Health care flawed all over

It is true that in the United States, we have a piecemeal system that has evolved as a function between patients, doctors, hospitals and insurance companies. Contrary to popular myth, most Americans are covered by some type of Insurance and most are satisfied with current health care. Anyone that needs emergency care can get it, including illegal immigrants. Anyone that is poor can obtain free or low cost non-emergency care, including illegal immigrants. Perhaps the greatest selling point to our current system is that the majority of people are familiar with it. Certainly, it has flaws and bottlenecks, but is can be understood by most people that are willing to make the effort. Most of the widely publicized horror stories are cherry picked by the media to make points in favor of changing the system. However, before we begin to make wholesale changes, it should be remembered that not all change is necessarily good or desirable. The more changes that are made, the more likely we are to stumble and fail. Change simply for the sake of change is nonsense. Before anything is changed, it should be carefully considered and thought out. The end result should produce a better system, not merely a different system with different flaws.

Your article states the British NHS spends 7 percent on administration, while the US spends 30 percent. So much for the efficiency of private enterprise!
And if I had to wait several months for a hip replacement, at least I would know it would be done, and without costing me a fortune. Or having to do without if I had no insurance like 45 million Americans.

The greatest problem in healthcare is the one no one is uttering. It instills the fear driving the excess named by all as the target of reform. Yet no one is addressing it. Any guesses? Its the dearest bedfellow of politicians; attorneys. personal injury and medical "malpractice" lawyers.

Need proof? Watch Maury, Jerry Springer or any other daytime swill almost fully sponsored by injury lawyers for the discriminating palate of the full-time layabout in need of money but but unlikely to consider employment as a means to acquire such.

The tone of their ads is blatant and revolting when you hear them implore their audience to search their memory of medical care for anything resembling an "injury." The amount of these that reach the courts, even as filings, cause mass mobilizations of defense by the medical side to address their accusations. Most times the prudent action is to settle using sums of money that would go to other lawyers executing the defense and risk a finding that would determine a reward to be defined under nonuniform jury instruction rules outlined in the filing state's rules of procedure.

Healthcare affordable for all? Eliminate it as a windfall for anyone; let them play the lottery instead.

ROCKAT wrote:

Your article states the British NHS spends 7 percent on administration, while the US spends 30 percent. So much for the efficiency of private enterprise!
And if I had to wait several months for a hip replacement, at least I would know it would be done, and without costing me a fortune. Or having to do without if I had no insurance like 45 million Americans.

No where else but America would you find the govenment wanting to change a system that polls show 70% of the people are content with.

I always love articles that compare America to Europe. We would have more money to spend on health care if we weren't wasting it on NATO. We need to spend our money on Americans and not defending the rest of the world. Let them take care of themselves.

I am currently on medicare. I carry supplemental insurance since medicare doesn't cover everything, and I have high blood pressure controlled by medication.
I see my doctor twice a year for "regular checkups". These regular checkups represent the "gaming" of the system by my doctor to maximize her harvesting of the system. She is not in any way shy about making comments about what care is possible if she is to stay within the system. I get the nagging feeling that I am just a means to an end instead of a human being with a medical problem.
When we fix this feature of health care, we will have been sucessful.

Just because a single payor system is cheaper in Canada, does not mean it will also be cheaper here.

Americans, as a whole, are VERY unhealthy, obese, and carry much more complicated medical problems than much of the rest of the world.

We eat more, we smoke more, and we die more. Although the WHO ranking system was pretty good, no one looks at the flaws in their methodology.

For example, the USA was ranked so low because we spend ALOT on healthcare, but still have a relatively low average life span. But, if our dietary and societal habits were taken into account, I think our life span would be LONGER than every other country!

You can argue that this is due to the lack of Preventive Care in the USA, and that is undoubtedly true, although much of the problem is also due to a society that prides itself on the size of its cheeseburgers.

Wait a minute! Every American needs to know the real truth behind the government wanting to get involved with health care. It's not the 47 million
people who don't have or want to be part
of the system, it's the government wanting the control of a massive amount of gold. You have to understand the government needs this to save Social Security, Medicare, VA benefits. Obama will promise anything to ease your mind concerning your family health care, but once we allow the government to take control it's just a matter of time before major changes will occur.

Change just to change. We live in the greatest country on the planet now let's change it. I belive the hero of our nation used those every words, at least close to those words.
Medicare is bad. Medicaid is worse. And you want the government running your sick insurance? Bad all around.
2010 elections may begin the turnaround. I pray for it.

Mike wrote:

Just because a single payor system is cheaper in Canada, does not mean it will also be cheaper here.
Americans, as a whole, are VERY unhealthy, obese, and carry much more complicated medical problems than much of the rest of the world.
We eat more, we smoke more, and we die more. Although the WHO ranking system was pretty good, no one looks at the flaws in their methodology.
For example, the USA was ranked so low because we spend ALOT on healthcare, but still have a relatively low average life span. But, if our dietary and societal habits were taken into account, I think our life span would be LONGER than every other country!
You can argue that this is due to the lack of Preventive Care in the USA, and that is undoubtedly true, although much of the problem is also due to a society that prides itself on the size of its cheeseburgers.

This was a great and accurate comment. The crux of the biscuit.

If you want to compare the cost of health care in the US to any other country, the discussion has to begin with a comparison of tort law and malpractice penalties.

THE DAM_ GOVERNMENT MUST STAY OUT OF HEALTH CARE. They can't run a balanced budget. The reason that health acre is so expensive in this country is medicare and medicaid. Free money from uncle sugar always raises the cost of everything. You socialist weenies are screwing this country. The federal government is not our daddy.

As someone who pays for his own health insurance, do I think it costs too much? Yes. When my son was born with a collasped lung, did I have a problem with the quality of the care that money bought? No. Did I have a problem with writing a $2500 check to cover the deductible to the hospital that saved his life? No. Does our system need adjustments and tweaks? Yes. Has our government done anything in recent history to show they can manage anything properly? No.

The problem I have in reading most articles comparing health care throughout the world is there appears to be a lot of variation in the reporting of the statistics and facts. It seems too often as if the author(s) own bias is coloring these facts as if to lead the reader to the authors conclusion which is either pro universal coverage (government managed) or pro private insurance (free market managed). This Tribune piece is one of the few articles I have read that appears to be as unbiased in its delivery and conclusion as I have read to date. Yes, it makes sense that no health care delivery system anywhere in the world is 100% perfect. Now, we as a nation, must decide what degree of imperfection is acceptable. I shake my head in disbelief when critics of universal coverage make their scare baiting charge that the government (along with the implied adjectives: "bloated, bureaucratic, inept") will be deciding who will receive what medical treatments and who will be denied. As this article correctly points out, ALL health care systems worldwide ration care. In the United States, our care is rationed by private insurance companies who are driven entirely by maximizing their bottom lines and appeasing shareholders--the value of human life does not factor into their approval and denial process but their resulting stock price does. I have witnessed firsthand our current public universal system of coverage for seniors: Medicare. Both of my elderly parents have had hundreds of thousands of dollars of treatments covered by Medicare with few denials of coverage. While Medicare is far from 100% perfect, it is far better than my own private insurance. I don't really understand the fear of universal coverage or "socialized medicine" as critics prefer to call it. Having lived in France for over a year as an American citizen, I cannot begin to tell you how impressed I was with their health care system. Every French citizen with whom I spoke beamed with pride about their nationalized health care. Look what havoc the US free market financial system has wreaked on the world. As more US employers completely drop health care benefits or at best, transfer a greater portion of the expense to their employees along with a commensurate decrease in coverage (this is already happening and will only accelerate), the luster of the private insurer will quickly fade. Sadly, by the time this happens, countless Americans will have perished through inaccessibility or limited accessibility to health care thanks to the free market driven system of private insurance companies.

Go Poo Poo wrote:

<quoted text>
This was a great and accurate comment. The crux of the biscuit.

Really? What's so great about it?
And what makes you think that if we stay with the current healthcare system, more people will make better lifestyle choices or if we switch to single-payer system, more people will become fat smoking couch potatoes on disability?
Sure, ideally we need a system that minimizes healthcare expenses by rewarding wise lifestyle choices and penalizing those who continue with their poor habits despite their doctor's advise. Probably that would mean making smokers and fatties pay more - just like your auto insurance raises your premium if you get a speeding ticket.
But do you for a moment think that such thing will ever fly? Can you imagine all the lawsuits about discrimination, violation of civil rights and what not such a system will bring?
Countries with single-payer system make people wait before getting access to non-emergency medical care. This alone forces at least some people to make lifestyle changes, because they have to manage their condition while waiting for the procedure (which also often means a better outcome of the procedure itself). And nobody is suing.

Thanks for an interesting but too-short article that tried to examine the situation fairly.

One thing is clear. We in the USA pay far more for health care than anybody else yet life shorter, less healthy lives, and we have too many uninsured and people denied coverage due to health conditions. We are NOT getting our money's worth, while other nations do much beter. We should learn from them.

AMERICA’S NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY!

It’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.

STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.

We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.

And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.

Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust government-run public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and request that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).

Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.

In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!

If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! He’s doing a brilliant job.

THIS IS THE BIG ONE!

THE BATTLE OF GOOD Vs EVIL!

Join the fight.

Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!

(http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/publicop... )(http://www.actblue.com/page/healthcareheroes )

God Bless You

Jacksmith – WORKING CLASS

Assuming that the citizens of this country and their elected representatives desire universal health insurance, I believe that two elements are necessary for its success: the first is money and the second, low operating costs. The former can only be achieved if the pool of participants is very large and includes healthy people of all ages; and the latter will necessitate overhead similar to that found in Medicare. The inclusion of private health insurance companies as major participants precludes these efficiencies and can lead to excessive burdens on federal funds required to subsidize partially or completely participants with low incomes. I recommend that the role of private insurance should be limited to supplementary insurance and insuring those with very high incomes who would not be excused from the premiums required to fund national sickness funds whether part of Medicare or similarly organized but separate from the social security system.
A large but limited competing national program risks being weakened by a pool which is too small to generate the monies necessary for its success.