You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How much is your life worth?
- Thread starter anonymous
- Start date
<blockquote>Quote<br><hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>WinAce</b></i><br><blockquote>Quote
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>Anonymous</b></i>
The majority of people in the US don't see how socialized medicine would benefit the masses (because it doesn't benefit the masses - only the people that need it - like me and you!).<hr></blockquote>
That's a truly ridiculous argument. Using the same logic, the police and fire departments "don't benefit the masses" because most people, most of the time, won't "need" them. <hr></blockquote>
I didn't say <i>medicine</i> doesn't benefit the masses - <b>socialized</b> medicine doesn't. I'm not saying the masses don't need medicine (or police and fire). The only topic up for debate is who should pay for these sevices. If the government pays, <b>they make the rules</b> with the money they have. Apart from the military, I don't know of any government program that gets enough money. Fire departments often raise a lot of money on their own. Many towns only have <i>volunteer</i> fire departments. Sound desirable for healthcare?
I don't know of many government run programs that aren't under big time scrutiny. Let's look at another government funded institution: education. How many parents are happy with the student:teacher ratio? Education doesn't get enough money for one of three reasons: the government can't raise enough (people won't elect a president that will raise taxes), they spend too much in another category (I'd say military but don't want to begin another debate), or they are not efficient with the money they spend (ever notice two roadside workers standing around for every one working?). Don't you think quality of care is just as important as offering "free" care to everyone? Do you think quality of care would be acceptable if we went to government based healthcare? Our doctors being paid by the government?
Instead of making the argument for government based healthcare by comparing our government to others (Canada and UK), isn't it more predictive to compare our potential government healthcare to what our government is currently funding? Education, Medicare, Medicaid, DMV . . . I don't hear a lot of positive talk about those programs.
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>Anonymous</b></i>
The majority of people in the US don't see how socialized medicine would benefit the masses (because it doesn't benefit the masses - only the people that need it - like me and you!).<hr></blockquote>
That's a truly ridiculous argument. Using the same logic, the police and fire departments "don't benefit the masses" because most people, most of the time, won't "need" them. <hr></blockquote>
I didn't say <i>medicine</i> doesn't benefit the masses - <b>socialized</b> medicine doesn't. I'm not saying the masses don't need medicine (or police and fire). The only topic up for debate is who should pay for these sevices. If the government pays, <b>they make the rules</b> with the money they have. Apart from the military, I don't know of any government program that gets enough money. Fire departments often raise a lot of money on their own. Many towns only have <i>volunteer</i> fire departments. Sound desirable for healthcare?
I don't know of many government run programs that aren't under big time scrutiny. Let's look at another government funded institution: education. How many parents are happy with the student:teacher ratio? Education doesn't get enough money for one of three reasons: the government can't raise enough (people won't elect a president that will raise taxes), they spend too much in another category (I'd say military but don't want to begin another debate), or they are not efficient with the money they spend (ever notice two roadside workers standing around for every one working?). Don't you think quality of care is just as important as offering "free" care to everyone? Do you think quality of care would be acceptable if we went to government based healthcare? Our doctors being paid by the government?
Instead of making the argument for government based healthcare by comparing our government to others (Canada and UK), isn't it more predictive to compare our potential government healthcare to what our government is currently funding? Education, Medicare, Medicaid, DMV . . . I don't hear a lot of positive talk about those programs.
some of the problems with socialized medicine are the lines for treatments (especially for cancer patients), shortage of anibiotics, the use of out dated technology, people being turned away from hospitals because there are people worse off. I went to school with a chick from britain. She moved to the states because she wasnt recieving the treatment she needed and she couldnt afford a specialist in britain. At the age of 20 St Judes helped her at virtually no cost. At that point she wasnt even a US citizen.
Ya the media likes to show the good stuff but never the bad when it comes to any form of socialism.
Ya the media likes to show the good stuff but never the bad when it comes to any form of socialism.
I hope not to offend anyone, but I just wanted to post something really breifly. I feel that a majority of our medical $$$ problem stems from some of the programs we are providing for illegal aliens-mainly from the southern hemisphere. I have done some research and recently joined a group called "friends of the border patrol" (exactly like the Minutemen in AZ) because #1, I have become a minority in my own country surrounded by people who don't speak english and violence that is slowly becoming out of Control in San Diego (I live 8 minutes away from the Mexico border) and #2, my husband CANNOT recieve some of the medical care he DESERVES because I actually work and earn money legally-as opposed to sitting at home and letting the government support me in every way- and therefore we don't qualify for programs to assist him with his CF-at least not in CA.
