# big news in healthcare



## Elsa (Mar 25, 2009)

> The health insurance industry offered Tuesday for the first time to curb its controversial practice of charging higher premiums to people with a history of medical problems.
> The offer from America's Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association is a potentially significant shift in the debate over reforming the nation's health care system to rein in costs and cover an estimated 48 million uninsured people.


----------



## Charlene (Mar 25, 2009)

i own the brooklyn bridge and i'll sell it to you for one dollar.






LOL


----------



## Ashley (Mar 26, 2009)

I hope something will be done with health care. I do not have any as I can not afford any and I do not qualify for state care either, not even at a reduced rate. But that said when I went to the doc or pink eye I was in for about 5 mins, total bill was just over $200 thats a bit outragious if you ask me.

THey hit the nail on the head when they said it makes it hard for a person to go to the doc when they need to. Probably why I waited a week and a half and until I could no longer bare it.


----------



## Jill (Mar 26, 2009)




----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 26, 2009)

Will probably happen before the year's over Jill, sorry!


----------



## Debby - LB (Mar 26, 2009)

Nice to hear....especially in light of the fact that Blue Cross Blue Shield JUST THIS WEEK raised my husbands Ins. premium over 110.00 a month beginning May 1st..... for a total now of $565.00 per month... and this was with us raising our deductible last year to 5,000 to be able to keep it.

Pitiful to think it was $78.00 per month when we took it out in 1993.

Their stated policy of only raising premiums within certain groups and not singling out individuals is a crock of S"*!


----------



## Jill (Mar 26, 2009)

LowriseMinis said:


> Will probably happen before the year's over Jill, sorry!


Lowrise, since I can afford to continue my expensive private insurance, I don't think I'm going to be one of the ones who ends up with the short end of the stick. I'm sorry for the ones counting on some sort of socialized public healthcare, or those who will be forced to accept it





However, you will no doubt see over the course of time that much of what you expect to happen actually won't. Brace yourself for some substantial let downs and re-stated "promises"







Margaret Thatcher and E.R. Murrow said:


> _[SIZE=14pt]A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.[/SIZE]_


----------



## MyBarakah (Mar 26, 2009)

Well..... I think the whole country is going to heck in a hand bag so to speak. I do NOT see anything good that is going to happen to this country any time soon. I personally think our new president will not help the matters any....

I have independent insurance..... which is ONLY major medical and I do have a co-pay... basically this insurance lets me out of paying for my whole doctor bill there on the spot. I "tried" to get better insurance....but because of my thryoid problems and needing check up's and testing to make sure my nodules in my neck are not cancerous they will NOT accept me.... I qualified for the CHIP program that bluecross offers..... HOLLY COW!!!!!!!! That was UNBELIEVEABLEY expensieve!!!!!!!! About triple what my regular insurance is! There's NOOOOOOO way I could ever afford that! What's sad is that I still owee about $2000 from my Thryoid deal back in '07. And have not been able to test to see if my nodules are cancerous (I'm suppose to get tested every 6 months because I have SO many in my neck)....... but I can't afford a $4000 doctor bill ever 6 months!!!!! I will NEVER see the light of day if I did that!!!!!! I'm hoping to get that bill down and then will go get tested maybe this fall........?? OR next year in the spring..... Very frustrating!!!!


----------



## Elsa (Mar 26, 2009)

I expect private insurance to become cheaper next year or even towards the end of this year as talk of a government funded public plan develops. Insurance companies can't afford to lose the monopoly they have on coverage and a public plan would completely ruin private plans.


----------



## Jill (Mar 26, 2009)

Elsa said:


> ... as talk of a government funded public plan develops.


Know that "government funded" means tax payer funded.



Margaret Thatcher said:


> [SIZE=12pt]The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money.[/SIZE]






Joe Strummer said:


> [SIZE=12pt]Why not phone up Robin Hood, and ask him for some wealth distribution?[/SIZE]


----------



## Sonya (Mar 26, 2009)

Well, if the public healthcare system ends up anything like Hawaii's attempt, it will be over before it even begins.


----------



## Danielle_E. (Mar 26, 2009)

All the fear-mongering has been going on for some time with the likes of

http://crooksandliars.com/2007/07/06/unive...cruitment-tool/

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce...-care-privilege.

"Universal health care" will be a giant burden off of an extensive portion of the U.S. population and hopefully it will forever remove people from losing homes, etc. because of astronomical medical bills



. I believe your President spoke of "options" and that those that wish to stay with their private insurance could do so Those that can not afford some of the exhorbitant costs in many cases will have options. I am glad to see that the insurance companies are now seeing the light and are trying to remedy the un-necessary gouging they have done at the expense of those seeking coverage. I am of the firm opinion that health care is not a privilege for some and not others. Without your health you have nothing and it's not something to play russian roulette with or have big business make the huge profits on sick individuals or by denying them for whatever reason they can drum up so that they don't have to pay anything. It's rather sad. Mind you it's nothing new that this has been going on when a physician who worked for one of the companies and oversaw claims went to your congress and "confessed" as to what was going on.


----------



## Danielle_E. (Mar 26, 2009)

March 25th, 2009 1:09 am

Protesters outside and inside White House health care forum in Iowa

By O. Kay Henderson / Radio Iowa

There were protesters outside and inside this morning's White House health care forum in Des Moines.

About 20 protesters stood on the street outside, waving signs and chanting. A psychiatrist from University of Iowa Hospitals in Iowa City stood in the middle of the group, wearing his white lab coat and chanting "Everybody in, nobody out" along with the others. Dr. Jess Fiedorowicz is a member of Physicians for a National Health Program. "'Everybody in, nobody out' truly universal health care. Universal health care has become a buzz word in the elections, but if you look at the proposals people are proposing, they truly do not intend to cover everybody," the doctor said. "…We're interested in everybody being covered."

Sixty-one-year-old Vashti Winterburg of Lawrence, Kansas -- another protester -- opposes any plan that keeps health insurance companies in business. Winterburg said the Kansas nonprofit board she serves on is finding it more and more difficult to pay the premiums of workers who provide in-home care to the elderly. "It costs us a thousand dollars per policy, per employee, per month," Winterberg said. "That's horrible."

Iowa Farmers Union president Chris Peterson of Clear Lake said he's glad the forum was held in the Midwest, as most Americans don't understand the challenges rural citizens face. "Rural Iowans struggle with finding affordable insurance. Even solidly middle class farmers are feeling the pinch. Nearly one in eight Iowa farmers battle outstanding health debt," Peterson said. "I am one of them."

Peterson, who is 53, was kicked off his private insurance plan about two years ago for what the company said was a preexisting condition. Peterson and his wife, who has no private insurance either, have accumulated $14,000 in medical debts in the past two years. "The health care system in this country is dysfunctional and burdensome," Peterson said of the private insurance industry. "...Personally, what I've been through, it seems at times it's a ponzi scheme -- they're taking your money -- or (it's) just the robber barons pulling money out of your pockets."

Once the forum got underway, protester Mona Shaw of Iowa City stood to call the event "shameful" because health insurance companies were participating. As she was escorted out of the event hall, Shaw accused insurance companies of ignoring the needs of their customers. "Governor Culver has taken $20,000 from Blue Cross-Blue Shield, of course he's not going to let the insurance industry take any of the flack for this," Shaw shouted toward reporters as she left. "Iowans are dying."

President Obama's White House advisor on the health care issue sat on a panel that included Iowa Governor Chet Culver, the governor of South Dakota and Senator Tom Harkin. Seventy-five-year-old Darlene Neff of Iowa City, a retired school teacher, told the group she's survived breast cancer and a brain tumor. "We who are retired and have insurance as well as Medicare know how good we have it as far as health care goes, but we know, too, that there are millions out there who don't have good health care," Neff said. "That basic health care should be available to everyone today."

Small business people like John Piper of Des Moines were among those who talked of their difficulties in keeping employees because they cannot offer health insurance as a benefit. "I reduced the size of my company because of health insurance," Piper said. "So now, it is a one-person company."

Those who provide health care services were part of the discussion, too. Karen Van De Steeg , executive director of a cancer center in Sioux City, urged officials to consider private companies are doing things to control the cost of health care. Van De Steeg manages Siouxland Pace which provides inhome care to the elderly.

"Essentially, the private sector, our company has taken on risk for taking care of these patients," Van De Steeg said. "We are providing some of the poorest, oldest, most-frail people the absolute best care they could possibly get in their homes. It's an alternative to nursing home care and the whole reason we're successful is it's about prevention. We do everything possible to keep that person well."

A couple of state legislators and a pharmacist from eastern Iowa were among those who also stepped to the microphone to air their thoughts on health care reform, too.


----------



## Danielle_E. (Mar 26, 2009)

Friday, March 13th, 2009

Healthcare Reform Effort Slaps Elders’ Wisdom: Shame On Us All ...by Donna Smith

WASHINGTON, DC – It was a week of intense contrasts in Washington, DC, and especially with respect to our national effort to reform the healthcare mess. Maybe I shouldn’t use the word respect anywhere near this topic right now because some of what I have witnessed has been the most shameful and disgusting display of disrespect that I could have imagined.

We’ve come a long way from the civil rights riots of the 1960s and the outrage we shared during that time. By God, we’ve elected an African American President, haven’t we? It’s a new day. Indeed.

First, let me say clearly that none of the people I will mention in this piece would ever have asked me to write this and I am fairly certain they might even be embarrassed that I would. But I am witnessing the least classy and most self-righteous arrogance I think I have ever seen in any political arena, and it needs to stop before we allow it to kill not only our better instincts and hopes for the best possible outcomes in healthcare reform but also what had been our cultural norm of showing at least some deference to our elders.

We all read about last week’s White House summit on healthcare and the carefully crafted invitee list and the shrewd or rude – depending on your viewpoint – decision not to invite Rep. John Conyers of Michigan to the gathering. Conyers is the author and chief co-sponsor of HR676, the National Health Care Act, and it would create a publicly financed, privately delivered, single payer healthcare system. It is also co-sponsored by 64 other members of Congress, as of this writing, and in the 110th Congress it had 94 co-sponsors. But, we all know that it’s hard to get traction in the press or in some other circles in Washington for the single payer point of view – even with 15 percent of the House sponsoring the legislation.

John Conyers, 79, is also the only member of Congress ever endorsed by the late Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. He was there when the horrible and the unthinkable played out in America’s streets and neighborhoods. He was there for the fight to honor the late Dr. King with a national holiday. And Conyers was certainly there 100 percent with team-Obama through this election cycle.

Conyers was eventually invited to Obama’s White House summit on healthcare – begrudgingly and reluctantly -- after protests grew and folks argued that the summit was a bit biased against single payer (I am being kind when I say that). And as I watched the coverage on C-SPAN last week, I saw Mr. Conyers, but he never spoke. Whether he chose not to speak and not to rock the Obama healthcare boat or he was asked to stay quiet, we’ll never know. He is the consummate gentleman and a loyal man. He would never tell us that.

But what concerns me most about that scenario is not that the single payer message was being squelched and was not at the infamous table, it is that one of our elder-statesmen with all due respect to him was not seated at the very head of the table. John Conyers is a man who knows the long arc of this nation’s history as a Congressman since Lyndon B. Johnson was our President, and Conyers is a man I could argue has more class in his little finger than the whole lot of wonks I heard this week could hope to muster.

So, I asked myself last week, was I being blinded by my admiration of Conyers and of his vision of healthcare justice and fiscal responsibility in delivering that justice? Maybe, I thought. He was after all the man who allowed me – an average, middle class (or used to be) American grandmother – to testify about going bankrupt while carrying health insurance and getting cancer. I am still the only American citizen to testify under oath to Congress about the financial devastation this broken system is doling out to middle class folks who trust health insurance to deliver on its promises. That speaks volumes too.

So, I didn’t write last week about how angry it made me to see him disrespected – not just his point of view, but him as a man and as a champion of the very civil rights fight that allowed President Obama to build on the dreams of many fathers who never thought they’d see the day we all rejoiced in this past January 20th. I thought I should just wait.

But then it happened again. Some of us were invited to attend a meeting held by Senator Ted Kennedy’s staff to update people on the progress in the Senate on healthcare reform. This time, I knew another champion of healthcare justice was attending, so I was proud to take a seat next to Dr. Quentin Young, who once treated Dr. King, and who has devoted his life to not only practicing medicine but also to the right of every person to have access to healthcare. Conyers had asked for Dr. Young to be invited to the White House summit, but that request was denied, so I suppose the invitation to the Kennedy staff briefing was something of an olive branch.

Dr. Young is from Chicago – Hyde Park to be specific. And he has known President Obama for a long time. In fact, just last week at a special event honoring Young, a letter from Obama was read. The good doctor is also in his mid-80s and after retiring from more than 60 years in private practice, he devotes full time attention to Physicians for a National Health Program, the 14,000 member single payer advocacy group for docs.

So, there we sat. Fourth row back and watching the presentation made by several people who have been involved in the much more tightly controlled Kennedy-stakeholder meetings. Among those addressing us was Karen Ignagni, the CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry group for the for-profit, private health insurance industry. She’s at the front of the room and the front of the table in this nation’s discussion of healthcare reform. Her position in the discussion is an elevated one.

During the meeting’s questions and answer period, Ms. Ignagni sat up front with the Senate Committee staff, while even the other “stakeholders” addressing the group sat in the audience front row. Called out by President Obama at the summit last week and now embraced quite specifically in this week’s briefing, I’d say her position within this health reform effort is very secure indeed. She often whispered to Senate staff, worked on her Blackberry and then almost seemed to quietly direct some of the flow of the question and answer effort.

Dr. Young waited politely to ask a question. When he did, he asked why in the world if we are still in the discovery process in taking input from a broad range of groups – why would any plan, such as a single payer plan, be taken “off the table” by Senator Max Baucus or anyone else? Senator Kennedy’s staff member stood and answered dismissively. He said the last time Sen. Kennedy offered a piece of comprehensive healthcare legislation it was single payer and that at that time Kennedy had no co-sponsors standing with him in the Senate. (Mind you, that was 1971. Thirty-eight years later I’d say the situation has changed a bit.) But the staff made it clear this day, and he was meant to put Dr. Young in his place – certainly not at the table. Ms. Ignagni was pleased with the Kennedy staffer’s rapid response to yet another of this nation’s elder leaders.

I am ashamed today of all of us who have decided to allow these marvelous gentlemen in such diminished roles in this effort. Even if we were to ultimately opt for some system reform other than the one they advocate, what in the world are we doing by disrespecting them now? How did we get to this place of dishonoring our elders? And how in the world does President Obama suppose that makes both of these champions of civil rights feel at this stage of their lives? It is shameful beyond what I can comprehend.

We seem to get it that Senator Kennedy has earned some measure of respect for his years of service and commitment. Why not these lions in their own rights? It’s not as if they were our crazy uncles sitting in a drunken stupor drooling after Sunday supper.

I have often heard it said that our children learn how to treat us from watching how we treat our parents and other elders. Wow, we are headed for a world of hurt in this nation if our kids model just a bit of the arrogance and disrespect we are seeing in the healthcare discussion.

Reset the darn table, folks. Put the elder leaders at the head. Bring in the young, wiz-kids and the powerful interests if you must. But don’t you ever again call on Karen Ignagni to speak or allow her to smirk in smug defiance when the healthcare of this nation is being discussed. Never.


----------



## wantminimore (Mar 26, 2009)

Ashley said:


> I hope something will be done with health care. I do not have any as I can not afford any and I do not qualify for state care either, not even at a reduced rate. But that said when I went to the doc or pink eye I was in for about 5 mins, total bill was just over $200 thats a bit outragious if you ask me.
> THey hit the nail on the head when they said it makes it hard for a person to go to the doc when they need to. Probably why I waited a week and a half and until I could no longer bare it.


I'm in the same boat as you Ashley. My son needs a perscription every month and it was costing around $160.00 hen one month it jumped to $180.00 a couple of months later (Jan./Feb. ) it went to $222.00. I'd like to have some kind of insurance just to cover that. At the check out they always ask if I have insurance and if I know how much the perscription costs. It doesn't matter what it costs, he has to have it!!!


----------



## Sonya (Mar 26, 2009)

Just remember not all drugs will be covered under the national healthplan if and when it takes place, just like in Canada and other countries...if you require a certain drug, you may have to pay for it yourself...the same goes for certain procedures.

I agree prescrip prices are outrageous, but just because there may be national healthcare doesn't mean you won't be paying for it out of the pocket as well as from your taxes.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 26, 2009)

If I decided to purchase the insurance from my job, it would have taken up about 1/5th of my paycheck, and I'm barely scraping along as is. I can't afford that. But of course, I make too much to qualify for assistance.

I've had this pain in my jaw for a week and I'd LOVE to be able to get it checked out so I can eat normally again, but that's not happening if I want to pay my bills. So I'm just going to do what millions of uninsured Americans are doing: wait and see and hope it gets better. And hopefully it's nothing serious. Otherwise I'll be in the E.R. in another week, racking up a medical bill I can't pay and clogging up the waiting room.

Yes, ours is a _great_ system.

I'm really sorry healthcare is getting expensive for some of you, but at the same time I'm just a bit envious that you have it. I don't see why those of you who are already paying for insurance are upset. No one's going to force you to switch over to the national system, and with such a huge competitor, I seriously doubt your premiums are going to go up.


----------



## Elsa (Mar 26, 2009)

Sonya said:


> Just remember not all drugs will be covered under the national healthplan if and when it takes place, just like in Canada and other countries...if you require a certain drug, you may have to pay for it yourself...the same goes for certain procedures.


Indeed. A national plan would only cover the very basic. No way can a healthcare tax cover comprehensive coverage for everyone. People needing care would be stuck paying double coverage essentially, because out of pocket costs would still apply to anything beyond the clinical protocol.


----------



## Sonya (Mar 26, 2009)

> I'm really sorry healthcare is getting expensive for some of you, but at the same time I'm just a bit envious that you have it. I don't see why those of you who are already paying for insurance are upset. No one's going to force you to switch over to the national system, and with such a huge competitor, I seriously doubt your premiums are going to go up.


No one will force, but some people who are paying premiums will, regardless if they can afford their own or not, they will figure they are paying for national healthcare through their taxes so why should they pay additional premiums, which is understandable...and that's exactly what happened in Hawaii and in a couple months they had to stop the program because it went bankrupt...they were banking on those who had their own insurance to keep it and they didn't... they used the Hawaii system.

It will be interesting to see if and how it all pans out and what the restrictions will be. I for one will be keeping my own insurance even though it's costly. There are many ill-run govt. programs in the U.S. and I see this health plan as being the next one...time will tell I guess. I hope it does help those w/o insurance but I see alot of false-hope coming our way too.


----------



## Connie P (Mar 26, 2009)

I usually stay clear of these topics but I have to say I LOVE the Margaret Thatcher quote!


----------



## Danielle_E. (Mar 26, 2009)

Here is the origin of that quote

And I will go on criticising Socialism, and opposing Socialism because it is bad for Britain—and Britain and Socialism are not the same thing. (...) It’s the Labour Government that have brought us record peace-time taxation. They’ve got the usual Socialist disease—they’ve run out of other people’s money.” 
By the early 2000s, this statement was paraphrased: “The trouble/problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” In 2008-2009, many Americans were worried that Barack Obama would add socialist programs as president of the United States. The Thatcher quotation (slightly incorrect) was printed on T-shirts.

Google Books provides some evidence (not yet verified) that “Socialism inevitably runs out of other people’s money” was said in a Parliamentary debate in 1944.

As Britain does have universal health care I was curious as to what she was addressing when those words were said. I don't anyone wants to live in a total socialist environment and one of the reasons that the NDP in Canada will nore than likely never, in this day and age, form a Canadian government. There is a fine balance though in providing basic programs when needed and with 48 million U.S. residents who have no health insurance.....


----------



## Bess Kelly (Mar 27, 2009)

I have a question for ELSA.......

Do not know you, so please understand this is in no way a personal affront or attack or such. You have bars that indicate you are relatively new on LB (glad to have you) and I have noticed that you seem to post with direction at insurance, health care issues. While you may have posted regarding minis or other animals, I have not noticed that.

You seem well versed and deeply involved in "health care", it's current, proposed and hoped for status, as well as the insurance company involvement, so I'm wondering what your background and connection to this element would be. Would you elaborate?

By the way, we have just about evey level of involvement to "life" within our membership from those who are retired to the workaholics, college superachievers to still in high school, licensed professionals (retired & active), in almost every walk of life, etc. I'm hoping you will share your own expertise with all.........and thank you for that.........curiosity abounds.


----------



## Elsa (Mar 27, 2009)

Bess Kelly said:


> I have a question for ELSA.......You seem well versed and deeply involved in "health care", it's current, proposed and hoped for status, as well as the insurance company involvement, so I'm wondering what your background and connection to this element would be. Would you elaborate?


I work at a hospital on the insurance/billing side and am currently working on my Masters in Public Health, aimed at policy and administration. My future goal is to obtain a nursing home administration license. I work with insurance companies to some extent, and moreso indirectly with patients through bills, financial forms etc.

I have a deep personal interest in health care and would like to believe I can see both sides, from a hospital business perspective and also as a consumer, beings as how my family (like many others) are plagued with numerous conditions.

I like reading the miniature forum, but don't have much to contribute. I'm somewhat ignorant to the miniature horse world and have always dealt with arabians and warmbloods. I currently have two arabians and a warmblood gelding


----------



## Bess Kelly (Mar 27, 2009)

Miniatures are not mandatory, just addictive! Many still have the full sized, and many more once had them (I'm in that group).

Ahhhh, the billing section.......the one person who sees "the good, bad & ugly" from all sides!! I do appreciate your sharing some of the standards and requirements that the insurance companies place upon us and am certain that the forum family does also. We all have hope for a better situation but, it is a long way off. Personally I would applaud more preventive care in the hope that this would result in less costly future expense. We all know that nutrition is a major factor in today's world -- not just food to eat BUT proper selection for good health and weight maintenance. WOW, the drugs that could be eliminated for many would shake the industry big time! Time to jump on off of this soapbox.



Please keep sharing your expertise and thanks for doing so.

So, feel free to jump in on some of the horse threads. Minis have some issues the big ones don't but many more that they do. Besides, most of our minis don't know (or wouldn't believe) they aren't 16HH.






A positive....if they step on your foot you are more likely to get a bruise than a break



AND they eat less.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 27, 2009)

I just got my union magazine yesterday, and there's a slightly relevant article. Any emphasis or bolding is mine.



> California is home to almost 10 million children, or one-eighth of all Americans under the age of 18. Because of its sheer size and diversity, California plays a crucial role in setting the national agenda for all children to succeed.
> A new study released by Children Now, a leading nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, shows the issues weakening California children’s well-being are also undermining the economic prosperity of the state as a whole. *The 2009 California Report Card: Setting the Agenda for Children shows that the current deficiencies in children’s health and education policy are leading to significant, negative outcomes for all Californians. These include increased healthcare costs and decreased economic output.* For example:
> 
> ** One million children in California are expected to be without health insurance*
> ...


On the opposite page it shows our state's report card. I'll post some of the health related ones.



> Latino children are most likely to be uninsured (12%), while only 3 percent of African American children are uninsured.About 60 percent of California's uninsured children are eligible for MediCal or Healthy Families, while only 30 percent are enrolled in these programs.
> 
> One in three Americans report cutting back on medical care because of high costs. That's a 5% increase over last year.
> 
> ...


----------



## Minimor (Mar 27, 2009)

MyBarakah said:


> Well..... I think the whole country is going to heck in a hand bag so to speak. I do NOT see anything good that is going to happen to this country any time soon. I personally think our new president will not help the matters any....I have independent insurance..... which is ONLY major medical and I do have a co-pay... basically this insurance lets me out of paying for my whole doctor bill there on the spot. I "tried" to get better insurance....but because of my thryoid problems and needing check up's and testing to make sure my nodules in my neck are not cancerous they will NOT accept me.... I qualified for the CHIP program that bluecross offers..... HOLLY COW!!!!!!!! That was UNBELIEVEABLEY expensieve!!!!!!!! About triple what my regular insurance is! There's NOOOOOOO way I could ever afford that! What's sad is that I still owee about $2000 from my Thryoid deal back in '07. And have not been able to test to see if my nodules are cancerous (I'm suppose to get tested every 6 months because I have SO many in my neck)....... but I can't afford a $4000 doctor bill ever 6 months!!!!! I will NEVER see the light of day if I did that!!!!!! I'm hoping to get that bill down and then will go get tested maybe this fall........?? OR next year in the spring..... Very frustrating!!!!


