News-Record.com

I'd much prefer to see a letter that offers a cogent and rational argument for single payer rather than this 'What is worth!?' crap.

"What is it worth to lose half as many babies as we do now?"

Maybe, rahrah. I don't know if the above statement is true .. but if it is close, I would ask why .. and suspect it is we have an obsession - maybe even it's a contest - to extend the extremes of viability. Babies certainly survive now weeks and probably months earlier than then they would have a decade or two ago .. at great expense too.

So here's a thought: If we went to the no insurance / pay your own way model - the infant mortality rate would REALLY go up .. how do pro-lifer's feel about that? What are the alternatives to pay for keeping premie's alive beyond Bake Sales or Third Party funding - be it Insurance or Government Funding?

"For the shillrun", huh James? New angle there, for sure.

Somehow the same sheep bleating about 'single payer' healthcare just doesn't strike me as being genuinely concerned about the infant mortality rate.

I would like to see a "cogent and rational argument" for the system we have now instead of knee jerk opposition to any proposed changes.

It's a legit question, Neo ..

If the sheep are not bleating in unison it's because like most - they don't think beyond issue du jour.

'The system we have now' sucks, no argument there.

But why must the almighty government be the answer to all our problems?

So - hypothetically - a child decides to follow daddy's lead and holds only disaster policy that does not cover pregnacies - cause most are routine and cost a few thousand dollars which is easily covered by a year or so of $600 / month payments. She is not married and therefore has no spouse with a back-up policy .. you get the pic.

She has a preemie - which the Dr's can maybe deal with .. maybe .. but it'll cost $400,000 for "his first two months in the hospital ... not including certain surgeries and procedures" ... and if he survives his medical expenses will for live be damm expensive, 'cause of just one handicaps, a brain disorder called Dandy-Walker syndrome.

Well at $600 / month that's a mere 55 years of payments, not including interest.

Since Americas conversion to Pay Your Own Way medical care, insurance companies are now defunct (no more tort to worry about!) and the hospital have had a run on their funds .. so they're no so sure they can use the charitable care account ...

So Daughter comes to Dad who holds one of those old time jobs - you know the stable kind - Dad who has been frugal, growing his own veggies and such - and Daughter says, "Dad - If I don't give them a half a million dollar down payment ... "

What's a Dad (or Grandfather) to do?

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_25/b4089046084131.htm

From elsewhere:

"Preterm birth is a serious health problem that costs the nation more than $26 billion annually, according to a report from the Institute of Medicine. Nearly 543,000 babies – one out of every eight – are born too soon each year in the United States and the rate has risen more than 36 percent since the early 1980s. Preterm birth is a leading cause of newborn death and babies who do survive face the risk of lifelong health conditions."

$26 billion annually .. hey that's about how much medical tort costs according to a Towers Perrin study:

http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/showdctmdoc.jsp?url=Tillinghast/United_States/Press_Releases/2007/20071212/2007_12_12.htm

(look under ("Medical Malpractice Costs Remain Stable")

" 'The system we have now' sucks, no argument there .. But why must the almighty government be the answer to all our problems?"

I think we all agree, Neo-the-holder-of-two-third-party-medical-insurance-policies - but what are the options?

Is this letter-writer the same "James Deere" of Greensboro who had a letter on the same subject (albeit a more concise version) published by the N-R just three days ago (May 22, 2009)?

According to the "How to Write Us" instructions at the bottom of the editorial page in today's newspaper, the "one letter is allowed per writer every 30 days" is a condition for publication of letters.

Get back to grinding your ax, James. Perhaps you can slip another letter by the N-R policy enforcers before the merry month of May comes to an end.

"People in European countries and Canada seem to pay more in taxes than we do but have health outcomes about twice as good as ours."

Do you really believe this?
Do you really believe our guvmint could do this?
I don't have that much faith in those clowns in DC.

"People in European countries and Canada seem to pay more in taxes than we do but have health outcomes about twice as good as ours."

"Do you really believe this?"
Better outcomes anyway (What does twice as good mean). Look at WHO rankings.

"Do you really believe our guvmint could do this?"
At least as well as current system. Admittedly a low bar.

I don't have that much faith in those clowns in DC."
Strongest part of your argument (such as it is) but unless you think we've got a good system, what is your solution?

What I do know is we can't keep having health care costs outstripping inflation.

"What is it worth to lose half as many babies as we do now?"

