Catholics VS Health Care in America: Morally Embarrassing

[Monte_RCMS]

reuters.com/article/comments/idUSTRE65M0SU20100623

Excerpt:

*Did no one noticed that this report is from The Commonwealth Fund, one of the biggest proponents of Obamacare?

“The Fund is currently led by president Karen Davis… She served as deputy assistant secretary for health policy in the Department of Health and Human Services from 1977–1980, under the Carter administration…”

Cartercare → Hillarycare → Obamacare*

***This study is NOT a study of actual healthcare results it is study of people’s opinions on healthcare. ***And it is based on data as far back as 2007.

For example, the U.S. is graded last in automation of doctor’s offices. And the differences in costs from one country to the other is not factored into the cost analysis nor is the use of healthcare technology driven equipment which the U.S. leads in.

I would not put a lot of faith in these rankings.

*With the negativity surrounding US healthcare in the last several years it is both unfortunate and riddiculous that a “study” based on retrospective survey data to evaluate the entire US healthcare system. If they are going to publish something like this at least preface it with a sentence about it being based on opinion and not fact.
Asking someone to recall whether or not a doctor called them late or miscommunicated test results to them is just inviting bias and giving vent to all the people told to be frustrated by politicians and media.

This is as much a “study” as a teacher satisfaction survey to a 6th grade classroom. GIGO.*

OK, so let me get this straight. A “non-profit” group set up for the purpose of changing healthcare (no agenda there) did a survey and asked people what they thought about their healthcare, and Americans didn’t say they liked theirs as much as other countries said they liked theirs. That’s very scientific. How about we take actual stats, like cancer survival rates, which are an excellent representation of prevention and proactive action. US Prostate cancer survival rate 91%. UK – 51%. So basically half of all people who die of prostate cancer in UK can blame their healthcare program.

I came to the states from Germany and this article and its methods are a pure joke! In fact, my niece has cystic fibrosis and we flew her in for treatment we can ONLY get here. Get a life and stop publishing rubbish

My daughter is a US citizen and an undergraduate at Oxford University. As such she is covered under my health care plan in the US, and by NHS in the UK, so we have a direct comparison of both systems. On my daughter’s term breaks, the first thing she does is see a doctor in the US to fix everything they cannot or will not in the UK where she was told, for example, that the persistent respiratory problems and ear infections were just because she wasn’t used to the dampness, and that they would probably go away in the 3rd term (which began in April). They never did tests, merely prescribed the occasional antibiotic. There was no follow-up. Certainly we spend more in the US — we actually get care!

Did you ever look around while in emergency room, who actually seating there and waiting to be seen by the doctor who just graduated from Medical School (this is who works at the emergencies). If not, you better take a good look, and see that majority of the people are non English speaking and ready to be deported, because they are illegal in this country. Thats how they get health care in this country, by going to Emergency room, not to primary doctor if they get a cold or flu. So if we send them back to where they came from ILLEGALLY, our Emergency rooms will be used only for what they supposed to use, EMERGENCIES. I lost my father to free health care, when he was only 39 yo, after he spent 3 months in hospital, that supposed to be 3 day stay in US and going home alive, so I know first hand what this “free stuff” means.

Healthcare costs fall just the same as plasma TVs. Look, drugs invented in 1985 cost a lot less now than they did in 1985. The problem is people aren’t satisfied with just 1985 drugs. They wan’t cutting edge drugs. And that’s always expensive.

Take a deep breath. You all don’t have a clue what you’re talking about and ObamaCare is going to cause the whole system to fall apart, which is what it is designed to do. It’s supposed to make the private system fall apart so we all have no choice but to accept a national single payer system.

Then we can all get treated slowly by federal workers …

Interesting study. When I lived in both Britain (London) and Windsor, Canada I had to go to hospitals in both countries. I wonder if they got higher scores for the disgusting, dirty conditions of their ER rooms (dried blood on the wall in London, dirty floors and sheets in Windsor)…Never had to deal with that in the US.

America has the best Healthcare! I have a 20 year old son with a disability. He shouldn’t be alive, and he is. He shouldn’t talk, and he does. He shouldn’t understand values, and when asked if he was able to walk what’s the first thing he would do; he expressed that he would make his mother coffee; he understands values. He had to work hard with clinicians and doctors and he did just that with the amazing staff at Children’s Specialized Hospital in NJ. Is Health Care expensive in America? Absolutely! Are we working on it? We most certainly are! We have the best health care providers! My son is a spastic quad. who, because of all his health care, and all those that have worked with him over the years, has the confidence to work and be a productive citizen. Our health care system is amazing! Can we do better! YES!! That’s the American Way!!

 

[endoentropism]

So what you’re saying is, U.S. healthcare is the best in the world (if you can afford it).
I don’t think anyone would dispute that.

I mean – it’s right in your post. You’re practically saying you want to keep the status quo to ensure the people who can afford it can keep getting the best attention (even if it means the people who cant go bankrupt or die).

 

[Monte_RCMS]

So what you’re saying is, U.S. healthcare is the best in the world (if you can afford it).

I don’t think anyone would dispute that.

I guess you have chosen to not read the previous posts.

You show up at the hospital and you will get treatment.

 

[endoentropism]

I guess you have chosen to not read the previous posts.

You show up at the hospital and you will get treatment.

And the bill just disappears?
Is the treatment free?

I don’t know if a hospital gurney is the best place to be making financial decisions if a gangbanger shoots me during a mugging.

If I show up at the hospital with prostate cancer and no insurance, are they going to give me free rounds of chemo and radiation?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

And the bill just disappears?
Is the treatment free?

I don’t know if a hospital gurney is the best place to be making financial decisions if a gangbanger shoots me during a mugging.

The ambulance picks you up takes you to the nearest Emergency Room.

If you have insurance, they get billed.

If you do not have insurance, you get billed.

If you have no money, the hospital eats the cost. Which is why so many hospitals are suffering severe financial reverses.

 

[endoentropism]

The ambulance picks you up takes you to the nearest Emergency Room.

If you have insurance, they get billed.

If you do not have insurance, you get billed.

If you have no money, the hospital eats the cost. Which is why so many hospitals are suffering severe financial reverses.

That’s an emergency room situation, sure.

What about cancer, diabetes, or other chronic illnesses? Are they going to give me a lung transplant pro-bono if I can’t afford it?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

More excerpts:

This “study” is nonsense. Here’s what the “study” actually tested:

1. Best Care? U.S.A., far and away
2. Is it Socialist? NO
3. Is it Socialist as the Authors? NO
4. Is it Socialist as possible? NO
   Score: U.S.A. 25% = next to dead last.

But guess what? The reason we have the BEST CARE is because the other three answers are NO. There are things we can do to improve, but they should not include gutting the Best Medical Care in the World to achieve them.

What the fund is calling bad medical care is the fact that Americans, in most cases, have actually work and pay for part of their health care. The systems the report is calling successful are systems where a woman waits for six months to have a biopsy for breast cancer and where elderly people aren’t allowed to have kidney dialysis because of costs. People from the countries the report claims has better health care than the USA come here by the hundreds or thousands for treatments. Did you ever hear of a world leader flying to Toronto or London for open heart surgery? No they come to the USA. This report is bunk. They are supporting working people paying for health care for the illegal aliens and lazy people who wouldn’t work if they were offered three jobs.

Folks, you need to pay attention to the details. This study was based on “data from nationally representative patient and physician surveys”, meaning that these are the perceptions (of quality) from individuals from different countries. As a U.S. scientist who lived in Britain for a number of years – i.e. this is a first-hand account, not that of a “friend” – I can assure everyone that waiting times in the UK are considerably longer than those in the US. Furthermore, care that is considered normal in the UK, because they don’t know any better, would be considered subpar/archaic in the U.S.

