CPAPtalk.com

Personally I think the insurance industry needs to be taken down a few notches. Medical decisions should not be made by insurance companies they should be made by doctors and covered by insurance companies. Period!!!
I also don't think that "nationalized" health care is the answer - vis a vis Canada and UK. I hear echo, but have not done any research into those particular systems. When I think of nationalized health care I think of the postal service -- I don't want the same people running my health care as run my post office. I don't think I have a real issue with nationalized health insurance. But all that said, something needs to be done to ensure we have insurance for everyone!!!! Sorry, don't have the answers....

Something needs to be done to bring medical costs under control. It's absurd to receive a bill for $600 for a 5 minute procedure. But it happens all the time!!! And if you have insurance and really look at the EOB they send you, the insurance only pays about $125 and the rest get's "written off".....I don't know the particulars, but I'd bet the difference between the contracted amount and the billed amount gets deducted from taxes somewhere along the line......

Something also needs to be done to bring pharmaceutical costs under control.....I have no issue with the drug manufacturers recovering their R&D costs -- goes with the territory. What I have a real issue with is the typical "American" philosophy of an ROI of 24-36 months (or less!!!!!!)......it's totally unrealistic!!! Took you 15 years to develop and get the thing to the market?? Then your ROI should be commensurate with that time frame, and the patent laws should be changed to reflect that. Generics are nice, but the generic manufacturers only wait for a patent to run its course and then pounce on it -- no problem with that either, but it's one of the reasons that the original developer charges so much for their product -- they have to recoup their costs before the patent runs out and the generics undercut their profits......Basic business -- but it needs to be changed!!!

One of my pet peeves has always been "our money".....
Yes. We here in the US are very fortunate. We have incredible resources. But where in our constitution or laws is it written that we taxpayers have to prop up the world??? You want the money to pay for all kinds of services here, get rid of wanton foreign aid. Let's take care of #1 first, like we do in our own lives, and if there's anything left over, then we can portion it out to the international community, like we do in our own lives when we donate to charities. There is absolutely no reason to send money to entities that could give a rats patoot about where it came from and for the most part would stab us in the back at the first opportunity!!!!
Send fish and they'll eat for a few days -- teach them to fish and they'll eat forever!!!!

Maybe that sounds a bit selfish, but I get really tired of hearing that there is no money for this program or that program -- programs that collectively, "we the people", demand from our government -- be that right or wrong and I understand the arguments on both sides of that one -- but there's plenty of trillions to send off to buy our international friends, but there's never enough money to take care of ourselves in the manner we deserve. We're taught as children that you can't buy true friends......tell that to Uncle Sugar......
If we're going to give money away, let's give it to ourselves first...fix highways that are crumbling, bridges that are falling down, provide health care, provide low cost housing, make jobs that don't get outsourced to "somewhere else" (and eliminate the tax incentives that corporations get for doing just that. penalize them instead!!!).

You can tell the feds have some bucks to "give away".....The auto manufactures are trying to belly up to the trough. AND, they fly in using corporate jets that cost - oh about $20M+ to acquire, $50k-$60k per flight hour to maintain, not to mention the insurance.....Perhaps it's time they rethink their business model!!!!! Maybe instead of making cars that fall apart after 3-5 years, maybe they can make wind generators, solar panels, geothermal couplers......what a concept. Instead of building something that uses oil, build something that helps eliminate the need....When ever efficiency comes up, they whine it'll cost too much to re-tool......uh huh.....Auto and Oil in cahoots??? And don't get me onto SUV's.....

Better stop there.....
</end rant>

cheers
goose

Thanks Dreamweaver


I figured they were comparing individual costs to government costs. I have a family of 5 (3 of them teenagers) and I don't come even close to spending that kindof money for healthcare for the whole family for a year. It would be interesting to see where they got their figures from.

That article doesn't convince me to push for socialized, national, public or whatever you want to call it healthcare.

DreamStalker wrote:In the US model there is a growing number who have to wait a lot longer than 6 months ... as in forever or til dead or becasue they are broke

Just because Canada doesn't do nationalized medicine effeciently doesn't mean it can't be done efficiently ... or at least more efficiently.

That's the excuse every time socialism is re-tried. "This time it will work."

Good rant Goose.

When I took up fishing, my wife learned:

"Give a man a fish and he will eat for one day.
Teach a man to fish and he will
hang around in boats all day
drinking beer with his
no-good buddies."

