Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How can anyone think it is moral, O.K., just, fair, whatever term you want to use, to bet on someone else getting sick or not? That is all health insuranace is. It doesn't insure anything except that a billion dollar industry will keep on making money on the misforturne of others. For-profit health care is just plain wrong. I understand the whole capitalist system we live in but isn't there anything that is "going too far"? I think health insurance companies have gone Waaaaaay too far and it seems that we are willing to let them continue and even pave the way for them under the guise of health care reform.
The legislation that is being pondered by our congressmen and senators is nothing more than a giant give-away to the insurance companies. This is not health-care reform it is legislative insurance that big pharma, the health insurance industry and for-profit health providers will continue to grow at a astounding rate and make billions and billions of dollars for the investors on Wall Street. The billions and billions of dollars is blood money made off the misfortune of others. Health or wellness are not commoditites like stocks and bonds yet that is how we approach health care in the U.S.
Without an open enrollment, single payer, non-profit system run by the government there is NO way to impose competition on the insurance companies. And yes if this happens it will most probably lead to a single payer govenment system. So what??????? That is the only rational way to ensure that all american citizens recieve health care and we already have the infrastructure in place, it's called Medicare. This would also cool down the entire health industry race for profits and lead to more realistic cost of health care overall.
I am an RN, worked 30+ years in nursing and have Multiple Sclerosis. I would still be working except the MS has progressed to the point that I cannot. I did nothing to get MS, there is no prevention for MS, there is no cure for MS, yet my health insurance company, the drug companies and the health care providers all make money because I just happened to get this disease. Wall Street loves people like me. We are unwilling consumers of their commodities. I cannot choose whether or not I want to buy their commodities, rather I have to figure out how I am going to pay them for the priviledge of getting the care they subsidize. Or not, I guess. Then I could just be in pain all the time, progress faster and end up in a long-term care facility even more quickly than I might. Another customer for a for-profit care facility.
I am lucky though. I have "good" health insurance and am now on Medicare. My yearly out-of-pocket expenses are only around $20,000 for drugs and priemiums. I can still afford that out of my retirement and savings. I am thinking about starting a drug that is meant to slow progression of the MS - it is $8,000 a month. Who could afford that out-of-pocket? Medicare will cover it for me because it is administered in a hospital setting. Between Medicare and the drug coverage from insurance I can make it for now. I am one of the lucky ones.
Why should health care in the US depend on luck? We are a super-wealthy nation and should be able to care for our citizens better than this. Raise taxes, let the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy die a deserving death, and get real about reform. But I'm afraid that won't ever happen because we have health care administered by Wall Street and that is where all the power is. Oh, well, at least I'm O.K...for now.
Then I could just be in pain all the time, progress faster and end up in a long-term care facility even more quickly than I might. Another customer for a for-profit care facility.
Don't worry. Some of the cuts being considered will target nursing homes and long term care facilities, along with home health care. When they get done with those cuts, we won't have to worry about making choices.
The chronically ill and elderly won't be worth investing the care. You may find out under a single payer system that it's cheaper to tell them to take a pain pill at home than get their injection in a hospital setting.
I feel for all the people in your situation with such severe illnesses. I'm sorry that you are going through this. For all I know, I could be in your shoes one day. But Government administered health care is an oxymoron.
Don't worry. Some of the cuts being considered will target nursing homes and long term care facilities, along with home health care. When they get done with those cuts, we won't have to worry about making choices.
The chronically ill and elderly won't be worth investing the care. You may find out under a single payer system that it's cheaper to tell them to take a pain pill at home than get their injection in a hospital setting.
I feel for all the people in your situation with such severe illnesses. I'm sorry that you are going through this. For all I know, I could be in your shoes one day. But Government administered health care is an oxymoron.
Specifically what cuts are you referring to in your attempt to scare this person?
As a physician and someone who has practicing physician friends in countries such as Holland, the UK, Canada, and Australia.
Need to clear up some facts.
In Holland, much fewer women get epidurals for pregnancy as compared to the United States. The reason is because of it's "accepted culture" for most Holland women to bear through the pain of labor. Yes, that's the culture there. My friend in holland's best guess is less than 30-40% of women in Holland receive epidurals for standard labor. Obviously with C-sections, they will receive mainly spinal anesthesia. Had a woman from Holland a few years ago who had 2 "natural births" She moved to Washington DC and was deliverying there. OB nurses convinced her to have epidural because it's the "american way". Holland woman had her first epidural and loved it. She wishes it had been offered to her in Holland.
