Ted Kennedy would have died ....

[Libsmasher]

[COLO]The Kennedy example is a flawed example. Anyone who wishes to pay and can afford any procedure would certainly be able to get it with or without National Healthcare.

National Healthcare addresses major "pieces" of the healthcare model for everyone in a timely manor.

If you have no heathcare and are just brought in as an indigent does anyone believe that person would get better heathcare services than someone on a National Plan... of course not.

So if you're a person with means like Ted Kennedy you get whatever treatment is available immediately because you can afford it immediately.

People who have nothing now have something with a National Plan that covers one heck of a lot of healthcare services in a timely manor.

If you're financially well off your situation stays the same (excellent). Everyone else's situation improves.[/COLOR]

Not a chance - some socialized systems PROHIBIT private health care (eg canada up till 2005) - the dynamics of such systems is like the government school semi-monopoly in the US - they don't want anyone to escape their wretched system. And the drugs and procedures that Kennedy got would be available to anyone with insurance in the US now, the overwhelming majority of the population, not just the "rich". In the socialized system, such treatments WOULD be super-expensive, as in the boutique tiny private system in the UK, and would be limited to the rich, and prohibited now in the NHS. The "timely manor[sic]" claim is just false, as is widely known. Further, being treated AT ALL, is limited to the the government system's budget for that year, and their current ad hoc rules, as in the NHS. (Example - for a given year, it might be decided that heart transplants are prohibited for people over 55. Why? Because of limitations of medical technology? Nooooooo.... because of a decision made by an unanswerable bureacrat.)

 

[top gun]

Libsmasher;41403]Not a chance - some socialized systems PROHIBIT private health care (eg canada up till 2005)

some socialized systems Prohibit... (eg canada up till 2005

The fact is we can create a system anyway we want. We can pick the best parts of National Healthcare and offer additional services as well. We are not locked into what anyone else does or did. We can do better.

The doctors... the professionals in charge of supplying the care see the terrible trends we are encountering now and endorse a major change.

U.S. Health Care Worse by the Decade
By Marie Cocco, Washington Post Writers Group.
April 3, 2008.

With quality and access down, support for a national health plan is up.
Also in Health and Wellness

WASHINGTON -- Americans would like to change up-- up to a less expensive, less irrational health insurance system in which 47 million people aren't left out of coverage. Up to a system in which those who are lucky enough to have coverage aren't confronted with continually rising co-payments and deductibles and convoluted schemes for limiting payment when someone gets really, really sick.

It turns out their doctors want to move up, too. They are way ahead of politicians in daring to go where the rest of the industrialized world has already gone: to a national health insurance system.

New research by the Indiana University School of Medicine shows that 59 percent of doctors support legislation to establish a national health insurance system, up from 49 percent in 2002. Only 32 percent of doctors said they were opposed. A slightly lower percentage, 55 percent, agreed with a different question on what researchers considered "incremental" reform -- that is, one that relies on tweaking the existing employer-based insurance system and filling in the gaps from there.

"National health insurance is national health insurance," says Aaron Carroll, director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research at the medical school. "They (doctors) support a plan where there is government legislation to establish government financing for health care -- a Medicare-for-all type of plan."

In this campaign that has offered a bumper crop of politicians and a thicket of platitudes about the American health insurance system, no one except Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat who long ago abandoned his presidential run, has proposed a national, single-payer system of insurance. The fear factor keeps politicians well behind doctors, even though many physicians might see their incomes shrink under a national health insurance plan.

Carroll says that what struck him most about his current data, compared with the 2002 survey, is the extent to which doctors in every specialty increased their support for a national health plan. "Every group went up that we measured," he told me. Those who back national health insurance the strongest are psychiatrists, who see mentally ill people suffer from some insurers' outright ban on coverage for mental health, or from low reimbursement rates for mental health treatment. Those in pediatrics and emergency medicine were also strong supporters. "Most of the people who are exposed to the uninsured are in primary care, or they're psychiatrists -- and emergency physicians who have to see people come into the ER without insurance all the time," Carroll says.

Carroll's center studies how health care is delivered in the United States, assessing its cost, quality and patients' access. By all those measures, he says, things have gotten worse in the past decade. That's one reason opinion polls taken during the past year or more have shown an increasing proportion of the public warming to national health insurance, even when the questions include the caveat that taxes might have to be raised to pay for it.

So, as they tend to say in those drug-company ads, doctors and patients agree.

It's the politicians who are lacking in courage, too cautious to confront the fear tactics that the insurance industry, the drug industry and other big players roll out every time. As for interest groups that represent doctors, Carroll says, those organizations supporting only incremental reform appear to be out of step. "We know what the representative groups are saying," he notes. "We wanted to see what actual physicians believe."

