Does Anyone Really Want National Health Care?

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by USAMomma, Apr 6, 2011.

  1. USAMomma
    Offline

    USAMomma Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +24 / 0 / -0
    Are the doctors really going to be able to treat We the People, the normal non-government worker class citizens any better? Are the insurance companies going to limit our ability to get Quality CARE?

    I read this in the news this morning about the National Health in England. Got me to thinking about this mandated health insurance and what the future may be like for us "average citizens".

    Surgeons say patients in some parts of England have spent months waiting in pain because of delayed operations or new restrictions on who qualifies for treatment.

    In several areas routine surgery was put on hold for months, while in many others new thresholds for hip and knee replacements have been introduced.

    The moves are part of the NHS drive to find £20bn efficiency savings by 2015.

    The government said performance should be measured by outcomes not numbers.

    Surgeons have described the delays faced by patients as "devastating and cruel". Peter Kay, the president of the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA), says they've become increasingly frustrated that hip and knee replacements are being targeted as a way of finding savings.

    "We've started to get reports over the last nine months that access to these services are being restricted."

    "GPs were told not so send as many patients to hospital, maybe to delay referrals until the end of the financial year while perhaps introducing thresholds for surgery."

    He says that simply delaying surgery by one means or another does not improve the outcome for patients as their condition can deteriorate.

    "The double jeopardy is that patients wait longer in pain, and when they have the operation, the result might not have been as good as it otherwise would have been had they had it early. "

    Read more here:
    BBC News - Surgeons raise alarm over waiting

    This may be news in England, but National Health it is and is this something we get to look forward to?
    I hope not!
  2. USAMomma
    Offline

    USAMomma Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +24 / 0 / -0
    Think about this.

    The US Government cannot even get a budget deal handled. They cannot even handle their own finances so where they think they can handle everyone's health care is ridiculous IMHO...

    Oh I know, the Insurance Companies Executives paid out the big bucks to lobby government to make health insurance mandatory to ensure they get their bonuses and salary pay increases:evil:
  3. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,083
    Likes Received:
    719
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +720 / 0 / -0
    It's really just trading one group of people waiting for another. Here it's prioritized by who has the money and/or coverage. There it's based on need. Because it's need based and government doesn't have the money to pay for all the people, some will contnue to wait and suffer until government deems they are in enough pain to treat. Sounds real preventive doesn't it.
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2011
  4. Shogun
    Offline

    Shogun Free: Mudholes Stomped

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,465
    Likes Received:
    2,208
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,208 / 0 / -0
    clearly, only those who can afford health care deserve it!

    It's hilarious that you can talk out of both sides of your mouth by complaining about waiting lists for medical care while totally disregarding care entirely for those who cannot afford it.
  5. jillian
    Online

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    53,066
    Likes Received:
    9,923
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +10,054 / 129 / -0
    you had it right in the first line of your post...

    if they can't afford it, they think they don't deserve it.

    because it must be because they're lazy... or they'd be rich.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,083
    Likes Received:
    719
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +720 / 0 / -0
    Not really what I said. I said you're not really gaining anything. You're just swapping one group of people waiting for another. It's a simple question of do you want the ability to be treated when YOU want to be treated or do you want government to tell you when it decides you should be treated.
  7. Mr Liberty
    Offline

    Mr Liberty Hater of Socialism

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2011
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    In a great country that has lost it's way
    Ratings:
    +60 / 0 / -0
    Have you ever thought about why they can't afford it?
    How is it not wrong to force me to pay for their medical care?
    Do you really trust the government to administer this?
    I can't afford anymore of your programs.
  8. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Silver Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    2,581
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +2,632 / 41 / -0
    No one suggests we emulate the British System or the French System or any other system. We have a system that is broken, yet, ironically is the best in the world. This paradox provides the special interests to manipulate the stupid voters to continue the status quo and benefits the few, not the many.

    As I've posted many times, I believe the federal government should provide incentives for each state to offer free (i.e. tax payer funded) preventative care for all. Ideally a national program, single payer system of preventative care would provide universal care, but political consideratons make that unlikely.

    I've suggested 435 Clinics be built aroung the country, providing jobs and stimulating local economies. One medical clinic for each Congressional District providing education, information, and preventative care to all citizens in the district. Using ones imagination it is possible to conceive how such a program could reduce costs; providing contraceptives will prevent many unwanted pregnanacies and abortion, education and information may prevent the spread of disease, STD as well as other communicable ones; and the long term costs when early diagnosis leads to early treatment will be better controlled.

    Private insurance for accidents and serious sudden medical conditions would continue to exist, doctors could continue to practice privately though some would work for clinics, HMO's or the government as they do today.

    Of course thinking and using one's imagination is required. Yelling "Socialism!" and not understanding the issue requires little thought and no imagination (Edit: See Mr. Liberty above for one such example).
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2011
  9. Douger
    Offline

    Douger BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Messages:
    12,324
    Likes Received:
    914
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Not fucking there !
    Ratings:
    +914 / 0 / -0
    Where are the Prince and **** Middleton having their honeymoon ?
    That's a large part of GB's problem. Leeches.
    Sell Fuckingham palace to the Chinese and buy the old hag a double wide trailer. That'll buy a whole bunch of hips.
  10. Mr Liberty
    Offline

    Mr Liberty Hater of Socialism

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2011
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    In a great country that has lost it's way
    Ratings:
    +60 / 0 / -0
    How is what you are proposing not socialism?
    So socialized medicine is going to eliminate unwanted pregnancies? These contraceptive are available now, for free. You are not going to change human behavior.
    I and others don't want this. By what right do you have to force it on us?
    If you can come up with a completely volunteer health plan then, I will support it. One that does not violate the liberty even one person. What you and the government have proposed is immoral.
  11. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    72,270
    Likes Received:
    8,926
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Ratings:
    +9,249 / 132 / -0
    I do.....I DO!

    Cut out the do nothing middle men who do nothing for healthcare except paperwork
    Cut out exorbitant overhead and profit from do nothing insurance companies

    You get sick....No Bills.....No Debt
  12. HUGGY
    Online

    HUGGY VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    26,566
    Likes Received:
    2,995
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Seattle, in a run down motel
    Ratings:
    +3,017 / 5 / -0
    How is a national hyway system not socialism? Police and Fire? Only a socialist would have any such employees. A good person won't need to get arrested and when ya live under a rock like many here what good is a fire department? Water and sewage? Cut me some slack Jack!!! Them there services are for pinko COMMIES!!!!! Medical care???? Try something important!!! You are wasting my time!!!
  13. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,083
    Likes Received:
    719
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +720 / 0 / -0
    Good ideas (though that notion that insurance companies make exhorbitant profits isn't factually correct), I just don't get the insistance by you lefties that we have to turn it over to government to do that.
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2011
  14. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    72,270
    Likes Received:
    8,926
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Ratings:
    +9,249 / 132 / -0
    Countries that have national healthcare pay a lower percent of GDP and are healthier than Americans American healthcare has too much paperwork and too many middlemen
  15. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    34,096
    Likes Received:
    9,041
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +9,138 / 17 / -0
    1."We have a system that is broken,..."
    Not true, just left wing propaganda.
    Prior to the Obama presidency, and the full court press by the MSM, some 85% were satisfied with their healthcare.

    Judging life expectancy: many people die for reasons that can’t be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homicides, the US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy!

    “One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

    In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels."
    Dave Petno | On Freedom


    2. If there is one mantra that the left constantly mouths, it is how much smarter they are than anyone else...
    ...and, lo and behold, here it is again: "...manipulate the stupid voters..."
    Thanks for the validation, Wry.

    3. "I've suggested 435 Clinics be built aroung the country,..."
    Perhaps you could explain why Obamacare does exactly the opposite:

    a. What would be better, more hospitals, or fewer hospitals? “"Physician Hospitals of America says that construction had to stop at 45 hospitals nationwide…"Section 6001 of the health care law effectively bans new physician-owned hospitals (POHs) from starting up, and it keeps existing ones from expanding." Obamacare Ends Construction of Doctor-Owned Hospitals | The Weekly Standard

    4. "Private insurance for accidents and serious sudden medical conditions would continue to exist,..."
    You sure?

    a. “A Virginia-based insurance company says “considerable uncertainties” created by the Democrats’ health care overhaul will force it to close its doors by the end of the year. The firm, nHealth, appears to be the first to claim that the new law has driven it out of business.” First victim of health care overhaul? - Sarah Kliff - POLITICO.com

    5. And, the winner in the category of "Unintentional Humor:"

    "Of course thinking and using one's imagination is required."

    6. "... offer free (i.e. tax payer funded) preventative care for all. Ideally a national program, single payer system of preventative care would provide universal care,..."

    Really? Effective?
    Not according to Betsy McCaughey

    "Prevention instead of treatment? Nancy-Ann De Parle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said on March 23 that "we have to get to a system of keeping people well, rather than treating the sickness." That would make sense if all disease were behavior-related, but many cancers and other diseases are linked to genetics or unknown causes. De Parle's pronouncement echoes how Sir Michael Rawlins, a British health official, explains his nation's low cancer survival rates. The British National Health Service, he said, has to be fair to all patients, "not just the patients with macular degeneration or breast cancer or renal cancer. If we spend a lot of money on a few patients, we have less money to spend on everyone else. We are not trying to be unkind or cruel. We are trying to look after everybody."
    This approach is deadly for those with serious illness. In the U.S., about 5 percent of the populace needs 50 percent of treatment dollars. The drumbeat for shifting resources from treatments to prevention should worry any family dealing with M.S., Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or cerebral palsy, or with a history of cancer.

    Hudson Institute > Downgrading American Medical Care
  16. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    34,096
    Likes Received:
    9,041
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +9,138 / 17 / -0
    False.
  17. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    34,096
    Likes Received:
    9,041
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +9,138 / 17 / -0
    Think the head of Johns Hopkins might know better? He doesn't like Obamacare...

    Dr. Edward Miller, CEO of Johns Hopkins, sees the expansion of Medicaid as making it harder for institutions such as his to serve the “poor or disadvantaged.” Edward Miller: Health Reform Could Harm Medicaid Patients - WSJ.com
  18. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    10,427
    Likes Received:
    1,782
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +1,806 / 0 / -0
    First of all, the new healthcare legislation is nothing like that of Great Britain, so let's not try comparing the two. Great Britain has a single payer system where everyone is guaranteed medical care. Are there flaws with this? Of course. However, what many do not realize is that in Great Britain, you may also purchase your own private insurance plan. Doing so usually moves you up the list when it comes to treatment, doctor's visits, and so forth. So if you can afford to pay a little more, then you can avoid many of the pitfalls involved such as long waits. At the same time, while those who choose to rely on the public system may have to wait longer in some cases, at least they have adequate access to healthcare.

    Now if you want to compare our new legislation which does mandate the purchase of private health insurance, you might want to compare it to that of Switzerland's system. While this legislation does not mirror that of Switzerland's system, the Swiss do mandate the purchase of health insurance, and the government also helps those financially who cannot afford to make the payments on their own. The other part of the Swiss formula that is not a part of the new legislation is that Swiss insurers are not permitted to make a profit on basic healthcare. However, the part of their policies that offer protection against catastrophic care are permitted to be profitable. I also believe that there are only three age brackets for determining premiums, young, middle age, and older. The cost is more evenly distributed between the three groups so rates do not become astronomical as a person gets older, although they do increase somewhat.

    The best thing about the Swiss system is that there are so many options available when purchasing insurance. An individual can purchase a policy with a very high deductible and lower premiums or one with a very low deductible and higher premiums. There are many options. Probably the biggest difference in the Swiss system though, is the fact that employers are not permitted to offer health insurance as part of an employee's benefits. What makes this noteworthy is that when an employee loses his/her job, the insurance stays with them. When they find a new job, they keep the same insurance. And the insurance they purchase is the one they chose, which best suits there needs. They are not restricted to what their employer has to offer.
  19. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    10,427
    Likes Received:
    1,782
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +1,806 / 0 / -0
    I understand the idea of being forced to buy health insurance is a horrible thing. I mean why should you have to purchase health insurance when everyone else who already does is paying for you anyway? The argument takes away from those who believe in personal responsibility. Funny how that works, don't you think?
    • Like Like x 1
  20. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    72,270
    Likes Received:
    8,926
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Ratings:
    +9,249 / 132 / -0
    Ever been seriously sick?

Share This Page