I hope nobody percieves this as though I don't agree with government assistance-because I wholeheartedly do and have been a recipeient of some benefits in the past. What I don't agree with is programs such as cash aid, medicaid, food stamps, and housing assistance being provided to illegal aliens, and the children of illegal aliens-who are us citizens if they are born in the U.S. when these people don't even make an effort to get jobs because they know the american government will take care of them.
This is from the state of CA website on the expenses of illegal aliens: Last year alone, the hospitals in CA spent an estimated and unreimbursed 500 million on JUST caring for illegals. There is also a medi-cal (medicaid) program for Illegal alien females who choose to come to CA to have their children-who as I mentioned above, are US citizens if they are born here-regardless of their parents immigration status. In order to qualify for this program you have to have a CA address (very easy to get, they use relatives, friends....) and state that you intend to live in CA after the baby is born and seek employment AFTER the baby is born. Statistics show that 89% of these women return to mexico within weeks after having the baby (basically they cannot be found at the addresses or phone numbers they listed). In 2004, this medi-cal program provided service to over 220,000 illegal alien women and cost CA over 98 million dollars (that is not including the aforementioned 500 million). I believe we should do away with the medical program which encourages wome to come to the states to have their babies, and I think that hospitals should be required to report illegals (they are not required to do so at this time, and some fear that doing so will prevent illegal aliens from seeking the treatment they need).
I am not an immigrant firsthand, but my grandpa came over here from Puerto Rico decades ago legally on a visa. He started his own business, and used some government assistance when his wife got pregnant with her first child (my father), but soon got back on his feet and was providing for himself and his family again. I want to make it clear that I am not racist, sexist, or discriminate against people in any form-because I can see this being turned into a debate or mudslinging of some sort-which is not my intention. I just think there are much better ways for the government to spend money, which is actually our money because it is our taxes. I just wanted to put that info out there because I was pretty disgusted and shocked at the info I found.
Julie (wife to Mark 24 w/CF)
I hope nobody percieves this as though I don't agree with government assistance-because I wholeheartedly do and have been a recipeient of some benefits in the past. What I don't agree with is programs such as cash aid, medicaid, food stamps, and housing assistance being provided to illegal aliens, and the children of illegal aliens-who are us citizens if they are born in the U.S. when these people don't even make an effort to get jobs because they know the american government will take care of them.
This is from the state of CA website on the expenses of illegal aliens: Last year alone, the hospitals in CA spent an estimated and unreimbursed 500 million on JUST caring for illegals. There is also a medi-cal (medicaid) program for Illegal alien females who choose to come to CA to have their children-who as I mentioned above, are US citizens if they are born here-regardless of their parents immigration status. In order to qualify for this program you have to have a CA address (very easy to get, they use relatives, friends....) and state that you intend to live in CA after the baby is born and seek employment AFTER the baby is born. Statistics show that 89% of these women return to mexico within weeks after having the baby (basically they cannot be found at the addresses or phone numbers they listed). In 2004, this medi-cal program provided service to over 220,000 illegal alien women and cost CA over 98 million dollars (that is not including the aforementioned 500 million). I believe we should do away with the medical program which encourages wome to come to the states to have their babies, and I think that hospitals should be required to report illegals (they are not required to do so at this time, and some fear that doing so will prevent illegal aliens from seeking the treatment they need).
I am not an immigrant firsthand, but my grandpa came over here from Puerto Rico decades ago legally on a visa. He started his own business, and used some government assistance when his wife got pregnant with her first child (my father), but soon got back on his feet and was providing for himself and his family again. I want to make it clear that I am not racist, sexist, or discriminate against people in any form-because I can see this being turned into a debate or mudslinging of some sort-which is not my intention. I just think there are much better ways for the government to spend money, which is actually our money because it is our taxes. I just wanted to put that info out there because I was pretty disgusted and shocked at the info I found.
Julie (wife to Mark 24 w/CF)
Yea, nothing pisses me off more than taking my son to the ER for a true emergency and having to wait hours because a non-American's kid has an ear infection or the flu. It's risky enough just to take him to a germ infested ER, and even worse when he is surrounded by contagious kids whose only way to get into the doctor is to go the public hospital. THis has absolutely nothing to do with race or minorities. I have a huge problem with non-taxpayers sucking the health-care system dry and preventing my son from getting the care he needs.
