OK, here's a question...

[Stormsmith]

Mr Shaman, do you know what "an n of one" means?

 

[Stormsmith]

But therein lies the problem, universal healthcare doesn't "streamline" the system, unless you consider lowering the standards for everyone "streamlining". Look at the system in Canada, Great Britain, Germany, or any other country that has embraced universal "healthcare". The only thing universal about it is the long lines, crappy service (when you can get it), and people dying in the halls waiting for a simple procedure.

If you have a city with say, 3 major hospitals, all will provide ER, maternity, etc., but each will have one or more specialties, ie One centre will have a cancer centre, another for diagnostics ie PET CAT MRI Xrays, bloodwork, etc. Another might have a pain relief centre etc. The best minds and talents are in the major centre, saving the cost of funding unused services and beds in the other hospitals. Goods from syringes to computers to drugs are purchased in bulk to lower cost. And so on.

As to long line ups, I won't sugar coat it: In some countries, or in Canada's case, some provinces, some procedures do have line-ups. These are anomolies, and always discretional services. Its rare for someone to wait to see their personal, private practioner more than 36 hours. If s/he is unavailable, a partner will see you. Failing that, there are local drop-in clinics will see you, usually within an hour. If all else fails, there's ER. Communities frequently also supply phone-in services to upper level nurses, and home care is often available, depending on where you live. England is better at it than Ontario.

Anything life threatening draws immediate attention and treatment.

The one and only reason there exists any line up of any sort is underfunding by governments caused by either

1. not wanting to raise taxes (for polital gain for the party in office)
2. wanting to increase private care (political ideology)

Its a lot easier to fire a government accountable to the people than it is to fire a board of directors accountable to stockholders

As to shoddy service, the figures speak for themselves. WHO's stats rates the US as the most expensive service. In overall quality of care, it puts the US at #37.

The US has excellent treatments for some things. but they are far from universally being the best at everything. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm

Lastly, it is fearmongering at least, a lie at worst to suggest people are routinely dieing in hallways awaiting simple procedures, any more than it happens in the best hospitals in the world.

You do yourself a huge disfavour suggesting such things are so.

 

[Andy]

I'm still looking for the most recent media update on the information/show: Watched this all on '20/20', '60 Minutes', Dateline...just within the last couple of weeks. Medical Bankruptcy and how the patients were being affected. I'll get back to you with that link...gotta go run do some odd jobs and I'll be back. But it's {medical bankruptcy} the leading cause for people to file for bankruptcy...and whether it be by choice or the hospital denying services...people are being forced into quiting getting the treatments that they need for their illnesses! Hospitals are businesses and they do have a point of time that the 'bad debt' reaches their cap for their balance sheets and benefits/treatments start getting denied!

Actually that's not true. But even if it were, I wager that being incapacitated for 2 years, would be far worse than a bankruptcy, let alone the number of people that literally die waiting for treatment or surgery. Remember the guy who died after 36 hours in the ER? Are you telling me that bankruptcy would have been worse than what than his death?

But ignoring that for a moment, the fact is, it isn't true. The Harvard study used accurate statistics to make unsupportable claims. The researchers who wrote the report, advocated a single payer health system as far back as 2004. This report was basically to find evidence supported what they had already determined to be the answer.

For example... they looked at all bankruptcies, and then determined if medical debt was included. So let us say you had $50,000 dollars in credit card debt, or purchased a home you can't afford. And then let's say you have $5,000 in medical bills. Even though your medical debt was only a tenth of your total debt, the study concluded you had a "medical bankruptcy".

Also, the conflated missed work with medical debt. So let's say you got ill and missed 4 weeks of work, and lets assume you made $2,000 a week. Now even if your insurance completely covered all medical expenses, they attributed the 4 weeks X $2,000 as medical debt. So you were out $8,000 dollars in "medical debt" and you had a "medical bankruptcy".

Finely the only amount of medical debt required by the study to be considered a "medical bankruptcy" was $5,000 dollars. Honestly no one go bankrupt over $5,000. People go bankrupt over buying too much house they can't afford, charging up credit cards, taking out loans, and buying expensive cars they have no business getting.

