Health Care reform from a Doctors perspective

[gurneyhalleck1]

aspawloski, I know I’ll get hit in the head with a brick in here for saying this, but you’re the man. I agree with everything you’ve said. I also do not come from the Catholic = Limbaugh/Glen Beck crowd, which is the majority in here. Most of us on CAF have health insurance and we’re comfortable so we can sit back and scoff at “big government socialists” who want to reign in socialized medicine and communist utopianism. I think it’s hogwash. Conservatives freaked out in the age of the New Deal saying that FDR would destroy us all. Turned out to be bull. They said social security would turn us into the USSR and destroy our freedom. Bull. They said medicare would bankrupt us and wipe us out, create socialized medicine. It didn’t. The same Republicans that hate medicare and social security all of a sudden seem to be really upset and concerned about how Obama is going to “rob social security” to pay for the health reform plan. Funny how that works. The bottom line is that many in CAF and on this thread could care less if a person loses their job and has no health care coverage. “Not my problem, suck it up.” Many here don’t care about being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition, prior problems with cancer, etc. “Tough luck, buddy.” I concur with your appraisal that health care is a right and there is a fine line between business and people’s lives and well-being. A real Christian would never let a person die without care or turn the other cheek to a pre-existing ailment. Most nations have figured this out and have universal coverage. My conservative friends pump up the fear tactics of long lines, doctors letting people take a dirt nap in “death panels” and how these poor widdow insurance companies will go under because they ‘can’t compete with the government since the gov’t doesn’t have to make a profit.’ Poppycock. My grandpa, a WWII vet, lived down south here in California up until about ten years ago. He had medicare and his medicare subcontracted his account out to a private firm in Orange County somewhere that could actually provide a more financially efficient service with the same level of care. That just proves that private companies CAN compete with the gov’t. Problem is, when CEO’s of insurance companies are retiring with 80 million dollars in bonuses, it puts a bit of a strain on the company, doesn’t it? I can’t get over the sympathy for these predatory, crooked insurance companies in here. I’ve heard more denials, horror stories, and tragedies over the years about these suckers and yet in here you’d think they’re Mother Teresa of Calcutta, unappreciated and misunderstood. Hogwash. God bless you for sticking up for yourself and for the idea that people are people, not just numbers for bean-counters and a statistic. Christ wouldn’t see anyone as a throw-away human being, we shouldn’t either.

I know how business works I also am of the belief, especially for non elective type of things that medical ought not be a business. Its more important that the human being lives than the business lives.

 

[wabrams]

As it stands now, the US spends more money on health care than many other countries with similar quality of health care on a socialized model. So why do you think that in the US a universal model would cost more than what you have now?

We pay more to get immediate access to tests and treatments. If I go to an ER here in the US w/ chest pain, I can get the necessary blood tests and radiological exams within a couple of hours. If a heart cath is needed, I can get it that very same day if it is an emergency or the next day if the urgency isn’t there. If it is determined that stents will take care of the problem, they would immediately put them in. If surgery was needed, I would go right to surgery.

In Canada I might have to wait a couple of weeks for that heart cath and then a few more weeks for surgery.

I’d be interested to see evidence of that. I would suggest that in all models outcomes improved in the 20th century for reasons that had nothing to do with OB/GYNS. In the initial move of childbirth into hospitals, outcomes actually became much worse.

I doubt that. By moving childbirth into the hospitals, aseptic practices are used which cut down on infections, etc. Any health problems that arise w/ the child at birth can be quickly handled. Emergency c-sections can be performed in a matter of minutes if the situation warrants one.

I think the nursing shortage has a lot to do with the desparation for nurses, but there has been a longstanding preference for Canadian trained nurses, and certianly the impression here used to be that the nursing standards were higher. (However, that was before nurse training moved into the universities, so it may be different now.)

I believe nurses have created their own shortage by branching into every area of healthcare, no matter how remotely related to their training it may be.

Well, as far as medical outcomes, life expectancy, and so on, the American system is not the greatest and not the worst. But, as you point out, it can be difficult to ascertain the meaning of such statistics, since things like life style can also make a contribution. But of well off, western countries, all of which have socialized medicine, people are of a similar or mostly better level of health than Americans. And the US is among the highest of all for health care costs. Given that this is true across so many countries, I find it significant.

So in the WHO study I quoted earlier, it ranked the US health care system as 37th. But it ranked the overall health of Americans much lower, at 72nd.

Problem with those studies is the organization compiling the data takes the information given by the country. One country might factor x & y into category A, where as another country factors in x,y & z into category A. The infact mortality rate is a classic example:vwe are the only country that factors in stillborns, premature births, etc. It drops our ranking b/c of this.

 

[kfinstad]

… A real Christian would never let a person die without care or turn the other cheek to a pre-existing ailment. … Christ wouldn’t see anyone as a throw-away human being, we shouldn’t either.

Some people seeing to those entering through the emergency room entrance are not Christian, but maybe were they Christian, and real, many would receive care–no matter the expense to the hospital; nonetheless, there are government regulations, which do confound Christians, both real and fake–some real Christians, are real stupid. Why wouldn’t Christ see anyone as a “throw-away”–he certainly saw some as swine, and didn’t exactly regard Samaritans with the highest order of respect, initially, but first impressions can be broken; this is true.

 

[wabrams]

I also do not come from the Catholic = Limbaugh/Glen Beck crowd, which is the majority in here.

Who are you to judge us that don’t want government run healthcare?

Conservatives freaked out in the age of the New Deal saying that FDR would destroy us all. Turned out to be bull.

FDR buried us in debt and prolonged the Great Depression. Only by getting involved in WW2 helped us to get out of teh depression.

They said social security would turn us into the USSR and destroy our freedom. Bull.

Source?

They said medicare would bankrupt us and wipe us out, create socialized medicine. It didn’t.

But medicare is a bankrupt program.

The bottom line is that many in CAF and on this thread could care less if a person loses their job and has no health care coverage. “Not my problem, suck it up.” Many here don’t care about being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition, prior problems with cancer, etc. “Tough luck, buddy.”

Again, you are judging what is in others hearts. I ask again, who are you to judge us? I don’t know of anyone of these forums that have that attitude you just described. I look forward to your proof.

I concur with your appraisal that health care is a right and there is a fine line between business and people’s lives and well-being.

Healthcare is not a right. Access to healthcare and to health insurance is a right.

A real Christian would never let a person die without care or turn the other cheek to a pre-existing ailment. Most nations have figured this out and have universal coverage.

Which isn’t all that great.

My conservative friends pump up the fear tactics of long lines, doctors letting people take a dirt nap in “death panels” and how these poor widdow insurance companies will go under because they ‘can’t compete with the government since the gov’t doesn’t have to make a profit.’ Poppycock.

Those countries you espouse do those very same things.

Problem is, when CEO’s of insurance companies are retiring with 80 million dollars in bonuses, it puts a bit of a strain on the company, doesn’t it? I can’t get over the sympathy for these predatory, crooked insurance companies in here.

When the most an insurance company makes off a policy is $200/yr, I fail to see where it is predatory.

I’ve heard more denials, horror stories, and tragedies over the years about these suckers and yet in here you’d think they’re Mother Teresa of Calcutta, unappreciated and misunderstood. Hogwash.

There are problems that need to be fixed. Bring the insurance co. under the auspices of anti-trust laws, remove the pre-existing conditions, and make it where they can’t drop your coverage b/c you are sick.

God bless you for sticking up for yourself and for the idea that people are people, not just numbers for bean-counters and a statistic. Christ wouldn’t see anyone as a throw-away human being, we shouldn’t either.

You think the federal government gives a rat’s rear-end about you or me? They are bean counters of the worst kind. At least w/ an insurance company I can tell them to take a hike and go to another. You can’t do that when the insurance company is the government.

 

[royal_archer]

aspawloski, I know I’ll get hit in the head with a brick in here for saying this, but you’re the man. I agree with everything you’ve said. I also do not come from the Catholic = Limbaugh/Glen Beck crowd, which is the majority in here. Most of us on CAF have health insurance and we’re comfortable so we can sit back and scoff at “big government socialists” who want to reign in socialized medicine and communist utopianism. I think it’s hogwash. Conservatives freaked out in the age of the New Deal saying that FDR would destroy us all. Turned out to be bull. They said social security would turn us into the USSR and destroy our freedom. Bull. They said medicare would bankrupt us and wipe us out, create socialized medicine. It didn’t. The same Republicans that hate medicare and social security all of a sudden seem to be really upset and concerned about how Obama is going to “rob social security” to pay for the health reform plan. Funny how that works. The bottom line is that many in CAF and on this thread could care less if a person loses their job and has no health care coverage. “Not my problem, suck it up.” Many here don’t care about being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition, prior problems with cancer, etc. “Tough luck, buddy.” I concur with your appraisal that health care is a right and there is a fine line between business and people’s lives and well-being. A real Christian would never let a person die without care or turn the other cheek to a pre-existing ailment. Most nations have figured this out and have universal coverage. My conservative friends pump up the fear tactics of long lines, doctors letting people take a dirt nap in “death panels” and how these poor widdow insurance companies will go under because they ‘can’t compete with the government since the gov’t doesn’t have to make a profit.’ Poppycock. My grandpa, a WWII vet, lived down south here in California up until about ten years ago. He had medicare and his medicare subcontracted his account out to a private firm in Orange County somewhere that could actually provide a more financially efficient service with the same level of care. That just proves that private companies CAN compete with the gov’t. Problem is, when CEO’s of insurance companies are retiring with 80 million dollars in bonuses, it puts a bit of a strain on the company, doesn’t it? I can’t get over the sympathy for these predatory, crooked insurance companies in here. I’ve heard more denials, horror stories, and tragedies over the years about these suckers and yet in here you’d think they’re Mother Teresa of Calcutta, unappreciated and misunderstood. Hogwash. God bless you for sticking up for yourself and for the idea that people are people, not just numbers for bean-counters and a statistic. Christ wouldn’t see anyone as a throw-away human being, we shouldn’t either.

Nice speach but you are missing the point. Christ never advocated big government programs taking from the working class to pacify the welfare class. Instead he advocated personal charity. That is what we are carrying on here. I should be able to take a hundred dollars and give it to those around me in need instead of a goverenment bean counter taking it at gun point then distributing it to campaign contributors and other bean counters while only $50 gets to the person in need.

As for insurance execs earning big bucks, it is a matter of private citizens working together to move money around between themselves. If all parties involved are agreeable to their role in the activity, then third party outsiders should not concern themselfs with it.

 

[wabrams]

Some people seeing to those entering through the emergency room entrance are not Christian, but maybe were they Christian, and real, many would receive care–no matter the expense to the hospital;

No one is denied care when they show up to an ER in this country; that is the law. If you are saying some hospitals discriminate, then there are laws in place to prosecute them. If you are saying it is a matter of policy, then that is a lie.

 

[royal_archer]

Nice speach but you are missing the point. Christ never advocated big government programs taking from the working class to pacify the welfare class. Instead he advocated personal charity. That is what we are carrying on here. I should be able to take a hundred dollars and give it to those around me in need instead of a goverenment bean counter taking it at gun point then distributing it to campaign contributors and other bean counters while only $50 gets to the person in need.
.

Actually that is not a fair assessment in reality $10 goes to the needy person and the other $40 goes to 4 able bodided people leaching off the system.

 

[wabrams]

Healthcare is not a right. Access to healthcare and to health insurance is a right.

Let me rephrase this statement: healthcare is a right; you can go to any hospital in the country and be treated in the ER regardless if you have insurance or not. Health insurance is not a right, but I still stand by the second sentence I wrote.