That's just not right, that you cannot get the testing you should have to ensure that there isn't a serious health problem (cancer!). Some people like to run down the Canadian healthcare system (in spite of the fact that they really know nothing about it and just assume that it is nothing good for anyone) but here in Canada you would not be in that predicament--you would be getting the testing you need. If you lived here you would be getting your tests every 6 months!


----------



## minifancier (Mar 27, 2009)

We sure don't want to have a nationalized health care.

I had a knee replaced last summer. I had a CHOICE of either going to a regular hospital or a specialized Surgery Center.~! I choose the Surgery Center.

Could NOT have done that under government control over our health system.

I went in to make an appointment now it was not a necessary one as I had gone for years and years with bad knees. BUT I got the appointment for my knee surgery within 2-1/2 weeks of making the appointment with my Orthopedic surgeon~!

Could NOT have had it done that quickly either under control of some bureaucratic nightmare.~!

Also have the other knee "scoped" I got that done in 4 DAYS after seeing my doctor.

Sure as heck would not have been able to that something like that done that quickly in a antiquated system like Canada's or any other Country that has Socialistic health care.~!

And as far as CA is concerned get the Illegals OUT OF THE STATE and quit giving them FREE health care and CA would be much better off. In Fact Get the 20 Illegals out of this country and the entire country would be better off~!


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 28, 2009)

Y'know, sometimes it's not the illegals...

Plus, having a national healthcare system would not FORCE you to use it. By all means, keep your own insurance. But some of us-a lot of us, actually-would like to have that option.


----------



## tagalong (Mar 28, 2009)

> Could NOT have had it done that quickly either under control of some bureaucratic nightmare.~!Also have the other knee "scoped" I got that done in 4 DAYS after seeing my doctor.
> 
> Sure as heck would not have been able to that something like that done that quickly in a antiquated system like Canada's or any other Country that has Socialistic health care.~!


*minifancier* - it is a complete myth that you always need to wait months and months under what you call "socialistic" health care. It all depends on where you are, the procedure that is needed, the available doctors etc. Some people in Canada wait a long time for some procedures - some get things attended to right away. The same thing happens here. A friend here is STILL waiting to get her knee replacement done, 8 months after the original diagnosis. Such stories occur on both sides of the border.

My friend up in Edmonton, Alberta (where they now pay NO premiums for health care) had lumps in her throat. She went in to get them checked out - and the next day was in the university hospital getting biopsies and then surgery done. My mom lives in a small town in B.C. - the nearest "big" city is an hour and a half away - they have the only MRI for hundreds of miles.... the nearest REAL city is 4 hours away through the mountain pass. So she has had to wait quite a while for some procedures - yet when something was found to be potentially troublesome - she was able to get in sooner. My stepfather had heart trouble - and had to be airlifted from the small local hospital over the mountains to the big city hospital that had the cardiac expert who could help him. The only delay was waiting for the weather to improve enough to let the helicopter fly.

Like *Lowrise* and others here - I do not go get things checked out. I can't. Not a chance. I have to hope that whatever is wrong - is nothing. Or will "go away". I do have health insurance but it does not cover a lot and is mainly in the event of an accident/trauma. As it is, the nest egg I moved here with is GONE. Eaten up by medical bills for extensive skin cancer treatments that will never end. Ever. If I was still in Canada all those years of paying premiums (that were much less than the premiums I pay for the poor coverage I have now) would have paid off... and I would have been able to get treatment - without losing that entire nest egg.

Antiquated system? I don't think so. I have danced the dance on both sides of the issue.... and seen the problem from both sides. If you can afford extensive health care here, you'll be fine. The rest of us... not so much. *There must be a balance between the two systems that would work here* - without the protests of Socialism!! that the pundits like to toss around.... and that are often inaccurate. It is just terminology that is guaranteed to rile people up and play to their fears... and it is often used to do exactly that.


----------



## Jill (Mar 28, 2009)

While no one will be forced to accept public health care, who will be forced to pay for it? I can tell you, I won't work nearly as hard when my money becomes our money





Also, my own health insurances is PLENTY expensive but you know what? The premium doesn't magically fall from the sky each month. I work hard for it and everything else. Can't say I'd be thrilled to help cover someone else's personal responsbility so that they can spend their own money on an extreme luxury like having a horse.


----------



## tagalong (Mar 28, 2009)

> I work hard for it and everything else.


Amazingly enough, *Jill* - so do I. Imagine that.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 28, 2009)

Jill said:


> I can tell you, I won't work nearly as hard when my money becomes our money


That's fine. The nation won't miss your tiny contribution, but you'll certainly miss your extra income. Really, are you so opposed to helping your fellow citizen that you'd take a sizable pay cut just to screw with the system?

Plus, your money is already our money. Do you pay taxes on anything ever? That money goes to pave roads you never drive on and pay for services you never use. Do you pay into Social Security? State disability?


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 28, 2009)

tagalong said:


> > I work hard for it and everything else.
> 
> 
> Amazingly enough, *Jill* - so do I. Imagine that.


Stop spreading your filthy lies, Tag. You know none of us liberals actually WORK, we just mooch off of the system.


----------



## Jill (Mar 28, 2009)

It's all about choices. I choose to cover my health insurance and then because there's money left over, have some of the luxuries in life like horses.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 28, 2009)

Which is great. For the small amount I spend on my one horse monthly I couldn't afford healthcare for myself. So, I could be horseless and have about an extra $80 a month and no health insurance, OR I could have back the horse I regretted selling years ago and no health insurance. I think I made the right choice.

Can you remind me what your insurance is per month, Jill? Does it include family or anyone else, or just you?


----------



## Jill (Mar 28, 2009)

Why would you want me to remind you what my health insurance costs or what it covers? Would you also like to know my medical history? You know, insurance underwriting is a lucrative profession!

To use your own personal horse cost figure, if you were me you could afford to have almost 9.5 horses rather than cover your own (individual) health insurance.

You know, some people trade food stamps for wine. I see a parallel even if you may not. Like I said, it's about choices and what you expect out of yourself vs. what you expect as a handout from others.

But then I've been paying for "IT" for me since I was 18. I've been on my own since I was old enough to be and working my butt off to have what I do.

The single biggest reason I am a Republican is because of my strong feelings about personal responsibility.


----------



## tagalong (Mar 28, 2009)

> But then I've been paying for "IT" for me since I was 18. I've been on my own since I was old enough to be and working my butt off to have what I do.


Same here, *Jill*... same here. I guess I was *raised right* as well. _Take responsibiity for your own actions etc._ And I have always believed that and practiced it. Such practices are not just the private domain of the self-congratulatory right-wingers - as they would have you believe. But sometimes, things come up that smack you in the face through no fault of your own - and you watch your savings evaporate into the medical system - even with as much insurance as you can afford...


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 28, 2009)

I'm trying to find the right way for me to respond to this. I would happily share my medical history with you to help you get a better picture, because even with as young as I am there's a lot of it. There's a lot of preventative care I'm not getting because I can't afford to. But I get the very distinct impression that my situation-which is shared by MILLIONS of your fellow Americans-will not matter to you.

I will say this: when someone shows up in an emergency room and can't pay for it, who does? Is it cheaper and more effective to provide preventative care, or let people deteriorate to the point they find themselves seriously ill and then foot that bill? If money is the ONLY thing that matters, then look at it that way. Purely by cost. Which will cost you more? Which is a better use of your money?


----------



## Jill (Mar 28, 2009)

Lowrise, so long as it still is *my* money, my choices aren't actually limited to *your* either / or proposal.






And, Lowrise, Hopefully you can refrain from declaring what you think are my own personal feelings _("But I get the very distinct impression that my situation-which is shared by MILLIONS of your fellow Americans-will not matter to you.")_ It would be a shame if your attempts to make what could otherwise be an open discussion personal got the thread closed


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 28, 2009)

There have been plenty of assumptions on both our current political threads-and I'm certainly not the only one making them.

I'm asking honestly, and not just to you but to anyone: how much are you going to lose if we get nationalized health care? Do you know for sure if that cost is greater or less than the current burden of taking care of the uninsured? Is one way or the other better for our nation's productivity? Do you agree or disagree having a healthier populace is better for us as a country?

I _get_ that you're against it, but I don't understand why. Unless it really is as simple as "THOSE PEOPLE-MY STUFF."


----------



## Jill (Mar 28, 2009)

LowriseMinis said:


> There have been plenty of assumptions on both our current political threads-and I'm certainly not the only one making them.
> I'm asking honestly, and not just to you but to anyone: how much are you going to lose if we get nationalized health care? Do you know for sure if that cost is greater or less than the current burden of taking care of the uninsured? Is one way or the other better for our nation's productivity? Do you agree or disagree having a healthier populace is better for us as a country?
> 
> I get that you're against it, but I don't understand why. Unless it really is as simple as "THOSE PEOPLE-MY STUFF."


Lowrise, assumptions are one thing, but declaring an individual's opinion for them is another. Please try not to do that when it comes to me, okay?

You can google and find tons of material about why many people are not in favor of socialized medical care for the USA.

Part of the reason I'm against it is I feel we would have a large degradation of quality in terms of service over a relatively short period of time if it went into place. I have a serious and chronic health issue and being able to have the great doctors and providers I do, and the hope of advancements in medicine, are very _personally_ *important* to me.

Another part of it is this wide perception of entitlement. It really does not sit well with me when I and many others like me have made serious personal sacrifice to build what we've built, and every day make choices about what we _should_ do, vs. what we'd _like_ to do. I can really think of more fun ways to spend my own health insurance premium, for example, but again we get back to my feelings about personal responsibility.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 28, 2009)

Anything that I've said about anyone's opinion comes from what's been said (or typed). That is the impression I get and I apologize if it's incorrect.

As far as the degradation of services: I can see how the quality of a huge health care system may not be as great as the care you get through a private insurer. What I'm not quite getting is how a national healthcare system affects the quality of those private services. Maybe the care we get under a national system isn't as great, but if the alternative for some is no care, isn't that still better?

Entitlement is bad, yes. I agree. I'm constantly annoyed at the people who sits on their butts and do nothing but take and I hope that we can overhaul our welfare system to help put a stop to those abuses. Unfortunately I'm not sure how to go about that, personally. But there are a lot of people out there who are trying to do the right thing. They are working, they are going to school, they are trying to get into a better position. They are making those hard choices and those sacrifices. And they're coming up short.

While these people are making that climb, should they have to go without insurance? Because they are working, many of them don't qualify for low-income assistance. There's little to no support for these upper-low income to lower-middle class folk. I don't want anyone thinking they deserve to be cradled by the state or nation, but I'm appalled that people have to choose between getting an education and being able to afford to pay their rent, or between buying food or paying for a doctor's visit.

Those are not choices people should be having to make if they're already making reasonable sacrifices. I think if there is anything we can do to help Americans who are caught in that gap-tuition assistance, tax reduction, health care, social services...I think that is the moral, socially responsible thing to do.

As an aside (and I may have said this before) I never understood how anyone could want to say on some kind of government assistance until I was on unemployment myself. I was getting more then than I'm making now that I'm working, and if I stayed on it would have been eligible for more assistance from the state. So I'm working, making less, and getting no help. No wonder people mooch!


----------



## Sonya (Mar 28, 2009)

> Part of the reason I'm against it is I feel we would have a large degradation of quality in terms of service over a relatively short period of time if it went into place


This is one of my big fears with a socialized/nationalized healthcare system.

I know many Canadians have responded that their system is working for them....living on a border state...I've gotten a totally different impression. I have met, talked to, and friends with many Canadians (including a couple relatives) who would paint you a whole different picture of their system...and it's not a pretty one. Quality is just one concern with them (along with having to wait eons for procedures/tests) and many come to the U.S. for treatment and pay for it out of their pockets. I don't know where they will go in the near future.