Here are the CIA World Factbook data, courtesy of Wiki the infant mortality rates for the countries mentioned in the letter. UN data are also listed but not as current. However thanks to Nancy Pelosi, we all now know that the CIA consistently lies so perhaps the data are inaccurate.

Deaths per 1000 live births:

United States: 6.26

Canada: 5.04

UK: 4.85

Sweden: 2.75

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate_(2005)

So Sweden does lose less than half the babies we do in terms of deaths per 1000 births. What is left out is that Sweden has a population of 9 million, less than the population of North Carolina.

A country of over 300 million is going to have a lot more sets of 1000 births than a country of 9 million.

Interesting that Canada, a big single payer country with one tenth our population, has only one less death per thousand than we do.

Also interesting is Japan at 2.79 deaths/1000 births as they do have a sizable population. I believe they have one of the best longevity rate as well.

Japan does have mandatory health insurance for it's citizens but not single payer. Japanese can get insurance either from their employers or the govt. People can choose their providers.

I usually don't reference wiki links unless it's stats like the above, however here's another interesting one about Japans health care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Japan

Apparently they aren't perfect either, 1 in 10 deaths related to smoking, a high suicide rate, and the system gets over abused due to low out of pocket expenses. They do eat better, anyone remember seeing a fat Japanese person other than a Sumo wrestler?

JDR,

What you’re not addressing with your numbers for the cost of medical tort ($26 billion annually) is the indirect cost of defensive medicine associated with it. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates the cost of defensive medicine at $210 billion per year (http://www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/73272CB152086C6385257425006BA2FC) Reckless spending must end. The “weekend warrior” with low back pain does not always need an MRI, nor does the recreational athlete with shoulder pain. Each visit to the ER does not necessitate a CT scan or other expensive test. Why do physicians agree to order these tests? For fear of being sued if they “miss” something or make a patient upset by denying his/her request. We would make huge strides in reducing the cost of healthcare if we somehow addressed this problem.

"So Sweden does lose less than half the babies we do in terms of deaths per 1000 births. What is left out is that Sweden has a population of 9 million, less than the population of North Carolina.

A country of over 300 million is going to have a lot more sets of 1000 births than a country of 9 million. "

Fair enough. Let's just look at NC vs. Sweden.

Sweden = 2.75/1000
NC =8.5/1000

Bearing in mind of course that Sweden is significantly larger than NC.

Actually the per thousand rate is an apples to apples comparison and is fair. What is diferent is that Sweden (as well as your other example Japan) has a homogeneous well educated, affluent society with fewer class distinctions than ours also with negligible immigration.

... uh Dan .. when one uses ___ per 1000 .. that eliminates the population count issue. That's why it's done.

"What you’re not addressing ... is the indirect cost of defensive medicine .. "

I agree .. and never said it was included. In previous posts, I suggesed it might be as high as 10% - vs. the less-than-2% listed above.

Look ing at your PricewaterhouseCooper link:

"Our research found that wasteful spending in the health system has been calculated at up to $1.2 trillion of the $2.2 trillion spent in the United States, more than half of all health spending."

.. which is again something we all agree on and if we eliminated "more than half" that would put USA costs / capita (that's another ___ / 1000 type measurement - just raggin' on ya, Dan) in line with most developed countries that spend about half / capita.

I registered to get the report you were talkins about - your number of $210 billion per year in defensive medicine is confirmed .. which interestingly is also the total cost of Tort in the USA and also the total cost of inefficient claims processing (up to $210 billion annually) and care spent on preventable conditions related to obesity and overweight ($200 billion annually).

So three of those are 1/2 wasted $'s

My question would be - what can we do about it?

Another 30% of the 2.2 Trillion (damm that's a big number) is spent on the last year of people's lives .. I find that fascinating and suggest the FIRST thing we can do about it .. is to simply let people die.

More from huck's report:

#1 reason it's an issue:

Lack of priority by US government

#2 reason it's an issue:

Complex insurance payment administration

#3 reason it's an issue:

Health industry unwilling to change business practices

#4 reason it's an issue:

Political infighting

== sounds a lot like this blog!!

"Another 30% of the 2.2 Trillion (damm that's a big number) is spent on the last year of people's lives .. I find that fascinating and suggest the FIRST thing we can do about it .. is to simply let people die."

I've just gone through this and have seen first hand an enormous amount of resources thrown at what was essentially a battle that was not going to be won.

The logic is inescapable that this wasn't a wise use of finite resources.

