Re: WTHOT: Left, Right, Whatever


"Mike Burke" <mburke@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5e8eesF37joipU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Janet wrote:
"Mary" <mrfeathers@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u9Vei.115254$n_.82245@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cheryl Perkins wrote:
Jane <JaneHadd@xxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
Some of this is undoubtedly the result of state laws regulating
the industry, but the fact is that in terms of overall choice, you're
still better off with most CEOs here than you would be in, say, the
British National Health.
And most Americans have that figured out, which is why they
tend not to support the specific universal health system plans that
come out.
What a lot of people forget is that there are a variety of ways in
which universal health care can be implemented, and choices on, for
example, what restrictions (if any) should be put in place on parallel
private systems have an enormous impact on things like waiting lists. I
heard a very interesting lecture on the subject a couple of years ago,
and I wish I could remember more about it. For all the heat in the
media about the Canadian system, there's precious little light,
particularly on what othe countries have tried and what they have
learned as a result..

Still, having had family members on both sides of the border and
listened to a lot of anecdotal evidence, I wouldn't switch the Canadian
for the American system. No way.


Most Canadians of my acquaintance have said the same thing. From what I
see, a lot of Americans tend to assume that the only way to run a
National Health Service is badly. I don't believe that to be true. And
I'd also say that there's something to be said for at least attempting
to provide some coverage for all citizens.

My state does better in that area than most, I'm happy to say.

Mary

I heard the author of a recently published book entitled "Sick" speaking
on the radio last week. He debunked a whole list of the conventional
wisdom about the problems that Americans are often convinced
automatically come with government-organized universal health coverage:
physician choice, waiting times to use MRIs and stuff, cost, etc.
Basically, whatever the issue is, some other industrialized country has
figured out how to address it. Do we hear about that? No--we hear from
"Harry and Louise" instead.

Our system performs very poorly in terms of measurable outcomes, and
costs significantly more in terms of percentage of GDP than ANY
nationalized system.

Here's another scoop, Janet. Australia's health system performs very
poorly in terms of measurable outcomes and costs heaps in terms of
percentage of GDP.

Here in Oz, we have a veritable herd of camels. Each State and Territory
controls its own hospital system, while demanding that the Feds pay for
it. Of course, the gap between the demands and the Federal payments is
huge and growing.

The Feds charge a surcharge on people's income taxes that is supposed to
fund Medicare, the National Health Scheme, which doesn't look a whole lot
like the British NHS but doesn't work a whole lot better either. However,
we also have private, ie non-Government health insurance which people can
also pay into. This gives people the choice of their own doctors and,
depending on how much people are prepared to pay, something up to full
hospitalization in a private room for the duration.

Theoretically, the same services are available to all people except for
the private room bit. However, in practice, waiting lists for public
hospital patients are so long that, in practical terms, many essential
services are denied to those too poor or ideologically unwilling to top up
their cover with private insurance.

Mique

Australia was not one of the nations the author cited when addressing those
concerns! <G>

Seriously, I am one of those people who are either uninsured or
underinsured. We pay something like $350 per month for a policy with a $15K
deductible for two adults in their 50s. (My son is covered by a state
program that provides coverage for children. That program is under constant
attack.) In reality, we shouldn't be paying for that. But, unlike most
people with our income, we used to have an upper-middle class income and we
have a house. We don't qualify for Medicaid. In order to convince the
hospital of this and qualify for free care from them--but not from the
doctors or anesthesiologists--we have to apply for Mediciand and be rejected
regularly. What this means is that, in practical terms, we pay for almost
all medical care out of pocket. That means that, in my case anyway, I simply
don't get medical care. I don't see a therapist, although I probably should.
I stopped filling prescriptions, when I had them. (Now, since I don't go to
the doctor anymore, I don't have any, even though I should.) I don't get
care for whatever the nerve problem is that causes pain that restricts
movement in my left arm. I don't get treatment for the fibroids that make me
have the bladder issues of a woman who is 4 months pregnant. When I was sent
to the emergency room because those same fibroids made me hemorrhage for
almost two months until I was about passing out and anemic enough to get a
blood transfusion--which I didn't get, I might add--I underwent a D&C
without anesthesia because I didn't want to have to pay $3000 for the use
of an operating room. Of course, all the women with real insurance get
general anesthesia for this procedure, which they instituted because, as
they told me, "All the women kept screaming." I am on our society's garbage
heap. If I have some life-threatening illness, the best thing I can do for
my family is die quickly and cheaply. I have 11 years to try to survive
until I can get on Medicare.

Do I want universal coverge? Hell, yes. Do I give a flying *** about
choosing a doctor or waiting for an appointment? Are you kidding me? And
people like me are growing in number.


.

Loading