You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
MySploofus
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  The Salty Dog  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message



Pages:  1    


sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sat, 30th May '09 7:26 AM

HEALTH INS

just spoke to friends in Holland. Mitch got a new knee, is getting the other one done in July. My friends both have good jobs. I asked them how much the whole thing cost. They said, "nothing, of course". Hmmmmm...

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sat, 30th May '09 8:05 AM

What is your point?

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sat, 30th May '09 8:32 AM

gosh dangit, knew someone would ask.
Well... if someone in the US needed a new knee and didn't have insurance, well, good luck on the new knee....hello unemploymet til that runs out, then hello, nothing.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Sat, 30th May '09 9:01 AM

Just know my family doc is green carding from Canada and he as told me the health cares system there is why he doesn't live there any more. Don't believe we will get many doctors let alone specialists with the money it costs them for their education if we follow Canada's lead. Don't know much about Holland period.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 30th May '09 9:13 AM

Holland is the country with lots of dikes, Linda.

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sat, 30th May '09 9:40 AM

Sandy, thanks so much for clearing that up. The type of government-owned health care plan is not really so bad as the Gopers posit. With 50 million people in the United States without insurance, and perhaps 25 million more under insured, it just behooves me as to how The GOPers can accuse these people as do- for- nothing- takers and lazy etc.; especially people struggling to pay bills or without jobs? It's sacrilegious for huge Corporations and others to allow their fellow Americans to fall into abyss. They care more about bible thumping than the words written in bible--namely "do unto others as thou would have thee do unto thou".

maurlin
Maurlin  (Level: 213.3 - Posts: 2671)
Sat, 30th May '09 9:45 AM

Andy- Does Holland have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy?


caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Sat, 30th May '09 9:49 AM

Not a Goper nor a Demo but don't believe Obama has any specific plan and is clueless how to pay for anything that the Congress headed by the genius Nancy might muddle together. He has discovered there is simply not enough "fat cats" Goper or Demo to pay for his I have a dream things ....and the argument that it will pay for itself makes less sense by the second-no free rides-someone(s) pay for everything

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Sat, 30th May '09 9:50 AM

I believe you can smoke pot in Holland...

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Sat, 30th May '09 10:51 AM

Beverly, would Chrysler and GM be a good example of those "fat cat' corporations? Looks like they paid health care and wages to people who no longer worked and coupled with taxes they are no longer "fat cats" nor do they exist as we have known them- they will soon be dropped from the which will give that an uptick. They will continue toi be a bottomless pits for taxpayer money. Don't believe the owners of the car dealerships had any type of guaranteed health care nor retirement packages.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 30th May '09 12:29 PM

Maurlin, you're a little confused. Those would be dykes. Anyway "don't ask-don't tell" concerns just military men, I think.

Holland's actually an amazing little country built on a swamp.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sat, 30th May '09 2:03 PM

I have heard the general "stock" arguments that are generally "always" given one way or the other, a few have shown up already in this thread of course. Outside of those, I guess I was wondering from someone who knows more why we can't have a mixed system? Does it not work in practice or something? I mean a system where those who can afford to pay can have the health care that I think is mislabeled as the best in the world while the poor can rely on the universal health care, much like we have in the education system currently with private vs public schools?



caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Sat, 30th May '09 2:19 PM

Jeremy, not sure on this one as no definite plan is in place. Believe the fear is that if a private health care system tries to compete with a government one, they cannot. Any employer currently providing through a private health care system like BC/BS would switch to the government one as it is cheaper like many forced into HMO's -movie "John Q" illustrates the pitfalls to many of those missing a DEFINITE plan don't believe anything should be funded because no one knows what the taxpayers are funding. For those of you who don't like big business there is also talk that folks like BC/Bs or like plans . would get the government contract-lobby groups are powerful. It is being said that if someone likes their current health care plan they can keep it but until a plan is there dunno about that-many promises made and broken. Linda

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Sat, 30th May '09 2:35 PM

My point is someone has to pay for this. It will be the tax payer. I am a tax payer and want to know what I am paying for and the terms and conditions just like any wise buyer. The "government" has no cash on hand-taxes will be raised somewhere or maybe in multiple places. We don't have a clue what we are paying for nor the terms and conditions- Linda

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sat, 30th May '09 3:23 PM

Linda, maybe the legalized pot helps fund their healthcare. No. Of course it does. Seeing as pot is California's largest cash crop, maybe not a bad idea to legalize a drug that's much less destructive than alcohol. I've heard that it's incredibly easy to get medical marijuana there anyway. Too bad we don't have more west coast sploofusers. I've been away from there for 20 yrs, and don't know the real deal. Still have friends there, but we're getting so old, we don't talk about stuff like drugs!
Dikes vs dykes. Hmm, the former protect Holland and the latter are probably too smart for that.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 30th May '09 3:25 PM

Once more with feeling:

There is no such thing as medical marijuana - the Supreme Court.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sat, 30th May '09 3:31 PM

Laws can change. I'm sure that business law changes all the time. It's these "moral" issues that keep everyone distracted from what's really going on IMO.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Sat, 30th May '09 3:35 PM

Sorry, Andy, believe that is a stupid law but then again I don't make them or rule on them. Medicaid is a government funded program which already exists for the truly poor-differs from state to state. Generally you have to not have many assets and have children and be a US citizen to qualify. As with Medicare there is tremendous waste and mismanagement and downright fraud as always happens with a huge government program Linda

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sat, 30th May '09 3:42 PM

Hmmm....well, I'm not too worried personally about the private sector not being able to compete with public, though not knowing enough perhaps I should be, as in education if the product truly is superior I believe they will have customers like private schools do. To what degree taxes are going to be raised I'd probably worry "some" about. Anyone have any idea? I already pay a certain amount a month for benefit coverage, I think around low to mid $100 per month, I'd have to look as I really don't pay attention to it. On some jobs I've actually payed more, on some less. With the school district I of course payed nothing for it, the tax payers did. I guess with me I wouldn't worry about so much about a tax increase, but to what degree I would be taxed. I would be saving some money, and not just on the monthly premiums, so perhaps it would have "some" element of an even exchange, and a small increase wouldn't bother me much. Anyone have a ball park figure as to what amount our taxes would be increased, or what they are talking about? Or are the details at this point still sketchy?

On a related issue, anyone hear about Massachusetts recent universal health care plan? I think that's what you might call it.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_2006_Health_Reform_Statute

I'd love to hear how it's working....and I haven't yet had time to read the article, even if the article mentions it.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sat, 30th May '09 3:45 PM

Like private insurance has no fraud. I just don't like a health care system that makes money by giving you the least it can for your money. Just set up to make money for the insurance company. I don't think of health care as a commodity like, say, cars.
Have yet to hear from a Canadian or European who is willing to give up their healthcare benefits for ours. Anyone?
BTW, we have lots of Aussie members. What system do you have?

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.6 - Posts: 2144)
Sat, 30th May '09 4:18 PM

I do recall seeing a post from someone from France perhaps? About a friend who had something wrong, had lost their vision and had a 4 month wait to get in. Responses from others in Europe were saying "Go private and pay the cost. Its worth it." Our local doctors on staff, Slicko & RJ, were telling them the wait was out of the question and to get in immediately.

I know when my sister in Canada had her stroke, she thought she was going to die because she was in Canada. According to her, she got lucky with one particular doctor, but she said that it is a frustrating system.

I think free health care has its ups and downs. Yes, you have health care, which is really important. But people using this system will have to understand that there will be long lines, long waits, short visits, and if something doesn't work with your treatment, you get to do it all over again. But, at least you have health care.

I'm not trying to chime in on either side of the coin here. I'm just saying that the free part is going to be offset by the inconvenient part. Some people will be grateful just to have health care, and some are going to be total a-holes, feeling they are entitled to more than they are getting, even though its free to them.

I have a daughter who is currently without health care and it scares me to death. But that doesn't make me cringe any less to see the government involved in yet another program. I hope they get this one right.





collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 30th May '09 4:25 PM

Sandy, no matter what happens, there isn't enough health care to go around. I'd like to see some reasonable improvements to make health care more accessible to all. At the same time I don't favor heart transplants for Skid Row bums.

I will be surprised if anything frightfully expensive will be put in play this year. We neither have the the money or the strong economy to support it.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sat, 30th May '09 4:35 PM

When I look at our list of patients in the small hospital I work for, usually 90% are medicare or medicaid. Think we already have national health care.
From what I've heard, medicare works beautifully. It's coming folks, no matter what.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sat, 30th May '09 4:45 PM

I don't know, as usual I'm a bit skeptical. Maybe the 16% or so of Americans who don't have any coverage whatsoever would vote for it hands down, and then tack on another significant amount for those who think their benefits suck, and then there's the good hearted, but I'm pretty sure I remember Bill Clinton trying to pass some such thing, and even though I don't know the details Truman I believe tried to pass something similar.......but so many people would lose out financially. Even with strong backing in the government I tend to worry to about it's chances sometimes.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 30th May '09 4:55 PM

Medical marijuana does not exist - 9-0 at the Supreme Court, guys

Don't even think about it!

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.6 - Posts: 2144)
Sat, 30th May '09 4:56 PM

You're assuming we will get the opportunity to vote.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Sat, 30th May '09 5:08 PM

Wasn't there a post a bit back about Medicare running out of money VERY soon? Another case of too many takers and not enough givers. Only solution government to get a bean counter in and figure out cost effective and weed out us old folks. Just a side note: in my area it is difficult to find a doctor if you have medicare only-a few but not many. The first thing in the door of any hospital after you get past the security guard-not sure if he is at the ER door-is your picture ID and your insurance cards. Not much of anything is done on a personal level not only in hospitals but in banks and so many other places-Linda

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sat, 30th May '09 5:10 PM

Well, I guess what I was assuming without saying so is that even if we don't get a physical vote we get a public opinion vote that's influences things "somewhat", but I'm no political expert, lol, I hate this stuff. What's this medical marijuana stuff? I obviously missed something here.....

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 30th May '09 5:13 PM

You didn't miss anything.

Medical marijuana is a myth.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sat, 30th May '09 5:16 PM

One man's myth is another man's religion.

oldcougar
Oldcougar  (Level: 219.7 - Posts: 1935)
Sat, 30th May '09 5:18 PM

Many of the problems with Canadian healthcare stem from a lack of doctors, especially general practitioners. We trained (subsidized their education) a lot of doctors, who promptly moved to the States in search of the big buck. Apparently, many of those are now moving back ( I read that info in a legit newspaper). The US will have the same problems if more doctors aren't trained & they allow the specialists to be paid so much more than a GP. We've been trying to address that cash issue here but the rates paid are set by the Medical Board & you guessed it, only the specialists sit on the Board In BC they are trying to lower costs by getting rid of the unionized support workers, cleaners, cooks, etc. Now we're having big problems with hospital-born infections, like MRSA, because the hospitals aren't being cleaned properly. Those infections are now wide spread in the community. As many of you know, that's what plagued me for 2 years & I no doubt sucked up a lot of funds, penny-wise & pound foolish if you ask me. If you asked me in person, I'd fill the air with blue smoke so thick it would choke politicians for miles

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Sat, 30th May '09 5:21 PM

That is Andy's opinion and the current ruling of the Supreme Court. Justin started this thread http://www.sploofus.com/bbs_detail.sp?post=151334&cID=7 but he said people could post once only and no reply to anyone else. Sandracam (Sandy) started one much further back-too hard to find old posts by topic since 2.0 where there was exchange between players. This is also an issue where all of us do not agree - Linda

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 30th May '09 5:30 PM

I think that was 7 men and two women (O'Connor and Ginsburg), Donna.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 30th May '09 5:32 PM

BTW, Linda, that is not my opinion. I have no opinion, but I do trust nine of the brightest people on the planet.


lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.6 - Posts: 2144)
Sat, 30th May '09 5:35 PM

Donna & Randy

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sat, 30th May '09 5:38 PM



Yes Linda, Chrysler and GM could be a good example of those corporations?

Georgie Boy started the bailouts and over taking of the auto industry. You keep blaming President Obama for everything when you should blame the last "fat cat" war criminal regime for it. The only bottomless pits for taxpayer money is the inflation we will have in the long term run if we don't fix the short term. When you crunch the numbers, if we don't reduce long-term health care inflation we can't get control of the deficit. We had to spend a lot of money to salvage our financial system, we had to deal with the auto companies, a huge recession which drains tax revenue at the same time it's putting more pressure on governments to provide unemployment insurance or make sure that food stamps are available for people who have been laid off. Otherwise, federal spending will grow and grow and grow and grow until essentially it consumes everything. That's the wrong option. Do you want to continue going down the slippery slop? Change is the name of the game.

.



caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Sat, 30th May '09 5:39 PM

The discussion was about the merits of working to change the law-believe that has been multiple times in the US Within that discussion we gave our opinions -you had yours which coincides with current law but differs from mine

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.6 - Posts: 2144)
Sat, 30th May '09 5:39 PM

And I use the because I hate LOL.

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sat, 30th May '09 5:44 PM

Collioure you rather kill a human being ( skid row bum) than give him/her a heart. Isn't it you who thinks abortion is against Christianity?Andy, it looks like you need a heart too.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Sat, 30th May '09 5:48 PM

PSSTTT "GEORGIE BOY" did not fire the CEO of GM. He did give them the first 'bailout" which was supposed to be a bridge loan but everyone knew it was not. GEORGIE BOY made a mess of the economy but TOTUS is playing double down poker with the debt. I see we are back to prosecuting the "War Crimes". You might want to check with the folks believe moveon.org who say Obama's drone strikes in Pakistan are targeting innocent civilians. HYou will have to be quick to catch TOTUS though as he is constantly on the campaign trail GESUS

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 30th May '09 5:48 PM

I'm pro-choice, Beverly, but it's a subject that is discussed far too much IMO.

We can't give heart transplants to everyone, Beverly. So IMO they need to be offered to productive members of our society. OK?

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sat, 30th May '09 5:54 PM

So how can you judge who is productive or nonproductive? It's akin to murder to assume giving a transplant to a so-called bum a chance to rehab and become perhaps the next Nobel Prize a chance to do something very productive for mankind. Agree?

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 117.7 - Posts: 1745)
Sat, 30th May '09 6:00 PM

Are we talking about staph infections which also plagues hospitals here as well. I have a friend who was always getting some form of hospital infection because he was in and out of VA hospitals etc. I am not insured and I don't know where some people get there stats but is in more in the realm of 50 million uninsured or under insured in US. That is a staggering statistic. I think I would take my chances in a country with governmental health care rather than die if I got cancer in US. Just a thought but John Q is not just fiction it probably happens all the time. I am very frightened of this possibility. I do not qualify for medicaid because my kids are grown and way too young for medicare. Please don't post something to add to this if you are wealthy, heavily insured you really don't qualify to criticize someone who has zero health care.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 30th May '09 6:00 PM

Get serious, Beverly.

I said a Skid Row bum.

FYI decisions will be made as to who gets heart transplants and other very costly procedures. There will be priorities and waiting lines. I see such here in France.

Remember Walton Payton? Needed a liver transplant. Didn't get one. Chances of him surviving even after a transplant were not good. Priorities. Waiting lines.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 117.7 - Posts: 1745)
Sat, 30th May '09 6:06 PM

You mean Walter Payton of course. Who puts a value on human life, who is to say a skid row bum is less a person than someone else. Honestly sometimes I don't understand. I am sure that all that consideration came into play in Payton case, who is beloved by me at least born and raised in Chicago.

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sat, 30th May '09 6:11 PM

I am serious. First of all, this is not France. Secondly, Walter didn't get the liver because his money didn't matter. His disease was rare; therefore, he expired before the match could be found. That is why our President's plan outweighs the red tape and decision makers(insurance and drug companies) who profit only from the premiums and profits.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 30th May '09 6:15 PM

Right, Walter Payton, thank you.

Even a rich ex-NFL star like that couldn't get to the top of the heap for a liver.

We began this thread with knee replacements. Do you really think a 90-year old who needs one is going to get his before a 50-year old who is likely to benefit from his for 25 years?

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 30th May '09 6:19 PM

No, Beverly, you are mistaken about Payton. He was not considered for a transplant because livers were in short supply. They are given to those for whom they will do the most good.

And all government health care problems work in similar ways. France is quite relevant. So are Canada, England, . . .

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sat, 30th May '09 8:34 PM

Linda: Thanx for clearing up that marijuana statement, obviously that absurdity had not yet hit my ears. On a similar topic, I wonder where the individuals on this thread stand in relation to "medical tobacco". Ever heard of it? I haven't had a chance to check up on the references listed in the article I was reading, but it was very interesting stuff.

Bobo: 50 mill (uninsured u.s. citizens) divided by 300 mill (total u.s. population) = 16.6% uninsured

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 117.7 - Posts: 1745)
Sat, 30th May '09 9:33 PM

Sorry thanks for the math lesson. It may even be a higher number now that unemployment has gone up. Cobra only lasts a couple months after you lose your job. That is still a large percentage of population and we aren't counting the people with next to no benefits. Meaning the people whose insurance coverage has a low cap or it only covers certain medical conditions. In any event needless to say we need National Health Care. If we can find a way to pay for it and deal with the bureaucracy. We are the greatest country on earth and yet we are saying to our citizens if you don't have insurance, you will just have to die. That or not get sick. Period. If we can find a way to pay for bullits and bombs we should be able to pay for health care. It is essential, right up there with infant care, education and defense spending.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sat, 30th May '09 10:44 PM

Citizens covered is not the problem. The system is being sucked dry by illegals who are guaranteed care at county hospitals who cannot turn anyone away, and we all pay for it.

Illegals already have free health care, and we are paying for it.

Folks, NOTHING is free.

And also, there are many young people (20s) not covered because they CHOOSE to not be covered. They are young and have no health problems, have no children, see no need for coverage until a bit later in life.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sat, 30th May '09 11:00 PM

Insurance companies LOVE folks in their 20s and 30s cause they rarely get sick!! We need to take care of sick people!!!

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sat, 30th May '09 11:12 PM

(I was just adding that about people in their 20s because they figure into the 16% plus who do not have health care. It's proof that some of those 16% don't even want health care, so they should not be considered as proof we need "free" health care)

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sat, 30th May '09 11:37 PM

try having a 20 yr old in a car wreck. People have no idea what a hospital stay will cost.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 31st May '09 12:14 AM

True - but doesnt the car insurance pay that?

And of course, most 20s people are not yet aware of their mortality, so they're just trying to get a job and a place to live and a car that runs. Insurance seems unimportant to them.

spicyhedgehog
Spicyhedgehog  (Level: 96.2 - Posts: 69)
Sun, 31st May '09 12:47 AM

well being from the UK where you have the NHS system, which you pay for through your salary, they call it you national Insurance contributions yes it does entitle you to "free health care". you can also take out a private health care to get seen quicker, but 9 times out of 10 you see the same doctor regardless if you pay private or not just the bedside manner is different!

I had an injury before we left the uk and went to A & E where i was seen by a foreign Doctor who with just looking at my foot and asking me to move my toes informed me nothing broken! bearing in mind most Doctors in our Hospitals are foreign as Brits wont work for the wages/Hours offered!

Please dont think I am dissing Britain as it is my home country, but 8 weeks later there is a still a problem with my foot!

I am now gonna have to wait for our medical insurance to kick in in BC so I can find out the true problem!

which I am gonna have to pay for!

I know many people living in the UK who have had problems with the medical system.

When my husband was seriously ill he had first class service all the way through.

So maybe its the luck of the draw as to what Doctor you see, and what country you are in.

R x



sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Sun, 31st May '09 1:02 AM

Hope you get it fixed soon!
So, would you be willing to trade our private insurance based system with yours?

spicyhedgehog
Spicyhedgehog  (Level: 96.2 - Posts: 69)
Sun, 31st May '09 1:34 AM

To be honest from what I have read the US and Canada have far superior health care compared to the UK.

We have been in Canada 8 weeks so can not comment on the health care as of yet!

But I know the UK has a lot of problems same as Randy mentioned earlier with MRSA in the hospitals.

We have to be in BC 3 months before we are eligible for Medical care, which is mandatory for everyone, we pay for that so I guess same as the UK through the wages if you go by the conversion of the Canadian Dollar to the pound sterling at the moment.

My husband is on blood pressure tablets which runs in the family, so we will have to pay here for those, but in the UK Wales where we are from we got free prescriptions but England has to pay for theirs! not sure about Scotland.

So again I guess where you are makes a difference, I know people in the UK that have abused the free system, which makes it harder for the people that really need the treatment.

Waiting lists are high in the UK, as the goverment keeps cutting back.

As for trading, we have not had the experience of the Canadian health service yet, so can't comment.

As I said before my husband has been ill twice and had superior service through the free system others have not been so lucky!











spicyhedgehog
Spicyhedgehog  (Level: 96.2 - Posts: 69)
Sun, 31st May '09 1:39 AM

forgot to say on the end in my opinion Free is not always better!

R x

spicyhedgehog
Spicyhedgehog  (Level: 96.2 - Posts: 69)
Sun, 31st May '09 2:01 AM

look at me I am a posting Demon tonight!

don't you hate it when you post something and then you think of something else to say!!

Another thing about the Welsh/UK system!

where we are from in Wales they have closed 2 hospitals. and want to close the maternity ward as apparently they are not so many people having babies in Pembrokeshire!!!!! also want to close the whole hospital which covers most of south Pembrokeshire! and build a super hospital. bearing in mind they have just built 2 LNG (liquid natural Gas) plants on the coast line within 10 miles of the hospital!

the 3rd Deepest natural port in the world!!!!

if there is a major disaster and the nearest hospital is 40 miles away??? plus they have lost paramedic coverage through rural parts of the county, and fire services! maybe free health care is not the way to go!

will leave it up to you to decide, could write an essay but sure it is the same over a lot of the UK plus other countries!

R x

oldcougar
Oldcougar  (Level: 219.7 - Posts: 1935)
Sun, 31st May '09 2:14 AM

I think it was Jeremy/StoutYL that mentioned medical tobacco above. Just wanted to comment that my eldest step-son who has colitis was advised by his specialist to use tobacco to help combat the disease. So, even that dreaded weed has its medical uses. Since his operation, he has given up chewing tobacco.

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.6 - Posts: 2144)
Sun, 31st May '09 2:18 AM

Thanks for your comments, Ms. SpicySpice. It is as many of us expected. And I've seen the pictures of your foot. Are you kidding me?



smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 31st May '09 4:13 AM

I wish I had more time for this topic, it's one that I enjoy learning about and discussing. Here's a quickly plagiarized argument from a University that I think "helps" the universal health care argument, which on this thread at least is the side that seems to need help, lol, and even addresses Spicy's comments to a certain degree:

According to the World Health Organization’s 2000 study, the United States does lead the world in health care in several categories, both cost (obviously) and in responsiveness. In the category of cost, the amount spent was more than double the median for OECD countries. Responsiveness has to do with NON-HEALTH areas, such as how patients are “treated” (respect, etc.). Other than that, the United States did not score well. We are approaching one in five citizens not being covered by any health plan whatsoever.

The U.S. also ranked 26th for infant mortality rates, with black citizens having more than twice the infant mortality rates of whites. We again ranked very low, 24th on the disability adjusted life expectancy, which is how long people live in full health. When it comes to “fairness” in health care financing, the U.S. was ranked the lowest, as to be expected. When it comes to satisfaction with the health care system, the U.S. was ranked relatively low at 40 percent. Even the UK, which has had persisting problems with its national health service in recent years, had almost 60 percent of its citizens saying they were either very or fairly satisfied. It is as terrible as many of us expected.

Love this quote btw: “Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.” –Martin Luther King Jr.

All material quickly, unabashedly, and unapologetically plagiarized for discussion purposes only from the University of Maine, at:
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

BTW, this does not mean I am entirely in favor of universal health care, but am just partly playing devils advocate and partly figuring out where I stand as I go. Certainly I enjoy the debate at any rate.


caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Sun, 31st May '09 4:36 AM

People keep Talking about Obama's PLAN . HE does NOT have a plan. He wants money for a DREAM!

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 31st May '09 4:40 AM

Jeremy

NB: if you're really sick, you want to be in the USA - and nowhere else.

(But you can keep extolling the virtues of health care in Cuba if you so choose.)

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 31st May '09 10:33 AM

Collioure: from what I've heard when facing an extreme healthcare situation this is the place to be. I was extolling the virtues of the other system hoping someone would do likewise for the American system, because I enjoy the debate. No such luck. I am pretty good at killing threads though. If I had more time I would defend the American system as well....much easier with the pre-packaged arguments that are handed to us in every magazine and newspaper article seems like.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 31st May '09 11:02 AM

Jeremy, isn't it true though, that there is no such thing as "free" health care?

The government has no money. It only has what it takes from the citizens.

And won't the amount each citizen will pay for universal health care actually be MORE than we are paying now per person?

And people who aren't sick and don't need a doctor will also be paying that higher amount though they get no benefit from it whatsoever?

And aren't people not covered by their own private health care now able to get health care for "free" at county hospitals who cannot turn anyone away?

So even though we pay more now, when universal health care is implemented, in truth won't we actually be paying more than now because now we will also be paying for the monster bureaucracy involved in running it?

And won't the decision about what happens to you be now meted out based on what government committees approve and disapprove, rather than what your doctor believes you need?

And won't fewer people go into medicine because their pay level will be substantially lower than now because every area takes a cut to support the bureaucracy? And if there is graft and corruption now, won't there be a chance of even more then - based on what we have seen done with the TARP money that is not tracked and so many cannot seem to track where it all went?

Maybe the private sector doesn't do all things well, but I can't think of ANYTHING the government does better - except in those things the constitution calls them to do, such as national security.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 31st May '09 11:12 AM

Jeremy, I am not going to extol the American system which I think needs some adjustments, and I am not going to extol the French system which has its deficiencies

But I am going to emphasize that if you're very sick, you want to be in the USA.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 31st May '09 3:23 PM

Janice: Well, because I'm playing devil's advocate and partially developing my views as I go, all I can do is look for semi-intelligent retorts as I go. I don't have the free time to answer everything, but I will have to warn you that the "majority" of the following argument was blatantly stolen from the American Medical Student Association at: http://www.amsa.org/

So here are "some" answers to the questions you asked:

Will the amount that each citizen will pay for universal health care be more than we are paying now per person?

I guess if I were to formulate an argument along this line, I would have to discuss two topics: the cost to taxpayers and the cost saved by taxpayers.

Cost: You would have to factor in the cost of increased use of healthcare, the cost of covering the costs that the uninsured currently pay, and the cost of covering as you mentioned the kind of care that hospitals generally write off. Depending on the solution, you might have to cover increased costs of those who are currently insured using free services.

Savings: There is actually a cost to members of society for having fewer years to put in when it comes to participating in the workforce, uninsured children are more likely to suffer developmentally, thus decreasing their future earning ability, ability to contribute taxes, and possibly placing a burden on the system, money would also be saved from Medicare, SSDI, and the criminal justice system, to whatever degree that might be. There would be a decreased use of the ER by those who are uninsured, saving money, costs saved by preventative care that helps to prevent late stage disease which is much more expensive to treat. There is also a loss of possible entrepreneurship as people who would be willing to start up their own business don’t because they need the benefits. The financial strain of providing health insurance strains businesses financially so they cannot invest in expansion and cuts into profits. Because America is probably the only industrialized country not to have universal health care, it makes our products more expensive and less competitive. For example, “Wagoner told shareholders Tuesday that health-care expenses add $1,500 to the cost of each GM vehicle. This puts GM at a “significant disadvantage versus foreign-based competitors,” Wagoner said, echoing comments made by the Standard & Poor’s and Fitch ratings services after both reduced the company’s bond rating to “junk” status last month.” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8129876/from/RL.2/) Financially, medical costs are a major cause of personal bankruptcy. Also, as health care costs skyrocket out of control, employers are forced to give smaller wage increases. I could keep going with arguments found on the internet, but I won’t.

Aren’t people not covered by their own private health care able to get health care for free at county hospitals who cannot turn anyone away?

Yes, I think that is true, but it already raises our healthcare costs quite a bit, as nothing is really free, and in general preventative care which people won’t receive under the current system is less expensive than emergency care, so it may represent a savings.

Won’t we be paying more because of the monster bureaucracy involved in running it?

True, POSSIBLY. “In 2005, the Emory economist Dr. Kenneth Thorpe published an important report for the National Coalition for Health Care, a strictly non-partisan, broad-based coalition of businesses, providers, unions, and other groups interested in improving the health care system. In this report, Dr. Thorpe calculated the costs to the government of instituting health care for all under four different scenarios. The important point to take away from Thorpe’s study is that universal health care, coupled with cost controls, can save money while expanding health care access to everyone. If universal health care simply expanded access, the net expenditure would be large. The only way to pay for this expanded access is to institute cost controls such as administrative simplification.” (Quoted summary found at the following: http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf) ” The original report from Dr. Thorpe is publicly available at: http://www.nchc.org/documents/Thorpe%20booklet.pdf

As far as what the government does better than the private sector, I’m of the personal opinion that in some ways the government does “ethics” a bit better for starters, lol. (I’m sure I’ll get flack for that comment.) I mean, the government spends an inordinate amount of time “trying" to protect people, whether it gets it right or not. There are areas where I think it succeeds, and the private sector does not. Even if I am a small government person ideologically, I'm not always one in practice.


lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.6 - Posts: 2144)
Sun, 31st May '09 3:41 PM

Just because a hospital can't turn you away doesn't mean you get free services. It just means that they will save your life even if you do not have insurance. You will still be billed and sued. Unless they determine pursuing you is more costly than just writing off the debt.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 117.7 - Posts: 1745)
Sun, 31st May '09 3:54 PM

I have been to emergency rooms having no health insurance. They can't turn you down but all they have to do is "stabilize" you. Another words patch you up and send you along your way. They still bill you and sue you, and you could "destabilize" if you don't seek medical attention follow-up with a physcian after you are released. But yes they will save you if you are bleeding to death. They won't however provide any long term follow up care. I am sorry no matter how inadequate we need reform in our health care policy. Some kind of subsidy for people who can't afford it or are out of work and Cobra runs out. My daughter had a broken ankle and she was fitted with a brace and sent home. She had to borrow the money to have a physician cast it.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 31st May '09 3:59 PM

I don't know if it was more costly to sue me or not, but when I was young and uninsured I had an Adventist hospital write off $38,000 dollars from a week long hospital stay. Another hospital in Montana wrote off about $10,000 for me.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 117.7 - Posts: 1745)
Sun, 31st May '09 4:10 PM

Boy, you really do play the devils advocate. Who's side are you on. I am saying, say patient John Doe has cancer and needs treatment, hospitals won't provide treatment without insurance. Emergency rooms are for medical trauma not for continuing care. So what should John Doe do? I guess your answer is suck it up and die.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 31st May '09 4:20 PM

Bobo: my response was actually to Lodi, believe we posted about the same time. As far as who's side I'm on, I refuse to dismiss universal health care merely because it is the majority opinion in the country I live in that I should probably do so, when for the rest of the industrialized world it's the "norm". All I can say is I'm looking closely at it, when I have time.

I truly wouldn't know what I would say to John Doe at this point, but under various scenarios that I could think of if I stopped thinking about it today this very minute I would want some kind of minimum care for him tentatively at the very least. I might however be against extensive treatment for his cancer depending on the circumstance.

To quit playing devil's advocate for one minute in regards universal healthcare, one thing that worries me is that the government would get to decide who recieves treatment, and it would be reduced to some kind of inhumane "mathematical formula" that really doesn't take enough into account, like the way our financial sector has been heading.

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.6 - Posts: 2144)
Sun, 31st May '09 4:45 PM

Don't forget that we have the Health & Welfare system, Medicaid, and Medicare. Additionally, some states also have insurance programs where those who don't qualify for Medicaid can still purchase medical insurance at a significantly reduced rate. I know the State of Washington has such a program and medical insurance can be purchased for about $35 a month, which includes a small copay for dr. visits & prescriptions ($10 or $15). However, I know this program is now in financial jeopardy because of the economy.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 31st May '09 4:52 PM

Oregon has that too. Long before the economy went sour I think the program was in jeopardy, primarily because the only people it caters to are so poor they can't (or possibly won't) pay their co-pays (is what I think I read in the Oregonian). I tried to get on that when I was working about three to four days a week at minimum wage at a grocery store. Apparently I made too much money for the Oregon Health Plan. Of course, last I heard it wasn't even accepting new people to it anymore, but maybe that's changed. I haven't been impressed with ours. Your states fairing any better with those than ours?

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.6 - Posts: 2144)
Sun, 31st May '09 5:04 PM

I can't find one in Idaho and just happened to read an article in the paper yesterday about Washington State. From what I can find on the internet, even the qualifications for Medicaid are very vague and I can't get a straight answer. I've never really paid attention to these kinds of things before but now that we are discussing it, I thought I would do some research. Especially because I have a daughter who is without health care and I wanted to see what options were available for her. I think she is a typical person in their mid-twenties though. She isn't the slightest bit interested in seeing if there are options out there for her right now but excited about the possibility of free health care.

Before she moved back from Boise, she said that the Rite Aid there had a dr. on staff, and if you were sick, you could go in for an office visit for $35 and get inexpensive prescriptions. We don't have that option here but it seems like a wonderful thing to have available for those who only need to see a doctor once or twice a year.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 31st May '09 5:08 PM

For me a lifesaver health care wise when I was going to the University of Montana was the school doctor, and the insurance for it was paid out of financial aid.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 117.7 - Posts: 1745)
Mon, 1st Jun '09 9:01 PM

When I attended SIU a state University, health care was free covered by student fees. It was included in tuition. I know I had to get birth control, I had a bad case of poison ivy. I knew many people who utilized clinic and hospital there. Then when I was married I was covered thru the teamsters. Since then I have had hit and miss insurance. I currently need a pap smear, mammography, I know I can go to health department for some of that. Medicaid is I repeat not available unless you are pregnant, have children or are disabled. No one has yet to come up with what John Q Public would do if diagnosed with long term illness and had no insurance.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Tue, 2nd Jun '09 6:56 AM

Young people may not want or even (if their lucky) need it, but you have to have both healthy and sick contributing for any plan to work. The current private system (unless you have it through work--shrinking group) in which you're excluded for almost anything, benefits no one but the insurance companies. The young pay, but probably won't use it, and people who need it aren't allowed.
But, the young eventually get old....so when they need it they can get tossed too. It's not like we're expecting a big baby boom, where they'll have tons of younger workers contributing--especially with life expectancy increasing. Oh, wait. Without health insurance, it will actually decrease. Never mind.

alvandy
Alvandy  (Level: 229.1 - Posts: 7560)
Tue, 2nd Jun '09 7:08 AM

Many countries have found solutions for their health care crises. I saw this video a few weeks ago.
Check out this link.

It discusses health care systems in Great Britain; Japan; Germany; Taiwan and Switzerland!!

SICK AROUND THE WORLD
Can the U.S. learn anything from the rest of the world about how to run a health care system ?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

Al

barnierubble
Barnierubble  (Level: 93.9 - Posts: 637)
Tue, 2nd Jun '09 7:28 AM

Have a National Health System for all, but incorporate a private system for those who can afford to jump the queue. Those in dire need of emergency treatmentget seen immediately, no questions asked, whilst those who can wait a while, join the queue. Afterall, not everybody can be treated at once. Sorry Linda, I should not put this, as only your opinion counts here. LOL

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Tue, 2nd Jun '09 7:36 AM

Believe Spicy has given us the heads up about how WELL the health care system works in the UK.someone not sure if it was Spicy made the point that when the government takes control, you might be able to chose a health care provider if you can afford it, but the doctor and the system you go through will be the same- " Double-speak" Once again-not enough givers and too many takers who not only want "FREE- (someone (s) pay) but EXCELLENT

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Tue, 2nd Jun '09 7:44 AM

We don't have enough British and European sploofusers to give us a fair opinion. All I know is that my friends in Holland are happy with their system and that the few Canadians I know are happy with theirs. I shouldn't say happy. Healthcare in general is rarely that happy. I do know that increasing #s of Americans are unhappy with ours.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Tue, 2nd Jun '09 8:29 AM

I think you are probably correct that they pay for the system with their biggest cash crop-dunno but would be interested to know. This thing is being rammed through quick like everything else he has done. HE has no plan so not one person knows what it might be including him let alone how to pay for it Believe Lodi mentioned county Hospitals treating all might not be excellent but might be free to the "takers". VA hospital charge veterans nothing but the conditions are usually way below excellent. If anyone should get free and excellent think they should-

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Tue, 2nd Jun '09 8:38 AM

I don't mean to use shock value to get my point across, but considering that in the developed world the U.S. has the second highest infant mortality rate, as pointed out earlier, I think young mothers and dying babies would accept any kind of care just to get treated. I do not say that to shock anybody, but the quality issue not only applies to mothers and children but also to many who have no choices. There are many who would choose free, and understand that free does not always come with quality, but is better than having a dead child or being disabled when you didn't have to be. I still think that for the rich they should have their own seperate facilities, to maintain the excellence part.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Tue, 2nd Jun '09 8:40 AM

solid gold catheters to them!!

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21596)
Tue, 2nd Jun '09 9:01 AM

Could we not first look at expanding and clearly defining the people covered by Medicaid to some and put some on a temporary basis? Just makes absolutely no sense to fund a plan that doesn't exist...

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Tue, 2nd Jun '09 9:04 AM

I too think any debate on Universal Health Care is semi-ridiculous without the particulars of a specific plan.


Pages:  1    



Copyright © 2003-2016 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus