Should the US have universal healthcare?

Cheech the Conservative wrote:

Recoupe.Still need a liver biopsy.Next week.(6 months if we had Canadas system).A lib?Almost as bad as a Mediterranian lounge lizard.<quoted text>

Here is something for all those who have questions about wait times in America. yesterday I had to see an endocrinologist, he told me I had to have a bone scan and density test. I said go ahead and schedule it. He said do you want it today. How is that for wait times. Wonder how long I would have had to wait while not being hospitalized under a social healthcare system.

Yes, Universal Health Care is what this country needs....
Unless you all want to pay $300 or more EVERY month or go broke!

Phil Gray wrote:

<quoted text>
Here is something for all those who have questions about wait times in America. yesterday I had to see an endocrinologist, he told me I had to have a bone scan and density test. I said go ahead and schedule it. He said do you want it today. How is that for wait times. Wonder how long I would have had to wait while not being hospitalized under a social healthcare system.

For a bopne scan and density test? About the same ( inpatients get preference over outpatients though ). The operations that have waiting lists are things like knee replacement surgery where the waiting list is due to a lack of specialist surgeons, and that lack cuts across the border. It is a myth that a 'single payer insurance system' has any effect on doctors or medicine other than to cut down on the paperwork and uncertainty assosicated with the costs ( i.e. the hot potatoe that gets tossed between private insurance, state medicaid, federal medicare, etc etc etc. usually with obscure clauses and innumerable exceptions requiring tons of paperwork and one lawyer or bureaucrat per patient.)
In fact, you can blame about 50% of health costs on the tangle of regulations and contracts that cover the area.

Phil Gray wrote:

<quoted text>
Here is something for all those who have questions about wait times in America. yesterday I had to see an endocrinologist, he told me I had to have a bone scan and density test. I said go ahead and schedule it. He said do you want it today. How is that for wait times. Wonder how long I would have had to wait while not being hospitalized under a social healthcare system.

3 weeks in BC for my friend with bone density problems.

I was refering to scheduling an scan with your family doctor.

Cheech the Conservative wrote:

Recoupe.Still need a liver biopsy.Next week.(6 months if we had Canadas system).A lib?Almost as bad as a Mediterranian lounge lizard.<quoted text>

They don't even keep records for simple tests like liver biopsies. It takes no longer in Canada than in the U.S. In fact, less time is wasted trying to FIRST determine if you have coverage or can pay. Having universal insurance for simple health care means that doctors can concentrate on doctoring and not collection agencies, lawyers, etc.

Many Canadian doctors, lured by 'glamorous salaries' return chastened by malpractice insurance costs, collection problems and spending most of their time on paperwork. They come back because they want to get paid a good salary to practice medicine.

The only ones that stay are the 'cream of the crop' specialists where salaries are so high that they can win over 'fixed fee' payments under Canadas system.

It's $345 per.And I will keep it.Better than being dead 10 years ago.And I will NOT go broke.

WomenOnGuard wrote:

Yes, Universal Health Care is what this country needs....
Unless you all want to pay $300 or more EVERY month or go broke!

Phil Gray wrote:

<quoted text>
Europe has at least three different methods of UHC. One being a two tiered system of taxs by regular taxation along with a Value added tax One being a single payer system (Normally controlled by Government), and one a two tiered Insurace system,(paid for by the employer and employee.

Multi-tier systems don't work. The U.K is a prime example, where the private sector has bled the public one dry. The U.S. is similar if you look at private hospitals vs county hospitals.

That said, many countries in the EU that are held up as examples of the advantages of two tier medicine are actually dominantly single payer socialized medicine.

http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/DF_healt...
"France's state-subsidized medical system is considered liberal because doctors and dentists establish private practices, and patients, who are free to choose their own providers, are reimbursed by the state for up to 85% of medical costs. Doctors tend to be concentrated in the cities and are in short supply in some rural areas. The death rate, life expectancy, and infant mortality rate are similar to those of other industrialized nations."

Note that the main advantage of France is that they have twice as many doctors paid about half as much.. but otherwise their system is about equivalent to the Medicare public health insurance of Canada, and works similarly.

Except that Canada covers 100% of costs but limits what health care it provides under the 'basic insurance'. Health care providers are fully independent but must either be 'private' and cannot charge for eligeable expenses or 'public' and must charge according to Medicare billing fees.

The two main weaknesses of the Medicare system in Canada is lack of organisation ( because they are just an insurance policy, NOT socialised medicine. The real strength would be found if medical standards could use universal health care to monitor, test and adopt new practices to reduce costs while improving treatment.

Slowness to adopt new technology ( the MRI 'crisis' is one example where the money to buy the new test machines was slow for tests that were necesssary, while private hospitals in the U.S. bought them so fast that most of them were hardly used and mostly for 'unnecessary expense' to pad the bills. This is mostly because capital costs ( such as MRI machines for hospitals ) are a function of provincial health care which was totally screwed by a right wing nut ( Mike Harris ).

That is why some of us worked out a plan for "affordable" HC.Phgray@yahoo.com.Check it out.Our system needs improvement,but Gov't control is NOT the answer.I was kidding about Canada,as I have not visited your country.Some posters from Canada say your system is OK.Some say it sucks.I really have no opinion.But OUR Gov't has a terrible record with social programs.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
They don't even keep records for simple tests like liver biopsies. It takes no longer in Canada than in the U.S. In fact, less time is wasted trying to FIRST determine if you have coverage or can pay. Having universal insurance for simple health care means that doctors can concentrate on doctoring and not collection agencies, lawyers, etc.
Many Canadian doctors, lured by 'glamorous salaries' return chastened by malpractice insurance costs, collection problems and spending most of their time on paperwork. They come back because they want to get paid a good salary to practice medicine.
The only ones that stay are the 'cream of the crop' specialists where salaries are so high that they can win over 'fixed fee' payments under Canadas system.

Phil Gray wrote:

<quoted text>
Here is something for all those who have questions about wait times in America. yesterday I had to see an endocrinologist, he told me I had to have a bone scan and density test. I said go ahead and schedule it. He said do you want it today. How is that for wait times. Wonder how long I would have had to wait while not being hospitalized under a social healthcare system.

Interesting you brought this up. As a female who is primarily lactose intolerant (in lving in a state that see the sun only 3 months out of the year), my doctor and I were concerned about me getting enough calcium, as I can't take calcium supplements either.

My doctor order a bone density scan, and it was scheduled for the following day. Unlike Phil's situtation it was just a routine test to ensure I was getting the calcium my body needed. So even in a non-emergency situtation we can get the test we need in less than a week.

My insurance paid for the test and no preapproval was needed.

PS-Our plan gets rid of the PI lawyers,bureaucrats,and mal-practice ripoff.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
They don't even keep records for simple tests like liver biopsies. It takes no longer in Canada than in the U.S. In fact, less time is wasted trying to FIRST determine if you have coverage or can pay. Having universal insurance for simple health care means that doctors can concentrate on doctoring and not collection agencies, lawyers, etc.
Many Canadian doctors, lured by 'glamorous salaries' return chastened by malpractice insurance costs, collection problems and spending most of their time on paperwork. They come back because they want to get paid a good salary to practice medicine.
The only ones that stay are the 'cream of the crop' specialists where salaries are so high that they can win over 'fixed fee' payments under Canadas system.

Cheech the Conservative wrote:

It's $345 per.And I will keep it.Better than being dead 10 years ago.And I will NOT go broke. <quoted text>

Nice if you can afford it. What if you get sick when you can't??

Universal health care, as a publicly sponsored 'single payer universal insurance for basic health' would cost less, being both simpler to administer and taking the conflict our of doctors that want to treat but have to act like lawyers first to ensure payment for their services.

I would suggest that for those that turn purple when 'taxes' are mentioned, that this be collected as 'insurance premiums' by the government ( or a non-profit government run corporation) instead of calling it a tax, and that private insurance be an option to pay for medicine beyond the basics, i.e. private rooms, prescription costs, etc.

Don't be lazy people. I did what I had to do to ensure that my family is taken care of. I found a good job with good benefits and I work hard to keep that job. I went to school and did everything I could to be sucessful so that I didn't have to say to someone else "I'm Lazy and I want some of what you got and the govt' is going to get it for me."

LessHypeMoreFact they don't want to hear that, they only want to hear bad things about a system they don't want. (I totally agree with you, if that counts) They are scared of their government and nothing can change that.

Cheech the Conservative wrote:

Are you thinking of prop 187?<quoted text>

187, the "no" to gay marriage proposal. I dislike the process as it allow/promotes abdication of legislative responsibility.

Cheech the Conservative wrote:

Some posters from Canada say your system is OK.

That would be those that get fairly standard health care, such as heart attacks, chronic care, etc.

Cheech the Conservative wrote:

Some say it sucks.

That would be those that get pissed that they can't 'jump the queue' to use their financial wealth to take priority over those with less money. Usually they go to the U.S. to get expensive and prompt private care and then bitch about Medicare not paying for it..

Cheech the Conservative wrote:

I really have no opinion.But OUR Gov't has a terrible record with social programs.<quoted text>

Actually, the U.S. government has a LONG and illustrious record of socialism, mostly in terms of subsidies to private corporations... ;-)

I admit that their record is dismal in terms of providing for the 'public good' but that is because of the systemic attitude that government is the PROBLEM with the country.

Warlord anarchy seems to be the ideal to which most right wing whiners strive. Get rid of government so that I can squeeze money out of my victims without interference!

The only counter to that is the corporations that feed off of public money ( subsidies) who want the government to continue to funnel them more.

While I don't know which will win long term ( fascism or anarchy) I can certainly say that the public will lose..

Propositions haven't endured the legislative process, are therefore inadequately vetted and scrutinized, get passed due to the will of the citizenry, then get ignored and trampled.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
They don't even keep records for simple tests like liver biopsies. It takes no longer in Canada than in the U.S. In fact, less time is wasted trying to FIRST determine if you have coverage or can pay. Having universal insurance for simple health care means that doctors can concentrate on doctoring and not collection agencies, lawyers, etc.
Many Canadian doctors, lured by 'glamorous salaries' return chastened by malpractice insurance costs, collection problems and spending most of their time on paperwork. They come back because they want to get paid a good salary to practice medicine.
The only ones that stay are the 'cream of the crop' specialists where salaries are so high that they can win over 'fixed fee' payments under Canadas system.

The Canadian Doctors and nurse that have come to this area have stayed...no complaints other than with Medicare, Medicaid and BadgerCarePlus. They have plenty of complaints about the Canadian system.

Wait there was one she complainted that she had to take call and work longer than a 9 to 5 shift due to emergencey cases.

Second I have never had to wait to have any test done due to "determining if I had coverage or not". And neither has any one else I know in this area had to wait for this. Let along the "paper work" taking three weeks.

Who doesn't keep records of a liver biospey test?

If you mean the Doctors here in the US they do. All medical records are kept. They still have the ultra sound of my liver they did a few years ago along with the blood work they did.

BTW they liver ultra sound was paid for by my insurance no preapproval need. It was done as one of the blood test for the liver came back out of range during a routine physical. Since that time the test has been in the normal range, but the ultra sound was done as a safty precaution.

Nat_ wrote:

LessHypeMoreFact they don't want to hear that, they only want to hear bad things about a system they don't want.(I totally agree with you, if that counts) They are scared of their government and nothing can change that.

Not afraid of the government, we just know that the government can not provide the access and quality of care we have now. Why should we adopt a system that is worse than the one we have now?

Alex wrote:

Well it is possible if you want 50% of your income to go to the government and don't expect it to be a very good universal healthcare system.

Our choice is to give it to an insurance company, go without coverage and fact financial ruin if we get sick or hurt or invest in a national health plan. You say it can't work? How about medicare? Why not offer this to everyone. It works for the sickest, oldest demographic in the country. Why not the rest of us.