Health Care Politics

I think the reason many people come to the United States for health care and the reason why most Americans like their health care is because it is the best in the world. Since I am a nurse, and my husband works for the #1 children's hospital in the United States, I'm a bit biased, I'll admit.

I also think Americans want their health care to be cheaper. They certainly do not want anything to come between them and their doctor. Which is one of many reasons why Americans do not want the government to put their hands on it like they have screwed up so many other programs.
=============================================================

As Obama Pushes National Health Care, Most Americans Already Happy With Coverage

As the Obama administration pushes for a national health care plan, studies show that most Americans are overwhelmingly happy with their own health care -- including most of the 46 million Americans without insurance.

By John R. Lott, Jr. FOXNews.com
Wednesday, June 24, 2009

As the Obama administration pushes for a national health care plan, studies show that most Americans are overwhelmingly happy with their own health care -- but they are dissatisfied with the country's overall system, because most Americans who have insurance believe that those who don't have it are not receiving care.

Those same studies, however, show that a surprisingly large 70 percent of the estimated 46 million Americans who don't have insurance say they do, in fact, receive health care, and that a vast majority of them are satisfied with it.

A survey conducted jointly by the Kaiser Family Foundation, ABC News and USA Today, released in October 2006, found that 89 percent of Americans were satisfied with their own personal medical care, but only 44 percent were satisfied with the overall quality of the American medical system. The survey is the only recent poll for which data is publicly available that allows for a comparison of the satisfaction of insured and uninsured Americans. (The data from a just-completed New York Times/CBS poll won't be publicly available for several months; the results that have been reported so far don't make the comparisons discussed in this article.)

Those with recent serious health problems, possibly the people with the best knowledge of how health care is working, were generally the most satisfied. Ninety-three percent of insured Americans who had recently suffered a serious illness were satisfied with their health care. So were 95 percent of those who suffered from chronic illness.

President Obama, in his press conference on Tuesday, seemed to understand that degree of satisfaction. While promising to help people who are "out of luck" on insurance, he said: "If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing. You keep your plan; you keep your doctor. If your employer's providing you good health insurance, terrific. We're not going to mess with it."

But while insured Americans say overwhelmingly that they are satisfied, more than half of them -- 52 percent -- believe that becoming uninsured poses a "critical problem," 36 percent view the threat as "serious but not critical," and another 7 percent see it as a "problem, but not serious." Only 4 percent view it as "not much of a problem."

Uninsured Americans, not surprisingly, are not as satisfied as people who have insurance. Nonetheless, 70 percent of the uninsured who indicated their level of satisfaction said they were either "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their health care, and only 17.5 percent said they were "very dissatisfied."

For entire article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/...happy-coverage/

June 25, 2009

ABC's White House special struggled for viewers

President Obama's town hall meeting on health care delivered a sickly rating Wednesday evening.

The one-hour ABC News special "Primetime: Questions for the President: Prescription for America" (4.7 million viewers, 1.1 preliminary adults 18-49 rating) had the fewest viewers in the 10 p.m. hour (against NBC's "The Philanthropist" debut and a repeat of "CSI: NY" on CBS). The special tied some 8 p.m. comedy repeats as the lowest-rated program on a major broadcast network.

The special was shot at the White House and featured the president answering questions about his health care plan. The president's primary message was that those who like their current insurance will be able to keep it and that taking no action will result in higher health care costs.

The special drew fire from Republican leadership after refusing to allow an official opposition response, or even a paid ad. ABC also interviewed Obama on "Good Morning America" to help promote the special.

UPDATE: ABC points out that "Questions for the President" continued into late night during "Nightline" (4.3 million) and helped boost the news program to pull more viewers than CBS' "Late Show" and NBC's "Tonight Show."

http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/06/abcs-white-house-special-struggled-for-viewers.html

My opinion: I understand that Congress is being pressured into signing a health care bill by the end of July, despite the large numbers of blank pages in it. (It is thought that Hillary's efforts failed years ago because the bill was too long in the making.)

So I watched this dog and pony BO-Infomercial to see if there would be any specifics offered. As a nurse, I heard the same familiar code words for limitations of services, and how we ALL have to make sacrifices (as if most of us don't), and how after a certain age, the elderly should be allowed to die with dignity (you know what that means to the health insurance rule makers)

There really were no specific explanations given because the plan is being designed by a select few and it will be passed whether anyone likes it or not.

One Canadian said yesterday, "Our system is so bad, we cross the border into the USA for decent and expeditious treatment. Our women have a 25% higher breast cancer death rate than the US because you guys have 2 life-saving medicines we do not carry here due to the expense, and you treat your patients quicker. If you start to practice socialist medicine like us, where will we go if we are really sick?"

My husband lived in England for several years and he says health care there is pretty darn inferior for your average working class stiff.

You can bet your bottom bibby that once the government takes over health care management, those private companies BO insists will still be in operation, will soon close their doors. Just like some hospitals are now closing their doors due to the entitlement people and Medicare mess.

Yes, we need change to make health care more affordable. But NOT change by governemt people who have ruined so much already.

I wish I had time to make a proper response. But, for now, let me simply say this.

My sister has lived in London for the past two years, and has received superior care, even though she is not a citizen. She may need to wait a month for her teeth to be cleaned, but if she had a heart attack she would be taken immediately to the best of the best.

I have struggled for the past two years with our very, very broken system - and I directly blame the government for allowing the sickness in our health care. To make this very personal, my husband will be without health insurance for the next 5 months, because the insurance company runs the government. Well, there are other groups too, such as drug companies, tobacco companies.... My husband is very, very ill and we will be paying out the nose for care, because health insurance is uncaring.

Obama is making a start. It is a huge step in the right direction. Is it perfect? Hell no. Is it better than what we have? I do not know, but I can only hope that it is a positive change.

We, Americans, need to stop sitting on our laurels and admit that our country, and the decisions it has made, have been and are flawed. We need change. No blame, no shame here. It's not the past administration, or the past and the past and the past. It is our own inability to stop being so arrogant that we think we know it all and cannot learn from others.

I am sorry that I will not be around to read the responses to this post. I think, for the first time in many years, we are in a position to make positive and progressive change. As citizens of this country it is time for us to be strong, look for what is working and work on fixing what is not working.

Josie:

But those same Canadians who can AFFORD to pay private high fees in the U.S. (which means not many Canadians since that is thousands of $$), have also quietly thanked their lucky stars they don't have higher fees for annual physical checkups, birth deliveries, all the basic medical care, emergency care in an accident, etc.

Our system is not totally public health care.

I will respond since I have several siblings who have worked for several decades in the Canadian health system (family doctor, 1 hospital pharmacist, 1 community pharmacist) plus friends who have been direct patient care providers. (1 of them a male nurse who worked for several years in Washington state and also in Canada. Returned to Canada to work as a nurse in area of forensic psychiatry.)

Right now I feel crappy. Body is recovering from blood glucose test that I had earlier from medical lab..ordered by my doctor. (I didn't pay directly for this test). I'm seeing a dermatologist..in half hr. right now.
And no, I don't pay for this family physician referral visit to see dermatologist. No, I won't be paying for this dermatology visit. I have to get something examined in office.

I pay a monthly set fee (regardless of Canadian resident's annual income) to my province's govn't ministry of health for health care insurance. RAte is reasonable for what I get..which is alot. If I was working full-time most likely my employer would pay this monthly fee as part of my benefits.

I feel abit off right now..but maybe after appointment, I'll go for a short bike ride..lower this possible blood sugar level bit after eating corn, etc. for supper just now.

See y'all later!

I've lived under both systems, and all I can say is socialized medicine is 100% better! As far as Americans having the best medical care, that might have been so at one time, but like everything else, medical updates are global. We live near two univeristy hospitals, which interchange with Harvard medical university. The newest developmenmts and treatments are shared world wide. And that is good.

The only thing I pay is a 5 dollar visiting charge every three months. That covers all doctors, operations, dental care...just everything. And they all have the most modern and best equipment.

Couldn't agree more!!!!

I think we do need healthcare reform. All of the scary things we have been told over the years by people who tell us socialized medicine (and socialized is a very bad word itself) have already come to pass: denial of treatment, denial of care, long waits for care, people hampered because they belong to HMOs and either have to wait to be precertified or must travel to another city to see a doctor (in my state this is like 65 miles so is not nothing). PLUS, we have the added, uniquely American negatives of losing insurance due to change of job, having insurance cancelled, or not being able to buy it at all due to preexisting conditions. More plus, we can literally go bankrupt due to medical bills. About 60 percent of personal bankruptcies are as a result of medical bills -- and a number of these are from people who already *have* insurance.

If our private insurance system is so good, why does the US pay twice as much for healthcare as any other industrialized country AND have a system where nearly 50 million people have no insurance? Why do we have the life expectancy rates of a third-world nation? Why are our infant mortality rates so high? Why do we pay almost no attention to preventive care? And biggest of all: Where is all this money going? Where is all this money going?

People want to return to care between themselves and their doctors? Of course they do: the doctors can be and are overruled by the insurance companies all the time. Why this isn't practicing medicing without a license is beyond me. I'm amazed at how afraid we are of the government when we have already taken over by the insurance companies. And these companies owe to their sharholders first. They can't be voted out of office if we get ticked off at them.

Gee, I maybe I should be ashamed: I'm related to some of those entitlement, Medicare people. My daughter is a combat veteran who is now disabled. If it weren't for the government and her 'entitled' VA and Medicare assistance, she would have no health care at all. She's uninsurable on the private market due to health problems and was denied medications when she did work (they're expensive). It's good to know what other people think of her, but I think she's going to continue getting the services anyway. Nice to know your fellow Americans have your back.

People want health care to cost less? What are we going to do? Ask the insurance companies to lower their rates out of the goodness of their hearts? My other daughter cannot afford insurance at all: even though they are just lazy, shiftless bums who work they cannot afford $1,000 a month in insurance fees.

Yeah, we have excellent care if we can get it. And we who are lucky enough to have insurance love sorting through all the crazy, incomprehensible bills and calling back and both to get mistakes corrected. Oh yeah, and I totally appreciate the threats sent out with a first bill. I just got one the other day and called back and gave them a piece of my mind. Some people are probably terrified at getting these, which I'm sure contributes to their well-being.

I totally agree we need healthcare reform and said so right up front. We are the best, and yet we have so much need for health care changes.

As a nurse for decades, I have seen the very best and the very worst of our system. All the examples in the world, I have seen in my many years of hospital nursing.

Like many of you, I could be here for months citing example after example of both sides of the health care coin. Heck, my always-unemployed young nephew, his two always-unemployed girlfriends and their SEVEN young children have received millions of dollars in government assistance that taxpayers pay for and which waters down medical benefits for working class people.

Does much need to be fixed? Yup. Are there good reasons why people are saved every day because of our great doctors, treatments and technologies? Absolutely.

Has the government and their special interest groups and the insurance lobbyists done anything to make things better? Very little!

Just to be clear, here is my untwisted message regarding what I do NOT support:

I do NOT support Congress being pressured to sign BLANK pages of health care reform over a couple of weeks that BO and his few friends can fill in after the signatures are obtained...

I'd like an independent commission of medical and administrative professionals who KNOW the medical field from all perspectives, coming together and formulating one or two plans which will be presented and voted upon.

Let's see what in the United States IS actually working well, and see if we can incorporate the best ideas on either a statewide or national scale if need be.

Medicare is a mess. Do we really want government scamsters to be in charge of making more health care decisions for us????????

Elle: I know what you mean about those EOBs (explanation of benefits). I have spent many hours on the phone fighting billing errors with certain medical insurance companies. I've been in appeals issues over things which should never have been challenged by insurance reps who know nothing about medicine.

It can be a nightmare paying super-expensive insurance premiums, just so the medical system can be paid for the millions who do not have insurance for one reason or another. And when I think of the insurance/pharmaceutical companies sleeping with their political friends so they can eek out more company profit, I get sick.

Part of me knows that no matter what the American people think, we are going to be stuck once again with something most of us do not want. Yet I always hold out hope that maybe, just maybe, some good will come from behind closed government doors in the weeks ahead.

But then, I still believe in Santa Claus........

are you sure? Fed Ex and UPS are doing just fine running side by side with the US postal service.

LIsten to the people here on this board who are Canadian. Do they sound like they are drowning in health care bills? How many canadians go bankrupt every year because they got cancer? or had a serious car accident?

Anne, medical info. privacy is highly valued here in Canada. Does the U.S. have govn't tribunals/commissions that take in cases of medical/personal info. of unauthorized access or misuse? We have such cases where decisions are made and ..posted on their websites. Parties are named.

-----
Anyway, my dermatologist examined my mole on my face. She use liquid nitrogen to burn top layer off, so she could see underneath. It's benign. We talked about skin care, sun, etc. I'm ok. She examined my whole body for other possible lesions, etc.

I will not be extra-billed for this specialized doctor visit/work. There maybe other specialized procedures I could have been billed..particularily if cosmetic.

Each provincial govn't has a set list of drugs of whether or not certain drugs are covered by public medical insurance. Or the patients pays a percentage of total cost. There are also specific programs for the elderly poor, the disabled, etc.

Dental care is not covered by public medical insurance. Usually a large/good employers provide some coverage through benefits. For unemployed, you pay in full.

Psychiatric care and psychological counselling is rarely covered in full or not all by public medical care insurance. (Eagleheart perhaps you can respond here, please.) There are specialized programs but they tend to be for very poor, certain mental health conditions, etc. I found out last night after speaking with a social worker who works for 1 of the local hospitals. He is a case worker for a PILOT (so this is not even permanent) project for schizoprenics, etc.

There are some fees, though not horrendous that might apply, ie. when my partner's mother had to go by ambulance to hospital a couple of kms. away, it was $60.00. It is possible, air ambulance services there is a fee, but it's doubtful it is full cost recovery from patient.

Giving birth in hospital, to my understanding a Canadian woman is not billed directly at all. However if she needed to stay extra long in hospital there would be a fee, which some employers provide in the work benefits pkg.

Nursing home care is not all public. The best run homes that I know, do tend to be publicly funded and also such institutions are WAY more transparent in their management decision-making and best practices. Many private run homes...which in my opinion, can be a dubious scenario. (Inspection by government of such facilities for different things makes it complex to regulate/monitor.)

It shocks many Canadians that many adult Americans don't have health care. It shocked me that not all American cyclists would not have medical insurance in case of any accident, minor or traumatic.

I know of Canadian friend, whose New York state relative paid over $200,000US for medical bills for a family member who was quite ill. this is not normal for any Canadian,..unless for some reason one had a disabling accident that resulted in extensive care, purchase of equipment/retrofit of home, etc.

There is some talk about privatization...but truly I'd rather we force our current organizations to become better.

And whenever my parents visit doctor, my father had appendicitis, my mother with her drugs, etc.....their visits are paid by public medical insurance. They pay the monthly fee....and they are taxpayers.

The federal Canada Health Act is the main piece of legislation which defines the overall authorities and broad framework of our public medical care system.

__________________________________________

I also think that both U.S. and Canada probably share the same problem but with different manifestations,..where both are geographically large countries with uneven distribution of population. In Canada there are problems of attracting doctors to rural areas and smaller cities. Hence medical care for people living in those areas (regardless of public vs. private funds), can be a serious/time-consuming matter of travel, access, timeliness, access to medical specialists.

Hence, Germany's more compact size and compact population, makes it easier to physically delivery direct patient care.

Does U.S. have same problem?

My sister-doctor does her share ...she drives 100 kms. 1 way to her hospital (place of work) in a small city of 60,000 outside of Toronto over 3 million.

I am covered by the best medical insurance you can get. Just got back from the drug store with my prescriptions. cost $160. five years ago, with this same insurance, I would have had to pay $30.00. OUCH

This is so sad. Why would our elected officials vote against things that are good for us, for our country, for our children, for the WORLD?

This might answer that question, and it makes me sick:

Republicans are "rooting against" the U.S. and the world by way of their votes against climate change legislation, the economic stimulus, and healthcare reform bills, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) asserted Monday.

"They want to play politics and see if they can keep any achievements from being accomplished, for fear they might become beneficial to the Democrats," said Waxman, one of the principal authors of the climate change legislation passed by the House on Friday, on MSNBC.

"So they're rooting against the country," Waxman added. "And I think in this case they're even rooting against the world, because the world needs to get its act together to stop global warming. I wish they were playing a more constructive role."

Waxman said that his climate change legislation would have to "defy conventional wisdom" in the Senate, where many observers have said it would have trouble attracting enough Republicans and centrist Democrats to survive a filibuster.

"I think we have to defy conventional wisdom and move this important legislation forward," the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee said. "It's going to help us become more energy independent, and that's important for our national security."

In Massachusetts, where the health care plan is being looked at as a model for the nation, the AVERAGE waiting time to see your primary care physician is ONE HUNDRED DAYS. Some see doctors right away if they go to the ER, which clogs up the waiting time for those needing acute care.

As an Independent voter, I do not have a political horse in this race to sign a basically blank health care bill. Like I said, I'm a nurse who practiced for decades and who wants real change in the health care system, not change in which politicians define health care for me and my family.

We can all tell stories of good and bad health care. I myself could write a book. But the biggest story of all is yet to come. I pray decent people prevail before it is too late.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editor..._is_failing_us/

I agree, why do they feel like they have to vote on a BLANK bill? THAT is CRAZY!
about massachusetts:
Massachusetts now has the country’s lowest percentage of the uninsured — 2.6 percent, compared with a national average of 15 percent. The folks with the long waits are the people who would not have health care at all in most states.

and here's some info about Canadian healthcare:

Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.

In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.

The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.

Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S. Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.

Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it. While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.

There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.

Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.

Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.

Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.

Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.

From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system.

I agree on Canadian doctors tending to live and practice in urban areas which creates an imbalance /medical services shortage in more rural areas. I know how my friends who live in rural areas or just much smaller cities, have to deal with problem of lack of doctor specialists and just need for more family doctors. Josie there are nursing jobs in the Arctic..you would get a real experience serving the Inuit and folks up there! (We can complain all we want down here in southern Canada about our problems. But can't compare. Imagine being a beaten woman living in tiny town in middle of ARctic tundra with NO roads. Travel is by skidoo or plane. How would one escape?)



It gets tiring to hear outsiders talk about Canada's "socialist" (or even more laughable, communist??? People have no idea w unless they have family members who lived in a true communist regime elsewhere in the world) system and our taxation. We do have a right leaning federal govn't in power right now anyway. We do funnel our taxes to many programs which people suddenly realize that they took something for granted when they move to live overseas. Hey, alot of retired Canadians, the snowbirds who live in the U.S. for 6 months, come BACK to Canada every year to live here for several months when it's warmer. Well duh, they want the benefits of our health care system. Yes, I know of some Canadians who rushed back to Canada when they had a medical problem.



True a Canadian doctor is self-employed. They are not govn't employees. My sister-doctor reminds me of what she must do for hiring her accountant, paying for medical malpractice insurance, etc. Yes, their medical decisions is genuinely professionally independent to determine nature and level of patient care and not held under restrictions of a private instution, ie. HMO. Try to remember that they are rigorously subjected to professional disciplinary measures of the national physician licensing body plus the real probability of lawsuit just like U.S. doctors ...these 2 things alone force them to exercise reasonably good judgement. What they do have to pay attention to is a regulated list certain drugs and medical treatments that are covered under medical insurance vs. private....but they will tell the patient at the beginning before patient has to buy the drug(s) or receives treatement.




If it's not urgent, then there are waits. The parent with sniffling child will have to wait over someone who has an heart attack/car accident, a pregnant woman in labour or just broke their leg. That's reality.

.

The exception would be extended health care not covered by medical insurance, but if one has a work benefit or purchased via Blue Cross or another private insurer, then one submits a claim to such company. Usually it services and treatments beyond the core services for all Canadian residents. For instance physiotherapy, podiatric, psychological counselling, etc. work or staying at a hospital longer, etc. But yes, the Canadian doctors work on fee-for -service basis..and there's no distinction if they serve a high income or low income patient. They are reimbursed at the same rate from the govn't.

I don't entirely agree about the regional health authorities and boards. The regional health authorities are funded primarily by public funds from home province. There is fundraising done by various hospitals..but that's no different from the U.S., I suspect. Canada just doesn't have alot of rich philanthropists compared to the U.S.

As a taxpayer of several decades now, I feel no guilt that I am using medical services abit more frequently now. I'm making up for unused services in past. When I was younger I went for several years with no need to see any health care provider but my tax dollars were supporting the health care system...which benefits my low-income parents, etc. I'm so grateful folks like them, do receive quality care.

I am certain the U.S. and Canada share the same problem of centralized national patient care records system and the need for one. Anyone care to answer this?

yes, you're right, Orchid, there's a big fight right now. If they computerize and centralize medical records, is the arguement, will that make us vulnerable to medical records / identity theft? So a lot of Americans are fighting against this.

I had a very close friend well for 20 years which I chose to break apart 13 years ago. We were buddies since middle school onward. She is in a middle management position with GlaxoSmithKline and has been there for the whole of her career so far. (So she has no other exposures to health care organizations outside of private sector.)

I broke this friendship over several things, but a large one was the attitude I witnessed which she was passionate in her case for the pharmaceutical giants and their need for profits for corporate sustainability. Why Canada needed HMOs. It horrified me because this a someone I knew who knew our poor my family was, knew my parents personally and their financial struggles.

It really angered me, that a university educated friend with a Master's degree in Pharmacology,...was so blind to social economic reality. HOw much she sunk in my opinion, for the corporate mantra. My counter arguments were from what I knew hearing from 2 pharmacist sisters who gave me the lowdown on what pharamas do to block generic drug competition, sales marketing to doctors and future pharmacy students, etc.

Edelweiss...you're so right...I don't know why some Americans are so afraid of what President Obama is trying to do here. I realize that change is hard, but continuing to keep our heads in the sand, allowing the drug companies to run this country, rob the citizens of this country while they get rich is mind boggling to me. Wake up America...we've got it wrong. No system is perfect, but we need to stop allowing the drug companies and hospitals bankrupt us...look how much it costs after retirement...my MIL can barely afford her meds or her insurance costs.

I just read this, thought you guys would like to see it too:
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/a-look-at-the-venezuelan-healthcare-system/

During my time in Venezuela, I developed a cough that went on for three weeks and progressively worsened. Finally, after I had become incredibly congested and developed a fever, I decided to attend a Barrio Adentro clinic. The closest one available was a Barrio Adentro II Centro de Diagonostico Integral (CDI) and I headed in without my medical records or calling to make an appointment. Immediately, I was ushered into a small room where Carmen, a friendly Cuban doctor, began questioning me about my symptoms. She listened to my lungs and walked me over to another examination room where, again without waiting, I had x-rays taken. Afterwards, the technician walked me to a chair and apologized profusely that I had to wait for the x-rays to be developed, promising that it would take no more than five minutes. Sure enough, five minutes later he returned with both x-rays developed. Carmen studied the x-rays and informed me that I had pneumonia, showing me the telltale shadows. She sent me away with my x-rays, three medications to treat my pneumonia, congestion, and fever, and made me promise to come back if my conditioned failed to improve or worsened within three days.

I walked out of the clinic with a diagnosis and treatment within twenty-five minutes of entering, without paying a dime. There was no wait, no paperwork, and no questions about my ability to pay, my nationality, or whether, as a foreigner, I was entitled to free comprehensive health care. There was no monetary value connected with my physical well-being; the care I received was not contingent upon my ability to pay. I was treated with dignity, respect, and compassion, my illness was cured and I was able to continue with my journey in Venezuela.

This past year, a family friend was not so lucky. At the age of 56, she was going back to school and was uninsured. She came down with what she thought was a severe case of the flu, and as her condition worsened she decided not to see a doctor because of the cost. She died at home in bed, losing her life to a system that did not respect her basic human right to survive. Her death is not an isolated incident. Over 18,000 United States residents die every year because of their lack of prohibitively expensive health insurance. The United States has the distinct honor of being the “only wealthy industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage”.(8) Instead, we have commodified the public health and well being of those live in the US, leaving them on their own to obtain insurance. Those whose jobs do not provide insurance, can’t get enough hours to qualify for health care coverage through their workplace, are unemployed, or have “previously existing conditions” that exclude them from coverage are forced to choose between the potentially fatal decision of refusing medical care and accumulating medical bills that trap them in an inescapable cycle of debt. And sometimes, that decision is made for them. Doctors often ask that dreaded question; “do you have insurance?” before scheduling critical tests, procedures, or treatments. When the answer is no, treatments that were deemed necessary before are suddenly canceled as the ability to pay becomes more important than the patient’s health.(9)

It is estimated that there are over fifty million United States residents currently living without health insurance, a number that will skyrocket as unemployment rates increase and people lose their work-based health care coverage in this time of international financial crisis.(10) Already this year, 7.5 million people have lost work-related coverage. Budget cuts for the state of Washington this year will remove over forty thousand people from Washington Basic Health, a subsidized program which already has a waiting list of seventeen thousand people.(11) As I returned to the US from Venezuela, I was faced with the realization that as a society, the United States places a monetary value on life. That we make life and death judgments based on an individual’s ability to pay. And that someone with the same condition I had recently recovered from had died because, according to our system, her life wasn’t insured.

Anne what you talking about is so scary. It's one thing to talk about someone you read about but to bump into a real person who is currently having these difficulties. (sigh)
The way you have been treated by Washington's Basic Health Plan is unacceptable.

Anne, what you've been through is ridiculous, at the expense of your very own life. "life wasn't worth saving" That is a heart-wrenching message. No such channel as DIY surgery.

In reading the BO code words about a universal system, cutting off selected benefits to people over a certain age and making less medical care available to people who do not meet certain criteria as determined by "the suits" (non-physicians) is just simply establishing priorities.

The woman who asked about her very spry active 105 year old mother and whether her mom would be eligible for full benefits was told that "spry" was not going to be a determining factor. That you have to draw the line somewhere.... Didn't anyone catch that on TV?

From what I am gathering, the very rich and certain entitlement groups may benefit from this as-yet-finalized plan. But the middle class will be paying through the nose and be taxed in many hidden ways so that most people will have some kind of coverage. The bulk of American businesses will suffer. The middle class will suffer.

But hey. My young unemployed nephew with the 2 unemployed girlfriends and their seven young kids, will get good healthcare and their regular monthly checks. And when my stroked out brother reaches a certain age, he'll be cut off and allowed to have a "death with dignity." Yeah, I got it BO.

And now you are changing your fancy talk to "I would PREFER that the middle class not have to be taxed on their health care benefits." How different that tune was BEFORE the election.

I see where yesterday Obama held a staged town hall meeting with pre-scripted questions about HIS version of the health care reform which is being pushed down our throats. Even the very liberal journalist Helen Thomas expressed her anger about this to BO's Press Secretary. (Even those who asked the "tough questions" at the fake town hall assembly had been pre-selected and affiliated with Democratic organizations) Pay special attention to the exact quotes of Helen Thomas and Press Sec. Gibbs below, (and then later with Reid) which imo says it all about what is really going on in this country regarding lack of transparency. The liberals will talk about Bush's town hall meetings, but it was nothing compared to what you are hearing now and every day. Why, even the far left liberals like Helen Thomas are complaining!!!!!!!!!!!!

Helen Thomas: Not Even Nixon Tried to Control the Media Like Obama

Wednesday, July 01, 2009
By Penny Starr and Fred Lucas

(CNSNews.com) - Following a testy exchange during Wednesday’s briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told CNSNews.com that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.

“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try.

“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”

Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama’s press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.

“When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you,” Thomas said.

“I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well--for the town halls, for the press conferences,” she said. “It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.”

During today’s briefing, Thomas interrupted a back-and-forth between Gibbs and Chip Reid, the White House correspondent for CBS News, when Reid was questioning Gibbs about who was going to decide what questions would be asked of President Obama in a townhall meeting that was scheduled to take place in Annandale, Va., today.

Gibbs then had an exchange involving Reid and Thomas that went as follows:

Gibbs: “… But, again, let's--How about we do this? I promise we will interrupt the AP's tradition of asking the first question. I will let you [Chip Reid] ask me a question tomorrow as to whether you thought the questions at the town hall meeting that the President conducted in Annandale—“

Chip Reid: “I'm perfectly happy to—”

Helen Thomas: “That's not his point. The point is the control--”

Reid: “Exactly.”

Thomas: “We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some, but not-- This White House.”

Gibbs: “Yes, I was going to say, I'll let you amend her question.”

Thomas: “I'm amazed. I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and—”

Gibbs: “Helen, you haven't even heard the questions.”

Reid: “It doesn't matter. It's the process.”

Thomas: “You have left open—”

Reid: “Even if there's a tough question, it's a question coming from somebody who was invited or was screened, or the question was screened.”

Thomas: “It's shocking. It's really shocking.”

Gibbs: “Chip, let's have this discussion at the conclusion of the town hall meeting. How about that?”

Reid: “Okay.”

Gibbs: “I think—“

Thomas: “No, no, no, we're having it now--”

Gibbs: “Well, I'd be happy to have it now.”

Thomas: “It's a pattern.”

Gibbs: “Which question did you object to at the town hall meeting, Helen?”

Thomas: “It's a pattern. It isn't the question—”

Gibbs: “What's a pattern?”

Thomas: “It's a pattern of controlling the press.”

Gibbs: “How so? Is there any evidence currently going on that I'm controlling the press--poorly, I might add.”

Thomas: “Your formal engagements are pre-packaged.”

Gibbs: “How so?”

Reid: “Well, and controlling the public—”

Thomas: “How so? By calling reporters the night before to tell them they're going to be called on. That is shocking.”

Gibbs: “We had this discussion ad nauseam and—”

Thomas: “Of course you would, because you don't have any answers.”

Gibbs: “Well, because I didn't know you were going to ask a question, Helen.
Go ahead.”

Thomas: “Well, you should have.”

Reporter: Thank you for your support.

Gibbs: “That's good. Have you e-mailed your question today?”

Thomas: “I don't have to e-mail it. I can tell you right now what I want to ask.”

Gibbs: “I don't doubt that at all, Helen. I don't doubt that at all.”

Thomas, 89, has covered the White House during every presidency since John F. Kennedy’s.


http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50445

I love Helen Thomas, isn't she great? She was the lone voice of sanity in the press corps during the Bush regime, and now that Obama is in, she's not going to put her teeth away.
She's relentlessly honest, and demands the truth. Once upon a time, she wasn't so unique. We need a lot more journalists like her.

Sound strange, to "fine" /penalize a person. Better approach would be to have time deadline when a person must enroll in publicly funded medicare program, whatever it maybe in future.

In Canada, just because an adult person is Canadian doesn't mean we automatically get public medical insurance. We individually must go through an application process where all the necessary info. is collected about oneself. And everytime a person moves to different province, the Canadian must reapply to the current home provincial ministry of health. But it's not a big deal if one is a Canadian resident and taxpayer.

I would like to point out that I would rather have a provincial or federal government body with legitimate reasons to have my personal information in order to qualify for any govn't programs, instead of any other non-government organization. There are far stricter controls and due diligence procedures that they adhere to. In each provincial govn't ministry, there are paid staff whose job is exclusively devoted privacy and access to information issues for information collected and kept by the government.

Since the program has not been passed yet I take anything I read in the newspaper with a grain of salt. Scare tactics are being used so much against the current administration that it's just rediculous what's printed before the facts are truly known. And it amazes me how much people are willing to believe because a newspaper or opposition network says so. Sheesh.

Saw a bumper sticker today that read:

It you think Health Care is expensive now, wait until its FREE!!!

I've got a dozen or so of these but the Obama'ites wouldn't like them one bit so, I haven't posted then here, YET anyway!

I'm sorry chatty, I've spent considerable effort as a Canadian to briefly explain in my different responses on this topic thread what it IS like in the Canadian health care system.

Our health care is not free, I pay for it directly as I explained near the beginning of this thread ..and it is paid for via our annual taxes. Additional services are extra billed to patient. Right now, I am unemployed but I need to use the health care system to have blood work tests done, see dermatologist. Does that make me, as a Canadian, a freeloader, a sucker of my own system? Please think carefully, chatty. Is this what some AMericans think of their own unemployed Americans using the U.S. medicare?? I find that deeply troubling. A country's assset begins..with its people and they must be healthy in order to contribute to society and economy.

Canadian medical insurance/medicare system was started up in the 1960's.

Remember, Canada does not drain its national budget in billions of dollars on war effort in other countries. Seriously, our money (in my humble opinion) is better served to other priority items.

Actually, that's exactly what we do believe. Not all of us, of course, but in the US it seems that all discussions about health care quickly devolve to arguing about who does and doesn't deserve health care and things fall apart from there. Because the answer, you have guessed, is that we want to make sure we eliminate the freeloaders as part of any plan. Plus, and we don't admit this in public too much, we really don't care if others are having difficulties as long as enough people are getting care.

First of all, in our need to justify what we have and out of fear of change, we have developed a very strong belief that those of us who have employer-sponsored health care or who can pay for it individually are more deserving than people who (1) work for small businesses that don't offer policies; (2) are unable to afford $1,000 a month in premiums, or (3) are denied insurance due to any preexisting conditions. Those numbers currently add up to about 50 million Americans.

I have no idea how we got this way, but can't see where I am a more worthy person than the next goofball who isn't an outright criminal. I have employer-sponsored health insurance and can assure you I'm staying in a job I no longer enjoy because of my insurance. My daughter who is a disabled veteran cannot get private health insurance and has to rely on VA care; I guess this makes her some sort of freeloader. My other daughter and her husband both work but cannot afford the private premiums. I don't know of any parents who hoped to see their kids do worse in this area than they have.

I also don't see how the US manages to spend twice as much on health care compared to other industrialized nations, have the lousy outcomes we accept (like low life expectancy and high infant mortality rates), and still leave at least one-sixth of our population completely uninsured. Where is all the money going?

By the way, getting back to worthiness, once you are in the 'good' group, you don't get tagged as being a taker no matter how poor your health is. A guy in my office has endured two bouts of cancer, has two disabled children -- one of whom will likely never be independent -- and his wife is undergoing hysterectomy and mastectomy as a preventive measure because her entired family has died of cancer and she carries the BRCA gene. Of course I wish them well, but don't tell me we aren't subsidizing their very expensive, long-term treatments -- treatments they feel entitled to.

If we would start with the end in mind, like figuring out how everyone could have access to basic care and be taught that they are responsible for maintaining good habits we might get somewhere. But instead we're more concerned with protecting ourselves and scared to try something new. I honestly don't blame people for being worried because we haven't exactly developed a rational system that people can even understand.

nice post Ellen.

a friend of mine wrote this response to the complaints being broadcast about the hoped improvements to our healthcare system.

“Assurances that the government plan would play by the rules that private insurers play by are implausible. Government is incapable of behaving like market-disciplined private insurers.”

You see, the reason a government plan is so popular is because we are all hoping that our government IS incapable of behaving like private insurers; i.e. charging exorbitant premiums that wind up in a CEO’s pocket rather than being spent on actual healthcare, along with spending vast amounts of time and resources finding the “loopholes” in policies that will allow for a denial of coverage when a policy-holder needs it most. One can only imagine what gets spent on “Claim DENIED” rubber stamps alone – and I’m sure THAT figure is staggering.

As we have all come to know, the “market discipline” of which you speak is simply another way of stating the obvious: private insurers are in the business of making money, and that is the only “discipline” with which they concern themselves.

“Competition from the public option must be unfair because government does not need to make a profit and has enormous pricing and negotiating powers.”

Now you’ve got it. The government does not NEED to make a profit. And why anyone should be making a profit from the sickness and medical misfortunes of others is beyond me.

Don’t misunderstand me. I believe that skilled surgeons, dedicated general practitioners, nurses, paramedics, and all healthcare providers should be recompensed commensurate with their talents and efforts.

However, I am a bit perplexed as to why any insurance company executive, any bean-counter, any pencil-pusher in the vast machinery that has become the healthcare insurance “industry” should make a dime on the backs of the sick.

We have been inundated with utterly ridiculous statements about the dangers of allowing the government to take a position “between you and your doctor”. Given the choice, Mr. Will, I – like most Americans – would much prefer the non-profit-generating government as the middle-man than an insurance company employee who understands fully that a claim for coverage denied equals an uptick in profits – profits that could mean a raise, maybe even a substantial bonus for having “contributed” to the bottom line.

“Arguments for the public option are too feeble to seem ingenuous. The president says competition from a government plan is necessary to keep private insurers ‘honest’.”

If you think that’s a “feeble argument”, you might want to ask some folks out there – and there are plenty of them, so you won’t have any trouble finding them – that have been bankrupted by medical expenses despite being insured, or who have been denied necessary tests or procedures, just how “honest” they think private insurers are.

“… radical reform of health care is supposedly necessary because there are 45.7 million uninsured. That number is, however, a "snapshot" of a nation in which more than 20 million working Americans change jobs every year. Many of them are briefly uninsured between jobs. If all the uninsured were assembled for a group photograph, and six months later the then-uninsured were assembled for another photograph, about half the people in the photos would be different.”

Again you manage to make the argument for a government-run insurance plan, rather than against it. Why should any citizen be caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to their health, simply because they are between jobs? (Oh, and in case you haven’t noticed, there are more than a handful of Americans out of work these days – and with fewer and fewer jobs available to be taken, being “briefly” unemployed is quickly becoming a less-than-brief reality for millions of people.)

“Insuring the perhaps 20 million persons who are protractedly uninsured because they cannot afford insurance is conceptually simple: Give them money -- (refundable) tax credits or debit cards (which have replaced food stamps) loaded with a particular value.”

In other words, give people money – which they will then use to purchase healthcare coverage from private insurers who will make a profit on that money every time they deny coverage to those same people.

Might I suggest a more expedient plan? Let’s just have the government hand over millions of taxpayer dollars to insurance companies that contribute nothing to the health and wellbeing of taxpayers – you know, cut out that “middle man” and just line the pockets of people who are in the business of actually spending as little on their policy-holders’ health needs as possible. Yeah, that works.

I realize this may come as a shock , but there are those of us out here who believe that access to affordable healthcare should be readily available to all of our fellow citizens, simply because we derive no enjoyment from seeing others suffer and die based solely on their financial circumstances. And listening to some people of late, it would seem that too many of you do derive some pleasure from being “above it all” thanks to your wealth – inherited, honestly earned, or simply the result of newspapers being willing to pay handsomely for the privilege of printing whatever nonsense they spew.

Ellen...well put. I'm glad we have another voice of reason.

Do I think EVERYONE in the United States should be ENTITLED to healthcare???? Absolutely not! I am not a proponent that the government should provide our shelter, our food and our personal needs, unless we are handicapped, military, elderly, or the victims of sudden disaster.

This may shock some, but there are those of us who do not want to pay for Hells Angels, death row inmates, high level government employees, those who do NOT earn a living by choice, those who are too selfish to help indigent family members, those MILLIONS of young adults who would rather skip health care payments in favor of ipods and fancy cars, cigarettes, booze, drugs, etc.

Our social security money has been stolen by the government. Our Medicare is a mess. And though we can all tell stories about great health care and poor health care in the United States, and we all know reforms need to be made, let's not kid ourselves.

It is a total disgrace how we are so over-taxing our middle class to pay for entitlement groupies. There is no money left in the cash register. DUH!

The vets need more help. The handicapped need more help. The elderly and disaster victims need more help. Yet many of them are getting inferior help because of money earmarked for unnecessaty entitlement projects.

A reality check is desperately needed in this country. Clue #1: If the biggest epidemic in this country is currently obesity, and the liberal press assures us that it is, and eating at McDonalds constantly is a sign of abject poverty, I've got news. That lifestyle is NOT poverty. If you are obese and living on fast food, and you say you cannot afford insurance, get off the fat butt and get a job. 2 jobs. 3 jobs. Work the fat off and sign up for many forms of group insurance that would at least cover emergency care and Walmart $10 a month drugs.

For God's sakes, let taxpayer dollars go to the truly needy.

Definitely for obesity epidemic (and diabetes 2 among children, when it was rare), preventive medicine has to occur, where of course sometimes nurses, dieticians and family doctors educate patients, but harder are long-term mechanisms..which motivate people on their own, to eat healthier, exercise regularily for the rest of their lives. All of this to reduce larger, more complex and costly diseases in terms of care and treatment.

As for your comment on no health care for those in between jobs, for people who are employed but their employers don't pay health insurance benefits for them, if we can now make the political, now personal because to talk theoretically while we have paid jobs, middle class lives (I do when I'm employed), is obscuring realistic, humane options, etc.:

I am a Canadian taxpayer ever since I was 18, when I had my first part-time job as a student. I paid my taxes every year, even as a poor university student (less than $13.00 in my bank account), in my highest income earning years and now when temporarily unemployed, I still pay taxes. I've been working for most of my years since 1983 when I finished university. I've never had children so I have been working for over 25 years.

I rest my case..if it is believed I am not contributing my share to the government..to fund all sorts of programs including basic health care.

I am your ideal healthy Canadian patient...at 50, no allergies (except slight one to alcohol, well stops me from drinking too much), at weight that is normal (and probably envied by alot of women in our age bracket), cardiovascular excellent, etc. A person who didn't see the doctor for several years in different points of her life and had several years of no absenteeism at work with several employers. How perfect can you get, Josie for someone who is conscientiously healthy like myself?

And you are telling me that such individuals are now wasting the medical insurance system if they need to have a medical physical checkup when they are getting older/inching towards retirement? I'm getting checkup next wk. and the doctor wants to probably warn me about something on blood test results. I haven't had a full medical checkup for 2 years, because I've been relatively healthy except for this "minor" blood problem.

A cyclist who....like many cyclists will say it isn't poverty that results in obesity, etc. ...it's desperately needed motivation and self-discipline plus lots of emotional support from friends/family..to make healthier lifestyle change to save health care costs and patient suffering. We do live in a society surrounded by way too much food choices, which includes unhealthy choices.

josie, I'm not sure where you are getting the idea the liberal press is claiming about poverty causing obesity, etc. Show me the references. There would be some Republican supporters helping at the breakfast programs for low-income children.

And somehow deadbeats, laggards, lazy people are associated with those who aren't earning money/low-income/poor don't deserve basic health care? Please tell that to this type of low-income system-sucking family:

Father --6 children. Restaurant cook. Salary=secretary. Employer doesn't pay his basic monthly medicare benefits (restaurant businesses often don't do this in Canada and probably not in U.S. They're too small and operate on low profit margins unless it's a high-end expensive restaurant. The consumer only thinks of their $9.00 supper buffet deal.)

instead he pays monthly amount for his family to Ontario govn't. since he has no employee medical benefits.
Dental costs for self, wife and 6 children are NOT covered by his employer nor by public health medical insurance.

Orthodontic treatment- braces for 2 children. NOT covered by employer nor by Canadian public health medical insurance.

But yes, his wifes' pregnancies, post-partum care, all his children's flu, smallpox, tentanus, etc. were covered by medical insurance.

And for all arguments that are ... he should get a better education to get higher income...yaddyada...well SOMEONE has to work full-time in the restaurants, be the janitors, farm workers, etc. Enough. He taught himself English after work at home. And he doesn't deserve basic health care just because he can't afford it yet he is a taxpayer?? There are many low-income working folks like him, as paying taxpayers.

As a member of the middle class until recently, I am more than happy that my tax dollars supported the core health care of this family..because this family (multiply this family by many other low-income, working families who are taxpayers), contributes ultimately to the development of our country and economy.

I'm sorry to give a face to this theoretical debate on health care ..but the personal can become and it IS the political.

Private insurers have a use ..for supplemental health care. But they don't exist out of the goodness of their corporate hearts. They have commercial building lease/ corporate taxes to pay, employees to pay, infrastructure corporate services to pay and profit to make.

As for the lack of government funds to realign health care to a revised insurance model, redirect large portion of funds from war effort (and U.S. defence companies who becoming rich for supplying their equipment for war effort, etc.) to health care. It is overly simplistic of course or is this inappropriate way of thinking? Your taxes don't have to substantially increase, if other parts of the U.S. budget is redirected to health care.

Perhaps we should turn temporarily away from North America, and ask how of Germany's budget is spent on defence/war? After all this country, has a high techology country with a well-educated/trained workforce that is capable of producing defence products, strategies, etc. Am only using Germany, since their base health care insurance is govn't funded via their tax dollars.

True, orchid -- US spends more on military than all the rest of the world _combined_. It is bankrupting us.

I agree with the bulk of those here -- and in the country at large-- in favor of a "public option." I usually go to practitioners who are actually outside of what my insurance will pay for -- and we pay about $7K a year on insurance, mosly "just in case." That's 7 grand a year, times x number of years that is in the hands of insurance companies, and we get back a few hundred worth of care, at most.

I think the discussion should open up -- the US system is based on _medicine_. an MD is a doctor of Medicine, trained to diagnose a particular drug for a particular symptom. and of course, this system is highly subsidized by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Where's the "health" in this system? Who actually looks at the body as a system with parts that work together? That's so contrary to medicine in the US. If we were healthy, then no one would need pharmaceuticals, right? so we have to keep looking at all these individual symtoms.

There are new thoughts about healing -- the whole body, or person -- coming from Germany, Australia, Canada -- that the AMA will not approve and the insurance companies will not cover. For example, because I broke my left leg last winter, I went to a physical therapist for pain in my right hip (from limping). She has had training in "visceral manipulation" and massaged my right soaze (sp?) muscle which is deep under the pelvic bone. Very interesting and it worked for me. I know sooooo many people who are having hip and knee operations, on pain medication, etc., when these other treatments are out there. Visceral manipulation supposedly also works on asthma. But try to find a medical doctor in the US who knows anything about it. I understand it comes from research in France and Germany.

I agree. We all need to be reminded that a very thin line of difference exists between the employed & unemployed. Just this morning I returned by bike, from one of Canada's wealthiest areas. At the employment centre, there were some well-dressed unemployed people. A woman looked very sharply dressed was there. She came with presumably her hubby (or male relative/friend) in a nice new car. She was looking for work.
I am willing to bet she and I could have been equally educated (I have 2 university degrees), or that I might actually have greater education than her. But you wouldn't think immediately since I was wearing my humbler cycling gear. THis was not a job interview situation, by the way.

Hence, would she deserve more health care insurance coverage than I, just based on visually seeing both of us? Unfortunately people/strangers do judge us just based on the most superficial things and make broad sweep assumptions/judgements.

(Of course, I wondered why did these unemployed people waste gasoline money to drive to the centre? This area is a central hub for many municipal bus routes! But this is a totally different topic altogether.)

DJ: I'm just amazed. Is that for annual cost ($7,000) for 1 person or for more than 1 based on your HMO's rates?

A single person in British Columbia for basic health care pays $54.00 x 12 months. (and remember the health care services that I did mention earlier in this thread, that this amount does not cover.). I (or my employer if they offer the benefit), must pay this annually REGARDLESS of whether or not I received any health care during that paid period.

This base amount plus $2,000 per month, was what my partner's mother had to pay to live in her public nursing home with 24-hr. medical care/monitioring which is managed as a geriatric division as part of a large, research teaching hospital. Not all frail elderly are lucky in Vancouver or in other parts of Canada. But by some miracle, when she needed this place to live and have medical care, the last place before she died 15 months later, there was a bed available for her without many months (or years) of waiting time. She was extremely lucky to have had excellent medical care in a humane environment that observed all the safety procedures. Her facility was a 5 kms. bike ride away. Yes, her son (my partner) visited her several times each week.

It's worrisome as a baby boomer since our needs by that time in sheer numbers, will be great and place considerable pressure on nursing home care space and medical services.

yes, Orchid, this is part of why my husband and I are working so hard to stay fit. What are the alternatives? We even have elder care insurance. But even that only helps so much,sooner or later you run out of money and choices.

direct from the floor of congress:


David Gratzer, M.D is an expert who is testifying against single payer health care. He is being questioned by rep. D. Kucinich
system.

***

During the questioning by committee members:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: Dr. Gratzer, you’ve tried to make the case for rationing in Canada - worse than it is in the U.S. Do you know what Statistics Canada - the analogue to the U.S. Census - says the median wait time is across Canada for elective surgery?

Dr. David Gratzer: Why don’t you inform us,sir?

Kucinich: It’s four weeks. And what does Statistics Canada say the median wait time for diagnostic imaging like MRIs is?

Gratzer: I could tell you the Ontario government recently looked at that for…

Kucinich: It’s three weeks.

Gratzer: … for cancers, was six months.

Kucinich: It’s three weeks. How many uninsured are there in Canada?

Gratzer: Probably relatively few.

Kucinich: That’s right, none or very few. How many medical bankruptcies are there in Canada?

Gratzer: Depends on how you define medical bank..

Kucinich: None or very few. How many insured Americans go without needed care due to high cost of health care which is due to health insurance companies?

Gratzer: (Pause) Am I allowed to answer, or are we just going to continue to…

Kucinich: If you have an answer, you can answer. But if you don’t, I’ll answer. What’s your answer?

Gratzer: Go for it, sir.

Kucinich: What’s your answer?

Gratzer: Why don’t you answer your question, sir?

Kucinich: What’s your answer?

Gratzer: My answer…

Kucinich: How many insured Americans go without needed care due to the high cost of health care which is due to health insurance companies?

Gratzer: (Silence)

Kucinich: The witness isn’t responding.

Gratzer: The witness is delighted to speak further on those statistics and other statistics, but you keep cutting me off, sir.

Kucinich: You respond, if you have an answer. You didn’t give an answer to the other one.

Gratzer: I don’t want to be led down a garden path. If you’d like to ask me a question, I’d be…

Kucinich: You’ve shown a garden here to members of this committee and to the audience. There’s another side to this picture you don’t seem to be aware of even though you want to be an expert on Canada. Can you provide us with an answer on this one about America?

Gratzer: My position is respectable, and I dislike your comment, sir.

Kucinich: Do you have an answer? How many insured Americans, insured, go without needed care due to high costs of health care due to health insurance companies?

Gratzer: (Silence)

Kucinich: He has no answer. Well what the answer is is that it’s one out of every four. So we’re trying to make a case here that somehow Canada is in a mess, but we’re not focusing on the fact that in the United States there are people who aren’t getting needed care, and this gentleman has expected us to believe that rationing is worse in Canada. I don’t know how we can buy that. Now if single payer is so bad, maybe the gentleman - the doctor - can explain to us why sixty percent of U.S. doctors want it according to the peer-reviewed Annals of Internal Medicine, April, 2008.

(off camera voice): Are you going to let him answer this one?

Kucinich: He can answer it, if he can answer it.

Gratzer: I would suggest that many physicians in the United States are unsatisfied with their system, and rightly so. I would suggest that many physicians are looking for reform, and rightly so. But I would suggest that many physicians are unaware of what really goes on single payer systems, perhaps illustrated well by some of the comments that you’ve already made…

OF COURSE physicians in the US and their patients want reform. But who wants the government running the medical business, since they've already done it and made such a mess of things.

Well, we have the insurance companies running the medical business now. How is being under the thumb of unelected, unaccountable people whose primary goal is to make money any better? How precisely has the government made such a mess of things when they are often the insurer of last resort?

People keep saying they don't want the government deciding who gets care and treatment. So are they saying they are fine with insurance company employees doing the exact same thing? Because I don't get this. Right now, if I lose my job I lose my insurance. If my insurance company decides I don't need a medication or treatment, I have no recourse but to pay for it myself or do without. If the insurance company decides to cancel my plan they have every legal right to do so. If they decide not to sell me insurance at all they can do so. Really, why don't we give up the doctors and just visit the insurance offices? They are often the ones making the decisions and the fact that they have no medical training seems to make no difference. And somehow or another this is all my fault, I suppose just for living.

What, exactly, is stopping the doctors and insurance companies from making reforms right now? Because it's not the government standing in their way as they refuse to insure or underinsure patients. People are asking for a public option because they cannot get insurance in the private market, meaning that the private market doesn't want them. Unless we are prepared to shoot the people who don't make the grade, we need to think of *something.* I'd rather see more people healthier and paying taxes.

I'd love to see many medical insurance companies, and the government officials who figuratively sleep with them, sink into the mud.

Many of our elected officials are soooooooo crooked and lobbyists of all kinds including those representing pharmaceutical and insurance companies, play on that.

It's business as usual in Washington. These companies could not be doing what they are doing without the help of some politicians who are often quite wealthy because of them.

orchid (from the previous page)-- my husband works for the federal government, so supposedly the coverage he gets is among the "best". We pay $7K in insurance for the two of us. it's not an HMO so we can go to doctors of our choice. I never go to doctors anyway. I was recently rear ended, but the other guy's auto insurance covered my medical. And I broke my leg at work and worker's comp covered that. So this year, and last year, I only went to the dentist and the chiropractor which aren't covered. My husband uses it more. I guess this is "government run" health care, since he works for the federal government? But it's pretty much like Blue Cross.

Says Congressman John Fleming (he is also an MD Family Phusician) of Louisiana:

"I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.

Under the current draft of the Democrat health care legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives."

Guess how many Repubs and Dems have signed up so far?

45 Repubs. ZERO Dems.


If it's not good enough for them, why is BO trying to push this mess on Congress before mid-term elections? Is THAT the big hurry to get this plan passed??? Is Obama afraid the American people will find out that the plan designed thus far will cost us far more than what we have right now????????

This is from the super liberal MSNBC:

CBO: Health bills to increase federal costs
Message unlikely to sit well with Democrats, administration

By David Clarke and Edward Epstein, CQ Staff
updated 4:34 p.m. ET, Thurs., July 16, 2009

WASHINGTON - The health care overhauls released to date would increase, not reduce, the burgeoning long-term health costs facing the government, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said Thursday.

That is not a message likely to sit well with congressional Democrats or the Obama administration, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Thursday she thinks lawmakers can find ways to wring more costs out of the health system as they continue work on their bills.

The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Democrat Max Baucus of Montana, who has not yet released a bill, said his panel is acutely aware of the long-term cost concern. “Clearly our committee will do what it can,” he said. “We are very seriously concerned about that issue. We very much want to come up with a bill that bends the cost curve.”

For entire story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31949211/ns/politics-cq_politics/

Midwest Voices

CBO disses Obama's health care reform

By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

President Barack Obama and other Democratic supporters of health care reform better listen to the Congressional Budget Office on health care.

Because the nonpartisan CBO says the health care plans rolling through Congress have financial problems.

This is not to say that health care reform is dead. In fact, it's made some progress this week in both the House and Senate, as various plans have been heard in committees.

However, the CBO's warnings need to be taken into account if the Obama administration is going to get the best possible plan approved in Congress -- one that covers the most people possible at the best possible cost.

The CBO isn't convinced the current plans are up to those tasks.

Director Douglas Elmendorf told the Senate Budget Committee Thursday:

We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. On the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility.

And on Friday, more changes were being made in the health care packages, although they weren't necessarily helping the situation.

The House already was pulling back from how it wants to help pay for a new health care plan -- watering down plans for a surtax on high-income wage earners.

Meanwhile, the CBO's remarks emboldened Republicans to attack the Democratic plans.

GOP House leader John Boehner said Elmendorf’s testimony shows "the Democrats’ government takeover will drive health-care costs even higher."

Still, the CBO has helped complicate but also clarify the challenge ahead for Congress and Obama if they are really going to succeed in passing responsible health care reform this year.

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/5146

REUTERS July 17, 2009

Obama discovers pitfalls of healthcare reform

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama knew it was not going to be easy to overhaul U.S. healthcare.

"There's a reason why it hasn't happened for 50 years," he told supporters on Thursday. "Harry Truman wanted to do it; couldn't get it done. Every president since that time has talked about it; hasn't gotten it done,"

And now he is finding out just how hard it is.

Just this week, legislation to revamp how Americans receive their healthcare advanced in key committees in the U.S. Congress, thanks to Obama's Democrats, who control both chambers on Capitol Hill.

But it has come with a price, and it is a long way from final passage.

Douglas Elmendorf, director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, dealt a sharp blow to the Democrats' healthcare proposals when he said the plans do not contain the spiraling costs of government health programs as Obama has said he wants.

"We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount," he said on Thursday.

Fiscally conservative Democrats, already worried about how to pay for the program's estimated $1 trillion cost over 10 years, raised doubts and Republicans were galvanized in their opposition.

"The CBO testimony yesterday should be setting off alarm bells. Instead of rushing through one expensive proposal after another, we should take the time we need to get things right," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

Doug Holtz-Eakin, who was chief economic adviser to Republican presidential candidate John McCain last year, said the CBO report put the costs of the program in dramatic relief.

"As it turns out, reform that was intended to control costs turned into legislation that didn't do that and indeed is built in a way that makes the problem substantially worse," he said.

NO TIME TO SLOW DOWN

Obama and his advisers found flaws in the CBO testimony, saying Elmendorf did not take into account the cost savings that will be carried out in separate legislation.

Obama rejected calls to give the legislation more time.

"Now's not a time to slow down," he said at a hastily arranged White House event on Friday, which was followed by an announcement via Twitter that he will hold a Wednesday night news conference.

For entire story: http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSTRE56G7IW20090717

We all agree that healthcare needs reform, but most of us do NOT want the government to be in charge of running it, since many are liars, crooks and cheats, AND THEY DO NOT EVEN WANT THIS PLAN FOR THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(See Congressman and Physician John Fleming's bill: http://fleming.house.gov/ )

It is well known why BO wants his unbelievably expensive healthcare-limited-coverage-so-that-all can-be-covered bill to be passed QUICKLY before mid-term elections and before Congress goes on vacation.

BO has already spent us into the ground, more so than all Presidents in history combined. And he has plans for more expensive programs after THIS one.

Isn't it time for more Americans to wake up and call Congress??????

Since there are women from countries who have socailized medicine in these forums, I'd be interested in hearing what it's liek for you when you have an emergency, or need to see a doctor. Anyone mind sharing...

We can have a Doctor visit in an emergency within ten minutes..thats the time from the Health Centres to my home.Depending on reason for call we can be admitted to a receiving ward in the General Hospital.There a judgement on which ward or overnight stay is made..sent home with follow up to consultant or immediate treatment.
Accidents have a seperate department we dial for an ambulance.This can be in a Mall or school or home or workplace

A normal appointment is next day at the Health Centre..or if we phone 8.00 a cancellation or emergency appointment.
Nurses work in the Practice taking bloods testing samples..and specialise in inhaler and peak flow for allergies etc.
Prescription medication is free for age up to 18..pregnant and unemployed.also retired over 60.certain medical diagnosis medication is free.E.G. thyroxine..contraceptives.

When breasts show worries a fast track appointment is in place.this was set up by women who campaigned for this.A room where women counsel and have furnished (music centre..soft colours)most impressive and supportive.
We have hospices...two in Scotland for children..
Many people attend from home for as many days as needed and available.there is a resident Chaplain .I undertook training with him.All denoninations of priest ministers visit our hospitals

Maggies Centres for cancer support..the patient and family.Even after a loved ones death family can attend.

There are private hospitals where same week consultations can be made if you are in a private scheme.Insurance can be paid into this..many do and some work places offer this.Its called BUPA.
Or on request our own doctor can set this up if we pay or need a second opinion.
My experience of medics is that we work in partnership. I have great respect for my group Practice and have met some wonderful staff.

It should tell you something when government members do not plan to be a part of the national health care plan!

That's all you need to know.

I believe the US health care system needs to be overhauled but not at the expense of bankrupting the country. I pray the
naysayers are wrong, if Pres. Obama's plans go through.

this is from someone I know that lives in Canada:

As a Canadian I marvel at all of these terms that are so common to Americans, but are virtually unknown to us.

Here's a partial list off the top of my head:

1. "Out of network"
There are no "networks" in Canada. Doctors and hospitals are not affiliated with private insurance companies. Doctors are private business entities and hospitals are usually run by non-profit boards or regional health associations.

2. "COBRA"
Health coverage is NOT tied to your place of employment in any way. So any COBRA-like scheme is unnecessary.

3. "Co-Pay"
The government pays 100% of basic care, 100% of the time. Drugs are not covered, but are subsidized by government to a point. And because of mass buys, discounts are obtained from the drug companies. That's why our prices are so much lower. Most employers offer a drug plan that pays for 100% of drug cost coverage.

4. "monthly premium\deductible"
Wazzat? We don't consider our health to be the same as our possessions.

5. "waiting for approval"
Doctors are the sole decision makers for health care. NOBODY influences or delays their decisions, warns them of costs or prevents them from giving treatment for any reason.

6. "Government interference"
The provincial government in each province PAYS for whatever services doctors provide. No questions asked. Unless the procedure is experimental, not medically necessary or unwarranted, doctors cannot deny basic care - by law.

7. "Health insurance lobby"
There are NO insurance companies for basic care, only companies for providing insurance for travelers. No money to be made here.

8. "bureaucracy"
When we visit a hospital or doctor's office, we walk in, get treated, walk out. No "applications", "registrations" or any other kind of paperwork is required. We NEVER have to talk to a single "government official" or wait for a "judgment".

9. "PRE-EXISTING CONDITION"
This is such a foreign concept to us. A Canadian's usual reaction to the explanation of this term is astonishment.


I'm glad to see that a sane health care system is within reach in America. Fight for it. It's WORTH it.

OK, Josie, since you are a nurse and being a tiny wheel in the health care system, but an important one, what would you propose are the ideal health care system changes that need to be made in the U.S.?

After all, we've heard alot from you how vague Obama's health care reforms are, etc. How awful govn't is, yet how bad the private sector lobby is on their greedy lockhold is on govn't..etc.

Let's hear structural/policy changes that you would propose to change health care delivery/programs so that Americans get adequate medical /health care at the basic/general level. How would you resolve glaring inequities in the U.S. health care coverage where millions of Americans don't have health care insurance or become bankrupt for health care cost because they contracted a disease/ had a significant accident?

I truly believe, if all waste and unnecessary spending were
cut, that would pay for health care.

Madelaine, thank you for the input. I know it's appreciated!

Mountain, this is good news. I asked becasue the other night, on a conservative channel, one was sharing how horrendous the medical treatment is for emergencies in Canada. I'm happy to hear this isn't the case. While I know you don't live in Canada, I also know you live with socailized medicine.

Why won't the government adjust and become a part of the plan? That might give Americans more belief in the system being proposed.

Madelaine, thanks for this information. I'd jsut heard how horrible emergency health care in Canada is from a conservative news channel.

How do we know who to believe when listening to TV?

I don't know what the answer is. I know we need changes, but I don't like the way the government is going about paying for it.

Canada's system is not perfect, Dotsie. By now, after hearing desperate stories how some Americans stay in jobs or don't get divorced because they are afraid of losing basic/decent medical insurance coverage, I have no interest moving to the U.S. for a permanent job. In all honesty, my partner felt his brother made a mistake to become a U.S. citizen and give up his Canadian citizenship. This happened this year. He has been working and living in the U.S. for over 25 yrs.

He will out of the Canadian health care forever now. HIs brother is 56 --not getting younger. And is now struggling with his piano business store (if he doesn't do things right he could go into bankruptcy soon) and he has wife +2 daughters to support.


But if I add some comments (and I dearly wish my sister-doctor who is a family and emergency services doctor for past 8 yrs. at a hospital, that is approx. 150 beds, is hear to speak to this forum.)

I'm certain the U.S. is the same where there are drop-in clinics for evening hrs. if a someone has a cold/flu, etc. Am I correct that U.S. is the same as Canada --that the old practice of family doctors providing care in evenings and weekends on a regular basis is no longer the trend in most cities and rural areas? Hence, the parent brings a child or if person is sick themselves with a flu, they line up in emergency services at a hospital. Which is not something ER dept. wants to happen especially when clearly the person/parent should book an appoint. with their family doctor elsewhere or with a drop-in clinic next day. It is not really an "emergency" but many worried folks just wait in line anyway for a long time.

Family doctors in Canada (and I suspect in U.S. also) as a general rule no longer make house calls, they no longer want to work 12-15 hrs. days several times per week. Over 40% of recent graduating Canadian doctors are now female. That is changing what doctors are willing to work in terms of hours.

There is a shortage of medical/doctor specialists in big cities..etc. and rural areas. But that shortage of specialists (to do surgeries, etc.) must be viewed objectively..in terms of hard reality, how much any Canadian medical student is willing to invest money and more years of a medical specialty beyond family medicine. In Canada, alot of doctors already have their undergraduate university degree (3-4 years), sometimes a 2nd degree (master or something else) and THEN the medical degree for family medicine...I think it is an additional 5 years including the internship. That's alot of money, time etc.

Layered on top are doctors, like any profession, want mobility freedom to choose geographically to practice medicine. So hence, smaller areas will be overloaded with many patients and overworked doctors.

My father who was 75 at the time, had experienced some pain in his lower abodmen off and on. He was operated to to have appendix removed in 2 wks. He was fine and was moving normal 1-2 weeks later.

Now he did not go to emergency services in hospital. He went to his regular doctor and they made the arrangements. Should he have received IMMEDIATE surgery?? Is that appropriate in light of other more traumatic problems experienced by other patients that require more significant surgery?

I guess Dotsie, you need to describe what you saw on tv, the sort of long waits for ...whatever treatments/surgeries in emergency services.
________________________________________________

I know that a Canadian woman who has cancer went to the U.S. to get care and pay for it. She is acting as a spokesperson on her experience with the health care system. I am not certain if her experience is indicative of all cancer patients. And it wasn't skin cancer. And since we know there isn't an immediate cure for cancer anywhere..

Yet, Dotsie, my partner's mother who died 93 in her sleep had excellent care from family doctor and cardiologist plus geriatrician. She became frail and was only admitted once to emergency services when she fell and couldn't get up for hrs. She was living by herself. All other times she booked doctor's appointments. Or when she was in nursing home (part of teaching hospital) she was attended by the 2 doctor-specialists.

She had been taking drugs for her heart for past few decades (which was looked after back then), and some other problems. Plus sliding into dementia in final 2 yrs of life, which we all know there's no cure. But the reality is, is that she received medical care at the right times of her life when she needed it.
____________________________________________________

i have to say now, that I think of her peaceful death (she was SO lucky to die this way) ....and my parents who have been conscientously eating healthy for the past 2 decades, this is even more incentive for myself personally, regardless of whatever health care service I get, that to reduce my own future physical suffering in frail final phase of life, i must engage in healthy habits now and..forever.

Dotsie
who should you believe, the TV or the women RIGHT HERE that are living in Canada and other countries? Why don't you answer the question?
I stopped watching television news when I caught them in lies myself.
Since then, I have had the good fortune to be able to access the internet and read news from all over the world. Then you turn on conservative TV news and they are saying something different from everyone else?!

I'd believe Orchid or my other Canadian friends over newscasters any day. Wouldn't you?

how many people in Canada go bankrupt because of medical problems.
ZERO.
what's wrong with that?
How many americans get TURNED DOWN for necessary procedures by their insurance?
THIS NEVER happens in Canada.

sounds like a no brainer to me. Why am I so concerned about this?
I have a son who might never be able to afford insurance. He's a musician. He works hard, but really doesn't earn a lot of money. What will happen to him if he breaks a leg on a hike or something?
It scares me to death. I'm sure every one of you knows someone like my son, a good kind soul, but UNINSURED! He's healthy as a horse right now, thank goodness...

In Canada, the patient receives their diagnosis by their physician, whether its their family doctor or specialist, depending on the problem. Then the adult patient decides on whether or not proceed with the medical procedure/treatment. (Children are different since they may not have the capacity to decide on their own treatment/have their consent. There are laws on minors.) If there is a supplemental cost, the patient/family member, is informed.

It's not easy if there is supplemental /additional costs and if the person cannot cover it. But for alot of basic medical care, it's covered already by government medical insurance.

Madeline if your son broke his leg, he would get medical care.

Most likely he would have to pay for his crutches & perhaps orthopaedic support until foot/leg heels, unless there is a program for subsidized medical equipment for low-income. It varies per province for this latter type. Which I haven't had to use/know of program coverage. Unless employer benefit provides this.

I just checked on the govn't website (for British Columbia since that's where I live), on drug cost coverage. There is a deductible that the patient must pay and it changes when the net income of patient is low or high. There is a specific list of SELECT drugs that are subsidized and encouragement to use generic drug if equally effective. Cross-referencing of drug names are given. Wouldn't Americans at least find it helpful for government medical insurance partial coverage for prescription drugs???

My brother-in-law died of throat cancer at 41 yrs. The reality is that he was a smoker. He had chemotherapy for 2 yrs. I'm not sure if there was a cost involved, but if there was, it did not bankupt his retired parents. (He was single, no children.) Until the final months of his life, he lived at home. He probably wanted to. Would it have made any difference getting health care from U.S.? I mean really, he lived in a city where Ontario's major cancer treatment hospital facility is located also.

The (US) government has mismanaged everything they have handled...social security, etc.,etc...

I don't trust them. I want to keep us a democratic nation, and NOT slide into socialism.

I think some day (it is slow and subtle), some day we may turn around and realize the government is handling everything in our lives.....Big Brother is here.

This health care program Obama is pushing is ONE THOUSAND pages long. Last night he spoke eloquently, but said nothing I could understand. He needs to be SPECIFIC.

I think that WE THE PEOPLE should be able to vote on something that affects every person in the United States....that is the Democratic way.

We have corporate owned and operated media that gives us corporate-sponsored news. It behooves everyone to analyze who are the _spokespeople_ giving their opinions about health care! Who are those talking heads? Why do you think they're experts? Why wold anyone ever even give credibility to any commercial advertisement or P.R. piece?

Alice, do you trust the pharmaceutical companies to be thinking of your best interests when it comes to health care? I can tell you 3-4 people I've encountered during the past year who have been SICKENED by drugs prescribed to them for their conditions. That's the US health system at work.

I have friends who can only afford to go within their "systems" and the doctors in the systems aren't the best ones possible for their conditions. Do you trust the corporate overseers of your system?

My husband is a federal employee. Our health care coverage is much like everyone else -- i.e., just as expensive for just as little in return.

WE THE PEOPLE need access to true information and need to guard against disinformation.

DJ, I hear ya, but how do we get that? I'm so sick of hearing messages that are slanted by each political party. How do you know who to believe, that doesn't have an agenda?

Rep. Cardin (Md) currently is sponsoring a bill in the Senate to offer non-profit status to newspapers, for one thing. Not the best of all ideas, but it's a start. I don't think news and information should be up for sale, but it needs to be available to everyone so we can participate as citizens.

I don't like the government either; but what we have right now is private companies making huge fortunes WHILE DENYING COVERAGE to Sick americans. Don't you get tired of having to fight with insurance every time you have a medical bill? I Sure do. YOu have to quibble with them on every detail because the people working for the insurance companies are PUSHED to keep costs down. Ask me how I know this. So if Employee A cuts costs excessively, some people (like me) are going to call up and scream. Other people, (maybe YOUR Mother or Daughter?) just pay it. SO that employee looks better than the more scrupulous ones do when the bean counters count.
Now if a NOT FOR PROFIT entity has the same job; they're not going to be TRYING to beat you down. Think about it.

The leading firm that everyone's been quoting lately is a subsidiary of my husband's health insurance company! THEY'RE the ones that all the politicians are quoting as a recent study.

How bad IS the US Post office? how much mail WAS lost of yours over the last 40 years?

My daughter was very recently admitted to hospital for surgery. She stayed in hospital for nine days. Her treatment was under the National Health which is free. Across the board.

I had hysterectomy in 2006. I was referred by my GP (who is the primary health attending under the NHS) to a Consultant. Thereafter, I was scheduled for TAH/BSO. Likewise, my medical treatment was free under the NHS. Across the board.

My grandson and SIL have also had surgeries under the NHS. My granddaughter's hearing impairment is also treated under the NHS.

We also leave the hospital with free prescriptions. Thereafter, repeat prescriptions are means tested. If one is employed, one pays a fixed cost for prescription which is presently £7.25 in England. Otherwise, it's free in the same way that it is for children, students, the unemployed, the disabled and the elderly.

I continue to be amazed by the perception that government is Big Brother, wanting to control us/limit us.

After working for private sector firms with international corporate clients in U.S. and Canada, I can point with specific examples how the private sector will manage themselves unbridled, IF it weren't for our federal state/provincial legislation and hopefully accountability mechanisms for them to disclose to ensure their policies and operations are legal.

Good example: U.S. and Canada do benefit hugely from (increasingly) firm government control of environmental protection via legislation, inspection and litigation. It affects the quality of our health, our food supply/food security, occupational health and safety, building /fire code safety, etc. The government, not private industry has the power to create law and monitoring programs that ensures the END result is EQUITABLE as possible for all citizens.

I'm sorry govn't does regulate on our behalf that we in North America take SO MUCH for granted: environmental protection, transportation safety, human rights in terms in inappropriate/illegal use of personal information to make hiring decisions.. Daily we live already in Canada and U.S., where already there are laws that are in place and can be enforced. Is that such a horrible thing, to have government continue to be the legal regulator, the so-called "Big Brother", as some people mistakenly push panic buttons? If we didn't have our govn't intervene, our countries would be like China right now, severely polluting their environment as their private domestic industries go on expansion rampage.

Private industry of course, always complains how much money costs them to implement systems and services that conform to govn't regulation. Hence, if the pharmaceutical companies sense any broad health care reform change that prevents them from aggressively pushing their drugs to be used, not much will satisfy them.

As for trusting private industry with our personal information, making decisions for us (and hence, excluding us from knowledge/awareness of potentially good competitors with same service/products), is a waste of time for them and not in their best profit interests at all. As an example of "Big Brother" already in private industry, we have such a blatant worldwide information product from private industry that already infringes on your personal safety/information: "Google Maps". Amazing how closely people can visually see where you live. How's that for feeling abit endangered? Anyone from anywhere can see where you live.

Google is treading JUST within the fine line of legality in personal information and privacy laws.

If there is irresponsible spending by hospitals, govn't health authorities, it's a whole lot easier to conduct reviews and audits with published results, when the govn't has full control for health care service delivery. Would it happen easily with a private health care insurer, etc.?
____________________________________________________________

Example that Lola gave from U.K. on drug and cost coverage, I don't think is the same here in Canada. As mentioned earlier in this (long) thread, I did mention there is a list of certain prescription drugs where there is a cost subsidy, not "free", especially when patient has left hospital.

why would any American be against the idea of at least change for their prescription drugs to cost-subsidized?? It's a no-brainer. Pharmaceutical companies will survive,,...believe me, their research budgets are big enough..my friend who worked for an internationl pharmaceutical giant, travelled at company cost to Iceland to Canada several times in 1 year, to establish drug use protocols and work with physicians on 1 new drug clinical test trials.

I'm sure her business trips were paid under "Research Development". She wasn't even an executive, had not even reached middle management ranks at that time in the Canadian division. A return plane ticket to Iceland from Canada, is close to/over $1,000CAN.

do not cry crocodile tears for any pharmaceutical giant. Be grateful for generic drugs that have proven to be equally effective.

From today's national Canadian newspaper. By the way this newspaper is oriented to the business community also.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...article1235958/

Our system does have situations where a patient might have to pay a portion but not in full. Provided it was treatment requested by the diagnosing Canadian doctor, on Canadian soil.

U.S. debate reminds us our Medicare is worth it.

André Picard

Montreal — From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Last updated on Thursday, Jul. 30, 2009 07:23AM EDT


Shona Holmes has become a central figure in the bitter debate about U.S. health-care reform.

The Waterdown, Ont., woman is featured in a TV ad telling her tale of horror – how she had a life-threatening brain tumour but would have had to wait months for treatment. So Ms. Holmes remortgaged her home and flew to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona for treatment, paying $97,000 cash for her care.

“Now, Washington wants to bring Canadian-style health care to the U.S.,” the narrator says gravely in the ad, paid for by Patients United Now, an offshoot of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a conservative group that promotes less government and lower taxes.

Ms. Holmes has also recounted her nightmare story in countless media interviews, warning that “free” Canadian health care comes at a heavy price – lack of access – and lamenting her inability to buy private insurance to get quicker care.

“My agenda, if I have one, is to tell them [Americans], be careful what you wish for,” Ms. Holmes told The Washington Times.

Discussions surrounding the provision of health care always elicit strong emotions and outbursts of rhetoric, and Ms. Holmes's case is no exception.

She is, of course, entitled to bash medicare and promote the idea of private health-care insurance both at home and abroad. That is the beauty of free speech. (And, to be fair, Ms. Holmes has always praised the quality of care in Canada; her issue is access and timeliness.)

But a few important details are missing from the “commercial” version of this socialized-medicine-kills tale.

Ms. Holmes did not have a deadly brain tumour, she had a benign Rathkes cleft cyst. Yes, she had vision loss, but it was temporary and reversible. This is not to suggest what she went through was not awful and frightening, but it was not life-threatening.

Initially, Ms. Holmes said she had a six-month wait to see a specialist. Later, she amended that to three months. Canadian hospitals and physicians won't say how long the wait was nor comment on the gravity of her condition because of privacy rules.

For the sake of argument, let's acknowledge that the wait to see specialists like neurologists can be long. It's a problem that needs to be fixed, and the situation is already better now than it was in 2005, when Ms. Holmes had her health problems.

The reality is that, in Canada, we “ration” care. Under our state-financed insurance program, we try to provide universal care efficiently and cost-effectively. We make choices. Getting the balance perfectly right is difficult.

The United States, by contrast, has over-capacity. That is one of the principal reasons that, per capita, care costs about 50 per cent more there than in Canada.

Money buys you access, and lack of money denies you care. In Canada, we have a not-always-happy medium: Universal access with sometimes frustrating waits.

So what happens when a patient feels they are waiting too long for care? Ms. Holmes had a “gut feeling” that her life was in danger and made a radical choice to pay out-of-pocket for immediate care in the United States rather than wait for “free” (read: tax-financed) care in Canada.

Now, she wants to be reimbursed by the Ontario Health Insurance Program. She is also a party to a lawsuit against the Ontario government arguing that a “government-run monopolistic” health system that prohibits the sale of private insurance for medically necessary care is unconstitutional. (The case, very similar to the Chaoulli case in Quebec, is backed by the Canadian Constitution Foundation. It is still before the courts.)

There are complex legal issues here and competing rights that the court will need to balance. But what insurance program, private or public, would ever allow clients to determine their own treatment and reimburse them without question?

In the discussion flowing from Ms. Holmes's ad, it has been noted often that some 45 million Americans do not have health insurance. For them, the right to buy private insurance is moot because they cannot afford it and the Canadian-style system looks pretty appealing. But that is largely beside the point here.

Ms. Holmes is insured – albeit by a state-financed plan. The question is: Can insurers (and providers) delay and deny care, and can they limit and deny coverage?

Of course they can, and they do so all the time. In the United States, health insurance is expensive and it is often tied to employment. Even those with good insurance see their claims denied because of “pre-existing medical conditions,” insurers' attempts to hold down “medical losses” (the industry term for paying for care), and caps on total payouts.

Ironically, for all her lauding of private insurance, someone like Ms. Holmes would find it virtually impossible to buy insurance, given her medical history.

The infamous ad claims that Canadians have long waits and are denied all manner of care because the “government says patients aren't worth it.”

On the contrary, medicare – universal state-financed health insurance – means everyone is worthy of care and entitled to care.

If nothing else, Ms. Holmes' foray into the U.S. health-care debate should remind us of how medicare, despite some shortcomings, is worth it.

Americans can only dream of having such a system to bemoan.

To repeat:

We all agree that healthcare needs reform, but most of us do NOT want the government to be in charge of running it, since many are liars, crooks and cheats, AND THEY DO NOT EVEN WANT THIS PLAN FOR THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(See Congressman/Physician John Fleming's bill: http://fleming.house.gov/ )

It is well known why BO wants his unbelievably expensive healthcare-limited-coverage-so-that-all can-be-covered bill to be passed QUICKLY before mid-term elections and before Congress goes on vacation.

BO has already spent us into the ground, more so than all Presidents in history combined. And he has plans for more expensive programs after THIS one.

Isn't it time for more Americans to wake up and call Congress??????

House Resolution 615 by Congressman/MD John Fleming:

As of July 30, 2009, over 150,000 Americans from all 50 states have joined Congressman Fleming in supporting House Resolution 615. Sign the online petition and send a message to Congress - If You Vote For A Government Take Over of Health Care, Then Promise To Use The Plan!

Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration's proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, I believe this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.

Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating.
Together we will work to ensure that any plan that is good enough for American families is good enough for every member of Congress.

The Resolution:

http://fleming.house.gov/uploads/HR%20615.pdf


So far not one Democrat is interested in joining the plan they want the public to accept. What does that tell you???

Fine, Josie: come up with another plan, how about. If the government cannot do anything right, we seem fine with the idea of clerks in insurance companies overriding our doctors and letting us know what we can and cannot do. We seem fine with losing our insurance, not being able to purchase insurance, and even going bankrupt due to medical bills. We're even fine with long waits to see specialists and with being unable to see anyone out of network.

How about just one concrete idea to make things better?

I've said over and over that ending the major corruption by government officials in bed with lobbyists from insurance and drug companies would be a step in the right direction. How many times do I need to say that the waste in government, the corruption, etc etc etc....needs to be checked.

As a nurse for decades, I've seen the damage done when lots of individuals continue to make poor choices and their local hospitals end up over-charging the paying customers to make up the difference. Some hospitals even close down.

As a woman, I have seen so few people vote, and of those who vote, some vote for those they KNOW are crooks, yet these crooked politicians continue to be voted back into office.

It all starts with the individual. If each of us learns, listens, practices ethical values, votes for the BEST person even if they are an Independent candidate or a write-in, that at least is a start in the right direction.

I want so many of these crooks out of office and soon. I do my best by voting every election and by practicing personal fiscal responsibility.

Thank you, Josie. I won't ask you anything else.

Here is yet another kind of example of fraud which is sapping our health care system. Why not get involved and do whatever you can to improve the system so that $10 aspirins can become a thing of the past?

42 Defendants Indicted in $4.6 Million California Health Care Fraud Scheme

Free Republic

Dept. of Justice

United States Attorney's Office Central District of California
July 9, 2009

"Federal and state authorities this morning arrested 20 defendants accused of being part of ring that defrauded Medi-Cal out of nearly $4.6 million by using unlicensed individuals to provide in-home care to scores of disabled patients, many of them children with cerebral palsy or developmental disabilities.

The 20 defendants arrested this morning are among 42 defendants named in a 41-count indictment that was returned by a federal grand jury on June 25. The indictment is part of an investigation called Operation License Integrity, a two-year investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and the Office of the California Attorney General-Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse. The indictment alleges that the 42 defendants and two others, one of whom has already pleaded guilty to health care fraud charges, conspired to bill Medi-Cal nearly $4.6 million for in-home licensed nursing services that were actually provided by unlicensed individuals.

“We believe that this is the largest single case alleging Medi-Cal fraud ever filed in the state,” said United States Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien. “The nearly four dozen people associated with this fraud ring not only cheated taxpayers, they endangered the lives of young people they promised to protect and care for.” . . . The organizer of the ring, Priscilla Villabroza, a registered nurse who ran a Santa Fe Springs-based company called Medcare Plus Home Health Providers, pleaded guilty in federal court last year to five counts of health care fraud. According to court documents, . . . Villabroza and others hired unlicensed individuals to provide services to the disabled Medi-Cal patients and billed Medi- Cal as if they were licensed vocational nurses (LVNs). . . ."

Take a look at what else is happening to milk the system which you wouldn't normally hear about:

http://harfordmedlegal.typepad.com/forensics_talk/fraud_investigation/

If we put a lid on fraud and corruption, it's very possible we can solve the health care problem without voting in crooks to run the store, ya know???

From what I understand, no one is turned away from health care if they have don't have insurance. As a matter of fact, yesterday I had to get established with a new doctor because my insurance changed. My old doctor wasn't on the list. On the form I filled out at my new doctor's office, it had a box to check whether you had insurance or NO insurance. If I understand right, you can not be turned away if you have NO insurance. There is Medicaid for people that can not afford insurance.

I do not have any answers about what to do with health care. Yes, there is some reform that needs to done, but WHY change ALL of health care? I personally do not want Government to decide ANYTHING for me! The Gov has done a terrible job of handling Medicare the way it is. Doctors, Pharmacies, etc...they do not get their money for several months for services. Guess what would happen to us if we didn't pay our taxes to the government on time. They come throw our butts in jail!

Cookie, I have a friend whose son had no health insurance and was moved from one local hospital to Hopkins for an infection, where he was treated by one of the most prominent doctors of immunology. He had no insurance whatsoever, and hasn't paid anything for the care. So I know from personal experience that they do not turn people away, and in this case, saw that he got the best care offered. So in the end, who pays for that?

This is a very tough subject, and one that not a soul has THE answer for. I think we need more time and more research done before anything is passed.

here's a link to debunking health care myths:

http://healthcarereformmyths.org/

it comes complete with sources of the information.

example:
MYTH:
It's too expensive for people to afford.

FactRates are set based on income as it relates to the poverty level. From the bill itself (HR 3200) :
income levels as a percentage of poverty:

* 133% through 150% pay 1.5% - 3% of income
* 150% through 200% pay 3% - 5% of income
* 200% through 250% pay 5% - 7% of income
* 250% through 300% pay 7% - 9% of income
* 300% through 350% pay 9% - 10% of income
* 350% through 400% pay 10% -11% of income

here's another one:
MYTH:
5.6 Million illegal immigrants will be covered by ObamaCare.
In another form: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

Fact: Illegal immigrants are specifically excluded from coverage. Of course, this means that they will be continue to get their healthcare from expensive emergency rooms, so that may not actually be a good thing.

The section on page 50 of HR 3200 aligns Health Insurance Exchange policies with other laws currently in effect, such as the Public Health Service Act, State law, and ERISA. Health care cannot trump other laws already in effect.

and here's one of my favorites:
MYTH: Administrative costs will be too much, thus rendering Health Care Reform ineffective.

Fact: Blue Cross of Massachusetts employs more people to administer coverage for 2.5 million people in New England than are employed in all of Canada to administer single payor for 27 million Canadians.

Under our current system, the United States has $480 billion in excess spending each year in comparison to Western European nations that have universal health insurance coverage. The costs are mainly associated with excess administrative costs and poorer quality of care.

In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita. Since then these costs have been rising. We already have enormous administrative costs. Health Care reform is another way to address this. By cutting Administrative costs, it makes insurance less expensive to Americans. Currently costs are passed onto consumers in the form of higher insurance premiums.

Thanks Madeleine, for all the details.
The other MYTH I keep hearing about is that old people think the Obama bill is calling for euthanasia for people over 70!!! Really!!! I've heard them calling the radio about this, and my friend tells me her mother in law said the same thing. Aren't people able to see that such rumors are started by special interests with an agenda?

The problem is that the situation such as your friend's son is not the norm, Dotsie.

Further research is really not necessary when there are variable models in Europe which work and which the US could adapt accordingly. The only requirement left is a political willpower to do right by its people. And, where there are arguments against socialised healthcare, it only reflects a continued support for corporate monopolies over there. Quite an oddity...considering that those would not return the favour even when and where there is a financial quid pro quo by subscription to private healthcare.

I don't think that's necessarily the norm, either, Dotsie. I was hospitalized last year and one day my doctor happened to mention that she chose to practice at that hospital because the care she administered was not dictated by whether or not a patient had insurance. In other words, care is different in different places.

And really, why not? Yes, they do have to treat you in the emergency room -- for now -- but they don't necessarily have to admit you, nor do they need to adminster anything beyond the most minimal care. From a moral standpoint, this is troubling, at least to me. From a business standpoint, I think they should turn people away outright if they cannot pay.

Two members of my family are not insured right how: one because she's uninsurable on the open market due to preexisting condition and the other because they cannot afford $1,000 a month in premiums. Maybe these people represent the corruption we're supposed to be rooting out of our government. Rrooting out corruption is always a good idea, but the noncorrupt aspects of the system still leave a lot to be desired.

If we're all supposed to have insurance, maybe, just for argument's sake, we could insist that people actually be able to buy it. (Go ahead, Dotsie: pretend to be someone else and call around for new insurance. Tell them you have diabetics in the family and see how eager they are to sell you a policy.) Here's another crazy idea: why don't the insurance companies make group rates available to everyone? Aren't we all a group when it comes to using the system? Or is that socialism?

You know, I can be a businessperson, too: if I am expected to deal with any downturn, like having my treatment or medications altered due to business reasons, or even having my policy canceled, then I expect to share in the good times by getting dividends when things are good (say, I don't use the system that year).

Also, Hopkins is a teaching hospital and is famous for "experimenting" with treatments. Possibly the son of Dotsie's friend had a condition that intrigued the eminent immunologist. Another possibility is that it's working to create better PR because of some of the problems its experiments have created.

Hospitals absolutely _do_ dump patients, this one case notwithstanding. Some famous cases occurred in Los Angeles where the hospital physically drove indigent people and kicked them out of the car.

"THE" answer doesn't exist. But better solutions are out there. What we have now is a system whose rules have been written by insurance companies and drug companies. They lobbied Congress during the 1990s when Clinton was trying to get a plan passed. The same type of misinformation was out there. These are facts. You can look it all up. People involved at the time have proudly blabbed about their disinformation campaigns -- remember the Henry and Louise commercials? PR practitioners were so pleased with themselves, and they earned themselves lots of money helping to kill the legislation.

When your _fears_ have been aroused in a controversial discourse like this, be on the lookout. Fear is not a good emotion to have when discussing a serious topic, and PR professionals know this. It's their best tool. When you have fear, you are less likely to listen to reason, or examine the facts. Now the fears circulating are buzzwords like these: Socialism. Euthanasia. Government-controlled. They have done focus-group studies to find out what words and phrases are most apt to circumvent rational thought.

Unfortunately, Americans are so accustomed to react from fear rather than to actually think, that this isn't very hard to do.

I have to say this: it is offensive that Josie said under topic Barack's character:



It is offensive use of the word, 'social engineering' in the above because social engineering is misused term by her and demonstrates lack of remembering historical horrors, real horror of history..ie. the Jews in WW II and how they were used for medical experiments. Or just simply the elimination of several million Jews for the Hitler's Arayan race agenda.

We are just talking about health care treatment reform to improve people's health, save lives. Social engineering is controlling race, ethnicity and creating biologically, a superior race/group of people.

I have learned alot so far just from ordinary Americans in this whole debate just how each of you cope as users of your own system.

The proposal is still in draft form and, it is usually the case with proposed legislation that the devil would always lie in the details. Much akin to ensuring all the utilities are on before moving into any accommodation. What I'd be more interested in is whether there is substantial political opposition to health reform. Most of the debates on either side of the political fence seem to only deal with the mechanics of implementation and delivery. Not opposition.

I have been so confused for so long I don't know what to believe anymore.

I have said this before, I lived in two other countries with socialized medicine. Germany and Greece.
In Germany, the care is fantastic and I am 100% in agreement with Edelweiss. Everytime I was cared for in Germany, I had nothing but wonderful experience.
One doctor even saved my life because he was proactive and anticipated a problem I would have.

Greece is a different story all together. I remember relatives having to bribe the doctors to move up procedures for a loved one.
What that tells me is, you have to have money in order to have this system to work too. At lease in Greece.
I went to Pireas, outside of Athens, in 1994 for two weeks to help my grandmother out. She was undergoing radiation treatment for bladder cancer.
I was horrified with the treatment and the conditions. First of all, you have to supply everything yourself, and this is down to the toilet paper. I am not kidding.
Second, if you think you will need help in the middle of the night, then either you have a relative or friend stay with you, or hire a private nurse. I remember only one nurse was good to my grandmother.
I found out why after she took the time to fluff my grandmother's pillow. My grandmother gave her a tip. I am surprised they didn't tell me to insert the IV when she had to have a blood transfusion.
After all, I did everything else. If not, my grandmother would've had urine, bugs, and body odor if she was there and depended on the hospital staff.
To be fair, I don't know if there has been any improvements or not. I do know that two years ago,
while my mother was in Greece, my grandmother had to stay in the hospital. My parent's had to hire a private nurse to stay the night with her.

Now back here, in the United States, there are resources not known to the public. In 2005, my aunt was in an accident, okay, auto insurance covered those injuries.
Good thing because she needed to have an MRI because the doctors feared she would be paralyzed. A discovery was made with the MRI, she had a tumor in one of her ovaries.
She needed to have surgery, she ended up having it at a charity hospital in Norfolk, VA. However, because of the surgery, another discovery was made. She couldn't breath after the surgery.
The doctors discovered she had a polyp in her throat and the tracial tube had made it swell up to block any air. This same charity paid for that surgery.
So we have the resources, only they are not made public and I am sure one would have to qualify to get the help and apparently my aunt did.

It seems the problems we have here in this country are the insurance companies and the lack of publicity with the charity hospitals. I don't know.

IMO, and based on what I understand, if we could have a combination of Germany's system and insurance reforms. I believe it would be ideal.

If I have come across offending someone or not having any empathy, I am so sorry. This is not my intention, my intention is trying to understand all of this.

Thanks and Cheers,
Cathi

ideally we should do away with health insurance altogether. It seems like an idea cooked up by mafiosi. But it's so entrenched that we can't. Insurance companies _own_ the medical system. And I call it "medical" system rather than "health care" system because it's mostly about medicines, not about health. They are good for the extreme cases, but most of us are not and never will be extreme cases...unless you take too much medicine, then watch out!

So what is the next best solution to doing away with health insurance altogether?

"efficient streamlined system" is the key, Anne. We have a bloated, inefficient, pork-laden system where money gets swallowed up like so many globs of cholesterol stuck in the blocked arteries of our economy. One could argue that with much less pork, the arteries might clear out a bit and the money could flow through to its intended destination -- but that's not the reality of our current situation. Putting good nutrients (money) into a pork-laden artery accomplishes nothing.

SOME???

I wonder if the politicians would dissolve in the arteries if we... No, I didn't say that. (insert tarnished halo icon)

I had NO health insurance growing up in the projects. We went to clinics for emergency care. I had little or no insurance at several other times in my life because I could not afford it.

Although I have insurance right now, it could be dissolved at any time depending on how life goes.

I have several family members who get regular government monthly checks and "free" medical care paid for by taxpayers. They are mostly young adults who choose not to work. Most make poor choices and spend a quite a bit of time in the ER or in rehab. Again, government entitlements. I would estimate that each person has used up about 1.5 to 2 million dollars in medical care, as paid for by you and me.

Since I know that the top 1% of our citizenry pays for 50% of all federal taxes, do I think they should pay even more to cover people like those in my own family and in my state who are young and live off entitlement programs? Absolutely not.

We need reform. But not with our crooked government running the ship. And not in a system where far too many are not pulling their own weight.

I think you forgot that I LIVED poverty. I paid my own way through school, one course at a time. My husband picked cotton at age 7. We know about struggle and tragedy and having to start over. And over again.

I left big city hospital nursing after 25 years working in several large cities across the USA because the numbers of entitlement people kept demanding more and more services, while I had less and less time to help the patient whose husband or wife could barely afford to pay their own insurance, let alone their neighbors too. And these working class people (cops, laborers, moms, secretaries, bus drivers, etc) rarely asked for extra service. Sometimes I went home crying at the shame of it all.

It's easy to be anonymous and assume the person you are talking to must be filthy rich to be against what BO-Pelosi-Reid-Rom-Franks has in store for us.

I want to reform our medical system so we CAN help the elderly, the handicapped, the victims of disaster, and the vets much more than we do now. But first we need to get rid of the fraud, the corruption and the waste.

I WANT ALL FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO BE UNDER THE SAME PUBLIC PLAN THAT GETS VOTED INTO EXISTENCE. Do you have any idea why they are currently not willing to do that????????????????????

I spoke about the bill before Congress that asks Congress to do just that. Instead of assuming I surely could never understand the plight of the poor, help me figure out why these legislators are not willing to sign that they will be subject to the same insurance plan they are designing for the American people.

Let's start there.......

It is because the Health Reform Bill does not propose a "one size fits all". Generally, it proposes that those who are satisfied with their current insurance together with the privileges they enjoy from it, need not shift from one system of healthcare to another. That would pretty much cover those politicians, I suppose. The bill also seeks to aid those who are uninsured because of costs through the options it proposes. That would definitely leave politicians out of the "uninsured" and cost-challenged population. There are also other reasons why many do not support the Bill. Partisan politics and self-interest groups are two of those.



There are two-tiers (if not several) of income in those groups, Josie. If we go by one of the proposals of the reform where one can shop around for health care, the least that anyone would want is for a federal employee who is paid tens of thousands to benefit in the same manner as those who would probably be on minimum wage. I would rather have the first group carry on with what they currently subscribe to.

As to entitlement, healthcare is a fundamental human right and not a commodity. If some folks "work" the system, it is because other checks and balances within the system has failed them. In those instances, it would be best to treat the cause not the symptoms.

As you've said, it is far too entrenched to be done away with completely, DJ. Must be a result of that aspect which is part and parcel of capitalism. I reckon, with political willpower, any change could only be brought about by the slow introduction of a socialised healthcare which can operate alongside the private plans. I suspect, French healthcare system is pretty much along that line. However, the caveat rests on the medical professionals and their accord to a threshold with professional fees.

In plain English, the reason why the current version of the health care plan is not going over with federal legislators wanting it FOR themselves, is because as one Democratic Senator put it, "It's not fit for a dog."

Obama has this week denied he ever said this plan is meant to be a single payer system, yet videotapes are being shown where he actually says it may take 10-15 years to turn a health care plan into such a system, but it'll be done. I saw 2 such tapes yesterday on television. Why is Obama lying?

Pelosi said that agitators wearing swastikas and and "Astroturf" types are the only ones out there protesting the current healhcare plan, and she will make sure the plan gets voted in no matter what the troublemakers (voters) say.

Barbara Boxer said these people at town halls are "dressed too well" to be real protesters and they surely are being sent in by insurance companies to cause trouble at town hall meetings.

The protesters I am seeing on TV seem like laborers, retired elderly and just plain folk who feel they are being railroaded into a plan they do not want.

Everyone wants cheaper healthcare, but this 1 trillion dollar GOVERNMENT-RUN plan whose specific details are deliberately being kept low key (some major details to be added after it is passed,) is not what most Americans signed up for.

Truly non-partisan polls are showing growing dissent about this bill, which may be why Obama has decided to meet today with 3 moderate Democrats and 3 moderate Republicans, to find out what can be done to make the bill more palatable.

Medicaid was originally estimated to be a 10 billion dollar plan over the long haul. It turned out to become a 110 billion dollar plan. The one trillion dollar price tag on THIS plan is a very low ball estimate. And we have no money to pay for it.

BO assures that the middle class will not be paying for this. Baloney. What about all those new energy taxes? The cigarette taxes? You name it---we are getting hosed with new taxes to pay for legislative BS. And now they are talking value-added taxes. Are you kidding me??????

By the way, Congress just voted themselves 200 million dollars for THREE private jets for high level government officials to travel in. Betcha don't hear THAT bit of news on government-sponsored NBC or CNBC.

We ALL want reform, but not what is currently being touted as what is in "everyone's best interests."

People in our state are taxed beyond tolerance. Many move away.
Now the cost of license plates is being increased, in the wake of state officials voting themselves hefty raises. Gov't cannot run state level issues with wisdom; surely, nobody expects the gov't to run national level bureaucracy with any degree of common sense, now do they.

jabber, I've learned that people in MD are moving to Delaware due to lower taxes.

For those interested, here's a link to all the staes and their taxes.

Cold feet, perhaps? From pressure by political opponents of socialised insurance, which is what the single-payer scheme is about. SPS actually works. Canada, Australia, France and the UK are prime examples of the practice.

If Obama admits to having said it, would it make any difference with the public's general acceptance of SPS? As an American living in the UK and enjoying the benefits of national heathcare under that particular scheme, I honestly do not understand the opposition to it...especially where the current situation in the US has already proven to be so dire in its inequities.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php

I have only ever known the Nation Health Service since as a Boomer It evolved in 1947 in the UK .It has served me and those around me well..I feel gratitude for the service.

Why would it not be something to aim for ?

As pointed out, Obama has said that it'd take 10-15 years to turn this system into a single payer system. However, at the moment, single payer is off the table. I think he has said that single payer might HAVE BEEN a good idea for the US but it's too late now to undo the entire insurance industry.

So he's not lying -- it's true that the current bill is not about single payer.

It does work, Anne. Amongst a few, the benefit is portable and pre-existing conditions do not disqualify. It is universal which means it offers heathcare to everyone. The Prime Minister is just as much of a beneficiary of the NHS as I am, as would my unemployed friend. The unborn is just as much a beneficiary of it as we all are. For those of us who are employed, we do not begrudge the unemployed who cannot contribute to National Insurance because we know that life has a way of trading places.

If millions of $$$ is an issue raised within the political arena in the States, the comparison beggars belief. The National Health Service here was established from the economic devastation and rubbles of WWII. Sadly, socialised medicine seems to be such a contemptuous concept in the States. To quote Churchill: "Capitalism has as its chief vice that all do not share equally in its blessings."

I pray and hope you find a benefit with the proposed health reform, Anne. As I hope for Ann and Dennis, together with many more who only find discontent with the current system.

Cradle to the grave was one of the ideals the NHS provided for.But I do realise it worked here due to the cultural political and class system being challenged .No doubt over many many years..Education being a factor as educational acts took place at the same time as the conception of The Beverdidge Plan...which started the system I live with. I have bought private consultation as a matter of choice and second opinion..
Good points Lola...The PM's babies were born locally and Mrs Brown supports our local maternity hospital due to little Jennifer who had much care...sadly to die..so I believe Gordon and Sarah have personal experience just as many more of the NHS have..no more no less.and strive to keep this valuable assest.

The best state for taxes is Alaska. No wonder Palin had such
high approval ratings!

Yes I believe the WW1 when the men returned to a nation where there were few jobs..our depression and WW2 when the skies above us were blitzed contributed.The social mix of war service.The Marshall plan helped..The emergence of a new political era post war..
Maybe when backs are to the wall a new way forward evolves.

But other changes..a new University of the Air..which became The Open University was almost not brought to be due to political unrest.It did..Forty years ago .
Purely due to old held values...class system felt threatened..
so always there is challenge...but people do have power..
cal

MA, what I relish during Parliamentary debates on the NHS is that no one dreams of its abolition...even now, despite the economic downturn.

Yes we debate openly about junior doctors hours..waiting times.. targets..post code lotteries but we do know the value of the NHS.

Anne327,
I hear you. They couldn't pay me enough to live way up north, either. And certainly lots of men would not be adequate incentive.

I saw some statistics the other day that most Americans think the taxes they pay are fair and not too high.

DJ,
Those folks most likely don't live in NY.

They most certainly do not live in New Jersey!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol

Yes, I do listen to a few stories about how socialized medicine works well in other countries. Mostly I hear the opposite.

My husbnand;'s ex-wife just got off the plane from her parent's suburban home in England. Her dad is elderly and has another infected raised area on his leg due to chronic circulatory issues. He is on a list to see a physician in about 3 months, if he lives that long. The family is quite middle class and they have already exhausted quite a bit of private funds to circumvent the medical system in the UK.

Hubby's English ex says she is so glad to be living in the USA under our system.

I know once we get to a single payer system in our melting pot country of OVER THREE HUNFRED MILLION PEOPLE, many of those with an ever-growing entitlement attitude, there will be far far more fraud and corruption to get to the front of the line.

Yes, reform is needed to cut waste, fraud and misuse. At ALL levels of society, government and in the business world. But to allow already corrupt government officials be in charge of our individual medical decisions?????? Nope. I think not.

Sorry Pelosi. We found out that you really put in for FIVE new fancy planes instead of three and now because of the public outcry, all that is gone as of this week.

And we are finding out about H.R.3200 too. So namecall away, and hire those goons so you can create phony allegations about those who disagree with you and your cronies.....We know WHO you are and WHAT you are.

Many of us are not selling what you are buying. Of the few decent legislators who still exist, I hope they come up with a plan which respects the vet, the handicapped, the elderly, the working class, the unborn, the victims of personal and natural disasters, and all Americans who value the Constitution as it was written by our forefathers.

My husband has had government healthcare since 1968 and me since 1972. We paid nothing for our healthcare until he retired from the USN in 1992. We still have government healthcare; it's called Tricare and is for retired military. We pay $34.38 a month and have co-pays of $12.00. We have a good choice of doctors or can use an out of network doc for a small fee. In addition, my husband has had surgeries in the VA hospital and sees docs at the local VA clinic regularly. It's all free.

Don't knock government healthcare until you try it.

Hi Louise ....Military healthcare is different from government-run-universal healthcare. And YES, I DID have military healthcare years ago. It may be cheap for military families, but it is not free as you indicate. It is paid for by the US taxpayer, and if it were up to me, I would reform military healthcare and provide the injured soldiers and vets with so much more than they have right now.

In Bremerton Seattle in the late 1970s, as soon as I found out the Recovery Room after delivering a child would be on a gurney in front of the nurses station in the hallway where the postman comes in to deliver the mail, I used my meager savings and got on a plane and flew 3000 miles to deliver my baby in a much safer community hospital facility.

Before I became a nurse, I volunteered at a Veteran's hospital and saw the deplorable conditions those poor men lived with. Now, 45 years later, that hospital is still in existence and conditions are not much better.

I want to see government crooks voted out of office so decent honest people can make tort reforms and other necessary changes to our healhcare system. Maybe then there will be enough money to improve conditions for those who serve our country, as well as the elderly and the truly needy.

The “reality check” link at www.whitehouse.gov is meant for those people willing to actually learn a little about health-care reform — people who may even question why we’re the only industrialized nation in the world without adequate health care, although we spend much more than anyone else.

Health Insurance Reform Reality Check

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

1. Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
2. Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
3. Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
4. Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
5. Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
6. Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
7. Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Someone tell me what is so bad about this?

So Josie, do you ever see stories like this coming from Europe?

Thousands line up for the Promise of Free Health Care Thousands Line Up for Promise of Free Health Care

INGLEWOOD, Calif. — They came for new teeth mostly, but also for blood pressure checks, mammograms, immunizations and acupuncture for pain. Neighboring South Los Angeles is a place where health care is scarce, and so when it was offered nearby, word got around.
SNIP

Many of those here said they lacked insurance, but many others said they had coverage but not enough to meet all their needs — or that they could afford. Some said they were well aware of the larger national health care debate, and were eager for changes.

“I am on point with the news,” said Elizabeth Harraway, 50, who is unemployed and came for dental care. “I think the president’s ideas are awesome, and I believe opening up health care is going to work."

snip
Begun in 1985 as a mobile health clinic serving undeveloped countries and later rural America, Remote Area Medical provides various medical services through units to people who are largely unable to gain access to health care. Officials from the organization said they believed that this week’s event in Los Angeles constituted the largest free health care event in the country, with the arena and all supplies and services provided free to the group. Other expenses were covered by the group’s fund-raising.

On Tuesday, volunteers provided 1,448 services to about 600 patients, including 95 tooth extractions, 470 fillings, 140 pairs of eyeglasses, 96 Pap smears and 93 tuberculosis tests, the organizers said. Hundreds of volunteer doctors, dentists, optometrists, nurses and others are expected to serve 8,000 patients by the end of the eight days.
snip

Oh yeah, it's all about people and their entitlement.
indeed.

As Daniel Hannon of the UK and a member of the European Parliament said yesterday, other countries have tried national healthcare and gave it up as it ruined their economy. He said it is currently decimating England, which is what my husband’s former relatives from England have said for the last few months and as recently as last week.

I’d like to hear about all the countries that have tried this system and then dismantled it after it helped ruin their economy. (Cuba and North Korea are among those still using it however)

Josie, it's pretty tiring to read of these scare tactics for anything remotely related to government funding. It may well be at the time, you gave birth, there might have been a birth boom.

I would like to confirm to all the ladies here, that none of my 3 sisters ever laid in a gurney before/after their pregnancy in front of a nursing station. (would this have been only for 15 min. or for 3-4 hrs., Josie?) Among 3 sisters, they gave birth to a total of 6 children over the past 24 years in Toronto hospitals. None of my sisters had a C-section, which as many women here know, tends to be the trend. None of them were interested in a C-section if it wasn't warranted. Of course, all these 3 mothers are themselves trained health care professionals with a higher awareness of human anatomy/physiology and drug therapy than many of us here. (2 pharmacists, 1 doctor)

The baby in a Canadian hospital, if it is not a preemie/has complications, is in its little crib-bed, in the same room as mother after birth.

1 sister who is a physician herself, gave birth at home, with a midwife. She wanted this experience. She planned it all carefully....in case of unexpected emergency. Our health care system does cover for the services of a licensed midwife.

Note: My sister has delivered over 15 babies as a physician herself at the hospital.

In Europe they are lining up in long queues A LOT. You should listen to the BBC, which my husband does every day. Do you have any idea how bad the system is in other countries as compared to what we have right now???????

I think more of us should be reading international news instead of what you are being fed by the liberal mainstream media like MSNBC and NBC, run by owner Jeffrey Immelt of Obama's team.

I give credit for the liberal Boston Globe for admitting that the young girl who was at Obama's stacked town hall meeting and asked her "innocent" question (read from a card,) was actually the daughter of the woman who headed Obama's "Women for Obama" campaign in Massachusetts. "Mom" knew Obama, Michelle, and both daughters. Don't you just love the transparency???


Anyway, we have THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE who would eventually be under this universal health care plan, with fewer and fewer people to pay for it. Duhhhhhh!

I'm on board for health care change without crooks running it.

It IS time for cheaper health care. I'm just not for putting individual health care decisions in the hands of liars and thieves.

In the meantime, WE HAVE NO MORE MONEY. What part about this is not understood? We are already borrowing from foreign countries at the rate of EIGHTY BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK. What part about that is not understood??????

The one thing I agree with Josie about is that veterans hospitals are well known for being run down, and staffed by doctors of low competence.
But the Obama Administration has already done things to improve this:

The Recovery Act provides the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with more than $1.4 billion to improve services to America’s Veterans

* The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) enables the VA to improve medical facilities and national cemeteries, provide grants to assist states in acquiring or constructing state nursing homes and extended care facilities, and to modify or alter existing facilities to care for Veterans.
* VA will dedicate ARRA funds to hire and train 1,500 temporary claims processors to speed benefits delivery to Veterans and pursue needed information technology initiatives for improved benefits and services. Funds will also be used to oversee and audit programs, grants, and projects funded under ARRA.

Where were you when we were pouring billions of dollars into a war in another country that was started illegally? Were you complaining about that money? Oops, we're still spending THAT money on THAT war, and that other war, you know the one in Afghanistan, the one that we'll never be able to win?
How come you are so against taking care of our own but sit there quietly while we bomb the crap out of other countries for... um, why? oh yeah. something about oil.
There is a money crisis. you're right. And it's only going to get worse if Americans continue to go bankrupt because they can't pay for their healthcare. And as American children become less healthy because they don't have health care.

Finally; SHOW me where Europeans are lining up to get health care because they can't afford it. I read British news as well as Italian news almost every day. SHOW me. Just the facts. Thank you.

Yup, I know about scare tactics. Obama and his clan use it a lot to vote bills in RIGHT AWAY, to save America.

Now he is using that same claim to say DISSENTERS are the ones using scare tactics, and for us to ignore un-American dissenters, so he can save America.

Yeah, I know about scare tactics. hahaha

Dear Madeleine:

I love your passion and respect your opinion. I really do not think you are trying to say you know me or that you know how I dealt with the previous administration's policies I did not agree with.

It is wonderful of you to offer your own ideas on this board. I can hope you are glad when I offer mine.

sorry this plot comes out so bad here: this is from the UK guardian.

Country/health($)/Doctors per 10K pop/Nurses&midwives per 10K pop/Hospital beds per 10K pop/
Life expect. at birth
United States------6719----26---94---31--78
United Kingdom---2815----23--128---39--80
Russian --------------698----43---85---97--66
Japan---------------2581----21---95--140--83
Italy-----------------2631----37---72---39--82
Germany-----------3465----34---80---83--80
France--------------3420----34---80---73--81
Cuba-----------------674----59---74---49--78
China----------------216----14---10---22--74
Canada-------------3673----19--101---34--81
costs are per capita

I prefer facts above opinion, however, you stated you are a nurse which explains why health care might be more important to you than other political stuff, so I apologize.

Josie, then I propose that the U.S. federal govn't do something really radical/entrepreneurial/cost recovery, so that the U.S. taxpayers' databases spent on developing these databases for the world, start exacting a fee for database searches. (There are millions of journal article citations, not all full-text journal articles which there are different payment requirements from journal publishers.)

That would prevent all laypeople and all health care professionals do their initial research if they question opinion of their lst doctor's opinion:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

So that the U.S. can funnel the funds for health care. How about that? Why be generous to the rest of the international health care community to give initial database searches for free?

Then the rest of international community can start viewing the U.S. differently in situations of real need and care.

(Now if folks haven't figured out how satirical I am...)

Queue Up in the United Kingdom by Ronald Bailey
Health care rationing

Facing lengthening waits at hospitals, the British government has set a targeted turnaround time of four hours from arrival in an emergency room to treatment by a medical professional. Apparently this standard has proven too stringent for the National Health Service.

The Guardian reports that U.K. emergency rooms are meeting the four-hour goal through a simple, quintessentially British expedient: queuing. Thousands of seriously ill patients have been forced to wait outside of emergency departments in ambulances before they can be admitted, thus delaying the start of the four-hour timer. The practice is called “patient stacking,” and various investigations have found people with broken limbs or breathing problems stuck in ambulances for as long as five hours.

In U.S. emergency rooms, the average length of time it takes a patient to see a doctor has increased from 22 minutes to 30 minutes during the last decade. In nonurban hospitals, the wait averages just 15 minutes. And there’s no extra waiting in the ambulances outside.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/126059.html

A Canadian Expression
June 29, 2009

Falcon on Queue Jumping

"I don't have an objection to people using their own money to buy private services," he declared, in reference to patients paying for their own expedited surgery and other treatments at private clinics.
"Just as they do with dentists, just as they do with other decisions they make -- you know, sending their kids to private school or what have you. I think choice is a good thing actually -- reducing choice I don't think is a good thing."
Health Minister Kevin Falcon as quoted by Vaughn Palmer

Falcon's suggestion that people should be able to buy medical services just as they do dental or private school services, deserves more than derision. Nothing stops those who can afford it from going to the Mayo Clinic in the U.S., or to any other clinic in the world. Why shouldn't Canadians be able to spend their money at home to jump the queue since they can do it by leaving home? Apart from the costs of travel and accommodation, going abroad for health services can also mean isolation from support networks. There can be no doubt that more convenient queue jumping at home would mean much more queue jumping.

Anyone who needs care, from the removal of a cataract to organ replacement, can personally benefit by moving to the top of the queue. The question is whether queue jumping shortens the wait for anyone else. What harm to society justifies reducing or eliminating the ability of individuals to queue jump?

Queue jumpers within B.C. delay care to those with higher medical needs, the opposite of the claim that private services shorten the queue for those that need care. This could happen in two ways: 1) by bidding away scarce resources, including doctors, nurses and technologists, and 2) by reducing the incentive for government to fund public care.

One difficulty in the debate is how to quantify how many resources are diverted from public care, what the consequences are of any diversion and if and by how much government reduces public funding when private alternatives are available. One might think that answers to these questions would be the subject of substantial research, but such research is hard to find. Often arguments hinge on the fear that any adverse consequences would be the beginning of a slippery slope.

Medicare in Canada is built on the principle that access to medically necessary services should not depend on ability to pay. The Canada Health Act was adopted in 1985, as a result of pressure to stop extra billing by physicians in Alberta and Ontario and hospital user fees in B.C. It succeeded in those goals, and it remains in force even though a lot has changed in 24 years. The principles affirmed by the Act have been confirmed repeatedly. Currently B.C. is subject to fines under the Act for allowing clinics to charge for medically necessary services. The Act provides authority for the federal government to withhold $1 in federal transfer payments for each $1 charged to patients in violation of the Act's principles. The penalties under the Act are much clearer than quantification of any of the adverse social consequences mentioned above.

An attempt was made to challenge the principles of the Canada Health Act in Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791, 2005 SCC 35; however, that case focused on whether private health insurance could cover private health care and hospital services. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Quebec's prohibition of private health insurance infringed the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. That doesn't mean private clinics are free to operate without regulation, nor does it answer the market question on whether any issuer would offer coverage for private clinics. The cases before the B.C. Court may offer further clarification on whether it is constitutional for a province to restrict private clinics, but once that issue winds its way to and through the Supreme Court of Canada it will still not resolve the policy questions of what the consequences are of allowing queue jumping.

A report in the Vancouver Sun in June 2005 indicated that about 1% of all surgeries that are covered by the Medical Services Plan (MSP), were being done in private surgery centres. When surveying the extent of private health insurance, called voluntary health insurance (VHI) in some jurisdictions and private medical insurance (PMI) in others, and the extent of the private provision of health services, it is important to separate queue jumping from private provision of services that are publicly paid (e.g. most doctor's offices and some contracted surgeries) and from private insurance or provision of services that are not covered publicly (most dental services and some drugs). Queue jumping is when quicker access to service is obtained through alternatives to public health insurance, as is done in B.C. with clients of ICBC and WorkSafe and as is alleged to be done by some who pay surgery fees at private clinics. In B.C. the queue jumping done by ICBC and WorkSafe is legal, but privately paid queue jumping is not. That difference, and apparent inconsistency, is before the court, the matter on which Falcon was apparently not briefed (to put it most generously).

According to a 2006 study published by the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, between 11% and 12% of the population in the United Kingdom have some form of private medical insurance, with about two-thirds of those covered obtaining coverage through work (a fringe benefit). The principal form of PMI in the UK is for queue jumping, insurance as an alternative to the National Health Service. According to the study, in 2002 an estimated 16.6% of UK health expenditures were from private sources, but private medical insurance accounted for only 3.6% of total UK health expenditures. Most of the 13.0% of expenditures that are private but not insured are for services not covered by the NHS, part of the 3.6% of expenditures that are from PMI are also for services not covered by the NHS. A precise estimate of how much is spent for queue jumping in the UK is consequently unavailable, but it would appear to be less than 5% of total health expenditures and possibly as little as 3%. The UK's Office for National Statistics reported that private spending accounted for 20.1% of total health spending in 2002, falling to 18.3% in 2007. There is no obvious explanation for the difference between 16.6% and 20.1%, other than all of these figures have to be taken as approximations.

There is much opinion but little evidence on whether up to 5% of total spending for queue jumping significantly distorts the public sector's ability to obtain scarce resources. Leverage may make the extent of queue jumping in the UK underestimated. A patient can shorten wait times by using PMI to queue jump for an initial consultation and then go back to NHS for any surgery, just like British Columbians can expedite their care by purchasing a private MRI scan.

Voluntary health insurance is more common in continental Europe but, according to a 2004 study published by the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, it is primarily for goods and services not covered by public insurance, rather than for queue jumping. When it covers user fees or co-insurance attached to public programs it can affect access to care without directly funding queue jumping. In Canada we have not had such co-payments since the implementation of the Canada Health Act.

If Falcon wants more discussion he should have paid attention during his government's $10 million "Conversation on Health Care". If he wants to push a queue jumping agenda, he should have said so during the election campaign. His job now is to guarantee that through public health insurance (Medicare) British Columbians get the health care they need when and where they need it.

Queue Jumping in Canada: http://www.strategicthoughts.com/record2009/Falcon1.html

Ah, I see what you are talking about. The difference here, of course is these people in GB who are waiting for an average of 4 hours!!! (which IS outrageous) at least can go to the hospital any time they want.
The long lines of Americans are waiting to see doctors who have volunteered to come to their neighborhood ONCE.. Too bad if they needed the help 2 weeks ago or a year ago, because they can't afford to go to their community health care or doctor.

Queueing and Medical Waiting Times in all areas of Canada (Dozens of links to check out)

http://web2.uwindsor.ca/math/hlynka/qhealth.html


A UK Blogger Weighs IN: "From Cradle to Queue":

http://www.insuranceblog.co.uk/2009/07/uk-health-insurance-from-cradle-to.html

Whether you are an Italian citizen or an expatriate, this is one of many web sites which will give you a micro-view of what Italian PUBLIC health care is like:

http://www.expatforum.com/articles/health/health-care-in-italy.html

The supporters of queue jumping would quickly sing a different tune if their employer didn't offer supplemental health care coverage benefits as part of their work benefit pkg.

If I may be allowed to explain, if one does not wish to wait the next day for a doctor's appointment, and if it's a non traumatic / non-threatening illness, ie. sniffle of flu, cold and if one chooses to go to emergency services at a hospital, of course there would be a line-up. I explained this near the beginning of this long thread.

Just to give real life examples, I had an employee who reported to me, who did get sick several times last year, where most times she was able to get a hold of her doctor's office before it closed. She always managed to get an appointment on the next day. Situations were: a bit of food poisoning, a strained back muscle, flu.

As for a woman in labour, she would get immediate attention at the hospital upon arrival or en route in ambulance/wherever who can respond.

What cracks me up Madelaine, is some people like my wayward young adult nephew with his 2 girlfriends and his SEVEN children....all collect monthly government checks for their 3 separate apartments, utilities, food, liquor, cigarettes, etc etc, not to mention the CONSTANT trips to the ER, the surgeries, expensive drugs, you name it.....that you and I are paying for.

They represent just a few of the significant number of extended family members who know how to play the system to not have to be personally self-sufficient.

They think I am rich because I "have money." (I worked full time since age 15)

As I have said before, as a nurse, I always felt badly for the REALLY poor-but-working-class who are sometimes made to wait long periods in ER rooms while the people who know how to work the system make sure they get FAST priority treatment. Create a major ruckus and I guarantee you will be seen QUICKLY! lol

I think we need to make a few changes in our current system, which includes the shady government and their lobbyists, and then there will be a LOT more money to help the truly needy.

yes, but you know why they are going to the ER?
because they can't go to the doctor. They can't afford to!
I have a good friend that was an ER doctor. He actually changed professions (now he works for a healthcare clinic) because he got tired of treating chronic disease with band-aids instead of doing emergency medicine; which is what he was trained for. He lamented that the working poor (and the non working poor) had no other means of taking care of themselves, so they'd let minor ailments get dangerous; go to the ER, get fixed up, and then after the bottle of medication ran out, they'd wait until things got so bad they couldn't manage again and they'd go back to the ER.


I feel sorry for your nephew's children. So let's say we take away the benefits that your deadbeat nephew gets. Who will be hurt the most? Him? no his kids.

Yup, it's the kids who suffer when their parents make poor choices. If only our social agencies could MAKE the 3 adults in this situation work for their benefits, especially since our nusing homes and hospitals are so very understaffed and could use the help....I opt for a reform whereby able-bodied young adults who are allowed to get free housing, free food, and free medical care, be trained to do road work, hospital work, daycare, and any other type of work which can teach them self-sufficiency so they can serve those who are making their freeloading lives possible.

Let me add that any government or company employee who steals in any way from the taxpayers, be fined heavily with mandatory jail time if the situation is serious enough.

Yes, I do know some doctors who will not accept government cards or if they do, they charge the government inflated fees. And I know A LOT of people who over the years have learned they can get service faster if they go straight to the ER, simply because their doctor does not work 24/7.

One really great OB-GYN doc I know said he was giving up his practice because his malpractice costs were through the roof. He said some people are so sue-happy nowadays and greedy lawyers are too glad to sue for a gazillion dollars if the baby was born with a forcep mark on his head. Sometimes forcing the baby out saved the baby's life but no matter. "Lottery fever" seems to rule when some think you can make money from an insurance company. After all, it's not like suing a real person, right? lol

I swear, sometimes I think I could write a book on all the corruption in companies, from individuals, and from government I've seen in almost 60 years of living.

And one answer to changing this current dynamic is so simple: re-teach important values starting in utero. lol Seriously. Mommy-to-be-experts advocate playing tapes near your pregnant tummy to make your kids smarter before they are born. Why not make some of those tapes about being honest, respecting your elders, working hard, studying diligently, treating your fellow man as you yourself would want to be treated, etc.

To all posting about health care. Please remember that all of us feel strongly about what's taking place in our contry with regard to this topic. Regardless of what we are cheering/hoping for, we must remember that we are all passionate about this topic no matter the end result. It doesn't make anyone right or wrong. We are all entitled to our own opinion based on our life stories.

Very well said, Dotsie. We boomer women come here from all walks of life, each with a wide diversity of experiences to share.

To opine is to speak from the heart, and to speak from the heart can often be infused with great passion.

"Your opinion is your opinion, your perception is your perception--do not confuse them with "facts" or "truth". Wars have been fought and millions have been killed because of the inability of men to understand the idea that EVERYBODY has a different viewpoint." --- John David Moore ---

from the Guardian UK newspaper:


US system denies healthcare to millions

* The Guardian, Friday 14 August 2009


In the summer of 1962 we awoke to find the word "Commie" scrawled in bright red paint across the front of our family home and my father, Woodrow Lloyd, branded a "murderer". His "sin" was to lead the Saskatchewan government, which was trying to introduce the first "socialised" health scheme in North America. How little has changed in 47 years. ('Evil and Orwellian' – America's right turns its fire on NHS, 12 August).

While the medical establishment in Canada was quite capable of generating its own propaganda – doctors would strike (they did), leading to the necessity of importing medics branded by one newspaper as "the garbage of Europe" – it was aided and abetted by professional bodies from south of the border, which financially backed the anti brigade as well as distributing leaflets designed to terrify the populace. The government would use its powers, they claimed, to legalise abortion and mercy killing, and everyone would have to no choice but to accept the doctor allocated to them by the government. Doctors insisted that, under the plan, government would control all aspects of their practices and no doctor would be allowed to practise outside the plan – all untrue.

Women were particularly targeted with stories about threats to their unborn children not dissimilar to Sarah Palin's vision of "death panels". Families and communities throughout the province were riven apart as people took sides with a bitterness that lingered on for years. Two-thirds of the province's doctors declared their intention to strike on 1 July, but help was at hand in the form of scores of British doctors, who flew in and began establishing community clinics, with the help of supportive locals, in towns and cities throughout the province.The final act was conducted by the eccentric and determined Lord Stephen Taylor, a member of the British Labour party, who had earned his peerage for the vital role he had played in the design and implementation of the UK's National Health Service. Taylor hammered out a settlement between the doctors and the government that was to lay the cornerstone of "socialised" medicine throughout Canada. Within a very few years, every province in Canada benefited from its own brand of Medicare. Ask any Canadian what makes them different from Americans and they will cite with pride our Medicare system. The wedge that the American medical establishment so feared was well and truly driven into the continent that summer. It's sincerely to be hoped that President Obama can follow where Saskatchewan led.

Dianne Norton

London

• UK politicians from all parties will, we are sure, share the BMA's dismay at the jaw-droppingly untruthful attacks on the NHS from the American right.

It is ironic, however, that they can do so while policies which actively encourage private companies to gain a foothold in our NHS are being pursued. In the short term, the chief effect of the pro-market agenda in the NHS has been not to improve care, but to dent public finances, with recent estimates suggesting that the use of the private finance initiative to build new hospitals has left future governments with tens of billions of pounds to pay back.

In the long term, the risk is that we are marching steadily away from a system of free, state-provided healthcare, which has co-operation rather than competition at its heart, towards the kind of wasteful, iniquitous system which denies millions of Americans the healthcare they need, yet costs nearly twice as much per head of population as the NHS.

Not long ago, proposals as ambitious as Obama's would have been unthinkable in America. Similarly, it is time for UK politicians to challenge commercial interests and re-examine their flawed consensus on the NHS in England – that competition is the only way to raise standards of care, and that private provision automatically equates to value for money. Neither has been shown to be true.

Dr Hamish Meldrum

Chairman of council, British Medical Association

•  The US spends twice as much on healthcare and still doesn't manage to cover 46 million people. As an American, I find this a source of great shame.

You omit to say that the rubbishing of the NHS's record by the Republicans and private insurance lobby groups is currently being stood up by the Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, now on tour in the US.

In an astonishingly glib attack on the "Marxist" NHS, Hannan warned his US audiences just last week that it represented "a grisly picture of your own country's possible future", with patients being "sent to the back of the queue" or otherwise not permitted to fund additional treatment.

It shouldn't inspire anyone with confidence when David Cameron stays silent while one of his deputies smears the health service so freely.

Nor should bodies representing the NHS stand as meekly by as they are doing. The private healthcare lobby is no doubt jealously looking at how it can expand in the UK at the expense of the NHS.

So let the NHS be undermined at everyone's peril. If there is a change of government, the chances are it will be our argument too.

Cllr Theo Blackwell

Lab, Camden council

• On opening the Guardian, I was annoyed to say the least that you chose to report on the US healthcare debate in the terms dictated by its extreme rightwing opponents. Many of the points made in the main article are utterly irrelevant to the 50 million Americans who have no healthcare at all. If the debate is to be balanced, balance it in their favour, please, rather than regurgitating corporate propaganda.

Jane Carolan

Glasgow

I'm sorry if i offended anyone, I do not mean to. Instead I am trying to gather factual information to counter the ridiculous lies spread by media that have Americans shuddering in their shoes about the horrible (and preposterous) things that supposedly will happen to them if we actually approve some legislation that will try to improve health care.

In September, my son (who is 30) will no longer have health care. This is a very personal issue for me.

from the UK Times on line: http://www.timesonline.co.uk

Anti-healthcare lobbyists duped us, say Katie Brickell and Kate Spall

Two British women who have become the unwitting stars of a campaign to derail Barack Obama’s healthcare reforms yesterday said that their views on the NHS had been misrepresented.

Katie Brickell and Kate Spall said that they strongly supported state-funded healthcare, but their descriptions of poor treatment at the hands of the NHS form the centrepiece of an advertising campaign against the proposed reforms in America. Both appear in adverts for Conservatives for Patients’ Rights (CPR), a lobby group that opposes Mr Obama’s plans for universal medical insurance, which have caused a transatlantic rift over the merits of the NHS.

Government ministers and the Prime Minister have weighed in to the row to defend the healthcare service as Republicans claimed that adopting an NHS-style system would lead to “death panels” that would preside over who received lifesaving treatment.

Ms Spall, whose mother died of kidney cancer while waiting for treatment, and Ms Brickell, who had cervical cancer diagnosed after being refused a smear test because she was too young, appear in the adverts telling how they were failed by the NHS.

But they informed The Times that they were told they were being interviewed for a documentary examining healthcare reform. Neither was aware that the footage was to be used for right-wing advertisements. Ms Spall said: “It has been a bit of a nightmare. It was a real test of my naivety. I am a very trusting person and for me it has been a big lesson. I feel I was duped.”

CPR was set up by Richard Scott, a multimillionaire who founded the Columbia Hospital Corporation. Ms Spall was approached by a woman, who identified herself as Betsy Kulman, who said that she was making a documentary for the company. In an e-mail Ms Kulman wrote: “Columbia Healthcare in the US is underwriting a web documentary spanning the US, the UK, and Canada on the debate on healthcare reform. This segment will explore the difficult issues around the intersection between private and nationalised medicine.

“Who has been failed by socialised medicine and why? What can be done to change things for the better?”

Ms Spall, who runs the Pamela Northcott Fund, to fight for patients denied treatment, said that she stood by what she said but was horrified by how her words had been used. “What I said is what I believe, and I stand by it, but the context it has been used in is something I was not aware would happen,” she said. “The irony is that I campaign for exactly the people that socialised healthcare supports. I would not align myself with this group at all.”

Ms Brickell, whose cancer is in remission, said that she had had a similar experience. “I was told that they were a company in the United States who were doing a documentary on whether healthcare in the US should be nationalised,” she said.

“The NHS let me down and I just wanted to make the point that people should not rely solely on it. But what I said has been skewed out of proportion. I am slightly worried that people might think I am taking a negative position on the NHS.

“My point was not that the NHS shouldn’t exist or that it was a bad thing. I think that our health service is not perfect but to get better it needs more public money, not less. I didn’t realise it was having such a political impact. I did sign a piece of paper saying they could do what they wanted, so it’s my own fault.”

Karol Sikora, a British cancer specialist who also appears in the adverts, has said that he fell victim to the same technique. Dr Sikora, an outspoken critic of the NHS, told The Guardian: “They came and saw me in my office about a month ago and I gather I am appearing in some advert. They didn’t tell me that would happen.”

Stephen Hawking, the Cambridge scientist, has also been drawn into the row after the American newspaper Investor’s Business Daily used an editorial to claim that he “wouldn’t have a chance in the UK” because the NHS would have deemed him “worthless”, given his physical disabilities.

Mr Hawking, who has motor neuron disease, rejected criticism of the NHS yesterday as he collected America’s highest civilian honour, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. “I would not be here today if not for the NHS,” he said.

"The one thing I agree with Josie about is that veterans hospitals are well known for being run down, and staffed by doctors of low competence."

quoted from above...
My husband works in the VA hospital in Wash. DC and I know doctors who work in the Baltimore VA. From what I gather, these hospitals are run as well as or better than any of the other hospitals in the area. They have excellent doctors. They have a superior records system.

Don't confuse the VA with Michael Reese, which was found to be a nightmare last year.

From my own 2+ years experience with dad in a VA home in a nearby town, I can tell you that while it wasn't necessarily run down, it was understaffed and what they had on staff with the exception of a few, was pitiful. The doctors were in with the psychiatrist and admitted it when caught in out and out lies by the State review board. They were sending patients to psychiatrist in another town to be evaluated when the patient didn't NEED evaluating. One of those "you scratch my back" things.

They were over-prescribing, until caught, and kept the patients overdrugged to make them zombies, and manageable. That's why I was there so much, and a few other families...to watch them like a hawk. These same doctor's were caught (two different doctor's now) with their nurses/staff having sex...on the premises. Married doc's. I witnessed abuse to the patients, which I reported and became very unpopular, yet the care did improve after that. So it is like any other place...good and bad everywhere. I don't believe regulations are tight enough on these facilities...or that they are checked often enough. The staff pretty much knew when the State was coming to inspect...they were tipped off. Unless...someone went to a higher authority and complained...when we did and so did a few other families. I bet they were glad to see us go.

Don't get me wrong, there were a few wonderful people who worked there. A handful. The director was a moron, IMO, but a few nurses and aids were wonderful, and caring. Heck, they even had a HEAD nurse who was on probabtion for being on drugs, prescribed drugs! She couldn't dispense the meds, but she had access to them. She had the KEY to the cabinet...duh?

Keep those opinions flying off the shelves. It's democracy in action!

Regarding VA hospitals, I remember one particular VA nurse who constantly and openly abused male dementia patients sexually. I was young and afraid to report her, but report her I did, and she was investigated and then fired.

I do not blame her race, gender, political affiliation for what she did. She was just a bad apple. I'd like to think that most people in human services are there to serve and are really nice people.

It may not be right to think of many local, state and federal elected government officials as more susceptible to taint and corruption, but my almost 60 years on this earth has proven that to be true.

When I saw the out-of-town Acorn buses pulling up in Pennsylvania a few days ago on local TV, to radicalize a town hall meeting held by the Honorable Arlen Specter, it made me think of Obama and his New Hampshire town hall meeting. (The liberal Boston Globe said the little girl who asked about dissenters was the daughter of the "Women for Obama" campaign director.)

It's fine for people to organize and agree/dissent, but I wish the namecalling and false allegations against everyday older American citizens would stop. I wish the behind-the-scenes agitators from both sides of the aisle would quit.

Even the media is getting in on it. This morning CNN said it was correcting a myth that illegal immigrants would be covered under any healthcare plan in the USA. CNN said that is not a fact nor has it ever been such.

I was livid at the lie. As a nurse for decades, I know for a fact that illegal immigrants receive many millions of dollars in medical and educational entitlement programs, just to name a couple.

I'm all for a degree of immigrant amnesty, but I'm also for truth. When everyday middle class citizens wake up and hear this bull about no healthcare planned for illegal immigrants on TV, they get angry and I do not blame them. We've had such programs for years already, so why lie about it now?

THAT's what many people are angry about. The lies and namecalling.

It is known that 1600 organizations & companies are coming to Washington DC in September with over 3000 lobbyists to buy the votes of federal officials.

Once the backdoor deals are made, no more will be said. Like Pelosi said, we are the Astroturf people with swastikas, and she will get her program passed no matter what. I wonder what she gets in return.

What I would like to see is an end to insurance tied to a particular employer; an end to being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions; an end to insurance companies denying life-saving treatment (isn't that rationing??); an end to people having to get their health care in emergency rooms; and a provision for dental coverage, which is important for overall health. I would also like to see world peace, which is perhaps just as likely as getting health insurance coverage for those who need it the most.

Just read this in the Guardian UK online news


American healthcare is in truth already rationed

Growing up sick in the US, and being treated by a humane NHS here, has shown me that Britain's system is far better

*
o guardian.co.uk, Sunday 16 August 2009 20.30 BST

I grew up in the US with a series of mysterious health problems, not least two different kinds of cancer. Everything in my life – education, choice of career, job mobility, decisions to marry or divorce, where I lived, who I knew, what I wrote or talked about – all of it – was determined by the paramount need to maintain health insurance.

In the United States there is no basic protection for working people. My fully employed, doubly insured parents were pushed to the brink of bankruptcy four times before my 15th birthday. I exceeded the "lifetime maximum" coverage before I was old enough to vote. My family paid huge sums for insurance, then 20% of the cost for treatments, without assistance from any public entity.

And I never received more than essential services, on large wards, in grim hospitals. My most significant childhood memory is knowing exactly how much I cost, and regretting the expense. I can tell you that it costs at least $200 to ride in an ambulance regardless of distress or distance. The price goes up for every lifesaving procedure ­ performed during that journey. Extrapolate from that the normal charge for every test, procedure, blood draw, and dose of radiation – the costs of staying alive can be extreme. One day in the hospital can easily total more than an average person earns in a year.

The truth is, healthcare is already rationed in the states – by individuals struggling to afford even basic cover, by companies negotiating (or refusing) benefits, by government agencies trying to balance budgets. For many years I lived in a state where the legislature ranked and rated, by price, procedures people on aid could receive, and refused to cover anything deemed too expensive. Even if, as the papers frequently reported, it meant letting adorable little children die. But since it is America, you can shop around. Just across the border in a different state, the legislature decreed that pre-existing conditions could not be excluded or made the subject of increased charges under insurance plans, leading me and many others to migrate a few miles to get a better deal.

This underscores the inherent problem – that there is no consistent federal policy, and therefore no protection for the most vulnerable citizens. Or, if you pause to think about it, for anyone.

Medical bills are a leading cause of bankruptcy. It is common to engage in fundraisers for adults diagnosed with something treatable but expensive, children who need wheelchairs, or in the worst cases, someone who has died, leaving behind huge bills their family cannot afford. In the US, the greatest restriction on personal freedom that I have ever encountered in my own life, or witnessed in the lives of friends, all comes down to health insurance. Creative, innovative, talented people are unable to change jobs because they need the insurance. Small companies collapse because they cannot afford employee insurance. People die because they do not have insurance.

I am healthy now, yet my background means that US insurance companies can refuse to cover anything related to events that happened over 20 years ago. Because I take prescription drugs every day, and because I need blood tests a couple of times a year, this will never change. The last quote for insurance I got exceeded my salary. This is one of the trickiest parts of the current healthcare reform debate in the US: lots of people would like to stick with the status quo, working hard and letting an employer look after the details, but this desire is largely based on nostalgia for a past that never quite happened. Medical care is more advanced now, people are living longer, care is more expensive, jobs are less secure, and the economy itself is not healthy.

Five years ago a friend called me in a panic, desperate to borrow an inhaler because she could not afford to go to the emergency room with an asthma attack. That night, I decided to emigrate to a country where everyone has access to basic medical care. Moving to England was worth it. My experiences with the NHS have not been perfect, but they have been superior to the services received in the first 33 years of my life.

In the US I devoted a huge amount of time to chasing appointments, finding specialists, fighting with insurance companies. With the National Health Service I have never had any trouble getting referrals, nor have I ever had criticism of the services rendered. If anything, I have felt spoiled – especially at the start of the recent flu crisis, when men in hazmat suits showed up in the middle of the night to take my temperature. In fact, though I have private top-up insurance here in the UK, I've never had cause to invoke it.

The current proposal for US healthcare reforms has fallen victim to a misinformation campaign causing needless confusion and controversy. The plan is neither radical nor far-reaching, offering a bandage instead of a cure. It isn't enough, but it is necessary.

We discussed our experiences of health care when Dotsie asked what happened to citizens of other countries and systems.
I shared my own knoweledge.
Then a UK representive was reported as being critical of UK's health provison.During a visit to US
He is known as a loose cannon ..a maverick.His leader was totally embarassed.It has opened a can of worms and is causing debate and points scoring for our next election.
No doubts..any system can be improved but my local experience is good..and no history of any illness debars treatment.
I have a friend who little 5 year ols grandson is awaiting first dialysis then a transplant...that family have no worries about affording this life saving treatment.
I do not pay for prescription medication..being
retired nor does any unemployed person..so no bars to receiving
any medication however poor..
I do think education about healthy eating and exercise could be improved ..rather than fixing health issues we could prevent some..
when the system started here in 1948 many people were critical even some doctors...so debate has always been part of the NHS.For me it has been there and appreciated all my life....

wow, Mountain Ash, thanks for posting.

re: the discussion about VA hospitals -- my parents, uncle and aunt have ALL been over-medicated in a private, for-profit, hospital that has a "good reputation." My husband has been over-prescribed by his allergist this year (I convinced him to quit getting allergy shots and voila, he was no longer sick). I think that's just the way medicine is these days.

When the public discourse is fueled by fear (as in, the "death panels" and all the Nazi name-calling) you can be pretty sure there's a disinformation campaign afoot. When people are afraid, they don't reason. PR companies know this. They've been doing it now for about a hundred years, and the public falls for it every time. They've already come out and admitted that they did it with "Henry and Louise" back in the 1990s. What's needed is calm, rational discussion. We must ignore the scare tactics.

Also, it's interesting getting input from how it works in other countries. But each country has a different system, so it's not a perfect model.

I'm disgusted by some Americans (ie. Sarah Palin is one of them) who are claiming a public supported health care system results in death panels for elderly, disabled...and other stuff.

May I say this: There are enough stories here of loved ones in nursing homes in the U.S. here on BWMS who are overmedicated, etc. plus the stuff I saw in published U.S. news stories and magazines as a librarian researching in fire protection and further back, in geriatric medicine/gerontology (sociology of aging) where there were countless news stories and reports of dangerous/poor care for the elderly, violations of fire code safety for buildings, etc. in various facilities...including privately run facilities.

There are serious issues in both U.S. and Canada where the aging population (which will become disabled for many) is increasing alot and surpassing already desperately needed care facilities at different levels of medical care/dependence. This issue alone which is affected major industrialized countries, will not be resolved by pointing accusatory fingers to any non-U.S. country on its health care system.

We also have big issues..where doctors in Canada and U.S. exercise the freedom to locate themselves to practice medicine in any part of their home country. Just like most professionals. So hence, it creates a shortages of physicians and specialists in certain areas of U.S. and Canada, despite some financial incentives, if any. So how do you solve this when doctors are treated like near gods in general in terms of their professional independence?

I agree that there is always misinformation afoot, especially when an agenda is being heavily pushed by one group of people. I do not like when the large majority of Americans are being called names because although they want healthcare reform, they clearly do not want Obamacare as Pelosi, Franks and Reid are pushing it.

The more you call intelligent Americans easily misled, more stupid than a piano, Astroturfers, Nazis, etc etc etc, the more likely you will not get their support on what is being packaged as "great for everyone."

BO is changing tactics this week. He is marketing his same plan using language he thinks moderates will like better. As recently as today, BO told a radio audience that he is trying to duplicate the plan Congress has. if you SAW the CADILLAC plan Congress has, you would KNOW why they said thumbs down to what BO has been proposing. lol

Reid assures his Dem pals that he will use any means necessary to get his healthcare bill passed. Franks said sometimes the people who vote do not know what is in their best interests and he'll vote what they need, not what they want. I saw the videotape. He was brash and very very rude to some who voted for him.

I saw the Acorn people bussed into Lebanon, change out of their red tee shirts so they would not be identified. They then agitated the crowd in Lebanon PA. I see what this Administration is doing to sell what most Americans clearly do not want. It's dirty dirty pool.

Yes, there IS lots of misinformation out there on both sides of the issue. Partly because neither side knows how to fix what both helped to break. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare need to be fixed first, but there is no money. Congress stole from those funds and there is widespread abuse. So how can you ask them to fix things? Now they want to sell us on a wild half-designed plan which there is NO MONEY FOR?????

BO used scare tactics to put us in debt for decades with his ultra-spend programs. Now he is doing the same thing with healthcare. He says we need his plan NOW, like in today, or millions of people will die.

He said today on that radio program that liars are telling people illegal immigrants will be covered in the new insurance program. Two sentences later when a lady asked what will be done with the illegal immigrants who need healthcare, he said America will do what they always do with them: treat them in emergency rooms because America is humane. Yes, America is humane, but does BO not get that we will be treating illegal immigrants as always? Giving anyone and everyone healthcare even without an insurance card, while the working middle class continues to pick up the tab. How is BO able to doubletalk out of both sides of his mouth, and not expect us "stupid" Americans to not get it?

I'm more concerned that Reid and the few will foist their plan on a country that has made its wishes known in every state in our Union. Reid said the "51 vote" plan will be used if necessary.

Get ready, people. The plan of all plans is coming to your neighborhood, complements of BO, Pelosi, Reid and Franks.

About those "death panels." They are not officially called that. Never were they called that. What DOES happen is that depending on certain circumstances, treatments are not offered as an option. A "death with dignity" (sometimes in reality a "cheaper cost option for the poor") is offered in very delicate language to the patient or responsible family member as "the right thing to do." Yet if the patient were Ted Kennedy, he would be offered many treatment options that were both dignified AND survivable.

I support living wills. Of course I do. Everyone should have one. But I do NOT support DNR codes ("Do Not Resuscitate") being placed on the charts of the elderly or debilitated unless it has been specifically requested.

I told my husband that if I am age 90 and have a quality of life that he and I are happy with, to never let a doctor of hospital representative shortchange my treatment options due to my age or THEIR interpretation of my state of infirmity.

I have practiced many years as a nurse and you would not believe what I have seen practiced in hospitals since the early 70s. I think the public would be horrified if they knew some people were "hurried along" death's corridor because of their age, their lack of finances or because another person decided they were too old/infirm to live.

It is a national disgrace.

Sarah Palin used the wrong terminology, but she had the right idea. It's been a reality for a long time now. And under the BO plan, imo it'll get much worse.

Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors

By Jennifer Graham (CP) – 8/15/2009

SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.

"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."

The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred. He will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France.

His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."

In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.

He has also said the Canadian system could be restructured to focus on patients if hospitals and other health-care institutions received funding based on the patients they treat, instead of an annual, lump-sum budget. This "activity-based funding" would be an incentive to provide more efficient care, he has said.

Doig says she doesn't know what a proposed "blueprint" toward patient-centred care might look like when the meeting wraps up Wednesday. She'd like to emerge with clear directions about where the association should focus efforts to direct change over the next few years. She also wants to see short-term, medium-term and long-term goals laid out.

"A short-term achievable goal would be to accelerate the process of getting electronic medical records into physicians' offices," she said. "That's one I think ought to be a priority and ought to be achievable."

A long-term goal would be getting health systems "talking to each other," so information can be quickly shared to help patients.

Doig, who has had a full-time family practice in Saskatoon for 30 years, acknowledges that when physicians have talked about changing the health-care system in the past, they've been accused of wanting an American-style structure. She insists that's not the case.

"It's not about choosing between an American system or a Canadian system," said Doig. "The whole thing is about looking at what other people do."

"That's called looking at the evidence, looking at how care is delivered and how care is paid for all around us (and) then saying 'Well, OK, that's good information. How do we make all of that work in the Canadian context? What do the Canadian people want?' "

Doig says there are some "very good things" about Canada's health-care system, but she points out that many people have stories about times when things didn't go well for them or their family.

"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig.

"They have to look at the evidence that's being presented and will be presented at (the meeting) and realize what Canada's doctors are trying to tell you, that you can get better care than what you're getting and we all have to participate in the discussion around how do we do that and of course how do we pay for it."

2009 The Canadian Press. http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw

Deteriorating patient care prompts Saskatoon's Dr. Anne Doig to become president of CMA
By Janet French, Saskatchewan News Network August 20, 2009

If the Doigs' Scottish family motto holds true, the Canadian Medical Association is in for another year with a tenacious leader at the helm.

Incoming CMA president and Saskatoon family doctor Anne Doig's family motto is "gang warily," which means, "Look out, you buggers -- here we come," she says with a laugh.

Medical association history is in the making this year. As Doig, the oldest of five siblings, is installed at the head of the national organization representing doctors, her youngest brother, Chip Doig, becomes president of the Alberta Medical Association.

But it wasn't an attempt at total Doig domination that prompted her to seek the president's role.

After years of high optimism, she had a gradually sinking feeling every year when filling out physician surveys about quality of, and access to, medical care.

"(My patients are) languishing, in the sense of not getting the care I know that they should be getting in the most expeditious way that they can get it," she said. "It's one of those put up or shut up moments in life."

After 31 years in practice, she saw the situation deteriorating, not improving. Last year, when it was Saskatchewan's turn to choose a CMA president-elect, the time was right for Doig personally and professionally, which prompts her to call her election an "accident of history." She beat out six other Saskatchewan candidates, winning on a fourth ballot.

For the past two years, the CMA has been led by Drs. Brian Day, then Robert Ouellet, who are both known as proponents of private health-care services in Canada.

Doig is more coy about her views on that debate, saying she'd like to get away from the polarized argument and towards developing solutions that will get Canadians access to the care they need.

One of her strengths is "weaving people together" who once had disparate views, she says -- a skill that would come in handy while trying to get medicare proponents and free-market fans to play nicely together.

She says she's "envious" of Day and Ouellet, because the nature of their disciplines and the rules in their provinces (B.C. and Quebec) allowed them to offer medical services their patients needed when they saw these were not available through publicly run health-care services. She points out that she's paid by public health dollars to work in a privately owned and managed clinic.

"When you get into this private-public-private-public stuff, it has this effect of being a whip for doctors, because we all think of ourselves as private practitioners." she says. "But we are practising in a publicly funded environment where the issue for us is not where the dollars come from. The issue is often why the administrative overburden on the control of the flow of those dollars prevents our patients from getting good care."

But there should be limits to market intervention in health, she says. When insurance companies, not health-care workers, dictate what treatments patients should or shouldn't have, or if a person can't get care because they can't get health insurance, things have gone too far.

Doig's goal as president is to continue the CMA's current push to empower doctors to be the leaders of health-care reform in Canada. She wants physicians to talk more effectively about what small changes they're making in their local practices that could work elsewhere, then adapt and borrow those ideas from their colleagues.

Doig's father was a doctor, and her family immigrated to Saskatchewan from Britain when she was five years old.

The Doigs settled in Hawarden, which is about 100 kilometres south of Saskatoon between the towns of Kenaston and Outlook. She went to medical school at the University of Saskatchewan and has practised family medicine in Saskatoon ever since.

From the Regina Leader Post:
http://www.leaderpost.com/health/Deteriorating+patient+care+prompts+Saskatoon+Anne+Doig+become+president/1912671/story.html

Learning from Canada's Mistakes

Nationalized health care is doomed to fail

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES | Thursday, August 20, 2009

Before Americans adopt Canadian-style health care regulations, we might want to ask Canadian doctors what they think of their system. The Canadian Medical Association gathered for its annual meeting on Sunday. Warnings from doctors to our north are important to dispel the Obama administration's claim that its government takeover is a way to get costs under control.

"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize. We know that there must be change," said Dr. Anne Doig, the Canadian Medical Association's incoming president, in an interview with the Canadian Press. "[Canadians] have to understand that the system that we have right now -- if it keeps on going without change -- is not sustainable."

The current association president, Dr. Robert Ouellet, advised caution as well. According to him, government control of health care in Canada has meant that "a health care revolution has passed us by." According to the Canadian Press, Dr. Ouellet called for introducing a private health care delivery system to replace at least part of the current government system. In other words, the Canadians want more of what Americans have now as the Obama administration tries to take us in Canada's direction.

President Obama claimed in New Hampshire last week, "I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter." As we have written previously, Mr. Obama has, in fact, said many times that he supported a single-payer system. The regulations he supports would give an unfair advantage to government insurance programs that would drive private companies out of business, leaving Americans with an unsustainable Canadian-like system.

Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats aren't listening to their constituents' concerns about government health care. Before they push through their plans, we hope they hear Canada's doctors.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/20/learning-from-canadas-mistakes/

Better patient care goal for new CMA head

Last Updated: Monday, August 17, 2009 | 12:40 PM ET

Solutions from both the public and private sectors need to be on the table to improve patient care, says the incoming head of the Canadian Medical Association.

Dr. Anne Doig, a family doctor from Saskatoon, will take over as president of the CMA on Wednesday.

Doig has spent 30 years caring for patients in Saskatoon, where physicians from across the country gathered on Sunday for their annual meeting. Fixing what ails the country's medical system is the major topic on their agenda.

Doig doesn't hesitate to say patients are getting less than optimal care in Canada.

"The debate needs to be around what is appropriate care, and how do we help patients to have access to that appropriate care when they need it," Doig said. "So you know, right treatment for the right patient at the right time: How do we do that?"

Doig is willing to look for solutions from private and public sectors to improve patient care, but stressed she'll never waver from one principle: access to care regardless of a patient's ability to pay.

She rejected a recent development in Alberta, where doctors have started opening "members only" clinics with annual fees of $3,000 to $4,000.

"Do we think that that is a model of care for Canadians? No, we don't," said Doig.

The debate about public versus private care is sidetracking discussions on health care in general, both in Canada and the United States, she said.

"The whole thing is about looking at what other people do," Doig told The Canadian Press. "That's called looking at the evidence, looking at how care is delivered and how care is paid for all around us [and] then saying 'Well, OK, that's good information. How do we make all of that work in the Canadian context? What do the Canadian people want?'"

This week, CMA members will look at what is happening in Europe. Current CMA president Dr. Robert Ouellet will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands and France.

Ouellet has said "competition should be welcomed, not feared," and that there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.

CMA members are trying to come up with what they call a "blueprint" to transform medical care in Canada, which they will then pitch to the public and politicians.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/08/17/cma-doig.html

How many articles from how many MEDICAL experts in Canada and the UK do we have to see before we get that the United States government should not be running healthcare, especially in the USA where our government has already run most of our entitlement programs into the ground.

We all can tell stories, but the plain truth is big government ruins individual choice.

If there are 2 lines, one for "free" healthcare, and one for private-based healthcare with premiums, which line would be longer???????????????

And which line would offer better individualized care??????

We can find plenty of horror stories about people with insurance whose claims get rejected. Or people with insurance who get dumped when they become seriously ill. Or people with pre-existing conditions who are forever unable to get insurance. Probably everyone on these forums knows someone in one of these categories. That's the system we have. That's what they're trying to fix.

Did you all know that health insurance providers are exempt from anti-trust laws? They have monopoly control over health coverage. They behave like a cartel. They agree among themselves which of the big companies got to take which state. They decide among themselves how much they'll reimburse doctors and how much they'll charge their customers (us). They make money on people's misery. They are not interested in helping people. They are interested in making money. This is not right and needs to be changed. If this legislation doesn't pass, we will have more of this injustice.

If the government figures out a way to insure all the uninsured people -- most of whom are in their 20s, by the way -- they'd be doing it to help people, not to make money.

Not everyone is going to need the public option. Keep your health insurance if you like it and you want it. But don't stand in the way of people, like many of our kids, who can't afford it or who don't work for companies that can afford to pay for insurance. What's it to you, really?

These young uninsured people will have children. Maybe they're your grandchildren. Do you want them to be covered? Do you want to pay for their health care for them? My daughter and family are currently in this position. My son in law was laid off. My daughter works as a waitress, and isn't covered. My two granddaughters are not covered.

When we start hearing the same arguments that are based on disinformation rather than rational discourse, we can be sure the source is the health insurance companies themselves. They're laughing all the way to the bank. They want you to be afraid, because fear is a great motivator. Your fear makes them richer. Don't fall for it.

Here's what I don't like to think about: how much of my tax dollars for the past 6 years has gone to companies like Haliburton and other military contractors that wasted it, stole it, hid it, and lied about it. Like all the trucks that they said they transported, all the buildings they built using inferior materials. We're talking billions and billions. We could've fed the world, fixed all the schools, provided free health care for everyone in the country with that money.

Taxes are a fact of life in a complex modern world. They pay for our roads, fire departments, police, coast guard, libraries, schools, community colleges, state universities, parks, trash, utilities (if you're lucky enough to live somewhere that didn't sell them off to private, for-profit thieves), mail service, public transportation, some medical centers, medicare, courts, forestry (like city trees), jails, food inspectors, weights and measures regulators, the FTC that oversees the airwaves (cell phones, radio, tv), etc. etc.

Are these things bad? Do we want to live without them?

None of us is isolated and self sufficient. Ask me about it -- I lived off the land for a few years -- built a cabin, hauled water, dug an outhouse, no electricity, no car. Washed clothes in the stream. Grew my own food. It's a physically hard life. I had hardly any income -- not enough to pay taxes.

Good points, DJ. Just widening access to public medical insurance for those who need it but are uninsured.

May I add: I bet alot of Canadian doctors don't realize how the current U.S. healthcare system works for ordinary citizens...ie. especially the part of insurance tied to your employer, millions of uninsured, prequalifications which ends up with alot of reject private insurance claims for certain diseases, much higher monthly premimums to private HMOs regardless of any medical service provided to patient.

I bet my sister-family doctor doesn't know this. She just does her job (part-time), raising her baby daughter and tries hard to keep up with the medical developments and new drug therapies. She's just coping as a mom, wife and health care professional. I will be seeing her in 2 weeks for a few days.

Until I joined this American based forum, I had no idea how the U.S. health care system actually worked. Alot of Canadians who are complaining, haven't had the knowledge of personal stories like myself, to even know what is truly happening in the U.S. for ordinary citizens for health care coverage...or no coverage at all.

Many Canadians are incredibly naive about current U.S. private health care insurance. They have NO clue and are thinking only of themselves.

I mentioned some of all your personal stories to some Canadian friends (in their 50's) 3 days ago at a restaurant. Many were not aware of the prequalification, insurance tied to an employer, etc.

I do not know the salary differences between a U.S. and Canadian family physician. All I know my sister isn't suffering. ..she works part-time at a hospital. Her hubby is restaurant cook, 5 days a wk. And I just found out that they have their kid starting daycare for 2 days per week. I'm certain she's paid off the house mortgage..a 2 bedroom house. I respect her because she will always be the primary breadwinner/higher income spousal partner. Forever.

I'm not crying crocodile tears if some of the Canadian doctors'..agenda is..actually more money..for their pockets.
__________________________________________

Josie, I believe the new Canadia Medical Association president, representing the physicians, never said government was ruining things.

Always remember, many doctors already live a privileged life. They earn healthy salaries, etc. Many choose not work beyond 40 hrs. or at least insane hrs. at night and weekends in addition to normal day hrs. like what a medical intern (student) would work 80 hrs. per week. That continues to happen as part of most medical training.

Hence, the patient no longer has the easy convenience of a doctor making house calls in evenings/weekends, etc.

As for accountability of how our taxes are used...many of the publicly funded non-profits have annual reports at their websites. These same organizations invite members of the public to comment on their future plans, service program changes, become board member, get involved in fundraising (well, govn't doesn't fund every non-profit organization 100%).

Often they really want to hear from well-informed local folks. Just sitting around and complaining about high taxes isn't helping people in need nor is it helping to improve service design: Get involved in 1-2 of these organizations. They are staffed by highly skilled, often overworked paid staff. I've been involved as a volunteer a different times in my life:

http://www.boomerwomenspeak.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=188595&page=1 Except for the magazine (which was paid subscriptions), the other organizations were funded partially by federal and provincial govn't dollars. Then on top of that, the organization did do some fundraising.

Wow, I admire anyone who tried to live a life of true self-sufficiency.

Guess you thanked your lucky stars that you didn't get sick during that time? I realize Medicare might have covered?? Sorry, I guess non tax-payers who are self-sufficient, can feed themselves are undeserving bums that don't deserve Medicare??

From Josie: And which line would offer better individualized care??????

What is this meant anyway? A doctor diagnoses each patient's medical problems and recommends/orders course of medical treatment. It is individualized..regardless of public or private funding. There is no govn't manual for doctors how to diagnose diseases, if you believe that public supported health care means a cookie cutter approach to medical treatment.

I think you are referring to fast-tracking treatment for patients. Or having a private hospital room.

I will be sorry if the whole Obama initiated health care discussion will result in no changes for the U.S. nor any more medical coverage for all uninsured Americans ..excepting hardening both sides of the debate.

We are forgetting that some U.S. BMWS members here are not insured for medical coverage. (Didn't jawjaw mention this about herself....and Anne, the seniors's home support worker is not insured either.)

As far as the illegals are concerned, make sure this happens in your personal life if one's tax dollars should not support hem: make sure you only buy food that was not harvested by illegals, that you go to restaurants which do not employ illegals, that you don't buy from factories that employ illegals, that one doesn't hire landscaping companies that employ illegals...

To clarify for those who may have missed it, the NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, DOCTOR ANNE DOIG, is the one stating the severe need for reform of their healthcare system which is said to be imploding.

DOCTOR BRIAN DAY, FORMER HEAD OF THE CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, agrees with the need for reform to reduce waiting times, rising costs and access to treatment.

These medical professionals are not terrorists telling horror stories. They are experts in their field of health care administration, trying to make the overburdened Canadian system better.

Dr Day said last night on the news he would NOT want to emulate OUR system, nor would he recommend the Canadian system to ANYONE at present. (Their system covers certain basics but not things like ambulances. Prescription drugs are not covered in certain provinces, and covered only for seniors in other provinces. etc etc etc)

I think one important thing to remember is Canada has a total population of 33 million people. The population of England is 90 million people. The population of Italy is 58 million people. The population of Germany is 82 million people.

BY COMPARISON, THE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES IS OVER 300 MILLION PEOPLE

All these countries combined do not equal the population of the United States of America. All these countries combined do not have the trilions of debt on loan to us from China at the rate of 70-80 billion dollars PER WEEK to keep us afloat.

Some real issues being glossed over here and elsewhere are really hard facts that BO, Pelosi, Reid and Franks do not want anyone to think about.

Yesterday BO, as part of a new marketing strategy, used biblical phraseology to try and sell us on our "moral responsibility" to support his plan.

The US has not reformed Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare yet. BO has amassed more debt than all US Presidents COMBINED. As has already been explained, Americans have noted August 12 as Tax Liberty Day, the first 241 days of the year in which a full time paycheck covers 61% of your annual salary which goes for ALL taxes & surcharges to pay for local, educational, property, regional, sales, state, social, judicial, unemployment, miscellaneous and federal government services combined.

Do I think most Americans have MORE THAN MET their moral responsibility to God and their country? I sure do. In spades.

I'd like to keep the 39% remainder of our family's annual salary for things like some very expensive groceries, mortgage, costly utilities, and gasoline to run the car. Our big recreation is cable TV, a phone and the Internet.

I also give some of that 39% to Special Olympics, Veterans groups, family members and religious organizations.

Yes, my husband and I live within our means and have met our moral obligation and then some. And we always vote, which is part of that obligation too, imo.

I'm hoping BO will follow his own words and remember his moral obligation to serving the USA, and that he stop catering to his political party's far left agenda.

Hi Orchid: I think you must have missed the several posts where I specfically support an amnesty program for some illegal immigrants. lol

Here in South Jersey I have purchased and donated many many bags of groceries to stock our local food banks earmarked for the poor, including migrant workers.

Because my husband worked in the cotton fields as early as age 7, side by side with Mexicans (my husband is the son of a migrant farmer), we are very sensitive to the plight of illegal immigrants and support decent accomodations for them. My husband remembers all too well living in partial cars, dilapidated shacks and eating pinto beans for months at a time to stay alive.

I think it is good to ask someone about their background before one makes broad assumptions about them.

That being said, I also recognize that the President is lying when he doubletalks to the American people about how illegal immigrants will fit into his health care plan. He assured us by radio in Philadelphia yesterday that no illegal immigrant will be issued a health care card, but all will be treated in ERs, as they are now. So in effect he was saying they will be exempt from the rules which the rest of us will have to follow.

Nowhere did he address the vast criminal element Mexico is importing here. No where is he addressing the continuing problem of daily border crossings and too limited a budget to deal with that. No where is he making amnesty provisions for long term workers who have lived quietly in the US for many years and who send their "under the table" money back home to relatives so they can afford to come here too.

The Columbian illegal immigrant who murdered my sister's Hispanic green-card husband was deported as his sentence, but the murderer bought his way back into NJ within a few months.

A family friend's grandmother (she owned a tiny general store near farms and it was designed for migrant farm workers) was raped and murdered by a young illegal immigrant and he is now serving time in a US jail, with at least 15 more years of appeals at taxpayer expense affordeed him.

Yes, I know a little bit about the immigration network, both as a nurse, and as a family member.

God bless you, Orchid, for volunteering. We need so many more like you ASAP in our local hospitals, veterans hospitals and nursing homes. Even four hours of one's time per week would be greatfully accepted. The American Cancer Society. American Red Cross and Meals on Wheels are also good organizations. One of my favorite is visiting the elderly in their homes. I also do consumer counseling and grief support online and off.

For those of you who are affiliated with any faith-based organizations, they are ALWAYS in need of volunteers to collect or deliver canned goods for instance, or to maintain foodbanks.

Halfway homes and hotlines are also good places to volunteer, although some training is needed.......

I don't believe that we in the US should necessarily copy the system of any other country-none of them has a perfect system. But at least their citizens have coverage and aren't forced to declare bankruptcy because of medical bills. Whatever plan we end up with here is going to upset a lot of people. It would be nice to just have everyone able to see a doctor or dentist without having to worry about cost. Debating the systems in other countries isn't helping us here. No matter what system they have there are going to be people unhappy with it.

My partner doesn't have insurance - what happens if he is diagnosed with something that requires expensive treatment? I'll tell you what happens - we lose our home or he dies because he can't get care. He makes too much money to qualify for any assistance yet not enough to be able to pay for health insurance. Even if we were married, the cost of the insurance I have to include him would be prohibitive. We live within our means, but a major health issue would be catastrophic for either of us. The insurance I have through my job is basic care with a huge deductible, which I would have a hard time coming up with if I needed to. Given the chance, I would love to have a better option. And I'm tired of insurance companies arbitrarily denying coverage to people for whatever reasons they come up with while their CEOs are living in mansions and making more money in a week than many of us make in a lifetime.

I spent 20 years of my life as a nurse and have seen people given the best care until their insurance runs out or reaches the maximum lifetime limit. Those patients are, at best, allowed to die with dignity; at worst, the families are saddled with such a huge debt that they will never pay it off. Don't we deserve better? When did we give the insurance companies the power to decide who lives and who dies?

Since we don't know what the final bill will have, I think we should each honestly think about what we would like to see for ourselves and our families and let our Senators and Reps know what that is. We have to be able to speak louder than the lobbyists and the nuts who would have us believe that our President is a Nazi or a Socialist (no way can he be both!!)or is looking for a way to get rid of old people.

Yes, it would take enormous risk and courage to speak out and take the flak. While one may occasionally question Obama's position which seems to shift, he is not hiding from the American people. Not all political leaders are like that week after week. Some don't even want town hall sessions. Our current Prime Minister of Canada cannot handle such things with high public vocal conflict in his face.

Most likely he's getting all sorts of information along the way which is resulting in shifts. He is putting himself out there to the American public week after week to speak. He doesn't have to do that..he could have delegated some of this to someone else for various public sessions.



This is probably the best way....look deeply to see all around 360 degrees among family, friends, work and acquaintances of their real life experiences with health care system over the years.

As for me, I had to rebook my mammogram...I got a good date in a few weeks. She had all my health care identification in the database already. Nothing urgent, just standard for any women 50 years +. So I biked up a short route, including 2 hills (10% & 8%) to get to the women's hospital in a pleasant residential area...actually near a large police station.

I never have been to this hospital before even though it's near a biking route that do nearly daily. Pleasant. Since I was there 5 min. after dept. opened for service, there was no one else except the receptionist. Then I phoned home by using a free local phone they provided for patients in waiting area. Phone call for 2 min. to tell dearie of my appoint. rebooking. This mammogram clinic serves City of Vancouver and surrounding areas. At least over 2 million people. Perhaps summer vacation lull is causing more slowness. Well actually it is noticeable for alot of employers and their services...lots of people escape to the mountains, wineries and islands during summer.

There will be no direct fee to me for the mammogram. I haven't had mammo. in 10 years. Am I worried? Well, not really which is why I've been abit slack. Terrible, eh? I know I just have fibrous tissue in 1 breast...from the last mammogram long ago.

I asked receptionist if perhaps I'm on their new faster tracking system. She said no, "fast track" to the clinic means the woman has a malignant tumour..which means this clinic is authorized to fast track. I could have as an non-urgent patient, gotten an appointment in 2 weeks. but I'm flying out to toronto to see my parents and family during this time. So any urgent patient would have preceded way ahead of me much earlier in the appointment date.

Got to continue taking these iron pills to up my iron. No, they are not covered by medical insurance. But my next doctor's appointment is. I'll have to ask her to do a base vision test..I might need glasses which I'm putting off because I'm unemployed and hence do not have an employer to cover eyeglass cost. But eye/vision exam will be not billed to me.

Such sweet sweet people in this program, none of whom have the health insurance to pay for their medical conditions. It'll break your heart.

http://www.pbs.org/pov/criticalcondition/

What is your real point about "illegals" particularily when referring to criminal illegals such as these personal stories? Or about the vast criminal element coming in illegally from Mexico? Not discounting the criminal/illegal stuff but how is this different from legal Americans who are committing crimes, murders, large scale theft (property, white collar crime, etc.), drug trafficking, weapon trafficking where in some cases it's happening at the U.S.-Canada border? I live only 40 kms. north of the international border.

I don't agree with illegals jumping any national border. However at the same time, it is incredibly hypocritical to trumpet booting out all illegals when a sizable number are contributing their labour efforts to the U.S. economy to do work at a cheaper price (which is not their fault, it's the hiring managers/companies) or just work that alot of Americans don't really want to do. And for sending their money back to home country: Why not? Wouldn't you if your family members back at home were poorer/elderly frail or relying on your income?

Alot of immigrants already send back money to their relatives. This has been going on for over the last 150 years. Some countries actively encourage investment back to mother/ancestral country. Such as China. These are Americans and Canadians rooted (born/raised and educated) in the U.S./Canada but thinking globally. Millions of dollars earned in North America leave in this way. As long as it's not to expand a drug growing /weapons/sex ring empire, it isn't the most horrible thing. Of course alot of money leaving a country, devalues the currency of that originating country. This is a consequence of the free-enterprise system if we want to retain individual choice of legally dealing with our personal finances.

The CMA new President, Ms. Doig never said get rid of govn't involvement or programs for health care in Canada. As for truly long lineups...it isn't for all medical procedures nor for all surgeries...as I said earlier, we already have a shortage of medical specialists, a problem of our population and imbalance of physicians across Canada, which is a land mass larger than the U.S. but with smaller population concentrated in various areas. Inevitably money has to be spent by a party for some patients to be flown over 1,000 kms. from mid-central or northern Canada to see a specialist in southern part of their home province, if there isn't a specialist within a day's drive of where they live. See below, excerpt of her words from article that you posted, Josie:

British Columbia govn't info.

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoben/premium.html What British Columbian eligible residents pay or..their employer pay if the employers offers that work benefit. It is not a legal requirement by employer.

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/waitlist/#

Now can any American citizen go online to their state department of health or online to Private insurer and find the waiting list info. to even have a general idea? Or can one compare across different private insurer companies for similar info.? Or I guess people don't care to check..because they are locked into their private insurer defined by their employer?

My question is: Is there a central pool of updated and easily accessible information per state, to assist Americans on determining their health care cost premiums, medical coverage, etc., wait time periods?

In the end the government is the most neutral party that can centralize all this information, it is the govn't that can legislate submission of this information into 1 central database AND keep this information for future use for policy and program changes. And make it accessible to future policy researchers, etc.

This legal power will never be delegated to solely a private insurer/party/for-profit party.

I think I gave this story over a year ago in this forum of health care access in some areas of Canada due to huge geographic distances and remote areas. But I will give this story again about a part of Canada that I visited over 5 years ago:

I was visiting Nunavut, one of the Canadian territories in the Canadian Arctic for a few days. Yes it really is the land of the midnight sun. In mid-January already it was evening dark at 1:00 pm. and there was snow. Saw the tundra outside the capital city of Iqualuit, population of 10,000. Pretty scary just to see 1 road only, 30 kms. out of town. That's it. With all white and blowing snow, it doesn't take much to get lost and die near home.

Some smaller Inuit communities (under 5,000) across the Canadian Arctic are like this. There's no road on the map. You either skidoo (less Inuit have wayfinding skills to use sled and huskies these days) or must be flown out to leave town for far distances. Imagine someone a victim of domestic violence. How can they escape??? How can they afford to escape?

On my last day in Iqualuit I was hanging out in the small airport for over 7 hrs. because an Arctic blizzard at 180 kms/hr. winds blew across. The planes could not land properly on the airstrip and were forced to land 200 kms. south where winds were not as risky. Meanwhile I chatted up with a young Inuit mother with her 2 yr. old baby in her amauti..which is a modern type of parka baby knapsack to carry baby around on back. The mother told me that she was going to fly to a hospital in Ottawa, Ontario which was over 1,000 kms. south of Iqualuit. The baby was being checked for post clubfoot operation. In Iqualuit there were hardly any doctors. Mostly only nurses at a small 20 bed hospital in town which I saw in my visit-tour.

I don't know to what extent the Canadian medical care system covers for these remotely located people. But they are our original Canadians after all. But most likely they are entitled and receive the base medical care that I would get.

You had to be in the far Arctic in Canada to see for yourself what is possible and not always possible for local health care access. It is most humbling and ..in a way scary....it beats any whining about some lineups or whatever southern Canada may have. The private insurance companies wouldn't be able to wrestle or even care about the health care issues that are sometimes combined with cross-cultural psychosocial issues when the Inuit are also transitioning from traditional culture/language to non-Inuit..which can lead to violence, family conflict...leads to depression/mental health issues for a family member when there are cross-cultural conflicts.

This too, is part of any health care system. Mental health.

Medical care coverage is slightly different for registered Canadian native Indians, Inuk, etc.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fniah-spnia/index-eng.php For instance, other Canadians do not get eyeglass coverage under public medical insurance. Am I upset? It's not worth my energy to throw fit when I know already I live in an area of Canada where I do have access to more specialists for other problems. .... Let's see that might be a difference where I pay directly $200.00 for a good pair of eyeglasses. Is this worth getting upset?
Map of Arctic (press for M for map size selection) in map of Canada.
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/ma...08&mag=0.25

Those who say the Canadian healthcare system is the best thing since sliced bread, challenge anyone to say otherwise. When top expert health care administrators in Canada talk en masse about the desperate need for health care reform to reduce waiting time and other growing problems, I hear their critics say these experts surely must be rich greedy doctors looking to make a profit.

That same thing is happening in the USA. Americans agree with the need for certain kinds of healthcare reform to bring down prices. When the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) said BO's plans would cost far more than what is now in place, they were heavily criticized and shot down.

BO said the AMA, AARP and the ANA were on his side. When that fell short, he used Biblical language and re-named his program. Pelosi, Reid, and Franks called the American people who disagreed with their program Nazis, Astroturfers, evildoers, etc. Friends and partners of Obama in the media made negative remarks about their cable news counterparts, who actually did cover both the dwindling pro-Obama plan support and the ever-increasing "We want the insurance we have but with changes like tort reform." As the spin program is not working over and over, Obama is back to calling this a national crisis if we don't get this program passed NOW NOW NOW (like he did with all his other spending programs)

If none of the spin works and large majority of Americans still do not like the current plan, Harry Reid said he'll do the 51 vote reconciliation process to push the healthcare bill through anyway.

If all it takes to bring this country to its Constitutional knees is spin by BO, Pelosi, Rom, and votes by 51 Senators (some votes gained through enormous political pressure) ........ then we Americans imo need a national referendum to recall what we now have in Washington and start over with all new people from both parties, and maybe even a requirement that 1/3 of the House and 1/3 of the Senate consist of Independents.

I always LOVE IT when the Prez and the Congress is a complete mix, because while they are all raising heck, none can do the kind of damage to our country we have seen done these last several months.

Josie, there's enough name-calling on this issue, and I haven't seen the comments you mention from Pelosi, Reid, or anyone-please point me to where they said that.

My goodness, yonuh. Check Google, bing.com, Associated Press, Reuters, and YouTube are just a few of the research tools for disrespectful comments about everyday Americans being made by Pelosi, Reid and Barney Franks as reported by the news for weeks now.

If you follow the news on a regular basis online, on television, in the news magazines, even on international radio, you surely cannot have missed these comments.

Doing one's own due diligence can be an edifying experience, and this particular subject has gotten widespread media coverage because the comments were so outrageous, so you should have no problem finding them.

Here's a link to an excellent radio interview with T. R. Reid comparing health care around the world. He likes England, France, and Japan, but especially India!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112172939

"Journalist and author T.R. Reid set out on a global tour of hospitals and doctors' offices, all in the hopes of understanding how other industrialized nations provide affordable, effective universal health care. The result: his book The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care.

"Reid is a foreign correspondent for The Washington Post — in whose pages he recently addressed five major myths about other countries' health-care systems — and the former chief of the paper's London and Tokyo bureaus.

"Reid was the lead correspondent for the 2008 Frontline documentary Sick Around the World, which examined five other capitalist democracies, looking for lessons on health-care delivery. His books include Confucius Lives Next Door: What Living in the East Teaches Us About Living in the West and The United States of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy."

By the way, it seems like the discussion here has become more interested in the personalities of politicians than in discussing the issue of health coverage. What's up with that? Has BoomerWomen Speaks become the new "The View" or what?

Josie, I did search. I found no proof that those words actually were spoken. I saw lots of stories (from commentators; not journalists) claiming that those things were said, but still no proof.

Would appreciate if you could provide a link or 2 for us, Josie since you are upset about this, enough to be repeating this to us several times, and have invested time to read the stuff.

Yonuh, I didn't know you were a nurse.

Anne, was that 49 million citizens, or 49 million people in the U.S.? Was it exact?

would suggest in Google to type:

49 million uninsured and pbs To get results, also pbs program clip.

This article has slightly different figure:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111651742

Reform plan doesn't include illegals to be covered.
I don't quite understand scaling back for legal immigrants in Massachussetts for Medicare. Are we talking about people who have applied for immigration, been approved in writing from federal U.S., arrived in U.S. and trying to adjust to U.S. now??

The reality is that for legal immigrants a new country has a made committment by law to approve the person to live and work in the country. So they would get less Medicare?? What if they go into an accident during that time on the road or on the job? I'm sorry I don't get this at all. How long does it take to become an American citizen at minimum?

In Canada it's 5 years residency in Canada for a legal immigrant at minimum and person decides to study for/take test for citizenship. (But I'll check on this...later. Not tonight.) Of course during this time, new immigrant still has to pay taxes, observe all laws, etc. Wish some people really understood the daily lives of immigrants, especially those who don't speak English. Their world is quite different from English-speaking immigrants.

And why would we treat legal immigrants like ....us? 'Cause our birth rate is dropping and we need labour for the future, plus new taxpayers for the govn't programs have to continue..roads and homes need to be built, got to still have women's shelters, etc.

As for the 49 million, 47 million, 30 million whatever....guess one needs to look seriously at the heart of the issue regardless of those big numbers.

You know, I’ll be frank here.

Not wanting to accept socialized medicine is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.
It’s like Christmas, without opening any presents. It’s like sun shining after months of rain, and not going out to feel the warm rays, it’s like leading a thirsty horse to water, and he refuses to drink.

All of Europe is watching the phenomena of Americans against socialized medicine and can only shake their heads back and forth in disbelief.

After WW II in the 1940s, when Great Britain was starting its national health plan, a PR firm representing private money interests devised the term "socialized medicine" as a derogatory, which back then called up images of the Red ("Commie") menace.

There are 49 million individuals in the US with no coverage. Often they die. Did anyone see the PBS program I posted above? Did anyone listen to that radio link I posted above, comparing health care around the world? private companies indeed ration care, and always have. They make money by insuring the healthy, like me. They save money by allowing the "unqualified" to get sicker and die.

Many doctors at the outset of the UK Health Service did not want to upset the "Old order" where many did not have health cover especially women who did not work outside the home.
Fortunatly there were politicans who drove through what we have come to see as a good inovation.
The giant leaps in medical science e.g. transplants and expectation of the consumer mean it is always a point where debate occurs.But never do we in the UK think outside the zone of comfort the NHS offers.

My husbands firm offered free private medicare and we as a family declined this offer (due to political alleigence) such is the quality of service...

If they would learn to speak English; if they would pay taxes; if they'd follow the laws - esp. the drug laws;... and, adding if they'd not expect handouts... attitudes would be totally different toward immigrants, in my part of the country. As human beings, placed here by God, I respect them and feel compassion for their situations. But, in the same breath, they should meet 'requirements' just as we have, for fairness in citizenship.
Sorry, if some of what I write doesn't make sense... my input is jumping irradically, causing mistypes...you'll just have to interpret what I'm saying... too hard to correct. Don't know if it's my computer or BWS.

Thanks, DJ, for the answer to my question... didn't want to have to research... so little time... want to spend my time here, when I have the chance, not reading on other sites...
I thought it might be individuals (vs. citizens), which paints the picture differently , IMO.

There's a sign in one of the doctor's offices that I recently visited. It says, "Ask about our cash plan." If more professionals would offer 'cash plans,' things could change dramatically, even though slowly.

Even if some are loosing insurance, some are adding insurance... not that it effects the numbers in the other direction. There is a great burden placed on our local healthcare system because of the numbers using the system, that being opposed to the numbers contributing -- picture: taxes being used unproportionately on those who don't pay taxes... thus the question about citizens vs. individuals. I passed by our social office late last week, and the line was ALL immigrants. During the estate sale we had for my parents' things, the only unreasonable customers we had were those expecting to pay a penny of an item's worth... yep, non-English speaking. The children were their interpreters. Everyone else was more than willing to pay our asking prices, even though they were sometimes near retail (necessary so we could take care of some leftover affairs - medical?!? - funny, I've come full circle in comment).

Need to get at the root... some have compromised health because of lifestyle. That's where a great deal of attention should be placed... you smoke, you get certain coverage, things like that... It's somewhat like the abortion issue. Go to one of the roots of the problem - lifestyle. We've become accustomed to reaching for the bandaid (excuse the overused term), instead of starting a cycle of living right and expecting (influencing and teaching) those after us to live right. It's easy to fall to pleasure and comfort and not take measures to be well the natural and intended way. This is not to include those who have been stricken, by some unfair measure, to a drastic and debilitating illness. Those are the ones who, as a community of mankind, should be cared for --- not necessarily by the medical profession, but by COMMUNITY, whatever that might entail.
None of this makes sense, probably - all this jumping around of my input window is making me need a bandaid - a margarita?

And a crack down on FRAUD needs to be initiated, immediately! I know of 3 (that's three - and my social circle is very small) people who are getting disability, and who SHOULDN'T.

From USA Today today:


"The truth about Canadian health care

I’ve been treated in the American system and have lived with universal care in Canada. Guess which one is freer — and more humane.

By Patricia Pearson

TORONTO — This summer, I went to a family picnic and counted 11 octogenarians, all hale and hearty, gabbing away while dining on chicken salad and roasted corn. How can this be? We live in a country with universal health insurance, here in Canada. According to rhetoric in Town Hall, USA, my aunts and uncles ought to be dead. Why haven't they dropped into their graves from cancer, heart disease, untreated ear infections, gangrenous limbs, or even euthanized by "death panels"?

(Illustration by Suzy Parker, USA TODAY)

None ever rushed across the border to avail themselves of American doctors when they were ill. Are they genetic standouts, capable of surviving the Orwellian nature of universal health insurance?

Or are reform opponents spinning increasingly freakish yarns about life beyond American shores?

Congress might not endorse a universal health care system this fall, for a whole host of reasons. But it is shocking and even a little tragic to think that uninsured Americans might be bullied out of access to basic medical care via nonsensical rumor-mongering about how the rest of the West tends to their citizens.

Consider the bogeyman of the meddlesome government bureaucrat, who in some TV ads stands — quite literally — between patients and their doctors, smiling and waving his finger — nuh uh uh — as he nixes this or that procedure. Yet, the only time in my life that I have ever had to plead my case for health treatment to a bureaucrat was when I lived in New York City.

I had purchased out-of-country medical coverage from a private insurance company in Toronto, where I normally live, for the time I would be spending in the USA.
Health care their way

As luck would have it, I had an attack of appendicitis while I was alone on the fourth-floor of an apartment building. The issue I had to clear on the phone with the insurance company was whether I was allowed to call an ambulance, given that I was in too much pain to walk. That conversation, in turn, evolved into a debate about whether I was experiencing a pre-existing condition, which was difficult for me to articulate or even ponder. (Projectile vomiting will do that.)

Eventually, it was deemed permissible. Hurrah. Whereupon the only lasting harm done was my ongoing fear that I might ever get sick again on a private insurance company's dime. To me, it was a novelty and a horror to have to justify my experience of suffering to a stranger who seemed more concerned about the company's bottom line than my pain.

Why hadn't that ever happened to me in Toronto? Because our government funds health care, but doesn't micromanage it. There isn't the case-by-case nickel-and-diming that many American patients experience with HMOs. All doctors and specialists are available to us. When my daughter needed a hernia operation, our pediatrician felt that one particular Toronto hospital was best for that procedure — and off we went.

The point is not that the Canadian system is superior, per se, but that in many ways it feels freer, and more humane. Canadians believe that no individual's frailty should be profited from unless that individual chooses to allow someone to profit. That is a core belief. It is why we voted the politician Tommy Douglas, actor Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather and an early advocate of universal health care, to be called "Greatest Canadian."
A uniquely American fear

Acting on this belief has served us well. Canadians have lower mortality rates from heart disease and injury than Americans do, according to World Health Organization data, and are roughly on par for dying of cancer. We may wait longer than insured Americans do for non-urgent care, but we are willing to if it means the specialist is highly skilled, in demand and attending to sicker patients first. (Once you've seen that specialist the first time, the follow-up appointments are swift.)

We also believe that no citizen's health care choices should be dictated — an argument Republicans have been making, albeit with a sleight of hand. It isn't government-funded health care that's at issue so much as government involvement in anything. Opposition to public insurance taps a current of fear about government that is uniquely American, among the Western democracies, and comes across as superstitious rather than rational. Bureaucrats must be warded off like the Evil Eye.

The fact that Canadians and Europeans don't feel that way doesn't mean we're willing to be mistreated by our governments. We have opposable thumbs with which to press buttons in the voting booth. We view universal health care as an evolving business in constant need of innovation and finesse. How can wait times be reduced for — say — hip replacements without lowering the quality of overall care? Should fertility treatment be covered by taxpayer dollars?

Many Canadians have private benefits to cover prescription drugs, dental care and visits to chiropractors or marriage counselors. This affords them more choice without draining the public coffers. But the bedrock upon which the system continues to grow is the belief that no citizen should ever have to choose between health care and rent, or between her care and that of her children.

As long as Americans continue to lack consensus at this bedrock level, there will be no clarity to the objectives for reform. Rumors, slanders and tangential, confusing arguments about scary bureaucrats and oppressed foreigners pining for Dr. House will be the death of the debate.

Patricia Pearson is an author, journalist and member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

hahaha Please do not assume I am any degree of annoyed at responding to the "research" questions being put to me. Since I've already addressed the issues raised in triplicate and in detail, I think it might be of value for one of you more knowledgable researchers to share your tecniques with those who do not know how to find recent quotes by Pelosi, Reid and Franks on Google, bing and YouTube.

If there is a sudden lapse in memory on how to do such research, I'll be glad to provide the illuminating links. I'm also good at spotting bait-posts, and will be glad to provide tips on handling them as well.

I'll settle for a Pepsi, but I totally get what you are saying.

I's part of what I've been saying all along. Ethics and personal accountability must be practiced by us as individuals, and as we pass it on to our children, we may eventually build a society of moral people who can take care of themselves and each other. It is not the government's job to breastfeed us from cradle to grave.

.... Last night I was so very excited to attend a town hall meeting an acquaintance was holding nearby. Democrat Robert Andrews of NJ was very brave to hold a town hall meeting where it is becoming abundantly clear that a plan he supports is not being supported by the majority of American people.

I've always known Rob to be a man of heart, and have voted for him every chance I got. He and I are now quite polarized on his support of Obamacare, but I knew he would hold a forum where all opinions would be heard.

My husband and I had a great time seeing democracy in action... Thank God only a couple extremists from both sides of the healthcare issue showed up...I saw lots of Dems with commercially made signs being handed out by young people wearing suits and dresses, and about 8 homemade signs from other parties, but mostly there were people of ALL kinds opposing Obamacare. Some people got standing ovations for tearing up the “Thank you Obama” signs. (I thought that was rude but I've seen far worse happen in the media against conservatives like Palin) After I spoke my peace about wanting a national referendum on several plans to be designed by non-partisan commissions, which I’m proud to say evoked some major clapping, I was swarmed by some local reporters yet managed to keep a healthy distance except for answering a couple questions by the local media.

The humorous highlight for me personally came when I was in the bathroom and I heard one lady say to another, "Did you hear that nurse? She was tremendous!"

I responded while we simultaneously came out of our stalls, "That was ME!" We both cracked up and she thanked me for saying certain things. I admit I lapped it up. It’s not often one gets 30 seconds of "local celebrity bathroom time."

The town hall was supposed to last from 6-8pm but questions continued until 11pm.

I got the impression that most people there were passionate about the panic-spending and way too much government intrusion in the private lives of individuals.

I think Washington DC has no idea what is really happening in small town America. When Harry Reid said he would use whatever means necessary, even the 51 vote reconciliation process, to get passed whatever the few decide is in the best interest of the many, that may have been the straw that broke the camel's back. I do not know.

Time will tell where all this leads.

I think that anyone who is waiting for a green card, or who is a legal immigrant should be entitled to being covered. Many such people contribute to the system as much as or more than natural-born citizens.

What's becoming more and more apparent is that -- just like in the 90s -- the health insurance bill is being used as a means to defeat Obama. It's not about what's best for the population. It's about what Republicans are trying to do in order to win votes in the next election.

It's too bad we can't have a discussion about the actual issues rather than turn it into politics.

We need to do away with political parties and be able to have civil discourse that focuses on trying to solve problems, not personality attacks that only care about who said what.

Follow the money, folks. Same thing happened in the 90s, and when it was over all those involved came out and bragged about how they defeated the health insurance plan, who had paid them, etc. It's important to learn from history.

P. s. Has anyone watched or listened to the links I included above?

I have watched the documentary "Sick..." some time ago, DJ. Was that what you were referring to? Great links and heads up on the articles, BTW.

You are quite right to say that it really should be a discourse outside of politics. EW and I are the only American expats who actively participate in the forums and have straddled both systems. Together with Orchid, Mountain Ash, Poppie and Celtic, it is hoped that what we have contributed help, in this particular thread as well as with other similar dicussions in the past. On the basis that the six of us are beneficiaries of a healthcare system that is so different from that in the States, we have offered insights into our respective healthcare systems. Grassroots level ought to shatter the myths of political debate against the proposed health reform on access to healthcare.

As you say, it must really be towards the benefit to the population. Bad enough as the inequities are now, it could only get worse unless resolution toward it is found.

By the way, I also lived in Italy and experienced the health system there. My daughter was born there as well, so I had pre- and post natal care. I learned a lot about staying healthy besides.

Instead of Seeking Savings from the Homebound, Why Not the Crooks?

"As a new book by the Center for Health Transformation's Jim Frogue details, criminals rip off the taxpayers to the tune of $80 billion to $120 billion each year in the current Medicare and Medicaid programs.

We're not talking about inadvertent bill errors but outright fraud. Government health programs are currently paying men maternity benefits, giving taxpayer dollars to pizza parlors that are supposed to be HIV transfusion centers, and even paying dead patients federal health care benefits.

If ever there was a reason not to turn our entire health care system over to government it is this: Government can't run the health care programs it already has. It would rather ration compassionate, effective programs than do the hard work of rooting out and punishing the crooks who are stealing our taxpayer dollars.

Facts are Stubborn Things Americans have already heard a lot of rhetoric about health care reform, and we can expect to hear a lot more.

But as Ronald Reagan used to say, facts are stubborn things. And the facts of government's track record in managing our money and delivering on its promises speak louder than any televised presidential speech or stage-managed town hall ever could.

So as the summer winds down and the debate rages on, let this be our mantra:

Facta, non verba.

Make a bumper sticker out of it.

Put it on a tee-shirt and wear it to a town hall.

And when someone asked you what it means, tell them that before we hand over more of our lives to government, we should consider how they've treated us so far."

For entire August 26, 2009 editorial as written by conservative Newt Gingrich, see http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33275

Yesterday the news reported that some prisoners accidently received stimulus checks. When the story was checked, it turned out that a number of these prisoners received stimulus checks they are "entitled to." I'd sure like to know how corporate giants are getting bonuses, prisoners are getting stimulus checks, and the American taxpayer is getting bupkus.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE!!!!

"Prison inmates are generally ineligible for federal benefits. However, 2,200 of the inmates who received checks got to keep them because, under the law, they were eligible, said Mark Lassiter, a spokesman for the Social Security Administration. They were eligible because they weren't incarcerated in any one of the three months before the recovery package was enacted.

"The law specified that any beneficiary eligible for a Social Security benefit during one of those months was eligible for the recovery payment," Lassiter said.

The other 1,700 checks? That was a mistake."

Full Associated Press article August 26, 2009:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/3900-stimulus-checks-went-to-apf-2542694170.html?x=0

PS: While the economy is doing a slight self-correction, the BO team is spinning that the stimulus plan is working. hahaha 700 billion dollars of that money is still in the bank, has not yet been used, and the American people are being told it cannot be returned to the taxpayer.

And the money that HAS been used? Well, of what little has been paid back, that money has already been earmarked for "special projects." Just ask Barney Franks or Nancy Pelosi.

Can't access the PBS/POV program, haven't listened to the radio bit (can you point to it again, please), but I did read (skim) the article from the Washington Post... pasting one comment following the article --- :

In agreement with everything you said, Anne.
I am on the fence a great deal of the time having seen how my parents were taken care of. They needed help and, fortunately, were able to get it. I'd like to know my children and grandchildren (the dearest to me) will have it available to them.
Also, when I think of how some military is treated, I want to scream!!! So wrong!

Here's a video I found while researching T.R.Reid:
T.R.ReidABCNews Note: the end when he talks about the massage therapy with herbs...two thumbs up! and "low tech is sometimes just as good, or better..." another two thumbs up!

gims -- this is the TR Reid interview on Fresh Air with Terry Gross from Philadelphia. It aired on Aug 24. It's a story about how he went around the world trying to find relief for his shoulder pain, other than the operation that was recommended to him in the US. Very interesting stuff.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112172939

DJ, I saw the interview that gims posted about that. Fascinating, wasn't it? It doesn't seem like there's a perfect system anywhere.

At some stage during or just before patient treatment, when a Canadian is admitted to the hospital by ambulance, they will be asked to furnish their I.D. which must include their provincial government-issued health care card number. When a Canadian moves from one province to another, they must immediately apply in writing (and supply specific other I.D.) on a form to obtain their new home provincial health care card and be in the new province's database as a bona fide resident qualified to receive health care within that province.

This is regardless if the Canadian is employed or not. My mother, a full-time housewife her whole life, has had the same health care number since it was issued to her....probably early 1960's when Canadian universal health care started. I am not certain what happened when she gave birth to me. Basic universal health care works seamlessly as follows:

when a Canadian changes employers within Canada or changes their home location within Canada, the person still has same universal health care coverage, regardless of income and whichever province or territory (Yukon, Northwest Territories or Nunanvut). This is what "portability" means in Canada. This is what happened with us when we moved from Ontario to British Columbia. Or when one moves around within their own province. In Ontario I worked for over 6 different employers during my working decades there, and never had to reapply/change my health care ID number nor worry about basic medical coverage options/pkgs. Same applies to where I'm living in British Columbia.

If a Canadian wants dental coverage, eyeglass coverage and other add-ons, hence it's either provided by a pkg. offered by employer, or person has to buy directly from private insurer...or person pays directly to dentist, optician (which for latter specialists my parents have done so because my father's employer never provided these add-on benefits.).

When a Canadian is hired by a Canadian employer that does provide add-on private medical insurance to its employees, usually it's only 1 private insurer. Usually that's good enough...we already get alot of extensive general and medical specialist coverage with universal coverage.

Add ons with private insurer may include:
physiotherapy
psychiatric /counselling
orthotics
dental
eyeglasses/contacts
etc.

A Canadian employer is not legally entitled to provide all these benefits. Hence small businesses or retail independent companies don't provide it. ie. restaurants, bakeries, corner stores, small consulting firms, etc.

Universal care in Canada is extensive..I have had specialized examination by followiing doctors in these medical specialities:

ear, nose & throat (for testing of dizziness)
dermatology
gynaecology
etc.

My partner has been tested at a sleep clinic (specialty was neurology) run by a teaching hospital with specialty in neurological disorders and diseases. He has a very mild form of narcolepsy which causes him to fall asleep when his body is still. This is also covered by universal care... but it does help that the patient lives near a hospital that specializes in this type of testing. Otherwise the patient would have to pay their own transportation for this non-urgent/non-life threatening, non-emergency medical testing. Such is the downside of living in a huge country like Canada.

But it is stressed that universal medical care..is not barebones, it is deep medical expertise and alot of medical specialists and treatments fall into this umbrella category. It always helps to live in a part of Canada that is not too far removed from medical specialists/teaching hospital(s), not just family phyisician. I'm sure it's the same for U.S.

When I travel outside of my home province I do buy travel medical insurance. After all, I engage in a risk-oriented sport...cycling. That's fine by me.

Mountain Ash and I share an admiration for Tony Benn, a very distinguised MP over here. I have only just come across one of his interviews and thought I'd share here, followed by two more related links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LnY-jy_cE0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2sFT7T0mCs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOZmvaFfjtk&NR=1

Thanks DJ... started listening to it, woke up the house (didn't have my earbuds in).. will finish later...
will get to yours, too, lola ---

That'll be swell, Gims. Tony Benn was a Viscount who gave up his title in order that he can serve the people better. I admire him greatly. Politicians of his ilk are rare. The longer interview is here where he speaks of responsibility of government and fraternal attitudes at grassroots level and makes a lot of sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-2h0o3uZ-8&feature=related

Dotsie -- did you see my post # 18875 with the link to the TR Reid interview on Terry Gross's "Fresh Air"? It's about 45 minutes and gets into more depth. Actually, it seems that there are lots of perfect systems around the world -- India, Japan, France, Britain, Germany.

The one that's the farthest from perfect seems to be our own!

Hi Anne: Can you do me a big favor and copy down the post number and data where I ever specifically said: "Fraud is the ONLY problem."

Since I am totally positive I never said that or anything remotely like it, I'd like to correct this misinterpretation.

Fraud is a HUGE part of what is happening in our country. It is ONE root cause of why many people who are truly needy, are not getting the help they need.

Why do you assume that I have always had health care insurance, that I have never had to start over, that I have never been turned down for a pre-existing condition, that I am in some way immune from further misfortune?

Is this sort of debate helpful to you in some way?

I've repeatedly exposed my almost 60 years of life here, including my not having insurance for much of it, my having to start over several times, my not being able to get insurance for a pre-existing condition, and my core belief that many of us here know what it is like to bear the burden of totally screwed up government programs.

As far as prisons go, I applaud those who are able to turn their lives around while doing time. A close relative served his 3 years in state prison while talking the talk and writing us how he was getting his GED and turning his life over to God once he got out. He said he was studying hard, and reading the Bible every day. I provided him with all the resources necessary to get food, shelter, clothing, and a job, the day he was released.

Now he is back on the inside serving another 10 years. He still writes about how he is going to study for his GED and how he has turned his life over to God again. He's also hoping to get out of isolation soon for being a troublemaker. Did you know that fights get started soon after your tax dollars are used to provide goods which some prisoners trade for drugs which are in just about every prison in the USA? One warden told me to stop being a bleeding heart and let this person find out for himself how to make his way in the world instead of me enabling him by allowing myself to be conned. Did you know that cons know how to con family members and prison groupies very well?

But I digress.....

Despite what some may think, it IS possible for those of us who have led pretty tragic lives at some points, to want cheaper medical care without wanting Obamacare.

I am a realist and know that no matter how many years I work like a dog to have a good life, it can all go down the tubes any time as in the past.

And as a realist, I smell the government BS all the way from Washington to my doorstep. BO says there are agitators who do not want healthcare reform. Pelosi called dissenters "Astroturfers." Reid called them "evildoers."

In truth, dissenters to Obamacare DO want healthcare reform. We are average Americans who DO want reform legislation to get cheaper drug prices and better access to treatment, especially for vets, the handicapped, the aged, and those who have survived major disasters.

I understand that next week Obama will meet with the joint session of Congress to put forth his own proposal, which he has yet to do. It's interesting that the term "Obamacare" is bandied about so much, when the House and the Senate committees are the ones who've been trying to draft bills. Bob Dole was on an NPR program today talking about how always, in the past, presidents have proposed legislation, and then Congress dealt with it. But Obama hasn't done that yet.

I'd like to see people try to deal with the issue and not resort to name-calling and prejudice. Those are two ways to cloud issues. Does linking the name "Obama" to the bill make it less palatable? Let me remind everyone here that the same thing happened to the Clinton health plan, and Newt Gingrich was behind it. He's bragged about it for years. And guess who's back? He's all over the airwaves and wants to run for president.

It would be so refreshing to be able to have a discussion with people all of whom were informed of the issues and none of whom was all wrapped up in the politics of it. Do ideas actually _belong_ to people? How can you "own" an idea? How can you own a thought? If it's your idea, does that mean no one else is allowed to share that idea, or only the people you like? If the idea belongs to someone and you dislike that person, then do you have to dislike their ideas? This is silliness, and yet, this is American political discourse -- completely bankrupt. No wonder this country is in such a mess. No wonder our media are superficial and empty.

Sorry, but I listen to C-Span's "Talk of the Nation" and hear some of the most absurd phone calls. Some good ones, but way too many stupid ones.

Apologies on my end, Anne. I had no idea you would seriously think I was asking you to research every single one of my posts. hahaha

When you said in your post about me that you were sure of my exact words, I thought you had just read them minutes before.

The exact quote you attribute to me simply does not exist, so let not your heart be troubled.

DJ, something I've tried to teach my kids is that it's okay to have friends who are different, think different, act and look different than we. That's what makes us grow, learn and at least listen to others with differing opinions. Too often, people put themselves in boxes and NEVER come out. I appreciate your questions about this, but don't know what the answers are. It needs to begin with all children at a very young age.

Had a short chat with my sis-doctor since I'm staying at her home while visiting here in Ontario:

She is amazed at the level of hysteria and even viciousness of the opposition against the option of public medical insurance coverage, considering the millions of Americans who are uninsured. To her, as a physician up here in Canada, it seems unfathomable and.. at times, inhumane.

She does see the medical bills from the U.S. Even with costs of overhead, administration, some of the bills for certain treatments seem very high.

I too am amazed that anyone would not want a nation to provide healthcare for its people.

I'm afraid there have been too many generalizations with regard to the bill. I'm hoping Presidnet Obama answers some very specific questions tomorrow night.

I'm concerned about how it is going to affect boomers and the elderly. I hope he sheds some light on that.

The arguments against the "public option" are very curious. On the one hand, they're casting aspersions by calling it "socialist" and on the other hand they're saying that it'll be so popular that the private companies won't be able to compete. Huh?

Daniel Schorr, the nono-generian on NPR, said that those parents who didn't allow their children to hear the president's speech "ought to be ashamed of themselves."

In my opinion the speech BO gave last Wednesday was crafted as usual to spin more tales without many specifics. I busted out laughing when he said what most people object to in the "healthcare plan" would only be used by about 5% of our 305 million people, and the premiums they pay would pay for itself. I noticed BO spun things a bit differently a few days later when he was on "Sixty Minutes." Maybe his pal Jeffrey Immelt, head of GE & NBC, will name a washing machine after him. hahaha

REAL healthcare reform is long overdue, but not the kind Obama's cronies are pushing through to appease their party, lobbyists and special interest groups.

Single-payer government-run healthcare is not the healthcare reform that America needs. That nonsense is part of a methodical plan for fundamental change to our currently-FREE Republic.

Recently we learned that the government-run public option may be "trigered-in" at some later date once a more acceptable healthcare change is initially approved.

Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm's brother, is one of a few known health care advisors appointed by BO who subscribes to "The Complete Lives System."

He wrote about this in the January 2009 Journal of the American Medical Association: "Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed." A priority curve included in the report showed that it would not be cost efficient to spend healthcare money on the very young or on seniors aged 55 and over.

This is cost/benefit analysis applied to human life. We Americans are currently free to make our own healthcare decisions. This must not be deferred to government.

We Americans are not stupid. Exercising the fundamental liberty of free speech, we have been speaking out and asking questions about something which will change the structure of our Republic forever. The answers we are getting change sometimes daily, depending on who BO or his spokespeople are spinning to.

We are doing this despite being chastised by corrupt government officials. I myself have tried to improve healthcare service to others for decades as a professional nurse. Now I am emailing, writing, calling and giving speeches on behalf of all who want to keep our country free of further government corruption and massive over spending. It is this sort of thing which is ruining medicare, social security and other programs.

If the Democrats and Republicans could have fixed our broken entitlement programs, they would have already done so. Now they want us to trust them with a brand new entitlement program, bigger than anything we have ever known?

Freedom is not free, and we Americans of all ages and occupations are standing up in defense of it.

To any interested parties, this Polite Political Ponderer would like to correct a misimpression left by another poster, who I am sure meant no harm.....

Anne, you misquoted me in your post #189050 and then recently offered "proof" of that misquote, which if one took the time to look up my #187437 post number you offered, in no way did I ever say that fraud was the only problem our country needed to resolve.

This is not an argument (to use your words,} but I feel a need to repeat all 3 posts directly involved in the misquote, and hope this puts an end to the misquote issue. I love a good healthy debate, but I'm not fond of having my words mischaracterized. I'm sure you feel the same way. Thanks for your understanding.


By Anne327 8/28/09 @1:24pm Post #189050

Josie, it's obvious that there is fraud and waste in our system....in any system.

You stated in an earlier post that fraud is the only problem. I don't agree as I can see there are other problems. I won't even list them here, as I believe they will be used for fuel to argue.

I admire the fact that you grew up having to work hard, go without insurance, put yourself thru school, etc. I just wonder what you would do if your health coverage was cut off? Sometimes I think you forgot your roots as soon as you "made it". What would happen if you had to start over w/out insurance and finding out that no one will insure you because you developed a pre-existing condition?

Do you believe it "cannot happen to you"?

Sometimes fortune and simple luck have funny ways of reversing places on people ......

I read the same articles about stimulus checks being sent to inmates......What does that have to do with healthcare?

By the way, since most prisoners are released at some point, does it make sense to you to keep those individuals healthy while in jail so they will be healthy enough to work when they are released? How do you feel about spending $$$ on prisoners for job training so they are employable when they get out and move into your community?


By Anne327 9/3/09 @ 4:46pm Post #189332

Josie, my heart is not troubled, so kindly don't assume it is. The post is #187437, you posted on July 30, and someone else told me the location. Again, if argument is your goal, it isn't mine, and clicking on "ignore this user" is a viable option.

I will be using it from now on. I enjoy pleasant debate and factual conversation.

I won't be taking the bait, as debating and mature discussion is preferable to arguing.

You have alot of energy. Why not direct it towards solving the healthcare problem?


By Josie 7/30/2009 @ 3:49pm #187437 "My Post Interpreted by Anne"

I've said over and over that ending the major corruption by government officials in bed with lobbyists from insurance and drug companies would be a step in the right direction. How many times do I need to say that the waste in government, the corruption, etc etc etc....needs to be checked.

As a nurse for decades, I've seen the damage done when lots of individuals continue to make poor choices and their local hospitals end up over-charging the paying customers to make up the difference. Some hospitals even close down.

As a woman, I have seen so few people vote, and of those who vote, some vote for those they KNOW are crooks, yet these crooked politicians continue to be voted back into office.

It all starts with the individual. If each of us learns, listens, practices ethical values, votes for the BEST person even if they are an Independent candidate or a write-in, that at least is a start in the right direction.

I want so many of these crooks out of office and soon. I do my best by voting every election and by practicing personal fiscal responsibility.

The Wilson Factor. Illegal immigration now formally part of the healthcare debate.
September 15, 8:04 AMSan Diego Immigration Policy ExaminerCarl Braun

When Congressman Joe Wilson (R) SC blurted out what many Americans were saying to their television sets during the Presidents speech to both houses of Congress, he was instantly vilified as a nativist, racist and bigot from the deep south. His now infamous words, “You Lie!” may have touched off more than he could have hoped for.

For openers, his re-election campaign received upwards of one million dollars in funds when some of the media, namely Sean Hannity, put out a call to help the Republican Representative after learning the outburst resulted in one hundred thousand dollars in campaign donations to his Democratic opponent Rob Miller. Now both men have banked a reported million or more. Miller should send his regards to Wilson.

Perhaps more importantly though is the scampering about by Democrat officials after the comment to try and prove their fearless leader, our fearless leader, did not lie about illegal aliens receiving benefits in the healthcare bill before Congress. Either our beloved President WAS in fact lying, he was parsing words very carefully or at a minimum he was ill informed. Either way, it doesn’t look good for the blue team.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, on ABC's "This Week" Sunday, called the Wilson flap a "red herring," saying "there's no disagreements" on limiting health coverage to those in this country illegally.

"The language will be clear" that they won't be covered, Sebelius said. "That will be very spelled out."

I think the operative word here is “will”, as in future tense. She did not say it is NOT in the bill, she said it WILL NOT be in the bill. Translation: It is in the bill now (see below) but thanks to that loudmouth from South Carolina, we have to yank it to make the big man look good.

The so-called “Gang of Six”, the bipartisan group of Senators on the Finance Committee looking at the legislation concur.

"We absolutely assure that those who are here illegally would not get the benefit of any of these initiatives," Sen. Kent Conrad said."

My, my, the folks over at La Raza are not going to like that.

So is healthcare for illegal aliens part of the House bill or not? Well, yes and no. Though an email circulating on the Internet refers to language involving Illegal aliens and non US Citizens, I could find no reference to either. What I did find on pages 50 and 51 was this:

SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE. (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

Translation: Nothing having to do with one's personal characteristics (race, gender, hair color, immigration status, etc) will prevent anyone from receiving benefits.

So in the strictest sense of the word, the President may not have actually lied because the bill does not specifically say “illegal aliens.” If you are tiring of all this parsing of words and slick willy’isms. You’re not alone. Estimates vary according to the source, however somewhere between a low of 60,000 to a high of 2 million people protested the Administrations policies on September 12th in Washington. Some called it the biggest protest in DC history. The President said he wasn’t aware of any Washington protests when first asked. Same thing he said about the flurry of July 4th Tea Parties. His senior adviser David Axelrod said on CBS's Face the Nation:

"Conservatives have the right to protest but they don’t represent a mainstream view."

Really. They may not be liars, but these two are living in a different world than the rest of us.

Resource: http://www.examiner.com/x-17495-San-Diego-Immigration-Policy-Examiner~y2009m9d15-The-Wilson-Factor-Illegal-immigration-now-formally-part-of-the-healthcare-debate

If illegal aliens are in the country, they're here because powerful forces want them -- they provide cheap labor.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that illegal aliens _should_ be covered, Their employers should pay for it because that's our system. But if employers had to pay, they might as well hire legal workers. Illegal aliens go to the ER if they need care, and they can't be turned away. Since this ends up costing us more in the long run, maybe we should just have a provision that covers them?

In my opinion it really does not matter what language is used about the illegal immigrants not getting a healthcare card.

Hospital workers KNOW that when they show up at any ER, they will be treated period. They won't have to have a card and they won't have to pay a dime. The taxpayers, the ones who must have a card and who must abide by the government rules....THEY are the ones who will be paying for those without the cards.

BO was a guest on a recent Philadelphia radio show and right after he insisted there will be no cards for illegals, he added at the end of the day, we must be humane if they come into the ER. It's his spin for, "No matter what I stress publicly about NO HEALTHCARE CARDS FOR ILLEGALS," we will be paying for them anyway.

Which helps make for a bigger deficit. Longer lines. You name it. It's already been happening for many years. I know. As a nurse, I have worked within the already over-burdened system because we MUST take care of everyone and anyone. No matter what.

(I'm all for taking care of the aged, truly needy, vets, and victims of sudden disasters, but I am livid at the frequent visits to the ER and hospitals by so many YOUNG adult able-bodied Americans, illegal immigrants, and all their kids. This gravy train has to end. The tax payer is already strapped paying for far too many as it is now. That's the long and the short of it. Why not train all these young adults to do hospital care and other jobs to pay for the "humanity" they receive at the expense of the working class?

A short distance from where I live, BO just finished a speech (He's stumping for Sen Arlen Spector) in which he said what I've been saying all along:

"And that's why what we've said is let's use the money that's being wasted in the system right now -- subsidies to insurance companies that are already making a profit; tens of billions of dollars in waste and abuse -- the majority of this health care plan can be paid for with money that's already in the system but just not used wisely, not making people healthier. (Applause.)"

Of course, what he does NOT say is much of that waste is because of those back door deals he and other D.C. cronies iron out with lobbyists and special interest groups.

Here is the rest of that speech. Hold your watch high, because there is a lot of BS in them there fancy words too. lol

9/15/2009 Speech Transcript: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/15/AR2009091502989.html

But don't you think that if illegals have health coverage they can take care of themselves and not end up in the ER?

Do all Americans consider illegals, also the migrant farm workers?

I'll be visiting a good friend in 2 days and spending time in southwestern Ontario where farmers do hire a considerable number of migrant workers to pick the tomatoes, harvest canola, etc. She actually lives near one of the Heinz tomato processing plants.

Have no problems we provide health care while they are employed. Our food is being harvested. If locals won't harvest the bounty, who will??? The tomatoes down at the corner store from where I'm staying at this moment, are harvested by them.

Gotta think of occupational health and safety for these folks who provide direct services and products to us also.

But lambasting some govn't as corrupt or more corrupt than private sector health companies, is strange and disingenious. At least, the govn't can immediately fire unethical govn't officials...which they have. Ontario provincial premier fired a newly hired CEO to computerize the medical records 'cause of inappropriate contract awards and use of budget by consultants. It was swift and fast. Highly public. Just early this summer.

Could the American public fire a CEO private health insurer company that fast for inappropriate expense account and undocumented budget use???

Hmmmmm.....what is the answer? Oh right, the shareholder rights, if they are public company. Shareholders have never fired a CEO, they just individually pull out their stocks. And most shareholders don't read corporate reports closely. It happens more with public news and at board director level. Tell me more about corporate governance in private sector.

An article that covers such workers, which many folks probably would lump as illegals if they stood in line somewhere at a govn't office:

http://migration.ucdavis.edu/cf/more.php?id=95_0_2_0

Immigration status in this case does not refer to illegal immigrants. The legislation simply offers the same access and provisions of healthcare to resident non-US citizens who have legal status to work and live in the States.

My husband, a United States citizen, was a migrant farm worker and picked cotton at age 7. He was the son of a United States citizen who also was a migrant farm worker. The whole family, young and old, worked physically very hard 6 days a week to survive.

They lived in shacks and in old cars. They ate pinto beans and potatoes, sometimes for months.

When they got "normal" sick, they used home remedies. When they got seriously injured or deathly sick, they went to an ER if they could get there, and hoped the treatment would allow them to get back to work the same day.

They RARELY went to an ER, because doing so cost family money. Money better spent on food and shelter.

With our ever-increasing entitlement attitude, nowadays literally anyone can show up at an ER once a week and know that someone else will pay for their ailment, be it finger splinter or drug overdose. Just give a phony name & address and tell the rep your woe-woe-story. The hospital will get paid under Medicaid or another entitlement program.

No, I do NOT support our current "anything goes" healthcare system. I support change so that the TRULY needy, the aged, the vet, the handicapped, and the victims of disasters can have better access and better coverage.

By the way, my diehard Democrat, now college-educated husband thinks "Obamacare" stinks. He'd like to see REAL tort reform. He'd like to see an end to the crooks in Washington. He'd like to see cheaper drug prices, competitively buying health insurance across state lines, and an end to fraud & waste in government, companies, and by individuals who are cheating within all the entitlement systems.

Don't we all? But, I reckon, it's an almost impossible event in the States, Josie. The floodgates have been unhinged a long time ago and there are far too many players involved, as well as legislation lacking in procedural limits and a threshold on compensation...amongst others.

No one is resistant to change in healthcare. The countries like the UK (pop.58 million) and Canada (pop. 30 million) which already have socialized medicine, have significant problems with it, and these are countries with a MUCH MUCH MUCH smaller population than the USA.

Most of us Americans want health care reform, but we do not want to rush something which effects all 305 million citizens. We want to get this right, and we sure do not want the government involved in it except to offer regulations to prevent fraud. Given their own crooked track record, I wonder if they know how to do even THAT.

Our government has screwed up Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, you name it. "Cash for Clunkers" cost THREE times what BO said it would. The low cost mortgage program cost TWICE what we were told. The stimulus plan money is still mostly in the bank, yet BO is taking credit for stimulating an economy which is very slowly self-correcting itslef. And the TARP money got mishandled. The SEC, yes, the Securities and Exchange Commission, had no clue about what Madoff was doing. They screwed up big time.

I do not want inept Washington DC fraudsters making decisions about matters which are none of their business, especially when they have shown time and time again they are not trustworthy.

More and more Americans, who are being called derogatory names by Pelosi, Reid and others, are coming to the same conclusion. Washington DC is just not trustworthy and the few who ARE, are wringing their hands in total disgust. Yet Harry Reid said he'll do what he wants anyway, by using the "51 vote reconciliation process."

It's really that simple.

Not to mention that most of Congress are lawyers or in bed with lawyers, are given contributions by lawyers, are supported heavily by lawyers and lawyer associations, and Congress doesn't want to risk their ire.

God forbid a Congressman should lose their legal lobbyist friends because of REAL tort reform.

As a health care professional of many years, I truly believe there is far more truth in the Investor's Business Daily (see below) than BO's spin last week. BO is going on a massive selling tour over the next week to market Obamacare. Harry Reid said we're going to be forced into this hodge-podge plan anyway, so I suspect BO is out there trying to protect whatever votes he can, before the next election. Or maybe he's trying to take attention off the major Acorn scandal. (Thank God they will no longer be doing the 2010 census)

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, September 11, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Reform: Millions of Americans finally got to hear the Democrats' pitch on health care reform, made by their top salesman. But they heard nothing new — just a lot of discredited myths recycled as the truth.

For the record, we support improving our health care system. As is, it has too many rules, too much government spending and too few market forces to keep costs low and quality high.

We spend north of $2 trillion every year on health care — 17% of our GDP, the most of any wealthy nation. If that sounds like a lot, remember this: An estimated 47% of that already is spent by the government. And government's share will grow even without "reform."

Look closely at the plans so far to emerge from Congress. What the Democrats have proposed, in essence, is a government takeover of nearly one-fifth of our nation's economy. When brought up in Congress, this idea has been rejected repeatedly. Yet, somehow, the idea never dies.

That's why the president's speech Wednesday night was a big disappointment.

Rather than a breakthrough that would remove government's stranglehold on a once-healthy market and move us toward true reform, we heard a lot of old bromides and myths — things we just can't let go uncorrected. Too much is at stake.
So following are 15 of the biggest misconceptions — and there are many more, we assure you — that we found in the speech:

• "The uninsured . . . live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare."

Actually, of the 46 million people the census estimates don't have insurance, some 20 million have incomes above average and could afford to buy it, according to a study by former Congressional Budget Office Director June O'Neill.

Of the remaining 26 million uninsured, an estimated 13.7 million are poor. They are eligible for Medicaid — the state health care programs for the poor. But many, too, are illegals — about 8 million.

Though they're eligible, research from the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association suggests as many as 14 million uninsured Americans qualify for public coverage, but don't enroll. And as many as 6 million are enrolled, but don't report it to the government, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis.

That leaves about 5 million people with no care.

By the way, according to the Census Bureau, America now has 37 million people in poverty. But Medicaid enrollment covers 55 million people — at a cost of $350 billion a year.

Based on this, no one should be without care. Which leads us to wonder: Is nationalizing our health care system really necessary to take care of people who already have care available to them?

• "Many other Americans . . . are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover."

This statement betrays a profound ignorance of what insurance is. If you can buy insurance after you've gotten sick, it's not really insurance, is it? And why have insurance at all? It's an incentive to simply wait until you get sick, then make someone else pay for it.

To see how absurd this is, let's take the same concept to auto insurance. Why not let people buy insurance after they get in an accident? One reason, of course, is it leads to fiscal and personal recklessness.

• "There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage . . . every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage."

As noted above, the bulk of the 30-plus million uninsured actually can get coverage — and in many cases, qualify for existing government programs. But how about 14,000 Americans losing their coverage each day? A little math shows this is just a scare statistic.

Multiply it out, and it comes to 5.1 million people losing coverage in a year. Sound scary? Consider that, according to the census, 46.3 million Americans don't currently have insurance — 600,000 more than last year. That means that, along with 14,000 Americans losing their coverage each day, another 12,400 Americans are signing up for it — even in the middle of a brutal recession.

Those who lose insurance do so usually because they've lost a job. Most are without insurance for a couple of months or so. The best way to boost the number of insured — and one that "costs" nothing — is to cut taxes, ease regulations and slash government spending. Those policies are all proven job creators.

• "We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it."

This is a non sequitur. We spend one and a half times more per person, true. But because our health care here is better. That's right — better. True, our life expectancy of 78.1 years — which is up sharply from just a decade ago — ranks us 30th in the world in longevity. But look a little closer at the data.

The U.S. homicide rate is two to three times higher than in other industrial nations. And we drive a lot more than others, so our auto fatality rate of 14.24 deaths per 100,000 people is higher than in Germany (6.19), France (7.4) or Canada (9.25). Add to this, we eat far more than other countries on average, contributing to higher levels of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer.

When all those factors are figured in, according to a recent study by Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa, Americans actually live longer than people in other countries — thanks mainly to our excellent health care.

• Rising health care premiums are "why American businesses that compete internationally — like our automakers — are at a huge disadvantage."

Well, right and wrong. Soaring health care premiums are a problem for some. But who's to blame for this? Government health care programs, which make up 47% of all health care spending, are the biggest drivers of rising insurance premiums.

For example, Medicare forces doctors and hospitals to give patients 20% to 30% discounts on their care and drugs. Sounds great. But who pays for the "discount"? Private insurers, that's who. And they pass it on to businesses. This is yet another case of government causing a problem, then blaming the victim.

Even so, in some industries health care premiums are an enormous problem and competitive liability. This is certainly true of the auto and steel industries. But they have no one to blame but themselves.

They gave gold-plated benefit packages to their unions during the fat times, and now that times are lean, want us — taxpayers — to make good on their extravagant promises.

This is why so many big businesses support nationalized health care. It bails them out of their own bad decisions — and by those imposed by government. Just last week a congressional oversight panel announced that taxpayers were unlikely to recoup much of the $81 billion they spent to bail out GM and Chrysler. That's another indirect health care tax your children and grandchildren will have to pay.

• "Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. . . . If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined."

Are we supposed to believe that adding more government will bring down government costs?

Medicare is already spending more than it is taking in through payroll taxes. Medicare trustees expect the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund part of the program to be insolvent by 2019. From now through 2017, it will need $342 billion of taxpayers' money in order to keep paying hospital insurance benefits alone. Over the next 50 years or so, Medicare's shortfall is expected to hit $37 trillion — an almost unbelievable deficit nearly three times our current GDP.

If Medicare has done one thing, it's proved that government programs always cost more than their original projections. Citing the runaway costs of Medicare is an argument against, not for, further government intervention.

• "On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own. . . . I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch."

Discouraging employer-based coverage and encouraging individuals to buy their own insurance would help. But only if lawmakers make two real reforms, neither requiring a "new system from scratch."

First, Washington must give tax credits for premiums paid on individual policies. That would make them more affordable for more people. Second, Washington has to make it easier for Americans to have health savings accounts. HSAs hold costs down because account holders self-ration treatment. They also give people more control over their health care.

• "Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have."

Shawn Tully, Fortune editor at large, dug into the legislation and found that for "Americans in large corporations, 'keeping your own plan' has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange," a government program in which heavily regulated private companies sell insurance policies.

Workers who buy their own insurance or begin coverage through small businesses will also be forced into the exchange if their plans change in any way, because it's then considered a new plan. Since plans generally change policies every year, Tully says, "it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months."

According to a July study by the Lewin Group and the Heritage Foundation, health reform could cause as many as 88 million Americans to lose their private, employer-based coverage.

• "If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange."

The president says this is "a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices." But it won't be a real marketplace. Participating insurers will be saddled with a host of mandates. Those that don't like the regulations will be left out. There'll be little room for competition.

The Cato Institute's Michael Tanner has said that "in practice, at least as demonstrated in Massachusetts," an exchange "can quickly devolve into a regulatory body."

• "Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims . . . The best example is . . . that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. . . . It is a lie, plain and simple."

As far as we know, there is no provision for a death panel buried in the 1,018-page bill. But we do know how Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the administration's health care czar, feels about treating those who need the most help.

"When the worse-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating (treatment) to the better-off is often justifiable."

So the federal government won't be actively killing the old and the sick. It will just let them die by denying them the care that will supposedly be available to every American.

• "There are those who also claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false — the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

Tough words are one thing, enforcement is another. As IBD's Sean Higgins reported last week: "Some independent analysis indicates — contrary to Obama's claim — that the House health bill could result in coverage being extended to illegal immigrants."

It starts with the mandate for everyone to buy insurance, including illegals. Their choices will be presumably through the "exchange," and they won't be eligible for subsidies to buy. But the non-partisan Congressional Research Service warns there's no verification mechanism. An amendment by GOP Rep. Dean Heller of Nevada, to use electronic immigration records to verify eligibility for subsidies, was shot down by Democrats.

Enforcement woes are nothing new. The U.K.'s nationalized system treats as many as a million illegal immigrants a year because eligibility verification at the point of service is nearly impossible. It's now giving up the ghost of trying because illegals have won the right to be treated at taxpayer expense as a "human right." That's brought new waves of "health tourism" as word spreads.

Cabinet officials, such as Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, support union demands to give amnesty to 12 million illegals. If so, they will get public health care. And hospitals that continue to treat illegals through emergency rooms, are reimbursed through Medicaid.

• "My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a 'government takeover' of the entire health care system . . . Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. . . Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down."

Obama is right about limited numbers of insurers in states. They're the last ones able to survive the layers of bureaucratic mandates and regulations without going bankrupt.

The fastest way to create choice for consumers isn't by adding a government option, but by breaking down trade barriers across state lines. By letting citizens buy insurance from any state, a truly competitive market can develop, with choices in coverage, service and price. It would be far better if each American could buy health insurance from any of the nation's 1,300 insurers, not just a handful in their own states.

• "Despite all this, some . . . argue that these private (insurance) companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public option. But they won't be. . . . (The public option) would . . . keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better . . ."

When the government acts as both producer and regulator of its own and everyone else's products, the playing field is tilted because there's a basic conflict of interest. It's also a recipe for cronyism and corruption. Witness Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

We looked at the after-tax margins of some big health insurers over the last 12 months. Here's what we found: Among HMOs, Humana, 3.1%. Cigna, 4%. Wellpoint, 5%. United Health Group, 4.4%. Broader health insurers, like Unum (8.6% after-tax margin) and AFLAC (12.3%), do a bit better.

The point is, these are not outrageous profits. And the health care industry's $13 billion in 2008 profits pale in comparison to the $65 billion in annual fraud in Medicare alone.

• "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize."

From the folks who brought us a $10 trillion deficit over the next decade, that's hard to swallow. The White House has assured us the public option would be funded by premiums. So, it's hard to know what he means by savings or spending cuts.

Although Medicare and Medicaid, are slated for $313 billion in cuts, the government has yet to eliminate the $65 billion or so that goes to waste and fraud. They don't need health reform to do that, they can do it now.

• "The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies — subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care."

Speaking of waste and fraud, as we said, why can't it be done today instead of waiting for some health care reform bill to pass? The president proposes $313 billion in Medicaid and Medicare cuts, saying $110 billion would come from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments.

"That would encourage health care providers to increase productivity," White House budget director Peter Orszag told reporters. $110 billion would come from ending payments to hospitals to treat uninsured patients. But much of that comes from treating illegals, who aren't supposed to be eligible for the public option.

Another $75 billion would come from "better pricing of Medicare drugs," Orszag said.

What he doesn't get is that some $10 billion of Medicare funding goes to dubious expenditures like hospitals padding bills because they are paid too little and must make up lost revenue in volume.

Cutting payments more means more padding, as the Mayo Clinic has warned. That means rationing. The Democrats' plan may not be explicitly mean to ration, but not paying a fair and market-determined price for services will ensure less of it for patients.

President Obama began his speech by noting it's "been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health reform" and that "nearly every president and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way."

"A bill for comprehensive care reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943," he also pointed out. "Sixty-five years later, his son (Rep. John Dingell, Michigan Democrat now in his 28th term) continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session."

Could it be, we wonder, that the reason why health reform of the kind the Dingells and Democrats have been pushing for 100 years has gone nowhere is that Americans want nothing to do with it? What is it about "No!" that they don't understand?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=337562347635294&kw=15

Ouch! I'm a lawyer.

It must be minded that the UK is a Member State of the EU which has 27 Member States with a total population of over 500 million. The European ethos on healthcare is seen as a fundamental human right and not a commodity. Metaphorically, much has been learned from when the French stormed the Bastille.

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_overview/co_operation/mobility/patient_mobility_en.htm

I am not aware of the significant problems you mention and I think neither would any of those here at BWS who directly benefit from socialised medicine would be. Generally, we continue to benefit from our respective healthcare systems without the problems brought up by the media in the States.

It is an immigration matter and not a flaw attributable to the healthcare system.

I listened to some of the congressional hearings today, where they were questioning officers of some of the biggest health insurance companies. One of the things that sticks in my mind is that, while insurance companies were dumping patients as soon as they got sick, the chiefs of United Health made 11 million and that of Signa made 9 million last year. The officers they were actually questioning earned around 600K and 700K.

The point is that this money comes form insurance premiums that people pay, including those who got dumped. Congress was asking them why it is that they've never before regulated themselves on this issue.

I know there are some out there who believe that people are entitled to the salaries they "earn" but imo this is nothing but piracy.

AMEN TO THAT!!!!

Chatty: I second your AMEN!!!!

And let's not forget that some of these companies have lobbyists who figuratively sleep with corrupt government officials and make deals behind closed doors.

Once again, it's real simple. If we placed a higher value system on honesty than the God almighty dollar at every level of society, I do not think the elderly, the vet, the handicapped and the victims of sudden disaster would be receiving less and less help.

Politicians from both sides have had many years to fix what ails our entitlement system, yet they have not. We all know why.

It is no wonder an ever-increasing number of everyday Americans no longer trust those in Washington who are using taxpayer money for their own purposes.

Reid says he'll use whataver means necessary to pass a healthcare bill ASAP, no matter what anyone else thinks. And BO will sign just about anything at this point so he can say, "I did it. I was the only guy who got it done."

Power and ego. To some, it may be almost as good a feeling as stealing taxpayer money outright.

Which is why I'd like to see a few healthcare plans developed, and then let the American people vote in a national referendum: Plan A, Plan B, Plan C, or None of the above...Start over again.

The 27 member EU each have their own system, And a few countries have tried socialized medicine and abandoned it in favor of a system like we now have. I'm glad you personally have not experienced problems with your healthcare system. Many others HAVE had problems, which continue to worsen.

The USA has a very good healthcare system which could be made even better if we change some things like what has already been discussed here for weeks now.

We are 305 million people in one country. We came here from all over the world. Every day more and more people are risking their lives to come here so they can benefit from what America has been offering for almost 250 years now.

We must be doing a lot right. May our individual and diverse freedom of choice continue to reign supreme!

I am aware of that. I live here.


Whilst the competence for its healthcare system rests on the Member State, any transition to a system which bears a similarity to that of the US remains quasi because Member States are bound by their obligation under the EU to provide equal access to universal healthcare. So, a rose by any other name is still socialised medicine.


The success of socialised healthcare is not reliant on such a narrow margin. It must be judged on a broader spectrum. There is contentment more than discontentment with the NHS over here.


No one would dispute that (in terms of the medical/clinical aspects). But, does everyone have access to it?


The proposed health reform bears those changes. Unfortunately, partisan politics threaten to subvert any progress towards them.

Josie, I don't understand the angst of having the healthcare money misused. In Germany, they have a simple system. The money for healthcare goes in one fund, and this fund is used only for healthcare. It's not complicated at all. There has never been any corruption or scandal concerning where the money goes.

If there is so much corruption going on, then I would think it would make more sense to focus on that problem, and how to correct it.

Seems to be that Obama will be criticised either way...in which case, I think that if this health reform bill fails, it's failure will not only be the result of partisan politics. I am inclined to think it will also be greatly because folks are just...unkind.

If the health reform passes, what difference does it make that it happens on Obama's watch? It's long overdue and Obama is the duly elected President afterall.

Since we live in a representative democracy, we elect representatives to do this work on the national level. I can't think of a time that there's been a national referendum. Do you think we should change the system?

I totally agree with you about the immediate need for correction, Edelweiss. The Republicans and the Democrats in this country have corrupted our health & social welfare programs to the point of bankruptcy. In this country they borrow from one fund to use for their own pet projects. This is done all the time.

And they've done it with the help of some companies and certain unscrupulous private citizens, both foreign and domestic.

What is worse, our government has had DECADES to correct the problems. But they haven't.

WE THE PEOPLE need to take an active stance in letting our legislators know they work for US, not the other way around.

There is no reason on earth why BO, Pelosi, and Reid need to RUSH a hastily-thrown-together healtcare plan through this very second, with absolutely no thought to how it would affect all Americans.

The CBO, an organization which is non-partisan and which tells the truth about the financial end of any proposed government plan, has stated over one half of all senior citizens will have benefits removed if this latest healthcare plan passes. Additionally, the plan as it stands now will cost much more than what we already have in place.

BO has told us a few times before that if we don't pass his massive EMERGENCY spending bills, our country would fold quickly. The bills passed because of the pressure and the fear mongering, and most of that money is still unspent but ready for whatever BO and his team want to use it for.

While our country is VERY slowly self-correcting its financial ills, we need to carefully design a healthcare plan which will not ruin our economy further than it has already been ruined.

I support improvements to our healthcare system which will benefit all citizens. Not everyone in the government feels that way, which I find disgraceful.

The Republicans asked for THREE days of public scrutiny before any final healthcare plan is voted upon, and that bill got quickly voted down by the Democrats.

Why is that! Why can't the American people find out what Harry Reid said he will force upon them if need be, with his version of a 51 vote reconciliation process.

Why are the American people being shut out of knowing the fine details of what will be in the final healthcare vote?

Would they do that in MODERN Germany? I doubt the lovely German people would put up with that.

Once again, BO speaks with forked tongue......

Last month, when the Obamas hosted an event on the White House lawn to rally support for Chicago's bid to host the 2016 Olympics, BO was against making the trip.

"I would make the case in Copenhagen personally, if I weren't so firmly committed to making -- making real the promise of quality, affordable health care for every American," the president said.

Yet off he went (the Mrs.traveled to Denmark 12 hours earlier in a separate plane) to sell the IOC on Chicago for the 2016 sports games. I have no idea how Mayor Daley got there. Maybe Oprah let him bum a ride in her 47 million dollar non-USA-made luxury plane?

Forget health care. Forget the soldiers dying in Afghanistan because of equipment and manpower shortages. BO had Chicago's special interests on his mind. And he can be an excellent shill when money & power are in play.

Then oops. The IOC were not impressed with collective Chicago star power and easily dismissed Chicago from the 4 cities being seriously looked at. Rio won, as the first city in South America to host an Olympic event.

Thoroughly humiliated that the shill had stunningly faltered, the BO spin machine went into high gear. I wonder if General McChrystal was thrown quickly onto Air Force One from London, because the minute Rio was announced the winner, BO's spinners said in effect, "Oh well. BO was REALLY in this area to talk Afghanistan strategy anyway."

....And General McChrystal who was hired by BO (and who had told 60 Minutes and other media sources that he really needed more manpower and equipment to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan and no one was talking to him) suddenly found himself on a plane and having a face-to-face chat with BO.

I would not be surprised if BO did another major round of healthcare marketing over the next week. Expect a lot of, "If healthcare legislation is not passed IMMEDIATELY, we are all going to die soon and the government will collapse...."

He does that scare thing really well, whenever he wants to spend more and more taxpayer money for things his party considers important to their staying in power. Only the party is getting nervous now. Everyday Dems, Republicans and Independents like me are not buying what they are selling. And they know it.

No matter much how you try and scare people about the alleged need for Obamacare, the Chicago debacle is yet one more example where legislators and everyday people alike are starting to know what is really important to BO and his close-knit far left group.

Like I said, the middle class is not stupid. The expense of these latest "Baucus" plans are being shuttled on the states, where things like the VAT will shock our wallets into nothingness. Funny thing about that Value Added Tax being discussed. When applied to ALL store goods, the stores in Europe don't have to tell you how much of that $50 item is a VAT. (Clue: about 25% of the item's price)

Do we really want "Chicago BO" to tell us that he won't raise the federal taxes, but in reality we will be paying so much more tax-levy-surcharge-ect on the state and local level for political special interests. I do not think that is what we thought he was selling us during the primaries.

Thanks to the NEA, crooked politicians and Corzine in NJ, we are almost broke. We do not need BO to heap his over-spending out the federal back window to the states.

(Harry Reid's state of Nevada and 3 others may get a special pass for 5 years since they are having big trouble getting re-elected, and BO could end up signing off on a special break so they can keep their Dem-seats. The other states will have to pay the difference.)

Will Harry, Barney and Nancy continue to get their way and destroy what is left of a free America by using BO as their hand-picked puppet? Time will tell.

Lots of people screwed up Medicare and it's expected to go broke within 2 years, Shouldn't THAT and other broken programs be fixed before the newer costlier entitlement programs get started????

As the single largest buyer of medical products, you'd think Medicare would at least get a volume discount. But it doesn't even get the best price.

By William LaJeunesse

FOXNews.com

Monday, October 05, 2009


From wheelchairs and walkers to orthopedic shoes and needles, Medicare buys tens of thousands of products every day for elderly Americans. And as the single largest buyer of medical products, you'd think it would at leastget a volume discount.

But it doesn't. In fact, Medicare doesn't even get the best price.

According to their own auditors, Medicare knowingly overpays for almost everything it buys. Examples include:

-- $7,215 to rent an oxygen concentrator, when the purchase price is $600.

-- $4,018 for a standard wheelchair, while the private sector pays $1,048.

-- $1,825 for a hospital bed, compared to an Internet price of $1,071.

-- $3,335 for a respiratory pump, versus an advertised price of $1,987.

-- $82 for a diabetic supply kit, instead of a $47 price on the Web.

Last year, the Health and Human Services Department tried to replace its archaic fixed-price fee schedule for 10 commonly purchased products with a competitive bidding program in 10 cities. The department said the program could save Medicare $125 million in a single year, or $1 billion if adopted nationwide. But Congress stepped in to stop it.

"There were products that we had as much as 75 percent savings. The average was 29 percent," said Mike Leavitt, the former HHS secretary who oversaw the program.

"It would have saved billions if we could've actually implemented it, but Congress deferred it. In Washington speak, that means we put it off forever," he said.

Leavitt blames Congressmen Pete Stark (D-Calif.) and Dave Camp (R-Mich.) for introducing legislation that terminated the contracts and postponed the program for 18 months. Leavitt says the congressional intervention helps explain why many are suspicious of claims that Washington can cut enough waste to actually pay for health care reform, as President Obama told a joint session of Congress last month.

"Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan," Leavitt said.

"The problem here is one man's waste is another man's living, and whenever there is an effort put forward to actually make an efficiency, someone goes on the offensive and hires lobbyists and does what they can to constrain Congress from doing it," Leavitt said.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the health care industry is currently spending $2 million a day lobbying Congress. Leavitt's pilot program died after small business suppliers claimed it would have put them out of business. Eventually, industry agreed to help pay the cost of terminated contracts that Medicare had already negotiated.

Industry officials argued the new system would unfairly disqualify some suppliers, and others with little experience would get the business, causing a decline in quality and service.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/05/tracking-taxes-medicare-waste/

This fraud, waste and corruption is something we have known about for years. Our government wastes more money then any other business in this country.

Make no mistake: it is a business. Legislators sell the American people the illusion that they are working for us, and we are forced to allow them to take whatever money they want from our paychecks.

Medicare and Social Security are in DEEP trouble because of government corruption. As long as we continue to ignore the problem, the worse it will get. Where are the people who are supposed to keep costs down? Who is watching the money?

Most of us Americans work hard for our pay and we have to manage our budget with what we earn. You won't find us paying $400 dollars for a hammer. Why isn't something done about the government crooks who are stealing taxpayer money!

People are getting rich ripping off the American people and I'm one who is glad more people are starting to notice.

Are you listening Charlie Rangel???? Pelosi: You promised to do something about this scoundrel.... Have you lost all sense of ethics?????? Are you too busy calling the American people un-American and Astro-turfers so they won't notice what you and your cliques getting away with behind closed doors?

Well, maybe SOMEBODY is noticing: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.co...eeds.php?ref=mp

The Wall Street Journal October 6, 2009 Lachlan Markay

MEDIA OUTLETS NEGLECT TO MENTION THAT DOCTOR PHOTO-OP WAS STAGED

In his latest push for a health care overhaul bill, President Obama spoke to doctors in the White House Rose Garden yesterday. Painting a nice picture of the event were many media outlets that neglected to mention the White House's doctoring (forgive the pun) of the audience in an attempt at a powerful photo-op.

Doctors attending the event were instructed to show up in white lab coats to give observers the feeling that doctors stand behind the President's health care plans.

"White Coats in the Rose Garden, as Obama Rallies Doctors on Health Overhaul," read a New York Times blog post headline. "The roughly 150 doctors assembled wore white lab coats under the brilliant fall sun," the Washington Post recalled. The San Francisco Chronicle wrote, "Obama faced rows of smiling doctors, all wearing white lab coats." NBC News also noted the white coats donned by the doctors in attendance.

But none of these media outlets mentioned that the White House had to hand out lab coats to a number of the doctors in attendance who showed up in business attire. Apparently trying to drive home the image of medical professionals applauding the President, the White House would not start the press conference until all of the doctors were dressed in the "spiffy" outfits, in the President's words.

The Washington Post and the New York Times included pictures in their respective stories showing white-coated doctors listening to and conversing with the President.

According to the Associated Press, the Obama offered nothing new in his address to the doctors, so the event was clearly an opportunity to show the country that medical professionals support his plan. Many major media outlets declined to note the botched attempt to enhance the 'doctors-support-the-plan' image of the event, playing right into the White House's objectives.

Rather than cover the clear attempt by the President to use visuals to enhance the public perception of support from the industry, media outlets chose to rehash White House talking points.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574457173300814790.html