News-Record.com

The silly thing is, Al, that you can find medical horror stories almost anywhere. Know where a good place to find some would be? Ask the 40-some million uninsured Americans.

Health care costs are too high. Insurance companies are part of it. I don't remember the percentage, but there is a huge overhead cost in paperwork. We need a more efficient system and we need a system where the consumer has more power over their own health care while the insurance company has less.

It's sad that so many Americans don't have access to affordable health care, especially when we have the ability to offer it. It's immoral not to offer these services.

Here's Hillary's plan; I've taken a liking to it. Sounds even better when Bill's telling it.

http://hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf

"...we need a system where the consumer has more power over their own health care..."

How is giving the govt. control of health care, as many propose, empowering consumers?

Reminds me of a former boss who's face was severely lacerated in an accident in the UK. The hospital doc patched him up and told him to immediately go back tot the US for plastic surgery. He asked why they couldn't do it in the UK, the doctor said "Trust me, you want this done in the United States".

I love how these guys like Al ... just know ... how something's going to turn out. He must be a very successful gambler.

Them Bastards at NPR recently did reports on other countries "socialized medicine" programs. I only heard one - Japan, but in a nutshell:

They provide state of the art medical care to EVERYONE at half the rate here in the USA. The only issue is Dr.'s and hospitals are not making enough to stay solvent. The answer is obvious: give the Dr.'s and hospitals a 50% pay raise .. whooo haa .. and they stay solvent while still providing state of the art medical care to EVERYONE. Duplicate that here in the USA and out medical cost ALSO go down 25%.

What's not to like, Al the Gambling Clairvoyant.

"I don't remember the percentage, but there is a huge overhead cost in paperwork."

In round numbers, rahrah, the cost for paperwork (and I know Medicare / Medicaid are champs at mind-numbing paperwork):

Private Imsurance: 30%
Medicare / Medicaid: 5%

Tort? 3% actual, 10% perhaps if you included preventative-law-suit medicine.

==

Speaking of mind-numbing paperwork .. ever file an Insurance claim ? Once I lost some jewelry that had been insured for $800. They were only too happy to take the premiums at that rate. When I filed a claim, they offered me $400. That is what Medicare tells the Dr.: "We only pay $400 for that procedure, not the $800 you think it's worth". So when private insurance does it, it's capitalism; when medicare does it, it's Socialize Medicine .. "So, please, no socialized medicine in the U.S."

Speaking of Drugs:

"Crack isn't something you use leisurely on a given night of the week ....

That's A -- not universally true.

That's B -- not the reason for passing or failing a pee test. Cocaine gets out of blood really fast - while cannabinoid molecules hang out for weeks.

===

.. "you may not care if someone uses pot while not at work or driving [then] they could be using at work as well.

ALSO not universally true, plus the same can be said for Alcohol .. and Twinkies .. as well as lead and manganese.

JDR,

I saw the NPR segment on the Japanese health care system, and you are right:

"They provide state of the art medical care to EVERYONE at half the rate here in the USA. "

Ah, but there is this little catch: Remember the NPR's mention of Japanese love for all sorts of high tech heath care stuff like MRI's and other kinds scans from the presentation?

Wonder where all that stuff was invented? Can you guess? Think hard.

Bottom line: if Americans wants to suffocate innovation --- new drugs, treatment techniques --- then price-fixing systems like the Japanese have --- that leech off U. S. innovative capacity --- will get the job done for you:

Excerpting from a letter I published elsewhere:

There is a useful distinction between natural and artificial monopolies.

Natural monopolies include the military (a nation had best not have competing armies), local police (competing officers at crime scene would invite chaos), fire protection, sewer systems, court systems and some other services.

Some services are natural monopolies. They are efficiently performed by a single provider.

Artificial monopolies, on the other hand, are legal monopolies in services where there is no advantage in having only one provider. Artificial monopolies stifle innovation, increase costs, and lower quality.

America's largest "artificial monopoly" is K-12 schooling. There is nothing in the character of education that is improved by limiting its provision to a single provider.

So it is for health care. The closer we move toward a single provider, tax-funded structure the more undesirable will be the effects --- on innovation, quality, and availability.

Since health care is not a natural monopoly of government, a tax-sheltered high-deductible Health Savings Account (HSA) seems the best way to cover routine medical costs. An HSA combined with low-cost, high deductible health insurance for major expenses would preserve the benefits of competition in health care (innovation, quality, availability) while providing an incentive to control costs, as HSA funds not used accumulate with interest.

Why not let government take over the health care industry...it has such a stellar track record on such programs like medicaid...uh, ok, forget that one. Government has proved beyond a doubt, it can manage such programs like HUD with great efficiency and...er, uh, ok...scratch that one too. Ok, THIS one will prove beyond a doubt, that the US government can initiate and administer a massive program with efficiency, stellar service, AND has the results to back it up: The War on Poverty. Only costs $7 trillion and if you don't think it worth it, just ask the beneficiaries who have enjoyed the spoils of this war...all three of them will testify as to what a great program it was (is).

Lack of 'health insurance' does not = 'lack of health care', as the politicians (and their minions who are looking for someone else to pay for their medical care) would have us believe, and therefore we need them to play shepherd for us.

Tom - you'll have to be more critical of the Great Global Corporations ... as I am ... before I believe you are wholly sincere.

I also believe - perhaps you can correct me - much of that "U. S. innovative capacity" comes from U.S. College Campuses, with the innovations leeched by these same Great Global Corporations, who always seem to have the money to purchase competitors but rarely to innovate from the ground up.

btw, Tom - I don't have a real problem with your proposed solution:

A tax-sheltered Health Savings Account (HSA) - [perhaps even offered as a tax credit ] - that does not collect interest [but should be roll-a-ble from year to year] combined with high deductible health insurance for major expenses.

I do have a problem with those that diss' the totally unknown. Take my friend Neocon .. PLEASE Take him (sorry Henny Youngman).

