No Such Thing as Free Health Care

[RonD1120 62]

There's No Such Thing as Free Health Care
The costly truth about Canada's health care system

John Stossel | July 2, 2009

President Obama says government will make health care cheaper and better. But there's no free lunch.

In England, health care is "free"—as long as you don't mind waiting. People wait so long for dentist appointments that some pull their own teeth. At any one time, half a million people are waiting to get into a British hospital. A British paper reports that one hospital tried to save money by not changing bedsheets. Instead of washing sheets, the staff was encouraged to just turn them over.

more...
http://reason.com/news/show/134553.html

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[dreamdancer 0]

me and my family have had no problems with the 'english' health service

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Ian84 0]

I've never waited longer than 45 minutes. For routine dental appointments you book in advanvce. If it is an emergency you will be seen immediately. You can always go private and pay for treatment yourself if you want to.

People pull their own teeth? Maybe if they have underlying psychological issues. Otherwise they're just idiots.

[Andy9o8 2]

All the fear-mongering propaganda notwithstanding, the "Boogie-man of Socialized Medicine" is not out to kidnap and eat American children. This ain't an all-or-nothing world, and this ain't an all-or-nothing issue. Americans are great at using the cafeteria approach - cherry-pick the good, innovate to make it better, and discard the bad. It's not about discarding what already works; it's about keeping it, but adding more to the total matrix so that nobody falls between the cracks. If done right - can't we do it right? - it's a win-win.

But thanks for giving me more straight lines about Brits and their teeth.

[lawrocket 3]

The fear mongering is on both sides. The rhetoric is coming strongly from both sides. Reason doesn't matter with the move to get socialized health care - the campaigning is based upon demonization of the insurance industry and about inflaming the passions of the voters. Details have been and will be avoided, lest the message be lost in the details. Think of this new carbon bill - the final draft of the 1100 page bill released just a couple of days before the vote.

On the other hand, the opponents demonize government run health care as not being the end all be all. I'm one of them. Much like the advocates of government health care point to individual failures as their reason, we point to individual failures as our reason for not wanting it by looking at similar systems and deeong how they've managed.

Really what it comes down to is subjective choices. Opponents say, "health care will be rationed.". Proponents say, "no it won't." Well, socialized health care will merely change the rationing. Health care now is rationed by price.

Those is favor of socialized health care want to put the government in charge of fixing a broken system. Opponents say the government can't fix it. I say, "the government is the payor for half of health care in the US, anyway. If the system is broken one would look at the big player."

Reason and process don't turn on the population. A few weeks ago I posted a talking point study wherein the first point necessary for successful passage is to not talk about specifics. Don't talk about how you will do it. Just tell the people they need it and want it. Politics by Madison Avenue.

There is plenty to bully on both sides. Make no mistake, though. I have invested heavily in the present system. I will lose my investment if this goes through.

I am convinced that I will pay roughly the same for healthcare but that I will be given less access, less choice, and fewer options.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JohnRich 4]

I recently decided to start using my Veteran's Administration health benefits that I earned 35 years ago. All I wanted to do was get an eye doctor appointment for a new contact lens prescription. Here's what I had to go through:

1) Before you can see an eye doctor, you must have a primary care physician. That physician wants a blood test as part of the basic new patient procedure. Waited in line for several hours to have blood taken.

2) Visited physician, who weighed me, poked and prodded, etc. Told I can't get an eye exam since my vision needs aren't due to a service-connected disability - but she'll see what she can do.

3) Then they gave me a take-home packet where I shit on popsicle sticks and produce smears to be sent back in to check for colon cancer.

4) Eye doc calls and gives me an appointment! Finally, I'm getting somewhere. Show up, take exam, and given an eyeglass prescription. Not a contacts prescription. Informed that the VA doesn't provide contacts, only spectacles.

So, after two months with the VA, being sucked for blood, poked, prodded, and shit on a stick - no contact lenses.

I went to my old private-practice opthalmologist and walked out with new contacts one hour later.

This is my comparative experience with socialized medicine, versus private industry.

[billvon 2,990]

>This is my comparative experience with socialized medicine, versus private industry.

That's exactly as it should be IMO.

Want to get free medical care? Expect them to save your life if you need it. Otherwise, expect to wait in line, get seen last, and in the end get a pair of glasses. Result - you can see, but it was annoying.

Want to get fast medical care? Pay for it and get it as fast as you want.

A pretty reasonable tradeoff, methinks.

[JohnRich 4]

So then, I take it that you are NOT in favor of a government health care program running private medical care out of business? You want both to co-exist, and allow citizens to make their own choices as to which to use?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

shit on a stick

You just can't resist taking a swipe at British food, can you?

[billvon 2,990]

>So then, I take it that you are NOT in favor of a government health
>care program running private medical care out of business?

No; government health care should never attempt to replace private medical care. Government health care should be limited to emergency services, basic care and public health (think epidemic prevention and control.) If people want more, they can pay for it - and thus provide a financial incentive to doctors who are good at what they do, drug companies for new drugs, and medical technology companies for new medical devices.

[wmw999 2,439]

Dunno about Bill, but I'm sure not in favor of the government running private medical practice out of business. It'd just also be nice to see more people have better options than the ER.

Nothing will be perfect, and anything is abusable. But in England there are private physicians (look up Harley Street). There is choice. If enough people exercise that choice (i.e. pay extra for medical care) it will continue to exist.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

I see that the new plan is expected to cost $611 billion over 10 years. Average $61 billion per year.

In 2008, Medicare spent $468 billion. So, this new program is at 13% of the yearly spending, with Medicare especting to climb and climb.

Medicare had 45.2 million enrollees in 2008. Obama has mentioned that this plan would help insure roughly 50 million uninsured people.

So the government expects to cover roughly the same number of people (maybe a few million more) for 10-15% of the price. This is even though the average out-of-pocket spending by Medicare beneficiares aged 65 and up is nearly $5k per year. Nearly and additional $2k per year in Medigap premiums.

So, we see that Medicare spending covers the same number of people (or fewer) than this projected plan. And this plan should cost 10%-15% of Medicare - even with the average out of pocket and premiums for Medicare between $5k and $7k.

How the hell is this gonna freaking work? It cannot.

P.s. - it may be said that this program would be paid for by premiums paid by the new enrollees. If that was the case it would cost nothing. The $611 billion over ten years would be for the purpose of subsidizing the insurance to provide apparently "market level" services at "below market" prices. The "market price" of course will be made up by others.

So, workers out there, you will be paying for government healtchcare whether you like it or not. You can then choose to buy below-market priced health insurance from uncle sam (which would mean you get something back) or pay market-level (that is, higher priced)
Insurance and still pay for additional insurance that you are taxed to provide.

That's the gig. Government will royally fuck it up, cause even bigger problems, and thus be required to fix it. And the fix will NOT be doong away with the program.

If they can't do Medicare for less than 450 billion per year, how can they do this for 60 billion a year?

They can't. This would be just the first step.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

But thanks for giving me more straight lines about Brits and their teeth.

From the Brits I've known, I'd say there is absolutely nothing straight about their teeth.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Want to get free medical care?

It's not "free". John paid for it, by serving in the military.

John just wanted to get the medical care he was entitled to as part of his service package. You know, that stuff the government is contractually obligated to provide?

If people who actually worked to get the care get this, I can hardly wait to see Social Security providing for my retirement. At which time I'm sure someone will be saying "Want to get free retirement?" Which totally misses the fact that I _paid_ for the social security, the same as John paid for his VA benefits (with his service).

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

So then, I take it that you are NOT in favor of a government health care program running private medical care out of business? You want both to co-exist, and allow citizens to make their own choices as to which to use?

If I've read his opinions correctly, Bill wants basic emergency care provided by the government, and all other care provided by the private sector.

Honestly, given what I think is going to emerge from Washington, at this moment I'd be willing to let Bill become the dictator of healthcare and impose his plan, if it meant that those bozos in DC couldn't impose theirs.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>This is my comparative experience with socialized medicine, versus private industry.

That's exactly as it should be IMO.

Want to get free medical care? Expect them to save your life if you need it. Otherwise, expect to wait in line, get seen last, and in the end get a pair of glasses. Result - you can see, but it was annoying.

Want to get fast medical care? Pay for it and get it as fast as you want.

A pretty reasonable tradeoff, methinks.

We don't need to change a thing, then - we already have that via EMTALA/Medicaid/Medicare and private insurance.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

shit on a stick

You just can't resist taking a swipe at British food, can you?

I thought the basis of British cooking was "boil everything to mush" - how do they get it on the stick, after that?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

So then, I take it that you are NOT in favor of a government health care program running private medical care out of business? You want both to co-exist, and allow citizens to make their own choices as to which to use?

Although you addressed this to Bill, I'll note that that's pretty much what I'd like like to see. From reading his posts, I think Bill's vision of the government's program would be less expansive than my vision. My idea is more of a side-by-side.

[surfbum5412 0]

Quote

There's No Such Thing as Free Health Care
The costly truth about Canada's health care system

John Stossel | July 2, 2009

President Obama says government will make health care cheaper and better. But there's no free lunch.

In England, health care is "free"—as long as you don't mind waiting. People wait so long for dentist appointments that some pull their own teeth. At any one time, half a million people are waiting to get into a British hospital. A British paper reports that one hospital tried to save money by not changing bedsheets. Instead of washing sheets, the staff was encouraged to just turn them over.

more...
http://reason.com/news/show/134553.html

I work in the medical industry, and this subject is laughable.

The first thing you have to look at is: currently we do have government funded health care programs. They are Federal Medicare and State Medicaid. From personal everyday experience, I can tell you that NO doctors will take Medicaid. One doctor explained it to me perfectly, 'if I do get stuck with a Medi-cal patient, my office won't bill for it because it costs more to bill if they even pay us...which they won't.' State Medicaid programs are an absolute joke. And many doctors stay away from Medicare patients as well because the hoops you have to jump through to get paid.

Maybe they should focus on how to make these programs better before expanding the huge cluster fuck to everyone else in America.

[surfbum5412 0]

Quote

Bill wants basic emergency care provided by the government

Already happening. How many people that go into the ER actually have insurance? Very very few. So then that person applies for Medi-cal (medicaid), which is basically telling the hospital, "I would like health care please, but you are not going to be getting paid for it." Try going into a car dealership and telling them you would like a free car. Haha.

[MikeRMontagne 0]

Hi there, the heading of your comment starts off questioning the cost of
our Canadian Health Care system, but instead attacks the British Syst, with stuff of urban ledgends.
We north of the boarder to watch all the U.S.programs, like 20/20, 60minutes(my favorite), but
in some cases, come on.Flipping bed sheets?
There's embelishing, like the recent story of the lady
scientist who was rescued, from the Antartic, and recently died. The real unsung Heroes were a Twin Otter crew, from Bradley Air Services,Yellow Knife
North West Territories, Canada,they flew her out, not
the U.S.Navy. All media are guilty of sound biting,
with out throughly checking their facts, if anything,
just for expiendiency.Canada's system isn't perfect
but, I know they try their best!
We've learned, and it's been sad enough times don't
believe everthing you read,see or hear in the media.

Be Brave, embrace the fear,
even if your not, pretend to be.
No one can tell the difference

[billvon 2,990]

>We don't need to change a thing, then - we already have that
>via EMTALA/Medicaid/Medicare and private insurance.

Sort of. But we "pay" for it now by forcing hospitals to go bankrupt, insurance premiums to go up and doctors to be unable to practice. The basic concept is there; it just needs to be moved from an unofficial clusterfuck to a more official slightly-less-of-a-clusterfuck

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>We don't need to change a thing, then - we already have that
>via EMTALA/Medicaid/Medicare and private insurance.

Sort of. But we "pay" for it now by forcing hospitals to go bankrupt, insurance premiums to go up and doctors to be unable to practice. The basic concept is there; it just needs to be moved from an unofficial clusterfuck to a more official slightly-less-of-a-clusterfuck

I don't disagree with your statement, but I'd like to see fed.gov fix Medicare/Medicaid FIRST, before (in basis) expanding it to the rest of us.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

Bill wants basic emergency care provided by the government

Already happening.

Yes. I guess what I should have said is "Bill wants a different system of paying for emergency care, wherein the taxpayers generally would get stuck with the bill, rather than shafting whichever ER happened to provide the care with an unpaid account.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Basically, you want to shift the burden of unpaid emergency care from the hospital that happens to provide it (as it works now) to the federal government?

I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea, actually. Then the taxpayers get to share in that equally, instead of every (paying) patient at that particular hospital sharing the burden on a per-hospital basis.

The major question I've got is how to do that without greatly enlarging the bureaucratic burden. Right now, individual hospitals run their charity care systems pretty leanly (since they're loss makers). Can we really federalize that system and still administer it with the same (or less) overall cost? I'm skeptical, but if it could be done well, it might actually help things a bit.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com