gogul: I cannot understand why certain Republican factions want to keep a health system that is so expensive. Those here are moaning about spending money, yet at the same time supporting a system that if changed would save the USA people so much money and deliver a more comprehensive health system in which (one of the options) everyone working pays a contribution. Also the right (if the UK style is used) to have a private medical insurance is still intact and also that the health companies would have to remember the oath of the health trade and not that of the dollar.

What is the problem with this??

(V): Its getting very complex. What's happening in the health branch has global impact. All I care is if my housedocis happy, and he's not yet.

gogul: Of course it does.. billions wasted every year, when that money could be in the pockets of the people of America. And as such (knowing that many Americans are generous people) lost to those who have need, whether internal or external.

(V): Yes. What I ment to say is that Obama might change more in a year with Swiss pharmaceutics as Switzerland was able to in 10 years

(V): I cannot understand why certain Republican factions want to keep a health system that is so expensive.



Before I read anymore.... part of the reason is because it is entrenched into our system already.

Point is, it cost a couple hundred thousand for medical education, then you want to tell the new doctor he can only make 75k per year?

So you might say then, well make it more affordable for education... then after that it is something else, and then in no time, we are full blown socialists!


Its just a part of capitalism, that things get expensive sometimes, but personally, I am willing to live with that, if it helps to avoid the failure that socialism is!

Czuch: Isn't it interesting that all countries of socialized medicine have citizens that come to the US for health care but you don't see US citizens rushing to those countries for health care needs. In the US, if I need to see my cardiologist I can get in within weeks. If it's an emergency, I see him right away. Any test I need can be done in short order. I don't have to wait months. When I went to see my cardiologist last week he determined I needed a stress test. In 10 minutes I was in the testing room. Within an hour I was talking to my doctor about the results. Then they sent me for a blood test and that took 15 mins.

People in socialized medicine countries can't get this kind of care. They get on waiting lists and in some cases they have lotteries. Obama is messing up everything. People will NOT like what he's planning if they would only listen to the warnings. Even MPs from Britain are warning the US NOT to go socialized medicine!

Hello. anyone home?

Artful Dodger: I think a goods point is to know that in the former sovietattached socialist countries the people were annoyed and if they could, made a game of it. You had the guts to walk around with a US-flag like t-shirt and things like that, overdid socialist vocabulary to sarcasm if I go right by Havel.

Artful Dodger: then you've missed several events!! Like USA citizens going into Canada with dubious papers to get free health care. Those who took part in the 9/11 rescue having to go to Cuba to get treatment as they were refused it by the healthcare companies. Also an African free medical treatment team going to the USA to treat those who are in need.

Btw.. it seems many republicans in gov like the idea, just the nuts and bolts need sorting. If it's an emrgency we have 24/7 doctors.. A&E just a 999 away. Blood tests and the like we can get done straight away as well. How many MP's and from what party(s)? Many here have strange ideas that are not practical!! Or common sense led. The recent expenses affair is still not sorted, as MP's, etc are still seemingly trying to be above the common law in regards to fraud and criminal prosecution. Yet from New Jersey in your country we learn that is not a good idea.

And people can always go private as it is an option.

(V): Nonsense. Canada's health care system is not a model to follow. People in Canada have to wait months for care. It's the Canadians that come to the US to get care. Not the other way around.

And health care in the US is already free. People get free care all the time. If you show up at the ER, you have to be treated regardless of your ability to pay. Most clinics have a sliding scale. Socialized medicine underserves. US health care is the best in the world.

As for Cuba, you watch too much Michael Moore. No one goes to Cuba for health care. That's simply a lie by the fat man.

And your Africa example is meaning less to the point. Many hundreds of medical teams from the US go to Africa to provide free medical care. So what.

Honest politicians all agree that socialized medicine will not improve care, but diminish the care. Government run health care has a proven track record of FAILURE. Period.

Artful Dodger: And why is Canadian health going down.. due to the strain from the USA!!

And USA health care is 37th in the world. Did you miss that fact from the WHO?

Our *cough* socialised system ranks 18th yet we pay about half the GNP rate you do.

So.. being honest and faced by details and not political dogma... which is more efficient?
And.. if we increased our GNP input by just a few %, then how do you think the UK would fair?

Btw... Cuba is only two points behind you, and it was a special favour by the Cuban medical services. Your guys who rescued people were being mucked about by your medical system, the Cubans on film agreed to treat them and could not understand why those who put their lives at risk were being denied treatment!

Why if people pay are they being denied treatment??

(V): More nonsense. WHO rankings are ten years old. They are no longer produced. And what is their ranking criterion? Sorry, people don't fly from the US to France to get major medical help. But they come from all over the world to get help from the top hospitals here. Our technology surpasses any other country. We're simply the best in the quality of health care.

Here's a fact for you: Americans have a higher survival rate than any other country on earth for 13 of 16 of the most common cancers. Perhaps that is why Belinda Stronach, former liberal member of the Canadian Parliament and Cabinet member (one of the health care systems touted as “superior” to the US) abandoned the Canadian Health Care system to undergo her cancer treatment in California.

The WHO ranking doesn't measure quality of care but the overall health of the citizens. Then based on the health of it's citizens, they rank the countries. They measure "life expectancy" but don't take into account such factors as poverty, homicide rate, or use of tobacco.

In the US, you don't have to wait months for emergency MRIs. You do in Canada. And even in your country, you can't get timely care. You have to wait. That's the general rule in France too. But not in the US. I can get in same day if I don't want to see my regular doctor. If I want to see only him, I may have to wait a few days or so.

The WHO report doesn't measure the quality of health care delivery. It looks at other factors. The ranking system of the WHO is strongly biased towards a uniformly government directed health care system. In that case, I'm glad the US doesn't rank well.

One only need to look at the VA health care system in the US to see just how badly government run health care systems can get. The VA has outdated equipment, poorly trained doctors, and is in need of a complete overhaul. And in the VA, you can't sue your doc if he messes up. Recently, one guy lose both his legs when the doc messed up. The soldier who lost his legs cannot sue for damages. Because? The government set that rule.

Socialized medicine is a failure. It produces unskilled doctors and little incentive to improve. The current US system may need some tweaks, but Obama will ruin it if he continues on this destructive path.

Artful Dodger: Nope. the WHO rankings I was using are 8 years old. And since it appears your costings of your current system have gotten worse. But that is beside the point.

40 million USA citizens in the most advanced (as you are saying as others would disagree) country in the world are without healthcare. 40 million And while you may talk about yourself... what about one of those 40 million who has to wait?

And btw... if you didn't know... Cancer is not the big killers in terms of USA people or as per globally recognised major health problems. Heart and obesity seem to the big western problems... well as per USA and UK they are.

And hasn't the VA health care always been a problem? And I have to ask why?? various sides have been in power and done (according to you) little to improve it. That seems to be a symptomatic failure through embarrassment then 'social medicine'.
And yes here, you can sue a doctor, we also have the GMC by which a doctor can be struck off, we also have as well as each NHS trust's internal complaints dept, a health service ombudsman.

And btw.. no-one here can be refused health care due to the whim of a health company saying "you are not covered", and our doctors here are good, A thing arises before wages as such and has done so for many many years....

It's a thing called the Hippocratic oath.... And please tell me.. why is it acceptable to have 40 million or so American people without the same health care you can expect as a paying person to a healthcare company? Is it acceptable that you have a two tier system in which the government already uses a form of socialisation via the medicare and mediaid systems and regulates. Why is it that some states have felt it necessary to set limits on docs charges for emergency care through A&E (ER to you)??

(V): 40 million And while you may talk about yourself... what about one of those 40 million who has to wait?


This is where you are totally wrong again.... My girlfriend an I are 2 of those 40 million, but neither of us has had any problem getting health care, ever!!! I can go in today to my local clinic and see a doctor for any reason, and I will pay out of my own pocket on a sliding fee based on my income level!

Lack of health insurance does NOT equal lack of health care, not in the US anyway!

Czuch: This is my point....

"Lack of health insurance does NOT equal lack of health care, not in the US anyway!"

you are basically telling me that socialised (as such non private) works. And our socialised system costs less to run then your mixed up system per person. If you think it doesn't, then please provide a source for such a claim.. As it appears from recent news that the costs in America have gone up!

(V): And our socialised system costs less to run then your mixed up system per person

No it doesnt! I have just proven to you, with myself as an example, I have paid far less by paying as i go, than if the government had taken from me the past 30 years!

Okay, now I just read your question again.... okay, maybe take the overall medical costs and divide by the number of citizens... is that what you are wanting to compare?

If so, maybe it is cheaper in your country... but I have learned long ago that cheaper is not better Your saying the cheap Jap car is better than the rolls royce, just because it costs less? I found it kind of funny that you would think that cheaper is better, especially when health is concerned

Czuch: I am not a proponent of socialized medicine, but my cost for health insurance definitely goes up higher each year. (Many years, at a higher rate than my income goes up) I work for a very small company, and I'm afraid they will not continue to consider contributing more towards the increased cost.

I really wish health insurance was not connected to my employer. It makes it pretty bad when you change employers

rod03801: Getting costs down should be a goal of the health care issue. Socialized health care isn't the way to do that. But there are ways to deal with the costs. One way is to pass Tort reform. Circumstances for law suits and money paid out must be limited. The high cost of insurance for the doctors is simply passed on to all of us. Spilling hot coffee on oneself is not worth several millions. ....... happens. Sometimes there are unavoidable consequences in health care options. Not everything comes with a guarantee. Negligence is one thing, but sometimes things happen that are unavoidable (unless foreseen).

My health coverage is good. I pay a copay. Sometimes to meet my deductible I have to fork out quite a bit in the beginning. But after the deductible is met, I'm at 100 percent.

Artful Dodger: The ONLY thing I like about the current plan, is the ability to not have to get insurance through my employer. The way things currently are, it is just TOO expensive to buy health insurance on your own. (Of course I have NO idea what this "government plan" would cost either.) I changed jobs a couple years ago, and I had to go 90 days without insurance. (There was no way I could afford the COBRA payments through my former employer). Luckily I am still young and healthy, so it didn't end up mattering.

And I have no idea how "pre-existing conditions" factor in to that either. Luckily I have none.

rod03801: There are two basic problems with the government's idea. First it will cost too much and can't be funded. The experts are all agreeing on this one. It's simply too costly. And it doesn't even serve everyone.

More importantly, it will create a health care system that will diminish the quality of care. All one needs to do is to look to Canada or Britain and it's easy to see just how poorly the mechanisms of a government sponsored health care system run. In Canada, there is no waiting for an MRI - if you're a dog. Seriously, vets can schedule MRIs for animals in a very short time.

For people? In canada the wait time is months. Even and emergency MRI can take months.

With government health care, you don't save money. You pay more and get less.

Not only that, but the medicaid fraud is in the billions. Now if the government adds more people to medicaid (which is the plan) it's estimated that organized crime will flourish. The devil is in the details and the details contain red flags on every page.

Artful Dodger: Is there a way for my concern to be addressed though? I don't even understand why health insurance became so tied into one's employment.

rod03801: Probably when workers fought so hard for better pay and health benefits. It's an insurance pool and the way to keep costs down is to belong to a group insurance policy.

I think there are efforts underway to allow people to use their insurance dollars the way they want.

Czuch: You have proved nothing Czuch. And I didn't say cheaper was better, just that the point was effectiveness re cost. Eg.. years ago I needed a prescription, the chemist told me it was cheaper to buy it over the counter then via the flat rate prescription cost. So I bought it over the counter.

The USA per citizen pays too much for health coverage, it needs sorting. I think virtually everyone can agree on that point.

Now ... how to sort it. The plans your gov are looking at include everyone paying their bit as well as other systems.

What Art is missing is that the USA have the ability to look at various systems and (if politicians use their brains and not their parties) sort out the basis for a system that will be cheaper to run. Despite Art's saying "it'll cost too much".. your current system already does, as their is an element of companies taking the mickey over what you pay in private health insurance.

Now... If you had a situation to change things so efficient spending was the secondary protocol to Hippocratic Oath.. what would you do?

(V): "What Art is missing is that the USA have the ability to look at various systems and (if politicians use their brains and not their parties) sort out the basis for a system that will be cheaper to run. Despite Art's saying "it'll cost too much".. your current system already does, as their is an element of companies taking the mickey over what you pay in private health insurance."

No, I agree that the cost is too high. And I agree that there is much honest politicians can do to fix the problem. But Obama's plan is too costly. It won't work. We can't sustain the high cost. There are so many bad factors playing into his plan that it boggles the mind.

Tort reform is a place to start IMO. Get the costs to the doctors and hospitals down. But Obama would rather not touch that one. He's willing to allow unrestricted access to the courts even though it's clear that frivolous lawsuits clog up the courts. There ought to be a cap on how much one can sue for and if one loses their lawsuit, they ought to pay the expenses - all of them. Perhaps the lawyers who lose the case for their clients should have to pay all the costs. Greedy lawyers suing for hangnails.

(V): I can add also, that I have paid far less for my health care over the past 30 years, paying out of my own pocket, than I would have paid into some government mandated health care system scheme!

How much do you pay a year for your "free" health care anyway? I bet it is a lot more than I have paid for my health care, and again, I have NEVER had any problems getting seen by a doctor, same day as needed, EVER!

(V): You're wong again Jules. The health of the citizens doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of health care providers. In fact, it doesn't. Americans are grossly overweight. This is NOT the fault of the doctors, but of the patients who stuff themselves with crap food. 1/3 of older Americans are overweight. Many obese. But the health care they can get is the best in the world. Some are just too stupid to get on a diet, get with an exercise program, and be responsible for their own health.

The US health care system is the best in the world. It's available to everyone and no one can be denied care.

I don't care how many people are without healthcare. I've said that the health care in the US is the best. Just because people don't have insurance doesn't mean a thing. Some people choose NOT to be insured. They can pay for it, but they opt out. But none of that matters to the main point. The available health care is the best. You don't have to wait for emergency care. Even if you don't have insurance, you can get care. A lot of people who don't have care are lazy do nothing slouches and they deserve what they get. I work hard. When my kids were young, I had to pay for my own medical costs. I didn't have insurance when my daughter was born. It's called personal responsibility. I worked overtime to pay the costs. And I worked hard to upgrade myself to jobs that provided health insurance. I worked two jobs and sometimes three. I didn't suck off the government or other people's taxes. That's what government health care is. It doesn't promote personal responsibility. It promotes laziness.

Even your own MPs are warning America NOT to go the socialized healthcare route. It will ruin the quality of care (which your country DOESN"T have). Canada's health care system is seriously broken. You can't get certain procedures in a timely way. In some cases, patients DIE waiting for proper care.

You can't spin your way out of it. Facts are facts. WHO stats are biased towards a government system. It in NO WAY accurately reflects the quality of care. The US is number one in quality of care. That's why people from ALL OVER THE WORLD come here to get care. It's simply the best in the world.

Czuch: You think doctors only make 75K.. is that dollars?? As UK doctors (GP's) make at least £80k and some much, much more.

The point is your system costs so much as it in some respect at fault for your countries bad balance. You go on about things being cost effective, yet you applaud corruption and high costs for a service that does not deliver the service in respect of how much it costs as part of your GNP.

If we in the UK paid that proportion of GNP.. we could all have private doctors and nurses virtually living with us. Get served silver service at hospitals.

So.. what on earth is your system doing with that cash, seeing as 40 million are not covered!

(V): yet you applaud corruption and high costs for a service that does not deliver




I do not applaud corruption.... I can agree that corruption is a problem and should be dealt with, and that would be a benefit to our medical system.

I do not believe that the answer to corruption is MORE government involvement.

In fact, I believe that the government is potentially more corrupt than any other private systems.

Yes, some may try to have false documentation to get free Canadian health care. But that is just someone trying to scam for something free, its not something done out of desperation, its purely a thief making a scam.


BTW, the $75K I referred to was only an example, not meant for accuracy.... the point is that a free market produces the best and brightest, you cannot dispute that, and you cannot dispute that many of the best and brightest will choose a more lucrative field when doctors pay is limited by socialism.

Czuch: Are you sure about the biggest and brightest? I suggest you look back in the field of medicine and invention.

And if how medical orgs run in terms of rules are set, then they should be able to regulate themselves. It'll be then only the law breakers who face government involvement.