I have just come from surgery and checked CNN International for the latest from Washington. Congratulations to my Yank friends in finally joining the other 29 OECD nations in providing health care to (almost) all citizens. I am most struck by the meanness and vituperation being spewed by your loyal opposition. How can covering an additional 30 million plus people be an act of evil?
Simply providing basic coverage to nearly everyone should quickly move the U.S. from the twenty-fifth place among nations to very close to the first. No one in Europe has ever understood how or why such an otherwise leading nation could be so backwards on such a basic issue. Hopefully, over the next few years we shall see a decrease in the posts about not being able to see a doctor because "my health care ran out" or some such.
Agreed, but I don't think it is official just yet. The only reason it has taken so long, is because of so much misinformation that has been spread through media and public figures. The majority of people I know who oppose it, know nearly nothing about it.
NOW IT'S OFFICIAL!!! Woot woot!!
Great. It will take quite some time to get running, but at least the process has begun. :D. I am very curious how the issue of government dollars paying for health care in a nation with a severe obesity problem will be dealt with.
> I am very curious how the issue of government dollars paying for health
I do not get it, if the government is to pay for this, how come we must continue to carry insurance and pay insurance premiums? There are so many mixed messages being tossed about on the news and other programs that just confuse and confound many people, me included. If the government pays for health care, why is it that everybody must carry insurance? So far I haven't heard anything on the news that says "send the premium payments to us at...."
Oh, and Brandye, I do not know how much of our politicing you hear about but there was an awful lot of arm twisting and back scratching as well as government "bribery?" of some senators and representatives for their votes. In other words, if you will vote for the plan, we will give you millions for your special project in your state or district.
The one thing I hope for out of all this is that now that we have national health care, is for it to be fixed. Like a lot of things our elected representatives do for us, as well as the bureaucracy, the result costs way too much and the paperwork explaining all is way too thick with the language too full of "legalese" for the common person to understand.
Pray for us people of the world!
five things...
1) social securiity system
2) the veterans administration
3) medicaid
4) Amtrak
5) the post office
we can see how well run and efficient those are are....think obamacare will be better?
my deepest instinct tell me this is a horrid disaster that will ruin an already shakey economy.
13 states or so are lined up to challenge the constitutionality of the fed being this far reaching...it's going to tied up for years and end up in the supreme court.
> my deepest instinct tell me this is a horrid disaster that will ruin an already shakey economy.
> > 13 states or so are lined up to challenge the constitutionality of the fed being this far reaching...it's going to tied up for years and end up in the supreme court.
Points made. Points taken.
Brandye, anytime you have a house divided, you have the potential for trouble. In this case for the most part the entire Republican side of Congress is against the plan as it stands. The Democrats and Executive branch ramrodded this thru without so much as considering what John Q. Public considers doable.
I think the important thing for the government is to get the plan enacted. Once this is done then the various factions can hone it into something we can live with and consider somewhat beneficial.
As for understanding how this thing is to operate at any local level and department--well, I can just see doctors, nurses, technicians, and, administrators having as many interpretations as there are these people. The "legalese" wording is much too cryptic for most people to interpret and translate into common language.
I'm surprised that I rarely see mentions of Tricare - the government's insurance program for the military and their families which is supposed to extend to non-military hospitals. I do hope that the people in charge do a much better job educating the public and doctors themselves on the new plan as the vast majority of private providers here in the U.S. have a blanket refusal to see Tricare patients and most doctors(at least up until 4yrs ago) at the military hospitals themselves don't know how it works.
While I understand people's concern over a possible financial disaster - a significant portion of the country is already in a financial disaster due to the inability to pay medical bills. The cost of lost productivity due to poor health is also immense - if not as tangible. If you compare the cost of war to the cost of the health bill and its likely affect on the average American, it doesn't seem to be too expensive to provide such a fundamental service. Of course that's a fallacy to make a direct comparison that implies if we can afford one we can afford the other, especially considering the war was paid for with borrowed money.
You would be surprised, doc at how closely politics in Washington, is followed throughout Europe. We do not understand your electoral college or the details of the two houses of Congress but what happens in Washington affects everyone in the world. You can have intelligent conversations with shopkeepers and taxi drivers on Presidential elections. I have even been told that Europeans, generally, understand political campaign content better than the average American. We may not know (or care) where Iowa is but we know it is in a unique position of being the first stop on the campaign trail using a strange approach of gathering in school and civic auditoriums to apportion delegates to the conventions.
It is rather strange knowing much of our well being is being determined by a pig farmer, albeit a large and wealthy one, in Iowa as much as by anyone in Westminster.
At least the health bill shows some interest in joining the rest of the developed world in stating that health care is a basic right. Boob jobs are still paid by the individual, I assume as everywhere in Europe, but emergencies are not billed to the local hospital.
not to rag on you Brandye, but have you seen this:
[url=http://www.neoperspectives.com/britishhealthcare.htm]Articles on British Health Care
My father is retired navy, and both mom and dad use tricare. retirees got reamed by the military when they changed the rules of the game after making promises of the benifits of staying in for a career....he feels betrayed after giving the service his youth and then they pulling rug out from under him...
[QUOTE=Brandye;253188]Boob jobs are still paid by the individual, I assume as everywhere in Europe, but emergencies are not billed to the local hospital.[/QUOTE]
Unless you've joined the military, where you can get free boob jobs(considered practice for the plastic surgeons who are to work on combat wounds).
Well, greyshadow, I checked out your link. Then I read that same website's coverage on Canadian and U.S. health care. Then I checked out the organization that runs the website.
If you want horror stories, ask any surgeon who practices in any hospital in the world. We can tell you real horror stories. Doctors are human and humans make mistakes; systems are human and systems go awry. Getting the horror stories is no trick. It is also no trick to capture non-thinking people with vignettes presented as general facts to scare people away from this or that system. Clearly, you have fallen for it.
The organization who runs that site is a far right, libertarian political action committee in the U.S. scaring people away from governmental influence on health care. Incidentally, at this moment in the U.S., governments pay for 47% of all medical services. In the U.K., that figure is 77% and the average for the OECD countries is 73%. Luxembourg is highest at 93%.
The best place in the world to get a cancer diagnosis is the U.S. Your cancer diagnosis and treatment is far superior to that of any other nation. For other disease, the picture is quite different. For the basic care of human health needs, the picture gets really grim for the U.S. You rank with Portugal on maternal death rate; just above Uruguay on infant mortality; behind all of Norther Europe and Japan on longevity.
My purpose is not an argument about whose health care stinks; all have serious problems when examined closely. I am merely stating that Europeans have not been able to understand why the richest nation the world has ever seen does not choose to provide basic health services to everyone. We see the recent vote as an indicator that the U.S. is joining the rest of the free world and find that encouraging.
my point is, no system is, can be, all things to all people...in the US page of that site, I remember the story of the NY clinic/doctor that offered a $75 dolloar a month, $10 copay for visit for any clinic procedure and how the state insurance regulator slapped him down....our own beauracracy to often is the problem. and feels like it will only make things worse, I spent 6 years on the whole SS/SSI/disability/medi-cal (california's med system) after my accident before I got myself off it, it was horrid...this gives me that same inside sick feeling I carried around all those years.
I'm concerned When the bill comes do, the people that own this law (the ones that put it together, rammed it through during our worse financial uncertanty in my life time: Obama, pelosi, reid, etc.. without a thought to unintended consequences will be out of office, they're legacy set, and who ever comes next will have to figure out how to pay for it.
there has to be better ways to do things, like allow insurance companies that are restricted by state/region regulation to compete nationally, allow doctors (like the that one in ny) to be (effectively) on retainer....allow insurance to be purchased like auto insurance: have catagories (catastrophic, maintanence, pediatric, cancer, etc) and you (the consumer) choose the amounts of coverage and deductable...espcially now with genetic testing one can learn their chance to get certain types of cancers in their life time and from that choose how much risk they want to take...making things a personal choice and competative...with government being referee, not player....
this just all feels wrong....
I don't think people should ever have to takes risks when it comes to their health. The point is, something needed to be done because our healthcare system simply is not acceptable the way it is. Lots of changes need to be made, adjustments and so on, but the point is this had to be done to help millions upon millions of people and that is what the government is for, helping its people. Money is not more important than the health of an entire nation.
It still is a personal choice and it adds more to the competition. Insurance companies are going to have to offer excellent service and lower prices to compete with the government.
I simply see nothing wrong with helping those who need it.
no, no no...I listen to all the bean-counter financial/analysis and read...as you pick apart the 1000 + pages and digest what's there, there are nuggets that are pretty good, but mostly it's crap, pork, bribes to placate the favored chosen and crippling taxes on the very people that (with 13% + unemployment in CA) that provide jobs and no results even start to appear for years from now, but the taxes do almost immediately...things like the employer contribution for your company healthcare will be taxed as your income , right know, look at your pay stub, it's done before taxes.
it's a lurking bogeyman waiting to strike....look at our social security system, they knew it was headed for trouble for 40+ years, now that that bomb is exploding, they will have to cut off the oldsters at the knees, this 'health care' starts that by gutting those senior advantage programs (my folks use it and it works for them).
It is not going to affect senior programs.
"The claim that Obama and Congress are cutting seniors’ Medicare benefits to pay for the health care overhaul is outright false, though that doesn’t keep it from being repeated ad infinitum." -[url=http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/]Seven Falsehoods About Health Care | FactCheck.org
We also are going to see some very important changes in as soon as 6 months. -[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/23/AR201003...
While I do agree there are many things in this bill I do not like, there are plenty more things that I do. As for taxes, of course they are going to be raised, you have to pay for this somehow. -[url=http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/26037.html]The Tax Foundation - Timeline of Tax Provisions in the House Health Care Bill
There is not anything that is going to cripple anyone that I can see.
why is it in our siociety, everyones first and seemingly only thought always seems to look to government..have a government program, government subsidize this or that...
The idea of shoe-horning a one-size fit none in anything is doomed to failure. the country is just too big, to diverse, to many people, groups and special interests trying to carve their own peice out. And they (sorry you too) don't seem to realize just how much it encompasses. I have a hard time wrapping my head around around more than my local area, but imagine taking that area and multiply it a hundred fold? thousand? ten thousand? and you can begin to get an inkliing of how big this country is.
I have no problem with Medi-cal, tenncare, that one that Massachuesetts has or anything else a state wants to try for its citezens...not the fed, and using the commerce clause to do a six degrees of separation to justify anything and everthing under the sun is...treasonous to orginal intent.
but hey, what do I know? Since I seem to be the only one concerned with the unsustainability of these schemes then ok, fine....dance to the tune of this pied piper (I will always doubt them, and be suspicious of their true motives, based on their track record and my own experiences), and lets get rid of statehoods altogether too, have numbered federal districts instead and one overal, all encompassing entitiy to rule and bind us...
from each according to his ability: to each according to his need
You make it seem like everyone does have the ability, but the vast majority do not and I don't believe their well being should suffer because of that. People look to the government because it needs to do its job, otherwise it's useless.
My only special interest is the health of our nation. The country is not too big or too diverse for education, so why is it too big for healthcare?
It is good to question and investigate ones government and very important to do so. This plan is sustainable, and that has been proven in many countries.
Just because one uses something from an idea does not mean one must subscribe to its ideology. I assume you are getting at how we are becoming socialist. But what is wrong with taking the good out of an idea and using it? Public education could be considered socialist. As could the military, the police and fire departments, our highway system, regulations such as on poisons in our childrens toys, or gun registration to name just a few. Should we do away with all of these to keep us "free from socialism" even though that would have terrible consequnce? Adding healthcare to this list only makes us a healthier nation. They way things are now simply are not acceptable, it would take more than one person to make a change, and that is why we need our government.
[QUOTE=CleverName;253292]You make it seem like everyone does have the ability, but the vast majority do not and I don't believe their well being should suffer because of that. People look to the government because it needs to do its job, otherwise it's useless.
My only special interest is the health of our nation. The country is not too big or too diverse for education, so why is it too big for healthcare?
It is good to question and investigate ones government and very important to do so. This plan is sustainable, and that has been proven in many countries.
Just because one uses something from an idea does not mean one must subscribe to its ideology. I assume you are getting at how we are becoming socialist. But what is wrong with taking the good out of an idea and using it? Public education could be considered socialist. As could the military, the police and fire departments, our highway system, regulations such as on poisons in our childrens toys, or gun registration to name just a few. Should we do away with all of these to keep us "free from socialism" even though that would have terrible consequnce? Adding healthcare to this list only makes us a healthier nation. They way things are now simply are not acceptable, it would take more than one person to make a change, and that is why we need our government.[/QUOTE]
the phrase is from marx...it's meant as was sarcasm.
education is done at local level with school boards and districts to come up with money and operate...the fed mandates, my best freind is retired teacher/principle and the experriences she tells is a wonder any kid can even read!. Fire, police..again those are local entities with three exceptions: FBI, CIA and Secret Service and those have specific duties...they don't go to domestic disturbances or pull your butt over for speeding. Guns, second amendment...if (for example) CA wants weapon x banded because gangbangers in L.A. prefer it, that's fine...CA has it's own needs/problems but if the rancher in wyoming uses it to protect his sheep, and the DC ruling class balnkets the country with a 'tho shall not have this' the rancher will be the only one hurt by trying to play by the rules, the gangsters don't give a rip and CA would still be mandated on top of everything else.
Military doesn't answer to anyone but the president, it has its own structure, organization.
yes, too big...ok, lets disect them...most euro countries you guys use as examples are the size of US counties, have populations that one can loose in the Los Angels Basin. All are well high in the same ethnic type %'s and have a common linking cultural heritage, they have pretty much homogenus societies with similar needs through out the populations, inshort, most don't have the 'diversity' we have, those that do, are having problems no matter how much you want to sugar coat it.
now, look at canada, why did the PM of new foundland come to the US for his heart surgery instead of waiting for his own sytem to take care of him?
I remember when Clinton got infront of the cameras and made a big deal about how more cops will be on the steets way back in '96 or '97 because the fed mandated it, tossed in a token amount...it did hire cops, for about two or three years, then the fed money ran out, locals communities couldn't keep paying it and they got layed off...again, fed mandates while local communities and states have to try to comply...now they can't, they're broke! CA, NJ, NV, all of us!
WE CAN'T AFFORD THIS! not right now....
sheez-uuuz :rolleyes: drink enough of the cool aid there ? ;)
I understand these things are done at a local level, but that was not my point. My point was that you can adapt good ideas from something as you see fit, without you having to follow the idea you borrow it from. Healthcare is a universal need, everyone will get sick at some point. So, the federal government should step in and make sure everyone can recieve treatment.
As far as the Prime minister from Canada coming here for his heart surgery, he could afford to do that. We have the best heart surgeons in the world, if you can afford the best, why would you not get it? The problem is most people in this country can not. Only the wealthy can, and they make up a very small portion of the United States. At least in canada, though you may have to wait a while, you will be treated if you are sick, even if you have very little money. If you can afford something better, then thats great, go for it.
The only thing we can not afford is people dying over trivial things like money.
I certainly did not mean to start a fight among Yanks. We Europeans are not aware of the specifics of your plan, old or new, but have never understood why we could afford universal health care and you could not.
The argument on diversity does not hold water. Germany has a population of 82 million, about 20% immigrants and a health care system based on private insurance with costs and entitlements determined by panels including the government, providers and users. France has about 62 million people, a higher percentage of immigrants, and has a government run, single payer system. Switzerland, Sweden and Holland each has a hybrid system based on government payment and private health care.
A point to recognize is that ALL health care systems in the industrial world are under financial pressure right now and it is not because they are tax based or not. All industrial nations have aging populations and most have birth rates below replacement level. That means, ipso facto, that there are increasingly fewer workers paying into schemes that are increasingly costly both because aging populations use more health care and because technology is making health care more expensive. When most system were established, joint replacement were experimental and heart valve replacements were unknown. The most advanced medical imagery was the silver halide x-ray. CT scans, MRIs, even ultrasound, equipment costs much more than the old roentgen tube.
There are centers in the world that attract those who want the best. Some are in the U.S., some in Europe, some in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and I remind you that the first heart transplant was in Johannesburg and first laser eye surgeries were in Moscow. No one nation has a corner on the market and my original congratulations were for extending basic health care to all. I admit that although I am an employee of the UK NHS, I get most of my medical care and all my dental care in Germany - at private clinics. My choice simply because I have dual citizenship (and licensure) and can aqfford it. I will fight for the right of every English, Scot, Irish and Welsh to have the basic care that he or she needs. That is what is great about, now, all thirty of the OECD nations. Basic human needs; if you want something beyond that, each nation has different rules on how to get it.