Logic isn't the point.

With the advance of medical technology there needs to be a like advance in medical ethics that would encompass the last stages of terminal diseases. By throwing resources at a patient we can keep them alive far beyond what is in any way meaningful for a patient.

I'm not smart enough to determine what that point is for another person and I don't know anyone who is.

If medical inflation continues unabated at some point there will be a restriction of resources that are directed to terminally ill patients no matter who runs the health care system. Government or industry bureaucrats will make these decisions.

I dread that day.

"hypothetically" speaking...one's imagination is the limit in creating scaremongering scenarios.

"hypothetically". that 400g will likely be more like 100g when the third party payer is eliminated entirely. A much more manageable payment plan is now possible. $600 per month sounds reasonable now...(hypothetically speaking of course)

I read the thread twice and haven't seen it, but I apologize if anyone has mentioned this. We can talk about class distinctions and wealth and homogeneity all we want, but it comes down to simple measurements. What do we count? What do they count?

"Switzerland doesn't count the death of very small babies, less than 30 centimeters (11.8 inches) in length, as a live birth, according to Nicholas Eberstadt, a former visiting fellow at Harvard's Center for Population and Developmental Studies."

Further examples follow in the piece, as does the U.S.'s method (muscle activity, gasping, etc. counts as "alive").

http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sections/commentary/orange_grove/article_443950.php

(Nicholas Eberstadt info here- http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nicholas_Eberstadt )

(and another piece for those who enjoy citations- http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html )

Preemies? Not alive. Born with no legs? Hmm, where's that tape measure...

Do you get it yet? If they aren't counted as "alive" at birth, they won't be called dead when their heart stops beating, and you get to claim a low infant mortality rate.

It's arguably government at its finest. "...to lose half as many babies as we do now" could soon just be the same numbers-juggling game.

You're being had. Congratulations. Please turn out the lights when you're done.

I understand the concept JDR, but when you compare a country of 9 million to one of 300 million there are a lot more births here and hence, much more opportunity infant mortality.

Sir Firefly also brings up a good point that Sweden is a rather homogeneous, affluent, educated society. I would imagine the infant mortality rate here includes all babies born in the US, many of whom are the children of illegals with less prenatal care.

So how do we get there, Neo - just have a December 31st closing date?

Announcement on every insurance company door: "Starting Jan 1st 2011, all insurance companies have agreed to dissolve - bon't bother coming to work today or any other day, we are closed forever."

That's another serious question: Assuming we bought your plan - do-able as long as no one gets too sick and Dr's never make mistakes - but regardless - how do we get there? We assume your not volunteering to be the first to drop all insurance.

I mean .. if all the bad people would instead covet peace love and understanding...

What is a reasonable path?

Interesting data, Roger. Thanks.

The answers to the health care dilemma are not too difficult, in theory. A couple issues that need fixing:

- Eliminate frivolous lawsuits and exorbitant awards. This will in turn decrease defensive medicine costs. Medical mistakes must be addressed, but within reason.

- American people must be convinced that they need to take responsibility for their health. Preventive medicine is a must. We’ve become a society of people who live and act as they please until their bad habits take their toll and they become chronically ill, then they expect the doctor to “fix” them with a pill (or ten). Work on this problem and health care costs (and insurance costs) will dramatically drop. How much money is spent by insurance companies on prescription drugs that otherwise would be eliminated with patients’ lifestyle modifications? How many surgeries would be eliminated with patients’ lifestyle modifications? Obesity and physical inactivity are huge (no pun intended) contributors to this crisis.

Insurance is not necessarily a bad thing. Of course, it needs to be regulated. But focusing on the above issues will put a huge dent in the health care problem.

Since it's only 100G, I'm sure the Hospital will be fine fronting it for 30 years. At 6.5% (poor credit rating, that young daugher has) it's only $632.07 for 30 years.

http://www.mortgagecalculator.org/

With an average American salary of $24,000, that's 31% of her gross pay. I guess as long as Gramps buys diapers and formula, she can keep the kid - asl lnog as he doesn't get more sick - and she won't be buying a new car for a quite while, let alone a home. Hey maybe Gramps has some of those to loan!

"one's imagination is the limit in creating scaremongering scenarios"

So when the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud .. you find it scaremongering?

See we DO agree on a lot of stuff.

PriceWaterhouseCooper / Key findings:

Wasteful spending in the health system has been calculated at up to $1.2 trillion of the $2.2 trillion spent nationally, more than half of all health spending.

• Spending can be classified into three waste “baskets”: behavioral, clinical and operational. These baskets cross all of the health sectors and include consumers, government and industry.

• The top three areas of wasted spending are defensive medicine ($210 billion annually), inefficient claims processing (up to $210 billion annually), and care spent on preventable conditions related to obesity and overweight ($200 billion annually).

• Eight out of 10 consumers surveyed by PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Health Research Institute (HRI) said that inefficiency in the healthcare system is not only driving up healthcare costs, but impacting the quality of care.

• Consumers see themselves, government and the industry at fault for wasteful spending. For example, 86% of consumers surveyed by HRI agreed that patients going to emergency rooms for non-emergency care drives up healthcare costs. Two-thirds said that they personally had received excessive medical testing.

• When U.S. consumers were asked why they believe the U.S. healthcare system has inefficiencies that have not been resolved, nearly half said “because it is not a priority for the government.” More than a third said it was due to the health industry not being willing to change business practices.

• Key barriers to eliminating waste are culture, politics, funding and incentives, and lack of a coordinated focus.

• Solving inefficiencies means developing system-wide incentives to encourage partnerships and networks that work toward shared value.

==

Health expenditures per capita, 2005

$3,128 Australia
$3,326 Canada
$3,287 Germany
$2,330 New Zealand
$2,724 United Kingdom
$6,401 United States

"just have a December 31st closing date?"

Yes, just like that. The insurance co. employees could join the CPA's (when the convoluted tax system is trashed) and ambulance chasing lawyers in the unemployment line. Just like that.

Not to worry, though. You'll get your 'single payer system' soon enough. The first step is the little messiah's 'portability' plan. After a few months of that He and His lackeys in the press will declare that that just isn't doing the job ' the American people deserve' and the only way to correct this is universal government healthcare.

Wait and see.

and to echo rbennett, "congratulations".

"Yes, just like that."

Good luck!

Seriously - a thought out transition might actually get others to join you. Asking them to join on Tomorrow-morrow Land (Beyond Thunderdome) is a bit hollywoodish ... but maybe after a Nuc' Holocaust it would be possible.

Hey - maybe this all ties in with the Iraq to Glass plan .. damm maybe you do think long range Neo!

... just so we're clear - and to confirm I understand:

STOP all medically related insurance ... no more insurance for Doctors malpractice or general coverage to allow patients to spread their risks over some population (which is what it's suppose to be doing). Everything becomes out-of pocket ('cause heck it'll be cheaper and maybe those with expensive ailments that take 'em down are really Darwinists and they'll understand).

Now does this happen before, after, or at the same time that Social Security stops? As I recall you wanted the 14.6% paycheck withdrawals to stop the same month checks are no longer mailed out to "those who [think they] paid into the system" (any previous financial planning be damned).

... just trying to understand ...

Ya know, Neo, talking with you is sometimes like being on one side of a raging ravine. We all agree getting to the other side would be nice, but we're a bit clueless on how to cross without first falling a few hunderd feet before being swept to the abyss by the rapids below - assuming of course we survive the rocks .. and frankly, with you not willing to leap first to show us how to do it.. rather than leap to an almost certain death most of us are gonna try to make the best out of this side.

"most of us are gonna try to make the best out of this side"

See 3rd paragraph of my 1:46pm post.

Again, congratulations. You've won the battle. The outcome of the war is yet to be determined, and will likely not be until after you and I are gone.

rbennet: actually, the issue with premies is viability, and that's generally determined by weight and gestational age in the United States. Prior to 20 weeks, and less than 500 grams in weight the fetus has not developed the lungs enough to support gas exchange, nor is the central nervous system fully formed. It doesn't matter what the doctors do, there's no saving the baby and any attempts to breathe or move are merely reflexive. (source: Wong, D., Perry, S., Hockenberry, M., Lowdermilk,D. and Wilson, D. (2006). Maternal Child Nursing Care. (3rd ed). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.)

As much as we like to blame lawsuits for the increased cost of health care, it plays only a minor role--where it really hits us is where providers leave high risk speciality areas because they can't afford the premiums, creating a scarcity of providers.

The real costs come from administrative costs incurred by insurance companies who do everything they can not to pay, and providers who jack up prices in an effort to combat falling reimbursement.

Also at fault is, as JDR points out, defensive medicine--ordering unnecessary tests to avoid liability for poor outcomes.

But worse than that is ordering unnecessary tests or treatments that are not proven to work and may be worse than proven tests and treatments but are ordered because they are more expensive, therefore more profitable than older treatments.

Pharmacology is a perfect example of this. Many of the blood pressure and diabetes drugs coming on the market are no more effective than older medications, but because they are not generic they are much more expensive (thus profitable) for Big Pharma.

For real insight read Maggie Mahar's Money Driven Medicine. It has just been made into a documentary by Alex Gibney who did Enron: the Smartest Guys in the Room and Taxi to the Dark side (he won the Academy Award for this one).

Until we have transparency in how health care is bought and paid for, we will not have meaningful reform no matter what path we take.

"rbennet: actually, the issue with premies is viability..."

You're on a different page, Panacea. I referenced a binary system and how records are kept. Alive/not alive. It is unaffected by post-natal care, proper nutrition, or fuzzy pink blankets. It's a check beside yes/no in a box on a page on a clipboard that deems the breathing child alive or dead for national records.

"Switzerland doesn't count the death of very small babies, less than 30 centimeters (11.8 inches) in length, as a live birth"

That's length, not viability. Less than 30 centimeters = not alive = incapable of death in paperwork = fewer deaths immediately after birth. That's why our infant mortality rates are high. We count all babies as capable of dying, they don't consider some of their shorter babies alive. That means our respective measurements, good or bad, can't be judged against each other because they are using a different unit.

Handy numbers for political manipulation, though.

James Deere, your comments are "on target!" And the reason our health care system is such a mess is that it is set-up to generate profit! So our nation desperately needs a "non-profit" health care system. I do not believe the economic interests of the present health industry should be permitted to hold the rest of the economy hostage and threaten the health and well-being of the public. "Single-pay" is the way to go! Enough said.

JDR has mentioned many times what some in the medical field so indelicately call "flogging the dead". Rufus addressed it but most ignore it in this type discussion. Even Dan posted a website in which a medical professional was indignant because "socialized medicine" prevented a person with less than a week to live to be moved to the top of the intervention list. No one on here seemed to make note of it. However, "it" is a major player in wasteful spending of health care dollars.

Not allowing terminal people to die without wasting a few hundred thousand dollars is immoral imho. If a patient has "only a week to live", doing anything beyond comfort care is totally ludicrous. "Doing everything" to "save" a person with an imminently terminal condition makes as much sense as putting a flat tire on a car with a flat tire. Families who cannot accept that death is a natural occurrence and that not everyone can be saved should not be allowed to coerce doctors into wasting millions of dollars of the taxpayer's money. And doctors who give families false hope so they can pay for their upcoming vacations should have their medical license revoked.

In my career I have been witness to and have been forced to "code" patients with end-stage AIDS, kidney failure, respiratory failure, cancer, liver disease, Alzheimer's, lupus, heart disease, brain death and even one with a brain herniation. Any nurse who has be a part of this "flogging the dead" can relate horror stories and how it upsets them to have to treat the innocent victims with such disrespect. Pumping on their chests, breaking ribs, shoving a tube down their throats and hooking that tube to a ventilator, sticking them countless times for blood and/or IV sites and inserting tubes into almost every orifice is not humane, again imho.

And to what end? Another hour, day or week in a comatose state. Remember, we are talking about folks for whom the death knell has already begun.

Where is the outrage about this every day occurrence? Why are you folks so hell-bent on whining about malpractice costs when there are significant wastes being ignored?

"Single-pay" is the way to go!

truman, your predecessor Demon Deacon was a Canadian wannabee but your don't know the history being a newbee bomb thrower.

Canadians have a single pay health care system. Move up there and report back.

"The 2007 survey found the total median waiting time for patients between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, increased to 18.3 weeks from 17.8 weeks observed in 2006. This was primarily due to an increase in the first waiting period, between seeing the general practitioner and attending a consultation with a specialist."

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html

And of course the $4.5 billion Canadian Wait Times Reduction Fund, yep, $4.5 billion to attempt to reduce wait times.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acces/wait-attente/index-eng.php

One more:

"Significant increases in surgical capacity or diverting patients to other jurisdictions are the best ways to deal with excessive wait times for hip and knee replacement surgery – a leading symbol of underfunding in Canada's healthcare system. Politically popular strategies, such as wait time guarantees, are not likely to have much impact, according to a new study. Instead, the study suggests standardized methods of patient prioritization will ensure that the most urgent patients receive surgery first. Wait-list sharing among surgeons will also help to reduce variation in wait times for patients of similar clinical urgency."

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/10/31/wait.time.guarantees.not.likely.reduce.waits.joint.replacement.surgery

What's that old saying......oh yeah.....be careful of what you wish for, you may get it.

And remember, Canada has 1/10 the population we have.

Best not to get sick in Nova Scotia, takes almost a half year to get treatment:

Ontario recorded the shortest waiting time overall (the wait between visiting a general practitioner and receiving treatment) at 15.0 weeks, followed by British Columbia (19.0 weeks) and Quebec (19.4 weeks). Saskatchewan (27.2 weeks), New Brunswick (25.2 weeks) and Nova Scotia (24.8 weeks) recorded the longest waits in Canada.

Hey but it's free!!! Yep, single payer is the way to go!!

We went to Halifax and Sydney last year. Beautiful places and kind people, just not a good place to get sick.

Listen up, dan, you "son of a physician:" so we prioritize "wait-time" for patients! Anyway, single payer eliminates insurance companies as pricey middlemen! And it is "the system" that polls consistently have shown the American people favoring by as much as two-to-one! Enough, enough, enough said! O.K.? You right-wingnut you!

A "non-profit health care system"? Are you serious? Have you ever considered what would happen to the quality of medicine in this country under that scenario? Would the "best and brightest" minds still pursue jobs in health care? I don't think so.

A single payer system does nothing to address the problems with our nation's health care. It only assures that more people have access to it. We need to address the fundamental problems, not change to a single payer system.

A waste of time pointing out the follies of the Canadian and other socialized systems to the trumans of the country.

I think it's a class envy thing with most of them. They want everyone in the country to be equally miserable. Their main goal is 'equality' not 'quality'. Nothing would sate their sadistic appetites more than to see the 'fat cats' have to wait umpteen months for an MRI...just like the homeless guy with a cart full of tin cans.

Dan & rbennet, while I'm not ready to declare victory just yet, all this rumbling about 'health care' from the top down is leading up to something...Obuma puts it front and center on His website asking for 'input' from the droids, and dutifully they write letters to the tune of several a day bleating about the utopian systems in Europe and Canada...well, you do the math.

gorebull warming and gun control seems to have been placed on the back burner.

I wouldn't be surprised if polls indicated most Americans preferred single payer health care. The ideal sounds great, after all it's free!! Right?

Most Americans probably haven't looked at examples in other countries such as Canada, where at best (Ontario) the wait time to get treatment is almost four months and at worst (NS) it's six months.

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

Good points huck. Without financial incentive the drive to innovate and provide quality is lost. Imagine a visit to the doctor being like a visit to the DMV.

Here's an interesting article about a survey of Canadian trained doctors practicing in the USA. The survey results indicated only 13% would seriously consider returning to Canada to practice.

The respondent gave four major reasons for leaving Canada:

-- Money 52%
-- Availability of medical facilities and services 51%
-- Job vacancies 45.2%
-- Clinical autonomy 37.9%

When they were asked what might entice them back to Canada, they said:

-- Money 70.6%
-- Practice opportunities 67.9%
-- Having family nearby 61%
-- Workplace flexibility 60.4%

Hey, look what's at the top of each result, money!!

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/85323.php

************************************************
"Obuma puts it front and center on His website asking for 'input' from the droids, and dutifully they write letters to the tune of several a day.."

That might 'splain the influx of such letters, there's another one today.

*************************************************
"Nothing would sate their sadistic appetites more than to see the 'fat cats' have to wait umpteen months for an MRI."

Ain't gonna happen, the fat cats will hop a plane to India or any other country where they can get treated. It's already happening.

truman says "So our nation desperately needs a "non-profit" health care system"

Just what is this non-profit system?

Would it be like the mythical "free lunch" nobody pays for?

We do indeed have a broken health care sytem in America, however, I don't think guvmint run health care is the answer.
We need health care reform, not health care replacement.

All this talk about Sweden.

The same country that admitted to racial "purification" a decade ago.

Hell, if most of your folks are white, rich, and you've weeded out folks with health problems,

yeah, I'd guess your mortality rates would improve.

Abortions aren't included in infant mortality numbers, though.

ghost,

When you say "health care reform", what do you mean? Is this just a handy right-wing term or does it have a meaning? Would you be so kind as to explain what that phrase means to you?