Enjoy.

10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care
National Center For Policy Analysis
Brief Analysis #649
by Scott Atlas

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers and academics alike are beating the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. However, before turning to government as the solution, some unheralded facts about America's health care system should be considered.

Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.

Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:

Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.

More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).

Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).

Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."

Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.

Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."

Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).

Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade. The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.

http://www.ncpa.org/images/1838.jpg

Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country. Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.

Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

[frerottenextelway]

10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care
National Center For Policy Analysis
Brief Analysis #649
by Scott Atlas

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers and academics alike are beating the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. However, before turning to government as the solution, some unheralded facts about America's health care system should be considered.

Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.

Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:

Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.

More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).

Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).

Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."

Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.

Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."

Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).

Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade. The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.

http://www.ncpa.org/images/1838.jpg

Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country. Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.

Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

You posted a link to an insurance company's website? Seriously, I'm not going to read that sh_t directly from UnitedHealth Group. Unbelievable.

[tnedator]

You posted a link to an insurance company's website? Seriously, I'm not going to read that sh_t directly from UnitedHealth Group. Unbelievable.

So, you are one of the people that won't click on a link. You pre-judge that because of where it is located, that it has to be false. There are footnotes linked back to original source material.

[tnedator]

You posted a link to an insurance company's website? Seriously, I'm not going to read that sh_t directly from UnitedHealth Group. Unbelievable.

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is an American non-profit conservative think tank partially financed by the insurance industry.[1] The NCPA states that its goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, education and environmental regulation.

The NCPA was founded in February 1983[2] by British businessman Antony Fisher[3] and Dallas businessmen Russell Perry (CEO of Republic Financial Services),[4] Wayne Calloway (CEO of Frito-Lay), John F. Stephens (CEO of Employers Insurance of Texas),[5] and Jere W. Thompson (CEO of the Southland Corporation).

The NCPA's founding and current president is libertarian economist John C. Goodman. Its first offices were at the University of Dallas. It now has a Dallas office and a Washington, D.C. office. Its revenue in 2006 was $5.1 million.[6] The NCPA website says that 62% of its income comes from foundations, 21% from corporations, and 17% from individuals. Its foundation sponsors include the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Earhart Foundation and the Armstrong Foundation.

In 2007, the NCPA compiled a point-by-point rebuttal to Michael Moore's film Sicko. [7]

The NCPA received media attention recently for its promotion of encouraging automatic enrollment into companies' 401(k) plans. NCPA President John Goodman also recently partnered with Wall Street Journal editorial writer Kim Strassel to author a book, Leaving Women Behind: Modern Families, Outdated Laws (ISBN 0742545458).

NCPA was a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, which described itself as "an alliance of some two dozen non-profit public policy groups concerned about the implications of the Kyoto Protocol for consumers," and which was generally skeptical of the anthroprogenic global warming theory [8]. NCPA has also recently (as of January, 2007) undertaken to debunk claims of Peak Oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis

[frerottenextelway]

So, you are one of the people that won't click on a link. You pre-judge that because of where it is located, that it has to be false. There are footnotes linked back to original source material.

That's correct. If you link to the UnitedHealth Group website to tell me how good the UnitedHealth Group is, that is laughable and should be treated as such.

It's also completely dishonest for you try and pass this off as not coming from U.S. health insurance companies.

[frerottenextelway]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis

I know who they are which is why I called you on your B.S.

[tnedator]

That's correct. If you link to the UnitedHealth Group website to tell me how good the UnitedHealth Group is, that is laughable and should be treated as such.

Where is the direct link to UnitedHealth Group?

[tnedator]

I know who they are which is why I called you on your B.S.

In other words, facts don't matter, because they are a conservative think tank with verifiable data that runs contrary to your belief, you ignore it.

Glad you are true to your word, most people on here won't even click on a link. Didn't realize you were talking about yourself.

[frerottenextelway]

In other words, facts don't matter, because they are a conservative think tank with verifiable data that runs contrary to your belief, you ignore it.

Glad you are true to your word, most people on here won't even click on a link. Didn't realize you were talking about yourself.

I would be embarassed and appalled at posting that and trying to pass it off. Talk about money in politics, and stunts like that are why politicians can be bought and sold by corporations.

[tnedator]

I would be embarassed and appalled at posting that and trying to pass it off. Talk about money in politics, and stunts like that are why politicians can be bought and sold by corporations.

I didn't try and 'pass off' anything. I have seen them represented as a conservative think tank, like the Heritage Group, like you guys also dounce, because they are 'conservative'.

I have only had a few minutes to search, but I have not seen where this is Unitedhealth Group. Where is the tie?

If this is an insurance group, maquerading as a non-partisan group, then you are 100% right, but I have not seen this link. Please provide details of where there is proof this is UnitedHealth or another insurance company.

If you can, then after my trip, I will provide similar stats from direct source, because there is PLENTY of it out there, it just takes some digging.

[barryr]

Liberals have yet to find a nonliberal group they don't believe has an agenda. Of course the groups they support and believe in have no agendas. They just "tell it like it is." Whatever.

[kappys]

You last paragraph is a VERY slippery slope.

Your second to last paragraph sounds good, but the fact is that many non-profits have abused their status and not only taking contributions, but in many cases tax dollars to further a candidate or party.

Regardless, while we don't see eye-to-eye on some specifics, I think we both think that there is too much influence exerted on Washington.

I don't see why regulation of monopolies is a slippery slope. Many monopoly companies have been broken up in the past, with the most recent being AT&T. As far as I can tell every time that has happened everything regarding that particular industry has improved - service, price, quality, etc. Conversely when monopolies are created(as in privitization of power and water) all of the above tend to suffer.

Monopolies have no more impulse to improve than a communist style central planning agency. If they hold all the cards they are immune to any pressures. The only agency that can hold them accountable is the government - via antitrust laws,etc. That has prevented Microsoft from turning into a monopoly and while I certainly like some of their products like Word/Excel, how much better are things with Mozilla, or any of the other products developed to compete with the Microsoft brands.

The natural tendency of a corporation is towards monopoly - since that allows for maximization of profits. It has to be prevented and checks have to be placed to prevent it.