The bottom line is, the research was a fraud. The researchers were pro-socialized medicine supporters who created a report supported their predetermined views.

 

[Andy]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20268763/ns/us_news-gut_check/
Health care and costs, by the numbers
Health care and costs, by the numbers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20268763/from/ET/

I'm not sure which link works best for you but this is an excellent overview of how the impact of extreme health care cost are affecting working America!

The problem is, most of those fail to include illegals. Ironically, the real information is widely available from the US Census. Here's a quick video on just who are the uninsured.

What's worse is, as I pointed out before, there are free health clinics run by the government. This is what bothers me the most about your claims. You act like all these people will go bankrupt when they can go to a free clinic. Or that they will not get treatment, when they can go to a free clinic. So why don't they go to free clinics? Because they suck and people die there. Yet that's what you advocate for everyone?

 

[Andy]

Here's another example, and it's perfect. Listen to this doctor explain how people needing fatally critical surgery, had their surgery canceled due to a lack of post-op beds... and yet they had the beds... they just were not funded by government health care.

Note, this lady waiting in extreme pain, with a 99% blocked artery, before she finely came to the US. Remember, her government health care surgery was canceled because there were no beds... er... funded beds. There were plenty of empty unfunded beds.

Now which would you rather have? Bankruptcy and being well... or death by starvation, but financially sound....?

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Andy said: Actually that's not true. But even if it were, I wager that being incapacitated for 2 years, would be far worse than a bankruptcy, let alone the number of people that literally die waiting for treatment or surgery. Remember the guy who died after 36 hours in the ER? Are you telling me that bankruptcy would have been worse than what than his death?

How did this get soooo twisted??? I was pointing out that {look at the data} that the majority of hardworking Americans are now having to make the toughest choices about: keeping their current insurance policies or house payments??? Retirement benefits are being changed by the largest corporations and the retirement plan that they were promised is "Not Iron Clad Guaranteed" anymore!

Andy Said: What's worse is, as I pointed out before, there are free health clinics run by the government. This is what bothers me the most about your claims. You act like all these people will go bankrupt when they can go to a free clinic. Or that they will not get treatment, when they can go to a free clinic. So why don't they go to free clinics? Because they suck and people die there. Yet that's what you advocate for everyone?

'FREE CLINICS'...you mean there is one in every neighborhood in America...NO THERE ISN'T!!!
"So why don't they go to the free clinic"...gee, I don't know, would that possibly be a transportation problem???

Here's a story from a friend who lives in Norway:

Universal Health Care
I don't want to fight with anyone about this. I just want to help Americans get what every other first world country has: Comprehensive, Universal Health Care for all. I have lived outside of America for the last 25 years. I go back often to visit my Children, Grandchildren and Friends, mostly in Florida. But my health care is taken care of in Norway and it is excellent. And after paying the first $230 in every calendar year, everything else is free. Right now I am taking Chemo treatments(they are working well so no supportive comments are needed, but thanks anyway). Even the taxi to and from the hospital is free(20 miles from my house) and like I said the service is outstanding. As soon as the melanoma was discovered the treatments were started. No waiting. I have also had diabetes 2 for the last five years and take nine pills a day. They and the blood sugar check equipment and the monthly blood tests at the clinic, cost nothing, Nine years ago I had the lenses inside both my eyes replaced with an operation. I was waiting my turn as they were backed up, but when I told them I really wanted to go to America for Christmas to be with my kids, they moved my turn up to the front and fixed my eyes. I see perfectly. It cost nothing.

In my community of 7,000 people there is at least one doctor on call(who will come to my house) 24 hours a day. NO COST.

The primary care doctors in Norway are like gatekeepers. You go to them to tell them what is wrong and they send you on to the specialist to fix you. When my doctor saw an infection on my back that wasn't responding to anti-biotic treatment, she put me into a taxi immediately and sent me to the hospital 20 miles away, where they were to discover the melanoma.

Medical care is delivered with professionalism, efficiently and with caring. Sound like heaven to you? It is to me.

And a final story: Back 15 years ago, shortly after I had moved to Norway my son, who had been living with his Dutch wife in Holland drove to Norway to visit me. As he was coming through Copenhagen, he had an accident which totaled his car. His neck was broken and the Danish police called me immediately and I took the first plane to Denmark. When I got there I went to this huge hospital and he was in the neurological intensive care. It was after midnight before I arrived. A nurse came and gave me a key to a room in the next building, where I stayed for five days. There was no cost. The next morning the surgeon came to see me and explained they were going to operate and fix his neck and he said, there will be no charge for anything. They operated and after 10 days, they sent him to an aftercare facility where he stayed for 6 weeks. I came and got him and we took the boat to Norway where he had rehab for the next two months. He is like new and has never had any problems. His mother, sister and her baby also came to see him in Denmark and were given a free room.
(A side note: A few years ago McDonald's, yes its here in Norway, wanted to build a house where parents of sick children could stay while their children were in the hospital. The government refused them permission. Why? Because Norwegians already had more than enough rooms for the parents and there was no need. The people even resented McDonald's for suggesting they didn't take proper care of their own)

As we sat in the waiting room those days, when lunch time came , they would come in and ask us would we like some food(same at dinner and breakfast). It was served from a cart on plates and it was great food lol. Any of you traveling in Western Europe who should need emergency health care of any kind, it will cost you nothing.(no sane western European visits America without Medical Health Care Travel Insurance worth up to and including all medical costs including medication, to one million dollars. It costs about $200 and is good for up to 45 days coverage each time you travel outside of Norway)

My efforts in this post and other things I do, are to get the same for all Americans. It will not be easy and I am not real positive about the possibilities anytime soon.

But I will answer the number one question. How is medical care paid for in every other first world country? Taxes. But its more than that. The doctors mostly work for the government and it decides compensation. My Primary care doctor earns about $150,000 a year. Specialists more but not the kind of "more" like millions, that too many American doctors earn. And along with taxes please understand that the minimum wage in Norway is about $22 an hour. There are no homeless, hungry people and there are no slums. There is nothing like the poverty of America. Everyone earns a decent wage and lives a quality of life only dreamed about by most Americans. Its not just in Norway most other first world countries are the same. The UK is the least of the countries.

Taxes are not evil and people don't mind paying them when they get something for them. I promise you..

I don't advocate anything but a long wasted breath about insurance caps for major medical policies and a good fairly priced health care system for all America. We just can't seem to be able to create the best coverage for our own citizens and there are plenty of other countries to follow as an example and polish up the areas that they've left open wound holes in their existing services...we are very, very earnest/hard working people and we should be getting the best of the best for medical services...IMO.

If you looked around your area: {major cities sized 80,000 plus} I think that you would see what I have; that the only major building boom new construction has been/still is the sky scrapers that the Insurance Companies have built...what makes you think that they aren't ripping us off on all of our policies??? Insurance Companies and their grossly over paid lobbyist have had their way with 'John Q. Public' long enough...lets put the squeeze on them and make them come to the table with a 'new improved plan/policy' for a change!

 

[Stormsmith]

Greetings Stormsmith and welcome to the HOP.
Cheers!

2. It will be just as bankrupt and poorly administered as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

More governments than just Bush Jr have dipped into Public Trusts, but that's down to legislation or lack of it, that makes it lawful. Trusts should be protected from misuse. If a government cannot balance its books, it should cut services or increase taxes. Trusts have been profitable from inception, and had they been allowed to grow at a reasonable rate unmolested, there wouldn't be a shortfall. Bush however, gave tax cuts to the ultra rich, subsidies to oil companies, allowed Halliburton to rob you blind lost pallets of money in Iraq, and gave away billions to bankers and scores of other business since 9-11 without any hint of accountablilty. Its criminal. But that is the fault of the taxpayers who should be enmass demanding accountability and change.

3. It will further erode our liberties as Americans are convinced we need to ban unhealthy products and punitively tax unhealthy behavior to bring HC costs under control.

