If you don't like Hillary Clinton, this movie has something for you.
If you don't like Newt Gingrich or Dick Armey, this movie has something for you.
If you like seeing people brutalized by THE MAN, this movie has something for you.
If you want to learn how the people in other countries STUCK IT TO THE MAN, this movie has something for you.
If you wonder how British doctors working for the socialized medical system over there live, this movie has something for you.
If you want to see what life is like in a Cuban hospital, this movie has something for you.
If you want to know what Canadians really think about us, this movie has something for you.
If you want to see what a literal version of the Nanny state looks like, this movie has something for you.
If you want to see how bad the devastatingly high tax rate in Europe hurts the Europeans' lifestyle, this film has something for you.
If you want to see what could make French audiences at Cannes cheer, and cause Fox News to give it praise too, this movie has something for you.
Of course, the people in the movie telling their own personal stories about health care have to be lying.
These things couldn't happen in America, we wouldn't ever let that happen? Oh yeah....what was I thinking?
Full Version: Sicko
If you want to see the right get their panties all in a wad over Michael Moore, this thread is for you.
sicko
sicko
By the time it opens everyone who wants to will have seen it. I just saw Michael telling how he likes his healthcare. I like my healthcare. Why should both of us give it up to have Cuban healthcare?
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=1179
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE DOES NOT FULFILL ITS PROMISES
Socialized medicine is often lauded in countries that have it, but America's health care system is more effective and produces better health outcomes, says John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis.
Socialized medicine, explains Goodman, makes many promises that it does not keep:
* Health care as a right: Not only do patients have to wait for care, but if they are the hundredth person waiting for an operation they are not entitled to the hundredth surgery.
* Better quality of care: Due to better access to technology, Americans enjoy two or more times as many procedures per capita -- such as renal dialysis, coronary bypass, and coronary angioplasty -- than their counterparts in Canada and Britain.
* Better efficiency: Among women diagnosed with breast cancer, only one-fifth die in the United States compared to one-third in France and Germany and almost one-half in Britain; similarly, Americans enjoy significantly better outcomes for prostate cancer.
* Equal access to health care: While minorities in the United States are underserved, this is also true for native populations in Canada; elderly patients are frequently discriminated against in socialized systems, which prefer to serve younger patients.
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE DOES NOT FULFILL ITS PROMISES
Socialized medicine is often lauded in countries that have it, but America's health care system is more effective and produces better health outcomes, says John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis.
Socialized medicine, explains Goodman, makes many promises that it does not keep:
* Health care as a right: Not only do patients have to wait for care, but if they are the hundredth person waiting for an operation they are not entitled to the hundredth surgery.
* Better quality of care: Due to better access to technology, Americans enjoy two or more times as many procedures per capita -- such as renal dialysis, coronary bypass, and coronary angioplasty -- than their counterparts in Canada and Britain.
* Better efficiency: Among women diagnosed with breast cancer, only one-fifth die in the United States compared to one-third in France and Germany and almost one-half in Britain; similarly, Americans enjoy significantly better outcomes for prostate cancer.
* Equal access to health care: While minorities in the United States are underserved, this is also true for native populations in Canada; elderly patients are frequently discriminated against in socialized systems, which prefer to serve younger patients.
http://www.ncpa.org
NCPA
National Center for Policy Analysis
ORGANIZATION
Conservative thinktank, founded in 1983.
no they won't have anything good to say about Michael Moore
Name Occupation Birth Death Known for
Bruce Bartlett Government 11-Oct-1951 Conservative pundit
Richard Bartlett Business ? Mary Kay Corporation
Dan W. Cook III Business c. 1941 Conservative fundraiser
Pete du Pont Politician 22-Jan-1935 Governor of Delaware, 1977-85
Marlo Lewis, Jr. Activist ? Global Warming critic
Lawrence Reed Activist 1953 Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Pete Sessions Politician 22-Mar-1955 Congressman, Texas 32nd
NCPA
National Center for Policy Analysis
ORGANIZATION
Conservative thinktank, founded in 1983.
no they won't have anything good to say about Michael Moore
Name Occupation Birth Death Known for
Bruce Bartlett Government 11-Oct-1951 Conservative pundit
Richard Bartlett Business ? Mary Kay Corporation
Dan W. Cook III Business c. 1941 Conservative fundraiser
Pete du Pont Politician 22-Jan-1935 Governor of Delaware, 1977-85
Marlo Lewis, Jr. Activist ? Global Warming critic
Lawrence Reed Activist 1953 Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Pete Sessions Politician 22-Mar-1955 Congressman, Texas 32nd
Nobody who analyzes policy will have much good to say about Michael Moore and his appeal to ignorance and emotionalism.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=9317
How Much Time Wasted?
Of course, we can probably never entirely get rid of waiting time in any service, in health care or even at the supermarket checkout. But for the population as a whole, today’s NHS waiting lists add up to a very long wait indeed. As Professor Richard Feachem showed in the January 19, 2002 issue of the British Medical Journal, NHS waiting times compare very unfavourably with waiting times in Kaiser Permanente, a California health plan whose spending per patient is remarkably close to that of the NHS. In Kaiser, 90 percent of in-patients are treated within 13 weeks, and 80 percent of out-patients are seen within two weeks.
But let us set a more modest target for the NHS and say merely that a wait of over four weeks is unsatisfactory. Given the pain and anxiety people may suffer, a wait of that length clearly must be unsatisfactory. So how much time do NHS patients spend in this “clearly unsatisfactory” state of waiting more than four weeks?
Let us also assume people reach the top of the waiting lists at a fairly regular rate as indicated by our raw statistics, so that all out-patients are seen within 20 weeks and all in-patients are treated within 36 weeks. (Though as a number of hip-replacement patients will testify, this is perhaps an over-generous assumption.) We can then calculate that, in rough terms:
* The in-patients on the NHS waiting list will spend 235,000 years waiting in excess of four weeks for their treatments; and
* NHS out-patients will wait 830,000 years waiting beyond four weeks to be seen.
That is a total of 1,065,000 years of unsatisfactorily long waiting.
At What Cost?
Of course, this is not the whole story. Waiting lists cost people a lot more than just time. Dudley Lusted, chief economist at PPP Healthcare, undertook a major exercise on the economic cost of waiting lists. His starting point was to estimate the cost to employers of working days lost—counting the period after the first four weeks’ absence—where the individual remained too incapacitated to return to work and was awaiting medical treatment.
Averaged across the workforce, Lusted estimated two days lost per employee per year. With a workforce of about 22 million, that suggests 44 million work days lost due to delays in medical treatment. With a weighted average pay of £15,000, the cost is therefore £660,000,000.
The cost of anxiety and limitations on activity for the patients themselves has been estimated by Professor Carole Propper of Bristol University. Taking this at £5 a day (the mid-point of her estimated range), the unseen cost of the 1,065,000 years that people spend waiting beyond four weeks is approximately £19.4 billion.
There are, of course, other costs too. A MEDIX survey identified the extra burdens on general practitioners and their patients. Among the key results were:
* Worsening conditions: 66 percent of GPs had patients waiting as out-patients admitted as emergency because their condition worsened.
* Increased burden: 90 percent of GPs had patient consultations arising out of waiting list delays, and 70 percent of GPs dealt with problems arising from that—an estimated 1.5 million extra consultations.
Why the Wait?
Waiting lists are the inevitable consequence of a politically driven, tax-funded, centrally run health service. Users have no customer power over the system. Since the amount people pay (through taxation) is unrelated to the volume of services they use, they have every incentive to demand as much service as they can get, however marginal or even unnecessary. And because—unlike almost all other goods and services—there is no price mechanism to inhibit the over-demand, the central authorities must resort to the only other strategy open to them, that of rationing.
Waiting lists are merely the symptom of this. They represent unmet demand. They are rationing by queuing.
Undoubtedly, this strategy has some success. Some people do not bother to see the doctor because they cannot face a long wait, while others fail to turn up at consultants’ appointments because they have simply got fed up waiting. A growing number choose to dip into their own savings and pay directly for their treatment in the private sector. A quarter of cardiac patients actually die before it is their turn to be called in, which reduces the burden of demand even more.
What Should Be Done?
Although all these costs are necessarily estimates, it is clear the cost of NHS waiting lists—in terms of anxiety, incapacity, time off work, the cost of absence to employers, the extra costs to the NHS of patients whose condition worsens, and the cost to GPs of seeing patients who are waiting for treatment—is well over £20 billion.
But rough as they are, these calculations do tell us something about the real human scale of the waiting lists and the costs to individuals and economy. Unfortunately, fewer people are being put on the waiting list, fewer of those are being treated in good time, and the total queue is not getting any shorter. Clearly, productivity is falling, despite a real increase in NHS funding of about £5,000 million in the past two years. The inescapable conclusion is that the current structure simply cannot make the improvements we all want, and that radical reform is inevitable.
Pumping more money into a failing structure will not deliver the benefits. Importing clinicians or exporting patients is a marginal stop-gap. We need to change the system.
Most health care can be delivered locally, and there is a strong case for managing that delivery locally too.
More local management, greater diversity of provision, and methods to make the financial rewards come upward from the patient, rather than downwards from Whitehall and through the health bureaucracy, could all produce a more patient-centered system where there was a real downward pressure on waiting times both from patients and providers.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=9317
How Much Time Wasted?
Of course, we can probably never entirely get rid of waiting time in any service, in health care or even at the supermarket checkout. But for the population as a whole, today’s NHS waiting lists add up to a very long wait indeed. As Professor Richard Feachem showed in the January 19, 2002 issue of the British Medical Journal, NHS waiting times compare very unfavourably with waiting times in Kaiser Permanente, a California health plan whose spending per patient is remarkably close to that of the NHS. In Kaiser, 90 percent of in-patients are treated within 13 weeks, and 80 percent of out-patients are seen within two weeks.
But let us set a more modest target for the NHS and say merely that a wait of over four weeks is unsatisfactory. Given the pain and anxiety people may suffer, a wait of that length clearly must be unsatisfactory. So how much time do NHS patients spend in this “clearly unsatisfactory” state of waiting more than four weeks?
Let us also assume people reach the top of the waiting lists at a fairly regular rate as indicated by our raw statistics, so that all out-patients are seen within 20 weeks and all in-patients are treated within 36 weeks. (Though as a number of hip-replacement patients will testify, this is perhaps an over-generous assumption.) We can then calculate that, in rough terms:
* The in-patients on the NHS waiting list will spend 235,000 years waiting in excess of four weeks for their treatments; and
* NHS out-patients will wait 830,000 years waiting beyond four weeks to be seen.
That is a total of 1,065,000 years of unsatisfactorily long waiting.
At What Cost?
Of course, this is not the whole story. Waiting lists cost people a lot more than just time. Dudley Lusted, chief economist at PPP Healthcare, undertook a major exercise on the economic cost of waiting lists. His starting point was to estimate the cost to employers of working days lost—counting the period after the first four weeks’ absence—where the individual remained too incapacitated to return to work and was awaiting medical treatment.
Averaged across the workforce, Lusted estimated two days lost per employee per year. With a workforce of about 22 million, that suggests 44 million work days lost due to delays in medical treatment. With a weighted average pay of £15,000, the cost is therefore £660,000,000.
The cost of anxiety and limitations on activity for the patients themselves has been estimated by Professor Carole Propper of Bristol University. Taking this at £5 a day (the mid-point of her estimated range), the unseen cost of the 1,065,000 years that people spend waiting beyond four weeks is approximately £19.4 billion.
There are, of course, other costs too. A MEDIX survey identified the extra burdens on general practitioners and their patients. Among the key results were:
* Worsening conditions: 66 percent of GPs had patients waiting as out-patients admitted as emergency because their condition worsened.
* Increased burden: 90 percent of GPs had patient consultations arising out of waiting list delays, and 70 percent of GPs dealt with problems arising from that—an estimated 1.5 million extra consultations.
Why the Wait?
Waiting lists are the inevitable consequence of a politically driven, tax-funded, centrally run health service. Users have no customer power over the system. Since the amount people pay (through taxation) is unrelated to the volume of services they use, they have every incentive to demand as much service as they can get, however marginal or even unnecessary. And because—unlike almost all other goods and services—there is no price mechanism to inhibit the over-demand, the central authorities must resort to the only other strategy open to them, that of rationing.
Waiting lists are merely the symptom of this. They represent unmet demand. They are rationing by queuing.
Undoubtedly, this strategy has some success. Some people do not bother to see the doctor because they cannot face a long wait, while others fail to turn up at consultants’ appointments because they have simply got fed up waiting. A growing number choose to dip into their own savings and pay directly for their treatment in the private sector. A quarter of cardiac patients actually die before it is their turn to be called in, which reduces the burden of demand even more.
What Should Be Done?
Although all these costs are necessarily estimates, it is clear the cost of NHS waiting lists—in terms of anxiety, incapacity, time off work, the cost of absence to employers, the extra costs to the NHS of patients whose condition worsens, and the cost to GPs of seeing patients who are waiting for treatment—is well over £20 billion.
But rough as they are, these calculations do tell us something about the real human scale of the waiting lists and the costs to individuals and economy. Unfortunately, fewer people are being put on the waiting list, fewer of those are being treated in good time, and the total queue is not getting any shorter. Clearly, productivity is falling, despite a real increase in NHS funding of about £5,000 million in the past two years. The inescapable conclusion is that the current structure simply cannot make the improvements we all want, and that radical reform is inevitable.
Pumping more money into a failing structure will not deliver the benefits. Importing clinicians or exporting patients is a marginal stop-gap. We need to change the system.
Most health care can be delivered locally, and there is a strong case for managing that delivery locally too.
More local management, greater diversity of provision, and methods to make the financial rewards come upward from the patient, rather than downwards from Whitehall and through the health bureaucracy, could all produce a more patient-centered system where there was a real downward pressure on waiting times both from patients and providers.
Unlike Kaiser Permanente, NHS in Britain doesn't force an 18 month old to drive two hours across the city when they have a 104 fever and are already at the hospital. NHS treats the patient. It doesn't send a baby across town to die because they aren't at the right hospital.
QUOTE(SRX @ Jun 30 2007, 04:10 AM) [snapback]311287[/snapback]
* Better quality of care: Due to better access to technology, Americans enjoy two or more times as many procedures per capita -- such as renal dialysis, coronary bypass, and coronary angioplasty -- than their counterparts in Canada and Britain.
If you have seen the movie, you would understand why "Americans enjoy two or more times as many procedures per capita." It has nothing to do with BETTER HEALTHCARE, it has to do with A FAILURE TO PREVENT DISEASES that the Brits, Canadians and French do a better job of AVOIDING in the first place.
I mean the nerve of NHS in Britain, PAYING DOCTORS MORE TO PREVENT DISEASE by helping and encouraging their patients to pursue more healthy lifestyles, actually treating them when they are sick, and not denying treatment simply to save money. THE NERVE!
A not-for-profit should be set up to raise money to buy the rights to air the movie from The Weinstein Company on national broadcast TV, and a network should be rented for the evening to air it over TV for free next summer for the entire electorate to have some clue about how bad it really is, with a PS at the end about how to Fix the problem.
The same way the French do, a NATIONAL STRIKE. If every American said, F U, I ain't going to work starting the day after labor day UNTIL we have SINGLE PAYOR UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE for everyone in this country, imagine how f'ing quick Congress would get a bill through then when the whole god damn business community started breathing down their necks over the lost profits.
I would predict 72 hours.
The same way the French do, a NATIONAL STRIKE. If every American said, F U, I ain't going to work starting the day after labor day UNTIL we have SINGLE PAYOR UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE for everyone in this country, imagine how f'ing quick Congress would get a bill through then when the whole god damn business community started breathing down their necks over the lost profits.
I would predict 72 hours.
QUOTE(CFKane_ @ Jun 29 2007, 10:52 PM) [snapback]311283[/snapback]
If you don't like Hillary Clinton, this movie has something for you.
If you don't like Newt Gingrich or Dick Armey, this movie has something for you.
If you like seeing people brutalized by THE MAN, this movie has something for you.
If you want to learn how the people in other countries STUCK IT TO THE MAN, this movie has something for you.
If you wonder how British doctors working for the socialized medical system over there live, this movie has something for you.
If you want to see what life is like in a Cuban hospital, this movie has something for you.
If you want to know what Canadians really think about us, this movie has something for you.
If you want to see what a literal version of the Nanny state looks like, this movie has something for you.
If you want to see how bad the devastatingly high tax rate in Europe hurts the Europeans' lifestyle, this film has something for you.
If you want to see what could make French audiences at Cannes cheer, and cause Fox News to give it praise too, this movie has something for you.
Of course, the people in the movie telling their own personal stories about health care have to be lying.
These things couldn't happen in America, we wouldn't ever let that happen? Oh yeah....what was I thinking?
What if I hate Michael Moore?
its not about Michael Moore
yeah, sure. And if it were done by a rightwing moron?
QUOTE(SRX @ Jun 29 2007, 11:04 PM) [snapback]311285[/snapback]
By the time it opens everyone who wants to will have seen it. I just saw Michael telling how he likes his healthcare. I like my healthcare. Why should both of us give it up to have Cuban healthcare?
Sadly you engage in the fallacy of the excluded middle.
The choice is not between you and me and Moore having good healthcare via insurance - with 47 million other Americans uninsured including 8 million kids - or having Cuban healthcare.
Ridiculous argument.
QUOTE
yeah, sure. And if it were done by a rightwing moron?
you'd still hate Michael Moore
I do hate Michael Moore. That much is true.
so how do you like the healthcare system that's a big business?
I don't like it much.
that's what the film is about
QUOTE(Davis 2.0 @ Jun 30 2007, 08:47 AM) [snapback]311338[/snapback]
I do hate Michael Moore. That much is true.
He's always spoken well of you.
QUOTE(CFKane_ @ Jun 30 2007, 03:39 AM) [snapback]311316[/snapback]
A not-for-profit should be set up to raise money to buy the rights to air the movie from The Weinstein Company on national broadcast TV, and a network should be rented for the evening to air it over TV for free next summer for the entire electorate to have some clue about how bad it really is, with a PS at the end about how to Fix the problem.
The same way the French do, a NATIONAL STRIKE. If every American said, F U, I ain't going to work starting the day after labor day UNTIL we have SINGLE PAYOR UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE for everyone in this country, imagine how f'ing quick Congress would get a bill through then when the whole god damn business community started breathing down their necks over the lost profits.
I would predict 72 hours.
A national strike presents a lot of big problems... gotta have a very good all encompassing cause like Health Care... or Immigration or possibly both(I'd like to see US take on the war machine as well:~)...
1st, gotta get the AFL-CIO and other Unions on board(with the Health Care cause exclUSively, it might even be possible to get the corporates to endorse the action, as UHC would doubtless be "profitable" for them as well... get them on board and it's a done deal:~)... then an expensive and expansive information campaign(need to get much more than jUSt the Unions to join the strike:~)... this film seems to be a very good start on that...
Unfortunately, there will be those who will take advantage and try to get the jobs during the strike/action(the higher paying ones:~)... and employers who will not take back the participants(they will have to have some help with legal fees suing for their jobs back:~)... need to get support for the strikers as much as possible... including aid in applying for government programs(in order to maximize the effects of the strike/action by not only not supporting the system, but in all possible ways draining it as well:~)...
Might consider a much more workable option such as a National Call-in Sick day or week(Blue Flue:~)...
Overall, I like it very much... a very bold step... I think it'd have far-reaching effects... mostly good effects(as long as it didn't cause Martial Law and/or a Revolutionary or Civil War in the process:~)... if successful, there's a good chance of changed laws in regard to strikes and Unions... along with much increased Union sympathy and membership... in any case, it'd much improve our people's and our nation's standing with the peoples and nations of the rest of the world... and it'd go a long ways toward taking back our nation for our people... with overall discontent so high and government approval running so low currently, the timing is good...
One thing is sure... it would bring about some serious changes... hopefully/probably for the better...
Ohh, and it'd also probably get US some form of UHC... and possibly some secure borders(and maybe a much less aggressive foreign policy:~).
QUOTE(CFKane_ @ Jun 30 2007, 02:39 AM) [snapback]311316[/snapback]
A not-for-profit should be set up to raise money to buy the rights to air the movie from The Weinstein Company on national broadcast TV, and a network should be rented for the evening to air it over TV for free next summer for the entire electorate to have some clue about how bad it really is, with a PS at the end about how to Fix the problem.
The same way the French do, a NATIONAL STRIKE. If every American said, F U, I ain't going to work starting the day after labor day UNTIL we have SINGLE PAYOR UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE for everyone in this country, imagine how f'ing quick Congress would get a bill through then when the whole god damn business community started breathing down their necks over the lost profits.
I would predict 72 hours.
I'm not so sure the American people want to scrap their own healthcare for socialist style "free" healthcare because some left-wingers take the day off. Take three even. I don't know what you do, but I'm fairly certain the world could get by without you for a while.
A better idea might be to hold your breath and stamp your feet until you get your way.
you don't get it
it's not the "American People's" at all
we are at the mercy of big business
it's not the "American People's" at all
we are at the mercy of big business
QUOTE(inyerface @ Jun 30 2007, 10:46 AM) [snapback]311366[/snapback]
you don't get it
it's not the "American People's" at all
we are at the mercy of big business
Yes, I forgot, the "American people" is all the lazy left-wingers that want a free ride. Get your own healthcare, don't take mine. If you're too lazy and stupid to support yourself file for welfare, then you can be at the mercy of big government.
Now you're at the mercy of the insurance companies.
Whatever you do, don't get sick, and then lose your job. Or vice versa.
Universal coverage - which every other industrialized nation has - is not free. Nor socialized. Wise up.
It will have to be payed for. Just as it must be payed for now.
Right now as a nation we pay a greater % of GDP than any other industrialized nation. And nearly 1/6 of our country is uninsured. Heck of a crock.
Whatever you do, don't get sick, and then lose your job. Or vice versa.
Universal coverage - which every other industrialized nation has - is not free. Nor socialized. Wise up.
It will have to be payed for. Just as it must be payed for now.
Right now as a nation we pay a greater % of GDP than any other industrialized nation. And nearly 1/6 of our country is uninsured. Heck of a crock.
QUOTE(hunin @ Jun 30 2007, 11:14 AM) [snapback]311377[/snapback]
Now you're at the mercy of the insurance companies.
My insurance company isn't run by petty Stalinists, and that is a big point in it's favor. Also it's legal for me to buy healthcare right from the doctor. You little commies never heard of that? Or is your world dedicated to only that which is provided free from government, in the amounts government decides?
QUOTE
Universal coverage - which every other industrialized nation has - is not free. Nor socialized. Wise up.
It's mandated, so it ends up free for some. I assume your tax bracket is low enough you expect to get a deal.
QUOTE(Brian_Lambchops @ Jun 30 2007, 01:21 PM) [snapback]311382[/snapback]
My insurance company isn't run by petty Stalinists, and that is a big point in it's favor. Also it's legal for me to buy healthcare right from the doctor. You little commies never heard of that? Or is your world dedicated to only that which is provided free from government, in the amounts government decides?
It's mandated, so it ends up free for some. I assume your tax bracket is low enough you expect to get a deal.
No, no it isn't.
You don't know any poor folk?
It's free for all now. It's called ER. The most expensive care available. And we pay for that anyway.
Once the poor and uninsured are sick enuf.
But maybe they'll die before they get to ER?
QUOTE(hunin @ Jun 30 2007, 11:30 AM) [snapback]311391[/snapback]
No, no it isn't.
You don't know any poor folk?
I know lots and lots of poor folk, and I have a good idea as to why they are poor. Rich white liberals told them the government was going to help them, and they decided it was better to take a handout in the hand, than look for success in the bushes.
There are ways to help people that need a doctor now and then without nationalizing healthcare.
Yes, there is.
It's called single-payer insurance.
I hear no one calling for nationalizing the hospitals here. No one.
Only your scare tactics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
From 2004:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0511-07.htm
'Course now there are more uninsured, so likely more expensive.
It's called single-payer insurance.
I hear no one calling for nationalizing the hospitals here. No one.
Only your scare tactics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
From 2004:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0511-07.htm
QUOTE
The cost of providing health care for U.S. citizens who have no insurance will total $125 billion this year, with taxpayers and private entities footing most of the bill , a report issued on Monday said.
The report by a health care research foundation estimated that there are 44 million Americans without any health insurance, and soaring health care costs have become a presidential campaign issue....
The report by a health care research foundation estimated that there are 44 million Americans without any health insurance, and soaring health care costs have become a presidential campaign issue....
'Course now there are more uninsured, so likely more expensive.
QUOTE
Partly because they lack insurance, an additional 18,000 adults die each year, the report estimated, citing figures from a branch of the National Academy of Sciences.
People who have no health insurance typically get less preventive care, are diagnosed with more advanced diseases, and "tend to receive less therapeutic care and have higher mortality rates," the report said....
People who have no health insurance typically get less preventive care, are diagnosed with more advanced diseases, and "tend to receive less therapeutic care and have higher mortality rates," the report said....
QUOTE(hunin @ Jun 30 2007, 11:39 AM) [snapback]311398[/snapback]
Yes, there is.
It's called single-payer insurance.
Like SS is single-payer retirement and Medicare is single-payer for old people. Both are going bankrupt.
SS is not intended to keep people in the lifestyle they are accustomed to. Just keep them off the street and fed. If it were means-tested it would be just fine.
Medicare is under-funded. Still the admin costs are a 1/5 to 1/10 of HMOs.
Medicare is under-funded. Still the admin costs are a 1/5 to 1/10 of HMOs.
QUOTE(hunin @ Jun 30 2007, 11:49 AM) [snapback]311406[/snapback]
SS is not intended to keep people in the lifestyle they are accustomed to. Just keep them off the street and fed. If it were means-tested it would be just fine.
Medicare is under-funded. Still the admin costs are a 1/5 to 1/10 of HMOs.
No funding is ever enough when the people demand. That's the problem. If there's no direct cost people don't care what it costs.
If you want the government running your life it's alright with me, just don't make everyone else live your way.
I sure has hell don't want insurance companies refusing me coverage because of some prior condidition.
~~~~~~~
http://thebulletin.org/columns/laura-kahn/20070202.html
~~~~~~~
QUOTE
The security impact of the uninsured
In his January 1, 2007 New York Times op-ed piece, "A Healthy New Year," Paul Krugman wrote that the U.S. health care system is a scandal and disgrace. He noted that in 2005 almost 47 million Americans were uninsured, and more than 8 million of these individuals were children. While Krugman's article discussed the human tragedy and costs of such a disastrous system, it did not mention two other crucial factors--the national security impact of millions of uninsured people and the decline in the number of primary care physicians and nurses who would provide care during a crisis.
The 9/11 Commission revealed important information regarding U.S. preparedness and response to the attack on the World Trade Center. However, there has not been an independent investigation focusing on the nation's response to the anthrax letters. It's important to note that a delay in seeking care and proper treatment proved fatal for five of the eleven inhalational anthrax victims. Seven of the eleven individuals were federal postal workers, all of whom were eligible for health insurance coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Five of these postal workers survived because they sought care and received correct treatment early. But what would have happened if the inhalational anthrax victims had been food handlers, child care workers, or farm workers who lacked health insurance?
In May 2002, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a report that estimated that roughly 30 million working age adults were uninsured. The report found that these individuals often delay seeking treatments for illnesses and lack an ongoing relationship with a medical professional. In April 2006, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation released a state-by-state report (The Coverage Gap: A State-by-State Report on Access to Care) that found that (during the study period from 1998 to 2003) 41 percent of uninsured adults avoided seeking medical care because of cost compared to 9 percent of insured adults.
Another IOM report released in January 2004 estimated that because of poorer health, the uninsured cost the United States somewhere between $65 billion and $130 billion annually more than if they were insured. In the long run, their health care costs are much higher because they delay seeking care until their illness is severe, or in some cases, untreatable.
When time is of the essence, these findings provide a sobering backdrop in our struggle against future bioterrorist attacks and emerging infectious disease outbreaks. For example, delays in seeking or obtaining care could have catastrophic consequences in the event of a communicable disease outbreak such as severe acute respiratory syndrome, pandemic influenza, or smallpox. Public health interventions such as vaccination, quarantine, and isolation rely on the early recognition of an outbreak to successfully contain it. This strategy would be seriously hindered when at least 15 percent of the total U.S. population lacks health insurance, which diminishes access to medical care....
So the United States has several major strikes against it in terms of rapidly identifying and responding to a future epidemic. As with the well-known sorry state of the levees in New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina, we can't say that we were unaware of the problems. The challenge is to find a way to fix them before it is too late.
In his January 1, 2007 New York Times op-ed piece, "A Healthy New Year," Paul Krugman wrote that the U.S. health care system is a scandal and disgrace. He noted that in 2005 almost 47 million Americans were uninsured, and more than 8 million of these individuals were children. While Krugman's article discussed the human tragedy and costs of such a disastrous system, it did not mention two other crucial factors--the national security impact of millions of uninsured people and the decline in the number of primary care physicians and nurses who would provide care during a crisis.
The 9/11 Commission revealed important information regarding U.S. preparedness and response to the attack on the World Trade Center. However, there has not been an independent investigation focusing on the nation's response to the anthrax letters. It's important to note that a delay in seeking care and proper treatment proved fatal for five of the eleven inhalational anthrax victims. Seven of the eleven individuals were federal postal workers, all of whom were eligible for health insurance coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Five of these postal workers survived because they sought care and received correct treatment early. But what would have happened if the inhalational anthrax victims had been food handlers, child care workers, or farm workers who lacked health insurance?
In May 2002, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a report that estimated that roughly 30 million working age adults were uninsured. The report found that these individuals often delay seeking treatments for illnesses and lack an ongoing relationship with a medical professional. In April 2006, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation released a state-by-state report (The Coverage Gap: A State-by-State Report on Access to Care) that found that (during the study period from 1998 to 2003) 41 percent of uninsured adults avoided seeking medical care because of cost compared to 9 percent of insured adults.
Another IOM report released in January 2004 estimated that because of poorer health, the uninsured cost the United States somewhere between $65 billion and $130 billion annually more than if they were insured. In the long run, their health care costs are much higher because they delay seeking care until their illness is severe, or in some cases, untreatable.
When time is of the essence, these findings provide a sobering backdrop in our struggle against future bioterrorist attacks and emerging infectious disease outbreaks. For example, delays in seeking or obtaining care could have catastrophic consequences in the event of a communicable disease outbreak such as severe acute respiratory syndrome, pandemic influenza, or smallpox. Public health interventions such as vaccination, quarantine, and isolation rely on the early recognition of an outbreak to successfully contain it. This strategy would be seriously hindered when at least 15 percent of the total U.S. population lacks health insurance, which diminishes access to medical care....
So the United States has several major strikes against it in terms of rapidly identifying and responding to a future epidemic. As with the well-known sorry state of the levees in New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina, we can't say that we were unaware of the problems. The challenge is to find a way to fix them before it is too late.
http://thebulletin.org/columns/laura-kahn/20070202.html
QUOTE(hunin @ Jun 30 2007, 11:54 AM) [snapback]311412[/snapback]
I sure has hell don't want insurance companies refusing me coverage because of some prior condidition.
You feel more comfortable when the government does it?
you comfortable with their war?
trust them to kill but not make well
trust them to kill but not make well
QUOTE(hunin @ Jun 30 2007, 06:54 PM) [snapback]311412[/snapback]
I sure has hell don't want insurance companies refusing me coverage because of some prior condidition.
~~~~~~~
http://thebulletin.org/columns/laura-kahn/20070202.html
then get a job that has benefits and doesnt require a screening.
Whose responsibility is it to pay for preconditions?
The government is better at destroying than building.
QUOTE(inyerface @ Jun 30 2007, 07:04 PM) [snapback]311418[/snapback]
you comfortable with their war?
trust them to kill but not make well
your headed for climax..........
