PDA

View Full Version : Health Reform


Neezar
06-13-2009, 05:40 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090613/pl_politico/23697

:sad: :angry:

President Barack Obama says he's now found savings that will pay almost all the costs of a massive overhaul of America's health care (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/politico/pl_politico/storytext/23697/32355542/SIG=11mu07tv2/*http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23697.html) system.
Obama (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/politico/pl_politico/storytext/23697/32355542/SIG=11rmscfkv/*http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/PresidentObama) on Saturday is announcing an additional $313 billion in new proposed savings that he says would bring the total funding available for his top-priority health insurance reform to nearly $950 billion over 10 years.

White House officials (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/politico/pl_politico/storytext/23697/32355542/SIG=11ng2acnp/*http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/WhiteHouse) insisted the new savings were rock-solid, but also acknowledged they had yet to settle on a specific mechanism to achieve lower prescription drug costs that make up nearly one-quarter of the new savings.

“Any honest accounting must prepare for the fact that health care reform will require additional costs in the short term in order to reduce spending in the long term,” Obama says in his weekly radio and Internet address. “Today, I am announcing an additional $313 billion in savings that will rein in unnecessary spending, and increase efficiency and the quality of care.”
The new proposals from Obama came as the drive for health care reform (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/politico/pl_politico/storytext/23697/32355542/SIG=11mu07tv2/*http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23697.html) reaches a pivotal juncture in Congress. On Monday, the Senate Finance Committee is scheduled to receive Congressional Budget (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/politico/pl_politico/storytext/23697/32355542/SIG=11j5e3kto/*http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/Budget) Office estimates on a slew of health-care options. On Wednesday, the committee is expected to unveil proposed legislation.

In advance of those milestones, the White House was moving aggressively to counter public criticism that funding plans for the health reform effort are unrealistic, particularly in the face of an expected 10-year pricetag of $1 trillion or more. Some analysts have faulted the White House for being overly optimistic about savings and tone-deaf to which tax-raising proposals are likely to fly in Congress.

In his address Saturday, Obama refers to a 10-year total of more than $600 billion in “savings” for health care. However, he does not explain in his latest comments that, under his revised budget released last month, $326 billion of that amount would come from tax hikes on Americans making over $250,000 a year, “loophole closers,” and higher fees for some government services.

In a conference call with reporters Friday, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said the latest announcement signaled that the White House had met its obligation to identify funding sources for a broad-based effort to make health insurance more affordable and more widely available.

“We are making good on this promise to fully finance health care reform over the next decade,” Orszag declared.
//
The bulk of the new $313 billion in savings would come from cutting or reducing the growth of payments to hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers and laboratories — though the major cuts don't target doctors, Orszag said.


Over the next decade, $110 billion is slated to come from reducing reimbursements to take account of what Orszag described as the ability of providers to improve their efficiency. “Health care services should be able to achieve and do achieve productivity improvements over time,” he said. According to a fact sheet released by the White House, future increases in such Medicare payments would be reduced based on an assumption that health care providers achieve half the productivity increases seen elsewhere in the economy. The budget official said the reductions would take place even if providers failed to garner the projected efficiencies.
Another $106 billion would come from cuts in so-called disproportionate share payments the federal government makes to hospitals with large numbers of uninsured patients. “As the ranks of uninsured decline under health reform, those payments become less necessary,” Orszag said.

About $75 billion is slated to come from lower payments for prescription drugs. However, Orszag said the White House was “in discussions with stakeholders over the best way of achieving that $75 billion.”
Notwithstanding that ambiguity, Orszag asserted that the White House had put forward $950 billion in budgetary offsets that could be use to fund health reform. He called the proposals "hard" and "scoreable," meaning that they were sufficiently certain and specific to pass muster with CBO officials who formally tally the cost of budget items.

Asked about the discrepancy, Orszag said, “There’s been continuous skepticism that we will come forward with detail….The detail on the $75 billion for prescription drugs will be forthcoming in the very near future and I will rest my reputation as a former CBO director on the fact that there are multiple ways in which those savings can be achieved and we are committed to achieving that level of savings in this package.”

There were signs that the announcement of the additional $313 billion of savings may have been rushed. In addition to the vagueness about the $75 billion in lower drug costs, the White House’s health care reform coordinator, Nancy-Ann DeParle, did not join a conference call with reporters to announce the new proposals. Her presence had been advertised in advance, but a spokesman said she was in another meeting and could not participate.


The cuts and savings are likely to engender warnings from providers that de-facto rationing will occur as patients in some areas find themselves unable to find providers willing to perform lab tests, X-rays and the like, due to the lower reimbursement rates.

Hospitals are also likely to protest that the disproportionate share payments, which are targeted for cuts of 75 percent, are vital to maintaining hospitals in costly urban centers, and to keeping teaching hospitals viable.
“It is unlikely to be an exact match on a hospital-by-hospital basis but what we believe will occur is that the remaining DSH payments that will still exist can be better targeted to the hospitals most in need,” Orszag said.

Neezar
06-13-2009, 05:43 PM
The bulk of the new $313 billion in savings would come from cutting or reducing the growth of payments to hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers and laboratories — though the major cuts don't target doctors, Orszag said.


The US has an average of 89 MRI machines per 1 million people. In the UK, they have 17 or 18 (can't remember which). That is how they cut costs. Imagine the wait time with so few machines. Those kinds of cuts does not equal better health care.

Neezar
06-13-2009, 05:44 PM
Over the next decade, $110 billion is slated to come from reducing reimbursements to take account of what Orszag described as the ability of providers to improve their efficiency. “Health care services should be able to achieve and do achieve productivity improvements over time,” he said. According to a fact sheet released by the White House, future increases in such Medicare payments would be reduced based on an assumption that health care providers achieve half the productivity increases seen elsewhere in the economy. The budget official said the reductions would take place even if providers failed to garner the projected efficiencies.


I would love to hear an opinion from someone on what you think this means! Especially from someone who is pro National health care.

Neezar
06-13-2009, 05:46 PM
The cuts and savings are likely to engender warnings from providers that de-facto rationing will occur as patients in some areas find themselves unable to find providers willing to perform lab tests, X-rays and the like, due to the lower reimbursement rates.

Exactly!