Well I am glad I shared my feelings. I was very fearful that I was going to be torn apart. I decided one way I can make a difference is by what I said earlier- both my husband and I have joined "friends of the border patrol". I am going to be active in the field and he will be doing administrative stuff, although he hopes to get out to patrol the border on occasion-not sure how good for him that will be but we'll see.
Julie
Julie
<blockquote>Quote<br><hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>perky79</b></i><br>some of the problems with socialized medicine are the lines for treatments (especially for cancer patients), shortage of anibiotics, the use of out dated technology, people being turned away from hospitals because there are people worse off. I went to school with a chick from britain. She moved to the states because she wasnt recieving the treatment she needed and she couldnt afford a specialist in britain. At the age of 20 St Judes helped her at virtually no cost. At that point she wasnt even a US citizen.
Ya the media likes to show the good stuff but never the bad when it comes to any form of socialism.<hr></blockquote>
you really have no idea what you're talking about. try switching off fox news for a while and step out into the real world.
what about australia? what are the problems with our system? we pay low taxes yet everyone has free health care. the waiting lists are largely for elective proceedures only (in any case you can get private coverage in addition at very little cost). the public facilities are better than the private in many cases and our standard of care is amongst the best in the world.
Ya the media likes to show the good stuff but never the bad when it comes to any form of socialism.<hr></blockquote>
you really have no idea what you're talking about. try switching off fox news for a while and step out into the real world.
what about australia? what are the problems with our system? we pay low taxes yet everyone has free health care. the waiting lists are largely for elective proceedures only (in any case you can get private coverage in addition at very little cost). the public facilities are better than the private in many cases and our standard of care is amongst the best in the world.
<blockquote>Quote<br><hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>perky79</b></i><br>some of the problems with socialized medicine are the lines for treatments (especially for cancer patients)...<hr></blockquote>
Nonsense. This "problem" has not been established to exist in the first place, and if it does, is WILDLY exaggerated by the Libertarian contingent; moreover, in a massively hypocritical way, as countries with universal healthcare ensure their citizens don't have to face a <i>de facto</i> waiting list that exists as a result of, for instance, their uninsured status. For every anecdote courtesy of Faux News you could quote about Canada or Britain, I could point to 10 people like myself who'd already be awaiting transplant--or another whoppingly unaffordable operation--were it not for retarded financial issues.
<i><b>"MYTH #4: THERE ARE LONG WAITS FOR CARE</b>
There are no waits for urgent care, or primary care, and there are reasonable waits for most specialist care, <u>but there is some concern about certain elective surgery waits.</u>
We honestly don't know what is happening with waits system-wide. There may be serious problems of excessive waiting times for some procedures in some jurisdictions, at some times; <b>or there may not. We simply have no reliable systems in place with which to assess what are, at the moment, still largely self-reported claims.</b>
A recent Health Canada reports tells us that, with rare exceptions, waiting lists in Canada, as in most countries, are non-standardized, capriciously organized, poorly monitored, and in grave need of retooling. As such most of those currently in use are at best misleading sources of data on access to care, and at worst instruments of misinformation, propaganda, and general mischief.
"With few exceptions, our current understanding of the 'wait list situation' in Canada is so totally dependent on data of suspect quality, data drawn from a variety of ad hoc sources, data based on inconsistent definitions, data used for a variety of purposes, and data overseen by no one, that it is little wonder that we find so much confusion." There may be situations where more money would provide more than short-term palliation, but to date there is no evidence to support any such claim (Health Canada Study June 1998).
To address this problem, Health Canada has now funded the Western Canada Waiting List Project, which will systematically study the issue of waiting lists. A new rating system, beginning in fall of 2000, will be based on objective clinical assessment of each patient's medical need and expected benefit, rather than on the order they went on the list or the surgeon they have selected.
Now, having said all that, there are some areas where we do know about waits. For example, in Ontario there are waits of up to a month for radiation therapy for breast and prostate cancer patients due to a lack of radiation therapists and medical physicists, and a larger number of cancer patients in an aging population. This isn't really about money since the provinces are offering to send patients across the border, all expenses paid. <b>Rather, it is an issue of the supply of specific specialists and bad long-term planning in the past. It takes 10 years to train a radiation oncologist and at least 2 years to train a radiation therapist. But if we knew that the incidence and prevalence of cancer were increasing, why didn't we plan for that? Because, in their typical shortsightedness, some provinces did not heed the predictions of cancer experts.</b> I have no good answer other than to say that planning for health services tends to take place in the short-term with forecasts for 2-3 year periods, and sometimes this just doesn't work.
By the way, in Alberta they are opening up 48 positions to train diagnostic imaging techs, and they are importing a radiation oncologist from Australia.
<b><font color="green">By and large, Canadian cancer patients fare better than their American counterparts. Studies by both the US General Accounting Office (Keller, 1997), and Canadian researchers (Gorey, 1997) have shown that Canadian survival rates are superior for most cancers, and that Canadians get more bone marrow transplants than in the US.</font></b>
As troubling as these specific waits are for Canada, <b>we must not forget that in the US there are millions of people who don't even get diagnosed in time, let alone treated, because they don't have health insurance, they can't get into the specialist for a consultation, or their plans limit care.</b><font color="red"> The free-market system in the U.S. is no panacea for the problem of waiting for care.</font></i>
--<a href="http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/O_Canada_KP.html">Health Myths from the Great White North</a>
By the way, were it not for some (amazingly fortunately) pulled strings, for which I am very thankful, I wouldn't have been able to see an endocrinologist at my hospital for several months, with acutely dangerous and largely unmanaged diabetes hanging over my head. This is in the US, of course. So let's not pretend this is a problem with "socialized medicine," k?
The rest of the problems you describe are similarly overblown, non-existent, or problems that will, on occasion, crop up in <i>any</i> system, so it's downright amusing when you blame just one. Try arguing universal health protections <i>systematically</i> lead to such abuses more than counterparts; free-market fundamentalism <b>most certainly does</b>, because it places profit--i.e., unmitigated greed--above everything, including the public's health.
Nonsense. This "problem" has not been established to exist in the first place, and if it does, is WILDLY exaggerated by the Libertarian contingent; moreover, in a massively hypocritical way, as countries with universal healthcare ensure their citizens don't have to face a <i>de facto</i> waiting list that exists as a result of, for instance, their uninsured status. For every anecdote courtesy of Faux News you could quote about Canada or Britain, I could point to 10 people like myself who'd already be awaiting transplant--or another whoppingly unaffordable operation--were it not for retarded financial issues.
<i><b>"MYTH #4: THERE ARE LONG WAITS FOR CARE</b>
There are no waits for urgent care, or primary care, and there are reasonable waits for most specialist care, <u>but there is some concern about certain elective surgery waits.</u>
We honestly don't know what is happening with waits system-wide. There may be serious problems of excessive waiting times for some procedures in some jurisdictions, at some times; <b>or there may not. We simply have no reliable systems in place with which to assess what are, at the moment, still largely self-reported claims.</b>
A recent Health Canada reports tells us that, with rare exceptions, waiting lists in Canada, as in most countries, are non-standardized, capriciously organized, poorly monitored, and in grave need of retooling. As such most of those currently in use are at best misleading sources of data on access to care, and at worst instruments of misinformation, propaganda, and general mischief.
"With few exceptions, our current understanding of the 'wait list situation' in Canada is so totally dependent on data of suspect quality, data drawn from a variety of ad hoc sources, data based on inconsistent definitions, data used for a variety of purposes, and data overseen by no one, that it is little wonder that we find so much confusion." There may be situations where more money would provide more than short-term palliation, but to date there is no evidence to support any such claim (Health Canada Study June 1998).
To address this problem, Health Canada has now funded the Western Canada Waiting List Project, which will systematically study the issue of waiting lists. A new rating system, beginning in fall of 2000, will be based on objective clinical assessment of each patient's medical need and expected benefit, rather than on the order they went on the list or the surgeon they have selected.
Now, having said all that, there are some areas where we do know about waits. For example, in Ontario there are waits of up to a month for radiation therapy for breast and prostate cancer patients due to a lack of radiation therapists and medical physicists, and a larger number of cancer patients in an aging population. This isn't really about money since the provinces are offering to send patients across the border, all expenses paid. <b>Rather, it is an issue of the supply of specific specialists and bad long-term planning in the past. It takes 10 years to train a radiation oncologist and at least 2 years to train a radiation therapist. But if we knew that the incidence and prevalence of cancer were increasing, why didn't we plan for that? Because, in their typical shortsightedness, some provinces did not heed the predictions of cancer experts.</b> I have no good answer other than to say that planning for health services tends to take place in the short-term with forecasts for 2-3 year periods, and sometimes this just doesn't work.
By the way, in Alberta they are opening up 48 positions to train diagnostic imaging techs, and they are importing a radiation oncologist from Australia.
<b><font color="green">By and large, Canadian cancer patients fare better than their American counterparts. Studies by both the US General Accounting Office (Keller, 1997), and Canadian researchers (Gorey, 1997) have shown that Canadian survival rates are superior for most cancers, and that Canadians get more bone marrow transplants than in the US.</font></b>
As troubling as these specific waits are for Canada, <b>we must not forget that in the US there are millions of people who don't even get diagnosed in time, let alone treated, because they don't have health insurance, they can't get into the specialist for a consultation, or their plans limit care.</b><font color="red"> The free-market system in the U.S. is no panacea for the problem of waiting for care.</font></i>
--<a href="http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/O_Canada_KP.html">Health Myths from the Great White North</a>
By the way, were it not for some (amazingly fortunately) pulled strings, for which I am very thankful, I wouldn't have been able to see an endocrinologist at my hospital for several months, with acutely dangerous and largely unmanaged diabetes hanging over my head. This is in the US, of course. So let's not pretend this is a problem with "socialized medicine," k?
The rest of the problems you describe are similarly overblown, non-existent, or problems that will, on occasion, crop up in <i>any</i> system, so it's downright amusing when you blame just one. Try arguing universal health protections <i>systematically</i> lead to such abuses more than counterparts; free-market fundamentalism <b>most certainly does</b>, because it places profit--i.e., unmitigated greed--above everything, including the public's health.
Julie,
I have to agree somewhat with what you said. There are progressively more Hispanics in all of the US and in the panhandle of Oklahoma or in Southwest Kansas, where there are a lot of meat packing plants, there are a lot of Hispanics and believe you me, a lot (not all) of them are on any gov't subsidized program they can get on.
This may be because those before them have said, "It's free, take it" and they just have been programed to get on all of these programs just because everyone else has & don't realize that they don't "have" to take advantage of these programs. I'm just guessing they are told to come to the US to get free medical care & a better life for themselves (and you can't blame them for that) and they don't think twice about it & maybe don't realize that a lot of us Americans don't have access to some of the programs they have access to, which in itself is sad.
I'm not being racist either, but have often thought of this whole situation and how we can break or redirect the chain of dependency.
I have to agree somewhat with what you said. There are progressively more Hispanics in all of the US and in the panhandle of Oklahoma or in Southwest Kansas, where there are a lot of meat packing plants, there are a lot of Hispanics and believe you me, a lot (not all) of them are on any gov't subsidized program they can get on.
This may be because those before them have said, "It's free, take it" and they just have been programed to get on all of these programs just because everyone else has & don't realize that they don't "have" to take advantage of these programs. I'm just guessing they are told to come to the US to get free medical care & a better life for themselves (and you can't blame them for that) and they don't think twice about it & maybe don't realize that a lot of us Americans don't have access to some of the programs they have access to, which in itself is sad.
I'm not being racist either, but have often thought of this whole situation and how we can break or redirect the chain of dependency.
tessa55454
New member
Let's see if we can actually get to the root of the problem. a few things: I have always believed that people should obviously work and not have the government pay for everything. These are individuals that are selfish and are not putting all the pieces together. For many many reasons they choose to binge off the government, be it if they are a non-citizen of the us or a college kid doing nothing and letting there parents pay for everything. There are always people that only care for themselves, don't look at the big picture.
For the people that are coming over the borders, you know..if you have almost died several times, been raped, or half-starved your entire life i think you would do just about anything to feel something in your life. Is it fair for everyone else, no. They come here hoping for something. They can't think that far a lot of times, because they can't think. They are trying and striving for the basic needs in life.
If most of us were born in a third world country we probably wouldn't be here today. I know I wouldn't. One day I felt pretty horrible a few years ago when I was having trouble getting a med that i was on for years. The pharmacy was getting it from states away. So, I called my doc's nurses. As it turned out the med was being produced in Honduras and they had just had a earthquake 3 weeks prior. I remembered reading about it. i felt aweful. Here I have choices with my med, this one in particular and those people making probably hardly next to nothing. They probably didn't have great working conditions and they lost there job. Some people died. Now I looked at my med's very differently.
The fact is, power, money and politics run the world. We live in a land of plenty and capitalist society if we have forgotten. If we didn't care about our SUV'S, Hummer's and our daily coffee fixes, or just wanting this and that, there would be plenty of money to go around.
