What HillBama Wants to do to Our Healthcare
March 25th, 2008 at 06:44am Mark Noonan
From Britain:
Nearly half of Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) maternity units had to turn away women in labor last year because they were full, figures showed on Thursday.
Furthermore, a shortage of facilities or staff led to almost one in 10 of these units closing more than 10 times.
One closed 28 times, while another was forced to shut its doors 39 times.
The figures, collected by the opposition Conservative Party under the Freedom of Information Act, showed large maternity units were more likely to be forced to close than smaller ones…
…Of the 147 NHS Trusts that provide maternity services, 103 provided figures.
Of these, 42 percent reported having closed or having been forced to divert women to another site at least once last year because of capacity problems.
Question: Why do only 70% of them provide figures? Are there any horrors hidden being non-reporting? One has to assume that if you’re doing a bang up job, you’re going to annouce it to the world…non-reporting is, in my view, a strong indicator of poor performance.
Be that as it may - this is what you get when you have a government run program. Now, don’t get me wrong - I’m sure that everyone in Britain’s health system wants to provide whatever services are necessary to ensure the healthy birth of Britain’s babies; intent is not the issue - just as its not the issue with HillBama’s health care plans. What is at issue is actual results - and the problem with a government-run program is that the norm for such things is that they get caught up in themselves, and thus can’t spare full effort on their actual job.
Its like this - you have a choice in your county health care budget; provide more maternity care, or give a raise to that troublesome union running the hospital kitchens. What do you do? Well, if there’s not enough maternity care, you can send the poor lady down the road and hope the next hospital is open…but if there’s not enough money for a pay raise, you’ll get a strike and the elected official in charge of your department will sack you for the failure. And even if you’re not sacked, the unions can cause you endless headaches if they don’t get their way, while the lady who was shoved off probably won’t even complain, and if she does you just file it away and “forget” to report it in the annual stats. And if she or her child dies, she didn’t die at your facility, so its as if it never happened.
This is just one example of a million which could be brought forth to show how, in action, national health care just won’t deliver the goods. Keep that firmly in mind: its not whether or not providing health care is a good thing or a bad thing. It is a self-evident truth that providing health care is a good thing. But the central question is, how do we do it? Trust a bureaucrat under a vote-mongering elected official to get it right, or trust ourselves?
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008
60 Comments Add your own
1. js | March 25th, 2008 at 7:07 am
Hillbama’s lips are moving, you know what that means.
Every election the healthcare issue comes up. Then for 3 years, it gets mugged in Congress.
Our healthcare system is ok.
The real problem we need to solve is the insurance industry. It needs regulated.
2. OhioOrrin | March 25th, 2008 at 7:29 am
on the other hand, just read that here in ohio, 70% of the OBGYN’s have left the field, since Y2K due to lawsuits & soaring malpractice insurance costs.
woman may soon be forced to go outta state to have their babies.
also, our entire federal govt, including our armed forces have socialized medicine.
medicare/medicad is socialized medicine.
care in the emergency-rooms around the country is socialized for the uninsured in that they cannot be turned-away & the cost is passed-on to the rest of us.
I no longer carry water for the profit orientated medical industry.
3. lilly06 | March 25th, 2008 at 7:53 am
This article has actually taken alot of information out of context.
There are 2 primary reasons why the NHS has turned away pregnant women and both have nothing to do with the quality of care being offered:
1. The NHS has a shortage of midwives and is currently driving a recruitment process to hire more
2. Increased immigration in the last 2 years
The combination of both reasons as stated above now means that there are more pregnant women to each midwife in an NHS hospital. This will obviously be problematic in the short run however this doesn’t mean the quality of care offered is sub-standard and the problem is attributable to a national health care system.
It seems quite strange that you completely back the government with decisions with regards to the Iraqi war i.e. life and death decisions of young Americans, the economy (your taxes), education (again your taxes/money) etc. and you can’t trust them with your health care plans. Speaks alot about your faith in the government whether conservative or liberal (consequently conservative in the past 8 years).
I must admit, the British NHS system has people on waiting lists for surgeries but people are not dying from not getting life saving surgeries because they are not insured. People are not going bankrupt from being underinsured.
America is the largest economy in the world, if the government can afford such an expensive war, it an afford to offer a good quality health care system for its people. The American people are worth it.
4. extramedium | March 25th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Of course:
So sometimes a woman will get diverted from her hospital of choice for a few hours - it’s still better than a chunk of your population being completely uninsured. Plus the UK has a lower infant mortality rate than the US. Have you got any better “horrors” than this? Even with your example, I’d much rather have government-run, universal health care.
Maximize the size of the risk pool, remove the profit-motive of the insurance companies and insure everybody. It may not be perfect, but it works in the UK. Why would you want a system where people go uninsured?
Oh, and for you wealthy folks - you can still lord it over the unwashed masses by purchasing private insurance and visiting private medical facilities. I’m sure the poor would gladly take the minor inconveniences over having no coverage at all.
Anybody care to guess whether the British would prefer an American-style free-market health care system to their NHS?
5. Right Wing News&hellip | March 25th, 2008 at 8:54 am
My Favorite 40 Bloggers For 2008 (Version 1.0)
It’s time for me to rank my favorite blogs for the 1st quarter of 2007. Do keep in mind that as the quarter has progressed, some blogs have, of course, moved up and others have dropped, based on how often…
6. Magnum Serpentine | March 25th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Any National Health Care system is better than what we have here in the United States, thanks go george.