Neezar
06-13-2009, 05:47 PM
Some people still call this 'free' health care. It is not free. The people who work and pay taxes pay for this.

It amazes me that people think that in America, Land of the Free, it is okay to force me to pay for other people's insurance.

Neezar
06-13-2009, 05:57 PM
Yes, I am on a roll here. lol


Another point, National healthcare, ie Government controlled healthcare, also means that the Government has a hand in deciding who qualifies for what type of healthcare and when.

For instance, In the US 93% of people who are diagnosed with diabetes see a doctor for it within 6 months whether they have insurance or not. In the UK, 43-46% see a doctor withing 6 months. That is 6 months worth of damage to your body.

And take something like a hip replacement. In the UK a 30 year old will get in to surgery before a 80 year old meemaw. The government don't usually take in to account things like - does that 80 year old live alone? Does she have someone to help take care of her? Cook for her? shop for her? A 30 year old can survive and get by much better than an 80 year old (usually).

atomdanger
06-13-2009, 05:57 PM
The US has an average of 89 MRI machines per 1 million people. In the UK, they have 17 or 18 (can't remember which). That is how they cut costs. Imagine the wait time with so few machines. Those kinds of cuts does not equal better health care.

MRI machines? Come on.. When was the last time you were in line for an MRI?
Wait times?

How many MRI's do you think the average person gets in a lifetime?

Neezar
06-13-2009, 06:00 PM
However, Orszag said the White House was “in discussions with stakeholders over the best way of achieving that $75 billion.”



There was an article recently in a medical journal about a promising new cancer drug. The UK had said that they couldn't afford it right now so it isn't available to it's people.


Talk about the US needing to learn from other countries!

atomdanger
06-13-2009, 06:02 PM
You also just can't compare to the UK.

We're the only industrialized country without health care,
doesn't that bother you?

and America is by far not top notch.
Look up polls, mortality rates, etc...

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
Just that one, for instance, by the World Health Org ranks us 37th.
(this one was done in 2000, but has it changed much in America?,
and it was just an example)

Neezar
06-13-2009, 06:03 PM
MRI machines? Come on.. When was the last time you were in line for an MRI?
Wait times?

How many MRI's do you think the average person gets in a lifetime?

That is EXACTLY the line of thinking that I am talking about.


Ask Dave how long it took him to get one.

If you have a condition requiring an MRI then it is USUALLY something where getting it in a timely manner would most certainly make a difference. That is why I chose it as an example. But the same is true with ALL medical equipment. Under National health care programs equipment is one of the first things cut.

Neezar
06-13-2009, 06:06 PM
You also just can't compare to the UK.

We're the only industrialized country without health care,
doesn't that bother you?

and America is by far not top notch.
Look up polls, mortality rates, etc...

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
Just that one, for instance, by the World Health Org ranks us 37th.
(this one was done in 2000, but has it changed much in America?,
and it was just an example)

I am using the UK because it is one of the worst. Canada doesn't have much better numbers than the UK.

And no it doesn't bother me that we don't have nationalize health care. I think it sucks.

Does it bother you that the government wants to force you to pay for someone else's insurance (and shytty insurance to boot)?

Oh wait....Do YOU have a job? Do you have insurance?

atomdanger
06-13-2009, 06:08 PM
That is EXACTLY the line of thinking that I am talking about.


Ask Dave how long it took him to get one.

If you have a condition requiring an MRI then it is USUALLY something where getting it in a timely manner would most certainly make a difference. That is why I chose it as an example. But the same is true with ALL medical equipment. Under National health care programs equipment is one of the first things cut.

"Canada has 4.6 MRI scanners per million population while the U.S. had 19.5 per million. Canada's 10.3 CT scanners per million also ranked behind the U.S., which had 29.5 per million"

What about Canada?
They have a higher life expectancy and a better mortality rate than us.
You can't have EVERYTHING, and I personally would rather have to wait for an MRI and not worry about the bill.
People are so silly, you get caught up in the propaganda that the government is going to tell you what Dr to see,
and you're going to die of cancer while you wait for treatment,
and that just isn't the truth.

atomdanger
06-13-2009, 06:11 PM
I am using the UK because it is one of the worst. Canada doesn't have much better numbers than the UK.

And no it doesn't bother me that we don't have nationalize health care. I think it sucks.

Does it bother you that the government wants to force you to pay for someone else's insurance (and shytty insurance to boot)?

Oh wait....Do YOU have a job? Do you have insurance?

I do have a job, probably a better one than you,
but unlike a lot of people who act like they care, I actually DO care about people.

and I don't think a US citizen should be without health care.
Not to mention, a LOT of jobs don't offer health care.

Also, we spend more money on healthcare than Canada does,
(higher figure, and a higher percentage. In 2004, Canada government-spending was $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government-spending $2,724.)
and we have 50 million American's who aren't covered.

Neezar
06-13-2009, 06:21 PM
You would have to read this article to understand that ranking systems. They tell how they set it up and how they grade it. For instance, on ranking is based on what they think is fair. lol. I'm not sure who gets to decide. Also, we ranked #1 in two of their categories. You have to understand quite a bit about the WHO to understand these rankings. Also, keep in mind that the WHO wants nationalized health care. They have more power and influence with National health care countries.



http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

Neezar
06-13-2009, 06:27 PM
"Canada has 4.6 MRI scanners per million population while the U.S. had 19.5 per million. Canada's 10.3 CT scanners per million also ranked behind the U.S., which had 29.5 per million"

What about Canada?
They have a higher life expectancy and a better mortality rate than us.
You can't have EVERYTHING, and I personally would rather have to wait for an MRI and not worry about the bill.
People are so silly, you get caught up in the propaganda that the government is going to tell you what Dr to see,
and you're going to die of cancer while you wait for treatment,
and that just isn't the truth.

My point was with an MRI the wait could kill ya.
(edit: I have an MRI of the head in mind. lol. Not of your knees etc. I work in the ER and kinda have that mindset.)

We already have free health care. EVERY county in the US have free clinics. If you have a need it is there. The only complaint with those is the wait. As a matter of fact, the last complaint that I heard from you was the wait time in the ER. Well, you can triple that with Nationalized health care. But no, you personally won't have a bill. I will be paying it with my taxes. :wink:

NateR
06-13-2009, 06:37 PM
I spent ten years under the free healthcare of the US military and I think it's absolute stupidity that we are going to nationalize healthcare in this nation.

This country not only survived over 200 years without national healthcare, but we became the most powerful nation in the world. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that we suddenly need it now.

Also, show me exactly where in the Constitution that it says that Americans are entitled to healthcare.

NateR
06-13-2009, 06:42 PM
and I personally would rather have to wait for an MRI and not worry about the bill.

Seriously, that's just idiotic.

Ask any veteran how healthy and happy they are spending half of their lives waiting for care in VA hospitals. My brother tried to take advantage of the VA medical system and it took him six months just to get a blood test and even when he showed up for that blood test and sat two hours in the waiting room, it was cancelled and rescheduled for three months later.

But if you don't mind waiting.... :rolleyes:

Josh
06-13-2009, 06:56 PM
Almost everyone I know has a general distrust for the government yet many of those people want to let them run their health care. Neezar is an RN if I remember correctly
and I personally work in health care and most of the people I talk to are scared to dealth of national health care. That includes some pretty hardcore liberals.

NateR
06-13-2009, 07:08 PM
Almost everyone I know has a general distrust for the government yet many of those people want to let them run their health care. Neezar is an RN if I remember correctly
and I personally work in health care and most of the people I talk to are scared to dealth of national health care. That includes some pretty hardcore liberals.

The government can barely run the post office. I don't see how they could possibly manage the health of every American citizen, aside from controlling our every action and essentially squashing our freedoms to "protect" our health. Of course, they are already doing that with the cigarette companies.

I seriously don't understand how anyone would be STUPID enough to want to trust their lives to some detached, overworked, uncaring, government bureaucrat. Again, talk to our veterans and see just how satisfied they are with their free healthcare.

atomdanger
06-13-2009, 07:21 PM
Seriously, that's just idiotic.

Ask any veteran how healthy and happy they are spending half of their lives waiting for care in VA hospitals. My brother tried to take advantage of the VA medical system and it took him six months just to get a blood test and even when he showed up for that blood test and sat two hours in the waiting room, it was cancelled and rescheduled for three months later.

But if you don't mind waiting.... :rolleyes:

and that is idiotic.

Ask any cancer victim who is in debt how they feel about their bill,
or losing their home, or going into debt....

Also, when you're in the military you can go to any emergency room in the country and be treated for free.
So... why didn't he go to a different hosp?
Not to mention, your comparison of military healthcare doesn't work.
Other countries (almost EVERY other one) have healthcare and better numbers than us. So.....

By the statistics, they are doing better than us, and saving money.

atomdanger
06-13-2009, 07:22 PM
My point was with an MRI the wait could kill ya.

We already have free health care. EVERY county in the US have free clinics. If you have a need it is there. The only complaint with those is the wait. As a matter of fact, the last complaint that I heard from you was the wait time in the ER. Well, you can triple that with Nationalized health care. But no, you personally won't have a bill. I will be paying it with my taxes. :wink:

Every county has a free clinic? You're wrong.

Not only that, but most free clinics only see a certain amount of people a day,
AND they do not do any emergency treatment, they will send you to the ER.

and no, WE will be paying it. Also, other countries spend LESS on healthcare than we do already.
So the myth than universal healthcare is more expensive is a complete joke.

oh, and why do you keep missing the part that LESS people are dying from things in other countries than they are here.
So the wait for the MRI isn't going to kill you, its ok. They have better mortality rates, look at the NUMBERS.

atomdanger
06-13-2009, 07:25 PM
The government can barely run the post office. I don't see how they could possibly manage the health of every American citizen, aside from controlling our every action and essentially squashing our freedoms to "protect" our health. Of course, they are already doing that with the cigarette companies.

I seriously don't understand how anyone would be STUPID enough to want to trust their lives to some detached, overworked, uncaring, government bureaucrat. Again, talk to our veterans and see just how satisfied they are with their free healthcare.

I think its a joke that every American sees things working all over the world,
but some how convinces themselves that OUR way of doing things is better.

Its a good giggle, and its that attitude that makes a lot of people hate us.
We think we're so much better, we do everything right, and we can't learn from anybody.

I think its sad as "the most powerful nation on earth" we can't figure out a way to have healthcare.
Very sad...

NateR
06-13-2009, 07:40 PM
and that is idiotic.

Ask any cancer victim who is in debt how they feel about their bill,
or losing their home, or going into debt....

Also, when you're in the military you can go to any emergency room in the country and be treated for free.
So... why didn't he go to a different hosp?
Not to mention, your comparison of military healthcare doesn't work.
Other countries (almost EVERY other one) have healthcare and better numbers than us. So.....

By the statistics, they are doing better than us, and saving money.

I don't buy that. I've heard that the mortality rates and the quality of healthcare in countries like England and Canada are much, much worse than what we have here in the United States.

And do you honestly believe that a person who makes $20,000 a year is going to get free cancer treatment at the expense of our government? That's ridiculous, that person will get shuffled into the system in the hopes that they die before the government has to spend a single penny to make them healthy.

It's not going to work; but I guess some people are just going to have to find that out the hard way and pay with their lives or the lives of their loved ones.

Neezar
06-13-2009, 07:41 PM
Every county has a free clinic? You're wrong.

Not only that, but most free clinics only see a certain amount of people a day,
AND they do not do any emergency treatment, they will send you to the ER.

and no, WE will be paying it. Also, other countries spend LESS on healthcare than we do already.
So the myth than universal healthcare is more expensive is a complete joke.

oh, and why do you keep missing the part that LESS people are dying from things in other countries than they are here.
So the wait for the MRI isn't going to kill you, its ok. They have better mortality rates, look at the NUMBERS.

They spend less because they cut corners. lol.

And don't quote me numbers on mortality rates. The rates given are what is reported. Denmark just completed a study. They decided years ago that women didn't really need yearly mammograms and all this preventattive stuff for women's breast cancer. The study showed that 39% of women who died had breast cancer. The cause of death was listed as other causes. So, they proposed that their study showed that all those preventive measures WERE unneccessary that these women died anyway.

:laugh: What you have to truly consider is who got to decide the cause of death and did they have anything influencing their decision.

Tyburn
06-13-2009, 07:43 PM
The US has an average of 89 MRI machines per 1 million people. In the UK, they have 17 or 18 (can't remember which). That is how they cut costs. Imagine the wait time with so few machines. Those kinds of cuts does not equal better health care.
I had to wait 14 months for my MRI scan...but actually, only two months of that was an actual wait...it took twelve months to see the Neurologist to decide if I actually needed an MRI scan :laugh:

Neezar
06-13-2009, 07:45 PM
Every county has a free clinic? You're wrong.

Not only that, but most free clinics only see a certain amount of people a day,
AND they do not do any emergency treatment, they will send you to the ER.

and no, WE will be paying it. Also, other countries spend LESS on healthcare than we do already.
So the myth than universal healthcare is more expensive is a complete joke.

oh, and why do you keep missing the part that LESS people are dying from things in other countries than they are here.
So the wait for the MRI isn't going to kill you, its ok. They have better mortality rates, look at the NUMBERS.

Tell me a county that doesn't have a free clinic.

Free clinics only see a certain number of patient's per day because they are TOLD that is all they can see. EVERY medical facility will be that way under Nationalized health care. Didn't you read the article? They will be told 'You operate under this budget and you get not a penny more.' AND they are expected to cut budget every year because as they get better at what they do they should be more proficient therefore cutting costs every year. How many businesses do you know that cut their costs every year?

Tyburn
06-13-2009, 07:45 PM
I would love to hear an opinion from someone on what you think this means! Especially from someone who is pro National health care.
I would say, He's moving towards Nationalizing the Health Service.

I think you havent got anything to worry about though. He's bluffing over funds. He cant possibly Nationalize in time for the next Ellection. So I think you will just watch a slow slide to nationalism that either dies through lack of funds (in which case he will pretend it was never his idea in the first place) or you will see it abruptly reversed after the next General.

Neezar
06-13-2009, 07:46 PM
I had to wait 14 months for my MRI scan...but actually, only two months of that was an actual wait...it took twelve months to see the Neurologist to decide if I actually needed an MRI scan :laugh:

Exactly! And luckily nothing was wrong. If you have a condition that truly needs a MRI to diagnose then 14 months will literally determine whether you live or die.

Tyburn
06-13-2009, 07:48 PM
I am using the UK because it is one of the worst. Canada doesn't have much better numbers than the UK.

And no it doesn't bother me that we don't have nationalize health care. I think it sucks.

Does it bother you that the government wants to force you to pay for someone else's insurance (and shytty insurance to boot)?

Oh wait....Do YOU have a job? Do you have insurance?
:laugh: he doesnt need one. Soon you will be paying for him :laugh:

OMG...thats actually the truth :unsure-1:

Tyburn
06-13-2009, 07:50 PM
The government can barely run the post office.
:laugh: :laugh:

Our Government has done so poorly with Royal Mail, they have sold half of it to continental Europe :laugh:

OMG...thats the truth also :sad:

Tyburn
06-13-2009, 07:52 PM
I don't buy that. I've heard that the mortality rates and the quality of healthcare in countries like England and Canada are much, much worse than what we have here in the United States.

:ninja: Coz we have a stupidly over populated Country, and you have a stupidly sparsely populated one :mellow:

Tyburn
06-13-2009, 07:57 PM
Exactly! And luckily nothing was wrong. If you have a condition that truly needs a MRI to diagnose then 14 months will literally determine whether you live or die.
:unsure-1: Thats what I thought at the time. I beleieved I was gonna die Denise :cry: Noone believed that I was even unwell.

I think that if they had believed me, they might have sped the process up...but my comfort was...that if something went really wrong, there would come a point where I would be rushed to hospital...and then they would give me an MRI RIGHT AWAY...with a little bit of luck it wouldnt be too late :unsure:

The Bad thing about the United States is that the Americans basically SELF-PERSCRIBE...and that is nigh on sinful. I've seen that you let your drugs company ADVERTIZE on TV. that is SO wrong.

So long as you wouldnt let a person with no insurance, die on the street, then I dont really think it matters about nationalizing your health care system...although it is considered a right to Europeans in the same way you have a right to bear Arms...we have the right to healthcare...your right its actually not free...its paid for in taxes. :ninja: but to us the illusion passed is that it IS free...and it feels free :blink: :laugh:

Neezar
06-13-2009, 08:03 PM
:unsure-1: Thats what I thought at the time. I beleieved I was gonna die Denise :cry: Noone believed that I was even unwell.

I think that if they had believed me, they might have sped the process up...but my comfort was...that if something went really wrong, there would come a point where I would be rushed to hospital...and then they would give me an MRI RIGHT AWAY...with a little bit of luck it wouldnt be too late :unsure:

The Bad thing about the United States is that the Americans basically SELF-PERSCRIBE...and that is nigh on sinful. I've seen that you let your drugs company ADVERTIZE on TV. that is SO wrong.

So long as you wouldnt let a person with no insurance, die on the street, then I dont really think it matters about nationalizing your health care system...although it is considered a right to Europeans in the same way you have a right to bear Arms...we have the right to healthcare...your right its actually not free...its paid for in taxes. :ninja: but to us the illusion passed is that it IS free...and it feels free :blink: :laugh:

Do you pay a percentage of your income or a set amount?

Neezar
06-13-2009, 08:24 PM
What about Canada?
They have a higher life expectancy and a better mortality rate than us.


I couldn't find this. Can you show me where you found this?

atomdanger
06-13-2009, 08:39 PM
I don't buy that. I've heard that the mortality rates and the quality of healthcare in countries like England and Canada are much, much worse than what we have here in the United States.


It's not going to work; but I guess some people are just going to have to find that out the hard way and pay with their lives or the lives of their loved ones.

You heard?
You heard from who?

(First number is US, the USA, the second is Canada)

U.S. Canada
Life Expectancy (Male) 74.8 77.4
Life Expectancy (Female) 80.1 82.4
Infant Mortality/1000 live births 6.8 5.3
Obesity Rate (Male) 31.1 17.0
Obesity Rate (Female) 32.2 19.0
HC spending as % of GDP (2005) 16.0% 10.4%

atomdanger
06-13-2009, 08:42 PM
I couldn't find this. Can you show me where you found this?

http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/10/02/health-care-system-grudge-match-canada-vs-us/
http://vorg.ca/2283-Healthcare-battle-Canada-vs-USA

http://randomdude.com/images/us-canada-health.gif

I could go for days.

http://i44.tinypic.com/2a5autw.jpg

atomdanger
06-13-2009, 08:44 PM
The Bad thing about the United States is that the Americans basically SELF-PERSCRIBE...and that is nigh on sinful. I've seen that you let your drugs company ADVERTIZE on TV. that is SO wrong.

