A hospital is a business; it's top priority is to turn a profit. Healing the sick and injured comes after that.

Unless someone can pay for non-emergency treatment, either out of their own pocket or through health insurance, they are deserving of nothing. The majority of Americans - myself included - have health insurance. No one should have a child unless they have health insurance or the financial means to pay for that child's health care. Children are not an entitlement; they are a luxury. So is health care.

jbs - while the majority of Americans do have Health Insurance, it's primarily through their employers, and not through private means. There are many jobs where health insurance is not a benefit.

I speak of these things through my own experiences.  As far as deserving, everyone is entitled to treatment in a life threatening situation.  Are you telling me that you would willingly deny someone aid knowing full and well their life is in danger?  Would you turn your back when someone asked for your help?  Are you that heartless?

I'd share my own personal story, which might give you some more insight into how I've come to these conclusions, but it's really not something I care to share w/ the public.  If you'd like to discuss this further, let me know.

Oh.. as far as children being a "luxury" - while I'd love to agree with you, and I'm a firm believer that many people shouldn't be procreating, the reality of the situation is that many children are not planned.  To deny a child healthcare is a grave injustice, no matter if their parents are idiots or not.

Read my post again. I said that unless someone can pay for non-emergency treatment, they are deserving of nothing. "Their life in danger" is not non-emergency. How many illegals go to the emergency room for prenatal treatment? Plenty. Too bad that La Migra can't show up every time that happens and drag them out by their feet.

A lot of "unplanned" children are secretly planned by the mother. Trust me.

jbs - you'd be surprised at how many situations are considered "non-emergency" when they are, in fact, life-threatening.

The mental health system is a prime example.

All I can say is I have worked hard for many years to have a job that pays most of my health care. I pay a $10 copay and up to $600 a year as a deductible. When I need to go to the doctor, I go. When I need surgery, I get it.

I have a friend who decided to keep the $200 a month his insurance would cost. He diligently put the money into an acount every month and paid for his health care out of his own pocket for over 20 years increasing the amount as the price of insurance rose. Now he has tens of thousands in his account even though he has had several major payouts (broken leg, car crash, heart trouble).

witbee - I wish I could do what your friend is doing, but my wife has a life-long medical condition which would be extremely costly without insurance.  I'm paying $400/month for the two of us, and that's with my employer paying a portion of the costs too.  You'd think that's a lot of money for insurance, but it actually pays for itself easy.  I'm lucky to have had such good options for my health plan.

What about those that are without jobs...lost their health care coverage....and are U.S. citizens....and are in need of health care...what, stand in line with the illegals and hope for the best.....how many U.S. citizens are out of work now....8 Million last I heard

Having health insurance is no protection either unless you're one of the lucky few to have a good plan. I forget the exact statistics, but there's an alarming number of people filing for bankrupcy due to health costs who had health insurance at the time those costs were incurred. Many plans will either deny coverage for a costly procedure or will heft a great deal of that cost back on to the subscriber. Very few plans have both wide-ranging coverage and stop-loss clauses (where once you pay $x out of pocket, coverage pops up to 100%). So many people think they are covered because they have health insurance. Then the unexpected happens and they find themselves having to declare bankrupcy due to the costs. I think that's what irks me most about the current state of the health care industry.

Shwaine - it goes a step further than that.  My mother has been a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist for over 32 years, and she's fed up with insurance companies.  They dictate to her how much she can charge a client, and even how often per year she can have appointments.  The insurance companies demand a medical diagnosis - how do you medically diagnose marital issues, as an example? Since she works in a private practice, every cent she gets per month helps, and there are times she has to wait 6-9 months for insurance to pay her what she's owed, and even then, it might not be the full balance.  She actually pays someone part time to follow up on all her insurance issues!

I've had bad insurance in the past. There was one that was supposed to be 100% coverage, but they were trying to deny 100% coverage to one medical injection because the doctor was "charging too much". Basically, the insurance only paid about 80% of the costs the doctor was charging and for some reason the doctor wasn't writing off the difference like they usually do. I ended up having to pay the difference to the doctor (who was threatening to send me to collections over an insurance issue, that irked me too) while also trying to get the insurance to work the issue out with the doctor. Over a year later, I got a check in the mail reimbursing me for most of what I had to pay to the doctor. I decided not to deal with that insurer or that doctor in the future. Both had showed their bad side over the issue.

