Socialized healthcare

[ribozyme]

There are a ton of articles about “medical tourism” … even some that document travel TO the United States for medical treatment.

news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=5b7c206e74b96be675410f6f369b5113

That’s just one.

And it has some data.

Surprising, isn’t it, for a “high-cost country” like the United States.

Here are a few key paragraphs:

Mayo Clinic. Johns Hopkins. Cleveland Clinic. Texas Medical Center. Together with nine medical facilities in Philadelphia, these domestic drivers of medical tourism alone report welcoming more than 30,000 patients from more than 100 countries last year.

Philadelphia International Medicine (PIM) is the only U.S. medical consortium formed specifically to attract foreign patients to one metropolitan area, according to Leonard Karp, executive vice president and chief operations officer. Among its members are University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Temple University Hospital and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Founded six years ago, PIM is also building a hospital in Korea at an estimated cost of $860 million.

“Originally, our hope was to generate $200 million a year for the Philadelphia region, with about 6,000 patients generating $60 million in revenue,” Karp says. “Since 9/11, we have restructured to be in a better position to withstand world events. This year, we attracted between 4,000 and 5,000 patients, mostly from the Caribbean, Middle East and Brazil, who generated more than $60 million in economic activity in Philadelphia.”

And a very interesting article from Wikipedia … which overlooks the United States … but does have some interesting insights on delays, waiting lines, and rationing in such places as Canada.

You have to read between the lines to see where the patients are coming FROM …

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism

There’s tons of good stuff out there. Although a lot of it seems to have a bias against the United States. For example, I found one article about medical tourism TO the U.S. But that flow of medical tourists is ignored in other articles. Hmmmmm.

It took me soo long to actually answer this…

First, I will use an ad hominem… I will remark that you are an extremely myopic person. You REALLY lack any understanding of liberals such as myself; you do not have any comprehension of what motivates liberals. Either that or you lack reading comprehension for the article you quoted.

But, I will address you post in a superficial manner first before elaborating further.

You asked:

Those other countries protect the government monopoly by outlawing inexpensive, quick private healthcare. So, without the United States, what country will act as an “escape valve” for folks from other countries?

I responded…

India is the most popular destination for surgery, followed by Hungary, Turkey, Germany, Malaysia, Poland and Spain. But dozens more countries are attracting custom. Research by the Treatment Abroad website shows that Britons have travelled to 112 foreign hospitals, based in 48 countries, to find safe, affordable treatment.

So there are other countries one can go to…

But you then responded by saying that people go to the United States for medical care. You are indeed correct and I do not need to read anything from the Brookings Institution to figure that wealthy people would go to Mayo Clinics or hospitals such as Cleveland Clinic, John Hopkins, or Sloan-Kettering as it would seem intuitive to me. I know that extremely affluent foreigners would not go to some Indian Clinic when the aforementioned choices are available.

From your article:

Editor’s Note: Much has been written about U.S. citizens traveling abroad for affordable health care. But increasingly, U.S. hospitals are catering to – and profiting from – wealthy foreign patients. And when it comes to translation, these “medical tourism” centers cover all major languages, while mainstream U.S. medicine comes nowhere near fulfilling its mandate to provide interpretation to all.

SAN FRANCISCO–Turn a quiet corner of the U.S. health care system and bump into a medical niche unknown – and unavailable – to most patients.

While many Americans are traveling to India and Singapore for affordable lifesaving or cosmetic procedures, affluent foreign patients are paying cash upfront for stateside surgery and routine checkups in large medical centers with concierge services that cater to traveling families’ banking, dining and shopping desires.

 

[ribozyme]

Well, it doesn’t surprise me that wealthy people from a country with a Gini coefficient of 57.0 and around 8,000 GNP-PPP could afford American medical treatment. I wonder if the dregs of that country can afford it. I wonder if* those *people will benefit from that.

But you seem to be concerned with the interests of wealthy foreign patients. Jonathan Haidt said that liberals are characterized with extreme harm adversion and concern with equality.

But liberals are concerned with the poorest of society. I remember reading this article some time ago…

Thousands of people lose their health insurance every day in the United States, which probably explains why national polls indicate that most of us now support guaranteed affordable coverage for all Americans. Yet in the midst of this crisis, some health insurance companies are cynically peddling a useless health insurance product to our nation’s working poor.
Major national insurers such as Cigna and Aetna say they nobly want to offer affordable health insurance to the uninsured by introducing so-called “limited-benefits” plans. These plans, offered for approval to state departments of insurance, function under the guise that some health insurance is better than none. In fact, these plans are really just a way to fleece low-wage workers.