I don't understand

4. It will result in HC rationing and a decline in the HC itself.

It will expand services. HMOs etc are notorious for refusing tests. Your doctors word is gold, not the bean counter

5. People with Healthcare Insurance will be taxed for having it, those without HCI will be taxed for not having it.

I doubt you'll be billed twice, but contact your congressperson

Blaming the profit motive for unhygienic conditions is absurd.

Look it up. Its pretty well documented

That's an actual photo of a cuban hospital, where there is no profit motive. Yes, that's doo-doo on the floor.

Maybe. Maybe photoshopped. My husband took med supplies to Cuba 14 months ago, and he didn't see anything remotely near this atrocity. Cuban doctors and nurses are among the best trained in the world. Rather than sending peacekeepers abroard, Cuba sends medical teams. They're well recieved. Did you know Cuba has developed treatments unique to its island, including lung cancer vaccine? This from a third world country, no less. Speaking of which, are you under the impresssion that America is a third world country? I believe it is not. So why draw a comparison to Cuba rather than to Canada or Germany or New Zealand or Australia or..etc

Here is a preview of what "Universal Healthcare", free of the profit motive, will deliver etc

Remember all those who died in the hospitals, possibly by intention, in Katrina? Private care centres. An 'n' of one is antedotal storytelling. It may be true, but dear, in a country of 306 million people, 1 or 100 or 1000 such stories is significantly insignificant, and its just as easy to find as many incidents looking bad for the other side, witness Katrina. If you want to show a point, show a documented and reliable study.

The profit motive provides competition, the hospitals and services that are not up to standards go out of business. Government anything, which doesn't operate on the profit motive, is subsidized by taxpayers and remains in business no matter how horrible the product or service is that they provide.

No. The hospital has a board of directors accountable to the government and the people; and the government is accountable to the people. Do you really believe staff, including doctors, in public hospitals are immune from prosecution?

(on streamlining)

There is simply no truth in either of those statements. Bureaucratic red tape doesn't "streamline" anything, although politicians are eager to sell you on such drivel because it expands their power over our lives. As for the syringe analogy, its a result of cost shifting:

Sources, please

:
...American Medical Association made abundantly clear to Obama last week, doctors and hospitals would fight such a plan because they believe they would be underpaid.

They would negotiate fee for service, and for procedure, like the nurses, cleaners, etc.

Insurers argue they could not possibly survive competition with such a powerful competitor, especially since doctors and hospitals would presumably try to compensate by charging private insurers more.

They couldn't. That's the concept of universal health care, and it rather puts paid to arguments on the good of competition, doesn't it?

(“Cost-shifting,’’ most health policy gurus agree, is already happening - Medicare and Medicaid underpay, so providers overcharge private plans, which drives up their premiums.) -- Boston Globe

Over charging by private companies is why health care as it exists now is unaffordable for so many, and why negotiating contracts with doctors, hospitals labs etc sets a standard for all, private or public. Public cannot either charge less than nor go over the negotiated price; if private companies do, they do so to make a profit off the sick

A "public option" would spell the death of private insurance and usher in the age of a government monopoly over the healthcare industry.

One would imagine that would be so, but judging from the number of people I hear from who seem to be quite happy to be overcharged by hmos and med plans, hospitals and drug companies, I'm sure the privately owned institutes will be just fine.

What's to stop you from creating a charity fund that helps the uninsured? You can chip in all you like, others can chip in their money too, and because its charity rather than a government program, nobody is forced to contribute.

Why would one? Medicaid, medicare, cobra ad infinitum is already publically funded, and should be available to those who require it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

If you have a city with say, 3 major hospitals, all will provide ER, maternity, etc., but each will have one or more specialties, ie One centre will have a cancer centre, another for diagnostics ie PET CAT MRI Xrays, bloodwork, etc. Another might have a pain relief centre etc. The best minds and talents are in the major centre, saving the cost of funding unused services and beds in the other hospitals. Goods from syringes to computers to drugs are purchased in bulk to lower cost. And so on.

