Pros & Cons of Socialized Medicine

[Shiane]

The topic of Socialized Medicine came up in another thread and I thought it would make an interesting thread of its own.

Socialized Medicine is a government-regulated system for providing health care for all by means of subsidies derived from taxation.

What are the pros and cons of having socialized medicine?
In favor of it, or not?


OK heres the deal. If you have even been to an Emergency Room you will notice a sign typically in English AND Spanish that states that no one is turned away even if they don't have the ability to pay for the medical services rendered. I don't disagree with this, if you really and truly need emergent medical care then it should be provided regardless of the ability to pay.

Now being in the health care field I can tell you that this system is SO farked up. Not just by illegals but also our citizens who refuse to work and live off of Welfare. When someone comes to the ER they have to be treated, and stablized. The problem is that across our country our ER's have become clinics for people who will not go to the Dr's office because some/all payment is required up front. They come to the ER for crap that should be treated at a Dr's office, because it is not a medical emergency. That is why there is such a long wait at our ER's. Then they gripe to high heaven because they have to wait. Well it is an EMERGENCY room, if it isn't an emergency you will have to wait. They give ficticous names, addresses,phone numbers and social security numbers and guess what the hospital has no way of tracking these people down for payment. It is money lost, money that you and I and our insurance carriers make up for. They say I didn't bring any identification, they can't be turned away so the hospital gets screwed every day and many times a day. It is tough to make up for those losses.

What I would love to see is an adjoining Urgent care center next door to the ER. If it is not an emergency you are sent to the urgent care center and are required to have identification and some type of payment. I really think this would cut down on the amount of unnecessary visits. The medical system is abused badly and it definitely needs to change.


Wow!

You don't suppose this is what would happen if we had socialized medicine, do you?

[Shiane]

EMTALA

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) was included in the COBRA legislation of 1986. It was promulgated to combat the discriminatory practice of some hospitals transferring, discharging, or refusing to treat indigent patients coming to the emergency department because of the high cost associated with diagnosing and treating these patients with emergency medical conditions. While the Act applies to all Medicare participating hospitals, it protects anyone coming to a hospital seeking emergency medical services, not just Medicare beneficiaries. EMTALA imposes strict penalties including fines and exclusion from the Medicare program for violations of the Act. The Act imposes three primary requirements on Medicare participating hospitals that provide emergency medical services.


The hospital must provide an appropriate medical screening exam to anyone coming to the ED seeking medical care;
For anyone that comes to the hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must treat and stabilize the emergency medical condition, or the hospital must transfer the individual; and
A hospital must not transfer an individual with an emergency medical condition that has not been stabilized unless several conditions are met that includes effecting an appropriate transfer.
So basically what this says is that EVERYONE will be screened and if needed they will receive emergent medical treatment at ANY hospital that receives medicare payments. If the hospital does not provide services they are at risk for losing all medicare funding/reimbursement.

As I stated above, this isn't a bad thing if you really and truly need emergent medical services. The problems I see is that this system is abused.

For instance 7 yrs ago I took my child to the ER because the Dr's office and walk in clinics were closed. Long story short, she had pneumonia. My insurance company only paid 40% because they did not consider pneumonia w/ respiratory distress an emergency. Now had I been a medicaid recipient I would not have gotten a $600.00 bill. The hospital saw it as an emergency but my insurance carrier did not (thank you Blue Cross and Blue Shield).

I see people coming in with cold and flu symptoms at 2am in the morning. When you ask them when did this start they say 5 days ago. OK so my question is why now after 5 days and 2am did you decide that you needed to come to the ER instead of your Dr's office. Well the typical response is, this is free. Talk about biting my tongue, free for who? It isn't free for me, I'm the sap paying for your non emergent visit to the ER.

This is a true story swear to GOD. This chick had been waiting in the waiting room for about 4 hours. Yeah thats a long time, but guess what she(well her 4 month old child) was triaged and it was not an emergency so she had to wait. I went out and called her name, no answer. Waited another 10 minutes called her name again, no answer. Marked the chart LWBS (left without being seen) I swear to God 30 minutes later the ambulance brought this chick in on a stretcher. She decided she did not want to wait, so she went to another hospital and the wait was even longer. She called the ambulance from that ER to bring her back to our ER. If a patient is brought in by ambulance they do not wait, they are taken to a treatment room as soon as they hit the door. Talk about pissed off! If we had known it was her she would have been sent back out to the waiting room to wait, just like everyone else. It gets better. LOL I really want you to see your tax dollars at work.

A short time later another woman is brought in via ambulance for vomiting blood. We do all the paperwork, draw lab, the doc sees her and while in X-ray she decides she doesn't need treatment. She is actually this chicks mother and she had no way of getting to the ER so she abused the system, lied for a free ride. Then she proceeded to bitch and yell at us for making her daughter wait.

Turns out the child had a runny nose, didn't even have a fever! How many thousands of tax dollars were wasted on this? The chick is screaming I have insurance!!!!!!! I nearly peed my pants when the doctor told her, no ma'am you do not have insurance you have medicaid. That is not insurance, it is a tax funded program that provides medical service for stupid, lazy assed people like you who either refuse to work like the rest of the world or who stand in line for free handouts that the rest of us have to pay for.

Bascially we already have socialized medicine for people like this!
:spbx:

[cherokeered]

Yes and unfortunately there will always be someone who knows how to manipulate the system...

I believe everyone is entitled to medical treatment in an emergency and everyone has the right to medical treatment in general....what i do have a problem with is my having to pay for the 18 - 60 year olds who are perfectly capable of working but find the taxpayer paid benefits much more attractive....
I think a major system overhaul is needed for many taxpayer and government funded programs....perhaps instead of offering a free ride we should offer daycare programs and after/before school programs that they can take advantage of provided they work....
Perhaps cover the children for benefits and not the adults past a certain point...I really don't know...but something has to be done...whole generations are being raised this way...and the cycle will just continue until changes are made...

[oldandnaked]

Socialized or not, either way we're paying for it. If not through taxation, through our health insurance payments, doctor and hospital visits, medications, etc. Those who cannot afford or choose not to afford insurance and choose to use the system to their advantage are paid for by us that carry insurance and pay for what it doesn't cover. Our insurance rates and the cost of the whole gambit of medical care is directly effected by those who visit the emergency room with no ability or intention of paying. You may not like the idea of socialized medicine but the way I look at it, we're pretty much there. Call it taxation or call it what you will, the money is still coming out of our pockets. Doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies factor in the non payers when they price their goods and services. We make up the difference.

[spare_change]

Socialized or not, either way we're paying for it. If not through taxation, through our health insurance payments, doctor and hospital visits, medications, etc. Those who cannot afford or choose not to afford insurance and choose to use the system to their advantage are paid for by us that carry insurance and pay for what it doesn't cover. Our insurance rates and the cost of the whole gambit of medical care is directly effected by those who visit the emergency room with no ability or intention of paying. You may not like the idea of socialized medicine but the way I look at it, we're pretty much there. Call it taxation or call it what you will, the money is still coming out of our pockets. Doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies factor in the non payers when they price their goods and services. We make up the difference.