Limited benefits plans boast annual coverage caps as low as $1,000, with more common caps ranging from $2,000 to $15,000, and “internal caps” that put further dollar restrictions on specific types of care, such as prescriptions or hospital stays. This compares to regular health insurance plans, which 158 million Americans get through their employers, that have either no caps or caps set at $1 million or more.

Most Americans know their health insurance plans will cover a major health catastrophe such as cancer or a heart attack, including doctor visits, hospital stays, and prescription drugs. But the same is not true for limited-benefit plans. The Connecticut Department of Insurance, for example, calculated that a patient would not be able to stay in the hospital for one day or cover one prescription under some of the limited-benefit plans for sale by Aetna-SRC in the state.

…

Governors, legislators, and state departments of insurance should not be swayed to approve or support limited-benefit plans. They are not a part of the solution to America’s health care crisis. They take money from the working poor and ensure that affordable medical care is not there when patients need it most—when they actually get sick or injured. To offer these plans knowing that with good information people would not buy them is not just bad policy. It’s immoral.

americanprogress.org/issues/2007/05/limited_benefits.html

Of course, that was from a liberal think tank, but it shows how differently liberals and conservatives think. You should understand your political foes better. Notice how that article was concerned with the unfortunate of society.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Socialized healthcare in countries such as England and Canada suffer from criticisms such as rationing by delays … such as medical staff working 9-5 … such as dirty facilities … such as doctors spending only a few minutes per patient, requiring multiple visits with long intervals in between [which is why they have so many visits] … such as patient stacking [refusal to admit patients who are kept waiting in ambulances … sometimes for hours … in an effort to improve statistics]

I have seen no discussion of any of these points. And I’m sure there are others that we are not being informed of.

Nor have I seen any criticism of U.S. Federal and State governments preventing efforts by the private sector to reduce costs and improving service by offering people a variety of flexible programs.

Why is it that wealthy people would even consider coming to the United States for healthcare when they could just as easily work to improve healthcare in their own countries to our high standards?

The difference between 'liberal" and “conservative” thought is that conservatives believe in free choice. But in the area of health care, we are not permitted to have free choice.

Insurance companies are basically mutual societies. We organize in “pools” of people to “pool” our risks. Some people will have larger claims and some will have smaller claims.

We are free to choose which pool to participate with … or not to participate at all.

What has happened is that our various governments have decided how those pools will be run.

The government already makes a lot of our medical decisions … ever hear of HCFA? Medicare rates already determine a lot of non-medicare reimbursements.

The government already decides on bureaucratic procedures.

The government already allows doctors, hospitals and drug companies to be sued on bases that many people believe to be solely based on the notion of “deep pockets”. Any wonder why so many people are getting out of the medical profession. Any wonder why some drugs, proven beneficial, have been taken off the market.

The government has already taken away the idea of “choice” in the medical field.

Conservatives want to restore the idea of choice in medicine.

P.S. Anyone who gets into name calling is exposing himself or herself to the same. At the very least, they should have the courage to use their own name on their posts.

 

[pathia]

Socialized healthcare in countries such as England and Canada suffer from criticisms such as rationing by delays … such as medical staff working 9-5 … such as dirty facilities … such as doctors spending only a few minutes per patient, requiring multiple visits with long intervals in between [which is why they have so many visits] … such as patient stacking [refusal to admit patients who are kept waiting in ambulances … sometimes for hours … in an effort to improve statistics]

Regarding the refusing various things to try improving statistics, this didn’t happen until Game theory was forced on the UK’s socialized system. I haven’t heard of any incidents like it in the canadian system.

People keep asking me if I think I would be better in another system. Of course, ANY system would be better because I have NO healthcare now, none what so ever. If I go sick, I have to go to the emergency room, I have no other option. A private doctor can and will refuse new patients, but the ER does not. I will continue to file a bankruptcy every time that it is legal to do so until something is done, because I have no other way to pay my medical bills.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Regarding the refusing various things to try improving statistics, this didn’t happen until Game theory was forced on the UK’s socialized system. I haven’t heard of any incidents like it in the canadian system.

People keep asking me if I think I would be better in another system. Of course, ANY system would be better because I have NO healthcare now, none what so ever. If I go sick, I have to go to the emergency room, I have no other option. A private doctor can and will refuse new patients, but the ER does not. I will continue to file a bankruptcy every time that it is legal to do so until something is done, because I have no other way to pay my medical bills.

Canadian healthcare has all sorts of criticisms … the one I hear constantly deals with extremely long waits for care … inadequate numbers of cat scan machines, etc.

In fact, there was a method in which veterinarians would charge $900 for an animal CT Scan and “throw in” a human cat scan for free. That was one way to get around the bureaucratic restrictions on human healthcare. But the government in Canada shot that down.

So, the alternative is to drive to Cleveland or Seattle or Buffalo or Minneapolis and pay cash.

Because in Canada, people do, in fact, die just waiting to get looked at.

You can’t say that you have NO healthcare now. Because you said that when you get sick you go to the emergency room. And you pay for your health care by declaring bankruptcy.

So you do have health care.

What you do not have is private / commercially-available medical insurance.

But you do get health care.

And it is paid for by … me. Hospitals build the cost of uninsured patients into their overhead multiplier and when they bill the patients who do have insurance, the insured patients pay for the health care that is provided to you at no cost.

Not an ideal system. And some people, who can get medical insurance and who can afford the insurance, abuse the system. Nevertheless, you are getting medical care and you are getting it for free.

it may not be as “dignified” as waving a little plastic card at the admissions clerk, but you have to tell the truth. You are getting medical care / health care.

 

[pathia]

it may not be as “dignified” as waving a little plastic card at the admissions clerk, but you have to tell the truth. You are getting medical care / health care.

No, I am not. I only go when I know that I am probably going to be disabled/die. I have not been to a doctor for a checkup in several years, I cannot afford to go. I have numerous medical conditions that require constant monitoring and blood tests done every six to twelve months, I have not had those in over four years. They cost several thousand dollars without insurance. I simply cannot afford it, I am forced to choose between blood tests and food and rent. I’ve been homeless because of this before, because I was so sick I had to pick tests over having a place to live, which in itself isn’t exactly healthy.

How is barely scraping by, severely limiting my lifespan and homelessness due to the costs considered ‘health care’?

 

[vern_humphrey]

First, I will use an ad hominem… I will remark that you are an extremely myopic person. You REALLY lack any understanding of liberals such as myself; you do not have any comprehension of what motivates liberals. Either that or you lack reading comprehension for the article you quoted.

When you use ad hominem, you demonstrate that there is very little of you to understand – because you abandon all reasoned debate at that point.

 

[Swan]

No, I am not. I only go when I know that I am probably going to be disabled/die. I have not been to a doctor for a checkup in several years, I cannot afford to go. I have numerous medical conditions that require constant monitoring and blood tests done every six to twelve months, I have not had those in over four years. They cost several thousand dollars without insurance. I simply cannot afford it, I am forced to choose between blood tests and food and rent. I’ve been homeless because of this before, because I was so sick I had to pick tests over having a place to live, which in itself isn’t exactly healthy.

How is barely scraping by, severely limiting my lifespan and homelessness due to the costs considered ‘health care’?

I don’t see how anyone with any compassion could read your story and not see the problem with our current system. I joined the ranks of the uninsured the frist of this month. I have rheumatoid arthritis and am bi-polar. It’s difficult because to most we are just statistics, yet we are human beings who suffer because money is more important than people in our system. It is, IMO, indefensible.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Socialized healthcare in countries such as England and Canada suffer from criticisms such as rationing by delays … such as medical staff working 9-5 … such as dirty facilities … such as doctors spending only a few minutes per patient, requiring multiple visits with long intervals in between [which is why they have so many visits] … such as patient stacking [refusal to admit patients who are kept waiting in ambulances … sometimes for hours … in an effort to improve statistics]

I have seen no discussion of any of these points. And I’m sure there are others that we are not being informed of.

Nor have I seen any criticism of U.S. Federal and State governments preventing efforts by the private sector to reduce costs and improving service by offering people a variety of flexible programs.

Why is it that wealthy people would even consider coming to the United States for healthcare when they could just as easily work to improve healthcare in their own countries to our high standards?

Well, still no explanation or discussion of these shortcomings with socialized medicine.

Socialism (or ecosocialism) and individual liberty are not compatible. Socialists seem to much more interested in what they call “justice” than they are in liberty. If someone is going to plan an economy, they will have to try to make everyone follow the plan. Once you have that, you are no longer free people. Socialized medicine is always accompanied with prohibitions against competing against it. We are already very close to that here in the United States. We have government controls on medicine already, just as we have government controls on education. And the controls are getting tighter and tighter. Interested folks should get a copy of “None Dare Call It Treason” by John Stormer.

Considering how long has socialism has been around, there should be some success story. Communist China? No, their economy took off only after limited free markets were established. USSR. No. That was 70 years to nowhere. East Germany? People weren’t fleeing West Germany trying to enter East Germany were they? Cuba? North Korea? Venezuela?

Why is it that Socialist ideas always demand that competition from freedom be eliminated? Why does Socialism always have to have monopoly power?

I cannot understand why anyone would be an advocate of a system which has so consistently failed to deliver.

Nor can I understand why advocates for socialism deny the shortcomings of socialism. They should be PROUD of socialism and explain why those shortcomings are GOOD things.

Well … I’m still waiting.

 

[ribozyme]

Well, since we are talking about the merits of socialism here:

What’s behind Europe’s comeback? It’s a complicated story, probably involving a combination of deregulation (which has expanded job opportunities) and smart regulation. One of the keys to Europe’s broadband success is that unlike U.S. regulators, many European governments have promoted competition, preventing phone and cable companies from monopolizing broadband access.
…
According to the anti-government ideology that dominates much U.S. political discussion, low taxes and a weak social safety net are essential to prosperity. Try to make the lives of Americans even slightly more secure, we’re told, and the economy will shrivel up — the same way it supposedly has in Europe.

But the next time a politician tries to scare you with the European bogeyman, bear this in mind: Europe’s economy is actually doing O.K. these days, despite a level of taxing and spending beyond the wildest ambitions of American progressives.

nytimes.com/2008/01/11/opinion/11krugman.html

I am not scared of the “European bogeyman” Al…

“Liberty” is an ambiguous term. Liberals are generally concerned with positive liberty (this is reflected in the Four Freedoms), while libertarians are primarily concerned with negative liberty.

But I didn’t read enough papers from health policy journals to figure out a solution, but other people who work at the Brookings Institution are working on that. And yes, there is no health care system without any problems and this wonkish person rolls his eyes at Michael Moore.

 

[ribozyme]

From Wikipedia on liberalism and liberty.

It has been a label used by progressive liberal parties in order to differentiate themselves from classical liberal parties, especially when there are two or more liberal parties in a country. Classical liberalism, believes that the provision of negative freedom, that is freedom from coercion, constitutes liberty, and is therefore, a strictly laissez-faire philosophy. Social liberalism however sees a role for the State in providing positive liberty for individuals. They believe that lack of positive rights, such as economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to liberty.

Social liberals, therefore, support a mixed economy of mainly private enterprise with some state provided or guaranteed public services. In the process, it expects legitimate governments to provide a basic level of welfare or workfare, health and education, supported by taxation, intended to enable the best use of the talents of the population, prevent revolution, or simply for the perceived public good and accepts some restrictions in economic affairs, such as anti-trust laws to combat economic monopolies and regulatory bodies or minimum wage laws intending to secure economic opportunities for all. Moreover, the accumulation of wealth by a small group is seen as the consolidation of power within a small faction of society and, therefore, seen as a threat to liberty.[5]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberal

That describes some of my political views well though. I think I might be considered a right-winger in Sweden and Denmark though in their “social democracy.” Strange, you didn’t critize “social democracy” in your latter post. You didn’t rail on Sweden.

Why do you assail the strawman of socialism? People who support univeral healthcare do not call it “socialized medicine.” You are attacking a strawman when you attack socialism in your previous post. Social liberals such as myself do not advocate socialism. Remember that contemporary liberals gravitate towards the Rawlsian conception of liberty, not the Lockean (also called classical liberalism.)

 

[pathia]

Well, still no explanation or discussion of these shortcomings with socialized medicine.

I cannot understand why anyone would be an advocate of a system which has so consistently failed to deliver.

Nor can I understand why advocates for socialism deny the shortcomings of socialism. They should be PROUD of socialism and explain why those shortcomings are GOOD things.

Well … I’m still waiting.

I still see no explanation or discussion of these shortcomings with private medicine.

I can play that game too. When did I demand a socialized system? I merely demand something that works, because from my viewpoint what we have in this country is broken as my credit history. You’re avoiding what is forced upon people to get care in this country. I am treated horribly, denied care and I’m apparently supposed to be HAPPY about it.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I still see no explanation or discussion of these shortcomings with private medicine.

I can play that game too. When did I demand a socialized system? I merely demand something that works, because from my viewpoint what we have in this country is broken as my credit history. You’re avoiding what is forced upon people to get care in this country. I am treated horribly, denied care and I’m apparently supposed to be HAPPY about it.

Those particular shortcomings do not occur with private medicine. But they do occur with socialized medicine.

The shortcomings of private medicine seem to stem from the huge variety of government controls on the private medicine “sector”.

Some people have more health problems than others. There is no question about that. I have friends and family who are and who have been faced with that situation. Some have taken civil service jobs with excellent medical benefits. Others have been able to manage their own cases by assembling a coalition of hospitals, doctors, patient advocates, case managers, and other related professionals to get the medical care they needed. In some cases, doctors treated them without charge.

There is, unfortunately, no kind of one-size-fits-all program that automatically takes charge and works efficiently. In severe cases, the coalition … tailored to the individual patient … is the way to go. Usually, the patient has to manage their own case to put together the best coalition. Everybody’s circumstances are different.

 

[BamaRider]

I just don’t understand how we got to the point some in this country feel healtcare is a entitilement. “I want it, so give it to me.” The idea of self reliance has gone out the window.

What I am about to say is not intended for those who find themselves in tough situations through no action of their own. But if you examine the cases, I think those are few are far between.

Many without healthcare insurance drive new cars, satellite TV, go on vacations, new houses etc. They CHOOSE not to have insurance, becaue they don’t wanna give up something. They roll on till they have something happen, or develop some kind problem (diabetes comes to mind) and all of a sudden they lament the system for not insuring them. If they had taken care of their health insurance in a mature matter, they wouldn’t be in that situation.

I have good insurance, same company (BCBS) for 30 years. One the reasons I joined the fire dept, the benefits package was excellent. Never been denided one claim. Fixed my hernia a few years ago no problem. I had a private suite, cable TV , Wi FI, private bath, DVD, round the clock nurses and staff. From diagnose to getting fixed up, less then 2 weeks. NEVER gonna get that in the UK or Canada. In fact I’d still be waiting!

Now some of y’all wanna put me in Hillarycare?? You’re kidddin right? Basically they want to “garnish” the wages of hard working folks to spread the misery of socialized medicine, even if they pull folks like me in kicking and screaming.

I’d take a second job delivering pizzas before I’d turn my health care over to a bunch govt do nothings. I ain’t got time to wait 2 YEARS for the most basic of operations.

I wonder how many people in the UK die on waiting lists, because the govt is gonna choose he is most worthy of getting worked on?

Heck if you ain’t sick before reading this thread, prolly are now. Cause it made my blood pressure go up.

 

[Al_Masetti]

From Wikipedia on liberalism and liberty.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberal

That describes some of my political views well though. I think I might be considered a right-winger in Sweden and Denmark though in their “social democracy.” Strange, you didn’t critize “social democracy” in your latter post. You didn’t rail on Sweden.

Why do you assail the strawman of socialism? People who support univeral healthcare do not call it “socialized medicine.” You are attacking a strawman when you attack socialism in your previous post. Social liberals such as myself do not advocate socialism. Remember that contemporary liberals gravitate towards the Rawlsian conception of liberty, not the Lockean (also called classical liberalism.)

Progressivism is really just a form of “soft totalitarianism”. So sayeth Jonah Goldberg in his new book “Liberal Fascism”. [An EXCELLENT read; I’m filling it up with little yellow stickies that I’m filling with writing. The book is an essential addition to one’s reference shelf. Also, find Goldberg’s discussion on www.booktv.org and also a discussion of it in National Review magazine (also available on-line). Excellent, excellent, excellent.

I also strongly recommend John A. Stormer’s book, “None Dare Call It Treason” … in which he describes the origins of “Progressivism” or fascism or socialism or liberalism. He goes into a lot of detail of where it came from, how it came to be and the manifestations of it in American society today.]

[The title, by the way, is from Sir John Harrington, 1561-1612: “Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”]

The key to modern day liberalism is compulsory adherence. Modern day liberalism has no voluntary aspect to it. You conform or get arrested. Or worse. Period.

The antithesis of progressivism or of liberalism is modern-day American conservatism.

And here is the best definition and explanation of conservatism I have ever seen.

marklevinfan.com/?p=1681

 

[Al_Masetti]

Copied from post #150:

What’s behind Europe’s comeback? It’s a complicated story, probably involving a combination of deregulation (which has expanded job opportunities) and smart regulation. One of the keys to Europe’s broadband success is that unlike U.S. regulators, many European governments have promoted competition, preventing phone and cable companies from monopolizing broadband access.
…
According to the anti-government ideology that dominates much U.S. political discussion, low taxes and a weak social safety net are essential to prosperity. Try to make the lives of Americans even slightly more secure, we’re told, and the economy will shrivel up — the same way it supposedly has in Europe.

But the next time a politician tries to scare you with the European bogeyman, bear this in mind: Europe’s economy is actually doing O.K. these days, despite a level of taxing and spending beyond the wildest ambitions of American progressives.

---

My response:

heritage.org/Research/Europe/hl1040.cfm

Is Europe Doomed to Continued Economic Stagnation?
by Sally McNamara
Heritage Lecture #1040
Delivered June 10, 2007

In March 2000, the European Union proudly announced that it would become the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010, with full employment and 3 percent yearly growth.[1] By 2005 however, it was forced to acknowledge dismal failure,[2] with poor projected growth rates and negligible reductions in unemploy ment. Presently, there is little evidence that the Euro pean economy will either outperform the American economy by 2010 or even produce substantial im provements on its current record.

Collectively, the 27 member states of the European Union make up the world’s largest trading economy.[3] However, problems abound. Gross domestic product (GDP) growth has been continually sluggish in much of Western Europe, especially in France, Germany, Italy, and Portugal.[4] As of February 2007, 22 EU member states had unemployment levels above the U.S. average of 4.5 percent.[5] The employment rate of persons aged 15 to 64 in the EU is just 63 percent compared to 72 percent in the U.S.[6] Additionally, the annual growth rate for the Euro Area has averaged just 2.1 percent per year, compared to 3.3 percent in the U.S.[7]

Europe suffers from particular weaknesses. The Heritage Foundation’s 2007 Index of Economic Freedom says, “Europe suffers from the second-worst regional score in labor freedom and is dead last in fiscal free dom from government.… trong state sectors and rigid labor markets have already prompted significant social turmoil, not least in France.”[8]

The riots that shook France in 2005 can be linked to the economic malaise which has afflicted France, particularly its immigrant and youth populations. Twenty-two percent of persons under 25 are currently unemployed in France.[9] Former President Jacques Chirac’s decision to pull back from deregulation of its labor markets in the face of social disorder was exactly the wrong decision, surely condemning France to further decline.

However, France is not alone. Many European countries continue to dogmatically defend the European social model against global competition. A group of nine EU member states issued an open declaration in February 2007 calling for stronger social, environmental, and work protections, which will only serve to further sap economic growth.[10]

 

[Al_Masetti]

From Wikipedia on liberalism and liberty.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberal

That describes some of my political views well though. I think I might be considered a right-winger in Sweden and Denmark though in their “social democracy.” Strange, you didn’t critize “social democracy” in your latter post. You didn’t rail on Sweden.

Why do you assail the strawman of socialism? People who support univeral healthcare do not call it “socialized medicine.” You are attacking a strawman when you attack socialism in your previous post. Social liberals such as myself do not advocate socialism. Remember that contemporary liberals gravitate towards the Rawlsian conception of liberty, not the Lockean (also called classical liberalism.)

Hmmm … some interesting and SURPRISING comments on European healthcare:

heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/HL711.cfm

The European Experience
Recently, The Heritage Foundation, in conjunction with the Centre for the New Europe (CNE), a prominent European public policy institution based in Brussels, Belgium, 2 held an international conference in Washington on precisely what Americans can learn from the European experience in health care and pension policy. With the kind assistance of Hardy Bouillon, President of the Centre, the presentations at the Heritage-CNE forum offer American policy experts a keen idea of:

What works and doesn’t work in practice,
What steps are being taken to improve European health care systems, and
What key lessons the European experience holds for Congress, state legislators, and the American people with respect to the reform of public health care programs.
The advice comes from an impressive array of European health care policy experts: Philippe Manière of France, David Green of Great Britain, Paul Belien of Belgium, Johan Hjertqvist of Sweden, and Friedrich Breyer of Germany.

Some Surprises
Americans will probably be surprised to learn from the remarks that follow that Switzerland’s health care system relies almost entirely on a system of private insurance. They might be surprised to learn that there is a growing reliance on the private sector in the financing and delivery of health care in Europe, particularly in the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden. Even the Labor government in Britain has entered into an agreement with representatives of the private health care industry to improve health care delivery in certain vital areas.

Reforms in Europe, where they are diligently pursued, have taken on a certain urgency. A major factor affecting recent health care policy making in Europe, including privatization efforts, is the rapid aging of the European population. Continental Europe is comprised largely of countries that have rapidly aging populations. Although life expectancy has increased, fertility rates have decreased, and much of Europe faces demographic stagnation. This unfavorable ratio of old to young persons is far worse in major European nations than in either Canada or the United States.

The unfavorable shift in the demographic balance is particularly rapid in France and Germany, and will impose tremendous financial pressures on their existing health care-social security arrangements. America’s Medicare and Social Security reformers should take note.

And a few more recent comments on the European economy; not a happy picture:

heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1979.cfm

 

[ribozyme]

The French suffer with a system that is riddled with overconsumption, fraud, and waste because it is a system that is more aligned with the spirit and culture of the people than others might be. The people of the United States and the French may not be willing to make the same sacrifices toward the same ends.

Not long ago, I spoke with a taxi driver in the United States who told me of a friend who had a very serious kidney problem but was unable to have surgery because he had no money. The French would prefer a system that can be abused and overused to one in which people who are in need of treatment do not receive health care because of their financial situation. Very few Frenchmen and Europeans would sleep well knowing cases such as the one the taxi driver spoke of. Their health care system may not be economically efficient; it may even be absurd; but it is apparently the system that the French are most comfortable with.

Gee… that was on the Heritage Foundation’s website. At least, it is honest and states Europe’s attitude towards this. Why would Americans tolerate that situation too? Do Americans have a proclivity to blame the victim?

 

[pathia]

There is, unfortunately, no kind of one-size-fits-all program that automatically takes charge and works efficiently. In severe cases, the coalition … tailored to the individual patient … is the way to go. Usually, the patient has to manage their own case to put together the best coalition. Everybody’s circumstances are different.

Explain to me how I am supposed to do that and juggle the two, sometimes three jobs I work just to keep myself off the street between bankruptcies? I hope there isn’t a limit on them, because I’m coming up on needing a third…and I’m only 27.

I have received tons of free care and waivers, if I actually was billed for all the care I have gotten since I was kicked out of the house by my parents at 17 (Incidentally that’s why I can’t rely on family for anything), it might total over a million dollars. I am not what you would call a healthy individual. I came into this world almost dead, and have not been far from it ever since it seems.

 

[goofyjim]

I just don’t understand how we got to the point some in this country feel healtcare is a entitilement. “I want it, so give it to me.” The idea of self reliance has gone out the window.

What I am about to say is not intended for those who find themselves in tough situations through no action of their own. But if you examine the cases, I think those are few are far between.

Many without healthcare insurance drive new cars, satellite TV, go on vacations, new houses etc. They CHOOSE not to have insurance, becaue they don’t wanna give up something. They roll on till they have something happen, or develop some kind problem (diabetes comes to mind) and all of a sudden they lament the system for not insuring them. If they had taken care of their health insurance in a mature matter, they wouldn’t be in that situation.

I have good insurance, same company (BCBS) for 30 years. One the reasons I joined the fire dept, the benefits package was excellent. Never been denided one claim. Fixed my hernia a few years ago no problem. I had a private suite, cable TV , Wi FI, private bath, DVD, round the clock nurses and staff. From diagnose to getting fixed up, less then 2 weeks. NEVER gonna get that in the UK or Canada. In fact I’d still be waiting!

Now some of y’all wanna put me in Hillarycare?? You’re kidddin right? Basically they want to “garnish” the wages of hard working folks to spread the misery of socialized medicine, even if they pull folks like me in kicking and screaming.

I’d take a second job delivering pizzas before I’d turn my health care over to a bunch govt do nothings. I ain’t got time to wait 2 YEARS for the most basic of operations.

I wonder how many people in the UK die on waiting lists, because the govt is gonna choose he is most worthy of getting worked on?

Heck if you ain’t sick before reading this thread, prolly are now. Cause it made my blood pressure go up.

Nobody wants to put you in Hillarycare. There are ways to let you keep your private insurance while providing government funding for those who are less fortunate. This is not an all or nothing approach. We can guarantee the health of everyone just as we guarantee the education of everyone.