As for costs of healthcare, most (if not all) of the other countries cited in the article have a VAT (value added tax) of 15-30% and gasoline taxes that are utilized in large part to pay for very costly social services, including national health care. If these taxes were factored into the calculation for health care costs, the U.S. would compare far more favorably. Furthermore, as noted in other comments, the health care in the U.S. exceeds that of any other country listed.

Now, with regard to access to health care, I agree that we need to make sure that all of those folks who need and want health insurance have access to it. However, immediately assume that Obama’s national healthcare plan is the ONLY way to get there is a specious argument.

The following person is complaining because her insurance paid pretty much everything: It is a hoot. Each of us DOES have some obligation to purchase insurance, but it you don’t you will still get treated.

How fortunate for you. I hope you continue in good health up until the moment you depart this vale of tears. However, you must have an awful lot cash on hand. Medivac, three days in cardiac care, cardiac rehab: $180,000.00. Fortunately I have very good insurance, otherwise my only option would have been bankruptcy. Even with insurance I’m still on the hook for $6,000.00 out of pocket. Should have it paid off in 8 more months.

This is for [deleted] and the rest of you [deleted] that think healthcare is inaccessable – Go to Canada, Cuba, England for healthcare and see the difference. See if you can handle the wait. If your very sick and ready to die, go to any hospital. They cannot refuse your entrance if you are really ready to die. Our cost sky rocket because of tort laws and no reform. Don’t like the Doctor – sue’em. Is that placed in the survey. And what about all the illegals in this country in line at the emergency room waiting for free care. Another handout of taxpayer dollars.

People from all over the world go to the Mayo Clinic for help. Look at our Cancer centers success rate for treating cancer. Would you trust anyone else?

Get an education and go to work. Socialists are lazy always looking for someone to take care of them – wanting something for nothing. Wait and see what is in the wings when one of your loved ones is refused healthcare because of terminal illness and the Government Death Panel will not waste the money on them. Who will laugh last.

 

[endoentropism]

More excerpts:
What the fund is calling bad medical care is the fact that Americans, in most cases, have actually work and pay for part of their health care. The systems the report is calling successful are systems where a woman waits for six months to have a biopsy for breast cancer and where elderly people aren’t allowed to have kidney dialysis because of costs. People from the countries the report claims has better health care than the USA come here by the hundreds or thousands for treatments. Did you ever hear of a world leader flying to Toronto or London for open heart surgery? No they come to the USA. This report is bunk. They are supporting working people paying for health care for the illegal aliens and lazy people who wouldn’t work if they were offered three jobs.

Your American Exceptionalism is showing:

“In a Canadian National Population Health Survey of 17,276 Canadian residents, it was reported that only 0.5% sought medical care in the US in the previous year. Of these, less than a quarter had traveled to the U.S. expressly to get that care.[70]”

A whole 40,000 people in a country of 33,000,000.

"A McKinsey and Co. report from 2008 found that a plurality of an estimated 60,000 to 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care;[77] the same McKinsey study estimated that 750,000 American medical tourists traveled from the United States to other countries in 2007 (up from 500,000 in 2006).[78] "

In 2007, 10x more Americans left the United States for treatment than foreigners went to the U.S. for treatment.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

That’s an emergency room situation, sure.

What about cancer, diabetes, or other chronic illnesses? Are they going to give me a lung transplant pro-bono if I can’t afford it?

Well, my wife worked in a hospital admissions office. And … yes.

She was annoyed because she knew they deliberately chose not to buy insurance.

One of the regular posters here has a major chronic illness. Can’t get insurance. Can’t keep a job. Basically has no money. The illness dominates the person’s life. Life threatening on a constant basis. Goes to the hospital for care. They give her the best treatment they can. They bill the poster and from time to time, the poster declares bankruptcy. Has done so several times. Not denied treatment.

 

[endoentropism]

Well, my wife worked in a hospital admissions office. And … yes.

She was annoyed because she knew they deliberately chose not to buy insurance.

One of the regular posters here has a major chronic illness. Can’t get insurance. Can’t keep a job. Basically has no money. The illness dominates the person’s life. Life threatening on a constant basis. Goes to the hospital for care. They give her the best treatment they can. They bill the poster and from time to time, the poster declares bankruptcy. Has done so several times. Not denied treatment.

Well that’s encouraging, and a little surprising.

Even if the system isn’t fullblown Scandinavian UHC, I do not like the idea of a person being denied treatment based on their income. Whether that’s achieved through a Canadian system or a reformed American insurance system is almost immaterial – as long as the burden is shared equally, and access is the same for everyone.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

More excerpts:

*A study done by advocates for healthcare reform says that America is LAST? Wow, imagine that!

Yes, we spend more than any other country for healthcare. But why? We can’t go to a doctor and negotiate a price because it’s such a heavily regulated industry. Adding middlemen to healthcare cannot by any logic reduce costs, and the Reform Bill won’t reduce costs at all. In fact, the Dems stopped touting it would when they dropped the Public Option. So healthcare costs are up for everyone.

Our healthcare system DOES need work. Simply look at the cost of care and determine where every penny goes. If you spend $1000 for service, how much is going to the actual care? Only bout $500 (CATO Institute study). Insurance companies’ profits are record high, yes, but only because they take a percentage and costs keep rising. Their profits are still only 5% or so. Completely removing insurance profits would only reduce healthcare costs 2.5% or so!

Add to patients’ costs the fact that it’s very difficult to add new hospitals due to regulatory constraints, reducing the number of providers, thereby increasing costs even more. Now we are adding more red tape, which never reduced costs in any program, and we are reducing benefits to existing government-run programs.

What we really need to do is make it easier for doctors to run their own practice with only the minimum amount of red tape, encourage competition among providers thereby eliminating monopolies, allow patients with pre-existing conditions into medicare, and give big tax breaks to new hospitals, streamline the FDA and add malpractice reform to the mix. We could easily see a 40%-60% reduction in healthcare with these and a few other reforms and repeals that are badly needed.*

Please note the suspect figure of “46 million Americans or 15 percent of the population without health insurance.” This figure popped up early in the push for medical care reform, then dropped about 12 million once the reformers had subtracted the illegal aliens from the mix. This news report also failed to note that BHO made a deal with the drugmakers to keep the re-importation of prescription drugs out of the proposed medical reform. As a result, drug costs for good ordinary Americans will stay high. The re-importation of drugs would have introduced a market mechanism known as competition to the price of drugs, surely lowering drug costs. Finally, news reports have said America remains the only modern country without universal medical care. Even Mexico has it for its citizens. Shame on the politicians and the elite in the medical industry who prefer the status quo of keeping medical costs high.

 

[dmelosi]

Well that’s encouraging, and a little surprising.

Even if the system isn’t fullblown Scandinavian UHC, I do not like the idea of a person being denied treatment based on their income. Whether that’s achieved through a Canadian system or a reformed American insurance system is almost immaterial – as long as the burden is shared equally, and access is the same for everyone.

You keep leaving out “except they take out paying for the mass killing”.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Well that’s encouraging, and a little surprising.

Even if the system isn’t fullblown Scandinavian UHC, I do not like the idea of a person being denied treatment based on their income. Whether that’s achieved through a Canadian system or a reformed American insurance system is almost immaterial – as long as the burden is shared equally, and access is the same for everyone.

WHY is that surprising?

Why should that be so surprising?

I’m shocked that you are surprised.

Americans know it.

And illegal aliens know all about it!!

It is the reason why hospitals lose money.

And why so many hospitals and/or hospital emergency rooms have had to close.

The Federal government requires them to lose money.

Which is unsustainable.

Are you familiar with Cloward-Piven?

