American Socialism

[rory_20_uk]

Uhm... Having a personal doctor you see every time instead of a random guy isn't more costly... It's just a bureaucratic change...

He doesn't do anything other than the random doctor would do, it's just that you get the same guy every time. And that doesn't make things more expensive.

Of course it requires more staff: last 6 months I was a GP. No one wanted to see me as I was new and they didn't know me. They all wanted to see the partners of which there were 4. Us lot were merely overflow - we got used as people couldn't wait for as long as it would take to see the person they wanted.

Assuming you don't have to wait for a week or more for a GP appointment I imagine you have more doctors that we do; I accept that the NHS could loose a lot of managerial fat though.

[Redleg]

What about an accident at home? What about all sorts of things that can happen? What happens to the people who cannot afford insurance or are simply ineligible? if the community hospitals and free care were covering all the needs, there wouldn't be a problem, but there is.

Most assume something because they dont know. In fact if someone is injured - hospitals have to start initial treatment to protect life and limb without asking about ability to pay. So accidents are covered for immediate treatment.

It's the same mindset that says the government has to send the police to your house to get the bad guys out even though it was you that left the door unlocked. Or to send the fire department even though it was your own cigarette that started the fire. It's a social responsibility.

The mindset is simple: it's because I told them to.

Again the government does not have the responsiblity to insure I take care of myself - it is my responsibility to take care of myself. It has a responsiblity to insure the welfare of the people, providing emerancy treatment for those injuried does the exact same thing as the police and fire department does in your examble. In fact this emergency treatment is already law. So in this examble the United States is fulfilling your basic requirement as presented here.

So while you believe it applies to socialized medicine - I don't necessarily disagree - just that the government has a responsibility to have a workable plan before it attempts to change the current system. If you think Iraq is a mess - let the government attempt to change the medicial system without a thought out plan....

From what I've seen and heard, I don't believe the health insurance corporations are run with the same level of altruism that you do.

I trust them just as far as I trust the government to insure my personal wellbeing...which is not at all. I am the only person or enity that can insure my own well being.

I'm sorry, but that sounds a bit "let them eat cake" -ish. For-profit medicine cuts off the most vulnerable. What does a guy who's retired, has a fixed income, and is ineligible for insurance because he's had two heart attacks already do? His options at that point seem to boil down to "hope for the best". That doesn't do it for me.

He alreadly has coverage its called medicaid or medicare depending on his age. Most fixed income people get this coverage alreadly - they just have to apply for it. My income is alreadly taxed for both programs. So again he has the ability to take care of himself - if he choses to exercise that ability. Now the young student working at Mcdee's would better suit your arguement. He can not often afford to have insurance while working that job, but he often does not see the need for it either.

I'm more big government than you, no doubt, but probably less than you think. I don't want the government in my bedroom or my library, but I do want them running the major social programs.

That's the crux - major social programs in the united states are full of fraud waste and abuse. The two biggest ones were initially great social programs to help those on fixed incomes or out of work. Now they are abused to the point of causing the system to fail. Which is why I argue that any plan for socialized medicine must be well thought out and have a fundmental basic plan that addresses as many of the issues as possible, that is flexiable enough to survive contact with the first crisis, and prevents the problems of a large buerarcy from overwelming it. taking care of 300 million people where at least 40% are unfit will be a difficult mission for any government to assume with a viable plan, completely doomed to failure without one.

Our health care laws are federal, but the provinces administer the services and regional health boards run the day to day.

levels upon levels of buerarcy. Not much different then the insurance companies.

Yes cold hard cash does pay the bills, but there is far more to lthe responsibilities and interaction between the people and its government representatives than cold hard cash. At least there better be. Regardless, there is no reason socialized medicine should bankrupt a country unless the country is stupid enough to let itself be bankrupted.

Had a good look at the American governments debt lately? Getting closer and closer to that possiblity. Well we could always nationalize our debt.

Not that difficult if one looks at the norm of the American health posture. Aging population that wishes to prolong their lives which is the norm of the baby boomers also. Again arguing that socialized medicine is great is fine - but how would the government implement the system is the real issue.

Again, I've seen the actions of corporate giants who hold holy naught but profit. I'll trust my government long before I trust the banks, the insurance companies, and the multi-nationals. At least I can kick my government in the keester when required.

I just assume they are all crooks - and that I can make the best decisions concerning my personal wellbeing.

It's a huge deal, no doubt. But one worth doing.

Which is why I argue that until there is a viable plan that the government can not get their hands into it.

I'm all for personal responsibility, but there are limits to that. People get sick. They get deathly ill, crippled, and are unable to work. They are affected by events beyond their control. Real life does not play fair. The whole point of a government is to manage programs that benefit the people, what other reason for government is there? Health care is essential to the people and the people have it within their right to insist that the government assist them.

Talking to a man with a rapid cycle bi-polar wife, a bi-polar sociopathic step-son - things often get beyond an individuals ability to cope - that is what family and community are for to support you in times of trouble. Why should I demand that the government assist or take care of personal issues? What benefit does the whole get out of fixing the individual? Making demands of the government to fix all your problems does not fix your problem. You have a personal and social responsiblity to take care of them yourself. Government handouts should always be the last resort to any personal problem. Again the system alreadly has laws and functions to insure that everyone gets the necessary treatment to protect life and limb regardless of the ability to pay. So the system already provides for the general welfare of the people. To insure I get my shots and take care of myself -is still a personal responsibility not a government responsibility

Then tell them to.

They have been told - to bad they don't know how to listen.

Louis Obama? Barrack's brother?

Nope our local frenchman who wants to be a Texan

If I may, and I ask because I truly don't understand, how do you see Joe Citizen's duty to his fellow American? Where does it start and stop?

To present yourself with honesty and intergity toward your fellow citizen. To provide what charity is needed to insure those in your community have the ability to achieve success if they chose to. To provide for the general welfare of the community by insure you keep the peace.

In other words Beriut I would give the shirt off my back to help a guy out that desires to better himself. But I have little to support those who wish to be support by the government.

[Beirut]

So accidents are covered for immediate treatment.

That's good, but it's the long term health problems that are the concern. Many Americans (hundreds of thousands or more each year), even many with insurance, face bankruptcy because of medical costs. So immediate treatment may be available, but when the person needs further care and has no insurance or is cut off, as often happens, they may then lose their possesions, even their homes, as well as their health. Think of the further economic damage that does to the economy.

That's one huge advantage to socialized medicine, that sort of thing does not happen, and if it does, it is very, very rare.

Again the government does not have the responsiblity to insure I take care of myself - it is my responsibility to take care of myself. It has a responsiblity to insure the welfare of the people, providing emerancy treatment for those injuried does the exact same thing as the police and fire department does in your examble. In fact this emergency treatment is already law. So in this examble the United States is fulfilling your basic requirement as presented here.

The government should certainly not be cleaning the bottoms sides of the lazy, but caring for the welfare of the people, in my view, includes health care.

My basic requirement for health care is far more than immediate treatment; it's all treatment required.

So while you believe it applies to socialized medicine - I don't necessarily disagree - just that the government has a responsibility to have a workable plan before it attempts to change the current system. If you think Iraq is a mess - let the government attempt to change the medicial system without a thought out plan....

The plans already exist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the US the only G8 country without socialized medicine? One can hardly view the likes of the G8 members and say their economies lie in waste because of socialized health care. Use a pre-existing plan and shape it to better suit the needs of the US.

