First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“A Doctor Goes Where Needed”

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#1 Jul 16, 2012
There are many services that individuals cannot afford on their own so they ban together as a group and spread the cost to all members of their society in order to ensure that all members of their society have access to these services.

Police protection, fire protection, the military that defends their country and a public school system all come immediately to mind. When the government levies taxes against United States citizens to pay for these services you never hear any complaints that Socialism is being thrust down the citizenry's throats. The vast majority realize that they cannot afford a private army, a security or firefighting team and that all society benefits by having as many literate and educated people as possible.

Why is it then that when Americans give thought to Healthcare as a required service to it's citizens, all of a sudden, Socialized Medicine starts being bantered about as if providing this service is somehow a Marxist or Socialist plot to Take Over America?

The obvious answer is that Insurance Companies, Big Pharmaceuticals, Hospitals, and Doctors spend a lot of money in order to convince the public that health care expenses shared by all is a Bad Idea. Why do they do this? Well, from their perspective, it very well may be.

Many health insurance companies would go out of business. Billions and billions of their income would go into Health Care Reform instead of Health Insurance Reform. Doctors having to work to treat and cure patients rather than simply herding as many patients through their offices writing prescriptions as possible? Billions and billions of dollars in lost revenue for Doctors and Pharmaceutical Companies? Bad idea, indeed.

Why does the American public buy into this? How can people who couldn't find Canada on a map tell you in depth how horrible the Canadian Healthcare System is? How can people insist that the government isn't capable of managing a Healthcare System and yet they have no problem letting them manage the Health Care of our soldiers and sailors, supposedly the best and most honorable of our society?

Just as importantly, how is it possible that we can have a debate rage throughout President Obama's entire first term about his Health Care Reform package when the bill is obviously not about Health Care Reform? It is Health Insurance Reform.

I don't give diddly squat about having health insurance for everyone. I want people to have Health Care. And please don't ask me if I want the government telling me what kind of care I can get. I much prefer that to a Corporate Executive, who is more concerned about him or her and their shareholders making money, telling me what care I can have.

Buck Naked

Coffeyville, KS

#2 Jul 16, 2012
Robert L Lorth wrote:
There are many services that individuals cannot afford on their own so they ban together as a group and spread the cost to all members of their society in order to ensure that all members of their society have access to these services.
Police protection, fire protection, the military that defends their country and a public school system all come immediately to mind. When the government levies taxes against United States citizens to pay for these services you never hear any complaints that Socialism is being thrust down the citizenry's throats. The vast majority realize that they cannot afford a private army, a security or firefighting team and that all society benefits by having as many literate and educated people as possible.
Why is it then that when Americans give thought to Healthcare as a required service to it's citizens, all of a sudden, Socialized Medicine starts being bantered about as if providing this service is somehow a Marxist or Socialist plot to Take Over America?
The obvious answer is that Insurance Companies, Big Pharmaceuticals, Hospitals, and Doctors spend a lot of money in order to convince the public that health care expenses shared by all is a Bad Idea. Why do they do this? Well, from their perspective, it very well may be.
Many health insurance companies would go out of business. Billions and billions of their income would go into Health Care Reform instead of Health Insurance Reform. Doctors having to work to treat and cure patients rather than simply herding as many patients through their offices writing prescriptions as possible? Billions and billions of dollars in lost revenue for Doctors and Pharmaceutical Companies? Bad idea, indeed.
Why does the American public buy into this? How can people who couldn't find Canada on a map tell you in depth how horrible the Canadian Healthcare System is? How can people insist that the government isn't capable of managing a Healthcare System and yet they have no problem letting them manage the Health Care of our soldiers and sailors, supposedly the best and most honorable of our society?
Just as importantly, how is it possible that we can have a debate rage throughout President Obama's entire first term about his Health Care Reform package when the bill is obviously not about Health Care Reform? It is Health Insurance Reform.
I don't give diddly squat about having health insurance for everyone. I want people to have Health Care. And please don't ask me if I want the government telling me what kind of care I can get. I much prefer that to a Corporate Executive, who is more concerned about him or her and their shareholders making money, telling me what care I can have.[quote]
Its me Bob. Where in the constitution does it say anything about health care?
Medical care (insurance) can be fixed simply through good ole fashioned competition. By letting health care ins. sell nationwide. Competition can bring the cost down. I would also like to see everyone taken care of but not with no effort on their part. We as a nation seem to think the Gov. is here to take care of our every need. From paying off student loans to housing us,feeding us when we are able bodied. The gov. taints everything it gets its hands on.They will use a bulk this tax money for everything but health care.Social security is a good example of this. Do you think the polititions who pass this will be sitting in the same waiting room as you or the same Doctor? Not hardly. There will be a death pannel, no matter what they call it somebody in Washington will decide your fate if you are a debit and not a credit. I for one wonder what else the Gov. can force us to buy? You see it in our local Gov. If you want water you must buy electric and garbage that has gone up steadily since the city took control of garbage. Where do you draw the line with Gov. involvement in your life? We started this country because of taxation without representation. Look at us now. Im trying Bob.
Buck Naked

