Health Care Reform

[Guest Benjamin Franklin]

Anyway, returning to the Alamo. So it's not just a car rental firm? Yup, you had it about right there CA, I got it all from films, or rather popular reaction to films that had John Wayne and Richard Widmark fending off Santa Anna's army almost singlehandedly after the vast majority of potential defenders had shuffled off home when Travis drew the line in the sand. Yup, I should have checked, but that interesting link you gave does show that there was a real mish mash of folks and 3o-odd Europeans was not a bad contribution.

 

Funnily enough (and here I risk getting shot down again) the Texan resistance to big government in Mexico was partly inspired by a desire to keep slaves in contravention of Mexico's abolition of slaves. So it's probably best to qualify the historic US obsession with personal freedom. In this case it included the freedom to subjugate another race as well as the freedom to bear arms, hunt turkeys,

, nuke any passing ayatollah or kill a few gooks or

. One wonders why more folks don't

[deadsox 892]

Thank you CarolAnn for that highly articulate and insightful post. I must confess to not knowing the ins and outs of the current system and the proposed one.

 

My argument with Deadsox is that he clearly doesn't think that those who can't afford to pay for heath care under the current system should get any if it means it gets paid for with taxes paid by him.

Doesn't make him a very likeable chap in my eyes because it suggests he isn't exactly concerned with the wellbeing of his fellow men. Except to the extent that they shouldn't have to pay taxes for things he doesn't agree with.

 

Well, nap we can agree on one thing, CarolAnn's post was articulate and insightful. As long as you're confessing, why don't you also confess to not knowing me at all. I know all this cyber-babble is fun and it's great to exchange opinions with people all over the world, but I'm old fashioned enough to believe that one shouldn't presume to know a man until you've had a chance to look into his eyes. or at least carefully read what he's written. I certainly am concerned with my fellow man. Like many liberals (am I assuming too much here?) you equate opposition to a brainless system to indifference for the poor. I'm convinced, like CarolAnn, that we can do it better. In spite of what you may think, I'm not some Dickensian mill owner who's kicking widows and orphans to the curb. Not likable in your eyes? I'll take that as a compliment.

The last time I heard that kind of an argument, it came from none lesser than Banshees Scream: "Pay no attention to the impression you have gained of me, get to know me properly and you'll see what a lovely guy I am"

Perhaps if, like CarolAnn, you came up with a constructive idea for helping people with no health insurance instead of whinging about how your taxes are getting wasted on the undeserving (that is in any case the message which comes over, and I do take the trouble to read your posts carefully) you might come over in a more sympathetic light. If you are at all interested in doing so.

 

OK, nap, please quote from the post where I say that my "taxes are getting wasted on on the undeserving". I'd really like to see it. Your reference to BS is illustrative of my point. You hear someone who appears to have a conservative opinion and you immediately ascribe to him every small minded or selfish thing you've ever heard from a conservative. As a matter of fact, I hold a lot of opinions that would have me drummed out of any conservative organization. I don't select my opinions on dogma, but on what works well and what doesn't. I support a system that takes care of everyone but it's a complicated issue and I'm not ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[deadsox 892]

But let's get ontopic. Everyone who's in their right minds opposes a wholesale government taking over. The question is whether you should interpret proposals like Obama's on health care as a further step to that disastrous quasi-communist or quasi-fascist omnipotent state. You obviously do, I clearly don't - which more or less reflects the mainstream American and European ways of observing governmental actions. My argument was that it's a paranoid way of looking at your government, while many of your compatriots tend to be so optimistic about your system. That optimism instigated the neo-conservative drivel that led your army to Afghanistan and Iraq. Thát was my point, though I agree with you that my post could be read easily in such a way that I seemed to contradict myself. Every system has its shortcomings, but is that a reason to mistrust everything that your system brings forth? You could call me naive, but I don't believe so. Living in a modern society includes handing over some of your freedom to 'the state', there's nothing for it. Even in the Netherlands - where issues like these have never been discussed so fiercely on a principal level as in the United States - people do, of course, differ in their willingness to give the state more power. But in general, we trust the institutions that shield us from abuse by the state, and we have every reason to do so. It never lead my country to totalitarian rule, though I agree that some other examples proved that it could well have been otherwise. Trusting your government does not imply that you shouldn't be critical or watchful, it means that you do not mistrust everything it comes up with, especially not if it would clearly solve existing problems that need to be fixed. And you and I do agree that those problems exist, don't we?

 

We do agree on that Tomb Raider and it's a good place to start a discussion. I don't think that I'm paranoid of big government, just "critical and watchful". You are right that in order for government to perform certain functions, we have to hand over a bit of our freedom. Just how much and for what purpose are debatable points. No, I don't want or expect you to shut up, I enjoy the discussions. I would appreciate it if you and others didn't ascribe opinions to me that I don't endorse. Fair enough?

[CarolAnn 925]

Anyway, returning to the Alamo. So it's not just a car rental firm? Yup, you had it about right there CA, I got it all from films, or rather popular reaction to films that had John Wayne and Richard Widmark fending off Santa Anna's army almost singlehandedly after the vast majority of potential defenders had shuffled off home when Travis drew the line in the sand. Yup, I should have checked, but that interesting link you gave does show that there was a real mish mash of folks and 3o-odd Europeans was not a bad contribution.

 

Funnily enough (and here I risk getting shot down again) the Texan resistance to big government in Mexico was partly inspired by a desire to keep slaves in contravention of Mexico's abolition of slaves. So it's probably best to qualify the historic US obsession with personal freedom. In this case it included the freedom to subjugate another race as well as the freedom to bear arms, hunt turkeys,

, nuke any passing ayatollah or kill a few gooks or

. One wonders why more folks don't

 

It is very true that some Texans wanted to keep slaves. In 1830, Mexican President Bustamante passed several laws, one of which rescinded the property tax 10-year exemption for immigrants from the US. The problem with that was that immigrants vastly outnumbered native born Texans (who were Mexicans, of course) and when coupled with the Mexican insistence on the prohibition of slavery it caused all kinds of problems. Texas revolted against Mexico and existed as an independent nation, where slavery was legal, for almost 10 years.

 

Texas had a crushing debt load, though, so annexation by the United States was desirable (and always was Sam Houston's goal). Texas was brought into the United States as a slave state under a slightly unusual process, leading some fringe elements to maintain that Texas is still a Republic. Needless to say they are generally seen as fruitcakes.

 

Looking even farther back, though, the American Civil War was pretty much set up by a compromise reached in the creation of the Declaration of Independence. If Jefferson, Adams, and you yourself had not given in to Edward Rutledge and the Southern Delegation, slavery would not have existed in the United States from the beginning. However, the Southern delegation would have sided with Great Britain and you never would have had a United States, so pragmatism won out there. You and all the others in the Second Continental Congress signed a hypocritical document.

 

The Civil War issue of states' rights included several issues, but none as divisive or morally charged as slavery. The end result was 650K+ dead due to a compromise made almost 100 years previously. Ironically, a document which outlined the way in which it was perceived Great Britain had maltreated the Americans also allowed the Americans to mistreat an entire race of people.

 

Over the next 60 years or so, the Declaration of Independence would arise in debate regarding the Missouri Compromise and Kansas-Nebraska Act, culminating in Lincoln's debates with Stephen Douglas regarding the meaning of "created equal."

[Estuarian Float 93]

Im itching to get out of America! And I'm 16 at a catholic high school which makes it so much worse. I cant say Im proud of spending half my teen years in the '00s. By what I see, most Americans believe it is immoral to disobey the government. Is Spain nice?

 

Getting out of the Catholic high school would probably suffice. They tend to be a bubble. Spain is a predominantly Catholic nation, by the way.

 

You need to define what you mean to "disobey the government." Kill someone? Yes, that is wrong. Protest the government's decisions and positions? Plenty of people do that all the time. I spent most of the last administration doing that.

 

You have no control about what decade you grow up in, so there is no need to be ashamed or proud of that. I finished raising my kids in the last decade and I think it was better than the 1980's, which is when I came of age.

 

Yea I knew about Spain's religions. And thats not what I meant. I mean for example, do you refrain from murdering someone in fear of the government or do you refrain because you know it wont get you anywhere better. Its just America's allegiance to these people in DC that scares me. I never believed that having leaders would make for a successful "team". If we just cut off this system, I believe everyone could live the life they want. But they have everyone spellbound, implying things like "money is necessary for a good life" and "if you dont listen to us, American Airlines will come and attack your hometown."

 

I am impressed by your level of thought at 16 - are you at a Jesuit school?

 

I do a lot of thinking and daydreaming during my classes. Thats what Ive always spent my class time doing. And I'll spend my whole life pursuing that dream of absolute freedom. I'm committed, I just had a class lesson a month ago about Moses and his 40 years finding the land of milk and honey. It made me think about how insignificant my life is and I could spend my entire life looking for freedom. Not necessarily a far off land, but having a social resolution in any land.

[Tomb raider 9]

You obviously do, I clearly don't - which more or less reflects the mainstream American and European ways of observing governmental actions. My argument was that it's a paranoid way of looking at your government, while many of your compatriots tend to be so optimistic about your system. That optimism instigated the neo-conservative drivel that led your army to Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

I think this is where the communication breaks down.

 

As I said to EST.1993, the American view of centralized government is strongly colored by our beginnings as a country. Our underpinnings (the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) were written by men who threw off the most powerful government in the world at that time. We tend to see government as a necessary evil - something that needs to handle issues of the country as a whole. However, the Constitution clearly states that all rights and responsibilities not explicitly assigned to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved to the states. This was a defense to the federal government gaining too much power and a clear attempt to keep power and influence at the local level.

 

Amending the Constitution is fiendishly difficult as well:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

 

A weaker centralized government and more powerful local government is our system.

 

As far as the neo-conservative drivel of the last administration, we are as susceptible as anyone else to reactionary behavior. Had the World Trade Centers not been destroyed, I doubt Bush and his crew would have had any lasting impact on the world. It's more a case of being in the right place at the right time than anything else.

 

I agree with you that many of the problems in discussions like these between Americans and Europeans are caused by cultural differences that are rooted in the different tracks of our history. It certainly shaped your system quite uniquely, but I think there's more to it. Americans tend to cultivate and idolize their history far more than Europeans do. For example, the Netherlands too grew out of a revolution against a world power - the sixteenth century uprising against Spain. It influenced not only the course of history, but also several Dutch concepts, especially our view on religion and religious freedom - as the Dutch revolt was widely supposed to have been inspired by the Protestant reformation against the Catholic church. The problem is, that more and more historians have come to consider this as a myth. In the wider perspective of historic events, religion have always seemed to play a very important part, but if an event is thoroughly evaluated by itself, historic actors always turn out to have been driven by far more mundane motives. In fact: idolizing the Dutch Revolt as a 'war of religion' had been little more than an instrument of emancipating protestant groups in the late nineteenth century to envoke a sense of belonging to that particular group. It quickly found its way into the history books and generations of school children have been taught to believe it since.

 

I reckon that the American way of idolizing its history is more or less comparable to this. Your ancestors certainly fought a war of liberation against an oppressor, but you'll find their motives far less elevated than many history books would want you to believe. In the end it always comes down to power, economic motives and the desire to be let alone. Admittedly, all these motives hold in them some higher ideal of freedom and selfdetermination, but that's not at all uniquely American. The debate always comes down to the founding documents, which are generally believed to hold a timeless, unquestionable truth. In my opinion, even those documents - widely considered the highlight of enlightenment thinking, that constituted a main influence for the French Revolution and thereby the entire European history - have been used in a cunning campaign of making all those diverse inhabitants of the North-American continent into civilians that were prepared to subject themselves to state sovereignty, by making them worshippers of a common glorified path of history. Is that bad? No, of course not. A certain amount of patriotism and idolizing heroes of the past has always been necessary to strengthen the emerging nation states. In fact, the flag, the anthem or (in our case) the monarchy nowadays all serve that very same purpose, and nothing more.

 

My point is, that pointing to the constitution or the declaration of indepence for proving your argument, might sound convincing to any American, but to foreigners it does not. Of course, reforming your health care, restricting the level of federal influence or (for example) your stand on possession of arms are exclusively internal matters, and none of my concern. If you choose to debate issues like this with a European, however, you should know that defending your position by referring to your 'constitutional right' or by calling anything 'typically American' won't be enough to convince anyone.

[Tomb raider 9]

We do agree on that Tomb Raider and it's a good place to start a discussion. I don't think that I'm paranoid of big government, just "critical and watchful". You are right that in order for government to perform certain functions, we have to hand over a bit of our freedom. Just how much and for what purpose are debatable points. No, I don't want or expect you to shut up, I enjoy the discussions. I would appreciate it if you and others didn't ascribe opinions to me that I don't endorse. Fair enough?

 

Of course! And feel free to alter our impression of you, whenever you feel we're mistaken. (There's work to be done with NAP, I reckon... )

[CarolAnn 925]

I agree with you that many of the problems in discussions like these between Americans and Europeans are caused by cultural differences that are rooted in the different tracks of our history. It certainly shaped your system quite uniquely, but I think there's more to it. Americans tend to cultivate and idolize their history far more than Europeans do. For example, the Netherlands too grew out of a revolution against a world power - the sixteenth century uprising against Spain. It influenced not only the course of history, but also several Dutch concepts, especially our view on religion and religious freedom - as the Dutch revolt was widely supposed to have been inspired by the Protestant reformation against the Catholic church. The problem is, that more and more historians have come to consider this as a myth. In the wider perspective of historic events, religion have always seemed to play a very important part, but if an event is thoroughly evaluated by itself, historic actors always turn out to have been driven by far more mundane motives. In fact: idolizing the Dutch Revolt as a 'war of religion' had been little more than an instrument of emancipating protestant groups in the late nineteenth century to envoke a sense of belonging to that particular group. It quickly found its way into the history books and generations of school children have been taught to believe it since.

 

I reckon that the American way of idolizing its history is more or less comparable to this. Your ancestors certainly fought a war of liberation against an oppressor, but you'll find their motives far less elevated than many history books would want you to believe. In the end it always comes down to power, economic motives and the desire to be let alone. Admittedly, all these motives hold in them some higher ideal of freedom and selfdetermination, but that's not at all uniquely American. The debate always comes down to the founding documents, which are generally believed to hold a timeless, unquestionable truth. In my opinion, even those documents - widely considered the highlight of enlightenment thinking, that constituted a main influence for the French Revolution and thereby the entire European history - have been used in a cunning campaign of making all those diverse inhabitants of the North-American continent into civilians that were prepared to subject themselves to state sovereignty, by making them worshippers of a common glorified path of history. Is that bad? No, of course not. A certain amount of patriotism and idolizing heroes of the past has always been necessary to strengthen the emerging nation states. In fact, the flag, the anthem or (in our case) the monarchy nowadays all serve that very same purpose, and nothing more.

 

My point is, that pointing to the constitution or the declaration of indepence for proving your argument, might sound convincing to any American, but to foreigners it does not. Of course, reforming your health care, restricting the level of federal influence or (for example) your stand on possession of arms are exclusively internal matters, and none of my concern. If you choose to debate issues like this with a European, however, you should know that defending your position by referring to your 'constitutional right' or by calling anything 'typically American' won't be enough to convince anyone.

 

It is patently clear to anyone who reads an American History book that the main motivation of the founders was money. The British government was taxing the life out of the colonies and wasn't allowing the colonies any effective representation in Parliament. The need to put power in the hands of the states rather than in a centralized federal government is a direct offshoot of that taxation. Of course, at the time there were 13 small states as opposed to 50. There was no highbrowed motivation for the American Revolution, except possibly as an addon.

 

Despite this, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence outline what America is and are central to our identity as a country. If a European can't see or attempt to understand, or even simply accept it as a given, then there is little purpose in continuing to discuss anything. The issue of health care reform in the US - and the position of people like Deadsox - directly hinges on the Constitution and its assurance of states' rights as well as personal rights.

 

This country was begun by people who felt they had no rights under British rule so they made sure to establish them. The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are even called the Bill of Rights. We have, as a country, focused on individual rights, sometimes to our detriment, but it is also that focus that has helped to make this country so attractive to many people who have striven to come here to live.

 

Whether anyone outside the US sees this focus as right or wrong is really not germane to the issue. It is what it is, and it isn't going to change within my lifetime.

[Tomb raider 9]

(...)

 

Despite this, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence outline what America is and are central to our identity as a country. If a European can't see or attempt to understand, or even simply accept it as a given, then there is little purpose in continuing to discuss anything. The issue of health care reform in the US - and the position of people like Deadsox - directly hinges on the Constitution and its assurance of states' rights as well as personal rights.

 

(...)

 

Whether anyone outside the US sees this focus as right or wrong is really not germane to the issue. It is what it is, and it isn't going to change within my lifetime.

 

You're probably right, though it was not exactly wat I meant. I was talking about it the other way round: Americans who should think twice if they are trying to convince European debating partners by pointing blankly to their constitution. The other side of it is, that Europeans should realize the power of this argument to an American. That was what I meant with cultural differences in the first line of my post. but you're right that it would be fruitless and pointless to try and ignore them.

[deadsox 892]

You are correct, Tomb Raider. When Americans point to the Constitution in an argument, it is (or should be) with each other because when someone wants to make a law that we disagree with, we can say that it transgresses the ultimate premise of our government. If we want to defend the inherent efficacy of a principle (like the right to keep and bear arms, e.g.) we must and should argue it on its own merits, that is to say, why it is an overall beneficial concept.

[Tuber Mirum 120]

If and why.

 

On rereading deadsox' initial post in this thread I have come to the conclusion that I am doing him an injustice. I apologise for this. His description of the functions of government are unlikely to find dissent in many quarters.

 

However the issue of universal health care is a moral one which transcends the tenets of any country's constitution written or otherwise. And the argument for governmental non interference falls flat when we consider the alternatives. The principal function of a government is to protect its citizens. The function of a corporation is to provide as little as possible as expensively as possible in order to gain maximised profits for its shareholders.

Even given that a government is much more likely to be incompetent than a corporation, their goals are so diametrically opposed that the question of which better to trust becomes superfluous.

 

And bearing in mind the large chunk of your health payments which now go towards profit, the potential inefficciency of a nationalised system is still unlikely to result in a worse or more expensive service than currently.

[deadsox 892]

If and why.

 

On rereading deadsox' initial post in this thread I have come to the conclusion that I am doing him an injustice. I apologise for this. His description of the functions of government are unlikely to find dissent in many quarters.

 

However the issue of universal health care is a moral one which transcends the tenets of any country's constitution written or otherwise. And the argument for governmental non interference falls flat when we consider the alternatives. The principal function of a government is to protect its citizens. The function of a corporation is to provide as little as possible as expensively as possible in order to gain maximised profits for its shareholders.

Even given that a government is much more likely to be incompetent than a corporation, their goals are so diametrically opposed that the question of which better to trust becomes superfluous.

 

And bearing in mind the large chunk of your health payments which now go towards profit, the potential inefficciency of a nationalised system is still unlikely to result in a worse or more expensive service than currently.

 

What it comes down to for me is what is the proper function of each institution, government and private industry as well as what is most efficient. Private industry has proven (to me at least) that it is far more efficient than government, precisely because it functions on a profit margin. The inherent problem with private industry is that by its very nature it is rapacious and would extract unfair profits from consumers. Here is where government should come in. It is completely within the proper purview of government to regulate private industry and prevent monopolization and collusion to cheat and defraud consumers. I suggest that if each does its proper function, we would be better off. Of course, government has failed to protect consumers in the US throughout the Clinton and Bush administrations by allowing too many mergers of big companies and it is well documented that many big corporations buy influence from politicians of all stripes to turn a blind eye to their excesses. I believe that much of the economic catastrophe of 2009 was because corporations (especially banks) were allowed to get too big (hence the bailout phrase "they're too big to let fail"). I still believe that private industry with proper government regulation is the right course.

[CarolAnn 925]

If we want to defend the inherent efficacy of a principle (like the right to keep and bear arms, e.g.) we must and should argue it on its own merits, that is to say, why it is an overall beneficial concept.

 

And then we can argue about that damn comma....

[Josco 48]

If and why.

 

On rereading deadsox' initial post in this thread I have come to the conclusion that I am doing him an injustice. I apologise for this. His description of the functions of government are unlikely to find dissent in many quarters.

 

However the issue of universal health care is a moral one which transcends the tenets of any country's constitution written or otherwise. And the argument for governmental non interference falls flat when we consider the alternatives. The principal function of a government is to protect its citizens. The function of a corporation is to provide as little as possible as expensively as possible in order to gain maximised profits for its shareholders.

Even given that a government is much more likely to be incompetent than a corporation, their goals are so diametrically opposed that the question of which better to trust becomes superfluous.

 

And bearing in mind the large chunk of your health payments which now go towards profit, the potential inefficciency of a nationalised system is still unlikely to result in a worse or more expensive service than currently.

Have to disagree I'm afraid. The ultimate desire of any government is to have a malleable, compliant and controlled population. Replace population for customer and there you have any large corporations tenet. I don't really trust either, but with a corporation you can always vote with your feet. With a government you not only have to wait until they allow a vote, but your vote is also reliant on a major proportion of other voters agreeing with you.

 

Besides, any health service that is free at the point of contact is bound to be abused, particularly by an increasingly apathetic populace who are encouraged to believe that big government will sooth and solve all their problems and absolve them from any blame.

 

Moreover, you could throw every penny of our GDP at the health service and people will still die!

(that last comment was a little irrelevant and irreverent, but what the hey.)

[Tuber Mirum 120]

Aye, nivver trust naebdy as they say round my way.

 

In reply to Josco's remarks about how many people in the UK are directly dependent on the government for their incomes, I was wondering if that would necessarily be a big problem if those people were actually producing anything.

 

Or indeed, if anyone in the UK were actually producing anything.

 

There was a time when things were produced in the UK, but luckily somebody put a firm stop to that nonsense.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

Having been in the dubious position of experiencing the health care situation on both sides of the Atlantic. Britain and the US. I'm convinced the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, I'm not referring to the Azores.

 

The US system and the British system appear, at least to me anyway, as opposite extremes. One side of the pond you can go into any hospital and receive medical care. You'll be treated in a dirty hospital and there's a good chance you'll leave with a secondary illness. That is if you live long enough to leave, and that is if you don't die waiting to see a doctor.

 

The US system boasts beautiful, clean, hospitals. State of the art equipment and such. but it's not accessible to everyone. You will be treated but, even with insurance, you'll leave with a nice itemised bill. I will be on expensive headed notepaper and will detail the treatment you received, and how much it's going to cost you.

 

The way I see it you're either going to leave hospital with MRSA, or filing for bankruptcy.

 

The NHS takes the money from you incase you need it. The US takes the money from you when you need it. It can be fixed but there are too many people with a huge financial incentive to keep the respective systems as they are.

 

If voting changed anything they would make it illegal.

 

If you don't like guns , then don't break into my house. I will shoot you.

[CarolAnn 925]

Interestingly enough, the bill for my mother's first marathon hospital stay (November 28 - December 19) arrived today. During the course of that stay, Mom was admitted through the emergency room. She was in ventricular tachycardia, which is a potentially fatal arrhythmia. She had two cardioversions, a cardiac catherterization, a venous scan, an implantable defibrillator placed, the defibrillator's leads revised once, and in the middle of all this her gallbladder went south and had to be removed.

 

She spent all the time she was there on a high tech cardiac floor - state of the art equipment and all nurses with advanced degrees.

 

$500,000.00.

 

Medicare allowed (and paid) $35,000.00.

 

Fortunately she can't be billed the balance or I'd have to open a vein. The hospital overcharges, yes, since it can write off anything Medicare doesn't pay, but Medicare pays notoriously little for what is provided.

 

The doctors' bills have yet to come in. I know for a fact that the little piece of equipment in my mother's chest keeping her alive retails for about $50,000.00.

 

If we had nationalized health care would my mother would have the implantable defibrillator? On the other hand, isn't Medicare basically nationalized health care for the elderly?

 

Just thoughty stuff....

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,180]

Interestingly enough, the bill for my mother's first marathon hospital stay (November 28 - December 19) arrived today. During the course of that stay, Mom was admitted through the emergency room. She was in ventricular tachycardia, which is a potentially fatal arrhythmia. She had two cardioversions, a cardiac catherterization, a venous scan, an implantable defibrillator placed, the defibrillator's leads revised once, and in the middle of all this her gallbladder went south and had to be removed.

 

She spent all the time she was there on a high tech cardiac floor - state of the art equipment and all nurses with advanced degrees.

 

$500,000.00.

 

Medicare allowed (and paid) $35,000.00.

 

Fortunately she can't be billed the balance or I'd have to open a vein. The hospital overcharges, yes, since it can write off anything Medicare doesn't pay, but Medicare pays notoriously little for what is provided.

 

The doctors' bills have yet to come in. I know for a fact that the little piece of equipment in my mother's chest keeping her alive retails for about $50,000.00.

 

If we had nationalized health care would my mother would have the implantable defibrillator? On the other hand, isn't Medicare basically nationalized health care for the elderly?

 

Just thoughty stuff....

Shall I tell you something CA?

Your mother would have had the same level of care here as she had there and it wouldnt have cost her a penny!

As much as our healthcare system gets knocked, our levels of care are as high as anywhere else, our nursing staff sought after around the world and we have specialist hospitals that, despite having to fight tooth and nail for funding, can offer unrivaled care.

Yes we get it wrong here but it happens everywhere else too, im sure the Gibb brothers would happily have wished their brothers emergency treatment had taken place in the UK as opposed to Florida ( was it?)

My dad had a quadrouple heart bypass op in 2006 and the care he received was outstanding, all at a London hospital that was probably bulit over a century ago and staffed with dedicated nurses and professional Cariologists. All those people could work anywhere else in the World for a damn sight more money but choose to ply their trade in an inefficient decrepid system that will forever lurch from one year to the next.

When all is said and done, our system is probably the best of all compromises, far from perfect but everybody gets treated.

I dont think there really is a better working model out there.

PS: My sister is a Nurse so I admit to being a bit biased.......just a bit.

[CarolAnn 925]

Interestingly enough, the bill for my mother's first marathon hospital stay (November 28 - December 19) arrived today. During the course of that stay, Mom was admitted through the emergency room. She was in ventricular tachycardia, which is a potentially fatal arrhythmia. She had two cardioversions, a cardiac catherterization, a venous scan, an implantable defibrillator placed, the defibrillator's leads revised once, and in the middle of all this her gallbladder went south and had to be removed.

 

She spent all the time she was there on a high tech cardiac floor - state of the art equipment and all nurses with advanced degrees.

 

$500,000.00.

 

Medicare allowed (and paid) $35,000.00.

 

Fortunately she can't be billed the balance or I'd have to open a vein. The hospital overcharges, yes, since it can write off anything Medicare doesn't pay, but Medicare pays notoriously little for what is provided.

 

The doctors' bills have yet to come in. I know for a fact that the little piece of equipment in my mother's chest keeping her alive retails for about $50,000.00.

 

If we had nationalized health care would my mother would have the implantable defibrillator? On the other hand, isn't Medicare basically nationalized health care for the elderly?

 

Just thoughty stuff....

Shall I tell you something CA?

Your mother would have had the same level of care here as she had there and it wouldnt have cost her a penny!

As much as our healthcare system gets knocked, our levels of care are as high as anywhere else, our nursing staff sought after around the world and we have specialist hospitals that, despite having to fight tooth and nail for funding, can offer unrivaled care.

Yes we get it wrong here but it happens everywhere else too, im sure the Gibb brothers would happily have wished their brothers emergency treatment had taken place in the UK as opposed to Florida ( was it?)

My dad had a quadrouple heart bypass op in 2006 and the care he received was outstanding, all at a London hospital that was probably bulit over a century ago and staffed with dedicated nurses and professional Cariologists. All those people could work anywhere else in the World for a damn sight more money but choose to ply their trade in an inefficient decrepid system that will forever lurch from one year to the next.

When all is said and done, our system is probably the best of all compromises, far from perfect but everybody gets treated.

I dont think there really is a better working model out there.

PS: My sister is a Nurse so I admit to being a bit biased.......just a bit.

 

Bias is allowed.

 

Looking through the bill just got me to thinking and I decided to throw it up here as an actual scenario. I listen to a lot of people screaming about "no government health care reform" here, and I can't help but notice that a large number of them are on Medicare or have parents on Medicare, and they would be the first to scream if it wasn't there.

 

My mother is a military widow so she has TriCare for Life, which is a Medicare supplement that is free of charge. This gives her good prescription coverage as well as medical coverage and she doesn't have to pay for it - I really have no problem with that since my father fought five tours of combat duty and earned a Silver Star for valor as well as a Purple Heart. However, the basic reality is that my mother's health care, and the health care of millions of other older Americans (as well as American children and the disabled) is paid for and managed perfectly adequately by the federal government.

 

The hospital my mother uses, Medical City Hospital of Dallas, is one of the leading hospitals in the country. If she needed to go to Johns Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic or Yale, Medicare would pay for it. Not the trip there, probably, but for the hospital stay - yes.

 

There are things Medicare and TriCare don't pay for...as the bills roll in it will be interesting to see what my mother will be billed for. If anyone's interested I'll try to keep up with it.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

Shall I tell you something CA?

Your mother would have had the same level of care here as she had there and it wouldnt have cost her a penny!

As much as our healthcare system gets knocked, our levels of care are as high as anywhere else, our nursing staff sought after around the world and we have specialist hospitals that, despite having to fight tooth and nail for funding, can offer unrivaled care.

Yes we get it wrong here but it happens everywhere else too, im sure the Gibb brothers would happily have wished their brothers emergency treatment had taken place in the UK as opposed to Florida ( was it?)

My dad had a quadrouple heart bypass op in 2006 and the care he received was outstanding, all at a London hospital that was probably bulit over a century ago and staffed with dedicated nurses and professional Cariologists. All those people could work anywhere else in the World for a damn sight more money but choose to ply their trade in an inefficient decrepid system that will forever lurch from one year to the next.

When all is said and done, our system is probably the best of all compromises, far from perfect but everybody gets treated.

I dont think there really is a better working model out there.

PS: My sister is a Nurse so I admit to being a bit biased.......just a bit.

I can pretty much agree with that but it's a pisser that all the money being poured into the NHS is being squandered on bureaucracy and middlemen, with no real function. It's the same with local authority. High payed public sector jobs all funded by the taxpayer. And the cost keeps on rising. The money should be spent where it's needed and it often isn't. A very good friend of mine works for a pest control company, that services pest control requirements for the NHS. He trains their technicians at the hospitals because they have every available pest species you can think of. From rats and mice in the kitchens. Cockroaches on the wards. Wasps and ants in the grounds. He thanks Britain's filthy hospitals for the level of training he's received as it's made him an invaluable resource in his private company.

 

Another good friend of mine was admitted to an NHS hospital for a minor operation on his fingers. He died 3 weeks later from MRSA. It didn't cost him a penny. Just his life. At least his family wouldn't have been chased for the bill, as would have happened under the US system. I don't think either system works very well at all but the money has to come from somewhere. The Americans refused to be taxed on the matter. The Brits complain about being taxed on the matter, probably pay on a par but in installments, and receive their health care at the convenience of the state.

 

I've seen both sides of the coin and both have their merits and flaws. I can't defend either system against the other but what would work without being too expensive, and yet provide a level of service that doesn't involve MRSA and rats?

[Tomb raider 9]

Let's put it this way: I'm sure the level of health care in most of the developed western countries is outstanding. Of course, there's always plenty of room for improvement, but on the whole, we're hardly in any position to complain. The debate in this thread however, was not about which of those outstanding medical branches was the best, but about how to finance that health care system. One way or another, someone has to pay for it: countries that have fully state-funded health care don't have some anonymous philantropist paying for all the hospitals and medicins, those costs are covered by taxes and whatever other revenues the state might have. It's as much your money as if you would have paid your own bills with it. It's just not as much of it.

 

I think sharing the costs is a moral obligation, and the only way to ensure that all of us have the same access to health care. I understand that state funding has its disadvantages, though. In the Netherlands we have privatised insurance companies, that are to some extent regulated by law to keep their prices affordable, to maintain the level of coverage and to make sure no-one is excluded. Basic insurance - compulsary for everyone - costs somewhere between 80 and 100 euros per month (110-135 USD), minors are insured for free. Low-income groups are granted a subsidy, everyone has a small own risk which I believe adds up to about 200 euros, 270 USD, per year.

 

I believe in the benefits of more control by the state, and I fear privatised insurance companies whose sole aim is to make as much profit as possible. The Dutch system however, is a smart combination of state control (by making insurance compulsary, among other things) and free market efficiency (by the drive to keep prices down and, because of the competition, to keep services up).

 

It's not the perfect system, but it has the best of two worlds.

 

CarolAnn: there's no way I'd marginalize your father's sacrifices, but why should a military widow have free health care, that a fireman's widow, a plumber's widow or a teacher's widow doesn't get? There is nothing your mother should apologize for, but I think that everyone should have the same access, without fear of receiving huge bills afterwards.

[Madame Defarge 21]

Update.

 

The Congress will vote on it this weekend.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

With the current doom-mongering I can't see this going through. Even $1.3T (yes trillion) off the deficit in the next 20 years, isn't enough to persuade people that insurance companies financially raping US citizens is a bad thing.

[Madame Defarge 21]

With the current doom-mongering I can't see this going through. Even $1.3T (yes trillion) off the deficit in the next 20 years, isn't enough to persuade people that insurance companies financially raping US citizens is a bad thing.

 

Yeah, this looks like it could be a candidate for the 'Deaths of 2010 Thread'.

 

A number of congressmen worry that they will not be re-elected if they vote 'aye' on the bill, even though the high cost of health care here is running the country into the ground. And the newest obstacle seems to be the fear of state-sponsored abortion, even though the president has explained that it will not be covered under the new health care bill.

[death_master_bob 0]

health care reform is a joke there is no such thing as reform of what does not already exist. since there is no health care nationally already there can be no reform of it. as always it's greedy politicicians playing with the lives of the people.