So long as you wouldnt let a person with no insurance, die on the street, then I dont really think it matters about nationalizing your health care system...although it is considered a right to Europeans in the same way you have a right to bear Arms...we have the right to healthcare...your right its actually not free...its paid for in taxes. :ninja: but to us the illusion passed is that it IS free...and it feels free :blink: :laugh:

They advertise everywhere, city buses, magazines, tv, etc...

They can also give Dr's gifts, and money. O_o
How can this be seen as a good idea?

atomdanger
06-13-2009, 08:46 PM
Tell me a county that doesn't have a free clinic.

Free clinics only see a certain number of patient's per day because they are TOLD that is all they can see. EVERY medical facility will be that way under Nationalized health care. Didn't you read the article? They will be told 'You operate under this budget and you get not a penny more.' AND they are expected to cut budget every year because as they get better at what they do they should be more proficient therefore cutting costs every year. How many businesses do you know that cut their costs every year?

They are not TOLD thats how many they can see.
They are funded by DONATION and that is all they can afford to see.

The government doesn't fund a free clinic in every county, sorry.
In fact, I do not know of ANY government funded ones.

NateR
06-13-2009, 08:47 PM
You heard? lol
You heard from who? "they"?

That was a good laugh. (First number is US, the USA, the second is Canada)

U.S. Canada
Life Expectancy (Male) 74.8 77.4
Life Expectancy (Female) 80.1 82.4
Infant Mortality/1000 live births 6.8 5.3
Obesity Rate (Male) 31.1 17.0
Obesity Rate (Female) 32.2 19.0
HC spending as % of GDP (2005) 16.0% 10.4%

Y'know, I've heard that 78% of statistics are just made up on the spot. :tongue0011:

What's your source for this? Who compiled the data? Did these numbers come from a group who supports socialized medicine? Are we sure that they didn't massage the numbers to support one agenda over another? Where did they get their data from? Did the hospitals and doctors report the data honestly and accurately? What was the sample size used to generate these percentages? How much time elapsed during these studies?

There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. I see no reason to believe that those numbers represent the truth. You might be willing to just blindly accept any numbers thrown at you that reinforce your world view, but I prefer to be a little more discerning and intelligent about it.

Again, I'm speaking as someone who spent over 10 years under a form of free healthcare, in the US Army. From my experiences, it's not worth the price.

NateR
06-13-2009, 08:49 PM
http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/10/02/health-care-system-grudge-match-canada-vs-us/
http://vorg.ca/2283-Healthcare-battle-Canada-vs-USA

http://randomdude.com/images/us-canada-health.gif

I could go for days.

http://i44.tinypic.com/2a5autw.jpg

Oh yeah, the World Health Organization, now there's a reliable source of information. :rolleyes:

atomdanger
06-13-2009, 09:25 PM
Oh yeah, the World Health Organization, now there's a reliable source of information. :rolleyes:

Oh, pick and choose what you argue with. Its fine with me.

But the US Cancer Statistic Group and the Canadian Cancer Society are no good?
and the other source, the CIA Factbook for disease control?
and since when did WHO not become a reliable source?

What would be a satisfactory source of information for you?

You argue with numbers, but show NO evidence to argue, none.
You can only say that you aren't going to accept numbers, and that army medical sucks.

These aren't studies, these are figured from reported cases of cancer,
and reported deaths. It isn't some poll.

You can look up the number for days, and basically all you're going to say is, since you were in the Army, and it sucked,
then it must not work anywhere. And even though no numbers support your claims, that our health care MUST be better.
Show me a single statistic to prove our healthcare system is better....

When you say you refuse to accept ANY numbers you're basically saying you refuse to accept evidence,
moreover, you don't give any examples of something you would accept as evidence.
So you're admitting your mind cannot be changed, and you are not open to change.
When we are no longer open to the idea of change, or open to learning new things, we're wasting space.

NateR
06-13-2009, 09:37 PM
Oh, pick and choose what you argue with. Its fine with me.

But the US Cancer Statistic Group and the Canadian Cancer Society are no good?
and the other source, the CIA Factbook for disease control?
and since when did WHO not become a reliable source?

What would be a satisfactory source of information for you?

You argue with numbers, but show NO evidence to argue, none.
You can only say that you aren't going to accept numbers, and that army medical sucks.

These aren't studies, these are figured from reported cases of cancer,
and reported deaths. It isn't some poll.

You can look up the number for days, and basically all you're going to say is, since you were in the Army, and it sucked,
then it must not work anywhere. And even though no numbers support your claims, that our health care MUST be better.
Show me a single statistic to prove our healthcare system is better....

When you say you refuse to accept ANY numbers you're basically saying you refuse to accept evidence,
moreover, you don't give any examples of something you would accept as evidence.
So you're admitting your mind cannot be changed, and you are not open to change.
When we are no longer open to the idea of change, or open to learning new things, we're wasting space.

I don't believe that any world organization has the best interests of the United States in mind. These big worldwide government agencies only want control over every aspect of our lives. I'm more concerned that the freedoms and rights guaranteed to us under our Constitution are preserved.

Again, we became the most powerful nation in the world without nationalized health care, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that we suddenly need it now. It's all just paranoia and fear-mongering.

NateR
06-13-2009, 09:45 PM
When we are no longer open to the idea of change, or open to learning new things, we're wasting space.

One last thing, nice bit of open-mindedness there. Anyone who disagrees with you is suddenly not worthy of living? :rolleyes:

If I don't believe that doctors or scientists are qualified to make those decisions, then I definitely don't believe that you are.

If you are so convinced that government run healthcare is a good idea, then go move to a country that provides it. Don't try to force it on people who don't want it and who would prefer to make their own decisions about their lives and their children's lives, rather than put all of their trust into some bloated government bureaucracy.

I guess "freedom of choice" only applies if you want to murder a baby.

Neezar
06-13-2009, 10:35 PM
They are not TOLD thats how many they can see.
They are funded by DONATION and that is all they can afford to see.