Belief isn't political action, and it comes up awfully short against the lobbyists' talking points opposing national health insurance -- the same arguments made against the creation of Medicare back in the 1960s. So maybe a bit of common sense is in order. "Nobody ever says, 'Let's get rid of Medicare,'" Carroll says. "Nobody says, this is horrible, we've got to go back the other way."

We should go forward instead.

 

[Libsmasher]

some socialized systems Prohibit... (eg canada up till 2005 )

Actually, almost all state health rationing systems prohibit private insurance - eg, that in France does. From wiki:

Private insurance
In countries with universal coverage, private insurance is most often used as a supplement, covering what the core safety net service does not provide, Examples include elective cosmetic surgery and special comforts like private rooms.

The fact is we can create a system anyway we want. We can pick the best parts of National Healthcare and offer additional services as well. We are not locked into what anyone else does or did. We can do better.

This is naive at best. Here's a paper that explains the economic dynamics of state health rationing systems - basically, the bureaucrats know that if they allow a private system or its corollary private insurance to exist, the best doctors will go to the private system, leaving the "care" available in the state health rationing system even worse.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/004710.asp

The doctors... the professionals in charge of supplying the care see the terrible trends we are encountering now and endorse a major change

I doubt most doctors do - and in any case, doctors are not economists, and don't understand the larger implications.

U.S. Health Care Worse by the Decade
By Marie Cocco, Washington Post Writers Group.
April 3, 2008.

Oooooo - an editorial from the lib bastion Washington Post!

With quality and access down, support for a national health plan is up.
Also in Health and Wellness

Proof? I'm guessing not.

WASHINGTON -- Americans would like to change up-- up to a less expensive, less irrational health insurance system in which 47 million people aren't left out of coverage. Up to a system in which those who are lucky enough to have coverage aren't confronted with continually rising co-payments and deductibles and convoluted schemes for limiting payment when someone gets really, really sick.

A huge amount of those who aren't covered are young or very healthy people who just don't want the expense. The often-quoted above figure leaves this out when it is cited by the lib media. Also, claiming that because some are dissatisfied with the current system that they want state health rationing systems is illogical. "Not A" doesn't imply "B". And if ANYTHING is irrational, it's state health rationing systems, which make promises they won't keep and can't keep.

It turns out their doctors want to move up, too. They are way ahead of politicians in daring to go where the rest of the industrialized world has already gone: to a national health insurance system.

New research by the Indiana University School of Medicine shows that 59 percent of doctors support legislation to establish a national health insurance system, up from 49 percent in 2002. Only 32 percent of doctors said they were opposed. A slightly lower percentage, 55 percent, agreed with a different question on what researchers considered "incremental" reform -- that is, one that relies on tweaking the existing employer-based insurance system and filling in the gaps from there.

Cite the actual study. Usually when not credible claims like this are made from a "study", there is something deficient in the "study" methodology.

"National health insurance is national health insurance," says Aaron Carroll, director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research at the medical school. "They (doctors) support a plan where there is government legislation to establish government financing for health care -- a Medicare-for-all type of plan."

This is completely impossible to believe - many doctors will not even accept medicare/medicaid patients because what happens is medicare and medicaid reimbursements never keep up with even the costs of services, much less a profit. This is a foretaste of what will happen with a state health rationing system.

http://mlyon01.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/note-to-medicaid-patients-the-doctor-wont-see-you/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-02-19-medicare.htm

In this campaign that has offered a bumper crop of politicians and a thicket of platitudes about the American health insurance system, no one except Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat who long ago abandoned his presidential run, has proposed a national, single-payer system of insurance. The fear factor keeps politicians well behind doctors, even though many physicians might see their incomes shrink under a national health insurance plan.

There is good reason for ALL to fear a state health rationing system.

Carroll says that what struck him most about his current data, compared with the 2002 survey, is the extent to which doctors in every specialty increased their support for a national health plan. "Every group went up that we measured," he told me. Those who back national health insurance the strongest are psychiatrists, who see mentally ill people suffer from some insurers' outright ban on coverage for mental health, or from low reimbursement rates for mental health treatment. Those in pediatrics and emergency medicine were also strong supporters.

And are we surprised at that? Nooooo..... The pediatrics/obstetrics medical profession has practically been wiped out in some states like West Virginia by tort predators like John Edwards, and elsewhere carries a crushing burden of liability insurance for the same reason - such doctors would obviously prefer not to be preyed upon any longer. As for the emergency doctors, they're probably tired of being stiffed by non-paying illegal aliens. Here you see the death spiral of statism - government failures in some areas (tort law, immigration enforcement) create the "need" for more statism.

It's the politicians who are lacking in courage, too cautious to confront the fear tactics that the insurance industry, the drug industry and other big players roll out every time.

What is there to fear? If the politicians are supported by people and doctors, what can the insurance companies do? Send a hit-man after them? This narrative isn't holding together.

As for interest groups that represent doctors, Carroll says, those organizations supporting only incremental reform appear to be out of step. "We know what the representative groups are saying," he notes. "We wanted to see what actual physicians believe."

Don't the leaders get elected by the rank and file? How could they be out of step?

Belief isn't political action, and it comes up awfully short against the lobbyists' talking points opposing national health insurance -- the same arguments made against the creation of Medicare back in the 1960s.

And now medicare has become a titanic liability, which after the baby boomer retire the country won't even be able to support.

 

[top gun]

Libsmasher;41468]Actually, almost all state health rationing systems prohibit private insurance...

Again WE can do it any way WE want. There could be the overall National Plan and there could also be specialty clinics where one could pay directly 100% out of pocket if one had the money to do so.

The bottom line is Healthcare is rapidly becoming something regular working class people cannot afford for their families and more & more often many companies don't even offer.

I remember when I was growing up my Dad had Blue Cross Blue Shield on the whole family. Zero taken out of his check for that company plan and 90% / 10% on the copay. We went to the Doctor and the bill was $100 my Dad paid $10.

Now for a family they often take $100 a week or more and still many things they then pay on they only pay on @ 60%... and that's often after you've paid out even more and reached the plans yearly deductable. It's a total screw job!

Something has to be done. Just not doing anything but watch prices go up is no longer an option. This is people's health were talking about not some frivolous expense.

This is America where we spend $12 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH ENDLESSLY on a fake made up war & occupation at the drop of a hat

We can help Americans with a less expensive more inclusive heathcare system.

 

[PLC1]

The United States already has a federal health care program, and it allows private insurance. It is called Medicare.

Unfortunately, it only covers people who have managed to live for 65 years or more already.

A couple of facts:

The US is the only industrialized country that doesn't have universal medical care.

We pay more than any other country in the world for our medical care.

You can spin it any way you want, but can't disprove the above.

 

[Libsmasher]

The United States already has a federal health care program, and it allows private insurance. It is called Medicare.

Unfortunately, it only covers people who have managed to live for 65 years or more already.

Uh, we also have Medicaid, which covers poor people of any age. Some states, including California, have state medical insurance programs covering children.

A couple of facts:

The US is the only industrialized country that doesn't have universal medical care.

Not an argument.

We pay more than any other country in the world for our medical care.

Because it's not the degenerate product offered by state medical rationing systems. We don't wait eight months for an MRI and die while we're waiting. We don't not get an advanced drug because a state bureaucrat decides it's too expensive. We don't have our parents or grandparents sent home to die because the state planners have precluded the needed treatment for someone beyond their arbitrary age cutoff. You get what you pay for, and what you get with a state rationing system is exactly that - rationed medicine.

 

[PLC1]

Uh, we also have Medicaid, which covers poor people of any age. Some states, including California, have state medical insurance programs covering children.



Not an argument.



Because it's not the degenerate product offered by state medical rationing systems. We don't wait eight months for an MRI and die while we're waiting. We don't not get an advanced drug because a state bureaucrat decides it's too expensive. We don't have our parents or grandparents sent home to die because the state planners have precluded the needed treatment for someone beyond their arbitrary age cutoff. You get what you pay for, and what you get with a state rationing system is exactly that - rationed medicine.

Good spin.

The two facts remain.

One more: The WHO, which I contend is in a better position to objectively compare health care systems than any radio talk show host, rates France's health care #1 in the world, while that of the US is #37. France spends 7% of its GDP on health care, while we spend 16%.

Now, spin those facts. I know you can.

 

[Libsmasher]

Good spin.

Yeah - people dying because of a "health care system" is "spin".

The two facts remain.

One more: The WHO, which I contend is in a better position to objectively compare health care systems than any radio talk show host, rates France's health care #1 in the world, while that of the US is #37. France spends 7% of its GDP on health care, while we spend 16%.

Now, spin those facts. I know you can.

I'll despin your spin. But actually, since you don't know what you're talking about, the above doesn't even rise to the category of spin. As just about EVERYONE except you knows, WHO statistics and criteria are biased toward statist systems because it is staffed largely by employees from such systems, and it makes use of such bogus "statistics" as the well-known to be rigged against the US "infant mortality" statistic.

 

[PLC1]

Yeah - people dying because of a "health care system" is "spin".



I'll despin your spin. But actually, since you don't know what you're talking about, the above doesn't even rise to the category of spin. As just about EVERYONE except you knows, WHO statistics and criteria are biased toward statist systems because it is staffed largely by employees from such systems, and it makes use of such bogus "statistics" as the well-known to be rigged against the US "infant mortality" statistic.

Three facts still in the blender, spinning around:

The US spends more than any other nation on health care.
It is the only nation without universal coverage of one kind or another.
The WHO rates it #37 in the world.

Facts. Inconvenient facts.

 

[Libsmasher]

Three facts still in the blender, spinning around:

The US spends more than any other nation on health care.
It is the only nation without universal coverage of one kind or another.
The WHO rates it #37 in the world.

Facts. Inconvenient facts.

Three refutations:

The US spends more than any other nation on health care.

That's because people get MORE - MUCH more from the US system.

It is the only nation without universal coverage of one kind or another.

The supposed "universal coverage" of rationed systems is simply a lie - when the annual rules of rationing systems exclude a drug or a service for a particular person, they don't get it. What meaning can possibly be attached to the claim that you are "covered", when you don't get what you need?

The WHO rates it #37 in the world.

You wanna go in circles? OK! EVERYONE except you knows the WHO "rating system" is bogus.

Refutations. Inconvenient refutations.

 

[SW85]

The US spends more than any other nation on health care.
It is the only nation without universal coverage of one kind or another.
The WHO rates it #37 in the world.

Facts. Inconvenient facts.

(1) Because other countries have socialized healthcare systems, meaning they have an incentive to suppress costs -- i.e., by offering lower quality services. Lots of healthcare spending is a positively good thing. And at any rate, it shows we actually have money to spend on it, which suggests there's not a "crisis" after all.

(2) Irrelevant; see above.

(3) IIRC the WHO criteria includes "access," which means we are penalized right off the bat for not having a socialized healthcare system, its merits notwithstanding.

 

[PLC1]

Three refutations:



That's because people get MORE - MUCH more from the US system.



The supposed "universal coverage" of rationed systems is simply a lie - when the annual rules of rationing systems exclude a drug or a service for a particular person, they don't get it. What meaning can possibly be attached to the claim that you are "covered", when you don't get what you need?



You wanna go in circles? OK! EVERYONE except you knows the WHO "rating system" is bogus.

Refutations. Inconvenient refutations.

None of which are actual refutations. The facts remain. You have done nothing to show that the US doesn't spend more, that we do have a universal care system, or that WHO doesn't rate us #37. All you've done is to try to spin the facts.

Yes, around and around we go, spinning in the whirlpool.

Actually, I agree with you from an ideological standpoint. Universal medical care would be a huge increase in the size of government, which is already way too big and powerful. From a pragmatic standpoint, however, we seriously need to address our health care system before it bankrupts us.

A universal care system run by the feds is a scary proposition, no doubt about it. Continuing the spiraling costs we currently face is even scarier. Maybe what we really need is 50 systems run by the 50 states.

What we need is rational discussion, not a continuation of "we're the greatest, we have the best system, we get a lot more for our money", none of which is supported by the facts. Health care is a huge challenge facing this nation, and discussion of ideologies isn't going to meet that challenge.

 

[SW85]

The facts remain. You have done nothing to show that the US doesn't spend more, that we do have a universal care system, or that WHO doesn't rate us #37. All you've done is to try to spin the facts.

He didn't say they weren't true, only that they didn't matter.

 

[Libsmasher]

None of which are actual refutations.

You refuse to debate? Don't blame ya!

The facts remain.

And the REAL facts refute your statist spin.

You have done nothing to show that the US doesn't spend more,

I agreed that we did - who are you arguing with - yourself?

that we do have a universal care system,

There's no such thing - there are systems that use that PR term, but they cut people off when it isn't in the budget.

or that WHO doesn't rate us #37.

I didn't claim that WHO doesn't have their "ratings" - I said their ratings are bogus. Do you even READ my posts before you start talking to yourself??

Actually, I agree with you from an ideological standpoint. Universal medical care would be a huge increase in the size of government, which is already way too big and powerful. From a pragmatic standpoint, however, we seriously need to address our health care system before it bankrupts us

.

While that is true, it is hardly the only thing against state systems. Such systems decide who lives or dies based on bureaucrats decisions. In the US system, people live or die based on is there a treatment available. State run systems take every choice away from you - where you get treated, who your doctor is, what drug to use. State systems ration care and put you on long waiting lists - people have died while waiting.

 

[Iraducky]

Many,k many more will die with NHC. There is no excuse for not having health care in a society that provides free education and a job if you are willing to work. Nearly everyone of those you cry about dieing for lack of health care are able to afford the usual luxuries of new cars, jewelry, wide screen TV, $150 tennis shoes, gold chains, and etc. The fact that you wish the government to assume responsibilty for its citizens simply denies your admittance of your private obligation to provide these services through non govt means.