Health care vent

Keep in mind that the reason insurance and private pay is so expensive

The reason both are so expensive is the insurance industry itself. If that industry was eliminated the cost would fall to where it was when your grandfather paid for your father's birth out of his wallet. There is no solution short of eliminating the insurance industry, or something equivalent to a degree such as severely capping costs.

You may hear the argument that you're getting more for the money now, i.e., there is a better level of care due to that increased expense, but it's a specious argument.

A stupid event leads to a stupid chain of events. The original stupidity here was handing control over to the numbers racket.
 
the insurance industry is following suit with the rest of corporate america in compensating its CEO's and top managers. a million dollar RAISE is got to be paid by the folks paying the premiums. Add the costs of administration and the strock-holders profit margin and you are looking at a pretty good chunk of change that is added to the costs of everybody's health care.

But the costs of services are artifically high due to the shortage of health care providers. The AMA keeps that market tight so the MD stay on the right side of the supply and demand curve.

My "If Elected Supreme Ruler" plan is to turn the VA hospitals into full blown doctor/nurse mills and become the world leader in medical education. Trade the education for some civil/military service and cut them loose to take civilian jobs whereery they can get them on Planet Eart.

Dump the Insurance Industry and flood the market with service providers.
 
Seriously?

That is also the reason it costs $2000 to have a dented fender repaired now. And I've noticed pet care vet bills falling in line in the last few years. You now need pet health insurance to afford the pet's bills if something goes wrong with it. Due to the meddling of the insurance industry inflating the costs to you.
 
Had polio, smallpox or cholera lately? FDA
Listen to the radio/watch TV? FCC
Take medicine for some condition? Drive on the interstate? Had airplanes fall on you? Drink water? Breathe clean air? Had salmonella or other food poisoning?
Watch or listen to a weather report?
Use any electronic devices? Most of the tech came from the space program. Satellites for pretty much ALL communications, TV, telephone, internet, security/military.

Use the internet? Al Gore aside, brought to you by your federal government (ARPANET)

GI Bill, student loans, the military, fire and police protection.

Social Security, Medicare, which work quite well in spite of the opinions of those who would have you believe otherwise-ask your grandma.

Voting rights, civil rights. And on and on.

C'mon, really? really?

John

Good answer. The notion of "big government" is just a slogan, and I'm not sure that everyone who recites the mantra really understands what services government provides, and what might happen (and has happened) in absence of these programs. How would the private sector deal with pollution, for example, if left to voluntarily police themselves and not be forced to deal with the sludge? I seem to recall the extreme but dramatically illustrative case of a river bursting into flames, kids consuming lead, workers breathing asbestos, flooding of whole regions as a direct result of wetland destruction and unrestricted deforestation and development, etc., etc. Ratchet the dramatic examples down, and examine the cumulative benefit and unarguably beneficial nature of these governmental functions, and I don't know how anyone could argue against them with a straight face.

Answer the whole question. It's no secret that the US government is the largest EMPLOYER in the country. Everyone knows they have thier fingers in everything, but that does not make them successful. Neither does consuming more and more money every year.
As Gary pointed out, the Post Office is the only self-sustaining operation in the United States Government.
There are duties "assumed" by the government, and then there are "responsibilities" of the government. A big wide blurry line these days.

I have a cousin that quit here social services job after they were directed to tell "clients" about other government "programs" they could qualify for if thier circumstances changed. Encouraging people to get fired so they can go to college on my money? Encouraging single mothers on public assistance to have another bastard baby for us to feed so she can "make minimums" for a HUD loan?:wtf: Indeed!

Our government is bloated, ineficcient, and morally bankrupt. I cannot abide feeding anything else into it!:banghead:

What percentage of the annual budget is consumed by freeloaders and abusers of "the system?" How many single mothers ACTUALLY have more babies so they can get more money from the social programs? I was raised by a single mother because my father died. She struggled to raise us on a meager combination of a state widow's pension, paid into by my father during his working life, and Social Security survivor benefits, also paid into by my father. She was no freeloader, but guess what, she got nothing but flack from landlords, friends, neighbors, potential employers. Yes, people wouldn't hire her because she had been out of the workforce while raising three kids under 4 years old. Every time my mother scraped enough money together to buy a car and go back to work, whatever Jalopy she could afford broke down, and it cost more money than we had to fix. She was fired once because her car broke down one too many times. Was she a "user" because she had to re-boot her Social Security payments upon losing her job?

"Answer the whole question." That's fine, but acknowledge the point that Hooktool made at least. There is a serious problem of polarization of opinion in the U.S. Everyone seems to draw unmovable lines in the sand, and even the media pundits, and especially both sides of the Congressional aisles, don't seem to actually listen to each other. This is not my imagination. There has always been vigorous disagreement, acrimony and mud-slinging, but in the end, shit got done. Would Nixon have created the EPA if he were President today?

Back to the whole question. Certainly, some government programs are run inefficiently, but should we throw the baby out with the bathwater and eliminate the programs? Or should we make them run more efficiently? As Burns said, it's not about no government, it's about better government. I was a regional land-use planner for 15 years, and I recall several times when we were asked to bring our own office supplies to get us through the budget year. This was at a time when we did not charge for certain services. Developers could come in and benefit from hours and hours of publicly funded workers' time to secure a permit. So, run government like a business? We started charging for permit review, with the goal of making our department self-sufficient. The outcry was deafening. Imagine that, the business community yelling for free government services. Of course, the argument to that would be, why have to jump through the so-called "hoops" of regulations? Examine the proximate and ultimate cause of major structural failure incident in any 3rd-world country, and you'll find a raft of reasons, but the major would likely be the lack of enforced code review (i.e., building and development permits).

I admit, it's probably hard to glean a point from all that, but here it is: Too much crying foul and ideological intractability, and not enough examination of issues. Should healthcare be employment-based? Might a single-payer healthcare system actually relieve employers of this financial burden? Is it true that universal healthcare is necessarily inefficient? Can it be morally argued that society should not bear and share the cost of ensuring that even the least of us does not live in fear of bankruptcy from an unexpected major medical problem? Is healthcare a right or a privilege? What role has private enterprise (namely insurance and drug companies) played in rising healthcare costs?

Blah-dee-blah. I don't know the answers, but that's partly my point; I would just like to see more real discussion and fewer slogans, sound bites, generalizations and partisan bickering. And by the way, I'm not referring to any one person here. I did use the interchange between jd750ace and hooktail to kick off my rant, but nothing at all against either one of them, seriously.
 
^I think most people who use the phrase "big government" realize what's necessary and what's not as well as you do. Until you realize that, you'll favor big government, which knows better than those they're supposed to serve, by definition.
 
^I think most people who use the phrase "big government" realize what's necessary and what's not as well as you do. Until you realize that, you'll favor big government, which knows better than those they're supposed to serve, by definition.

My friend your mind is solidly frozen in a world that never was. Like it or not "big government" is here and will never go away. It is a big complicated job running a country and if you think The Free Market is gonna make everything all peachy, well don't bogart that joint my friend.

It is the business intersts of this country that have bought the government and are running it for their own profit that is at the very heart of economic problems we have.

Do you want to put Goldman Saches in charge of Social Secuity?

Ok, we are on differnt sides of the line, that is clear, but simply chanting mantras ain't gonna move the ball.
 
My friend your mind is solidly frozen in a world that never was.

I read the rest of the post, trying to figure out exactly what world you're talking about. But be assured I'm not frozen anyplace, while I am assured that you aren't my "friend". :)

I can't determine what you're getting at, but I can say this. What's desirable is government of a type and to an extent that maximizes liberty. You can ask yourself if more government or less government would move us in that direction. Or even just ask yourself how much fat should be trimmed. That counts too,
 
I read the rest of the post, trying to figure out exactly what world you're talking about. But be assured I'm not frozen anyplace, while I am assured that you aren't my "friend". :)

I can't determine what you're getting at, but I can say this. What's desirable is government of a type and to an extent that maximizes liberty. You can ask yourself if more government or less government would move us in that direction. Or even just ask yourself how much fat should be trimmed. That counts too,

ok. I'll ask myself that and you ask yourself if more corpoerate control or less of the government would be a good thing.
 
well, I thought about it and the answer is definintely MORE.

We need a government that can control Wall Street and Monsanto and Exxon and the rest of the Robber Barons who are running the show now.

As in anything of real significance, the issue is ultimately political. So, respecting the rules of the game, I'll make this my last word on this thread.
 
Like I said before, no intelligent person would argue against the need for many services govt provides.

Your position isn't shocking to me because one of my brothers is the same. But he's not healthy and he's dependent on govt. So naturally, the more of it the better.

I don't think it's political until politicians are brought up. Until then it's philosophical.
 
BO is about as socialist as Goldman Saches (his greatest contributor) he gave the insurance industry a license to steal and put the Banksters back in charge. He is Wall Street's boy So please do not insult Socialists by putting that label on him.
 
So let me get this Burns.
You are willing to give the government more control over big business so that everything will be handed to you. IE: Social programs. Pick your program.

The government? These are the same people who at every turn support and provide the means for big business to exist and profit.

I think you sir, are trapped in a mental utopia.
The government is the root of the problem.
Business is easily controlled by the people. And there respective wallets. That is as long as the government doesn't bail sed business out when the people force them into failure.........
 
Medical requirements during my life time so far.
Broken arm
Broken ankle, required surgery, plates pins etc
Broken collar bone.
Multiple kidney stones attacks requiring various stays in hospital from a day to a couple days. Required surgery to install stint from my kidney to my bladder, removed 1 month later.
Had a spell of thyroid issues requiring banks of blood work, mri's and specialized tests.
Figure I've had something like 30 x-rays, 2 MRI's, A few IP scans, similar to MRI but with radioactive die to illuminate soft tissue.
Lots of other random minor illness stuff dealt with at family doctor clinics.

Total cost out of my pocket? whatever my monthly payment was at the time. When I first started working out of high school it was around 45 bucks, currently about a 100 bucks to cover me, my wife and my 6 month old child (my current employee now covers these payments)

While our system is not perfect, sometimes wait times for major things like MRI's, specialized treatments and such can bloat to weeks to a couple months can get really frustrating (my mom had to wait about a month to start cancer treatments) all in all its pretty freaking sweet if you ask me.

Stories of Canadians heading to the States for treatments are generally true, but its not because they cannot receive the treatment here, its because regardless of wealth, social status etc. all Canadians wait on the same waiting list for medical procedures (fair if you ask me.) These people heading south are basically doing so under their own dime to expedite the procedure they are requiring. I have even heard of the Canadian Health system paying for Canadians procedures in the United States simply because at that time our current system was unable to handle them for various reasons, long waits, procedure not available etc.

I personally think that some services should not be privatized, health coverage is one of them. Yeah for sure, government run systems can bloat and be abused but with appropriate public pressure and activism the system will hopefully run half decent, ours has been doing its thing better or for worse for generations now. When you privatize the prices go up, they are in it for profit first and foremost. Hearing the costs Americans pay for health related items simply blow me away. What costs millions in the US costs maybe thousands in Canada. I had to get a bud stitched up at a hospital in Montana on a trip once and the bill was over 3000 bucks. How does an hour stay in an emergency room, a needle and a roll of thread cost 3000 bucks? That would have been maybe a couple hundred bucks at a clinic here in Canada. Privately owned health systems drives the cost up, its as simple as that. Call it what you want, socialism or similar I am seriously thankful for the system we have. Now being the father of a little one it puts my mind at ease knowing that if the unfortunate would happen to any of us, a simple accident or sickness would not ruin our life.

From what I can see from an outsider looking in, Obama's plan isn't ideal but its something... a starting point. Work together my American friends, I don't think this should be a republican vs democrat issue, it should be all Americans pressuring their government to make it leaner, more efficient, more affordable and more practical. From a lifetime universal health care recipient I can say its better to have than to have not.

Cheers
 
I found this article to be a bit closer to the truth conserving Canadian health care.
Any one with a computer and a bit of time can find the truth.

https://bridgetdgms.wordpress.com/2...cores-big-flaws-of-canadian-health-care/:doh:

Well it looks like this link is dead.
I'll copy the article.



Mother’s Tragic Tale Underscores Big Flaws of Canadian Health Care

Posted on July 10, 2008. Filed under: Healthcare, Politicians, Socialism/Communism |



Mother’s Tragic Tale Underscores Big Flaws Of Canadian Health Care
By SHONA HOLMES | Posted Wednesday, July 09, 2008

TORONTO – My country promises everyone quality health care coverage that is free at the point of service and financed through taxes. But unfortunately for me and millions of Canadians, the actions of our government all too often belie that generous pledge.

Canada’s cost-conscious, government-run system wasn’t there for me when I needed it most. Even worse, it continues to overlook the most fundamental rule of health care – that patients ought to come first.
As America considers ways to reform its health care system, I hope that my experience reminds decision makers that more government intrusion in health care is a poison pill.

No one should be forced to travel thousands of miles to obtain quality care. Yet that exactly is what I was forced to do after being diagnosed with a brain tumor three years ago.

After my government told me that I’d need to wait four to six months to see a neurologist and endocrinologist, and with my eyesight rapidly deteriorating, I decided to seek a diagnoses at the storied Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz.

After a battery of tests, the doctors there told me I needed treatment immediately and advised me to return home for surgery. I returned to Canada confident that no doctor would turn away a patient in such obvious need of care. I was wrong.

Ten days later I flew back to the Phoenix area and underwent successful surgery that removed the tumor and restored my vision.
Why would someone who lives in an industrialized country with a high standard of living and a promise of guaranteed health care need to go anywhere else?

The answer – incredibly – is that Canada’s bureaucratic health care system transformed me from a human into a number, put me on a waiting list and essentially told me to hope for the best.

Free health care was indeed about money. It refused to pay for treatment outside its borders, even though life-saving surgery was quickly available a short plane-ride away in the U.S.

As a daughter, a wife and mother of two wonderful children, I really had only one choice – paying thousands of dollars, relying on family, friends and creative refinancing for an operation at the Mayo Clinic’s world-class facility nearly 2,000 miles away in the Arizona desert.

My story, with all of its unfortunate twists and turns, is relatively simple: Stay in Canada and let the government gamble with my future or journey south of the border and benefit from an accessible, patient-oriented and compassionate facility that responds swiftly to medical emergencies.

My gratitude over receiving a new lease on life has turned me into a full-fledged activist – fighting for free-market change in Canada. Hopefully, we’ll win that fight soon, so my country actually can redeem its long-standing promise of providing timely, efficient health care to its 33 million citizens.

And I hope that American voters will remember my story when U.S. candidates this year begin touting the Canadian health care system as a role model for reform in their own country.

Americans already are being blitzed with a propaganda barrage that bashes their current private-public health care partnership as little better than that of an emerging Third World nation.

Movies such as “Sicko” and “John Q,” a wave of admiringly reviewed books, newspaper pundits and cable news commentators batter Americans with a daily message that the U.S. needs to embrace a universal, government-run system similar to Canada’s or Britain’s.

What they don’t tell you is that both Canada’s and Great Britain’s routinely block or delay access to needed treatments and often treat elderly patients with cavalier contempt.

The national health care system in my country is racked by agonizingly long waits and rationing of many vital medical services, starting with a severe shortage of the family physicians who are gatekeepers of our care.

More than 800,000 Canadians currently are in long holding patterns for operations that would be done in the U.S. in a few weeks after the initial diagnosis. Sadly, many will die before they make it to the head of the line. Those who can find a way flee to the U.S. for the quality medical service so often lacking at home.
The benchmark question for any nation’s health care system is whether their citizens are forced to go abroad for quality accessible health care treatment. The answer in America is obvious.

In the decades since World War II, millions of Canadians, Europeans, Asians, Africans and Latin Americans have flocked to the U.S. for life-saving medical procedures. With few exceptions, that has been a one-way flow.

While I work to reform Canada’s creaking health care system, I sincerely hope that Americans won’t destroy a system that is the envy of the world by placing it under the yoke of big government bureaucracy.

Until Canada breaks free from the “Alice in Wonderland” absurdity of its system, droves of Canadians, including me, will join millions of others around the globe in seeking medical sanctuary in the U.S.
If your “patient-first” system begins to crumble, we’ll have no place to go.

Holmes is pursuing a lawsuit against Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, to repeal a ban that prevents its citizens from purchasing private health insurance. A video of her story is available at BigGovHealth.org, an initiative of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.

LINK: http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=140809

Here is another good read:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

I have found that socialized health care can be and is comparable to the VA. ( Veterans Administration ) health care system here in the USA. The model for single payer health care for the world.....
You know, the one we were all screaming about last year . Flawed, dimmable , cruel , shameful were some of the head lines as I remember.

The VA was started in 1923 and is the oldest ( Modern form ) of single payer health care system and the model for the world.
It is and always has been flawed , ridiculed and in some cases down right fraudulent in it's practices.
Long wait times are the norm. Inadequate treatment is standard , ( patients have been known to expire while waiting for simple treatments).
This is socialized health care .
Any time you hand over the reigns controlling any endeavor to politicians , graft , theft , misappropriation of funds , lies etc. ensue.
Power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts ultimately.
History has proved my point over and over again.
The problem is that the young of the world have forgotten . And continue to make the same mistakes that there forefathers made because they have forgotten.
Socialism has been tried over and over for time in memorial. It has always failed , every single time..... Simply because some one has to pay the bill. Nothing is free.
At some point we all get old, retire, and stop paying taxes.
Unless unfettered population growth is your answer ( a disaster in it's own right ) eventually all social programs are doomed to financial failure.

That's my bit for the day. Funny that I'd right it on a Yamaha XS650 sight.....
 
Last edited:
I found this article to be a bit closer to the truth conserving Canadian health care.
Any one with a computer and a bit of time can find the truth. - - -

Hi boxcar,
your quote about the poor lady with the brain tumour being told to stand in line and hope not to die meanwhile don't show that US style private health care is inherently better
than Canadian publicly funded health care, it shows that the Canadian system needs a giant boot up the arse.
And BTW, it ain't free.
It's a pre-paid benefit for Canadian Citizens that's financed from taxes.
And because it's run by Government departments it ain't run all that well.
 
Back
Top