Denial of health care
The private insurance companies are not only ineffective, but they waste a huge amount of money by hiring an army of people to deny the coverage you paid for. Then they add a layer of CEO salaries and perks that are outrageous. We need a system that will spend money on health care, not denial of health care.
David Clark, Denver
Yup. Let's toss out the CEO s and private industry controls, and turn it all over to a government bureaucracy. Look around. That's worked out pretty well, hasn't it?
Posted by R on July 2, 2007 06:01 AMdavid you have hit the nail on the head. now go start up a new insurance company that will charge very low rates and cover any and all charges and only pay your self $5.00 a year. just think how good you would feel doing such a wonderful job and people would really like you for saving them from private insurance company CEO's.
If government would run health care the way they take care of the roads that would be so much better than we have now.
Posted by on July 2, 2007 06:28 AMFor me, the question is not how good the health care systems are in other countries, but rather how good would they be if they spent as much on health care as we do in the United States?
It goes back to that old adage about trying to compare oranges and baseballs. I think the figures show that these other nations that use socialized medicine get a bigger benefit per dollar spent that we do in the United States. Why? Socialized medicine.
For example, according to the statistics below, the United States has over three times as many doctors per 100,000 people as England. How much faster would the service be in England if it tripled the number of doctors?
The United States spends over 2.5 times as much on medical care per capita as Canada. How much better would health care be in Canada if it increased its expenditures 2.5 times?
I wonder how it would affect the quality of health care in the United States if we reduced our spending on health care by half? Or if we reduced the number of doctors by half?
Here are some statistics from the Human Development Index:
Column A: Private funds as a % of GDP
Column B: Public funds as a % of GDP
Column C: Average amount spent per capita
Column D: Number of doctors per 100,000
I thought I'd see how this will work.
....................A.......B....... ........C.......... D
USA............6.6... 8.0 .............5,274 ....549
Canada ......6.7... 2.9 .............2,931 .....209
Norway ......6.6 ...1.6 .............3,409 .....356
Australia ....6.5 ....3.0 ............2,699..... 249
Sweden .....7.8.....1.4........... 2,512 ......305
Japan ........6.5.....1.4 ...........2,133...... 201
Finland ......5.5.... 1.8........... 1,943...... 311
Denmark ...7.3.... 1.5........... 2,583..... .366
England ....6.4.... 1.3........... 2,160...... 166
France ......7.4.....2.3........... 2,736........329
Germany ...8.6.....2.3........... 2,817 .......362
Spain ........5.4.....2.2 ...........1,640....... 320
We have a bad case of socializephobia in the United States. Much like the communistphobia of the Joe McCarthy period. There are still posters here who are living in the nineteenth century and think the government should not even have a concern about such things as child labor, industrial safety, food and drug safety, etc. If anything is clear, it is that we have socialized capitalism in the United States and have had for many years. That is, the predatory capitalism of the late nineteen and early twentieth century has been socialized, made fit to benefit rather than exploit the people. Capitalism can be likened to a wild horse. With predatory capitalism, there are no reins on the horse and it does great damage. With socialized capitalism, there are reins on the horse and it does great good. The greed that motivates the capitalist model cannot be left to its own devices.
The great and unique beauty of the socialized capitalism we have today is that harnesses that human vice to the advantage of the people. It does not take the wind out of its sails, but rather makes sure that those sails are moving in the right direction, toward the people, not away from them.
Does it work perfectly? Are you kidding? What does? It needs constant vigilance; wild horses don't tame easily.
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 07:10 AMR issued the following endorsement of Universal Health Care:
"Let's toss out the CEO s and private industry controls, and turn it all over to a government bureaucracy."
Thank you R, for having the balls to change your mind in light of the facts.
Posted by on July 2, 2007 08:54 AMIf the government ever does to health care what it has done to the postal service and many more government controlled programs, we will be well down the road to contracting the national illness known as "socialized medicine." With so many regulations already, it's arguable that we're halfway there now.
We'll know we've reached the end of the road when doctors become federal employees and medical care is "free."
What's wrong with socialized medicine?? Doctor Roberto Calderon a doctor in Managua Nicaragua states it more concisely.
Doctor Calderon doesn't just answer the question with exotic theories. His insight is derived from a decade of experience. He saw socialized medicine from the inside and argues forcefully that it doesn't work for the following five reasons:
1. The patient doesn't choose the doctor.
The bureaucratic process make the important assignment of which physician shall treat the patient. After all, he who pays the piper call the tune!!!!! There is little room for free choice--for shopping around....for switching from one doctor to another...when medicine has "to go by the book." Too much freedom for the patient makes life difficult for the bureaucrats....they already have more than enough paperwork with which to deal.
2. The doctor can't choose the patient.
Assignments are assignments under socialized medicine. Referring a patient to another doctor is an unnecessary complication....an invasion of responsibility...and it screws up the system.
Because medical services are made "free" by the state, demand for them goes up, which means that every doctor quickly becomes overbooked and overworked!!!!
So, doctors receive their order: just get the job done whether or not you are the physician that has the expertise to keep him/her healthy.
3. The doctor gets paid by the government regardless of what or how well he/she did.
Even an eighth-grader understands why this is a prescription for high cost and poor performance. What in the world makes socialists think that people work harder and better for some faceless bureaucracy than they work for themselves??
4. The patient doesn't get any sympathy or even small consolation. Dr. Calderon say that it was common in his country for patients to complain that the doctors hardly spoke to them about their conditions.
Ever since the Hippocratic oath was written, it has been regarded as an important even vital, role of the healer to provide comfort,reassurance and a postive mental attitude to the sick. This gets lost when doctors, in effect become short-order cooks in an uncompetitive,state-run medical soup kitchen.
5. The patient doesn't get well!!!!
That's the way Dr. Calderon put it. Far too many patients under socialized medicine are "chronically sick" as a direct consequence of the previous four points.
Moreover, socialized medicine inevitably means that the right equipment...and medicines...and physicians...aren't available at all or are not at the right place at the right time. People go on LOOOOOONG waiting lists to have operationns performed, and many of them die before they ever get to the head of the line.
The only consolation the patient gets from all of this is that he won't get a bill in the mail. His taxes and the taxes of everybody else--picks up the tab.
ALL OF THIS MISERY AND AGONY FOR "FREE."
All things considered, I'd rather rely on freedom, NOT government to cure the ailments of medical care.
Nicaragua compared to the United States per the Human Development Report I previously quoted from:
...............................................Nicaragua......USA
Total per capita:..........................$208...........$5,274
No. of doctors per 100,00................37...........549
Guess that could make a difference. Reckon?
I wonder how much better socialized medicine would work in Nicaragua if it spend as much and had as many doctors as the United States?
I wonder how much worse the health care system in the United States would be if it spent as little, and had as few doctors as Nicaragua?
No matter what the health care system is, public, private or hybrid, if it doesn't spend enough money or have enough doctors, the system won't work well.
It is not the goverments money to spend. Call it a Tax or Stealing, either way it is the taking of money from those who have earned it. Be it health care or a bridge to nowhere.