Seriously .. above Neo diss' Medicare but offers no dispute over their documented very low admistration fees ... only hollow rhetoric: "G-Man = always-sucks and for proof I'll mention a system however unrelated that most agree is a total failure and no matter how many R's as well as D's have voted for this War on Poverty it is still exclusively the D's fault".

Paraphrased of course.

The overhead administration fees for Medicare may be lower but remember this phrase...there is no free lunch.
Medicare administration fees are lower because they provide very little oversight into how your tax money is spent. Take, for example, care given in a skilled nursing facility. The benefit period allowed under Medicare is for a given number of days. Who is watching how those days are used? Medicare? No. The facility? Well, um, that would be like having a shopping center decide how long we could shop. So that's a no. Then who? Answer is NO ONE. When no one is watching how the money is spent, do you think it is spent in an efficient manner?

I'm pretty sure prostate cancer in England in the mid '70's vs. colorectal cancer in the USA in 2007 were treated differently. Not sure we are comparing apples to apples.

I'm a liberal, and I don't like socialized medicine. I have no problem with Barock's idea to offer govt. healthcare as opposed to requiring it. I look at what the Govt. has done with schools, social security, and borders and I'm pretty sure I don't want them to control healthcare. But I also know that one reason mine costs so much is because of the people who don't have it.

Neocon, Government has always worked better without its current management.
Just because Bush & his band of incompetents morons can't run anything in a professional manner does not mean the programs are at fault.
Fire the management and things may have a chance to get better

"Government has always worked better without its current management."

Really? That covers a LOT of territory. It's always been my personal opinion is that those who birthed and advanced the welfare state deserves about 99.99% of the blame (or credit, if you're one of the three beneficiaries) for the incompetency and poor track record of these failed government programs that has enslaved millions of Americans who are now holding out their tin cups to DC for their retirement income and groceries. The administrations that followed simply lacked the backbone to abolish such programs like WIC, Section 8 housing, Medicaid, etc. etc. etc. Bush will take the blame (or glory, if you're the one getting a free slice of the cheese) for the 'senior prescription drug benefit'. Once enacted, these programs that rob people of their earnings, quickly becomes a 'right'...one worth marching in the streets over.

Remember the lte a few weeks ago from the guy who not eligible for Bush's 'stimulus package because he paid no income taxes'? He stated : "We who will get no rebate will remember this at the polls"...or something similar to that. I cannot understand this type of thought. In other words, he will vote in the future for those who promise to 'remember him' when it comes time to dole out the government cheese. Pitiful...and sad.

Don't tell me it 'compassionate' to support government stealing the earnings of one, skimming a hefty mismanagement fee off the top, and giving it to another who never earned it. That's not compassion, that's socialism...communism in it's early stages.

Just my opinion, but rest assured there are many more who feel this way.

Chicken Little: How is your example any different than private insurance for, e.g., a broken arm?

The payout is based on �reasonable expenses� � right? A couple too many x-rays � and the radiologist looses. Too long in the treatment room and the hospital looses. Too long consulting and the Dr.�s looses. Too thick a cast and the supply room looses.

Didn�t spend enough consulting, or not taking the right x-rays � and the patient is right back with �complications� � a separate billing.

Too long in the Emergency room and the patient get�s admitted overnight having picked up some readily transmittable disease. Isn�t getting sick while visiting the hospital a major percentage of the expenses? �According to the CDC, approximately 100,000 people died of a hospital-acquired infection in 2002, though experts believe the number is actually higher.� � thought so.

I think the only one watching is the actual patient � but most (including me) are clueless about what a �normal repair� would involve - although we all can tell you how much time is too much time in the waiting room.

==

Not sure I have appoint to make, only that there�s more gray than black and white

Whenever the issue of socialized medicine (code name universal health care) comes about I go back to my friend Google.

Simply type 'Canada wait time', no need to mention anything about health care or medicine, and the first non-sponsored hit is the 'Canada Wait Time Reduction Fund'.

Yep, it's still #1.

"The 10 Year Plan outlines strategic investments directed toward reducing waiting times for access to care, especially for cancer, heart, diagnostic imaging, joint replacement and sight restoration services. To support the reduction of wait times, the Federal Government committed to investing $4.5 billion over the next six years, beginning in 2004-05, in the Wait Times Reduction Fund."

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acces/wait-attente/index_e.html

Yep, if are a Canadian with cancer, just as the original writer illustrated in the UK example, hopefully it will not be until 2010, after the $4.5 billion is expended in reducing the wait times for medical treatment for cancer, ditto for heart disease.

Your other option is to get treatment in the United States.

It's amazing that Americans want the same inefficiencies. Canada has 1/10 or our population, imagine a govt. program on the scale of the US population.

Actually, I do not disagree with Neo .. where we separate is ...

1 - FDR. I think the spector of 25% unemployment, a chicken in every pot being a dream fantasy, the dust bowl, etc., is beyond our comprehension. To judge without that perspective is cavalier at best.

2 - LBJ. At the time The War On Poverty was declaired, Poverty was - and had been for well over a decade - on a big drop to nothing. In 1965 it was not a large problem.

3 - Almost at the starting gate The War On Poverty became a cluster truck - change the "tr" - but though the next 8 years (Nixon/Ford) 4 years (Carter) 12 years (Reagan) 8 years (Clinton) 8 years (Bush) .. it has been a bipartisan program. To exclusively blame the "Lieburals" is I guess OK .. but to exclusively blame the "Democrats" is bold face stupid.

"It's amazing that Americans want the same inefficiencies. "

It's amazing you constantly assume this is "typical" and also constantly assume we're gonna get the same program.

Danny Boy,

I went to google. I typed in 'Canada Wait Time.'

The sixth item down the list. How could you miss it?
http://www.amsa.org/studytours/WaitingTimes_primer.pdf

And why wouldn't 'Canada Wait Time' bring up medical waiting lists? What else would people write articles or make plans to fix?

'Canadians Wait Too Long For Fresh McDonald's Burgers'

'Freak Genetic Mutation Causes Canadian Mothers to Wait 13 Months For Baby to Fully Develop'

'Canadian Grandma Nervously Waits for Child to Cross Over the River and Through the Woods!'

"It's amazing you constantly assume this is "typical" and also constantly assume we're gonna get the same program."

I don't assume we will get the same program, probably something worse. Remember my friend, I spent a year in a socialist country, I saw how it works. I used to lean liberal before that experience.

********************************************
rahrah said:
Danny Boy,

I went to google. I typed in 'Canada Wait Time.'

Rahrah, my link is from an official site of the Canadian govt. Your link is from Kao Ping Chua of the American Student Medical Association. Who the hell is Kao Ping Chua and what is his/her expertise in Canadian Medicine? Why isn't he/she affiliated at least with the Canadian Student Medical Association if such an organization exists?

Hate to dissapoint you but I'm sticking with my horse.

And why wouldn't 'Canada Wait Time' bring up medical waiting lists?

That's my point. The search mentions nothing about medicine yet it's the first hit. Very telling.

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

BTW, what's with the Danny Boy bit? Are you one in the same Demon Deacon/Proud Donkey/rahrah multiple personalities? I doubt it as you chided Demon Deacon on one occasion.

I hope not, you seem like a decent person so far.
So lay off the Danny Boy bit, I'm your elder after all :)

I was in a sprightly mood.
And Danny Boy sounded happier than plain ole Dan.

And elder schmelder. The internet is the great equalizer, my friend. Even if it does lose the meanings attributed to words by varying vocal tones.

Besides, even if I knew you personally, I'd probably have some silly nickname for you. Buttttt if ya don't like it. I'll hold back. It's all in good fun.

But just know, every time I say Dan on here, I typed Danny Boy and then hit backspace 6 times. ;)

And I betcha, that Mr. Kau Ping Chua isn't associated with the Canadian Medical Students association because he's probably American. But anyway, I'm not sayin there aren't wait times in Canada, but obviously it isn't as clear cut as Conservatives say it is. When I go in for my (largely) elective reconstructive surgeries, I often have to wait 6 weeks for my surgeon-of-choice to have an opening...granted, I am picking my surgeon (but, the problems I have tend to be his specialties.

Lata Dan.

Hit your backspace all you wish if it makes you happy. You are only the 2nd ever to refer to me as Danny Boy, you can guess who is the other poster. I'm 44 years old, run my own company, and a father of two, boyhood was a long time ago.

Internet or not, perhaps your generation is different, but I call my 7 year old son a boy, but not adults. I hope you don't address men as boys in personal contact as you may get smacked:}

As for Canadian wait times, look at the Canadian website, not a site by some grad student working on his/her thesis. $4.5 billion in an effort to reduce wait times and Canada has 1/10 our population.

Have you lived in a socialist country? Remember I was quite liberal until I lived in a socialist country. Try it sometime. Experience the ambulance drivers striking because they are pissed off about not getting an extra vacation day. Not a good day to have a heart attack.

My Apologies Dan. (But did you notice my wink [ ;) ] with the backspace comment?)

Besides, I'm a big believer in keeping the child inside alive. Jesus recommends it too.

Do I have your permission to test out more adult-like nicknames in future posts?

Anyway.

http://todaysseniorsnetwork.com/waiting__time_myth.htm
http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/pdf/myth17_e.pdf
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i

And Still Anyway. My point is that while, obviously, wait times in Canada are a problem, they are not as big a problem as you make them out to be. In spite of the waiting times for elective procedures, most Canadians want to keep their health system. Your Canadian site just says they're trying to reduce wait times. I didn't see anything that actually said what those wait times are. On the other hand, my original link examines the problems with classification of wait times and offers statistical evidence about both wait times and border-crossers seeking US health care.

"I don't assume we will get the same program, probably something worse. Remember my friend, I spent a year in a socialist country, I saw how it works. I used to lean liberal before that experience."

I once sat in a canoe. It tipped over and I became wet. I liked boats before that experience. Therefore all boats suck. Other boats may not be the same - they are probably something worse.

My paraphrased self:

I love how guys like Dan ... just know how something is going to turn out. Dan must be a very successful gambler.

Them Bastards at NPR recently did reports on other countries "socialized medicine" programs. I only heard one - Japan, but in a nutshell .. state of the art medical care to EVERYONE at half the USA rate.

The only issue is Dr.'s and hospitals are not making enough to stay solvent. The answer is obvious: give the Dr.'s and hospitals a 50% pay raise. .. whooo haa .. Dr.'s and hospitals stay solvent, EVERYONE gets state of the art medical care.

Duplicate that here in the USA and our medical cost go down 25% while Dr.'s and hospitals stay solvent providing state of the art medical care to EVERYONE.

What's not to like, Dan the Gambling Clairvoyant.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89626309

Canada.

We constantly hear about the waiting lines in Canada .. and how their "Federal Government committed to investing $4.5 billion .. "

OMG ...

Just kidding. They spend HALF the cost per capita as the USA. In 2005: US $6,401, Canada $3,326 (both US Dollars). Another $4.5 billion to solve this "crisis" is peanuts.

Let's look at it this way:

America does not have a socialized program. The costs are twice that other national programs to net the same results.

Do you REALLY want that? Where's all the "private always does better" proof?

I await a learned answer from SOMEONE. Anyone?

Look at it this way: If we adopt socialized medicine here, Canadians will have no where to flee to in order to get the quality health care their state sponsored system is incapable of providing.

A view from up north here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/montreal/2008/02/task_force_urges_more_private.html

I know, I know... the firm of Hillary, Hussein & McCain can do it better. OUR socialized system will be better because they say it will.

The sad thing is, once the socialists are successful in getting their shang-ra-la health care system in place, within one generation it will be accepted as the norm and will take it's place along side other government boondoggles that are accepted as business as usual today. It will become the latest entitlement or 'right' in the welfare state and the future generations will have nothing to compare it with. (Perhaps by that time Canada will have discarded their communistic ways, and Americans can head north for critical life saving procedures?)

"I once sat in a canoe. It tipped over and I became wet.'

That's why I own a motor boat instead of a canoe, damn things tip over too easily :|

"I love how guys like Dan ... just know how something is going to turn out. Dan must be a very successful gambler."

I gambled on Hillary in Penna and my horse won big time. The Obama loving N&R's biased headline is so negative against Hillary it's hilarious:

"Clinton's victory deepens split among Democrats"; "Party's breach could benefit McCain in November".

Hillary pulls off a big win and the N&R considers it a "breach". This campaign is awesome.

Hey Neo, look out of Hillary and/or Obama on the doorstep of your trailer peddling their wares. We and the poor folks from Indiana will bombarded by them in the next two weeks.

BTW JDR, I'm working at smaller a hospital right here in the Piedmont area this Saturday. This hospital is having a very hard go and losing lots of money. One primary reason according to management, Medicaid reimbursements (or lack thereof).

Maybe OUR system - socialized or not - would be better if you participated. Do you?

Done correctly .. imho .. it could be a positive thing. Chances are slim, I grant .. but Jeeze .. diss'in for diss'in sake is counterproductive.

Useless partisan crap Dan. "My Side's Better Than Your Side" nany nany boo boo.

Jeeze - let's just formally declare it a college sport.

Rockefeller..you're comparing apples and oranges here. The better comparison would be traditional Medicare vs Medicare managed care programs offered by private insurance companies. They allow for an extra pair of eyes to advocate for the patient's needs. To be sure, facilities hate it. They don't like anyone watching how they fritter away a patient's benefit (which, of course, lines their pockets,) and certainly don't like being questioned about it. But despite the bad press managed care receives, it does perform a valuable service by acting as the extra pair of eyes needed to ensure that care is quality, timely, and appropriate. And no I don't work for an insurance company but I am a healthcare professional.

Who's dissin for dissins sake? Just look at other countries who have adopted this kind of health care system. Look in the US where govt. provides health care. Re-read the original letter. Would you like to be the poor schmuck who died of cancer simply because the govt. run health care system couldn't treat you in a timely fashion? I've seen that "canoe".

How did you like the N&R headline about Hillary? You an Obama type of guy JDR?

I think I am a little late for this party, but I would like to put in my two cents.

Like Dan I have lived in a couple of "socialized" countries for many years. The criticisms of their health care systems are perfectly valid - the wait times can be long, the drugs don't get approved as fast as they do here, etc. But what this debate misses in its entirety is that comparing health care systems is not a very productive way to articulate policy. And here is why: people get sick in a variety of ways, some more serious then others. Yet the majority of the time, sickness is fairly straightforward - a flue, perhaps a minor surgery, allergy, pneumonia. The vast majority of the funds spent in this country go to a fairly small minority of people with chronic illnesses such as diabetes, heart decease, etc. All these chronic illnesses and minor aliments are, without question, better treated and handled in systems of socialized medicine. American system is better at high end surgery, fancy cancer treatments, MRI and other truly life-saving techniques. That's why every time you hear horror stories about socialized medicine, you hear about people not getting heart surgery or colon cancer treatment right away.

Now, this is not to diminish the problem of socialized medicine. Obviously, most of us would rather suffer a few more days with an allergy than wait on a colon cancer surgery! My point is this: if we compare health care system to a car marketplace. America has the best, most luxurious, most powerful and sophisticated cars - Austin Martins of the health care worlds. Those cars are driven by few, but boy - are they nice! Europe/Canada specialize in Toyota Corollas of the health care system - they are plentiful and reliable, but if you need something fancier you may be out of luck. The challenge is to preserve the incentives for the health care system to make the austin markets while letting more people, who don't need them, more access to Corollas.

So here is my proposal. Socialize routine medicine. Your garden variety appendicitis, tonsil surgery, etc. But leave the high end surgery to the marketplace and make people buy insurance for that. I would, of course, remove the insurance/employer connection and make the insurance premiums tax deductible. In other words create a tiered system of medicine. We need to stop looking at health care as this homogeneous solid thing, and look at it as a loose amalgamation of parts. We should use the lessons of socialized countries to fix those parts that need fixing, and let the parts that are working be.

I can't remember the last time there were presidential candidiates in our state trying to secure their nomination.

I've already got two calls from Hillary. I want to call her back and let her know she's already got my vote.

Unfortunately, our state will be the state that gives the win to Obama. When you consider that 38 % of democrats in NC are black and 90 % of blacks have been voting for Obama (is that racism?) I think Clinton has a snowball's chance.

That James D. Rockefeller feller says, "America does not have a socialized program. The costs are twice that other national programs to net the same results."

Compared to the medical outcomes in the social democracies profiled in the aforementioned NPR program, our results are hardly the same. Our life expectancy is shorter, our infant mortality rate is higher, far fewer of us have access to good care, and we are generally less healthy.

As for the argument that privatization results in cost savings, what can be said about the cost of using private "security" firms to guard State Department employees in Iraq? These mercenaries cost far more than any member of our military. And their track record at winning hearts and minds leaves something to be desired.

This private army is but one example of how this administration has enabled private interests to pillage the public treasury. This is not only inefficient in the extreme, it is shameful.

As for those Japanese MRI machines, in order to make them available in large numbers Japanese innovators, not the U.S. profiteers, figured out how to make effective machines for far less cost.

The simple fact is that profit is not an appropriate motive for providing health insurance or health care. Do you really want to see a doctor whose primary reason for practicing medicine is to make money? And we already know the lengths to which insurance companies will go to improve their profitability -- actions that do nothing to improve our access to care.

Our system is broken and unsustainable. Let's stop the whining about socialized medicine, which no candidate is promoting, and try something new.

"look out of Hillary and/or Obama on the doorstep of your trailer peddling their wares"

No danger of that, my satelilte dish is prominently displayed in between the two pink flamingos and this makes me one of the evil 'rich'. (one of two in the entire park) Also, I have one of those bumper stickers pasted to the front screen door with a picture of a hand holding a .38 and saying "Protected By Smith & Wesson". :]

"Look at it this way: If we adopt socialized medicine here, Canadians will have no where to flee to in order to get the quality health care their state sponsored system is incapable of providing."

How many Canucks do that? Millions? Thousands? Hundreds? Or is it Tens?

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/19

And what about the millions of Americans that were buying cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and Mexico a few years back?

http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3384441

“This hospital is having a very hard go and losing lots of money. One primary reason according to management, Medicaid reimbursements (or lack thereof)”.

Just so I understand: The Feds draw a hard line on costs - “reasonable and customary fees” – and that is government incompetence. When my insurance adjustment allows only “reasonable and customary fees”- that is free market capitalism.

Got It THANKS!

…. and “Who's dissin for dissins sake?” You for one.

“Just look at other countries who have adopted this kind of health care system”.

Yep - look at Japan and tell me the results (see above). Thanks and I’ll take your silence as an apology. What kind of American are you, anyway. See below and remember all the times you posted how “Conservatives” were positive doers and “Liberals” were whiny doubters.

==

Chicken Little

Thanks for the info – so maybe the answer is “Medicare managed care programs offered by private insurance companies ... a valuable service by acting as the extra pair of eyes needed to ensure that care is quality, timely, and appropriate”.

I’m OK with that, although I don’t begin to understand it! All I’m really trying to say is there MUST be a better way. This “Us against Them” rhetoric – the Hillary Care Sucks crap .. when no one has actually detailed any alternatives – is at best counterproductive partisan sniping.

==

critical thinker

You’ll perhaps be surprised to know much of what you proposed is Neocon’s current plan. The big difference is Neo prefers to keep routine medical care totally private .. paying for broken arms out of pocket. It’s probably the best plan, but it is an idea few Soccer Moms will have the courage to accept, what with Johnny having a runny nose and all.

My general belief is there are many routine medical care items that should be covered in full by insurance providers because it saves the insurance providers in the long haul – cleaning your teeth comes to mind – fully paid because it saves the much higher cost of filling a cavity. Cancer scans would also qualify, perhaps a hundred other procedures. There are certain things the g-man needs to mandate for the same effect – saving in the long haul – polio vaccine being a shining example.

I met a guy getting ready to retire who had never missed a single day of work. I could not help but wonder how many of his co-workers he had hacked on over the past 40 years, and how many work days were then lost.

Speaking of hacking – they’ve done studies: up to 12 feet out of a common sneeze.

Bottom line – we need to figure out a way to spend less and get more. We can do it .. hell we’re Americans .. (no sarcasm)

"And what about the millions of Americans that were buying cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and Mexico a few years back?"

I remember this administation declaring how "unsafe" it was. Of course buying anything online is risky, and maybe meds more so .. but if you actually went there to get 'em, it was perfectly safe - as reported by knowledgable neutrals. just more scare crap ... like Al Shumard Greensboro NC: "So, please, no socialized medicine in the U.S."

"Bottom line – we need to figure out a way to spend less and get more. We can do it .. hell we’re Americans" ..

This will entail deep sixing the 3rd party payer system. imo, of course. Too easy to spend money when it's not coming directly out of your bank account.
This's what is wrong with the health care industry both here and in Canada, again imo of course.
Here it is BCBS or United...there it is the Canadian government. No incentive to save, You already paid the outrageous premiums (taxes),...might as well get your money's worth by going to the Dr. every time Susie's or Johnny's nose starts to drip, right?

Medical insurance should be for major medical procedures only. Cancer patients, heart by passes, organ transplants, etc. The small stuff should not even be an option on an insurance policy.

Such policies would bring the cost of health care in line with any other market driven service, like plumbing contractors, or carpenters. Competition is the key. There is no such animal in socialized medicine and damn little with insurance companies who dictate what they will cover and what they will not and Doctors declining to accept certain insurers.

We need to tell the insurance companies to take a hike, but to replace them with nanny state government health care system would be jumping out of the pan into the fire.
imo, of course. The socialists' mileage will vary greatly on this.

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

There are no reliable figures on the number of Canadians who come here for health care...pro or con. Interviewing a few hospitals along the border is not really any kind of barometer at all. I have read that the Buffalo, NY 'Hip and Joint' center services appx. 10 Canadians per week because of the long waiting list back home. But again, there are no reliable figures on this.

Looks like Chinese medicine is killing Americans:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042101085.html

This will make you feel like my best friend JDR, here 'tis. Yesterday I did some work at a clinic in SC, I visit lots of clinics. For lunch I dined on a really good BBQ chicken with lime accents, rice pilaf with fresh vegetables, a killer salad with crusty onion slices on top, and strawberry cheese cake. All catered by a fine restaurant. The cost? Zero, zilch, nada. In fact the entire staff at the clinic enjoyed the same fine meal.

Well who paid for this meal? A young articulate pharma rep from a pharma company who's goal is to convince the docs to push more of their pills onto their patients. She also left a plethora of free pens, sticky note pads, and other trinkets with the drug she was pushing.

In fact the clinic lunch schedule was almost full for the rest of the month with pharma rep free lunches.

I had a physical a few months ago and my cholesterol was slightly elevated. Nothing too high, just a bit over normal. Immediately the clinic suggested I use Lipitor, Crestor or whatever cholesterol lowering drug for the rest of my life. I told 'em no thanks I'll watch my diet more carefully and excercise more often.

I do applaud the pharma companies for making meds that help peoples quality of life. I understand their need to make a profit. However I do have a problem with the tactics they use to peddle their products and the effect it has on doctors to prescribe their meds when perhaps other alternatives are available.

This has been amazing, due to the lack of letters today this thread has actually lasted TWO days. It will likely be gone tomorrow.

Lucid argument, Neo. I both applaud and
agree with you.

==

Dan:

The Chinese med's make my point .. did you catch how it was "prepared for distribution in New Jersey." Just because it's distributed in America does not make it inherently safer.

vs:

"The Bush administration and Republican congressional leaders have generally supported the pharmaceutical industry's opposition to Canadian imports.

"The United States is one of the few nations in which the government doesn't control drug prices, the Journal said, noting pharmaceutical companies earn the bulk of their profits in the United States."

http://www.physorg.com/news72978676.html

"You already paid the outrageous premiums (taxes),...might as well get your money's worth by going to the Dr. every time Susie's or Johnny's nose starts to drip, right?"

What if that dripping nose or a little stomach pain is a sign of something worse? How is the average Joe supposed to know? If he goes to see Doc and it is bad enough to require a 'major medical procedure' (which would be debatable anyway), then he is safe. If that stomach pain was just a bad tater or that runny nose was just a runny nose, he's out 150 bucks, probably more.

You're forgetting the power of preventive medicine. Thats what'll save money. Catch things early and we can treat em quicker and, usually, cheaper.

What if somebody gets his thumb hacked off in accident? Is that major enough? Or does he have to choose between food and 60% of his hand function? Does your market driven insurance still cover my carbon fiber right foot? at least a wheelchair?

Besides, what keeps premiums down? A larger pool of paying supporters. Increase the number of people who have insurance-->reduce the amount each one pays.

I get that you're saying the market would drive costs down. But only covering major medical procedures would discourage healthier folks from buying insurance anyway, making premiums for those who actually get sick or hurt higher than they are now and practically defeating the purpose of insurance.

"There are no reliable figures on the number of Canadians who come here for health care."

If that's the case, then why say they're fleeing Canada for US care? (Besides, they could just be casually walking.)

You're obviously not married to a woman, rahrah .. or you would know that, with kids, EVERY dripping nose is a CLEAR sign of something worse .. or so they believe.

How is the average Jo-Anne supposed to know?

Try reading, talking to friends, understanding that if three neighbor's kids run fevers with clear snot, and their Dr. says the obvious: Flu, ain't nothin' to do, don't think about callin' 'til the fever passes 102 .. then your Dr. will - or should - say the same thing.

Of course with the Pharm' Reps at his lunch table, would <> should.

Now a high fever, severe headache, and stiff neck? Better act fast dude.

Meningitis aside - most of us are way more resilient than we know ... but your wife will still want to take her precious baby boy to the Dr. whenever he has a fever with clear snot - especially when it is defacto free, monthly insurance cost aside.

... but if Mom had to pay the full $200, perhaps she'd let it go another day to see if that fever breaks for her kid as it did for the other three.

One thing the anti socialist health care folks seem to forget is the monthly insurance premium most of us pay (mine is $580 / month) - once eliminated - should offset the tax bite I'll surely be hit with ... but the other argument anti socialist health care folks make - that seems real legit - is what if I don't want (or currently don't have) monthly insurance premiums ... then it is a $580 / month adder which most cannot afford - at least and not continue with their high-speed internet connection.

There really is something legit' to both sides of the discussion.

==

Accidents and major disease are another deal ... but on the hard to justify side (but we do it anyway) are heroic rescues of gonna-be-dead-soon anyway people. Whatever happened to the years of "preparing for heaven", then as they get close we spend $4,000 per weekly treatment to keep the good Christian folk on earth?

So are heroic rescues of preemie babies who would have been common miscarriages a decade or so ago. Now we spend millions for each one. Not universal, but it is very common for women to have an early miscarriages - especially with the first pregnancy - only to again become pregnant soon after with a healthy full-term child. I think the pro-lifers feed into and off of this fiscal irresponsibility.

btw - Preventive medicine will save money ... but a lot of them natural hippy cures are not covered by anything. We all are g-man required to do the homeopathic vaccine thing before going to school.

Enough for now - gotta go save the earth.

rahrah, how do you think man survived for 4 million and 8 years without bcbs or united health care?

I based my statement on Canadians 'fleeing' Canada for health care on The Frasier Institutes's Nadeem Esmail's guesstimate of appx. 39,000 Canadians crossing the border in 2006 alone for medical treatment. He admits there is no solid stats on this, but he opines that that number is a conservative estimate and growing.

"Besides, what keeps premiums down? A larger pool of paying supporters. Increase the number of people who have insurance-->reduce the amount each one pays"...

Misery loves company...

I have followed this discussion and am glad someone has the guts to take on some of the issues that costs Americans out the wazoo. Keeping people "alive" for the sake of relatives who are not prepared to let go, is totally ludicrous. Billions of dollars are spent to keep dying people "existing" with assistance from expensive drugs, ventilators, feeding tubes.

The same is true for preemies who have multiple birth defects. We spend billions to save them and billions more to keep them sustained until one of their birth defects finally kills them.

I know this sounds harsh at first reading. However, if you had any idea how many of your tax dollars were spent on people who want to die, people who are ready to die, people in their 80's-90's whose relatives over-ride their decisions, you would be singing another tune. If you knew that the government paid mothers of infants born with severe defects to stay home and tend to their own infants, after spending billions to save them, you may understand why your healthcare costs so much.

BTW, Canadians are like us in that they complain about waits but they still prefer their socialized medicine.

Misery loves company...and so does the insurance providers.

When was the last time you heard bcbs announce that because 'Widgets Inc." has signed on as a client and we now have another 3,000 payers in the system, your premiums will be reduced x number of dollars per month?

I have set through these insurance company meetings once a year for the last 20 years and I have yet to see them reduce any premiums. Every year it goes up. What gives?

I'll tell you what gives: No true competition.

Soylent Green, Yvonne. Moses says it tastes like chicken.

"This has been amazing, due to the lack of letters today this thread has actually lasted TWO days. It will likely be gone tomorrow."

Well I was wrong. There are some really good political LTEs in todays print N&R, alas the N&R has taken it upon itself to censure those letters from the blog.

Look at the bright side, at least good letters like this will last more than a day.

"You're obviously not married to a woman, rahrah .. or you would know that, with kids, EVERY dripping nose is a CLEAR sign of something worse .. or so they believe."

Ah, perhaps my vision is a bit skewed. Raised in a hardy, southern family, we never rushed to the doctor for every little thing. My point is, where's the line between the 'little' stuff and major medical procedures?

"Accidents and major disease are another deal ... but on the hard to justify side (but we do it anyway) are heroic rescues of gonna-be-dead-soon anyway people."

Talkin bout old folks?

"rahrah, how do you think man survived for 4 million and 8 years without bcbs or united health care?"

By living to the ripe old age of thirty-five (if they were lucky).

"When was the last time you heard bcbs announce that because 'Widgets Inc." has signed on as a client and we now have another 3,000 payers in the system, your premiums will be reduced x number of dollars per month?"

Haven't heard that. Probably because BCBS is a for-profit company. And as long as none of the other major insurance companies lower their premiums, BCBS has no incentive to do any thing but jack theirs up. And, you're right, obviously that is a lack of competition, but I don't see takin out the little medical stuff as the answer because...

"I get that you're saying the market would drive costs down. But only covering major medical procedures would discourage healthier folks from buying insurance anyway, making premiums for those who actually get sick or hurt higher than they are now and practically defeating the purpose of insurance."

rahrah, there's about a 66.66% chance you will have your government controlled health care system within the decade.

Make notes and keep a personal journal now of how accessible and how high the quality of health care is in this country so you can tell your grandchildren how it was back "in the good old days" when there was no shortage of skilled physicians and one could make a phone call at 9:00am and the doctor would tell you to be there by 11.00am, if you or your child were sick and needed attention.

Enjoy your workers' paradise.

Huzzah, Yvonne, on not spending a quarter of a million dollars on keeping me alive for one or two more days once it's been determined I've got terminal cancer and it's time to go.

The fun part will be when our government eventually has to tell a 35 year old mom with a previously-curable breast cancer, "Sorry, it will cost too much," or, if they will pay, telling a crying wife and husband in April, "We can start your radiation treatment in, um... September 22 good with you?"

I can't wait.

I'm proud that we try to save our babies, and that those attempts make our infant mortality rates look worse than other countries'. And regarding money wasted, I'd say it's a waste on one side of life, but not necessarily the other. I've known plenty of old folks ready to go. Not the first little kid, though.

Well, we try to save most all of our babies, eh Obama? Those still alive after abortions, well, we've already decided they aren't babies, right? No reason to try and at least keep them warm and hold them until they die, eh? No reason for them to know the slightest bit of humanity, eh? I've treated a car-hit dog I'd never seen before better than that.

(google born-alive-act if you don't know what this is all about)

Then again, I could likely be dismissed as bitter...

Roger

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/27/opinion/main3105523.shtml

Various European Systems to learn from...

http://xnet.kp.org/kpinternational/2007%20European%20Health%20System%20Comparisons.pdf

Watched Olberman, he had a guy on, can't remember his name, but the subject was mental health services for veterans. He said it takes on instances 180 days for veterans to get mental health services.

If our govt. cannot provide adequate health services for thousands of our finest military men and women, how do you pro-govt. universal health care advocates propose they do it for over 300 million of the rest of us?

I'm sure some of you will say it's Bush's fault. Alas.

"I'm sure some of you will say it's Bush's fault".

Who the hells fault is it, Dan ?

"Then again, I could likely be dismissed as bitter..."

I won't dismiss you as bitter, Roger .. but I swear to God I don’t' get it ..

here's a story from my youth that may explain my perversion:

My 10th grade Biology teacher - I lucked out and had truly GREAT science teachers ... in a discussion about genetic death, he asked we ponder if the apple tree produced apples for our consumption...?

Underlying that, of course was the real truth: trees don't give a flying turd about people .. they flower and make apples for their own genetic preservation. That's it.

Human babies? yea the same mentality .. and in general terms they are like apples - a zillion spermazota in every dude and 40 years of eggs in every chick.

People? special. Fertilized eggs? a scientific norm.

sorry for the cavalier attitude - often it is said we do not value life high enough .. Clearly we place upon it too much value.

The Primeval Slime.

Imagine a world where life is teeming .. perhaps like the deepest Amazon jungle. You walk 3 steps and there is fruit to pull of the tree and eat. Another three steps and there are 14 chickens - reach out and grab one for dinner. Five more steps and blueberries are there for dessert. twenty more steps and you become a snack for t-rex.

that is life baby - and in our sterile world we cannot even imagine it - my wife sees a toad and freaks. In the paragraph above a toad is squashed with every step you have taken .. but there are so many you didn't even notice them nor the snake that was swallowing them whole.

We live in such a sterile world ..

"People? special"

"....twenty more steps and you become a snack for t-rex."

Why are people special if all they are is a snack for a T-Rex? That seems to contradict.

When your wife, whom I assume announced joyously that she was pregnant, did you say "that's a scientific norm honey, I'm busy reading."?

"rahrah, there's about a 66.66% chance you will have your government controlled health care system within the decade."

How d'ya figure?

"When your wife, whom I assume announced joyously that she was pregnant, did you say "that's a scientific norm honey, I'm busy reading."?"

Maybe he said, "Ooo, let's hope it becomes a people so it can be special."

Roger,

I was very clear I was talking about infants who are born with multiple birth defects and never know whether they are "alive" or not. Infants whose birth defects are likely to kill them anyway, not "normal", healthy infants. I have absolutely no issues with trying to save a child who stands a good chance of survival. They have yet to really live. At 62 I feel I have had a good, rewarding life and see no reason to spend money trying to save me when it could better be used on a young person.

You are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine. And if we disagree, so be it. That comment about being dismissed as bitter is a total assumption on your part. If you have repeated the same behaviors over and over, which leads me to believe you post as a bitter person, I have no qualms in making note of that. However, I have not observed this to be a consistent in your posts. If you feel I have referred to you as bitter, I apologize.

Sorry, Yvonne, I wasn't aiming at you. I didn't line my thoughts up well enough. I was actually supportive of your stance. I hope you'll forgive me.

---
(handy little things there that I should've used more of in that last post)

J.D.R.,

I liked your apple example. And I'd disagree a bit. As much as plants can care, they do. That's why they make colorful blossoms and tasty fruit. Even if it's selfish, they still want bees and hummingbirds and, ultimately, us, to come along and help them by spreading their genes around. And the ones that win, with bright and vital flowers and crisp and drippy fruit to show they care, get to continue their genetic trip.

(Not to be to crude, but since you brought the example up: If they could self-originate flying waste for their seeds I'm sure they'd rely on it to continue their line. Since they can't, they hope people will make use of the more normal types for distribution. Which is odd since the former seems to work fairly well for politicians...)

What bothers me is that nature loves a winner. And I can't think of many better winners than someone who has shown up to the party uninvited, alive, and against the wishes of a much smarter and more highly educated medical doctor with a staff of assistants and drugs and sharp metal poking devices and electricity and an obviously determined biological carrier/antagonist (can't really call it a mom, I suppose). But the agreed upon contract for services requires a dead baby as the end result, so a corpse must be produced or else said agreement is breached. I guess the woman could get a refund, maybe. Or at least a reduced rate. Why would they need the box for "time of death" if it was never alive?

And it's a shame. The world could use more winners. Ask any apple tree.

Roger, who is feeling particularly philosophical after a midnight snack of from-scratch banana pudding.

Dan: When my announced joyously she was pregnant, of course I put down the book to share in that joj. 10 weeks later she spotted (I think that's the term). We tried again .. hard work all that trying .. a year or so later my first born came along.

No one will be prepared to truely discuss the economics of letting nature take it's course - as I recall the death rates for becoming a mommie was surprisingly high before modern medicine. That's not right or wrong it's just a fact.

If this link works, it make my point:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0801847621/ref=sib_dp_bod_ex?ie=UTF8&p=S007#reader-link

Roger:

Agreed nature loves a winner .. but as there's more than nature involved in "sharp metal poking devices" .. there's also more than nature involved in "saving" someone who has "shown up to the party uninvited, alive, and against the wishes ... "

First off - you are thowing an abortion argument where I was really discussing the interjection of some smart educated doctors with assistants and drugs into a natural event - the body saying "let's miscarraige and let me try this again."

My mom told me she had two miscarrraiges before my older brother and another before me. My younger sister came on without any body reboot.

Second - who is acting against whom's wishes? Not the medical doctor - he's just doing what is being requested.

I'd like to see all the right to life'rs start adopting - and stop their yapping. Since we're already way off thread, here's the real deal - Abortion is a horrific event. In an ideal world it should never happen, but ain't nothing perfect 'cept Jesus and he had help. If it is being considered, it should be considered very hard and very long .. and avoided .. but if that decision is made, it should be a personal one.

Why is it all the "conservatives" who spend their time complaining about g-man involvement .. WANT g-man involvement in "their" causes. It seems false to me.

FINALLY - "About 12.5 percent of babies (more than half a million a year) in the United States are born prematurely. For reasons doctors don’t fully understand, the rate of premature birth has increased by more than 30 percent since 1981."

" average cost of $41,610 for a premature baby vs. $2,830 for a healthy, full-term baby"

... and that's an average .. since premature means about 36 weeks vs. the normal 40 .. some must be r.e.a.l.l.y expensive.

" .. 460,000 babies in the United States every year at an annual cost to employer's health plans of $4.7 billion a year and $41.25 billion of inpatient hospital services per year."

... so there is a $36 billion dollar gap .. hmmm.

Now I'm not arguing for or against anything .. but with 50 million or so uninsured - half of them women, some percentage of that half fertile, and 12.5% of them having preemies .. then the generic "you" had better be prepared to pay the cost.

J.D.R.,

I haven't been making my points well on this thread. I introduced the point to chide Obama's desire for medical care for all living people, but, due to contractual agreements, the "Woohoo! I made it! Wait, why are you putting me in this linen closet?" living people need not apply. The topic quickly branched and I went off topic. Sorry. I really enjoyed the apple tree bit, though.

On the "prepared to pay the cost" subject, I'm one of those funny ones who is anti-abortion after the heartbeat stage. G-man involvement? Not for zygotes. At the point where the difference between a premie and an abortion is method of extraction, yeah, we're arguing on finer lexical points. The thing trying to breathe doesn't realize that, though. Me? I would love to see RU-486 passed out for "high risk women" (love our new more gentle language) or, if they aren't already in camp, the uninsured, to eat like vitamin supplements, with a signed agreement that there will be no suing for problems the drugs might cause.

Not force them to eat them, but tell them if they don't want to be "punished with a baby" that they should take one in the next day or two.

Roger

" I'm one of those funny ones who is anti-abortion after the heartbeat stage."

Then you'd better start working on the Constitution .. 'cause one needs to be Born before picking up rights as an American.

... curious how Thomas comes on that one.

RU-486 ...

The funny think is those most zealous about pro-life issues were the ones that killed its use in the USA .. "fear of a foot in the door" type thing.

That pill is pretty readily available, right? And there's only one presidential candidate that would disagree with personhood being directly tied to Born. The abortion contract trumps the Constitution in his eyes according to that standard. Good to know he's pro-business, though.

It's not a make-or-break voting issue with me, but it's complicated and interesting to try to understand peoples' views. Or "present" votes.

I thought you made a great point when you mentioned Thomas, though, until I realized you were likely talking about (Clarence) Thomas and not Thomas (Jefferson), which is what I first read. On political topics the question I ask myself so often is:

WWJD?

(What would Jefferson do?)

We have the luxury of remembering him better than he probably would be, but his "wolf by the ears" quote gives us a tiny look inside the mind of a true thinking man, and I like to imagine him writing a friend saying all women should be able to have an abortion (freedom), and when they spoke to their doctor he would need to review the procedure and maybe call a fellow just to make sure they know what they're supposed to do (morals). One is something people care less about than I've ever seen. Maybe both.

There's another quote that is very fitting, by the way.

"Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem." - John Galsworthy

Roger

THanks for the discussion, Roger.

"Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem." - is exactly how I feel about it,