Hillary says she has never been in favor of socialized medicine

[Scott & Lai 12]

While we are talking about NHC ... lets also nationalize Auto Insurance and Life Insurance

Same thought process ...

Not even close.

Can you distinguish between a want and a need?

Considering that it is illegal to drive without insurance (in CA, at least), auto insurance absolutely is a need.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

While we are talking about NHC ... lets also nationalize Auto Insurance and Life Insurance

Same thought process ...

Not even close.

Can you distinguish between a want and a need?

Considering that it is illegal to drive without insurance (in CA, at least), auto insurance absolutely is a need.

If you want to operate an automobile it is.

While we are talking about NHC ... lets also nationalize Auto Insurance and Life Insurance

Same thought process ...

Not even close.

Can you distinguish between a want and a need?

I need to drive to a health care facility (no public transportation near me)

No public transportation where you want to live, eh?

[trailmix 77]

What would it cost for a non-Canadian citizen to have the same procedure performed in Canada?

Insurance is insurance. You pay auto insurance for the same reason ... yes ?

I don't know what it would cost to treat strep throat if you weren't covered in Canada, however I can tell you what a Doctor's office visit costs. I know someone who was here visiting in June, he needed to go to the Doctor, it cost him $ 30.00.

He was given a prescription for broad spectrum antibiotics which were between 40-60 dollars if I remember correctly (we pay for our own drugs here by the way, they are not covered by provincial health care - they are however subsidized for lower income persons and seniors).

Also, thanks for the link Jenn.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, your eating the propaganda if you think its going to be more expensive. Lets compare the US and Japan.

Percentage of GDP spent on health care

US: 16%

Japan: 7%

Ranking in quality

US: 24 (After Isreal and Germany)

Japan: 1

Ranking in Distribution

US: 32

Japan: 3

Responsiveness

US: 1

Japan: 6

Overall Ranking

US: 37

Japan: 10

So Gary, we spend way way more than any other country in the world. But we are unable to provide the best quality care or even any care for our citizens. We are far behind all other developed countries. Unless you can justify why we need to spend so much more money, Ill send you an invoice for half of my insurance premiums each month.

When you consider how expensive it is to live in Japan I will still keep the way we do things. Sorry, not convincing at all.

[Dan J 277]

Gary, your eating the propaganda if you think its going to be more expensive. Lets compare the US and Japan.

Percentage of GDP spent on health care

US: 16%

Japan: 7%

Ranking in quality

US: 24 (After Isreal and Germany)

Japan: 1

Ranking in Distribution

US: 32

Japan: 3

Responsiveness

US: 1

Japan: 6

Overall Ranking

US: 37

Japan: 10

So Gary, we spend way way more than any other country in the world. But we are unable to provide the best quality care or even any care for our citizens. We are far behind all other developed countries. Unless you can justify why we need to spend so much more money, Ill send you an invoice for half of my insurance premiums each month.

When you consider how expensive it is to live in Japan I will still keep the way we do things. Sorry, not convincing at all.

Thats the whole point of using percentage of GDP as a measurement of cost. All economies are relative. The size of the economy doesn't matter, or the cost of living in those economies.

You still have to justify why we need to spend so much more money. If your reganganda was true, that government is inefficient over the private sector. Then Japan should be spend oh about 20% of thier GDP on healthcare. But guess what, they are not. So as you conservatives like to say, you need to be held accountable for the money you spend. Can you account for what we spend Gary?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Gary, your eating the propaganda if you think its going to be more expensive. Lets compare the US and Japan.

Percentage of GDP spent on health care

US: 16%

Japan: 7%

Ranking in quality

US: 24 (After Isreal and Germany)

Japan: 1

Ranking in Distribution

US: 32

Japan: 3

Responsiveness

US: 1

Japan: 6

Overall Ranking

US: 37

Japan: 10

So Gary, we spend way way more than any other country in the world. But we are unable to provide the best quality care or even any care for our citizens. We are far behind all other developed countries. Unless you can justify why we need to spend so much more money, Ill send you an invoice for half of my insurance premiums each month.

When you consider how expensive it is to live in Japan I will still keep the way we do things. Sorry, not convincing at all.

Thats the whole point of using percentage of GDP as a measurement of cost. All economies are relative. The size of the economy doesn't matter, or the cost of living in those economies.

You still have to justify why we need to spend so much more money. If your reganganda was true, that government is inefficient over the private sector. Then Japan should be spend oh about 20% of thier GDP on healthcare. But guess what, they are not. So as you conservatives like to say, you need to be held accountable for the money you spend. Can you account for what we spend Gary?

I can help a little with that:

At UnitedHealth Group Inc. of Minneapolis, the largest health insurer in the nation, CEO William McGuire earned $12 million in salary and bonuses in 2006, according to a database compiled by organized labor from federal records.

McGuire, a medical doctor, drew plenty of criticism in 2004 when it was revealed he was paid an incredible $124.8 million that year.

Other big health-insurer executive paydays last year include $21 million for Cigna Corp. CEO Edward Hanway, $19.8 million for Aetna Inc. head Ronald Williams and $5.8 million for Michael McAllister, the CEO at Humana Inc.

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2007/08/0...01080607_02.txt

[GaryC 7]

I can help a little with that:

At UnitedHealth Group Inc. of Minneapolis, the largest health insurer in the nation, CEO William McGuire earned $12 million in salary and bonuses in 2006, according to a database compiled by organized labor from federal records.

McGuire, a medical doctor, drew plenty of criticism in 2004 when it was revealed he was paid an incredible $124.8 million that year.

Other big health-insurer executive paydays last year include $21 million for Cigna Corp. CEO Edward Hanway, $19.8 million for Aetna Inc. head Ronald Williams and $5.8 million for Michael McAllister, the CEO at Humana Inc.

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2007/08/0...01080607_02.txt

Ah, so this is about how much someone makes. Class envy again.

I like the way my health care is. I don't want it to change. It serves me very well.

[Dan J 277]

I can help a little with that:

At UnitedHealth Group Inc. of Minneapolis, the largest health insurer in the nation, CEO William McGuire earned $12 million in salary and bonuses in 2006, according to a database compiled by organized labor from federal records.

McGuire, a medical doctor, drew plenty of criticism in 2004 when it was revealed he was paid an incredible $124.8 million that year.

Other big health-insurer executive paydays last year include $21 million for Cigna Corp. CEO Edward Hanway, $19.8 million for Aetna Inc. head Ronald Williams and $5.8 million for Michael McAllister, the CEO at Humana Inc.

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2007/08/0...01080607_02.txt

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...mp;qpid=1114574

VisaJourney.com -> Replying in Hillary says she has never been in favor of socialized medicine

Ah, so this is about how much someone makes. Class envy again.

I like the way my health care is. I don't want it to change. It serves me very well.

So you would buy an average American car (OK but not great quality) for twice as much as a luxury import car? Thats basically the way the US health care system is, in terms you might be able to understand.

[trailmix 77]

I like the way my health care is. I don't want it to change. It serves me very well.

Me, my, I. Gary, I see your point and I see where you are coming from and I also think it is a waste of time to try to convince you otherwise. You are looking out for yourself and your family and to hell with everyone else.

So be it, you are entitled to your opinion.

[natty bumppo 297]

While we are talking about NHC ... lets also nationalize Auto Insurance and Life Insurance

Same thought process ...

Not even close.

Can you distinguish between a want and a need?

Considering that it is illegal to drive without insurance (in CA, at least), auto insurance absolutely is a need.

If you want to operate an automobile it is.

While we are talking about NHC ... lets also nationalize Auto Insurance and Life Insurance

Same thought process ...

Not even close.

Can you distinguish between a want and a need?

I need to drive to a health care facility (no public transportation near me)

No public transportation where you want to live, eh?

Unfortunately in many places a vehicle is required to perform certain tasks ... work, visit a health care provider. It is not a "want to live" somewhere special, it is affordable housing or even housing period (who wants to live in an industrial park, inside a waste water treatment plant, refinery, coal mine, etc). Places with public transportation (Boston, NYC, SF, Chicago, etc) do not meet the requirements for all jobs. How many farms are within walking distance of the EL, MBTA, etc? Or, how many engineering firms or manufacturers supporting oil are located in NYC or Boston? Or doctors, medical centers are there in "Corn field Iowa" (kinda an important place if people want to eat as there aren't many farms or gardens along the NYC, MBTA, etc subway system to feed the people).

Not everyplace in the world has the infrastructure to make a vehicle "a luxury". And not everyplace can support everyone's career. Yes people choose to have a career ... career growth ... etc. so they can afford among many things ... to eat.

There are many places I want to live. I don't live in these places because there is not a strong local job market, health care, etc.

And ... you don't need healthcare, this is a want.

You need food, water, and air.

[Ban Hammer 13,752]

At what cost to people who are working?

Comparing the US system to the UK or any other country ... apples and oranges.

Either way we all pay, but with what I now pay through my employer for health insurance with very few actual benefits, I'd much rather pay into something that will provide affordable care for all. My copayments are ridiculous and I believe children should receive health care with no copayments. Children should be covered 100%. Period. End of story.

Well said!

how do you propose we pay for that? more taxes?

I'm currently paying about $250 per month for health insurance. If we can have universal coverage that costs me less than that in added tax, most of us will be saving money rather than it being an added financial burden.

mine runs about $35 a month, no thanks.......

Military, yes? That means that you have socialized health care.

you can too just sign on the dotted line

[Dr. Obvious 49]

And ... you don't need healthcare, this is a want.

You need food, water, and air.

Well, I know the doctor will readily agree while you are dying of a heart attack.

[GaryC 7]

I can help a little with that:

At UnitedHealth Group Inc. of Minneapolis, the largest health insurer in the nation, CEO William McGuire earned $12 million in salary and bonuses in 2006, according to a database compiled by organized labor from federal records.

McGuire, a medical doctor, drew plenty of criticism in 2004 when it was revealed he was paid an incredible $124.8 million that year.

Other big health-insurer executive paydays last year include $21 million for Cigna Corp. CEO Edward Hanway, $19.8 million for Aetna Inc. head Ronald Williams and $5.8 million for Michael McAllister, the CEO at Humana Inc.

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2007/08/0...01080607_02.txt

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...mp;qpid=1114574

VisaJourney.com -> Replying in Hillary says she has never been in favor of socialized medicine

Ah, so this is about how much someone makes. Class envy again.

I like the way my health care is. I don't want it to change. It serves me very well.

So you would buy an average American car (OK but not great quality) for twice as much as a luxury import car? Thats basically the way the US health care system is, in terms you might be able to understand.

Thats the point, when the government gets involved the quality will go down. Tell me why people from Canada are coming here to buy outright health care when they can get it free there? It's because the government decides who gets what. I don't want the government involved in any way in deciding what my health care decisions are. It is none of their business. I find it strange that the very people that distrust the government in so many ways are so ready to turn over their health care to the very same people. It makes no sense at all.

I don't trust the government. I don't want them to have the power of my health care over me.

And ... you don't need healthcare, this is a want.

You need food, water, and air.

Well, I know the doctor will readily agree while you are dying of a heart attack.

Thats BS. It's the law here that no one is denied emergency care.

[Dan J 277]

I can help a little with that:

At UnitedHealth Group Inc. of Minneapolis, the largest health insurer in the nation, CEO William McGuire earned $12 million in salary and bonuses in 2006, according to a database compiled by organized labor from federal records.

McGuire, a medical doctor, drew plenty of criticism in 2004 when it was revealed he was paid an incredible $124.8 million that year.

Other big health-insurer executive paydays last year include $21 million for Cigna Corp. CEO Edward Hanway, $19.8 million for Aetna Inc. head Ronald Williams and $5.8 million for Michael McAllister, the CEO at Humana Inc.

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2007/08/0...01080607_02.txt

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...mp;qpid=1114574

VisaJourney.com -> Replying in Hillary says she has never been in favor of socialized medicine

Ah, so this is about how much someone makes. Class envy again.

I like the way my health care is. I don't want it to change. It serves me very well.

So you would buy an average American car (OK but not great quality) for twice as much as a luxury import car? Thats basically the way the US health care system is, in terms you might be able to understand.

Thats the point, when the government gets involved the quality will go down. Tell me why people from Canada are coming here to buy outright health care when they can get it free there? It's because the government decides who gets what. I don't want the government involved in any way in deciding what my health care decisions are. It is none of their business. I find it strange that the very people that distrust the government in so many ways are so ready to turn over their health care to the very same people. It makes no sense at all.

I don't trust the government. I don't want them to have the power of my health care over me.

For one, we don't have to implement a system like Canada's to get benefits of universal health care.

As far as quality goes, How come all the developed countries that implement some form of socialized health care, are ranked ahead of us in terms of quality? Your argument that quality will go down, doesn't fit with the way health care is in Japan or France. Both countries have socialized health care systems, they both spend a fraction of what we do. And they are ranked higher than us in terms of quality. So show me how quality will drop?

And you still have yet to account for the cost of the US health care system.

Edited August 11, 2007 by Dan + Gemvita

[GaryC 7]

I can help a little with that:

At UnitedHealth Group Inc. of Minneapolis, the largest health insurer in the nation, CEO William McGuire earned $12 million in salary and bonuses in 2006, according to a database compiled by organized labor from federal records.

McGuire, a medical doctor, drew plenty of criticism in 2004 when it was revealed he was paid an incredible $124.8 million that year.

Other big health-insurer executive paydays last year include $21 million for Cigna Corp. CEO Edward Hanway, $19.8 million for Aetna Inc. head Ronald Williams and $5.8 million for Michael McAllister, the CEO at Humana Inc.

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2007/08/0...01080607_02.txt

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...mp;qpid=1114574

VisaJourney.com -> Replying in Hillary says she has never been in favor of socialized medicine

Ah, so this is about how much someone makes. Class envy again.

I like the way my health care is. I don't want it to change. It serves me very well.

So you would buy an average American car (OK but not great quality) for twice as much as a luxury import car? Thats basically the way the US health care system is, in terms you might be able to understand.

Thats the point, when the government gets involved the quality will go down. Tell me why people from Canada are coming here to buy outright health care when they can get it free there? It's because the government decides who gets what. I don't want the government involved in any way in deciding what my health care decisions are. It is none of their business. I find it strange that the very people that distrust the government in so many ways are so ready to turn over their health care to the very same people. It makes no sense at all.

I don't trust the government. I don't want them to have the power of my health care over me.

For one, we don't have to implement a system like Canada's to get benefits of universal health care.

As far as quality goes, How come all the developed countries that implement some form of socialized health care, are ranked ahead of us in terms of quality? Your argument that quality will go down, doesn't fit with the way health care is in Japan or France. Both countries have socialized health care systems, they both spend a fraction of what we do. And they are ranked higher than us in terms of quality. So show me how quality will drop?

And you still have yet to account for the cost of the US health care system.

Who is doing the ranking? I think we have the best health care right here. All I hear from these other countries is how things are rationed, costs are causing the taxes to go up and people generally don't like it.

Have your eyes wide open before you ask for something.

Health Care Cuts in Europe

by Paul Belien, The Brussels Journal

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

When conversations turn to health care, I am always reminded of my grandfather. He was 91 when he died. He had never been ill. He had never needed medical treatment in his whole life. Upon reaching his nineties, however, he required prostate surgery.

Like all Belgians, my grandfather had paid wage-related contributions to cover health insurance throughout his entire professional life. The Belgian health care system is a so-called pay-as-you-go system. Today’s young and healthy do not set money aside for their own future needs, but are compelled to pay for today’s sick and elderly. As my grandfather had never needed much health care, he had been a net contributor to the system. Now was the first time he was going to claim something back.

He had his operation in May. In November he was dead. The prostate operation had gone fine, but afterwards the hospital had given him an antibiotic drug that caused complete deafness. Though there were other, but costlier, drugs available, the hospital gave the old man the cheapest one. They knew about the side-effects, but it did not strike them as an unreasonable and unjust thing to do. Why should it? A man who has already had 90 healthy years of life surely has no right to complain about deafness when some people get more seriously ill or die at a far younger age. When my grandfather left the hospital he was completely deaf. He lost his will to live. Six months later, he was dead.

In many Western European countries, health care is the fastest growing segment of government spending. Over the past forty years there has been a significant increase in health-care spending. According to the latest OECD figures (2003), Western European countries spend between 7.3 and 11.5% of their gross domestic product on health care. Ten years ago it was between 6.9 and 9.9%. In 1960 it was only around 4%.

Much of the rise in Europe’s health-care costs is caused by factors beyond government control, such as demographic evolution. Another important cause of rising expenditure, however, is the advancement of better and newer – but more expensive – medical technology.

There are only two ways to keep the present government-run European health-care systems going. One can either drastically increase the financial burden on those at the paying end of the system – the young and healthy of today – or one can drastically limit the quality and the availability of health care for those at the receiving end – the sick and the elderly.

For decades governments increased the financial burden on the working population. When this burden became intolerable, they shifted their policies towards cutting back quality. In Europe there are medical treatments, operations or drugs which are not available to persons above a certain age, or to persons who are considered too sick, or to anyone at all. Political authorities, claiming to be the guardians of solidarity in society, decide who is allowed to get what kind of treatment, operation or drug. Soon euthanasia might be the price the solidarity principle of the welfare state imposes on those people whose health care is costing society the most. Politicians in Belgium and the Netherlands have already granted their citizens a “right to die” by means of a lethal (and cheap) euthanasia injection. Is this a new “freedom” that the state, which is constantly restricting every other aspect of our lives, generously bestows on us? Or does it boil down to “economic euthanasia,” which enables governments to save money by eliminating those that cost the welfare state too much?

Other ways in which many governments in Europe have tried to control health-care spending has been by drawing up “negative lists” of drugs which doctors are not allowed to prescribe. Drugs are put on the “negative” list not because they are harmful, but because they are high-quality goods that are deemed too expensive.

For almost a decade now, governments have been stifling medical innovation in Europe. Last month the American drug company Pfizer decided not to build a new plant in Belgium because the Belgian government has been constantly raising taxation on pharmaceuticals. The government wants to reduce pharmaceutical expenditure by limiting drugs. They reckon that by limiting supply, demand will go down. In the same way, European governments discourage young people from becoming doctors, dentists or nurses. Many countries allow only a limited number of people to study for a medical profession, despite the fact that, due to the demographic development and the growing number of elderly, more doctors and nurses will be needed in the future.

Last week young physiotherapists demonstrated in the streets of Brussels. In Belgium physiotherapists, like doctors and dentists, need a licence to be allowed to set up a practice. Without a licence, the services provided by these medical professions are not reimbursed by the sickness fund – and without such reimbursement it is impossible to get any patients. The government has just limited the annual number of physiotherapy licences to 270. As 410 young people completed their (4-year) physiotherapy studies this year, it means that 140 of them will not be able to use their degree, unless they leave Belgium. The minister of Education says this is the fault of the universities: they are required to make the exams more difficult so that only the government prescribed number of 270 students can pass.

As is often the case, many of continental Europe’s policies are of German origin. In the early 1990s the German government, in a move designed to cut health-care costs, limited – and in some cases completely blocked – access to new drugs and medical technology. Since 1993 the German government has set separate budgets for each segment of the health-care market, with provisions of heavy sanctions if these budgets are exceeded. The 1993 pharmaceutical budget was set at $15 billion – a 9.1% cut from 1992. The government ruled that money spent over the budget would be taken out of doctors’ incomes. This caused a 25% drop in spending on medicine. Similarly, the sale of the seven largest research-intensive drug manufacturers fell by 16.5%, while the sales of generics (copycat drugs which are cheap because they are no longer protected by patents) rose by 36%.

While these measures were successful in the field of cost control, they had devastating consequences for the pharmaceutical industry. The German pharmaceutical companies, no longer keen on developing new drugs, saw their world-wide share of drug patents drop to 8% from 16%. Doctors, afraid that they would have to pay the pharmaceutical bills out of their own pockets, started to refer their patients to specialists and hospitals. Patients with minor illnesses, requiring common and cheaper medicines were helped, but the doctors would “dump” their more serious cases instead of treating them in more costly ways. As a result, in 1993 Germany saw an increase of 10% in hospital patients and 9% in referrals to specialists.

The next year a similar phenomenon occurred at the level of the hospitals. They, too, were assigned budgets that they were not allowed to exceed. Consequently German hospitals, faced with patients who might cost too much, referred them to university clinics, which by law are not allowed to refuse patients. “Patients are being turned away, acutely ill patients are wandering from clinic to clinic, and expensive drugs are being withheld from cancer sufferers,” the German weekly Der Spiegel wrote in 1994 (April 11). “Money is being saved – even if it costs lives to do so. Whenever possible many hospitals are turning away expensive patients covered by the sickness funds. The only good patient is a cheap patient.”

Unfortunately, the German system has become the European model. Politicians in neighbouring welfare states, noticing the drop in German health expenditure, started to follow the German example. The only thing that mattered in their eyes was cost control. Many adopted the policy of adding drug volume control to price control and finally to prescription control. France introduced so-called negative recommendations, telling doctors what they are allowed to prescribe and what not. These recommendations have been made compulsory and doctors risk heavy financial penalties if they go against them.

At the root of these decisions is the understandable desire of governments to control health-care costs. But rationing is clearly not the answer. What many governments in Western Europe have overlooked is that there is nothing wrong with a society devoting more of its resources to health care. This even appears to be an indication of prosperity. The higher and the more developed a society becomes, the more its citizens are willing to spend on keeping healthy. Modern technology makes everything cheaper except the highest quality of medical care, which is constantly improving. To try to limit access to this technology in the name of “cost-control” is irresponsible.

Meanwhile, the larger and more fundamental problem of how to finance the health-care systems is not adressed. Instead of funding the provisions of today’s sick with taxes from today’s healthy and young, people should be building up reserves for their own future liabilities. What Europe needs is to replace its pay-as-you-go systems by privatized and capitalized health-care systems. This, however, would imply that the governments relinquish control over the system, which is the very last thing they are willing to do.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/brussels112305.htm