SINGLE PAYER IS THE ONLY HEALTHY SOLUTION

[brianh]

This is only the solution to a small part of the problem, but I think we need to punish people who go to the hospital excessively with jail time.  Last time I had to visit a relative who was legitimately in the emergency room, there were tons of people around for very minor things. Rates would go down quite a bit at that point.

[Conan71]

This is only the solution to a small part of the problem, but I think we need to punish people who go to the hospital excessively with jail time.  Last time I had to visit a relative who was legitimately in the emergency room, there were tons of people around for very minor things. Rates would go down quite a bit at that point.

I understand your rage on this, but your solution sounds a bit draconian...

[swake]

"Even worse our spending is wasteful and our healthcare system is among the worst of any industrialized nation. Our life expectancy, infant mortality rates, and doctor error rates are either the worst or among the worst of any first world nation. Again, after spending dramatically more than anywhere else.

It's time to end insurance companies and go with nationalized healthcare.  Our system now is expensive and broken and only functions well to enrich large medical companies and insurance companies."

That's an odd conclusion, Swake.  "Our healthcare system sucks, our country is un-healthy, let's blame it all on insurance companies and end them."

The biggest reason we have lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality is largely due to unhealthy, sedentary lifestyles.  Take a look at other countries on the list of those with higher life expectancy and you likely won't see quite the addiction to fast food, gluttony, tobacco use, alcohol, stressful lifestyles, etc.

My belief is that our health problem starts with the individual, not the system as a whole.  Many medical breakthroughs happen in this country.  Much of the advanced diagnostic and surgical procedures have been developed in this country.  We have some of the most advanced and modern healthcare facilities on the planet.  As it is now, we do provide healthcare to citizens of all ages who cannot afford to pay for it.  We provide healthcare to legal and illegal immigrants who cannot pay for it.  Yes, there are even free clinics which do offer preventative healthcare to those who cannot afford it.  The 50 million Americans who are shut out of the healthcare system is a total myth.  Many of those people absolutely refuse to participate in it. 

I fail to see how shifting all healthcare coverage (and the expense of it) to the government will modify the unhealthy lifestyle habits of individuals (mortality and infant mortality rates), modify the behavior of ill-trained or apathetic healthcare providers, or lower the cost of healthcare.  This will require an increased bureaucracy to replace the insurance administration and claims industry.  I really don't see the cost savings in this, for the simple fact that there will be a shift from private-sector to public-sector jobs.  The net cost to the consumer is the same, if not higher, due to inefficiencies which seem to be indigenous to bureaucracy.

Even if the government takes over all healthcare, there is a segment of Americans who will continue to choose unhealthy lifestyles and who will be elligible for government-sponsored healthcare but simply will not take advantage of it.  You cannot force people who refuse to take care of themselves to make better choices and force them to participate in preventative health care.  Some people just simply refuse to see a doctor until there's a big growth under their arm or a bone sticking out of their arm.  Changing the payment and fee arrangement system simply does not guarantee more people will take advantage of our healthcare system or take better care of themselves. 

Government seldom runs things as efficiently as private enterprise.  The only thing government can do that an insurance company can't is run on a deficit and survive a whole lot longer.  I really don't see the government putting the medical insurance industry out of business, since so many members of Congress are on the take from insurance companies.  I think what we will see is somewhat of a hybrid between government and private insurance, yet I don't see how it will lower the cost of healthcare if they wind up taxing healthcare benefits. 

Finally, the last flaw I see in this idea that of government lowering the cost of healthcare, will the most talented and capable healthcare professionals care to continue to work in the industry?  Will the most talented of our population still want to become healthcare providers?  What are the healthcare professionals saying about this?  The AMA does not seem to be too fond of this.

I'm open-minded enough to look into any government proposal to try and contain costs.  I believe there's an over-simplification of what government healthcare for all of us would look like.  I don't believe this is an issue which can effectively be dealt with when there's an arbitrary deadline to get a bill on the President's desk by October.

You have bought the line fed us for generations by Pharmaceuticals, Insurance Companies and Doctors about how great our system is and how we are the best in the world. It's simply not true. Sedentary lifestyles don't have any impact on infant mortality or doctor error rates. I have been through serious health issues with both of my parents, both with excellent insurance where cost has not been an issue. And the system sucks.

Most doctors are bad at their jobs and don't give a crap about anything except getting paid. Everything has devolved into specialization where doctors make the most money and have zero stake in the overall health of the patient. Doctors can plead povertey all they want, but I took my son to see his doctor last week and out the window was the doctors parking lot for the hospital where he's located and it was all Ferrari, Mercedes and BMW. And not just one Ferrari. I don't begrudge people doing well, but when did becoming a doctor mean being wealthy enough to drive a $200,000 car to work? Poverty my donkey. The reason doctors want lawsuit reform so badly is that so many of them are so bad at what they do and they are worried about being sued over it.

On the other side insurance companies have driven care to lowest common denominator where cost is the main driving factor in every decision. The administrative costs for insurance companies is much higher than the admin cost of Medicare for instance. Insurance companies are a layer of red tape (and large profits) that have no real reason to exist.

Pharmaceuticals spend as much money advertising products as they do developing products. And most of the products they do develop only are developed to replace effective drugs that happen to have expiring patents.

Cannon, you are worried about the cost of beer going up like in Canada? This is a non-issue, that's arguing how healthcare is going to be paid for. We are paying for it now. $16 out of every $100 dollars earned in this country goes to healthcare. Spending per capita in the US was $6,714 in 2006. In Canada it was $3,678. You are paying that difference right now. And Canada's healthcare system while not perfect, performs a lot better than ours does, at just a little more than half the cost per person. Half.

Cannon, I don't know how large a family you have, but if there are three of you, that's $10,000 a year out of your pocket vs Canada. You could buy a lot of $45 cases of beer for $10,000.

And again, 16% of Americans have no coverage at all, which is not the case in Canada.

[guido911]

You have bought the line fed us for generations by Pharmaceuticals, Insurance Companies and Doctors about how great our system is and how we are the best in the world. It's simply not true. Sedentary lifestyles don't have any impact on infant mortality or doctor error rates. I have been through serious health issues with both of my parents, both with excellent insurance where cost has not been an issue. And the system sucks.

Most doctors are bad at their jobs and don't give a crap about anything except getting paid. Everything has devolved into specialization where doctors make the most money and have zero stake in the overall health of the patient. Doctors can plead povertey all they want, but I took my son to see his doctor last week and out the window was the doctors parking lot for the hospital where he's located and it was all Ferrari, Mercedes and BMW. And not just one Ferrari. I don't begrudge people doing well, but when did becoming a doctor mean being wealthy enough to drive a $200,000 car to work? Poverty my donkey. The reason doctors want lawsuit reform so badly is that so many of them are so bad at what they do and they are worried about being sued over it.

On the other side insurance companies have driven care to lowest common denominator where cost is the main driving factor in every decision. The administrative costs for insurance companies is much higher than the admin cost of Medicare for instance. Insurance companies are a layer of red tape (and large profits) that have no real reason to exist.

Pharmaceuticals spend as much money advertising products as they do developing products. And most of the products they do develop only are developed to replace effective drugs that happen to have expiring patents.

Cannon, you are worried about the cost of beer going up like in Canada? This is a non-issue, that's arguing how healthcare is going to be paid for. We are paying for it now. $16 out of every $100 dollars earned in this country goes to healthcare. Spending per capita in the US was $6,714 in 2006. In Canada it was $3,678. You are paying that difference right now. And Canada's healthcare system while not perfect, performs a lot better than ours does, at just a little more than half the cost per person. Half.

Cannon, I don't know how large a family you have, but if there are three of you, that's $10,000 a year out of your pocket vs Canada. You could buy a lot of $45 cases of beer for $10,000.

And again, 16% of Americans have no coverage at all, which is not the case in Canada.

Care to provide proof that most doctors are bad at their jobs and don't give a crap? I would like to show that to my better half. My guess is that you can't and you are just running your ignorant and wealth-envy mouth once again.

By the way, if you want Canada's healthcare system, move there. Just don't make me have to put up with that piss poor system in this country. I am 100% happy with my family's health care.

[FOTD]

We already know that RomneyCare (now rebranded as "Individual Mandate with Public Option") doesn't work. As the health mafia dumps sick patients into "Public Option" overall costs have risen even as hospital reimbursements have been cut. The State of Massachusetts is now dumping 28,000 patients from "Public Option" into "Nothing". And an amazing 200,000 Massachusetts citizens have already been branded as "tax cheats" and fined for failing to make regular payoffs to the health insurance mafia.

More evidence of how lousy Pelosi is at leadership. She needs to get the votes necessary to pass Single Payer.

Pelosi: Health Care Reform Can't Pass Without Public Option
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/11/pelosi-health-care-reform_n_214303.html
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the Huffington Post Thursday that a health care overhaul that did not include a public option wouldn't make it through the House because it "wouldn't have the votes."


Pelosi took impeachment off the table for political expediency (and probably to save her own donkey). Is this another dodge, this time to short-circuit Single Payer and to avoid showing REAL leadership and guts - and to save her Corporate donors? Don't trust her.

You will not find dumb and dumber, Baucuss and Grazley, signing on with HR 676...but here's a list of progressives leading the way.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00676:@@@P

[swake]

Care to provide proof that most doctors are bad at their jobs and don't give a crap? I would like to show that to my better half. My guess is that you can't and you are just running your ignorant and wealth-envy mouth once again.

By the way, if you want Canada's healthcare system, move there. Just don't make me have to put up with that piss poor system in this country. I am 100% happy with my family's health care.

Proof? Again, the highest doctor error rate in the developed world. That's one.

Personally I have through my family and my parents dealt with probably at least 20-25 different doctors in the past 4-5 years. Most were terrible. In that time I have had three different personal doctors, two of the three sucked. Kings of the 40 second office visit. My mother has great difficulty getting around and is in a lot of pain and she's had multiple doctors that know her issues and force her to come in every six months for a 30 second office visit so they could write a bill to the insurance company. The pain an office visit causes her is of no concern to them. Getting paid is what matters. I don't mind taking her if they are doing her good but most don't even try. It's been hard to get her to drop these leaches and even harder to find competent replacements.

Of the 20-25 total doctors I have visited most were incompetent or indifferent, it can be hard to tell the difference. I would say I would rate three of them outstanding and three pretty good. So, only six total would I give a good grade, and half of the six are DOs and not MDs, by far most MDs are terrible, but that's an entirely different argument.

[FOTD]

Swake, my experience is similar but the fact that doctors see so much mortality and poor health due to old age adds to their perceived indifference. This devil plans to check out if health care providers get worse in the years to come and he finds himself at their mercy and personal bankruptcy. Some of us take very good care of ourselves but realize living to 100 could be a nightmare.

[Conan71]

Swake, I think there are a lot of doctors who would disagree with your assertion.  Do understand that I share some of your reticence and cynicism about doctors, big pharma, and healthcare.  It's simply a folly thinking that the government taking control of the payment system will somehow modify the behavior of doctors and get those apathetic to preventative health care to use the system.  That's like putting down new carpet on your floors to cure wood rot on the exterior trim of your house.  

There are a lot of very good physicians who don't fall into your paradigm of them all being greedy and incompetent.  Certainly there are some who do fall into your description, but I'd argue that's a smaller percentage and I'd also argue that I don't think you'd want your whole profession labeled as greedy and incompetent due to the actions and attitudes of a minority.

Since we are down to the "I've got a family member..." game:  I've got a close family member who has worked for a long time in a part of the healthcare industry which is almost entirely funded by Medicare and Medicaid.  From that perspective, I assure you government is NOT the panacea for every problem with healthcare.  

[Gaspar]

I am leery of anything than can lead to more or easier governmental intrusion.

I am leery of everything that leads to easier governmental intrusion, but I don't think there's much chance of doing anything to promote private industries any more.  Our new Czars will eventually become the heads of our Ministries.  

The good news is that the Canadian health system is collapsing and private clinics are now welcomed in most provinces, so by the time we have a big mushy government health system, we may be able to go to Canada to get private care and diagnostics.

Interestingly enough, a whole new industry in marketing and advertising the private medical system in Canada has emerged, and the private funding for the construction of clinics all over Canada is in a boom.

Due to the shortage of physicians and diagnostic systems, the Canadian government has become very friendly to the development of such clinics and even invited them to coordinate with established government hospitals.  So patients have a choice between free or fee.

The biggest shock is the creation of several private emergency medical clinics allowing patient choice in emergencies of going to a state hospital with long waits or paying cash for private care.

So the Canadian system is evolving/collapsing/changing, whatever, into a "class based" medical care system, where the wealthy receive good care provided by the best physicians, paid by private insurance or cash, and the poor and middle class receive state care (basically what we have now, except with higher taxes and less freedom).  It looks like the Canadian government is just going to continue to allow the state health-care experiment to wither and the private sector to fill in the gaps.

[USRufnex]

Guess I'm a pragmatist/skeptic when it comes to single payer.  I do not trust our  government to properly administer an all encompassing single payer system for a country our size.  IMHO, what works for Canada will likely not work here...

Since Oklahoma wasn't a battleground state, we missed this 30-sec ad about Obama's approach to healthcare reform...

Obama healthcare ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnk8minM3Qg

I've met enough Canadians over the past couple of decades to know that they don't have the same kinds of horror stories that we in this country have... I have several.  We have an employer based system-- no job = no healthcare.  I am grateful to have had a job that provided me healthcare options, the ability to tell a doctor my symptoms, and the access to life-saving laproscopic surgery I needed... I only wish my sister and her kids would have those options right now, but as much as I can try to help her, the scary part is that I wish I could marry my sister so she and her kids can have my health benefits until she's able to get on her feet.....



Barack Obama Ad - "Mother"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aR3Gpsn4v4

I have a story of a friend of mine who was brutally raped in the 80s... she then was diagnosed with lupus.... she had a pre-existing condition, so after the rape... well, you can guess what happened.  A year ago, I was diagnosed with colon cancer and my surgeon needlessly referred me to a "boutique" out of network hospital (talk about "class warfare")... he never gave me a choice of hospitals and it wasn't until after the surgery that I realized the hospital he chose for my surgery was a one he PARTIALLY OWNED!!!

....and who is THIS GUY?  And where did he get the money to influence the public and politicians to air so many commercials against "socialized medicine"?



Health Critic Brings a Past and a Wallet
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/us/politics/02scott.html

WASHINGTON — Richard L. Scott is unusual in these tough economic times: a rich, conservative investor willing to spend freely on a political cause.

Mr. Scott is starring in his own rotation of advertisements against the broad outlines of President Obama's health care plans. ("Imagine waking up one day and all your medical decisions are made by a central, national board," he warns in a radio spot.) He has dispatched camera crews to other countries to document the perils of socialized medicine.


Healthcare Enemy No. 1
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090330/hayes?rel=hp_currently

The name may not exactly be a household word, or it may ring a faint bell, but Politico recently reported that the millionaire Republican would be heading up Conservatives for Patients' Rights (CPR), a new group that plans to spend around $20 million to kill President Obama's efforts at healthcare reform.

Having Scott lead the charge against healthcare reform is like tapping Bernie Madoff to campaign against tighter securities regulation. By 1994, Columbia/HCA was one of the forty largest corporations in America, and Scott had acquired a reputation as the Gordon Gecko of the healthcare world. "Whose patients are you stealing?" he would ask employees at his newly acquired hospitals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By 1997 the FBI was investigating Columbia/HCA. Days after agents raided company facilities armed with search warrants, Scott was forced to resign. In 2000 the company pleaded guilty to fraud and agreed to pay the government $840 million. Other civil settlements would follow, ultimately totaling a staggering $1.7 billion, making it the largest fraud case in American history.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want reform that puts costs on coverage on the right track; And I'll take "half a loaf" over Hillary Clinton's efforts in the 90s for "managed care".... resulting in NOTHING.

My fear about Obama is that he will over-compromise... taxing benefits was a McCain idea and requiring mandatory insurance was pushed by Hillary Clinton and done by Mitt Romney, yet both options Obama campaigned against seem to be on the table-- for now at least...

Election '08   /  Obama Runs Constructive Criticism Ad On McCain  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPTB7-ecDC8&NR=1

[USRufnex]

I am leery of everything that leads to easier governmental intrusion, but I don't think there's much chance of doing anything to promote private industries any more.  Our new Czars will eventually become the heads of our Ministries.  

The good news is that the Canadian health system is collapsing and private clinics are now welcomed in most provinces, so by the time we have a big mushy government health system, we may be able to go to Canada to get private care and diagnostics.

Could you please stop drinking the AMA koolaid, stop being an anti-government idealogue for a few seconds and ADMIT that the Canadian system has some advantages over our own "big mushy" Russian-roulette private for-profit system?

Geez.

Op-Ed Columnist
This Time, We Won't Scare
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: June 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/opinion/11kristof.html

Rick Scott, a former hospital company chief executive, leads a group called Conservatives for Patients' Rights. He was forced to resign as C.E.O. after his company defrauded the government through overbilling and is now spending his time trying to block meaningful health care reform by terrifying us with commercials of "real-life stories of the victims of government-run health care."

So here's a far more representative "real-life story."

Diane Tucker, 59, is an American lawyer who moved to Vancouver, Canada, in 2006. Like everyone else there, she now pays the equivalent of just $49 a month for health care.

Then one day two years ago, Ms. Tucker was working on her office computer when she noticed that she was having trouble typing with her right hand.

"I realized my hand was numb, so I tried to stand up to shake it out," she remembered. "But I had trouble standing."

A colleague called 911, and an ambulance rushed her to the nearest hospital.

"An emergency room doctor met me at the door, and they took me straight upstairs to the CT scan," she recalled. A neurologist explained that she had suffered a stroke.

Ms. Tucker spent a week at the hospital. "The doctors were great, although there were also a couple of jerks," she said. "The nursing staff was wonderful."

Still, there were two patients to a room, and conditions weren't as opulent as at some American hospitals. "The food was horrible," she said.

Then again, the price was right. "They never spoke to me about money," she said. "Not when I checked in, and not when I left."

Scaremongers emphasize the waits for specialists in Canada, and there's some truth to the stories. After the stroke, Ms. Tucker needed to make a routine appointment with a neurologist and an ophthalmologist to see if she should drive again. Initially, those appointments would have meant a two- or three-month wait, although in the end she managed to arrange them more quickly.

Ms. Tucker underwent three months of rehabilitation, including physical therapy several times a week. Again there was no charge, no co-payment.

Then, last year, Ms. Tucker fainted while on a visit to San Francisco, and an ambulance rushed her to the nearest hospital. But this was in the United States, so the person meeting her at the emergency room door wasn't a doctor.

"The first person I saw was a lady with a computer," she said, "asking me how I intended to pay the bill." Ms. Tucker did, in fact, have insurance, but she was told she would have to pay herself and seek reimbursement.

Nothing was seriously wrong, and the hospital discharged her after five hours. The bill came to $8,789.29.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Healthcare in this country is getting scarier and scarier and costs are getting higher and higher every year.... your answer is what?  Dismantle medicare/medicaid?  Continue to look the other way while greedy criminals like Rick Scott use millions of dollars they got bilking the system in the name of "for-profit hospitals"?

[Cats Cats Cats]

I am leery of everything that leads to easier governmental intrusion, but I don't think there's much chance of doing anything to promote private industries any more.  Our new Czars will eventually become the heads of our Ministries.  

One thing that for some reason everybody that is anti-government involvement in health care insurance.  Is that you already have a Czar.  It is called the insurance company.

[FOTD]

One thing that for some reason everybody that is anti-government involvement in health care insurance.  Is that you already have a Czar.  It is called the insurance company.

Yes. The czar is crooked. He's in cahoots with Big Pharma and Doctors. He has little regulation.

[nathanm]

By the way, if you want Canada's healthcare system, move there. Just don't make me have to put up with that piss poor system in this country. I am 100% happy with my family's health care.

I don't think anybody has a problem with letting those who desire and have the means to pay for private health coverage do so, so don't worry about getting piss poor health coverage. Why don't you just keep what you have since it's working so well for you and let the rest of us who want to do something about the problem get to work?

As far as doctors bucking up, one of my clients wouldn't be doing so well at suing them if they could manage to win at trial. Presumably they do try to defend themselves when sued.

What I find most amusing are the folks who go on about waits for care in canada or the UK, as if we get immediate service here. ER waits are regularly hours long at many hospitals, and if an ambulance doesn't bring you in, you get to talk to someone about how you're going to pay before you get treated unless it looks like you are literally going to die on the linoleum. And getting a doctor's appointment? Sure, sometimes it can be done quickly, but again there if you are using a highly recommended doctor, the next appointment may not be for weeks.

The difference is largely in how we ration care (largely by ability to pay), not that it is unrationed as some like to claim.

[FOTD]

Hell Care: Health Care from Hell
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Hell-Care--Health-Care-fr-by-James-Dunham-090610-62.html


The insurance industry wants you in perfect health on the other hand. If you are sick, suffering, in pain, injured or have a disability----you are the enemy.
And death may be the only answer.
The real one and only long term solution is H.R. 676 - Single payer universal healthcare for all.
At the least, thank God Obama is finally mentioning the need for a government policy health option, along with Sen. Kennedy. I just hope in the details, the "conservative devil" is not lurking, waiting to turn it into a fiasco that favors the insurance and pharmaceutical industry. I shall keep my fingers crossed.
And I thank Howard Dean for continuing to sound the drumbeat, and of course Cong. Dennis Kucinich who has always been at the forefront of this important issue.

Clearly Profit Care is more important than Patient Care.