Majority of Americans unhappy...

[OvalNut]

It would appear that having a democratically elected government does not prevent media perversion.

Bingo.


Tim

[thxgoon]

Just a few small points;

Richard W. Haines wrote:

As I mentionded earlier, Socialized medicine would be unconstitutional. It would also be
astronmically expensive, be expolited and corrupted by the trial lawyers

It already is...

You'd lose your doctor
patient confidentiality privilege and the Fed would have access to your entire
medical history which could be used against you.

Why would this happen?

We have 300 million people in this
country plus about 20 million illegals. If they swamped the hospitals

They already are... and the tax payers are paying for this

Lawyers and people who can't afford health insurance are two huge reasons that medical treatment is so expensive (ironic.) I'm not all about 'socialist' medical systems, but something has to be done. Why can I buy the exact same drugs, the exact same drugs, in a different country for less money? At the very least the industry needs some level of regulation.

[OvalNut]

Quote:
You'd lose your doctor
patient confidentiality privilege and the Fed would have access to your entire
medical history which could be used against you.

Why would this happen?

Because since the Federal government would be paying for your treatment, they would require that you allow disclosure to them of all the details of said treatment for which they are paying. This is much the same as the disclosure currently required by private sector insurance companies.

It sounds rational on the surface, until the Federal government decides to decline approval for a treatment/procedure, based on your medical history to which they have access, and then you have no private sector alternative. That heart bypass that can save/extend your life may well get declined by a government underwriter who feels that the government shouldn't pay for a procedure with a given failure rate, but which also may save/extend your life, even if you are willing to take the risk. ... All because they have detailed access to your medical records.

If socialized medical care were not in place, then you would have a variety of private sector alternatives, including even paying for the procedure out of your own pocket. In a socialized healthcare system though, you are not allowed to pay for it yourself since by doing so you would be unfairly squandering limited resources (i.e, the doctors'/nurses' time and skills, hospital bed space, medication, supplies, etc ...) on an operation deemed possibly unworthy by a government underwriter.

And then you die.


Tim

[thxgoon]

Ah... yes that's no good.

[thxgoon]

Wouldn't the doctors credo and all of that still apply though? I just can't see how the government could take control of your life and let you die.

So let me pose this question to the more politically literate than I. Obviously there is a problem with healthcare in this country with the number of uninsured/owing money to the medical industry and the aformentioned fact that you can find identical treatment in other countries for significantly less. What is a good solution?

[brucek]

I just can't see how the government could take control of your life and let you die.

hehehe, there's a slim chance that OvalNut may be slightly off-base in that assumption.

These ideas usually derive from the unjust and confusing rulings of HMO style insurance companies. In a National Health Care system the federal government doesn't usually get involved with anything other than the funding and standards. The administration would likely be handled at the state and local level.

Drf asks, "On the score of public health, Why can't it work?". Well, the fact is, it can and does in many free and democratic countries. At the expense of causing ISLAND1000 to vomit, Canada enjoys a national health care system that works quite well, just as many other countries do. Canada's national health insurance program, isn't actually a national plan, but a national program that connects thirteen provincial and territorial health insurance plans that share common features and standards of coverage. This would be similar to what is envisioned in the states.

Canada has a Canada Health Act that specifies conditions that must be satisfied by each provincial and territorial insurance plan to qualify for the federal government transfer payments. Most Canadians have private supplementary coverage to pay for drugs and bumped up hospital room situations, etc., but no one worries how they will pay for an operation or a hospital stay. And keep in mind that Canada does this with a record of federal government budget surpluses for the past ten years.

Canada's total expenditure on health as an expenditure of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is 9.5%. This can be compared with 13.9% in the United States.

We have 300 million people in this country plus about 20 million illegals. If they swamped the hospitals it would bankrupt the economy and result in rationed medicine'. It really doen't matter what other countries do in this regards because they do not have the enormous demographics of America.

Well I suppose that's true. It's fairly easy to institute an identification card system such as we enjoy in Canada. To gain access to publicly funded health services, this photo ID card is required, and it ain't easy to defraud by illegals.

brucek

[Otto]

Thanks for the info and analysis, brucek.

[ISLAND1000]

I just vomited. My sister and brother in-law have lived in Canada for 20 years. They lived in Montreal and have lived in Vancouver for the last 5. They have two matured sons who live in Windsor and get health care in Detroit. My sister works in the Canadian health care system with the Inuits. She worked in the USA health care system and says the Canadian system struggles to meet the demands of it's citizens. They return to USA for their healthcare when possible. They have much anecdotal information to share as well as horror stories and tragedies.
But healthcare is only one of the ways in which the USA satisfies it's citizens and those of all nations. There are enough advantages here in the USA that we find the ratio of immigrants to emigrants to be of astronomical proportions. It's one of the indisputable truths and we are today having a heated political discussion attempting to deal with that very fact. The term "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" is part of everybody's agenda.
Are those immigrants coming here for our healthcare system or are they here for a more basic human need . . . . . "FREEDOM"?

[drf]

OvalNut wrote:

Because since the Federal government would be paying for your treatment, they would require that you allow disclosure to them of all the details of said treatment for which they are paying. This is much the same as the disclosure currently required by private sector insurance companies.

It sounds rational on the surface, until the Federal government decides to decline approval for a treatment/procedure, based on your medical history to which they have access, and then you have no private sector alternative. That heart bypass that can save/extend your life may well get declined by a government underwriter who feels that the government shouldn't pay for a procedure with a given failure rate, but which also may save/extend your life, even if you are willing to take the risk. ... All because they have detailed access to your medical records.

If socialized medical care were not in place, then you would have a variety of private sector alternatives, including even paying for the procedure out of your own pocket. In a socialized healthcare system though, you are not allowed to pay for it yourself since by doing so you would be unfairly squandering limited resources (i.e, the doctors'/nurses' time and skills, hospital bed space, medication, supplies, etc ...) on an operation deemed possibly unworthy by a government underwriter.

And then you die.


Tim

Ah well, if thats the kind of people you have running your country it's no wonder its in such a state

The demographics of Australia and America are very similar, what differs is the scale.

You have 13 times the population yet you enjoy a GDP of above 20 times the Australian, in a nutshell you have more to spend per person on health care than Australia does.

[Richard W. Haines]

I deleted my above political posts.

[christos360]

Cool

[scott]

There are the few among us that actually live their life trying to help make this country a better place to live . Most of us(me included) are sitting on the couch thinking if it doesn't bother me directly, I can deal with it. Some think just voting for their favorite candidate will fix things when they get to office. But the elected still has to answer to all of congress. No one person runs anything, period.

And heres a little conspiracy theory. Why do we need to get new boxes to watch T.V.? I know I personally don't want my families conversations to be recorded or videoed. Why is the gov. insisting on this? Is it I just don't understand the concept?

[lcaillo]

The government is not insisting that you get a new box to watch TV.

[Richard W. Haines]

Scott,

In my opinion, what everyone can do to make the country better is to be self reliant, self sufficient and
take nothing from the government nor demand anything from the government. That would
solve most of our problems since the clashes that happen among people, genders,
races and immigrants is usually caused by the conflict of interest of one person trying to live at another person's expense or demand preferential treatment.
That would be my formula for a peaceful and democratic civil society.


I don't know what the percentage is but it's probably close to 50% or higher of citizens (and illegals) that expect the government to do everything for them with little, if any, effort on their part which has split our society in productive and dependent classes with no common ground. It's also the difference betwee free enterprise and socialist economies.


So there's my take on it and I tried to be less partisan than in the posts I
deleted. On my part, I pay my own bills and don't meddle in anyone else's
business or private life.

[drf]

Richard W. Haines wrote:

What everyone can do to make the country better is to be self reliant, self sufficient and
take nothing from the government nor demand anything from the government. That would
solve most of our problems since the clashes that happen among people, genders,
races and immigrants is usually caused by the conflict of interest of one person trying to live at another person's expense or demand preferential treatment.
That would be my formula for a peaceful and democratic civil society.

I don't know what the percentage is but it's probably close to 50% or higher of citizens (and illegals) that expect the government to do everything for them with little, if any, effort on their part which has split our society in productive and dependent classes with no common ground. It's also the difference betwee free enterprise and socialist economies.


So there's my take on it and I tried to be less partisan than in the posts I
deleted.

That's an interesting perspective, I wonder if a society could sustain itself if everyone was self sufficient?
I ask this because majority of current systems of governance have evolved out of self sufficient societies much like what you have described. Once one self sufficient identity tries to trade with another the need for an independant umpire becomes more desireable, thus the councels and elders are estabished. I guess in a perfect world there would be no need for laws or enforcers, but No one is perfect.

[Richard W. Haines]

drf,

Well American society sustained itself prior to the welfare state. That didn't mean the country didn't have problems (all societies do) but the remedies were not the expansion of the Fed.

[scott]

Richard, Self reliance is how I was raised. Depend on yourself, no one else is going to help. But, how do we do that in these days? The gov. has tried to pass a bill twice now, where no one can raise a garden for themselves , no one can be on well water anymore and everyone has to be tied into the grid for electricity. Self sustained living is no more. The price of ammo is starting to go up tremendously, they are already passing new gun laws, taking them away from honest citizens. If I were a criminal, that's great, I wouldn't have to worry about breaking in a home and the owner having a gun. I know I'm off on a tangent here, but a few friends of mine are police, and they said a memo came from somewhere(gov. I assume), they are to start training immediately for for home entry and urban assault. I can only react to what I see and this, to me, is a sign to take seriously.

[scott]

By the way. If you can read this without speaking in a British accent, thank a revolutionist!

The gov. needs to fear the people, not the people fear the gov.

[lcaillo]

Actually, the government should be the people in our system.

[Richard W. Haines]

Scott,

What you're referring to is 'statism' or the same thing under various disguise names like Social Democrat, Green party, Environmentalism etc.