Your point is well taken, though not exactly correct. The difference is simple -- the insurance companies take in our money, and they invest it .... our money plus the investment profits constitutes their operating capital.

Under a socialized medicine concept, however, the federal government just takes in our money and uses it --- no investment portion. Thus, it costs less for us to support an insurance company-driven health system, than it does a government-driven health system. That presumes, of course, that the government can do it at the same cost as a private concern (something that has consistently been shown to be untrue in the past -- but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt).

[oldandnaked]

Your point is well taken, though not exactly correct. The difference is simple -- the insurance companies take in our money, and they invest it .... our money plus the investment profits constitutes their operating capital.

Under a socialized medicine concept, however, the federal government just takes in our money and uses it --- no investment portion. Thus, it costs less for us to support an insurance company-driven health system, than it does a government-driven health system. That presumes, of course, that the government can do it at the same cost as a private concern (something that has consistently been shown to be untrue in the past -- but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt).


I'm with you on the governments ability to run pretty much anything successfully and cheaply. However the one thing you didn't mention was profit. The insurance companies aren't nonprofit organizations. They have CEO's and sales reps and other employees not to mention stock holders that profit from our premiums. Granted the government would have a cost of doing business but hopefully they wouldn't be profit motivated. If the government started dictating to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies instead of the other way around we'd be in much better shape as well. Not sure how I stand on this, but like alot of things in this country the medical care is in need of fixing. Many think we should use Canadas system as a model. What do you think?

[Sneaky]

I'm with you on the governments ability to run pretty much anything successfully and cheaply. However the one thing you didn't mention was profit. The insurance companies aren't nonprofit organizations. They have CEO's and sales reps and other employees not to mention stock holders that profit from our premiums. Granted the government would have a cost of doing business but hopefully they wouldn't be profit motivated. If the government started dictating to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies instead of the other way around we'd be in much better shape as well. Not sure how I stand on this, but like alot of things in this country the medical care is in need of fixing. Many think we should use Canadas system as a model. What do you think?

I know people from Canada who come to the US for health care. I think a lot of us in the US would miss out on the choices we have. If you don't like the care you receive at one facility, you are free to go to another--if you have good insurance or can afford it. Those without insurance or the means to pay for thier health care don't have many choices.

I'm not saying our current system isn't messed up. It is.

[spare_change]

I'm with you on the governments ability to run pretty much anything successfully and cheaply. However the one thing you didn't mention was profit. The insurance companies aren't nonprofit organizations. They have CEO's and sales reps and other employees not to mention stock holders that profit from our premiums. Granted the government would have a cost of doing business but hopefully they wouldn't be profit motivated. If the government started dictating to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies instead of the other way around we'd be in much better shape as well. Not sure how I stand on this, but like alot of things in this country the medical care is in need of fixing. Many think we should use Canadas system as a model. What do you think?

Kinda -- there are companies like you describe. BUT --- there are also companies -- called mutual insurance companies -- that don't have stockholders. The company is owned by the policyholders -- and the profits are returned to them.

As for the government dictating to insurance and pharmaceutical companies, what would they dictate? They don't know anything about that business -- all they know about is collecting taxes, delivering the mail, and making war. Not sure what expertise they could bring to the table -- unless, of course, you are proposing that we create a hierarchy of bureaucrats who can pass down edicts to the insurance companies. (Think about that -- more taxes to pay for a bureaucracy that dictates rules to a company that makes the company less efficient, thus driving up the cost of the product they were delivering in the first place).

As for the Canadian model -- I don't know how good it is, so I'm not qualified to judge. But, I do hear the people on here complaining about long waits, and inadequate care, and I do know about people coming across the border to get medical care, and I do know about an onerous and imposing tax burden.

[spare_change]

I did some research, and here is what I came up with.

Many of those who say the current American health-care system is broken look to the Canadian national healthcare system as the solution.

The Canadian socialized medical system does mandate that all citizens have equal access to care and that care is provided at little or not cost at the time of service. The cost of health care is paid for through the Canadian tax system. Each year, the Canadian government budgets how much it is willing to spend on health care, and allocates from that budget a specific amount for each province or territory. The national government runs the hospital system and allows each province to set up its own "health care plan". Regional commissions establish these plans, and have the responsibility to determine how that region will spend its healthcare allocation. These "regional plans" vary throughout Canada. for example, some regional plans provide no funding for prescription medications. In Canada, it is against the law to purchase care outside the Canadian national System. If it's not in this year's budget, it is against the law to purchase care, needed or not. How would you like to be the first person in line for cancer treatments after your regional health care plan ran out of money for the year?

Canada mandates equal access to providers, for all people. The regional commissions are charged with being sure that the doctor-to-patient ratio is the same in remote areas as it is in major metropolitan areas. While they have equal access, they do not have "freedom of access" that we enjoy in the United States. Because funds are limited, many procedures, include some tat are considered basic in the US have waiting lists. In 2005, the average wait for surgery in Canada was over seventeen months. The Canadian government must approve prescription medications before they become available to the public. Consequently, many medications that are widely used in the United States are illegal in Canada.

At a recent National Association of Health Underwriters meeting, Reid Rasmussen, Vice President Carrier Contacts for Benefit Mall, pointed out that it is very difficult to understand how the Canadian model might work in the United States. "Canadians value fairness with the same reverence that US citizens value freedom. Their healthcare system is a point of national pride and they have a very deep trust that their government will make it work."

The Canadian healthcare system was set up before inflation was an issue, and they are having the same discussions and problems we are, "how can we make our health care system work for everyone and who pays for it." Reid pointed out that in 2004, Canada spent about 6.9% of its GNP on healthcare. In the US, we spend about 15.3% of GNP on healthcare. It is important to point out that, of the 15.3% the US Government spends 6.8% and the private sector spends 8.5%. The Canadian healthcare system is on the verge of bankrupting the Canadian government.

Would a Canadian system work in the US? I don't know how we would react to healthcare rationing, based on available government funding. I do remember, though, how we reacted to gas rationing. "The Great American Health Care Debate is a political, emotional, and economic issued that does not have an easy answer.

[Shiane]

Something I have heard countless times from foreign physicians. They are amazed at this country's healthcare system. It doesn't matter if you can afford it, you can get it in America. On one hand that is a great compliment. We do have the best medical treatment in the world. One the other hand it leaves us open to a whole lot of system abuse. One said, that in China, if you need surgery you have to pay for it (or a large portion of it up front). There is no EMTALA law, you are on your own and just hopefully you won't get sick. Cancer doesn't pick and choose it's victims it crosses every social barrier as does just about every other disease known to man.