Posted by JW on July 2, 2007 09:57 AMTruth, do you ever research any of the BS that spews from your keyboard? Or write in a way that isn't bastardized Micheal Moore? Nicaragua pop.5,675,356 US pop.301,139,947. That is a difference of 53X. How many lurking variables did you fail to account for in such an unrealistic comparison, both you and A? Has it ever occurred to you that a truly effective healthcare system should be able to defend its capacities without constant comparisons to other systems? Your statement "I wonder how much better socialized medicine would work in Nicaragua if it spend as much and had as many doctors as the United States? I wonder how much worse the health care system in the United States would be if it spent as little, and had as few doctors as Nicaragua?" shows a clear lack of research on the subject. Since you talk like such an expert on socialized medicine, can I assume that you know what the free-rider effect is, and how it has weakened the NHS' funding(Britain's health care system) to the point that the World Health Organization stated that the NHS delivers "third world cancer care"(Lyall, Sarah. "In Britain's Health Service, Sick Itself, Cancer Care is Dismal." NY Times. February 10, 2000.). A study by John Wennenberg found that in a "free" health care system, more doctors merely meant that people merely visited the doctor more frequently, and the extra visits had no significant benefit on health(Kolata, Gina. "More May Not Mean Better In Health Care, Studies Find." NY Times. July 20, 2002.). Another weakness of rationing health care systems like the NHS is the lack of sufficient resources to buy and research cutting edge medical technology, often leaving doctors with outdated and sometimes dangerous drugs to prescribe. Have MS and live in the UK? Tough luck, your socialized medical system can't afford Beta-interferon so you're gonna have to go somewhere else for your treatment. Healthcare professionals dislike the NHS so much that "According to Sir Donald Irvine, the president of the General Medical Council - the doctors' own regulatory body - morale among doctors in the NHS is at an all time low"("NHS 'fails to respect patients'." BBC News. January 16, 2001.). Your closing statement sums up the end result of socialized medicine quite nicely, "No matter what the health care system is, public, private or hybrid, if it doesn't spend enough money or have enough doctors, the system won't work well." There will never be enough money in socialized medicine, because people abuse it.
Posted by on July 2, 2007 10:38 AMIt is not the goverments money to spend. Call it a Tax or Stealing, either way it is the taking of money from those who have earned it. Be it health care or a bridge to nowhere.
Posted by JW on July 2, 2007 09:57 AM
I got mine, to hell with everyone else, That's the Republican way.
People have conditions that aren't always their fault, yet get denied coverage. Nonetheless, the "attitude of I got mine" would say that they should have thought about being born before they entered this world.
Posted by on July 2, 2007 10:46 AMUnknown at 10:38, only the conservatives ever use the term "FREE HEALTH CARE".
This is a straw term (man) you guys created. We liberals know any program will not be free no matter who runs is.
As to socialized medicine keeping people from choosing their own doctor. My poor friends see NO doctor. At best they get a nurse practitioner or a retired hack who works for the free clinics. NP`s are great but inexperienced.
We want change, we are not drooling over the prospect of socialized medicine either. Some of us have suggested very workable solutions to the current problem IE clinic open nights and weekends (ask your doctor if he/she would do this, ha) Student loans paid off in working in clinics for the uninsured, etc.
Where are the suggestions from the right?
I challenge you all over there, so far on the right we need a telescope to see you, what would you do?
Those a little less right, please ignore my request, I am aiming at the free market, capitalism worshipers who have nothing put complaints on this subject.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 2, 2007 10:58 AM
Some people propose "market-based" solutions to healthcare. The market is working right now. The market exists to make money not to take care of people. Making money in healthcare translates into denying coverage to people. For that reason market solutions are not a viable option to something as necessary as health care. A socialized system guarantees coverage to everyone, but is often inefficient and results in long-wait times.
It would be a false choice to assume that the solution to healthcare lies either on going completely to a laizzez-faire system or a socialized system. I do believe there is a middle ground. This middle ground would likely offer the best of both worlds. However, as long as people are unwilling to compromise there won't be a solution to healthcare.
"Those a little less right, please ignore my request, I am aiming at the free market, capitalism worshipers who have nothing put complaints on this subject."
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black with regards to straw men. I hope you realize that the US is quite a ways from being a free market health care system. 45% of the money spent on health care in the US goes to government programs and hospitals(17% Medicare, 15% Medicaid, 12% Dept. of Defense and VA-and 6% of money is spent on the construction of new hospitals and clinics). A free market health care system would be like the one some decades back, you know, the one where you have an ailment, call up the town doctor of your choice and he comes and treats you for a price that he feels is reasonable for the work performed. Definitely doesn't sound like what we have now. "As to socialized medicine keeping people from choosing their own doctor. My poor friends see NO doctor." Too bad for them, maybe they should get a job. I don't have insurance either, but it doesn't prevent me from seeing a doctor, it just prevents me from paying 20$ instead of 300$. You then say "Some of us have suggested very workable solutions to the current problem IE clinic open nights and weekends (ask your doctor if he/she would do this, ha) Student loans paid off in working in clinics for the uninsured, etc." Is it safe to assume that you aren't a health practitioner? Let me see if I can rephrase that first part, " I'm going to go to school for an extra ten years and bust my ass at one of the hardest professions to work for free. I mean, screw dropping out of high school and making 9$ an hour at McDonalds when I can spend a decade to make nothing and then probably get sued for malpractice and go bankrupt." Does that pretty much sum up what you think the mindset of doctors should be? Your suggestion about student loan repayment might be a good one, if you could provide a source of money to repay the loaners. Or are free clinics where they've been hiding the money trees all my life? Damn, I knew they were real. My suggestion would be to go back to each person paying directly to their doctor/hospital for care as it is received, but that tends to screw the people with a serious illness, at least under our current system(who knows how prices would change with those damn insurance companies and their lawyers out of the way).
Posted by on July 2, 2007 11:17 AM"People have conditions that aren't always their fault, yet get denied coverage. Nonetheless, the "attitude of I got mine" would say that they should have thought about being born before they entered this world."
Yeah, they'll never get what they need unless they whine all the time rather than doing something productive to change a situation they don't like. It's the modern American way, cry until it changes. Stephen Hawking never should have come to terms with his ailment and prevented it from hindering his desire to become a great physicist, he should have lain down and cried about his tough luck until he received a succession of bleeding heart back pats.
Posted by on July 2, 2007 11:23 AM10:38AM: "Has it ever occurred to you that a truly effective healthcare system should be able to defend its capacities without constant comparisons to other systems?"
You are trying to be silly, aren't you? Substantially all of the posts opposing universal heath care do so on the basis of comparing our system with socialized medicine. I'm just trying to make the comparison an honest and meaningful one.
10:38AM: "Nicaragua pop.5,675,356 US pop.301,139,947. That is a difference of 53X. How many lurking variables did you fail to account for in such an unrealistic comparison, both you and A?"
Let me help your with your reading dificiency. I am providing figures per capita. You might want to look that term up at dictionary.com.
And now to help you with your lack of logic skills I'll just repeat questions you are afraid to face up to:
Do you think the health care system in the United States would be better or worse if it reduced the amount it spent on heath care by fifty percent? Or if it reduced the number of doctors by that percent?
Do you think the health care systems in nations with socialized medicine would be better or worse if they doubled the amount they spent on health care, or if they doubled the number of doctors?
Let me know if you have trouble with those questions and I'll try to explain in more simple language.
The bottom line is clear and obvious: you can't ignore the great difference in the amount spent on health care and the number of doctors when you compare systems.
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 11:32 AMTruth, what grade of school did you decide to drop out in? Are you really so ignorant that you believe that by putting a couple of stats into a per capita reference frame you are accounting for all of the myriad differences between a small developing country and one of the largest, wealthiest countries in the world? Do you even know what a lurking variable is? Apparently not, or you wouldn't try and use a US/Nicaragua comparison as a valid one. Try buying a book on statistics sometime, it should help your understanding to read the first chapter. And now for the "questions" I'm "afraid to face up to": I already provided a reference to an NY Times article about people who actually research the impacts of health care changes, and that study found that the number of nearby doctors was not a predictor of health quality. In fact, to quote their conclusions, "when health care is free (Medicare), people will exhaust the available resources despite whether or not it has any benefit on their health.", which in this case was not. My answer to your "scary" questions is that I don't think there would be all that noticeable of a change if the US halved its money/doctors, medical prices would probably go up and insurance prices would probably go down. I think that if the NHS doubled its budget/doctors, free-riders would just go to the doctor that much more often so the net result would be same waiting times, same price, same lack of access to cutting edge medicine, and twice as much work for doctors. "The bottom line is clear and obvious: you can't ignore the great difference in the amount spent on health care and the number of doctors when you compare systems." In addition to that statistics book, maybe you should pick up a book on sociology too, it seems like you don't understand the idea that different societies are different in many ways and comparisons between countries are typically of limited value.
Posted by on July 2, 2007 11:59 AMIt seems the consensus here is that private health care companies are in it for the $$$ and dont care about CARE and funnel $$$ into their own pockets. The Greed of it all.
Question:
Has anyone compared the evil Private/Public Health Care Costs and premiums to those in the NON Profit arena? From the discussions on here it seems that the NON Profits should be overwhelmingly cheaper to aquire.....................
Please explain this to me.
Posted by bwr on July 2, 2007 11:59 AMbwr, I`m lost. Compare health premiums to NON-profit companies. Please help me out here.
To all you brave, fearless unknown posters. Take a hike. Go get a hobby and stop posting to me.
Incognito ergo sum, on these forums, but you are incognito period.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 2, 2007 12:10 PMSharon I am talking about the NON Profit Health care companies providing coverage to citizens. Are their costs that much cheaper than the private Healthcare companies? If not why if the privates are only in it for the $$$$$$$
Posted by bwr on July 2, 2007 12:15 PMSharon B
Take a hike. Go get a hobby and stop posting
Brave, fearless unknown poster
Maybe if insurance companies quit covering things like viagra, in-vitro fertilization, and other non-essential problems, the rates would be better
Posted by [Elwood] on July 2, 2007 01:37 PMGreat post, 11:59AM, especially this supremely intelligent comment:
"My answer to your "scary" questions is that I don't think there would be all that noticeable of a change if the US halved its money/doctors,"
So, you don't think our health care system would suffer if we cut the money we put into it by half. Hmmm, have you had a brain scan recently?
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 01:40 PMAny Canadians out there want to comment???????
Posted by A on July 2, 2007 03:53 PMbwr: "It seems the consensus here is that private health care companies are in it for the $$$ and dont care about CARE."
Surely you don't disagree that private health care companies are in it for the money. After all, that is the essence of capitalism.
But to claim that most of the posters say those companies don't care is simply untrue.
It's a matter of balance. The feeling is that the companies become too concerned about profit and not enough concerned about the care. Perhaps you've heard of Vioxx.
Do you always see only in black and white?
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 04:00 PMTruth no I do not only see in Black and White. From the other threads I would have hoped you saw that. Vioxx is Not a Healthcare insurance company. That is the focus of my discussion here. The drug companies are just 1 piece in the Healthcare overall puzzle
AGAIN If the PRIVATE companies were only in it for the money and did not care about the CARE they give(through service and repeat service) then by that point the NON Profit Insurance companies would kick their butts through better costs as it pertains to premiums.
The fact that Profit and Non Profit insurance companies compete in the same space should say that the overall revenue for those insurance companies are comparible. If not the Non Profits would not be able to hold that title.
Posted by bwr on July 2, 2007 05:10 PMozyehwgun gohktiab oaumhflz woyzvki hbjfqnzwx hbzm xnayicum
Posted by liok qaxl on July 12, 2007 11:01 PMxgklwd efmlox knujepsay dhzsy dkvysbe urfk jfrtmcn http://www.iocsdw.xcodesfar.com
Posted by rxlukqm twknvzem on July 12, 2007 11:02 PMyjemklswo urxc anwouy ynxkvuhzs ufty tzfoiabvw brylvz avnxtjcz lhcr
Posted by eplzfgkr ipkhfmnbj on July 12, 2007 11:06 PMfebw ulcthywni jaeugxw zfcreb kwsp bkqsfh enuqdgw [URL=http://www.heljgaxt.kqlmr.com]awljex vmuhrka[/URL]
Posted by xvygjrf fertvpsx on July 12, 2007 11:07 PMfebw ulcthywni jaeugxw zfcreb kwsp bkqsfh enuqdgw [URL=http://www.heljgaxt.kqlmr.com]awljex vmuhrka[/URL]
Posted by xvygjrf fertvpsx on July 12, 2007 11:09 PM