Wasn't Universal Healthcare a huge disaster in Canada? Mandatory government-funded healthcare. That would be one way to control the population. People would be dying left and right waiting for authorization for treatment. You think HMOs suck? Try relying on a government controlled HMO.........  OMG 

Actually, I know a few Canadians and they seem to think their healthcare system is much better than ours..

Ours, meaning? 

Do you think that it should be manditory or optional?

Ours, meaning the U.S. healthcare system.

A recent study proved that the majority of surgical mistakes were made by doctors who had been working more than one shift in a row with no break.  As a parallel, truck drivers caused more accidents when they had been driving for more than 11 hours straight.  New laws make it illegal for a truck driver to work for more than 11 hours, and they must have a 10 hour break (if I remember correctly.. it's either 10.. or 8 hours..).  I think doctors should have the same limitations put on them, because I have a feeling that errors would go down, which would in turn lower malpractice insurance needs.

To answer your question about whether I think we should have mandatory Universal Healthcare or not.. I honestly am on the fence at the moment.  I think the current system is beyond screwed, but I don't know if the average American mentality could handle such an alien concept.  What it really boils down to is how you define the purpose of our government?  I think another question to ask is - why would we ever want to deny someone the right to seek medical treatment without the fear of not knowing how to pay for it? 

So.. are we going to reform everything so that healthcare is affordable to all? 

These are all questions I continue to ponder.. I wish I had the answers..

I agree that the current healthcare system is broken. But, I would seriously be terrified of a manditory government run system. Can you honestly say that you trust the government with your life? Can you imagine how many people would sue the government for wrongful death because they couldn't get financial approval for a procedure? Years ago, I had Kaiser Ins. Everything had to be pre-authorized and it was never done in a timely manner. I imagine the government would be much worse....

I wish I had the answers, too.... 

Can you honestly say that you trust the government with your life?

We somehow do that every day as it is, don't we?

We somehow do that every day as it is, don't we?

We do to a certain extent. But, I mean do you trust them to make medical decisions that are in your best interest? Do you want them to be in control / dictate whether you can have, say, a kidney transplant that you need? Or a certain medication that your doctor prescribes? You may be a healthy person. But, there are many who need extensive medical care. I don't see how the government could possibly be able to afford care for every single person here...

Well, if we change the way in which we're taxed from a income tax to a flat tax, I have a feeling it'd be a lot easier to afford healthcare for everyone.

As far as trusting medical decisions that are in one's best interest - I wish insurance companies had our best interests in mind.. but they don't.

Were Teddy K to have been under system in UK or Sweden, he would have waited a year to have this operation.

Unless....... of course, he had money........ then he might have had it within a few weeks.

The key determinanative is, however, research and develeopment will fall to the wayside.

In 10 years we will have  "experts" sitting around going  "what went wrong"  (if we go to universal  "free" health care for all)

The marketplace works............... even the politiburu found out about that........

Chico, I don't doubt that the marketplace works.. but just like with everything, it favors those with the gold. 

FSG -- there are too many lobbys in place (both D and R) to ever effect a flat tax.

Period....End of story  (just consider RE lobby and Mort Int Deduction -- and thats just the tip of proverbial iceburg)

Even so, to make your scenario a truism --- the flat tax rate would have to be 17% no 23% no wait........ 33%

I have lived under that kind of  "minimal" taxation rate......... it encourages ......... DON'T WORK....... GET ON GRAVY TRAIN......

It does............. I've watched it......

Forget the gravy train.. as you stated in another blog, unless you've got a medical reason, get off your duff and work!

Excellent points Chico, as always!

Those with money would still be able to "buy" better health care than those without money, which is exactly what the Dems want to stop...

FSG -- Keep on with your inquisitive nature, energy, willingness to learn from elders (or at least more experienced) and you will have said  "gold"........

Then you can be one of those who decides how it's doled........

That is where the rub comes in........ capiche?

I was in NHS in UK......... a nobody (as today)

When I found out they paid for glasses, well, howdy......... I got me as many as NHS would allow (for future usage of coors)

Turned out they were (due to their  "backward" and retro appearance) quite the deal in the U.S. in years hence.

Point being ...... I didn't need all those glasses....... and just how many do you think will do the same? And before Libtards jump, this is but a true story, boiled down to a mataphor..... to evidence what happens with supposed   "free health care".........

The UK became bankrupt and Sweden is having severe problems...........

OK...... libtards will now inveigh with  "well you should have been limited in the number of glasses you could have to what you need......"      See what I mean??????

Chico - I'm glad that you realize that I am, indeed willing to learn, even when I have a strong opinion.

However, I do still believe that every U.S. citizen should be entitled to equality when it comes to their health.  I'm not sure how we can do it, but it needs to be done, nonetheless.

If you work --

You get access to health care

Its very simple really

If you cannot work, you prove you are really incapable .......not just a layabout

Yes........ it IS love..... TOUGH LOVE!

Well.. the one thing I have against that, Chico, is that my wife was diagnosed with a certain illness last year, and she's currently not working due to said illness.  She did nothing to deserve this, and I think it would be unfair to deny her medical aid when she needs it.  Luckily my insurance covers everything, but what if we hadn't been married and she was still a student?

I said there would be exceptions made Fla........

Believe me I could give you personal examples

Like the old snake oil peddler in Little Big Man, I've lost body parts over the years like you wouldn't believe.

But I keep on ticking....... and kicking

Work...... good honest hard productive work..... will set you free.... trust me.....

I've been written off more times than a used piece a ground with acutrements affixed thereto

But I keep on truckin.......... much to the chagrin and general malais of the Libtards........... ;-)

Under Universal Health Care would we be able to go outside our state to pick a special team to operate as Ted Kennedy did?    Would all citizens have access to the top docs?

Or would we have to take a number and hope it came up before our last number was up?

Nancy - your points are well noted.

What if you had the option to make those decisions for a specific fee?

If we had those options, then we'd be back where we are.  People with few resources would have to settle for the medical care avaliable.   They might not be bankrupt but they still would have not have access to top notch doctors. Those WITH resources would go to the top notch doctors. 

The fact is, patients getting care at KMC on Medi-Cal have access to the best doctors in this area since it's a teaching hospital.

Good point about being back to where were started.

All rightly then.  TBC, were you fiddlin' around with the blog again?  A whold section of posts disappeared and now it's back  I know I'm getting senile but I ain't there YET.

What most people posting on this blog fail to understand regarding the selection of doctors for a specific procedure is that in the current American world of insurance care you don't get these choices today. If you belong to an HMO, the HMO gives you a list to choose from. The list is culled from doctors who work for the HMO, or have a contract with the HMO. No one, except the absolutely most wealthy gets choices for the top medical practioners in this country. All this support for a reality that does not exist boggles my mind. And the talks of how long you have to wait in certain countries are bogus if you actually do a little research.

Why is this the only industrialized nation without universal care? Why are we the only nation where a family can be wiped out financially over an accident or illness? Why are you so afraid of having everyone being covered? If the rest of the world has figured out how to do it, why can't we? It breaks my heart to read such ignorant and self serving drivel defend our current system that only rewards giant insurance and pharmaceutical companies. On your next visit to meet with a doctor or their assistant ask some of the staff on hand how they like their medical coverage. You might be surprised that even the people treating you don't get treated with much love when it comes to health care.

Adam - good point, which is why I pay extra for a PPO where all decisions are mine.  I'm one of the lucky ones.

Adam, I ask this in all sincerity.  Under UMC who decides which doctor you get to see?  We all know that some are more qualified than others so if we all have the same opportunities, who gets to have the top doctors?  Is it just the luck of the draw?

I'd imagine access to the top doctors will be very similar to the way it is now: either you're rich/famous enough to draw the doctor in or your case is interesting enough to draw the doctor in.

Nancy, there are lots of differing approaches that other nations have taken to allow patients to see doctors on a personal choice basis. There was an excellent show on PBS called Sick Around The World that looked at five countries and their approach to universal coverage. In Japan the costs for medical care and  drugs are tightly controlled by the government, but doctors and hospitals operate as private businesses or practices. High tech imaging procedures cost a fraction in Japan compared to what Americans pay for the same image result. Hospital stays are cheap, and I mean cheap in Japan. A private room in a modern hospital runs under $100. Once again there is tight government oversight on what can be charged for the stay.

Germany has a health insurance medical coverage plan that has not changed much since it was devised by Otto Von Bismarck in the 19th century as a means to prevent socialism and the unions from overtaking Germany. People pay a percentage of cost based based on their ability to pay. There is government regulation but not nearly as controlled as in Japan. Premiums are calculated in a progressive billing manner very similar to how our progressive tax schedule works. Higher earnings translate to a higher percentage  of social obligation regarding premiums. Everyone living within the nation's boundary, whether a citizen or not is fully covered in Germany.