7. Bull | March 25th, 2008 at 9:37 am
So… do we do something as Hillary and Obama want to do or do we do nothing as is going on right now?
I’ll take my chances with SOMETHING.
can we apply that same logic to social security?
8. SEW | March 25th, 2008 at 9:48 am
But Mark,that is much superior to many areas in the USA. Many areas have no care whatsoever, especially in ObGyn and neurosurgery. Not because of the health care system, but the legal/tort system. Hundreds of thousands of dollars a year per doctor for malpractice insurance for the privilege of being sued as often as the local Dem judges aren’t playing golf with the trial attorneys. So obviously the doctors left town or the state, or retired. And of course big law contributes more to Dems than big oil, big pharma and big everything else combined contributes, year in year out.
Count on being seen by your FMG [foreign medical graduate] in the future. And having John Edwards as AG.
Awesome!
9. Bull | March 25th, 2008 at 10:02 am
joe, while i agree that “something” should be done about SS, i don’t agree with your plan.
the question was asked because when pres. bush wanted to do something about SS everyone said it was fine and it shouldn’t be touched. that doing nothing was better than something.
at least you recognize that something should be done.
10. Casper | March 25th, 2008 at 10:14 am
This isn’t a either or choice. This is an opportunity to make some improvements in a system that isn’t working. We should be looking at how health care is bring handled in lots of other countries and make decisions on what would be best for our country. It could end up as a combination of tort reform and health insurance for everyone.
11. SEW | March 25th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Something should be done. That sounds like the Dem position on everything, including health care. Something.
Heck of a plan.
12. lilly06 | March 25th, 2008 at 10:33 am
As opposed to do nothing or ignore the world and work off ignorance.
Fact is the best processes within any organisation or country is as a direct result of look at best practices.
If America is going to offer a premier health service relative to other world nations, it needs to assess best practice and take up a system suitable for the economy.
Its foolish not to do so, if the best companies in the world are benchmarking to the industry and their competitors, the American government should be doing the same.
13. SEW | March 25th, 2008 at 10:45 am
The plan. Change, Hope, Peace, Love. Did I forget anything?
I am saying that if you think the best health care system in the world is broke, you’ll love socialized care.
And lilly06, show me one government agency you want delivering health care. You want inefficiency? You want inability to get fired? You want to take the best and brightest and expect them to accept government management and control of everything they do?
LOL.
14. SEW | March 25th, 2008 at 10:52 am
“The way I remember it is that people were saying that something should be done, but it shouldn?t be privitized. But hey, I could be wrong. Joke
“Healthcare is broke. Something should be done.
SS is broke/breaking. Something should be done about it. I laid out a couple of basic ideas.” Joke
Joke, how am I being a fool and disengenuous? For suggesting “something” should be done? Awesome couple of ideas, something should be done and something should be done.
15. Joe | March 25th, 2008 at 10:57 am
17. SEW | March 25th, 2008 at 10:45 am
So you are saying that healthcare isn’t broken?
You say Dems offer nothing but hope and change. What they do offer, since you don’t like it, you just say there is no plan and call it socialism.
Have you read any of the proposals or did Rush just tell you that it will cost you a fortune and you felt the need to regurgatate what he told you?
16. SEW | March 25th, 2008 at 11:11 am
I have never listened to Rush. Another false accusation to fit your agenda of a typical white person, or typical conservative.
And I have read the proposals. Socialism, pure and simple. But hey when the father figure in Hawaii was a card carrying communist and the uncle in Chicago is a hate filled racist, socialism isn’t so bad.
17. lilly06 | March 25th, 2008 at 11:19 am
SEW:
You must be millionaire because God forbid you become a victim of a disease you can’t afford because you are underinsured.
1. Government control does not mean inability to get fired.
2. Government control does not mean that the best and brightest will not be hired
Yes, you can’t be a millionaire as a doctor working in a government funded system but lets face it, whats wrong with being a doctor with a good sized house and 2 cars as opposed to a mansion and 7 cars (that you don’t drive at once) and millions of Americans dying.
I weigh up the pros and cons on a partly socialized system and I say that a reduction in the deaths of those uninsured or underinsured is worth it for me. Noone can really put a price on human lives.
18. Casper | March 25th, 2008 at 11:20 am
SEW,
So what should be done?
19. SEW | March 25th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Joke, I’m not poking fun at your couple of ideas! Here they are, they speak for themselves. 1.something should be done, and 2.something should be done about it.
And what was the potshot at John Edwards?I named him the AG! Pot-shot? And
“Don’t just poke-fun at Obama by calling him a Communist, a Socialist, terrorist-hugging, Chavez-loving, a FARC-supporting, Muslim, racist person.”
Please reference your accusations! I’ll give you the socialist call, otherwise factual lies, as are Joke’s claims.
20. Some Assembly Required | March 25th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I think it’s worth mentioning “House Resolution (H.R.) 676, the “New Expanded Medicare” bill ” that westmich mentioned in a previous thread on healthcare. I personally feel this plan is the best compromise between the dem’s and repub’s.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.676:
Not to single SEW out but I am curious how you’d feel about this bill.
21. SEW | March 25th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I called you a joke. Your 2 ideas speak for themselves. Awesome ideas. See post#15.