 

[Bluegoat]

We pay more to get immediate access to tests and treatments. If I go to an ER here in the US w/ chest pain, I can get the necessary blood tests and radiological exams within a couple of hours. If a heart cath is needed, I can get it that very same day if it is an emergency or the next day if the urgency isn’t there. If it is determined that stents will take care of the problem, they would immediately put them in. If surgery was needed, I would go right to surgery.

In Canada I might have to wait a couple of weeks for that heart cath and then a few more weeks for surgery.

If you look at wait time comparisons for the US and Canada, in many cases they are comparable - too long. Canada is longer on some things, but on emergency treatments they are the same.

OTOH, in the US, about half of bankruptcies are attributed to medical costs, which is quite rare here.

I doubt that. By moving childbirth into the hospitals, aseptic practices are used which cut down on infections, etc. Any health problems that arise w/ the child at birth can be quickly handled. Emergency c-sections can be performed in a matter of minutes if the situation warrants one.

This just tells me you know nothing about the topic. When childbirth moved into hospitals, infection control was a major issue - it really wasn’t practiced, and infection became the major cause of infant and maternal mortality. Hospital childbirth was presented by doctors as being safer, however. (An interesting study that came out around that time, and ruined it’s author, showed that it was safer to give birth in the streets of Vienna than in its hospital.) Even today, childbirth inside **or **outside of hospitals is not considered “sterile” although this is a common misconception. Infection is still, despite much better infection control practices, a bigger problem in hospitals than home births. Anyone who works in hospitals knows that hospital born infection is a serious issue, and a danger to any patient. Home birth, on the other hand, has much less difficulty with strange and resistant germs hanging around.

Additionally, today, home birth studies in places like Canada or the Netherlands suggest that home birth is as safe or somewhat safer than hospital birth. American studies on the topic are not considered good, as they include things like accidental birth in cars, people who cannot access hospitals, and so on in them. There are a variety of reasons for the equivalence, but suffice it to say that the trade offs being in hospital are about equal to the advantages in a low-risk birth. (And here in North America, we cause more emergencies that would never happen with appropriate practice - you don’t get a 30%+ c-sec rate and 40% induction rate without causing problems.)

I believe nurses have created their own shortage by branching into every area of healthcare, no matter how remotely related to their training it may be.

I agree that nursing care has changed, not always for the better. I don’t really think it is directly related to the nursing shortage. I also would be careful about saying it was caused by nurses - there is some truth to this, but in most cases the people who go to nursing school just feed into the system they find in place. From your other posts, it sounds to me like you may have a problem with nurses.

Problem with those studies is the organization compiling the data takes the information given by the country. One country might factor x & y into category A, where as another country factors in x,y & z into category A. The infact mortality rate is a classic example:vwe are the only country that factors in stillborns, premature births, etc. It drops our ranking b/c of this.

This last is commonly stated by American’s like that really annoying blond chick - but is not entirely true, and is a bit of a whitewash when looking at such stats. There has been quite a bit of effort in recent years to correct this, and many countries have changed the way they express these numbers to conform to the WHOs method. I agree that comparing can be difficult for any number of reasons, however, on a broad basis one would hope a general picture could be made.

If you look at people living in wealthy, Western countries, like Canada, Italy, the US, the UK - they ALL have pretty good health. They all, except the US, have universal health care - in some cases like the UK it is real socialized health care. All of those have found the costs bearable, and in fact spend less than the US (all however, including the US, are finding health costs are rising rapidly.) People living in the countries with universal care express more satisfaction overall with their health care.

I have yet to see something convincing here that suggests that the cost of a universal system would be somehow far different than in other countries.

 

[wabrams]

If you look at wait time comparisons for the US and Canada, in many cases they are comparable - too long. Canada is longer on some things, but on emergency treatments they are the same.

You are missing the point: there are no waits in the US.

