A case for healthcare reform?
Charleston, West Virginia: Johanna Ridenour is a part of the president's fight-back. Democrats want people to tell their own stories about the shortcomings of America's healthcare system. She has answered the call of public radio in West Virginia and wants people to know what she has been through. She's a bright and bubbly student, who looks much younger than her 24 years. Except for her hands, which are twisted like an old woman's by arthritis, a condition she has had since she was 16.
When I meet her, it is a good day. She has no trouble walking and getting up, and is enthusiastic about her new apartment, but she has had days of terrible despair. When she had a job and health insurance, it was nearly worthless to her. It covered $500 worth of prescription drugs. That would buy her enough of her main medicine for two weeks but she needs lots of other pills as well.
She managed to get onto a programme run by a drug company which gave her a free supply. But the corporate road to hell is paved with good intentions: their programme was designed for those without cover, and when they found out she had insurance, the free drugs stopped. For more than a year she was in agony, her mother had to carry her to the bathroom and she could only walk on crutches.
Finally, she got out of her insurance - apparently not easy - and is back on the free scheme. But not having any insurance isn't comfortable. Not long ago she was in a bad car accident. She drove off the road, it turned over and a pole smashed through the windscreen.
"Me and the passenger both had to get cut out of the car. It was terrible. It was horrible and my whole thought process was 'I can't get in this ambulance because I am not going to be able to afford it. I am not going to be able to go to the emergency room. I mean, I am in a wreck where I almost died and I am worried about getting treatment because I am not going to be able to afford it. Like I am not going to set foot in that ambulance because it is, I think around $11,000 a ride."
She tells me that she has thought of trying to live in Britain, or Canada or France. She can't believe that she lives in the richest country in the world, with some of the best medical treatment, but is excluded from it.
She says: "Medicine and health should not be a business and it should not be about money... When did people become so selfish that because someone doesn't make as much money as them, they should die?"
President Obama, speaking on Labor day, accused opponents of not coming up with any answers. He was being partisan. I ask, out of objective interest, what do those who oppose reform think of Johanna's case?
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~14~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Mr Mardell.
Sad isn't it.But a very American story.I just hope that you will find a few moments in your busy life to see the effects of government policy over 175 years on the indigenous peoples of the country, and in particular the third world conditions that exist on Pine Ridge reservation of the Lakotah Sioux in South Dakota.
These people have the lowest life expectancy in the world(excluding Aids,or the ninth in the world including Aids, the other eight are in Africa)There is a human story here that gets ignored by many, which I am sure is due to the fact that the colonists do not want to be reminded of the effects of their colonisation on the first nations.
It is wholly irresponsible not to include American Indians when reporting on the country,in fear of upsetting the false view that America is some sort of utopia.You are free to be responsible.
Complain about this comment
As someone in the UK who (not my main disability, but a part of it now) also has arthritis, though not yet so badly in my hands, the story horrifies me.
God knows the days when I can't walk very well, even with my own crutch, or the pain is bad despite the drugs and I have to stay at home, are depressing and frustrating enough, but to end up like that for a year--or to fear it might be the rest of my life--because I didn't have access to the drugs, hospital treatment and occasional physiotherapy to give me some semblance of a 'normal' life, would make me close to suicidal. And that is not some blithely casual throwaway phrase.
I have more than a suspicion that I already know at least two of the 'practical' answers "those who oppose reform" are going to offer up, but apart from trying to illustrate the differences between our two systems in their practical effects, I won't pre-empt them.
(Oh, and I don't want sympathy. I've made pretty light of my own situation here in this debate--and I and my closest friends even have our own private, if somewhat 'black' jokes about it--but maybe I shouldn't have done if it takes this kind of thing to get the idea of unnecessary injustice across.)
Complain about this comment
""Medicine and health should not be a business and it should not be about money... When did people become so selfish that because someone doesn't make as much money as them, they should die?""
Perhaps doctors and nurses should work for free. We could get them to live in government owned dormatories and feed them in government funded cafeterias. In between eating and sleeping, they could devote their entire lives to medical care. Maybe they could get a week off for a vacation once every five years. Where does it end? Shouldn't we extend that so that everyone in the entire world gets free medical care at American taxpayer expense? Isn't the life of a Ugandan worth as much as an American life? Why should they do without just because they had the misfortune to be born in Uganda? From each according to his ability to each according to his need all over the world, one world government. One way to raise money for American taxpayer paid medical insurance would be for the US to cut off all foreign aid including voluntary private charitable contributions and withdraw all military forces from around the world. If the rest of the world starves to death and decides to kill each other over the crumbs, that will be their problem, not ours.
Complain about this comment
What's a windscreen?
Complain about this comment
Mark:
I ask, out of objective interest, what do those who oppose reform think of Johanna's case?
I am not opposing the healthcare reform since, it is really needed....
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
This is not suprising. Health tourism has become big business since US citizens have found it cheaper to fly to other countries to get much needed medical care.
In India this has become big business, and apparently even Italy gets its share of US health tourists.
And of course there is the fact that those treated in the US system are over treated to boost the bills.
It is well known in medical circles that US doctors are encouraged to promote the over testing and repeat testing of patients to help increase revenue yields. In one case apprently there was even a reluctance to admit someone had died on the table, such was the pressure to continue to charge - the operation continued for some time after.
It certainly says something that despite the enormous sums US citizens still have a shorter life span than those in other countries whihc spend vastly less.
That is the killing point.
Complain about this comment
Noone could have anything other than sympathy for Johanna's situation, but you need to remember that healthcare is not 'free' in Canada, Britain or France either - someone always has to pay.
You need to ask the other side of the question as well. If Johanna did indeed move abroad, how would the tax-payers in her new home feel about the taxes they have been paying for years being used to treat someone who has only come to live there to take advantage of the healthcare system?
I personally wouldn't mind, but I can't speak for everyone.
Complain about this comment
1. At 10:38am on 09 Sep 2009, alphamiguel wrote:
"These people have the lowest life expectancy in the world(excluding Aids,or the ninth in the world including Aids, the other eight are in Africa)There is a human story here that gets ignored by many, which I am sure is due to the fact that the colonists do not want to be reminded of the effects of their colonisation on the first nations.
It is wholly irresponsible not to include American Indians when reporting on the country,in fear of upsetting the false view that America is some sort of utopia.You are free to be responsible."
Good point. It is a sad fact that even now many Americans, particilarly on the right see Americans as being white, anglo saxons, when in fact this group's numbers are in serious decline.
The American nations are never mentioned in reviews of the US, it doesn't fit with the rosy image - slavery and lynching are airbrushed out of the picture for similar reasons.
Complain about this comment
I suspect that you are seeing this 'objectively' as a European (coming with a certain set of assumptions) having their first encounter with this strange polarized and dichotomous country. I would also suspect that you are going to be astonished by the vehemence of some of the responses that will shortly follow. Dare I suggest that the terms 'liberal bias' and 'socialism' or 'socialized medicine' will appear in some of these.
Complain about this comment
It truly amazes me that President Obama is facing a debate that he has to win. Surely this is a self justifying argument. It amazes me that the people of America and the powers that be cannot see this.
Mr Obama should stand before his people and tell them. Last November you trusted the highest office of the land and the most important job in the World to 'me'. Trust 'me' now to improve our Healthcare system for all understanding that our current system is not fit for purpose and is a blight on our own morality.
Complain about this comment
Dear Mr Mardell,
as a northern-Italian and a medical student, covered by one of the best public health services of the world, I'm really appalled by this story, and many others, where it is (sadly) obvious how the cracks in the American system are far wider than in the British or in the Italian ones.
I don't see how a country which should supposedly "deliver democracy" to other countries could apply such an "undemocratic" method to those in greatest need of help.
I can perfectly understand the economic aspects of the situation -insurance and pharmaceutical companies are making enormous profit out of the current private system- and in the same way I can understand (even if by no means I can justify it) how many politicians can bluntly oppose any change. What unsettles me most, though, are the people that keep supporting the current establishment. In particular I recently read an article on the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/08/AR2009090802985.html) describing how opposition to the Health Care Reform is rallying the Christian Right under the fear of the possibility (not even a certainty) that the new system will make abortion a free public service, thus, in their view, increasing the number of abortions.
Now, I'm at atheist, but I think the logic at the base of this assumption is flawed at best: is it really better to have thousands of deaths each year due to lack of insurance cover and several hundred thousands of missed treatments, with the connected higher social costs, rather than risking a supposed increase in abortions?
Here in Italy abortion is a right, thus paid entirely by the Regional (former National) Health Service. It has been for quite many years now and one thing it is statistically clear: a good welfare system, aiding young and/or distressed mothers DOES change the number of abortions.
So, why don't pull of this reform, which goes a long way establishing a regime of "Christian Charity", ad divert (as President Obama vowed) greater amount of money to social aid, including maternity incentives?
Christian right, though, doesn't cover all the opposition by itself: I was astounded reading articles from the New York Times and Washington Post, few weeks ago, reporting how common people, in several occasion, demonstrated against the Reform asking President Obama why he was demonizing private insurers. Forgive me for saying this, but either such people are paid by the aforementioned insurers or he didn't understand how these institutions thrive literally over others pain, more dan a few times leaving those pour souls down. A concept, as I said, I found ugly at best.
Paul Waldman (senior correspondent for the Prospect) said, writing about those who object the reform "because our (American) Health Care System is the best in the world", that "[...] if a captain of industry can't buy better health care than the guy who cuts his lawn can, then the world just isn't functioning as it should". I daresay this joke fully expresses American social order based on one's wealth, a truly capitalistic vision of life itself in the case of Health Services.
Thank you for your patience.
Paolo Gris
Complain about this comment
3. At 12:05pm on 09 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
""Medicine and health should not be a business and it should not be about money... When did people become so selfish that because someone doesn't make as much money as them, they should die?""
Perhaps doctors and nurses should work for free. We could get them to live in government owned dormatories and feed them in government funded cafeterias. In between eating and sleeping, they could devote their entire lives to medical care. Maybe they could get a week off for a vacation once every five years. Where does it end? Shouldn't we extend that so that everyone in the entire world gets free medical care at American taxpayer expense? "
Have you had arthritis Marcus? HAve you seen someone with it? It is not too funny hearing someone scream with pain at having to get up, walk or hold a knife.
Still if they can't pay its what they deserve isn't it?
"Isn't the life of a Ugandan worth as much as an American life?"
Well not according to you. And we know why.
"One way to raise money for taxpayer paid medical insurance would be for the US to cut off all foreign aid including voluntary private charitable contributions and withdraw all military forces from around the world. If the rest of the world starves to death and decides to kill each other over the crumbs, that will be their problem, not ours."
Much more fun to watch a young girl crawl on her hands and knees in agony because her "rich" country beleives money is more important than life.
Complain about this comment
#3 Berk:
"Perhaps doctors and nurses should work for free.(blahblah)."
I think nobody in no country in this world ever asked for that and by ridiculing this case you only show that you have no real justification for a country which is undoubtfully among those able to help her the most not to do so. You often generalize human beings in the US to be better / more polite / friendlier / whatever than those in Europe, but when it comes to helping those who happen to be in a less fortunate situation I think even most native tribes do more to help them.
I don't support any form of socialism but pure unlimited egoism is not any healthier for a society than socialism is.
Complain about this comment
OK, Since I could only find MarcusAureliusII arguing Against a "Wonderful" Obama Health care, I would love to ask a few questions to those who support it -
1. Why are you guys so averse to the idea of a "corporate" world? Especially seeing that none of you guys (Pssttt, by guys I am pointing out to you Obama worshipers) are independent of the same system that you criticize. Some of you might be working for BBC, a huge profit run corporate which publishes only that news which will generate viewers. Let me go to the next step, anything and everything that you are associated with in the present world is profit driven and hence is "Corporate like" which implies that it is "evil." YOU guys have the right to criticize capitalistic views only when, and I repeat this, ONLY WHEN you guys stop working for profit and start living for others.
2. Now that aside, how can you expect someone to help some other person for free? Why would he/she do it? If you say Humanity is the reason, then I think it is fair enough to assume the same humanity from others directed towards these doctors right? So, that means, Medical education should be virtually free (taking nominal money for books etc.) and this implies that the entire staff of medical education system should be living for entirely free, because they cannot earn money off the skill that they possess and hence on humanity grounds, Baker should give them bread for free, a house owner should give them house for free, public transport should be free and where there is no public transport gas should be free. In one word everything should be free. But this everything is not appearing miraculously right? They are being produced by someone else. These are end products. So that means a baker should be either charging more for other non-medical consumers or he should be getting his bread for free. If he charges other consumers more, then tell me from where other consumers will get that money from? Because if you are following my thought process, you will finally end up serving everything for either free or for huge amounts.
3. Now, my last point. If Medical fees are lowered and they are offered for free to certain sections of the society (assuming that someone is deciding this "certain section") then you need to lower the legal expenses that a doctor has to face in case he / she screws up. For it is natural for a human being to screw up and once a doctor does it he/she is being levied huge charges. To cover these charges he/she goes in for an insurance, that insurance is obviously high because the risk is high. So, either lower the insurance, in which case you are taking away the initiative for any insurance company to insure a doctor or lower the legal expenses in which case you are encouraging flaws. If you remove the initiative and then force the insurance companies to still insure doctors then there is no difference between a socialist/nazi regime to yours. If you are lowering the legal expenses then there is no difference between a developing country and a developed nation.
You asked me for a case study and this is just the beginning. If you can bear with me I have a 10 point case analysis on this matter. Please get ready.
Complain about this comment
This is an excellent case study. She has a job. In the enterpeneurial American way of doing things, if you want more, you try to earn more. She wants a higher level of coverage, so...
When my father wanted a higher standard of living, he worked during the day and went to school nights to study an occupation that paid better. So, when I wanted a higher standard of living, I worked during the day and went to school at night to study an occupation that paid better.
p.s. I think auto insurance medical would apply to the ambulance ride.
Complain about this comment
I am personally in the middle - I believe that the health care industry needs reform but how much I am uncertain. Ins. companies are posting great profits but very little gets to the health care providers. Whether you're dr in private practice or a nurse practitioner in public health, it seems that that you are putting in more hours for less. I do think the US will end up with a 2 tier system much like the UK or Canada. It is unfair for in the US for so many families to be without coverage when we in the US know that the leading cause of bankruptcy is medical.
The Republicans in this case are reframing the debate to be about paying for ins. for deadbeats/people without jobs and choose not to work. It is difficult as a small business owner to provide ins. for employees and be competitive in the industry. Remember until recently WalMart (your place for cheap Chinese goods) while getting record profits refused to provide ins. for its employees at all leaving them at the mercy of the public Medicaid system.
Complain about this comment
This story is a good and accurate example of the U.S.'s health-care-for-CEO-and-stockholder-profits system. The young lady nails the issues on the head. Our country is one of the largest, most successful, yet our life expectancy is lower than other large countries;our rate of infant death is highest in equivalent countries; our costs are highest & our coverage is less than other large countries; and 47 million people are without. When most(I would bet 95%)of the citizens in this country have a horror health care story to tell about "pre-existing" conditions, not paying for cancer treatments or preventive care, etc., one as to follow the money. Our legislators who are against any reform are the ones who are making profits off the system themselves, whether through their own or their spouses' deals. Or, they are just plain ornery. What they are NOT, are public servants serving their duty -- to act for the common good. I am not optimistic about the reform, because our education systems stinks, too, and I am not sure the majority of our citizens are educated enough to demand it. Mark -- now that you are here in the US, can I take your place in the UK?? AT least there if I get sick, I will get good care. Besides, I love the accent.
Complain about this comment
Poor Johanna...and everyone in her situation. There are something like a hundred million of us who have to worry about arcana such as dual coverage, pre-existing conditions and whether we eat or pay for our medications this month. The President's own mother fought the insurance companies for coverage for her care from her deathbed...he tells that story in speeches occasionally. Why is this allowed to happen in "the richest country in the world?"
Because we do not regulate the insurance companies as heavily as they ought to be regulated, or require of them that they include sick people in their "pools." They make obscene profits; they are corporate entities that pay their CEO's multimillions in compensation and deny Johanna treatment for her arthritic condition because they have no incentive to treat her and every incentive to reward their stockholders and board members.
Complain about this comment
Oh what a dangled web you weave, when you practice to deceive!
No one is refused medical treatment when you go to the hospital, also there are indigent funds to help with medical costs!
Also if she is truly disabled there is Social Security Medicare, but she has to meet the requirements.
I would say she is pulling the wool over your eyes!
Complain about this comment
The fallacy is that Johanna thinks she can move to another nation.
Its a common wish among many Americans...well maybe I can move to X (Canada, Australia, etc) The reality is that unless you have a lot of money or a special skill...you are stuck in America.
Other nations imo love to see Americans as tourists..and spending dollars. They are not so warm to having Americans live there.
There is a view of entitlement that many Americans have that is not accurate. I suppose when things go wrong ..and they are going wrong..many in this group will blame socialism...rather than realizing that other western nations have developed a system that has compassion for one another.
On NPR (National Public Radio) this morning they talked about how scientists are now looking at the forensic evidence used to convict in a court of law. Some of the forensic tests have not been scientifically proven to be accurate so there are almost certainly people in jail who are innocent. And we just had an execution of an innocent man now in Texas. His little daughters died in a fire and some incompetent person "proved" in court that he had set the fire. After the misery of losing his children and spending 12 years on death row...they killed him in Texas.
Many Americans are mean spirited. Look at Marcus. He is an example
"If the rest of the world starves to death and decides to kill each other over the crumbs, that will be their problem, not ours."
Marcus quote
What a lovely sentiment and so so American.
Complain about this comment
Nice post Paolo_85, I completely agree with you, but then we were both raised in a system in which health care was never a question of money but simply self evident.
Interesting to know for that Mr. Waldman may it be to know that rich people still could get additional services from their chosen insurance companies (laser operations for their eyes or single bed rooms in hospitals for example). So having a state controlled health care is not completely contradicting the point that rich people can be treated better if they are willing to pay for it.
Complain about this comment
The American life span, or lack thereof, has as much to do with a rather poor American diet and lack of exercise as it has to do with health care.
Complain about this comment
The underlying ideology of the U.S., and particularly U.S. Conservatism, has been Capitalism, which is required to allocate resources on the basis of one's having the money to buy them. It's interesting that much of the German social welfare system was actually instituted by conservatives, the underlying ideology of Germany having been the welfare of Germans as essential to the strength and unity of the country. The same division exists between how different cultures regard the government--as the agent and expression of a nation, or as a constant danger to citizens' freedom and economic well-being.
The health care debate proceeds from first principles, on which there are fundamental disagreements, and have been since the country was founded. Principles are frequently not compassionate, even when they purport to be. The Dalai Lama actually said something to the effect that compassion is the true radicalism of the age.
Complain about this comment
Excellent article which sums up the current crazy situation in a nutshell.
As a Brit who moved to America a couple of years ago to run a small business I am constantly amazed at how some people in my area who are too poor to afford medical insurance, but too rich to get assistance, still froth at the mouth when "socialized medicine" is mentioned and will fight diligently to protect their freedom from helthcare being imposed on them! I love the country and the people, but USA politics leaves me dumbfounded.
The motto of New Hampshire where I live: "Live Free or Die!" Says it all really.
Complain about this comment
What I do not understand is how people talk about the cost of providing the care. But never talk about the cost of not providing the care? The cost of not providing the care is much greater. It is that simple. People will have a better life. What does that translate to? I do not think you can even imagine.
Complain about this comment
Dear Mr. Mardell,
As I know that the BBC prides itself on accuracy, you might want to inform your website editors that the otherwise informative current article "US Healthcare: Who Wants What" has confused Medicare and Medicaid on its graphics. Medicare is for 65+ and Medicaid is for the poor (the opposite of what the graphic states).
This blog entry invites a false debate: supporters vs. opponents of reform. I believe there is wide public consensus that health care reform is needed. The debate is about the type and extent of the reforms. Furthermore, while I sympathize with Ms. Ridenour's situation, her rhetoric is a bit extreme; she is not "dying," and her drugs are being provided for her. I would be interested to know whether she is on Medicaid or Social Security disability before commenting on the pathos of her history and its relevance to the reform debate.
Complain about this comment
This is a sad story, clearly, and I am an American in favor of health care reform, but in the opposite direction from most: I think we should get the government out of the system and deregulate it.
So you know, I have several part-time jobs and therefore have to buy my own insurance. I do not have a situation like Johanna's, but I do know people who worry all the time that they'll lose their insurance and not be able to get some because of a pre-existing condition. The problem is that competition between insurance companies is so restricted there's no option for someone suffering from arthritis, or a say cancer survivor, who is not covered through their job, and sometimes then the coverage is not enough.
