Actually, we are #1

[Sinatra]

The QUALITY of care is outstanding in America - the world leader in fact.

The system of delivery can and should be tweaked - not thrown out. A single payer sytem will greatly endanger the innovation that makes the quality of our medicine the envy of the world.

Enhance state-to-state insurance competition and aggressive tort reform as has been done in Texas, and costs will go down while availability will increase.

As it is now, there are narrow choices for consumers state to state- a near monopoly that has driven up costs and reduced access. This can be remedied.

But why has the government not done these simple measures?

Simple - such measures would not increase the role of government, nor enlarge the pool of the dependent population.

Personally, I always liked the idea of personal medical accounts. Rather than having people just blithely assume it'll be "handled" with no idea of or concern for how much things cost, put them directly in contact with and in charge of the expenses.

___

We have those - health savings accounts. (HSA)

In conjunction with high deductible catastrophic plans, they allow millions the opportunity to afford health insurance.

These plans have never received the attention from the mainstream media and certainly the Democrat liberals. Why? Because they place even more control in the hands of the consumer and not the government.

For 1/10th of what we are planning on spending for this abomination of healthc care reform, we could initiate HSA credits that would ultimately cover ALL Americans. Add to that state-to-state insurance access/competition, and the catastrophic plan premiums would go down as well.

Finally, include some real tort reform and we have America's health care access problem solved, while still maintaining the incentive based medical care system that makes the quality of our health care #1 in the world.

 

[Sinatra]

+

Same article goes on to outline the following very interesting facts:

Data assembled by Dr. Ronald Wenger and published recently in the Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons indicates that cardiac deaths in the U.S. have fallen by two-thirds over the past 50 years. Polio has been virtually eradicated. Childhood leukemia has a high cure rate. Eight of the top 10 medical advances in the past 20 years were developed or had roots in the U.S.

The Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology have been awarded to more Americans than to researchers in all other countries combined. Eight of the 10 top-selling drugs in the world were developed by U.S. companies. The U.S. has some of the highest breast, colon and prostate cancer survival rates in the world. And our country ranks first or second in the world in kidney transplants, liver transplants, heart transplants, total knee replacements, coronary artery bypass, and percutaneous coronary

We have the shortest waiting time for nonemergency surgery in the world; England has one of the longest. In Canada, a country of 35 million citizens, 1 million patients now wait for surgery and another million wait to see specialists.


Full article here:


Mark B. Constantian: Where U.S. Health Care Ranks Number One - WSJ.com

 

[sole survivor]

anyone can sign up for a medicaide spendown, even after a diagnosis. Anyone can fill out the paperwork for Hospital assistance.

no joke

Obama and the libs cry wolf about health care

As a working poor bus driver I found myself looking to social services for help. Both of my children were delivered and top notch care provided for the 1st 5 years of their life(had i needed it). My wife a recent legal immigrant was ineligible for means tested benefits fell through the cracks and was caught by a nice little mediciade safety net provided by the county. This covered her pre natal, both deliveries and any care for 2 months after each birth. During this time I took a DOT phgysical to keep my CDL and job but tested high blood sugar and was told in order to keep my job I would have to see my doctor and stabalize this diabetic condition. With no insurance and looking at least $3000 in consultations and labs I went to the case worker and she told me to sign up for a medicaide spendown. This program evaluates your income and sets a monthly deductible based on you ability to pay. My monthly deductible would have been $800 which was steep for me at the time. The case worker told me to seek help from hospital assistance who picked up the entire deductabel. A year later when I had a cardiac episode while shoveling snow it was the same thing. Several thousand in MRIs, blood tests consutations and stress tests picked up by medicaide with the spendown covered by hospital assistance. For 3 years whil putting my wife through school with a full pell (shes knocking down big bucks now) the delivery and care for my children, myself and my wife was


FREE!!!


There is no crisis its a political power grab by the liberal elite in an attempt to further shackle their constituents. Sad really

Is this a joke?

Are you seriously saying we have no health care crisis because some low income persons can get it under some circumstances? What about all those who earn too much for Medicaid and too little to buy health insurance?

 

[Sinatra]

anyone can sign up for a medicaide spendown, even after a diagnosis. Anyone can fill out the paperwork for Hospital assistance.

no joke

Obama and the libs cry wolf about health care

As a working poor bus driver I found myself looking to social services for help. Both of my children were delivered and top notch care provided for the 1st 5 years of their life(had i needed it). My wife a recent legal immigrant was ineligible for means tested benefits fell through the cracks and was caught by a nice little mediciade safety net provided by the county. This covered her pre natal, both deliveries and any care for 2 months after each birth. During this time I took a DOT phgysical to keep my CDL and job but tested high blood sugar and was told in order to keep my job I would have to see my doctor and stabalize this diabetic condition. With no insurance and looking at least $3000 in consultations and labs I went to the case worker and she told me to sign up for a medicaide spendown. This program evaluates your income and sets a monthly deductible based on you ability to pay. My monthly deductible would have been $800 which was steep for me at the time. The case worker told me to seek help from hospital assistance who picked up the entire deductabel. A year later when I had a cardiac episode while shoveling snow it was the same thing. Several thousand in MRIs, blood tests consutations and stress tests picked up by medicaide with the spendown covered by hospital assistance. For 3 years whil putting my wife through school with a full pell (shes knocking down big bucks now) the delivery and care for my children, myself and my wife was


FREE!!!


There is no crisis its a political power grab by the liberal elite in an attempt to further shackle their constituents. Sad really

Is this a joke?

Are you seriously saying we have no health care crisis because some low income persons can get it under some circumstances? What about all those who earn too much for Medicaid and too little to buy health insurance?

____


You make a good point - many states already have public medical assistance programs but some simply don't bother to fill out the paperwork for themselves and their families.

This national healthcare "reform" is a boondagle disaster that has nothing to do with actual health care or cost curbing - it will cause overall quality to diminish while exploding the national debt beyond the levels we are currently under.

 

[midcan5]

Step right up, step right up, for only a small insignificant amount you, my sickly Americans will get the healthcare you so desire. No money, sorry, move aside please, step right up...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...re/99976-were-number-37-a-12.html#post1884817

Given we have lots of docs and lots of uninsured with little or no care, why would this surprise anyone? Oh and we're number one here too: http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0110-23.htm

"With the resources and ingenuity of the American people, we certainly can do better. Yet, we are fooled into believing that more expensive means better care. The truth is that we spend twice the cost per capita compared with other developed nations, yet are ranked 37th in overall quality, according to the World Health Organization. Americans face higher infant and maternal mortality rates and a shorter life span than our counterparts in other industrialized nations that offer comprehensive health coverage for all their residents."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/30-5

"So, let me get this straight... the insurance industry has been a big part of the problem. Worse. The industry has allowed the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans every year in order to protect profits.

I think of dead -- 2-year-old Mychelle Keyes and dead 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan and dead 38-year-old Tracy Pierce, and that dead little boy with an infected tooth in Maryland -- and I don't wonder at all what the new for-profit insurance-friendly political coalitions are fighting to protect. And it isn't the future Mychelle's or Nataline's or Tracy's. They are fighting to protect the folks who killed them."

 

[Navy1960]

Frankly, I find it rather amusing that someone would tout the benefits of the recent healthcare bill and then at the same time condemn Corporate healthcare insurance because, it shows a clear lack of understanding of one of the bedrocks of the current healthcare bill. For months on end the entire nation has been subjected to a never ending supply of the evils of private healthcare and the evil insurance industry even though over 80% of Americans get their healthcare from such a source and about the same number like it want to keep it. Now given that fact the current healthcare will will millions upon millions of those so called uninsured where? Not to a "public option" or a Govt. plan but a mandated private insurance company with NO REFORMS in the bill when it comes to actualy premium reforms other than Govt. sponsored credits based on income for purchasing them and even then those are very narrowly focused. The other group, will be forced into state Medicaid. which by every study you can find THE WORST provider of healthcare insurance in the nation in terms of service delivery and overall performance. So let's not sit here and tout the benefits of a bill that CLEARLY DOES NOTHING to reform healthcare AT ALL other than to give someone a card and say here you are heres your Medicaid and hope that helps. This bill has nothing to do with healthcare reform and everything to do with getting a legislative win before the 2010 mid-terms. The Healthcare refom bil does not reform drug costs, does not reform premium costs, does not provide a Doc-Fix, does not raise the standard of care or delivery, does not lower the cost of malpractice, does not provide for open windows in R&D. I can go on, What it does do, is mandate every American have insurance, and give those so called evil corporate insurance companies one of the biggest business booms to ever come down the pike.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No. I read it. It was irrelevant; as was the whole story. Emergency treatment is not health care reform. Nor is Medicaid. Between the Medicaid eligible and CorporateCare beneficiaries are huge numbers who don't earn enough for health insurance and too much for to qualify for Medicaid. What about them?