Don't take my word for it, go to www.pbs.org and check it out.

Religion and religious idealogy are not stakeholders in public policy regarding health in the five nations that were focused on. As a point of interest, only America seems to have muddied the waters of health care with religous viewpoints. This might be a partial explanation as to why too many Americans receive the short end of  the health care stick.

Adam..would profit have anything to do with the sorry state of US health care? 

Adam, I'm not sure what you mean about religion playing a part in health care.

Oh, Nancy, come on. I'm sure you can think of a couple of medical procedures, drugs and options where religion has been injected into our health policy debate and structure. Try watching the Frontline piece, Sick Around The World.

There's also all the hospitals operated by Catholics. I seem to recall the employees of one such hospital group had to sue just to get birth control covered under the medical insurance. Funny thing is, for women with certain reproductive disorders, birth control actually is used medically to preserve the capacity to have children in the future by limiting the damage the disorder does to the reproductive system. If the religious had their way, all those women with such disorders would be denied birth control and be rendered infertile. I'm sure they'd discount it as "God's will" though.

 India: Wal-Mart's Drug Connection

In 2003, a new kind of "drugstore" appeared across America, promoting cheaper prescription drugs from Canada. Instead of pills, these stores had fax machines and computers that could process orders from senior citizens in the U.S. desperately seeking lower cost drugs.

But federal and state regulators stepped in to interrupt the supply chain. "To some extent, we're caught in the middle of a problem that is not our responsibility, which is drug prices. Our responsibility is safety," a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official, told USA Today. The FDA issued warning letters to these storefront pharmacies, saying importing Canadian drugs violated federal law. At the time, at least one million Americans were sourcing their medications from Canada. More than $1 billion in product was being imported from Canadian suppliers. The FDA ruled that anyone enabling U.S. citizens to buy drugs from other countries was violating federal law. Storefront owners countered that they were not violating the law, because they were not dispensing drugs -- just helping customers with paperwork.

The pharmaceutical industry was largely seen as driving the FDA to be more aggressive on cross-border imports, because of the potential loss of profits

Beginning January 1, 2006, the entire drug importation issue changed dramatically with the implementation of Medicare Part D by Congress. Talk of Canadian imports all but disappeared from the media. Within 9 months of the creation of Medicare's new drug program, Wal-Mart announced that it would begin selling in the Tampa, Florida trade area, a month's supply from a list of 150 generic drugs for $4 each. One industry analyst told the NewsHour that Wal-Mart's drugs "come from all over the world. They're U.S. manufacturers, Israeli and Indian manufacturers. They have a choice of where to buy these drugs. They are the lower cost drugs in the system today, and that's part of the reason why they're able to price them at this low price point." Wal-Mart was buying drugs directly from manufacturers.

By the end of April of 2007, Planet Retail was reporting that Wal-Mart was "in advanced talks" with the largest Indian pharmaceutical exporting companies -- unknown to most Americans -- like Ranbaxy, Dr. Reddy's Labs, Cipla, Lupin and Sun Pharma. In March of 2003, the Los Angeles Business Journal reported that Cipla and Ranbaxy had 81 applications before the FDA to sell generic drugs in the United States. The companies were taking advantage of India's low labor costs and highly-skilled work force to expand outside their home base. Ranbaxy had challenged the patents on blockbuster drugs such as Pfizer's Lipitor and AstraZeneca's Nexium. A U.S. district court ruled in favor of Pfizer, but Ranbaxy appealed the decision. Even if it ends up losing the challenge, Ranbaxy will be the only generic manufacturer for six months after the patent expires, because under FDA law, the first company to file a challenge on a patent has six-month exclusivity rights, during which time the generic price can be as high as 80% of the original drug. This position could be worth billions to Ranbaxy.

About 14.3% of unapproved medicines entering the US market come from India, according to a group called GS1, a global organization "dedicated to the design and implementation of global standards" to improve the efficiency of supply chains globally. GS1 is described as a joint industry-Government initiative to bring international best practices into India.

when consumers buy their drugs at Wal-Mart, the retailer uses that money to buy more products from India, in the same way they buy more clothing or toys from China. Once again, the U.S. takes what other countries make. Wal-Mart's sourcing of drugs from foreign countries exacerbates our unprecedented foreign trade imbalance.

Ironically, the same federal government that hassled senior citizens over importing small quantities of drugs from Canada, now seems content to allow Wal-Mart to import billions of dollars annually worth of Indian drugs to enhance the retailer's bottom line. The Indian drug companies have found a generic drug niche to fill, and they are using their poorly-paid workforce and less than stringent regulatory requirements to satisfy America's growing need for pills. Unlike clothing or toys---there is no label on the pill that says "made in India."

http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

HALLELUJAH to this post.  I'm 22, and have several medical complications due to a long-term eating disorder...and what do the insurance companies do?  DENY ME!  So now I pay out of pocket for every medical visit ($70 weekly + $30 labs), psych visit (250$ bi-weekly), therapist appointments ($70/appointment), and medications (250$ monthly)!  Luckily, my husband has a great job to support us, but otherwise, I would be screwed.  Not only that, but my parents (God bless them) have racked up over 500k in treatment centre bills, and we have paid over 20k in hospital bills; whereas, one of my Canadian peers received 1 full year of treatment for anorexia nervosa for FREE through the Canadian universal healthcare system.  If only I could press a stop button on the eating disorder, but it's simply not that easy.  

The medical clinics aren't much better- they are RUN by the insurance companies, and if you're uninsured, well, docs look at you differently.  Sigh.  THANK YOU for this post.  Hopefully, one day things will change, eh?

Overall, I think the health care system in Canada is a pretty good system. It has some problems (i.e. access to specialists) but I think it's much better than the American system if you don't have a good  healthcare plan. I noticed that there is more of a focus on preventive medicine over there.

Whether it was propaganda or not, I was also pretty impressed with the little of Cuba's healthcare system I saw in Sicko.

America is the only industrialized nation in the world that does not have a government sponsored, single payer health system.
And it is The LEAST accessible. MOST Expensive . Ranked only 37th in level of care...From:

 http://www.photius.com/rank...

The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems. 
Source: WHO World Health Report - See also Spreadsheet Details (731kb)

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

Rank Country 

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra

34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba

Question?      So it would appear the WHO assessment not only takes into account quality and accessibility, but fairness of financial contribution. Fair is not an objective term. Is taxing higher income individuals more than lower income individuals for the same health care fair?

TK continues:

According to Adam Smith, ‘Wealth of Nations’. 

Yes, It is in fact a part of a system of the, ‘Redistribution of Wealth’. A necessary requirement for Capitalism to succeed. 

Far right Conservatives. Are in indeed some of the worst Adam Smith Capitalists in the World.. (translates to selfish )

Smith Says:

Before I enter upon the examination of particular taxes, it is necessary to premise the four following maxims with regard to taxes in general. 

V.2.24 
I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation. Every tax, it must be observed once for all, which falls finally upon one only of the three sorts of revenue above mentioned, is necessarily unequal in so far as it does not affect the other two. In the following examination of different taxes I shall seldom take much further notice of this sort of inequality, but shall, in most cases, confine my observations to that inequality which is occasioned by a particular tax falling unequally even upon that particular sort of private revenue which is affected by it. 
 

TK Continues:
 

Just because life is not fair. Does not mean the concept of fairness is devoid of value..

The saying does not have anything to do with:

A struggle to attain fairness. A quest to the mountain top. .

It simple means. You don’t always get to win.. 

But then I suppose. There is nothing unfair about that…

Fair is what the Democratic Republic says it is.. In this society. Fair is Walnuts. . Go to the mountains.. Squirrel away your pecans. They are no good in a walnut society..
 

So much is made of what detractors would like to call a socialized medical system.. How it would be a step toward a loss of freedom in America..

The goal is not a socialized medical system but rather a single payer system like those used all over the world. How fragile can your freedoms be. If they can vaporize in the presence of good health care.. Of course we can argue the straw man ..
 

Ideology.

 

TK continues…

Absolute Freedom does exist. It is just not one that you will endure or endorse.... 

It’s called Isolation.

 

If your freedom is so absolute. How can you express it without imposing un-freedom on others?? Can you affect your own ends. Without affecting my ends?

What if you fail in your quest to your ends. Is any obligation imposed on me? The fact that I must, or must not, watch you struggle? Should it re-enforce my freedom. 

Make me laugh. Make me sad? If it makes me do anything.. Am I really free? 

I most certainly do not recognize any absolute about a freedom such as that..

The fact that there must be winners and losers. Does not mean the process is unfair.

It is the methods used to determine the winners and losers that determines the fairness..

Now if you don’t like the process. Then you are free to go or stay.. Just cause no harm..

Better to have one choice in health care…..

Than, to not have a choice, because you are excluded.