Hillary Care

[TexasTiger 13,029]

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.

The problem with the article is that a Canadian/British single-payer system isn't even being proposed by any major figure, and if it was, it would go nowhere. Yes, in those systems you would be right about elective procedures, but it ain't happening and isn't particularly relevant here.

I guess if the Republicans keep going in the direction Bush has started the country, colonscopies could be mandatory at 50, unless they made us bend over sooner. But seriously, no. I don't see invasive forced medical procedures, especially those as expensive as colonscopies being mandatory. I can big Pharma pushing more mandatory vaccinations, such as the HPV vaccine in Texas.

The biggest way to prevent health problems in the American public is for folks to change their dietary habits. Your likely Republican nominee, Mike Huckabee will probably push this idea.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Yes, our health system has serious problem but government will not solve it.

There's an arugment there somewhere, why not pursue that one instead of dragging out red herrings?

I'd love to visit Cuba. My country won't let me. Bush fines little old ladies over $7,000 dollars for doing what citizens from other countries are free to do. I have no desire to live there, but would love to check out the old cars and sip some rum on the beach for a few days.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Is socialized medicine worth dying for?

It appears that one of the great pioneers of socialized medicine, Fidel Castro, may soon die as a result of what appears to be bad health care:

Botched care? Under socialized medicine?

And the dems want this why?

Castro surgery seems to have been botched: experts

By Tom Brown

MIAMI (Reuters) - Cuban leader Fidel Castro has long prided himself on Cuba's doctors and free public health care system, but that system seems to have let him down after he fell ill in July , U.S.-based doctors said on Tuesday.

Based on a report in Tuesday's edition of Spain's El Pais newspaper, the doctors -- who have no first-hand knowledge of Castro's condition -- said Castro had received questionable or even botched care at the hands of health experts on his communist-ruled island.

"It's not a good story. Too bad they didn't send him to Miami for surgery," said Dr. Charles Gerson, a clinical professor of medicine in the gastroenterology division of New York's Mt. Sinai School of Medicine.

According to two medical sources cited by El Pais, the veteran revolutionary was in "very serious" condition after three failed operations on his large intestine for diverticulitis, or pouch-like bulges in the intestine, complicated by infection.

The sources in El Pais were from the same Madrid hospital where a surgeon who visited the 80-year-old Castro in late December works.

The Spanish surgeon, Jose Luis Garcia Sabrido, had not changed his opinion that Castro was slowly recovering after stomach surgery for an undisclosed ailment, his secretary said.

But El Pais said Castro was being fed intravenously and his outlook was bleak. If confirmed, the newspaper's account was the first with details of Castro's clinical history since he first underwent surgery six months ago. His condition is considered a state secret inside Cuba.

Gerson and Dr. Meyer Solny, a veteran gastrointestinal expert at New York Presbyterian Hospital and the Weill Cornell College of Medicine, said Castro's doctors erred by seeking to avoid a colostomy -- or opening in the abdomen to get rid of stool -- after an initial operation to remove part of his large intestine.

'VERY RISKY SITUATION'

"They took a chance, which was probably not the best judgment under the circumstances," Gerson said.

"It sounds like they tried to spare him the colostomy, which would have been the safer and more conservative approach, and what they did was to try to establish continuity of the bowel by sewing the colon to the rectum, and for one reason or another it sounds like that didn't work. And now there are troubles," said Solny.

Gerson said the Cuban doctors appeared to have suffered one problem after another.

"What you're into is multiple operations with complications and infection in someone his age, you know, the wear and tear is going to start wearing him down, and he's going to get weaker," he said.

U.S. medical experts were also puzzled by El Pais' report that Castro had undergone a third operation to implant a Korean-made prosthesis, possibly an artificial stretch of bowel, after a second failed operation to clean and drain an infected area and perform a colostomy.

"I would say that that would likely be a very risky situation because of the nature of the large intestine, which is a sewage line," said Dr. Stephen Hanauer, chief of gastroenterology at the University of Chicago.

He said the use of a prosthesis in such cases was "experimental" at best and unheard of in the United States.

"I think the prognosis is very grave at this point," said Dr. Roshini Rajapaksa, a gastroenterologist at NYU Medical center and assistant professor at the NYU School of Medicine.

"For an elderly person to undergo major abdominal surgery three times, especially when they're unsuccessful, is a very serious situation."

link

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Got a link to them Dem proposals you're referring to?

I missed the one that said we need Cuban health care.

But BTW, you seem to think that botched surgeries don't happen here. In addition, the CDC estimates that about 90,000 people die from hospital-acquired infections annually.

http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW...228/535757.html

If you don't accept the notion that "mistakes and screw ups happen", then you should be a pretty strong supporter of malpractice attorneys, which I don't think you are.

Is socialized medicine worth dying for?

It appears that one of the great pioneers of socialized medicine, Fidel Castro, may soon die as a result of what appears to be bad health care:

Botched care? Under socialized medicine?

And the dems want this why?

Castro surgery seems to have been botched: experts

By Tom Brown

MIAMI (Reuters) - Cuban leader Fidel Castro has long prided himself on Cuba's doctors and free public health care system, but that system seems to have let him down after he fell ill in July , U.S.-based doctors said on Tuesday.

Based on a report in Tuesday's edition of Spain's El Pais newspaper, the doctors -- who have no first-hand knowledge of Castro's condition -- said Castro had received questionable or even botched care at the hands of health experts on his communist-ruled island.

"It's not a good story. Too bad they didn't send him to Miami for surgery," said Dr. Charles Gerson, a clinical professor of medicine in the gastroenterology division of New York's Mt. Sinai School of Medicine.

According to two medical sources cited by El Pais, the veteran revolutionary was in "very serious" condition after three failed operations on his large intestine for diverticulitis, or pouch-like bulges in the intestine, complicated by infection.

The sources in El Pais were from the same Madrid hospital where a surgeon who visited the 80-year-old Castro in late December works.

The Spanish surgeon, Jose Luis Garcia Sabrido, had not changed his opinion that Castro was slowly recovering after stomach surgery for an undisclosed ailment, his secretary said.

But El Pais said Castro was being fed intravenously and his outlook was bleak. If confirmed, the newspaper's account was the first with details of Castro's clinical history since he first underwent surgery six months ago. His condition is considered a state secret inside Cuba.

Gerson and Dr. Meyer Solny, a veteran gastrointestinal expert at New York Presbyterian Hospital and the Weill Cornell College of Medicine, said Castro's doctors erred by seeking to avoid a colostomy -- or opening in the abdomen to get rid of stool -- after an initial operation to remove part of his large intestine.

'VERY RISKY SITUATION'

"They took a chance, which was probably not the best judgment under the circumstances," Gerson said.

"It sounds like they tried to spare him the colostomy, which would have been the safer and more conservative approach, and what they did was to try to establish continuity of the bowel by sewing the colon to the rectum, and for one reason or another it sounds like that didn't work. And now there are troubles," said Solny.

Gerson said the Cuban doctors appeared to have suffered one problem after another.

"What you're into is multiple operations with complications and infection in someone his age, you know, the wear and tear is going to start wearing him down, and he's going to get weaker," he said.

U.S. medical experts were also puzzled by El Pais' report that Castro had undergone a third operation to implant a Korean-made prosthesis, possibly an artificial stretch of bowel, after a second failed operation to clean and drain an infected area and perform a colostomy.

"I would say that that would likely be a very risky situation because of the nature of the large intestine, which is a sewage line," said Dr. Stephen Hanauer, chief of gastroenterology at the University of Chicago.

He said the use of a prosthesis in such cases was "experimental" at best and unheard of in the United States.

"I think the prognosis is very grave at this point," said Dr. Roshini Rajapaksa, a gastroenterologist at NYU Medical center and assistant professor at the NYU School of Medicine.

"For an elderly person to undergo major abdominal surgery three times, especially when they're unsuccessful, is a very serious situation."

link

[Tigermike 3,055]

Got a link to them Dem proposals you're referring to?

I missed the one that said we need Cuban health care.

But BTW, you seem to think that botched surgeries don't happen here. In addition, the CDC estimates that about 90,000 people die from hospital-acquired infections annually.

http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW...228/535757.html

If you don't accept the notion that "mistakes and screw ups happen", then you should be a pretty strong supporter of malpractice attorneys, which I don't think you are.

You need to take a refresher course on reading comprehension.

I didn't say anything about botched surgeries not happening here or anywhere else. Just as I didn't say anything about the dems saying "we need Cuban health care." The fact of the matter is the dems are not honest enough to call it what it is. Nor are they honest enough to be open about what they really want. If they just want everyone covered, why don't they just pass legislation to open up the same medical package that congress has? After all they are in the majority and W hasn't used the veto yet has he?

Are you saying that what the dims want is not government-run health-care? Does Cuba not have a government-run health-care system?

The term Socialized Medicine is used to describe a system of publicly administered national health care. This system can range from programs in which the government runs hospitals and health organizations to programs in which there is national universal health care. Although, these programs are often associated with communist run countries, every Western Country except the United States has some form of socialized medicine.

http://jmchar.people.wm.edu/Kin493/socmed.html

Are you just trying to change the subject or to imply the dims don't want and are not pushing this?

Have you ever visited a VA hospital?

[TexasTiger 13,029]

If they just want everyone covered, why don't they just pass legislation to open up the same medical package that congress has?

So you supported this:

Give Every American Access to the Same Plan As Members of Congress

Nine million Federal employees get health care through the Federal Employees Health Care Benefits program (FEHBP), which offers a wide range of plans with good benefits. The Kerry plan will allow every American access to this system. With tax-based incentives to employers and tax credits to individuals and the self-employed, the Kerry plan will ensure that this coverage is affordable. The most vulnerable groups, including the unemployed and retirees below age 65, will be covered. To hold down premiums, the federal government will reimburse companies for 75 percent of catastrophic claims totaling more than $50,000, provided they pass the savings on to their policyholders.

[Tigermike 3,055]

If they just want everyone covered, why don't they just pass legislation to open up the same medical package that congress has?

So you supported this:

Give Every American Access to the Same Plan As Members of Congress

Nine million Federal employees get health care through the Federal Employees Health Care Benefits program (FEHBP), which offers a wide range of plans with good benefits. The Kerry plan will allow every American access to this system. With tax-based incentives to employers and tax credits to individuals and the self-employed, the Kerry plan will ensure that this coverage is affordable. The most vulnerable groups, including the unemployed and retirees below age 65, will be covered. To hold down premiums, the federal government will reimburse companies for 75 percent of catastrophic claims totaling more than $50,000, provided they pass the savings on to their policyholders.

Did I say I supported that? No I didn't. I merely made a comment that if that is what they want, why not pass the legislation and see where it goes. Why not actually do something rather than talk the BS they are so good at.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

If they just want everyone covered, why don't they just pass legislation to open up the same medical package that congress has?

So you supported this:

Give Every American Access to the Same Plan As Members of Congress

Nine million Federal employees get health care through the Federal Employees Health Care Benefits program (FEHBP), which offers a wide range of plans with good benefits. The Kerry plan will allow every American access to this system. With tax-based incentives to employers and tax credits to individuals and the self-employed, the Kerry plan will ensure that this coverage is affordable. The most vulnerable groups, including the unemployed and retirees below age 65, will be covered. To hold down premiums, the federal government will reimburse companies for 75 percent of catastrophic claims totaling more than $50,000, provided they pass the savings on to their policyholders.

Did I say I supported that? No I didn't. I merely made a comment that if that is what they want, why not pass the legislation and see where it goes. Why not actually do something rather than talk the BS they are so good at.

If they did pass it, would you call it socialized medicine? Would you want Bush to veto it?

[LegalEagle 22]

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...

I'd settle for one that euthanizes idiots.

Litigation

Contrary to popular belief, malpractice lawsuits do not account for a large portion of American healthcare spending. A study in Health Affairs found that the cost of defending and settling malpractice lawsuits in 2001 was approximately $6.5bn, or 0.46% of total health expenditures (reference: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/conte...stract/24/4/903

[AFTiger 282]

I'd love to visit Cuba. My country won't let me. Bush fines little old ladies over $7,000 dollars for doing what citizens from other countries are free to do. I have no desire to live there, but would love to check out the old cars and sip some rum on the beach for a few days.

Gee, another policy you can't support. Well, when you go, be sure to not get sick.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

I'd love to visit Cuba. My country won't let me. Bush fines little old ladies over $7,000 dollars for doing what citizens from other countries are free to do. I have no desire to live there, but would love to check out the old cars and sip some rum on the beach for a few days.

Gee, another policy you can't support. Well, when you go, be sure to not get sick.

You support curtailing basic freedom to travel and I don't-- especially when it makes no sense. That highlights which one of us really believes in freedom. But if I could go easily from the US, I could fly back real quick if I was sick.

[AFTiger 282]

But if I could go easily from the US, I could fly back real quick if I was sick.

I would think you would want tou use the national healthcare service in Cuba.

[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...

I'd settle for one that euthanizes idiots.

Litigation

Contrary to popular belief, malpractice lawsuits do not account for a large portion of American healthcare spending. A study in Health Affairs found that the cost of defending and settling malpractice lawsuits in 2001 was approximately $6.5bn, or 0.46% of total health expenditures (reference: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/conte...stract/24/4/903

You didn't mention the cost of liability insurance, and you didn't mention the extra procedures and tests that are now ordered by Dr.s afraid of all of the ambulance-chaser lawyers standing at the ER doors. But, I will admit that lawyers are not the primary reason health care costs are so high. This CATO study below points out the most obvious reason we are spending so much on health care; so many of us see it as basically 'free' and don't take the time to make health decisions based on economics or cost/benefit.

Back to the lawyer thing; it is definitely the fault of lawyers that I have to get rid of my diving board, they have all homeowner insurance companies scared to death of frivilous lawsuits. I spent $20,000 plus for my nice swimming pool, and the lawyers are making me dismantle one of the primary things my family enjoys in the summer. What's next, my jet ski? Are we all going to be walking around in bubble wrap?

Why Health Care Costs Too Much

Executive Summary

Health care costs have increased dramatically over the last few decades and are now thought to be excessively high. That has caused the current political reevaluation of our health care system, including its funding and performance.

This study is an analysis of the causes of the increase in health care costs. The major culprit in the seemingly endless rise in health care costs is found to be the removal of the patient as a major participant in the financial and medical choices that are currently being made by others in the name of the patient.

The increasing share of medical bills paid by third-party payers (insurance companies and governments) and the disastrous consequences are documented. Patients overuse medical resources since those resources appear to be free or almost free. Producers of medical equipment create new and more expensive devices, even if they are of only marginal benefit, since third-party payers create a guaranteed market. Attempts to rein in those costs have led to a blizzard of paperwork but proven ineffective in controlling costs.

The cure for the present problems is straightforward: the patient must once again be made the central actor in the medical marketplace. Patients need to be given the same motivations to economize on medical care that they have to economize in other markets. Tax laws need to be rewritten. The use of medical savings accounts needs to be promoted. High-deductible health insurance should be encouraged.

Returning the patient, and normal market principles, to center stage is all that is necessary to bring the costs of health care under control.

[BamaGrad03 0]

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.

It's called capitalism. Embrace it.

Bottom line, people living in countries with government run healthcare say they'd love to have what we have.

I am self employed and do not get the benefit of cheap insurance through an employer. I pay 80 dollars a month. Big freakin deal. Healthcare isnt as out of control as people want us to think.

And it's not like a poor person will walk into an emergency room without insurance and just bleed to death. Doctors help people everyday who dont have insurance.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

$80 a month? What does that cover? Bandaids and mercurochrome?

[BamaGrad03 0]

$80 a month? What does that cover? Bandaids and mercurochrome?

It's a plan through United that has a $2500 annual deductible. So if, say, my leg fell off one day...I'd be out 2500 bucks and theyd cover the rest. But it has a smaller prescription deductible and my office visits are out of pocket. (but only to a certain limit).

But I subscribe to the theory that I only go to the doctor when I'm sick. One of the reasons health insurance is getting more expensive...people use their BC/BS card like its a credit card. They go to the dang doctor anytime they get the sniffles.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

I'm with you, but your attitude will change once you get a wife and kids.

I never go to the doctor unless I have had an accident or am deathly ill. However, kids are little germ factories.

[Tigermike 3,055]

I'd love to visit Cuba. My country won't let me. Bush fines little old ladies over $7,000 dollars for doing what citizens from other countries are free to do. I have no desire to live there, but would love to check out the old cars and sip some rum on the beach for a few days.

Gee, another policy you can't support. Well, when you go, be sure to not get sick.

You support curtailing basic freedom to travel and I don't-- especially when it makes no sense. That highlights which one of us really believes in freedom. But if I could go easily from the US, I could fly back real quick if I was sick.

To be fair and honest, which you very rarely are, you would also have to include Presidents Clinton, Johnson, Carter and Kennedy on the list of those who support curtailing basic freedom to travel as well. But you stick to the party line and blame Bush. Bush isn't the architect of the Cuban policy, but he has continued to follow US policy, which is hard for you and the moonbat left to understand. He also implemented US policy when he ordered the invasion of Iraq and overthrew Sodom Hussein. US policy that was ordered and signed by President William J. Clinton.

[LegalEagle 22]

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...

I'd settle for one that euthanizes idiots.

Litigation

Contrary to popular belief, malpractice lawsuits do not account for a large portion of American healthcare spending. A study in Health Affairs found that the cost of defending and settling malpractice lawsuits in 2001 was approximately $6.5bn, or 0.46% of total health expenditures (reference: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/conte...stract/24/4/903

You didn't mention the cost of liability insurance, and you didn't mention the extra procedures and tests that are now ordered by Dr.s afraid of all of the ambulance-chaser lawyers standing at the ER doors. But, I will admit that lawyers are not the primary reason health care costs are so high. This CATO study below points out the most obvious reason we are spending so much on health care; so many of us see it as basically 'free' and don't take the time to make health decisions based on economics or cost/benefit.

Back to the lawyer thing; it is definitely the fault of lawyers that I have to get rid of my diving board, they have all homeowner insurance companies scared to death of frivilous lawsuits. I spent $20,000 plus for my nice swimming pool, and the lawyers are making me dismantle one of the primary things my family enjoys in the summer. What's next, my jet ski? Are we all going to be walking around in bubble wrap?

Well, believe it or not, I could care less about your pool without a board. Perhaps you should have looked into insurance costs before you dug the hole.

In your world, I'm sure you never considered that doctors can use this "blown out of proportion" fear of malpractice to fatten their wallets with their fees for unnecessary tests and evaluations. Of course, that fattens the insurance company wallets too, but you should of course blame the lawyers. It's way too much to ask that medical doctors treat you properly and only to the extent reasonably necessary.

I think you should talk to your surgeon before your child has his or her next surgery. I suggest you sign a waiver not to collect any damages from the surgeon, hospital, etc. in any amount over $100,000 should they happen to kill or permanently paralyze your kid because of their gross negligence. Perhaps they would give you 10% off. My kids and wife are worth more than the price you place on your next of kin, so I'll just pay the full cost of surgery and expect them to perform competently. Should they not, I want a jury to tell them how much my child's life and future was worth. Problem solved.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Back to Hillary care, as proposed back in 1993, it had the first seven sections were on politically appointed regional groups that woud assign you to a doctor. Then the rest of the first seven sections were insuring you did as told and included jail time for those that tried to go outside the system. In 1995, the Republican Congress tried again to get NHC by stripping off the first seven sections of Hillary care and running it again. It failed due to tall the left over negative publicity on the first try.

[Tiger Al 0]

Back to Hillary care, as proposed back in 1993, it had the first seven sections were on politically appointed regional groups that woud assign you to a doctor. Then the rest of the first seven sections were insuring you did as told and included jail time for those that tried to go outside the system. In 1995, the Republican Congress tried again to get NHC by stripping off the first seven sections of Hillary care and running it again. It failed due to tall the left over negative publicity on the first try.

Got a link to the proposal from 1993?

[TexasTiger 13,029]

I'm with you, but your attitude will change once you get a wife and kids.

BG-- wife and kids?

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Back to Hillary care, as proposed back in 1993, it had the first seven sections were on politically appointed regional groups that woud assign you to a doctor. Then the rest of the first seven sections were insuring you did as told and included jail time for those that tried to go outside the system. In 1995, the Republican Congress tried again to get NHC by stripping off the first seven sections of Hillary care and running it again. It failed due to tall the left over negative publicity on the first try.

Where do you get this crazy stuff? And why on earth do you always believe it?

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Back to Hillary care, as proposed back in 1993, it had the first seven sections were on politically appointed regional groups that woud assign you to a doctor. Then the rest of the first seven sections were insuring you did as told and included jail time for those that tried to go outside the system. In 1995, the Republican Congress tried again to get NHC by stripping off the first seven sections of Hillary care and running it again. It failed due to tall the left over negative publicity on the first try.

I heard that anyone doing free blood pressure checks at the mall would have been shot on sight under Hillary's plan.

[AFTiger 282]

Some history

November 19, 1993

A Guide to the Clinton Health Plan

by Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D.

Backgrounder

This study was originally a Heritage "Talking Points".

Introduction

President Bill Clinton has sent health care legislation to Capitol Hill that is breathtaking in its scope. He strikes a responsive chord with most Americans when he condemns the current system as bureaucratic and wasteful, and when he urges a comprehensive reform of the $1 trillion health system-accounting for about one-seventh of the entire U.S. economy-based on the principles of security, simplicity, savings, choice, quality, and personal responsibility.

But although Clinton has stressed the need for simplicity and freedom from bureaucracy, his legislation offers anything but that. The Administration followed a 239-page draft, leaked by Members of Congress in September 1993, with a 1,342-page bill, the "Health Security Act." Emerging from the complex language of this huge bill is a massive top-down, bureaucratic command-and-control system that would meticulously govern virtually every aspect of the delivery and the financing of health care services for the American people. As The Economist of London observes, "Not since Franklin Roosevelt's War Production Board has it been suggested that so large a part of the American economy should suddenly be brought under government control .

Rest of the article

THE HEALTH SECURITY ACT OF 1993

Health Care That's Always There

Every American citizen will receive a Health Security Card that guarantees you a comprehensive package of benefits that can never be taken away.

Guaranteeing comprehensive benefits that can never be taken away. Controlling health care costs for consumers, business and our nation. Improving the quality of American health care. Increasing choices for consumers. Reducing paperwork and simplifying the system. Making everyone responsible for health care. These are the principles of the Health Security Act of 1993 and they are not negotiable.

From the archives Link

Uncle Earle doesn't like being misquoted, TT.