Here is a repeat of the last excerpt:

Please note the suspect figure of “46 million Americans or 15 percent of the population without health insurance.” This figure popped up early in the push for medical care reform, then dropped about 12 million once the reformers had subtracted the illegal aliens from the mix. This news report also failed to note that BHO made a deal with the drugmakers to keep the re-importation of prescription drugs out of the proposed medical reform. As a result, drug costs for good ordinary Americans will stay high. The re-importation of drugs would have introduced a market mechanism known as competition to the price of drugs, surely lowering drug costs. Finally, news reports have said America remains the only modern country without universal medical care. Even Mexico has it for its citizens. Shame on the politicians and the elite in the medical industry who prefer the status quo of keeping medical costs high.

 

[endoentropism]

Please note the suspect figure of “46 million Americans or 15 percent of the population without health insurance.” This figure popped up early in the push for medical care reform, then dropped about 12 million once the reformers had subtracted the illegal aliens from the mix. This news report also failed to note that BHO made a deal with the drugmakers to keep the re-importation of prescription drugs out of the proposed medical reform. As a result, drug costs for good ordinary Americans will stay high. The re-importation of drugs would have introduced a market mechanism known as competition to the price of drugs, surely lowering drug costs. Finally, news reports have said America remains the only modern country without universal medical care. Even Mexico has it for its citizens. Shame on the politicians and the elite in the medical industry who prefer the status quo of keeping medical costs high.

That’s an interesting point – how can you point to obvious corporate greed (aided and abetted by unscrupulous politicians), as in the above example but also outside the healthcare industry in things like the housing collapse of 2008, and then say the solution to America’s HC problems is private insurance?

Corporate America isn’t Eve being tempted by the Government Snake. People are evil and greedy no matter what their vocation is, and the Gordon Gekkos of the world have more than shown their willingness to game the system when regulators turn a blind eye.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Well that’s encouraging, and a little surprising.

Even if the system isn’t fullblown Scandinavian UHC, I do not like the idea of a person being denied treatment based on their income. Whether that’s achieved through a Canadian system or a reformed American insurance system is almost immaterial – as long as the burden is shared equally, and access is the same for everyone.

I think what you’re thinking of there is the NHS.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

That’s an interesting point – how can you point to obvious corporate greed (aided and abetted by unscrupulous politicians), as in the above example but also outside the healthcare industry in things like the housing collapse of 2008, and then say the solution to America’s HC problems is private insurance?

Corporate America isn’t Eve being tempted by the Government Snake. People are evil and greedy no matter what their vocation is, and the Gordon Gekkos of the world have more than shown their willingness to game the system when regulators turn a blind eye.

I’m sorry, but this post has gone off the deep end into emotional posting.

What on earth does Gordon Gekko, the housing collapse, and Adam & Eve have to do with American Health Care?

Answer: nothing.

Health care and medical insurance are two totally different things.

Insurance in the United States is highly competitive … car insurance, home insurance, all kinds of insurance. Identity theft insurance. Rates are very good. They advertise on television … cleverly … a lady all dressed in white who works in an insurance “superstore” … a gekko [no, really] … and on the internet. And with 800-numbers.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flo_(Progressive_Insurance

And the gecko for GEICO: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEICO

Seriously.

The only exception: medical insurance. Because the government gets involved.

The government is not generally involved with car insurance and house insurance and boat insurance and airplane insurance and umbrella insurance and layered insurance.

And the Federal government in the United States has been getting more and more involved in individual health care and medical insurance for decades. Getting more and more.

The solutions are obvious. Interstate free markets in medical insurance, including HSA’s without limitations. Restoration of full tax deductibility. Tax credits for low income people. Charitable funds for chronic situations. Very easy. Only the government bureaucracy is opposed.

 

[endoentropism]

I’m sorry, but this post has gone off the deep end into emotional posting.

What on earth does Gordon Gekko, the housing collapse, and Adam & Eve have to do with American Health Care?

Answer: nothing.

I was referring to your anecdote about drug companies colluding with the government to prevent cheap off-brand alternatives from entering the country.

I assure you, I am not an emotional poster.

 

[tonyrey]

This is precisely what I’m talking about. There is a distinction between the objective and the subjective.

UHC is a universal good: it provides coverage for everyone regardless of their medical history, individual malady, what-have-you.

Abortions are a subjective evil: they are sought exclusively by individuals of their own free will.

Abortions are not mandatory. They are not mandated. Abortions are not guaranteed to occur within a UHC system, but a UHC system guarantees it will treat anyone who is sick. If a person seeks an abortion then it is a moral failing of them and their parents and their community – why should the poor and sick suffer because some individuals are unscrupulous?

We should do our best to help others even if we cannot guarantee that the health care system will not be abused.

I think Catholics should lead by example and do a good job instilling good morals and ethics in their children, not try to coerce the world world through prohibitive laws.

The Church also teaches that we should take into account the probability of success when making moral decisions - especially in a largely secular society!

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I was referring to your anecdote about drug companies colluding with the government to prevent cheap off-brand alternatives from entering the country.

I assure you, I am not an emotional poster.

There are several issues.

[Did I bring that issue up, or did someone else?]

[answer me this: would you buy a cheap off-brand alternative drug from some place you never heard of, by mail or over the internet, and inject it into YOUR body? You are a lot braver than I am! You really don’t know what you are getting.]

There have been major issues with adulteration of food imported from China. For example. Would you trust a drug made in China?

There is an issue with “re-importing” drugs at low prices.

I don’t know about drug companies where you live, but here, the drug companies spend an awful lot of money on drug development … and the patents give limited time protection. Once the patents expire, then anybody can make the stuff. So the drug companies need to make their money very fast … because once the patents expire, then they can no longer finance their research. And the U.S. Food & Drug Administration drags out the development and testing process for so many years, that very few years are left until the patents expire. Which is why they advertise so much.

The FDA also demands that the drugs work for everyone. Which is very difficult. Not just safety, but also efficacy for everyone. So if a heart medication works for some people but not for others, then that is not acceptable.

All that sort of thing does is raise costs.

There are some countries, where you can just go in and buy medications over the counter, but in the United States, you need a prescription. Is that a good idea?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Well that’s encouraging, and a little surprising.

Even if the system isn’t fullblown Scandinavian UHC, I do not like the idea of a person being denied treatment based on their income. Whether that’s achieved through a Canadian system or a reformed American insurance system is almost immaterial – as long as the burden is shared equally, and access is the same for everyone.

I personally have always taken my personal responsibility seriously.

Both for myself and for others.

Recently, someone called in to a local radio talk show … he wanted to express his appreciation to all the listeners … he needed some major organ transplant. And there were a lot of expenses involved. What had happened was that a local group had conducted a benefit for the fellow. They raised more than enough money to cover the miscellaneous out-of-pocket expenses.

And very recently, someone asked people to stop sending money in response to a benefit because the donations were overwhelming and were adequate for the foreseeable future.

And on another radio program a caller described how the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society had sent him a check for his wife’s care.

The United States has any number of non-profit organizations that support people who have rare diseases.

In one case, my wife learned from an organization that she belonged to that someone was desperate for a rare drug. And could anybody help. I just happened to know the name of a drug executive, so I scribbled a hurried letter in long-hand to the fellow. He didn’t know me. I received a phone call two days later from their chief scientist who asked for more details because they were going to set up a bench lab to make the drug just for that one person. A month later we got the follow-up that there had been several major drug companies having a competition to see who could get the drug to that one person the fastest. And they did it in a matter of a few days. The strangest thing? It was over the Christmas-New Years holiday and many of the companies were CLOSED … yet my letter got through AND the people worked through the holiday week to produce the drug. There was no charge. They just did it.

This is what we do.

And we do it freely and willingly.

What we would like is for the government to stay away from us.

We don’t need the government to “help”.

[You have heard the three big lies: “The check is in the mail; Of course, I will love you in the morning; I am from the government and I’m here to help you.”]