Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Socialized Medicine      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 4
Socialized MedicinePage 1 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
I see we are back to this again.

We treat our "most vulnerable" the way every other country treats them, with socialized medicine. It's called Medicaid.
 bliss serendipity
Joined: 12/27/2006
Msg: 5
view profile
History
Socialized Medicine
Posted: 9/15/2009 12:19:03 PM

We treat our "most vulnerable" the way every other country treats them, with socialized medicine. It's called Medicaid.


And oh yes, Medicaid is being cut back drastically in some of your states. Lots of info out there that says the mentally ill will be left out there on their own. More and more people will be left out there on their own. It's only to get worse.

Bliss
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 6
Socialized Medicine
Posted: 9/15/2009 7:44:50 PM

And oh yes, Medicaid is being cut back drastically in some of your states. Lots of info out there that says the mentally ill will be left out there on their own. More and more people will be left out there on their own. It's only to get worse.


And there's the rub, and why I don't like socialized medicine. When the government pays for it, corners are cut.

In Canada, where you live, there is an appalling lack of advanced technology, in fact one of the lowest, if not THE lowest of all OECD countries. The average hospital is 40 years old, the entire province of Quebec has no medical helicopters (as we found out when Natasha Richardson died), and cites of a million people like Calgary send high risk multiple pregnancies to small cities like Great Falls, Montana (as we found out when the Jepp quadruplets were born in Benefis Hospital). Want cutting edge chemo, proton therapy, robotic arm surgery, or even gamma knife surgery it's either not available or in such short supply it's not part of the regular care offered to citizens.

If you look at cancer survival, the US is number one, and that includes people who do not have insurance. Here are some figures for you:

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/21/most-cancer-survival-rates-in-usa-better-than-europe-and-canada/

Fact is that it is impossible to have the government pay for all of your medical care and get decent care. People need to stop thinking that taxes can pay for everything for everyone. They can't.
 SAguy_06
Joined: 12/29/2005
Msg: 7
Socialized Medicine
Posted: 9/16/2009 5:56:26 AM
A good number of true patriots have pointed out that it isnt the Goverment's job to provide health care...

The government cant help you...they can shade the truth about WMD and Aluminum tubes, It can spy on you, detain you without you having legal repersentation, it can torture you... but it has no right to give health care.
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 8
Socialized Medicine
Posted: 9/16/2009 6:34:59 AM

I don't believe you.


I don't care. It doesn't change the facts.


I don't know where you're getting the stats on the average age of a hospital in Canada, but I'm going to keep looking. The entire province of Quebec may not have medical helicopters, but you seem to have left out the fact that they have a Challenger jet for medical transport, and SAR helicopters are on standby for Quebec in neighbouring provinces. If Ms. Richardson had not refused medical help at the beginning, it's possible that there would have been a much different outcome.


No it wouldn't be possible, because by 2 1/2 hours after the accident Richardson was unresponsive, and she didn't even arrive in Montreal until 4 hours after the accident. It takes at least 2 1/2 hours to get to Montreal (even if she hadn't stopped at a local hospital on the way, or initially refused care).

Fixed wing airplanes don't even begin to have the functionality of a medical helicopter, since one cannot land at a hospital ER in the middle of Montreal.

I couldn't easily find the statistic on hospital age, but I orignally found it in a medical journal article a couple of years ago for a mainstream piece I wrote on UHC. Unfortunately, because it was in the mainstream press, no references.


You're not being forthcoming when it comes to the Jepp quads either. The province of Alberta does NOT normally send out high-risk pregnancies to the U.S. In that case, there was an influx of women in labour and delivery and they were full. At one of our local hospitals, in a city of 100k people, there are 12 case rooms specifically for women about to deliver. When my sister was in labour, there were 19 women in labour at the same time.... and it was the first time they had EVER gone over capacity.


Of course, I'm being forthcoming. What did I say about the Jepps that wasn't true? They were born in Benefis Hospital in Great Falls (population around 50,000) when their mother lived in or near Calgary (population 1 million). Alberta has a very bad shortage of hospitals due to population growth, and with all the bureaucracy that goes into building a hospital up there, it's going to be a long time before the province catches up.

So the fact is that small town USA is prepared for an event that is very rare, but a big city in Canada is not. There is NO possibility that a city of 1 million in the US would not have the facilities for a multiple birth. When was the last time you heard of a US citizen going to Canada because we didn't have hospital space? Or technology? Or drugs?

In the same year that the Jepps were born in the US, at least 50 other babies in Alberta were also born here. The stats are similar for BC.

However, the point of this isn't really to bash Canada. The only reason I used it as an example is because of the OP. There are far worse UHC systems in the world, Britain being the shining example.

Fact is that an ageing global population is a serious threat to health care systems around the world, and those who use tax dollars as a major source of funding are going to be in serious trouble. There is more flexibility in an HSA, high deductible health care policy scenario. Many major corporations in the US use these, and have been able to reduce their costs. Individuals are more thrifty in their spending when the cost is a factor. This is why Singapore, which uses HSA and high deductible polices in its UHC system is regularly ranked among the best health care systems in the world.

The government of Singapore only contributes about 25 percent to the cost of health care, and the majority of that money is for education programs and other ancillary services. In the US 50 percent of every health care dollar is provided by the government, and in Canada it is 70 percent. So you can see the MORE money spent by the government on health care, the WORSE the care.
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 9
Socialized Medicine
Posted: 9/17/2009 12:26:17 AM

You can't tell me that the response times in the U.S would have been much better for someone that far out into the wilderness.


First of all, it wouldn't matter, because local hospitals, even teeny, teeny, local hospitals near ski resorts are able to take care of a head trauma. Don't forget that even WITH medical helicopters the weather near ski resorts can be bad enough that flying isn't possible.

Let's take Aspen, Colorado which is a four hour car ride from Denver. Aspen has a TEENY hospital with 25 beds, but it has state-of-the art equipment and trained medical staff. After all, it's near a ski resort, and therefore needs to be able to deal with head traumas, something that isn't all that uncommon on a ski slope:

This is from Aspen Valley Medical Center's web site:


Emergency Care

Like so many other parts of the hospital, the Emergency Department is far more sophisticated than one might expect in a 25-bed hospital. One of Colorado's first level III trauma centers, it boasts a state-of-the-art trauma room with the latest in technology. A hospital-based ambulance service provides pre-hospital care, and board-certified emergency physicians are available and in the hospital 24 hours a day. Registered nursing staff hold certifications in advanced cardiac life support (ACLS), pediatric advanced life support (PALS), and pediatric and adult trauma nursing. In the event transfer to another facility is required, an FAA-approved helipad is on the hospital campus.

Diagnostic imaging capabilities for the emergency patient include MRI and CT scanning, ultra-sound, nuclear medicine, x-ray, and fluoroscopy. A digital network allows immediate access to 40 off-site radiology specialists in Denver.

There are 16 patient beds in the department, with five of the beds in private exam rooms. A full-time hospitalist -- board certified in internal medicine and pediatrics -- supports emergency physicians and other specialists with consultations and admissions.

Emergency department admission is done at the bedside. There's no standing at an admissions desk to provide insurance and other personal information at a time when medical attention is the first priority. Our goal is to keep our patients as comfortable and at ease as is possible, right from the start. A private waiting area adjacent to the emergency department allows family and friends to wait in a comfortable environment close to their loved one.


http://avhaspen.org/hospital_services/emergency_care.cfm

So this teeny hospital in the middle of nowhere has more medical equipment than most hospitals in Canada, can take care of a head trauma because the proper medical equipment is available to diagnose, and an emergency physician is on staff.

Vail also has a trauma III medical center at its hospital:

http://www.vvmc.com/VVMC/info/service/service_search.er.detail.aspx

which specializes in ski related injuries (well, duh).

I could keep going, but what would be the point?


Tell me, if the population of New York suddenly jumped an extra 6 million in 5 years, would it be the medical system's fault if they had to start flying people to Boston?


Point taken, but we WOULDN'T have to fly them to Canada, because we have enough redundancies in our medical system to accommodate overflow. The Canadian system is stressed to the max, and has one of the lowest levels of medical technology of all OECD countries.


As well, Canada spends 60 percent of what the U.S taxpayers do for coverage for EVERYONE.


And you get what you pay for.


You can keep pulling extreme cases out of your arse, and speak glowingly about having a 30 million dollar machine that does exactly the same job as a 10 million dollar one.... but the numbers in life expectancy, cancer cures, infant mortality don't lie.


First, I never said that, plus the fact a more advanced machine will do things that a lesser machine will not. The most advanced technology doesn't have to be used in every instance. For example, if you have a broken leg, you don't need to use a 64-slice CT scanner, however, if you want to diagnose coronary artery disease it's indispensible.

Second, watch your language, and your tone.


Dont they want to pput a 2 tier system like other western countries?
With private health insurance for the high earners.


It's not so much wanting, but allowing. I've no doubt that private insurance and private care will be available for the wealthy. However, if you're now a middle class Joe, who has great insurance through your job, you will probably get thrown into the "public option" by your employer, and you won't have the option of private insurance because the cost will be too high.

In the UK about 11 percent the population does have private insurance, and they go to private doctors and hospitals which are much nicer than what is provided by the NHS (not something that is hard to do). The reason that only 11 percent of the population has private insurance is because only the very wealthy can afford it.

So yes, there are tiers, but unless you're a millionaire you won't be getting private health care.
 bliss serendipity
Joined: 12/27/2006
Msg: 10
view profile
History
Socialized Medicine
Posted: 9/17/2009 2:03:07 AM

the latest Senate Finance Committee compromise bill would reportedly allow insurance companies to charge most employers more to insure women employees - this while the current system that Republicans are defending includes rescission which itself allows for pre-existing conditions to include being beaten by your spouse or being pregnant.

Every woman in this country supporting the Republicans and the status quo is directly or indirectly also supporting canceling or precluding insurance for battered women or pregnant women.


This is what the Republicans want?????

Bliss
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 11
Socialized Medicine
Posted: 9/17/2009 7:25:59 PM

Comparing Aspen Or Vail to any other ski area is not very realistic....


LOL, and who do you think goes to Mt. Tremblant? There are just as many 4 star hotels there as there are in Aspen.

Further, there SHOULD be more technology dedicated near ski areas since you are more likely to see head injuries near a ski area.

Public option is fortunately going the way of the do-do, so all of this discussion is moot anyway. We dodged a bullet. Whew!
 bliss serendipity
Joined: 12/27/2006
Msg: 12
view profile
History
Socialized Medicine
Posted: 9/18/2009 12:01:12 AM
Still do not want socialized medicine?


Many Employers to Raise Cost of Health Benefits, Survey Finds

TOOLBOX
Resize
Print
E-mail
Yahoo! Buzz
ad_icon
COMMENT
528 Comments | View All »
POST A COMMENT
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
Why Do I Have to Log In Again?
Log In Again?
CLOSE
We've made some updates to washingtonpost.com's Groups, MyPost and comment pages. We need you to verify your MyPost ID by logging in before you can post to the new pages. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Discussion Policy
Your browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem.
Discussion Policy
CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging
» Links to this article
By David S. Hilzenrath
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Though Americans who already have medical coverage may be wary of change, a new survey indicates that they may be hard-pressed to escape it -- even in the absence of health-care reform.
This Story
...
As businesses contend with rising costs, many workers face an erosion of health benefits next year, according to an annual survey released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust.

Forty percent of employers surveyed said they are likely to increase the amount their workers pay out of pocket for doctor visits. Almost as many said they are likely to raise annual deductibles and the amount workers pay for prescription drugs.

Nine percent said they plan to tighten eligibility for health benefits; 8 percent said they plan to drop coverage entirely. Forty-one percent of employers said they are "somewhat" or "very" likely to increase the amount employees pay in premiums -- though that would not necessarily mean employees would pay a higher percentage of the premiums. Employers could simply be passing along the same share of the overall increase that they are doing this year.

The authors of the study said the findings underscore the need for federal action to rein in costs.
ad_icon

The survey is one of several reports providing fresh ammunition to President Obama as he struggles to overhaul the nation's health-care system. One of his biggest challenges has been winning over Americans who are satisfied with their existing coverage.

A major business lobby weighed in Tuesday, saying that if current trends continue, annual health-care costs for employers will rise 166 percent over the next decade -- to $28,530 per employee.

"Maintaining the status quo is simply not an option," said Antonio M. Perez, chief executive of Eastman Kodak and a leader of the Business Roundtable. "These costs are unsustainable and would put millions of workers at risk," Perez said in a statement.

