Socialized Medicine, A Democratic Must?

[Independent_Minded]

Given the "Big Tent" nature of the Democratic Party. Do you peeps feel that being "for" Socialized Health Care is a must for a thinking Democrat, or is there still room for a healthy debate?

Obviously everything is debatable, but my question is essentially.

Is Socialized Health Care a Democratic Party Platform, or is it a splinter agenda of a wing of the Democratic Party?

Further, could one be for massive reform in the health care system, that didnt involve socialization, and still be in step with the Democratic Party Ethos?

[Tina H]

1. I think the answer is antitrust

medical services pricing and prerogatives have become way too centralized and most of the money is going to the folks at the top of the large healthcare provider food chain.

Nationalized healthcare is my second choice after an antitrust solution.

[On the Road]

8. Yes -- The Patent Monopolies are a Big Part of the Problem

Pharmaceuticals that receive drug patents are given a temporary monopoly to sell that drug. That solution works in other industries, like electronics. But the extraordinarily high prices of patented drugs and the excess profits in the pharmaceutical industry shows that that hands-off approach is harming consumers as well as other parts of the medical industry.

Competition does not solve the problem as does in many industries and it's supposed to according to free-market theory. First, patents are intended to be temporary. But the field is moving so fast that by the time patents expire, there's often a new set of drugs available. Second, excess profits inspire competition. But other companies that develop competing drug charge prices just as high. Third, these drugs heal sickness and prevent death. Leaving them unregulated is economic Darwinism with the lives and health of the population.

The solution is government tariffs for patented drugs. Pharmaceuticals should be allowed to charge enough to cover the costs of research, including a portion of failed research for drugs that didn't make it. They should be allowed a higher rate of return than many industries because of the inherently risky nature of the business (as shown by the volatility of the stock of companies that make new drugs).

[Tina H]

13. actually, I wasn't talking about patents

I was talking more about healthcare giants like HealthSouth or Kaiser or PacifiCare or (fill in favorite pharmaceutical co. here).

As far as the patent problem, I think I have a novel (pun intended) solution to that aspect of the problem. My solution involves tightening "obviousness" standards (see 35 USC 103 and related cases), to the point where we are somewhat confident that we simply would not have a patented product, process, or drug, absent the patentee. This is a much more rigorous standard of obviousness than is currently applied. It would get rid of a lot of patents. It would also mean that we would appreciate patented drugs (the tiny minority left) in a way that we don't now.

I would not apply this patent law change only to drugs, but apply it across the board.

I do support the suspension of patents rights in the case of medical emergencies and think that law could be liberalized a bit, but I think this is less important than reform of obviousness law.

I do not think that respect for intellectual property rights should be used as a pre-condition to trade agreements. As Prof. Lessig likes to point out, even the US was born a "pirate" nation in this regard. It should be noted that Democrats and Republicans have both been thoroughly complicit in causing this part of the patents & drugs issue.

Hopefully, Candidate Kerry will speak out on lax obviousness law and coercive IP provisions in trade agreements. However, he will have a much easier time doing this if he breaks the healthcare companies and pharmaceutical companies into tiny pieces first. Tiny companies have less political leverage and this would be a big boon to substantive reform in the patent area.

[On the Road]

32. Maybe I Was Stretching Your Point

but I'm less familiar with the economics of other health care.

I support the idea of making patents more restrictive, but don't think this would help problem in pharmaceuticals much. The research and discovery process is pretty non-obvious.

Maybe the tariff idea could apply to other parts of the health care industry. For example, government could set a mandated rate for different procedures but leave the production and insurance in private hands. That might be an alternative to a single-payer system.

[Kanary]

40. Why should the US be the only country that allows patents on drugs?

I'm really not getting why so many people think the US should be the only country without single payer health care?

Do we really not deserve, as citizens, to have decent health care?

I'm really not getting this, especially from DEMS.

Kanary

[Tina H]

75. answers

SINGLE PAYER

As should be clear from my previous posts, I am not really against single payer healthcare. It is not my first option, but I would rather single payer than the present system in teh US. I remember the Clintons push for single payer failed for political reasons, and I wish that they had come back with the antitrust approach I outline above, but they did not. Either single payer or antitrust would be much preferable to the present system.

I think discomfort with single payer stems from the fact that it can become more difficult to get medical care, or impossible to get discretionary care. Since I am living in Canada now, I can report that single payer is increasingly controversial here. The feeling seems to be that people want single payer in the abstract, but not when their own family is involved.

It must always be remembered that single payer takes life and death decisions out of the hands of individuals and puts these decisions in government hands. Actually, if the government gets really utitarian and rational about it, it means that limited resources get spent on young people with good prognoses. The down side is that desparately ill children and older folks get "sacrificed" (relative to a system where each family makes its own decisions). Personally, I am totally cool with this, but I can understand when others have apprehensions about these hard facts.

If you think single payer is some kind of utopia where everybody gets all the healthcare they want, or all the sick people get all the healthcare they want, I don't think this is the reality in a single payer system. It certainly is not the way it is playing out in Canada where there are loud and frequent complaints about access to healthcare (not from me!).

From what I hear, my Ontario taxes have recently been increased $900 a year to pay for better healthcare. Again, I am cool with this. However, some Ontarians seem to be kind of steamed about the increase, and the increase may help put the conservative candidate in the Prime Minister's office real soon (despite the fact that healthcare is a provincial issue). If this happens, the $900 increase may not look like such great political strategy.

PATENTS

The US is not the only country that allows patents on drugs. Some countries do. Some countries don't. I think the conventional thinking here is that US inventors invent the best new drugs, in large measure, because drug-related patent protection is so good in the US. The conventional thinking may or may not be correct. If you know of any empiracal studies on the economics here, I would appreciate a link so I can make up my mind.

However, none of what I am saying in the previous paragraph really relates to what I said earlier. What I was trying to say earlier in the thread is that each country should decide whether to have a patent system and each country should decide if they want foreign inventions to be eligible for patents (in both drug and non-drug areas).

Neither the Democrats nor Republicans should be using coercive trade agreements to get developing nations to agree to have a patent system or to have a patent system that rewards foreign inventors. This coercion is really feeding the AIDS crisis in Africa. Hopefully candidate Kerry will repeal these trade agreements so that the developing nations can start undoing the damage done by previous administrations in this area.

[Kanary]

86. Granted, Canada isn't the *best* example

There are many other countries who have worked out it better than Canada. However, I'm impressed that, from what I read on this thread, Canada managed to change to single payer in 6 years. Good job!

"It must always be remembered that single payer takes life and death decisions out of the hands of
individuals and puts these decisions in government hands."

And you think it's preferable to have those decisions made by bean counters for a rich corporation???
You're kidding yourself if you think that the US will *ever* have a system where all decisions are made by the patient, and they can have whatever they want, whenever they want it. Doesn't exist now, didn't exist in the past, and won't happen in the future.

Kanary

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

153. It used to be. It isn't anymore.

The USA strongarmed many countries (Brazil included) into accepting drug patents. :mad:

[mstrsplinter326]

2. It's not a platform plank but it should be

The long run cost benefits cannot even be grasped.

[no name no slogan]

56. It HAS been a plank at the national level, and is in many states

Many state parties have had planks for universal health care in their platforms for years. The Democrats, up until Clinton, routinely had a plank in the platform for single-payer universal health care.

And why not? Over half of Americans think we need a single-payer plan that covers everyone REGARDLESS of their "insurability" or their ability to pay. And better yet, it's actually cheaper than our current hodgepodge of insurance, too.

[mstrsplinter326]

125. Rhetoric doesn't equal action

in the democratic party these days. I'll believe it when universal health care has been achieved.

[Bandit]

3. Why use the label socialized?

Why not say Universal Health Care like every single Westernized Country in the world. You seem to want to use symantics instead of purpose. Yes Socialized Health Care should be a Democratic Platform. It is the right thing to do for the betterment of all mankind. sorry if you can't get filthy rich of of people's pain and misery.

[BurtWorm]

7. Amen, bandit!

Dems should be for universal health care, single-payer health care. If you want to call it socialized health care and mean it as a compliment, okay. But to label it "socialized" if you mean to demonize it-- :puke: --is a Repub error of logic and misuse of language, pardon my puking.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. What is wrong with socialization?

The Right has spent 80 years or more demonizing socialization of basic services, but I can't think of a single instance where privatization has led to large-scale improvements in service except for telephone service.

In fact, privatization has made energy costs skyrocket and supply become insecure in a number of markets, it's made college education subject to tremendous inflation, and it's allowed the insurance companies to bankrupt patients and physicians alike.

The Democratic Party avoids the issue because the Republicans use it as a boogeyman, but that is going to be a non-starter for the GOP soon. When the Right cries "Socialism!", people no longer cringe in fear. When enough people are denied medical care and/or are financially destroyed by even minor illness, we will see seismic changes.

--bkl

[Cleita]

16. Telephone service was much better and cheaper under Ma Bell.

It was heavily regulated by the government as well. Employees were unionized and well paid. Telephone company stock was considered a blue chip stock. Breaking up the telephone company monopoly has tripled the cost of getting a telephone line, no service and you have to pay for all your own equipment. Before the break-up of Ma Bell, telephone service included all equipment installed free, unlimited service calls, free directory assistance and operator service all for under $10 a month and additional charges for long distances and message units. Yet, there were low traffic discounts in the evening and weekends so that long distance was a cheap as it is today, if you did your calling during non-business hours.

So privitization has done nothing for phone service either, IMHO

[Nederland]

43. Nitpicking

As an employee of a telecommunications company, I can tell you with absolute certainty that long distance rates were never as cheap under Ma Bell as they are today.

[KittyWampus]

45. Like Most People, I Hardly Use Long Distance

and when it's necessary to do so, use a phone card (when at my business).

Gave up my personal land line cause spending $35 a month for a dial tone was just plain stupid... and the service SUCKED.

[Blue Wally]

70. Inflation

I was paying Ma Bell $15 for a dial tone when gasoline was 33 cents a gallon.

[KittyWampus]

72. Gas Used To Be 33 Cents/Gal.? :D

actually, my phone bill went up about 10 bucks over a couple of years and a new area code was given to Nassau County thus making it long distance phone call.

[Blue Wally]

88. Yeah, gas was pretty cheap

I started driving in 1955. From 1955 to 1973, regualr gas varied from 22.9 cents to 36.9 cents a gallon going up and down. After the Yom Kippur War in 1973, gas shot up to the 55-60 cents range.

[Cleita]

53. Back in the days of Ma Bell, long distance calls were mostly

business calls. Personal calls could be done on weekends and after hours for lower rates. It was the corporations who broke the system for cheap long distance calls shifting the burden to the individual for revenue. It's the same old welfare for the corporation BS. The old excuse of competition making companies' services cheaper and better is a BIG FAT FASCIST LIE. It's only better for other corporations.

[Nederland]

65. Nonsense

Since deregulation, prices have declined for long distance and stayed the same for local calling. Long distance, which was deregulated and now has multiple competitive providers, has seen rates decline by 80%. Local service, which was essentially not deregulated and remained largely in the hands of baby Bell monopolies, has not seen rates decline. Your claim that calls were cheaper under Ma Bell is pure bunk and obvious to anyone that has a phone line.

[Cleita]

83. Excuse me but my phone bill is $26 a month for a dial tone.

I get no other service and had to pay $14O to get a telephone line, and $30 to buy my own telephone. Right now I have to pay for directory assistance and anytime I need a repairman. I, like others, have little need for long distance. Before, the split-up of the phone company I got all of the above for between $8 and $10 a month. The long distance rates benefit the corporations the most. In the meantime my $26 a month makes up the deficit for the corporate welfare handed to the companies that use long distance. It's screw the working poor again time. Nothing else.

[Nederland]

128. Which is exactly what I said

if you had bothered to read my post.

Local rates did not benefit from deregulation and competition. Long distance rates did. Its very simple. The reason that your local service has increased in price is because the baby Bells have a monopoly in providing local service. Long distance providers do not have a monopoly, so prices have fallen dramatically. See the good things that competition brings?

[Dorian Gray]

137. I do think that calls were cheaper

But the expenses that I have for just connecting my lines is ridiculous. In NYC, for basic service with call waiting and voice mail, it's 67.00 (including taxes). That doesn't include long distance calls, which I don't make. It's MUCH more expensive than my cell phone.

[Fescue4u]

134. And no innovation

There was almost zero innovation in the telco industry while it was regulated. Today there is more innovation in one month, than a typical decade under ATT.

As for long distance, its on the verge of being universally free. I never pay long distance, yet I make long distance calls all the time.

Since dereg of the phone industry, innovation has been explosive and prices have been dropping fast..albeit after a few years of confusion.

[Cleita]

152. If prices have dropped why am I paying three times as much

for a dial tone? Long distance may be free for you, but someone is paying for it and I think it's me. I don't like the trade-off.

[Fescue4u]

163. Im not special

If you are paying for it you need to shop around.

Within about 3 to 5 years, long distance with the US will be universally free.

Thats not to say that some services have not increased in cost. In fact local service was subsidized by long distance for many many years.

What has changed is that services are being priced on what they cost to provide. The "last mile" has ALWAYS been the most costly in the telco business.

Still on the whole, telephony is a much much cheaper than it used to be.

[Nite Owl]

5. For me it is a big must.

Healthcare should be a right not a priviledge. One way or another we all pay for those who aren't covered anyway and the system we have is morally wrong. It should not be connected to work either. When someone is out of work that may be when they need it the most. People lose jobs because of health problems or are forced to take a job just to get the benefit, even if it is meager. We are losing our creative edge by doing that as many could be self employed or self supporting without giving their lives to a corporation.

[DoktorGreg]

6. Liberals have already passed on the only chance at reform

And it wasnt socalized. It was single payer. Really at this point its a dead issue, so why debate it?

Clintons plan was to form a giant national HMO. You still had to pay for it. The HMO focused on the types of care that worked. Check ups and wellness would have been paid by the HMO, because they work. Surgeries and treatments that have a high success rate would have been covered. Hospice care would have been covered. It dramatically cut costs by eliminating the 50% of your health care dollars that goes to Lawyers, bill collectors and administrators, this was the single payer part.

It ultimately failed because liberals didnt like a couple of part of it. First, you had to pay for it. The humanity! Having to pay for a service! Unforgivable! Second, it didn't cover end of life disease, although it did cover hospice. Basically, if you had terminal brain cancer, they were not going to cover treatment that costs millions of dollars and doesnt work. Finally it limited your ability to sue for a couple of differnt types malpractice, they were small things, like repeated attempts to insert IV's.

Again, this is now a dead issue, and its not going to happen.

[Cleita]

10. Dear DoktorGreg. This is not a dead issue unless you make it

one. In my area, our health care situation is so dire that everyone is talking about it. Now we need action and the only way is for everyone to band together and do it. It's not going to come from our political electees, but from us the people, and the health care professionals, like it did in Canada.

[SidDithers]

31. To the contrary...

It was Tommy Douglas, a political electee, who was the Father of socialized health care in Canada, beginning with Medicare in Saskatchewan (1962). The health care professionals in the province were opposed, highlighted by a Doctor's Strike to protest socialized health care.

Two years later, a royal commission recommended a National Health Care program modelled on the provincial program in Saskatchewan. In 1968, the Medical Care Act was passed, giving Universal health care to all Canadians.

On edit: a further comment. Ours is a single payer system. Some see socialized health care as a system where Doctors are paid a salary rather than fees for services.

Sid

[Cleita]

52. You are right, but it was the Canadians who sat around the kitchen

table and fought for the provincial program nationwide. I prefer single payer to having doctors on a salary too. I think doctors prefer it also although I can't speak for them.

[KittyWampus]

46. That's A Really Healthy Attitude. Health Care Could Be

the Democrats wedge issue as another DU'er posted last week.

The reasons the Right used to scare us out of socializing medicine:

Have no choice in doctors
Have to wait to see doctor

Are already conditions that now exist in America.

The doctor you can see is dictated by your plan and there's an average of 2 weeks to see a doctor.

[no name no slogan]

58. Don't forget businesses, too

Many small-medium businesses are taking a second look at a single-payer system, due to the skyrocketing costs of employee benefits in this country. This also influenced Canada's decision to go single-payer, too.

Also, our lack of a single-payer system is a factor in many companies not creating more jobs here. It's easier for an employer to create more jobs if they don't have to pay the exorbitant price for medical benefits that they pay here-- especially in Europe and Japan, where there are long-established national healthcare plans, which are much cheaper than the plans in the US.

When businesses start to see that the lack of a single-payer system is affecting their bottom lines (like they are starting to in the US), they too will come on board and DEMAND that the government do something about it.

It's already starting to happen.

[Cleita]

This would be a real bonanza to small and medium sized businesses.

It would also help them with worker's comp. expenses as well.

[Chef]

11. Single Payer

I agree that it will never happen. At least not at one fell swoop. However, at some point in the future, I think all these current health plans will evolve into a single payer system. What will bring it about is when the employers simply quit paying their share of the premiums.

[Cleita]

27. You put your finger on the button.

The for-profit health care industry is going to have to be starved out by regulating the hell out of it with a patient's bill of rights to the point where they don't make any money. They will get out of the business and open the way for a single payer system.

[dumpster_baby]

104. but what about all those other countries that have socialized medicine

Like Canada, where 92% of Canadians prefer their system to America's system of healthcare.

[Cleita]

9. There isn't enough of a debate.

For one thing, there is so much disinformation out that has been put out by the for profit health care industry that it's really hard to get the truth out. Also, nothing meaningful and helpful will get done until the health care professionals, particularly physicians get involved in a big way.

Also, we must find a way to convince the insurance and HMO companies to get out of the business. Anyone care to venture any suggestions? This is a tough one and a major roadblock to meaningful health care reform.

[SkipNewarkDE]

12. Socialized Medicine Does Not Work

While I believe that something must be done in the health care system to reduce ballooning costs, especially of prescription drugs, socialized medicine is not the answer. One need to look no further than Canada.

I have a good friend who is Canadian, and his horror stories of the socialized medical system are terrible. Just getting an appointment to see a specialist is an endeavor that often results in being unable to get an appointment until three or more months in the future. There are certain procedures which are not done because they have been deemed too expensive. His mother, who recently died of a heart attack, was unable to get an appointment with a cardiac doctor until six months from the time that she put in for it.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

14. Actually, I've always had a good experience with our healthcare system

My wife was just in for major surgery over the weekend, and the service was fast and responsive. The Canadian Right loves to whine about any slightest hitch, though. For every horror story, there are several success stories that go untold. The fact that your friend claims to have had problems does not mean that an entire system does not work.

[Nite Owl]

17. There are long

waits for specialists here too and then you have to make sure that your insurance will cover that doctor.

[Cheswick2.0]

20. if yoy have insurance at all and if you don't

you go to emergency rooms and default on your bills. Your credit is ruined and you never dig yourself out of the hole you are in.

[Cleita]

21. Don't spread the astroturf.

Canadians with very few exception love their system. The ones who have been told by the same astroturf spreaders that our system is better are usually shocked when we Americans tell them what we pay for what we get. So do some research before you repeat the insurance industry lies.

[Nederland]

44. Canadian Polls on Health care

Read what you will into these numbers.

Only half (49%) of respondents from the general public said that
overall, Canadians are receiving quality health care right now;
this is down 3% from last year and 18% from 1999. As well, 54%
said their confidence in the Canadian health system is falling,
compared with 51% last year and 55% in 1999. Only 4% said their
confidence was rising, down from 6% last year and 5% in 1999.
Confidence is greatest in Québec, with 5% saying “rising”and
42% saying “falling,” and least in BC and the Territories, with
2% saying “rising” and 69% saying “falling,”respectively. And
while a majority of health care professionals and managers said
that Canadians, overall, are receiving quality health care now
(from 61% of nurses to 74% of pharmacists), they were no more
optimistic than the general public in their confidence in the
system: 64% of nurses and 61% of doctors, and just over half of
managers and pharmacists, expressed falling confidence.

http://www.tommydouglas.ca/reports/survey-pollara2001.pdf
(Page 8)

[Cleita]

54. Your link doesn't work but I'm gonna have to assume your

source is pretty unreliable. Now Iverglas and I gave you some really good and factual links to Health Canada and other studies in another thread, which you apparently don't want to believe because facts apparently don't seem to fit into your world view.

[Minstrel Boy]

61. The link works for me, and if it's being used to support the case

that Canadians want for-profit care, it's a blatant, absurd misrepresentation. It's posted on the website of the Tommy Douglas Research Institute. Douglas was the founder of the socialist NDP, and the father of Canadian public healthcare.

One of the findings:

"The majority of Canadians (56%) feel that governments should be the sole funder of health care and services."

Canadians want more funding of health care by their governments. Underfunding is where the dissatisfaction arises.

[Nederland]

66. Not its not

The link was merely meant to debunk the claim that "Canadians with very few exception love their system." See post #60.

[Minstrel Boy]

71. Well, we do.

We love having a public health care system. It's a point of national pride across the political spectrum. Which is why we're so pissed off at its underfunding by successive governments.

[Nederland]

62. Or perhaps

I didn't see the thread. Care to give me a link?

[LoZoccolo]

126. Bahahahaha.

Your link doesn't work but I'm gonna have to assume your
source is pretty unreliable. Now Iverglas and I gave you some really good and factual links to Health Canada and other studies in another thread, which you apparently don't want to believe because facts apparently don't seem to fit into your world view.

That's why I hate this topic, it's all ideology. I'd like to make sure everyone gets taken care of, especially since if I lose my insurance I'm fucked, but if people artificially prop up an ineffective system it's not good. It's not good for all those sick people you'd like to take care off.

[Pithlet]

145. Whatever you call it

The fact is, if you don't have insurance in this country, you are screwed. If you live in Canada, or any of the other countries that have socialized medicine, you can at least count on the very basic necessities of health care without being bankrupted. You can choose your doctor, too. Call that ideology, but it doesn't make those things untrue.

Besides, have you read any of the other posts besides that one, that addressed that particular link? Or did you choose just to pounce on that one, and ignore the rest?

[Minstrel Boy]

55. Right. And if you listen to what Canadians want for their health care,

it is a reinvestment from their governments, federal and provincial. It's considered a public trust. There is really no debate about this. A leader who spoke of dismantling public health care would be run out of the country.

[Nederland]

60. Agreed

Canadians have no desire for a US style system. They want the government to fix what is broken. I merely wished to point out that there is no perfect system out there waiting for the US government to implement. No matter what system you choose, there will be people that will complain about one aspect of it or another. Moreover, it is plain to me that the entire world is having problems with health care, regardless of what system is used. There is no silver bullet here.

[Minstrel Boy]

63. It's not about a "silver bullet."

As most Canadians would tell you, Canada's health care system isn't perfect. But most would also say that it's far less imperfect than that of the United States.

If you await a perfect system before changing your own, you'll find it never changes.

[Cleita]

64. No one in the industrialized world has a system in crisis like ours

is. I have to navigate this system on a daily basis and it is badly broken. We can't have the same system we had in the fifties because our medical practices are so different from then. It used to be that charities would pick up the tab for those that couldn't pay, but there are no charities anymore that can do this without being overwhelmed.

The insurance companies are only interested in profit, not quality universal health care as are the HMO's and pharma companies. It is going to have to be the government of the people and by the people to do it. It's not like we are going into unknown territory. We have models to choose from, our Canadian and European neighbors, who have done this successfully and worked most of the kinks and drawbacks out of it.

[Nederland]

69. Wrong

There is a crisis in health care world wide, regardless of system.

I'm not against changing the US system. What I object to is that notion that there is a wonderful system out there that is just waiting to be implemented. If you go for single payer healthcare you will merely be swapping one set of problems for another. I know that you may believe that the new set of problems may be preferable to the old, but the 70%+ of the population that claim to be satisfied with their own health care (insurance or otherwise) may not agree. My point is that if Democrats make drastic changes to the system and end up not providing people the same level of care they are used to, this party will be in the minority party for years to come.

[Cleita]

73. I seem to go through this argument with you all the time.

You seem to think everyone is looking for perfect, so therefore we should do nothing. It's true when we debate we look for the best system we think could work. However, I can't see doing nothing because you think it might not work 10% the time. How about the part that does work 90% of the time? We don't have that now. 43% of our population is uninsured. I can assure you of the 57% who is insured, of which I am one of them, we are inadequately covered, and when we actually use our coverage for an actual disease, our coverage is either dropped or premiums skyrocket. This is a system that only works for 10% of the population and yet is one of the most expensive per capita in the world at a round figure of $5,000 per year per person.

[Nederland]

81. Someone else

You must be thinking of someone else, because I have posted numerous times about how screwed up the US health care system is and what I think should be done to fix it. As for the rest of your post, I would merely point out that there are 43 million uninsured in the US, not 43% of the entire population. Just keeping us honest...

[Cleita]

82. Sorry about that. Here is more factual information.

This is what happens when I do figures from the top of my head and this time they got turned into percentages. My husband was passing out while doing dialysis as I posted this so I did it quickly and then took care of him. So here is an article that states:

<snip>Who are the uninsured?

Approximately 43.6 million Americans, or 15.2 percent of the population, were without health insurance coverage for the entire year of 2002. The number of uninsured rose 2.4 million between 2001 and 2002. (Robert J. Mills and Shailesh Bhandari, “Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2002,” U.S. Census Bureau Report, September 2003).

The number of uninsured children in the United States in 2002 was 8.5 million, or 11.6 percent of all American children. (Robert J. Mills and Shailesh Bhandari, Ibid.)

Although Medicaid insured 13.3 million poor people, another 10.1 million poor people had no health insurance in 2001. They represented 30.7 percent of the poor, unchanged from 2000. (Robert J. Mills and Shailesh Bhandari, Ibid.)

Young adults (18-to-24 years old) remained the least likely of any age group to have health insurance in 2001. More than 28% of this group does not have coverage. (Robert J. Mills and Shailesh Bhandari, Ibid.)

Based on three year averages, American Indians and Alaska Natives were the least likely of the major racial groups to have health insurance. (Robert J. Mills and Shailesh Bhandari, Ibid.)

“Nearly 58% of currently unemployed adults and 21% of employed adults aged 18-64 had been uninsured for at least part of the past year, and one third of currently unemployed adults had been uninsured for more than a year.” (Robin A. Cohen and Hanyu Ni, “Health Insurance Coverage: Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, January-June 2003,” National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control, January 2004).

According to Ron Pollack, director of health care advocacy group FamiliesUSA, the Census Bureau underestimates the number of uninsured by measuring only those people without insurance at the time of the survey. Pollack estimated that if the report counted people who were uninsured for any part of 2001 or 2003, it would have demonstrated that “many more people are uninsured – 74.7 million over 2001 and 2002.” (“Census Bureau Numbers Too Low, Pollack Says,” Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 16 October 2003).

<snip>
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

[DoktorGreg]

24. You havent had sugery in the US system have you?

I was in the emergency room dying from a ruptured appendix. Infection was over-running my body. I needed surgery ASAP. I had to sit there and listen to the doctor argue with the insurance adjustor about the necessity of my surgery. After that, the insurance company droped my employer because we were too high risk. As I understand this is more common than it is uncommon.

I am sorry just about anything is better than what we have now.

[boobooday]

25. I have insurance

and I have waited MONTHS to see a specialist here in the U.S.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[napsi]

105. I have insurance

I had an MRI within 12 hours of a non-life threating injury. I saw a specialist the next day. Is my insurance expensive? Yes, but it's less than taking 4 people to an NFL game or MLB baseball game on Sunday and dinner afterwards.

I agree it needs repair.....but I won;t jump the gun to socializing the entire system. Too many hotheads on this issue....on both sides.

[Cheswick2.0]

26. I don't believe that

sorry. But even if it were the case we can certainly do better with what we pay for healthcare now.

[Bandit]

30. I live in a small town next to Canadian border and many many Americans

go to Canada for health reasons. They get care much more promptly and much much more inexpensive than here in the US. The Dental aspects are most in demand. One can save literally thousands of dollars and receive care even on weekends. I don't know where you get your information but I find it very suspect.

[Minstrel Boy]

35. Oh, fer chrissake...

I have a good friend who is Canadian...

There are some Canadians I wouldn't want as friends.

What our health care system needs is a reinvestment of public funds. A return to privatized, for-profit care it is not the answer. Even the far right of the Conservative Party knows it's political suicide to suggest such a thing.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. And as I posted on another thread

I couldn't get to see my primary physician at an HMO for three months.

So what's the difference?

[qwertyMike]

51. From a Canadian

I had a li'l prostate scare few months ago. The process involved 3 blood tests, 3 office visits, visit to a specialist, biopsy (out-patient). NEGATIVE - phew.

All in 5 weeks No charge. No waiting. If I had to proceed to surgery it would have been within 2 weeks I was told, instant chemo if necessary.

No charge. No bills from the hospital. All chemo drugs would have been covered.

O Canada!

[wurzel]

77. Try telling that to the UK and the rest of Europe!

n/t

[dumpster_baby]

106. 92% of Canadians prefer their healthcare system to ours....

In a recent poll it was 92%, and polls from the 1990s also show over 90% prefer their system to ours.
That is what you might call an OVERWHELMING percentage rate.

[Cleita]

111. Thank you!!!

:yourock:

[dumpster_baby]

124. the links to those polls were posted here on DU last year or this year

If someone could please search DU for the urls for those links to those Canadian polls, I would appreciate it.

[Dorian Gray]

139. I lived in England,

and I came across some problems with their health care. My ex-fiance's father had to wait 18 months to get a necessary heart surgery. (So he went private and had it done in three weeks.) His mother, ill for years, died from cancer. Despite going to the doctors with various complaints for 8 years, they did not catch it until her SPINE cracked.

And, I had a biopsy done for abnormal cells (women will know what I'm talking about). Despite knowing that I did have a problem already, having had a test in the USA, I needed to follow up on the test. The results: negative. Six months later, I came back to the states and visited my health care provider. And I had to get some cells removed.

I went private in England, but for tests like that, they are all sent to the same examiners. (I couldn't use their health care as I was not a citizen or married to one at the time.)

Anyhow, the end result? I don't know that socialized/Universal health care is the PROBLEM, but the doctors over here are much better. I know many organizations that are providing free health care to the uninsured. Though few and far between, they are doing good work in their communities. There is one great one in Red Bank, NJ! (The Parker Family Health Care Clinic) I'd like to see a move in the direction of charitable giving towards organizations that could make a huge difference in the population of the uninsured.

[no name no slogan]

162. I lived in the UK, too, but Canada's system is NOT like the NHS

I had to use the NHS system once, when I injured my hand while at work. Fortunately, my employer paid for me to go to a private clinic, who then referred me on to the hospital because I needed an x-ray. That is another harrowing tale for another time.

I'd have to agree that the NHS in the UK is currently in sad shape, but a large part of that is due to Thatcherism and the severe underfunding of the system throughout the 80s and 90s.

However, there are several major differences between Canada's and the UK's health care systems. In Canada, the providers are privately-owned, while those in the UK are actually government employees.

In Canada, only the "insurance" aspect of healthcare is owned/managed by the government. Since there's only one "insurance" provider, there's less paperwork and bureaucracy. It also means that every doctor/clinic in the country accepts the same single "insurance". The "insurance" is covered by payroll taxes, like FICA, and there are few (if any) fees for the users of the system, because they already pay for them through their taxes.

IOW, it's a publically-funded, privately-delivered system, where ALL the providers are automatically part of the "network", which means you can choose ANY doctor you want. The government itself does not own the clinics/hospitals like it does in the UK.

Kucinich's plan is very similar to the Canadian system, with a tax of 7% added to the payroll tax, which could be split between employers and employees, like the current Social Security deduction. It would provide full medical, dental, mental health and vision AND also cover alternative therapies/treatments, too.

Seeing as 12% of expenses for businesses in this country each year involve paying for healthcare benefits for employees, this system would be a steal.

[Dorian Gray]

191. Though I have friends in Canada

We rarely talk about their health care service. I guess it was unfair for me to discuss my problems with the English system when most of the discussion has been US vs. Canada's health care system.

I know problems exist everywhere. No system will ever be perfect. I just know that I had personal nightmares in the British system, so I guess I'm a little prejudicial when it comes to the NHS.

[Lars39]

165. Estimates of the uninsured are from 43 to 80 million.

At this point charities would be a drop in the bucket.

[Dorian Gray]

192. True...

Sad, but true. I just appreciate the good ones when I see them really affecting a community! And when I see a community rally behind the charity. When you see an organization that has only been in operation for a couple years make such a huge impact on a community, it does offer some hope!

[enki23]

15. one word

yes (to the title)

[Cheswick2.0]

18. socialized medicine should be a major platform plank

unfortunately the insurance companies still have to many politicians in their pocket.
I am for cutting the insurance companies out all together. We need single payer, government run health care.

[Cleita]

23. Amen.

It's what the Canadians did and we need to do the same.

[Cheswick2.0]

28. yes and if they didn't like it the would vote to get rid of it

So it seems they and the English and the French etc.... must be happy with the system they have. All I can say is we should all be so lucky as to get sick visiting one of these countries.

[napsi]

91. I have had a different experience....

I have a buddy from Calgary that comes down every winter for a few days to ski. Last year, he blew out his right knee (ACL and Miniscus <sp>). I had this injury two years before. In my case (having decent health insurance), I was seen in the ER, the knee was iced and a brace was installed. I saw an OS the next day. He did an MRI that day, we waited 3 weeks for swelling to go down and then he repaired my knee. I was skiing 7 months later as good as new (with some physical therapy in bewtween).

My friend went back home. He got an MRI 4 weeks later. His knee was cleaned up but during his down time the scar tissue had built up around the injury and made it more difficult to repair. His recovery was longer and he says the knee is not even 75%. He no longer feels comfortable skiing the more difficult terrain.

I have heard this from other people before (time frame) of the Canadian Healthcare System. I do not propose a better alternative because for me is not an issue...I can afford it. Perhaps a system that treats everyone but those that want more can pay more?

I don't have a good answer to this one..................

[Lydia Leftcoast]

96. Something about this story isn't right

Your Canadian friend didn't go to the emergency room? They have them in Canada, you know, and everything I've heard says that you get seen if you come in with a serious injury. Besides, an MRI is only an imaging tool, not a therapy. If his knee didn't heel properly, it's not due to the lack of an MRI.

Doctors vary in quality, and I'm sure that's as true in Canada as it is in the U.S.

I had an MRI when I was in a car accident a few years ago, but it only confirmed what the doctor already knew from a superficial exam.

[napsi]

98. My friend was in America

and yes, he was treated in the ER at the base of the mountain. He went home the following day......He was treated at the ER (Aspen Valley Hospital). I can only relate his story and the fact that this year he was very timid on tough terrian. He's not a timid guy.

[Cleita]

99. How nice you can go skiing in Aspen?

And how nice your Canadian friend can too. One thing that I have noticed about Canadians is that even though they complain about how their dollars don't equal our dollars, the fact is that they have more dollars to spend on recreation because they aren't being robbed in health care dollars and they also get other little social perks that enable them to enjoy life instead of worrying how to pay for them.

[napsi]

102. Thanks for the snide comment

I happen to live here and he got to stay for free as he is always welcome to do. I don't have a beef with a new healthcare system as long as it works at least as good as the one I have now........ or that I can pay to "upgrade" if I choose too.

[LoZoccolo]

127. Hahahaha come on.

Why don't you just admit there are some flaws with this system?

[Cleita]

129. So are you saying you prefer to keep a system that is completely

broken and not replace it with a system that has flaws? If it were your computer, I don't think you wouldn't replace it if it was broken, for one with some flaws like all computers have.

[LoZoccolo]

130. No I'm not saying that.

I'm saying you should be honest in your discussion rather than ideological.

Like your "completely broken" comment. I'm still alive after ending up in the hospital two years ago, aren't I? OK then.

[Cleita]

131. Well, I don't know what fairyland you live in but in my

county half the hospitals have closed because of poor revenue from the privatized system. Our community hospital can keep it's doors open only because they have one reception area that receives hospital patients, emergency patients and day patients at one window with a deli number system. It took my husband three hours one day to get an MRI because of the stack up. Two receptionists process everybody through there to keep costs down.

Half the clinics have closed as well. My husband's clinic that receives mostly Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement is able to offer quality care from, god forbid, government programs, since most insurance and HMOs don't cover End Renal State disease. As a matter-of-fact, none of the doctors or clinics here accept any of the more common HMOs anymore because of poor payments, slow payments, or no payments meaning that the enrollees have to travel 100 to 200 miles every time they need to see a doctor. This does not affect the affluent who can afford Cadillac Blue Cross insurance or who can pay cash, but it is a terrible burden on the poor and the elderly poor, who make up the majority of enrollees in the HMOs

Many doctors have stopped practicing altogether because of the screw job they are getting from mal-practice insurance. I'm am actually writing a presentation for our local Democratic Club on the crisis in health care in my county. What I reiterated above is only some of the problems. The system is broken from where I stand.

[LoZoccolo]

140. *yawn*

My problem is with your hyperbole (I noticed you said before it was completely broken and now you say it's just broken) and your rhetorical acrobatics about the skiing.

[Cleita]

143. Nitpicking on words? Oh gee I forgot the adjective this time.

Why don't you just say you don't agree with me? That only working healthy people should get health care. That the health care industry should always post rosy profits on the stock exchange, while 18,000 Americans a year die needlessly because they didn't have access to health care.

[LoZoccolo]

144. Come on, don't play games.

Your argument was that a system that was somewhat broken was better than one that was completely broken so yes, the adjective matters. Now that you admit that it's not completely broken, you have more work to do to show that this one is worse than a proposed one.

I'm not without interest in this matter. If I were to become self-employed or unemployed, I'd have a lot of trouble paying for insurance myself because I was a twenty-seven year-old heart patient two years ago. I don't need appeals to make me care about this.

One thing's for sure though: I am very wary of something for which it's proponents tend to cover up its potential faults and so are a lot of other people, so the way you argue for something does matter here. If there are transparent flaws in your argument like the ones I've pointed out, they'll be wary of them, especially since the quality of care for their health could be at stake. People will be more likely convinced if you can build a system which improves upon the faults of the Canadian one rather than throwing this "must be nice to be able to go skiing" at them or exaggerating the state of the present one.

[Pithlet]

146. You are the one

who is making absolutely no sense. I don't understand your argument. Well, their system isn't perfect, either, so the US can't or shouldn't do it? You're flailing around, mocking everyone, and insist that they're covering up imperfections (which I don't see, personally). How is that making your point, or any, for that matter? I don't think anyone is saying that Canada's system is perfect. But it is a hell of a lot better than what we have. So, you survived being in the hospital. So? What does that prove, exactly? That people don't die in this country from lack of health care? Well, to that, I say "Bwahahahahahahahah!" or, maybe *Yaaaaaawn* to use your style of debate.

[LoZoccolo]

147. I'm not really making an argument in favor of a system.

I'm just saying the argument being given for a new one was inadequate and doesn't answer a lot of concerns.

And that you won't convince people with rhetorical tricks. It's just too important to people because it involves their physical health.

[Pithlet]

151. I agree with you on one thing

it is a very important issue. I think the system we currently have is failing miserably. That is why I don't understand why some want to cling to it tenaciously and ignore what other countries are doing. You acknowledge that we have serious problems, yet you're willing (I think, I can't tell) to dismiss the idea of single payer health care because, well, I'm not sure why.

I do think that the problems that other countries are having are way overblown by opponents of single payer health care. And, warts and all, I think they would all be a drastic improvement over what we have now.

[LoZoccolo]

155. I'm not dismissing single-payer health care.

I'm dismissing how some people argue for it, and how it does little to reassure people that are concerned about it's problems. I have concerns when the advocates of a system use those kind of tactics. If we implement something like this, I don't want the system to be such that I get hit over the head with "well if you don't like it you must not care about all the people who ran into trouble with the old system" if I seek to improve the new one. Sorry, shrillness does not make sick people well.

[Pithlet]

168. We don't have that new system yet

So I hardly see how anyone is doing that to you. When we have universal health care, and someone here treats you like that when you argue to improve the new one, then you have a case.

[LoZoccolo]

170. Well people don't want to wait to get into an irreversable situation...

...just to find that out.

[Pithlet]

173. How on earth

is it irreversable?

[LoZoccolo]

178. Single-payer?

You can't just bring back the old system in a jiffy.

[Pithlet]

181. That's an argument

for not doing it at all? Sure, it might not be in a jiffy, but anything is reversable.

[LoZoccolo]

183. No, that's an argument...

...for being very sober about implementing it (or implementing some other form of universal coverage). I don't think we should implement social programs without a dose of skepticism - this is why I'm a "moderate". Because if they don't work or do worse than not having them, that's not progressive at all (see: communism).

[Pithlet]

185. There is skepticism

and then there is your argument. You're hung up on the word "social". Name all the social programs that haven't worked, or have made things worse in the US, who's failure wasn't caused from underfunding or privatization by those who are against "social" programs. How many can you name?

No one in this thread has advocated jumping into anything without considering risks, or being careful. No one.

[LoZoccolo]

187. Yeah but someone countered a criticism of the Canadian system with...

...something to the effect of "must be nice to afford to be able to go skiing". Sorry, that doesn't assuage anyone's doubts about sweeping change to the health care system. We saw skepticism up there, and look how it got dealt with. And that's part of what I don't like about this place. This should be somewhere where we can discuss things like that, but it just tends to degenerate into accusation. And that's a bad environment to try to come up with big ideas within.

[Pithlet]

188. It was a valid point.

If you can afford to go skiing in Colorado, you can't be doing too badly. You don't have to be rich, but you aren't dirt poor, that's for sure. And it doesn't have squat to do with how valid the argument for single payer health care is.

[LoZoccolo]

193. That's my point.

And it doesn't have squat to do with how valid the argument for single payer health care is.

Glad we finally got here.

[Pithlet]

199. I hate to do the

last word in thing, but I have to ask: Then why did you bring it up?

[LoZoccolo]

204. Because it was a non-argument.

I get bugged by non-arguments. We should do better than that. It was glossing over a problem with single-payer, and as long as we do that, they can make up any horror stories they want to about it and people will listen because all we'll have to greet them with is "well less people will get fucked with that than this".

Almost this entire subthread has been me clarifying that I'm talking about rhetoric over and over and fending off accusations that I want to stall universal coverage.

[Pithlet]

206. I'm sorry

but that seems pointless to me as far as debating goes. In doing what you're saying, you said things that sound very much like you aren't too hip on the idea of single payer health care coverage. My point wasn't that the argument was pointless (which I don't think it was), my point was your objection to it makes no difference to the argument overall. You misunderstood and thought I was agreeing with you.

I don't know. Maybe if a lot of the things actually were pointless, or rhetoric, like you say, I'd be inclined to agree with you. I'm just not seeing it. All I'm seeing is you disagreeing, which in turn makes you seem on the opposite side. It's very easy to laugh at people, feign yawning, and say "That's pointless rhetoric". It's quite another to actually debate with facts and reasoning.

Anyway, it's late, so I'm off to bed.

[LoZoccolo]

148. P.S. the reason I argue the way I do...

...is I think that people know they start arguing ridiculously when they're backed into a corner with a pretty good argument, and I'm just making them aware I know that.

[Pithlet]

149. The thing is

You think you are, but I respectfully disagree. I think you're ignoring a lot of the key points that are being made here, and focusing on what you think are ridiculous arguments. It confuses your argument as well, because I can't really tell what your argument is.

[LoZoccolo]

157. I guess my argument is...

...I have a great deal of doubt about a system whose proponents seem to do a lot to deflect criticism. It tells me we may be headed for a new system that can't be repaired if it's flawed, and you can't just pay to work around. I would feel a lot more comfortable if people were to take an honest look at other universal care systems and be like "we won't have ____ problem here because we'll do ____ differently" rather than "well at least a smaller number of people get fucked over".

[LoZoccolo]

159. This isn't a permanent criticism of single-payer, you'll notice...

...it's just a criticism of the current rhetoric and methodology of contemporary grassroots proponents of it.

[Pithlet]

166. You countered someone's

claim that the current system isn't working with I survived the hospital, and I'm okay, or words to that effect.

These are just discussions on a message board. No one is setting policy, here. The points brought up in these threads are valid ones, countering misinformation spun by the opposition. I've seen you do the very things you're accusing others of doing. Your "current rhetoric and methodology" that you speak of are posts on a message board. Nitpicking their argument and debate skills accomplishes exactly what? I still don't really understand what you're saying.

[LoZoccolo]

169. The argument seemed to be implying that the system never works.

And because the system never works it's always worse than one that sometimes doesn't work, something to that effect. So the fact that I survived will tell you that yes, sometimes the new system works. That changes things. Someone then needs to prove something different - that the new one will be better than the old one. That's a pretty big shift, in my opinion.

But yeah, I maintain that I'd like the proponents of a system to take a sober approach to it because it's our health at stake and with single payer, you have no other choices from what I gather.

[Pithlet]

171. The fact that you survived

says that the system sometimes works for some people. Nothing more. "I survived" is certainly not the level of care I'm aspiring to. I think we can do better than that.

People in Canada and elsewhere have a lot more choice than a great majority of people in America. I can't go to the doctor that I would love to see. I had to stop seeing him because my husband's corp switched insurance, and he wasn't listed under the new one. Where is the choice in that? I could still see my old doctor, but the bills would be outrageous. When I was single I had to turn down a great opportunity because I couldn't afford to lose my health insurance. All of these things would never have happened had I lived in Canada, or if we'd had a system similar to theirs. Heaven forbid if I'd been among the millions of Americans with no coverage at all. I certainly hope I'm not in the future.

You are ignoring the majority of Canadians who say love their system despite its flaws, not to mention facts that have been presented to you, and you're claiming that all everyone is saying is that we swap a defective system for a less defective one. Despite the fact that it isn't what anyone is saying. I just don't understand that.

[LoZoccolo]

180. I'm not ignoring any of that.

I'm just saying that old argument was this absolute kind-of a thing (a system with flaws is always better than a completely broken one) whereas any argument that takes into account the fact that I survived my heart problem is a matter of degree (the new system has less flaws, or flaws that affect less people less severely than the old one). That isn't nitpicking; it's a complete change of the nature of the argument. And people want to see honest and sober rhetoric when their health is at stake.

I'm not against universal coverage at all. But I want the program with the best quality coverage, and we don't get there with the kind of rhetorical trickery I was seeing up there is all.

[Pithlet]

182. There is no

rhetorical trickery going on here. You may disagree with some of the things that have been said, that's all. You say you aren't against universal health care, but your arguments say otherwise. All of us want the best quality coverage. Few of us actually get it. There are those who want a change, because things are getting desperate for many people in this country, and you really haven't countered them with anything. Honestly, I don't think your problem is with anyone in this thread, or their arguments. It seems to me that you're uncomfortable with any change. That comes through very clearly in your posts. When change is discussed, you rail against it, claiming that you're uncovering rhetoric.

[LoZoccolo]

184. *yawn*

I'm either with you or against you?

Please don't psychoanalyze me. I've been open about my honest interest in this. I don't know how to prove otherwise other than what I've given you, but I also don't know what would be required to convince you anyways.

What I want, and what other people want that think about this issue, is an answer to some of the problems with the Canadian system, rather than being hit over the head with shrill banter about how we don't really care. Because the shrill banter won't make sick people well. And simply wanting the best care won't get it to people.

Also, I think I've talked about the rhetorical trickery enough (see: "completely broken" argument). Plus your post right there is one - you're getting away from what I'm talking about and starting to accuse me of stuff. That does not increase my confidence in single-payer healthcare, nor should it.

[Pithlet]

186. Yawn. Stretch. Crack my knuckles. Ahhhh.. I feel better.

That "completely broken argument?" That's it?

I'm not psychoanalyzing you, I'm just reading what you're saying. You're the one going around saying that you're afraid it won't be reversible, or that you won't get absolute best care that you get now, and that no one is thinking this out as thoroughly as you like. You said those things. That is where I'm getting the gist that you're really not behind "socialized" medicine after all. Gee, where could I be getting that from?

I can see now that this is degenerating with the absurd "Yaaaawns" already, so this is no longer a productive debate.

[Pithlet]

174. And

That argument is implying no such thing. Pointing out how flawed our system is, and how so many are falling through the cracks demonstrates that we need a change. To ignore how other countries are doing it, and to keep on doing things the way they always have is to ignore those who fall between the cracks. Sticking our heads in the sand and saying "I survived!" does nothing to help those people.

I have great coverage, despite the fact that I can't see the doctor of my choice. But that hinges on my husband's employment. He loses his job, no health coverage after Cobra payments zap our savings. See? I'm not arguing that the system never works. I didn't see anyone else in this thread do so, either. I think you're afraid of changing the system as it is, because it has worked for you, and you're afraid of changing that. You forget that with few exceptions, every single one of us who are doing okay under the current system can lose all that.

[Cleita]

150. Oh I see what your game is.

It's to put words in my mouth that I didn't say. I said flawed not somewhat broken. Sorry bud, but the game is over. I won't fall into the little trap you have set for me. Pick on the people who are stealing your health care dollars as I type. And you should worry because the older you get the harder it will be for you to get affordable health care under the system we have now.

Now that you have a pre-existing condition, you'd better never drop the health plan you have because you will be denied by other carriers or the premium will be so high, that it's actually cheaper to pay cash, as long as you have a job to pay cash.

Where did you get the idea the Canadian system is sooo bad? Haven't you read the testimonies from Canadians on this thread alone? Yet, you insist on listening to one goon from Calgary. Isn't that a little narrow-minded? Canada is a big place and most Canadians are quite satisfied with their system.

Oh by the way the system is broken when 15% of the population have no access to health care whatsoever and a majority have inadequate coverage from the private sector. This is shameful for the so-called greatest country in the world.

[LoZoccolo]

154. Oh come on they're the same thing.

Flawed, somewhat broken, whatever. People reading this know this even if you pretend you don't know the difference. Come on come on all I'm calling for you to do is be honest in the way you argue. It will do better to get what you want, serious.

Anyways, if you really want, I'll use your adjective and it still means the same thing. And please don't go off on tangents again.

Your argument was that a system that was flawed was better than one that was completely broken so yes, the adjective matters. Now that you admit that it's not completely broken, you have more work to do to show that this one is worse than a proposed one.

And I never said the Canadian system was soooo bad. I'm saying doing things like being shrill and changing the subject to skiing and putting forth arguments that rely on hyperbole don't convince people that are concerned that they'll more likely slip through the cracks of the system.

[Cleita]

158. You were talking about skiing, not me, and just because you accuse

someone of dishonesty, hyperbole, and being shrill doesn't make it so. God you almost sound like Ann Coulter going on about liberals. Also, a flaw is like a skinned knee. A broken kneecap on the other can cannot be somewhat broken. It is or it isn't, so they are not the same.

[LoZoccolo]

160. Is the current system...

_ completely broken
_ flawed (not completely broken)

Please check one.

[LoZoccolo]

161. Actually screw it.

Pay attention to the important part of what I said:

Your argument was that a system that was flawed was better than one that was completely broken so yes, the adjective matters. Now that you admit that it's not completely broken, you have more work to do to show that this one is worse than a proposed one.

Whether or not I convince you that you said this or that or meant this or that, people are concerned that the new system will be better than the old one, and you have to convince them of that. You can yell at them and call them Ann Coulter and all that, but at the end of the day, they have to be convinced what you want will be better than what they have now. Now if you care enough about this issue, you'll go do that. So go do that.

[Cleita]

167. There are a whole bunch of stuff on other websites about

this. Be patient. There is a study, which I will have to dig up because it's buried somewhere on my computer that ranks the health of the ordinary citizens of each country by infant mortality, life expectency, etc. We in America are way down there with many third world countries. Actually, Cuba's figures are better than ours. Countries with NHC have healther populations, a low infant mortality rate and better life expectancy that those without.

So look for a main post from me on this, because I need to start throwing my research out there for opinions.

[mzmolly]

19. Opinions vary on this among Democrats. I think healthcare for all is the

common goal. How to get it remains part of the debate :hi:

[IronLionZion]

49. totally

It's not a goal of Republicans (no surprise) but it is a goal of most Democrats.

[boobooday]

22. I think it is a moral issue

Is it moral to profit from the illness of others?

I don't think so. And I don't think it is moral to profit from the imprisonment of others either.

Suddenly, the profit motive comes into conflict with the goals of society. Why do companies that profit from illness want people to get well? This is why I think that Bush is pandering to his corporate interests and not his Christian interests by standing in the way of stem cell research. Do you realize how much money would be lost to Bush's pharma cronies if diabetics were cured, let alone Alzheimers and Parkinson's patients? As it is, many of us live for years and years with chronic illness, and man, do we fork over the loot.

I say yes to socialized medicine -- anything that takes the profit out of it. But it has to be explained as the moral issue that it is.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[ACK]

29. Nah Healthcare for all Americans = a Democratic and moral must

At least IMHO.

I do not give a flying fuck how it is done but we need a healthcare system that lowers the overall cost of healthcare and covers all Americans.

If it lowers cost then it cannot be a giveaway to health insurers and corporations.

Just so long as it covers all Americans.

BTW, this would save the American economy and large corporations millions in the end because of the saved cost in Human Resource departments in having to dole and figure up these costs on their own.

The current system only benefits the rich and the managed healthcare industry and no one absolutely no one else.

_

[rniel]

33. one more example of

the right wing playing the word game to frame issues. They should call it "affordable health care" not "socialized"

[Independent_Minded]

34. ok, great responses.

Let me play devil's advocate a bit.(Im an economist, so if i use a funny lexicon, that's my excuse :) )


How does one regulate the pharmaceutical profit model, without increasing the cost benefit of R&D?

For example, Phizer spends more money in R&D than most civilized nations
combined. (private vs. public R&D)

They do so because when they "hit" on a treatment they can make huge multiples of their investment. Now it stands to reason that if you reduce the multiples of their Return on Investment that the risk/reward ration goes down, which would cause a reduced amount of R&D, and result in a reduced amount of innovation.


On the other side, using this profit model, all R&D is funneled towards treatment and not a cure. The money is in the treatment. With a cure you have several problems.

First is the ethical question of pricing a cure. If someone cant afford the price and has a fatal illness do you let them die?

Next, if you cure the illness how do you recoup your investment?

Here is where the profit model breaks down.

***********************************************

I use the term socialized medicine because thats what it is, it was not meant as a knock against it. I'm actually not "for" it, but i recognize that something needs to be done.

[Dogmudgeon]

37. R&D is already socialized

The fundamental R&D work is done in universities with public money. The universities then auction off the patents in a suspiciously cozy system.

But the phamaceutical marketing spokescritters don't mention that, do they?

We pay for the research. Then we pay for the medicine. And pay. And pay.

And those of us who don't have insurance or large incomes go without.

--bkl

[Independent_Minded]

41. not to be an ass

but university spending on basic R&D is dwarfed by private investment...
completely dwarfed. one could say that expenditures dont equal output, but if use that as a benchmark your case doesn't stand.

[Dogmudgeon]

79. How universities "save" money

Unpaid labor -- thousands of undergraduate and grad students.

All that free labor is worth a lot of R&D money.

Drug companies do sink a lot of money into R&D, but it's primarily non-basic work. The long, difficult, time-consuming, often thankless job of discovering new drugs is left to the universities. If they had to pay for that, their R&D budget would be shot. Who's going to pay a PhD biochemist, even a freshly-minted one, to spend 60 hours a week for two years trying to find a molecule that will reduce pain or gastric acidity marginally more effectively than the market leader, with a good possibility that the ROI will be torpedoed by the FDA?

We're riding the tiger in regards to health care, but there is no reason why we should pay for it AND be denied health care.

--bkl

[depakid]

36. Your nomenclature belies your bias

It also demonstrates that you don't have much grasp of the various proposals that have been on the table for expanding healthcare- or creativing universal healthcare. By the same token, I doubt you know much about how Medicare and Medicaid works.

Publicly funded healthcare programs (even single payer systems) are not socialized medicine. It's like comparing apples to oranges. To my knowledge, no one is seriously promoting anything like the British National Health Service (which might be called socialized medicine- and works quite well, comparatively speaking).

So your question is equivocal, at best. Even so, what ANY intelligent person who has looked at the issues will conclude is that the current fragmented system in America is riddled with waste, inefficiencies and cost externalities. Purely from an economic standpoint (irrespective of any consideration of suffering) universal health care makes the utmost sense- which is why every other country in the world in a position to do so has already adopted one sort of plan or another....

You don't have to be a Democrat or a Green to understand that.

[Independent_Minded]

39. correction noted, and conceded

but after that you made a broad sweep. assuring me that if im smart ill agree with you. can you be more detailed?

[depakid]

42. it's a huge set of issues- I'll give you one re: mental health

When the Republicans broke their agreement to fund mental health care as part of the now defunct Oregon Health Plan 2 (which was a Section 1115 Medicaid expansion), several things became apparent.

The first and most poignant was a rash of suicides by people who could no longer afford their medications or counseling. As the months passed, many, many clinics were forced to drastically reduce staff. Some communities, especially in rural Oregon, lost all their mental health services as a result of the cuts.

So, all of the people who were once employed at these clinics no longer had jobs- at a time of historically high unemployment, when it makes the most sense economically to have them employed even if that employment is subsidized by state and federal money (the multiplier effect and all that Keynesian stuff...;-) ).

However, there were more effects. Many if not most of the people formerly on the plan developed behavioral problems or became dysfunctional, and so many lost their private jobs (meaning that they no longer contributed to state and federal tax bases). Some went on disability, further draining funds those funds. Others ended up in the criminal justice system- a very expensive entry on the balance sheets- particularly if as a result their families had to rely on state social services for any length of time. Not to mention any effects that might be felt by crime victims.

Even if they stayed out of trouble, former patients now required more care from family members and friends- and that results in productivity losses for businesses. Moreover, if and when a crisis occurred, patients ended up in emergency rooms and pysch wards- THE most expensive places for them to be. That results in a couple of effects.

First, since hospitals are no longer receiving some types of reimbursements, they have to write these off as charity cases. Second, it clogs emergency rooms and increases waiting times (again- draining productivity from multiple businesses, not just hospitals or even the families of the mentally ill). Third, it increases the cost of care for everyone else (increasing premiums, copays and deductibles for businesses and individuals alike).

Finally, when the debts are passed on to families that cannot afford them (which is most families) and aggressive debt collection agencies get into the picture (which happens way too often) families must decide whether to pay other creditors- or pony up for the most expensive, inefficient care they could have received. They cut back on purchases in the local community (decreasing the multiplier effect). Or they may declare bankruptcy.

So you see, when you do all the math, it makes a lot more sense to fund country mental health clinics up front. Otherwise, as Oregon has learned the hard way, you pay A LOT more a little ways down the line.

[Delano]

38. Single-Payer or National Healthcare.

"Socialized" is a hot-button word.

But essentially yes. The biggest problem with Clinton's plan was that it included the gouging private insurers.

They are unnecessary, except to provide "Cadillac" services to wealthy people.

[Cleita]

57. The only way to get rid of these guys is to regulate them heavily.

We need to make them keep their administrative costs to 2% like Medicare and Medicaid do; to force them to cover everyone, regardless of age and medical history and to force them to charge everyone the same premium. When this happens the profit motive will be gone and they will bail out of the health care industry. Then we will be able to introduce a single payer system for everyone.

[depakid]

67. Broadening the risk pool will itself accomplish much.

Eliminating barriers to coverage and bringing uninsured's into the system (those who are either low risk or who are, for whatever reason not risk averse) helps to pay for others who need more expensive care. Moreover, it shifts the focus from ambulatory care to preventive care- which is far less expensive (which is why you see a lot more of it with HMO's like Kaiser).

If you do that, even in a private system, insurers will be forced to compete based more on their administrative costs, provided that laws are in place that hold them accountible to a responsible standard of care.

Eliminating ERISA premption would be a great way to do that. Let 'em face huge jury awards for bad faith denial of care and see how quickly they respond....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. This is a winning issue, if only the Dems had the courage to adopt it

Start talking about health care in any group of people, and it won't take a minute before someone comes up with an insurance company or HMO horror story. Nobody likes the current system except insurance company executives.

The trouble with Clinton's proposal was that it was too complicated, which meant that most people couldn't understand it without a lot of effort, and too willing to give the insurance companies what they wanted, which meant that it didn't change enough current practices. That's why it was easy for the "anti" lobby to scare people with the Harry and Louise ads.

What we need is a health care policy that can be summarized on the back of a postcard in words of no more than two syllables. Then there needs to be an intensive PR campaign showing actual cases from Canada and Western Europe.

[Cleita]

59. Harry and Louise were part of the astroturf spread by the

health care industry. They don't do it directly, but hire PR firms to do it. They infiltrate boards like this with "personal" stories or cooked up "facts".

[msmcghee]

194. And people who ask seemingly innocent questions about . .

socialized medicine.

[qwertyMike]

50. Canada - I posted this on another thread

I had a li'l prostate scare. The process involved 3 blood tests, 3 office visits, visit to a specialist, biopsy (out-patient). NEGATIVE - phew.

All in 5 weeks No charge. No waiting. If I had to proceed to surgery it would have been within 2 weeks I was told, instant chemo if necessary.

No charge. No bills from the hospital. All chemo drugs would have been covered.

O Canada!

[mzmolly]

87. Ohhh how good Canada sounds!!! No Bush, medical care. Ahhhhhhh...

;)

[grasswire]

68. we need reform now

sooner rather than later

I don't care what form it takes. We just need everyone covered now. Thousands of people in my state are being kicked off Medicaid this month. Many thousands more can't afford meds. Thousands of retirees too young for medicare have a five year gap with NO insurance just at the time their bodies start to slow down.

NOW.

[Kanary]

74. An article for the doubters

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-vo-wyle8may08,1,4551...



VOICES / A FORUM FOR COMMUNITY ISSUES
Only Universal Insurance Can Save the ERs
By Neal Baer and Noah Wyle

May 8, 2004

The terrible choices that doctors, nurses and patients must make when 44 million
Americans lack health insurance are not just the stuff of prime-time drama.
Though television programs like "ER" and "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit"
explore these stories weekly, the suffering of those without coverage does not
end when the closing credits roll. Real doctors in emergency rooms face tough
decisions daily about the uninsured.

Eight out of 10 uninsured Americans are from working families. They're teachers,
farmers and small-business owners; 8.5 million are children. Most of the
uninsured work but earn only modest incomes. They earn too much to qualify for
public programs but too little to purchase private health insurance. Most are
caught in an economic bind that, to put it simply, is very unfair.

This crisis is growing worse. According to a survey of emergency physicians
released by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and prepared for "Cover the
Uninsured Week," these doctors see the system as being on the brink of
disaster. A clear majority believe that the single most important thing we can do
to improve healthcare is to make sure every man, woman and child has health
insurance. Why?

The rising number of uninsured Americans who use emergency rooms as their
primary source of care threatens to overwhelm emergency departments. The
problem is virtually the same everywhere — here in Los Angeles as well as in
other U.S. communities, in urban, suburban and rural hospitals.

According to the surveyed ER physicians, the 44 million uninsured are less healthy
than the insured and die younger. And the Institute of Medicine agrees,
estimating that 18,000 people die each year because they lack coverage.
snippity-do-dah

[wurzel]

76. Universal health care should be part of the defense budget !

If we are serious about meeting domestic terrorist threats then surely the care of people attacked should be part of our defense budget. Or at least Homeland Security. How else are we to serve the needs of victims of an attack. If the government seriously believed we are under threat shouldn't they be making sure there is a SURPLUS of faculties to cope with mwd victims. Certainly privatized systems couldn't do it. Either the threats are totally exaggerated, or our government is totally derelict in its sworn duty to protect the public.

[Cleita]

78. Good point and very good for deflecting

anti-national health care arguments.

[Selwynn]

80. No - in fact let's not stand for anything, that way all feel welcome!

woot!

That seems to be the current plan of the Democratic party.

[eridani]

84. No, just socialized INSURANCE

Publicly financed, privately delivered. Like Canada, only we are already spending way more money on health care than they are.

[theboss]

85. I honestly have no idea

I work in this industry, and I have no earthly idea how to fix it. I have clients in Canada and from what I can tell the choices are the American system where the patients go broke or the Canadian system where the providers go broke.

I think the solution is in reducing the cost of the service itself, not in changing the payment end (which is what the Clintons tried to do).

But I like I said, I am immersed in this sort of thing and don't see a solution.

[Cleita]

93. Why are Canada's health care providers not getting enough money?

It is my understanding that they get to thrash it out with the provincial government every year for their fees? I get the same complaint here. The HMO's and insurance companies are not paying them; they are slow paying them; they can't do procedures because they won't pay for them. They have too much paper work. Their mal-practice insurance is off the wall. As a result many doctors refuse to accept any of this.

My dermatologist, a very nice person, doesn't accept anything but cash and she offers to bill for you, but you must pay the difference. Every procedure I have had done by her has been pre-cancerous but denied by my insurance company. We have to have a solution. Period.

[IronLionZion]

95. Cash-only is how it used to be

and sounds like a viable plan. The single payer insurance plan sounds good too. Both plans reduce the cost of health care by cutting overhead.

Socializing the hospitals and doctors is not a viable solution at all. That would be just too huge and inefficient.

[Cleita]

97. Okay, here we go. If cash up front had been a viable solution

back then, society wouldn't have needed Medicare or Medicaid, which is why these programs were born. I guess even the compassionate conservatives back then got upset when some poor person in their orbit died because they couldn't afford healthcare. I am sure some doctors, who got tired of handing out freebee medical care got tired of it too.

Charities often picked up the slack, but with our new technological medical system, the charities can't do it anymore. Hey, I used to work in a Catholic Hospital back in the sixties that tried to take care of as many indigent patients as they could and still pay the bills.

But this is a problem for all of society, not just a few who care. We all have a responsiblity and the time is nigh.

[Kanary]

115. So, you gonna enjoy watching me and others die

because we don't have the cash?

Will that make your day?

If "socializing" isn't viable, then why oh why are all the other industrialized countries except US doing just fine with it???

Kanary

[napsi]

89. Be careful what you ask for....

you just might get it. I do not trust the government to handle healthcare anymore than I trust them with SS. Politicians will always be in the back pocket or Promina, Healthstar etc.....We need real reform and that starts with the Corporate MegaHospitals, Insurance Co's, lawyers, juries, and physicians. If you want decent healthcare, why would we turn it over to another federal agency?

[Cleita]

90. Well, this is one of the main talking points of the opposition.

"The government can't do anything right." Well, 60% of our health care now is handled by the government, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHAMPUS are all run by the government. The only thing that screws up the system is the meddling done by the RW to weaken the system and yet they keep their administrative costs at around 2% as contrary to the privitized systems that can't seem to to better than 15%, and I am being generous here.

Most of the industrialized nations of the world with NHC systems seem to be running them very well and much more efficiently than our hodgepodge of privitized health care and they are able to cover everyone, not just a select bunch of cherrypicked beneficiaries of the system.

I wish, I wish, no I will fight for a national health care system here.

[SarahB]

92. Not having socialized medicine makes us a backward , second world nation.

I don't see what the argument against it is. What benefit is there to have people end up with far worse conditions because there's no preventative care? What benefit is there that elderly people have to give up EVERYTHING to get on Title 19 if they need long term care? What benefit is there that we have 40 million uninsured people? As f*cking usual, the only benefit is to business and costs of healthcare are skyrocketing. Something needs to be done now, but I'm not holding my breath for it to be done anytime soon.

[Cleita]

94. The only way to get things done is to become a rather angry mob

that can't be ignored. I am not saying violent. I am saying angry. If we present ourselves as a block that means business, we will win this.

[Cascadian]

100. I think we need a Universal health care program.

I also think that if people want their own private health care than that should be their choice and not have to pay for the national health care. Let's give people a choice but let's not leave those who cannot afford private health care behind.


John

[Cleita]

101. John, that doesn't work.

The conservative side of me said the same thing. People should have a choice. The problem is that everyone should pay into the system or it doesn't work. The rich don't want to pay into the system, so where does that leave us? It leaves us with a system that everyone has to use, like roads. You don't like the potholes in the road, then you'd better make sure the county has enough money to fix them. It's the same with health care. If you have to deal with the local County Hospital then you are going to make sure it's rather nice.

[Cascadian]

103. The rich won't have to pay into the system.

There are one-payer systems we could use. I get to think that health care is no longer a right in this country. It is a priviledge and it should not be that way. We need to find ways to lower health care costs with or without universal health care.

John

[Cleita]

108. We need a way to get health care to the people who need

health care. We need to get the health care providers well paid for their work. We need to do this in an efficient way.

[missedherniceguy]

107. Hell yes to free health care

I am all in favor of getting free health care. I need major surgery and can't afford the 750 grand needed to fix me. I would jump on the chance to get it free if only our reps would make it law.

I know my meager income and tax will never pay for it but the rich should pick up the slack to help us in need. Bring on free health care now!!!

[Cleita]

109. Dear honeybunny. This is not free.

You pay into it, just like you do into your HMO, insurance or whatever, or maybe your employer does. The fact is it gives you a guarantee that you will get health care when you need it, like the old pharts do with Medicare. Try it. It works.

[missedherniceguy]

110. It's free to me

I'll never make 750,000 much less have it to spend on health care so it is free to me. Bring it on!

[Cleita]

112. Are you talking about the mileage on your.....?

Explain. I'm rather dumb sometimes.

[missedherniceguy]

114. I need major surgery and it costs 750,000

I can't afford it and need free health care to pay for it. I am for free health care and want it now. Don't you?

[Cleita]

116. Are you in the USA or where are you?

I have to assume you are, or you wouldn't be begging for surgery, if you don't have insurance. You haven't really given us a clue what your surgery is. I don't mean specifics but is it life and death or make your life better surgery?

[missedherniceguy]

117. In the USA. Need surgery so I can walk normal

I have sent letters to many millionaire dems asking for help in return for my dedication to getting dems elected but they all either ignore me or say they can't help. I guess their botox treatments cost too much.

That's why I want free health care.

[thebigidea]

172. Uh huh. Sure you have.

Golly, you couldn't possibly be making this up just to squeeze a stupid botox line in, would you?

[Bridget Burke]

176. I thought you needed a brain trainsplant.

They're still pretty experimental.

[Cat Atomic]

179. You're really transparent.

[genius]

113. Yes. Universal Health Care. It's standard in Europe. We look like pigs.

We are the only county that doesn't care about giving medical care to the poor.

[LWolf]

118. Universal Single-Payer Health Care.

Health care should be a right, not a privelege. The same quality should be available to all; there should be no levels of care based on who insures you or how much you can afford to pay. And, in the U.S., having insurance does not guarantee care. Equal, quality health care for all; for 100% of America. Not insurance. Actual care.

[Kanary]

119. OT -- *wonderful* painting!

Where did you find that fine painting of DK?

Perspiring minds need to know.....:hi:

Kanary

[LWolf]

120. on ebay

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3729073830&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

It's sold. Check out the bidders, you may see a familiar name!

:hi:

[Kanary]

122. Interesting history of the painting..........good description of him!

Couldn't find bidders, though..... I don't hang around ebay, so I don't know where to look.

It's really a fine painting!

Kanary

[Cleita]

121. Actual care in exchange for your health dollars.

What a concept. :loveya:

[LWolf]

189. Isn't it?

Who could have conceived such a wickedly brilliant plan, to actually deliver care to people when they need it?

:crazy:

[flaminbats]

123. How does a degenerate like you justify survival of the fittest?

There is no plank for government employed doctors, government controlled drug companies, government owned pharmacies. All the Democrats support is what Truman supported, not communism...but making some of the basic benefits of capitalism available for all Americans just to improve their basic health.

ACCESSIBLE, AFFORDABLE, QUALITY HEALTH CARE

For fifty years, the Democratic Party has been engaged in a battle to provide the kind of health care a great nation owes its people. We reaffirm our commitment to take concrete, specific, realistic steps to move toward the day when every American has affordable health coverage. And we will not rest until the job is done.

During the past eight years, Democrats have helped Americans keep their doctor when they lose or change jobs. We passed the Child Health Insurance Program to help states provide health coverage to millions of uninsured children - the largest single investment in children's health in a 35 years. We kept solvent a Medicare system that was scheduled to go bankrupt this year. We brought immunization rates to an all-time high.

In contrast, the Republican Party has refused to use one penny of the surplus to secure the solvency of Medicare and has supported plans that would increase Medicare premiums, force elderly patients into HMOs and raise the eligibility age for Medicare to 67. They have adamantly opposed the Patients' Bill of Rights and proposed instead a mirage "Patient's Bill of Goods" that would leave out a real guarantee of the right to see a specialist and assurances that you can go to the nearest emergency room - and leave out 135 million Americans in the cold.

Instead of the guaranteed, universal prescription drug benefit that Democrats believe should be added to Medicare, Republicans are proposing to leave to insurance companies the decisions about whether and where a drug benefit might be offered, what it would include, and how much it would cost. Studies suggest that less than half of seniors will be able to use this benefit.

Universal Health Coverage. There is much more left to do. We must redouble our efforts to bring the uninsured into coverage step-by-step and as soon as possible. We should guarantee access to affordable health care for every child in America. We should expand coverage to working families, including more Medicaid assistance to help with the transition from welfare to work. And we should also seek to ensure that dislocated workers are provided affordable health care. We should make health care accessible and affordable for small businesses. In addition, Americans aged 55 to 65 - the fastest growing group of uninsured - should be allowed to buy into the Medicare program to get the coverage they need. By taking these steps, we can move our nation closer to the goal of providing universal health coverage for all Americans.

A Real Patients' Bill of Rights. Medical decisions should be made by patients and their doctors and nurses, not accountants and bureaucrats at the end of a phone line a thousand miles away. It is time we meaningfully addressed concerns about the quality of care and about the decline of patient, access, trust, and satisfaction. People need to get the health care they need, when they need it, without having to leap endless hurdles. Americans need a real, enforceable Patients' Bill of Rights with the right to see a specialist, the right to appeal decisions to an outside board, guaranteed coverage of emergency room care, and the right to sue when they are unfairly denied coverage.

Al Gore will work with a wide range of stakeholders to develop a national strategy to reduce medical errors, including appropriate public reporting, analysis of root causes, and development of error prevention models. Democrats also believe that doctors, nurses, and other health care practitioners must be allowed to advocate freely on behalf of their patients.

Protecting and Strengthening Medicare. It is time we ended the tragedy of elderly Americans being forced to choose between meals and medication. It is time we modernized Medicare with a new prescription drug benefit. This is an essential step in making sure that the best new cures and therapies are available to our seniors and disabled Americans. We cannot afford to permit our seniors to receive only part of the medical care they need.

Democrats believe Medicare is worth fighting for - and worth saving. With the number of Americans on Medicare expected to double in the next 35 years, Al Gore has stepped up and taken responsibility by proposing a Medicare Lock Box that would insure Medicare surpluses are used for Medicare - and not for pork barrel spending or tax giveaways. We should also modernize Medicare by promoting competitive prices and remain vigilant against Medicare fraud.

Fighting Diseases. Our newest medical miracles give us the chance to make significant progress in battling some of the most dreaded diseases. Democrats believe that we must invest in biomedical research and continue to fight and conquer everything from AIDS to Alzheimers to Diabetes to Parkinsons to spinal cord injuries. We must speed up the development of new drugs and get them to patients sooner while maintaining essential health and safety standards. We should allow stem cell research to make important new discoveries. We should expand prevention and widen access to clinical trials. And we should devote more resources to eliminating disease disparities among racial and ethnic groups.

Our nation must do all it can to focus its efforts on fighting HIV and AIDS. A top priority for Democrats will be the continued investment in research, prevention, care, treatment, and we are deeply committed to the search for a cure. Democrats continue to support important programs such as the Ryan White CARE Act, the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS program, and incentives to return Americans with HIV/AIDS to work.

For a generation, America has been waging a war on cancer. Al Gore believes it is time we started winning it. Because of astonishing scientific breakthroughs, the day that America is cancer-free is within reach. With the completion of the draft of the Human Genome, we are on the verge of cracking cancer's secret code. Democrats believe in taking advantage of this progress by doubling federal cancer research.

Fighting Teen Smoking. Al Gore is committed to dramatically reducing teen smoking in America. It is time we treated underage tobacco use like the health crisis it is. That's why we need to give the FDA full authority to keep cigarettes away from children. We must match the power of big tobacco's advertising dollars with a counter-campaign that tells kids the truth about the dangers of smoking and the risks of cancer to themselves and to others through second-hand smoke. And we should double our investment in efforts to prevent teen smoking and break the deadly grip of nicotine addiction.

State attorneys general across America have recovered billions of dollars from the tobacco industry for damages caused by tobaccos' advertising directed at our children and for the death and disease created by cigarettes. Now Republicans are trying to stop the United States Justice Department from pursuing similar litigation to hold the tobacco companies accountable for the damages they have caused to American taxpayers. We believe it is wrong to insulate the tobacco companies from liability for their wrongdoing.

Mental Health. Mental illness has long been concealed behind a shroud of silence and shame. Mental illness affects nearly one in five Americans each year, but nearly two-thirds of those Americans affected by mental disorders do not receive help. When mental illness goes untreated, undiagnosed, and unmentioned, people are denied the opportunity to live full lives and our nation is denied their full contribution. Democrats believe in supporting families caring for loved ones with mental illness by strengthening our community mental health system, providing access to full mental health coverage for every child in America, giving teachers and schools more mental health resources, and ensuring that mental illness and physical illness are treated equally by our nation's health plans.

