If nationalized health care is soooooo bad...

What is the government's financial and technical obligation to keep people alive in terms of new, expensive technical stuff?

 

And Ken, if you do not believe that story, think about what in this country is the closest thing to national health care and how successful it is. It is called the VA. Any more questions?

 

Excellent question. With the government's view that an unborn child is an inconvenience whats to keep them from the same attitude about the Alzheimer's patient or anyone they deem an inconvenience?

 

I was in Finland working for awhile and found the care I received by a doctor to be quite good. Because I was a foreigner I had to pay. The cost was about 1/6 of what I paid here when the medicine was available six months later. The medicine I received was better than what I got here. The U.S. did not have the medicine until about 6 months after I returned. When I arrived at the time I had an appointment for I only had to wait about five minutes. The doctor was quite competent. One of the men I came to know was one of the doctors who was in on the research for Interferon. The researchers I came to know there do not work for the pharmaceutical industry but rather the government.

 

Nationalized health care ALWAYS leads to prioritizing and rationing of these limited resources.

If you are 80 years old, some government offical may decide your life just isn't worth spending money on.

Same if you are pre-mature. Same if you are an uneducated, unskilled worker.

peace to youraying:

 

In the U.S. it is much the same. There was a time when I was dirt poor and needed surgery and could not get it done until I went to a county hospital. I am paying a heavy price today healthwise for what could have been avoided. Insurance companies dictate a lot in the U.S.

 

When the HMOs got started, everything became a business decision instead of a healthcare decision.

I agree about the times when a hospital would refuse care because of an inability to pay. But the HMO's were not the answer.

For those that aren't familiar with VA hospitals, check out the movie "Article 99" (caution: try to find a sanitized version. Heavy language at times). It can be way over the top at times, but represents the concerns of veterans with how the government-controlled medical care is dispensed.

When I first joined the military, if I needed to be seen, I was seen that day, or at the latest, within a week. Then we instituted the TriCare program (HMO), and now I have to make appointments. Whether it's because we don't have enough doctors or what, I usually have to wait a minimum of 2 weeks for an available appointment.

No, I'm not a retiree. I'm active duty.

When I was stationed in England, my wife had a serious problem that required specialist care not available in the base hospital. They referred us to the social healthcare system off-base. Our first appointment, for the civilian doctor to look over her paperwork and decide what to do next, was no sooner than six weeks away. In the meantime, she couldn't walk; I had to carry her up and down the stairs. Fortunately, we had a first sergeant who knew who to talk to, and we were able to get bumped up to only a week ... but it was still going to be six months before we could get in for the CAT scan.

Hilary Clinton likes to talk about the excellent care she received; suffice to say, there's a difference between what care an international public figure receives, and what William the Plumber gets.

Also, for all those that haven't really experienced it, please do some internet searches about problems with social health care in England, and read some of the stories "from the other side."

We would not be giving up a system for something better. We do need to find a better solution, but national socialized medicine is something that needs to be deliberately, fully planned and funded before instituted.

 

I know there are problems, but nationalization would be worse.

A lot of the problem in healthcare, IMHO, can be traced to corporate lobbying for insurance companies, HMO's, and trial attorney's.

These corporations influence our political leaders into writing legislation that favors them over the private citizen.

BTW, if you want to stop nationalized healthcare, just lobby congress to include provisions that will prohibit lawsuits for malpractice. Watch the trial lawyers get the bill killed.

peace to youraying:

 

In almost all instances, the people who want the govt to be responsible for their well being are not the folks that pull their own weight. They do not understand economics nor do they understand personal accountability. This is the type of post that is started merely to bait others, it had no understanding what truth is. Anyone can make a blanket statement and want all others to prove their point if different, then ignore facts that are given. How about proving the original statement made? Can't, because there is no truth to it.

 

As easy as it is to bash HMOs, what are insurance companies supposed to do? If they do not implement some method to control costs, insurance premiums would skyrocket even more than they already have.

We have to determine what we want. A free market solution is never going to be able to cover everyone. People will die because they don't have the money. That's how the free market works. If you can't pay, you don't play.

The problem is that our current system is neither free market nor socialist. It has just enough of both sides to remove the benefits of both.

 

Why should they do that? Our healthcare system is 37th best in the world.

 

That's not the conclusion of the World Health Organization which rated our healthcare 37th in the world barely ahead of Cuba.

 

based on what parameters?

 

The WHO report is completely useless. It figures out each country's rating based upon what it feels the country's potential is. To use the WHO report to say that our healthcare is ranked 37th in the world is ignorant. Using the method that they use, our healthcare could be better than the 36 the listed in front, but we would get a 37th ranking if they thought that the US's potential was far greater than the other countries.

On the other hand, a country that is ranked in the top 5 could be there because they are living up to their full potential, which could be a pitiful potential to begin with.

 

Without knowing the "rating criteria", an endorsement OR censure means squat.

Besides, I wouldn't assume the validity of the conclusions of any UN organization.

Personal bias? Possibly, but they are worse than our federal government for fouling up anything they are involved in.

(As a side note, what do we really know about the TRUE health-care situation in Cuba?)

 

I could smoke ten pounds of crack and be bright enough to know the above to be baloney.

 

Before JC comes back and says I'm not telling the truth about my earlier statement, here's a quote from the WHO report:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html

I like the way they say, "employing a technique not previously used for health systems". Yeah, they employed a technique in which they could make the rankings say whatever they wanted!

A comparision would be if we were to rank people on how fast they were. Well, instead of just looking at the facts and having them run a race, we will have the run a race and then decide that some of them have more potential than others. So, those with greater potential will be ranked lower, even they they had faster times. Sound fair? No...it doesn't. Well, that's what the WHO report is doing.

 

*sigh*

Of all the healthcare threads...this question has yet to be answered:

I'll repeat it...maybe a doctor from Cuba will answer it, since they are the pinnacle of healthcare...

Here it is, for those of you playing at home..."I'll take 'ignored questions' for $400, Alex..."

The same entity (government) that brought us Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital, the IRS, FEMA, and the US Congress...we're supposed to trust them with our healthcare? ​

 

Only one Presidential candidate advocated for a single payer system and that was Dennis Kucinach who garnered what, 2% of the democratic vote?

There will be some movement along the lines of expanding Medicaid & Medicare to help offset the uninsured. Of course, this simply excacerbates the problem, as the government programs only pay about 30% of the providers' actual charges. Thus, there is cost shifting to you and to me -- anyone who has private coverage. This will continue & get worse.

Interestly, most "solutions" coming from Washington have very little to do with actually reducing the cost of healthcare. Two key items are tort reform and the volume of mandated benefits in each state. However, neither of these will probably ever happen.