# Aaah the advantage of state run health care



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

FYI
No comment from me, just read.



> Grieving father finds 'dead' baby son ALIVE in coffin
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0NmsV1GEc
> 
> ...


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

yes, we are destined for that type of Obama-care right here in the US.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Con...strialized-Nations-on-Preventable-Deaths.aspx

Yes... we're clearly the best... :roll:

If you don't feel like reading: it says that more people die here of PREVENTABLE illnesses than any other country industrialized country... So much for the "b-b-b-but waiting times" argument. More people die here because of availability problems than die other places because of waiting or quality! Coupled with the fact that we pay the most, it's pretty conclusive that our system stinks.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

omegax.....

Is it the system you don't like or the health insurance portion of it?

Because I agree the system needs change. But a public health option will only drive our country deeper into debt.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Chuck Smith said:


> omegax.....
> 
> Is it the system you don't like or the health insurance portion of it?
> 
> Because I agree the system needs change. But a public health option will only drive our country deeper into debt.


and will shorten our life span, as more people become terminally ill, while waiting their "turn" for medical intervention. yep, you're gonna love the future of HC in this country, of course so will the 12 mil illegals and their extended families, which will be crossing over shortly to join them...yeah, that's sweet, eh?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Omegax, something is wrong, that just doesn't compute. It is in other countries that they have to wait, yet this study said if thing had been more timely they could have prevented deaths. Timely??? We are far more timely than those other countries. I sure would like to see the raw data to this twisted research before the socialist statistician worked it over. It defies the difference in out system and other systems. We are more timely when it comes to treatment. I smell data manipulation.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Omegax I would argue the data in that politically biased "study". What is a preventable death? Is it a car accident? (yes), is it gunshot wound? (yes) How about diabetes related deaths? (yes), Would sudden cardiac arrest due to coronary artery disease qualify as a preventable death? (of course it does). So in a country, that over half the residents are obese, a country that has more cars per capita than anyone else in the world and has the highest amount of random gun violence we lead the world in "preventable deaths".

The best healthcare money can buy is a private doctor that treats your every need. And that didn't seem to help Michael Jackson.

Until the people of the country wake up and eat better, excercise daily, throw away their cigarrettes and booze the US will continue to lead the world in preventable deaths. It really has NOTHING to do with healthcare and everything to do with healthy living.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Chuck: It's the whole thing, insurance industry included. I just always notice that other countries have very high quality care for far less money and worry that if we don't essentially copy their system whole that we'll do it half way and cost ourselves more money.

Plainsman: That study just says that our access issues are more detrimental to overall quality than their wait times are. They don't wait nearly as much as you think they do, and we wait more than you think we do.

Swift: It wasn't "preventable" in the sense of obesity, substances and violence. It was the number of "deaths that could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care". What comprises "preventable" is still a fair point. I'm apt to take the non-partisan Commonwealth Fund's word for most things, though.

Edit: I read a little closer:


> Study authors state that the measure of deaths amenable to health care is a valuable indicator of health system performance because it is sensitive to improved care, including public health initiatives. It considers a range of conditions from which it is reasonable to expect death to be averted even after the condition develops. This includes causes such as appendicitis and hypertension, where the medical nature of the intervention is apparent; it also includes illnesses that can be detected early with effective screenings such as cervical or colon cancer, and tuberculosis which, while acquisition is largely driven by socio-economic conditions, is not fatal when treated in a timely manner.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

omegax, it is simple to understand but like so many others, you are focusing on the small factor. Let's look at Canada for example, routine medical care is provided by the Gov via tax dollars. IE checkups etc... thus many things if the person goes to the doctor are caught sooner. Thus the "timely" stat you focused on. So high blood pressure is medicated and thus lower stroke rates and deaths.

Now move into the realm of cancer,non life threatening treatment and care and quality go way below our standards.We have relatives that live just outside of Bamf and my cousin waited from Nov until mid May for bypass surgery. His wife went south into the US for her breast cancer treatment vs waiting.

So when reform is talked about it still boils down to money. Canada does not pay specialized doctors enough to keep them, which limits peoples ablity to get needed services. Here we do not get the upfront care because of costs or more times than not choice.

This is an important issue, and understanding the depth of what needs doing and the solutions being presented are very important. While the talk many times appears to be Dem vs Rep, in reality I think the issues at hand are moving towards a real solution or simply changing who is paying for the problem at hand with no fix to the issues. That gets lost!


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Ron, I'd argue that the picture painted by that Commonwealth Fund study is as big of a picture as you can get. Fewer people die Canada from waiting than die here for lack of access or preventative care. They are also working on that... they'll be kicking our butts even worse.

Making sure that people can get the preventative care they need will do more than shift the costs. It will save lives.

There's not a country on Earth that pays as much for their care than we do, and ALL of the industrialized ones have better results. The common thread is their governments intervene far more in their systems than we do. The ones who've recently enacted major reforms have seen costs come down.


----------



## API (Jul 14, 2009)

omegax said:


> ...I'd argue that the picture painted by that Commonwealth Fund study is as big of a picture as you can get. Fewer people die Canada from waiting than die here for lack of access or preventative care. They are also working on that... they'll be kicking our butts even worse.
> 
> Making sure that people can get the preventative care they need will do more than shift the costs. It will save lives.
> 
> There's not a country on Earth that pays as much for their care than we do, and ALL of the industrialized ones have better results. The common thread is their governments intervene far more in their systems than we do. The ones who've recently enacted major reforms have seen costs come down.


Omegax, you make a lot of giant statements without demonstrating evidence other than pointing at an obviously biased opinion. Not only that, you attempt to apply the logic of a "study" to a highly philosophical issue. This is the same trap that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al stupidly fall into. Perhaps you completely ignore the value of individual health care choice. Furthermore the supposition that preventative treatment based upon a centralized set of standards is desirable, is at minimum immoral because the antithesis of rationed prevention is denial of service to those with chronic health issue. At most the focus upon "prevention" is symbolic of a fascist approach to controlling citizens. What you ignore is that health care and levels of treatment is a highly personal decision that is not the legitimate concern of government. Shame on you.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Fewer people die Canada from waiting than die here for lack of access or preventative care.


I find it real hard to believe that more people per 100,000 die in the United States than Canada because of our health care. I could believe that fewer people die in Canada period.



> There's not a country on Earth that pays as much for their care than we do, and ALL of the industrialized ones have better results.


You say that as if it were fact. I believe it's pure partisan bs. I believe that we perhaps pay more, but all the industrialized nations have better results? BS. They come to this nation in droves for health care. Also, they perhaps pay less out of pocket at the office, but they pay, and they pay enormously through taxes. Liberals can't get it through their head that somehow this has to be paid for.

Sure there are some treatments with great promise in other countries. When a person is terminal and they want a controversial treatment they should get it. The Food and Drug Administration should keep their nose out when the patient is terminal. In other words, government should be involved less not more.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Omegax, I think you edited your post above to show my arguement was on track. Americans are NEVER unable to get healthcare, preventive care or otherwise. Many choose to spend their money on things like new cars, smokes and alcohol instead of preventive medicine. Tell a 24 year old that he can come to the clinic for a $100 and get a screening physical or spend it on a weekend at WE FEST and how many am I gonna see in clinic? The insurance industry and the ambulance chasing attorney's need to be reigned in.

In clinic I would bet that 40% of the xrays I order are do to the potential for a lawsuit. If I miss a brain tumor on a person with a common headache all an expert witness has to say is 'if he did a CT scan it would have been picked up' Bang write a check. It is not cost effective to do all the tests that are done. But in medico-legal terms it's not cost effective not to do the expensive tests.

As a medical practioner all I can do is make recommendations to my patients based on what the evidence shows. What the patient does with that recommendation is up to them.

Healthcare affordability is in need of reform. If they would start with tort reform then insurers will come around and the providers will again be able to practice cost effective evidence based medicine.


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

I posted this when it first came out and it is a good fit here. Why can't congress have a common sense approach that will benefit everyone? We don't need a complete overhaul at great expense and more government control, we need some "change".

Posted: Saturday, August 01, 2009 
WASHINGTON (AP) - South Dakota U.S. Sen. John Thune delivered the Republican Party's weekly address today, and took aim at the health care overhaul Democrats have proposed.

Thune says the Democrats' current proposals do not improve health care because it would force millions of Americans in employer-based coverage into a government-run system.

He also says the proposals would burden states because they expand Medicaid coverage without a clear source of funding.

In South Dakota, for example, the new requirements could require $45 million a year in new state spending. He says that will mean either higher taxes or cuts to other priorities.

Thune says Republicans want reforms that allow small businesses to band together to buy affordable health insurance for their employees, and reforms to protect doctors and hospitals from frivolous lawsuits.

Republicans also want to encourage wellness and prevention programs proved to cut costs; and give people who buy their own insurance the same tax breaks as those who get insurance through their employers.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Omegax, why do we pay more, most of us need only to look down at our waist line!!!!!!! Me included!!!!!

But here is a bit of info for you, last night WDAY news had a piece on a individual who was 35 or so that had a heart attack while playing softball this summer. They did not expect him to live, but he has, with a lot of complications including organ failure. He is currently still hospitalized in Merit Care.

They are holding a benifit later this year for him becaue he does not have insurance. Well guess what, he chose not to have insurance because he wanted his toys and to run and go every weekend and do whatever. Now, down the road his case will be a poster child moment for Gov run health care.

By the way he was in for a screening in Jan and was told then he had high blood pressure, but again blew off the followup appointment to start a medicine regime. Because of costs. Now like it or not, Omegax this is something you cannot and will not fix.

On the other hand, you may be to young to have participated in HMO's that first came out. Single $10.00 office visit and $5.00 copay on meds. Well soon the HMO's where over run with people coming in for a sniffle,ache in the back because they raked leaves over the weekend. Soon these programs went away or went bankrupt.

I really do not believe you have any kind of a clue what is going on with health care. You have bought the line that we need a Gov run entity because our health care is so expensive and as you put it inadequate compared to other countries. The only Gov run health care program I see being better than our is Denmark and it requires people to pay for services.

In connection to Swifts comments the doctors are paid by the Gov, but on a slide scale depending on treatment. A sprained ankle is not paid the same as a heart transplant. Also the doctors and Gov cannot be sued which means no malpractice insurance or Cover Your *** tests being run.

Like I said, Canada is good on sniffles, but not on the big stuff.

So back to the current proposals, Omegax just what is it you expect from Congress in the form of a health coverage program. If you share that maybe then we can get a better understanding of your point of view and statements.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

The thune plan is better than the obama plan. There are now so many plans out there that it is hard to keep track of who is offering what.

I posted this before so forgive me for being redundant. I work with a canadian every day. He is not a fan of their healthcare system. He blew out his knee a few years ago and he had to wait forever for surgery, finally his mother (a nurse) was able to sneak him into a rural hospital to get his knee fixed because of a cancellation. This instead of a hospital in Edmonton, I believe he waited for 2 weeks, his wait would have been a month in Edmonton. Now why on earth would you want to have to wait for a knee surgery? I for one don't care to live with that kind of pain for any longer than needed. One sort of needs there knees 

I work with some Europeans every once in a while and if you want their healthcare system, then we would have to pay their taxes. Almost every Dane, Fin, Brit, Aussie, and Spaniard that I have worked are trying to get US citizenship. Of course they work and are trying to get in legally so this plan doesn't help them. :eyeroll:

The system needs to be changed no doubt, and I think every child should be covered no matter what but the government could screw up free beer so I don't think they need to be trusted with something as vital and potentially costly as healthcare. Leave it private but more regulated (insurance and billing), free up pharmecuticals, and tort reform.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Side question here for some of you ... from my real life example.

In February I had a "sigmoid collectomy" ... meaning they removed eight inches of my colon.

Surgeon saw me every day I was in the hospital (9 days) ... did the surgery removing a portion of my colon and my appendix. Then two follow-up visits after I was released.

Anyone here care to take a guess at what he billed out and what he was paid for his service?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Almost every Dane, Fin, Brit, Aussie, and Spaniard that I have worked are trying to get US citizenship. Of course they work and are trying to get in legally so this plan doesn't help them.


I have not been to France, but I have been to Guadeloupe and they are a overseas department of France, and hence actually considered part of France, with French taxes. Before the cruise I purchased a small compact camera at Walmart for $150. I noticed in Guadeloupe the same camera was $460 if memory serves me right. I asked why so high. They include the sales tax in the window price. Their sales tax was at that time (1995) 60%. Simply because they don't see the bill doesn't mean they are not paying for it. Perhaps that's why some think other countries pay so much less.

With a 60% sales tax many things can appear free to those who put little thought into things. Would you really like a 60% sales tax? Would it be fair if you are never sick, or would you be one of those people who run to the doctor every time you stub your toe and push the sales tax to 70%. Like they say "there is no free lunch".


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

DD my guess is the hospital and surgeon's bill was ~ $26,000 and insurance covered $16000 depending on deductibles and such.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That darn DD. I am trying to make arrows, pick apricots, spray canada thistles, install a new TV in the camper, get some concrete estimates, get ready for church executive meeting, and I have to keep walking over to my computer waiting for the answer.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

my guess, he billed $40,000 and got $32,000.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

In another instance, I purchased a property in 2005 and the selling broker and the buyer's broker received $42,000 total and didn't even have to save my life. And probably sent less time for the money they received!!

:huh: :stirpot: oke: :rollin:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Bowstring said:


> In another instance, I purchased a property in 2005 and the selling broker and the buyer's broker received $42,000 total and didn't even have to save my life. And probably sent less time for the money they received!!
> 
> :huh: :stirpot: oke: :rollin:


Another fine example would be the size of the bonus the investment guys get when my investments are losing. uke:

I have one that is part of a plan that has not posted a gain since inception (1998) so I asked my investment planner (observer) why on earth we are still sitting on this baby. Been a loser for over a decade, I think the profit ship has sailed. :roll:

Back on track, the Euros and Canadians that I know hate all the taxes and hate their system. One way or another you pay.

The one part of this argument that I am puzzled and troubled by is the issue of don't get sick, don't pay. A lot of medical conditions are genetic, so where does the system draw the line? Will we start having to pay more because your maternal genetics are inclined to cancer or heart disease? Perfectly fit people run into very costly medical expenses in their lives also, maybe not as often but it could happen.

I will agree that insurance needs to be reigned in. Not just health insurance, how much do we pay in insurance in our lives? I was going to calculate it but I am having a good night.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Plainsman ... OK so the suspense was killing everyone ... 

Remember I only referred to the Surgeon.

He billed out $3,550.00 for his "all inclusive" treatment provided to me.

He was paid $1,257.00.

Now keep in mind he is a Hospital Staff Surgeon, so there is certainly some compensation going on between him and the hospital.

Now to the comment from swift ...

The Hospital billed out something over $72,000.00. That includes all treatment I got in the emergency room prior to being admitted ... then my time in the hospital. There were two CT Scans to determine my condition before surgery was agreed on by all three doctors assigned to me. It included 9 days of inervereous antibiotics and heavy duty pain meds and nightly blood tests, plus two or three other side treatments which were only good for one use on me, but they insured I would not have any goofy problems because something was neglected.

The only real cheap thing I can think of the Hospital had going for them with me was for seven days all I could eat was *ice chips*.

Of that over $72,000.00 the hospital billed out, they were paid something just over $42,000.00.

Now ... There was indecision about IF I required surgery. Only after Dr. Abby opened me up did they discover I had an abscese in my colon which was infecting everything it came in contact with (and understand it's pretty tight quarters in one's abdomen).

Once any part of this thing burst I would be a dead man in fairly short order. Timely surgery saved me from some much more serious problems.

Now the real kicker ... Do you think I wanted some policy from Washington DC determining whether or not to give me sugery?

I just yesterday scheduled my follow-up colonoscopy and CT Scan.

My expense has been $1,000.00 and that is my max out of pocket for the year ... anything else I do is paid at 100% .

Yeah, I think I'll move to O, frick'in, bama care first chance I get.

These jokers in DC just piss me off beyond all recognition.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

TK33 said:


> Bowstring said:
> 
> 
> > In another instance, I purchased a property in 2005 and the selling broker and the buyer's broker received $42,000 total and didn't even have to save my life. And probably sent less time for the money they received!!
> ...


I had an investment broker until 2007 when I figured out the reason he's called a broker is becuse the more money I gave him the broker I got.

:toofunny:


----------



## API (Jul 14, 2009)

Obama tried the big snow job today at a NH town hall soiree complete with a few softball tosses from fawning lackeys. What a crock. For further debunking of the stupidity called Obamacare, here's an analytical article from the WSJ that says volumes...



> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574332293172846168.html
> *The Truth About Health Insurance*
> *Only nine states have the costly rules that Obama wants to impose nationwide.*
> 
> ...


----------