This just tells me you know nothing about the topic. When childbirth moved into hospitals, infection control was a major issue - it really wasn’t practiced, and infection became the major cause of infant and maternal mortality. Hospital childbirth was presented by doctors as being safer, however. (An interesting study that came out around that time, and ruined it’s author, showed that it was safer to give birth in the streets of Vienna than in its hospital.) Even today, childbirth inside **or **outside of hospitals is not considered “sterile” although this is a common misconception. Infection is still, despite much better infection control practices, a bigger problem in hospitals than home births. Anyone who works in hospitals knows that hospital born infection is a serious issue, and a danger to any patient. Home birth, on the other hand, has much less difficulty with strange and resistant germs hanging around.

Additionally, today, home birth studies in places like Canada or the Netherlands suggest that home birth is as safe or somewhat safer than hospital birth. American studies on the topic are not considered good, as they include things like accidental birth in cars, people who cannot access hospitals, and so on in them. There are a variety of reasons for the equivalence, but suffice it to say that the trade offs being in hospital are about equal to the advantages in a low-risk birth. (And here in North America, we cause more emergencies that would never happen with appropriate practice - you don’t get a 30%+ c-sec rate and 40% induction rate without causing problems.)

These two paragraphs tell me YOU are the one who knows nothing about the topic.

Even today, childbirth inside **or **outside of hospitals is not considered “sterile” although this is a common misconception.

Escuse me, I meant to use the term “medical asepsis.”

I agree that nursing care has changed, not always for the better. I don’t really think it is directly related to the nursing shortage. I also would be careful about saying it was caused by nurses - there is some truth to this, but in most cases the people who go to nursing school just feed into the system they find in place. From your other posts, it sounds to me like you may have a problem with nurses.

I don’t have a problem with nurses. I have a problem with this idea that you can use them like doctors, which you can’t. Having talked with many floor nurses, I do believe they have created much of the shortage by branching into everything from in-home consults for various things to “forensic” nursing in county coroner’s offices.

This last is commonly stated by American’s like that really annoying blond chick

What is it with you and some others on this thread with all the personal attacks? You guys need to grow up.

• but is not entirely true, and is a bit of a whitewash when looking at such stats. There has been quite a bit of effort in recent years to correct this, and many countries have changed the way they express these numbers to conform to the WHOs method. I agree that comparing can be difficult for any number of reasons, however, on a broad basis one would hope a general picture could be made.

It’s not a whitewash at all; it’s the truth. We have that same problem here in the US w/ the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report.

If you look at people living in wealthy, Western countries, like Canada, Italy, the US, the UK - they ALL have pretty good health. They all, except the US, have universal health care - in some cases like the UK it is real socialized health care. All of those have found the costs bearable, and in fact spend less than the US (all however, including the US, are finding health costs are rising rapidly.) People living in the countries with universal care express more satisfaction overall with their health care.

I have yet to see something convincing here that suggests that the cost of a universal system would be somehow far different than in other countries.

Sorry, I don’t want an inefficient government jacking up my taxes to provide me with less care. Woopy do about other countries liking it, they can keep it.

 

[Bluegoat]

You are missing the point: there are no waits in the US.

This is simply untrue. There have been a number of published reports about wait times in the US for various treatments and in various situations.

These two paragraphs tell me YOU are the one who knows nothing about the topic.

You’ll have to be more specific about where you differ, I am pretty sure of myself on this one.

What is it with you and some others on this thread with all the personal attacks? You guys need to grow up.

Do you know who I mean - I really can’t think of her name. She’s very blond and militant.

It’s not a whitewash at all; it’s the truth. We have that same problem here in the US w/ the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report.

Sorry, I don’t want an inefficient government jacking up my taxes to provide me with less care. Woopy do about other countries liking it, they can keep it.

I still haven’t seen real evidence that this would happen, which is what I have been asking for.

 

[wabrams]

This is simply untrue. There have been a number of published reports about wait times in the US for various treatments and in various situations.

Name one thing people here have to wait for and I’m not talking about a few hours in a ER waiting room. Please post links to these published reports.

Do you know who I mean - I really can’t think of her name. She’s very blond and militant.

i know exactly who you are talking about, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. I don’t even know why you brought it up.

I still haven’t seen real evidence that this would happen, which is what I have been asking for.

The evidence is your own country and England.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Who are you to judge us that don’t want government run healthcare?

Again, you are judging what is in others hearts. I ask again, who are you to judge us? I don’t know of anyone of these forums that have that attitude you just described. I look forward to your proof.

.

Your speach is judged that way because it is extremely predictable and no originality to it. It sounds like the Bush?Limbaugh bots I hear all the time. With the exception of a little of what RA says it is very vanillla and eye rolling. You all sound alike Now some may want to lump me in with all the liberal here, until I go off about money printed out of thin air, and the taking advantage of that system of doing things. Then you know I’m very independant. If you want to know who I am most like, read up on Chuck Harder. He is the closest to me out there,although Not identical in opinion to me either. If you are predictable you are going to be judged. That is human nature and I most certainly do not proclaim to be above that.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Nice speach but you are missing the point. Christ never advocated big government programs taking from the working class to pacify the welfare class. Instead he advocated personal charity…

That is an irrelevant arguement , because no such thing existed at that time. Neither did, representative republics like ours exist at that time. For that matter preventative medical care even exist in concept at that time. You are drawing conclusions out of thin air , just like the way all the money in circulation is created, out of thin aire with nothing to back it up!

 

[kfinstad]

No one is denied care when they show up to an ER in this country; that is the law. If you are saying some hospitals discriminate, then there are laws in place to prosecute them. If you are saying it is a matter of policy, then that is a lie.

Yea! Woo-hoo, go wabrams–you got my point, and it’s the reason we don’t need health care reform, because anyone showing-up through the emergency room entrance, with a genuine, legitimate need to be there–can receive care! That’s what’s so insulting about health care reform: it’s denying what already exists, and putting forward that there is discrimination against males, females, and races; additionally, it is denying the affordability of healthcare, in an emergency, to those who are unable to afford it. It’s also denying opportunities to those who are willing to give a considerable amount of care to others, anonymously, who are found to have a need for such care.

So, no, I am neither lying, nor stating there is discrimination: liberals are with their health care reform. So, healthcare in a very fundamental sense is provided to all, without regard to gender, or race, or even citizenship. I regard an emergency and the treatment provided in an emergency to be fundamental. I understand: many find medications, and other such things, to be unaffordable even with co-pay, etc…

If healthcare is such a massive issue, then where is the importance of it, within congress? Neither the house, nor the senate, are working together on this: the Democratic Party is shutting the doors; working in private, and shouting at the Republican Party, “The Party of NO!”, and the Republican Party is shouting about the bill: it’s too expensive! You’re neither listening to us, nor even willing to listen to us. And the Democratic Party is saying, why bother–you won’t listen, or agree. So, there is no negotiation. The Democratic Party is the party without compromise–some example of politics!

Insurance providers exist on both sides of the aisle, Blue Cross is looking for garunteed clients, through the Democratic bill, and other non-profit insurance policy providers are saying, yea! Think of the money the government will spend on us, for customer service, marketing–oh, yea!

Many of our finest institutions established to educate those who will fill many of America’s most powerful positions are private; nonetheless, the U. of Calif. has a disproportionate number of Nobel prizes awarded to its graduates; however, the contribution of private institutions to the leadership of our nation, is significant. It’s idiotic from my point-of-view, that healthcare should be dominated by public interests, non-profits, and the like. Health insurance policies are able to be more affordable; however, even in becoming more affordable, it would seem there would be a lack of interest, as the government has to step-in, and demand, everyone employed must have an insurance policy, and those unemployed–Blue Cross will give you one, and taxpayers will pay for it.

