Socializing Medicine

[claire]

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both have plans to socialize medicine. Which sounds like a great idea. But, I've been talking to alot of health care workers that are expressing concern about it. They believe the quaulity of care will be traded for quantity. Most of them had stories about people coming from Canada and paying outragous sums of money in cash for surgeries. I'm looking for opinions from people who are more knowledgable about socialized medicine. (Which is pretty much everyone not from the US.) Thumbs up or thumbs down. How do you feel about the differences in Obama's and Clinton's plans?

[Dunkirk]

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both have plans to socialize medicine. Which sounds like a great idea. But, I've been talking to alot of health care workers that are expressing concern about it. They believe the quaulity of care will be traded for quantity. Most of them had stories about people coming from Canada and paying outragous sums of money in cash for surgeries. I'm looking for opinions from people who are more knowledgable about socialized medicine. (Which is pretty much everyone not from the US.) Thumbs up or thumbs down. How do you feel about the differences in Obama's and Clinton's plans?

Socialised medicine in the UK taks the form of the National Health Service which we have had since the late 1940's.

It functions on the basis of universal access so that the very poor can have the same kind of treatment as the better off.

There are obvious advantages to having such a system but there are also a number of disadvantages.

The NHS is Britain's largest employer, it takes enormous resources to run such a system and is funded by taxation. In the UK we are one of the most heavily taxed people in the World.

Health professionals have become a powerful political lobby in the UK and place pressure on government for more resources. In turn they advise government on health issues.

This has become the driving force behind the 'nanny state' where the population of the UK are constantly hectored about their diet, their need to loose weight, their lack of exercise, their excessive drinking, smoking,lifestyle choices etc,etc.

There are even moves to deny treatment to people who indulge in unhealthy lifestyles in order to save on resources.

This means that the link between contribution and consumption of service is severed and in many cases can mean that someone who has never contributed to the system can be favoured over someone who pays an enormous amount of tax but drinks, smokes and eats too much.

I think that the NHS in the UK is on the whole a good thing but I think that government should be more imaginative about its funding so that it becomes less of a threat to individual liberty and less of a drain on general taxation.

[Expounder]

Socialised medicine in the UK taks the form of the National Health Service which we have had since the late 1940's.

It functions on the basis of universal access so that the very poor can have the same kind of treatment as the better off.

There are obvious advantages to having such a system but there are also a number of disadvantages.



This has become the driving force behind the 'nanny state' where the population of the UK are constantly hectored about their diet, their need to loose weight, their lack of exercise, their excessive drinking, smoking,lifestyle choices etc,etc.

There are even moves to deny treatment to people who indulge in unhealthy lifestyles in order to save on resources.

This means that the link between contribution and consumption of service is severed and in many cases can mean that someone who has never contributed to the system can be favoured over someone who pays an enormous amount of tax but drinks, smokes and eats too much.

I think that the NHS in the UK is on the whole a good thing but I think that government should be more imaginative about its funding so that it becomes less of a threat to individual liberty and less of a drain on general taxation.

Most who are a drain on the NHS are the ones who eat themselves into obeisity and and or chain smoke, some of whom have so fat they have never worked in their lives and have set out never to work who go on to develop associated threatening medical conditions and become a burden on the state. There appears to be in some sections of society a culture of deliberately contrived dependancy on the state in many cases children taking their example from indolent parents. Any government would be failing in it's duty no to deal with this problem. Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for this type of person of whom there are many. I would add there are many fit people able to work who con the system, are we suposed to put up with this situation indefinitley?

[Dunkirk]

Most who are a drain on the NHS are the ones who eat themselves into obeisity and and or chain smoke, some of whom have so fat they have never worked in their lives and have set out never to work who go on to develop associated threatening medical conditions and become a burden on the state. There appears to be in some sections of society a culture of deliberately contrived dependancy on the state in many cases children taking their example from indolent parents. Any government would be failing in it's duty no to deal with this problem. Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for this type of person of whom there are many. I would add there are many fit people able to work who con the system, are we suposed to put up with this situation indefinitley?

For people who have private medical insurance as large sections of the population in the USA do, there is an in built incentive to lead a healthy lifestyle.

Thoes who are obese, who smoke or consume dangerous levels of alcohol have to pay medical insurance premiums that reflect the risk that they as individuals present.

Healthy people pay less and this is an incentive to follow the Doctor's advice on maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

In this country the link between what is paid by individuals and the service received is severed so that a fat person who has worked all his life and pays a large amount of tax will be penalised whereas a thin preson who has received benefits all his life would be favoured.

Modern Britain is indeed an odd place where its government is happy to sponsor agencies that prescribe to minute detail what we should and shouldn't be feeding our kids.

Any organisation or body that dares to engender personal responsibility, a work ethic or a moral approach to sexual propriety and procreation among the underclass ( so elequently described by Expounder ) will fall foul of liberal-left opinion.

Therefore the state has to take control as the arbiter of who gets what whether it is health care, social housing, benefits etc.

If the USA goes down the road of socialised healthcare then do expect a bigger state with a greater role in everyone's lives.

Dunkirk.

[pauli007001]

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both have plans to socialize medicine. Which sounds like a great idea. But, I've been talking to alot of health care workers that are expressing concern about it. They believe the quaulity of care will be traded for quantity. Most of them had stories about people coming from Canada and paying outragous sums of money in cash for surgeries. I'm looking for opinions from people who are more knowledgable about socialized medicine. (Which is pretty much everyone not from the US.) Thumbs up or thumbs down. How do you feel about the differences in Obama's and Clinton's plans?

Socialised medicine in the UK is in fact Rationed medcine.People who have died some years ago waiting for life saving operations have been sent appointments recently (years after their deaths)to attend local hospitals for the slightly overdue operations!!!!!
In the UK National health service(a government entity) all staff are government employees.aathey are expected to make decisions on care not on the basis of need but on the basis of policy!
There are more managers in the NHS than nurses,most DRs are recent immigrants with questionable qualifications and no english skills resulting in misdiagnosis and death!
Many UK Drs are of recent immigrant muslim stock and have been involved in terrorism,this may follow into the care they provide to infidell patients.Many follow islamic dress codes that are proven to cause infections(MRSA)in patients.No action may be taken re this dress code issue as government policy forbids the people of the UK to speak out aganst this dangerous faith amongst us.Political correctness being more important than mere infidell lives!Socialised medcine is a bad thing,as is socialism,ask any survivor of the NAZI death camps how they feel about the socialist Adolf Hitler!!!Or any of his cohorts including the huge numbers of muslems who served as guards in the SS camps and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem,a close ally of Hitler and a supporter of socialism!!!!

[claire]

So it's basically, little for all or good for some.

[Expounder]

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both have plans to socialize medicine. Which sounds like a great idea. But, I've been talking to alot of health care workers that are expressing concern about it. They believe the quaulity of care will be traded for quantity. Most of them had stories about people coming from Canada and paying outragous sums of money in cash for surgeries. I'm looking for opinions from people who are more knowledgable about socialized medicine. (Which is pretty much everyone not from the US.) Thumbs up or thumbs down. How do you feel about the differences in Obama's and Clinton's plans?

Any move to introduce "socialised" medicine in the US would benifit low earners most of whom can't afford to pay bills for medicines or surgery. As I understand it there is a two tier system of health care in the US. The ones who can pay get the best and the ones that can't are taken to understaffed poorly equiped municipal units. It would help to stop ambulance chasing, where victims of accidents have credit ratings checked before they are driven off to Hospital. No pay no first class treatment...............The much maligned NHS is the envy many in the USA.

[Expounder]

For people who have private medical insurance as large sections of the population in the USA do, there is an in built incentive to lead a healthy lifestyle.

Thoes who are obese, who smoke or consume dangerous levels of alcohol have to pay medical insurance premiums that reflect the risk that they as individuals present.

Healthy people pay less and this is an incentive to follow the Doctor's advice on maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

In this country the link between what is paid by individuals and the service received is severed so that a fat person who has worked all his life and pays a large amount of tax will be penalised whereas a thin preson who has received benefits all his life would be favoured.

Modern Britain is indeed an odd place where its government is happy to sponsor agencies that prescribe to minute detail what we should and shouldn't be feeding our kids.

Any organisation or body that dares to engender personal responsibility, a work ethic or a moral approach to sexual propriety and procreation among the underclass ( so elequently described by Expounder ) will fall foul of liberal-left opinion.

Therefore the state has to take control as the arbiter of who gets what whether it is health care, social housing, benefits etc.

If the USA goes down the road of socialised healthcare then do expect a bigger state with a greater role in everyone's lives.

Dunkirk.

I would hazard a guess that the morbidly obese who have lived off the state over the last twenty years outnumber those who have worked and have recently retired by 1,000. to one. Obesity, alcoholism, smoking related deseases are self inflicted medical conditions that need to be addressed. Obesity is caused by a lack of an individuals of self control to eat sensibly it was a condition never heard of in my youth.It's only since the advent of the super market fill your boots or your basket syndrome it has manifested it'self into a nationwide problem.It seems the people who have adopted the live off the state culture are the ones most likley to be morbidly obese.

[Dunkirk]

I would hazard a guess that the morbidly obese who have lived off the state over the last twenty years outnumber those who have worked and have recently retired by 1,000. to one. Obesity, alcoholism, smoking related deseases are self inflicted medical conditions that need to be addressed. Obesity is caused by a lack of an individuals of self control to eat sensibly it was a condition never heard of in my youth.It's only since the advent of the super market fill your boots or your basket syndrome it has manifested it'self into a nationwide problem.It seems the people who have adopted the live off the state culture are the ones most likley to be morbidly obese.

Expounder,

you seem to be saying that the vast majority of working people have no self inflicted health problems whereas the morbidly obese are all on benefits....at the rate of 1000 to 1.

Didn't Dawn Primorolo as health minister state that the problem of middle-class, middle-aged drinking at home was worse than the problem of teenage binge drinking?

I'm sorry Expounder but I don't recognise this scenario that seems to have been invented in an attempt to disprove the fact that working taxpayers could be penalised for their unhealthy excesses whereas never contributing benefit claimants could easily be favoured.

There are a number of occupations that are notoriously unhealthy because they mitigate against a healthy lifrstyle. Truck driving is one, in fact any type of driving job tends to lead to a lack of exercise and opportunity to eat healthily.

There are many office or shop based occupations that have the same effects on health so it isn't just the underclass that tend to be unhealthy.

The ability to reduce private health insurance premiums by following a healthy diet and exercise programme would be an incentive to choose a healthy lifestyle, particularly if this was to be assessed regularly.

The present NHS system of funding in the UK mitigates against this and empoweres the state over the individual's personal responsibility.

Isn't it about time that we in the UK were a little more imaginative about NHS funding rather than rely on the old formular of general taxation?

Dunkirk.

[Expounder]

Expounder,

you seem to be saying that the vast majority of working people have no self inflicted health problems whereas the morbidly obese are all on benefits....at the rate of 1000 to 1.

Didn't Dawn Primorolo as health minister state that the problem of middle-class, middle-aged drinking at home was worse than the problem of teenage binge drinking?

I'm sorry Expounder but I don't recognise this scenario that seems to have been invented in an attempt to disprove the fact that working taxpayers could be penalised for their unhealthy excesses whereas never contributing benefit claimants could easily be favoured.

There are a number of occupations that are notoriously unhealthy because they mitigate against a healthy lifrstyle. Truck driving is one, in fact any type of driving job tends to lead to a lack of exercise and opportunity to eat healthily.

There are many office or shop based occupations that have the same effects on health so it isn't just the underclass that tend to be unhealthy.

The ability to reduce private health insurance premiums by following a healthy diet and exercise programme would be an incentive to choose a healthy lifestyle, particularly if this was to be assessed regularly.

The present NHS system of funding in the UK mitigates against this and empoweres the state over the individual's personal responsibility.

Isn't it about time that we in the UK were a little more imaginative about NHS funding rather than rely on the old formular of general taxation?

Dunkirk.

Most these "notoriously unhealthy" occupations existed in the 50s 60s and 70s when obesity as a national problem was unheard of. The cases you quote that are refused immediate medical treatment you assume are "working taxpayers" where do you get these facts. Also I didn't mention an underclass, there are whole sections of our society who's communities were broken by Thatcher and never recovered, left for years to wallow in unemployment because of the lack of jobs and opportunities encouraged by her to take the sick option so that the unemployment figures could be kept down. Once this culture takes hold it's difficult to reverse.


I would imagine that in many of the cases that have been told to reduce their weight before major surgery its because complications could occur during the operation

The vast majority of obesity is a recent problem caused by weak willed people over indulging,genuine cases are few and far between as they were in the past. In the supermarkets where I shop,obese families are seen trundling away from the check out with overloaded trollies I think that says something don't you where ever you see fat parents you invarialby see fat children.


What really gets me, after eating themselves into morbid obesity you see many pleading for help to reduce weight and many complaining they can't work because of their condition.

The NHS was founded to administer to people who fell ill or had an accident through no fault of their own. Admittedly smoking dosn't come into this catagory, but smokers up untill the 70s were never really warned of the dangers of smoking, and most worked up until the time they needed treatment so were not a perpetual drain on the state and at least paid their dues. I agree alcoholism is a major problem, but even in exreme cases, there are long periods where they can apply themselves to work after binges and some can continue to work in spite of it. This argument rarely stands with the morbidly obese who would find difficult to arrive at work and who go on to develop life threatning medical conditions some times at a very early age.


For example, the NHS was never established to pander to people requesting sex change operations which are expensive and time consuming these are the operations which should dealt in the private sector and paid for by the person concerned. Any cosmetic work performed for the sake of vanity should not be entertained.

The fact is that the NHS is burdened by some members of the population because of their lack of self control. To be honest I really don't know what you are getting at by being "more imaginative about NHS funding", Because of the size and complexity of the NHS it has to be funded by taxation. If you have other ideas how it could be done and accomodate a population of nearly 60million put them in writing to the appopriate minister I'm sure he'll be interested.

[Spades]

I am against socializing medicine into plans like that of Canada or Britain. However, improving our care and reducing the cost of health care for everyone would probably be the better option. If people were so concerned with health care than maybe they wouldn't sue the hospital for every little thing they can so they can fill their pockets.

American's a have more luxuries now then they did in the past. It use to be one car per household and one TV set. Now everyone once they turn 16 seems to have a car and there own TV set. But yet they cannot pay for their own Health Insurance?

Another example is there is this girl at my old job who was from columbia. She worked the same hours I did at her age but she was able to afford a laptop computer, one of the most expensive cell phones out there, and one of those 500 dollar designer bags but somehow health insurance needs to take a backseat. When I was a kid I never got these fine luxuries because my parents spent any extra cash on giving me health care.

When I was fortunate enough to go with my dad on an Autotheft mission (don't really know what to call it) we found a lot of stolen escalades. But in particular, this family (who were really nice and cooperative) were able to buy an escalade from a small-dealer (as well as having another car at the same time) even though they lived in one of the poorest places in the city. (the escalade was stolen btw).

[Expounder]

I am against socializing medicine into plans like that of Canada or Britain. However, improving our care and reducing the cost of health care for everyone would probably be the better option. If people were so concerned with health care than maybe they wouldn't sue the hospital for every little thing they can so they can fill their pockets.

American's a have more luxuries now then they did in the past. It use to be one car per household and one TV set. Now everyone once they turn 16 seems to have a car and there own TV set. But yet they cannot pay for their own Health Insurance?

Another example is there is this girl at my old job who was from columbia. She worked the same hours I did at her age but she was able to afford a laptop computer, one of the most expensive cell phones out there, and one of those 500 dollar designer bags but somehow health insurance needs to take a backseat. When I was a kid I never got these fine luxuries because my parents spent any extra cash on giving me health care.

When I was fortunate enough to go with my dad on an Autotheft mission (don't really know what to call it) we found a lot of stolen escalades. But in particular, this family (who were really nice and cooperative) were able to buy an escalade from a small-dealer (as well as having another car at the same time) even though they lived in one of the poorest places in the city. (the escalade was stolen btw).

I can see your point Spades, but most people don't think about illness until it affects them, it's like the people who were recently flooded who didn't take out house insurance, it's the I'll do it sometime maybe tomorrow syndrome. The argument for socialised medicine is that every one contributes so that they are automaticly covered, it's also a benifit to the nation. private medicine creates insurance companies competing with each other and and also creates the expence of uneccessary duplication of equipment, the money for which ,would be better spent on a national scale and without having to pay the shareholders of the private companies.

[Spades]

I can see your point Spades, but most people don't think about illness until it affects them, it's like the people who were recently flooded who didn't take out house insurance, it's the I'll do it sometime maybe tomorrow syndrome. The argument for socialised medicine is that every one contributes so that they are automaticly covered, it's also a benifit to the nation. private medicine creates insurance companies competing with each other and and also creates the expence of uneccessary duplication of equipment, the money for which ,would be better spent on a national scale and without having to pay the shareholders of the private companies.

Unfortunately, I do not see how its is a fair justification to tell someone that we want them to pay for my or most of my health care just because it would be helpful. I have no right to take that person's money even though it would help me out a lot. There are also better solutions out there.

If you can assure me that I can pay relatively the same amount of money in taxes that I do towards my health insurance and get relatively the same amount of care than I wouldn't care at all. The fact is the money is going to have to come from somewhere and thats mainly the upper class and the middle class (although I would suggest it comes mostly from the middle class).

[Expounder]

Unfortunately, I do not see how its is a fair justification to tell someone that we want them to pay for my or most of my health care just because it would be helpful. I have no right to take that person's money even though it would help me out a lot. There are also better solutions out there.

If you can assure me that I can pay relatively the same amount of money in taxes that I do towards my health insurance and get relatively the same amount of care than I wouldn't care at all. The fact is the money is going to have to come from somewhere and thats mainly the upper class and the middle class (although I would suggest it comes mostly from the middle class).

You already pay house insurance which you hope you will never will never have to call upon yet other people in trouble benifit from your contributions. the same principle applies, the only difference is the amount involved. The NHS is an assurance against falling Ill or being unemployed.The same applies to car and life insurance we don't question the wisdom of these. Or is it just because the above mentioned are private and the NHS a state sponsored insurance?

With respect you do sound a bit mean spirited, I assume when you talk about the middle class, you presume there is a working class who don't contribute a fair share. Deductions are made from all salaries on percentage earnings basis which means the working class are paying the same percentage amount but going home with a lot less that the "middle and upper class".

You say there are better solutions, would they cover the whole population what are they?

[Spades]

You already pay house insurance which you hope you will never will never have to call upon yet other people in trouble benifit from your contributions. the same principle applies, the only difference is the amount involved. The NHS is an assurance against falling Ill or being unemployed.The same applies to car and life insurance we don't question the wisdom of these. Or is it just because the above mentioned are private and the NHS a state sponsored insurance?

You shouldn't base your argument solely on an analogy. The number of people who sign on to house insurance or car insurance or life insurance for that matter don't decrease the quality. The number of people also do not increase the cost, in fact they actually decrease the cost of the insurance. If 10 people are signed onto a life insurance plan it won't have better quality insurance than oh say 1,000 people. For health insurance however, by socializing it the health care is going to cost me more but the quality will be a lot less. Why would I sign up for such a plan? If you want health insurance you need to fork over the money. American's believe that they need their own house car phone and cell phone (Don't forget that daily trip to the local fast-food restaurant). (Note: We have Medicare and Medicaid). (We don't refuse anyone emergency care).

Secondly, please don't not put words in my mouth. I hope it was an accident but that is not what i said. What I am saying is that the money for socializing health care is going to have to come from somewhere and I doubt it will be from the 'working class.' I recently remember seeing a breakdown of who pays most of our taxes and its like the bottom 60 perc I think pay only .6 perc of our tax. So are you implying that right now everyone who is not in the working class not paying their fair share?

[Expounder]

You shouldn't base your argument solely on an analogy. The number of people who sign on to house insurance or car insurance or life insurance for that matter don't decrease the quality. The number of people also do not increase the cost, in fact they actually decrease the cost of the insurance. If 10 people are signed onto a life insurance plan it won't have better quality insurance than oh say 1,000 people. For health insurance however, by socializing it the health care is going to cost me more but the quality will be a lot less. Why would I sign up for such a plan? If you want health insurance you need to fork over the money. American's believe that they need their own house car phone and cell phone (Don't forget that daily trip to the local fast-food restaurant). (Note: We have Medicare and Medicaid). (We don't refuse anyone emergency care).

Secondly, please don't not put words in my mouth. I hope it was an accident but that is not what i said. What I am saying is that the money for socializing health care is going to have to come from somewhere and I doubt it will be from the 'working class.' I recently remember seeing a breakdown of who pays most of our taxes and its like the bottom 60 perc I think pay only .6 perc of our tax. So are you implying that right now everyone who is not in the working class not paying their fair share?

The British working class and the "middle and upper classes" all have the NHS contributions deducted at source ie from earnings so it's not a question of who is or who is not contributing, every one pays, so the question of who pays doesn't arise at least in Britain. What I was pointing out that it is deducted on a percentage basis according to earnings for example 10% deducted from £45.000 per annum would leave more in the pocket of the recipient than someone earning £20.000. This would mean that the "girl from Columbia" quoted in one of your posts would have paid though deductions from her salary.


You say "we don't refuse anyone emergency care" not knowing you personally I must assume you are talking about America and its medicare system[if I'm wrong please correct me]. Treating certain people only in emergencies is not the same as having a nationwide medical organisation where a population has unresticted access and can be helped for all medical conditions no matter how minor and if neccessary be refered to a top class hospital. If this is not available, it creates a first and second class citizen situation with regards to medical care, the ones who can pay get the best, the others left with their problems unless it's an emergency.

Why are you so opposed to a system [which in spite of any short commings] improves the health of the nation which makes people feel secure in the knowledge they and their families have immediate help with any medical problem? You say if someone wants medical treatment" let them fork over the money" but there may come a time you are unable to fork over the money you don't know whats around the corner regards to life and health what would be your position then? ..............................You did suggest there were other solutions if there are please enlighten me. Regards Expounder.

[Erasmus]

The fact that the United States does not operate a national health care system similar to that employed in the United Kingdom has always been a mystery to me. The right to healthcare is, surely, a universal right. (I believe that, during his time in the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama made an attempt to ammend the Illinois Constitution to reflect this opinion. It failed.)

With a privately-operated, insurance-based system, the poorest in the country are obviously less able to afford decent helathcare which they rightly deserve. The link between poverty and illness is clear. The rich, however, are far more able to gain access to the medicines that they may require while simultaneously they are less likely to need said care.

How is this right?

I understand that a self-help attitude is prevalent in the U.S. -- that the American Dream calls for the bettering of one's own self -- but I am of the opinion that there are times and places where people need and deserve a little assistance from their government. The purpose of government is to act for the betterment of the poeple, is it not? Healthcare is clearly a requirement for personal betterment.

I am aware that employers provide health insurance for their employees. My question, then, is what about those that are unable to gain work and do not recience government benifts (or hand-outs depending on your personal beliefs)? How are they to afford the medical care that they require?

I find the term "socialised medicine" amusing. It brings to mind images of government interference in direct contradiction to the "government should leave me alone" attitude that most people in America seem to have. Say socialised and I guarantee that the person next to you thinks of socialism and then communism. Socialised medicine seems to belong in the same category as death tax: An excellent name for something you want people to hate.

[Spades]

You say "we don't refuse anyone emergency care" not knowing you personally I must assume you are talking about America and its medicare system[if I'm wrong please correct me]. Treating certain people only in emergencies is not the same as having a nationwide medical organisation where a population has unresticted access and can be helped for all medical conditions no matter how minor and if neccessary be refered to a top class hospital. If this is not available, it creates a first and second class citizen situation with regards to medical care, the ones who can pay get the best, the others left with their problems unless it's an emergency.

Why are you so opposed to a system [which in spite of any short commings] improves the health of the nation which makes people feel secure in the knowledge they and their families have immediate help with any medical problem? You say if someone wants medical treatment" let them fork over the money" but there may come a time you are unable to fork over the money you don't know whats around the corner regards to life and health what would be your position then? ..............................You did suggest there were other solutions if there are please enlighten me. Regards Expounder.

My position on this is that we offer medicare/caid already as well as emergency care which helps out that individual down on his luck. However, I WILL NOT find myself in such a situation and do you know why? Because I don't **** my money away like just about everyone in America. I don't buy those expensive 400 dollar phones or those Gucci Sun glasses that I see people who I KNOW don't have the income buying. Now you expect me (the saver) to put tax on my savings and my income just because larry and curly don't know the concept of responsiblity or planning ahead? In this country, there are people who make more money from Social Security then they do from work and so they don't work because that ruin their SS benefits.

My position is that healthcare costs should around the clock be reduced so that its not only cheaper to get healthcare, but cheaper to spend if you don't get the cost. Now if the individual doesn't have healthcare they should talk to their doctor about paying in cash upfront which will get the doctor to lower the costs. There are ways to reduce the cost of healthcare, that is only one.

Now I'll grant you healthcare for children possibly but for adults is out of the question. A paramedic was telling me an example of just how wasteful people are with emergency care alone. He tells me people call for just about anything, one lady called 37 times in one month! So this 'fantasy' of a world were people use healthcare only when they really really need it is just that... a fantasy.

Its predicted that the US will have a majority of Obese people by what... 2050.

I find it increasingly arrogant of human civlization to cause the extinction of hundreds if not thousands of species a year but somehow think they are owed healthcare. But then again it goes back to human selfishness. We want but we want others to pay for it.

I thought we were over this topic?

[cajunsnake]

My position on this is that we offer medicare/caid already as well as emergency care which helps out that individual down on his luck. However, I WILL NOT find myself in such a situation and do you know why? Because I don't **** my money away like just about everyone in America. I don't buy those expensive 400 dollar phones or those Gucci Sun glasses that I see people who I KNOW don't have the income buying. Now you expect me (the saver) to put tax on my savings and my income just because larry and curly don't know the concept of responsiblity or planning ahead? In this country, there are people who make more money from Social Security then they do from work and so they don't work because that ruin their SS benefits.

First Spades, never assume you won't be there. Even if you are in perfect health, do everything right. The assumption that EVERYONE in America is ******* away their money...what, or how, do quailify that statement. Would it be safer so say, that the people you KNOW ****. I agree, my baby brother has the "$400" cell phone...of course he makes 6 figures every years, he can afford it. A $680,000 home, he paid cash for, because he can afford it. But on the other side yes, there are those live on money they don't have, borrow like there is no tomorrow, and basically throw their money away...I call them the government.

Planning ahead, a one time, was the way to go. But the situations today is something that wasn't planned on.

Now, your statement that there are people who make more on SS, as oppose to working? I believe what you are talking about is SSI, not Social Security. And at one time you would have been right. Not now. I'm on Social Security, not by choice was forced into it, and before I took down $3000 a month after taxes. Now little over $1000. Exact #'s is nobody's business.

My position is that healthcare costs should around the clock be reduced so that its not only cheaper to get healthcare, but cheaper to spend if you don't get the cost. Now if the individual doesn't have healthcare they should talk to their doctor about paying in cash upfront which will get the doctor to lower the costs. There are ways to reduce the cost of healthcare, that is only one.

Paying up front in cash? Cheaper Health Care? Reduced Cost?

Ok, first of all (and I'll use my situation in all cases) paying up front in cash is fine, if you have nothing done...just talk to the doctor. Now, when I go a light touch, is around 300-400 dollars, my med's another 200 dollars. My wife, around 150 dollars and another 100 dollars for meds. So we are talking...750 dollars on the low end. Pay up front in Cash? And that's just for my heart, nothing else.

Cheaper Health Care? When I was working my health care was costing me around 400 a month. Once I was retired I lost it, because I couldn't afford it anymore. New health insurance will not cover my pre-existing condition(I love that phrase). I have another year, because I'm not 62 yet, before I can get Medicare.

Reduced cost? When I had my last H/A, my wife was told to bring my med's so I could keep taking them. Problem was we were still charged for them. Almost a year and half later, we're still fighting them over it. But when you talk about Medicare...I'm old enough to remember when it first came into being. A 25 dollar dedicable, now it's ???, and keep in mind that Medicare doesn't cover all illnesses.

You want to reduce the cost, go the source...the doctors. Why do you think alot of doctors, not only from Canada, but from most countries that have socialized medicine, come to the U.S. to practice? Because, in their country doctors are limited on what they can spend...here they aren't.

The Bush Administration passed legislation regarding Malpractice Lawsuits. Saying that frivilous lawsuits were the reason, problem with that argument, is that less than 1% ever actually get to court. But the deal is, find me ONE doctor who is willing to lower his cost to accomidate you. Like everyone else, he's in business to make money...end of story.
Now I'll grant you healthcare for children possibly but for adults is out of the question. A paramedic was telling me an example of just how wasteful people are with emergency care alone. He tells me people call for just about anything, one lady called 37 times in one month! So this 'fantasy' of a world were people use healthcare only when they really really need it is just that... a fantasy.

Again, you are talking about ONE EMT. You failed to mention what this was about...but let me pose the question. If in fact she was abusing the system, what was done? Pretty much like abusing 911 calls. But, if they chose to not make the call and she died? I'm not saying there aren't people that abuse the system. Big Business abuses the welfare system to.

Is it a fantasy to have this...no. Just need to have doctors and those involved to understand this.

Its predicted that the US will have a majority of Obese people by what... 2050.

But then how many did we have that was anerexic, bolimic...let's also explain how the medical profession comes about this. Now, BFI doesn't take into account the muscle factor or anything else. I did heavy lifting for over 50 years, and have a large upper body. 6' 240, out of seven doctors...only one has told me that I need to be 160-170, I weighed that when I was 17. My best friend, years back, was told he grossly Obese...6' 275...of course he also was a semi-pro body builder. I agree that there are a lot of obese people in our country, but not the numbers they are talking. I spent a lot of years driving over the road and seen a good many people, and maybe a handful, I would consider "Obese"


I find it increasingly arrogant of human civlization to cause the extinction of hundreds if not thousands of species a year but somehow think they are owed healthcare. But then again it goes back to human selfishness. We want but we want others to pay for it.

What I find arrogant is the fact an Administration allows a profession to help write laws that protect themselves. I think it's arrogant of an Administration to pour out billions to other countries, tell them how they should be taking care of their people and turn their back on their own. The ones you are talking about are people who have payed into the system all their lives, just to find out that this Adminstration will allow MILLIONS of illegals to come in, get on the roles and drain the system...at no cost to them. That's arrogants.

I thought we were over this topic?

No, this is something goes on everyday, just look around.


SNAKE

[Spades]

Planning ahead, a one time, was the way to go. But the situations today is something that wasn't planned on.

Now, your statement that there are people who make more on SS, as oppose to working? I believe what you are talking about is SSI, not Social Security. And at one time you would have been right. Not now. I'm on Social Security, not by choice was forced into it, and before I took down $3000 a month after taxes. Now little over $1000. Exact #'s is nobody's business.

Nope I am pretty sure its SS but i'll look up some sources later. Anyways, I was under the notion that before we go into the friviolous spending and buying houses we should have 6 months of pay saved up incase of 'rainy days.' Now this is probably an unrealistic estimate but from the spending I've seen of people making minimum wage, I fail to sympathize.

Ok, first of all (and I'll use my situation in all cases) paying up front in cash is fine, if you have nothing done...just talk to the doctor. Now, when I go a light touch, is around 300-400 dollars, my med's another 200 dollars. My wife, around 150 dollars and another 100 dollars for meds. So we are talking...750 dollars on the low end. Pay up front in Cash? And that's just for my heart, nothing else.

Cheaper Health Care? When I was working my health care was costing me around 400 a month. Once I was retired I lost it, because I couldn't afford it anymore. New health insurance will not cover my pre-existing condition(I love that phrase). I have another year, because I'm not 62 yet, before I can get Medicare.

The Bush Administration passed legislation regarding Malpractice Lawsuits. Saying that frivilous lawsuits were the reason, problem with that argument, is that less than 1% ever actually get to court. But the deal is, find me ONE doctor who is willing to lower his cost to accomidate you. Like everyone else, he's in business to make money...end of story.

Trim the Cost of Your Health Care Bills

Read it, and I hope it helps you. As this is the Radio program that I heard it on.

Some more information.

Here are the Secrets of Primary Care and Health Insurance
Prepare for the Unthinkable
The last two are not really part of the topic hope they help.

Anyways, Malpractice Lawsuits are costly nonetheless.

BalancedPolitics.org - Malpractice Lawsuit Caps (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against)
Skyrocketing health care costs make U.S. employers non-competitive in the global marketplace

Again, you are talking about ONE EMT. You failed to mention what this was about...but let me pose the question. If in fact she was abusing the system, what was done? Pretty much like abusing 911 calls. But, if they chose to not make the call and she died? I'm not saying there aren't people that abuse the system. Big Business abuses the welfare system to.

Is it a fantasy to have this...no. Just need to have doctors and those involved to understand this.

Theres another side of the coin you fail to ignore. What if the Ambulances were all tied up and that phony or unneeded calls (She gave me more than one example btw) costed a legitimate emergency to not receive the aid in time? Anyways the above link will help explain the Business role in Health Care a little bit. People think this is a cheap issue, a few pennies in the pond, but its not.

But then how many did we have that was anerexic, bolimic...let's also explain how the medical profession comes about this. Now, BFI doesn't take into account the muscle factor or anything else. I did heavy lifting for over 50 years, and have a large upper body. 6' 240, out of seven doctors...only one has told me that I need to be 160-170, I weighed that when I was 17. My best friend, years back, was told he grossly Obese...6' 275...of course he also was a semi-pro body builder. I agree that there are a lot of obese people in our country, but not the numbers they are talking. I spent a lot of years driving over the road and seen a good many people, and maybe a handful, I would consider "Obese"

Well with the information nowadays I could have told you some of the problems with being 6 foot and 275. For one thing, its hard to maintain all that muscle. Lifting that much is just not healthy period. The human Body wasn't meant for that.


" I think it's arrogant of an Administration to pour out billions to other countries, tell them how they should be taking care of their people and turn their back on their own. The ones you are talking about are people who have payed into the system all their lives, just to find out that this Adminstration will allow MILLIONS of illegals to come in, get on the roles and drain the system...at no cost to them. That's arrogants."

I agree with this 100 percent though.

[cajunsnake]

[quote=Spades;49402]Nope I am pretty sure its SS but i'll look up some sources later. Anyways, I was under the notion that before we go into the friviolous spending and buying houses we should have 6 months of pay saved up incase of 'rainy days.' Now this is probably an unrealistic estimate but from the spending I've seen of people making minimum wage, I fail to sympathize.

Trim the Cost of Your Health Care Bills

Read it, and I hope it helps you. As this is the Radio program that I heard it on.

Some more information.

Here are the Secrets of Primary Care and Health Insurance
Prepare for the Unthinkable
The last two are not really part of the topic hope they help.

Anyways, Malpractice Lawsuits are costly nonetheless.

BalancedPolitics.org - Malpractice Lawsuit Caps (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against)
Skyrocketing health care costs make U.S. employers non-competitive in the global marketplace

Most of your links, I have done already. The only two I have difficutity with are the last two. And the reasons are these:

MALPRACTICE: Without a doubt, the health field is the only one that you literially put you life in someone elses hands. From an unborn baby to your elderly grandmother. It is also the only field that has "zero tolerence", it's either right or it's not. Doctors spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to become doctors, work with millions of dollars of equipment. There is no room for error.

Case in point, my wife...8 years ago came down with a flesh eating disease, there's a long name for it. Four days in a row I took her to the doctor, and four days he told me not to worry it was just a rash...the fifth day, it went from her wrist to her elbow and twice the size it was suppose to be. He finally figured out what it was, and told me that she was either going to die...or lose her arm. I convinced him neither was an opition, and something would be done. She was in the hospital 5 days, with 24 hr drips to cure it.

Now, under the system that Bush and his Administration...along with the AMA, would have told me(if she had died) her life was only worth X amount of dollars? No. IMO, that is why the cost of so high. A doctor makes a mistake, and when he has to pay for it...he cries. What wasn't told as far as malpractice, is that actually less than 1% of the cases actually make it to court. But I'm sorry, if I put my life and those of my family, he/she has the opition of not treating me, and I'd gladdly find someone else.

Theres another side of the coin you fail to ignore. What if the Ambulances were all tied up and that phony or unneeded calls (She gave me more than one example btw) costed a legitimate emergency to not receive the aid in time? Anyways the above link will help explain the Business role in Health Care a little bit. People think this is a cheap issue, a few pennies in the pond, but its not.

The only time I've seen what you are discribing, would be on the scale of the L.A. riots, WTC, or hurricanes on the coast. But yes it could happen, though unlikely. But something also needs to be brought out. Ambulance Services, Hospitals, doctors are all in the business to make money. There bottom is what drives them, just like any other business. Where else, but in a hospital would you have to pay $40 for an asprine? Got the bill to back that up. Are there people who will abuse a system? Pick anyone. But I do not accept their arguements for the skyrocketing cost. Why do you think that so many doctors, in countries that have socialized medicine, where they are controlled on what they can charge, come to the U.S.?
I'm not talking about the ones who intern here, the one's that come here to set up a practice. I have two friends, their brothers, who are doctors, so I've learned first hand about it. We argue all the time.

Well with the information nowadays I could have told you some of the problems with being 6 foot and 275. For one thing, its hard to maintain all that muscle. Lifting that much is just not healthy period. The human Body wasn't meant for that.
Yeah, look at Swarhazzneageer, I remember him as a body builder. But my point was, he was not(at that time)obese. He had less body fat than then doctor. Everybody cannot be 5'8 and 160 lbs. Like my friends told me, muscle is not fat.

" I think it's arrogant of an Administration to pour out billions to other countries, tell them how they should be taking care of their people and turn their back on their own. The ones you are talking about are people who have payed into the system all their lives, just to find out that this Adminstration will allow MILLIONS of illegals to come in, get on the roles and drain the system...at no cost to them. That's arrogants."

I agree with this 100 percent though.
Hey we agree on something.


SNAKE

[Spades]

[QUOTE=cajunsnake;49579]

Most of your links, I have done already. The only two I have difficutity with are the last two. And the reasons are these:

MALPRACTICE: Without a doubt, the health field is the only one that you literially put you life in someone elses hands. From an unborn baby to your elderly grandmother. It is also the only field that has "zero tolerence", it's either right or it's not. Doctors spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to become doctors, work with millions of dollars of equipment. There is no room for error.

Now, under the system that Bush and his Administration...along with the AMA, would have told me(if she had died) her life was only worth X amount of dollars? No. IMO, that is why the cost of so high. A doctor makes a mistake, and when he has to pay for it...he cries. What wasn't told as far as malpractice, is that actually less than 1% of the cases actually make it to court. But I'm sorry, if I put my life and those of my family, he/she has the opition of not treating me, and I'd gladdly find someone else.


Where else, but in a hospital would you have to pay $40 for an asprine? Got the bill to back that up. Are there people who will abuse a system? Pick anyone. But I do not accept their arguements for the skyrocketing cost. Why do you think that so many doctors, in countries that have socialized medicine, where they are controlled on what they can charge, come to the U.S.?
I'm not talking about the ones who intern here, the one's that come here to set up a practice. I have two friends, their brothers, who are doctors, so I've learned first hand about it. We argue all the time.

Yeah, look at Swarhazzneageer, I remember him as a body builder. But my point was, he was not(at that time)obese. He had less body fat than then doctor. Everybody cannot be 5'8 and 160 lbs. Like my friends told me, muscle is not fat.
[/B][/I][/COLOR]

That one percent of Malpractice suits that go to trial are because the other ones have either been settled or thrown out or dropped. I don't know the specifics on how many are settled but the ones that go to trial are the ones that are probably asking the large hefty sum of money and don't want to back down to a level the insurance company would be acceptable with (and that the insurance company knows that the judge would never award that person that sum).

Yes, it is a extremely hard job field to be a doctor. The level responsiblity, but medical science isn't always an exact science. The doctors do their best and I am talking more along the lines of when they make a decision that is the logical choice but it goes back to bite them in the rear. Like take this example, a male is rushed into the emergency room and he has certain symptoms and they believe has some kind of heart problem (The article states that this was a reasonable decision but the wrong one) and they gave him medication that turned out to be exactly what he didn't need and he died. Do i believe that the family should get paid a lot of money? NO, because the doctors did their best, made a decision to save his life and it turned out to be the wrong one (although the symptoms suggested it was the right one). It wasn't the doctors who gave this main his health problem.

Anyways, I think the government should do something to about the rising cost of health care so that hospitals don't charge 40 dollars per aspirin.

[cajunsnake]

[quote=Spades;49826][quote=cajunsnake;49579]

That one percent of Malpractice suits that go to trial are because the other ones have either been settled or thrown out or dropped. I don't know the specifics on how many are settled but the ones that go to trial are the ones that are probably asking the large hefty sum of money and don't want to back down to a level the insurance company would be acceptable with (and that the insurance company knows that the judge would never award that person that sum).

Here's another way to look at it. I don't know if you're married and have kids(none of business, and I'm not being disrespectful if you are), but if someone in your family was turned into a vegeable, or worse, died because of a screw up on the doctors part...what would their lives be worth? What the insurance company deemed acceptable? The Bush Administration, with the help of the insurance companies, put a $250,000. cap on it. I'm sorry I don't think so. For me, there isn't enough money, in all the insurance companies, in the world, is worth it for me. Plus you tie in the medical bills, that the family are saddled with, this is nothing more than a slap in the face.

Yes, it is a extremely hard job field to be a doctor. The level responsiblity, but medical science isn't always an exact science. The doctors do their best and I am talking more along the lines of when they make a decision that is the logical choice but it goes back to bite them in the rear. Like take this example, a male is rushed into the emergency room and he has certain symptoms and they believe has some kind of heart problem (The article states that this was a reasonable decision but the wrong one) and they gave him medication that turned out to be exactly what he didn't need and he died. Do i believe that the family should get paid a lot of money? NO, because the doctors did their best, made a decision to save his life and it turned out to be the wrong one (although the symptoms suggested it was the right one). It wasn't the doctors who gave this main his health problem.

Without knowing the perticulars, it would be hard to comment. But, for years I've taken penicillan, no problem. Went in for strep throat, they gave me a 1000cc, and my heart stopped. Shock to them, shock to me. Where they right in giving me it, probably. Should they have tested BEFORE giving it to me. Probably. If I had died...don't want to think about that.

But the things I look at...a leading hospital in Calif., in L.A. I think, same twice in six months crippled two people. The first man, had to have his left leg amputated...no choice in the matter. When he woke up his right leg was gone. Six months later the doctor screwed on another patient. Now, having my legs operated own myself, my doctor told me that there was no way that these two instances should have happened. In my case before I went under he marked the leg and the area he was to operate on, he initialed and then I did. It's veried in the OR by the nurse, the gas man and the doctor, before he started.

Anyways, I think the government should do something to about the rising cost of health care so that hospitals don't charge 40 dollars per aspirin.

You're right, told them the next time I'll bring my own. I could make a fortune.:p


SNAKE

[pauli007001]

The fact that the United States does not operate a national health care system similar to that employed in the United Kingdom has always been a mystery to me. The right to healthcare is, surely, a universal right. (I believe that, during his time in the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama made an attempt to ammend the Illinois Constitution to reflect this opinion. It failed.)

With a privately-operated, insurance-based system, the poorest in the country are obviously less able to afford decent helathcare which they rightly deserve. The link between poverty and illness is clear. The rich, however, are far more able to gain access to the medicines that they may require while simultaneously they are less likely to need said care.

How is this right?

I understand that a self-help attitude is prevalent in the U.S. -- that the American Dream calls for the bettering of one's own self -- but I am of the opinion that there are times and places where people need and deserve a little assistance from their government. The purpose of government is to act for the betterment of the poeple, is it not? Healthcare is clearly a requirement for personal betterment.

I am aware that employers provide health insurance for their employees. My question, then, is what about those that are unable to gain work and do not recience government benifts (or hand-outs depending on your personal beliefs)? How are they to afford the medical care that they require?

I find the term "socialised medicine" amusing. It brings to mind images of government interference in direct contradiction to the "government should leave me alone" attitude that most people in America seem to have. Say socialised and I guarantee that the person next to you thinks of socialism and then communism. Socialised medicine seems to belong in the same category as death tax: An excellent name for something you want people to hate.

The main reason that an NHS system is not here is that Americans do not want it.another reason is the 14th amendment.
The NHS is rubbish,the car it delivers is sub standard the hospitals are filthy,staff underpaid,nah i think we will stick with quality Health care in the USA,thank you very much!!!!

[LZReid]

Socialised medicine in the UK is in fact Rationed medcine.People who have died some years ago waiting for life saving operations have been sent appointments recently (years after their deaths)to attend local hospitals for the slightly overdue operations!!!!!
In the UK National health service(a government entity) all staff are government employees.aathey are expected to make decisions on care not on the basis of need but on the basis of policy!
There are more managers in the NHS than nurses,most DRs are recent immigrants with questionable qualifications and no english skills resulting in misdiagnosis and death!
Many UK Drs are of recent immigrant muslim stock and have been involved in terrorism,this may follow into the care they provide to infidell patients.Many follow islamic dress codes that are proven to cause infections(MRSA)in patients.No action may be taken re this dress code issue as government policy forbids the people of the UK to speak out aganst this dangerous faith amongst us.Political correctness being more important than mere infidell lives!Socialised medcine is a bad thing,as is socialism,ask any survivor of the NAZI death camps how they feel about the socialist Adolf Hitler!!!Or any of his cohorts including the huge numbers of muslems who served as guards in the SS camps and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem,a close ally of Hitler and a supporter of socialism!!!!

Are you actually serious with this? I'm new to this forum so it may well be that you're a wind up merchant but that post is littered with pish.

All medicine is rationed, it just depends on the criteria. For example, here medicine is rationed on a first come, first served basis whereas in the States it is rationed on an ability to pay.

Most Drs are recent immigrants? Um no, no they're not. Not even close actually.

Decisions of care in the UK can be based too much on policy I agree entirelty with that. The alternative is tha tdecisions of care are based on profit.

More managers than nurses? Are you sure? can you provide proof? I don't think your telling the truth.

Your claims regarding dress codes are also laughable.

'government policy forbids the people of the UK to speak out aganst this dangerous faith amongst us' - This is just bigoted pish.

You are either trying to annoy people, engaging in deliberate hyperbole to make your point or just lying. Your immediate desire to equate socialised medicine with the Nazis is at least entertaining though.

[Spades]

[I][B]
Here's another way to look at it. I don't know if you're married and have kids(none of business, and I'm not being disrespectful if you are), but if someone in your family was turned into a vegeable, or worse, died because of a screw up on the doctors part...what would their lives be worth? What the insurance company deemed acceptable? The Bush Administration, with the help of the insurance companies, put a $250,000. cap on it. I'm sorry I don't think so. For me, there isn't enough money, in all the insurance companies, in the world, is worth it for me. Plus you tie in the medical bills, that the family are saddled with, this is nothing more than a slap in the face.

Should the cap be a little higher? Yes. What I referred to was mistakes that the doctor couldn't necessarily foresee. Hindsight always makes things look easier but in actuality was it? If the doctor made errors/disregarded signs then he should be fined/sued. My argument was more on the choices of just bad luck. Like did he turn out to be allergic to that medicine, or did that treatment (With the risks addressed) just turn out bad. I remember my brother going into the hospital during the 8th grade for heart surgery and the doctors having the choice of going back in for a smaller heart anamoly (Spelling) or leaving it alone. These aren't easy decisions. This heart problem could at anytime be fatal.... should I sue if it is? No. Money should be used to repay doctors-bills funeral costs etc, not tools of punishment on doctors who made the best decision during an intense situation (possibly with lack of sleep they get).

[I][B]Without knowing the perticulars, it would be hard to comment. But, for years I've taken penicillan, no problem. Went in for strep throat, they gave me a 1000cc, and my heart stopped. Shock to them, shock to me. Where they right in giving me it, probably. Should they have tested BEFORE giving it to me. Probably. If I had died...don't want to think about that.

What do you mean by tested beforehand?

The first man, had to have his left leg amputated...no choice in the matter. When he woke up his right leg was gone. Six months later the doctor screwed on another patient. Now, having my legs operated own myself, my doctor told me that there was no way that these two instances should have happened.

I would hope that doctor would not be practicing anymore, not just fined. Hoping that we fine him enough where he can no longer practice medicine isn't really the system i want to rely upon.

[Kingy_0]

Erm hang fire I've just posted on an old thread

[Major Sinic]

Erm hang fire I've just posted on an old thread

And I have just thanked you for your post. It doesn't really matter that it was an old thread.

[Kingy_0]

And I have just thanked you for your post. It doesn't really matter that it was an old thread.

Cheers!

[Opinionated]

Please note I have moved more recent posts to another thread in order to hopefully tidy up the overlapping debates and make them easier to follow/ prevent repetition.