Disabilities. Democrats believe that we must fight to ensure that people with disabilities can meet their full potential and participate fully in the American dream. For people with disabilities accessing affordable health insurance is the greatest barrier to returning to work. That is why we fought to assure that people with disabilities do not lose their health care when they return to work. Democrats also support tax credits and grants to pay for rehabilitation and work-related expenses for people with disabilities. And we support all efforts to implement the Supreme Court's Olmstead decision and to make personal assistance services and supports available to people with disabilities in their homes and communities - because no one should be kept in a nursing home or institution if they prefer to live in the community with the necessary supports.




<http://www.democrats.org/about/2000platform.html#prosperity>

[SmokingJacket]

132. No, Dems don't have to support socialism or socialized

medicine. There's a LOT of space between the system we have now (which works for many, but not for all, and is surely going to get much worse as fewer people can afford it) and socialized medicine.

Medical insurance companies make a profit, right? I've always thought that if the government were to run a big, non-profit, perhaps somewhat subsidized insurance company that people and businesses could opt in or out of, it would be a vast improvement over the only-for-profit system currently in place. And would be much cheaper for the taxpayers than a fully socialized system.

Just a thought. Anyway, I don't think the choices are limited to socialized medicine (which has its flaws) or let the current system drive itself into the ground.

[Cleita]

138. I half agree with you because if the government runs the

insurance company with a 2% administrative overhead, they certainly could undercut the for profit insurance companies. They could also offer more reasonably priced mal-practice insurance. I think this could be a way to force the private sector as the payer out of the business making it unprofitable for them.

I am not against doctors, clinics and hospitals making money to employ people and to reward them for their work. This is how the Canadian system and others work. The caregivers are private and competing businesses. The government collects the money in taxes and other ways to pay for the services rendered. I don't see how most doctors wouldn't want this. They would bill the government instead of a myriad of insurance companies, HMOs, PPOs and government programs as well as uninsured individuals.

[qwertyMike]

133. Does it cost to have a baby in the US?

I mean hospital costs.

[Lars39]

136. Yes, not sure of the latest figures, but 3-4 thousand might be the low end

these days. And that is for a vaginal birth and maybe 2 days stay in the hospital. It is totally outrageous.

[qwertyMike]

175. Had 2 here in Canada

No charge. No bills.

They even sent us home with gift packs.
:)

[Lars39]

177. I had two here. Easily cost $7500 for the two of them.

I didn't have insurance with the first. Had to pay cash upfront. :(

[qwertyMike]

135. Drop the word 'socialized'

Do we call K-12 education socialized?
If not, why not?

[Independent_Minded]

141. lol, didn't realize "socialized" was such a hot button word

im not exactly certain of my feelings on this issue, but whatever the solution, im pretty sure it would have to encompass a decent business model in order to remain solvent. further, as public health is such an important factor in the economic well being of a country, i can see why it should be considered a public good. aside from the obvious moral issues.(i dont think the government does "moral" well, which is why it doesnt rate high with me :)

[qwertyMike]

156. Business model? Solvent?

Are you saying it should make a profit? Or even pay for itself?
It should be a Right.

Does K12 make a profit? Or pay for itself?

[msmcghee]

195. Business models are useless for this sort of thing.

Part of the Republican myth that treating government like a business will make it more efficient and less costly. You wouldn't be trying to spread that nonsense would you. Your use of the term socialized medicine in your question suggests so.

Business models do not account for the "out of the model" costs and benefits to society as a whole and perhaps those occuring years from now. They only look at cash in and cash out - of that limited system - and in some limited time frame.

Like the next poster says, "Does K-12 education have a sensible business model to back it up?"

[Nadienne]

142. Why would anyone

defend having their health and life to be in the care of a profit system? What's to stop them from not trying to squease every last dime out of you?

They gotta get their profits from somewhere.

[wadestock]

164. Socialized health care is not the issue

We could make it much better "capitalized" and still do a lot better.
It's just a total piece of shit the way it is now.

All you have to do is start with what Edwards prescribed....give PREVENTATIVE health care....which is an investment...especially for the children.

People with no money running in and out of emergency rooms is costing us a bundle.

The concept of SOCIALIZATION risks that slippery slope to socialism which is unfortunately engrained in too many people's heads thanks to Limbaugh et al....so approach the subject from a pure business man's point of view and you'll make your best shot....

[vote independent]

190. Socialized Medicine why I left the "left"

I always considered myself a left liberal until the push for socialized medicine took front and center for the Dems and Greens.

If you all knew how bad it is going to be for our country, you wouldn't support it.

At one point I did support it. Until I learned the truth about it through many different studies.

While most of you couldn't see why someone would say "I hope other people don't have healthcare", it's not as simple as that.

We could have affordable prescription drugs and healthcare if we just changed some of our policies. Both Dems and Republicans grant concessions to drug companies which drive up the cost of healthcare.

Doctors actually get the short end of the stick, JUST like patients. It looks like they are charging more, when in reality, it's the price of drugs going up because the Washington politicians are granting monopolies.

If we knocked down the trade barriers set up along the Canadian border when dealing with medicine and allow their drugs to come here, it would SIGNIFICANTLY drive down prices and make life-saving drugs more afforable.

My 2nd point is that universal healthcare would simply make EVERYONE's healthcare worse. I wanted it to work SO bad but after much review, I've determined it just isn't feasible. Already, Canada and all the European nations are having major issues because people can't get neccesary opperations on time due to their Universal healthcare. People from all over the world come to the U.S. to get quality healthcare because it remains private, as it should.

[msmcghee]

196. How about some facts to back up your . .

. . right wing rhetoric?

[vote independent]

198. re: How about some facts to back up your...

First of all, I must say that I am NOT a right-winger.

A Hard Lesson About Socialized Medicine
by Michael Tanner

Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute.

Europeans are now learning some hard facts of life about socialized medicine: there's no such thing as a free lunch. The question is whether Congress will learn from Europe's mistakes as it takes the next steps in reforming the American health care system.

For many years advocates of government-run health care pointed to Europe as an ideal, noting that America was the "only industrialized country without a national health care system." Now, however, the European welfare states are slashing benefits in the face of rising health care costs.

A recent front-page story in the New York Times detailed the European cutbacks. According to the article, Britain, France and Germany are all being forced to limit access to care. Rationing, already extensive, is increasing.

The Europeans have run into a very simple economic rule. If something is perceived as free, people will consume more of it than they would if they had to pay for it. Think of it this way: if food were free, would you eat hamburger or steak? At the same time, health care is a finite good. There are only so many doctors, so many hospital beds and so much technology. If people overconsume those resources, it drives up the cost of health care.

The same problem is besetting the American health care system. The vast majority of American health care is not directly paid for by the person consuming those goods and services. Instead, a third party, either the government or an insurance company, pays the bill.

Medicare is exhibit one. Medicare beneficiaries pay almost nothing out of their own pockets for health care. Under Medicare Part B, for example, the deductible is an absurdly low $100. (There is, however, a 20 percent copayment.) The deductible under Part A is higher, $716 on the first 60 days of hospital care for each spell of illness. There is also a copayment required for hospitalization of longer than 60 days. However, nearly 70 percent of the elderly have some form of "medigap" insurance that covers all or part of the deductibles and copayments.

Thus, recipients have little incentive to be good consumers and avoid unnecessary expenses or seek the best deal for their dollar. Guy King, former chief actuary for the Health Care Financing Administration, says that third-party payment is one of the primary causes of the rapid growth in Medicare expenditures. As King explains, "When people, either patients or doctors, are spending other people's money, they do not worry about the cost or number of services consumed."

The establishment has responded to this problem by trying to force seniors into managed care, thereby allowing insurance companies to ration care. But managed care does not change the underlying incentive structure created by pervasive third-party payment. Any reduction in costs is achieved by limiting access to treatment.

A report by the Department of Health and Human Services' inspector general found "pervasive" quality problems throughout managed care programs for Medicare, including difficulties in gaining access to care. Managed care programs are significantly less likely to use diagnostic tests, such as MRI and CAT scans, than are fee-for-service plans. Doctors report that managed care organizations pressure them to save money even at the cost of quality. One-third of doctors surveyed by the American Medical Association in 1988 stated that patients were harmed by delays or nontreatment as a result of managed care.

Although the election season has temporarily taken Medicare off the table, the issue will be back to haunt the president and Congress next year. Indeed, the most recent report of the Medicare system's Board of Trustees warns that the program faces bankruptcy in just five years.

The question is whether we will recognize the problems of third-party payment and restore consumer incentives by increasing deductibles and allowing recipients to choose medical savings accounts or follow the European example and ration the health care that our seniors depend on.

For years we've been told to look to Europe for lessons about health care. This time, maybe we should.

[Pithlet]

200. Well, first of all

The Cato Institute is a right wing think tank. If you're going to contend that you aren't a right winger, then I'd think about looking elsewhere when backing something up, and, when you do find something, make it a little more substantive than that.

Second of all, all that does is talk about how they have to ration their health care more in Europe. What do you think the HMOs do in this country? The only difference is, it is executives making the decisions.

Thirdly, we may very well have to ration no matter what we do. But the current system leaves millions of Americans with no coverage AT ALL. Very different than the European system, which rations, but EVERYONE IS COVERED. And, of those Americans who are covered, many are undercovered, or are denied life saving care to pad the bottom line of a private corporation, where some suit overrode a doctor's recommendation.

Edited for clarity

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pithlet]

203. That may be

My first point was a little more of a light hearted jab. I thought it was funny that in the same post that you say you aren't right wing, you use a right wing source.

As to your second point: In every major category used to measure health care, the US is last or very near last among industrialized nations. We spend more money per capita on health care than almost any nation, and for the average American, there are fewer options and more restrictions on what doctors they can see, than for people in countries with socialized medicine. And, we don't even cover everyone in the country. The facts are that the majority of countries with socialized medicine provide better health care, and more choices than the American system. All medical systems ration care. If you don't think an HMO is in the business of rationing care, then you aren't paying attention.

Your bit about charities taking care of certain operations is precisely the problem. For a huge number of Americans, medical care is so expensive and so difficult to obtain, that they wait until it is an absolute emergency before they attain it. That increases the health care costs for everyone. Every uninsured person in this country means you pay more in your insurance, because the uninsured don't get proper health care on a regular basis, so when they inevitably interact with the health care system, they cost much more than they would have otherwise. We all pay for that.

None of this mentions the fact that we waste anywhere from 20-30% of our health care dollars on profits for, and the overlapping bureaucracies of, insurance companies.

There are millions of Americans who are just one broken leg away from bankruptcy, unlike any of the other socialized countries. And, our health care system puts our country at a competitive disadvantage. The head of GM recently said that more health care goes into their cars than steel. It is so expensive for companies to provide benefits that American workers are at a disadvantage with other industrialized nations. You say socialized medicine would drag us down? We're already below everyone else in the industrialized world when it comes to health care.

[qwertyMike]

205. "Already, Canada and all the European nations ..

are having major issues blah blah"

Really?

See my other posts in this thread.

40 million Americans (way more than the population of Canada) have shit for healthcare.

[CanSocDem]

197. If only...

Public health were considered to be in the Public Interest. Instead, 'public health' is just another commodity, to be bought and sold like pretty much everything else in the USA.

I think making a profit on a persons fear of illness is almost as low as making a profit on their fear of the afterlife.....

"Socialized"( if you must demonize it that way)medicine is a slam dunk for democrats that want to further the 'public interest.

[Pithlet]

201. Welcome to DU, CanSocDem

:hi: