ATTN: Vets and Baby Boomers

[green 6]

About a year and half ago I read material which gave a per capita breakdown of healthcare costs in the industrialised countries of the West plus Australia and New Zealand. All of these countries, with the exception of the United States, have universal health care. The annual costs for health care in the US clock in at roughly $2,000 more per person than is the case for the nation with the next highest per capita per annum cost. The gross cost per capita per annum for health care in the US is slightly over $5,000. (I believe these figures were prepared by the World Health Organisation.) The $2,000 difference which each and every American is paying is going into the pockets of big businessmen and the politicians who are owned by them.

Recently there was an article in one of the national Canadian newspapers which dealt with an analysis or breakdown of who actually uses our health care system. It seems that the poor are not frequent users, and neither are men, except for emergencies. Women and children use the system. Affluent, better educated, city or suburban people use the system the most, especially if they are women; this is a system which is available to all but is most heavily used by the middle class. It is only when Canadians become old and decrepit that the class patterns in usuage start to disappear.

I continue to be surprised by the fearful attitudes which so many Americans display towards universal health care, particularly now that the legislation has changed and you can no longer shed a crippling health bill of half a million dollars or so by declaring bankruptcy.

[BJean 16]

Green: When I worked with attorneys years ago I was told by one of them that since I was single, I should buy me a few things before I got married. Like cars, silver, furniture, clothing, whatever my little heart desired. Then he would, like a good little attorney, help me declare bankruptcy. I would have all my stuff, my new husband's name, and we could live happily ever after. He forgot to mention cosmetic surgery.

Revolting, a?

[enterprise01 0]

I have a lot of concerns with the US govt trying to provide my healthcare. I work in a hospital. If we are talking about a situation where all hospitals exist as not-for-profit entities (as most do now) and things are just as they are now, only the gov't provides payment for services rather than an insurance company, then I'm not opposed. BUT, If we are talking about an entire healthcare system that is run based on the way our military hospitals and VA clinics are run, then I say ABSOLUTELY NOT. A group of people have gotten permission to sue our local Navy hospital for serious malpractice. The place is a death trap and I'd be hysterical if I had to get my care there, free or not. Also, would we have long wait times on needed tests like CT scans or upper GIs? My experience is that anything that the US goverment touches gets screwed up.

I fear we would be forced to pay a lot more in taxes to cover the people who don't work and can't pay their share or do work but don't make enough. In our country, the "rich" are expected to carry the poor and I don't really dig that model. Especially when what is considered wealthy in this country is not really wealthy but more middle class. I feel like we already pay out the wazoo in taxes. If you make 6 figures a year, even if its only $100,000.01, you get totally screwed in taxes. DH and I are hardly what I would consider wealthy. We have insurance and it pays for most of the necessary expenses (although our current plan doesn't cover anything related to my WLS) so I don't feel the need to have a national healthcare system and be forced to pay even more taxes. I'm sure that sounds rather selfish but I just can't see paying anything more in taxes than we already do. But, here's something that really chaps my butt: Seeing that nice deduction on my check for Social Security and then being told by all of the politicians that SS won't be available when we get old. Fabulous!!! I do wish they'd let me invest my own money. I could get a good return on my own money. Social Security certainly isn't enough to live on so it would just be better if they'd let me combine that money with the rest of my investments and stick it in a mutual fund.

I agree with everything you just said. I don't want the U.S. government to have any input on my health care. I believe the solution is to regulate insurance companies better and not let them get away with all the crap they do. And the U.S. needs to stop subsidizing drugs for 3rd world countries -- that's one of the main reasons our drug costs are so high.

[enterprise01 0]

....I continue to be surprised by the fearful attitudes which so many Americans display towards universal health care....

I think it might be cultural. I very much distrust the government. It's already too big and has its fingers in too many aspects of our lives.

[BJean 16]

Without government intervention how are you going to regulate the insurance companies and drug manufacturers? Of course you're right about that too... WITH government intervention how are we going to regulate insurance companies and drug manufacturers? They've got us by the ovaries and they just keep squeezing.

[enterprise01 0]

Without government intervention how are you going to regulate the insurance companies and drug manufacturers? Of course you're right about that too... WITH government intervention how are we going to regulate insurance companies and drug manufacturers? They've got us by the ovaries and they just keep squeezing.

I'm OK with government regulating businesses. I'm not OK with government regulating the lives of its private citizens.

As to how to regulate insurance companies, that's very complex and I don't feel like writing an essay at the moment. But as an example, insurance companies should not be allowed to declare a procedure, device, or drug "experimental" if it has been used in standard care for more than 2 years. A friend with cancer was denied a bone marrow transplant because her insurance company claimed that was still experimental. Never mind the fact that it's been done for decades now! Insurance companies operate on the principle of throwing up roadblocks in order to avoid paying what they are required to pay under the terms of the policy. They play a numbers game. Wrongfully deny 500 claims and 450 of those people will not have the time, energy, or patience to fight their ruling. So in the end, they only have to pay 50 instead of 500 claims. That's unethical behavior that should be made illegal.

[green 6]

Green: When I worked with attorneys years ago I was told by one of them that since I was single, I should buy me a few things before I got married. Like cars, silver, furniture, clothing, whatever my little heart desired. Then he would, like a good little attorney, help me declare bankruptcy. I would have all my stuff, my new husband's name, and we could live happily ever after. He forgot to mention cosmetic surgery.

Revolting, a?

Ewww! That's immoral!

What I learned from the knees of my da was to always pay cash for everything except property. And what I learned from my divorce was to keep everything I own in my own name.:heh: Now, I got divorced when I was 27 and have followed this financial advice ever since.:scared: :scared: This has worked out well.

[BJean 16]

Smart Green!

enterprise: Yes, it's a huge problem. Both my sister and my mother went through the cancer treatment/insurance system and it's not anything one should ever have to deal with.

Unfortunately the problem with government intervention can pretty much be summed up with one word: lobbyists.

[green 6]

I'm OK with government regulating businesses. I'm not OK with government regulating the lives of its private citizens.

As to how to regulate insurance companies, that's very complex and I don't feel like writing an essay at the moment. But as an example, insurance companies should not be allowed to declare a procedure, device, or drug "experimental" if it has been used in standard care for more than 2 years. A friend with cancer was denied a bone marrow transplant because her insurance company claimed that was still experimental. Never mind the fact that it's been done for decades now! Insurance companies operate on the principle of throwing up roadblocks in order to avoid paying what they are required to pay under the terms of the policy. They play a numbers game. Wrongfully deny 500 claims and 450 of those people will not have the time, energy, or patience to fight their ruling. So in the end, they only have to pay 50 instead of 500 claims. That's unethical behavior that should be made illegal.

That doesn't happen up here in Canada because business does not play a part in our health care. Medical procedures are always a result of what the doctor or specialist decides is appropriate for the patient. Bone marrow transplants are standard in Canada, by the way.

There have been the occasional cases - these are not routine - where a patient can get a procedure done south of the border, something that is either fairly experimental or cannot be done here for some other reason, and in these instances our health care will pay for this procedure unless it is something really out of the mainstream. And even then, these patients can appeal to be reimbursed.

Though our federal government has mandated that all citizens have the right to health care, the actual programmes are run by the provinces, not federally.

As to this business of government regulating the lives of private citizens, I fail to see the connection. The only individual who has access to my health records is my doctor. Even when I want material sent on to another individual in my health team I have to personally sign release of information forms. Thus the government is entirely in the dark about my recent colonoscopy results - not that they would care, eh - just as my doctor has no idea as to what my taxable income is or my net worth.

[enterprise01 0]

That doesn't happen up here in Canada because business does not play a part in our health care. Medical procedures are always a result of what the doctor or specialist decides is appropriate for the patient

I've read posts from Britons who have been on waiting lists for years to get this surgery. And I've read posts from Canadians who have experienced similar obstacles. One woman from Canada was denied her surgery because the area in which she lived was only alloted x number of lap-band procedures for the year. Since that number of procedures had already been done, she was out of luck, at least for that year. I find it very alarming that patients would be put on a waiting list for surgery when there's no shortage of surgeons. Take a look at this thread: http://www.lapbandtalk.com/anyone-else-same-t30440.html?p=401888.

I'll take U.S. health care problems any day over these problems.

As to this business of government regulating the lives of private citizens, I fail to see the connection. The only individual who has access to my health records is my doctor. Even when I want material sent on to another individual in my health team I have to personally sign release of information forms. Thus the government is entirely in the dark about my recent colonoscopy results - not that they would care, eh - just as my doctor has no idea as to what my taxable income is or my net worth.

It's not about personal info, it's about the government having the authority to set policy about medical procedures or treatments. (See my above rant about waiting lists!) When insurance companies do this, there is recourse (appeals, lawsuits, punitive damages). When government does it, there's very little recourse. Anyone who's handled a case in an administrative court of law knows what a joke the whole process is for appealing the decision of a governmental body.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Did anyone see "60 Minutes" this past Sunday.

Finally someone spoken out about the coming demise of our government and maybe our country as we know it, if something is not done very soon to stop putting off paying for what we use.

[Carlene 12]

Did anyone see "60 Minutes" this past Sunday.

Finally someone spoken out about the coming demise of our government and maybe our country as we know it, if something is not done very soon to stop putting off paying for what we use.

I did! And it was chilling! One of the things it hit home about was the Medicare RX bill, calling it the most ill-thought out, catastrophic piece of legislation in American history. It commits us to TRILLIONS of dollars that we don't have, and no way of raising except to increase taxes and cut benefits even more to the general population.

Folks, when the old people who supposedly will benefit from this bill tell you that it's a bad idea, maybe you should listen.

George Bush pushed this thru for the benefit of big business (drug companies and companies with defined pension plans who were allowed to pass their obligation for retirees' drug costs off to YOU - the taxpayers). If you aren't mad as hell over this, I don't know what it would take to shake your blind faith in the shrub.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I did! And it was chilling! One of the things it hit home about was the Medicare RX bill, calling it the most ill-thought out, catastrophic piece of legislation in American history. It commits us to TRILLIONS of dollars that we don't have, and no way of raising except to increase taxes and cut benefits even more to the general population.

Folks, when the old people who supposedly will benefit from this bill tell you that it's a bad idea, maybe you should listen.

George Bush pushed this thru for the benefit of big business (drug companies and companies with defined pension plans who were allowed to pass their obligation for retirees' drug costs off to YOU - the taxpayers). If you aren't mad as hell over this, I don't know what it would take to shake your blind faith in the shrub.

The gentleman that spoke, Mr. Walker is the first person to make a stink about this issue since the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan.

If the Democrats can pass the legislation to force the Medicare Department to negotiate drug prices in the Senate, and IF WE CAN PUT PRESSURE ON BUSH not to veto the bill, it will save the country TRILLION$.

[musicalmomma 1]

I know I'm not a boomer...or vet...but I just wanted to say that National Health Care, as in the UK is NOT all it's cracked up to be. My husband is from the UK and his family still lives there. No one wants to be a nurse because it pays diddly (nurses here think they have it bad pay wise, but it's nothing compared to the UK). So care in the hospital is seriously lacking and that's IF you can get into the hospital when needed. If you need surgery...good luck! Unless you are ready to draw your last breath, you are not a priority. Only the privatized hospital provide good care and most can't afford it because a tiny little town house costs upwards of $200k...my in-laws sold their modest 3br town home, in a modest suburb, for $400k! DH and I thought of starting our lives together there in the UK, and realized we wouldn't be able to maintain our standard of living there because the job that paid him $20 an hour (9 years ago) would have only paid him $12 an hour there. And if something is $15 here...it's 15 pounds there...about $23! We don't have it as bad here as we'd like to think. We've just overindulged ourselves so much since the 50's that somethings gotta give! National health care isn't the answer imho.

[Carlene 12]

I continue to be surprised by the fearful attitudes which so many Americans display towards universal health care, particularly now that the legislation has changed and you can no longer shed a crippling health bill of half a million dollars or so by declaring bankruptcy.

Green...

I'm not afraid of universal helath care, IF we can find a reasonable, responsible way to pay for it. Just saying the government is going to pick up the tab isn't enough. We have to have some provision in place that will fund it.

Bush has put us in extreme financial jeopardy with his Medicare RX bill, and says he will veto attempts to reform it. We can't begin to think about nationalized health care until we get this mess "fixed", IMHO. And make some much-needed improvements in the health care program for veterans. Bush screwed those guys/girls royally. First he stopped open enrollment for benefits, then he sent a whole new generation off to war.