As to long line ups, I won't sugar coat it: In some countries, or in Canada's case, some provinces, some procedures do have line-ups. These are anomolies, and always discretional services. Its rare for someone to wait to see their personal, private practioner more than 36 hours. If s/he is unavailable, a partner will see you. Failing that, there are local drop-in clinics will see you, usually within an hour. If all else fails, there's ER. Communities frequently also supply phone-in services to upper level nurses, and home care is often available, depending on where you live. England is better at it than Ontario.

Anything life threatening draws immediate attention and treatment.

The one and only reason there exists any line up of any sort is underfunding by governments caused by either

1. not wanting to raise taxes (for polital gain for the party in office)
2. wanting to increase private care (political ideology)

Its a lot easier to fire a government accountable to the people than it is to fire a board of directors accountable to stockholders

As to shoddy service, the figures speak for themselves. WHO's stats rates the US as the most expensive service. In overall quality of care, it puts the US at #37.

The US has excellent treatments for some things. but they are far from universally being the best at everything. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm

Lastly, it is fearmongering at least, a lie at worst to suggest people are routinely dieing in hallways awaiting simple procedures, any more than it happens in the best hospitals in the world.

You do yourself a huge disfavour suggesting such things are so.

basic rule of thumb...if half your population does not have health care...and you give it to them....yes it will take longer at times to get in....but some feel that its ok, as long as they are one of the ones with it. screw other people,

 

[Bob the Builder]

Bob and Gen:

I'll speak to yopur whole posts asap, but first a question:



If the government is exceeding its reach by implementing a universal health care system, I wonder if you know why medicare, COBRA and medicaide etc have not be challenged in court as violating the constitution, or as not being part of the federal government's quarter?

In a way they have. Back in, I believe it was 1938, Social Security was challenged, but when it went to the supreme court, they skirted the issue by only addressing the fact that Congress did have the authority to tax for it under the 16th Amendment, but they never ruled on the actual constitutionality of the program itself. You have to remember that this was during FDR's administration, and after ruling that so many of the programs he had instituted were unconstitutional, he threatened to "pack the court" with as many justices as it took until they allowed him to do what he wanted to do, and essentially cowed the court. Since then, any time it or any of the other socialist programs have been challenged, it has either been dismissed in summary as "lacking standing", or the courts simply refused to even hear the case at all, because they're scared shi*less of the backlash from all of the people who have become dependent on it.

It's no different than the cases that have been brought doing nothing more than asking the Courts to issue a Writ of Mandamus requiring the hospital that Obama was allegedly born in to present the vault copy, long form of his Birth Certificate in order to settle the question once and for all. The courts have dismissed the cases saying that they lacked "standing", totally avoiding the fact that ALL Americans have "standing" to demand proof of constitutional eligibility of the candidates for President.

 

[Bob the Builder]

If you have a city with say, 3 major hospitals, all will provide ER, maternity, etc., but each will have one or more specialties, ie One centre will have a cancer centre, another for diagnostics ie PET CAT MRI Xrays, bloodwork, etc. Another might have a pain relief centre etc. The best minds and talents are in the major centre, saving the cost of funding unused services and beds in the other hospitals. Goods from syringes to computers to drugs are purchased in bulk to lower cost. And so on.

As to long line ups, I won't sugar coat it: In some countries, or in Canada's case, some provinces, some procedures do have line-ups. These are anomolies, and always discretional services. Its rare for someone to wait to see their personal, private practioner more than 36 hours. If s/he is unavailable, a partner will see you. Failing that, there are local drop-in clinics will see you, usually within an hour. If all else fails, there's ER. Communities frequently also supply phone-in services to upper level nurses, and home care is often available, depending on where you live. England is better at it than Ontario.

Anything life threatening draws immediate attention and treatment.

The one and only reason there exists any line up of any sort is underfunding by governments caused by either

1. not wanting to raise taxes (for polital gain for the party in office)
2. wanting to increase private care (political ideology)

Its a lot easier to fire a government accountable to the people than it is to fire a board of directors accountable to stockholders

As to shoddy service, the figures speak for themselves. WHO's stats rates the US as the most expensive service. In overall quality of care, it puts the US at #37.

The US has excellent treatments for some things. but they are far from universally being the best at everything. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm

Lastly, it is fearmongering at least, a lie at worst to suggest people are routinely dieing in hallways awaiting simple procedures, any more than it happens in the best hospitals in the world.

You do yourself a huge disfavour suggesting such things are so.

Storm, I take it you're a Canadian? I was on vacation visiting friends up near Toronto , about 10 years ago and my estimation of Canadian medical care comes from my own, admittedly limited experience (came down with a minor case of sinusitis and the earliest appointment I could get with a Canadian doctor was 3 WEEKS, so I made a phone call and had an appointment with a doc in Amherst that afternoon), as well as the horror stories I was hearing from my friends and other locals.

Now either A) the situation has dramatically improved since then, B) my friends and the other locals were exaggerating and my experience was an anomaly, or C) things are different where you live than they are/were in the Toronto area.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare, you're the one that brought up the CDC, and have demonstrated that you don't have the first clue what they do. They are not a hospital, or a healthcare provider, they investigate and look for cures for diseases, especially the particularly nasty ones, like Ebola.

As far as you not talking to me, that's your decision, and no great loss for me, but given your egregious lack of knowledge of pertainant data, you might want to pay attention and quit talking about things you obviously know nothing about.

I know exactly what the CDC does, it was you in fact who brought them up in response to my post about TB. You said, "You miss the point entirely MT. Communicable diseases have always been the purview of the government, which is why I fully support the CDC." Your post #52 on this thread.

The CDC does nothing for the pool of potential vectors in the US population.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This is a fundamental difference between you and me. And generally the left and the right.

You seek a solution. We seek the best possible compromise. You seek Utopia. We seek the best possible outcome. You fundamentally believe that all problems can be fixed, and thus eliminated. We believe that problems are inherent to humans, and can not be fixed, but marginalized.

Are there people in Canada, the UK, or Cuba that do not get health care? Yes, many in fact. So many, that they pay money to get health care in other countries.

So the question is, which is the best trade off? In Canada, champion figure skater Audrey Williams, needed hip replacement surgery. She waited for two years, with cancellation after cancellation. After waiting two years in pain, without mobility, she finely flew to the US, and got the surgery she needed. To this day, the universal US average wait time is roughly 2 weeks for such surgeries.

So let's consider this together. Which is the best compromise? A US patient that get's healed and back to work, and returns to mobility in 2 weeks, but has a rather expensive hospital bill... or...
A Canadian patient who suffers in pain, without mobility for nearly 2 years, and ends up paying for it by going to the US, anyway?
Which is the better compromise?

As for finding a "solution" to the problem, obviously the solution in Canada is for thousands to receive no care, and sit on waiting lists. And many people do die on waiting lists. It's a very common thing. Consider this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEq64W0_wUI
Lindsey McCreith would likely have died waiting for his surgery, if he had not gone to the US for care. Does this sound like the solution you had in mind? Of course not. Yet that is the outcome of the system you seem to support.



By war, I assume you mean military defense of the nation. Defense of the nation benefits everyone, whether they agree or realize it or not.

If you got cancer, which country would give you the best chance are survival? Yes, you might get a large doctor bill, but at least you wouldn't wait on a list until you died. In his book Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell details how in the UK the story came out of a 14 year old girl who got a breast implant on government funding, at the same time another lady with breast cancer, died on a waiting list for surgery.

This image copied poorly. Yellow is US. Green is Europe. It's Prostrate, Bladder, Breast and Uterine. In all cases. If you got cancer, where would you want to be treated?



Perhaps not naive, but missing a key point. Namely that there is a reason America is the richest nation on Earth. There's a reason we are as wealthy as we are. The answer is freedom, and capitalism, and free-market principals. The answer is systemic. It's the system you put in place, that determines outcome.

When you put in place socialistic principals, the system fails. As it has done everywhere. When you put in capitalism, you end up with India being the largest provider of medical tourism. People from the US even go there because unrestrained capitalism has lead to reduced cost through competition.



It is impossible. Not to say there are not some reforms needed, but universal care will undoubtedly result in poor and low quality care for only the few, just as it has done in every country in which it's tried. In fact, government run health care here in the US has shown the exact same problems that it has internationally.

For example, being ignored by hospital staff.
Canadian Man Dies After 34-Hour Emergency Room Wait
That's a product of socialized medicine. Remember, when government is paying the bill, you are no longer a customer. You are just another problem they have to deal with. So they treat you just like that, a problem they have to begrudgingly deal with. But US Health Care has problems too you say? Yes you are right.
Dallas Man Dies After Waiting 15 Hours In ER
So the same problems do happen here... but there's something you should know. Parkland Hospital where this happened.... is a Government run hospital. It is not surprising, and even expected, that socialized hospitals here suffer the same problems that socialized hospitals everywhere do.

Again... socialism fails. Parkland, like it's Canadian counter parts, are socialized. They don't see you as a valued customer, and they treat you that way. If this had been a private hospital where every patient is a valued customer, key to the survival of the company, he would have been seen quickly, and taken care of immediately. Repeat customers are the bread and butter of any company.

Good post, Andy, and I would like to address it, but at noon yesterday we got an avalanche of work (sort of an avalunch of work, so to speak) so I'll be gone for a while.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

also note we spend more then anyone , yet only half our people have coverage. iceland who is almost the same on F and close on M...spends about half what we do....

total health care as share of GDP..

we spend 15% plus, next closest is 11% most are 10 or under...so we spetnd about 5% more of our GDP...to not cover evryone.


what would one call a system that spends alot more to cover alot less people ? I would say ineffecent at best.

 

[Bob the Builder]

I know exactly what the CDC does, it was you in fact who brought them up in response to my post about TB. You said, "You miss the point entirely MT. Communicable diseases have always been the purview of the government, which is why I fully support the CDC." Your post #52 on this thread.

I stand corrected on the issue of who mentioned it first. Thank you for pointing out my error.

The CDC does nothing for the pool of potential vectors in the US population.

And exactly what do you mean by "the CDC does nothing for the pool of potential vectors"? Do you mean that they're not out there providing medical services to individuals? If so, you're absolutely correct, because that's not their mission, never has been, and never will be, unless or until we are struck with a nationwide pandemic, and as I clearly stated earlier, their role will be a supporting one.

 

[Bob the Builder]

also note we spend more then anyone , yet only half our people have coverage. iceland who is almost the same on F and close on M...spends about half what we do....

total health care as share of GDP..

we spend 15% plus, next closest is 11% most are 10 or under...so we spetnd about 5% more of our GDP...to not cover evryone.


what would one call a system that spends alot more to cover alot less people ? I would say ineffecent at best.

Where do you get your "half of our people have coverage" data from. According to the Obama administration, out of the 300+ million US population, there are only between 45 and 48 million uninsured in America, or less than 1/6th of the population. When you eliminate the 7+ million illegals, the 7+ million "temporarily unemployed" who are between jobs and will be insured again once they go back to work, the 5 million between 18 and 25 (the "invincibles") who are no longer covered by their parents insurance, and simply haven't gotten any of their own, the 3-4 million who, like myself, simply choose not to carry it, and the 3-4 million poor who already qualify for FREE government paid medical care but who simply haven't signed up for it for whatever reason, we're down to less than 20 million who want, but cannot for one reason or another 'afford' it.

One of the things that I find so interesting about this is the fact that so many people like our resident animal "lover" who claim to want insurance but "can't afford it", really don't seem to have too much trouble paying for their $150 a month cell phone bill, $100 a month cable/satellite TV bill, 2 $400+ a month car payments along with the $250 a month insurance and operating expenses, $100 sneakers 3 or 4 times a year, buying their $10 lunch ever day instead of brown-bagging it ($200 a month), $6 lattes every morning ($120 a month), going out for drinks with their buddies ($50-$100 a month), and take out/order in/going out to dinner/movies ($200 a month), etc., etc., etc.! What all of that means is that they really CAN afford to buy their own medical insurance, but it's not important enough to them to actually make the common sense sacrifices to get it, so instead they 'poor mouth' and go running around with their hands out looking to the government to take someone else's money to pay for it for them so that they can "have their cake and eat it too" on someone else's dime. SCREW 'EM!!!