Canada's system doesn't work for every person. The government is playing God, if we have enough money you get a chance to live, if we don't oh well sorry. If you're still alive next year, we'll see if we can come up with enough money for chemo and radiation treatments. Well if that is socialized medicine, you can keep it.

I still believe that everyone should get the medical care they need regardless of their ability to pay for it. The abuse of the system is what pisses me off. Medical schools have free clinics so it serves 2 purposes. The residents learn how to be doctors, and the people without insurance get free medical care. I don't know about anywhere else, but we have a free clinic that is open from like 6 to 10pm m-th. Volunteer doctors and nurses go there after their "real" jobs to provide care for people who can't afford a doctors visitor perscription drugs. Pharmacies donate all of their expired drugs so that these people can get a perscription for antibiotics, blood pressure medcines, diuretics, heart pills, etc. The FDA requires all drugs to have an expiration date, it doesn't mean the drug is not longer good, it just means that by law it has to have one. I swear if a can of pork and beans is still good after 10 years then an expired drug is ok to take after the expiration date.

Most times these drugs don't get donated, they are wasted. I once worked at a nursing home and every few months we would have to waste drugs. Drugs that not all were expired, but had been dispenced to a patient, but half way through the dose or drug was changed and so on. Well ya can't just give it to someone else, the FDA prohibits that. I bet I dumped over 40,000 pills in one night. I am sure there were a lot of happy, hypotensive, hyoglycemic, pain free, anxiety free, depression free, constipated free fish swimming around after that. The point is how many millions and millions of dollars could be saved by just recycling drugs. Dispensing them to people who otherwise couldn't afford them. Besides that think of all the chemicals that are dumped into our water systems. If this was a nation wide project just think of the possibilites!

This week at work I saw a zazzi collection system. The hospital charges $1,100.00 dollars for it. Now would you like to know what it is? It is a rectal tube that is placed "up there" for up to several weeks to drain fecal material. You're probably thinking man that would buy a shit load of toilet paper. Well the tube serves a good purpose for a lot of debilitated, critically ill patients. But, I honestly can't say why it cost eleven hundred dollars, I mean come on it's a long balloon, a tube, and a closed bag with a drain. Maybe if I had patented it I would feel differently.

Here in the US it is a vicous cycle of passing down the cost of everything. The problem is it always seems to stop at the tax payers. I'm tired of everyone else passing the buck my way, it's time that we the taxpayers get some bucks back. It's my money, stop wasting it. If you're gonna keep taking it, atleast have the decency to use it wisely.

[ldon]

Why not? What we have now isn't working.

[spare_change]

Why not? What we have now isn't working.


For example?

We hear the politicos claim it isn't working -- but, after all, they are just trying to increase dependence on the government (and thus, ensure job security).

We hear of horrid cases where people don't get treatment, but yet, on this very thread, we have professionals telling us that medical care IS available under the EMTALA program. We hear that the US funds most of the medical research going on in the world today.

We also hear that a significant percentage of the people eligible for medical assistance don't bother to register for it.

So, what's not working?

[Shiane]

Yeah Yeah and I have another something to say lol. Like I said everyone should be able to receive the care they need, but it is the abuse that just irritates the fire outta me.

For people with insurance, your insurance company dictates what they will pay, they don't let you abuse it. So why doesn't our goverment do this? If I go to the emergency room for something that my insurance doesn't consider an emergency, they only pay a small portion of it. No, it isn't always fair, I myself have been burned by it.

So what if our medicaid recipients had to abide by the same guidelines? If they go to the ER for something nonemergent. Why doesn't our government say OK you can go but we're only paying "X" amount, the rest will be taken out in installment payments from our monthy check to you. Granted not all people on medicaid receive welfare, but a lot do. Those that are on government programs and abuse the ER system, cut their benefits so that it is more beneficial financially for those people to go to a doctor's office instead of an ER.

Lower their copays or make them free, if it keeps them out of the ER's it would pay for itself quickly. Make the urgent care centers available 24/7, let them be an option for nonemergent care.

[spare_change]

Yeah Yeah and I have another something to say lol. Like I said everyone should be able to receive the care they need, but it is the abuse that just irritates the fire outta me.

For people with insurance, your insurance company dictates what they will pay, they don't let you abuse it. So why doesn't our goverment do this? If I go to the emergency room for something that my insurance doesn't consider an emergency, they only pay a small portion of it. No, it isn't always fair, I myself have been burned by it.

So what if our medicaid recipients had to abide by the same guidelines? If they go to the ER for something nonemergent. Why doesn't our government say OK you can go but we're only paying "X" amount, the rest will be taken out in installment payments from our monthy check to you. Granted not all people on medicaid receive welfare, but a lot do. Those that are on government programs and abuse the ER system, cut their benefits so that it is more beneficial financially for those people to go to a doctor's office instead of an ER.

Lower their copays or make them free, if it keeps them out of the ER's it would pay for itself quickly. Make the urgent care centers available 24/7, let them be an option for nonemergent care.


Sounds plausible, but it won't work. Free is free -- all you accomplish is moving the line from the ER to the doctor's office.

You would be asking politicians to make a medical decision -- what care is emergent and what care isn't. While they would certainly follow medical advice when establishing it, the first time a politician realizes he can curry the poor vote by lowering those standards, there will be a flock of bills submitted, and the criteria will be lowered and lowered and lowered until all care will be considered emergent.

[Shiane]

Sounds plausible, but it won't work. Free is free -- all you accomplish is moving the line from the ER to the doctor's office.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, but the kicker here is this. A doctor's visit is less expensive than an ER visit. If they aren't going to pay the bill anyway why not choose the cheapest solution. For instance, the amount of money a hospital loses to indigent care is subsidized by the government, another words we pay for it anyway.

You would be asking politicians to make a medical decision -- what care is emergent and what care isn't.
What's wrong with that? Hell I pay for insurance and they decide what they pay for and what they don't. If BC & BS does it effectively then why can't our governement? EVERY insurance carrier has stipulations and rules. If it is good enough for me and you, why isn't it good enough for people who don't pay for their own insurance?

While they would certainly follow medical advice when establishing it, the first time a politician realizes he can curry the poor vote by lowering those standards, there will be a flock of bills submitted, and the criteria will be lowered and lowered and lowered until all care will be considered emergent.
True, that is why politics always gets in the way. But, then there is reasonable and customary. They need to mirror some established insurance companies and follow their rules and guidelines. If the market changes, the government changes if not leave it alone.
Yeah I know you're gonna say it won't work. The thing is, it would work and it could work well. It's like medicare, it has gone the other way, the government is picking and choosing what it pays and how much it pays. It sucks for the healthcare facilities but they don't have much of a choice if they want any kind of reimbursement.



The governement can be tough when they want to be, I honestly have not figured out why they continue to ignore the abuse. Who is profiting from it? :sc

[twoblues]

Canada's system doesn't work for every person. The government is playing God, if we have enough money you get a chance to live, if we don't oh well sorry. If you're still alive next year, we'll see if we can come up with enough money for chemo and radiation treatments. Well if that is socialized medicine, you can keep it.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Our system is broken, but I've yet to hear of anyone having to wait for chemo or other life threatening illness'.

The reason you hear about wait lists is because non-life threatening operations are constantly bumped for more serious issues. You'll see a lot "life improvement" operations having long wait lists (knee replacements) etc...

It's fairly rare to actually hear about a life threatening illness not receiving attention quickly. Most provinces will actually fly the patient to another province or even to the states to receive treatment if it is not available in the current province or city.

It's kind of funny though. Up here we look down there to the American model and down there they look at the Canadian model. The solution is somewhere in the middle. The biggest issue facing the Canadian model is that they just keep throwing money at it with no accountability. Ask anyone up here what a knee surgery costs in a public hospital versus a private clinic. No one knows in a public hospital what the costs are. They just keep asking for more money. Whenever someone raises the question of accountability, the unions keep crying about "privitization". Anyways, I'm rambling, I just took a little offense at the comment about the government playing God.

[longing for passion]

Socialized medicine is clearly not the answer.

If the sound of government regulated healthcare really sounds appealing one need only closely examine your local VA hospital, or ask a veteran about how great their government health care plan has worked out for them. Ask them how quickly they receive the necessary and sometimes even the most basic of treatment.

I've been in healthcare for going on 15 years and I can tell you I wouldn't send my worst enemy to a VA hospital. I would, however happily send some of these politicians who are grossly out of touch with reality; especially those quick to promote socialized medicine (a system they never have nor ever will be burdened with).

I feel it important to point out, I have many wonderful friends and colleagues who work for VA's but who haven't the resources to even begin to perform their jobs or offer the care their patients both require and deserve. They too find the thought of socialized medicine laughable!

Our government can't provide the necessary healthcare for the men/women who have selflessly gave to our country and now they would have us trust them to take care of an entire nation. Are you kidding me?

I agree emphatically that we are faced with a system that is broken but government run healthcare is unequivocally, not the solution. I am, however, open to reasonable plans.

I firmly believe collaborating and working synergistically with those who are in the trenches delivering the healthcare a sensible place to start, as opposed to a group of out-of-touch politicians and whining individuals with an entitlement mentality. Just my thoughts...

[spare_change]

Socialized medicine is clearly not the answer.

If the sound of government regulated healthcare really sounds appealing one need only closely examine your local VA hospital, or ask a veteran about how great their government health care plan has worked out for them. Ask them how quickly they receive the necessary and sometimes even the most basic of treatment.

I've been in healthcare for going on 15 years and I can tell you I wouldn't send my worst enemy to a VA hospital. I would, however happily send some of these politicians who are grossly out of touch with reality; especially those quick to promote socialized medicine (a system they never have nor ever will be burdened with).

I feel it important to point out, I have many wonderful friends and colleagues who work for VA's but who haven't the resources to even begin to perform their jobs or offer the care their patients both require and deserve. They too find the thought of socialized medicine laughable!

Our government can't provide the necessary healthcare for the men/women who have selflessly gave to our country and now they would have us trust them to take care of an entire nation. Are you kidding me?

I agree emphatically that we are faced with a system that is broken but government run healthcare is unequivocally, not the solution. I am, however, open to reasonable plans.

I firmly believe collaborating and working synergistically with those who are in the trenches delivering the healthcare a sensible place to start, as opposed to a group of out-of-touch politicians and whining individuals with an entitlement mentality. Just my thoughts...


Good input.

Frankly, I'm still trying to figure out what's broke about our healthcare system. What do we need to fix?

[Pebbles]

Good input.

Frankly, I'm still trying to figure out what's broke about our healthcare system. What do we need to fix?

How about the high cost of medical care? The USA has the most expensive medical care in the world. There are millions of Americans who don't have medical insurance,because they can't afford it!
A friend told me the other day that she heard over half of California's bankruptcy claims are because of health care costs.
Congress passed a new law that medical bills can't be discharged during bankruptcy? So, people who have hundreds of thousands of debt in medical bills, if they max out their insurance, have no insurance or their insurance refuses to pay, lose their houses and then can't get rid of the debt if they go bankrupt.
There are many things that need to be changed about the medical insurance in the USA.

[SirFox]

You want to live in a civilized society where the better health care in available? You want to live in a society where everyone is protected? What are the goals of the society in the first place?

I hear continued bashing against socialized medecine. I am not for it as it is organized at this time either in countries like France, Britain, Netherlands, Canada, or even Sweden. You want that the most elementary health care be obatined by everyone including the poorest and the most disinherited masses? You want that people continue to face each day the possibility that a loved one could face a huge medical bills, and suddenly find themselves faced with creditors up the kazoo?

You ask me? I will tell you. We need to reorganize health. The trouble is that we do not have that power as it is the pharmaceutical companies who control what vaccines we take, how we are treated. The advantages of the purely capitalistic health care system in the US is that there is competition between medical labs; in the quest to eliminate competition, there is ironically a wish to regulate. There is no competition in France; there are a lot of rules. These rules are largely ignored.

[Pebbles]

You ask me? I will tell you. We need to reorganize health. The trouble is that we do not have that power as it is the pharmaceutical companies who control what vaccines we take, how we are treated. The advantages of the purely capitalistic health care system in the US is that there is competition between medical labs; in the quest to eliminate competition, there is ironically a wish to regulate. There is no competition in France; there are a lot of rules. These rules are largely ignored.


Agree with you..the pharmaceutical companies do have control over medicines and vacines we take. Competition is good in some ways. But when the NHS can buy a medicine here in UK for a much lower price then what a pharmaceutical company in the States sell it for makes the quest to regulate and control off balanced! While the NHS is far from perfect..its better then high priced medical costs in the States. We can buy private medical insurance here and go private. Probably much cheaper then what it would cost in the States. Either way,it all boils down to what a person can afford.

[SirFox]

Agree with you..the pharmaceutical companies do have control over medicines and vacines we take. Competition is good in some ways. But when the NHS can buy a medicine here in UK for a much lower price then what a pharmaceutical company in the States sell it for makes the quest to regulate and control off balanced! While the NHS is far from perfect..its better then high priced medical costs in the States. We can buy private medical insurance here and go private. Probably much cheaper then what it would cost in the States. Either way,it all boils down to what a person can afford.

How many times have I heard of Americans in all economic status groups finding themselves in a quandary faced with sudden and very expensive medical exams, drugs or situations? How many times have I heard of people having to borrow money because they cannot afford medical care?

A mixture of private and public health could be the answer at some point for these huge costs. Two types of health care? Two parallel systems?
Whatever, it seems to me to be a question of organization.

[Pebbles]

How many times have I heard of Americans in all economic status groups finding themselves in a quandary faced with sudden and very expensive medical exams, drugs or situations? How many times have I heard of people having to borrow money because they cannot afford medical care?

A mixture of private and public health could be the answer at some point for these huge costs. Two types of health care? Two parallel systems?
Whatever, it seems to me to be a question of organization.

Two types of health care
Two parallel systems
Organization
Regulation
Control
Money

All factors which the private sectors should do...but seems impossible to accomplish..as all are after the "BIG BUCKS"!
All want Regulation and Control. No one seems to care about the health care of the sick and injuried. If you can't pay or get the NHS..then you get no medical care.
As you have probably read many times,the NHS is trying to privatise several areas of the NHS. Major problems have
occurred and millions of Pounds lost,due to mistakes and misjudgements of the bosses and pencil pushers..which the goverment says is necessary to make this work. Wish they would have left it alone. Was much better before all this reorgananization shakeup!!

[tiger50]

Two types of health care
Two parallel systems
Organization
Regulation
Control
Money

All factors which the private sectors should do...but seems impossible to accomplish..as all are after the "BIG BUCKS"!
All want Regulation and Control. No one seems to care about the health care of the sick and injuried. If you can't pay or get the NHS..then you get no medical care.
As you have probably read many times,the NHS is trying to privatise several areas of the NHS. Major problems have
occurred and millions of Pounds lost,due to mistakes and misjudgements of the bosses and pencil pushers..which the goverment says is necessary to make this work. Wish they would have left it alone. Was much better before all this reorgananization shakeup!!

shit, readin through that lot....makes me think we have it good in oz, ok guess there are some weak points, but shit generally it aint so bad....its a mixture of private and public, i have private, but i often wonder what i get for the buck apart from ancilliary benefits, dental, etc.....
for me, i prob face surgury by the end of the year....my mother and sister have had the same thing before me as public patients...the care they got was exemplarary...i get the same team of surgeons.....cos there isnt better in the country, only diff is i get a private room after ICU, woopydoo......
the sytem here i guess is flawed like most are, but hell it aint bad, .....:D

[spare_change]

How about the high cost of medical care? The USA has the most expensive medical care in the world. There are millions of Americans who don't have medical insurance,because they can't afford it!
A friend told me the other day that she heard over half of California's bankruptcy claims are because of health care costs.
Congress passed a new law that medical bills can't be discharged during bankruptcy? So, people who have hundreds of thousands of debt in medical bills, if they max out their insurance, have no insurance or their insurance refuses to pay, lose their houses and then can't get rid of the debt if they go bankrupt.
There are many things that need to be changed about the medical insurance in the USA.


We all recognize that there are issues with the US medical care system. However, most of them are based on a single misconception. As you say, millions of people do not have "medical insurance". Not having medical insurance does not mean not having access to "medical care". As has been documented here, no one goes without medical care, except by their own volition. There are systems, and processes, in place to ensure that everybody has access to medical care. So, in truth, that argument doesn't hold much water.

Any reputable lawyer will tell you that medical costs are not the REASON for bankruptcy, but are considered an ancillary contributor. What that means is that medical costs can be used to support a bankruptcy claim, but usually isn't a primary cause because of the alternatives available. Since hospitals are willing to write off the costs, or accept very affordable payment plans, most courts will not recognize medical costs as the prime causative factor.

[Pebbles]

Spare,while I agree with you on some of what you say. Let me ask you this? Do you think medical costs in the USA would be made cheaper if each States Medical Liability Laws were reformed?
Remedy to medical lawsuit abuse? This is what help keep medical costs in the USA expensive!

http://www.protectpatientsnow.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=8oIDJLNnHlE&b=1423749&ct=1982067

How do you think this would affect Socialized Medicine? Make it more costly?

[spare_change]

Spare,while I agree with you on some of what you say. Let me ask you this? Do you think medical costs in the USA would be made cheaper if each States Medical Liability Laws were reformed?
Remedy to medical lawsuit abuse? This is what help keep medical costs in the USA expensive!

http://www.protectpatientsnow.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=8oIDJLNnHlE&b=1423749&ct=1982067

How do you think this would affect Socialized Medicine? Make it more costly?



You agree with SOME of what I say? SOME of what I say? :lmao

I do believe you have touched on a key element -- medical tort reform. Currently, doctors and hospitals are responsible for not only the actual damages done, but punitive damages, as well. For example, if a person were to die because of doctor error, the doctor may be required to pay the family $500,000 in liability damages (for loss of income, loss of companionship, etc) AND another $500,000 in punitive damages (by definition, punishment for screwing up). Then, the doctor may be also be subject to sanctions by the AMA, up to, and including, losing his/her license.

No one questions liability damages - the client deserves to be compensated for whatever damage is done as a result of the doctor's actions. The punitive damages, however, are normally excessive, and serve no function other than to line the pockets of both the client and the lawyers. After all, would you trade two toes for $15 million? A finger, perhaps? Maybe, your left leg below the knee, maybe in return for financial security for you and your loved ones for generations to come?

We need to strengthen the administrative sanctions -- the doctor loses his ability to practice medicine for 10 years, for example -- and eliminate punitive damages. That would have a significant impact on the cost of medical care today.

Very good point!!

[Shiane]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Our system is broken, but I've yet to hear of anyone having to wait for chemo or other life threatening illness'.

The reason you hear about wait lists is because non-life threatening operations are constantly bumped for more serious issues. You'll see a lot "life improvement" operations having long wait lists (knee replacements) etc...

It's fairly rare to actually hear about a life threatening illness not receiving attention quickly. Most provinces will actually fly the patient to another province or even to the states to receive treatment if it is not available in the current province or city.

It's kind of funny though. Up here we look down there to the American model and down there they look at the Canadian model. The solution is somewhere in the middle. The biggest issue facing the Canadian model is that they just keep throwing money at it with no accountability. Ask anyone up here what a knee surgery costs in a public hospital versus a private clinic. No one knows in a public hospital what the costs are. They just keep asking for more money. Whenever someone raises the question of accountability, the unions keep crying about "privitization". Anyways, I'm rambling, I just took a little offense at the comment about the government playing God.

Take all the offense you want, tell us how the system works for you, how you see it working for everyone else. That is just how it seems to me based on a particular post, I am interested in how it really works. I have no idea how well the system works for Canadians. That comment about the gov't playing God was inresponse to a post about only having certain amount of money being allocated and once gone.... then what. There are pitfalls in every system, hell ours is broken, but somehow it still works.

[Shiane]

The thing about malpractice is you expect a good outcome, but I'm here to tell you that isn't always the case. Sure, sometimes it is the physician's fault, and sometimes it is because of the patient's own stupidity.

Hospitals have omg so freakin many safeguards, it is just crazy. Triple paperwork by different areas to ensure the right drug, the right operation, the right patient, the right route, the right medication. If you aren't in healthcare, than the good lord above. In the past 7 yrs I have seen so many changes, and most of these changes are due to lawsuits.

Here are the problems I see. First of all my work is no longer about taking care of the patient plain and simple. Their care is on the back burner. The number one priority is defensive charting. I have to chart so much repetitive crap simply to satisfy JAHCO(the hospital accrediting entity) Take for instance pain, I now have to chart every 2 hours about pain... OK if someone is hurting trust me, you'll know it. I spend 10 minutes every 2 hours just charting pain. I can actually lose my license if I do not medicate for pain, either not enough or too much. Well pain is only one of about 100 things that I have to chart. I don't have time to chart all the bullshit stuff. My job is to take care of patients, not charting . Approx 75% of my shift is spent charting in the intensive care.

The problem is that hospitals are sooo understaffed that accidents do happen, we're human just like everyone else. The problem is that when I am too busy to take care of patients accidents will happen. Not because I don't care, but because I am only one person and I can only do so much. I can make it look good on paper, but that doesn't ensure that people are being taken care of.

What needs to happen is this. EVERY single hospital in the US needs to have a nursing union. As it is now nurses and other hospital staff are at the mercy of the administrators, they frequently put us in unsafe working situations. We work a lot of hours, long and hard hours with very heavy patient loads. In those conditions accidents will happen. Most people go to work for 10 years doing the same job and not much changes. Everyday I go to work, something changes, a new med, a new procedure, a new protocol, a new policy, a new cheaper supply, shortage of supplies, VERY old and outdated equipment. You mix all of that with patient care and yes some- one is going to die. Everyday that I go to work, I have to cover my ass and you can bet that if I get sued I will be hung out to dry and I will be blamed for it.

The states that have a nurses union are staffed better, the pay is better and they are treated more fairly. I worked at a place that gave you $1.00/hr extra for working a holiday, lol that is 12 dollars... that is bullshit. I get more monetary incentives for working 60+ hours a week. If I work 2 --18 to 20 hour days, it isn't overtime because it isn't over 40 hrs a week. Some only pay overtime if it is over 80 hrs in two weeks. You can work 80 hours in one week and not get one penny of overtime. Take California for instance, they are only allowed to have so many patients by law. They are paid 1.5 wages for working over 8 hrs and double time for over 12.

When a nurse has too many patients, that is when accidents happen, you're too busy to catch the mistakes. Unfortunately in this profession it isn't like Mc Donalds and the worst thing you can do is burn a hamburger, if you screw up it can cost someone their life.

They blame the staffing shortabge on a shortage of nurses. Well who in their right mind would want to work in these conditions? Not very many! Welcome to my world.

[spare_change]

From Wikipedia:

"The U.S. market-based health care system relies heavily on private and not-for-profit health insurance, which is the primary source of coverage for most Americans. According to the United States Census Bureau, approximately 84% of Americans have health insurance; some 60% obtain it through an employer, while about 9% purchase it directly.

Various government agencies provide coverage to about 27% of Americans (there is some overlap in these figures). Public programs provide the primary source of coverage for most seniors and for low-income children and families who meet certain eligibility requirements. The primary public programs are Medicare, a federal social insurance program for seniors and certain disabled individuals, Medicaid, funded jointly by the federal government and states but administered at the state level, which covers certain very low income children and their families, and SCHIP, also a federal-state partnership that serves certain children and families who do not qualify for Medicaid but who cannot afford private coverage. Other public programs include military health benefits provided through TRICARE and the Veterans Health Administration and benefits provided through the Indian Health Service. Some states have additional programs for low-income individuals.

In 2006, there were 47 million people in the U.S. (16% of the population) who were without health insurance for at least part of that year.[15] About 37% of the uninsured live in households with an income over $50,000."

Hmmmmm .......

[Cotties]

Pros

every man, women and child is covered...

cons its never going to be as good as private health issurance that the wealthy can afford...but thats life

[spare_change]

Pros

every man, women and child is covered...

cons its never going to be as good as private health issurance that the wealthy can afford...but thats life


Actually, that is inherently false ... it really should say --- degrading everybody's coverage so that a few may be accounted for, resulting in a nanny state control of your healthcare and your body.

[Sneaky]

Actually, that is inherently false ... it really should say --- degrading everybody's coverage so that a few may be accounted for, resulting in a nanny state control of your healthcare and your body.

True. Those of us who have health care coverage, or if we do not have coverage but PAY our medical bills are paying for those that do not anyway. It is a big contributor to the reason health care costs are going through the roof.

[Huzyerdaddi]

I'm personally against socialized medicine. I think it is best that we keep our medicines isolated and continue to enforce strict product labeling standards. If we begin allowing our medicines to socialize I fear unhealthy alliances can form and already out-of-control side effects will be compounded. Think about the trauma and adverse affects that could occur if viagra and vagisil strike up a conversation at a social event. Yeah, sure, they have some much in common, both with names starting with "v" and all, but by the mere virtue of the fact that well allowed socializing among medicines, the net result of said relationship could be devasting. The current system seems to be working well....I choose to defend status quo in this case.

[Cotties]

I got to say that either doesn't make sense to the average Joe Blo or inherently backed with no substantial evidence..


Let's look at the deeper Pros and Cons observed by myself who lives with every man, women and child covered by his government...America may be the land of the free and Australia the lucky country but both sayings must be expressed with tongue in cheek. Also a nothing point I must emphasis is no system is perfect.

Medicare coverage for all citizens as an entitlement
Pros

The obvious, all walks of life regardless of social status is covered. You can walk in off the street and get seen to. This is a right that one must appreciate being part of a lucky country.

Cons

This is deeper and can be argued relentlessly. Doctors less accountable and doctors not wishing to work in hospitals in poorer suburbs. Waiting lists that can drag on for months. Less skilled doctors and being treated like a number rather than a person.

The system I see that you prefer

Now when I look at 60% percent of employers paying for their workers coverage. Who pays these added costs to the employer. Back to the average Jo Blo paying at the end of the day with higher consumer prices. You may think that you pay your own way and screw the rest, well the rest are paying and you get the benefits.

With our system that is not flawless, those that cannot afford to get private health insurance will still get coverage even though it is somewhat sub standard in comparison to those with private. We pay a 2percent tax for medicare. Those over a certain wage bracket pay 3 or 4 percent, reduced back to 2 percent if they take out private health insurance. Pros of this is choice of doctor, location, hospital, a plasma screen t.v with a comfy bed. Doctors pay a lot more for insurance and are held much more accountable. Any man with a decent education and a few bucks in his pocket will take this option....and any man with a good healthy conscience will be proud to know that his 2 percent cover those that are less fortunate in life.
The obvious is
Actually, that is inherently false ... it really should say --- degrading everybody's coverage so that a few may be accounted for, resulting in a nanny state control of your healthcare and your body.

[spare_change]

I got to say that either doesn't make sense to the average Joe Blo or inherently backed with no substantial evidence..


Let's look at the deeper Pros and Cons observed by myself who lives with every man, women and child covered by his government...America may be the land of the free and Australia the lucky country but both sayings must be expressed with tongue in cheek. Also a nothing point I must emphasis is no system is perfect.

Medicare coverage for all citizens as an entitlement
Pros

The obvious, all walks of life regardless of social status is covered. You can walk in off the street and get seen to. This is a right that one must appreciate being part of a lucky country.

Cons

This is deeper and can be argued relentlessly. Doctors less accountable and doctors not wishing to work in hospitals in poorer suburbs. Waiting lists that can drag on for months. Less skilled doctors and being treated like a number rather than a person.

The system I see that you prefer

Now when I look at 60% percent of employers paying for their workers coverage. Who pays these added costs to the employer. Back to the average Jo Blo paying at the end of the day with higher consumer prices. You may think that you pay your own way and screw the rest, well the rest are paying and you get the benefits.

With our system that is not flawless, those that cannot afford to get private health insurance will still get coverage even though it is somewhat sub standard in comparison to those with private. We pay a 2percent tax for medicare. Those over a certain wage bracket pay 3 or 4 percent, reduced back to 2 percent if they take out private health insurance. Pros of this is choice of doctor, location, hospital, a plasma screen t.v with a comfy bed. Doctors pay a lot more for insurance and are held much more accountable. Any man with a decent education and a few bucks in his pocket will take this option....and any man with a good healthy conscience will be proud to know that his 2 percent cover those that are less fortunate in life.
The obvious is


You know, I was buying your argument right up to the end ---- "any man with a good healthy conscience will be proud to know that his 2 percent cover those that are less fortunate in life". My conscience is just fine --- I wonder about the conscience of those that have to look at themselves in the mirror and admit that they aren't man to provide for their family, and have to live by a handout, or even those, who can afford it, but choose not to use it and then expect others to take care of them by paying for the medical services received.

So much for self reliance and self accountability ....

[Cotties]

I don't know...I still like my argument ..I was just watching a show on obesity in the poorer parts of Mississippi......it's easy to say self reliance and self accountability but when you see the highly unemployed who pay double for fresh vegetable as they may pay for a deep fried apple pie from a 7/11.....I guess you can make the argument they should walk the extra 5 miles to get to a fresh grocer in order to lose weight...but really...at what point should the government kick into gear, take responsibility and try to rectify the problem or do we leave it up to the good natured, well educated to bring social justice for all into place


..it kind of makes you wonder why their society have developed this way and how they should go about changing it
You know, I was buying your argument right up to the end ---- "any man with a good healthy conscience will be proud to know that his 2 percent cover those that are less fortunate in life". My conscience is just fine --- I wonder about the conscience of those that have to look at themselves in the mirror and admit that they aren't man to provide for their family, and have to live by a handout, or even those, who can afford it, but choose not to use it and then expect others to take care of them by paying for the medical services received.

So much for self reliance and self accountability ....

[spare_change]

I don't know...I still like my argument ..I was just watching a show on obesity in the poorer parts of Mississippi......it's easy to say self reliance and self accountability but when you see the highly unemployed who pay double for fresh vegetable as they may pay for a deep fried apple pie from a 7/11.....I guess you can make the argument they should walk the extra 5 miles to get to a fresh grocer in order to lose weight...but really...at what point should the government kick into gear, take responsibility and try to rectify the problem or do we leave it up to the good natured, well educated to bring social justice for all into place


..it kind of makes you wonder why their society have developed this way and how they should go about changing it

I don't think anybody says that the government shouldn't help those who truly need help -- but you don't do it by screwing it up for everybody else. The answer is not always bigger government -- it's a two way street -- God helps those who help themselves.... the government should apply the same standard.

[Cotties]

I kind of feel I have you in check and you're playing for a stale mate...


The question perhaps that needs to be asked is...are more people falling below the average income bracket and in turn are there more people who are choosing to take the gamble and live without insurance...? If so how can we change this?

but holding the government up to the standards of God...no that's just sweet dreaming
I don't think anybody says that the government shouldn't help those who truly need help -- but you don't do it by screwing it up for everybody else. The answer is not always bigger government -- it's a two way street -- God helps those who help themselves.... the government should apply the same standard.

[spare_change]

I kind of feel I have you in check and you're playing for a stale mate...


The question perhaps that needs to be asked is...are more people falling below the average income bracket and in turn are there more people who are choosing to take the gamble and live without insurance...? If so how can we change this?

but holding the government up to the standards of God...no that's just sweet dreaming

Stalemate, my ass!

People who are "choosing" to take the gamble deserve the rewards of their effort -- good or bad. If their decision is bad, they shouldn't expect you and me to bail them out. If you are going to do that, there's no downside -- so why would anybody choose to get insurance? Everybody would be without it -

The cold truth is that people know that the government will save them -- that they don't have to be self sufficient, that they don't have to take care of themselves, that they don't have to worry about it. Somebody else will pay their bills for them .... their "gamble" is really no gamble at all. If they need medical care, they just walk into the nearest hospital, get the care they need, walk out, and stick you with the bill.

For those who truly can't afford it, not those who don't get insurance so that they can buy a new plasma tv, but those who really, truly can't afford insurance, I'm all in favor of helping them.

You should have to live by the consequences of your actions. It's called personal accountability. You shouldn't expect me to give you a parachute just because you fucked up.

[Cotties]

But that's not a solution to a problem..I'm not saying you or the better off need to pay for those that gamble their money away or smoke cigarettes or whatever poor life style choices they make. How do we make the average life expectancy higher? This should be a priority of wealthy nations..better health care is a great place to start..the only place really...Let's just say the U.S federal government implemented a medicare levi..let's say just 2 percent out of all peoples wages across the board. This pool of money goes into the public health system. Not the greatest system but is this a start. The government could set up more specialist children's hospitals,etc and with these funds they could implement health campaigns. An extra two percent tax may freak out the voting population but in the long run..the consumer is paying higher prices in general and blaming fuel prices or something that makes the evening current affair shows. Make the government clearly accountable for where our tax dollars go.Stalemate, my ass!

People who are "choosing" to take the gamble deserve the rewards of their effort -- good or bad. If their decision is bad, they shouldn't expect you and me to bail them out. If you are going to do that, there's no downside -- so why would anybody choose to get insurance? Everybody would be without it -

The cold truth is that people know that the government will save them -- that they don't have to be self sufficient, that they don't have to take care of themselves, that they don't have to worry about it. Somebody else will pay their bills for them .... their "gamble" is really no gamble at all. If they need medical care, they just walk into the nearest hospital, get the care they need, walk out, and stick you with the bill.

For those who truly can't afford it, not those who don't get insurance so that they can buy a new plasma tv, but those who really, truly can't afford insurance, I'm all in favor of helping them.

You should have to live by the consequences of your actions. It's called personal accountability. You shouldn't expect me to give you a parachute just because you fucked up.

[MCat]

You know, I was buying your argument right up to the end ---- "any man with a good healthy conscience will be proud to know that his 2 percent cover those that are less fortunate in life". My conscience is just fine --- I wonder about the conscience of those that have to look at themselves in the mirror and admit that they aren't man to provide for their family, and have to live by a handout, or even those, who can afford it, but choose not to use it and then expect others to take care of them by paying for the medical services received.

So much for self reliance and self accountability ....

Our family has been on both ends of this, a couple times. For the past almost 8 years my job has provided our medical covereage....I pay $180 some dollars a month towards the coverage for the two of us....the rest is paid by the hospital I work for. Like anyone else, I think I'm worth more than the hourly wage I receive...so I will gladly accept the benefits the company includes in my package.

Hubby worked in a factory for 20 years....until it was sold and relocated to Mexico where they could pay the workers 1.25 an hour instead of the 12.75 he was making. That was back in 1991. We had full insurance coverage paid for by the company up until that point. We were covered by Cobra for 3 years after the plant closing. Hubby went back to school, worked 3 part time jobs at the same time, I worked part time, blah, blah.....no insurance coverage for us.

We couldn't afford shit....my parents were feeding us because we didn't qualify for any kind of assistance.....the government told me to get pregnant then I would qualify for all kinds of help. Of course I didn't...how stupid that would have been to have another child when I couldn't feed the one I had.

We found out we qualified for Medicaid....medical coverage for our daughter. You damn bet we took advantage of it....we worked all those years paying into it....and by god we were gonna use it. Our families have always paid our own way.....very few of us have ever had to go on government assistance but I will say...if the time ever comes again....I am going to get back what I paid in with no hesitation.

One time during a period of no insurance coverage my husband got cancer....we were lucky to have furniture and other personal items that we could sell to pay the bill.

Things were so hard that for a long time our attitude was "Lifes a Bitch and Then You Die", thank goodness we are not in that place anymore.

I agree there are generations of people that never work, they just take whats given to them....I feel that all children should be covered by some kind of insurance till they reach 18. Its not the childrens fault that their parents can't or won't provide for them.

Shit.....I went and wrote a fuckin novel......:(

[spare_change]

Our family has been on both ends of this, a couple times. For the past almost 8 years my job has provided our medical covereage....I pay $180 some dollars a month towards the coverage for the two of us....the rest is paid by the hospital I work for. Like anyone else, I think I'm worth more than the hourly wage I receive...so I will gladly accept the benefits the company includes in my package.

Hubby worked in a factory for 20 years....until it was sold and relocated to Mexico where they could pay the workers 1.25 an hour instead of the 12.75 he was making. That was back in 1991. We had full insurance coverage paid for by the company up until that point. We were covered by Cobra for 3 years after the plant closing. Hubby went back to school, worked 3 part time jobs at the same time, I worked part time, blah, blah.....no insurance coverage for us.

We couldn't afford shit....my parents were feeding us because we didn't qualify for any kind of assistance.....the government told me to get pregnant then I would qualify for all kinds of help. Of course I didn't...how stupid that would have been to have another child when I couldn't feed the one I had.

We found out we qualified for Medicaid....medical coverage for our daughter. You damn bet we took advantage of it....we worked all those years paying into it....and by god we were gonna use it. Our families have always paid our own way.....very few of us have ever had to go on government assistance but I will say...if the time ever comes again....I am going to get back what I paid in with no hesitation.

One time during a period of no insurance coverage my husband got cancer....we were lucky to have furniture and other personal items that we could sell to pay the bill.

Things were so hard that for a long time our attitude was "Lifes a Bitch and Then You Die", thank goodness we are not in that place anymore.

I agree there are generations of people that never work, they just take whats given to them....I feel that all children should be covered by some kind of insurance till they reach 18. Its not the childrens fault that their parents can't or won't provide for them.

Shit.....I went and wrote a fuckin novel......:(

And, that's exactly my point -- EVERYBODY in this country can get medical services, with or without insurance. The programs are there, if you use them .... Nobody proposes that people should be denied medical care because they can't afford it. It's there ... it's been there for 30 years.

It's tough when you get sick and don't have medical insurance ... you said you sold furniture, etc to meet your responsibilities. Today, you don't even have to do that. You simply sign a form at the hospital that says you can't pay the bill, and that you have no intention to pay the bill. The end ... the hospital writes off the costs (actually, they can recover some of the costs from the federal government, but that's a different issue), and it's done.

The whole argument isn't about medical care .... it's about money and power. There is a lot of money and power in medical care ... and the socialized medicine crowd wants the government to control it.

[spare_change]

But that's not a solution to a problem..I'm not saying you or the better off need to pay for those that gamble their money away or smoke cigarettes or whatever poor life style choices they make. How do we make the average life expectancy higher? This should be a priority of wealthy nations..better health care is a great place to start..the only place really...Let's just say the U.S federal government implemented a medicare levi..let's say just 2 percent out of all peoples wages across the board. This pool of money goes into the public health system. Not the greatest system but is this a start. The government could set up more specialist children's hospitals,etc and with these funds they could implement health campaigns. An extra two percent tax may freak out the voting population but in the long run..the consumer is paying higher prices in general and blaming fuel prices or something that makes the evening current affair shows. Make the government clearly accountable for where our tax dollars go.


Well, that sounds nice .... I just don't know how you would implement it. How do you decide who deserves to dip into the pool and who doesn't? If you smoke, you can't?

I don't know what the ratio is in your country, but I seem to recall that I read that 47% of all money committed to a government program in the US is consumed with the government administration to support that program. So, that means that out of your 2%, only 1.2% actually get applied to the program. Which, if I do my math correctly, means the $3 trillion program cost will actually be about $3.8 trillion annually. Whew!

[spare_change]

California became the most recent state to abandon government-run, mandated healthcare this week in the face of unmanageable costs and strong opposition to mandated coverage. Rather than turning to private, market-based solutions for health care, California was attempting to require most residents to acquire insurance or face a financial penalty for failing to do so - all while wracking up massive tax-funded expenses for the $14 billion dollar plan.

California's proposal, borrowing elements from a similar plan that passed in Massachusetts in 2006, would have required most residents to obtain private health insurance and would have called for new charges on businesses, hospitals and cigarettes to help fund it.

It drew opposition from Republicans who saw it as too onerous on business and from Democrats, including advocates of a single-payer system, who said it would impose a financial burden on working people and yet bring too little benefit. But the crowning blow came from the gaping $14 billion hole in California's budget, which made many supporters and opponents doubtful that the state could afford the program's $14 billion cost.

Despite seeing these mandated, taxpayer-funded programs fail time and time again, liberals continue to try to take control of American's health care. What has been proven effective in states like North Carolina is to offer a mix of government support that relies on private, free market solutions to increase access to health care while decreasing the cost.