QUOTE(patheticJT @ Jun 30 2007, 02:10 PM) [snapback]311419[/snapback]
then get a job that has benefits and doesnt require a screening.
Whose responsibility is it to pay for preconditions?
Good question.
What is your answer?
QUOTE(Brian_Lambchops @ Jun 30 2007, 01:59 PM) [snapback]311416[/snapback]
You feel more comfortable when the government does it?
At least there is some possibility of gov't accountability. It's called elections.
Some possibility.
How'd that "accountability" thingy work out at Tuskeegee??
QUOTE(Tom Servo @ Jun 30 2007, 02:28 PM) [snapback]311430[/snapback]
How'd that "accountability" thingy work out at Tuskeegee??
I just said possibility.
QUOTE(patheticJT @ Jun 30 2007, 02:10 PM) [snapback]311419[/snapback]
then get a job that has benefits and doesnt require a screening.
Whose responsibility is it to pay for preconditions?
You cannot hide your medical history - screening or not.
The insurance companies happilly share that.
Once your precondition of diabetes progresses to needing amputation of a foot, then you will be able to go to the ER without insurance. And maybe you'll get disability.
The cost of doing nothing is more than the cost of preventive medicine.
It would be easier and cheaper to pool some uninsurable risks than put everyone on the dole. Why must socialists always shoot for the lowest common denominator?
QUOTE(hunin @ Jun 30 2007, 07:29 PM) [snapback]311431[/snapback]
I just said possibility.
You cannot hide your medical history - screening or not.
The insurance companies happilly share that.
Once your precondition of diabetes progresses to needing amputation of a foot, then you will be able to go to the ER without insurance. And maybe you'll get disability.
The cost of doing nothing is more than the cost of prevenative medicine.
When you work for a pesky big corporation or large organization, you can get health care benefits for your family without a screening.
Heck get a job serving coffee at that big a$$corporation Starbucks raking in "Big Bucks". they offer health benefits for some of their lowest positions.
QUOTE(Brian_Lambchops @ Jun 30 2007, 02:34 PM) [snapback]311435[/snapback]
It would be easier and cheaper to pool some uninsurable risks than put everyone on the dole. Why must socialists always shoot for the lowest common denominator?
Single-payer UHC would pool the risks.
You don't really understand what socialized medicine means, do you?
If you think the 45 million uninsured are not your problem, you are wrongo. Really wrongo.
The uninsured get health care, they just mostly don't pay for it - we do. Taxpayers, employers, and those of us with health insurance do.
And they get oodles of care - over $100 billion worth.
Out of that $100 billion, most is covered by cost-shifting to those patients with insurance by hospitals. Of course some are self-paid. Very many of the uninsured who are admitted to ERs are there for avoidable, treatable conditions. And 18,000 die prematurely each year.
And the economic costs in terms of excessively expensive care and lost productivity are immense.
You worry about your taxes. The uninsured represent a $100 billion hidden tax, borne by employers who do offer health insurance, workers who pay part of their premiums, and taxpayers.
We can't afford to cover the uninsured? We already are, and we are paying way more than we would if they had insurance.
Pay now, pay more later, or hope they die before the uninsured get to the ER.
What we get with this broken system is higher taxes and higher premiums all due to lack of political will.
QUOTE(hunin @ Jun 30 2007, 01:29 PM) [snapback]311431[/snapback]
I just said possibility.
Ever heard of sovereign immunity??
Yes, yes I have.
That and presidential privilege.
When you work for a pesky big corporation or large organization, you can get health care benefits for your family without a screening.
Heck get a job serving coffee at that big a$$corporation Starbucks raking in "Big Bucks". they offer health benefits for some of their lowest positions.
You don't understand how insurance companies find out about pre-existing conditions, do you? At all?
Think a physical would show you have diabetes?
That and presidential privilege.
QUOTE(patheticJT @ Jun 30 2007, 02:41 PM) [snapback]311442[/snapback]
When you work for a pesky big corporation or large organization, you can get health care benefits for your family without a screening.
Heck get a job serving coffee at that big a$$corporation Starbucks raking in "Big Bucks". they offer health benefits for some of their lowest positions.
You don't understand how insurance companies find out about pre-existing conditions, do you? At all?
Think a physical would show you have diabetes?
QUOTE(hunin @ Jun 30 2007, 12:50 PM) [snapback]311443[/snapback]
Single-payer UHC would pool the risks.
It would also pool the non-risks. One size fits all. the 265 million take the hit so the 45 can have mediocre socialist care.
QUOTE(hunin @ Jun 30 2007, 01:50 PM) [snapback]311443[/snapback]
If you think the 45 million uninsured are not your problem, you are wrongo. Really wrongo.
Health?
Yeah, what uninsured cares if they lose some toes?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.