I trust them just as far as I trust the government to insure my personal wellbeing...which is not at all. I am the only person or enity that can insure my own well being.

Well said. But there are times when all of us, even you, dear sir, require a helping hand. I would rather that hand belong to my democraticaly elected government answerable to me than a corporation answerable to no one.

Now the young student working at Mcdee's would better suit your arguement. He can not often afford to have insurance while working that job, but he often does not see the need for it either.

Then consider the example used. As for his not needing health insurance... we won't know until it's too late, and that's simply not good enough.

Taking care of 300 million people where at least 40% are unfit will be a difficult mission for any government to assume with a viable plan, completely doomed to failure without one.

I absolutely, without a hint of doubt, know that the US can do it if it has the will to do it.

levels upon levels of buerarcy. Not much different then the insurance companies.

Completely different. All the levels are either elected representatives or are managed directly by elected representatives.

Had a good look at the American governments debt lately? Getting closer and closer to that possiblity. Well we could always nationalize our debt.

Your debt has a large part to do with an unjustifiable war. Your leadership has already spent over a trillion-dollars screwing the pooch in Iraq. Imagine what could have been accomplished had that money been put towards the well being of the American public.

I just assume they are all crooks - and that I can make the best decisions concerning my personal wellbeing.

I'm right there with you.

Talking to a man with a rapid cycle bi-polar wife, a bi-polar sociopathic step-son - things often get beyond an individuals ability to cope - that is what family and community are for to support you in times of trouble. Why should I demand that the government assist or take care of personal issues? What benefit does the whole get out of fixing the individual? Making demands of the government to fix all your problems does not fix your problem. You have a personal and social responsiblity to take care of them yourself. Government handouts should always be the last resort to any personal problem. Again the system alreadly has laws and functions to insure that everyone gets the necessary treatment to protect life and limb regardless of the ability to pay. So the system already provides for the general welfare of the people. To insure I get my shots and take care of myself -is still a personal responsibility not a government responsibility

The line between personal responsibility and needing outside help is real and has to be respected when crossed. If you are smart/lucky enough to be able to deal with your problems, excellent. But not everyone is. And the role of government is to help those who cannot help themselves and to assist its citizens when required.

They have been told - to bad they don't know how to listen.

Damint man, you're an American! Make them listen.

Nope our local frenchman who wants to be a Texan

We all want to be Texans.

To present yourself with honesty and intergity toward your fellow citizen. To provide what charity is needed to insure those in your community have the ability to achieve success if they chose to. To provide for the general welfare of the community by insure you keep the peace.

In other words Beriut I would give the shirt off my back to help a guy out that desires to better himself. But I have little to support those who wish to be support by the government.

I agree 100%. My only difference, I guess, would be my commie views on health care. I feel it is my duty, because it is within my power, to help the guy next to me have full access to health care without reservation. It's good for him, good for me, and good for the country if we're all, you know... feeling good.

[Reverend Joe]

Your leadership has already spent over a trillion-dollars screwing the pooch in Iraq. Imagine what could have been accomplished had that money been put towards the well being of the American public.

I hate to go off topic, but seriously, does ANYBODY know what "screw the pooch" means?!

It is derivative of "**** the dog," and it means to sit around and waste time.

That's it, I'm sick and tired of people misusing this phrase; I'm gonna post a thread bout this in the frontroom.

[rory_20_uk]

The thing that would most improve healthcare is:

1. Stop smoking
2. Moderate exercise
3. Moderate alcohol intake
4. Balanced diet

At a stroke rates of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, MIs, CVAs and COPD would decrease; secondary problems such as of osteoarthritis, amputation and general morbidity also fall, and a myriad of others.

Generally, people don't want to be healthy. They want to do sod all and for the health service to "solve" all the problems with tablets and proceedures, which are increasingly expensive. They know they don't have to look after themselves, and so don't. Similar case with invalid benefits: if the family had so support them they'd find a job to do if they were capable, as it is better to take the money.

As more things can be done, I do not feel that everyone should have an automatic right to it. In the UK we have NICE which basically places a definable value on human life with new treatments - and I think that it is right that this should be in place; other treatments should be privately funded. Everyone dies. But it is not worth £10,000 per person with a 6% chance for live a further year - both numbers to treat and cost to treat are not viable.

Where I think things become interesting is where the cost of not doing a proceedure will cost the country more than the one off cost of doing it, as the person will require masses of other treatments. Such is the case with fatties: they havn't got bad genes, or a metabolic problem. Almost anyone taking 10,000 calories will gain weight. BUT not treating them with a gastric bypass places a heavier cost on social interventions (full time carers, multiple hospital admissions, specialised bed etc etc).

[Redleg]

That's good, but it's the long term health problems that are the concern. Many Americans (hundreds of thousands or more each year), even many with insurance, face bankruptcy because of medical costs. So immediate treatment may be available, but when the person needs further care and has no insurance or is cut off, as often happens, they may then lose their possesions, even their homes, as well as their health. Think of the further economic damage that does to the economy.

Socialized medicine will not solve this issue. Medical costs alone do not cause bankruptcy - its the associated loss of income because the individual is hurt or focused on caring for the sick member of the family. Inother words this arguement does not meet all the requirements as the cause for filing bankruptcy. Then again if the insurance attempts to cut off on going treatment that was initially covered - the insurance company faces several legal issues for doing so. Insurance can only stop treatment if their is a cap on the coverage

That's one huge advantage to socialized medicine, that sort of thing does not happen, and if it does, it is very, very rare.

Again provide stats that demonstrated that when one losing there job because of medical reasons that socialize medicine prevents the individual from going bankrupt or suffering major finicial setback. This statement is to general when speaking of how medical issues effect one's income.

The government should certainly not be cleaning the bottoms sides of the lazy, but caring for the welfare of the people, in my view, includes health care.

I dont necessarily agree or disagree. Immediate health care for life and limb is alreadly established by law here. After that the current method is that the individual is responsible for their health.

My basic requirement for health care is far more than immediate treatment; it's all treatment required.

Basic health is a personal responsiblity. To attempt to claim that the government must provide services for a basic responsiblity of the individual does not sit well with me. If you only discussing the treatment that follows after the immediate treatment after an injury that threatens life or limb then I would agree, however your arguement has not been that.

The plans already exist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the US the only G8 country without socialized medicine? One can hardly view the likes of the G8 members and say their economies lie in waste because of socialized health care. Use a pre-existing plan and shape it to better suit the needs of the US.

Name one plan that alreadly exists in the United States to change from for profit medicine to socialized medicine that goes beyond the surface political speech for general health care. I am not aware of any such plan. Using plans of other nations might be a good start - but no politician has broached that idea. Since I can only write the ineffective state senator and congresswomen of my district - and the other members of congress - it is ignored because the general voting population has not yet bought into socialized medicine.

Well said. But there are times when all of us, even you, dear sir, require a helping hand. I would rather that hand belong to my democraticaly elected government answerable to me than a corporation answerable to no one.

I rather the helping hand come from family and friends - personal problems are for personal fixes - not government involvement.

Then consider the example used. As for his not needing health insurance... we won't know until it's too late, and that's simply not good enough.

Read again - I said he often feels he does not need insurance - the young are often deluded about their mortality.

I absolutely, without a hint of doubt, know that the US can do it if it has the will to do it.

Here is the crux - not only does congress and the president have to develop a workable plan - they have to convince the voting public that it will benefit the nation. Again neither has been done.

Completely different. All the levels are either elected representatives or are managed directly by elected representatives.

Still a buerueracy is it not? I would image that if one delves into the fraud waste and abuse of the system one would find shocking data. We sort of had a discussion along these line a year or two ago, and it was easy for me to find. Since I am currently just arguing from my own personal opinion - I will only mention that any governmental program is prone to such problems and governmental buerueracies run by elected officials often are some of the worst.

Your debt has a large part to do with an unjustifiable war. Your leadership has already spent over a trillion-dollars screwing the pooch in Iraq. Imagine what could have been accomplished had that money been put towards the well being of the American public.

The current escalation of the debt is partly because of that. The large part of the debt comes from a failure over the last 40-50 years to balance the budget. Blaming the current conflict only address a small part of the issue. Now Imagine if the money was not spent and the budget was balanced the way the constitution spells out? So this arguement is counter productive because you are speaking of spending money that the government does not have - and either way the government would be incorrect in doing so.

The line between personal responsibility and needing outside help is real and has to be respected when crossed. If you are smart/lucky enough to be able to deal with your problems, excellent. But not everyone is. And the role of government is to help those who cannot help themselves and to assist its citizens when required.

Again there are programs alreadly establish just for this at the national level. Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare programs, Unemployment insurance. At the state and local level there is also Food Stamp programs, welfare program, Medical care programs via county health clinics, and others.

So once again assistance is alreadly there. The problem is that many programs are not probably used by the citizens or they are to ashamed to use the program. If a person needs help - they have to just ask and it often can be accomplished.

I notice that in this discussion you often ignore the Medicare and Medicaid programs - which are programs geared to assist the elderly on fixed incomes and those in unforunate situations that need assistance. This is one of the major proplems I have with your position - you ignore the fact that the United States government currently has a system to provide medicial care to those in need. Is it because you don't understand these programs? Or is it that you ignore them because they do not meet your definition of socialized medicine? To claim that the American Government ignores those in need because of health issues - is only an emotional arguement when one begins to connect the dots about programs that alreadly exist. You might argue that the systems are not adequate, but claim that because a large percentage of american is uninsured requires a new socialized medicial program be established does not compute to me.

Now I think Medicare and Medicaid are both full of fraud, waste, and abuse because they are solely managed by the government and is used as a reason for insurance companies to deny coverage to elderly americans requires them to be overhauled into better programs - but both are socialized medical programs, run like insurance companies by inebt government officials.

I agree 100%. My only difference, I guess, would be my commie views on health care. I feel it is my duty, because it is within my power, to help the guy next to me have full access to health care without reservation. It's good for him, good for me, and good for the country if we're all, you know... feeling good.

The problem Beriut is that no system has full access to health care without reservation. Health care is like all other governmental programs - it has a finite source of supply. Every system has a cost regardless of how it is done.

[Beirut]

Medical costs alone do not cause bankruptcy - its the associated loss of income because the individual is hurt or focused on caring for the sick member of the family. Inother words this arguement does not meet all the requirements as the cause for filing bankruptcy. Then again if the insurance attempts to cut off on going treatment that was initially covered - the insurance company faces several legal issues for doing so. Insurance can only stop treatment if their is a cap on the coverage.

If Joe Average gets hit with a massive health care bill, in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, I'm thinking his loss of income will simply be the icing on the cake of his financial destitution. The point is that no one should have to lose their home to pay for health care.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't roughly half of all American bankruptcies due to medical costs? And aren't the majority of those bankruptcies involving people who had medical insurance?

As for the insurance compnaies cutting people off, they do it pretty much at will from what I've seen. They have the money, the lawyers, and they are fighting back when healthy; the patient is fighting sick, often broke, and with the least costly legal backup.

Again provide stats that demonstrated that when one losing there job because of medical reasons that socialize medicine prevents the individual from going bankrupt or suffering major finicial setback. This statement is to general when speaking of how medical issues effect one's income.

What's too general about Joe Average getting hit with bills beyond his (and most normal people's) ability to pay? It's neither rocket surgery nor brain science to see that getting a monstrous health care bill is detrimental to one's economic well being. Socialized medicine does not hit the patient with any such bill.

I dont necessarily agree or disagree. Immediate health care for life and limb is alreadly established by law here. After that the current method is that the individual is responsible for their health.

I prefer the method where all health care required is mandated by law.

Basic health is a personal responsiblity. To attempt to claim that the government must provide services for a basic responsiblity of the individual does not sit well with me. If you only discussing the treatment that follows after the immediate treatment after an injury that threatens life or limb then I would agree, however your arguement has not been that.

My argument is simple; all medical costs to all patients should be covered by a government run socialized health care plan. Ba-da-bing!

Basic health care is a personal responsibility, no one denies that. But a girl I grew up with got meningitis in Grade 1 and required ten-years of horrendous treatments to cure her, I would have been hard pressed to hold either her or her parents responsible for her illness. As Forrest Gump said, "*** happens."

Name one plan that alreadly exists in the United States to change from for profit medicine to socialized medicine that goes beyond the surface political speech for general health care. I am not aware of any such plan. Using plans of other nations might be a good start - but no politician has broached that idea. Since I can only write the ineffective state senator and congresswomen of my district - and the other members of congress - it is ignored because the general voting population has not yet bought into socialized medicine.

I'm only saying what should and can be done. Don't blame me because your elected officials aren't doing it. Most industrialized nations have socialized health care. We demanded it and we got it. You're going to have to do it for yourself.

I rather the helping hand come from family and friends - personal problems are for personal fixes - not government involvement.

Sure, if you need help putting the BBQ together or are drunk and need to talk to someone, call uncle Fred. But unless Fred knows how to tie off an artery or diagnose a heart defect in a child, I'd prefer to keep him hands off the more serious stuff.

Read again - I said he often feels he does not need insurance - the young are often deluded about their mortality.

Aren't we all. But the point is still valid that young people with low paying jobs are probably very hard put to get insurance coverage that will cover all potential problems.

Here is the crux - not only does congress and the president have to develop a workable plan - they have to convince the voting public that it will benefit the nation. Again neither has been done.

But it should be done. If you guys can free the slaves, split the atom, put a man on the moon, and claim sole superpower status and leadership of the free world, then I'm sure you can manage to take care of your own people. Otherwise, what are you doing it all for? Pardon my ignorance and/or naive mental state, but isn't "America taking care of Americans" the whole raison d'etre of America?

Still a buerueracy is it not? I would image that if one delves into the fraud waste and abuse of the system one would find shocking data. We sort of had a discussion along these line a year or two ago, and it was easy for me to find. Since I am currently just arguing from my own personal opinion - I will only mention that any governmental program is prone to such problems and governmental buerueracies run by elected officials often are some of the worst.

Everything is a bureaucracy. You can't buy a chocolate bar without encountering some level of bureaucracy. Life without bureaucracy is life in a cave. And since nothing is perfect, and since bureaucracies are omnipresent in today's society, you're kind of stuck between a rock and hard place.

Governments and corporations are both guilty of waste and coruption. The difference is I have more control over my government than the corporations.

The current escalation of the debt is partly because of that. The large part of the debt comes from a failure over the last 40-50 years to balance the budget. Blaming the current conflict only address a small part of the issue. Now Imagine if the money was not spent and the budget was balanced the way the constitution spells out? So this arguement is counter productive because you are speaking of spending money that the government does not have - and either way the government would be incorrect in doing so.

Blaming the current conflict addresses a trillion dollars or more of the issue. And that trillion dollars+ does not take into account the damage done to the economy by having tens of thousands of wounded soldiers coming home who will require further, often life long, medical care, and who will no longer contribute to the economy of the country. It's a pooch screwing of Everest-ian proportions.

If Bush hadn't gone bonkers and ruined your economy, you would have the option taking on a reasonable deficit for a certain period of time, a financial shock absorber of sorts, to finance a socialized health care system and get it on its feet until the system and finances are worked out.

Again there are programs alreadly establish just for this at the national level. Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare programs, Unemployment insurance. At the state and local level there is also Food Stamp programs, welfare program, Medical care programs via county health clinics, and others.

Not good enough. Not by a country mile. Especially not good enough in a country as prosperous as yours and one that espouses Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as the basic tenets of it's social structure. And whose only reason, it appears, for not having socialized health care, is that it lacks the will to overcome the problems inherent in building and administering such a plan. It smacks of defeatism and I don't buy it for a microsecond.

So once again assistance is alreadly there. The problem is that many programs are not probably used by the citizens or they are to ashamed to use the program. If a person needs help - they have to just ask and it often can be accomplished.

The assistance that is there is too little. People are being cut off or denied out of hand.

I notice that in this discussion you often ignore the Medicare and Medicaid programs - which are programs geared to assist the elderly on fixed incomes and those in unforunate situations that need assistance. This is one of the major proplems I have with your position - you ignore the fact that the United States government currently has a system to provide medicial care to those in need. Is it because you don't understand these programs? Or is it that you ignore them because they do not meet your definition of socialized medicine? To claim that the American Government ignores those in need because of health issues - is only an emotional arguement when one begins to connect the dots about programs that alreadly exist. You might argue that the systems are not adequate, but claim that because a large percentage of american is uninsured requires a new socialized medicial program be established does not compute to me.

What I understand is that tens of millions of Americans have no health insurance and millions more are underinsured.

If millions of your own people are in dire need of life saving assistance and you do not think that is an adequate reason for the formulation of a national social plan to help them... what is?

Now I think Medicare and Medicaid are both full of fraud, waste, and abuse because they are solely managed by the government and is used as a reason for insurance companies to deny coverage to elderly americans requires them to be overhauled into better programs - but both are socialized medical programs, run like insurance companies by inebt government officials.

As stated, I'll take the government I don't trust over the corporation I don't trust any day.

The problem Beriut is that no system has full access to health care without reservation. Health care is like all other governmental programs - it has a finite source of supply. Every system has a cost regardless of how it is done.

Of course. Every system has holes. Every system has waste. Every system has people fall through the cracks. But at least socialized health care has as a fundamental, legal, and inviolable social-contract tenet of its very existence that all people will be treated equally without any regard to their income or ability to pay.

My God, that sounds so American I might just bake an apple pie.

[Redleg]

If Joe Average gets hit with a massive health care bill, in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, I'm thinking his loss of income will simply be the icing on the cake of his financial destitution. The point is that no one should have to lose their home to pay for health care.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't roughly half of all American bankruptcies due to medical costs? And aren't the majority of those bankruptcies involving people who had medical insurance?

As for the insurance compnaies cutting people off, they do it pretty much at will from what I've seen. They have the money, the lawyers, and they are fighting back when healthy; the patient is fighting sick, often broke, and with the least costly legal backup.

Now I beleive you have fallen for incorrect stats - from personal experience the bankruptcies are due to loss of income due to medical conditions. Medical expenses also go into the picture but from what I have been able to determine it comes mostly from the loss of income coupled with the increased bills due to medicial conditions. So I on the surface people will think its medical bills - but they don't delve deeper into the fact that with severe medical condtions there is a subsequent loss of income. Then one must take a look at what debt to income ratio the individual had before the medical bills. Surveys can be very misleading in this regard because people often which to minimize their own failures and blame something else. I had to file bankruptcy when my wife attempted suicide, was in ICU for several days, and then treatment for several monthes afterwards. My debt to income ratio was high because of her conditions, some hidden by her, the hospital bills were just the icing on the cake, everything else was our own doing - so when she attempted suicide and was unemployed we had to file - but it wasn't the medicial bills that caused it - it was the loss of income.

When the court asks you the reason for declaring bankruptcy it only asks for one reason - people go for the one that places least blame on them. I told the court the truth - loss of her income and our debt to income ratio. Many people dont.

What's too general about Joe Average getting hit with bills beyond his (and most normal people's) ability to pay? It's neither rocket surgery nor brain science to see that getting a monstrous health care bill is detrimental to one's economic well being. Socialized medicine does not hit the patient with any such bill.

Because as stated before - Joe Average is not getting hit with bills beyond his or most normal people's ability to pay. Socialized medicine does not address the primary reason people go bankrupt either due to medicial reasons.

I prefer the method where all health care required is mandated by law.

Elective procedures included?

My argument is simple; all medical costs to all patients should be covered by a government run socialized health care plan. Ba-da-bing!

THat requires for the people of the United States to support it. No such support currently exists to vote in candidates that will inact such laws. Is it slowly coming about - yep. But even in today's candidates for president, its not in the top three concerns of the voters.

Basic health care is a personal responsibility, no one denies that. But a girl I grew up with got meningitis in Grade 1 and required ten-years of horrendous treatments to cure her, I would have been hard pressed to hold either her or her parents responsible for her illness. As Forrest Gump said, "*** happens."

Nice try but I did not say hold people responsible for illness - I said one's health. And again programs are available to help families cope and pay for the precedures to cure such illness in the United States, many from the government and even more from Charity organizations. Ever hear of St. Jude's Hospitial?

I'm only saying what should and can be done. Don't blame me because your elected officials aren't doing it. Most industrialized nations have socialized health care. We demanded it and we got it. You're going to have to do it for yourself.

LOL who's blaming an individual from Canada who can not vote in the United States. Again you argue from emotional appeal about an issue that concerns you - however you continue to miss the rebuttal arguement - its not a major concern to the Average American Voter yet. It gets surface treatment by major candidates - but its not even in the top three concerns for the candidates or the voters as of yet.

Sure, if you need help putting the BBQ together or are drunk and need to talk to someone, call uncle Fred. But unless Fred knows how to tie off an artery or diagnose a heart defect in a child, I'd prefer to keep him hands off the more serious stuff.

I trust doctors that I get to review and pick to take care of my family - not governmental lackie's who answer to a governmental buerarcy. I trust my family and friends to provide comfort and aid during times of stress and crisis. Seems you missed that point in your rebuttal. Shame on you for ingoring the emotional comfort that family provides in times of crisis, given that your arguement is primarily one of emotional appeal.

Aren't we all. But the point is still valid that young people with low paying jobs are probably very hard put to get insurance coverage that will cover all potential problems.

Again it is also often one of personal choice not to have insurance. I know of several less then 30 individuals that work for the railroad that do not have insurance - and you can not claim that they are underpaid.

But it should be done. If you guys can free the slaves, split the atom, put a man on the moon, and claim sole superpower status and leadership of the free world, then I'm sure you can manage to take care of your own people. Otherwise, what are you doing it all for? Pardon my ignorance and/or naive mental state, but isn't "America taking care of Americans" the whole raison d'etre of America?

Again ignoring the programs alreadly availiable with your arguement.

Everything is a bureaucracy. You can't buy a chocolate bar without encountering some level of bureaucracy. Life without bureaucracy is life in a cave. And since nothing is perfect, and since bureaucracies are omnipresent in today's society, you're kind of stuck between a rock and hard place.

Governments and corporations are both guilty of waste and coruption. The difference is I have more control over my government than the corporations.

Actually you have equal control over both - you vote the bum out of office, you don't spend your money on the corporate product to force him to concide to your demands. Both systems work - both take popular support of the people to pull off. Once again the issue of socialized medicine does not even rank in the top three here in the states. And even the candidate espousing governmental control speaks of an insurance plan controlled by the government.

Blaming the current conflict addresses a trillion dollars or more of the issue. And that trillion dollars+ does not take into account the damage done to the economy by having tens of thousands of wounded soldiers coming home who will require further, often life long, medical care, and who will no longer contribute to the economy of the country. It's a pooch screwing of Everest-ian proportions.

If Bush hadn't gone bonkers and ruined your economy, you would have the option taking on a reasonable deficit for a certain period of time, a financial shock absorber of sorts, to finance a socialized health care system and get it on its feet until the system and finances are worked out.

Blaming Bush is the easy way out. Economy is in shambles more because of our dependicy on oil and the subsequent oil commidity market spectulation.

Now I agree with you about the veterns - however thier are programs alreadly established for them to get treatment - the Vetern's hospitals and other such programs - more money has to be poured into them, they must be brought up to medicial par, and injured war veterns must be taken care of - the nation owes them that. The government has the obligation to insure that is done. But once again the institutions and programs are alreadly there.

Not good enough. Not by a country mile. Especially not good enough in a country as prosperous as yours and one that espouses Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as the basic tenets of it's social structure. And whose only reason, it appears, for not having socialized health care, is that it lacks the will to overcome the problems inherent in building and administering such a plan. It smacks of defeatism and I don't buy it for a microsecond.

Again do you have any idea how much of the governmental budget goes to these programs? Frankly its a decent percentage of the budget. The problem once again is the big three issues of a buerarcy controled program - fraud, waste, and abuse.

Again I agree that a plan should be able to formulated to provide things - but again until it is developed going into a change without one is one that leads to diaster. And again the basic average joe citizen does not want to pay higher taxes, hince the idea of socialized medicine does not get much attention at the polls, nor does it gain enough popularity to win at the polls. I am against it because no one has really addressed the costs associated with it. Until that is address I am certain the average american is within the same viewpoint I am. One wants to prevent governmental fraud waste and abuse as best they can.

The assistance that is there is too little. People are being cut off or denied out of hand.

Again do you have any idea what the budget for those programs are?

http://www.care.org/graphics/getinvo...t_piechart.gif

Medicare and Medicaid take just over 19% of the total budget. When one adds in Welfare, Food Stamps and other programs it gets closer to 25%, Social Security is 20% of the budget where people with disabilities are also provided income - not just the elderly. Defense budget is roughly 20% as a comparison. These are 2005 figures.

So Beruit a large budget is alreadly available and is being used. If the current programs are not working to your satification - those programs either need to be scraped and a new one instituted - which seems to be your primary arguement. However it is also the touching the third rail of American Politics - Medicare is seen by the over 60% as their baby - and its one of the most wasteful and fraud ridden programs - but the government can't touch it with a 10 foot pole because every office holder would be voted out of office.

I am all for scraping Medicare and Medicaid to come up with a better health care plan for the uninsured, underinsured, and the elderly. However the elderly won't let their little baby get touched, just like they wont let the necessary adjustment get made to Social Security. (Well congress is mostly to blame on social security since they continue to put their hands into that cookie jar.) But the voting public wont vote for the necessary changes to those two systems either.

What I understand is that tens of millions of Americans have no health insurance and millions more are underinsured.

If millions of your own people are in dire need of life saving assistance and you do not think that is an adequate reason for the formulation of a national social plan to help them... what is?

Life saving assistance can not be denied by law. Your arguement here is false.

As stated, I'll take the government I don't trust over the corporation I don't trust any day.

Hince the arguement the government must have a workable plan before I will support such a move with my vote.

Of course. Every system has holes. Every system has waste. Every system has people fall through the cracks. But at least socialized health care has as a fundamental, legal, and inviolable social-contract tenet of its very existence that all people will be treated equally without any regard to their income or ability to pay.

My God, that sounds so American I might just bake an apple pie.

To bad the Canadian system does not even hold true to this standard. Why would I want it done half-assed in the United States? If we are going to do it - its got to be a tenable plan - not some knee-jerk reaction that costs more, fustrates the people more, and fails the people more then the current system.

[Lemur]

Now I beleive you have fallen for incorrect stats - from personal experience the bankruptcies are due to loss of income due to medical conditions. Medical expenses also go into the picture but from what I have been able to determine it comes mostly from the loss of income coupled with the increased bills due to medicial conditions.

Illness and Medical Bills Cause Half of All Bankruptcies—2 Million Americans Financially Ruined Each Year

Medical Debt now the number one cause of bankruptcy in USA

How To Avoid the Leading Cause Of Bankruptcy By Getting Basic Health Insurance Coverage

Medical Bills Major Cause of Bankruptcy

... and so on and so forth. Whether or not your experience carries more weight than the many studies that find that medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy is debatable.

[LittleGrizzly]

I think its obvious that a family with no income coming in because of a recent sickness is going to go bankrupt whether the health care is free or not (assuming this as a fairly poor family) though they could keep going a bit longer in the system where health care is free.

But if we have a situation where a family has 2 earners and 1 falls ill then with a lot of cutbacks and maybe moving to a smaller house the situation could be handled but if the 1 earner has to support the family by himself and then on top of that cover the health costs of the ill one then that family is probably screwed because of the health costs...

[Redleg]

Illness and Medical Bills Cause Half of All Bankruptcies—2 Million Americans Financially Ruined Each Year

Medical Debt now the number one cause of bankruptcy in USA

How To Avoid the Leading Cause Of Bankruptcy By Getting Basic Health Insurance Coverage

Medical Bills Major Cause of Bankruptcy

... and so on and so forth. Whether or not your experience carries more weight than the many studies that find that medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy is debatable.

Did you bother to read your sources prior to posting Lemur or are you falling for the hype yourself. From the links in reserve order

While loss of work remains the number one cause of bankruptcy, "when people lose their jobs, they also lose their health insurance. The combination often creates a blow that families cannot recover from without bankruptcy." The groups most often affected by medical debt include seniors, women and families, according to the study. People hardest hit by medical debt often have some insurance, but not enough to cover all the costs of treatment.

So over half here would not be Medicial Bills being the cause of Bankruptcy.


Now the third link contradicts the fourth link and even itself.

This post is for people like me who used to live life without even the most basic of health insurance coverage. Did you know one of the major and perhaps number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States is unanticipated medical bills caused by inadequate or even complete lack of health insurance coverage? Currently, unpaid medical bills due to unforeseen and catastrophic medical related ailments compete with debt mismanagement and credit card bills as the number one contributor to personal bankruptcy.

SO the author doesn't do his homework and uses emotional appeal in his initial post - number one cause is still loss of work. But then again he is trying to sell the importance of getting health insurance, so his information is distorted toward that point.

Your second link is geared toward much the same as your third link - geared toward selling a product or service.

And low and behold the first article actually agrees with me.

Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by medical problems had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. Among those with private insurance, however, one-third had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy. Often illness led to job loss, and with it the loss of health insurance. Out-of-pocket medical costs (for co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services) averaged $13,460 for those with private insurance at the onset of their illness, vs. $10,893 for the uninsured. The highest costs -- averaging $18,005 -- were incurred by those who initially had private coverage but lost it in the course of their illness. Many families were bankrupted by medical expenses well below the catastrophic thresholds of high deductible plans that are increasingly popular with employers. The authors comment that even their own coverage from Harvard leaves them at risk for out-of-pocket costs above levels that often led to medical bankruptcy.

In many cases, high medical bills coincided with a loss of income as illness forced breadwinners to lose time from work.

High medical bills coincide with a loss of income - I weight the loss of income as being the primary cause the author seemly weighs the medical bill as being the cause, but even in the inital paragraph they weigh the loss of income as a primary factor. Sorry for being such a cynic but the loss of income is what prevents the individual from even attempting to pay the medicial bill.

Then in the following paragraphs the authors mention "The researchers found that illness and medical bills contributed to at least 46.2%, and as many as 54.5% of all bankruptcy filings." Contgributed means many things - but rarely does it mean the primary cause of bankruptcy. Again debt to income ratio's is what cause bankruptcy when one losses one's income. With medicial bills contributing to that overall picture

If your going to try debate me on the subject attempt to at least understand the arguement better, guess who particapated in a similiar study since my bankruptcy was in 2003 in Texas. If you lose your job - you can't pay your bills - regardless if that bill is your house or your medical bill.

Come on Lemur you can do better then this.

Now read this article from Canada about Bankruptcy - they limit the claim to un-insured individuals medical bills

http://www.bankruptcy-canada.ca/bank...-in-canada.htm

Seems medical problems is the third numerous reason for bankruptcy in Canada. Based upon loss of income from medicial problem. Notice how that issue actually effects both nations.

Here is the abstract of the Harvard Study

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi...haff.w5.63/DC1

shows the proportion of debtors (N = 1,771) citing various medical contributors to their bankruptcy and the estimated number of debtors and dependents nationally affected by each cause. More than one-quarter cited illness or injury as a specific reason for bankruptcy; a similar number reported uncovered medical bills exceeding $1,000. Some debtors cited more than one medical contributor. Nearly half (46.2 percent) (95 percent confidence interval = 43.5, 48.9) of debtors met at least one of our criteria for “major medical bankruptcy.” Slightly more than half (54.5 percent) (95 percent CI = 51.8, 57.2) met criteria for “any medical bankruptcy.”

More then one quarter cite illness or injury as the specific reason. What often happens when one is injured or ill? A simple question with a very simple answer.

Universial Health Care will not solve that problem at all.

[Lemur]

If your going to try debate me on the subject attempt to at least understand the arguement better, guess who particapated in a similiar study since my bankruptcy was in 2003 in Texas. If you lose your job - you can't pay your bills - regardless if that bill is your house or your medical bill.

Come on Lemur you can do better then this.

I'm terribly sorry to disappoint, Redleg. You're not contesting that bankruptcy and medical emergencies go hand-in-hand, I get that. But you're saying, rather, that it's the lost income on top of the medical bills that cause the majority of the bankruptcies, rather than the huge medical bills all by their lonesome? A bit of a fine point, but I don't disagree in principle.

But then you seem to be saying that if those huge medical bills didn't exist, the link would be broken? That seems like an impossible position to prove ...

[Redleg]

I'm terribly sorry to disappoint, Redleg. You're not contesting that bankruptcy and medical emergencies go hand-in-hand, I get that. But you're saying, rather, that it's the lost income on top of the medical bills that cause the majority of the bankruptcies, rather than the huge medical bills all by their lonesome? A bit of a fine point, but I don't disagree in principle.

But then you seem to be saying that if those huge medical bills didn't exist, the link would be broken? That seems like an impossible position to prove ...

Hince the mention of the Canadian study - the loss of income due to medicial issues is the third leading cause of bankruptcy in Canada.

So I am not saying that the link would be broken - Medical problems do indeed cause bankruptcy - its just not the bills that are the primary cause - its the loss of income that results from being treated or taking time off to treat the individual that is ill. Many studies from socialized medicine nations prove this point.

What I am saying is that the arguement about Medicial Bills being the cause of bankruptcy is not correct, its a contributing factor. The primary cause is loss of income from the illness or injury. That is my position.

[rory_20_uk]

Thread hijacked? Nah...

[Redleg]

Nah no thread hijack - socialized medicine is just the easiest thing to talk about concerning American Socialism. I have also mentioned a few other plans that fit within that scope. Food Stamps, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid and other service programs to include Social Security are basic social welfare programs that can be discussed when speaking of American Socialism. Two of the programs are basically insurance schemes to help out older individuals but were developed under a scheme to improve the social welfare of people.

Now go back to socialized medicine in the United States. Even Barrack Obama is not speaking of socialized medicine - he is speaking of reforming the current system and providing national health insurance.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

This goes to show while healthcare is becoming a bigger issue in the United States it still has not reached the stage where people are willing to embrace socialized medicine as the answer.

Frankly I see the benefits of socializing medicial treatment but there are too many drawbacks to unthought out implementation of any such program. Obama might have the best current solution to the problem but even then its not completely fleshed out.

[Beirut]

Life saving assistance can not be denied by law. Your arguement here is false.

I've seen the film of the woman with her second round of brain cancer being told, by her doctor, that her insurance would not cover the operation(s) required to save her life. The doctor said, "I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do." So she cried and she went home. That was not an isolated incident.

So, I am inclined to quote one of our most respected debaters at the Org. and say, "Your argument here is false."

To use this as a point of comparison between for-profit health care and socialized health care; at least with socialized health care they'll try to save her life. Call the effort a commie dream, call it a bureaucratic conumdrum, call it an illogical appeal to emotionalism, call it anything you want, but it's what separates the good from the bad.

Your country and mine live by the laws set out in our Constitutions. Though ambiguous at times, those laws, for the most part, are absolutes. An innocent man goes to jail, for example. His Constitutional rights have been violated, but there you have it. Happens often. But at least the government and society say it's not supposed to happen. Therefore it is not the perfect implementation of law that sets us apart from the less democratic nations, but our mere adherence to the agreed principles of law. It's that we at least agree to try and to keep trying. And the ongoing adherence to the principles of law, the continuous effort, fosters a greater understanding of the law itself and how it relates to and works with society. There is no (can be no) perfection in the system - in any social system - other than in the effort to keep trying to make it better for the good of society.

It is exactly the same thing with socialized health care. We've only had it for about forty-years. It's a work in progress. It needs constant tuning. Hell, you've had your Constitution for two-hundred years, it's only four-pages long and you're still trying to figure it out. Yet you live and die by what it sets forth.

Now, you have repeated that no health care plan offered by the candidates is good enough. Fine. But if you grab the best of the plans, meaning the most socialized one, then you are at least on the right track. Just the same as when you vote for a candidate offering any of a myriad of goverment plans that will cover all aspects of American life. None are perfect, but step by step you build the system until it functions adequately, then, if you're lucky, properly, and then you keep working on it.

[Redleg]

I've seen the film of the woman with her second round of brain cancer being told, by her doctor, that her insurance would not cover the operation(s) required to save her life. The doctor said, "I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do." So she cried and she went home. That was not an isolated incident.

So, I am inclined to quote one of our most respected debaters at the Org. and say, "Your argument here is false."

You are aware of the circumstance of that film, and why it was being used. But then again that was not the initial arguement I presented either. By law the hospital must provide medicial service to protect life and limb regardless of the ability to pay. That does not make the arguement false if a provider elected not to abide the law, now does it?

To use this as a point of comparison between for-profit health care and socialized health care; at least with socialized health care they'll try to save her life. Call the effort a commie dream, call it a bureaucratic conumdrum, call it an illogical appeal to emotionalism, call it anything you want, but it's what separates the good from the bad.

Did she make any effort to get the treatment? Here is where the question becomes one of personal responsiblity. Was her condition treatable but service refused? Lots of bits of information missing from the film.

Your country and mine live by the laws set out in our Constitutions. Though ambiguous at times, those laws, for the most part, are absolutes. An innocent man goes to jail, for example. His Constitutional rights have been violated, but there you have it. Happens often. But at least the government and society say it's not supposed to happen. Therefore it is not the perfect implementation of law that sets us apart from the less democratic nations, but our mere adherence to the agreed principles of law. It's that we at least agree to try and to keep trying. And the ongoing adherence to the principles of law, the continuous effort, fosters a greater understanding of the law itself and how it relates to and works with society. There is no (can be no) perfection in the system - in any social system - other than in the effort to keep trying to make it better for the good of society.

Yep agreed -

It is exactly the same thing with socialized health care. We've only had it for about forty-years. It's a work in progress. It needs constant tuning. Hell, you've had your Constitution for two-hundred years, it's only four-pages long and you're still trying to figure it out. Yet you live and die by what it sets forth.

Unfortunately but socialized medicine guarntee your pevious paragraphs - because treatment is also refused in socialized medicine states - maybe not as much as in the United States from the insurance aspect but I can cite cases that demonstrate that socialize medicine also refuses to treat patients. Again you make an emotional appeal about socialized medicine as the best system but in your arguement you continue to ignore the established programs.

Now, you have repeated that no health care plan offered by the candidates is good enough. Fine. But if you grab the best of the plans, meaning the most socialized one, then you are at least on the right track. Just the same as when you vote for a candidate offering any of a myriad of goverment plans that will cover all aspects of American life. None are perfect, but step by step you build the system until it functions adequately, then, if you're lucky, properly, and then you keep working on it.

None of the plans offered by the candidates is one of socialized health care. Sorry there Beriut but the average voter in the United States does not have the vision of socialized medicine that you have. I dont vote for candidates that continue to spout spending money on social programs without sorting out the problems with the current programs. The best way to fix American Social Welfare programs is to take the ones we currently have and fix them by removing the fraud, waste, and abuse that government corruption and bueraracy has instilled into them. Did you know that Medicaid was established to address the un-insured in the United States, to provide them with the assistance that you desire for all Americans? And look at what it has become. Same with Medicare.

Third rail politics prevents politians from actually doing anything constructive.

[Beirut]

You are aware of the circumstance of that film, and why it was being used.

It was a PBS documentary hosted by Walter Cronkite. (C'mon, I mean, Walter Cronkite.)

But then again that was not the initial arguement I presented either. By law the hospital must provide medicial service to protect life and limb regardless of the ability to pay. That does not make the arguement false if a provider elected not to abide the law, now does it?

Insurance compnaies cut off people all the time, and it is not always illegal. Not by a long shot. it's part of their standard operations.

Did she make any effort to get the treatment? Here is where the question becomes one of personal responsiblity. Was her condition treatable but service refused? Lots of bits of information missing from the film.

Personal responsibility? She was in her Round 2 of a brain tumour. Unless she slept with her head in a microwave I don't see how personal responsibility comes into play.

According to the documentary, her condition was treatable but the insurance company was still within its legal rights to say go home and die.

Unfortunately but socialized medicine guarntee your pevious paragraphs - because treatment is also refused in socialized medicine states - maybe not as much as in the United States from the insurance aspect but I can cite cases that demonstrate that socialize medicine also refuses to treat patients. Again you make an emotional appeal about socialized medicine as the best system but in your arguement you continue to ignore the established programs.

I have had a great deal of experience with our health care system. I know of no outright refusals of care. Both my parents had brain cancer, fatal in both cases, but they were cared for from the first day until the last day (about a year for my father and maybe nine months for my mother) and we were never asked for one red cent.

The established programs you mentioned, IMHO, are insufficient. And I will continue to say that social programs, especially ones of such import, require a human element in their structure and management.

None of the plans offered by the candidates is one of socialized health care. Sorry there Beriut but the average voter in the United States does not have the vision of socialized medicine that you have.

They will one sunny day.

I dont vote for candidates that continue to spout spending money on social programs without sorting out the problems with the current programs.

Yeah, but if the program they have now is no good and they won't fix it, and you won't vote in a new program, that kind of puts you in the corner, doesn't it.

Third rail politics prevents politians from actually doing anything constructive.

Third rail politics are the only ones we like to discuss here. All else is shmoo.

[Redleg]

It was a PBS documentary hosted by Walter Cronkite. (C'mon, I mean, Walter Cronkite.)

Oh since it was on PBS it must be completely truthful? Sorry for being so calous but I find that arguement just goofy.

Insurance compnaies cut off people all the time, and it is not always illegal. Not by a long shot. it's part of their standard operations.

Again I have read of similiar decisions being made by Socialized Medical programs. Do you wish me to cite them. Here is one.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle4040146.ece

Personal responsibility? She was in her Round 2 of a brain tumour. Unless she slept with her head in a microwave I don't see how personal responsibility comes into play.

Personal responsibility for pursueing treatment that she believed was vital. Just going home to die because the insurance company said so - smacks of not taking any personal responsibility to get your health care. Again sounds calous but when an insurance company tells me no - I find out who is the next individual in the chain and so forth until I get an answer. If the answer is still no, I make the problem public and get public pressure applied to both the Insurance Company and the Hospital. So before complaining that the system failed - one should be able to understand the whole picture. This we don't know now do we?

According to the documentary, her condition was treatable but the insurance company was still within its legal rights to say go home and die.

Again what are all the circumstances around the condition and the denial of coverage. Again I can point out and cite articals that say the same about Socialized Medicine

I have had a great deal of experience with our health care system. I know of no outright refusals of care. Both my parents had brain cancer, fatal in both cases, but they were cared for from the first day until the last day (about a year for my father and maybe nine months for my mother) and we were never asked for one red cent.

Got a great deal of experience with the United States health care system - I have never been denied medical treatment regardless of my ability to pay. Even busted my shoulder once when I was a young man without Insurance - and guess what I still got treated and worked out a deal with the Hospital to pay 40% of the bill. Sorry Beruit for your loss.

The established programs you mentioned, IMHO, are insufficient. And I will continue to say that social programs, especially ones of such import, require a human element in their structure and management.

Did I say they didnt have a human element in their structure and management? One accepts that a bit of fraud, waste and abuse will happen given the human element - what one shouldn't accept is the levels in our current systems. As stated before a significant portion of the budget goes to these programs - a significant bit of data that you seem to ignore in your cruscade to convince Americans to adopt Socialized Medicine.

They will one sunny day.

And when the American voters decide that is what they want - then the government will be forced to make the necessary changes - to include hopefully revamping the other social programs so that Socialized Medicine can be funded.

Yeah, but if the program they have now is no good and they won't fix it, and you won't vote in a new program, that kind of puts you in the corner, doesn't it.

The failure of politicians and the people to discuss and fix the third rail political issues is a major problem in the nation. I to hope someday Americans force the government to actually address issues versus the continued whitewashing of them.

Third rail politics are the only ones we like to discuss here. All else is shmoo.

But then we are not politicans.

[Beirut]

Oh since it was on PBS it must be completely truthful? Sorry for being so calous but I find that arguement just goofy.

I never said that just because it was on PBS that it was truthful, but implying that just because it was on PBS that it wasn't, well, sorry to be goofy, but I find that argument callous. Besides, I'll trust PBS before I trust CBS or any of the other sitcom-news shows.

And since when did Walter Cronkite go from the most trusted man in America to a pinko lefty liar?

Again I have read of similiar decisions being made by Socialized Medical programs. Do you wish me to cite them. Here is one.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle4040146.ece

I do not submit that socialized medicine is a perfect system, I only submit that it is more perfect than for-profit health care.

Personal responsibility for pursueing treatment that she believed was vital. Just going home to die because the insurance company said so - smacks of not taking any personal responsibility to get your health care. Again sounds calous but when an insurance company tells me no - I find out who is the next individual in the chain and so forth until I get an answer. If the answer is still no, I make the problem public and get public pressure applied to both the Insurance Company and the Hospital. So before complaining that the system failed - one should be able to understand the whole picture. This we don't know now do we?

A single woman, obviously with scant resources, looking like she was in her forties, going through her second bout of brain cancer with all its devastating physical and physchological side effects from chemo and stress et al, and she's supposed to go toe to toe in a cage match with ACME Uber-Insurance Inc. and their two-hundred lawyers? Are you kidding?

This woman was in desperate shape. She represented the most vulnerable of all people. This is the person who needs protection by the government and in her case, and many more like her, she's dealth a Joker by the system. And the big problem with for-profit medicine is that dealing jokers is legal and considered good business. What can I say but... Gah!

Got a great deal of experience with the United States health care system - I have never been denied medical treatment regardless of my ability to pay. Even busted my shoulder once when I was a young man without Insurance - and guess what I still got treated and worked out a deal with the Hospital to pay 40% of the bill. Sorry Beruit for your loss.

I'm glad you were fairly treated. My only wish is that everyone shares your good fortune.

And thank you for the kind thought. One of the things I appreciate about you is your ability to be a gentleman even when you're smacking someone around.

Did I say they didnt have a human element in their structure and management? One accepts that a bit of fraud, waste and abuse will happen given the human element - what one shouldn't accept is the levels in our current systems. As stated before a significant portion of the budget goes to these programs - a significant bit of data that you seem to ignore in your cruscade to convince Americans to adopt Socialized Medicine.

Indeed, but in all that there are still tens of millions left out in the un-insurable cold. It's simply not good enough. If you weren't able to improve matters, that would be one thing, but that is not the case at all.

And when the American voters decide that is what they want - then the government will be forced to make the necessary changes - to include hopefully revamping the other social programs so that Socialized Medicine can be funded.

I think the American public wants it, but there are very powerful forces who do not want them to want it and are willing to lie, cheat, and steal to make sure they don't want to want it.

The failure of politicians and the people to discuss and fix the third rail political issues is a major problem in the nation. I to hope someday Americans force the government to actually address issues versus the continued whitewashing of them.

You boot, their behind. Works for me.

But then we are not politicans.

No, you and I work for a living.

But when I said third rail politics are all we discuss here, I meant Canadian politicians. Being a bunch of red commies, our politicians spend half their time howling at each other in Parliament about the same issues that Washington politicians wouldn't dare whisper in Congress of the Senate.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

But when I said third rail politics are all we discuss here, I meant Canadian politicians. Being a bunch of red commies, our politicians spend half their time howling at each other in Parliament about the same issues that Washington politicians wouldn't dare whisper in Congress of the Senate.

CPAC is good television.

[Ironside]

As this have descended into a socialized healthcare thread, I did encounter some information yesterday that's interesting. It's unfortunatly on Swedish, but I could link to that one and the English sources if you want.

The US got the most private system in the western world, but it's the most expensive system to the GDP and have been so for at least the last 20 years (it also got the sharpest increase during those years) and to make matters worse, it's also amoung the worst.

So while you're in dire need of reforms, socialized healthcare does hardly by itself look like a more expensive system, rather the opposite.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It really depends how efficient a health care system is.

[Divinus Arma]

Wow. I don't think anyone actually answered the original question. But I'm glad you have all had fun.

[Devastatin Dave]

And since when did Walter Cronkite go from the most trusted man in America to a pinko lefty liar?

1968

[Lemur]

Good article about what doctors go through in our current system here. Hard to believe we can't improve on the current mess ...

Dr. Bhupinder Singh, 42, a general internist in New York, sold his practice and went to work part time at a hospital in Queens.

“I’d write a prescription,” he told me, “and then insurance companies would put restrictions on almost every medication. I’d get a call: ‘Drug not covered. Write a different prescription or get preauthorization.’ If I ordered an M.R.I., I’d have to explain to a clerk why I wanted to do the test. I felt handcuffed. It was a big, big headache.”

When he decided to work in a hospital, he figured that there would be more freedom to practice his specialty.

“But managed care is like a magnet attached to you,” he said.

He continues to be frustrated by payment denials. “Thirty percent of my hospital admissions are being denied. There’s a 45-day limit on the appeal. You don’t bill in time, you lose everything. You’re discussing this with a managed-care rep on the phone and you think: ‘You’re sitting there, I’m sitting here. How do you know anything about this patient?’ ”

Recently, he confessed, he has been thinking about quitting medicine altogether and opening a convenience store. “Ninety percent of doctors I know are fed up with medicine,” he said.

[rory_20_uk]

My personal choice is moving into Management Consultancy - where I am the solution to the myriad of problems and not shackled by morons who have no idea and who have bosses that are paid more than myself.

But good to hear that there's this farce in other countries too.

[Banquo's Ghost]

My personal choice is moving into Management Consultancy - where I am the solution to the myriad of problems and not shackled by morons who have no idea and who have bosses that are paid more than myself.

You have a significant misunderstanding of Management Consultancy.

You aren't there to bring solutions - there's a very high chance you won't have a clue. What you are there to do is provide a fig leaf for the board when they make unpopular decisions.

Management consultant - a man who borrows your watch and then tells you the time.

[rory_20_uk]

Heh - I've heard that one. And the description of "hatchet men" or "yes men", and I'm sure all are true some of the time.

Of the "uses your watch to tell you the time" I'd all the caveat that the person with the watch is too stupid to use it!

There are at least some success stories about plans that have been implemented well. Either way, I'm earning £20 an hour generally, and I do nights and weekends, and have no perks. They can earn up to hundreds of pounds an hour, and get loads of perks and the occasional night and weekend. I'm prepared to be the board's stooge for that - I'm already a government / NHS stooge. At least there's honesty in the city - I'm expected to be a liar there.