In terms of the US having the 37th best infant mortality rate. You need to consider how countries count "live births". In the US all babies are counted as live births as long as it appears to have a beating heart. Even if baby lives less than 24 hours, it's still counted as a live birth. It's like Goldman Sachs (GS) saying they had a great quarter in their earnings report. However, Goldman Sachs completely left out December 2008 in their earnings. Well December 2008 would have been the worst earning month in probably the history of that company. But since the Feds let Goldman Sachs be converted to a "bank" during that month, they felt like they did not need to include a horrible month in the overall earnings.
Other countries mislead facts. If that same baby born in the US were born in another country such as the UK, that government will count that birth as a miscarriage (thus not counting against infant mortality rate). My sister is an OB/GYN. She's done a ton of research during her residency on this matter plus she's still in academic medicine.
As for the colonscopy remarks. Again many in Holland do not receive any anesthesia for it. It's a culture thing. Many of those people just deal with the pain doing the procedure.
In the US, many people receive a combination of versed/fentayl/demerol for colonscopy. Some centers in the US contract out to anesthesiologists or nurse anesthetists who administer propofol sedation for colonscopy. While versed/fentyl work well for the majority of people, guess what type of anesthesia your favorite member of Congress gets when they get a colonscopy? They get the preferred propofol with the anesthesiologist or nurse anesthetist present because their recovery time it super quick.
Sure the US health system is needs work. There are better ways to reform it.
1. Raise taxes ON EVERYONE (yes that mean people making less than $30K need to pay a little extra and people earning more than $250K need to pay a lot more) in order to help everyone. Everyone needs to chip in.
2. Allow insurance companies to compete with each other across state lines
3. Heavily subsidize medical education costs. Most students these days graduate with $150-200K in debt. This will encourage more of them to go into primary care.
4. Go to a loser pays malpractice system (this way will still keep the malpractice attorneys in the game). If they want to sue, they can't claim their is a limit on how much they can sue for. Only the loser pays attorney costs. This prevents frivolous lawsuits. I am not proposing tort reform here. Patients will still have the opportunity to have their day in court.
But at the end of the day, ask yourself if you were to get sick. Which country would you want to get sick in? Canada where you have to wait up to 6 weeks for heart bypass surgery. President Clinton or even your average Joe America doesn't have to wait that long in the United States.
How about Italy? Even that personal injury young attorney, Andrew Speaker. Yeah you may have heard of him. He's the American who contracted a resisted form of TB. But decided to go on his honeymoon in Italy. He got sick over their and the Italians wanted to perform socialized medicine on him (IE there are better ways to spend our healthcare money and let this one American with TB suffered and die here). If the US health system is so bad, why did this American suck in Italty risk everything to fly to Canada and sneak back into the US to get treatment?
Specifically what cuts are you referring to in your attempt to scare this person?
"The Democrats’ health care bill would reduce projected Medicare spending on home care by $43 billion, or 13 percent, over the next 10 years. The savings would help offset the cost of subsidizing coverage for the uninsured."
Dems agree to drop gov't-run insurance option - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091209/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul - broken link)
"Democratic senators say they have a tentative deal to drop a government-run insurance option from health care legislation. No further details were immediately available."
Dems agree to drop gov't-run insurance option - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091209/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul - broken link)
"Democratic senators say they have a tentative deal to drop a government-run insurance option from health care legislation. No further details were immediately available."
Dems reach agreement on health bill. To send it to CBO.
From Article:
(CNN) -- Liberal and moderate Democrats have reached "broad agreement" on a health care bill that will be sent to the Congressional Budget Office Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday.
Reid and the two senators who negotiated the agreement -- Charles Schumer and Mark Pryor -- would not reveal any details of the plan.
Your first paragraph is completely false. Lovely anecdotes though.
These aren't anecdotes and the information is verified by people actually living there... If someone wants to argue my facts, then give facts to refute properly.
Your first paragraph is completely false. Lovely anecdotes though.
How would you know about the facts? You're not even based in Canada or Europe. Do you have any FACTS of your own to refute your allegation?
BTW, true stories aren't anecdotes. They are based in REALITY. Reality is, UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE does NOT equal CARE. Period. The. End.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
