Hillary Care

[AFTiger 282]

Do we want socialized medicine?

By Walter E. Williams

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Problems with our health care system are leading some to fall prey to proposals calling for a nationalized single-payer health care system like Canada's or Britain's. There are a few things that we might take into consideration before falling for these proposals.

London's Observer (3/3/02) carried a story saying that an "unpublished report shows some patients are now having to wait more than eight months for treatment, during which time many of their cancers become incurable." Another story said, "According to a World Health Organisation report to be published later this year, around 10,000 British people die unnecessarily from cancer each year -- three times as many as are killed on our roads."

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards gestures as he fields questions during a town hall meeting on health care Thursday, Feb. 8, 2007, at the International Longshoremens Association ILA Union Hall in Charleston, S.C. (AP Photo/Mary Ann Chastain) The Observer (12/16/01) also reported, "A recent academic study showed National Health Service delays in bowel cancer treatment were so great that, in one in five cases, cancer which was curable at the time of diagnosis had become incurable by the time of treatment."

The story is no better in Canada's national health care system. The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute has a yearly publication titled, "Waiting Your Turn." Its 2006 edition gives waiting times, by treatments, from a person's referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist. The shortest waiting time was for oncology (4.9 weeks). The longest waiting time was for orthopedic surgery (40.3 weeks), followed by plastic surgery (35.4 weeks) and neurosurgery (31.7 weeks).

Canadians face significant waiting times for various diagnostics such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound scans. The median wait for a CT scan across Canada was 4.3 weeks, but in Prince Edward Island, it's 9 weeks. A Canadian's median wait for an MRI was 10.3 weeks, but in Newfoundland, patients waited 28 weeks. Finally, the median wait for an ultrasound was 3.8 weeks across Canada, but in Manitoba and Prince Edward Island it was 8 weeks.

Despite the long waiting times Canadians suffer, sometimes resulting in death, under federal law, private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act. Regardless of this prohibition, a few black-market clinics service patients who are willing to break the law to get treatment. In British Columbia, for example, Bill 82 provides that a physician can be fined up to $20,000 for accepting fees for surgery. According to a Canada News article, "Shortage of Doctors and Nurses Could Hurt Medicare Reforms" (3/5/03), about 10,000 doctors left Canada during the 1990s.

There's help for some Canadian patients. According to a Canadian Medical Association Journal article, "U.S. Hospitals Use Waiting-List Woes to Woo Canadians" (2/22/2000), "British Columbia patients fed up with sojourns on waiting lists as they await tests or treatment are being wooed by a hospital in Washington state that has begun offering package deals. A second U.S. hospital is also considering marketing its services." One of the attractions is that an MRI, which can take anywhere from 10 to 28 weeks in Canada, can be had in two days at Olympic Memorial Hospital in Port Angeles, Wash. Already, Cleveland is Canada's hip-replacement center.

Some of our politicians hold up the Canadian and British nationalized health care systems as models for us. You can bet that should we ever have such a system, they would exempt themselves from what the rest of us would have to endure.

There's a cure for our health care problems. That cure is not to demand more government but less government. I challenge anyone to identify a problem with health care in America that is not caused or aggravated by federal, state and local governments. And, I challenge anyone to show me people dying on the streets because they don't have health insurance.

Disaster waiting to happen here.

[LegalEagle 22]

Just curious, are there any positive aspects to the Brittish and Canadian system?

Did you identify folks dying in the streets of England or Canada? Pics?

[AFTiger 282]

Just curious, are there any positive aspects to the Brittish and Canadian system?

Did you identify folks dying in the streets of England or Canada? Pics?

Positive aspects are getting fewer. No dead people in the streets of America either.

[Boonan 0]

Does not the statistics of people with cancer dying because they have to wait until it is uncurable to get treatment count as dead in the streets?

[LegalEagle 22]

I found a comparison:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_...ystems_compared

[AFTiger 282]

I found a comparison:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_...ystems_compared

It does not address the relief valve that the United States provide Canadians. That will disappear under Hillary Care.

Canada is not importing poverty as we are.

I have been under a system of budgeted healthcare. I gurantee you that Americans will not stand for it.

[DKW 86 7,441]

I predict that we get NHC because businesses will demand it to get rid of a cost that is killing them at present. We will get NHC. We will hate it. We will curse it. We will be sorry for it, but we will get it.

As Bob Dole said, "It is a bad idea, whose time has come."

[Tigermike 3,055]

There is no doubt it is coming now Wal-Mart is pushing.

Wal-Mart and unions unite on health care

Retailer, other big employers aim for ‘quality, affordable’ coverage

Hillary Rodham Clinton, a longtime universal health care advocate, said the coalition's announcement was further evidence of broad agreement on the issue. ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17026989/

Wal-Mart and a Union Unite, at Least on Health Policy

By MICHAEL BARBARO AND ROBERT PEAR

Published: February 7, 2007

They have established one of the fiercest rivalries in the American economy, attacking one another's organizations through dueling blogs, newspaper advertisements and news conferences.

But this morning, in an extraordinary meeting in Washington, the chiefs of Wal-Mart Stores and the Service Employees International Union will stand together and agree on a series of goals for achieving universal health coverage, according to people briefed on the matter.

The two men might even shake hands.

The meeting between H. Lee Scott Jr., the chief executive of Wal-Mart, and Andrew L. Stern, president of the S.E.I.U., which caps months of secret conversations, could be the beginning, however tentative, of a détente between the nation's largest employer and its labor critics.

At least on one issue. But the issue -- providing affordable health insurance -- is arguably the biggest facing both Mr. Stern and Mr. Scott. Wal-Mart, which insures fewer than half its workers, has identified health care as potentially the biggest vulnerability to its image and business, and the S.E.I.U., one of the country's biggest unions, has called it the No. 1 priority for its members.

So during today's meeting, Mr. Stern and Mr. Scott will announce a campaign to seek public acceptance of several principles of health policy. One goal is universal health coverage by a specific date, somewhere around 2012. Another is the idea of shared responsibility, emphasizing that individuals, businesses and government all play roles in financing health care and expanding coverage.

Executives from AT&T, Intel and several nonprofit organizations will also participate in today's meeting.

The agreement is unlikely to end the rancor between Wal-Mart and unions, largely because the retailer's fiercest critic is the United Food and Commercial Workers, the union behind WakeUpWalMart.com.

In a statement, WakeUpWalMart.com divulged last night for the first time that it had met with a Wal-Mart executive in December to discuss the company's health insurance, among other things, but decided the retailer was not serious about significantly improving its benefits.

''No one, in good conscience or without a real commitment from Wal-Mart to make substantive changes,'' the statement said, ''could look the other way and ignore the awful fact that Wal-Mart still fails to provide company health care to over half of its employees.''

Mr. Stern is likely to keep criticizing Wal-Mart on several fronts, according to people who work with him who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk publicly.

But the fact that Mr. Scott and Mr. Stern are speaking, let alone agreeing on something, is somewhat surprising.

In 2004, Mr. Stern authorized the creation of an S.E.I.U.-backed group, called Wal-Mart Watch, that has relentlessly criticized the retailer, leaked internal company documents to the news media and pressed it to change its labor policies.

Mr. Scott, in turn, has lashed out at union-backed critics like the S.E.I.U. and Wal-Mart Watch, calling them special-interest groups spreading misinformation and half-truths about the chain.

But in July, the icy relationship between the men began to thaw after Mr. Stern wrote an op-ed article encouraging large corporations to work with unions to create alternatives to the employer-based health coverage system, which he said was collapsing. Mr. Stern sent the article, by certified mail, to hundreds of chief executives seeking their help.

Mr. Scott, who has already expanded Wal-Mart's health care benefits, responded, beginning a confidential series of conversations that will culminate in today's news conference.

Representatives for both Mr. Stern and Mr. Scott declined to comment last night.

Harley Shaiken, a professor specializing in labor issues at the University of California, Berkeley, said the meeting represented ''a combination of pragmatism, idealism and desperation on the part of Wal-Mart and S.E.I.U; health care has become a devastating issue for both.''

But Mr. Shaiken said that with Wal-Mart's reputation for fighting unionization and Mr. Stern's advocacy for the labor movement, the pair are unlikely to become the best of friends. Wal-Mart is not unionized in United States.

''Lee Scott is willing to sit in the same room with Andy Stern,'' Mr. Shaiken said, ''he just doesn't want to sit across a bargaining table from Andy Stern.''

NY Times

[CCTAU 3,350]

It's OK. We'll be fine. The only reason this has not successfully worked before is.....that we haven't tried it yet.

Socialism, here we come......

[otterinbham 0]

All I have to do is ask my English brother-in-law and Canadian neighbor about state-run health care. No thanks.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I want to ask those who are pushing for gvmt run healthcare one question: name me one goverment run agency that is run better and manages money better than its private sector counterpart.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Do we want socialized medicine?

Reforms" (3/5/03), about 10,000 doctors left Canada during the 1990s.

Disaster waiting to happen here.

Maybe not for you AFTiger. You already have taxpayer funded medical care. So, I really don't see the need for another liberal mooch, such as yourself, commenting on a subject to which you are a recipient.

[MDM4AU 336]

Here are just a few reasons this is a bad idea:

* There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; if they can't run an office such as the DMV efficiently, how can we expect them to handle something as complex as health care?

* "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for w/ higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.

* Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.

* Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.

* Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.

* Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.

* Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.

* Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.

* A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.

* Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.

* Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.

[AFTiger 282]

Do we want socialized medicine?

Reforms" (3/5/03), about 10,000 doctors left Canada during the 1990s.

Disaster waiting to happen here.

Maybe not for you AFTiger. You already have taxpayer funded medical care. So, I really don't see the need for another liberal mooch, such as yourself, commenting on a subject to which you are a recipient.

Well, with those kinds of ground rules, you are severely limited on what you can comment on.

But I confess, that since I have Blue Cross, you are an idiot and not qualified to comment on anything.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I have BCBS too. I thought you were in the Air Force since you have it in your name and avatar. If not then, sorry.

[AFTiger 282]

I have BCBS too. I thought you were in the Air Force since you have it in your name and avatar. If not then, sorry.

I was.

[aumd03 2]

I think the thing we don't think about is that we will stop having options. With a govt sponsored health care they will tell you what you will and won't do. In an ideal situation, health prevention and maintanence will be stressed. But for instance, you WILL get a colonscopy at 50, you WILL have your cholesterol checked yearly from 25 on and you WILL be on cholesterol lowering meds. Elective surgeries such as gastric bypass and cosmetics will be a thing of hte past. Healthcare is a huge business in this country and a significant portion of our GNP goes to fund it. I would imagine there is a large enough lobby and enough politicians that want their pockets lined to prevent a national health care system from actually coming about. Just my thoughts.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

I think the thing we don't think about is that we will stop having options. With a govt sponsored health care they will tell you what you will and won't do. In an ideal situation, health prevention and maintanence will be stressed. But for instance, you WILL get a colonscopy at 50, you WILL have your cholesterol checked yearly from 25 on and you WILL be on cholesterol lowering meds.

You live in an alternative "reality."

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Typical right-wing rant of an "argument". Fire up the base, have no real substance. Walter's made a good living working you guys up over the last 25+ years. He says this:

Some of our politicians hold up the Canadian and British nationalized health care systems as models for us.

No names, of course. And Hillary isn't one of them, but that doesn't stop AFTiger from peddlin' more crap. How about another Obama was trained in a madrassa story?

[AFTiger 282]

Typical right-wing rant of an "argument". Fire up the base, have no real substance. Walter's made a good living working you guys up over the last 25+ years. He says this:

Some of our politicians hold up the Canadian and British nationalized health care systems as models for us.

No names, of course. And Hillary isn't one of them, but that doesn't stop AFTiger from peddlin' more crap. How about another Obama was trained in a madrassa story?

The Canadian system is the one that is held up to be the model by politicians. If you ever read the plan put forth by the secret Hillary commission, it would frighten any who values freedom.

TT, the peddled "crap" is yours.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Typical right-wing rant of an "argument". Fire up the base, have no real substance. Walter's made a good living working you guys up over the last 25+ years. He says this:

Some of our politicians hold up the Canadian and British nationalized health care systems as models for us.

No names, of course. And Hillary isn't one of them, but that doesn't stop AFTiger from peddlin' more crap. How about another Obama was trained in a madrassa story?

The Canadian system is the one that is held up to be the model by politicians. If you ever read the plan put forth by the secret Hillary commission, it would frighten any who values freedom.

TT, the peddled "crap" is yours.

Which politicians? You are perpetuallly factless. You live in a fantasy land.

Hillary opposed a Canadian-style plan from the start:

In a separate session with Hillary Rodham Clinton, Dr. David Himmelstein of Harvard Medical School (a close colleague of Young's), also pressed the single-payer point. Canada's solution, he said, made sense for the United States. Himmelstein's studies, published in The New England Journal of Medicine since 1986, show that the U.S. could save as much as $67 billion in administrative costs alone by cutting out the 1,500 private insurers and going to a single government insurer in each state - easily enough to pay to cover every uninsured American.

Hillary Clinton had heard it all before. How, she asked Himmelstein, do you defeat the multi-billion dollar insurance industry? "With presidential leadership and polls showing that 70 percent of Americans favor [the features of] a single-payer system," Himmelstein recalls telling Mrs. Clinton. The First Lady replied: "Tell me something interesting, David."

So by February, fewer than six weeks into the Clinton presidency, the White House had made its key policy decision: Before the Health Care Task Force wrote a single page of its 22-volume report to the President, the single payer idea was written off, and "managed competition" was in. But why should an intelligent First Lady and her 500 health care advisers not want to debate every option, especially examples available from nations that have combined universal access and cost control?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m131...v25/ai_13276711

[rexbo 104]

We just need a health care system that let's the lawyers die in the streets; then we won't have a system that is unaffordable due to liability and malpractice insurance costs...

[TexasTiger 13,029]

We just need a health care system that let's the lawyers die in the streets; then we won't have a system that is unaffordable due to liability and malpractice insurance costs...

Keep buying insurance company spin. Look at proifts over the last several years-- insurance companies are making out like bandits-- they're not rich because of paying out lawsuits.

[aumd03 2]

TT, I'm curious as to how you think a program to be cost efficient will promote health. We already mandate seat belts amongst other forms of safety. Is it unreasonable to think you would be fined for not maintaining your health?

I guess you agreed with teh rest of my post about elective procedures. The Canadian system is incredibly socialist, fining doctors that attempt fee for service health care.

[AFTiger 282]

Months later, after deliberating under a cloud of secrecy, the task force produced its report. Numbering more than 1000 pages, the final document detailed a complex plan that would guarantee basic health care for all Americans. For most people, coverage would come from employers, financed by payroll taxes and delivered through carefully regulated competition among large non-profit health maintenance organizations, such as the Kaiser Plan and Blue Cross, or for-profit prepaid plans of the kind that were springing up across the country. For those who were not employed, the government would pay the cost of membership in a health maintenance organization. To negotiate with the health care providers on behalf of consumers, monitor their performance, and ensure their suitability, the Clinton Plan proposed the creation of new public organizations called health care alliances.

Link

Have you ever been under a budget based medical system? The wait time to see a doctor in the military was six months or you went to the emergency room. In my Comparative Health Systems class, we studied most of the health systems in the world. We had speakers who were participating in that wretched task force describe it to us. I asked why they had not studied the similar system in place in the military. They were unaware of it going on theory alone.

Most of the health systems in the world are some form of socialism. The Candian system was held to be the ideal at the time but cracks were beginning to form.

Yes, our health system has serious problem but government will not solve it. They never have anywhere.

Try Cuba, TT