Rooster does have a sense of humor after all!! I did like Goose's rant also. Okay, so maybe we shouldn't model our system after Canada or Great Britian or France. How about Australia's?? I lived there for three years, and loved their system. As an occupational therapy student, I paid $400 a year to access the same services as their public system. They do have a two tiered system, that if you want to avoid the public hospitals, you can buy insurance for the more exclusive private hospitals. But in my experience, the public service was wonderful, and I heard no complaints from it's citizens. The public service is mostly funded from a high sales tax of 10%.

I had waits. I had to wait 6 weeks to see a cardiologist. Here in Michigan, I was recently told I would have to wait 3 months -- and this has happened 4 times over the last two years. I had my first mammogram there in Australia ...great memories of a petite Asian tech trying to lift my big size 56F into those wringers!...I waited a month. Here I wait a week to two weeks. The services were always busy, but run efficiently, and were maxed out to the capability of the service. I can't say that for the services I've seen here...I see medical equipment sometimes lay unused for days or in a limited amount, because of the cost of the service. The medical equipment was the same brands and technology as was used by my California HMO, which I continued to belong, even in Australia. My HMO sent me my prescriptions to Australia. The catch was that in Australia, I could get them (and that was all of my U.S. prescriptions) for 10% of the U.S. price that my HMO was paying. Australia is not a poor country--we are paying for research on drugs for the whole world here in the U.S. There wasn't much emphasis on research and medical advances...they know that the U.S. would supply them.

As an occupational therapy student, I did a 5 month internship at a public rehabilitation hospital. The care there was great, and I did hardly any paperwork not related to the patient's medical care. Here, for two years, I spent over 50% of my time as a therapist on paperwork not relating to their direct care, but was usually more for reporting purposes (before I got sick last year). In Australia, there was a great continuum of care from the acute hospital to the rehab hospital, to home. For instance, if a person had a stroke, they would be in the acute hospital for about 2 weeks until medically stabilized. And then, they would go next door to the rehab hospital, were the usual stay was 6-8 weeks, but could be more depending on the severity of the case. While they were in the hospital, the patients would hand over the keys to their house to us occupational therapists, and we would visit their house (1/2 of the time unsupervised) and make recommendations for home modifications. In OT school, I learned how to read and design basic building plans and blueprints (which I loved). Then, the therapist calls a builder under the government's scheme, and the home modifications are made free of charge to the person. The patient has the right to refuse these services, but obviously very few do! This could never happen here because of our concern for "medical privacy" and the government regulations that are imposed. Also, every week at the Rehab hospital, there were "grand rounds". Except for a skeleton crew, everyone went to them, including students nurses, and all the doctors. Every patient's case was discussed, and a report was given by each service they received, and whether they had met their stated medical goals for that week. Everyone could participate...even my opinion as a student was valued. I knew I had made it when I was able to sit at the "big table" one week instead of the periphery!

I was also impressed in how much "urgent care" I could get. There were plenty of public clinics set up, and I would usually have to wait about an hour in a crowded clinic to be seen for an urgent care appt. If it was more serious, I would be told to go to the ER, and usually would wait for an hour or so to get seen. If there were no hospital beds in the speciality I needed, I would be transported to another public hospital by ambulance at no cost to me. One time, I shared an ambulance with a lady on a stretcher, a psych patient, and me, a neuro case. The ambulances were always busy, but there were plenty, and much more efficient than ours, in their waiting/driving around town --waiting to charge $1000 to a patient for the trip here in the U.S.

While I was in Sydney, I was sexually assaulted. My 2 day hospital stay, and all my tests, i.e. brain CAT scan were free as a victim of crime. Later, I received a statement of all the charges for those 2 days. It was 550 Australian Dollars, which was about $900 U.S. and that included all the tests. It was charged to another government department. I had a sexual assault therapist, a caseworker, and a psychologist for support afterwards. After about a year, I received $20k (U.S.) in victim's compensation, even though my attacker was not caught (but there was another woman whose case was brought to trial and the police thought it was my attacker because of his M.O.), but I couldn't positively ID him). Not once, was it brought up that I was American by the health care professionals. My doctor's in California when I returned were amazed by all of this. My neurologist said they are a much more civilized society than we are.

One difference and reason they can have this system is because of a strict immigration policy. If you are illegal, they will send you to a detention camp for up to a year, even with your children, and that's only if you aren't deported first. They are very selective in who they allow into the country because of the socialized benefits. You can't even immigrate and become an permanent resident unless you are under 45 years old no matter what your profession is, even if you are in a profession that is in short supply in Australia. You have to sign even on a temporary or student visa, that you or your family has adequate savings to pay for your schooling and medical care while there (I think it was you needed 40k in savings--luckily my mom signed for me). They have very strict medical exams and policies as far as who they accept into the country. I couldn't get approved for a permanent visa because of my cardiac and weight issues (I didn't know about the sleep apnea then). It costs about $4k U.S. in fees to the government to get a permanent visa, and most people spend more by going to immigration lawyers, etc. because of the complexity of the immigration laws. They also have a point system for immigration, which measured things like your education, family already in Australia, ties to Commonwealth countries, age, etc. Depending on political whims and feelings about immigration, they would raise or lower the points needed for acceptance.

And basically, there is a national pride in the health service, in that they feel it is their duty to care for their own.

Well, this is a lot longer than I expected! I just wanted to add to the discussion my experiences with socialized medicine, both as a patient and a health care professional. Take care, Lovey

Good post lovey -- thanks for sharing all of that!!!!!
There are a bunch of Aussies here on the forum -- I'd love to hear their stories as well.
I also have some friends in Australia and have actually never heard about their health care system one way or another....I'll have to ask.....
Very interesting.......

Awww. Come on. We all know rooster has a sense of humor!!!!
cheers
goose

So I have to first admit I don't know much about politics or even if I have the right definition of socialism...but I can tell you that for the last 12 months (0k 11) we here in Massachusetts have been required to carry some sort of health coverage or pay a "penalty." In my case I would loose my income tax refund. The amount of that penalty has increased this fiscal year as it's the second since health insurance was mandatory...On that note, in order to run your insurance company here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts you can not turn me down for insurance...my application wanted my name DOB, SS# and address, no medical info, no MD's names NADA, and really you may be paranoid but that stuff just can't be tracked down with my SS# all that easily in a state with no central medical system. I've got a health history that most insurance companies would take one look at and run...but they have no choice, I can pick one of 4 plans each offered by the "big three" companies in the state, or I can find my own. All employers with more that 20(I think) employees are required to HELP find insurance...not help fund...but help find....so YES we HAVE a requirement to cover our own a**'s and like always if you have below a certain income...blah blah you get it free or on a sliding scale.

The point of this whole thing is Insurance coverage is MANDATORY here, but if I want top of the line coverage, I pay for top of the line coverage...Personally? I want my DME expenses covered (and not just CPAP DME stuff!) and the larger portion of my prescriptions covered SO... I pay through the nose for insurance...but I come out better off in the end because the insurance company that Looses money covering me will make money covering someone else!

Anyway just wanted to throw my 2cents into the ring...I was not for this when it started but now that I am reaping the benefits...hell if this is semi socialized medicine...give me the whole shebang! just make it a little cheaper!

NightWorkDaySleep wrote:So I have to first admit I don't know much about politics or even if I have the right definition of socialism........

Definition of socialism
so-cial-ism   [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
universal abject misery
(except for the politicians)

rooster wrote:

It's not that there's anything wrong here, per se; most of the French do get an excellent standard of care, and they do pay a lot for it in taxes, which Moore -- very briefly -- does acknowledge. But what does "most" mean? Although coverage and benefits are universal on paper, I don't think there are too many French doctors making midnight calls to the infamous banlieues, where France's large population of disaffected citizens of North African origin live, resentful, unemployed, unassimilated, and prone to outbursts of spectacular violence. This is not just a simple case of social injustice. It relates to a massive misunderstanding on Moore's part.

For Moore believes that the French have their health care system because they have intimidated their government: they will go on strike, march and besiege the streets of Paris whenever the government wants to cut any part of France's bloated welfare state, all on that principle of solidarity. But in fact it is anything but solidarity. Because France has very powerful unions that have made it almost impossible to fire anyone with a job, to demand productivity, or to make economic reforms that encourage economic growth, it's a great place to live if one has a job. And who is most likely to have a good shot at a job? The educated children of the large French middle classes. Those marchers in Paris, the ones protesting against any interference with job security, any meddling with the 35-hour work week, are in fact parochial guardians of class privilege, a most un-socialistic phenomenon. This situation has led to very high unemployment, very low economic growth, and massive social problems. Left out of the rent-seeking club are French citizens of non-French ethnicities, immigrants, those who are trapped in the exurban ghettos, all of whom may technically have access to great health care but who, due to the circumstances of their lives, may have a hard time getting into the system. Socialized medicine can and should operate in a social context that expects it to be both efficient and inclusive. The French, in recently electing Nicolas Sarkozy president on promises to make them work harder and to open up the job market, in preference to a featherweight Socialist who tried to bribe them with more and more free stuff, seem to have understood that their society was in cultural and economic decline.

That quote sounds like something BillO would spin on one of his Fox rants ...

Like I said, this country (every country to some degree) has had socialized programs from day one. Our military defense is pretty inefficient but I don't see the BillO types trying to dismantle it ... why, because they benefit from it (ie. they cannot afford to protect themselves from foreign national military invaders without a socialized military). On the other hand, the BillO types do make enough money to protect themselves from health issues so they don't believe in socialized healthcare and instead demonize it as evil and un-American. Yes, humans are selfish by nature and support political issues that benefit them as opposed to benefiting everyone. If the BillO types always had it their way, they would probably legislate that all poor and sick people (and parents who can't control their children) be exiled or executed because they are a drain on "their" country and just plain "un-American".

As for the moronic statement made earlier that illegals sneak across the border to get free healthcare, that is just plain laughable. The reason illegals sneak across our border is to work and make a living. And the reason they come over here to work and make a living is because people on this side of the border hire them to work. And the reason people over here hire them is because they would rather hire illegals for less money so their business enterprise can produce more for less. And the reason they want to produce more for less is because the BillO types (well most everyone actually) want more for less ... a basic human nature called selfishness. We all have it, I do, you do, all of us ... just that some are more selfish than others and some are in total denial of their selfishness and claiming to be -- what was that Palin said, "real Americans".

Like I said before, for a nation to be prosperous, its people have to have basic needs to be healthy, educated, and safe from hostile invasions ... and each of those basic needs are socialistic whether you want to call them un-American or not.

BTW - I too agree with goose's rant. I don't think there should be a free ride for everyone (as I know the BillO types will try and spin my post above into). I just think we need to consider if health and education are as important as military defense on a national level regardless of how anyone defines socialism. I think they are.

I read a report about hispanic illegals a few months ago. Actually, they are in better health before they cross the border, and don't access health care during the first years. After 5 years on an "American" diet, they become as unhealthy as us "naturally born" a.k.a. "real" Americans, and that's when they access health care. Just food for thought!!! Lovey

Having lived in Mexico, I can tell you that the immigrants - legal or otherwise - do NOT gain anything in health care by coming across the border....
For the most part, and it's the same here in the good ole USA, health care professionals in Mexico are just that. Professionals. They have USA quality, top of the line, modern equipment, again depends on where you go -- just like here, they have training and education that are on par with USA doctors -- In fact, my PCP here in California is an Iranian (I believe) that received his medical training in Mexico -- and oh by the way, he is top notch!!!! One of the best doc's I've ever had in my 58 years!!!! Listens, compassionate, proactive (despite insurance companies - he's creative!!)........

It really irks me that the "BillO" types, as DS says, have nothing good to say about the immigrants and "they're only here to suck down our benefit systems".
When was the last time you saw a "real American" in the fields picking lettuce?? Strawberries?? Onions?? Brussel sprouts?? Artichokes?? I did it when I was a kid because there wasn't a fast food restaurant on every corner paying minimum wage to kids so we/they had jobs. All we had was working in the fields......Ever picked prune plums??? Trust me it's back breaking work for $.35 a box and it takes 2.5 buckets to fill a box (and about 30 minutes to fill 2.5 buckets -- you do the math). Ever cut apricots for drying??? My thumbs still have scars on them from cutting cots for $.25 a flat....So don't tell me that the immigrants are no good for nothing lazy bas***ds that do nothing but suck us up for our "benefits".....

That dog don't hunt!!!!!!!!!!


cheers
goose

well said goose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lovey wrote:I read a report about hispanic illegals a few months ago. Actually, they are in better health before they cross the border, and don't access health care during the first years. After 5 years on an "American" diet, they become as unhealthy as us "naturally born" a.k.a. "real" Americans, and that's when they access health care. Just food for thought!!! Lovey

Ah, they gotta get healthier after we give them access to:

Hey rooster,
That's a cardiologists dream burger!!!!!

Damn -- looks good!!!!!! Now I AM hungry!!!!!!

cheers
goose

They could get that in Mexico, Rooster! It's more like access to this one! Lovey


http://www.supersizedmeals.com/food/GL_ ... temId=4586