Rather than letting the trends go unchecked, employers will probably adopt a variety of cost-saving measures, said Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, an alliance of corporations. Those steps could include giving employees financial incentives to participate in weight-loss programs, order prescription drugs by mail and undergo health assessments, she said. In addition, before workers pursue costly procedures such as back surgery, they could be required to receive briefings that explain the potential downside of the treatment, Darling said.

Almost two-thirds of corporations surveyed by the Mercer consulting firm plan to call on employees to pay a greater share of health plan costs next year, according to a report last week.

The Kaiser Family Foundation survey, released Tuesday, obtained in-depth responses from more than 2,000 private firms and non-federal public employers. The foundation focuses on health issues; its collaborator, the Health Research and Educational Trust, is affiliated with the American Hospital Association. Annual premium increases for families, which totaled 13 percent in 2002 and 2003, have held steady at 5 percent since 2007, the groups reported. Premiums for single coverage did not rise significantly in 2009, breaking a long-standing trend.

However, premiums have continued to rise faster than wages and overall inflation, the survey found. Though family premiums for 2009 rose 5 percent, during the 12-month period ending in April, general inflation fell 0.7 percent.


Bliss
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 13
Socialized Medicine
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:34:07 PM
I don't want to keep the status quo, I just don't want the option as set forth in HR3200.

The government in health care means BAD health care. Look at Medicaid, Medicare, the VA, and SCHIP. Why would we want more of this? Why would people who already have good health care want to be reduced to this?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 14
Socialized Medicine
Posted: 9/20/2009 4:54:36 PM


All this and I haven’t had to pay a penny. Just curious, how much would this have cost in the U.S.


So who paid for it? Was it the taxpayers? Are you a taxpayer? If you're a taxpayer, and the taxpayers paid for your medical care, then it sounds like you did pay for it, as well as everybody else's. Why do socialists feel the need to lie about health care?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 15
Socialized Medicine
Posted: 9/20/2009 5:03:24 PM

Never mind the helicopters or lack of same. That's not what kills people. Lack of insurance kills people.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/18/deaths.health.insurance/index.html

45,000 a year.


Well, there's about 303,000,000 Americans. So lack of health insurance is killing about 0.015% of the population per year. Oh noes, the sky is falling!
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 16
Socialized Medicine
Posted: 9/20/2009 5:10:51 PM


Yes People would love access to Medicare...........


You mean the program that's so expensive that it's going to be insolvent in 10 years?

I wonder if people are actually looking at what Obama's "reforms" consist of? Everything he wants to accomplish (e.g. no caps on serices, no denials because of pre-existing conditions, no higher premiums for people with pre-existing conditions, etc.) will raise the costs of health care. Since insurance companies aren't going to take the financial hit then either the premiums will go up (which, because most people get their insurance through their employers, means that the employers will have to charge more to their customers, which will cause inflation which gets passed onto the middle-class more than anyone else) or the government will have to subsidize it (which means a middle class tax increase). So all Obama is going to do is make life more expensive for everybody.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 17
view profile
History
Socialized Medicine
Posted: 9/20/2009 6:30:15 PM

You mean the program that's so expensive that it's going to be insolvent in 10 years?

I wonder if people are actually looking at what Obama's "reforms" consist of? Everything he wants to accomplish (e.g. no caps on serices, no denials because of pre-existing conditions, no higher premiums for people with pre-existing conditions, etc.) will raise the costs of health care. Since insurance companies aren't going to take the financial hit then either the premiums will go up (which, because most people get their insurance through their employers, means that the employers will have to charge more to their customers, which will cause inflation which gets passed onto the middle-class more than anyone else) or the government will have to subsidize it (which means a middle class tax increase). So all Obama is going to do is make life more expensive for everybody.


The public option will take care of all of your concerns, market competition
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 18
view profile
History
Socialized Medicine
Posted: 9/21/2009 7:04:27 PM

Message: I see, one article that is over 3 years old doesn't really prove much if anything...ever hear of a place called California?


Let's see we have Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger as the California Republican governor adn G Bush the ex Republican president, did we have socialized medicine? NO , Did we have an economy in the tank? YES , Did you notice a common denominator?
 geeleebee
Joined: 5/26/2008
Msg: 20
Socialized Medicine
Posted: 9/27/2009 8:20:08 AM
Thanks for the update!
I've been wondering how you're doing.

Somewhere on this board I'd mentioned that my parents had great medical insurance--my mother was brilliant and fore-thinking--when she was diagnosed with cancer, they didn't have to worry about losing everything they'd worked for--married almost 60 years when she died.
Instead, my parents faced my mother's illness knowing that the prognosis wasn't good, but they could focus on what was important, rather than on how to pay the medical bills.

People who are that ill shouldn't have to spend their last days worrying about hospital/chemotherapy/surgery bills. They should get to spend the rest of their lives surrounded by friends and family, not drown in a sea of paperwork and despair.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 21
view profile
History
Socialized Medicine
Posted: 9/27/2009 9:19:04 AM

Well the operation went very well. I'm home for the weekend. I was supposed to come home last Monday, but the hospital where the operation was done thought it better that I go to a convalescent hospital for physiotherapy etc. and given that my GF was working it would mean there was someone to take care of me full time during the week.

So I was there Monday through Friday, when I came home to be with family etc. I'll be going back tonight for more physiotherapy. Things are looking good so I hope to be home permanently in a short while.

Did I mention that the transport between hospitals, medication, physiotherapy, meals, medical attention (Doctor/Nursing) cost me NOTHING.

Oh yes - but I did have to pay a $5 installation fee and $1.50 a day for bedside telephone service.


Oh No!!!! Poor you, look how badly you have had to suffer under socialized medicine, Your a perfcet examp;e of why we in american should storm town halls and rally in the street, imagine having to pay for your telephone service.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Socialized Medicine
Posted: 9/29/2009 2:47:59 PM

This claim is one of the more patently and demonstrably false claims made in this debate.


I have little doubt that there are massive amounts of waste in private health care, the drug companies can afford to send doctors and their families on all expense paid vacations and the health care industry was able to come up with 400 million plus to lobby against health care reform


If increasing competition was the goal of reform then congress would overturn the law they passed allowing indvidual states to restrict providers access to their markets which prevents "competition" by all healthcare providers.


Sorry I can not reply and have no idea of what law you are talking about nor do I know who authored the law


Secondly, how would a public option produce "market competition" when one of the competitors is government subsidized and is not required to provide and return to investors as are the rest of the players?


The private insurance companies will have to do some belt tightening, like not giving out huge bonuses and paying CEO's multi million dollar a years salaries


Finally, the current pulbic plans operating in the U.S. have been shifting costs to the private sector for years. For example, an office visit costs and has a fair market value of $100. Medicare/caide cap payment at $80. As a result, private insurance plans pay $120.


??????


It's this market dynamic which leads to the conclusion that most of the health care plans being discussed in congresss will lead to:
1. Higher cost than projected once the gov't begins to pay full price (so to speak) for not only their current customers but all the additional clients they'll be getting. OR
2. Government will have to reduce payments to providers for all services. OR
3. Government will have to increase revenues to pay for services. OR
4. As I suspect a combination of 2 and 3.


I expect number 2
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 24
Socialized Medicine
Posted: 10/4/2009 11:20:39 AM
LOL, and who do you think goes to Mt. Tremblant? There are just as many 4 star hotels there as there are in Aspen.

So the number of 4 star hotels is a measure of equivalence between the two?
Try something more realistic.

Have a look at the annual budget for the village and compare that to Aspen
http://www.villedemont-tremblant.qc.ca/upload/File/Budget/BUDGET_2009_PP_VF.pdf

Or how about income?

Mont Tremblant: $21, 858 (after tax)

Aspen: $60,000+

I'll also suggest you look up things like average home price, cost of living, etc. but I'll tell you now that it will reveal that you are making a comparison that is little more honest than comparing a gated community of CEO's to a working class neighbourhood of labourers.

At least be honest in your comparisons. If you had made the comparison to Banff (which has a similar size population, equivalent median income, equivalent house prices) you would have come up with a very different result.


Again, you can't argue the extreme as "evidence" of the norm. As well, Canada spends 60 percent of what the U.S taxpayers do for coverage for EVERYONE.



She can, and she does in every post! For her it is the norm to argue the extreme. She's afraid her company will lose income if there is UHC.

Both old dogs and lobbyists have one thing in common, neither can be taught new tricks.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Socialized Medicine