The government doesn't fund a free clinic in every county, sorry.
In fact, I do not know of ANY government funded ones.

Where do you live and I shall enlighten you?


:laugh:

Neezar
06-13-2009, 10:36 PM
http://i44.tinypic.com/2a5autw.jpg

Am I reading that wrong or have we got Canada beat on the Cancer front? :huh:

NateR
06-13-2009, 10:47 PM
Am I reading that wrong or have we got Canada beat on the Cancer front? :huh:

In some forms of cancer, Americans seem to be healthier. Overall, though, I'm not seeing enough variance in those numbers to make me believe that a complete overhaul of our healthcare system is required. Now, if the instances in America were 2 or 3 times higher than Canada, then you could make the point that something needs to be done here; but 2 percentage points here, half a percentage point there is not enough to convince me.

Besides, the Canadian population (as of 2008) was about 33 million people. The US population, in 2008, was 303 million, almost ten times more people. Thus, measuring percentages like this is deceptive.

Neezar
06-13-2009, 10:52 PM
You heard?
You heard from who?

(First number is US, the USA, the second is Canada)

U.S. Canada
Life Expectancy (Male) 74.8 77.4
Life Expectancy (Female) 80.1 82.4
Infant Mortality/1000 live births 6.8 5.3
Obesity Rate (Male) 31.1 17.0
Obesity Rate (Female) 32.2 19.0

HC spending as % of GDP (2005) 16.0% 10.4%


Atom, you seriously have to consider the source and how the information is reported. None of them report the same.

For example in the Infant Mortality rate:

Part of Canada's guidelines for reporting



Definition: Number of infants who die in the first year of life, expressed as a rate per 1,000 live births.

A long-established measure, not only of child health, but also of the well-being of a society. Reflects the level of mortality, health status, and health care of a population, and the effectiveness of preventive care and the attention paid to maternal and child health.

Source: Canadian Vital Statistics Database, Statistics Canada

1.4 Perinatal Mortality Rate

Definition: Annual number of stillbirths and early neonatal deaths (deaths in the first week of life) per 1,000 total births (includes stillbirths). Stillbirths are defined here as gestational age of 28 or more weeks. Unknown gestational age is excluded in both numerator and denominator.

The probability that a fetus considered to be viable will be stillborn or will die before the end of the first week of life. Reflects standards of obstetric and pediatric care, as well as the effectiveness of public health initiatives.

Source: Canadian Vital Statistics Database, Statistics Canada
1.5, 1.6



Part of the US guidelines for reporting


Fetal death refers to the spontaneous intrauterine death of a fetus at any time during pregnancy. Fetal deaths later in pregnancy (at 20 weeks of gestation or more, or 28 weeks or more, for example) are also sometimes referred to as stillbirths. In the United States, State laws require the reporting of fetal deaths, and Federal law mandates national collection and publication of fetal death data. Most states report fetal deaths of 20 weeks of gestation or more and/or 350 grams birthweight. However, a few states report fetal deaths for all periods of gestation. Fetal death data is published annually by the National Center for Health Statistics, in reports and as individual-record data files.

Black Mamba
06-13-2009, 10:59 PM
Again, I'm speaking as someone who spent over 10 years under a form of free healthcare, in the US Army. From my experiences, it's not worth the price.

Here, here!

I've been under the free healthcare via the Navy for soon to be 20 yrs and that stops at 23. Am I glad? You bet your bottom dollar I am! Military healthcare sucks. As a retired dependent, we get treated horrible. Even the retirees get treated pretty bad (although slightly better then their dependents). Active duty for the most part gets better treatment. They don't know how lucky they are until they hit retiree status. So in the words of my Dad, " I (he) served 20 f-ing years for my country. I am a f-ing veteran. And this is how I get treated?"

Here's a few examples:

I never got a MRI on my knee down because of the price. The doctors assumed that I just tore a tendon, wrapped me up, and sent me home. They thought it was too costly to do the procedure.

I had to wait for almost two years to finally get some momentum on my ab issues. And now I wait again for 3 going on 4 months to get another injection. Heck I have to hunt these people done to get an appointment still. "Oh I'll call you to set an appointment up." BS!

My poor Mom came close to losing her sight and on the verge of heart attack because these idiots at the Naval Hospital waited on her paper work. In addition, we got even more idiots for doctors who don't want to anything for her carpal tunnel.

Then a lot of the doctors there don't give a rats hoot about you after surgery. You have to go through hell just to get a follow up.

If this nationalized healthcare is anything similar to what the military offers, then God bless us.

Neezar
06-13-2009, 11:06 PM
You would have to read this article to understand that ranking systems. They tell how they set it up and how they grade it. For instance, on ranking is based on what they think is fair. lol. I'm not sure who gets to decide. Also, we ranked #1 in two of their categories. You have to understand quite a bit about the WHO to understand these rankings. Also, keep in mind that the WHO wants nationalized health care. They have more power and influence with National health care countries.



http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).


Reminder that WHO bases some of their rankings on the opinion of the people. If you have people with higher expectations then that info is subjective.


Take this comment for instance:
people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system

How many poor people are going to say that they recieved the same treatment that a rich man would have, whether they actually did or not? :Whistle:

Tyburn
06-13-2009, 11:31 PM
Do you pay a percentage of your income or a set amount?
Percentage of Income.

We pay whats called "Income Tax" which I reckon is close to a quarter of what I earn every month. Then we pay a tiny ammount on something called National Insurance, which is for our State Pension when we retire.

Those monies you never see, the Government takes it right out your pay packet.

Then you have to pay a monthly sum to the Council for "Council Tax" that goes on things like emergency services, waste disposal etc.

If you own a car, you also pay "road tax" if you own a TV you must pay for a Liscense also.

I get paid about 1K a month (just under) 200 right away on Income and Nation, 100 right away for Council, about 400 for rent, 50 for TV/Broadband/licsence...then I got Water, Gas, Electricity say it all equals another 50.

200 pounds per month is left to live on. I live off £30 per week, which gets rid of 100 instantly, I now pay 30 for the Gym again each month. That leaves me with a margin of error round about £50 per month. for ANYTHING else...everytime I go to the cinema...that might be 10 (do that once a month) every time I have my hair shaved another 5...then what if I have to...for example go to Cage Glaidators...well..damn it...out come the savings...

Plus...cost of living is so much more in the UK then the US, and Harrogate Area is extremely expensive on top of that.

its a nightmare...and then they tell me no interest on savings because of the recession which wasnt MY fault :ninja: :laugh:

mscomc
06-13-2009, 11:39 PM
Hey guys, just my two cents:

As someone who has lived under nationalized health care my whole life (Canada born and raised), I am pretty happy with my health care, I have lived in many cities and received care in many cities, and it has been pretty consistent for me. I have never had outrageous wait times. For example, when I have to go to a walk in clinic, the most I have ever waited 2hrs….and this is after 100’s of visits. I can get requisitions for blood work at the drop of a pin from a family physician, and get the blood drawn that day, and if my results are bad they call you to inform you to make an appointment usually within 2 days.

About the “free-clinics” in the states, which I went to a few times only really to pick my relatives after their shifts (who are physicians)… It seemed to me, that the free clinics are really only cater to: Druggies, pimps, prostitutes etc. And my own relatives have told me while working in those clinics (they do it 1-2 days a week) that almost 90% of their patients all need: Condoms, HIV tests, morning after pills, or some other STD test, and that’s pretty much it. What about the people who need to go with their families because: their children have coughs, or fever, or whatever? It is not an ideal place, so you probably won’t go.

Back to the billing: It gives me great pleasure knowing that I will never have to worry about paying. Many of my family members have needed serious operations and if we had been billed, we would probably still be paying them off. I’ll give you one example that always gets me. Years ago my uncle who is an ER doc in philly tried to save a gunshot victim who was in his early 20’s but could not. I am not sure of the specifics, but he ended up spending like 4 days in the ICU or something, and still died. Anyway, his wife was billed some $100,000 dollars. There was no way she could pay it, and she had 2 young children…. as if loosing her husband was not bad enough, now she had this HUGE financial burden on top of that.

In terms of MRI scans, and CT’s etc etc. there is one thing to remember. If your condition is really emergent, there is NO waiting, your getting help right there and then when you get to the ER (it has happened to us before). If your condition is elective, yes I will agree the wait time is much longer then in countries like the U.S . But I do have to say, that if it means that I have to walk around in pain that I can handle so that someone else who reallllly needs it can get help first, I will do it, and I have done it.

Finally, perhaps slightly off topic:

I have a lot family members who practice medicine in the U.S. From ER medicine, to cardiology to surgery. And they always tell me, that if you are wealthy or very very well insured, America is the BEST place where you can get treatment. They have also told me that for a Doc, there is nothing more depressing that having to refuse a patient because of HMO problems or insurance issues.

Anyway just my thoughts. Oh, and for the record, I hope I didn’t make it sound as if Canada is amazing in terms of health care….because there are a lot of things to work on no doubt.

Take care, Malcom.

atomdanger
06-14-2009, 03:26 AM
I don't believe that any world organization has the best interests of the United States in mind. These big worldwide government agencies only want control over every aspect of our lives. I'm more concerned that the freedoms and rights guaranteed to us under our Constitution are preserved.

Again, we became the most powerful nation in the world without nationalized health care, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that we suddenly need it now. It's all just paranoia and fear-mongering.

So.. you're literally saying they are lying about cancer rates and mortality rates to gain control over us?

rearnakedchoke
06-14-2009, 04:58 AM
i can see points on both sides on this one ... as a canadian, i have never had a problem with the hc system, but i have never really been sick .. i have had family members and friends that have been sick and have never heard the horror stories that you sometimes hear about national healthcare ... if you are sick, you are gonna get what you need fast, if you go into the emergency room with a cut hand or something you are gonna have to wait ... i cut my hand two weeks ago and was in the hospital at 11am and out with stitches in the hand by 2pm .. i didn't think it was that bad and there were people that came in after me that were treated before me, but they were more serious (kid got bit in the face by a dog and old dude was having chest pains) ... i don't know how that would have been handled in the US, but me being dealt with in three hours didn't seem too bad ...

NateR
06-14-2009, 05:45 AM
So.. you're literally saying they are lying about cancer rates and mortality rates to gain control over us?

No, I'm saying that they are "massaging" the numbers and manipulating the statistics to say exactly what they want them to say. I don't distrust all statistics, however I would never make a decision based solely on statistics. Simply because I know how easily they can be manipulated. It was a topic that I learned a lot about in both Sociology and Psychology while I was in college.

And, yes, I don't trust any International or World organization. Any government body that big and that powerful can't be anything but corrupt.

I also don't understand this notion that the US must be popular in the world, or the fantasy that we were ever well respected by the entire world at any point in the past. I've found anti-America posters from France dating as far back as 1950. Only five years after we saved their butts from the Nazis and they're back to hating us again. :huh: Trying to turn foreign policy into a popularity contest is just a losing battle. And trying to conform to other nations for the sole purpose of being popular is nonsense.

So, how we're perceived by the world because of our healthcare system is irrelevant. If these nations don't hate us for that, then they'll just find another reason to hate us.

J.B.
06-14-2009, 08:20 AM
So, how we're perceived by the world because of our healthcare system is irrelevant. If these nations don't hate us for that, then they'll just find another reason to hate us.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner. :wink:

The truth goes back to what Ronald Reagan said about nationalized health care 50-plus years ago. It's one of the first ways a government tries to initiate socialism.

Neezar
06-14-2009, 04:38 PM
Anyone who has ever dealt with Medicare or in most cases, military health care can tell you that government ran insurance isn't the best choice in most cases.

Neezar
06-14-2009, 04:45 PM
The Bad thing about the United States is that the Americans basically SELF-PERSCRIBE...and that is nigh on sinful. I've seen that you let your drugs company ADVERTIZE on TV. that is SO wrong.



NO, you can't self prescribe anything. You can certainly go to your doctor and request a certain medication if you think it may help you. However, your doctor must show just cause for writing that prescription. He could lose his license if he doesn't have good reason. And I doubt a doctor would wager those odds just because you want to try something for shytes and giggles.

Not to mention, look at how many patients a doctor sees in one day. How much time to you think he spends on your particular case? No one knows more about your affliction than yourself. What is wrong with educating people personally and allowing them to have a hand in the decisions about their own healthcare?

TexasRN
06-14-2009, 05:23 PM
I tell my doc what I want and at what dose. He tells me if he agrees. The last time I saw him, he wanted to put me on a different dose and he went to the webpage telling me why right there in the exam room. I agreed with him after that and he wrote me for what we talked about. It's all good. We have a great doc/pt relationship. It saves him time for me to come prepared with my list. He doesn't have to try to figure it all out himself. :laugh: Plus, he only sees me once a year anyway.


~Amy

TurnOnTheBrightLights
06-15-2009, 06:34 PM
My friend's dad is Greece and was in favor of Nationalized Health Care....until his father got cancer and they refused treatment for him. My grandfather, born and raised in the US, who was diagnosed at the same age, was given full treatment and is living a full healthy life now.

I think Health Care needs to be reformed, but that doesn't mean I support the Socialization of it. I'd prefer a completely Private system, where you have your own Private account, and you own it. Not your job or the government. You put into it, and can choose the healthcare you want.

Free Market seems to do everything better (see Education. Public Schools, though nothing wrong with them, don't come close to competing with Private Schools).

CAVEMAN
06-16-2009, 04:03 PM
Every county has a free clinic? You're wrong.

Not only that, but most free clinics only see a certain amount of people a day,
AND they do not do any emergency treatment, they will send you to the ER.

and no, WE will be paying it. Also, other countries spend LESS on healthcare than we do already.
So the myth than universal healthcare is more expensive is a complete joke.

oh, and why do you keep missing the part that LESS people are dying from things in other countries than they are here.
So the wait for the MRI isn't going to kill you, its ok. They have better mortality rates, look at the NUMBERS.



Do you see the hypocrisy in this statement? I thought your argument was that Nationalized Healthcare would not lead to less treatment of individuals, yet your saying these free clinics, run by the government, only see a certain amount of patients a day. Care to clarify?

Miss Foxy
06-16-2009, 09:18 PM
I am totally against any type of National Health Care!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thats the worst thing ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :scared0011:

atomdanger
06-16-2009, 11:07 PM
Do you see the hypocrisy in this statement? I thought your argument was that Nationalized Healthcare would not lead to less treatment of individuals, yet your saying these free clinics, run by the government, only see a certain amount of patients a day. Care to clarify?

No, i did not say free clinics run by the government.

I said free clinics. (I did not say free clinics run by the government)
There is no free clinic run by the government where I live.
It is privately funded by donation, and they can only afford to see X amount of patients a day.

So, how am I a hypocrite?

Neezar
06-18-2009, 02:38 AM
Competition has always driven a market on anything to be better. If the government takes over our health care then what will be the motivation to do better?




(And why wouldn't this monopoly be a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act? :laugh: )

ufcfan2
06-18-2009, 06:13 AM
No, I'm saying that they are "massaging" the numbers and manipulating the statistics to say exactly what they want them to say. I don't distrust all statistics, however I would never make a decision based solely on statistics. Simply because I know how easily they can be manipulated. It was a topic that I learned a lot about in both Sociology and Psychology while I was in college.

And, yes, I don't trust any International or World organization. Any government body that big and that powerful can't be anything but corrupt.

I also don't understand this notion that the US must be popular in the world, or the fantasy that we were ever well respected by the entire world at any point in the past. I've found anti-America posters from France dating as far back as 1950. Only five years after we saved their butts from the Nazis and they're back to hating us again. :huh: Trying to turn foreign policy into a popularity contest is just a losing battle. And trying to conform to other nations for the sole purpose of being popular is nonsense.

So, how we're perceived by the world because of our healthcare system is irrelevant. If these nations don't hate us for that, then they'll just find another reason to hate us.
That the truth for sure,if its one thing it will be another.
Theres gotta be something to help with healthcare in the US. Not everyone is fortunate to have a high paying job or able to afford good healthcare and I think everyone should have it in some form.
Its not an easy fix and your not gonna make everyone happy no matter what ya do. Im not in total agreement with a gov't controlled healthcare,but I wouldn't be opposed to some form of it. Maybe a select few centers that gov't run that competes w/private firms,always think competition is healthy.
I think the first thing to have better health care is to get ur population healthy by eating healthy and avoiding unneccesary drugs,foods,additives etc...I think the healthcare insurence industry and credit card industry is the most evil industries and are practially allowed to do anything they want.

Josh
06-18-2009, 01:49 PM
Winner, winner, chicken dinner. :wink:

The truth goes back to what Ronald Reagan said about nationalized health care 50-plus years ago. It's one of the first ways a government tries to initiate socialism.
I agree completely and here is some of the audio.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOZsD9X4R6A

Neezar
06-18-2009, 02:45 PM
That the truth for sure,if its one thing it will be another.
Theres gotta be something to help with healthcare in the US. Not everyone is fortunate to have a high paying job or able to afford good healthcare and I think everyone should have it in some form.
Its not an easy fix and your not gonna make everyone happy no matter what ya do. Im not in total agreement with a gov't controlled healthcare,but I wouldn't be opposed to some form of it. Maybe a select few centers that gov't run that competes w/private firms,always think competition is healthy.
I think the first thing to have better health care is to get ur population healthy by eating healthy and avoiding unneccesary drugs,foods,additives etc...I think the healthcare insurence industry and credit card industry is the most evil industries and are practially allowed to do anything they want.

I agree that there are areas to work on. And the gov't does help some. As far as I know, every county has a Health Dept for govt approved things like immunizations, etc. Then every county has a gov't affiliated ER where no one can be turned away. And then most have a clinic to deal with chronic disease such as Diabetes and Hypertension, etc. So, we have some good help.

I still think that competition is the best way to go. If the gov't wants to get in involved then they should implement some regulations for the private sector.. For instance, they could force the insurance companies to provide better rates individuals, like maybe the same rates as they allow through an employer. Allow each individual to pick and choose their plan. For example, some states require that the insurance cover smokers, pysch, etc. If you know you don't need that type of coverage then you shouldnt have to pay extra. Also, allow people to shop around and buy from companies in other states if they want. This would create a lot of competition and drive prices down. AND this would allow the private sector to continue as they choose and the gov't would have more money to implement healthcare only for the ones who wanted and/or needed it.

rearnakedchoke
06-18-2009, 02:54 PM
I am totally against any type of National Health Care!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thats the worst thing ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :scared0011:
I can think of a lot worse things .. LOL ...