"Irrelevant" is not defined as "I missed the point". The point is, you keep chanting this mantra of "only the rich get health care now; we must take care of the poor". I gave you an example to the contrary, and it was NOT just federally-mandated emergency care. Contrary to the apocalyptic visions you want to evoke of poor people dropping like flies in the gutter, necessitating an immediate and wholesale gutting of our health care system in favor of a wholly socialized one, we DO provide for our poor.

I never said Medicaid was "health care reform", so spare me your false standard of "It must be REFORM or it doesn't count". It doesn't. What Medicaid is is a safety net already in place that you and your ilk fraudulently try to ignore in favor of pretending that millions of people are totally uncared-for.

Kindly prove to me that there are "huge numbers who can't get insurance or Medicaid". Be specific and show your work, because I don't answer questions predicated on the assumption that your assertions about the world are automatically true.

Your rant reflects a false premise. I never said "only the rich get health care." I said "those who will wait forever because they can't afford CorporateCare." Many who aren't poor and can't qualify for Medicaid, working and middle class Americans, can't afford CorporateCare. Fewer than 70% of US jobs include health benefits and those are often minimal. That means about a third of American workers have to get health care on their own. Considering the high cost health insurance, assuming a large number of persons can't afford it is not unreasonable.

I don't remember asking you to reiterate your personal opinions about "many people". I told you to prove to me that there are "huge numbers who can't get insurance or Medicaid", and your word for it proves nothing except that you're talking out of your ass.

Strike one. Try again.

 

[Toro]

Same article goes on to outline the following very interesting facts:

We have the shortest waiting time for nonemergency surgery in the world

Does this ranking reflect all those who will wait forever because they can't afford CorporateCare?

Oh, spare me. Homeless people get medical care in the US faster than the average citizen of Canada or the UK does, so save your horror stories of poor people dying in the streets.

I drive a cab to make extra money during the slow seasons in my process serving business. I picked up a homeless man at University Medical Center on New Year's Day. He had been attacked and beaten up the previous evening. The hospital not only did a beautiful job of treating him (his stitches were as nice and neat as they would have given anyone), they also found him new clothes to replace the ones they had to cut off of him, and they let him stay overnight so he'd have a place to sleep, instead of releasing him that night as soon as he was patched up. To top it off, the hospital staff convinced Medicaid to pay for his cab ride back to where he had been picked up (despite the fact that he wasn't on Medicaid when he came in) AND arranged with the city bus system to get him a month-long bus pass so he could get around town.

So don't talk to me about how only rich people get taken care of in this country, all right?

Do you have any evidence to back up that the average homeless person gets treated faster than a Canadian or a Brit?

In Canada, you get treated now if you have a serious problem. Most of the problems in Canada are for delays in discretionary and non-life threatening treatments.

What happens when a poor person has cancer? How does he get treated? Does he get chemo treatment? I've asked this question a number of times but no one has answered.

 

[Toro]

How do people get treated for pre-existing conditions if they cannot afford to pay for it?

 

[sole survivor]

They walk into a hospital emergency room. After they are stabilized a social worker provides them with the government forms to get them on medicaide. They are then treated with the same facilities as any other person. Thats been mny experience and the experience of others I know.

 

[Joe Steel]

Your rant reflects a false premise. I never said "only the rich get health care." I said "those who will wait forever because they can't afford CorporateCare." Many who aren't poor and can't qualify for Medicaid, working and middle class Americans, can't afford CorporateCare. Fewer than 70% of US jobs include health benefits and those are often minimal. That means about a third of American workers have to get health care on their own. Considering the high cost health insurance, assuming a large number of persons can't afford it is not unreasonable.

I don't remember asking you to reiterate your personal opinions about "many people". I told you to prove to me that there are "huge numbers who can't get insurance or Medicaid", and your word for it proves nothing except that you're talking out of your ass.

Strike one. Try again.

I'm not making-up numbers.

One out of three Americans under 65 were without health insurance at some point during 2007 and 2008, according to a report released Wednesday.

Study: 86.7 million Americans uninsured over last two years

 

[Cecilie1200]

Does this ranking reflect all those who will wait forever because they can't afford CorporateCare?

Oh, spare me. Homeless people get medical care in the US faster than the average citizen of Canada or the UK does, so save your horror stories of poor people dying in the streets.

I drive a cab to make extra money during the slow seasons in my process serving business. I picked up a homeless man at University Medical Center on New Year's Day. He had been attacked and beaten up the previous evening. The hospital not only did a beautiful job of treating him (his stitches were as nice and neat as they would have given anyone), they also found him new clothes to replace the ones they had to cut off of him, and they let him stay overnight so he'd have a place to sleep, instead of releasing him that night as soon as he was patched up. To top it off, the hospital staff convinced Medicaid to pay for his cab ride back to where he had been picked up (despite the fact that he wasn't on Medicaid when he came in) AND arranged with the city bus system to get him a month-long bus pass so he could get around town.

So don't talk to me about how only rich people get taken care of in this country, all right?

Do you have any evidence to back up that the average homeless person gets treated faster than a Canadian or a Brit?

In Canada, you get treated now if you have a serious problem. Most of the problems in Canada are for delays in discretionary and non-life threatening treatments.

What happens when a poor person has cancer? How does he get treated? Does he get chemo treatment? I've asked this question a number of times but no one has answered.

What happens when a poor person has cancer? The same thing that happens when a middle-class person has cancer. I'm very sorry you're so unaware of the health care structure already in place in this country to take care of the poor and indigent. Perhaps if all you bleeding-heart do-gooders sobbing and wringing your hands in your nice houses over leftists claims that the poor are dying in the gutters in droves actually went out and became acquainted with some of them, you might have a clearer picture of what's REALLY going on in America.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They walk into a hospital emergency room. After they are stabilized a social worker provides them with the government forms to get them on medicaide. They are then treated with the same facilities as any other person. Thats been mny experience and the experience of others I know.

They can also ask at any health clinic, welfare office, public health office, or private charity in their area and get a list of sliding-fee clinics that handle the poor, as well as resources in town for just about anything you can name.

 

[Joe Steel]

Do you have any evidence to back up that the average homeless person gets treated faster than a Canadian or a Brit?

In Canada, you get treated now if you have a serious problem. Most of the problems in Canada are for delays in discretionary and non-life threatening treatments.

What happens when a poor person has cancer? How does he get treated? Does he get chemo treatment? I've asked this question a number of times but no one has answered.

What happens when a poor person has cancer? The same thing that happens when a middle-class person has cancer. I'm very sorry you're so unaware of the health care structure already in place in this country to take care of the poor and indigent. Perhaps if all you bleeding-heart do-gooders sobbing and wringing your hands in your nice houses over leftists claims that the poor are dying in the gutters in droves actually went out and became acquainted with some of them, you might have a clearer picture of what's REALLY going on in America.

The working poor do not necessarily qualify for Medicaid. When one of them gets cancer, he very often dies just like many middle class persons would.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your rant reflects a false premise. I never said "only the rich get health care." I said "those who will wait forever because they can't afford CorporateCare." Many who aren't poor and can't qualify for Medicaid, working and middle class Americans, can't afford CorporateCare. Fewer than 70% of US jobs include health benefits and those are often minimal. That means about a third of American workers have to get health care on their own. Considering the high cost health insurance, assuming a large number of persons can't afford it is not unreasonable.

I don't remember asking you to reiterate your personal opinions about "many people". I told you to prove to me that there are "huge numbers who can't get insurance or Medicaid", and your word for it proves nothing except that you're talking out of your ass.

Strike one. Try again.

I'm not making-up numbers.

One out of three Americans under 65 were without health insurance at some point during 2007 and 2008, according to a report released Wednesday.

Study: 86.7 million Americans uninsured over last two years

Glad to know you and CNN can both parrot numbers blindly. Unfortunately, neither of you constitutes a reliable source, and I'm not even going to dignify the idea that CNN's source is reliable and unbiased with a comment.

And by the way, this is the first time you mentioned any numbers, made up or otherwise. In addition, this tells me exactly two things about your claim that "many people can't get insurance OR Medicaid": jack and shit.

Strike two.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you have any evidence to back up that the average homeless person gets treated faster than a Canadian or a Brit?

In Canada, you get treated now if you have a serious problem. Most of the problems in Canada are for delays in discretionary and non-life threatening treatments.

What happens when a poor person has cancer? How does he get treated? Does he get chemo treatment? I've asked this question a number of times but no one has answered.

What happens when a poor person has cancer? The same thing that happens when a middle-class person has cancer. I'm very sorry you're so unaware of the health care structure already in place in this country to take care of the poor and indigent. Perhaps if all you bleeding-heart do-gooders sobbing and wringing your hands in your nice houses over leftists claims that the poor are dying in the gutters in droves actually went out and became acquainted with some of them, you might have a clearer picture of what's REALLY going on in America.

The working poor do not necessarily qualify for Medicaid. When one of them gets cancer, he very often dies just like many middle class persons would.

Prove it.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Does this ranking reflect all those who will wait forever because they can't afford CorporateCare?

AKA Obamacare.

Well that was stupid.

Current attempts to reform health care include serious attempts to reduce its cost and to furnish care to those who won't be able to afford it under any circumstances. CorporateCare, by design, rations care by ability to pay.

Now that was funny. The current health care reform does nothing to lower costs and actually will add to them. Democrat fail, big time.

 

[SFC Ollie]

From the OP Article:

Data assembled by Dr. Ronald Wenger and published recently in the Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons indicates that cardiac deaths in the U.S. have fallen by two-thirds over the past 50 years. Polio has been virtually eradicated. Childhood leukemia has a high cure rate. Eight of the top 10 medical advances in the past 20 years were developed or had roots in the U.S.
The Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology have been awarded to more Americans than to researchers in all other countries combined. Eight of the 10 top-selling drugs in the world were developed by U.S. companies. The U.S. has some of the highest breast, colon and prostate cancer survival rates in the world. And our country ranks first or second in the world in kidney transplants, liver transplants, heart transplants, total knee replacements, coronary artery bypass, and percutaneous coronary interventions.

Of course we are Number one, did you truly expect anything less? I didn't!

 

[saveliberty]

Does this ranking reflect all those who will wait forever because they can't afford CorporateCare?

AKA Obamacare.

Well that was stupid.

Current attempts to reform health care include serious attempts to reduce its cost and to furnish care to those who won't be able to afford it under any circumstances. CorporateCare, by design, rations care by ability to pay.

If it wasn't such a serious subject the fact that Obamacare will actually rise in cost faster than no plan would be funny. As it is kool aiders like you will just try to blame Bush or the Republicans when it occurs. Since we can't afford Obamacare, rationing will be far more widespread than current conditions. Pay attention, important things are happening all around you and your acting like a parrot.

 

[Navy1960]

BACKGROUND: The current article examined survival for adults < 65 years old diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or lung carcinoma who were either Medicaid insured at the time of diagnosis, Medicaid insured after diagnosis, or non-Medicaid insured. METHODS: The authors hypothesized that subjects enrolling in Medicaid after they were diagnosed with cancer would explain disparate survival outcomes between Medicaid and non-Medicaid-insured subjects. The authors used the Michigan Tumor Registry, a population-based cancer registry covering the State of Michigan, to identify subjects who were diagnosed with the cancer sites of interest (n = 13,740). The primary outcome was all cause mortality over an 8-year time period. RESULTS: Subjects who enrolled in Medicaid after diagnosis with cancer had much lower 8-year survival rates relative to Medicaid-enrolled and non-Medicaid subjects. These reductions in survival were partly due to a high proportion of lung carcinoma and late-stage cancers within the sample of subjects who enrolled in Medicaid after diagnosis.

Cancer, Medicaid enrollment, and survival disparit... [Cancer. 2005] - PubMed result


First, Medicaid because of the way Medicaid is structured and it's low reimbursement rate to Doctors in all fields ,especially in specialty areas like oncology lends itself to long wait times which is very well documented throughout the system. This Physician shortage is increasing and not decreasing , so you combine that with the fact that patients on Medicaid often wait to receive care and you have your results as to why people with Medicaid have lower quailty care and higher instances of death when it comes to cancer. One of the things that is really strinking about this, is that the current healthcare bill aims to send over 15 million more people into this broken system and NOT increase the reimbursement rate, but in some cases seeks to lower it even more in an attempt to make it budget friendly and passable. The so called Doc-Fix bill passed by the House is still in the Senate and was not added to the existing healthcare reform bill because its 212 Billion dollar price tag would destroyed the budget numbers in the bill.

It's very true that Medicaid is perhaps one of the worst examples of healthcare insurance in the nation and in a lot of cases having Medicaid is much like having no insurace at all. As for qualifying for Medicaid it depends a lot on where you live as to those qualifications.