Coffeyville, KS

#3 Jul 16, 2012
Robert L Lorth wrote:
There are many services that individuals cannot afford on their own so they ban together as a group and spread the cost to all members of their society in order to ensure that all members of their society have access to these services.
Police protection, fire protection, the military that defends their country and a public school system all come immediately to mind. When the government levies taxes against United States citizens to pay for these services you never hear any complaints that Socialism is being thrust down the citizenry's throats. The vast majority realize that they cannot afford a private army, a security or firefighting team and that all society benefits by having as many literate and educated people as possible.
Why is it then that when Americans give thought to Healthcare as a required service to it's citizens, all of a sudden, Socialized Medicine starts being bantered about as if providing this service is somehow a Marxist or Socialist plot to Take Over America?
The obvious answer is that Insurance Companies, Big Pharmaceuticals, Hospitals, and Doctors spend a lot of money in order to convince the public that health care expenses shared by all is a Bad Idea. Why do they do this? Well, from their perspective, it very well may be.
Many health insurance companies would go out of business. Billions and billions of their income would go into Health Care Reform instead of Health Insurance Reform. Doctors having to work to treat and cure patients rather than simply herding as many patients through their offices writing prescriptions as possible? Billions and billions of dollars in lost revenue for Doctors and Pharmaceutical Companies? Bad idea, indeed.
Why does the American public buy into this? How can people who couldn't find Canada on a map tell you in depth how horrible the Canadian Healthcare System is? How can people insist that the government isn't capable of managing a Healthcare System and yet they have no problem letting them manage the Health Care of our soldiers and sailors, supposedly the best and most honorable of our society?
Just as importantly, how is it possible that we can have a debate rage throughout President Obama's entire first term about his Health Care Reform package when the bill is obviously not about Health Care Reform? It is Health Insurance Reform.
I don't give diddly squat about having health insurance for everyone. I want people to have Health Care. And please don't ask me if I want the government telling me what kind of care I can get. I much prefer that to a Corporate Executive, who is more concerned about him or her and their shareholders making money, telling me what care I can have.
Bob its me again.Where do you draw the line on Gov involvement in your life? What else will they force the American person to buy? Mabey they say bacon is unheathy and we all must eat turkey bacon? Or mabey the fumes off our car is causing health problems so we must all drive electric cars. This is not about health care or insurance Bob its about $$$$$ and the will of our Government. Example, If the gov. was so worried about me why is there a product on the market that if used properly will kill you? Im talking about cigaretts Bob. Ill answer that. Because it raises too much revenue to stop Bob.Im sure there intentions are good but yes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.They will use most of the $$ collected for whatever they want. Look at the social security program.They taint everything they touch. Im all for helping my fellow man. HELP not do for. taxation without representation. Does that mean anything to anyone? Ive had 2 jobs in 25 years with only 1 week of being unemployed. I dont want to work for everyone who dosnt want too. They can get their own job and buy their own ins. My $$ dosnt go near as far as it used to and now your telling me I HAVE to give a bit more Bob. I am tired Bob. Please tell me where you will draw the line?
xxxx

Coffeyville, KS

#4 Jul 17, 2012
You want free medical, absolutely no cost, tell the doctors and hospital you are an illigal and do not speak english. There, medical problem solved.
Abortion Bucket

Talala, OK

#5 Jul 17, 2012
It should include free abortions fo sho

“A Doctor Goes Where Needed”

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#6 Jul 17, 2012
Buck Naked wrote:
<quoted text>
Medical care (insurance) can be fixed simply through good ole fashioned competition. By letting health care ins. sell nationwide. Competition can bring the cost down.
I believe this to be incorrect. Health care costs have been steadily climbing well before anyone ever heard of Obama. Life insurance, auto insurance, homeowners insurance... All climbing. Without the government regulating  insurance companies, they are free to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, using too much of their coverage, age, gender, family history, etc. And who can blame them? Their goal is to make money. With government regulating the industry (Obamacare) you have them mandating who a for-profit company must accept as customers and limiting how much they can charge. A catch-22, if you will. Essential services should not be "for profit".
Buck Naked wrote:
<quoted text>
I would also like to see everyone taken care of but not with no effort on their part.
 
It wouldn't be without any effort on their part. Just as the military, police, fire and public education isn't without effort on their part - every citizen in this country pays taxes.
Buck Naked wrote:
<quoted text>
We as a nation seem to think the Gov. is here to take care of our every need. From paying off student loans to housing us,feeding us when we are able bodied. The gov. taints everything it gets its hands on.They will use a bulk this tax money for everything but health care.Social security is a good example of this. Do you think the polititions who pass this will be sitting in the same waiting room as you or the same Doctor? Not hardly. There will be a death pannel, no matter what they call it somebody in Washington will decide your fate if you are a debit and not a credit. I for one wonder what else the Gov. can force us to buy? You see it in our local Gov. If you want water you must buy electric and garbage that has gone up steadily since the city took control of garbage. Where do you draw the line with Gov. involvement in your life? We started this country because of taxation without representation. Look at us now. Im trying Bob.
Most of this appears to me to be addressing Health Insurance Reform and government corruption rather than Health Care Reform so I'll skip it so we can hopefully stay on topic. I see the government involvement is also in your other post so I will address it there.

“A Doctor Goes Where Needed”

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#7 Jul 17, 2012
Buck Naked wrote:
<quoted text>
Bob its me again.Where do you draw the line on Gov involvement in your life? What else will they force the American person to buy? Mabey they say bacon is unheathy and we all must eat turkey bacon? Or mabey the fumes off our car is causing health problems so we must all drive electric cars. This is not about health care or insurance Bob its about $$$$$ and the will of our Government. Example, If the gov. was so worried about me why is there a product on the market that if used properly will kill you? Im talking about cigaretts Bob. Ill answer that. Because it raises too much revenue to stop Bob.Im sure there intentions are good but yes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.They will use most of the $$ collected for whatever they want. Look at the social security program.They taint everything they touch. Im all for helping my fellow man. HELP not do for. taxation without representation. Does that mean anything to anyone? Ive had 2 jobs in 25 years with only 1 week of being unemployed. I dont want to work for everyone who dosnt want too. They can get their own job and buy their own ins. My $$ dosnt go near as far as it used to and now your telling me I HAVE to give a bit more Bob. I am tired Bob. Please tell me where you will draw the line?
I, too, don't believe the government should be telling us what to buy. There are exceptions to this though and they fall under the essential services category. We need a police force to ensure the safety of our citizens. In this instance, one must simply force people to pay taxes in order to fund police departments. Fire protection, a military to defend the country and public education also fall under the same category. My personal opinion is that health care and medical services are also essential for strong society.

We do this anyway. If someone gets hit by a car and is taken to the hospital in an ambulance, the hospital is going to provide these services regardless of whether the individual has insurance or can afford it. That is the way it should be. Hospitals are going to pass those costs on to someone (individuals, insurance companies, government agencies, etc.). We might as well say since everyone is going to pay for it anyway, let's do it in the most sensible way possible.

Demanding that we have an insurance company running middleman is simply allowing them to skim dollars, that could go to health care, for sales commissions, advertising, bonuses for top executives who find ways to deny claims, etc.
Buck Naked

Coffeyville, KS

#8 Jul 18, 2012
Robert L Lorth wrote:
<quoted text>
I, too, don't believe the government should be telling us what to buy. There are exceptions to this though and they fall under the essential services category. We need a police force to ensure the safety of our citizens. In this instance, one must simply force people to pay taxes in order to fund police departments. Fire protection, a military to defend the country and public education also fall under the same category. My personal opinion is that health care and medical services are also essential for strong society.
We do this anyway. If someone gets hit by a car and is taken to the hospital in an ambulance, the hospital is going to provide these services regardless of whether the individual has insurance or can afford it. That is the way it should be. Hospitals are going to pass those costs on to someone (individuals, insurance companies, government agencies, etc.). We might as well say since everyone is going to pay for it anyway, let's do it in the most sensible way possible.
Demanding that we have an insurance company running middleman is simply allowing them to skim dollars, that could go to health care, for sales commissions, advertising, bonuses for top executives who find ways to deny claims, etc.
I want so bad to agree with you Bob and you do make a good point BUT, We do pay taxes for police , fire protection, sales tax property tax,federal tax, state tax,sales tax, I cant name all the taxes we pay but when you add them all up it comes to about 48% of your income. Where does it end Bob. Now our Gov. will feed us,house us, give us a small amount of spending money. In some states you can even use you food stamp money for bail money that yes you and I pay for. And lets just add health care to the mix. Mabey we can add a little more for our pets since people who have pets tend to live longer? WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?? When do we make people responsible for themselves? If you wont help yourself dont look to me to do it for you. More Government will not fix our problems. Nor will more taxes for the Gov to spend as they see fit.
I do agree health care Ins needs to be fixed as does our corrupt Gov. Our Gov right now is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar they spend. We owe our souls to China. What a great time to impose the largest tax increase in our history. Where will you draw the line Bob.

“A Doctor Goes Where Needed”

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#9 Jul 19, 2012
Buck Naked wrote:
<quoted text>
I want so bad to agree with you Bob and you do make a good point BUT, We do pay taxes for police , fire protection, sales tax property tax,federal tax, state tax,sales tax, I cant name all the taxes we pay but when you add them all up it comes to about 48% of your income. Where does it end Bob. Now our Gov. will feed us,house us, give us a small amount of spending money. In some states you can even use you food stamp money for bail money that yes you and I pay for. And lets just add health care to the mix. Mabey we can add a little more for our pets since people who have pets tend to live longer? WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?? When do we make people responsible for themselves? If you wont help yourself dont look to me to do it for you. More Government will not fix our problems. Nor will more taxes for the Gov to spend as they see fit.
I do agree health care Ins needs to be fixed as does our corrupt Gov. Our Gov right now is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar they spend. We owe our souls to China. What a great time to impose the largest tax increase in our history. Where will you draw the line Bob.
First - Social Security should be pulled out of your calculations and should be considered "retirement investment" rather than taxes. Social Security should be separated from the federal budget like it was in the beginning. SS was created to ensure people put away enough money throughout their working life so they would have enough money to survive in old age without the government taking care of them and to provide "life insurance" so kids who lose a parent have some income. These days, it is lumped into the budget to make the "percentage" we spend on defense look smaller and I've even heard it referred to as an entitlement plan, which it isn't. 

Second - Universal Health Care would be making people responsible for their own health care in the same manner that SS makes them responsible for their retirement. You seem to believe that a for profit health insurance system is the way to go when you should be able to see it doesn't work. If a person loses their job, they lose their health care almost immediately and if they then have medical problems (or if they are under-insured) they can lose everything they've gained over a lifetime in a matter of weeks. The money that we spend on health insurance would be much better spent on health care. You might be adding "taxes" for some people - those that cannot afford health insurance - but it would be a wash for the majority of those that are already paying health insurance premiums. I've spent literally thousands and thousands of dollars on health insurance over the years and have barely used up my deductible twice. I would much prefer it go into a system where if for some reason, I am out of work for a few months - I am still covered.
Buck Naked

Coffeyville, KS

#10 Jul 19, 2012
Robert L Lorth wrote:
<quoted text>
First - Social Security should be pulled out of your calculations and should be considered "retirement investment" rather than taxes. Social Security should be separated from the federal budget like it was in the beginning. SS was created to ensure people put away enough money throughout their working life so they would have enough money to survive in old age without the government taking care of them and to provide "life insurance" so kids who lose a parent have some income. These days, it is lumped into the budget to make the "percentage" we spend on defense look smaller and I've even heard it referred to as an entitlement plan, which it isn't. 
Second - Universal Health Care would be making people responsible for their own health care in the same manner that SS makes them responsible for their retirement. You seem to believe that a for profit health insurance system is the way to go when you should be able to see it doesn't work. If a person loses their job, they lose their health care almost immediately and if they then have medical problems (or if they are under-insured) they can lose everything they've gained over a lifetime in a matter of weeks. The money that we spend on health insurance would be much better spent on health care. You might be adding "taxes" for some people - those that cannot afford health insurance - but it would be a wash for the majority of those that are already paying health insurance premiums. I've spent literally thousands and thousands of dollars on health insurance over the years and have barely used up my deductible twice. I would much prefer it go into a system where if for some reason, I am out of work for a few months - I am still covered.
Social security? It is A tax and it has been turned into an entitlement program of sorts.And you want the same people who have taken care of the social security program to take care of your health insurance. Give me a break Bob.
My Question to you is. Rounding up a bit, my first 2 1/2 days of a 5 day work week is used to pay the local Gov the state Gov. and the federal Gov. So where would you have this growing # stop? 3 days? 4 days? or 5 days and let our Government ration out our essential needs as they see them? Half of everything I work for belongs to the Government. Obamas health care program adds to the 2 1/2 days I already give and if you think it will stop there you will be wrong Bob. This Health care program opens all sorts of doors. Not to mention the 1600 new IRS agents to make sure they get every cent you owe.(very nice group of people) Where Bob WHERE?

“A Doctor Goes Where Needed”

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#11 Jul 19, 2012
Buck Naked wrote:
<quoted text>
Social security? It is A tax and it has been turned into an entitlement program of sorts.And you want the same people who have taken care of the social security program to take care of your health insurance. Give me a break Bob.
My Question to you is. Rounding up a bit, my first 2 1/2 days of a 5 day work week is used to pay the local Gov the state Gov. and the federal Gov. So where would you have this growing # stop? 3 days? 4 days? or 5 days and let our Government ration out our essential needs as they see them? Half of everything I work for belongs to the Government. Obamas health care program adds to the 2 1/2 days I already give and if you think it will stop there you will be wrong Bob. This Health care program opens all sorts of doors. Not to mention the 1600 new IRS agents to make sure they get every cent you owe.(very nice group of people) Where Bob WHERE?

I don't believe we are going to make any progress here. My statements have been geared towards why Universal Health Care would be much better for everyone concerned than the existing system(s) we have. You seem intent on trying to have me defend government waste, corruption, over-spending, and Obama's Health Insurance Reform - none of which I approve of.
THE HAMMER

Wichita, KS

#12 Jul 19, 2012
Just for Robert;

A Canadian Doctor Describes How Socialized Medicine Doesn't Work
July 26, 2007

By David Gratzer

I was once a believer in socialized medicine. As a Canadian, I had soaked up the belief that government–run health care was truly compassionate. What I knew about American health care was unappealing: high expenses and lots of uninsured people.

My health care prejudices crumbled on the way to a medical school class. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute.

Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care.

I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a three–year wait list; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks.

Government researchers now note that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12% of that province's population) can't find family physicians. Health officials in one Nova Scotia community actually resorted to a lottery to determine who'd get a doctor's appointment.

These problems are not unique to Canada—they characterize all government–run health care systems.

Consider the recent British controversy over a cancer patient who tried to get an appointment with a specialist, only to have it canceled—48 times. More than 1 million Britons must wait for some type of care, with 200,000 in line for longer than six months. In France, the supply of doctors is so limited that during an August 2003 heat wave—when many doctors were on vacation and hospitals were stretched beyond capacity—15,000 elderly citizens died. Across Europe, state–of–the–art drugs aren't available. And so on.

Single–payer systems—confronting dirty hospitals, long waiting lists and substandard treatment—are starting to crack, however. Canadian newspapers are filled with stories of people frustrated by long delays for care. Many Canadians, determined to get the care they need, have begun looking not to lotteries—but to markets.

Dr. Jacques Chaoulli is at the center of this changing health care scene. In the 1990s, he organized a private Quebec practice—patients called him, he made house calls and then he directly billed his patients. The local health board cried foul and began fining him. The legal status of private practice in Canada remained murky, but billing patients, rather than the government, was certainly illegal, and so was private insurance.

Eventually, Chaoulli took on the government in a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. Representing an elderly Montrealer who had waited almost a year for a hip replacement, Chaoulli maintained that the patient should have the right to pay for private health insurance and get treatment sooner. A majority of the court agreed that Quebec's charter did implicitly recognize such a right.

The monumental ruling, which shocked the government, opened the way to more private medicine in Quebec. Though the prohibition against private insurance holds in the rest of Canada for now, at least two people outside Quebec, armed with Chaoulli's case as precedent, are taking their demand for private insurance to court.

Consider, too, Rick Baker. He isn't a neurosurgeon or even a doctor. He's a medical broker—one member of a private sector that is rushing in to address the inadequacies of Canada's government care. Canadians pay him to set up surgical procedures, diagnostic tests and specialist consultations, privately and quickly.
THE HAMMER

Wichita, KS

#13 Jul 19, 2012
Baker describes a man who had a seizure and received a diagnosis of epilepsy. Dissatisfied with the opinion—he had no family history of epilepsy, but he did have constant headaches and nausea, which aren't usually seen in the disorder—he requested an MRI.

The government told him that the wait would be 4 1/2 months. So he went to Baker, who arranged to have the MRI done within 24 hours—and who, after the test revealed a brain tumor, arranged surgery within a few weeks. Some services that Baker brokers almost certainly contravene Canadian law, but governments are loath to stop him.

Other private–sector health options are blossoming across Canada, and the government is increasingly turning a blind eye to them, too, despite their often uncertain legal status. Private clinics are opening at a rate of about one a week.

Canadian doctors, long silent on the health care system's problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. Day has become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center and challenging the government to shut him down.

And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80% of government–funded diagnostic testing.

This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain's Labour Party—which originally created the National Health Service—now openly favors privatization. Sweden's government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80% of Stockholm's primary care and 40% of its total health services.

Since the fall of communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state–run system, introducing co–payments and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany.

Yet even as Stockholm and Saskatoon are percolating with the ideas of Adam Smith, a growing number of prominent Americans are arguing that socialized health care still provides better results for less money.

Politicians like Hillary Clinton are on board; Michael Moore's new documentary, "Sicko," celebrates the virtues of Canada's socialized health care; the National Coalition on Health Care, which includes big businesses like AT&T, recently endorsed a scheme to centralize major health decisions to a government committee; and big unions are questioning the tenets of employer–sponsored health insurance.

One often–heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

Americans live 75.3 years on average, fewer than Canadians (77.3) or the French (76.6) or the citizens of any Western European nation save Portugal. Health care influences life expectancy, of course. But a life can end because of a murder, a fall or a car accident. Such factors aren't academic—homicide rates in the U.S. are much higher than in other countries.

In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life–expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.

And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels. Five–year cancer survival rates bear this out. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50%; the European rate is just 35%. Esophageal carcinoma: 12% in the U.S., 6% in Europe. The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2% here, yet 61.7% in France and down to 44.3% in England—a striking variation.
THE HAMMER

Wichita, KS

#14 Jul 19, 2012
Like many critics of American health care, though, Krugman argues that the costs are just too high: health care spending in Canada and Britain, he notes, is a small fraction of what Americans pay. Again, the picture isn't quite as clear as he suggests. Because the U.S. is so much wealthier than other countries, it isn't unreasonable for it to spend more on health care. Take America's high spending on research and development. M.D. Anderson in Texas, a prominent cancer center, spends more on research than Canada does.

That said, American health care is expensive. And Americans aren't always getting a good deal. In the coming years, with health expenses spiraling up, it will be easy for some to give in to the temptation of socialized medicine. In Washington, there are plenty of old pieces of legislation that like–minded politicians could take off the shelf, dust off and promote: expanding Medicare to Americans 55 and older, say, or covering all children in Medicaid.

But such initiatives would push the U.S. further down the path to a government–run system and make things much, much worse. True, government bureaucrats would be able to cut costs—but only by shrinking access to health care, as in Canada, and engendering a Canadian–style nightmare of overflowing emergency rooms and yearlong waits for treatment.

America is right to seek a model for delivering good health care at good prices, but we should be looking not to Canada, but close to home—in the other four–fifths or so of our economy. From telecommunications to retail, deregulation and market competition have driven prices down and quality and productivity up. Health care is long overdue for the same prescription.

David Gratzer, a physician, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. This article is adapted from the forthcoming issue of City Journal.

©2007 Investor's Business Daily

“A Doctor Goes Where Needed”

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#15 Jul 19, 2012
THE HAMMER wrote:
Just for Robert;
A Canadian Doctor Describes How Socialized Medicine Doesn't Work
July 26, 2007
By David Gratzer
I was once a believer in socialized medicine.

I'm not interested in debating David "minimum wage earners are not underpaid but underproductive" Gratzer's articles. I disagree with a lot of his opinions (including the one that helped make it so I have to listen to prescription drug commercials on T.V.). Looked him up in wilki and watched a couple YouTube videos - not impressed.

If you have something *you* would like to say - I'm all eyes.
Buck Naked

Coffeyville, KS

#16 Jul 19, 2012
Robert L Lorth wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not interested in debating David "minimum wage earners are not underpaid but underproductive" Gratzer's articles. I disagree with a lot of his opinions (including the one that helped make it so I have to listen to prescription drug commercials on T.V.). Looked him up in wilki and watched a couple YouTube videos - not impressed.
If you have something *you* would like to say - I'm all eyes.
Your a brick wall Bob. A brick wall. Ill see you in the waiting room. We can watch one anothers hair grow.

“A Doctor Goes Where Needed”

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#17 Jul 20, 2012
Buck Naked wrote:
<quoted text>
Your a brick wall Bob. A brick wall. Ill see you in the waiting room. We can watch one anothers hair grow.

Ahhhhh - the Brick Wall/Chicken Little Debate of 2012. Nice ring to it.
Doctor O

Pratt, KS

#18 Jul 20, 2012
Both Bob and Buck make great points and I feel that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. It's obvious that our Govt does not need anymore of our money so that they can waste and abuse it. Yet it is also obvious that our current health care system is nearly immoral. Our Republic was hijacked by special corporate interest decades ago. A sad thing.
Beaner

Coffeyville, KS

#19 Jul 20, 2012
Doctor O wrote:
Both Bob and Buck make great points and I feel that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. It's obvious that our Govt does not need anymore of our money so that they can waste and abuse it. Yet it is also obvious that our current health care system is nearly immoral. Our Republic was hijacked by special corporate interest decades ago. A sad thing.
Record numbers of doctors and health care organizations are being fined for medicaid and medicare fraud but yet you say the government wastes our money.Our healthcare system or lack of it works as designed. If you can afford it, you live, If you can't afford it , you die. If you go to the emergency room, everyone else pays.
Bill Maher

Wichita, KS

#20 Jul 20, 2012
Maybe the reason for the ER being "overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission" could be the fact they were ABLE to ACCESS health care through socialized medicine rather than just suffer and die at home because the availability wasn't there.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Coffeyville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Chinese Chef 53 min question 2
Ghetto 2 hr Shameful 1
Guys that are over 30 and single. Is there a mo... (Aug '12) 5 hr Tree Fiddy 24
BEWARE OF THIEF--breakins--pawn shops--Coffeyvi... 7 hr BUSTED 1
whos the bike riding dealers in town? 10 hr Matt 1
bobby romines (Jan '13) Tue heyhey 10
What's going on at walmart in Coffeyville?? Dec 23 HATE WALMART 6

Coffeyville News Video

Coffeyville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Coffeyville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Coffeyville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Coffeyville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 7:00AM
Updated 2014 Analysis for Final Week of Season
NBC Sports 2:57 PM
DeMarco Murray out sick on Thursday
NBC Sports 4:00 PM
Rookie Martin makes quick impression in Dallas - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report 4:15 PM
What Experts Are Saying About Washington
Bleacher Report 8:11 PM
Breaking Down Chargers Game Plan vs. Chiefs