Crappy Medical Care

[HighEnergy]

Lots of folks don't want the government running health care because they'll fuck it up. But here's a story from my sister. Her sister-in-law had her urethra stretched and her bladder lifted yesterday. They sent her home with her bladder full of packing and a foley catheter to drain the urine. Foley's have a small balloon in the end of them which is inflated with water to keep it from slipping out. Normally they use a seringe to inflate and deflate these things. They sent her home with instructions to cut the catheter and let the water out, and then pull the catheter and the packing out on her own or have her husband who works in a factory do this for her. Seems the insurance company doesn't cover for her to go back to the doctor to have this done. My sister is a retired RN and did this for her today, but damn! The guaze my sister pulled out turned out to be about the size of her fist. Can you imagine?

Now, how much more fucked up can the government be than insurance companies?

[bisexualinsocal]

Lots of folks don't want the government running health care because they'll fuck it up. But here's a story from my sister. Her sister-in-law had her urethra stretched and her bladder lifted yesterday. They sent her home with her bladder full of packing and a foley catheter to drain the urine. Foley's have a small balloon in the end of them which is inflated with water to keep it from slipping out. Normally they use a seringe to inflate and deflate these things. They sent her home with instructions to cut the catheter and let the water out, and then pull the catheter and the packing out on her own or have her husband who works in a factory do this for her. Seems the insurance company doesn't cover for her to go back to the doctor to have this done. My sister is a retired RN and did this for her today, but damn! The guaze my sister pulled out turned out to be about the size of her fist. Can you imagine?

Now, how much more fucked up can the government be than insurance companies?

We still have healthcare freedom and choice. My best advice would be to change carriers and stop looking for nanny to lend a hand.

[HighEnergy]

Her insurance carrier is from her husband's work, from which he is on medical leave from. It's not like you can just walk out and buy insurance anymore. I was denied medical insurance when I tried to buy it on my own, and once you are denied, you cannot apply for at least 1 year. When I did get to the point I could apply again, I was told my premiums would cost $2000 a month. Not something I can afford! So, given he can no longer work, he can't switch jobs. She can't work because she is providing round the clock care for her mother who is very ill. And they both have medical issues that will prevent them from getting insurance. They only give insurance to the healthiest of folks in this country!

[gfofbiguy]

They only give insurance to the healthiest of folks in this country!

So very true, and even though I am very healthy, as I work as an independent contractor/self-employed, I don't have my own insurance because I STILL cannot afford the premiums of $350/month, what with my rent, car payment, car insurance, etc. So I go without health insurance as well....and hope for the best.

[bisexualinsocal]

Her insurance carrier is from her husband's work, from which he is on medical leave from. It's not like you can just walk out and buy insurance anymore. I was denied medical insurance when I tried to buy it on my own, and once you are denied, you cannot apply for at least 1 year. When I did get to the point I could apply again, I was told my premiums would cost $2000 a month. Not something I can afford! So, given he can no longer work, he can't switch jobs. She can't work because she is providing round the clock care for her mother who is very ill. And they both have medical issues that will prevent them from getting insurance. They only give insurance to the healthiest of folks in this country!

Sure you can walk out and buy insurance. What it sounds like you're really looking for is a bottomless bank account, which is cool because so am I. That in mind, keep in mind that this is INSURANCE and not a savings account. That in mind, we are all entitled to save as little or as much money as we can.

But let's be honest. How about the government just rebate your family much of the taxes you've paid and let you go out and buy whatever insurance you'd like?

Why pay government-middle-men a processing fee? I vote we get tax credits and rebates!

[BronzeBobby]

Most people in America don't have the option to shop for insurance, since they're stuck with what they can get through their employers. At my current job, we can choose between (1) an HMO that's as lousy as the one described in the beginning of this thread, (2) a moderately priced policy, and (3) a traditional Blue Cross that would cost $950 a month. Naturally I chose #2, and my employer takes about $200 a month out of my pay then covers the rest. But even if I'd chosen #1 and then figured out the HMO was bad, I would have to wait a whole year for the new coverage window to open. And I have more choices than most people, since I have 3 choices....

So it's just not that simple to shop around. The government needs to subsidize more options for working Americans to buy, and then offer emergency plans for people who don't have jobs. Where and when that crosses the line into socialized medicine, I'm never quite sure. But I think there is now a universal opinion in the US that the way things are working right now, just isn't right. So my heart goes out to HighEnergy.

[bisexualinsocal]

Most people in America don't have the option to shop for insurance, since they're stuck with what they can get through their employers. At my current job, we can choose between (1) an HMO that's as lousy as the one described in the beginning of this thread, (2) a moderately priced policy, and (3) a traditional Blue Cross that would cost $950 a month. Naturally I chose #2, and my employer takes about $200 a month out of my pay then covers the rest. But even if I'd chosen #1 and then figured out the HMO was bad, I would have to wait a whole year for the new coverage window to open. And I have more choices than most people, since I have 3 choices....

So it's just not that simple to shop around. The government needs to subsidize more options for working Americans to buy, and then offer emergency plans for people who don't have jobs. Where and when that crosses the line into socialized medicine, I'm never quite sure. But I think there is now a universal opinion in the US that the way things are working right now, just isn't right. So my heart goes out to HighEnergy.

The government can subsidize your healthcare by not taking too much of your money in the first place. There's be no need for subsidy if they'd let you keep your money.

[Not2str8]

I am fortunate enough to have been able to obtain insurance thru my employer, during the "open enrollment" period when under state law, they have to enroll you, regardless of pre-existing condition(s). Since my employer does not contribute to the cost, I foot the bill entirely. It's a few dollars shy of $1,000 per month, entirely out of my pocket. During the previous few months, before I became eligible for this coverage, I sought out coverage on my own. But you see, there's a little problem. My wife was recently diagnosed with cancer, requiring surgery, a lengthy hospital stay, and a follow-up course of chemotherapy. I called countless insurance agents only to be told that they didn't have any companies that would write a policy to someone with a "pre-existing" condition. No coverage was available at any price. If not for the convenient timing of my open enrollment period, she would have gone without treatment. What if she had to wait 6 months....or 9 months to begin treatment ? Those months can be the difference between life and death. Some people think that an individual's life is not all that important in the grand scheme of things. They feel it's far more important to preserve the sanctity of the so-called "free market", than it is to ensure that all Americans have heath coverage. Two problems with this. The first is that when it comes to the healthcare industry, the so-called free market is anything but free. It is the recipient of huge amounts of government largesse. (that's political-speak for your's and my money.) In 2002, the most recent year I have stats for, the drug industry had 675 paid lobbyists in Washington D.C., to ensure that their interests outweigh your's and mine. That's 7 lobbyists for each U.S. Senator. All with handfulls of cash. Among their many "victories" was derailing an effort to have a prescription drug benefit added to traditional Medicare. Instead they pushed (successfully) to have the Medicare drug coverage provided by private insurers. The effect was to fracture the collective buying power of over 40 million Medicare beneficiaries in negotiating for lower prices. The winner ? The Pharmaceutical and Insurance industries, of course. The losers ? American citizens. It would be easy to go on for hours citing case after case of a healthcare system that is so inequitable it is laughed at by the rest of the world, but the debate can really be summed up in one very easily understood concept.
Healthcare is not a privilege, it is a basic human right. If you agree with this, you are among the vast majority of people. If you disagree, then your place is among the neo-conservatives who have presided over the largest transfer of wealth (from the middle class to the wealthy and super-wealthy) in the nation's history. (From 1980 on) I believe that government exists to serve "We the People", not just the corporate power structure, and wealthy elite. It is a belief also shared by the men who founded this country. And that's pretty good company.

[alaskacouple]

We run a small business and have for years provided medical insurance to our employees. However, year after year the premiums have gone up and the difficulty in forcing the insurance corporation to pay what they promised has increased. We currently pay an average of $10,000 per year for a policy with a very large deductible out of pocket cost for each person. In our case I know that we are one of the few companies in our industry to provide any health insurance - which of course increases our cost and impacts our competitiveness. However, we feel that this is the right thing to do.

The one thing seldom discussed is the huge profits gained (I refuse to say earned) by the insurance monopolies (for monopolies they are since they cooperate together in the sharing of patient information and the setting of prices which they term "usual and customary"). And of course these profits are paid by us all - and for what might I ask? What service do these profit vacuums actually provide except for the gathering of premium checks and the reluctant processing of payments owed to doctors? My question of course is; Why not just cut the middle man and his profit out of the equation? I say let them find real and useful employment and be finally denied the free hand they have enjoyed to fleece the poor, the weak, the sick and the dying.

My one and biggest fear is that these corporate thieves have such a strangle hold on our government representatives that we will only further enrich them with any health care reform package that is passed my congress (much the same BS as was done with the Medicare Supplement - corrupt political hacks enabling thieves ) - I say, cut them out altogether and let the government process the payments (and as far as the argument about the loss of our freedom of choice in health care - I'm afraid that illusion has vanished for too many Americans to even be a factor anymore. Of course the rich can go where they wish and pay whatever they will, but at least everyone will have a basic level of quality care - you know kind of like they do in...ummm Mexico for example.

[bisexualinsocal]

They feel it's far more important to preserve the sanctity of the so-called "free market", than it is to ensure that all Americans have heath coverage.

Here we go again with the all or nothing liberal approach to healthcare. Either we put the power in the hands of the government or "Big bad business will rob you". That about sums it up. I wonder what kind of person walks around suspicious of "big business" all the time (?)

Preserving healthcare freedom will preserve quality of health care. Just as free-market choice drives competition and improves service and product quality. This manner of business has been tested over and over again and it works.


Two problems with this. The first is that when it comes to the healthcare industry, the so-called free market is anything but free. It is the recipient of huge amounts of government largesse. (that's political-speak for your's and my money.)

I am against medicare and many other new deal programs, if that's what you are getting at. But let's not forget who is responsible to the government getting your money in the name of social medicine. It's your socialist democrat pal and Nazi appeaser, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.


In 2002, the most recent year I have stats for, the drug industry had 675 paid lobbyists in Washington D.C.

So?


to ensure that their interests outweigh your's and mine.

That's a stretch rooted deep in hysterics. I'd like to see you back that up with something other than "feelings".


That's 7 lobbyists for each U.S. Senator.

So?


All with handfulls of cash.

Sounds like you have a problem with lobbyists. I'm cool with that. How about we start legislating them out of the system? Oh I know, that pesky little constitutional issue of "Free speech".


Among their many "victories" was derailing an effort to have a prescription drug benefit added to traditional Medicare. Instead they pushed (successfully) to have the Medicare drug coverage provided by private insurers.


You got that right. If big government is going to take money out of my pocket to pay for someone elses medicine, you can bet I'll insist that it's a private company and not some red tape social security administration agency administering the program. Damn skippy.


the effect was to fracture the collective buying power of over 40 million Medicare beneficiaries in negotiating for lower prices.

Well you left out one thing. The measure put the choice and therefore, the power, in the hands of the prescription buying seniors who benefit from the program. This means that guess what? Private companies have to compete for the business. In the end of it all, the consumer is the winner.

No surprise though, that's what happens in the free market.


The winner ? The Pharmaceutical and Insurance industries, of course.

And the consumer. But god forbid someone makes money in the process, too. Right?


The losers ? American citizens.

Classic psychological projection here?


It would be easy to go on for hours citing case after case of a healthcare system that is so inequitable it is laughed at by the rest of the world, but the debate can really be summed up in one very easily understood concept. Healthcare is not a privilege, it is a basic human right.

You have the right to buy whatever healthcare you want. Just don't expect others to pay for it for you. Freedom is sweet, isn't it?


If you agree with this, you are among the vast majority of people.

I agree! Healthcare freedom for all!


If you disagree, then your place is among the neo-conservatives who have presided over the largest transfer of wealth (from the middle class to the wealthy and super-wealthy) in the nation's history. (From 1980 on) I believe that government exists to serve "We the People", not just the corporate power structure, and wealthy elite. It is a belief also shared by the men who founded this country. And that's pretty good company.

I'm sorry, I was too busy with my IPod and my Toyota Avalon to feel the usual liberal doom and gloom about America.

Funny thing is, my salary puts me below "Middle class".

Gosh, we Americans are spoiled!

[darkeyes]

Here we go again with the all or nothing liberal approach to healthcare. Either we put the power in the hands of the government or "Big bad business will rob you". That about sums it up. I wonder what kind of person walks around suspicious of "big business" all the time (?)

Preserving healthcare freedom will preserve quality of health care. Just as free-market choice drives competition and improves service and product quality. This manner of business has been tested over and over again and it works.



I am against medicare and many other new deal programs, if that's what you are getting at. But let's not forget who is responsible to the government getting your money in the name of social medicine. It's your socialist democrat pal and Nazi appeaser, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.



So?



That's a stretch rooted deep in hysterics. I'd like to see you back that up with something other than "feelings".



So?



Sounds like you have a problem with lobbyists. I'm cool with that. How about we start legislating them out of the system? Oh I know, that pesky little constitutional issue of "Free speech".




You got that right. If big government is going to take money out of my pocket to pay for someone elses medicine, you can bet I'll insist that it's a private company and not some red tape social security administration agency administering the program. Damn skippy.



Well you left out one thing. The measure put the choice and therefore, the power, in the hands of the prescription buying seniors who benefit from the program. This means that guess what? Private companies have to compete for the business. In the end of it all, the consumer is the winner.

No surprise though, that's what happens in the free market.



And the consumer. But god forbid someone makes money in the process, too. Right?



Classic psychological projection here?



You have the right to buy whatever healthcare you want. Just don't expect others to pay for it for you. Freedom is sweet, isn't it?



I agree! Healthcare freedom for all!



I'm sorry, I was too busy with my IPod and my Toyota Avalon to feel the usual liberal doom and gloom about America.

Funny thing is, my salary puts me below "Middle class".

Gosh, we Americans are spoiled!

Jeez... u a rite reactionary borin fart babes.. decent health care aint a liberal thing...decent heath care free at pointa delivery is rite of every human bein an ther governments hav an obligation 2 provide it.. aint free .. nowt eva is... we pay our taxes for it..an so we shud.. it has served me triff ova the years.. an millions like me.. it aint perfect but then wot is? But it is betta than the kinda service u lot hav.. spesh for those who hav nowt.. course u believe its sink or swim.... An sod off if ya don hav the wherewithall 2 pay the insurance or woteva 2 get the care u an ya family need .. fraid me not like u hun... not in me nature 2 let peeps sink.. thats wy millions in more enlightened places than the US.. at least wen it cums 2 healthcare jus wudn let ne government wich proposed havin a US type health care service eva get near bein elected...

The NHS ova ere saved me life once, an treated me for a potentially life threatenin illness a second time.. so me ere 2 b the scourge a selfish tossers like u..

[Barejerrfla]

I agree whole-heartedly, and couldn;t have said it better myself.

In 02/07 I had a heart attack and didn;t have health insurance, because I really couldn;t afford it, even cobra payment from my previous emplyment would have cost me $1300 dollars a month. So i took the risk of hopefully not getting sick..... wrong descision... had a heart attack not 3 months later. Now I am not crying poor mouth, I make a good living and always have had a job that paid very well. But who has an extra $1300 dollars a month to spend on health care. Now in hide-sight, i would have gladly paid that, because the hospital stay for surgery, CCU, meds etc was well in the excess of $100K... Now i went looking for health insurance, and low and behold, like you, it wasn;t availible at any price...... next in 12/07 had another heart attack and again.... same thing, little cheaper this time, was only $93K, plus the monthly meds i take are more than $400 a month and probily need to take them the rest of my life. Now both hospital said they would set up a payment plan of $1200 a month. So now my orginal $1300 has grown to almost $3000 a month. I told the hospitals that there was no way I could pay that kind of monthly fee and they told me that if I didn;t they would ruin my credit and that I should get a 2nd morgage my house, sell my cars, whatever as long as they got their money.

Now understand I don;t qualify for any benefits, becasue I make too much money, even only working 2 months in 2007, I made $1000 dollars above Federal poverty level for the whole year. Not to mention what my wife made. Drug companies do offer discounts on their product they sell, but do it relative to the federal proverty level.... screwed again.... guess being middle class is actually lower class... having a masters degree and making a good living is not all it is cracked up to be... I would have been better off dropping out of high school and make min. wage, than suffering thru 7 years of college, LOL

I am really not complaining... one day soon I can go back to work and i will be able to pay-off my medical bills in 10 or so years. Of course, unless the next heart attack kills me, then it is all.... water under the bridge



I am fortunate enough to have been able to obtain insurance thru my employer, during the "open enrollment" period when under state law, they have to enroll you, regardless of pre-existing condition(s). Since my employer does not contribute to the cost, I foot the bill entirely. It's a few dollars shy of $1,000 per month, entirely out of my pocket. During the previous few months, before I became eligible for this coverage, I sought out coverage on my own. But you see, there's a little problem. My wife was recently diagnosed with cancer, requiring surgery, a lengthy hospital stay, and a follow-up course of chemotherapy. I called countless insurance agents only to be told that they didn't have any companies that would write a policy to someone with a "pre-existing" condition. No coverage was available at any price. If not for the convenient timing of my open enrollment period, she would have gone without treatment. What if she had to wait 6 months....or 9 months to begin treatment ? Those months can be the difference between life and death. Some people think that an individual's life is not all that important in the grand scheme of things. They feel it's far more important to preserve the sanctity of the so-called "free market", than it is to ensure that all Americans have heath coverage. Two problems with this. The first is that when it comes to the healthcare industry, the so-called free market is anything but free. It is the recipient of huge amounts of government largesse. (that's political-speak for your's and my money.) In 2002, the most recent year I have stats for, the drug industry had 675 paid lobbyists in Washington D.C., to ensure that their interests outweigh your's and mine. That's 7 lobbyists for each U.S. Senator. All with handfulls of cash. Among their many "victories" was derailing an effort to have a prescription drug benefit added to traditional Medicare. Instead they pushed (successfully) to have the Medicare drug coverage provided by private insurers. The effect was to fracture the collective buying power of over 40 million Medicare beneficiaries in negotiating for lower prices. The winner ? The Pharmaceutical and Insurance industries, of course. The losers ? American citizens. It would be easy to go on for hours citing case after case of a healthcare system that is so inequitable it is laughed at by the rest of the world, but the debate can really be summed up in one very easily understood concept.
Healthcare is not a privilege, it is a basic human right. If you agree with this, you are among the vast majority of people. If you disagree, then your place is among the neo-conservatives who have presided over the largest transfer of wealth (from the middle class to the wealthy and super-wealthy) in the nation's history. (From 1980 on) I believe that government exists to serve "We the People", not just the corporate power structure, and wealthy elite. It is a belief also shared by the men who founded this country. And that's pretty good company.

[malcolm4572]

I gotta jump in on this. I work with several large US insurance companies as a consultant on a project that has allowed me to look at health insurance from the inside. And it is a mess. And a mess of money too. To fix it, the insurance folks will have to give up a ton of profit margin, and they won't volunteer to do that ever. Moreover, forcing them to give it up will suck a huge chunk of money out of the economy, and that ain't pretty either. The interesting thing is that insurance companies have been eating their young for so long that we are reaching a tipping point. The pool of customers who can afford $10K/yr is shrinking. The $5K, high deductibles have very high drop rates. The new thing is limited benefit "mini-med" policies, which allow the insurance guys their traditional profit ratios, and if you are 25-45yrs, will statistically, keep you healthy. For about $100/month, you can buy family coverage that will take care of 90% of what you will encounter. But if you get cancer or something horrible, you get $10K and a "good luck" card. But that's not to far from what you get now with a $10K policy either. Case in point; I've got a good friend who needs a heart transplant, has full blown coverage, but to even get on the list, had to pony up $30K. Guess the insurance guy was hoping she died before they had to pay the remaining $350K.(BTW- we screwed em by raising the money. But no heart yet).

My point, if I have one, is that the boogie man of "socialized medicine" is real and must be reckoned with. I don't know the exact math, but I can see a system where in most cases, I take care of myself, (i.e. buy reasonable insurance coverage), and god forbid something really bad happens; depend on the kindness of strangers (i.e. my tax funded government).

[Lisa (va)]

I have dealt with the medical profession before, and I really have no answers. When you consider and average worker with company health insurance pays between 5 and 10 K a year and are for the most part healthy.
the typical family doctor charges 100 - 135 dollars for a visit and usually you have to pay a copay on top of you insurance. Now how many office visits would it take before you realize the cost of your insurance, chances are if you are healthy you wont, the insurance company (or employer is self pay) will retain those monies; monies which go to pay for the few that do get seriously ill and rack up a hefty medical bill.

You hear some folks speak of the option of socialized medicine: would it work, especially in a society that has little faith in the government to begin with? I'm but one person and I can see valid points on both sides, but I do see that insurance premiums will be given a new name, taxes, which many say are too high now.

Now I am happy with my husbands insurance coverage and he makes qute a decent living and it really isn't an issue for our family. But we are just one family amist the sea of many families. I think health care should be looked at more from the standpoint of those living on menial wages and who would more benifit from any plan to improve health care for those m ost often found without insurance. I volunteer at the free clinic in a small city where about 10% of the residents have no insurance coverage at all, I'm sure the clinic is helpful to many, but indeed not the solution for all their needs.

I know doctors both in favor of and disfavor of some form of standardized medicine, main focus being on the factor of their salaries that they (rightfully) feel should be higher than average to cover the expense of their education as well as current operating expenses (insurance, office personnel, etc).

Well enough ranting from me, sorry

Lisa

hugs n kisses

[the mage]

Lots of folks don't want the government running health care because they'll fuck it up. But here's a story from my sister. Her sister-in-law had her urethra stretched and her bladder lifted yesterday. They sent her home with her bladder full of packing and a foley catheter to drain the urine. Foley's have a small balloon in the end of them which is inflated with water to keep it from slipping out. Normally they use a seringe to inflate and deflate these things. They sent her home with instructions to cut the catheter and let the water out, and then pull the catheter and the packing out on her own or have her husband who works in a factory do this for her. Seems the insurance company doesn't cover for her to go back to the doctor to have this done. My sister is a retired RN and did this for her today, but damn! The guaze my sister pulled out turned out to be about the size of her fist. Can you imagine?

Now, how much more fucked up can the government be than insurance companies?

Proud Canadian here.........

I get hurt, I get fixed..no cost out of pocket.
I get sick, I get looked at. no cost,..Drugs mostly covered if I'm poor, pay my own if not.
Do not go on to me how gov't health care will ruin the economy.
You fools need to look in a mirror at who's economy is in trouble.

You all are being literally killed by profiteers..

[alaskacouple]

Actually Lisa you touched on some good points - and one in particular is the high cost of producing medical professionals. IMO, when we do move toward socialized medicine a large component of that should be the enhancement of the ability for young people to complete their medical training without becoming enslaved with debt in the process. Having enough medical professionals is in the best interest of the society, and we as a society should be willing to invest towards making that possible.

And just another brief comment on the heartlessness of the profit driven insurance model that we currently follow; When my mother became ill with cancer and had to leave her job, she opted for the COBRA insurance and paid her dues. However, the insurance company persuaded the company she had worked for to "change" to a "new" policy and thus the COBRA was no longer available for my dying mother. Result, the insurance company and the former employer saved a lot of money - my mother faced her last months in worry and pain and eventually had to turn to Medicade to cover the costs of her dying. And this was her reward for working hard all of her life.

Just a thought for all of the heartless neo-conservatives; if you believe in a God, how will He view your opinions and actions... will He pat you on the back for the profits you have made, the cars you have owned and the pollution you have spewed upon the world?

[alaskacouple]

Proud Canadian here.........

I get hurt, I get fixed..no cost out of pocket.
I get sick, I get looked at. no cost,..Drugs mostly covered if I'm poor, pay my own if not.
Do not go on to me how gov't health care will ruin the economy.
You fools need to look in a mirror at who's economy is in trouble.

You all are being literally killed by profiteers..

Thank you! For the life of me though I cannot understand the lock step conservative puppets who buy into the propaganda! Most of these people are not rich themselves, and yet they seem willing to fight to the death to preserve the rights of those who are screwing the life out of them - I just cannot understand how they think??? Maybe they are just "wanta-be-rich" and get some jollies out of associating with the cause - who knows?

[12voltman59]

Thank you! For the life of me though I cannot understand the lock step conservative puppets who buy into the propaganda! Most of these people are not rich themselves, and yet they seem willing to fight to the death to preserve the rights of those who are screwing the life out of them - I just cannot understand how they think??? Maybe they are just "wanta-be-rich" and get some jollies out of associating with the cause - who knows?

I heard one commentator call this phenomenon---as "voting rich and living poor!"

I guess they think that they still have a shot at becoming a rich, fat cat too--then they can sit and smoke $50 cigars on the back deck of their yachts or on the patio of their hideously oversized house and gloat at how good they have it, but not being thankful and grateful they have done so well in life.

[The Barefoot Contess]

I have talked about this issue here before, so I'll be brief: in Spain, where I am from, the person mentioned in the original post would be covered, even as a foreigner. I remember a couple of years ago I was in Madrid with an American friend on mine and her father. He had peritonitis and had to have surgery and spend three days in hospital. For free. I guess they should have asked him for money, and kicked him out and let him die on the street in case he did not have the required amount? As a tax-paying Spaniard, I paid for part of the expenses, and I am proud of it.

Oh, by the way, my friend's dad is perfectly fine now. I guess socialized medicine did NOT decrease the quality of the treatment. No, the patient could not choose his doctor, the color of his bed sheets, or a room with a view. What a shame, right?

[bisexualinsocal]

Proud Canadian here.........

I get hurt, I get fixed..no cost out of pocket.


That's interesting.

So who pays the doctors and for the medicine?

[bisexualinsocal]

Jeez... u a rite reactionary borin fart babes.. decent health care aint a liberal thing...decent heath care free at pointa delivery is rite of every human bein an ther governments hav an obligation 2 provide it.. aint free .. nowt eva is... we pay our taxes for it..an so we shud.. it has served me triff ova the years.. an millions like me.. it aint perfect but then wot is? But it is betta than the kinda service u lot hav.. spesh for those who hav nowt.. course u believe its sink or swim.... An sod off if ya don hav the wherewithall 2 pay the insurance or woteva 2 get the care u an ya family need .. fraid me not like u hun... not in me nature 2 let peeps sink.. thats wy millions in more enlightened places than the US.. at least wen it cums 2 healthcare jus wudn let ne government wich proposed havin a US type health care service eva get near bein elected...

The NHS ova ere saved me life once, an treated me for a potentially life threatenin illness a second time.. so me ere 2 b the scourge a selfish tossers like u..

Nothing you typed even remotely resembles a word in the english language.

[The Barefoot Contess]

Nothing you typed even remotely resembles a word in the english language.

"English" is capitalized :rolleyes:

[flirtchewieflirt]

I just don’t see how making the federal government our single national healthcare provider is going to work. Certainly not with Washington’s legendary efficiency in budgetary matters. I’m going to stick with numbers here. I’m not going to go into the accessibility (US) versus quality (CAN) issues and all the individual stories. What I see is that Canada has about one 10th the population of the United States. Canada spends roughly one 10th the amount of money on their equivalent social security and health care programs. Sounds pretty even, except the have nationalized health care and we don’t.

Obviously, we would not be spending an equivalent amount if we now changed to such a system. Also bear in mind that Canada recently committed to doubling it’s healthcare budget. We currently spend well over a trillion dollars a years in Social security and healthcare programs. If we commit to a national health plan, easily expect to double our sending! We already spend twice as much on SS and healthcare as we do on the military, yes, even with the war on terror.

So, what does another trillion dollars mean to you? Well, it works out about to an additional $3,300.00 in taxes per person, per year. That is about $275.00 per person, per month. That is everyone, not just the rich! Your average family of four? Based on that number, $1100.00 a month for the family. That family can kiss another $13,200.00 in annual salary goodbye. Supposed to make 30,000 this year? Call it 16,800 before you even take regular taxes out. Make 15 dollars an hour? Call it 8.20 or so and start taking out the rest of your taxes. Don’t forget your state taxes! You can be sure the states will be required to fund their own new health initiatives in conjunction with the new federal mandates that would follow such an event.

Frankly, I would love to see a good comparison of what healthcare costs were before insurance companies became mainstream versus relative costs now. It is my feeling that it is the advent of widespread insurance that has been the main driving force in escalating healthcare costs over the years. I just do not see how handing the concept over to the federal government is an economically viable alternative. For all you liberals who think the economy is in trouble, you haven’t seen anything yet. For all you conservatives who think the economy would be in trouble if the liberals got a hold of it, you haven’t seen anything yet. At the time of writing, I am one of the great uninsured masses. I just can’t condone wrecking everything to take care of me.

How to fix it? I think the only viable alternative is to take a closer look at regulating a restructuring of the insurance industry. I can’t claim to be knowledgeable enough to understand how to go about that, but I can read a budget and do math, and nationalized healthcare is not a viable economic option in this country right now.

Obama’s documentation on his own national healthcare plan claims Americans spend over 2 trillion on healthcare every year. He claims that he can have the federal government take on that burden and still SAVE that family of four that I mentioned over 2500 dollars a year. How the hell can he claim that? Funny, his people do not have an estimate on the program cost. I suppose he will just print another trillion at the mint?

Hillary’s little pamphlet won’t even touch the subject of costs, but claims her plan will somehow save 56 billion by forcing insurers and providers to modernize things. Great, so the additional cost will only be 944 billion dollars instead of a cool trillion. Sounds like when I go to the store and the item is 49.99 instead of 50.00. Go ahead and vote for them. It all sounds great and very caring, and that is all that matters. This is exactly why I get twitchy every time the federal government finds yet something else to do that is beyond the scope of the constitution. It is invariably expensive as hell. Thank god I’m poor and it won’t matter to me. They will just take that money from the rich guy over there, I’m cool.

I know this guy who makes 200,000 a year. He’s pretty rich to me, he can pay my part. I have a family of 5, so that will cost him 16,500, plus his own family, another 13,200…. Hmmmm…. About 29,700, hell let’s call it 30,000 for fun, then his other taxes…. What tax bracket is that? I can never remember… I’ll be nice and say 28%.... about 56,000 then state (NC) another 14,000…. Well, now he’s down to about 100,000 instead and now he can think about paying bills. Lord knows I could live on 100,000 a year so I won’t feel bad for him. Thank god he is paying my share, I’d have no money left at all after all that! I hope you all have your own rich friends, I’m keeping mine! I wonder what a flat tax would do to the whole mess?

Of course, all of this silliness assumes that federal spending in these areas would only have to double to take care of everyone. No way it could cost more! I mean, that’s just crazy!

[12voltman59]

Everything is "going to get wrecked" one way or the other and the amount you talked about that the taxes might increase---$3300 dollars seems like a pretty good return on that money spent since if you have a heart attack, stroke or get diabetes---your medical bills are going to be way the hell more than three grand or so----

If insurance companies were wise in what they cover I might buy the argument that they are the way to go--but they don't pay for effective preventative health care measures---case in point:

About a decade or so ago--a team of physicians, nutritionists, exercise physiologists and other medical professionals developed a very comprehensive weight reduction and more importantly--a weight management program that teaches people all aspects of the benefits of losing weight and keeping a healthy body weight.

This program is very intensive--at least in the early stages---you are monitored through it by physicians and physician assistants and nurses---they take blood tests and the like--so there are those costs associated with it---this program is now offered at select hospitals all over the nation---

I went to check the program out a few years ago at the regional hospital that offers it--Greene Memorial Hospital is our local affiliate for the program.

It is not cheap to do--it runs about $2500 per year and most people have to stay in it for about three years on average.

So--basically seven grand for the three years you commit to the program--not cheap but when you consider the alternative---actually it is damn cheap.

I was still fully employed at the time so I had decent insurance--I was told by the program people that my health care provider did not pay for it--but I checked it out myself and sure enough---they would not pay for it offering only some lame, technical sounding excuse.

It is interesting--this program has something like a better than 90 percent success rate in helping people not only lose their excess weight but keep it off---not just for a few years --but some as long as the program has been in existence.

You would think that the insurance companies would be more than willing to cover the cost of this program for their customers, but no--the only insurance company here in what we call the Miami Valley of Ohio is the insurance provider for employees of Greene Memorial Hospital.

To me---this is shear stupidity on the part of the medical insurance providers--because if you have a heart attack or stroke----they will pay for your time in the Coronary Critical Care or Intensive Care Units--which just a week long stay averages something like $300,000--

Which is the smartest allocation of resources??? Paying seven grand for a person to enroll and stay in a program that will lead to better health for those who do it==and less money laid out for serious and deblitating health care that usually means the person's life is diminshed since they now have a bad heart and it takes far more than the initial $300 Grand to care for them---
Now --get diabetes and the insurers have a good way of not having to deal with that--they drop your coverage like you are a hot potato---I know because I had a cousin --who works as a pharamcist for a major hospital was diagnosed with it and the insurer dropped him--he did not care so much for himself--but now his kids were fortunately able to get covered on his wife's policy--which was more costly and her plan was only about half the quality of his lost coverage.


But he is a diabetic now and he has to cover his insulin, testing unit and supplies on his own dime--that is ok for him since he does make good money--but from what I hear--dropping people for diabetes has become a regular policy amongst all of the carriers now!!! I am sure that for many of them--they do not make the 75 grand or so my cousin makes----and for many who get dropped when they get diabetes--it is a hardship that they have to suddenly not only change their habits--but now have to buy out of their pocekts-their medications and related goods!! I bet that more than a few of them are saying --"well--I have lived my life and it's pretty much done for now" I have to take care of my kids"---but of course--untreated diabetes is horrendous--limbs are lost, sight goes, and an unpleasant death at some point.

So what is the answer---it doesn't matter with these companies how much money you make-they have their codes for things and if you have a condition that is one of their red codes--you are not going to get covered--the only option is to "pay as you go"---how long can people hold up with that now that the economy is tanking??

So --we pay one way or we pay another--I don't have any trouble with paying more taxes if I know that I can go get at least my major medical problems covered as opposed to being bankrupted because I had a turn of bad luck!!

I guess the other option is if you get sick--"it's too bad that you are sick, but that is life---we could cure you but it costs too much --sooo go have a nice and not too painful a death!!!!

[flirtchewieflirt]

I’ve got my own hard luck stories. You will still never convince me that this is a good idea even if it personally benefits me. My personal comfort or security has nothing to do with it. If only emotional appeals work on this issue, I can dredge up horror stories of people having life threatening problems while on Medicaid or within the Canadian healthcare system. It is simply not the federal government’s job or mandate, nor can they do it in a fiscally responsible or reasonable manner. If the only consideration involved in national policy is my own comfort and care, then make the government pay for my food and my house and my doctor and my gas and my utilities.

The government could easily collect all of our earnings and give us allotments of food and housing and everything else we need. We would end starvation and homelessness in America. Maybe if we do more important jobs, we can have slightly better allotments, nicer homes. They could wipe out unemployment by nationalizing the whole system. Then I would never get laid off again, always have a job! Every five years or so, they could come out with a special state of the union speech that would tell us how much we all produced together over the last 5 years and how much more we will produce over the next 5. It could be very fair and equitable and no one would be allowed to have a monopoly or take advantage of anyone else. The Soviet Union is proof that it would work well! It would have worked even better if other countries did not interfere with them.

[The Barefoot Contess]

Can any of the critics of universal health care answer a question for me? Why is public health care bad and public police services good? I mean, according to those who oppose universal health care, would it not make sense to make everything private? Why do I have the right to security but not to health? An argument could me made that if I get mugged it is because I was careless and therefore the state should not pay a policeman to help me. If you can't pay for your own security, screw you. Is that what we want? Same thing for the fire department and so many other services that, whether we want to admit it or not, are socialist in nature: libraries, public schools, the military, public roads, drinking water, border control, highway patrol, the EPA, FDA... How many people here want these services privatized?

[wolfcamp]

Nothing you typed even remotely resembles a word in the english language.

What did she say to deserve that kind of disrespect from you? Why do you have to be such an obnoxious jerk?

[The Barefoot Contess]

What did she say to deserve that kind of disrespect from you? Why do you have to be such an obnoxious jerk?

Sometimes when people do not have arguments, they resort to insults. They lack the common sense to see that when you cannot contribute to a rational discussion, you are better off silent.

[12voltman59]

What did she say to deserve that kind of disrespect from you? Why do you have to be such an obnoxious jerk?

This goes to prove my point about this guy--he must have really read Dale Carnegie's book "How to Win Friends and Influence People"--if he hasn't--he sure as heck needs to---he is sure pissing everyone off around here---

Anyone who does not agree with him is some sort of --whatever he comes up and of course--he does not attack us---we all attack him!!!

We are godless liberals and/or liberal appeasers afterall so its OK for him to attack us but we can't attack him since his an all wise and knowing conservative!!!

Did I not do a big ramble about a certain breed of "conservative" type does just this very thing some time back??? I seem to recall doing that---but of course--I got criticized for attacking conservatives when I did that---

This whole thing sorta proves my point on that score I do believe---

One last thing directed specifically to BISEXUALINSOCAL--we have had our political discussions on here in the past and here is how they work---someone makes a point and some people agree and some disagree---but after a few days or so---that thread just drops off the radar screen and everbody goes on-----people just have to say their piece and that's that--but you are like a puppy with his favorite toy---you dig your teeth and and rip it to shreds----and they you keep going back and chewing up the remaining bits.

Give your stuff a break--you have your views on stuff and the rest of us have ours----there is no winning such discussions as this---one is either going to hold to one position or another--the big one with you is your thing with global warming--well not to beat this poor dog when he is trying to get back up--but I go with the preponderance of science and my friend ---like it or not--the world now goes with that and leaders of all kinds are acting on that--and whether you like it or not or care to acknowledge it or not--that is the way things are going--as I write this--the ministers of the European Union are meeting to develop the next set of emissions standards and so is the G-20 which is the 20 largest economies in the world including the US, China, Russia, Japan, etc.--

You can go round and round and round and round that "global warming" has not been proven--it really does not matter whether it has or not because the simple fact of the matter is this: The powers that be of all nations--and corporations, etc, are operating as if it were FACT and that is the FACT--pure plain and simple.

Here is one story about the G20 talks taking place in Tokyo:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7295937.stm

and on the EU conference--which is now over:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7296564.stm

So bisexualinsocal---believe as you will---and you can win on that in terms of what you want to believe--but like believing in Santa Clause or the tooth fairy-- just because YOU BELIEVE IT--it doesn't make it so buddy---it does not matter that a guy who calls himself BISEXUALINSOCAL does or does not believe that global warming is real or by contrast that I happen to believe it--we are both irrelevant to this discussion because---- when it comes to this issue the leaders of the world's powers are already acting upon the fact they have examined the evidence and come to the conclusion that global warming is indeed real-and mankind is playing a role in it--my God--even the oil companies are now acting as if global warming is real!!!!

LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN BISEXUAL---IN LARGE PRINT SO YOU GET IT INTO YOUR HEAD---WHAT YOU, I OR THE REST OF US HERE AT THIS SITE BELIEVE OR DON'T BELIEVE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT----THE LEADERS OF MOST OF THE DEVELOPED NATIONS (EVEN GEORGE BUSH TO SOME DEGREE) AND THE DEVELOPING ONES AS WELL--ARE ALREADY ACTING UPON THEIR CONCLUSION THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND IS BEING AFFECTED BY THE ACTIVITY OF MANKIND--YOU AND I CAN DISPUTE THE "TRUTH" OF GLOBAL WARMING UNTILL THE COWS COME HOME--BUT YOU CANNOT DISPUTE THAT THOSE IN POSITIONS OF POWER IN GOVERNMENT, ACADEMIA, INDUSTRY, BUSINESS, ETC, ARE ACTING UPON THE "CONSENSUS" THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND AFFECTED IN LARGE MEASURE BY MANKIND---THE ONLY THING THEY ARE ARGUING ABOUT AT THIS POINT ESSENTIALLY IS THIS-----WHO IS GOING TO GET TO CONTINUE TO PUT OUT THE MOST OR LEAST AMOUNT OF THE GASES IN COMING YEARS THAT SCIENCE SAYS IS AT ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM???---AT THE LEVELS THIS IS BEING DISCUSSED---THEY HAVE GONE WELL BEYOND DEBATING WHETHER GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL--THEY HAVE TOTAL AGREEMENT ON THAT----THEY ARE MERELY DISCUSSING WHO WILL BE THE ECONOMIC WINNERS AND LOSERS IN THIS WHOLE THING!!!!!!!!!

GOT IT????????????????????????????????????????

Now get off this shit man!!!!
Wake the fuck up and smell the coffee man!!!! It is super high test Starbucks dark roast!!!

If you don't get it at this point----I do not know what you are---very stupid and ignorant--hard headed and stubborn or just plain cantankerous and just can't get off a postion once you stake it--if winning on this is what you want--OK--we know that whatever your real name is---you firmly believe in your heart of hearts that global warming is total bunk--we know that--and you are free to believe it until you take your final breath here on God's (still somewhat) green Earth!!! You are a winner!!!!!

But like I said---what you or I believe on this subject doesn't amount to a pile of you know what!!!

NOW FOLKS--CAN WE GET OFF THIS SHIT AND GIVE THE TOPIC OF GLOBAL WARMING A MUCH DESERVED SHOT TO THE TEMPLE AND HEART--THEN BURY IT????

I know that this might have been the wrong thread to do this--but if it does the trick on that topic--it was worth the mistake!!

Thanks for your attention!!!!

[wolfcamp]

If the only consideration involved in national policy is my own comfort and care, then make the government pay for my food and my house and my doctor and my gas and my utilities.


It's literally a matter of life and death for some people. Its a fucked up system that turns away the people who are sick and need help because they are sick.

[wolfcamp]

The government can subsidize your healthcare by not taking too much of your money in the first place. There's be no need for subsidy if they'd let you keep your money.

That doesn't address cherry picking and other abuses by the insurance companies. This sounds like a simpleton's approach.

[DiamondDog]

What did she say to deserve that kind of disrespect from you? Why do you have to be such an obnoxious jerk?

Not everyone can read what Fran writes or understand all of the slang.

I can read mostly all of it but it would be a lot easier if things were typed in standard english because I don't like reading blocks of text that look like they're from a yahooIM chat/cellphone text message, it would make the post/argument of the post a lot easier to follow/understand and make the post and the point it's trying to make more serious, and not everyone can read it and understand it. :2cents:

[The Barefoot Contess]

Not everyone can read what Fran writes or understand all of the slang.

I can read mostly all of it but it would be a lot easier if things were typed in standard english because I don't like reading blocks of text that look like they're from a yahooIM chat/cellphone text message, it would make the post/argument of the post a lot easier to follow/understand and make the post and the point it's trying to make more serious, and not everyone can read it and understand it. :2cents:

And you should use periods more often!!! ;)

[DiamondDog]

And you should use periods more often!!! ;)

Yes, I should.

I post on another message board where a guy that posts does not know how to use commas and he uses them in the wrong way (not the european way in place of a decimal point) but in sentances, and it's sort of weird/comical.

[wolfcamp]

We still have healthcare freedom and choice. My best advice would be to change carriers and stop looking for nanny to lend a hand.

That's an ignorant statement. People don't have freedom if they are turned down, or if they are dumped by their carrier.

[flirtchewieflirt]

Can any of the critics of universal health care answer a question for me? Why is public health care bad and public police services good? I mean, according to those who oppose universal health care, would it not make sense to make everything private? Why do I have the right to security but not to health? An argument could me made that if I get mugged it is because I was careless and therefore the state should not pay a policeman to help me. If you can't pay for your own security, screw you. Is that what we want? Same thing for the fire department and so many other services that, whether we want to admit it or not, are socialist in nature: libraries, public schools, the military, public roads, drinking water, border control, highway patrol, the EPA, FDA... How many people here want these services privatized?

First you have to define good. Is it good for public order? Yes. Is that it’s purpose? Yes. Public order is a government purpose and mandate. You will note that the police did not save you from being mugged, but showed up after the fact. And, yes, you must pay for your own security. The mandate is for public order, not your personal protection, you are responsible for that. This is why you have a deadbolt on your door, not an armed Marine in front of it. You can feel free to pay for your own armed guard though. Is that what we want? That is what we have. In addition, like healthcare, this is not a purpose or mandate of the FEDERAL government. Their mandate is, among a few other things, national defense, not local police matters.

Fire department? Again primary purpose is directed towards public order. Minimizing damage to the community as much as possible. All other functions, while helpful, are secondary to that. You will note that many departments are also volunteer. Further, this is also not a function or mandate of the federal government. Libraries, public schools, water, highway patrol, all local government functions, not federal. The military is a constitutional mandate of the federal government. Border security and immigration falls under this rubric as well.

Public roads may have been built with money appropriated by the federal government, but the states are still the ones who maintain them. Frankly, this is one of the few good arguments of federal activity under the fairy tale of the interstate commerce clause.

The EPA and FDA have no constitutional mandate and no place in an ever swelling federal government. Fact is that I simply disagree with any contention that it is the job of the federal government to provide for anyone. It’s purpose is not to soften the sometimes harsh realities of our lives; it is not to pick us up when we fall; it is not to fix our mistakes for us. The purpose of the federal government is to stand guard over our union, arbitrate contracts, represent our union on the world stage, and administer itself in it’s duties. The government was not conceived to be a socialist enterprise. If you think inflation is simply a function of things costing more tomorrow than they did today because of some magic spell, you are wrong. The growth of government, particularly the federal government, has been the driving force behind inflation and a world where an average family HAS to have both parents working just to get by. But that’s ok, they also have a plan to have federal day care benefits and regulations nationwide. Then you won’t have to worry about who is raising your children, the government will do it…. For just a very small fee…

[flirtchewieflirt]

It's literally a matter of life and death for some people. Its a fucked up system that turns away the people who are sick and need help because they are sick.

It’s a matter of life and death for all of us. We will all be sick, we will all die. We have all been sick at one time or another. I simply disagree that the answer to the question of what is “best” is to continue to support the framework that has driven costs up by handing it to the government for more of the same type of system that got us here to begin with. In the case of the government, it will simply get worse since the feds have no ability to do anything for less than a dollar that someone else could have done for 10 cents.

I also sincerely doubt that the feds will be any more compassionate or easy to deal with, any more than they are on any other enterprise they have appropriated from the states or private industry. There is no perfect world. What you just said will still be said even if the government nationalizes healthcare. Tell me how to get costs and regulation under control, don’t tell me we need more. Everybody wants to say that we have such terrible healthcare around here. Fine, there must have been a time when it was better. When was that, and what do we need to do to get back to that? Taxing a 5 year old 3,800 dollars is not an answer to me. We did not pay so damn much before. What did we do before it got like this? I’m tired of everyone telling me that the answer to every problem is to give more money to someone else. I have yet to see the federal government “solve” a single problem and move on. What did we do before?

[The Barefoot Contess]

First you have to define good. Is it good for public order? Yes. Is that it’s purpose? Yes. Public order is a government purpose and mandate. You will note that the police did not save you from being mugged, but showed up after the fact. And, yes, you must pay for your own security. The mandate is for public order, not your personal protection, you are responsible for that. This is why you have a deadbolt on your door, not an armed Marine in front of it. You can feel free to pay for your own armed guard though. Is that what we want? That is what we have. In addition, like healthcare, this is not a purpose or mandate of the FEDERAL government. Their mandate is, among a few other things, national defense, not local police matters.

Fire department? Again primary purpose is directed towards public order. Minimizing damage to the community as much as possible. All other functions, while helpful, are secondary to that. You will note that many departments are also volunteer. Further, this is also not a function or mandate of the federal government. Libraries, public schools, water, highway patrol, all local government functions, not federal. The military is a constitutional mandate of the federal government. Border security and immigration falls under this rubric as well.

Public roads may have been built with money appropriated by the federal government, but the states are still the ones who maintain them. Frankly, this is one of the few good arguments of federal activity under the fairy tale of the interstate commerce clause.

The EPA and FDA have no constitutional mandate and no place in an ever swelling federal government. Fact is that I simply disagree with any contention that it is the job of the federal government to provide for anyone. It’s purpose is not to soften the sometimes harsh realities of our lives; it is not to pick us up when we fall; it is not to fix our mistakes for us. The purpose of the federal government is to stand guard over our union, arbitrate contracts, represent our union on the world stage, and administer itself in it’s duties. The government was not conceived to be a socialist enterprise. If you think inflation is simply a function of things costing more tomorrow than they did today because of some magic spell, you are wrong. The growth of government, particularly the federal government, has been the driving force behind inflation and a world where an average family HAS to have both parents working just to get by. But that’s ok, they also have a plan to have federal day care benefits and regulations nationwide. Then you won’t have to worry about who is raising your children, the government will do it…. For just a very small fee…

You raise some interesting questions.

First of all, let me clarify something: as a foreigner who has lived in the US for only five years, I am not sure sometimes what falls under each state's jurisdiction. My apologies for my ignorance in such matters.

I personally do not care much whether it is the federal government or the state that provides for its citizens. My point, however, is that I think the responsibilities of the federal government should go beyond public order to include public health. I don't think this means I am avoiding any responsibilities or asking the government to solve my problems.

On a different note, about all those services you have said are part of each state's competencies, are you ok with the state providing for that state's citizens, then?

In Spain, when someone suffers from domestic abuse, the abuser gets a restraining order, and the person who has been abused is under surveillance by the police (my English might not have been clear here, what I mean is that the state has people who accompany or keep an eye on abused people to make sure that the restraining order is not broken). This is not a matter of public order. Do you think the state should not provide for the abused person's own personal safety?

How about justice? Everyone has the right to be represented at court, and, correct me if I am wrong, if I am the victim of, say, rape, I have the right to free representation, correct? I don't care if the DA is appointed by the federal government or by my state. My question is: do you think I should have to pay for a lawyer? This is not a question of public order.

[bisexualinsocal]

That doesn't address cherry picking and other abuses by the insurance companies. This sounds like a simpleton's approach.

It is a simpleton's approach because IT'S SIMPLE


The more the government abuses your money, the lower your standard of living and that includes healthcare.

Life is simple. It's mind-fuck intellectuals like you who complicate it and imply that the rest of us are "simpletons" who are unfit to govern their own medical affairs.

You are educated fools from uneducated schools.

"I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the 2000 members of the faculty of Harvard University."- Bill Buckley

[bisexualinsocal]

That's an ignorant statement. People don't have freedom if they are turned down, or if they are dumped by their carrier.

There you go insulting people again. You sure seem like a bright one.

[alaskacouple]

I just don’t see how making the federal government our single national healthcare provider is going to work...

Frankly, I would love to see a good comparison of what healthcare costs were before insurance companies became mainstream versus relative costs now. It is my feeling that it is the advent of widespread insurance that has been the main driving force in escalating healthcare costs over the years. I just do not see how handing the concept over to the federal government is an economically viable alternative. For all you liberals who think the economy is in trouble, you haven’t seen anything yet. For all you conservatives who think the economy would be in trouble if the liberals got a hold of it, you haven’t seen anything yet. At the time of writing, I am one of the great uninsured masses. I just can’t condone wrecking everything to take care of me.

How to fix it? I think the only viable alternative is to take a closer look at regulating a restructuring of the insurance industry. I can’t claim to be knowledgeable enough to understand how to go about that, but I can read a budget and do math, and nationalized healthcare is not a viable economic option in this country right now...


I highlighted just a portion of this fine post, and the highlighted part is something that I have thought a good deal about. The question can also be directed at the high cost of housing relative to 50 years ago and the part that the availability of long term mortgage loans has played in that.( If your old enough to remember wages vs. costs 30 or 40 years ago you can look back and do some quick math ratios and see for yourself that despite our "higher" incomes, we are actually loosing purchasing power on virtually every front.)

In both medical care and housing, as the amount of money individuals could be expected to "come-up-with" has increased, so too has the cost of whatever they are buying. And the way we can "come-up-with" more is either through super long term mortgages and monthly health-care "insurance" fees,(not to mention 60 month car loans and such and so on). It is really quite basic is it not? It is our natural tendency to be self serving and greedy - we all will try to get the most that we can in most any given situation.

However, this universal "greed" problem now is so much more dangerous and destructive because of the unprecedented economic, political and legal strength of the corporations that we as individuals are competing with. It is a hopeless battle we fight as individuals against these entities.

The question then becomes; do we honor greed with a lais-sez faire attitude, or regulate it in an attempt to control it? As I see it, those are the only two choices since greed cannot be eradicated.

I guess I could buy into a solution that would/could seriously curb the power of corporations - but I actually think that is impossible given that they already so out-gun us in virtually every way I doubt that any meaningful regulations could ever be passed into law. And in the case of health-care, that leaves us with another option to try and curb the greed - namely universal health care where a single payer (our government) uses it's clout to curb the excesses.(It will not be pretty I fear - but neither are sick and dying people laying in the streets)

(and one final thought for those who have "bought into" the lais-sez faire approach to the "free market" fix all; do you really think that the modern multi-national corporations represent the same type of free market capitalism that has made this country great? We're not talking about individual entrepreneurs and creative business owners who compete with one another based on the theory that the best idea and the best service wins. We are dealing with the ruthless quest for corporate profits regardless of the cost to nations, individuals, animals, the environment and virtually everything that we hold dear - including our national sovereignty. I do beseech you to try to lay aside your zeal for the "cause" of the rich for just awhile and allow yourself to consider that perhaps there is a middle ground somewhere between communism and free market capitalism - is it possible that both are wrong?)

[darkeyes]

:bigrin:
There you go insulting people again. You sure seem like a bright one.

Tee hee.. not summat u eva been accused of is it hun? Bein a bright 1.

[darkeyes]

Nothing you typed even remotely resembles a word in the english language.

No reason it shud..me not English!!! But then me not a reactionary selfish gett eitha!!

[wolfcamp]

There you go insulting people again. You sure seem like a bright one.

Oh no, I am not insulting anyone at all. I am simply stating fact.


From Wikipedia: Ignorance is the condition of being uninformed or uneducated, lacking knowledge or information.

I have heard you disavow schooled reasoning time and time again. Isn't this you by your own proclamation? You revel in your own ignorance.

[wolfcamp]

It is a simpleton's approach because IT'S SIMPLE

The more the government abuses your money, the lower your standard of living and that includes healthcare.

Life is simple. It's mind-fuck intellectuals like you who complicate it and imply that the rest of us are "simpletons" who are unfit to govern their own medical affairs.


I'm not saying everyone is a simpleton, just you.

I think you are a simpleton because you are. This is one of the most complex problems facing the country today. If there were a simple solution, we wouldn't have one sixth of the population at risk. Your lack of comprehension about this issue is astounding.



You are educated fools from uneducated schools.


Very good, you made a rhyme. I have never seen anyone as proud of their ignorance as you.



"I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the 2000 members of the faculty of Harvard University."- Bill Buckley

Yes, right, we've seen this several times before. Can't you come up with anything original?

BTW, the difference between Buckley and you is that he was smart enough to make good arguments for his positions.

[FalconAngel]

I have government medical care......the VA takes care of me. If it were not for them, I would be in dire straights.
But they are far from perfect. It takes forever to get things done and unless one has a medical discharge, dental is not covered.

All because of the government red tape. If our government gets into healthcare, then every hospital and doctor's office will be likewise bogged down.

The biggest issues that we have, that have created the health care crisis in this country is a number of different things.

1: Doctors protect their own (just like lawyers and judges protect their own). If a doctor is not competent, unless he is dangerously incompetent, he continues to practice; And sometimes even if he is dangerously incompetent, he continues to practice.

2: People are human and so they make mistakes. We have to accept that and when a doctor or hospital makes an error they should own up to it and make every effort possible, correct it.

3: This country is EXTREMELY litigious. We sue people, companies, hospitals, etc. for EVERYTHING; no matter how insignificant. Because of that, civil aviation in this country almost came to a halt and doctors medical malpractice insurance is through the roof.
It's all of us that pays the price through higher medical costs.
Not to say that we shouldn't sue if it calls for it, but we need to be reasonable about it and stop suing just because we think we might get money for it.

4: Hospitals price gouge like crazy. A 20 dollar set of crutches will cost you 400 dollars when the hospital sends you home with them.

5: We live in a society that has been indoctrinated with this false belief that we are "priviledged" and deserve more for nothing.

There used to be a time when most everyone could get medical attention that they could afford, but those above factors have brought us to this position.
For us to fix the problem requires all of us to start looking at what the problem is.
It isn't medical costs. They are only the symptom. One of many that this country suffers from. If we fix the other things, the symptoms go away.

The fix is easy to determine;

1: Train all medical staff to the highest standards possible and do not allow incompetent doctors to have a practice or work for a hospital in that capacity. End the "diploma mill" medical schools.
1a: Hold incompetent doctors and hospital staff accountable for their actions and prohibit them from practicing medicine.

2: We have to start being accountable, all of us, for our actions. We make mistakes and need to own up to them when we make them and make amends wherever possible.

3: STOP SUING FOR EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN. Lawsuits should be used for truly serious things. Not because of something that the person responsible says that they will correct anyway.

4: Regulate Hospital and medical costs. Most businesses will charge 2.5 times their cost for an item. This makes sense when you factor in operating overhead for a business, but in the medical community it is not uncommon for any one item to be priced at 50 times the medical provider was charged.

4a: Regulate drug companies. Why is it big name drugs can cost as much as 100 dollars a pill, but the generic (usually from the same manufacturer) is a fraction of that price? Makes you wonder.

5: Stop thinking that you are deserving of everything for nothing. Everyone deserves what they work for. They deserve compensation when they are harmed by another and that person refuses to make amends. However, NO ONE deserves money for nothing.

[wolfcamp]

The fix is easy to determine;

1: Train all medical staff to the highest standards possible and do not allow incompetent doctors to have a practice or work for a hospital in that capacity. End the "diploma mill" medical schools.
1a: Hold incompetent doctors and hospital staff accountable for their actions and prohibit them from practicing medicine.

2: We have to start being accountable, all of us, for our actions. We make mistakes and need to own up to them when we make them and make amends wherever possible.

3: STOP SUING FOR EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN. Lawsuits should be used for truly serious things. Not because of something that the person responsible says that they will correct anyway.

4: Regulate Hospital and medical costs. Most businesses will charge 2.5 times their cost for an item. This makes sense when you factor in operating overhead for a business, but in the medical community it is not uncommon for any one item to be priced at 50 times the medical provider was charged.

4a: Regulate drug companies. Why is it big name drugs can cost as much as 100 dollars a pill, but the generic (usually from the same manufacturer) is a fraction of that price? Makes you wonder.

5: Stop thinking that you are deserving of everything for nothing. Everyone deserves what they work for. They deserve compensation when they are harmed by another and that person refuses to make amends. However, NO ONE deserves money for nothing.

What? Insurance didn't make it into the top 5? What do you do if you get a major illness and find you are underinsured? What about denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions? What about denial of claims? What about the difference in offerings and premium costs from state to state? What about people who are insured through employer plans and then become too sick to work? What about ANYONE who becomes too sick to work?

To be fair. All your points are legitimate. We need to do all that and much more.

[anda692]

[QUOTE=bisexualinsocal;97373]I am against medicare and many other new deal programs, if that's what you are getting at. But let's not forget who is responsible to the government getting your money in the name of social medicine. It's your socialist democrat pal and Nazi appeaser, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

I took what was an overly long and misleading post and found the best example of why it was misleading. I thought that I would include it here and present a brief history lesson.
First Medicare was started during the 1960's under LBJ, not FDR. As we all know, Social Security was started under FDR but the medicare program wasn't until much later. Also, most of us know that medicare is a separate program from social security, with a separate tax and trust fund.
I have heard FDR called many things. The isolationist Republicans accused him of plotting with Churchill to get us into the war. But now, by someone that seems to have no idea of history, he is called a "Nazi appeaser". That phrase told me more about the quality of the post than anything else.
I have to admit I did read all of it and all of the other posts by this person. And the accuracy and thoughtfulness of each are best summed up by the above quote.

Now there have been some interesting ideas put forth in this thread. Along with them I would like to add a point to think about. When was the last time that you shopped for health care? Checked out the doctors, their costs, their qualifications? How do you know if a better qualified and cheaper doctor isn't practicing just down the road from the one you go to? Almost no one does it, and if you aren't going to pay him, why would you? That is why our health care costs have gone through the roof. When a doctor wanted over $200 for a routine phyiscal and he was going to spend less than 5 minutes with me and the rest was going to be done by his nurse, I said no and went somewhere else. We all need to do that kind of thing.
I'll climb back down off my soap box and go back to lurk mode. Thanks for reading

[bisexualinsocal]

[QUOTE=bisexualinsocal;97373]I am against medicare and many other new deal programs, if that's what you are getting at. But let's not forget who is responsible to the government getting your money in the name of social medicine. It's your socialist democrat pal and Nazi appeaser, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

I took what was an overly long and misleading post and found the best example of why it was misleading. I thought that I would include it here and present a brief history lesson.
First Medicare was started during the 1960's under LBJ, not FDR. As we all know, Social Security was started under FDR but the medicare program wasn't until much later. Also, most of us know that medicare is a separate program from social security, with a separate tax and trust fund.
I have heard FDR called many things. The isolationist Republicans accused him of plotting with Churchill to get us into the war. But now, by someone that seems to have no idea of history, he is called a "Nazi appeaser". That phrase told me more about the quality of the post than anything else.
I have to admit I did read all of it and all of the other posts by this person. And the accuracy and thoughtfulness of each are best summed up by the above quote.

Now there have been some interesting ideas put forth in this thread. Along with them I would like to add a point to think about. When was the last time that you shopped for health care? Checked out the doctors, their costs, their qualifications? How do you know if a better qualified and cheaper doctor isn't practicing just down the road from the one you go to? Almost no one does it, and if you aren't going to pay him, why would you? That is why our health care costs have gone through the roof. When a doctor wanted over $200 for a routine phyiscal and he was going to spend less than 5 minutes with me and the rest was going to be done by his nurse, I said no and went somewhere else. We all need to do that kind of thing.
I'll climb back down off my soap box and go back to lurk mode. Thanks for reading


You made some great points about individuals taking ownership and responsibility over their healthcare choices. At least you understand the mindset of the healthcare brownshirts. The mindset is this: "I don't want to have to think that hard about who's my doctor"

But I'm sure you know. Medicare was on FDR's agenda right from the start. Along with a myriad of other socialist plans. Some flew under the radar, others didn't until years later.

[alaskacouple]

4: Regulate Hospital and medical costs. Most businesses will charge 2.5 times their cost for an item. This makes sense when you factor in operating overhead for a business, but in the medical community it is not uncommon for any one item to be priced at 50 times the medical provider was charged.

.

I think you raised some good points (especially about tort reform for malpractice issues). But I just thought I would add a thought to your #4 above; many hospitals and doctors take large right-offs for services rendered to uninsured patients. By law, most hospitals cannot turn away an emergency issue. Thus, when those folks have no insurance and can't pay for the bill, the hospitals simply increase the costs for those that can. But, greed also plays a big part in this (we know several physicians and they certainly make a huge profit on their services). IMO a single payer system like Medicare can and will establish fixed payment rates for each service rendered - this is a round about way to "help" doctors get beyond their greed issues... (But I too am concerned about the government being able to do something w/o screwing it up - but it's not like it's not broken already so what the heck...)


Now there have been some interesting ideas put forth in this thread. Along with them I would like to add a point to think about. When was the last time that you shopped for health care? Checked out the doctors, their costs, their qualifications? How do you know if a better qualified and cheaper doctor isn't practicing just down the road from the one you go to? Almost no one does it, and if you aren't going to pay him, why would you? That is why our health care costs have gone through the roof. When a doctor wanted over $200 for a routine phyiscal and he was going to spend less than 5 minutes with me and the rest was going to be done by his nurse, I said no and went somewhere else. We all need to do that kind of thing.
I'll climb back down off my soap box and go back to lurk mode. Thanks for reading

We have actually tried to determine costs from several physicians on a number of occasions. We did it not so much as a way to compare prices beforehand, but to simply try to justify to our insurance provider that the charges that THEY said were above normal, were in fact the norm for where we live. Sad to say that in most cases the physician's offices would not provide such costs. So, I'm not sure that "shopping" will actually do much to lower overall medical costs - but it sure can't hurt if one can do it!

And please don't "lurk" - your comments were very good and added to the discussion.

[wolfcamp]

I think you raised some good points (especially about tort reform for malpractice issues). But I just thought I would add a thought to your #4 above; many hospitals and doctors take large right-offs for services rendered to uninsured patients. By law, most hospitals cannot turn away an emergency issue. Thus, when those folks have no insurance and can't pay for the bill, the hospitals simply increase the costs for those that can. But, greed also plays a big part in this (we know several physicians and they certainly make a huge profit on their services). IMO a single payer system like Medicare can and will establish fixed payment rates for each service rendered - this is a round about way to "help" doctors get beyond their greed issues... (But I too am concerned about the government being able to do something w/o screwing it up - but it's not like it's not broken already so what the heck...)

I agree with everything that you say above, but I'd like to add one comment. If someone visits the emergency room and can't pay, it isn't like they get free services. They are still billed. Even if the person tries to pay, but can't meet the minimum payment, they are turned over to a collection agency. Some medical facilities may be more lenient than others, but I know that some are very unforgiving. The medical provider probably gets 50 cents of their billed dollar, which probably covers their costs and then some.



We have actually tried to determine costs from several physicians on a number of occasions. We did it not so much as a way to compare prices beforehand, but to simply try to justify to our insurance provider that the charges that THEY said were above normal, were in fact the norm for where we live. Sad to say that in most cases the physician's offices would not provide such costs. So, I'm not sure that "shopping" will actually do much to lower overall medical costs - but it sure can't hurt if one can do it!


A person might be able to shop for a family doctor, but even then you are limited. You might have to choose a doctor who is 'in network', or someone who is accepting new patients. You might go on a referral by a coworker or a friend. I think it's very rare that someone shops for a doctor by cost.

Once a doctor starts a process, you just go where you are told. You are sent to get X-rays (is there a choice?) You are sent for a heart stress test. (Can you say at that point who you want to go to? I suppose you can, but who does?) You are sent for a blood test. (Have you ever asked if their blood tests are cost competitive with the hospital down the road?) You are referred to a surgeon. (Who is going to question this?)

So, I think that people shop for health care more on the basis of specialty and insurance restraints rather than consumer costs.

Health insurance is another story. Costs play a big role there. You purchase health insurance based on what you can afford. You weigh the cost of the deductible. You weigh the cost of the co-pay. You decide if you want prescription benefits included or not. There are other factors. One big thing I think a person should look at is the history and integrity of the insurance company. Find out if they have been dropping high risk clients, and try to get a record of claim denials. Of course, this information would be very hard to obtain from a private company unless someone has challenged the insurance company in a public court. Once a dispute is settled in court, it becomes public record and you have a window into the workings and ethics of the insurance company.

[Emma7669]

I'm not going to say I am for or against universal healthcare, but I give anyone interested in it a warning. LISTEN to what the politicians are saying, what you will hear is "insurance". The current push is to have everyone "insured" which is NOT the same has having everyone covered. The approach that is being bandied about will still leave many people without needed coverage either at the high end with catastrophic events, or the low end with regular physician visits. In many of the approaches being discussed the freedom is still there to choose what insurance you will have but it still forces everyone to have insurance and pay into the pool. The paying into the pool is what will be subsidized, those that can't afford insurance will be offered "low cost" or "free" insurance and more than likely it will come with "low cost" healthcare.

[barbaralynn]

i have read a few of the threads from this article and i am wondering just how many think that the government is the reason for the high cost of health care? next time you are in the hospital or emergency room or your doctors office ask just how may government regulations that they have to comply with doing extra paperwork it just might make you realize that big government is already in the health care business. research how much research and developement is required for new medicines and then check the government regs that have to be complied with in order to market a new drug. it might just change your way of thinking. we all should raise cane with our government reps and senators to get out of the medicine business.

[bisexualinsocal]

i have read a few of the threads from this article and i am wondering just how many think that the government is the reason for the high cost of health care? next time you are in the hospital or emergency room or your doctors office ask just how may government regulations that they have to comply with doing extra paperwork it just might make you realize that big government is already in the health care business. research how much research and developement is required for new medicines and then check the government regs that have to be complied with in order to market a new drug. it might just change your way of thinking. we all should raise cane with our government reps and senators to get out of the medicine business.

Word!

[alaskacouple]

I'm not going to say I am for or against universal healthcare, but I give anyone interested in it a warning. LISTEN to what the politicians are saying, what you will hear is "insurance". The current push is to have everyone "insured" which is NOT the same has having everyone covered. The approach that is being bandied about will still leave many people without needed coverage either at the high end with catastrophic events, or the low end with regular physician visits. In many of the approaches being discussed the freedom is still there to choose what insurance you will have but it still forces everyone to have insurance and pay into the pool. The paying into the pool is what will be subsidized, those that can't afford insurance will be offered "low cost" or "free" insurance and more than likely it will come with "low cost" healthcare.

You raise again one of my biggest concerns regarding the push toward some solution to the health care problems - and that is my fear that instead of eliminating the insurance middleman (and their bloated unjustified profits), the Congress will simply mandate that we all must now buy insurance from the very same companies! And wa-la! Universal Health Care. I suspect that the insurance lobbyists are already hard at work in Washington to convince our elected officials that this "free market" approach is the American way. (I recommend that you write your representatives and let them know how you think on this matter)


i have read a few of the threads from this article and i am wondering just how many think that the government is the reason for the high cost of health care? next time you are in the hospital or emergency room or your doctors office ask just how may government regulations that they have to comply with doing extra paperwork it just might make you realize that big government is already in the health care business. research how much research and developement is required for new medicines and then check the government regs that have to be complied with in order to market a new drug. it might just change your way of thinking. we all should raise cane with our government reps and senators to get out of the medicine business.

Of course regulations do cost money to comply with. But, do you seriously want to trust the pharmaceutical corporations with "doing the right thing"? That would be like turning loose the modern version of the old time snake oil salesman - only it would be on an unimaginable scale of greed and corruption! These corporate giants get caught time and again pushing dangerous products onto the world despite the current regulations - I cannot even image what they would do if left unregulated...

[anda692]

i have read a few of the threads from this article and i am wondering just how many think that the government is the reason for the high cost of health care? next time you are in the hospital or emergency room or your doctors office ask just how may government regulations that they have to comply with doing extra paperwork it just might make you realize that big government is already in the health care business. research how much research and developement is required for new medicines and then check the government regs that have to be complied with in order to market a new drug. it might just change your way of thinking. we all should raise cane with our government reps and senators to get out of the medicine business.

After you ask about the government paperwork, then ask about the paperwork required to process your insurance claim. Ask if it is easier to file a claim under medicare/medicaid or under the many insurance companies. Don't ask which they get paid more from, they won't answer that. If you don't know the answer to either of those questions let me tell you what health care professional have told me. The forms from the insurance companies are crazy and the government forms are very easy. Every insurance company form is different and you can have half of the government form filled out before you find the right form for the insurance. But, when the insurance company finally approves the bill, they pay more and pay faster.

I suggest that you check the headlines for the last 6 months and see how many drugs have been pulled from the market or been sued over because of unintended effects of the drug, including killing the people that they were supposed to help. This might be the wrong time to suggest less regulations for the introduction of a new drug. What is happening now is dangerous for us all. What needs to happen is independent studies of the new drug, not controled by the drug companies, before the drug is approved not after.

One last thing, the idea that universal health care can be run like the medicare drug plan is health care for no one. If you think that universal health care is what we need, realize that all of the current presidental canidates have it wrong. The only workable solution presently out there is a bill already presented in the House of Rep. That bill is H.R. 676. Other ideas presented later might be better, but at present we haven't seen them. Until we see a better idea, I suggest that we support H.R. 676

[Hephaestion]

Let me see if I've got this right from the threads above

Not insuring someone because they are not healthy enough or not rich enough is good (I assume that this is because everyone earns the same and not being able to insure is because personal funds have been mispent?)

Not treating somebody to completion or, at all, because they do not have enough financial backing is good. Resources are limitless else if the patient has enough financial backing then that patient may kick the less fortunate out of the way and grab a resource in preference

Insuring with a company that has to make a profit and may not have the highest morals is good

There is only waste and inefficiency in non-commercial organisations?

One can change insurance company when it is detected that there is deficiency in their financial support, the evidence being that the patient has perhaps died. Does it follow then that, assuming it can be afforded, eventually everyone will go for the best in which case the monopoly must tbe broken up?

Paying into the biggest insurance company of a country (public health care) run by the government which is, or should be, accountable to the people counts as free health care.

Private and Public health care cannot possibly co-exist because the one can make up for the deficiencies of the other in the absence of money constraints

I am drawn to the conclusion that emphasis on private health care gives new meaning to "Land of the free, home of the brave"

[warmpuppy]

Sure you can walk out and buy insurance. What it sounds like you're really looking for is a bottomless bank account, which is cool because so am I. That in mind, keep in mind that this is INSURANCE and not a savings account. That in mind, we are all entitled to save as little or as much money as we can.

But let's be honest. How about the government just rebate your family much of the taxes you've paid and let you go out and buy whatever insurance you'd like?

Why pay government-middle-men a processing fee? I vote we get tax credits and rebates!

Where would THIS money come from? They'd have to increase taxes to have the cash to turn it back to us.

I support a two-tiered approach to national health care. The majority of sickness in this country is for colds, flu, owies, etc. Let the Government provide free clinics for these types of illnesses. The Government could run training academies to produce and employ Practitioners who are not Doctors, but sufficiently trained to deal with these types of simple office visits.

For more major medical problems, we use the existing American medical system, but have the Government place price controls on the maximum charges payable to private doctors and hospitals. Blue Cross Blue Shield sort of does that now for my group of docs.

[bisexualinsocal]

Where would THIS money come from? They'd have to increase taxes to have the cash to turn it back to us.

They already did raise taxes. FDR, Carter and Clinton raised taxes, big time. Now it's time to give the money back to the people who know how to use it best, the people.


I support a two-tiered approach to national health care. The majority of sickness in this country is for colds, flu, owies, etc. Let the Government provide free clinics for these types of illnesses. The Government could run training academies to produce and employ Practitioners who are not Doctors, but sufficiently trained to deal with these types of simple office visits.

I vote for the idea of health practitioner, in fact, in a way, we already have that in the form of "vocational nurses". What I'm against is another bloated government bureaucracy similar to the IRS and the Social Security Administration. Why do we need government to run your proposed program?