1. something should be done
2. something should be done about it
Physican reimbursement is currently totally controlled by the government and insurance companies. The only business in the USA with price controls. And you Change, Hope, Peace, Love people think they will roll over, play dead, and become overnight government employees?
Or do you not think at all? LOL.
22. David B. Schmidt | March 25th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
extra (post #4) states “Anybody care to guess whether the British would prefer an American-style free-market health care system to their NHS?”
To which I will state that all my friends (and those of my mother) which live in various parts of England, Wales, France, etc & have both the “government run” health care and private insurance on top and to a person they tell us that we should stay as far away from government run health care as possible.
As for the SS problem–look no further than the City of Galveston, Tx., who as a whole rejected SS in favor of a private version and are retiring with 8 to 10 times the monthly checks of our wonderful government run SS. (Nothing like them 1% return bonds)
Looking towards education (again government run) where “teachers” that are illiterate themselves are running classrooms (Ca?) while the Teachers Unions are building headquarters with gold-plated bathroom fixtures (Miami, Fl.)
The only thing the government can apparently run well is the military. We need to take everything away from the congresscritters and make them work through our current system(s) like health care & SS–then they might fix them both.
23. Arctic Fox | March 25th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I am probably the best qualified person to discuss this article, since before I emigrated I worked for the NHS for 12 years.
The major problem in the NHS is that is has become more about bureaucracy than it has about healthcare, and this is down to successive governments including Tony Blair’s redefinition of Labour into “New Labour” robbing it of money and resources while employing bureaucrats to fiddle figures and make it look like everything was working.
It’s not just the health service either, it’s happening to other public sector services. Just ask Inspector Gadget, a serving police inspector.
You might ask where that money is going instead; well, it’s actually going to a lot of republican-favoured things. Tax cuts, the war in the middle east and corporate tax breaks. Interesting how that strategy of government is running down healthcare in the UK as well as the US.
But the thing about the UK healthcare system is that you will be treated somewhere and you don’t have to worry that your health insurance might not cover it, or might find a way to refuse the claim, or might leave you thousands in debt. Even if someone like me has to patient transfer you 200 miles, you will get treatment, and it will be the standard you need to recover.
So in short, no, it’s not perfect, and it’s suffering because the government wants to spend the cash it requires elsewhere. Add to that the fact that, as a member of the European Union, anyone from any other EU country can move to the UK - and believe me, eastern Europe’s healthcare is a nightmare! - and you have a system under such creaking stress it’s likely to break. Top it off with a PM who robs it to pay for a war the country didn’t even start because he wants to be buddy-buddy with another nations premier and it’s a recipe for disaster.
But at least you don’t have people dying because they can’t afford insurance, or they can’t get insurance, or their insurance doesn’t cover their lifesaving treatment for some reason, all things which do happen over here. And as I’ve said previously, under a McCain government, those policies will continue, and lives will continue to be needlessly lost that way.
When it comes down to it, the basics are this: Healthcare will ALWAYS lose money. That’s why private health firms dump the ill. Social healthcare will always be a drain on the government. But again I ask the question:
Which is more important - Dollars or human lives?
Do you republicans live in a country where you would not spend the necessary money to save a life, and if you don’t how do you explain your reluctance to back social healthcare? And if you do, how do you call yourself Christians? These are questions Republicans avoid answering like the metaphorical plague!
24. kimberly4victory | March 25th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
1. There isn’t a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?
2. “Free” health care isn’t really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
5. Patients aren’t likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
Just because Americans are uninsured doesn’t mean they can’t receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don’t have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
6. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
7. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
8. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
9. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
10. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
11. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a “right” by the public, meaning that it’s politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.
25. Arctic Fox | March 25th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Quoting Kimberly:
Shouldn’t that mean you need to take a look at what’s wrong in GOVERNMENT then, where the bureaucracy should be cut? I’d say that’s an argument for reforming government, not avoiding social health care.
PLENTY can be cut from the army budget by ending the war in Iraq. And does this mean the answer to my question of which matters more, dollars or human lives, is, in your mind, dollars?
Debatable. It’s cheaper to simply not take on those who would be a risk. In terms of cost control, that makes perfect sense - insure the healthy and don’t insure the ill, and you’re guaranteed to make a profit. But effective? Only at killing those most in need.
Absolute rubbish. That still isn’t the way it works in the NHS even though the NHS is in a very poorly state. The patient will always receive the standard of treatment and care that they need. Granted it might not be local, but which would you prefer? To travel, or to die?
LIFE THREATENING service, maybe. If I’m involved in a car accident and my life is in danger, then yes, the ER can’t turn me away. But terminally ill with (for example) cancer patients are a different story. As they aren’t in imminent danger, they fall through the gaps, and by the time they do qualify for urgent care normally their disease has progressed to such a stage where it’s no longer medically treatable.
Also, the NHS doesn’t pay for drugs. Prescriptions cost, at the time I left, six pounds (twelve dollars) per item.
This I will agree with, and is what has run down the NHS. But as with point #1, it’s more an argument for government reform than for not doing it in the first place.
And here we have the central theme of the right wing. Why should I have to pay for the burden of caring for others? Well, the Bible tells you to for a start. So either “care for the least of these, my brethren” or admit that you’re not Christian - because you can’t do both!
And here comes the fearmongering. The insurance companies are far too big to be seriously hurt by something like this. As for other business closures, can you be more specific? Finally the patients records already exist at their doctors. It wouldn’t take anywhere near as long or painful transition as you are suggesting to have each hospital running a common system that a doctor could log onto to transfer patient records.
In my experience only if you severely cut a doctors pay or increase his or her hours will she be reluctant to continue in the job. I don’t see that happening in the NHS and I don’t see it happening over here.
So change the law. In Quebec, Canada, it is a legal requirement that all members of the public as well as healthcare professionals help in any way they can in the event of an accident or emergency. They balance that out with what is quaintly known as the “Good Samaritan” law, which indemnifies someone from prosecution so long as it can be reasonably argued they did the best they could.
A few “Good Samaritan” laws in US states would soon slash the frivolous law claims… but then, would you be opposed to that too, since it would likely mean that being a lawyer was less profitable and therefore less appealing?
But the alternative is to just let people die. In a land where there are such strong feelings on not allowing abortion, can you really be so heartless as to bring a child up and let it grow into an adult (if it makes it that far) only to die of some disease because you don’t want government healthcare? That is crueller than not having the child in the first place!
26. Bull | March 25th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
joe, back to SS for a moment, pres. bush wanted to privatize it but was willing to hear any other suggestions. i remember sen. reid saying that “there was nothing wrong with social security.”
we agree that something should be done about SS. we don’t agree what actually should be done. i’ve got no problem with privatizing it. but that’s for another time and i’m really not in the mood to argue about it right now.
as far as socialized health care, i’d rather do nothing than something if that something is having the government control it in any way. trust me, having the government involved is not a good idea. there’s a reason why our school systems suck and it isn’t NCLB. there isn’t a country that has it that has made anyone any better off than what we have now. there are things that we can improve on in our health care system but putting the government in charge should be the last thing we’d ever want to happen.
the worst thing you want to here is “the government is here to help.”
27. Arctic Fox | March 25th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
And there’s the thing, Joe, it doesn’t. In fact, you’re totally right, it SHOULDN’T be a carbon copy of another country’s system, because that country isn’t America and what’s right for them may not necessarily be right for us.
But Mark doesn’t even want to CONSIDER anything else, and that’s the rub. Mark is critical of Clinton and Obama because they want change, but his candidate doesn’t want to do anything at all about it.
We need a proper health system, geared to the needs of hte country, and we have to start looking at it sooner rather than later if we want to save lives
28. winnowhead | March 25th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Neither Obama, Clinton, McCain, or even Kucinich is proposing an NHS-style health care system in the United States. It’s unfathomable how we’d ever nationalize all of our private hospitals, clinics, assisted care centers, etc.
These comparisons are really about FUD. What both the Clinton and Obama plans are proposing is a combination of:
1) Subsidies to help those who can’t afford insurance but currently aren’t eligible for assistance.
2) Increased regulation of the insurance industry; the principle change being that the industry can no longer deny customers based on pre-existing conditions and must create broader pools to spread out risk (and cost)
3) An option to buy into a Medicare-like insurance pool administered by the federal government
4) And (in the case of Clinton), a mandate to purchase insurance
Now, attack these points all you want, but it is not destroying the insurance industry nor nationalizing our hospitals and clinics. Please focus your attacks on the actual point at hand instead of this “look over here!” nonsense.
29. kimberly4victory | March 25th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I’d like to respond to arctic’s response to my post but I’ve really got to work today. Don’t you libs have jobs … or a life without Blogsforvictory? I sat on my butt ALL day yesterday posting on this blog. I just can’t imagine sitting on my butt EVERY single day on this blog!
I do want to comment on one thing. It’s the old lefty ploy. Because I don’t believe in Universal Healthcare, I want people to die. Give me a break. Of course, I don’t want people to die.
Later.
30. FmrMarine | March 25th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
MS
>>>Any National Health Care system is better than what we have here in the United States, thanks go george.<<<<
You nitwits with BDS, the PRESIDENT does not give you, OR take away health care. That would be the work of congresses, ….the democRAT CONTROLLED congress.
BUT who gives a damn….blame Bush it is ALL his fault! WHAT MORONS.
31. FmrMarine | March 25th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
K4V
“Don’t you libs have jobs … or a life without Blogsforvictory? I sat on my butt ALL day yesterday posting on this blog. I just can’t imagine sitting on my butt EVERY single day on this blog!”
They are lefty trolls, some college students, some with anti Christian pornographic websites, and some representatives of, GLBT, NAMBLA.
They are here ONLY to disrupt and spew their marxist ANTI - Christian rhetoric, and homosexual agendas.
32. Typical White Person | March 25th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Anyone here even been to the U.K.? If so, have you seen their teeth? Their medical and dental systems are broken.
lilly06, midwives aren’t required at the dentists, are they?
33. Typical White Person | March 25th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Any National Health Care system is better than what we have here in the United States, thanks go george.
Gee, little snake, didn’t this problem exist in the early 1990’s, under the other Clinton? Hillarycare, anyone?
Why didn’t they solve it then, jerk?
34. Arctic Fox | March 25th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Both convenient excuses to avoid answering valid questions. In the first case, yes, I am employed, but there is time for me to do internet things when I’m not actually on a shout. Secondly, nice to hear you don’t want people to die, but very convenient that you dismiss the matter without even suggesting anything to correct the problem.
It’s all very well to scoff at people who do try to offer solutions, but if you agree there is a problem, let’s here your suggestion for fixing it, not just dismissals of those who DO actually bother to think of something.
Same thing with you, FmrMarine - how about some ideas about fixing it, rather than just hate speech about sticking random labels on contributers.
TWP - They should have done. They didn’t. They can now, that is, unless they get shouted down by Republicans.
35. ViralNexus | March 25th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Well to be completely honest FmrMarine the President has vetoed all of the healthcare reforms that have come accross his desk so in a way I guess you could say it is his fault. Though I would prefer to say that it has more to do with the greedy and corrupt insurnace companies than the Bush administration. As far as socialized/national healthcare is concerned- the intent is great but beauracracies are always a bad idea. There is no manner of government institution that can be as efficient/more efficient than private institutions. The insurnace company regulations that have been proposed as well as the “Good Samritan” laws that ArcticFox put forth should be more than enough to turn around the Healthcare industry. Furthermore something that needs more attention is the technology side of medicine- medicine is the only industry where technology raises costs as opposed to lowering them.
One aspect of healthcare that never gets mentioned is the preventitive health and maintenance issue. Healthy living should be something that we invest a lot of time and money into but seem to all but ignore it. Our schools have been forced into a position where they must sacrafice things like recess and PE in order to meet their NCLB requirements- school being the only place that most kids get exercise. Anyhow, these are just a few of my thoughts on the subject.
36. SEW | March 25th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
“. (cue SEW with his “Do Somehing” rants).”
Joe, are you awake? Those are your Do something rants, not mine. You called them your ideas.
Post#15.
“Healthcare is broke. Something should be done.
SS is broke/breaking. Something should be done about it. I laid out a couple of basic ideas.”
Joe
37. Michael | March 25th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Anybody who sings the praises or uses the example of military health care as socialized medicine has probably never had to get health care for a wife and children at a military facility. I spent 10 years in the Navy and had a wife and 2 kids. We came to dread any trips to the doctor or hospital with mediocre care, long waiting times and rude doctors and nurses. After some years they invented something called Champus which allowed us in some cases to seek our own doctors. We used it every time we could.
38. kimberly4victory | March 25th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
You’re exactly right, Michael! Been there, done that.
Must I now add Arctic Fox to the list of ass-umers? Yes, I actually have to work for a living. When I work, I make money. When I make money, I get to pay bills, go on vacations, buy nice things. It was not an excuse for not responding. Kapeesh?
1. Wouldn’t that be terrific if we could reform government!? How long would it take? I still have to say that I’d rather my government STAY OUT of my health insurance decisions.
2. A lot of people CAN pay for their health insurance. Should we include them in the Universal Healthcare plan? What about the people who don’t want health insurance? What happens when the money runs out for the healthcare plan like it did in Canada? Who do we tax next? The Middleclass?
I just don’t like the universal healthcare idea … but we do need to do something for those who cannot afford health insurance and make too much money to be on gov’t assistance.
So we should use the money from the war in Iraq after we cut and run. If we leave Iraq, how much will it cost in Iraqi lives, US lives after terrorists have used the country for a training/breeding ground to plan more attacks on our mainland? How much will it cost us to return our troops, equipment and start over?
3. I thought you worked for the government before? LOL. Those of us in the private sector can receive raises and promotions, and private businesses need to worry about staying afloat by cutting costs. Did you actually say “It’s cheaper to simply not take on those who would be a risk.” And, here I thought you care about the sick!
4. Absolute rubbish? “That still isn’t the way it works in the NHS even though the NHS is in a very poorly state.”
Uh, correct me if I am wrong … If one needs to have a non-life threatening operation, doesn’t it take two years or more before one can get it? That doesn’t sound very flexible to me.
5. Prescription costs are so high and your Universal Healthplan doesn’t pay for them? Interesting. My insurance pays a percentage.
6. And as I said, how long will it take to reform our government? Yikes.
7. “Why should I have to pay for the burden of caring for others?” I donate A LOT TO CHARITY … to those who CANNOT help themselves.
Therefore, I will rephrase your question: “Why should I have to pay for someone’s poor decisions on their health? I can see if it WASN’T THEIR FAULT, but they smoke two or three packs a day or sit on the couch eating potato chips and fattening foods and do not exercise. Hmmmm.
8. So, what happens to those who were working in the health insurance industry?
I will concede on the patients’ records. You are probably right, especially with the right technology in place.
9. The employment practices here in the US government are much different than the NHS. Read up on it … very strict procedures. Again … government reform? They’ve got lots and lots of reforming to do!
10. I love the “Good Samaritan” law!!
11. No, I don’t think the alternative is to just let people die.
I am lucky because my health insurance is wonderful. I rarely go to the doctor because I have a healthy lifestyle and teach my daughter to have one too. My insurance rates haven’t gone up for that reason (so how am I paying for someone with an unhealthy lifestyle, Joe?).
But, as I said above, for people who can’t afford health insurance, and make too much money to go on government assistance, there has to be something done about that.
Perhaps universal healthcare is not the suggestion. Leave people out who already have healthcare insurance through their places of employment, leave people out who don’t want insurance, leave people out who have unhealthy lifestyles … I just don’t really know without some more thought.
39. kimberly4victory | March 25th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
My daughter’s public school still has recess and PE, which is important. I do think it is the parents’ responsibility to teach their children healthy living and to get them to exercise. Taking a walk around the block each day doesn’t cost a dime. Unfortunately, some parents have unhealthy lifestyles and their children adapt it.
Arctic: Forgot to ask, what’s a shout?
40. Almiranta | March 25th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
The Dem health care plans are all mandatory. I haven’t read the details of Hillary’s plan yet but the one she proposed when she was co-president said that any person seeking health care outside the system would be fined, and anyone who provided health care outside the system would be severely fined—the figure I read was $50,000.
“Mandatory” means no choice. Look it up.
K4V said: “Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.”
Arctic Fox replied: “Absolute rubbish. That still isn’t the way it works in the NHS even though the NHS is in a very poorly state. The patient will always receive the standard of treatment and care that they need. Granted it might not be local, but which would you prefer? To travel, or to die?”
OK, Fox’s reply is too weird on two counts. The first is the claim “The patient will always receive the standard of treatment and care that they need.” Uh, no, they won’t. In fact, many patients have to either go without treatment, wait extremely long times to get treatment, or have to go to other countries for treatment. Socialized medicine has, among other drawbacks, the problem of the mindset of the collective—-decisions are made based on what is best for the most people, so in many locales there are serious shortages of equipment like CAT scans and MRIs and other modern diagnostic and treatment tools.
In a private system, a hospital can buy what they want to buy, and then charge more for using it if the demand is not high. In a government system, the bureaucrats can determine that the demand is not high enough to justify the cost.
And he goes on to say: “Granted it might not be local, but which would you prefer? To travel, or to die?”
Wow. I guess this is what passes for intellectual political discourse on the Left. Irrelevant, nonsensical, but hey, it’s a bunch of words tossed at a problem, and what else do you want?
How about THIS, Fox—–I want it to be local. If not in my immediate neighborhood, pretty damned close. I want the decision about what treatment will be made available, and where, BY THE PROVIDERS who know what the needs are and how to meet them—not by bureacrats in the capital. And the “…..which would you prefer? To travel, or to die?” comment is just plain goofy.
How about “I want my own doctor, and I want my treatment decisions made by the doctor and me, and I don’t want government involved in any of those decisions”.
The PROBLEM is not the health care in this country—-it is the insurance system we have now, and the tort system which places horrible burdens on medical practitioners. Check out the illustrious career of the Man Who Would be President, John Edwards. He made his millions suing OB-GYNs for birth defects which were never medically proven to be caused by any action of any doctor at any time. And he is not alone.
My long-time doctor just quit private practice, because of the combination of the hassles of dealing with insurance companies and the cost of malpractice insurance. For more than 20 years I have gone to this doctor, and now he is getting out of actual patient care and into another medical field.
If you choose to pay cash, you can take a minimum of 40% off your medical bills, because that is what they have to add on to cover the costs of dealing with the insurance companies.
I have a friend who is a doctor who specializes in treating low-income families. His wife works alnost full time in his clinic, because otherwise he would have to hire a full-time person just to deal with insurance and government claims.
As for government-run health care schemes, this is taken from a recent article:
“The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was supposedly a ‘conservative’ estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion.”
This fiscal year, (2007) a recent Cato Institute report notes, Medicare is expected to cost $244 billion ($172 billion in 1990 dollars). Not only are the real costs of Medicare constantly rising; the ratio between the workers who pay for the program and the retirees who benefit from it is falling. “The number of elderly will soar 116 percent by 2040,” says the Cato study, “while the number of workers supporting them will grow just 22 percent.”
And there is this about Medicaid fraud in just one state:
“New York’s Medicaid program, once a beacon of the Great Society era, has become so huge, so complex and so lightly policed that it is easily exploited. Though the program is a vital resource for 4.2 million poor people who rely on it for their health care, a yearlong investigation by The Times found that the program has been misspending billions of dollars annually because of fraud, waste and profiteering. A computer analysis of several million records obtained under the state Freedom of Information Law revealed numerous indications of fraud and abuse that the state had never looked into.”
And so on. Yes, there are some serious problems that need to be addressed. But lumping them all together and then dumping them into yet another Federal program is hardly the way to solve them.
And I guarantee that any federal attempt to socialize medicine will meet serious and numerous legal challenges, as it is clearly outside the permissable activities of the federal government according to the Constitution itself and the 10th Amendment.
41. Casper | March 25th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Arctic and Kimberly,
My complements to both of you for well thought out posts, with out the nastiness we often get here.
42. Some Assembly Required | March 25th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I posted this earlier, I just wanted to re-emphasis this Bill already in the house. I think it’s a viable compromise.
House Resolution (H.R.) 676, the “New Expanded Medicare” bill ” mentioned in a previous thread on healthcare.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.676:
Not to single SEW out but I am curious how you’d feel about this bill.
43. Some Assembly Required | March 25th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Under the bill
“(a) In General- The health insurance benefits under this Act cover all medically necessary services, including at least the following:
(1) Primary care and prevention.
(2) Inpatient care.
(3) Outpatient care.
(4) Emergency care.
(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Durable medical equipment.
(7) Long term care.
(8) Mental health services.
(9) The full scope of dental services (other than cosmetic dentistry).
(10) Substance abuse treatment services.
(11) Chiropractic services.
(12) Basic vision care and vision correction (other than laser vision correction for cosmetic purposes).
(13) Hearing services, including coverage of hearing aids.
(b) Portability- Such benefits are available through any licensed health care clinician anywhere in the United States that is legally qualified to provide the benefits.
(c) No Cost-Sharing- No deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing shall be imposed with respect to covered benefits.”
44. kimberly4victory | March 25th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Thank you, Casper … although I did feel Arctic was a bit nasty in some of his responses to me.
I thought Almiranta’s was spot on too. I should really look into ditching my insurance and paying cash, but keeping my daughter’s insurance. Good idea.
45. Casper | March 25th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
kimberly,
You are welcome. Both of you made points that I agreed with and some I don’t, but at least you kept it fairly civil.
I also thought that Almiranta made some very good points (I hope she doesn’t fall off her chair). This is a topic that needs discussion. Our current system isn’t working the way it should and we need to be looking at as many solutions as we can. As someone who is looking towards retirement in about ten years, I don’t want to see everything I’ve worked for over the last forty years go down the tube with one bad illness.
46. Arctic Fox | March 26th, 2008 at 3:15 am
A shout is a call to an emergency. Sorry, the lingo is used by fire/police/ambulance (I’m the latter) and I must confess I tend to use it as second nature without thinking about how it might sound to people outside the job.
Casper just hit the nail on the head. The number one fault with our healthcare system is that there’s no protection should your insurance company suddenly decide to dump you. That’s where people fall through the gaps, they still may earn more than the threshold for social assistance, but they don’t earn the thousands of dollars required for full time treatment in hospital. If their insurance company dumps them because they’ve suddenly become a “bad risk” then they are immediately in serious financial trouble.
At the very least, even if NOTHING else is changed, these companies have GOT to be forced to stop dumping customers who become ill, because without being forced they aren’t going to cease the practice themselves. That’s the first thing that has to be reviewed, what laws need to be changed or implemented to stop this abhorrent practice.
And I didn’t think I was any more nasty than you were, Kimberly… you accused me of being an unemployed layabout who was always waiting to comment here before I levelled the same accusation at you. But that’s water under the bridge. Casper, in much fewer words than either of us, got to the heart of the issue (Well done for that) and that is what must be tackled before all else.
Does anybody know what (if anything) McCain intends to do, or are you all wanting to bash Clinton and Obama because they’ve said what they intend to do?
47. lilly06 | March 26th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Typical White Person:
Okay. You got me there….lol
48. kimberly4victory | March 26th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Arctic: I was actually making a joke about sitting around posting all day long. I’m guilty of that as well. But, you’re right, it’s water under the bridge.
McCain has something on his web site about healthcare. I agree and disagree on some of his points. I don’t recall seeing anything about stopping insurance companies from dumping customers because of a catostrophic illness.
McCain’s healthcare plan would be a good topic thread, Mark/Matt.
49. jackson | March 26th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
It’s a national disgrace. THE MOST EXPENSIVE health care system in the world, and we have about one third of the population or more either uninsured or underinsured. Republicans fight for the rights of the HMO’s and the drug companies so ONE person like William Mcguire (CEO United Health) can walk off with a total compensation package of 1.78 BILLION in 2006(7?) while drastically cutting benefits and doubling prices, crushing some families and shutting out others. I believe it’s immoral to make a profit from the denial of care.
A staggering number of bankruptcies are caused by unforseen health problems, many by people who had insurance! Good, hard-working families destroyed by this rank injustice, yet you fight for the bloated pockets of the Bill McGuires of the world and tell us all we’re better off this way. You pick the worst examples of our Bush-gutted government systems, and other countries’ government run systems and use those cases to scare as many people as you can away from asking for it, and NEVER mention the good that is being done. Every system will have it’s cases of fraud and incompetence, but that’s no reason to deny a person’s basic right to seek health, without which the pursuit of happiness becomes futile.
WHY, for Gods sake, would Canadians, when asked to vote for the “Most Important Canadian”, choose the man responsible for their national health care system??? WHY??? Because they KNOW what’s happenning here, and thank God for the vision and courage of a man like Tommy Douglas. But most Republicans don’t know about that, they only hear the few bad stories that wing nuts scour the Canadian news 24/365 for. In all my visits to Canada and experience with Canadians, I have NEVER met ONE who had a problem with their health care. And I ask at every opportunity, because I want to know the truth.
Why do you think Toyota, for example, chose to build their latest factory in Canada? Because it’s TOO DAMN EXPENSIVE to pay for health benefits for Americans. It’s costing us in SO many ways. Why is it so expensive? Because so much of the cost goes to administrative bullshit overhead beteen doctors and hospitals and nsurance and HMO’s, profit for CEO’s and shareholders, and lots of advertising, instead of actual health care. Get rid of that alone and you could take care of everyone with NO INCREASE in cost- perhaps even a decrease.
I’m amazed at how many good Americans are SCARED of the label “socialism”, because they’ve been told it means the end of freedom and the advent of Godless totalitarianism and all of a sudden all health care personnel will become nasty babushkas and Igor the evil doctor. Gimme a break, you’re smarter than that. Most people actually care.
50. Almiranta | March 26th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
jackson, you might take a closer, and more objective, look at those uninsured figures you toss around.
It is easy to come up with a huge and scary figure of “uninsured”. But you have to be realistic when you look at who does not have insurance.
First, take away those who qualify for different medical plans but who have not yet signed up.
Then take away those, like college students, who do not have personal insurance policies but who qualify under family and/or school protection.
Subtract the illegal aliens in the country. It’s not fair to import people who are poor and unemployed and/or unemployable and then add them to the statistics of either the “poor” or the uninsured. This is an American problem, so keep it confined to citizens.
Then we have the large pool of young, healthy, Americans who simply choose to spend their money on other things, not being too interested in insurance or health care—though they’d be tickled to have someone ELSE pay for it.
Now we would have the true core of the uninsured. And most of them are people with either the kinds of problems that have gotten insurance companies to drop them, and/or pre-existing conditions.
And THESE are the people we need to be talking about. THESE are the worst of the problems.
I, for example, have just turned 60. I don’t need or want coverage for reproductive problems, much less things like prostate problems. I absolutely resent being asked to buy a program that includes mental health care, birth control, sex change surgery, or problems due to smoking or drinking. None of those have anything to do with me. I am healthy, live a healthy lifestyle, take good care of myself, and don’t want to subsidize the care needed by people who don’t—with my insurance premiums or my taxes.
I want a major medical policy with a high deductable, one which allows me to pay my own normal expenses but which would cover major and catastrophic medical costs.
I should be able to shop around nationwide for a plan tailored to people like me, one that doesn’t try to cover every need of every person. And I should be able to count on that plan doing what it says it will do, and continuing to cover me if I have to make a large claim.
THESE are kinds of problems facing most Americans.
When my husband died last year, he was hospitalized for 27 hours, and his bills were in excess of $65,000. The executor of his estate took over the work of sorting though them, and found duplicate charges, unnecessary procedures, and outrageous costs that simply could not be explained or justified. Why not look into billing practices and fraud? Do you think that maybe charges like this are made possible by the attitude that “insurance will pay for it”? —of that insurance companies drop people because they are overbilled like this?
This determination that we need sweeping legislation when there are specific and easily identified areas that need attention is just proof of a political agenda far more than a simple desire to fix the problems.
Oncer again, I say that if we could set ideology aside and just look at problems and try to find solutions to those problems, we would make a lot more progress.
I am not advocating a bipartisan approach—-I think we need a NON partisan approach.
51. jackson | March 26th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I agree with most of what you say, Almiranta. Except this:
“This determination that we need sweeping legislation when there are specific and easily identified areas that need attention is just proof of a political agenda far more than a simple desire to fix the problems.”
That’s a pretty severe insult, wouldn’t you say? Screw the politics, I care far more about the problem. I want to fix it first, then deal with all the ancillary issues that you raise.
Unfortunately, I think sweeping legislation is the ONLY way to get rid of one of the biggest and most profitable industries in the country. People like that don’t go away quietly. People who profit from misery and denial, who make their own rules because they have such deeply entrenched power over our policy makers.
They flood the media outlets with billions in advertising so they can control the message with threats to pull revenue, and the message most of us hear is “socialism will wreck your health care and force you to pay for what you don’t need” Unfortunately Fox “news” has set a terrible precedent when they were vindicated in an appeals court for firing reporters who refused to lie on the air.
Excuse me for the tinfoil topknot, but it’s plainly obvious. The profit incentive in the health care industry (I’m not talking about doctors) is responsible for so much of what you raise. I’m very familiar with the medical “business” and the staggering amount of money they waste and overcharge, and I can tell you it’s not because the insurance company’s foot the bill. It’s a system out of control.
As far as you paying only for what you want, did you know that Americans already pay the highest health care taxes in the world, and we don’t get it? You are ALREADY paying for the catastrophic care of the uninsured, and would probably pay less if they had the option of preventative care. US taxes already pay for 60% of health care spending.
Canadians, on the other hand, pay WAY LESS, and are generally much healthier, and don’t deny routine care to the poor. It only makes sense for this country to do what’s right for it’s people. You can check out the facts and research at Physicians for National Health Program: http://www.pnhp.org/
52. galveston medical malprac&hellip | May 9th, 2008 at 5:17 am
galveston medical malpractice lawyer
Other lawyers advise insurance companies about the legality of insurance transactions, guiding the company in writing insurance policies to conform to the law and to protect the companies from unwarranted claims.
53. Nationwide Retirement Sol&hellip | May 15th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Nationwide Retirement Solutions.com
I enjoyed reading your blog. What a great thing it is to be able to share information like this on the Internet.
54. Real Estate House Of Repr&hellip | June 6th, 2008 at 5:24 am
Real Estate House Of Representatives House Md
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
55. Eric&hellip | June 11th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Eric
Have enjoyed your site very much and benefited from the information. Thank You.
56. ames tools&hellip | June 16th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
ames tools
57. John&hellip | June 26th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
John
Just wanted to drop you a quick note to say thank you for a great resource.There is nothing else like your site on the net today. My friends are just going to love this site once I let them know about it.
58. Jack&hellip | July 11th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Jack
59. Gym Class Heroes Muscle B&hellip | August 5th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Gym Class Heroes Muscle Boys Muscle Girls
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
60. real estate inspector chi&hellip | August 11th, 2008 at 3:02 am
real estate inspector chicago
Now is the time to invest in US property, Don’t abandon it, invest in it.
Leave a Comment
Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed