Re: OT The good National health care system


"MarkH" <markhsoap@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d5f6cc3b-b0eb-4523-9c2d-524d4929814d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 12, 3:51 pm, Dana Carpender <dcarp...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Pat Wadley


It took us about a year to pay off our son's birth. We did it and didn't
expect anyone else to pay for it, nor did we expect to get it free.

The point of health insurance, whether it comes from a corporation or in
the form of a government program, is to spread the expense so that
people are not bankrupted by a stroke of bad luck. If you're against
the government doing that, are you also against the notion of
corporations doing that?

Unfortunately, spreading the expense so as to keep health care
affordable is not and cannot be the main purpose of insurance offered by
any publicly-held corporation. Their main aim must, legally and
morally, be making the greatest profit for their shareholders. Which is
why leaving health care up to publicly-held corporations is and will
remain a very bad idea.

Dana

This is why I love you, and one-payer government health insurance. It
is completely equitable, spreading the risk among all. It also
discourages for-profit medicine, and unnecessary tests, etc. There is
a clear incentive to, system-wide, focus on cost containment,
standardized costs, guideline-driven medicine, and prevention
programs. Moreover, a single-payer government system can easily work
with other branches of government (education, food and drug
administration, research) to really coordinate other aspects of health
care.

**************************
OK, first of all the "unnecessary" tests are to protect a doctor as well as
a patient. Which tests do you think are unnecessary?

Second of all, not everyone fits into a "one size fits all" medicine. And
that is what socialized medicine does becasue the government decides what
treatment you need and what you can NOT have. And they will do this because
of cost. And they will be directed in this, by us, the tax payer. We will
read stories about some treatment that will cost millions of dollars and
"only" benefit a few people. This treatment will require money that could
go to "help" a greater number of "other" people. Thus the decision will be
made to not help those who need treatments for a "rare" problem.

What about children born with no "hope?" And keeping them alive will cost
millions of bucks and they are going to "die anyway?" What about elderly
people who need hip replacements and have "only" a few years left? Or who
have cancer? Or who have heart disease? What about people with problems
caused by drug usage or alcohol?

Then the decision will be made to "ease" up on treatments for people who are
over a certain age. And yes, it does happen in Canada, England and other
countries. My best friend Athena, who was a Canadian, born and raised
there, now lives in California. When her mom wanted to come visit her in
California she wanted to bring her sister with her. The sister, who had
several problems and was on "pallative" care, was told that she could not
travel to California with any assurance that she would be "taken care" of.
They told her that if she got sick in California and they took her to a
hospital and the hospital commenced treating her for her kidney disease that
not only would Canada's health care not pay for it but when she got back to
Canada they would NOT continue her care there. Now this may not sound too
unreasonable because you are thinking that she was "old" and it would never
happen to you. But I guarantee one thing, you., too, will get old.

This also happened to friend of mine who lives in England, his kidneys are
shot and though the health service provides him with dialysis, they have
deemed him, at 50 to be "too old" for a transplant. And if he goes out side
the country for a transplant, the health care system will not do anything to
help him.

Now as to "coordinating" with other branches of government, that will be
another layer of bureaucracy to meddle in your life. Do you really think
that some government official who is paid to do a job, which is facilitate
government policies, is going to do a "good" job for you?

As to research, you really, really, really think that the government, which
is basically, us, is going to put up with the staggering costs of research
and development? Especially when it costs around 4 billion bucks to bring
ANY drug to "use?" ANY drug, even a drug that only benefits a small
percentage of the population will cost about 4 billion dollars for
development and testing to pass FDA standards.

There has NEVER been a government "program" except for the military and
diplomacy, which was more efficient and responsive than the private sector.

Now, it used to cost about 250,000 bucks to go through med school. I have
no idea how much it is now. But you cannot work your way through med school
and you still have to pay for housing and food and transportation and books
etc. Most physicians have over a million dollars of debt when they get out
of med school and when they used to intern they got paid 35 bucks a month.
Now, they pay them more. But these are really "greedy" people, how dare
they work so hard to become a physican and then, how dare they, charge for
it.

You don't mind some singer getting paid millions of bucks to screech, why
should you get so bent out of shape about someone who works so hard? Or do
you think that you have a right to that person's labor and knowledge and you
get to set the cost?


*******************************************************
But, alas, the US system of medicine developed along a for-profit
system with a "middle-man". There is no easy way to dismantle a
system that has enriched so many stakeholders.

I realize all this brands me a socialist, but having grown up in a
socialized medicine system, and having been an adult in the private US
system, I have a keen understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of
both. For the greater social good, the one-payer government-run
system is better.

*******************************************

The "greater social good" oh man, I cannot tell you the number of
governments that have imposed draconian laws to control the populace by
using that very statement. WHO decides what is actually "the greater social
good" what is the standard? Who benefits and who suffers? What kind of
control are you willing to use to FORCE people to obey the "greater social
good?"

And by the way, the reason most physicians do not accept Medicare now is
because Medicare demands so many forms to fill out. My physician quit
practicing about fifteen years ago. She said that she employed four
secretaries just to fill out insurance forms and keep up with demands and
three book keepers to comply with Medicare in insurance requirements. She
couldn't afford to keep her office open. She quit.

You go to the doctor for an office visit. Without any treatment, other than
a consultation, you have seen a nurse, a receptionist, used electricity,
possibly water, heat or air conditioning, impinged on insurance, required
the use of supplies, not to mention the clinic and its insurance and costs,
and seen the doctor. The doctor generally charges between 90 and 145 bucks
for the visit. You know how much Medicare and insurance reimburses the
doctor? NINE DOLLARS.

When I have to have lab work done the insurance company reimburses the lab
about 20% of the cost. How is that going to guarantee that I will continue
to have "quality" care?

Yes, in simple things you will receive, probably, good care. But when it
becomes more complicated, when it demands more specialists, tests and
hospital care it is very unlikely that it will be as good as it should be
and probably not good at all.

I have another friend, who is Canadian, and now lives in Sweden. He broke
his arm. It was a bad break. He told me they set it with a cast. I was
appalled. He should have had surgery to set it. That is "too expensive."
He never saw a doctor. That was considered "unnecessary." He saw a
"practitioner" who set it in a cast. Now it is so screwed up, it did not
heal and he is going to have to have the arm rebroken and reset and that is
another three to four months out of his life. But hey it is free so what's
his beef? Even though it is shoddy medicine it was done EXACTLY by the
government's "book."

You get what you pay for and when the government pays for it you get what
some bureaucrat decides you need regardless. And that goes for your kids,
too. You better hope that they never have anything out of the ordinary.

Please note that the greatest heart, cancer, and other treatment centers are
based in the US. Not Canada, not England, not France, but in the US. That
most of the cutting edge treatments and surgeries and drugs are developed in
American labs and hospitals. I wonder why?

my2cents
p


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT The good National health care system
    ... the form of a government program, is to spread the expense so that ... spreading the expense so as to keep health care ... affordable is not and cannot be the main purpose of insurance offered by ... a clear incentive to, system-wide, focus on cost containment, ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs)
  • Re: A Canadian Health Care story
    ... the cost of insurance premiums are shifted to the treatment of the ... should taxpayers pay for health care for someone who chose not to be ... I don't understand how it is legal for the federal government to issue ... plead to the military who pledged to uphold the Constitution to commit ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Thanks to MA governor, businesses wont have to pay their share
    ... your health care to our governmental bureaucrats & the ... The rate of cost inflation ... This is just more scare tactics from the insurance industry trying to ... Medicare is vastly more efficient than the private insurance industry ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)
  • Re: Healthcare in Canada
    ... providers battling over my insurance dollar. ... I pay for my own health insurance 100%. ... funds is, quite simply, the dedication of its workforce. ... You've also got the problem of "sticky fingers" within the government. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: QC-proof cipher?
    ... Health insurance is provided by privately-owned companies. ... profit is not the only responsibility of a company. ... It follows that a government should protect the people, hence the Bill of Rights, welfare and much of a government's legislation. ...
    (sci.crypt)