Great Moments in Socialized Medicine
Ubiquitous
Canadian province of Ontario. But if you do get cancer, you really don't want
to live in Ontario. An editorial in Canada's National Post explains why:
Opponents of the [U.S. health-care] public option maintain
that Canadian-style health care would entail rationing, caps
on care, bureaucratic interference in medical decision-making
and even "death panels" deciding when the ill become too
expensive to save.
Most Canadians believe this is a gross exaggeration of reality.
But then how to characterize Ontario's decision to cut off
funding for colorectal cancer patients taking a life-prolonging
drug, in order to save $9-million [about US$8.4 mllion] a year?
Andre Marin, the province's plain-speaking ombudsman, said the
decision "verges on cruelty." Marin said the "arbitrary" limit
on the number of cycles of the drug Avastin that Ontario will
fund forces patients to pay out of their own pockets or abandon
treatment.
Avastin does not cure cancer, but prolongs life when taken in
conjunction with chemotherapy treatment, adding, on average,
nine months of survival.
"For patients whose cancer has already metastasized, it stops
their tumours from growing and prolongs their lives, at least
for a while. It is, without exaggeration, their lifeline," Mr.
Marin said.
It should be noted that the public option would not automatically establish a
Canadian-style health-insurance monopoly. But as we've noted before, many
public-option backers, including congressional leaders and the secretary of
health and human services, do favor such a monopoly, known in wonkese as
"single payer," and believe it would be the inevitable result of the public
option.
--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the Democrats did
to America.
Ubiquitous
treatment or tests because of problems with the �12.7 billion [about $20
million] project to upgrade NHS computer systems," reports London's Times:
More than 14,000 patients at a major London trust have already
had to endure waiting times that exceed government guidelines.
The trust was one of the first to install electronic patient
records. Similar systems are being rolled out across England.
The Department of Health says that nobody should wait more
than 18 weeks to receive hospital treatment from the time
they are referred by a GP, unless they choose to wait longer.
But Barts and the London NHS Trust, which introduced the system
in April last year, has a backlog of 22,000 electronic patient
records on its 18-week waiting list.
Ha ha, don't worry! According to former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, "In
Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors.
We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories
are false."
Ubiquitous
said her crippling pain was caused by trapped wind," London's Daily Mail
reports:
Barbara Collins, 68, was bed ridden for months with agonising
pain and bowel problems, classic signs of the killer disease,
but sent home with only laxatives.
The mother of four was correctly diagnosed with ovarian cancer
a staggering four months after her first visit to Manchester
Royal Infirmary, and died 10 days later.
Mrs Collins' family criticised the medics, who they say made
her feel like a nuisance.
She could have survived if only her cancer had been diagnosed
sooner, they claim.
But the joke's on them. As former Enron adviser Paul Krugman notes, "In
Sid9
"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:F72dnTEr17DeTFDX...@giganews.com...
There is NO proposal for a British-like system in any of the five
health care bills making their way through congress.
Bad diagnoses occur in the United States, too.
Your post is deceptive and amounts to a lie.
You are a liar.
Ubiquitous
staff to enter six inches of water to treat a man with a broken back--because
it breached heath [sic] and safety," reports London's Daily Mail:
[Bystanders] were stunned when a paramedic arrived and refused
his pleading staff to enter the water--because they weren't
trained to deal with water rescues.
They had to slide a spinal board under him themselves and carry
him to ambulancemen, who were stood [sic] on the bank just 6ft
away.
One onlooker said: 'The paramedic wouldn't treat him.
"Two colleagues arrived in an ambulance but he stood in their
way and told them, 'I'm incident commander--you aren't getting
into the water."
The good thing about this is we learned a new word: "Jobsworth" is a
Britishism that means someone who goes by the book in order to be unhelpful.
Then there is this report from the Sun:
This crippled plumber horribly broke his arm TEN months
ago and is still waiting for surgery to repair it.
Torron Eeles busted his left humerus bone leaving it grotesquely
out of shape when he fell down stairs.
Today he slammed the NHS for "unacceptable" delays--claiming
they have cancelled FOUR separate operations.
His arm hangs limply by his side meaning Torron cannot work
for a living and now faces the prospect of losing his home.
The story includes a photo of Eeles's grotesquely twisted arm. Suffice it to
say that his humerus is not humorous.
The Daily Mail reports that "thousands of NHS patients with previously
untreatable rheumatoid arthritis could be denied a new 'smart' drug to ease
their agony because it is too expensive. . . . The drug has been licensed
throughout Europe, but the cost has led the Government's rationing body to
issue a preliminary rejection of its use by NHS patients in England."
The Courier of Dundee, Scotland, reports that Ninewells Hospital has become
something of a menagerie:
Bats were seen on the general medical Ward 6 on September 4,
and on the surgical Ward 9 five days later.
The shocking revelation is contained in a breakdown of incidents
of pests over the last year in Tayside hospitals obtained under
Freedom of Information legislation.
It shows that between October last year and this September
pest controllers were called to NHS Tayside hospital premises
on 462 occasions to deal with rats, mice, seagulls, dead birds
and even a dead rabbit.
The majority of incidents involved insects including, ants,
flies, cockroaches, wasps, silverfish, beetles and even hornets.
Now for the good news. According to former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, "In
Fast Eddie
The fact that we're rated at the bottom of the developed world is just
a big lie by those who don't support the big insurance companies or
watch fox news. How can the government run health care when it can't
even run the military? When was the last time we won a war?
"Keep the govermnent's hands off of my medicare"
Maybe it's time for Republicans to be permanently cut off of medicare
because they prefer to support the big HMOs.
colin
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/04/california-failing-state-debt
Any third world country is looking after it's citizens better. And in all
the cases below Americans do not have to worry. Nobody is coming to help or
relieve your pain.Because there is nobody.
"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:N7idnSUCz87S7FLX...@giganews.com...
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"colin" <pco...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:kcZzm.46578$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Yeah well take a look AT RTHE REAL REALITY u r all heading for.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/04/california-failing-state-debt
>
> Any third world country is looking after it's citizens better. And in all
> the cases below Americans do not have to worry. Nobody is coming to help
> or relieve your pain.Because there is nobody.
>
Geez. No wonder that in overall quality of healthcare Britain ranks a world
18th to the USA's 37th.
And for a lot less money too.
Sure there are always problems with ANY country's health service as these
weird tales below (if true) illustrate - but we don't have 1,000s of sick
people lying out in car parks.
I;ve had excellent treatment from them all my life. Never cost me a bean
other than the NI contributions.
The story below about the pest control guys is a straw man anyway - *of
course* they get called out to hospitals all the time.
That's their *job*. If a cleaner spots an ant or mouse infestation he calls
in the pest control to fix it. Duh!
And just one more point. Anyone in Britain is perfectly free to 'opt out' of
the NHS scheme any time they like and take out private health nsurance if
they so choose.
For a while in the early 80's quite a lot did. Then soon realised the NHS
gave a much better service and most of them 'opted in' again.
Despite it's inevitable failings we're rightly proud of our NHS. Damn sure I
wouldn't want to live in the USA with the system you've got that's for sure.
.
>
> Geez. No wonder that in overall quality of healthcare Britain ranks a world
> 18th to the USA's 37th.
> And for a lot less money too.
>
> Sure there are always problems with ANY country's health service as these
> weird tales below (if true) illustrate - but we don't have 1,000s of sick
> people lying out in car parks.
> I;ve had excellent treatment from them all my life. Never cost me a bean
> other than the NI contributions.
> The story below about the pest control guys is a straw man anyway - *of
> course* they get called out to hospitals all the time.
> That's their *job*. If a cleaner spots an ant or mouse infestation he calls
> in the pest control to fix it. Duh!
>
> And just one more point. Anyone in Britain is perfectly free to 'opt out' of
> the NHS scheme any time they like and take out private health nsurance if
> they so choose.
> For a while in the early 80's quite a lot did. Then soon realised the NHS
> gave a much better service and most of them 'opted in' again.
>
> Despite it's inevitable failings we're rightly proud of our NHS. Damn sure I
> wouldn't want to live in the USA with the system you've got that's for sure.
>
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Aug. 16) - A man threw his seriously ill wife four stories to
her death because he could no longer afford to pay for her medical care,
prosecutors said in charging him with second-degree murder.
According to court documents filed Wednesday in Jackson County Circuit Court,
Stanley Reimer walked his wife to the balcony of their apartment and kissed her
before throwing her over.
The body of Criste Reimer, 47, was found Tuesday night outside the apartment
building, near the upscale Country Club Plaza shopping district.
Stanley Reimer, 51, was charged Wednesday. He remained jailed on $250,000 bond
and was scheduled to be arraigned Thursday.
In the probable cause statement filed with the charges, police said Reimer was
desperate because he could not pay the bills for his wife's treatment for
neurological problems and uterine cancer.
Investigators said that Reimer was in the apartment when they arrived. He told
them, "She didn't jump," but did not elaborate, they said.
Criste Reimer's caregiver told police she could barely walk and would not have
been able to climb over the railing of the balcony, according to the probable
cause statement.
Reimer's alleged motive emerged after several more hours of questioning, police
said.
According to Jackson County Probate Court records, Criste Reimer had been in ill
health for several years. Her weight had fallen to 75 pounds and she was partly
blind.
According to the court records, she had no health insurance to pay for medical
bills that ranged from $700 to $800 per week.
The Probate Court documents were filed in April, when Stanley Reimer petitioned
to be allowed to sell personal property his wife owned in Wheeler County, Texas,
for $20,000.
The documents listed her assets at approximately $6,700, with monthly income of
$725 from oil royalties and Supplemental Security Income.
It was not immediately known if Stanley Reimer had an attorney.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news
report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed
without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active
hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2007-08-16 16:44:21
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/man-allegedly-throws-wife-from-
balcony/20070816164409990002
George Conklin
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/04/california-failing-state-debt
>
> Any third world country is looking after it's citizens better. And in all
> the cases below Americans do not have to worry. Nobody is coming to help
or
> relieve your pain.Because there is nobody.
>
Health-Care Tug of War Puts Patients In the Middle
Battle in New Jersey Illustrates Problems
By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 9, 2009
BAYONNE, N.J. -- One February morning, a courier arrived at the front desk
of Bayonne Medical Center, trying to get to a patient's bedside. His
mission: to deliver a letter from New Jersey's dominant health insurer
warning that the patient would face a huge hospital bill if he did not leave
right away.
Hospital security guards stopped the courier -- and 13 others who came soon
after -- before they reached patients' rooms. But then came the faxes and,
after that, the letters mailed to patients' doctors and homes. Told that her
health plan would not pay for her to stay in the hospital, a 35-year-old
social worker named Lisa with a severe lung infection was so unnerved that,
tethered to an IV pole dripping antibiotics into her arm, she began to pack
her gym bag before a staff member coaxed her back into bed.
The hardball tactics being used to pry patients from their sickbeds
illustrate the colliding financial interests that pervade U.S. health care.
It is a tug of war over where patients are treated, who decides how much
care they receive and -- fundamentally -- which parts of the health-care
industry gain or lose when people become ill.
The battle playing out in Bayonne has particular relevance as Congress tries
to rewrite the rules that govern health care nationwide -- with hospitals,
insurers, doctors and other stakeholders descending on Capitol Hill to angle
for advantage. The bills before the House and the Senate would shift the
system's balance of power that has evolved over decades -- a balance at the
core of the dispute here.
Yet the fight over hospital patients in this working-class enclave also
hints at the limits of what federal health-care changes would accomplish;
none of the bills would legislate away the specific business practices that
have escalated into a full-scale brawl between the city's only hospital and
New Jersey's largest health insurer, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Lawsuits are flying in both directions, each side accusing the other of
fraud, greed and underhanded behavior that harms consumers and increases
medical costs. Bayonne accuses Horizon of harassing patients and not paying
its bills. Horizon accuses Bayonne of price-gouging and interfering with its
health plans.
Such a sharp clash of self-interests is evidence that President Obama may
have been naive in suggesting early on that health care's stakeholders are
now willing to set aside rivalries that have thwarted previous attempts at
reform, said Uwe E. Reinhardt, a health economist at Princeton University
who led a state commission on New Jersey's shaky hospital finances. "It's no
different from Iraq with all the different tribes. . . . 'How does it affect
the money flow to my interest group?' " he said. "They are all sitting in
the woods with their machine guns, waiting to shoot."
In such a tense climate, Bayonne has become virtually the only hospital in
the country that has withdrawn in protest from the "provider networks" of
every major insurer, abandoning a tradeoff that has become a staple of the
health-care system: Hospitals agree to be paid lower rates in exchange for
knowing that insurers will steer patients to their beds. Bayonne is not,
however, the only hospital at odds with Horizon. Four others have pulled out
Horizon's network or are close to leaving.
When Daniel A. Kane arrived as Bayonne Medical Center's chief executive the
winter of 2007, it was losing $1.5 million or more monthly and teetering on
the edge of collapse. For more than a century, it had been a fixture in this
blue-collar community at the tip of a peninsula in Newark Bay.
There was no choice, Kane concluded, but to file for bankruptcy protection
and find new owners. Kane and a crew of consultants scoured the country and
enlisted investors who wanted to convert Bayonne into a for-profit hospital,
one of two in the state.
"This place was messed up every way," said Brent Martin, a consultant
brought in to help turn it around. To buy equipment and improve care, the
new owners said, they needed to cut costs and bring in more money. In
seceding from all of its insurance networks -- a move made possible by the
bankruptcy -- the hospital's administrators reasoned they could then charge
insurers higher rates. They gambled that people in this rooted community
would keep coming.
Even so, Kane said, dropping out of Horizon, which covers nearly half the
state residents who are insured, was "very tough."
Christy W. Bell, Horizon's senior vice president for health-care management,
said, "Typically, we try to avoid these disputes. It catches patients in the
middle." Kane portrayed it differently: "When you are not in [Horizon's]
network . . . they are going to teach you a lesson."
Horizon mailed letters to 215,000 members and warned employers that, if
people went to Bayonne, they risked big hospital bills and higher premiums.
It was Feb. 6, the first day Bayonne was out of Horizon's network, that Neil
Carroll, in charge of the hospital's security, received a call that the
courier for Horizon was at the front desk. Horizon officials said they sent
letters to all of their 115 members admitted to Bayonne from February to
July, urging them to leave. They told some patients that Horizon had
determined "your medical condition is no longer acute" so it would not pay
for part of their stay. They told some that, because the hospital was
outside the network, the patient must shoulder up to 30 percent of the bill.
They told others that Horizon would not pay anything, because the patient
did not need to be hospitalized in the first place.
Lisa, the social worker, had arrived at Bayonne Medical Center by ambulance,
wheezing, with a 103-degree fever. She was wheeled upstairs to a hospital
bed. A few days later, an elderly woman in the next bed mentioned that
Horizon had stopped paying for patients to be there. Still coughing and
weak, Lisa said, she called Horizon and a customer service representative
gave her a choice: move to a hospital in Jersey City, several miles away,
that was in Horizon's network or pay for the rest of her care on her own.
"They sent me into a furious panic," said Lisa, who spoke on the condition
that her last name not be disclosed, saying she fears retaliation by
Horizon. A pulmonologist told her to stay. Still, she had her gym bag packed
when she buzzed for a nurse, who called a case manager, who told Lisa that
Bayonne had no intention of charging her beyond what Horizon was willing to
pay.
Lisa climbed back into bed.
Horizon officials said they could not discuss Lisa's case without her
permission, which she declined to give. But in general, they said, networks'
discounted rates help the insurance industry control medical spending. They
have, they said, a responsibility to encourage patients to avoid needless
expenses at out-of-network institutions.
Bayonne administrators counter that Horizon is falsely telling patients they
could be stuck with enormous bills; hospital officials have promised they
will not ask patients to pay more than their health plans cover.
Horizon sued the hospital in May, accusing it of "slick and fraudulent
tactics" to submit "phony, inflated bills." Horizon contends the hospital
has more than doubled its charges to rates far higher than those of nearby
hospitals. Bayonne denies doing so. Horizon also alleges it is illegal for
Bayonne to drop patients' co-payments, although Bayonne says that having
rescinded its contract with Horizon, it no longer needs to follow the rules
between the insurer and its customers.
In July, Bayonne sued Horizon, accusing it of "illegal intimidation,
harassment, threats and fraud" against patients and doctors, and of paying
the hospital a fraction of what it owes. And it alleges that Horizon is
trying to "illegitimately . . . enhance its Wall Street value" at a time
when it has asked state regulators to let it convert to a for-profit
company -- a claim that Bell calls "simply hogwash."
Amid the attacks and counterattacks, said Jon Glaudemans, senior vice
president for consultants Avalere Health, who studied health care in New
Jersey, is dysfunction in the medical marketplace that Congress's proposals
would not fix.
"It's a game of chess that turned into a game of chicken," he said, "and the
patients are in the middle."
Post a Comment
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Report item as: (required) X
Obscenity/vulgarity Hate speech Personal attack Advertising/Spam
Copyright/Plagiarism Other
Comment: (optional)
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate
comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries
that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual
author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who
violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or
any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules
governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the
content that you post.
� 2009 The Washington Post Company
George Conklin
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
news:Sridne1f8J00P03X...@westnet.com.au...
The British company Glaxo just laid off hundreds of American workers this
past week. To continue health care coverage, the company is asking for a
"contribution" of merely $1,800 a MONTH. So much for the USA.
George Conklin
"." <plan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.253a7296b...@news.x-privat.org...
This is the Republican solution to health-care cost reduction. Rush would
love it.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:WbSdnbgps67ifU3X...@earthlink.com...
It's a bit of a stretch to blame 'The USA'. The majority of 'ordinary' yanks
are pretty decent caring people I've always found.
The basic problem is that the insurance companies are simply ripping you
off.
And of course they are rich enough to be able to fund public disinformation
campaigns that suck in the ignorant, the gullible and the afraid (aka
rightards) in order to keep it that way.
>
George Conklin
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
Most of the insurance company money goes for paying the high-priced
personnel in the medial/industrial complex. Blue Cross and Blue Shield were
set up strictly to encourage more consumption of medical care during the
depression, after the AMA had outlawed anything but "fee for service"
medicine.
Ubiquitous
to starve to death has recovered after her outraged daughter intervened,"
reports London's Times:
Hazel Fenton, from East Sussex, is alive nine months after
medics ruled she had only days to live, withdrew her antibiotics
and denied her artificial feeding. The former school matron
had been placed on a controversial care plan intended to ease
the last days of dying patients.
Doctors say Fenton is an example of patients who have been
condemned to death on the Liverpool care pathway plan. They
argue that while it is suitable for patients who do have
only days to live, it is being used more widely in the NHS,
denying treatment to elderly patients who are not dying.
Fenton's daughter, Christine Ball, who had been looking after
her mother before she was admitted to the Conquest hospital in
Hastings, East Sussex, on January 11, says she had to fight
hospital staff for weeks before her mother was taken off the
plan and given artificial feeding.
Ball, 42, from Robertsbridge, East Sussex, said: "My mother
was going to be left to starve and dehydrate to death. It
really is a subterfuge for legalised euthanasia of the elderly
on the NHS."
Another Times story reports on the case of Matthew Millington, a 31-year-old
British army corporal and Iraq veteran, who died after a lung transplant:
The organs were from a donor who was believed to have smoked
30 to 50 roll-up cigarettes a day. A tumour was found after
the transplant, and its growth was accelerated by the drugs
that Mr Millington took to prevent his body rejecting the organs.
The kicker: "Because he was a cancer patient, he was not allowed to receive a
further pair of lungs, under hospital rules."
According to former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, "In Britain, the government
itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard scare
stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false." That will
come as a relief to Hazel Fenton--and to Matthew Millington, if there is life
after death.
Sid9
The post is a lie.
How is it a lie?
No system like the British NHS is proposed in any of the five bills
being considered.
Whether the anecdotes told in the post is true or not is not relevant
to the discussion in the United States.
This is only a scare tactic used to sensationalize our proposals.
The Republican way: Diversion and deception.
George Conklin
left
> to starve to death has recovered after her outraged daughter intervened,"
> reports London's Times:
>
> Hazel Fenton, from East Sussex, is alive nine months after
> medics ruled she had only days to live, withdrew her antibiotics
> and denied her artificial feeding. The former school matron
> had been placed on a controversial care plan intended to ease
> the last days of dying patients.
>
Well, in the USA she would be tortured to death by medical tests designed to
encrich providers until she died an unnatural death.
Ubiquitous
Mail:
A grandfather who beat cancer was wrongly told the disease
had returned and left to die at a hospice which pioneered a
controversial "death pathway."
Doctors said there was nothing more they could do for 76-year-old
Jack Jones, and his family claim he was denied food, water and
medication except painkillers.
He died within two weeks. But tests after his death found that
his cancer had not come back and he was in fact suffering from
pneumonia brought on by a chest infection.
To his family's horror, they were told he could have recovered
if he'd been given the correct treatment.
Perhaps it will ease the family's horror to hear the reassuring words of
former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winner no less: "In Britain,
the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all
heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are
false."
Christopher Helms
> "George Conklin" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:WbSdnbgps67ifU3X...@earthlink.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote in message
> >news:Sridne1f8J00P03X...@westnet.com.au...
>
> >> "colin" <pco...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> >>news:kcZzm.46578$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >> > Yeah well take a look AT RTHE REAL REALITY u r all heading for.
>
That's what has been happening since last summer. In the middle of a
huge recession, they have been able to spend millions of dollars every
day paying off Congress, buying airtime in every market and putting
some of the most idiotic garbage ever spoken by public officials into
Charles Grassely's and Michelle Bachmann's mouths. If the healthcare
debate has taught us anything, it's that those people who are always
talking and voting on C-Span do not work for us or represent us at
all, even technically.
Ubiquitous
>"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>The post is a lie.
Obviously, you need to refamiliarize yourself with what a lie is soyou don;t
make assine statements in the future. (you're welcome)
Liz Hunt of London's Daily Telegraph reports on an even more chilling
euphemism used in a country that long ago instituted "health-care reform":
"Mrs ------- has breathing difficulties," the night manager
told her. "She needs oxygen. Shall we call an ambulance?"
"What do you mean?" my friend responded. "What's the matter
with her?"
"She needs to go to hospital. Do you want that? Or would you
prefer that we make her comfortable?"
"Make her comfortable." Here's what that meant:
Befuddled by sleep, she didn't immediately grasp what was being
asked of her. Her grandmother is immobilised by a calcified knee
joint, which is why she is in the home. She's a little deaf and
frail, but otherwise perky. She reads a newspaper every day (without
glasses), and is a fan of the darling of daytime television, David
Dickinson. Why wouldn't she get medical treatment if she needed it?
Then, the chilling implication of the phone call filtered
through--she was being asked whether her grandmother should
be allowed to die.
"Call an ambulance now," my friend demanded.
The person at the other end persisted. "Are you sure that's
what you want? For her to go to hospital."
"Yes, absolutely. Get her to hospital."
Three hours later, her grandmother was sitting up in A&E [the
accident-and-emergency ward], smiling. She had a mild chest
infection, was extremely dehydrated, but was responding to oxygen
treatment.
As Hunt notes, "Withdrawal of fluids (and drugs) is one of the steps on the
controversial palliative care programme known as the Liverpool Care Pathway,
which has been adopted by 900 hospitals, hospices and care homes in England."
Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman disagrees: "In Britain, the government
itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard scare
stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false."
--
Ubiquitous
crossed the road on her scooter and ended up in a coma with a fractured
skull," reports London's Daily Mail:
An ambulance crew arrived and called for help, only to be
told by their operator that under strict meal break regulations
the closest additional crew still had a few minutes left on
their lunch break.
The paramedics were informed it would take 20 minutes for
another crew to arrive.
In the end one of them called their colleagues directly and they
abandoned their lunch and raced to help. . . .
A spokesman for the South Western Ambulance Service Trust said
it took its health and safety duties seriously.
He added: "In line with national guidelines which must be adhered
to by all ambulance trusts, it is important all staff have
dedicated 30-minute rest breaks which cannot be interrupted."
There is, however, a silver lining for young Bethany: "In Britain, the
government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors, observes former
Enron adviser Paul Krugman. "We've all heard scare stories about how that
--
Ubiquitous
hundreds of its staff to have private health treatment so they can leapfrog
their own waiting lists," London's Sunday Times reports:
More than 3,000 staff, including doctors and nurses, have
gone private at the taxpayers' expense in the past three
years because the queues at the clinics and hospitals where
they work are too long.
Figures released under the Freedom of Information act show
that NHS administrative staff, paramedics and ambulance
drivers have also been given free private healthcare. This
has covered physiotherapy, osteopathy, psychiatric care and
counselling--all widely available on the NHS.
British health care, it seems, resembles American elementary and secondary
education, in that the government has a monopoly but there is an expensive
private opt-out--and many of those who run the monopoly avail themselves of
the private system. If you like the public schools, you'll love ObamaCare!
One wonders, though, don't the NHS docs and other staffers read the New York
Times? After all, as former Enron adviser Paul Krugman has noted, "In Britain,
the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all
heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are
false."
--
Yes, we can!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1217081mugyear20.html
PLMerite
"Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hb1va9$ce6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Is that like when Jane Sturn on June 24th 2009 asked President Obama
regarding "his plan" whether her 100-year-old grandmother would qualify for
a pacemaker, and he hemmed and hawed around about "Maybe you're better off
not having the surgery but taking the painkiller."
The Leftists certainly are talking about imposing a Brit/Canada-like
Socialized health care system on the United States.
If you don't like your health care now, wait until it's administered by
unelected civil service types with the full power of the United Sates
Government behind them. No choice. No appeal.
What is the majority of money in a Health Care System spent on? Sick
people. Mostly elderly people. How do you "cut costs" in a Health Care
System? Reduce the amount of money spent on sick people. How is that done?
Rationing, delaying and denying treatment to sick and elderly people.
You'll be surprised how fast that new knee, hip replacement, pacemaker,
etc., becomes "elective surgery."
But only if you're a little person.
Regards, PLMerite
--
"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
money."
- Dame Margaret Thatcher
Sid9
"PLMerite" <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote in message
news:jNnDm.80269$uO.4...@en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com...
.
.
Sing the following Republican theme song twice:
[Groucho]
I don't know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it.
Your proposition may be good,
But let's have one thing understood,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it.
I'm opposed to it,
On general principle, I'm opposed to it.
[chorus]
He's opposed to it.
In fact, indeed, that he's opposed to it!
[Groucho]
For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night to morn,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
And I've kept yelling since I first commenced it,
I'm against it!
Ubiquitous
weeks are to be given the legal right to free private care," reports London's
Times:
The Cabinet agreed this week that the legislation, placing
maximum waiting times on the statute book for the first time,
should be rushed through Parliament before the next election.
Cancer patients, in particular, will receive funding for private
treatment if they have not seen an NHS specialist within two
weeks of GP referral.
Downing Street says that the two legal rights, which will be
unveiled in next month's Queen's Speech, are designed to
entrench the dramatic reduction of NHS waiting lists over
recent years.
Hmm, so the British medical system has waiting lists. It also has death
panels, another Times story suggests:
A father whose son was born with a rare neuromuscular
condition will go to the High Court today to try to stop
a hospital withdrawing support that keeps the child alive.
Doctors treating the one-year-old boy say that his quality
of life is so poor that it would not be in his best interests
to keep him alive. They say that they are supported in their
action by the baby's mother. The couple are separated.
The child, known for legal reasons as Baby RB, was born
with congenital myasthenic syndrome, a muscle condition
that severely limits movement and the ability to breathe
independently. He has been in hospital since birth.
If the hospital doctors succeed in their application it
will be the first time that a British court has gone against
the wishes of a parent and ruled that life support can be
discontinued or withdrawn from a child who does not have
brain damage.
And the Independent, a left-wing London paper, reports that "NHS
whistleblowers are routinely gagged in order to cover up dangerous and even
dishonest practices that could attract bad publicity and damage a hospital's
reputation":
Some local NHS bodies are spending millions of taxpayers'
money to pay off and silence whistleblowers with "super gags"
to stop them going public with patient safety incidents.
Experts warn that patients' lives are being endangered by
the use of intimidatory tactics to force out whistleblowers
and deter other professionals from coming forward.
On the other hand, according to former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, "In
Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors.
We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories
are false." THTA'S a relief!
Ubiquitous
when he gave �100,000 [about $160,000] to help save the life of a
cancer-stricken youngster," reports London's Daily Mail:
The pop Svengali donated the money for 18-month-old Sophie
Atay--from Birtley, Gateshead--to fly to the US for pioneering
treatment at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital in New
York.
He acted after learning the youngster's family launched a
last-ditch appeal for �500,000 to pay for the treatment last
week after they were told Sophie was suffering from a rare
form of neuroblastoma and needed treatment within days.
Alexandra Burke, last year's X Factor winner, broke the
news to Sophie's mum Karine, 33, on the telephone today
that Simon had now dipped into his own pocket to top up
the total to the necessary amount.
Wait, we're confused! Why does a little English girl have to come all
the way to the U.S. to get medical care, and why does this Cowell fellow
have to pay for it? We thought Britain had free medical care!
But wait, another Daily Mail story reports on what happens to older
people who get cancer in Britain:
Alarming research is showing that elderly cancer patients
are missing out on the breakthroughs in chemotherapy and
surgery that have dramatically improved the outcome of
younger patients.
In fact, up to 15,000 elderly people with cancer in the UK
are dying prematurely every year when compared to the rest
of Europe and the U.S., according to a report published by
the North West Cancer Intelligence Service (NWCIS) which
compiles cancer statistics. . . .
A major concern is that the NHS Cancer Plan, introduced in
2000 to improve cancer survival in the UK, has a cut-off
point at 70. This results in hospitals having less interest
in the elderly. "Yet half of all those diagnosed with cancer
are over 70," says Dr Tony Moran, NWCIS research director.
"It's an area that has been grossly neglected. . . ."
Yet according to former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, "In Britain, the
government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all
heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are
false."
Ubiquitous
neglecting its citizens' medical needs. But this story from London's Daily
Telegraph suggests there may be an element of projection in this stereotype:
Nearly 170,000 violent incidents take place in England's NHS
hospitals each year, data obtained under the Freedom of
Information Act has revealed.
Labour's laws on 24-hour drinking are being blamed for
alcohol-fuelled violence in accident and emergency departments
in particular.
There have been several murders and rapes at hospitals in recent
years and thousands of attacks annually involve the use of knives
and other weapons.
Almost one in four attacks results in injury, yet only a fraction
of them are ever reported to the police.
The statistics reveal the dangers that doctors, nurses, paramedics,
patients and visitors face in our hospitals on a daily basis.
Some hospital A & E [accident and emergency] departments have been
described as "war zones" on a typical Friday or Saturday night.
Meanwhile, the Daily Mail reports that "the decision to designate patients as
'do not resuscitate' is falling to junior doctors in one in five cases, a
report has revealed":
Usually a consultant should make the final decision--after
talking to the family--in cases where elderly patients are
not expected to survive.
But senior doctors were involved in dealing with just one in
three patients admitted to hospital shortly before dying, says
the report from the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient
Outcome and Death. . . .
The findings come amid continuing controversy over elderly
patients near the end of their lives being assigned to "death
pathway" schemes.
Experts claim doctors and nurses need more training in how
to care for people who are dying, because wrong diagnoses
can result in withdrawal of food and fluids when they might
otherwise have survived.
Then again, according to former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, "In Britain, the
Ubiquitous
recently advised, some will die, but at least others will be spared the
discomfort of getting mammograms. There isn't a similar upside to the
following decision by Britain's socialized medical system, described by
London's Daily Mail:
Liver cancer sufferers are being condemned to an early death
by being denied a new drug on the Health Service, campaigners warn.
They criticised draft guidance that will effectively ban the
drug sorafenib--which is routinely used in every other country
where it is licensed.
Trials show the drug, which costs �36,000 [about $60,000] a year,
can increase survival by around six months for patients who have
run out of options.
The Government's rationing body, the National Institute for
Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) said the overall cost
was "simply too high" to justify the 'benefit to patients'.
Buck up, liver cancer sufferers! "In Britain, the government itself runs the
hospitals and employs the doctors," former Enron adviser Paul Krugman assures
you. "We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these
Ubiquitous
London's Daily Mail:
Trials show Avastin can extend life by almost two years.
But the Government's rationing body, Nice, says it is not
cost-effective. . . .
Last week Nice rejected the use of a liver cancer drug on the NHS.
Around 35,000 Britons develop bowel cancer each year, of which
4,000-5,000 with advanced cancer could benefit from the drug.
Avastin, also known as bevacizumab, costs around �18,000 [about
$30,000] for a course of ten months' treatment given as intravenous
infusion with chemotherapy. . . .
But the complex formula used by the National Institute for Health
and Clinical Excellence, which looks at quality of life and overall
cost effectiveness, says the annual cost is �36,000.
This breaks the maximum limit set by Nice of �30,000--a figure
which has not changed in ten years despite inflation.
Even Canada, Australia and several Continental European countries with
socialized medicine let patients have Avastin. According to former Enron
adviser Paul Krugman, "In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals
and employs the doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in
practice; these stories are false." Isn't that NICE?
Ubiquitous
Thurrock University NHS Hospitals FoundationTrust led to the deaths of up to
400 patients a year," London's Daily Telegraph reported Thursday:
Figures compiled by a health watchdog showed death rates
at the Essex trust were a third higher than they should
have been.
Among the worst failings discovered by the Care Quality
Commission were a lack of basic nursing skills, curtains
spattered with blood on wards, mould in vital equipment
and patients being left in A&E for up to ten hours.
Concerns about death rates at the foundation hospital trust
were first raised a year ago, but an internal investigation
failed to find anything wrong and managers dismissed the
concerns.
But the new report found "systematic failings" in the trust's
management, all of whom are still in their jobs. The CQC said
its confidence in the management's ability had been "severely
dented."
Perhaps the only good news in the whole story comes from former Enron adviser
Paul Krugman, who observes: "And as I watched the deniers make their
arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of
treason--treason against the planet."
Sorry, wrong quote. We mean this one: "I predict that in the years ahead
Enron, not Sept. 11, will come to be seen as the greater turning point in U.S.
society."
Whoops, wrong again. OK, let's try once more: "In Britain, the government
itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard scare
stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false."
That's it. Third time's the charm. And do you know what, Krugman is right. The
Daily Mail has the number of deaths cited in the "shocking report" as just
70--well, "at least 70." Oh, but wait, the Mail's Saturday follow-up raises
the figure to 3,000. The left-wing Observer, a Sunday paper, says 5,000.
But does it really matter? As Stalin is said to have observed, while one death
is a tragedy, a million are a statistic. And here's a first for this feature:
a tragedy--or prospective tragedy--here in the U.S. It comes from Krugman's
New York Times colleague, Nicholas Kristof, who has no connection to Enron.
It seems that 23-year-old John Brodniak has a cavernous hemangioma, "an
abnormal growth of blood vessels, and in John's case it is chronically leaking
blood into his brain." He suffers from constant pain, impairments of memory
and coordination, and nausea and vomiting. There is a danger of premature
death should a blood vessel burst. Surgery could relieve his condition, but he
says doctors won't operate on him because he's uninsured, and he can't get
insurance because he has a pre-existing condition.
If any of our readers are in a position to help this young man, please email
us and we'll pass the information along to Kristof.
From the standpoint of public policy, though, the key passage in the Kristof
column is this one:
In August, he qualified for an Oregon Medicaid program,
but he hasn't been able to find a doctor who will accept
him as a patient for surgery, apparently because the
reimbursements are so low.
Somehow Kristof thinks he has made an argument for more government control
over health care, when in fact the case he has made against it is nothing
short of devastating.
Sid9
.
.
Delusional anti-Americans Republican!
maria
As I see the debate about this matter, the difference will be that now,
you can decide if you want annual mammograms, or a particular test or
treatment and your doctor can order it for you, and under the right
circumstances, insurance will cover it. The new mammogram reommendation
of this panel and others is only that, and their opinion - for now.
When this health insurance legislation passes, advisory boards, which
some Senators are calling the "rationers", opinions will carry decisive
weight and be used by whatever covrage system you are under to say you
cannot have such a test, or that if you do, they will not pay for it.
This then becomes a tug of war between what you and your docctor want
and what the government board says you can have. I do not know if the
governing boards then punish a doctor for ordering tests that they do
not cover and that you have to pay for, or not, but the opponents of the
bill seem to think there are many mandatory sections that mean doctors
will be punished in some way for deviating from what the government
says. The inherent issue with this is that we would be terrorized by
the government health system instead of aiding us. Those of us in the
medicare system are used to having them pay very small sums to doctors,
hospitals, etc. and or not covering things, which means the secondary
insurance does not cover it. So, that is what to expect when the
government takes over everyone's care. The rationing boards created or
empowered by this bill will determine what we elderly can get and what
we cannot. In addition, this bill would take a great deal of money out
of the medicare system in order to pay those who are promoting the bill
thru ads and lobbying, accordoing to a senator on the senate floor seen
on cspan today. It is the worst piece of legislation ever to come on to
the floor of both houses. It has got to be stopped. Call your senator
or send him an email. Go to his website under senate.gov and find their
email usually under 'contact' on your senator's website. The main
problem is that the emails on this website will not take comments for
senators outside your state. You have to put in an address and zip code
for it to go thru. They do not want to hear from people outside their
state, but they want to force legislation on us that affects all of us.
Governor Swill
> Call your senator
>or send him an email. Go to his website under senate.gov and find their
>email usually under 'contact' on your senator's website. The main
>problem is that the emails on this website will not take comments for
>senators outside your state. You have to put in an address and zip code
>for it to go thru. They do not want to hear from people outside their
>state, but they want to force legislation on us that affects all of us.
That's how it was designed to work.
Swill
--
In the exam room . . .
Doctor: "Public Opt . . ."
Elephant: "SOCIALISM!"
Doctor: "Reflexes good."
Ubiquitous
ambulance crew because no NHS [National Health Service] unit would accept
her," reports the BBC:
[A paramedic] wrote that the first hospital they took
her to, believed to be the main psychiatric hospital
in Ipswich, St Clements, "declined to accept the patient
as she was a juvenile" so the ambulance was diverted to
the local juvenile psychiatry facility.
They were unable to accept the patient as the staff were
on an "away day", the memo reports. It is understood this
facility would not have been the agreed "place of safety"
for such a patient anyway.
The receptionist suggested they contact someone from the
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service nearby.
When the crew got there, they were told the patient could
not be accepted.
Another unit was suggested, but this would not be open until
four days later.
The patient was then taken to A&E at Ipswich Hospital, but
the crew was again told the patient could not be accepted
there because she had been sectioned under the Mental Health
Act.
The paramedic said: "As there was no alternative available,
we had to convey the patient to the police cells as a place
of safety. This was the wrong environment for this sick and
vulnerable child."
A Suffolk Police custody log confirmed the girl was kept in
the cells for six hours between 1700 GMT and 2300 GMT.
None of this would have happened if the paramedics had listened to former
Enron adviser Paul Krugman: "In Britain, the government itself runs the
that works in practice; these stories are false."
Ubiquitous
raised from 40 to 50 by the California Health and Human Services Agency,
which will also temporarily stop enrollment in the breast cancer screening
program," reports the North (San Diego) County Times:
Advocates for low-income women, whose health care the
department helps pay for, say the cuts put a two-tier
system in place that is based on money rather than
medical standards.
But don't worry--ObamaCare will reduce the number of tiers to one, so that
rich women won't be able to get tested either.
Ubiquitous
which spend a fraction of the billions poured into the NHS"--the National
Health Service--reports London's Daily Mail:
British cancer and heart attack victims are more likely
to die than almost anywhere in the developed world;
Asthma and diabetes patients are more than three times
as likely to end up in hospital as their neighbours in
Germany;
Life expectancy in Britain--79 years and six months for a
man--is far worse than in France, where men expect to live
until 81. The deficit is similar for women.
Britain performed only marginally better than former
Communist states whose governments spend only half as
much on healthcare.
But there is also good news for Brits, courtesy of former Enron adviser Paul
Krugman: "In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the
doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these
stories are false."
Ubiquitous
in an Associated Press dispatch from Albany, N.Y.:
As the economy falters and more people go without health
insurance, low-income women in at least 20 states are being
turned away or put on long waiting lists for free cancer screenings,
according to the American Cancer Society's Cancer Action
Network.
In the unofficial survey of programs for July 2008 through
April 2009, the organization found that state budget strains
are forcing some programs to reject people who would otherwise
qualify for free mammograms and Pap smears. Just how many are
turned away isn't known; in some cases, the women are screened
through other programs or referred to different providers.
If, as we have argued, the threat of ObamaCare is having deleterious effects
on the economy, then people may die because Congress and the president refuse
to give this up. But also, how much confidence do you have that if the federal
government took over health care, budget shortfalls wouldn't eventually lead
to similar reductions?
Ubiquitous
British maternity ward, in which the hospital administrator is visiting and
the doctor shows off the fancy "machine that goes 'ping' " while ignoring the
patient, who lies off to the side on a gurney.
Actual maternity wards in Britain's National Health Service are even worse,
former NHS staffer Verena Burns writes in London's Daily Mail:
I longed to sit with this poor young woman, calm her and
remind her gently to breathe deeply through each contraction.
Just half an hour of my time could have made all the difference.
Instead, I put on my cheeriest smile and followed hospital procedure.
"Would you like a painkiller?" I asked.
Ten hours later, after she had been drugged to the eyeballs
to dull the pain, I heard she'd given birth.
Her baby was healthy, but I knew I'd let her down.
As I watched her being wheeled into the ward, I felt eaten up
with guilt. She'd effectively been ignored from the moment she
turned up until the moment she gave birth.
Plonked on an antenatal ward until her time came, with no one
to reassure her during what was most likely the most terrifying
moment of her life.
No woman should have to give birth in these conditions--let alone
in a modern hospital with professional staff at hand.
Welcome to the modern NHS maternity ward. A world of shoddy
practice, poor hygiene standards and a shocking disregard for
patients' individual needs.
Every time we highlight a story about the NHS--almost always from British
newspapers--former Enron adviser Paul Krugman weighs in with the same mantra:
"In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors.
We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories
are false."
We have to admit, we're beginning to think he may be wrong.
Ubiquitous
more money from the NHS"--Britain's National Health Service--"than their
clients receive in damages," the Times of London reports:
The rise of no-win, no-fee actions against the health
service has been blamed for a sharp increase in the
proportion of payouts ending up in the pockets of the
claimants' lawyers.
Law firms representing patients made more than �100
million [about $160 million] last year from successful
claims concluded against the NHS. Their costs, at rates
of up to �400 an hour, were more than double those for
lawyers representing the health service. "Success" fees
charged by lawyers working on a no-win, no-fee basis--which
cover their risk of losing some cases--can double the
cost, according to the NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA).
But wait! Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman has noted: "In Britain, the
government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard
scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false." Do
you hear him, they're false! That means these claims of neglect must be
meritless.
Accordingly, we look forward to Krugman's next column, on Britain's urgent
need for tort reform.
Ubiquitous
announced his 'miracle' recovery from a career-threatening digestive disease
Wednesday while slamming the health care he received in Canada after falling
sick during a hunting trip," the Canadian Press reports:
The six-foot-four Lesnar, who has to cut weight to make
the UFC heavyweight limit of 265 pounds, said he had been
ailing for some time last year, before falling seriously
ill during a trip to Canada. What had started as flu-like
symptoms was upgraded to mononucleosis and then diverticulosis.
Asked about the low point during the last few months of
his illness, Lesnar said: "Probably the lowest moment was
getting care from Canada."
"They couldn't do nothing for me," he noted in a later media
conference call Wednesday. "It was like I was in a Third World
country."
"I'm just stating the facts here and that's the facts," he
continued. "I love Canada. I own property in Canada but if
I had to choose between getting care in Canada or the United
States, I definitely want to be in the United States. Canadians,
don't get me wrong here. Listen I love Canada, some of the
best people and best hunting in the world. I have family up
there. But I wasn't at the right facility. And it makes sense
for me to say that."
Whether or not you care for Ultimate Fighting (we don't), it's a reminder of
why we should be celebrating the demise of ObamaCare.
It also underscores how odd it is when people in countries that do have
socialized medicine want America to adopt it as well. Lesnar is American, but
lots of Canadians take advantage of America's proximity to get care the Canuck
death panels would deny them.
The night of the House ObamaCare vote in November, we were at a party where an
Italian man was exulting over the coming of socialized medicine to America. He
criticized our system for spending such a high proportion of gross domestic
product on health care, and we pointed out that one reason for that is that we
pay the price for pharmaceutical innovations, on which other countries then
free-ride. If America adopted price controls, as Robert Reich has pointed out,
innovation would be retarded--and that would be to the detriment of Italians
as well as Americans.
The guy from Italy didn't care. There is such a thing as foolish national
pride.
Ubiquitous
argues that getting health costs under control is still crucial:
Is health care becoming the mortal enemy of our country's
education system?
I don't pose this question facetiously. When we're discussing
public services, it's important to remember that at the end
of the day, everything comes down to money.
And it is obvious that health care is increasingly getting
that money at the apparent expense of other public services--most
notably education.
In fact, our health-care system's voracious and unending appetite
for tax dollars is crowding out spending in all sorts of other areas.
If only we had a single-payer system like Canada's . . . Oh, wait! Baldrey's
article is about Canada's system. It appears in the Surrey (British Columbia)
Now.
Ubiquitous
provinces. Danny Williams is its premier, so his rough equivalent in "the
states" would be the governor of Delaware or South Dakota. CBC reports
Williams is having some heart trouble, for which he will be having surgery--in
the United States!
Why? The report doesn't say, but we can rule out geographic proximity, as
Newf-and-Lab is the remotest of Canada's 10 provinces. According to Google
Maps, getting from the capital, St. John's, to Portland, Maine, the nearest
half-decent-sized U.S. city, is a 2,242 km drive, including a 176 km ferry to
Nova Scotia. We don't know what "km" means either, but the point is, Williams
is going a long way.
Why? We thought Canada had a great system of socialized medicine for all!
Apparently even a provincial premier can get better care in America. What
would Williams have done if ObamaCare had passed and turned out to be no
better than CanucKare?
Obama Nation = Abomination
<terml...@democracy.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 05:02:34 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
>wrote:
>Canada does not have socialized medicine as it once existed in the
>U.K. All doctors (except those on Hospital Staff) are private
>physicians who are paid, but do not work for the government. No
>Canadian is told which doctor they can go to (Unlike U.S. HMO's who
>dictate who your doctor is) and are free to change doctors at will.
>Most Medical labs are private companies and there are many private
>clinics in Canada. As to Danny Williams going to the states, that is
>no different than the thousands of Americans who over the decades have
>sent their children to Toronto's Sick Childrens Hospital for top
>flight, state of the art medical care or, your 'rich' Americans who
>routinely go to Switzerland for medical care or other countries to
>receive cancer care they can't get in the U.S. Our system certainly
>has its faults, but in Canada nobody goes bankrupt because of their
>inability for receive medical care or hospitalization, unlike in the
>U.S. where an estimated 50% of all bankruptcies are medically related.
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895896
>
>
MSNBC.
Heh.
In Canuckistan, you wait 3 months for an MRI and 12 months to see a
shrink.
And if ya ever need a leg amputated, make sure you tie a note to the
good leg saying, "Remove OTHER leg."
Sid9
"Obama Nation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
news:4b6c5869...@news.eternal-september.org...
No Canadian would trade their system for what we have
Obama Nation = Abomination
Good.
Let 'em have it.
But don't impose it on Americans.
Sid9
"Obama Nation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
."Impose"......???
No one proposed their system....
Like that liar Limbo, you set up a straw man and then you shoot it down.
What we need is Medicare for all...not free.
Paid for by every American.
With many choices as to the type of insurance they want to buy.
No change in who employs doctors.
No socializing anything...just get employers and insurance companies out of
the money loop.
Obama Nation = Abomination
But you're praising it, ya cunt.
>Like that liar Limbo, you set up a straw man and then you shoot it down.
>
>What we need is Medicare for all...not free.
>Paid for by every American.
>With many choices as to the type of insurance they want to buy.
>No change in who employs doctors.
>No socializing anything...just get employers and insurance companies out of
>the money loop.
>
>
What we need is to reduce regulations and allow the ins. cos. to cross
State lines and cap medical malpractice awds.
Sid9
"Obama Nation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
.
You want to make insurance company gravy train bigger and better to the
detriment of patients and doctors.
Medical malpractice cost are exaggerated. They are peanuts compared to what
the insurance companies are running away with.
Obama Nation = Abomination
<terml...@democracy.com> wrote:
>Which won't do a damn thing to reduce bankruptcies caused by medical
>reasons. But, it could help idiots like you to find state lines.
>
It would lower costs of premiums, cupcake.
And people could afford coverage
Obama Nation = Abomination
Quite the contrary. It would spur competitive pricing.
>Medical malpractice cost are exaggerated. They are peanuts compared to what
>the insurance companies are running away with.
>
>
Doctors overkill on diagnostic procedures for fear of being sued.
Obama Nation = Abomination
<terml...@democracy.com> wrote:
>And idiot response to a factual post. And I can understand why you
>know the stats about shrinks.
>
We don't want Canuckicare here.
Didn't ya hear the people speak?
Sid9
"Obama Nation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
.
No one offered it to you, asshole!
Sid9
"Obama Nation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
Another lie......they may overkill to make more money...but malpractice?
Only an excuse.
Most of my Dr's no longer carry malpractice insurance...so there's no
expense for them,
Sid9
"Obama Nation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
.
An insurance company LIE!
Glenn Beck
stories to her death because he could no longer afford to pay for her
medical care, prosecutors said in charging him with second-degree
murder.
According to court documents filed Wednesday in Jackson County Circuit
Court, Stanley Reimer walked his wife to the balcony of their
apartment and kissed her before throwing her over.
The body of Criste Reimer, 47, was found Tuesday night outside the
apartment building, near the upscale Country Club Plaza shopping
district.
Stanley Reimer, 51, was charged Wednesday. He remained jailed on
$250,000 bond and was scheduled to be arraigned Thursday.
In the probable cause statement filed with the charges, police said
Reimer was desperate because he could not pay the bills for his wife's
treatment for neurological problems and uterine cancer.
Investigators said that Reimer was in the apartment when they arrived.
He told them, "She didn't jump," but did not elaborate, they said.
Criste Reimer's caregiver told police she could barely walk and would
not have been able to climb over the railing of the balcony, according
to the probable cause statement.
Reimer's alleged motive emerged after several more hours of
questioning, police said.
According to Jackson County Probate Court records, Criste Reimer had
been in ill health for several years. Her weight had fallen to 75
pounds and she was partly blind.
According to the court records, she had no health insurance to pay for
medical bills that ranged from $700 to $800 per week.
The Probate Court documents were filed in April, when Stanley Reimer
petitioned to be allowed to sell personal property his wife owned in
Wheeler County, Texas, for $20,000.
The documents listed her assets at approximately $6,700, with monthly
income of $725 from oil royalties and Supplemental Security Income.
It was not immediately known if Stanley Reimer had an attorney.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the
AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise
distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated
Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2007-08-16 16:44:21
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/man-allegedly-throws-wife-from-balcony/20070816164409990002
Obama Nation = Abomination
They tried to mandate it.
Didn't work.
Heh.
Obama Nation = Abomination
Nope.
Reality
Obama Nation = Abomination
MDs are running scared because of left-wing ambulance chasers.
Glenn Beck
>
> MDs are running scared because of left-wing ambulance chasers.
A myth. And who says they're left wing? You? The right wing media?
ROTFL!!
Why Are 1 Million Americans Traveling Outside Of the USA Every Year
for Surgery
Self-Insured Employers Can Finally Reduce the cost of providing
Healthcare Benefits… some by as much as 70%.
Atlanta, GA, August 01, 2009 --(PR.com)-- Global Surgery Network, has
been sending under-insured or un-insured individuals overseas for
surgical procedures for 4 years, and saving them 70% the cost here in
the USA... It's a $ 5 Billion business. Now the insurance, 3rd party
benefits providers, and self-insured companies are starting to "get
it..."
Companies that are self-insured can reduce their expenses by sending
employees overseas for certain medical procedures with no compromises
in safety or comfort. Similarly, many major insurance companies are
already outsourcing some operations for their policy holders.
To assist American companies in dealing with hospitals and surgeons in
other countries, Global Surgery Network Inc. (GSN) has set up a new
Professional Services Division. "At a time when companies are
typically looking at 15% to 20% annual increases in their insurance
premiums, dealing with overseas providers can end up saving them 60 to
70%%," says GSN President Jack Schafer. "The customers get medical
care that is every bit as good as, and often better than they'd
receive here in the USA." The business of going outside of your home
country to receive a medical or surgical procedures is called Medical
Tourism. According to Forbes Magazine (June 2008) “… over a million
Americans are now going offshore in this $5 billion business… that is
expected to grow to $20 billion by 2012.
Offshore treatment is not intended to replace emergency operations,
but planned and necessary orthopedic procedures for hips, knees and
backs have proven to be ideal ways to cut costs and some insurance
providers are even eliminating deductibles and co-pays. Even when the
added expenses of travel and first-class accommodations for both the
patient and a companion have been factored in, the bottom line reveals
savings too substantial to ignore.
At least two major US based insurance companies ( BCBS, Hamana) have
already signed agreement to have elective surgeries performed in
India, Panama, and parts of Asia. Hospitals that meets all guidelines
set by the American Medical Association.
Some of America's most prestigious medical institutions, Harvard
University, Johns Hopkins and the Mayo Clinic have international
divisions that are operating hospitals in India, Panama and Thailand.
The insurance industry had initially attempted to make arrangements
with overseas hospitals directly, but have found the task of arranging
all of the travel, transportation, and accommodations to coincide with
the medical procedures to be a daunting task. The industry is now
turning to 3rd party "Facilitators" to arrange all of the details for
their policyholders or employees, and GSN, as one of only five
"Certified Facilitators" accredited by the Medical Tourism
Association, has clearly taken the lead in providing these 3rd party
services. “In addition to arranging all of the travel details, GSN's
Medical Staff has developed nine International Hospitals providing our
clients with the opportunity to select from among the very best in the
world… and save around 70% the cost of the same procedures here at
home.
GSN President Jack Schafer has spoken at countless engagements, and
will be a featured speaker at the 22nd Annual Employees Benefits Group
Conference, September Atlanta GA. and he is scheduled to appear on
“Inside Business Today”, hosted by Fred Thompson on CNN.
To find out more about the Medical Tourism as an Industry, visit
www.MedicalTourismIndustry.com...
Contact:
Jack Schafer, PE
President
Global Surgery Network, Inc.
Phone: 770-475-4100
Toll-free: 1-877-866-8558
www.GlobalSurgeryNetwork.com:
E-mai...@globalsurgerynetwork.com
ObamaNation = Abomination
<terml...@democracy.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:05:35 GMT, here@yomomma. (Obama Nation =
>What they tried to 'mandate' was a confused, chaotic system that bears
>no resemblance to any healthcare system anywhere on this planet. It
>was a 'pork' bill that would have enriched a few and screwed many.
>
You don't know the half of it, sonny.
And yet Obama's sheep support it heartily
ObamaNation = Abomination
<terml...@democracy.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:39:24 GMT, here@yomomma. (Obama Nation =
>I don't give a damn whether you want 'Canuckicare' or not. I'm simply
>trying to clarify the Canadian System to those idiots who are using
>hyperbole to trash our system. It seems the only way they can make
>their case is to lie.
>
The quality of Canuckicare is inferior yo ours.
If you like it, fine.
I'm happy with mine.
duke
wrote:
>KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Aug. 16) - A man threw his seriously ill wife four
>stories to her death because he could no longer afford to pay for her
>medical care, prosecutors said in charging him with second-degree
>murder.
Atheists will do the worst things.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
ObamaNation = Abomination
<terml...@democracy.com> wrote:
>So, you don't give a damn about the two million Americans that go
>bankrupt each year because of a lack of, or insufficient medical
>insurance.
>
I don't believe that left-wing horseshit for a minute.
I see poor getting treated, many of them illegals.
If we subtract the illegals, the self-employed who can afford to buy
insurance but choose not to, and the employees who choose not to, the
remainder is small. Yes, there should be a safety net for them but
not what the govt. is proposing.
Premiums would fall if ins. cos. would be allowed to compete across
State lines and if malpractice suits were capped.
ObamaNation = Abomination
Offered it?
Piglosi tried to FORCE a version of it.
Ya dumb cunt, ya.
Hope for the Heartless
here@yomomma. (ObamaNation = Abomination) wrote:
According to whom?
> If you like it, fine.
>
> I'm happy with mine.
According to Gallup, 83% of Americans are happy with the
quality of the healthcare they receive. That means 17%,
or about 50 million Americans aren't.
That's the care itself, i.e. what they get from their doctor,
hospital, nurse, etc.
70% rate their health care coverage -- what insurance pays for --
excellent or good. That means 30%, or 90 million Americans, rate
their coverage less than good. It should be said that most Americans,
despite their good opinions, have less coverage than any Canadian has.
To be realistic, very few Americans have coverage that is excellent,
if Canadian coverage were on the scale.
39% of Americans, or 117 million, are dissatisfied with the total cost
they pay for healthcare. But most don't see the real costs. The total
cost of health care and insurance was recently estimated at 17% of GDP.
That would amount to about $8200 per person last year. In fact, even
though most Americans are satisfied with the costs they pay, those costs
are extremely high compared to other countries where the quality of
care is similar. Those countries all have universal health coverage.
Hope for the Heartless
It's small because you excluded two of the groups that are most in need
of help: the self-employed who cannot afford $12000 per year for a family
on their modest incomes and the employees who choose not to pay thousands
per year because their wages are too low to afford a decent place to
live, food to eat, clothes to wear AND health insurance, even if their
employer picks up a portion.
> Yes, there should be a safety net for them but
> not what the govt. is proposing.
You're right. It should not be what the government is proposing. It
should be what LIBERALS are proposing: health insurance provided by
the government and paid for by taxes on everybody.
> Premiums would fall if ins. cos. would be allowed to compete across
> State lines
What exactly do you mean by that? The big insurance companies that
insure most Americans operate in many states. Do you mean that we
should strip the states of the right to regulate insurance companies
operating within their states? How do you think that would be
beneficial to the people of the states?
> and if malpractice suits were capped.
Malpractice suits are a small portion of total health costs. That's not
to say something shouldn't be done, but you shouldn't expect to realize
more than a couple percent at most if you cap malpractice judgments.
And what is the maximum reasonable value if a doctor kills your child or
amputates the wrong leg? You think bureaucrats or politicians should
set that limit rather than juries who understand the facts of the case?
I'm not so sure.
Hope for the Heartless
here@yomomma. (ObamaNation = Abomination) wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:41:17 -0500, "Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Obama Nation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
> >news:4b6c9df3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> We don't want Canuckicare here.
> >>
> >> Didn't ya hear the people speak?
> >.
> >.
> >No one offered it to you, asshole!
> >
> >
> Offered it?
>
> Piglosi tried to FORCE a version of it.
>
> Ya dumb cunt, ya.
Either you don't understand what Canada's healthcare system is or
you don't understand the House bill or you don't understand either
of them.
They're very different.
ObamaNation = Abomination
The American people want neither.
ObamaNation = Abomination
When a patient shows up at a doctor's office with a bruise after
falling and bumping his head, the physician might order a CT
scan even if she believes the injury is superficial.
Worries about a malpractice lawsuit might prompt her to take
steps that aren't medically necessary. "If I don't get a CAT
scan, this is that one case where I'll end up in court," the
doctor might think, says Cecil Wilson, a physician who is
president-elect of the American Medical Association.
This is defensive medicine -- a careful, fretful approach to
treating patients, in which doctors authorize tests in part to
reduce the risk that they will be sued. In the national debate
over health care, doctors and policy makers often point to
spending on defensive medicine as a key driver of soaring costs.
Calculating how much defensive medicine actually costs is
extremely difficult, because medical professionals often have
many motivations for ordering tests and other procedures. The
U.S. spends a higher percentage of its gross domestic product on
health care than any other nation in the industrialized world.
Legal expenses contribute to the bill.
Even so, health-care experts say the direct costs of medical
malpractice -- the insurance premiums, claims paid and legal
fees -- amount to a very small portion of overall health-care
spending.
Total spending on medical malpractice, including legal-defense
costs and claims payments, was $30.41 billion in 2007, according
to an estimate from consulting firm Towers Perrin. That is a
significant figure, but it still amounts to a little more than
1% of total U.S. health-care spending, which the federal
government estimates at $2.241 trillion for 2007.
Indirect costs that stem in part from medical professionals
looking for legal protection play a far larger role in health-
care spending, doctors and some analysts say. And they are one
reason medical liability is bubbling as an issue as Congress
reviews whether to pass a health-care overhaul. Sen. John Kerry,
a Democrat, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican, both said
earlier this week that Congress needs to find a way to eliminate
frivolous malpractice cases.
"There are significant savings that can be achieved in our
health-care systems if we have prudent medical malpractice
reform in place," said Sen. Hatch in a statement.
Art Ushijima, president and chief executive of the Queen's
Medical Center, based in Honolulu, says legal concerns have
become a bigger burden. He recalls that when he first came to
the hospital -- Hawaii's largest -- about 20 years ago, there
was one staff attorney. Now there are six. Salaries for staff,
with the costs to support them, are "well into the seven
figures," he says.
At the University of Miami School of Medicine's patient
practice, 14 cents out of every dollar collected in fees for
services to patients goes toward buying medical malpractice
insurance, says William Donelan, the university's vice president
for medical administration. That figure doesn't include costs of
defensive medicine, which are difficult to quantify, he says.
"Our system is really irrational and out of control," he says.
Some advocates argue that the costs of liability aren't central
to the overall health-care picture. Just how much medical
malpractice suits drive up the cost of health care is "one of
the most blown-out-of-proportion numbers in American public
policy discourse," says Taylor Lincoln, a research director at
consumer- advocacy group Public Citizen. He calls the broader
concern about spending on defensive medicine "fear-mongering"
about an exaggerated risk of lawsuits.
In a 2003 report that called for medical liability reform, the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated that
limits on malpractice awards could save between $70 billion and
$126 billion a year. But that estimate was based on a study
published in 1996 that analyzed data on elderly heart-disease
patients from 1984 to 1990. That study, published in the
Quarterly Journal of Economics, found that malpractice liability
reforms lowered health costs by between 5% and 9%.
"Regardless of anyone's numbers, no reasonable person would
suggest the cost [of malpractice expenses] is insignificant,"
says Darren McKinney, a spokesman for the American Tort Reform
Association in Washington. "There is no reason in the world why
we shouldn't look to contain that cost."
To that end, many states have passed laws in recent years aimed
at curbing liability claims. An aggressive law passed in Texas
in 2003 caps liability awards at $250,000 for noneconomic
damages such as pain and suffering, a move that has led to fewer
malpractice suits being filed, according to several prominent
plaintiffs' attorneys there. According to Texans for Lawsuit
Reform, a lobbying group that supports the caps, medical-
liability-insurance rates have declined an average of 21% in the
state since the law change, with almost a quarter of doctors
seeing a 50% decrease.
But even some defense lawyers think the Texas laws are too
severe. "I believe a $250,000 cap for someone who is seriously
hurt or for the death of a parent who has left a spouse and
three kids is too low," says Larry Thompson, a Houston-based
lawyer who defends doctors and hospitals in malpractice suits.
Moreover, it isn't clear that capping malpractice payouts would
rein in health-care spending motivated by fear of lawsuits.
In a 2008 report, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
said that capping malpractice awards would lead to lower
insurance premiums, which could have "a very modest impact on
doctors' fees and health-care spending." Award caps could have a
bigger impact on health-care spending if they led doctors to
order fewer unnecessary tests, but the CBO said it "has not
found consistent evidence of such broader effects."
In a survey of Pennsylvania doctors in high-liability
specialties such as obstetrics, 59% of respondents said they
often ordered more tests than were medically necessary. The
survey, conducted in 2003 when malpractice premiums were rising
sharply in the state, was published in the Journal of the
American Medical Association.
Doctors say it is often difficult to say how much of any given
decision is driven by liability concerns. When ordering a test,
the doctor may be mixing fears of being sued with a desire to
provide the patient with the best exam possible and to please
the patient, who wants to feel that treatment is comprehensive.
And in many cases doctors increase their income by ordering more
tests.
"Legal ramifications are one of the many factors that go into a
medical decision," says Kevin Pho, a primary-care doctor based
in Nashua, N.H., who writes a medical blog that often touches on
defensive medicine.
Still, Dr. Pho says, "Doctors get sued for failure to diagnose
and not ordering tests ... It's something that I do think about
and in some cases it does influence my decision."
The American Medical Association argues that the cost of
defensive medicine could be curbed by offering doctors a so-
called "safe harbor." If a doctor follows established medical
guidelines that say a given test is unnecessary, the doctor
cannot be sued for failing to order the test.
A measure approved this summer by the House Committee on Energy
and Commerce would provide incentives for states to adopt
changes that some say could reduce the costs of defensive
medicine. One change would require lawyers who represent
patients to get a "certificate of merit" from a medical
professional who certifies that procedures in a case failed to
meet certain minimum standards.
Lawyers who represent patients say one way to slash the
exorbitant cost of health care would be to cut down on errors
doctors make so that fewer cases wind up in the legal system.
The American Association of Justice, an advocacy group for
plaintiffs' lawyers, suggests that hospitals should more
aggressively report mistakes and state medical boards should
impose stiffer penalties on doctors who make them.
As a matter of public policy, it might make sense to spend less
money as a society on unnecessary tests. But Jack McGehee, a
Houston-based plaintiffs' lawyer, says it is difficult to
convince ailing patients that their doctor should order fewer
tests.
"If I'm a patient," says Mr. McGehee, "I want you to practice
defensive medicine."
ObamaNation = Abomination
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care
David Gratzer
Socialized medicine has meant rationed care and lack of innovation.
Small wonder Canadians are looking to the market.
Mountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her
Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbitux�a proven cancer
drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional
chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the
body�and Aucoin went to a clinic to begin treatment. But if Erbitux
offered hope, Aucoin�s insurance didn�t: she received one inscrutable
form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. Yet
another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone
of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard
treatment, covered by insurance companies�in the United States. Aucoin
lives in Ontario, Canada.
When Aucoin appealed to an official ombudsman, the Ontario government
claimed that her treatment was unproven and that she had gone to an
unaccredited clinic. But the FDA in the U.S. had approved Erbitux, and
her clinic was a cancer center affiliated with a prominent Catholic
hospital in Buffalo. This January, the ombudsman ruled in Aucoin�s
favor, awarding her the cost of treatment. She represents a dramatic
new trend in Canadian health-care advocacy: finding the treatment you
need in another country, and then fighting Canadian bureaucrats (and
often suing) to get them to pick up the tab.
But if Canadians are looking to the United States for the care they
need, Americans, ironically, are increasingly looking north for a
viable health-care model. There�s no question that American health
care, a mixture of private insurance and public programs, is a mess.
Over the last five years, health-insurance premiums have more than
doubled, leaving firms like General Motors on the brink of bankruptcy.
Expensive health care has also hit workers in the pocketbook: it�s one
of the reasons that median family income fell between 2000 and 2005
(despite a rise in overall labor costs). Health spending has surged
past 16 percent of GDP. The number of uninsured Americans has risen,
and even the insured seem dissatisfied. So it�s not surprising that
some Americans think that solving the nation�s health-care woes may
require adopting a Canadian-style single-payer system, in which the
government finances and provides the care. Canadians, the seductive
single-payer tune goes, not only spend less on health care; their
health outcomes are better, too�life expectancy is longer, infant
mortality lower.
Thus, Paul Krugman in the New York Times: �Does this mean that the
American way is wrong, and that we should switch to a Canadian-style
single-payer system? Well, yes.� Politicians like Hillary Clinton are
on board; Michael Moore�s new documentary Sicko celebrates the virtues
of Canada�s socialized health care; the National Coalition on Health
Care, which includes big businesses like AT&T, recently endorsed a
scheme to centralize major health decisions to a government committee;
and big unions are questioning the tenets of employer-sponsored health
insurance. Some are tempted. Not me.
I was once a believer in socialized medicine. I don�t want to
overstate my case: growing up in Canada, I didn�t spend much time
contemplating the nuances of health economics. I wanted to get into
medical school�my mind brimmed with statistics on MCAT scores and
admissions rates, not health spending. But as a Canadian, I had soaked
up three things from my environment: a love of ice hockey; an ability
to convert Celsius into Fahrenheit in my head; and the belief that
government-run health care was truly compassionate. What I knew about
American health care was unappealing: high expenses and lots of
uninsured people. When HillaryCare shook Washington, I remember
thinking that the Clintonistas were right.
My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way
to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the
hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute.
Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed
with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it
turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine.
Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew
about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went
well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any
diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain
from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic�with a
three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose
what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman
with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation
therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks.
I decided to write about what I saw. By day, I attended classes and
visited patients; at night, I worked on a book. Unfortunately,
statistics on Canadian health care�s weaknesses were hard to come by,
and even finding people willing to criticize the system was difficult,
such was the emotional support that it then enjoyed. One family
friend, diagnosed with cancer, was told to wait for potentially
lifesaving chemotherapy. I called to see if I could write about his
plight. Worried about repercussions, he asked me to change his name. A
bit later, he asked if I could change his sex in the story, and maybe
his town. Finally, he asked if I could change the illness, too.
My book�s thesis was simple: to contain rising costs, government-run
health-care systems invariably restrict the health-care supply. Thus,
at a time when Canada�s population was aging and needed more care, not
less, cost-crunching bureaucrats had reduced the size of medical
school classes, shuttered hospitals, and capped physician fees,
resulting in hundreds of thousands of patients waiting for needed
treatment�patients who suffered and, in some cases, died from the
delays. The only solution, I concluded, was to move away from
government command-and-control structures and toward a more
market-oriented system. To capture Canadian health care�s growing
crisis, I called my book Code Blue, the term used when a patient�s
heart stops and hospital staff must leap into action to save him.
Though I had a hard time finding a Canadian publisher, the book
eventually came out in 1999 from a small imprint; it struck a nerve,
going through five printings.
Nor were the problems I identified unique to Canada�they characterized
all government-run health-care systems. Consider the recent British
controversy over a cancer patient who tried to get an appointment with
a specialist, only to have it canceled�48 times. More than 1 million
Britons must wait for some type of care, with 200,000 in line for
longer than six months. A while back, I toured a public hospital in
Washington, D.C., with Tim Evans, a senior fellow at the Centre for
the New Europe. The hospital was dark and dingy, but Evans observed
that it was cleaner than anything in his native England. In France,
the supply of doctors is so limited that during an August 2003 heat
wave�when many doctors were on vacation and hospitals were stretched
beyond capacity�15,000 elderly citizens died. Across Europe,
state-of-the-art drugs aren�t available. And so on.
But single-payer systems�confronting dirty hospitals, long waiting
lists, and substandard treatment�are starting to crack. Today my book
wouldn�t seem so provocative to Canadians, whose views on public
health care are much less rosy than they were even a few years ago.
Canadian newspapers are now filled with stories of people frustrated
by long delays for care:
vow broken on cancer wait times: most hospitals across canada fail
to meet ottawa�s four-week guideline for radiation
patients wait as p.e.t. scans used in animal experiments
back patients waiting years for treatment: study
the doctor is . . . out
As if a taboo had lifted, government statistics on the health-care
system�s problems are suddenly available. In fact, government
researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage,
noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12
percent of that province�s population) can�t find family physicians.
Health officials in one Nova Scotia community actually resorted to a
lottery to determine who�d get a doctor�s appointment.
Dr. Jacques Chaoulli is at the center of this changing health-care
scene. Standing at about five and a half feet and soft-spoken, he
doesn�t seem imposing. But this accidental revolutionary has turned
Canadian health care on its head. In the 1990s, recognizing the
growing crisis of socialized care, Chaoulli organized a private Quebec
practice�patients called him, he made house calls, and then he
directly billed his patients. The local health board cried foul and
began fining him. The legal status of private practice in Canada
remained murky, but billing patients, rather than the government, was
certainly illegal, and so was private insurance.
Chaoulli gave up his private practice but not the fight for private
medicine. Trying to draw attention to Canada�s need for an alternative
to government care, he began a hunger strike but quit after a month,
famished but not famous. He wrote a couple of books on the topic,
which sold dismally. He then came up with the idea of challenging the
government in court. Because the lawyers whom he consulted dismissed
the idea, he decided to make the legal case himself and enrolled in
law school. He flunked out after a term. Undeterred, he found a
sponsor for his legal fight (his father-in-law, who lives in Japan)
and a patient to represent. Chaoulli went to court and lost. He
appealed and lost again. He appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
And there�amazingly�he won.
Chaoulli was representing George Zeliotis, an elderly Montrealer
forced to wait almost a year for a hip replacement. Zeliotis was in
agony and taking high doses of opiates. Chaoulli maintained that the
patient should have the right to pay for private health insurance and
get treatment sooner. He based his argument on the Canadian equivalent
of the Bill of Rights, as well as on the equivalent Quebec charter.
The court hedged on the national question, but a majority agreed that
Quebec�s charter did implicitly recognize such a right.
It�s hard to overstate the shock of the ruling. It caught the
government completely off guard�officials had considered Chaoulli�s
case so weak that they hadn�t bothered to prepare briefing notes for
the prime minister in the event of his victory. The ruling wasn�t just
shocking, moreover; it was potentially monumental, opening the way to
more private medicine in Quebec. Though the prohibition against
private insurance holds in the rest of the country for now, at least
two people outside Quebec, armed with Chaoulli�s case as precedent,
are taking their demand for private insurance to court.
Rick Baker helps people, and sometimes even saves lives. He describes
a man who had a seizure and received a diagnosis of epilepsy.
Dissatisfied with the opinion�he had no family history of epilepsy,
but he did have constant headaches and nausea, which aren�t usually
seen in the disorder�the man requested an MRI. The government told him
that the wait would be four and a half months. So he went to Baker,
who arranged to have the MRI done within 24 hours�and who, after the
test discovered a brain tumor, arranged surgery within a few weeks.
Baker isn�t a neurosurgeon or even a doctor. He�s a medical broker,
one member of a private sector that is rushing in to address the
inadequacies of Canada�s government care. Canadians pay him to set up
surgical procedures, diagnostic tests, and specialist consultations,
privately and quickly. �I don�t have a medical background. I just have
some common sense,� he explains. �I don�t need to be a doctor for what
I do. I�m just expediting care.�
He tells me stories of other people whom his British Columbia�based
company, Timely Medical Alternatives, has helped�people like the
elderly woman who needed vascular surgery for a major artery in her
abdomen and was promised prompt care by one of the most senior
bureaucrats in the government, who never called back. �Her doctor told
her she�s going to die,� Baker remembers. So Timely got her surgery in
a couple of days, in Washington State. Then there was the
eight-year-old badly in need of a procedure to help correct her
deafness. After watching her surgery get bumped three times, her
parents called Timely. She�s now back at school, her hearing partly
restored. �The father said, �Mr. Baker, my wife and I are in agreement
that your star shines the brightest in our heaven,� � Baker recalls.
�I told that story to a government official. He shrugged. He couldn�t
fucking care less.�
Not everyone has kind words for Baker. A woman from a union-sponsored
health coalition, writing in a local paper, denounced him for
�profiting from people�s misery.� When I bring up the comment, he
snaps: �I�m profiting from relieving misery.� Some of the services
that Baker brokers almost certainly contravene Canadian law, but
governments are loath to stop him. �What I am doing could be construed
as civil disobedience,� he says. �There comes a time when people need
to lead the government.�
Baker isn�t alone: other private-sector health options are blossoming
across Canada, and the government is increasingly turning a blind eye
to them, too, despite their often uncertain legal status. Private
clinics are opening at a rate of about one a week. Companies like
MedCan now offer �corporate medicals� that include an array of
diagnostic tests and a referral to Johns Hopkins, if necessary.
Insurance firms sell critical-illness insurance, giving policyholders
a lump-sum payment in the event of a major diagnosis; since such
policyholders could, in theory, spend the money on anything they
wanted, medical or not, the system doesn�t count as health insurance
and is therefore legal. Testifying to the changing nature of Canadian
health care, Baker observes that securing prompt care used to mean a
trip south. These days, he says, he�s able to get 80 percent of his
clients care in Canada, via the private sector.
Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the
health-care system�s problems, are starting to speak up. Last August,
they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former
socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has
nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public
health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy
for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him
down. �This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in
under a week,� he fumed to the New York Times, �and in which humans
can wait two to three years.�
And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to
shrink the waiting lists. Day�s clinic, for instance, handles
workers�-compensation cases for employees of both public and private
corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80
percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where
fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government
recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital�s emergency
room.
This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain�s
government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour
Party�which originally created the National Health Service and used to
bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as
�Americanization��now openly favors privatization. Sir William Wells,
a senior British health official, recently said: �The big trouble with
a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and
inward-looking culture.� Last year, the private sector provided about
5 percent of Britain�s nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple
that percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to
voucherize certain surgeries, offering patients a choice of four
providers, at least one private. And in a recent move, the government
will contract out some primary care services, perhaps to American
firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente.
Sweden�s government, after the completion of the latest round of
privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm�s
primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including
one of the city�s largest hospitals. Since the fall of Communism,
Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing
co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun
in Germany: increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and
turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade,
only a minority of German hospitals will remain under state control).
It�s important to note that change in these countries is slow and
gradual�market reforms remain controversial. But if the United States
was once the exception for viewing a vibrant private sector in health
care as essential, it is so no longer.
Yet even as Stockholm and Saskatoon are percolating with the ideas of
Adam Smith, a growing number of prominent Americans are arguing that
socialized health care still provides better results for less money.
�Americans tend to believe that we have the best health care system in
the world,� writes Krugman in the New York Times. �But it isn�t true.
We spend far more per person on health care . . . yet rank near the
bottom among industrial countries in indicators from life expectancy
to infant mortality.�
One often hears variations on Krugman�s argument�that America lags
behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes
reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use, and
cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care
is just one factor in health. Americans live 75.3 years on average,
fewer than Canadians (77.3) or the French (76.6) or the citizens of
any Western European nation save Portugal. Health care influences life
expectancy, of course. But a life can end because of a murder, a fall,
or a car accident. Such factors aren�t academic�homicide rates in the
United States are much higher than in other countries (eight times
higher than in France, for instance). In The Business of Health,
Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and
unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that
Americans who don�t die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in
any other Western country.
And if we measure a health-care system by how well it serves its sick
citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates
bear this out. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50
percent; the European rate is just 35 percent. Esophageal carcinoma:
12 percent in the United States, 6 percent in Europe. The survival
rate for prostate cancer is 81.2 percent here, yet 61.7 percent in
France and down to 44.3 percent in England�a striking variation.
Like many critics of American health care, though, Krugman argues that
the costs are just too high: �In 2002 . . . the United States spent
$5,267 on health care for each man, woman, and child.� Health-care
spending in Canada and Britain, he notes, is a small fraction of that.
Again, the picture isn�t quite as clear as he suggests; because the
U.S. is so much wealthier than other countries, it isn�t unreasonable
for it to spend more on health care. Take America�s high spending on
research and development. M. D. Anderson in Texas, a prominent cancer
center, spends more on research than Canada does.
That said, American health care is expensive. And Americans aren�t
always getting a good deal. In the coming years, with health expenses
spiraling up, it will be easy for some�like the zealous legislators in
California�to give in to the temptation of socialized medicine. In
Washington, there are plenty of old pieces of legislation that
like-minded politicians could take off the shelf, dust off, and
promote: expanding Medicare to Americans 55 and older, say, or
covering all children in Medicaid.
But such initiatives would push the United States further down the
path to a government-run system and make things much, much worse.
True, government bureaucrats would be able to cut costs�but only by
shrinking access to health care, as in Canada, and engendering a
Canadian-style nightmare of overflowing emergency rooms and yearlong
waits for treatment. America is right to seek a model for delivering
good health care at good prices, but we should be looking not to
Canada, but close to home�in the other four-fifths or so of our
economy. From telecommunications to retail, deregulation and market
competition have driven prices down and quality and productivity up.
Health care is long overdue for the same prescription.
Hope for the Heartless
here@yomomma. (ObamaNation = Abomination) wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 23:52:21 -0700, Hope for the Heartless
> <h.hea...@bitbucket.gov> wrote:
>
> >In article <4b6dc75b...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > here@yomomma. (ObamaNation = Abomination) wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:41:17 -0500, "Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Obama Nation = Abomination" <here@yomomma.> wrote in message
> >> >news:4b6c9df3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> >> We don't want Canuckicare here.
> >> >>
> >> >> Didn't ya hear the people speak?
> >> >.
> >> >.
> >> >No one offered it to you, asshole!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Offered it?
> >>
> >> Piglosi tried to FORCE a version of it.
> >>
> >> Ya dumb cunt, ya.
> >
> >Either you don't understand what Canada's healthcare system is or
> >you don't understand the House bill or you don't understand either
> >of them.
> >
> >They're very different.
>
> The American people want neither.
Not surprising considering the campaign of lies the GOP and its
idiot squad (including you) have waged against it. They've taken
real substantive reform off the table.
But it's about to go back on, and this time the obstructionists
will be exposed.
ObamaNation = Abomination
<h.hea...@bitbucket.gov> wrote:
The people still won't want it.
And the libs will pay at the polls.
Coffee in Madrid
The first step to getting Healthy, is the hardest.
The extremist Repubs still (falsely) think Change = Armaggheddon.
The moderate (thinking) Repubs will go for a Healthy America / humanity
/ values.
ObamaNation = Abomination
Try losing some weight and get off the couch, moonbat.
>The extremist Repubs still (falsely) think Change = Armaggheddon.
>The moderate (thinking) Repubs will go for a Healthy America / humanity
>/ values.
About that hope and change thing.
Obama hoped we would change.
The boy got fooled.
Coffee in Madrid
some people would rather remain sick, than "change".
ObamaNation = Abomination
<gde...@eastlink.ca> wrote:
Sick's better than socialist.
Coffee in Madrid
Sick is sick.
"Socializing" is Healthy.
Everything else is karma.
ObamaNation = Abomination
When the Americans started saying all sorts of nasty things about
Canada�s health-care system this summer, Canadians became defensive.
But our knee-jerk reactions were sometimes without reason, said Anne
Doig, president of the Canadian Medical Association.
�The funny thing about the US/Canadian (health care) debate is that
we�re both lousy,� said Doig.
�Here�s two countries that don�t stand up well on the international
scene throwing tomatoes at each other across the 49th parallel, and
for what?�
Both countries are defending a system that they think is superior, but
in comparison to what is happening elsewhere, �they�re not all that
good,� she said.
Doig is in Whitehorse this weekend to speak at the Yukon Medical
Association�s annual general meeting.
Since being elected as president of the medical association in August,
Doig hasn�t held back in her criticisms of Canada�s health-care
system.
In her inauguration speech Doig said Canada�s health-care system is
�imploding� and that it�s �more precarious than perhaps Canadians
realize.� The comments lit up the blogosphere and were used as
ammunition by those south of the border lobbying against nationalized
health care.
The provocative statement was meant to point out that there are large
cracks in the system holding doctors back from looking after patients
in the best way they can, she said.
Waiting too long to see a specialist and not getting the right
diagnostic tests at the appropriate time are unacceptable, she said.
�We joke in our community that some women have to book their
ultrasounds before they even know they�re pregnant.�
Doig has been outspoken about other health issues, too. In October,
she addressed the House of Commons in Ottawa to say that communication
between the government and health-care providers could have been
vastly improved during the lead-up to the H1N1 pandemic.
�In hindsight we could have had a more co-ordinated national
response,� she said.
But what Doig has become best known for is her unflinching ability to
pick apart Canada�s health-care system.
It isn�t necessarily beyond repair, it just needs to be working a lot
better than it is now, she believes.
Doig is third in a line of association presidents who have openly
stated there is a role for private health care in Canada.
Bloated health-care budgets, long lineups and hallway medicine are all
proof that Canada could be doing things better.
�The public has to have a debate about what comprehensive care is,�
she said.
�Let�s quit throwing around words like �private� and �public� - it
stifles the debate and only serves to frighten people.�
But public health care is a sacred cow in Canada and few people are
prepared to see the system, which took Tommy Douglas so long to
implement, threatened.
Doig�s own roots are entwined with those of the national health care
debate in the 60�s.
Her father, also a doctor, fled Britain in 1958 because the
government-run National Health Service was meddling in patient-care.
But it would be just his luck that the province he moved to,
Saskatchewan, would become the birthplace of medicare four years
later.
He would eventually become involved in talks about how medicare was to
be introduced in Canada.
Doig was a young girl at the time. The experience taught her that �the
hammer of government affordability (can�t be used) to tell a patient
what kind of treatment that person needs.�
It also made her appreciate the security Canada�s health-care system
offers. This may be lost on Canadians younger than 40, who have never
taken money out their wallet to pay for health care, she said.
But because there is a perception our system is �free,� people
inevitably take advantage of it, she added.
This means that Canadians must ultimately choose between higher taxes
to pay for the spiralling costs of health care, which will only
escalate when the �silver tsunami� of baby-boomers reach old age, or
look at alternatives to fund our system, she said.
�Part of what scares people about private (health care) is that they
immediately think it�s for profit and they see it as an opportunity
for doctors to line their pockets.�
Not-for-profit crown corporations could be set up to compete with the
existing system, she suggested. Some private elements already exist in
Canada whether people realize it or not, she said.
Doig points to the Worker�s Compensation Board, which gives claimants
preferential service over regular patients to speed workers back to
their jobs.
And some provinces, such as Ontario and British Columbia, charge their
residents health premiums based on income.
Last year the Yukon government considered introducing health premiums
to the territory to pay down health-care costs, but the suggestion was
met with a great deal of resistance.
However, premiums place the cost of health care more squarely on the
shoulders of taxpayers, making people less likely to abuse the system,
said Doig.
When Saskatchewan chose to get rid of health premiums in the �60s, it
�crippled� the province, said Doig.
But health care is region-specific, Doig concedes. And up north, the
biggest challenge people face is recruiting and retaining general
surgeons and practitioners.
�Students in medical school are taught that if you don�t specialize
then you�re nothing,� said Doig.
At the end of the day, what is most important is that Canada actually
begins to have an open discussion about its health-care system without
fear of recrimination from those who cling to the ideals of medicare,
she said.
�There is a lot of good in having a system that is publicly funded and
publicly administered,� she said.
�We just need to make it work better.�
Anne Doig will address the Yukon Medical Association Friday, 3:30 p.m.
at the High Country Inn. The talk is open to the public.
http://www.yukon-news.com/news/15368/
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:03:33 GMT, Coffee in Madrid
Must Be Bush's Fault
Another pimple-head, MTV moonbat.
Get off your daddy's machine, sparky.
Coffee in Madrid
Healthcare package, there would be less difference on both sides of the
border.
US would closer model the Canadian, and the Canadian is being tweaked to
look like the American system.
Of course, they can be un-tweaked to adjust and delete things that are
NOT working.
US coulda/shoulda/woulda have a Healthcare system the envy of the world.
Instead US ranks #39 in the world.
A greedy pharmacologically controlled dystopia which may or may not be
'un-american values'.
Coffee in
In article <4b71dd63...@news.eternal-september.org>,
ObamaNation = Abomination
39th in the world according to the WHO socialists who want coverage
for illegals.
US care is the best, by far.
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:27:06 GMT, Coffee in Madrid
Coffee in Madrid
here@yomomma. (ObamaNation = Abomination) wrote:
> 39th in the world according to the WHO socialists who want coverage
> for illegals.
>
> US care is the best, by far.
The "care" part is good, yeah.
But is 39th in the world because its too expensive and doesn't reach
deep enough to the MOST americans that don't have to sell their house to
pay for it.
Plus the pharmacological empire is downright scary... causing more
problems and death than they advertise to solve.
ObamaNation = Abomination
It's 39th because world socialists want illegals covered.
It would be cheaper if we let ins. cos become more competitive by
removing stranglehold regulations, and put caps on malpractice awds.
But the pols like lawyers, so that isn't gonna happen.
Most Americans are being treated and still have their houses.
You need to stop watching MTV and reading Salon and Mother Jones.
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:43:05 GMT, Coffee in Madrid
Coffee in Madrid
here@yomomma. (ObamaNation = Abomination) wrote:
> It's 39th because world socialists want illegals covered.
You'd sacrifice ALL Americans getting healthcare because of the illegals?
Amazing.
> Most Americans are being treated and still have their houses.
The 20 or 30% that don't, must be those that can never afford a home due
to some form of disease or sickness.
Thats allot of americans.
Coffee in Madrid
ObamaNation = Abomination
The 20-30% is an urban myth.
Told you to snap off MSNBC.
Subtract illegals, the self-employed who can afford coverage but
choose not to, and the the employees who opt not to participate in
their employer's plans..
The remainder is infintesimal. There should be coverage for them.
Merely remove regulations and let the ins. cos. to compete and limit
malpractice awds. Doctors are always looking over their shoulders
giving unnecessary diagnostic procedures to cover their asses.
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:11:20 GMT, Coffee in Madrid
Hope for the Heartless
No, it's not. Well is better than sick, whatever the method by
which medicine is provided.
Note: Medicare is socialist. Why do you want to kill Granny?
ObamaNation = Abomination
<h.hea...@bitbucket.gov> wrote:
>In article <4b715b61...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> here@yomomma. (ObamaNation = Abomination) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:07:26 GMT, Coffee in Madrid
>> <gde...@eastlink.ca> wrote:
>> >some people would rather remain sick, than "change".
>>
>> Sick's better than socialist.
>
>No, it's not. Well is better than sick, whatever the method by
>which medicine is provided.
And "Well" is provided by the American system.
>Note: Medicare is socialist.
That's where we should have stopped.
> Why do you want to kill Granny?
ObammyCare has death panels for granny.
'
Hope for the Heartless
here@yomomma. (ObamaNation = Abomination) wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:19:32 -0700, Hope for the Heartless
> <h.hea...@bitbucket.gov> wrote:
>
> >In article <4b715b61...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > here@yomomma. (ObamaNation = Abomination) wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:07:26 GMT, Coffee in Madrid
> >> <gde...@eastlink.ca> wrote:
> >> >some people would rather remain sick, than "change".
> >>
> >> Sick's better than socialist.
> >
> >No, it's not. Well is better than sick, whatever the method by
> >which medicine is provided.
>
> And "Well" is provided by the American system.
Not for everybody, and not at a reasonable cost.
> >Note: Medicare is socialist.
>
> That's where we should have stopped.
>
> > Why do you want to kill Granny?
>
> ObammyCare has death panels for granny.
Why are you lying?
Herman Rubin
> Its interesting that even if america would have (will - maybe) chose a
> Healthcare package, there would be less difference on both sides of the
> border.
> US would closer model the Canadian, and the Canadian is being tweaked to
> look like the American system.
> Of course, they can be un-tweaked to adjust and delete things that are
> NOT working.
> US coulda/shoulda/woulda have a Healthcare system the envy of the world.
> Instead US ranks #39 in the world.
> A greedy pharmacologically controlled dystopia which may or may not be
> 'un-american values'.
The US system is NOT a greedy pharmacologically controlled
dystopia; it has its defects which proposed socialization
will only make worse. It is not ideal, but providing
prepaid medical care, which is the antithesis of insurance,
to those who do not have it, and mandating that everyone
get it, will not reduce the cost, nor would it increase
the amount of medical care provided.
The cost of pharmaceuticals is high because it takes a
good part of a billion dollars for a developed drug to
successfully be tested, and it is not cheap for a drug
to get partly through the testing process. It also can
take quite a long time, which is why drug patents are
guaranteed for a time after being accepted, instead of
a fixed length from filing, which must be done before
any testing takes place for the patent to be valid.
American doctors fees are high because the US does not
support bright students, but considers them all roughly
equally deserving. A middle class college student is
in a bad position; 99% or more of scholarship money is
awarded on the basis of need only if the student is
even on the poor side of fair.
We cannot get more medicine, apart from drugs, in the US;
the doctors and nurses and other medical people do not
exist. Waits of 15 minutes in good hospitals and other
facilities after a patient pushes the button to call for
assistance are not unusual. Few physicians have a shortage
of patients, and now they do not adequately discuss patients'
problems with them. I have had to "fire" doctors because
they were unable to consider my circumstances adequately,
and I have what is supposed to be good coverage.
Many doctors will not accept Medicare patients now, because
they cannot afford it. What the government allows does not
cover their costs. Some manage by cutting short office visits,
and not listening to their patients; this is BAD medicine.
Providing coverage for everyone will not help the situation.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Coffee in Madrid
here@yomomma. (ObamaNation = Abomination) wrote:
> The 20-30% is an urban myth.
Yea... in reality its probably closer to 40%
> Merely remove regulations and let the ins. cos. to compete
A nice negotiable way to remain greedy and expensive.
But, still won't cover jobless-joe with a broken leg.
Ubiquitous
Danny Westneat, a columnist for the Seattle Times, reports that Capestany ate
a piece of steak at a picnic, not noticing that "a yellow jacket was clinging
to the bottom side. It stung or bit him right on the tongue."
Capestany's tongue got swollen, and he worried that it might obstruct his
breathing. So he went to the Harborview Medical Center. After almost a day on
a Benadryl drip, doctors gave him a clean bill of health and sent him home
from the hospital:
Two weeks later, though, he got stung again: The bill was $8,200.
The IV costs alone were $2,469. The emergency room fee: $2,822.
The pharmacy tab ran to $964. . . .
Capestany found out that though he spent about 22 hours there
in a room, his treatment is considered "outpatient."
His insurance (Medicare Part A and his wife's policy) only
give broad coverage for inpatient hospitalizations, not outpatient
visits. . . .
Harborview couldn't discuss Capestany's bill with me, but said
it's Medicare that sets the rules on whether someone is an
inpatient or out.
In fact, Medicare puts out a six-page guide--with charts--on
how to tell which is which. It's so complicated, they advise
that if you're ever in a hospital for more than a few hours,
you better ask about your status. I wonder: Would staff even
know the answer?
It seems Capestany is stuck with the bill. And here is the lesson columnist
Westneat draws from the story:
I sure don't know what would work. A single-payer system, competing
insurance exchanges, health savings accounts--all seem better than
what we have now.
Yet some say no, slow down. Leave health care until we repair the
economy.
At $8,200 for a bee sting, health care could become all that's
left of the economy.
If only the federal government ran health care, we wouldn't have to worry
about Medicare rules. Brilliant!
--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the Democrats did
to America.
Joe Steel
news:d6edne54TqrOQ-bW...@giganews.com:
> Keo Capestany, 73, got stung twice, first by a bee and then by a
> hospital. Danny Westneat, a columnist for the Seattle Times, reports
> that Capestany ate a piece of steak at a picnic, not noticing that "a
> yellow jacket was clinging to the bottom side. It stung or bit him
> right on the tongue."
>
> ...
>
> If only the federal government ran health care, we wouldn't have to
> worry about Medicare rules. Brilliant!
>
>
High prices are caused by CorporateCare not Medicare. Had we abandoned
it, health care wouldn't be a problem for anyone.