As much as I can, I try to pay attention to where and who my money goes to. What values does that company represent. I try to protest little-by-little with being mindful where my money goes. WE are all part of the system. Sometimes we as people feel like we don't have choices and freedoms that we wish we had. Sometimes we don't, but our money does. If we really wanted to change something, our money talks for us. Many times I have been told by my friends that I never buy anthing, mostly because I don't want to support companies that I don't believe in and I really don't need that much. My friends have said that i could live out of a box and somehow make that work.
Write your senators. Protest. Things will never be fair and equal in a world that wishes for one way to rule the world. It's not going to happen. There are so many cultures, languages, and belief systems. But, you have a choice with what you wish to do with your anger and frustration. I try to empower it and do what I can within my basic needs. I try I am taking care of my health.
if you think about it, how to bring a business down, stop putting money into it. How do you overturn the system, by making the middle class poplulation (the largest population) angry enough over a time. It's a slow volcano erupting. That is what is happening to the healthcare system. There will have to be changes. There are too many bankruptcies happening, and companies are loosing out. You can only eat your cake for so long and then it is thrown back into your face.
just some thoughts to ingest...
Tessa 27 w/cf
For the people that are coming over the borders, you know..if you have almost died several times, been raped, or half-starved your entire life i think you would do just about anything to feel something in your life. Is it fair for everyone else, no. They come here hoping for something. They can't think that far a lot of times, because they can't think. They are trying and striving for the basic needs in life.
If most of us were born in a third world country we probably wouldn't be here today. I know I wouldn't. One day I felt pretty horrible a few years ago when I was having trouble getting a med that i was on for years. The pharmacy was getting it from states away. So, I called my doc's nurses. As it turned out the med was being produced in Honduras and they had just had a earthquake 3 weeks prior. I remembered reading about it. i felt aweful. Here I have choices with my med, this one in particular and those people making probably hardly next to nothing. They probably didn't have great working conditions and they lost there job. Some people died. Now I looked at my med's very differently.
The fact is, power, money and politics run the world. We live in a land of plenty and capitalist society if we have forgotten. If we didn't care about our SUV'S, Hummer's and our daily coffee fixes, or just wanting this and that, there would be plenty of money to go around.
As much as I can, I try to pay attention to where and who my money goes to. What values does that company represent. I try to protest little-by-little with being mindful where my money goes. WE are all part of the system. Sometimes we as people feel like we don't have choices and freedoms that we wish we had. Sometimes we don't, but our money does. If we really wanted to change something, our money talks for us. Many times I have been told by my friends that I never buy anthing, mostly because I don't want to support companies that I don't believe in and I really don't need that much. My friends have said that i could live out of a box and somehow make that work.
Write your senators. Protest. Things will never be fair and equal in a world that wishes for one way to rule the world. It's not going to happen. There are so many cultures, languages, and belief systems. But, you have a choice with what you wish to do with your anger and frustration. I try to empower it and do what I can within my basic needs. I try I am taking care of my health.
if you think about it, how to bring a business down, stop putting money into it. How do you overturn the system, by making the middle class poplulation (the largest population) angry enough over a time. It's a slow volcano erupting. That is what is happening to the healthcare system. There will have to be changes. There are too many bankruptcies happening, and companies are loosing out. You can only eat your cake for so long and then it is thrown back into your face.
just some thoughts to ingest...
Tessa 27 w/cf
Here are a few articles I have clipped out recently. And no they are not from Fox News. These are from the british health service.
The government's claims to have significantly reduced waiting times in casualty are "overly optimistic" with patients waiting up to three-and-a-half days for a hospital bed, the British Medical Association (BMA) warned today.
Thousands of nurses are quitting the British National Health Service every year, the Royal College of Nursing said Monday.
Around 50,000 British-trained nurses have left or retired in the past year, with just over 20,000 recruits joining and another 12,000 coming in from abroad, a report by Royal College says.
Reasons for leaving included rigid working hours, dissatisfaction with changes to the pension scheme, heavy workloads, the feeling of being undervalued and violence by patients.
Despite successful efforts to boost recruitment, it would need to double further by 2014 just to maintain existing staff levels should the trend continue, the report states.
Dr. Beverly Malone, general secretary of the Royal College, said nurses "are coming in the front door" but "falling out the back."
"The government has not only got to pay attention to bringing them in but keeping them in," she said.
She called for more flexible working hours, better childcare and guaranteed pension arrangements.
Americas Socialized Health Care
by Lawrence Wilson, M.D., Posted January 24, 2005
Health-care systems in most developed nations are in financial trouble. Health benefits are being cut back because of exploding costs. Degenerative illnesses such as diabetes and cancer are at epidemic levels in spite of new drugs and treatments. While doctors, politicians, and insurers blame each other, they rarely mention the real problem.
Skyrocketing costs are due to the structure of health care in all these nations. All are mainly socialized, including Americas. This means they operate as top-down bureaucracies, out of touch with peoples real needs. Almost no market forces are allowed to operate for rational decision-making and cost control.
The results are predictable. In 2002, America spent $1.6 trillion on health care, up 9.3 percent from 2001. Drug costs increased 15.3 percent while hospital costs increased 9.5 percent. Out-of-pocket costs, the most market-related, declined.
A graph plotting the percentage of government payment for health care with the total cost of health care would turn almost vertical after the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1967.
A free market system WOULD bring down the cost of health care. If the Gov. wont pay for it and the people cant afford it the cost would have to go down.
The government's claims to have significantly reduced waiting times in casualty are "overly optimistic" with patients waiting up to three-and-a-half days for a hospital bed, the British Medical Association (BMA) warned today.
Thousands of nurses are quitting the British National Health Service every year, the Royal College of Nursing said Monday.
Around 50,000 British-trained nurses have left or retired in the past year, with just over 20,000 recruits joining and another 12,000 coming in from abroad, a report by Royal College says.
Reasons for leaving included rigid working hours, dissatisfaction with changes to the pension scheme, heavy workloads, the feeling of being undervalued and violence by patients.
Despite successful efforts to boost recruitment, it would need to double further by 2014 just to maintain existing staff levels should the trend continue, the report states.
Dr. Beverly Malone, general secretary of the Royal College, said nurses "are coming in the front door" but "falling out the back."
"The government has not only got to pay attention to bringing them in but keeping them in," she said.
She called for more flexible working hours, better childcare and guaranteed pension arrangements.
Americas Socialized Health Care
by Lawrence Wilson, M.D., Posted January 24, 2005
Health-care systems in most developed nations are in financial trouble. Health benefits are being cut back because of exploding costs. Degenerative illnesses such as diabetes and cancer are at epidemic levels in spite of new drugs and treatments. While doctors, politicians, and insurers blame each other, they rarely mention the real problem.
Skyrocketing costs are due to the structure of health care in all these nations. All are mainly socialized, including Americas. This means they operate as top-down bureaucracies, out of touch with peoples real needs. Almost no market forces are allowed to operate for rational decision-making and cost control.
The results are predictable. In 2002, America spent $1.6 trillion on health care, up 9.3 percent from 2001. Drug costs increased 15.3 percent while hospital costs increased 9.5 percent. Out-of-pocket costs, the most market-related, declined.
A graph plotting the percentage of government payment for health care with the total cost of health care would turn almost vertical after the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1967.
A free market system WOULD bring down the cost of health care. If the Gov. wont pay for it and the people cant afford it the cost would have to go down.
<blockquote>Quote<br><hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>Anonymous</b></i><br>well then i sure hope you dont have insurance-- since it is in part, other people's $ (in the form of premiums) that pays for your healthcare.<hr></blockquote>
Those people voluntarily pay there premiums for their insurance just as I do. What I was implying was I dont expect the gov. to tax the rich so that I have free health care. I dont mind paying my premiums or co pays. You knew exactly what I meant.....
Those people voluntarily pay there premiums for their insurance just as I do. What I was implying was I dont expect the gov. to tax the rich so that I have free health care. I dont mind paying my premiums or co pays. You knew exactly what I meant.....
In Die in Britain, survive in U.S., the cover article of the February 2005 issue of The Spectator, a British magazine, James Bartholomew details the downside of Britain's universal healthcare system.
Among women with breast cancer, for example, theres a 46 percent chance of dying from it in Britain, versus a 25 percent chance in the United States. Britain has one of worst survival rates in the advanced world, writes Bartholomew, and America has the best.
If youre a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, you have a 57 percent chance of it killing you in Britain. In the United States, the chance of dying drops to 19 percent. Again, reports Bartholomew, Britain is at the bottom of the class and America is at the top.
Explains Bartolomew: That is why those who are rich enough often go to America, leaving behind even private British healthcare. The reason isnt that we sue more in America, and scare doctors into efficiency, or that our medical schools are better. Its more simple than that. In America, you are more likely to be treated, writes Bartholomew, and going back a stage further, you are more likely to get the diagnostic tests which lead to better treatment.
More specifically, three-quarters of Americans whove had a heart attack are given beta-blocker drugs, compared to fewer than a third in Britain. Similarly, American patients are more likely than British patients to have a heart condition diagnosed with an angiogram, more likely to have an artery widened with angioplasty, and more likely to get back on their feet by way of a by-pass.
On the availability of equipment, explains Bartholomew, Britain has only half as many CT scanners per million people as the United States, and half as many MRI scanners. With lithotripsy units for treating kidney stones, the United States has more than seven times the availability per million of population than Britain.
Not only is the British equipment in short supply, but much of whats there should be loaded up and carted off to the nearest scrap dump. An audit by the World Health Organization, for instance, found that over half of Britains x-ray machines were past their recommended safe time limit, and more than half the machines in anesthesiology required replacing. Even the majority of operating tables were over 20 years old --- double their life span, reports Bartholomew.
Im not trying to say our health care is perfect I just dont think socialism is the answer.
Among women with breast cancer, for example, theres a 46 percent chance of dying from it in Britain, versus a 25 percent chance in the United States. Britain has one of worst survival rates in the advanced world, writes Bartholomew, and America has the best.
If youre a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, you have a 57 percent chance of it killing you in Britain. In the United States, the chance of dying drops to 19 percent. Again, reports Bartholomew, Britain is at the bottom of the class and America is at the top.
Explains Bartolomew: That is why those who are rich enough often go to America, leaving behind even private British healthcare. The reason isnt that we sue more in America, and scare doctors into efficiency, or that our medical schools are better. Its more simple than that. In America, you are more likely to be treated, writes Bartholomew, and going back a stage further, you are more likely to get the diagnostic tests which lead to better treatment.
More specifically, three-quarters of Americans whove had a heart attack are given beta-blocker drugs, compared to fewer than a third in Britain. Similarly, American patients are more likely than British patients to have a heart condition diagnosed with an angiogram, more likely to have an artery widened with angioplasty, and more likely to get back on their feet by way of a by-pass.
On the availability of equipment, explains Bartholomew, Britain has only half as many CT scanners per million people as the United States, and half as many MRI scanners. With lithotripsy units for treating kidney stones, the United States has more than seven times the availability per million of population than Britain.
Not only is the British equipment in short supply, but much of whats there should be loaded up and carted off to the nearest scrap dump. An audit by the World Health Organization, for instance, found that over half of Britains x-ray machines were past their recommended safe time limit, and more than half the machines in anesthesiology required replacing. Even the majority of operating tables were over 20 years old --- double their life span, reports Bartholomew.
Im not trying to say our health care is perfect I just dont think socialism is the answer.
CFHockeyMom
New member
No, you're not but the media doesn't "advertise" that here. I have many friends in the UK and through Europe and in general, I don't think most Americans would be too happy with the quality of care received there. One of my friends who was in a major accident and required over 350 sutures in his face was required to wait over 3 hours in a UK hospital. Needless to say his scarring is much worse than it could have been had he received immeadiate care from a plastice surgeon. Unfortunately, he was taken on a first come first served basis and seen by a general ER Dr. not a reconstructive specialist. He wasn't able to see the plastic surgeon for weeks after the accident.
The father of a friend from Norway is currently awaiting back surgery. His condition was diagnosed over six months ago at which point they scheduled him an appointment for surgery. That appointment isn't until this December!
My family is originally from Canada so I still have lots of family there. They are always complaining about their quality of healthcare and have said that there is a nationwide push to privitize healthcare.
The father of a friend from Norway is currently awaiting back surgery. His condition was diagnosed over six months ago at which point they scheduled him an appointment for surgery. That appointment isn't until this December!
My family is originally from Canada so I still have lots of family there. They are always complaining about their quality of healthcare and have said that there is a nationwide push to privitize healthcare.
<blockquote>Quote<br><hr>If the Gov. wont pay for it and the people cant afford it the cost would have to go down.<hr></blockquote>
Or heck, if people can't afford it - they'll die and we won't have to worry about it anymore. That's just lovely isn't it? You know... there's this funny "humanity" thing most of us have were we WANT to help other people.
Or heck, if people can't afford it - they'll die and we won't have to worry about it anymore. That's just lovely isn't it? You know... there's this funny "humanity" thing most of us have were we WANT to help other people.