 

[royal_archer]

I have yet to see something convincing here that suggests that the cost of a universal system would be somehow far different than in other countries.

Right n ow we have a significant medical tourism industry for instance medical facilities from norther border states treating Canada’s overflow. If we institute socialized medicine, and depending on how it is done, those foriegn patients would no longer be paying and even more would be flooding over. We would also have even more immigrants flooding in from around the world. this will obviously drive up costs.

It is not just the total costs that is at issue, it is the cost bore by the working class. Right now we have a growing problem with the welfare class demmanding more and more entitlements and refusing to work for them. As there power grows, more people in the middle class are realizing that it is easier to quit work and join the ranks of the unemployed since their quality of life would not go down much.

 

[royal_archer]

Do you know who I mean - I really can’t think of her name. She’s very blond and militant.

Hillary Clinton?

 

[royal_archer]

That is an irrelevant arguement , because no such thing existed at that time. Neither did, representative republics like ours exist at that time. For that matter preventative medical care even exist in concept at that time. You are drawing conclusions out of thin air , just like the way all the money in circulation is created, out of thin aire with nothing to back it up!

But Christ new we would be in this situation today when he taught 2000 ago. He had every opportunity to talk about the role of government helping people.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

I have no prblem with actual doctors and medical staff making the money that you do. My problem is with medical insurance comapnies making big money for denying you your patients get thier care because they are worried about paying you too much, then pocketing the profits for it. I don’t want some bean counter making decisions for me. It should be a crime for bean counters to do anything other than counting the beans.

And you want the Federal Government to fix it? The same folks who bribe fellow members for their votes with millions of dollars in earmarks, and who have run up a 12 Trillion dollar debt? Pulleeezz!

There is no more corrupt institution than the Federal Government. They make the insurance companies look like angels.

 

[Brendan]

If you look at wait time comparisons for the US and Canada, in many cases they are comparable - too long. Canada is longer on some things, but on emergency treatments they are the same…

If you look at people living in wealthy, Western countries, like Canada, Italy, the US, the UK - they ALL have pretty good health. They all, except the US, have universal health care - in some cases like the UK it is real socialized health care. All of those have found the costs bearable, and in fact spend less than the US (all however, including the US, are finding health costs are rising rapidly.) People living in the countries with universal care express more satisfaction overall with their health care.

I have yet to see something convincing here that suggests that the cost of a universal system would be somehow far different than in other countries.

Bluegoat,

I live in a border town, Windsor, ONT is right across the river from us. My wife is even from Windsor. So we have a lot of experience in seeing how both systems work.

We see exactly how the Canadian system reduces cost. My in-laws have problems finding a primary care physician. I always hear conversations at family events that include something like " My doctor is retiring, does anyone know anyone who is accepting new patients"

And we even see why, OHIP regulates the amount that doctors can bill. If they reach their annual maximum, OHIP will stop paying them, even if they see new patients.

My wife got to keep her dermatologist when she moved her. Why? because he keeps a practice here in the States. He sees enough patients in Windsor to reach his annual OHIP max, but no more. The rest of his patients he sees in his office in the States.

My wife’s cousin is a nurse, but she works in a Stateside hospital. Why? Because we pay our nurses a living wage over here, the Canadian hospitals were offering her almost half what a US nurse is paid, even at a non-profit Catholic hospital (where she works)

Needless to say, medical ‘tourism’ is also big here. There are billboards in both Windsor and metro Detroit that advertise for medical services, MRI’s are probably the biggest. There are long waiting lines in Windsor for such services.

Cancer consults and treatments are also big. My father in-law (lives in Windsor) had a blood test that indicated prostate cancer. It was 5 months before he could see an oncologist under the Canadian system. My father is a retired physician and got him in to see an oncologist friend within a few days here.

It was prostate cancer that has since been treated (deo gratias)

Oh, and my Canadian wife would not go into Windsor during the last few months of each pregnancy for fear that she might go into labo(u)r over there and get stuck delivering in a Canadian hospital.