----------



## minifancier (Mar 28, 2009)

Name just ONE thing the Government does well, ( Besides Collect Taxes) ??






Some times you can't compare medical in Canada to what may take place here in America two different forms of Government and one that really want to get a hold of more and more control over its people all the time. THINK NAIS, if you don't believe that.

And when Government gets involved into things those things go to heck in a hand basket quickly.

And as many Baby Boomer's get older now and retire WHO do you think will get the quickest medical care? Those of younger age that can still contribute to "the system" that is who. And the older you are the more likely you are going to get pushed back further and further into the abyss.

Till finally you won't get help or the bare minimum help and then die and then The System benefits, as they get they younger generation keeping healthy.


----------



## crponies (Mar 28, 2009)

Another thing to think about is this - the government does not generally get things for the lowest price. They often pay way more than necessary for things. I remember when I was doing custodial work for a home health agency they had this paper that showed what medicare would pay for things like gauze and such. Some of those prices were outrageous. They were way higher than necessary. If the government wants to spend my money so badly they could at least get the best deals possible. Not that I am in favor of a national health care system; I just wanted to share one of the reasons I am opposed to it.


----------



## Minimor (Mar 28, 2009)

Sonya said:


> > Part of the reason I'm against it is I feel we would have a large degradation of quality in terms of service over a relatively short period of time if it went into place
> 
> 
> This is one of my big fears with a socialized/nationalized healthcare system.
> ...


As someone stated earlier, sometimes, for some things, there are wait times. Sometimes those wait times are unacceptable, and some patients do go south of the border to get faster treatment. Many, many times, though, treatment/testing is very prompt--wait times are next to nothing. I waited less than two weeks to get in for my bronchoscopy, and after the test was finished I was in the hospital having surgery less than two weeks after that. I can name you a whole list of other people that have had to have various tests and procedures and treatments done that get in very quickly for whatever it was they needed. I've known people in the US that actually had to wait and worry longer for the same procedure/test/whatever. We get in for our testing or surgical procedure without any hassle at all over whether or not our insurance will cover the cost or if we need to go to a different hospital that is within the coverage area of the insurance policy...

We do not snipe at each other about how if we can't afford health care or choose to pay for something else rather than an insurance policy we cannot afford then we don't deserve to have health care...


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 28, 2009)

LowriseMinis said:


> As far as the degradation of services: I can see how the quality of a huge health care system may not be as great as the care you get through a private insurer. What I'm not quite getting is how a national healthcare system affects the quality of those private services. Maybe the care we get under a national system isn't as great, but if the alternative for some is no care, isn't that still better?
> ...While these people are making that climb, should they have to go without insurance?


If anyone has answers/evidence on these I would honestly love to hear them (Google isn't helping me!). Canadians, I know that independent health insurance is still available for purchase up there! Do you have it? It the quality/speed of treatment any better or worse than the national system? Is the quality better or worse _because_ of the national system?


----------



## McBunz (Mar 28, 2009)

There are very few private clinics but our Conservative Government is pushing for more.. and removing some services from the health care system..

They eliminated the premiums for health care on one hand and reduced services on the other.. makes a lot of sense doesn't it.. The biggest problem

with out health system is people using the emergency rooms as walk in clinics.. for things as simple as the flu. Sure there is some waiting time for

some procedures......but this would only become worse if private clinics became the norm...


----------



## Bess Kelly (Mar 28, 2009)

I am not opposed to some type of "national health care system" that would help those who need medical treatment. What we probably ALL want, from what I'm reading, is adequate access at some reasonable prices. Let's face it, Medicare & Medicaid is such a system, of sorts, and there is a cost but not everyone pays the cost. At least we need to have some system for the "must have" treatments -- cancer, heart problems, etc. (I'm totally opposed to the incarcerated getting treatment at my expense for unnecessary concerns, like the trans sexual op one wanted



)

These systems are sometimes "used" in an inappropriate manner -- not just by the individuals but by the doctors, med facilities



. Example, the gauze and tape mentioned by another, an aspirin given in a hospital that costs between $4-8 each



There are cases of doctors/facilities that do routinely overcharge. If more were spent on people to honcho such abuse, the costs would be much tighter. Some of the insurance companies have made unrealistic decisions as to allowing treatments that were desperately needed......a better appeal/peer review is needed! People who are grossly overweight need help to get back into shape and be REQUIRED to do so on a national plan. There are so many meds and conditions that are created/needed just due to this ONE problem (look back at the CA info one of you posted!).

One of the reasons that these issues will not be easily resolved is the people we have in Congress/Senate who feel they need to be "pork-bellied" in some way. Another is that the ability to manage/oversee such a system is not going to be well established or have the needed checks in place to stop, cure, penalize, when needed. This is obvious by the way the Welfare system operates in many places. (IMO if you get welfare you need to "pay back".....go to school and train for a job, give numbers of hours via public service, help out at controlled child care facilities so others can afford to work, etc.---- OK, another topic, sorry



I'm on a roll!)

The money saved by both government and individuals would offset the costs, if run properly.

I'm for very heavy actions to stop illegal drug use, traffic, manufacture, etc. Surprised?





By the way, I don't use drugs (RX or otherwise), never a smoker, enjoy an occassional mixed drink or glass of wine, eat very healthy, do not receive welfare, food stamps, etc., earned and receive my Social Security (still work) have NO health insurance (medicare in 2 yrs



), haven't had a prescription given me in over 10 yrs (that was for a skin cream!), pay my own bills and have good credit, own my home and 40 minis, 3 cats (2 feral who stayed) and one dog. Do I want to see others helped? YES -- and I want to see those who are able help out others, similar to outlined above.







I know that the people on this forum who love their animals, work to help rescue, help offer suggestions for treatments (animal & human) -- those people WANT help for all but DO NOT want to feel they are being taken advantage of, or left out from assistance, as the climate is now. It isn't always the government or assistance departments that are at fault, often it is the human element who is "working the system" that creates problems. It will never be otherwise if people do not want to be involved in the correction process.


----------



## tagalong (Mar 28, 2009)

> As someone stated earlier, sometimes, for some things, there are wait times. Sometimes those wait times are unacceptable, and some patients do go south of the border to get faster treatment. Many, many times, though, treatment/testing is very prompt--wait times are next to nothing. I waited less than two weeks to get in for my bronchoscopy, and after the test was finished I was in the hospital having surgery less than two weeks after that. I can name you a whole list of other people that have had to have various tests and procedures and treatments done that get in very quickly for whatever it was they needed. I've known people in the US that actually had to wait and worry longer for the same procedure/test/whatever. We get in for our testing or surgical procedure without any hassle at all over whether or not our insurance will cover the cost or if we need to go to a different hospital that is within the coverage area of the insurance policy...


*minimor *- I was the one who pointed that out earlier... and you are right - it depends on the procedure that is required, available doctors and beds etc. Some procedures you may need to wait for - and then in another area that same procedure will get you in the door instantly.

I also noted that the same thing happens here - south of the border. Sometimes you get care instantly - and sometimes you wait... and wait... and wait.

And going to the ER for the flu or a cold - that knows no borders. It happens everywhere!





*Bess Kelly* - excellent, EXCELLENT post!


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 28, 2009)

Thank you very much for sharing your opinion, Bess!


----------



## Minimor (Mar 28, 2009)

> Canadians, I know that independent health insurance is still available for purchase up there! Do you have it? It the quality/speed of treatment any better or worse than the national system? Is the quality better or worse because of the national system?


 Perhaps it varies from province to province--here in Manitoba we do not have any private clinics (other than a private abortion clinic or two--don't hear much of those any more, but I think they are still there). There was talk of allowing some privately owned CT scanners, but that ended up being turned down. The private insurance we have--Blue Cross is the most common, not sure if there are others--is merely for "extras". My blue cross coverage gives me extras such as semi-private hospital room, ambulance, vision care, prescription drugs, dental, chiropractor, massage therapy, special duty nursing, prosthesis, and various medical appliances such as an iron lung if it were needed... My Blue Cross has nothing to do with quality or speed of treatment. Cost? I pay just over $10 per month for my Blue Cross coverage.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 28, 2009)

I wasn't quite sure how to phrase my question right, but I think you did a good job of answering it, Minimor!


----------



## Minimor (Mar 28, 2009)

Oh, I also meant to add that Manitoba has never had any health care premiums for us to pay--at least not in the 30+ years that I have lived here.

There are some incidental fees that we pay for some treatments; one example is a tray fee for day surgery--several years ago I had a very large mole removed from my back. Because that was doctor-ordered due to concerns over skin cancer, I paid nothing for the procedure. Had it been a mole I was having removed for cosmetic purposes, I would have had to pay a tray fee at the time--I think then it was about $15. Now from what I have heard, that tray fee would apply even to a surgery such as the one I had to remove that mole from my back. I'm not exactly sure, but I do know the fee applies to more procedures now than it did at one time. It still doesn't apply to people who are admitted to hospital for surgery. We pay for such things as doctor's certificates for missing work for medical reasons ($7 or $10, depending on which clinic you use) and we pay if we have to have a medical form filled out by the doctor--whether it's for life insurance purposes or for things like a pilots or Class 1 drivers license. If we have a doctor's appointment & miss it without cancelling 24 hours ahead, we get billed for that.


----------



## Danielle_E. (Mar 28, 2009)

Jill said



> Part of the reason I'm against it is I feel we would have a large degradation of quality in terms of service over a relatively short period of time if it went into place. I have a serious and chronic health issue and being able to have the great doctors and providers I do, and the hope of advancements in medicine, are very personally important to me.
> Another part of it is this wide perception of entitlement. It really does not sit well with me when I and many others like me have made serious personal sacrifice to build what we've built, and every day make choices about what we should do, vs. what we'd like to do. I can really think of more fun ways to spend my own health insurance premium, for example, but again we get back to my feelings about personal responsibility


The first thing that puzzles me is what I heard your President say was that anyone that has healthcare provider that they are happy with and can afford to pay the premiums that they can stay with that. Perhaps I am wrong but I am pretty sure that is what I heard. If that is factual than I don't see why you would be worried about losing quality of care. The system that he seems to want to put into place, correct me if I am wrong, is not a universal care system as we have here in Canada, paid by tax $$. I understood that he wants to find affordable type blanket insurance that people could buy into a type of universal policy at much reduced cost so that at least they get "basic" care. I don't see anything wrong with that at all and it would help millions of Americans at least when sick not go untreated because at the moment they don't have "affordable" healthcare. Your premiums for healthcare are in my opinion absolutely ridiculous (the cost of your presciption drugs are also exhorbitant) and I wonder how the average family can afford them if their employer don't offer a healthcare plan. I don't understand why you would deny a family the right to "basic" healthcare because you feel they aren't entitled because they have either fallen on tough times, which can happen to any of us at any point, whether you work for someone else or are a proprietor of a business. I think "universal" health care is a matter of "dignity". My opinion is if you pay taxes, which we all do and HIGH taxes, whether in the U.S. or Canada, that "healthcare" is sometehing that should never be denied to anyone in a civilized country. Your lack of a health care program that works for your country reminds me of people in third world countries doing without something so basic as healthcare. You will allow billions to be spent on wars, you will generously give to other countries via your taxes and yet you will deny the universality of everyone in the U.S. being able to seek medical care when needed. To me that is absolutely mind boggling.


----------



## Elsa (Mar 28, 2009)

Jill said:


> Part of the reason I'm against it is I feel we would have a large degradation of quality in terms of service over a relatively short period of time if it went into place. I have a serious and chronic health issue and being able to have the great doctors and providers I do, and the hope of advancements in medicine, are very _personally_ *important* to me.


In order to increase access, cost would increase and quality would decrease. It's called the iron triangle. I don't know that many people who want "socialized" health care would be very happy with the decrease in quality as a result.

Also, preventative care starts with responsibility. Eating right, exercising etc are all things we can do to make ourselves healthier, yet many people still eat junk and get little to no exercise. When a problem arises, people will sit around waiting for it to go away and when they are later forced to go to the ER, the dr's visit that could have been $100 becomes and acute cost of much much higher. In turn, the hospitals absorb that cost and raise prices and insurance companies are forced to raise premiums.


----------



## Elsa (Mar 28, 2009)

LowriseMinis said:


> While these people are making that climb, should they have to go without insurance? Because they are working, many of them don't qualify for low-income assistance. There's little to no support for these upper-low income to lower-middle class folk. I don't want anyone thinking they deserve to be cradled by the state or nation, but I'm appalled that people have to choose between getting an education and being able to afford to pay their rent, or between buying food or paying for a doctor's visit.



Very true. Medicaid and SChips are not sufficient. However, if everyone was forced to carry insurance, the same way you're required to have car insurance if you drive, the cost of health care would go down. There would be no outrageous costs to absorb from those who are uninsured. The insurance premiums would in turn go down.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 28, 2009)

Elsa said:


> In order to increase access, cost would increase and quality would decrease. It's called the iron triangle. I don't know that many people who want "socialized" health care would be very happy with the decrease in quality as a result.


Now I'm still curious about where the decrease in quality comes in. No one would be forcing everyone to use the nationalized health care. If we did have it, but someone chose to stay with their private insurer, would the quality of their care go down at all? If so, why?


----------



## Charley (Mar 28, 2009)

I'm guessing... but with a major increase in patients there will not be more doctors, nurse practicioners, etc. So the time spent on each patient will decrease and the quality of care due to this will decrease.


----------



## Danielle_E. (Mar 28, 2009)

Charley said:


> I'm guessing... but with a major increase in patients there will not be more doctors, nurse practicioners, etc. So the time spent on each patient will decrease and the quality of care due to this will decrease.


So in other words it is an advantage at this moment that so many don't have health care and don't seek help when it's needed. The same problem would happen that you mention above if EVERYONE could afford to pay the insurance premiums now that insurance companies charge. So it's a matter of numbers, how many people aren't insured in order to keep your level of quality where it's at now.

I guess I just can't get my head around the fact that, like I said in my other response, that you are willing to spend billions and billions on war expenses, or on bailouts, or sending relief money to all sorts of other countries to help people there but you won't help out your fellow americans by enabling them to get something as basic as healthcare. I still don't get it.


----------



## Danielle_E. (Mar 28, 2009)

Please read this and answer why would those of you who are against universal healthcare in the U.S. be so opposed given these facts

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for...ited_states.htm


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 28, 2009)

Danielle_E. said:


> Please read this and answer why would those of you who are against universal healthcare in the U.S. be so opposed given these facts
> http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for...ited_states.htm





> # Fact One: Studies reveal that citizens in universal health care systems have more doctor visits and more hospital days than in the US


That proves that people living with universal health care are sicker, since they go to the doctor more and spend more time in the hospital, so there!


----------



## Danielle_E. (Mar 28, 2009)

> That proves that people living with universal health care are sicker, since they go to the doctor more and spend more time in the hospital, so there!


Nice sarcasm there!







.

When we get sick we don't hve to worry about losing our homes and we seek the help we need and not do without what is so vital, your health!!!!! Food and health, if you don't have those well you won't be around too long.


----------



## Elsa (Mar 29, 2009)

LowriseMinis said:


> Elsa said:
> 
> 
> > In order to increase access, cost would increase and quality would decrease. It's called the iron triangle. I don't know that many people who want "socialized" health care would be very happy with the decrease in quality as a result.
> ...



In order to cover every individual at a reasonable cost, quality would be substantially sacrificed. We are a very technology, specialist-oriented society. In the past, physicians were given incentives to utilize tests and technology, these days they are rewarded for outcomes and following clinical protocols. In a universal health care system, don't expect anything fancy. A universal health care system would be the most successful for preventative care, not in secondary or tertiary care. The people who would benefit for that system, are the ones needing annual check ups etc. If you had a serious condition, your choice would be private insurance in order to receive the comprehensive care you would need.

I would assume that when they talk about a universal health care system they are following a Medicare guidline where you are covered through the government for Medicare A (inpatient care) and pay an extra premium for outpatient and regular visits (Medicare B) if you so choose (this would be Private Insurance in a universal plan), as well as Prescriptions (Medicare D).

To answer your question, no, private care should not be affected (I would hope!). Insurance companies do bargain with hospitals for a lowered, fixed price already for procedures. This is why an insurance company will pay less for a certain procedure as opposed to an uninsured person paying out of pocket. However, with the additional access to care and more utilizing the system, you can only imagine the additional patients going in for routine check ups. I don't see this as a bad thing because a lot more serious conditions would be prevented. However, any expensive tests would not covered by a government plan. Also, with more people having insurance and the costs absorbed by the hospitals, private insurance premiums would automatically go down. With a universal plan, you would still be expected to pay out of pocket regardless.


----------



## Minimor (Mar 29, 2009)

> In a universal health care system, don't expect anything fancy.


Please give some examples of those things which you consider "fancy" which would not be covered (in your belief) under a universal health care system.


> However, any expensive tests would not covered by a government plan.


Again, please provide a few examples of the expensive tests you refer to? And, do you know this for fact, or this is simply your own belief of how things would work?


----------



## Danielle_E. (Mar 29, 2009)

Thanks Elsa for your explanation. I appreciate your opinion on this since you are in the field of health. I have a question for you and those that do't think that a "universal" health care would work for the U.S. Given the stats albeit stats from quite a few years ago in that link, would "preventive care" not help in keeping the high costs down as well as not endangering the premium care that your U.S. residents get now? In Canada "prevention" is a big thing. I take for example my daughter who was just seen in emergency here yesterday and who will now be going through gallbladder surgery (removal). Lets say she would have been in the U.S. with no healthcare and would have not gone in to seek help when she did. The gallbladder could have become major infected and could have caused lifethreatening circumstances. The cost of removing that gallbladder now is lower than someone who would have waited and would have had to have emergency surgery and additional medical procedures (drugs and longer stay in hospital) etc. To make an analogy, if you have a car that is having problems and you don't take it in to have it fixed immediately the chances of additional problems grows quite a lot and you end up with more problems and in the end higher costs to fix it. The system in the U.S. as it is now employs so many more people than is required, hence the fact that now as they say it costs 40% more than any other system. It's nice it employs so many people but at what cost to the patient? Premiums are so high for good coverage, sometimes more than a mortgage payment which boggles my mind and the cost of your drugs, same drugs we have here, are so much more.


----------



## Charley (Mar 29, 2009)

Danielle_E. said:


> Charley said:
> 
> 
> > I'm guessing... but with a major increase in patients there will not be more doctors, nurse practicioners, etc. So the time spent on each patient will decrease and the quality of care due to this will decrease.
> ...


Danielle, have I done something to make you so angry? I have not previously posted on this topic and have not expressed my opinion. If I have offended you, as it appears, I am truly sorry.

Lois


----------



## Elsa (Mar 29, 2009)

Minimor said:


> > In a universal health care system, don't expect anything fancy.
> 
> 
> Please give some examples of those things which you consider "fancy" which would not be covered (in your belief) under a universal health care system.
> ...


tests are constantly being "improved" (truth is, many newer tests have been proven to be no more effective than older ones) and that takes a lot of funding.

ie. a cardiology CT scanner is a $1 million machine. Who will pay for this?

A government fund could not cover several expensive tests per patient. As of right now, the Medicare fund will be depleted by 2018. The following decades will be spent trying to figure out a way to care for the aging population.


----------



## Minimor (Mar 29, 2009)

So you must then find it a bit unusual that Canada has technology such as this???

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/120192.php

excerpts from the above linked page:

Recently, *University Health Network (UHN) became the first institution in the world to have three 320-slice CT scanners, as Toronto Western Hospital's (TWH) scanner began clinical operation. *The world's most advanced Computer Tomography technology, the 320-slice CT can cut time-to-treatment by two-thirds for stroke patients, help cancer specialists map tumours for treatment in greater detail than ever before, and allow cardiac disease to be diagnosed with unparalleled confidence.

Stroke identification at Toronto Western Hospital

*At TWH, the 320-slice CT is located in the emergency department, the only installation of its kind in the world. In* an environment where every second counts, the speed of the scanner greatly benefits patients with serious trauma and those exhibiting signs of stroke.

Cardiac diagnostics at Toronto General Hospital

*In 2007, UHN's first 320-slice CT went into operation at the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre located at the Toronto General Hospital (TGH) and at the time, was one of only five in the world. *

Perhaps Canada isn't quite the backwoods, have=-nothing medical community that some think it is?


----------



## Sonya (Mar 29, 2009)

Has anyone checked out the Burton Reports:

Burton report

Burton report

There are many different articles, some of which are older, you can go to their main page and search for different things on healthcare systems, programs, etc...

Just the couple that I posted above talk about many of the things we are discussing on this thread. Interesting reads, if you want to check them out.


----------



## Danielle_E. (Mar 29, 2009)

> Danielle, have I done something to make you so angry? I have not previously posted on this topic and have not expressed my opinion. If I have offended you, as it appears, I am truly sorry.
> Lois


Huh??????






angry at you? I was replying to your statement the first sentence and nothing more and I sure as heck am not angry at what you posted, sorry if you thought that







> I'm guessing... but with a major increase in patients there will not be more doctors, nurse practicioners, etc. So the time spent on each patient will decrease and the quality of care due to this will decrease.



You said that you will have a decrease in quality of care due to a possible increase in people with coverge, specifically addressing "universal" type health care. I took to mean that if Universal health care came into play and that the people who have no health care at the moment were all able to afford a healthcare program to cover themselves and their children that you felt that those paying high premiums would lose the "quality" care they are use to. Correct? So if all Americans were insured under the system you have now (high premiums) that the quality of care would suffer as well, so you are talking numbers of insured causing a decline in quality. That is what I understood the way you worded it. I posted a link that talks about the "myths" being used to oppose a universal type of system.

My questions still stand to all that oppose it here on this forum, trying to understand why you as a nation, would rather spend billions and billions on war or helping other people in other countries, or paying bailouts, when your own do without something as basic as healthcare? I am not speaking about people who refuse to work for whatever reason, I am talking about the people that have lost their jobs or have low paying jobs, etc. etc. Why would you not want to help your own people first and foremost? Why would a nation deny helping a child or children that have no choice in all of this if their parent is a single mom or their parents truly can''t afford high premiums? I don't know what the answer is to your healthcare system. I have said it before that I don't think the system that Canada has is the way for the U.S. to go because as it is it would throw out so many insurance companies and their employees out of work but there has to be, as Obama proposed, a type of affordable program that all could buy into that at least they would have some form of coverage. I will say it again, doesn't make any sense to me that the U.S. would have a system as archaic (3rd world type) where only the rich and upper middle class) can afford something as basic as healthcare in an industrialized and progressive country.


----------



## Elsa (Mar 30, 2009)

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]From what I've heard about Obama's proposals, his goal is to get those 47 million people who are currently uninsured into the system and offer them some type of coverage, whether they receive it from employers or through a public health plan. Additionally, he wants to cut costs for those who currently do have coverage and bring quality care to the uninsured. 

In order to avoid the chaotic consumer reaction to change, he says, "if you like what you have, you can keep it." He claims the right to buy health insurance does little no good when you are still stuck with a policy that can cost you up to $10,000 annually. To increase access to those who are unable to afford coverage, he proposes a lower age entrance to Medicare payments. This would allow individuals to buy into the Medicare program at 55 or 60. Sllowing people to buy into Medicare at 55 or 60, would protect people with early retirement or those that have been laid off. However, the Medicare fund is already suffering at the hands of the aging population.

Another approach is to establish a public health insurance plan, a basic package offering comprehensive benefits. Obama's promise of "you can keep it if you like it" may sound like a good deal, but the almost certain increase in taxes to support a public health plan may push those who currently can afford their premiums to become a burden on the already weighed down system. Most people still receive coverage through employers, despite the majority of uninsured who have at least one fulltime worker in the household. By mandating that employers offer health insurance, which would provide a significant portion with health benefits who currently have none, without giving a hefty tax cut to those businesses they can't possibly offset the cost. This would force small businesses to lower wages or possibly drive several small businesses into bankruptcy.

To make the system more efficient, he would also like to cut a total of $700 billion per year in his budget.



> "Health reform means trying to bring insurance to those who don't have it without making the federal budget deficit even deeper, controlling the growth in health spending without denying patients what they think they need, limiting unnecessary procedures without hampering the autonomy of doctors to do what they think is best."


Obama strives to increase access and quality to the uninsured, while simultaneously cutting costs all together.



> "President Obama has said that he and Congress will make both groups happy by cutting costs for those who have coverage and by bringing quality care to those who currently have no insurance."


Despite the recession, healthcare spending is projected to increase 5%, while GDP is shrinking by 0.2%. Without a magic money tree we can't possible support the factors increasing cost, such as advances in technology and specialist care, and consumers are under the mistaken belief that these are necessary evils.

The first step in health care reform needs to limit the use of expensive technology and specialist care. Without such managed care, Medicaid will suffer with a substantially higher enrollment.


----------



## McBunz (Mar 30, 2009)

Seems to me that universal health care would lower the cost of insurance... new insurance companies would need to open... competition for customers

would would lower rates.. Drs. would get paid so much for a procedure instead of gouging the patient for what ever. Yes you would probably need more

doctors... nurses and health care people but that would create good jobs.. I cannot understand the... "I got mine so to heck with the ones who

can't afford it attitude". Sure isn't what any of you were taught in Sunday school now is it..


----------



## Elsa (Mar 30, 2009)

McBunz said:


> Yes you would probably need moredoctors... nurses and health care people but that would create good jobs..


There is a severe shortage of doctors and nurses. Unlike Canada, where family

medicine accounts for almost 40% of the residency positions for graduating students, the number of U.S. medical graduates going into family medicine has been falling in the last decades.

Family medicine wasn't even recognized as a specialty until the 1970's in the US, even though primary care is the most cost-effective way to help patients maintain health. One problem is that many nurses in particular, don't want to quit working to teach because teaching pays less.



> estimates show the number of family doctors must grow by 39 percent during the next 14 years to keep up with the nation’s needs.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 30, 2009)

So, we'll simply see a shift in graduates in the future, won't we? With increased demand pay will be more competitive, and students will start choosing family medicine over other specialties, won't they?


----------



## Jill (Mar 30, 2009)

If we move towards a socialized health care system, doctors will work harder and earn less. That will make the profession less and less appealing and the shortage of family (and other) doctors even more pronounced.

There's a reason people in Canada who can afford to seak treatment in the USA do so (better and faster service).


----------



## Elsa (Mar 30, 2009)

LowriseMinis said:


> So, we'll simply see a shift in graduates in the future, won't we? With increased demand pay will be more competitive, and students will start choosing family medicine over other specialties, won't they?


ideally, the state would cap how many specialists can be licensed. There are, however, still shortages of specialists in some areas. Surgeons will always make more than a family practitioner (150K vs 190L annually) A shortage won't necessarily mean higher wages, most likely, just open positions in certain areas.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 30, 2009)

And there is a reason Americans who can't afford medical treatment in the U.S. die.

http://www.familiesusa.org/issues/uninsure...r-coverage.html



> In 2002, the Institute of Medicine released a groundbreaking report, Care without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late, which estimated that 18,000 adults nationwide died in 2000 because they did not have health insurance. Subsequently, The Urban Institute estimated that 22,000 adults died in 2006 because they did not have health insurance. To find out what this means for people across the nation, Families USA has generated the first-ever state-level estimates of the number of deaths due to lack of health insurance. Our estimates are based on both the Institute of Medicine and The Urban Institute methodologies applied to state-level data.


So we're going with an estimate of 22,000 adults (just adults) in 2006. Let's say that's an awful estimate. We'll half it. 11,000 adults died in ONE YEAR due to lack of medical coverage. That is almost three times the number of American lives claimed during the entire span of the Iraq war. Slightly less than four times the number of people who died in the September 11th attacks. That's more than the number of people who die each year due to drowning, smoke inhalation, surgical complications, or accidental shootings.

This link is great. You can click on your state and see *how many people in YOUR state die due to lack of medical coverage.*

We are a first world country. A great nation. I do not understand WHY it is acceptable that we have people bankrupting themselves to get medical care. Why we have people going without and _dying_ because of it.

To all you doctors out there, I'm sorry if you're making $20,000 less a year. I really am. You do difficult work and you deserve every penny you get. But it is unacceptable to me that even one American man, woman or child dies due to lack of medical care.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 30, 2009)

Elsa said:


> ideally, the state would cap how many specialists can be licensed. There are, however, still shortages of specialists in some areas. Surgeons will always make more than a family practitioner (150K vs 190L annually) A shortage won't necessarily mean higher wages, most likely, just open positions in certain areas.


I wish I could find the name of this documentary I saw a while ago. Someone went around to several of the other countries that have some form of national health care-if I remember right he went to Canada, Japan, England, Germany, and Singapore. He was talking with one of the British (or German, I can't remember!) doctors, wondering if under their system she's feeling a big hit to her income. She said the difference between what she makes under national healthcare and what she'd make in a free market is basically the difference between affording a $60,000 luxury car, or a $45,000 luxury car.

I'm not saying they absolutely wouldn't take a hit to their income, but "doctor" would still be a well-paid profession, wouldn't it? And obviously the money is a draw, but how many people go into medical school to help people vs. the number who are just in it for the cash?


----------



## Pepipony (Mar 30, 2009)

So what if Drs have to work harder? Maybe it isnt the time thats the problem, but their education and attitudes. I think we should make it that if you go to the Dr for a problem and they dont fix it, then you, nor insurance, get charged. Just like we expect mechanics etc to do. In my search for a dx ( and it isnt some oddball out there illness) I saw many Drs who ran many tests which cost insurance nearly 6 figures. With NO correct DX. Sorry, that is WAY wrong.

Healthcare is broken, you can have something that Drs want to treat one way, but insurance says no. WRONG.


----------



## Jill (Mar 30, 2009)

> So what if Drs have to work harder? Maybe it isnt the time thats the problem, but their education and attitudes. I think we should make it that if you go to the Dr for a problem and they dont fix it, then you, nor insurance, get charged. Just like we expect mechanics etc to do...


I couldn't disagree more.

Since we are not machines that mechanics work on, you cannot expect to always get easy answers and first time fixes.

We want to attract high caliber people to the profession and I don't think that will happen at $150k / year. Not when you sit back and honestly imagine all that is demanded of doctors. That's not enough to make me take on the highest of all responsibilities when it comes to the welfare of others. No way.

It also seems the people most in favor of a socialized system here are the ones who know they will probably be called on to contribute the least (and of course those who don't even actually live here...).


----------



## minifancier (Mar 30, 2009)

Elsa said:


> [SIZE=12pt][/SIZE][SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]
> 
> From what I've heard about Obama's proposals, his goal is to get those *47 million people who are currently uninsured *into the system and offer them some type of coverage, whether they receive it from employers or through a public health plan.



And that 47 million is as bogus as bogus can be~!


IN THAT 47 million is the 20 million ILLEGALS~!! THEY are counted. What part of Illegal does the president NOT understand.


And another 10 million that for what ever reason do NOT want to have insurance, 


Now that brings the total down to 17 million.


AND out of THAT 17 million is ALL the part time students that are working their way through school etc. And would not take insurance in the first place.


Add to that a few more that are just starting working and don't want to take insurance because they think of themselves as invincible~! I NEVER has insurance just starting into the work force nice and young and such.


Now that brings it down to around 5 to 7 million THAT could get assistance if they wanted to have it. Medicaid being one of them.


Leaving very very very few out of that 47 million that are truly uninsured.


We do NOT need a Government Controled Health Care system plain and simple. We have the best health care in the world.


WHY is it then that People from ALL over the world Come HERE to get the Best Care,,, namely The Mayo Clinic??????


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 30, 2009)

Do you have any links to back up your illegals/people who don't want insurance/students claims, by any chance?


----------



## minifancier (Mar 30, 2009)

*A significant portion of the uninsured are illegal aliens *and their children (who in some cases are US citizens). Another significant portion are legal aliens. Higher medical insurance premiums and government support for the uninsured are two more ways that native born American citizens pay for low skilled and low wage immigrants and their children. Hispanics are medically uninsured at two and a half times the rate of whites. The medical uninsurance rate is higher still among illegals and their children. *Stop the Hispanic influx and deport all the illegal aliens and the ranks of uninsured would drop by millions and perhaps even by tens of millions.*

*Some estimates put the ranks of illegals as high as 20 million.* Estimates for the rate of increase are around a half million a year. So a lot of the projected increase in medical insurance by 2010 is to support the additional illegal aliens who wll enter the US in the next 5 years and the children who will be born to the illegal aliens who are already here

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002818.html

And this was the number one site on a Google search 100's of other sites ssay the same thing that out of those 47 million 20 milion are the illegals.

Now to go and find school age folks that are also added into the mix, and this is why after so many years that the liberaL MEDIA HAS BEEN SAYING 47 MILLION, 47 MILLION, are uninsured people tend to beleave that is the truth when it is only a half truth at best. Because they the liberal media don't tell you just WHERE they get the figures from, and whoi is included in the figures. But people beleave the left so much they can't see it in any other light except the truth.


----------



## minifancier (Mar 30, 2009)

Ah yes here is a nice one about the uninsured Colledge age student and part time workers that they are.:

The Uninsured: College StudentsYou Should Know:

There are more than 45.8 million Americans today without health insurance, a number expected to increase to 56 million within the next decade.* As much as 10 percent of the uninsured population is composed of college students.[/b] *

*Young adults make up the largest age-group of uninsured Americans; nearly one in three of the uninsured are between 18 and 24 years old.*


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 30, 2009)

Okay, I believe you that there are a large number of 18-24 year olds who are uninsured. I'm in that group and I can tell you that NONE of my friends (most of whom are 22-28 years old) have insurance either. That doesn't mean we don't want it.

The short summary of all the information below: The majority of uninsured people in this country are not here illegally. The majority of uninsured people in this country have expressed a desire to have insurance. A large number (if not a majority) of uninsured people in this country and ineligible for Medicaid and similar programs.

On ages and citizens and so on...some snippets.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml



> *Who are the uninsured?*The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.2
> 
> The increase in the number of uninsured in 2006 was focused among working age adults. The percentage of working adults (18 to 64) who had no health coverage climbed from 19.7 percent in 2005 to 20.2 percent in 2006.1 Nearly 1.3 million full-time workers lost their health insurance in 2006.
> 
> ...


Oh, and this list of myth vs. fact from http://www.amsa.org/tnp/articles/article.cfx?id=272



> *MYTH: Most uninsured are poor, unemployed minorities.*
> FACT: Most uninsured Americans are employed and Caucasian. Seventy-five percent live in families where at least one person works full time. Twenty percent live in families that have two full-time workers.
> 
> MYTH: Young women are at the greatest risk for being uninsured.
> ...


----------



## Elsa (Mar 30, 2009)

minifancier said:


> Ah yes here is a nice one about the uninsured Colledge age student and part time workers that they are.:
> The Uninsured: College StudentsYou Should Know:
> 
> There are more than 45.8 million Americans today without health insurance, a number expected to increase to 56 million within the next decade.* As much as 10 percent of the uninsured population is composed of college students.[/b] *
> ...


* *

*
Most universities have a student health center. Part of the university fee goes towards that center, where students can go for prescriptions, counseling and primary care visits.*

* *

*
*



> *wish I could find the name of this documentary I saw a while ago. Someone went around to several of the other countries that have some form of national health care-if I remember right he went to Canada, Japan, England, Germany, and Singapore*


* *

*
I believe the documentary you are referring to is Sicko, by Michael Moore.*


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Mar 30, 2009)

minifancier said:


> .* As much as 10 percent of the uninsured population is composed of college students.[/b] *



Hmm while I do not dispute this most colleges do offer health services for their students. It is very cheap like 50 bucks a semester and offers them the use of the student health center where the visit is just a small co-pay if anything same with standard medications. They also offer birth control and counseling.

Of course not helpful for major illness but does allow for standard medical care


----------



## Jill (Mar 30, 2009)

LoweriseMinis said:


> Okay, I believe you that there are a large number of 18-24 year olds who are uninsured. I'm in that group and I can tell you that NONE of my friends (most of whom are 22-28 years old) have insurance either. That doesn't mean we don't want it.


If I didn't have a particular something I wanted, didn't think I'd have to personally kick in much if anything to help others get it, but could get it myself at the expense of others who have more than I do... maybe I'd be all "my hand's out" and want it too. Or maybe I'd work harder and/or smarter so I could have the things I want -- since that's what I've always done. Again, it's like those who are most adamant about getting us into a socialized health care situation are those who don't even live in the USA and those who expect to contribute _very_ little from their own pocket to the cost of covering others and are looking forward to getting their "freebies" from Uncle Sam


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 30, 2009)

Elsa said:


> I believe the documentary you are referring to is Sicko, by Michael Moore.


I don't think that was it. It aired late one night on PBS.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 30, 2009)

And those who already 'have theirs' are the ones who seem to be against it, and nevermind the masses of uninsured or why those people are uninsured, or the people who DIE daily for lack of care. The lack of empathy some people show is astounding to me. I find it very difficult to believe that people who hold these opinions have ever been in the position of the people they're working against.

When this plan comes about, I will happily pay in my fair share. Just as I pay in to state disability and Social Security and unemployment. And those feelings will not change-not if I make $10,000 a year or $100,000 a year or a million a year. Because no matter where I go in life I will both remember where I started, and will not alter my belief that Americans have a fundamental right to be healthy.


----------



## Jill (Mar 30, 2009)

LowriseMinis said:


> And those who already 'have theirs' are the ones who seem to be against it, ...


A lot of those who "already have theirs" didn't always "already have theirs". They worked and sacrificed a lot to have what they do and continue to work hard, and smart!

If everyone worked and saved as hard as many if not most of those who "already have theirs", the Nation would be much better off. There is nothing that can be said that will make me understand the mentality of waiting for a handout. To me, that is NOT the American way.











LowriseMinis said:


> When this plan comes about, I will happily pay in my fair share... And those feelings will not change-not if I make $10,000 a year or $100,000 a year or a million a year.


I'd love for you to join me in spending about 1/3 of your pay check on income taxes. What you don't seem to get is it's not fair. The harder you work and the more you earn, the the bigger and bigger the percentage is that you must kick in... If we all only had pay 10 or 15% of our incomes in income taxes -- or whatever amount, if we ALL paid the same percentage -- that would be great news from my perspective. Talking about adding more welfare / social benefits (such as "free" healthcare for all) means some of us would have to kick in even more than we already do.


----------



## Minimor (Mar 30, 2009)

> Again, it's like those who are most adamant about getting us into a socialized health care situation are those who don't even live in the USA


If you mean me (for one)—quite honestly at this point in time I have no personal interest in whether or not the US gets universal health care of any sort. As you know, I am not living in the US, even though I am an American citizen. I am merely tired of people on this board trashing Canadian healthcare when they have little or no personal experience with the system. As long as you are trashing our health care, I am going to defend it!

You keep harping about how many Canadians go south of the border for “better” and/or “faster” treatment. For every one that does, there are many more that don’t…yes, even some of those that “can afford it” don’t go south for treatment. Why not? Because they get excellent treatment here, and don’t need to go anywhere else. Of all the people I know who have been seriously ill and required specialized medical care, only 3 have gone to the US for treatment. Of those 3, 2 were happy with the successful treatment they received. The 3rd..well, she died a short time afterward. In truth she didn't do any better than if she had stayed here in Canada for her treatment...in fact for all anyone knows, she might have done better to stay here, because the treatment she went to the US for was not the one the doctors here recommended--she went to the US because she thought the treatment available there was better. She was wrong.

A friend of mine had a daughter with serious kidney problems. They were going to go to a specialist in California—in researching possible treatment, that specialist is the one they came up with. That doctor in California suggested a surgeon in Toronto—because the Toronto surgeon could treat their daughter just as well as he could, and treatment would cost them much less. Imagine—equal quality in Canada!

You don’t always have better doctors down there…I know that, because some of the worst ones we’ve had here have moved south of the border where they can make far more money than they could here. You’re paying top dollar for some doctors that we didn’t want to use….for “free”!! Some of the best ones….have actually stayed right here in Canada. Imagine that!

Canada has even got some great research going on here….and has made some medical breakthroughs. I’m not going to waste my time looking up links to post, because those of you who don’t believe me will just say that you can’t be bothered to open those links and read the articles anyway.

Quite obviously there are some who think Canada’s healthcare is as useless as our armed forces are amusing. I often defend Americans when people here put them down…thank you for reminding my why that defence is necessary all too often!


----------



## tagalong (Mar 30, 2009)

> Or maybe I'd work harder and/or smarter so I could have the things I want -- since that's what I've always done.





> if everyone worked and saved as hard as many if not most of those who "already have theirs", the Nation would be much better off.


*Jill* - you always come back to this. You always imply that those of us who cannot afford expensive health care premiums are simply lazy or stupid. Unlike yourself, of course.

That is very insulting, smug and superior - and downright rude.

*I work VERY hard, thanks.* And that is what I have always done. Imagine that. Responsible for my actions and decisions. Not looking for handouts as you insist. I am also not the stupid git that you imply that anyone in a lower income bracket than yours is. You own your own place and show horses and all - none of which is cheap - and are in a higher income bracket than I am - but it does NOT mean that I do not work hard or am not working "smart". As an aside - a work visa does not allow you to change jobs, have two jobs or even do freelance work on the side. _None of that is permitted_ - so even if I could somehow manage to cram in another part-time job to pay higher healthcare premiums (difficult when your job is basically 24/7) - it would be illegal.



> You keep harping about how many Canadians go south of the border for “better” and/or “faster” treatment. For every one that does, there are many more that don’t…yes, even some of those that “can afford it” don’t go south for treatment. Why not? Because they get excellent treatment here, and don’t need to go anywhere else.


*minimor* - you forget that Canada is a back-asswards place worthy of scorn and ridicule..





Some Americans even go _north of the border_ to see specific specialists - as a close friend here did.





As for myself - I can speak from experience with BOTH systems. If I was still living in Canada - I could have had the same treatments as I have had here... the same procedures... and yet from my investment in the healthcare system not have had to drain my bank account to pay for it. There may have been some small payments - but that would be all. And those are the facts. First hand experience. No links needed.

It's like car insurance - you may never have to use it and/or benefit from it - but when you do need it - it is there. No one plans on having a car accident - or getting skin cancer.

However, we never know where life's roads lead us and for all the bad things that happen there is always good to celebrate and cherish. We do the best we can - wherever we are. Even if we are not smart enough or hard-working enough as defined by those who do not walk in our shoes...


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 30, 2009)

Jill said:


> I'd love for you to join me in spending about 1/3 of your pay check on income taxes. What you don't seem to get is it's not fair. The harder you work and the more you earn, the the bigger and bigger the percentage is that you must kick in... If we all only had pay 10 or 15% of our incomes in income taxes -- or whatever amount, if we ALL paid the same percentage -- that would be great news from my perspective. Talking about adding more welfare / social benefits (such as "free" healthcare for all) means some of us would have to kick in even more than we already do.


Welcome to America, Jill.


----------



## Minimor (Mar 30, 2009)

> minimor - you forget that Canada is a back-asswards place worthy of scorn and ridicule..


I did forget that, just for a minute there--my bad!



I guess I don't watch the right news channel to remind me of that fact.


----------



## Tango (Mar 30, 2009)

You know Jill, what about those people in this country who have worked harder and longer than you have and suddenly find themselves without their jobs, their homes, and yes, now have no health care coverage. That could be any of us, even you. Companies have gone bankrupt and with it have taken away the retirement income that people worked all their life for. Many people are facing hardships they never thought would happen to them. There are no perfect solutions to any problem but the cost of health care in this country is outrageous and many people that once enjoyed the luxury of being able to afford private health care are now having to do without. If you don't want to think about those who may not be in your "league", then think about those that are and who are now in the poorhouse.


----------



## Ashley (Mar 30, 2009)

> A lot of those who "already have theirs" didn't always "already have theirs". They worked and sacrificed a lot to have what they do and continue to work hard, and smart!
> If everyone worked and saved as hard as many if not most of those who "already have theirs", the Nation would be much better off. There is nothing that can be said that will make me understand the mentality of waiting for a handout. To me, that is NOT the American way


THis is something that really bothers me. I once had an excellent job, hated it but how many 18 year olds were makeing 60,000 a year. I had everything I wanted, could had no problem paying for excellent coverage. Then things went bad. Lost my job and have been with out any for about 2 and a half years. I have been worked hard for over a year to find a decent job. What money I do have come in does not go for imedical coverage as I have a family to care for and other bills to pay.

I do not take hand outs unless I am at my last straw. YOu dont know how much it almost killed us to have to get WIC. Something we never wanted and have a very hard time useing but do know it has been very helpfull to us, for what they provide is huge and the main things we go through.

Because I do not have a job does not make me any less of a hard worker than you are any less smart than you. You happen to be in a good line of work and haveing it owned by family helps you keep your job. I would bet thousands of those unemployed people would love to give you an ear full.

Second related to a totally different post.......I really really doubt any of those people with out insurrance dont really want it. I do not get sick often. IN the 2.5 years I havent had any coverage I have been sick to the point of needing a doctor 2 times. HOwever, if given a option I would gladly pay my premiums to have it. THe bills are crazy high when I do get sick and I do worry about what will happen if I have something serious happen.



> Most universities have a student health center. Part of the university fee goes towards that center, where students can go for prescriptions, counseling and primary care visits.


I have looked at several universities as well as the two I have actually attended and NONE of them have this.


----------



## tigeresss (Mar 31, 2009)

Wow...Jill that is the most ignorant thing I have read in a very, very long time. It frustrates me to no end to think people are still that ignorant. It is comments and attitudes such as the ones you have just expressed that give Americans a very bad reputation worldwide. We know you're not all that bad but it's the bad apples that plant the seed.

I am Canadian but have experienced the Canadian, British and American healthcare systems. The only reason I have not moved into the states is because of the US healthcare system at present. If it were different I would live there in a shot because it's a beautiful country that I adore.

I am someone who has quite a lot of experience with the Canadian healthcare system. In my younger years I have had cat scans, MRIs, x-rays, biopsies, five surgeries many doctor and ER visits and the list goes on and on. I know that if I lived in the US I would be beyond broke from all my medical bills. Thankfully here in Canada it is essentially free! I feel that EVERY HUMAN BEING has the RIGHT to healthcare! I have always received amazing care while being treated in Canada. The longest I ever waited for a surgery was three weeks and that was because it was a non-important one and that was the closest date that I could get into MY schedule. For my most major surgery (a nearly 4hour surgery) I only waited 5 days. If I had wanted to I could have gone to a private clinic with the exact same doctor and had it done the next day. That would have cost me I believe around $15,000CAD but the Dr was able to get me in the next week. Private clinics are available in certain parts of Canada (such as where I live) and the option of more is being explored. The longest I wait to get a doctor's appointment is usually about four days and that will be if it's an appointment for say a prescription renewal...something very unimportant. If it is something important I will get into the doctors office the same day I phone. Wait times at hospitals can be a bit long but generally only if you have something "minor" i.e. a broken arm is less important than a heart attack or a stabbing. Things are prioritized by who is going to die first and that's the way it should be. I think the longest I've ever waited in ER is about four hours and that was when I knew I had a bladder infection turning into a kidney infection. I was in a lot of pain but once again I was less important than the people who came in after me that were bleeding extreme amounts everywhere! I have no problem suffering in pain when I know that I will live when there are people coming into ER that will not live. That being said when something "bad" is happening you are taken in RIGHT away. I went in with breathing/chest wall troubles and was seen as soon as I walked in the door. The same goes for when my mum suspected she had a heart attack...(which she had) she was seen to within 5seconds of walking in the door. The people who complain about long wait times are generally those who are those "non life threatening people" and lets face it some people just can't accept that some things are more important than they are.

I have experienced the US healthcare system as well. The wait times were comparable to the Canadian wait times; the doctors and nurses were comparable to Canadian doctors and nurses. Everything about it was exactly the same except the cost. I could not BELIEVE the money I had to pay for my experiences. Luckily it was all insured so we were reimbursed but wow...they basically charge you for the tissue you use to blow your nose with! A friend had a heart attack while in Montana and luckily his company paid for it but it would have cost him $80,000 for his treatment. That is absolutely ridiculous!

My American family has the advantage of having insurance. However they realize that there are millions of people who can't afford basic medical coverage. That is absolute junk.

I try my best to not go to the Doctor unless I absolutely have to...for instance I avoided going to the doctor for over a month when I separated my ribs (tore the cartilage from them). I also avoided going to the doctor for two weeks while I coughed up blood. HOWEVER I have the knowledge that should I have to go to the doctor I can go whenever I want to. I don't have the weight of MONEY hanging over my head. Do I feed my children dinner for the next month or do I go to the doctor? Do I get that lump checked out which could lead to me living on the streets because of the bills? I watch my children die because I can't afford their treatment. That is a reality many American's face and it is NOT FAIR. Anyone who thinks it is fair for people to suffer that way is a disgusting human being, the lowest of the low.

Those that make more money deserve to be taxed more on it. It is irritating but it's a fact of life to help the world go around. To tax someone who makes $10,000 a year the same as someone who makes $100,000 a year is REDICULOUS and makes ZERO sense. Greed is a disgusting virtue.

Many, many people work very hard all their lives but still are not able to make enough money to live comfortably or afford insurance. Things happen to people, health crisis, unseen financial crisis (SUCH AS HAVING TO PAY FOR MEDICAL TREATMENTS!!!!!!!), job loss, pay cuts, disability, pregnancy, low paying wages etc.

I'm not saying the US needs Canada's healthcare system because let's be realistic every healthcare system in the world has it's flaws but the US certainly needs something where EVERYSINGLE PERSON IN YOUR COUNTRY RECEIVES MEDICAL CARE SHOULD THEY NEED IT WITHOUT THE FEAR OF LOSING THEIR LIVES!!!!!!!!

I know this post seems quite negative but it just frustrates me immensely that so many people suffer needlessly.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 31, 2009)

In addition, since we were talking about choices...

The wealthy have made the choice to be wealthy, I'm assuming. That's fine, trust me! I don't begrudge anyone for their money as long as it was gained legally and fairly. However, by pushing yourself into that income bracket, you accept certain responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is the increase in taxes you pay. Higher taxes for the wealthy is nothing new. No one can say they got rich and then said "Oh wait-I didn't know about these taxes!"

A person making $20,000 a month might pay that 35% in taxes, only leaving them with $13,000 that month. Those people are still not going to struggle to pay their rent or feed their kids.

A person making $800 a month who's being asked to pay that same percentage is only going to have $520 after taxes. That person *is* going to struggle to pay their rent or feed their kids.

A flat tax would ask those with less to give more, and when you're talking about that much less, you're sending nearly an entire class of people into poverty.

If you're in that higher tax bracket, think of it as your way of paying back the great country that has made your success possible.


----------



## Jill (Mar 31, 2009)

Quite honestly, it doesn't matter to me who here thinks my opinion on this is rude or ignorant. It won't inspire me to change my tune...

I would imagine that if some of those who choose to be offended were actually in my position (too high a tax bracket and a business owner), they might even feel just like I do and if you want to think otherwise -- go for it






Socialism is not an American ideal. That includes _taking_ from those who do to give to those who don't


----------



## Danielle_E. (Mar 31, 2009)

> Socialism in America?I have heard for so long that we are headed for Socialism and that most of us HOPE SOCIALISM FAILS!!! Really? Do you really have any idea what Socialism means? When we think of Socialism,we think of Russia and other Communist countries and the Nazi's. Well their form of Gov't includes some socialism but it is not Socialism, it's Communism,.Fascism, and Nazisim. If we eliminated all the Socailist programs that we have in the U.S.A we would eliminate, Civil service Retirement Systems,Federal Employee Retirement Systems,Railroad Retirement Systems,Public Housing,Low income energy Assistance,Social Security,Unemployment Insurance,Temporary Disability insurance,Medicare,Mediscaid,Medicare Prescription Drug plan, Supplemental Security Income,Food Stamp program,National School Lunch Program,USDA[united Staes dept of Agriculture] ,Federal Communications Commision, Food & Drug administration,Import Tarrifs. This is just scratching the surface of the Socialist programs NOW in place in the GOOD OLE U.S.A. Still want to see Socialist programs FAIL? Socialism is the term that the Right Wing Republicans give to anything the Democrats propose in an attempt to make it look bad. Socialist Programs means they are for the people and not the RICH. I don't want the rich to fail afterall they bankroll the country's growth and economic system but you can't label every program to help us get out of the economic problems we now have in an effort to discredit what is being done by the Obama Administration. .............................Illowa.


----------



## Danielle_E. (Mar 31, 2009)

I guess the attitude of some in the U.S. is one of non-compassion basically - what is mine is totally mine and I to heck with my fellow citizens. If you lost your job, too bad, not my problem, if your child is really sick and you can't afford the healthcare, you are a bad parent, if you lost your home because your healthcare didn't cover or you were denied coverage by your insurer, too bad, not my problem. Gee, and I keep reading "the U.S. is the best country in the world". I guess if you say it to yourselves over and over you believe it, like brainwashing by a sect or cult. I guess you won't believe than that many non-U.S. citizens don't believe what you are saying for one minute.

I guess the reason that "outsiders" are interested (non-U.S. citizens) is our "compassion" or what we were taught, our beliefs that human dignity should be allotted to all. Isn't that what we work towards when we eighter give to a charity for a worthy cause, or when countries try to help 3rd world nations during famines or times of need - human dignity, the basics.

I hope someday the U.S. will treat all their citizens with dignity and offer you premiums that are affordable and don't allow the insurance companies to basically "rob" you with the ridiculously high premiums "the best country in the world" tries to extort out of it's citizens. I guess it all boils down to free enterprise and the pursuit of the almighty $$. Didn't that work well with Fanny Mae and the likes. As the nursery rhymes goes "Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall..... "


----------



## Reble (Mar 31, 2009)

Henry Ford: Money Quotes

If money is your hope for independence you will never have it. The only real security that a man will have in this world is a reserve of knowledge, experience, and ability.

Henry Ford: Money Quotes

It's not the employer who pays the wages. Employers only handle the money.

It's the customer who pays the wages.

Eleanor Roosevelt: Money Quotes

He who loses money, loses much;

He who loses a friend, loses much more;


----------



## Tango (Mar 31, 2009)

Jill, there are many people in your position today "too high a tax bracket and a business owner" who are no longer in that position. They have no job, no business and no health insurance. Many of those folks have chronic or serious health conditions that will now go without care. I doubt they are feeling today like you are because the real world has just slapped them in the face.

There is an easy way to fix your problem of being in "too high a tax bracket", change jobs.


----------



## Sonya (Mar 31, 2009)

I don't think anyone wants to see anyone suffer from lack of care, food, or anything. Just because someone does not want a nationalized healthcare system does not mean they are cold-hearted witches who care about no one. Just because people don't approve of hand-outs doesn't mean they don't want to see people helped. There is a fine line from hand-out and hand-up. There are people who take advantage of "systems" and that is what I am against. The systems are suppose to be there to help, not support. And I do feel like Jill, that many in this country do feel a sense of entitlement and they are "owed" something without working for it...that however does not mean that we are against giving a hand-up. Just wanted to point that out.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 31, 2009)

Jill said:


> Socialism is not an American ideal. That includes _taking_ from those who do to give to those who don't[/img]


Would you care to explain phenomena like taxes, government funded universities, and social security then? Those are all every bit as 'socialist' as national health care, and yet they exist in America.



> He that is of the opinion money will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for money.Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)


 Our Founding Fathers.


----------



## Sonya (Mar 31, 2009)

I would not call Social Securtiy a socialistic program...you pay into SS, just like unemployment. Your SS is based on what you have made and put into the system.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 31, 2009)

> so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key n. *1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.*
> 
> 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.


Social Security sounds like socialism to me. So does taxes. A central government entity takes your money, sticks it together, then puts it where they feel is needed.


----------



## Tango (Mar 31, 2009)

In this country, Social Security IS turning into a "socialistic" program. Social Security no longer just pays to those who pay into it, there are more people out there now that are drawing a Social Security check that have NEVER paid a dime into it than you can shake a stick at! That is why Social Security is in danger of going bust.

And talking about those in this country that feel a sense of "entitlement", I agree. Those are the people that are bleeding our health care and other systems dry! Those are second, third and fourth generation welfare recipients who think that drawing a welfare check IS a job. In my responses on this thread, these are not the people I am referring to at all. I am referring to those who do work, but whose employers do not offer health insurance, to those people that have lost their good paying jobs and the health care that went with it. Those are the people I am referring to. The people in the middle, who always seem to fall throught the cracks.

If you really want to get down to the brass tacks on why our health care system is so high, let's talk about illegal aliens. That is where the biggest portion of the money goes in our health care system. For every illegal alien that gets free health care, the cost of health care rises again and again. That is one of the biggest reasons why the state of California is in the mess it is now.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 31, 2009)

Tango, a few pages ago I found a link stating "The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens." with evidence to back up that claim. I'm not saying that illegal immigrants aren't a burden on our system-especially here in California-but I don't quite believe that they are the biggest expense nationally.


----------



## Jill (Mar 31, 2009)

Thank you, Sonya. You've got it right but obviously, there are a few ladies who enjoy envisioning me as the Wicked Witch of the East. That's okay, though. Everyone needs something to believe... I believe I'm gonna go take some pictures of my newest foal



:BigGrin


----------



## tagalong (Mar 31, 2009)

> Quite honestly, it doesn't matter to me who here thinks my opinion on this is rude or ignorant. It won't inspire me to change my tune...



Well then, don't change that arrogant tone - and tell me in detail how I do not work hard enough or smart enough - as your amazing psychic abilities have deduced is the reason that I am not as worthy as you are and not able to afford the same kind of health care premiums that you can. Being dismissive and elitist is no way to present any valid points you may have... and only tarnishes your opinion.... especially when you haughtily reiterate that you could care less...








> You've got it right but obviously, there are a few ladies who enjoy envisioning me as the Wicked Witch of the East. That's okay, though. Everyone needs something to believe


HUH? *Jill* - just because someone does not agree wth something you insist is the truth does not mean that "a few ladies" enjoy envisioning you as anything. No point in painting yourself as the hard done by hero, there! I understand that no opinion is ever to be considered except yours - you make that clear in all these threads... but you also might consider how you go about it. I am glad you find it so






... and _tres amusant_...

LOL.

Please excuse me - I must get back to not working hard enough or smart enough...


----------



## Tango (Mar 31, 2009)

Sorry Lowrise, I missed your post on that. It may not be a significant percentage nationally, according to the link, but, free health care to illegal aliens is a burden, none-the-less, on our health care system.

When the "little spokes" that turn the "big wheels" in this country, that work an honest days job and pay taxes just like anybody else, regardless of what tax bracket they fall in, should be able to have some kind of health care insurance available to them.


----------



## Tango (Mar 31, 2009)

Well, let's just hope for your sake Jill, that your family business never goes under. Just continue to live in your happy little world, wearing your blinders. Such a charmed life you must be living. Because, as you say, no one works harder than you do and is more deserving than you are.



Enjoy it while it lasts. Because, you never know when that day may come, that you may not have to worry about being in such a high tax bracket.


----------



## Jill (Mar 31, 2009)

You ladies can just keep being as personally nasty to me as you want. You always do on these political threads and it only inspires me to keep saying what I think. My feelings rarely get hurt by people I don't even know by name! It's interesting that, while I always manage not to make it personal, others aren't able to do the same. So, speculate and accuse. Ascribe feelings to me. I'm still going to express my opinions, run my business, and enjoy my "charmed" life.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Mar 31, 2009)

Tango said:


> Sorry Lowrise, I missed your post on that. It may not be a significant percentage nationally, according to the link, but, free health care to illegal aliens is a burden, none-the-less, on our health care system.


That is true, but overall illegal immigrants only account for around 15% of those costs. I'm not saying isn't significant, I just wanted to be sure we weren't perpetuating the myth that it's somehow all their fault! So no worries.

For those who oppose a nationalized health care system, I would love to hear alternative ideas that are as reasonable and comprehensive, since I'm sure we can all agree allowing our current system-one in which people frequently go bankrupt or die due to lack of care-just isn't cutting it.

Use of the word 'bootstraps' will not be permitted.


----------



## Danielle_E. (Mar 31, 2009)

Jil said



> It's interesting that, while I always manage not to make it personal


























Thanks I needed that


----------

