Health Insurance

[bartl]

Speaking of individual health insurance:

Many professional organizations have used health insurance for individual practitioners as an inducement for membership. No longer; several years back, insurance companies stopped taking "organizational members". I shopped around carefully, and was paying close to $1000 per month for my wife and myself to get the cheapest policy that did better than 80% payouts and huge deductibles (which generally amount to, even when the deductible has been paid, THEY pay 20% and YOU pay 80%); catastrophic insurance, which did not even cover as much as the HMO's do, STARTED about about $1500/month.

Mind you, there ARE insurance companies that will still insure members of organizations, which brings us to the next problem (which I ran into when trying to help start a national organization of independent consultants largely to get insurance coverage): Every state has its own complex set of regulations. That means that you have to negotiate (and do the paperwork) for a separate insurance policy and usually company in every state in which you have members. Now, John McCain had as part of his campaign platform a proposed federal law which would allow people to buy insurance from an out-of-state company, but we all know how well that worked when they did that with credit cards.

I don't know how the proposed national health insurance plan deals with individual state regulations, but if it exempts itself without exempting private insurance companies, then it starts out with a major competitive advantage, probably sufficient to drive the competitors out of business.

[Village Idiot]

At this point, most people don't give a s*** about whether or not insurance companies end up with a competitive disadvantage. They're just like the oil companies, always screwing the people of this great country so they can make humongous profits.

[Lord Destiny]

I am not restricted by passions for "isms." I'd throw out America's system for what Canada or Europe has in a New York minute.

I've yet to hear a worthwhile defense for our system, other than allegiance to an ism. I really don't care anymore. Socialized medicine simply does more good for more people.

It's about time that became a priority.

[Brenz]

I'm trying to raise some online donations for Ostrander's eye surgery if anyone's interested.

Come for the charity, stay for the swag. (http://www.indeliblecomics.com/wordpress/2009/07/18/john-ostranders-glaucoma-surgery/)

[bartl]

At this point, most people don't give a s*** about whether or not insurance companies end up with a competitive disadvantage. They're just like the oil companies, always screwing the people of this great country so they can make humongous profits.
I am very worried about a single decision point medical system, however. Consider the following:

1) A local doctor is in with the local head of the government insurance plan. He acts inappropriately, but not illegally, with patients (such as ogling the female patients). The bureaucrat refuses to allow uncomfortable patients to change doctors.

2) The religious right gain in power. The local gynecologist determines that no abortion is medically appropriate.

3) Christian Scientists are threatened with jail unless they see conventional physicians.

[Steven Grant]

I am very worried about a single decision point medical system, however. Consider the following:

I doubt you'll need to worry about it. Americans aren't about to put up with local health commissars, and I suspect in most locales anyone trying to overtly pull that crap would quickly find themselves facing angry villagers with torches and pitchforks.

- Grant

[bartl]

I doubt you'll need to worry about it. Americans aren't about to put up with local health commissars, and I suspect in most locales anyone trying to overtly pull that crap would quickly find themselves facing angry villagers with torches and pitchforks.
Well, this article (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854) does give one pause; for those who want to see the exact language, here is the actual bill (http://www.rossputin.com/blog/media/HouseHealthCareBillJuly09.pdf).

Those with a long memory may recall a practice that used to be done by A&P, and, since Sam Walton died, has been brought back by Walmart. They would open a new store in an area, and operate at a loss, subsidized by the coffers of the other chains, giving deep discounts, until the local businesses, unable to compete, would go out of business. THEN they would raise their prices back to the normal levels, having wiped out the local competition.

The U.S. government using its ability to subsidize its enterprises with taxpayer money has been used in the past to drive private companies out of business. There were a few companies that started up for the purpose of putting satellites into orbit for a fee. However, the private companies had to charge a fee that would return their capital investment. Comes the U.S. Space Shuttle, which only charged based on the delta cost of an individual flight and didn't include the initial capitalization costs in their fees, and no private company could hope to compete.

U.S. government insurance will be similarly situated; with it being subsidized by taxes, private insurance companies cannot hope to compete, which creates the danger of it becoming the only insurance available, with the ability to cut people off for whatever rules they choose to make up.

As far as the last goes, consider the 21 year old drinking age. The federal government does not have the right to set minimum drinking ages; that is SUPPOSED to be a state power. So the federal government stated that it would withhold highway funds from any state that did not have a 21 year old minimum drinking age, in spite of the fact that the state taxpayers would continue to have to pay taxes to create those highway funds in the first place.

[badMike]

which creates the danger of it becoming the only insurance available, with the ability to cut people off for whatever rules they choose to make up.Oh please. Insurance companies we have today are awful. They throw people off plans for made up rules all the time, deny service to people who then die, there's no health care plan available today that's "affordable" to individuals, HMOs force you to see their specialists and nobody else, they agree to pay for things then rescind that agreement after the surgery, etc., etc. etc.

Health care is a disaster and all this fearmongering about what the evil, horrible, spooky "government" might do is just BS propaganda made up by health care companies who don't want the competition. That's what's disgustingly ironic about the whole thing. The fearmongers say that the government will destroy competition, but what it will do is actually CREATE competition because right now they can get away with all kinds of crap without interference because they're one of the most powerful corporate lobbyists in history. It's just gross.

[Charles RB]

Yeah, the US system is shit.

And with the wait times I've heard Americans talking about to see a local doc, you can't even use the "at least the wait time is shorter!" excuse.

[dr. 3]

I am very worried about a single decision point medical system, however. Consider the following:

1) A local doctor is in with the local head of the government insurance plan. He acts inappropriately, but not illegally, with patients (such as ogling the female patients). The bureaucrat refuses to allow uncomfortable patients to change doctors.

2) The religious right gain in power. The local gynecologist determines that no abortion is medically appropriate.

3) Christian Scientists are threatened with jail unless they see conventional physicians.


I don't think those are particularly realistic fears for several reasons:

1) Why would patients be neccessarily forced to see a specific physician just because of a single payer system? As physicians would still presumably be licensed by a state, why wouldn't a patient seek redress the way that they do now, i.e. file a complaint with the state medical board?

Your assumption seems to be that just changes who pays for healthcare will change the totality of its operation. That's certainly possible, I guess, but it seems and odd default assumption.

(2) What's to stop the religious right from gaining power and passing laws against it on a state or federal level in our current system? In your scenario, on the local level, I think patients could still seek intervention with the state medical board.

(3) How could Christian Scientist be threatened with jail unless state or federal laws were enacted making refusing care a crime? What's stopping the state or federal government from passing such laws now? What about government run healthcare would suggest that passing such laws would come to pass?

You know we do already have government run healthcare in this country in terms of medicaid and medicare, and I don't think these dire scenarios occur. Your fears seem to be predicated on an unlikely event--namely (for some reason) us giving over utter total control a healthcare power of attorney to the government rather than doing like other places , and well--just having the government take on the role insurance providers do now.

[Steven Grant]

Those with a long memory may recall a practice that used to be done by A&P, and, since Sam Walton died, has been brought back by Walmart. They would open a new store in an area, and operate at a loss, subsidized by the coffers of the other chains, giving deep discounts, until the local businesses, unable to compete, would go out of business. THEN they would raise their prices back to the normal levels, having wiped out the local competition.

I have my doubts about that story. I live in a market with a Walmart. While, sure, local businesses have a tough time competing directly against Walmart prices, Walmart has not put most of them out of business, and Walmart's prices are still relatively low, though if you shop there you have to keep an eye on prices because they all fluctuate, and sometimes the fluctuations are fairly dramatic. Just like most other stores.

This is like cries protesting Walmart buying and selling products from China. While I don't support Walmart buying Chinese products, I've seen no evidence their proportion of Chinese product is any greater than anyone else's (there is no chain in America that doesn't stock a substantial number of products made in China) or that they emphasize those products over any made anywhere else.

The U.S. government using its ability to subsidize its enterprises with taxpayer money has been used in the past to drive private companies out of business. There were a few companies that started up for the purpose of putting satellites into orbit for a fee. However, the private companies had to charge a fee that would return their capital investment. Comes the U.S. Space Shuttle, which only charged based on the delta cost of an individual flight and didn't include the initial capitalization costs in their fees, and no private company could hope to compete.

Absolute crap, and here's why: many insurance companies - not all of them, but many - have spent decades gouging as much money from American "taxpayers" as corporately possible, for progressively crappy service. Especially for health care (the exceptions, by the way, would be in automobile and health insurance where many good, very competitive companies have kept premiums low, though you have to shop around for them and automobile insurance can be best found cheap if you're willing to switch insurers frequently) where the direct, stated intention of the industry since the Nixon years has been to supply as little genuine health care to Americans for as much profit as possible.

If health insurance companies really want to compete with the US government, they should by now have enough cash in their coffers to do so, even at fire sale prices, and if they don't it's their own damn faults. I suspect many of them, rather than even be willing to compete, will instead use the opportunity to cash out of the business and put their efforts into something more profitable, like enticing dotty old ladies to squander their retirement funds on worthless old copper mine stock. Or they'll lobby for ways to cash in on the government coverage, because you know they'll do it if the slightest opening is left open for them.

In any case, I expect if they don't compete it won't be because they can't but because they don't have any interest in it.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

Yeah, the US system is shit.

And with the wait times I've heard Americans talking about to see a local doc, you can't even use the "at least the wait time is shorter!" excuse.

Well... not entirely true... if I wanted to go to an emergency room and pay through the nose, I could probably get in to see a doctor within six or seven hours... though in theory emergency rooms should just be for genuine emergencies, but most people in America now use emergency rooms as their g.p.s anyway.

And if I wanted to go to a private practice doctor for something, I most likely could get an appointment within 6-8 weeks from my call, and once I got into his office I most likely wouldn't have to sit more than two or three hours past the appointment time to see him.

Let's see any of those crappy foreign health care systems match that kind of speed, huh?

(By the way, it occurs to me that the best way for everyone to help pay for John Ostrander's eye surgery would be to chip in for a plane ticket - round trip, of course - to and boarding for him in Cuba...)

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

Your fears seem to be predicated on an unlikely event--namely (for some reason) us giving over utter total control a healthcare power of attorney to the government rather than doing like other places , and well--just having the government take on the role insurance providers do now.

The AMA has always maintained that any sort of government-operated health care system would be by nature operated solely on Stalinistic principles, robbing citizens of any say in their own health care.

You know, like with HMOs, though for some reason the AMA doesn't oppose those.

- Grant

[Drusilla lives!]

Yeah, the US system is shit. ...

And why would they want it any other way, it goes against the plan. That is, to get rid of as many people as possible. :)

[Charles RB]

And if I wanted to go to a private practice doctor for something, I most likely could get an appointment within 6-8 weeks from my call, and once I got into his office I most likely wouldn't have to sit more than two or three hours past the appointment time to see him.

That is miles beyond the waiting times I've personally had with the NHS. I'd be throwing a fit if they made me wait that long.

[dr. 3]

And if I wanted to go to a private practice doctor for something, I most likely could get an appointment within 6-8 weeks from my call, and once I got into his office I most likely wouldn't have to sit more than two or three hours past the appointment time to see him.
- Grant

This is often an unfortunate result of another problem in our country--too few primary care physicians. With longer hours, more call, and lower salaries in primary care medical students with high loan debt naturally gravitate toward more lucrative subspecialties.

Some of the higher salary of subspecialties is a result of our system that pays a lot for procedures and virtually nothing for preventative care. And then there's mental health and substance abuse treatment which some insurers don't pay for at all, or "carve out" and hand over to a subsidary that provides much reduced benefits. of course, there's the recent parity bill to address this, though its yet to take effect.

Now the too few PCPs isn't just a U.S. problem--I hear the UK's NHS has the same difficulty--but I think there are things about our payment system that exacerbate it.

[Steven Grant]

That is miles beyond the waiting times I've personally had with the NHS. I'd be throwing a fit if they made me wait that long.

Yes, well... that's probably why I resorted to sarcasm...

- Grant

[DavidAllred]

Absolute crap, and here's why: many insurance companies - not all of them, but many - have spent decades gouging as much money from American "taxpayers" as corporately possible, for progressively crappy service. Especially for health care (the exceptions, by the way, would be in automobile and health insurance where many good, very competitive companies have kept premiums low, though you have to shop around for them and automobile insurance can be best found cheap if you're willing to switch insurers frequently) where the direct, stated intention of the industry since the Nixon years has been to supply as little genuine health care to Americans for as much profit as possible.

If health insurance companies really want to compete with the US government, they should by now have enough cash in their coffers to do so, even at fire sale prices, and if they don't it's their own damn faults. I suspect many of them, rather than even be willing to compete, will instead use the opportunity to cash out of the business and put their efforts into something more profitable, like enticing dotty old ladies to squander their retirement funds on worthless old copper mine stock. Or they'll lobby for ways to cash in on the government coverage, because you know they'll do it if the slightest opening is left open for them.

I'm not convinced this is true. We've seen a few things that can be used as litmus tests -- the first is the prescription drug plan passed by the last administration. Pharmacuetical companies promptly jacked prices on items the Feds were paying for... that does have an impact on private providers. I expect the same thing to happen once Uncle Sugar Sam is footing the bill for full health coverage.

The second thing we saw was what happened in housing when the government started offering cheaper rates than private lenders. In order to pay out profit to their stock holders, private companies had to mimick Frannie and Freddie by taking on lower lending standards, or they promptly lost business. That led to some downright "vodoo" in the treatment of assets, clients, and accounting.

Private firms will try to compete and they'll take the low road to do it. That's the nature of the beast and without some competition clauses written into the law, the health care industry will see the same sort of collapse the housing industry did.

My opinion, of course.

[Charles RB]

Yes, well... that's probably why I resorted to sarcasm...

- Grant

Yeah, but I was just stunned at the horribleness of it.

And I wanted to point out - hey, Americans worried about long wait times, you already have them and they're longer than here. It's like North Koreans worrying that under democracy, they might face more hunger.

[Imaginos666]

At the last company I worked for, the staff was divided into several groups to meet with reps of our insurance provider about the rising cost of premiums. They offered some advice to us so we could help keep costs low: stop going to the doctor.

There was a moment in my meeting where the group almost turned into those angry villagers Steven mentioned.

[Drusilla lives!]

... The second thing we saw was what happened in housing when the government started offering cheaper rates than private lenders. In order to pay out profit to their stock holders, private companies had to mimick Frannie and Freddie by taking on lower lending standards, or they promptly lost business. That led to some downright "vodoo" in the treatment of assets, clients, and accounting.


Really?

That's not the way I see it as unfolding... but then the powers that be (and have been) have been trying to prop up this economy for years. I'd say if anything they turned a blind eye to the problem because it suited their interests (and there was nothing else they could do anyway). We're still living through the repercussions and after shocks of events set in motion long ago IMO.

[Steven Grant]

And I wanted to point out - hey, Americans worried about long wait times, you already have them and they're longer than here. It's like North Koreans worrying that under democracy, they might face more hunger.

That's true, but it's the principle of the thing. Currently it's our choice to wait weeks for a doctor appointment and then hours to actually see a doctor. Under a government health system, it'll be the government's choice, and that's just wrong, even if wait times are shortened.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

At the last company I worked for, the staff was divided into several groups to meet with reps of our insurance provider about the rising cost of premiums. They offered some advice to us so we could help keep costs low: stop going to the doctor.

There was a moment in my meeting where the group almost turned into those angry villagers Steven mentioned.

But that's what many health insurers and HMOs have proposed as the solution to health costs: Americans are hypochondriacs and should learn to suck it up more if they want their costs to go down. If they insist on seeking health care they shouldn't bitch about having to pay for it.

In other words, own that tumor, pal!

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

The second thing we saw was what happened in housing when the government started offering cheaper rates than private lenders. In order to pay out profit to their stock holders, private companies had to mimick Frannie and Freddie by taking on lower lending standards, or they promptly lost business. That led to some downright "vodoo" in the treatment of assets, clients, and accounting.

Yeah, that'd hold water if Fannie & Freddie were available to everyone. I bought a house in the midst of the housing boom and Fannie/Freddie never entered into it, and my lender worked with me to secure a loan but didn't cheat on the qualifications at all. Lower lending standards weren't caused by the need to compete with Fannie/Freddie, they were caused by a great desire to pull in mad wads of profit and feed the crazed housing boom that drove real estate prices sky high all across the country. They could make the loans because they didn't expect to see them paid back; instead they collected the loans into packages and sell the packages off to second parties and make their money that way. Primary lenders did amazingly well in the last ten years, and mostly were unharmed by the sub-prime lending market because they'd already made their money. The parties who bought the sub-prime packages - and used them as "collateral" on other loans and investments were the ones who got killed.

But it wasn't Fannie/Freddie that drove them to make those loans, though I know it's chic to lay the blame there now. It was the opportunity they saw to make obscene sums of money right now if they played fast and loose...

- Grant

[Dennis]

Let's see any of those crappy foreign health care systems match that kind of speed, huh?


http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=1509

Canadian woman who waits 9 months to talk to a surgeon, then 3 years to get surgery.

[bartl]

I don't think those are particularly realistic fears for several reasons:

1) Why would patients be neccessarily forced to see a specific physician just because of a single payer system? As physicians would still presumably be licensed by a state, why wouldn't a patient seek redress the way that they do now, i.e. file a complaint with the state medical board?
I didn't SAY "single payer"; I said "single point of control". And it looks like the federal plan is doing an end run around state controls.

(2) What's to stop the religious right from gaining power and passing laws against it on a state or federal level in our current system? In your scenario, on the local level, I think patients could still seek intervention with the state medical board.
The Constitution and a lack of precedent.

(3) How could Christian Scientist be threatened with jail unless state or federal laws were enacted making refusing care a crime? What's stopping the state or federal government from passing such laws now? What about government run healthcare would suggest that passing such laws would come to pass?
The proposed health plan DOES make refusing care a crime. The 1st Amendment is preventing the state and federal government from passing such laws; the new laws create and "overriding government concern"; much like the drug laws have been used to stomp on the Bill of Rights.

[bartl]

Oh please. Insurance companies we have today are awful.
Does it logically follow that we should replace them with something worse?

[Dennis]

data from the 90s

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/208868.html

The results see the US take pole position in breast and prostate cancer survival and second place in colorectal cancer survival for both men and women.

England comes 22nd in breast cancer survival rates, 19th in prostate cancer survival and 21st and 22nd respectively in women's and men's colorectal cancer survival.


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8693

Take prostate cancer, for example. Even though American men are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than their counterparts in other countries, we are less likely to die from the disease. Fewer than 20 percent of American men with prostate cancer will die from it, against 57 percent of British men and nearly half of French and German men. Even in Canada, prostate cancer kills a quarter of men diagnosed with the disease.

A big part of the reason is that, in most countries with national health insurance, the preferred treatment for prostate cancer is . . . nothing.

Similar results can be found for other forms of cancer. For instance, only 30 percent of U.S. citizens diagnosed with colon cancer die from it, compared to fully 74 percent in Britain, 62 percent in New Zealand, 58 percent in France, 57 percent in Germany, 53 percent in Australia and 36 percent in Canada.

And less than 25 percent of U.S. women die from breast cancer. In Britain, it's 46 percent; France, 35 percent; Germany, 31 percent; Canada, 28 percent; Australia, 28 percent, and New Zealand, 46 percent.

Even when there is a desire to offer treatment, national health-care systems often lack the resources to provide it. In Britain, for example, roughly 40 percent of cancer patients never get to see an oncology specialist. Delays in receiving treatment under Britain's national health service are often so long that nearly 20 percent of colon cancer cases considered treatable when first diagnosed are incurable by the time treatment is finally offered.

[Drusilla lives!]

At this point even a voucher system would be appealing. That is, give every uninsured citizen from age 20 to 45 a voucher for two paid annual doctor visits (with basic diagnostic tests included)... which (or should I say witch) doctor is up to you. More comprehensive coverage could be phased in for older citizens until they qualify for Medicare or whatever. This would at least give people a chance at early detection of certain illnesses that when caught early are treatable.

It would be better than nothing, which is what many people have now. And it can be used as a bridge to a more comprehensive system at some future date.

[bartl]

I have my doubts about that story. I live in a market with a Walmart. While, sure, local businesses have a tough time competing directly against Walmart prices, Walmart has not put most of them out of business, and Walmart's prices are still relatively low, though if you shop there you have to keep an eye on prices because they all fluctuate, and sometimes the fluctuations are fairly dramatic. Just like most other stores.
This has been happening in more rural areas; you live in an urban area, with more factors involved. I am not talking about Walmart's success; that is a valid form of competition. What I am referring to is, when moving into an area, bringing prices down to an artificially low level in that store alone, looking into local stores and purposefully undercutting those stores on their best selling goods, and then, when the competition is effectively gone, bringing the prices onto a par with the other stores.

I have seen it happen up close with a Barnes & Noble. I used to frequent a small, specialty bookstore. When a Barnes & Nobles moved in nearby, they put in a section, not found in other Barnes & Nobles', which specifically featured normally hard to find items which the small bookstore used to attract people to their store, priced at what the small store was paying WHOLESALE. When the store closed down, the Barnes & Nobles shut down the section and stopped carrying the items.
This is like cries protesting Walmart buying and selling products from China. While I don't support Walmart buying Chinese products, I've seen no evidence their proportion of Chinese product is any greater than anyone else's (there is no chain in America that doesn't stock a substantial number of products made in China) or that they emphasize those products over any made anywhere else.
What Walmart does is a little more tricky. Here is a fascinating article (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html?page=0%2C0) on the subject.
Absolute crap, and here's why:
Except that you spend the rest of the paragraph disproving a contention I never made. I'd have had no problem with that, except for the part I quote above. I do wonder why, if they make such obscene profits, have they not taken over the investment market, as they clearly would give much better return on money than other investments.

[bartl]

but most people in America now use emergency rooms as their g.p.s anyway.
Are you sure you don't mean "many" or "far too many"?

And if I wanted to go to a private practice doctor for something, I most likely could get an appointment within 6-8 weeks from my call, and once I got into his office I most likely wouldn't have to sit more than two or three hours past the appointment time to see him.
When I lived in Manhattan, there were clinics were I could walk in and see a doctor within an hour or so, usually 20 minutes, at under $100. Strangely enough, the only time I had to wait there for 2 hours was when I had an appointment. I can usually see my current, private practice, doctor within a couple of days of making an appointment. If I were uninsured, he would charge $85 for the office visit. CVS has a "Minute Clinic" where you can see a PA almost immediately for under $50 for many common problems. As I have mentioned, the last time I bought individual insurance, I would have been happy to see my current doctor at his current prices, and only wanted catastrophic insurance. It would have cost twice as much as the HMO did.

I did have to go into the emergency room a few weeks ago; an ankle injury had become infected. I waited about an hour and a half, in a fairly large city hospital (Englewood) in New Jersey.

[bartl]

You know, like with HMOs, though for some reason the AMA doesn't oppose those.
As the first, foremost, and pretty much the only concern of the AMA is the amount of money in its members' pockets, I consider their opinion as about as reliable of those of the insurance companies.

[Drusilla lives!]

Capital waste in the residential real estate market must be recovered somehow... I say let corporations retain the properties where possible at a reduced price and let them retrofit and put them to use as back offices or short term storage space of (non-toxic) assets. After a period of a few years they can restore the property to a like new condition and sell it at a fixed pre-established price, or take a tax write off for the full sale price... whatever is better for them. This might be one way of reducing inventory while recapturing the "lost opportunity cost" to society of the initial capital investment in what is for all intents and purposes a useless fixed asset.

[Village Idiot]

http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=1509

Canadian woman who waits 9 months to talk to a surgeon, then 3 years to get surgery.

One anecdote does not equal statistical proof.

And, Dennis, no offense to you, but that was from Faux Noise, the unfair and totally unbalanced network. With emphasis on totally unbalanced, especially when Beck is on the air.

[Village Idiot]

We should all face it -- socialized medicine is on the way, in one form or another.

[bartl]

That's true, but it's the principle of the thing. Currently it's our choice to wait weeks for a doctor appointment and then hours to actually see a doctor. Under a government health system, it'll be the government's choice, and that's just wrong, even if wait times are shortened.
My wife and I took in handicapped foster children for a number of years. Although we took them to our own doctors, we were required by law to take them to a Medicaid doctor. My wife would make an appointment for 9:30 AM. She would get there at 9:00 AM (she could not get there any earlier), to find the room filled with people, ALL of whom had a 9:30 AM appointment. The doctor would show up at about 11:30 AM, and promptly had a lunch break. He would start seeing patients at 12:30 PM, in the order in which they came in. The child would finally see him at about 4:30 PM, at which point the doctor would take a 30 second look, say, "Institutionalize him." and dismiss her (from what we heard from other parents and foster parents, he would say this even if the only problem was something relatively easily dealt with, such as blindness). This was not a one time thing; this pretty much happened EVERY time she had to take a child to the state-mandated physician.

So you can see why I have a less than optimistic view of expanding this system to the whole country. I will admit that the lack of examination or recommended treatment may have been because he saw that the children were being seen by another, qualified physician anyway, but that does not excuse the rest.

[bartl]

At this point even a voucher system would be appealing. That is, give every uninsured citizen from age 20 to 45 a voucher for two paid annual doctor visits (with basic diagnostic tests included)... which (or should I say witch) doctor is up to you. More comprehensive coverage could be phased in for older citizens until they qualify for Medicare or whatever. This would at least give people a chance at early detection of certain illnesses that when caught early are treatable.

It would be better than nothing, which is what many people have now. And it can be used as a bridge to a more comprehensive system at some future date.
I suspect that additional criteria would be needed because of the macro problems involved (such as people dropping insurance to get this option, usually those who normally are least likely to take advantage of the insurance they have, thereby driving up insurance rates for everybody else), but it's certainly the beginning of a good idea.

[bartl]

deleted, can't figure out how to do it.

[Dennis]

One anecdote does not equal statistical proof.

And, Dennis, no offense to you, but that was from Faux Noise, the unfair and totally unbalanced network. With emphasis on totally unbalanced, especially when Beck is on the air.

He's entertaining. Maybe you would like his books better.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html

A typical Canadian seeking surgical or other therapeutic treatment had to wait 18.3 weeks in 2007, an all-time high, according to new research published Monday by independent research organization the Fraser Institute.

The 2007 survey found the total median waiting time for patients between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, increased to 18.3 weeks from 17.8 weeks observed in 2006. This was primarily due to an increase in the first waiting period, between seeing the general practitioner and attending a consultation with a specialist.

[Steven Grant]

Except that you spend the rest of the paragraph disproving a contention I never made. I'd have had no problem with that, except for the part I quote above. I do wonder why, if they make such obscene profits, have they not taken over the investment market, as they clearly would give much better return on money than other investments.

You didn't catch the part where insurance companies invested heavily in sub-prime packages?

- Grant

[dr. 3]

I didn't SAY "single payer"; I said "single point of control". And it looks like the federal plan is doing an end run around state controls.

How is the current bill a single point of control?

Please quote the pertinent text of the current bill wherein it removes from the states the power to license and regulate practitioners of medicine.

The proposed health plan DOES make refusing care a crime. The 1st Amendment is preventing the state and federal government from passing such laws; the new laws create and "overriding government concern"; much like the drug laws have been used to stomp on the Bill of Rights.

Really? Once again, mind quoting the relevant text? Otherwise this just seems like second hand innuendo and fear-mongering. Until then, you'll understand if I remain skeptical at the far ranging nature of claims you'rr making.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Let's treat it like the Australian system...

I am very worried about a single decision point medical system, however. Consider the following:

1) A local doctor is in with the local head of the government insurance plan. He acts inappropriately, but not illegally, with patients (such as ogling the female patients). The bureaucrat refuses to allow uncomfortable patients to change doctors.

They have no control over which Doctor you see - you see who you like, when you like.
All they have to do with it is saying which medicines the government covers, which medicines and treatments you cover.
We have a medicare card which covers where we've been and what was done - although it is impossible for any body, government or otherwise, to access the personal components of that card (there was even a missing person case where the family just wanted to know if the person was still alive by seeing if they'd gone to the pharmacist to get medications which was denied) - the only involvement of government is footing the bill.

Also note, a doctor will get removed if there are complaints about ogling female patients - it's not only against the rules for a doctor, it's flat out sexual discrimination.


2) The religious right gain in power. The local gynecologist determines that no abortion is medically appropriate.

Go to another gynecologist.
The FDA are there as the independent body on that one.

Our drug approval board approved Ru-486, the health minister blocked it's release.
(Bizarrely the party line was 'we can't trust the board to decide'... why are they the board if we can't trust them to decide which drugs get released? Why have we trusted them until now?)
Three women in the Senate, all from different parties, started a motion to let it be released - originally the party in power were going to force the vote along party lines until public outcry, and party members getting prepared to cross the floor on the vote, convinced the PM to call a conscience vote (party lines don't matter) and it got passed.
(There was also the hilarious backfire on the health minister Tony Abbot, when he tried to use misadventures from his youth to sell his case that the drug was evil.)


3) Christian Scientists are threatened with jail unless they see conventional physicians.

What do you mean conventional?
If the person doesn't want to see a doctor, they don't have to.
If unconventional means not following the standards and practices already currently laid out by law, that person loses their medical license.

That to me has the same logic as we shouldn't have policemen, because there could be Nazi policemen who start their own tax-payer funded pogrom... but even more ridiculous.


All in all Bart, even if these unlikely events came to pass, it'd still be a better system than your current one.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

When I lived in Manhattan, there were clinics were I could walk in and see a doctor within an hour or so, usually 20 minutes, at under $100. Strangely enough, the only time I had to wait there for 2 hours was when I had an appointment.

You get that here - you want the same GP, you'll have to wait.
You don't care you go to a medical center and it can be quick.
Only difference is you won't pay a dime for seeing the doctor.

[Charles RB]

When I lived in Manhattan, there were clinics were I could walk in and see a doctor within an hour or so, usually 20 minutes, at under $100.

There's one of those locally.

Exactly the same wait time, but I don't have to pay.

[Michael P]

There's one of those locally.

Exactly the same wait time, but I don't have to pay.

You pay in freedom dollars. A jillion freedom dollars per visit.

[Drusilla lives!]

What freedom do you have when you get cancer?... and it is most likely a question of "when" not "if" with all the mutagens in our daily living environments from all our "great" scientific advances. How much "wealth" will you have after you're financially raped by the system?... a lifetime of struggle and labor gone into someone's greedy pocket and you left destitute. And that's if you survive at all. No, the fake ass system we have now is a bad joke, foisted upon us by the same people that gave us the concepts of an "ownership" society and "outsourcing" among others. And since middle class wealth and security is really an illusion today, I think it a better choice to pay a little more now in the form of taxes, then to lose all later. And for any elected official to think otherwise... well they're now not only robbers, but murders as well... unless of course that was always what was intended. They must prove otherwise, and it shouldn't cost much more either, with all the loot they've got already.

[Hanzo the Razor]

http://wallstreetpit.com/5769-the-medical-cartel-why-are-md-salaries-so-high

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm

[dr. 3]

http://wallstreetpit.com/5769-the-medical-cartel-why-are-md-salaries-so-high

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm

That first article has a graph that I find highly suspect. I don't believe that UK physicians made $52K in 1996, as that certainly doesn't relfect the lifestyle of physicians I knew in the UK at that time, and it's substantially lower than the current salaries reported by the NHS here:

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=553

I suspect that was actually a number in pounds, which someone sloppily transcribed. That sort of sloppy scholarships cast the rest of the numbers in doubt.

Also I would say the averages over a field where in the U.S.specialty salaries vary quite a bit is misleading. I know a number of physicians and a minority of them make in 2009 what that chart claims was the average in 1996.

The second article assumes me with its assumption of the power of the AMA. Its hard for me to view an organization as particularly powerful as they more often than not failed to halt the expansion of prescriptive powers to non-physician practitioners in several states.

I'm also not sure that lowering the standards for medical school would do anything helpful from the quality of care standpoint.

[Charles RB]

I'm also not sure that lowering the standards for medical school would do anything helpful from the quality of care standpoint.

It'd help reduce the surplus population.

[dr. 3]

It'd help reduce the surplus population.

Well, there's that.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

You pay in freedom dollars. A jillion freedom dollars per visit.

We're all in sovereign states as part of the Commonwealth - we don't know what this freedom you speak of is!

Tell us more about this great freedom!

[bartl]

How is the current bill a single point of control?
First of all, I never said that it was. In the case the one that is currently in the House, it will effectively put private insurance companies out of business; especially the part where you will be able to keep your individual insurance, but if you want to CHANGE your plan, you'll have to go to the government (unless there is something buried in the 1000+ pages that I, nor a bunch of experts, have found yet; I used "individual" as a search term through the document). In any case, I do not want ANY single insurance company having a monopoly, government or private. That, plus the fact that the government will set regulations to its competitors and can use tax money to subsidize it's plan will make it virtually impossible for private plans to compete.
Please quote the pertinent text of the current bill wherein it removes from the states the power to license and regulate practitioners of medicine.It is not what I see, it's what I DON'T see. In particular, I don't see anything about the government insurance being subject to state insurance regulations, which private insurance companies are. Having attempted to get an insurance plan for a national organization, I can tell you that states have VERY different and sometimes conflicting sets of regulations.
Really? Once again, mind quoting the relevant text? Otherwise this just seems like second hand innuendo and fear-mongering. Until then, you'll understand if I remain skeptical at the far ranging nature of claims you'rr making.
Will a quote from Obama in the World Socialist Web Site (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/heal-j17.shtml) do?
He also told CBS Evening News that he now supports a requirement that all Americans obtain insurance coverage, a measure he opposed during his presidential campaign. “I’m now in favor of some sort of individual mandate as long as there’s a hardship exemption,” he said.

[bartl]

Let's treat it like the Australian system...
But it isn't. Maybe it should be.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

But it isn't. Maybe it should be.

You guys should join the commonwealth.

Things really picked up after you all left in a fit.

[dr. 3]

First of all, I never said that it was.

Ah--so like I said, inneundo and fearmongering. Well, that's perhaps a valid concern about insurance, but says ZERO about people being able to change from or report ia state medical boards bad docs.

In other words the answer to my question was: No, the bill has no language which alters the way physicians are licensed and regulated.


It is not what I see, it's what I DON'T see. In particular, I don't see anything about the government insurance being subject to state insurance regulations, which private insurance companies are. Having attempted to get an insurance plan for a national organization, I can tell you that states have VERY different and sometimes conflicting sets of regulations.

Will a quote from Obama in the World Socialist Web Site (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/heal-j17.shtml) do?

Well, no--since that has nothing to do with your, apparently completely fabricated, assertion that poeple would be forced to undergo care they didn't want. Requiring health insurance isn't at all the same as forced treatment, and I suspect you know that, but choose for rhetorical reasons to pretend otherwise.

It's disappointing because I'm not sure how misinformation allows us to have a genuine debate on an important issue where there are legitimate reasons for disagreement.

[Paladin573]

There is a reason why O wants his healthcare plan to pass by next mouth. It is because like the stimulus bill "THEY" do not want "US" to have a chance to read it online (like "THEY" all promised)...because if we had the chance to read it we would say "Oh heck no"...

[bartl]

Ah--so like I said, inneundo and fearmongering. Well, that's perhaps a valid concern about insurance, but says ZERO about people being able to change from or report ia state medical boards bad docs.

In other words the answer to my question was: No, the bill has no language which alters the way physicians are licensed and regulated.
I stated things the way I did because I was including private monopolies as well as government. I have seen U.S. government controlled medicine; even in a city as large as New York, people were required to see a single, abusive (but not reportable) doctor, and were not given a choice of any other doctors. You see the promises that are being made; I'm seeing how it already works in practice. The question is whether or not you think there will be a substantive change in the way in which the bureaucracy works. I don't. Your mileage may vary.

Perhaps I would have more trust in a government plan if President Obama and those members of Congress who vote for the plan make a binding pledge that they will put themselves and their own families in the plan.

[Charles RB]

if we had the chance to read it we would say "Oh heck no"...

Why, what's it going to do that's so much more horrifying that the abominable system you've already got?

[Paladin573]

Why, what's it going to do that's so much more horrifying that the abominable system you've already got?

That is your opinion.

[Paladin573]

.....And if I wanted to go to a private practice doctor for something, I most likely could get an appointment within 6-8 weeks from my call, and once I got into his office I most likely wouldn't have to sit more than two or three hours past the appointment time to see him......
- Grant

Sounds like to me you need to find a different doctor. I can see my doctor anywhere from that day(if I call in early in the morning) to maybe a week wait. Once in the office 20 min. to an hour wait there.

[dr. 3]

I have seen U.S. government controlled medicine; even in a city as large as New York, people were required to see a single, abusive (but not reportable) doctor, and were not given a choice of any other doctors. You see the promises that are being made; I'm seeing how it already works in practice. The question is whether or not you think there will be a substantive change in the way in which the bureaucracy works. I don't. Your mileage may vary. .

Sounds like that's a problem with the current system.

In any case, you'd have to explain to me why that doctor was unreportable for me to believe it.

I supervise 5 physicians and all are reportable to me, and every one of us is reportable by one phone call to patient advocacy (number posted above all patient phones), the state ombudsman or even the state medical board. And I work for the (state) government.

So while things are far from perfect anywhere, its hard for me to believe New York state is as totalitarian as you claim.

[Charles RB]

That is your opinion.

I ask a question as to what in the bill is supposed to be worse, and your response is "That is your opinion"? No, mate, that was my question - what's worse?

[Paladin573]

I ask a question as to what in the bill is supposed to be worse, and your response is "That is your opinion"? No, mate, that was my question - what's worse?

"abominable system you've already got" is an opinion.

As to your question. I have absolutely no problem with the healthcare that I am getting and the majority of Americans are satisfied with the healthcare they receive. So why rush a bill like the bailouts? What are "THEY" afraid of? "They" are afraid that what we would find is that the "plan" has a spending problem.

My point that I am making is that "we the people" need to see the bill before it is passed. Does that not make sense?

[bartl]

In any case, you'd have to explain to me why that doctor was unreportable for me to believe it. .
His prescription for virtually every brain injured child who went before him, even those who were only mildly retarded, or blind, was to institutionalize them. At least that is what we heard from every parent who was sent to him.

[Charles RB]

the majority of Americans are satisfied with the healthcare they receive

So why have the majority of American's who've ever talked about healthcare in earshot of me expressed dissatisfaction? And not just Stephen Grant's annoyance at waiting times, but the insurance companies abruptly cancelling insurance or not covering enough? (John Ostrander needs to have a whip round so he can have surgey to not go blind, for fuck's sake)

"They" are afraid that what we would find is that the "plan" has a spending problem.

Which is?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

There is a reason why O wants his healthcare plan to pass by next mouth. It is because like the stimulus bill "THEY" do not want "US" to have a chance to read it online (like "THEY" all promised)...because if we had the chance to read it we would say "Oh heck no"...

Now I'm not down with rushing Bills through, but I'd actually imagine it's got more to do with stopping the private medical companies that see their profits dissapearing - as no one will pay their outrageous prices anymore - from being able to lobby against, or fear monger to the public about it.

Sounds like to me you need to find a different doctor. I can see my doctor anywhere from that day(if I call in early in the morning) to maybe a week wait. Once in the office 20 min. to an hour wait there.

I can walk in to a place and get seen.

For free.

"abominable system you've already got" is an opinion.


Actually, compared to the systems on offer in the Europe, Canad, Australia, New Zealand, let's be honest - just about every other first world western democracy - it is an abomination.

I get you're all 'free market' and a right winger - that's cool - but it's an abomination of a system that I wouldn't wish upon anybody.
Health care is beyond profits - it's a right.

(And if you still really hate it, pretend instead of a card, you've been given a coupon, and instead of doctor, you're going to a school - see, it's all better now!)

I have seen U.S. government controlled medicine; even in a city as large as New York, people were required to see a single, abusive (but not reportable) doctor, and were not given a choice of any other doctors.

Explain this system you have - I've not heard it mentioned before.

All the doctors were abusive?
How was he not reportable?

You see the promises that are being made; I'm seeing how it already works in practice.

Bet you wished you had our health care systems!
A-U-S!
A-U-S!
A-U-S!

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Which is?

That he's spending Billions of 'their' money on something that isn't war - and that's socialism!

[Village Idiot]

That he's spending Billions of 'their' money on something that isn't war - and that's socialism!

Yep. All Hail Socialism!

[dr. 3]

His prescription for virtually every brain injured child who went before him, even those who were only mildly retarded, or blind, was to institutionalize them. At least that is what we heard from every parent who was sent to him.

Well, that's bad--and quite possibly malpractice.

I understand your frustration with the workings of the current healthcare system--and given the nature of humans and bureaucracy--probably any healthcare system we're every likely to have.

But that isn't impropriety on the level of your sexual harassment hypothetical. And neither the hypothetical unethical behavior nor the real callousness of an individual physician you cite has much to do with a plan to provide insurance coverage to the uninsured.

[Village Idiot]

...the majority of Americans are satisfied with the healthcare they receive.

My point that I am making is that "we the people" need to see the bill before it is passed. Does that not make sense?

True that most Americans are satisfied with their doctor and the health care he or she provides, but few are content with the insurance companies that refuse to cover them or limit the amount paid for services. And the number is close to 1 out of every 6 Americans (16%) who have no coverage at all.

If you wish to insist that they do have health care because they can go to an emergency room, you are wrong. Emergency care does not equal healthy care.

And putting "we the people" in quotes as you do pretty much defines your viewpoints from top to bottom. I'd avoid that in the future.

[Drusilla lives!]

Perhaps this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8164060.stm) is why we will never have decent healthcare for the "masses." Just something to think about. :)

[Dennis]

True that most Americans are satisfied with their doctor and the health care he or she provides, but few are content with the insurance companies that refuse to cover them or limit the amount paid for services. And the number is close to 1 out of every 6 Americans (16%) who have no coverage at all.


But ruining a good thing for those 16 percent doesn't seem like a good deal, unless you're one of those 16 percent. And a lot of those people are illegals, people who don't want insurance (young people especially), those who are between jobs. And how many are screwed by their insurance company? For every one of those, there could be hundreds of people taking advantage of the latest and greatest medical care.

It's like lowering the standards (and therefore ruining) of public education because we feel sorry for the bottom 16 percent of students.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Perhaps this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8164060.stm) is why we will never have decent healthcare for the "masses." Just something to think about. :)

Because a scientist MAY be able to create a computer brain?

I'm missing the connection between the two.

(And again, other countries will just have free health care AND a robot brain which may or may not have some practical applications a decade or two after the decade it takes to maybe build it).

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

But ruining a good thing for those 16 percent doesn't seem like a good deal, unless you're one of those 16 percent.

Well first off, only a nutter or a liar thinks your health care system is a good thing.

And it's not for the 16%, it's for the 100% who will be able to use it.
It's a lot more than 16% who would rather have universal health care - some have private, but can barely afford, some have it, but aren't covered for certain things.

Even if you keep private healthcare and insurance, there are flow on benefits from universal healthcare - such as not having to use the private or the insurance for little things (ie. flu), and medicine prices will plummet (drug company lobbyists have a harder time getting the government to block the cheap version when the government has to pay part of the expensive version).

And a lot of those people are illegals, people who don't want insurance (young people especially), people who are between jobs.

Yeah, they all deserve to die slow and painful deaths.

Nice job not mentioning people 'who can't afford the price of health care'.
Or do they count as those who don't want it?
They shouldn't count because they want food instead, or because they won't leave their job as a janitor to go work in the tech division?

And how many are screwed by their insurance company?

Everyone with an insurance company.
Ever met someone who says nice things about one?

For every one of those, there could be a hundreds of people taking advantage of the latest and greatest medical care.

What makes you think the latest and greatest medical care is going to stop being there?

Didn't happen in any other country with universal health care.


It's like lowering the standards (and therefore ruining) public education because we feel sorry for the bottom 16 percent of students.

You already did that with 'leave no child behind'!
Why not with this?

Honestly Dennis, you'll lose this argument here, and the right-wing mindset will lose the debate across the country - there's actually no good reasons not to have health care for all that aren't ideological, and 303,824,640 reasons to have it.

[Drusilla lives!]

Because a scientist MAY be able to create a computer brain?

I'm missing the connection between the two.

(And again, other countries will just have free health care AND a robot brain which may or may not have some practical applications a decade or two after the decade it takes to maybe build it).

Why invest in a human machine when you've got one which is so much more durable... and requires minimal resources?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Why invest in a human machine when you've got one which is so much more durable... and requires minimal resources?

Because we're all (mostly) humans?

And we know, from every story with robots/AI ever, that they will rise up and turn on us!

[Lord Destiny]

We're all in sovereign states as part of the Commonwealth - we don't know what this freedom you speak of is!

Tell us more about this great freedom!

Read between the lines. The "freedom" of America is primarily economic freedom. Other kinds of freedom take a distant second. Why? Because the rich own and run our government. And all laws are designed to protect wealth above any and all other concerns...regardless of its adverse affects on the other 98% of the country.

All other freedoms are dominated by the first freedom.

[Dennis]

Well first off, only a nutter or a liar thinks your health care system is a good thing.


I posted a link earlier to some stats showing how effective the American medical system is in treating diseases and saving lives. This is what health care is all about, it's not about getting freebies, but about doctors and nurses saving our asses from dying.

And it's not for the 16%, it's for the 100% who will be able to use it.
It's a lot more than 16% who would rather have universal health care - some have private, but can barely afford, some have it, but aren't covered for certain things.

If most people say they're satisfied with what they have, they why mess with that? And even if 100% get free health care, there could be a cost to that (worse survival rates from diseases.)

Even if you keep private healthcare and insurance, there are flow on benefits from universal healthcare - such as not having to use the private or the insurance for little things (ie. flu), and medicine prices will plummet (drug company lobbyists have a harder time getting the government to block the cheap version when the government has to pay part of the expensive version).

I've heard free health care is good for the small stuff, ok, I might agree with that. It's great for the flu, but not so great with cancer.

Yeah, they all deserve to die slow and painful deaths.

Nice job not mentioning people 'who can't afford the price of health care'.
Or do they count as those who don't want it?
They shouldn't count because they want food instead, or because they won't leave their job as a janitor to go work in the tech division?

Life is unfair. People from the very bottom to the very top get screwed. Trying to save Everyone never works out. It's better to build a system that works great for 70% than a system that tries to save 100% of the people (because this is impossible, and will only lead to future heartbreak.)

[Lord Destiny]

You guys should join the commonwealth.

Things really picked up after you all left in a fit.

Give it time. We don't need you all very much right now. But after China calls in its debts and our economy tanks, we'll be much more friendly.

[Lord Destiny]

Life is unfair. People from the very bottom to the very top get screwed.

I'd like to know how people at the "very top" get screwed.

I bet you anything not a single one of the "very top" would trade their "screwed" for my working class "screwed." They'd kill themselves en masse before they'd live off my money.

But they're quite happy to live off my labor.

[Dennis]

Everyone with an insurance company.
Ever met someone who says nice things about one?

I can say nice things. I've known some people whose lives were greatly extended because of their health care plan. They had big problems, went to good doctors, promptly had their surgeries, and got better.

What makes you think the latest and greatest medical care is going to stop being there?

Didn't happen in any other country with universal health care.

Because when you give 40 million people free health insurance, that changes everything. Peter Singer wrote an article for the NY Times about rationing heath care, which some say this bill tries to do. Singer wrote about how it's necessary to prevent people from getting the latest and greatest if it's not worth it.

You already did that with 'leave no child behind'!
Why not with this?

That was a disaster.

Honestly Dennis, you'll lose this argument here, and the right-wing mindset will lose the debate across the country - there's actually no good reasons not to have health care for all that aren't ideological, and 303,824,640 reasons to have it.

I know free healthcare is inevitable, but there's no doubt that what we will have is going to be at least 10x worse.

And free healthcare will bite everyone in the ass eventually, because poor people are going to flock to the places that offer it. All the enlightened countries will turn into a hellhole one day.

[Dennis]

I'd like to know how people at the "very top" get screwed.

I bet you anything not a single one of the "very top" would trade their "screwed" for my working class "screwed." They'd kill themselves en masse before they'd live off my money.

But they're quite happy to live off my labor.

They get screwed in different ways. Like Michael Jackson. Lots of money and fame can mess with someone's head (and skin, and nose.)

I said Life was unfair, Life itself messes with people.

[Drusilla lives!]

Because we're all (mostly) humans?

And we know, from every story with robots/AI ever, that they will rise up and turn on us!

Being mostly human has never stopped man from using the tools he created to destroy other men (or himself for that matter)... to me, ai is just an extreme manifestation of an age old truism, man cannot stand man, or as someone once said "hell is other people."

Perhaps the uberwealthy will let us die with dignity in old age... and with heath care. Leaving them to their future world of ai controlled hovercraft flying in pristine skies of azure over lush green forests, on the way to their magnificent sparkling (albeit smaller) citadels... perhaps, "Newer NY" will be one of them. Well, at least that'll be more "humane" then what the nazis did I suppose. Or perhaps they will exterminate us outright with the justification that we were inferior somehow... after all, it is the "survival of the fittest." But then, the poor are poor because they are of an inferior breed and the elite are elite because, well, for similar reasons. They have more of the genetic stuff that makes them excel in a modern world. And of course, who could argue with that right? After all, you're rich right? It's not you that will be eliminated (and that's what a small change in the mindset of a populace will accomplish BTW)... that is, until they come knocking. You see, you didn't have a Lear Jet waiting on call.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I posted a link earlier to some stats showing how effective the American medical system is in treating diseases and saving lives. This is what health care is all about, it's not about getting freebies, but about doctors and nurses saving our asses from dying.

Well no, it's about 'making money off of you getting sick' if you want to have your way.
(Nice way of avoiding my 'trickle-down' points - it's amazing how fast the right-wing mind set can swing from idea to idea to toe the party line).

You know why there are the waiting times you posted about?
Because on the publicly funded health care waiting lists, everyone is equal, and need comes first.
You're on a waiting list, and may have to wait a while for elective surgery - with a non-life threatening problem - because people with life threatening problems get treated first.



If most people say they're satisfied with what they have, they why mess with that? And even if 100% get free health care, there could be a cost to that (worse survival rates from diseases.)

Survival rates aren't lower.
Those numbers from the libertarian medical site you posted are false.
Why?
Their big flaw is, that it relies on everyone diagnosed for the cancer.
In Australia, it's free to get prostate or breast cancer screening - everyone does it.
In America, only those who can afford to get it do.

(And I thought YOUR numbers said 16% don't have private insurance, not that 84% were perfectly happy with the system.


I've heard free health care is good for the small stuff, ok, I might agree with that. It's great for the flu, but not so great with cancer.

It is if you can't afford to pay for those cancer treatments it's excellent, especially as you can't work through it sometimes - chemo tends to give a little stomach upset.
It only has issues when it comes to non-life threatening problems - such as a bad knee that requires surgery.
Then you'll have to wait.
In an emergency room, they aren't checking your insurance details.


Life is unfair.
This isn't 'life', it's spending money.
Government money - money from the people, for the people.
Why not spend it on the people?


People from the very bottom to the very top get screwed.
Why not take away one less screwing?
(One other countries don't have?)

Trying to save Everyone never works out.

This isn't saving, it's giving everyone a better quality of life.

It's better to build a system that works great for 70% than a system that tries to save 100% of the people (because this is impossible, and will only lead to future heartbreak.)

So me, Charles and people in Canada are living in impossible land, with a fantasy government, and make believe health care?
This really is where you're, and the republican argument falls apart - it's already happened, decades ago, for every other country with a comparable government and economic system.
The biggest difference is, your country actually has more money than ours!

Your argument currently stands at 'I don't feel I need it, fuck everyone who does!'?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I can say nice things. I've known some people whose lives were greatly extended because of their health care plan. They had big problems, went to good doctors, promptly had their surgeries, and got better.

What sort of problems?
Life threatening problems here would have been treated, and they could have spent the money on living their lives.

Because when you give 40 million people free health insurance, that changes everything.

You have a bigger tax base than any other country that does it.
I think that'll cover it.

Peter Singer wrote an article for the NY Times about rationing heath care, which some say this bill tries to do.

The bill doesn't sy it, but that's what some people says it does...

Singer wrote about how it's necessary to prevent people from getting the latest and greatest if it's not worth it. [/QUOTE]

As long as you and he get it, who cares?

That was a disaster.

But you all went with it at the time - why not listen to the left for a change?

(Because this is only like that in your mind - 100% of people benefit from this, not just the 'bottom 16%' who aren't worthy of their lives).


I know free healthcare is inevitable, but there's no doubt that what we will have is going to be at least 10x worse.

Ten times?
What are you basing that on?
Not any actual evidence taken from other countries who have done it.

And free healthcare will bite everyone in the ass eventually, because poor people are going to flock to the places that offer it. All the enlightened countries will turn into a hellhole one day.

'It didn't get you in those first three decades, but trust me, it's a-coming, any decade now, it'll get ya!'

Suck that big fat corporate dick of lies all you want, but try be a little realistic!
When exactly, are all the other western democracies going to turn into this hell-hole you're convinced is coming?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Give it time. We don't need you all very much right now. But after China calls in its debts and our economy tanks, we'll be much more friendly.

It's pretty good.

You'll lose 4th of July, but just replace it with the Queen's b'day - you're allowed to shift it around to whenever you want!

The downside is, gran is going to make you put the Queen's address on for ten minutes on Christmas day.
The only time that's ever been exciting was when King George's chair broke mid way through his (and that was on radio!).

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I said Life was unfair, Life itself messes with people.

This isn''t life - it's just us*.

It's not fate, pre-destiny or just the usual odds, it's taking money we already have, and putting it aside for when we're sick.
Steven's money helps you when your sick, your money helps Steven when he's sick.
It's the same as insurance, but for everyone - and it doesn't matter what you can afford, it all evens out.


*Did he say Justice?
No, just us.
Wasn't that cool when Ellis ended that Planetary story that way? And then really weird when Brian Vaughn did it with Ex Machina, but tried to make it a homage by having Planetary and Authority posters everywhere?

[Dennis]

You know why there are the waiting times you posted about?
Because on the publicly funded health care waiting lists, everyone is equal, and need comes first.
You're on a waiting list, and may have to wait a while for elective surgery - with a non-life threatening problem - because people with life threatening problems get treated first.



http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2009/07/23/let_541768.shtml

The Canadian Medical Association reports that patients wait more than nine hours to be seen and more than 24 hours to be admitted in Canadian emergency rooms. According to the Canadian Broadcasting Co. the average wait time in Canada for surgery is more than five months. The wait time for a CT scan is two months in Manitoba, and the wait time for a MRI is five months in Newfoundland.

Dr. Richard F. Davis, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, described what's happening to patients waiting for coronary bypass surgery. In one year while waiting for this one operation, 71 patients died,

One-hundred twenty-one became too sick for surgery and 44 left to have the operation in the United States. The Calgary Herald reported that 25,000 Calgary residents were waiting for surgery or scans at just four city hospitals. Alberta Health's Web site lists the following surgery wait times: 15 months for hip replacement, 15 months general surgery, 13 months for knee replacement, three months for cardiac surgery and 13 months for an MRI scan.

Those numbers from the libertarian medical site you posted are false.
Why?
Their big flaw is, that it relies on everyone diagnosed for the cancer.
In Australia, it's free to get prostate or breast cancer screening - everyone does it.
In America, only those who can afford to get it do.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

It is often claimed that people have better access to preventive screenings in universal health care systems. But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly, and once diagnosed, have the fastest access to treatment. For example, a Commonwealth Fund report showed that women in the United States were more likely to get a PAP test for cervical cancer every two years than women in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Great Britain, where health insurance is guaranteed by the government.

* In the United States, 85 percent of women aged 25 to 64 years have regular PAP smears, compared with 58 percent in Great Britain.
* The same is true for mammograms; in the United States, 84 percent of women aged 50 to 64 years get them regularly — a higher percentage than in Australia, Canada or New Zealand, and far higher than the 63 percent of British women.

This isn't 'life', it's spending money.
Government money - money from the people, for the people.
Why not spend it on the people?

Because the money doesn't exist, we're bankrupt.

So me, Charles and people in Canada are living in impossible land, with a fantasy government, and make believe health care? This really is where you're, and the republican argument falls apart - it's already happened, decades ago, for every other country with a comparable government and economic system.
The biggest difference is, your country actually has more money than ours!

The whole world will be in big trouble. Give it another 30 years - we'll be a Third World, uh, World.

[Dennis]

What sort of problems?

Heart Disease, Cancer.

You have a bigger tax base than any other country that does it.
I think that'll cover it.

Great, more taxes.

Ten times?
What are you basing that on?
Not any actual evidence taken from other countries who have done it.

A government plan might not sound that bad. An American government plan sounds like a nightmare.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2009/07/23/let_541768.shtml


Can't respond to more, because just about out the door, but that's from a letter to the editor.

They don't fact check those, and there's a disclaimer down the bottom.

What next, youtube videos acting not as actual proof, but evidence of where one may get a perception from?

Look at it this way Dennis, as if it was as bad as you're saying - which it isn't - wouldn't we all be crying out for change and for more to be done?
Australia is having big issues (well, the politicians are) with how our healthcare should be run (state or federal), but absolutely none of these figures are getting bandied about.
Not even parties who want to downscale it (it's too popular to remove altogether) are posting these figures.
In fact, the only place you get 'facts' and figures saying America is number one, is in America, and from those who don't want it to change.

Edit to add:
As for the other 'proof' you cite, it's from the NCPA.
From their website: 'The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.'
WEird that they'd say the private alternative is better...

[Dennis]

This isn''t life - it's just us*.

It's not fate, pre-destiny or just the usual odds, it's taking money we already have, and putting it aside for when we're sick.
Steven's money helps you when your sick, your money helps Steven when he's sick.
It's the same as insurance, but for everyone - and it doesn't matter what you can afford, it all evens out.


Well, no, it's money that doesn't exist. I've read that Medicare has unfunded liabilities of (some ridiculous number, like 20,30, 60 trillion).

[Dennis]

Can't respond to more, because just about out the door, but that's from a letter to the editor.

They don't fact check those, and there's a disclaimer down the bottom.

What next, youtube videos acting not as actual proof, but evidence of where one may get a perception from?

Oh, he cut and paste from some newspaper. I could go look for more horror stories and scary numbers but you guys get the point.

Look at it this way Dennis, as if it was as bad as you're saying - which it isn't - wouldn't we all be crying out for change and for more to be done?
Australia is having big issues (well, the politicians are) with how our healthcare should be run (state or federal), but absolutely none of these figures are getting bandied about.
Not even parties who want to downscale it (it's too popular to remove altogether) are posting these figures.
In fact, the only place you get 'facts' and figures saying America is number one, is in America, and from those who don't want it to change.

the population of Australia is only around 21.5 million, we probably have more illegals than that.

[Charles RB]

But after ... our economy tanks

"After"?



The downside is, gran is going to make you put the Queen's address on for ten minutes on Christmas day.
The only time that's ever been exciting was when King George's chair broke mid way through his (and that was on radio!).

How do you think Her Majesty feels? She's the one who has to do it. I bet it bores her shitless.

[Paladin573]

...
I can walk in to a place and get seen.
For free....


Do they economic classes where you live?

Nothing is "FREE" some where someone is paying for it.

How much money do you clear for every dollar earned?

[Charles RB]

Do they economic classes where you live?

Nothing is "FREE" some where someone is paying for it.

Free at the point of delivery. It's paid collectively.

PS your health insurance is also paid collectively - everyone's dosh goes in the same pot - which kind of negates the "my money paying for someone else!" argument.

[Paladin573]

So why have the majority of American's who've ever talked about healthcare in earshot of me expressed dissatisfaction? And not just Stephen Grant's annoyance at waiting times, but the insurance companies abruptly cancelling insurance or not covering enough? (John Ostrander needs to have a whip round so he can have surgey to not go blind, for fuck's sake)


Look we both can spill out horror stories about American healthcare and the "FREE" healthcare in other countries.

I am sorry that I am satisfied with what I have.

Is the system perfect? NO Will the government solve it? NO We are talking about the same people that spent $500 for a hammer a few years back!!!

WOW...it crazy the "hate" I feel from all of you for expressing my opinion. So I guess it is your alls way or the highway..no room to talk...there is only ONE way to fix it...who cares if there are people that are happy with it now they should have no say...

[Paladin573]

Free at the point of delivery. It's paid collectively.

PS your health insurance is also paid collectively - everyone's dosh goes in the same pot - which kind of negates the "my money paying for someone else!" argument.

Argument?

Thanks for the clarification of your misleading "argument" statement "free" at the point of delivery. But not free because everyone pays into the same government pot through taxes....

I understand the economics of insurance...

[Paladin573]

Now I'm not down with rushing Bills through, but I'd actually imagine it's got more to do with stopping the private medical companies that see their profits dissapearing - as no one will pay their outrageous prices anymore - from being able to lobby against, or fear monger to the public about it.

Both sides play the fear monger game





Actually, compared to the systems on offer in the Europe, Canad, Australia, New Zealand, let's be honest - just about every other first world western democracy - it is an abomination.

Opinion

I get you're all 'free market' and a right winger - that's cool - but it's an abomination of a system that I wouldn't wish upon anybody.
Health care is beyond profits - it's a right.

"right Winger" thanks for stereo typing me and name calling..judging me?

[Charles RB]

Look we both can spill out horror stories about American healthcare and the "FREE" healthcare in other countries.

We can, that's true. But the ones I've heard from America? They're a lot worse than the ones I've heard here.

Is the system perfect? NO Will the government solve it? NO We are talking about the same people that spent $500 for a hammer a few years back!!!

IIRC, wasn't that a Republican government who was contracting a private company? EDIT: Ah yes, it was. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124640443679876503.html#mod=rss_opinion_main) (And a Democrat in Congress was the one who publicised it)

there is only ONE way to fix it...

There are three different models of socialised healthcare and America can invent a fourth.

But not free because everyone pays into the same government pot through taxes....


So? You have to pay to get healthcare coverage in the States already - under the government system, you get more coverage and still get it if you're not earning at the time.

Which is good, because there's a lot of temporary unemployed people around these days, and they all can get sick or injured.

[Paladin573]

True that most Americans are satisfied with their doctor and the health care he or she provides, but few are content with the insurance companies that refuse to cover them or limit the amount paid for services. And the number is close to 1 out of every 6 Americans (16%) who have no coverage at all So the answer is that since 16% of the people do not have coverage we should throw away what we have and let the government make take control. That does not make sense. Should we not workout a plan for the 16%. Instead of scrapping a system that the majority of the people are happy with.


If you wish to insist that they do have health care because they can go to an emergency room, you are wrong. Emergency care does not equal healthy care.


Please do not assume my thoughts or put words in my mouth.

And putting "we the people" in quotes as you do pretty much defines your viewpoints from top to bottom. I'd avoid that in the future.

WOW "we the people" bothers you? This country was found on the principles of "we the people" AND "WE THE PEOPLE" should have the opportunity to see a bill that is going to greatly change the scope of governments involvement in our daily lives.

[Paladin573]

We can, that's true. But the ones I've heard from America? They're a lot worse than the ones I've heard here.Already said I am not going there tit for tat storeis



IIRC, wasn't that a Republican government who was contracting a private company? EDIT: Ah yes, it was. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124640443679876503.html#mod=rss_opinion_main) (And a Democrat in Congress was the one who publicised it)
Exactly the GOVERNMENT (we know that the government is full of honest people...thats sarcasm)





So? You have to pay to get healthcare coverage in the States already - under the government system, you get more coverage and still get it if you're not earning at the time.

You get more?..Thats funny the big O said something like to keep cost under control that there will be some things limited last night...that sounds like less to me

Which is good, because there's a lot of temporary unemployed people around these days, and they all can get sick or injured.
See there is the problem! That is what needs to be dealt with. And scrapping what we have to solve that seems extreme. I believe there is a better way then getting dependent on a bunch of "honest" bureaucrats

[Charles RB]

So the answer is that since 16% of the people do not have coverage we should throw away what we have and let the government make take control. That does not make sense. Should we not workout a plan for the 16%. Instead of scrapping a system that the majority of the people are happy with.

First off,you're assuming the majority of Americans are happy without any basis.

Second, changing to a different model of health service is a plan to cover the 16% (and everyone else).

Exactly the GOVERNMENT (we know that the government is full of honest people...thats sarcasm)

The "GOVERNMENT" is not a monolithic entity in the US - aside from the two main parties clashing, you've multiple branches that clash and dislike each other. In the specific hammer example, the person who revealed it? A member of the government.

You get more?..Thats funny the big O said something like to keep cost under control that there will be some things limited last night...that sounds like less to me

You already have limits - unless you're filthy rich, your insurance scheme won't cover everything. In a socialised services, you wouldn't have those limits. Are you sure he didn't just mean "you will still have to pay for some stuff"? Because that sounds a lot more likely.

I believe there is a better way then getting dependent on a bunch of "honest" bureaucrats

You're already dependant on a bunch of dishonest bureacrats. Who do you manages the hospitals and the health insurance companies?

[Adam C]

Is the system perfect? NO Will the government solve it? NO We are talking about the same people that spent $500 for a hammer a few years back!!!


The United States pays the highest percentage of its GDP in terms of healthcare (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/20/2789777.pdf) (13.9%), and it is the only industrialized nation without universal healthcare. And while Germany and Switzerland weren't far behind it at 10.7% and 10.9% respectively, in Canada the costs were 9.7%, 7.6% for the UK, 7.9% in Australia, and 7.6% in Japan. Mexico, which is awash in corruption as I can tell you, only pays 6.6%! Go to the second page of the link and you'll see a chart comparing these costs. Even at 13.9% to 10.9% the U.S. costs for healthcare a staggering in how much higher they are than Switzerland. So your going on about increased costs strikes me as baseless.

[Paladin573]

... So your going on about increased costs strikes me as baseless.

Yep adding another layer of bureaucrats will solve the problem..thats the cost that I don't find "baseless"

I am not going to play the link game.

I am sure everyone here is savvy(is that spelled right?) enough to find links supporting their side

[Adam C]

I am not going to play the link game.

I am sure everyone here is savvy(is that spelled right?) enough to find links supporting their side

So we should ignore hard, empirical data about health care spending from reliable sources like Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCED) of which the United States is a member because I provided my source...oh I'm sorry, "provided a link." However, we should listen to arguments like...

Yep adding another layer of bureaucrats will solve the problem..thats the cost that I don't find "baseless"

...when the actual evidence shows that establishing universal healthcare wouldn't necessarily cost more, and in fact costs less to those countries that have it than under the current U.S. system?

[Paladin573]

So we should ignore hard, empirical data about health care spending from reliable sources like Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCED) of which the United States is a member because I provided my source...oh I'm sorry, "provided a link." However, we should listen to arguments like...
Do me a favor go play the link game and find something GOOD about America Healthcare...There are credible links for both sides.


...when the actual evidence shows that establishing universal healthcare wouldn't necessarily cost more, and in fact costs less to those countries that have it than under the current U.S. system?
Isn't Germany getting ready to raise taxes AGAIN to cover the cost? Raise taxes ration care that is cost control for a government ran system.

I am not going to change your mind your not going to change mine. There are pros and cons on both sides as I have stated before and I will state again: POST the bill let me see it before it is voted on. I am HAPPY with my healthcare just like majority of Americans.

[Charles RB]

The United States pays the highest percentage of its GDP in terms of healthcare (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/20/2789777.pdf) (13.9%)

There's something bewildering about America paying more than everyone else while getting less coverage. Shouldn't it have more, and the Best Coverage On Earth?



I am not going to play the link game.

If that's your response to someone providing a source, what's the point of you either being on this thread or anyone responding/listening to you?

[Paladin573]

There's something bewildering about America paying more than everyone else while getting less coverage. Shouldn't it have more, and the Best Coverage On Earth?I did not say "Best coverage" I believe that is where the major issue with the current system is and that is one of the big pros of government control healthcare.


If that's your response to someone providing a source, what's the point of you either being on this thread or anyone responding/listening to you?
LOL...yep you are absolutely right on that...I got sucked in...

I really do not want to debate this and get into a LINK war...been there done that on "political" sites. I will think about if I will continue this debate. The main reason that I have stopped before was that no matter what I say or links I give you will still say that I am wrong. I can admit pros and cons on both sides but "you all" will never acknowledge any good points of the current American system. I

The true point of my original post was that the bill needs to be posted for a long enough time for everyone to study it before it is voted on. This major stuff here.

[Adam C]

Do me a favor go play the link game and find something GOOD about America Healthcare...There are credible links for both sides.

Saying that there are credible links for both sides does not mean that there are credible links for both sides. And going on about "play the link game" ignores the issue as to whether the data comes from and whether it's credible. In my case I'm providing hard data about how much each country spends on health care as a percentage of the GDP from the OECD and the U.S. comes out significantly higher.

In any case the burden of proof always falls on the one making the argument, so if you are arguing that universal healthcare will cost more for the United States you should providing evidence to back that up instead of dancing around counterarguments with nonsense rhetoric. And this applies to your rhetorical question about Germany raising taxes again to pay for its healthcare.

[Adam C]

The main reason that I have stopped before was that no matter what I say or links I give you will still say that I am wrong. I can admit pros and cons on both sides but "you all" will never acknowledge any good points of the current American system. I


I guess the reason for that is that you won't actually tell us, let alone provide evidence to support, what the good points are of the American healthcare system. All you've done in this thread is to say that most Americans are satisfied with this system and then attack the idea of universal healthcare using generalizations. And in neither case have you provided evidence to support these assertions.

[Paladin573]

Saying that there are credible links for both sides does not mean that there are credible links for both sides.
So you are saying that there are no links that have credible evidence supporting my side? Come on let us be honest here.

And going on about "play the link game" ignores the issue as to whether the data comes from and whether it's credible. In my case I'm providing hard data about how much each country spends on health care as a percentage of the GDP from the OECD and the U.S. comes out significantly higher. Yep great info there. Even booked marked. Thanks


In any case the burden of proof always falls on the one making the argument, so if you are arguing that universal healthcare will cost more for the United States you should providing evidence to back that up instead of dancing around counterarguments with nonsense rhetoric. Cost is not always monetary. Another rhetorical question: How many links would I have to post to prove my point? 1? 2? 10? 100? Thats what I thought(thats why I wont play the link game...

And this applies to your rhetorical question about Germany raising taxes again to pay for its healthcare. I just read it the other day and found interesting. But, point noted the rhetorical question is annoying when trying to discuss an issue. notice I say discuss you say argue..hmmm

[Paladin573]

I guess the reason for that is that you won't actually tell us, let alone provide evidence to support, what the good points are of the American healthcare system. All you've done in this thread is to say that most Americans are satisfied with this system and then attack the idea of universal healthcare using generalizations. And in neither case have you provided evidence to support these assertions.

And if I showed you polls and links proving that most Americans are happy with the healthcare they receive you will change your mind?

[Adam C]

So you are saying that there are no links that have credible evidence supporting my side? Come on let us be honest here.

Cost is not always monetary. Another rhetorical question: How many links would I have to post to prove my point? 1? 2? 10? 100? Thats what I thought(thats why I wont play the link game...

So you're going to honestly debate the facts? Gotcha, saves me time in the long run.

[Paladin573]

So you're going to honestly debate the facts? Gotcha, saves me time in the long run.
LOL - my thoughts exactly. Like I said I wont play the link game because No matter how many links I show you you will always be "right".

But I do know one thing that I am right on and you can not find any links to prove me wrong on these points. I am happy with the healthcare that I receive. I think the right thing to do is post the bill for all to see before the bureaucrats vote on it.

[bartl]

So why have the majority of American's who've ever talked about healthcare in earshot of me expressed dissatisfaction?
Please note that this is an answer to your question, and is NOT intended to comment on the attitude of the American people towards their insurance plan, by innuendo or otherwise.

It's often said in marketing that people are ten times as likely to complain about a bad marketing experience than they are to describe a good marketing experience. I cannot quote studies about this, but in general, the recommendation from the rule is that a business should go out of its way to avoid a customer from getting a bad experience, and that a business should go way out of its way to ensure a good customer experience.

There are several large retailers that operate by that policy; Nordstrom is a notable one. When Sam Walton was alive, he tried to encourage it at Walmart, but that policy died when his dead body was still warm.

[bartl]

Now I'm not down with rushing Bills through, but I'd actually imagine it's got more to do with stopping the private medical companies that see their profits dissapearing - as no one will pay their outrageous prices anymore - from being able to lobby against, or fear monger to the public about it.
Although I have often noticed that those who scream "Power to the people!" the loudest are the ones who try the hardest to keep power away from the people.

[bartl]

But that isn't impropriety on the level of your sexual harassment hypothetical. And neither the hypothetical unethical behavior nor the real callousness of an individual physician you cite has much to do with a plan to provide insurance coverage to the uninsured.
OK, just to recap: this was the only neurologist that people on Medicaid who lived in Brooklyn could see. As foster parents of brain injured people, we were required by law to have the children in our charge see him, even though we took him to a private neurologist as well. There were numerous complaints about him, but they were all ignored by the bureaucrats in charge. My point was that I have no evidence that universal government health care would be any better.

The example of sexual harassment I gave was the sort that cannot be proven. A couple of the examples of possible abuses I gave were similar in type given by the right-to-choice movement (full disclosure: I believe, in general, that a human being should not be forced by law to be a life support machine) when discussing parental notification laws for minors seeking abortions, even with alternatives of going to a judge.

[bartl]

Added later: And yes, I've seen that this has been mentioned already. Sorry.

And the number is close to 1 out of every 6 Americans (16%) who have no coverage at all.
Actually, that figure includes non-citizens, legally here or otherwise, those who are only temporarily out of coverage (generally younger adults in between jobs), and the self insured (with individual insurance costing $1200 a month in some states, some people just put aside the money and figure that if anything catastrophic happens, they can just declare bankruptcy) as opposed to long-term uninsured citizens.

[bartl]

I'd like to know how people at the "very top" get screwed.
It depends on what they're willing to pay?

[prismablue]

All this makes me think of that poor teenage girl who was suposed to recieve a liver transplant, and her insurance company denied it when her turn came up, only to approve it after her turn on the list past. Not an uncommon practice, to deny a procedure or medication someone needs and is entitled to under their insurance coverage. She died and she's not the only one. Just wait till you have to really use your so-called great insurance. There are no real laws enforced, your provider can and often will deny procedures or medicines you need to survive. have surgery and see how quickly they throw you out of the hospital.

I know people who need lawyers to enforce legal agreements for medical disability settlements because insurance companies routinely deny medical coverage for perscription drugs that can cause death if not taken. Until the lawyer steps in, then it was all a misunderstanding, that happens over and over again.

I don't think anyone who has had personal expierience with real health care in action is going to shed a tear for insurance companies.

[dr. 3]

OK, There were numerous complaints about him, but they were all ignored by the bureaucrats in charge. My point was that I have no evidence that universal government health care would be any better.

Right. But these things sort of things can happen with private insurance (HMOs) as well. And this is emphatically not the same thing as a sexually harrassed patient having no recourse for action.

You or any of those parents could have always reported the physician to the New York Medical Board. I don't know what would have come of it, but filing a complaint was an option you had.


The example of sexual harassment I gave was the sort that cannot be proven. A couple of the examples of possible abuses I gave were similar in type given by the right-to-choice movement (full disclosure: I believe, in general, that a human being should not be forced by law to be a life support machine) when discussing parental notification laws for minors seeking abortions, even with alternatives of going to a judge.

Your missing 2 crucial poinst: (1) the current bill doesn't effect the right to refuse healthcare; (2) "parental notification laws" are laws (whether we agree or not) there is no law forcing competent adults to take (for themselves) healthcare unless committed. In fact, quite the opposite--competent patients always have the right to refuse care for themselves.

[Charles RB]

OK, just to recap: this was the only neurologist that people on Medicaid who lived in Brooklyn could see.

This sounds like something universal coverage would've prevented: he wouldn't have been the only game in town, there'd be others they could've seen.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Oh, he cut and paste from some newspaper. I could go look for more horror stories and scary numbers but you guys get the point.

No I really don't.
I don't think you're quite grasping that I live in one of the countries you're talking about, and we don't have the medical problems you are talking about.
Go look at figures on an independent site, I reccomend google, and you'll see all the figures are roughly the same.


the population of Australia is only around 21.5 million, we probably have more illegals than that.

Good thing you've been quoting percentages then!

And as mentioned before, that means you've got a much larger ta base to spread the funding across.

(And not being citizens, illegals won't be able to use the universal health care system, so as with everything, stop stressing about them).

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Do they economic classes where you live?

Nothing is "FREE" some where someone is paying for it.

How much money do you clear for every dollar earned?

Yeah, they sure do.
I pay $4200 plus 30% of every dollar I make over $34000!
I'm in the middle and have almost quarter of my pay taken every pay cheque - and I'm pretty damn healthy (been two years since I went to a doc), don't need social security and haven't used public schools since I finished my studies six years ago!
And yet I'm more than happy to do it, and grumble when tax cuts are given!

Argument?

Thanks for the clarification of your misleading "argument" statement "free" at the point of delivery. But not free because everyone pays into the same government pot through taxes....

I understand the economics of insurance...

Yeah, but we don't have to check the bank account before going to the doctor!

We don't have to wonder if it's worth going to get that cold checked out, or getting a blood test or seeing about that cough/pain in the gulliver etc.

We just go when we feel crook because the easiest and best kind of treatment is that which starts early!

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

How do you think Her Majesty feels? She's the one who has to do it. I bet it bores her shitless.

IT's the only time she's not covering her husbands racial slurs that anyone listens to her.

'And this year, more than any other, our thoughts must go to those disadvantaged and living in poverty...'

[Charles RB]

IT's the only time she's not covering her husbands racial slurs that anyone listens to her.


I bet a lot of people listened when she was caught moaning that Berlusconi was an annoyingly loud prat.

(Which is still not as fun as the time the King of Spain told Hugo Chavez to shut up and a bunch of other delegates applauded)

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Both sides play the fear monger game

But only one side sees profit off of the sick slipping away.
I'd trust the other side.

Opinion

No, we really all do see your health system as an abomination.
It's why even far right parties have to offer increased spending on it to get votes.

"right Winger" thanks for stereo typing me and name calling..judging me?

Well, the shoe seems to fit.
Or are you a lefty?
(And as a matter of fact your left-wingdemocrat party have more in common with Australian and European right wing parties in practice than they do with the left wing one's).

You're blindly arguing for your health system to stay the same - even admitting it is flawed - despite actual functioning examples of the system being proposed... that screams an ideological argument to me rather than a practical one.

[bartl]

All this makes me think of that poor teenage girl who was suposed to recieve a liver transplant, and her insurance company denied it when her turn came up, only to approve it after her turn on the list past. Not an uncommon practice, to deny a procedure or medication someone needs and is entitled to under their insurance coverage. She died and she's not the only one. Just wait till you have to really use your so-called great insurance. There are no real laws enforced, your provider can and often will deny procedures or medicines you need to survive. have surgery and see how quickly they throw you out of the hospital.
And, if one has a bad system, it is probably the right thing to do to replace it with a better one. On the other hand, it is equally probably the wrong thing to do to replace it with a worse one.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I am not going to play the link game.

You won't provide proof of your claims?

What a shock.

I am sure everyone here is savvy(is that spelled right?) enough to find links supporting their side

Yeah, and then the others are able to look at their sources and see if they are valid or not.

Such as in the Captain Britain thread Bart tried to prove his 'a Muslim Captain Britain is a slap in the face to the British due to the current take over of the country by Muslims' and posted a bunch of youtube videos.
We could check and see that he was taking his sources from a hate group.

Dennis previously had stats that should be cut and dried - until you followed the link and saw that the report wasn't a report but a letter to the editor talking about a report, and the other was from a private healthcare lobby group/think tank.

So you are saying that there are no links that have credible evidence supporting my side? Come on let us be honest here.

The onus is on you for that.

And if I showed you polls and links proving that most Americans are happy with the healthcare they receive you will change your mind?

It would help - the only stat I've seen postd is that 16% aren't covered, and you and Dennis seem to take that to mean that 84% are satisfied with their service... which isn't the same at all.

[bartl]

Your missing 2 crucial poinst: (1) the current bill doesn't effect the right to refuse healthcare; (2) "parental notification laws" are laws (whether we agree or not) there is no law forcing competent adults to take (for themselves) healthcare unless committed. In fact, quite the opposite--competent patients always have the right to refuse care for themselves.
And you are forgetting that we are talking about the U.S. government here.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I bet a lot of people listened when she was caught moaning that Berlusconi was an annoyingly loud prat.

(Which is still not as fun as the time the King of Spain told Hugo Chavez to shut up and a bunch of other delegates applauded)

The last time I liked her was when someone snapped a pic of her breaking a pheasants neck.
All the greenies and everyone had a big whinge, but she refused to comment or apologize, and then in her next appearance wore a hat with feathers in it.

Charles, you better look away for this next bit or risk offense...
Oh, and to the yanks: Our PM broke protocol well before Michelle Obama did...
http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/230195.jpg
The Lizard of Oz in action!

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

And, if one has a bad system, it is probably the right thing to do to replace it with a better one. On the other hand, it is equally probably the wrong thing to do to replace it with a worse one.

But it's not a worse one - they've got the infrastructures of the other systems to base it on - if anything, in theory, it should become the best.
The only thing stopping it is you guys keep voting in dickheads who hi-jack bills.
(The big two parties have to stop fearing third parties and kick people out who don't vote along party lines on key bills).

Oh and Bart, Charles was right - the situation you mentioned wouldn't have happened with a universal coverage.
The GP would be free to refer you to which ever specialist he thought was best suited (and they can't pay each other for it or anything) and you would be able to go back and ask for a referral to another specialist if you felt that one didn't suit.

[bartl]

This sounds like something universal coverage would've prevented: he wouldn't have been the only game in town, there'd be others they could've seen.
Not if some bureaucrat gets to decide which doctor you see, and if you see another doctor, you're off the plan.

[Adam C]

That, plus the fact that the government will set regulations to its competitors and can use tax money to subsidize it's plan will make it virtually impossible for private plans to compete.

Which is funny because private medical and dental insurance still exists and operates in Canada despite having universal healthcare since it only pays for medically necessary care and basic services (like the doctor's appointment). And there's variations province-to-province over what gets covered. Here in Saksatchewnan I have to pay the costs for my own medication, dental appointments, and eye exams if I don't have an insurance plan. In Ontario they have situational criteria (http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/ohip/amb.html) for whether your ambulance ride is covered by public health insurance.

[Charles RB]

The last time I liked her was when someone snapped a pic of her breaking a pheasants neck.
All the greenies and everyone had a big whinge, but she refused to comment or apologize, and then in her next appearance wore a hat with feathers in it.

Fuck yeah.

Our PM broke protocol well before Michelle Obama did...
http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/230195.jpg
The Lizard of Oz in action!

Quote Have I Got News For You:

"Everyone goes on about the protocol, but it's Queenie who's got her hand around Michelle's arse."
"To be fair that's all she can reach on anyone."

Not if some bureaucrat gets to decide which doctor you see, and if you see another doctor, you're off the plan.

That's not the system used in the UK, Canada, or Australia. Is it the proposed one for America?

[Adam C]

OK, just to recap: this was the only neurologist that people on Medicaid who lived in Brooklyn could see. As foster parents of brain injured people, we were required by law to have the children in our charge see him, even though we took him to a private neurologist as well. There were numerous complaints about him, but they were all ignored by the bureaucrats in charge. My point was that I have no evidence that universal government health care would be any better.

How about the fact that Medicare in Canada (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427) does not have similarly inane laws? All this tells me is that Medicaid in the United States is a poorly designed system.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Not if some bureaucrat gets to decide which doctor you see, and if you see another doctor, you're off the plan.

As it's universal, for all citizens, how would they kick you off the plan?

Why would they pick one guy to send all to - that defeats the entire purpose of doing it.


That's not the system used in the UK, Canada, or Australia. Is it the proposed one for America?

No, it's the scare tactic in America - 'there will be a Washington bureaucrat between you and your doctor'.

Charles and Adam - as people with universal health care, are you finding some of these fears and bucking of the system really, really odd?

(My fave is still the chap explaining to us how 'you do actually pay for it'... 'Oh no, I've been living a lie my entire life!')

[prismablue]

And, if one has a bad system, it is probably the right thing to do to replace it with a better one. On the other hand, it is equally probably the wrong thing to do to replace it with a worse one.

It's not a worse system. I see all these commercials about how bad canadian healthcare is and how great ours is, yet we are one of the unhealthiest nations in the civilized world, we have worse health care than 32 other countries who use 'socialized' medicine. Including canada. Which isn't what is being proposed in the first place.

Health care is the one thing that can benefit from having profit motive curtailed or removed from it on the insurance end. It would be nice to get doctors who behave like doctors used to, and not perscription drug salesman.

[Charles RB]

Charles and Adam - as people with universal health care, are you finding some of these fears and bucking of the system really, really odd?


I'm reminded of the House To Astonish podcast where the Scottish guys react with horror to the idea John Ostrander needs a whip-round to not go blind.

"*contempt* But at least they don't have a socialised system like we do, that'd be REALLY terrible! All over Edinburgh, you see people losing their sight!"

"I'm dead right now!"

[dr. 3]

And you are forgetting that we are talking about the U.S. government here.

Your forgetting that's not any sort of response.

Since--you know--we have the U.S. government now, and we have for over 200 years, and they don't really need a health insurance bill to make the totally separate legal changes your talking about, and they haven't done so.

(ok, I suppose the Tuskegee experiments were an example of them doing some of those things but that episode and others led to the laws we've had for over 40 yrs to prevent it.)

[Paladin573]

I really do see your "free" health system as an abomination.


Cancer survival
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001666.html
Waiting times
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html
http://www.ooa.ca/files/economic%20costs%20of%20wait%20time.pdf
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/10/31/health-care-involves-non-monetary-costs-too/
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/december-12-08/the-trouble-with-canadian-healthcare
http://news.scotsman.com/health/Cancer-survivor-confronts-the-.5095291.jp
Lottery for doctors in Canada
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2009/07/23/let_541768.shtml
Operations canceled
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6147701.ece
http://news.scotsman.com/health/Lothian-hospitals-hit-by-eight.4995956.jp
Dirty Hospitals
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/24/mrsa-hospital-hygiene
Ration types of drugs to save on cost or not get cause of red tape
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551216/The-drugs-the-NHS-wont-give-you.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article568605.ece

[bartl]

As it's universal, for all citizens, how would they kick you off the plan?
Because the United States government has a long history of providing services until they become a necessity, and then adding conditions with the threat of removing the services. For example, the federal government has used threat of withholding of highway funds to force states to pass speed limits (and set quotas on speeding tickets) and to set the minimum drinking age to 21. It has used federally guaranteed student loans to be able to set regulations on colleges that accept students who accept the loans. There is no reason to believe that the bureaucracy won't be following standard operating procedure once they get their hooks onto the ability to grant life and death to individual Americans.

[bartl]

I really do see your "free" health system as an abomination.


Cancer survival
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001666.html
Waiting times
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html
http://www.ooa.ca/files/economic%20costs%20of%20wait%20time.pdf
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/10/31/health-care-involves-non-monetary-costs-too/
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/december-12-08/the-trouble-with-canadian-healthcare
http://news.scotsman.com/health/Cancer-survivor-confronts-the-.5095291.jp
Lottery for doctors in Canada
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2009/07/23/let_541768.shtml
Operations canceled
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6147701.ece
http://news.scotsman.com/health/Lothian-hospitals-hit-by-eight.4995956.jp
Dirty Hospitals
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/24/mrsa-hospital-hygiene
Ration types of drugs to save on cost or not get cause of red tape
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551216/The-drugs-the-NHS-wont-give-you.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article568605.ece

Don't you know? Those are all hate sites. I have deduced that, to many members here, a "hate site" is any news source which reports news that does not fit in with their world view.

[Charles RB]

Don't you know? Those are all hate sites.

You are referring to a thread where you actually did link to hate sites.

You linked to things like YouTube accounts owned by British National Party supporters, for fuck's sake.

[Charles RB]

Cancer survival

You'll note that the UK is being beaten by, er, other socialised health care services for the most part. And that the second link attributes the American stats* to higher spending on health care, which is a seperate issue to universal health care.

* And I wouldn't be surprised if there's something that artificially boosts America's standing here.

Waiting times

America has long waiting times - see Stephen Grant, who as I recall lives in Las Vegas (so we're hardly talking about a remote area), stating earlier in this thread that he could wait up to six weeks to see a doctor just to get looked at.

Only two of the links you provide that say America's doing better. One is a journal with a blatant political bias. The other is by a guy comparing his private medical care, i.e. care not everyone can afford to use, to state care i.e. care everyone can. Surprise, there's more of a backlog! He notably isn't comparing private care in the US to private care in Canada.

Nor is he asking a guy with no ability to afford medical insurance how he'd do and comparing that to in Canada. ("I'm alright, Jack!")

Also note the last link you provide says "Cancer experts later said that patients elsewhere in Europe would be "outraged" by having to wait two months to start treatment" - i.e. other socialised health care services run better than Scotland's.


Lottery for doctors in Canada

One link, to someone with an obvious bias. He also mentions long waits in overcrowded emergency rooms... which also happens in America (see Stephen Grant again). And he isn't comparing the statistics to America.

Operations canceled

Is there never a lack of capacity in America? Because the only way you're not going to get that is if either America spends a lot more on space in hospitals - so why would it stop if it switched to a universal service? - or a lot of people aren't going to hospital.

Which, under the US system, doesn't seem unlikely. Which would mean that people aren't having operations there either at all or until the last minute.

Dirty Hospitals

This happened in the UK because of outsourcing the cleaning to private companies instead of keeping it "in house". That's got nothing to do with universal healthcare, that's down to specific idiocy and free-market worship among the civil service and the capitalist companies proving to be shit after all. This could happen under the US system and I wouldn't be surprised if it has in some places.

Ration types of drugs to save on cost or not get cause of red tape

There's still red tape in America. Is there no cost-cutting on drugs there? Honestly?

[Drusilla lives!]

With regard to emergency room care, it's not as good as it once was. Nor is it "free." For example, briefly, when I was about nine or ten I was playing with the other kids on my block and got hit in the back of the head with an old soda can filled with rocks. It ripped a gash in my head and my mother and I went to the emergency room (this was in Brooklyn in the late 70s). We were taken in to see a doctor within maybe 5 minutes of arrival and had x-rays, stitches, and shots done all for $50 (with no one asking if I or my mother had insurance, as far as I can remember)... the followup removal of the stitches (again at the emergency room) was free. Fast forward to 2005 (Staten Island)... I was removing a stubborn bathroom fixture from the wall and it gave loose suddenly, the palm of my hand being pushed against the wall and being ripped open on the fixture's mount.

After trying a local clinic where the doctor on call bandaged the wound (for free), but would not treat it further (stitches are apparently a no no), I was referred to the emergency room of a "local" hospital (it required a lengthly drive). I got there and was omitted to the waiting room, where I sat with my bleeding hand for two hours (and this was a Sunday morning). When I finally got to see the doctor on call one of the first things he asked was if I had health insurance and a primary care physician (which I didn't), I then waited some more (maybe a half hour), until I was then seen by (apparently) a resident who gave me the usual shots and stitched the wound... the actual treatment by the resident wasn't bad really, it just took a long time getting it. I returned a week later and had the stitches removed (as it happened, by the same resident). About a month later I received the bill... $300 for the initial visit and another $100 for the follow up. Needless to say I was shocked. If I remember correctly there was even a surcharge on top of this for both visits (one for each) since they were on Sunday. I was strapped for cash at the time (having lost my job and was in the process of selling my house) and had to write several letters to haggle for some sort of break on the bill (which we settled on something like $250). I was really pissed at the "Sunday" surcharge shit.

That's life for an average citizen who has a genuine emergency (albeit not critical) and needs emergency room care... you travel, you wait and you pay (it's definitely NOT free). And you pay twice as much for half the care. And the doctors... well many of them don't really give a shit anymore either in my opinion, it's just a job.

[Drusilla lives!]

Correction (to my last post), it was $300 for both visits ($600 total) with a surcharge of $50 per visit (another $100). And I ended up paying $280 (after haggling with them for months after the fact). I checked my records (and yes, I still keep the bills as a reminder).

I guess I got off easy... thank God I didn't have to be hospitalized!

BTW, I just got the lowdown on that childhood emergency room visit. Apparently there was a $50 fee, which my mother paid out of pocket, but the cost of the x-rays were extra. Lucky she had found work earlier that year and had just gotten coverage for the both of us... the cost of x-rays were picked up by her health insurance and eventually she was reimbursed for the $50 fee as well. Overall the real cost was probably close to $180 (in today's money, assuming 2% annual inflation).

[bartl]

You are referring to a thread where you actually did link to hate sites.

You linked to things like YouTube accounts owned by British National Party supporters, for fuck's sake.
As one of a large number. But they all seem to have been labeled as hate sites.

[bartl]

After trying a local clinic where the doctor on call bandaged the wound (for free), but would not treat it further (stitches are apparently a no no),
For fear of lawsuits.

I was referred to the emergency room of a "local" hospital (it required a lengthly drive). I got there and was omitted to the waiting room, where I sat with my bleeding hand for two hours (and this was a Sunday morning). When I finally got to see the doctor on call one of the first things he asked was if I had health insurance and a primary care physician (which I didn't), I then waited some more (maybe a half hour), until I was then seen by (apparently) a resident who gave me the usual shots and stitched the wound... the actual treatment by the resident wasn't bad really, it just took a long time getting it. I returned a week later and had the stitches removed (as it happened, by the same resident). About a month later I received the bill... $300 for the initial visit and another $100 for the follow up.
You had to pay for all the tests they have to run to avoid lawsuits. And all the people who they treat and don't pay.

[Charles RB]

As one of a large number. But they all seem to have been labeled as hate sites.

That's because many were fucking dodgy.

Why are you misrepresenting what happened?

[bartl]

Here is what I would like to see the American Federal Government do for health care:

1) Create a uniform health insurance code, which, like the Uniform Commercial Code, creates a standard for state insurance, hopefully getting rid of the crazy quilt of regulations insurance companies (and potential customers) have to deal with.

2) Make a law which allows people to buy insurance out-of-state from any company that conforms with the uniform health insurance code.

3) The code should include language making it harder for insurance companies to exclude non-businesses that wish to offer group insurance for their membership. Notably, not-for-profit professional organizations should be allowed easier access to group insurance, so that independent business people and contractors can have access to group insurance plans.

4) Include in the code some sort of provisions to facilitate catastrophic health insurance plans. If there is a nationally mandated insurance, it should be catastrophic health insurance, although HMO's which include it are fine. The government may provide health insurance, but it should ONLY be catastrophic.

5) There should also be a degree of tort reform; note that the problem with malpractice suits is not the money won in the suits, but the number of unnecessary procedures and tests which are performed to avoid lawsuits.

6) Funds should be allocated for government run medical schools, so that the artificial short supply of doctors can be rectified, and more doctors put where they are needed. Possibly as a form of national service, with a requirement for working in the service for a certain number of years after graduation.

[Village Idiot]

But ruining a good thing for those 16 percent doesn't seem like a good deal, unless you're one of those 16 percent. And a lot of those people are illegals, ...

No, the numbers are for US citizens. Don't try to make this an argument about immigration reform.

[Village Idiot]

You guys should join the commonwealth.

Things really picked up after you all left in a fit.

That's actually pretty funny. :biggrin:

[Village Idiot]

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2009/07/23/let_541768.shtml

That "article" you quoted is a letter to the editor, and therefore is inadmissible. Any @$$hole can write a letter to an editor and get it printed.

Edited to add: I see that Funky already told you this, but I'm leaving it here anyway.

[Village Idiot]

Please do not assume my thoughts or put words in my mouth.


{{Too obvious...must...resist...getting wesker...arghhh!}}

Well, somebody has to.

:cool:

[Village Idiot]

And scrapping what we have ...

Nobody said we are scrapping what we have. That's a false argument being pushed by the very profitable insurance companies. And their toadies, the Republican Party.

[Village Idiot]

The United States pays the highest percentage of its GDP in terms of healthcare (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/20/2789777.pdf) (13.9%), and it is the only industrialized nation without universal healthcare. And while Germany and Switzerland weren't far behind it at 10.7% and 10.9% respectively, in Canada the costs were 9.7%, 7.6% for the UK, 7.9% in Australia, and 7.6% in Japan. Mexico, which is awash in corruption as I can tell you, only pays 6.6%! Go to the second page of the link and you'll see a chart comparing these costs. Even at 13.9% to 10.9% the U.S. costs for healthcare a staggering in how much higher they are than Switzerland. So your going on about increased costs strikes me as baseless.

Saved for posterity.

[Village Idiot]

Because the United States government has a long history of providing services until they become a necessity, and then adding conditions with the threat of removing the services. For example, the federal government has used threat of withholding of highway funds to force states to pass speed limits (and set quotas on speeding tickets) and to set the minimum drinking age to 21. It has used federally guaranteed student loans to be able to set regulations on colleges that accept students who accept the loans. There is no reason to believe that the bureaucracy won't be following standard operating procedure once they get their hooks onto the ability to grant life and death to individual Americans.

All those things were for the benefit of society.

Lower speeds means lesser injuries and fewer fatalities. That means less paperwork for police, fewer emergency crews needed, fewer medical personnel, cheaper insurance for autos, etc.

Higher minimum drinking age does the same. Many 18 year olds aren't mature enough when it comes to drinking and driving.

Regulations about entry into colleges levels the playing field between those who could afford to got o the better schools and those who don't.

All three things greatly benefit society.

Society being everybody, not just white people.

[Village Idiot]

Here is what I would like to see the American Federal Government do for health care:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

Pages and pages claiming government is too big, yet now you want to add more government? You confuse me.

[Charles RB]

Higher minimum drinking age does the same.

We have the age at 18 and so do many other countries, I don't think we've got that much higher fatalities and damage caused by drunk students.

[prismablue]

Pages and pages claiming government is too big, yet now you want to add more government? You confuse me.

Republicans had the past 8 years to do something about healthcare reform, to use ther ideas and they did nothing. This is what bothers me about republicans:Small government. Decreased spending. Personal responsibility. Paying off debt. But when they are in power what do they do? Increase government size, increase spending, increase what we owe. These things only apply when somebody else has the checkbook. It's sickening.

Regan and Bush 1, left a nice fat deficit. Clinton ramped up spending and left a surplus. Gee, how did that happen? because of what he invested in.

Directlyy speaking about healthcare, if the plan is so bad we need to stop elected officials from recieving it.

[dr. 3]

Here is what I would like to see the American Federal Government do for health care: [snip] .

What you suggest is certainly better than the current system.

However, limiting universal insurance to "catastrophic only" leads a lot a gap for people not be able to afford healthcare.

It also insures that people will continue to use the ED as their physician, and not take care of the chronic illnesses that kill most people (hypertension, heart disease, diabetes) because preventive care wouldn't be taken care of.

Likewise, it would unsure people wouldn't get help for susbtance abuse issues which are a significant cause of morbidity, mortality, missed work days, loss of productivity, etc. and likwise physiciatric issues.

[Village Idiot]

We have the age at 18 and so do many other countries, I don't think we've got that much higher fatalities and damage caused by drunk students.

Our 18-year-olds can fight in wars and vote, but can't drink. If there is anything that will drive you to drink, it's war and politics. :wink:

[bartl]

All those things were for the benefit of society.
So, if you think it benefits society, then ideas like freedom and law can go to hell?
Society being everybody, not just white people.
Ah. Now I see the reason behind your alias.

[bartl]

Pages and pages claiming government is too big, yet now you want to add more government? You confuse me.
Except that all of these are less invasive, makes insurance insurance, and fits in with the Constitution.

[prismablue]

Except that all of these are less invasive, makes insurance insurance, and fits in with the Constitution.

Anything can fit within the constitution/or not depending on interpretations. The writers of said document never dreamed of such things when they wrote it btw, and has been radified to deal with things that were unforseen at the time.

[Crowforge]

You should not die because you have no money.

[Village Idiot]

So, if you think it benefits society, then ideas like freedom and law can go to hell?

Ah. Now I see the reason behind your alias.

1. True freedom can only be found under Socialism.

2. Ah, resorting to personal shots. Cool. I can dig it.

[Crowforge]

When does lawlessness benefit society?
Who's even suggesting that?

[bartl]

You should not die because you have no money.
Except that hospitals in the United States cannot deny medical care because the patient has no money.

[bartl]

1. True freedom can only be found under Socialism.

2. Ah, resorting to personal shots. Cool. I can dig it.
1) Ah. "Freedom is slavery." I get it.

2) You call yourself and idiot, and you demonstrated idiocy. At least I HOPE it was idiocy.

[Paladin573]

Nobody said we are scrapping what we have. That's a false argument being pushed by the very profitable insurance companies. And their toadies, the Republican Party.

Yes the addition of a federal ran insurance program is not going to change what I have.

[Paladin573]

Pages and pages claiming government is too big, yet now you want to add more government? You confuse me.

Gee whiz....Your thinking that the federal government is not already up to their ears in the healthcare involvement- I believe Bart is saying that the federal government needs to change how it is involved with it...

We are not saying keep things the exact same. We saying change is needed but to extreme nature that a federal ran system would bring about.

[Paladin573]

1. True freedom can only be found under Socialism. You have got to be kidding!!!

[bartl]

Yes the addition of a federal ran insurance program is not going to change what I have.
Then you haven't read the fine print.

[dr. 3]

Except that hospitals in the United States cannot deny medical care because the patient has no money.

In fact they can and do.

What they can't deny is emergency care because of a patient's inability to pay.

So if I'm a hospital, I can stabilize your hypertensive crisis and street you to die sometime in the near future from untreated hypertension.

If you need a liver transplant for example and don't have insurance or other means of payment, you don't get put on the list. Of course, one could always apply for Medicaid, but that takes months and one could die waiting.

[Village Idiot]

So, some of you guys don't like Socialism, eh? Watch this video. 2 minutes, 16 seconds, so it won't take long. Yes, it's about health care, but it really shows how much of your life is run through Socialism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-camp/health-care-is-not-the-on_b_242181.html

[DavidAllred]

I spent the week at a camp with a nurse, a social worker, and a hospital admin person (a different hospital than the nurse). We had some great talks.

Everyone agreed something had to be done. Both parties that worked in hospitals were against the plan and said that most everyone in the hospitals were against it. They cited a lot of reasons, but the one that kept creeping back up were the hundreds of emergency room visits from substance abuse overdoses and accidents pouring in every week by clients who already don't pay a nickel for service, sending their facilities into the red more and more, and stretching personel to the limit with long hours, etc. Part of the argument was that when something is free, it's really taken advantage of and a general malise falls over people with regards to their own personal health... sort of like knowing that if my car was going to get free repair anytime I wanted it, I'd be less likely to worry about backing into stuff.

The social worker was all for it, she works with the elderly and sees so many end of life folks falling through the cracks with no care at all.

Everyone at the table (we talked two or three nights about it after the campers went to bed) wants reform. It seemed like the hesitation was all about checks and balances. I guess we'll see what the Senate does to the bill, but I found it interesting that the ones closest to the situation thought it was a bad idea.

[Paladin573]

Then you haven't read the fine print.

LOL I was trying to sarcastic

[Paladin573]

In fact they can and do.

What they can't deny is emergency care because of a patient's inability to pay.

So if I'm a hospital, I can stabilize your hypertensive crisis and street you to die sometime in the near future from untreated hypertension.

If you need a liver transplant for example and don't have insurance or other means of payment, you don't get put on the list. Of course, one could always apply for Medicaid, but that takes months and one could die waiting.

And let me guess that patients are never denied anything in a a "universal" health system.

Never denied their choice of medicine never denied an operation never ever denied anything they can get it ALL!!!

[dr. 3]

And let me guess that patients are never denied anything in a a "universal" health system.

Never denied their choice of medicine never denied an operation never ever denied anything they can get it ALL!!!

No, let me guess--you think that passes for wit.

You might want to dial it back there, as your level of snarkiness is unwarranted.

I was responding to a factual error in a previous post.

Now, obviously no system exists without choices being made about limited resources, but before you or anybody else decides what side they're on you might want to have an accurrate picture of the current choices being made.

Without that information, how can you be so sure that the current system is optimal?

[dr. 3]

IEveryone agreed something had to be done. Both parties that worked in hospitals were against the plan and said that most everyone in the hospitals were against it. They cited a lot of reasons, but the one that kept creeping back up were the hundreds of emergency room visits from substance abuse overdoses and accidents pouring in every week by clients who already don't pay a nickel for service, sending their facilities into the red more and more, and stretching personel to the limit with long hours, etc. Part of the argument was that when something is free, it's really taken advantage of and a general malise falls over people with regards to their own personal health .

I'm not so sure that makes sense, People are now incentivized to go to the ED 'cause its (relatively) free. But the ER's often a hassle, what with long waits. So they wait until its absolutely neccessary.

Now, with some sort of universal coverage, people could go to a primary care physician free and would have no need to utilize the ED.

It would seem to me it would decrease the number of people stacking up in ERs.

And while we're at it, if money was put into drug treatment, they'd probably have fewer ODs in their ED.

Given the level at which Americans without insurance take care of themselves, I really don't see how giving universal coverage could make "malaise" any more prevalent.


I guess we'll see what the Senate does to the bill, but I found it interesting that the ones closest to the situation thought it was a bad idea.

Well, I'm a physician as well, and while I don't think the Senate bill is optimal (though I can't claim comprehensive knowledge of it), I think some sort of universal coverage is essential to help ameliorate the exact stuff they're bitching about.

[DavidAllred]

I'm not so sure that makes sense, People are now incentivized to go to the ED 'cause its (relatively) free. But the ER's often a hassle, what with long waits. So they wait until its absolutely neccessary.

Now, with some sort of universal coverage, people could go to a primary care physician free and would have no need to utilize the ED.

It would seem to me it would decrease the number of people stacking up in ERs.

I think that's a valid point, and if care began earlier in life for these patients, then we might see some changes in the long run. Right now, there's some habitual issues that I don't think can be cured until we have a generation of insured children who've seen doctor's regularly for most of their life and recognize the benefit.

And while we're at it, if money was put into drug treatment, they'd probably have fewer ODs in their ED.

But the only problem there is that treatment doesn't work really well. Of course it is ten times better than putting them in jail, which is where they often end up. But recidivism rates in both the prison and the rehab programs indicates to me that there really isn't much we can do but tread water. My father-in-law died basically homeless two weeks ago, and he resisted every "help" the system threw at him. In fact, he knew how to work it to his advantage.

Personally, I think society should cover every American citizen through age 24. I would personally ante up my tax dollar for that. Applicants could file for extensions based on disability and continuing education (so we keep covering students). Covering the impoverished beyond age 24 makes sense too, but I wouldn't dangle the carrot without some kind of motivational string... both for the unemployed and the businesses that employ them. And if my tax dollar is going to help anyone, I am personally in favor of mandatory drug testing as a pre-req for continued coverage.

My biggest problem with the bill is that it is designed in a way that stresses penalty, rather than reward. The feds should reward businesses who cover their employees... provide some incentive rather than offering up threats. But that's just my take.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Don't you know? Those are all hate sites. I have deduced that, to many members here, a "hate site" is any news source which reports news that does not fit in with their world view.

Dear Bart,

You linked to videos made by people who belong to racial hate groups.
You used it to prove your claim that it is easy to reasonably believe that the British are feeling under threat to a Muslim take over, and their government is coddling it.
You also, later, then posted some news stories posted on youtube to back it up.
At least one of these after the first minute shot holes in your argument (with Muslim people saying 'Shwa?', and another was actually an attack on an education policy - much like the 'dirty hospital' article linked to).
(Also worth pointing out that you had to go back and scour for more articles killed your point about what a reasonable assumption it was).
Therefore, I think it quite odd that you now try and blame us for being hardliners with our heads in the sand, when it was you who argued a point that not only could you not back up, you were arguing it with people from the country in question.

Love,
Ben.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Don't you know? Those are all hate sites. I have deduced that, to many members here, a "hate site" is any news source which reports news that does not fit in with their world view.

Dear Bart,

You linked to videos made by people who belong to racial hate groups.
You used it to prove your claim that it is easy to reasonably believe that the British are feeling under threat to a Muslim take over, and their government is coddling it.
You also, later, then posted some news stories posted on youtube to back it up.
At least one of these after the first minute shot holes in your argument (with Muslim people saying 'Shwa?', and another was actually an attack on an education policy - much like the 'dirty hospital' article linked to).
(Also worth pointing out that you had to go back and scour for more articles killed your point about what a reasonable assumption it was).
Therefore, I think it quite odd that you now try and blame us for being hardliners with our heads in the sand, when it was you who argued a point that not only could you not back up, you were arguing it with people from the country in question.

Love,
Ben.

[Charles RB]

the one that kept creeping back up were the hundreds of emergency room visits from substance abuse overdoses and accidents pouring in every week by clients who already don't pay a nickel for service

People going to the emergency room for emergencies?! Holy shit!


Never denied their choice of medicine never denied an operation never ever denied anything they can get it ALL!!!

They're denied a lot less, yes.

[DavidAllred]

People going to the emergency room for emergencies?! Holy shit!

Look, you can poke fun at the situation all you want, but that really doesn't change the fact that drug abuse is one of the primary drains on our society, particularly the health care industry. According to a 2005 study, we spend almost one-tenth of our combined federal and state budgets on mopping up substance abuse issues, which would be more than enough to pay for solid health care plans for needy Americans if eliminated. Only 2 percent of all that money spent is put in prevention.

The total cost in the NYT report doesn't include other damages to our society either -- that's just the government spending. The cost to the rest us is amplified through insurance (both health and auto) as well as millions in charitable spending that could be allocated in other manners.

With this kind of drain on our economy and populace, why wouldn't it be addressed in a "comprehensive" health care package that is going to cost us another trillion dollars? How much money can we possibly throw at the problem before we take prevention and intervention seriously?

Bottom line for me is that we should at least address part of the problem by spending money to eliminate the 500 billion dollar per year drain on health care. This could be done by requiring drug testing for anyone receiving "free" services.

Our community has been using the Charity Check (http://www.charityck.com/) network for several years with great results. While it doesn't allow for mandatory drug testing and would infinitely more effective if it did, it has allowed area charities and churches to network by sharing information on the people using the resources so that different intervention strategies can be used to meet chronic drains on charitable assistance (and in my experience 99 times out a 100 they are substance abusers). Why the government doesn't get on board with the program is kind of a mystery if you ask me.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/28addiction.html?_r=2&ref=us

http://psychcentral.com/news/2009/01/06/substance-abuse-ups-health-care-costs/3585.html

[Charles RB]

Look, you can poke fun at the situation all you want

I certainly will when you include "and accidents" with substance abuse, and when substance abuse can include students drinking too much when they first become legal.


Bottom line for me is that we should at least address part of the problem by spending money to eliminate the 500 billion dollar per year drain on health care. This could be done by requiring drug testing for anyone receiving "free" services.

Are you advocating banning people from using emergency care or charging them for emergency care if they've taken drugs?

Not just taken drugs just then, IIRC it'll show up in the system if they took drugs recently even if that has nothing to do with why they might be in hospital. Hey kids, don't smoke some weed, or you'll be fucked if someone stabs you the next day!

[Paladin573]

No, let me guess--you think that passes for wit.

You might want to dial it back there, as your level of snarkiness is unwarranted.

I was responding to a factual error in a previous post.
True, sorry about that. I hope someone laughed


Now, obviously no system exists without choices being made about limited resources, but before you or anybody else decides what side they're on you might want to have an accurrate picture of the current choices being made.

Without that information, how can you be so sure that the current system is optimal?

Everyone needs to be educated on the choice at hand. They need to understand the issues the currents system in place has and they also need to understand the issues of the alternative system being offered has.

[DavidAllred]

Are you advocating banning people from using emergency care or charging them for emergency care if they've taken drugs?

I certainly wouldn't advocate banning them from care, but I certainly would advocate banning them from free care after a second or third offense.

ETA: And students drinking too much when they first become legal IS substance abuse. Maybe not long term substance abuse, but it is abuse none the less. We have young and old people alike in our community on their third and fourth DUI's. At some point these individuals need to be put out of our misery, because all the rehab and community service in the world isn't curing the problem. Sad thing is that if they had three or four weapon discharges toward other people they'd be locked up for a long time. But what we do now is slap them on the wrist and put the gun right back in their hand.

15,000 DUI related deaths last year alone and 5 million injuries costing approximately $230 billion dollars. I don't think its out of line to say we have a pretty serious problem on our hands. And that's just alcohol.

[dr. 3]

But the only problem there is that treatment doesn't work really well. Of course it is ten times better than putting them in jail, which is where they often end up. But recidivism rates in both the prison and the rehab programs indicates to me that there really isn't much we can do but tread water. My father-in-law died basically homeless two weeks ago, and he resisted every "help" the system threw at him. In fact, he knew how to work it to his advantage.

That's not quite true or, I suppose, it depends on your prospective. Drug treatment is affective in a variety of ways (reduced crime, reduced lost productivity, etc.). This has been born out by numerous studies.

However, since drug dependence is a chronic illness, long-term remission is about the same as other chronic diseases (hypertension, diabetes)--i.e. about 1/3 of patients acheve it. Better results would require lifelong changes and humans don't tend to want to make those without a lot of incentive.

The difference between drug dependence and those problems is that we judge the effectiveness of daibetic management while a person is under the care of a physician and taking medication. Addiction treatment on the other hand, we tend to want to look at after the person "completed" treatment and is doing nothing what so ever to maintain sobriety--and then they relapse and we say treatment doesn't work.

[Adam C]

They cited a lot of reasons, but the one that kept creeping back up were the hundreds of emergency room visits from substance abuse overdoses and accidents pouring in every week by clients who already don't pay a nickel for service, sending their facilities into the red more and more, and stretching personel to the limit with long hours, etc.

The resource issue would be addressed by the very structure of a single-payer system since the treatment would be paid for through tax dollars rather than individual payers, which are as your own example shows, can leave financing more uncertain. As is Canada didn't start having problems with its health services until cuts were made under the Chretien government as part of wider cuts in government services in order to bring the deficits accrued by Trudeau and Mulroney under control.

[king mob]

Dear Bart,

You linked to videos made by people who belong to racial hate groups.
You used it to prove your claim that it is easy to reasonably believe that the British are feeling under threat to a Muslim take over, and their government is coddling it.
You also, later, then posted some news stories posted on youtube to back it up.
At least one of these after the first minute shot holes in your argument (with Muslim people saying 'Shwa?', and another was actually an attack on an education policy - much like the 'dirty hospital' article linked to).
(Also worth pointing out that you had to go back and scour for more articles killed your point about what a reasonable assumption it was).
Therefore, I think it quite odd that you now try and blame us for being hardliners with our heads in the sand, when it was you who argued a point that not only could you not back up, you were arguing it with people from the country in question.

Love,
Ben.


Dear Funky

I'm still waiting for Bart to show how the Labour government is in the pocket of Muslims, even though I asked him to prove it again & again & again.

Lots of luv

KM.

[king mob]

I certainly wouldn't advocate banning them from care, but I certainly would advocate banning them from free care after a second or third offense.

There's a ongoing argument as what to do with people who do go out every Thursday, Friday & Saturday night & get so pissed they end up in A & E. One argument is to direct them to special units set up to deal with drunken emergencies rather than regular emergencies, but the problem with that means that you have 999 operators deciding who deserves the first class care, & who gets thrown in with the pissheads.

You'd also have many doctors and nurses in the NHS protest about cutting off a service, even if it is to someone whose an ungrateful bastard.

However a lot of people who end up in A & E at weekends tend to be innocent bystanders who might have had a drink, but they've been dragged in to violence, or they're the direct victim of violence. The problem actually lies with how most of our city centres are structured now, and how alcohol is seen by our culture and the young especially.

[Adam C]

Part of the argument was that when something is free, it's really taken advantage of and a general malise falls over people with regards to their own personal health...

Is there any evidence that supports this fear though? Using the WHO Statistical system (http://www.who.int/whosis/en/) and just comparing the U.S. and several other nations that have Universal healthcare under 'Mortality and Burden of Disease' I find that the mortality rate for both sexes in Canada in 2000 was 81 to the U.S.' 114. France was the closest with 100, Germany 94, the UK 88, and Sweden 72. In 2006 the United States went down to 109, but Canada beat it at 72, Germany 81, France 91, the UK 80, and Sweden 64.

For 2002 Canada had higher mortality rate for cancer at 138 to the U.S.' 134, as did France (142), Germany (141), and the UK (143), but Sweden was significantly lower than all of them at 116 and it spends the highest proportion of its GDP on healthcare next to the United States in a single-payer system. Most of these countries also beat out the U.S. on most other mortality indices for things like cardiovascular disease (only Germany was higher) or communicable diseases. (I can post the states later if you want, it's just that this post is getting long.)

Of course correlation does not equal causation, but if you're arguing that a general malaise will set in over people's personal health because of free healthcare then we might expect higher mortality rates for countries with universal healthcare, but that's not the case. In fact based on this map (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7151813.stm) provided by the Beeb 30-40% of the U.S. population is obese to Canada and much of Europe's 10-20%, though the UK closes in at 20-30%. So if universal healthcare would promote a general malaise, I'm not seeing support for the idea so far just from looking at some pretty basic statistics related to health and mortality.

[Adam C]

Look, you can poke fun at the situation all you want, but that really doesn't change the fact that drug abuse is one of the primary drains on our society, particularly the health care industry. According to a 2005 study, we spend almost one-tenth of our combined federal and state budgets on mopping up substance abuse issues, which would be more than enough to pay for solid health care plans for needy Americans if eliminated. Only 2 percent of all that money spent is put in prevention.

I certainly wouldn't advocate banning them from care, but I certainly would advocate banning them from free care after a second or third offense.

Personally I'm surprised you are advocating this as a solution, when by your own admission only 2% of the money spent on dealing with drug abuse is spent on prevention, though NYT article says that 2% is only spent on prevention and treatment as well. The rest is either spent on direct health care costs for those suffering from problems from abuse or law enforcement, including incarceration.

Meanwhile Portugual decriminalized the use (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization) and possession of illicit street drugs back in 2001 and shifted its efforts to treatment and harm prevention. The country saw significant drops in overdose deaths and HIV infections from sharing dirty needles and as Glenn Greenwald notes: (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/26/portugal/)

In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

When Canada experimented with such harm reduction measures in Vancouver's lower east-side by allowing the Insite safe injection site to operate and found it had visible positive effects, including not only reducing overdose deaths and infections, but getting more people into treatment services. It has been supported by Canadian Medical Association (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/171/7/731.pdf), University of British Columbia (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1111154097459_46/), the WHO (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article701599.ece) and even criminologists hired by the RCMP (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/08/14/bc-sis-report.html) to research the issue. (as well as several other peer reviewed studies) and even the Vancouver police and Mayor got behind it after initially opposing it.

Why the government doesn't get on board with the program is kind of a mystery if you ask me.

Presumably for the same reason that the Harper government in Canada wants to shut down Insite despite its proven benefits, ideological attachment to a puritanical, enforcement-based approach that has repeatedly been shown to be a failure.

[DavidAllred]

Is there any evidence that supports this fear though? Using the WHO Statistical system (http://www.who.int/whosis/en/) and just comparing the U.S. and several other nations that have Universal healthcare under 'Mortality and Burden of Disease' I find that the mortality rate for both sexes in Canada in 2000 was 81 to the U.S.' 114. France was the closest with 100, Germany 94, the UK 88, and Sweden 72. In 2006 the United States went down to 109, but Canada beat it at 72, Germany 81, France 91, the UK 80, and Sweden 64.

The biggest issue I have with the comparisons is that there are significant cultural differences between the populations, so the assumption that a methodology employed elsewhere is actually going to work here is a stretch. For example, incarceration in Japan is utterly different than in the United States. Meaning it actually works. Violence in Japanese prisons is entirely different than here, and I suspect elsewhere too.

The differences I suspect come from America's overwhelming and often incapcitating sense of individualism and entitlement, which I don't believe is present in other places as much as it is here. We're dealing with two seperate cultures as evidenced by all sorts of data, including the data you present. Even in countries with lower drinking age regulations, we don't see the kind of abuse we see here among teenagers. It's the old "Wet Paint, Do Not Touch" mentality at work and the Taoist saying may in fact be true -- the more laws you have, the less virtuous people will be. Legalization may just be the ticket, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should foot the bill for poor choices-- at least not past the second or third slip.

I'd be totally juiced about seeing prevention and treatment hospitals take the place of prison sentences, provided they're effective. Totally on-board. And if we funded programs well enough to funnel the first decade of cohorts through programs, then committed ourselves to re-evalute their effectiveness, then I'd be for that too.

But no one is really talking that way. This legislation isn't even talking about the issue. It doesn't seem to address the strain of substance abuse on the system at all, and my only point is that it should be part of the discussion if people are expected to take it seriously.

[Crowforge]

Canada is less culturally different from us than the east coast is from the west.

[Adam C]

The differences I suspect come from America's overwhelming and often incapcitating sense of individualism and entitlement, which I don't believe is present in other places as much as it is here.

That's possibly a factor, though I can't say that this is very strong reasoning since you've left those cultural factors unexplained. And you might have a point on the Japanese prisons, but Japan's culture isn't as that comparable to the U.S. And certainly not as comparable to the United States as are the cultures of Canada or the UK who hold roughly similar basic ideas of the role of the individual and their rights in society even with certain noticeable differs in prevailing political attitudes.

Legalization may just be the ticket...

Of drugs? I didn't even advocate legalization as much as decriminalization of use and possession of personal amounts while shifting the emphasis over to treatment and prevention.

...my only point is that it should be part of the discussion if people are expected to take it seriously.

So the matter should only be raised in discussions over policy if the policy makers take it seriously?

[DavidAllred]

So the matter should only be raised in discussions over policy if the policy makers take it seriously?

"It" for me meant legislation. If the legislation is going to be taken seriously, then substance abuse should be part of said legislation since it accounts for such a serious draw on the overall resources. To my knowledge, substance abuse hasn't been discussed in the legislation at all, in spite of its overwhelming presence throughout the issue.

[Charles RB]

Why DOES the US have lower cancer mortality rates than everyone but Sweden when all the other figures are higher? That's weird. Is there another factor involved?

EDIT: Wait, just thought of something: if we have lower adult mortality rates and such, we'll get more old people than America. Since old people are more susceptible to cancers, could that be what's doing it?

[Crowforge]

We die of other stuff?

[Dennis]

We die of other stuff?

Gunshots, car accidents. Getting shot at while driving.

[Dennis]

Canada is less culturally different from us than the east coast is from the west.

Blacks are 2.5% of the population. Are there any in Saskatchewan?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Dear Funky

I'm still waiting for Bart to show how the Labour government is in the pocket of Muslims, even though I asked him to prove it again & again & again.

Lots of luv

KM.

To My Dearest Gideon Stargrave,

Why should he if you're going to keep persecuting him like that?
He never said that they WERE in the pocket of Muslims, just that a reasonable person could make a reasonable assumption that the democratically elected government of Britain were bowing and appeasing 'radical Jihadists' (a non-offensive term that just SOUNDS offensive) were based on you tube videos - though not necessarily the one's he linked to.
It was all done just to show us how other people think - until he found that second lot of videos anyway, then it was on for keeps.
Either way, I think it's very unfair of you to keep hounding the man for proof - he makes statements, not answers questions or looks into things!
If he did, he wouldn't be able to judge an entire nations possible NEW health system based on one personal experience with a bad doctor, he'd have to look at all the other countries with their functional similar systems.

Sincerely Yours,
FGJ.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Why DOES the US have lower cancer mortality rates than everyone but Sweden when all the other figures are higher? That's weird. Is there another factor involved?

EDIT: Wait, just thought of something: if we have lower adult mortality rates and such, we'll get more old people than America. Since old people are more susceptible to cancers, could that be what's doing it?

You'd all have less than us, what with that big hole in the ozone layers above our heads, and our country being located inside the sun and all.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Why DOES the US have lower cancer mortality rates than everyone but Sweden when all the other figures are higher? That's weird. Is there another factor involved?

EDIT: Wait, just thought of something: if we have lower adult mortality rates and such, we'll get more old people than America. Since old people are more susceptible to cancers, could that be what's doing it?

You'd all have less than us, what with that big hole in the ozone layers above our heads, and our country being located inside the sun and all.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

But no one is really talking that way. This legislation isn't even talking about the issue. It doesn't seem to address the strain of substance abuse on the system at all, and my only point is that it should be part of the discussion if people are expected to take it seriously.

That's because they are trying to overhaul an entire system, not deal with issue of the week.
You want them to stop, derail the process, and work out a system for habitual users and abusers, rather than work out a system for all the law abiding citizens in the country?

Small steps mate.
Get the system in for all, and then look at the problems with those abusing it.

[bartl]

factual error [/U]in a previous post.

Speaking of which, in looking for the specifics, it looks like the truth lies in between our accounts.

Individual Physicians (circa 2002): http://www.physiciansnews.com/law/202.html

As far as hospitals, other than emergency care, states differ on the requirements of hospitals to provide care when the patient can't pay. California appears to have the most inclusive laws, in that regard.

[bartl]

I'm still waiting for Bart to show how the Labour government is in the pocket of Muslims, even though I asked him to prove it again & again & again.
And yet, you fail to see the futility of asking someone to prove a contention he or she never made.

[Crowforge]

Blacks are 2.5% of the population. Are there any in Saskatchewan?
Black isn't a culture. How many are in Wisconsin?

[Dennis]

Black isn't a culture. How many are in Wisconsin?

i just read something about wisconsin

Take two very different states: Wisconsin and New York. In Wisconsin, a family can buy a health-insurance plan for as little as $3,000 a year. The price for a basic family plan in the Empire State: $12,000. The stark difference has nothing to do with each state’s health sector as a share of its economy (14.8 percent in Wisconsin as of 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, and 13.9 percent in New York). Rather, the difference has to do with how each state’s insurance pools are regulated. In New York State, politicians have tried to run the health-insurance system from Albany, forcing insurers to deliver complex Cadillac plans to every subscriber for political reasons, driving up costs. Wisconsin’s insurers are far freer to sell plans at prices consumers want.

The gulf in insurance-premium prices among American states is a sign that too much government intervention—not too little—is what’s distorting prices from one market to the next. The key to reducing health-care costs for patients, then, is to promote competition, not to dictate insurance requirements from on high. Unfortunately, a government-run insurance plan is the core of ObamaCare.

from same column:

As the White House tries to get health-care reform through Congress, it has repeatedly pointed out that the health sector constitutes 16 percent of America’s GDP. The implication is that this is a bad thing. But why? Officially, the logic is this: the larger health care’s share of the economy, the higher the per-unit cost of care to the government, to employers, and to you. In Canada, for instance, health care is just 10 percent of GDP. Further, our northern neighbor covers almost every citizen and we don’t. The U.S., then, seems to be paying far more to insure a smaller share of its population—to be paying more for less.

There are several flaws in this reasoning, first and foremost its claim that a dollar spent is a dollar wasted. America’s health-care sector is larger partly because, unlike Canada’s, it includes for-profit corporations. Consider the benefit: companies invest billions each year developing innovative, life-saving drugs and devices. Are these expenses really something to lament? Similarly, is it a disadvantage that the U.S. has 11 percent more practicing doctors per capita than Canada? Or 15 percent more nurses? Is it a problem that the United States has almost four times as many MRI scanners per capita as Canada does, or that we preventively test more of our population for common cancers? Hardly. The fact that America’s health-care system is larger, more advanced, and better staffed than a system with rationed care is an advantage. To pretend otherwise is just a tactic to make the reform pill easier to swallow.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

And yet, you fail to see the futility of asking someone to prove a contention he or she never made.

That's right - you only said the following...

There are many Muslims in Britain who do not see themselves as British, but as an occupying force, and that the government payments they receive is a form of "dhimmi tax". There is also the issue of the government actually supporting forced marriage, even polygamous ones. A couple of years back, a member of Parliament was blocked from visiting a largely Islamic community in London, with the idea being that he had no business entering Islamic territory.

While there are far more moderate Muslims than radical ones, the radical ones have created sufficient fear among the moderates that they are afraid to publicly oppose them, creating an illusion of most of the British Muslims making common cause with the radical jihadists. The British government's continually giving in to the radicals does not give the moderates much motivation to change this position.

To many, making a Muslim "Captain Britain", even one who bucks the trend, is too reminiscent of the effort to turn Great Britain into a Muslim territory, with the native British citizens reduced to dhimmi status.
Sorry, all. When I read in this thread that they had put a female Muslim "lead" in Captain Britain, I just assumed they were telling the truth, and that a female Muslim had become Captain Britain. If she is just a patriotic British superhero, then I see no reason why any reasonable person should object.


Can't see why they can't just accept that you only talked about perceptions and people's thoughts and feelings, not stone cold fact.
I mean, you couldn't prove where you got any of those perceptions or thoughts and feelings from - well, you showed the hate groups, but they aren't a majority...

Then we got...

My initial contention had to do with the belief, and I stated that the belief was largely illusory. In addition, I never said I was presenting proof. There is a difference between proof and evidence.

However, with the current educational deficiencies, people aren't taught basic logic anymore (evidence that what happened to Islam is now happening to Western civilization, with religious fanaticism on both the right and the left taking over and treating knowledge of such things as of lesser importance).



OK, let's go over it again. Someone wrote (and I believed without checking the facts) a statement which, for all intents and purposes, said that an Islamic woman had become Captain Britain, and that a lot of people had become upset.

I had pointed out that the combination of the radical jihadist movement's actions in Britain, and the British government's giving in to much of it, without strong voices on the other side, had (or, in this case, would have) given a lot of people the idea that making an Islamic woman the spirit of Great Britain that it was an "in your face" mockery. Not that I agreed with it, merely that the attitude was understandable and not insanity. As I stated, reasonable people can disagree with each other.

In any case, when I found out that, apparently, being the lead in a Captain Britain comic did NOT mean being "Captain Britain", then I took back my statement; nothing in the current situation would justify a reasonable person believing that making an Islamic woman a patriotic superhero in Britain is somehow wrong or insulting.

I was still treated like someone who had suggested that the Bible had internal inconsistencies in a roomful of fundamentalist Christians. And, when I quickly looked up a few videos showing how the beliefs could occur, I got the equivalent of, "it doesn't matter what the videos contained, or who made them. The people who POSTED them are damned atheists!"

For those who call me a racist, consider. If one allows behavior among radicals of a so-called "racial", or, more properly, a geo-cultural/religious group (as, frankly, what we call "race" is pretty much a fiction anyway, albeit a commonly believed one) that we would not accept from our own country, or countries like Britain of the United States, the isn't one treating the former group as if they are somehow subhuman, unable to live up to the standards that they expect for themselves?

Nowhere in the initial post did you say the belief was 'largely illusory' you presented it as if it were a fact.
In fact, you actually said people's outrage was because they were reminded of the attempt to turn Britain into a Muslim run state.
The thing is - you think these follow up posts saying you didn't say what you said fixed it all up - but they didn't.
You're initial statements were never retracted, and you never said you were wrong or that it was al an illusion in people's minds - you only said that you had said that, which you hadn't, and that could we all move on already.

Then after I rebutted the videos you cited as proof - which you thanked me for and seemed to agree with my rebuttals - I stated:

However, I've yet to see proof of the British government is giving in to radical Islamic extremists, and not just making policy to protect and serve it's citizens.


You responded with:

From the London Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article1323814.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article544443.ece

Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/12/AR2006081201036.html

BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7900779.stm


None of which proved your point - however, you were willing to offer up proof that the British government is giving in to radical Islamic's.
Not proof of how people could think this, but as actual proof of it happening.
So it's rather odd to see you tell King Mob that this is something you never said!

I would end it there, but then you tried to edit previous statements again by saying
Thank you for pointing this out. It is important to note the gap between popular perception and reality, although I am discussing the aspect of popular perception, which I know many zealots here consider to be a cop-out.
Which is something you clearly never said in you're original posts - just you trying to get some distance from what you actually said.
You were shown to be in error, and rather than admit it, said you were talking about how people can easily get the wrong perception.
You were showing that, not saying that.
(And it was less 'can easily get the wrong perception' and more 'let their own bias lead them by the nose').
Later you stated that you didn't have to answer any of my questions because I used a naughty word, and all I was doing was using words you had written against you, and stopped posting in the thread.

So, I think this shows that you said what King Mob said you said, so stop acting like a wounded sook, or accusing others of picking and choosing the sources they will listen to.

[Charles RB]

That's right - you only said the following...


Shit, that sure LOOKS like he made that contention!

[king mob]

To My Dearest Gideon Stargrave,

Why should he if you're going to keep persecuting him like that?
He never said that they WERE in the pocket of Muslims, just that a reasonable person could make a reasonable assumption that the democratically elected government of Britain were bowing and appeasing 'radical Jihadists' (a non-offensive term that just SOUNDS offensive) were based on you tube videos - though not necessarily the one's he linked to.
It was all done just to show us how other people think - until he found that second lot of videos anyway, then it was on for keeps.
Either way, I think it's very unfair of you to keep hounding the man for proof - he makes statements, not answers questions or looks into things!
If he did, he wouldn't be able to judge an entire nations possible NEW health system based on one personal experience with a bad doctor, he'd have to look at all the other countries with their functional similar systems.

Sincerely Yours,
FGJ.


Dear Green Jelly

I perhaps made the foolish error of assuming Bart wanted a reasonable conversation and was trying to make well thought out, reasoned points. Then you reminded me he just pulled a load of shite Youtube videos out of the air to make his argument for him.

I shall remain reprimanded and will always accept less in future.

Awrabest
GM

[king mob]

And yet, you fail to see the futility of asking someone to prove a contention he or she never made.

Dear Bart

I need not add more than my Aussie friend has but I do feel the need to say that your word is bollocks and you're a liar.

Hugs and kisses

KM.

[dr. 3]

Speaking of which, in looking for the specifics, it looks like the truth lies in between our accounts.

Individual Physicians (circa 2002): http://www.physiciansnews.com/law/202.html

As far as hospitals, other than emergency care, states differ on the requirements of hospitals to provide care when the patient can't pay. California appears to have the most inclusive laws, in that regard.

I don't think so.

I think your misreading that a bit. That article has to do with physician abandonment of patients or ending an established relationship. Not about starting a new one. EMTALA likewise applies to EDs, but not physicians on inpatient floors. No where does that article imply a private physician must (legally) take a new patient whatever there reason not to.

You may be right out the second part, but that hasn't been true in any state I've worked. Its possible that your conflating county hospitals that often have mandate to take care of the indigent (though these folks also get billed, they just seldom pay) vs. requirements for hospitals in general.

[bartl]

I think your misreading that a bit. That article has to do with physician abandonment of patients or ending an established relationship. Not about starting a new one. EMTALA likewise applies to EDs, but not physicians on inpatient floors. No where does that article imply a private physician must (legally) take a new patient whatever there reason not to.

You may be right out the second part, but that hasn't been true in any state I've worked. Its possible that your conflating county hospitals that often have mandate to take care of the indigent (though these folks also get billed, they just seldom pay) vs. requirements for hospitals in general.
I probably was not sufficiently clear that the first article was only about individual physicians, and not hospitals, although hospitals are mentioned there.

You were correct (note that I am making this a new paragraph, so it will stand out) in that there is no federal rule that non-emergency patients can't be turned away; I was pointing out that there are states and municipalities with such rules, notably California (there was a court case a couple of years ago in San Diego which confirmed this, I can look it up for you if you want).

One problem would come up, even with such a law nationwide, in expensive procedures without anything near a guarantee; let's say that there was a procedure that would give a dying patient a 40% chance of recovery. Pretty good odds, from where I sit, but it can also be accurately, albeit misleadingly, phrased as "It probably won't work."

[Dennis]

Black isn't a culture. How many are in Wisconsin?

You're in Chicago, is this a typical Tuesday night?

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.overnight.shootings.2.1105574.html


More Than A Dozen Shot In Chicago Overnight
7 Victims In One Attack; Total Of 14 Hurt Over Four Hours

At least 14 people were shot and wounded in Chicago overnight, seven of them in a single incident on the city's West Side.


Still no difference between American & Canadian culture?

[Village Idiot]

Still no difference between American & Canadian culture?

To many of us in the US, the culture seems the same. (Not to me.) Everybody sees Vancouver as being nearly a US city, and they see that Toronto has a baseball team and a basketball team, and they know Canada has a football league, so they make the (illogical) logic jump that Canada is much the same as the US.

We have many things in common, but the cultures are quite different, just as the culture in New York City is vastly different than the culture of the Midwest.

[Drusilla lives!]

The last time I liked her was when someone snapped a pic of her breaking a pheasants neck.
All the greenies and everyone had a big whinge, but she refused to comment or apologize, and then in her next appearance wore a hat with feathers in it.

Charles, you better look away for this next bit or risk offense...
Oh, and to the yanks: Our PM broke protocol well before Michelle Obama did...
http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/230195.jpg
The Lizard of Oz in action!

Forgot to mention this earlier, but I like her (at least with regard to her actions regarding Bush and Iraq). Especially when she had that dinner with Bush a year or two ago... I remember her grandson at the time was itching to go to Iraq to get some military experience. Then suddenly after her meeting with him, her grandson seemed to disappear... not much was heard of him for some time over here in the states. I remember joking that maybe after she broke bread with Bush and found out what he was really like she had him locked up in the tower (no way was she going to let him risk his life to further the plans of an idiot). I noticed soon after that that the majority of the British troops stationed in Iraq were to be pulled out as well... I guess she still looks after all her grandchildren in a way. Very amusing really.

[Dennis]

http://blogs.suntimes.com/marin/2009/07/shootings_do_we_care.html

Homicides may be down in Chicago, but shootings are up.

There are more shooting incidents, but excellent emergency care is saving more and more lives. That's why I'm skeptical when someone says the murder rate is down, it's because health care has gotten better. It's why the death toll in Iraq isn't a lot higher.

[Charles RB]

I remember her grandson at the time was itching to go to Iraq to get some military experience.

Harry? He did a tour of duty in Afghanistan as a battlefield air controller, at least once (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1580113/Prince-Harry-in-Taliban-gun-battle.html) seeing combat.

The Queen might have pushed Cabinet to pull troops out of Iraq, but she doesn't have the power to do it.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

. Then suddenly after her meeting with him, her grandson seemed to disappear... not much was heard of him for some time over here in the states.

As Charles said, Harry did a tour and William has been in and out of the papers with his girlfriend - most of us serf's in their kingdom wish they would disappear, but they never drop out of the gossip mags and such here.

I remember joking that maybe after she broke bread with Bush and found out what he was really like she had him locked up in the tower (no way was she going to let him risk his life to further the plans of an idiot).

All the princes have to do army time I think, Charles did, and Phillip was in the Falklands war - the idiocy of the war has never stopped them from going.

I noticed soon after that that the majority of the British troops stationed in Iraq were to be pulled out as well... I guess she still looks after all her grandchildren in a way. Very amusing really.

That was due to Gordon Brown becoming PM - he was able to pull them out without it being the about face and admitted waste it would've been in Blair had done.
(Didn't hurt that the overwhelming public opinion said 'get them out' as well. You'll note a lot of the withdrawals around the world were due to a change in leadership - world leaders might have been with Bush, but the majority of the people were against him).

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Dear Green Jelly

I perhaps made the foolish error of assuming Bart wanted a reasonable conversation and was trying to make well thought out, reasoned points. Then you reminded me he just pulled a load of shite Youtube videos out of the air to make his argument for him.

I shall remain reprimanded and will always accept less in future.

Awrabest
GM

Kinky Mog,

What were you thinking?

Free Speech has made them weak, even though one of them has been oddly quiet - you'd think having his words posted up would make it easier for him to point out the part we all apparently missed, but there you go.

Peace Out,
Flying Gilded Jeep.

[Charles RB]

All the princes have to do army time I think

Well, it's a tradition, but I think they could not if they wanted to.

In fairness to Harry, he did want to serve like everyone else he'd trained with instead of just sit at home with reflected prestige.

That was due to Gordon Brown becoming PM - he was able to pull them out without it being the about face and admitted waste it would've been in Blair had done.

Yeah. Though of course that's because Brown hoped we wouldn't go "hey, YOU were backing the invasion as well!".

[Crowforge]

You're in Chicago, is this a typical Tuesday night?

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.overnight.shootings.2.1105574.html



Still no difference between American & Canadian culture?

I wouldn't know, I'm middle class, kinda trumps race as far as culture goes.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Yeah. Though of course that's because Brown hoped we wouldn't go "hey, YOU were backing the invasion as well!".

Oh, I'd say all of Labour (new and old!) wanted out of that mess after getting into it, but Blair wasn't about to admit it was all a big mistake was he?
I think a Iraq lasted as long as it did due to leaders ego and the perception they wanted people to have of them - we were all yelling and screaming 'don't fucking do it', the UN said 'don't fucking do it', and so what did they do?
They went and did it.
Therefore, for the same leader to pull out would have meant we were right and they were wrong, and they don't ever want to think that we could be right!

[Drusilla lives!]

Harry? He did a tour of duty in Afghanistan as a battlefield air controller, at least once (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1580113/Prince-Harry-in-Taliban-gun-battle.html) seeing combat.


Yes, I was aware of his later service.


The Queen might have pushed Cabinet to pull troops out of Iraq, but she doesn't have the power to do it.

She still has a lot of pull IMO... but that's an observation on my part from afar. For me as a casual observer, it seemed that she met with Bush, went home, had Harry locked away somewhere and quietly suggest (behind the scenes) that Blair step down or whatever it is he did (what was it, I think he allowed an early election or something) and that the British troops leave Iraq. But of course Blair was on his last legs anyway... as was Bush.

... All the princes have to do army time I think, Charles did, and Phillip was in the Falklands war - the idiocy of the war has never stopped them from going.


Yes, I'm aware of that as well.

... That was due to Gordon Brown becoming PM - he was able to pull them out without it being the about face and admitted waste it would've been in Blair had done.
(Didn't hurt that the overwhelming public opinion said 'get them out' as well. You'll note a lot of the withdrawals around the world were due to a change in leadership - world leaders might have been with Bush, but the majority of the people were against him).

As I said, from casual observation it looked rather strange... one week Harry was getting his kit bag together and then his grandmother meets with the ghost and he's not to be seen anywhere. And in addition, Blair is out on his "arse" (as you all might say) with Brown pulling the troops. For me in the states, it seemed rather obvious that she had something to do with it all... but as you point out it was probably just the last straw, it just happened at a time when public opinion shifted in mass and changes were finally made (changes that were going to be made anyway, regardless).

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

She still has a lot of pull IMO... but that's an observation on my part from afar.

She's got none.
Absolutely zero.
Both legally and with her persona, she's got nothing.
Good to lend a hand to a charity cause, but other than that, she signs bills that are passed (without input) and

For me as a casual observer, it seemed that she met with Bush, went home, had Harry locked away somewhere and quietly suggest (behind the scenes) that Blair step down or whatever it is he did (what was it, I think he allowed an early election or something) and that the British troops leave Iraq. But of course Blair was on his last legs anyway... as was Bush.

No, they were a lot further apart than that.
Blair just resigned - in Britain's elections and parliament make up you vote for the person running in your electorate.
If they win it adds to the count for their party, and whichever party has the most amount of memebers wins the election, and their leader becomes the PM.
So when Blair resigned, Labour had the most members, and their new leader, Gordon Brown, becomes the PM.


As I said, from casual observation it looked rather strange... one week Harry was getting his kit bag together and then his grandmother meets with the ghost and he's not to be seen anywhere.

As I said, he was around - the American press just isn't great at covering the rest of the world unless something urgent is happening.
You can probably find a website by some sad sack telling you exactly where he was each and every day.
And... he still did a tour.

And in addition, Blair is out on his "arse" (as you all might say) with Brown pulling the troops.
He resigned - no one forced him.
He'd stayed in longer than he'd said he would, and resigned in time to give Brown enough time to lead before the next election.
The problem with being such a figure head of your party is that when you do lots of unpopular things, everyone associates you with them - 'Blair's plan for this' 'Blair's plan for that', him resigning just gave the rest of the party the chance to distance itself from certain policies that hadn't been popular, without it seeming a complete about face.


For me in the states, it seemed rather obvious that she had something to do with it all... but as you point out it was probably just the last straw, it just happened at a time when public opinion shifted in mass and changes were finally made (changes that were going to be made anyway, regardless).

She really had absolutely nothing to do with it - to see it like that you are seeing it from too far away - there were many other factors in Blairs resignation, and Lizzy wasn't one of them.

[king mob]

But of course Blair was on his last legs anyway

He wasn't. Blair could have stayed for another 18 months, called an election and won, though with an even more reduced majority. No, Blair quit because Labour had turned on him and Brown was ensuring that they did as he wanted to become PM. Blair also wanted to get himself into a position where he could avoid being prosecuted for war crimes, and working in his current position makes that especially difficult.

Blair's a bastard, but he was a popular bastard as he made people well off in the right parts of the UK. That ensured he could have won another election. Of course the complete failure of the UK to have an effective opposition at that time helped massively.

[Charles RB]

She still has a lot of pull IMO

She's got some powers - emergency legislation by COBRA have to be approved by her - and the Royal Family can have influence just by being the Royal Family (which is why you get architects complaining that Prince Charles should stop rubbishing new architecture). But they don't have as much as you're suggesting. For a start, she approves everything.

Though Thatcher has said that at her weekly meetings with the Queen, the Queen asked more questions and was more "with it" than her Cabinet. Considering Thatcher and her Cabinet, this may sadly be true.


He resigned - no one forced him.

Well, not really - once he admitted this would be his last term, there was a LOT of pressure in the party for him to step down NOW NOW NOW. (Bet they wish they hadn't bothered now...)

[Drusilla lives!]

...
No, they were a lot further apart than that.
Blair just resigned - in Britain's elections and parliament make up you vote for the person running in your electorate.
If they win it adds to the count for their party, and whichever party has the most amount of memebers wins the election, and their leader becomes the PM.
So when Blair resigned, Labour had the most members, and their new leader, Gordon Brown, becomes the PM.


So what you're saying is that under the current parliamentary system you don't vote directly for a PM. That the electorate is fractured into parties (Labour being one of them) and that you vote for your party, not a PM.

So there are then two factors involved in the choice of PM, party strength as determined by the election (and the voters) and standing within that party (determined by the party representatives)? So the voters don't really have a direct say in choice of PM, just in choice as to which party predominates parliament and subsequently, who has the right to choose who is PM.

... As I said, he was around - the American press just isn't great at covering the rest of the world unless something urgent is happening.

Actually, I was watching a lot of the BBC world news at the time.

...
You can probably find a website by some sad sack telling you exactly where he was each and every day. ...


Of that I have no doubt, but I'm really not that interested... sad to think that there's people who are isn't it.

... She really had absolutely nothing to do with it - to see it like that you are seeing it from too far away - there were many other factors in Blairs resignation, and Lizzy wasn't one of them.

All I can say in my defense is that I have a hard time keeping up with all the shenanigans in my own country, let alone another. :)

I'll just say one last thing (from my distant perch)... I still think she's holding on until one of her grandsons are old enough to become king. From outward appearances it doesn't appear that she wants Charles to assume the throne. But again, I'm not familiar with the details... that is, can they skip a generation? Can the Queen relinquish the throne to her grandson and not her son if she so chooses? Just curious.

[king mob]

So what you're saying is that under the current parliamentary system you don't vote directly for a PM. That the electorate is fractured into parties (Labour being one of them) and that you vote for your party, not a PM.

Exactly. This is why all those moaning that they never elected Brown are talking bollocks. What they should be moaning about is that they've not voted for current Labour policies as things have changed since Brown took over. We vote for the party & their manifesto.

So there are then two factors involved in the choice of PM, party strength as determined by the election (and the voters) and standing within that party (determined by the party representatives)? So the voters don't really have a direct say in choice of PM, just in choice as to which party predominates parliament and subsequently, who has the right to choose who is PM.

Whoever is leader of the winning party will be asked to form a government. Right now that looks to be David Cameron of the Tories. Should at some point, Cameron proves to be unpopular within his party during a Parliament, then his party can launch a leadership contest to dethrone Cameron and replace him with whomever they vote for. Essentially what happened to Thatcher in 1990.


Can the Queen relinquish the throne to her grandson and not her son if she so chooses? Just curious.

She can't and it's unlikely she'll ever abdicate, but then again we should have a royal family that plays no part in politics and are only there for American and Japanese tourist to gawp at.

[Steven Grant]

She can't and it's unlikely she'll ever abdicate, but then again we should have a royal family that plays no part in politics and are only there for American and Japanese tourist to gawp at.

God save the queen
'cause tourists mean money!

- Grant

PS. To whoever asked, there's a pretty sizable African-American population in Wisconsin, especially in but not limited to the cities.

[Charles RB]

it's unlikely she'll ever abdicate

It's unlikely she'll ever die at this rate. Are we sure she's human?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

So what you're saying is that under the current parliamentary system you don't vote directly for a PM. That the electorate is fractured into parties (Labour being one of them) and that you vote for your party, not a PM.

So there are then two factors involved in the choice of PM, party strength as determined by the election (and the voters) and standing within that party (determined by the party representatives)? So the voters don't really have a direct say in choice of PM, just in choice as to which party predominates parliament and subsequently, who has the right to choose who is PM.

Pretty much - but we know who they will be PM at election time, the guy who is running the party.
They do usually stick to that, because we do get pissed off when they change the leader of the country without consulting us.
It's happening with Brown now, and it happened in Australia in the 90's when the Labour party had an internal vote and Bob Hawke was forced to step down from being PM, and the treasurerer Paul Keating (the lizard of oz!) became PM.
(However at the next election Labour beat the Liberal party despite the change. He was just a better rapper. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5s8HYGANEU) - at 3.33... watch another countries political history as a rap off).

It probably sounds weird to the American mindset, but we tend to avoid, what seems very odd to us, such things as a President pushing an agenda that his own party doesn't want to push - and even members of that party voting against the party (as it's all or nothing).
(Not that it's never happened - there's always grumblings from within the party - but not on such a large scale).

Of that I have no doubt, but I'm really not that interested... sad to think that there's people who are isn't it.

It's very sad.
Especially those that cried when Di died.

All I can say in my defense is that I have a hard time keeping up with all the shenanigans in my own country, let alone another. :)

Fair enough.

I'll just say one last thing (from my distant perch)... I still think she's holding on until one of her grandsons are old enough to become king. From outward appearances it doesn't appear that she wants Charles to assume the throne. But again, I'm not familiar with the details... that is, can they skip a generation? Can the Queen relinquish the throne to her grandson and not her son if she so chooses? Just curious.

Charles is a little bitch and always has been - a weird tampon fantasizing little bitch who was scared of his daddy - if he was to have it for any amount of time, the calls to ditch them would get very strong.
The kids, being from the loins of the patron saint lady Di are much more popular.


It's unlikely she'll ever die at this rate. Are we sure she's human?

I was more shocked when the Queen Mum died than when Di did - maybe David Icke is right and they are giant lizard creatures feasting on the souls of the young.

[Crowforge]

I can follow none of this.

[Charles RB]

maybe David Icke is right and they are giant lizard creatures feasting on the souls of the young.

In the Queen's case, I figure the spirit of Britain itself is keeping her alive cos it knows who the alternatives are.

[Charles RB]

Well, Stephen's last column certainly makes Obama's plan (or bits of it) look ominous.

And in ways that have nothing to do with healthcare allocation, waiting, or costs. All the critics fussed about that and missed the plan gives other power over your living will?!

[dancj]

Exactly. This is why all those moaning that they never elected Brown are talking bollocks. What they should be moaning about is that they've not voted for current Labour policies as things have changed since Brown took over. We vote for the party & their manifesto.
Not complete bollocks. You vote for the party and the manifesto and their figurehead who will become prime minister.

Really the complaint is more about the fact that we've got a system that allows us to have a prime minister who's not elected by the public. And while we're at it we can also complain that we've got a two party system with more than two parties.

At the moment we have a system which forces us to choose between two parties with leaders that I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them.

[DavidAllred]

You want them to stop, derail the process, and work out a system for habitual users and abusers, rather than work out a system for all the law abiding citizens in the country?

I do think it has to be either or. For me, it makes good sense to offer complete coverage to everyone under the age of 19 or over the age of 65, with full mental health coverage (which would include drug and alcohol treatment) and dental. Those benefits would be extended to any full time students in good academic standing through their mid-twenties.

The rest of us should be provided the option of getting decent coverage on a sliding scale, with the bottom 15% of income earners getting a free ride. Chronic conditions and high dollar surgeries could be covered under a grant system, like we do Pell grants now, which look at a variety of factors including the ability of the student's family to contribute a portion toward education. That seems more feasible than just blanket coverage for anyone and everything.

We as a society have to bring back competent mental health hospitals. That should be in the bill, imho.

[Gnarl]

As someone working in health care in a UHC country, there is one thing about the US system that has always puzzled me:

Insurance companies. Why? What do they actually do?

Google says half a million people in the US works for them, and other nations just don't see the need. (Not without regulating them to the point of unrecognizability)

On the subject of US performance compared to other countries, I find this to be the best work:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/In%20the%20Literature/2006/Sep/U%20S%20%20Health%20System%20Performance%20%20A%20 National%20Scorecard/951_Commission_why_not_the_best%20pdf.pdf

with the follow-up from 2 years later:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2008/Jul/Why-Not-the-Best--Results-from-the-National-Scorecard-on-U-S--Health-System-Performance--2008.aspx

(Summary only)

The Commonwealth Fund is considered solid and unbiased. Their reports have been sourced by textbooks in the area, as well as the republican party.

[Dennis]

As someone working in health care in a UHC country, there is one thing about the US system that has always puzzled me:

Insurance companies. Why? What do they actually do?


To keep the different social classes separate. In a country where the separation of classes isn't much of an issue, UHC is just fine.

[Steven Grant]

As someone working in health care in a UHC country, there is one thing about the US system that has always puzzled me:

Insurance companies. Why? What do they actually do?

Theoretically?

Insurance companies take little bits of money over a long period of time from customers - premiums - pool the money and bank it in order to make money. In return, they will pay a substantial portion or all of your major health care costs as they arise. Both parties' potential losses are therefore amortized over time.

In practice?

Some health insurance companies work like that. Most, though, exist to maximize their own profits at all costs. Many exercise veto power over operations and treatments even when those, though costing a considerable amount in the short run, would save them money in the long run. So therefore health insurance becomes a double gamble, you betting your money against the insurance company's money that you will have major health care expenses before they take far more money from you than it would cost were you to save the money yourself. The Catch-22 here is than many medical service providers won't even talk to you if you don't care health insurance.

For the most part, insurance companies are greedy and inept, enforcing antiquated procedures and operating without concern for the customers, or marks, who seem not to exist so much to be served as to be milked, as insurance companies drag in record profits, invest much of their capital, and constantly scream about how medical costs and the costs of litigation are killing their businesses.

But, hey, at least they're Free Enterprise.

- Grant

[Gnarl]

Theoretically?

Insurance companies take little bits of money over a long period of time from customers - premiums - pool the money and bank it in order to make money. In return, they will pay a substantial portion or all of your major health care costs as they arise. Both parties' potential losses are therefore amortized over time.

Thanks.
Most other countries, it seems, are able to do that through use of the same systems that administer roads, sewage, police, schools etc, without creating an additional middleman.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Thanks.
Most other countries, it seems, are able to do that through use of the same systems that administer roads, sewage, police, schools etc, without creating an additional middleman.

That's because no one minds there being a bureaucrat between them and their sewage.

[Dennis]

That's because no one minds there being a bureaucrat between them and their sewage.

We don't own the pipes or roads.

[Crowforge]

Ok, now I have a loose molar.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

We don't own the pipes or roads.

America privatised all of it's sewage and roads?

You guys are messed up.