In Europe I know the state provides insurance, and as a graduate student in the UK I was covered under the NHS for two years. I grant you it was nice to get medicine which cost less than the change in my couch, but the system was wildly inefficient (wait times, no appointments, people coming to the doctor for colds because it was free..). I also know someone in Canada who died of skin cancer because her GP diagnosed it incorrectly and refused to refer her to a dermatologist.
I'd rather pay my monthly fee and be able to see the doctor I want, when I want. My medicine costs a little more, sometimes $200 for one bottle, which is hard, but I get what I need, including preventative care.
I think freeing up the market will create hundreds more options for all Americans, including those with conditions like Johanna's. And that's clearly the problem, she hasn't any options. I'm just of the opinion that the government is a poor one.
Complain about this comment
I wonder out of what dark, damp cave some of these opponents of health-care reform retrieve their information. The US can easily afford some form of universal health care. The country spends around half a trillion dollars on toys for its military, and no one seems to complain. But that is part of the nation's general technophilia.
Such stories as that of this young woman are scandalous. But the rabid opponents of health care don't care either way. Look at those arguments.... As if doctors in Switzerland, the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Hungary, Poland, etc... lived in dormitories!! Who sold these people that piece of junk? How come people who can read and write buy it?
One reason I left my native country, the USA, was because of its medieval labor and insurance practices. And I WAS insured! Had one operation that was seriously botched (a simple hernia, of all things), and then another on the same day, was chased out of the hospital a day later while barely able to walk (the cut bled for three days): The insurance wouldn't pay more hospital days, and my employer was already looking for a replacement. I was re-operated in Munich, thank goodness, and the surgeon there told me point blank after the operation: "You were butchered." The operation in Germany cost me nothing, I spent 6 days in hospital and had magnificient care.
I was also appalled at the educational system, having taught as a TA at University. There were high-school kids who were barely literate. Worse, they were unable to collate two or three ideas and mix and match them. Their thinking moved along on the basis of simplistic syllogisms, usually based on some specious premises. The vociferous and mostly crackpot opposition to Obama's health care package proves me right.
Complain about this comment
What confuses me is that she had to get out of her healthcare provider to get the free drugs she needed. The biggest selling point we have been hearing so far is that everyone should have healthcare; but what if the program you fall into doesn't go far enough or doesn't offer the drugs?
It seems not the right arguements are being made since most of what we hear is "universal healthcare," but what is and isn't included in that? Maybe we should simply regulate the insurance companies to be more open to drugs and or somehow reduce the costs of drugs by allowing generic versions earlier than what is currently setup at.
Complain about this comment
Hi Mark,
Good to have you up and blogging again. Are there any plans for someone to pick up your mantle on the Europe front?
Complain about this comment
This is the problem with government by anectdote. The lady's situation is sad and regrettable, but a recent poll by the CATO Institute - admittedly a libertarian think tank - found that 90% of the UNinsured are generally happy with their health care. Indeed, the principle complaint is not coverage it is cost.
It is axiomatic that hard cases make bad law, and this is the problem with Mr.Mardell's analysis. Universal coverage is certainly a desirable goal, but our problem right now is the cost.
Expanding coverage without appropriate cost controls would be financially disastrous - particularly for a country like the United States, which is the world's largest debtor nation. Miss Ridenou's case is sad, but if we govern only in the light of her case, and cases like hers, without regard to harsher realities, we will bankrupt ourselves.
The tragedy is, as Livy said, "We can bear neither our shortcomings nor the remedies for them."
Complain about this comment
A traditional American folk song 'All My Trials' captures the pathos of healthcare in America in its verse which goes, " If living were a thing that money could buy, the rich would live and the poor would die."
The American healthcare debate has been framed by the rich conservatives using poor virtually inarticulate protesters screaming imprecations about the unknown dangers of big government which is all right if it pays for more tanks but not healthcare.
Complain about this comment
With all due respect to the Obama brain trust, this is precisely how health care reform should not be sold.
In a country of 300m people there will always be egregious examples to support or oppose almost any system. Those selectively chosen, and often well nigh outright deceitful, examples are of no probative value, because they tell us almost nothing about the strengths and weaknesses of the system as an whole.
The great irony here is that there really isn't a substantive reasoned discussion underway about health care. The real impediments here are America's pathetic schools, and its system of political finance.
With even a modestly effective system of education, the scare tactics, the deliberate misinformation, employed by opponents of health care reform would be seen for what they are and become the butt of ridicule.
But no, we have wild eyed paranoid crazies telling reporters in all seriousness that Obama is the same as Hitler, while the next wacko tells the reporter that Obama's health care reform is both "Socialism" and "Communism". The main thing this tells the viewer is that the school system has failed to teach these people anything about (a) Hitler; (b) Socialism; and (c) Communism.
It makes your head spin that people who appear to be normal otherwise can spout this stuff.
Without the current system of campaign finance, the opponents of reform wouldn't have any leverage in Congress.
Nobody starting from scratch would propose the US health care system as it presently stands. On a straight up choice between existing alternatives, who would vote for something that (a) leaves 1/6 of the people without coverage (b) leaves a further 1/4 with inadequate coverage (c) costs roughly twice as much as the alternatives; and (d) doesn't produce any better results? But it does have inertia going for it - reflected by an awesome ability to lobby Congress, and an apparently bottomless warchest.
So instead of merely fighting the health care battle, Obama is fighting a three headed monster: Health Care, Education, Campaign Finance Reform. Some holy trinity. And it is made worse because the US has no effective non-commercial public broadcaster prepared to cut through the accumulation of taural (or, I suppose, pachydermal) droppings.
For those of us who live in countries that already have public health care, have had for many years, and where it is now taken for granted, watching the news reports from the US on this topic is surreal.
What colossal level of ignorance of world affairs does it take for average Americans not to realize
(a) that the US is the only major developed nation not to have public health care;
(b) that US health care is roughly twice as expensive per capita as the reaonable public health care alternatives in other rich industrialized countries that produce comparable or better overall results;
(c) that there is a smorgasbord of acceptable health care models in other OECD countries from which to choose, most of which have been working successfully for half a century;
(d) that the sky has not fallen in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Spain, Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, ... ;
(e) that all of these countries are pluralistic democracies with market economies;
(f) that no matter what problems they have with their publicly funded systems, not one of the countries that has public health care would vote to go back to the dark ages of a private fee-for-service system?
Do they really believe the UK is run by communists?
Do they really believe that France is run by Hitler?
Do they really believe that under Swedish health care senior citizens are systematically left to die to save money?
Do they really believe that the Germans are "baby killers" because they have public health care?
But the circus just goes on, and on, and on, like an endless real life version of the "She's a witch" scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Insanity.
Complain about this comment
Its all about profits and how to maximize them for the corporations.
The lies, the manipulation...the espousal of capitalism or whatever philosophy etc...These are all red herrings.
This is about how to get the most money and power...end of story.
The US is filled with people with Madoff's sense of morality. There are so many lies now...no one knows what the truth is.
Complain about this comment
I am an American who is desperate to leave America. As one poster had pointed out many are "too poor" for health insurance "too rich" for assistance( which is true for me!) Several years ago my sister had dinner with British friends and they were astonished that people die rather than seek medical help here. My sister and I are unemployed( I was laid off, she has mental illness keeping her from working so I take care of us both) but even when I was employed health insurance was beyond my reach. I had rent to pay, bills to pay, groceries to buy and couldn't afford the insurance my employer offered If I received a pay raise the next week the health insurance payment went up and swallowed any gain made. It was almost a given that you would lose your entire raise to the new health insurance fees. I have not had health insurance in about eight years. Because of this two things have happened A) I started working out at home, walking and changing my diet( To veggies and fruit only and whatever is on sale that I can afford. No expensive food just basics)I lost weight and luckily am physically stronger than ever. B) I Have made a deal with myself, I get sick- I know I can't treat it. If it's a fatal disease like cancer I am giving up. Kind of like laying down in your bed when your house is on fire. If you have no place to go you lay there and die. I've been forced to become a believer in Natural selection.
I treat myself with natural remedies and have not had prescribed medication in years, which isn't a bad thing for me.
I supported Obama's Health insurance at first because I assumed it would be socialised like NHS. Then I heard about the Penalties involved if you do not buy the government insurance, If I can't afford health insurance how can I afford to be monetarily penalised? I totally and very sadly lost faith in Obama over this because I feel suddenly like a common criminal. I feel like I'm walking on an even higher more frightening tightrope than before.
I am wanting to immigrate to England as soon as I can. A family friend married a British man and says NHS saved her life, she tells us constantly if she were still in America she'd be dead.
That about sums it up!
Complain about this comment
"I ask, out of objective interest, what do those who oppose reform think of Johanna's case?"
The objection is not to health care reform; it is to the present plan for reform. The plan Obama is pushing does not address the fundamental issue driving up costs.
Complain about this comment
19 you are one of two things
Ignorant or a liar Which is it.
IF buts are not a system
Complain about this comment
"regulate the insurance companies to be more open to drugs "
Yea I'll have half an oz then please.
Seriously they are very very amenable to drugs. that is part of the problem. I don't know where you live but the drug adverts on TV saying "go see your doctor" are pretty big in the advertising revenue totals. There was an article a couple of days ago about over prescription of drugs from shrinks.
many of americas health problems are related to excessive prescriptions and you want more.
Complain about this comment
Just few days ago a young man washing windows in Methodist Hospital fell down and severely injured himself. http://www.startribune.com/local/west/57029732.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU
http://www.startribune.com/local/west/57280492.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU
He did not have insurance and was taken to another hospital in another district (Fairview Hospital).
This hospital is serving underinsured and uninsured in Hannepin county (Minnesota).
we are learning today (From another article in the news) that the Hannepin county is trying to increase our taxes by 5% to cover expenses such as this one. I do not mind paying. But here are some questions:
a) Why Methodist Hospital where accident occurred after treating a person send him away Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis ? What is happening to Hippocratic_Oath in this hospital with such an excellent facilities?
I gladly pay 5% more to have uninsured young people alive and well.
Epilogue: A young man did not survive. This entire story makes me really upset.
http://www.startribune.com/local/west/57029732.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU
" Hennepin County commissioners on Tuesday approved a 4.95 percent increase in the property tax levy ceiling for 2010 to cover mounting medical costs and the potential for more state aid cuts.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/57898132.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU
Complain about this comment
Bethpa and Uk wales.
There is a forger that says hi. I read it on a site.
Complain about this comment
If the driver was insured (required by law to drive in US), medical bills from the accident are covered. Her lack of ability to access charity medical assistance because of having an insurance policy is a problem that needs to be addressed. Through working with homeless and needy folks we've found it is easier to get help for the uninsured than those with "crappy" insurance. But what if a "one size fits all" government plan is crappy? There are food co-ops which assist families already on food stamps, but they turn away people who have needs but aren't in the government system. Surely we can work to revise these voluntary organizations without nationalizing one sixth of the US economy.
Complain about this comment
28 Great post shame they changed your name to U U must have said something to upset the right. I hope U fare better under the new management. There are many that would say "HI U"
Complain about this comment
30 you can have JW he seems surplus to requirements.
Complain about this comment
Ok. I need to put the brakes on some of the wild and over-the-top posts here. I am a firm supporter of health care reform and insist on a "public option". However, to my foriegn friends, understand-the US is a nation built on fierce individualism. (Why is that so hard to understand?) We may look similar but we are not Europeans culturally. So health care reform is about a massive attempt to change the culture of this country. That-IMHO-explains the heated and personal nature of this debate.
In the US-when your neighbor has a medical emergency, you may feel badly. You may even help in some way or express sympathy. But their tragedy is not considered anyone eles's responsability. Changing that viewpoint goes to the heart of how we see ourselves. Good luck Mr. President... I think you're going to need it.
Complain about this comment
as a 30-year-old american living in spain for the past 6 years, i've experienced the american healthcare system and the spanish socialist system. fixing the american system is complicated because it's also a matter of sorting out the mentality of americans, ie, the tendency to file a lawsuit at the drop of a hat, the idea that "socialism is scary," etc.
americans tend not to know the difference between communism and socialism. the word "communism" leaves a bad taste in most americans' mouths at best, and so few americans want a "socialized" healthcare system because they think it would mean dirty hospitals lacking even the most basic supplies. which is to say that in order to adopt a socialized medical system, americans' ideas about socialism must first be addressed.
additionally, the "get rich quick via lawsuit" mentality which extends from legal culture in the united states makes healthcare much more expensive there. watch tv during the day in the usa and you're bound to see adverts encouraging people to call some law firm to get money by suing for "on the job injuries, malpractice," etc. watch tv at night and you'll see prime time shows about lawyers and courtrooms, etc. americans are addicted to crime, justice, punishment, good guys vs. bad guys, etc. extending from this obsession is the propensity to think about lawsuits immediately after anything goes wrong. one reason medicine is more expensive in the united states is because malpractice lawsuits against doctors are so common. fewer lawsuits would mean less expensive medical care, but that would mean a change in culture and a change in mentality.
i've been to the doctor several times here in spain and they've sorted me out nicely each time. it's been clean, friendly and i haven't had to wait in long lines. visits to general practitioners, specialists, hospitals, etc are all "free." i recognize that taxes are higher to pay for socialized medicine, but the overall tax i pay on my income here is still a shade less than i was paying in the usa. (and university is half as expensive to boot) how is that? a more socialist mentality which translates into fewer lawsuits, a focus on things that are seen as rights instead of privileges (education, health) and a smaller, more reasonable military.
achieving any real beneficial reform of the medical system in the usa requires psychological change on the part of the american people. good luck from the depth of my heart.
Complain about this comment
I'm a Brit who has lived in the US for over 30 years. The National Health was wonderful growing up due to a homogeneous society where everyone contributed to the plan. Nowadays it's financed by 19 1/2 VAT and there are waiting lists for operations. Everyone agrees it's overburdened and run down. The US supposedly has 47 million uninsured and Obama thinks he can create a socialized medical system that's better and include these people all at no cost. A huge chunk of the uninsured are illegals and most of the rest are people who have chosen not to purchase medical coverage. The majority of people here have health insurance and are happy with what they have. They do not want to pay for irresponsible people and then have a second rate system. The Canadian death rate from cancer is 25% higher than that in the US - surely this is not a system to model on? The government is also thinking of instituting "death panels" which will decide end of life medical decisions for the elderly and terminally ill due to the high cost of care for those people. A scary proposition.
Complain about this comment
27 the only way the "insewerants" industry will start providing better deals for patients is if they are forced to.
Deregulating is a joke surely. Health care is a necessity to life. Because it is the companies have known that they can charge what they like.
So when GW got in he allowed them to double premiums in 8 years.
Why because they knew he would not lift a finger.
They will not do it voluntarily. They will do it if there is competition.
If all the competition has share holders demanding better returns(talk of greed) and they can check to see they are not being under cut they will not drop prices. Why should they they are set up for making money , even if a "non profit"
Those on the right that say a government option is not right are right. But it is the moral thing to do.(I know some will say no but that shows more about their morals than mine and it is obvious to all.
If there was the gov. option then there would be a competitor to start the trend in lowering costs.
That's what happens in other countries.but america is a nation of can't do.
They are a third world nation.
I would suggest that the tourists encountered in the UK could be asked.
Do you support health care for hte people in the US. just ask.
If they say NO or YES tell them. discuss.
Don't let them off the hook. Tell them to shop elsewhere.
(ps same for death penalty.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
Opposing the healthcare reform is not the same as being against helping Johanna Ridenour. Most Americans (even conservatives) would want want to help people like Johanna. It is a matter of how to do it. If you ask me to pay a little more in taxes to help people without medical care; I can live with that. If you ask me to sacrifice the quality, quantity and timeliness of my family's healthcare as part of a broadly undefined scheme with "trust the federal government" as a central theme; then I am against it. The devil is in the details and we are not seeing a lot of specific details.
A question to you sir; are you implying that the case of Johanna Ridenour, one of the approximately 46 million uninsured in the US, is sufficient justification to modify (dilute in some fashion) from the health care benefits of the other 250 million plus Americans?
BTW, healthcare is a business and is about money. Health care workers need to be paid. Supplies, medicine and equipment need to be bought and maintained. Good business management practices are essential to ensure the effective and efficient use of the healthcare commodity. Sure, the business model needs work, but ignoring this reality would be catastrophic.
Complain about this comment
@ garudo14:
Let me try to find answers for your questions:
1. I am not "averse" the idea of a corporate world. In many cases companies are far more efficient than state run institutions. However companies always try to make a profit (which is naturally to them) and I see this strongly contradicting the fact that a health system should try to care for it's people and not for the shareholders. So unlike many other areas in which corporate may work perfectly nice, health care should be treated with special concern.
2. Well I was taught that our ancestors only were capable of surviving because they had social networks in which they helped each other even if that sometimes meant that someone was taking more than he was able to give back. If capitalism and selfishness had been invented in those days I don't know if mankind would still exist! So why is something that helped our species to survie as long as we do now wrong? Being a doctor pays the bills here as good as it does in a more capitalistic system.
3. I don't think any doctor will be encouraged to make flaws just because the charge if he does is lowered from 10 times what he earns in his entire life to 2 years of what he is paid. As you said making mistakes is something human and most patients that suffer from these sad mistakes would have been in a far worse condition if nobody started to help them in the first place. Thus I think yes the charges are too high.
@ JoshuaDI:
I think 2 years ago the goverment introduced a scheme in which you have to pay 10 Euros to see a doctor (but only for the first time per quarter of the year). Though many people complain about it, as they were used to free service. It reduced the number of people at the doctors who only have running nose a lot. On the other hand 10 Euros are anything but unpayable even by jobless people here if they really need medical treatment. So I think introducing this scheme made a lot of sense.
Complain about this comment
Honestly, its frustrating that opponents of reform throw up these red-herring arguments and bogey-men over 'socialism', 'freedom' and so on.
Indeed, similar to be called a racist or anti-semite, being referred to as a socialist is toxic in america (except for bernie sanders, it would seem) and its usage by reform opponents is clever, in that it ignites the anti-communist, incendiary 'anti-red' traditions we have here, but is unfortunate as it muddles the real debate.
This isn't about ceding sovereignty to the UN, or the imposition of one-world government. This isn't about the Second Coming. This isn't about dismantling our form of 'savage' capitalism here in the States. But is more about taming the wild capitalist healthcare beast that has run amok and clearly needs a leash.
We have issues about portability of coverage (job losses/change), pre-existing conditions, ambulance chasing over zealous lawyers (we need tort reform too), millions uninsured, and double-digit premium increases year on year, decreased coverage, and so on.
The system is broke and we need to begin righting this ship. I am embarrased and appalled at my fellow countrymen's justification of the existing system. This is madness.
Complain about this comment
I certainly agree that health care reform is needed, but I don't think the system in Canada or Britain could be successful in the US because of the other problems we have. The single biggest problem facing the US in health care is sedentary lifestyles/obesity. The next problem is excessive malpractice liability. Still another problem is the large number of unnecessary tests and operations performed. Yet another problem is the number of hypochondriacs there are who tire health care workers. Another problem is the huge debt our nation has. If debt is counted in, then we'd be the poorest nation on earth. Health insurance coverage is only the bitter icing topping the burnt cake.
Complain about this comment
At some stagre the press have to take responsibility for not being as up front about the truth as Mark is here.
the last BBC "journalist" (he didn't deserve the title) was so enamoured with the USA and it's system... until his kid got sick.
Then he saw the face of betrayal.
"what I had to fill in form after form and there was a bill waiting when I got home"
So now we have Mark who can at least read the situation a bit better it seems.
The big problem in america is the fact that the grey areas though there are ignored. But what is paid attention to is the lies.
We see many of them here starting with the usual aura-less comments from the long rotten emperor to the other "moonbats".
"every one has access" etc.
It is a bit like entering creationism into a debate on evolution. It should really not be allowed.
Any debate has a topic. the lies are not the topic they are distractions from the topic.
A red hearing and in most cases a lie.
They really shouldn't be allowed to comment.
It is more than a little "off topic"
because the topic is not
"what are your fantasies of healthcare in other countries"
That goes especially for those that comment who think that a year or two getting kicked out of medical collage in France make him an expert on Europe.
But we wouldn't have such here would we.
Complain about this comment
Or given the deep resentment he seems to feel for Europe that his comments are not just poison in revenge.
also an explanation for why he hates the medical profession in Europe so much. They said he wasn't good enough and he still smarts from it 40 years latter because he had to go get a job as a grounds keeper in stead hob nobbing it with the rich folk and learning which wines they drink.
Complain about this comment
"Me and the passenger" indicates that she was driving.
She has a terrible disease, so I owe her money.
Her pain is so bad she can not walk to the bathroom, but not so bad she can't drive. Then she wrecks her car, so I owe her more money.
I don't think so.
If you give her your money, that is charity. If you give her my money, that is theft. Socialists, of course, can't tell the difference.
Complain about this comment
Having lived in both the US and the UK, the only sector of healthcare where I'd say that on balance we're doing better than the UK is, not surprisingly, dental. Even there it's a bit iffy; I had some horrible dentists in the suburbs of Washington DC before I came to the Midwest, where they have spent the last dozen years or so putting right all the harm that was done to me in England and the Washington area.
Other than that, it's a nightmare. Mounds of paperwork. Squabbling with insurance companies. Doctors who are hung up on testing as a substitute for observation. Big premiums. Big co-pays. Big exclusions in coverage. And an increasing sense that your salary is suffering because of the enormous cost of healthcare to employers.
There's actually an interesting parallel between Britain and the US on healthcare coverage. US healthcare coverage is always expensive and often bad on what the British would call "consultants" (i.e. specialists), highly variable on hospitals (ranging from the excellent to the horrible), and plain difficult-to-get on primary care (general practice). If you think British hospital MRSA stats are bad, just look at the US. Across the Atlantic, British dentistry is much the same way, with the severe shortage of dentists in the UK mirroring the shortages in the US of competent hospitals, surgeons and primary care specialists. In both cases, the number of practitioners and other forms of competition are seriously restricted by so-called "professional" associations or business cartels who want to block new entrants from their field. While I believe we strongly need a government-led reform effort in the US in order to do something about the moral disgrace of denying health coverage to people on account of cost or pre-existing condition, I'll be the first to point out that it won't work without a serious effort to open healthcare up into something actually resembling a market.
Complain about this comment
3. At 12:05pm on 09 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
problem with your argument is if you cut off your aid ...no one will notice ..you give per head of population MUCH MUCH less than many other countries . . so do not think you are the charity box of the world.
I am happy to live where I live . .I have a much longer life expectancy than Americans . .yes health is paid through direct taxation ..and I am thankful for it .
My hospitals are not run by insurance companies deciding wether i should live or die on my ability to pay ..my doctors and medical staff earn good salaries ... do not have to complete insurance forms ..or make life or death decisions based on the size of my bank balance.
Ahh America ..home of the free . . BUT ...DO NOT BE POOR OR GET SICK ...then you will discover what a heartless country it is.
Complain about this comment
"a recent poll by the CATO Institute - admittedly a libertarian think tank - found that 90% of the UNinsured are generally happy with their health care."
How many of that 90% include veterans (who get absolute everything free from the goverment), those aged 65+ (who have Medicare), and the very rich (who can pay everything out of their pocket as needed)? Further, to be happy/unhappy with yoru healthcare, you need to have some in the first place!
So, this survey includes those who don't need inusrance, and excludes those without any healthcare.
What I want to see is the percentage of people with no access to healthcare who are happy with that fact.
Complain about this comment
I understand exactly how this feels..I am a nurse - have been one for 20 years..even working in a major teaching hospital in NY, we have to worry about the same thing.
I suffer to go to work, doing the job I love, from constant, severe pain caused by a drunk driver hit and run years ago..back in 1995, I remember laying in the road right after the car struck, thinking.."oh my goodness what am I going to do - I have no insurance? whats going to happen?" (at the time, I wasnt working in state hospital. Over the years of suffering and medical bills, I, too have contemplated everything from suicide to moving out of the United States to obtain healthcare without the worry of losing either my meager savings or or the small but wonderful life I have left...as it is, I've had to fight the insurance companies for each surgery and treatment modality I've been able to obtain.
The thing is, the medical problems I have faced after that day are at the forefront of my life..and the major insurance company that insures us hospital workers has been negotiating with the state to reach a deal..all of us at he hospital, who WORK there, faced the possibility of not being able to walk in the door of our own hospital, people who have worked all their lives , to obtain care at the hospital we serve every day..the bills have eaten up any savings people have - a lifes work..while the state guarantees free healthcare and a prolonged stay for ...say, ie: the illegal immigrants who walk in the door..while the state hospital itself build new marble lobbies and adds a starbucks to modernize..
What about us??
Complain about this comment
I understand her problem, and do not disagree that something should be done for people in her situation, but i do have a problem with the "[selfishness]" described above. Being a pre-med student, I find this extremely offensive. Unfortunately, things cost money, and those doctors who are running a "business", paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to school so they could treat you. Perhaps costs of medical equipment is inflated, but that is part of any business. Because a hospital IS a business, they must make a profit, and a business that does not make money goes out of business. Doctors need to get paid just like any other professional. Please do not think that I am unsympathetic to her situation and how she has fallen through the cracks; i just have a problem with the statement that doctors are selfish and all about money, because that is certainly untrue.
Complain about this comment
It's so funny reading these comments. To see how the Brits care so much about what goes on in America and how it frustrates you so much that we don't want to be anything like you. Surely there must be something going on on that island that you could champion and get behind. How about all the free oil you'll be receiving from your pal Mummar. The free NHS, you get what you pay for!
Complain about this comment
I believe the only solution is through class action lawsuits through the court system, especially against health insurance companies. The legislative branch of govt. is too corrupted by private wealth and bribes to bring about any meaningful reform.
Given how America is utterly infested with lawyers, and that sueing is a national pastime, I'm surprised that this bludgeon has not yet been really used.
The claims of millions who were allowed to get sick and die, those not covered, along with the victims of medical cost related bankruptcy, should be combined into a mass class action lawsuit, naming a large number of defendants. The Attorney Generals of the various states can also bring suit against the insurers as well, as they did with the tobacco companies.
The experience with the tobacco companies is an excellent example here. For decades, the courts would throw out claims from smokers, but they persisted, until some settlements were reached. Finally, recognizing a public health hazard and health cost risk, the Attorney Generals of the various states sued the tobacco companies. The result was a trillion + dollar settlement.
In the case of healthcare, we will need a multi-trillion dollar settlement with the insurers. As with the tobacco companies, part of the final settlement can include stipulations that they no longer conduct advertising and political money lobbying to subvert the intention of the settlement.
The legal heat can be turned on in other ways too. The US Attorney General can be instructed by the President to investigate the activities of the health insurance companies in light of RICO (anti-racketeering laws with broad use and interpretation), as well as Anti-Trust violations. If the President really wanted to scare them, a "Special Prosecutor", a la Kevin Starr could also be appointed to take up these issues. That would cost the insurance companies BILLIONS in legal fees, thus threatening to destroy their profitability and stock value. Make them cry "uncle"!
I'm not interested in ideological debates, especially with people who don't want to pay the piper. People who say they don't want to pay a penny more in taxes to support a public option, while at the same time cheerfully ready to take the risk that they may incur $100,000 in unpaid medical bills, are beyond sensible or rational. Neither these people, or the Rush Limbaughs or the FOX Network are going to pay your $11,000 ambulance ride.
We need lawsuits and the courts of law; we need the threat of prosecution, fines and the threat of imprisonment for non-compliance, along with untold amounts of settlement money to solve this problem. You don't want a "public option"? Fine. Just make sure the private "free enterprise" system comes up with a real solution; otherwise let them choke on their own vomit.
I heartily encourage those of you who know lawyers to pass this on to them. It's time someone got busy.
Complain about this comment
Interesting story. But it leaves a few things out. Where else would nationalized healthcare pay for the exact medication she so desperately needs?
I also notice that even for a poor underinsured poor person trapped in a smashed car she received the best care available, without anyone stopping to ask her if she had the money to pay.
Our country may expect people to actually pay for the care they receive, but we are also one of the most generous. If anyone has their doubts they should look at a great example of this, the Shriner Hospital webiste and find out just how left out the undeserving really are.
http://www.shrinershq.org/Hospitals/Main/
If people die here, it's not because they are waiting in line waiting for a council to approve a budget.
Complain about this comment
51 Oh, and I forgot to even mention the drugs... When medicine is really needed, it shouldn't have to be advertised. I mean, maybe a little advertising just so doctors know what knew meds are available and what their risks and benefits are, but not this constant advertising that throbs like a terrible toothache in the media.
Complain about this comment
I can't comment as an opponent to healthcare reform - I support it - but I do work in Congress, so I see a lot of the opposition to reform.
The case of Johanna is terribly sad, although it is by no means the only example I have heard. I have overheard so many heartbreaking phone conversations about people in pain who are scared to seek medical advice because it might cost them too much. However, I'm sure everyone knows dreadful stories, I wanted to say the reasons people have given me for opposing reform.
One of the most often repeated arguments is that people are happy with their care, and don't want to compromise it for the sake of other people (or to have their care rationed or be subjected to death panels run by bureaucrats - the rationing and death panels run by health companies seem to be fine...). Also, what seems to be a significant proportion of the senior population wants the government to keep its hands off their Medicare - make of that muddle what you will. Americans seem to have an epic distrust of government and bureaucracy. They are also vehemently opposed to raising their tax burden even to help those less fortunate than themselves.
One of the major proposals offered instead of healthcare reform is tort reform, capping the level of compensation payments that can be claimed, in the hope that it will reduce the number of unnecessary procedures performed by doctors hoping to cover their backs and lower the overall cost of healthcare.
Another answer to the drive for healthcare reform is to slow down reform and take it step by step, which is surely a dilatory tactic in the hope that Obama's political capital is spent before meaningful, large scale changes are made.
I am personally pro reform, so these arguments seem ridiculous to me, but I can see how they may be based in the spirit of rugged individualism that is part of America's founding myth. From my perspective it all seems entirely heartless.
Complain about this comment
The primary purpose of any company or business is to make a profit in order to further enrich the stockholders (not to mention paying the huge salaries and bonuses of the top executives). In the USA this is even mandated by law. Decreasing costs and/or improving profits is the goal of every successful businessperson.
Insurance companies are no different. They produce a profit by collecting and investing premiums. Paying claims decreases profits, raising premiums increases profits. Therefor denying claims when ever possible and raising premiums if a claim is made (or its been a year or two since the last premium increase) is "just Good Business". Prime examples of this are the Katrina victims who discovered their flood insurance did not cover being flooded, everyone who has had their car insurance go up because they reported a fender bender and the health insurance companies refusing to insure a client who _will_ make claims that must be paid i.e. the classic "pre-existing condition" exclusion. The bottom line is that insurance companies do not exist to pay our claims, they exist to collect our premiums, invest them and put the profits in their own pockets. Any reform or change in the status quo of health insurance that mandates insurance companies must offer coverage to everyone and/or must pay our claims, or even worse creates a competitor that can offer a better deal, is a direct threat to the personal income of the stockholders and top executives.
In the US government one fourth of a Legislators time is spent fund raising. Who has a louder voice, the insurance companies with huge donations to politicians and their Party (plus the slick PR campaigns and astroturf committees the politicians can point to as reason to oppose change) or a sick person who can not pay for their medications much less donate money to their Legislators?
In addition to the above there is also the basic politics that it will aid the Republican Party if they can damage the leadership of the Democratic President by killing his first major bill. In fact, the prominent voices of the conservative movement have even stated that it is their goal to see the President fail. Using Health Care, or any other issue, as a weapon against the opposition Party is "just Good Politics" and has nothing to do with a 24 year old woman getting the medication she needs.
Complain about this comment
Sorry for the second comment, but as I was browsing what others had to say, i came across Bethpa's. Nothing infuriates me more than when people who are not from the US take a comment that a giant prick says and labels it to be "So american." There are MANY people in America who do not feel that "If the rest of the world starves to death and decides to kill each other over the crumbs, that will be their problem, not ours." That is ludicrous. I do agree that as Americans and how wealthy our nation is that many have a sense of entitlement, because we certainly do. But that is not to say that we don't care about the less fortunate. Yes, my family has been blessed with more than sufficient funds, but there was a time when we struggled to make ends meet. Through hard work and dedication over many years, we now are able to enjoy my father's hard work. (Please do not take that statement as "daddy" buys me whatever I want when I want it. Yes he pays for my school for which I am extremely grateful, but I have a job and buy the extra, frivolous things that I don't need but want). So, I personally know what it's like to not have money (granted, not to the extent of people in developing countries), and because of that I do care about the less fortunate as do many other Americans.
Complain about this comment
As an American who lived in Japan for 15 years and participated in the Japanese healthcare system I am bewildered by my countrymen who believe that a single payer system equals "nationalized" heatlhcare. Japan has a market-based, reasonably priced single payer system yet Americans are never exposed to anything regarding healthcare around the world expect horror stories from Canada and the UK. The forces of the Industrial-Medical Complex are just to strong to overcome ...
Complain about this comment
You can't deny the facts:
http://crosssection.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/the-big-speech-what-you-will-hear-vs-the-facts/
Complain about this comment
I agree with what you say, Mark, but are you the person to say it? I thought the BBC was supposed to be unbiased. Still, it's hard to be unbiased when the truth is so obvious...
My 5-cents anyway:
All health care systems, not just America's, are going to have to face the consequences of mounting costs but it's political suicide to try because it's impossible to reconcile full coverage with full benefits. How can everybody get all the treatments that would benefit them whatever the cost? There has to be rationing somewhere or the sky is the limit and the business of health will just keep expanding. At the end of the day, the average tax- or premium- payer has to pay for the health costs of the average person. Unless it's funded by borrowing from China or from the next generation - in effect the same thing. Funny how those policy makers with direct experience of healthcare management are the first to suggest that some choices of "resource allocation" must be made. And better to be made at the policy level than by individual insurance claim clerks trying to protect their bonuses. Then the realistic policy makers get accused of trying to murder grandma by those who know more about politics but less about health care management. And those groups who are defending their present total covereage while paying a fraction of the cost are clearly not defending the old American spirit of freedom but the rather more modern spirit of entitlement to a free lunch.
Complain about this comment
To Post #66, vmcwilliams,
Stop being a whining crybaby, more concerned with how Americans are percieved by foreigners than with solutions to a real problem. You are posting on a British owned website, funded by British taxpayers, so there. People can say what they want about America here. I think there is far more diversity of opinion here than what you are accustomed to.
Your own post doesn't exactly improve our image with foreigners. You go from worrying about what others think of us to prattling on about how blessed your family is with money. Does your family want to pay this woman's $11,000 ambulance ride? A better question is, why should an ambulance ride cost $11,000. Mind you this is happening under a private, not socila scheme. Where's your outrage?
Our public discourse has been hijacked by people like this, with their head in the sand, unwilling to see that there is any problem at all, let alone talking about a solution. Maybe someday you or your loved ones will get cut off by an insurance co.
Complain about this comment
bethpa (#20) "Many Americans are mean spirited. Look at Marcus. He is an example."
Marcus is not representative of anyone but himself. A nation of 300 million people is bound to have a few extremists of one sort or another. It is not fair or accurate to generalize from such cases.
Complain about this comment
I think whether you're for or against the president's healthcare plan depends on what your current healthcare plan is. If it's good, you hate the smart-aleck president's gall to change it; but if your current plan stinks, you can't wait for the wise president's care to give you something better.
Complain about this comment
I am a Brit living in the US... the level of healthcare we get through my employers insurance plan is far better than we used to get from the NHS. And we pay only a fraction of the tax we used to pay in the UK. So, as a middle class family with one parent working, the American system works better for us. The thing I hate about living in the UK is knowing that such a large chunk of my salary is going to people who are just too lazy to work. I knew people in the UK who just seemed to think that because they were born in the UK, they had a right to just sit around all day smoking and drinking at the taxpayers expense. For those genuinely in need, of course they should get some help, but the US already has the Medicare and Medicaid programs for that.. I think they should think very carefuly before extending those programs into something universal. The US is about personal responsiblity and the freedom to work hard and be rewarded for it... or not! Thats why we prefer it here and will stay here if we are lucky enough to get the chance.
Complain about this comment
garuda09 wrote:
"1. Why are you guys so averse to the idea of a "corporate" world? Especially seeing that none of you guys (Pssttt, by guys I am pointing out to you Obama worshipers) are independent of the same system that you criticize. Some of you might be working for BBC, a huge profit run corporate which publishes only that news which will generate viewers. Let me go to the next step, anything and everything that you are associated with in the present world is profit driven and hence is "Corporate like" which implies that it is "evil." YOU guys have the right to criticize capitalistic views only when, and I repeat this, ONLY WHEN you guys stop working for profit and start living for others."
This comment is a curious blend of gross ignorance and hard core fascism. It speaks volumes about where out society is headed, in a legal context.
I will leave to one side the ignorance required to describe the BBC as a profit driven privately owned corporation. I will also leave to one side the bizarre idea that Obama is not a corporate representative, except to note that he has been sponsored by financial corporations since his school days, and that his appointments since taking office have been overwhelmingly favorable to corporate financial institutions.
Let's discuss "fascism", and what that word means. It does NOT mean a german in a funny uniform with a funny haircut. The word means a political worldview that subjugates the rights of the individual human being beneath the will of privately owned organizations, a worldview that says private tyranny is legitimate and that human beings have no rights above the state and the masters of industry.
Now the poster in this instance makes a dreadful claim: Nobody has the right to speak out against corporations unless they are completely removed from the economic system dominated by corporations.
This is, I submit, an intensely political statement, and furthermore it is perversely draconian. This poster wants to silence those who object to corporate power. But why? Why the desire to silence? And consider the logic: you are part of the system so you cannot criticize the system. A ten year old could point out that this same logic could be applied to the most appalling regimes to ever grace the planet. And, indeed, it has been.
That is why I call it, very deliberately, "fascism". It is a precise characteristic of fascists that they claim ownership over everything belonging to common people, and then demand utter silence from these people, and tell them that they owe their very existence to the fascist system. Essentially, fascists walk into a room and declare "I own you! Shut up! Do as I say! Now love me, for I have given you everything."
And regrettably, this model of human interaction has become increasingly common. The person who posted these comments will not understand that they have become a fascist. They will take the word as an insult, as a personal attack. There will be no understanding that a fascist world view can infect perfectly normal and otherwise decent human beings. Such are the very grave dangers of fascist movements.
I would argue that the modern corporate movement is just such a fascist movement.
Corporations are privately owned tyrannies (insofar as people do not vote within them, and follow orders or get told to get out), and increasingly they have come to replace the human being as the entity in which rights are deemed to reside at law.
It is worth remembering that corporations were created by judicial activism, and not by legislation. Originally a collective mechanism for making money, the corporation has become a class of legal entity in its own right, a class of entity that has come to acquire more and more legal rights. And as the corporate entity has gained rights at law, so the ordinary human entity has lost them.
Corporations are free to invest across borders. This freedom has increased just as the freedom of humans to migrate has decreased. Corporations within NAFTA and the EU have rights to sue states if their economic freedom is infringed. Human's do not have these same economic rights.
Corporations have gained representation and influence in the media and the government, at the same time as ordinary human beings have lost influence in the media and in their governments.
What is most curious about the rise of the corporation is that it demands increasing levels of total obedience from ordinary humans: fascism, in other words. The relationship is not static. Corporate law, and the rights of human beings, do not remain static at law. They are changing, and they are changing in favour of the corporation.
When corporate representatives meet to discuss their plans for new laws, we now see increasing numbers of black suited storm troopers protecting them. The WTO, the IMF, and political party conventions are increasingly characterized by these black shirts with truncheons and menacing muscle. these are iconic symbols of fascism. And the enemy? The common people, of course.
The media is also increasingly dominated by corporate philosophy and practice. Large corporations and industry lobbyists representing smaller corporations employ public relations experts to co-ordinate advertising towards media that is sympathetic to the corporate world view. It is no longer good enough for a newspaper to refrain from saying bad things about the firms who place advertisements in that newspaper. Now, in the brave new world of corporate media analysts, whole media empires are told of the consequences if they choose to take the "wrong" perspective on issues as abstract as support for NAFTA, the IMF or the WTO. That is to say, if an editor allows a journalist to say the wrong thing, in the view of the corporate media analyst, literally billions of dollars in advertising revenue can be withdrawn in a co-ordinated and deliberate strike against the owner of that journalist.
So that is one answer as to why "we guys" are so averse to the corporate world. I can speak only for myself, a corporate lawyer who graduated from an elite university in the UK, living and working in Switzerland.
I am averse to the corporate world because it is dehumanizing society on a global scale, and reintroducing fascism for no good purpose, except that such a system of rule make a tiny minority of human beings ever more powerful.
Mark Mardell is averse because he doesn't like to see children suffering in pain without medical care, but it is the same thing, in the end. Any ordinary person ought to regret that the law is stripping them of the protection they need against tyranny, and leaving them vulnerable to poverty, illness and dictatorial forms of social interaction. Unless, of course, that individual identifies more with the corporation than they do with ordinary human beings.
I will close with a note to Mark: You are asking for the opinions of those who oppose health care reform.
Is it not abundantly clear to you that those who oppose health care reform are the owners of the medical and insurance industries who profit from the system as it currently exists?
And if so, has it not occurred to you that these people don't read this blog?
The only people on this blog who promote the corporate paradigm are the nutcase crazies, the parrots who screech nonsense in an effort to identify with a vague semblance of power. The people who have absolutely no interaction with, or understanding of, the corporate world.
Complain about this comment
I think there is a misconception from the rest of the world that so many Americans want free health care. What we really would like is affordable, reasonably priced health care (Kayumochi-the Japanese system would be ideal). My wife is Japanese and she was dumbfounded at the cost of health care in the US
I recently left my employment which included a fair insurance package, but to continue that same insurance would cost us over $1700 per month. With high($3000)deductibles and deselecting certain benefits we might be able to get the price tag down to around $700-800. Lower priced alternatives are really no bargain because quality and value diminishes quickly. Health care here is just too expensive.
No body expects doctors or other health care professionals to work for free. On the other hand, the insurance, and pharmaceutical companies make obscene profits and manipulate the system. The legal system is too quick to levy astronomical judgments for too many a frivolous case, thousands of vulturous law firms ("ambulance chasers" is a common term here) and many other peripheral interests including the policy makers have their hands deep in the till. There are too many greedy hands driving costs up and leaving health care in the US a shambles. I think the warning signs are among us, as in the collapse of the economy, we may be on the verge of collapse of the health care system.
No one is offering any alternative to President Obama's plan, talk is cheap.
Complain about this comment
What's really pathetic is how so many people are incapable of understanding the term "government option." The key word there is "option." They make ridiculous comparisons to getting to choose between UPS and Fedex, and forget that the majority of people use the cheap government option, the US postal system. Why not have a cheap government alternative in healthcare as well? It's better than no healthcare at all, and it doesn't affect people who want to pay extra for fancy insurance.
Complain about this comment
Reading these comments make me more and more appreciative of the NHS. It's not perfect, but everybody in my family has had reason to be grateful to it over the past few years. In my own case, being diabetic, the NHS has provided me with insulin, test strips, eye checks, etc. to a degree that (judging by comments on a US diabetes web forum) would not always be matched in the US, even by those on insurance. Sure we pay more taxes, but that's the cost of having a decent society.
Complain about this comment
Those with longterm conditions should be able to sue the health insewerants industry because "cruel and unusual punishment" is not legal.
To make sufferers of conditions have to worry so much about the long term they are torturing people.
That is the basis of a law suit .
Complain about this comment
They could sue the government and congress, the senate.
Complain about this comment
"UK is knowing that such a large chunk of my salary is going to people who are just too lazy to work. "
Do shut up. that first paragraph was more of your " I moved to america to get away from scroungers and forners"(probably) rant.
You defy statistics.
You may have forgotten your companies contribution and I doubt you have encountered the system in full. Glad to hear you are doing well and that you have saved the UK from having one more selfish soul in it.
Complain about this comment
As a Canadian we have universal health care. It is the opposite of the US style. It is also totally idiotic as it will bankrupt us. Give people
what they want rather than what they need and they WILL abuse it. The cost to our system is increasing annually and our citizens keep demanding more!
Complain about this comment
66 Hey how do you Know where bethpa is from.??????????????
YOU ASSUME.
but that's OK no probs I do to. We generally all do.
but your parent paying for school and you having enough for frivilous really does not define you as poor.
Sorry.
try Parents couldn't afford to help and just make enough for food and collage bills while living from floor to floor.
That's more like poor
Complain about this comment
People who have medical insurance are skeptical of current reform efforts because important aspects of the legislation have not been explained. Things such as:
How much will this cost?
How will this be paid for?
How will this affect Medicaid?
How will this affect my medical insurance?
Who will receive what benefits from this legislation?
What role will the Federal government have in my health care?
The core issue is that Democrats want to impose a new system and also a new ethical paradigm of health care management that they don't want to have to explain or justify to the American people. President Obama's electoral mandate and Democratic majorities in Congress do not go this far.
Complain about this comment
The rights more extreme side(their "middle") seem to forget they already fixed this debate.
That corperate = person clause the americans have allows companies to claim slander.
But that they can slander nations because they are not given the same status in law.
It is not slander if the organisation is a "national health service"
"national health service providers inc."is an individual and able to claim slander.
here is a peculiar fix in the legal system that allows the companies to promote lies but not allow "even responce"(IE you tell lies, we will to)
If the NHS started making crap up like
" American providers kill more babies per year than the NHS abortion units through negligence"
"American health care providers eat babies to keep their serotonin levels up"
"american providers make so much money they have to hide it in swiss accounts so their stock holders don't ask for their cut"
All of which would lead to a law suit. but then they can keep promoting the "grASS routes" organisations.
They can pay for slander ads (sorry not slander because of above legal FIX.
Complain about this comment
The biggest problem with health care in America is not insurance. The biggest problem with health care in America is the cost of medical care, whether insured or not insured. Just to stay in a hospital for one night costs several thousand dollars, which is more than an average person makes in a month. That should tell us something. Surgeries and severe illnesses are the worst, cost-wise. It is just too expensive for health care, because the 'provider' charges so much. Doctors should get paid well, as should nurses and other staff. But why is the health care itself so high in cost? The 'provider' is pocketing a lot of money, made of off sick people. What President Obama needs to address is the high cost of health care, rather than the insurance, unless he wants to do universal health care for America, which I support. However, I am against fining people who don't get insurance because they can't afford it, as Max Baucus has suggested. That is a horrible idea. The reason why people don't get health insurance is because they can't afford it, so why would you fine us for that? Especially without jobs and having children? Anyways, the biggest obstacle in America is not health insurance, it is the high cost of health care. If President Obama really wants to help us the right way, he will help us bring medical costs down. We simply cannot afford our own health care.
Complain about this comment
For those extra taxes we also get a welfare system (that many hate) Fire service for ALL. Not that "well you don't have fire cover so burn."
We have Police that do raise a bunch through speeding cameras but I bet a lot less of them have told defendants that to plead guilty is the way to not get a raise in the charges
Complain about this comment
60. At 3:28pm on 09 Sep 2009, Jimmy_Stacks wrote:
It's so funny reading these comments. To see how the Brits care so much about what goes on in America and how it frustrates you so much that we don't want to be anything like you. Surely there must be something going on on that island that you could champion and get behind. How about all the free oil you'll be receiving from your pal Mummar. The free NHS, you get what you pay for!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are needing more care from a doctor. you have lost your mind.
seek medical advice immediately and don't try to vomit.
It is funny reading these comments. Again you and yours keep convincing the rest of the world that americans are so evil that they trust you less than Al Quaeda.
keep it up .
Bin laden must just Love you.
Why Are you on a British web site .? American ones too crap?
Complain about this comment
I have become so passionate about this issue that my blood pressure goes from 110/70 to 140/100 when the issue comes up (I have a baby due any day so that is checked regularly). That being said....I actually have a semi-decent health plan in this country, not terribly inexpensive, but as I suffer from Rheumatoid Arthritis I am glad that a good deal of my costs are covered. I am more concerned, oddly, about the many many people I meet who for one reason or another have fallen through the cracks. None of which I may add are moochers (see point #1)
1) I teach at the university level at a small University in Texas that gets rated #1 repeatedly, yet I am deeply saddened to see all of the bright young grads exiting this glorious educational opportunity faced with a total lack of healthcare opportunities. It is particularly bad in this difficult economic climate. Young women are charged a premium for being of childbearing age (yet we know of the importance of quality prenatal care, which is why we make sure it is covered under medicaid - yet we allow private companies to deny it to their "customers"). Others are denied any form of healthcare because of a pre-existing (yet currently treated under their parents' plan) condition (yet we know how important preventative care and health maintenance is). One recent grad did get costly healthcare (while earning $11/hr) but found that she was charged an extra $40 a month because of a pre-existing condition that was subsequently not covered. I feel very badly that while I can give them an education at a top university I cannot give them a basic human right of healthcare. And as far as MarcAureliusII goes, I do no think that presuming doctors must work for free is quite an honest comment. After all, doctors in Europe make money. Somehow other countries manage, why could America not? The problem is manyfold, for example the fact that insurance companies are making profit that has increased a few hundredfold over the past couple of years. Perhaps a CEO need not make millions while people die from lack of healthcare. No one is asking even the CEOs to work for free. But when you find that, at a congressional hearing where testimony by patients denied healthcare that would save their lives, and was so dramatic that the hearing had to be stopped because people were feeling ill and weeping, the CEOs later boldly stated, when the hearing resumed, that they would continue the same practices of denying healthcare in order to make money. This is the sort of thing that is the problem.
2) For Americans who worry that their choice will suddenly be restricted: I grew up in Europe, and experienced the French, Belgian and British healthcare systems. I had far more choice of doctors and such with these systems that the current system in this country. I am limited to the physicians and hospitals that my insurance works with, which has no relationship to quality, simply a business relationship. Under the European government run healthcare systems, a patient has the right to choose their doctor based on their personal choice, not that of the insurance. Granted, there are some wait lists for non-urgent matters, but I have had to wait 6 months for many a specialist here in the US, so it is not as though we have no wait time here. My brother is married to a British woman who is also expecting a baby. We have been comparing healthcare notes. She gets a choice of where and how she wants to birth: at home with midwives, at a birthing center with midwives or at a hospital. Either way it is her choice and it is free. I get to see my OB who is tied to a hospital where, due to their vastly outdated policies that go against current American Academy of Pediatrics Recommendations (such as keeping mother and baby apart for several hours following birth, not supporting breastfeeding etc) I refuse to go back to. Instead I am getting a loan out to pay for a midwife and birth at home. You tell me who has the better deal.
3) Even if you do not believe that the people of this country deserve any healthcare reform, you would have to see that denying people healthcare will have terrible economic, not to say social ramifications. Consider what it means to keep the population ill: parents can no longer take care of their children: physically, economically of fiscally. They become poor workers. American economic mobility is stymied by the need to find or stay in a job that provides healthcare. This is not socially or economically sound!
4) Finally I do not understand the fear in this country about "socialized medicine". For anyone who fears "socialized medicine", I would like to suggest that such people stop and consider what they are saying. What are socialized programs? I was recently inspired by an article where the author suggested opponents to socialized medicine forswear social security and medicare once they hit 65. I would like to add a few more: please sign a pledge never to apply for or take advantage of social security or medicare, please remove your children from public school, do not call the fire department to police in case of an emergency, refrain from sending or receiving any item via the post office, do not use the public libraries, and get off the public roads. (and no doubt I am missing some more items) That is, unless you believe that social government run programs might just be acceptable and useful.
No doubt my blood pressure is up again. Most of all, I am tired of partisan bickering, of the focus being shifted on an "I win - you loose" sort of rhetoric, as well as lies and fear-mongering. The political focus really ought to be on figuring out what might just be best for the American people, not some petty victory.
And democracythreat - like the clear explanation of fascism. I sometimes think people do not understand concepts such as socialism and fascism. They are certainly bandied about like cheap candy these days, only to the detriment of any reasonable conversation.
Complain about this comment
I like this story - it actually highlights the REAL problem with the American Healthcare System. The most common difficulty people have with our current situation is PRESCRIPTION DRUG COST.
I haven't seen nearly as many issues with not having insurance, or not being able to see a doctor, or even high healthcare cost with their current insurance. I know there are some that probably have these issues, but predominately it is PRESCRIPTION DRUG COST.
Quite often these are off the beaten path drugs too - for very specific and low incident issues. This story as point in case. This makes sense though economically why this would be. However, that does seem unfair.
The Healthcare Bill does 'seem' to address this, but it addresses so much more than this too. I don't believe many people have read the bill to be informed of what all it contains and yet they have formed an opinion on it.
Nor have they consider the success/failure rate of America's current socialistic programs like medicare/medicaid. Government intervention usually creates a behemoth that is slow to adjust to change and address new issues as they arise.
So what is the answer? There needs to be more discussion. I don't think we have heard it yet...
Complain about this comment
"The core issue is that Democrats want to impose a new system and also a new ethical paradigm of health care management that they don't want to have to explain or justify to the American people."
I think apart from a vocal minority that the american people did want health care.
Sorry to try to make you have any Idea of morality. Should we all leave you to be the country of crass lies. Should we ignore the slanderous accusations against the NHS.
The health care costs doubling came before the crash. a crash caused by general consumer lack of financial liquidity.
a crash caused by the health care over-demands and greed that then infected the housing markets and then (than god ) the car industry.
The rest of the world has a reason to be pissed that the americans wanted to take charge of the world economy and then they screwed it up because they are SO greedy.
Complain about this comment
No doubt if anyone looked hard enough they would find people in Britain who slipped through the cracks of the national health system there too. No system is perfect. There is much that needs changing about the American health care system but there are things worth preserving too including a standard of care (if you have good insurance) that is excellent. Clearly, something needs to be done to make sure that citizens of the U.S. can get access to good health care regardless of their ability to pay but there is room to do that without nationalizing the entire system as some want to do.
I doubt that most opponents of health care reform are really against the idea of reform itself, rather they are against the current proposals. It does not inspire confidence when the president himself admits that he is not familiar with the details of the reforms he is pushing so hard for Congress to approve and the government's record of managing Medicare and Medicaid does not inspire confidence in the ability of a government run system to contain costs, one of the chief reasons proponents of the current reform package were touting their package.
The way in which health care reform was presented to Congress made many people stand up and take notice. That a legislative package of this magnitude and importance was being pushed toward a vote without time for debate or even a reading of the bill was absolutely unconscionable in a democratic system of government. Worse yet, Congress didn't seem to want to hear what the people thought about the issue--a sure sign they were about to do something they knew would upset a lot of voters and in itself enough to make people suspicious of what they were up to.
Health care reform is too important not to take the time to do it right and that includes a debate on what should and should not be included so that there is a national consensus on what needs to be done and at what cost.
Complain about this comment
#66 vmcwilliams
I live in Pennsylvania..but have lived in other states and other nations. I'm an American..
And when election season comes around in America and you drive through the wealthy neighborhoods where I live..you will see almost entirely Republican signs..Many of those people think just like Marcus does ..but they hide their opinions. They believe in survival of the fittest..
The single issue which most drives them is lower taxes.
There is a lot of hypocrisy in America. There are people who are church goers who do not want to give health care to the poor. and they think this is a Christian attitude!!!
sigh.
(I'm glad you are thinking about these issues.)
Complain about this comment
The health care system in the States is in great need of reform. It just does not have to be totally done over, throwing the baby out with the bath water. I do have one question for Mr. Mardell - Has Johanna checked that her arthritis medication, which is currently free from the drug company, even available in the UK, France or Canada? If it is new, she may not be allowed to receive it in any of those countries and that is one of the drawbacks of government control of the system.
Complain about this comment
Ref 83, Mischivous
This is what I got from President Obama's speeches and articles I have read on the subject:
How much will this cost?
Universal healthcare coverage for the uninsured and under insured will cost approximately $80B a year.
How will this be paid for?
Two third of the funding will come from the elimination of MEDICARE waste, including subsidies to insurance companies and pharmaceuticals. The rest will come from people making over $350K a year and companies that do not provide healthcare coverage to their employees.
How will this affect Medicaid?
To the best of my knowledge this has not been explained. I suspect it would result in a decrease in MEDICAID expenditures since some of the recipients of universal healthcare are currently eligible to MEDICAID. Obviously, that would have a positive impact on state government disbursements at a time when some are issuing IOUs.
How will this affect my medical insurance?
You company provided or privately financed healthcare coverage will not be affected in any way unless, of course, you decide to switch to universal healthcare to avoid paying insurance company premiums.
Who will receive what benefits from this legislation?
The uninsured and under insured. The big question is how many people will drop their current insurance company coverage and switch to universal healthcare to get better coverage and avoid paying premiums? This is the main reason insurance companies are fighting universal healthcare tooth and nail. The only ones that will be excluded, according to President Obama, are illegal immigrants.
What role will the Federal government have in my health care?
The program, if implemented, will be administered and funded by the Federal government, the same way Social Security, MEDICARE, VA benefits, and healthcare for government employees are. The main difference is that instead of dealing with insurance company employees whose job is to keep cost down to increase profit margins our doctors will interface with government officials whose job is to ensure that everyone receives medical care.
Don't worry, the chances of universal healthcare passing, even with a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress, are slim to none. The mistaken impression that we have the best medical care in the world, ideology, fear, greed, and political opportunism will once again put an end to an initiative that would benefit our society and our corporations.
Complain about this comment
62. At 3:31pm on 09 Sep 2009, jeepwonder wrote:
Interesting story. But it leaves a few things out. Where else would nationalized healthcare pay for the exact medication she so desperately needs?
I also notice that even for a poor underinsured poor person trapped in a smashed car she received the best care available, without anyone stopping to ask her if she had the money to pay.
Our country may expect people to actually pay for the care they receive, but we are also one of the most generous. If anyone has their doubts they should look at a great example of this, the Shriner Hospital webiste and find out just how left out the undeserving really are.
http://www.shrinershq.org/Hospitals/Main/
If people die here, it's not because they are waiting in line waiting for a council to approve a budget.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are full of the utter slander I was just mentioning.And the ignorance I didn't mention.
And you left the whole of the truth out.
America the giving, but won't give in tax to GUARANTEE the hospitals.
Many not for profits are going to go broke soon. Loads of underor uninsured coming in.
You jump in with "the best medical care" How the hell do you get that?You're making stuff up there BUDDY.
(the american equivalent of "MATE").
"she received the best care available, without anyone stopping to ask her if she had the money to pay."
yet again FAntasy.
I refer you to my recent post on the MM "speaking american" page, this is not a debate about YOUR fantasies. which in this short post of yours you show you seem to think it is.
" but we are also one of the most generous" again and again americans try that line here. It is a fantasy.
Yours again.
Europe pays taxes so that they can get the services. when you take the medical "charity" of american health system and try to use that to boost your charity figures it is doubly rubbish.
If you added charity AND contributions to a national health systems the americans look like what they are.
CHEAP and MEAN.
Apart from people don't die waiting for the council to approve a budget I would also ask do you think it is better they die waiting for over paid VERY rich for profit organisations to approve their care?
Again. this debate is framed by lies.
That's why it is going no where.
LIARS!!!!!! PLEASE LEAVE THE ROOM!
Complain about this comment
#33 Interestedforeigner
Yeah you got it exactly right..Thats what we are facing in the US..What the heck should we do with this mess? If Obama fails where do we go from here?
What kind of inhuman monsters are behind this?
The other western nations have health care for everyone and we don't!!!
Meanwhile the US is sending troops all over the world and US corporations are building weapons of war and making profits from selling them world wide.
If Americans truly understood how the system was working most would be disgusted. Many think it is the government that is incompetent.
The US government has been weakened by people being voted into office who then weakened the government from within so that corporations would not be regulated.
Today the US Supreme Court will be hearing a case about whether corporations can directly put money into the campaigns of politicians they like.
Those corporations want to expand their control of the American political system.
Complain about this comment
#71 GH1618
Marcus humiliates America but imo his views are not unusual. Those views are usually hidden because most people realize how odious they are.
Complain about this comment
On Birthers.
;)
My fiend had 2 water births at home on the NHS with mid wifee in attendance and the knowledge that the ambulance was a 999 call away..and free.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAurelius: "Perhaps doctors and nurses should work for free. We could get them to live in government owned dormatories and feed them in government funded cafeterias."
You mean like U.S. Marines? Oh wait, the Marines are paid a salary. So is everyone else who works for the government. Wait, perhaps I shouldn't have responded to a post by someone who has no intellectual capacity; and even less capacity for compassion.
Complain about this comment
So, what appears to be on offer from the opponents of healthcare reform is:
1) It's bound to happen to some people, so tough. It won't happen to me.
2) Get a job that pays more. (Anybody can do that really easily. Even if not disabled and in a recession.)
3) Find a charity, but don't ask me for any money.
4) This sort of thing doesn't happen, the story is a fabrication.
5) It's an 'anecdotal story' and not representative (of more than 40 million people, at least 1 in 8 of the population?) so we can ignore it.
I understand the concept of "rugged individualism". But when and why did it become synonymous with "outright selfishness" as it seems to here?
This isn't, from one side, a debate about practicalities, as it should be, only about simplistic ideologies.
I hope Johanna's email address isn't easily traceable online; I can imagine some of the emails she might be getting if it is.
And, davidw76, I'm so glad I don't have to be beholden to you any more when I light my (hand-rolled) cigarette (returning some money to the government in Excise Duty) or crack open my bottle of beer (ditto).
Complain about this comment
Jimmy Stacks, when your swivel eyed liars berate, with untruth after untruth, our system, then it becomes fair comment for us.
Perhaps also many are actually curious about the world rather than quake in fear at untruths about the world outside the US.
I have it seems the same condition as this unfortunate lady, my fingers were like hers once.
So how am I typing this?
Because our so called 'evil' or 'rationed' system has NEVER restricted, at all, the medications I need.
And my perscription could rival Michael Jackson's in it's size.
So, after some trial and error, with different medication combinations, my hands and fingers recovered and save for the odd (increasingly rare) flare up, they stay recovered.
Recently, my Consultant remarked that for someone 9 years into this condition, my fingers were in the best state she had ever seen.
This means I've always been able to work, to pay my taxes, some of which goes to the NHS.
Seeing this young ladies condition, in the richest nation on earth is both distressing (I know how painful it can be) as well as posing a major question about values and morality.
I have choice of hospitals, of consultants, of to a degree appointments and totally with regards to the blood tests that make sure the meds have no bad side effects.
Everything said about the NHS, in my experience, from the lobbyists, their clients on Capitol Hill, the small army of pea brained types who jump at scare words, is untrue.
And that goes for everyone I know.
Perfect? Of course not, every system has it's flaws, but this case and millions of others show one thing clearly, while all systems have some degree of rationing, it is the US one which is worst of all.
If you are not wealthy.
To most in the UK, access to healthcare, regardless of economic circumstances, is seen as a moral issue.
You cannot say the US's appalling placing on life span is just down to being obese, since sadly we in the UK have nothing to be proud of here.
So what about the low standard of infant mortality, are they all born fat?
This also gives the lie to the idea of 'in the US system we have an incentive to look after ourselves more'.
So how come the rampant obesity then?
The Hollywood version of the UK still has us as a class crippled nation.
There is nothing more class bound than economic circumstances preventing decent healthcare though.
The US is the most class divided nation in the Western world.
Pretending otherwise does not change this fact.
When you see someone who could easily be treated, like this woman, in her condition, it is for those with the same illness profoundly shocking.
And the meds I'm on are not even the latest ones, but I've been told if I need these newer ones, there are there.
So far the current cocktail works about as well as expected in a so far incurable ailment.
But the choice here is mine too.
Complain about this comment
89 I haven't seen nearly as many issues with not having insurance, or not being able to see a doctor,
there could eb several reasons for that.
I personally can't afford to see the Doc.
it cost me 150 dollars to have a doc look at my arm once and say" yes you are right you need an anti biotic"
See how long it takes you to say that and work it out.
(over all it was 5 minutes because he said "so hows the NHS" and I said "great" and he said he wished they had that here.
His friend the doc just back from the liverpool centre for disease control (or whatever it's name,(oh it's name was Hospital:) and had said all the doctors seemed to be doing "very well.")
If you have not seen the complaints it is because mostly what you see is old folk on Medicare that are complaining that after their free doctors visit to the drugs cost something.
Something would complain about if I had paid into the system for years as well.
But then are these the same folk who didn't pay all that much because they "didn't want the gov running their health care"
Maybe if their contribution when young was better they would get cheaper scripts.
Complain about this comment
#90: Fluffytale; yes the American people do want healthcare, but the devil is in the details and the American people want to know the details. If you read my comment, I touch on the ethics of Health care which should imply that I have thought about this from a moral point of view....
I lived in the UK for a couple of years and made use of the NHS for primary care; the care I received was decent. Americans and Europeans spend too much time being sanctimonious with each other. We both live in glass houses.
Fluffytale, you seem genuinely angry about this. Do you have a personal interest/experience in this issue that you could educate us with?
I still stand by this statement "The core issue is that Democrats want to impose a new system and also a new ethical paradigm of health care management that they don't want to have to explain or justify to the American people."
Complain about this comment
91 scott
"but there is room to do that without nationalizing the entire system as some want to do."
Yep I'm for that, but as of yet I am the only one I have heard of suggesting nationalising all the hospitals.
I say take them over. pay them under for the hospitals and make the docs work for less or be unemployed.
But again I am in a very very very very very very small minority of about ! so far on that.
I'd like to see the suggestion from elsewhere so I can join them in their protest. Please help me find that suggestion elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
74.
Good post.
"But none of them ever worked.And everyone knows it.The armored Christians who later discovered these communities(indigenous) knew that these people did no work,and this knowledge grated on their nerves , it rankled, it caused cadavers to peep out.(Perlman 29).
Sound familiar?
Complain about this comment
JoshuaDI wrote:
"In Europe I know the state provides insurance, and as a graduate student in the UK I was covered under the NHS for two years. I grant you it was nice to get medicine which cost less than the change in my couch, but the system was wildly inefficient (wait times, no appointments, people coming to the doctor for colds because it was free..). I also know someone in Canada who died of skin cancer because her GP diagnosed it incorrectly and refused to refer her to a dermatologist."
You are collapsing different things into your argument. The basis of your argument stems on the premise that "socialised medicine" (or you could call it universal healthcare coverage) is problematic because it is wildly inefficient. Let's not forget that there ISN'T just one system called "socialised medicine" (an American term). There are many, many systems. Japan's healthcare system provides universal healthcare coverage and is run differently than what is offered in the UK and Canada. Canada's system is also different from Britain's. Thus, don't lump all universal healthcare coverage systems into one. They are different.
I live in Canada. Regarding your friend whose family practitioner misdiagnosed and refused to let her see a dermatologist, I find that a bit doubtful that the family practitioner refused to let her see a specialist. But, if that were the case, your friend could have gone with another family practitioner. You are free, in Canada, to go to any family practitioner you want. By the way, I do find your Canada example very imaginative. I hope it wasn't a made up example for the purposes of bolstering your own argument.
By the way, in the U.S. (where I also live; I shuttle between these two countries) you are also not allowed to see a specialist without approval from your family practitioner/GP. Let me rephrase more accurately. Your private medical insurance WILL GENERALLY NOT cover your visit to see a specialist without first seeing your family practitioner who then makes a referral to see a specialist. Yes, you can go see a specialist without first seeing your GP but your private medical insurance won't pay for it in those cases.
In Canada, you can also do the same. If you want to break out of the public healthcare system and pay out of your own pocket to see any specialist you want without approval from your family practitioner, you can do so too, but at your own expense just like in the United States.
Complain about this comment
As an American citizin and having studied in London, UK. for almost two years as a college student I just have this to say. . . .
Even when i had health insuerance here in the states, it was still a hassel and expense to recieve medical care. Now that as an adult I no longer qualify for my fathers insuerance coverage it has only gotten worse. The public and political persons whom ubject to the reform have obviously never had to sit down (wile sick) and figure out where in the world the money to go to the doctor is going to come from( not to mention the perscriptions). They sit there with thier 100% health coverage provided by thier employers and dont realize that they are part of an extreamly small percentage that has that comfort. What about the rest of us . . . . Because we don't grow up to become lying politicians or money hungry executives we deserve to suffer or worse yet go untreated to the point of sever illness or death?? When i lived in London ( on a student visa may i add )I never had to worry about my health. Medical care is a right as a human being not a luxuary!! How can these people sit here and tell me and every other middle class American without insuerence that we dont deserve long healthy lives? Since i have gotten home this has been a big political issue to me. I have seen both sides of the fence and I must say their side ( UK ) is much, much greener, after all they do get the medical attention they need, when needed, reguardless of who they are or where they work. What is so hard about that congress??
Complain about this comment
94: Thanks for providing the information Saint Dominick. I have a few followup comments:
How much will this cost? Universal healthcare coverage for the uninsured and under insured will cost approximately $80B a year. --- Undoubtedly a number on the low side (considering previous govt programs) but at least we have a working number.
How will this be paid for? Two third of the funding will come from the elimination of MEDICARE waste, including subsidies to insurance companies and pharmaceuticals. The rest will come from people making over $350K a year and companies that do not provide healthcare coverage to their employees. --- If there was ~50 Billion/year of medicare waste I think the govt would have eliminated it already - I'm skeptical. I'd like to see the wealthy (350K +) pay more for something. The Democratic party has a lot of wealthy people in it; I'm skeptical of this getting throught. If all companies provide health coverage; it will result in higher unemployment; are Americans willing to make that tradeoff?
How will this affect Medicaid?
To the best of my knowledge this has not been explained. I suspect it would result in a decrease in MEDICAID expenditures since some of the recipients of universal healthcare are currently eligible to MEDICAID. Obviously, that would have a positive impact on state government disbursements at a time when some are issuing IOUs. --- This one is fuzzy... combine with elimination of Medicaid waste and you can see why seniors are concerned.
How will this affect my medical insurance?
You company provided or privately financed healthcare coverage will not be affected in any way unless, of course, you decide to switch to universal healthcare to avoid paying insurance company premiums. --- ok. lets see how this washes out into the final legislation.
Who will receive what benefits from this legislation?
The uninsured and under insured. The big question is how many people will drop their current insurance company coverage and switch to universal healthcare to get better coverage and avoid paying premiums? This is the main reason insurance companies are fighting universal healthcare tooth and nail. The only ones that will be excluded, according to President Obama, are illegal immigrants. --- Makes sense; again lets see the details.
What role will the Federal government have in my health care?
The program, if implemented, will be administered and funded by the Federal government, the same way Social Security, MEDICARE, VA benefits, and healthcare for government employees are. The main difference is that instead of dealing with insurance company employees whose job is to keep cost down to increase profit margins our doctors will interface with government officials whose job is to ensure that everyone receives medical care. - OK, but what about cost control between govt officials and doctors to keep costs from spiraling?
Don't worry, the chances of universal healthcare passing, even with a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress, are slim to none. The mistaken impression that we have the best medical care in the world, ideology, fear, greed, and political opportunism will once again put an end to an initiative that would benefit our society and our corporations. --- I agree on the need for the change but there is plenty of ideology, fear, greed and opportunism on both sides of this issue to make this nasty. Also, why won't this pass with Democrat majorities in Congress and a Democratic president; the Republicans are a speedbumb in the legislative process at this time....
Complain about this comment
atlantateacher wrote:
"If the driver was insured (required by law to drive in US), medical bills from the accident are covered."
But it doesn't cover everything.
And, it depends on what insurance both parties have. You don't have to have the type of car insurance that would cover medical bills if you didn't buy that type of insurance. And, you would still be lega.
And, you can't be sure the drivers were insured.
And, It doesn't matter if it's "required" by law. When was the last time you actually made a complete stop at a Stop sign? It's required by law but most drivers, myself included, do not make a complete stop. Most of us do a rolling stop. So "required" by law doesn't mean anything in this case.
Check out this website for the types of car insurance offered in the U.S., from liability insurance to comprehensive insurance to uninsured motorist insurance etc.
Complain about this comment
I was in USA in the past I never went to hospital in USA because even if you have small health problem bills are mind boggling seeing the bill you will get heart attack. We as non immigrants pay ssn tax medical tax and all taxes but do not get proportional benefits and most of Americans schemes are fancy and not practical The way USA govt collects taxes promptly does not serve the people promptly they support a lot of illegal business and a lot of frauds keep happening USA govt has to do much more to call itself as a developed country or modern country. Infact for the taxes they collect they do not do much for citizens or immigrants. They go for wars and end up in recession. That is why china and japan want to withdraw their treasury bonds and convert them to gold and trade by themselves with other countries rather than being dependent on American dollars etc.. If americans do not fix their system I don't think there will many people looking forward to go to USA.
Complain about this comment
hey leslie,
Um cry baby? You definitely misinterpreted my tone and the point of what i was saying. I was addressing the fact that it's irritating when people classify ALL americans as callous; it honestly HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HEALTHCARE AT ALL. I did post previously about the actual article in which i said that i thought things needed to be done to change our healthcare system (I'm inclined to agree with the people who want to lower the costs with out a public healthcare. I personally don't think we should have public healthcare, but this is my personal opinion and i'm not as informed as others on the subject so I can't really say much about it). So that quip about my loved ones? Yeah not exactly an applicable response. It was a response to what someone else said about Americans not caring about anyone but themselves. I was using myself as an example of an American who actually DOES care about other people and stated those things about myself so i wasn't presenting myself as a poor person when i really am not. It's called making allowances. I was trying to avoid someone saying that i had my head in the sand, but apparently i didn't effectively express myself. Sorry. As for improving foreign image of americans? I wasn't expecting to. I was expressing my personal irritation on the matter. Because frankly, there are nice, caring, callous, rude, haughty, smart, stupid, and *insert any other characteristic you want* people in every country. You cannot group 100 million americans together and say they are all the same.
and um, other guy, (or girl) HI. If you actually read what i said, you would know it was that my family WAS, PREVIOUSLY poor. I don't think my dad paying my college bills makes us poor. Seriously, come on. Anyway, previously: as in we are no longer poor. (I don't think i am poor NOW by any standards whatsoever). You know, like in the american dream where a young poor family grows from having nothing to the white-picket fence suburbia. yeah. that's what i was saying. And that i know from my CHILDHOOD what it is LIKE to be poor and actually not have food for every meal, because we didn't. And my point? That many americans HAVE achieved the "american dream" and have compassion for others in their previous situation.
again, this was not a response to the article, it was a response to a previous comment.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Mardell:
You need to report the whole story and substantiate the details. The situation for the young lady sounds very sad. Arthritis is a horrible disease and hard to treat, here in America, or anywhere else. But, ambulance rides in West Virginia or anywhere else in the US do not cost $11000, though Ms. Ridenour made the comment. Usual fees are $300 to $800, in my experience. Many areas are served by volunteer rescue squads or fire departments if not by municipal or county services. Volunteer services are free or a donation is requested. Other ambulance services routinely write off non paid bills. Check your facts before you publish because you seem to be very biased.
"road to corporate hell" is an opinion and reflects the biased drift of your column. I view it as a responsible option in a very, very, expensive and complex enterprise. Remember, the easy drugs have already been discovered. You did not report any details about the drug company program or its response, if asked, about the situation. One can expect the drug company to have rules in the free distribution. The drugs do not magically appear out of socialism's thin air.
Did you contact any of the many social services in West Virginia to see what Ms. Ridenour may have overlooked or not found as a source of assistance? You have not done your work.
What about the Arthritis Foundation? I suspect they will know more about the state of arthritis treatment and its shortcomings in US than most any source. Their headquarters is in Reading, Pennsylvania, the state adjoining WV. You need to do your job.
Ms. Ridenour has a bad situation, but I think she has many more avenues of treatment and assistance available. Your report is shallow and the information is suspect due to its incompleteness. In a way, you seem to have exploited her situation and left out information that would normally be part of a report.
I oppose government health care. The drugs that helped Ms. Ridenour would never have come into being under socialism. Duh? The government fouls up most everything they touch (public school, welfare, railroad, garbage collection, mortgage underwriting a la Fannie/Freddie, etc.) that they are not supposed to be doing. Our system needs incremental improvements to fix the government-induced and other flaws in it, not more government. Flaws/fixes include: modifying tax code for universal deduction of medical expenses; changing Medicare/Medicade so it is not a criminal act to pay a doctor more than set fees; allowing contracts between patient/provider to limit liability damage awards; careful consideration of tort reform; health care vouchers instead of welfare systems to put patient in charge; etc. We need smarter patients with liquid (non government) health-dedicated resources not dumber bigger government.
True insurance is a mutual risk pool. State/federal laws hinder pooling risk due to mandates/regulations for coverages, fees, underwriting, etc. and restrictions between state policies. Whom do you want operating the risk pool? Look at the governments record: flood insurance that is not covered by premiums; FDIC bank account insurance not covered by premiums that caused the 1980's Savings and Loan meltdown, failed state auto and health insurance schemes, on and on. The only ones they claim success with are those that tax the nation's producers to pay for government pension and health plans. They are the worst underwriters and risk pool managers in history. Do you want them operate 15+ % of the US economy? Duh?
Take Medicare. Their only answer is to lower doctor fees and set treatment restrictions to the point that many doctors became specialists or got away from treating old people because they lost money on every transaction and were directly or indirectly told how to treat patients. On the other side of the Medicare/Medicaid table, the government cranks out checks to pay for a slew of "qualifying" medical assistance devices/services, such as chairs, scooters, transportation, etc. There is a multi billion dollar industry supplying the items whether needed or not. "its free" are the watchwords. Medicare's record is pretty poor.
I want Ms Ridenour to contact more people about help. I believe it is there. I base this on having family in and visiting West Virginia all of my life.
Regards,
bonairva in Virginia, USA
Complain about this comment
ref !06
By the way, in the U.S. (where I also live; I shuttle between these two countries) you are also not allowed to see a specialist without approval from your family practitioner/GP. Let me rephrase more accurately. Your private medical insurance WILL GENERALLY NOT cover your visit to see a specialist without first seeing your family practitioner who then makes a referral to see a specialist. Yes, you can go see a specialist without first seeing your GP but your private medical insurance won't pay for it in those cases.
I can't speak for your coverage but the referal on mine is just requesting it and it's done. no need to see the GP first.
Complain about this comment
In summary.
Opinion from most non-US people on this blog: Americans are stupid because they cannot see how inferior their health care system is and they have an irrational fear of "socialism" but dont really know what it is but have simply been brainwashed into believing it is bad.
Opinion from most US people on this blog: Europeans are stupid because they cannot see how inferior their health care system is and they have an irrational love of "socialism" but dont really know what it is but have simply been brainwashed into believing it is good.
Talk about looking down our snooty collective noses at each others problems that have little or nothing to do with ourselves. Judgemental? Us? Never. All these blogs seem to end up in a bunch of transatalantic mudslinging by people on both sides who believe themselves gloriously free of the arrogance that "those" inferior and lesser people "over there" have.
Complain about this comment
Just making the taxpayer pay for everything under the sun, such as sex change operations, like is possible in the UK system, is not the answer in the US, but merely a plan for national bankruptcy & health care by rationed by government who shouldn't have this power in the first place.
There are a few reasons costs keep going up. The biggest reason health care costs go up is because nobody knows what the costs are until they have to pay them themselves.
With the employer backed system, the employer typically pays all or most of the insurance premium. This means I have no idea how much it really costs. Since the cost is usually split two ways, two payers can always afford something a little bit more expensive than just one payer... so guess what? Insurance premiums go up & you barely notice it until you don't have an employer and wonder how in the hell the price got this high in the first place.
There is no inter-state competition for health care as well. That means the health insurance industry is federally protected from competition, unlike most other industries.
Malpractice insurance is an obvious cost factor that never seems to be addressed because those laywers give so much money to Democrats. Former Presidential Candidate & mill worker's son who made a baby behind his cancer stricken wife's back John Edwards being one of these laywers(all true).
I'm probably out of characters, so I'll stop there, but there's more to it than making the taxpayer fund everything imaginable.
Complain about this comment
American Insurance
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
Complain about this comment
With the current health-care system, when the lower class is forced to make un-insured emergency room visits their credit is ruined. With bad credit; home loans, student loans, business ownership and even decent apartment rentals become unavailable. Essentially, the middle class becomes unattainable.
The U.S. middle class is shrinking every year. The people who are lucky enough to currently be part of the middle class are ready to defend their social position, and the future social positions of their children.
The health-care debate has become a proxy for class warfare between the middle and lower classes in the U.S.
The middle class is preparing to fight a small revolution to prevent reform, but they should be wary. The lower class has absolutely nothing to lose in this fight, and everything to gain. Riots hurt the landowners more than the tenants!
Meanwhile the top 1% grows fatter.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
19, alexanderusa -
Oh what a dangled web you weave, when you practice to deceive!
No one is refused medical treatment when you go to the hospital, also there are indigent funds to help with medical costs!
Also if she is truly disabled there is Social Security Medicare, but she has to meet the requirements.
I would say she is pulling the wool over your eyes!
You really really want to believe this, don't you? To salve your conscience. No one is turned way from a hospital for emergency treatment but they are billed for it, and emergency rooms do not treat chronic, non-emergency illnesses. Nor do they provide free long-term medication. The hospital collects the "indigent" funds but still bills the patient. If the young woman is not 100% disabled, she cannot qualify for Social Security.
Please take off the blinders from your own eyes.
Complain about this comment
Guaranteed Health Care in Iraq - But Not for You
Article by Mark Dorlester of the Huffington Post - see:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-dorlester/guaranteed-health-care-in_b_280528.html
This one is a real eye-opener. The Republican Bush Administration guaranteed all Iraqis publicly funded healthcare in its new constitution, but now the Republicans argue against it for Americans. This is sheer hypocrisy. The US has spent over $864 billion in Iraq on the war and rebuilding the country, including its healthcare. Publicly-funded healthcare is "OK" for Iraqis but not for Americans. This really is quite a revelation. Please read on...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-dorlester/guaranteed-health-care-in_b_280528.html
Richard Los Angeles
Complain about this comment
ref 117 JeffreyT:
In one sense you are right JeffreyT; I and my middle class friends and neighbors want to defend our social position and raise our kids to compete into middle class life and move higher if possible.There is nothing wrong with that.
You are wrong on the healthcare issue being a proxy for class warfare. Also, one of the reasons for America's relative stability over the past two centuries is that our electoral system and political culture led elites to provide compromises to the working classes on social issues which kept them from becoming violent. Marx never had much resonance here; even during the depression. Workers of the world will not unite; that theory fizzled out 20 years ago.
Complain about this comment
There's a lot of ignorance of the great big world shown by the opponents of health care reform in the US.
Mainly it's due to the miserably poor working conditions over there, where the annual leave is two weeks compared th the European four weeks. It's difficult to travel abroad in such a short time, and only 20% of the population have passports. That means a massive 80% never go abroad.
But to get a handle on the way the rest of the world looks at it, go to the WHO site.
You'll find there that life expectancy of US makes is 75, in France,and the UK it's 77. Infant mortality in the US is 8 per 1000 as against 5 per 1000 in France and 6 per 1000 in the UK.
Health expenditure per capita is $6714 in the US as against $2784 in the UK and $3554 in France. As a percentage of GDP, the US spends 15.3% the UK 8.4% and France 11.1%.
Why, if the US is sending more money, are the results poor?
I get the strong impression of turkeys voting for Xmas
Complain about this comment
41, atlantateacher,
If the driver was insured (required by law to drive in US), medical bills from the accident are covered.
The law requires car owners/drivers to carry liability insurance. This pays for the other guy if you cause an accident. Many people cannot afford comprehensive auto insurance which covers medical bills of the policy holder.
You do understand, don't you, that there are really poor people in this country? Poor people who must own a car for various reasons and can only afford the bare minimum of insurance required by law?
Complain about this comment
"President Obama, speaking on Labor day, accused opponents of not coming up with any answers. He was being partisan."
No, he was being truthful. The opposing factions have not articulated a practical alternative, only saying that his won't work. The scare tactics, Palin's "death panels" and all the rest do not provide any other acceptable suggestions. If "free" health care is available to members of Congress, then why not for the people who put them there? Fair's fair!
I would ask how did the young person decided in her mind that an ambulance was going to cost her $11,000? It sounds like indoctrination of the worst kind. Under the circumstances I doubt that she would have received any bill for such an emergency. Without meaning to appear unkind, if her thought process was fixated on cost, perhaps she wasn't as badly hurt as she says she was. If I were in an accident, the cost of transporting me to a hospital would be the last thing on my mind
Lastly, a picky note, Mark. Please don't adopt the present tense when describing something in the past: When I meet her, it is a good day. Write "When I met her, it was a good day."
Complain about this comment
At 3:40pm on 09 Sep 2009, norsepagan wrote:
"Insurance companies are no different. They produce a profit by collecting and investing premiums. Paying claims decreases profits, raising premiums increases profits. Therefor denying claims when ever possible and raising premiums if a claim is made (or its been a year or two since the last premium increase) is "just Good Business". Prime examples of this are the Katrina victims who discovered their flood insurance did not cover being flooded"
That's an interesting argument, since flood insurance is underwritten by the Federal Government. Still convinced that the Feds can run insurance as well as or better than private companies?
There were two problems with flood insurance during Katrina: The Feds not paying out benefits to those who were affected, and ignorant residents who wrongly believed that their homeowners insurance would cover flooding.
Complain about this comment
This is garbage and anyone who knows about insurance would be screaming SCAM! She said she stopped her medical insurance....well medical insurance in the US does not pay for auto accidents...that is why it is MANDITORY to have auto insurance. Auto insurance pays for ALL of the medical expenses for auto accidents..ambulances, medicines, treatment, follow up treatment etc. Medical insurance pays for anything not due to an accident (home owners insurance even covers accidents at home). The system needs to be changed, but lying and scaring people (on both sides) just pisses most people off...who are we to believe if everyone is lying?
Complain about this comment
Mr. Mardell, I suggest you ignore advice on style and usage from our pedant-in-residence and write anything that seems right to you.
(By "right" I mean merely suitable, i. e. conveying the meaning and tone you intend in the context, whether considered strictly "correct" by the pedants or not.)
Complain about this comment
Also, it is not that Americans are against socialized healthcare. It is good in so many countries. They just dont like the one that has been written this year. Americans are sick and tired of DC spending so much money with no return on the investment. They do not trust the people in DC to make the right decisions for the citizens welfare. Why would we trust them to set up a system correctly when the people writing it do not have to use it? Plus, the ability to choose is taken away. Even in countries that have wonderful systems like Spain and France the citizens have the ability to choose and purchase suplimental insurance for private care if they want to. The current plan will cut this choice out. Also, certain Medicare patience will loose their coverage under the new plan. Why dont they do a trial of the plan in one state to see how it works before using it on everyone? Why not just have the congress use it to see how it works?
Complain about this comment
It is only mandatory to be insured for liability when driving, which covers injury to others. Insurance requirements for drivers are a matter of state, not US, law.
Complain about this comment
While we can all sympathize with people who have these kinds of conditions, and many others, who have no health coverage to care for their needs, it is clear that there can only be 2 workable solutions.
Either we have national health care, as in the UK, and with it, the limitations imposed by government, on who will be treated, how they will be treated, etc. (Yes , I do follow those reports on the shortcomings of the NHS.)
Or, we must have each and every person assume responsibility for their own health coverage, at whatever cost is involved.
Trying to operate in some sort of hybrid middle ground, simply won't be workable. That is the stuff fraud nightmares are made of.
Obama doesn't really understand the problem, and that is, people don't trust the US government to do what is right.....and that is based on hard evidence experience, with government programs, which deliver too little at too high a cost.
Whether the US can devise a workable plan, with all the opposition from the profit centers....insurance companies, hospitals, and physicians, is a very big question. Those profit centers know, that the only way health care costs can fall, is for their profits to dry up.....and that isn't going to set well with them, at all.
Complain about this comment
#112 bonairva
"The drugs do not magically appear out of socialism's thin air. "
"The drugs that helped Ms. Ridenour would never have come into being under socialism. Duh? "
binairva quotes
Ideas that seem obvious to you are actually wrong. You have been believing lies and listening to others who are telling lies.
Much medical research is coming out of universities...read this article to get a sense of what is possible
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jun/16/arthritis-stalled-research
"Rheumatoid arthritis could be stalled, medical research shows"
"Findings indicate use of an advanced antibody drug in early stages could lead to remission in some patients"
"The new trial findings show that administering rituximab early, alongside methotrexate, can virtually stop the disease in its tracks"
Those studies on rheumatoid arthritis were done at the
University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands.
And others also following this development are
Institute of Cellular Medicine at the University of Newcastle
and the University of Leeds
and charities like
" the Arthritis Research Campaign, the charity that pioneered anti-TNF therapy, said it was important to target patients whose disease was likely to become severe."
........................................
Other Thoughts that May be new to You
........................................
In fact by having medical systems that have universal coverage for a population it is possible to have a superior knowledge of the different effects of different treatments.
........................................
Because of the extreme profit motive for drug companies..there have been new drugs that were pushed over older drugs because there was a better profit with the new drug even though the older drug was more efficacious and cheaper
........................................................
Pfizer in the US was just fined for promoting an unsafe use for one of its drugs and the underlying motive was pure profit..
Complain about this comment
Here is a link to a summary of the requirements of the financial responsibility law in California: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080423/news_lz1n23list.html
Complain about this comment
It really makes me ill to hear the constant bleating about "rugged individualism" from the sheep who make up a large chunk of the population of this country.
Maybe they're thinking of the "rugged individualists" who flooded stores after 9/11 to purchase duct tape and plastic because the government at that time told them these items would protect them against future terrorist attacks. Or the "rugged individualists" who run en masse to buy the hot new toy every Christmas because ads tell them it's the hot new toy. And now the "rugged individualists" are believing and repeating en masse the lies told to them by the wolves at Fox "news."
Oh please. Gag.
Complain about this comment
119. At 7:25pm on 09 Sep 2009, socialistlibertarian:
'I don't want to believe it. It didn't happen to me. It won't happen to me. I don't know/won't listen to anybody it has happened to. Therefore the interview is "a lie" or, pace 126 CicieB, "a scam".'
What kind of 'scam' could possibly be involved, for god's sake?
Sorry, but I am getting terribly depressed, just as a human (social?) animal at the meanness on display here. Mark has obviously got his wish in finding out what the opponents think of his interviewee's story. And it doesn't, mostly, look very pretty, does it?
I thought when I read his piece the phaseology was a mistake: "I ask, out of objective interest, what do those who oppose reform think of Johanna's case?" It occurred to me it might have been better to ask "would propose to do about" instead of "think of".
Can I ask that question instead? Or is it too late?
Complain about this comment
124. At 7:49pm on 09 Sep 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
"Please don't adopt the present tense when describing something in the past: When I meet her, it is a good day. Write "When I met her, it was a good day."
No, it has a precise meaning: "It was evident to me at the time I met her that it was". Your version could mean "She told me it was" or even "it was sunny" which is not the same thing, and just as well, given what some people have posted.
Historians use the present tense rather in this way, too.
Complain about this comment
134 Would you like to hear something a bit more lighthearted? Then read this fascinating quote from a Canadian on another blog:
"And ... another reason why some Canadians are eager to see Health Care Reform in the US, is that as long as the US has a system of health care that is inferior to ours, we will not significantly reform our own system. "It could be like it is in the US, eh?" Every Canadian in the room shudders in horror and the conversation ends."
Source: http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/jive/vodka/viewThread.jsp?forum=2&thread=40773
Complain about this comment
The opposition to health care reform isn't because people think the system is perfect for them & screw everybody else.
I myself & I suspect a great number of others have absolutely no faith in Congress to produce a quality solution that will solve more problems than it creates.
I don't trust any reform package that absolutely has to be passed almost overnight without adequate explanation of what the reforms are/why they'll fix the problems, and how they'll be paid for, which is what was attempted. "cutting waste & taxing somebody else" is not a good enough answer of how it'll be paid for, for example, & they tried selling it way to hard while there was no actual agreed upon plan to explain or vote on.
We don't have to give these politicians a blank check and accept whatever they give us as "reform".
Basically, it didn't pass the smell test.
That said, I welcome well reasoned and responsible initiatives to reduce costs & increase health care coverage. Who wouldn't?
Complain about this comment
This story was just awful. I live in Hungary. My mother's close friend has bad arthritis and she has been living a reasonably ok life due to free medical help she has been receiving for decades.
Here the medical system is far from perfect. People with money can get better health care by visiting private practitioners, by pay offs and via their connections. Still, if you really push the system it will deliver the basics at least.
I think it makes sense to put money in the common pot, which will support you when you fall ill. The US should try and embrace such a system. On the other hand the US citizen will alway shy away from paying more taxes. No surprise, as this is how the whole country has been started: riot against taxation.
Complain about this comment
104, fluffytale -
I'm for nationalizing all the hospitals too. So that makes two of us!
Complain about this comment
RickMcDaniel: Have you looked into the details of the Swiss health care system? It seems to be a workable hybrid middle ground.
Complain about this comment
132. At 8:20pm on 09 Sep 2009, GH1618 wrote:
"Here is a link to a summary of the requirements of the financial responsibility law in California"
I don't understand. Does that mean you have to borrow or find 35,000 dollars before you even get into the driving seat? Or does that mean if you run over me, what my insurers can claim from yours, no matter how serious the injury, or how high the costs incurred, be no more than 35,000 dollars?
Or, when I've recovered my health and my wits, I go along to a state office and say "I want this guy's 35,000 dollars, just put it in this suitcase, please?"
Complain about this comment
I agree with wesside01 (#137) that the pace of trying to get this bill through seems a bit rushed. For comparison, it was about two and one-half years into FDR's first term that the Social Security Act was passed.
Complain about this comment
126, CicieB -
You need to educate yourself on state laws regarding auto insurance before you start screaming SCAM! You are wrong.
Complain about this comment
squirrellist (#141), no, that is merely an option if you don't want to buy insurance coverage. Almost everyone (who is legal) carries liability insurance. If you don't want to do that, you may provide proof of financial responsibility in other ways.
Complain about this comment
144. At 9:11pm on 09 Sep 2009, GH1618 wrote:
"no, that is merely an option if you don't want to buy insurance coverage"
So I'm right? If I get run over by someone who didn't want to buy proper insurance coverage? Nice 'option' for the driver, but what about me?
Complain about this comment
The $35,000 figure (for California) does, indeed, seem pretty low. I suspect that it is an old number which has not been updated in a long time.
The way it would work is that an injured party would seek a civil judgment against the driver, which could be in any amount. If the driver did not pay a judgement against him (or her), the injured party could attach the deposit, or recover from the bonding company. If the judgment were higher than the $35,000, it would be similar to being injured by an uninsured motorist, I suppose.
A self-insuring driver who fails to pay judgments loses the right to self-insure.
Complain about this comment
#134 squirrellist
In the US Johanna should maybe contact the Arthritis Foundation.
There is some legislation now about drugs and their costs being sponsored by Rockerfeller in West Virginia
http://capwiz.com/arthritis/home/
Probably Johanna should try to get in a clinical trial in the Netherlands. Maybe they would take her as a charity case from the US..or some other nation will help her now that her problem has had some exposure.
Maybe someone who is wealthy can help her?
But for the US system...some things I would like to see:
Short term
Open up immigration in the US to doctors from other nations. Doctors in the US are much higher paid than in other nations...and the competition will bring down their costs.
Long term
Train more doctors and pay for their medical education.
Train doctors to do follow ups on patients by e mail so that any misunderstandings are corrected and keep records on computer. All files to be computerized and transportable.
Tax breaks given to people who go regularly to exercise in gyms and have kept their weight manageable. Tax breaks for people who have lowered their cholesterol levels or been able to change their behavior as demonstrated with medical tests (like blood work)
For too long too many have assumed that if they became ill a drug would cure their problem. People have to start to change their habits.
Maybe all restaurants should have their ingredients listed in the same way that ingredients are listed on items in the supermarkets...and where the price is on a menu..put the number of calories in the meal.
To lose one pound a person has to eat 3,500 fewer calories. We need to help people become aware of the consequences of eating too much.
Complain about this comment
I should add that you are far more likely to be injured by an uninsured (and probably unlicensed) driver than by a legal driver who is self-insured to a paltry $35,000 limit.
Complain about this comment
And also add that even a driver with customary liability insurance may be underinsured for a serious incident. There is no difference, really. The law does not require that insurance be carried which will cover any conceivable case. As we all know, personal injury judgments have gone through the roof.
Complain about this comment
As the third biggest killer in the USA are doctors and medicine, something needs to be about them.Cuba has good doctors.
Complain about this comment
According to the BBC (which I hear is a fairly reliable site) this is what Obama wants:
* Prevent insurers rejecting customers with pre-existing conditions
* Cap the amount of out-of-pocket fees that insurers can charge their members
* Stop insurers dropping coverage for members who become seriously ill, or refusing to renew coverage for seriously-ill customers
* Force insurers to cover preventive care in full
* Ban annual or lifetime caps on the amount members can claim
* Stop insurers charging more on the basis of gender.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8206349.stm
Omigod its socialism !!! : )
Complain about this comment
Mark, this is spurious journalism, and you know it. I could present (and conservatives have) folks from Canada and the UK who were denied new and innovative drugs because bureaucrats felt the government couldn’t afford them—one story does not a case make.
When you correct for higher than average levels of homicide and accidental death (neither the fault of the healthcare system), America ends up #1 on the healthcare hit parade. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0816chapmanaug16,0,1666314.column) In other words, the US system is the most successful system in the world at keeping people alive!
Most Americans are happy with their healthcare, and ironically, considering the rhetoric coming from the left, especially those who have had to draw on their insurance for treatment. Most polls show over 80% of Americans are happy with their policy and the care they receive. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/09/the_crisis_of__health_care_reform_98217.html)
Liberals also falsely assert that conservatives say no to all reform. On the contrary, many Republicans are happy to support rule changes preventing the exclusion of pre-existing conditions and dropping of existing policy holders when illness strikes. But the quid pro quo has to be free and open competition for insurance providers across State lines, currently barred by local politicians trying to assert authority over local providers, to ensure a large enough pool of insured to balance the risk.
As an expatriate Brit, I have used both the US and the UK healthcare systems. The US system is almost INFINITELY better than the UK system. I spent more time with my physician on my first visit to a doctor in Illinois than all my previous visits to UK doctors combined. When I outlined some of the (lack of) treatment I had received in the UK for issues that are dealt with routinely in the US, my American doctor was horrified.
The fact is, we could have substantial healthcare reform tomorrow, if President Pelosi, I mean President Obama, drops his commitment to a public option of any kind. Most of us agree the need for reform. Most Americans want reform. The left in Congress is the only remaining roadblock.
America—back reform of your healthcare system, but for goodness sake, do not hand it over to the government!
Complain about this comment
147. At 9:24pm on 09 Sep 2009, bethpa:
Some of what you suggest is very laudable, but none really supplies the answer to the question "How will Mark's interviewee and people like her be treated/supported/cared for over the 30 or 40 years she, with luck, has left?"
Charities and foundations do not provide an answer to that, I'm afraid. And nor do experimental drug trials, even if the result is a success but the insurance won't pay for it if it goes on the market.
I'm lucky, I don't have to worry about that. As my last NHS surgeon (a Professor, in fact) said last November as I left the hospital for home, very cheerily, "Right, you can get on with your life again, now." Even if it isn't the sort of life I used to have.)
Complain about this comment
I think that most Americans are in favor of some type of health care reform. The argument is about what type of reform and how much. My objections to the reforms being proposed stem from the fact that the bills under consideration in Congress are large (one house bill was over 1000 pages), incomprehensible, and will be voted on by members who haven't read the bill, don't inted to read the bill, and have no idea what it contains. I find that reprehensible, and that I why I am not in favor of what's currently in the various Congressional committees.
Complain about this comment
#127. GH1618: "Mr. Mardell, I suggest you ignore advice on style and usage from our pedant-in-residence and write anything that seems right to you."
My remark was a self-admittedly picky aside and it would have been more appropriate to comment on the body of the post. What a pity that you feel obliged to explain at length what you mean by 'right'; English is a language which I believe to be the most expressive of all. The Latin languages may sound more attractive but they take more words to describe a thing than does English - and as for German, I've always considered it "unfortunate". As this column is read by others besides Britons and Americans, good style and use is important - but of course, many Americans don't care about such things so long as the general meaning is understood. Standards are not pedantry; if that were so, squirrelist would have no problem with misplaced apostrophes and other punctuation marks.
#135.squirrellist: "Please don't adopt the present tense when describing something in the past: When I meet her, it is a good day. Write "When I met her, it was a good day."
"No, it has a precise meaning"
I don't agree at all; if it were precise I would have recognised it as such. Using the present tense has become endemic in the USA - "so I says to her" and so forth. Had Mark inserted a word such as "later", "eventually" or even "do" between 'I 'and 'meet' it might be acceptable. One shouldn't have to read a meaning into a sentence that isn't there. Historians are no better grammarians than anyone else. To quote Mrs. Slocombe, " I am unanimous in that".
Complain about this comment
148. At 9:28pm on 09 Sep 2009, GH1618 wrote:
"I should add that you are far more likely to be injured by an uninsured (and probably unlicensed) driver than by a legal driver who is self-insured to a paltry $35,000 limit."
That really reassures me, nI must say. This is the nub of the whole insurance problem surely? So, if I visit a friend in California, the onus is on me to get myself insured at some probably horrendous price I can't really afford, being a cripple myself, or keep my fingers crossed and hope I don't get unlucky, or pray the NHS will get me home somehow? Where I might find a bill waiting for me that will mean I have to sell my home, my belongings and the wheelchair I have to use sometimes, to pay it?
(I don't actually know what reciprocal arrangements the NHS has with the US, or with individual states, but I can see I might have to look into that rather carefully.)
Complain about this comment
155.David.
Wrong on this one I am afraid. English is one of the least expressive languages in the world, the most expressive being in the Western Hemisphere and becoming less the more West you go.
Complain about this comment
Has anyone suggested that A&E healthcare in the UK should be available only to those that can afford it?
NO
So why are licence payers paying for some fat bloke who was a waste of time in Brussels to live it large in the US propounding a load of straw man arguments in support of socialised healthcare?
Complain about this comment
I was appalled that this once off account of a single girl in West Virginia is cited as the reason for across the board "health care" reform. Lets put aside the fact that the only thing being reformed here is how much more control the government is going to have on your choices in health insurance. Lets also put aside the fact that the proposals in the bill do not provide any way of keeping costs of insurance down aside from by govt force, which will lead to rationing of health care much to the likes of Italy and the UK, of which many comments here come from. See the thing with Europeans who mock the US health care system is they don't get it. We don't care if you somehow think your health care is infinitely better than ours (even though evidence shows the contrary). We care that we have the choice, whenever we feel like it, to choose to emigrate to europe and come under the benevolent wings of your govt. We also on the other hand, have the choice to STAY AWAY from that kind of health care system if we wish and go with for profit insurance. However, Obama is going to make the US health care system the same as the socialist systems in Europe and UK. Then no one will have a choice. Ofcourse then you might say, that's so fair! Just like Ms West Virginia in this article claims that it is unfair to treat medical services as a business, so lets put everyone in the same socialist boat! That way we can all suffer together. Well if that's what you want, it isnt what 80% of the US wants and that 80% is going to do all it can to stop this nonsense.
Complain about this comment
Obama will bring America to its original values which past presidents have been hypocrites to pursuing to the fullest. i believe a health care system that caters for all could not in anyway be anything bad, the nhs eventhough people say is not the best but it gives everybody the right to health care.
Complain about this comment
#153 squirrellist
I'm sorry that you have been so ill but heartened that you are getting some of the help you need...
Yes please make sure you are well insured if you travel to the US.
Some Canadians I know who spend 6 months in Florida buy health insurance for the US.
The system is wacky and you don't want to be negatively affected by it.
I don't know how good this site is but they give the costs for different insurance packages
http://www.nriol.com/services/insurance/
For anyone reading this from Europe take a look at the above link and fill out the forms to get an idea of what the US health system is like.
Complain about this comment
@ 60. Jimmy_Stacks
"It's so funny reading these comments. To see how the Brits care so much about what goes on in America and how it frustrates you so much that we don't want to be anything like you."
Is it really that humorous that people from across the globe, all over the planet, look at the needless suffering and death of thousands of Americans every year, and they despair that many of you don't have an ounce of human compassion or a shred of empathy for these people?
I don't see what's funny about it.
Complain about this comment
#159 darkwing
Why do you think you can emigrate to Europe? This is an example of how Americans think they are free to do what they want.
You are probably unable to leave the US. You probably don't have the money or the skills to leave.
Your choices are very limited...but don't accept medicare when you reach 65 if you don't want any government health care plans and see how many US private insurers want to insure a 65 year old.
Complain about this comment
Darkwing7, it tickles me the way you indulge yourself in the collective pronoun.
"We don't care if you somehow think..."
"We care that we have the choice, whenever we feel like it...."
Darkwing7, all this appealing to the greater WE, you know it sounds like.... COMMUNISM!!!
Yep, you sound like a commie rat. You sound just like the red under my bed. We this, we that. We the people, huh?
"80% of the USA"???
Sounds to me like you are stoking up the fires of populist sentiment there, pinko.
But don't feel bad. Europeans get the same old thing from their corporate squawk boxes. It is always new laws over here, to save WE the people from ourselves. And just like in the USA, the laws always seem to suit the corporations with connections to government policies that channel taxpayers money towards those corporations.
It is a heck of a co-incidence, I tell you.
But you know, WE have to admire the way the system works. Every time there is an issue on the table, WE the people get divided into the freedom faction and the bleeding hearts. One half of the media clamour about the threat to freedom by the socialists, and the other half clamour about the threat to the people from a government that doesn't care.
And in the end, nobody really knows what the terms of the debate were to begin with, because the story for the media is the debate itself. Extreme statements, excited emotions. Public opinion from the divided WE.
What gets lost in all that predictable hoo hah is the possibility of profitable social policy.
Let me give you a concrete example of what I mean:
It is accepted economic theory that a state which has a low life expectancy for men and high infant mortality for women cannot grow its economy as effectively as a state that has these things. If you read the economic advice the eastern european states, or to the central american states, this is abundantly clear.
It is accepted as plain economic common sense that if people die early, and get sick often, the investment cost to the state inherent in raising that person from childhood is wasted. Babies cost more or less the same to feed and to educate. Once they are adults, you want to get as many productive hours from them as you can, because that is how the society gains wealth. And so it follows that states get more bang for their buck if they can keep people alive and productive once they've been fed and educated.
Like I said, this is fundamental economic theory, when applied to third and second world states.
Have you read about this argument in the media?
Of course not. The only thing in the media is the story about the conflict: the conflict between one half of the population and the other half, neither of which matters in the ultimate decision making process.
WE don't read about the economic theory for or against universal health care, WE don't read about the financial quid pro quo for the corporations funding the proposed legislation, and for those funding the campaign against it.
All WE read about is the emotional debate, the sporting contest of hatred between one half of the working population and the other half.
Like I said, it is a neat system. It is near perfect in the way it occupies the mental faculties of everybody involved, from journalists to academics to politicians to house wives. Everybody is talking about it, and nobody is saying a thing about it.
"We." What a cruel joke. We are divided and ruled, and that is all we know about the political and media process that takes taxation and feeds welfare to the corporate world.
Actually, that should be "YOU". I live in an advanced country with direct democracy, universal healthcare, private property rights. And a media that gets beyond the exciting emotional squabble that corporate media analysts engineer in the corporate press.
Complain about this comment
Hello I know this isn't a comment on the politics of the situation, but I sympathise with Johannas condition and if she is also reading these comments this story might be helpful for her:
Several years ago I was developing arthritis in my hands similar to Johannas but was fortunate to go travelling in Japan for a month during which my joints showed significant improvement. I then suspected there was a link to diet as during my trip I hardly ate any wheat and dairy products. I had that checked out at an allergy clinic here and found I have an immune reaction to these foods not classical rheumatoid arthritis for which I tested negative. I have avoided both since and my joints are now normal. It may be worth a try unless Johanna tested positive for rheumatoid factor.
Complain about this comment
I do not believe the basic premise of this blog entry which is that this 16 year old girl cannot get the medication and medical treatment she needs because her family is poor but not poor enough. It doesn't add up. I do not think her parents have even begun to explore the possible alternatives. Many people who are even illegal aliens get free medical care in the US and for very serious diseases too. Having had time to reflect on this story, I think that this is either a case of parental irresponsibility, media hype to make a political case, or out and out lying possibly including by BBC itself. Either that or BBC has been duped. The first phone calls would be to local social workers and to child rights and abuse organizations in the area where she lives. Then there are myriads of charities and other help organizations that do have money available. Has BBC made even one inquiry to those people? Usually they do not intrude on people's lives unless there is reason to suspect that child abuse or neglect is taking place. What does the local school board have to say about it? I smell something suspiciously political behind all of this and I do not accept it right now at face value. It wouldn't be the first time a BBC story just plain didn't add up.
Complain about this comment
#129. GH1618: "It is only mandatory to be insured for liability when driving, which covers injury to others. Insurance requirements for drivers are a matter of state, not US, law."
Straight from the horse's mouth, the California DMV explains our state requirements.
#157. alphamiguel: "English is one of the least expressive languages in the world, the most expressive being in the Western Hemisphere"
So in which hemisphere do you think the United Kingdom and the United States are?
#156. squirrellist: "being a cripple myself . . ."
Choice of word noted! (For those who are new-ish, see earlier blogs.)
All further comment on the President's healthcare proposals would best wait until after he has addressed the nation. Then let the flood gates open!
Complain about this comment
162, lordumbongoumbongo:
Is it really that humorous that people from across the globe, all over the planet, look at the needless suffering and death of thousands of Americans every year, and they despair that many of you don't have an ounce of human compassion or a shred of empathy for these people?
Very well said. It is some comfort to see that people from across the globe have the compassion and empathy that are so lacking in so many Americans.
And for those who insist on using the collective "we" when spouting off, I'm an American and I really resent your trying to include me in your ignorant, boasting declamations. Speak for yourself. You shame your compassionate compatriots.
Complain about this comment
I started to read the 162 comments on Johanna's page, but really found it hard to get past all the talk of politics, taxes, suggestions that she is pulling the wool over our eyes. Not to mention the competition people seem to be having with their use of language. Which suggests they would be better playing a game of online scrabble than judging Johanna and the health care systems of the UK, US etc.
I think the person who wrote that she is pulling the wool...really needs to look up the words Arthritis, caring, empathy, etc. At 27 having spent nearly 3 years avoiding dealing with the problems Rheumatoid arthritis brings I can safely say its a hard thing to come to terms with never mind someone accusing you of pulling the wool over anyones eyes. I take 10 tablets a day and still experience alot of pain, aches, miserable days. I wouldnt like to think of what that would be like without the tablets.
I luckily live in Scotland where I can access health care with ease, not for a minute am I saying for free. No sufferer expects things for free, they should however expect people to care, and see past politics and lend them a sypathetic ear. I pay for prescriptions, I pay NI and tax from my wages, which go towards more than just health care, which I think people forget sometimes.
Our national health service allows everyone to get treated as equals, ok there are waiting lists but with good there are always drawbacks, thats life. If you have money you can be seen quicker at a private hospital, which is again for the lucky few that have the money and the choice to do so. Which I think is one of the best possible situations Scotland has.
I would rather be seen in a few months by a hospital than never at all and face dealing with problems alone. I get the impression that the folk who dont want America to have the same system, are the people who can pay for it already and dont want to put their taxes towards those who cant. Obviously there is more to it, but to those who require support, advice, medication this is the frustrating outlook they have.
I am not religious but if we were put on this earth, born as equals then should we not grow up and be treated as equals. Just a passing thought.
Complain about this comment
#159. darkwing7: "Obama is going to make the US health care system the same as the socialist systems in Europe and UK. Then no one will have a choice."
Typical claptrap from the rabid right. The British have a choice in addition to the National Health Service. Great numbers buy private insurance to complement what they receive from the NHS; why would it be any different in the United States? Like education, healthcare is considered to be a right. You pay for the education of children and you pay for the care of the military and you pay for the care of the older members of society. Why not all those in between? Veterans have a choice as do those accepting Medicare. No-one forces them to use the services provided: they have a choice. What will you do when you turn sixty-five?
Complain about this comment
166. At 11:16pm on 09 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
I do not believe the basic premise of this blog entry which is that this 16 year old girl cannot get the medication and medical treatment she needs because her family is poor but not poor enough. It doesn't add up. I do not think her parents have even begun to explore the possible alternatives. Many people who are even illegal aliens get free medical care in the US and for very serious diseases too. Having had time to reflect on this story, I think that this is either a case of parental irresponsibility, media hype to make a political case, or out and out lying possibly including by BBC itself. Either that or BBC has been duped. The first phone calls would be to local social workers and to child rights and abuse organizations in the area where she lives. Then there are myriads of charities and other help organizations that do have money available. Has BBC made even one inquiry to those people? Usually they do not intrude on people's lives unless there is reason to suspect that child abuse or neglect is taking place. What does the local school board have to say about it? I smell something suspiciously political behind all of this and I do not accept it right now at face value. It wouldn't be the first time a BBC story just plain didn't add up."
Perhaps reading the story might help?
Athritis is a medical condition whose precise cause is still obscure, and there is no cure not even in the wonderful US. It is agonising for the sufferer and attempted suicide is not unknown. It is not the same as malnutrition, scabies or traditional conditions brought on by neglect.
So what would social services and the school board have to do with anything? DO US school boards treat arthritis? What about the local plumbers, could they assist? The firemen?
This girl plainly suffered from this chronic ailment and needed consistent medication (which of course has side effects that will impact her life).
Asking her school principle, welfare officer, priest or plumber for the prescription pills is not likely to be of much use.
Reading an article before buffoonishly criticising the journalist is always a big help.
The pain this person must have been in going by the photo hardly bears thinking about to anyone who has seen this condition afflict people.
Complain about this comment
5. At 11:11pm on 09 Sep 2009, marifranco wrote:
Hello I know this isn't a comment on the politics of the situation, but I sympathise with Johannas condition and if she is also reading these comments this story might be helpful for her:
Several years ago I was developing arthritis in my hands similar to Johannas but was fortunate to go travelling in Japan for a month during which my joints showed significant improvement. I then suspected there was a link to diet as during my trip I hardly ate any wheat and dairy products."
I have heard this theory, but have never seen any definitive evidence. I knew sufferers who tried almost every cure known to man since the middle ages.
I had that checked out at an allergy clinic here and found I have an immune reaction to these foods not classical rheumatoid arthritis for which I tested negative. I have avoided both since and my joints are now normal."
This is very good news you are very fortunate.
"It may be worth a try unless Johanna tested positive for rheumatoid factor."
It can't hurt as is the old jewish saying - but it is not wise to raise hopes. I have seen everything tried from copper bracelets to russian mud products.
Complain about this comment
113. At 6:48pm on 09 Sep 2009, MagicKirin wrote:
re
I can't speak for your coverage but the referal on mine is just requesting it and it's done. no need to see the GP first."
What a massive waste of resources. Presumably the US system is also choked with hypochondriacs.
Complain about this comment
161. At 10:34pm on 09 Sep 2009, bethpa
No. No. I'm not ill. I'm disabled. Got to insist on that.
I was merely in hospital for a little surgical procedure that keeps me a bit more mobile than I would be without it, so I can mostly carry on looking after myself instead of other people having to do things for me all the time, and also reduces the pain to more manageable proportions.
Whether Johanna would get that in the US, even if fully insured, I don't know. It's not 'essential' treatment, insofar as not having it won't actually kill me, and it won't cure me, it's just very helpful and gives me a better quality of life than I'd have just relying on nothing but drugs.
I don't know what it costs, but I suppose people in the US could work it out: MRI scan a few weeks beforehand; blood tests to be sure I wasn't carrying a superbug or an infection, hospital bed for a day; small operating theatre for half an hour with X-ray machine and technician; a registrar (junior hospital doctor); anaesthetist; professor of orthopaedics (this time) to do it. Oxygen equipment by the bed afterwards--that's at every NHS hospital bed, actually--and a cardiac arrest trolley on the ward just in case, my very own nurse all day to hold my hand or whatever and free tea and biscuits afterwards. (Too late for lunch, and too early for supper.)
I get this every couple of years or so.
Complain about this comment
166. At 11:16pm on 09 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII:
Not for the first time you fail to read what is in front of your eyes. Try again before you decide to jump in with both feet being both needlessly cynical and uncharitable.
Complain about this comment
167. At 11:18pm on 09 Sep 2009, David_Cunard wrote:
"Choice of word noted!"
Well it's like the 'N' word and rappers. Being one, I can use it, but you can't! [VBG]
Complain about this comment
169, BellePatelle -
You sound like a good, kind, compassionate person and I'm glad you added your comments. What common sense! Something lacking in so many of the remarks on this thread.
Complain about this comment
Fact: The Brits could care less about the health of America. They just want us to join them in a failed NHS style system, misery loves company. Next they'll be crying for us to adopt their Sharia style court system they're now implementing there now. No thanks Britain, we don't seek any advice from you on any of our matters.
Complain about this comment
Simple Simon;
You really don't know much about the US except those lies you read and those lies you invent.
"So what would social services and the school board have to do with anything?"
They would find out if this girl was getting all of the medical attention she needs, if not why not, and would find a way to get it for her if she wasn't getting it. If it was merely the result of her parent's negligence, she might be forcibly removed from her home if her parents could but would not provide that care for her. If they didn't have the means, there are vast resources both public and private that can and invariably are brought to bear. We have no evidence that any of this was explored either by the parents or by the media. Short of any evidence to that effect, the story doesn't pass the smell test.
OTOH, if there is no treatment possible, then no amount of medical care would matter. In Britain where medical care is rationed under the socialist system, there is no guarantee that her situation would be any better, especially if her condition was not considered life threatening. At least some of the stories we hear about people waiting for up to a year to get a hip replacement in Britain must be true. In the US the typical wait is usually under one week, often a matter of a day or two. I know, both my grandparents had hip replacements and my aunt had both her hips replaced, all at very advanced ages. BTW, what kind of post op care does Britain offer? This is very critical in the ultimate outcome. Usually recovery takes 3 months of supervised therapy and round the clock medical and other care in a nursing home and then home visits from physical therapists for months more. Does NIH pay for that too?
When my aunt lived with me for the last few years of her life, the State sent people to check on her at my home at two week intervals to see to it that she was getting the medical and other attention she needed. If you recall, several months ago, a region wide manhunt was instituted for a boy who fled with his mother because he had a cancerous tumor in his neck and didn't want court ordered chemo therapy. They finally surrendered to authorities when the pain from the cancer became unbearable. Money was not an issue. You might also be aware that there are many cases of desparately ill or severely injured people being brought to the US by charities and by American doctors themselves for treatment and operations not avialable in their own country, all at the expense of generous Americans. American doctors also travel around the world to teach the latest techniques to foreign doctors to make those therapies available locally. They often do this in local clinics and hospitals where they administer to patients.
Complain about this comment
#178. Jimmy_Stacks: "Fact: The Brits could care less about the health of America. They just want us to join them in a failed NHS style system, misery loves company."
Fact? Don't you just wish! Where do you get the idea that the NHS is a failed system? As Billy O would say, you've been at the Kool-Ade again.
"we don't seek any advice from you on any of our matters."
You don't speak for the millions who want healthcare now, so cut out the "we", please. Fifty years ago there was a Peter Sellers film called I'm Alright Jack and that seems to be your attitude: I'm alright and to hell with the rest.
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell:
I saw this report on BBC World News and, I am glad, that this could be a case for healthcare reform...
=D=
Complain about this comment
"" To cover these charges he/she goes in for an insurance, that insurance is obviously high because the risk is high. So, either lower the insurance, in which case you are taking away the initiative for any insurance company to insure a doctor or lower the legal expenses in which case you are encouraging flaws. If you remove the initiative and then force the insurance companies to still insure doctors then there is no difference between a socialist/nazi regime to yours. If you are lowering the legal expenses then there is no difference between a developing country and a developed nation." garuda09 wrote
I only have one question at present. There will be 18 people on a so called advisory board when Obamacare goes thru. 9 to be appointed, anointed, by the President. The other 9 chosen thru other methods. How much will these Czars be paid? Some will be chosen by such degrees as racial, doctor, so forth and so on to ajudicate certain managerial policies, no doubt? So as the scare tactics prevail, the horror stories, add my own three kids without healthcare twice in my life, when they were small. So the arguement is that I don't want a fast food Obamacare, take it or leave it. I want a well designed plan, it it takes time to do it, take the time. This cramming the pill down the throat of the US, even though you don't like it is wrong. Trust the government? These people are not leaders. All Americans want reform, just not the brand that these that is written at present. Real reform, not pie in the sky.
Complain about this comment
Canard, healthcare in America is an American problem, not a British problem. Things like that have been that way for over 233 years since July 4, 1776, President Obama himself said that it will require and get an American solution. The only thing Britain along with the rest of Europe has to teach Americans is as an example of failure not to be copied.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#179. MarcusAureliusII: "At least some of the stories we hear about people waiting for up to a year to get a hip replacement in Britain must be true."
Which stories would those be? Like the late Senator from Wisconsin, you make statements purporting to be fact with nothing to substantiate them. At 91, my late mother had a fall and required surgery; there was no delay on the part of the Royal Berkshire Hospital, only from myself to ask if operating on such an elderly woman was advisable. As it was she was up in five days and returned from whence she came. She was seen regularly and able to get about readily, albeit with a frame - after all, she was 91.
"Usually recovery takes 3 months of supervised therapy and round the clock medical and other care in a nursing home and then home visits from physical therapists for months more."
Maybe years ago, but not today, at least in modern medicine.
"In Britain where medical care is rationed under the socialist system . . ."
Since you've never been there, never had treatment from the NHS and rely solely on the media for you opinion, how do you know that for a fact? Maltreatment, malpractice and maladministration are to be found in American hospitals and nursing homes. In any case, it is hardly a "socialist" system, a scare word used by opponents of universal healthcare. If it were, Mrs Thatcher would have dismantled it long ago, but she knew that to do so would be political suicide. Even if it is "socialist", what's so wrong with that? Is compulsory education socialist or being obliged to have a licence to practice many kinds of undertakings and professions? There is regulation in the United States just as much as anywhere else, but we don't call it socialism. When applied to healthcare, you do because it suits your agenda. "I'm alright" again.
"When my aunt lived with me for the last few years of her life, the State sent people to check on her at my home at two week intervals to see to it that she was getting the medical and other attention she needed."
Really! The State paid; say it out loud: the State paid and remember your words. You now concede that people should receive care at no direct cost. Yet you would deny it to others. Hypocrite comes to mind.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
RE: #125 by rockmejoe on my post #65
Your comment on one of the three examples I used, "...flood insurance is underwritten by the Federal Government. Still convinced that the Feds can run insurance as well as or better than private companies?" I find confusing as I did not suggest that the Feds run the insurance companies. At worst I made an reference to "a competitor that can offer a better deal" but made no suggestion as to the ownership or makeup of said hypothetical competitor.
As for your "two problems with flood insurance during Katrina: The Feds not paying out benefits...and ignorant residents who wrongly believed...homeowners insurance would cover flooding." 1) It was FEMA under G.W.Bush that halted payments until they were authorized to borrow more money; I doubt anyone is willing to defend FEMAs' actions or lack thereof during and after Katrina. 2) Home owners with no flood insurance are not germane to the example in question.
Frankly Sir, I really do not see how your post is germane to the content of my post #65. If your post was an attempt to refute anything in my post, it failed.
Complain about this comment
It appears that I may not criticise someone who frequently write in very offensive terms about contributors and particular nationalities for an egregious, and I think, offensive inference. So I see no point in continuing to contribute to this blog.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I'm an American citizen and support healthcare reform, including a public health option. However, I am against the individual mandate to have/purchase health insurance. Yes, it is the responsible thing to do - to have health insurance, but it should not be a mandate. This disregards individual free will and choice.
I work for a reputed American firm, have a good job and make a great salary. However, I currently do not have health insurance because I missed a "30 day window" to sign up when I joined the company 10 months ago. In November I will have the option to sign up during an "open window" and will have coverage.
A few years ago I left my employer to travel overseas for a year. I had health insurance coverage during my employment. Upon my departure I was given the option of continuing health insurance coverage through "COBRA" at $600 a month (coverage for just myself). I declined. It was far more economical for me to pay cash for health and medical needs during my year in New Zealand.
When I did have health insurance I rarely used it. I focus on preventive healthcare such as chiropractic treatments, osteopathy, natural medicine, and physicals. The health insurance I had did not coverage most of my preventive needs, including a yearly physical.
The American health insurance system is in disarray: it's hard to get health insurance; harder to keep when you leave an employer; is outrageously expensive; and, rarely covers preventive procedures. It's interesting to read these posts on views & ideas from citizens in other countries and I agree with much that has been said.
In spite of intense feelings of frustration about the American health insurance system, I have hope and I support President Obama's efforts, and applaud his courage and strength to try to institute change in a tough industry, in a tough time.
Complain about this comment
#60 Jimmy_Stacks "The free NHS, you get what you pay for!".
Yes we do. You've obviously missed the point. We all pay for it, and we all receive treatment. Everything we pay in, comes back out in the form of healthcare (be it drugs, beds, Doctors, Nurses, physio.......).
In your system it's a case of "If you pay, you might get some of what you need back, (though you might be refused or need to top it up) and a big chunk of what you pay will go to insurance company pockets". Or from the flip-side: "If you can't pay, you'll get very little, possibly nothing".
#179 MAII "When my aunt lived with me for the last few years of her life, the State sent people to check on her at my home at two week intervals to see to it that she was getting the medical and other attention she needed."
Apart from the fact you now seem to be supporting state-funded medical care, was anyone else concerned that some poor, elderly lady was forced to spend her final years with dear old Marcy. The phrase 'insult to injury' comes to mind.
Complain about this comment
#188. squirrellist: "It appears that I may not criticise someone who frequently writes in very offensive terms about contributors and particular nationalities for an egregious, and I think, offensive inference. So I see no point in continuing to contribute to this blog."
There is an appropriate British saying: "Sticks and stone may break my bones but words will never hurt me". If we all quit because of unkind or untrue personal attacks, there would be few contributors. Rather than quitting, make a complaint to the moderators. Many months back someone called me a liar, which was untrue, I complained and the offending post was removed. It's the only way to deal with such people. Thinking posters always consider the source of offensive remarks, so ignore them if you can. We know you do it!
Complain about this comment
As has been said by many comments above this one, opposing the health care reform is not the same as being against helping those in need. Being British I understand that the media has caused something of a stir by composing stories that display criticism from Americans regarding the state of our NHS. But what we here in Britain are failing to realise is that the Americans have every right to want to maintain their current model of Health Care, it is intrinsic to their 'moral values' and their 'American dream' (sorry if you feel offended by such a generalisation).
The average American I doubt is so dehumanised that they don't feel sympathy for Johanna's crippling condition, it's just that such a health care system is apart of their social infrastructure. It's very much the same in Britain we have become so used to the current existing health care system, that we are very reluctant of modifying it for fear of losing the original intention it was setup for. It can be a cumbersome system and there are weaknesses’ associated with it, such as the waiting lists for organ transplants and the horror stories on tragic non-referrals for surgery or medication. But in our defence it has the benefit of catering for those most in need and it makes no difference whatever your income or social stature is, you will still be treated.
It is both ignorant and arrogant to try and compare our current Health Care system to America's own when in Britain our social ideals are quite different. I'm sure the American people are aware of the shortcomings of their Health Care model, and are thinking of more effective ways of maintaining it without falling to the outline of Obama's ideal. One thing that is brilliant about private health care is that more control and options are provided to the patient, who is at the end of the day paying for treatment and as such receives a bespoke style of care specific to their needs and wants. Corporations are expert at dealing with customer demands and cost effectiveness but aim to make profit margins first and foremost, a government on the other hand is subject to the one size fits all approach, an approach which yields very high successes and sometimes very tragic outcomes.
Complain about this comment
I had a relative that took 6 months to get a hip replacement on the NHS. the states would have done it right away and killed her. The UK was waiting for her pneumonia to go away. Being frail it took a while.
Complain about this comment
192: David
You've misunderstood, I think. The 'offensive inference' wasn't about me, I wouldn't have been bothered. It was an egregious misrepresentation of the subject of this thread. Which someone else had a go at while I was trying to get mine through.
But I find this sort of thing simply too trying, I've had enough of sometimes having to be so elliptical I could be the orbit of Halley's comet, and I just don't need it.
Anyway, good luck, and sorry of I've been a bit mean to you in the past sometimes.
(You know, Fowler's Modern Usage is so-o-o-o old!)
[BG]
Complain about this comment
Jimmy Stacks, no answer to why the US does worse on lifespan and infant mortality then?
There is plenty wrong with the UK, but few want anything like the corporate scam that you call a health system, it's a moral issue as much as anything.
Better hope and pray the coverage you have will actually cover you fully.
Because your health providers employ an army of people to try to find ways to restrict or deny health care.
And as the population ages they'll be more and more busy.
To quote Clint Eastwood - 'Do ya feel lucky?'
Yet I under a system you know nothing about, save for what vested interests (who may one day try and do YOU out of health care) tell you, with the same condition as this woman, have had prompt and effective treatment, non rationed, as a consequence I'm in a better state than this poor woman.
Go on, answer that.
Or just be another sheep totally believing what you are told by those who do not have your health as an interest, just your cash.
Complain about this comment
# 128 CiciB:
"Why would we trust them to set up a system correctly when the people writing it do not have to use it?"
Well true but those people want to be elected again and therefore they can't afford to screw it up either way.
darkwing7:
"We don't care if you somehow think your health care is infinitely better than ours (even though evidence shows the contrary)."
What evidence? The only figures I found in this entire topic proved exactly that you are charged far too much for what you get out of it in this corporate medic system. And as already pointed out the only ones allowed to come and live here in Europe without any questions or skills to bring along are other Europeans iirc.
# 114. vallis123:
I'd like to add something to your summary. Not only Europeans (who obviously shouldn't really care) don't understand how an industrialized nation as the US can bear to have such a crap of health care system, but even Americans who made their own experiences with both possibilities do. It is only those Americans supporting the current system who haven't experienced both, who hate everything coming from Europe just because it is European (like our friend BerkII) or those who don't seem to understand the difference between communism and socialized.
If i am not completely wrong Obama didn't bring the suggestion of a scheme he has now made all by himself but even asked others for their advice and conscrutvie criticism (unlike Clinton did some years ago). If the others (mostly republicans) are not able to try and help him and only booh him instead their behaviour is immature and childish at best.
Any system in which you pay 2 to 3 times as much money and still achieve a worse performance than comparable solutions do is highly flawed and in a world of capitalism the company offering this piece of crap would not be able to sell their product. (you wouldn't buy a car that costs three times as much as another one and has a worse engine while all other features are about the same would you? Well if you were GM wouldn't have needed 50 billions of gov money as their products are far more compatible than the given example) So I guess that is why insurance companies are afraid of governmental competition which of course usually is not famous for its effectivity but in this case seems to outperform everything that was formed by capitalism in the past years.
Complain about this comment
167 David.
If you look up Wikapedia it can mean just the Americas,indeed Asia and excluding Europe. This statement, apparently backed by linguists means the Indigenous languages are more expressive.For example in Lakotah there is no word for love you have to express your feelings which can take many sentences,you have to take your time.In English we say I love you, but we also say I love potato chips,which is silly.
Sorry to upset you again Marcus, but they do not have a word for war,or warrior,or lie.But they do have 50 words for a cloud.
Complain about this comment
(Actually, he wrote it at 11:35pm on 09 Sep 2009, but then my Orange connection dsiappeared)
My God you could live a thousand lives (possibly even productive, healthy ones) in half the time it takes to read through all this stuff! Even if you skate through the more reactionary claptrap.
74 democracythreat, many thanks for that genial exposition! But if the US of A is turning into a fascist pecuniocracy, it is ceasing to be a democracy? Or did it stop being that a long time ago?
162 lordumbongoumbongo, well said! It's not funny at all.
110 i_amkrishna:
"I was in USA in the past I never went to hospital in USA because even if you have small health problem bills are mind boggling seeing the bill you will get heart attack."
That is delicious! Says it all really.
155 David_Cunard:
"English is a language which I believe to be the most expressive of all. The Latin languages may sound more attractive but they take more words to describe a thing than does English - and as for German, I've always considered it 'unfortunate'."
It may amuse you to know that your prejudice against German was shared by the great(?) Graecicist Humphrey Davy Findley Kitto, whose standard text The Greeks (Pelican) says - quoting from memory - "That imprecision and lack of immediate perspicuity into which English occasionally descends and from which German rarely emerges is completely foreign to Greek." I could not possibly agree: German has lots of ways of indicating nuances impossible to express in English, starting with various ways of using the subjunctive which go well beyond the few retained in American English and largely lost in British vernacular.
And bear in mind we have no English word for Schadenfreude. Or Weltschmerz. Or Realpolitik. Or Gemütlichkeit. Or Zeitgeist ...
But then - as this blog has more than adequately shown - we all have our prejudices!
Complain about this comment
A take on the president's speech at www.crosssection.wordpress.com called "Show Me The Money".
Complain about this comment
German is only good when used as scientific language as hardly any other language is as helpful when complicated issues have to be elaborated on. Whenever you don't have a word just put 2 existing ones together and there you have your new word which's meaning will be understood be everyone even if they never ever heard it before.
Apart from that I assume it is a pain to learn if it isn't your mothertongue, it's sound is far not as gentile to ones ears as spanish, french or other latin languages and I also wouldn't say that it has many words for the same meaning (well medieval poems do but most words are not used anymore). It is a very pragmatical goal orientated one.
To enlarge your list of words you lack: Kindergarten, Blitzkrieg but well if you look closely at them except for "Gemütlichkeit" all others are mergers of two others ;-)
Complain about this comment
The only things, I heard clearly, were the repeated mantra of no effect on those covered, the need for reform, no coverage for illegals, and just a hint of tort reform. What was missing is the use of emergency rooms for illegal immigrants primary care!
Complain about this comment
Didactylid: I agree with you regarding German: for example, the ability of its particle words to offer shades of meaning is largely absent from English. (I wonder if they were present in spoken Old English?)
Seraphim85: Do you find no value in German poetry? From the perspective of a native (US) English speaker, I don't think that German is any more painful to learn than any other language.
Complain about this comment
In addition to the self-interest of the corporations, and some underlying racism, resistance to Obama's reforms is rooted in a peculiar American version of meritocracy. To many of his fierce opponents Obama's plan is perceived as rewarding the wrong people and punishing the right people.
Who are the wrong people, those who do not merit free or affordable health care? They are the "takers" of society, the poor, hapless, and luckless, who do not contribute to society from some fault of their own - lack of skills, lack of education, laziness, petty criminality, unemployment, lack of savings, carelessness about personal health problems, lack of relations with good people, failure to prepare for disasters, taking on too much debt. In general, the "trash" of small town, rural and big city life. The so-called trash pose a constant threat to those striving to improve themselves the insecure middle class. If the strivers worked so hard to create a decent life for themselves, including health care, how come these others don't work hard for the same rewards? And why reward "them" with free or inexpensive help from the government? "They" are not taxpayers. And most of "them" are not real Americans (not white, not veterans, recent immigrants). The insecure, striving middle class and the wealthy are taxpayers, and they deserve what they have because they earned it. Why should they be robbed to help those who do not contribute to society?
Another version of this is also quite embedded in many Americans. That is the notion that the rich and powerful contribute the most to society, and even workers are takers living off the wealthy. The rich and powerful (the biggest taxpayers) should not be further burdened to reward the "trash" of society.
Stories of how people have suffered, or appeals to compassion, will not touch those who believe in this right wing version of meritocracy. But such stories can have a positive impact on independent voters. In other words, this reform needs to go forward without any expectation that vociferous opponents will soften their stance. They cannot be won over, and they need not be.
Complain about this comment
Seraphim (201), I must shoot down this idea that "the Latin languages" are somehow sweeter on the ear than German. Italian, maybe; but listen to a rapid-fire Neapolitan conversation and you might change your mind. Spanish is full of "kh" noises (written j or x) and can be very staccato when spoken - not that I mind - and Portuguese makes hay with a "zh" far more often than can possibly be justified. As for French, try writing it phonetically sometime. It may look lovely as "Ce que c'est qu'être coquette" (What it is to be a flirtatious woman), but it's pronounced "skseketrkoket".
Are you German? People always seem to have a poor view of their own language/dialect - even Geordies, who possess one of the most mellifluous - but Hitler's speeches should not be taken as the yardstick. 21st-century German is very soft-spoken, and the only sounds you could possibly take exception to are those for "ich" and "ach", which are hardly conspicuous at all. Swiss and Austrian speakers do it no favours, mind you ...
Complain about this comment
Didactylid (#199) "And bear in mind we have no English word for Schadenfreude."
Yes, but we just use the German word. There are many borrowings in English as in other languages.
Complain about this comment
# 203 Jan Keeskop and 205 Didactylid:
Well I hae to admit to be a person who is not usually reading 1 or 2 poems before falling asleep. The only thing that ever fascinated me was probably "Faust" is it was a few thousand lines long and not one of it was without a rime. Although it is insane how many of our frequently used sayings are from that very book!
Still I think Spanish and French sound nicer - even Swedish does because they are more singing than talking (which makes it harder to learn sadly). German has too many Ts and Ps. And yes I am German :-P
When I was learning some French, Spanish, Swedish and English for each of those there were many situations in which I thought "oh that is a lot easier than it is in German", but if you need examples why I think German must be hard to learn:
- verb forms are close to be random in german especially when it comes to using ue / oe / ae
- for nouns you not only have to learn the fitting out of three genders (which is easy for spanish and french and not required at all for english) but also how to form Akkusativ, Dativ etc.
Complain about this comment
Seraphim85: The beauty of any language's sound is, of course, in the ear of the listener. As Didactylid noted, the typical English speaker would probably be more aware of the frequency of German's "throatier" sounds (g, k, ch of Bach), rather than of its Ts and Ps. Personally, I quite like the sound of Brazilian Portuguese, and enjoy its frequent zh sounds, but that preference doesn't diminish the value of my native tongue, or that of any other language.
By the German verb form difficulties, do you mean Umlaut and Ablaut (vowel alternation in nouns and strong verbs)? If so, English has the same, e.g. foot/feet and sing/sang/sung.
For noun declension, many languages are more challenging than German; Sanskrit has three numbers (singular, dual, and plural), three genders, and eight cases!
I'd think that associating English spellings with their sounds would be difficult for learners of English: just the variety of sounds associated with -ough must seem absolutely chaotic.
Complain about this comment
Spelling must indeed be the big bogeyman for learners of English - and changing it would lose touch with the history of the language, not to mention hiding the meaning a lot of the time (there is no justification, for instance, for the spelling of "sleigh", but it reminds us that it's essentially the same word as "sledge").
And America hasn't been a great help - "colour" becomes "color" (why not "culler"?) and "plough" becomes "plow", but then with "neighbor" they stop halfway!
As for cases of nouns, count how many ways you have to change endings of words in Russian, to name but one! All you have to learn in German is which article to use. But the variety of noun plurals, I admit, can be intimidating.
As for Swedish, having secondary tonal accent (the "sing-song") makes it far more difficult for the language to indicate the speaker's feelings or attitude than English. On one occasion, a Swede repeated my question back to me, and with the mixture of tonal accent, surprise and question intonation it almost took flight at the end!
Complain about this comment
Well knowing neither Russian nor Sanskrit, I would have ranked languages that I tried to learn by their difficulty in the following order tarting by the least hard one:
1. English
2. Spanish
3. French / Latin (both harder than Spanish but in completely different ways)
4. German / Swedish (en/ett is not that much better than der/die/das and the sing-song is there for you to twist your mind when you miss learning verb forms) - maybe Swedish is even harder usually because when you start with German as mothertongue and some knowledge of English you start with the advantage of knowing many of their words already as they are usually close to the ones in either of those two
5. Chinese (I think any language which doesn't use the letters that you are used to makes learning it a lot more difficult)
Complain about this comment
I advocate a "March On Washington", consisting of those who don't have insurance, those who have been denied coverage, those who have been bankrupted and those who have lost loved ones to the faults of the system. I think that if properly organized, such a march could easily draw a million people.
We are going to need something like this to wake up the politicians, the right and the special interests to the fact that this is the very big monster sitting on their doorstep that will not go away, no matter what.
If Obama's initiative fails, and the status quo prevails, I promise that it will not be forgotten nor forgiven by millions. It also might serve to galvanise the left into a bigger force to be reckoned with.
The Republicans may win this battle, but I guarantee you they won't win the war, because the sick will always be with us. I am prepared to see this fight continue for generations if need be.
Complain about this comment
211 YEEESSS>
ORGASNISED RESISTANCE
fite them back.
they got nufffin in em
I 'd say go for the state capital buildings first.
let the right Know where to go.
I want My choice My choice is NHS.. why are the only ones allowed to chose all private.
VIVE la revolution.
Complain about this comment
Hello fluffytale!
The right is locked into a war that they wanted, which will last forever until we take care of the sick, and which THEY WON"T WIN.
Who the hell are these people, showing up with guns at the town hall meetings? They want to assasinate our President over this issue. People draw your own conclusions.
If Obama is assasinated, I don't want to say what could happen. I do remember the '68 riots after Martin Luther King was assasinated; 48 cities were burned, including my own home town.
America is a fantastically degenerate society, that since Reagan has emphasized class warfare from above towards those below. It can't go on, and this "healthcare debate" is a watershed event.
To the right wingers who don't care about medical bills, the sick and uninsured or underinsured and who hate half of the US people! Go stuff yourselves! Pay this woman's $11,000 ambulance bill!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
19. At 1:40pm on 09 Sep 2009, alexanderusa wrote:
“Oh what a dangled web you weave, when you practice to deceive!
No one is refused medical treatment when you go to the hospital, also there are indigent funds to help with medical costs! Also if she is truly disabled there is Social Security Medicare, but she has to meet the requirements.”
Do you know that your taxes pay for the “free” treatment of the uninsured and the un-documented? And if not, the “free” hospitals jack up everyone else’s charges [do check your next hospital bill for charges like $50 for each aspirin].
Do you know that emergency room treatment is many times more expensive than a visit to a clinic or doctor’s office EVEN for someone with an insurance co-pay [in my case $100 as opposed to $25]? This "helps pay for indigent care." So you would rather pay 400% in taxes than let a system be set up to give basic coverage at reasonable cost to everyone, right?
What really annoys me about the ignorant anti-reform crowd who accuse Obama of Socialist tendencies is that not only is Obama not at all Socialist, but he is not even offering significant reform! The insurance companies literally get away with murder.
They deny treatment to people to jack up their pay and bonuses, and the drug companies charge Americans multiple times more for the same medicines than other countries' citizens pay [You have heard about people importing meds from other countries, right!?]
\I love my country, but sometimes I despair of the abysmal ignorance and stupidity of my countrymen [and –women]!!!
By all means avoid socialism and keep private companies, but they must be subjected to serious regulation, including caps on profits, CEO and board salaries, bonuses, etc.
Complain about this comment
46. At 2:58pm on 09 Sep 2009, bloominlovely51 wrote: The government is also thinking of instituting "death panels" which will decide end of life medical decisions for the elderly and terminally ill due to the high cost of care for those people. A scary proposition.”
Wow, that scary bit of propaganda has worked really well if even someone with a relatively sound understanding of the other issues buys into it! Death is inevitable [something American culture is loath to admit], but life can be prolonged. Sometimes the mindless body can be kept “alive” for years, or until the family is bankrupt and can’t pay the bills. Sometimes there is an attempt to get the government to fund the travesty of life to the outermost limit.
The real idea was to provide counselling for people with terminal illnesses and help families plan for the inevitable. The propagandists turned this into a Nazi-like plot to kill people’s grandmothers [this is where the Obama as Hitler posters probably came from]. I love my country, but sometimes I despair of the abysmal ignorance and stupidity of my countrymen [and –women]!!!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS